4th Oct 2018
Views sought on boosting retired Aussies’ super
Author: Olga Galacho
older worker

The Federal Government is seeking your views on a proposed law to exempt older Australians from the work test for a year to help them boost their superannuation savings.

Currently, the work test requires those between 65 and 74 years to have worked at least 40 hours within 30 consecutive days before they can contribute to superannuation.

The rule does not apply to the mandated contribution an employer has to forward on behalf of a worker.

But if there is a 30-day period during which you worked fewer than 40 hours, then your super fund must not accept non-mandated employer contributions, personal contributions, spouse contributions or government co-contributions.

If the draft legislation is passed, however, from 1 July 2019 those aged between 65 and 74 whose total super balance is less than $300,000 will be able to make voluntary contributions for 12 months from the end of the financial year in which they last met the work test.

That is, even if they have worked fewer than 40 hours in a 30-day period, they will be allowed to voluntarily contribute to super for up to a year beyond the financial year in which they failed the test.

Those wishing to make a submission to the draft law have until 26 October 2018 to write to Treasury.

The draft says: “The proposed regulation changes provide a one-year exemption from the work test that applies as part of the superannuation contribution acceptance rules to allow recent retirees to boost their superannuation balances.

“This Schedule ensures that the proposed regulation changes operate as intended by preventing an individual accessing a benefit up to the value of providing a three-year work test exemption period as a result of an interaction between the work test rules and the bring forward arrangements for non-concessional contributions in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.”

Have you tried to make extra contributions to your super but been blocked by the work test? Do you think the work test is fair? Do you believe the exemption should be backdated? Should people be allowed to contribute what they wish to super, up to the cap, regardless of the hours they have worked?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login

    3rd Oct 2018
    4:13pm
    Useless piece of legislation if you ask me.

    Why would someone at 64 and over and not working, with less than $300k in super want to make non concessional contributions ???

    Better to just have no conditions at all or just drop the silly proposal
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:36pm
    You speak truly......
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    4:38pm
    I know of no other way of speaking.
    And its always in the best interest of all Australians ...in the long term.

    Most want short term gain , and hence vote for handouts and taxing the rich - labor plays on this
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:49pm
    Not if you are avoiding tax, it's not... trickle-down does not work any more than 'privatisation' does - all they do is take from those with the least without taking proportionately from the fat.. hardly in the interest of the nation long term.... let alone any discussion of offshore 'investment' that pays little to no tax and reaps billions from operating here.

    No long term thinking in alienating and radicalising the majority to feed the minority who think they own the show.... history tells us that does not work .. ever.. in the long term.

    If you were, for example, saying that Australian investment that remains onshore should invest in Australia,and that Australian investors are not so stupid that they can't put together a package to - say - operate a coal mine in Queensland (wonder who that is?) - you might have a point.

    Also, if you consider burgeoning global population - there is NO future in collapsing the economy of this nation into a third world economy, reducing its majority of population to third world serfs, and feeding a 'global economy' that is even worse at the same things.

    Australia - as I've said - is a lifeboat - it can take only so many passengers - and no strap hangers.... everyone has to take up an oar and row....

    Australia First.... then we can look after the ROTW a little bit at a time, when WE can afford to do so.
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    5:43pm
    You simply have no clue do you Robert
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    6:22pm
    I could more justifiably say the same for you, diablo... and without too many dissenters.
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:06am
    Au contraire, mon ami - you simply cannot read clearly.
    Rae
    8th Oct 2018
    11:32am
    Yes olbaid and seeing my 48% non concessional amount is only deemed to be 10% by Centrelink putting any non concessional amounts in is not worth the paper it's printed on now as far as I can see.
    Rae
    8th Oct 2018
    11:34am
    TrENBOR keep pumping them in. Thousands on planes every day. Makes the GDP look great. I'd suggest taking them straight out to that race course to bet on the gee gees. What could go wrong?
    Not a Bludger
    4th Oct 2018
    10:30am
    More useless tinkering.
    The work test should just be cancelled.
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    10:34am
    You would have rocks in your head to even consider putting money into super at that age.

