From memory i don't think there is a lot of exposure by SMSF, the rules were only relaxed during Gillards reign, so I don't think it had time to get a lot of traction.Ann, the real question is how much leverage into property are SMSF in?
If the figure is large, this would be another attributing factor to why property increased so much in the last 10 years. If this pool dries up, yes we could expect property to fall further.
That is going to be a big can of worms, people I spoke to when I was working, who had rental property didn't have a clue as to the limitations.Even more interesting:
"
The ATO's next focus would be on rental income and deductions, with auditors having now completed over 300 audits on rental property claims and found errors in almost nine out of 10 returns reviewed, he said.
"We're seeing incorrect interest claims for the entire investment loan where it has been refinanced for private purposes, incorrect classification of capital works as repairs and maintenance, and taxpayers not apportioning deductions for holiday homes when they are not genuinely available for rent," Mr Jordan said.
"When you consider that rentals include over 2.1 million taxpayers claiming $47.4 billion in deductions, against $44.1 billion in reported income, you can get a sense of the potential revenue at risk."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03...-post-panama-papers/10899518?section=business
And lets not forget all those AirBnB properties where the owners havn't declared the income and in some cases were dumb enough to claim the expenses and not the income.
I have a friend who has been quite happy AirBnB their property out for 3 years (they live in it), they are in the top tax bracket, when I suggested they should declare the rental as income I got the response, it is my home why should I. When I informed them that the ATO is now linked to the AirBnB database and they would have to pay >45% tax on the income, they said it wasn't worth it.
I will assume this would account for a large number of AirBnB properties
The industry funds have been chasing the retirees from SMSF's for years, it is a really big sector and the industry funds want the money in their coffers, that is the driving force behind Labor's changes.
I would rather spend it, than give my money to someone else to look after, how many have lost their money through bad managers? FFS we just had a royal commission highlight it.
Now they want to legislate so someone else gets YOUR money, as I've already said the younger ones are going to lose out big time with all of the proposed changes coming up.
The problem is no one is thinking of the long term ramifications, of the changes, but that's the way it goes.
Not for the last 20 years.Would a bad fund manager be someone who suggested relying heavily on franking credits?
I would define a bad fund manager as anyone who is charging their clients fees for managing their funds but who has in practice simply tracked an index or other benchmark or, worse still, has under performed it.Would a bad fund manager be someone who suggested relying heavily on franking credits?
I would define a bad fund manager as anyone who is charging their clients fees for managing their funds but who has in practice simply tracked an index or other benchmark or, worse still, has under performed it.
If you know one or some, tell me.
If there are none, it means simply no fund can be trusted to beat the indexes
And this is the reason why a lot of people have a SMSF. You set it up with someone like Esuperfund and pay your $1300 a year all in no matter what your balance is. Then you can take out multiple Term Deposits and buy ETF's with low MER's and there is no skimming for ongoing "Admin" fees.
And this is the reason why a lot of people have a SMSF. You set it up with someone like Esuperfund and pay your $1300 a year all in no matter what your balance is. Then you can take out multiple Term Deposits and buy ETF's with low MER's and there is no skimming for ongoing "Admin" fees. Maybe those Industry Super Fund CEO's don't like the fact that it is very easy to do, really it is.
Why pay a .64% ongoing fee for the total of your super balance when you can do it yourself? Here is the difference in fees for a $500,000 Super Account
abc Super Company = $3,200
ESuperfund (or similar) = Just your yearly $1300 - $1500 fee no matter how big your balance is. Some people only want Term Deposits and ETF's. To me it sounds like these Big Wig CEO's are getting worried about something that has nothing to do with them. Why question how individual wants to run their own Super Fund?
Junior, you have a point but it is a given that people with higher balances will subsidise the ones with 10 or 20k when in a fund.
I am with sunsuper with low balance of 300k or so..minimum contribution as i do not trust gov now, even less in 10y+..
But i i not want to pay for surfer ads or getting below market returns on my cash options
Junior, you have a point but it is a given that people with higher balances will subsidise the ones with 10 or 20k when in a fund.
I am with sunsuper with low balance of 300k or so..minimum contribution as i do not trust gov now, even less in 10y+..
But i i not want to pay for surfer ads or getting below market returns on my cash options
No, but you are probably paying for four on the dole, while we import 457 cleaners for the camps you live in.I payed 80k in tax last year.......am I subsidising franking credits?
you can choose to invest in direct shares, TDs etc. where you don't pay any fund manager fees.
No, but you are probably paying for four on the dole, while we import 457 cleaners for the camps you live in.
My super allows for direct share buying, but the brokerage is very high, far higher than what I'm charged outside of super. You'd think that a large super fund would have the leverage to negotiate better brokerage rates? No. Their rates are more expensive.
In addition, they charge you a monthly fee just for having the direct share facility, which isn't charged if you don't have it. So if you add up all those expenses, and then compare them to the fees for holding one of their funds, it can be difficult to work out how the expenses of these options really line up.
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?