Greedy ■■■■■ have caused the decline of society.
I’m guessing Labor will not have a Senate majority and it will get modified anyway – perhaps to have an income (taxed plus untaxed) or assets test.
Or they can approach it from a different direction by modifying the perverse way that the pension declines quicker than your assets earn you income: the current system punishes you if you have more than about $250K in income-earning assets. For example, if you’re withdrawing at a sustainable 3.5% per year and are of pension age, $250K kinda equals $950K.
(Yes, I’d prefer to have the $950K. Especially given we don’t know the future of the universal pension. But it’s silly that we encourage people to burn lump sums so they can get more pension.)
Anyway, in the meantime, panic.
SoUnDs LiKe SoCiAlIsM tO mE.!¿¡
There’s some things wrong with that example.
The shareholders do have to pay tax on their dividend. The actual dividend, imp credit and all their other income is added together to assess their tax.
That is a very extreme situation, but focusing only on what’s in the example and ignoring anything else that might effect it, the super pension is tax free (as it is for anyone of retirement age, that meets the conditions) but that person would have taxable income of $390K, be assessed for tax of roughly $165K, get a credit of $90K and pay a tax diff of $75K.
It is actually the way it was designed to work and supports the argument for the original system that Labour introduced and then the Liberals amended to get the refund. It really is a very poor example.
Not that I don’t agree with the overall sentiment of what’s trying to be achieved with it. But it effects people on more modest incomes than the mega rich like it is trying to be painted in that. Everyone’s super fund is also effected as they all have large investments in the aussie shaemarket. It is the refund after all tax is assessed that is being removed for all entity types, not the rebate/credit.
I do like the exception proposed that will see people on a govt age pension still get their refund.
Why does someone who’s getting 390k taxable income - after retirement - needs a tax break of any sort?
Cover drive for four.
Do you earn X?
Then the Liberals want you to pay for those that do.
And also… “taxable income”. Frydenberg ran out that line in regards to this issue last week or so. “Taxable income” not being anywhere near actual income, is literally the entire point here.
If someone’s got a taxable income of $390k with all/most of that coming out of super… they’re a millionaire, many times over.
They’ve got a lavish lifestyle to maintain. Have you no heart man!
If the ALP can’t own this, then they deserve to lose.
The Liberals are trying to paint this as an attack on people living fortnight to fortnight on a friggin’ pension.
It takes One Clarifying Statement to turn it around.
I say we let them keep their tax free retirement income, provided we legalise involuntary euthanasia as well
I’m not making any comment on the classes or what is considered rich or comfortable for retirement.
But I don’t think anything should be double taxed.
It’s important that the distinction is made between getting the refund and the rebate itself.
Labour is only proposing to get rid of the refund.
You’re against tax on income?
You’re right about the messaging too, but Labour also needs to be careful about just making it about the mega rich.
The scare campaign will be somewhat effective, there is a large group of older Australians who have no super, they have modest investments outside, and the refund is a big deal to them.
Present it right and its a winner. The carve out being discussed is a good thing I believe and will alleviate some of the angst out there.
Let the Libs bring their best case scenario of who they’re ‘protecting.’
Labor needs to present their vision of Australia’s future. They need to present to the public what they intend to do to improve the lives of ordinary Aussies, they need to be specific about policies and programs. Of course they will need to address the Liberals bs but it should not be their primary focus.
Lol no, but I should have expected that kinda reply in here.
Just felt like pointing something out that was wrong.
Sorry if it seemed flippant, but you’re aware we all pay tax on interest.
I know you are.
Lol no again.
Just know a few people that are worried and they are most definitely not rich.
Saw some more on TV this morning and in the paper and felt like commenting.
Would you pay tax on interest before it came to you and then again on you tax return?