Increase in Super Looking to Get Axed - Thoughts?

Trying2SaveABuck on 23/11/2020 - 15:37
Last edited 23/11/2020 - 15:41

An increase in superannuation would cut lifetime wage earnings for the average Aussie by 2 per cent and lower-income earners would be hit the hardest, a long-awaited review has found.

The government is paving the way to scrap a legislated super rise after the retirement income review found current policy settings were “effective, sound and … broadly sustainable”.

The review warns the “weight of evidence suggests the majority of increases in the super guarantee come at the expense of growth in take-home wages”.

It instead emphasises “voluntary saving” and home ownership as key to long-term financial security.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said most Australians would be better off if super wasn’t increased.

Working life income, for most people, would be around 2 per cent higher in the long run,” he said.

'The Coalition had committed to boosting super from 9.5 per cent to 12.5 per cent by 2025. Labor also backed the move.'
https://www.news.com.au/finance/superannuation/treasurer-jos…

Poll question do you support an increase in super from 9.5% to 12.5% in the next 5~ or so years:

My two cents: I support an increase in mandatory super contributions - however i think access to super needs to be less restrictive - ie full access at age 50, able to use super to buy a 1st home, easier ability access super in times of hardship etc - but i fully expect that i would be in the minority

Poll Options

  • 146
    Mandatory Super should be Increased
  • 16
    Mandatory Super should remain unchanged
  • 11
    Mandatory Super should be decreased
  • 1
    Other
Financial Superannuation

Comments

    • toniyellow on 23/11/2020 - 19:27
      +1

      I am surprised at the number of OzBargainers admitting they are too stupid to save money

      Me too. The tax savings from putting money in super are so incredible I can't believe the number of people commenting against the increase.

      A true ozbargainer would already be maxing out their concessional cap.

    • avoidfullprice on 23/11/2020 - 19:29
      +1

      Let make super voluntary, and those elect to not have super must be the smart one who don't need pension.

      Easy. Poll says so.

    • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 00:45

      Call me stupid but pay me an extra 0.5% please! If I got an extra 0.5% every time someone called me stupid :D

  • Seraphin7 on 23/11/2020 - 19:01
    -1

    My two cents: I support an increase in mandatory super contributions - however i think access to super needs to be less restrictive - ie full access at age 50, able to use super to buy a 1st home, easier ability access super in times of hardship etc - but i fully expect that i would be in the minority

    There are three fantastic ways to keep self-funded retirement incomes hovering just above zero.

  • Bystander on 23/11/2020 - 19:10

    emphasises “voluntary saving” and home ownership as key to long-term financial security.

    pffft
    Watch that one come back and bite them hard in the bum when the next property downturn happens. Totally irresonsible of govt to be promoting RE at this stage of the cycle.

    • Blue Cat on 23/11/2020 - 19:14
      +2

      bUt PrOpErTy OnLy GoEs Up!!!!!!11111

      • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 00:46

        Yup! They pop up out of the ground faster than weeds.

    • brendanm on 23/11/2020 - 19:27
      -2

      Does it even matter if you simply want a house to live in? You get it for a price you are happy with, once the mortgage is paid, it is yours. Your outgoings later in life are greatly reduced.

  • LemonShapedRock on 23/11/2020 - 22:00

    New idea for Superannuation: put $5,000 into the share market when a child is born, then when they're 65 they'll retire with $1,405,283.86.

    Assumptions: ASX will continue to go up by 12.31% as it has annually since 1900, minus an annual inflation rate of 3%.

    Heard this from Scott Phillips from the Motley Fool and thought it was creative way to approach retirement.

    It's not perfect but IMO it's better than limiting access to earned income to those lucky enough to live to 65.

    • bobbified on 23/11/2020 - 22:35
      +1

      ….then when they're 65 they'll retire with $1,405,283.86.

      It might sound like a lot now but, by then, the average house price will probably be about $100,000,000!

