Australia taxing unrealized gains

Last2Stroke wrote:

It's sad to see the US education system in action, let me explain it for you...If Bezos spent $100 million building a yacht, it would not...

It's sad to see the US education system in action, let me explain it for you...

If Bezos spent $100 million building a yacht, it would not be built in the US, the business and jobs @JM485 is outlining would be in Germany, Italy or the Netherlands. It would be a personal expense and not tax deductible.

If Bezos decided to build more Amazon warehouses in the US, it would provide business and people in the US with work during construction, and employment for people working inside the warehouses after construction. It would be a business expense for Amazon, and would be tax deductible.

Sully wrote:

Well, I guess you answered my either/or question; you’re just dense. Take out the word “yacht” and replace it with 30,000 square foot mansion in LA (or...

Well, I guess you answered my either/or question; you’re just dense. 
Take out the word “yacht” and replace it with 30,000 square foot mansion in LA (or any other long term project that creates jobs), and JM’s point doesn’t change. The only thing that changes is you don’t get to give a smug, douchey answer. Have the best day ever. 

Last2Stroke wrote:

JM's used a "megayacht" as an example, not an LA mansion, a "megayacht" would be made offshore, so would provide US jobs during construction.or are you...

JM's used a "megayacht" as an example, not an LA mansion, a "megayacht" would be made offshore, so would provide US jobs during construction.

or are you too dense to understand that.

Sully wrote:

Well, I guess you answered my either/or question; you’re just dense. Take out the word “yacht” and replace it with 30,000 square foot mansion in LA (or...

Well, I guess you answered my either/or question; you’re just dense. 
Take out the word “yacht” and replace it with 30,000 square foot mansion in LA (or any other long term project that creates jobs), and JM’s point doesn’t change. The only thing that changes is you don’t get to give a smug, douchey answer. Have the best day ever. 

Last2Stroke wrote:

JM's used a "megayacht" as an example, not an LA mansion, a "megayacht" would be made offshore, so would provide US jobs during construction.or are you...

JM's used a "megayacht" as an example, not an LA mansion, a "megayacht" would be made offshore, so would provide US jobs during construction.

or are you too dense to understand that.

Sully wrote:

So he’s not the yacht building expert you seem to think you are, big fucking deal. The “what” wasn’t the point of his post, the result...

So he’s not the yacht building expert you seem to think you are, big fucking deal. The “what” wasn’t the point of his post, the result was. Christ you’re a fucking monkey. 

Last2Stroke wrote:

The media has raised concerns about taxing unrealized gains, this is not new, unrealized Australian Superannuation gains have always been taxed.Have a read of the proposed...

The media has raised concerns about taxing unrealized gains, this is not new, unrealized Australian Superannuation gains have always been taxed.

Have a read of the proposed amendment...

https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/c2023-443986-em.pdf

It proposes increasing the tax rate on Australian Superannuation gains on accounts worth more the $3 million...

The 30% is not applied to all gains, it is in proportion to the balance above $3 million. If somebody has a superannuation balance of $6 million, half the gains are taxed at 15%, half the gains are taxed at 30%. If somebody has a superannuation balance of $30 million, 10% of gains are taxed at 15%, 90% of gains are taxed at 30%.

Losses can be carried forward and subtracted from gains in future years.

Australian Superannuation is different from personal investments, there are significant tax concessions, contributions are taxed at 15%, and gains are taxed at 15 or 30%, instead of peoples nominal 19-45% tax rate.

Employers are required to contribute 11% of employees wages and salary into the employees superannuation fund, the superannuation funds are not controlled by the employer, they are independent, employees can switch between superannuation funds any time. The government has a website that shows each superannuation funds fees and returns, this has weeded out poor performing superannuation funds.

There are no taxes and no talk of taxes on unrealized gains on personal investments.

Sully wrote:

Who are you to say what he would or wouldn't notice? I agree about the starving children, but that's what charities are for. I'd rather choose where...

Who are you to say what he would or wouldn't notice? 

I agree about the starving children, but that's what charities are for. I'd rather choose where my money goes than to have it confiscated at gunpoint and used to pay for some bloated government program. During fiscal year 2024, the IRS collected more than $5.1 trillion in tax revenue. That'll feed a shit load of starving children, and yet...we still have starving children (and a gigantic national debt). 

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

He would not notice one bit. Billions in wealth is unfathomable to 99.99% of people to ever live. If his current wealth did not grow or...

