Could this be you?

Could this be you?

Good afternoon John,

Well we have had our tax assessment come back from the accountant for the 2010 financials and we have an estimated bill of around $35k combined.

We aren't happy with the service we are getting from this accountant, and seemingly have to continue to pay ridiculous amounts of tax all the time. One needs to wonder why we are working so hard to continue to get slapped in the face by the tax man.

We have asked her on a number of occasions to give us guidance / advice on how to 'divert' our money from the ATO, but never get anything from her.

Before we sign off these assessments, we were hoping to have another accountant review our figures to see what they can come up with.

Do you know of any 'creative accountants' that could help us?

Thanks,
‘Ann’

Yes that to could be your challenge.

However accountants who are generally ‘compliant book keepers’ are very limited & are not creative in their advice. Buying cars or houses is frequently their safe option although they are now warming to super. Their suggestion of SMSF is frequently glib & you need a sizable amount to be considered.

However super has government risk & most people now want no advice with their super.

Very simply if you are earning a gross 100K then Taxx [‘Ann’ spells it differently] is 25,000.
Then if you have an average mortgage say 350,000K @ 7.2% interest only you pay another 25,000 without reducing your debt levels.

AND that leaves 50K to live on and you can’t.

No wonder house prices are falling& most know this by now. It is called a weak market by sellers & RE agents.

Of course as the workers are feeling the pinch then they are all going out to strike as they need more to live on.

It’s a vicious circle as we then have wages pushing up prices which suggests inflation later which means the gnomes in Martin place, the RBA, increases rates. Increasing rates pushes house prices down.

It also pushes share prices down which lowers the value of your retirement funds. Therefore you work longer and live on less.

Thanks heaps to the marginal voter & the ‘fence sitters’ in the House.


If you are a similar position as “Ann’ with 1 or more rental properties then are you any better off?

‘Ann’ earns say 150,000
Her negative cashflow from 3 ‘rental properties’ is say 30,000++
Hence taxable income is 120,000-
Her taxx = 32,351
Hence a net 87,649
Her mortgage is 460,000 & larger because her income is larger.
Hence interest only is 33,120 which feeds the bank but doesn’t reduce her home debt.

Which leaves 54,529 to live on which is 1049 per week.

We all need MORE that to live on as you know.

‘Ann’ can see that her lifestyle is no better off with 3 rental properties than a person on 100K with no rental properties.

However ‘Ann’ may not want to sell in this weak market & the 4% costs in doing so.
This shows that you need to be earning close to 150,000 if you have a rental property & to live.

If you are not earning this then what do you do.

Ann needs to let the taxx man subsidise her own home mortgage out west of here.
That reduces the total take that the taxx man & the bank take from her.

How do you qualify for such a solution?

If you have a LVR less than 70%, you can save $10 per day or 3k p.a. and don’t want to be subsidising the pension with your super and have a ‘positive’ risk profile.

then you are welcome to call 07 3848 1088 or email or visit our websites.

You might do so before June 30th although our options are limited by the time frame.

Give us time & we will [may] have a solution for you.

John McAuliffe