Forum Topics Proposed changes to tax on Superannuation funds
feteguru
one year ago

Has it been noticed that the proposed changes to tax on Superannuation fund " earnings" on balances over $3 million is to tax these " earnings" at 30% , an increase from the present 15%.

What is most alarming is that the "earnings" is an annual calculation of the net growth of an individual's total superannuation balance.

This includes UNREALISED GAINS!

The tax bill can be paid by the individual or by the Super Fund.


If you have some real estate in your Super fund, you will need to pay tax on the unrealised increase in the value of this property. The increase in value might be higher than the rent received!

What if your Super fund holds shares in " Poseidon 2" which goes up in price one year only to crash the next year. What is the tax bill for your Super Fund?

It seems people should be protesting about taxing unrealised gains as being contrary to established practice .

How are we to get publicity for this unfair proposed tax on unrealised gains, when so much attention is being given to other matters.

Please can we have a few voices for not changing the goals posts of Superannuation.

To tax GAINS is fair.

To tax UNREALISED GAINS is not fair and possibly not legal.

The fact that this rule applies to funds with balances over $3 million, and that $3 million is not to be indexed, means that sooner or later, this may apply to many more people than it does at present.

Most people to whom this applies will happily pay more tax on real earnings but not on "yet to arrive and may never arrive" earnings.

10

CanadianAussie
one year ago

"It seems people should be protesting about taxing unrealised gains as being contrary to established practice."

I understand your concern but considering less than 1% of Aussies have a super balance over $3M, I'm not sure how many people will be protesting. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) shows the average super balance for those in their 30's is between $42,000 - $83,000 so we're likely a long ways away (i.e. decades) from this concerning more than a small handful of individuals. The average balance for a 70 year old is ~$430,000 and I'm sure anyone of those would gladly pay a 30% tax rate if they could swap from a $430,000 balance to a $3M.

https://www.amp.com.au/insights-hub/super/managing-your-super/how-much-super-should-i-have-at-my-age

13

Mujo
one year ago

I think you're right the 30% tax on balances over $3M is largely a non-issue for most.

The tax on unrealised gains I think is a major issue - I believe it is unfair straight out but does cause serious issues for those with illiquid assets in an SMSF in particular. I worry it is a niche area and perhaps not as well understood or have the same engagement that will result in opposition for example that the changes to franking credits had. I truly hope that part does not apply.

I have seen people blatantly say 'they don't trust super' so ignore it, minimise contributions with the cash instead used to pile into their nonproductive residential property - so more of this tinkering just reinforces that belief.

13

feteguru
one year ago

The Australian's Money Cafe with James Kirby "The Millionaire Next Door" was where I first heard of this proposed tax on unrealised gains. Apparently these proposed changes were made public late on a Friday when no one was paying attention.

11

loshell
one year ago

Tangentially related, but there is precedent for a similar kind of tax treatment with respect to employee stock option plans. It was the case up until recently that ceasing employment at a company you had acquired stock options for during the course of your employment was considered to be a deferred taxing point by the ATO and thereby triggered a CGT event on your entire set of non-forfeited options assessed on your last day of employment i.e. for any "in the money" options you held on your last day, you would be hit with capital gains tax as if those options had been exercised for cash on that day. It was widely criticised policy that looks to have been wound back on 1st July 2022.

7