    Better to keep the money outside super without any restrictions or the possibility of it being nationalised and government gets what's left when you die.
    Jtee
    4th Oct 2018
    8:57pm
    agreed
    Rae
    8th Oct 2018
    11:36am
    Yes definitely and cheaper as well. Superannuation is collapsing with firstly the changes to legislation and the fact that young workers are not being employed in full time jobs that pay super. I'd expect a few smaller funds to start falling over and taking people's savings with them anytime now.
    Ahjay
    4th Oct 2018
    11:13am
    The best thing they could do for Super would be to keep their grubby hands off it and simply legislate there will be no more changes unless it is to bring it into line with parliamentary super.
    CainAu
    4th Oct 2018
    11:23am
    I agree. The government should remove the need for a Work Test. There are a lot of good people doing more than 40 hours of volunteer work and do not get this 'benefit' for NCC super build. The government should just let anyone top up NCC, if they have the money up to the annual limit of 100K, the more money people have in super better it is for the State. In case they are worried about abuse, there is a cap of 1.6m anyway. My message to them is keeping it simple.
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    11:55am
    Super is only a vehicle to save tax so if does not save you tax then why have it?
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    1:35pm
    ... and a working pensioner gets super but also cut to pension and pays tax.....
    Circum
    4th Oct 2018
    8:55pm
    Not totally correct OG.Many do see Super as a vehicle to save tax,but the less fortunate see Super as a means to save for a more comfortable retirement.Call it forced saving which otherwise would just be blown.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    11:43pm
    Totally correct, Circum.....

    Most people don't have the extra discretionary cash to play the tax reduction game. These people are the ones who actually pay their way in full, and should expect, under our Social Security system with its added Superannuation-for-all system - should reasonably expect a reasonable retirement.

    Government of any party - beware.
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    11:47pm
    Not correct Circum
    Super is a means to save for retirement
    It’s attracrive because you safe tax while saving and investing for retirement
    You can save and investment for retirement any which way you choose , super allows you to do so with tax incentives
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:12am
    Yet you say that a person in the pension stage is Entitled ™ to put in extra infinitely???

    Rather - the point at which you enter pension phase limits your capital, which generates your pension, to what it is at the moment you enter pension phase.......

    There is a point at issue - it's called CPI or inflation - and my personal view is that these should be considered in regard to any additional capital placed into a pension stage fund, so that the pension stage recipient is not disadvantaged by factors beyond his or her control, and thus suffers a downturn in income.

    HOWEVER (there's always a however) - a pension stage recipient should not, under any circumstances, be permitted to add indefinite capital to the fund already terminated at pension stage.

    My god - you are a mine of information on tax evasion...
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:13am
    God - this is easy meat!!!
    Anonymous
    5th Oct 2018
    12:19am
    I never said one ahoukd be allowed to add capital from external sources to a fund in pension phase
    You do not understand the technical terms and when asked for your definition you do not respond
    Your layman terms and layman arguments are best reserved for your pub mates
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:44am
    Sorry - I don't do friends - let alone pub mates.

    Not my problem that you are incapable of understanding Queen's English (she doesn't talk that way, BTW) without resorting to jargon...... Farsends and farsends of pines......

    Use of and reliance on jargon is a hindrance to effective communication - as you so clearly demonstrate daily.
    fred
    4th Oct 2018
    1:04pm
    would rather a conversation about how Bill Shorten is proposing to rob over a million self funded retirees by cancelling refund of Dividend Imputation credits . please do not claim most of the retirees are rich and big end of town most are receiving imputation credits which they paid for by the way before dividend are paid to them and are not as much as the Aged pension
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    1:35pm
    Not again, fred - that's also been done to death... separate issue.
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    1:48pm
    Maybe Trebor but you still don't get it.

    Let's see if you know what fairness is.

    If I earn $200,000 a year including $500 on franking credits nothing changes I still pay $5000 less in tax and get to use it to take my family on a cruise or holiday.

    However if I earn $20,000 including $5000 in franking credits I get my income reduced to $15,000 which means I have $100 less a week to pay for my groceries.

    So should the high income earner keep his $5000 and go on a family holiday and the low income earner have $100 less a week to spend on groceries?
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    1:49pm
    I agree Fred.

    It is also what it is going to do the economy as well.

