5th Apr 2018
Minister says Aussies need to save more for retirement
Author: Olga Galacho
Minister says Aussies need to save more for retirement

More people need to be self-reliant in their later years if the tax pressure on working age people is to be relieved, Revenue and Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer told a forum yesterday.

Speaking at the AFR Banking and Wealth Summit, the Minister said “if we want people to live the lives that they aspire to in retirement, and to have choices, then they need to build savings today”.

Ms O’Dwyer was making the point after citing that in around two decades, there will be just 2.7 people working for every Australian aged 65 and over. This estimate compares with around seven working people in the 1970s.

However, she also said that today, many low-income earners were being forced to save for a higher standard of living in retirement than they could afford while they were working.

The Minister went on to criticise how industry funds calling for an increase to workers’ contributions to super were spending members’ money on lobbying.

“The superannuation industry is often very quick to point out that the only way people can achieve higher incomes in retirement is by compelling an ever increasing amount of wages to be sacrificed into superannuation. But they would say that wouldn’t they?” Ms O’Dwyer continued.

“The increase of (the super guarantee from) 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent will mean around $10 billion a year more flowing into the industry in 2025-26. Which, of course, means a bonus of hundreds of millions of dollars in fees each year for the industry and ever-increasing salaries for industry professionals.

“And that is before you take into account all that additional money sloshing around for other cultural practices that have built up along the way. For example:

  • members of superannuation funds have to stand by and watch as their retirement savings are spent on straight out political advertising

  • or dubious sponsorships of union congresses

  • or on superannuation liaison officers who are in fact union officials being paid out of super funds

  • or on a lobbying outfit whose principal achievement last year was to stand in the way of the regulator, APRA, getting important new powers to protect members’ money.

“The fact is, mandating what people must put into their superannuation isn’t the only way to increase retirement savings. A far better way is to ensure that those people who want to save more than the mandated amount have sufficient flexibility within the system to do that.’’

She told the summit that the Government was developing a framework for comprehensive income products in retirement.

“This will allow someone to invest in a product that can deliver them a fixed income that is triggered at say 80 years of age, at a time that they may be less active in the management of their retirement income. Such products can also provide financial security against longevity risk, that is, that you will outlive your savings.”

Ms O’Dwyer also said certainty around the tax treatment of super was important and that the Government did not plan to introduce more changes.

“The Government has made it clear that our package of tax changes announced in the 2016/17 Budget … are the only tax changes that we intend to make.”

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    jackie
    5th Apr 2018
    10:12am
    This Minister needs to get a REAL life instead of providing such condescending advice to tax payers. The entire Parliamentary salaries and perks need a total overall instead of being a burden on the Commoners.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    11:47am
    Jackie, while pollies salaries and lurks and perks annoy us all, the fact is there are only 150 MHRS and 76 senators. Curbing spending on them is a pin prick on elephants hide, as an analogy. What the minister has said, is actually spot on. Why do you think there is an abundance of ex union heavies in leading roles in the Superann industry? We are talking hundreds of billions of dollars under their control. Smart politics, but have they got the nous to provide adequate financial management? Or are they in it for what it can get divert for their own, and the union movement's benefit?
    ray from Bondi
    5th Apr 2018
    12:20pm
    BIG al, so all the money is controlled by unions I do not know what planet you live on but that is not my belief. SUPER is run by the financial industry and the majority of the money is there which return lower amounts than union funds.
    Joy Anne
    5th Apr 2018
    12:52pm
    Jackie I totally agree. Politicians need to live in the real world. Politicians retirement pensions and perks should be stopped and the should get no more then us pensioners get. The govt spent the billions that was in the pension fund paid by taxpayers at 7.5% of their wages.
    Knight Templar
    5th Apr 2018
    1:07pm
    Big Al you have overlooked the hundreds of State politicians who have equally generous salaries, perks and retirement benefits. Whilst in overall terms they are few in number, one would hope (sarcasm) that they would lead by example.
    Triss
    5th Apr 2018
    2:37pm
    Don’t you just love the naivity of people like her? Earning well over $200,000 a year and a guaranteed, taxpayer funded, indexed pension at 60 along with plenty of free perks and she has the audacity to tell pensioners that they will outlive their savings. Those pensioners who will outlive their savings are the ones whose taxes, in their working years, paid for her pension, which she’ll get every month even if she lives to 110.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    2:42pm
    We're gonna need a bigger guillotine.....
    Captain
    5th Apr 2018
    7:10pm
    Does this woman belong to the same political party that trashed the assets test, forcing more than 372,000 completly off part pensions or onto a lower part pension. Surely she is stupid to say that people have not saved enough for their retirement when she was party to forcing people to spend their savings more quickly therefore being forced onto a pension earlier than expected.

