Does Your Superannuation Balance Worry You?

I've just turned 40 (female) and feel like I should be thinking more about the next phase of my life and Superannuation has been on my mind. I have just changed to another fund from always being in an industry super fund and I am hoping this one will do better for me.
My balance worries me a little, I have done some comparisons and although it says my balance is a little higher than average ($130k) I still don't believe that I will have enough.

Comments

    • +93 votes

      either from your bank or super fund

      It is is crazy to recommend seeking advice from the two con artist industries that have arranged this massive scam on the Australian people.

      The amount of brainwashing on display here is frightening.

      • +18 votes

        People just do not understand that taking their money away from them and creating a new industry where they charge you to manage your money is a ripoff.

      • +12 votes

        I don't think it reasonable to say don't get advice from the finance industry without offering some other course of action. What are you expecting people to do, stick their money under the mattress?

        • -9 votes

          He’s a greens man, all talk no responsibility.

          • +8 votes

            @cloudy: He is a greens man (I'm not), but what he's saying here is 100% correct.
            It's better to listen to what people are saying, rather than trying to peg them to a tribe and then assume everything they say is wrong.

            •  

              @idonotknowwhy: Wait, but that's exactly what Diji just did. He pegged everyone working in finance in a tribe, and said don't listen to them.

              The truth is, they're not all bad, sure they all get a bad wrap. But its hard to argue many others are better placed to provide financial advise then those who spent time studying and working in the industry.

              The problem is remuneration, but Diji made no mention of that did he? Just blanketly saying we're all brainwashed. pfft

              • +3 votes

                @cloudy: He is justified in saying that because there was systematic and rampant conning of people. It was systematic, which meant managers were telling their staff to do it. That means that if someone was "good" there was a likelihood that they were still going along with it. I dont know about you but I wouldn't be recommending anyone taking those odds, and I certainly wouldnt be rewarding the con artists by goving them my business.

                •  

                  @Jackson: But you correctly used the operative word "was". Secondly, what better alternative does one have? Ask someone who has no knowledge? Pointing out problems is often easy. Having answers is what is lacking

                  •  

                    @cloudy: This isnt Minority Report, crimes are always in the past tense.

                    There are lots of alternatives, but none of which is better than getting educated yourself about investment options. A second is to find an independent financial advisor who charges a fee and does not take commissions. Asking whether a financial advisor takes commissions for certain products should be one of the first questions you ask. The correct answer is never IMO "go to the bank"

      • +2 votes

        Why is it brainwashing? What should we have instead of super?

      • +1 vote

        Its not a scam, it's an effective vehicle for to dodge tax, assuming you are wealthy enough to take advantage of it

  • +7 votes

    Yeah don't get your advice from here

  • +6 votes

    Thanks I am definitely not after advice …. more just what people feel about their own super balances and if you ever think, there is no way this balance is ever going to be enough to retire on.

    • +17 votes

      most 40yo here are millionaires owning at least a few properties after riding the 20yrs housing boom

      with Scomo policy of 5% deposit without LMI for FHB , you bet the gov. will try everything to keep the boat afloat

      •  

        you bet the gov. will try everything to keep the boat afloat

        Yes they are doinng that

      • +6 votes

        you bet the gov. will try everything to keep the boat afloat

        I thought ScoMo wanted to stop the boats?

      • -1 vote

        only on paper… need to pay whats left to the banks and tax after selling those properties. :) i'm 38 .. Super is my fun money if i even see it before i kick the bucket.. Super should be a backup plan ONLY! ..Thats how I've approached it and its worked out well.. it was only implemented to HELP those people who are completely hopeless with money, savings and investing because they blew it all on holidays and fun when they where young.. NOT ME! invested every cent!

    • +13 votes

      I'm very similar demographics to you, and I know exactly what you mean. I have the same thought processes, though a higher balance - I also wonder how much will change over the next 20 years - climate change, increased financial conservatism by the government. How can I possibly even guesstimate now what is a likely amount to want to have in 25 years time? It's hard to know whether to feel secure, worried, or despair of ever having enough for retirement. So yes, I do feel your pain!

      I deal with it by focusing on my current financial plan, and not salary sacrificing anything into super until my mortgage is paid off. When that happens though, I'll have to make a call as to whether the tax benefit now is worth locking away my money for the next 25 years. I grit my teeth knowing one day I'll have to learn more about investing on my own so I can be in control myself and not rely on some stupid fund manager…

    • -3 votes

      Note super is predicated on you owning your own home on retirement. Now in the modern world that's not quite how things are panning out for many people, especially women for all sorts of reasons: discriminatory pay; child-rearing duties; disruption connected with divorce; financial illiteracy (which can affect anyone); predatory conduct by financial institutions.

      I'm feeling very cheery today.

      • +22 votes

        For the record, discriminatory pay to women is a myth in Australia. It’s a line peddled by feminists but is factually incorrect. There is a pay gap, yes, but it’s not a result of discrimination. Women have equal opportunity in Australia. The pay gap is a result of multiple factors, eg child rearing, ambition, but men and women in the same job in the same company get paid the same in Aus, or have the opportunity to get paid the same. Don’t get sucked in by feminists peddling the lie by bending the truth.

        • -23 votes

          Hi Man.

          "For the record". I like that - makes it sound authoritative, when what you're saying is insightless rubbish.

          Women have equal opportunity in Australia … [and] have the opportunity to get paid the same.

          Sure the law says they're meant to, but if you think that's true in practice you need to get out more.

          Here's as good a place as any to start, with this document covering some of the key issues despite being a little dated. Yes it is complex, and there are many factors at play, however sex discrimination is one of them and there are claims under the federal Sex Discrimination Act and State Equal Opportunity Acts all the time.

          Don't get sucked in by misogynistic and entitled men's groups fearing loss of their privileges.

          • +19 votes

            @DisabledUser256231: Hi feminist.

            You’re wrong. Sorry.

            I don’t dispute there are claims of sexual discrimination in the workplace but they are exceptions to the rule, not the normal practise. Just like domestic violence is the exception not the rule yet it has been paraded in recent times as all men are women bashers for political reasons. Anyway…. the point is, using the ‘exceptions’ to claim there is a pay gap is pure fiction and nonsense. It is not backed up with the statistics and does not factor in lifestyle choice. pregnancy, child rearing and part time return to work etc etc properly.

            Not to mention choice of industry, which many of the “pay gap” myths are based on. Which is annoying to begin with. But it uses stats based on Women instinctively choosing lower paying industries. Where as men instinctively choose higher paying industries which often involve more manual labour and risk, or revolve around physics and engineering and technology. These are proven statistics in many studies that there are different instincts between men and women. Women naturally choose more of the softer industries eg nursing, care, health etc. as a result, there are differences in incomes between the genders and these stats are falsely pointed to as the gender pay gap when combined with women’s child rearing time off work and other factors.

            So yeah, unfortunately you’re wrong. You also showed your hand as a warrior feminist with more nonsense slurs like “male privilege” and “misogyny” which is also not true for the vast majority of workplaces any more. You’re living in 1974 still.

            Cling to your desperate arguments based on here say not facts all you like, you will lose this argument every time.

            • -15 votes

              @Skramit:

              Hi feminist.

              Hi. Glad to call myself one - simply believe in the rights of women. You had a mother yeah?

              I don’t dispute there are claims of sexual discrimination in the workplace but they are exceptions to the rule, not the normal practise.

              Actually there are limited claims because of the technical and equity barriers in launching an action, but discrimination is rife, just more hidden than it used to be. Take your blinkers off and look around you - all that you see in general society is reflected in workplaces as well.

              …all men are women bashers…

              No one actually claims that - but that's obviously your emotional reaction. You're arguing against your own delusions. Deal with the delusions and you'll find less to argue about.

              …does not factor…[blah blah blah]…

              There are many factors. Sex discrimination is one of them. Not the only one, but one of them.

              …Women instinctively choosing lower paying industries….

              Ah, it's all based on instinct!! Nothing to do with restrictions connected with historical norms going back decades! Bloody women and their silly little instincts!

              You also showed your hand as a warrior feminist with more nonsense slurs like “male privilege” and “misogyny”…

              Oh that was just a hit-back on your scaredy-cat reference to lying feminists. But i'm happy to stand by it. I mean look at you - typical man-baby getting all very excited as you feel threatened. That's how people behave when they sense their privileges are under attack.

              I'm The Phantom, and i'm a winner! And we all know OB is dominated by men, but IRL arguments such as yours simply identify you as the oppressor. There you go, another line for you to go postal on.

          • +13 votes

            @DisabledUser256231: You got something more recent? That document is from 1998…(!)

            Don't get sucked in by misogynistic and entitled men's groups fearing loss of their privileges.

            Oh my god, kettle -> black. The fact that there are men fighting for the issues that they feel concern them does not mean a loss of any women's privileges. The fact that you conflate the two says more about you than them…

            • -14 votes

              @AncientWisdom: I did say it's a dated document, but it does go through some of the issues that remain.

              As to the rest of your tirade, are you Mark Latham?

            • -12 votes

              @AncientWisdom: Why am i reminded of this guy when i read @Skramit and @AncientWisdom?

              That's your homework for tonight…

              • +7 votes

                @DisabledUser256231: Ah yes the old chestnut when you have nothing else of substance to say… deliberately drop slurs to detract from your lack of argument and reason. My sides. :D

                Ah, it's all based on instinct!! Nothing to do with restrictions connected with historical norms going back decades! Bloody women and their silly little instincts!

                Actually studies have shown it is. In Scandinavian countries where they are the most egalitarian countries on earth, studies have show the gap has widened between the sexes in terms of employment preferences. More women are choosing healthcare and softer industries, and more men are choosing physical and technical industries, which unfortunately for your argument, are higher paying. WHen given more equal opportunity and choice, the gap actually widened, rather than narrowed. It comes down to natural preferences of the sexes, which you don't believe in as a feminist, but science overules you sorry.

                A gender equality paradox: Countries with more gender equality have fewer female STEM grads Link: https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-gir...

                That's just one, there have been others that show the same thing.

                Enjoy your reading. Cya ;)

                • -13 votes

                  @Skramit: I did say there were many factors at play for pay inequality, and some are complex, and some are covered in that document i linked to.

                  It comes down to natural preferences of the sexes, which you don't believe in as a feminist, but science overules you sorry.

                  Of course preference plays a role, and at no stage did i say otherwise. Again you're jumping at shadows. I don't know any feminists who reject the impact of preference.

                  But what you're saying goes well beyond that - your quite irrational argument is that because there's factors which are unconnected with discrimination impacting pay inequality, there is no discrimination.

                  That's not rational/scientific. You're effectively claiming we live in a post-sexist world, and the article you cite claims nothing of the sort.

                  Now stop rolling on the floor and screaming like a banshee.

          • +7 votes

            @DisabledUser256231: What mens groups. Men are treated like trash in our society.

            How many men are homeless compared to women?

            How many men committed suicide compared to women?

            There is no such thing as mens groups that support the causes of men.

            There are groups of wealthy men who support the causes of wealthy men.

            • -4 votes

              @Superannuation:

              What mens groups.

              Oh there's a few of them. Usually guys who get very very very angry when the Family Court explains to them what 'best interests of the child' looks like in practice.

              How many men are homeless compared to women?

              According to this outfit, 67.6% that sleep rough are men, while 49% in supported accommodation for homeless are men.

              How many men committed suicide compared to women?

              According to this outfit it's 75% men. Men tend to be better at it.

              There is no such thing as mens groups that support the causes of men.

