# Super Equality



## Happy (7 September 2006)

> From ABC, September 7, 2006
> New MPs 'deserve' super equality
> 
> There is public support for new federal MPs receiving the same superannuation benefits as those elected before 2004.
> ...




OK, maybe lower super and lack of perks is unfair for after 2004 pollies.

So, how about they keep it and give the same to general public. 
Would this be fairer?


----------



## Julia (7 September 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> OK, maybe lower super and lack of perks is unfair for after 2004 pollies.
> 
> So, how about they keep it and give the same to general public.
> Would this be fairer?




"Give the same to the general public".  Not sure what you mean here, Happy - that we all should receive a lifetime indexed pension?

Julia


----------



## dr00 (7 September 2006)

i agree, they do the same job and should all be paid the same. bring the old ones onto the new system.


----------



## Happy (7 September 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> "Give the same to the general public".  Not sure what you mean here, Happy - that we all should receive a lifetime indexed pension?
> 
> Julia




Yes Julia, after all we are all equal, aren’t we?


----------



## Rafa (7 September 2006)

Its Official:



> Prime Minister John Howard has announced plans to boost superannuation for new MPs and senators to bring payouts into line with entitlements for commonwealth public servants.
> 
> Politicians from both sides have been pushing for a boost to superannuation entitlements, which were cut by Mr Howard in 2004 in a bid to match a promise by then Labor leader Mark Latham.
> 
> ...




I think the changes proposed are fair and acceptable.


----------



## Happy (7 September 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> Mr Howard said he would introduce laws to adjust the level of politicians' superannuation to 15.4 per cent, the same level paid to commonwealth public servants.




And if everybody else gets 15.4% super it would be only fair.
Of course, under assumption that not government employed people should have the same super.



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> The government will also introduce a new resettlement allowance which will provide nearly $30,000 if MPs are tossed out of their jobs due to involuntary retirement, such as losing preselection or defeat at the next election.




Only few weeks back, $5,000 relocation was offered to jobseekers, and what we see here?

$30,000 thrown on a table, so much for – everybody is equal in Australia.


----------



## nioka (7 September 2006)

The year I started work 1956 the Government introduced a tax surcharge to establish a pension fund which would provide a separate fund to pay everyone a pension on retirement. A few years later a greedy government put the funds into general revenue and said future pensions would be paid from general revenue. Another hungry government then thought up the means test which means that those who contribute the most miss out. Why not introduce a means test for pollies super.

How safe is your super? Are the assets your fund has invested safe. Will they be there in 20, 30 or 40 years time. Remember pollies make non-core promises.


----------



## Prospector (7 September 2006)

nioka said:
			
		

> How safe is your super? Are the assets your fund has invested safe. Will they be there in 20, 30 or 40 years time. Remember pollies make non-core promises.




That is one of the joys of an SMSF - you can 'visit' your investments every day if you want!


----------



## Ants (7 September 2006)

Anyone who thinks giving politicians more anything is fair. Is a stooge and a wannabe dominion of the dark empire!


----------



## Duckman#72 (7 September 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> Yes Julia, after all we are all equal, aren’t we?




Happy - do you think employees will accept a  6% reduction in their take home pay so that their super contributions can increase?

Who is going to pay for the increase in super?

As for the Governments $5000 subsidy for relocation - I think that it needs to be income tested. I live in a regional area that is currently experiencing the "benefits" of the resource boom. 

At the moment there are people around here that would have trouble reading the alphabet that are being paid $80,000+ to drive trucks from Point A to Point B. Great work if you can get it. But what is it doing for the towns? Well I'll tell you. All the apprentice butchers & bakers, teachers aides, musterers and hairdressers are downing tools and joining up. Unfortunately a lot of the work force also commutes from up to 500km away 5 days on 5 days off. 

What benefit is the reesouce boom to these small regional towns when the mine just suck the blood out the place. When the boom ends (and it will) the town is left a dried up shell.

Why give someone a $5000 subsidy to relocate to a $80000 job. The places that need the subsidy is the poor old bakery that can't get any employees to work at $30000 per year.


----------



## sandik17 (7 September 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> Why give someone a $5000 subsidy to relocate to a $80000 job. The places that need the subsidy is the poor old bakery that can't get any employees to work at $30000 per year.





I have to agree here Duck.  I live in a town only a couple of hours from 'the mines'.  Supposedly wonderful for the area....but what it means is that the people get trained up here...and as soon as they've got their 'ticket'....they're out of here.  We can't get tradespeople for love nor money??


