We understand finances can be a cause of concern when it comes to retirement. Superannuation, pension, and savings are some of the factors that can worry those approaching or already in retirement.

However, in a recent newspaper column in the Sun Herald, a wealthy retired couple boasting millions in their Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) has sparked outrage among everyday Aussies for seeking financial advice that some interpret as 'greedy'.

According to the column, the couple, aged 78 and 79, wrote to financial expert George Cochrane to ask for guidance about their investment situation. In 2017, the man's holdings were valued at $1,599,956, and combined with his wife's $675,590, they together held just under $2.3 million.

Fast forward a few years, and their superannuation total has grown to an astonishing amount well above $3 million, placing them in the top 0.5% of Australians.

A pair of multi-millionaire retirees have infuriated struggling Aussies with 'greedy' questions in a newspaper money column. Credit: Pexels/Anastasia Shuraeva.

This staggering growth means that their fund will be taxed at a higher rate starting July 2025, as announced by the Albanese government in February.

To avoid this, the man asked Cochrane whether they should sell some of their shares to remain below the $3 million threshold, saying, 'What will be the tax implications if my SMSF reaches $4 million and my wife's $1.8 million? Should we sell some of our shares to stay below the $3 million threshold?'

As you can imagine, this request for advice didn't sit well with many Australians who are struggling to make ends meet or juggle multiple jobs to save for their retirement. Critics argue that this couple seems more concerned with avoiding higher taxes, while many people are grappling with the rising costs of living.

The Albanese government's proposed changes will only affect around 80,000 super savers or the top 0.5% of Australians. The remaining 99.5% of Aussies will continue to benefit from the 'same generous tax breaks', meaning the 15% concessional rate will remain unchanged for them.

George Cochrane didn't offer specific guidance to the couple but instead responded by saying, 'If your super benefit is valued at $4 million in July 2025, and your wife's is $1.8 million, then 69% of the fund's income will fall into your account.'

He continued: 'Of this, 75% of your income will be untaxed and 25% taxed at 30%, including any capital gains tax. Your wife's benefit remains untaxed.'

The news of this column spread to social media; an excerpt of the column was posted on Twitter with the caption: 'Honestly, if you want to get your blood up about generational inequality in Australia, may I recommend the letters on the Money page of the Sun Herald.'

​

And sure enough, it generated quite a stir. Social media users flocked to criticise the couple, with comments such as Bl**dy heck the dilemma! Sickens me, not what super was intended for' and 'They're both nearly 80, getting to spend what they already have will be an achievement, and they're worrying about generating more.'

'I've always found this column loaded with whinging people who have too much money a real insult to general society. All they want to do is get free advice on how to rort the system when they can easily afford a financial advisor. Vile people,' another commented.

Not everyone, however, was unsympathetic. One reader stood up for the couple, saying that those leaving negative comments were 'simply envious', adding that it was only natural that others wished to have such wealth to retire with.

Key Takeaways

• A couple with millions in superannuation has come under fire after writing to a newspaper asking for financial help.
• This angered some Aussies, who criticised the couple for looking for ways to keep their pockets deep while others were struggling through the cost of living crisis.
• The Albanese government announced changes in February that would double the tax amount for superannuation accounts with more than $3 million, affecting the top 0.5% of super savers.

Whatever your stance, this column has undoubtedly opened a conversation about generational wealth and the perceived divide between everyday Australians and the top 0.5%. While it's important to consider future financial situations, it's also necessary to remain aware of the struggles faced by many of our fellow Aussies.

What do you all think about this story, members? Do you think the couple was being 'greedy' by seeking advice on how to grow their money, or do you believe there was nothing wrong with asking for guidance?

We're eager to hear your thoughts on this matter, so please share them in the comments below. And as usual, let's maintain a friendly and courteous atmosphere while engaging in conversations with one another!

 

[Sloopy]

Does not mean they hadn't used NG separately to their SMSF!

 

[Milica]

It must be very hurtful being envious of an elderly couple wanting to preserve their wealth, obtained by hard work, not bludging of the Government as I am sure many of the wingers are. One of the many benefits of gambling, taking overseas holidays, smoking or all ways going on expensive holidays has a known effect-not owning your own home and depending on other smart people to get rental accomodation then winge when they realise that the people renting out your accommodation want a reasonable return on their investment money. Of course there are exceptions such as abused parents or mentally unstable individuals. One way to increase the number of Government accomodations would be to evict the children from their government Housing Units initially given to their parents- have you ever driven past known Government accomodations suburbs and noted the number of expensive cars/boats/caravans these allegedly hard up families have?

I think the last paragraph has been used before - - and why are these 2 going public?
I for one am not interested in there accumulation of wealth, and not envious of the fact, we are not bludgers or wingers that obtain an age pension - nice to see you have exceptions! And might you be inferring that pple that don't own there own homes are dumb-and we depend on other smart people, so that we can rent there house-that almost made me laugh, that you would even write that fruedian slip-the insensitivity of such a statement! Everybodys life is so different - circumstances, health, from wealth to poverty, loss, at the end of the day the most important and what matters the most, are the people we love and the quality of life & time we can spend throughout our lives with them - they are irreplacable.

 

[Sloopy]

It must be very hurtful being envious of an elderly couple wanting to preserve their wealth, obtained by hard work, not bludging of the Government as I am sure many of the wingers are. One of the many benefits of gambling, taking overseas holidays, smoking or all ways going on expensive holidays has a known effect-not owning your own home and depending on other smart people to get rental accomodation then winge when they realise that the people renting out your accommodation want a reasonable return on their investment money. Of course there are exceptions such as abused parents or mentally unstable individuals. One way to increase the number of Government accomodations would be to evict the children from their government Housing Units initially given to their parents- have you ever driven past known Government accomodations suburbs and noted the number of expensive cars/boats/caravans these allegedly hard up families have?

There is a difference between "being envious" and believing that we all SHOULD have an ethical attitude to the society around us. Taxes, rates, and other levies pay for all the infrastructure and services we have available to us - roads, health care, police, education.
The taxes which these people are seeking to avoid paying will not diminish their wealth, merely (very) slightly slow its further growth.

 

[KSS]

What a lot of sad people responding here. And why do people think they have the right to tell others what to do with the money they have so clearly managed well for years/decades to this point? Jealousy is not an attractive trait.

 

[riskydave]

We understand finances can be a cause of concern when it comes to retirement. Superannuation, pension, and savings are some of the factors that can worry those approaching or already in retirement.

However, in a recent newspaper column in the Sun Herald, a wealthy retired couple boasting millions in their Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) has sparked outrage among everyday Aussies for seeking financial advice that some interpret as 'greedy'.

According to the column, the couple, aged 78 and 79, wrote to financial expert George Cochrane to ask for guidance about their investment situation. In 2017, the man's holdings were valued at $1,599,956, and combined with his wife's $675,590, they together held just under $2.3 million.

Fast forward a few years, and their superannuation total has grown to an astonishing amount well above $3 million, placing them in the top 0.5% of Australians.

View attachment 20523

A pair of multi-millionaire retirees have infuriated struggling Aussies with 'greedy' questions in a newspaper money column. Credit: Pexels/Anastasia Shuraeva.

This staggering growth means that their fund will be taxed at a higher rate starting July 2025, as announced by the Albanese government in February.

To avoid this, the man asked Cochrane whether they should sell some of their shares to remain below the $3 million threshold, saying, 'What will be the tax implications if my SMSF reaches $4 million and my wife's $1.8 million? Should we sell some of our shares to stay below the $3 million threshold?'

As you can imagine, this request for advice didn't sit well with many Australians who are struggling to make ends meet or juggle multiple jobs to save for their retirement. Critics argue that this couple seems more concerned with avoiding higher taxes, while many people are grappling with the rising costs of living.

The Albanese government's proposed changes will only affect around 80,000 super savers or the top 0.5% of Australians. The remaining 99.5% of Aussies will continue to benefit from the 'same generous tax breaks', meaning the 15% concessional rate will remain unchanged for them.

George Cochrane didn't offer specific guidance to the couple but instead responded by saying, 'If your super benefit is valued at $4 million in July 2025, and your wife's is $1.8 million, then 69% of the fund's income will fall into your account.'

He continued: 'Of this, 75% of your income will be untaxed and 25% taxed at 30%, including any capital gains tax. Your wife's benefit remains untaxed.'

The news of this column spread to social media; an excerpt of the column was posted on Twitter with the caption: 'Honestly, if you want to get your blood up about generational inequality in Australia, may I recommend the letters on the Money page of the Sun Herald.'

​

And sure enough, it generated quite a stir. Social media users flocked to criticise the couple, with comments such as Bl**dy heck the dilemma! Sickens me, not what super was intended for' and 'They're both nearly 80, getting to spend what they already have will be an achievement, and they're worrying about generating more.'

'I've always found this column loaded with whinging people who have too much money a real insult to general society. All they want to do is get free advice on how to rort the system when they can easily afford a financial advisor. Vile people,' another commented.

Not everyone, however, was unsympathetic. One reader stood up for the couple, saying that those leaving negative comments were 'simply envious', adding that it was only natural that others wished to have such wealth to retire with.

