Boomer, The system should and could be changed. Not ideal but...

First 13 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
bacci

11,824 Posts.

233

17/10/19

16:54

Post #: 40936412
Share

Originally posted by boomeronrations ↑

Hi Occam,
We will just have to disagree on the concessional tax treatment of super.
But imagine investing $85 dollars, rather than $50 (what you have after the tax concession), and paying 15% tax on the earnings rather than 50%. Then paying no tax on earnings or withdrawals after age 60 , if retired, up to a 1.6mill cap.

I would disagree with your opinion on an even bigger reaction with further meddling. The fc changes were a dogs breakfast, violating both horizontal and vertical tax equity.
BUT,
if the 1st 50 to 60k of withdrawals were tax free, the majority of people would be unaffected. Guess how much they will care about those that have more than them?
It will happen, if only because anything else is unsustainable.
My bet would be on the libs eventually being the '' culprits '' that bring it about.
I would agree with you on no tax going in, tax on the way out being the best system, with caps. But that horse bolted long ago, virtually impossible to alter the system to that now.

Expand

Boomer,
The system should and could be changed. Not ideal but the best time to start is now. (As the Irishman asked for directions said; "I wouldn't be starting from here.")
All those on the existing system can stay there with no more tinkering.

All new accounts to be "new super". No tax on the way in or on earnings, fully taxed on the way out. Up until age 65 can draw down in times of unemployment up to $1000/week. Rock solid contractual property right of no tinkering (property rights are constitutionally protected).

bacci
3 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply