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.

[purple.cow]

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

I tend to agree with you there Cat.

What's good for one section of the working population should be good enough for all.

[newstart2380]

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.

I did not "cash in " my SF, I have taken all my SF money out and transferred it to avoid the "RISK" of the government making changes I MAY not agree with.

I did say "why, I can think for myself and that is why i am successful but I will still speak to my accountant at some stage" I did not say I would speak to my accountant before doing anything.

I did not say only my OH is over 60 I said " He is over 65 so we can access the Fund when ever we want, I also said my age is my business and I don't see any reason why you would be interested as it has no bearing on this topic and our situation.

I explained how a SF can work if it is controlled by a company which acts as the trustee for that SF, maybe you need to look into this and you might understand a little better.

Please don't quote me as having said things I have not said, please read what I actually do say and your confusion may dissipate.

[cherry*135]

I am not confused and have tried to make sense of what you post. I asked if you were of preservation age (as that is very relevant to withdrawing funds from a SMSF) and you replied your OH is (which infers you are not). Your age is relevant to this discussion, as if you are as old as you have previously claimed to be (on CS) both you and your OH are of preservation age and you can take your money out of SMSF for any reason.

The whole issue of your SMSF and withdrawing funds, would be a non issue if you disclosed upfront that both you and your OH (both members of same SMSF) were both of preservation age (no need to declare your actual age). As there are no restrictions on you withdrawing funds if that is the case.

Why would you  take all your SFMF funds out on a rumour??  Why not wait until the Budget is announced in May (which is only a few weeks away) and find out for sure if the Govt is going to lower the threshold for increased tax rate on super funds? If it doesn't change things then you could have continued with your funds in the SMSF.

Doesn't make sense to me why you would take such a knee-jerk re-action on a rumour.

[newstart2380]

I am not confused and have tried to make sense of what you post. I asked if you were of preservation age (as that is very relevant to withdrawing funds from a SMSF) and you replied your OH is (which infers you are not). Your age is relevant to this discussion, as if you are as old as you have previously claimed to be (on CS) both you and your OH are of preservation age and you can take your money out of SMSF for any reason.

The whole issue of your SMSF and withdrawing funds, would be a non issue if you disclosed upfront that both you and your OH (both members of same SMSF) were both of preservation age (no need to declare your actual age). As there are no restrictions on you withdrawing funds if that is the case.

Why would you  take all your SFMF funds out on a rumour??  Why not wait until the Budget is announced in May (which is only a few weeks away) and find out for sure if the Govt is going to lower the threshold for increased tax rate on super funds? If it doesn't change things then you could have continued with your funds in the SMSF.

Doesn't make sense to me why you would take such a knee-jerk re-action on a rumour.

Saying my OH is over 65 does NOT infer that I am over or under 65, I just did not disclose my age because it is irrelevant. OUR company of which we are both directors is the trustee for the SF therefore we as in both of us can do what ever we like with the SF money because my OH is over 65.

No knee jerk reaction and whether you think it is or not is immaterial, just what we decided to do and will look for other ways of making it grow. Again I only asked for thoughts on the subject and you have turned this into a personal discussion about me which I do not care to discuss any further.

Very interesting on the 10 news about it all and it will be interesting to see how it evolves.

[freakiness]

Anyone still feeling their world is going to come crashing down around them because of the super changes?

[lakeland27]

you'd need $2 million in super as a minimum to be affected, where under the libs you'd need to have a very small amount for the libs to tax it further. class warfare is right :^O

[newstart2380]

you'd need $2 million in super as a minimum to be affected, where under the libs you'd need to have a very small amount for the libs to tax it further. class warfare is right :^O

LL would you like to review this comment because it is wrong.

Under labors new policy if you have 150000 in a SF you will be penalised, listen to ross greenwood this morning, whether you like him or not he does his homework and if you think he is wrong please let me know.

[lakeland27]

he's telling porkies, shock horror.. in order to be affected you need the figure i quoted.

[newstart2380]

he's telling porkies, shock horror.. in order to be affected you need the figure i quoted.

LL I will not fall into the trap of arguing with you because you don't listen anyway and it is not worth my time or effort. You are a closed book and I can just picture you sitting at your PC in the dark looking for threads (mostly political) so you can try to stir people.

Do your homework, listen to others (for a change) and realise there are people with opposite views to you that are NOT idiots. you have accused Ross Greenwood of lying ? yes ?

You are wrong people WILL be penalised if they have 150000 in their SF by the new policy Mr Swan song has put forward. I guess that would not effect you ?????

[lakeland27]

he's twisting things. its earnings of 100.000 plus from the capital yearly.. which calculates roughly to 2 million plus in savings held. its aimed at tax evasion schemes.