Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Albanese government

Who is going to be the first to try and knife Airbus next year?

  • Marles

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Chalmers

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Wong

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Plibersek

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Shorten

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Burney

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Total voters
    11
I'm not an expert in this area, but taxing unrealised capital gains seems totally unfair.

Is there a rationale for doing this ?
It doesn't say that. It days "earnings" and this is undefined however it won't be unrealised capital gains. The major super funds will need to make clear exactly what earnings there are and further define whether they are dividends or capital gains. It's nebulous at present even without this change for retired people.
 
It is nebulous. Thing is the press release (link below) is that the tax is proposed to be calculated based on Total Superannuation Balances over $3m and earnings are calculated as the difference between the TSB with adjustments for contributions/withdraws. That is what is concerning to some.


Think of it in this context. You hold a share at the end of 2025 and it is priced at a total of $3.5m. The next FY its value has increased by 50% to $4.5m. It hasn't been sold, you've just sat on it for the year and you don't meet a condition of release. The difference in TSB is $1.5m and the proposed tax arrangements, as it stands, is tax will be levied on that difference.

By the way, a number of major industry funds support a cap. Simple reason is it is very unlikely many, if any, of their members will be impacted. The really big money is in SMSFs.

The ATO has released data on SMSFs and APRA released data on funds with more than six members, i.e. non-SMSF. Real nerds can knock themselves out salivating over this stuff.


 
Last edited:
It is nebulous. Thing is the press release (link below) is that the tax is proposed to be calculated based on Total Superannuation Balances over $3m and earnings are calculated as the difference between the TSB with adjustments for contributions/withdraws. That is what is concerning to some.


Think of it in this context. You hold a share at the end of 2025 and it is priced at a total of $3.5m. The next FY its value has increased by 50% to $4.5m. It hasn't been sold, you've just sat on it for the year and you don't meet a condition of release. The difference in TSB is $1.5m and the proposed tax arrangements, as it stands, is tax will be levied on that difference.

By the way, a number of major industry funds support a cap. Simple reason is it is very unlikely many, if any, of their members will be impacted. The really big money is in SMSFs.

The ATO has released data on SMSFs and APRA released data on funds with more than six members, i.e. non-SMSF. Real nerds can knock themselves out salivating over this stuff.



"

Think of it in this context. You hold a share at the end of 2025 and it is priced at a total of $3.5m. The next FY its value has increased by 50% to $4.5m. It hasn't been sold, you've just sat on it for the year and you don't meet a condition of release. The difference in TSB is $1.5m and the proposed tax arrangements, as it stands, is tax will be levied on that difference."

Hmm, well to me that sounds like unrealised capital gain, you haven't sold the share so the earnings are nil ?

If you got say $100k in dividends from that share, paying tax at 30% on that is fair enough.

If you sold the share at a loss, do you get a refund of tax paid ?
 
And I don't think it is that bad. Basically its every dollar over $3mil is taxed at 30c in the dollar which means people that receive dividends don't get the imputation credit. They still get the dividend and the 30c in the dollar is still lower than if they left the money outside super.
As I see it, government has to raise money somehow and this proposal is several orders of magnitude more reasonable than the one Labor took to the 2019 election.

With this proposal it seems you need a fair amount of money to be impacted, and even then it's still a tax concession just a reduced one.

That said, I'll always advocate that government ought cut waste and yes there's quite a bit. That doesn't mean cutting people in genuine need off welfare and it doesn't mean not fixing the roads and so on. It does mean not having middlemen getting rich at taxpayers' expense. :2twocents
 
As I see it, government has to raise money somehow and this proposal is several orders of magnitude more reasonable than the one Labor took to the 2019 election.

With this proposal it seems you need a fair amount of money to be impacted, and even then it's still a tax concession just a reduced one.

That said, I'll always advocate that government ought cut waste and yes there's quite a bit. That doesn't mean cutting people in genuine need off welfare and it doesn't mean not fixing the roads and so on. It does mean not having middlemen getting rich at taxpayers' expense. :2twocents

The proposal is also applying slightly different philosophy.

Outside of superannuation an individual is taxed on income and CGT applies only should you sell. The proposal, as it is written, taxes unrealised gains. You'd really have to crunch the numbers to see if being taxed on an additional $50k of investment income outside superannuation is better or worse than being taxed on say $500k or more of unrealised gains within superannuation.
 
The proposal is also applying slightly different philosophy.

