Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Pushka]

So? Any reason why you shouldn't? Not sure what you mean by "already paying the same taxes". Its a Super Fund, it is taxed as such. Whether it is managed by Joe Bloggs or a compuhypermegaglobal fund manager is irrelevant.

FWIW, a well managed SMSF can delay paying the contributions tax till after the financial year (unlike retail funds who deduct tax from accounts every month/quarter) and a fair chunk of it can be negated by franking credits.

I have no issue with paying super fund taxes. And what you say is correct. It should make no difference as to which Trustee is managing the Super Fund as to how it is taxed. That, is exactly my point. But what Gillard wants to do is to Tax, only SMSF funds, differently to all other Super Funds.

As to your second point, our Super Fund is required to pay its (estimated) tax quarterly, through BAS, based on the previous years return. So exactly the same as larger Funds have to do. But they too can delay their Annual Tax return. And all Super Funds benefit from franking credits, so again, this is not the sole domain of SMSF.

So, you see, you actually agree with me that what Gillard wants to do is wrong.

 

[medhead]

They are saying it will apply to all SMSF with funds over 1 million dollars. The taxes wont be applied retrospectively, but this will impact on any future investment strategies

I think it would have to be $1 million per beneficiary. I've also heard a couple of options a) increase the tax on fund earnings, or increase tax on contributions. Or both I guess.

Option a) would seem most applicable if they are talking about value of fund as a criterion. You could have low income earners with large balances and vice versa. I really don't see any benefit in changing investment strategy in this case, well unless you are going to get the earnings down to zero. Zero earnings would defeat the whole purpose of savings.

Option b) I guess you might want to decrease your contributions to the fund. But I would have thought an income trigger would be more appropriate, as per above reason. Still if they increase the contributions tax to 30% and you're paying 40%+ income tax you'd probably still be ahead with super contributions.

 

[Pushka]

I think it would have to be $1 million per beneficiary. .

Well, the Australian is reporting it as more than $1 million in Assets. That isn't much if there are more than 2 members in the Fund and you are in your fifties.

 

[SQ421]

So, you see, you actually agree with me that what Gillard wants to do is wrong.

IF what The Oz is reporting is factual and IF Gillard indeed wants to create separate tax regime that applies only to SMSF's as opposed to applying across the board above a certain threshold, then yes, I agree its a wrong approach.

If on the other hand, the increased tax threshold applies to all funds with more than x$ per beneficiary (be it $1mil or $5mil or $10mil) regardless of whether its a retail fund or a SMSF then thats no different to Tony Abbott's plan to remove superannuation related concessions for people making under a certain threshold. Each of them is drawing a line somewhere. Some like it. Some don't.

Then again, considering Gillard refused to go along with a a two tiered company tax regime that Greens suggested, after the party of low taxation refused to back her reduction of company tax rate (going aginast their own stated agenda, might I add), I don't see her or the ALP singling out a particular type of Super Fund (in this case, the SMSF) for a different tax regime.

 

[amaroo]

IF what The Oz is reporting is factual and IF Gillard indeed wants to create separate tax regime that applies only to SMSF's as opposed to applying across the board above a certain threshold, then yes, I agree its a wrong approach.

If on the other hand, the increased tax threshold applies to all funds with more than x$ per beneficiary (be it $1mil or $5mil or $10mil) regardless of whether its a retail fund or a SMSF then thats no different to Tony Abbott's plan to remove superannuation related concessions for people making under a certain threshold. Each of them is drawing a line somewhere. Some like it. Some don't.

Then again, considering Gillard refused to go along with a a two tiered company tax regime that Greens suggested, after the party of low taxation refused to back her reduction of company tax rate (going aginast their own stated agenda, might I add), I don't see her or the ALP singling out a particular type of Super Fund (in this case, the SMSF) for a different tax regime.

Whatever they end up doing with super lets hope they do the right thing & apply it equally to all citizens.......starting with politicians & judges.

No matter how you vote - the big two ALP & Lib/Nat are both avoiding the issue & enjoying startling benefits that the rest of us can only dream about.

Lib & ALP....they are both feeding of the public tit when it comes to super & their defined benefit schemes!

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

If Billy the pie man can get this over the line he deserves a big thumbs up........lets see if he's allowed to do it.

 

[medhead]

Well, the Australian is reporting it as more than $1 million in Assets. That isn't much if there are more than 2 members in the Fund and you are in your fifties.

I'd say its also bare minimum if there are 2 members. Sometimes the Oz stuffs up details. It really doesn't sound right.

 

[medhead]

Whatever they end up doing with super lets hope they do the right thing & apply it equally to all citizens.......starting with politicians & judges.

No matter how you vote - the big two ALP & Lib/Nat are both avoiding the issue & enjoying startling benefits that the rest of us can only dream about.

