Australian pension

[Will27]

15 hours ago, LosLobo said:

 

 

To the average person, the above posts would seem to be offering conflicting advice. ????

About as conflicting as this:

 

on 1/22/2019/at 5:544PM, David Waldren said: 

I will not now be making any further contributions on this site on this subject.

And this

on 1/22/2019 at 6:32PM, David Waldren said:

My very very last post...

 

 

[David Walden]

15 hours ago, LosLobo said:

 

 

To the average person, the above posts would seem to be offering conflicting advice. ????

If you took into account the average single AAP recipient with the average personal assets of only about $120,000 you could expect to buy blue-chip investments returning 6/7%  (ASX 200) with perhaps 3% capital appreciation, thus, if you were 65 y/o you should be able to take 10% or about $10/12.000 each year and not pay any tax as the Seniors tax threshold is $32,000 income free each year and not even put a tax return in.  This investment should last forever maybe and increase in relation to the CPI. 

[4MyEgo]

39 minutes ago, David Walden said:

If you would like a correct answer you need to ask you question bearing in mind if your questions are about  AAP matters or self-funded and over retirement age because different answers will apply for over or under 65y/o. i.e...tax thresholds, single or married, the work bonus which significantly increases your income threshold.  Income, deeming amounts and asset thresholds and other issues.  The "work bonus" will have a big effect on your deeming threshold, seniors tax offsets for couples and a host of other things.  It's mostly on the Centrelink web site and seniors tax information offset infomation.  Can be daunting navigation to what you want to know......PS Centrelink has no interest in your taxation liabilities.  Most pensioners (about 83%) pay no tax whatsoever. 

Watch out for tax accountant giving advice about Centrelink matters they probably know less than you do.

This stuff is very confusing for me as a lame person, i.e. I am aware that as my Mrs is 21 years my junior, she will not be entitled to the AAP and if we say we are married, which we are, i.e. we married in Australia, I will receive about half of the married rate of the AAP, that said, the plan is to divorce, no issue with that, just a piece of paper and was a requirement back then for her to remain in Australia when she entered on a tourist visa, then she got a bridging visa, then spouse visa, then she applied for citizenship and received it, so we will divorce no issues and I will receive the single rate of the AAP if I apply for it and am approved.

 

The above said, from my understanding, I can have $465,500 worth of assets as a Non-Homeowner, however this asset will have a deeming rate applied to it, i.e. if I earn up to $51,200 they will reduce my AAP (single rate) as they will tax me 1.75% up to the threshold ($51,200) over that the rate goes up to I think it's 3.25% or something like that, but I am not going to be making that kind of bacon on $465,500 as that would reflect 11% return...lol.

 

So when I put in $465,500 on their calculator, it showed that the AAP for a single person would reduce to $726.20 or thereabouts and I am ok with that.

 

Where I get confused is this seniors taxation offset ?

 

I mean where does this come into play, eg if I have $465,500 as a single on the AAP, I am having my single rate reduced because of the deeming aren't I ? So I don't understand where this seniors tax offset comes into play ?

 

Can you elaborate on that so as to put me on the straight and narrow, and if you see anything above being out of wake.

 

Cheers

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

This stuff is very confusing for me as a lame person, i.e. I am aware that as my Mrs is 21 years my junior, she will not be entitled to the AAP and if we say we are married, which we are, i.e. we married in Australia, I will receive about half of the married rate of the AAP, that said, the plan is to divorce, no issue with that, just a piece of paper and was a requirement back then for her to remain in Australia when she entered on a tourist visa, then she got a bridging visa, then spouse visa, then she applied for citizenship and received it, so we will divorce no issues and I will receive the single rate of the AAP if I apply for it and am approved.

 

The above said, from my understanding, I can have $465,500 worth of assets as a Non-Homeowner, however this asset will have a deeming rate applied to it, i.e. if I earn up to $51,200 they will reduce my AAP (single rate) as they will tax me 1.75% up to the threshold ($51,200) over that the rate goes up to I think it's 3.25% or something like that, but I am not going to be making that kind of bacon on $465,500 as that would reflect 11% return...lol.

 

So when I put in $465,500 on their calculator, it showed that the AAP for a single person would reduce to $726.20 or thereabouts and I am ok with that.

 

Where I get confused is this seniors taxation offset ?

 

I mean where does this come into play, eg if I have $465,500 as a single on the AAP, I am having my single rate reduced because of the deeming aren't I ? So I don't understand where this seniors tax offset comes into play ?

 

Can you elaborate on that so as to put me on the straight and narrow, and if you see anything above being out of wake.

 

Cheers

I would be cautious about taking DW's advice about divorcing and living together separately and apart.

 

I cannot see how it would be ethical.

 

Attached is DSS's spin on the subject:

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/2/2/5/20

 

I don't see why you keep specifying this "$465,500" when you mainly have only financial assets and will be income tested.

 

The "$465,500" is an unnecessary DW artifact when calculating your entitlement.

 

The range from full pension to no pension for single man would be $161,200 to $768,300.

 

The (SAPTO) Seniors and Pensioners Tax Offset just increases your assessable income threshold from $18k to $32k.

 

[LosLobo]

46 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

I would be cautious about taking DW's advice about divorcing and living together separately and apart.

 

I cannot see how it would be ethical.

 

Attached is DSS's spin on the subject:

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/2/2/5/20

 

I don't see why you keep specifying this "$465,500" when you mainly have only financial assets and will be income tested.

 

The "$465,500" is an unnecessary DW artifact when calculating your entitlement.

 

The range from full pension to no pension for single man would be $161,200 to $768,300.

 

The (SAPTO) Seniors and Pensioners Tax Offset just increases your assessable income threshold from $18k to $32k.

 

Oops wrong link:

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/2/2/5/30

[4MyEgo]

53 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

I don't see why you keep specifying this "$465,500" when you mainly have only financial assets and will be income tested.

I believe that the figure of $465,500 is a threshold for a single person who does not own a home, and therefore receives the full pension of $916.30 up to the threshold amount if they are not working. 

 

Go over that amount and the pension drops, that said, when you put that amount of $552 per fortnight in the deeming calculator which says you are earning $552 per fortnight, it tells you that your pension amount is reduced from $916.30 for a single person down to $726.30 per fortnight.

 

53 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

The range from full pension to no pension for single man would be $161,200 to $768,300.

I calculated that under the threshold of $465,500 you receive a full pension of $916.30 and at your maximum figure of $768,300 as quoted you receive $7.90 which is basically saying, you get get no pension.

  

53 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

The (SAPTO) Seniors and Pensioners Tax Offset just increases your assessable income threshold from $18k to $32k.

So I am assuming this is for those that want to work, i.e. the ATO's threshold is usually $18,200 then tax is applied thereafter, but if your a senior, the threshold is raised by the ATO to $32,000 before you start paying any tax. That said if I put $0 as assets and that threshold of $32,000 as my income, i.e. $1,230 per fortnight in the calculator, it tells me that my pension is reduced to $387.30 per fortnight from $916.30 per fortnight, now if you keep going and work out the difference from the ATO giving you a free ride up to $32,000 (no tax), but Centrelink reducing your single rate AAP from $916.30 to $387.30, that in essence means they are taking from your pension the difference i.e. $529 per fortnight, which doesn't make any sense, I mean why on earth would anyone want to work who is on the pension, it doesn't make any sense.

 

53 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

I would be cautious about taking DW's advice about divorcing and living together separately and apart.

I NEVER do anything illegal, even as a non resident I pay tax on the money I make from some consultancy work that I do from here, but as the money is paid into my account in Oz, it's taxed at 32.5%, suffice to say, it is what it is and I just forked $6,000 out in tax, had I been living in Australia or retained my residency I would pay less, but then again I wouldn't be getting the free ride I do with the stock market whereby I don't pay any tax on monies made from there, which includes no capital gains tax, so your damned if you do and your damned if you don't, but when I weigh up what I would pay in tax and capital gains tax from the stock market, I would be worse off as a resident of Australia for tax purposes, so I take it on the chin ????

 

53 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Even if it was legal I cannot see how it would be ethical.

 

Attached is DSS's spin on the subject:

I agree with you, it would be on the lines that we are divorced, we live separately, as much as I don't like it, I accept it, that is their rules, which to me is not right, i.e. my wife of 12 years has never worked in our relationship, she is a full time mum, here in Thailand where we live, opportunities are limited and if she did work it would be like $10-$12 a day and personally I wouldn't have her work for that kind of money. If they changed the rules to ok, your married, so your wife doesn't work, therefore you get the full single rate, as opposed to $200 less per fortnight, which is crazy to me, but like I say, it is what it is, you just have to play the system.

