Super changes ease political and financial uncertainty

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

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.

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!

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.