    Screw self funded retirees and you screw the economy.
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    1:53pm
    Super is only marginally worth having now but under Labor's proposal it will be dead.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    1:59pm
    Cancel DI entirely then and solve all the arguments... no problem.

    You haven't paid less tax, OG - the dividend payer paid it to the ATO in advance. You would only pay LESS tax overall if you were fudging, otherwise your overall tax burden would remain the same. The problems begin when you earn $200,000 and pay no tax and expect a full refund of the pitiful amount paid on your behalf.

    Those on lower incomes should have no problems since their tax will remain the same.

    You are presenting an excellent case for a full review of how, when, where and why so many are in receipt of $200,000 p.a. without paying tax.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    2:01pm
    OG -the reason many of our better posters are not posting here is because you and diablo - every time - turn this into an argument over your pissy dividend imputation.

    Give it a rest and address the issue here today for once.

    Same with you diablo from Offshore.
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    2:02pm
    Trebor - please stop posting anything about dividend imputation and related topics as you clearly have no understanding. Proof is you post earlier today about BHP share price and dividend income - in fact all your posts on the subject have been off the mark
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    2:16pm
    Trebor Read what I wrote not what you think I should have written and tell me if what I wrote was fair.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    2:48pm
    diablo - old fool - I didn't post about DI - fred did. Now wake up and shut up.

    You're the one, along with OG, who is carrying on about DI - so shut up, and address the issue of superannuation...

    You two are ruining this forum as a discussion point for reasonable people. no grow up.
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    2:52pm
    "Cancel DI entirely then and solve all the arguments... no problem." - Trebore

    Now stop insulting others old fool
    I am up - been up for 2 hours now
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    2:55pm
    Trebor you can't discuss super without dividend imputation as dividend imputation makes the difference between super being worthwhile or not in most cases.

    You still haven't answered my fairness question. Maybe you are like the Labor party in that I get no answers from them either. I wonder why?
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:14pm
    You two still going on about dividend imputation?

    That is not the issue - shut it up!
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:19pm
    All right - if you want to discuss dividend imputation ONLY in the context of superannuation - do so - but leave all your usual rubbish out of it.

    On the subject of superannuation funds receiving dividend imputation - on what basis do you see that any addition to the balance of that super fund should not be scrutinised for tax liability?

    Before you jump in again - you pair - try reading the question first. I know diablo doesn't live here and struggles with English... and you are somewhat senile and possibly affected by your cancer meds, OG - but do try to answer the question,and for once without personal vitriol as your only means of discussion.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:22pm
    Fer god's sake OG -

    "However if I earn $20,000 including $5000 in franking credits I get my income reduced to $15,000 which means I have $100 less a week to pay for my groceries. "

    Your franked credits are part of your gross income = $20,000 as YOU stated... since that is very low you would keep it all since you are just over the tax-free threshold and would cop a senior's discount on tax.

    Wouldn't affect you one cent, and the ATO would refund you the franked credit in full under those conditions.

    You are being alarmist and silly.
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    4:23pm
    Dumb Question.

    Super funds in accumulation phase should pay 15% tax on grossed up dividends. Nothing to scrutinize. ATO has all the info

    Super in pension phase should get the full imputation credited

    Life is meant to e easy and uncomplicated Trebor. By the way English is my first language. And stop insulting people who understand more than you
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:28pm
    I will go further... if Shorten's lot turn around and say that $5000 should not be refunded in THAT situation, I will fight them tooth and nail over that.

    That is not, however, the intent of this thought bubble of Shorten's - no matter how badly he and its opponents state it - the idea is to stop refunds to people who are enjoying, for example (you understand 'for example', diablo?), $200,000 spending money already after writing everything off (not possible - cake and eat it, too = rorting - if it's all written off, you cannot enjoy $200,000), and who then expect a full refund of their dividend imputations as a bonus.

    In certain cases mooted - an offshore entity can NOT receive imputed dividends on Australian shares - if they are, they are cheating.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:31pm
    At least, diablo (chortles), you are now discussing super...

    Waht relevance has the PRIOR concession got to receiving into a super fund of someone NOPT in the acumu7lation phase... and if they are in the accumulation phase - ADDED income to that super fund should be scrutinised.

