Eureka Correspondence

More of your thoughts on super tax reform.

Robert Gottliebsen's piece The superannuation squeeze (April 8) outlined a number of changes to the super system that are being publicly canvassed. He asked readers for their thoughts on this issue. We published a selection of letters last week here. Further correspondence is below.

Kathleen:  The government needs to be aware/understand that for those of us who plan to retire in the next six months or who already are retired and have structured their superannuation to be completely free of government assistance, that any tax changes will put quite a few of us firmly back in the income bracket where we would be eligible for some form of aged pension which would then actually blowout the government's pension bill.

John: The best option, if there is to be a change, is to tax income earned after some threshold like the proposed $100,000.

Stephen: Super is for retirement not for wealth accumulation.  Reasonable Benefit Limits should not have been abolished.There are many financial planners who look at balances less than ~$500k (the majority) and advise the retirees go and withdraw the lump sum and then rely on the pension.   I think it is fair enough that the first $100k lump sum withdrawal is tax free but the rest attracts a tax.

Richard: Does  the "Shorten" plan propose  a 15% tax on earnings in a super fund over $100K an  earnings threshold of $100K is for each person in the fund. If this correct then a couple would have a tax free amount of $200K before starting to pay tax at 15%. Is that such a problem? Gottliebsen: you have defined the original Shorten plan correctly buts its now $75,000 each, total $150,000. . 

Leon: One area NOT being canvassed by politicians is their own highly costly superannuation benefits.   Any changes should not be made to the current public scheme unless the politicians scheme is watered down as well

Peter: I don't know what planet Robert Gottliebsen is on.

I am certainly not on it if he regards people with $2 million in superannuation as being not rich.

Stuart: Currently “Person A” has a home worth $2m and has $500,000 in super.Under the current rules this person can access a part or full pension,health care card etc.

However “Person B” who has $2m in super and a $500,000 home is regarded as fabulously wealthy,receives no benefits and is regarded as a target when money needs to be raised.Fair,I think not.

 Mark: What ever occurs the governments predicted incomes will be way above actuals. If there are tax changes on super I would likely rebalance between the fund and the family trust or I could ease my children's home loans and receive other compensation. We have all been down the track before about considered changes that haven't occurred, so no need to make changes until they do. 

Ross:. I feel that if your super fund earns more than $100k then you would be able to cope with paying tax on the excess over $100k . Unfortunately at age 68 and still working I don't have a super fund which will earn over $100k hence the need to remain at work. Any reduction to my super funds earnings by way of additional Tax will hurt  in retirement and may mean I need some pension. Not much encouragement to put into super or to keep working.

 Craig: A  simple solution, without having to tax super funds & play with all the other stuff is to make the imputation credit a non refundable tax credit!!!  The very reason for dividend imputation (the double taxing of company profits) is preserved.  It's dead easy and  makes sense. I lose and  so do most super funds, but it beats the hell out of some of the proposals.

Ian:The key issue, in my opinion, is that ALL income, whether from superannuation funds or shares or whatever should be taxed equally using the standard marginal rates.  Money collected from super funds should not be tax free when money earned outside super funds is not.

Geoffrey: Having run our own business for 35 years, my wife and I have a substantial balance in our Super Fund.

We both consider that the current tax free status of our Fund (We are in pension phase) is not sustainable, much as we enjoy the benefits of our tax free status, including a substantial cheque each year for franking credits.

Surely, the simplest way to tax superannuation is to do something similar to  what Labor was trying to do, i.e. allow a tax free income of say $100,000(Indexed) but tax the balance of the pension not the fund, at a concessional rate, maybe the 15% that has been suggested.

 Ian: My suggestions include:

1. Cancel lump sum payments from pension accounts i.e. the money could only be paid as a pension. This would stop people in their 50s loading up with mortgages to buy macmansions (to be used as a tax free wealth transfer) knowing their super lump sum will pay it out before going on the pension.

3. Make the pension universal i.e. everybody of pension age receives it. This would make administering the system simple and cheap and remove all the juggling of wealth to try and get a $ of pension and the health card. The health card would then only go to those who declared the pension as their sole source of income.

4. The age related draw down rates on pension accounts would still apply.

5. Everybody would continue filing a tax return until the day they died and all income would be taxed at the normal marginal tax rates.

6. The concessional tax rates for compulsory contributions and earnings whilst in accumulation mode would still apply as an incentive to have a better retirement.