              There is some as i've indicated, but they're a bit on the fringe.

              There are groups of wealthy men who support the causes of wealthy men.

              No doubt about that. Take your pick of all the "Institutes".

        • +3 votes

          “For the record, discriminatory pay to women is a myth in Australia. It’s a line peddled by feminists but is factually incorrect. There is a pay gap, yes, but it’s not a result of discrimination.”

          Sadly it’s not a myth at my workplace. In some cases there is a 25% gender pay gap for the same roles.

          • +5 votes

            @Amour: Do you have any actual evidence that the role carries a 25% lesser wage based purely on gender? Is it written into the HR policy "women get 25% less"? If so, I suggest taking it to the appropriate, as it's illegal.

            Have you seen the actual payslips of the two people you are comparing? Or is it just hearsay based on whispers?

            So assuming I take your word for it, is your comment factoring in length of service, experience, merit etc?

            I am open to evidences and examples, but I've seen comments like this for a decade now in Australia without any evidence that it's actually the case women are paid less when two colleagues have identical roles with identical experience, length of service, etc. You can bet your last penny that hypothetically if a whistle blower ever finds and leaks such evidence, it will be international news.

            • +3 votes

              @Skramit: You're my hero Skramit!

            • +1 vote

              @Skramit: I'm definitely on board with what you're saying, but just wanted to mention that in some industries how much you earn depends on your selling and bartering skills. I can imagine in such cases men do better than women because they tend to be less agreeable.

              • +1 vote

                @AncientWisdom: Agreed. That’s not discrimination based on a gender though. I mean if I am doing the same role as my colleague who is female and she happens to negotiate a better pay rate, I wouldn’t say I’m being discriminated against based on my gender. If we both have equality of opportunity to negotiate better rate, that’s equality.

          •  

            @Amour: Hi @Amour.

            According to @Skramit and his apologists there is full equal opportunity, full equity, and no sexism, at all, anywhere.

            Of course only a moron would think that, but that's often what i find with Engineers who think they're Social Scientists.

            Some of these guys have just been on the sharp end of a Family Court hearing and have been crying into their tissues ever since, or just felt entitled when a woman was promoted above them. They usually don't like reporting to women. Indeed they often don't like women at all though they rarely recognise their own abject sexism.

            They long for the days when men ran the show only, and women were subjugated to domestic roles in the family home. Pretty disturbing but that's often their mentality. It's almost pure sexism that drives a lot of the comments above - why i'm contemptuous of them all.

        •  

          For the record, discriminatory pay to women is a myth in Australia.

          I don’t dispute there are claims of sexual discrimination in the workplace.

          Surely if you agree that sexual discrimination exists then there's a possibility that wage discrimination might follow on from that?

          The idea that everyone gets paid the same for the same job is probably only true in the public sector or those businesses that have clearly defined salary structures. If you have to go directly to your boss to negotiate a salary increase then there are a litany of other factors that can influence whether that raise is granted. The invisible hand tends to favour people whose life revolves around work and can prioritise it over every other aspect of their life.

          I think both you and TheGhostWhoWalks have valid points in your exchange above, but unfortunately they're buried under the obvious contempt that you have for each other's position and the lazy insults being lobbed around. Neither of you appear to be interested in actually arguing the merits of your respective positions nor being prepared to move an inch from them.

          • +2 votes

            @Nomadesque: Everything you said is true. There is absolutely a possibility of discrimination occurring given our mostly free market, and no doubt there are small instances of this. I wasn’t pretending it’s not possible or doesn’t still occur in isolated cases. But I don’t agree that in Australia, sexual discrimination in the workplace is rife or common resulting in a “pay gap” where somebody in the same role is paid less based on their gender. There is little evidence of this being common place.

            The so called pay gap in Aus has been and will continue to be a twisted and unfairly contrived view of the fact that women lean towards certain industries (as do men), and women end up with less pay in their lifetime (and super) due to the primary parenting preferences.

