Latest news with #NickCater
Sky News AU
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
‘Paul Erickson's right': Liberal Party needs to learn from its election loss
Menzies Research Centre Senior Fellow Nick Cater says the Liberal Party needs to learn from its election losses. This comes after Labor National Secretary Paul Erickson gave an address at the National Press Club. 'Yes, Paul Erickson's right, we do have to learn the lessons from 2022 and 2025,' Mr Cater told Sky News host Peta Credlin.
The Advertiser
18-05-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
Tax on unrealised capital gains: what you need to know
The election quickly descended into a contest of promises, coupled with an avalanche of misinformation. Sadly, the Coalition was hopeless at communication. Progressing towards nuclear energy should be a no-brainer. Yet the only people who put the case logically and forcefully were Dick Smith and Nick Cater. They reminded us that at the COP28 UN Climate Change Conference in December 2023, 22 countries - including the United States, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom - signed a declaration to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050. Meanwhile, real issues were swept aside - like soaring electricity prices, a deepening rental crisis, and the shameful fact that Australia now ranks last among OECD nations for growth in living standards. It won't take long for the chickens to come home to roost. The Prime Minister may have flourished a giant Medicare card, but will it actually get you in to see a GP? Whether you pay or it's bulk-billed makes little difference when there's a chronic shortage of doctors. But the biggest ticking time bomb is Labor's plan to tax unrealised capital gains in super. Announced in 2023 - and now likely to pass with Labor holding a Senate majority - the measure imposes a new 15 per cent tax on "gains" you haven't even realised. If your total super balance exceeds $3 million, you'll be taxed on paper profits, even if nothing has been sold. It could get worse. The Greens want to lower the threshold from $3 million to $2 million. If adopted, over 1.8 million Australians would be captured by the policy - plus another 780,000 who are nearing the line. Take this example: you bought Tesla shares at $85 in 2020. By 30 June 2021, they'd surged to $400 - but fell 50 per cent a month later. You'd be taxed on the June value, despite the fall. Worse still, it's often a widow's tax: a couple with $2 million each in super is unaffected - until one dies. The survivor inherits $4 million, and the tax is triggered. Remember, the $3 million cap applies per individual. Two people with $2.5 million each? No tax. But if one has $3.5 million and the other $1.5 million, the higher balance is hit. Many people hold illiquid assets in super - property or farms - which can't be sold quickly. If the fund lacks liquidity, individual members must pay the tax personally. A major problem is that many people are locked in. You can't access super until 65 - unless you retire after 60. Until then, you're stuck with whatever paper gains the ATO decides to tax, even if markets crash the next day. It's like being a rabbit in the spotlight - you see what's coming, but can't move. The irony is this: few object to higher tax on realised earnings above $3 million. What's causing the outrage is taxing phantom gains. A sensible government would scrap the paper gains component - knowing the tax will be collected as assets are sold over time. The key date is 30 June 2026. If you're under the threshold, you're in the clear. But if you're close, consider strategies now. Rebalancing or withdrawing assets may help. Retirees with low income can often hold investments in their own names and pay little or no tax. The planning window is open. With the numbers in the Senate lining up, this legislation looks certain to pass - no matter how unfair it is. Now is the time to act. Question: I've know you're a strong advocate of Insurance Bonds and their benefits. I'm a self-funded retiree, over 60, drawing down from my Account based pension. As you would know, I'm not required to submit a tax return to the ATO. Given the 30 per cent tax paid by the insurance bond company (reducing distributions to bond investors), do you still recommend them over all other investments for grandchildren? Answer: You're in a unique position as you don't receive any age pension and pay no tax. Given that, a separate bank account in your name seems like a sensible choice. Most grandparents face a different challenge-they receive some age pension, and if the money is in their name, their pension is reduced as the balance grows. Another key issue is that only insurance bonds are protected from estate challenges. If you think your estate could be contested, keeping the money in your name would be a risky move. Question: We have just $400 remaining on our loan and have kept it that way to retain access to a $40,000 redraw facility, which is useful for quick funds if needed. However, we're