Govt sets $100,000 a year super threshold

Why not? Do you think you're entitled to use taxpayer funded infrastructure post retirement? If so, then make your contribution. These costs don't magically stop just because you stopped working. In fact, retirees, self funded or not, are a HUGE fiscal burden on taxpayers and you want to make them (and eventually yourself) an even bigger burden?

Where is the money from lost tax revenue going to come from for this geriatric slush fund? Increased taxes on those still working?

Maybe they can use some of the 17 Billion in lost super that the ATO have now got more access to. I believe a gain of 675million over a 4 year period due to recent changes and yes due to me being slack the ATO have kindly been looking after some of my super over the last 6 months.

ps being from the left side of the political fence I'm happy with the proposed changes, I just don't agree that a SMSF with a property as its main asset which is sold after retirement will potentially now incur CG.
 
Maybe they can use some of the 17 Billion in lost super that the ATO have now got more access to. I believe a gain of 675million over a 4 year period due to recent changes and yes due to me being slack the ATO have kindly been looking after some of my super over the last 6 months.

ps being from the left side of the political fence I'm happy with the proposed changes, I just don't agree that a SMSF with a property as its main asset which is sold after retirement will potentially now incur CG.

It wont incur tax for at least 10 years if purchased pre 5/4/13.
 
Your complaining about it when you don't even know how it works???:confused:

Not complaining, asking the knowledgably people on here to explain to us "simple folk"
What I do understand is currently there is no CGT on assets sold once in a pension phase of a SMSF, if the current changes go through there will be :)
to date I have learned that this will be taxed at 10% if the asset has been held for more than 12 months.
 
From the Treasurer's press release:

Special arrangements will apply for capital gains on assets purchased before 1 July 2014:
  • For assets that were purchased before 5 April 2013, the reform will only apply to capital gains that accrue after 1 July 2024;
  • For assets that are purchased from 5 April 2013 to 30 June 2014, individuals will have the choice of applying the reform to the entire capital gain, or only that part that accrues after 1 July 2014; and
  • For assets that are purchased from 1 July 2014, the reform will apply to the entire capital gain.
 
From the Treasurer's press release:

Special arrangements will apply for capital gains on assets purchased before 1 July 2014:
  • For assets that were purchased before 5 April 2013, the reform will only apply to capital gains that accrue after 1 July 2024;
  • For assets that are purchased from 5 April 2013 to 30 June 2014, individuals will have the choice of applying the reform to the entire capital gain, or only that part that accrues after 1 July 2014; and
  • For assets that are purchased from 1 July 2014, the reform will apply to the entire capital gain.

So the property will have to be valued in 2024, this figure will then be the starting point for calculating the CGT?
 
Kochie weighs in

The Gillard government has finally revealed its grand plan for superannuation with income from retirement accounts earning more than $100,000 a year set to cop a 15% tax on the excess earnings, instead of zero at the moment.

It’s a rough gouge that I strongly oppose for 2 reasons; those Australians with big super balances have worked hard to secure their financial retirement; changing rules undermines confidence in the superannuation system and legitimately prompts the question “what’s next?”

cont...

Source
 
redwing, surely you don't take that... guy seriously? Kochie is a puppet of his rich masters, merely a conduit for brainwashing the masses.
as all media reports, and reporters
only the point of aim differs

what you see read and hear, represents only a possible interpretation of what may or may not, have actually occurred, be yet to occur, or not occur at all.
 
Rowena

You raise a good point. The proposal says that those funds in pension phase will be taxed at 15% on any income over $100k. So if an SMSF has two members (two partners e.g. husband and wife) then the splitting strategy you discuss would not be effective.

However if the couple had one SMSF each then I assume each SMSF would be subject to the new rules. This could provide an opportunity for the couple to have an SMSF each subject to the new rules.

Only just thought about this and as more details come out it might be a strategy that is worth adopting. It will mean setting up an SMSF for each member.

I suspect there will be increased administration and complexity if the proposals go ahead.

Say an individual has multiple SMSFs and super accounts. Each account is under the $100k income threshold. Will they have to submit additional information such as income earned per inidividual. Will the ATO need to compile and add income earned from all super accounts for each individual and later invoice the superfunds if a person's super earnings are greater than $100k spread across various accounts.

This is smelling like the superannuation contribution surcharge tax in terms of the administration.

SYD
 
This is smelling like the superannuation contribution surcharge tax in terms of the administration.

SYD

And the surcharge cost more to administer than it collected in revenue.

But it would be money well spent in Labour's populist game of class warfare I suppose.

Cheers,

Rob
 
This is the problem we now have as a country. One minor change to superannuation, which probably won't affect Greedy at all, and we get a reaction like this.
I am sorry for doing this, but didn't we have about 9 changes to Super just in the last few years within the current federal government???:confused:
However, I agree with your point about keeping our emotions out, I stand guilty there.:)
 
I am sorry for doing this, but didn't we have about 9 changes to Super just in the last few years within the current federal government???:confused:

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.

Found a picture of Swan and Shorten you might like:

3329.jpg
 
Labor will not win this time around.
Not to say that tony abbott won't do some tinkering.

It seems gillard is doing everything she can to p*ss people off, and letting the next government clean up the mess.
 
ladylove and I are discussing,
to us
Juliar is promising Huge$ amounts for unfundable projects,
just so that straight after the election, as opposition they can claim the govt has destroyed 'all we accomplished' when they(clp lcp) have to pull them back because there is no money to pay for them
can not fathom, why anyone votes for the current lot of **expletive deleted**
 
Back
Top