- Joined
- 12 November 2007
- Posts
- 2,944
- Reactions
- 4
Just a quick note,
Super is contributed by the employer, It doen't come from "Your" money.
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.
Regarding the funding/taxing, this is still has the presupposition of the need to protect the savers from future theft by the non savers (via the government), by controlling everyone's lives. I would personally rather see thieves jailed and everyone else free - lest 1984 be considered the ideal, crime free, freedom-free society.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.
There are two sides to every trade. You exert labour, the boss spends money. The rate at which this occurs, we shall call the 'market rate'. It doesn't matter to him where the money actually goes - the boss simply gauges what money will leave his pocket as a result of your being employed by him, and what labour he will get in return.Just a quick note,
Super is contributed by the employer, It doen't come from "Your" money.
Whether or not he pays that money into a hole in the ground, your bank account, or a super account from which you cannot withdraw, does not affect the market rate. That is to say, were there no super, you would simply be being paid that extra amount anyway in your normal salary.
That is nonsense! I was around before the superannuation guarantee was introduced and I can tell you for sure, if the employers were not forced to contribute into the fund then you would get NOTHING extra in your pay. The best decision ever was the introduction of National Superannuation Guarantee. Many many millions of people would have nothing if it were not for it.
Super is bad, you could just as soon argue that the government should take an extra 50% of peoples pay from them - so it can used as a 'pool of investment funds'. How about I take all of your money boofhead? I need to invest it in somethingSuper is good.
It also gives the economy a pool of investment funds that can invest for much longer term than many other companies/people would invest in.
If you look at census demographics you see many people that wouldn't save for retirment if optional - people on lower incomes or people where various costs are higher.
Jesus Christ, it just gets worse. 'Millions of people would have nothing', if it weren't for the government withholding it from them until they are 60 - YES, and that's FINE. Who says people aren't allowed to spend their money when they want? I accumulate money, but that is not to say everyone else has to - is it? And we will extent your counter-argument as such: If we force (because that's OK of course) employers to pay their employees twice as much, the only effect will be that all workers get twice as much money, and there will be no other effects (such as the employer hiring less people).That is nonsense! I was around before the superannuation guarantee was introduced and I can tell you for sure, if the employers were not forced to contribute into the fund then you would get NOTHING extra in your pay. The best decision ever was the introduction of National Superannuation Guarantee. Many many millions of people would have nothing if it were not for it.
The question is who is paying for superannuation...
Now admittedly superannuation is better then welfare
you clearly do not know even the basics.
If you are half as competent as you suggest, then you will have no trouble negotiating a package with your employer which sees you receiving the salary you deserve plus your employer contributing the superannuation levy.The question is who is paying for superannuation, a few have argued its the employer which may be the case book keeping wise but in actuality is employees. If all was required to guarantee peoples retirement was to have super, lets make it 20, 30 or 60%, it wont work unless you want to drop your current wage rate significantly. People love a free lunch, but Im afraid in economics there is no such thing. its the same logic as applied to minimum wage laws. If all it took for a country to be wealthy was to have social protection via minimum wage, we could solve poverty in the third world. "Great success"
You are in the paragraph above totally contradicting yourself. 1. you concede super is better than welfare (and here we are talking about paying out the age pension), and then 2. you want the right not to be part of a scheme which will one day ensure no ordinary taxpayer has a higher tax burden in order to pay non-savers the age pension.Now admittedly superannuation is better then welfare, but is still morally wrong as it requires govt to steal your own money away from you under the guise that they are smarter and morally superior and society is dumb. (Which begs the question, how smart are they if they are elected by such a dumb horde?) May I ask, who spends my money better, someone spending someones elses money on myself, or me spending my own money on myself?
Yes, you're quite right about this. It is simply an unfortunate fact of life that the overall society has to be geared to be as fair as possible to as many people as possible. This will never be anywhere near approaching perfect.The comments in this thread just show how far society has degenerated towards socialism. It would be nice if we could go back to a society where the expectations of govt were to umpire and be in charge of police, national defence, property rights, individual rights and ensuring contract law etc. Unfortunately the movement since the great depression is for govt to provide cradle to grave, big brother control of society to take care of us as we are too stupid to look after ourselves.
Again, I agree. But there is a difference between people willingly giving up their autonomy and governments removing it. Think about it.It always amazes me how people are quite willing to give up individual freedoms to government. Look at the track record of government and the type of people it promotes.
Exactly.Compulsory super is a lesser evil than taxing for welfare.
Yes, sums it up well.So my deductions and personal conclusion, we live in a society and have to be part of it and contribute to it. I guess for the greater good the smaller portion of the people that would be responsible taking charge of their own super have to be handicapped so that the general population can benefit and survive without taking the economy down.
... Compulsory super is a lesser evil than taxing for welfare.
Totally agree.I don't like the Govt telling us where to invest our money but neither do I want to work and then pay some of it to someone who didn't. Lots of parables/stories exists to this point.
Compulsory super is a lesser evil than taxing for welfare.
Pretty much how I see it, will definitely use SMSF when I actually have substantial funds in super.I'm self employed and the ONLY reasons I put MY money in Super is
(1) Its controlled by me SMSF
(2) Initial Massive tax breaks---which since I started are less than massive.
It lessens my cash flow for other investment opportunities.
Well, actually in A, You put money away for You. Super isn't a social security ponzi-type scheme (which is much worse).Call me a bloody weirdo, but I cannot see the subtle differences.
In A.) You put money away for Ron
In B.) You put money away for Ron
Young and earning pittance, is how I'm doingI must be doing something right, I'm already retired, not on super or the gov pension, how are your economics going?
If you are half as competent as you suggest, then you will have no trouble negotiating a package with your employer which sees you receiving the salary you deserve plus your employer contributing the superannuation levy.
In that case, how would you be even slightly disadvantaged?
I'm sure if you were to explain to your employer your moral objections to even 1% of your salary being withheld until retirement age, if that employer values your services, he/she will quickly meet your demands.
You are in the paragraph above totally contradicting yourself. 1. you concede super is better than welfare (and here we are talking about paying out the age pension), and then 2. you want the right not to be part of a scheme which will one day ensure no ordinary taxpayer has a higher tax burden in order to pay non-savers the age pension.
You can't have it both ways. Either you negotiate an appropriate package with your employer to meet your Super obligations, i.e. having the employer pay this, or you are happy to pay for ever after more general tax into consolidated revenue in order that irresponsible people can receive the benefits of your higher earning capacity in the form of an age pension.
Just get real about it. Perhaps just simply tell us whether you would rather your employer came up with the Super levy on your behalf or you happily agree to pay increased tax?
1. If you think our society will ever be without welfare, you're dreaming.- I am paid very well for a young tacker, and yes I would rather have my super in my regular pay, but as you know its illegal not to pay it, so i feel negotiation will fall on deaf ears.
- you obviously dont read, what I clearly said is super is a bandaid for a welfare system/state. Super is necessary because of welfare, if you remove both I fail to see how I will be paying increase tax. Then as welfare burden will not be around our necks we could move to a tax system a little more promoting of individual freedom, perhaps a negative income tax.
But yes I accept your notion that to remove super but not welfare we will have increased tax burden and age pension will drain us economically.
Also think of the growth in industry and production as there would be no need for immigration restriction.. no welfare = free immigration
Hello Sir O: yes, we know you are against Super. But in all our discussions about this, you've not managed to offer an alternative for all those who fail to otherwise save for their retirement.Sorry I wasn't around to back you up as well Tothemax. Don't be disheartened from all those that drink the cool-aid that super is the ultimate form of investment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?