Govt sets $100,000 a year super threshold

At the end of the day, we all have to remember they are just PROPOSED law changes.
The current government is not going to attemp to pass this bill until September, when they will very likely loose power at the upcoming election.

The Abbott govt has declaired they will not go through with the proposed changes if they are elected (I know....I know, you cant trust a politician)

So we are all probably getting too worked up over nothing at this stage.........;)
 
At the end of the day, we all have to remember they are just PROPOSED law changes.
The current government is not going to attemp to pass this bill until September, when they will very likely loose power at the upcoming election.

The Abbott govt has declaired they will not go through with the proposed changes if they are elected (I know....I know, you cant trust a politician)

So we are all probably getting too worked up over nothing at this stage.........;)

Agreed.
However I find it amazing how many people didn't have a problem with this, should it go ahead.
 
The Abbott govt has declaired they will not go through with the proposed changes if they are elected (I know....I know, you cant trust a politician)

True but Abbott has said over and over again that you can trust him vis-a-vis Gillard so he really can't afford to break any promises.
 
True but Abbott has said over and over again that you can trust him vis-a-vis Gillard so he really can't afford to break any promises.

de7ec_ORIG-NOT_SURE_IF_SERIOUS_.jpg
 
MIW, legislation regarding super is tinkered with constantly by both Liberal and Labor, it's just the way it's done. You learn to accept it, even though Labor has made some of the most stupid amendments in the last couple of years, reducing concessional contributions being the big one. Long term hurt for short term gains.
I learn to deal with change in positive way every day so I am sure I will adopt and learn even though I dislike it. I do like your picture as it made me laugh....you are funny!:)
 
Agreed.
However I find it amazing how many people didn't have a problem with this, should it go ahead.

Actually from what we know, most people will be worse off for superannuation under LNP.

Currently Low Income Earners (<$40,000) (~3.6Million people), have the 15% contribution tax rebated back into their super. Tony Abott said he would repeal this.

Secondly Labor plans to increase the Concessional Contributions Cap from $25k/yr to $35k/yr.

By comparison only a select few will be worse off under Labor.
 
bumskins, ehhh maybe. It's very much about 'give with one hand, take with the other' with both factions. For example, the Liberals proposed what you have posted.

However, the CC caps used to be up to $100,000, before Labor reduced it to $50,000, then $25,000. Now they are making a big song and dance about raising it to $35,000, when they initially promised to reintroduce the $50,000 cap after 2014, which they obviously never had any intention of doing. In that regard, lots and lots of people are worse off under Labor, as their salary sacrifice contributions have been hacked to pieces, meaning there is significantly less opportunity to build a reasonable level of super benefits for retirement. I know we had to review quite a few clients' situations and adjust their salary sacrifice contributions because those idiots in the Labor Party amended the CC's.

They have also tinkered with the Centrelink Age Pension, making it harder to get entitlements if drawing down an Allocated Pension, or something like that. I don't know too many of the deets, I stay away from Centrelink stuff unless I'm forced to deal with it.
 
Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question but it looks like most people have different ideas on what's going on.

If your going to be taxed at 15% of income generated from your super fund above the first $100k. That would mean (in very simple terms) that if your super generated $200k in income you would pay $15k? tax. So your partner could earn the same ? Both of you could earn a combined $400k and pay $30k in tax?

I'm not sure if this is right can someone clear it up please...
 
Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question but it looks like most people have different ideas on what's going on.

If your going to be taxed at 15% of income generated from your super fund above the first $100k. That would mean (in very simple terms) that if your super generated $200k in income you would pay $15k? tax. So your partner could earn the same ? Both of you could earn a combined $400k and pay $30k in tax?

I'm not sure if this is right can someone clear it up please...

Sounds right.

But why let logic and common sense ruin the argument? :D

Also, IIRC, money in the pension phase was taxed at 15% from $0 but this was abolished in 2007 by this government.

Someone can correct me if it was different.
 
By comparison only a select few will be worse off under Labor.
I just re-read this old thread

How did I miss it,
Should have voted dumbass hopeless, instead of mildly hopeless

Glad to see that one side of politics is carefully selecting the people they want to ensure are worse off
 
If you have more than $2mil in super you will now lose tax concessions.

" Mr Swan announced that from July 1, 2014, future earnings (such as dividends and interest) on assets supporting income streams will be tax free only up to $100,000 a year. Earnings above $100,000 will be taxed at the same concessional rate of 15 per cent that applies to earnings in the accumulation phase."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/super-changes-to-hit-rich-retirees-20130405-2haim.html


Sounds fair to me.

Wasn't it only a few years back they were convincing everyone to drop all of their savings into Super and made concessions to get large amounts in......now....
 
Back
Top