Retirement Living Standards Aren't So Bad........

Dont worry, you've been appropriately judged!

pinkboy

 

I don't think so, we don't require salespeople in other industries to have relevant degree quals. I do think the industry probably does need some sort of crackdown on Nathan Birch types (and a few posters on here) who spruik specific strategies or products *cough* NRAS *cough*, which is sales hidden as advice.

 

That's the way to go if you don't like your agreed fund. Roll it over every quarter and your employer is none the wiser.

 

Thanks, JacM. I didn't know this was possible. I will look into this...and will need to accumulate more super to make it worthwhile.

 

But few other high volume sales people sell $100,000's in one deal often the biggest purchase of many punters. So a higher degree of accountability could be justified.

 

If you don't like Super don't use it. Your employer contributes the mandatory 9.5% and instead of making any additional contributions use your money how you see fit. Personally I don't plan on making any additional contributions until I'm 45. As a Gen Y the only issue I have with super is that I'd rather be spending any additional money paying off my PPOR and acquiring IPs .The other issue is that the Government can change the goal posts at any time and the rules around it. If I was closer to retirement age I'd give more thought to it, but hopefully I can just keep working and earning a decent salary for the next 40 years.

I know there is a lot of speculation about Australia not having pensions in the future. However, I think the pension will end up being similar to Newstart in the future (currently pays out $260 a week compared to $375 a week for the pension) and society's attitude towards pension recipients will be similar to how people currently view Centrelink recipients.

As for the current pension if I had a PPOR that was completely paid off I'd be able to live comfortably off of $375 a week. The main issue with the current pension is for pensioners that are still renting. Even with rent assistance I could definitely see that being a pretty low standard of living especially if they were renting in a metro location.

 

I agree CBR, I also challenge the entire mandatory superannuation. It's like the government forcing you to take chemical vitamins to stay healthy because they think that you are not educated enough in nutrition to know how to take care of your own health.
Good nutrition does not come out of bottles or made in labs. Good financial planning is not working for a pay check and locking money away in super. It's kind of simplistic when you are aware enough to see a bigger picture to both of them.

The cyber bullies are not worth your time or energy. People can only judge you by their own conditioning so don't take it personally because it's their own perception and has nothing to do with you, stay on track and focus on the purpose of you being here otherwise you can get derailed by negativity and waste your time. They are time wasters. That ignore button is one of the best features here

 

I have carefully read the exchanges above and don't see any bullying just a disagreement on view points which is a natural part of debating topics.

If there was no Superannuation scheme what would you retire on? The govt cannot afford to support the ageing population and put in place a policy where the Employer (not the employee) puts money away for the future self funded retirement of the people of Australia. Yes you may say that if the Employer didn't have to they could afford to pay that 9% or so to the Employee but I bet they wouldn't - nor would that Employee put that money away for themselves - you may consider it the govt not trusting you with your own money but seeing as they are the ones that have to support you if you don't save it they are allowed to.

The ageing population is huge and will be a burden on Australia that the govt cannot support. I would much rather the Super scheme that was set up than increase taxes to support a govt pension for everyone. I consider the govt to be a vastly ineffective and inefficient system and I'd rather they didn't manage pensions for everyone.

The Super scheme allows people to put their own money in to create a more comfortable lifestyle and Employers to give increased Super contributions to make working for them more attractive. I was fortunate to work for companies for the past 17yrs that pay 14% Super contributions.

 

I agree, good luck

Or tyre kickers, scratch head why property forum ... beats me

 

The employer contribution was a pay rise forgone by employees not a mandated 'I love my employees gift from the employer'.

Unfortunately contributions to super are capped so you can't necessarily make the most of it but you can bring forward some contributions.

Alternatively with your own smsf you can use the same strategy and combine 4 lots x 3 years contributions (assuming you have some spare $ & 4 family members) - then use the fund the gear into several properties in a short time).

So what if you have to wait 40 years to touch the money, it's long term and at the end of it Tax & cgt free unlike outside of super.

 

Yeah, mandatory superannuation is just like vitamins. . People of Australia and around the world are so in touch with reality, everyone saves for their retirement on their own accord, putting away savings every week diligently.....all while they are taking care of themselves , not putting in any other chemicals in their bodies like alcohol and cigarettes. Yeah right! Again, what is the massive strains on our health budget each and every year?! If Australia was SO HEALTHY, why are we one of the highest obese nations?

Care to back up just how 'simple' it is? At a guess you only pay minimal superannuation to one maybe two employees and maybe yourself if you're lucky. What is the alternative for your employees? If it was so simple, Im sure they're not living pay to pay, putting away extra each and every week or investing. But alas, I guess we cant all be self appointerd entrepreneurs.

As for the so called bullying - its all in your head. You think each and every time you're replied to, its about you. The difference is, its not about you, its about your opinion which is challenged, and as a result, its not directed at you personally - thats the difference. I challenge you to quote any line in this thread which is direct bullying.

pinkboy

 

Employees must have a job first in order to earn their super. Xena, has previously held out that she hasn't held a job in Oz, how can you employ others (except in the capacity of a sole trader or partnership?

Are these 'employees' contractors or working solely for commission hence no requirement for super contributions?

 

We pay super for all our employees. There is no choice there.

 

Omg
Lol good luck

 

For the record....a couple of things that people are not getting in terms of why Super was set-up:

1. The Goobermint set-up it up to over time to reduce the reliance of people on the public purse. Far back as the early 90s the treasury boffins worked out...that if they could increase the super contributions to say almost 10% over 40-45 years they would be able to pretty much replace the pension.

2. The goobermint now has also increased the working age to 67 soon to be 70. This will further save costs...not a lot at the moment as people over 55 yrs still struggle to find and stay in jobs but over time as the labor force see more older people this will work.

3. Here is the real kicker...they have now tightened the assets and income tests. This is where the savings will come in. So the current Baby Boomers might get away mostly unscathed but the Gen Xs and younger will find that they will mostly retire with approximately with about 25% of average earnings. Guess what the pension was indexed to?? They will still give you some pension to ensure you qualify for your discounts but over time with the current system...less people will be drawing down as the govt waters down the qualification criteria.

4. Finally from my perspective...I still see Super as huge area...to me that should be part of your income strategy in your 60s. So don't ignore it. I have an ambitious plan to have $1m in super in the next few years.

 

I'm liking that this thread has taught me the word "Goobermint"

 

Yep that's in line with what I meant. Albeit ideally someone would have enough property that when fully tenanted and without woes, the rent would be sufficient to live off. If a rough patch is hit, a savings pile to sustain them while they ride out the mini storm, or as you say, sell one property.

 

I don't know the exact figure, but I believe he ended up with around $250k in super upon retirement at 67yo. He gets a part pension of around 15k and under 10k pa from his super.

He was always dililigent with his earnings and budgeted very well, however he spent most of his life earning a below average salary.

His retirement 'lifestyle' was one of the motivating factors to kickstart my own property investment portfolio. The thought of working for 50 years and seeing your income drop by a significant amount at retirement scared the wits out of me