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.I'm not an expert in this area, but taxing unrealised capital gains seems totally unfair.
Is there a rationale for doing this ?
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.
Self-managed super funds: A statistical overview 2020-21
Our self-managed super fund (SMSF) analysis and statistics annual overview for 2020–21 includes key data on the sector.www.ato.gov.au
Annual fund-level superannuation statistics | APRA
APRA publishes statistics on individual superannuation funds and their trustees, on an annual basis. These statistics contains information on fund profile and structure, financial performance and position, conditions of release, fees and membership. In October 2024 APRA released, for the first...www.apra.gov.au
Yeah, taxation is theftI'm not an expert in this area, but taxing unrealised capital gains seems totally unfair.
Is there a rationale for doing this ?
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.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.
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.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.
Well it looks like the Labor messiah has given his judgement, the oracle has spoken and it isn't good.
'Worst deal in all history': Former Labor PM Paul Keating savages AUKUS submarine deal
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.www.abc.net.au
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".
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 supposeWell, 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.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.
^ 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
“A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace.”Some may call it aggression, others may say it's a deterrent.
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.How good is New Zealands' navy ?
How good is New Zealand ?
They still have Jacinda.On New Zealand. The country hasn't got many resources and we are in the way.
What would happen if say Malaysia, Peru or even Fiji decided to take over New Zealand?Australia reminded of nuclear weapons ban, as it goes on submarine shopping spree
New Zealand sought assurances Australia would keep to its nuclear weapons ban commitments.www.nzherald.co.nz
Well... if it all goes to pot one hopes NZ doesn't stop the boats
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?