Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

[ShinyStuff]

What if we got rid of "typical ALP socialism" and scrapped concessional tax for super contributions and dumped the old aged pension as well? .

Bring it on bud. That's the first sensible thing you have written.

Well, I guess welcome to the 19th century then.

Mind the typhoid.

But it will mean that neighbours look out for one another, living in one home with an extended family, simple pleasures and less of a hectic pace.

I for one will give it a go.... just make sure I wash my hands a lot and eat some dirt everyday (with my organic carrots I grow) to keep up my immunity!

 

[wrcmad]

Mind the typhoid.

No worries there. I already pay my own way on that front too - private health insurance.

 

[Big A.D.]

Mind the typhoid.

No worries there. I already pay my own way on that front too - private health insurance.

You don't happen to receive a rebate from the government for a portion of that, do you?

 

[errol43]

Ah! Remember the old parliamentary super scheme...Stay in for only 9years and get a pension for life. Along comes Latham and low and behold an election coming up so they changed it to any politician getting elected wouldbe on the same scheme as the average Australian worker paying 9% of their salary.

That didn't last long..The percentage paid in now into the politicians super by the taxpayer is at least double.

Lets have a level playing field for all Australians paying super.

One change that should be made immediately is that all casual workers who contribute only a token amount in their early years of employment should not be charged management fees until their overall super contributions reach a total of $10k. I know of young workers who have paid less than $2K in super loosing the lot in yearly fees. What a great way to encourage low paid workers to believe in super.

Regards Errol 43

 

[Big A.D.]

Out of interest, is there anyone here from the 0.4% of the population that will be getting less of a tax discount on their super contributions?

Or is it just the 1% Fan Club speaking? (And that's fine if it is. Marius Kloppers, Gail Kelly and Mike Smith really need your support on this one!)

 

[Big A.D.]

Lets have a level playing field for all Australians paying super.

One change that should be made immediately is that all casual workers who contribute only a token amount in their early years of employment should not be charged management fees until their overall super contributions reach a total of $10k. I know of young workers who have paid less than $2K in super loosing the lot in yearly fees. What a great way to encourage low paid workers to believe in super

How about this: you let casual workers put money into a Superannuation Bank Account.

Call it a Mini-SMSF.

That's it.

All cash. One bank account.

 

[wrcmad]

Mind the typhoid.

No worries there. I already pay my own way on that front too - private health insurance.

You don't happen to receive a rebate from the government for a portion of that, do you?

No. I consider it a partial refund of the bu!!5hit Medicare Levy (Tax) that I still have to pay and never use.

 

[willrocks]

I've read somewhere (not too long ago), that within the next few years the Gov will make investment in Gov Bonds, or a fund run by the Gov that will invest in infrastructure (as if we don't pay enough already). The article suggested they'll start off making 5% compulsory, and ratchet it up from there.

The Gov fund will be similar to: http://www.futurefund.gov.au/

 

[nonrecourse]

That is why you need to have an SMSF. If you have control of the funds you have time to see what is occurring and if need be invest your funds overseas just before you go on an overseas holiday and never return

Kind Regards
non recourse

 

[jparrie]

They are already expropriating funds from Super to fund their budget, via an additional 15% tax for those earning over $300k. Or is that not included because they are so "rich" (and don't need the money)?

If you're earning $300k/year, you're now paying 30% on concessional contributions for the portion of your income that is over $300k instead of 15%.

Incorrect. If you earn $300k or above you are charged 30% tax on your entire Super contribution, not just the amount earned over $300k. And over $25k you pay the top rate anyway. Just conveniently forget that we also pay a higher percentage tax as a proportion of our overall earnings anyway, but that's just an inconvenient truth, isn't it?

Out of interest, is there anyone here from the 0.4% of the population that will be getting less of a tax discount on their super contributions?

Or is it just the 1% Fan Club speaking? (And that's fine if it is. Marius Kloppers, Gail Kelly and Mike Smith really need your support on this one!)

Just out of interest, what is the 0.4% group? I've heard figures bandied about that would put me in the 1% group, but just don't know for sure?

 

[Big A.D.]

They are already expropriating funds from Super to fund their budget, via an additional 15% tax for those earning over $300k. Or is that not included because they are so "rich" (and don't need the money)?

If you're earning $300k/year, you're now paying 30% on concessional contributions for the portion of your income that is over $300k instead of 15%.

