SELF FUNDED RETIREE'S SUPERFUNDS ?

[newstart2380]

Your thoughts - do you realise that if you have worked all your life to build up a superfund (as the labor gov introduced many years ago to reduce the amount of people claiming a pension) the present government is suggesting your superfund may be taxed 30% not 15% as it is now.

So I have taken all my superfund money out and I will invest it in another way so this government cannot get its hands on it. Just imagine if all people with private superfunds did this, apparently it is another money grab by this desperate government because they have created such a huge deficit.

Even Mr Crean suggested JG is getting worse with her "class war" attitude, also members of parliament would not be subject to the 30% tax on their superfunds.

LL you say the deficit is not a bad thing, I would appreciate your explanation and reasons why you think owing money and not paying it back is not bad, the interest factor alone that we Australians are paying for this deficit is mind boggling.

Please don't bombard me with links etc, just some sensible discussion on a very important matter would be appreciated.

[catsnknots]

Like I have said before... 

lets sit back and wait for Budget Day... 

they we will know what is right and wrong... 

[twinkles**stars]

Simon Crean ...Is he credible? 

Well actually at the moment I am not sure that he is given what happened a couple of weeks ago. He is currently in the process of sharpening the axe he is going to use to grind.

he did no more than ms gillard did to mr rudd?

[freakiness]

Simon Crean ...Is he credible? 

Well actually at the moment I am not sure that he is given what happened a couple of weeks ago. He is currently in the process of sharpening the axe he is going to use to grind.

He almost seems to be trying for a last shot at PM for himself.

Maybe he was hoping that his colleagues would ask him to take on Gillard for the top job.

[purple.cow]

Through the years I was in business I never seemed to have the cash to spare to start putting it into superfunds of any kind, but I always considered that my business and propeety was my superfund in the long term, provided of course I didn't go broke in the meantime.

At the end of the day when I sold my business to take early retirement I spoke to a good financial advisor who told me to place the money I made from the business assets sale into a mixed bag of investments.

It turned out to be the best advise I ever had so I can now enjoy a comfortable future as a self funded retiree with what I tend to think of as being a 'hobby' business in a totally different direction that earns me a decent income at the same time.

I could never be accused of being able to look into the future, but in hindsight all ended well for me.

[cherry*135]

On the other hand, the Coalition will implement a new tax policy which imposes a 15% tax on those poor sods who only earn up to $37,000 gross per year so now they get a 15% chunk taken out of their super contribution where before they had a decent tax concession based on their low salary.

To be accurate the refund of 15% contribution tax for low income earners has only been in since 1 July 2012. The refund could be up to $500.

The above scheme was introduced as Labour is getting rid of the low income co-contribution scheme. Originally co-contribution was $1500, then reduced to $1000 (GFC). Since July 2012 it is up to $500 and Labour plan to scrap that in the new tax year (as it was funded by mining tax).

That scheme was good and matched low income earners own contributions up to the maximum level. 

I am not sure if the Liberals intend to keep the super co-contribution scheme for low income earners. If they are going to scrap the refund of 15% contribution tax, then you would think they would keep the co-contribution (currently up to $500).

[newstart2380]

reply to Am*3 in thread 50 and your remark

"There are more holes in this story than a piece of cheese"

Well well, what sort of cheese would that b ? maybe now that there has been more on the news today you might think of apologising for suggesting I was making it up but I don't think you will somehow.

[cherry*135]

 I do not think much of a super system where casual workers (usually women and single parents) can be kept below a payment level and never receive any super... I also think that older workers also do not get paid super... 

Casual workers: The level is $450 per month -  $112.20 per week  (approx 5 hours work a week @ $20 ph.)

That rule has been in for years, not dependant on which political party is in power. What % of working people only work 5 hours or less a week? Fairly low I would guess.

Older workers:

Exceptions to SGC

 - employees who are aged 70 years and over

Employees from 18 - 70 get paid the SGC 9%. That seems fair to me. 

[cherry*135]

The cashing in of your SMSF, on a whim, because you don't like what you heard on a TV program.

You mentioned in the opening post you had cashed in your SMSF,  then later said you were going to talk to your acct and ask about cashing it in.

You said only your OH was over 60 but that is not what you have posted before. It  is relevant to this discussion when you are telling everyone you have cashed in your SMSF and then say only your OH is over 60 (or preservation age).

The Labour party may or may not lower the threshold of super for higher contribution tax. They have said they won't be announcing anything about it till May budget.

I never suggested you made that up about the tax on super. However you OP didn't give many details. Others including myself could not find out much about it online. It is hard to give an opinion when you don't know exactly what one is discussing.

[cherry*135]

I have been at work today, so have not heard any news.

[catsnknots]

lol... back when I was doing casual or part time work I was getting much less than $20 per hour... 

And some jobs were just one day a week... 

and why should people over 70 or under 18 not get super???