Financial Standard Comments - Super changes ease political and financial uncertainty

Comment by Graham Greenaway (GGFS)

Graham Greenaway (GGFS) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:44:46 +1100

The ASFA comments shows that the organisation currently has no steel (or "ticker) to represent the Superannuation Industry.

The Board should immediately show some integrity and resign as they continue to capitulate to political pressure driven by Labor ideology.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Fred Nerk (My Own)

Fred Nerk (My Own) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:55:21 +1100

Anna Carrabs obviously does not understand super. It is about SAVIng for retirement, not BORROWing for retirement. It was never intended to be a tax dodge for SMSFs to do a bit of negative gearing inside super. The sooner these lurks are closed down the better, maybe then we will have a sustainable system.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Johnny Johnson (Johnson Investment Advisers)

Johnny Johnson (Johnson Investment Advisers) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:33:48 +1100

The only sensible comments above are from Anna Carrabs and Tony Abbott.

A Council of Superannuation Custodians would be home to Unionists and failed Labor Politicians.

Wayne Swan, BS, Vamos and Brogden have never worked as Licenced Advsiers so what would they know?

Income has not been defined to my knowledge. If it is returns within the fund then returns of up to 50% have been easy to achieve in the pastyear. If income means drawdown of pension then the needs of clients vary according to family circumstances such as retirees looking after thechildren of absent parents, or having to pay for health care including Chemo Therapy at $50,000 up to $120,000 per annum.

Lets hope these stupid proposals never sees the light of day!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by John McCrory (Retired)

John McCrory (Retired) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:54:51 +1000

The proposed tax is payable on the income of the Fund from which the pension is being paid. Fund income is already defined but there are now additional rules in respect of Capital Gains. The balance of $2M has been mentioned but some commentators based on a conservative return of 5% before the tax would apply - but a 20% return would bring the balance required down to $500K. Given past adjustments to concessional contribution levels depending on age - $100k to $50K to $25K and now up to $35K without indexation once the Income Template is in place who's to say it won't suffer the same type of adjustments in the future by a simple change to the applicable regs.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.