Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

59 Pages (Click to Jump) V  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > »    
 
  
Reply to this topic

SUPERANNUATION, Discussing all aspects of Superannuation
lgrif
post Posted: Apr 6 2013, 04:20 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 516
Thanks: 53


Whilst the latest proposed super changes probably ain't gonna happen due to election & new Gov't, as usual the announcement is short of details in which to find the devil, re the proposed over $100000 earnings , extra %15 tax; let's say in 1st year of change the members share of TAXABLE income, (not allocated income) was a loss of $80000, year 2 a gain of $40000 & year 3 a gain of %$150000, is the year 1 loss plus year 2 shortfall below $100000, carry forward & deduct from the year 3 gain?.
If not then then in year 3, $7500 tax is paid although the average gain for 3 years is $36667.
If the members share of losses is allowed to be carried forward (more admin work & costs), what happens if he/she rolls into another super fund; does the old fund notify the new fund of C/forward losses for that member?
What happens if, to avoid the tax, a member splits his/her accumulated funds between two, three or more funds resulting in earnings of less than $100000 pa in any one fund? As this is so obvious legislation would somehow avoid this by grouping the members earnings, but it could be up to 12 months after years end before the ATO had the info to group the income. Does the ATO then notify the 3 funds to deduct & remit X% tax from the members applicable years taxable income? Well before this the member may have died & the fund Trustee distributed the balance.
dear Mr. Swan, KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID.


Said 'Thanks' for this post: flower  
 
Duster
post Posted: Apr 6 2013, 04:03 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 338


In Reply To: mrbear's post @ Apr 6 2013, 02:27 PM

QUOTE
A remark about public servants super being funded by the public purse would surely be wrong i imagine.

Where else do you think it comes from ???



--------------------
Patience is the key to success.

Said 'Thanks' for this post: wren  
 
mrbear
post Posted: Apr 6 2013, 02:27 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 787
Thanks: 152


In Reply To: wolverine's post @ Apr 6 2013, 02:11 PM

Yes wolver but with poor pollies you have to remember that their working life is short and of course they deserve a hugely generous lifetime pension that they contribute very little to,a case of don't do what i do do what i say methinks.

A remark about public servants super being funded by the public purse would surely be wrong i imagine.

I worked for local government and everyone including the ceo only got what benefits were paid into their accounts and they forced people out of defined benefits into the now normal super accounts cheers mrbear

 
wolverine
post Posted: Apr 6 2013, 02:11 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 10,059
Thanks: 878


In Reply To: Duster's post @ Apr 6 2013, 07:37 AM

Duster we were always talking about income tax not indirect taxes.

Australians are subject to the same taxes so there is nothing unique for pensioners on that front, the rest of us get the burden of income tax and all the indirect taxes....hmm seems fair blink.gif .

Overly generous politician super benefits is proof to me that there is a blind spot when it comes to self interest don't y'all think.



--------------------
TOO MANY CHIEFS

NOT ENOUGH INDIANS
 
Duster
post Posted: Apr 6 2013, 12:00 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 338


In Reply To: flower's post @ Apr 6 2013, 10:19 AM

And who pays it ? ...... WE DO !

And it's indexed against inflation.

The Australian Government has never fully funded its superannuation liabilities. One of the largest liabilities currently on the balance sheet are the superannuation liabilities for public sector employees, which stood at $235.4bn at the end of last FY, up 62% on the previous year.

The Gov is the only employer in the country that doesn't have to actually have to "pay" super on behalf of their employees.



--------------------
Patience is the key to success.

Said 'Thanks' for this post: flower  
 
flower
post Posted: Apr 6 2013, 10:19 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 12,991
Thanks: 1105


It took only a few hours for the Press to work out what federal pollies would need in superannuation capital to produce their uber generous pensions.

Making a rather brave assumption that both Gillard and Swan wont be in Parliament much after the September election:



Gillard would recive an annual pension of $177K which equals a lump sum saved of $5.3m

Swan..........................................................$168K......................................................$5m

So using their own words-----they are fabulously wealthy---and will be hoisted upon their own petards!



--------------------
Combining Fundamental comments with Fundamental charts.
 

sentifi.com

Share Cafe Sentifi Top themes and market attention on:


Duster
post Posted: Apr 6 2013, 07:57 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 338


In Reply To: Duster's post @ Apr 6 2013, 07:37 AM

And don't forget the carbon tax & god help him if he buys a European car. 7 series BMW in the US $90k ...... Here > $200k

I could fill these pages with indirect tax !



--------------------
Patience is the key to success.
 
Duster
post Posted: Apr 6 2013, 07:37 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 338


In Reply To: wolverine's post @ Apr 5 2013, 08:19 PM

QUOTE
Then you are not paying your fair share of tax on your income from your pension

I probably have to disagree W and although Flower may be paying no tax NOW on income from super, he paid tax when he earned an income throughout his working life, probably at a higher rate than now (to help support public servants & welfare slugs) 15% tax on contributions, tax at his marginal rate on non-concessional contributions & 15% tax on earnings prior to pension phase. On top of that, when he pulls his money out, it has to go somewhere and hence, is then taxable. When he spends it he pays 10% consumption tax & apart from all those things, I assume he isn't a burden on the tax system by receiving old age pension.
There are many other indirect taxes too ........ What about petrol and WET tax every time he buys a bottle of wine (29% from memory)- the list goes on



--------------------
Patience is the key to success.

Said 'Thanks' for this post: wren  jeeves  
 
mrbear
post Posted: Apr 5 2013, 09:07 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 787
Thanks: 152


In Reply To: wolverine's post @ Apr 5 2013, 08:19 PM

Hey wolver,just checking out the big words but cannot find it,as i remember wasn't bad but must have struck someones raw nerve,cheers mrbear


Said 'Thanks' for this post: wolverine  
 
wolverine
post Posted: Apr 5 2013, 08:19 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 10,059
Thanks: 878


In Reply To: flower's post @ Apr 5 2013, 07:47 PM

QUOTE
Yes, in SMSF pension phase, of course pay no tax

Then you are not paying your fair share of tax on your income from your pension exactly like I said. Why should I be ashamed of saying this?



--------------------
TOO MANY CHIEFS

NOT ENOUGH INDIANS

Said 'Thanks' for this post: jeeves  
 
 


59 Pages (Click to Jump) V  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > » 

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic


You agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


TERMS OF USE  -  CONTACT ADMIN  -  ADVERTISING