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 23/11/2020 - 22:35
      +1

      Yea I wouldnt listen to that bloke…. the Motley Fool are better at Marketing then they are at share advising imo

      This is also something people like Scott dont point out but interest rates 25 years ago where 10-12% so your unlikely to see the market grow by an average of 12% annually now….. 7% is pushing it.

      • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 00:50

        Don't worry in the next 20 years interest rates will be -6% if you look at the rise of house prices is inverse of RBA rates. The sharemarket is the same.

        Bread will be $14 a loaf at Aldi, cheapest you can find.

      • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 11:01

        Motley Fool are better at Marketing then they are at share advising imo

        If the advice was that great you'd be a fool to sell it for cheap. It is like Amazon FBA or property investment courses, obviously more money in the courses than actually doing the business.

    • whooah1979 on 23/11/2020 - 22:36

      put $5,000 into the share market

      Who is going to pay for this and why should it go to the stock market? Why not a future fund where they can choose their preferred financial instruments?

      • MontyMacaw on 24/11/2020 - 09:26
        +1

        You can have self managed super which can go elsewhere.

  • Tasmaniac on 24/11/2020 - 00:30
    +1

    The ratio of workers to retirees is going from 5:1 to 3:1 in the next thirty years.
    Somethings going to have to change

  • TheOtherLeft on 24/11/2020 - 08:08

    I already Salary Sacrifice to make up to the maximum $25k, hence I would support it if the $25k contribution cap is increased as well.

    • brad1-8tsi on 24/11/2020 - 10:58

      It wasn't that long back it was $50k (even $100k for a while). Some nice welfare for high income earners.

  • MontyMacaw on 24/11/2020 - 08:11
    +1

    Stick with the program and this is why: Good money managers will always be ok in retirement. If you access super for a home there is a good chance that when you retire your circumstances will have changed - divorce is the obvious example where emotions get in the way and the proceeds from a house are spent on other things like cars, holidays and other non life long “investments”. Then there is the ever borrowing for boats and holidays types who never really get to own their home fully anyway. Super should be locked away until you retire. Especially for the vulnerable who will always find a “need” to tap into it and they of course will be the ones needing a state funded pension and other subsidies. Super is for retirement. Keep it that way. Everybody wins nobody loses except those forced to work on ABNs so if there are changes, things should be increased to help the people not saving enough now, not reduced. You can’t fight human nature when money is a available.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/11/2020 - 10:57

      i dare say those who die before they 'hit retirement age' are certain losers

      My issue with super and it always will be is the government can turn around tomorrow and say you cant access super will your 70 or 75 now and there isnt much you can do about it.

      I know people whos parents and grand parents died b4 70 genetically they arent likely to live much longer then they did the retirement age is 67 now imagine you got 1m in super but by the time you access it ur either dead or too sick to enjoy/use it?

      I like the idea of increasing super but i think there needs to be less stringent rules around it esp for those that are 50 and over.

      • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 11:08

        government can turn around tomorrow and say you cant access super will your 70 or 75 now

        I can't see them winning many votes with that one. Pushing it up is less damaging than say taxing it when you take it or telling people what to do with it. Law always later than people doing stupid things. That said majority of people are responsible about their super.

        I know people whos parents and grand parents died b4 70 genetically they arent likely to live much longer then they did the retirement age is 67

        People in these circumstances I would say not to pay extra into super and save on the side so you can retire at 55 or 60 and enjoy a good few years and get super money IF you make it that far. I would say people genetically constrained low life expectancy is low. Please don't use minority to argue for the majority.

        Problem is pretty much people accessing super, spending all of it and getting on government pension anyways.

        My target is to retire by 55 - 60 work part time. Live on average salary and use a good deal of it up by 75 - 80 when I can't physically travel (spend) a lot and get onto the government pension if it exists.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/11/2020 - 11:21

          Winning votes or not historically 'access' to super has been pushed up every decade or so - so i wouldnt trust the government to not at least try to increase it.

          I agree people should save money on the side but not everyone does/can - super is your money I sometimes feel that the government forgets that.

          I think most people intend on slowing down or semi-retiring in there 50s if they can financially. I fail to understand why they cannot access there next egg around that age?

