- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,649
- Reactions
- 24,553
I tend to think that there is a case ATM, to make employers give an across the board pay rise to low income earners, in lieu of the increase to their super contributions.
I have no confidence that a persons super contributions will in fact help their retirement in 30-40 years time, as opposed to just reducing the amount of pension they qualify for, whereas now the money could be better used to help them manage in the current economic situation.
If at a later date things improve whereby, wages are increasing and outstripping cost of living increases, then up the super contribution rate.
Life and the economic situation isn't a linear progression, the system should adapt to the prevailing economic climate, as opposed to pandering to the Government and Super Funds, it is the individuals money not the Governments. The Government's are too focused on reducing their pension obligations and Super Funds are too focused on their gravy train. IMO
I have no confidence that a persons super contributions will in fact help their retirement in 30-40 years time, as opposed to just reducing the amount of pension they qualify for, whereas now the money could be better used to help them manage in the current economic situation.
If at a later date things improve whereby, wages are increasing and outstripping cost of living increases, then up the super contribution rate.
Life and the economic situation isn't a linear progression, the system should adapt to the prevailing economic climate, as opposed to pandering to the Government and Super Funds, it is the individuals money not the Governments. The Government's are too focused on reducing their pension obligations and Super Funds are too focused on their gravy train. IMO