Australian Politics Forum | |
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Australian compulsory super http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1269931527 Message started by hawil on Mar 30th, 2010 at 4:45pm |
Title: Australian compulsory super Post by hawil on Mar 30th, 2010 at 4:45pm
What is the view of members on Australias compulsory super.
The top 20% of superannuation members own 80% of the total of more than a trillion super assets.The administration cost is about 12 billion per annum, about half of what the government pays out in old-age pension. Australia is only one of four of the OECD countries which means tests the age pension. Australian retirees are only second to Ireland as far as age poverty is concerned, because every retiree can only have a certain amount of assets or income before the means test cuts in, and then there is a 50% loss of Centrelink pension for every extra dollar income, therefore unless a person is above the Centrelink pension rate they can often lose $0.815 of every dollar extra income. |
Title: Re: Australian compulsory super Post by fawkes on Mar 31st, 2010 at 9:06am hawil wrote on Mar 30th, 2010 at 4:45pm:
I can assure you that if you structure your assets sensibly, it is possible to live very comfortably on Centrelink's age pension, even allowing for partial loss of it because of the means test. You can ask for a Centrelink financial advisor to show you how. I can afford a vehicle to drive, a TV to watch, computer to play with, boy to mow my lawn, food in abundance and an overseas holiday every year. Does anybody believe Centrelink should pay me more? Means testing of welfare is something I entirely agree with... it enables the government to help people who need welfare support without wasting money (from other people's taxes) by giving it to people who don't need it. People who are on the borderline for needing welfare support are still given limited support after the means test, which also seems entirely fair and reasonable to me. |
Title: Re: Australian compulsory super Post by freediver on Mar 31st, 2010 at 7:46pm
People do for some reason fail to plan for their retirement. However, if a person can demonstrate that they are accumulating sufficient resources for their retirement, they should be able to cash it in. It is epecially absurd to force people to put their money into super while they are struggling to pay off a home loan on a family home.
|
Title: Re: Australian compulsory super Post by Amadd on Apr 1st, 2010 at 7:27am Quote:
Yeah the economic structure is absurd. Fair enough that people shouldn't be biting off more than can chew by getting themselves into unreasonable debt, but to purchase a below average house these days, the interest alone requires an almost insurmountable effort to maintain for a low income earner. Young people, especially young couples with kids, need to be at the higher end of the earning scale even when they may have only recently graduated and are also paying off a HECS debt. It doesn't often occur that they will enter the workforce on a high income. I think that there needs to be an option for young homebuyers to channel employer paid super into personal equity, and not just the worldwide sharemarket. Of course this would be at the expense of the old bloke or gal to an extent, but who gives a crap about them if you need to come up with mortgage payments right now? |
Title: Re: Australian compulsory super Post by hawil on Apr 1st, 2010 at 11:10am
If the means testing of the age pension is considered fair, why does the Government exempt the self-funded retirees over sixty incomes of $100,000.00 plus from paying any income tax. Currently the Australian governement pays $25 billion in age pensions and the tax concessions for the super industry are almost the same.
The super industry collects some 12billion in management fees to manage someones compulsory super, so would it not be fairer to abolish the means testing of the age-pension and the tax concessions for the super, so everyone who wants to have a higher standard of living in retirement should save towards with after tax income. Read somewhere recently: eveybody wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die; everybody wants the benefits of taxes, but no one wants to pay. |
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |