So the type of people, ordinary hard working people, who thought they were paying for savvy advice from Storm, then lost the lot, house, super etc, you would deny the pension because they made a mistake (ie conned)??
I've not said any such thing. What I would like to see happening is - instead of the government being the proverbial ambulance at the bottom of the cliff - to instead be encouraging people to achieve a basic level of financial literacy so they are not conned. I agree with the government's philosophy of government being there to do for people
what they cannot do for themselves.
. I want people to access the considerable amount of financial education that is freely available so that they at least appreciate that any scheme (since you have raised Storm) that has the client access most of the equity of their home to buy shares and then leverage again off that with a margin loan understand that there is no way they can regard such a scheme as a safe investment in retirement. Enough has already been said on the Storm thread about common sense etc.
The corner store owner who worked hard all his life developing the business, only to have a supermarket open up around the corner and put him out of business, you would deny the dole (now in his 50's and penniless), then deny the pension, because he made a mistake somewhere along the line in persisting with his store until it's bankruptcy.
(Sigh.) Such emotive illustrations. No, of course I wouldn't deny him the dole, neither would it happen at least in the foreseeable future. But unless the ever increasing welfare bill is better managed, then the day might come when that dole, even now imo not enough to live on, will not be available.
What I'd like your store owner to do is have a plan B for the likely eventuality - given how the major supermarkets are establishing themselves everywhere - that his business does become threatened.
Does he have a niche to offer, a personal service eg free delivery, home made cakes, anything that will protect him? Or perhaps when preparing his business plan to consider in the first place that such a venture is too risky and he could lose the majority of his investment.
Andrew Forrest made a rash decision to spend billions of dollars on his own railway and building the company. It could still all fall to pieces. If he loses the lot, does he deserve the pension, if the correct age and asset criteria? Absolutely!!
Andrew Forrest is a great example to look at. I understand his early life was a far cry from his present success.
But he has learned from everything that has occurred in his life. And he is
resilient. He will always have various options to which he can turn if the current project fails. I very much doubt that the dole would be one of them.
If there was nothing to fall back on for those who try and fail, then everybody would play safe. Risk taking to advance the economy (via building a company with director guarantees) would go out the window.
Good point. But there's a difference between doing something foolhardy and reckless and taking a carefully calculated risk.
I don't know whether I've yet made clear what I'm trying to convey. I am not, as you seem to be suggesting, wanting to remove access to taxpayer funded assistance. But I am very much wanting people to be encouraged to think about how not to need it in the first place. Big difference.
I think the issue is arising, from those who want to fund the welfare, by taking from those that have sacrificed to save and be self funded.
We are not talking about the 10,000 that have taken the pizz and put $5m+ in super.
We are talking about the vast majority of self funded, ex working class people that have probably sold all their investments, to put the money in super and be self funded.
Yes, and those people who are well educated, have had good jobs with high earning, yet just decline to even think about how they might look after themselves in retirement.
My frustration over this whole question has been provoked by essentially two factors:
1. the phrase, heard over and over again: "I couldn't be expected to contribute much to my retirement because compulsory super has only been around for less than half of my working life"
Implicit in this statement is the assumption that the individual has no personal responsibility for his/her own retirement funds.
2. since the Budget (which we are all agreed is unfairly weighted against the poor and disadvantaged, so let's not go there again) pretty much everyone who might be affected in any way at all wailing that they shouldn't be the ones to experience any disadvantage. Always someone else.
So true, and it is more worrying for those that saw it as a way to live independently.
They trusted that due to the rules governing super, if they reached a pre set goal, their retirement would in their minds be secure.
Then they get the government, the papers and everyone else saying "your o.k give us some of it".
Correct. And this has already started. Self funded retirees who previously qualified for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card which provides some concessions with electricity, rego, PBS etc, will from next year have any income from Super included in the means test of $50,000 p.a. So here's one of the first disincentives for making the effort to be self funded if you're doubtful about it in the first place.
I don't disagree with it, btw, but it's a good example of what you're saying, sptrawler, about people having planned and then having that plan changed because the government need your money to fund someone else.
Again I'm not talking about people with stupid amounts in super.
I'm talking about people that may have downsized, sold a business, salary sacrificed and lived of the wifes wage, sold an investment property, normal people.
The hard thing is most of these people would have been disciplined savers working toward that goal.
Now when they have achieved it everyone wants to change the goal posts, they are now not in a position to change their situation, they're retired.
A bit like getting a fixed price contract, then the supplier turning around and saying "no we've changed our minds, you will pay more".
I'm sure most people would kick up.
Agreed.
Limiting lump sum withdrawals also has to be brought in, otherwise how is the system supposed to help alleviate the cost of the aged pension? Why should I help fund a persons super balance only to have them use it to pay off personal debt like a mortgage, buy a new car, go on a holiday and then expect the full pension? The majority of people able to access their super tax some form of lump sum, so it's not a minority doing it issue.
Remember that for every $ of super tax expenditures there has to be a $ of increased taxation elsewhere, or a $ in reduced spending on other services.
+1.