Comment on Richest super balances to be taxed at higher rates after Greens agree to back Labor plan
No1@aussie.zone 1 week agoSure $3M would be a nice ‘problem’.
But I’m more concerned about poor suckers like me and maybe you.
Your key assumption is that the asset value never goes down. And you are ignoring the impact of inflation.
We are looking at long terms here, and when and where things happen matters.
So, in the case of a ‘comfortable’ $800K. Well, if the market tanks, that could easily be 400K. Not so comfortable now? And the $50K a year you were taking out, maybe you have to halve that to make it last. Oh, and whatever you were drawing out? $50K in 10 years time, assuming 4% inflation, is only worth 2/3 of whatever you take out today. And if you start budgetting for increased health care and aged care as you grow older, well…
Nath@aussie.zone 1 week ago
This article is discussing a tax on earnings in super funds above $3m.
I think that people who are earning more than my annual salary just from growth in the value on their pile of cash should be charged tax on that growth.
They can afford it better than any of us, and I’m always amazed at people who think this is a bad thing.
None of the present changes apply to your examples.
Perhaps that’s the answer to my question: people criticise this tax because they worry it’ll affect them?