The moron who wrote this article is living proof that a fairfax journalist never lets the facts get in the way of a good ole make the rich pay beat up. The clown that wrote this has made some absolute bloopers that is an expose' of his total ignorance as to how the SIS act works pertaining to SMSF's and how much they are allowed to contribute in deductible and non deductible contributions. His alleged conversation with tax accountants and tax lawyers is a figment of his pea brain. Its a bit embarrassing when you have a still born fiscal pygmy like this contributing an article to the supposed top financial paper in Australia. Kind Regards non recousre
Just noticed obviously the fairfax press is on a get the rich bastards drive at the moment because the same article under a different journalist was in the fin review. I am looking forward to the day in the recent future when the fairfax press finally drowns in its red ink from the inept management that turned its rivers of gold into a stream of shit :lol: Kind Regards non recourse
You're a fiscal phoney. We all know you are living in the recent future, unable to face up to yesterday's tomorrow. And Tomorrow's yesterday just seems the same. Just how long do you intend to bounce dead cats? Source: leveraged real estate road kill
Ahhh, speaking of a dead cat up pops a reasonable facsimile all fir and spittle with claws barred. How are you, you poor excuse for a troll. Still struggling with the concept of a balance sheet? I take Mr Hockey's budget has impacted on your cash-flow and made you bitter and twisted. Kind Regards non recourse
I was under the impression this is the same thing. Surely the alleged 'journalist' doesn't think the cash in a super fund stays in a vault and magically grows at 6% per year until retirement?
All we ever hear from you is 'plop, plop, plop, plop, riiiiiiiip, plop - now you young people clean up after me, you can thank me later.' That's your Balance Shite, how you leverage yourself on the mother of plastic is your own sordid business, you old fart. The time is coming when that sorebent brain of yours will wipe the smile off your face. The only question is, how many young people you are prepared to spruik down the S-bend before you, to try to keep yourself afloat - you floater you.
The alleged journalist(s) are just another card carrying fairfax flunky that believes money is the root of all evil unless its being doled out by their socialist mates. The real debate is why is it acceptable that in a rich country like Australia only 20% of the population can retire without requiring the old age pension ? The government has never been there to help people, the government is there to tax and manipulate the populous to suit their own political end. In order to be financially independent you need to spend a life time building your financial base and you need to ignore the little aussie tall poppy cutting bleeders who will try to belittle you. They are fiscal cowards whose sum contribution to the debate on wealth creation is a sneer. Kind Regards non recourse
It's acceptable because people were happy for Howard and Costello to stop the increase in employer contributions at 9% rather than letting the rate increase to 15% like Keating had originally intended. 12 years worth of additional savings (and growth on those savings) in the middle of an economic boom...gone. The government of the day was indeed helping people: helping people keep more of their money, 'cause they earned it and deserved to be able to spend it however they liked. It isn't a case of the government not helping people, it's defining what the government is helping people do. In Howard and Costello's case, they decided they wanted to help people increase their disposable income rather than helping them accumulate extra funds for their retirement. Personally, I think that was an incredibly dumb decision but there are plenty of people out there who disagree with me.
Easy for him to say that now 20 years later. If the contributions were meant to rise to 15% why wasn't that written into the law. And easy for you to say we had the mining boom. That was not on the horizon back then, remember under Keating we had, in his words, "The recession we had to have"?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I missed AD's fairy tale until now. The government of the day was Hawke and Keating. Before they came along super was not taxed in accumulation phase and was only taxed in pension mode as a lump sum at 5% of your marginal rate which at worst was around 2.5% But the robbing hoods came in brought in Capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax and the 15% super tax. They also said let the boss's pay for your super and we will call it a productivity trade off rather than usurious union thug wage extortion. The net result of this pea brain idea is that most people have no connection to their super outcomes because mummy government is there to look after you (sic) The Labor Party Myth that they created super has been swallowed hook line and sinker. As Joseph Gobbles said so succinctly if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the new truth. Kind Regards non recourse
a) If most of the sectors funds are in pension mode, then, GREAT, the system is working as intended and keeping people off the public pension system and not forcing a higher bill to contemporary taxpayers paying for others' retirement. b) Franking credits exist due to tax already being paid on earnings. The tax is paid! Bloody thieving bastards.
Yes I saw this in the financial review this morning. What do you expect from morons like that. I don't buy the age and have stopped purchasing the Fin review because I read it where I have my breakfast. The reality is guys like Andrew Baker have a problem with people like us being financially independent. No one who earns franking credits is rorting the system. Your money is tied up in super for decades. You put in place a number of investments that in the accumulation phase is taxed at 15% with the knowledge that in pension mode it is tax free. As pointed out above your investments if in shares have already paid tax in the accumulation phase but this nincompoop wants to change the rules mid stream with no compensation. There is a very simple solution when the next tax summit occurs. Referendums rarely get up because of the requirement that each state must pass it by a majority. Over 1 million Australians have self managed super. So when franking credits debate comes up the SMSF lobby need to flag that they are going to set in place a petition to have a referendum vote at the next federal election to remove the "UNFAIR" rort that a federal parliamentary pension currently is. Pass it around the SMSF members, you will get a million signitures. The referendum says... Abolish the higher government contribution that federal pollies currently enjoy, put a cap of $1 million on the 15% tax in pension mode and tax everything above that tax at 46.5% + the medicare levy. Make the super entitlement age 75 for Pollies so that they are an example of fiscal rectitude Want to bet the referendum yes would be a landslide vote at the next federal election? Kind Regards non recourse