Wayne Swan - Economic Pygmy

[Garpal Gumnut]

PLEASE could one of you Wally's tell me how much debt smsf's have. I think you are all talking rubbish, i doubt there is any debt attributed to a smsf.
If there was the ATO would be all over them.
Vespurian you seem to have all the answers, can you give me a link or any information to smsf debt?

He's gone missing.

Very very very very very, practically no SMSF's have debt.

I have a SMSF and if it was useful to have debt I'd have it.

And he has no idea what a Strawman Argument is.

gg

 

[sptrawler]

I explained it twice above - once briefly, then when you still didnt get it I explained it in more detail. Go have a read.

"dreadful accusation" (I would call it a critique of her argument, I'm not exactly saying she committed a crime or anything)

"demeaning and lacks substance" (sptrawler seemed a bit confused as to what a "Strawman argument" was in his first reply to me - so I kindly provided a link - looked like you were in the same boat to be honest).

"I'm going to leave" (complete over-reaction, but if you feel this way remember every time you post on a public forum, there are going to be people that disagree with you or disagree with your arguments or the way you have phrased them).

Seriously though, you guys crack me up. So content to dish out, but quick to play victim.

Mate, as my sons would say, you are such a dick.

 

[Ves]

PLEASE could one of you Wally's tell me how much debt smsf's have. I think you are all talking rubbish, i doubt there is any debt attributed to a smsf.
If there was the ATO would be all over them.
Vespurian you seem to have all the answers, can you give me a link or any information to smsf debt?

I don't have any stats - BUT the ATO recently released a tax payer alert directed at SMSF borrowing arrangements (they don't normally issue these unless they are getting a bit nervous about the state of things in respect to the issue described within the alert).

See this link:

http://www.superguide.com.au/smsfs/smsf-property-ato-issues-warning-over-borrowing-arrangements

There is also a link to the alert in there somewhere.

SMSF borrowing is still pretty new so the statistics have not reached any where near critical mass - but I can tell you from my experience in the industry that they are getting very popular. Some of the people using them (and also the loop holes people are finding) make me a bit nervous. Do you think it is fair for instance, that someone can provide their own SMSF the source of funds from their personal assets and pay zero interest on this loan? The ATO is allowing it too!!! I would have thought that that breached the "arms lengths" rules embedded in the SIS act - but apparently not. I think loopholes such as this provide a lot of scope for exploitation. Don't get me started on unit trusts. I thought that this was superannuation, not a way of funnelling money out of your own high tax individual accounts into a low tax haven.

 

[sptrawler]

He's gone missing.

Very very very very very, practically no SMSF's have debt.

I have a SMSF and if it was useful to have debt I'd have it.

And he has no idea what a Strawman Argument is.

gg

Yes,GG, one has to wonder if he isn't a financial planner.

 

[Ves]

And he has no idea what a Strawman Argument is.

Can you provide any substance for this horrible, horrible accusation?

 

[sptrawler]

I don't have any stats - BUT the ATO recently released a tax payer alert directed at SMSF borrowing arrangements (they don't normally issue these unless they are getting a bit nervous about the state of things in respect to the issue described within the alert).

See this link:

http://www.superguide.com.au/smsfs/smsf-property-ato-issues-warning-over-borrowing-arrangements

There is also a link to the alert in there somewhere.

SMSF borrowing is still pretty new so the statistics have not reached any where near critical mass - but I can tell you from my experience in the industry that they are getting very popular. Some of the people using them (and also the loop holes people are finding) make me a bit nervous. Do you think it is fair for instance, that someone can provide their own SMSF the source of funds from their personal assets and pay zero interest on this loan? The ATO is allowing it too!!! I would have thought that that breached the "arms lengths" rules embedded in the SIS act - but apparently not. I think loopholes such as this provide a lot of scope for exploitation. Don't get me started on unit trusts. I thought that this was superannuation, not a way of funnelling money out of your own high tax individual accounts into a low tax haven.

Well vespurian, I have a smsf, have worked for wages all my life brought up 4 kids and retired at 56 and I don't need you to tell me how to suck eggs.

 

[Ves]

Very very very very very, practically no SMSF's have debt.

That's a reasonably accurate observation at the moment. But have you noticed the "information kiosks" selling people SMSF borrowing kits in a lot of the major shopping centres lately? The sharks are on the prowl and the ATO is definitely becoming aware of the schemes being promoted. Lots and lots of coverage on SMSF borrowing by SPAA this year. I wonder why a peak professional body would be doing that?

 

[Ves]

Well vespurian, I have a smsf, have worked for wages all my life brought up 4 kids and retired at 56 and I don't need you to tell me how to suck eggs.

So why ask the question of me if you knew all of that? You're clearly trolling. Actually I don't think I've ever seen you post anything remotely useful.

 

[McLovin]

So, we're agreed that SMSF's do borrow. Fantastic.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Statistics??? What has this got to do with what we are talking about?

As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.

The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.

Explain how this is a "Strawman Argument".

gg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I'm not going to join the dots for you, but the intention of McLovin's post was certainly not to suggest:



or to suggest:



My question is how does suggesting that leverage may be risky and unsuitable for SMSF and therefore if it goes wrong who pays for the retirement shortfall due to these mistakes suddenly mean that he is questioning the motivation of SMSF trustees and saying that they shouldn't bother to fund their own retirement through their SMSF?

It's a complete misrepresentation in my eyes and it's quite common on this forum, hence my comment that it is a "Strawman argument." It isn't even a sniper remark on my behalf, that's just victim mentality to suggest that.

I explained it twice above - once briefly, then when you still didnt get it I explained it in more detail. Go have a read.

"dreadful accusation" (I would call it a critique of her argument, I'm not exactly saying she committed a crime or anything)

"demeaning and lacks substance" (sptrawler seemed a bit confused as to what a "Strawman argument" was in his first reply to me - so I kindly provided a link - looked like you were in the same boat to be honest).

"I'm going to leave" (complete over-reaction, but if you feel this way remember every time you post on a public forum, there are going to be people that disagree with you or disagree with your arguments or the way you have phrased them).

Seriously though, you guys crack me up. So content to dish out, but quick to play victim.

Re: Wayne Swan - Economic Pygmy

Originally Posted by Garpal Gumnut
And he has no idea what a Strawman Argument is.
Can you provide any substance for this horrible, horrible accusation?

You are hoist by your own petard Ves.

Describe, Ves, if you know, why this is a Strawman Argument, in Detail.

Wikipedia is often recoursed by illiterates, but knowing your knowledge Ves, and intellect Ves, I would not accuse you of that.

Detail why it is a Strawman Argument.

You have not done so.

So do not say you have.

And please do not insult your fellow posters and members of ASF with a link that any itinerant could access by googling

gg

 

[sptrawler]

That's a reasonably accurate observation at the moment. But have you noticed the "information kiosks" selling people SMSF borrowing kits in a lot of the major shopping centres lately? The sharks are on the prowl and the ATO is definitely becoming aware of the schemes being promoted. Lots and lots of coverage on SMSF borrowing by SPAA this year. I wonder why a peak professional body would be doing that?

The problem with young people the don't shut up long enough to listen to older people who have been there.
My late father in law had a great saying "you have two ears and one mouth, use them accordingly"
I fortunately was from a generation where knowledge was respected.
I still take counsel from an 80 year old guy that left school at 14 to deliver telegrams, he is a multi millionaire.

 

[Joe Blow]

I would ask that everyone please stay on topic and debate the topic at hand, not attack others personally.

Let's not let this thread get sidetracked, or degenerate into bickering.

 

[sptrawler]

Sorry Joe, just hate unfounded attacks on credible answers.

 

[Joe Blow]

Sorry Joe, just hate unfounded attacks on credible answers.

Please consider adding people to your ignore list rather than use insults.

 

[sptrawler]

How do you do that?

 

[Joe Blow]

How do you do that?

Add their user name here, or simply view their profile and click on the "Add to Ignore List" link.

 

[sails]

I think you are confusing rose coloured glasses for my prescription ones

View attachment 50092

For example, using the logic espoused thus far by the OP of the graph, one could say that the current government has reversed a trend it inherited despite the GFC.

I'm sure that is not the message they want to project so I am trying to establish what the basis for the comparison is.

SomeDude - do you bother to read anything other people write? You missed the note on the chart explaining the meaning of the black line and then carried on with irrelevant posts as to what the black line meant.

And did you miss my post with the link below which I have posted twice before in two different threads? It explains how Swan has blamed the failure to reach surplus on shortfall in tax revenue. Now please re-read that and try and remember it. It is the reason that the OP (you could have used my name instead of a rude OP or maybe you couldn't remember that either)...

Has Swanny lied or didn't he know his numbers? Tax revenue is up 9.2% - see below:

Wayne Swan has blamed the failure to reach surplus this year on the shortfall in tax revenue, but figures for the first four months of this financial year show total receipts are 9.2 per cent ahead of last year.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-rising-revenues/story-fn59niix-1226542121468

So, once again, the reason for the chart is to show either Swan lied or was clueless:

"Swan has blamed the failure to reach surplus on shortfall in tax revenue"

Now refer to this post before you post again about the chart and the "OP"...

 

[sails]

Please consider adding people to your ignore list rather than use insults.

I agree, however, people who deliberately bait by twisting the posts of others should take their medicine...

 

[Julia]

Ves, I'm not sure why I bother with your childish stuff which seems to be annoying more than just me.
What I was politely questioning is covered in the following exchange between McLovin and myself:

As below, I thought he might have been referring to the seeking of compensation over a poorly chosen investment.

I think you will find that I'm in complete agreement with McLovin about the undesirability of SMSFs engaging in leverage. I wouldn't consider it and I think I'm pretty typical of someone with a SMSF.

So perhaps consider allowing a discussion to proceed between the parties instead of feeling obliged to intervene with unjustified comments.

If you ask me, SMSF's should not be allowed to gear. There's no need and if it blows up, it becomes the public's problem.

How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?

Who's going to pay for the shortfall when they retire?

I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super. Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia. SMSFs are not.
I thought you might have been referring to that.

Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?

As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.

Overall SMSFs are doing very well, outperforming most of the public super funds.
I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you are apparently antagonistic toward the sector.


Many SMSFs have a Trust Deed which precludes any gearing. I doubt that many are doing much borrowing at all.

 

[Ves]

Ves, I'm not sure why I bother with your childish stuff which seems to be annoying more than just me..

Good for them - and they completely ignored all of the other information I posted. I guess we're all just into arguing with each other over absolutely nothing - at least you should be able to admit that.