29th Apr 2018
FONT SIZE: A+ A-
Boosting compulsory super will hurt retirees: Grattan Institute
Author: Ben Hocking
Is super guarantee hike a mistake?

The Grattan Institute caused a stir this week, suggesting that the bipartisan proposal to lift compulsory superannuation contributions to 12 per cent would hurt those on low incomes.

According to the Grattan Institute, increasing the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent would do little to boost the retirement incomes of many low-income workers, and cost the federal budget billions now and well into the future.

The authors of the report suggest that the best way to help low-income earners would be to scrap the proposed increase.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) rejected the Grattan Institute’s proposal, slamming the suggestion as a ‘contrived assault’.

ASFA Chief Executive Dr Martin Fahy said that the Grattan Institute’s ideological hostility towards superannuation continued to cloud its judgement on retirement income policy and that its aversion to self-sufficiency in retirement posed a danger to current and future generations of Australian retirees.

“This is just another contrived assault by Grattan on our world leading superannuation system,” Dr Fahy said.

“The fact is that the system is delivering significant increases in retirement living standards for all Australians, including low income earners.”

According to ASFA, for a person aged 30 on $40,000 a year (below even median employment earnings), with a current balance of $20,000, the compulsory superannuation system will deliver an estimated $236,500 at retirement. This will increase retirement income from $23,254 a year (the Age Pension) to $33,670 a year.

In this example, superannuation savings only decrease the Age Pension entitlement by a small amount, which is contrary to the information provided by the Grattan Institute.

“Even an extra few thousand dollars a year will make a real difference in retirement – including allowing the retiree to undertake essential home repairs, visit the dentist, heat and cool their homes and have an occasional meal at the club,” said Dr Fahy.

Once the legislated increase in superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent of salary is introduced, ASFA projects that 50 per cent of Australians will be living comfortably in retirement by 2050, just over double the current proportion.

“This is a unique social policy achievement that we should view with pride, optimism and confidence for the future,” Dr Fahy said.

Dr Fahy observed that with the Federal Budget to be delivered next Tuesday, the Grattan Institute’s goal seems to be all about saving the Budget money in the short term.

“Grattan clearly doesn’t care about the adequacy of people’s retirement incomes or their quality of life in retirement – they are condemning retirees to be sicker, poorer and older for longer,” Dr Fahy said.

“Impoverishing retirees is no way to deal with the challenges they face, such as funding rising health and aged care costs. Ignoring these problems won’t make them go away.

“Stoking intergenerational tensions whilst conveniently ignoring the challenges posed by an ageing population represents a cynical approach to retirement income policy.”

Dr Fahy noted that the Grattan Institute’s assumptions are self-serving as they do not take into account the additional capital available to retirees in the form of superannuation savings, which increase income levels and generate higher living standards.

“Grattan selectively considers the interaction of superannuation and the age pension for a very narrow cohort to covertly justify the diminishment of superannuation,” Dr Fahy explained.

“The reality is that having more private savings, for all cohorts, results in better retirement outcomes.”

What do you think? Should the Government scrap the goal of increasing compulsory superannuation contributions?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Not a Bludger
    2nd May 2018
    10:54am
    Just for once, I agree with the Grattan Institute.
    And, do not believe for one moment,the self serving views of ASFA - who push for higher super contributions only because of the $millions in extra fees that they cop from the extra money every year.
    arbee
    2nd May 2018
    1:29pm
    Me as well, not often I agree with Grattan, but I do this time.
    Concerned
    2nd May 2018
    11:29am
    Thank you for looking at the long term and the deliberate non view of the Gratton insitiute. Although 2050seems a way off it is important to realise that if superannuation increases occur now 50% will not be dependent on an aged pension. In all the dire predictions we receive this is not considered and whether we like it or not we will have an increased aged population so instead of burying heads in the sand it is important we look at ways to ensure there will be a reduction in the number of people requiring government funding.
    Rae
    2nd May 2018
    11:35am
    I agree with Gratten. People can save extra if they want and have access to that money over the decades.
    My experience is that expectations of returns never seem to pan out.

    The takings of the Superannuation Funds are falling as people choose not to save extra into them. 9.5% is plenty for people on the median income of around $50 000 a year to have locked away for decades with no real guarantee that the money will be there in the end anyway.

    Superannuation as a tax minimisation saving scheme made sense at the beginning but recent changes to returns through financial industry stuff ups and deflation as well as the taxing at deposit and on profits means it is not the same now as it used to be.
    People are rightly sceptical of the promises made by advisors.
    KSS
    2nd May 2018
    12:40pm
    "People can save extra if they want" except people don't Rae because they are not concerned with their old age when they are in their 20s 30s and 40s. It only becomes an issue for most when they hit 50+ and retirement looms. Then there is panic because they 'don't have enough'. The freeze on super contributions must be lifted to the previously scheduled 12.5% so people have a chance at being self sufficient in retirement. After all, you don't miss what you never had so the forced savings amass at the same time they are forgotten by the owner. I agree though that people should add to their super on top. We have been told for years that the current contributions are not enough. However, the changes last year have punished people like me who were doing just that by reducing the amount you can save from after tax funds by $10000 a year to just $25000 a year which includes your employer contribution. Not much incentive now is there?

    If companies are making good profit and those turning over less than $50m get their tax cut, they can well afford to up the super component of their employees salaries.
    Rae
    2nd May 2018
    1:01pm
    Yes KSS. I never received the tax concession for the super component of my retirement income.

    Other income I earn now comes from savings outside of super which has allowed flexibility. Eggs in separate baskets.

    We must remember though that although retirement may be 20 or 30 years there are decades before retirement and people have to live during that time, raise kids and hopefully but a roof over their heads.

    Wages are stagnating and perhaps the extra 3% may come in handy to do that rather than holding out on a promise for some time in the future when the markets, fees and charges and inflation have eaten up any benefits.

    I don't imagine for one minute that the bottom 60% of wage earners will ever be self sufficient on current figures even putting away 12.5%. They don't earn enough. The $275 000 is not going to keep them in 30 years time.

    For those on average or above it is probably do able but there are better and cheaper investments than those in your run of the mill superannuation fund.

    How does someone on less than $50 000 a year put away $25 000. It's an impossible dream.

    I can see workers being poor all their lives so they can retire in poverty. Makes no sense to me.

    They'd be better off investing the wedding money for 40 years in a cheap index fund and having a cheap wedding then saving for a home in my opinion and experience.

    Companies may up the super which will feed the financial sector but then they won't up the wages.
    KSS
    2nd May 2018
    3:28pm
    But those on a low salary will still have a few dollars more when they retire which would help with whatever the age pension may be by then. And that's the point.

    And just for the record, I make sacrifices and save for retirement on a salary well below the average wage. It's all about choices.
    Radish
    3rd May 2018
    2:19pm
    Both husband and self chose to put in more than the 6% we were obliged to save and upped it to 10% (in the 8 years before we retired).

    I agree with KSS...people do not save the money themselves...I firmly believe the contributions should be higher; in fact I think they should be 15%.

    It is not about how much you earn ...it is how you manage your money and that is the problem with so many young people today. The money is spent unwisely in my opinion (in a great many cases)....$600 on a pair of shoes, beauty treatments, eating out many times a week. The list goes on. The old saying you cannot have your cake and eat it too is very true.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    4th May 2018
    1:34pm
    But unfortunately, Radish, you cannot have it either way. If you save, you lose every direction - no pension, no concessions, even the risk of losing any inheritance if some greedy relative claims to be ''needy''! Its disgusting. Everyone seems to think savers are ''lucky'' and should share their good fortune with the spendthrifts.
    Bowks
    2nd May 2018
    11:37am
    Sorry Not a Bludger an annuity from a superannuation lump sum makes a BIG difference to me as a part aged pensioners. The current Royal Commission will hopefully see "The Banks" leave the superannuation field to the more reputable super funds. Allowing the banks into this area was a wrong decision by an ideological driven political party. Go the industry superannuation funds!
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    11:48am
    So you want more reputable super funds like those run by AMP. From the dealings I have had with industry super funds I fail to see they are any better than retail funds.

    I personally would not have a super fund if I didn't have an SMSF. As it is I only have 10% of my wealth in super as it is simply financially better for me to invest elsewhere and pay a bit of tax.
    Rosret
    2nd May 2018
    12:01pm
    Old Geezer this is so true. The Private Superannuation funds fund themselves. If they want our youth to contribute more for their retirement years then the government needs to take the money in the form of tax and pay every Australian a basic wage income for life. Anything the individual saves or puts away is theirs to work with. No Centrelink, no asset tests - just a proof of contribution to Australian society.
    How many billions have been drained out of Australia in the form of fees from Super fund management. This is money the government could have used to benefit Australia.
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    12:08pm
    Agree Rosret. However super money belongs to you but not yet so people need a way of saving it themselves without all the sharks taking big bites out of it. the biggest problem is people with part time or casual jobs as the fees these super funds charge just take the lot so they have nothing left in super. People also need to take some of the blame themselves as many don't even know where their super is let alone what is going on with it. If people took more interest then these funds wold not get away with what they do now. It is too late to sort in out in 30 or 40 year time when you retire. People need to get on top of it now jut like they should with their bank accounts.
    Bowks
    2nd May 2018
    12:59pm
    Old Geezer AMP is not an "Industry Superannuation Fund". They are better than retail funds because they pay their member higher return as they are NOT FOR PROFIT funds. For most people running a SMSF there is setting up costs and Accounting responsibilities to the regulator. I like people who own a lot of property because when they pass on the tax office will be receiving Capital Gains Tax.
    Rae
    2nd May 2018
    1:10pm
    Yes OG. Being terrified of tax to the point you lose money through negative gearing and such seems a bit silly. I also am very happy if I have to pay tax. It means my years trading has resulted in more wins than loses.

    Bowks I like capital gains very much too. It's heavily discounted and means you've made money instead of losing it. Only when you sell and take profits though.

    Property does not always make gains though. Some of my biggest capital loses have been in losing property investments.

    OG I worked out that superannuation may help those with a house to earn a bit more than the aged pension if they are lucky and if they don't retire with debt or lose their job within the last decade before aged pension age. It's a gamble at best.
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    3:21pm
    Bowks if you super is in the pension phase no tax is payable so no CGT tax after you die either.

    Most people who own a lot of properties wold not have them in their own name but in a corporate structure instead for many reasons other than tax.
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    3:40pm
    No AMP is a retail super fund that does very well out of it's investors. I know which ones are industry funds and in the last year I have deal with a good half a dozen of them with various problems. In my opinion they are no better than retail funds with some of the things they do. They are certainly not "Not for Profit" as the unions etc do very well out of them. It is actually quite easy to set up and run a SMSF and quite cheap too. Mine costs me 0.15%pa of the assets in the fund to run.
    Radish
    3rd May 2018
    2:24pm
    Unless you know what you are doing and have a good amount of money a SMSF is not the way to go.

    The average person does not have the financial nouse to run a SMSF and I personally would not want the worry of it in my retirement and am quite happy to let my industry super fund do all that.

    You get to the stage where you do not need a lot in your later years and a comfortable retirement is all that we required and that is what we have.
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    11:42am
    The problem is that many employees are not getting this compulsory super from their employers. If they do it is being eaten up in fees and insurance premiums. Whoever put insurance in super did so to for the employee but for the benefit of those running suer funds. What a great way to make extra money at the expense of the super investor! I haven't seen any of this coming out in the Royal Commission. One fellow had over $2000 put in super for him but when he left that job and decided to roll it over there was a balance of only $180.

    I agree with the Grattan Institute if only for the reason that the money is not going to where it was intended but is feathering the nests of those running super funds.

    I recently had discussion with a fund called Ethical Super. I could find no where in their PDS where one could opt out of super. I thought on that alone they were unethical.
    Rosret
    2nd May 2018
    12:05pm
    Exactly.
    Isn't it amazing how the property market has increased nearly 20 fold in thirty years but our super didn't.
    KSS
    2nd May 2018
    12:28pm
    "I could find no where in their PDS where one could opt out of super." Well that's because you can't Old Geyser, unless you opt for SMSF which most won't do. You CAN change to a different fund.

    You CAN opt out of any and all insurance provided within the superfund - I have - but it is a decision many don't even consider and many more don't even know they have it!
    Rae
    2nd May 2018
    1:14pm
    They make opting out of insurance difficult but it can be done.

    The easiest way out of Super is to be a business owner or self employed contractor. It is not compulsory to pay yourself superannuation and I'm surprised at that.
    Adrianus
    5th May 2018
    9:06am
    Rosret, largely a funds actual performance is unknown. That is to say the actual rate of return is never provided. Instead a funds performance is given as a "crediting rate."
    Superannuation funds are no different to banks in that regard.
    Old Man
    2nd May 2018
    11:51am
    What a lot of those who hypothesise on what the future may hold overlook the fact that an age pension is always there for those who need it. Only yesterday an interview in the media told us that we need $2M in super to retire comfortably when nothing could be further from the truth. It has also been said that a figure of around $300,000 in super for a couple in retirement will give them around $45,000pa when combined with the age pension. It all comes down into how much each person requires in retirement as we all have different lifestyles. Surely the more one saves for retirement then the larger the pile of money saved will be, it's not rocket surgery.
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    12:02pm
    Old Man if you fail the assets test a couple will need $2 million to get same income they would if they were a full old age pensioner. That's where the $2 million came from.

    So you are right if you have only $500,000 or more than $2 million. Save $2 million and you are sweet but save $1 million and you are behind the eight ball big time.
    Rosret
    2nd May 2018
    12:03pm
    They want to get rid of the pension.
    Old Man
    2nd May 2018
    12:33pm
    It's not either/or OG. It's possible to fail the asset test and then become eligible at a later time. It's also possible to have a full age pension and then have a windfall and lose all or part of the age pension. It's not as cut and dried as you seem to want us to think. The fail safe is that the age pension is always there depending on eligibility.
    Old Man
    2nd May 2018
    12:34pm
    Nice sweeping statement Rosret, who are "they" and where is your proof that "they" want to get rid of the pension?
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    12:49pm
    Yes it is cut and dried. If you haven't got $2 million then you are better off buying a more expensive house, doing renos and off on a world cruise for a couple of years. That's what many or now doing.
    Rosret
    2nd May 2018
    12:51pm
    Well it started with Paul Keating and then everyone in power thought it was a jolly good idea - especially the superfund managers.
    Rosret
    2nd May 2018
    12:51pm
    Well it started with Paul Keating and then everyone in power thought it was a jolly good idea - especially the superfund managers.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd May 2018
    4:35pm
    I agree with increasing the super guarantee only because so many people DON'T save unless compelled to. However, the assets test also needs to be changed so that it's worthwhile saving for retirement and those who did are not worse off for having done so.

    I find it amusing - and confusing, OG - that you supported the assets test change that created this dilemma of needing $2 million, yet you now say people who were screwed over by it are better off with less and a pension. Make up your mind! You are contradicting yourself!
    GeorgeM
    3rd May 2018
    9:00pm
    OG has seen the light, and is talking sense above - accept that people can change, OGR (even pigs may fly now)!
    GeorgeM
    3rd May 2018
    9:04pm
    OM, while Grattan Insitute talks all rubbish, the Super Industry has vested interests as well and their suggestion that savings lead to better outcomes is not valid any more since the nonsensical Asset Test changes from Jan 2017, and now $2 Mil is needed for SFRs as OG has indicated to match it with pensioners on say $400-500K.
    Rod63
    2nd May 2018
    12:17pm
    No! It should be working towards 15%
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    12:59pm
    14% for the super managers and 1% left for the person in retirement.
    Rod63
    2nd May 2018
    1:35pm
    Not with industry superfunds. They are the only way to go.
    Rae
    4th May 2018
    7:31am
    Perhaps but only after a home has been secured. We could end up with everyone retiring with a $300 000 deposit for million dollar properties if not careful.

    What would you prefer at retirement? Your own home or $300 000 and having to rent because saving 15% of income over your life prevented you buying a home.

    Locking in a higher saving rate while homes are not affordable seems an odd idea.

    Unless of course the final payout is the deposit and other savings pays the house off. But then you still don't have money in retirement.
    HS
    2nd May 2018
    12:57pm
    Not according to FV calculations. If the super-fund delivers an earn of 5.5% pa then this person retiring at age of 70 will accumulate $862,037 at retirement, assuming that for the next 40 years this person remains on $40,000 income pa @ 12% p.a contribution.
    =FV(5.5%,40,-4800,-20000,1)

    Assuming that this person lives to 100 yrs of age.
    That is another 30 years, with his $862,307 drawn from super as a lump sum, less the first year’s advance for living of $33,670 in a savings bank account earning 2% pa and draws the same amount of $33,670 each year for next 29 years, this person will still have a balance of own funds of $138,793 when they are 100 years old.
    =FV(2%,29,33670,-828367,1)


    However, if this person is allowed to keep the super-fund balance of $828,367.01 running and drawing $33,670 each year to their age of 100 then this person will have a balance of $1,508,076.
    =FV(5.5%,29,33670,-828367,1)

    So, the solution is to allow retirees to run their super-fund to the end of their life.

    ** Income tax and other tax obligation, if any, not taken into account,

    I’d like to see how ASFA made their raw calculations.
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    1:03pm
    Where is the fund mangers big cut in those calculations?
    Rae
    2nd May 2018
    1:22pm
    THat's a lot of assumptions. 5.5% over time with no corrections or losses, no fees or charges and nobody going belly up will be a miracle. Wish I could do it. Good luck living on a couples pension of $33 000 in 30 years time because you also assume no inflation.

    If the person spent the money paying off their home and received whatever CPI has moved the OAP to in 30 years time they'd be better off surely. Don't forget the pension concessions of up to $4500 as well.

    We had a perfectly good system before Fraser stole the fund. Just make them give the equivalent back. Maybe that Future Fund after all it is our Telstra and our Gold sitting in it.
    HS
    2nd May 2018
    2:15pm
    Best performing super funds on Canstar (7-year average annual return up to 31 December 2017)

    HOSTPLUS Personal Super – Balanced: 9.67%
    Cbus Personal Super – Growth (Cbus MySuper): 9.51%
    AustralianSuper Personal Plan – Balanced: 9.36%
    CareSuper Personal Plan – Balanced: 9.06%
    BUSS(Q) Premium Choice – Premium Balanced Growth: 8.80%
    AustSafe Super Personal Super – Balanced: 8.73%

    https://www.canstar.com.au/superannuation/top-performing-super-funds-rated-canstar/

    My assumption of 5.5% was very conservative.
    HS
    2nd May 2018
    2:26pm
    "Where is the fund managers big cut in those calculations?"
    Old Geezer
    It's time to bring back the regulators and get rid off the big cut fund manager spongers.
    Old Geezer
    3rd May 2018
    4:42pm
    Well HS all I'll say is that I wouldn't want my money invested in some of those industry funds after what I have seen happen to people in them.
    Adrianus
    6th May 2018
    8:13am
    I estimate Cbus' cut is more than $90 million pa.
    Adrianus
    7th May 2018
    9:09am
    Could you run a nationwide office with $90m plus coming in every year?
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    1:09pm
    I am left thinking what $236,500 will by in 40 years myself. At historical 4.3% inflation over last 40 years that tells me it will buy $52,000 of today's goods.
    Rae
    2nd May 2018
    1:28pm
    Yes I figure that too. The whole thing is stupid for the bottom 60%.

    All the other OECD countries manage without all this nonsense and a financial industry 25% of the whole economy. Recipe for disaster in my opinion OG.

    OG check with your local Senator about any cash you have in your SMSF. There are mutterings it may be included in the bail in thing. Also off set accounts. Seems far fetched but the problem is nobody knows exactly what the "instruments" in the legislation are.

    Just another tricky bipartisan policy to add risk to everything we do.
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    3:13pm
    I've got my cash in SMSF spread across 3 banks now just in case as I will need it so I don't have to sell down my other investments at the wrong time.

    Our finance industry seems to be robbing Paul to pay Peter at times too.
    ray from Bondi
    2nd May 2018
    1:27pm
    I have heard on the radio a few times business owners crying about the super they have to pay, a lot seem to have forgotten that most of the compulsory super is made up of wage rises lost, and not their money, all the more reason that companies that do not pay it and I believe there is a significant number of small business that seems to forget should have the book thrown at them, but this does not happen sadly.
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    3:49pm
    I agree. I have one now drip feeding a few dollars fortnight into a fund of a casual employee. They have paid now about $70 of over $1000 owing. If I hadn't put a claim into the ATO for this young person they would not have even got the $70. This young person asked their employer where their super was going and they were replaced within a week. Up until that point their employer was very pleased with their work and even gave them the odd bonus in cash. Now we know why.
    Tib
    2nd May 2018
    1:47pm
    I ignore the Grattan institute, super contributions should be 12%.
    GeorgeM
    3rd May 2018
    9:08pm
    Also, Universal Pension should be introduced without further delay (Govt coffers are overflowing, and company tax receipts are shooting up - a Minimum Tax system will guarantee funding forever).

    2nd May 2018
    2:44pm
    The thing that gets me about Superannuation, and discussions about it, is the lack of education offered to fund members of investment options, and the consequences of decisions made. Choosing the wrong option, (or failing to change out of one), can potentially cost the member tens of thousands, or more, over even a short period of time. I am astounded by the younger generation that I am in touch with who have no clue in this area. For someone in their 40's and with another 20 plus years of work life ahead, the final outcome will have a huge impact on his/her retirement years. I think it is imperative that proper advice is imparted by fund advisers, on a regular (at least annual), and unpaid basis.
    HS
    2nd May 2018
    2:56pm
    I recollect that every year on receiving the Fund's annual report I was provided with a form to change my investment option, if I wanted to
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2018
    3:15pm
    Funny you should say that Big Al as I advised a fellow in his mid 20s to take a balanced option with his super and it's the one that has performed to best over last couple of years. Fund had him in a high growth option.
    KSS
    2nd May 2018
    3:36pm
    High growth in your 20s is not that bad an idea, they have time to recoup if necessary. Its when you get nearer to retirement and that is your only resource that being more conservative is more prudent.

    And HS is correct, when you join a fund you get sent a whole pack of information including your investment options and a form to express your choices. Failure to make a choice will mean you go into the default option. Each year you get statements and the same option to change the balance of the investment make up.

    The real issue is not that the information is not made available, its that people don't read it!
    Not a Bludger
    2nd May 2018
    3:38pm
    Hey, all you long term super planners and your percentage assumptions etc - don't forget that our governments find your super irresistable (as do those in ASFA) and will continue to swipe as much of it as they think that they can get away with - just look at retirees like me who stupidly thought that the rules at retirement were fixed - ha ha - just look at the adverse changes over the last few years.
    They just can't trust the hoi polloi with their own money.
    Are they finished yet?
    Rae
    3rd May 2018
    8:49am
    There will be a lot less home owners in the future if 12.5% of income is snavelled away every pay. It will certainly be good for landlords.
    Adrianus
    5th May 2018
    9:09am
    Not , that may be true but it is still beneficial for non savers to have a nest egg on retirement.
    Circum
    2nd May 2018
    3:40pm
    Commonsense tells you the more you save now,the better off you will be later.Increasing super contributions is a positive as current contributions ie; 9.5% is insufficient to provide a comfortable retirement.
    Many people if not most have trouble saving.People adjust their standard of living based on the amount of money in their pocket.For example money earnt as overtime is seen as a bonus to be spent on a higher standard of living at least temporarily.
    Similarly if someone was to reduce your income by 10% you would learn to adjust.High power bills force us to adjust.But if you ask someone can they save an extra $10 a week they will probably say no.
    People are equally unaware how much they spend over the long term.$200 a week equates to over $1.25 million over 40 years if invested at 5%.In reality the figure will be many times that as a result of inflation.So its not hard to save a million regardless of income.Its not how much you earn but what you do with it.
    Sadly the government keeps removing the incentive to save so its understandable for people to say no I am not going to save as the government keeps pinching some.And then some more.Not even a different government can save you from their claws.
    On the topic of royal commissions,I would love for it to be extended to the superannuation industry and to the various state trustees around Australia who are in reality just fund managers.
    Batara
    2nd May 2018
    3:40pm
    ASFA is an association for bank controlled superannuation. We should be very wary of anything that comes from ASFA taking into account what is coming out at the Royal Commission regarding the closely related financial planning industry.
    Stick to industry super and give any ASFA fund a wide berth.
    Eddy
    2nd May 2018
    3:54pm
    Seems to me the responses to this report are firmly along ideological grounds. As I recall the original objective of the Superannuation Guarantee Contribution was, and feel free to correct me if my figures are wrong, 15% of wages or salary. It was negotiated between the government of the day with employer groups and unions as an alternative to pay rises. It was known as The Accord. Starting at 3% and gradually increasing over a number of years to the final figure of 15%. Unfortunately subsequent governments fiddled with the programmed increases so that now, instead of the 15% as originally envisaged , it is still stuck on 9%. It follows therefore that persons who are contemplating retirement in the near future will be seriously shortchanged in their superannuation.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd May 2018
    4:28pm
    Grattan Institute is precisely as described - self-serving, and having a hatred of retirees. This is the same selfish mob who want the family home included in the assets test and support any means available to slash the incomes of SFRs. They spruik nonsense about claimed 'intergenerational inequity'' and blame today's seniors for all the alleged problems faced by the young, demanding seniors be stripped of all assets and comforts to hand more to the young. I would not afford these self-serving socialists a shred of credibility.
    GeorgeM
    3rd May 2018
    9:09pm
    Wish I knew how they can be shutdown - long overdue!!!

    2nd May 2018
    4:38pm
    My name is Milagros Riverva from United States, I’m sharing this testimony to give thanks to Dr.Edward Arabba who helped me to bring back my EX lover that broke up with me 4 months ago.I have been looking for advice on what to do and how to get back my EX lover but all my effort prove fruitless until when i came across a post of a woman in USA called Gloria giving thanks to Dr.Edward for helping her to get back her husband. I contacted the spell caster for help due to the fact that i needed my EX lover desperately because he is my husband and my life. To God be the glory my husband came back to me within 48 hours after Dr.Edward finished preparing the Reunion love spell and i want the world to join me and thank him for helping me. Anyone reading my testimony and also need his help should contact him with his below details.
    Name: Dr.Edward Arabba
    Mobile Number: +27833153741
    Whatsapp Number: +27833153741
    Email: dredwardarabbatemple@gmail.com
    I’m given you 100% guarantee that as soon as you get in touch with Dr.Edward your problems will be completely solved.
    Circum
    2nd May 2018
    5:03pm
    Great,can you get rid of Turnbull and Shorten?
    Circum
    2nd May 2018
    5:12pm
    Sorry sweetie but your husbands run off with a young Nubian chick,there are no gods,and Edward has filed for bankruptcy
    sunnyOz
    2nd May 2018
    10:11pm
    Oh god - can't get away from spammers even here! Have a browse through the 'Forum/General Discussion' - is just like this post - a repeater...
    Rae
    3rd May 2018
    8:52am
    Selfish and conniving. No wonder he left.
    HS
    4th May 2018
    9:19am
    Arabba? I thinks it sounds more like Alibaba...and his 40 thieves !

    2nd May 2018
    5:03pm
    My name is Milagros Riverva from United States, I’m sharing this testimony to give thanks to Dr.Edward Arabba who helped me to bring back my EX lover that broke up with me 4 months ago.I have been looking for advice on what to do and how to get back my EX lover but all my effort prove fruitless until when i came across a post of a woman in USA called Gloria giving thanks to Dr.Edward for helping her to get back her husband. I contacted the spell caster for help due to the fact that i needed my EX lover desperately because he is my husband and my life. To God be the glory my husband came back to me within 48 hours after Dr.Edward finished preparing the Reunion love spell and i want the world to join me and thank him for helping me. Anyone reading my testimony and also need his help should contact him with his below details.
    Name: Dr.Edward Arabba
    Mobile Number: +27833153741
    Whatsapp Number: +27833153741
    Email: dredwardarabbatemple@gmail.com
    I’m given you 100% guarantee that as soon as you get in touch with Dr.Edward your problems will be completely solved.

    2nd May 2018
    5:32pm
    My name is Milagros Riverva from United States, I’m sharing this testimony to give thanks to Dr.Edward Arabba who helped me to bring back my EX lover that broke up with me 4 months ago.I have been looking for advice on what to do and how to get back my EX lover but all my effort prove fruitless until when i came across a post of a woman in USA called Gloria giving thanks to Dr.Edward for helping her to get back her husband. I contacted the spell caster for help due to the fact that i needed my EX lover desperately because he is my husband and my life. To God be the glory my husband came back to me within 48 hours after Dr.Edward finished preparing the Reunion love spell and i want the world to join me and thank him for helping me. Anyone reading my testimony and also need his help should contact him with his below details.
    Name: Dr.Edward Arabba
    Mobile Number: +27833153741
    Whatsapp Number: +27833153741
    Email: dredwardarabbatemple@gmail.com
    I’m given you 100% guarantee that as soon as you get in touch with Dr.Edward your problems will be completely solved.

    2nd May 2018
    5:33pm
    My name is Milagros Riverva from United States, I’m sharing this testimony to give thanks to Dr.Edward Arabba who helped me to bring back my EX lover that broke up with me 4 months ago.I have been looking for advice on what to do and how to get back my EX lover but all my effort prove fruitless until when i came across a post of a woman in USA called Gloria giving thanks to Dr.Edward for helping her to get back her husband. I contacted the spell caster for help due to the fact that i needed my EX lover desperately because he is my husband and my life. To God be the glory my husband came back to me within 48 hours after Dr.Edward finished preparing the Reunion love spell and i want the world to join me and thank him for helping me. Anyone reading my testimony and also need his help should contact him with his below details.
    Name: Dr.Edward Arabba
    Mobile Number: +27833153741
    Whatsapp Number: +27833153741
    Email: dredwardarabbatemple@gmail.com
    I’m given you 100% guarantee that as soon as you get in touch with Dr.Edward your problems will be completely solved.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    2nd May 2018
    7:03pm
    Gove up dear this forum is full of tight arse so and SOS.No help here.
    HS
    2nd May 2018
    11:47pm
    Did you mean, Alibaba?
    maelcolium
    2nd May 2018
    5:56pm
    The Superannuation Guarantee was an agreement made between Government and the Unions for employees to forgo wage increases for the purpose of building up a retirement savings fund. The Grattan Institute as usual are behaving as though the employers are giving something away, when they are not at all as employers agreed to this at the outset. So the Abbot Government's stalling of increasing the SG was contrary to the original agreement, just as this brain fart by the Grattan Institute is breaking of the agreement with workers. We all knew it would come to this at the outset of this hare brained scheme which Keating cobbled together with the silver bodgie and where are their voices now? So much for trusting politicians. The same dudding was done with the Universal Retirement fund which Menzies swooped onto and included itto consolidated revenue which we pay to this day as it was included in the general taxation rate. The Grattan Institute and politicians need to be reminded that this is our money, not theirs to dole out or with hold when it suits their purpose. Where is the bloody ALP commentary on this as this is their scheme that's being pulled apart ? Oh, nowhere to be seen.
    Circum
    2nd May 2018
    6:14pm
    The Grattan Institute is an outdated organisation which has no useful purpose.If it was disbandened it would be a good thing for humanity
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd May 2018
    8:08pm
    Couldn't agree more, Circum. Useless, harmful, and full of idiots with hair-brained ideas that threaten the health of society. Kill it off, NOW!
    MD
    2nd May 2018
    8:39pm
    Hey y'all, Milagros Riverva from goddam Unca Sam land might be onto something ya hear. Maybe YLC should look into Dr Doolittle (aka Ahab the arab.. a) on our behalf. C'mon, lighten up folks, it couldn't be any more ludicrous than what we're having to contend with most days.
    YeeeHahhh!
    Misty
    3rd May 2018
    4:31pm
    The Gratton Institute and the Monash Group should get together.
    GeorgeM
    3rd May 2018
    9:11pm
    Misty your sentence is incomplete, add "...and jump off the cliff!".
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd May 2018
    9:49pm
    A little off topic, but since references have been made here to the young buying homes I thought it worth noting that today I spoke to a 21-year-old gas delivery man (very low income earner) who assured me he had inherited NOTHING, been given NOTHING, and never earned more than his current low wage, yet he purchased 10 acres of land on the fringe of a big city and is building TWO houses - one to live in and one to sell. Asked his opinion of all the claims that housing is unaffordable for the young today he replied ''What rot! They just don't know how to make sensible choices. They earn enough. It's their spending choices that present problems.'' I suspect a lot of seniors would agree! I certainly do!
    Circum
    4th May 2018
    7:39pm
    Very true
    Suze
    5th May 2018
    7:14pm
    Spot on OGR
    That is the problem.
    Adrianus
    7th May 2018
    9:20am
    Absolutely Rainey. People can whinge about the price of real estate increasing in value all they like. Its just a political football.
    I love hearing stories of young people having a go and not expecting others to provide for them.

    If young people listen too hard to some of the BS they could easily believe that they're victims of an unchangeable and monumentally destructive society, over which they have no control.

    Good for him!! He is a credit to his parents.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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