SMSF Sovereign Theft

N

nonrecourse

Well-Known Member
Just for your information if you and the wife have a home mortgage and and only a small amount of super do not salary sacrifice into super. Why? Because if you end up with $400,000 to $800,000 in super and just your home you will effectively be taxed at 150%. Because you own a home and have a small amount of super you are excluded from qualifying for a pension. I wont go into the maths just trust me.

The old age pension gives you a return of roughly what $1 million in interest/dividends etc yields.

The May 3rd 2016 budget took the best superannuation system for SMSFs and destroyed it.

We were lucky as we expected the hard labor to do the job but instead Mr Turncoat and his side kick Mr Moran along with the smiling vacuous bitch O'Dwyer has done Mr Short of an ideas bidding.

Many years ago we had a sage solicitor now deceased who urged us to set up our structures with the end in mind. We followed his advice and our super duper SMSF is no more. The super duper scam since July 1st is now underway with regulations that will ensure nothing is left for the poor suckers trapped in a system designed to fleece you under the guise of fairness.

I'm urging you to take your money and piss it up against the wall, have a good time because these lying thieving bastards want to control you. If you have nothing in super its just your poor employer who is the victim.

What you also need to understand is that the 1.6 million cap does not apply to the pollies or the treasury people who dreamed this up they are exempt. More on that in another post.

Nonrecourse
 
nonrecourse said:
Just for your information if you and the wife have a home mortgage and and only a small amount of super do not salary sacrifice into super. Why? Because if you end up with $400,000 to $800,000 in super and just your home you will effectively be taxed at 150%. Because you own a home and have a small amount of super you are excluded from qualifying for a pension. I wont go into the maths just trust me.
Click to expand...

At least provide references please?
 
nonrecourse said:
I'm urging you to take your money and piss it up against the wall, have a good time because these lying thieving bastards want to control you. Nonrecourse
Click to expand...

Woohoo...way ahead of the curve on this one :p
Lost it all in a boating accident anyway :cool:

PS. Good to see you back NR and thanks for the sage advice ;)
 
You can source the information from this link:

https://www.superguide.com.au/

For example, assuming Age Pension age is 65 years, a couple can secure a modest lifestyle ($34,560 a year) with hardly any private savings, because the FULL Age Pension for a couple is now $34,382 (applicable until 19 March 2017). Without the Age Pension, a couple would need a lump sum of $800,000 to deliver the equivalent annual retirement income of $34,560 (assuming retirement assets are generating a 3% return).
 
What is the super loophole that favours only pollies and senior public servants?
https://www.superguide.com.au/author/trish-power
The super loophole operates as follows: If an ex-politician or retired senior public servant receives a lifetime defined benefit pension from a public sector super fund (in the case of a politician the super fund is the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme), and he is not also a recipient of a super pension from another super fund, and he is under the age of 60, then he will not be affected by the $1.6 million transfer balance cap rules for the time he is under the age of 60.

All sitting politicians elected before 2004 belong to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme, and will be eligible for a defined benefit lifetime pension exceeding the equivalent of the $1.6 million transfer balance cap. If such a politician retires, or is voted out, before the age of 60, and he receives the DB lifetime pension only, then there will be no tax consequences for the politician in relation to the $1.6 million transfer balance cap. Even though the value of his defined benefit pension will be greater than $100,000 a year (and 16 times $100,000 means he has exceeded the $1.6 million transfer balance cap), he will have no administrative or financial consequences until he turns 60.

The loophole arises because the government has imposed extra tax on the benefit payments from defined benefit lifetime pensions received by Australians aged 60 years or over. Such pensions are received by retired politicians (elected before 2004), and older public servants, and in some cases, retired company executives. No financial consequences have been imposed on retired (or future retired) politicians or retired (or future retired) public servants who exceed the $1.6 million transfer balance cap, and are under the age of 60.

In contrast, all other Australians receiving super pensions under the age of 60, and with more than $1.6 million in retirement phase, are forced to deal with the $1.6 million transfer balance cap before July 2017. All other Australians who in the future intend to start a super pension before the age of 60, will not be permitted to have more than $1.6 million in retirement phase, unlike our long-term politicians and long-term senior public servants.
 
