Comments by "John Woodrow" (@johnwoodrow8769) on "Superannuation is ‘certainly not a cottage industry anymore’: Hume" video.

The following change as part of this new legislation is an excellent one that should have been in place on Day 1: "To avoid the problem of employees accumulating multiple super accounts, which attract multiple fees, employers will be required to make contributions into their employees’ existing super fund by default, if they have one. That means a super account will be “stapled” to a person and follow them from job to job." P.S. It's very easy to roll multiple superannuation accounts into one, which you will have if you've changed jobs and not actively controlled where the employer is to pay your superannuation. Go to the ATO website via MyGov and you'll find the tool to do this in a few seconds. Do it!
3
You think poorly performing funds that are being bled dry by the provider should not be shut down ..... interesting concept.
2
I would dump cbus (and any superannuation fund that makes climate change part of its mission statement) and transfer all my money to another fund that doesn't e.g. Sunsuper. Easy to change providers.
1
You must have a very short memory. Labor took a number changes to superannuation to the last election that reduced its attractiveness. This included stopping franking credits, reduced non-concessional (after tax) contributions, and lowering the high income additional contributions tax threshold.
1
@curtisburns And perhaps you'd like to explain why someone who has an investment (in this case part of a company) should have to pay 30 cents in the dollar on the income from that investment, when they legitimately don't need to pay tax. By your logic, to be consistent, someone who has an investment property should pay 30% of the rental income to the government, regardless that their financial situation otherwise means they aren't liable for income tax. You support that idea? Investment in a property, investment in a company.... only difference is one calls the return 'rent' the other a 'dividend'. So the person with their investment in the company should pay 30% tax, and the person with the exact same investment in a property should pay zero tax. How unfair and stupid is that. It's a lack of basic financial concepts like this is why Labor never deserve to be in government. There was only one side who created misinformation on the subject, just as you seem to be continuing to do.
1
@curtisburns No, you made a deal about people who were unable to use the franking credit to offset tax on other income, and so wouldn't receive a refund for the tax the company had already paid on their behalf. THAT was the only issue in the recent election. Labor so misunderstood the system they were originally going to stop old age pensioners with just a few thousand dollars in shares in the banks being able to reclaim the tax already paid on their dividends. But from Day 1, non profit trade union investments were ALWAYS going to be permitted to claim the cash refund. You're just trying to 'split hairs', you knew exactly the the issue, and Labor were 100% wrong.
1
@curtisburns Keep up your false claims, no one gets money from the government for nothing. You are either prepared to push a total false narrative, or alternatively you have little understanding of the relationship between Australian company tax and personal tax. Under the Australian company tax system, for Australian resident tax payers, a company's profits are effectively only taxed once, at the marginal tax rate of the shareholder. Company tax paid by the company is little more than a 30% withholding tax, paid to the ATO. The shareholder upon receiving their dividend is notified of the tax already paid on it by the company on their behalf e.g. the 30% franking credit. The final amount of tax to be paid on the dividend is then adjusted up or down by the shareholder from the 30% withholding tax already paid by the company to reflect the marginal tax rate of the shareholder. A person on the top marginal tax rate will pay an additional 15% tax on the dividend (representing a total 45% tax paid on the distributed company profit). The person who has a marginal tax rate of zero SHOULD get the 30% withholding tax already paid on their behalf by the company as a cash refund. The cash refund is no more than them receiving back their rightful money that the company deducted from their dividend payment and sent to the ATO.
1
@curtisburns Yes good call you should bail out, as you know NOTHING about how company tax and the franking system works and are just making a fool of yourself. People who don't earn enough assessable income for taxation purposes are ABSOLUTELY entitled to receive a full cash refund of the tax that was deducted from the share of their profits by the company, on their behalf. Same as those who have a marginal tax rate below 30% are entitled to use the excess tax paid on the dividend to offset the tax payable on other income. The only reason you think my comments are length is because you simply don't understand the concepts, and are way out of your depth. Another accountant would find them very easy to understand.
1