          As for cost of pensions etc we spend around 5-10bn on social housing, welfare for unemployed, refugee resettlement etc i dont understand how there is money for people who have not or are contributing to society but the ones that have worked and paid taxes there who life get shafted??

          • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 14:02

            @Trying2SaveABuck:

            As for cost of pensions etc we spend around 5-10bn on social housing, welfare for unemployed, refugee resettlement etc i dont understand how there is money for people who have not or are contributing to society but the ones that have worked and paid taxes there who life get shafted??

            Vote buying. You know the warm and fuzzy feeling that we're contributing to people who are less fortunate. We definite should but there should be strings attached. JobSeeker rate sucks but then it can be boosted if it is pitched as entering temporary government employment and send them off to pick up rubbish along the side of roads, rivers / creeks and sort out our recycling problem. But apparently asking people to work is too much and therefore we should pay them below the poverty line, get them to stay at home and apply for jobs that may not exist due to bad economic times.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/11/2020 - 15:01

              @netjock: Look im not going to get into a social debate on welfare but imo the pensioner who worked there whole life paid taxed lost a truck load of there retirement money either post GFC, post COVID etc - are just as deserving of government support then most welfare recipients - if not more so becuz they actually tried. Lots of us are battlers not all of us come to the end winning, but the system should reward you for trying.

              • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 15:57

                @Trying2SaveABuck:

                Look im not going to get into a social debate on welfare

                Oh you're one of those people who think out aloud and wish people never answer back. Got it.

      • MontyMacaw on 24/11/2020 - 14:51

        “i dare say those who die before they 'hit retirement age' are certain losers”? Are you serious? If they are dead what difference does it make? Maybe there can be a derivative for living too long or dying too early? It is a raffle after all. I knew a guy years ago that wouldn’t buy a life membership of a club at a ridiculously low price because he didn’t want to die and be out of pocket. Not the brightest light on the Christmas tree that bloke.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/11/2020 - 14:55

          It is more you lose becuz ur forced to work till an age you might not want to work till.

          Of course no one knows who long they will live for exactly but to be forced to work till 67 when you feel like at 60 you physically cant anymore if unfair? -esp if you have a big enough nest egg to live out the rest of your life?

          • MontyMacaw on 25/11/2020 - 12:23

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Super can be accessed from 55 - correct me if I’m wrong - if you are not working or some other conditions apply- haven’t checked lately but I feel confident on this.

        • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 15:56

          OP doesn't believe in saving (like I suggested so you can transition to part time work until your super kicks in) but does like the idea of being able to access you super earlier.

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/11/2020 - 16:07

            @netjock: Perhaps becuz not every job allows you to work part time…..

            • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 16:08

              @Trying2SaveABuck: If you want universal coverage? I guess you are not getting COVID vaccine because 95% ain't good enough. It might not work for all people but don't apply it to ALL people.

              • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/11/2020 - 16:12

                @netjock: A 70% effective vaccine is enough to provide herd immunity…

                A retirement policy that is 70% effective leaves 30% of the population homeless or living below the poverty line…

                • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 21:50

                  @Trying2SaveABuck: You want 100% of us living below the poverty line? Everyone on the same level is the Communist Utopia isn't it? Except they found out everyone was trying to free load off everyone else.

                  • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/11/2020 - 22:13

                    @netjock: If this was communism everyone who get paid the same amount….- im talking about a system that is 100% capitalist im not sure where you went to school but ur your on smoke if you think thats communist? - however i would like to think in Australia we could have a system where 99% of the population live well above the poverty line?

                    The idea is based around the fact those who earn more should have the option to retiree early ie you can access ur super at 50 but you cant access an kind of pension? - thus encouraging self fund retirement - we got two issues an aging population and a young population struggling to get into work.

