Jump to content

SUPERANNUATION


starwoman

Recommended Posts

In reply to: bloodclot on Saturday 13/05/06 09:49am

BC

 

You could well be right but I think the 50K limit will be on the contributor, not the recipient. In other words you can direct your 50K to your partner's account but 50K is all you can contribute to super in a tax year (pre-tax).

 

Over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 591
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

you are correct....it is $50,000 per person

 

and $100,587 tax deductible cont per person for those 50+ til 2012.... splitting does not take advantage of 2x $100,587....or 2x $50,000.

 

I think the $150,000 limit on UDC is a bit rich, retrospective to 9 May. For those who have sold properties in order to contribute proceeds into super...and are mid implementation....its an issue....though the averaging over 3 years maye help enabling $450,000 yr 1, and $0 yr 2 & 3.

 

also enabling people to cash super in tax free....what a worry, back to the days of pulling huge $$$ out tax free, buying a $2million mansion....then living on the government Age pension. They will have to look at this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMH

 

Just imagine ATM access to your super account. Sit on the pokies and draw it out....

 

It's industry consultation time which really means Costello getting other people to think through the consequences of what's been proposed. I'm sure they must have looked at ways to continue to encourage pensions rather than lump sums and this it seems like they've given up - too hard.

 

Over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: bloodclot on Saturday 13/05/06 10:49am

You have to be careful about splitting, there have been some nasty cases in the divorce courts over who has what share of the super.

 

Same with family trusts, the trustee might take a fancy to the young nurse and redirect some funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: rog on Saturday 13/05/06 06:24pm

I think the other half already has access to half my super. If I were to take a fancy to some young nurse I'm damn sure she would http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif .

 

If you can only contribute 50K per person, per annum, (perhaps http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/wink.gif ) then the new system worse than the old for high cash flow individuals.

 

Apparently the draft document is nearly a hundred pages - plenty of mind numbing detail to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: bloodclot on Saturday 13/05/06 08:43pm

BC: If you can only contribute 50K per person, per annum, (perhaps ) then the new system worse than the old for high cash flow individuals.

 

JMH: I think the $150,000 limit on UDC is a bit rich, retrospective to 9 May. For those who have sold properties in order to contribute proceeds into super.

---------------------------------------

These two points alone are major negatives for me and may offset the other advantages. Can't wait for some definitive statements from our super professionals! http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/wacko.gif

 

I wonder what the options are for those who have recently started allocated pensions? Can these be converted (or do they need to be?)

 

We sure do live in interesting times. Still plenty of work for the advisors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Badger

 

I think there'll be some transitonal compromises made for those who were close to retirement and about to contribute large sums and for those who have entered into TAPs and now probably wish they hadn't. Also there is some talk of averaging the 150,000 UDC limit over 3 years. Looking ahead though, the plans to stuff large sums into Super at the last minute will have to be adjusted to provide a more gradual flow (negative for investment properties?).

 

And I still think removal of tax on lump sums wil linevitably lead to people spending up big in the early retirement years then living off the Govt - have they really thought this through?

 

Over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (oversold @ Sunday 14/05/06 02:08pm)

Sounds like they got it @R$e about.Should be tax free in not out.Treat earnings as earnings and tax them then, sure make it a bit favourable as a self funded retiree but the binge spend is on the cards for some I have no doubt.

 

What they have done maybe is poor policy but good politically.Who pushing sixty would not vote for them if they have some super stashed away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (forrestgump @ Wednesday 17/05/06 08:47am)

Agree entirely with your sentiments Forrest, you must be around my vintage! The bit I don't like to think about are the predator packs no doubt already working out ways to separate naive people from their newly accessible super money, along the way generating the usual rash of "Ain't it awful" 60 Minute programs and Tut-tutting from the media.

 

As for people with only meagre super having a once-in-a-lifetime trip before the pension, good luck to them - it's their decision! (After June 2006).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: forrestgump on Wednesday 17/05/06 08:47am

Well said Mr Gump and I fully agree,,,,,However being an anarchist at heart I do not trust future governments not to reintroduce punitive laws on what we contribute now. even to the extent that taxation will go so far as to be more of a confiscation. Still like to have a foot in both camps,not all eggs in one basket, hedge my bets, Cheers Hawkeye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...