 

All of the above said, I could shift my assets before I turn 62, i.e. 5 years, but I see no point in covering things up, I have what I have and when the time comes, if it's $465,500, it's $465,500, if it's more, then I will receive less from m understanding. I am a firm believer that keeping yourself on the straight and narrow, means no one can get you for anything, now if I did return and get the AAP and returned to live in Thailand with my divorced wife, well, I suppose that would be deemed legal, as I have built a  self contained flat separate (attached) to the main dwelling, which is 112m2 in size ????

 

 

Self-contained residences

In situations where one party is residing in a separate fully self-contained dwelling such as a flat attached to the home or in a second home on the property, it is more likely to be considered that the person is living separately and apart.

 

[LosLobo]

14 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

I believe that the figure of $465,500 is a threshold for a single person who does not own a home, and therefore receives the full pension of $916.30 up to the threshold amount if they are not working. 

 

Go over that amount and the pension drops, that said, when you put that amount of $552 per fortnight in the deeming calculator which says you are earning $552 per fortnight, it tells you that your pension amount is reduced from $916.30 for a single person down to $726.30 per fortnight.

 

I calculated that under the threshold of $465,500 you receive a full pension of $916.30 and at your maximum figure of $768,300 as quoted you receive $7.90 which is basically saying, you get get no pension.

 

Yes effectively that would apply to someone who has a lot of non financial assets and would be paid the pension tested by the asset test. You are not that person. No need to mention $465,500 again.

[LosLobo]

32 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

So I am assuming this is for those that want to work, i.e. the ATO's threshold is usually $18,200 then tax is applied thereafter, but if your a senior, the threshold is raised by the ATO to $32,000 before you start paying any tax. That said if I put $0 as assets and that threshold of $32,000 as my income, i.e. $1,230 per fortnight in the calculator, it tells me that my pension is reduced to $387.30 per fortnight from $916.30 per fortnight, now if you keep going and work out the difference from the ATO giving you a free ride up to $32,000 (no tax), but Centrelink reducing your single rate AAP from $916.30 to $387.30, that in essence means they are taking from your pension the difference i.e. $529 per fortnight, which doesn't make any sense, I mean why on earth would anyone want to work who is on the pension, it doesn't make any sense.

Why are you using the pension calculator for tax?

 

There is no relationship between assessing your pension and assessing your tax!

 

When you do your tax as a non working pensioner, that is if you need to, your taxable income will be your pension from Centrelink plus any investment profits. If this is less than $32k you will not have a tax liability.

[4MyEgo]

25 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Yes effectively that would apply to someone who has a lot of non financial assets and would be paid the pension tested by the asset test. You are not that person. No need to mention $465,500 again.

Why is it then that Centrelink advertises that a Non Homeowner has a threshold of $465,000 ?

 

Are shares not deemed financial assets ? If not, is that why they are assessed under the deeming calculator ?

 

Totally lost, although I get the part of the seniors offset of $32,000 thanks, I'm assuming the $32,000 applies to a couple ?

[LosLobo]

48 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Why is it then that Centrelink advertises that a Non Homeowner has a threshold of $465,000 ?

 

Are shares not deemed financial assets ? If not, is that why they are assessed under the deeming calculator ?

 

Totally lost, although I get the part of the seniors offset of $32,000 thanks, I'm assuming the $32,000 applies to a couple ?

Have PM'd you ????

[David Walden]

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

I would be cautious about taking DW's advice about divorcing and living together separately and apart.

 

I cannot see how it would be ethical.

 

Attached is DSS's spin on the subject:

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/2/2/5/20

 

I don't see why you keep specifying this "$465,500" when you mainly have only financial assets and will be income tested.

 

The "$465,500" is an unnecessary DW artifact when calculating your entitlement.

 

The range from full pension to no pension for single man would be $161,200 to $768,300.

 

The (SAPTO) Seniors and Pensioners Tax Offset just increases your assessable income threshold from $18k to $32k.

 

1

The situation about "separated and living under the one roof applies to me" and Centrelink knows all about it.  I have no fears about that.

I will no longer respond to any questions about Centrelink entitlements on this site.  Let's go and talk about going and living in Portugal on the AAP.  It's looking more attractive every day.

[totally thaied up]

5 hours ago, LosLobo said:

I would be cautious about taking DW's advice about divorcing and living together separately and apart.

 

I cannot see how it would be ethical.

