Richest super balances to be taxed at higher rates after Greens agree to back Labor plan

Comments

• Nath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I have no idea why every news article on this matter makes it sound like everyone should be against these changes. Superannuation has for decades been a near place to dump surplus salary to get it taxed at a lower income tax rate.

  Under the superannuation tax changes, the concessional tax rate on earnings for balances between $3m and $10m will double from 15% to 30%.

  Balances above $10m will be subject to a new, higher 40% rate.

  Most of us are not affected by these changes. I truly, genuinely wish I were affected.

  source

  • eureka@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I have no idea why every news article on this matter makes it sound like everyone should be against these changes

    Broadly speaking: because news corporations aren’t owned by normal people. Reporting this kind of (mild, but nonetheless real) attack on the most wealthy in a positive light is a sure way to get censored and disciplined by the company.

    Quoting the print and digital media section of GetUp’s media diversity report (2021):

    • News Corp is the dominant owner of Australian print and digital media, controlling 59% of metropolitan and national readership — up from 25% in 1984
    • Nine is the second-largest media owner with a combined 23% readership share. Seven West Media Limited has 15% of the market by readership (eureka’s note: 59+23+15 = 97%)
    • News Corp now controls the majority of local and regional newspaper titles in Australia

    It doesn’t take much digging into these three companies’ major stakeholders to find key people with net worth in the billions. And unless you’re going out of your way to avoid them, most news articles you’ll see are controlled by this upper owning class through various filters (incl. board selection of executives, editorial policy, advertiser pressure).

    source
  • Geobloke@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    If you retire at 60 with 3 million in super, you could spend $70k per year for 40 years

    source

    • Nath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      With $3m in super, you could draw $100k/year and assuming 5% growth you’d have over $3.5m after 10 years:

      Year,Starting Balance,Withdrawal,Interest Earned (5%),Year-End Balance  
      1,"$3,000,000","−$100,000","+$145,000","$3,045,000"  
      2,"$3,045,000","−$100,000","+$147,250","$3,092,250"  
      3,"$3,092,250","−$100,000","+$149,613","$3,141,863"  
      4,"$3,141,863","−$100,000","+$152,093","$3,193,956"  
      5,"$3,193,956","−$100,000","+$154,698","$3,248,653"  
      6,"$3,248,653","−$100,000","+$157,433","$3,306,086"  
      7,"$3,306,086","−$100,000","+$160,304","$3,366,390"  
      8,"$3,366,390","−$100,000","+$163,320","$3,429,710"  
      9,"$3,429,710","−$100,000","+$166,485","$3,496,195"  
      10,"$3,496,195","−$100,000","+$169,810","$3,566,005"  
      

      “But $100k won’t be enough in ten years!” I hear you say. Ok, let’s give ourselves a 10% pay-rise every 10 years.

      Year Range,Annual Withdrawal,Year-End Balance (End of Decade)  
      Years 1–10,"$100,000.00","$3,566,005"  
      Years 11–20,"$110,000.00","$4,355,900"  
      Years 21–30,"$121,000.00","$5,497,281"  
      Years 31–40,"$133,100.00","$7,196,668"  
      

      With a starting fund of $3m, and a 10% payrise every decade, after 40 years we have over $7m in our super fund. As I said, I really wish I had this problem!

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      If you have $3m in Superannuation, with a standard 6% ROI annually, you could spend $180K of “earned interest” every year without ever touching your principal.

      source
  • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    That logic is bad because while yes, it’s taxed at a lower rate, you can’t access it until you turn 67!!! If you access it before then you get slugged with a huge tax on it.

    It’s like when I see people telling others who are struggling to put food on the table or petrol in the car to make sure they contribute to their own super to the max every year - it’s a stupid idea, yet many of the people who say things like that also think like you do in your post, which makes no sense.

    Successful people are already punished enough by the tax man for being good at what they do. Finding more ways to fuck them over isn’t going to end well for our country and economy, as eventually they’ll all up and leave, taking 50% of the countries income tax with them.

    source

    • Nath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Do you honestly think that 0.5% of the population are responsible for 50% of the nation’s income tax? That’s hysterical.

      We aren’t talking about doctors and lawyers and successful salespeople. Those peasants on their measly half-million annual salaries are not putting enough away to be affected by this law.

      In point of fact, these people are rich enough to employ wealth managers and accountants to manage their tax affairs. Retainers who every tax loophole to minimise the tax they pay. You’d be surprised how little as a percentage of their income they are paying the ATO.

      We’re talking about people who are putting over $100k per year into their super funds. They are not moving in the same circles as you and me.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• No1@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Well $3M sounds like a lot now, but I hope they index it, because the way inflation and money printing is going, that will be worth about $3.50 in a decade or two.

  source

  • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Don’t buy into the fear-mongering being pushed.

    For a comfortable retirement in 2026, the amount required is ~$800K (this is already on the high end).

    Assuming a consistent worst-case inflation rate of 4% every year (double the RBA target), it would take 25 years to hit $2m - let alone the $3m+ in question here.

    There is a very small, very wealthy cohort with $3m+ in superannuation savings - and you, statistically speaking, aren’t part of it.

    Fuck ‘em - they need to be taxed more.

    source

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Fuck ‘em - they need to be taxed more

      You say this about the people that pay the majority of all income taxes already lol. When did this commie “successful people should be penalised more and more for being successful!” ideology become so popular in Australia?

      No amount of extra tax from the wealthy is going to result in reduced taxes for everyone else. The wealthy and the high earners already pay almost all of the tax. All it’s going to do is end up in more government waste and corruption.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • No1@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I get and support the gist of this.

      In terms of dollar values, I worry about 2 things:

      • the official CPI figures don’t track to the actual cost of living
      • the issue of money/government debt is uncontrolled

      Maybe if it was set as the equivalent of $3M in gold as at 12 March 2026 I’d be OK…

      source