The Black Swan and class warfare

[nonrecourse]

Just a short note to all you stackers with adjusted taxable incomes over $300,000 from Uncle Swanee.:lol:
Superannuation contributions will be taxed at 30% rather than 15%. For those of you less than 50, if you contribute $25,000, this means an extra $3,750 paid by your superannuation fund. For those of you 50 or over who contribute $50,000 this means an extra $7,500.

Note that adjusted taxable income includes your taxable income plus adding back negative gearing, reportable fringe benefits, reportable superannuation contributions (those above the 9% SGC), exempt foreign income and exempt pension payments that are not even included in the tax return for those 60 and over.

Although the government considers this to affect only 128,000 taxpayers or 1.2% of workers who contribute to superannuation, I feel it will affect far more.

Note that this will be formerly announced in the Budget on May 8 and will apply from 1 July 2012.

You don't want to get between your super pot of gold and those thieving lying bastards,..... You better start planning now if your over 55 how to get your money out before 65 because the tax free pension you have built up is going to be taken away. There are regular articles in the financial rieview about forcing people to take an annuity and banning lump sums



Kind Regards
non recourse

 

[mmm....shiney!]

There are regular articles in the financial rieview about forcing people to take an annuity and banning lump sums

Just in case anyone thought their super was their own.

 

[Byron]

There are regular articles in the financial rieview about forcing people to take an annuity and banning lump sums

Just in case anyone thought their super was their own.

I seriously want to look at buying property through Super, as lumps sums will surely be banned sooner or later.

 

[Nugget]

There are regular articles in the financial rieview about forcing people to take an annuity and banning lump sums

Just in case anyone thought their super was their own.

I seriously want to look at buying property through Super, as lumps sums will surely be banned sooner or later.

I'm no expert. Far from it in fact. However I do believe that Super funds are required to liquidate a specific dollar percentage of assets each year. Saying "but it's a house and a house isn't fungible" won't excuse your super fund from being non-compliant. Not sure if what the repercussions of that are

 

[hiho]

cheers for the heads up NR, time to move abroad me thinks

 

[Byron]

Just in case anyone thought their super was their own.

I seriously want to look at buying property through Super, as lumps sums will surely be banned sooner or later.

I'm no expert. Far from it in fact. However I do believe that Super funds are required to liquidate a specific dollar percentage of assets each year. Saying "but it's a house and a house isn't fungible" won't excuse your super fund from being non-compliant. Not sure if what the repercussions of that are

Thanks for that. I have only started looking into this as i don't fancy not being able to access my cash as a lump sum when i retire.

Especially if i am relying on that cash to pay off a mortgage.

If people invest in property though super there must be some way to get around this.

 

[jparrie]

those thieving lying bastards

Class warfare at its very best. I could add a few choice words to your description nonrecourse.

 

[Nugget]

I seriously want to look at buying property through Super, as lumps sums will surely be banned sooner or later.

I'm no expert. Far from it in fact. However I do believe that Super funds are required to liquidate a specific dollar percentage of assets each year. Saying "but it's a house and a house isn't fungible" won't excuse your super fund from being non-compliant. Not sure if what the repercussions of that are

Thanks for that. I have only started looking into this as i don't fancy not being able to access my cash as a lump sum when i retire.

Especially if i am relying on that cash to pay off a mortgage.

If people invest in property though super there must be some way to get around this.

Again, I'm no expert, not even close. I'm thinking that you wouldn't just have investment properties in your private Super fund so you'd be cashing in the fungible parts of your super fund. Note that if you do have to say sell some silver to meet the rules you can always sell it to yourself. Basically you'd be moving fungible assets from the Super fund (and it's tax and legislative shelter) to another portfolio you control. Maybe if the investment property was set up as a company with shares? I don't know and I'm just thinking out aloud however I'm sure there is a way around it but I guess it's one of those area's you'd want to have done your homework before you went ahead with it.

 

[nonrecourse]

Again, I'm no expert, not even close. I'm thinking that you wouldn't just have investment properties in your private Super fund so you'd be cashing in the fungible parts of your super fund. Note that if you do have to say sell some silver to meet the rules you can always sell it to yourself. Basically you'd be moving fungible assets from the Super fund (and it's tax and legislative shelter) to another portfolio you control. Maybe if the investment property was set up as a company with shares? I don't know and I'm just thinking out aloud however I'm sure there is a way around it but I guess it's one of those area's you'd want to have done your homework before you went ahead with it.