paying an $8 monthly fee plus interest at 8.8 per cent. While minimal, we're wondering if it's better to pay it off completely. What happens to the title once the mortgage is cleared? Do we need a copy, or is it just held at the Titles Office? Answer: Paying off the final $400 on your mortgage will close your access to the $40,000 redraw facility. While the $8 monthly fee and 8.8 per cent interest on the small balance are minor, the ability to access $40,000 instantly could be valuable in an emergency. If you close the loan, you will need to rely on other sources of liquidity, such as an offset account, a line of credit, or readily available investments. If those alternatives aren't in place, the redraw facility may be worth keeping. Once the mortgage is repaid, the lender will discharge it and notify the Titles Office. You may need to complete a Mortgage Discharge Form and pay a small fee. The property title will then be registered solely in your name, usually in digital form, though you can request a copy for your records. If keeping the redraw facility offers peace of mind, leaving the mortgage as is may be sensible. However, if you have other funds available and want to eliminate fees and interest, paying it off will simplify things. The election quickly descended into a contest of promises, coupled with an avalanche of misinformation. Sadly, the Coalition was hopeless at communication. Progressing towards nuclear energy should be a no-brainer. Yet the only people who put the case logically and forcefully were Dick Smith and Nick Cater. They reminded us that at the COP28 UN Climate Change Conference in December 2023, 22 countries - including the United States, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom - signed a declaration to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050. Meanwhile, real issues were swept aside - like soaring electricity prices, a deepening rental crisis, and the shameful fact that Australia now ranks last among OECD nations for growth in living standards. It won't take long for the chickens to come home to roost. The Prime Minister may have flourished a giant Medicare card, but will it actually get you in to see a GP? Whether you pay or it's bulk-billed makes little difference when there's a chronic shortage of doctors. But the biggest ticking time bomb is Labor's plan to tax unrealised capital gains in super. Announced in 2023 - and now likely to pass with Labor holding a Senate majority - the measure imposes a new 15 per cent tax on "gains" you haven't even realised. If your total super balance exceeds $3 million, you'll be taxed on paper profits, even if nothing has been sold. It could get worse. The Greens want to lower the threshold from $3 million to $2 million. If adopted, over 1.8 million Australians would be captured by the policy - plus another 780,000 who are nearing the line. Take this example: you bought Tesla shares at $85 in 2020. By 30 June 2021, they'd surged to $400 - but fell 50 per cent a month later. You'd be taxed on the June value, despite the fall. Worse still, it's often a widow's tax: a couple with $2 million each in super is unaffected - until one dies. The survivor inherits $4 million, and the tax is triggered. Remember, the $3 million cap applies per individual. Two people with $2.5 million each? No tax. But if one has $3.5 million and the other $1.5 million, the higher balance is hit. Many people hold illiquid assets in super - property or farms - which can't be sold quickly. If the fund lacks liquidity, individual members must pay the tax personally. A major problem is that many people are locked in. You can't access super until 65 - unless you retire after 60. Until then, you're stuck with whatever paper gains the ATO decides to tax, even if markets crash the next day. It's like being a rabbit in the spotlight - you see what's coming, but can't move. The irony is this: few object to higher tax on realised earnings above $3 million. What's causing the outrage is taxing phantom gains. A sensible government would scrap the paper gains component - knowing the tax will be collected as assets are sold over time. The key date is 30 June 2026. If you're under the threshold, you're in the clear. But if you're close, consider strategies now. Rebalancing or withdrawing assets may help. Retirees with low income can often hold investments in their own names and pay little or no tax. The planning window is open. With the numbers in the Senate lining up, this legislation looks certain to pass - no matter how unfair it is. Now is the time to act. Question: I've know you're a strong advocate of Insurance Bonds and their benefits. I'm a self-funded retiree, over 60, drawing down from my Account based pension. As you would know, I'm not required to submit a tax return to the ATO. Given the 30 per cent tax paid by the insurance bond company (reducing distributions to bond investors), do you still recommend them over all other investments for grandchildren? Answer: You're in a unique position as you don't receive any age pension and