James: You make the point that a 2 million super account could well be netting only $60,000 pa at current 3% yields making a 15% tax unfair.

We shouldn't overlook that it is the government's intention that in addition to the annual yield the retiree writes down the capital value of the fund over his/her remaining lifetime. Liquidating $50,000 pa would provide the pensioner with nett $100,000 annually for over 30 years even allowing for reducing annual yields

 Lynda: My mother, who is 83 and has a lot of money,  does not have her money in superannuation, it is all in the bank. Unfortunately she hasn't got access to super. Her after tax return is around $55,000 as she pays normal rates of tax. However for people of my generation who have the same amount in super, we pay no tax if we start an income stream after 60. We are in an industry fund which returned around 13% last year. This is an incredible inequity. I think people earning over $100,000 from super should be taxed and those in my mother's situation given some taxation relief.

James: You make the point that a 2 million super account could well be netting only $60,000 pa at current 3% yields making a 15% tax unfair.

We shouldn't overlook that it is the government's intention that in addition to the annual yield the retiree writes down the capital value of the fund over his/her remaining lifetime. Liquidating $50,000 pa would provide the pensioner with :: $100,000 annually for over 30 years even allowing for reducing annual yields

 Stuart: I'm disgusted that there is such a focus on the 420, 000 part pensioners- no doubt they'll just have to take their medicine. The whole taxation system seems to be a mess, why pick on

retirees. I try to keep my super intact even though I feel the economic world is unreliable and only get 2 to 4% on safe assets.

 Ann : 1.  Not many people between 21-27 would have $100k for a home deposit but maybe $60K.  Still that is enough for a 10-15% for house and land in Geelong.

2.  Gradually get rid of negative gearing deductions, not all of them but do phase some of them out.

3,  Best Idea - pay everyone the basic pension and tax the income and get rid of thousands of public servants and use the money to help the poor.

4. THE VERY BEST IDEA:   I collect a modest pension amount.  I would give it up if the government pay me just the supplement and I get to keep the health care card .

 Susan: May I suggest consideration should be given to the prescribed minimum pension payments for those in pension mode as our expected life span is increasing. If we can live on a smaller annual `take' from our super, we could be self sufficient for many more years

Anthony:  ANY CHANGE TO SUPERANUATION, I CHANGE MY VOTE( CURRENTLY VOTE COALITION 

Graham: The Queen "reigns"; the government "reins in" tax loopholes. Sorry to be pedantic, but you've done it before. Thanks for the reminder 

 Michael: Has the idea of increasing the tax rate on income from super accumulation balances to 17.5% or 20% been raised or debated?  I would be much more comfortable with that than taxing pension accounts (I am 31).

Peter: If most of the assets of one's super fund are in equity and real estate and a small cash component to use as pension payments, a tax on the fund would mean some of these assets would have to be realized leading to an ongoing depletion of the fund and a more rapid access to the old age pension. More thought on the ramifications of a tax needed !!!

 Wolfgang: Robert Gottliebsens article mentioned one of the suggestions to allow young people to use up to $ 100, 000 as a deposit for a house or home unit.

Young people will not have $100, 000 in their Super Account unit at least until they are about 35 years old (if they are lucky), hence the figure of $ 100,000 seems to be unrealistic. I would rather like young people being allowed to withdraw say $ 50000 and then prior to that have the opportunity to save the rest.

The amount taken out of their Superfund should then be repaid through a scheme similar to the HECS , administered by the ATO, which would require people to repay the money borrowed from their Superfund back into their Superfund once their income reaches a certain threshold.

 Craig : If the government wanted to tax super pensions/accounts when in pension mode it could apply the deeming rate to the account balance. A scheme could be developed to have appropriate threshholds.

I have an SMSF account over $2m - but only a little - and the vast majority of the contributions were undeducted. While we could roll more undeducted contributions into the fund we much prefer to maintain investments beyond $2m in family trust structures where the tax/reglarory vagaries are appreciably less.

John: . I don't understand why "we" are not looking at the NZ scenario summarised as follows.

Top marginal tax rate 33% over $ 70,000 pa

Corporate tax rate      28%

No Capital Gains Tax. (no capital losses either and I am not sure about treatment of  depreciation)

No Payroll tax (a state tax here but incentive for larger companies to hire )

15% GST over most things (notable exclusion is housing rentals)

The initial tax collect went up by dropping the marginal rates (before full impact of the GST ) . Wonderful incentive to work hard and to invest.

Peter: That 80% of people over 65 get a pension or part pension is absurd and testimony to the ethics of financial advisers who facilitate it.  

As someone who is over 65, who can only dream of a super nest egg  like yours, who is eligible for a part pension but chooses to be seriously self funded and not apply, I strongly support any move to adjust the criteria so that the over 65s with super funds over $700,000 and a house worth that amount, remain ineligible for the old age pension. Instead of taxing super fund earnings over $100,000, which, as you say, causes problems for the big funds, just tax pensions actually paid over $100,000. Would have to look at singles v couples though.

Ken: Assuming retirement at 65, your super is going to have last at least 20 , maybe 30 or more years. If you plan on spending all of the 3% or 4% earnings you use as an example, 10 years from now you are going to be pretty poor unless you spend your capital along the way. I don’t know about you, but as a retired chartered accountant I can’t think of touching my capital. Therefore I have to earn CPI which I take as 2% before spending any earnings.

Having said the above, there is of course the argument that super should not be an inheritance bonanza for your kids. I have no problem with an inheritance tax. Yes, there have to be all kinds of rules for gifts inter vivos, but the UK tax office can give us guidance on that. I also think it would be a politically saleable tax (the Greens would love it for a start).

Noel:          I am 75          During my years in business I  paid into Super. A tax benefit? Yes. But I wanted to be independent and be self-reliant (as you do in business)

        I played by the rules. I paid my tax and the tax on Super. I had very few holidays (not subsidised with a 17.5% loading).I did not drive an expensive SUV. I did not live in an expensive house.I HAVE REMAINED IN THE WORK FORCE.The politicians threaten to  tax me retrospectively .I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THEMTHEY DO NOT CONTROL MY VOTE!

Rod:I retired about 7 years ago. I worked in PAYE jobs for nearly 50 years. We have over $4mil in our SMSF which is in pension mode. The point I would make is that probably 70 to 80%  of our fund came from after tax contributions on which the marginal tax rate of around 47% was paid. This is because in the final 15 years of my employ I was on a profit share deal where I earned large bonuses which were fully taxed. Surely any new tax as contemplated should recognize the rate of tax paid on contributions in the accumulation stage to avoid double taxation.

Anton: Many retired people volunteer to help in schools, hospitals etc.  IF they are to be levied a burdensome tax, THEN it is fair they charge for their services.

Clare: The proposals under consideration for superannuation are outrageous and unfair. I have just started pension mode and have found it hard to build the required funds in super to maintain myself and my husband as self funded retirees. We have less than 2 million in a DIY fund with two members. The super is built on the premise that the regulations pertaining are stable, providing predictability and security. It is difficult enough dealing with the poor returns on fixed income. The fact that the government of the day targets self funded retirees as revenue source is cowardly, opportunistic and devoid of conscience

Greg: People want their cake and eat it. They want their valuable house and for it to be means exempted. They want to retain or even increase the capital value of their superannuation and not have it taxed. They want their super and the pension. People with wealth have no concept of the gross advantage they receive against those on an income.  Any wealth created from tax-advantaged superannuation savings is an individual benefit i.e. not  a residual for dependents

Barry :  The ACOSS proposal to reduce the age part pension assets threshold to less than $800,000 would actually mean that a couple with no age pension earning 3-3.5% on their savings would have an annual income of around $24,000-28,000 compared with the full age pension of $33,700 PLUS fringe benefits. Won't the long term consequence be to increase rather than reduce the number of people on pensions? 

Roy: A tax on pension phase  earnings is the wrong way to go because this is a blunt approach and is likely to tax unrealised capital gains. A better approach is leave the earnings tax free and apply a tax to withdrawals. This has three advantages.  The first is that it is administratively much simpler, the second is that it will lead to stronger capital growth with more capital available for investment in the economy and the third is that it will encourage superannuants to reduce lump sum withdrawals as these become taxable. But what is a suitable tax rate? Full marginal rates sound a bit tough but a suitable discount, say 15-20% below current marginal rates might be palatable.

