Author Topic: A government cash grab on our super?  (Read 5586 times)

Lukim

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Location: Expat in Asia
A government cash grab on our super?
« on: February 22, 2023, 02:24:04 AM »
After promising no new taxes in the campaign for the 2022 election, it now seems the government is intent on raiding our super savings.

Governments of both persuasions encouraged (cajoled) taxpayers to put as much money as possible into super and now the government has decided the policies were too successful and want to tax super even more.

People have only acted on the encouragement and policies of government to put money into super so that in the future they will not be on government pensions.  Governments need to realise the super is not the government's money and the huge amounts of money now invested in super funds are as a result of government policies.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16081
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2023, 02:58:20 AM »
The current discussion doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. They’re not planning to pinch our super, merely to tax any income from super funds that are above $50,000,000 or maybe even $5,000,000. As you can’t have more than $1,700,000 in retirement/pension phase, the pension income would still be tax free, and the other money in accumulation phase would have a tax that would still be less than it is if it wasn’t inside super, rather than the current 15%.

Gremlin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2023, 04:18:35 PM »
The current discussion doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. They’re not planning to pinch our super, merely to tax any income from super funds that are above $50,000,000 or maybe even $5,000,000. As you can’t have more than $1,700,000 in retirement/pension phase, the pension income would still be tax free, and the other money in accumulation phase would have a tax that would still be less than it is if it wasn’t inside super, rather than the current 15%.
Agreed.

I have a rather wealthy relative whose superannuation tax concessions are worth more than ten times the value of the full age pension.  In other words, there are currently five full time workers somewhere in Australia, all paying tax in the highest tax bracket, just to offset the superannuation tax concession given to my one ultra-high net worth relative.  If the purpose of superannuation is to provide a retirement income and take pressure off the funding of the age pension, it doesn't make sense to me that you'd have super wealthy retirees costing consolidated revenue many times more than the age pension.

One proposal I've read about recommended the maximum tax concession per individual be capped at the level of the age pension.  I think you'd need a balance of somewhere between $3m and $4m in your super account to hit this threshold.  Once you're at this level, you can conceivably draw a pension of $150k a year plus.  If that's not sufficient to keep you from needing the age pension, then I suspect there's bigger problems in your life...

Also, there's no reason you can't have more assets than that - any income beyond that is just taxed the same as everyone else's income.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2023, 04:23:37 PM by Gremlin »

Lukim

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Location: Expat in Asia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2023, 05:47:22 PM »
My point is that if people have large super balances, it is because they put money into super based on prevailing government regulations / polices and the general encouragement to invest in super to ensure they were not on the pension in retirement.

The policy has been successful as the number of people on the pension is falling and proportionally, the cost of the pension is falling (which is why the so called super "tax concessions" will cost more than the pension - the policy has worked).

Super is a long term investment.  Governments should not tinker with it.

If I have managed to work within the system and have millions of dollars in super then that seems to be a good thing.

Gremlin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2023, 08:02:48 PM »
My point is that if people have large super balances, it is because they put money into super based on prevailing government regulations / polices and the general encouragement to invest in super to ensure they were not on the pension in retirement.
Sure.  It's been very successful at dragging an increasingly larger middle class into being able to afford a dignified retirement, reliant on the age pension as a safety net rather than a necessity.  It's also enabled a mechanism for high net worth individuals and families to create a multi-generational low tax asset pool.  One of those things is 100% about ensuring that people are not on the pension in retirement, the other clearly is not.

The policy has been successful as the number of people on the pension is falling and proportionally, the cost of the pension is falling (which is why the so called super "tax concessions" will cost more than the pension - the policy has worked).

Well that's just out and out wrong. 

There's a lot of useful data on the Federal Government's Australian Institute of Health and Welfare website. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/age-pension.  As they highlight, the number of people on the pension has increased by 45% over the past 20 years. Some of that is due to an ageing population, but even on a percentage basis, it appears to be stabilising at around 60% of all people over 65 are receiving an age pension.

So, the number of people on the age pension are growing.  The $ amount of the age pension grows with CPI.  But this amount is still growing, even as a proportion of GDP, over the past 20 years  (https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-02/p2020-100554-ud04_sustainability.pdf.