pay no tax. Given that, a separate bank account in your name seems like a sensible choice. Most grandparents face a different challenge-they receive some age pension, and if the money is in their name, their pension is reduced as the balance grows. Another key issue is that only insurance bonds are protected from estate challenges. If you think your estate could be contested, keeping the money in your name would be a risky move. Question: We have just $400 remaining on our loan and have kept it that way to retain access to a $40,000 redraw facility, which is useful for quick funds if needed. However, we're paying an $8 monthly fee plus interest at 8.8 per cent. While minimal, we're wondering if it's better to pay it off completely. What happens to the title once the mortgage is cleared? Do we need a copy, or is it just held at the Titles Office? Answer: Paying off the final $400 on your mortgage will close your access to the $40,000 redraw facility. While the $8 monthly fee and 8.8 per cent interest on the small balance are minor, the ability to access $40,000 instantly could be valuable in an emergency. If you close the loan, you will need to rely on other sources of liquidity, such as an offset account, a line of credit, or readily available investments. If those alternatives aren't in place, the redraw facility may be worth keeping. Once the mortgage is repaid, the lender will discharge it and notify the Titles Office. You may need to complete a Mortgage Discharge Form and pay a small fee. The property title will then be registered solely in your name, usually in digital form, though you can request a copy for your records. If keeping the redraw facility offers peace of mind, leaving the mortgage as is may be sensible. However, if you have other funds available and want to eliminate fees and interest, paying it off will simplify things. The election quickly descended into a contest of promises, coupled with an avalanche of misinformation. Sadly, the Coalition was hopeless at communication. Progressing towards nuclear energy should be a no-brainer. Yet the only people who put the case logically and forcefully were Dick Smith and Nick Cater. They reminded us that at the COP28 UN Climate Change Conference in December 2023, 22 countries - including the United States, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom - signed a declaration to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050. Meanwhile, real issues were swept aside - like soaring electricity prices, a deepening rental crisis, and the shameful fact that Australia now ranks last among OECD nations for growth in living standards. It won't take long for the chickens to come home to roost. The Prime Minister may have flourished a giant Medicare card, but will it actually get you in to see a GP? Whether you pay or it's bulk-billed makes little difference when there's a chronic shortage of doctors. But the biggest ticking time bomb is Labor's plan to tax unrealised capital gains in super. Announced in 2023 - and now likely to pass with Labor holding a Senate majority - the measure imposes a new 15 per cent tax on "gains" you haven't even realised. If your total super balance exceeds $3 million, you'll be taxed on paper profits, even if nothing has been sold. It could get worse. The Greens want to lower the threshold from $3 million to $2 million. If adopted, over 1.8 million Australians would be captured by the policy - plus another 780,000 who are nearing the line. Take this example: you bought Tesla shares at $85 in 2020. By 30 June 2021, they'd surged to $400 - but fell 50 per cent a month later. You'd be taxed on the June value, despite the fall. Worse still, it's often a widow's tax: a couple with $2 million each in super is unaffected - until one dies. The survivor inherits $4 million, and the tax is triggered. Remember, the $3 million cap applies per individual. Two people with $2.5 million each? No tax. But if one has $3.5 million and the other $1.5 million, the higher balance is hit. Many people hold illiquid assets in super - property or farms - which can't be sold quickly. If the fund lacks liquidity, individual members must pay the tax personally. A major problem is that many people are locked in. You can't access super until 65 - unless you retire after 60. Until then, you're stuck with whatever paper gains the ATO decides to tax, even if markets crash the next day. It's like being a rabbit in the spotlight - you see what's coming, but can't move. The irony is this: few object to higher tax on realised earnings above $3 million. What's causing the outrage is taxing phantom gains. A sensible government would scrap the paper gains component - knowing the tax will be collected as assets are sold over time. The key date is 30 June 2026. If you're under the threshold, you're in the clear. But if you're close, consider strategies now. Rebalancing or withdrawing assets may help. Retirees with low income can often hold investments in their own names and pay little or no tax. The planning window is open. With the