Pauline: As one half of a retired couple, I am very concerned about the some of the ideas to reduce the so called wealth of retirees which I read about in my newspaper, the Australian. The view from the media seems to be that we are all living the high life and almost bankrupting the country. I feel that this is far from the real truth and that the correction of the countries deficits should be laid at many doors, not exclusively retirees. We personally have a SMSF with just over $1m and a very small age pension and while we have a reasonable lifestyle I view with fear the many present swords of Damocles hanging over us. I

 There has been a lot of news in the newspapers recently with regard to a possible taper rate change to $3/$1,000 for age pensions eligibility. The figure banded around is that this would only affect 420,000 individuals on a part pension. I believe this number is incorrect and is a lot higher. 

 I think the proposal presents a horrific future for present part pensioners with their lifestyles being very adversely affected. As an example, home owning couples with assessable assets from $300,000 to $1,100,000 will be affected. The worst affected are those with about $700,000 in assets. Couples above the new asset threshold will completely lose any pension they had while for those below, their part pension will be reduced to a few dollars.

 David:Morrison's plan is disastrous and will backfire, as many more people will not have funds to contribute to their overall pension income, as their assets will have to be sold off steadily to pay for the shortfall in income. (We have assets in a SMPF of $300,000 which works very hard to supplement a part pension of $1,100 per fortnight). At that level the scaleback will leave us short by about $4,500--and if we had $750,001 we would be short $15,400. Just as well our financial advisor was so incompetent in 2007 and so lost us $500,000 never to be seen again, or we would be up for the $15k shortfall too.

Graham: I am retired on a part pension and wife is not yet eligible for a pension..Here are some ideas. 

1.      Do not change the taper rules, and

2.      Develop the Shorten Plan further-----apply an % increase on income over $100,000  on the tax assessment annually.

3.      No lump sums, superannuation is a retirement plan.

4.      Asset test re family home, say value over $1,000,000 but index annually .   

.

Robert: My wife and I are very angry at the talk of changes to superannuation and discussion about new taxes. We have both worked hard and raised 4 sons, payed our PAYE and company taxes along the way. We have never taken any government handouts. We have a SMSF which we have put together with some good planning and investment strategy and hard work. We have no plans to draw a government pension. I am not about to let the government get their hands on my hard work without a real fight !!

David: Amongst all the “shock/horror” commentary about the over 60’s pensioners paying no tax I have seen no comment on the “death tax” (my expression) payable by adult children on the death of a SMSF pensioner who is not survived by a spouse and no comment about how well off the children of the fabled “little old lady living in her $3M house” on a full Centrelink pension will be when she dies and her children inherit the house tax free (and even the increased value after her death is tax free as long as it is sold within 2 years of her death). Contrast the position of this writer a (not so little) “old single man” who, for 10 years on his SMSF pension, has not needed the tax payers to notionally set aside out of consolidated revenue a capital sum of say $500,000 - $600,000 to pay him an annual amount equivalent to the single Centrelink pension. On my death the balance of my member’s account attracts Capital Gains Tax of 10% when the assets are sold and before the children get their hands on the proceeds they have to pay the death tax (15% plus Medicare levy) on the taxable component. I live in an isolated community with little amenity (not even a postal delivery or garbage collection) in a house not worth even $300,000. Perhaps I should cash out my super, put the proceeds into into an overpriced metro house and get a taxpayer funded full Centrelink pension? Or perhaps equity demands that the house value (or some part thereof) should be in the asset mix when retirement pension concessions are being considered? Keep up the critical commentary!

Regards

Max: Whilst I have more than $2,000,000 in my allocated pension account I would not define myself as rich however we enjoy a comfortable lifestyle based on an income requirement of $100,000 a year. This enables us to not only provide for our normal living expenses of $70,000 but to be able to spend $40,000 every two years on an overseas trip.

Hence I was quite surprised at the reaction of your respondents to the thought of taxing pension income in a Fund holding in excess of $2,000,000 in assets.

:My suggestion would be for all or some of the following to be implemented:

  1. Income in an Allocated Pension Fund be taxed at 15% with the first $100,000 being exempt.
  2. The minimum annual pension payment scale be revised by increasing the withdrawal requirement by say 1% for each band.
  3. That 50% of the allocated pension be include in the personal income tax return as exempt income , but would be taken into consideration in calculating the Medicare Levy and Seniors Health Card entitlement.

I have attached a spread sheet showing the effect of these proposals in the case of Allocated Pension Fund balances of $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 at three different age levels of withdrawal.