I was told in no uncertain terms via Centrelink, they will review your living arrangements in Thailand (or in fact, anywhere in the world you live). I get every two years review forms sent to my home address asking me to update the status of my marriage and asking about changes to my assets. I know plenty of guys here living or cohabitating with a Thai woman and it is clearly a defacto relationship ( http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/2/2/5/30 ) but claim being single. I do not agree with this at all because the honest ones like myself get reviewed almost every second year due to being married and doing it honestly while the rest get away scot-free. If I divorced and still lived with my wife (had a sexual relationship), would this be honest or correct? Some will say the Government needs to know nothing but it is clearly 'getting around' the system. 

 

It is not ethical at all but I sleep well at night understanding if Centrelink ever came after me, I got nothing to hide and believe me, the Overseas Services section look. If you ever have been under a review (I got reviewed twice in the last five years both at the same time by the ATO and Centrelink - I had to pay back $73 but I still had to pay it back!) They may not get you now but if they decide to go after you, you will have a lot of explaining to do. I lose a lot of money every year from being honest but at least I get to call my wife my wife and don't cheat the system that is so good to me.

[Nemises]

I will no longer respond to any questions about Centrelink entitlements on this site. 

Noted.....again.

[David Walden]

1 hour ago, Nemises said:

Noted.....again.

1 hour ago, Nemises said:

Noted.....again.

You will note I said Centrelink entitlements matters...I'll just sit back and watch you all self destruct.  Should be interesting.

 

 

 

 

[David Walden]

8 hours ago, totally thaied up said:

I was told in no uncertain terms via Centrelink, they will review your living arrangements in Thailand (or in fact, anywhere in the world you live). I get every two years review forms sent to my home address asking me to update the status of my marriage and asking about changes to my assets. I know plenty of guys here living or cohabitating with a Thai woman and it is clearly a defacto relationship ( http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/2/2/5/30 ) but claim being single. I do not agree with this at all because the honest ones like myself get reviewed almost every second year due to being married and doing it honestly while the rest get away scot-free. If I divorced and still lived with my wife (had a sexual relationship), would this be honest or correct? Some will say the Government needs to know nothing but it is clearly 'getting around' the system. 

 

It is not ethical at all but I sleep well at night understanding if Centrelink ever came after me, I got nothing to hide and believe me, the Overseas Services section look. If you ever have been under a review (I got reviewed twice in the last five years both at the same time by the ATO and Centrelink - I had to pay back $73 but I still had to pay it back!) They may not get you now but if they decide to go after you, you will have a lot of explaining to do. I lose a lot of money every year from being honest but at least I get to call my wife my wife and don't cheat the system that is so good to me.

I believe you are your own worst enemy?

[totally thaied up]

43 minutes ago, David Walden said:

I believe you are your own worst enemy?

I am honest, sleep very well at night. Better than having to worry about paying back 10,000's of dollars and the fact I can take my wife home to Australia at any time is priceless.  

[4MyEgo]

10 hours ago, David Walden said:

 

 

You are a sensitive one aren't you. 

 

Come on, come on back, we need your input on the affairs of Centrelink, just don't take it too heart ????

 

Not all information is correct, and this forum allows us to dissect information posted by TVF members, but anyone with half a brain knows not to take it as "fact" so to speak, one has to make their own enquiries through Goggle, Centrelink, Legislation etc etc until they find what they are looking for in writing, some TVF even post links which one can take as "fact"

 

See you here on this post real soon now ????

 

 

[David Walden]

7 hours ago, totally thaied up said:

I am honest, sleep very well at night. Better than having to worry about paying back 10,000's of dollars and the fact I can take my wife home to Australia at any time is priceless.  

I am honest also it is just that I have had the opportunity to peruse the Centrelink web site extensively as do all the contributors to this discussion.  I appear to have a better understanding of Centrelink requirements than most of the posters on this site.  Many of them are painting themselves into a corner.

   My actions actually saves Centrelink money.  By living "separated under the one roof" means that Centrelink does not have to pay me "Rent Assistance of about $135 p/f.  If you are separated and cannot live in the house you jointly own with your estranged "still wife" and need to live elsewhere then Centrelink is required to pay you this rent assistance.  I also live much of my time in Thailand so they save $58P/F by not paying most of the pension supplements.  Thankfully for my age, I am in quite good health.  I walk 6km each day and have done so almost every day for the for the last 43 years and 3 or 4 times a week I do a 30 min workout with 2 x  2kg weights.  Being resident in Thailand on longish holidays instead of parting long term does give me access to the almost free medical services when back in Aus (I do usually see my doctor) and taking steps to maintain my health I make use of the Aus Govt free medical services with just a few exceptions.  I really do not want to make my estranged wife sell the house and buy a real crappy one with her half of the money.  Anyway it's a good place to keep my campervan and the $10,000 of modest quality tool I have acquired from Bunnings just up the road over the last 25 years.

