Contribute to my super or put money elsewhere ??? I have heard of the stories and have friends that have put money into there super on a reg basis only to walk away with JS after it all as either they we getting on average a shit return or on some case a negative return... Or put my money in saving for an investment property, shares, bonds and PMs ??? What about investing in an investment property with my super, as I would have atleast 30yrs to go before I could touch my super anyways... Cheers, HAPPY STACKING
Totally circumstance dependent. In any case I'd get a SMSF, at least then you are in control of your super and you have options. You can even use all your super money to buy metal if you want. With a SMSF and enough cash, it's super easy (pun intended). If you have to borrow through your SMSF then it gets a bit more complicated (another company structure must be set up). If you ever have your own company then you can buy commercial property in your SMSF and then rent it to your company. (Commercial realestate is popular in SMSF's due to the low entry price where you can often pay cash)
Depends on your situation, but for me I'd put it elsewhere. Putting extra money into super is the last thing I want to do. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
If you're in Australia...PUT IT ELSEWHERE!!!! Better you spend it than some Govt. bureacrat pissing it up against the wall.
And if you have a SMSF, how is "some Govt. bureacrat pissing it up against the wall" exactly? Or even without a SMSF, how is the government getting its hands on your super money? "The governments going to take your super money" panic crowd seem to be right up there with "The governments going to take your gold" crowd But yeah, unless you have a tax strategy plan and are closer to retirement, I would be putting extra money into super now and waiting for the payout in 30+ years. That's way too long. If I was 10 years out from retirement then yeah I'd be going big time into super, it can be very tax advantageous.
That's the thing. Let's say you are in the 37% tax bracket. You can either pay 37% tax on every $ over $80k, or put it into super and pay only 15% on the same money. Big difference. There are also tax advantages to putting property into your SMSF for retirement. But unless you buy metal or commercial property in your SMSF, you don't get to physically play with it until you retire
I wouldn't put it into super unless I had my own SMSF (which I do). Even then I would try and pay down any existing personal debt first. It's all well and good to argue the favourable tax concessions with super, but they keep fiddling with it and I have my own doubts on accessibility in future years. There was some talk about stopping lump sum payouts all together and forcing you to draw down on it as an annuity. With these crooks in power you can't be sure.
The government are working on new and innovative ways to steal super. I'm not counting on ever seeing a cent of it. It's just another tax.
Agreed. We are one financial crisis and one socialist government away from losing control of our super IMHO.
Got the slightest bit of evidence for that? Do you seriously think the entire working population would let the government just take their super? Seriously? It would be political suicide to even try it.
Bill Shorten - Superannuation is our sovereign wealth fund http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...eign-wealth-fund/story-e6frgd0x-1226049423098 Ok, so he is not part of the government right now, but how long until he is? When we have a crisis and people are screaming about jobs its a pretty easy sell for a socialist government to force superannuation funds into investment choices that the government is making - all in the name of "stimulating the economy and creating jobs" of course!!
also no superannuation changes been applied retrospectively to my knowledge. So even if government changes the tax from 15% to 25% it's only for new money
That's not stealing the money though. And good luck making SMSF do that. It would also be quite politically suicidal, people would still have choice over how to invest their super, and the existing super fund mangers would remain (they won't give up their power). They would rely on the fact that the majority don't bother to chose what and how their super is invested in. Nothing in all this sovereign wealth fund bluster mentions taking investment choice away from people. Talk is one thing, but actually trying to get legislation passed that "steals" or compulsorily re-appropriates individual money's in their super funds is another thing entirely. You won't win an election with it, on the contrary it will lose you an election.
Then you are a fool. Set up a SMSF and buy gold bars and stack them in your basement, repeat until retirement. Entirely legal. If they come knocking, "sorry, it was a boating accident officer, I've lost all my super, I feel like a fool! *cry for effect*"
If there's nothing left of it when I hit retirement age then I would consider it stolen. You could use other words to describe it but it'd just be semantics to me. Maybe it would be political suicide, but I would have thought that endorsing the TPP would have been political suicide but it's not even being debated. Never underestimate the potential for knee-jerk reaction of a government under pressure in a crisis situation. Politicians can make promises about not changing superannuation come election time.....but do those promises get kept? No. What are you gonna do? Vote for the other guy? LOL :lol:
You have complete control over your super and how it is invested. There is zero evidence that anyone is proposing otherwise. Terrible analogy. Super is people's actual money, even if most don't care too much about it, they know it is their money, and most know how much they have. Even Joe Average can understand the concept. TPP is just a policy that Joe Average couldn't possibly understand the impact of, let alone an impact on their money which is in no way direct. Once again, show the evidence that any politician has proposed changes to super that take control and decision of the investment away from the individual. Anything else is just your wild fear-mongering fantasy.
I haven't claimed that there is any "evidence" of any "proposal". I'm just saying I wouldn't put it past them to try and I fully expect that it will happen down the road. You can call it "wild fear-mongering fantasy" if you want. I don't care.
There doesn't always need to be hard evidence, just look at the trend. I think it's naive to think your super is totally safe. Do you even have an SMSF? Look at the auditing requirements and ato levy fee increases. I think it's clear that the government wants to try and control this pool of money as much as possible. It's fking trillions of dollars we are talking about here. Also who says they need to confiscate it at all? Perhaps in the future they do something like I was saying before where they stop lump sums. Maybe the confiscation comes through a forced investment into government bonds or a bailout fund. At the end of the day the only people who have access to their super right now are those of preservation age. All the rest of us will just have to wait. Bottom line is I don't trust the government to keep me or my super safe. The SMSF is my way of keeping what control I can and like you said earlier if that day ever comes the bullion held might have to disappear.
