[Mr Medved]

Bernard L. Madoff, on 19 April 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

2010 Audi A6 in England $29,000AUD
http://www.autotrade.../1501?logcode=p
Cheapest 2010 Audi A6 in Australia on car sales: $60,000

Merc in UK less than 100kAUD:
http://www.autotrade...erivative/51698

Merc in Australia over 200kAUD:
http://www.driveaway...es-benz.com.au/

Prices based on S class.

Breakdown for Australia from the website:


S-Class Saloon
S 350 BlueTEC SWB

Manufacturer's List Price including GST$181,569.00
Recommended maximum dealer delivery¹ including GST$3,038.46
Luxury Car Tax (LCT)$32,769.74
VIC Total Registration²$748.20
VIC Stamp Duty$10,870.00
Drive Away Price Base model featured only.$228,995.40

Or maybe you prefer one of these:

http://webcache.goog...ng.ru/1325.html

This post has been edited by Mr Medved: 19 April 2012 - 08:06 PM

[Easy Tiger]

Turkey, on 19 April 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Take a look at supermarkets. As soon as a new competitor opens up, the local Coles and/or Woolworths drops their prices until they go bust. If they manage to hang in there they buy them out. Once a year the regulator gently spanks their bottom with a wet noodle.

When the duopoly got into the fuel market with their shoppa-dockets I could clearly see where we were headed and I spoke out against it very loudly to all I knew. I warned them that they were saving a little bit of money now only to pay much more in the future. Even now, people still don’t get it and the few independent servo’s around struggle. When they fold Aussie motorists will envy how cheap fuel is in New Zealand. What astounds me most though is that the ACCC and the government refuse to see a problem. But then, that’s because I like to think that the Australian government isn’t corrupted by the interests of large corporations

[staringclown]

Mr Medved, on 19 April 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Or maybe you prefer one of these:

http://webcache.goog...ng.ru/1325.html

I know public servants aren't flavour of the month mate but that may be overkill.

[Bernard L. Madoff]

I'm not a public servant but the fuel economy would suck.

I can get a BMW 760Li in pommy land for $150K or get one here for $400K and whilst watching the stig, I'll take the pom one ($150K - same as a one year loss in a northshore property?)

For petrol heads, well worth 7 minutes...

[sydney3000]

How much cheaper would I have gotten my $13,990 white automatic Suzuki Alto GLX?

This post has been edited by sydney3000: 21 April 2012 - 10:10 PM

[Mr Medved]

sydney3000, on 21 April 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

How much cheaper would I have gotten my $13,990 white automatic Suzuki Alto GLX?

Perhaps second-hand Japanese imports are more your market. They are cheap but the government introduced more protectionist policies on second-hand car imports a few years ago so the bargains are a little harder to find.

[sydney3000]

sydney3000, on 21 April 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

How much cheaper would I have gotten my $13,990 white automatic Suzuki Alto GLX?

I had a look at the Suzuki UK website and it seems there is no price premium in Australia for the Suzuki Alto. It makes sense since both bottom-of-the-barrel target markets would be skinned as.

[zaph]

Quote

AUSTRALIA'S top earners are set to be slugged more tax on their superannuation contributions as the Gillard Government battles to claw back money for its budget surplus.

The Courier-Mail can reveal the Government will continue its attack on welfare for the rich with a plan to halve the superannuation tax concession for high earning Australians in the federal budget, in just over a week.

The move will stop the mega rich from squirreling away money for retirement at a bargain basement tax rate of just 15 cents in the dollar, hiking the tax rate on super contributions to 30 cents in the dollar.

It will target Australians with incomes of more than $300,000 including super, and will deliver the Government a $1 billion saving.

It's the same group of people who will be hit by the Government's private health insurance hikes and the carbon tax.

http://www.courierma...o-1226341137566

[cobran20]

zaph, on 27 April 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

Considering the tax is paid by the super funds, it is going to be an admin nightmare as the super funds have no idea of what your taxable income is. I expect that the biggest beneficiary of this change is going to be the tax industry - extra jobs at the ATO and more work for tax accountants!