            When media or certain feminist groups throw statistics around about 14% gap etc, it is always a misuse of the available statistics that men indeed earn more. This is true. But they never explain this is due to lifestyle choice, parenting part time work, industry choice etc.

            I’m also not moving an inch on the point of contention because she is wrong and I am rather tired of men in general being demonised over an issue that factually incorrect. And I may be a little bit of a turd towards her but given she laughs at suicidal men, I think that says it all really. You can’t debate anything with somebody like that.

            •  

              @Skramit:

              …a possibility…

              A mere 'possibility'? Yeah, right. And i never laughed anyone but you.

              BTW The Phantom is a man you presumptuous tool.

          •  

            @Nomadesque:

            Surely if you agree that sexual discrimination exists then there's a possibility that wage discrimination might follow on from that?

            Not according to these guys. To them the fact there are other factors contributing to the pay gap means none of that discrepancy is due to sex discrimination. We're in a post-sexist world according to them. That is an extreme and radical view, and their arguments are not logical.

            If you manage to be reasonably logical on everything except that point, you need to ask why. And that's as i've described above - these man-babies can't handle the notion that perhaps their own career transitions have been assisted by anything more than personal capacity/skill levels. Men like that are weak, which is the worst thing you can call them in their mind.

  • +2 votes

    Honestly will be surprised if I live long enough to use it lol I think it depends on your housing situation? If you own a house to live in, you might be fine, your just paying for electricity etc, and when you don't work the amount of money you need goes down a lot. Its actually (in my opinion) pretty expensive to work because of the day to day things people buy (unless you budget super well).

    I imagine it can last you until retirement age where you could live off that to pay utilities? Or maybe sell your home for a smaller place for retiring. At least thats what I would do if I wasn't poor and no where near affording a house.

    If you rent, I think it will be difficult, that will be a massive part of your cost, it will probably be easier moving away from the city area as I know some older friends who end up waiting years trying to get housing from the government and usually its in some dangerous areas (at least so he says).

    So basically yeah, had some thoughts but I feel that super is just part of the bigger issue (retirement plan overall).

    •  

      That was my thought as well - we haven't paid off our house yet, but yes if it was coming close to retirement we would sell our place and move into something smaller to get rid of any debts.

      •  

        If you downsize after retirement at 65 & you’ve owned your home for 10+ years you’re able to put up to $300k from the proceeds, or double that for a couple, into your super fund.
        So worth considering for some who want to increase their funds.
        Be mindful of the tax situation plus the effect on your assets test, particularly if you have investment property or you are claiming welfare.

    • +2 votes

      People don't need to worry about a low superannuation balance; th government will continue to supplement yout income with a part pension. Whay you should be concerted about is home ownership. You can live on a full government pension with some discretionaty income IF you own a house 100%. If you don't you will been in a world of hurt (or have to suck it up in a public housing aprtment infested with pretty criminals and drug addicts). Purchasing housing that inflates by 10% a year on average is the best decisiona person can make.

  •  

    Depends mainly if you have other assets or will inherit some and also how much you plan on leaving your own kids. It will be an interesting generation of wealth redistribution after the housing boom.

  • +7 votes

    I'm a bit over 40 and have a tad over 200k. To be honest I have no idea how much i actually need, but I do get worried when I read that people recommend 1M+ as I know there is no chance I will get to that (or even half that!).
    On the other hand I'm reluctant to over commit to super as I don't trust the govco wont start screwing with the scheme to make it worse for all of us.

    I plan on relying on other investment strategies for my retirement so have a couple of investment properties and a decent share portfolio to hopefully allow me to retire before 60. Having 3 kids will likely put a dent in all that though

    • +7 votes

      With $200k invested in equities via super, long term averages suggest that will be worth around the $800k mark in 20 years (or more). This is obviously subject to the vagaries of the market, but that is where the long term past performance points you. The mythical $1m mark is (potentially) not necessarily that far away for you.

  • Top