When they come and get your wealth (they will!), the peasants will be cheering... when you buy gold/silver, don't leave a paper trail...
Yes, they'll love to vote themselves a welfare raise. Or even an envy vote to take whatever you have.
These survey results are fairly typical of the Australian mob mentality, where people don't seem too concerned with what they have, but are very concerned when someone else has more than them.
But I guess if people are dumb enough to have a sizeable chunk of their net worth in super, they'll get what they deserve...
First they came to take part of everyone's income. But no one cared much. Then they came for capital gains. Not many people cared much. Then they came for rich people's super. But no one cared much. Then they came for ordinary people's super. But no one cared much. Then they came to collect an estate tax on rich people. But no one cared much. Then they came to collect an estate tax on everyone. But no one cared much. Then they came for a slice of everyone's bank account. Some people were angry, but nothing was accomplished. Then they came for my precious metals. There weren't enough of us to make any difference. Then they came for me. And no one cared at all.
I haven't studied it but i get the impression that the superannuation benefits of low taxation going in and no taxation going out (if you submit to an allocated pension) have been exploited by the wealthy. Doesn't seem fair at all when an older person I know pays tax like anyone else on interest dividends and capital gains because she is of a generation that is not super-annuated. It's supposed to be a scheme for people to support themselves in retirement, not relieve the wealthy from tax obligations by dumping all their assets in there. Changing the goal-posts and the psychology of envy is form for this government I'll allow - remembering the mining super profits and MRRT. It's an issue I amit to not knowing well because I have little super and no SMSF and ignored the debate.
My case in point. In this country, "doesn't seem fair" really means "I want what they've got, and if I can't have it, then we should take it off them so nobody has it". Pity we can look up to people and gain inspiration, rather than envy.
thats how kirchener's goverments have stayed in power in Argentina for the past few decades. Despite the total destruction of the country... by throwing a few crumbs to the ever increasing ranks of the "peasant classes" they keep getting their share of the vote. Even those previously comfortable middle class citizens are too stupid to realise it was the govts policies that drove them into poverty until they are now dependant on the govt. and its called middle class welfare.
And therein lay the reason why Governments can raise revenue at will, AND meet with the support of the population. Your stance is based upon the assumption (which bordsilver has pointed out elsewhere) that income earned by the citizens of this country belongs first and foremost to the government, and we are allocated an amount which is ours to keep. In the case of superannuation income over 100K/year in the non-accumulation phase, that equates to the government being entitled to 100% of your income and then allocating 85% to you - to compensate you for your hard work and intelligence. Prior to the new proposed legislation there were no tax obligations for people earning over 100K in the non-accumulation phase of their retirement, so to suggest that these same people are avoiding an obligation is totally incorrect. As you mentioned finicky, you have not followed the debate, but without trying to personally denigrate you, it is ignorant people such as yourselves which can indirectly cause damage by supporting poor government decisions and some argue, immoral laws such as this. Your premise is incorrect - you need to revisit it.
The government's always had aclaim on some of your money unless youre a retired politician Wasn't there a period where there was an opportunity to put a million dollars or so into your SMSF and a couple could put in $2m? Why should someone retired outside the superannuation system have all their income taxed normally and the SMSF get so much quarantined?
You answered this above...... If we systematically penalise everyone retiring under super to make things "fair" for those who don't, and then repeat this reasoning going forward through the generations to even the historical score, then isn't this defeating the purpose of super?
I have been extremely sceptical about super and this latest move by the Govt just reaffirms my beliefs that by the time I reach retirement age (if there is such a thing in 30yrs time!!) the Government will have raided so much of it that it won't be worth squat!
Ouch, 100 year anniversary in 2 years Funny - it always seems to coincide with a war. That's why we have a permanaent "War on ..." now.
Wasn't it introduced to help pay for the Australian deployments to Europe & The Middle East to battle in World War 1?
This (below) is their survey demographic. They haven't had enough and want MORE. And if you have to give up yours so that they can have it...well that's just fine by them.
It's probly the alcohol talking but its threads like these that make me want to say "jees, I luv yous guys"