Furthermore, the proportion of people on the age pension, as a proportion of those working full time, has actually increased over that period - despite unemployment falling to record lows.  https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia/latest-release#data-downloads  Therefore, every taxpayer in the workforce today is contributing proportionately more to the payment of the age pension than taxpayers 20 years ago.  If unemployment increases to a more 'long-term' level, then that only exacerbates.  As the population continues to age, this exacerbates further.

Under no measure whatsoever is it reasonable to say that "the cost of the pension is falling".

Furthermore, the Treasury paper shows that those of us above the 90th percentile are very, very unlikely to utilise the pension under any circumstances.  Even at the 90th percentile level, the lifetime government support (across all forms) is greater than that of someone receiving the full age pension for their entire retirement.

Super is a long term investment.  Governments should not tinker with it.

If I have managed to work within the system and have millions of dollars in super then that seems to be a good thing.
Absolutely having millions of dollars in super is a good thing.  That doesn't mean that it's simply providing for retirement and not about creating a tax advantaged inheritance.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1780
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2023, 12:47:11 AM »
But it's my money!  Mine.  Don't let the tax man get any of it!  He will just use it to pay for my health care in old age. 

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16081
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2023, 10:26:16 PM »
There have been two separate discussions recently.

Over Christmas, Charmers put together a paper suggesting that super could be used for good things for the nation. This was a hypothetical pie in sky thing that got some right wing newspapers very excited. Maybe this is what OP was originally referring to. The paper didn’t hypothesise how this would be done - possibly by making nation building investments available to super funds, like Germany and other nations do.

Secondly, there’s been a separate discussion about defining what super is for, and whether balances above $3million should have a higher tax rate on their earnings than 15%. While Scott Morrison was in charge, people were allowed to take out $10,000 twice, and take out super to buy a house or have surgery. These policies have decimated a number of smaller super accounts, and increased housing prices, so there’s been a call for the definition for a few years. There were also indications that domestic violence perpetrators encouraged their victims to take advantage of the $10,000 withdrawals to get extra money and to make their victims more dependent on them

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-19/domestic-violence-early-access-superannuation-criticised/13257224

The higher tax rate on earnings from higher balances is new.

Murdoch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 135
  • Location: QLD, Australia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2023, 02:14:18 PM »
I reckon superannuation is a great scheme, but it depends on the populations confidence to succeed.
Any tinkering undermines that confidence.
The risk of harming this confidence needs weighing up against not only the additional revenue generated, but whether or not that additional revenue translates to some meaningful improvement in the lives of Australians.
I'm a bit cynical about any additional tax revenue for the government, because it has a very high chance of being used inefficiently and end up being meaningless.
The whole discussion at present seems to be framed as the 'super rich' vs the 'not so rich'. It is a bit disappointing.

There are other areas to seek increased revenue for whatever election promises are coming that would improve the lives of most Australians. Unfortunately, they either lack the gumption to attempt them, or recognise that tough reform is not rewarded at the ballot box.


mspym

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9841
  • Location: Aotearoa

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1780
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3379
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2023, 01:02:28 AM »
Is this one of those occasions where the right wing press tells the general public with $300k in super that the government is coming for their money and for some reason they believe them? Didn't that happen with dividend franking or something like that?

PS This cash grab certainly will not impact me or anyone I know!

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16081
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2023, 01:47:24 AM »
Is this one of those occasions where the right wing press tells the general public with $300k $3 million in super that the government is coming for their money and for some reason they believe them? Didn't that happen with dividend franking or something like that?

PS This cash grab certainly will not impact me or anyone I know!
FIFY

https://www.theshovel.com.au/2023/02/27/sponsor-a-disadvantaged-millionaire/
Presumably someone with only $3million in super won’t get much extra tax. Anyone who’s actually affected will probably take it out and set up a trust. I’d be surprised if people weren’t allowed to take out everything over $3million even if they don’t meet the current withdrawal criteria.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2023, 01:52:02 AM by deborah »

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3379
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2023, 01:58:22 AM »
No it didn't need fixing Deborah! I was suggesting that the right wing press will tell people who aren't affected and make them worry that they are affected so as to throw shade on the Labor govt.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16081
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2023, 02:16:45 AM »
Sorry

mspym

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9841
  • Location: Aotearoa
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2023, 04:53:29 PM »
It's freaking out about death taxes on an estate that you don't currently have but could conceivably obtain if your crypto moonshot pays off so best stop that otherwise future you will definitely be said that you didn't stand up for the poor millionaires now.

