In fact, most people have no super when they die

In fact, most people have no super when they die

DYOR

might be worth your time reading the comments under this article as well

 

I didn't read the whole thing. When compulsory super started though (1992 IIRC), it was only at a rate of 3% of your pay. So a lot of older aussies don't necessarily have super that reflects their whole working career.
Article mentioned that a lot of the people had already withdrawn their super (it was possible to do). Being the case, i'm not surprised by the low or zero balances a lot of older Aussies have.

My dad was an Engineer working for Telstra and was under a very generous super scheme... he didn't love his job, did the calcs, worked out that retiring at 55 would do him just fine super-wise.... so he did that.

Ps. a different note... I thought that this is an interesting chart in the article... guys simply tend to die younger. This chart makes it so clear. Also Prince Phillip was really at the end of the "bell curve" so to speak (yes, it's not bell shaped at all!) And women are way more likely to outlive their money than guys are!

 

First, whose is running the agenda?

Anyhoo, if you retire at 65 yo with:

$200k, it isn't going to last all that long in all probability.
$1.7M+ it is highly likely it will.

 

The good news from that graph is that after guys hit their mid-80's, women dropping off starts to outstrip the men.

 

when i had Super it was an employer-run fund , and it was implied that when your retired you would cash-out of the scheme ,

however i quit so my Super was transferred to a commercial Super provider whereupon i took the opportunity to liquidate the Super , before fees , charges and insurance ate it all

i will try to remember that IF i get to 80

 

The article doesn't mention a major reason to access super - nursing home bonds which can be well over $1m.

I also know of those in the age groups who have withdrawn their super and blown it all on development projects & CIPs . They too have a zero super balance but $X00,000 PA rental incomes.

 

yes a bit of recent history ( anything after 1960 can be very important )

not everyone had Super coming in even as late as 2000 , temp. and casual employees often missed out , so some of those 'nest-eggs' at retirement were rather tiny .

mine went from an employer-managed Super fund into an AMP one , i crunched the numbers and bought AMP shares with the liquidated super , and exited AMP in October 2018 , partially thanks to a Bell Potter analysis on the plan by the Federal Government to consolidate a superannuant's super funds , into preferably just one fund per superannuant , and how that would affect AMP at the time .

AMP at the time was normally the Super provider 'of last resort '

so yes i could see how many retirees could have very little in super when retiring now ( especially if they withdrew $20,000 during the virus episode )

AND if we are going to get into genders , then one must get into the murky world of pay inequality , now i got paid the same as my female co-workers , mainly because the wage was 'as low as possible' but am very well aware , some others were grossly over-paid , while making sure we we were worried if the pay would be in the bank this week ( and yes there were wage reliability problems as well ( and a dozen clauses to minimize penalty rates )

PS watch the virus wear the blame for future pathetic Super gains ( i reckon the system was already imploding in September 2019 )

 

I think whenever a job/career becomes female dominated/highly practised by females that traditionally were highly paid, unfortunately the salary of that job/career comes down/stagnates/doesn't go up as much as some other jobs. Think accounting, law, pharmacy. But Engineering roles are still highly paid.

Am I right or wrong? Females can't win

 

well the corporate world is competitive place , the more people competing for a place ... the more likely the salary offered will resist increasing

another trend in the corporate world , is they prefer not to pay properly for excellence

is the corporate world imploding but not from activism but from their own activities ( like spending hours in corporate boxes 'connecting ' love to see a cost/benefit analysis on that one )

 

An opinion piece from 10 years ago.

Peter Martin Economics: Talk about less-than-honest rent-seeking

And a link to the Henry Tax review, of which the majority of the 132 recommendations have been, um, shelved.

Publications | Treasury.gov.au

 

were you surprised most of the recommendations were shelved ( i wasn't )

 

Right....not hookers and cocaine

 

I don't watch television very often, particularly commercials stations. When I have over the last couple of weeks I have noticed a number of ads about G'ment doing nasty things with Super.

And now there is an article with the "worrying" headline. Without having any evidence whatsoever ..... Serendipity? Where's me tinfoil hat?

While I haven't read the article should it be written by, or prepared on data supplied by, a vested interest group having seen a lot of this over the years, I tend to be a little circumspect and wonder if it does or does not cover all aspects associated with retirement and funding of it, such as retirees having investments outside of super.

 

Super was put in place to cover a number of bases:

• Protect people from themselves, spending every cent that they earned
• Reduce reliance upon and delay accessing the pension

 

sounds like certain factions think there is a Federal election on the horizon ,

HOWEVER it does illustrate the shortsightedness in Super policy reform ( which is bizarre for a scheme meant to last up to 70 years for the worker, and later retiree )

now if we are talking about this in 2120 ( after EVERY Australian worker has had a chance to participate in Super ) we might get to sensible adjustments in policy .

i looked at Super as it existed ( in 2010 ) and took the opportunity to EXIT

remember Super is NOT a gift from your employer ( but the employer is obliged to do a fair amount of paperwork to make it happen ) it is ( mostly ) your wages compulsorily saved and invested . ( often unwisely )

say if the Super contribution rises to 12% or 15% it WILL effect the short-term economy

***
I tend to be a little circumspect and wonder if it does or does not cover all aspects associated with retirement and funding of it, such as retirees having investments outside of super

***

i suspect you are correct , as mentioned elsewhere my ( former ) employer-run Super Fund strongly implied the employee would exit the fund on retirement , i ALSO do not see many ( there are some ) listed fund managers that try to sell annuity packages to clients ( i saw potential in some ASX listed wealth managers so invested in several , with mixed success )

( i would rather invest in the wealth manager , than have them manage my funds , if that makes sense )

so yes i suspect most retirees will have moved the funds elsewhere .

and yes i realize Paul Keating's original idea was Super as a SUPPLEMENT to the Aged Pension , and later others dreamed Super would REPLACE the Aged Pension , but in the official schemes i have seen ( in Australia ) little is discussed on the tricking of cash to the retiree , only about their working career .

 

well they are doing what is politically possible to delay access to the Aged pension , sadly for them i found a health-related loop-hole

HINT have a FULL medical check up at around 60 , it MIGHT work out a big winner for you as well

 

Well...I’m not planning on having any super left when I shuffle off

 

And Plan B is?

 

All in on black.

 

marry a sugar daddy