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

jparrie said:
Big A.D. said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Fair?:lol::lol::lol:

Governments being fair ? Mate I have got some prime property to sell you situated in the Simson desert, Absolute beach front property

Kind Regards
non recourse
 
As much as I love going off topic, back to the original topic of the thread:

Do I think the Aus. gov. will attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private super? Short answer, No.

Caveats:
- They WILL attempt to tap large super funds to pay for pet infrastructure projects by changing the rules/incentives. X% must be in AAA-rated Govt bonds for example but there are many, many alternatives to obtain the same outcome.
- They WILL continually change the rules so that I will be very surprised if I will be able to access "my" super in any way that is significantly different from a mandated annuity.
- If they ever do actively expropriate, then I believe and pre-existing SMSF's will be the last that the Govt. will target as (from my understanding) it will require much broader changes to how trusts work which they will be hesitant to go that route. Instead they will effectively shut down the ability to set up new ones and target the industry funds instead.
 
Some very good predictions in this thread made back in 2012! I found it when looking for discussion on current super changes that have been proposed. Good job, stackers!

This one got almost everything right:
jpanggy said:
If we show symptoms of turning Japanese (uber long deflation), then government will likely:
increase age of pension, reduce govt contribution, tax the younger workforce more, eliminate lump sum payment, revamp medicare (reduce cost), maybe tax the elderly for existing. Etc etc.

But Australian population is small, so a simple immigration drive can "reduce" the average age. It depends on how much water we can provide though (desal should solve this issue).
Click to expand...

And this proposal has come up again:
willrocks said:
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).
Click to expand...

The "mandated annuity" comment below was prescient given a recommendation this year to do exactly that:
bordsilver said:
Do I think the Aus. gov. will attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private super? Short answer, No.

Caveats:
- They WILL attempt to tap large super funds to pay for pet infrastructure projects by changing the rules/incentives. X% must be in AAA-rated Govt bonds for example but there are many, many alternatives to obtain the same outcome.
- They WILL continually change the rules so that I will be very surprised if I will be able to access "my" super in any way that is significantly different from a mandated annuity.
- If they ever do actively expropriate, then I believe and pre-existing SMSF's will be the last that the Govt. will target as (from my understanding) it will require much broader changes to how trusts work which they will be hesitant to go that route. Instead they will effectively shut down the ability to set up new ones and target the industry funds instead.
Click to expand...

The 2015 recommondation is discussed here: http://forums.silverstackers.com/to...nnuation-payments-for-retirees-could-end.html

Extract:
 
Results not typical said:
Gillard has already publicly stated last year that she wants to release funds from the Australian super pool to allow it to be used by banks instead of it "just sitting" around.
Click to expand...

they could release my funds if they like. but she has a point- it'll still be just "sitting around"....in the form of gold bullion!
 
If I was 55 I would be getting my super and converting it to hard assets like real estate or pm. I simply don't trust government and never have.
 
Mintaka said:
If I was 55 I would be getting my super and converting it to hard assets like real estate or pm. I simply don't trust government and never have.
Click to expand...
That only works for people born before 1960 unfortunately :(
 
They may as well spend it.
Once cash rate hits below 2% the funds have no chance of getting there required 8-9%

May as well use the money to fund the corrupterments latest larceny
 
SilverPete said:
Mintaka said:
If I was 55 I would be getting my super and converting it to hard assets like real estate or pm. I simply don't trust government and never have.
Click to expand...
That only works for people born before 1960 unfortunately :(
Click to expand...

The ruling keep changing, how can you trust this thingz?
 
Maybe one day you can only purchase "safe assets" ie Australian government bond" with your super. Much like the american social security funds - made up entirely with US government bonds, AKA government spent the money and gave them IOUs
 
Hmmm, interesting discussion over the years. And now we have reached the point where the federal govt wants to restrict super balances to just $500k. Once all those "extra" billions are released from the safety of super, does that mean this money will be available to be "accessed" by the govt from savings/investments in an event of a national financial emergency?

Just asking...
 
I think this is an inevitability now. Can't have some citizens being privately wealthy when the have-nots are stuck on the pension.

Bye the way, have a look at Deutschebank's warnings on pensions if it should go under.
 
Anyone know of the government health industry super?
A very healthy paying one at that.
Many hospital employees are now retiring with millions in their super ....................taxpayer funded.
Wonder why it was a life time career? Because of super entitlements.

The scheme is no longer available for the new entering the industry, it is now a 2 tier system but those that were lucky enough to be employed prior to the change will still enjoy their remaining working life with more than double the 9%.

I wonder if the attempt to expropriate funds also include government employee super funds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top