And yes yes the argument will be - first they came for the millionaires and then they came for the middle-class and then they raided the childrens piggybanks - but honestly, the rich people are the ones with all the money so I don't really see this as a slippery slope and someone has to pay for all the common goods of living in a first world nation. [Not me this year but definitely me the last few years before that]

Gremlin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2023, 06:42:58 PM »
Just announced.  Future earnings above $3m to be taxed at 30%.

EDIT:  Jane Hume just described it as an 'attack on class welfare'.  She's 100% right.  But not for the reason she thinks she's right! 
« Last Edit: February 27, 2023, 09:21:14 PM by Gremlin »

Lukim

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Location: Expat in Asia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2023, 09:41:59 PM »
So apparently in less than 1 week the government conducted "consultation" (presumably with no body) and then made a "well informed" decision to put in place the $3m cap.

After years of being told by government to put money into super and lock it away for retirement, I now find myself over the cap (which will not be indexed).  I would have been better off leaving the money outside super and just spending it on lavish holidays, gambling and crypto currency - I would have nothing to show for it but at least I might have enjoyed it.

The government says they will look at defined benefits schemes for politicians and public servants but you can be certain nothing will come of that in 7 days - and more likely never.

After the $1.6m cap on pension funds and now this overall cap of $3m, why would anyone put money into super?

BTW - I have never been an employee since compulsory super came in, always self employed who made voluntary contributions - I now feel like a real mug for believing governments of various persuasions had the interested of the self employed in mind.

To add salt to the wound, based on current means / asset tests, I will never qualify for the pension or a seniors health card or anything.

I better head to the casino now and blow it all.

mspym

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9841
  • Location: Aotearoa
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2023, 10:15:01 PM »
After the $1.6m cap on pension funds and now this overall cap of $3m, why would anyone put money into super?
Because that is a lot of money. Most people won't even get close to the caps.

To add salt to the wound, based on current means / asset tests, I will never qualify for the pension or a seniors health card or anything.
Well no, because you have a lot of money, see: exceeding the cap.

I better head to the casino now and blow it all.
If you honestly believe that you would be better off on a combination of pension + seniors card than you would with $3M, then this sure sounds like the rational decision. Enjoy!

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3379
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2023, 11:43:35 PM »
It's not a binary choice - put it in super or blow it on casinos. Why lock it all away in super where you can't get it?

This is a FIRE forum after all, not Bogleheads, and we need wealth outside of super to retire early. There's a handy investment order somewhere on this forum that helps people to achieve FIRE. It needs updating to warn people off putting $3m in super, lol.

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3379
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2023, 11:44:28 PM »
Also Lukim are you Bloop Bloop with a new name?

Gremlin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2023, 11:58:55 PM »
Also Lukim are you Bloop Bloop with a new name?

I'm pretty sure Bloop Bloop had more self-awareness and less sense of entitlement.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16081
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2023, 12:08:14 AM »
No, lukim is a much better person. He is considerate of others views, and has contributed well to the forum over the years. I have found his points to be well worth thinking about especially as they’re not always the same as everyone else’s.

It’s also reasonable to be upset when things change even though they weren’t supposed to change. I’m the only person in my family to have any superannuation because the others were all unimpressed with how the rules change.

I think that I have benefited from it, despite it tightening over the years, and I think that the latest change (which won’t occur for a couple of years) still makes it a very good way of investing, even if you are going to accumulate more than $3million.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2023, 12:19:54 AM by deborah »

Lukim

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Location: Expat in Asia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2023, 12:17:55 AM »
I don't have a sense of entitlement at all - I get no direct payments from the government, never have, nor do I expect any.

I followed the rules and the policies of the government for long term savings and a self funded retirement.

$3m is not a lot of money in 2023 when many people in Sydney and Melbourne live in houses worth $2m (and are entitled to a pension - but that is a different argument).  If you are making a 5% return on $3m it is $150,000 less tax on the earnings in the portion in non pension account ($1.3m).  Let's say the net amount is $140,000 - that is comfortable, but it is far from wealthy.  A 5% return on investment in a world where inflation is 7.5% is going backwards.

