Their proposal also includes indexing the $100,000 tax free part to inflation.
Govt sets $100,000 a year super threshold
- Thread starter Terry_w
- Start date
Their proposal also includes indexing the $100,000 tax free part to inflation.
That is why it is best to keep 2M outside super and the minimum in super. Why leave your investment at the mercy of different successive governments?
http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-a...-hit-rest-of-us-unscathed-20130405-2hb4v.html
I am surprised that this article says that only very few Aussies will be affected by the proposed changes.
Allegedly, only 128 000 people earn more than 300k per year - this sounds like an astoundingly low number to me and similarly the claim that only about 16000 people have 2M or more in super. Where do they get these figures?
http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-a...-hit-rest-of-us-unscathed-20130405-2hb4v.html
I am surprised that this article says that only very few Aussies will be affected by the proposed changes.
Allegedly, only 128 000 people earn more than 300k per year - this sounds like an astoundingly low number to me and similarly the claim that only about 16000 people have 2M or more in super. Where do they get these figures?
...and income in any other structure outside smsf is also "at the mercy of successive governments". There are no guarantees in life.
That's an excellent point Geoff. People are getting their knickers in a twist, because instead of thinking 'I could be paying 38.5% on this income, yet I'm only paying 15%'. But when it was 0% before... well! All hell breaks loose!
'How dare the Govt. tax me and take my money! They should give me everything that's coming to me for free and pay for things like health care and infrastructure and all the other stuff with money they grow on money trees, the greedy so and so's! You know, Pauline 'I don't like it' Hansen was right - they should just print more money. Can't see anything wrong with that.'
Youse guise wanna get angry at someone, blame The Leprechaun. He's the one that gave you a taste of unsustainable policy.
ESPECIALLY when the labor party has anything to say about it.
Hard to believe when 1 in 5 people are millionaires isn't it?
Depends on how you define millionaires.
The top 20% of income earners already pay about 80% of the tax but the lowest 20% of income earners enjoy 80% of the benefits of the welfare state. Why should high income earners be constantly pumped for more tax to fund government welfare?
What next? - Cyprus style tax on any bank accounts more than 100k?
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.
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.
Exactly, so it all depends on how you define millionaires. For me, millionaires, means at least 2mil unencumbered investible assets such as cash, super, shares, property beyond PPOR house, car and chattels.
If you defined millionaires by total worth of PPOR, cars and chattels - there would be one found on every street corner, so to speak.
The super changes are targeted at the former group which is a form of class discrimination.
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 have less money. The people who will be impacted most are those who have much more than $100k pa income. And those people are still far better off having put their money through super than if they had just saved the same amount of money in the bank. Governments over many years have been very generous with super. I don't see any problem with what they are doing now.
They can cry crocodile years but they've still done well with the super arrangements.
As I stated in an earlier post, this is not going to hit the wealthy. Again, as I stated earlier, if you want to blame someone, blame the Right faction of the Laberals for introducing an unsustainable vote grab.
A tax free income for the age group that sucks the most resources (aside from the corporate vampires) from the taxpayers? Why shouldn't they be expected to contribute to their Govt. sponsored slush fund?
Tax free retirement pensions should never have been allowed.
The government should be helping us not hurting us.
Whilst my super will never generate 100k per year income, I sympathise with those whose super will. They have busted their gut and shed blood, sweat and tears to achieve this outcome and yet have to be penalised to subsidise people who have not generated any super and hence have contributed a million times less to our society. It is a real disincentive to achievement in society.
$2M if your super funds earning 5%, only $1.43M if its earning 7%
It only seemed like a few years back they were convincing people to put additional funds into Super.
A couple of older guys at work nearing retirement sold IP's and put the money into Super (was it a one-off concession of up to $250k)?
What about capital gains on pension assets that are currently tax-exempt?
For those purchasing investment properties in a SMSF (Commercial, NRAS) etc, is it something else to consider?
As per Austini
With the new $100,000 earnings threshold, its going to be indexed to CPI and increase in $10,000 increments.
Angel said:
Apparently yes, but using a different formula that has been suggested to be kinder
You have fundamentally missed the point.
The key labour decision makers wanted to come out with policy changes much more radical and far ranging than these changes (like they did for the media reforms, MRRT, etc..). However, like their usual ineptitude they didn't consult with others, and were forced into a corner from the polital backlash (from the media, from the public, and from members of their own party - i.e. Crean).
They didn't have the grace (and nor could the politically) backflip, so they needed to "change super" in way which would offend nearly nobody - i.e. defuse the bomb and save face.
So this is what they did.
Im outraged, not because of the actual policy (100k tax free and thereafter paying minimal tax - of course objectively thats a good deal, albiet a slightly less good deal than before - but because of the lack of public consultation, the desire to change a platform (super) whose integrity depends on a lack of changes by government, and because we all know they wanted to go a hell of a lot harder than before.
Same story with the 300k p.a. threshold last year for contributions tax also.
Disgraceful. Simply disgraceful.
Thing is, they are taking aim at the high income earners and trying to make it appear like a class war.
Unfortunately, a lot of their union support are from industries that are earning a motza and will probably have a tonne of dosh in their super accounts.
They just shot themselves in the foot again.
Unfortunately, a lot of their union support are from industries that are earning a motza and will probably have a tonne of dosh in their super accounts.
They just shot themselves in the foot again.
I agree. A lot of blood sweat and tears is required to earn more than 300k a year. Much more pain and suffering than someone who is an employee earning 80k p.a. Why do they attack the real workers of this country?