Incorrect. If you earn $300k or above you are charged 30% tax on your entire Super contribution, not just the amount earned over $300k. And over $25k you pay the top rate anyway. Just conveniently forget that we also pay a higher percentage tax as a proportion of our overall earnings anyway, but that's just an inconvenient truth, isn't it?

No, its just the bit over $300k.

And the "top rate" on contributions over $25k is still a discount to the normal tax rate.

Out of interest, is there anyone here from the 0.4% of the population that will be getting less of a tax discount on their super contributions?

Or is it just the 1% Fan Club speaking? (And that's fine if it is. Marius Kloppers, Gail Kelly and Mike Smith really need your support on this one!)

Just out of interest, what is the 0.4% group? I've heard figures bandied about that would put me in the 1% group, but just don't know for sure?

0.4% of the population earn over $300k/year and they're the ones who will have their tax discount reduced by, on average, about $7400 each.

That is, if we didn't have a superannuation system they'd be taxed more than that because there would be no discount rate at all and they'd be paying the top marginal tax rate on everything.

 

[jparrie]

Hmmm, interesting. You wouldn't have the source of those stats would you? I've looked in various places but can't find anything related to $300k+.

You are wrong about the reduced concession being only for earnings above $300k. If you hit earnings of $300k you get slugged 30% up to $25k. That's where the additional $3750 comes from. If you earn $299k you are unaffected.

If you exceed your concessional cap, then the excess concessional contributions are hit with penalty tax, in addition to the 30% tax now payable on contributions. (i.e, the top tax, no concession). The excess concessional contributions also count towards your non-concessional (after-tax) cap.

However, if an individual's income excluding their concessional contributions is less than the $300,000 threshold, but the inclusion of their concessional contributions pushes them over the threshold, the reduced tax concession will only apply to the part of the contributions that are in excess of the threshold. (tax office quote). This is probably what you are talking about.

 

[Kawa]

Hmmm, interesting. You wouldn't have the source of those stats would you? I've looked in various places but can't find anything related to $300k+.

You are wrong about the reduced concession being only for earnings above $300k. If you hit earnings of $300k you get slugged 30% up to $25k. That's where the additional $3750 comes from. If you earn $299k you are unaffected.

If you exceed your concessional cap, then the excess concessional contributions are hit with penalty tax, in addition to the 30% tax now payable on contributions. (i.e, the top tax, no concession). The excess concessional contributions also count towards your non-concessional (after-tax) cap.

However, if an individual's income excluding their concessional contributions is less than the $300,000 threshold, but the inclusion of their concessional contributions pushes them over the threshold, the reduced tax concession will only apply to the part of the contributions that are in excess of the threshold. (tax office quote). This is probably what you are talking about.

Either way, I get slugged, does that make you happy?

Mate I dont think talking about how much you earn on an open forum actually helps you with anything.There are plenty here that are not happy with the changes however it is what it is.

Vote Labour out at the next election and personally petition your local Liberal member that they will get your vote if they change the rules?

 

[jparrie]

So just shut up and take it up the a*s again? And again, and again?

Just correcting Big AD, he never responds when he's wrong.

 

[Big A.D.]

So just shut up and take it up the a*s again? And again, and again?

Just correcting Big AD, he never responds when he's wrong.

Sorry, I've been busy.

So basically you're complaining that you're going to pay 30% on a portion of your gross income rather than 45% on all of it?

 

[boston]

So just shut up and take it up the a*s again? And again, and again?

Just correcting Big AD, he never responds when he's wrong.

Incorrect.

 

[wrcmad]

So basically you're complaining that you're going to pay 30% on a portion of your gross income rather than 45% on all of it?

Oh, how to gild the lilly.

No, jparrie is complaining about the increased tax rate from 15% to 30%.

As for 45%, that is diabolical in any context.

 

[Kawa]

So just shut up and take it up the a*s again? And again, and again?

Definately would not recommend that.As previously highlighted this has created massive problems with the Greeks maintaining population growth rates.

 

[spannermonkey]

So just shut up and take it up the a*s again? And again, and again?

Definately would not recommend that.As previously highlighted this has created massive problems with the Greeks maintaining population growth rates.

:lol:

 

[jparrie]

So basically you're complaining that you're going to pay 30% on a portion of your gross income rather than 45% on all of it?

Given that I already pay 46.5% (+flood levy) on most of my income, and hence pay as a percentage far more than someone in a lower tax band, of course it isn't an equitable scheme. e.g someone on $100k pays just under 25% tax. Someone on $400k pays 38% tax.

So now because I get a greater benefit on $25k that too has to be increased to make it more "fair".

How is that fair?

Flat tax is fair.