- Joined
- 15 November 2006
- Posts
- 1,206
- Reactions
- 679
$40k (no extra contributions) compounded at 20%p.a over 20 yrs will get there. Most 30 year old would have well above $40k especially by the time they reach 40.
Its the rate of return that is the issue for most, but with a bit of interest, passion, dedication one can learn how to outperform the market.
Sorry, I stopped reading when I got to "means testing the family home"
That article is more political than economic. If the age pension blows out as that predicts, the Govt will either increase the super preservation age or limit your drawdown to an annuity instead of a lump sum.
Or they might tax large withdrawals.
Threatening the family home is political oblivion. IMO
I think Morrison alluded to this eventuallity, when he suggested allowing people access to their tax free component, for a housing deposit.Taxing withdrawals has been done in the past and wouldn't be surprised a limit on withdrawals will be introduced (pa) in the future to force people to manage their funds better or use annuities with no commutations.
I think Morrison alluded to this eventuallity, when he suggested allowing people access to their tax free component, for a housing deposit.
The Government has dropped the non concessional contribution limit, and labor imply they will drop it more, this would indicate a move toward a super system that is composed mainly of taxable(i.e controllable) contributions.
Very savvy investors might have been able to achieve these numbers over the past 9.5 years (i.e. capturing the bounce following GFC lows in early 2009), but I don't think you should expect 20% pa over the long term, taking into account complete market cycles.
Yes, expectation is said to be the mother of disappointment. Past performance is not an indication of future results - no one knows what the future holds.
Out of interest, do you know what is the 'acceptable' rate that is modeled for growth in equities over the long term for financial plans, and why is that rate used?
I like that post MM, it can be applied to just about any super account, at any stage of its life.One simple approach I have come across over the years is to employ the CPI+ methodology although determining the allocations to growth/defensive for each is variable.
High Growth - CPI +4%
Growth - CPI + 3.75%
Balanced Growth - CPI + 2.75%
Conservative Growth - CPI + 1%
If employing the above benchmarks for a pension fund you would, at minimum, add 0.5% to allow for drawdown compensation.
From a post in another thread, Australian super is moving its members out of property, this would indicate that Labor are going to implement the tax rules on property investment.
It could also indicate, maybe industry funds are becoming an extension of the labor Government, interesting times.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised, if Labor get two terms of office, to see super as a section of Government.
I wonder how bad this would be ?
Let's imagine a super scheme with a guaranteed return of 3% real. Minimal fees. Funds used, for example, to re engineer our national power grid to a publically owned renewable energy network.
It doesn't have to replace private super companies but offering a government guaranteed ROI for quality national infrastructure needs seems like a sensible and attractive idea.
From a post in another thread, Australian super is moving its members out of property, this would indicate that Labor are going to implement the tax rules on property investment.
It could also indicate, maybe industry funds are becoming an extension of the labor Government, interesting times.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised, if Labor get two terms of office, to see super as a section of Government.
Is the Morrison government good for retirees ?
Not according to some.
https://www.afr.com/personal-financ...ng-out-of-global-top-3-mercer-20181021-h16x5g
Hmmm. I can think of worse rankings Australia has to worry about compared to falling from the top 3 retirement systems globally.
I was hoping some journalist might do the sums for me, but alas they are too busy with more important stuff.
So it is left to my year 10 maths to have a go.
So apparently there are approx 600,000 SMSF's in Australia, 85% have less than $2m in the fund and 50% of fund members are over 60. Also you can't have more than $1.6M in pension phase, so the rest is being taxed
SMSF's also have about 30% invested in shares.
So if most funds have two members, that would be about 600,000 people and if their average pension is for arguments sake $ 1m, which it wouldn't be it would be a lot less.
We then find that 30% is invested in shares, so again for arguments sake say $300,000 and they all get a fully franked return, that would be $9,000 each.
I hope Junior, Craft or McLovin can unravel it for me.
But my guess is in reality, it will be a saving of $500- $900M, which will be lost quickly as the principal runs down faster.
Just my thoughts.
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?