New minister says he will fix super for all retirees

Font Size:

Assistant Treasurer Stuart Robert – the new minister responsible for superannuation – has announced that he will focus on fixing super for all retirees, but especially for women.

A recent parliamentary inquiry saw data from Per Capita that revealed 23 per cent of men have balances over $500,000 and 25 per cent of all women have balances less than $50,000. Just four per cent of women have a balance of over $500,000. On average, women have around 53 per cent of the super savings of men.

Mr Robert yesterday declared that “the great inequality” of women’s super was a “top priority” and “nothing was off the table” as he works with Minister for Women, Kelly O’Dwyer, on a $100 million major women’s economic statement to be released this month

His first duty since being appointed with the super policy role was meeting with health and community services super fund HESTA, whose majority of members are women.

“We have to make a tangible difference to the 80 per cent of women in a fund like HESTA,” Mr Robert told Fairfax Media.

“I’ll be examining everything. The beauty of a fresh set of eyes is you get the chance to look at it all.”

With the birth and care of children taking up prime working years for women, many miss out on compulsory super payments. When women do return to the workforce, many do so in part-time employment roles or by working in the gig economy. Around 70 per cent of all part-time employees are women.

Currently, employers do not have to make compulsory super payments if an employee earns under $450 per week.

“The $450 cap is an old-world concept and we are well and truly in the new world,” said Australian Services Union assistant secretary Linda White.

Ms White has been lobbying to have the $450 cap removed.

“For every dollar earned young, the compound interest is going to earn you more in retirement. Fixing it would cost very little but would start to level the playing field,” she said.

Another idea on the table is dividing super between partners when a couple enters a legally recognised relationship.

There were 118,401 marriages and 46,604 divorces in Australia in 2017. Many divorced women who have raised children and missed out on years of super payments will then end up dependent on the Age Pension in retirement.

When considering Australia’s steadily growing ageing population, funding the Age Pension for these women may be a major problem for the Government unless something is done about it now.

While Mr Robert said all ideas would be considered, he stated that he does not want to “rob Peter to pay Paul” and that the Government already has a policy in place where a spouse can redirect up to $40,000 in to the other’s super fund.

“It would help a spouse, but to the detriment of the other,” he said.

What do you think of splitting super once you are married? Would this be an acceptable solution to equalising women’s super? Should the $450 compulsory payment cap be removed?

Join YourLifeChoices today
and get this free eBook!

Join
By joining YourLifeChoices you consent that you have read and agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

RELATED LINKS

Why do women retire in poverty?

Women retire with half as much superannuation as men. We need to close this gap.

'Women's work' back in the spotlight with Labor pledge

Labor pledges funds to restart unpaid work surveys.

Women and superannuation

The fact that many women retire with half as much super as men can't be ignored.

Written by Leon Della Bosca

Leon Della Bosca is a voracious reader who loves words. You'll often find him spending time in galleries, writing, designing, painting, drawing, or photographing and documenting street art. He has a publishing and graphic design background and loves movies and music, but then, who doesn’t?

Contact:
LinkedIn
Email

193 Comments

Total Comments: 193
  1. 0
    0

    Yes it should be removed as some employers spread out work between their casuals to be under the $450 per month so they avoid paying any super.

    • 0
      0

      Employers/casuals. Say no more. The weapon of choice to destitute many Australians.

    • 0
      0

      Well, it can be removed now, because the government has legislated against industry funds and others charging high fees on low balances.

    • 0
      0

      Unfortunately they are still charging those high fees on low balances.

    • 0
      0

      You mean legislated against Industry Funds giving better returns by keeping the top end of town out of the feeding trough. Retail Funds are known for overcharging customers.
      You guys are such blatant government sponsored trolls. Everybody knows!

    • 0
      0

      No Mick I am referring to industry funds and the high fees they charge on small balances.

    • 0
      0

      MICK, it wouldn’t matter what the return was if the balance is removed by fees.

    • 0
      0

      Super should be paid on every hour worked, and there should be a lower limit under which no account can be charged fees. Better still, force the funds to earn their fees and costs from their earnings, same as the banks should be doing instead of raping customers for fees all the time.