He would not notice one bit. Billions in wealth is unfathomable to 99.99% of people to ever live. If his current wealth did not grow or shrink till the end of time, he could spend an average of 1 million per day and it would take him over 800 years to exhaust his wealth. But let’s just assume a measly 1% return yearly on his assets. As we know, that’s way below the average. That means yearly his assets would grow by 3 billion. And spending that 1 million daily would obviously be 365 million spent. We are not talking millions here. This is just an unspeakable amount of wealth. Again I’ll use my original example to show how much it is. 1 million seconds is 11 days. 1 billion seconds is 31 years. And Bezos has a net worth of 300 billion. His lifestyle is the exact same whether everything over 1 billion gets taxed at 10% or not.

I agree charities are great! But they’re voluntary. They can and will dry up in an instant. I’d rather have a guarantee from the federal government that basic needs of children are met and if billionaires have to pay a little bit more to make that happen then I’m all for it.

Your IRS statistic. Yes they collect the money, but the House determines the budget. They decide where the money is spent and how. You are correct our debt keeps going up. You know what one major thing would help mitigate that?

Sully wrote:

"[charities] can and will dry up in an instant."That's bullshit, and you know it. Americans voluntarily donated over half a trillion (~$580 billion) dollars to...

"[charities] can and will dry up in an instant."
That's bullshit, and you know it. Americans voluntarily donated over half a trillion (~$580 billion) dollars to charity in 2023. That's a lot of well fed kids... 

"I’d rather have a guarantee from the federal government that basic needs of children are met"
That same federal government already collected $5.1 trillion in taxes last year, and the needs of children aren't being met. What makes you think taxing billionaires more will change that?

*Edited because the capital “b” in billion automatically made the stupid sunglass emoji. 

Last2Stroke wrote:

The media has raised concerns about taxing unrealized gains, this is not new, unrealized Australian Superannuation gains have always been taxed.Have a read of the proposed...

The media has raised concerns about taxing unrealized gains, this is not new, unrealized Australian Superannuation gains have always been taxed.

Have a read of the proposed amendment...

https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/c2023-443986-em.pdf

It proposes increasing the tax rate on Australian Superannuation gains on accounts worth more the $3 million...

The 30% is not applied to all gains, it is in proportion to the balance above $3 million. If somebody has a superannuation balance of $6 million, half the gains are taxed at 15%, half the gains are taxed at 30%. If somebody has a superannuation balance of $30 million, 10% of gains are taxed at 15%, 90% of gains are taxed at 30%.

Losses can be carried forward and subtracted from gains in future years.

Australian Superannuation is different from personal investments, there are significant tax concessions, contributions are taxed at 15%, and gains are taxed at 15 or 30%, instead of peoples nominal 19-45% tax rate.

Employers are required to contribute 11% of employees wages and salary into the employees superannuation fund, the superannuation funds are not controlled by the employer, they are independent, employees can switch between superannuation funds any time. The government has a website that shows each superannuation funds fees and returns, this has weeded out poor performing superannuation funds.

There are no taxes and no talk of taxes on unrealized gains on personal investments.

burn1986 wrote:

Why though? Is there a reason Aus economy in a bad situation so much that they have to pull this shady maneuver?

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

He would not notice one bit. Billions in wealth is unfathomable to 99.99% of people to ever live. If his current wealth did not grow or...

He would not notice one bit. Billions in wealth is unfathomable to 99.99% of people to ever live. If his current wealth did not grow or shrink till the end of time, he could spend an average of 1 million per day and it would take him over 800 years to exhaust his wealth. But let’s just assume a measly 1% return yearly on his assets. As we know, that’s way below the average. That means yearly his assets would grow by 3 billion. And spending that 1 million daily would obviously be 365 million spent. We are not talking millions here. This is just an unspeakable amount of wealth. Again I’ll use my original example to show how much it is. 1 million seconds is 11 days. 1 billion seconds is 31 years. And Bezos has a net worth of 300 billion. His lifestyle is the exact same whether everything over 1 billion gets taxed at 10% or not.

I agree charities are great! But they’re voluntary. They can and will dry up in an instant. I’d rather have a guarantee from the federal government that basic needs of children are met and if billionaires have to pay a little bit more to make that happen then I’m all for it.

Your IRS statistic. Yes they collect the money, but the House determines the budget. They decide where the money is spent and how. You are correct our debt keeps going up. You know what one major thing would help mitigate that?

