- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
There is no easy answer, other countries have different systems in place, maybe a combination of a few ideas.
The one thing that isn't going to work, is the system we have in place currently, where never working is a viable lifestyle choice. It is just as unaffordable as the current super system, eventually we run out of money to fund it.
It is a bit like a guy I know brought in and married a Thai girl, she then brought her children over, after obtaining Australian citizenship, she left. We just can't afford to keep providing lifetime welfare, to those who haven't contributed in any way.IMO
How that will be handled who knows, I believe in Germany you recieve a pension commensurate with the years you have worked. I don't know how it works in any detail.
Problem with a lot of pension systems is they're under funded. From the outside germany or France looks like an idylic life for pensioners, but it relied on a population ponzi and now that the number of workers to pensioners is not continuing to increase things are getting unsustainable.
Germany has a gross Govt debt of 82% of GDP and net debt of 57%, but I'd prob focus on the gross debt levels as who knows what the true value is of the bonds they hold. So in theory the Australian system may be safer as the money is technically separate from Govt revenue.
But as I've read a number of times one of the benefits of a SMSF is you own the assets. While you have a super balance will you be able to get your money in the future when the system is being drained of funds?
Would we have been better off following the norwegians with a SWF of some sorts to provide a base pensioner for all. Leaving it to individuals to save more should they want more than a basic lifestyle in their twilight years.
We have a very expensive pension saving system. $25B and counting. The FUM model needs to be discarded. Possibly the fees charged, and the tax expenditures involved, are reducing our ability to support the aged.
I think it is a huge problem, currently more people are putting into super, than are drawing down so the system works somewhat ponzi like.
That balance will change in the next 10 - 15 years, my guess is there will be some super funds, that may be short of funds.
There are a lot of changes yet to be played out in super, and as you say, the age pension as it stands may become unaffordable.
My personal belief is that we will resurect the original system, and the government will take a percentage of your super, to fund your base pension. Then the remainder of your money, when drawn, is taxed as per income.
The current pension system is far too generous, therefore many are relying on it by choice.
I believe two and three pensioners living together, works very well, do the sums. People aren't stupid.
Interesting times ahead, I think.
You guys have lost me with the 'short on funds' scenario. Super is a unit trust arrangement. You own those units. Your money is invested in underlying assets which are primarily liquid assets - cash, bonds, shares, listed property etc.
It's not like a bank deposit where they don't actually have the funds available to pay out if everyone tries to withdraw at once.
Defined benefit schemes are the exception...I think the primary example is the Government's PSS Super scheme. Future Fund was established to try and meet some of the future funding shortfall right?
Hang on, what do you mean they will be short on funds? Your super is your super, whether it is sitting in SunSuper, Colonial First State or your SMSF. Those funds are yours, they aren't going to disappear. They're not unfunded pensions - the unfunded defined benefit pensions are a dying breed and are a different can of worms altogether which is why they haven't been open to new members for years and years.
If your point about super funds being short on funds was directed at the legacy defined benefit funds then i agree, some will be in trouble, but they were never funded by members assets so it's a different scenario to losing your own savings.
And what do you think happens as a trend when there are more outflow than inflow, some of your fund under super will be in volatile assets, these price could fall radicalement, as a result, the "good" assets are sold be it real estate , blue chips are sold, but hey so does the fund next doorYour money is invested in underlying assets which are primarily liquid assets - cash, bonds, shares, listed property etc.
Remember during the GFC a number of REITs and other managed funds closed off access to customers. For some it was years before they got their money, and sometimes the value of the assets was so low they didn't get a lot back.
Access to your money is at the discretion of the super fund trustee.
What happens to super once withdrawals are higher than contributions?
As a system, super builds a finance bubble with a known pin ready to pop it based on the age pyramid..
I have no SMSF but do agree this is the only way you would be actually sure "your funds" will remain available.
Vixs, I do it but actually wonder what would happen in crisis mode;You don't need an smsf to have control of your super. You can do it in normal funds by investing across different managers and asset classes yourself. If you want to make sure you have control over which assets are sold to pay your pension and when, you can do that already. People do it every day. The majority of people are flat out working out how compound interest works and what inflation is - they don't have the aptitude to take on the responsibility of managing an investment portfolio.
