I was worried about starting a SMSF because I had less than 40K, and all the "experts" said you need a minimum of 100K. That was in early 2008 when gold was $835 and silver $13.80. Now my super is around 100K of mostly gold. The fees to do a yearly tax return and audit are much less that what I was being charged via the fund.
The comment above is why so many people really struggle later in life. When you are young you think that retirement is a long way off. Small amounts of money appear inconsequential in the scheme of things. The retail and industry funds are vampires that suck the lifeblood out of your retirement body leaving a shell with no substance to sustain you in retirement. Some would say super won't be there when I retire. It will if you drive your own vehicle. That is why it is so important to have an SMSF with a corporate trustee that you as directors make all the hands on choices. You have to be in the game to win. Running an SMSF if you are an employee teaches you how to run a business for future opportunities. Think and grow rich Kind Regards non recourse
I don't wish to pick on you Possum, but your statement does echo probably the vast majority of the population, unfortunately. People don't seem to get the fact that it is their money. Quite sad really. There's always social security I guess.
Definitely! It has taken over 2 months to set mine up but boy am I a happy vegemite now that I get to decide on the course and direction of my financial future. Soooo many investment choices....so little time *sigh* The super fund I was with managed approx 2% return over the past 12 months. They have had their chance, now it's my turn at the wheel! Financial literacy is something that will never be taught in schools; certainly in some households there was little or no discussion about money. I know of lots of highly educated people with no idea about how their super is performing. Very much an "out of sight out of mind" attitude. Remember, if we abdicate our responsibility in this area, don't look hurt and bewildered when your fund manager hands you negative returns (and still pockets their fees and charges). As aptly put by nonrecourse, being in charge of my super means I treat it as a business and I look for means of increasing my wealth via my SMSF. Happy days.
When the compulsory superannuation was first introduced and if I remember correctly it was 3% of your salary and it was traded off instead of a wage increase by employers. It is your money IMHO. Regards Errol 43
It is 100% your money. It forms part of you employment package. It is not an extra they graciously give you because they feel benevolent. If super was scrapped tomorrow the employer contribution to super should then be added to your weekly pay.
I thought that JG said that the Mining Tax would help fund the increase in the compulsory superannuation in Australia? As far as I can see it is simply another impost on employers. She lies again.
Super is extra paid by the employer. When my hourly paid employees' wages are calculated (quick books), 9% super is added to the total. Does anyone think I could get away with taking 9% off the hourly rate and sending it to the super fund? I may give it a try...
That is simply the method of determining the amount. You could just as easily say 8.256% is deducted from your wages and remitted to your super fund on your behalf. It is most assuredly your money and every person in the country with super needs to take an active interest in where it goes and what happens to it when it ends up there. You think an employer does not consider the amount of super to be paid when considering the salary package of any potential employee? I can assure you they do.
You misunderstand, I am the employer. I have to pay my employees an hourly rate determined by an award. The employee then gets paid the award rate plus 9% super. Therefore an employee on, say $30 P/H receives $30.00 P/H, not $27.30.
It was 9%. Labor in their unending drive to punish Australian businesses for existing has put it up. Gillard said that the Mining Tax would help pay for the super increase, as usual she lying.
OK but if there was no super to pay as such then the award rate would be $32.70 p/h all other things being equal. It is paid by the employer and it is paid on behalf of the employee. Super is part of an employees remuneration. Many employers now quote a salary package of $x being inclusive of super. They do this so the package looks better as it is a bigger number but it is technically correct also. We are arguing semantics though. The real point is people need to make sure they are not being ripped off by so called money managers who are more interested in gouging fees than the actual performance of the funds they maange.
By the time I can retire (if the government ever stops raising the retirement age that is) theyll probably have legislated some way so that I wont be able to access my super, theyll take it all off me and then pay me a pension out of it or something.
All the more reason to be proactive and take charge/control of your own financial future. Investing it other asset classes that are either income producing and/or showing good capital growth while you have time on your side. Is it easy? No, you have to spend the time researching, reading and digesting the information. The point is, that all is available at the click of a mouse. Understand that time is also a very precious commodity...I can spend it watching mindless television or I can use it after my work hours to educate myself. It becomes a choice of whether I want someone else to dictate the terms of my future lifestyle or say, "thanks but no thanks, I'll take it from here". I think Albert Einstein was the person who said "The best way to predict the future is to create it (yourself)". Just a thought....
You lot must all be Generation Y's.... this article tries hard not turn people off SMSF's... http://www.news.com.au/money/supera...k-hands-on-funds/story-e6frfmdi-1226394064623
This is absolute bull$hit; Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees chief executive Fiona Reynolds believes SMSFs are only good for certain types of people. "I would say you need to have at least $200,000 to start an SMSF, otherwise the fees can be quite high," she says. Reynolds says SMSFs are not the greatest option for younger generations. We started our fund in 1993 with $6,000. Today our SMSF sits in the top 8% of SMSFs with regards to net worth. You need to understand that these clowns are there to bleed you with fees and charges and make you believe that it is too difficult to do it yourself. We started when we were in our early 40's. I got our kids started in our fund when they were 16 & 18. It has been a great way to introduce them to what a trust is and what is involved in taking control of their destiny. The sooner you start the better. Break even on costs compared to an industry fund is $70,000. Rather than wait til then start and work your fund hard to get it up to $70K as soon as you can. The SMSF trust structure that allows you to control your super is the best in the world. No where else are you allowed as much freedom. The industry and retail funds hate us.:lol: Kind Regards non recourse
The government did that for you when they brought super in by slowing the rate at which awards would have risen. Sure the employer took a upfront hit at the time until the field normalised but if a certain job is worth 90k a year now including super it would still be worth 90k tomorrow if they abolished mandatory super.