Sully wrote:

"[charities] can and will dry up in an instant."That's bullshit, and you know it. Americans voluntarily donated over half a trillion (~$580 billion) dollars to...

"[charities] can and will dry up in an instant."
That's bullshit, and you know it. Americans voluntarily donated over half a trillion (~$580 billion) dollars to charity in 2023. That's a lot of well fed kids... 

"I’d rather have a guarantee from the federal government that basic needs of children are met"
That same federal government already collected $5.1 trillion in taxes last year, and the needs of children aren't being met. What makes you think taxing billionaires more will change that?

*Edited because the capital “b” in billion automatically made the stupid sunglass emoji. 

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Yes if people decide they don’t want to or can’t donate to charities then they are done. It could happen at any time. Will it? Doubtful...

Yes if people decide they don’t want to or can’t donate to charities then they are done. It could happen at any time. Will it? Doubtful. But do we want a system where people are entirely dependent on the generosity of others or should we have a system that just has a few basic guarantees in place for veterans who have served this country and serving children?

Last2Stroke wrote:

The media has raised concerns about taxing unrealized gains, this is not new, unrealized Australian Superannuation gains have always been taxed.Have a read of the proposed...

The media has raised concerns about taxing unrealized gains, this is not new, unrealized Australian Superannuation gains have always been taxed.

Have a read of the proposed amendment...

https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/c2023-443986-em.pdf

It proposes increasing the tax rate on Australian Superannuation gains on accounts worth more the $3 million...

The 30% is not applied to all gains, it is in proportion to the balance above $3 million. If somebody has a superannuation balance of $6 million, half the gains are taxed at 15%, half the gains are taxed at 30%. If somebody has a superannuation balance of $30 million, 10% of gains are taxed at 15%, 90% of gains are taxed at 30%.

Losses can be carried forward and subtracted from gains in future years.

Australian Superannuation is different from personal investments, there are significant tax concessions, contributions are taxed at 15%, and gains are taxed at 15 or 30%, instead of peoples nominal 19-45% tax rate.

Employers are required to contribute 11% of employees wages and salary into the employees superannuation fund, the superannuation funds are not controlled by the employer, they are independent, employees can switch between superannuation funds any time. The government has a website that shows each superannuation funds fees and returns, this has weeded out poor performing superannuation funds.

There are no taxes and no talk of taxes on unrealized gains on personal investments.

burn1986 wrote:

Why though? Is there a reason Aus economy in a bad situation so much that they have to pull this shady maneuver?

TeamGreen wrote:

Margaret Thatcher covered this. 

burn1986 wrote:

Why though? Is there a reason Aus economy in a bad situation so much that they have to pull this shady maneuver?

TeamGreen wrote:

Margaret Thatcher covered this. 

1Burrdog wrote:

Hahahaha............I wondered if anyone was gunna raise that, well played good sir👍

TeamGreen wrote:

Margaret Thatcher covered this. 

1Burrdog wrote:

Hahahaha............I wondered if anyone was gunna raise that, well played good sir👍

TeamGreen wrote:

Well, there’s another beer I’m gonna have to have with an Aussie! 

Last2Stroke wrote:

The media has raised concerns about taxing unrealized gains, this is not new, unrealized Australian Superannuation gains have always been taxed.Have a read of the proposed...

The media has raised concerns about taxing unrealized gains, this is not new, unrealized Australian Superannuation gains have always been taxed.

Have a read of the proposed amendment...

https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/c2023-443986-em.pdf

It proposes increasing the tax rate on Australian Superannuation gains on accounts worth more the $3 million...

The 30% is not applied to all gains, it is in proportion to the balance above $3 million. If somebody has a superannuation balance of $6 million, half the gains are taxed at 15%, half the gains are taxed at 30%. If somebody has a superannuation balance of $30 million, 10% of gains are taxed at 15%, 90% of gains are taxed at 30%.

Losses can be carried forward and subtracted from gains in future years.

Australian Superannuation is different from personal investments, there are significant tax concessions, contributions are taxed at 15%, and gains are taxed at 15 or 30%, instead of peoples nominal 19-45% tax rate.

Employers are required to contribute 11% of employees wages and salary into the employees superannuation fund, the superannuation funds are not controlled by the employer, they are independent, employees can switch between superannuation funds any time. The government has a website that shows each superannuation funds fees and returns, this has weeded out poor performing superannuation funds.