numbers in the Senate lining up, this legislation looks certain to pass - no matter how unfair it is. Now is the time to act. Question: I've know you're a strong advocate of Insurance Bonds and their benefits. I'm a self-funded retiree, over 60, drawing down from my Account based pension. As you would know, I'm not required to submit a tax return to the ATO. Given the 30 per cent tax paid by the insurance bond company (reducing distributions to bond investors), do you still recommend them over all other investments for grandchildren? Answer: You're in a unique position as you don't receive any age pension and pay no tax. Given that, a separate bank account in your name seems like a sensible choice. Most grandparents face a different challenge-they receive some age pension, and if the money is in their name, their pension is reduced as the balance grows. Another key issue is that only insurance bonds are protected from estate challenges. If you think your estate could be contested, keeping the money in your name would be a risky move. Question: We have just $400 remaining on our loan and have kept it that way to retain access to a $40,000 redraw facility, which is useful for quick funds if needed. However, we're paying an $8 monthly fee plus interest at 8.8 per cent. While minimal, we're wondering if it's better to pay it off completely. What happens to the title once the mortgage is cleared? Do we need a copy, or is it just held at the Titles Office? Answer: Paying off the final $400 on your mortgage will close your access to the $40,000 redraw facility. While the $8 monthly fee and 8.8 per cent interest on the small balance are minor, the ability to access $40,000 instantly could be valuable in an emergency. If you close the loan, you will need to rely on other sources of liquidity, such as an offset account, a line of credit, or readily available investments. If those alternatives aren't in place, the redraw facility may be worth keeping. Once the mortgage is repaid, the lender will discharge it and notify the Titles Office. You may need to complete a Mortgage Discharge Form and pay a small fee. The property title will then be registered solely in your name, usually in digital form, though you can request a copy for your records. If keeping the redraw facility offers peace of mind, leaving the mortgage as is may be sensible. However, if you have other funds available and want to eliminate fees and interest, paying it off will simplify things. The election quickly descended into a contest of promises, coupled with an avalanche of misinformation. Sadly, the Coalition was hopeless at communication. Progressing towards nuclear energy should be a no-brainer. Yet the only people who put the case logically and forcefully were Dick Smith and Nick Cater. They reminded us that at the COP28 UN Climate Change Conference in December 2023, 22 countries - including the United States, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom - signed a declaration to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050. Meanwhile, real issues were swept aside - like soaring electricity prices, a deepening rental crisis, and the shameful fact that Australia now ranks last among OECD nations for growth in living standards. It won't take long for the chickens to come home to roost. The Prime Minister may have flourished a giant Medicare card, but will it actually get you in to see a GP? Whether you pay or it's bulk-billed makes little difference when there's a chronic shortage of doctors. But the biggest ticking time bomb is Labor's plan to tax unrealised capital gains in super. Announced in 2023 - and now likely to pass with Labor holding a Senate majority - the measure imposes a new 15 per cent tax on "gains" you haven't even realised. If your total super balance exceeds $3 million, you'll be taxed on paper profits, even if nothing has been sold. It could get worse. The Greens want to lower the threshold from $3 million to $2 million. If adopted, over 1.8 million Australians would be captured by the policy - plus another 780,000 who are nearing the line. Take this example: you bought Tesla shares at $85 in 2020. By 30 June 2021, they'd surged to $400 - but fell 50 per cent a month later. You'd be taxed on the June value, despite the fall. Worse still, it's often a widow's tax: a couple with $2 million each in super is unaffected - until one dies. The survivor inherits $4 million, and the tax is triggered. Remember, the $3 million cap applies per individual. Two people with $2.5 million each? No tax. But if one has $3.5 million and the other $1.5 million, the higher balance is hit. Many people hold illiquid assets in super - property or farms - which can't be sold quickly. If the fund lacks liquidity, individual members must pay the tax personally. A major problem is that many people are locked in. You can't access super until 65 - unless you retire after 60. Until then, you're stuck with whatever paper gains the ATO decides to tax, even if markets crash the next day. It's like being a rabbit in the spotlight - you see what's coming, but can't move. The irony is this: few object to higher tax on realised earnings above $3 million. What's causing the outrage is taxing phantom gains. A sensible government would scrap the paper gains component - knowing the tax will be collected as assets are sold over time. The key date is 30 June 2026. If you're under the threshold, you're in the clear. But if you're close, consider strategies now. Rebalancing or withdrawing assets may help. Retirees with low income can often hold investments in their own names and pay little or no tax. The planning window is open. With the numbers in the Senate lining up, this legislation looks certain to pass - no matter how unfair it is. Now is the time to act. Question: I've know you're a strong advocate of Insurance Bonds and their benefits. I'm a self-funded retiree, over 60, drawing down from my Account based pension. As you would know, I'm not required to submit a tax return to the ATO. Given the 30 per cent tax paid by the insurance bond company (reducing distributions to bond investors), do you still recommend them over all other investments for grandchildren? Answer: You're in a unique position as you don't receive any age pension and pay no tax. Given that, a separate bank account in your name seems like a sensible choice. Most grandparents face a different challenge-they receive some age pension, and if the money is in their name, their pension is reduced as the balance grows. Another key issue is that only insurance bonds are protected from estate challenges. If you think your estate could be contested, keeping the money in your name would be a risky move. Question: We have just $400 remaining on our loan and have kept it that way to retain access to a $40,000 redraw facility, which is useful for quick funds if needed. However, we're paying an $8 monthly fee plus interest at 8.8 per cent. While minimal, we're wondering if it's better to pay it off completely. What happens to the title once the mortgage is cleared? Do we need a copy, or is it just held at the Titles Office? Answer: Paying off the final $400 on your mortgage will close your access to the $40,000 redraw facility. While the $8 monthly fee and 8.8 per cent interest on the small balance are minor, the ability to access $40,000 instantly could be valuable in an emergency. If you close the loan, you will need to rely on other sources of liquidity, such as an offset account, a line of credit, or readily available investments. If those alternatives aren't in place, the redraw facility may be worth keeping. Once the mortgage is repaid, the lender will discharge it and notify the Titles Office. You may need to complete a Mortgage Discharge Form and pay a small fee. The property title will then be registered solely in your name, usually in digital form, though you can request a copy for your records. If keeping the redraw facility offers peace of mind, leaving the mortgage as is may be sensible. However, if you have other funds available and want to eliminate fees and interest, paying it off will simplify things.
Sky News AU
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Lack of ‘compassion' shown for Adam Bandt
Menzies Research Centre Nick Cater says it is a 'terrific move' from the Australian people for kicking Greens leader Adam Bandt out of parliament. 'I'm trying, Rita, to show the necessary compassion that one should always show to somebody who loses their job suddenly, but I'm struggling, I have to admit it,' Mr Cater told Sky News host Rita Panahi. 'Shout-out to Advance, they did play a major role behind the scenes in this exercise. 'They really have become a powerful force for good in political debate. 'Great to see the people on the conservative centre right do something really well.'
Sky News AU
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Pauline Hanson is a ‘soccer mum' for supporting her One Nation candidate daughter
Menzies Research Centre Nick Cater calls One Nation leader Pauline Hanson a 'soccer mum' for supporting her daughter, One Nation Senate candidate Lee Hanson. 'It's nice to see Pauline Hanson behaving like a soccer mum,' Mr Cater told Sky News host Rita Panahi. 'Good on her daughter for having the courage to stand. 'Good on the Tasmanian people for recognising somebody who will really represent their interests as opposed to somebody who votes with Labor, Greens, whoever.'
Sky News AU
23-04-2025
- Health
- Sky News AU
Labor's Medicare announcement is a ‘sham Mediscare scam'
Menzies Research Centre Senior Fellow Nick Cater comments on the government's Medicare announcement, claiming it's a 'sham Mediscare scam'. 'It's taken a while for this sham mediscare scam to start unravelling, hasn't it, Peta – I mean, the fact is that bulk billing episodes are down by 12 per cent under this government,' Mr Cater said. 'The 14,000,000 extra bulk billing sessions that the Prime Minister promises that won't even barely take them up to where they were when they came into office. 'So, this is absolute scare; it's a shocker.'
