Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[medhead]

I think even this statement is not accurate! It's not funds with earnings over $100k that will be taxed at 15 percent, it's earnings in funds over $100K that will be taxed at 15 percent, there's a $15K difference between the two. The first $100k in earnings appears to be tax free. It's only the earnings over $100K that get taxed.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[cove]

I know 7 who are affected immediately so the 16,000 Treasury number is a wild guess based on a 5% earnings which is a phoney idea.

 

[casanovawa]

Well as i think drron pointed out earlier in the thread, if even as the Govt forecasts, that $10 billion is planned to be raised over 10 years, those 16,000 people are going to have to be doing some serious paying out each on a regular basis... So can safely assume its going to hit more than that number...

 

[Moody]

So if my Super earns over $100K in a year, the additional earnings will be taxed at 15%?

That seems to me to be a very generouos tax-free threshold and a very low tax rate, but I would say that wouldn't I? I am not sitting on a balance that would generate anything like that sort of income.

Class warfare, of course, rather than winding back concessions for people who don't need them ..... but don't let me stop you from making fools of yourselves.

(Strike that ...... reverse it!)

 

[Pushka]

Moody as I said before we made one good investment decision on a superfund that had just $200k balance but which sold for a significant profit of over $100k. If you think having just over $300k in a super fund for 2 people makes you rich then you have rocks in your head. No tax would needed to have been paid under the old system but in the new rules even paying a pension then it will.

 

[Pukka]

Moody as I said before we made one good investment decision on a superfund that had just $200k balance but which sold for a significant profit of over $100k. If you think having just over $300k in a super fund for 2 people makes you rich then you have rocks in your head. No tax would needed to have been paid under the old system but in the new rules even paying a pension then it will.

But presumably it's profits over $100k per person not per superfund.

So a joint superfund (like I have) could earn $200k before its taxed.

If not we'll be getting separate SMSF's

 

[Pushka]

But presumably it's profits over $100k per person not per superfund.

So a joint superfund (like I have) could earn $200k before its taxed.

If not we'll be getting separate SMSF's

The devil is always in the detail.

 

[eastwest101]

Well as i think drron pointed out earlier in the thread, if even as the Govt forecasts, that $10 billion is planned to be raised over 10 years, those 16,000 people are going to have to be doing some serious paying out each on a regular basis... So can safely assume its going to hit more than that number...

If only 16,000 taxpayers were to be affected, and if the reforms passed parliment, then by my very rough calculations each one of those very lucky 16,000 people would be paying and extra $625,000 tax over the 10 years (or $62,500 each year) - assuming that the same pool of 16,000 people stays static and also assuming $10Bn of revenue actually is delivered - all of which are debateable.

 

[leemin]

Moody as I said before we made one good investment decision on a superfund that had just $200k balance but which sold for a significant profit of over $100k. If you think having just over $300k in a super fund for 2 people makes you rich then you have rocks in your head. No tax would needed to have been paid under the old system but in the new rules even paying a pension then it will.

I take your point on the total value of the fund (and agree), but from a broader perspective unrelated to any specific policies; why should your investment be CGT-free just because you've got it inside a SMSF, whereas if I was to do it as an individual, I would be liable for CGT?

Surely super should make it easier to save for retirement with some small incentives, not be an altogether tax dodge..

 

[amaroo]

Surely super should make it easier to save for retirement with some small incentives, not be an altogether tax dodge..

Lets hope they don't take a look at negative gearing!

 

[Hvr]

Lets hope they don't take a look at negative gearing!

What about salary sacrificing cars? Is there really any need for that at all? Especially with the car companies getting billions of dollars in taxpayer welfare with little or no return.

 

[leemin]

Lets hope they don't take a look at negative gearing!

Haha. I do! It's the biggest rort out there. But I'm a 22yo with no vested interests in the system as yet..

 

[whatmeworry]

If they took out salary sacrificing for cars and negative gearing for rental homes... Well their goes half our economy. I don't know how we wind back these loopholes/benefits without some big damage!

 

[amaroo]

But presumably it's profits over $100k per person not per superfund.

So a joint superfund (like I have) could earn $200k before its taxed.

If not we'll be getting separate SMSF's

AFAIK, that would only be the case if each member had an equal share of the $200k.

If your wife contributed $3 for every one of yours - then she is allocated 75% of the $200k.....you're sitting on $50k......she get whopped & you don't in a pure tax sense.

 

[Pukka]

AFAIK, that would only be the case if each member had an equal share of the $200k.

If your wife contributed $3 for every one of yours - then she is allocated 75% of the $200k.....you're sitting on $50k......she get whopped & you don't in a pure tax sense.

No I'm sure it's 50/50 although the contributions have not been exactly equal to the $

Jeez it's complicated though

 

[leemin]

If they took out salary sacrificing for cars and negative gearing for rental homes... Well their goes half our economy. I don't know how we wind back these loopholes/benefits without some big damage!

I wouldn't eliminate negative gearing completely, people would just use other means. I would reduce the allowable deduction to 30%, effectively treating it the same as a businesses allowable deductions. This would reduce the market distortion caused by favourable tax treatment to be the same as any other type of investment. However, it would require a reasonable lead-in time for people to adjust existing portfolios and to prevent any flooding of and subsequent depression in the market. But I don't think either side of politics has the electoral stomach for touching negative gearing.

 

[medhead]

If they took out salary sacrificing for cars and negative gearing for rental homes... Well their goes half our economy. I don't know how we wind back these loopholes/benefits without some big damage!

You avoid the damage by reducing tax rates to compensate enough to keep things moving. Personally, I'd remove all deductions and just cut the tax rate accordingly to bring in the same amount of cash or a bit more. Then redeploy a heap of the ATO into industry. Tax act cut down to about 30 pages.

 

[Pukka]

I wouldn't eliminate negative gearing completely, people would just use other means. I would reduce the allowable deduction to 30%, effectively treating it the same as a businesses allowable deductions. This would reduce the market distortion caused by favourable tax treatment to be the same as any other type of investment. However, it would require a reasonable lead-in time for people to adjust existing portfolios and to prevent any flooding of and subsequent depression in the market. But I don't think either side of politics has the electoral stomach for touching negative gearing.

I can't see anyone messing with negative gearing as it will force rents through the roof so to speak, so even those less well off (ie tenants)will suffer not just those benefitting from negative gearing.

 

[Alanslegal]

I just received my super fund statement and its in the 5 digit mark, so I am so glad you rich liberal people will fund my centrelink pension one day many thanks, a peasant labor supporter.

 

[Deleted member]

I just received my super fund statement and its in the 5 digit mark, so I am so glad you rich liberal people will fund my centrelink pension one day many thanks, a peasant labor supporter.

$199.99 ?