Early access to superannuation

The Intergenerational Report has inspired the Treasurer to suggest early access to super.

In the wake of last week’s ‘fall off your chair’ Intergenerational Report, we now have the suggestion that young people should be able to access their super early to buy a home.

The idea was floated by Treasurer Joe Hockey as a way of allowing younger homebuyers to access sufficient funds for a deposit for a first home, as they battle the current trend of rising house prices in most Australian capital cities.

"I get a lot of people approaching me saying that young people should be able to use their superannuation to fund a deposit on a home, on their first home," Mr. Hockey said. "I am concerned about rising house prices and the accessibility to homes and homeownership for younger Australians, but we've got a limited pool of savings. We need to have these conversations."

Responses to the suggestion of early access to super for first homebuyers were largely negative. John Daley from the Grattan Institute think tank declared that ‘Economics 101’ would show that such access to a limited pool of housing stock would force house prices even higher.

In an article on the ABC’s The Drum website, journalist Ian Verrender stated that it “beggars belief” such an idea was flagged, “given our super system is hardly balanced and the housing market is already overheated”.

Support for the idea was also ranged from lukewarm to tepid within the Coalition ranks, with the Assistant Treasurer Matthias Cormann having previously ruled out such a policy and Mr Abbott stating somewhat equivocally that the concept deserved further debate, while there are

“obviously some further issues around it”.

Unsurprisingly, former Prime Minister and so-called ‘father’ of our compulsory superannuation system, Paul Keating, was the most trenchant of all. In an opinion piece in the Fairfax newspapers Keating slammed the plan as “not an innovation and …not responsible enough even to be called a thought bubble”. He pointed out that removing a home deposit from younger workers’ ‘modest pool’ of superannuation savings would “effectively eliminate the base from which the important compounding would otherwise occur”. It is this compounding which means that younger workers’ life-long superannuation inputs should result in a reasonable retirement nest egg.

Read Mr Hockey’s suggestion in The Sydney Morning Herald.

Opinion: A not-so-super idea

To be fair to Mr Hockey the fourth Intergenerational Report (IGR) should spark a robust debate about our economic and social future. So to consider ways of changing super is a good start. But to suggest young people dip into modest balances to buy a home, thus wiping out any hope of a reasonable retirement lifestyle, makes very little sense indeed. Apart from the obvious macro-economic repercussions – higher house prices, scarcity of housing stock and decimated retirement savings – there are other issues at play here.

If the IGR is indeed meant to trigger meaningful debate about future challenges and how we employ the many and varied levers of government to achieve a fair and equitable outcome for all Australians, then all options should be on the table. This phrase is, of course, ‘pollie speak’, which is trotted out when our MPs wish to appear reasonable, perhaps even bi-partisan.

Of course all options should be on the table, but when it comes to superannuation, sadly, all options are NOT on the table at all. The tough options are well and truly under the table, in the cellar in a deep, dark bin that few treasurers have the ticker to open. Yes, I am referring to middle class welfare in the form of concessions on superannuation contributions and low or no tax on drawdowns. Those in our nation who are relatively well-off have a magnificent opportunity to put more dollars into super with little penalty – in fact no penalty at all when this money is taken as a lump sum.

 This is hardly ‘self-funding’ when you are given such a free kick from the policy makers. And those who do pull down their lump sums are entitled – again without penalty – to spend this money and then apply for an Age Pension. It’s called double dipping and presents a very real drain on the exchequer.

So rather than slam the Treasurer for opening the debate on access to super, let’s applaud him. Let’s agree that robust analysis of our retirement income/superannuation system is long overdue. Then we can put ALL ideas on the table and make the debate truly effective.

What about you? Do you agree young people should drawdown their super to purchase a first home? Or do you think there are better ways of reorganising superannuation policy for the broader population? 





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    11th Mar 2015
    9:55am
    Super was always meant to be for RETIREMENT, not to fund a house. If this goes through then people will take the concessional super and then go on the pension. This is double dipping and it is not right.
    The problem with super is that it is and has been rorted for decades with governments continually caving in to the rich. The top 20% of superannuants get one third of all super in AUstralia. IT IS A TAX SHELTER FOR THE RICH....but then I have repeatedly said that on this website.
    The Greens have suggested a sliding scale for taxpayer funded concessions. I am willing to bet that this is vetoed by this government for the benefit of their rich supporters and maybe Labor as well. That is what happened in the past.
    tia-maria
    11th Mar 2015
    11:39am
    Peter Costello was saying in a comment yesterday this is a bad idea.........
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    11:50am
    I bet he did NOT Qualify for which layer of the population thios was a bad idea!?!?!?
    Grateful
    11th Mar 2015
    3:05pm
    Tony Abbott put that "idea" to rest this morning when he said that "governments should not have to subsidize lifestyle choices".
    Well. although it was discussed on a different subject (aboriginals living in remote areas) the principle is still the same.
    Superannuation is HIGHLY subsidized by the government (taxpayer) and a first home buyer buying a house is surely a lifestyle choice!!
    Well done Tony to be so wise in shutting down that stupid idea before it gained any oxygen (mainly from rich home sellers, real estate agents and banks).
    Kato
    11th Mar 2015
    8:34pm
    Actually Pete said that it is stacked heavily in favour of the rich and high income bracket who end up paying lower tax on there wages and then pay a lower level of tax on there super. Honest is Pete now that he out of politics.
    MICK
    11th Mar 2015
    9:58am
    As for the Intergenerational Report one needs to understand that this is NOT an unbiased report. Hockey is using this as another propaganda tool and average Australians need to appreciate that THEY are the targets. The rich are the culprits and wealthy Australians will provide for themselves whether there are concessions or not. So why do taxpayers provide the rich with this tax shelter. It has always been wrong and it needs to be closed IMMEDIATELY....not some time (the 12th of never) in the future.
    We want an election Tony.
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    11:53am
    Tony's incompetence makes a major contribution to have us considered to be a laughingstock
    Hightower
    11th Mar 2015
    3:02pm
    We want an election Tony? We had one in 2013, if you don't like what resulted you will have a chance to rectify that in 2016. Given what the alternative is I don't know why anyone would want to rush to the polls anytime soon
    Kato
    11th Mar 2015
    8:37pm
    Certainly not the current incompetent's er encumbrance's er ah inhabitants .The alternative is certainly not going to be LNP .
    Oldie84
    11th Mar 2015
    10:57am
    Regarding access to Super I can only recommend the opinion by Glenda Korporaal in today's business section of the Australian. Says it all.
    Mick, these intergenerational reports are all political reports. Nothing surprising there. Just look at the one produced for the previous treasurer. So live with it.The fact is that we are having problems to come. They won't affect me, I'll be dead by the time they bite, but I worry about my grand children and their children. They'll either live like the Greek or have to shovel hard to fix our legacy.
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    3:58pm
    Oldie81
    Our legacy - as I see it - is that we were NOT VIGILENT enough to control our Elected representatives and let them WALLOW in their GREED rather than FORCED THEM to look after AUSTRALIA's NEEDS.
    Yes Oldie, COMMITTING OUR KIDS TO SLAVERY is a grave neglect inflicted by OUR generation!

    And whilst you do not want to be around, I DO want to be around to HELP & correct the situations and OBSERVE THOSE WITH UNBRIDLED GREED SQUIRM!
    Oldie84
    11th Mar 2015
    9:13pm
    Patriot, I see it somewhat different, in the end politicians will do what pleases the Electorate. Remember: getting re-elected is important. Doesn't matter what stripes of Politics. I guess the LNP wanted to do the right thing (every one does) but find it impossible to do anything that even resembles common sense. And there is no helps from the Fourth Estate. Just look at the idiotic news splashes and debate because Tony came a bit too close to an uncomfortable truth regarding Aboriginal settlements.
    mangomick
    11th Mar 2015
    9:28pm
    Without getting into a debate on indigenous matters I think many indigenous would believe that because white man has dispossessed him of his land and traditional way of life then white man has an obligation to now ensure he can live in the last little bit of country he has left. If Tony doesn't want to supply infrastructure to those communities then i guess that the Indigenous communities would be more than happy to be given back all their lands so they can go back to taking care of them selves. We can't have it both ways.
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    10:29pm
    Oldie81
    I think GREED at that level of society is now so great that it really does not matter what is good for Australia & its people like us.
    I - and others on this forum - are nowhere near as trusting as you are as the (pollies) have proven time&time again that they cannot be trusted to "do the right thing".
    If we take the "Red Pill" I am certain that we'll find that the "Rabbit Hole" is very deep!
    Oldie84
    12th Mar 2015
    12:59pm
    Well Patriot, I'll take our system anytime, for all it's faults it has served us well. You have no idea what it would be like to live under a despotic Rgime aka Hitler, Stalin Mao Pol Pot and various others. Just put yourself in the shoes of those brave people who broke down "the wall" 16 years ago. Just to join the 'decadent West'? Don't you believe it.
    retroy
    27th Jan 2017
    1:49pm
    Oldie
    The berlin wall came down 27 years ago and I was there just after.
    Oldie84
    27th Jan 2017
    4:55pm
    Sorry retroy, when you get to my age it is easy to mix up the dates.
    You are lucky to witness such a tremendous period. I still have a small piece of concrete from that wall. ????
    justme
    11th Mar 2015
    11:17am
    I don't see this helping anyone over a lifetime. What I do see is such a move leading to the family home being included in the assets test for the age pension. I'm always much more suspicious of what's NOT said. It's a real pity we don't/can't trust our politicians.
    Macey05
    11th Mar 2015
    11:38am
    So money is released from the Super for the younger Gens to buy houses (How could they possibly have enough Super anyway). Won't we have the same problem when they turn 67 or 70 or whatever age they are ALLOWED to retire?

    Then again, if they are sworn to a Mortgage they may be less likely to job jump, and travel thus paying their taxes (and possibly their HECS debts) , and realise what it is like to be obligated, and get some respect for their forebears, who have sacrificed and mostly paid their taxes.

    I loved and respected my Ma's and Pa's and they taught me so much and passed on their values. Society is so rotten, so grateful most of my elders are no longer here.

    When I started work in 1967, and complained about paying taxes, my parents told me that it was my responsibility to pay taxes, as they had done before me, that's how we all look after each other. In retrospect how naive and trusting we were. That's before the great welfare handout by the Whitlam Government, and the birth of the age of entitlement.

    We can blame upbringing for the disrespect the younger Gens have towards older people, and that has been for a long time now Just now it is highlighted by an almost-fascistic Government, Media and Industry who took advantage of that disrespect to alienate a section of the community.
    Hasbeen
    11th Mar 2015
    12:14pm
    Well put Macey. I like your sensible style.
    KSS
    11th Mar 2015
    12:49pm
    Macey05, I do not disagree that the younger generation lack respect and that it is mainly die to upbringing. I guess the unpalatable bit is who did the bringing up?

    Umm.... lets see.... well I guess that was either our generation or our children's generation! So instead of blaming the Government for all society's ill we would do better looking in the mirror. Lessons learned from our Grandparents and parents are clearly not making it to the next generation and we only have ourselves to blame for that.
    KSS
    11th Mar 2015
    1:19pm
    oops! that should be "mainly due to upbringing.'
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    3:39pm
    KSS,
    I think the "Lie of the land" is somewhat different to the picture you're visualising & “TRYING TO MAKE US BELIEVE”!

    I my day (growing up) when coppers saw us doing something wrong, they would stop us & literally "Give us "Kick-up-the-but". Than they would ring the old man, and we would get another "one-or-two" just after I got home!
    Same at school, the old man would not tolerate me being hit as he did not believe strangers should not "lay hands on" somebody else's kids (for the teacher's protection as well as the child's protection) . He might have been a “Simple Subsistence Farmer, but he had MUCH wisdom”. HOWEVER, he would make sure that the "Homework for Punishment" would be completed and reinforced the actions with a few "Clips around the ear" administered by himself.

    These days, kids are thaught (At GOVERNMENT Schools) that:
    1 Parents CANNOT hit them "to reinforce discipline"
    2 Parents CANNOT force kids to "Clean up their rooms" any more – That is their private area to do with whatever they want as an individual.
    3 Who tells them that parents CANNOT enter their rooms if/when they want to
    4 Coppers put Kids in "Juvenile Detention" rather than resolving the issue as a "Matter of Internal HOME Discipline" with which they offer to HELP (if necessary) rather than control.

    I now ask the following questions:
    1 Who sets the Curriculum at the schools which tells kids that they MUST report to Authorities outside the "Family Unit" when kids are given a “CLIP around the ear” at home
    2 Who tells them that they "DO NOT" have to clean their rooms if they do not want to
    3 Who tells them that "Kids have Rights" and these can be enforced by the appropriate government authorities
    4 Who makes the LAWS & forces police to "Charge kids" rather than take "Internal Family" corrective actions
    5 WHO GAVE KIDS RIGHTS whilst their BILLS are being paid for by their parents.

    I agree that there are “Conditions” when interference by Authorities is necessary. When a "Child is BELTED UP severely a few times a week or more" for instance.
    Such actions are not "Corrective Punishment" but PLAIN ABUSE!!! and I think we ALL can distinguish between abuse and punishment.

    I can GO ON, but I think that the above paints the picture!!

    In the "Old Days: Kids did NOT HAVE RIGHTS (Correct – within limits) but Parents HAD DUTIES which could be enforced if/when necessary.

    THE GOVERMENT (for many decades now) have "Taken over the Control" from parents to bring up their kids.
    1 They have made it impossible to survive on ONE WAGE
    2 They have provided "Childcare Support" rather than "Tax relief” so that if has become more attractive and necessary for TWO PARENTS to work!

    JUST LEAVE THE FORMATIVE YEARS TO STRANGERS AND ABSOLUTELY INEXPERIENCED UNIVERSITY GRADUATES. “How the hell” would they know (in many cases)”.
    JUST REMEMBER THE SAYING: "GIVE ME THE CHILD UNTIL HE/SHE IS 7 YEARS OLD AND I'LL GIVE YOU THE MAN/WOMAN".

    It is a VERY SAD state of AFFAIRS when parents are – due to FEAR from Government intervention – no being ABLE to discipline their children.
    It is a VERY SAD state of AFFAIRS when School teachers are – due to FEAR from Government intervention – no being ABLE to discipline children.
    Whilst the above seem irrational, the conditions “Are True” in reality

    Dr Carmen Lawrence wrote (admitted?) – after she left the Political arena – in her book (fear & politics) that:

    “ , . . . . . . . . that fear has been a crucial factor in shaping Australian public policy in recent years, and in Fear and Politics she charts its consequences on the Australian body politic. She discusses how xenophobia has shaped policies toward refugees, indigenous Australians, and Islamic fundamentalists, and examines the effects of being constantly warned about the risk of terrorism. She also looks at the sustained campaigns on law and order, and the exaggerated anxieties people now have of the risks of assault, murder, child abuse, and robbery.
    Dr Lawrence argues that fear can never provide a foundation of moral and political argument, and that the necessary antidote to the toxin of fear is a wholehearted embrace of the principles of freedom, equality, and co-operation. Human betterment must again be the prime focus of politics — for all of our sakes. . . . . . . . “
    “And so it IS”.
    KSS - there is NO SIDE OF POLITICS that can SOLELY be blamed.
    They ALL MUST BE BLAMED.
    One side for Introducing these DRACONIAN measures and the OTHER SIDE for NOT REVERSING these DRACONIAN measures.
    Macey05
    11th Mar 2015
    3:49pm
    We can blame the Whitlam (he was a visionary but got a bit short-sighted) and successive governments for going easy on welfare, and as a nation accepted it because, elected Governments were expressing the will of the people. The Mandate!!!!. It was too easy to put our heads in the sand, and take the cash, Yes I took the stimulus. I paid extra into my Mortgage.

    Is it all that simple that the following could be part of the problem.
    DISCLAIMER - I dont speak on behalf of any political party, because they are all too silly. Please accept that a lot of the following is just my demented observation as a worker, taxpayer and Super Dooper Person.

    Not enough taxpayers - older workers are not being rehired, to make way for the young workers in an already stressed employment situation. Full time workers are feeling the pinch because they are paying the bulk of the taxes.

    Many jobs are going part time or casual or over seas, or to 457's and people are under-employed, so no super, no tax and still need to rely on Welfare.
    The older workers have to rely on their meagre Super and Newstart allowance.
    Disenfranchised hidden group and the oldies wont make waves.

    Not enough young people being encouraged into trades, and too much taken out of the Tafe system. No Tax or Suer there, but could be HEAPS.

    Too many people going for Higher Education, and then dashing off to a Gap year. No tax or Super there, but cant pick on them they are future voters.

    Mummies who collected their baby bonus, and now just wont work, and want FREE childcare to go back. No taxes or Super there, cant pick on them either they are Cant touch that wouldn't want to be called a Misogynist, as well as that don't pick on families, big voting group.

    Disability section gets larger by the minute. Some disabled do work and are active members of the community, but the pension and carer pension should be looked at seriously. But, Cant pick on them too political!

    Persons who don't believe in work anyway. Job Search providers who cannot justify that there aren’t enough jobs around cant do anything about them . No taxes or super there. Costing more the maintain.

    Perpetual students racking up their HECS debts - No taxes or super there. .

    Asylum Seekers who are costing a lot to maintain. No taxes or Super there. Indonesia doesn't want them and they wont tell me their names. No papers.

    Multi Nationals who just dont pay the required amount of tax, and the ATO because they are not being diligent enough

    ME, Because I didn’t start getting super until 1972, and depending on the industry sometimes I didn’t get it until Keating enacted the Guarantee in 1992.

    DEDUCTION- Cannot see many tax payers or people in the above getting Super Contributions.

    Elected Government had to get tough, and its now the Libs problem. I am no great lover of the Liberals, or any of them for that matter, but . French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) said “In democracy we get the government we deserve” .

    So what is the solution. Heck I don’t know, seriously folks -Super is and always has been a crock, and just a little form of compulsory savings. If the government were serious they would say no you cannot touch it. As least the younger folk may have a fair chance of building up a little nest egg, and saving as well, its not that hard. Most of the people going into retirement now have only had since 1972 to build that little egg, and if they were part timers, casuals or Mums having bubs ( no baby bonus), Hockey you need to lay off. Public servants had it sooner and a higher rate.
    Anonymous
    11th Mar 2015
    4:06pm
    Interesting conversation last week with a group of young people in their 20's and asked their opinion on pensioners and if they thought they were well looked after by government.. Very eye opening. Many said they thought they were a lot of wingers, they seem to have plenty of money to go tripping around in caravans, casinos, belong to bowling clubs, eating out a lot and get lots of concessions and always complaining they cannot exist on what they get.

    I explained that not everyone was like that but that was the impression most seemed to have.
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    4:18pm
    Radish (F)
    You think they were worried that their parents were "Spending their Inheritance" maybe?
    Or are they just the result of the process discussed above?
    "I - as an individual - have the right to what I want to do".
    I, personally, will defend that RIGHT (To do what you want to do) as long as YOUR Actions do NOT IMPACT NEGATIVELY on other members of the community.

    The government forgot to teach them that LIMITATION!!!
    Macey05
    11th Mar 2015
    4:22pm
    Radish, agreed,Im a Baby Boomer and I have noticed that a lot of the Silent Gen actually tripping around in their Jayco's too and spending a lot on the pokies at the RSL, but a lot of them had the opportunity after the war to save, and may not actually be getting a pension, so its their money. My Dad is a Veteran and paid a lot of Super in DFRB, so he get a good pension now but that is only because he paid for it himself. And he is well looked after. Thats fine, He has done his, bit, The Silent Gen did their bit they went through the war after all. 20 somethings get a free education and live with their parents for the rest of their lives that should be enough. Agreed that oldies are whingers though, the older you get the whinier you get. Fact
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    4:26pm
    Macey05
    Speak for your self!
    Macey05
    11th Mar 2015
    4:35pm
    What part didnt you like Patriot- the whining, I say as I see
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    4:51pm
    Macey05
    I did not say I did NOT LIKE ANY PART!
    I suggested that, if you like to call yourself a whinger, BE my Guest!!!
    Just don't call everybody who deals with proven facts you might not like, or which are opposing your currently held opinion, a whingher.
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    4:58pm
    Macey05
    In Rugby (etc) when you "Tackle the Man" rather than "The Ball" you get severely punished!
    Name calling is "A form of Bullying!".
    Disprove the ideas that I'm putting forward rather than "Tackle me on perceived Personal Issues" you interpret to observe!
    What matters is: "What is right rather than Who is right".
    That's what we should be striving for rather than driving people into submission.
    Macey05
    11th Mar 2015
    5:01pm
    Last time I looked Patriot, Australia is a free country with free speech. Capitals indicate yelling. Please stop yelling at everyone
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    5:40pm
    Macey05
    Still in "Force into Submission" mode rather than "Fact Finding" mode eh!?!?!?
    Macey05
    11th Mar 2015
    6:07pm
    Patriot, I have no idea what you are on about seriously. Where are you getting some of this stuff from. Rugby Don't play don't watch. Force into submission. I must be too thick for these blogs. Have to go my cat is Whining for a feed
    Anonymous
    12th Mar 2015
    11:05am
    Maybe some do not know that when you put large capitals is means you are" yelling".
    Hawkeye
    12th Mar 2015
    11:53am
    Patriot, well said mate (in your first reply above). Sure saved me a lot of typing.

    My kids are part of the "Y-Generation" or, as I prefer to call it, the "Why?-generation". They were brought up not by me, but by their teachers and the media.
    I fear for how the current kids are going to turn out when they absorb such attitudes as "all men are closet pedophiles" for example, from the biased reporting in the media.

    And KSS, with that attitude, I don't believe you've actually experienced actually bringing up any kids yourself.
    wally
    13th Mar 2015
    1:09pm
    Re Patriot's comments on discipline and societal changes in attitude (339, Mar 11 above). If you are going to look for someone to blame for the lack of discipline in schools which have resulted in a "Blackboard Jungle" situation, I would point the finger at social engineers in the public schools' educational bureaucracy. So called educational experts with degrees in education but with no practical classroom experience beyond supervised trainee teacher course requirements, gain positions of seniority within the department's bureaucracy. There they rise in the system anduse their senior positions to promote their own ideas and foist these ideas on to lazy or inexperienced Education Ministers in our state governments. So curriculum changes in education are rammed through and down class room teachers' throats as new educational "improvements". No room for dissent or discussion. Teachers desirous of gaining promotion within the department tow the line. Others get shown the door.
    The 3 R style of education we grew up with is replaced by trendy touchy feelie efforts at social engineering that produce semi literate, innumerate politically correct "graduates" that are advanced through high schools according to their ages and not their accomplishments in maths or literacy.
    After all, the "Sir Humphries" in the educational bureaucracies are there for the whole of their careers and perpetuate themselves by creating and promoting clones of themselves in temperament, attitude and approach within their departments.
    Education Ministers, on the other hand, are impermanent, due to shifts to other portfolios or electoral reverses at elections. So "the crap goes on forever and the bullshit never ends" in public education. Which is why so many private schools have spring up since the 1980's as parents seek "real" education and outcomes for their children.
    Dave V
    11th Mar 2015
    11:46am
    Kaye, I think you are quite correct in suggesting that there be an open discussion about superannuation and that all options should be considered and worked through. I sometimes wonder whether compulsory superannuation is worthwhile at all. It doesn't seem to be doing its job of taking people off the old age pension. I read lots of stories of people using their superannuation, and then going on to the full age pension. I don't blame them for that. Bear in mind that our compulsory super levels at the moment are probably never going to be enough to provide a full retirement income for anyone. Maybe we should just get rid of compulsory superannuation, give people a bit more income in their pockets, as well as increasing taxes a little for the sole purpose of making it easier to fund a reasonable old age pension for everybody who does need it.
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    12:04pm
    Dave V
    Just wait for the next financial crash to happen.
    The Bankers will then come and CONFISCATE the super funds as they will ensure (causing the crash) that they are in the correct position to ensure that they are the benefactors of this "Wealth Transfer".

    So, I am firmly convinced that those who are young & paying compulsory super will NEVER COLLECT. THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED!!!!!
    Our Politicians are Supporting/Condoning this
    aly_rob60
    11th Mar 2015
    1:22pm
    YES, Patriot....that is indeed the plan. There is Billions of $$$ in Super, sitting there for the taking and that is EXACTLY what the Govt plans to do, to bail themselves out of debt.

    If you leave it there, you will never collect it!
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    4:29pm
    Dave V
    . . . . . . "as well as increasing taxes a little for the sole purpose of making it easier to fund a reasonable old age pension for everybody who does need it. . . . . . "

    That's been tried. They, the government, squandered the money and that's why "The coffers are Empty" at the moment.

    What makes you think that this WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
    mangomick
    11th Mar 2015
    12:05pm
    Just thinking that maybe all pensioners should form there own Religion and that way it will be unlawful to discriminate against them. Joe and Tony won't be able to incite the Gen X,Ys and Zs to say and print nasty things about them and any changes to pensions and super could be thwarted as an attack against "our religion". I agree with Peter Costello although maybe if it was thought out a little and anyone accessing their first home through using super would have to reverse mortgage their home if accessing a Government pension down the track it might work out .
    aly_rob60
    11th Mar 2015
    1:23pm
    Yes, and if we did form a religion or church.... they couldn't tax us, as per the current law!
    Kato
    11th Mar 2015
    8:48pm
    good idea.
    Hasbeen
    11th Mar 2015
    12:11pm
    So Keating says, "that removing a home deposit from younger workers’ ‘modest pool’ of superannuation savings would “effectively eliminate the base from which the important compounding would otherwise occur". And you lot believe him. God do try thinking a minute.

    According to the Valuer General the bit of dirt my home sits on compounded by $45,000 in the last 2 years, from $285,000 to $330,000. I reckon that leaves super for dead, particularly after some union super fund boss, or retail super fund boss has ripped a chunk out of any compounding that just might have occurred in their fees.

    And don't fall for the scare mongering about house prices falling, they are every bit as secure as the assets & shares the super funds are investing in. I have never had my home valuation go down, but my super balance went down in a few years, even after I had paid more in.

    On the other hand, an investment of $65,000 in a property in 1989 became $175,000 by 1992, when sold. $160,000 of that invested in my current property in 1992 has now grown to $750,000 at current value. According to the Valuer general again, just my land has appreciated from $66,000 in 1992 to that $330,000 previously mentioned, without a single dollar added in that time. Show me a super fund that has achieved that, & you might have an argument against helping our kids into home ownership with their super, rather than the super fund bosses.

    My son has just resigned from the navy after 12 years, basically because he saw the lack of home ownership generated by getting posted all over the country would make him a poor man when old. Yes he has a little super, but nothing like the $250,000 & 350,000 his sisters have equity in their homes, & they still have super similar to his.

    Do try to get off the Coalition bashing folks, & do a bit of real thinking. You are being led around by the nose, like a prize bull, by being a prize chump, with your acceptance of the Labor propaganda on every point. This can only be a great idea, even for the wastrel who currently pisses their income up against a wall every week.
    Tigers
    11th Mar 2015
    1:29pm
    Spot on Hasbeen. I, like you, luckily worked out that super was a waste of time and money, and one could do much better investing themselves. Not much we can do about the employers contribution, but we can certainly ensure we're not stupid enough to contribute ourselves to their rip off system. Count the fingers in YOUR pie when considering Managed funds etc!! Dont do it. NONE have your interests at heart, their own back pocket is their primary goal.
    Macey05
    11th Mar 2015
    2:05pm
    Yes Hasbeen I totally agree that Super is useless unless everyone is on the same page. ie. PS get I think its 1
    Grateful
    11th Mar 2015
    3:27pm
    Hasbeen (you don't deserve that pseudonym) take a good look at why your real estate has increased so dramatically and what money is causing that sharp rise.
    That idea that the price of real estate never goes down is a myth. You only have to go back to the late '90s here to see that and don't even talk about it to the Americans.
    Housing now is just another investment tool, purchased in the main by very cheap money. What will happen when that cheap money suddenly disappears as it always has? The investors who have pushed up the price of housing will pull out their profits and find another tool in which to invest. You don't think they will sit on a $600,000+ investment, with borrowed money, when the price stagnates, or, worse, drops??
    Hasbeen
    11th Mar 2015
    5:14pm
    Grateful, I did not say real estate could not go down, just that it was as secure as the superannuation companies investments. If housing goes down, so will the value in your super. Super is as safe, but no safer.

    Here's a little story of a couple of friends. In the mid 70s they put $2,000 down on a $15,000 block of land near Penrith NSW, when that was the sticks. 18 months later they moved to Queensland, so sold the block, after paying only a few hundred dollars off it. To their delight it sold for $38,000. Their $2000 was now $22,400 after costs. This was the deposit on a home in Brisbane.

    In super that $2000 would have earned them a couple of hundred at most, but would still be locked up & of no use to them to buy that home.

    My property was bought out of town, so my kids could have horses, not to make money. However in todays economy anyone who doesn't own some real estate is not very wise. It is not investors but home owners with the same interests that has made my home increase so much. It is also nothing unusual.

    A home I bought in Brisbane in 1981 for $62,000 recently sold for $780,000, so it is simply our crazy inflation pushing prices up. It is that same inflation that will make that super much less valuable when the time comes to collect.

    Getting to own a home will do a hell of a lot more for you than super in the long term. The value of a home remains. If yours reduces, so does any other you may wish to change to. The actual value figure is immaterial to most of us. It is the reduced cost of living, & the security when you own your accommodation, but it doesn't hurt too much if your home is earning more each day than you are.

    An aunt of mine died recently. Her kids are sharing the 1.25 million the house she left sold for. Not bad considering it was bought at the end of WW11 for 340 pounds. Forget that super, get into real estate.
    MacI
    11th Mar 2015
    6:28pm
    Hasbeen - I assume that you are referring to your family home. In terms of capital gain the increase from $160K to $750K represents approximately 7.2% per annum return before the cost of buying and selling, maintenance, upkeep, rates etc.

    My concern is that people who do not invest in Super and put everything into their family homes is that they will be one of those who are asset rich but cash poor and a burden on the tax payer upon retirement. Of course you could sell the family home in retirement and downsize to realize some of the capital but then the return of 7.2% before the cost of selling and buying is not looking so good. To sell a property in NSW at $750K and buy a property at $450K could cost in excess of $40K leaving a net realization of capital of $260K. Personally I think it is folly to think of the family home as a retirement nestegg. I'd much rather do both, i.e. pay off my home (perhaps a more modest home than I could afford without investing in Super) and invest in Super. Many good Super Funds have returned in excess of 7.2% over the last 10 years which has encompassed the GFC.
    Anonymous
    12th Mar 2015
    11:08am
    My industry super fund has given me very good returns over the time I have had it and I do not have the worry of a rental property, bad tenants etc.
    I might add people who bought commonwealth bank shares at $5.40 when they came on the market have done very, very well. They are currently worth $90 or so I believe and they pay a good dividend.
    Hawkeye
    12th Mar 2015
    12:44pm
    Hasbeen,
    Wake up for a moment and enter the real world.

    The increase in value of the house you are living in is worth nothing as far as retirement goes.
    You only get that money if you sell it, and then, guess what, you don't have anywhere to live so you have to use that money to buy another one (or to rent). Net result - not much!!!!

    What you are saying only has meaning if you have a second property as an investment, and then sell it to free up the cash. It can also work if you live in a mansion or an overpriced trendoid suburb, and then sell to downsize/downgrade.

    But for a normal home that you live in, it just doesn't work because you still have to live somewhere.

    I always called my second house "the other half of my super". The rental income paid the mortgage, rates, etc with a bit left over (no negative gearing). Just before I retired, I sold it, paid off the mortgages on both houses and all other debts, and invested the rest in super, allowing us to retire in reasonable comfort.
    Please note that this was done as single income family, with my income always within a couple of dollars of the average wage (although I did have the benefit of Gov Super, but only since the mid-eighties).
    Hasbeen
    12th Mar 2015
    4:37pm
    Yes radish, some shares have done very well, I did quite nicely with Metropolitan, becoming a bank then Suncorp. Glad I didn't buy Telstra though.

    Hawkeye that super is no use at all to graze my kids horses, or to train them on, & the same goes for rental houses, super & shares. Rental may be OK, if you can handle the worry, but I would never own domestic rental. Industrial or commercial are a better proposition with rental.

    Hawkeye, I can easily buy somewhere nice to live, in a country or coastal township, for around $350,000 leaving a nice nest egg if I wished. I would do this if I had different kids. Maintaining fences against the constant onslaught of kangaroos would be a struggle for me these days.

    However they keep ponies here for their kids, & do the heavier maintenance. The grand kids love being here & a daughter in law maintains a veggie patch which could feed a small army. I'm told is a healthy way to go, so I am happy staying here. None of these things are offered by super, or other investments.

    I have nothing against super, it is just not very attractive to me. Of course the old public service super, making them richer after retirement, than while working would be great, if we weren't paying for it.
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2015
    8:16am
    Hawkeye you are absolutely correct in what you say about a home increasing in value. Mine has increased but if I sell I have to spend the same amount or more to buy another property.
    Some people think that because you live in a property worth one million dollars you are a millionaire. You are not. You are a millionaire if you have other assets or cash worth a million in addition to your home.
    Adrianus
    14th Mar 2015
    9:10am
    Interesting exchange. The only one making any sense is KCI.
    Hasbeen, only the councils valuation on your land doesn't decline because they don't want rates to drop.
    An option for asset rich pensioners not mentioned is a 'reverse mortgage.' No need to move house.
    Kaye Fallick
    11th Mar 2015
    12:13pm
    Dear all, many thanks for the robust debate - again, we welcome your comments. But swearing remains a no-no on this forum so we have reluctantly deleted some posts.
    Blossom
    11th Mar 2015
    1:03pm
    I think name calling should be deleted too
    KSS
    11th Mar 2015
    1:23pm
    That would be the 'royal' we would it aly_rob60?
    Kaye Fallick
    11th Mar 2015
    1:51pm
    Dear members, thanks for feedback on our post moderation - we will continue to delete bad language to ensure our site is a friendly environment for all
    aly_rob60
    11th Mar 2015
    3:06pm
    Perhaps we should just "smack Joe Hockey on the bottom"? Doesn't sound harsh enough!

    He is a fool and an idiot for thinking he can "pull the wool over our eyes" or make us "fall off our chairs"!

    and no, KSS.....we are a couple and not royal.
    dougie
    11th Mar 2015
    3:17pm
    Thank you Kate and now we should just get rid of the name calling and bullying. This just might under future legislation become a crime and leave this great forum open to some form of legal restraint if not attended to now.
    mangomick
    11th Mar 2015
    3:25pm
    As Mrs Brown would say....... Cutting out swearing.......... That's nice........
    mangomick
    11th Mar 2015
    3:31pm
    Dougie....Bit hard to determine what constitutes bullying. What one sees as a robust discussion another could see as bullying. Maybe we should take our cue from our Nations Leaders and behave as they do, although something tells me you would be greatly offended if I did..
    Anonymous
    11th Mar 2015
    3:53pm
    What will I call Bill Short--s now ? I think perhaps Bill Shortbottom
    dougie
    11th Mar 2015
    4:30pm
    Mangomick,
    I feel that anything that makes another feel uncomfortable or threatened is bullying or rude. It may well be that what you or others see as natural banter makes others uncomfortable. Feelings for ones fellow man is a great thing. I am not about trying to put a lid on comment, just about seeing that all and sundry feel comfortable in posting to this site. I have been called and named as a troll, which I am not, and made to feel somewhat less a person than I am, just because some one feels that they can abuse and bully by name calling which they will not and cannot substantiate.
    mangomick
    11th Mar 2015
    7:58pm
    So what you are saying is when having any debate we have to denominator down to the thinnest skinned in our Society so we don't hurt anybodies feelings???. Do sites like this have to have some sort of a Feelings reference system so when we are having a discussion we'll know whether we have to go softly softly or go in harder based on your feelings Barometer.............That's nice ...Dougie.........
    dougie
    12th Mar 2015
    7:38am
    Mangomick,

    You obviously have never had the situation of having a family member taunted or bullied on line. To see the hurt and agony of a young person who has been unfairly called names and accused of untrue facts die and wither with shame without the opportunity to have these posters prove their accusations. Have you had a teenager commit suicide because of these actions. If so then you may well reconsider your thoughts. If not then you will probably never realise or change. I am sorry.
    Patriot
    12th Mar 2015
    8:07am
    It would seem that some on this site just do not want to be Disagreed with and claim such actions to be an Insult.
    They'll find all kind of excuses in an attempt to "Bully" you into line!
    Indeed when we "Were to suit such attitudes" we would ALL be "towing the Party Line'!

    I refer to those who are attacking everything that would not be "dear to Government", and they continuously challenge one to disprove issues. However, they never continue the discussion when their points are defeated "Beyond the shadow of ANY doubt'.
    OOPS - I THINK I MIGHT HAVE SHOUTED THERE ??? !!!!
    mangomick
    12th Mar 2015
    11:09am
    Dougie with all due respect I would expect any family members to have enough sense to merely turn off or block any emails etc that they thought were bringing them any angst. you know the one "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me". Just a matter of ignoring any taunts that offend if anyone feels that way. A bit of sledging and tongue in cheek diatribe enhances an otherwise boring debate.
    Hawkeye
    12th Mar 2015
    12:57pm
    Kaye,
    What is swearing? I personally believe words are just words. It is the context that gives them meaning and makes them offensive or not.

    But, to clarify the current situation, can you please post a list of words we are not allowed to post.
    mangomick
    12th Mar 2015
    1:10pm
    Hawkeye ........That's Nice......
    dougie
    12th Mar 2015
    1:25pm
    Mangomick,

    You have just confirmed my thoughts! Thank you.
    mangomick
    12th Mar 2015
    2:39pm
    Dougie even if we lived in Utopia where everybody was nice there would still be levels of Nice. Some one who believed everyone should be Ultra nice would be offended by someone who was just being "plain nice". It would seem that you want everyone to live by a standard by which you perceive to be O.K and anyone who believes differently is wrong.You only have to look as far as the Aussie cricket team to realise that sledging is an Aussie past time and as a very young Pommy kid growing up here one learns to give as good as one gets. I make no apologies ,a bit of too-ing and fro-ing all makes for a lively and fun debate.
    Blossom
    11th Mar 2015
    1:08pm
    Allowing people to use superannuation to pay a larger deposit on their homes may encourage people to buy their own homes instead of relying on public housing, leaving more available for those who genuinely need it.
    KSS
    11th Mar 2015
    1:22pm
    I agree Blossom that public housing should be left for those that genuinely need it. And I think it needs to be restated that public housing is not a right it is a privilege that cannot be handed down to the kids like the family heirloom. People should be moved to smaller accommodation as their circumstances change e.g. the kids leave home. Public housing is a temporary solution for those who really need it, not a cheap lifestyle choice for those unwilling to enter the more expensive private housing market.
    Anonymous
    11th Mar 2015
    4:00pm
    The real estate industry would love people to access superannution; boom up go the prices even further.
    Gra
    11th Mar 2015
    1:12pm
    And what happens when they reach retirement age and find their Super isn't what it should be because they have dipped into it for other purposes? I thought it was YLC that ran an article a while back which demonstrated the benefit of starting to save at age 20 over starting to save at age 30. I may have read it elsewhere but the point is, if you start saving at age 20 and don't touch those savings, even if after you reach age 30 you will have more in the account at age 65 than a person who starts saving at age 30 and continues to contribute the same amount until age 65. It doesn't take much imagination to draw a comparison with Super that remains untouched and an account where they have drawn it down to put towards a house. Super funds will generally always pay more interest than someone would pay in interest for a housing loan.
    KSS
    11th Mar 2015
    1:13pm
    Some people here need to learn the difference between a discussion/conversation point and Government policy. Mr Hockey is not advocating anything. He is merely opening a conversation on issues that need to be discussed. There would be some clearly who would jump at the chance of using superannuation for a housing deposit. Perhaps it would be better if these discussions were held in private. At least then people could come up with ideas to discuss/accept/reject without fear of being criticised for policies that have not been formed. Oh that's right, they would then be in trouble for secrecy!

    Whilst I would not support using compulsory super to buy housing, this is actually not a new concept. Singapore was allowing its citizens to do just that 20 years ago. Nor do I support the current ability to withdraw large sums of money from super to splash on holidays (round the world or round Australia its all the same) then expect to be able to claim an aged or disability pension when you've spent it all. I would agree to a lump sum being for the sole use of paying the residual amount on a mortgage on the primary residence - (i.e. NOT for investment property) - by the time most reach retirement there would not be a great deal (if anything) left to pay. That would reduce their monthly overheads. All the remainder must be used for the original intention - funding retirement.

    But discussion must be had. And had without fear of condemnation for suggestions unpalatable to some.The Government cannot, and should not, be responsible for funding the life stage of every Australian.
    Oldie84
    12th Mar 2015
    12:52pm
    You are correct KSS, but I guess you won't get very far with your comments, the haters will ignore it.
    :-(
    Jen
    11th Mar 2015
    2:11pm
    No. For obvious reasons.

    What's wrong with saving a deposit? Is a house not worth a few years of diligent saving?
    aly_rob60
    11th Mar 2015
    2:59pm
    We seriously feel sad for the next generation. Not only do they need to find a job first, to save for a deposit, but then they have to deal with the incredulous auction and house prices, bumped up by foreign investors....what chance do they have?
    Grateful
    11th Mar 2015
    3:20pm
    aly_rob60. It's not just foreign investors that have put up the price of housing, take a good look at those with "self managed" super which has been heavily subsidized by incredibly generous tax advantages, who are using housing as their main investment. A house used to be built to be a home for a family, now, it is just another investment tool used by very rich people to make profits.
    Now they want to have first home buyers dip into their heavily subsidized super funds to compete with those investors to buy a home. The real estate agents are rubbing their hands in anticipation.
    Note that in January, only 14% of all home loan applications were from first home buyers. The "competition" for buying houses is thinning, returning first home buyers to the market will add to the explosion in prices so first home buyers will never be able to buy a home regardless of their ability to use their super.
    Drop the discussion now.
    Anonymous
    11th Mar 2015
    3:48pm
    Yes nothing wrong with that that's what I did and how it should be done
    Anonymous
    11th Mar 2015
    4:07pm
    Jen, saving is a dirty word to many of the NOW generation. It is spend, spend, spend and live for today and sod tomorrow.
    dougie
    11th Mar 2015
    3:14pm
    I think that it is much easier to save $50,000 today than it was to save $5,000 in the 1950s and 1960s when wages were much less but costs just as high or higher relatively speaking. Today young couples, if both working, with higher wages should be more easily able to save a deposit for a home, even in Sydney, because of the high wages paid. Young people easily spend a up on nights out - overseas holidays - new cars etc when we as young ones could probably at the best put away $10-00 per week after having a big night out at the flicks.

    A group of us were having a discussion recently about cost of living etc and each one was asked to write down what they thought was the beginning of the "I want more society".
    When these thoughts were processed guess what came out on top?
    1. The introduction of the Pill. (Allowed for two income families.)
    2. The introduction into our financial life of Bankcard. Allowed for cheap(at the time) credit and plenty of it.

    The introduction of 1. meant that we could become working couples and the introduction of 2. meant that both had to work to pay the debts so raised.

    We may be a group of oldies with a lot of life experience but just maybe there is some logic there. Religion or work life did not come into these discussions just thought bubbles and when you look at it who benefited in the long run - Banks and Multi-Nationals.
    mangomick
    11th Mar 2015
    3:36pm
    that man called Ringo and his friends are to blame........

    11th Mar 2015
    3:59pm
    I do not agree with anyone accessing their superannuation at all.

    The sole purpose of it is is there to support you in retirement and to ease the pressure on government (i.e. taxpayers) for future pensions.

    This idea gets a big thumbs down from me.

    I sincerely hope this does not go through.
    LiveItUp
    11th Mar 2015
    4:56pm
    After seeing the value of my son's super fall because of fees when invested in the best preforming fund I think using his super for a deposit on a home is a great idea. Atleast he will get some benefit from his super money.

    I also like the idea that everyone can get the old age pension but it has to be back out of their assets including their home when they die.

    So using super for a house deposit will end up in most cases paying for one's retirement.
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    5:01pm
    Bonny
    I would be concerned that - if this pathway were to be deployed - the govt would consider YOUR HOUSE as part of the ASSETS & you therefore CERTAINLY will NOT be entitled to the Old Age pension!?!?
    Would be sneaky but - is a good chance - in my opinion
    LiveItUp
    11th Mar 2015
    5:11pm
    One's house should be included in the assets test under the present system. Some people live in very expensive houses and get the age pension. Should one be allowed to buy a home worth say $5M and get the age pension whereas others with must less don't get the pension because they only have a modest house but super and other assets? That is why one's home must be included in the assets test.
    Patriot
    11th Mar 2015
    5:43pm
    Bonny
    Don't disagree with you if "Personal Homes" become a "Weath Shelter".

    I would suggest that - If super was taken to Buy a Home that - no matter what the value, it would be considered an asset and taken into account as such.
    That's my fear!
    Grateful
    11th Mar 2015
    5:53pm
    Right Patriot. That's why I say that "dole bludgers" i.e. those that take advantage of the taxpayer and don't need or deserve assistance, are NO different to a "welfare bludgers" who apply and receive benefits and pensions when they are more than capable of looking after themselves. What's the difference?? Why should a person living in a $million house get a part pension AND a Health Benefits Card and pay the same for medications and hospital treatment the same as someone who is homeless??? Absurd. GREED!!!!
    Kaye Fallick
    12th Mar 2015
    11:19am
    Comments removed - and a reminder that a civil debate is the aim of our comment section. Many thanks
    Paulodapotter
    11th Mar 2015
    10:32pm
    Dip into our super before we even have enough to make a difference to the demands on pensioner welfare? This is just another instance of un-thought out suggestions/policy by a government that has no real vision for the future led by a Prime Minister who lacks judgement and intellectual capacity. There is still no policies being articulated by either side of government to stimulate productivity in this country. Our biggest export is now services. How many middle men who produce stuff all, do we need before we disappear economically up our own exhaust pipes? Hey, and leave Patriot alone. He has a cryptic wit not to be discouraged.
    LiveItUp
    11th Mar 2015
    11:04pm
    Problem is the way super is managed by many funds in Australia today. It is not managed for the individual but for how much the managers can make in fees and in life insurance premiums. Only people who do well out of super are those who have self managed super funds or defined benefit schemes. How is this of benefit to the demands on pensioner welfare? Our kids need help now and it is very depressing to see their super being eaten up by fees etc whilst they struggle to get a roof over their heads. Let our kids have their super as a home deposit and add homes to the pensioner asset test.
    Not Senile Yet!
    12th Mar 2015
    12:55am
    Typical Party Machine Propaganda to take the heat off their idiotic suggestions so far!!!!
    Every Government since the start of Compulsory Superannuation has continually molested OUR Super Investments. They have taxed it, put restrictions upon when and how we can access or use it!!!
    It can NO LONGER be called OURS!!!
    We cannot do this ...we cannot do that...yet they can Tax it as much as they like....they can change the rules as often as they like....and now they think they can use it to counter the Reals Estate crisis of over inflated prices caused by THEIR bad Policies!!!!
    What a bunch of inadequate over-educated Morons we have voted into our Government!!!!
    Stop Voting for these Moronic Puppets that have sold out to the Corrupt Party Machines!!!
    As for access to Super...the first Party to be denied access should be the Politicians from Taxing it and then from Continually Changing the Rules that Govern it!!!!
    Furthermore....any future changes should apply to ALL Super...including THEIRS!!!!
    Patriot
    12th Mar 2015
    7:31am
    Not Senile Yet!
    They are all paid by us (only ???) and controlled by the shadow government whose only interest in us is economically.
    Keep us healthy whilst we're working and money can be extracted from us.
    Once we stop working, "We JUST SHOULD NOT BE HERE!!!
    Euthanasia to preserve the dignity of "People & Family" has not been legalised because it would prevent BigPharma to make money out of the (often) undignified last few weeks or months of our lives!

    However, I am sure that it won't be long before they'll introduce it as a compulsory measure for when we are retirees.
    After all: "Just a few years of THAT ROT (retirement) will be enoung - Time to go!".
    Oldie84
    12th Mar 2015
    12:47pm
    Are you sure you are "Not Senile Yet", Not Senile Yet? :-)
    carmencita
    12th Mar 2015
    1:31am
    I think Hockey should stand down and be replaced by someone who has a grasp of fiscal policy. The intergenerational report was a diversion of the current issue of welfare payments for the rich and middle class. If I were the treasurer I would look at how to explore superannuation to make it pay adequately as a person retires. Also, look at opportunities for job creation so that more people will be in the workforce and stay there until retirement age instead of increasing retirement age. Allowing early access to superannuation contradicts the very purpose of superannuation. Hockey is whingeing about the unsustainability of pension fund and yet his pronouncement of early access to it destroys the very purpose for which superannuation is instituted. If more people would depend on super as retirement income then there will be less people of government funded pension. Why CAN'T HOCKEY GET THAT? Is Canberra bankrupt of MPs who have the brain to comprehend fiscal policies?
    Patriot
    12th Mar 2015
    7:33am
    Amigo,
    "Who you're gonna get" --- GHOSTBUSTERS???

    They are ALL the same - only the names have changed!
    aly_rob60
    12th Mar 2015
    7:43am
    Yes, correct, carcemcita! He contradicts himself so much, that he has proven himself to be incompetent!
    If I was a business owner and had a fool and an idiot like that working for me......He would get the sack!
    Strummer
    12th Mar 2015
    8:47am
    Yesterday I sat in a café opposite a couple of 30 somethings who both had tablets which they played with constantly, they both had smart phones which they consulted constantly and they both had ipods stuck in their ears. Perhaps if young people spend more on their needs rather than their wants they wouldn't need to access their superannuation.
    aly_rob60
    12th Mar 2015
    9:14am
    Very true, the majority of them seem to have their heads stuck on their phones and not living in the real world!
    Anonymous
    13th Mar 2015
    2:20pm
    How very true, Jaker. When they get to pension age they will probably squeal they don't have enough money to live.

    That is the society we have today....I am thankful I learnt the value of money from observing my parents and how we lived post war.
    Reeper
    12th Mar 2015
    10:54am
    I wish people would stop clouding the issue with them and us with regard to the rich and not so rich.

    If someone gets a huge salary, then somewhere, someone has deemed it appropriate. If someone has made canny use of the stock market so be it.

    Super is for retirement but, if it is used for home purchase then it is no longer the governments problems if that person has insufficient money for retirement.....simples!
    Anonymous
    12th Mar 2015
    11:13am
    I agree with you Reeper. There will always be different levels in society so we all just have to accept that is the way it is.

    Education means a lot to some and by being well educated they have a chance to better themselves. Others choose not to bother that much with education and choose other paths in life which may not pay as well as someone who has spent many years educating themselves and therefore getting a higher paying job.

    I do not envy anyone and I have the utmost admiration for people who come from nothing, work hard get ahead and do extremely well in life.

    We need entrepreneurial types in society who take the risks; some make it some don't, but at least they had a go.
    Adrianus
    13th Mar 2015
    8:51am
    The problem with trying to impose a glass ceiling on the "rich" is that you also impose it on the battler who wants to make it. Tony Abbott once said that you just can't speed up the slow lane by slowing down the fast lane. Australians need inspiration and aspiration. They need to know that they can do it, whatever 'it' happens to be. Australia must remain the land of opportunity.
    I agree let's stop this attack on the so called rich, whoever they are.
    mangomick
    13th Mar 2015
    9:12am
    No problem with those having a go getting rich through their own ideas and volition but I think we definitely need an overhaul of the bankruptcy laws which allow many to get rich off the backs of many through deceit and fraud with little punitive damage to themselves ,when everything becomes unstuck. Also, you cant have Government blocking higher salaries for the lower end of town while allowing a free for all in Pitt street. Some of these salaries that are being paid to CEOs are obscene and totally out of hand.
    Adrianus
    13th Mar 2015
    10:13am
    Ironically, you get that in a socialist environment where the poor are struggling to put food on the table while the Industry, Public Servants and Political leaders are mega wealthy. We saw obscene pay increases during the last labor government for leading Public Servants. $4m for a postie is a huge stretch. At the same time a few union bosses were robbing the low paid members. Australia must undergo a culture change over the next 40-50 years. I wonder if the high paid Public Servants who compiled the Intergenerational Report made any mention of the need to adjust to globalisation? Not a worry, they would be the old rank and file still in the Defined Benefit Scheme who stand to make $millions simply by giving themselves a 30% pay increase. While devising a strategy to increase tax on super for the battler. That's the hard left at work!
    Hawkeye
    13th Mar 2015
    4:57pm
    Frank,
    Are you sick? What's got into you? You actually sound like you might care.
    But then, Tony put on the same charade before the election, and we thinkers can see where that went.
    Adrianus
    13th Mar 2015
    5:47pm
    I think Abbott does care for others.
    Hawkeye
    12th Mar 2015
    1:15pm
    I think this could go a long way in solving quite a few of the problems currently being faced by our society, but only on the proviso that it must be to BUILD A NEW HOME.
    This would the employ tradesmen, and require building materials, leading to a whole train of flow-on events to create business and employ people.
    It would also add to the pool of housing rather than create a shortage.
    It would also help later on in life and in retirement as you would all the benefits of owning your home outright much sooner than otherwise.
    Hawkeye
    12th Mar 2015
    1:19pm
    OOPS!!
    That should be;
    you would HAVE all the benefits of owning your home outright
    mangomick
    12th Mar 2015
    1:21pm
    Yeah but you could also argue if it was to apply to all homes (new and existing)many baby boomers would sell their investment homes that are bringing in lousy rental returns and high costs such as rates and insurance and maintenance and thus they would not need to get a part pension. Thus saving the Government money
    Adrianus
    13th Mar 2015
    10:26am
    Hawkeye, there is a better way without causing flow on problems to our retirement incomes policy.
    There needs to be more effort in co-ordinating Banks, Developers, Local Councils (particularly Planners) State and Federal Government.
    There are bottle necks in all of those areas. We simply only build half the number of houses required for our growth rate.
    Get the above mentioned groups to have some positive entrepreneurial input based around some long term needs. If Councils don't buy in to developmental needs and continue to act like a handbrake on progress by charging ridiculous fees and rates then releasing Super money for housing purchase will cause more problems. It would be like putting Don Campbell's Bluebird on a small track.
    Judy in the hills
    12th Mar 2015
    1:55pm
    Ye Gods and little fishes!! Don't let the current generation get access to their super - they will just spend it & there then won't be any money left. From my knowledge of young people these days they see money & think its ALL for spending - it frightens me. My husband & I worried about our 1960's housing loan &after looking at our bank account went without many things so we could pay off for our home ASAP - which we sold at a very good price; bought another and did the same thing all over again, and again finally selling that at 3 times the value of purchase. It helped our bank account no end and helped set us up. But the young ones don't have that saving bug like we felt we had to have. Somehow they need to learn they need to save towards their futures.
    Oldie84
    12th Mar 2015
    2:42pm
    Had to smile, Judy. Did the same thing. Just ask my wife: 14 moves and new gardens. She claims I sold every time her garden became established. :-)
    Now on an allocated pension withNO cost to the taxpayer. I wonder what I should do to get some of the money back we paid in taxes all our working life. Just kidding. :-)
    Adrianus
    12th Mar 2015
    4:50pm
    Under the SIS act the 'sole purpose test' is what distinguishes superannuation from other methods of wealth creation. If we (our government) should ever eliminate the sole purpose test then it will be the beginning of the end of Superannuation as a method of retirement savings. The previous government weakened the sole purpose test with the widening of the definition of Instalment Warrants. Consequently allowing a proliferation of Limited Recourse Borrowing which for some changed Super into an instrument to reduce tax rather than as a means of retirement saving. It's a common mistake made by the left when a critical number of people are breaking the law the law must change. It's the argument Craig Thompson had for spending union member's money. Everybody is doing it, therefore it's ok.
    Decades of battles with fund managers of non complying funds forced to eliminate borrowing went down the gurgler with the stroke of pen creating extensive borrowing.
    Australia desperately needs a no surprises approach to retirement incomes policy from all sides of politics. Super is a long term savings investment with more changes than a catwalk model. Does that make sense? Long term goals require certainty.
    mangomick
    12th Mar 2015
    8:55pm
    In the not too distant future, Governments will start to look at the pool of money in super funds to be used as a ready supply of capital to be used in ‘social impact’ projects. They will try to access the publics super to use in projects directed towards alleviating poverty, providing access to education, clean water, affordable housing and other resources and possibly even protecting human rights. I read a report the other day where UNSW Law were testing the wording of the Superannuation Act to allow the potential for superannuation funds to be made available for investments, with a social impact ,to be made. To my way of thinking that's a Governments responsibility to fund and not my Funds trustees.
    Adrianus
    13th Mar 2015
    5:53pm
    I would hate to see the end of super. Many people cannot see themselves as being too old to work one day and do not plan for retirement. Or in some cases fall on hard times and find it tough going to get back on top of things. If it does nothing else, a small windfall at the end of a working life will provide a couple of more choices for those who didn't think they would make it.
    mangomick
    13th Mar 2015
    8:20pm
    It won't be the end of Super but a ready means of cheap capital for Governments to access to spend on Projects that Private Enterprise won't touch as the financial return isn't good enough for them and Governments can't cater for because they don't have the available capital. It will virtually be a source of cheap capital that the Government can access at very low rates without having to borrow overseas and the Superannuates will get a meager return, that the Government of the day will believe you will be happy with.
    wally
    13th Mar 2015
    1:29pm
    If done properly, and within limitations, I think releasing a percentage of Superannuation savings could be useful in allowing first home buyers to get into the housing market.
    * It would have to be a "one off".
    * It would be a percentage of the amount accumulated in the Superannuation savings. (say 15 %)
    * A couple would be able to use each persons' superannuation savings to do this.
    * The amount of money available would be no more that a deposit of more than 10% of the price of the home.
    * In the event of default of payment caused by death of separation of the borrowers, the property would be sold and the 10% of house purchase (plus interest and capital gains (again 10%)) would go back to the government.
    A lot of our "nay sayers" in this forum appear to have overlooked the increase in value of homes over the years in metropolitan areas where most people live,
    Tell me if I am wrong in this, but I think it would benefit a lot of people hoping to own their own homes.
    Adrianus
    13th Mar 2015
    1:53pm
    wally, Your idea has merit in terms of the desired outcome, however, 2 things to consider regarding your proposal.
    Let's say the house is $600k. In accordance with your plan a couple of first homebuyers would need to draw down $30k each. Therefore they each would need to have accumulated $200,000 in retirement savings. This means super contributions at 12% for 20 plus years for someone earning $65k pa.
    The next hurdle is the bank. If Mr & Mrs Example have not been able to show any savings other than their super after 20 years at work, I'm sure the bank would think twice about the loan application.
    Paulodapotter
    14th Mar 2015
    2:57pm
    Wally, these grants, incentives, call it what you will, have always had the effect of pushing house prices up even further and is it was the first home buyers grant by the Howard government and subsequent grants that started the very problem we have today. The market determines house prices and grants have the effect of adding the availability of the grant or incentive to the cost. This is not the way to go about making housing affordable. Oversupply is the only way prices will come down.
    mangomick
    14th Mar 2015
    5:48pm
    Well I guess time will be the answer. As soon as all the baby boomers curl up their toes there will be an over supply of housing and Gen XYZ will have unlimited opportunity to buy in dirt cheap plus they will enjoy a pretty attractive superannuation balance having had anything from 9% to 12% added to it all their working lives.
    Chris B T
    14th Mar 2015
    4:35pm
    Early access to what !!!! There would be meagre funds in Early Years of any fund especially supperanuation, which works better over the long term and compounding interest.
    These young people will have a working life time of supperannuation were most of the older generation had partial or a few years without the time needed for the compounding interest to work it's magic.
    Let the young Have The Benefit and more then likely to FUND THEIR OWN RETIREMENT so
    THE BIT ABOUT 2035 AGE PENSION AFFORDABILITY WILL BE MOSTLY SELFFUNDED FROM THAT DATE . (just a simple observation )
    Not Senile Yet!
    15th Mar 2015
    3:32am
    Oldie 81
    Who is really sure nowadays??? With all the propaganda about Lifters and Leaners.....about dreamers and achievers.....and the lazy and Dole Bludgers....eh????
    Divide and Conquer they say!!!! Hang a carrot in front of the Donkey.....to get it to move...lol...
    Poor old Joe .....too many cigars so early in life.....and not an original idea of his won that is worthwhile let alone practicable!!!
    Just a throw away line to distract from the fact that he doesn't have a Clue about how to fix the overheated and overinflated Australian Real Estate Market!!!
    It is the lack of release of reasonably priced land that is responsible!!! And just guess who holds the most land in and around most Capital Cities???? Yep...either the Federal Govt or the State Govt!!! Not to mention the Local Councils restricting the re-zoning of land to allow for new home buyers!!!!
    mangomick
    15th Mar 2015
    6:29am
    Don't know about Southern States but in Queensland ,the State Government has capped how much Local Councils can charge Developers for supplying services to land development blocks/estates and that means the ordinary rate payer is now slugged extra rates to pay for that short fall. That is apparently so land won't cost so much for young buyers. So in effect it could mean that many baby boomer property owners are already subsidising cheap land prices for new/young buyers . But in reality prices don't come down at all, and all it means is Developers are making more profits at the expense of the ratepayer who is actually subsidising his Developments
    Oldie84
    15th Mar 2015
    12:20pm
    Hi Not Senile Yet,
    I won't react to your remarks on poor old Joe, you may think what you like, but housing affordability is another thing. I guess I am too old to fit into this modern landscape but in the "old days" we did lived somewhat different. I ( and many others) started with a cheap block, a single room and a small outbuilding down the back housing a bucket toilet, shower and a laundry trough. After marriage and children on the way we built (myself and friends) three bedrooms, a bathroom and a breezeway. Gradually over the years the house was finished. We didn't start of with two bathrooms, TV room and all the mod cons now essential. Live was simpler. We had electricity. no phone or mad e road and footpath. All that came over the years. Mangomick talks about Developers providing all the services upfront. That is also the reason why land is so prohibitively expensive. In the old days :-) these services were provided over the years with the whole community bearing the cost. As an old builder I could built you an abode very simple for minimal cost. It would be shelter and a roof over your head. But these days totally unacceptable . Sorry for this rant but it is nothing new. In the eightieth I had a lot of young buyers wanting to buy what was then classed as upmarket i.e. ensuite. rumpus room, air-cooling, solar H/W. But they didn't have the money . I guess expectations were bigger than your wallet even then. Cheers
    Oldie84
    15th Mar 2015
    12:20pm
    Hi Not Senile Yet,
    I won't react to your remarks on poor old Joe, you may think what you like, but housing affordability is another thing. I guess I am too old to fit into this modern landscape but in the "old days" we did lived somewhat different. I ( and many others) started with a cheap block, a single room and a small outbuilding down the back housing a bucket toilet, shower and a laundry trough. After marriage and children on the way we built (myself and friends) three bedrooms, a bathroom and a breezeway. Gradually over the years the house was finished. We didn't start of with two bathrooms, TV room and all the mod cons now essential. Live was simpler. We had electricity. no phone or mad e road and footpath. All that came over the years. Mangomick talks about Developers providing all the services upfront. That is also the reason why land is so prohibitively expensive. In the old days :-) these services were provided over the years with the whole community bearing the cost. As an old builder I could built you an abode very simple for minimal cost. It would be shelter and a roof over your head. But these days totally unacceptable . Sorry for this rant but it is nothing new. In the eightieth I had a lot of young buyers wanting to buy what was then classed as upmarket i.e. ensuite. rumpus room, air-cooling, solar H/W. But they didn't have the money . I guess expectations were bigger than your wallet even then. Cheers

    15th Mar 2015
    10:59am
    Noel Whittaker (financial advisor) who writes for many newspapers has an article on accessing superannation and he also supports the view that it is "not" a good idea and it will up the price of housing.

    Superannuation should be left alone; its sole purpose is to support a retired person in retirement.
    Fready
    16th Mar 2015
    3:52pm
    This idea is in contravention to the sole purpose test that we are constantly reminded about.
    The withdrawal of lump sums should be limited to 5% of the total per annum. Currently about 50% of baby boomer retirees are drawing and blowing their lump sum to qualify for a pension. Even using their withdrawal to pay off their mortgage breaches the sole purpose test. The pension is too easy to get. A home owning couple can have $87k of income and assets of more than $1.1 million (not counting the value of their home) and still get a part pension.
    Oldie84
    16th Mar 2015
    3:57pm
    Are you sure, Fready? We own our home, our income from an allocated pension is well below 87k and our assets are certainly below 1.1mil. How can we get the pension?
    No idea.
    Grateful
    17th Mar 2015
    9:49am
    Australia plans to impose a new tax on foreign property buyers after Chinese investment in Australian real estate soared 60%, in the latest sign of a gathering international backlash against wealthy Chinese property investors.

    ‘The move, which came after locals complained about being priced out of the housing market, follows the introduction of similar, more punitive, taxes in Hong Kong and Singapore aimed primarily at discouraging the flood of mainland Chinese money into those markets. Governments in all three locations say that the new taxes are not directed at any single nationality.’ Sadly, it is still a pittance for those multi millionaire investors and will not be a deterrent.
    Can anyone tell me how first home buyers will be able to compete against this flood of overseas money, plus our own super rich property investors with their massive government support through negative gearing tax subsidies? Releasing superannuation savings to buy a house in Australia is a pipe dream. Even if it was allowed, how many first home buyers would have saved enough in their superannuation to compete in this ultra hot property market. And if they did succeed in buying, what happens if that property market bubble eventually bursts as it did in the late '90s? Or, consider the added complications if those first home buyers follow the shocking trend with marriage break ups reaching 50%. What a double tragedy that would be. Forget about it and take a very hard look at multiple negatively geared property ownership and overseas investors buying residential homes. That's where you might have some impact Joe. Bet your not game !!!!
    Adrianus
    17th Mar 2015
    10:41am
    Nobody would be game to destroy people's lives in such a way, not even the lunatic left. The last labor government actually encouraged negative gearing on property investment. Where would you stop with negative gearing tax benefits? What about other real assets like shares? What about the self employed? Or small business operator? Why is property any different? The typical Aussie property investor is not wealthy. Not by Chinese standards. States can increase land tax and it catches the big foreign investors, but this shouldn't apply to residents. If you want a solid economy with strong welfare and medical then why try to destroy it? Simply increase supply and let the market find it's own level.
    Within the next 2 decades China and the USA will each have 100,000,000 people over 65 with great wealth looking for somewhere to retire. Best we get this right soon.
    wally
    18th Mar 2015
    11:46am
    Maybe the Chinese will not take kindly to the tax on foreign property buyers and retaliate by suspending to export of frozen berries to Australia to teach us a lesson.
    Fready
    17th Mar 2015
    7:37pm
    Oldie81 check with Centrelink. The assets test for a homeowner couple is $286,500 to receive a full pension. You can get a part pension with assets up to $1,145,500 and remember that assets are at fire sale value. The fortnightly pension is reduced by $1.50 for every $1,000 above the threshold.
    The income test allows you (as a couple) to have an income of $284 per fortnight without affecting your full pension. It's very generous. Full pension plus $284 per fortnight is nearly $41,000 for a couple.
    Grateful
    18th Mar 2015
    10:56am
    Fready. "It IS very generous" and it gets even more generous the higher you go up the scale and especially for receipt of medical and pharmaceutical benefits. Imagine a single person earning $51,500 p.a., or, a couple earning $82,400 p.a. being able to pay the same amount for their doctor's visits and pharmaceutical prescriptions as someone who might be homeless or on the dole? It IS crazy and so simply fixed, but, without courage it will NOT be fixed by either political party. Maybe those that are so fortunate to be in that financial position by take the lead and simply not apply for those benefits. But, my experience is that many such people actually boast about it and have their accountants manipulate their assets and income for that very purpose??? Maybe it is up to us and not just blame it on "weak politicians" but on ourselves?? Dreaming??????
    Grateful
    18th Mar 2015
    10:00am
    Frank. We will soon have the opportunity to discuss reform of the entire taxation and "welfare" systems, so, the opportunity will certainly be there for some courageous suggestions and, hopefully, action. Extremely urgent discussions and equally urgent to implement any suggestions. Both the "welfare" and taxation systems are a dog's breakfast, long overdue for very significant reforms AND very tough decisions. BOTH systems are being grossly rorted and all because both of these essential systems for proper government by either political bent, have been devastated by those very same political parties who have used them to garner support and popularity.
    While our governments are dominated by "opinion polls" no political party will have the guts to do anything about these patently obvious "loopholes" and both systems.
    They are NOT "political footballs" as these discussions invariably degenerate into, even your good self has fallen for that very same trap. So how do you expect politicians who's livelihood depend on votes to risk losing those votes.
    I hope you all saw Q&A this week where we saw a CLASSIC example of "popularity" dominating so called responsible adult thinking. When this very subject of releasing superannnuation savings for first home buyers, the VERY PERSON who raised the idea just two weeks ago, cowered away like a school boy, hands up, hiding his face, squealing "don't blame me"!!! And he went back 20 years to an entirely different Australian economy to place that "blame" at the THEN Treasurer. Now, that person is our ci=urrent Treasurer, Joe Hockey, so, how do we expect him, an obvious populist, an obvious narcissist, to make ESSENTIAL guts decisions?? No, he, like the Prime Minister and most of his Cabinet, are still hell bent on the blame game, "it was THEIR fault, blame THEM. The sooner we get real, the sooner we might clean up these horrible messes CAUSED by politicians, BUT happily accepted by all those who benefit by those shocking and unsustainable decisions. Yes, US!!!!!