   So Mr Goody too-shoes, I really don't think you know the difference between that brown stuff and clay?   That's putting it nicely.  I sleep very well at night, your comments are just water off a duck's back.  I simply make use of the benefits that are available to all who want to take the time to study the current Centrelink rules.

[David Walden]

On 1/27/2019 at 9:41 AM, Will27 said:

About as conflicting as this:

 

on 1/22/2019/at 5:544PM, David Waldren said: 

I will not now be making any further contributions on this site on this subject.

And this

on 1/22/2019 at 6:32PM, David Waldren said:

My very very last post...

 

 

Hows the weather out where you are.  Is that a Centrelink entitlements matter?  Hello, hello.  I'm not the least bit upset by the monotonous regularity of the same questions with the answers not believed and asked all over again at least 500 times.  I do enjoy assisting people where I can...This reply is not a Centrelink entitlement matter...it's a personal one about the weather?   Whether she will or whether she won't.  That is the question?

[totally thaied up]

5 hours ago, David Walden said:

So Mr Goody too-shoes, I really don't think you know the difference between that brown stuff and clay?   That's putting it nicely.  I sleep very well at night, your comments are just water off a duck's back.  I simply make use of the benefits that are available to all who want to take the time to study the current Centrelink rules.

I have no need to get into with you. I can tell what you are made from (as you so kindly mentioned it first but I did not bring it up) but others here kindly know so I do not have to point it out. I touched a raw patch and a lot of you guys know this. LosLobo knows what he is talking about and the only people I take notice from is my Accountant and Centrelink. The rest is just dribble that gets sported here. 

 

8 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Come on, come on back, we need your input on the affairs of Centrelink, just don't take it too heart

He can't help himself. 

 

8 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Not all information is correct, and this forum allows us to dissect information posted by TVF members, but anyone with half a brain knows not to take it as "fact" so to speak, one has to make their own enquiries through Goggle, Centrelink, Legislation etc etc until they find what they are looking for in writing, some TVF even post links which one can take as "fact"

You are better off talking to your Accountant. My parents run a massive Trust and over the years, they have always told me to get proper advice when planning any major play that will affect your life. The internet can only take you so far - Trust Lawyers or a top accountant will give you the rest, that's if you got the money. Sure, it may not be cheap but in the end, you will save money been given the right advice that is legal and will stand good stead into your retirement. Bluntly, Internet gossip is not good enough when you are looking at your own future. It can point you in a certain direction, but that is really about it. 

[4MyEgo]

3 minutes ago, totally thaied up said:

He can't help himself. 

Lol

 

3 minutes ago, totally thaied up said:

You are better off talking to your Accountant. My parents run a massive Trust and over the years, they have always told me to get proper advice when planning any major play that will affect your life. The internet can only take you so far - Trust Lawyers or a top accountant will give you the rest, that's if you got the money. Sure, it may not be cheap but in the end, you will save money been given the right advice that is legal and will stand good stead into your retirement. Bluntly, Internet gossip is not good enough when you are looking at your own future. It can point you in a certain direction, but that is really about it. 

Amen to that, forums are the starting point for me, then I research, then confirm with my accountant of 30 plus years, if he can't answer my question, then I will sort it one way or another from the horse's mouth so to speak, in this instance Centrelink.

[David Walden]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

Lol

 

Amen to that, forums are the starting point for me, then I research, then confirm with my accountant of 30 plus years, if he can't answer my question, then I will sort it one way or another from the horse's mouth so to speak, in this instance Centrelink.

The only thing I have given advice for is issues which have applied personally with me.  The name of the site is "Australian Pension" it is implied from the comments made here are to do with the Australian Aged Pension (AAP) that is for people who are receiving the AAP or hoping to.  Deeming exist with many aspects of Centrelink payment for under and over retirement age.  If above retirement age and you have no assets but a job like I did 10 years over a 14 year period driving a school bus then the "work bonus" comes into play where you have near $500 p/f threshold before losing any of your pension.  You can earn near $500 p/f after that deeming comes into play (none of you know that).  The threshold all changes if you are married, and the deeming issues change.  If married then the SAPTO that is the tax offset benefit become very handsome benefits,  you can use your wife's unused tax threshold so your combined tax threshold will peter out at about $56,000 before as a couple you start paying tax etc.  If your affairs are simple as most AAP recipients are about 95% and as a single person and don't own a house you live in forget about the deeming issues.  Centrelink will simply accept your assets as stated.  If below the $456.500 as stated then the deeming will be irrelevant.  You will receive the full pension.  All income for Centrelink purposes is gross income that is including tax.  One of the problems of giving advise about the AAP is that often people ask for advice and if you don't give them the answer they want to hear they abuse you.  They think that might change things.  Yes, well pigs might fly also.