Seriously, $3m is not a lot of money to support a couple on for 30 years of retirement.

I thought this MMM was about people being self funded / self sufficient - not wanting to be told by government how to live their lives.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16081
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2023, 12:23:17 AM »
I haven’t seen the details yet, but I think it’s only going to be the portion above $3million that will incur the 30% tax.

Lukim

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Location: Expat in Asia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2023, 12:28:04 AM »
I haven’t seen the details yet, but I think it’s only going to be the portion above $3million that will incur the 30% tax.

Correct.

Gremlin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2023, 12:35:41 AM »
The tax concession for someone with $3m in super is roughly the same dollar amount as the full age pension.  Do you genuinely believe that you should be entitled to have the Government subsidise you by MORE than the age pension, in order to avoid the Government having to pay you the age pension?

mspym

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9841
  • Location: Aotearoa
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2023, 12:40:27 AM »
I hear where you are coming from (things have changed! we don't like change!) but to be blunt your conception of what is 'comfortable' is out of whack. Ignoring your personal family trust, or that you have a lot more than $3M in super, or that you haven't paid taxes in Australia for decades (yes I did look through your posting history), using your numbers of an after-tax annual income of $140,000 is top ten percentile for income in Australia. It objectively is a lot of money and still leaves a substantial inheritance for any children.

https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/income-calculator/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-21/income-calculator-comparison-australia/9301378

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3379
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2023, 01:35:06 AM »
But isn't it $3m each, not per couple?
A couple can put 2 x $1.6m in can't they?

$2m per couple is my take on a comfortable eastern Sydney retirement. Overseas trip once in a while, but not every year, regular domestic trips, eating out & takeaways every week, all the good stuff. That's my life anyway, and I'm a complete spendypants. No interest in jewellery or designer clothes though.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16081
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2023, 02:22:27 AM »
Given the changes to superannuation when the balance cap came in (in 2017), and the gradual changes to the maximum concessional and non-concessional contributions, is it even possible for people to amass $3 million in superannuation since, let's say they started work in 2010?

Lukim

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Location: Expat in Asia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2023, 02:26:54 AM »
I hear where you are coming from (things have changed! we don't like change!) but to be blunt your conception of what is 'comfortable' is out of whack. Ignoring your personal family trust, or that you have a lot more than $3M in super, or that you haven't paid taxes in Australia for decades (yes I did look through your posting history), using your numbers of an after-tax annual income of $140,000 is top ten percentile for income in Australia. It objectively is a lot of money and still leaves a substantial inheritance for any children.


Then why don't I feel wealthy?  I feel like I am no more than average.  I don't have 2 (or even 1) Mercedes, I don't have a holiday home at Noosa (or anywhere), I don't go on skiing holidays in Japan (or anywhere), my wife doesn't have designer bags or shoes.

I have not paid Australian personal income tax in recent years but I have paid literally millions of dollars in income taxes in other countries.  I don't expect to get a pension from the Australian government (under the rules now, people who work overseas progressively loose entitlements to Australia social security which is another disgrace that people such as long term overseas aid workers or missionaries loose their entitlement to Australian pensions). However, having invested for retirement in Australia (and paid lots of non income related Australian taxes), I was expecting the Australian government to play by the rules it set and not change the goal posts on super.

I just feel like I am an average person in 2023. 

And yes, I did do the inequality test in the links and yes, I came out in the top 1%.

I guess we just agree to disagree.


Lukim

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Location: Expat in Asia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2023, 02:39:59 AM »
Given the changes to superannuation when the balance cap came in (in 2017), and the gradual changes to the maximum concessional and non-concessional contributions, is it even possible for people to amass $3 million in superannuation since, let's say they started work in 2010?

I don't think it is possible to amass $3m if you started in 2010.

If you put in $1m in 2007/8 when the government was encouraging super and you were allowed to put in a $1m lump sum and then I think the maximum voluntary contributions were $150k per year until 2017, that would have gotten a balance of $2.5m and then add in profits on the investments and that gets you to over $3m.

However, if you started in 2010 and put in $150k until 2017, that only gets to $1,050,000 so even with profits, it is unlikely to get to $3m.

