I have cut and pasted Tony Negline article in response to the AFR beat up on the weekend. Seems the financial advisors are upset that people like me who invested in commercial real estate were operating get this... outside the "spirt of the intended super provisions. There were a number of stories that all alluded to these nasty SMSF's and tony chose to focus on the lies that were being spun by the retail and industry funds who are desperate to have SMSF's moved over to the higher cost APRA regulators; The 'big' SMSF story is the Weekend Fin Review front page with threats that personally I found it quite amusing. The piece contained a list of statistics purporting to show where SMSFs are getting too many tax breaks. The data produced is actually incorrect. It claims to show the net tax payable. But the figure provided is the net cash amount paid after taking into account PAYG Instalments raised (ie tax paid throughout the year) and the ATO supervisory levy. The correct net income tax actually payable by SMSFs - before all offsets and rebates - in the three years should be: 2007/08 - $1.66b 2008/09 - $1.07b 2009/10 - $287m An obvious question to ask is what do the same data items for all APRA regulated funds show? Well in the interests of disclosure, here is the data. June '08 June '09 June '10 June '11 Percentage Change Cash $23.7b $32.4b $36.4b $47.5b 100% Shares $147.5b $128.7b $174.4b $193.5b 31% Property $5.9b $5.0b $4.8b $5.1 -15% Total Assets $773b $703.5b $795.1b $889.5b 15% Here is the comparable income tax data: 07/08 08/09 09/10 Percentage Change Interest deductions $3.4m $3.7m $1.5m -56% Capital losses $3.1b $41b $52b 1,677% Tax losses $183m $616m $237m 77% Refundable franking credits $2.7b $2.7b $2.3b -17% Tax payable $7.9b $4.7b $7.0b -13% The first part of the data is provided by APRA and the second half is from Tax Office statistics. The questions has to be asked - what is the difference between SMSFs and APRA regulated funds and what are SMSFs getting that large funds don't? If you can work this out "you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!" You have to wonder why a senior political journalist accepted this non-story and why the Fin Review actually thought this was worthy of their front page. In any event, last year I wrote in The Australian, "...there are now 440,000 SMSFs which would have about 900,000 members. There are 150 House of Representatives seats in the Federal Parliament which means there is an average of 6,000 SMSF voters in each seat. "Based on my feedback I believe most SMSF people are very much engaged with how government policy changes will affect their financial future. It doesn't take much to join the dots here and realise that any politician who unilaterally attacks SMSFs could easily alienate many motivated voters." On the whole I'd say most SMSF trustees are pretty realistic people who don't take too much for granted. It'll be interesting to see how of them bother to send letters and emails to their politicians telling them to keep their sticky fingers out of the SMSF honey pots. The big story in the article is the possible return of Reasonable Benefit Limits. Is the Government really proposing to limit the amount of money you put into super via contribution caps and apply tax penalties to the amount of money you get out of it as well? The ALP seem to have a blind spot against anyone who has made a moderate amount of money. One could be forgiven for thinking that the ALP believes such people earned this money at worst unethically and illegally. But more likely they did this by legally ripping off the 'battlers'. The only way to redress this unnaturally occurring imbalance is some wealth and income redistribution processes. On another issue some of you might be wondering about my book. I'm happy to say that my book has been updated and is about to be published by Thompson Reuters as 'The Essential SMSF Guide". Further details are available here: http://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/the-essential-smsf-guide-2012-13/productdetail/116875 Kind Regards non recourse
The Industry Super Funds are a racket and will use any means necessary to protect their gravy train. The problem you face NR, and other SMSF owners like yourself is that you are not in a union, you are almost certainly not a Labor voter, you are independent and don't buy the Party lies so you represent everything that this government fears, and they will use class warfare rhetoric against you and your kind.
bought it too, lol. im a nonrecourse fan. waiting for them to send me the details on how to do bpay. should of asked for a promo code first, lol.
another idea guys we can save 20% if we group buy 5, I can organise it if your interested PM me Thats $170 * 5 -20% =$136 each
Super is just another tax in Australia. Like it or lump it, but this is what comes included with the 'big government" package...
damnit i already ordered mine or i would of been in on the group buy. i always pictured nr as older. no offense
Auspm..You wouldn't by any chance be a private detective or work for ASIO would you? Undercover? Don't blow your own cover? Regards Errol 43
I think you are right, but as there is no ref to where the article was cut and paste from, it is hard to see what part of the post is the article and what part is NR commenting
Just had a private message from claw and realised the confusion. I have read some of his material so don't fret the book is worth every penny I wish I had seen it before I bought this last week http://www.cch.com.au/au/onlinestor...-Legislation-2012-16th-Edition&ProductID=9250 Kind Regards non recourse
I may be cranky but at 59 hardly old. Sorry for the confusion about the book Kind Regards non recourse