Key Takeaways

• A couple with millions in superannuation has come under fire after writing to a newspaper asking for financial help.
• This angered some Aussies, who criticised the couple for looking for ways to keep their pockets deep while others were struggling through the cost of living crisis.
• The Albanese government announced changes in February that would double the tax amount for superannuation accounts with more than $3 million, affecting the top 0.5% of super savers.

Whatever your stance, this column has undoubtedly opened a conversation about generational wealth and the perceived divide between everyday Australians and the top 0.5%. While it's important to consider future financial situations, it's also necessary to remain aware of the struggles faced by many of our fellow Aussies.

What do you all think about this story, members? Do you think the couple was being 'greedy' by seeking advice on how to grow their money, or do you believe there was nothing wrong with asking for guidance?

We're eager to hear your thoughts on this matter, so please share them in the comments below. And as usual, let's maintain a friendly and courteous atmosphere while engaging in conversations with one another!

It's advice, stop being princess's you people, don't you remember Kerry Packer telling everyone and the Government that if you are paying tax when you do not have to then you are a fool. If these people can reduce their tax bill to keep some of their money so they can be self-sufficient good on them. I sure as a heck don't have their wealth but I congratulate them for working and saving it and making it grow for them so leave them alone so they can self-fund, they are not a burden on the system like a lot.

 

[KiwiTrish]

We understand finances can be a cause of concern when it comes to retirement. Superannuation, pension, and savings are some of the factors that can worry those approaching or already in retirement.

However, in a recent newspaper column in the Sun Herald, a wealthy retired couple boasting millions in their Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) has sparked outrage among everyday Aussies for seeking financial advice that some interpret as 'greedy'.

According to the column, the couple, aged 78 and 79, wrote to financial expert George Cochrane to ask for guidance about their investment situation. In 2017, the man's holdings were valued at $1,599,956, and combined with his wife's $675,590, they together held just under $2.3 million.

Fast forward a few years, and their superannuation total has grown to an astonishing amount well above $3 million, placing them in the top 0.5% of Australians.

View attachment 20523

A pair of multi-millionaire retirees have infuriated struggling Aussies with 'greedy' questions in a newspaper money column. Credit: Pexels/Anastasia Shuraeva.

This staggering growth means that their fund will be taxed at a higher rate starting July 2025, as announced by the Albanese government in February.

To avoid this, the man asked Cochrane whether they should sell some of their shares to remain below the $3 million threshold, saying, 'What will be the tax implications if my SMSF reaches $4 million and my wife's $1.8 million? Should we sell some of our shares to stay below the $3 million threshold?'

As you can imagine, this request for advice didn't sit well with many Australians who are struggling to make ends meet or juggle multiple jobs to save for their retirement. Critics argue that this couple seems more concerned with avoiding higher taxes, while many people are grappling with the rising costs of living.

The Albanese government's proposed changes will only affect around 80,000 super savers or the top 0.5% of Australians. The remaining 99.5% of Aussies will continue to benefit from the 'same generous tax breaks', meaning the 15% concessional rate will remain unchanged for them.

George Cochrane didn't offer specific guidance to the couple but instead responded by saying, 'If your super benefit is valued at $4 million in July 2025, and your wife's is $1.8 million, then 69% of the fund's income will fall into your account.'

He continued: 'Of this, 75% of your income will be untaxed and 25% taxed at 30%, including any capital gains tax. Your wife's benefit remains untaxed.'

The news of this column spread to social media; an excerpt of the column was posted on Twitter with the caption: 'Honestly, if you want to get your blood up about generational inequality in Australia, may I recommend the letters on the Money page of the Sun Herald.'

​

And sure enough, it generated quite a stir. Social media users flocked to criticise the couple, with comments such as Bl**dy heck the dilemma! Sickens me, not what super was intended for' and 'They're both nearly 80, getting to spend what they already have will be an achievement, and they're worrying about generating more.'

'I've always found this column loaded with whinging people who have too much money a real insult to general society. All they want to do is get free advice on how to rort the system when they can easily afford a financial advisor. Vile people,' another commented.

Not everyone, however, was unsympathetic. One reader stood up for the couple, saying that those leaving negative comments were 'simply envious', adding that it was only natural that others wished to have such wealth to retire with.

Key Takeaways

• A couple with millions in superannuation has come under fire after writing to a newspaper asking for financial help.
• This angered some Aussies, who criticised the couple for looking for ways to keep their pockets deep while others were struggling through the cost of living crisis.
• The Albanese government announced changes in February that would double the tax amount for superannuation accounts with more than $3 million, affecting the top 0.5% of super savers.

Whatever your stance, this column has undoubtedly opened a conversation about generational wealth and the perceived divide between everyday Australians and the top 0.5%. While it's important to consider future financial situations, it's also necessary to remain aware of the struggles faced by many of our fellow Aussies.

