Superannuation Discussion + market volatility

CaptJCool said:
That said
A mindset of spend and gift means running the capital down at a rate that meets your lifestyle and inheritance goals
Click to expand...
And if you have the answer to that one then you won't need to worry about having enough money to retire on. This is of course is the Holy Grail.
 
Last edited:
OK, trying to get some clarity in all this. So I have devised an example. I'm keeping the amounts small to avoid complications with any non-concessional contributions cap.

Mr Retired is 69 years of age and has a superannuation account balance of $300K. They have never made any after tax contribution (neither concessional nor non concessional).

Of that $300K, $10K is listed on their benefit statement as "Tax Free" and $290K as "Taxed".

The entire $300K is withdrawn and deposited into a superannuation account as a "personal after-tax contribution".

So, now then listed on the benefit statement there $300K as Tax Free and $0 as Taxed.

This is converted into a superannuation pension with 6% withdrawal.

In the first year the pension fund earns 10%, and now has a rough balance of $312K ($300K + $30K - $18K).

Does this result in a situation where there is $282K listed as Tax Free and $30K as Taxed? [EDIT]NO! - See below[/EDIT]

Of course, this is simplistic ....
 
Last edited:
My understanding (and I could be wrong as I'm applying logic rather than a clear source) is that the taxed component would be $300k and the untaxed $12k.

If the fund grew by the same amount the following year with same withdrawal the untaxed component would become $12k (from last year) + $12k + (12/312 x $18k), taxed would remain $300k.

Ignore above and posts #3295 & # 3299. I'm wrong. See post #3307
 
Last edited:
serfty said:
OK, trying to get some clarity in all this. So I have devised an example. I'm keeping the amounts small to avoid complications with any non-concessional contributions cap.

Mr Retired is 69 years of age and has a superannuation account balance of $300K. They have never made any after tax contribution (neither concessional nor non concessional).

Of that $300K, $10K is listed on their benefit statement as "Tax Free" and $290K as "Taxed".

The entire $300K is withdrawn and deposited into a superannuation account as a "personal after-tax contribution".

So, now then listed on the benefit statement there $300K as Tax Free and $0 as Taxed.

This is converted into a superannuation pension with 6% withdrawal.

In the first year the pension fund earns 10%, and now has a rough balance of $312K ($300K + $30K - $18K).

Does this result in a situation where there is roughly $282K listed as Tax Free and $30K as Taxed?

Of course, this is simplistic ....
Click to expand...
If this is correct, I am guessing that for the second year, this would not be so strait forward as we would have a ratio of 282/312 Tax free and 30/312 Taxed. The 6% for the second year would be $18.72K. Since the pension is drawn pro rata $16.92K would come from Tax free and $1.8K from Taxed.

If the 10% return was repeated for this second year it would result in a balance of $324.48K [$343.2 - $18.72K] with $265.08K Tax Free and $59.4K Taxed.
See below:
serfty

Post in thread 'Superannuation Discussion + market volatility'

andye said:
Have been hunting around and looks like I'm probably wrong.
Superannuation Tax Free Component | Super Guy suggests that once income stream started ratio is locked in. Sorry if I've caused alarm....... (and hoping I don't cop as much flak as Campese is after getting the Wallabies wrong)
Click to expand...
Thanks - based on that information, it means my recent posts are also wrong.
...
However, once an income stream commences, the proportions ... are locked in.

All earnings within the account (positive and negative) are allocated proportionately to each component.

Also, all withdrawals...
Click to expand...
  • Like
  • Agree
 
Last edited:
andye said:
My understanding (and I could be wrong as Im applying logic rather than a cleae source) is that the taxed component would be $300k and the untaxed $12k.

If the fund grew by the same amount the following year with same withdrawal the untaxed component would become $12k (from last year) + $12k + (12/312 x $18k), taxed would remain $300k.
Click to expand...
When you indicate "Taxed Component" do you mean "[Already] Taxed Component" and is now deemed Tax free (no further tax payable) if part of an estate?

The other part of this is that you indicate the Pension payments come from earnings first. There is no pro-rata allocation?
 
andye said:
Have been hunting around and looks like I'm probably wrong.
Superannuation Tax Free Component | Super Guy suggests that once income stream started ratio is locked in. Sorry if I've caused alarm....... (and hoping I don't cop as much flak as Campese is after getting the Wallabies wrong)
Click to expand...
Thanks - based on that information, it means my recent posts are also wrong.
...
However, once an income stream commences, the proportions ... are locked in.

All earnings within the account (positive and negative) are allocated proportionately to each component.

Also, all withdrawals, just like in accumulation phase, need to be made proportionately from each component.
...
Click to expand...
With my example of the superannuation pension commencing with a 100% Tax Free to 0% Taxable ratio, after 1 year the balance would be $312K with $312K Tax Free and $0 taxable.

After 2 years the balance would be $324.48K classified as Tax Free ($0 taxable).

Hence, the significant benefits of the recontribution strategy being discussed recently, especially for any Heirs ...
 
andye said:
Have been hunting around and looks like I'm probably wrong.
Superannuation Tax Free Component | Super Guy suggests that once income stream started ratio is locked in. Sorry if I've caused alarm....... (and hoping I don't cop as much flak as Campese is after getting the Wallabies wrong)
Click to expand...
Thanks. I couldn't even fathom how the tax status could change. So. Back to this strategy then.
 
serfty said:
Does this have to be the case? While if you'd pull funds out of an account, what's to stop you recontributing back to it?
Click to expand...
The income stream rules are something I have never understood. It seems the fund holds the "new" (recontribution) in a temporary holding account (all cash I think) and then rolls the existing fully taxed with the new fully taxed, and starts a completely new income stream. I am on about my eighth IS.
 
serfty said:
Does this have to be the case? While if you'd pull funds out of an account, what's to stop you recontributing back to it?
Click to expand...
Can't make contributions to an existing pension fund. Only to an accumulation account. To recontribute funds you have to create a new pension fund. If you've no money left in the pension fund then a single new one is created. If you've funds still in pension you can keep that fund going but you have to create another one to have a pension from the newly withdrawn and recontributed pool. So have two pension funds going at once.
 
OATEK said:
The income stream rules are something I have never understood. It seems the fund holds the "new" (recontribution) in a temporary holding account (all cash I think) and then rolls the existing fully taxed with the new fully taxed, and starts a completely new income stream. I am on about my eighth IS.
Click to expand...
So yes, if your fund is happy to work with you over time.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

... and 16 more.
Total: 5,342 (members: 66, guests: 5,276)
Back
Top