[tom]

cobran20, on 27 April 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

Considering the tax is paid by the super funds, it is going to be an admin nightmare as the super funds have no idea of what your taxable income is. I expect that the biggest beneficiary of this change is going to be the tax industry - extra jobs at the ATO and more work for tax accountants!

I think it is only extra contributions, not the tax rate on your super income.

These higher earning individuals / families have the choice from here whether to continue to smash contributions into super and pay 30% tax on these contributions or stop now and pay 40% odd tax outside of super.

I reckon they have the 1bn figure wrong, its too low. They are going to get a whole lot more money through the ordinary tax system now and only part of the reason is the 10% difference in tax. The risk of regulatory change within super is now well and truly in peoples minds so you might find lots of others on more normal incomes also declining to contribute additional money to super for the tax saving.

[sydney3000]

cobran20, on 27 April 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

Considering the tax is paid by the super funds, it is going to be an admin nightmare as the super funds have no idea of what your taxable income is. I expect that the biggest beneficiary of this change is going to be the tax industry - extra jobs at the ATO and more work for tax accountants!

I have been trying to think of a way to make it feasible to implement especially since the actual income after ... isn't known until the financial year is over. The impracticality of it may be the single most important signal that superannuation is counter-productive. Who can live off $250,000 or less for 20 years after the age of 67?

This post has been edited by sydney3000: 27 April 2012 - 11:40 PM

[tor]

tom, on 27 April 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

These higher earning individuals / families have the choice from here whether to continue to smash contributions into super and pay 30% tax on these contributions or stop now and pay 40% odd tax outside of super.

I reckon they have the 1bn figure wrong, its too low. They are going to get a whole lot more money through the ordinary tax system now and only part of the reason is the 10% difference in tax. The risk of regulatory change within super is now well and truly in peoples minds so you might find lots of others on more normal incomes also declining to contribute additional money to super for the tax saving.

Even on my income I only pay 35% after deductions. The 45% or whatever is only on income above 200K or so and I would suspect most people on more than 300K have a reasonable chunk of deductions because it costs a lot to stay at that level.

Changing the rules on super like this just underlines my theory that it is the dumbest place to put your money ever. The rules can be changed by the people holding your money. I do not trust that kind of system.

So I agree a lot of money will not being going to super. Whether it then becomes part of the normal tax income I would not be brave enough to say. I suspect it probably sent a lot of creative accountants scurrying.

[tom]

tor, on 27 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

Even on my income I only pay 35% after deductions. The 45% or whatever is only on income above 200K or so and I would suspect most people on more than 300K have a reasonable chunk of deductions because it costs a lot to stay at that level.

Changing the rules on super like this just underlines my theory that it is the dumbest place to put your money ever. The rules can be changed by the people holding your money. I do not trust that kind of system.

So I agree a lot of money will not being going to super. Whether it then becomes part of the normal tax income I would not be brave enough to say. I suspect it probably sent a lot of creative accountants scurrying.

I understand what you are saying but when you contribute you are saving at your marginal rate not your average rate.

On underlining the theory, agree 100%. it was always a risk, now people can see what you have been saying for a while. That relying on government regulation in your business (insulation, solar panels etc) or to fund your retirement (super, mining stocks, negative gearing?) is a risky proposition. The future govs of the day will attempt to divide and conquor (over 300k then 200k etc then let a bit of inflation do the rest) but this is one area people are already nervous.

[savagegoose]

why ever work as an individual over %30? surely its tile to set up a company, and have all your income going into the company. and paying yourself a $160k a year job, or what ever the 30% threshold is. and having the remainder, of the over 160k, paying company rates, sure `160 wouldnt be thge thresahhold, there would have to be the costs invovled so say 200k , before its prudent to be managing for your own business, not someone elses bushiness.

