This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.
This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super. Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia. SMSFs are not.
I thought you might have been referring to that.
Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?
As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.
Overall SMSFs are doing very well, outperforming most of the public super funds.
I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you are apparently antagonistic toward the sector.
Many SMSFs have a Trust Deed which precludes any gearing. I doubt that many are doing much borrowing at all.
Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?
As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.
I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super. Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia. SMSFs are not.
I thought you might have been referring to that.
Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?
As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.
Overall SMSFs are doing very well, outperforming most of the public super funds.
I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you are apparently antagonistic toward the sector.
Many SMSFs have a Trust Deed which precludes any gearing. I doubt that many are doing much borrowing at all.
Thanks for the relief v/v Julia.
Mclovin if you want to debate the rights and wrongs of a smsf. Please start a thread I will give you plenty of feedback. Maybe you could start the thread "why you should give your money to someone else, to lose"
This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.
This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.
This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.
Of course I'd rather that. I question whether the average person really understands debt well enough that they should be leveraging their retirement. Just imagine the carnage that would have been wrecked on SMSF's if they had been leveraged to equities through the GFC.
Whilst I agree that leveraging Super is very risky (it's something I'd never dream of doing), I'm not sure you can so categorically say that it's possible to retire comfortably without leverage. It obviously depends on when you started contributing to super, your age, your anticipated retirement age, your income etc.I'm not criticising them. I made a statement that there is no need for someone to leverage their superannuation in order to retire comfortably.
You've completely misrepresented the essence of his argument (ie. he is anti-SMSF, when he is really just doubtful of the benefit of borrowing in such a structure).Really? I'm sure you'll be happy to justify that statement.
You've completely misrepresented the essence of his argument (ie. he is anti-SMSF, when he is really just doubtful of the benefit of borrowing in such a structure).
Where has anybody shown statistics of smsf borrowing? at all.You've completely misrepresented the essence of his argument (ie. he is anti-SMSF, when he is really just doubtful of the benefit of borrowing in such a structure).
Where has anybody shown statistics of smsf borrowing? at all.
You really need a reality check. Maybe you have done that and found yourself wanting, who knows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manAs one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.
The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.
Explain how this is a "Strawman Argument".
gg
Statistics??? What has this got to do with what we are talking about?
I'm not going to join the dots for you, but the intention of McLovin's post was certainly not to suggest:Read your post #69 you were making a statement, I was asking if you could substantiate it. Obviously you have lost the plot somewhat.
Maybe the night is late and you are misting
Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?
As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.
Agree. This is sadly demonstrated on the Storm Financial thread.
I just don't think the average person with a SMSF does get involved in leveraging.
I suppose there might be some stats on this somewhere. Might be interesting to follow up.
Whilst I agree that leveraging Super is very risky (it's something I'd never dream of doing), I'm not sure you can so categorically say that it's possible to retire comfortably without leverage. It obviously depends on when you started contributing to super, your age, your anticipated retirement age, your income etc.
Given that many current retirees did not make super contributions throughout their working lives, they are not retiring 'comfortably' at all.
And there's no certainty that even with increased compulsory contributions retirees of the future will not be drawing on a government pension, especially if lump sum withdrawals continue to be allowed.
Don't feel bad Dude,
I too was in denial when Fraser buggered the economy up and ole Hawke/Keating came in.
Just look forward to a better future under Abbott/Hockey. your children will thank you.
This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.
As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.
The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.
Explain how this is a "Strawman Argument".
gg
As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.
The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.
Explain how this is a "Strawman Argument".
gg
I explained it twice above - once briefly, then when you still didnt get it I explained it in more detail. Go have a read.Too easy mate.
Explain your reasoning.
It is a dreadful accusation to accuse someone of a Strawman Argument.
Do not ever refer me to Wikipedia to explain your actions. It is demeaning and lacks substance.
Give me your reasons why this is a "Strawman Argument"
gg
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?