People listen to this bloke?

absolutely, which is why it's important to focus on Super as opposed to letting some monkeys handle it for u unchecked.

I suspect you might be saying the above partly from a lack of understanding of the entire process

 

So what if they change? will still be more advantageous tax wise for many situations.

also, no one is advocating super at all costs, if.the government pushed the age when you can access it out so what? you could use your funds outside super to live off until you got to the stage where super comes in play.

unless you're thinking really small like the "great unwashed"

 

The 'great unwashed' have no idea where their super is, management fees or investment mix.

I think the point is that lack of control despite it's tax favoured status discourages many from obtaining the maximum benefit by maximising concessional contributions.

 

What lack of control?

lack of immediate access personally does nothat equate to a lack of control

 

True, I should have said lack of access prior to 60.
Potentially nasty regulatory changes in the future by which ever side of politics happens to be in government at the time is possible.
This is the control part and anyone who relies purely on super for future wealth isn't considering reglatory risk IMO.

 

Im yet to see anyone who id consider be worth listening to ever advocate people relying purely on super for future wewlth decades from now, im genuinely curious about why you anti super folk seem to look at it from such extreme angles.

 

Super is a fantastic wealth creation and tax protection vehicle. Most other countries have much tighter restrictions on retirement investments with much lower contribution limits. Anyone ignoring it in Australia I think just doesn't understand it properly.

 

Who's anti super? I'm a big fan of Australian Super in particular and try to salary sacrifice what I am allowed to, which isn't much. I think twice in the last 10 years I have inadvertently exceeded the concessional cap.

Refer OP, having only Super for wealth creation outside of the ppor is setting the bar low. The preservation age has changed before and may do again in the future, this harms people's perceptions of super.

Retrospective changes by politician's who have their nose in the government trough with a life time pension after 2 terms really annoys me.

 

• Even if there are changes, the advantages accrued till the point of change will not disappear.
• Given how tightly controlled the super is, there is an equal likelihood that the regulatory changes will be benign i.e. bestow more control and (early) access to the beneficiary. E.g. Some countries allow super to be used (as a one time / partial withdrawal or a loan on very generous terms) for personal purposes like home/vehicle ownership, marriage, sickness, death (of relatives), kids education, financial hardships (low bars for qualification), insurance,business.....

 

I am not anti super but I am distrustful of politicians. Superannuation tax concessions are a $30 billion per year rort It is unlikely they will last in their current form. Who knows in the future how much it will cost to make contributions to super?

In the future, tax on contributions to super, tax on earnings in super and tax on withdrawals from super could be increased. That's why super, for me, is only one planned income stream in retirement. I also plan to have income from property and listed securities outside of super.

 

Looking back the system was considerably more generous about 9-10 years ago when the government wasn't looking for revenue. Some of that has been wound back, it probably needed to be.
Raising the preservation age would have to be my main gripe, it could happen again, forcing future generations to work until 70.

 

As it stands the super concessions are broadly the same today as they were 10 yeats ago, apart from.the short term and one off ability for people to put $1m in NCC that costello i think brought in, what are some of the considerably more generous concessions available in super 10 years ago vs now that youre referring to?

I was only 24 then and really knew bugger all about super so definitelykeen to learn more

 

Thats if it is still there at retirement?

I read an article in which he talked about finance structures a little and like most of these guys, when talking on a subject that is not their area of expertise it was partially correct and the rest incorrect.

He seems like a decent human so good on him.

 

Interesting one. For some careers it is easy to see the benefits in working past 70, even if only on a part time basis. My neighbour works 2 or 3 days a week and loves it. For others professions, people will be burnt out long before 60. Some more physically demanding jobs just can't be sustained long term. Overall, it would be better to give people the choice.

 

I like Scott Pape - if people are asking a random stranger for advice then his is one of the best - in that it's conservative and isn't likely to bite them.

Advising young people to put money in Super is not a bad thing. Although those who use Super funds have little control it is one of the best forms of lowish risk investing that will compound over their life time.

The govt meddling with Super will always annoy people and I hope they keep it to a minimum of meddling but like anything you probably shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket anyway. I love my SMSF and it's flexibility to control investments, product, risk and reward. I have safe guards in place should the govt look to meddle too much then I will pull out and invest in another form.

 

I'm no expert but there was a window towards the end of the Howard government era when the economy was booming that it was really generous.
Around 2007 the pre tax super contribution limit for salary sacrifice and employee contributions was $50,000 p.a. with a 5 year transitional period allowing a limit of $100,000 p.a. for those over 50.
Undeducted contributions for those under 65 were 150,000 per year or 450,000 over 3 years.
For those aged over 65 it was 150,000 annually if they met the work test.
There was, for those selling a small business the ablity to contribute up to $1,000,000 of the sale to super without breaking contribution limits, I don't know if this still applies? I'm not sure as it doesn't affect me.
Add to that a more generous co contribution scheme which phased out at an annual income of $58,000 along with a spousal super co contribution scheme for those eligible.
Very generous while it lasted and the preservation age for those born after July 1964 was 60.
It's hard to keep up, so one loses interest other than making a small salary sacrifice contribution.
Who knows which of the coalitions proposed changes will pass both houses of parliament.

 

What you described above is in sone ways more generous than now and other ways less so, especially as the proposed changes announced in may havent been legislated yet and i suspect will be tinkered with.

Eg, instead of 150k per year NCC then it has been 180k the last few years with the ability to do 3 years at once and technically 720k within a short period if timed right. So i must say i disagree that they were considerably more generous then.

The need to keep abreast of changes leading to you losing interest is somewhat understandable but imo not an indication of supers "worthiness" or not, rather your personal appetite/interest level.

 

For the past 20yrs of working I have been fortunate to be in a number of awesome Employer schemes.
Back in the early 90s (yes I'm showing my age) we worked at a University which had a scheme, if you put in 7% yourself then the Uni would put in 14%. The TESS (Tertiary Employee Super Scheme) rocked in some really good returns during that time. We took out our voluntary contributions in 2002 and it paid for a lot of our PPOR.
Towards the late 90s I went into Oil and Gas and the companies that I worked for paid 14% Super too. I had 3 financial year babies (through some fluke - not and so for 3 separate financial years I had little income and qualified for the Govt super matching scheme for low income earners.
I have squirrelled cents and dollars away into Super for along time then took control of it 2 or was it 3yrs ago with a SMSF. Never looked back.

 

Absolutely @Westminster and having highly competent,legal and commercially savvy advice from someone who speaks from personal and extensive client experience has really meant my eyes have opened up even more to the pros and cons, i suspext it has for u too.

I think we set up our smsf in 2008 or so and i did get more into it as time went on but switching advisors 5 or so years ago made the world of difference and thsts no slight on my previous firm parkinson chartered accountants who we used for a number of years and were a good firm i have a lot more good than bad things to say about.

 

I think the big change for most people would have to be the 40% cut to the concessional cap to $30,000. When you add to this the fact that there has been 10 years of wage inflation since then it makes a big difference.
At the time we found the spousal co contribution useful when my wife was on maternity leave as well.