SMSF Association CEO John Maroney says ongoing confusion over super caps harms investor confidence.ongoing confusion over one
These people are a minority of super fund members nationally, but their savings account for more than a quarter of the funds under management in the broader superannuation system, and a significant portion of these are in illiquid assets such as property.“If you’re forcing money out of the system, you’re going to have real issues with funds that have money in unlisted assets, especially [non-residential property] in the regions.
And any sweeping changes to superannuation by Labor, after it pledged during last year’s election to avoid significant reform to the system, would make SMSF members nervous about investing their savings in the future, he added. Revenue from sales would probably be invested in term deposits until the policy landscape cleared up, he said, which would generate less profit than the original assets, damaging the economy and increasing the chances that members would need to claim the age pension in retirement.The “risk that once a cap is in there it can get reduced” would also dampen SMSF members’ appetite for investment, he said, out of fear they would be forced to liquidate assets down the road.
Costello wants to keep his tax concessions on his millions 🙄. The AFR is a joke, thank god for MichaelWestBiz.
Ah yes...The first refuge of scoundrels.? The old 'it will hurt investor confidence' line.. The same old reliable BS.
Fin review is pushing a tu*d uphill backwards on this one.
Boo hoo. Rich old greedy people want poor young people to pay for their massive tax concessions.
originally these things could not be done within super - then the rules were changed. It is questionable whether the original change was appropriate in the first place.
That’s for those with 3m in super. They will be fine.
Tough! If it was widespread could result in property prices dropping.
The only reason to sell is because it is uneconomic to hold the asset without tax concessions. Otherwise, you just keep it and accept a lower after tax yield. Not the end of the world.
So the basis for these property and business investments is that they are the only sustainable if absolutely no tax is paid?
The reason any change is made to any law or regulation is to change how things are done. There'll always be those advantaged and those disadvantaged. Any reporting needs to look at who benefits, who loses, who's unaffected, work out if effort and effects are overall beneficial.
it is obscene some wealthy retirees have $10/50mils super
The biggest free loaders of super are our Politicians
Labor causing hard financial times? Who would have guessed!
Good. Superannuation is not a tax haven for businesses and the rich. It must be cleaned out.
Whacking the whales.. designed to rip those holding multiple houses and free up the real-estate market.
If these are investments that only stack up because they are tax-advantaged, then they should come to an end.
Good
I bet it doesn’t. The elitists would only find another loophole. superannuation
Getting a bit tired of this tiny minority with large super balances complaining that they’re being hard done by. Stay under radar is my advice…otherwise the masses will take notice
Or they keep those assets if they want and pay some tax. Will still be ok I reckon!
What rubbish. A sell of would have no impact as the proceeds cannot be distributed anyway. But so what? It affects 36,000 people who don't need the tax breaks anyway.
It is good policy. Greed is ruining this country for everyone.
This is embarrassingly stupid.