Originally posted by ChristopherJ
And where does the text define exactly what that means?
Where do you think 245 in "10% sold to APRA regulated funds 245" in that table comes from?
And thanks again for not disagreeing that Rice Warner did not actually say the PBO assumed no reaction. It helps to know that you're not intellectually honest.
Hi, Christopher,
You need to remember Jonnoh goes into Lewis Carroll mode when he is cornered.
He will take a few words out of a lengthy treatise, twist them a little, then throw them into the wind, and hurl abuse when you don't agree with his interpretation of the scattered irrelevancies he has produced. At the same time ignoring anything substantive.
The tactic is designed to have you chasing the rabbit down the rabbit hole, and waste enough of your time that you run away screaming with frustration?
He is very good at what he does.
As far as the table above, which I presume has come from Rice Warner, it makes interesting reading when held against table c6 from the document you posted.
Taking the 10th decile , 2.44 million and over smsf's. from 14/15, they claim 1.3 billion excess franking credits. So the group which now has the most post 1.6 mill 15% tax liability, which is now offset against franking credits, should account for close to the 500million , all on its own.
And that is not taking into account other mitigation by those funds, such as changes in the investment mix.
If I can make changes to my fund which largely mitigates the effects of the measure, with only a small yield drop, I'm sure this whole decile will also.
So somewhere closer to a 1.3 billion hole than bugger all for a start. And lots more like that as you trawl thru the document.
Things like that make me feel that the Rice Warner figures are way below reality, and the PBO is Alice in Wonderland stuff, right up Jonnoh's rabbit hole.
please shoot down anything I've got wrong
