SMSF Education: So…how much can I contribute?

SMSF Education is a free online education resource for SMSF trustees and their advisers.

SO…HOW MUCH CAN I CONTRIBUTE?

There are two types of contributions that can be made to superannuation. These are known as Concessional (pre-tax) contributions and Non-Concessional (post-tax) contributions. There are contribution caps that determine the maximum amount that can be contributed in any one year for each type of contribution.

A Concessional contribution is a contribution made to superannuation where a tax deduction has been claimed. This includes contributions such as the Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC), salary sacrifice and personal deductible contributions. Concessional contributions incur contributions tax of 15% upon entering superannuation. From 1 July 2012, this contributions tax increases to 30% on Concessional contributions for individuals with an income greater than $300,000.

The maximum Concessional contribution that can be made into the account of a superannuation member is dependant on their age. Currently, a member under the age of 50 is able to have contributions of up to $25,000 made to their account as a Concessional contribution in any one year. For those over age 50, the cap is $50,000. However, as of 1 July 2012, the Concessional contribution cap will be a universal $25,000 for all members regardless of age. In saying this, the Government has announced that members over age 50 will be able to have up to $50,000 (potentially $55,000 due to indexation) contributed to their accounts as a Concessional contribution from 1 July 2014 if their superannuation member balance is below $500,000.

A ‘non-concessional’ contribution is a contribution made to superannuation with after-tax dollars – where income tax has already been paid. No tax is incurred on this type of contribution upon entering superannuation.

The maximum Non-Concessional contribution that can be made in any one year is $150,000. However, members under the age of 65 have the ability to ‘bring forward’ two years’ worth of the Non-Concessional cap. This means that up to $450,000 may be contributed in any one year, with no further Non-Concessional contributions being made for the following two years. The ‘bring forward’ rule is triggered in a financial year if more than $150,000 is contributed as a Non-Concessional contribution.

Exceeding the Cap

Where a member receives Concessional contributions in excess of their relevant cap, the excess amount is subject to excess contributions tax of 31.5% and the amount in excess will then count towards their Non-Concessional cap.

For various reasons, many individuals have been incurring excess contributions tax as a result of circumstances out of their control. From the 2012 financial year, new measures in place provide certain individuals with the ability to have excess contributions refunded to them and taxed at their marginal tax rate, so as not to incur excess contributions tax. However, this is only available in limited circumstances where the excess contributions equal less than $10,000 and there are no excess contributions for an earlier financial year (excluding years prior to 2012). This option for a refund is only available once for each individual’s lifetime. It is not available in the years subsequent to a refund being claimed.

In cases where the Non-Concessional contributions cap is exceeded, excess contributions tax of 46.5% is incurred. This is after income tax has already been paid on the amount contributed.

There are some instances where 93% in tax on contributions could be payable. This occurs when the Non-Concessional contribution cap has been reached and a Concessional contribution is made, which causes the Concessional contribution cap to be exceeded. In this case, the concessional contribution will incur contributions tax of 15% and then excess contributions tax of 31.5% for exceeding the Concessional contribution cap. Because the contribution has exceeded the Concessional cap, it will count towards the Non-Concessional cap. However, because the Non-Concessional cap had already been reached, excess contributions tax of 46.5% will be payable for exceeding the Non-Concessional cap – totalling 93% in excess contributions tax.

Contribution caps for relevant years (excluding indexation):
SMSF Contributions

Ideally, all contributions should be made to your superannuation account a couple of weeks prior to the end of the financial year. The end of the tax year is a hectic time for superannuation funds. By getting your contributions in early, it should ensure that any delays in transaction or processing time will not affect your ability to claim a tax deduction in the current financial year.

Warrick Hanley
For more information, please go to www.smsfeducation.com.au

Dems Lay Trap for GOP with Buffett Rule

Do Top Earners Pay Too Little?

Taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year pay an average U.S. income tax rate of nearly 19 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center. The top individual tax rate is 35 percent. Loopholes and other deductions help lower that rate so that most Americans pay a much lower effective rate. A middle-income earner making between $50,000 and $75,000 pays an average 5.7 percent effective rate, while a low-income worker making between $10,000 and $20,000 pays no income tax. Effective rates vary wildly within income groups, however, with some people paying far less than average and some far more.

Critics say this underscores the need for a minimum tax….

via Dems Lay Trap for GOP with Buffett Rule.

Comment:~ I would say this underscores the need to scrap the income tax model which ends up with “some people paying far less than average and some far more” and to impose a flat value-added tax (consumption tax) of around 15%. Impact on the poor could be reduced through subsidies — not tax exemptions which are an administrative nightmare — of basic foodstuffs and other necessities.