If you started in 2010 and you were an executive on $1m a year plus 10% super, it would be possible to have employer contributions of $1.3m by 2023 plus if you did $150k voluntary from 2010 to 2017 that is an additional $1.05m for total contributions of $2.35m.  With profits, you may manage to get to $3m in 2023.

It seems the government is now trying to put a cap on something which is unlikely to happen again as it is now almost impossible for people to get to $3m because of the limits on contributions since 2017.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1780
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2023, 02:54:45 AM »
So apparently in less than 1 week the government conducted "consultation" (presumably with no body) and then made a "well informed" decision to put in place the $3m cap.

After years of being told by government to put money into super and lock it away for retirement, I now find myself over the cap (which will not be indexed).  I would have been better off leaving the money outside super and just spending it on lavish holidays, gambling and crypto currency - I would have nothing to show for it but at least I might have enjoyed it.

... <snip>

What were you planning on doing with the >$3 million inside super?  How were you going to use it all before you died?  Serious questions.

Lukim

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Location: Expat in Asia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2023, 03:02:44 AM »



[/quote]

What were you planning on doing with the >$3 million inside super?  How were you going to use it all before you died?  Serious questions.
[/quote]

Serious answer - use it for retirement income for the next 30 years.  If inflation continues at 6% or higher, return on investment is 5%, minimum withdrawal rate is 5% (and progressively increasing), it will all be gone in 30 years.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16081
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2023, 03:03:49 AM »
Given the changes to superannuation when the balance cap came in (in 2017), and the gradual changes to the maximum concessional and non-concessional contributions, is it even possible for people to amass $3 million in superannuation since, let's say they started work in 2010?

I don't think it is possible to amass $3m if you started in 2010.

If you put in $1m in 2007/8 when the government was encouraging super and you were allowed to put in a $1m lump sum and then I think the maximum voluntary contributions were $150k per year until 2017, that would have gotten a balance of $2.5m and then add in profits on the investments and that gets you to over $3m.

However, if you started in 2010 and put in $150k until 2017, that only gets to $1,050,000 so even with profits, it is unlikely to get to $3m.

If you started in 2010 and you were an executive on $1m a year plus 10% super, it would be possible to have employer contributions of $1.3m by 2023 plus if you did $150k voluntary from 2010 to 2017 that is an additional $1.05m for total contributions of $2.35m.  With profits, you may manage to get to $3m in 2023.

It seems the government is now trying to put a cap on something which is unlikely to happen again as it is now almost impossible for people to get to $3m because of the limits on contributions since 2017.
However, employers cannot put more than the maximum into super, so for high salaries, they don’t need to pay the super guarantee. See https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/key-superannuation-rates-and-thresholds/?page=24

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1780
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2023, 03:08:12 AM »



Quote

What were you planning on doing with the >$3 million inside super?  How were you going to use it all before you died?  Serious questions.

Serious answer - use it for retirement income for the next 30 years.  If inflation continues at 6% or higher, return on investment is 5%, minimum withdrawal rate is 5% (and progressively increasing), it will all be gone in 30 years.

So you were planning on spending $150,000 per year in your retirement?  For 30 years?  When were you planning on retiring?  At 60?  Spending $150,000 per year until 90?  What are you doing? 

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16081
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2023, 03:13:57 AM »
The 5% minimum withdrawal from super starts at 65.

Lukim

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Location: Expat in Asia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2023, 03:17:43 AM »

So you were planning on spending $150,000 per year in your retirement?  For 30 years?  When were you planning on retiring?  At 60?  Spending $150,000 per year until 90?  What are you doing?

Yes, based on my budget, I would expect to spend $150k per year in retirement.

I did retire at 60 - it lasted 3 weeks.
Now planning on retiring at 65 (next year).

What am I doing in retirement - just normal stuff, travel etc.  Not buying any yachts or 4 wheel drives, not gambling.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1780
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2023, 03:38:15 AM »

So you were planning on spending $150,000 per year in your retirement?  For 30 years?  When were you planning on retiring?  At 60?  Spending $150,000 per year until 90?  What are you doing?

Yes, based on my budget, I would expect to spend $150k per year in retirement.

I did retire at 60 - it lasted 3 weeks.
Now planning on retiring at 65 (next year).

