@ Sandminer, thats why I asked if it was going too far. I never mentioned senility, not sure where you got that from.
As for being grossly insulted, well I just dont care. I am speaking from my point of view you are speaking from yours. Maybe I see the worst of trustees because they come to me when they are in trouble. I currently have
1. Trustees living in the house owned by the SMSF. 2. 2 x SMSF that have not lodged tax returns or audits for over 5 years. 3. 2 x SMSF that are in breach of their trust deeds in regards to pension payments. 4. Numerous SMSF that have never completed pension documents.
the list goes on.
These trustees honestly do not see any problems.
For the record, I am the biggest fan of SMSF's and do not deal with platforms or funds managers.
So you are right I know nothing about you and was just asking for peoples thoughts not their CV's.
@ pintohoo. Strongly agree with just about all that you have said in regards to the goalposts changing every year with regulations etc, especially when the tax office have to issue draft statements to clarify previous tax rulings, its absurd. However do slightly disgree with
"To me I find that very odd. Isn't is glaringly obvious that as the average smsf'er has far more wealth than the average joe - they are obviously doing something more than right?"
In my experience the majority of people I deal with have been successful business people and have been able to contribute more to super because of the excess cash flow and all the tax advantages that comes with this, as well as being able to have commercial property transferred into their SMSF.
I will admit (and so I dont upset Sandminer again) there is strong evidence that the SMSF trustees do outperform all other superanuation platforms, retail or industry funds or what have you.