                    Anyway your response seems to lack an understanding of what im trying to say so maybe im not explaining it correctly i dont disagree with your notion but in my line of work i meet loads of older people who feel the system has screwed them even tho they have worked hard and paid taxes there whole life - many of them would be considered some what 'wealthy' retired but even when you have money you get screwed by the system when you get there to that age u will understand

                    One of the biggest complaints is that if you are a 'self funded retiree' you may not get access to a pension card (not the same as a seniors card) thus you pay full price on medicine - so instead of paying 6-7$ ur paying 50-200 for drugs ultimately forcing you into the life style you spent your whole life working to avoid. If you think the system right now is capitalist then you are a f**ken moron it is incredibility socialist and anti workers - it is even worse the most assets you have.

                    The idea of self funded retirement is great if you 100% healthy but i can almost guarantee you wont be at that age weather it be diabetes, Arthritis, early onset blindness, blood pressure, heart issues etc - it isnt ez being old

                    If you dont believe me there is a reason the MP have a non-means tested pension it is bcuz they know they are screwing older Australians but they dont want to screw themselves

                    FYI im 30 years old so i got no dog in this fight right now and i make decent money but i cant help but think the system is geared to screw older people and duel citizenship is a must in my later years…

                    • netjock on 25/11/2020 - 00:19

                      @Trying2SaveABuck:

                      The idea is based around the fact those who earn more should have the option to retiree early ie you can access ur super at 50 but you cant access an kind of pension? - thus encouraging self fund retirement

                      The system does encourage self funded retirement, it is just people pissing it away once they have access to it. You don't blame the vehicle (super) running over and killing people (the driver)

                      One of the biggest complaints is that if you are a 'self funded retiree' you may not get access to a pension card (not the same as a seniors card) thus you pay full price on medicine - so instead of paying 6-7$ ur paying 50-200 for drugs

                      Isn't it the point of self funded retiree you paid for your meds? You can't have your cake and eat it at the same time.

                      he idea of self funded retirement is great if you 100% healthy but i can almost guarantee you wont be at that age weather it be diabetes, Arthritis, early onset blindness, blood pressure, heart issues etc - it isnt ez being old

                      Guarantee don't write cheques you can't cash.

                      FYI im 30 years old so i got no dog in this fight right now

                      So why are you fighting like a dog about it?

                      Like I said there is nothing stopping people accumulating much as they can and getting part pension, for those over the assets test to use some of the funds to get under the assets test.

                      It just seems like you are arguing for a better deal for the extreme poor and also those above the means test. Lets take the two ends of the normal distribution curve and ignore the fact most people will end up existing in the middle.

                      • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/11/2020 - 08:13

                        @netjock: i couldnt care about the poor/rich - i care about people that have worked - if you worked for Australia contributed to this country ie Nurses, Teachers, consultants, IT support guy etc you should be looked after if you have worked 25+ years in Australia you have contributed to this country - the system doesnt look after them it looks after poor people that havent worked No offence but your incredibility blind if you cant see.

                        My issue is our system looks after people who imo dont deserve it less and that have have spent there life leeching off the system Politicians, Junkies, Refugees etc
                        If you think i want to look after poor people then - you really dont understand what im saying - you probably will be one be complaining about the system when ur old but by then it will be too late to try change.

                        Even if you think ur going to be wealthy in the future (or are wealthy now) you will still think the system is unfair.

                        As for guarantee - You and yes my friend and everyone else will have some conditions that will cost money i am 100% sure you will have at least a bit of blood pressure issues and Arthritis problems by 70 -The govt often talks about the longer life expectancy but they dont talk about the reduction in quality of life - It is also highly likely u will have Cholesterol issues and early onset dementia. Now touch wood it doesnt happen but if you get serious illness like cancer, heart disease or a neurological diseases like MS/Parkinson's etc bcuz then u will be really f**ked

                        how much money do you think u need to have to self fund then? - the idea of Self funded retiree needs to be changed becuz unless you are in the top 1-2% earners you cannot afford to self funded ur retirement - but i guess when u get old my friend you will find out urself - as someone who is considered to be 'well off' for my age and a good earner i can see that it is almost impossible to self fund a retirement based on just an the average medical conditions people get for there age - most of us will at least be on a part pension (75-80%). Thus the current super system wont work and it is why i support increasing it.

