How do we make Super fairer?

[white_goodman]

define fairness... what a loaded term.. they think they have struck fairness in France recently... the 'rich' have judged with their feet how 'fair' it is..

tax concession or subsidy implies that all money is govts and by letting us have more of our own money is immoral or 'unfair'...

its simple you cant change the 'concessions' to super without affecting the 'pool' of super available... simialr to if you raised tax rates too high it would reduce taxable income, it isnt a straight linear relationship, people have incentives and disincentives and react accordingly

 

[Bill M]

Easy solution to this. Make access to super from age 65. Also stop lump sums over 20% of the balance. I don't see why someone should be able to take all their super, pay off loans, buy a new car, head off overseas, then expect the tax payer to give them a full pension.

They have already cheated us once. When the Super Guarantee came in it was 55 y/o minimum age to access it. Many people were sold to the "put in extra" now and retire with a nice pool of funds at 55. Then along came a change to minimum age. It virtually changed overnight from 55 to 60 and now anyone born after 1962 must wait until 60 before they can draw on their super. All those that signed up to putting in extra with the idea of retiring early were conned. Do you know what happened? People thought stuff it, why should I put in if I can't get it until 60. Can you imagine what would happen if they changed it to 65?

I personally wouldn't put any more in if they tried that on. Why should I be forced to wait another 10 years to get my own money?

I really think that the whole superannuation system in Australia is very good. The current rules are good and encourages people to save for their retirement. I use to think the super system was cr@p years ago, there wasn't much incentive to put in and then the Howard government reformed it and reformed it well. With the co contribution scheme and tax free super after 60 I think it's a great system as is. It all about getting people to save.

Tax them more or make them wait longer and they won't put in and then they will be in the Centrelink queue when they turn 65. That isn't the way to go.

 

[banco]

What was happening in the past was people were turning 55 and chucking the job in. They would go out and blow all their super and end up on a government pension in the end. To discourage them from doing this they brought in the TRP. It is a good idea, rather than throwing in the job how about just working 2 or 3 days a week and getting the TRP. It stops the irresponsible from blowing the lot early on and they are encouraged to stay in employment. I think it is a good system. If it was not in place then we would be back to square one where people were retiring at 55 and blowing the lot by 65.

I will give you an example. Next year my wife turns 55 and she will be entitled to retire and pull out all her super. She doesn't want to do this now because we have planed for her to go on a TRP. She will get a small retirement pension and continue to work part time. If she was not allowed to do this she would probably pull the pin and draw a pension anyway. The Governments view is that it is probably better to give her a little bit of what is hers anyway and continue working rather than she give up her job and blow the lot by 65 and then have to pay her a tax payer funded pension. I might add that because of this policy we are now putting in extra cash into her super policy to maximise the pension. I hope that explains it a bit.

It seems like an easy solution to this would be to make it so you can't access your super until age 65 and have rules about how you can deal with it when you turn 65. Singapore I believe has pretty strict rules that prevent people from pissing away their retirement accounts.

 

[medicowallet]

It seems like an easy solution to this would be to make it so you can't access your super until age 65 and have rules about how you can deal with it when you turn 65. Singapore I believe has pretty strict rules that prevent people from pissing away their retirement accounts.

Perhaps this would be a good idea if it only applies to the employer compulsory contribution amount only.

Stop people blowing it all, and stop morons like Storm financial decimating people's retirements by drawing down their super at age 55 and gearing it to the hilt etc.

MW

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I would question the original premise of the thread.

Why should Super be Fair?

Some folk bludge all their lives, spend unwisely, have multiple relationships and **** up their kids.

Why should these pissants have access to a "Fair Super"

gg

 

[IFocus]

sydboy, have a look at this thread:
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737&highlight=tags



Most members will recall a member, no longer with us for some months, with an excessively long multisyllabic nic who had a style and political philosophy pretty much identical to that of sydboy., together with the dogmatic attitude and very long posts. Can someone remember his name?

