This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Superannuation - a good thing?

Jump to new
T

tothemax6

Joined
25 October 2010
Posts
782
Reactions
8
Hi All,

Looking for some opinions on superannuation as a concept, rather than any specifics within superannuation itself.
I personally disagree with the entire concept. I think people should be free to do with their money as they wish now, and not be forced by the government to have a specific amount of their money held for a certain amount of time. I think the whole superannuation industry is simply a big distortion of the market, a government protectionist racket, and that the whole industry would not exist in a free-market given their typical returns records (the government published an excel spreadsheet detailing this, hard to find it now so no link I'm afraid).

The whole premise of superannuation is that free men are not capable of taking care of themselves and their families, that they are base creatures with time-preferences that are too high for their own good, and who will simply starve to death when they can no longer work - or start begging for a pension from the government. On the face of it, whilst we all accept the existence of government enforced super, the entire thing is disgusting, immoral, patronizing, and dictates that the government is your guardian, and you, a grown man or otherwise, are one of its helpless little children.

Thoughts...
 

As history almost 100% supports that statement as true, I see no option but to totally disagree with your premise that super is bad. 98%+ of people throughout Western history have shown they are incapable of saving for their retirement and that's from periods of time when the average life expectancy of people post work was considerably lower than it is now.

Superannuation is one of the greatest thing Australia has to offer it's citizens. While it may not be perfect and is certainly susceptible to tampering and theft by future governments it will not only provide a better quality of retirement for the majority it will take the burden off the government and as importantly removes those funds from their direct control to waste. Super also provides a growing pool of funds to our corporate sector which as time progresses will be an engine of growth for Australia.

The only other feasible alternative is Carousel from Logan Run ;-)
 
I have to agree with moreld.

While I personally would like to have the option to have the money in my hand at this point in life to help repay my mortgage, most people would choose to spend the money. This is proven by the level of credit card debt we already have in Australia.

In addition, if people were not putting away for their retirement (most people only start thinking about retirement after the age of 40), our personal tax would increase by approx the same amount so the Government would have the money to support all those people who do not help themselves.
 
Well, thankyou for providing a polar opposite point of view, it will certainly kickstart this debate . Firstly, is there a source for these numbers? 100%, 98%+!!??! You aren't exactly building a case for your credibility .
Interesting definition manipulation - 'offer' its citizens? You consider "by law x% of your salary will be withheld from your possession until we see you reach an age we set" as an 'offer'? Would you include "give me your money or ill hit you" as an 'offer' .

But I guess this pales in comparison to your monstrous idea that it is a good thing when "the government importantly removes peoples funds from our direct control to waste".

You are a monster , and I am keen to hear the rest of the forums opinions on super.
 
Again, this follows the premise that the government needs to protect us from ourselves by force. So I ask you, what makes those people who comprise the government so special, that they should know better, that they may assume control of others and remove their rights?

I suppose it would be reasonable to say though, that the government is doing this so it doesn't end up stealing the money from those who have saved, and giving it to those who haven't in the future. But that is the same as a man saying "you better wear that veil miss, or I will be unable to prevent myself from raping you".
Not seeing much morality yet.
 
tothemax
Sorry that you misunderstood me, perhaps I could have been clearer. But to actually misquote me is it not acceptable. I never said "the government importantly removes peoples funds from our direct control to waste". You even put it in quotes.

What I said is "will take the burden off the government and as importantly removes those funds from their direct control to waste." Like me it may have been a while since you studied English. As I recall "their" is a pronoun and is associated with the last noun, i.e. "their" referred to the government. That phrase meant that in Australia we control our super, rather than having a government taxing us further so they control our retirement and waste our money.

Lack of comprehension does not justify misquoting.

If you are unable to look beyond your self and consider the greater community then we will seldom agree in discussions. What may be good for you or me is often not good for the greater good.

If the 9% didn't go into your super it would go in increased tax so the government could fund retirees. Would you prefer your % was split evenly among everyone?
 
tothemax6 said:
Hi All,

Looking for some opinions on superannuation as a concept, rather than any specifics within superannuation itself.
I personally disagree with the entire concept. I think people should be free to do with their money as they wish now,
Click to expand...