    But what can you expect from any politicans these days.

    If you can't say something constructive keep your mouth shut.
    GeorgeM
    5th Apr 2018
    11:07pm
    jackie, and most others above (except Big Al), you are absolutely right! We expect our politicians to get themselves off their pedestals, scrap their own special pension "entitlements" and subject themselves to the same rules for qualifying for pensions as everyone else. Until they do that, any comment about pensions from them is NOT CREDIBLE!

    They are trying to justify that they can't afford paying pensions, whereas they should instead be implementing Universal Pension here as in all advanced countries, and implementing Minimum Taxes for large companies & the wealthy, in addition to expanding the Future Fund - all together to pay for great pensions and lots more services...

    Given our vast mineral resources, massive agriculture sector, and small population, we should be the richest people in the world - IF ONLY THESE BLOODY POLITICIANS HADN"T STUFFED IT SO BADLY!
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    11:39am
    Aye, Captain - she be! Nothing more stupid, as Rainey keeps saying, than a government that actively discourages saving and prosperity for retirees - and even seeks to prevent them passing down an inheritance, which the current approach to down-sizing is seeking to do. What that means is that only the well-off will be able to pass on an inheritance, and the peasants will simply get poorer and poorer.

    Obviously governments of this nation are simply unable to think beyond their latest round of chat in the echo chambers of their meetings (that we pay them so handsomely for).

    BTW - there will be fewer and fewer people on a sliding scale to work compared to those who don't - for simple reasons of the same kind of unthinking adherence and supineness to the 'global economy', and the encroachment of 'technology' and offshore enterprises running the show here. It is blatantly obvious that O'dwyer and her ilk have their fingers in pies around the place, so that they benefit from these very things, so they don't care.

    Lifeboat Australia needs to lock the gates and start looking after its own first - then we can talk about organising the workforce and retirees.

    We're gonna need a bigger guillotine.... look at the size of those sharks!
    Captain
    6th Apr 2018
    5:41pm
    Trebor, I also have an issue with the fact that we have more immigrants into the country than people retiring!

    Australia's population is expected to exceed 30 million by 2030 (last projection I read). So if there are all these people, are they all on the dole or other benefits? If they are on benefits, then I am hard done by, as I have been retired for 10 years, do not receive a pension, no benefits and unlikely to ever receive any benefits. I will also lose my dividend imputation if Labor is elected.

    Useless lumps in Parliament all need to have their contracts re-written so that when they lose their jobs or resign they receive severance pay and nothing more. Similar to every other citizen in Australia.
    lizzieR
    5th Apr 2018
    10:16am
    Considering real wages arent keeping pace with inflation, eligibility to contribute to super reduced, and super guarantee with no real increase - how does the government expect people to "save" for retirement - as usual no solutions just sound bites.
    Rosret
    5th Apr 2018
    1:47pm
    Oh LizzieR agreed.
    So many economists think inflationary wages are good for the economy and I can't for the life of me see why, other than we have a pyramid scheme of artificial wealth.
    Personally my goal was to be self sufficient at retirement age. - and I am.
    However in the last four years what was considered a secure amount is just mediocre in the face of the property market boom.
    How can a person secure their retirement income with the government eyeing it off as THEIR pot of gold and the super fund managers eyeing it off as THEIR pot of money.
    All that money that was being used to play the stock exchange with since 1990 has now reach payout time.
    The younger generation just aren't being given the security of permanent well paid careers to prop up the outflow. They also have the benefit of hindsight.
    I know that when I was making a choice between extra money in super or investment in the property market the later would most definitely have been the better option.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    3:28pm
    Rosret you are so right on that.

    I prepared a spreadsheet for a public servant and just the after tax contributions and employer contributions that were worth $460 000 after 38 years would have purchased 6 to 8 houses in a beachside region where property prices are now around $1 million each and rents $600 to $800 a week.

    The calculation did not include any benefits of negative gearing or tax concessions because of that.

    That worker was badly dudded by the union and the compulsory system.

    If a private employee they possibly could have sued the employer and the union for fraud and false advertising.

    That worker now receives a fairly middling super pension and top up part pension and could have been wealthy if not forced into a losing superannuation product.

    My own investments outside super were far more lucrative than the Industry Fund I studied the records for.

    Even an investment of the same after tax income into shares for 38 years during the greatest bull run in history would have been worth more. Who knows what the Hell they were doing with all that money but investing smartly wasn't one of the options apparently.
    Rosret
    6th Apr 2018
    9:47am
    Rae they are making sure you get no more than 5% compounded on average - no matter what.
    Ups downs whatever. They skim off the top and make sure that's all you will receive. Just enough to make it more worth while tax wise to put it in their fund rather than a term bank deposit.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    11:42am
    Ah - so the entire scheme is now designed for the best benefit of those running it.....good thinking, Ros/Rae.
    Concerned
    5th Apr 2018
    10:16am
    The minister certainly does. Don,t fund an increase to super now just tell people barely able to pay their bills to,save more, also in line with Morison saying welfare will become a thing of the past! What we need are intelligent ideas that will allow for saving. The first would be employment
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    1:28pm
    The next would be wage rises after a decade of stagnation.

    The median wage is $43 000 so these Ministers are not looking at reality.

    However the way they have privatised and signed dud deals welfare may become a thing of the past when there is no revenue base left at all. All the profits are headed overseas untaxed thanks to their policies and ideology.

    Greece is a perfect example of a country no longer able to afford welfare.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    2:43pm
    .. and Fat Joe telling the people the way to get a nice house is to get a good job.....
    Kathleen
    5th Apr 2018
    10:41am
    People prioritise present demands on their money like their children’s education and feeding their family, etc. So if the family budget is just covering day to day bills people cannot be expected to save for 30 or 40 years into the future. I remember when we were struggling to feed a big family and clothe them, etc and the last thing on our minds was when we were 70 or 80 as my husband and I were already going without necessities for ourselves in order that our children did not.
    Rosret
    5th Apr 2018
    1:51pm
    -and Kathleen, the kids have 40 year massive home loans.
    Our bank manager told us it was unwise to have a 25 year mortgage (of about $20 000)- and he was so right.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    3:33pm
    Yep,. massive home loans for 4 -5 bedroom. 2 bath, brick veneer mansions with landscape gardens - loans at less than 4% as opposed to the 18%+ we paid.

    I am so sick of this ''poor fellow'' mentality.

    If we stopped pandying to the selfish whingers and rewarded people for doing what's good for the nation, we might actually stimulate growth and improved prosperity.

    Yes, Kathleen, I struggled to feed and cloth kids too, but they left home and we had over a decade of just two of us and plenty of opportunities to save. Our 25-year mortgage was paid off well before the kids became self-sufficient.

    But you, Kathleen, want to bash and deprive people who saved. No wonder there are not enough of them and the country is struggling under the welfare burden!
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    6:06pm
    When I was raising three kids alone I sometimes had to fess up to the Principal of the local comprehensive school that I was stony and there was always funds there to help out. Great system our public schools.

    The clothing pool had hardly worn uniforms cheap too.

    I always saved a bit in case of emergencies though. Saving is a priority if you want to cover yourself in my opinion.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    7:45pm
    Rae my kids always got uniforms from the clothing pool too. It was funny how they would lose a jumper and I would find it in the clothing pool.
    Rosret
    6th Apr 2018
    9:51am
    I would find my grandchildren's brand new jumper in January -lost on the first cool day in the clothing pool come December all tired and well worn!
    codger
    5th Apr 2018
    10:59am
    Isn,it amazing how these people who are living well on the govt. purse are preaching to the poor on how they should save more money for their retirement.they have no idea where the money is supposed to come from,no sugestions on how it could be financed just a blanket DO IT, they are so thick and stupid they just come out and make ridiculous statements, i am suire they do not engage their brain before putting mouth in motion...
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    12:07pm
    Codger, take a stroll to your nearest registered club or hotel, and check out the boguns sitting at the pokies, 'investing' their hard earned. In my town, they are queued up at 10.00am waiting to get in to have their flutter. That is a good starting point as to where the savings might come, to better your circumstances in latter years. Oh, and the same lot usually have a packet of fags on hand as well! No cost there to the health budget, is there? Wake up, Australia.
    ray from Bondi
    5th Apr 2018
    12:23pm
    BIG Al, and who allows all these poker machines and the like, at one time they were only in clubs now they are everywhere and the government loves it
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    1:40pm
    Yes Big Al the local Leagues Club takes $500 000 in gambling money each and every day in the lowest socio-economic suburbs around here. Totally outrageous.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    3:07pm
    The point is, Rae, it is all about choice. Those in any socio economic quartile have a choice of how they spend their money and/or choose to save. The Yanks tried prohibition around 100 years ago, and look how well that went! If a population (in general) choose to be idiots, and put all their dough through the pokies, or on horse 4 race 7 at Randwick next Saturday, is it the fault of our leaders? If you took the option away from them, imagine the uproar from civil libertarians! You get the same arguments about welfare payments to our indigenous cousins - try telling them how they should spend those payments, and see where that gets you. What is required (collectively), is for all of us to take responsibility for the choices WE make, and stop blaming others when they turn out to be rubbish decisions!
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    3:36pm
    I wouldn't mind so much Big Al except I am being asked to go without because of the idiot's choices.