      Better still again – put all funds under one roof with The Trebor Scheme and keep the financial institutions’ and politicians’ filthy hands off it…. fewer costs, an elected governing body, and the same treatment for all, including – if any ‘government’ here is sincere – a mandatory minimum fortnightly contribution to accounts of the unemployed and disabled during their working life people…. so that one day all will receive benefit of superannuation and the impact on SOCIAL SECURITY costs will be lower.

    • 0
      0

      The figures don’t show that, OG – overall industry funds charge far less….. and give more.

      Beating the same old drum may help with your plea of insanity, but it certainly doesn’t help- your status here or elsewhere.

    • 0
      0

      Trebor then why are there so many zero balance super funds?

    • 0
      0

      OG.. OG… the issue here is the charges and fees levied by sector – not the universal end result in any fund of accounts reaching zero etc… industry accounts can reach zero too… but mostly at a slower rate.

      The aim of this discussion point is to work for removal of any privilege of any fund to take an account down lower than a certain point by charging fees.

    • 0
      0

      Fees and taxes are eroding small super accounts so much at the present that for people earning less than $450 a month to have super contributed for them has no financial benefit to them at all. All it does is increase the funds bottom line.

      I get it you lot what the funds to do well at the decrement of the super account holders.

      Funds now take accounts below zero and if not closed when that people put in the next contribution it gets put straight in the funds coffers instead of that person’s account.

      It is therefore of very little more likely no benefit for super to be contributed for people earning less than $450 per month.

    • 0
      0

      A good point, OG – just been passed on to Mr Robert and to Comrade Billy

  2. 0
    0

    I have a wonderful idea: get people to pay a PERCENTAGE OF THEIR EARNINGS into superannuation and at the end of their working lives pay them retirement benefits. We could call it ‘the pension’.
    Ok, already done that. Then money shuffled into Consolidated Revenue and some retirees cut out to save government money.

    You may want to investigate retirement benefits around the world Leon. The western world. I have a mate in America who is quite well off and he was quite annoyed at being forced to take social security because he reached the magic age despite not needing or want it.

    The wider issue in Australia is not women vs men but a restoration of retirement benefits with FAIR accessibility limits. Retirees should have been put before tax cuts for the wealthy. The fact they were not demonstrates whose interests are being pursued and retirees are seen as targets for the current crop of what can modestly be referred to as a ‘government’.

    • 0
      0

      Adrianus. You are 100% correct. I have been FORCED into HESTA by an agreement with the fair trade commission almost 10 years ago. I have consistently complained about this over and over, and so have others. But still no action. So yes HESTA is not my main super account. I don’t want to be with Hesta, i want to chose my own fund. I did have 4 super funds going, and got that down to 3, one of them being the hesta fund that I do not want to have.
      I tried to roll over $$ from Hesta into my main super account, and was not allowed- A HUGE RORT!
      Taking out the $450 cap, could force many employees to let go of staff. My daughter used to just get enough casual work to avoid the $450 being paid at Macca’s. if they had to pay, they could give more work to people like this or ditch them. Not sure what is right then.

    • 0
      0

      Leek with funds like Hesta and Rest you have to resign to be able to transfer funds out unless you have more than $5000. If you have more than $5000 you can transfer only the amount above $5000 out. They also put you through the hoops to prove you have resigned too. So much for choice of super fund.

    • 0
      0

      Mick, they still have to employ people to do the work…… don’t let them play the scare tactic that making super compulsory on all income will cost jobs…

    • 0
      0

      leek I also work in a health care related sector but was not ‘forced’ to join HESTA at all when I joined the organisation over 8 years ago. And in that time I have also changed my superfund and contributions and at no time was I ‘forced’ to even consider HESTA.

      Yes HESTA is the default health care sector fund but I thought everyone had the legal right to choose regardless and that leaving the sector did not mean changing funds e.g. moving from education to health for example as I did, you were not forced to exit the education sector fund or conversely forced into HESTA.

      And then there is is the well publicised right and expectation for people with multiple funds (often across different sectors) to consolidate into a single fund. And that person may no longer be in the health sector. You cannot join an industry fund if you don’t work in that sector but that seems reasonable.

      So I am more than surprised to read your experience.

    • 0
      0

      There is a certain big retail grocery company that will only allow their employees to put their super into Rest. I rang them and ask if an employee could put his super into his own fund and was told no under the law his super had to go into Rest. I told them that under law a person has a choice of where his super is it and was told that it was being put into Rest like it or not. As this person only had a few weeks work over the holidays we decided to let them put it into Rest and then transfer it out. Rest then spun it out as long as they could so they could get extra fees and asked for the same documents 4 times until I got onto the ATO and had them sort it out.

    • 0
      0

      Never forget Mick that a component of the Trebor Scheme is that the accrued funds under that 7.5% deduction from income would be placed in that fund, and the stolen $130Bn in the Future Fund returned and added as well, than the regular 7.5% and other levies on other taation strands – as Social Security was originaly designed by Menzies – would be added as well…

      Kept out of the grasping hands of profiteers and privateers and governments… it should accumulate a healthy sum in a very short time.

    • 0
      0

      I would not put a penny into the Trebor scheme myself and if someone put it in for me I’d get it out as fast as I could.

    • 0
      0

      You claim to already have plenty, OG – your contributions would be capped anyway and you would be taxed on the rest as income.

      Happy days…. you’ve had it good for long enough – now it’s time to come down to earth…

    • 0
      0

      I’d rather be taxed on the lot as income than have it locked in some fund I had no control over. If I didn’t have a SMSF I would not have super at all.

    • 0
      0

      TREBOR – I sort of made the above suggestion tongue in cheek because I expected the government funded trolls to come out. Not disappointed there.

      The issue with superannuation is that is a huge pile of money neither side of politics can resist but the current dictatorship in forming will just take it sometime down the track and roll it into Consolidated Revenue a second time. Theft by the stroke of a pen.

      Your system has merit and Australians need to be protected from their own governments, especially the current one, because retirement money belongs to those who contribute to various funds, NOT the government. Now you understand why the Future Fund is incorporated outside of Australia……to keep the bastards out of our money. That doesn’t mean they won’t find other ways in. They keep trying.

    • 0
      0

      I gathered that, Mick – The Trebor Scheme is simply the same system but re-vitalised and restored from consolidated revenue, and expanded and taken out of the hands of politicians and such.

      Just a national superannuation scheme with a few buffers and guarantees, such things as super for periods of unemployment etc could be deemed.. that way time off for family rearing would be covered by the minimum contribution, same as extended unemployment and disability.

      Such contributions could be look on as an investment that will grow and eventually bear fruit at retirement time, rather than as a burden on the budget and economy. Even the contribution on behalf of a druggie on DSP would reap benefit from earning profit while retained by the organisation, and would bear some fruit at retirement age with a lower or zero pension.

      Long term thinking – something the Chinese are adept at – seems to escape the West.

      No wonder I wonder about that possible Chinese great-grandie…. I think like they do.

    • 0
      0

      Yes, Leek I know it so frustrating to be getting ripped off by those who purport to have your best interest at heart, while there’s not a thing you can do about it. You cannot even consolidate your funds to minimise the wealth you are creating for these parasites.
      The unions are raking in $$$$MILIONS from superannuation which raises a serious question.. ‘Why must we have Union Bosses on Super Boards??”

    • 0
      0

      Everybody is a troll especially the ALP sponsored troll MICK.

    • 0
      0

      Pardon me, roy – is Mick the cat that chewed the Lib’s views? (yeah, yeah)…

    • 0
      0

      TREBOR, another ALP paid troll. sheesh.

    • 0
      0

      Read my lips – I don’t vote for any party that feels that equal numbers enforced on all equal equality…. and I call Bill Comrade Bill quite often.

      I also don’t vote for parties of parasites in business with their hands out perpetually, or for water melon parties.. green on the outside and red on the inside.

    • 0
      0

      OG – sponsored troll
      Adrianus – sponsored troll
      roy – sponsored troll
      heemsjerk – sponsored troll

      I see the comments for what they are. When you smear without evidence then you are what you are. I’ll normally give an account. You won’t. You can’t. You are on this and other websites to do damage not debate and present facts,

    • 0
      0

      Well I am certainly not paid anything like you are getting for your comments from your biased Labor party comments.

  3. 0
    0

    So many people are in part-time or casual work – so yes I agree the $450 monthly cap should be removed. And leave industry-based superannuation funds alone, they are the best performers by far!

  4. 0
    0

    Casual employees would be better paid it in cash so that super funds don’t take the lot.

    • 0
      0

      I agree OG. One of the reasons why Industry Funds recruited so many members is because they didn’t have the cost of a distribution system. Members were forced into these funds and in many cases hold several accounts. There are only 12m workers in OZ but 30 plus million super accounts in industry funds. Its about time this rort is put to a stop.

    • 0
      0

      I agree if one’s balance I below $2000 no fees should be charged. I get asked regularly by people with small balances to help them get it out as if they leave in they get nothing. Better to enjoy a nice dinner than have the sharks take the lot.

    • 0
      0

      $2000 is absurdly low, OG….. there should also be a limit on fees taken from accounts where no contribution is coming in… i.e. NO fees on inactive accounts …far too many such end up at zero.

      How many people have had a short-term seasonal job and then lost all the super in fees and charges?

      They can earn their fees from their use of that money that they get for free – and pay the rest to the member. Enough of this nonsense of charging people for the use of their own money to earn profit for the middle man.

    • 0
      0

      Even worse Trebor is that if your balance falls below zero they will take their fees from any further contributions before anything gets put into your account.

    • 0
      0

      OG I thought there was an amount at which they were not allowed to charge fees? Perhaps that has changed over the years too.

    • 0
      0

      They did change it but it was changed again back in 2013 so they could charge fees on any amount. I know this because I have been looking for such funds for some of my clients.

    • 0
      0

      Hmmm – cash has its merits – but does not help their eventual retirement package…..

      I thought they couldn’t take fees etc on a zero balance… what a rip-off of the poorest in the land to accrue a ‘debt’ for managing non-existent funds for them…. Royal Commission anyone?

    • 0
      0

      Unfortunately they still charge fees on zero balances so I get people to close their zero balance super funds so that these fees are lost.

    • 0
      0

      Bet they fight you tooth and nail to hold on as long as possible to accrue ‘fees’.

      That points out the basic flaw in a fee-based venture called superannuation – and again those organisations should be recouping their costs from the profits from their use of other people’s money, and the rest going to the member.

      Fees etc have been the biggest rort for years now…. like everyone else, the banks etc should be earning their profit from their own money – not extra from those who’ve already contributed, and whose money they use to make profits.

      Disgraceful.

    • 0
      0

      TREBOR – I thought that no fees were permissible on small accounts. To make this fair there should be zero fees until accounts hit $20,000. Don’t expect the big end of town administrators of Retail Funds to let that go through without a battle.

      As for the government’s spokesperson OG giving members cash instead of super is obvious. They’ll spend it, employers will treat as income to not give employees a pay rise and in the end workers will reach retirement with zero in their retirement accounts. Maybe that is what is needed to keep us all hungry and at the mercy of rich employers.

    • 0
      0

      I thought that was the case, too, Mick. Nothing to stop them taking small accounts down to zero – but I never thought a ‘debt’ could be accrued’ for not having any money……

      amazing…

      $20,000 sounds all right… below that no fees…. would give the part-time casuals a chance to accrue something.

      I still prefer a ‘get your fees from the profits’ approach…. that’s how it used to be for banks until The Great Watershed of ‘de-regulating’ the bastards – and look where that has lead us…’The Undertaker’ Keating I recall… or Hawkie…

      I ask this – if the fees were taken from the profits generated by the activity of the fund, rather than from its members, does that, at the end, not add up to the same amount for fees and charges anyway… but without punishing members by taking contributed money away from the?

      What sort of bastardry is that? Industry funds are not exempt from this… though they generally work better…. but I need to ask why an industry fund, Union based etc, would even begin with a business model like that, of taking fees and charges out of accounts and not profits?

      Am I missing something here? At the end of the day, I suppose it means that less would come back to the member as a return on investment…. so again, is there a difference, other than guaranteeing the operators of the fund their (overly fat) due? and if there is no difference at the end of the day – why even go that way at all?

  5. 0
    0

    “There were 118,401 marriages and 46,604 divorces in Australia in 2017. Many divorced women who have raised children and missed out on years of super payments will then end up dependent on the Age Pension in retirement.”

    I don’t dispute the statistics, but I do question the inference that it would be only women dependent on the OAP as a result of the divorce. If, as a couple they have not saved enough to exceed the means tests then why would the men also not be at the mercy of the OAP? Why would it be only the women who are short of a buck?

    • 0
      0

      Most people divorce due to money issues so it’s no surprise divorced people end up on welfare.

    • 0
      0

      3-4 years back I came up with a figure that something like 63% of women and 72% of men would retire with only the OAP… since vanished (wonder why?).

      Even back then it seems more women were retiring with more than men were….

      Funny that….. we are being sold a pup every day with all this nonsense about ‘poor women’ – and for the politicians – haven’t you worked out yet that this bulldust about women is not getting you their votes? It’s past its use by date…. thirty five years past it…. more than long enough to destroy this society.

    • 0
      0

      I have found the ‘women debate’ offensive for some time as feminists actively seek to discriminate against the opposite sex. It’s their idea of equality.

    • 0
      0

      I watched a Bettina Arndt video the other day and she said – “That’s not what we women want!”

      This man-bashing is a government initiative and campaign… way back in around 1997, In posited that the only reason for it was to reduce the social power of the primary mainstay of civilisation and of democracy here – men.

      There are a few rabid feminists with real issues now that the psych institutions are closed… and a host of nodding clowns who know no better than what emotive nonsense they are fed…. but most women don’t want this either.

      Politicians should start to wake up and start to talk about resolving the problems for people – not certain groups – and looking at the big picture for the nation instead of wasting OUR time and money on these wild goose chases.

    • 0
      0

      It is strange that this article starts talking about fixing super for “all retirees” and then goes on to focus almost entirely on super issues for women. The Minister seems to want to toe the line to satisfy the women’s lobby led by Kelly O’Dwyer. Can’t expect anything sensible coming out of that kind of thinking. It is also clearly another attempt to divide and rule – women against men – which them allows this Govt to avoid producing real solutions.

      The best option, including for women who take time off to bring up children, is to simply ensure Universal Pension is given to all at a reasonable rate (at Age 65, with say Residency 15 years) without any Tests, and let all earn above that without any penalties.

      Yes, Trebor, Bettina Arndt has a refreshing approach with her independent thinking counteracting the usual feminist male-bashers for every issue women have.

    • 0
      0

      Sorry – that’s backwards – 63% of men and 72% of women would retire with ONLY the OAP.

      How now brown feminist?

      Indeed – Bettina is a lady…… and intelligent and smart as well.

  6. 0
    0

    Most employers “work” the system so as to ensure that they do not pay superannuation by keeping their casual staff under the $450 per month. So effectively it means that there is the possibility that people are missing out on extra wages as well because if employers did not do this, then the existing employee would get extra hours. I realise that this would be at the expense of another person but at least one of the two would be getting a realistic wage.

    It is a disgrace particularly that, for the most part, it is part-time casuals – that are usually women, that are carrying the burden of this which they continue to carry into their retirement.

    The additional problem working alongside of this is the way that the word “casual” is being used against employees that actually permanent part-timers. If you work regular hours, accept additional responsibilities etc then you are an ongoing employee not someone that wakes up in the morning with no expectation to go to work the next day but gets called in at a moment’s notice. The government has the legislation to fix this within the taxation system but chooses to ignore it!!!

    • 0
      0

      Unfortunately super neither benefits to employee or employer buy only the super funds if you have small balances. So super paid for income below $450 a month is of no benefit to the employee at all.

    • 0
      0

      Too true, OG – the current setup is fatally flawed and needs a full revamp.

    • 0
      0

      Yes. We need to go back to a universal pension system financed from wages and held offshore to keep greedy governments out of the money pot.

    • 0
      0

      Mick – isnt it a shame that labor got rid of universal pension and now wants to raise pension age to 70, and reduce retiree incomes

    • 0
      0

      I think Brother Shorten has abandoned the 70 thing – but I’m waiting for him to come out and say that Labrador will return it to 65.

      I’ll forward the link and comments here to him as well… let him chew over that for a while…

    • 0
      0

      Good idea, Mick.. on reflection the whole idea has merit.

      “Yes. We need to go back to a universal pension system financed from wages and held offshore to keep greedy governments out of the money pot.”

      I posted below in the hope of starting another discussion of exactly that issue.

  7. 0
    0

    Trouble is, with this mob whenever they say they want to “fix”something, warning bells go off, and I am suspicious that it’ll be “fixed” in a way that doesn’t benefit the people who are contributing to these funds. Just sayin’

    • 0
      0

      Indeed – every ‘fix’ becomes a piece of chewing gum holding the engine of the workers cash together …… and letting it fall apart at whim….

    • 0
      0

      Fixed means you pay more or lose something to offset the cost of fixing. Be sure of one thing and that is if you are very well off you will be looked after. That’s how our system of government works. Looking back over many decades the rich have always had their escapes from paying the deginated amount of tax. Don’t expect that to change under ANY coalition government.

    • 0
      0

      The top 10% contribute 90% of the tax take.

      Labor made the gap between rich and poor retirees greater by removing universal pension, and now want to make it worse by raising pension age to 70 and reducing middle class retiree income by up to 30%

    • 0
      0

      The top 10% also enjoy 90% of the income.

    • 0
      0

      And your problem with that is what Trebor Hood ?

    • 0
      0

      Where’s my kick-back?

      Trebor Hood – hmmm – that kinda sings….

    • 0
      0

      If you come across a short story titled “Robin De La Houde” – that’s mine.

    • 0
      0

      The top 10% contribute 90% of tax. Correct. But what you omit to say is that the top 10% pay much much less in tax if looked at in AS A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME. This is the con/lie you never mention olbaid.
      So you think you are being robbed by the ATO? If so then find another country to go to where you can get workers to build the roads you drive on, the hospitals you use, the police who protect you, etc. You are the thief wanting to have it for cents in the dollar whilst average citizens should go starve and live in a lean to.

  8. 0
    0

    One of the comments above has got me a little confused, maybe I am reading it wrong, the comment is that women have around 53% of the superannuation of men, exactly what does this mean?

    • 0
      0

      Women don’t need super as they get what’s left when men die.

    • 0
      0

      It means if the average husband has $1m in super then his wife will have $530K.
      However it doesn’t work that way and it is a far more complex algorithm.
      A wealthy man often don’t (or didn’t) have a working wife so they are “outliers” on the median.
      The “average” Australian woman works in retail. On a minimum casual wage they are often supplement a primary male wage so they can raise their children and be the glue that runs the family.
      People can pretend this isn’t the case and we all have an equal opportunity – but it is the way it is for many wives and mothers

    • 0
      0

      Falsehood wrapped within falsehood…..

      Married women share super with their hubby and vice versa – i.e. – they both end up with the same….. even in divorce nowadays women’s ‘rights’ to part of super are solid as a rock (not sure if I heard anything about men getting their share of super from the woman, though)…. then later on the old man usually dies earlier, leaving the double inheritance of all worldly goods and all cash left over – hence the old sheilas at the clubs on $5 a shot pokies and on the cruise ships doing the round the world cruise every year ……

      While the old man is pushing up daisies to welcome the sun and the morning dew…..

      No wonder most young men are not buying into this nonsense any more…. can’t blame ’em – and it’s sad to see my lovely and reliable daughter left on the roadside all the time by men who don’t wish to commit …… while my son, separate with three kids, has a lovely new lady and makes it clear – I’ve got the kids.. forget it.

    • 0
      0

      Good account Rosret but more than that because WOMEN BEAR AND CARE FOR CHILDREN so they are out of the workforce for sometimes decades. The result is no super because they are not earning income. I get that.

    • 0
      0

      But what is the answer, Mick? I listed the possibilities above…. pay them for doing no paid work? What?

      I think it’s called Life… and it’s what you live…. not necessarily what you want.

    • 0
      0

      It appears that is how women want this to play out. Sort of goes along the lines of divorce 60s style where the woman was awarded the family home and the man had to then pay maintenance and live on the streets.

  9. 0
    0

    Fix super by all means – how in hell does he expect to ‘fix super’ for women especially without changing the rules to more suit their working style etc? Also does he plan to reduce the numbers of women currently in good super jobs like public service, teaching, banking and so forth down to 50% … to fix up the inequalities that will begin to show in the next ten to fifteen years in favour of women as they begin to draw on it?

    What are his answers other than a glib statement?

    Pay women more per hour for the same job so they get more super?
    Make sure that all the higher paying jobs are held by women?
    Deem them to have worked the same number of hours per week as men when they work about ten a week less on average?
    Pay them super for all time taken off?

    If you want more super, ladies, work longer hours… nobody in this nation is paid less for the same job, by law….. now don’t waste my time with talking about rip-off contracts… stick to the issue.

    How many dreary times must we go over this nonsense? Last week the figures showed that more men than women were planning to retire in the 45 to 55 age group – are we still supposed to believe they are downtrodden and underpaid?

    60% of women graduates at tertiary level, 70% public servants, 70% teachers, 80%+ in nursing and banking….. artificially altered secondary educations standards to more suit girls since 1986, special scholarships on and on, endless affirmative action, special treatment to get into high-flying courses – when are we going to start saying get on with it and get ahead on your own steam without all the artificial props?

    • 0
      0

      Look at it this way Trebor – if women have as much in their super cache as men then divorce will be a whole lot fairer.

    • 0
      0

      They would divorce to gets their husbands money is what you are trying to say.

    • 0
      0

      Well – yes – if it is shared equally between ex-spouses, all is good. Think I’ll wed me a politician……

      I’m single and a carer… constantly see these days all these lovely ladies – post-graduate degree, sweet job etc, retired…. want to travel the world on someone else’s dime… expect a life with a heap – even though he’s been divorced several times etc and kicked to the gutter by affirmative action to suit you and even massively eluded from certain job areas such as PS, nursing and so forth – all of which garner fine super, thank you.

      They’d better start getting their thinking caps on or it’s a long, lonely road… you simply cannot batter men into the gutter for years, with the help of lying and deluded government seeking your vote, and expect those men to either have a heap or to even want to be bothered with you.

    • 0
      0

      You are not wrong. I’m apparently one of the 4%. A single mother who raised 3 kids alone, worked two jobs and ran a business.

      Maybe women should be wasting less money on discretionary spending and making an effort to save some and invest for their future. It’s not rocket science.

      I’m a bit tired of all the excuses as to why people can’t be sensible.

    • 0
      0

      Certainly a part of the problem Rae. Quite obvious when you see the area in department stores designated for women’s clothing and compare to men. Same deal when the sales are on. The ladies get a good bite whilst men get a small selection only.
      As I said above the main superannuation issue is women having and raising children. That is not paid work so there are no super contributions made.

    • 0
      0

      MICK my mother, mother-in-law, myself and my daughter all went back to work 8 weeks after each child and paid childminders around 40% of our pay. Women often won’t do that. They are their own enemies here. Not only do they deprive themselves but other stay at home mums as well from getting ahead and saving for retirement.
      My daughter got childcare rebates for around two years with her last but the rest was after tax money with no support.

      It’s a fallacy that kids need stay at home mums. In fact I think it’s part of the reason work ethics is so dismal. It really is a pretty modern middle class trend. It wasn’t that way centuries ago when everyone had to work except for the sick and aged who looked after the children.

      Men possibly aren’t silly enough to keep buying stuff they don’t need for no obviously sane reason.

    • 0
      0

      Yes – we men are easy – now that I’m rich and retired, I have enough.. got the mink slippers…. the fluffy dice for the car ….the plush carpets on the ceilings… the diamond encrusted treadmill for the corgi… the household of seventy nine servants ….. no need for wasting any money on absurd luxuries…

      Really – all I want now is a big enough boat – power or sail or both – to spend six months of the year on… show me that horizon…. that’s CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow to you lot……

    • 0
      0

      Trebor only those who think they are rich have those things. The real wealthy just couldn’t be bothered wit them.

    • 0
      0

      **tickles OG with a feather to get a laugh out of him** …… it’s a joke, Ebergeezer.. a joke… apart from the boat…..

    • 0
      0

      Rae – you are likely one of the few exceptions. Well done!

  10. 0
    0

    When I married it was expected that the man would provide a for a woman i retirement – hence the reason why a lot of women 55 and over have very little or no super.
    Then they introduced a share the super between husband and wife as a tax perk. So unfair for single women and single women with a family.
    So how are you going to fix this? Maybe it is time to look at a basic income for all.

    • 0
      0

      Yes – and I provided for my kid’s mother long before retirement – pro-active provision – even though I ended up bust doing so… you can’t see around corners, especially when there are manager thieves lying in lurk around them….

      In this day and age, Ros, singles are savagely disadvantaged in every way – most household rely on having a dual income family now, and it is nigh impossible for singles to keep up with housing costs and so forth, since all prices are based on the expectation that there will always be two incomes to feed a massive mortgage.

      This leads to escalation of prices to, firstly, cater to a dual income, and secondly, causes pressure on incomes due to the inadequacy of a single income to prosper unless it is high.

      All of these things create a constant upward pressure on costs of living and on incomes – and unless there is a drastic stop somewhere, this will never end, since it is a deadly upward spiral of income chasing COL chasing income chasing COL until only the rich can afford anything and unemployment continues to grow due to there being insufficient revenue coming in to companies – unless they constantly raise their prices and thus feed the process …

      Never going to end until this is resolved or the whole deal collapses in a welter of blood and flying bodies…. but stoopid is as stoopid does, as they does down in Cambra on a daily basis.

    • 0
      0

      Oh – this spiral is what I’ve titled tentatively ‘hidden inflation’ – since what it effectively means is that the buying power of the dollar is perpetually eroded… just not by official figures.

    • 0
      0

      Perhaps Rosret but women with children used to be awarded the family home. Men have not exactly had an easy ride over the decades either. My neighbour where I grew up ended up living in a caravan at the back of his parent’s home whilst the ex. got the house and ended up marrying a man who also had a house. Fairness is not that simple and should not be used as a gender tool.

    • 0
      0

      Strangely enough though TREBOR all the young families paying off houses around here still manage a couple of holidays to asia each year and a big new SUV or two. They don’t seem to be doing it tough even on one salary. Coles deliveries at $15 a pop and frequent renovations going on as well.

      I’m beginning to think all this poor me I haven’t any money is a beat up.

    • 0
      0

      The houses around here start at around $850 000 for your basic old cottage. Land is insanely expensive.

    • 0
      0

      Rae – thats becausee the economy is strong, we have full employment and wages are good.
      These people have nothing to worry about as by the time they retire their super will e well over a million or 2

    • 0
      0

      Could be, Rae – could be – my pair do a lot of overseas trips and such…

    • 0
      0

      Rae – your account sounds more like genYs putting it on the ticker than real wealth. Working Australians have been under attack since Abbott was put into power but the day of reckoning will arrive. Living on the knife edge only requires interest rates to go up less than 3% and the game’s over.

Load More Comments

FACEBOOK COMMENTS



SPONSORED LINKS

continue reading

Food and Recipes

Silky Vegan Chocolate Mousse

You may be sceptical about using tofu in a dessert, but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. This silky chocolate...

Wellbeing

What is deep sleep and how can you get more of it?

You may have heard that adults need between seven and nine hours of sleep each night. But the quality of...

Technology News

Why you may have to buy a new device whether you want to or not

Michael Cowling, CQUniversity Australia We've probably all been there. We buy some new smart gadget and when we plug it...

COVID-19

Poll reveals support for vaccinations and compulsory masks

Fewer Australians say they would take a coronavirus vaccination now than at the outset of the pandemic, but a big...

News

How to avoid being tracked online

The internet is most likely monitoring every move you make through your computer or device and, unless you know the...

COVID-19

Aussies want Morrison to refute health misinformation

Australians are fed up with the growing spread of misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and want Prime Minister Scott...

Nutrition

The diet that can put type 2 diabetes into remission

Consuming fewer carbohydrates can potentially put type 2 diabetes into remission. An international study involving Australia's CSIRO found that strict...

Finance

CHOICE tips to take charge of 2021

Have you made a resolution to be better with money this year? After 2020, many of us could probably do...

LOADING MORE ARTICLE...