Silver Stackers logo

Silver Stackers

Discussion forum for those
who love to stack precious metals

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Forum registration is open.
  • Index
  • » Superannuation
  • » Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

#26 2012-05-13 09:11:25

Big A.D.
Silver Stacker
From: Sydney
Registered: 2009-10-29
Posts: 6,435
Trades :   52 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

errol43 wrote:

Lets have a level playing field for all Australians paying super.

One change that should be made immediately is that all casual workers who contribute only a token amount in their early years of employment should not be  charged management fees until their overall  super contributions reach a total of $10k.  I know of young workers who have paid less than $2K in super loosing the lot in yearly fees. What a great way to encourage low paid workers to believe in super

How about this: you let casual workers put money into a Superannuation Bank Account.

Call it a Mini-SMSF.

That's it.

All cash. One bank account.


I am the Leafy Sea Dragon.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: errol43

#27 2012-05-13 09:17:04

wrcmad
Silver Stacker
From: Northern NSW
Registered: 2012-01-02
Posts: 6,100
Trades :   118 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Big A.D. wrote:
wrcmad wrote:
Big A.D. wrote:

Mind the typhoid.

No worries there. I already pay my own way on that front too - private health insurance. wink

You don't happen to receive a rebate from the government for a portion of that, do you?

No. I consider it a partial refund of the bu!!5hit Medicare Levy (Tax) that I still have to pay and never use. tongue

Last edited by wrcmad (2012-05-13 09:19:08)


Anything is possible, but not everything is probable.  wink

Manipulation..... If you want to continually subscribe to this idea then get out of precious metals. Only a fool would play a game that is completely rigged. As you still are in the game, I would say that you are not completely convinced of the manipulation ...

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: bordsilver

#28 2012-05-14 00:10:47

willrocks
Silver Stacker
From: Yesterday
Registered: 2012-05-10
Posts: 7,629
Trades :   29 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

I've read somewhere (not too long ago), that within the next few years the Gov will make investment in Gov Bonds, or a fund run by the Gov that will invest in infrastructure (as if we don't pay enough already). The article suggested they'll start off making 5% compulsory, and ratchet it up from there.

The Gov fund will be similar to: http://www.futurefund.gov.au/


"You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." - Ayn Rand

Offline

#29 2012-05-14 18:42:20

nonrecourse
Member
From: Melbourne Australia
Registered: 2011-07-11
Posts: 1,628
Trades :   

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

That is why you need to have an SMSF. If you have control of the funds you have time to see what is occurring and if need be invest your funds overseas just before you go on an overseas holiday and never return:D

Kind Regards
non recourse

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: thatguy

#30 2012-05-15 08:54:14

jparrie
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2011-04-12
Posts: 812

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Big A.D. wrote:
jparrie wrote:

They are already expropriating funds from Super to fund their budget, via an additional 15% tax for those earning over $300k. Or is that not included because they are so "rich" (and don't need the money)?

If you're earning $300k/year, you're now paying 30% on concessional contributions for the portion of your income that is over $300k instead of 15%.

Incorrect. If you earn $300k or above you are charged 30% tax on your entire Super contribution, not just the amount earned over $300k. And over $25k you pay the top rate anyway. Just conveniently forget that we also pay a higher percentage tax as a proportion of our overall earnings anyway, but that's just an inconvenient truth, isn't it?



Big A.D. wrote:

Out of interest, is there anyone here from the 0.4% of the population that will be getting less of a tax discount on their super contributions?

Or is it just the 1% Fan Club speaking? (And that's fine if it is. Marius Kloppers, Gail Kelly and Mike Smith really need your support on this one!)

Just out of interest, what is the 0.4% group? I've heard figures bandied about that would put me in the 1% group, but just don't know for sure?

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: wrcmad, Ipv6Ready

#31 2012-05-15 10:08:36

Big A.D.
Silver Stacker
From: Sydney
Registered: 2009-10-29
Posts: 6,435
Trades :   52 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

jparrie wrote:
Big A.D. wrote:
jparrie wrote:

They are already expropriating funds from Super to fund their budget, via an additional 15% tax for those earning over $300k. Or is that not included because they are so "rich" (and don't need the money)?

If you're earning $300k/year, you're now paying 30% on concessional contributions for the portion of your income that is over $300k instead of 15%.

Incorrect. If you earn $300k or above you are charged 30% tax on your entire Super contribution, not just the amount earned over $300k. And over $25k you pay the top rate anyway. Just conveniently forget that we also pay a higher percentage tax as a proportion of our overall earnings anyway, but that's just an inconvenient truth, isn't it?

