Fears the retirement income review could end up costing you

Is Dr Deborah Ralston the right person for the job? Will this review end up costing you money?

Fears the retirement income review could end up costing you

Australian superannuation funds fear the Government’s retirement income review could erode people’s savings, after the appointment of an inquiry member with a history of critiquing the super sector.

Industry Super Australia chief executive Bernie Dean believes the appointment of Dr Deborah Ralston could compromise the review, which is set to explore super tax concessions, means testing for the Age Pension and voluntary savings.

“I’m not suggesting for a moment that we need to approve the appointees,” Mr Dean told The New Daily.

“But putting up people to lead an allegedly open review who have very fixed and pre-determined views of what the outcome should be, that’s not going to instil much confidence.”

Dr Ralston recently campaigned against Labor’s pledge to scrap refundable franking credits and has also lobbied to make super voluntary for lower-income earners.

While Prime Minister Scott Morrison defended Dr Ralston’s appointment, saying she had the “right experience” in the area and the Government’s full support, backlash from the Labor Party and the super industry about her appointment has led to her resigning from her role as chair of the SMSF Association.

Regardless of Dr Ralston’s role change, Mr Dean has expressed concerns that the Government might use the inquiry as a “stalking horse to take people’s savings away”.

“There’s two significant debates going on. The first is whether super should be compulsory or optional, and the second is whether the [amount of super] that employers pay on top of wages should be frozen,” said Mr Dean.

“Both of those are bad ideas. Winding back compulsory super would leave the whole country worse off, as we’d all end up paying more tax to support a flood of people fully relying on the pension.”

Currently, employers contribute 9.5 per cent of an employee’s salary towards their super fund. That figure is set to increase by 0.5 per cent a year from 2021 until 2025.

While the Grattan Institute claims these increases will come at the expense of a pay rise for workers, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees chief Eva Scheerlinck said the increases were a “pivotal measure to improve retirement income adequacy across all working Australians”.

“We hope that the review focuses on ways to make super stronger, not weaker,” she said.

“This means sticking to the legislated timetable to increase the compulsory super rate to 12 per cent by 2025 and focusing on plugging the gaps in the system to make it fairer for all.

“There is also the need to re-examine how the Age Pension currently interacts with the super system and whether the tax concessions could be better targeted,” she added.

Liberal backbencher Andrew Bragg has also called for superannuation contributions to be made voluntary for people earning less than $50,000 a year, claiming that compulsory super makes it more difficult for people to buy a home and costs the Government too much money.

Yet Australia currently spends around 4.4 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on retirement incomes, well below the OECD’s 2013 average of 7.6 per cent.

Do you think super contributions should be voluntary for lower-income workers? Is Dr Ralston the right person to sit on a retirement income review panel?

If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    11:16am
    Did you seriously think that this 'government' would 'review' retirement packaging and actually strive to benefit the majority? That's a bit like asking for benefit from a 'review' of 'industrial relations'..... meaning more punitive attacks on those who choose to form a group for negotiation and more opportunity for a single worker to go out against a corporation to gain rights and income.
    sunnyOz
    7th Oct 2019
    11:50am
    This is exactly what I have said. As if the govt sits there asking 'how can be offer more benefits to seniors'? No - they sit there saying 'what can we bring in to rip more off seniors'? Wouldn't trust them for a single moment.
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    12:15pm
    give with one finger while taking with the other hand.... that's the way... the more confusing they can make it the better, since by the time the frogs have taken out a thermometer, it is too late...
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    12:19pm
    "How can 'we' cut the COST of pensions?"

    There is no 'cost' to pensions, unlike most other avenues of government expenditure - pensions are, by virtue of contributions going back a lifetime, fully self-funded (and that funding should be rolled over into The Trebor Scheme along with the stolen Future Fund), and since the majority are on the breadline* their weekly super payout from Centrelink goes straight back into the economy.

    ** even Shakespeare had to be downgraded in school to match the 650ml 'long neck' -

    "half a loaf of bread, a glass of water, and a picture of thee....."

    "You take from me my life when you take from me my means of sustaining it!" - Merchant of Venice....... so let us cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war .....
    VeryCaringBigBear
    7th Oct 2019
    12:30pm
    OAP is not funded at all. It relies on future revenue to pay for future pensions.
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    1:13pm
    Where that money comes from now and in the future has no bearing, OG - it was funded and it is no fault of the recipient that the government wasted the money on its wet dreams and setting up QANGOs and other things like 'commissions' where it could slot its mates into lifetime earners etc.

    Let's start cutting government expenditure by chopping all these 'corporations', 'commissions', and 'boards' and so forth that duplicate public service pre-paid operations, and that includes the courts.

    Then we can reduce the load on the courts by looking at the legislations that have passed through that tie up their time and energy on 'social engineering' procedures and return them to their core duty of checking on genuine wrongdoing.

    Any more ideas on cost cutting for government - other than to revert much of the contracted out nonsense back to the public servants already paid to do it?

    Maybe ensure that big dollar items, like golden hammers for submarines etc - are made Here and not 'there' in some foreign nation that will NEVER return the favour by offering Australia a similar contract.... (how dumb can you be and still be in government?) ...
    OJ21
    9th Oct 2019
    11:44am
    How true. Thieves that took the trillions destined for our pensions and put it in consolidated revenue to pay for theirs. No one ever confronts them about this when ABC talk shows give the opportunity. The only thing the review will do is find ways of making it more difficult to claim the OAP so people give up.
    Hoohoo
    11th Oct 2019
    11:46am
    Yes TREBOR, you ask "(how dumb can you be and still be in government?) ... ", but the real question is this:
    How dumb can voters be to keep voting in this government?
    Hoohoo
    11th Oct 2019
    12:02pm
    Maybe "dumb" is too strong a word. More like "frightened". Frightened because they believed the lie about Labor/Unions/Greens introducing Death Duties or that 1,300 maybe jobs from Adani are more important than the 60,000 tourism jobs of people already employed in north QLD, not to mention the demise of many local businesses & regional economies around the Great Barrier Reef.

    Meanwhile, the Libs gave over $1/2 billion to a Company to raise funds for the Reef - something they never asked for. And Clive Palmer still hasn't paid $70 million to his former employees while spending that much on his Federal election advertising campaign (which was pure & simple propaganda).

    I must mention Josh Frydenberg tweeted the blatant lie about Death Duties, then asked readers to "share with all your friends". Pity he can't be held to justice in a court of law.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    7th Oct 2019
    11:25am
    There has to be a reward for saving for your retirement otherwise who would bother? I certainly wouldn't be putting anything into super if I was young and that includes bypassing the 9.5% employer contribution.
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    11:31am
    For once, I have to agree with you - on the proviso that a plan was in place to salt money away where it would do the most good...

    There is an avenue for you there in advising young people how to structure their income etc .... but be advised that it would be extremely difficult for an employee to get around the compulsory super network with all its benefits and pitfalls...
    VeryCaringBigBear
    7th Oct 2019
    11:36am
    It is very easy for an employee to get around the compulsory super and I advise young people regularly how to do it. None of my grandkids pay it.
    inextratime
    7th Oct 2019
    11:41am
    VCBB if you remove one of your posts just after you post it, we'll only see one message from you. I have the same glitch in the system
    VeryCaringBigBear
    7th Oct 2019
    11:43am
    Yes I have been removing them too.
    Sundays
    7th Oct 2019
    11:59am
    For many people the compulsory Super their employer pays is the only way they can save for retirement especially If they choose and Industry Fund. The idea that employers will actually increase wages for low income earners instead of paying Super is laughable. Look at what is not happening with ‘trifle down’ economics!
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    12:22pm
    As I said, Old Geezer - there's a fine opportunity for the entrepreneur there for you to advise young people on hoarding for their own retirement....

    Go for it - don't hoard it like some miser with constipation holding on to his bolus... as I said about Scientology - if it is so good for humanity why is it necessary to pay for it?
    VeryCaringBigBear
    7th Oct 2019
    12:23pm
    Super money is better off in your mortgage than where it is now where it gets eaten away in fees and inflation. Yes industry funds are no better than retails funds.
    Sundays
    7th Oct 2019
    1:05pm
    I guess a rich person like yourself and the uncaring LNP can’t see that even a small amount of Super in retirement makes a huge difference to someone’s lifestyle and peace of mind. Sure, try and put more into a mortgage but no employer is going to give you a 9.25% after tax pay increase! My industry fund has been great!
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    1:16pm
    Then it is your duty to humanity and to the nation to make it clear to the many exactly how they can remove their super from going into an established fund, so they can place it in their mortgage etc.

    What, for example, is the application process for getting one's super out and funded into the mortgage instead? Bet the super crews won't come at that.....

    Methinks you speak as some 'self-employed' person who had a lot of cash coming in or had avenues to hide income - since you are obviously not some employee with no choices....

    Like WorkChoices - SuperChoices!! What are my choices? Either do it our way or do it our way......
    VeryCaringBigBear
    7th Oct 2019
    11:45am
    Bill Shorten has admitted that the non refund of franking credits cost them the election so Dr Ralston is a great person to conduct this review.
    Batara
    7th Oct 2019
    12:08pm
    Just because the franking credits misinformation cost Labor the election does not mean it was bad policy. It was good policy to stop an unconscionable loss to revenue, but was distorted and misrepresented. In the near to medium term future that distortion of the tax system must be reformed. Perhaps it will need to be limited to stopping future "clever" investments and allow those who have their money invested in order to profit from Howard's richfella welfare to continue to rort their fellow Australians.
    Ralston is biased and opinionated so cannot possibly act in good faith to contribute to the review.
    Cowboy Jim
    7th Oct 2019
    12:23pm
    Franking Credit was not misinformation as Bill Shorten admitted and it justly cost him the election. Not all working people are blind and stupid.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    7th Oct 2019
    12:27pm
    The Labor franking credit policy was a terrible policy as it rewarded high income earners and fleeced low income earners. It is a withholding tax the same as PAYE and PAYG. Nothing clever about it at all. Take it away and you have heavily indebted companies paying interest instead of tax.
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    1:16pm
    If you do your taxes correctly, there is zero difference between a franked credit and an unfranked one.....
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    1:19pm
    As you yourself just admitted, and I've been saying all along - it is the same as a PAYE or PAYG tax - you get back what you are entitled to - so if someone is getting a heap for nothing, there is something wrong going on.

    What needs to be properly looked at is how people manage to vanish income and make it appear they live on fresh air..... that should be a red flag instantly... and same as super and tax concessions ... Average Jo Worker doesn't get that kind of opportunity.
    adbob
    7th Oct 2019
    2:52pm
    Shorten's franking credit policy was the stupidest thing anyone could have thought of - both as a Labor policy and also as a vote-winner.

    It was SocoMo (as treasurer) who stole the part-pensions from people who had worked and saved under the promise of their super *supplementing* their (supposedly inadequate) age pension. ScoMo doubled the taper (ie clawbacck) rate - thus robbing many people of their entitlement and reducing them to the lower end of the self-funded retiree (SFR) scale - ie an income level *below* that of the supposedly inadequate age pension - in other words replacing rather than supplementing it.

    At the same time the LNP (in order either to buy voetes of head of opposition) actually increased the ae pension for those who had not contributed a penny to their won retirement. Shorten acolytes even suggested that the hard-hit group should be spending down their hard-earned savings in order to bring their income up to a higher level - pure envy - but brought to you by an LNP government - under the supposedly moderate Malcom Turnbull at the time.

    Knee-jerk Shorten of the knitted brow (with plenty to say on any other issue) didn't raise the slightest objections - the Greens were bought off onthe strength of some sort of promise.

    This was definitely one of the reasons that Labor lost the election - but the main reason really was having Shorten as leader. If Albo turns out to be Shorten-lite Labor will be out of office for a long time. Shorten needs to be disowned and cast into outer darkness - along with the legacies of Bob everyone's nmate Hawke and Paul er y'know Keating - both economic neocons - both more comfortable with their super-rich mates than with real Labor people.

    It's not a football team - it's a political party. Even in this age of identity politics pople should scrathc the surface before offering unqualified support.

    Deborah Ralston was right to criticise Labor's (ie SHorten's) franking credit policy and on the strength of that real Labor people should support (not oppose) her.
    Paddington
    7th Oct 2019
    8:10pm
    I have said this many times. In Qld people were very confused. It is a fact. My brother worked at the pre polls for a start and person after person came through believing they would lose their franking credits that they did not even have. Also, a death tax and more taxes would come. Emotional stuff they had believed made them vote for the likes of Palmer and a Pauline who gave their preferences to the LNP. They had swallowed all the Palmer lies.
    adbob, don’t know where to start with your rubbish. So I will just say what a load of unsubstantiated verbal diarrhoea.
    Hoohoo
    11th Oct 2019
    6:57pm
    Batara, TREBOR & Paddington are correct in every instance. Still, OG (VCBBear) is partly correct in saying that Labor's Franking Credit plan "... rewarded high income earners and fleeced low income earners.", except it is not high income earners or low income earners, it rewarded high tax-payers & punished low tax-payers.
    But of course it's near impossible to tax high income earners when they can shuffle things about so that they pay little or no tax & somehow, can live high on the hog with apparently no income (TREBOR's comment).

    And it's definitely not "withholding tax the same as PAYE and PAYG.

    Large corporations are deliberately heavily indebted because the interest they pay (often loaned from one of their own offshore subsiduaries) is a business expense & therefore lowers their tax debt. When the time is ripe, they fold or sever that part of their company that suits their bottom line, so that they reduce their tax burden continually. This is how global companies (multinationals) operate & it's why we have to rely on the humble wage-earner to pay into Consolidated Revenue for services such as health, education, police & infrastructure. IT IS WRONG.
    johnp
    7th Oct 2019
    11:48am
    The perverse outcomes of the asset taper test means that Self Funded Retirees would need about $2 million in super just to match the centrelink aged pension. In safe investments. That is not fair whatsoever !!
    VeryCaringBigBear
    7th Oct 2019
    11:52am
    It was a good more as people will now have to use their own money first before going on the OAP.
    Sundays
    7th Oct 2019
    12:01pm
    Or just spend up while working instead of saving!
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    12:13pm
    Nineteen years ago I said to our local newsagent that he'd need around $2m for a good retirement - he thought that was extravagant.. but, of course, I have a ready reckoner mind when it comes to real value of a $1 after twenty years......

    Money you have accumulated honestly through work (not chicanery and rorting) is, like any other asset - YOURS in entire..... it is NOT a plaything of government... and has no place in any income or assets test....

    Nah, then - we could safely exclude all those who won their cash hoard through 'business' - for a start - since they lived off the earnings before it ever became taxable anyway... no argument there.... perhaps one of 'hardship' given a full review of their assets etc.


    "This block flat is no mine - only I collect rent for my uncle - he travel somewhere, maybe Siberia now - no hear from him for many month... and no - this business no mine - it separate name I get nothing .. no mahney ...... no me... you gimme pension now??"

    Seriously - all this has to stop......
    Cowboy Jim
    7th Oct 2019
    12:26pm
    Talking to that newsagent 20 years ago is a good guide. Still buying the paper today -
    was $1.90 this morning and 20 years ago it was 80c. The GST brought it to 90 cents a year later. So spend today's dollars and do not worry about tomorrow.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    7th Oct 2019
    12:28pm
    I too talked to a newsagent 20 years ago and said we would not be buying print media in 20 years so how was he going to make a living? I can't remember the last time I bought a newspaper.
    Cowboy Jim
    7th Oct 2019
    12:36pm
    Newsagents are doing very well in my area, selling scratchies and lottery tickets. Quite often I see people partying with a couple of hundred dollar bills in one go. Agree with you - not many are buying papers and the magazines are not shifting either.
    Cowboy Jim
    7th Oct 2019
    1:02pm
    johnp - I think some of those SFRs could spend a bit of their money and not worry about eating into the capital. Every year I have less in the bank and some time in the future my part pension might increase. Was "just a worker" all my life and do not mind being called "just a pensioner" today. Govt employees today might be SFRs in the future but us little people will always be "just pensioners". I feel good about that.
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    1:21pm
    Ha, ha - I worked for a company delivering secure documents - I hesitated to advise the management that most of this would be going online and the business would be vanishing.... lest they panic and attack their staff instead, as they were wont to do, after the style of every bad management in history...

    A poor manager blames his tools - and they'd have to be tools to work for such a manager in the first place....
    johnp
    8th Oct 2019
    3:01pm
    Yep; Sundays gave the right advice. With hindsight I should have done that. That is "spend up while working instead of saving" That is reduced asset amount to under $400K and then benefited from the aged pension. it is a perverse outcome that a couple basically need about $2 million to earn safely the equivalent of the full aged pension.
    Tanker
    7th Oct 2019
    2:12pm
    It is not unreasonable to be suspicious of this government given there track record. We could find ourselves being subjected to "austerity" measures to preserve the budget surplus which means the poor will pay while the wealthy keep laughing all the way to the bank. Welfare, and pensions will be classed as that, will be cut along with other things such as health and education in classic right wing fashion.
    roy
    7th Oct 2019
    3:11pm
    If only Shifty Shorten were our PM, we would be living in a land flowing with milk and honey.
    Red 13
    7th Oct 2019
    3:48pm
    Roy, better Shifty Shorten than Morriscum any day.
    How could anyone with intelligence trust a man who believes in speaking in tongues, Pastors healing the sick and dying by the laying on of hands, Pastors casting out demons and that God talks to him exclusively about running the country?
    That might satisfy your simple mind, not mine.
    roy
    7th Oct 2019
    5:24pm
    Red 13, Google Shifty Shorten union bully boy, adulterer social climber, champagne socialist etc before knocking Scott Morison please
    Paddington
    7th Oct 2019
    8:16pm
    Red 13, apparently they have armed guards in his church. When they took us in to see the show at Xmas we were not shown the armed guards which is interesting. There is a lot of money in that church apparently.
    roy
    7th Oct 2019
    8:51pm
    Paddington, google as above comrade.
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    11:06pm
    Wow, roy - all that and none of it proven or even a crime....... well - I suppose he's guilty of adultery...... **rolls eyes**
    Red 13
    8th Oct 2019
    12:39pm
    Poor Roy, that’s the best he can do. Typical Liberal lover, pathetic!
    Tanker
    7th Oct 2019
    2:12pm
    It is not unreasonable to be suspicious of this government given there track record. We could find ourselves being subjected to "austerity" measures to preserve the budget surplus which means the poor will pay while the wealthy keep laughing all the way to the bank. Welfare, and pensions will be classed as that, will be cut along with other things such as health and education in classic right wing fashion.
    zoedog66
    7th Oct 2019
    2:32pm
    Absolutely agree with retaining the current system of compulsory contributions. When I was younger I couldn't understand how prudent it was to do this. With our current situation, pressure is going to be put on the system with baby boomers hitting retirement. We need to avoid stressing the current system more..As someone who became unexpectedly unwell, knowing the super safety net is there is a great relief.
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    11:19pm
    It would be nice if, for once, the clowns so desperately trying to run the show would wait until compulsory super has had a full ';lifetime' or a working life to actually settle in and begin to work - before they hit the panic button.

    How could anyone with half a mind work out that pensions are going to cost more in the future, as more and more people retire with some super? UNLESS ........ unless they are already 'in the know' about chopping incomes for the cattle class of society, so that they will never accumulate sufficient super..... gotta compete with Faroffistan, you know - with an average weekly income of two Faroffistani drachmae...

    Lessee now:-

    https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php

    China average income $789 US a MONTH .... Malaysia $872 a month .... Thailand $551 ... Indonesia $320 ....

    Yup - gotta keep up with the lowest paid in the world or we won't stay afloat.... can't compete....

    WHY ARE WE 'COMPETING' AT ALL ON SUCH A NON-LEVEL PLAYING FIELD?

    Just asking.... imagine how much the head honchoes could 'earn' if they could just reduce the peasants down to our 'competitor's' wages .... even down to our 'biggest trading partner... the sky's the limit if you are on a few lazy mill a year and the peasants on $12k or so annually!

    Are you all getting there yet?
    Horace Cope
    7th Oct 2019
    4:43pm
    The questions are: "Do you think super contributions should be voluntary for lower-income workers? Is Dr Ralston the right person to sit on a retirement income review panel?"

    I think that all employees should have super paid as a percentage of their income with no exceptions. Indeed, lower income workers are probably the ones who need super the most as their low income may not allow them to amass savings during their working life. Sure, this is a generalisation but could affect a high number of low income workers. I also believe that super should not be allowed to be drawn early as it defeats the whole purpose of the scheme.

    I don't know whether Dr Ralston should head the review because not enough information has been given in the article to make a judgement. A lot of negativity but not a lot of substance as to her qualifications and work/life experience. What discipline was her Doctorate earned? What are Bernie Dean's qualifications?
    Blinky
    7th Oct 2019
    6:59pm
    They should include actual retirees in the review. Pensioners with and without super, and those who are paying rent.
    Super should be compulsery x all, otherwise those earning less than $50k p.a. will end up with just the govt pension and nothing else.
    Also, age pensions should not be granted x new migrants who come to Oz in their old and get the same pension of and Aussie who worked n paid tax in Australia.
    I would exempt the first $100k in super from the asset test. This would be of great help x people with small super funds.
    Finally, I would undo Hockey's rule where the govt takes away $3 × every $1000k pensioners have over the skinny asset test. Who is this stupid idea helping anyway???
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    11:23pm
    Spot on, Blinky - we need a retirees set of reps - one for full pensioners, one for part, and one for SFRs.... and one for the unemployed..... a round table for once... the unemployed are an 'interest group' since their retirement is being postponed indefinitely... chees - even the law forbids an indefinite sentence and at least has the courtesy to say 'life without the possibility of parole - never to be released'.

    At least the law is honest in that way......
    almost a grey hair
    8th Oct 2019
    9:30am
    Exempting the first 100K is an excellent idea as it gives those who can't contribute much due to injury or illness an opportunity to see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel.
    It also gives those who simply aren't capable or have no interest in securing their own
    future an opportunity to lift themselves and have a go.
    A dollar saved from the horses and dogs and poker machines will help in the future if there is a bit of incentive at the end.
    Cowboy Jim
    8th Oct 2019
    11:41am
    Easy to set aside 100K if you can trust your children to mind it for you. Families in good relationships are doing that with no worries. Since one does not get anything worth while from term investments that amount would not hurt the kids in their tax declarations.
    Thoughtful
    7th Oct 2019
    7:00pm
    No matter what happens the real issue is not being addressed. Superannuation in any form under any rules only has a chance if there is permanent full time work over every worker's lifetime. The system is not designed for anything else. Good luck to anybody who really believes we will ever see that situation. UAP and full income taxation applied to all income at least simplifies the system and makes it less able to be rorted. The way things are at the moment, I could probably be convinced with a good argument for a universal income.
    TREBOR
    7th Oct 2019
    11:23pm
    All true.... take three jelly beans...
    Thoughtful
    8th Oct 2019
    1:09am
    Just the red one thanks.
    Kato
    7th Oct 2019
    8:48pm
    NO and No
    Mad as Hell
    8th Oct 2019
    9:30am
    Australia currently spends around 4.4 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on retirement incomes, well below the OECD’s 2013 average of 7.6 per cent.
    Where is the other 3.2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product being spent ?
    We can afford a better deal for the OAP.
    Mad as Hell
    8th Oct 2019
    9:30am
    Australia currently spends around 4.4 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on retirement incomes, well below the OECD’s 2013 average of 7.6 per cent.
    Where is the other 3.2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product being spent ?
    We can afford a better deal for the OAP.
    GrayComputing
    8th Oct 2019
    1:04pm
    The main point for the government review is to further gouge us pensioners out of another 100 $billion to give it to the banks, the miners especially coal and also to all their super rich mates.
    Paul
    8th Oct 2019
    2:37pm
    Compulsory superannuation has led to the growth of a $2.7 trillion industry which provides lucrative earnings to super fund trustees, the executives of super funds and the thousands of advisors and fund managers whose careers are built on this industry.

    Therefore, it’s a bit rich for Bernie Dean, CEO of Industry Super, to be accusing one of members of the Review into the retirement income system of having “fixed and pre-determined views”.

    He’s not exactly objective himself. Industry Funds have been the main beneficiaries of the super system, because they are the default funds which are written into many awards and enterprise agreements.

    They have opposed the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that workers should be able to choose from a “top 10” list of funds based on performance, which would give workers informed choice about which fund to join.

    Mr Dean also fails to acknowledge that there are legitimate arguments against increasing the rate of employee contributions from the current 9.5%. Many economists and commentators point out that increasing the rate, rather than increasing workers’ pay, would produce better outcomes, for the workers themselves, and the economy overall. They also point to the fact the tax concessions which superannuation receives cost the government a lot more than the resultant savings in pension payments.

    Super funds, including Mr Dean’s members, are supposed to act in the best interests of their members. Spending time and resources on campaigns aimed at increasing their own size and influence, is not necessarily in anyone’s interest but their own.
    Paul
    8th Oct 2019
    2:42pm
    Compulsory superannuation has led to the growth of a $2.7 trillion industry which provides lucrative earnings to super fund trustees, the executives of super funds and the thousands of advisors and fund managers whose careers are built on this industry.

    Therefore, it’s a bit rich for Bernie Dean, CEO of Industry Super, to be accusing one of members of the Review into the retirement income system of having “fixed and pre-determined views”.

    He’s not exactly objective himself. Industry Funds have been the main beneficiaries of the super system, because they are the default funds which are written into many awards and enterprise agreements.

    They have opposed the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that workers should be able to choose from a “top 10” list of funds based on performance, which would give workers informed choice about which fund to join.

    Mr Dean also fails to acknowledge that there are legitimate arguments against increasing the rate of employee contributions from the current 9.5%. Many economists and commentators point out that increasing workers’ pay, rather than increasing the super rate, would produce better outcomes, for the workers themselves, and the economy overall. They also point to the fact the tax concessions which superannuation receives cost the government a lot more than the resultant savings in pension payments.

    Super funds, including Mr Dean’s members, are supposed to act in the best interests of their members. Spending time and resources on campaigns aimed at increasing their own size and influence, is not necessarily in anyone’s interest but their own.
    Paul
    8th Oct 2019
    2:42pm
    Compulsory superannuation has led to the growth of a $2.7 trillion industry which provides lucrative earnings to super fund trustees, the executives of super funds and the thousands of advisors and fund managers whose careers are built on this industry.

    Therefore, it’s a bit rich for Bernie Dean, CEO of Industry Super, to be accusing one of members of the Review into the retirement income system of having “fixed and pre-determined views”.

    He’s not exactly objective himself. Industry Funds have been the main beneficiaries of the super system, because they are the default funds which are written into many awards and enterprise agreements.

    They have opposed the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that workers should be able to choose from a “top 10” list of funds based on performance, which would give workers informed choice about which fund to join.

    Mr Dean also fails to acknowledge that there are legitimate arguments against increasing the rate of employee contributions from the current 9.5%. Many economists and commentators point out that increasing workers’ pay, rather than increasing the super rate, would produce better outcomes, for the workers themselves, and the economy overall. They also point to the fact the tax concessions which superannuation receives cost the government a lot more than the resultant savings in pension payments.

    Super funds, including Mr Dean’s members, are supposed to act in the best interests of their members. Spending time and resources on campaigns aimed at increasing their own size and influence, is not necessarily in anyone’s interest but their own.
    Justsane
    8th Oct 2019
    4:32pm
    I agree with abbob. The main reason (why Labor lost the election) was having Shorten as leader. Who the leader is is very important. Can you imagine the Whitlam Government without Whitlam? The Labor party kept an unpopular leader for six years, and then expected to win the election where he would be the Prime Minister for another three. What were they thinking? Not answering questions, but giving long spiels when interviewed, coupled with a few ill thought out policies just before the election no doubt contributed to Shorten's unpopularity. Labor, you must do much better next time.
    LarryFine
    11th Oct 2019
    5:21pm
    The fact that self funded retirees were going to be denied franking credits while retirees in Union Retirement Funds were still able to claim franking credits shows how gullible the Labour Party believe the Australian voter is.
    Rightfully to their deteiment