Very good nugget. The investment properties were set up in a unit trust. There was a court case Trevisan vs ATO way back in the 1980's and early 1990's. The high court ruled in favour of the Trevisan family in 1991. The tax office hated them because you could borrow through them and SMSF's use them to buy commercial property. They were outlawed after much misinformation about them being a rort in 1999. About 10,000 of them still exist. Those who had one were grandfathered and given until June 2009 to pay out the mortgages.

Kind Regards
non recourse

 

[Byron]

I'm no expert. Far from it in fact. However I do believe that Super funds are required to liquidate a specific dollar percentage of assets each year. Saying "but it's a house and a house isn't fungible" won't excuse your super fund from being non-compliant. Not sure if what the repercussions of that are

Thanks for that. I have only started looking into this as i don't fancy not being able to access my cash as a lump sum when i retire.

Especially if i am relying on that cash to pay off a mortgage.

If people invest in property though super there must be some way to get around this.

Again, I'm no expert, not even close. I'm thinking that you wouldn't just have investment properties in your private Super fund so you'd be cashing in the fungible parts of your super fund. Note that if you do have to say sell some silver to meet the rules you can always sell it to yourself. Basically you'd be moving fungible assets from the Super fund (and it's tax and legislative shelter) to another portfolio you control. Maybe if the investment property was set up as a company with shares? I don't know and I'm just thinking out aloud however I'm sure there is a way around it but I guess it's one of those area's you'd want to have done your homework before you went ahead with it.

NR,

Haven't you bought most of your properties through a unit trust controlled by your SMSF?

Is this the only way to purchase and own an investment property through super?

Can you use the funds in your SMSF to pay down a loan on one of those properties? Or freely move funds between the unit trust and SMSF?

This is the part i have trouble understanding.

 

[nonrecourse]

NR,

Haven't you bought most of your properties through a unit trust controlled by your SMSF?

Is this the only way to purchase and own an investment property through super?

Can you use the funds in your SMSF to pay down a loan on one of those properties? Or freely move funds between the unit trust and SMSF?

This is the part i have trouble understanding.

What we did is no longer available it was stopped in 1999 and anyone who had the Trevisan Trust model were grandfathered.

Since 2007 you have been able to buy property via a bare trust with a limited recourse loan. Unfortunately not as flexible as the old Trevisan Trust arrangement and the egg heads in treasury hated them.

Somewhat "safer with the bare trust' because the bank only has recourse to the property nothing else in your super fund. When the property is paid off you can transfer it to super fund with no stamp duty or capital gains.

When we did it back in the early 90's we knew very little and were guided by our family solicitor who was spot on. Four different sets of accountants tried to tell us it was illegal... it wasn't.

We were like everyone else on this site feeling our way. That is why in my thread 101 I advocate setting up an smsf even if you are an employee and start to learn how trusts work, do an investment plan and start the journey to fiscal literacy.

I am not qualified to give advice but I am happy to give you my opinion. Many investment advisors work for the banks and insurance companies and are wage slaves. The RG 146 qualification to be an investment advisor is a joke.

Kind Regards
non recourse

 

[Kawa]

So Labour creates more confusion and uncertainty regarding super and a view in peoples minds that it may be risky ( as the rules chage every two years) so we can fund millions who have never considered to think to provide for their own retirement.

Wayne Swan and this Government are a fucking disgrace.The sooner they go the better.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

I'm no expert. Far from it in fact. However I do believe that Super funds are required to liquidate a specific dollar percentage of assets each year. Saying "but it's a house and a house isn't fungible" won't excuse your super fund from being non-compliant. Not sure if what the repercussions of that are

Where did you read that

 

[Elemental]

Once a super fund is in pension phase there is a minimum amount that needs to be paid out to the members (a percentage that changes with age and the % is also changing due to legislation) about 3-5% of the value of total member assets.

This is a minimum and it must be paid out which is why funds need a certain amount of cash. Failure to pay the minimum is a breach that could make the fund non-complying.

You DO NOT want your SMSF to be made a non-complying fund as that means the fund is taxed at 46.5% and from memory it's not 46.5% tax on the income it's on the value of assets in the fund. That is, you say bye bye to circa 50% of the funds assets.