It was very clearly explained that the tax is on earning from super, not the base super amount. 

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

Nobody said Greenwood was lying, perhaps you did not hear what was said properly. I can't imagine Greenwood deliberately misleading.

NS: 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 think you are getting your figures/details confused with other changes to Super. As LL said, one would have to have $2-$3m in super to get $100 000 income from it.

• post-tax non-concessional caps of $150,000 a year with a two-year pull forward that allows for up to $450,000 to be deposited in one go.
  
  


• taxing the income of retirement funds over $100,000 per annum for an individual.

Superannuation funds have downplayed concerns that Labor’s proposed tax on income of more than $100,000 from pension accounts will hit more savers than predicted.

NS: 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 think you are getting your figures/details confused with other changes to Super. As LL said, one would have to have $2-$3m in super to get $100 000 income from it.   post-tax non-concessional caps of $150,000 a year with a two-year pull forward that allows for up to $450,000 to be deposited in one go. taxing the income of retirement funds over $100,000 per annum for an individual.   Superannuation funds have downplayed concerns that Labor’s proposed tax on income of more than $100,000 from pension accounts will hit more savers than predicted.

Not too many people will have income of over $100,000 generated from their super

am*3 is absolutely correct,

the OP is scaremongering,.

2013MF: "I think you are getting your figures/details confused with other changes to Super. As LL said, one would have to have $2-$3m in super to get $100 000 income from it."

I guess you and LL are not savvy investors 2013MF. I am earning over $100K pa on a superfund of $1m- $1.2m. My last substantial purchase of Telstra shares 2 years ago are producing (with franking) just on 15% in dividends and my banking shares (with franking) are close to 10%,

2013MF: "I think you are getting your figures/details confused with other changes to Super. As LL said, one would have to have $2-$3m in super to get $100 000 income from it." I guess you and LL are not savvy investors 2013MF. I am earning over $100K pa on a superfund of $1m- $1.2m. My last substantial purchase of Telstra shares 2 years ago are producing (with franking) just on 15% in dividends and my banking shares (with franking) are close to 10%,

you are assuming an awful lot john. i've said nothing here in respect to my personal finances 🙂

2013MF: "I think you are getting your figures/details confused with other changes to Super. As LL said, one would have to have $2-$3m in super to get $100 000 income from it." I guess you and LL are not savvy investors 2013MF. I am earning over $100K pa on a superfund of $1m- $1.2m. My last substantial purchase of Telstra shares 2 years ago are producing (with franking) just on 15% in dividends and my banking shares (with franking) are close to 10%,

Did you read the whole thread or  justselective posts?

I think you have attributed the top quote to the wrong person. I made that statement. What it refers to is correct in relation to the OP's claims that people with $150 000 in their super fund being taxed on the total of their super fund.. Totally incorrect, wrong end of the stick.

The amount of $2m in a superfund is a guideline published in news articles on this topic. $2m x 5% = $100 000 earnings on income. 

 Guideline is sufficient... it is not a competition to see who gets the most income from their super.

The main point to this thread is the taxing of superfunds when the income earned is over $100 000. How superfund members get to earn that much or more is not the point.

.. i've said nothing here in respect to my personal finances..

I don't think any sensible person would post on a forum details of their personal finances.

Am@3.  You are spot on with your Post #86.

I would like to add that the new proposed tax change is to curtail the very wealthy pouring huge amounts of their annual income into their superfund at a low tax rate instead of  paying the going annual tax rate on this income when it is actually earned.

It all boils down to the super wealthy rorting the tax system.

Once again, the proposed tax is based on INCOME from super funds, not the amount you have in your super fund.  Unless your have millions in your super it will have no effect on you.

They bungled it so badly & shot themselves in the foot that they will now not even put it to the parliament.

This means that all the damage they did to themselves  was all for nothing & just confirmed that Labor are totally incompetent, can't get anything right & are a laughing stock & a joke of a government.

Reminded me of the Mining tax, massive damage to themselves & only brought in $126mill.

Roll on Sept. we will not forget.