Interesting that the proposed “Buffett Tax” would only raise $47 billion if imposed on taxpayers earning more than $1 million. Less than 4 percent of the annual $1.2 trillion federal budget deficit that it is supposed to solve.

Bruce Bartlett: How to Really Simplify the Tax Code – NYTimes.com

BRUCE BARTLETT: Prof. Michael Graetz of Columbia Law School has proposed what I believe is a MacArthur-like solution to tax reform. He would abolish the income tax for the vast bulk of Americans and replace the revenue with a 12.5 percent value-added tax. People would pay their taxes when they buy things and wouldn’t need to worry about keeping records or filing tax returns at all.

The brilliance of the Graetz plan is that no tax expenditures need to be repealed. He would simply give every family a tax exemption of $100,000, which would eliminate the income tax for 90 percent of those now filing returns.

via Bruce Bartlett: How to Really Simplify the Tax Code – NYTimes.com.

Comment:~ Why not abolish the income tax entirely? Retaining a partial system would leave taxpayers vulnerable to bracket creep as inflation pushes them into higher tax brackets. Income tax is a highly inefficient tax to administer and collect compared to broad-based taxes such as VAT. The argument that VAT increases the burden on the poor can be overcome by a subsidy (not an exemption) on basic foodstuffs and other essentials. Switching to a VAT-based system also makes the issues of income-splitting and use of tax havens redundant. One of the few negatives I can think of is that replacing income tax with a VAT may encourage offshore consumption — taking an overseas holiday for example rather than holidaying locally — in order to avoid consumption tax. I would welcome suggestions as to how this could be countered, as well as any further negatives you may think of.

Australia: Super fund returns

Overall, for the 15 years to June 2011, the average ROR for the superannuation industry was positive, with a 15-year average ROR of 5.2 per cent per annum. The average industry-wide ROR, when adjusted for the 2.7 per cent per annum inflation, provided a real return of 2.5 per cent per annum.

Most funds which existed for the whole period had a 15-year average fund-level ROR of between 3.9 and 6.5 per cent per annum.

APRA: Annual Superannuation Bulletin (June 2011)

Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs – NYTimes.com

Greg Smith: I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.

Greg Smith is resigning today [March 14th] as a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

via Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs – NYTimes.com.

Credit default swaps are insurance products. It’s time we regulated them as such. | The Big Picture

…The law created a unique class of financial instruments [credit default swaps or “CDS”] that was neither fish nor fowl: It trades like a financial product but is not a security; it is designed to hedge future prices but is not a futures contract; it pays off in the event of a specific loss-causing event but is not an insurance policy.

Given these enormous exemptions from the usual rules that govern financial products, you can guess what happened with the swaps. A very specific set of economic behaviors emerged: Companies that wrote insurance typically set aside reserves for expected risk of loss and payout. When it came to swaps, the companies that underwrote them had no such obligation.

This had enormous repercussions. The biggest underwriter of default swaps was AIG, the world’s largest insurer. Without that reserve-requirement limitation, it was free to underwrite as many swaps as it could print. And that was just what it did: AIG’s Financial Products unit underwrote more than $3 trillion worth of derivatives, with precisely zero dollars reserved for paying any potential claim.

via Credit default swaps are insurance products. It’s time we regulated them as such. | The Big Picture.

Matt Ridley on Ice Ages and Man-Made Warming – WSJ.com

The entire 10,000-year history of civilization has happened in an unusually warm interlude in the Earth’s recent history. Over the past million years, it has been as warm as this or warmer for less than 10% of the time, during 11 brief episodes known as interglacial periods.

…..Our own interglacial period has followed previous ones in having an abrupt beginning and a sharp peak, followed by slow cooling. The question is whether recent warming is a temporary blip before the expected drift into glacial conditions, or whether humankind’s impact on the atmosphere has now reversed the cooling trend.

via Matt Ridley on Ice Ages and Man-Made Warming | Mind & Matter – WSJ.com.

The significance of tax components within your SMSF – Warrick Hanley

Have you ever taken note of the tax components within your SMSF? Behind the balance of your member account are two main components that make up your superannuation savings – these are the Taxable Component and the Exempt (or Tax Free) Component.

The Taxable bucket consists of contributions made to superannuation where a tax deduction has been claimed (i.e. SGC, salary sacrifice, personal deductible contributions) and the Exempt bucket is made up of after-tax contributions. Contributions where a tax deduction has been claimed are officially referred to as Concessional Contributions and after-tax contributions referred to as Non-Concessional Contributions.

Whilst your member balance is in accumulation phase (i.e. where you are not drawing an income) all positive and negative investment earnings will effectively be allocated to or from the Taxable Component. Then, once you eventually commence an income stream, the proportion of your components will freeze and the income stream will forever maintain the same proportion to each component.

For example, if you had an accumulation balance of $440,000 in year 1 made up of a $375,000 Exempt Component (85% of balance) and a $65,000 Taxable Component (15% of balance) and during that year earnings allocated to your balance amounted to $60,000, then your new account balance would be $500,000 and the $60,000 would be added to your Taxable Component – $125,000 (25% of balance). The Exempt Component would remain at $375,000 (75% of balance).

Let’s say at the beginning of year 2, you retire and decide to commence an income stream with your total balance. When you commence an income stream, the proportions of your income stream balance will remain as they were when it started (25%/75%) and all earnings will also be allocated proportionately. Furthermore, any withdrawals will need to be made proportionately. The effect of this is that your income stream account will always remain 25% Taxable/75% Exempt.

The significance of tax components is that it determines how tax will be paid on any withdrawals made from your account. For instance, if you are between the ages of 55 and 60 and in receipt of a superannuation income stream (using the same 25%/75% split above), 25% of the pension payment will be taxed at your marginal tax rate and 75% will not be assessed for tax at all. A 15% rebate will also be applied to reduce the tax on the Taxable portion. Under current legislation, all income received by those over age 60 is not assessed, so tax components are irrelevant in this instance – however legislation has been known to change.

The tax components are also important when you pass away. If you were to pass away, irrespective of age, and your member balance is paid as a lump sum to a ‘tax dependant’ (including spouse, child under 18, someone financially dependant – to name a few) your balance will be paid out completely tax free regardless of tax components. However, where your member balance is paid as a lump sum to a ‘non-tax dependant’, such as a child over 18, only the Exempt Component will be received by them tax free, with the remainder being taxed at 15%. So, based on our $500,000 account balance above, $18,750 in tax would be paid if you were to pass away and leave your balance to a ‘non-tax dependant’.

This highlights the benefits of having more of your account balance made up of the Exempt Component. If you are over 60 you may have the ability to withdraw some or all of your account balance without paying tax and then re-contribute it as a Non-Concessional contribution – thereby converting your total balance to Exempt component or at least watering down the Taxable Component.

However, if this strategy would cause you to breach contribution caps, or if you are between age 55 and 60 and would incur tax from employing such a strategy, then there may be another way to eliminate your taxable component, provided you have the ability to commence an income stream.

Let’s go back to year 1, where your account balance was $440,000 and instead of earning $60,000, lets say your balance declined by $65,000. Remember, we are in accumulation phase; so all earnings are effectively added to or subtracted from the taxable component. Based on our initial 85%/15% split – our new balance would be $375,000 and would be made up 100% of the Exempt component. Knowing that you have the ability to recoup these losses over the next few years, it may be an idea to commence an income stream now, which will forever be 100% Exempt as all earnings to the account are allocated proportionately. Sure, you now need to draw a minimum income stream, but being made up purely of the Exempt component would mean no income tax. If you don’t need the income, why not just contribute it back into super? Better yet, salary sacrifice the equivalent of this income stream from your wage.

Warrick Hanley

Chairman and Founder, SMSF Education

Subscription is free. Subscribe now for your chance to win an iPad2.

The information above is general information only and is not intended to be taken as personal advice. It is important that you consider your personal circumstances and seek professional advice from your financial planner and accountant prior to implementing any such strategies, as incorrect implementation may lead to excess taxes, penalties or losses.

2012 – time for civil libertarians to grow up or fade out – On Line Opinion

Civil libertarians are slaves to notions of ‘rights’. They like rights because they are individualising claims and seem to give us a protective sphere. But rights of the absolute type which are spruiked by civil libertarians are nonsense.

The key to rights is identifying the circumstances in which they can be limited and extending them to all people equally, while maintaining a distinction between the innocent and wretched.

Civil libertarians dish out rights to the guilty and innocent alike and suffer from moral short-sightedness. They focus only on the immediate person, as opposed to wider consequences and the likely effect of policies on other individuals.

via 2012 – time for civil libertarians to grow up or fade out – On Line Opinion – 3/1/2012.

Peace and goodwill

Christmas

Wishing you peace and goodwill over the Christmas season and prosperity in the year ahead.

I am on vacation until January 9th, but will continue to post if I see anything important.

Regards,
Colin Twiggs