Lib & ALP....they are both feeding of the public tit when it comes to super & their defined benefit schemes!
.

Their defined benefit scheme has been closed. I hope your not suggesting that one group of employees in Australia should have employment conditions removed retrospectively.

 

[Pushka]

IF what The Oz is reporting is factual and IF Gillard indeed wants to create separate tax regime that applies only to SMSF's as opposed to applying across the board above a certain threshold, then yes, I agree its a wrong approach.

If on the other hand, the increased tax threshold applies to all funds with more than x$ per beneficiary (be it $1mil or $5mil or $10mil) regardless of whether its a retail fund or a SMSF then thats no different to Tony Abbott's plan to remove superannuation related concessions for people making under a certain threshold. Each of them is drawing a line somewhere. Some like it. Some don't.

Then again, considering Gillard refused to go along with a a two tiered company tax regime that Greens suggested, after the party of low taxation refused to back her reduction of company tax rate (going aginast their own stated agenda, might I add), I don't see her or the ALP singling out a particular type of Super Fund (in this case, the SMSF) for a different tax regime.

It particularly targets SMSF. It will not apply to Fund Managers. So I guess maybe you don't know her so well after all, hey?
And of course, as medhead said, let's hope they got this one wrong.

 

[browski]

I'd say its also bare minimum if there are 2 members. Sometimes the Oz stuffs up details. It really doesn't sound right.

Believing anything from The Australian newspaper is like believing the Victorian Police Association's version of another civilian shooting.

 

[Hvr]

Believing anything from The Australian newspaper is like believing the Victorian Police Association's version of another civilian shooting.

Heck The Australian says Abbott is competent.

 

[Pushka]

Yes, you're right. We shouldn't believe anything that The Australian says

 

[amaroo]

Their defined benefit scheme has been closed. I hope your not suggesting that one group of employees in Australia should have employment conditions removed retrospectively.

Did you read the article?

Here's another Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

This is not a swipe at ALP or Libs/Nats. It's a comment on all of them.

 

[SQ421]

It particularly targets SMSF. It will not apply to Fund Managers. So I guess maybe you don't know her so well after all, hey?
And of course, as medhead said, let's hope they got this one wrong.

According to The Australian, it targets SMSF.

Have you got a link to the draft legislation? If not then its mere speculation on part of The Austrlian that you are running with.

 

[SQ421]

If Anything, its the Abbott/Hockey duo that has been going on about reducing the tax free threshold back to 6000

One of them said as much this morning, and the other then stated unequivocally that taxes will always be lower under a coalition government.

Hmmm... this, despite one of their major election promises being funded by a tax on businesses. And ofcourse by tax I mean a levy.

Yes, you're right. We shouldn't believe anything that The Australian says

View attachment 13373

 

[eastwest101]

If Anything, its the Abbott/Hockey duo that has been going on about reducing the tax free threshold back to 6000

Are you saying that the carbon tax will raise enough revenue to pay for the increase in the personal Tax Free threshold? Was that Treasury Modelling that did that by any chance? You know - the same treasury modelling that predicted $7bn revenue down to $1.5bn revenue before refusing to disclose for a while and now for the first 6 months its current numbers.

And you may want to warn the guys in the Australian and maybe the Treasurer that Combet has reduced the carbon tax revenues seeing as apparently the Australian can never tell the truth:

From today's Business Spectator: Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has indicated the government use this year's federal budget to lower revenue forecasts for the carbon tax, in the wake of modelling showing carbon prices could be on the decline, according to The Australian Financial Review

Sound familiar?

 

[SQ421]

Are you saying that the carbon tax will raise enough revenue to pay for the increase in the personal Tax Free threshold?

The Low Income Tax Offset (LITO),which effectively gave a tax free threshold of $16,500; was removed while raising the tax free threshold to 18,000, along witih adjustment in other tax brackets to make up for the "lost revenue" from that $1500 effective increase in tax free threshold. This reduced the paperwork for scores of low income earners. Despite being sold as such, Carbon Tax had almost nothing to do with increasing the tax free threshold to $18,000.

Now Joe talks of reducing the threshold while making no mention of bringing back the LITO.

Not sure why you mention the Carbon Tax but since Abbott has promised he plans to scrap the Carbon Tax ( reduction in revenue) and the MRRT (again, reduction in revenue) while bringing back the 30% health insurance rebate (thus, an increased expenditure) and a SQ Suites paid parental leave scheme (increased expenditure + lost revenue via lost income tax receipts) while delivering a surplus every year, it sure begs the question Just what programs will the Coalition Government cut to ensure their expenditure is even lower than their reduced revenue.