                        • netjock on 25/11/2020 - 10:01

                          @Trying2SaveABuck:

                          i couldnt care about the poor/rich - i care about people that have worked

                          Okay mate. If you think that makes you sound above everyone else. Maybe you should run for office if you think it sells.

                          My issue is our system looks after people who imo dont deserve it less and that have have spent there life leeching off the system Politicians, Junkies, Refugees etc

                          Who really are you to judge people as deserving or not? I'd personally like to see you live the life of a refugee, people don't become refugees by choice and you blame them for leeching. It really is first world entitlement to believing everything is right in the world while the government supported wars in the middle east that created the refugee problem.

                          Maybe you should watch filthy rich & homeless on SBS. Some homeless people had careers but through relationship break down etc went off the rails.

                          Even if you think ur going to be wealthy in the future (or are wealthy now) you will still think the system is unfair.

                          That is an attitude adjustment. It is just fundamental greed because everyone wants to live a good life which always involves more money than they have.

                          As for guarantee - You and yes my friend and everyone else will have some conditions that will cost money i am 100% sure you will have at least a bit of blood pressure issues and Arthritis problems by 70 -The govt often talks about the longer life expectancy but they dont talk about the reduction in quality of life - It is also highly likely u will have Cholesterol issues and early onset dementia.

                          It really depends on how you lived the first 60 years of your life. I don't think illness grows on trees and just fall on you. You have such a pessimistic view on life I would suggest you seek someone to talk to. Unfortunately it is uncommon for developed countries to have more unhappy people.

                          • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/11/2020 - 10:41

                            @netjock: "It really depends on how you lived the first 60 years of your life. I don't think illness grows on trees and just fall on you. You have such a pessimistic view on life I would suggest you seek someone to talk to. Unfortunately it is uncommon for developed countries to have more unhappy people."

                            Ignorance is bliss i guess - ok mate have a good life - no point arguing with ur 'logic'

                            • netjock on 25/11/2020 - 11:08

                              @Trying2SaveABuck: People are like car tyres, they don't become old and dangerous low on thread for no reason. Most people would like to ignore drug taking, excessive drinking, smoking, pissing away their money in their youth and look for charity when they are old.

                              Ignorance is bliss, depending on whether you ignore what you did the give a sad story as to why you need hand outs. Or whether you're just ignoring the fact that it is your responsibility to look after yourself. Unless you want to hire a full time life supervisor to walk behind you and tell you what you can and can't do.

                              Each to their own. One thing I realised about life is you can all other people all kinds of names but it won't change that fact. Unless you want to do something about it. If you feel that strong about it run for office.

                              Personally I am looking to setup a charity that just pays most of the up front difference for solar panels (after grants and etc) for low income families.

                              • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/11/2020 - 11:26

                                @netjock: 'People are like car tyres, they don't become old and dangerous low on thread for no reason'

                                unlike a tyre if you leave it in a box for 200 years it will still be a tyre if you where left in a box for 200 years you might not look so good

                                'whether you're just ignoring the fact that it is your responsibility to look after yourself.'

                                I dont disagree

                                'drug taking, excessive drinking, smoking, pissing away their money in their youth and look for charity when they are old.'

                                Even if you dont do all those things - you will still have health issues as ur get older (assuming you dont die young)

                                Many people accept the fact that we all die but ignore (like you are doing now) that death in most cases isnt a like turning off a light switch and that ur twilight years are generally riddled with health issues - some people are lucky and only have minor issues like Arthritis (everyone gets Arthritis) but i dare say statically speaking you and I will end up with some major health issue as i said before you just hope it isnt cancer, heart issues or neurological diseases.

                                I dont know what you do for work and i dont know ur ethnicity but generically everyone is predisposed to something - i spent enough time now working in the medical/rehabilitation field to tell you that everyone suffers eventually. Literally 7 years in hospitals/community health/private practice and i've had both side of the coin chains smokers, obese people, drug abusers to former athletes Olympians, multi millionaires - and everyone in-between so i have seen 1st had how age f**ks us all.