What do you all think about this story, members? Do you think the couple was being 'greedy' by seeking advice on how to grow their money, or do you believe there was nothing wrong with asking for guidance?

We're eager to hear your thoughts on this matter, so please share them in the comments below. And as usual, let's maintain a friendly and courteous atmosphere while engaging in conversations with one another!

Yes I do they are just looking like all the big business to get out of paying their fair share of tax’s omg they will never use what they have anyway

 

[Brassmonkey1938]

You poor poor sods. You don't know how fortunate you are. Let me give you a skeleton outline about me. I am an 85 year old widower who got scammed of almost every cent I had 2 years ago now forced to live on aged pension & paying more than 50% of that on rent. Still have utilities & insurances to pay for plus day to day living expenses. My hopes & dreams of yesteryear have evaporated. I am not bitter or unhappy & have great friends & neighbours but unlike you, I have to micro manage my pension & I do not have any superannuation of a fall back fund. Come & live with me for a month & you just might come to realise how fortunate you are & let me stress that I am not the slightest bit jealous or envious.

 

[Milica]

You poor poor sods. You don't know how fortunate you are. Let me give you a skeleton outline about me. I am an 85 year old widower who got scammed of almost every cent I had 2 years ago now forced to live on aged pension & paying more than 50% of that on rent. Still have utilities & insurances to pay for plus day to day living expenses. My hopes & dreams of yesteryear have evaporated. I am not bitter or unhappy & have great friends & neighbours but unlike you, I have to micro manage my pension & I do not have any superannuation of a fall back fund. Come & live with me for a month & you just might come to realise how fortunate you are & let me stress that I am not the slightest bit jealous or envious.

Exactly it has nothing to do with being jealous or envious! I am sorry to hear that you where scammed of almost every cent-i do hope your health is still well - all the best.

 

[Nana Zorak]

We understand finances can be a cause of concern when it comes to retirement. Superannuation, pension, and savings are some of the factors that can worry those approaching or already in retirement.

However, in a recent newspaper column in the Sun Herald, a wealthy retired couple boasting millions in their Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) has sparked outrage among everyday Aussies for seeking financial advice that some interpret as 'greedy'.

According to the column, the couple, aged 78 and 79, wrote to financial expert George Cochrane to ask for guidance about their investment situation. In 2017, the man's holdings were valued at $1,599,956, and combined with his wife's $675,590, they together held just under $2.3 million.

Fast forward a few years, and their superannuation total has grown to an astonishing amount well above $3 million, placing them in the top 0.5% of Australians.

View attachment 20523

A pair of multi-millionaire retirees have infuriated struggling Aussies with 'greedy' questions in a newspaper money column. Credit: Pexels/Anastasia Shuraeva.

This staggering growth means that their fund will be taxed at a higher rate starting July 2025, as announced by the Albanese government in February.

To avoid this, the man asked Cochrane whether they should sell some of their shares to remain below the $3 million threshold, saying, 'What will be the tax implications if my SMSF reaches $4 million and my wife's $1.8 million? Should we sell some of our shares to stay below the $3 million threshold?'

As you can imagine, this request for advice didn't sit well with many Australians who are struggling to make ends meet or juggle multiple jobs to save for their retirement. Critics argue that this couple seems more concerned with avoiding higher taxes, while many people are grappling with the rising costs of living.

The Albanese government's proposed changes will only affect around 80,000 super savers or the top 0.5% of Australians. The remaining 99.5% of Aussies will continue to benefit from the 'same generous tax breaks', meaning the 15% concessional rate will remain unchanged for them.

George Cochrane didn't offer specific guidance to the couple but instead responded by saying, 'If your super benefit is valued at $4 million in July 2025, and your wife's is $1.8 million, then 69% of the fund's income will fall into your account.'

He continued: 'Of this, 75% of your income will be untaxed and 25% taxed at 30%, including any capital gains tax. Your wife's benefit remains untaxed.'

The news of this column spread to social media; an excerpt of the column was posted on Twitter with the caption: 'Honestly, if you want to get your blood up about generational inequality in Australia, may I recommend the letters on the Money page of the Sun Herald.'

​

And sure enough, it generated quite a stir. Social media users flocked to criticise the couple, with comments such as Bl**dy heck the dilemma! Sickens me, not what super was intended for' and 'They're both nearly 80, getting to spend what they already have will be an achievement, and they're worrying about generating more.'

'I've always found this column loaded with whinging people who have too much money a real insult to general society. All they want to do is get free advice on how to rort the system when they can easily afford a financial advisor. Vile people,' another commented.

Not everyone, however, was unsympathetic. One reader stood up for the couple, saying that those leaving negative comments were 'simply envious', adding that it was only natural that others wished to have such wealth to retire with.

Key Takeaways

• A couple with millions in superannuation has come under fire after writing to a newspaper asking for financial help.
• This angered some Aussies, who criticised the couple for looking for ways to keep their pockets deep while others were struggling through the cost of living crisis.
• The Albanese government announced changes in February that would double the tax amount for superannuation accounts with more than $3 million, affecting the top 0.5% of super savers.

Whatever your stance, this column has undoubtedly opened a conversation about generational wealth and the perceived divide between everyday Australians and the top 0.5%. While it's important to consider future financial situations, it's also necessary to remain aware of the struggles faced by many of our fellow Aussies.

What do you all think about this story, members? Do you think the couple was being 'greedy' by seeking advice on how to grow their money, or do you believe there was nothing wrong with asking for guidance?

We're eager to hear your thoughts on this matter, so please share them in the comments below. And as usual, let's maintain a friendly and courteous atmosphere while engaging in conversations with one another!

I really feel for these people who have so much money that they need to hang onto it so tightly. Why not let it get above the ceiling & pay the extra tax & help someone who hasn't had the luck to have a good super fund? That's what I would do if I had had any Super when I was working.

 

[Leodalion63]

We understand finances can be a cause of concern when it comes to retirement. Superannuation, pension, and savings are some of the factors that can worry those approaching or already in retirement.

However, in a recent newspaper column in the Sun Herald, a wealthy retired couple boasting millions in their Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) has sparked outrage among everyday Aussies for seeking financial advice that some interpret as 'greedy'.

According to the column, the couple, aged 78 and 79, wrote to financial expert George Cochrane to ask for guidance about their investment situation. In 2017, the man's holdings were valued at $1,599,956, and combined with his wife's $675,590, they together held just under $2.3 million.

Fast forward a few years, and their superannuation total has grown to an astonishing amount well above $3 million, placing them in the top 0.5% of Australians.

View attachment 20523

A pair of multi-millionaire retirees have infuriated struggling Aussies with 'greedy' questions in a newspaper money column. Credit: Pexels/Anastasia Shuraeva.

This staggering growth means that their fund will be taxed at a higher rate starting July 2025, as announced by the Albanese government in February.

To avoid this, the man asked Cochrane whether they should sell some of their shares to remain below the $3 million threshold, saying, 'What will be the tax implications if my SMSF reaches $4 million and my wife's $1.8 million? Should we sell some of our shares to stay below the $3 million threshold?'

As you can imagine, this request for advice didn't sit well with many Australians who are struggling to make ends meet or juggle multiple jobs to save for their retirement. Critics argue that this couple seems more concerned with avoiding higher taxes, while many people are grappling with the rising costs of living.

The Albanese government's proposed changes will only affect around 80,000 super savers or the top 0.5% of Australians. The remaining 99.5% of Aussies will continue to benefit from the 'same generous tax breaks', meaning the 15% concessional rate will remain unchanged for them.

George Cochrane didn't offer specific guidance to the couple but instead responded by saying, 'If your super benefit is valued at $4 million in July 2025, and your wife's is $1.8 million, then 69% of the fund's income will fall into your account.'

He continued: 'Of this, 75% of your income will be untaxed and 25% taxed at 30%, including any capital gains tax. Your wife's benefit remains untaxed.'

The news of this column spread to social media; an excerpt of the column was posted on Twitter with the caption: 'Honestly, if you want to get your blood up about generational inequality in Australia, may I recommend the letters on the Money page of the Sun Herald.'

​

And sure enough, it generated quite a stir. Social media users flocked to criticise the couple, with comments such as Bl**dy heck the dilemma! Sickens me, not what super was intended for' and 'They're both nearly 80, getting to spend what they already have will be an achievement, and they're worrying about generating more.'

'I've always found this column loaded with whinging people who have too much money a real insult to general society. All they want to do is get free advice on how to rort the system when they can easily afford a financial advisor. Vile people,' another commented.

Not everyone, however, was unsympathetic. One reader stood up for the couple, saying that those leaving negative comments were 'simply envious', adding that it was only natural that others wished to have such wealth to retire with.

Key Takeaways

• A couple with millions in superannuation has come under fire after writing to a newspaper asking for financial help.
• This angered some Aussies, who criticised the couple for looking for ways to keep their pockets deep while others were struggling through the cost of living crisis.
• The Albanese government announced changes in February that would double the tax amount for superannuation accounts with more than $3 million, affecting the top 0.5% of super savers.