No, its just the bit over $300k.

And the "top rate" on contributions over $25k is still a discount to the normal tax rate.



Big A.D. wrote:

Out of interest, is there anyone here from the 0.4% of the population that will be getting less of a tax discount on their super contributions?

Or is it just the 1% Fan Club speaking? (And that's fine if it is. Marius Kloppers, Gail Kelly and Mike Smith really need your support on this one!)

Just out of interest, what is the 0.4% group? I've heard figures bandied about that would put me in the 1% group, but just don't know for sure?

0.4% of the population earn over $300k/year and they're the ones who will have their tax discount reduced by, on average, about $7400 each.

That is, if we didn't have a superannuation system they'd be taxed more than that because there would be no discount rate at all and they'd be paying the top marginal tax rate on everything.


I am the Leafy Sea Dragon.

Offline

#32 2012-05-15 19:55:34

jparrie
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2011-04-12
Posts: 812

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Hmmm, interesting. You wouldn't have the source of those stats would you? I've looked in various places but can't find anything related to $300k+.

You are wrong about the reduced concession being only for earnings above $300k. If you hit earnings of $300k you get slugged 30% up to $25k. That's where the additional $3750 comes from. If you earn $299k you are unaffected. 

If you exceed your concessional cap, then the excess concessional contributions are hit with penalty tax, in addition to the 30% tax now payable on contributions. (i.e, the top tax, no concession). The excess concessional contributions also count towards your non-concessional (after-tax) cap.

However, if an individual's income excluding their concessional contributions is less than the $300,000 threshold, but the inclusion of their concessional contributions pushes them over the threshold, the reduced tax concession will only apply to the part of the contributions that are in excess of the threshold. (tax office quote). This is probably what you are talking about.

Last edited by jparrie (2012-05-16 19:21:32)

Offline

#33 2012-05-16 05:52:01

Kawa
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2012-01-08
Posts: 1,450

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

jparrie wrote:

Hmmm, interesting. You wouldn't have the source of those stats would you? I've looked in various places but can't find anything related to $300k+.

You are wrong about the reduced concession being only for earnings above $300k. If you hit earnings of $300k you get slugged 30% up to $25k. That's where the additional $3750 comes from. If you earn $299k you are unaffected. 

If you exceed your concessional cap, then the excess concessional contributions are hit with penalty tax, in addition to the 30% tax now payable on contributions. (i.e, the top tax, no concession). The excess concessional contributions also count towards your non-concessional (after-tax) cap.

However, if an individual's income excluding their concessional contributions is less than the $300,000 threshold, but the inclusion of their concessional contributions pushes them over the threshold, the reduced tax concession will only apply to the part of the contributions that are in excess of the threshold. (tax office quote). This is probably what you are talking about.

Either way, I get slugged, does that make you happy?

Mate I dont think talking about how much you earn on an open forum actually helps you with anything.There are plenty here that are not happy with the changes however it is what it is.

Vote Labour out at the next election and personally petition your local Liberal member that they will get your vote if they change the rules?

Offline

#34 2012-05-16 19:22:28

jparrie
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2011-04-12
Posts: 812

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

So just shut up and take it up the a*s again? And again, and again?

Just correcting Big AD, he never responds when he's wrong.

Last edited by jparrie (2012-05-16 19:28:05)

Offline

#35 2012-05-16 19:47:35

Big A.D.
Silver Stacker
From: Sydney
Registered: 2009-10-29
Posts: 6,435
Trades :   52 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

jparrie wrote:

So just shut up and take it up the a*s again? And again, and again?

Just correcting Big AD, he never responds when he's wrong.

Sorry, I've been busy.

So basically you're complaining that you're going to pay 30% on a portion of your gross income rather than 45% on all of it?


I am the Leafy Sea Dragon.

Offline

#36 2012-05-16 20:30:28

boston
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2009-07-06
Posts: 3,995

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

jparrie wrote:

So just shut up and take it up the a*s again? And again, and again?

Just correcting Big AD, he never responds when he's wrong.

Incorrect.


Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak...

Offline

#37 2012-05-16 21:15:11

wrcmad
Silver Stacker
From: Northern NSW
Registered: 2012-01-02
Posts: 6,100
Trades :   118 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Big A.D. wrote:

So basically you're complaining that you're going to pay 30% on a portion of your gross income rather than 45% on all of it?

