10th Sep 2018
New minister says he will fix super for all retirees
New minister says he will fix super for all retirees

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?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Jannie
    10th Sep 2018
    10:10am
    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.
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    10:15am
    Employers/casuals. Say no more. The weapon of choice to destitute many Australians.
    Adrianus
    10th Sep 2018
    10:32am
    Well, it can be removed now, because the government has legislated against industry funds and others charging high fees on low balances.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    10:39am
    Unfortunately they are still charging those high fees on low balances.
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    10:45am
    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!
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    10:48am
    No Mick I am referring to industry funds and the high fees they charge on small balances.
    Adrianus
    10th Sep 2018
    10:52am
    MICK, it wouldn't matter what the return was if the balance is removed by fees.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    11:51am
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:09pm
    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.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    2:51pm
    Trebor then why are there so many zero balance super funds?
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    4:56pm
    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.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    5:03pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    8:53pm
    A good point, OG - just been passed on to Mr Robert and to Comrade Billy
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    10:14am
    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'.
    leek
    10th Sep 2018
    11:05am
    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.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    11:21am
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    11:53am
    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...
    KSS
    10th Sep 2018
    12:59pm
    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.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    1:21pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    1:23pm
    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.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    1:34pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    1:40pm
    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...
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    1:50pm
    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.
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:01pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:16pm
    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.
    Adrianus
    10th Sep 2018
    3:07pm
    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??"
    roy
    10th Sep 2018
    4:35pm
    Everybody is a troll especially the ALP sponsored troll MICK.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    4:57pm
    Pardon me, roy - is Mick the cat that chewed the Lib's views? (yeah, yeah)...
    roy
    10th Sep 2018
    6:10pm
    TREBOR, another ALP paid troll. sheesh.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    8:56pm
    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.
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:02am
    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,
    Old Geezer
    13th Sep 2018
    10:37am
    Well I am certainly not paid anything like you are getting for your comments from your biased Labor party comments.
    ChristineS
    10th Sep 2018
    10:16am
    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!
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    10:26am
    And charging most of people's super I fees.
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:05pm
    Yes Christine. Pretend jobs have been brought in because those at the top of society believe THEY own it all, so forcing workers onto lower and lower wages means they get more money. This is called 'tax cuts' and sold as 'Trickle Down Economics'. Both are blatant lies.

    You'll notice the trolls on this website as they're the ones who deny the reality that Industry Funds are returning huge sums of money to members whilst advocating that their Retail Funds, the ones which siphon off your money to pay their high income top end of town leeches, are far superior. Again a blatant lie.

    Good post. You are on the money!
    roy
    10th Sep 2018
    4:37pm
    The ALP sponsored troll MICK is in full flow today.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    4:58pm
    What are your views on the current superannuation setup, roy... please explain?
    roy
    10th Sep 2018
    6:12pm
    I have my own views but just loving to read all you idiot's views. Paid ALP trolls.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    8:57pm
    Get out of the wrong side of the bed today, roy, and stumble over a red hiding underneath it?
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:02am
    OG - sponsored troll
    Adrianus - sponsored troll
    roy - sponsored troll
    heemsjerk - sponsored troll
    Old Geezer
    13th Sep 2018
    10:35am
    Mick paid handsomely by the Labor party for his biased comments.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    10:18am
    Casual employees would be better paid it in cash so that super funds don't take the lot.
    Adrianus
    10th Sep 2018
    10:56am
    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.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    11:00am
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    11:56am
    $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.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    11:59am
    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.
    Rosret
    10th Sep 2018
    12:03pm
    OG I thought there was an amount at which they were not allowed to charge fees? Perhaps that has changed over the years too.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    12:13pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    1:25pm
    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?
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    1:36pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    1:43pm
    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.
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:09pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:26pm
    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?
    Adrianus
    10th Sep 2018
    10:50am
    "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?
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    10:57am
    Most people divorce due to money issues so it's no surprise divorced people end up on welfare.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    11:59am
    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.
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:11pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:31pm
    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.
    George
    10th Sep 2018
    11:41pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    11th Sep 2018
    9:53am
    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.
    Pentop
    10th Sep 2018
    11:02am
    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!!!
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    11:23am
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    12:28pm
    Too true, OG - the current setup is fatally flawed and needs a full revamp.
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:12pm
    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.
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    2:14pm
    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
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:33pm
    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...
    TREBOR
    11th Sep 2018
    9:54am
    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.
    disillusioned
    10th Sep 2018
    11:06am
    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'
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    1:26pm
    Indeed - every 'fix' becomes a piece of chewing gum holding the engine of the workers cash together ...... and letting it fall apart at whim....
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:15pm
    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.
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    2:18pm
    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%
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:34pm
    The top 10% also enjoy 90% of the income.
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    2:36pm
    And your problem with that is what Trebor Hood ?
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    4:30pm
    Where's my kick-back?

    Trebor Hood - hmmm - that kinda sings....
    TREBOR
    11th Sep 2018
    9:55am
    If you come across a short story titled "Robin De La Houde" - that's mine.
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:08am
    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.
    Jim
    10th Sep 2018
    11:10am
    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?
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    11:41am
    Women don't need super as they get what's left when men die.
    Rosret
    10th Sep 2018
    11:59am
    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
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    12:03pm
    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.
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:17pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:35pm
    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.
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:10am
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    11:44am
    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?
    Rosret
    10th Sep 2018
    12:01pm
    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.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    12:05pm
    They would divorce to gets their husbands money is what you are trying to say.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    12:08pm
    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.
    Rae
    10th Sep 2018
    1:46pm
    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.
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:20pm
    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.
    Rae
    10th Sep 2018
    2:33pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:40pm
    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......
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    2:53pm
    Trebor only those who think they are rich have those things. The real wealthy just couldn't be bothered wit them.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    4:34pm
    **tickles OG with a feather to get a laugh out of him** ...... it's a joke, Ebergeezer.. a joke... apart from the boat.....
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:11am
    Rae - you are likely one of the few exceptions. Well done!
    Rosret
    10th Sep 2018
    11:52am
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    12:15pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    12:16pm
    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.
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:23pm
    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.
    Rae
    10th Sep 2018
    2:41pm
    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.
    Rae
    10th Sep 2018
    2:43pm
    The houses around here start at around $850 000 for your basic old cottage. Land is insanely expensive.
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    2:46pm
    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
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    4:35pm
    Could be, Rae - could be - my pair do a lot of overseas trips and such...
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:14am
    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.
    floss
    10th Sep 2018
    12:09pm
    How could this Minister fix any thing they must fix their own party first.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    12:11pm
    Nothing wrong with their party at all but can't say same for the Labor one.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    12:18pm
    **deletes** nonsense off topic comment..... all parties are just as bad as each other... I bring you the Trebor Party - faster than a speeding bullet... more powerful than a locomotive.. able to leap tall story policies in a single bound.....
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:24pm
    Correct floss. The thing that is unusual is that all the coalition corruption is being reported rather than covered up with media silence. There must be something happening like the next GFC mk11 coming I suspect.
    roy
    10th Sep 2018
    4:41pm
    The ALP troll MICK is on a roll today.

    10th Sep 2018
    12:19pm
    Absolute Garbage
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:25pm
    Go to hell Satan.
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    2:29pm
    Bless you too ole boy. You wud do better to follow me than listen to Shorten. He is no messiah. He will lead you to eternal damnation
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    5:06pm
    The Devil In Goray.... set in a nineteenth Century Russian Jewish village... Goray - an ostensible Messiah comes to town and many think he's the real thing.... turns out to be the opposite and a grifter (natch).. kind of a treatise on mass hallucination and the willingness to believe.... reflected in the 1962 film "The Music Man".... it's the model T Ford made the trouble, made the trouble....

    Lesson - look carefully at any new Messiah.... including my good self .. for instead of enlightening you I may be Lucifer the Bringer Of Light....
    roy
    10th Sep 2018
    6:15pm
    Hey obaid, you will get MICK spitting his dummy next, now he's calling you Satan, next he will call you a Nazi or Hitler.
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    6:21pm
    Its OK Roy, I've been called worse.

    Mick cant stand the fact that some people actually see through his b/s labor propaganda

    He's saving up for his next overseas holidays so needs to keep his comments for cash going
    roy
    10th Sep 2018
    8:47pm
    So so true olbaid, somebody has to pay for his ski trips to the USA, may as well be Shifty Shorten.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    9:03pm
    olbaid is a NAZI? Who'd 've thunk it?
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:16am
    OG - sponsored troll
    Adrianus - sponsored troll
    roy - sponsored troll
    heemsjerk - sponsored troll
    olbaid - sponsored troll

    Hitler? I thought that was the leader of the coalition. I mean only the coalition seeks to destitute workers and control their every movement and right to free speech. If the label fits..... and it does.
    Florgan
    10th Sep 2018
    12:22pm
    Remove the $450 cap immediately.
    Employers should pay 10% super on all income ,
    not just the base wage but overtime as well.
    It should be paid monthly.
    Splitting super between spouses should be made available for the spouse that stops work to raise a child.
    1/2 1/2.
    And I agree with Trebor
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    12:23pm
    It doesn't work for the kid with a casual job as they get nothing out of any super paid. The super fund takes the lot.
    Kev
    10th Sep 2018
    1:00pm
    Every new Politician in the job wants to 'fix' our Super for us. Should have been 'fixed' for good years ago. Wish they'd leave Super alone and stop changing rules. This Govt had made it harder for workers to use Super to save for retirement and i doubt the proposed changes will amount to much. Politicians take their 'Super payments for life' - no qualms. Expecting Legislators to change a system that benefits them is stupid. Why are any extremely wealthy even allowed to contribute to Super when it wont be needed? The last 5 ex-PM's are worth multi-millions but will still get generous Govt funded life payments. Self funded Joe Average would not get a thing - expect perhaps a free public bus travel. Fix that Minister.
    Linda
    10th Sep 2018
    1:09pm
    Since the levels of trust in government is so low, and there is such gifting to certain voting sectors to be elected, instead of leadership with honesty and uh ethics, taking the advice of the numbers and SCIENCE, to forge a sensible future, I am loath to vote for anyone in the far right of the liberal party or the national party. What ever they say now, might not be the case later as often there is a weasel clause or a change of government and direction. It is all good to claim to fix something. How will that be achieved. We need to understand the consequences of the fix. That stands for both parties. I am very sour on our current government because they have behaved so badly and refuse to see how important changes need to be fostered in order to give our selves and young folks too a chance at a decent living.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    1:34pm
    Yes - always be wary of the 'unforeseen consequences' - such as what happened with affirmative action and changing the education system and abolishing the family unit as a unit for taxation... while still stinging those with a second job relentlessly ....

    So many years ago FDR said that nothing happens in politics by accident - if it happens at all it was planned that way.... hence the disaster of super and pretty much every other 'social' and 'economic' policy of this nation over the past forty odd years....

    Now all of those have become so bad for the ordinary worker that he/she can barely survive on the tiny whiff of oxygen left in those systems...

    "Ahhh.. Houston.. we've had a problem."

    "Say again, Australia Thirteen...?"
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    1:37pm
    Social policies are the result of caving in to the agenda of the left and to buy votes .
    Super has added considerably to the cost of employment
    Better to pay the worker what he/she is worth and let them invest their discretionary income as they see fit
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    1:48pm
    That's a complex issue, olbaid... paying people more per hour without a 'savings guarantee' means higher costs of living to absorb that 'extra discretionary income' - the moment people are paid more in their hand, the higher the prices go.

    It's a vicious cycle that never ends.

    What was not needed in the mix was the massively escalated costs of 'privatisation' of utilities including roads etc.

    A 29% swing and favour for an Independent in Wagga Wagga (they say it twice so they can remember what it's called) seems to indicate that the people are growing restive..... the reasons are many.... I but try to articulate them one at a time....
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    2:26pm
    Nah - Trebornomics was discredited months ago, by ME

    Leave it to the individual to decide how to spend and invest. The market will step in to fill demand.
    People will have greater choice in how and where to invest their surpluses
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    5:08pm
    Igornomics - Igor is my deformed twin brother that they keep in the cellar and feed fish heads...
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:20am
    I have to laugh when I read the rantings of coalition trolls.
    The reality of government by the right is that right wing governments are bought and paid for by big business interests. Political donations is the weapon of choice.
    Pretty obvious. Turnbull did everything in his power to avoid a Royal Commission into the banking system. The coal industry has controlled energy policy for the past 6 years and likely a lot longer. Destroying our country but it does not end.

    The fact is big business is in charge and it will destroy our country if it so chooses. Happening as we write.

    10th Sep 2018
    1:11pm
    What they should do is remove the $500k lifetime cap on non concessional contributions and the $1.6m allowed in pension phase .
    There should be no limits orbat the very least it shout be $1m and $5m respectively
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    1:36pm
    Nah - you get to put X amount into super - the rest is savings - that way it is not open to exploitation for those who already have enough.

    How many layers of benefit do they want out of this nation and society? When is enough enough?
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    1:40pm
    Enough is when I can get tax free income of $200k from my super withdrawn at 4% leaving the principal intact and growing for the benefit of next of kin when I depart for that great financial center in the sky. Hopefully I don’t meet any left wing idiots up there
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:27pm
    You just showed your wealthy hand olbaid, which is why your posts are pro the worst government in history.
    You might want to join Malcolm in the offshore tax shelter business as you already got a large tax cut recently. Yes I know you do not want to pay any tax......
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    4:42pm
    Enough would never be enough for this lot.
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    4:45pm
    That's why they need handouts when working and welfare when retired
    roy
    10th Sep 2018
    6:17pm
    Still spitting your dummy MICK.
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:22am
    Good to see I have upset the government trolls. Rich man's welfare is better known as tax cuts for the wealthy....or should I tell the Trickle (not) Down Economics lie. Not working guys.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    1:20pm
    I think I'll do what I did before and collect all the comments and forward them to the minister (note small 'm' to denote non-honorific).
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:43pm
    And a copy to Brother Bill Shorten....
    roy
    10th Sep 2018
    6:08pm
    You mean comrade Shorten do you not?
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    9:06pm
    Oh - brotherhood of persons - at the treason trials when I am judge, they are most likely to receive a 'go thy way and sin no more' from me... can't vouch for the rest of the bench though... some are pretty angry and hungry for blood.
    KSS
    10th Sep 2018
    1:24pm
    Seems to me that people should get super on the hours of paid employment so yes scrap the $450 threshold.

    Introduce a threshold below which fees cannot be levied e.g. say $10000.

    Ensure super account holders know and understand the insurances attached to their super so they can make an informed decision as to whether they are necessary. Then make insurance in Super opt in and not opt out. This should be the responsibility of the employer in the first instance when they take on new employees.

    Couples (or indeed singles) contemplating having children must factor in the drop in the stay-at-home parent's super (and that is not always the woman these days) and not just income and make their own arrangements about how to cover this.

    Divorce settlements already consider the inequality of super fund deposits. It cannot be an equal 50/50 split since the woman may have also been working and getting super in her name during the marriage/partnership. And what happens if either party re-marries or re-partners? Should the new partners be expected to continue to subsidise the ex?

    Restore the salary sacrifice to $36000 (from the now $25000) for those close to retirement say 60+ whose retirement planning was thrown into disarray by the changes July 2016.

    Women should not be preferenced by super simply for being women. Many men are also on low incomes from poorly paid jobs - what about them? Men also give up work to care for their children or aging family members, this is no longer exclusively 'women's work'. Perhaps the so called 'baby bonus' should be paid to the primary carer's super account and not in cash where there are no controls over how it is spent.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    1:32pm
    I'd advice anyone today not to put any more than they have to into super. It is simply better to invest your money elsewhere without any sovereign risk.
    Sundays
    10th Sep 2018
    2:42pm
    KSS - well said. Your suggestions would make a big difference
    Rae
    10th Sep 2018
    2:54pm
    I agree OG. Also the money is available at any point and tax has already been paid. It's relatively easy to purchase financial products these days at minimum costs so a super fund isn't exactly needed. It's pure tax minimisation where fees go to the financial industry instead of taxes to government.

    Apparently many people would rather pay a banker our rich investor so he can buy a huge new yacht that pay tax so the poor people's kid can go to school. Why the poor are hated so much has never been established. It's always been like this though. Maybe it's fear or some weird emotional reaction.

    I'm more than happy to be paying tax as it sure beats losing capital or not having money at all.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    4:44pm
    Many people think they will have oodles of super when they retire only to find it has nearly all been eroded in fees and taxes.
    KB
    10th Sep 2018
    1:36pm
    Yes the cap should be removed as there are more causal jobs than full time jobs available. A little bit saved from each job while young will be of benefit. Get rid of high fees so people can have enough in their nest egg rather than being reliant on the age pension
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    1:54pm
    Many employers don't pay super even though they are supposed to these days. Many also just hand over cash to any employee who complains to them as well as they both know that super is a dead loss to both the employer and the employee.
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:23am
    Charged by the Retail Funds. As normal. The top milking OUR money and a government trying to turn Industry Funds into a clone so that they too can be milked.
    Farside
    10th Sep 2018
    2:02pm
    was not aware of the $450 threshold; it should be removed
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:07pm
    Or just pay everyone in society a Living Wage etc..... regardless of anything to do with their condition at any time..... (la, la,la,lala...) .. that'd solve the problems of people taking time off for any reason etc..... bit Commo though, don' cha think?
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:28pm
    YES. Unfortunately the game is to deny as many as possible a fair retirement and play Class Warfare games. The rich always win.
    roy
    10th Sep 2018
    6:20pm
    Poor little chip on shoulder MICK, such a shame boo hoo.
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:24am
    All you posts are the same childish poo poo comments roy. You must be getting frustrated that you have no real ammunition to counter the facts...so have to resort to the above. Sad.
    Oars
    10th Sep 2018
    2:22pm
    Does that mean that a girl who has no job and gets married and sends her kids off to subsidized preschool then school, and then gets a nice bonus when she "retires" from the daily treck of coffee bars.? Why bother working if you get it all form nicks ??
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:44pm
    Yes - that's one problem from the possible solutions to 'women getting less' - just give them everything and all will be roses.
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:27am
    Never enough TREBOR. Let's face it it's a woman's world and many have become little princesses who actually believe they are victims of anything and everything and are angry. This group never thank about their opposite number though and what their demands do. Nor do they care. The type of world we live in.
    Rae
    10th Sep 2018
    2:25pm
    What % of men have less than $50 000? Leon has chosen to highlight two completely different things and draw comparisons. That's impossible.

    Maybe a lot of women and men simply have no ability to delay gratification. They just spend everything every fortnight. I know people like that. Some earn a lot, some a little but they just won't save any money.

    Why is that the taxpayer's problem?
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    2:28pm
    Agree Rae - and these people will go on OAP , vote labor and DEMAND more pension becasue they don't enough to keep living in the decadent lifestyle they are accustomed to
    MICK
    10th Sep 2018
    2:31pm
    And that is the tragedy Rae. The folk you describe then roll up at the end of the day and cry poor and shout down those who have saved. I know where you are coming from but most of the folk you describe refuse to look in the mirror at the real problem lest they see something other than the narrative they are promoting.
    Adrianus
    10th Sep 2018
    2:43pm
    MICK how often have you been able to muster the ability to delay gratification? Now be honest.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:48pm
    There are countless reasons why some would end up with little - might have nothing to do with 'delayed gratification'... just cautioning you to keep on the straight and narrow... some may be in that boat... not many.

    For many youngies now - there is the real problem that their insecure livelihood etc makes them more susceptible to both instant gratification and potentially having broken and thus lowered overall incomes.... then many of them (like mine) stand to inherit well anyway, which may go a way to lowering their work ethic.

    Not saying that is the case with mine - they are both excellent workers etc - but this could happen.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    2:50pm
    My biggest problem is actually spending money as material things don't have any gratification for me at all.
    Rae
    10th Sep 2018
    3:01pm
    Yes TREBOR there is adversity, there is also overcoming adversity. Some have no chance and must be dependent on society but it should not be 96% of women.

    That is more like bad management than bad luck.
    Adrianus
    10th Sep 2018
    3:20pm
    I hope there are some younger women reading this forum and taking notice of some of Rae's posts.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    10th Sep 2018
    4:56pm
    First step to fixing super is to stop punishing people for saving. You won't reduce reliance on the OAP while SFRs are receiving LESS income than OAPs and being advised by financial advisers to limit their super and savings to BELOW $500,000 (for a couple) because unless they are lucky enough to know how to achieve very high returns, they will be WORSE off with more in the bank and just forfeit all the extra to the taxpayer. DUMB SYSTEM.
    Rae
    10th Sep 2018
    5:53pm
    It seems rather odd to reward indolence and lack of effort and punish those who planned, were disciplined, learnt about investing or simply saved diligently for decades.

    It's really odd that a Liberal Government would do this and for such small savings.

    Must be because there are so few of us our votes don't count.
    Fliss
    10th Sep 2018
    3:45pm
    This says "Currently, employers do not have to make compulsory super payments if an employee earns under $450 per week". This is incorrect - super guarantee must be paid if employee earns more than $450 in a calendar month.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    4:54pm
    The Final Solution:-


    https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/finance/superannuation/new-minister-to-fix-super-for-all?



    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.

    MICK

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

    Adrianus

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

    Trebor
    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.

    MICK

    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'.

    Trebor.

    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.

    Mick

    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.

    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    2:16pm
    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.

    Old Geezer

    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.

    Trebor

    $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.
    Old Geezer

    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.

    Adrianus

    "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?

    Pentop

    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!!!

    disillusioned

    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'

    TREBOR

    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?

    Rosret

    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.

    floss
    10th Sep 2018

    How could this Minister fix any thing they must fix their own party first.

    Florgan

    Remove the $450 cap immediately.
    Employers should pay 10% super on all income ,
    not just the base wage but overtime as well.
    It should be paid monthly.
    Splitting super between spouses should be made available for the spouse that stops work to raise a child.
    1/2 1/2.
    And I agree with Trebor

    Kev

    Every new Politician in the job wants to 'fix' our Super for us. Should have been 'fixed' for good years ago. Wish they'd leave Super alone and stop changing rules. This Govt had made it harder for workers to use Super to save for retirement and i doubt the proposed changes will amount to much. Politicians take their 'Super payments for life' - no qualms. Expecting Legislators to change a system that benefits them is stupid. Why are any extremely wealthy even allowed to contribute to Super when it wont be needed? The last 5 ex-PM's are worth multi-millions but will still get generous Govt funded life payments. Self funded Joe Average would not get a thing - expect perhaps a free public bus travel. Fix that Minister.

    Linda

    Since the levels of trust in government is so low, and there is such gifting to certain voting sectors to be elected, instead of leadership with honesty and uh ethics, taking the advice of the numbers and SCIENCE, to forge a sensible future, I am loath to vote for anyone in the far right of the liberal party or the national party. What ever they say now, might not be the case later as often there is a weasel clause or a change of government and direction. It is all good to claim to fix something. How will that be achieved. We need to understand the consequences of the fix. That stands for both parties. I am very sour on our current government because they have behaved so badly and refuse to see how important changes need to be fostered in order to give our selves and young folks too a chance at a decent living.

    KSS

    Seems to me that people should get super on the hours of paid employment so yes scrap the $450 threshold.

    Introduce a threshold below which fees cannot be levied e.g. say $10000.

    Ensure super account holders know and understand the insurances attached to their super so they can make an informed decision as to whether they are necessary. Then make insurance in Super opt in and not opt out. This should be the responsibility of the employer in the first instance when they take on new employees.

    Couples (or indeed singles) contemplating having children must factor in the drop in the stay-at-home parent's super (and that is not always the woman these days) and not just income and make their own arrangements about how to cover this.

    Divorce settlements already consider the inequality of super fund deposits. It cannot be an equal 50/50 split since the woman may have also been working and getting super in her name during the marriage/partnership. And what happens if either party re-marries or re-partners? Should the new partners be expected to continue to subsidise the ex?

    Restore the salary sacrifice to $36000 (from the now $25000) for those close to retirement say 60+ whose retirement planning was thrown into disarray by the changes July 2016.

    Women should not be preferenced by super simply for being women. Many men are also on low incomes from poorly paid jobs - what about them? Men also give up work to care for their children or aging family members, this is no longer exclusively 'women's work'. Perhaps the so called 'baby bonus' should be paid to the primary carer's super account and not in cash where there are no controls over how it is spent.

    KB

    Yes the cap should be removed as there are more causal jobs than full time jobs available. A little bit saved from each job while young will be of benefit. Get rid of high fees so people can have enough in their nest egg rather than being reliant on the age pension


    Farside

    was not aware of the $450 threshold; it should be removed

    TREBOR

    Or just pay everyone in society a Living Wage etc..... regardless of anything to do with their condition at any time..... (la, la,la,lala...) .. that'd solve the problems of people taking time off for any reason etc..... bit Commo though, don' cha think?

    Oars

    Does that mean that a girl who has no job and gets married and sends her kids off to subsidized preschool then school, and then gets a nice bonus when she "retires" from the daily treck of coffee bars.? Why bother working if you get it all form nicks ??

    Rae

    What % of men have less than $50 000? Leon has chosen to highlight two completely different things and draw comparisons. That's impossible.

    Maybe a lot of women and men simply have no ability to delay gratification. They just spend everything every fortnight. I know people like that. Some earn a lot, some a little but they just won't save any money.

    Why is that the taxpayer's problem?

    Fliss

    This says "Currently, employers do not have to make compulsory super payments if an employee earns under $450 per week". This is incorrect - super guarantee must be paid if employee earns more than $450 in a calendar month.

    **Not all comments are there... if you feel left out or whatever, please explain?**
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    4:56pm
    I object as that is an extremely biased opinion indeed.
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    4:57pm
    Moslty left thinking b/s

    Dishonest and not reflective of most intelligent posters on here
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    5:05pm
    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.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    8:33pm
    For those whose English and reading skills evades them as surely as a fifty dollar bill caught in a roaring storm drain.... that is a collection of the views expressed here today.... Ebergeezer and Olbie get a mention where their comments are on the mark...

    The recipients of the Final Solution - this minister and Comrade Billy - can look at the link - or get their flunkies to do so....

    Your last comment is included up there already OG... good thinking.
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    9:10pm
    Forwarded - answer to date:-

    Shorten, Bill (MP)


    Thank you for taking the time to contact Bill Shorten.



    We appreciate your patience as we work through the large amount of correspondence Bill receives.



    Comments, suggestions and ideas will be carefully considered and we will make every effort to arrange a response where needed.



    Your email may be referred to Opposition MPs and Shadow Ministers for their consideration and response.
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:30am
    I find it interesting that the right wing trolls object. That's what unashamed greed does to probably once decent people.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    10th Sep 2018
    5:00pm
    Some lawyers claim superannuation is an asset like any other a married couple own and the combined super should be split equally between husband and wife in a divorce, unless there are extenuating circumstances. It's a complicated issue now, because of women having careers and independent income. When most women stayed home and raised families, it was a no-brainer. Not many had super back then, though. It's a very different world today. Most young women I know have as much super as their husbands, or more!
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    8:35pm
    True. Added to the list as your earlier comment and another from OG ...

    Fair's fair - all get their say with me - but I can't copy and post the lot of every argument - only the salient points.
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:30am
    OGR - I thought super was split when a couple divorces.
    Old Geezer
    10th Sep 2018
    5:14pm
    H9w many of you so called experts actually have super?
    Rae
    10th Sep 2018
    5:58pm
    That is a good question. Seeing the self employed, business owners, contractors do not have to contribute to superannuation as far as I know those figures would be interesting.

    Someone may know if private operators have to pay superannuation for themselves and what % actually do.
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    6:00pm
    I'm no expert but I have super. My investments outside super is several times greater than my super balance which I havent touched yet , i.e. no withdrawals so far
    Adrianus
    11th Sep 2018
    8:46am
    Rae, what is a private operator? Do you mean a "self employed person?" Or a Director of a company? The self employed, even though they may have employees don't need to be members of a super fund or make contributions to their account. However, on some job sites unions would not allow entry unless you were a member of an industry fund at one point. On the other hand if you are a director of a trading company and receiving income then you must make the GSC to your super account as you would for any employee. There was a grace period whereby the ATO allowed directors to not pay themselves but they are tough on that now. In short, regardless of whether you're arms length or not if you're an employee then you must have super, provided you meet the age and income level requirements. BTW the fine for a director not paying himself super is 20%.
    Adrianus
    11th Sep 2018
    8:53am
    I think the logic behind the SE not being forced to make super contributions is that they are not employed by a separate entity. The SE worker is personally responsible for all profit and loss, so the ATO should have no business messing with their personal budget.
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:33am
    Wow. Some of the above are off the scale. Unbelievable that even trolls think that way.
    olbaid - OG also has investments outside super. Ok that's because you are OG.
    Adrianus - what a con man you are. You'd be the first in line crying poor at the end of the day.
    Adrianus
    13th Sep 2018
    12:55pm
    "Adrianus - what a con man you are. You'd be the first in line crying poor at the end of the day. " - MICK.

    MICK, would you care to explain your petty little outburst? LOL
    TREBOR
    10th Sep 2018
    9:11pm
    This is turning partly into a bitch fest from some... breathlessly awaiting heemie's arrival with full vitriol, and complaints of having comments removed for vitriol (???)

    I'll see yez in the morning.
    Anonymous
    10th Sep 2018
    9:13pm
    Only bitching I can see is from Mick

    Take it easy old boy or you may not get any sleep , bad enuff ure an insomniac
    roy
    11th Sep 2018
    11:10am
    I do seriously worry and wonder about MICK sometimes, do you think that perhaps he had an unhappy childhood and is at war with the world, just asking?
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:34am
    Same commentary as the other names you post under roy. Funny that.
    You just cannot respond to the facts can you.
    Cheezil61
    10th Sep 2018
    10:06pm
    Election promises = lies! Just like keeping pension eligible age at 67, once elected it will go to 70 again!
    Would have to be blind not to see thru all the bullcrap!
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:35am
    Yes. Don't vote for the liars. Decent Australians won't be. They're gone.
    TREBOR
    11th Sep 2018
    9:50am
    Mick's comment that the SFF (Stolen Future Fund) was taken off-country to protect it from the grasping hands of politicians and their ilk - on reflection - has merit. Trouble is that SFF was for a limited purpose to cater to the same politician's 'inside group' and not much else - when it should have been the foundation for a Universal Retirement Packaging Scheme.

    Perhaps it CAN remain off-country - but I would personally prefer (as Trebor Hood) that it voluntarily pay its way here as taxes etc. When a gentleman holds a principle, that principle can not be malleable to suit circumstances... there are no core and non-core principles.
    MICK
    13th Sep 2018
    9:37am
    What TREBOR, the rich, their companies and all manner of offshore tax avoiders pay Australian tax at the correct rate? Perish the thought. That's only there for wage and salary earners to be milked, not the top end who are special.
    Charlie
    11th Sep 2018
    10:17pm
    Lost me in the first paragraphs when it said... Men earn more than women, therefore men have higher super than women, so the reason for this must be...here's that word again 'inequality".. as if everything had to be exactly equal to make it right.... Anyway I always thought the word was "inequity" not "inequality"
    Adrianus
    12th Sep 2018
    12:11pm
    Charlie, it has nothing to do with money. This feud dates back to the first European settlement when the ethos of Australia's culture was being bedded down. The notion of "a fair go and equality of all men" seemed to include women, but why was it not expressed? There are still many women who would rather raise a family than have a career, but I know women who want to do both with an emphasis on career. Our birth rate continues to drop which is probably not a bad thing if it doesn't bite us on the arse 50 years from now? China has been talking about dropping the 2 child policy altogether.
    You are right, there will never be equality between the sexes, but wouldn't it be wonderful if we spoke in terms of equity regardless of gender?


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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