17th Jul 2018

Extra $700b charged in super fees, analyst claims

FONT SIZE: A+ A-
$700b ‘lost’ in super fees: analyst

Superannuation fees in Australia are scrambling retirement nest eggs, according to University of NSW economist Nicholas Morris.

Declaring superannuation a ‘policy failure’, Professor Morris said super fees in Australia were more than four times higher than similar funds in Canada, Europe and the US. Over two decades, the industry had gouged an extra $700 billion in fees compared with charges at typical super funds overseas, he said.

However, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) says such statements are misleading and potentially damaging.

Professor Morris, a joint founder of the Institute of Fiscal Studies in London, analysed 256 super funds around the world and reviewed the Federal Government’s Productivity Commission draft report into the superannuation industry that revealed annual fees had passed $30 billion a year.



“If members’ contributions between 1997 and 2016 had been invested in a passively managed fund with typical expenses and allocations, they would now be valued between $700 billion and $800 billion larger,” Professor  Morris told The Australian. “The total pool of superannuation assets, $2.6 trillion in March, would now be more than $3.3 trillion.

“Twenty-six years after compulsory superannuation began, you have a system that delivers an income replacement rate for retirees that is among the lowest in the OECD, forces fund members to bear risks they are ill-equipped to manage, and provides significantly poorer returns on investment than could reasonably have been expected.”

Professor Morris said that in Australia, the best-performing funds were closed, in-house corporate and public-sector funds that were managed for staff.

“The greater the degree of separation between managers and beneficiaries, the worse the performance seems to be,” he said, “partly because less attention is given to how the members fare, partly because there are more layers of cost.”

Fees for funds that are open to the public were three times higher than those for closed funds.

Professor Morris was highly critical of regulators who take “insufficient responsibility for controlling overcharging and other rent-seeking behaviour”. No one takes responsibility for the efficiency of the industry as a whole, he said.

The ASFA said that far from lagging behind the rest of the world, Australian funds had delivered superior returns, and that over the last five years, returns had averaged 10.4 per cent after fees, higher than the 8.2 per cent rate of inflation.

“It is important to compare like with like when making fee comparisons. For example, investing in government bonds may come with a lower fee, but Australian super funds achieve high returns from unlisted infrastructure, property and other investments and these cannot be obtained by investing in indexed funds,” ASFA said in a statement.

“Furthermore, fees in Australia have reduced over the past five years following the introduction of MySuper and other reforms.

“The Australian superannuation system is one of the very best in the world and while there is always room for improvement, it is important to get the facts straight, because not doing so simply reduces confidence in the system, disengages the community and leads to worse outcomes in retirement.”

From 1 July 2019, the Federal Government will cap fees for super members with balances of $6000 or less at three per cent.

Read the full report in The Australian and the full statement from ASFA.

Do you check the fees associated with your super or pension accounts? Do you compare them with other funds? Do you compare them with funds overseas?


Related articles:





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
Adrianus
17th Jul 2018
10:24am
I applaud the work this government is doing to stop super funds from maximising their fees. I agree to stopping 1. compulsory insurance and 2. the incentive for industry funds to stitch up members with multiple accounts. It's just plain wrong!!
MICK
17th Jul 2018
11:27am
And now discuss the Retail Funds you routinely put up as a wonderful model when they are simply cash cows for the big end of town.
I know......pink batts, school halls and debt (not!). Can hardly wait for the next government sponsored advertisement.
thommo
17th Jul 2018
12:57pm
Adrianas...there is nothing to applaud our governments for stopping funds from maximizing their fees with our super accounts.
The Government has done absolutely nothing to stop this gouging, and its a disgrace.
I've got $500K in a fund and they take out $10K per year for so-called 'advice' fees and 'management' fees.
I can't change funds without jeopardizing my centrelink payments so I'am stuck with this act of theft. AND THE GOVT SITS ON IT'S HANDS AND LETS THE BIG END OF TOWN DO WHAT THEY LIKE WITH MY HARD EARNED MONEY
Adrianus
17th Jul 2018
2:37pm
thommo, I've got some bad news for you. They are taking out more than 2% regardless of which fund you're in. But you can afford it. The government is more focussed on looking after those who have much less than you. That's what equality is.

MICK, are you OK mate?
TREBOR
17th Jul 2018
4:19pm
The ting about those with only a small amount is that fees and such rapidly reduce it to nothing - so it's really money for nothing for the fund managers. Same applies with bank accounts, BTW.

Hence the Trebor Policy of no fees for accounts under a specified amount indexed annually.
MICK
17th Jul 2018
4:26pm
Which fund thommo?
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Jul 2018
7:34am
If the government wanted to do something responsible and genuinely helpful, it would remove the nonsense rules that mean people lose their Centrelink benefits if they change funds. Locking people into an unsatisfactory fund is not benefiting anyone - least of all the nation.
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
7:41am
Rainey, it depends on what those rules are and how they apply. I don't really know what thommo is talking about but I assumed he may have invested in an OAP favourable annuity or similar. Ipso facto penalty for changing does not exist, but the loss of unfair advantage does.
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Jul 2018
7:46am
Wrong, Adrianus. The rules are unfair and discriminatory and lock people into unfavourable arrangements.
As for the government being focused on people who have much less than Thommo - dream on! What a ridiculous assertion! They stripped over 300,000 of pension income and what did they do with it? Not one single cent to the neediest who had nothing. No. ALL of it went to part pensioners with hundreds of thousands in savings - but a little less than the people they attacked. They have totally ignored calls to increase the base pension rate and to address homelessness among the aged, and they are desperately trying to REDUCE the base rate of pension claiming people don't need help to pay massive and fast-rising energy bills.
They are full of it, Adrianus, and so are you!
Retired Knowall
18th Jul 2018
8:48am
Insurance is NOT compulsory.
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
10:22am
Retired Knowall, how about you do some research. You obviously don't know that you don't know. When you get to the stage that you know that you don't know then perhaps we could have a conversation and perhaps both of us could progress to knowing that we know?
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
10:28am
Rainey, do you have an example of this or are you just taking a political position? Give me the facts?
All funds take 2% management fee. This is whisked away before the credited rate of return is calculated. If you take a fund like CBUS that would amount to about $60m pa. Seems a tad high to me but I'm not privy to the costs of sending out statements and answering phones etc.
Retired Knowall
19th Jul 2018
1:50pm
Adrianus, I have had Super for over 50 years and never had insurance, if you did more fool you. I would not want to have a discussion with you because my dear old dad told me many times, never argue with an Idiot.
Straight from Sydney Morning Herald sourced from ASIC
"Does that mean I can cancel the insurance if I don't want it? Cook says it is usually possible to reduce or cancel the cover if you don't need it. He says the only instances he has come across where the cover can't be cancelled is where the employer is providing the insurance as a benefit in a corporate fund."
Retired Knowall
19th Jul 2018
4:35pm
From ASIC Moneysmart web site
Your employer's default super fund must offer a minimum level of life insurance, depending on your age. You can usually increase, decrease, or cancel your default insurance cover.
Retired Knowall
20th Jul 2018
9:30am
"All funds take 2% management fee." Another false rant by Adrianus.
Rest fees on their Core Strategy option is 0.9% all inclusive, similar Industry charge about the same. But don't facts get in the way of your dribble.
MICK
17th Jul 2018
11:25am
Morris should have gone further and COMPARED the fees from Retail Funds and Industry Funds. That would have shown the obvious: that the top end of town running Retail Funds are skimming off huge sums of money and calling it 'Remuneration'. We know how this works.
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
7:43am
MICK, none of us really know what the fees are so the exercise would be fruitless. Why do you think the take up on SMSFs has been so rapid?
Retired Knowall
18th Jul 2018
8:54am
"none of us really know what the fees are so the exercise would be fruitless".
Well Adrianus, I know, have known since the early 60's. I suppose if you are brain dead and contribute to a fund without finding out first you can only blame yourself....or your boss, or the Govt. or thye tooth fairy.
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
10:34am
You only know what they tell you.
Rae
18th Jul 2018
12:28pm
We do know how much the fees are. Billions. All from PAYG because remember self employed business types are not forced into superannuation. They can still build up property empires and make sure they stay at the top of the pile and that their children inherit those investments. They are the Elite though and peasants really should be content doing as they are told and handing over their taxes and dues to their betters.