Oh, how to gild the lilly.

No, jparrie is complaining about the increased tax rate from 15% to 30%.

As for 45%, that is diabolical in any context.

Last edited by wrcmad (2012-05-16 21:16:04)


Anything is possible, but not everything is probable.  wink

Manipulation..... If you want to continually subscribe to this idea then get out of precious metals. Only a fool would play a game that is completely rigged. As you still are in the game, I would say that you are not completely convinced of the manipulation ...

Offline

#38 2012-05-17 06:24:56

Kawa
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2012-01-08
Posts: 1,450

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

jparrie wrote:

So just shut up and take it up the a*s again? And again, and again?

Definately would not recommend that.As previously highlighted this has created massive problems with the Greeks maintaining population growth rates.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: Willow

#39 2012-05-17 06:26:15

spannermonkey
Silver Stacker
From: Vic or pissed
Registered: 2010-06-04
Posts: 14,648
Trades :   228 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Kawa wrote:
jparrie wrote:

So just shut up and take it up the a*s again? And again, and again?

Definately would not recommend that.As previously highlighted this has created massive problems with the Greeks maintaining population growth rates.

lol


EXIT STAGE LEFT

Online

#40 2012-05-20 07:39:38

jparrie
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2011-04-12
Posts: 812

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Big A.D. wrote:

So basically you're complaining that you're going to pay 30% on a portion of your gross income rather than 45% on all of it?

Given that I already pay 46.5% (+flood levy) on most of my income, and hence pay as a percentage far more than someone in a lower tax band, of course it isn't an equitable scheme.  e.g someone on $100k pays just under 25% tax. Someone on $400k pays 38% tax.

So now because I get a greater benefit on $25k that too has to be increased to make it more "fair".

How is that fair?

Flat tax is fair.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: Ilovesilver

#41 2012-05-20 09:29:21

nonrecourse
Member
From: Melbourne Australia
Registered: 2011-07-11
Posts: 1,628
Trades :   

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

jparrie wrote:
Big A.D. wrote:

So basically you're complaining that you're going to pay 30% on a portion of your gross income rather than 45% on all of it?

Given that I already pay 46.5% (+flood levy) on most of my income, and hence pay as a percentage far more than someone in a lower tax band, of course it isn't an equitable scheme.  e.g someone on $100k pays just under 25% tax. Someone on $400k pays 38% tax.

So now because I get a greater benefit on $25k that too has to be increased to make it more "fair".

How is that fair?

Flat tax is fair.

Fair?:lol::lol::lol:

Governments being fair ? Mate I have got some prime property to sell you situated in the Simson desert, Absolute beach front property

Kind Regards
non recourse

Last edited by nonrecourse (2012-05-20 09:29:59)

Offline

#42 2012-07-25 04:12:34

bordsilver
Silver Stacker
From: The rocks
Registered: 2012-05-23
Posts: 9,589
Trades :   36 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

As much as I love going off topic, back to the original topic of the thread:

Do I think the Aus. gov. will attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private super?    Short answer, No.

Caveats:
- They WILL attempt to tap large super funds to pay for pet infrastructure projects by changing the rules/incentives. X% must be in AAA-rated Govt bonds for example but there are many, many alternatives to obtain the same outcome.
- They WILL continually change the rules so that I will be very surprised if I will be able to access "my" super in any way that is significantly different from a mandated annuity.
- If they ever do actively expropriate, then I believe and pre-existing SMSF's will be the last that the Govt. will target as (from my understanding) it will require much broader changes to how trusts work which they will be hesitant to go that route. Instead they will effectively shut down the ability to set up new ones and target the industry funds instead.


The only good tax is a repealed tax.

Offline

#43 2015-07-05 06:27:12

SpacePete
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2014-03-01
Posts: 13,437
Trades :   122 
Website

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Some very good predictions in this thread made back in 2012! I found it when looking for discussion on current super changes that have been proposed. Good job, stackers!

This one got almost everything right:

jpanggy wrote:

If we show symptoms of turning Japanese (uber long deflation), then government will likely:
increase age of pension, reduce govt contribution, tax the younger workforce more, eliminate lump sum payment, revamp medicare (reduce cost), maybe tax the elderly for existing. Etc etc.

But Australian population is small, so a simple immigration drive can "reduce" the average age. It depends on how much water we can provide though (desal should solve this issue).