When I started working in the 70's there was no such thing as Super for ordinary people in ordinary jobs. My Mother often reminds me that women never got the same rights as men in pay and super well that was never on the table.

Then along came a government that finally stood up for the ordinary worker. For the first time in my life in the 90's we got 3% from our employer in addition to our salary. This is the point I want to stress, this was extra money in addition to your salary going into super for FREE. Yes I know we pay for it indirectly but you don't pay anything for it personally. How can that be a bad thing?

Believe you me, Australians are not real good savers, without super we would be a lot worse off. Sure some of us are traders and investors but the majority are not.

I have a mate that would not be worth a zac if it were not because of super. The last 20 years of superannuation guarantees and his 9% a year he puts in has built him up 400k in super. If there was no super he would have nothing.

I reckon Australia is world leader in Superannuation, we can thank both Labor and the Liberal governments for it. The rest of the world is way behind us.

However there is one point negative, the money you put in yourself in addition to the guarantee is not accessible until 60. If that part worries you then don't put into it, as for the rest it's all good.
 
I guess the downside would be if you die before you get to collect it. Heart attack at 59 FTL!
 
I actually use inverted commas to denote an idea all the time, but I always have the actual text above in a proper quoting box. Yes OK, I mistook you to mean 'their' as in the people rather than the government, and I retract the monster accusation. And I believe your understanding of the English language regarding pronouns is not entirely accurate. For instance, if one were to say "the government took their money", one would generally infer that 'their' referred to another entity revealed prior (i.e. 'in the context'), rather than the last mentioned entity as a rule, although it could conceivably refer to 'the government took their (the governments own) money (and did something with it)', for example.

Regarding the 9%, the implication is still that persons who retire, did not have the foresight to see something as basic as their approaching retirement, and failed to save in advance. And even then, on the occasion when this does happen, in other countries the burden is simply borne by their families - who put them up in their homes, or pay for them to live in a retirement home etc.
People receiving money by force from others via the government simply because they declared 'I have retired', is just as immoral as forced superannuation savings.
 
Unintended consequences, it was OK for you who kept your jobs, not those who didn't get a job because of the increased costs to the employer. Same reason simply enforcing a minimum wage simply leaves those at the bottom of the stack unemployed. No such thing as a free lunch, just one man going without his lunch so others can eat more.
Yes aussies are probably not good savers, but that doesn't mean men should be denied the freedom to do with their money as they wish, because other men are foolish. Men should not suffer simply because of the existence of lesser men.
Bill M said:
However there is one point negative, the money you put in yourself in addition to the guarantee is not accessible until 60. If that part worries you then don't put into it, as for the rest it's all good.
Click to expand...
I don't . Because:
Slipperz said:
I guess the downside would be if you die before you get to collect it. Heart attack at 59 FTL!
Click to expand...
Exactly, no man is guaranteed tomorrow.
 
tothemax6 said:
I don't . Because:
Click to expand...
I didn't much either but believe me when you are 5 years away from retirement your attitude will change. Reason being is that you know it's not that far away and it will all be tax free. Tax Free........ very important.
Exactly, no man is guaranteed tomorrow
Click to expand...
I agree with that too. I repeat a true story of mine. Back in the late 80's I went into the big Colonial Mutual building in the Sydney CBD. I saw a pretty high up advisor who showed me how that if I put in regular money into super that by age 55 I would have a very nice sum of money waiting for me at the end. It was very substantial. Being a skeptic (as you are now) I declined and did nothing. A few years later the Government of the day changed the 55 year super retirement age. With the stroke of the pen it became 60 years of age. All those that were born after July 1960 were duped, now they have to wait 5 years longer to get their money. BLOODY DISGUSTING.
 
tothemax6 said:
The whole premise of superannuation is that free men are not capable of taking care of themselves and their families
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the way i see it, at least for a substantial part of the population, so the Govt provides social security and compulsory super.
 
tothemax6 said:
Men should not suffer simply because of the existence of lesser men.
Click to expand...