Stewart: I think the only change that should be considered is the abandonment of lump sums. They defeat the essence of superannuation which should be to provide a pension/income during retirement. It is too tempting to spend the lump sum and then go on the state pension - very unfair and inequitable. People who have decided to use lump sums to pay off mortgages should convert the mortgages to interest only mortgages and use their pension to pay the interest. Alternately, perhaps, lump sums could be allowed to pay off mortgages through some process administered by the ATO that directly matches the mortgage payoff to the lump sum?

Robert:I am amazed that so many seem to be embarrassed / guilty about having made a decent effort of planning for their retirement.

Have they all somehow abused the system or behaved dishonestly. If not just what is there to apologise for?

We were told to save - we did - and now some seem to think we should be punished for success. Funny old world!

David:

People of the Baby Boom generation do not have a life time of superannuation

to fall back on and, even if they did, we know that it would not be enough.

All the studies show that even young workers today will require some pension

support when they retire.

Labor made a mistake in raising the pension age to 67 and the Government is massively

compounding this mistake with their proposal for 70. It will never pass and

you are just destroying your political base. Please back off.

Companies do not want older workers. I am a 65 year old former senior

executive in excellent health and fitness. I have been looking for suitable

work for 4 years with no success. How does this feel? Humiliating. So I am

now taking a risk and starting a new business using my Super. By the time it

is doing well, people tell me I will most likely be too old to run it! Not

many of us are Rupert Murdoch, sadly.

What is your Plan B for people in their 60s who can't get jobs? Do you want

to further humiliate them by putting them all on unemployment benefit? And

how does this save money?

The government needs to get real on this.  The fact is that people with

savings and super who fail the assets test move money around so that they

qualify for a part pension and the other age related benefits. You know it;

we all know it. It is part of the standard kit of financial advice given out

by accountants, bankers,  advisors etc. Raising the age pension age will

force these people to consume some of their savings alright, but brutalise

those who really need support. And despite all the hype about living to 100,

many older people are not fit and healthy,  particularly manual workers. They

need support not humiliation.

What the government should be doing is to legislate to force companies to

take older workers, at all levels.

Stephen: There is an enormous ground swell that the so called super rich pensioners need to have the growth in their savings taxed. The current dilemma for pensioners is that  there are no facts only speculation and no one is thinking of the future demands.. It seems to me that over the last 10 years society has developed a 'me me 'culture as far as monetary issues are concerned. So everyone still wants all the benefits associated with an elite economy, like health, education, lower taxes, charitable global giving, infrastructure progressiveness and a safety net for those with a disability or genuinely experiencing hardship but no one wants to pay for the privalige out of their income. The mantra is Its a government issue and if one party does not fix we will vote in another. That society selfishness is now targetting the largely responsible self funded Pensioner Community, is wrong becuase they have both saved and planned for their retirement working within the guidelines established. their future health and the high cost of specialised homes. Should a self funded pensioner require specialised care, the costs of gaining a room is upwards of $400k and then a monthly management charge on top, if their partner still enjoys reasonable health and wishes to remain in the matrimonial home this places a significant burden on any pension fund.

Peter:I agree that  $2,000,000 is not a lot of money for superannuation .We have sacrificed a lot to put money into supa and makes me angry that in my early years I put pre tax dollars into my fund and did without luxuries.

I will not get a health card nothing even low returns on my earnings and they want to tax the very people who have only been able to salary sacrifice for less time than workers starting out.

Government waste and no vision for all workers receiving a pension has never ever been acted on in this country it is all about low income earners some non savers and the big end of town.

I am a strong believer in welfare for not so well off and disabled people.

I voted Abbott and Hockey in thought we had a Howard and Costello team well I was wrong I will not be voting them in next election simply because the way Hockey talked the economy down and the obsession with lowering interest rates that will hurt more Australians the very ones who support welfare through taxes.

Pete I am starting to think

Labours tax on earrings above 100k was fairer than what is being muted.

I am a liberal but no more If they attack super and stop lump sum withdrawals with a tax, The tax 293 is a disgrace I try to fund more it's hopeless wish I had diverted my time into other investments not super.

T

Geoff The reason for making pension income tax free over 60 was that due to the 15% rebate the vast majority of taxpayers were preparing tax returns but not paying tax.  Funds had to prepare PAYG summaries, tax returns had to be prepared, lodged and assessed by the ATO.  No tax revenue for a lot of effort.