There are no taxes and no talk of taxes on unrealized gains on personal investments.

burn1986 wrote:

Why though? Is there a reason Aus economy in a bad situation so much that they have to pull this shady maneuver?

Last2Stroke wrote:

JM's used a "megayacht" as an example, not an LA mansion, a "megayacht" would be made offshore, so would provide US jobs during construction.or are you...

JM's used a "megayacht" as an example, not an LA mansion, a "megayacht" would be made offshore, so would provide US jobs during construction.

or are you too dense to understand that.

Sully wrote:

So he’s not the yacht building expert you seem to think you are, big fucking deal. The “what” wasn’t the point of his post, the result...

So he’s not the yacht building expert you seem to think you are, big fucking deal. The “what” wasn’t the point of his post, the result was. Christ you’re a fucking monkey. 

Last2Stroke wrote:

Using an example that misses the point he was trying to show, the US education system at it's finest!

Sully wrote:

So he’s not the yacht building expert you seem to think you are, big fucking deal. The “what” wasn’t the point of his post, the result...

So he’s not the yacht building expert you seem to think you are, big fucking deal. The “what” wasn’t the point of his post, the result was. Christ you’re a fucking monkey. 

Last2Stroke wrote:

Using an example that misses the point he was trying to show, the US education system at it's finest!

Peanut M&Ms wrote:

hey sully, you know Last2Stroke was just being a smart arse because of the poor example used

Sully wrote:

So he’s not the yacht building expert you seem to think you are, big fucking deal. The “what” wasn’t the point of his post, the result...

So he’s not the yacht building expert you seem to think you are, big fucking deal. The “what” wasn’t the point of his post, the result was. Christ you’re a fucking monkey. 

Last2Stroke wrote:

Using an example that misses the point he was trying to show, the US education system at it's finest!

Peanut M&Ms wrote:

hey sully, you know Last2Stroke was just being a smart arse because of the poor example used

Sully wrote:

"[charities] can and will dry up in an instant."That's bullshit, and you know it. Americans voluntarily donated over half a trillion (~$580 billion) dollars to...

"[charities] can and will dry up in an instant."
That's bullshit, and you know it. Americans voluntarily donated over half a trillion (~$580 billion) dollars to charity in 2023. That's a lot of well fed kids... 

"I’d rather have a guarantee from the federal government that basic needs of children are met"
That same federal government already collected $5.1 trillion in taxes last year, and the needs of children aren't being met. What makes you think taxing billionaires more will change that?

*Edited because the capital “b” in billion automatically made the stupid sunglass emoji. 

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Yes if people decide they don’t want to or can’t donate to charities then they are done. It could happen at any time. Will it? Doubtful...

Yes if people decide they don’t want to or can’t donate to charities then they are done. It could happen at any time. Will it? Doubtful. But do we want a system where people are entirely dependent on the generosity of others or should we have a system that just has a few basic guarantees in place for veterans who have served this country and serving children?

Sully wrote:

"...do we want a system where people are entirely dependent on the generosity of others"

Yes

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Yes if people decide they don’t want to or can’t donate to charities then they are done. It could happen at any time. Will it? Doubtful...

Yes if people decide they don’t want to or can’t donate to charities then they are done. It could happen at any time. Will it? Doubtful. But do we want a system where people are entirely dependent on the generosity of others or should we have a system that just has a few basic guarantees in place for veterans who have served this country and serving children?

Sully wrote:

"...do we want a system where people are entirely dependent on the generosity of others"

Yes

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Okay so when not enough people in an area donate, you’re good with children starving to death?

Sully wrote:

"...do we want a system where people are entirely dependent on the generosity of others"

Yes

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Okay so when not enough people in an area donate, you’re good with children starving to death?

Sully wrote:

Ooooh, the hyperbole game, I love this one...Yes.

Sully wrote:

"...do we want a system where people are entirely dependent on the generosity of others"

Yes

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Okay so when not enough people in an area donate, you’re good with children starving to death?

Sully wrote:

Ooooh, the hyperbole game, I love this one...Yes.

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Okay so when not enough people in an area donate, you’re good with children starving to death?

Sully wrote:

Ooooh, the hyperbole game, I love this one...Yes.

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Nah just asking a serious question. You just said you want those in need to be 100% dependent on people deciding to donate. Rural children who...

Nah just asking a serious question. You just said you want those in need to be 100% dependent on people deciding to donate. Rural children who are poor can’t make it into the donation food drive an hour into town. But they do almost always have a WalMart or local grocery store close by. In your model they just starve.

Sully wrote:

Ooooh, the hyperbole game, I love this one...Yes.

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Nah just asking a serious question. You just said you want those in need to be 100% dependent on people deciding to donate. Rural children who...

Nah just asking a serious question. You just said you want those in need to be 100% dependent on people deciding to donate. Rural children who are poor can’t make it into the donation food drive an hour into town. But they do almost always have a WalMart or local grocery store close by. In your model they just starve.

Sully wrote:

In addition to Walmarts and local stores, do you know what else those rural areas have? Churches. I’ve heard those are pretty charitable places, and I’d...

In addition to Walmarts and local stores, do you know what else those rural areas have? Churches. I’ve heard those are pretty charitable places, and I’d bet a paycheck they’re pretty against letting kids starve to death (there’s that hyperbole stuff again…). 

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Nah just asking a serious question. You just said you want those in need to be 100% dependent on people deciding to donate. Rural children who...

Nah just asking a serious question. You just said you want those in need to be 100% dependent on people deciding to donate. Rural children who are poor can’t make it into the donation food drive an hour into town. But they do almost always have a WalMart or local grocery store close by. In your model they just starve.

Sully wrote:

In addition to Walmarts and local stores, do you know what else those rural areas have? Churches. I’ve heard those are pretty charitable places, and I’d...

In addition to Walmarts and local stores, do you know what else those rural areas have? Churches. I’ve heard those are pretty charitable places, and I’d bet a paycheck they’re pretty against letting kids starve to death (there’s that hyperbole stuff again…). 

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Sure are! If the churches come through for them then that’s great! Not a guarantee though. I wouldn’t want it to fall into that type of...

Sure are! If the churches come through for them then that’s great! Not a guarantee though. I wouldn’t want it to fall into that type of situation.

Sully wrote:

In addition to Walmarts and local stores, do you know what else those rural areas have? Churches. I’ve heard those are pretty charitable places, and I’d...

In addition to Walmarts and local stores, do you know what else those rural areas have? Churches. I’ve heard those are pretty charitable places, and I’d bet a paycheck they’re pretty against letting kids starve to death (there’s that hyperbole stuff again…). 

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Sure are! If the churches come through for them then that’s great! Not a guarantee though. I wouldn’t want it to fall into that type of...

Sure are! If the churches come through for them then that’s great! Not a guarantee though. I wouldn’t want it to fall into that type of situation.

Sully wrote:

You've obviously got your mind set that there's no other answer than more government (which is terrifyingly pathetic), and no amount of logic is going to...

You've obviously got your mind set that there's no other answer than more government (which is terrifyingly pathetic), and no amount of logic is going to change that, so I'm out. Have the best day ever...

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Sure are! If the churches come through for them then that’s great! Not a guarantee though. I wouldn’t want it to fall into that type of...

Sure are! If the churches come through for them then that’s great! Not a guarantee though. I wouldn’t want it to fall into that type of situation.

Sully wrote:

You've obviously got your mind set that there's no other answer than more government (which is terrifyingly pathetic), and no amount of logic is going to...

You've obviously got your mind set that there's no other answer than more government (which is terrifyingly pathetic), and no amount of logic is going to change that, so I'm out. Have the best day ever...

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

For what it’s worth, I understand where you’re coming from completely. I get it. Both parties have shown their incompetence and that’s why millions have your...

For what it’s worth, I understand where you’re coming from completely. I get it. Both parties have shown their incompetence and that’s why millions have your mindset of keeping them out as much as possible. Hopefully you can understand my mindset too. I appreciate the conversation. Truly. Very few here are willing to have it. Mostly insults around here anymore. I hope you have a good day as well.

ThatOneMXGuy wrote:

Don’t agree with it at 3 million. When we get into the hundreds of millions and billions category then sure I’m good with it. But 3...

Don’t agree with it at 3 million. When we get into the hundreds of millions and billions category then sure I’m good with it. But 3 million nah. Those guys are doing great for themselves but that’s not in the same ballpark as people with billions in stocks that they use to never actually pay taxes. 

inflammable wrote:

Your mindset is you want as little responsibility as possible, and want the government to provide for all your needs. All the while Jones-ing at the...

Your mindset is you want as little responsibility as possible, and want the government to provide for all your needs. All the while Jones-ing at the billionaires and wanting to take all they have.