Sure is a lot of money - 75% of their salary - what is pollies retirement age? Can anyone get a definitive answer? Joe Hockey is 52! https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/retirement_age_for_politicians

"The majority of federal politicians who have announced their retirement this year will be paid annual pensions of at least $118,000 - and in some cases much more"

Perpetuity - does this mean a deceased pollies pension will be paid to their kin until when?

"It's understood the pension of Coalition MP Don Randall, who died last year, is being paid to his family."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...figure-pensions-for-life-20160303-gna6c1.html

Why?! Why are they allowed to receive a pension while still working?

"IT’S official. Former Treasurer Joe Hockey is a double dipper and will be able to top up his $360,000 salary as our new US ambassador with an estimated $90,000-a-year pension." http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...n/news-story/23de61aa0c4b53212caa8ba5d00f481a
 
You asked;Why?! Why are they allowed to receive a pension while still working?

Because they can. Did you not read Animal Farm?. The pigs have their snouts in the public trough.

There was no grandfather clause for people like the wife and i who complied with the legislation and are now told we have too much super.

What really enraged me was the total bullshit that we didn't pay our FAIR share of taxes in super. The truth is unlike wage slaves who have a tax free $18,600 in super we paid 15% from the first dollar contributed and 15% on the earnings. You need to be on a wage of around $45,000 before you are paying the same amount.

Before 1988 you didn't pay any tax in super until you retired and the tax rate was 5%. Keating was forced by the Lib/Nats to introduce the anti-detriment payment (see link explaining it below.
http://www.macquarie.com.au/dafiles...msf-toolkit/docs/fastfacts-anti-detriment.pdf

Of course the fiscal pygmies including the financial (sic) press will tell you it was a tax loop hole.

It was never a tax loophole as Keating admitted in Parliament when it was forced on the the Hawke government. To quote the treasurer of the time its so we don,t tax the dead.

In fact your beneficiaries could only claim it when you died.

So when some lying thieving politician they are all the same tell you the May 3rd 2016 budget was not retroactive ask him about his mates arrangements with his or her super and watch them squirm. Ask if there was no retroactivity why is it they are specifically exempt before the age of 60.

The one labor pollie i had a bit of time for was Mark Lathem as he started the job of removing the most outrageous benefits parliamentarians enjoy if elected after 2004
 
I'm only here for a few days. Am in Sunny Queensland as she has a reunion with 8 of her past work mates so its 9 women and me myself and I.

Back to work on Monday with no further contact possible. Have taken hold of the tail of a tiger with the new business I started 3 years ago.

Kind Regards
non recourse
 
Just watched Max Keiser & Stacey Herbert explain how the pension funds etc are being bundled along with derivatives into the latest scam which will collapse & take your life’s savings away.



Ever thought of converting some paper & digitals into real money?.


What a novel idea, Huh? _JLG.
 
Mr Abbott, as prime minister, on at least 12 separate occasions vowed not to make any adverse unexpected changes to superannuation, according to ABC Fact Check.

In 2013, he said the government should “respect the money that people have put aside in their superannuation savings and they shouldn’t fiddle with it, they shouldn’t tamper with it, they shouldn’t be changing the rules in adverse ways”.

Malcolm Turnbull has denied the changes constitute a broken promise.

“Well, the point is when Mr Abbott said that, he was talking about the term of government he was seeking to be elected to, that all of us were seeking to be elected to, in the 2013 election,” he said.

“We are on the eve of the 2016 election and what we are setting out is an economic plan for voters to approve or not at the 2016 election. This is submitting a new agenda.”
Click to expand...

A summary of the July 2017 superannuation changes which took effect from the start of the 2017/2018 year, is set out below:
Click to expand...
 
All Super is a Ponzi, it's ok if you are late 50's plus, but anyone under 40 will never see a cent of it. and even over 50's will see massive cuts, just look at 2008. Super and pension funds are always left buying the banks dodgy bonds as no private firm or people would.