    I chose to work two and three jobs after my husband died to raise our three little ones and to save for my retirement only to have my part pension swiped away and now another attack on share profits.

    if the gamblers choose to starve to death why am I being asked to fork out over and over to save them/ Surely my choice to save needs some consideration too and not just to be seen as an easy out for foolish people and irresponsible governments.

    My options are being taken away one after the other and that's supposed to be okay?
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    3:38pm
    I agree, Big Al. But how do you take responsibility for your choices when all choosing responsibility and planning does is make you poorer and the target of constant bullying and abuse?

    I am NOT an investment whizz, and no way can I get better return on my savings than the 7.8% return the OAP offers. So I have a choice. I can either suffer unfair deprivation of income and slowly erode my savings for the taxpayer's benefit, or spend up big and claim the nice 7.8% (+ concessions) reward.

    This is why we have a problem. The utter STUPIDITY of a system that bashes people who choose to be frugal and responsible, and the nastiness and spite of those who choose to be spendthrifts and then want anyone who has a little more than them - no matter how it was achieved or why - forced to forego all benefit and just hand it all over!
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    5:34pm
    Generalising and pontificating again some of you.... how do you KNOW the true situation of those people spending on the pokies that governments pull massive taxes from?
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    7:43pm
    Trebor self funded retirees worked way to hard for what they have got to gamble it on the pokies. Only people who get something for little effort would gamble it away. It is not rocket science to work out who they are.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    11:44am
    SFRs aren't the only ones who worked hard, OG - and many did for a hell of a lot less.

    Don't play the snob with me - it won't wash. SFRs are nothing special and in some cases are outright fools who can't recoup the equivalent of a pension, as some are constantly saying here.
    Old Geezer
    6th Apr 2018
    11:50am
    Trebor it is because SFRs are not out right fools they became SFRs in the first place. You are right most can't recoup the equivalent to the OAP so are busily living the life of Larry and spending up big so they can get the OAP instead.

    BigBear certainly read the future right and used the rules to not only help his family but in doing so he has preserved his wealth and is now enjoying living on the OAP with all the benefits of a family willing to make his retirement as the best for him as they can.

    How many others are doing the same?
    Anonymous
    6th Apr 2018
    4:01pm
    Trebor, I could introduce you a dozen OAPs today who squandered most of their income on the pokies and grog. All earned two and a half times what I earned. But they now claim entitlement to a pension because they ''worked hard and paid tax''. Well so did I. But they claim I shouldn't have a pension because I didn't play the pokies and drink grog, and now they claim I shouldn't have franking credits either. Why? Because I'm ''wealthy''. They will probably receive a tax-free gift of well in excess of twice what I have over the next 25-30 years, while I get nothing. So how am I ''wealthy''?

    You might have noted that I disapproved of BigBear ripping off the taxpayer as he did. Well if Shorten has his way. I will be telling EVERY SFR and prospective retiree in the country to do it, and I'll do it myself, because we've all had a gut full of ''take it off him, take it off him, take it off him'' but ''give me more''.
    Adrianus
    5th Apr 2018
    11:18am
    "more people need to be self reliant in retirement"
    Well that's nothing new. Politicians of all colours have been espousing that for the last 40 years as I recall. What is new is that retirees are now finding themselves under attack from Labor and the Greens wanting to increase/introduce taxes on retirees.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    1:45pm
    Exactly.

    The last politician with any idea of how to gain money from our resources was Whitlam with his plan to nationalise the mines, gas and uranium and look what happened then.

    The Corporations sent Frazer to make sure we'd never receive much at all from any of our resources or produce.

    Been going down hill ever since in real terms. Wages have been falling in real terms since 1974 so talking about being self reliant in general is just empty words from the kleptocracy.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    3:15pm
    Rae, you are showing your true colours, harking back to the 'glory' days of Goffle Waffle! Now history has proved one thing - he and his ministry were incapable of organizing a booze up in a brewery - hence he got short shrift, as you might recall - in a landslide, after being booted out by a bloke HE appointed! Fancy letting that lot control our natural resources! I am having difficulty recalling ONE enterprize, initiated by a Labor Government, that ran efficiently and effectively. No doubt some YLC contributors will attempt to throw up some spurious examples, to disprove this contention.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    3:45pm
    Yes Big Al and now The Country is owned by huge multinationals and China. The wealth is being shipped out faster than Spain managed to steal the Incas gold. Our kids are in debt with huge student loans and can't get jobs. The minimum wage is less than welfare for some families. We are short at least 600 schools and several hospitals. Homelessness is up 14%.

    The private debt is three trillion.

    China owns our resources and we are paid very little as they are shipped out through Chinese owned Ports.

    Our grandkids will be servants in a Chinese Canton.

    And the welfare bill is now unsustainable.

    Great work from Frazer onwards including the Labor salesmen. Now that it has all been sold there isn't anything left.

    I would have liked my kids and grandkids to have owned their own country and resources. Better to let China control our natural resources than a Labor government hey?
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    3:53pm
    I must admit they were glory days for me. My actual real income peaked in 1974 and has gone backwards for the past 4 decades.

    Thank goodness I had my kids in the early 70s as at least the hospitals worked then.

    My son working on the land had to deliver his last kid himself as the Hospital in Dubbo didn't have a bed for his wife and the ambulance just didn't make it in time.

    Perhaps instead of becoming a third world nation we might have had a different outlook for the kids. We'll never know now though will we.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    5:40pm
    None so blind as they who will not see, Big Al.. Whitlam may have been a flashy hair-doed showman as a politician - but his idea certainly had merit.

    And Rae is totally correct - we flog off the resources here, mined by offshore companies in the main, in return for royalties to the states,which only end up being an added cost to the end consumer anyway.... just another tax in disguise... and while all this is going on, these companies pay little to no tax here and provide less than 2% employment while placing all their management and office etc structures offshore in tax havens and their functionaries don't even pay income tax here - just flit in and flit out for ten minutes after doing all the work offshore and income tax free.

    Only a blind man would think that was good business... and NO other nation in the world allows it to that extent - not only that - but 76 of the developed nations are rising up against this 'global economy' and its ABUSE of tax havens, for the simple reason that they are raping those nations resources and paying nothing for them.
    sanity
    5th Apr 2018
    11:25am
    Certainty of the rules and regulations would go a long way towards many more people "planning" their retirement needs. We simply cannot have these wizards changing their minds to take from one and give to another - just to secure a return to Govt. We really are being lead by no brains politicians - NOT no-brainer solutions.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    5:41pm
    They'll just keep doing that over and over again until retirement packaging is taken out of their hands and a national super/social sewcurity system installed for the benefit of all.
    Tib
    5th Apr 2018
    11:34am
    The government doesn't want to increase super contributions because business sees it as a cost to them. They also hate industry funds because they provide a better service with higher returns at a lower price than bank superannuation funds and the banks hate that. So minister your BS doesn't impress me. If you want people to provide more in their retirement start looking after self funded retirees instead of putting them in a situation where it appears they have been foolish to have looked after themselves and maybe people will stop spending their money to get the pension because they are better off with less money. And by the way if you think Union bashing will cover your lying crap just remember I put my money where I get the best returns which the industry funds seem to do even with your claims of waste.
    johnp
    5th Apr 2018
    12:10pm
    Agree and hope ODwyer reads these forums as her statements are stupid - the industry funds give the best growth of all. Its the pollies lucrative entitlements etc that are the problem
    Tib
    5th Apr 2018
    9:31pm
    Johnp the problem is she thinks we are stupid enough to believe her rubbish.
    BillF2
    5th Apr 2018
    11:39am
    The minister is speaking from a position of privilege. She will most likely never have to experience the pension problems of the majority of Australians due to the government looking after itself before all others.
    To be able to be self-reliant in later years, it would be nice if a). there were sufficient well paid jobs for everybody, and b). the government did not tax superannuation, savings, and just about every form of financial transaction. If the minister expects people to build up wealth, then she should first stop taking it away at every opportunity.
    Furthermore, her criticism seemed to be of industry super, not the private funds or the banks. While she might have a point about the expenditure of members' funds, industry super, as I understand it, has lower fees. In any case, because the government has outsourced all superannuation instead of providing a national scheme - as in the UK and other European countries - it is hardly surprising that members get ripped off. Private businesses are only interested in profits.
    So until the minister is prepared to be realistic about what needs to be done to provide for retirement, she is only talking so much hot air (which seems to be a pre-requisite for any minister).
    BillF2
    5th Apr 2018
    11:39am
    The minister is speaking from a position of privilege. She will most likely never have to experience the pension problems of the majority of Australians due to the government looking after itself before all others.
    To be able to be self-reliant in later years, it would be nice if a). there were sufficient well paid jobs for everybody, and b). the government did not tax superannuation, savings, and just about every form of financial transaction. If the minister expects people to build up wealth, then she should first stop taking it away at every opportunity.
    Furthermore, her criticism seemed to be of industry super, not the private funds or the banks. While she might have a point about the expenditure of members' funds, industry super, as I understand it, has lower fees. In any case, because the government has outsourced all superannuation instead of providing a national scheme - as in the UK and other European countries - it is hardly surprising that members get ripped off. Private businesses are only interested in profits.
    So until the minister is prepared to be realistic about what needs to be done to provide for retirement, she is only talking so much hot air (which seems to be a pre-requisite for any minister).
    Soon retired
    5th Apr 2018
    11:40am
    So what a muppet, why would you do this when all labour want to do is put extra taxes on self funded retires by removing the imputation credits on shares for people who don't earn a salary. Good luck I'm a self funded retire and I've told my kids to spend the lot and get a state pension not worth saving to retire. People pensions are a big bag of money for the government to try raid to pay their salaries, bet they (pollies) have enough $$$$ from their pensions scheme..
    Cowboy Jim
    5th Apr 2018
    11:49am
    Well said, Soon retired! Hope your kids are listening about spending their earnings. Maybe put a few gold coins away where the blighters cannot find them.
    Puglet
    5th Apr 2018
    3:08pm
    You are assuming that when your kids retire there will still be pensions - unwise! The government repeatedly says the country cannot afford to support its elderly. It has two choices 1. force people to fund their own retirement and stop all pensions or 2. Terminate the lives of everyone who is not self-sufficient after age 65. Trump’s USA hasn’t achieved either goal as yet but he is trying! In the US the elderly and poor die at a much younger age than in Oz. On the other hand Scandinavia are taxpaying countries and pay ‘universal’ pensions. The old live much longer than the elderly in the UA, Uk and Oz. They are also much healthier and therefore work longer!
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    3:57pm
    The Scandinavians also kept their resources for themselves instead of selling them cheap to anyone with a bit of money who fronted up to buy them.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    11:10pm
    So Rae, you have never heard of the stock market? You have never heard of a little outfit titled BHP? I guess then you are unaware that you too can own a chunk of Oz (apart from the land your house sits on), and the minerals contained therein, by purchasing shares in said company. Now this may come as a shock to you, but there are dozens of other companies you could also buy into, to give you your share of our mineral wealth - indeed if you have a superannuation account, your fund will almost certainly have done this for you, on your behalf. We can all keep all the resources in this country, by simply buying shares in the companies that are undertaking the mining - I see no rules preventing that from happening. Because there is foreign ownership of some of our natural assets just goes again to prove that so many of our fellow citizens are more interested in feeding the pokies, than investing in the future of this country.
    Circum
    7th Apr 2018
    7:21pm
    Big Al.Buying shares in Australian companies has no effect on keeping resources in the country.To buy a share someone has to sell a share and the status quo remains the same as it has almost no impact on the companies decision making process.Of course if you buy a huge percentage of the company,then that may give you a say in the company.
    You may remember Dick Smiths buy Australian campaigns and Australian branded products,with a large Australian shareholder base.Sold to overseas interests.Good one Dick.
    Cowboy Jim
    5th Apr 2018
    11:46am
    Now why should we save more for retirement if we are not going to be better off than the ones who did not save as it seems to be the case now? Young people looking at their elders today having to fight for the pension does not entice them to put anything away for later. Certainly not savings that will be assessed later in life. People resent being looked on as prize mugs.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    1:58pm
    My kids were horrified when the 2015 budget took $10 000 off my annual income and immediately stopped any extra saving into super and directed it at the mortgage instead.

    Possibly a very good thing. They don't trust the Government one bit.

    They know how hard I worked and saved. If it stops them being taken for suckers it will be worth it.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    4:14pm
    Many the of the kids I deal with are lucky to get a bit of casual work so have very little if anything into super. Biggest problem is getting their employer to out money into super in the first place. Next problem is once it is in there the super fund just eats by the mouth full in fees. Any fund they have with less than $200 I help them get it out as soon as they can. At least they can get a bit of enjoyment out of their money as within six months it will be all gone in fees.

    Kids today laugh when anyone suggest putting more into super. You will get your joking right? They know it is a flawed system and have no interest in it at all.

    Revenue and Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer has an impossible job ahead of her now as the damage has already been done and many people especially the young don't want a bar of it.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    5:43pm
    Careful OG - you're turning socialist on us.... we can't stand the strain...
    Rae
    8th Apr 2018
    6:59am
    Isn't it a pity that our politicians always manage to stuff up without realising they have stuffed up until it's so blatantly obvious everyone can see it.

    Hockeys 2015 budget stuffed up Superannuation as a saving vehicle by destroying incentive to save as you lost 7.8% income that couldn't be made up anywhere else.

    Just using a platform outside of superannuation makes far more sense now or even better using debt for property which has tax advantages and capital gains advantages.

    It doesn't make sense to invest for income when income taxes are outrageously high and you can get a far better return by spending your money on lifestyle while young.

    It would be nice if our politicians actually studied the issue before opening their mouths or better yet considered the consequences before passing stupid legislation and budget policies.
    johnboy
    5th Apr 2018
    11:51am
    There will never be job security and enough jobs for every one EVER again, Its over and will only get worse. The only way is to slow down the population growth, There are to many people on this planet. A nuclear war will take care of that. Just as the other wars have done, Jobs will be every where after that.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    2:02pm
    Sorry but a nuclear war will destroy all life on the planet for thousands of years and there won't be jobs just survivors, sick survivors.

    Now a good virus might work. The Black Death was brilliant but even then the bastards came up with the first Labour Laws to stop workers getting anything much out of the worker shortages and they have been making sure we stay in our places ever since.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    5:49pm
    We are seeing the seeds of WW III right now.. across the same old Asian Pacific Basin (as opposed to Region which is the economic concept as opposed to the physical reality - Terrorism Studies).... and over the same old Pacific issue - Divine Mission on one side to dominate the region and Manifest Destiny on the other to do the same.... with a few more Little Tigers in between.. going to be interesting when the US enters into mutual defence treaties with Vietnam, maybe Laos/Cambodia, maybe even India/Pakistan, to match its treaties with Taiwan, South Korea,Japan and The Philippines.

    Guess who'll be screaming 'surrounded by hostile states' then.... you got it - our 'major trading partner' who gets all our resources cheap as chips, stock-piles them to control the market (here), and sends us back value added junk in return that we buy from companies paying no tax here in the main.
    Possum
    5th Apr 2018
    11:51am
    Condescending politician who has no idea how the other half struggles with basic requirements and ever increasing electricity, food, health and education costs
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    5:50pm
    She doesn't pay those things - they're all part of the deal - how the fork would she know anything?
    patti
    5th Apr 2018
    11:58am
    Yes, well if could have saved more, I would have. Illness, losing a job and an acrimonious divorce depleted all my resources......I had been putting money into super before but could no longer afford to. Watching my savings being eaten up by fees etc, I accessed them early so I could do essential household repairs and pay my lawyer. When the other partner in the marriage does not co-operate, assets are not divided fairly.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    5:51pm
    Know it only too well, Patti.... I went from 'rich' according to my family to street living within three years..... do NOT try this at home.

    And I will NEVER FORGET what brought it about, either..... including some of the idiot policies and direct attacks of this lot and the other..... and I will not forgive either.
    Curious
    5th Apr 2018
    12:01pm
    Excuse me! Are you kidding, Minister?

    Haven't you heard of the pleading for help in house affordability problems, stagnation of basic wage level, low consumption demand, high living costs and expensive energy supply and billions donations to big companies, which may or may not plough back to our economy?

    Tell us how to save amongst the minefields of economic leakages from our country? On one hand we are being exploited by the big companies, buying up our agriculture industry, mining industry, property development industry, and the infrastructure industry. These are all allowed under your helm. On the other hand, you want us to do the heavy lifting for our retirement when we have nothing to give..

    I wonder, where in Asian Countries and Middle East Countries we can do the same that you allow these in Australia? Our country has been open up for exploitation and pundit in the name of competition and free market.
    A government is supposed to govern, protect and defend your constituents and follow citizens. Saying to aspiring retirees should save more is just like saying to them, eat more cakes when no bread is available. Surely, you don't mean that.
    ozziejorge
    5th Apr 2018
    12:06pm
    Instead of wasting the 200 MILLION on the Paris Hot Air Fest, the 300 MILLION to Indonesia, the #@% MILLION to Afghanistan (ON TOP of the cost to us of keeping our troops there while American and British troops guard the CIA poppy fields), the 3 MILLION PER DAY that we spend in Iraq, keeping our RAAF there .. etc etc etc ,... HOW ABOUT giving the pensioners and those on welfare a break .. the govt will have IT ALL BACK within a couple of months .. instead of these "tax breaks" to companies .. 600 of which PAY NO TAX???????
    Sen.Cit.90
    5th Apr 2018
    2:34pm
    ozziejorge; I cannot argue with your comments. In my opinion, Australian Defence Force should be just that. Defending Australia and
    not interfering in nations arguing among themselves within their own boundaries.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    5:56pm
    The theory is that our troops are defending this nation by solidifying, with their presence, out commitment to treaties and alliances, which commitment will be reciprocated. They are also receiving on the job training in direct combat.....

