Australian Politics Forum - Bandt more stupidity on Super

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #30 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:58am

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:32am:

An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough.

At least use an accurate example droopy.

Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich??

You are comparing oranges with apples droopy.

Would you say a person who doesnt own a home is rich or super rich?

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #31 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:59am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:40am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:32am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:42am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:32am:

So you are criticising the greens for getting a policy idea costed, then saying:

Quote:

"We're concerned that the PBO costings suggest that if you put the cap any higher than $500,000, it might actually cost the budget money," he said.

"Now that would be an extremely counter-productive thing to do."

I mean clearly they don't intend to implement the policy in a way that will cost more money than it saves.

Do you expect people to know ahead of time is if a policy will save money?

Taxing super at certain levels makes sense, otherwise it's just a tax-free ride for the well off, but that does not mean creating a huge amount of administration work.

Costing proves how much it cost/save the budget

The stupidity is the $500K life time limit

It shows the Greens have no freakin idea

Would you say a couple in Sydney with a $500K house as "rich" or "super rich"????

An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough.

At least use an accurate example droopy.

Nor over 30 years are they rich either.

Did i say rich? I said not struggling. Rich is a relative term and im not using it, but what's clear is if a person can afford to pay voluntary contributions > 500k then surely they can pay more tax on those contributions.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #32 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:00am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:58am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:32am:

An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough.

At least use an accurate example droopy.

Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich??

You are comparing oranges with apples droopy.

Would you say a person who doesnt kwn a home is rich or super rich?

Why do you think its apples and oranges

You don't even understand how Age Pensions are paid

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #33 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:01am

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:00am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:58am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:32am:

An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough.

At least use an accurate example droopy.

Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich??

You are comparing oranges with apples droopy.

Would you say a person who doesnt kwn a home is rich or super rich?

Why do you think its apples and oranges

You don't even understand how Age Pensions are paid

We are talking super and someones capacity to pay tax. Not age pension or how much someones house is worth.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #34 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:01am

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:11am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:01am:

What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have?

The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home.

If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income

If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months

If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test

The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #35 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:03am

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:01am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:11am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:01am:

What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have?

The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home.

If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income

If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months

If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test

The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free.

Droopy will get there eventually

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59447
Here
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #36 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:10am

What about people who put away $500K in voluntary super but have no other super - no super guarantee or employer super ?

The comparison could be that a high level employee may have $700K of employee superannuation plus have paid in $500K of voluntary super and have that $500K subject to this $500K cap.

A self employed person may have zero employer paid super and $500K of voluntary super also capped at this level.

IMO this method of capping superannuation seems to be flawed.

I think that a cap on over all superannuation is not a bad idea but I would be thinking of it being set at a min of about $1.5 to $2M.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #37 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:46am

Now this makes sense

Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:10am:

What about people who put away $500K in voluntary super but have no other super - no super guarantee or employer super ?

Correct. Or those who only have their home as their only asset.

The comparison could be that a high level employee may have $700K of employee superannuation plus have paid in $500K of voluntary super and have that $500K subject to this $500K cap.

And I would say this would be a small number.

A self employed person may have zero employer paid super and $500K of voluntary super also capped at this level.

But a self employed person has taken more risk compared to a PAYE so why should they be penalised for taking the risk?

IMO this method of capping superannuation seems to be flawed.
Correct.

Bandt's is trying to cast a wide net over a problem that's specific to a targeted few

I think that a cap on over all superannuation is not a bad idea but I would be thinking of it being set at a min of about $1.5 to $2M.

Good idea. However there's an existing total small business CGT and CGT cap of $2M

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #38 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:47am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:03am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:01am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:11am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:01am:

What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have?

The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home.

If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income

If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months

If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test

The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free.

Droopy will get there eventually

So which portion does Bandt want as tax free that is not at the moment ??

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #39 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:48am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:01am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:00am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:58am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:32am:

An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough.

At least use an accurate example droopy.

Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich??

You are comparing oranges with apples droopy.

Would you say a person who doesnt kwn a home is rich or super rich?

Why do you think its apples and oranges

You don't even understand how Age Pensions are paid

We are talking super and someones capacity to pay tax. Not age pension or how much someones house is worth.

And the article refers to someone nearing retirement dumping money into Super

If you don't think the Age Pension is relevant then you've got a long way to go in understanding this issue

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59447
Here
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #40 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:21am

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:03am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:01am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:11am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:01am:

What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have?

The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home.

If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income

If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months

If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test

The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free.

Droopy will get there eventually

So which portion does Bandt want as tax free that is not at the moment ??

The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free.

At the moment if you have superannuation savings over the limit you have the option of taking it out of super or being fined at a 49% tax rate.

You would be really stupid to save superannuation over the upper limit.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59447
Here
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #41 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:27am

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:48am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:01am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:00am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:58am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:32am:

An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough.

At least use an accurate example droopy.

Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich??

You are comparing oranges with apples droopy.

Would you say a person who doesnt kwn a home is rich or super rich?

Why do you think its apples and oranges

You don't even understand how Age Pensions are paid

We are talking super and someones capacity to pay tax. Not age pension or how much someones house is worth.

And the article refers to someone nearing retirement dumping money into Super

If you don't think the Age Pension is relevant then you've got a long way to go in understanding this issue

Currently at over 55 your super contributions are increased from $30K to $35K per year but there is a trick where if you over contribute you can bring I think up to 5 years forward meaning that it can be $175K over 5 years. This can be used even in the last year of work I believe and is useful to people with insufficient savings for retirement but it can also be abused obviously.

I doubt that this is particularly wide spread.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 59447 Here Gender:	Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super Reply #42 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:29am Brant is trying to squash a pea but is going to hit it with a sledge hammer while it is sitting in a glass bowl. He may squash his pea but there is going to be a load of collateral damage. Really silly idea.
Back to top	IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #43 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:57am

Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:03am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:01am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:11am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:01am:

What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have?

The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home.

If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income

If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months

If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test

The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free.

Droopy will get there eventually

So which portion does Bandt want as tax free that is not at the moment ??

The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free.

At the moment if you have superannuation savings over the limit you have the option of taking it out of super or being fined at a 49% tax rate.

You would be really stupid to save superannuation over the upper limit.

Since the idea is to address the system in place, I'm sure more than one thing can be adjusted.

The amount of tax paid varies.

The system should be designed so that it minimises cost to the taxpayer where possible. This means providing tax incentives now for super, but only so far as it reduces reliance on the pension.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7344 Sydney Gender:	Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super Reply #44 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:59am Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:29am: Brant is trying to squash a pea but is going to hit it with a sledge hammer while it is sitting in a glass bowl. He may squash his pea but there is going to be a load of collateral damage. Really silly idea. It's bandt. What more could anyone expect?
Back to top	IP Logged