How incredibly pompous and personally offensive you can be, Sydboy has turned up here and has some thing to say with facts and credible argument.

If you don't agree debate the issue don't denigrate the person because they don't hold or support your opinion.

Your behaviour likely inhibits others from comment that in turn will affect Joes bottom line.

 

[white_goodman]

I would question the original premise of the thread.

Why should Super be Fair?

Some folk bludge all their lives, spend unwisely, have multiple relationships and **** up their kids.

Why should these pissants have access to a "Fair Super"

gg

and what is fair, what is fair for you isnt fair for me vice versa

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

and what is fair, what is fair for you isnt fair for me vice versa

Agree.

So why bother to try and make it fair.

gg

 

[white_goodman]

If it's cheaper to pay the pension to everyone than provide super tax concessions, then which is the better policy?

stage 1 thinking once again... imagine how an economy would work under both scenarios

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

stage 1 thinking once again... imagine how an economy would work under both scenarios

Sorry I'm a worker.

What is stage 1 thinking?

gg

 

[banco]

They have already cheated us once. When the Super Guarantee came in it was 55 y/o minimum age to access it. Many people were sold to the "put in extra" now and retire with a nice pool of funds at 55. Then along came a change to minimum age. It virtually changed overnight from 55 to 60 and now anyone born after 1962 must wait until 60 before they can draw on their super. All those that signed up to putting in extra with the idea of retiring early were conned. Do you know what happened? People thought stuff it, why should I put in if I can't get it until 60. Can you imagine what would happen if they changed it to 65?

I personally wouldn't put any more in if they tried that on. Why should I be forced to wait another 10 years to get my own money?

I really think that the whole superannuation system in Australia is very good. The current rules are good and encourages people to save for their retirement. I use to think the super system was cr@p years ago, there wasn't much incentive to put in and then the Howard government reformed it and reformed it well. With the co contribution scheme and tax free super after 60 I think it's a great system as is. It all about getting people to save.

Tax them more or make them wait longer and they won't put in and then they will be in the Centrelink queue when they turn 65. That isn't the way to go.

Howard's promises were unsustainable (well unless you wanted to see an even bigger transfer of wealth from the younger generation to the baby boomer generations then is already going to occur).

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Howard's promises were unsustainable (well unless you wanted to see an even bigger transfer of wealth from the younger generation to the baby boomer generations then is already going to occur).

I fail to see why you people are so against us boomers.

We had to fight people who were born as far back as the 1880's.

I have been battoned, arrested, injured and perjorified fighting for the freedoms you now enjoy.

Against racism, apartheid and disadvantage.

Some of my mates fought and died in unjust wars such as Vietnam and were spat upon by the Australian public on their return.

Then I worked.

Unfortunately the social workers and the professional left outflanked us in the 70's and 80's, and since.

Life is tough.

I will fight for my "unfair" super, and spend it all before I die.

Super should not be fair.

Fatarses who did nothing for fifty years should not enjoy the fruits of a golden age, where opportunity was unlimited for those who worked.

gg

 

[banco]

I fail to see why you people are so against us boomers.

We had to fight people who were born as far back as the 1880's.

I have been battoned, arrested, injured and perjorified fighting for the freedoms you now enjoy.

Against racism, apartheid and disadvantage.

Some of my mates fought and died in unjust wars such as Vietnam and were spat upon by the Australian public on their return.

Then I worked.

Unfortunately the social workers and the professional left outflanked us in the 70's and 80's, and since.

Life is tough.

I will fight for my "unfair" super, and spend it all before I die.

Super should not be fair.

Fatarses who did nothing for fifty years should not enjoy the fruits of a golden age, where opportunity was unlimited for those who worked.

gg

I just think there has to be a recognition that there's a limited pie and we aren't going to be able to keep the baby boomer generation in the manner they are accustomed to without shifting a very large share of government spending to health care for the elderly, aged care and the aged pension.

 

[Julia]

It seems like an easy solution to this would be to make it so you can't access your super until age 65 and have rules about how you can deal with it when you turn 65. Singapore I believe has pretty strict rules that prevent people from pissing away their retirement accounts.

Perhaps this would be a good idea if it only applies to the employer compulsory contribution amount only.

Agree. But it would be very unreasonable to apply that to the portion of Super contributed by the individual.

I would question the original premise of the thread.

Why should Super be Fair?

Some folk bludge all their lives, spend unwisely, have multiple relationships and **** up their kids.

Why should these pissants have access to a "Fair Super"

gg

Yep, goes to the fundamental concept of whether it actually makes sense to provide for one's own retirement.
We will, however, keep on wanting to be self funded in the knowledge that the government pension will become less and less adequate over time.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I just think there has to be a recognition that there's a limited pie and we aren't going to be able to keep the baby boomer generation in the manner they are accustomed to without shifting a very large share of government spending to health care for the elderly, aged care and the aged pension.

I'm an existentialist, and would prefer the dosh to go to babies, pregnant girls, and partners.

Just my thoughts.

The elderly should provide for themselves, otherwise they become a chain around the necks of youth.

Look at Japan, a nation of old farts with zero growth.

We have lost this concept since Whitlam and his acolytes decided that social workers were more important in policy planning than workers.

Then maybe I'm a misogynist.

gg

 

[banco]

I'm an existentialist, and would prefer the dosh to go to babies, pregnant girls, and partners.

Just my thoughts.

The elderly should provide for themselves, otherwise they become a chain around the necks of youth.

Look at Japan, a nation of old farts with zero growth.

We have lost this concept since Whitlam and his acolytes decided that social workers were more important in policy planning than workers.

Then maybe I'm a misogynist.

gg

Yes I think we may well end up a giant retirement home.

This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper

 

[sydboy007]

stage 1 thinking once again... imagine how an economy would work under both scenarios

Could you explain what you mean by stage 1 thinking?

Do you dispute the figures I've quoted?

 

[sydboy007]

I would question the original premise of the thread.

Why should Super be Fair?

Some folk bludge all their lives, spend unwisely, have multiple relationships and **** up their kids.

Why should these pissants have access to a "Fair Super"

gg

If there was no Govt subsidy for super I would agree with you.

But why do 12% of super account holders get 50% of the tax breaks?

If the policy is to maximise the number of people with reasonable savings for retirement, then I think it's logical to stop providing such a big subsidy to those who will have a reasonable retirement anyway.

Do you think it's an efficient use of public funds to provide someone on 500K annual salary (historically at least) 75% of the current pension to enoucrage them to save for their retirement. Where's the cost savings in that?

 

[sydboy007]

Perhaps this would be a good idea if it only applies to the employer compulsory contribution amount only.

Stop people blowing it all, and stop morons like Storm financial decimating people's retirements by drawing down their super at age 55 and gearing it to the hilt etc.

MW

Just as we don't follow the Singaporeans and allow people to use their Super to buy their primary residence.

I'd love to see the Govt allow me to make say up to 5K a year of undeducted contributions to my super with the ability to take it back out if required - the earnings would stay in the fund till age 65

At 40 I'm reluctant to lock my money away that long as it makes achieving my semi retirement goal by age 50 rather difficult.

 

[sydboy007]

define fairness... what a loaded term.. they think they have struck fairness in France recently... the 'rich' have judged with their feet how 'fair' it is..

tax concession or subsidy implies that all money is govts and by letting us have more of our own money is immoral or 'unfair'...

its simple you cant change the 'concessions' to super without affecting the 'pool' of super available... simialr to if you raised tax rates too high it would reduce taxable income, it isnt a straight linear relationship, people have incentives and disincentives and react accordingly

Then how about I say that everyone shoudl get exactly the same level of subsidy for their retirement.

Currently those most able to save for it are given the biggest subsidy.

Where is the fairness in giving the top 12% of income earners 50% of the super subsidies??