Yep. Happened to a mate of mine. Got caught by the GFC. If he'd retired 2 weeks earlier he would have been sweet. He's now back with his employer on a contract basis to make up some of his losses.
Super who thinks they'll get it?
- Thread starter FormerLurker
- Start date
Yep. Happened to a mate of mine. Got caught by the GFC. If he'd retired 2 weeks earlier he would have been sweet. He's now back with his employer on a contract basis to make up some of his losses.
art and cars in SMSFs gets an automatic red flag for audit.
i'm having to go thru the process now and will be liquidating my art to avoid it in the future.
"we need proof of the purchase"
"sure thing, here's the valuation certificates and the initial contract and the invoice and the bank payment details"
"that's not enough, sorry. we need proof of the purchase"
"what exactly do you need?"
"proof of the purchase"
"uh....maybe you want to see the works?"
"we just need proof of purchase"
"okay, well the artwork is hanging in (xxxxx) and (xxxxx) building in Sydney, main foyer. you can view it there - which con-incides witht he rental receipts"
"no, i'm sorry. we need proof of purchase".
Sounds fun.
You should respond with:
" I need proof of identity"
"no drivers license isn't enough I need Birth certificate - original, passport and bank/credit cards"
"your identity was stolen and they took out exactly what my hourly rate is for the hours of my time you've wasted - wow what a coincidence"
I have large doubts that I will see my Superannuation... there is a reasonable amount in it, however it will be anything between 10 and 15 years before I am able to get my hands on it.
We set up SMSF to wrestle some control over it, and have indeed bought Gold and Silver with a small part to hedge against drastic events and have a mixed basket of assets with the rest. Sadly a decent part of my superannuation is trapped in a government superfund which has very limited options.
Between my wife and myself we have agreed that a family trust will be our primary vehicle to establish the ability to retire before 'preservation age' of superannuation, and, assuming the government does not keep lifiting that age, we will then begin to access our super money.
In truth, I suspect the superannuation money will end up being our kids major inheritance... My gut tells me that the gov. will encounter a rather difficult economic climate in 10 years that force it to make some hard choices with preservation age that lifts it much higher than I would have liked and it may indeed mean it is not available to me.
We set up SMSF to wrestle some control over it, and have indeed bought Gold and Silver with a small part to hedge against drastic events and have a mixed basket of assets with the rest. Sadly a decent part of my superannuation is trapped in a government superfund which has very limited options.
Between my wife and myself we have agreed that a family trust will be our primary vehicle to establish the ability to retire before 'preservation age' of superannuation, and, assuming the government does not keep lifiting that age, we will then begin to access our super money.
In truth, I suspect the superannuation money will end up being our kids major inheritance... My gut tells me that the gov. will encounter a rather difficult economic climate in 10 years that force it to make some hard choices with preservation age that lifts it much higher than I would have liked and it may indeed mean it is not available to me.
I am not worried they will take the money - I am 100% certain they will when they finally run out of options to fund our welfare bill.
SF says they will return it to us via dividends of some sort. I hope he's right.
I only contribute the absolute bare minimum to super...begrudgingly.
You can imagine my mood every week when I have to pay my staff and then have to set aside another 9% for them on top of this for their super....and none of them pay any into it on their own behalf.
Super is a dud idea for the likes of us here on this forum; we (hopefully) all have/are gaining the knowledge to stand on our own 2 feet, and some will include super in their strategy - I do (but not willingly). To me it is merely a little savings account which I'll get some play money from when I hit 65 or whatever the maturing age is these days.
Super, however, is a great investment for those who don't have the knowledge/don't want to be botherered getting it....for them it's better than hot tips on the stock market/nags/dishlickers or savings in their bank account.
Super will be a nice present for me come 55 or 65 (whatever the age is you get it).... but i'm taking further steps to sure up my retirement $$$.... hopefully get to the holy grail before then
Regards,
RH
Regards,
RH
Super
Hiya
When i migrated many years ago, my husband and i took out our super from our home country in one whole lump sum tax free! (and within a week)
What makes the scheme then even better was we used our super to buy property ; we contributed 20% to our super and the employer contributed 20% Boy! those were good days...our super was building up and there was left over after paying the housing instalments...
The government set up this scheme where you just pay your housing instalments using your super straight away; none of this SMSF stuff we have to set up here! Sometimes i think there is too much red tape to go through here!
Hiya
When i migrated many years ago, my husband and i took out our super from our home country in one whole lump sum tax free! (and within a week)
What makes the scheme then even better was we used our super to buy property ; we contributed 20% to our super and the employer contributed 20%
Boy! those were good days...our super was building up and there was left over after paying the housing instalments...The government set up this scheme where you just pay your housing instalments using your super straight away; none of this SMSF stuff we have to set up here! Sometimes i think there is too much red tape to go through here!
Your Super is YOURS! It is in a segregated account and it is no easier for the gubbmint to confiscate that than it would be to grab any other asset. Let's not get paranoid.
It is not a "promise" to pay as is the US Social Security. None of this precludes their assumed right to change the tax rates and fine print generally. They could insist that super funds invest a portion of their holdings in gov bonds for example, but provided they pay decent interest this is no big deal and provided that capital is spent on major capital works.
