‘Retrograde’ Labor policy cops heat from ex-ATO exec (reinstate 10% rule)

With so much attention on franking credits there has been minimal press on this one:

‘Retrograde’ Labor policy cops heat from ex-ATO exec

Other Labor proposed changes to Super if elected:

. Cut the after-tax annual contribution limit to superannuation from $100,000 to $75,000;
. Repeal the ability to carry forward unused concessional contribution cap space and make "catch-up" contributions;
. Lower the income threshold for the extra 15 per cent tax high-income earners pay on concessional contributions from $250,000 to $200,000.
. Ban new LRBAs.

 

At the rate they keep messing with super and continue to dis encetives people from being self funded in retirement. It might easier to just live it up in the younger years and p**ss away your savings so we all collect a government pension one day.
I hear a V12 Ferrari calling my name. Spend my money on exotic cars now and have the government fund my retirement. Doesn’t sound too bad.

 

I know this is tongue in cheek, but boy you wouldn't want that lot deciding how much income you needed to live on

 

Julia Gillard infamously said in Parliament while she was PM that a person who earns $80,000 pa or more is wealthy and thats the level they set for many tax changes. Thats just delusional. $80K may be a struggle to exist in many cities.

Thats how the ALP think....Fear of missing out so they tax people as a disincentive. Rudd just threw handouts around and upped taxes on the wealthy

 

When they put arbitrary numbers on things then it's probably politically motivated.

$80k is rich
Franking credits where more than $0 tax paid, except pensioners, and future fund.
$1.6 M cap in super

Either pay franking credits for all, or don't. Making arbitrary rules only creates arbitrage. A hedge fund manager told me this rule will just be another opportunity to exploit a loophole - he doesn't want the change but he is obliged to take advantage of it in the interests of his clients.

 

which taxes did he upp on the wealthy?

 

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but there is a new political party called the SMSF Party I think who will campaign for policies which effect SMSFs.

 

The drop from $250k to $200k you mention. Well, that actually dropped from $300k to $250k for the first time this FY. Governments of both persuasions love these nice sneaky moves to that only impact the ‘rich’.

 

This sort of thing will never happen again if the new SMSF Party win power.

 

I should also say the these thresholds ($200k, $250k, $300k) are not based on your taxable income (after deductions). They actually add back certain deductions to come up with their own definition of net income. If they don’t like a deducion, it gets excluded. Political science tells us that the more you can hide this, the less political impact it will be.

 

Grant Abbott grantstanding (TM) How much self interest is in this ? And probably too late to be registered as a political party for the next election according to AECs own press a few weeks ago. Needs 500 members, form the party with its objectives etc and when all that is submitted it takes 12 weeks. And then if its all formed in time for the close of nominations prior to the election date of May 2019. Allowing 4 weeks for an election campaign thats short of 10 weeks I believe.

Election consultant should be Mal Meninga

https://www.solepurposetest.com/news/smsf-political-party-launched-members/