                                Perhaps the medical field will cure some of these disease by the time we get old but i dont have a crystal ball

                                • netjock on 25/11/2020 - 11:53

                                  @Trying2SaveABuck:

                                  i spent enough time now working in the medical/rehabilitation field to tell you that everyone suffers eventually.

                                  That is like working as a plumber and everyone you come across has a plumbing issue of some type. It is like a cocaine dealer, everyone who they see in course of business must be taking drugs. I don't make assumptions like that because it is hidden bias because of your experience it must be true.

                                  unlike a tyre if you leave it in a box for 200 years it will still be a tyre if you where left in a box for 200 years you might not look so good

                                  I assume tyre on a wheel that is used regularly. Even if you put a person in a box you will still have to breath and blood runs through your veins and there is still wear and tear where as no wear and tear for a wheel stored in a box. Even a stored wheel will have plastic degradation.

                                  You might just have to go back to review your reasoning.

                                  There is people who work all their life and pay taxes yet take more from the system then they put in. The working poor. Thinking out loud, do not answer: I would like to see what you propose we do with these people.

  • singingwolf on 24/11/2020 - 09:09
    +3

    The argument is that wage growth will suffer as a result of this. But from my experience wage growth died years ago anyway. So better we get the super.

    • MontyMacaw on 24/11/2020 - 09:25
      +2

      Correct. Increasing super may be the only way to effectively increase wage growth.

      • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 11:11
        +1

        That is why government wants it for themselves. Better getting 19% + medicare levy on low income earners than 15%.

        The UK did it a few years ago and fiddled with national insurance (government pension) for self employed, an annual additional GBP250 on a million or so people. Just enough to raise a few hundred million on not seriously swing the vote but pitched as being "fair"

        You'll see a lot of these few dollars here and there which adds up for government revenue.

  • OzHunterNSW on 24/11/2020 - 12:01
    +1

    At 60k, it equates to $8 a week. If a business can not afford two cups of coffee per week then they deserve to go bankrupt.

    • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 15:58

      They want to pay it out as a dividend with franking credits. The franking credits are worth a lot more than 15% in the right hands.

  • HeWhoKnows on 24/11/2020 - 14:28
    +1

    Dear OP

    The SOLE purpose of superannuation is to fully find retirement and replace hence government aged pensions.

    Hence access must by nature be restricted to retirement years deemed to be after the age of 65 however there are generous concessions that apply for early retirement access from age 55 or 60 depend on your age,

    Note also that nearly all contributions have earned a tax deduction either by your employer or by the contributor.
    Again this is in return for saving money for your retirement.

    Thats why some tax penalties apply for early withdrawal.
    They are just claiming back the tax deduction that was given at time of contribution.
    Not though all tax deductible contributions attract at 15% contributions tax.
    So the bottom like tax saving is not a great as it looks.
    Thast why the tax penalty for early access varies from 5% to 15%

    Any voluntary contributions made without claiming a tax deduction can usually be withdrawn to fund retirement tax free

    • netjock on 24/11/2020 - 16:02
      +1

      The SOLE purpose of superannuation is to fully find retirement and replace hence government aged pensions.

      OP caught between the idea of super but also the government flag that says you can take it all out tax free once you reach preservation age. Government giving mixed signals.

      Think government wants to stop people getting aged pension they just need to measure your super amount at preservation age against a number for that year like if you hit the limit balance of $1.6m then no aged pension for life.

      I bet plenty of people are looking to blow it all and get on the government pension. I plan on getting on the government pension between 75 - 80 yo when I am no longer able to be as active after I spent the last 10 - 15 years seeing the world on a shoe string budget.

