Gemma Dale

We're not thinking about that.

You're part of a couple.

Excellent.

One thing that has absolutely come back into vogue and it comes and goes is the idea of trying to equalize your balances as a couple.

It was very important back in the days of RBLs.

We used to have these reasonable benefits limits, which was basically we had a fairly hard cap on how much you can have in super and then after that you get taxed punitively.

And then we got rid of those in 2007.

Back the other way.

So we've got div 296 now, which is your sort of higher tax rates once you hit a threshold.

So 3 million and 10 million.

If you happen to be in a cohort where there's a reasonable chance you'll hit those balances for one member of a spouse, you want to be capping any contributions to that individual and trying to raise the other one, right?

It's much better if you've both got $3 million and neither of you gets hit.

And one of you has $6 million and one of you has nothing.

That doesn't make any sense.

Yeah.

So equalization is way back in vogue.

It also made much more sense from an estate planning perspective, but we'll leave that because it's quite a complicated subject.

So a couple of things you can do.

One is prioritize contributions to the lower holding spouse, which tends to be the woman.

You can do splitting of your contributions.