What am I doing in retirement - just normal stuff, travel etc.  Not buying any yachts or 4 wheel drives, not gambling.

OK.  These are your issues.  Wealthy lifestyles and such.  I'm sorry if we are taxing your servants wages, but you know...

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3379
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2023, 03:49:34 AM »
Lukim you are trolling us now :D

I was in a hatted restaurant once for our anniversary and there was an old couple in there that came every week. I guess that would get rid of $15k a year? And weekly massages and hairdos would get rid of another chunk. I had some friends who used to buy oysters weekly.

Thinking about how to spend Lukim's $150k is a bit like when I buy a lottery ticket and get to have a little dream for a day about how I'd spend it. But the thing is, in my dream I end up giving the bulk away! Maybe you are just super generous with your friends, family and charity, Lukim :)

Ozlady

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2027
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2023, 05:09:33 PM »

So you were planning on spending $150,000 per year in your retirement?  For 30 years?  When were you planning on retiring?  At 60?  Spending $150,000 per year until 90?  What are you doing?

Yes, based on my budget, I would expect to spend $150k per year in retirement.

I did retire at 60 - it lasted 3 weeks.
Now planning on retiring at 65 (next year).

What am I doing in retirement - just normal stuff, travel etc.  Not buying any yachts or 4 wheel drives, not gambling.

Hi Lukim

Fellow Asia Expat here (ex Singapore!)

Maybe you can post your $150K budget and we can all  dissect from there? If not, most people would think you are trolling:)...

You claim to be just "doing normal stuff"...i am puzzled since when does normal stuff cost $150K per year (and with no mortgage)...that is like more than 12K a month or $400 a day...

FYI DH and i have been retired for 3 years and our annual budget is about 80 to 100K plus 20-30 K for travel ....AND we still have 3 kids living at home (although one is a working adult already)...we do not penny pinch at all.

And our wealth has continued to increase post retirement as we Re-invest our excess passive income leading to more passive income and the merry cycle continues ...so no...the game does not stop once you retire...

I half suspect you may have money issues growing up?  (but i may be wrong)..
By any measure,  most people would be grateful for your wealth and a $150K budget...

You could retire at 60 but still choose to continue to work to  65...have you ever sat down and seriously ponder what you are working for? or what you evisage your retirement life to be (with your spouse)?

Gremlin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2023, 11:53:39 PM »

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3379
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2023, 01:53:46 PM »
This tongue in cheek live report from the streets of Double Bay is quite funny.

"Are you going to have to sell the second Mercedes?" "No, not the Mercedes, the third boat. It's my daughter's favourite, it's grim". :D

https://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/tv/2023/03/01/today-show-super-double-bay/

misterhorsey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2023, 04:53:46 PM »
Ross Gittins also wrote an on point article about the inequities of existing super concessions and certain myths that self funded retirees believe concerning their circumstances:

"Don’t waste sympathy on self-funded retirees ... like me" 23 Feb 2023

https://archive.is/TYxsT

Murdoch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 135
  • Location: QLD, Australia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #43 on: March 02, 2023, 12:42:46 AM »
Odd question, but is earnings on super considered the distributions from investments within, or does it include capital growth? If it includes capital growth is there an offset when losses are made?

Gremlin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #44 on: March 02, 2023, 01:05:35 AM »
Odd question, but is earnings on super considered the distributions from investments within, or does it include capital growth? If it includes capital growth is there an offset when losses are made?
I’m not an accountant or tax lawyer, but as best I understand it includes realised capital gains.  CG can be discounted if held for 12 months (no details I’ve seen as yet on exactly how this will work for the 30% rate).  Capital losses are offset against future realised gains.

If you hold your super in an industry or for profit fund, then your distributions will include a capital gains component as their holdings are turned over.

Murdoch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 135
  • Location: QLD, Australia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #45 on: March 02, 2023, 02:42:05 AM »
Thanks Gremlin. Still confused though.
If super has $10m in an index fund, distributes $1m, and share value goes up $1m, how much tax is paid that FY?
$150k on the distribution with or without the $150k on the growth?

Gremlin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #46 on: March 02, 2023, 03:32:57 PM »
Your question is a little ambiguous, but I'll have a go at explaining a couple of different scenarios as best I understand it.  I'll do this based on the current 15% tax rules, because I don't understand how capital gains discounts will work with the proposed new structure.

I've also described how (I understand) it works for an SMSF.  A lot of the intermediate calculations are taken care of by your super fund if you are with an industry fund or a for-profit fund and you just get told the end number.

Accumulation Account Only

Let's say there's $10m of VAS in a SMSF and I am the only member of that SMSF (I wish!).  My SMSF bought 100,000 units of VAS five years ago when they were $50.  They are now $100. 

VAS has a distribution of $10 per unit (10%) for the year.  Let's assume that the $10 is income from dividends - in reality, it may have some capital gains and other things mixed in, but that complicates the tax picture.  But let's say there is a further $2 per unit of franking credits attaching.

The SMSF will receive $1m in distributions from Vanguard, plus $200k in franking credits.  The tax payable on the income is $180,000 (currently 15% of $1.2m).  But the SMSF has $200k in franking credits.  Therefore, the SMSF will receive a $20k refund from the ATO.

If at the end of the year, VAS's price goes from $100 to $110 but the SMSF doesn't sell any units, the SMSF has made an unrealised capital gain of $1m.  No tax is paid on this because the gain is not realised.

Without withdrawals, the balance of the SMSF is $12.02m at year end.  $10m original balance, plus $1m distributions, plus $20k tax refund plus $1m unrealised capital gain from the year.

So the net tax payable for the year in this scenario is actually a $20k refund.


Where it potentially gets confusing is that MY superannuation balance is not $12.02m in this case.  If the SMSF liquidates all its assets, then there is a capital gains tax liability generated.  The capital gain would be $6m (since there are 100,000 units of VAS bought at $50 and sold at $110).  Because they have been held for more than 12 months, they receive a discount to the capital gains tax.  Inside super, capital gains on assets held for more than 12 months are taxed at 10% (less than 12 months it's 15%).  So there's an unrealised capital gains tax liability of $600k.

So out of the SMSF value of $12.02m, $11.42m would be 'my super balance' and $600k would be 'reserved' as a tax liability.

In comparison, at the start of the year, my balance would have been $9.5m and $500k would have been 'reserved' as a tax liability.

Pension Account and Accumulation Account

Let's say I'm now past the preservation age.  I can transfer some of my accumulation account into a pension account.  But no more than $1.7m (this is indexed - it started at $1.6m a couple of years back, will most likely be $1.8m by 1 July this year). 

Let's say I put $1.7m a couple of years ago and that has now grown to $2m.  That whole amount is completely tax free.  No tax is paid on dividends or distributions, I'd receive franking credits as a cash back, no tax is payable on any realised capital gains on this amount.  The catch is that I'd have to withdraw a minimum amount from my pension account each year, increasing as I age.

The rest stays in the accumulation account and is treated as above.

If I'm over 60, I can generally also withdraw from my accumulation account tax free.  However, I may have to sell down some assets to facilitate the withdrawal.  Whilst the withdrawal itself is tax free, if I realise a capital gain on selling those assets, then capital gains tax will be payable.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2023, 05:28:03 PM by Gremlin »

Gremlin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #47 on: March 02, 2023, 06:18:22 PM »
I just wanted to add, I think examples like this highlight the genuine disparity between the rhetoric and reality.  In the example above, your hypothetical individual sees their super balance growing by more than $1.9m in the year.  Most people tend to think that there would (or perhaps, should) be a tax bill to be paid - after all, these funds are taxed at 15%.  Yet the fund, and by extension, the beneficiary, actually receives a tax refund.

My best guess (bearing in mind, not all details have been released) is that under the proposed 30% rate, the net tax paid in the year in this scenario would be ~$70k.

Murdoch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 135
  • Location: QLD, Australia
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #48 on: March 02, 2023, 08:42:44 PM »
Thanks Gremlin,
Basically, earnings are taxed (current or future) but not capital growth until sale.
Cheers

Spiffsome

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
Re: A government cash grab on our super?
« Reply #49 on: March 02, 2023, 08:43:27 PM »
Governments have been messing with the tax treatment on superannuation since the moment it was created. Who on earth expects those rules to stay the same for more than about five minutes? That's just part of the risk associated with investing in super. Remember risk, that thing that's supposed to correlate with reward?