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, David Walden said:

The only thing I have given advice for is issues which have applied personally with me. 

 

Deeming exist with many aspects of Centrelink payment for under and over retirement age...…...

I am confused!

 

How can you advise on deeming when your own superannuation (pension phase) was implemented before 1 Jan 2015.

 

Only pension schemes implemented after 1 Jan 2015 were subject to deeming, yours having been grandfathered.

 

Clearly deeming is something which you have never had any experience with!

[Nemises]

Emphasis being on the word “CLEARLY” in the last paragraph of previous post.

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, David Walden said:

Deeming exist with many aspects of Centrelink payment for under and over retirement age.

Please explain to me how deeming exists for the under retirement age non pensioners!

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, David Walden said:

You can earn near $500 p/f after that deeming comes into play (none of you know that).

The statement "none of you know that" is correct because the work bonus is actually $250 p/f. ????

 

 

 

[David Walden]

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

The statement "none of you know that" is correct because the work bonus is actually $250 p/f. ????

 

 

 

There is the income threshold and then on top of that is the "work bonus" presently those 2 payments for a single person add up to about $460. (yes if you say a work bonus is $250 OK)

 

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Please explain to me how deeming exists for the under retirement age non pensioners!

  After 01/07/2019 the threshold plus the work bonus will allow you to earn about $500 per fortnight before you lose any AAP.  But you have to have a job.

[David Walden]

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Please explain to me how deeming exists for the under retirement age non pensioners!

Don't know I only writing about the AAP available to some single people with assets less than $770,000 or a full AAP if your assets are less than $465,000 and you don't own a house.

[David Walden]

12 hours ago, LosLobo said:

I am confused!

 

How can you advise on deeming when your own superannuation (pension phase) was implemented before 1 Jan 2015.

 

Only pension schemes implemented after 1 Jan 2015 were subject to deeming, yours having been grandfathered.

 

Clearly deeming is something which you have never had any experience with!

Any deeming issues you mention has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Stealth tax" on super applied after 01/01/2015.  The grandfathering you mention in your comments is for the people who had their retirement fund in super in place before 01/01/2015, that fund is grandfathered and no "(stealth) tax on the profits before distribution occurs, provided that fund is not altered it is tax-free.  Not so for Superfund accounts after that date, they are subject to the new tax on profits paid by the super funds before dividends are distributed.  I was involved as I changed my super from my previous bus employers fund to a different bank-managed fund be just before the cutoff date.  Having given up driving the school bus I realised my old boss (nice bloke) was getting 1.25% of my fund as a commission and the fund was taking 1.25% of the total of my fund to manage it =2.5% of the total. He was doing this with 50 other employees as well, yes 2.5% % commission of the capital, not the dividend and all quite legal for him.  My new bank super fund still only charges me 0.5% to manage the fund.  If I had made the change after 01/01/2015 my super would have been subject to this new tax arrangement, it would have been treated as a new account.  It was the same for about a million other fund owners who wanted to make changes to their investments before 01/01/2015 to retain the grandfathering effect.  As a result, the system got clogged up with un-processed applicant's changes and new accounts.  The ATO agreed to allow the grandfathering for changes as long as the application was submitted before the cut off date 01/01/2015 because the super funds were getting clogged up with paperwork.  By making these changes from 2.5% commission for the old fund to 0.5% commission for my new fund saved me about $3,000 a year. So after 4 years that is near $12,000.  Some commissions paid by super funds were higher and some commissions have been kept secret from the clients (lots I expect) as is about to be revealed in the about to be released Royal Commission Into the Banking and Finance Industry in Australia.

[LosLobo]

15 hours ago, David Walden said:

One of the problems of giving advise about the AAP is that often people ask for advice and if you don't give them the answer they want to hear they abuse you.  They think that might change things.  Yes, well pigs might fly also.

I can understand why people might abuse you, though I would never condone it.

 

You often give inaccurate, misleading and confusing advice that has nothing to do with the subject in question.