I have not invested in superannuation and any meaningful way for my entire working life and only have one because it was compulsory.
I just read an article sent to me about the business of being not taxed on money "earned" from superannution over 60
am I correct that when they say super annuation income over 60 is tax free - all they mean is not taxing the REPAYMENTS you get from your assets accumulated over all the years in the superfund back to you either as a lump sum or pension - it is NOT income EARNED by my definition - it is money already earned, tax already paid, albeit at a lower rate - they made the rules, and saved which is being redistributed back to you as it was originally designed - to tax that again at any point in time is a total sham - regardless of age - even under 60 - but I know they do that so you do not pull money out prior to 60
this is a bit like saying I have built up $1milllion in my bank account ( outside super) - and having reached 60 - I determine that I will take out $50000 per year to live on BUT CALL this income - what utter bullshit.
the difference in terminology to me is quite dishonest - the interest I earn outside super on my bank account is taxed - okay that IS money EARNED, but the $50000 I take out each year is NOT earned - it is just simply withdrawing money that I have saved - and it should be no different in a super fund. IF I am able to have saved up big time and can repay myself $100,000 a year then bloody good luck to me - that is my money - I am NOT re earning it!!!!!
is this correct??? if it is then adding to that - it makes out the government is somehow doing you a favour by not taxing the money that you are withdrawing from your savings!!!!!!!!! - gee golly thanks for that. - they have simply changed the terminology into EARNED from what should be withdrawn and that terminology is so ingrained in the system that I do not think people have thought through what has become a basic lie.
I find this whole business absurd and in many ways dishonest - is this wrong???