I just want to keep that one for the record, it surely does not need any further comment!



There are two keys dates for superannuation. July 1992 when it was introduced and 2002 when it raised from 3% to 9%. As you can see from above there was no unintended consequence of rising unemployment. In fact quite the reverse happened.

Australia now enjoys close to full employment and no massive retirement time bomb. While other Western countries struggle with unemployment and growing unfunded retirement debt.

Anyone who understands the time value of money would praise the Labour and then Liberal governments for their foresight in introducing superannuation and then raising the levy. I hope it gets raised to 12%.

As I said in my first post, the superannuation wealth in Australia is also a boon for our companies as those funds are in a large part funneled into their growth.

The greater man is one who recognises his position and fortune and wonders what he can do for others.
 
tothemax6 said:
....Exactly, no man is guaranteed tomorrow.....
Click to expand...

lol, terrible idea regardless of how true it may be. Are you an advocate of term deposits, contracts, bonds etc.? I'm a student and I don't mind having super account, especially considering the government offers options like the co-contribution scheme for low income earners. I may not get to touch it till I'm 60 but a. if I die then my beneficiary gets it so it's still of value and b. it is a very, very long term investment but when I'm getting $1 for every $1 I put in voluntarily that's the surest investment with the largest returns I can participate in at this stage. My
 
Bill M said:
I didn't much either but believe me when you are 5 years away from retirement your attitude will change. Reason being is that you know it's not that far away and it will all be tax free. Tax Free........ very important.
Click to expand...
I know, I guess its better now they have SMSF and you can manage the assets yourself.
So_Cynical said:
That's pretty much the way i see it, at least for a substantial part of the population, so the Govt provides social security and compulsory super.
Click to expand...
Well thats OK, we'll all just come into your house and tell you what you can and will do. You can't do it yourself after-all, so you have no rights. Long live the USSR!
You are massaging your definitions - in this case 'provide'. There is no such thing as 'providing' someone with something that is compulsory or which involves theft and fencing of the stolen property. Its like saying 'I am going to provide you with burglary', and thinking you are giving them a service.
Again - what is it that makes those men in government so special, that they know how to control the lives of other men to those mens betterment? Why are they privileged to treat others like children, denying them rights, and taking their money and giving it to others? They are not. Such men belong in prison.
moreld said:
I just want to keep that one for the record, it surely does not need any further comment!
Click to expand...
Please do, and if you think that men have the right to steal from others, and that a man should not be allowed to simply be, we can add that to your record. Men should relate to each other in a civil manner - one man with property should not suffer because he is surrounded by thieves who have none.
 
I agree - but I think we should raise it to 50%. We would then have zero unemployment! After all, the only factor involved in the employment level is the presence of superannuation, there are no other factors, correlation implies causation, increasing the minimum wage increases employment, black is white, and only the presence of a body of men called 'the government', who force men to do as they say, can raise men's time-preferences above that of a gorilla.
I enjoy your morals - they are like watching a disaster on TV and enjoying the fact I'm not there.
Superannuation funds do not have a track record of high performance compared to normal funds, the government even published an excel spreadsheet containing the performance figures. For most - you'd have done better putting your money in the bank. Which is, of course, where peoples money would be going were it not forced into super, and which would, of course, increase the supply of credit to businesses. Or it would be spent. Which is bad, so again, we should increase contributions to 50%, as these funds would be funneled into business growth.

And why is this man greater? The quote sounded wise, but what moral argument actually underpins this? 'Others' live forever, he does not. He has no right to steal from them, nor them from him, and there is no virtue in him living for them, nor them for him.
Sure, unless the fund goes bust, like my granddads fund did just before he retired. And he lives somewhere where you don't even have to have a retirement fund. And by the way - what use is that extra money when you are old and grey haired and heading for death? Food for thought.
 

It's called a democracy....

We vote them in to make decisions about how to best manage our society as a whole. Generally it works pretty well I think... Travelled a lot and I think we live in a pretty good place..