    You DFO understand scutinised, don't you?

    For the record - YOU started the insults game, son. You drop it fully and I'll stop giving it back.
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    4:35pm
    Robert (chortles ROFLMAO)- define added income and the word scrutinize

    You speak in riddles - signed of a confused mind
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:41pm
    I was chortling over the use of diablo = devil reversed... it appears you have some surface knowledge of classics....

    Added income requires no definition - it is capital added to the base, simple, huh?

    You seek to pose riddles to avoid issues - sign of a confused mind.

    As for your $200,000 income, OG - you yourself state no difference - as I've been saying all along - you are not entitled to a refund of DI if your tax liability exceeds the amount of DI - which (again) is part of your gross income.

    Why would you think that would not equally apply to a lower income and lower tax liability?

    I answered that for you already, read above.
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    4:43pm
    Trebor

    This is what will happen under Labor.

    "However if I earn $20,000 including $5000 in franking credits I get my income reduced to $15,000 which means I have $100 less a week to pay for my groceries. "


    That's right the person on $200,000 enjoys the full of their $5000 and the pension on $20,000 loses $5000 of their income leaving them $15,000.


    That is why it is so unfair and wrong.
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    4:44pm
    why the f wud you tax capital added to the base . Its in pension phase and by definition isnt taxed

    Jesus H Christ - I give up Robert !
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:54pm
    Wrong, OG - DI is part of your gross income for calculation - ergo, your tax liability is calculated on your gross which includes that DI - if you have no tax liability, you will still get it all back.

    You are fear-mongering, and I told you, no government of any stamp will be allowed to just not pay what is part of gross income that incurs no tax without my marching on Canberra...

    What is needed is a good look at how some who are enjoying heaps that is not super under the existing rules are not paying tax.. that's the real question.

    As I said - you can't have $200,000 spending money without paying tax... if you have written it off to zero on your assets etc - you are cheating.

    That would be the real issue - not just DI pure and simple. Still - abolish DI entirely and there is no argument... the company pays its taxes and the shareholder pays his/her taxes, no arguments, no loop-holes, far less complication.
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    5:02pm
    Yes Trebor Labor's non refund of franking credit policy is very wrong.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    6:27pm
    diablo - what ARE you talking about?

    So a superannuant in the pension phase can just add endless amounts of new cash to his/her fund and reap the benefit of paying no tax on those extra funds?

    You are not allowed to add to your basic fund in the pension phase - so now you have revealed another potential rort.... my God, man - you are good value!! Are you a Labor p0lant?

    You obviously suffer from Shareholderus Maximosis - a dire illness of the mind which deems that any gain accrued by a shareholder should be 100% free of tax....
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    6:58pm
    Agree Trebor you can't add to your super account in pension phase but nothing stopping you starting another super account in the same fund.
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    7:01pm
    Trebor is confused.

    Adding capital in pension phase means capital gains. And capital gains in pension phase is treated the same as other returns and not taxed.

    The guy has no idea what he's takling about
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    11:47pm
    Good point, OG.

    diablo is confused.... but if what he says is true - adding capital into pension phase is clearly tax evasion and an offence.

    Where DO you live, diablo?

    You're kidding, right? That's the only way you could possibly state such a ridiculous and illegal process.....

    (ha,ha) You ARE a Labor schill! No wonder your boss, shorten, wants to change the way these things are addressed.. however...... at the end of the day nothing will change for real since he and his mates also benefit from the same rorts of not paying tax on income....

    No way will Labor Inc change that rort.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    11:50pm
    diablo - you are a solid source for the ATO, a genuine government, and for the international court reviewing such claims for the benefit of their own nations first and foremost ...

    You ARE a plant!!!
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    11:51pm
    Go to bed before you do any more damage to your brain Robert
    Capital gains in pension phase aren’t taxed . It’s the law
    Don’t let the bed bugs bite
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    11:56pm
    I will try one last time to educate you , only because I feel sorry for you

    Retirement phase is the period during which a super fund pays a superannuation income stream or pension, and the earnings (including capital gains) on those pension assets are exempt from tax. ..