Whatever your stance, this column has undoubtedly opened a conversation about generational wealth and the perceived divide between everyday Australians and the top 0.5%. While it's important to consider future financial situations, it's also necessary to remain aware of the struggles faced by many of our fellow Aussies.

What do you all think about this story, members? Do you think the couple was being 'greedy' by seeking advice on how to grow their money, or do you believe there was nothing wrong with asking for guidance?

We're eager to hear your thoughts on this matter, so please share them in the comments below. And as usual, let's maintain a friendly and courteous atmosphere while engaging in conversations with one another!

 

[Suzanne rose]

I think they are definitely wise to ask advice, nothing at all wrong with that.

I'm sure if anyone else had that sort of money they would be asking before the new Super tax starts .

If they have that much in Super then they have worked very hard and deserve it.

They would be self funded retire, so would be wanting to know what's best.

Hopefully they will take some if that money and enjoy it not just save it

 

[Leodalion63]

I cannot understand how people are getting upset about asking a question about their finances. Obviously this couple knew how to save for their older years. Had really good advice along the way. Well done if you have accomplished this amount.
I on the other hand with all the super information I can't grasp. I had prayed to God along time ago that I only get what I can cope with in my finances. I am happy with that in my life.
Am I jealous or envious of this couple I am not, just hope they ended up finding the answer to their question and hope they are content with the outcome.

 

[Dreams]

We understand finances can be a cause of concern when it comes to retirement. Superannuation, pension, and savings are some of the factors that can worry those approaching or already in retirement.

However, in a recent newspaper column in the Sun Herald, a wealthy retired couple boasting millions in their Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) has sparked outrage among everyday Aussies for seeking financial advice that some interpret as 'greedy'.

According to the column, the couple, aged 78 and 79, wrote to financial expert George Cochrane to ask for guidance about their investment situation. In 2017, the man's holdings were valued at $1,599,956, and combined with his wife's $675,590, they together held just under $2.3 million.

Fast forward a few years, and their superannuation total has grown to an astonishing amount well above $3 million, placing them in the top 0.5% of Australians.

View attachment 20523

A pair of multi-millionaire retirees have infuriated struggling Aussies with 'greedy' questions in a newspaper money column. Credit: Pexels/Anastasia Shuraeva.

This staggering growth means that their fund will be taxed at a higher rate starting July 2025, as announced by the Albanese government in February.

To avoid this, the man asked Cochrane whether they should sell some of their shares to remain below the $3 million threshold, saying, 'What will be the tax implications if my SMSF reaches $4 million and my wife's $1.8 million? Should we sell some of our shares to stay below the $3 million threshold?'

As you can imagine, this request for advice didn't sit well with many Australians who are struggling to make ends meet or juggle multiple jobs to save for their retirement. Critics argue that this couple seems more concerned with avoiding higher taxes, while many people are grappling with the rising costs of living.

The Albanese government's proposed changes will only affect around 80,000 super savers or the top 0.5% of Australians. The remaining 99.5% of Aussies will continue to benefit from the 'same generous tax breaks', meaning the 15% concessional rate will remain unchanged for them.

George Cochrane didn't offer specific guidance to the couple but instead responded by saying, 'If your super benefit is valued at $4 million in July 2025, and your wife's is $1.8 million, then 69% of the fund's income will fall into your account.'

He continued: 'Of this, 75% of your income will be untaxed and 25% taxed at 30%, including any capital gains tax. Your wife's benefit remains untaxed.'

The news of this column spread to social media; an excerpt of the column was posted on Twitter with the caption: 'Honestly, if you want to get your blood up about generational inequality in Australia, may I recommend the letters on the Money page of the Sun Herald.'

​

And sure enough, it generated quite a stir. Social media users flocked to criticise the couple, with comments such as Bl**dy heck the dilemma! Sickens me, not what super was intended for' and 'They're both nearly 80, getting to spend what they already have will be an achievement, and they're worrying about generating more.'

'I've always found this column loaded with whinging people who have too much money a real insult to general society. All they want to do is get free advice on how to rort the system when they can easily afford a financial advisor. Vile people,' another commented.

Not everyone, however, was unsympathetic. One reader stood up for the couple, saying that those leaving negative comments were 'simply envious', adding that it was only natural that others wished to have such wealth to retire with.

Key Takeaways

• A couple with millions in superannuation has come under fire after writing to a newspaper asking for financial help.
• This angered some Aussies, who criticised the couple for looking for ways to keep their pockets deep while others were struggling through the cost of living crisis.
• The Albanese government announced changes in February that would double the tax amount for superannuation accounts with more than $3 million, affecting the top 0.5% of super savers.

