not really.. I'm self employed. i contributed to super in 09-10 (using money from the business) and they took out 2k worth of tax....even though the superfund went down abit...(not anymore..i got a SMSF set up and rolling over my super )
This is most likely the 15% you need to pay on your contributions. IE, if your employer pays into the SMSF bank account, this is not taxed. At the end of the year, you will need to pay 15% tax on these contributions. Slam
(speculation) From Ed Steer, get physical http://www.caseyresearch.com/gsd/edition/gold-now-thats-track-record
Does this pass the sniff test? A couple of weeks back I saw a massive amount of silver waiting for delivery in the dock at Perth. I mean, multiple pallets of silver lined along a wall each with 1000oz silver bars stacked 6 or 7 rows high. Could it be that suddenly the risk of the unallocated position being unbacked by physical silver has become too much for the mint to allow? Or, is it as suggested by the mint employee, that unallocated accounts are just too popular a means of purchasing silver for the mint to support any more! Sniff, sniff . . . Just smile and wave, fellas. Smile and wave. Get your physical as fast as you can. Oh, by the way, Lybia is not about oil and the plutonium meltdown in Japan is contained.
But it WAS backed by physical. They used the mints working metal as the backing for the unallocated accounts. So they needed X amount in stock for operations on any given day, and it was this metal that backed the unallocated accounts... they just couldn't point to any single piece of metal and say 'this is Y persons silver from the unallocated account'. from what I understand of Brons explanation, it reached a point where the amount in unallocated accounts was exceeding what the mint required to keep on hand for its day to day running, and they were incurring the costs of storing more metal than they actually required, because they needed to keep more on hand to back the unallocated accounts. Now they are passing that cost of storage onto account holders by starting their new system where there is silver specifically allocated for the accounts stored separately. Thats my interpretation at least.
Dunno how many times this has to be reiterated, but Perth Mint unallocated is about the only unallocated system in the world offered by a working refinery operation - your "paper" silver is backed by the stock flowing through the refinery & mint operations. As pointed out very recently, you can't mint 1oz coins from paper. But between the points where the silver stock enters the mint as either a 1000oz fine bar or a rough cast brick of unknown purity silver from an Australian mine, and then exits the mint in coin or investment bar form, it becomes backing for the unallocated holdings. Pretty bloody simple. There's only so much silver between these two points though, and is there any reason to doubt that there hasn't been an increase in investment demand that's now exceeding the Mint's production needs? Comments like the "bought at $10/oz" just illustrate a lack of comprehension of basic hedging or refinery operations by the author.
And why would you have unfunded liability like that if you're not getting on going fees? My understanding was the unallocated didn't have any storage fees where's the old allocated had fabrication premiums and 21/2% storage fee every year. edit for added clarity.
So, does this mean that they have already taken more orders for unallocated silver than they can stock or are they just pre-empting that occuring? If the former, the next question is how much of that unallocated silver is currently unbacked? Having closed the window on the unallocated accounts, how will they fund their working stock when everyone moves to allocated? Sniff, sniff . . . Lots of silver walking out the door, don't want to fund their working stock anymore, claim storage constraints yet claim an unlimited capacity to store allocated pooled metal . . . whereas they could have just increased the fee on the unallocated accounts to cover storage costs. Sniff . . . Did I just step in something? Maybe they will store the allocated pooled metal at the JP Morgue's new vault or at the LBMA, instead of locally, seeing as they are so hard up on space. That's a big problem in WA . . . space. LOL
Ouch. Did I hit a nerve or is stating the bloody obvious contributing to the discussion whereby opinions are formed?
No, not a nerve, but the Perth Mint bashing gets a little tiresome. Having met "in the know" folk from the Mint... some things you just got to form your own opinion on. I'm perfectly happy to accept the disclosed reasoning as factual.
Not really, but this has been gone over and over many times in the past. The unallocated silver is/was working inventory and at any given moment in time is was "stored" in a furnace or a graphite mould or a strip having blanks punched out of it or in a bar that could be made available for retail sale as soon as an order came through. There is only so much metal you can have in the system at any one time and anything more than that amount ends up sitting on the floor of the workshop not doing anything and getting in the way. The Perth Mint have obviously got to the point where the guys in production are stubbing their toes on all the surplus silver laying about and so they're cutting off that the old unallocated product that was backed by working inventory and creating a new product backed by great big bars sitting in the vault.
If they go down in value for a particular tax year then you get what is called a "tax credit" ... which will offset any tax payable in future years in which the value goes up again. but they ATO will not fork out one cent if the value goes down. i know - it is an insanely unfair system - you pay REAL MONEY on phantom gains in value - as i explained in my earlier post. i know because i've been through this whole story before - and trust me - i was really incredulous and upset when i discovered just how rigged and unfair the system really is!
This rule is NOT applicable to super funds... It is a really good milk cow for the government dont you think???
nope - PMs are specifically taxed every single year based soley on their value as at the end of that tax year. As far as i know, property is treated differently (preferentially) and is only taxed at sale. LOL - what a big surprise ... ** the government does not have special interest groups ** lol
The Perth Mint bashing has been going as long as the comex has been due to default. My scepticism kicked in early on when someone with a vested interest was bad mouthing them. Bad mouthing your competitors always looks bad to me so I always take silver gurus with a grain of salt. Not too many I take seriously.
All the money you pay into your SMSF - presumably from your salary or business (i.e. pre-tax dollars) is taxed at 15%, so keep back 15% of the cash payed in, unless you're prepared to sell assets later in order to find this 15%. Then the increase in value of your PMs during that tax year is taxed as a CGT - the rate being also 15%. No "CGT event" required for super funds... you get taxed on the phantom growth at 15% rate. This is how it works - as ridiculous and unfair as it may sound. It is legalised theft, but legal according to the ATO anyway...