Under the simple super system at the commencement of a pension the account balance has to be allocated as taxable and tax free. It would be a very simple procedure for funds to advise the members and the ATO how much pension each year came from the taxable portion.  This part of the pension would then be taxable but only if the total taxable pension exceeded say $50,000.

If a tax payer had total pensions and other income exceeding this amount then there would be an obligation to lodge a tax return. The 15% rebate would be applied to reduce the actual tax payable.  Under this system no PAYG tax should be deducted and the income treated the same way as investment income.

Taxing pension income in the fund is unfair to people with small pensions and would result in an increase in the aged pension.  The idea of taxing pension income over $100,000 as was proposed is just impossible to administer.

A tax free pension of $100,000 for a married couple is sufficient to enjoy a comfortable retirement and it is not unfair to tax pensions over this amount.  As most self-funded retirees contributed to superannuation on the basis that the pension would be taxable less 15% tax paid during accumulation this change can be made as it is not retrospective.

David: The most

effective way of restructuring the future super system is not to soak the rich through increased taxes on superannuation but rather place main focus on reducing the number of people reliant on the public purse to fund their retirement. This requires a 3- pronged approach:

  1. Raise the superannuation preservation age to better align with the pension eligibility age. With each year the preservation age is increased $200 billion is added to retirement savings, thereby reducing the call on the social pension.
  2. Reposition the public mindset to accept that the aged pension is not a right but a safety net for the disadvantaged. This should be reinforced by tightening the qualifications for a pension. In this respect the recent ACOSS proposals on revising the existing means test appears to be on the right track. The fact that 80% of current Australian retirees are in receipt of an aged pension is senseless and unsustainable and highlights the waste in the system.

Ongoing communication by government and the financial services industry to reinforce the concept that superannuation is designed to build retirement income and is not a funding pool for short term self-indulgent wants on retirement.

.

 David: My wife and I are very angry at the talk of changes to superannuation and discussion about new taxes. We have both worked hard and raised 4 sons, payed our PAYE and company taxes along the way. We have never taken any government handouts. We   have a SMSF which we have put together with some good planning and investment strategy and hard work. We have no plans to draw a government pension. I am not about to let the government get their hands on my hard work without a real fight !!   

have a SMSF which we have put together with some good planning and investment strategy and hard work. We have no plans to draw a government pension. I am not about to let the government get their hands on my hard work without a real fight !!

David:Amongst all the “shock/horror” commentary about the over 60’s pensioners paying no tax I have seen no comment on the “death tax” (my expression) payable by adult children on the death of a SMSF pensioner who is not survived by a spouse. I am a (not so little) “old single man” who, for 10 years has lived on his SMSF pension, has not needed the tax payers help.. On my death the balance of my member’s account attracts Capital Gains Tax of 10% when the assets are sold and before the children get their hands on the proceeds they have to pay the death tax (15% plus Medicare levy) on the taxable component.            

Contrast that with the children of the fabled “little old lady living in her $3M house” on a full Centrelink pension will be when she dies and her children inherit the house tax free (and even the increased value after her death is tax free as long as it is sold within 2 years of her death).

Max:My suggestion would be for all or some of the following to be implemented:

  1. Income in an Allocated Pension Fund be taxed at 15% with the first $100,000 being exempt.
  2. The minimum annual pension payment scale be revised by increasing the withdrawal requirement by say 1% for each band.
  3. That 50% of the allocated pension be include in the personal income tax return as exempt income , but would be taken into consideration in calculating the Medicare Levy and Seniors Health Card entitlement.

Stewart: I think the only change that should be considered is the abandonment of lump sums. They defeat the essence of superannuation which should be to provide a pension/income during retirement. It is too tempting to spend the lump sum and then go on the state pension - very unfair and inequitable. People who have decided to use lump sums to pay off mortgages should convert the mortgages to interest only mortgages and use their pension to pay the interest. Alternately, perhaps, lump sums could be allowed to pay off mortgages through some process administered by the ATO that directly matches the mortgage payoff to the lump sum?

Pete I am starting to think

Labours tax on earrings above 100k was fairer than what is being muted.

I am a liberal but no more If they attack super and stop lump sum withdrawals with a tax, The tax 293 is a disgrace I try to fund more it's hopeless wish I had diverted my time into other investments not super.

Related Articles