Whatever your stance, this column has undoubtedly opened a conversation about generational wealth and the perceived divide between everyday Australians and the top 0.5%. While it's important to consider future financial situations, it's also necessary to remain aware of the struggles faced by many of our fellow Aussies.

What do you all think about this story, members? Do you think the couple was being 'greedy' by seeking advice on how to grow their money, or do you believe there was nothing wrong with asking for guidance?

We're eager to hear your thoughts on this matter, so please share them in the comments below. And as usual, let's maintain a friendly and courteous atmosphere while engaging in conversations with one another!

If people work really hard all their lives and end up with a great superfund, why is anyone jealous and outraged ? This couple are looking after their hard worked for earnings as anyone would.

 

[Trudi]

Does not mean they hadn't used NG separately to their SMSF!

True, it doesn't mean that, although at a guess I would say it is unlikely.

As for negatove gearing, if you have ever owned an investment property and youe expenses exceeded your income, you would know that it is not a benefit! Who in their right mind wants to provide a service at a loss? Does your baker do this? Or your butcher? What about your grocer or greengrocer? Most of businesses these days have loans on which they pay interest and they need to recoup that expense PLUS make a profit on top of their expenses.

You also need to keep in mind that after the tax reduction from that "negative gearing" (I hate this term as it is wrong), there is still a loss that has to be covered out of the owner's pocket, or in other words, the owner is SUBSIDISING the tenants' accommodation costs!

 

[Sloopy]

True, it doesn't mean that, although at a guess I would say it is unlikely.

As for negatove gearing, if you have ever owned an investment property and youe expenses exceeded your income, you would know that it is not a benefit! Who in their right mind wants to provide a service at a loss? Does your baker do this? Or your butcher? What about your grocer or greengrocer? Most of businesses these days have loans on which they pay interest and they need to recoup that expense PLUS make a profit on top of their expenses.

You also need to keep in mind that after the tax reduction from that "negative gearing" (I hate this term as it is wrong), there is still a loss that has to be covered out of the owner's pocket, or in other words, the owner is SUBSIDISING the tenants' accommodation costs!

Nice try! Are you seriously saying that they do it out of the goodness of their hearts? Who knew there were so many people keen to help their fellow citizens by 'subsidising' their accommodation? No, they are not only reducing their taxable income, but ending up with an asset from which they usually profit nicely when they sell, largely paid for by their tenants. It's just too bad when services such as health care and policing get cut to keep government expenditure and taxes down, but hear the same people whinge if a lack of services affects them.
I have owned an investment property, but did not negatively gear. Yes, I claimed expenses associated with the property against the income from the property, but not against my income from employment. Sadly, I have a close family member who has done so several times and brags about how clever and lucrative it is. Yes, I have seen their figures, and the investments they made were extremely well rewarded.
Legal? Yes. Ethical? Questionable. In my opinion (obviously different to yours) NG should be restricted to new builds only to improve the volume of housing stock.

 

[KSS]

Nice try! Are you seriously saying that they do it out of the goodness of their hearts? Who knew there were so many people keen to help their fellow citizens by 'subsidising' their accommodation? No, they are not only reducing their taxable income, but ending up with an asset from which they usually profit nicely when they sell, largely paid for by their tenants. It's just too bad when services such as health care and policing get cut to keep government expenditure and taxes down, but hear the same people whinge if a lack of services affects them.
I have owned an investment property, but did not negatively gear. Yes, I claimed expenses associated with the property against the income from the property, but not against my income from employment. Sadly, I have a close family member who has done so several times and brags about how clever and lucrative it is. Yes, I have seen their figures, and the investments they made were extremely well rewarded.
Legal? Yes. Ethical? Questionable. In my opinion (obviously different to yours) NG should be restricted to new builds only to improve the volume of housing stock.

Making money is NOT a crime. And having made it it is not for anyone else to decide what you do with it.

 

[Sloopy]

Making money is NOT a crime. And having made it it is not for anyone else to decide what you do with it.

As I said, it is legal.
Some people actually believe that paying relatively small amounts of tax on earnings, as the super changes are, is the price of living in a community. It isn't taking away what they have already amassed. If everybody arranged their affairs to minimise tax, who would pay for the services we need?
Perhaps they would prefer a fee-for-service system where they paid the full cost of the hospital/police/physical infrastructure they use.

 

[Gaena]

Jealousy reigns supreme!

There will always be ordinary people who have more than others, not the ones born into wealth but people who manage to take themselves further up the food chain than others, by hard work or extreme lucky breaks. I have always known how to build wealth but have never been in a position to enable myself to do it, as I am sure that most of us could say,its hard to save for the future when you can barely live on what you earn. Guess I will have to wait for the next lifetime to realise my dreams of a comfortable care free life. My comments are tongue in cheek by the way!