----------



## nioka (24 September 2008)

nioka said:


> The year I started work 1956 the Government introduced a tax surcharge to establish a pension fund which would provide a separate fund to pay everyone a pension on retirement. A few years later a greedy government put the funds into general revenue and said future pensions would be paid from general revenue. Another hungry government then thought up the means test which means that those who contribute the most miss out. Why not introduce a means test for pollies super.
> 
> How safe is your super? Are the assets your fund has invested safe. Will they be there in 20, 30 or 40 years time. Remember pollies make non-core promises.




Just thought I'd bump this thread. Posted 2 years ago. Time to ask the question again.

HOW SAFE IS YOUR SUPER???

It turns out it wasn't the government to worry about. Rather it was the super funds themselves and their attitude towards, and cooperation with, the dodgy practices of some hedge funds. 

There will be a lot of retirees this week who will have to rely on the age pension and a lot deferring retiring for some time. So, how safe is/was YOUR super?


----------



## Julia (24 September 2008)

Never have I been happier to have a SMSF.


----------



## trading_rookie (25 September 2008)

Nice bump nioka...Duckman's post was very interesting, so interesting in the fact that it took ABC's 4 corners to report exactly what he wrote, and I mean exactly 2 years later!

Re: greedy governments, hedge funds, SMSF's, etc, etc....I fail to see how much safer an SMSF is to that of a retail/industrial fund. At the end of the day if a government needs to raise capitial to fund a war or depression they won't be distinguishing one from the other, they'll take it all.

And on the question of hedge funds, if you SMSF owns or owned B&B, Macquarie Grp, or countless of other shares that were victims of short-selling you still 
suffered the fate of 'dodgy' hedge fund practices, like the industrials/retailers.


----------



## Julia (25 September 2008)

trading_rookie said:


> Ni
> Re: greedy governments, hedge funds, SMSF's, etc, etc....I fail to see how much safer an SMSF is to that of a retail/industrial fund.



The whole point of a SMSF is the capacity of the Trustees to make their own decisions about where to be invested at any given time.  Not to mention  avoiding paying commercial fees for often incompetent management.


----------



## trading_rookie (26 September 2008)

But that reason doesn't make an SMSF safer than an industrial/retail fund. The
question asked was how safe is your super, not which class is better.


----------



## Julia (26 September 2008)

trading_rookie said:


> But that reason doesn't make an SMSF safer than an industrial/retail fund. The
> question asked was how safe is your super, not which class is better.



"Which class is better"?  What do you mean?
An individual with total control over his/her funds can choose what they decide is the safest option.   In a retail/industry fund if the Fund Manager thinks, whacko, this is a great opportunity to buy a struggling company which will make a bucket in the future, and the struggling company dies, what can you do?  Nothing.  Just accept the loss.


----------



## trading_rookie (26 September 2008)

> "Which class is better"? What do you mean?



In the current financial climate no super class is safe, be it SMSF, retail or industry. Just because someone has total freedom of where to park their money doesn't mean they're immune to what's happening in the financial meltdown. 



> An individual with total control over his/her funds can choose what they decide is the safest option.



True…the safest option could be parking your money in a term-deposit with a bank hiding it’s exposure to bad loans or high-risk securities packaged up and bought from Lehman Bros. How many of our local councils and state governments got caught out by that one?  



> In a retail/industry fund if the Fund Manager thinks, whacko, this is a great opportunity to buy a struggling company which will make a bucket in the future, and the struggling company dies, what can you do? Nothing.
> Just accept the loss.



So SMSF’ers are immune to buying bad stocks? In any event there is freedom too in an industry/retail fund – one can park their money into ‘supposed’ safe portfolio’s like cash or fixed-interest. I made that choice in Jan with one of my superfunds. 

I’m not knocking DIY super, but there’s no way you can say it’s safer than retail/industry in the current financial climate, nor is it safe from any future governments grasp, and especially not if you’re an amatuer with no market experience.


----------



## Julia (26 September 2008)

I don't recall at any stage saying that SMSF's were necessarily safer than industry/retail funds so I'm really not sure what you are arguing about.
I was expressing a personal preference about being happy to have personal control of every dollar I have invested.

Equally happy for you to do whatever you like with your funds, and really have nothing further to say.


----------



## Prospector (27 September 2008)

In SA today the Govt announced because of the fall in value of shares, the unfunded Public servants Super liability was $200million 'in debt' and that last year their funds had suffered -9%.  So now the tax payers now have to foot the bill for the gap because Public Servants are GUARANTEED their super fund payout.  Nice to get crunched both ways - not only do we lose money in our retirement funds but we also have to supplement the public sector so they dont!


----------



## trading_rookie (29 September 2008)

> I don't recall at any stage saying that SMSF's were necessarily safer than industry/retail funds so I'm really not sure what you are arguing about.




...and where did I state that I was replying to your comment re: SMSF's?
Maybe look back through the thread and you'll see you weren't the only one
mentioning them.


----------