    So adding capital by way of capital gains is tax exempt - comprende ?
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:18am
    You are absolutely correct, OG - Shorten's statement (as reported) that those with zero tax liability would not receive a refund of franked dividends was totally wrong.

    Obvioulsy he does not know his game, and is a very poor salesman.

    diablo:-

    "I will try one last time to educate you , only because I feel sorry for you"

    I told you before you started the insult game - and lost badly.

    Why persist?

    I, and many others, feel very sorry for you and your kind of Entitled ™ kind. You are so lost in the unreal world of 'I am Entitled ™'...
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:23am
    a. I will educate you yet, boy-o.

    b. You are such a mine of information on what is so terribly wrong with shareholding rules as regards income, that you must be a Labor shill.

    c. you are so totally deluded that you are absolutely entitled to free money from shares that you are beyond redemption..... so sad....

    Thank you for coming - I enjoy trashing you every night, on your own statements, and thank you for showing us so clearly what is so terribly wrong with shareholding these days in this Banana Republic open to robbery in the global market.

    Phew - at least we know that if you are an offshore entity you can't get dividend imputation...... but you do, don't you?

    Your posts are monitored by the ATO, FYI.
    Anonymous
    5th Oct 2018
    12:27am
    My Oz tax returns are 100% kosher .
    Complied fully with the tax codes
    If fact I think some years I may have actually overpaid
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:47am
    AHHH.. your OZ tax returns are 100% kosher (as things now stand).....
    So........ errrr... what is it you are hiding, and where?

    You and OG are great sources for information on where the current tax codes need review and rectification so as to ensure genuine tax capture...

    You old Socialist, you....
    Rae
    8th Oct 2018
    11:39am
    Yes they came for the 42000 and no one said a thing. Next they came for the 330 000 and there was a whimper heard.

    Now they'll come for your dividends and it's far too late.
    BElle
    4th Oct 2018
    1:08pm
    In our experience the Superannuation Laws are a complete ass. We opted out about 15 years ago when we realized... unequivacantly that it was being so badly managed we were not benefiting from leaving the investment in place. We have never regretted this decision. Rightly or wrongly we are comfortable with our own decisions.
    Few people realise that they can in fact manage their own money and do not HAVE to comply with the onerous restritions placed on superannuation by poor Government decisions and inept management by the finance industry.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    11:53pm
    I had a private super scheme long before universal super cam onboard - I worked out that it was costing me far more than it was worth, and that my funds would be better served putting it where I, and for my family benefit, would benefit more.

    As a worker I had an industry super fund - the costs were lower, but still - unless you had a serious ongoing income - it was not worth the effort.

    As OG says - put your money where you can do best for yourself... and recent royal commissions and such should give you an indication of where that may be.... or rather not be.

    My son - my daughter - talk to your parents about where to put your hard-earned.
    Rae
    8th Oct 2018
    11:43am
    Yes Belle and if people realised they could make around $58 000 income a year before tax many would avoid the risks and costs of superannuation. Pity advisers never seem to mention it.
    jackie
    4th Oct 2018
    1:12pm
    This maybe be another legal loophole scheme for the over 64 rich not the poor. Poor older Australians use up their super because they are poor. They generally can't get work too.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    1:15pm
    Super's been done to death here times many - single roof, with capped additional contributions and out of government and private enterprise hands, no fees and all profit after real costs returned to the shareholders, and all other income or income-replacing strands are taxable.

    Just like now you can add extra up to a certain point - after that you are saving and you pay the relevant income tax, and all by the same rules. No more fudging.

    Gotta start cutting off those loop-holes somewhere.
    sunnyOz
    4th Oct 2018
    1:30pm
    More useless legislation - trying to look good, when in fact they don't do anything to benefit seniors unless there is something in it for them. Won't help at all..
    floss
    4th Oct 2018
    2:56pm
    O.G super is now dead due to our Mr.Hockey who has now fled the country for a better life.
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    3:02pm
    Who?
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:42pm
    Ol' Brown-Eyes the cigar smoker.... the Ultimate Leaner......
    Rae
    8th Oct 2018
    11:45am
    Mr Hockey OG who passed that Fair and Sustainable Legislation haha. Lie of the Century.
    floss
    4th Oct 2018
    2:59pm
    Trebor you have just touched a pocket nerve and have woken up the greed is good gang.
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    3:03pm
    I'm glad you had a good sleep floss.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:35pm
    I know - people expect to be able to write off income to zero tax while enjoying sometimes hundreds of thousands per annum, and then get a bonus from imputed dividends... which, BTW, are advertised as 'tax effective'.

