You're right jonesy the employer pays it but we know it is a cost which has to be built into pricing and we know that the money is gone as soon as we pay it but the worker thinks his future is assured because of super. that is why I feel the worker is conned. What nugget said is exactly right, wage rises have been curbed in line with super payments which impacts on the workers cash in hand, conned again
Yes Shiny the ATO provides a variety of SMSF statistics every year the total asset range; (see attachment) http://www.ato.gov.au/superfunds/content.aspx?menuid=0&doc=/content/00290021.htm&page=14&H14 Kind Regards non recourse
yes thats correct but savy employers have been packaging salarys to get around it, $75k salary package, you get to take 91% of it gross no matter which way you turn your kfudec
Exactly right. Anything the employer pays is essentially coming from you, except packaged differently to make the more simple-minded think it's coming from elsewhere.
Superannuation is a success story and both political parties have supported it. Super means many more people retired and retiring have a considerable amount of money to use for a happy retirement (look how many tour the country with caravans, go overseas on holidays etc). Retired people couldnt live the life they do just on the old aged pension. The old aged pension comes from taxes (ie my money) and so if a person in effect saves for their own pension (superannuation) during their working life then theres less of a tax burden on the working people. If you dont like your money be subjected to the ups/downs of sharemarkets, you can invest solely in cash and easily get 6% return which even after tax beats inflation. Or you can establish an SMSF and invest your money pretty into just about anything you want. If you are over 60 you can take your money out of Super if you so choose and do with it as your please. People who are crying about the "theft" of Super (which the CEC / Lyndon LaRouche nutters) are ones who have elected for a high risk / high return strategy in investing in shares - it was their choice to do so. Others have invested in cash, metals etc and have done very nicely during the last few years, so those choosing to invest in shares - it was your choice! I know people dont usually like taking responsibility for their actions so I'll say it again - investing your super in shares was YOUR choice!!! People have very short memories too. In the mid 2000's it was common to see 20%+ returns in Super funds from shares as the market powered along..... everyone seems to conveniently forget those years.
The vast majority of employers are small businesses and most would operate on salary + 9% super on top. Having said that when my last employee resigned, I did not have to pay the 9% for her severance pay. Kind Regards non recourse
My point being that you don't get a free lunch. If an employer is paying your super, that's less money they can pay you for your job. You are not getting it free and these are real costs associated with hiring someone. If wages also grow more slowly since Super has been introduced (I have no stats but that wouldn't surprise me), then again you are not getting it free.
While this is lovely, full of sunshine and flowers, my theories are a little different. If we weren't taxed so much we'd have more to save. And saving shouldn't be something that the government controls. If you don't save, you live like crap in your old age and you get nothing from the government. That's what I'd love to see. Isn't that incentive enough to save, or do we need The Nanny holding our hand while we go to the toilet, and profiting while it does it, while we disclose our savings in full to our every loving Nanny who collects fees on it? The fact that anyone - and I mean anyone - collects some fees for my savings even if we self-manage is ridiculous to me (I don't care if you think they are small), they deserve zero. The fact that I can't do what I want and when I want with my Super is ridiculous to me. Where is my mattress super fund that nobody has any business knowing about? The government only supposedly holds our hands when there's something in for them. To say this is saving people from themselves is ridiculous and limiting the basic right to do what we please with our money.
Most industrial awards are for a percentage wage increase and the super goes on top of that. Does that mean that the % increase is lower. That depends on the industry and labour demand. If your a cleaner in the Pilbara wages start at $75,000 P.a. plus super Kind Regards non recourse
Look, I don't know about you, but it really gets on my nerves when the government meddles in what should be a right for you and I do save or spend as we wish. It's a basic right that's evaporated. And here we have many thanking them for the privilege. I disagree. It's not a privilege and I dislike the Nanny State, because it takes more than it 'gives'. It starts here, then it gets worse in coming years, and then worse, and then before you know it they have more control than you are comfortable with, even if it doesn't bother you now.
Look, find something the government is meddling in without a good reason and complain about that instead. Your right to piss your wage up against the wall stops when my tax dollars have to be used to make up the shortfall in your retirement income. As much as you might like people to make the bed they lay in, the reality is that our society isn't comfortable letting pensioners starve (or live on fried dog food) so there are two questions: 1. Where does the money come from, and 2. Who looks after it Basic demography tells us that shifting the retirement funds from the current generation of workers to the previous generation fails as soon as their is a spike in births. For example, there aren't enough Gen X/Gen Y workers to pay the pension liabilities of the Baby Boomers - either income taxes on Gen X/Gen Y have to be jacked up to ridiculous levels or Boomers get to live in poverty. This has been a known problem for decades, which is why the superannuation system was designed 25 years ago: to retain some of the earnings of the current generation of workers (Boomers) to pay for their retirement because the next generation couldn't afford to. As to who looks after the money, the government has already made it clear that it needs to be the private sector. If the government managed the retirement savings of millions of workers it would create a massive distortion in the investment markets that need flexible, private capital to operate efficiently. The government is there to make up any shortfall in funds so people don't end up living on the aforementioned dog food but in broad terms, your retirement is your responsibility. That leaves professional fund managers and individuals to look after the money. The individual can choose to engage a professional, or they can do it themselves. If you want control, you can have it. Frankly, the fact that you're bitching about having some of your income quarantined for your retirement is exactly the reason some of your income is being quarantined for your retirement in the first place.
According to this morning's paper the performance of Australia's super funds over the last 5 years has been dismal.
Big A.D. You don't have to pay my retirement and I don't expect you to. I also don't expect the government to control my savings. The Nanny State takes over more and more of our personal freedoms. Guess what, anything the government gets is FROM US. It's ridiculous to me that the thought of not having enough retirement funds for old age isn't enough incentive for people to understand that they need to save. How much more hand-holding do we need? What you're essentially saying is people are too stupid to save for themselves, so it must be forced up on them so we can continue on this treadmill of "government handouts" (which are really our money) in our old age. Sure, you can manage your own super fund. Great. Yet the rest of us can't put a simple 1+1 together to understand we need to save for our retirements at the threat of starvation or living less-than-optimally, perhaps? In other words, the public is too dumb to understand they need to take care of themselves and the gov must do it for them?
I have to agree with you Bigad if it wasnt for compulsory super there would be people starving & sucking off the gov teat as soon as they stopped work because very few are financially responsible enough or have the foresight to put it away themselves. As you mentioned you can manage it yourself if you want so whats the drama ? I actually started buying RE because it was a forced savings method .Forced saving is the only thing that will work for 95% of the population& for the other 5% they will manage theyre own & profit nicely anyway.
Gillard has already stated that she wants to hand over the nation's super pool to the banks so that it can be used "more usefully".
This is exactly what we lose. Our control...bit by bit. If you are like me and equate slow death with giving the banks (and gov) more money to play with (to destroy the world a bit more) this is unacceptable. Are we in control of our destinies or do we just think we are (Superannuation).
