Superannuation Discussion + market volatility

[rogerkambah]

That's not as easy as it sounds. Brother has no interest and wife doesn't know what to do and no interest in learning.

JohnK You're just going to have to outlive everybody.

 

[Quickstatus]

So I’ve rarely seen a mention of mortgages. If the mortgage is on an investment property is that $ owing deducted from the calculation of the asset? And super amount is excluded?

Here is a good start
What assets count for the Age Pension assets test?

 

[JohnK]

JohnK You're just going to have to outlive everybody.

Now I have a wife and daughter I'd love to be with them as long as possible.

When I was single my number one wishlist was to live to 100 and be able to play golf on my birthday unassisted.

May still happen and if doesn't I won't know about it.

 

[cove]

Bill Shorten was able to move our Australian Stock Exchange market yesterday but not in a good way. His latest thought bubble is quite unhelpful in allowing people to take care of themselves in retirement.
I still think the age pension will only be available to a much smaller number of folks by 2050.

 

[PLANT]

Labour (the guys and girls in the back room) just lost the unlosable election with this policy.
All Labour had to do was say....."are you happy with your NBN and anyone seen Barneybe?"

 

[Quickstatus]

Bill Shorten was able to move our Australian Stock Exchange market yesterday but not in a good way. His latest thought bubble is quite unhelpful in allowing people to take care of themselves in retirement.
I still think the age pension will only be available to a much smaller number of folks by 2050.

The thought bubble: “ So long as it does not touch the Commonwealth Defined Benefit Scheme no one cares. No one cares if the Future Fund is affected - our super is paid by the taxpayer!!!. (Give self a pat on the back)

 

[Flying mermaid]

A friend of mine phoned me yesterday to cough about Shorten’s policy. His Mum is in her mid 80s and has an income of $28,000 per annum (it was around that) and she will lose $3,000 in franking credits. Shorten is now saying he will look after those people and compensate them, but seriously if he and his treasurer had no idea of the ramifications of their policy (apart from “get the wealthy”), would you trust them!

 

[Quickstatus]

A friend of mine phoned me yesterday to cough about Shorten’s policy. His Mum is in her mid 80s and has an income of $28,000 per annum (it was around that) and she will lose $3,000 in franking credits. Shorten is now saying he will look after those people and compensate them, but seriously if he and his treasurer had no idea of the ramifications of their policy (apart from “get the wealthy”), would you trust them!

Ill bet he does and its more sinister. The reason he is releasing it now is to gauge voter views. He will take your money and then give back to those he cant afford to lose. Look out for tax cuts for certain groups and higher spending for other vested interests closer to elections using the franking credits war chest.
In the meantime Turnbull and Co are nowhere to be seen - because they are probably kicking themselves that they didn't think of this themselves - after all they are of the same cloth. Not only that ScoMo is neutered because he also fiddled in a big way with super last budget and refused to budge.

Shorten can easily say Franking credit cash refunds is limited to $3000 per person or whatever.

 

[exceladdict]

Ill bet he does and its more sinister. The reason he is releasing it now is to gauge voter views. He will take your money and then give back to those he cant afford to lose. Look out for tax cuts for certain groups and higher spending for other vested interests closer to elections using the franking credits war chest.
In the meantime Turnbull and Co are nowhere to be seen - because they are probably kicking themselves that they didn't think of this themselves - after all they are of the same cloth. Not only that ScoMo is neutered because he also fiddled in a big way with super last budget and refused to budge.

Shorten can easily say Franking credit refunds is limited to $3000 per person or whatever.

Not wanting to be too political, but according to reports I've read the (industry) super lobby are behind this, which I'd suggest is due to the fact this is largely affecting those on SMSFs. As a taxpayer, I'm not sure how I feel about the "cash" refunds, but equally, changing the rules on people who are now in their 80s is harsh.

 

[Deleted member]

Bad from my perspective. .

Bad from most people’s perspective I think

 

[Quickstatus]

Not wanting to be too political, but according to reports I've read the (industry) super lobby are behind this, which I'd suggest is due to the fact this is largely affecting those on SMSFs. As a taxpayer, I'm not sure how I feel about the "cash" refunds, but equally, changing the rules on people who are now in their 80s is harsh.

Bad from most people’s perspective I think

Shorten can also say franking credits cash refunds stay for those >65.
In any case,IMO, he will use the war chest to his advantage and enough will turn positive when given a bit or largesse from the war chest to install Shorten at Kirribilli. Lets see who gets the carrots over the next year or so. There will be lots


.......

 

[Flying mermaid]

, changing the rules on people who are now in their 80s is harsh.

I think this is the main point. Tax law comes and goes, but it used to be grandfathered. E.g. when they took away negative gearing for a short while some years ago, it was only on property bought after the announcement date. Same with the introduction of a capital gains tax.

But now stuff is brought in with no consideration. This is not a loophole or an unintended consequence. It was brought in originally very deliberately and now they want to change it, no problems, but don’t penalise people who are already retired and can’t suddenly restart a business or maybe even get another job to make up the shortfall (who wants a 70 year old who has been out of the workforce for 10 years, even if they were rather good before they retired).

When they brought in super changes before they used to not apply to people who were already retired or very close to retirement, so they had enough time to make adjustments. Now politicians and treasury effectively tax retrospectively.

 

[tgh]

Offered some Perls today ; I suggested I should be selling Hybrids rather than buying more.
Broker opined that Shorten was indeed shortening any odds of election and that they would have to dump the idea...

 

[burmans]

A friend of mine phoned me yesterday to cough about Shorten’s policy. His Mum is in her mid 80s and has an income of $28,000 per annum (it was around that) and she will lose $3,000 in franking credits. Shorten is now saying he will look after those people and compensate them, but seriously if he and his treasurer had no idea of the ramifications of their policy (apart from “get the wealthy”), would you trust them!

I'm actually somewhat ambivalent on this and this is despite the fact that I'm close to retirement with a significant superannuation balance and hence likely to be somewhat (in fact probably quite a lot) negatively affected by this change. Even when John Howard introduced this there was a mix of emotions, on one hand of course I'll take advantage of this but on the other hand, how can we possibly justify exempting one group of people from tax which implicitly is unfair on those not receiving the benefit.

Yes, I understand that this negatively impacts those who have relied on these provisions but my view was always that this was bad policy. Unfortunately once in place bad policy is hard to remove, aka negative gearing, taxing some things preferentially (discounts on capital gains) and this.

So my view is that this is good economic policy but poor political policy (in fact I think its very brave politically but brave is frequently politically unpalatable). Maybe they can/will phase this in to reduce the impact on those who have planned for or are in retirement based on the existing policy.

 

[Quickstatus]

As i said, ScoMo/Turnbull must be fuming he did not think of this himself

 

[Pushka]

Not wanting to be too political, but according to reports I've read the (industry) super lobby are behind this, which I'd suggest is due to the fact this is largely affecting those on SMSFs. As a taxpayer, I'm not sure how I feel about the "cash" refunds, but equally, changing the rules on people who are now in their 80s is harsh.

Yes. Totally agree. They are targeting SMSF completely.

 

[burmans]

Yes. Totally agree. They are targeting SMSF completely.

Does anyone have the link to the actual detail of the announcement - I'd be keen to actually read this. What I'm struggling with is this picking on SMSF's, surely this ability to claim back franking credits also exists with all assets in pension phase (e.g. retail and Industry super pension products).

Or was this just something announced to the press without significant backing information?

 

[Quickstatus]

Does anyone have the link to the actual detail of the announcement - I'd be keen to actually read this. What I'm struggling with is this picking on SMSF's, surely this ability to claim back franking credits also exists with all assets in pension phase (e.g. retail and Industry super pension products).

Or was this just something announced to the press without significant backing information?

Here is a reasonable analysis:
Winners and losers from franking credit changes - MacroBusiness

Thats why as of today Im accelerating my next investment property purchase

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I presume that this will impact not just SMSF's, but also retirees who own some shares directly..



EDIT: Now having read

Here is a reasonable analysis:
Winners and losers from franking credit changes - MacroBusiness

..yes!

 

[get me outta here]

My thought is that this idea will get enhanced in the proper sense of the word. Best not to rush out and do anything major at this stage.