Good investors SHOULD, individually, be able to achieve better returns than the funds but Joe Six-pack never would. I can see what they are trying to achieve but for the health of the economy, as well as personal freedom, the mandatory payment should not be raised above 9%.
It is not a "promise" to pay as is the US Social Security. None of this precludes their assumed right to change the tax rates and fine print generally. They could insist that super funds invest a portion of their holdings in gov bonds for example, but provided they pay decent interest this is no big deal and provided that capital is spent on major capital works.
Good investors SHOULD, individually, be able to achieve better returns than the funds but Joe Six-pack never would. I can see what they are trying to achieve but for the health of the economy, as well as personal freedom, the mandatory payment should not be raised above 9%.
we have the same problem - but not government, rather big mining. fortunately only 4 years until hubby turns 55 and we "may" be able to get our hands on some of it.
the annoying thing is that if he stays, it looks like he can't even do the part pension at 55. that's where you put $X in at 18% (i think it's up to $50k, or maybe $25k) and can draw a tax free pension.
the idea would be to take out as much as what you would have gained net pay top tax rate, and leave the balance in the fund ... but ... may not be on the cards due to stupid unions!
Reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago with the expense reimbursement team of the business where I worked:
Them "We can't pay your mileage claim because you didn't attach a receipt"
Me "The policy states you reimburse mileage at 52 cents a kilometre for customer required travel when using my own vehicle"
Them "We understand that, but if you don't have a receipt we can't reimburse you"
Me "Umm... you realise this means driving my own car, right?"
Them "Of course, but we don't pay without receipts"
Me "Who would you expect has issued such a receipt?"
Them "Whoever provided the service you paid for..."
In the end they paid, but bugger me, it was a effort. This is one of the few times at work when I've genuinely wanted to wrestle the person to the ground, punch their face and scream "YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO BE ALIVE..."
I am not worried they will take the money - I am 100% certain they will when they finally run out of options to fund our welfare bill.
SF says they will return it to us via dividends of some sort. I hope he's right.
I only contribute the absolute bare minimum to super...begrudgingly.
You can imagine my mood every week when I have to pay my staff and then have to set aside another 9% for them on top of this for their super....and none of them pay any into it on their own behalf.
Super is a dud idea for the likes of us here on this forum; we (hopefully) all have/are gaining the knowledge to stand on our own 2 feet, and some will include super in their strategy - I do (but not willingly). To me it is merely a little savings account which I'll get some play money from when I hit 65 or whatever the maturing age is these days.
Super, however, is a great investment for those who don't have the knowledge/don't want to be botherered getting it....for them it's better than hot tips on the stock market/nags/dishlickers or savings in their bank account.
Isn't the absolute minimum $0 ? As a self employed person, does the governemtn MAKE you invets in super ?
I have put in the mimum only in my siper too, and it'w worht about 5 x times what I think I've put in now... so I bloody hope I get it.. but I do salary sacrifice more into shares than I put into super now, I'm not puttin gmuch into it nor relying on it only, but be a shame for to not get it.
Do you really really belvie the govt will steal it like you say ?
lizzie, how does that compare with other investments (honestly, I have no idea), is it worse than say a portfolio of assets, like cashflow positive shares/property NOT held in super ?
Family trusts with corporate trustees can be easily passed to heirs without change of ownership of the assets.
Assets held in personal names can be effectively passed on via testamentary trusts, which has other benefits.
Super is designed to fund retirements for people who would otherwise depend on the government. Why expect it to do anything else?
Assets held in personal names can be effectively passed on via testamentary trusts, which has other benefits.
Super is designed to fund retirements for people who would otherwise depend on the government. Why expect it to do anything else?
because it is my money that went into it in the first place - under duress i might add - and if i don't get to spend it all i don't want it automatically going to the givernment.
Are you certain that you have to contribute $ you don't want to into super lizzie ?
Yes there is often tax when passing on to beneficiaries down the line. However this can be minimised with planning.
Would it make you feel better if they just raised the tax rate by 9% instead and they really take it away? What we want doesn't matter. Is tax payable 'your' money?
The government's not going to "steal" anyone's super. Although they may change the tax rates and thresholds.
This applies fairly similarly to all entities - all entities are subject to goverment legislative changes respectively. Just look at trusts for example.
Does the fact that the tax laws for trusts might change mean that you wouldn't use them to their advantages in the mean time? Of course not.
It's the same for super. For a lot of us super is pretty useless, but for those with enough wealth, in their 50s and above, self-managed super is there to be taken advantage of. If you are that age bracket and you have the means, why wouldn't you?
This applies fairly similarly to all entities - all entities are subject to goverment legislative changes respectively. Just look at trusts for example.
Does the fact that the tax laws for trusts might change mean that you wouldn't use them to their advantages in the mean time? Of course not.
It's the same for super. For a lot of us super is pretty useless, but for those with enough wealth, in their 50s and above, self-managed super is there to be taken advantage of. If you are that age bracket and you have the means, why wouldn't you?