And longtime between posts NR?
 
Pension Storm Coming: "This Will Become One Of The Most Heated Battles Of My Lifetime"


This issue is going to set neighbor against neighbor and retirees against taxpayers. It will become one of the most heated battles of my lifetime. It will make the Trump-Clinton campaigns look like a school kids’ tiddlywinks smackdown.

Solution = take your pension and convert it into ‘REAL MONEY’ – you know the stuff.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ll-become-one-most-heated-battles-my-lifetime


G S REAL_2.JPG
 
Golightly said:
All Super is a Ponzi, it's ok if you are late 50's plus, but anyone under 40 will never see a cent of it.
Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish.
My SMSF is a company owned by me. I control the funds. It has assets owned by my company producing revenue that goes to the company. I could even take the money and buy gold bars and stuff them under my mattress and the government can't stop me.
What's that, you don't have a SMSF? You're choice.
Even with a regular super fund, you still control where it is invested.
 
Golightly said:
All Super is a Ponzi, it's ok if you are late 50's plus, but anyone under 40 will never see a cent of it. and even over 50's will see massive cuts, just look at 2008. Super and pension funds are always left buying the banks dodgy bonds as no private firm or people would.

And longtime between posts NR?
Click to expand...
I will add to the above post by SilverDJ who addressed this comment. I am one of those who is in a retail fund. I chose a fund where you can invest pretty much where you like.

It is up to me to allocate my capital. In 2008 when the GFC arrived I could have taken my share allocation and just put it into cash but I chose not to do that. My portfolio then took a hit, it was my fault for not switching, not the super funds. All of us need to take control of our super funds. If you were smart enough to switch to cash in late 2007 then you would have profited all the way through the GFC. The point I'm trying to make here is that it's all about the choices you make.

Doing nothing and hoping for the best in a balanced fund is only going to give you normal market results. Same ups and downs with events like the GFC. It can all be avoided if people took more control of their Super.

To say "and even over 50's will see massive cuts" is not true. The only "cuts" I have is the fees I pay to the company that administers my super fund. I am happy to pay this fee so I do not have the legislative paper work and tax reporting that I would have to perform to do it myself. I am basically doing inside Super what I can do outside Super and that is to buy and sell shares when I want, change to fixed interest, cash, property or whatever I like. I can even buy the GOLD ETF or USD ETF if I want, it's all up to me.

To say "anyone under 40 will never see a cent of it", is also incorrect. I was in my 40's once and I beefed up my contributions. The more I put in, the more I was going to get at retirement. Now I am retired and I am drawing a pension every month from my Super Fund. It works well and I pretty much control it. It is still one of the best tax effective schemes you could possibly have and after the age of 60 all of it is tax free too.
 
SilverDJ said:
Absolute rubbish.
My SMSF is a company owned by me. I control the funds. It has assets owned by my company producing revenue that goes to the company. I could even take the money and buy gold bars and stuff them under my mattress and the government can't stop me.
What's that, you don't have a SMSF? You're choice.
Even with a regular super fund, you still control where it is invested.
Click to expand...

Re: The gold bars. No you cant, they have to be held in storage in a bank or vault, you aren't allowed to hold them. Also now your super will be drip fed back to you with new laws that don't allow a mass withdrawal despite it being 'Your money'
I don't partake in super at all anymore. Not even SMSF, I have my own business and will look after myself I don't need to pay shit tons of fees to have criminals mind my future for me,

I would love to know where the 8% yields are going to come from required to keep super in the black with a 1.75% cash rate. And you have a say in a general idea of where it goes, IE stock market, Property and the like but even that is a warped market because the Central banks and super funds are only ones left buying stocks in over valued companies like Apple, Property is in a massive bubble and cash is deflationary. So its like you have the choice of getting Aids or Cancer take your pick, All these issues have be caused by poor banking practices.
Everyone seems to forget 2008 fairly quickly I guess that's is what allows banks to rinse and repeat recessions every decade. It is always the pension funds that get sold the bed debts by the banks look at whats happening in the US

Time will tell I suppose
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top