Search results

I would not mind my property incurring CG in any way. CGT though is another matter.

But if we hadn't put the candies in the jar, they would have taken some of the candies away from us. And in the end, the candies in the other little pile would have been a smaller quantity than the ones we would have put into the jar.

Once you could withdraw your super whenever you finished with an employer. Of course it wouldn't be a good thing to do that. Which is why I did it. Well, I was in love and it's the only way I could afford to go back to Mexico to see that lovely young lady again. We recently celebrated our...

As I understand 15% on contributions is only on the amount above the concessional allowance. So contributions up to $25k don't get taxed. If I had earned that money I would have paid income tax on it. So even with contributions over the limit I'm ahead. Really a negative tax. 15% on earnings...

I don't believe it is. I think that if you're under 50, something like $25,000pa can be contributed before tax- which includes the employer SGC. And when it is paid out annually, it's not taxed- proposed new arrangements will limit the tax free income to $100K pa. So it is a very tax...

I'd suggest that it's only people who earn some good money who could afford to contribute above the concessional limit. The cap is $25,000 for people under 50. There's still enticement to contribute up to this amount. Personally I would, and have, put money into properties rather than super.

The one in five millionaires which Hoffy mentions would be accounted for by defining a millionaire as someone who has one million dollars worth of assets over liabilities. The super charges are targeted at people who have a lot more money and therefore will not be hurt as much as those who...

So it would be better to tax the lower income people in order to give benefits to the wealthier people? Sounds fair. Bringing Cyprus into this is drawing an extremely long bow.

For many people their house will bring them very close to being a millionaire- cars and chattels in the house would put them over the $1M mark. It doesn't mean they have $2M in super.

If you left $2M outside of super any earnings would be taxed at your full tax rate. If it's within the super fund earnings are taxed at 15%. An income of over $100k pa would be taxed at much higher than 15%.

That's me. I didn't actually need to sell it into super. There was $500k CGT free retirement benefit. Quite generous actually. So under the new rules, I can earn $100k pa tax free. Anything over that is taxed at 15%. That doesn't sound unfair. There's still some very generous...

Despite some pollies saying that somebody earning $250k pa was struggling, this sounds quite fair. Even paying concessional rates above the threshold doesn't seen too onerous.