Not sure that there is much of a choice Retired as it's compulsory isn't it for the plebs. Nothing like a bit of legislation designed to rob us all blind through taxes, levies, rates, regos, fees and charges.
Retired Knowall
19th Jul 2018
1:53pm
"You only know what they tell you." What a revelation, I rest my case.
Ahjay
17th Aug 2018
3:57pm
Go to the AustralianSuper website and download the Product Disclosure Statement. All the fees are there. They are probably similar across all industry funds. They also give an individual tally in the members annual statement. These funds are set up to service the members, not financial advisers, managers and company shareholders.
GrayComputing
17th Jul 2018
11:46am
A few years ago I was losing well over half of my super which was then with MLC.
MLC were still charging me thousands of dollars each year whilst losing over $100,000 of my superannuation fund.
My financial adviser closely tied with MLC did nothing.
A lot of funds were locked in and could not be extracted till many years later at a huge loss.
I consider that the whole private superannuation scheme started by Keating has been a massive loss to all working Australians not just me.
Of course the money was not really lost but ended up making some other companies and share traders even richer
I dare and challenge the committee to calculate and publically declare the total money loss to all the Australian superannuation contributors over the last 10 years.
I strongly suggest superannuation be allowed to go into the Australian Future fund which has done so much better than any and all of that bunch of merchants pirates who lied and called themselves good superannuation companies on TV whilst I and other were losing billions.
MICK
17th Jul 2018
11:52am
You only LOST money because the top end of town had tied up YOUR money and were milking it. That's why Industry Funds which are maligned by our government sponsored posters are the only way to go. God help the folk stuck in Retail Funds. They need to get out as soon as possible.
Hope you escaped the wealth trap.
Rae
17th Jul 2018
2:20pm
I read the MLC prospectus and was horrified by the fees and the risk around 12 years ago now. How MLC managed to get out of the banking commission was a miracle.

The next lot of superannuation statements will be a surprise to many. The indexes are no longer booming now the QE money isn't flooding in and those last 5 years they skite about will not deliver going forward.
Adrianus
17th Jul 2018
2:50pm
GrayComputing, are you saying you like the way Peter Costello handles the Future Fund?
I think he was a great Treasurer. I agree with you about having a national fund. We could be using it now to attract foreign investment in infrastructure etc.
The biggest coal energy owner in the country borrowed money from the QLD public service Super Fund and is paying it back from the high power prices which created nearly $900m profit last year.

I prefer a national scheme to be externally audited regularly on its level of prudential investment choices.
TREBOR
17th Jul 2018
4:23pm
I strongly suggest the Future Fund should be returned onshore to Australia and take on board all the current social security levies etc, and contributions capped into a super fund for the individual.

That Future Fund is OUR money - not the nest egg to ensure the endless remuneration of politicians and a few others.... and should be here, working for everyone, and paying its taxes as due like everyone else should be.

Not going to even discuss a 'treasurer' who squandered billions in windfall from resources as well as the windfall from selling off gold reserves for a song to create this stolen Future Fund.

Just a politician bent on self-enrichment - not a treasurer by any stretch of the imagination - if he'd been running a local footie club he'd be in jail.
TREBOR
17th Jul 2018
4:23pm
Sorry - couldn't resist discussing one of the architects of Grand Theft Canberra....
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
7:46am
TREBOR if you have a look at the asset mix you will realise the Future Fund is "onshore" and that money is not yours, it belongs to the Public Servants now.
TREBOR
18th Jul 2018
9:40am
It belongs in consolidated revenue - thus in that sense is 'mine and yours' and not theirs.

As for it being onshore - its functioning is in the Caymans and it pays no tax here on its gains - the only thing it does is provide that guaranteed and insulted income stream for 'public servants' including politicians - who can thus wreck this economy and nation.

If indeed this were not so - what possible purpose could there be in stationing it in the Caymans? Like the argument about trust funds - if it were not beneficial tax-wise there would be no reason to have one... ergo - it is a rort.
TREBOR
18th Jul 2018
9:43am
My proposition, outlined times many, is that the Future Fund should be part of THE overall retirement packaging system, all feeding out of the same trough - and not a preferential one for those who 'own' it while it lives offshore.

That $130Bn would be a good start on a Universal Retirement Packaging system, in which all would be treated according to the same rules, with set limits on the maximum that can be deposited so as to avoid the current nonsense of massive hoarding by the few, and the vastly preferential scheme functioning on behalf of politicians and the like - for which there is zero justification in this day and age of 'part-time casual contracted workers'.
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
10:38am
Whoa??? Hang on??
I thought the Future Fund was what got poor Labor into financial difficulties and the reason for Australia's wasted opportunity with the mining boom? Now you're saying that you've found a use for it?? I see.
TREBOR
18th Jul 2018
1:27pm
Never heard of the Future Fund getting Labor into trouble - the future fund was offshored by Don Pedro Castella and Don Juan Huarte - and my only interest as regards Labor is that is politicians etc also share in its benefits.