    Say what? TAX EFFECTIVE? So Jo Bloggs' PAYG withheld tax should also be 'tax effective'?

    If they are tax effective, that means there is a free ride there somewhere.... ergo - changes are needed, and the easiest change is to abolish DI entirely so that everyone pays their tax simple, since it is plain that quite a few fat cats are getting away without paying tax, or that the ATO is not handling it correctly - either by design or incompetence.
    leek
    4th Oct 2018
    3:03pm
    needs to be 67 in line with the aged pension at least(depending on birthdate) i cant get the pension until I am 67, if I want to build up my super before then, then I should be allowed to do so. The more I have in super, the less i will need from the government. So a win win for everbody.
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    3:11pm
    Sounds fair to me.

    Also the percentage one has to take out of super goes up from 4% to 5% at age 65 too.

    They both need changing in line with pension age.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    4:36pm
    Pension age needs to be reverted to 65 - problem solved.
    panos
    4th Oct 2018
    5:00pm
    If they really wanted to help saving for your retirement.

    Pay no Tax the last 3 years of your full time work and it goes straight into super.

    Only for peoples earning less than 100,000
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    5:04pm
    People used to do this before they put caps on it.
    SFR
    4th Oct 2018
    5:33pm
    It's called salary sacrifice. Government has lowered the cap to $25k / annum which also includes employer contributions so the higher the salary the less you can salary sacrifice
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    6:55pm
    Yes that's right Billy's bonkers but I thought I'd post it in very simple language.
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:33am
    How much 'salary sacrifice' is placed into a super fund for the unemployed?

    I mean - some want to pay some to stay home and have kids..... and pay super for all time off... what about those forced on to permanent or even temporary time off?

    Don't they get a kick? Or are they supposed to become full pensioners at the end of their non-working life?
    floss
    4th Oct 2018
    5:40pm
    O.G. you may have forgotten J.Hockey but many will never forget,pay back time is near.
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    5:42pm
    Vote for labor and you will condemn the country to more debt, unemployment and higher taxes.
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    5:43pm
    Pay back time? I have no idea what you are on about once again.
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    5:44pm
    Good comment olbaid.

    Some people are just idiots at times.
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    6:32pm
    You mean more debt, unemployment and taxes than we suffer now?

    **falls on floor laughing**

    Payback Time - Joe will be dragged out of his unearned sinecure for which he has no qualifications and arraigned before a court of Law (not law) after being charged with high treason and Grand Theft Canberra....

    To make it fun, he and his con-defendants (sic) will be stripped of their belts and their braces so their trousers fall down all the time... and their shoe laces so they shuffle like criminals.....
    fred
    4th Oct 2018
    6:58pm
    yes... floss pay back time alright and I what I mean by pay back is the tax self funded retirees paid on the Dividends before they got what was left after tax paid > simple
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    11:38pm
    but... but.. but.. fred... everybody pays tax on income no matter where derived....

    Do you, among so many others, feel that having shares should entitle you to tax-free income?

    It's INCOME, lad - you pay INCOME tax on INCOME.

    **throws floor open to the critics who will argue that income is not income**
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    11:42pm
    Salaries are employees are not paid out of after tax dollars by corporations

    Partners of entities like accounting and law firms are taxed on their share of profits which are not taxed first

    So why should a person who earns his “salary” by working hard investing his funds in corporations have to pay tax twice ?
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:02am
    How does such a person 'pay tax twice'?

    He uses discretionary (after tax) income to buy shares - and generates income from shares on top of his ordinary income from work (etc).....

    If I buy anything with discretionary income (after tax income etc) as a business with the clear intent to earn extra - I am liable for income tax on the profit.....

    Ergo - tax is payable on the extra income.

    Not hard, eh? Not for anyone without a serious sense of (gasps) Entitlement ™.

    (ahhhhhhh- ha-ha-ha-ha-ha).........