 

[Shane/#]

We understand finances can be a cause of concern when it comes to retirement. Superannuation, pension, and savings are some of the factors that can worry those approaching or already in retirement.

However, in a recent newspaper column in the Sun Herald, a wealthy retired couple boasting millions in their Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) has sparked outrage among everyday Aussies for seeking financial advice that some interpret as 'greedy'.

According to the column, the couple, aged 78 and 79, wrote to financial expert George Cochrane to ask for guidance about their investment situation. In 2017, the man's holdings were valued at $1,599,956, and combined with his wife's $675,590, they together held just under $2.3 million.

Fast forward a few years, and their superannuation total has grown to an astonishing amount well above $3 million, placing them in the top 0.5% of Australians.

View attachment 20523

A pair of multi-millionaire retirees have infuriated struggling Aussies with 'greedy' questions in a newspaper money column. Credit: Pexels/Anastasia Shuraeva.

This staggering growth means that their fund will be taxed at a higher rate starting July 2025, as announced by the Albanese government in February.

To avoid this, the man asked Cochrane whether they should sell some of their shares to remain below the $3 million threshold, saying, 'What will be the tax implications if my SMSF reaches $4 million and my wife's $1.8 million? Should we sell some of our shares to stay below the $3 million threshold?'

As you can imagine, this request for advice didn't sit well with many Australians who are struggling to make ends meet or juggle multiple jobs to save for their retirement. Critics argue that this couple seems more concerned with avoiding higher taxes, while many people are grappling with the rising costs of living.

The Albanese government's proposed changes will only affect around 80,000 super savers or the top 0.5% of Australians. The remaining 99.5% of Aussies will continue to benefit from the 'same generous tax breaks', meaning the 15% concessional rate will remain unchanged for them.

George Cochrane didn't offer specific guidance to the couple but instead responded by saying, 'If your super benefit is valued at $4 million in July 2025, and your wife's is $1.8 million, then 69% of the fund's income will fall into your account.'

He continued: 'Of this, 75% of your income will be untaxed and 25% taxed at 30%, including any capital gains tax. Your wife's benefit remains untaxed.'

The news of this column spread to social media; an excerpt of the column was posted on Twitter with the caption: 'Honestly, if you want to get your blood up about generational inequality in Australia, may I recommend the letters on the Money page of the Sun Herald.'

​

And sure enough, it generated quite a stir. Social media users flocked to criticise the couple, with comments such as Bl**dy heck the dilemma! Sickens me, not what super was intended for' and 'They're both nearly 80, getting to spend what they already have will be an achievement, and they're worrying about generating more.'

'I've always found this column loaded with whinging people who have too much money a real insult to general society. All they want to do is get free advice on how to rort the system when they can easily afford a financial advisor. Vile people,' another commented.

Not everyone, however, was unsympathetic. One reader stood up for the couple, saying that those leaving negative comments were 'simply envious', adding that it was only natural that others wished to have such wealth to retire with.

Key Takeaways

• A couple with millions in superannuation has come under fire after writing to a newspaper asking for financial help.
• This angered some Aussies, who criticised the couple for looking for ways to keep their pockets deep while others were struggling through the cost of living crisis.
• The Albanese government announced changes in February that would double the tax amount for superannuation accounts with more than $3 million, affecting the top 0.5% of super savers.

Whatever your stance, this column has undoubtedly opened a conversation about generational wealth and the perceived divide between everyday Australians and the top 0.5%. While it's important to consider future financial situations, it's also necessary to remain aware of the struggles faced by many of our fellow Aussies.

What do you all think about this story, members? Do you think the couple was being 'greedy' by seeking advice on how to grow their money, or do you believe there was nothing wrong with asking for guidance?

We're eager to hear your thoughts on this matter, so please share them in the comments below. And as usual, let's maintain a friendly and courteous atmosphere while engaging in conversations with one another!

That's greed stepping in pay the tax which will be on a portion of what you have you will never spend it all before you die and stop being a tight arse

 

[DrivingGirl]

unless they inherited their wealth, they most likely did whatever they could to make the right decisions all through their lives to arrive at their age today with what they have accumulated - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SELFISH ABOUT THAT!
Now they’re old they probably value this guy’s advice and will continue to be careful and make the right decisions for the rest of their lives. Old habits die hard for all of us whether it’s wasting money or saving money!
. . . And who says they’re not helping their family/ church/ charities etc. you don’t know anything about them, but you’re happy to sit in judgement like bunch of green eyed monsters and criticise!
I live on the age pension myself, had businesses and lost money through changing countries and divorce- so here I am extremely grateful for what the government provides - and wishing these old folk well with their hard earned wealth!