Outside of superannuation an individual is taxed on income and CGT applies only should you sell. The proposal, as it is written, taxes unrealised gains. You'd really have to crunch the numbers to see if being taxed on an additional $50k of investment income outside superannuation is better or worse than being taxed on say $500k or more of unrealised gains within superannuation.
That really does nail it, considering the first $50k of income outside of super attracts minimal tax, whereas in super it attracts a minimum of 15-30% on even the first $18,000 of earnings.
In a lot of ways they seem to be heading toward, only allowing a narrow band of personal savings in super e.g those with under $300k and retired are probably better off outside super, those with over $3m they don't want in super.
Which would end up with a system that those who work fund their own retirement, those who don't, get the pension and the rich well they just keep doing what they always do try and minimise tax.
I wonder when the super lobby will start and kick up, also when those on higher super balances pressure the Govt to allow them to have the money as salary, rather than as a super contribution. Especially when they are near the top limit.
Unintended consequences on the horizon. :xyxthumbs

I might copy these posts over to the superannuation thread so that we don't lose them and they can be discussed further.
 
Last edited:
Well it looks like the Labor messiah has given his judgement, the oracle has spoken and it isn't good.


Former prime minister Paul Keating has taken aim at Australia's AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal with the United States and the United Kingdom, calling it the "worst international decision" by a Labor government since conscription in World War I.

The former Labor leader also offered a scathing assessment of the government's most senior politicians, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong, dubbing Mr Marles and Senator Wong "seriously unwise ministers".
 
Well it looks like the Labor messiah has given his judgement, the oracle has spoken and it isn't good.


Former prime minister Paul Keating has taken aim at Australia's AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal with the United States and the United Kingdom, calling it the "worst international decision" by a Labor government since conscription in World War I.

The former Labor leader also offered a scathing assessment of the government's most senior politicians, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong, dubbing Mr Marles and Senator Wong "seriously unwise ministers".

Well, PK was a great PM in his time but I think he's seriously out of touch.

Is he ignoring all the cyber attacks flashing of lasers at our aircraft in international waters, political interference and trade bans and pretending that it's not aggression ?

Sorry Paul, get a grip on reality, even your old buddy Beasley disagrees with you.
 
Well, PK was a great PM in his time but I think he's seriously out of touch.

Is he ignoring all the cyber attacks flashing of lasers at our aircraft in international waters, political interference and trade bans and pretending that it's not aggression ?

Sorry Paul, get a grip on reality, even your old buddy Beasley disagrees with you.
Quote below from the 3AW website, it appears that PK is actually employed indirectly by the CCP, so that might cause a bit of bias to creep in to his comments I suppose

<<The current website of the China Development Bank lists Paul Keating as a member of their international advisory board.

“The China Development Bank – a state-owned bank, so you’ve got a bank owned by a communist regime – he’s on the international advisory board>>
 
^ Think you'll find he left that position years ago.

Well, PK was a great PM in his time but I think he's seriously out of touch.

Is he ignoring all the cyber attacks flashing of lasers at our aircraft in international waters, political interference and trade bans and pretending that it's not aggression ?

Sorry Paul, get a grip on reality, even your old buddy Beasley disagrees with you.
I think PK was (and still is) a DH but I also think this is a dumb deal and all the attacks you've listed there were a response to the megaphone diplomacy of the previous Coalition Govt.

I'm OK with the SCIFiRE and cybertech part of AUKUS but not the subs.

$300billion (which will probably blow out to double that) is a hefty price to pay for being an aggressor in your own neighborhood :2twocents
 
^ Think you'll find he left that position years ago.


I think PK was (and still is) a DH but I also think this is a dumb deal and all the attacks you've listed there were a response to the megaphone diplomacy of the previous Coalition Govt.

I'm OK with the SCIFiRE and cybertech part of AUKUS but not the subs.

$300billion (which will probably blow out to double that) is a hefty price to pay for being an aggressor in your own neighborhood
:2twocents

Some may call it aggression, others may say it's a deterrent.
 
How good is New Zealands' navy ?

How good is New Zealand ?
Yea, I worry we are making a big mistake and we should be not going into hock for this. it wouldn't surprise me if the future will be automated subs that would just hunt us down. Automated subs wouldn't need crew so none of the massive systems to keep everyone alive. Wil be much cheaper to make and could use the automated car technology being developed.

Generals often fight the last war.

On New Zealand. The country hasn't got many resources and we are in the way.
 

Well... if it all goes to pot one hopes NZ doesn't stop the boats :p
What would happen if say Malaysia, Peru or even Fiji decided to take over New Zealand?

They only have 2 serious naval vessels. 2 Anzac class frigates which we built with them. They did the right thing having the two ships. They also have 2 patrol ships that are pretty good (for patrol ships).

The Airforce has 9 Seasprite helicopters and only one patrol plane (3 more ordered).

They have a lot of historic aircraft including a plane captured from the Japanese in WW2 so I suppose they could man some resistance :) .
 
That's a helluva effort to extract Jacinda if there's no other useful resources :)

On the other hand if Malaysia / Peru / Fiji get taken over by China then start worrying...
 
Top