I guess reducing the tax free threshold back to $6000 (while forgetting to bring back the LITO) would go some way in closing that gap. Then there's the 1.5% tax, oops levy on businesses to fund the paid parental leave, coming from the so called party that best understands small businesses.

Something doesn't add up in all the Coalition talk and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

It may well be that they think the Election is theirs for the taking with little effort, in which case the only real losers are the Australian people.

 

[Pukka]

And yet not a word about Abbott removing super tax benefits for low income earners? Wonder why?

Well if they're penalizing the top end seems only fair enough to penalize the lower end too.

We're all in this together and everyone had to pull their weight etc etc isn't that the socialist mantra.

I am sick to death of Gillard's class warfare and I'm looking forward to the boot being on the other foot.

The right one

 

[eastwest101]

The Low Income Tax Offset (LITO),which effectively gave a tax free threshold of $16,500; was removed while raising the tax free threshold to 18,000, along witih adjustment in other tax brackets to make up for the "lost revenue" from that $1500 effective increase in tax free threshold. This reduced the paperwork for scores of low income earners. Despite being sold as such, Carbon Tax had almost nothing to do with increasing the tax free threshold to $18,000.

So you accept that "Despite being sold as such, carbon Tax had almost nothing to do with increasing the tax free threshold to $18K." No argument from me - but perhaps you had better tell the Assistant Treasurer that, as claimed by him on a Sky News interview this morning:

"Joe Hockey's plans - if you unwind the mining tax, you unwind the carbon price - is to unwind the tripling of the tax free threshold," Mr Bradbury told Sky News

Not sure why you mention the Carbon Tax but since Abbott has promised he plans to scrap the Carbon Tax ( reduction in revenue) and the MRRT (again, reduction in revenue) while bringing back the 30% health insurance rebate (thus, an increased expenditure) and a SQ Suites paid parental leave scheme (increased expenditure + lost revenue via lost income tax receipts) while delivering a surplus every year, it sure begs the question Just what programs will the Coalition Government cut to ensure their expenditure is even lower than their reduced revenue.

The last time I checked, the ALP are the ones whom have been in government since 2007 and it is incumbent on the Treasurer to announce policies that will ensure their expenditure is less than their revenue otherwise they will go further into defecit.

This is playing out exactly as I predicted with a "kite flying" excercise on possible additional taxation on Superannuation and a subsequent "class warfare" distraction campaign to distract from all the previous problems that the federal government has.

The thing I don't get is - why pick a fight with the superannuation industry and anyone coming close to retirement?

 

[drron]

A good comment I saw today was that we have a great choice in September between-
1/A government that wants to buy your vote and fund it by raising taxes on their enemies or
2/An opposition that wants to buy your vote and fundit by raising taxes on their enemies.

 

[SQ421]

So you accept that "Despite being sold as such, carbon Tax had almost nothing to do with increasing the tax free threshold to $18K." No argument from me - but perhaps you had better tell the Assistant Treasurer that, as claimed by him on a Sky News interview this morning:

"Joe Hockey's plans - if you unwind the mining tax, you unwind the carbon price - is to unwind the tripling of the tax free threshold," Mr Bradbury told Sky News

I'm sure Joe will come out and correct Bradbury on that front. And declare that despite his utterances to the contrary, there will, in fact, be no rollback of the tax free threshold.

The last time I checked, the ALP are the ones whom have been in government since 2007 and it is incumbent on the Treasurer to announce policies that will ensure their expenditure is less than their revenue otherwise they will go further into defecit.

The last I checked, ALP had (thankfully, rightly) given up their pie in the sky dream of attaining surplus this year. And its Joe and the Liberals, and not the Government, that have been beating their chests about attaining a surplus each and every year; without realising that Hockey is no Costello, and Howard hasn't left much in the coffers to sell.

I've never quite understood the obsession people have with the Government achieving surplus, and then comparing the balancing of Government Budget to balancing ones personal finances. Thankfully, it hasn't reached the proportions seen in the states yet, despite sections of the Liberal Party taking on a distinctly Tea Party like flavour.

This is playing out exactly as I predicted with a "kite flying" excercise on possible additional taxation on Superannuation and a subsequent "class warfare" distraction campaign to distract from all the previous problems that the federal government has.

It's The Australian that is apparently raising that issue of additional taxation on superannuation and the class warfare stemming from it.

The thing I don't get is - why pick a fight with the superannuation industry and anyone coming close to retirement?

Hard decisions are going to be made, and no party will please everyone. Despite being in a bracket that will benefit from Abbott's tax cuts and rebates, I can't find myself agreeing to what his "vision" is for this country, and as if it came down to a dichotomy between ALP's "proposed" increased tax on Super Balances beyond a certain threshold against Abbotts reduction or abolishment of Superannuation related tax concessions for those at the lower end of the income spectrum, I know where I stand.