21st May 2018

Government reveals how it wants pensions paid

Planned change to pension revealed

The Federal Government has shown a first glimpse of its preferred retirement income model and it seems to have many of the characteristics of a life insurance policy and few of those associated with a traditional pension.

Minister for Revenue and Financial Services Kelly O'Dwyer late last week published a retirement income covenant position paper titled “Helping make your super work harder in retirement”. It is the first step in changing regulations so that super funds are obliged to advise members on a retirement income stream that best meets their needs.

It follows the Federal Budget 2018’s More Choices for a Longer Life Package that described a new type of retirement income labelled ‘MyRetirement’.

The Government will require superannuation funds to offer members financial products that will pay income to retirees for the duration of their lives, much as annuities do.

These hybrid products will modify the way in which superannuation income can now be accessed.

At this stage, taking up the products – known as Comprehensive Income Products for Retirement (CIPR) – will not be mandatory.

Under the paper’s proposals, fund trustees will not need to offer a CIPR to a person who has a life-threatening or terminal illness, or one who has less than $50,000 in super.

 


When offering a member the new-style income stream, factors that funds might take into account include:

  • age and marital/spousal status
  • factors affecting Age Pension eligibility
  • that person’s health or life expectancy based on family history
  • other superannuation accounts
  • outstanding debts
  • whether and how cognitive decline may affect outcomes
  • whether a member is a smoker or non-smoker
  • whether the member is a blue or white-collar worker.

 

The covenant the Government intends to legislate will add to the responsibilities of trustees. They will be required “to formulate, review regularly and give effect to a retirement income strategy to assist members to meet their retirement income objectives”.

While trustees will be obliged to offer products that are in the best financial interests of members, the Government is considering granting them some immunity from legal action if an investment does not pan out as expected.

“The Government understands that trustees are concerned they may be open to claims for loss or damage if, for example, a member accepts a CIPR offer but later changes their mind or dies before life expectancy,” the paper says. “The framework could provide a safe harbour in the form of a statutory defence to claims for loss or damage arising from the design, offer and ongoing management of a CIPR, provided that various regulatory requirements were met.”

The benefit for members is that there will be an expectation that the product will still be able to make payments even if a person lives beyond their life expectancy.

“The trustee would need to ensure that the CIPR is designed in such a way that even if the member lives to 105, they will continue to receive broadly the same level of income from the product.”

On whether retirees who opt for a CIPR can access lump sums, the paper says: “It is likely that most people will want to retain some ability to access capital. Capital may be required to purchase assets such as a new car, to pay for home maintenance, health costs or to pay for any number of other unexpected events.

“We expect the most common way to provide this flexibility would be for a CIPR to incorporate an account based pension (ABP). Alternatively some pooled lifetime income products may provide some commutable value or access to death benefits.



“Again, trustees would have the freedom to determine the best way to provide this flexibility for their members.”

The paper provides four scenarios for designing the proposed income streams for a person who retires at age 65:

  • a standard deferred life annuity (DLA), where the start of payments is delayed for a set period: 20 per cent of the individual’s balance at retirement is allocated to a DLA, 80 per cent is placed in an account-based pension (ABP) with an efficient drawdown profile
  • flexible CIPR: $50,000 (12 per cent) of the individual’s balance is placed in a cash account to provide higher access to capital, 18 per cent of the balance is allocated to a DLA and 70 per cent placed in an ABP with an efficient drawdown profile
  • ABP (minimum drawdown): 100 per cent of the individual’s balance is placed in an ABP and drawn down at minimum rates
  • ABP (6 per cent drawdown): 100 per cent of the individual’s balance is placed in an ABP and drawn down at an initial rate of 6 per cent, reverting to the minimum drawdown rate after 10 years.

 

Opinion: Pension changes beyond irresponsible


The Federal Government’s position paper on offering retirees alternative income has raised more questions than it has answered about a complex and touchy subject.

Both before the Federal Budget 2018 revelation that superannuation funds had to design hybrid income products and during the 10 days it took Minister for Revenue and Financial Services Kelly O'Dwyer to articulate the first stage of the plan, the critics had lined up.

Over the years, the amount of government meddling with superannuation has left most Australian retirees wary. After all, it is their money and they are sick of regimes that can’t help tinkering with it and still cannot ‘get it right’.

Ms O’Dwyer’s rush to force super trustees to become pseudo financial planners so they can design so-called Comprehensive Income Products for Retirement (CIPR) is unbelievable given it is hot on the heels of a Banking Royal Commission that has revealed so much that is rotten in the financial advice sector.

Essentially, super funds will become advisers when the CIPR legislation is enacted. This should have many people worried, as was highlighted recently by Geoff Brooks, the marketing head at Equisuper.

“I think we’re working in a system that was built essentially in 1993 and most of them were in accumulation phase. I don't even know whether funds are fit for purpose to actually run retirement services. It’s not just about product solutions. It’s about how do you almost package advice and all those sorts of things into the product solution,” Mr Brooks said.

Other superannuation experts have gone further with their critiques of the hybrid products, questioning the ability of many super balances to produce sufficient investment returns to generate more than a trickle of income. They have done the maths and suggest a nest egg would need to be worth $2 million to produce anything resembling a decent retirement income. And even then, they argue that the investments would have to be in risky assets that are more capable of handsome returns, when the wind is blowing their way. But when the financial weather changes, those risky assets strip the wealth from investments. But older investors mostly do not like risk, opting for conservative strategies instead.

And worse, the Government appears to be agreeing with super trustees that while they should take all care in formulating the products, they should not bear full responsibility if your investment goes pear-shaped. “Trustees could qualify for a safe harbour,” the paper says.

To call this irresponsible is an understatement. The fallout of the Banking Royal Commission has already demonstrated that financial advisers, even ones associated with once-respected brands, such as AMP, cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of their clients.

While many retirees craving security will welcome the ‘guarantee’ of a lifelong income from a CIPR, it has to be asked what they will be expected to sacrifice in return. Other questions that need answering include:

  • how high will the fees be on these complicated financial products compared with the low costs of an industry super fund today?
  • how intrusive will the fund be when it is trying to determine how long a pensioner will live?
  • will they require extensive testing to discover if a retiree has early stage cancer?
  • and do all retirees need or want to know if they have a lurking disease when they feel perfectly fine?
  • if a retiree dies well before their expected longevity, what happens with any untapped deferred life annuity that forms part of the product? Is it sequestered by the fund or returned to a beneficiary?
  • plus, what of entitlement to a part or full Age Pension for those who have very little super to convert into a CIPR? Where is the detail on that?
 

The Government’s paper is open to public submissions until June 15, but where to begin to comment when there are so many unanswered questions in the proposal?

Would you buy a new retirement income product if you were assured of payments until you died? Or do you prefer the flexibility currently offered by the superannuation system? Do you think trustees should be immune from legal action as the Government is proposing?


Related articles:





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
MICK
21st May 2018
10:26am
This is the next shot across the bow from a discredited government about to be thrown out. Not even the mainstream media propaganda machine will avert that.
In the meantime we see repeated attacks on retirees. There was the assets test meant to push many legitimate retirees off a pension. There are attempts at pushing retirees out of their homes to spend the money realised on their living costs. There is the continued talk of the superannuation...which governments of all persuasion want to get a piece of, better known as nationalising superannuation. There is the change in pension age which will see Australia with the highest retirement age in the western world.
Other western countries do not rob retirees by making a pension all but impossible to get. This country, and specifically this government, does. Without going around the loop again every Australian of retirement age deserves a pension rather than being robbed by their government who wants to spend their pension.
If voters cannot see who not to vote for then they need to consider what else this lot will do to them is reelected. This attack is far from over.
Onemore
21st May 2018
10:29am
Mick,
You have said it all, especially your last sentence, "This attack is far from over" They have really got it in for pensioners, I could say more but I will have to wait until my blood pressure medications kicks in.

Signed,
Mick
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
10:47am
It is not nearly as bad as what Labor wants to do to self funded retirees.

http://www.ampcapital.com.au/smsf-suite/articles/2018/may/mind-the-interest-rate-gap?utm_medium=email&utm_source=ampc&utm_campaign=smsf-news&utm_content=article3-headline
MICK
21st May 2018
10:55am
I'll go on the record of both parties. Post right wing advertising and mudslinging if you wish but the runs are on the board.
For the record Labor does NOT steal from average workers and give to the rich. No amount of spurious cash for comment can change that.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
11:00am
Mick Labor wants to steal from self funded retirees who earn so little they pay no tax to give tax cuts to those who earn a lot more and pay tax. That is stealing from the lowest of the low.

Mick what about those industry super funds administrated by the unions they certainly have a licence to steal form low paid and causal workers? Most have nothing left in their super funds after fees are taken deducted.


What about those employment rules Labor wants to bring in for casual workers? It is simply stupid that one has to hire someone regularly as a casual worker. If I want a cleaner to clean my house occasionally I have to hire them every week.
casey
21st May 2018
11:11am
So if labour get in they are going to lower the retirement age are they! Yeh right. Doesn't make a lot of diference who gets in they all just want to line their own pockets. First thing will be a salary rise for politicians, then a rise in there pensions. Everyone else in Australia can just keep struggling, and complaining, they couldn't care less.
MICK
21st May 2018
11:14am
OG - that is a total TROLL comment and you use the lies which continually flow from this government.

FACT 1 - industry superannuation funds outperform industry ones. I would suggest big business is STEALING from members with their high fees, which pay for the lifestyle of the so called professional managers. YOU LIE. As always!

FACT 2 - this government is the one which has thieved from retirees since it was put into office. This is not slowing down. Funny how you omitted to mention the list I gave above...with more to come.

FACT 3 - It is your government who forced hospitality workers into par time jobs, poverty and which permits employers to not even pay MANDATORY superannuation.

Run all the right wing propaganda you like but readers know the facts above. It disappoints me that you are such an unabated liar OG. I thought you had some goodness in you. Clearly mistaken.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
11:24am
Interesting Mick since all the super funds that I have dealt with lately that have been ripping off their members have been industry funds.

What has the government taken from retirees. Decreased the asset test which was too high back to something a bit more suitable. Good move.

Government has done nothing to hospitality workers compared to what is really happening to them. Most of the under payment cases I have dealt with lately have been hospitably workers. Employers are ripping them off in a big way.

It disappoints me Mick that you continue to wear your rose coloured glasses that sees nothing but good ness in Labor. If you think Labor is going to help pensioners you have rocks in your head.
jackie
21st May 2018
11:42am
Old Geezer....You can always go on a pension too after all you paid taxes too. Labor will look after you.
MICK
21st May 2018
11:51am
What a load of codswallop. Give some hard figures and pick a media performing fund rather than one you may stumble upon which has failed.
The rest of your post leaves me speechless. But what else can you do when your employer is dead in the water and has more leaks then the Titanic.
Again....I do not support Labor but I have no option other than stick up for blatant dishonesty.
Rosret
21st May 2018
12:11pm
OG - If a person is a Ford man they won't ever even test drive a Holden. Loyalty is their quality.
At the moment it is us, the retirees, against all parties. They have their eyes firmly set on our reserves of money and it does make me feel quite uneasy.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
12:15pm
Mick I am talking about some of the top performing industry funds and personally from what I have seen of them I wouldn't put a penny of my money in them. I tried to get one of the top industry funds to transfer super for a fellow and we had to go through the ATO to do it as they wouldn't transfer the money to another fund.

It does not surprise me Mick that your beloved Labor government has you so brainwashed that you are speechless.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
12:17pm
Jackie ha ha Labor or the LNP looking after me. More like I look after them through my taxes.
MICK
21st May 2018
12:48pm
Top performing Industry Super Funds. Name them.
How about you put your money where your mouth is. NAME the top 3 Industry and the top 3 Retail Funds and publish their returns to members.

If you want to see where the public is being robbed hand over fist have a look at the big end of town owned CEOs. Qantas' Alan Joyce got over $20 million last year. Please compare that to ANY union director for Industry Funds. Come on Geezer.......YOU CAN'T!!!!!

LIAR!
TREBOR
21st May 2018
12:49pm
Here's another little research gem for yez:-

"In 2016–17, the Australian Government estimates that it will spend around $158.6 billion on social security and welfare, and around $191.8 billion in 2019–20. This category of expenditure includes a broad range of payments and services including:

most income support payments such as pensions and allowances (for example, Newstart)
family payments such as Family Tax Benefit
paid parental leave pay
child care fee assistance payments
funding for aged care services
funding for disability services and
payments and services for veterans and their dependents."

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/WelfareCost

As usual, from the horse's mouth....

Kindly note that of the items listed above, only the first line - most income support payments - are under the heading 'Social Security'.

I may take umbrage at the exclusion of payments for veterans etc - this is not 'welfare' - but the rest are welfare, something I've been saying for a very long time now.

Once again the Ideological Thieves in parliament are deliberately failing to draw the distinction between what even they title 'welfare' and what IS 'social security, and are continuing to attack social security as if it, a bought and paid for entitlement/right, is the demon in the list.

Somehow PPL, childcare and all the rest are now sacred cows, and ONLY pensioners and social security recipients are costing the nation its future.....

That is ideology pure and simple - and is an outright lie.

(hush - that was just me being nice)....
TREBOR
21st May 2018
12:51pm
I'm also considering whether aged care is part of social security - but if so, it is a recent addition, and comes under an entirely different budget. Family tax relief - not too sure about that one either - direct 'endowment' or whatever is different.

Regardless - a full and open discussion with the cards laid on the table for once, disclosing what is viewed as 'welfare' and what is Social Security, is long overdue.
Anonymous
21st May 2018
12:52pm
Typical comment from comrade Mick how do you think the caravan trash party that is Labor is going to finance there election they are going to pinch the money from the idiots in industry super funds and pay for it. We all know Mick is a dirty commy go home Mick we don't need you in this country.
MICK
21st May 2018
12:56pm
That depends what country you are in TREBOR. Other western countries YES the pension is a right. In Australia NO the pension is an entitlement which can be fiddled with and abused by governments.

Of course with coalition governments the only thing that ever matters is sending money to their rich supporters as we are witnessing with their tax cuts for the wealthy.....better known as 'rich mans welfare'.
Joy Anne
21st May 2018
1:34pm
Mick, you are correct on all levels.
HOW ABOUT WE ALL SIGN A PETITION ABOUT POLITIANS NOT RECEIVING A PENSION. I WILL SIGN.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
1:46pm
Oh, I dunno, Roby - I rather thought that Mick and a few others and my good self were somewhere in the centre of the political spectrum....

I suppose you are struggling to come to grips with those university study concepts of what constitutes 'communism' or socialism or whatever... all nicely divided up into little bundles so the political students can understand them. Such things - like 63 genders - are fine until you start to believe in them as absolutes, other than as convenient academic labels.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
1:48pm
Nope they deserve their pension as it was part of their salary package for their job. I certainly wouldn't be a pollie for what they get paid.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
2:07pm
Not the issue, OG - the issue is that they alone set the requirements for their salary package and their retirement package is way out of synch with everyone else's - mostly of the people they are put there to serve - and there is not one reason on this earth that this should be so.

NONE!
MICK
21st May 2018
2:26pm
You were OG. Liberal Party. Now a paid hack. Please explain.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
3:09pm
Companies also do the same with their packages. What do you want a higher power to set them instead? Can't think of one myself but obviously you have something in mind.
Aussie
21st May 2018
3:31pm
This Aussie is with you mate .... nothing we can do only wait until next elections ..... shit
TREBOR
21st May 2018
4:42pm
Jesus God, man - government isn't a company, and under no circumstances should elected public servants be treated with the same outrageous largesse as the rulers of companies are.

Put politician salaries and retirement packaging to an informed vote of the people.
Knows-a-lot
21st May 2018
5:18pm
Old Geezer = Lieberal Party hack and brainwashed apologist.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
5:32pm
Yes Trebor the government is incorporated as a company.

Gee Knows-a-lot I just love insults as it means that I am right.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
6:20pm
OzGuv Inc.. brought to you by Ripoff Enterprises Ltd ((a subsidiary of LNP Ventures and Offshore Investments Pty Ltd)....

OG - as Rick Atkinson said about Field Marshal Montgomery - you are a man made to be misunderstood...........

Government incorporated as a company?

Show me!! Qui Bono? And if it is, it is way past time to revert it to its public service role and have its salaries determined by its employers.
George
21st May 2018
11:43pm
Mick, all valid comments, and all MUST join in to remove the current Liberal Party MPs at the earliest. However, the Labor MPs are also not to be trusted as per their past record and also need to be thrown out - luckily, currently less of them than Liberals to throw out!

Ignore paid (cash for comment), Liberal party hack, who is clearly a past-politician - OG of course!
Wstaton
22nd May 2018
11:29am
Mick, Have you noticed that O.G> has always done this always done that, helped someone in all spheres of argument. He is a person of many talents.

But not once has he actually presented facts.
MICK
28th May 2018
10:28am
Yeah. Trolls never produce valid facts. They cannot argue the truth as readers see what they seek to hide. The only thing trolls do is throw mud and make unsubstantiated accusations. OG is but one on many who turn up here when the heat is on and anybody wanting to see this lot at work simply needs to read the blog on this website the day after Shorten gave his budget reply. You won't recognise many of the posters but they all have one thing in common: to drag down what Shorten was promising.
Onemore
21st May 2018
10:26am
I personally would have nothing to do with anything Kelly O'Dwyer has her name on.
MICK
21st May 2018
10:56am
Yeah, her track record is not real flash but then she is a part of the right wing machine so what does one expect.
Knows-a-lot
21st May 2018
5:23pm
She's one of the worst among a raft of totally incompetent Lieberals.
PlanB
26th May 2018
9:30am
Even to look at this THING called Kelly O'Dwyer is enough to make one throw up
Gee Whiz
21st May 2018
10:43am
You couldn't trust Kelly O'Dwyer as far as you could kick her.

The Turdbull government has an addiction to finding ways to stop paying the pension. They will not stop until all pensioners are ground down to poverty level or die from depression and worry.

Turnbulls fixation with pensioners while making the top end of town richer, displays a mental sickness worthy of Nazis and the Third Reich. And with no wage growth over the past 5 years it shows that the government is controlling the people through financial stealth.

This government is full of mentally sick individuals enjoying the life of luxury and a bonanza in retirement benefits.

No old age pension for them. Just a luxury retirement courtesy of the taxpayers and pensioners.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
10:51am
Old age pensioners do very nicely on what they get but it would not matter how much they got it would never be enough.
MICK
21st May 2018
10:56am
Good post Gee Whiz.
jackie
21st May 2018
11:44am
Gee Whiz...the Turdbull Government doesn't mind giving themselves salary increases in a time they claim can't be afforded.
Joy Anne
21st May 2018
1:32pm
Definitely agree. It is so wrong. About time these Politians dont get a pension either.
Misty
21st May 2018
2:06pm
lOG what do you know about being an old aged pensioner?, if you are still paying tax on income you are obviously well enough off not to need one, so until you walk in their shoes you are not entitled to comment with any authority on how OGP are doing, nicely or otherwise.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
2:40pm
I certainly do know how well old age pensioners are doing and they are doing very nicely indeed.
Misty
21st May 2018
3:59pm
Well OG all I can say is you can't know many genuine OAP because if you did you would be singing a different tune.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
4:13pm
I know lots of whingers who wish I would sing a different tune but one genuine enough for me to sing it.
George
21st May 2018
11:45pm
Good comments, Gee Whiz, rubbish comments & blatant lies, OG.
OnlyGenuineRainey
22nd May 2018
7:02am
OG, one-third of aged pensioners are living in poverty. That a statistical fact - researched, verified, and not even disputed by the vile selfish bastards in the LNP. So clearly you are completely blinded by your selfishness. But selfishness does that. It also makes you stupid.
Charlie
21st May 2018
10:50am
Another big con job coming up. Some difficult to administer system that tries hit all the financial targets and misses all the basics. I bet
TREBOR
21st May 2018
12:57pm
Be too hard for intelligent and highly trained public servants, too - will need to be 'out-sourced' to a few mates for an extra cost in the multi-millions...

More and more like NAZI Germany - as someone said above...
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
2:42pm
It actually sounds like something cooked up by the Macquarie bank think tank where they take the brightest uni graduates and get them to work out ways to make the bank money.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
2:46pm
You've taken a turn to the left again, OG - be careful.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
3:23pm
What Trebor you don't know this is what the Macquarie Bank does?
TREBOR
21st May 2018
4:43pm
Don't be silly, OG.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
5:33pm
I'm serious Trebor.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
8:30pm
You're being silly in your assumptions about what I am saying and thinking there.

When you say that MacBank works that way you are essentially pointing out to their profit at all costs motivation - hardly a recommendation, and a clear criticism of their approach.

That, my son,is why you are bordering on being a 'leftie' there - either that or you are unaware of the foot you put in your mouth.
johnp
21st May 2018
10:54am
Agree with most of you. Also other western countries do not have such an onerous asst test for the aged pension. Old Geezer: that link was an AMP one, so that has no credibility and gotta be ignored.
MICK
21st May 2018
10:58am
OG has little credibility as he pushes the government agenda. Anybody who does that after what we have seen unfold during the last 6 years years is either brain dead or on the payroll.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
11:06am
Yes it is an AMP article but it does show how that insane Labor policy will work and who will be the losers.

I push my own agenda and don't care who has the same agenda. Remember I don't vote so I have affiliation with any political party not like most here.
MICK
21st May 2018
11:16am
No it shows who you are working for. Certainly not this community.
You push your own agenda? BS! You are cash for comment.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st May 2018
12:13pm
OG is so illogical that nobody with a brain could afford him any credibility. And he contradicts himself. His comment above that the assets test was a good move is a classic example of his idiotic remarks. The change made people worse off for having saved and provided a strong incentive for people to divest wealth, as they get 7.8%+++, rising twice annually, if they have LESS assets, and probably only 5% or less with non concessions and no increases if they have more. Only a total fool could endorse such lunacy!
MICK
21st May 2018
12:51pm
Its not illogical OGR. Its unashamed posting of propaganda for the government. Please notice my (last?) comment in the first post on this blog where I have given OG the opportunity of providing the figures. Am awaiting a response.

I am of the opinion if posters cannot offer any genuine proof then their comments should be removed...as should they if they repeatedly engage in deceit.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
1:03pm
Rainey - getting people to divest themselves of their earned and accumulated wealth is another way of 'stimulating' the economy - Rudd achieved the same with the Kevin Kash that so many despise - the difference here is that the current lot(s) want to force retirees to put their money into the economy and lose their wealth at the same time.

The long term result will be many people at the 'lower end' of income/retirement income will be passing on to their descendants a new serfdom rather that an inheritance earned and paid for and only their 'betters' will be able to do that - many will become serfs living in crofted housing courtesy of the government (the equivalent of company housing as in Olde Englande - those strings of terrace houses in industrial cities), with no property, permanent low income and uneven employment at the whim of the overlord, and thus no financial = political power.... and thus far fewer rights.

Just chess pieces to be moved around at whim.

I'm amazed that many simply can't see that coming.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st May 2018
1:38pm
Oh, I know that, Trebor. But the funny thing is that most who were hit by the assets test change are either spending abroad or upsizing their family home. Very little spending to ''stimulate the economy'', but a lot that will do harm and much that will result in increased poverty and pension costs in the years to come. Thoroughly idiotic, and you'd have to brainless to condone it.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
1:43pm
Yes, Rainey - it was a stupid 'policy thrust' idea... shoots itself in the foot daily.
MICK
21st May 2018
2:09pm
TREBOR - you totally missed WHY the policy was what it was. I did at the time as well. My call was for money to go into infrastructure (useful) but nothing was ready to go. That takes years. So what do you do? Get people spending and don't bring on mass unemployment. That is what was done and a coalition government would have done the same. Fortunately uncle Rupert knew the GFC was about to hit so he pushed Labor into office.....and then got an immediate return of capital when his stranded Foxtel assets were saved.

As far as your notion of getting people to divest themselves of their assets is concerned I have to ask WHY do you think people want to self fund their retirement? They do not trust governments. The one we now have is a prime example.
If retirees did not save for their retirement taxpayers could then pay them a pension right? Where would that come from?
Personally I would love to have had a life full of pleasure and leisure where there were no sacrifices. We would now be drawing a pension instead of being made targets for earning our own meagre pension. Sounds like a bet each way but please tell people a generation ahead rather than spring it on retirees who have used a system put in place at the drop of a hat. THAT is not fair.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
2:54pm
Careful, Mick - you're straying onto the 'right' side of the argument and differentiating without reason between those bludging pensioners who've lead a life of luxury then cop a pension, and the 'lifters' who worked to put some aside.

You know it's not as simple as that and very far from black and white, and that there are countless shades of grey in between - not least the rising tide of under-employment that is guaranteed to see many more without 'self-funding' in retirement.

Also pensions and other social security (not the additional welfare I've outlined above) are bought an paid for out of taxes over a lifetime. That's where they come from. If governments successive have destroyed that war chest - they will just have to re-build it. No ifs - no buts.

A fully independent and not controlled by governments and cronies separate retirement scheme under one roof would raw all those trillions together - and would permit governments and other bodies (there is no real difference and government in reality has no special rights though they struggle endlessly for total control) to APPLY for funding for projects, for which funds would be loaned out to them on a properly contracted basis.

Such a scheme would certainly put paid to some of the more fanciful schemes doing the rounds in the hands of governments these days - imagine a government coming to The Fund and having to justify its financial wherewithal ... oops - sorry .... we just paid out billions to guarantee women an equal lifetime income even when they don't work .... oops - we just paid out $50bn in tax cuts to corporations ... oops - we just cut our own throats by off-shoring $100bn of defence contract work that could be done here.....

One way of holding their expenditure and pet schemes up to analysis.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
2:57pm
It would be all fine and lovely in La-La-land if everyone could go to work and amass enough over a lifetime of reliable and adequate income to fund their own retirement.

That has not been the case in 25 years of super, and is a dream drawing further and further away by the day for the many, under the current regime of part-time casual and declining incomes v costs of living.

Remember Paul Keating's $300k in super? Nowadays it wouldn't provide you with the equivalent of a pension.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
4:14pm
Why can't they Trebor it aint that hard to do.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
4:47pm
You seem to miss one point - un- and under-employment and part-time for the many.

Such an omission on your part would have to be deliberate.

Of course - we could always go full commo and give everyone the same lifetime income with the same benefits and perks..... one way of resolving the issues. Anyone unemployed would still receive full pay.... anyone sacked would still receive a full pension like politicians do.... no problem whatsoever.....

I mean - the push is on for women to have a guaranteed lifetime income and super, regardless of hours worked - why not just go the whole hog and make it the same for everyone?
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
6:00pm
Trebor I thought we were now gender neutral.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
6:33pm
Well people who take paid leave for family time are already paid at a higher rate per hour worked than their confreres (et les consouers?).

Let us take an example - Jog Bloggalots takes six week paid paternal leave, when his hourly rate is $10 an hour (for the sake of argument - not looking at realistic figures here except for future projections by the gluttonous business community). Joe normally is paid for 52 weeks a year - out of which he works 48.

Ergo - if Joe takes six weeks off on full pay to fulfill his dadly duties, he is paid 48 weeks work for doing only 42.

Now again looking at ease of figuring let's take a forty hour week - Joe therefore is paid $400 a week = (excluding annual leave which everyone gets), Joe is being 48 x $400 pa = $19,200, while only working 42 weeks = $16,800.

His mates who don't take six weeks PPL are paid the same - ergo ... Joe is paid for an extra six weeks work that he does not do = an extra $2400pa for work not done. Ergo his effective rate of pay is 2400/19200 higher than his mates - 12.5% higher rate of pay per hour worked than his mates, same as six weeks out of 48.

You with me here?

Come back, spinner....
TREBOR
21st May 2018
8:32pm
Hardly, OG - we are enduring the feminocracy with all its running dogs pending the arrival of the Nouveau Guillotines....
heyyybob
21st May 2018
10:54am
WTF !! These idiots MUST be kidding !! "Beyond Irresponsible" ?? Beyond Believable is more like it :O !!
Travellersjoy
21st May 2018
11:02am
Just preparing the new job opportunities for all those shonky 'advisers' perhaps losing their jobs in banking.
Can't have the financiers losing profit, can we?
How many MPs have investments in finance? Where are the MP conflicts of interest in this murky hidden underworld of bankster wheeling and dealing? Which MPs will recuse themselves from debate and voting on these issues?

My super is mine, not the government's to dictate. The age pension is my legal and moral right, too. My industry super fund provides information and advice on options, but I get to choose.
Yes there are people who are ripped off by super funds, and would benefit from better advice. It would be easier for the government to recommend they move to an industry fund to protect their future, than to coerce and compel everyone to resolve an issue that only belongs to the private-for-profit sector and some of their victims.

I find it exceedingly strange that the so-called civil liberties, if not libertarian, party, is so hooked onto coercion as a form of government - only for the lesses people, of course. Their bankster friends and funders have all the licence they need to rob us blind with impunity.
MICK
21st May 2018
11:18am
Your super is indeed your super but just like the universal pension it will be rolled into general revenue in time. This lot are after the superannuation scheme. Wait until the next recession and they'll have their trigger: high debt/low taxes revenue.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
3:34pm
I wouldn't doubt that Labor also want their hands on that endless cash cow, too, Mick. That's why I see that its removal from government and cronies NOW is an urgent necessity for the future.

Someone raised the spectre of those 'assets' or whatever being held to ransom against the mis-management of the banks... to prop them up if they fail due to their own incompetence or deliberate policy.

I still can't get over General Motors laying off workers to sustain a level of dividend - that move was like the Titanic avoiding one iceberg to aim directly for the next bigger one.

Both parties, under their own little ideologies, suffer the delusion that if only handed total control over people and nation, all will be well in the Schtaat off Denmark..... rather than being rotten....
TREBOR
21st May 2018
3:35pm
That's what is behind the eternal politics of division, carried on in many ways at the one time. Need I list them for you?
George
21st May 2018
11:55pm
All need to put in submissions - Super must be kept OFF-LIMIITS for politicians - a new law needs to be set up to protect this right of individuals not to have their assets STOLEN by political actions.

This plan by Liberal Party is clearly a MASSIVE PLOT by this business-friendly party in collusion with FINANCIAL business mates to benefit them, and in turn themselves.

As part of submissions, it should also be recommended to Remove all Special Pensions for Politicians, and make them get pensions only under the exact same rules as for ordinary people. They have NO CREDIBILITY till this is done.
Adrianus
21st May 2018
11:05am
I know I'll get called a few names for expressing my opinion, but that has never stopped me. :)
What is Superannuation?
It's a tax effective savings vehicle designed to provide income for retirees.
I don't see anything wrong with Kelly O'Dwyer's idea of giving members an option of part income part lump sum while staying in their fund is a good one!!
MICK
21st May 2018
11:19am
Well what else would a cash for comment poster say. In line with all of your other posts.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
1:52pm
Super is nothing more than a tax effective way to save for your retirement. Why then on retirement would you tie it up again so yo can't spend it on your retirement?
MICK
21st May 2018
2:10pm
And why is the current government wanting to release it for paying down a mortgage or medical bills??????
Misty
21st May 2018
2:11pm
Well OG it seems that is what this government you seem so enamoured of wants to do.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
2:46pm
That's why one does not want to have all their money tied up in super.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
3:36pm
So for medical bills and such you release equity from somewhere else? Sounds like SS - DD to me.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
3:45pm
What medical bills? I don't pay anything for medical.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
4:47pm
Of course not....but you should, like everyone else.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
4:48pm
What you advocate for the peasants you must be prepared to do yourself.... never ask them to do what you cannot or will not.
Ahjay
21st May 2018
11:07am
Put simply, it seems like an attempt to destroy the industry funds and give the banks and government control of the honey pot.
MICK
21st May 2018
11:24am
That has been on for a few years now. They tried to make it illegal for union members to be on the Board and cash for comment government trolls like OG repeatedly lament about how unions "steal" your super when the truth is big business wants to be in charge so that it can milk the pot.
At present Industry Funds are an embarrassment to Retail Funds because members can see that Industry Funds outperform Retail Funds by a country mile....because their fees are LOW. Can't have that can we.
Sundays
21st May 2018
11:07am
What really needs an overhaul is the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme. We have perfectly good Super Schemes. At retirement, most funds enable you to draw out a lump,sum, or convert to an income stream with the option to access lump sums. Complete the forms, finished. It is after all your money. The member also chooses how the super is invested. Why on earth does the Government want to bring in this complex idea.
MICK
21st May 2018
11:26am
If MPs were in the same super schemes the public are in there would be a whole (different) set of rules. But when you own/control the game you can make 'special' rules for yourself. And so they do.
George
22nd May 2018
12:05am
The Parliamentary Super Scheme (since 2004) is titled that way as a con on the people - whereas in reality it is simply a devious scheme to pay UNFUNDED, lifetime, no-means tested, large (50-75% of Base Salary) PENSIONS to Politicians.

Yes, IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE SCRAPPED NOW, and ALL MUST WRITE TO THEIR MPs to demand this, and hreaten them that we are all going to vote AGAINST them. They have NO CREDIBILITY to fiddle pensions for others when it doesn't affect their scheme.

As a group, we need to all join in and carry out the above threat and remove all Liberal, Labor & Greens current seat-warming leeches, and not allow them to get to their minimum 8 years to get the minimum 50% of Salary or maximum 75% of salary at 18 years.
TREBOR
22nd May 2018
10:51am
.. and it's indexed, George... if I were on my 1992 income - or 75% thereof right now - I'd be pulling somewhere around $275k tax free annually instead of the relative pittance I do get... and that 1992 income did not reflect every hour I put in, either, and I was often on the run seven days a week for it.

.... and every year under an indexed scheme it would go up.

I can't for the life of me see where political 'service' warrants such a system ... they already cop around $2.5m pa in effective salary - what more do they want?
Old Man
21st May 2018
11:35am
So what. This is a paper put forward for discussion and allows for any interested party to supply their ideas to strengthen or refute any of the ideas contained in the paper. To suggest that this is "government policy" is drawing a long bow. The super industry is not perfect and to say that it doesn't need any amendments is ridiculous as is the suggestion that $2M is needed in super to effect a comfortable retirement. All of these statements, including those outlined in the paper, are subjective and can be argued as to their veracity. I note that one of the suggestions in the paper allows for things to stay roughly as they are now.
MICK
21st May 2018
11:53am
You know how it works OM. You put it out there, look at the feedback and then come out and either push the wagon or say there is no way you are going with this. Politics!
Old Man
21st May 2018
12:01pm
Exactly MICK and that's why I think that any comments on this topic are a waste of time. The time to complain is when something abhorrent is being considered for legislation, not when there is a thought bubble. That's when voices matter, not on a left wing website.
MD
21st May 2018
12:43pm
Fella's please, more faith in our fearless leaders.
You've effectively just undone my faith - it's always been my understanding that a decision was made BEFORE any thought bubble was thrown to the rabble for comment/feedback.
Either that or what was doled out is structured in such a way as to limit the field and point the outcome in a predetermined direction.
MICK
21st May 2018
12:59pm
Better to let them know beforehand so that they do not even contemplate something abhorrent. In the case of the current government they just shelve for a couple of years and then bring it back out. What they did to Hospitality workers was better known as 'Work Choices' in past times. Now LAW.
Be careful what you vote for as well as who.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
2:13pm
Oh - we're just laying down some interdicting fire along their probable routes of advance, OM....

I recall clearly the NSW 'government' and their putting the issue of private firearm ownership to the public in a vote - the public said NO to gun control. That 'government' then did an end run around that vote of the people by installing 'domestic violence laws' with a zero standard of proof and then permitting the police to remove BY REGULATION, legally owned and licenced firearms.

The outcomes to date - over twenty five years - have seen an escalation in conflict between men and women, countless shattered marriages, countless 'created criminals' using these 'laws as an excuse to attack ordinary people, and a rising death toll and casualty rate on both 'sides' of this government created and sponsored 'war' between men and women.

When a government outs out a thought bubble - they always have a number of strategies in their back pocket - if you scum out there won't be told by your masters what you will and won't have - they'll force it on you in another way.

Jeez - I had an eight shot .22 for vermin on the farm, and an old .303 with a broken extractor I was going to donate to the RSL - sounds like the beginnings of a massacre there...
bartpcb
21st May 2018
11:37am
If the government want to go down this road, they need to provide a 'Safe Haven' for the retirees, in that ANY losses incurred as a result of 'bad financial advice' on the part of the Super Fund are 'guaranteed' to be covered by the government.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
1:58pm
More likely to provide a safe haven for the funds and their managers.
Placido
21st May 2018
11:43am
Old Geezer,

The industry funds perform much better than the discredited banks etc.(this is written about in the press even, god forbid the Murdoch press)

So why try to discredit them by stating loose allegations "from your experience" I see no substantiation here of "rip-offs" that seems to be a particularly bank habit.

Why try to discredit them
Placido
21st May 2018
11:45am
To be clear...Why try to discredit the Industry Funds ?
MICK
21st May 2018
11:54am
Yes. That is irrefutable. But the cash for comment trolls are happy to run the lie if they think readers are uninformed and gullible.
Rosret
21st May 2018
12:16pm
What is a cash for comment troll MICK?
I think you know most of the regulars by now. Its easy to pick a set up.
MICK
21st May 2018
1:03pm
Paid for services to the Liberal Party? I caught out a poster called 'Solomon' in the past who replied he was being paid "for services to the Liberal Party" when pushed. He was. Cash for comment!
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
3:00pm
Simply because of what industry funds have done to people I have helped over the last few years. There needs to be a Royal Commission into them as well as they are worse than anything to banks etc have to offer.

I have many examples of rips off by industry super funds. One is a kid works in his schools holidays and his employer pays $200 into an industry fund for him. Within 3 months he has nothing left in the fund as they have taken it all in fees and taxes. How is that fair and what message does that tell this kid about super? This industry fund has been named as the top performing fund as well. It certainly tells me I don't want them to have my money.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
3:40pm
While I sympathise with the kid, OG - I fully understand what is going on there - and it is by no means limited to industry funds.... EVERY fund works the same way, with fees and costs that eat away at small accounts.

That is precisely why, some years ago, I advocated that no fees or costs come from accounts under a specified amount.

You'll never see that, though - ALL of those running funds of all kinds need to guarantee their incomes and superannuation funds under a very lucrative scheme totally unlike that of their members.

Put your money on it... you need only look at the government schemes, the university schemes, and business schemes - all for the insiders - that are so heavily weighted towards ensuring them luxury for life.

They're the better classes, you know, and deserve it.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
3:56pm
I'm not putting my money anywhere I can't control it Trebor.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
4:49pm
Nobody asked you to, OG.

Perhaps you could outline more options for the wage/salary earner tied to compulsory super?
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
5:34pm
Trebor it is easy be a contractor instead of a wage earner. You earn heaps more and pay heaps less tax as you have heaps of deductions. No compulsory super.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
6:36pm
We all know that, OG - but not everyone can be a contractor, same as not everyone can be a small business person.... the market is finite in all areas, and the many must work for a living on wages etc.

Those are the true captives of the current retirement packaging scheme.

I've been a contractor and an employee - contracting paid for my Jag and Daimler.... all repairs off tax...
OnlyGenuineRainey
22nd May 2018
9:29am
Industry funds have historically been very bad in some instances. I think there have been improvements lately, and of course some funds are better than others. The Electrical Trades Union Fund was appalling back in the 80s, but then so was the Union itself. An absolute disgrace at that time. This is why OG's statements are so wrong. He just can't seem to grasp that one swallow doesn't make a summer. He can be a contractor and save for retirement. Great! The guys in rip-off industry funds who lost hundreds of thousands to bad management are in a different boat. So are those who suffered major illness, accident, or a natural disaster that wiped out their home. Not everyone can be a contractor or business operator, and employees suffer huge discrimination in tax affairs. Oh, of course, they are STUPID to be employees. They should start their own business. And then who would provide the workforce?

OG just doesn't get REALITY. He's so egotistical and arrogant and self-serving that he can't see beyond the tip of his nose.
TREBOR
22nd May 2018
10:53am
He doesn't want to, Rainey - trolls are like that. He's just here for the fun and the argument - not to supply any valid comment.
4b2
21st May 2018
11:48am
More changes for us but not for pollies pensions I bet. I have just been notified by my Super fund and my pension fund (why two?) that I will be charged $102 for government changes that occurred during this financial year. This occurred last year as well. When I asked my Financial Advisor if this would be an annual fee he said he did not know. Can anyone out there reply if they are paying this fee as well or should I kook for a not for profit fund? My fund is associated with the Commonwealth Bank (big surprise).
Rosret
21st May 2018
11:57am
Of course not 4b2. If you vote for me I'll vote for you and we can each do a term in the Senate and cruise from then on in. If the USA can have 70+ year old leaders I am sure we could still manage a stay in Canberra for a few weeks of the year!
I'd have to practice heckling and interrupting when someone has the floor.
Seadove
21st May 2018
12:13pm
Grab your money and run to the nearest industry super fund would be my advice. Bank products are for the banks to make more money and they couldn't care less about you.
Rosret
21st May 2018
12:18pm
You can only do that if you haven't retired Seadove.
Rosret
21st May 2018
11:49am
Ok - its hard to decypher what is comment and what is fact.
"...factors that funds MIGHT take into account include:" Is that in the document or is that an interpretation?
This is way too complex to fathom and leave a quick hit and run comment.
Is change ever in our favour? What is clear is that the Private Superannuation scheme didn't work and both parties are going to have to manage a huge retiring population with too little in superannuation. - and is going to sting.
MICK
21st May 2018
11:57am
And you forget to mention that well to do Australians have no such problems. Now getting tax cuts on top of that.
Yes...average citizens are fair and square in the cross hairs. Being boiled slowly. Some do not even realise they are being done. The day will come when the poo hits the fan. The question is when.
Trevine
21st May 2018
11:56am
Bloody Kelly O’Dywer I cannot stand her. Why doesn’t she have the same scheme for them. I only hope the people will open their eyes at the next election and vote them out if not everyone is going to be in for a shock at the other stuff they bring out. Bloody blood suckers.
MICK
21st May 2018
12:02pm
I have found her unpalatable for several years. Not getting any better but then she is symptomatic of a nasty nasty government ruling for the rich so the moves should not surprise as they tighten the noose.

I said tax cuts for the rich would be funded by working Australians and we are now seeing this play out as the rich man's government attempts to move the 32.5 cents in the dollar tax rate to cut in at $32,000 rather than the current $37,000. Currently this is taxed at 19 cents in the dollar.
Where is the right wing mainstream media in reporting this?????? Working for the man. Obviously.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
3:42pm
**ears prick up** Is that for real, Mick? I hadn't heard of that one.... but it sounds right... reduce the tax on the top earners and chop the peasants to the bone....
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st May 2018
12:16pm
Who would put their retirement assets into a scheme that pays a miserable 5.5% and doesn't return your capital? I'd want a lot more than that to hand over my assets. I can get 5.7% securely WITHOUT surrendering my capital.
Onemore
21st May 2018
12:19pm
Wasn't that the way the old Annuities worked, get a return for x period but never there never was a maturing age, unless you call dead being the maturing age. This is probably what they are about.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
12:37pm
I thought you said one could not get any more than 5% return let alone 5.7% secure return.
MICK
21st May 2018
1:05pm
Sounds like you made the right choice OGCR even though you are obviously taking a risk with a higher return.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st May 2018
1:29pm
I did, OG, and saying that was smart because someone came forward and introduced me to an opportunity very few - apparently - are aware of.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st May 2018
1:34pm
BTW. Since you clearly can't do math, OG, 5.7% is still way short of 7.8%+++, so the mattress bank still offers the best return, and you and your LNP mates who think the assets test change was smart are still blithering fools.

Very low risk actually, Mick. Thanks for your concern. I suspect is possibly no greater than a bank, in fact.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
1:46pm
Interesting as I get introduced to such no lose opportunities every other week. Haven't found one yet that isn't full of leaks.
MICK
21st May 2018
2:12pm
Am doing a bit of tweaking at present OGR. Any information gladly received via private message. Thanks.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
3:04pm
Since I can borrow money at much less than 5.7% I'd be very weary of any so called secure investment offering that sort of return. I look at it like if they are going to give me money cheaper who is foolish enough to pay a lot more for their money? Desperate people usually comes to mind.
Sundays
21st May 2018
6:33pm
OGR, a good friend has just lost her house because someone introduced her husband to an opportunity very few were aware of. The scammer, a solicitor is now in Gaol. Just check it out closely. Btw, my industry fund is paying more
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
9:34pm
Agree Sundays I have seen a lot of schemes in my time and even dabbled in a few with a little coin but haven't found any that work consistently. I have tested many software programs that are supposed to give me the investing edge but none have worked consistently enough for me.

I was shown on of those Storm type investments and when I said no they looked at me like I was from another planet.
OnlyGenuineRainey
22nd May 2018
7:11am
Thanks for your concern, everyone, but I assure you I am ultra-cautious and have investigated very thoroughly. And yes, OG, SOME loans are less than 5.7%, but businesses and developers often pay quite high interest. I know someone who is paying 9% fixed and thinks it a good deal, simply because they couldn't get finance for what they wanted to do any cheaper. They have been paying regularly for 5 years now and the lender has a first mortgage, with 70% of the loan fully repaid. I reckon he'd love them to default now!
OnlyGenuineRainey
22nd May 2018
11:05am
Anyway, if I lose money, I get a pension sooner and end up with a higher income. That's the stupidity of the nonsense system idiots have created and OG endorses!
Not a Bludger
21st May 2018
12:30pm
Cannot the Permanently Outraged moan and groan and push the leftie line endlessly.
Old Man is right - it is a discussion outline only.
And, it would be no bad thing for super funds to offer a range of retirement products.
Would give choice to the retiree, would it not.
MICK
21st May 2018
1:06pm
Choice one day is legislation the next.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
1:34pm
It's being discussed- and rejected out of hand.

Somebody pass it on to the honourable sitting member/extra unnecessary minister with all the additional perks.

How many financial 'ministers' are needed to co-ordinate the activities of the public service into one paper?
ozqueen
21st May 2018
12:39pm
I'm obviously not seeing the full picture! Having paid superannuation, all my life, into a government industry fund, I retired a few years ago on a streamed pension. I don't have the worry of whether stock prices are rising or falling, what bank interest is doing or even what the Australian dollar is doing. My pension is adjusted annually to the cost of living and I am living quite comfortably having cashed in part of my pension to pay of my mortgage. What is it that I'm not seeing that seems to be panicking so many?
MICK
21st May 2018
1:08pm
You are sitting pat. OG is trying to destabilise industry superannuation because they are beating retail funds hands down. Because the figures do not stack up he can only throw mud by telling lies. Pretty sad.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
2:01pm
I think you will find that a government industry fund is not quite set up the same as all funds. What is needed is total transparency of all funds and where the money goes - qui bono?
Sundays
21st May 2018
6:42pm
Sounds like you’re getting a Defined Benefit pension. Lucky you, it’s like gold, but you worked hard and contribute after tax dollars. You won’t need to worry, but those old schemes have been closed to new members. Other people don’t have the same guarantees, but despite what OG says industry Funds outperform others.. QSuper administered by Qld Govt is another great fund which now accepts contributions from anyone
TREBOR
21st May 2018
12:41pm
'Add to the responsibilities of trustees' - meaning add to their fees and costs....
Smells like privatisation by stealth to me. I'll read it again slowly.
Eddy
21st May 2018
12:43pm
Note people, it is a 'position paper' not the final outcome, so I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist just yet. I must admit I do not have the actuarial skills to determine whether the ideas are sound or otherwise but I am willing to listen to what is being proposed and consider the advice of experts. It does not, on the face of it, seem unsound but time will tell. Also remember that any changes will probably have no effect on us already retired but will be of greater interest to the babies of the mid-1960s and beyond, they are the ones who will end up paying the bill.
MICK
21st May 2018
1:10pm
Just like the retirement age will go up after we are all retired, if not already done.
I think we owe it to the next generation to make sure they are not cannibalised. "I'm alright Jack" is not something I am happy to do and I would be surprised if you were of that mindset Eddy.
GrayComputing
21st May 2018
1:24pm
You want the same experts that lost $1/2 of my super to run your super/pension? Best of luck

It appears you may well be a web troll working for the super rich and or most dodgy super Funds. Get a real job
MICK
21st May 2018
2:15pm
Huh? You need to read my posts.
KSS
21st May 2018
12:52pm
What a lot of knicker knotting going on over a discussion document that is not policy and in fact is a long way from it. And it is only a single suggested model with little detail.

The only thing to take from this right now is that the Government clearly expects superannuation to fund retirement and is looking for ways to make that happen. There is nothing wrong with that. The sole purpose for superannuation in the first place is to fund retirement. Not to leave it to the kids, not to fund expensive toys (cars, boats, holiday homes etc) or pass-times (cruises, holidays) but to cover living expenses once paid work is finished. If you want those things, then you should be saving for them separately to superannuation. The only exception should be to allow people to pay off any remaining mortgage owing on retirement. The sooner people are prevented from taking lump sums out of superannuation for non-essential expenditure and making them use it for it's true purpose, the better.

This is just one model, there will be others. Just calm down.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
1:14pm
Now you know why I have only a small amount of my wealth in super.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
1:18pm
Easy they will just mortgage the house and then apply for their super to pay off their mortgage.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st May 2018
1:25pm
KSS, what is wrong with people actually using their savings for the things they saved for? All this ''control'' reminds me of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. Stick it where it belongs! If people can't spend their savings on the things they need and want in retirement, there's not much point in bothering to save. Superannuation, for today's retiree, is probably NOT primarily employer contributed. It's salary sacrifice or transferred savings. Retiree friends are pulling it all out of super, because they are heartily sick of this BS telling them what they can and can't do with their own money.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
2:53pm
OGR those who have no super just want to punish those who do. I certainly wouldn't have any more than I have in super and have been pulling it out of late as well. It certainly wont be worth having under a Labor government at all as it's only marginal with the refund of franking credits.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
3:45pm
What on earth are you talking about, OG? I doubt anyone with no super has any real interest in the 'plight' of those who do.... they're more interested in making ends meet day to day.
Misty
21st May 2018
4:04pm
TREBOR I don't think OG has any idea how the majority of pensioners live, by that I mean Govt funded pensioners only, because if he did he would not be making these ridiculous comments.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
4:29pm
Well Misty I live on a lot less than they get from the government for their pension and I live very well. If they aren't living well then they must be very wasteful indeed.
Circum
21st May 2018
4:48pm
Strongly disagree with you KSS.Super,is yours to do with as you wish in order to make retirement more comfortable.Even tony abbott said "its your money ".Your comments are applicable to the age pension but definitely not super.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
4:52pm
Comments are not applicable to pensions which are an earned and paid for right, circum...... you need a little more pre-cision about that.
Sundays
21st May 2018
7:10pm
KSS, there are many people who are having enough trouble paying off a house, and educating kids. Compulsory super, they can’t touch is the only money they have at retirement. It’s their money. They should be able to do what they want with it.
TREBOR
22nd May 2018
10:55am
But... but..... but...... you have $300k in investments OG, and get a return of $80k a year from them.... ah, the joys of putting your money with the loan sharks....
La Verne
21st May 2018
1:01pm
And if you no longer have Super? Because you have spent the money realised on Living costs? Will this intrusion into expected longevity and possible health outcomes be imposed on all Pensioners? And the self funded retirees can bleat all they like but they are in the minority and very fortunate to still own share portfolios. Many of us who aren't self funded retirees have very likely cashed out their share portfolios to meet living costs. Mick is right, it is time to vote this rich people's party out!
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
1:16pm
Problem is that those self funded retirees have had enough and now do what it takes to become pensioners. That hurts all pensioners are there is less money per pensioner available. We want more self funded retirees not less.
MICK
21st May 2018
1:17pm
I would have to add a bit of clarity on your post La Verne.
My wife and I have been fortunate enough to amass a small investment portfolio and we have had some good luck along the way as well. What many people do not understand is the huge sacrifices some Australians made and still make to reach that position. Whilst many now on the pension just had the best life possible (not all!) those who end up with a nest egg took risks, invested rather than consumed, worked long long hours, went without what most people consider basic needs, etc.
Ok, I'll put the violin away. You sort of get the point. Now those who have nothing often hold that against who can manage. A real divide but one nevertheless.
People will always be people and not all are alike. My issue is that policies should be FAIR rather than blatant government attacks with no merit. This has nearly always been the case under Labor but coalition governments have a different mindset which comes after workers with a vengeance. Playing out for the past 6 years with worse to come.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
1:21pm
Mick the last 6 years have been extremely good compared to the previous six years. Our economy is booming and more people have jobs. If the next six years are to be better then Labor is certainly not going to deliver them.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st May 2018
1:22pm
Yes, OG, we do, but fools like you support policies that demolish self-funded retirees and reward them for divesting assets to become pensioners!!!! Make up your mind which side of the fence you are on You can't have it both ways. Either we want more self-funded retirees, or we want to rip them off and make them poorer than pensioners until they give up and go on the pension. It's one or the other!
MICK
21st May 2018
1:23pm
OG - the last 6 years have been good because the GFC is long gone. So why has your government more than doubled the national debt whilst producing nothing other than expensive Royal Commissions into Labor? That is the question.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
1:27pm
Debt has doubled due to the hideous policies put in place by Labor and a government held hostage by a do good senate.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st May 2018
1:27pm
La Verne, what makes you think self-funded retirees are ''fortunate''? I can point to a hundred and one pensioners who had far, far more than I did all through their lives, and are still living way better than I am. Fortune doesn't enter into it in many cases.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
1:40pm
Unemployment rate is exactly the same as when Labor left office - with the proviso that the majority of new 'jobs' are part-time casual.

Don't be facetious about any 'booming' economy, OG.
MICK
21st May 2018
2:20pm
OG - gee whiz mate.

Two expensive Royal Commission into Labor and unions are the previous government's fault?
And what above the NBN which has been all but destroyed by Malcolm Turnbull with the whole butchered project now costing more than the original real one?
Now we have welfare tax cuts for the rich, multinationals who send their money to tax havene whilst this crooked government does not amend the law.....oh yes, the PM has an offshore tax haven as well so you cannot amend that law.

Talk about the more than doubling of the debt with not a thing to show for it OG. That's where the discussion is. Not your dishonest response.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
2:51pm
Labor didn't have the nerve to have those Royal Commissions or rather witch hunts with no substance.

Cutting company tax rate is a good first move and it should be cut to 15% as 30% is way too high.

Labor's NBN was never going to work or be affordable. Wireless technology has already made it redundant so thank good ness the Liberals did what they did.

So you haven't got an off shore bank account Mick. They sure making travel to overseas countries so much easier.
Misty
21st May 2018
4:07pm
The last 6 years may have been better for you and your cronies OG but I can tell you they haven't been for a lot of people, low wages do not help people pay the bills.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
4:33pm
Most people I know are doing a lot better now than they were 6 years ago. let's hope people don't make a stupid mistake and have all the good work undone.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
8:41pm
You need to get out more, OG - you are forever telling us about people who are being ripped off etc with part-time or seasonal jobs and need help at Centrelink.

Doesn't sound like they're doing too well to me.
Misty
22nd May 2018
1:42am
TREBOR I don't think OG is quite with it do you?, as you say he is constantly contradicting himself.
Mac
21st May 2018
1:12pm
It amazes me how much time and money would have been expended by government to come up with this proposed, extremely convoluted scheme.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
1:38pm
My greatest concern would be if that company providing you with such products will be around in 30 years.
Hairy
21st May 2018
1:16pm
Another step for the goverment and there brother banks to control super,my father said before he died that they would eventually rip it off.they the pollies have meddled with it so much I don’t trust anything but what’s in my hand.i will be closing my account before they get what little I have left ,I think I can make better use of it before I die .
MICK
21st May 2018
1:25pm
"Control" is the end game. That's why government will adopt cryptocurrencies of their own making. It coming.
Banks controlling the superannuation system is but a subset of the bigger game: controlling money at the click of a mouse.
GrayComputing
21st May 2018
1:20pm
It is time for all of us to rant DAILY at our MPs & PM to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVERV AGAIN!
A pension is not welfare.

Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules
Even poorer New Zealand has a NO ASSET pension so it is cheaper and user friendly,

Do retired and retiring people really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

Does your MP really like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

Why do MPs normally compassionate persons let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

Some opposition and independent MPs stand to lose their chance at being part of the needed government changes

We all need to tell our MP that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.
NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
MICK
21st May 2018
1:29pm
"Common decency" is a quality the frontbench of this government does not have. Think about listening to the likes of Pyne, Abbott, Morrison, Dutton, Corman. Some sickening vile and dishonest comments have come out of the mouths of these people making me question what we all have become to accept lies, intentional deceit and mudslinging as an acceptable part of the political climate.
We need an election.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
1:32pm
I agree we will have an election and you will be listening to them for the next 3 years too as Labor hasn't got a change of winning the next election.
MICK
21st May 2018
2:23pm
So say the (paid) trolls and the mainstream right wing media propaganda machine.
There is one word which should put your comment into perspective: TRUMP. Same comments at the time but Trump won convincingly. Your big business media will fail no matter how many times you post lies OG. Readers see through them and they certainly see through the government we have to have.
Bring it on.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
2:38pm
Wasn't Trump the under dog and not expected to win? That's why Labor wont win.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
3:47pm
No comparison on policy platforms, OG. Mick has more in common with Trump than Turnbull has.... largely an ear for the common people.....
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
4:34pm
Big compassion we keep our freedom or we get stood over by unions.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
4:54pm
How are you 'stood over' by unions, OG? They can only bargain..... and in extremis use industrial action as a lever to gain a negotiated settlement.

I think you've got things backwards..... again....
TREBOR
21st May 2018
8:48pm
You really are deeply into this ideological war against unions, aren't you, OG? Either that or you are one of those dodos who have no idea in the real world.

Do you really believe that all those high-flying individual negotiators could go anywhere if it were not for the solid underpinning of wage rates and conditions that are guaranteed by the actions of the unions, who annually present a case for a national pay rise and who defend conditions of work and even safety?

Those big hairy men working hard for a living scare the pants off widdle ol' manager who just can't stand up to them? Poor little fellow... needs to call the government to attack Unions for him since he can't do his own damned job and negotiate fairly within the rules, and not the rules of some dark Eastern European or Mediterranean country his family fled from, where the peasants beg for a day's work at any rate the lord wants to give them....

Look at the cowering little foreign scum in the building companies... crying to Big Mal that those big Union men are standing over them at the negotiating table, when all management wants to do is slash wages and conditions and cut corners on safety.

What a pack of losers management generally in this nation are.
Joy Anne
21st May 2018
1:37pm
LETS ALL GET A PETITION STARTED FOR POLITIANS.

NO MASSIVE PENSIONS OR ANY PENSION FOR POLITICIANS. THIS WOULD SAVE BILLIONS.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
1:41pm
Nothing wrong with pollies getting their pensions at all.
Misty
21st May 2018
2:17pm
Well there you have it folks, OG is obviously still a politician or a retired one.
MICK
21st May 2018
2:24pm
And does that not tell you the past workplace of Old Geezer?
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
2:37pm
You have to be kidding way too boring for me working in that sort of place.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
3:54pm
The only things wrong with pollies getting their pensions are that:-

a. they themselves set it up for themselves to suit themselves
b. too many are drawing it long before pension time
c. it is overly remunerative for contribution unlike everyone else's
d. it is funded directly out of government revenue and thus is not subject to any market forces
e. they can continue to get it even when working elsewhere, unlike everyone else

f. it is not subject to means and income tests
g. it is indexed so that they never drop below a relative level of income no matter what happens to the nation as a whole
h. it is stashed offshore in a safe haven, paying no tax here, and is thus safe from any disaster the same recipients of it visit upon this nation.
i. it was designed to effectively give politicians their salary for life in return for their 'service' to the nation, something shared by nobody else
j. It removes recipients from the realities of the very policies they are paid to introduce, and thus renders them incapable of sound judgement.
k. it creates of political life a self-serving self-enrichment exercise rather than a service to the nation.

In simple terms, it has been labeled fairly as Grand Theft Canberra or similar many times over, and it is a disgrace.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
4:07pm
And how is this any different from other pension funds?
TREBOR
21st May 2018
4:55pm
In the excessively preferential treatment and funding they receive... apart from that plenty of other ways in that list, which you obviously didn't read or are unable to understand without my spoon-feeding you every time.
Sundays
21st May 2018
7:21pm
Trebor. You’ve said it correctly. The return they receive has little correlation to the contributions they’ve made.
George
22nd May 2018
12:15am
Agree, Joy Anne.

Their pension is UNFUNDED and pays massive Pensions, without means tests, so yes no correlation to any contributions (other than 50% of Base Salary at 8 years and 75% at 18 years). Note: Base Salary is currently $203,030, with PM, Ministers, Opposition leaders, other categories, getting much more.

This nonsensical scheme MUST be SCRAPPED immediately, and they should only apply for pensions under the same rules as everyone else. All should ask their MPs if they will support scrapping it, else we should put them on the scrap heap.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
2:14pm
My eyes are beginning to cross at the information flow in these arguments......
dreamer
21st May 2018
2:34pm
This is getting out of order this government should do what they are paid a lot and I mean a lot of money to do run the country and leave my f....ing money alone

21st May 2018
2:46pm
I don't trust this government. Let's change it.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
2:47pm
There is nothing available that is nothing worth changing it to.
Anonymous
21st May 2018
3:02pm
What about the greens?
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
3:05pm
You don't mean the watermelon party. Green on the outside and red on the inside.
Misty
21st May 2018
4:11pm
Dream on OG, thank God people with your outlook on life are few and far between.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
4:12pm
There are millions of us Misty but only a few of like you.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
4:56pm
Some 'silent majority', then? The predominance of views here shows the complete opposite, OG.
Misty
22nd May 2018
1:46am
No reply to your comment TREBOR, obviously the truth hurts.
OnlyGenuineRainey
22nd May 2018
7:14am
Egotists always think they are right and everyone else is wrong, OG. To see who is wrong, just look in the mirror. But hold your nose while you are doing it. The person looking back will be ugly in every way.
musicveg
27th May 2018
3:54pm
We need more Greens, and Sustainable Australia Party mp's too. There are many options to vote Marcus, just do some research, contact each party and find out their policies. Don't listen to the lies spread by Labor and Liberal or even Pauline Hanson who sides with the Liberals.
Aussie
21st May 2018
3:27pm
Why in HELL some of you vote for this bunch of totally F...k people that all they do is keep the Gov. seats warm.

Is this all the country need to worry about ?????? Is this the only problem we have ????
Where do we go from here ????? as pensioners

I check my Gov and the web for any daily changes that may be on pension issues and I found that almost every 2 weeks or a month a new concept show up from some idiot Low class ignorant politicians that have nothing to do ....
But they are OK ...big pension untouched wowowowo

Shit ...that is why some of us are stress and worry about our future with this king of gov.

We are in deep S...t
JustGus
21st May 2018
3:28pm
These people are from the same party that did NOT want to call a Royal Commission into the corrupt practises of the financial institutions, ?....?
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
3:33pm
Yes I can see why it I nothing but a witch hunt with no substance at all. Never heard so much rubbish in all my life as is coming out of that Royal Commission.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
3:56pm
.. tell that to the endless conga line of resigning ceos and board members and such, and the coming soon to be prosecuted advisors....

You're a laugh a minute, OG..... you humour there just has to be intentional....

By contrast you didn't see any conga line of Union bosses etc resigning in disgrace, did you?
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
4:05pm
That's why it is simply a witch hunt. Of course they resign it was simply planned that way and you can't see what is really going on. Just a good excuse for them to all get better paid jobs. Of course the advisor will go they are collateral damage as with any organisation.


It will be the union bosses turn soon as they have been left to late to do maximum damage to a certain other political party just before an election. It has certainly turned out so much better than they planned it.
Misty
21st May 2018
4:14pm
OG where have you been?, this GOVT fought tooth and nail to prevent a RC into the banks, they certainly cannot take any credit for this one.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
4:26pm
Where have you been Misty? The banks and the government cook it all up together even with the banks asking for it to happen. Labor didn't have the nerve to do it when they were in power so all credit goes to our current government. A few people will resign but that was all planned to happen. A few more regulations will be put in place and the banks will have to charge more in fees and thus make a lot more money. It was nothing but a brilliant move and has conned so many people into thinking it was a good idea.
TREBOR
21st May 2018
4:57pm
Show me the hard figures.......
Misty
21st May 2018
5:51pm
So OG you think the Govt and banks are in cahoots together and you still think they are a wonderful Govt?, says a lot about your judgement doesn't it
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
6:01pm
Better than the alternative government in bed with the unions.
Sundays
21st May 2018
7:28pm
I love all your conspiracy theories OG, and how you are in the know. I’ve yet to see any of your predictions around Govt policy ever come true.
OnlyGenuineRainey
22nd May 2018
6:57am
OG claimed to know about things that were in the budget and not publicized beforehand, but he was wrong. He's usually wrong, in my experience. Initials stand for OLD GOAT.
musicveg
27th May 2018
4:27pm
I would rather support a party that works with unions to keep jobs protected than a party that works with banks to keep the top 10% rich and getting richer.
BElle
21st May 2018
3:36pm
It's just yet another CON. Do your own investment and control your money yourself. If you are not au faix with finance then go on line and find a short course in investment and money management. Its worth the trouble and you will not be paying others to control YOUR money. Its enough that Centrelink can control a large part of your income without the other vultures making a fortune at your expense.
sunnyOz
21st May 2018
3:55pm
Get real! - Since WHEN would ANY government do anything to benefit seniors and retirees? Their sole and only agenda would be to benefit the government, NOT the public. Simply a smoke screen. Whenever a government talks about making it easier for seniors, I am filled with dread. Just like privatisation will lower power prices - yeah, right....
Magic Touch
22nd May 2018
9:35am
SunnyOz you are 110% right Those seniors and retirees try so hard to invest on some property or shares so that they can had a little to top up for the old age to spending but inturn was punish by this government and had their old age pension payment totally cut of due to the asset test. Property price go up it,s not the retirees/seniors fault they don,t get any money at all. Council rate go up due to property price go up so not much top up money than come another blow the land tax. How can you go with this goverment a bunch of wild animals.

21st May 2018
4:12pm
Excellent initiative by the government to look after tj interest of retirees
Retirees and pre retirees will be provided better quality information to align their investing strategy to their income requirements in retirement
Anonymous
21st May 2018
4:31pm
So will you be buying a CIPR?
Misty
21st May 2018
4:15pm
Same old, same old, hit the ones who can least afford it.
Magic Touch
21st May 2018
4:58pm
This government don,t know where and how to get monies, all this rich fats known it,s to taget the retirees and pensioner cant they leave them alone and give them what they are entitle too.
In today hiteach world you want to get monies you had to go hiteach, inpose tax % on software register and sofeware that use on anything you can get a whole lot of monies. Those insturament, machinely which run with sofeware must had Australia Tax certificate other wise it,s illegal. This will help the government bring in heap of monies.
Knows-a-lot
21st May 2018
5:15pm
If it has anything to do with the thoroughly incompetent and self-serving Lieberals, then it's bound to be a disaster.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
5:59pm
Agree however with Labor it's a catastrophe.
Circum
21st May 2018
5:34pm
I wonder what brightspark in the government suggested adding more complexity to superannuation.At the same time trying to control retirees money.Interesting to hear that at this stage the decision to use CIPR is not mandatory,suggesting that later it may be mandatory.
Timing is impeccable,just when the Liberals are making up ground in the polls,they blow themselves up.
Misty
21st May 2018
5:47pm
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
Old Geezer
21st May 2018
6:03pm
Labor has already lost the election so it no longer matters.
Misty
22nd May 2018
1:48am
Dream on OG, your nightmare is coming.
Marian
21st May 2018
7:17pm
The system never to be work for pensioners as never work all the time the is not Governments or the system were is any respect for the who work the is new lie & bully as is all the time the who is in the Governments system or parliaments the see only them self the is not any rights not Humanity not Human Rights the is not law to warranty who the Governments is plan & never to be any help as is not help from P.M. Hon.Kevin Rudd The all today rude lie corrupt
john
21st May 2018
8:23pm
Well this could be the vote killer policy floated around by a government that thinks that when people get older they are ready to be led down the path to the grave, in every way possible. This once again is a vote killer LNP. It is simple to just allow people to get their pension and most should be eligible unless you spent all the fund, and then retirees should if they are able through lifelong work also benefit from any super or investments, and live a decent good end of time on planet earth. With a pension they worked for as well! People who have no such extra income should be given without one single catch, the full pension, for couples or singles and it should be a total living amount so that people at the end of the track , should never have money problems. Remember all you young ones getting older , we made you! And you'll get to where we are, be careful.
Setting up some stupid form of pension like a super fund or an investment package and pay off , is the first step to the "if they are too old get rid of them" I don't care what kind of excuse is made about how this would operate , it smells to me badly of danger, and over control and not wanting to give retirees enough to go on with, it also looks complicated, I can't wear Bill Shorten, but this could get him a vote , when is the govt and the people who will all get old eventually start to see, that confusing older Australians is under handed and very deadly.
Beware the privatisation of pensions , this reeks of it!
TREBOR
21st May 2018
8:52pm
Agree with pretty much all you say, including the sentiments about Shorten, who I'd trust as far as I could throw Fat Joe Hockey.

Just another self-serving political animal to me.
niemakawa
21st May 2018
11:09pm
Going by the comments here there are a large number of people disgruntled with the policies of the current Federal Government and similarly many see no improvement will be seen should a Labor Government be elected.

There are alternatives and I for one will not vote for either of the aforementioned Parties. Some of you may or may not have read the policies of the Australian Conservative Party, which although in its infancy has in my opinion much to offer all Australians. It places more emphasis on National problems which are of the most concern to the Australian public.

I am not promoting this Party in anyway but merely bringing to the attention of readers here that there are alternatives to the mainstream Parties which in the main have lost touch with not only what concerns Australians but also the needs of Australians.

Nothing will change unless the Australian voters sit up and take a stand against the lies and false promises emanating from the Liberal and Labor Parties and their collaboraters.

https://www.conservatives.org.au/our_policies
OnlyGenuineRainey
22nd May 2018
6:52am
I agree, niemakawa, but the problem is too many alternatives and independents. Votes will be spread across the alternatives with none getting enough to do much good and then preferences benefit the majors and we are back in the same situation we are in now. We need a new system. We need to find a way to get rid of the LNP and Labor for good.
George
22nd May 2018
7:44pm
Yes, we need a new system. While I agree with your sentiments, niemakawa, getting your preferred alternative is going to be tough due to the entrenched team-based voting by the majority.

Hence, as I have often said, the next best thing to getting your preferred candidate (by all means put him / her 1st in preference, and if that candidate is popular he / she may even win), is to put the current MP seat-holder from any of the major parties LAST in preferences, and you will then have someone else who COULD unseat that person above that and hopefully knock off that seat-warmer.

This scheme would work to get rid of non-performers if most Older Australians (who are being dudded by all the major parties) act together. This scheme can simply be repeated each time if we get another non-performing major party member elected.

This would be really effective in electorates where either the seats are marginal or Older Australians are significant in numbers to make the difference. Then the word may spread that we CAN make a difference....
musicveg
27th May 2018
4:31pm
Yes many other parties to vote for, Sustainable Australia Party is looking good, but am worried about preference voting, need to do some more research. I have not decided who to vote for, just want less of the two major parties.
Wstaton
22nd May 2018
11:49am
I am trying to figure out what


age and marital/spousal status
factors affecting Age Pension eligibility
that person’s health or life expectancy based on family history
other superannuation accounts
outstanding debts
whether and how cognitive decline may affect outcomes
whether a member is a smoker or non-smoker
whether the member is a blue or white-collar worker.

To obtain money that the person has provided from his pay and employer contribution has invested by a super fund for them.

This is someone where they are putting money into for an investment outcome not something that the cost is of contributing is dependent on weather you are a smoker or not. The income from an investment is npt dependent opn wether you are going to die next week or not.

Apart from this the money in a super fund belongs to the retiree.

As such if a retiree dies the money invested (Note invested) is paid by the trust to either nominated beneficiaries or if none into the estate.

You kbow what I think? I think this government is trying to turn the definition of super into a insurance like benefit so they can get their greedy little hands on retires money
Magic Touch
22nd May 2018
12:51pm
Wstaton this government first take the retirees pension monies than now your super fund monies by ask you to by insurance. And this insurance pay out it,s your own money, it,s not an investment is a goverment loan like the bank way to rip of your monies.That why I said it,s a bunch of wild animals.
Crazy Horse
22nd May 2018
2:50pm
Turnbull still trying to help his rich mates get richer at our expense.
musicveg
27th May 2018
4:33pm
Always, they care nothing about anyone else but the richest, mult-national compaines that pay no tax, and their off shore tax havens.
George
22nd May 2018
7:56pm
Good comments, Olga, including the summary of issues raised by many super experts.

It is also disgusting, given what we all know from the RC, that they seek to include a protection for their mates i.e. “Trustees could qualify for a safe harbour,” to protect industry crooks but not Retirees.

This disgusting scheme is clearly the invention for some business blood-sucker trying to create a new industry to rip-off Retirees by attacking the money in large Super funds, especially Industry Funds, to create new income streams for the already filthy rich financial CEOs, and in turn provide kick-backs to their right-wing political masters through donations / directorships on retirement, etc. IDEA MUST BE SHOT DOWN AT THE EARLIEST by all through submissions!
Anne
25th May 2018
2:44pm
I'm pulling my super out when I reach preservation age in early December. I do not trust future governments with the money or with taking care of my interests.
McDaddy
25th May 2018
4:07pm
Are you retired Anne?
Anne
25th May 2018
6:52pm
I will be retired for legal purposes. It's my understanding I can take some freelance work later...
PlanB
26th May 2018
10:03am
You need to watch this

The Secrets of Silicon Valley -- on ABC

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+secrets+of+silicon+valley+watch+online&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab
Magic Touch
27th May 2018
5:08pm
The vote system should change, the PM should be vote by peoples not the party it self the party can not change PM if they done like it than bring it out for the peoples to vote than it will be more fair for the whole AUSTRALIA. So the PM can be a person not with the party. Because other small party can rule as a PM do all of you agreed as AUSTRALIAN.
Marian
28th May 2018
10:39am
Not any others country system is more Corrupt rude as is Australian the all Pension money who is pay is not below to Governments or the criminals as is Mr Keenan & the gestapo Centrelink the is life on stolen Tax payers money & Pensioners who pay all working time The criminals manipulate the pensioners money for the on finace corrupt expenses & criminals in the departments Human Service were is not any service is corruption & manipulation Pensioners money


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

  • Receive our daily enewsletter
  • Enter competitions
  • Comment on articles
you might also be interested in...

The ten worst retirement planning mistakes

Paul Clitheroe reviews the ten biggest retirement planning mistakes – and why you need to avoid them.

Are you money smart?

Helping you highlight the areas which need urgent attention.

How safe is your super?

It may be worthwhile asking your super fund just how safe is your super.

Money milestones

Managing your money doesn’t get any easier as you get older, but there are certain money milestones of which you can take advantage.

What to ask a financial adviser

Starting on the right foot with a financial advisor can help ensure you get the most from your meeting. YourLifeChoices has 50 useful questions you may wish to ask.