Vixs, I do it but actually wonder what would happen in crisis mode;
my sunsuper account is managed indeed as I would with my colonial first state, but if sun sunper actually hit s..hit,
is amy cash 20% or whatever be really available....
but point taken you can, and i do, choose some of your destiny within a super fund
They're not unfunded pensions - the unfunded defined benefit pensions are a dying breed and are a different can of worms altogether which is why they haven't been open to new members for years and years.
.
(RU) Reportedly Russia govt looking to take funds from $26B pension system to ease funding crunch - press (related USD/RUB RSX) - Source TradeTheNews.com
Would we have been better off following the norwegians with a SWF of some sorts to provide a base pensioner for all. Leaving it to individuals to save more should they want more than a basic lifestyle in their twilight years.
.
Mr Frydenberg said he was troubled by stories of property spruikers pushing people to set up an SMSF so they could borrow against their retirement savings to make speculative property investments. However he said it was important to acknowledge that such events were the exception rather than the rule…
“To put it in context only 0.07 per cent, perhaps 6,500 properties, were held in an SMSF through a limited recourse borrowing arrangement in 2013,” he said.
“David Murray highlighted the risks associated with increased leverage in the financial system. Increased leverage always represents a risk and we recognise that. The government also recognises that most SMSFs do the right thing”…
Recommendation 8
Remove the exception to the general prohibition on direct borrowing for limited recourse borrowing arrangements by superannuation funds…
Further growth in superannuation funds’ direct borrowing would, over time, increase risk in the financial system… In addition, borrowing by superannuation funds implicitly transfers some of the downside risk to taxpayers, who underwrite adverse outcomes in the superannuation system through the provision of the Age Pension…
Borrowing by superannuation funds also allows members to circumvent contribution caps and accrue larger assets in the superannuation system in the long run…
It is also inconsistent with the objectives of superannuation to be a savings vehicle for retirement income. Restoring the original prohibition on direct borrowing by superannuation funds would preserve the strengths and benefits the superannuation system has delivered to individuals, the financial system and the economy, and limit the risks to taxpayers.
Great to see that the Liberals are continuing to back Costello and Howard allowing SMSFs to borrow and gear up into property.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/bus...-smsf-property-borrowing-20150820-gj4amh.html
Now just a little context to Frydenberg's claims that borrowing isn't really much of an issue. SMSFs are piling into Australian property, with investment up by 11% in the past year and by nearly 60% since 2011. Doesn't take growth at that rate for too much longer to turn the problem into a big one.
This is what the Govt's (ignored) Murray Inquiry had to recommend on the subject
As per usual, your selective reporting shows your leanings.
The rules on SMSF's were relaxed in September 2007, Labor took office in November 2007, so they, in fact oversaw the implementation.
They didn't have any problem overturning the stuff up, that they brought about, when stopping SMSF's buying shares off the members. To lay the resultant problem at Howard/ Costello's feet is a bit rich, Labor were there for the first six years of SMSF's jumping in and buying residential property.
http://www.tlfc.com.au/expertise/pr...ty-with-your-self-managed-superannuation-fund
But as I have always said, I don't agree with a super fund borrowing money, that isn't what it was designed for.IMO
With regard SMSF's buying residential property, here vis a general article covering some of the issues.
http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/is-an-smsf-property-investment-worth-it-20150825-gj7br9.html
Further to the article, from what I have read, you can only maintain the property, not improve it. I don't even think you can buy a house on a subdivisable block, knock it over and develop the block.
Junior and Vixs could probably clarify the actual rules.
It seems like a hell of a gamble for a hopeful capital appreciation. :1zhelp:
If an SMSF purchase residential property using an LRBA, they cannot improve/change the property or increase the borrowings beyond the initial loan.
If you wish to use SMSF to develop property, there are ways to do it using a trust and involving other parties. It's quite complex though.
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?