Apparently what got Labor into 'trouble' was the GFC, following on from the years of resources boom revenue, which was wasted by the aforementioned Castalla and Huarte on entrenched tax cuts. At the same time the Future Fund was set up by selling off Australia's gold reserve at a penny a pound, and usingthat moneyto set up a havenfor politcian pay etc in the Caymans.

My view and concern over it is that these politicians and public servants who benefit from this 'safe haven' account for their income for life should be in the same boat as the people and nation of Australia on whose behalf they make decisions and pursue policies.

They should suffer the same downturn as everyone else - not be insulated from the effects of their own decisions.
mogo51
17th Jul 2018
12:36pm
I have a very modest super fund with an Industry Super Fund and find the fees very low compared to Retail funds I was in long ago. The returns are consistently around 10% over 10 years I have been with them. I ha ve no complaints.
Seadove
17th Jul 2018
2:16pm
Agree with you mogo51. I have no issues with my industry fund. I think a lot of people pay no attention to their super until it is too late. I knew years and years ago that you did not go with MLC or AMP but went with industry funds and my attention to the details over the years have paid well on my modest account.
mogo51
17th Jul 2018
12:46pm
The Hawke/Keating combo made the wrong call when they introduced Super and letting Private Enterprise (what a misnomer that is) get their grubby hands on it. Handing then fortunes from excessive fees at the punters expense.
And they want tax cuts on Company Tax that many don't pay in the first place. What about the latest data showing massive salary increases for the 'silvertails' and sweet nothing for workers/pensioners etc.
mogo51
17th Jul 2018
2:48pm
Just to be sure I checked my fees from my industry fund $100 p.a. ROI last year was 11%.
Unfortunately as I am retired they won't let me add to it.
Adrianus
17th Jul 2018
3:02pm
mogo51, private enterprise already had it and were ripping off everyone. Hawke and Keating found a way to compete with them by getting employers to pour money into industry funds with a similar but lower fee structure and compulsory life insurance whether it was needed or not. They sold the CBA, developed a 4 pillar policy and demutualised the big so called Mutuals. Hawke and Keating then took a larger slice of those employer contributions by introducing some new taxes. We have all been taken to the cleaners. But I prefer to look on the bright side. Many of us are now retiring with a few dollars more than we otherwise would have had. The Superannuation industry is feeding a lot of people.
TREBOR
17th Jul 2018
4:25pm
All part of the plan mogo - it was always intended to create of this massive new windfall a cash cow for a few old mates of one kind or another.

As I said above - should never have been placed in 'business' hands - totally agree with you.
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
7:48am
And Business should never be in the hands of a left government.
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
10:15am
Come to think of it, I think the reason the Labor party are anti business is because it is frowned upon if a Labor MP has a business. The word Profit is like garlic to a Zombie! LOL Strange because Profit = tax revenue= budget spending? Heavens, that's what made Kevin and Therese outcasts, lacking in Labor values. They had the audacity to run a successful business.
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
10:43am
Is it now possible that Anthony Albanese is starting to lack Labor values? I heard him say recently that its a good idea to work with businesses and not against them. Whats going on? I'm confused with Marxism now?
Rae
18th Jul 2018
12:43pm
Business is going to be in big trouble now that another layer of austerity is further hitting discretionary spending. A right wing government using austerity to cut wages and incomes isn't exactly great for business either.

I was growing wheat and wool when Howard decided to destroy the Wool board and the AWB so don't try to tell me they know how to support business. Costello had no idea what he was doing.

Profit no longer equals taxes unfortunately or workers wouldn't be stumping up so much of their incomes with no deductions.

Both Liberal and Labor seem unable to move from a faith in supply side economics that isn't justified when consumers can't consume through lack of profit share for workers.

Marx said that Capitalism would destroy itself through refusal to share adequately just as communism destroys itself through refusal to share adequately. Neither are great for the bottom 60% of the people.
TREBOR
18th Jul 2018
1:34pm
'left' government here is a combination of free enterprise and socialism - as is 'right' government..... the differences are small and are more in the mix than in the actual outcomes.

On the other hand - those areas of genuine public interest pure and simple - such as power, roads, domestic gas supply and so forth should never be in the hands of private enterprise - and least of all on any 'global market' so that any Tomas, Dic and Ari can get their hands on it and whip the profits offshore without paying tax.
TREBOR
18th Jul 2018
1:36pm
I'd like to see chapter and verse exactly how, when and where Labor is 'anti-business'......

It is 'anti-business' to expect that businesses abide by the rules?
Rae
17th Jul 2018
2:15pm
Capped at 3% what a joke. Paying more that 0.26% and you need a better fund or to do it yourself just buying indexes.

I worked out decades ago I was being robbed blind in Superannuation and it was compulsory haha.

The Australian way apparently.
Adrianus
17th Jul 2018
3:07pm
Don't forget they will give the ATO the low balanced lost accounts which will stop the fees altogether.
TREBOR
17th Jul 2018
4:27pm
I had my own personal super with a retail fund before compulsory came in - after around eighteen months I calculated it was going to cost me, over the life of the fund, about 2/3 of my money, with as little real return as possible.

Better to put it into an investment of my own choosing.
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Jul 2018
7:42am
I was in an employer-funded scheme but working part time and the fees exceeded the employer contribution, so every year I got a bigger and bigger bill for the excess fees! Eventually, the government of the day insisted the Fund stop billing me, but they wrote me to say if ever any money was contributed to that Fund on my behalf, it would be taken to pay the debt and accrued interest. Needless to say, I made sure no money ever went into that Fund again!
TREBOR
17th Jul 2018
4:17pm
Classically flawed business 'plan' - typical of the money-hungry types who flock to such easy money from a government initiative.

Would all be best served under the 'one roof' principle, with only costs returned out of actual earnings instead of established fees that ensure income for even the greatest failures in the business.

Retirement packaging should never be in 'business' hands, for the simple reason that such hands are always greedy and bent on profit first and foremost - and first and foremost for self and cronies etc.
TREBOR
17th Jul 2018
4:32pm
Got a request to sign a petition yesterday - apparently re a Queenslund (where they do things diff'runtly, you mark my words) bank which had cost nearly 400 super fund holders something like $60m - and due to chicanery, such as that the victims did not become aware of this until after the statutory period had expired, only made restitution of a small amount to 53 victims.

The victims' complaint was that there was no way they could become aware of the loss of their funding, since they were not advised, until the statute of limitations had expired, so it was a ripoff from start to finish, and they were calling on the government to change the rules.

Hence the Trebor Principle that there is no time limit on justice..... and what an appalling state of affairs it is that a government body can retain something held against an individual for life, but that individual loses any right to correction after a specified time.

One rule for one - another for the scum with no rights..... the Silenced Majority....
TREBOR
17th Jul 2018
4:34pm
Oh - and while we're at it - I have a problem with Union leaders and elected politicians having a second (or more) string to their income strands from ';sitting' on the 'board' of an industry super fund.

A single roof institution would resolve all such issues.
TREBOR
17th Jul 2018
4:41pm
Here it is - make your own minds up about the issues:-

"

The Bank of Queensland claims to be a ‘good corporate citizen’. It claims it wants to show customers they can ‘love’ their bank. The reality is it’s a greedy and morally bankrupt organisation that treats its customers like dirt.

We were the unfortunate victims of a financial fraud that claimed in excess of $60 million in life savings. Imagine working hard your whole life to enjoy a comfortable retirement then losing the lot to a corporate shark. His name was Brad Sherwin, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, pretending to be a financial planner but swindling his victims of over $60 million. This has turned out to be an old-fashioned Ponzi scheme.

Our group of people range from retirees, widows, disabled and very vulnerable people unable to re-enter the workforce. There are many young families who have also had their lives and dreams shattered. We have all lost our trust, faith and sense of security.

Somehow a big corporation was watching this Ponzi Scheme play out under their noses. Bank of Queensland held Sherwin’s company accounts as well as our own accounts as well his investment accounts. They could see huge transactions moving from one place to another at will. We could not see this as we had no idea we even had these accounts opened in our name until AFTER the Ponzi scheme collapsed. We received no statements. We had never logged in to internet banking to see them. Yet Bank of Queensland claims ‘surely you had to know.’

We ran an expensive litigation against the bank to get compensation. We had to settle for a payout as it was too costly and complicated to continue. But the Bank of Queensland will only pay any compensation to 53 victims. The total number who lost their life savings was over 380. Legally they can get away with this due to a ‘statute of limitations’ meaning you can only chase compensation for a period of 6 years. The question is when do you ’lose’ your money. When does the statute of limitations clock start ticking? If you only find out about your loss years after the event due to a cleverly administered fraud and a bank derelict in their duties in looking after your money.

The Judge in our case against the Bank of Queensland, Justice Murphy described the settlement “as a small pool of money and probably the worst settlement in terms of returns to class members that I have seen in my time on the bench”. He can see that we are getting screwed, but the law is the law. We know the law has been upheld but there has been no justice in our case. If the Bank of Queensland was truly a ‘good corporate citizen’ then it would behave in a manner that is both legal AND ethical. Not hide behind a legal loophole that it knows is denying compensation to hundreds of innocent Australians.

We are now calling on the Bank of Queensland and its CEO Jon Sutton to do the right thing and reinstate every one of its account holders with the full amount of what they lost. If the bank had done its job properly none of us would be in this position. It’s time for Mr Sutton to right the wrongs of the past and to prove that he’s really willing to make people ‘love their bank’. That’s what the Bank of Queensland’s catchy advertising says. It’s time for them to prove it and grant 380 hard-working retirees the justice that has so far been denied."
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Jul 2018
7:37am
Gee Trebor. I have a similar story about NAB. The shark who fleeced their customers worked in a NAB office with NAB sign on the door, handed out NAB business cards and brochures, had a NAB name plate on his desk, and customers were referred to him by a NAB 'business banker' and told he would advise them on how to maximize their retirement savings. When I complained about his conduct, suddenly he was ''an independent consultant - nothing to do with NAB and NAB was not responsible for anything he did. But thanks for bringing your concerns to our attention.'' And he continued to work in a NAB office with a NAB sign over his desk and hand out NAB business cards and brochures!
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
8:48am
That's the problem we have when we put a crook government in. They get their guy into the top jobs and we see the development of a culture of lawlessness. The Sherwin business was at the same time as the Storm business, during the Rudd Gillard Rudd experiment.
Who knows how many other cases there may be which haven't reached litigation stage??
Perhaps we will never know because of the statute of limitations.

What was ASIC doing ?? They would have received complaints.

I know BoQ run a little differently to a normal bank in that the local Branch Manager is the owner.
I have always strongly urged that we should not have these "agents" or "subsidiary employees" in the banks, disguised as bank employees.

Oh gee? I wonder who was PM when the Life Insurance act 1945 was updated in 1995? The Life companies were self regulating and provided the government with the assurance and undertaking that the industry would meet liabilities of any Life company which couldn't. But it's a far cry from the increased regulation and mergers with banks.
I think the experiment in structural change of our finance sector has failed, its time for the government to support the change in any way they can.
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Jul 2018
9:30am
Yes, and sadly we have a choice between a crook government and a crooker government. The only hope is to abolish the two-party system, but that's not happening any time soon.

My partner put forward a great idea today. Instead of forming minor parties that compete for votes and get nowhere, get together 2 million+ concerned Aussies and take a class action against the government. $100 per person would create a massive war chest that should attract top legal experts. Theft of the Future Fund from Australian retirees would be a good test case. Ought to be able to recruit 2 million people concerned enough about that act of bastardry to contribute $100 each.
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
10:45am
Rainey, you sound like you want the crooker one back in though? Am I reading it wrong?
TREBOR
18th Jul 2018
1:40pm
Always remember that statute of limitations, Adri - those who have not reached litigation stage may not yet even be aware of their losses... so cannot act.

A simple re-rendering of the law to stipulate that the statute of limitations begins to apply from the moment the matter is first brought to the notice of a court would be better.

Remember my principles - there is no price on justice and no time limit on justice.... no 'out' for a court by saying a case would be 'too costly and take up too much of the court's time (what are they there for?)' and no 'so sorry - time limit expired'....
TREBOR
18th Jul 2018
1:42pm
As for ASIC -that's what happens when you make a 'political statement' and put in such a body, and then remove its teeth...

Be careful, King Rorters - ASIC will gum you to death...
TREBOR
18th Jul 2018
1:42pm
.. or do a Black Knight - "I'll bite yer leg off!"
Adrianus
18th Jul 2018
5:53pm
Sherwin and a few of his mates are doing some serious gaol time but my argument is with ASIC not being proactive. Not with Sherwin Group, not with Storm, not with AMP. These aren't mates of the LNP.
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Jul 2018
9:35pm
Adrianus. I don't believe I gave any indication of political preference. I said one party was crook and the other crooker. I did NOT specify which was which. Frankly, I despise both and I think it's impossible to choose between them, which is why I want the two-party system abolished. But I do think the people of Australia have a major claim against the LNP for deception, fraud and theft in relation to the Futures Fund and their current treatment of retirees.
TREBOR
18th Jul 2018
9:50pm
By what 'right' does an elected government sideline a massive $130Billion dollars from the Treasury and place it in an offshore tax haven as a way of guaranteeing in perpetuity that the same elected government and its apparatchiks will never suffer any downturn in income regardless of what they wreak upon the nation?

Some Divine Right Of Elected Government? Divine Right of Kings (etc) went out with a bang (finally) with the Russian Revolution.... but Western democracies had been progressively reducing the 'divine' power of a sovereign for centuries..... now it seems they have simply replaced the sovereign with the elected government - same sense of entitlement and right to do as they please without genuine reference to the people.

If that's not Divine Right by another name, I don't know what is....

(the above comment brought to you by the Learned Professor - one of whose learned theses was on Divine Right Of Elected Government...... I, for one, am ready to cross that Rubicon...)
Rae
19th Jul 2018
7:33am
TREBOR the IPA have infiltrated into the highest levels of "insiders" within the Government and it's organisations. They are gradually making the changes to suit their belief system which doesn't include anything great for ordinary people. It is astonishing how many at the top now are IPA members.
Adrianus
19th Jul 2018
8:20am
Rainey, you have no idea what's going on. A minister could tell you he is against the "Chinese Invasion" while at the same time receiving personal donations.
Adrianus
19th Jul 2018
8:21am
Rae, you sure you're not trying to find a problem to every solution?
*Loloften*
18th Jul 2018
1:44am
Nothing new, has been happening for for 4+decades - why just revealed now?
heemskerk99
18th Jul 2018
8:12pm
set up your own super instead of feeding those parasites living on your money
TREBOR
18th Jul 2018
9:39pm
Good point.
TREBOR
19th Jul 2018
10:26am
Hmm - I note that,to date, nobody has taken me to task over the position of the Trebor Scheme - notably that it infers an 'equality' in retirement packaging (and is thus the same 'equality of numbers' that Trebor so despises in politics), and does not address the relative merits of entrenched inequalities v entrenched equalities in society.

So let me reiterate:- under The Trebor Scheme all would be receiving a minimum contribution into the scheme via social security levies etc - additional contributions may be capped under the Scheme so that none receive any excessive benefits from super. What this means is that those with more discretionary income will simply not receive any subsidies pasta certain point - and will ensure investment in other areas that will secure some tax revenue.

Entrenched inequality of income will persist - indeed such inequalities are a driver of an economy - but they will not be open to rorting and a free ride via 'superannuation' so as to create vast and ongoing inequalities.
heemskerk99
19th Jul 2018
6:06pm
hm, tremor scheme, sounds like the same system as is employed in china and russia, outcome 3% become billionaires, 5% millionaires and for another give or take 10% life is livable, party members, the rest of their population, roughly 80% are worse off than our homeless people at which we all should be ashamed to even have any people sleeping on the streets, in cars or in tents on the beach in this great country
TREBOR
19th Jul 2018
7:23pm
No - it has nothing to do with these Super-Socialists and their garnering billions from their new found economy - under The Trebor Scheme such parasites would not be able (under our form of income management) salt away billions as 'superannuation', but would be forced to pay taxes on all excess income derived from other savings... just like anyone else.

Impossible to compare a nation such as China with its ruling elite utilising every facet of government and governance for its own self-enrichment - we need to look here and put in place systems that will prevent our local politicians attaining the same position - the ability to use every facet of government and governance ()including the military to put down 'dissidents') for their own self-enrichment.

To out local lads and lassies - these Chinese New Emperors and New Mandarins are heroes of the Brave New World they all desire - total power and total riches...
heemskerk99
19th Jul 2018
8:45pm
love it when the so-called earth-quake rolls out excuses such as "i was not speaking about super socialists in these countries" yet shows where somebody's allegiance lays when welcoming with open arms those he calls emperors and mandarins and who are buying our top estate while paying their employees, most of our civilised people would call them slaves, just enough to keep them from starving and enough to keep the money flowing into the pockets of those emperors and mandarins.


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

  • Receive our daily enewsletter
  • Enter competitions
  • Comment on articles