And this proposal has come up again:

willrocks wrote:

I've read somewhere (not too long ago), that within the next few years the Gov will make investment in Gov Bonds, or a fund run by the Gov that will invest in infrastructure (as if we don't pay enough already).

The "mandated annuity" comment below was prescient given a recommendation this year to do exactly that:

bordsilver wrote:

Do I think the Aus. gov. will attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private super?    Short answer, No.

Caveats:
- They WILL attempt to tap large super funds to pay for pet infrastructure projects by changing the rules/incentives. X% must be in AAA-rated Govt bonds for example but there are many, many alternatives to obtain the same outcome.
- They WILL continually change the rules so that I will be very surprised if I will be able to access "my" super in any way that is significantly different from a mandated annuity.
- If they ever do actively expropriate, then I believe and pre-existing SMSF's will be the last that the Govt. will target as (from my understanding) it will require much broader changes to how trusts work which they will be hesitant to go that route. Instead they will effectively shut down the ability to set up new ones and target the industry funds instead.

The 2015 recommondation is discussed here: http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic- … d-end.html

Extract:

ozcopper wrote:

Australians entering retirement could be forced to access their superannuation through a structured self-funded pension after a top Treasury official became the latest supporter of abolishing lump sum payouts.

Commonwealth Treasury executive director and chief operating officer John Lonsdale signalled that recommendations from the financial system inquiry to overhaul the rules governing the payout phase of the superannuation system are likely to be adopted.

"Superannuation trustees should be cautiously optimistic that the framework will go towards something like what is outlined by the inquiry. That said there are still a lot of details that need to be understood," Mr Lonsdale said at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission annual conference in Sydney on Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking- … z3VHi20CmN


Catus amat piscem, sed non vult tingere plantas

Offline

#44 2015-07-06 04:19:34

Ag bullet
Member
From: SE QLD
Registered: 2013-12-26
Posts: 533
Trades :   10 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Results not typical wrote:

Gillard has already publicly stated last year that she wants to release funds from the Australian super pool to allow it to be used by banks instead of it "just sitting" around.

they could release my funds if they like. but she has a point- it'll still be just "sitting around"....in the form of gold bullion!


'let's get physical!'

Offline

#45 2016-05-16 16:40:30

Mintaka
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2012-12-12
Posts: 343
Trades :   12 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

If I was 55 I would be getting my super and converting it to hard assets like real estate or pm. I simply don't trust government and never have.


Rest In Peace, Amjad Mohammed Ben Sasi. May your name live long and true in a world full of lies.

Online

#46 2016-05-16 17:12:42

SpacePete
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2014-03-01
Posts: 13,437
Trades :   122 
Website

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Mintaka wrote:

If I was 55 I would be getting my super and converting it to hard assets like real estate or pm. I simply don't trust government and never have.

That only works for people born before 1960 unfortunately sad


Catus amat piscem, sed non vult tingere plantas

Offline

#47 2016-05-16 18:31:05

Golightly
Silver Stacker
From: The end of space and time
Registered: 2013-10-04
Posts: 1,404
Trades :   22 
Website

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

They may as well spend it.
Once cash rate hits below 2% the funds have no chance of getting there required 8-9%

May as well use the money to fund the corrupterments latest larceny


If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

Offline

#48 2016-05-16 18:32:53

SpacePete
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2014-03-01
Posts: 13,437
Trades :   122 
Website

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Golightly wrote:

May as well use the money to fund the corrupterments latest larceny

I'd rather it funded my own debauchery.


Catus amat piscem, sed non vult tingere plantas

Offline

#49 2016-05-16 18:49:00

Golden ChipMunk
Member
From: Jupiter, Venus, Mars
Registered: 2012-12-12
Posts: 6,730
Trades :   255 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

SilverPete wrote:
Mintaka wrote:

If I was 55 I would be getting my super and converting it to hard assets like real estate or pm. I simply don't trust government and never have.

That only works for people born before 1960 unfortunately sad

The ruling keep changing, how can you trust this thingz?


Original Perth CAPSULES - All Sizes Available
Full/ Half SOVEREIGN caps, contact Chip wink

Please leave pm , I will reply back  wink Chip

Offline

#50 2016-05-16 19:18:33

billybob888
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2014-01-08
Posts: 1,514
Trades :   154 

Re: Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Maybe one day you can only purchase "safe assets" ie Australian government bond" with your super. Much like the american social security funds - made up entirely with US government bonds, AKA government spent the money and gave them IOUs

Offline

  • Index
  • » Superannuation
  • » Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB