Super’s real purpose

The Government announces support for the Murray Report’s super recommendations.

Super’s real purpose

Yesterday the newly minted Turnbull Government released its response to the recommendations of the Financial Services Inquiry (FSI), more commonly known as the Murray Report.

The FSI’s findings were first released in December 2014 in answer to a brief to ‘best position Australia’s financial system to meet Australia’s evolving needs and support economic growth'. In all, 43 of the 44 recommendations were endorsed by the Turnbull Government, with the only one to be rejected a recommendation to reduce borrowing by superannuation funds.

Media coverage was swift and brief, concentrating in the main on a crackdown on excessive credit card transaction surcharges.

But of more interest to the millions of Australians who are in, or transitioning to, retirement were the many recommendations regarding super and retirement income. In particular, the need to confirm, by legislation, the objective of Australia’s $1 trillion superannuation industry, to ‘serve as a guide to policy makers, regulators, industry and the community about superannuation’s fundamental purpose’, according to the government statement.

Additionally, the Productivity Commission will be asked to create criteria which will help assess the efficiency and competitiveness of the the super system. And financial planners will be under scrutiny as the Government develops amendments to legislation to raise ‘professional, ethical and educational standards’ for those who purport to manage your money.

Read more about the FSI and its recommendations.

Read more detail of the Government announcement in The Guardian.

Opinion: About B***** time

About time too, is the obvious rejoinder to the news that the objective of our superannuation system will finally be enshrined in legislation. Ditto the need to raise the standards of financial advisers.

At one level it is laughable that a $1 trillion system that was first introduced in 1992 has no clearly defined objective. At another, it is a national disgrace. Yes, it was a bold and productive policy initiative to ensure workers from all walks of life would have the benefit of mandatory savings in retirement – not just the professional classes and upper level public servants. But when the system was introduced, surely its primary aim should have been spelt out? This may have prevented the current misuse of super – as a haven for surplus cash for the rich, rather than a vehicle to ensure all Australians enjoy a dignified retirement. Those in doubt need only look at the sums – most benefits go straight to the wealthiest quintile of the population and stay there, ready to swell the next generation’s inheritance. In other words, those who will never need to claim an Age Pension are most likely to use superannuation as a structure to avoid tax. Instead, these foregone funds supporting overly generous concessions could be used to top-up meagre fortnightly pension payments for a much higher proportion of the population.

Defining a clear objective for our system would help policy makers – governments of any hue – decide on legislation which best suits this purpose. And the public could then decide whether the government of the day does have the best interests of the population at heart. One of the stated aims of the FSI was to lift the value of the superannuation system and retirement incomes. This will only ever happen if we start with the end in mind, so the Turnbull government is to be applauded for accepting this key recommendation. And as for improving the ethics, education and qualifications of financial advisers, that is obviously a no-brainer. But it will be a very difficult task as we are starting from such a low base.

What do you think? Is defining the primary aim of super important? And is raising the standards of financial advisers a priority? Are there other recommendations from the FSI that you believe are important?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Travellersjoy
    21st Oct 2015
    10:12am
    Absolutely agree with you Kaye.

    The egregious super scams have been allowed by both major parties, which both want to raise more money from ordinary and poorer people via another GST slug, to ensure their cronies keep their privileged hands in the public purse.

    They will say and do anything to keep privileges, and force ordinary people to keep paying.
    Lyn
    21st Oct 2015
    4:01pm
    Yes and and many of the poor wage earners don't even receive the the legislated super payment from their employer and this is seldom followed up by the ATO.
    Grateful
    21st Oct 2015
    10:21am
    Yet, the government will do nothing to stop people borrowing money to buy real estate investments, tantamount to taxpayer subsidized gambling, which is far from the "fundamental purpose" for which superannuation was intended.
    And couldn't agree more with this statement. "Most benefits go straight to the wealthiest quintile of the population and stay there, ready to swell the next generation’s inheritance. In other words, those who will never need to claim an Age Pension are most likely to use superannuation as a structure to avoid tax. Instead, these foregone funds supporting overly generous concessions could be used to top-up meagre fortnightly pension payments for a much higher proportion of the population." It would be a double whammy for the economy with, I bet, every extra cent that is given to genuine pensioners will be put right back into the economy to boost jobs and to take much stress off the minds of the recipients thus improving their state of health.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    11:06am
    "tantamount to taxpayer subsidized gambling"
    Grateful how do you form that opinion?
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2015
    11:21am
    Give me a break Grateful pensioners get thousands of dollars in cash and benefits every year because they are unable to feed themselves or pay their bills. They certainly don"t need any more tax dollars, where as superanuants may have to work of a very small base of money to provide for their retirement and are no burden to the country like the pensioner, dole bludger etc.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    11:38am
    Grateful if you were to understand why these limited recourse loans exist you would think differently.
    Mojobomber
    21st Oct 2015
    11:50am
    Geez Robbo, if not you then surely your parents or parents in law may have certainly had recourse to exist on the old age pension? Do you not think that after paying taxes for say 40-50 years they could have an expectation to be supported in their old age? Not everyone has a high paying job that creates a mega superannuation payout. Not so sure the pension is that great that they should be grateful for it. I think most families would have had at some stage had a family member who might have been on the dole or possibly even had a child receiving assistance from the Government for University fees. See, no matter how you slice it, your tax dollars, my tax dollars, are going to someone and it's no use calling it something else when it is applied to your own family member. You can put lipstick on a pig...............
    Grateful
    21st Oct 2015
    3:41pm
    Let's put this into perspective as has been stated in this article and forget the ideological red herrings.
    "But when the system was introduced, surely its primary aim should have been spelt out? This may have prevented the current misuse of super – as a haven for surplus cash for the rich, rather than a vehicle to ensure all Australians enjoy a dignified retirement. Those in doubt need only look at the sums – most benefits go straight to the wealthiest quintile of the population and stay there, ready to swell the next generation’s inheritance. In other words, those who will never need to claim an Age Pension are most likely to use superannuation as a structure to avoid tax."
    They are the ones I'm talking about and most who use that "tax payer subsidized" superannuation "haven" to borrow money to add to their fund to buy investment properties, are gambling with taxpayer subsidized money. Period.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    4:57pm
    Grateful gambling with your super is definitely not allowed.
    mangomick
    21st Oct 2015
    7:25pm
    Grateful..I might have avoided paying a little tax by salary sacrificing extra money into my super but all that is really going to do is make me and my wife avoid getting any pension. I'm just an ordinary worker but any excess cash that I ever salary sacrificed came from not smoking ,not making any pub owners rich, living within my means and biting off more than i could chew and then chewing like hell.
    Graeme
    21st Oct 2015
    10:22am
    They want to crack down on the credit card surcharges, but do absolutely nothing about the rip off fees and interest rates that the banks are charging on the cards
    Ginty 01
    21st Oct 2015
    10:27am
    My thought exactly when I saw it on the news!
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    11:52am
    Graeme, I would have expected credit card interest to be half of what it is during this period of low inflation low interest. I think during the 90's they were around 18% and now are down to around 13%, which is still a good 10% above inflation. Anyway people who complain about credit card interest should not use them.
    LiveItUp
    21st Oct 2015
    2:00pm
    I can't understand why anyone with a house would borrow with a credit card when they could get a line of credit instead for less than 5%. Credit cards are certainly a high price to pay for convenience.
    Why pay Jetstar it's high credit card fees? I booked 16 flights which would have been $136 but zero with direct debit. $136 more than paid for my travel insurance used instead of paying the big excess insurance charges on a hire car.
    Hawkeye
    22nd Oct 2015
    2:32am
    As far as I know, the vast majority of people pay of the full amount on their Credit Cards each month, and therefore pay no interest. I know I do.
    And if you can't afford to pay off the full balance, then you can't afford your purchases no matter how you try pay for them, so cut up your card.
    I actually have a card with reasonably high interest because it has a better rewards scheme.

    The rules for effective Credit Card use are simple;
    - USE THE CARD FOR EVERYTHING (MAXIMISE POINTS)
    - PAY OFF FULL BALANCE EACH MONTH (NO INTEREST CHARGES)
    - REDEEM POINTS FOR CASH ONLY, NEVER FOR GOODS (THE GOODS CAN ALWAYS BE BOUGHT MUCH CHEAPER BY SHOPPING AROUND AND USING THAT REDEEMED CASH TO PAY FOR THEM)

    Follow the above rules and have the bank pay you for using their Credit Card.
    (Much cheaper and more satisfying than paying 5% on a line-of-credit, Bonny)
    ozrog
    22nd Oct 2015
    9:51am
    I agree with Hawkeye it's what i do.
    Batara
    21st Oct 2015
    10:47am
    To my mind superannuation always had an objective - it is in the name if you care to read it. Superannuation is income paid after one ceases working for reward each day. The real problem is that the wealthy and aspiring wealthy have subverted the superannuation scheme to become a means to self-enrichment way beyond the needs of income in retirement. This self enrichment object has become a sacred cow and an article of faith for the right wing. Becoming wealthy has become an honourable pursuit rather than something not quite right in a Christian life. Remember the eye of the needle and the rich man?
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    11:08am
    Batara, if you want to fly you need both right and left wings.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2015
    11:17am
    and BOTH wings have to WORK TOGETHER or you never get off the ground.
    LiveItUp
    21st Oct 2015
    11:30am
    So becoming wealthy is a sin.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    11:32am
    Not necessarily, but both wings do need to have a common goal.
    CowboyJoe
    21st Oct 2015
    11:40am
    So, to conversely assess Batara's contention that wealth is unChristian, never embarking upon a life of self-improvement, self-sufficiency and self actualization or attempting to obtain financial independence is amoral?

    Many affluent people I know engage in philanthropic activities. Most I think do, they just don't advertise it on the ABC.

    In addition, I was always taught in Sunday School that only God is to judge mere humans. I kept attending until I learned what a hypocrite was. Haven't been back in 50 + years.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    11:57am
    If the accumulation of wealth was unchristian like the plate would stop being passed around.
    KSS
    21st Oct 2015
    12:12pm
    And if they have the means to save, why should the 'wealthy' be expected to accept a 'lower-standard-of living' in retirement than they have been used to in their working life? The Green Eyed Monster strikes again. Sure that is just as unchristian as being wealthy?
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2015
    12:34pm
    Frank, if both wings didn't work together, common goal or not, the birdie would be going around in circles - like the government is doing now.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    1:04pm
    HA HA HA!! Fast Eddie the wind was so strong here yesterday I saw a bird flash by at the speed of light without moving either wings, obviously emulating certain politicians. The right wing outstretched in the traditional way the other pointing toward Mars resembling a sail on a yacht.
    I knew as soon as I saw a smiling, overly happy CFMEU boss come out of that tax summit with Turnbull, that Shorten would rubber stamp the China FTA soon afterwards.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2015
    4:29pm
    Good one, Frank. Yes, well and truly a trade-off. Tell me, was the bird smoking a cigar?

    21st Oct 2015
    11:15am
    The government has "committed" to a LOT of things, but VERY OFTEN has NOT DELIVERED. I'll believe it when I see it, and this is not cynicism it is reality.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    11:29am
    When it comes to the "Financial Advice" industry we have been hearing about raising standards and ethics for decades seemingly without success.
    I think the problem is created by financial institutions' commission structure. Yesterday I read an article about a rogue financial planner at The Bank who was paid $16,000 for encouraging an 88 year old to transfer $1m from a bank deposit to a share trust. It appears that the higher the risk/time horizon the higher the commission. This being the case, the bank's financial advisers would then be paid no commission for advising the flow of funds to bank deposits. I wonder how many of us have been recommended a bank deposit by a bank's financial adviser?
    Gammer
    21st Oct 2015
    12:23pm
    Absolutely appalling - this is the problem with commission based occupations which obviously appeal to unethical people who prey on those least able to protect themselves.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    12:47pm
    Gammer, if you give your dog a treat for obeying your command then it would be unethical of you to call your dog unethical, would it not?
    LiveItUp
    21st Oct 2015
    4:18pm
    88 year old probably better in a share fund if they live to a hundred.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    5:03pm
    Bonny it was a 7 year term?! I guess when she reached 95 she could reinvest for another 7 years? You do not go into those types of investments at a time of global economic uncertainty with Labor in government.
    Peking
    21st Oct 2015
    11:46am
    Clearly superannuation definition must include the ability to fund your retirement to whatever age is possible, if you sacrifice pay into super long enough. What HAS to change are the minimum drawdowns which essentially ensure your hard won super runs out by late 80s or 90. That would have been seen to be very old when the rules were established but statistics clearly show many of us living longer. By all means prevent hoarding in super, but ensure those who have sacrificed for decades can benefit, and not worry about leaving a partner to struggle in old age.
    Anonymous
    21st Oct 2015
    12:17pm
    You are right, Tom. An actuary should update the superannuation rules, such as withdrawal and accessibility limitations, to reflect a more realistic economic situation with today's greater longevity and make it easier to cope with aged care.
    Gammer
    21st Oct 2015
    12:19pm
    Yes, definitely need this to be considered, as a single (female) I have nobody to help if my little fund runs dry before I kick the bucket! I need it to last as long as possible.....
    KSS
    21st Oct 2015
    12:27pm
    Define what you call 'hoarding' in superannuation Peking. In order to generate the $45000 a year we are told is necessary for a comfortable retirement, a person would need more than $1000,000, well above the new levels to come into effect from January 2017. So I am interested to know what level of superannuation savings you consider to be 'hoarding'.
    CowboyJoe
    21st Oct 2015
    1:27pm
    I think hoarding is an incorrect word to use. Peking is arguing against his very own position. How can hoarding be possible when on one of Peking's hands he hoards and then being legislatively forced to prematurely run out of money on his other hand?

    Seems quite clear that the current rules assist in the prevention of hoarding.

    It is possible to put money back in after taking it out of the super account but I think it is once again taxed going in. If one accumulates large amounts of unspent super withdrawals the earnings could be subject to tax and/or the funds could experience eroded purchasing power if parked in a home safe.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    1:37pm
    A recently produced report by Treasury showed the majority of superannuants died with more than 50% of their super. This is a clear indication that the welfare system is too generous to many superannuants.
    KSS
    21st Oct 2015
    2:35pm
    Frank, or that the superannuant died earlier than expected!
    mangomick
    21st Oct 2015
    7:34pm
    With Hockey's plan to get everyone to stay working until they are 75 his aim must have been to get everyone to kark it with at least 90% left.
    Gammer
    21st Oct 2015
    12:15pm
    I would never go to a financial planner nowadays because I had one for many years (together with my late husband) who advised us that our personal insurance needed to be upgraded. He filled in all the necessary paperwork having all our personal records (it was with the same insurer, incidentally) and then called us to his office to sign the application, etc. My husband unexpectedly passed away within the year and when I submitted the claim to my insurance company I was told that as he had a pre-existing condition the insurance was null and void. He had no health issues when our first policy had been arranged but in the change over to the new plan our financial planner had omitted noting the Type II Diabetes that my husband now had. OK, we should have read the application more thoroughly but same company just a different, more expensive, plan. He got the commissions for the upgrade, me, the widow, got nothing! Not even an apology.....
    KSS
    21st Oct 2015
    12:54pm
    Grammer I sympathise with your situation but I don't understand it. Any type of insurance has to be renewed each year and if there are any changes to those declared the year before you must under law disclose them. That would include for example a traffic violation on your car insurance or being diagnosed with some sort of illness on your health insurance or life insurance. Failure to do so invalidates your insurance - as you have discovered. Further you say that when you first got your old insurance your husband had no health issues. He must have developed them in the meantime and not declared it to the old insurer. This would have voided that insurance too.
    Putting the whole blame for your decision to change on your financial advisor is disingenuous to say the least. You admit you should have read the forms and didn't. So it is with sympathy I say it was and remains your responsibility to know and understand what you are agreeing to and signing for.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    1:20pm
    KSS, I think you are being a little tough on Gammer? Clearly Gammer and her husband were victims of churning. Their so called financial planner who convinced them to cancel a perfectly good life insurance policy which probably would have paid a benefit, in favour of a new one which had no benefit for anyone other than the churner.
    Gammer experience is a tough teacher. :(
    CowboyJoe
    21st Oct 2015
    1:30pm
    I once worked as an insurance agent. I would think that there is some form of recourse. I would seek legal advice. Having said that I chose not to work in the industry in Australia in late 1980s. Unethical practices were commonplace.
    CowboyJoe
    21st Oct 2015
    1:34pm
    KSS one big advantage of buying life insurance when one is healthy and younger is that the policies are NOT reviewed.

    I don't think you are qualified enough to make cogent comment on the subject of Life Assurance contracts.

    At the very least the agent was slack. In the USA it is called churning and there are laws against it.
    CowboyJoe
    21st Oct 2015
    1:41pm
    Sorry Frank just noticed your comment. Churning is know of here also.
    It is a cardinal rule of ethical life agents to not cancel life policies without taking great care. In my experience most cases are not justifiable to cancel and then replace.

    Crammer, I would start by checking this link out & and following the steps to make a complaint.
    http://fpa.asn.au/standards/accountability-and-compliance/
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    2:26pm
    Joe churning is the same thing in any industry and in any country. Businesses hire sales people to increase business by attracting new business, not by swapping products for existing customers. Can you imagine the disappointment at board level when after a year of record sales they were to find no new business had actually been written? :)
    Tomaso
    21st Oct 2015
    1:10pm
    I like it about the "advisers", the last big recess, I lost a lot of money through inadequate advisers, still taking there quarterly slice until I realised they were not bothered as long as they got there cut. So I withdrew what was left. But I still smell a rat with government's, I would not trust any of them....
    Tomaso
    21st Oct 2015
    1:12pm
    And I totally concur with Greame too.
    mogo51
    21st Oct 2015
    1:27pm
    I applaud the Turnbull Government for supporting this initiative, it is long overdue.
    I want to see equality in the Super system for ALL including politicians who must comply with the regulations, the same as the everyday Aussie.
    Billyboy
    21st Oct 2015
    3:04pm
    Superannuation was a good idea but not thought through sufficiently as is shown by the constant changes to the rules. Initially superannuation funds were not allowed to borrow for investment but when that changed it brought a new group of buyers into the property market with a consequential increase in property values and enabled negative gearing of properties.
    What happened was that, with superannuation, it brought out a new group of charlatans and carpetbaggers who made a lot of money for themselves and caused losses for their clients. Not all were bad but here we are, many years later, still trying to sort these people out.
    Take a few steps back and make it a means of financing a retirement income and not an investment mechanism.
    Adrianus
    21st Oct 2015
    5:35pm
    Billyboy sorry, initially super funds were allowed to borrow. When I first got into super they had a limit of 30% of fund assets as the borrowing limit. I was then told to get that down to 10%, and then to zero. I think it took about 12 years. Then more recently many funds were buying shares with instalment warrants. Technically an instalment warrant is the same as a loan. When the ATO realised that tens of thousands of funds actually had loans they did not know what to do. About 10 years ago the government made the decision to then legalise these warrants rather than issue all these funds with a notice of non compliance. The new rules included the description of warrants and that they could be used for the purchase of all legitimate super real assets.
    Super funds have commercial property and very rarely hold residential. They are not negatively geared by design anyway and have had very little effect on the residential property market if any at all. I have spoken to a few real estate agents during the last say 5 years who tell me they are now doing more than half their sales in commercial property to super funds. So it is gathering pace.
    Old Fella
    21st Oct 2015
    4:42pm
    Providing a non Government retirement income is a valid Goal, for all seeking a little financial security in retirement. Major Companies now providing infrastructure social needs - New Roads, Tunnels , Bridges, Car Parks etc, are turning a reasonable profit to their shareholders. What a great benefit to the community and all Australia, should accrued Superannuation Capital be encouraged to replace those Private Companies and the returns earned assist those on Non Government retirement Pensions.
    What Government saves on Retirement payments could provide additional Infrastructure subsidy and guarantee to self funded retirees and fan greater Infrastructure for the country for its' basic Transport needs.
    mangomick
    21st Oct 2015
    8:39pm
    Good in theory but I don't really want Governments deciding what infrastructure project ,usually the ones that private enterprise won't touch with a 10 foot pole, they are going to invest my super in. Not unless my capital and the return is 100% rock solid guaranteed.
    Fready
    21st Oct 2015
    5:14pm
    I thought the "sole purpose test" said it all, yet we allow people to withdraw a lump sum.
    mangomick
    21st Oct 2015
    8:51pm
    Every body has different goals and aspirations. I might want to retire from the work force but I might want to buy myself a nice little farm where I can while away my later years and also make a suitable retirement income and not get stressed as to whether the stock market was going to go belly up. So why shouldn't I be able to withdraw a lump sum.I've gone without for years so I can finally enjoy the lifestyle i have planned for.
    ozrog
    21st Oct 2015
    11:02pm
    Super is not a government tool it belongs to the person that paid it in to do what they want with.
    Super was and is a pay increase that was forgone as part of wage bargaining. So government keep you hands of it and leave it alone.
    Adrianus
    22nd Oct 2015
    7:27am
    It belongs to the trustee of the fund.
    ozrog
    22nd Oct 2015
    9:47am
    No it belongs to me who controls how it is invested and when and how i want to use it.
    Adrianus
    22nd Oct 2015
    10:08am
    You signed it over to the Trustees of the fund with the understanding that they are obliged to follow the guidelines as detailed in the Trust Deed. If it ever went to court the law would determine the answer to that question. Did the Trustee act in accordance with the trust?
    We all go through life often placing an enormous amount of trust in functionality. We drive down the highway at 100kl per hour passing within a couple of metres of an oncoming vehicle doing the same speed, and think nothing of it?
    ozrog
    22nd Oct 2015
    10:20am
    Guess I'm the trustee if a self managed fund then. Yay. If i want a new car i will draw down same for a holiday. It's mine all mine. Just like when companies ho broke they steall all your super where's your trustee then Frank.

    22nd Oct 2015
    1:24pm
    the whole system should be changed, do away with individual super, set up a system used in Europe, tax might be higher in your working life but on retirement, everyone gets a 'liveable' pension which is not means tested.
    Adrianus
    22nd Oct 2015
    2:03pm
    trod that has already been tried and I think it's a good idea. The threat to the success of that method is that one side of politics cannot govern with budget surpluses.
    ozrog
    22nd Oct 2015
    2:06pm
    Trood even millionaires get the age pension in tge UK.
    Tomaso
    23rd Oct 2015
    3:46pm
    ozrog, quite correct there m8, if you pay into the pension scheme, here your are penalised for doing well......
    PIXAPD
    26th Oct 2015
    7:10am
    All this hype about having to save so much Super to retire on is, bah humbug. I know that there are folks on the full aged pension, who rent and yet are still able to save up to $600 a month from that pension, over $6,000 a year. The pension for those folks is $996.40 a fortnight, the combined payment of Age Pension $788.40, Energy Supplement $14:10, Pensions Supplement $64:50 and maximum Rent Assistance $129:40. Then you get $2:50 daily cap for travel on train, bus and ferry; free car rego, free licence, discounts on gas and electricity bills and other perks. I have no complaints, but just saying a person can save up to $600 a month out of the full aged pension, and that does not mean a bread and water diet or not being able to enjoy life.
    BElle
    26th Oct 2015
    12:08pm
    I am not sure that even the Financial Experts really understand the impact of Superannuation on the personal financial situation of the individual.
    The system appears to work on the basis that we are all employed for the available working life. This is not the situation almost without exception. this theory simple does not reflect reality for the average person.
    If you are self-employed you are lucky if you can pay yourself a liveable wage, let alone save for retirement.
    if you are a women, you will probably have a period of time not working to raise children yourself or you will be paying large amounts to have your children cared for by qualified carers.
    If you are invalided in any way you will probably survive on an inadequate pension.
    If you are made redundant after 45years of age you may well not be able to return to the workforce.
    if you are a young person, qualified or otherwise, it may be several years before you are able to earn an adequate wage.
    I am sure you can find many more scenarios in which it is impossible for people to contribute to Superannuation. Unpaid work, for whatever reason , does not attract Superannuation Contributions. No allowance is made for this.
    Don't even get me started on the inadequacies of, so called, Financial Planners. We opted out of the entire system more than ten years ago. We now manage our own funds. There are many ways to do this, you just need to think outside the square.
    BElle
    26th Oct 2015
    12:10pm
    Dear Robbo, After working in the country for 42 years I had the princely sum of 24K in my Super when I retired. I paid my full tax and raised 3 children in the same period of time. Give us a break.