You can take your same arguments and apply them to roads, hospitals etc etc etc. The government took a position that the entire society would be in a better position if people were forced to save money for when they stopped working. If you don't do that then you have 2 options to address those that were unable to do so (through hardship, laziness, lack of education or many other reasons)

a) up taxes to pay for a pension that can support people in a reasonable life.
b) allow a large underclass to develop.

Plenty of evidence exists that having massive gaps in societal living standards leads to higher crime rates and other undesirable things...

There wasn't a vote in the USSR. Go stand for the house of reps if you feel so strongly about it...

Alex.
 
AlexG1 said:
It's called a democracy....
We vote them in to make decisions about how to best manage our society as a whole. Generally it works pretty well I think... Travelled a lot and I think we live in a pretty good place..
Click to expand...
Slavery, so long as the slave class is a minority, is entirely democratic. De
AlexG1 said:
You can take your same arguments and apply them to roads, hospitals etc etc etc.
Click to expand...
I do. Either central planning by force works or it doesn't. It doesn't.
a) - tax comes from people, not just too people. b) in the end you might be right, but I hope you are wrong. This would imply that a large number of people are stupid apes who can't take care of themselves, and the only way we can protect ourselves from democratic 'redistribution of wealth' (theft), and other crime, is by forcing these stupid masses to do whats best for themselves. Needless to say, I consider such a claim to be disgusting.
 
tothemax6 said:
Slavery, so long as the slave class is a minority, is entirely democratic. De
Click to expand...

Indeed - and fortunately we don't have it here - which says something. I guess you agree with me on that as you state on a different part of your post


And so you clearly consider that the Government elected (and past governments) were elected by thinking men and thus have indeed acted with some form of social consensus...

Anyway - I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one. I'd rather spend my time on some research on how best to make use of the AWESOME 15% tax rate I get on my SMSF fund. Even better - only 7.5% on CG after 12 months..... Not to mention fully franked dividends (company tax is 30%..... my tax rate is 15% ....) hang on the government OWES me 15% for those!

I reckon you need to save at least 9% per year to have enough later on (and have that money growing). The government lets me choose to salary sacrifice extra contributions if I want to and why wouldn't I??? Instead of paying tax in bracket X I only have to pay 15% on that as well). Super is a fantastic way to save money.

Alex
 
Although rather colourfully described, this is essentially what has happened until the introduction of compulsory super.
Previous generations simply believed that their day to day taxes entitled them to a generous pension in retirement which would allow them to continue the same standard of living they enjoyed whilst working.
Hence the pension bill blew out.

We are facing increasing numbers of retirees from when the baby boomers start to retire. It doesn't take too much intelligence to imagine the tax impost on the general population if these numbers are not at least partly self funded.

Tothemax: I wonder if you are simply stirring with this thread? A bit bored on a Sunday evening?
You have shown yourself to be pretty bright and intelligent, so to demonstrate as you have in this thread so far such a lack of appreciation for why super contributions are necessary seems disingenuous imo.

Let's consider the alternative, i.e. if there is no compulsory super and no incentive to save for our own retirement via government co-contributions etc.
Inevitably way more people will need a government pension. This will have to continue to rise with the CPI or there will be a political outcry.
Obviously to fund this, you will have to pay more tax
You personally will therefore be subsidising all those people who spend their wages on the pokies and other gambling, and god knows what else, and who have not even the vaguest thought that they should be attempting to provide for their own retirement.

If they had just $1000 in the bank, they'd find a reason to spend it.

What you are doing in this thread (if indeed you are serious and not just agitating) is imagining that what drives and motivates you translates to the rest of the population.

It simply does not.
Therefore responsible governments need to, yes, essentially protect the masses from themselves or face the totally unpalatable alternative of increasing taxes to look after those people who haven't been bothered to look after themselves.

I'm totally in favour of Super and would like to see the compulsory contribution increased to 12 or 15%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
14
Views
554
basilio
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
6K
ducati916
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Superannuation Binding Death Benefit Nomination
Replies
3
Views
1K
Belli
B
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...