      • HeWhoKnows on 25/11/2020 - 12:32

        I wouldnt be relying on any govt pension.
        They are obviously looking at ways to get rid of it and thats BOTH major parties.

        a) making it harder to qualify on a regular basis. Soon if you have your own residence you wont qualify. They will force you to sell it in order to fund your retirement.
        b) increasing retirement age to the point more people will die before qualifying for the pension
        c) by closely monitoring everything that moves in and out of your bank accounts. Currently any withdrawal over $3,000 raises a red flag.
        d) possibly replacing cash pension with vouchers and coupons to buy your groceries and pay your rent.

        So in a nutshelf you will either need to be flat broke and dont own any property and no cash or almost dead. Whichever comes first.
        Not a great way to live

        • netjock on 25/11/2020 - 12:41

          a) making it harder to qualify on a regular basis. Soon if you have your own residence you wont qualify. They will force you to sell it in order to fund your retirement.

          Sale and lease back. Match it to your desired time to go into the government pension

          b) increasing retirement age to the point more people will die before qualifying for the pension

          That is why I am only looking at 75 - 80 years of age. They can't put it up to 100 when life expectancy is like 90 could they?

          c) by closely monitoring everything that moves in and out of your bank accounts. Currently any withdrawal over $3,000 raises a red flag.

          Didn't know this but imagine how much lower crime there would be if they did this properly.

          d) possibly replacing cash pension with vouchers and coupons to buy your groceries and pay your rent.

          OzB people know how this works, well trained for when it comes along.

          So in a nutshelf you will either need to be flat broke and dont own any property and no cash or almost dead. Whichever comes first.
          Not a great way to live

          Interesting point. Potentially have to look at what immigrants do and go back to their low cost country and be self funded retiree, make the money go further.

          Retirement is 20+ years for me therefore a bit further out in the horizon but definitely keeping an eye on it.

  • afah0447 on 24/11/2020 - 17:38
    +2

    1) The LNP hates superannuation as its the one area of Australian socitey where the union movement still holds significant power. They have tried for years to destroy Industry Funds (union members sit on these Boards) and push Retail Funds (run for profit only) onto us but have failed miserably as they are run by the greed of private sector where they care only about extracting fees and shareholder returns rather than member returns. The Libs never have your interests at heart.

    2) LNP backbenchers Wilson and Bragg have been howling for two years that all the legislated increases to super should be freezed. Their 'trickle down economics' being that increaing it will mean no wage increases in the future. A lie. This will be the only pay increase most people will get for the next 10 yrs. Real wages have been flat for the last 15yrs whilst profits have increased 10% year-on-year. Employers on aggregate CAN AFFORD increases to super (10% - 0.5% = plenty to pass on). Its a proven empirical fact employers will not pass on windfall gains to employees (eg. lower corporate income tax rates). Its a complete myth that freezed super contributions to workers will be substitued by higher wages. The Libs never have your interests at heart.

    3) The LNP have stolen the future of young Australians by shifting the burden of the covid19 crisis onto individuals (by way of the $10k withdrawal of super) and not taking on the burden themselves by giving more support. This is truly disgusting and will cost those who made the withdrawal up $100k by the time they retire.The Libs never have your interests at heart.

    4) The LNP efforts to freeze super will compound the long-run losses of young people who were forced to withdrawal their super. There wiould have be a slim chance those who withdrew their super could make up their shortfall due to the legislated increases. The Libs never have your best interests at heart.

    5) Ultimately the decison comes down to three senators - Stirling Griff, Jacky Lambi and Rebekha Sharkie. The LNP have been on lying media blitz campagin of late saying its all up them and they are creating jobs and giving you a pay raise. The Libs never have your interests at heart.

    • HeWhoKnows on 25/11/2020 - 12:24
      +1

      I think you miss the point entirely.
      This is not a political discussion
      You obviously dont like LNP.

      In future pls stick to the discussion and point in question.

      Let me remind you that OP simply wanted to know your thoughts on freezing the Superannuation guarantee at 9%.

      • netjock on 25/11/2020 - 12:41
        +2

        Could almost replace the names of any party and MPs in the above and won't be too far from the truth.

        • HeWhoKnows on 27/11/2020 - 10:15

          Correct. Thats why its a Political Comment and doesnt address the subject

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join