grrrrr. I read a snippet of an article yesterday and have just spent an hour trying to find it The article was aimed at young parents who want to be able to give their babies some money when they are old enough to buy a house. (Coz it will be impossible for them to buy you know ) Anyway the "advice" was that the 30something parents contribute however much money (say $100 per month per child) into their super. When the parent reaches retirement age, the "child" will be a 30ish child and may need help with a deposit . It looks like this.... David and Jenny are 34 & 32 Both parents work. They have little Johnny (2) and little Mary (6 months) David contributes $100 a month extra into his super fund with the intention of giving it to Johnny Jenny does the same with $100 a month for Mary's future (David and Jenny also contribute extra for their own retirement ) The general idea is that when David is 67 and able to draw his super, little Johnny will be 35 Johnny might need a helping hand with a house deposit so David can draw a lump sum from his super to give to Johnny. The article did explain that there would be tax payable. The reasoning behind this plan was that many parents say they will save money for their kids, but invariably the cash gets eaten up on doodads. By putting it into the parents super, it is tied up until the parents retirement age which is when the "child" may then actually need it. The article also pointed out the tax advantages of making contributions to your super. It did also go on to say that, the extra money IS yours and you may decide NOT to give it to little Johnny but rather keep it for your own super. I know , I know LOTS of holes... But an interesting strategy Thoughts?