[tom]

savagegoose, on 28 April 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

why ever work as an individual over %30? surely its tile to set up a company, and have all your income going into the company. and paying yourself a $160k a year job, or what ever the 30% threshold is. and having the remainder, of the over 160k, paying company rates, sure `160 wouldnt be thge thresahhold, there would have to be the costs invovled so say 200k , before its prudent to be managing for your own business, not someone elses bushiness.

This is the kind of reform Ken Henry wanted. To bring company and personal tax so closely into line that no one would bother. Trouble is he also wanted to reduce company tax, and we cannot afford to reduce income tax so I don't know how you could achieve it. GST at 20%

[Solomon]

tom, on 28 April 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

GST at 20%

Maybe not that high, but its coming.
If (if), they get away with all these proposed budget changes, an increase in GST must be on the cards.
People at the time asked whether it could ever be increased. (Lots of chest beating and arm waving - "no way".)Ha!
Just needed the economical environment to shift enough.

[zaph]

tom, on 27 April 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

I think it is only extra contributions, not the tax rate on your super income.

These higher earning individuals / families have the choice from here whether to continue to smash contributions into super and pay 30% tax on these contributions or stop now and pay 40% odd tax outside of super.

I reckon they have the 1bn figure wrong, its too low. They are going to get a whole lot more money through the ordinary tax system now and only part of the reason is the 10% difference in tax. The risk of regulatory change within super is now well and truly in peoples minds so you might find lots of others on more normal incomes also declining to contribute additional money to super for the tax saving.

the concessional contributions cap is 25k pa for under 50yrs and 50k for over 50 with balance's less than 500k. after that contributions are taxed at the highest marginal tax rate (plus medicare levy), so contributing more than 25/50k has no tax advantage (accept the anticipation that earnings within super will be taxed at the current lower 15% rate in the future).

i think the 1bn figure is also wrong, but i believe it's way too high unless your theory that people on normal incomes reduce super contributions because of fear of policy change (this would be a gradual change, not a sudden one over one year) is correct.

an employee on 300k would not be voluntarily contributing to super.

[zaph]

tor, on 27 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

Changing the rules on super like this just underlines my theory that it is the dumbest place to put your money ever. The rules can be changed by the people holding your money. I do not trust that kind of system.

So I agree a lot of money will not being going to super. Whether it then becomes part of the normal tax income I would not be brave enough to say. I suspect it probably sent a lot of creative accountants scurrying.

the whole tax system is subject to change by govt (not just the super fund, which might just be you). the govt could arrive tomorrow and confiscate your gold, tax interest at 90% etc etc. politically super is an easy target for tax changes as most people don't see it as quite their own money. there would be far more outrage to changes of rules for natural persons. in my mind the biggest risk to super change is how you can take it upon retirement. atm you can take it all out on retirement and blow it on hookers and coke in the first couple of years - by the time we retire i see that changing dramatically.

if one is not reducing their taxable income by contributing super then it does become part of one's taxable income. agreed these changes will keep accountants and tax planners busy for a while.

[staringclown]

The trouble with upping the GST and lowering income tax is that it affects low income earners disproportionately. They aren't paying much income tax now so get no benefit. They will have to pay more for goods and services and will be worse off overall. Although some of this spending is discretionary. I'm for reducing income tax as this provides an incentive to work. Sorry to bang on about it but replacing the lost revenue with an increase in the holding cost on assets (eg land) would be an alternative.

Getting rid of upfront costs like stamp duty in favour of upping the holding costs would provide the additional benefit of stabilising the revenue base compared to the declines we are seeing now in stamp duty revenues when the housing market slumps.

[sydney3000]

zaph, on 28 April 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

politically super is an easy target for tax changes as most people don't see it as quite their own money.

The reason it is an easy target is that it offers the most delayed and invisible effect through its 40 year lock-up period. It would be a lot harder to change the tax on people who are already drawing down on super than it would be on people who just started paying into super. The make-up of it always creates one target group as the weakest group. Who will be next? I'd prefer to be in the group which is outside the super group and which goes about life unnoticed.

This post has been edited by sydney3000: 28 April 2012 - 01:16 AM