    Now you are advocating that all shareholders should be registered as a profit making venture..... that's another solution to all the arguments..... simple really - you buy shares to earn profit - you pay tax on the profit earned.

    No 'double tax' there.
    Anonymous
    5th Oct 2018
    12:09am
    You don’t know how ridiculous you sound
    Lift the corporate veil and you will find the owner of the entities are it’s partners some proprietors and shareholders
    All invest money saved or borrowed
    Why ahoukd one be treated different from the other
    Anonymous
    5th Oct 2018
    12:31am
    all owners profits that are distributed whether they are partnehips , sole traders or public limited companies are taxed

    But Robert wants profits of entities of a certain type to be taxed twice
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:37am
    So in our eyes - someone who is a professional share buyer should not pay income tax for profit?

    Do you even begin to understand how ridiculous you sound?

    My god, man - you are easy meat.....

    What part of income in 'income tax' do you not understand?

    BTW - thanks for the heads-up on the machinations of some in that business......

    My god, you are a mine of information, you old Labor shill, you.
    Anonymous
    5th Oct 2018
    12:43am
    You mean a person who owns many businesss ?
    Like a sole trader who owns many coffee shops , or runs multiple car workshops , or a person who runs several partnership businesses
    Is that what you mean by a professional share investors

    Like the thousands of retirees who own small parts of many businesses
    They should be taxed twice but the rest should only pay tax once over and above the multitude of tax deductions they can make before their profits / dividends are taxed
    Anonymous
    5th Oct 2018
    12:45am
    You are incapable of intelligent conversation Robert
    I will no longer lower myself to your level
    Go to sleep son. Im off to the pub and a bucket of lovely mussels in white wine soaked up with sour dough bread and Belgian fries
    Old Geezer
    4th Oct 2018
    7:06pm
    People have been asked to make submissions to the franking credit enquiry.


    https://nationalseniors.com.au/news/latest/smsf-members-urged-to-make-submissions-to-inquiry?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Connect+589%3A+4%2F10%2F18&utm_content=nationalseniors.com.au%2Fnews%2Flatest%2Fsmsf-members-urged-to-make-submissions-to-inquiry&utm_source=www.vision6.com.au
    TREBOR
    4th Oct 2018
    11:40pm
    Many issues there, OG - I will be careful how I phrase my comments....

    May I ask for some contributions from the board, so that I can make a fair and reasoned submission on the issue of dividend imputation as it now stands?
    Anonymous
    4th Oct 2018
    11:44pm
    Robert - from your many posits it’s obvious you are not capable of making any fair and reasoned submission
    But you go ahead anyway son .
    We all need a good laugh
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:05am
    On the contrary, my dear fellow - every submission I make is reasoned - yours on the other hand, are bound by a false interpretation of what now exists - and you refuse to look at necessary change, or indeed, any alternative point of view, no matter how reasoned.

    Apart from that - you are an absolute mine of information on what is wrong with shareholding as it now stands.......
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2018
    12:40am
    Seriously, people - I've spent the evening laughing (between movies online)at how easy it has been to dismantle diablo's statements..... but it's time fr bed...

    I've been building a deck for two days (at my age) and I'm tired.

    I do love the entertainment, though - and will make the effort tomorrow to put together the comments here and submit it as requested... I'll include yours, too, Offshore Diablo...

    Hard work - but someone has to do it in the name of sanity.
    Blinky
    29th Jan 2019
    12:35pm
    I agree. It's totally useless. There are a few isdues with this:
    1. This only applies to 'poor' retirees, as 'rich' retirees are independent from Centrelink and they dont need to worry about pension rules.
    2. The so-called work bonus is a joke! How can anyone earning a few dollars save x super?
    3. Because the asset threshold is so low, the more money u put into your super the more money u r giving back to the govt, as they pinch $3 x every $1k u have in your super. This is a true oxymoron. They ask u to save on super only to take some of your own money away from you once u retire n need a govt pension.
    SUGGESTION: increase the threshold or exempt the first $200k in super from the asset test. This would be a good incentive and a reward x people who have managed to build some super.

    My question to u is: what do u do with our comments? Do u pass them onto the govt of the day? Or do they get lost in cyberspace where no one is listening???


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles