Lump sum superannuation to end

Australians will have their superannuation made available as a self-funded pension.

Lump sum superannuation to end

According to recommendations made by the Treasury’s Financial System Inquiry, Australians entering retirement are likely to be prevented from taking their superannuation in one lump sum and will instead have it made available to them in a self-funded ‘pension’ styled income stream.

And Treasury Chief Operating Officer John Lonsdale believes that the inquiry’s plans to overhaul the current system of superannuation are more than likely to proceed.

“Superannuation trustees should be cautiously optimistic that the framework will go towards something like what is outlined by the inquiry. That said there are still a lot of details that need to be understood,” said Mr Lonsdale.

The inquiry, designed to lay out a blueprint for the financial system over the next decade, was given to government for consideration in December, and proposed that retirees, once they’ve reach the age of retirement, should not be given unbridled access to their superannuation savings in one lump sum.

Instead, the inquiry suggests that superannuation savings should be transferred to a managed fund, with the purpose of providing a more lasting stream of income throughout retirees’ later years.

The proposed change would better align the default fund allocation and settings which are applied to compulsory super contributions during the accumulation phase.

The inquiry’s recommendations to strengthen the superannuation system aim to:

  • Set a clear objective for the superannuation system to provide income in retirement.
  • Improve long-term net returns for members by introducing a formal competitive process to allocate new workforce entrants to high-performing superannuation funds, unless the Stronger Super reforms prove effective.
  • Meet the needs of retirees better by requiring superannuation trustees to pre-select a comprehensive income product in retirement for members to receive their benefits, unless members choose to take their benefits in another way.
  • These recommendations seek to improve the outcomes for superannuation fund members and help Australia to manage the challenges of an ageing population.

The findings of the report highlight increasing pressure on the government to fund an aged pension system along with other costs required to support an ageing population.

The inquiry’s suggestions have been backed by many investment and superannuation specialists, most of whom feel that a default option for managing the retirement phase of superannuation is truly in the best interest of consumers. It is hoped that a default pension fund would provide a better outcome for people who don't have access to good quality financial advice.

“Expecting a 65-year-old who has never managed a bucket of money before to suddenly know how to do so is exposing them to too much risk,” says Superannuation Consumers Centre Chairwoman Jenni Mack.

How do you feel about such a move? Would you be happy receiving your superannuation as a managed income stream, rather then risking your hard-earned savings on investments that may not deliver? Or are you happy with the current lump sum situation? Why not tell us what you think?

Read more about this at The Age.

Read the Financial System Inquiry report.





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    LiveItUp
    25th Mar 2015
    10:26am
    No way I want my super exposed to managed funds where one only gets the scraps after everyone else gets a cut.
    Tigers
    25th Mar 2015
    11:11am
    Isnt that the truth Bonny. What a waste of time and effort are Managed funds.
    adbob
    25th Mar 2015
    12:25pm
    Exactly right.

    All these so-called experts are simply trying to protect their existing rackets.

    It's not difficult to get a better result than the so-called experts with everyday investments such as mum&dad shares and property. The head start you have is that you don't have to pay the rip-off fees to the so-called experts - who in shares frequently can't even match the market - certainly not after their (frequently undisclosed) fees have been taken out.

    Not only do you pay these timewasters to do variously nothing or the blindingly obvious. The vast amounts they spend on advertising (mainly propaganda) and political lobbying to reinforce their rackets is also paid for by guess who - you.

    If the govt wants to save money they should cut back on the tax breaks - tax breaks which are intentionally made difficult to access so that you are driven into the arms of the rip-off super industry to get access to them.
    Precious 1
    25th Mar 2015
    3:34pm
    Some well heeled friends of mine still say that they would be better off with nothing.............I see it all as showing the flag of what people used to achieve and that certain look.................In the history books of days gone by in this country they the parties oft had minds to spend ahead for projects using the money which was supposed to be used for retirement funding ...that is why Legal Immigration was started and land was sold to anyone......it all used to be free and given away to Immigrants...the Services also used to give their retired a block of land if they came here to live..I am not 100% with this info so don`t quote me.....
    Precious 1
    25th Mar 2015
    3:44pm
    Service mean armed services ...they had very low interest rates on housing loans so I suppose that is why some took forever to pay it all off some as low as $25 a week?...again not 100%.......check it all out
    Reeper
    25th Mar 2015
    5:02pm
    What a load of bollocks. I am doing ok with a managed fund...most of the comments have no facts only....unsupported innuendo.
    dougie
    25th Mar 2015
    10:31am
    Again we have the learned master posters to this site deciding what action the Government is going to to take about a recommendation made to them by an advisory group. Why not suggest such an action could be taken and this would give all posters a chance to decide how they feel and to contact their local member and make their feelings known.
    Personally I think that by creating an annuity people who have taken advantage of the government's largesse in taxation benefits for super savings should feel the need to draw less on the government purse. One would suggest that most of the contributors to this site would have had little chance to contribute any large amounts to super prior to retirement or in fact have been able to take advantage of the generous allowances and payments made by government prior to retirement, as such they would not have enough to make annuities worthwhile. It would seem that many who have enjoyed the benefits will want to spend the money saved in super and then double dip for the pension. In my mind not on.
    Others who enjoy the benefits of additional super payments by government associated with extra super savings may now decide to bank those funds and not include them in super savings and use that money for their trips and travels and new cars etc.

    Notwithstanding all of this lets see what issues are decided on before we start another campaign of government backstabbing.
    LiveItUp
    25th Mar 2015
    10:39am
    If someone takes control of their super and at least doubles what managed funds earn for many years so that they fully fund their retirement then they should be allowed to continue doing this without having to place the money in inferior products or be prevented from drawing lump sums for a world trip etc. These people are may have benefited by some tax relief but they are not ever likely to put their hand out for welfare.
    Wstaton
    25th Mar 2015
    1:40pm
    One thing it would stop is people taking the lump sum giving it all to their kids then going on the pension.

    I do agree if this is taken up that people who have a SMSF should be able to continue running it.
    Wstaton
    25th Mar 2015
    2:26pm
    Don't trust these advisory groups. This government appoints people to them who think the same way they do so the outcomes are what they want.
    Precious 1
    25th Mar 2015
    10:09pm
    I like your post but you cannot make the horse drink from the trough even though you try and drag it there lolol You are evidently an educated person with much understanding of these things but many many out there cannot do it...they work forever so it seems putting money away regularly and still may still don`t know what to do with it...Governments have to handle these things too..........some rich and educated have some of the best ideas by talking and asking around......
    bletch
    25th Mar 2015
    10:46am
    Do they not realise that many people will use their super to pay off that last bit of mortgage
    like I intend to do. I cannot retire if I still have a mortgage over my head.
    My super IS MY SUPER and if I want to spend it on gambling etc then IT IS MY CHOICE!
    KSS
    25th Mar 2015
    12:27pm
    Currently, absolutely its your money to do with what you will. However, why should I and other working Australians be expected to continue to fund your retirement lifestyle with an aged pension after you have fed your retirement savings into a slot machine or handed it to James Packer through one of his casinos?
    Kato
    25th Mar 2015
    12:38pm
    There are a lot of people who would have no super if it were not compulsory. And then the Employer pays that. So It would seem reasonable that it is given as a pension or part pension.
    bletch
    25th Mar 2015
    12:55pm
    I suppose I am a very very greedy person as i have worked all my life, am close to retirement and have not taken 1 cent from the government. i have a mortgage, nothing in the bank and a huge 150000 in super which was going to go on the mortgage...and yes I was expecting to get my entitlement of a fortnightly pension...
    I am so shameful !!!!!!
    Precious 1
    25th Mar 2015
    3:40pm
    Goodness having mortages when you retired for heavens sake...Houses in this country were or used to be the cheapest way to buy your own home in the world...and an average mortage too about 11 years to conclude......I suppose its had a huge change about since divorce rates gone out of the windows.......
    bletch
    25th Mar 2015
    3:45pm
    That is why a lot of people are relying on their super to pay off their mortgages and retire. Divorce causes a lot of this especially when you have to bring up two kids by yourself as well. So what do we do if we cannot get a lump sum.....keep working until 80 ??????
    Precious 1
    25th Mar 2015
    10:12pm
    Get into your local political party and air those views they are interesting but I suppose pollies have heard it before...you never know...its new ideas that win seats nowadays and it may be to your interest.......don t knock yourself......
    Adrianus
    26th Mar 2015
    11:16am
    Well bletch, your super is not actually your super. It belongs to the trustee of your super fund. Super Funds are a sort of discretionary trust with guide lines on how it should be dispersed to existing members. That is why your super account balance will not be part of your estate when you die. That is why we should all make sure we nominate a beneficiary to our trustee. Even if you happen to be the trustee yourself.
    Bushbunny
    25th Mar 2015
    11:02am
    45 years of work my money ,my choice,this is the governments way of not paying pensions after all the years of collecting our taxes.
    Tigers
    25th Mar 2015
    11:10am
    I always thought that that was the intention of superannuation in the first place. But, in saying that, if they're going to force us to take our super as a pension, the managed funds need to closely monitored. Most, if not all, are a waste of time and energy, with the major return on investment, going into their coffers, not those whose money it is.
    Wstaton
    25th Mar 2015
    1:44pm
    Yes Tiger that's the crunch and is why all these super funds are all for it. It keeps their grubby hands on your money.
    Adrianus
    26th Mar 2015
    11:19am
    Exactly! even .1% of $1.5 trillion is a heck of a lot of money. Remember there's a union boss sitting on the board of all industry funds.
    Chris B T
    25th Mar 2015
    11:37am
    Compulsory superannuation came in 1992.
    Anyone earning, working before that should be excluded from these reforms.
    The rest(post 1992), go to election as platform policy and see what the reaction is.
    DennD
    25th Mar 2015
    11:42am
    This isn't a fair deal! It's fine for Jenni Mack to have her views but they should not be seen as the views of all retirees, this latest move by the government plays right into the hands of the large super funds who stand to gain the most out of this by keeping Our Money tied up for the entirety of our retired life. It's My Super, My Money & if I want to withdraw a lump sump it's My Right to do so and I should not have to be told how to manage My Super Money. It just ain't right!!!!
    SuzeB
    25th Mar 2015
    11:52am
    I got part lump sum, part income stream. I had to spend some of the lump sum but invested the rest and I currently have more in total than I started with. My income stream fortnightly payment gets adjusted upward often, so I'm happy.
    leapyearbaby
    25th Mar 2015
    12:58pm
    I agree with you SuzeB. Both my husband and I have more in our portfolios now than when we activated our allocated pensions in 2002. We are self-funded but do receive a Commonwealth Seniors Health Care Card because of our age and are very grateful for that. We're happy too.

    25th Mar 2015
    11:58am
    this is a complex issue - the problem labor/liberals have is that evidence exists that people have taken considerable sums eg $100k + out of their super mostly tax free after 60 then those same people have then fallen back on aged pension. Although compulsory super has only been around since 91/92 and contributions are still not high enough the fact is the aim was to it eventually replace aged pension. Where it becomes problematic is where some people have genuine needs - eg to finish paying a mortgage, buying a new car. What should not be allowed is lumpr sum withdrawals for say a world cruise and the like.
    Anonymous
    25th Mar 2015
    5:20pm
    Why not a world cruise, if the money was VOLUNTARILY contributed (no employer super benefits available) with the specific intent of drawing it out for a cruise. We forfeited holidays and nights out, built our own home (living in a shed for 5 years with 3 kids and working weekends and nights while holding full time jobs), made our own clothing and furniture, and kept old bomb cars running so we could put some money away for a rainy day. Why shouldn't we now have the holiday we dreamed of - drawing just a little of our own hard-earned cash. Some others who draw pensions enjoyed the high life while working and didn't save. So - once again - the workers and savers are punished and the savvy who spend up big or give money to their kids earlier in life are rewarded with pensions funded by the savers.

    I have issues with the tax concessions to the super-rich, but I think we need to put some incentive back into the system. The reality is that pensions ARE affordable if the Government taxes the rich fairly, because increasingly people are retiring with some savings, inheriting money, and benefiting from employer-funded superannuation, and this trend will continue unless greedy governments keep lining the pockets of the rich by taking everything from the workers who make this country.
    Koj
    25th Mar 2015
    8:39pm
    Super receives favourable tax treatment - you pay less tax. The intent of this is to reduce government aged pension cost when you stop working.
    If everyone works the system to pay less tax, should we take any further lessons from the greek economy?
    If someone wants to save for a cruise, super is not the proper (tax avoiding) mechanism for it.
    It seems you are complaining about the rich avoiding tax, while wanting to do the same yourself.
    KSS
    25th Mar 2015
    8:50pm
    I agree Koj.
    Anonymous
    26th Mar 2015
    1:01am
    But the government encouraged the use of superannuation for saving, Koj. And the government set the terms and conditions of using it that way. At no time when we were saving did I ever hear anyone suggest that superannuation wasn't the proper mechanism for saving for a cruise. Quite the reverse.
    Now that it's employer funded, it's a different ballgame. But we never had employer-funded super, and lump sum withdrawals were ALWAYS permitted. For those who didn't work in government jobs, super was a voluntary savings plan and nobody ever specified what it was to be used for.
    It seems it's fine for pensions to be paid to those who squandered money earlier in life, or lived the high life, or gave their money away - but don't pay ANYTHING to responsible people who made huge sacrifices to save IN THE WAY THE GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDED AND ENCOURAGED. There are tax concessions to people who could afford negatively geared property or to make travel look like a business expense. There are tax concessions on inherited estates. It seems it's okay for people who took their world cruise before retirement and let their mortgage blow out to take their super to pay their mortgage and then collect a pension, but not for someone who struggled and sacrificed to pay off their mortgage AND save a little to have a reward at the end of their working life.
    I agree with phasing in changes now that everyone has employer-funded superannuation and it really IS a method of funding retirement, but it's unfair to change the rules mid-stream for those who never enjoyed the benefit of an employer-funded retirement plan or who injected cash voluntarily as a method of saving because the government of the day encouraged them to do so.
    Too many double standards here! And all of them geared at punishing those who work and save - making them pay for those who don't.
    Yes, I complain about the super-rich not paying their way, but battlers who work hard and make huge sacrifices should not be unfairly punished.
    And by the way, we never earned enough to enjoy tax concessions from super. The tax concessions don't benefit very low income earners, in case you hadn't noticed!
    Anonymous
    26th Mar 2015
    1:22am
    In case you missed it, Kol and KSS, I repeat - like many low income workers, we DID NOT get tax benefits from super. Super tax concessions benefit people in proportion to their wealth. Low income earners get virtually no tax benefit.
    Adrianus
    26th Mar 2015
    11:29am
    that's not true Rainey. Tax concessions and co-contributions have actually favoured low income earners more.
    Sue
    25th Mar 2015
    12:20pm
    There is no way I want the government telling me how to manage MY money. I have planned very carefully to pay off the rest of my mortgage. It is very patronizing to say, just because we happen to be over 60 that we are stupid.
    Davymac
    25th Mar 2015
    1:21pm
    Many are.
    Oldie84
    25th Mar 2015
    2:22pm
    True, Sue, but what about those taking the lump sum and blowing it? So many temptation, cruises, trips and all those trappings? And then expecting the taxpayer (not the "Government") to pay them a pension after all? One way or another Super Savings were meant to support you in your retired years.
    BB1
    25th Mar 2015
    12:27pm
    But as someone has said below if they want to waste their super on Gambling then why should other taxpayers have to fork out for a pension for this person. You put this money where you want. I do agree that people should be able to pay off their mortgage, but here again, if you have bought a you beaut house before retiring then expect the Super to pay out the mortgage then I do not agree with this, but if you are genuine, and have a smallish amount to pay off then I agree with this. Then the remaining to be put into some sort of Managed fund or Annuity , which you choose, then you can subsidise your pension with this money. It is the icing on the cake. Unfortunately there are too many people who are greedy and want others to pay for them along the way.
    Rob
    25th Mar 2015
    12:36pm
    This is a fascinating proposal that really cuts to the core. We can argue passionately that it is our super and we can do with it as we want but the flip side is should then the Age pension be a safety net for those who are incapable of managing their money which they have drawn as a lumpsum and blown/spent very quickly. I manage my own super and I manage it to ensure that it continues to grow and fund my retirement without access to welfare. I will be closely monitoring this and if the proposal loos like it has legs I will be drawing my money out immediately. I will not have managed funds and all there fees and bureauracy getting their hands on it.
    LiveItUp
    25th Mar 2015
    12:42pm
    Rob I agree with you as i too will be drawing my money out of super if such a proposal comes in.
    Patriot
    25th Mar 2015
    12:40pm
    Not a problem to take your super "In a Lump Sum".
    However, if you super was just a "Savings Account" with "Fringe Benefits" such as massive Tax Advantages I believe it only to be fair that - the part of your super that is taken as "lump Sum" MUST return the Advantages gained in the past return these to the TAX PAyer (in General) with the appropriate interest.

    Aditionally to the above, when the beneficiary(s) of the super passes on, and the Superfund is WILLED, Tax Advantages that applied to this Super (during Accumulation Period) should then be recovered and collected (to be going into general TAX revenue) before such funds are "Paid Out" to the beneficiaries.
    Wstaton
    25th Mar 2015
    1:48pm
    You could be right there.
    LiveItUp
    25th Mar 2015
    2:43pm
    Tax is payable on your super when you die if it is willed to a non dependent.
    KSS
    25th Mar 2015
    12:52pm
    I am of a similar mind to BB1 and Tigers. Superannuation was ALWAYS intended to fund retirement both before and after 1992. Therefore, I strongly object to people being able to withdraw the funds wholesale, squander it on lifestyle choices (cruises, new cars, gifts to family members, gambling, fast women and fast cars! and the like) then expect the rest of working Australians to fund their aged pension - and at ever increasing amounts - for the next 25 plus years.

    The basic idea of superannuation being used solely for retirement income is a good one - especially given that was the intention in the first place. The prevention of the frittering away of the funds is also a good one. The only point of discussion should be about how this is to be implemented and who and how should manage the funds.

    As for using the money to pay off a mortgage, I agree with BB1. Allowing someone to fund a 'you beaut' dwelling purchased shortly before retiring which would mean they are asset rich and income poor and needing a Government funded pension is absurd. Allow payouts of relatively small amounts to clear a proven long standing mortgage fine; but not at the expense of a retirement income.
    rattler
    25th Mar 2015
    1:10pm
    What nerve to state that a 65 year old can not manage a bucket of money.That is age discrimination and she should be ashamed to make that statement. That same 65 year old has managed all these years probably bringing up a family and juggling finances. I am 71 and still working.my super will pay some of the mortgage so I can afford a roof over my head when I do retire.My husband has been working for an employer who have evaded the superguarantee and refusses to pay into the super fund.He is not going to have a "bucket" when will the government start enforsing the super payments that we are supposed to live on??
    KSS
    25th Mar 2015
    1:14pm
    What that employer is doing is against the law. Your husband should take up his super issues with the Tax Office since they have the power and authority to take action against the employer for non-payment of super. Of course your husband must be earning the minimum $450 a month to qualify for super in the first place.
    rattler
    25th Mar 2015
    1:16pm
    Oh no KSS my home is small 74 years old no bute dwelling for me. We have always struggled.Why do you think at 71 I am still working. To pay for roof repairs and plumbing needs. No holidays or fast cars just an old tub to get us to the shops.Dont be critical before you know peoples living standards.
    KSS
    25th Mar 2015
    1:52pm
    I am not being critical of you or your husband rattler. What is happening to your husband by his employer is quite simply against the law. The Tax Office have the power to help your husband get what is rightly his.

    That is all I was saying. I am sorry if you misunderstood.
    Davymac
    25th Mar 2015
    1:18pm
    On retirement in 2000 I took half in cash and half in pension. This is the best option available to retireees. They can pay off the mortgage and receive an income stream. Penalties should apply for early withdrawal and total lump sums. Low interest rates have eaten into incomes from lump sums and poor financial planning advice has devoured many a lump sum payment. We are better protected by half in cash (if needed) and an income steam.
    Wstaton
    25th Mar 2015
    1:35pm
    What happens to the money when you die.
    KSS
    25th Mar 2015
    2:08pm
    Currently, if you have named a beneficiary and that person is dependant on you, the money goes there. If you have named a beneficiary who is NOT a dependant, then they may get the money (at the discretion of the fund!). and if not then the money goes to your estate.

    No idea if, whether or how this may or may not change in future.
    bartpcb
    25th Mar 2015
    1:38pm
    I find this quite strange, I was under the impression that there was a 'preserved amount' which could not be touched and a 'non-preserved' which could (and used to pay of the mortgage). It does seem a bit unfair on the people still working and paying taxes, for an individual to take all their superanuation and blow it on whatever, and then expect others to support them because they've got no money left!!
    KSS
    25th Mar 2015
    2:13pm
    You are right bartpcb about the preserved, non-preserved amounts. However, that has nothing to do with what you can do with the money. It is related purely to when you can withdraw it and is usually 'preserved' to age 55 or 60. After that you can do what you like! Non-preserved amounts can be withdrawn at any time - there is no age attached. Your Super policy will tell you how much is in each 'account' although since 1992 I think it has all been preserved
    Tommy
    25th Mar 2015
    1:48pm
    The best way is don't bank it, hide it. That way the friggin' vultures won't be able to get their grubby hands on it.
    Wstaton
    25th Mar 2015
    2:01pm
    Put it under the mattress.
    Phil1943
    25th Mar 2015
    1:50pm
    I vote NO on the idea of being denied the right to take my super fund balance as a lump sum and instead have it placed into some 'managed fund' that will no doubt charge hefty fees regardless of their performance. I retired in December 2014 at the age of 72 and after 50+ years of work experience that included managing multimillion-dollar advertising budgets I can look after my own money. Admittedly, along the way my SMSF did take a couple of hits - both were from fully-licensed and audited investments recommended by my (former) financial adviser that somehow managed to escape regulation by the same authorities that are now seeking to direct what I can do with my own money. In simple terms people, it's MY money and I have the right to decide what to do with it so that I can live out the rest of my years in some form of comfort. I don't want a pension; I want to support myself. So far my fund has outperformed the 'biggies' in the business, and of course paid no fees other than to my accountant. I want to keep it that way and will wage one helluva fight if any government - all of them representing fiscal mismanagement and greed of the worst kind - tries to take my future away.
    Wstaton
    25th Mar 2015
    2:01pm
    That is fine Phil but not all people are like you and it is those who maybe forces the government to think of solutions like this. For people like you I still think that the SMSF would still continue (your bet the managed funds would try and fight this) But I agree there is some angst about being told what to do with your money on retirement.

    One way possible to prevent what apparently a lot of people are doing taking a lump sum and passing it onto their kids is to make it so it can only go into their superfunds. Same as when one dies that it can only go into beneficiaries super funds. That would fix them.
    DJ
    25th Mar 2015
    2:15pm
    My thoughts exactly ....... the idea that older people can't manage their money and need to be protected from bad decision making is just a smoke screen to get access to super funds by a greedy government which is struggling to manage. I'm over "over-regulation" and the loss of individual freedom.
    Gammer
    25th Mar 2015
    2:24pm
    I have been receiving an allocated pension from my super fund for nearly 3 years. I draw the minimum monthly amount allowed and qualify for a part Aged Pension too. I have about $30,000 more in the fund now than when I started to draw down from my super fund. In my view this is what a super fund is supposed to be about - and, incidentally, I can determine the type of investments too so still have control over 'my' money. It really is a great system, I believe.....
    Oldie84
    25th Mar 2015
    2:33pm
    I am really tired of all those whingers about greedy Government et al. And why all this concern about taken the money and giving to your kids? They can have what is left and I won't go hungry before I die. They are Adults making their own way in the world. Keating brought in compulsory super to give people a better retirement, and don't forget in most cases this was (is) being paid by the employer. You can add to it of course. So lets treat Super as keeping you in your old age and not some plaything. Don't expect the tax payer to pick up after you all the time...

    25th Mar 2015
    3:22pm
    Superannuation is for retirement so lump sum payments need to be restricted to a reasonable amount but as of now everyone in a self managed fund can organize their own allocated pension they certainly do not have to use a managed fund unless they want too.
    Precious 1
    25th Mar 2015
    3:35pm
    Bella I completely agree with that idea....Unless people can honestly do that lifeline job for themselves it won`t work giving them masses of money on the Retirement ay...unfortunately.......Debt and bank cards are like drugs to kids...they simply cannot help it.............
    older but not out
    25th Mar 2015
    3:52pm
    I agree that it's a "real insult" to suggest once people reach 65 they "can't manage a bucket of money". My goodness, we oldies seem to be the cause of all the countries economic ills these days! Most would not "blow" their Super like some commentors have suggested. Anyway, why should those of us who handle our retirement money responsibly be penalised by the few that don't by having our money tied up until we die and paid out piecemeal. For most working people retirement is the first time in their lives when they can access a bit of free money by way of Super that's not comitted in some way, such as the Mortgage and raising and educating kids etc. There's rarely much left for savings during one's working life apart from what accumulates in Super. I transferred my Super to the Pension Phase at 65, but I retain the right to withdraw lump sums if I need to for whatever reason, which is nobody else's business quite frankly. I receive a small pension and Concession Card, but I prefer to remain largely Independant of Govt for as long as possible. I will oppose any move to lock up the Super that I spent my whole working life paying into - Compulsorily to boot.
    bletch
    25th Mar 2015
    3:58pm
    well said and I agree....
    Why are we getting constant headaches and stress now worrying about retirement when we should be enjoying life not worrying about where and when our next dollar may be coming from?

    25th Mar 2015
    4:03pm
    Firstly, I think it absurd and counterproductive to force those who manage their affairs well into a different - and probably less beneficial - means of managing their super.

    Secondly, those of us who did not have employer-funded super, but put money voluntarily into superannuation on the understanding we could take a lump sum at a future date should not be deprived of the opportunity. Perhaps it's fair to require a portion to be left to draw as a pension, but we put money into superannuation instead of holidaying, with the specific intent of drawing a lump sum on retirement to take a trip. Why should we be denied that right? It was OUR money (not employer funds) that we had the right to use as we pleased. We took advantage of a system that made certain undertakings. It would be grossly unfair for the implied contract to now be broken.

    Thirdly, if people need a lump sum to pay out a mortgage or buy a home, that may well be a far better investment than a managed fund. It is well established that home owners generally fare okay on the pension but renters are living in poverty. Surely it would be counter-productive to force people to hand over their hard-earned money to a manager who will take a huge percentage cut instead of acquiring the security of a home so that they need a smaller income to get by and have secure tenure and higher comfort? (Of course sensible limits should be applied to stop people drawing lump sums to buy luxury houses).

    If the Government wants to make changes, they should only apply to employer-funded superannuation monies, not voluntary contributions. And nobody should be forced into investments that will earn less than they can get for themselves.

    This looks to me like just another grab by greedy fund managers and a greedy government that cannot run its own affairs, so it breaches contractual obligations and good faith with the people and steals their money to balance the books.

    Fix the unfair superannuation tax concessions. That should be the first priority - rather than, once again, attacking the have nots!
    Wstaton
    25th Mar 2015
    4:14pm
    You have a point there Rainey, If this came about wouldn't that stop people from putting voluntary contributions into their super if it is going to be tied up when they retire. I think so.
    Pablo
    25th Mar 2015
    4:24pm
    I have made my super contributions over the years with a certain understanding as to the conditions of the fund. And now this government is threatening to change those conditions. This is not right and should not happen. I am the one who wants to be in control of my super fund, not some public servant sitting in Canberra who knows nothing about me or my circumstances. I am retired and have not accessed any money in my super fund yet, but when I do want to access that money I want to have the option of taking a lump sum of some or all my money, or buying a pension, or putting my money in a managed fund where the government can tax it all over again.

    Keep your hands off MY money and mind your own business.
    bletch
    25th Mar 2015
    4:36pm
    well said Pablo....but will they listen to us ????
    Oldie84
    25th Mar 2015
    4:40pm
    Pablo, this Government is not threatening anything... It's a suggestion by a Public Servant....
    Pablo
    25th Mar 2015
    4:49pm
    Oldie81, do you actually believe that the Treasury’s Financial System Inquiry wasn't given "riding instructions" by the Government? These inquiries are set up by governments to come back with a certain set of recommendations that they want to implement.

    So, yes ... I believe that the government IS threatening this!
    Pablo
    25th Mar 2015
    4:54pm
    No Bletch they won't take any notice at all of what we are saying, they have already made their mind up and it is Age pensioners and self funded retirees who will carry the weight of the nation on their shoulders. After all, we are the ones who have always worked and payed our taxes without complaint, not the ever growing numbers of welfare bludgers.
    Oldie84
    25th Mar 2015
    4:59pm
    You sure are a Cynic, Pablo. I do feel sorry for you and Tomaso, your life must be miserable. Wake up and smell the roses.
    I go with my little dog down the driveway every morning, look at the sun, the trees and listen to the birds. It's terrific to be alive. Stop being miserable. :-)
    Pablo
    25th Mar 2015
    5:09pm
    Well, good luck to you Oldie81. If you don't want to stand up for yourself, that is your choice. Personally, I will fight for what I think is right.
    Tomaso
    25th Mar 2015
    4:46pm
    Pablo, I totally Pablo, keep there dirty grubby polly hands off, and sort there own mess first. Let's see them gets cuts to all there perks which we have to foot, I'm sick to the core with these idiots, run a country you have got to be joking...
    Koj
    25th Mar 2015
    5:01pm
    I guess I'm a lucky one. I've been putting between 5 and 10% of my (after tax) pay into super for the last 35 years, so there's a bit there.
    I have sympathy for folks that haven't put much in super because they didn't have the opportunity .. though they have spent that money on other things.
    I fully support the need for the aged pension as a support mechanism for those with no (or insufficient) income or super to access.... however I despise those in a similar position to me who have significant super to access, and choose to cash in their super as a lump sum to buy the world holiday, boat, new car, house for the kiddies or whatever.... blow it all then get an aged pension. That means less for needy folks.
    What's the solution?
    - I reckon tight control on the investment industry part that converts super lump sums to annuities/ pensions, to assure competitive return without financial failure.
    - I reckon restrictions on access to lump sums. Access to pay off a mortgage seems worthy of a degree of dispensation.... though there are probably smart greedy people who would morgage their property before retiring and go on the world holiday etc and blow it all, then seek the aged pension.
    The longer time goes on, the fewer people that won't have access to some sort of super income stream.
    Before around 1900....no aged pension. After then, pension at 65 (but life expectancy was less that that). Now - tax concessions surrounding super which allow more wealthy people to avoid their share of tax (anyone heard of salary sacrifice!) with ever increasing life expectancy.
    Somethings's got to give under the financial stresses. If retiring folks accessed lump sums to run their own effective super schemes there would be no increase to the financial load...but if they blow the dough through bad investment or greed... it robs those that need a pension.
    Anonymous
    25th Mar 2015
    5:53pm
    Blowing all your super is not the way it is supposed to happen. It is there to support a person in retirement who has no superannation or very little.

    There are a lot of greedy people out there who want the taxpayer to fund everything.

    I am glad it is being looked at
    Anonymous
    25th Mar 2015
    5:57pm
    I am referring to the pension when I said "it is there to support a person in retirement who has no superannuation or very little".
    Blossom
    25th Mar 2015
    5:03pm
    Some people who bought a house for their own use may wish to take a partial lump sum to finish paying their mortgage or purchase a new car or a caravan to go for a long overdue holiday.
    Reeper
    25th Mar 2015
    5:08pm
    Bunch of double-dippers!
    Phil1943
    25th Mar 2015
    5:08pm
    Oldie 81, I'm sure your heart's in the right place and you can smell the roses at the start of every day while walking your pup. But this government's especially good at coming up with 'thought bubbles' to find a way out of the fiscal mess they face. Thoughts like we're discussing - amounting to the government taking over our super funds - are popped out into the media to gauge the voters' response. If we aren't firstly suspicious, and then reactive in a strong way, these measures will be bulldozed through Parliament and we'll be done out of the right to control our savings. Don't be complacent. Fight it now while it's only an idea. Once it's legislation we've had it and the government will be taking over the funds we've saved for the rest of our lives.
    Anonymous
    25th Mar 2015
    5:11pm
    Well said, Phil. I agree.
    Pablo
    25th Mar 2015
    5:12pm
    Well said Phil1943.

    25th Mar 2015
    5:10pm
    Another problem I see with this is that some people have periodic special needs and would rather draw a low rate of pension and have access to a lump sum when those needs arise. If they can't access a lump sum, they may find they have to draw a higher rate of pension and save for special needs, which effectively moves income out of a high return environment into a low return environment, or doubles management and adviser fees. All these ''smart'' ideas cut into the incomes of the prudent for the sake of propping up the imprudent and lazy. Taxing the wealthy is a much more equitable solution to a problem that might never have arisen if Governments had managed responsibly.

    25th Mar 2015
    5:50pm
    My hubby has an income stream and his capital is more than he started with and draws down twice a year. He has been doing this for 20 years. So his fund is fine..
    Oldie84
    25th Mar 2015
    6:14pm
    I guess every one's circumstances are different. I can see that from the variations raised here. We never received Super from an Employer. The Employer was me, paying on behalf of people who passed through our workshop. But we saved, scrimped and invested and yes our nest egg is ours. So I suppose I am fortunate that these thing don't affect us. But I was surprised to find out that with some judicial re-arranging we would qualify for the pension. I must say that floored me. I thought all we were entitled too was the Health card which makes it easier to buy your meds. Wonders never cease.
    Essdubbya
    25th Mar 2015
    6:36pm
    Another grab by the big end of town who have an abysmal track record in funds management. That is, after all, I established my own SMSF. This is really a "big brother (Orwell)" approach to Super. Abbott get your hands away from my money. Step away from the super.
    jennyb
    25th Mar 2015
    6:55pm
    “Expecting a 65-year-old who has never managed a bucket of money before to suddenly know how to do so is exposing them to too much risk,” says Superannuation Consumers Centre Chairwoman Jenni Mack.

    Well, hellooooo Ms Mack. And how would you know whether or not a person has not managed their bucket of money?? I watched my super like a hawk for the last 10 years before I retired and chose to take most in a lump sum - so I could afford to buy my first ever (teeny-weeny house, but it's HOME!) - and left a small amount as a pension, which together with a scrap from the Age Pension just about makes ends meet. Bit sick of nanny-state thinking as if I['m not capable of managing my own affairs, I'm not quite ga-ga yet thanks very much!!
    Pablo
    25th Mar 2015
    6:59pm
    Totally agree JennyB, I bet a lot of us retirees have much more experience and are better at managing our money! And none of us appreciate being talked down to!
    Fready
    25th Mar 2015
    7:35pm
    Saving money in a super account for a trip or to pay off the mortgage does NOT meet the "sole purpose test".
    particolor
    25th Mar 2015
    8:27pm
    But Polly Theft does :-)
    bookwyrm
    25th Mar 2015
    9:37pm
    Don‘t let the ‘experts‘ get their hands on super. Nobody will see a penny of it. Its rubbish people can‘t manage their super payout. With Centrelink financial advice my mother was recommended to put hers into an allocated pension, which she did. She was a widow and already mortgage free. I bet the pollies will still get theirs in a lump sum as soon as they step down from Parliament.
    Koj
    25th Mar 2015
    10:23pm
    Sounds like things went well for mum... which is good!
    The lump sum question of super leakage.... wouldn't it be better to force the greedy politicians (surely there aren't any creatures like that...ahem!) to also take a pension, not a lump sum? And while on a roll... make the super contributions systems fairer, by stopping the very wealthy avoiding income tax by making super contributions. Not many sh*tkickers like me can make pre-tax super contributions. Why not change the system so it's not only the pretty wealthy that can avoid income tax by super contributions.
    Denzel
    25th Mar 2015
    10:23pm
    This would be a very good move.

    Will prevent rorting of the state pension scheme which should be preserved for the genuinely needy.
    Anonymous
    26th Mar 2015
    1:29am
    I would agree if that were the outcome, but it isn't. Unfortunately, at least half of those drawing state pensions are far less needy than many who don't. They are savvy. They gave their money away to their kids before they turned 60, or they spent their money living the good life in younger years and didn't save. The proposed measure will hurt those who worked hard, sacrificed, and saved responsibly - and many of those it would hurt are not and have never been even moderately well-to-do, have had no employer-funded super, and have enjoyed minimal if any tax concessions either from using super to save or from any other scheme that benefits the more privileged. But while super tax concessions for the wealthy are preserved and politicians keep raiding the public purse, the hard workers who sacrificed and saved will be hit again. It''s always the same. Where is the incentive to be responsible? The message is clearly: spend it while you can, because otherwise the greedy will steal it from you claiming it '''should be preserved for the needy''.
    BTW. I am totally in favor of looking after the genuinely needy first and foremost. It's just that very few aged pensioners I know are needy except because they chose to spend freely during their working life.

    26th Mar 2015
    1:11am
    Governments throughout history have run up debt and managed irresponsibly, then helped themselves to huge pools of money set aside to pay for retirement in order to get back in the black. With trillions in super, they will surely do it again. It's unconscionable by any measure. Money has been put aside from taxes to fund retirement, and contrary to what many are suggesting here, the aged pension was NEVER intended to be only a safety net. It was a benefit everyone was intended to enjoy. Means testing is a fairly recent innovation.

    That said, I agree that means testing is reasonable in the current environment, but not preventing people who didn't have the benefit of employer-funded superannuation and got minimal or no tax benefit from super from accessing their super the same way they do their private savings, because for them super was just private savings. The well-to-do got massive tax concessions and therefore shouldn't get pensions - but many retirees got no tax benefit at all from super and all contributions were voluntary - not employer contributions. Why should they suffer now because governments and other citizens were less frugal and responsible with their budgets?
    Jaydee
    26th Mar 2015
    6:12am
    Leave my money alone you parasites
    nomad88
    26th Mar 2015
    8:24am
    I would be ok with the proposal to regulate Compulsory Contributions so long as I can take out any Personal Contributions I made as and when I choose.
    Adrianus
    26th Mar 2015
    11:21am
    That's an interesting point. Whatever happened to the 50/50 rule? Whereby only 50% could be taken as a lump sum.
    Stof
    26th Mar 2015
    10:58am
    The financial industry must be rubbing their hands with glee. All the government wants is for us to put OUR money in the hands of the thieves that have stolen billions due to bad advice and no consequences. My SMSF has outperformed the public funds by a significant margin. I spend hours each week researching, reading, and educating myself, and now they want me to hand it over to some faceless thief. NO WAY. This is a grab for our funds, to finance the deficit that successive govts have racked up.
    How many advisors have gone to jail for the missappropriation of funds?
    Why are doctors not allowed to accept offers from pharmaceutical companies?
    Why are banks allowed to sell financial advise?
    Why are politicians on a different super scheme to us?
    When I see the politicians hand over their super to the banks ill fly to the moon.
    Adrianus
    26th Mar 2015
    11:26am
    Well said Stof. I would be surprised if they don't allow SMSF to continue to flourish.
    Spitfire
    26th Mar 2015
    11:05am
    I have worked hard for my retirement and earned my super for the last 58 years now these unscrupulous bastards in government want to direct how it will be distributed.
    If geese like Abbot and Hockey get their hands on these funds they will soon show major losses the future is starting to look very glum, next they will want to introduce a euthanasia policy to grab everything.
    It’s time for Grey Power to have its own party to have a vested interest and say in determining the future.
    Finally, are politicians prepared to include their massive payouts, I doubt it.
    Koj
    26th Mar 2015
    11:33am
    Am I missing something here?
    My understanding of what I read is the main thing discussed was stopping "lump sum" access when super is cashed out.
    It mentions nothing about stopping self managed super funds (SMSFs)
    There's a lot of different viewpoints in all the comments above, and I reckon a few misunderstandings.
    Super DOES incorporate tax concessions - the tradeoff for locking up funds for older age. For the lucky some, it means only 15% tax is paid on voluntary contributions.... but the main bits are
    ** All fund earnings yearly are only taxed at 15%, when most of us pay at least 30% tax (this has huge impact on personal super paid over a lot of years)
    ** All super when cashed in is taxed at a lower rate than income tax (I think the first $160K?? is free, then 15% tax after that?.... with no tax on pension streams?)
    SO... for folks that reckon it's their money to do what they want with..blow it on the pokies /whatever... it's not morally their money with no conditions, because they've been taxed less as the super builds, and will be taxed less when they access it. If they then chose to pay a sh*teload of tax and go on the world tour etc I'd have a lot less argument with that.
    If people want to save a lump sum to do whatever they wish with it, rather than support themselves in older age... SAVE OUTSIDE the super system, and pay normal taxes on that nestegg like everyone else.

    26th Mar 2015
    11:39am
    I consider that I am a reasonably finance savvy person. and the best thing I did was to put my super and extra contributions into a self funded allocated pension with state super their fees are reasonable infact they were the less expensive when I joined 10 years ago. You get your payments every month no worries or stress. And of course the investments are tied to the all ordinaries so they will go up and down so don't get stressed out when suddenly you have lost $50000 of your investment because it will return + some
    Oldie84
    26th Mar 2015
    11:55am
    I can understand the concerns of many people here but I am at a loss to find anywhere in the article that refers to the Government taking your money away. Could some one point this out? I understood the suggestion was that you can't take it out, blow it and then go on the pension anyway.
    fish head
    26th Mar 2015
    1:07pm
    I wonder if pollies realise how intrusive it is to have to have your own money doled out to you like pocket money when you have successfully been raising a family and conducting your own financial affairs.Especially since you are having to deal with people much your junior in years. I don't want pollies anywhere near my superation. They are too prone to eyeing large amounts in the governments coffers as theirs to dip into with impunity - always with the best intentions, of course.
    Jen
    26th Mar 2015
    1:22pm
    Do these proposed changes to lump sum payment rules require legislation, or can it just be announced as part of the Budget? Is any notice period required, or might these changes take effect the day after the Budget?
    wally
    26th Mar 2015
    10:50pm
    Good questions. We're all flying blind at the moment, so it is a "watch this space" situation for now.
    Irishwolfhound
    26th Mar 2015
    1:42pm
    I think the fact that recipients will not be able to take a lump sum payout is a good idea. Many people do this, and spend the whole of their 'super' on holidays, expensive cars and so on.They then claim an age pension from the Government. The superannuation is meant to be used for your age pension, to ease the burden on the taxpayers. However, if they are going to do this they should also look at tightening the welfare system generally to save even more money. There are so many people cheating they system it will soon be unsustainable.
    Adrianus
    27th Mar 2015
    4:11pm
    You may be barking up the wrong tree, it is not a fact (no more lump sum draw downs) as far as I'm aware. But I agree with your argument.
    Denzel
    26th Mar 2015
    4:02pm
    The people who are complaining have not read or understood the issue.

    The government is not taking away your money.

    You will receive it ALL, in installments.

    This means that in actual fact you should get MORE, since your funds will stay invested longer.
    Anonymous
    26th Mar 2015
    6:14pm
    From past posts I did not think many on here had superannuation?
    Anonymous
    26th Mar 2015
    6:17pm
    Unfortunately, people only skim over things....it is only an enquiry at this stage. It is not going to happen overnight.
    Not Senile Yet!
    26th Mar 2015
    6:12pm
    What a LOT OF CRAP!!!
    People do understand the issue!!!
    It is simple.....it is not the Governments money.....therefore they should not control how it is spent/accessed!!!!
    Whilst it may sound ok....it is NOT OK.....to remove one's choices and make it mandatory for all to have annuities.....!!!
    Politicians have screwed Super over and over by fiddling with the rules and also taxing it!!!!
    Leave it alone..... or what ever rules you change should apply to ALL Super....even Private or SMF as well as MP's Super.
    Stop screwing with it....stop taxing it.....stop telling everyone that you have the right to change the rules at will......stop taxing it....and most of all.......STOP telling people what they can do with their own money!!!
    As for the RW and LW Party Snoopers on this site....ur both as bad as each other.....trying to force others to confirm to your views...."£$%^&*( OFF
    Denzel
    26th Mar 2015
    6:32pm
    Hello Not Senile Yet

    The government can stop telling you what to do with your money.
    But then you should put your hand out for a pension, when you have blown it all or given it away to your kids.
    DC
    27th Mar 2015
    12:15am
    Hey 'Not senile yet' - beautifully said. Could not agree more with you all your comments, especially the last sentence (Pity one cannot really say the true word before the ... "off"!!!)
    Denzel
    27th Mar 2015
    3:34pm
    You both sound like a load of bludgers
    Happy to rape your fellow citizens for money

    28th Mar 2015
    6:02am
    I read that the Government was also considering a proposal to exclude superannuation money from deceased estates and allow the government to take whatever is left when you die. So stopping lump sum withdrawals would ensure there was a healthy balance left for the government to confiscate after your death. Scary!

    Some of the arguments here are misleading. First, superannuation as a retirement saving scheme is a recent innovation. In the earlier years of my working life, superannuation was merely a fringe benefit. You got a lump sum when you left an employer. You could spend it as you wished at that time. It wasn't locked away until retirement. The transition to make it ''retirement funding'' is recent and was gradual, so many current retirees actually used it as a savings device (quite legitimately and properly). They did so with the expectation that they could draw a lump sum when needed.

    While lump sum withdrawals may pave the way for extravagance and waste that results in people who shouldn't need them drawing pensions, banning them denies responsible people the right to manage their own affairs. If denied the right to draw a lump sum, people may have to rely on drawing a larger regular pension than normally desirable and saving for big expenses such as home renovation, a medical or dental procedure, major car repairs or vehicle trade. These expenses are quite legitimate and incurring them shouldn't reduce someone's pension entitlement in most cases.

    What if someone wants to loan their children money? A documented loan is still an asset for pension assessment purposes, so lending doesn't change pension entitlements, but you can't lend to children through super, so you need to draw a lump sum to make the advance privately. So responsible parents may be denied the right to do this for no good reason. What if a retiree wants to help an aged parent secure aged care accommodation? Again, can't lend through super but drawing to lend privately doesn't increase pension entitlements as the loan is still an asset.

    Many poorer retirees struggle through their last working years counting on drawing some of their super to fix up their home, replace worn furniture, and/or replace their car with one that will last them reliably through retirement and be more economical to run. These are legitimate needs that, if met, reduce their ongoing living costs. If denied the right to draw money for these costs, they may have to borrow or delay essential investments, resulting in much higher ongoing costs.

    Then there's health costs. Retirees may count on being able to draw a lump sum from their super if there is a sudden and costly health crisis. Should they be stopped from doing that?

    Like most ''political footballs'', the argument is grossly over-simplified by people who don't analyze all of it but immediately jump to conclusions based on assumption or propaganda. Sure, there are people who blow lump sums on a cruise or who invest unwisely, then claim pensions, and it would be nice to stop them. It would be equally nice to stop people who gave all their money to their kids before they turned 60 or who spent freely during their working life or blew their inheritance on a world cruise drawing pensions when they are old. But where do we start and stop drawing lines? This proposal will do serious damage to many people's retirement. Forcing them to draw larger regular amounts and save outside super for big expenses will slash their total investment returns. For many, that will mean they are more reliant on an aged pension - not less! And I would never trust any government to sensibly regulate how I should manage my money. They can't manage the budget! How can they be trusted to manage private savings efficiently?
    Jen
    28th Mar 2015
    9:46am
    Excellent points! Thanks. You've added some calm and sensible analysis.
    Oldie84
    28th Mar 2015
    1:06pm
    You make some very good points Rainey, illustrating just how difficult it is for any Government to work its way way through the maze of competing interests.
    There is one thing though that I find impossible to believe: your claim that that your Super will be excluded from deceased estate. We have not yet reached the stage of Greece or Cyprus. I don't think any Government of which ever colour would be game enough to try that on. Maybe the Greens might suggest it knowing full well they would never have to do it. :-)
    Anonymous
    28th Mar 2015
    5:46pm
    I scratch my heard. I never ever thought of pulling down my superannuation to go on a cruise, give to kids etc.

    I was always under the assumption that the reason it was brought into being was to provide for me in my old age..nothing more.
    Oldie84
    28th Mar 2015
    7:09pm
    Same here, Radish.
    Fready
    30th Mar 2015
    4:14pm
    Oldie and Radish, the modern way to cheat the system is to organise your assets value (at fire sale values) to less than $286,500 ( couple) and use the rest to buy the best house possible with no limit on the value and then claim the full pension. You can invest some of your assets and receive $284 per fortnight without affecting your pension.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2015
    2:41pm
    Yes, I know of lots who have done that Freadyand is not currently illegal to do so.

    It is not only the super rich who use the system....middle income Australia does too.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2015
    2:44pm
    I might add that the investigation into the tax/gst and superannuation system is NOT going to happen for a while and the outcome probably will not be know for ages so I find the heading of this post purely alarmist.

    The current government has stated that any changes they wish to make will be taken to the electorate.

    Shorten has already ruled out any change to GST even before an inquiry has begun. Very short sighted in my opinion as something has to happen otherwise as the current system is unsustainable.
    Oldie84
    31st Mar 2015
    5:25pm
    I know now Fready, and it disgusts me. I believe Radish is correct. Same as the Tax inquiry is, doomed from the outset. There are too many interest groups that will squeal like stuck pigs. GST change will not get past the States, Super has too many interested parties and so it goes. With the make-up of the House and Senate no sensible measures will get through. I really worry what my Grandchildren will find on reaching Adulthood.
    Fready
    31st Mar 2015
    9:49pm
    A couple who skimped and saved $20,000 a year during a 50 year working life and amassed $1 million and invested it in a term deposit will now receive less income than a couple that did not save anything and are now on the full pension. In addition, those on the full pension will get more concessions than the self-funded retirees.
    lindy
    13th Apr 2015
    10:33am
    Why on earth would you have super now? You would just lose control of it. After all its your money for gods sake. Rather put it into property.
    Jaydee
    13th Apr 2015
    12:25pm
    What Govt constantly throws ridiculous ideas around that seem to hit those less advantaged than themselves?. (and that's a lot of Australians), Politicians retire with hundreds of thousands $$, (subsidised by taxpayers, no doubt) each and every year for life. (as mentioned in a popular newspaper recently). We have been Mr and Mrs "in-between" all our lives. We have never been into Centre Link, we've paid our children's University and Tafe fees. We have both worked since we left school at 16: (in late 60's) Husband works full time, myself worked part-time, (From when our youngest was 18 months old) and volunteered. We had the "grandmas" looking after the children, (there were no Child Minding Centres then): As we retire, we deserve to access our hard earnt $$. We would like to do a little travelling. So how difficult this will be, if we cannot draw lump sum. Our Super savings have been depleted after 3 different financial advisors cost us over two hundred thousand $$ ($200,000) in failed investments, not to mention their exorbitant fees for doing so. Perhaps the Politicians could offer some "Tax payable" to those who are classed as "Wealthy", and leave the Mr & Mrs "in-betweens" to enjoy some income from their Super without paying tax on the funds they have already paid tax on before it went into Super. Managed Funds from personal experience carry some exorbitant Fees, with our Managed Funds going backwards for some years.

    While some people MAY be frugal with access to their super funds, it is not conducive that EVERY person would. One thinks it would not be the majority. Who wants to spend up on super funds quickly and live on Australia's Age Pension!!!! Why cant a compromise be reached with Govt allowing a reasonable amount of lump sum withdrawal each year (for example). A friend used her super to purchase her home recently, and is living on her super. There are probably those out there who would like to do the same. With lump sum withdrawals imposed, people like her would still be renting. Wake up Govt, and think from a normal Australian's position.
    Make a Difference
    28th Apr 2015
    5:01pm
    I totally agree with Bonny. I have already had over $200,000 "go west" in a fund that went bankrupt in the UK and have no desire to similarly expose the scraps I have left here!

    There seems to be an assumption that "Super funds are Safe" - Take it from me, they are not, they can be mis-managed and fold just as much as any other investment scheme.

    LNP keep talking about LESS GOVERNMENT and LESS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE - why do they want to interfere so profoundly in the way we manage our money??? Because their mates, the investment bankers, make heaps out of us and are paying the politicians to ensure that this continues and is even increased.

    My plan for retirement is to take my money as a lump sum on retirement and use it to buy myself a home - something which for various reasons I have lost during my working life. This is worth much more to me than a piddling annual "pension" which is raided by all and sundry who claim to be managing my money. CHECKOUT on the TV already proved that investment choices randomly made by the family cat are just as effective and successful as those made by highly paid fund managers!

    Sorry getting more an more angry as I am writing this. I have been ripped off all of my working life and this is really the last straw!
    Essdubbya
    20th May 2015
    4:41pm
    More of the same siphoning off. Why should those of us with self managed funds be forced into managed funds? My own fund on average has outperformed managed funds by at least 50%. Why should I fill the pockets of so called professionals at my own expense. Bah humbug.