    One of my beefs is that I see countless politicians 'retiring' from politics to enter a new big earner while copping a payout near salary for life, in return for their 'service' - but I see no such consideration for Veterans in return for their Active Service, sometimes over years of mutiple commitments, while they also suffer a higher rate of unemployment than the norm, and suffer much more as a result of their Service, including a high suicide rate.

    A total disgrace....

    Now that riles me no end.....
    PlanB
    6th Apr 2018
    7:39am
    I agree with all said here --
    Why don't we ALL make a nice call to Dwyer's office and let this bitch know what we all think _ I will be!
    Bowks
    5th Apr 2018
    12:10pm
    The minister represents what is wrong with politics in our country today and fancy giving your children advice on not saving for your retirement. Without my super to supplement our part pension life would be very difficult. In today's society the aged pension is nearly a poverty-line existence. And as for imputation credits it deserves the same answer as I got in 2016 from the Treasurer's Office when I lost $2,000 in pension - "It is too generous". As the article says 2.5 working people are not going to support 1 pensioner, especially if they are up to their neck in household debt. It's time to give someone else a go!
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    2:22pm
    Not saving into superannuation with associated government risk is very different from not saving at all.
    ray from Bondi
    5th Apr 2018
    12:18pm
    what a joke, the government does nothing to ensure peoples superannuation is there which is also wages given converted over the years not money from the business, it is stolen by greedy business people who should be punished the same as any thief, politicians have no idea, there super is not threatened in any way and their snouts are so deep into the trough they see nothing

    5th Apr 2018
    12:19pm
    Rich coming from one of the pigs with her snout in the trough
    Jansview
    5th Apr 2018
    12:26pm
    If everyone was on her salary they could afford to save more. I remember them knocking back a rise for the basic wage earners not too long ago. How are they going to save more? They made sure they gave themselves a rise though. When are they going to step into the real world and realise people have nothing left at the end of the week to save. Sure, some people waste what they have, but I’m on a DSP Pension through ill health at 61 - no fault of my own, just pure bad luck. Let me have half an hour in a room with this silver spoon, out of touch individual and I’ll let her see my budget!!
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    2:46pm
    Don't forget her perks- she spends not one cent and even gains some just to go to 'work'... sweet work if you can get it and time for a full overhaul.

    What she is salary paid and then some is all hers to spend as she chooses - unlike Jo and Joe Bloggs who need to pay for a car and such just to get to work .... and don't get subsidised meals and such either.
    sunnyOz
    5th Apr 2018
    9:32pm
    Having just come from a job working for one of these ignoramuses, I can assure you their main priority, absolutely their first priority, is to safeguard their own bums - without a care in the world about the underlings - the rest of us. The absolute waste I saw was sickening. The self glorification and suck ups were embarrassing.
    The time spent on ensuring as much as possible can be claimed from the public trough rather than own pocket was disgusting. Even to the point of keeping a register of gifts given, and then re gifting them to someone else.
    I am single, and with minimal working years on low paying jobs, I have minimal super. I left the job because I refused to lie - at least I had some scruples and ethics. And the most horrendous bullying I have ever come across. I wanted to work for some years yet, but am now unemployed and now reference-less.
    So it makes my blood boil to read these condescending comments from someone who will have a far, far better retirement income than the majority of us lemmings. They don't have a damn clue! They end up getting a damn good income with no savings - yet they have the bloody nerve to tell us to save more.
    Jansview
    10th Apr 2018
    12:04pm
    I have a friend too who works in Canberra for the Government and has said the waste is phenomenal. She was recently sent interstate for a meeting - 1 meeting - yet they sent them off the day before, the meeting was at 11am the next morning - lasted for ONE hour - of course a full lunch was provided to them - then they had the rest of the day off because their flights weren’t booked until the next day. This sort of waste is ridiculous anyway, but when they’re continually having a pot shot at the pensioners it borders on criminal. It’s misuse of public money.
    ozziejorge
    5th Apr 2018
    12:34pm
    Dear Minister
    Here is a REALLY neat and elegant solution to ALL of this....
    REDUCE ALL COMPANY TAX TO ZERO.
    This will have the effect of allowing all these Companies now to SO RAISE THE WAGES of their employees, that the increase in income tax gathered will MORE THAN COMPENSATE for the 2.7 workers per retiree!!!
    Problem solved!
    But PLEASE do NOT WORRY about ensuring growth and increase in employment and wages .. THAT is just a FURPHY propounded by those who have NO UNDERSTANDING of "politics and economics"!!!!
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    5:59pm
    No, Jorge - companies are legal entities - they should pay income tax on their gross.....

    When someone comes out with a silly idea like that, I respond with the opposite extreme. Companies do just fine ONLY paying 30% on their NET income, whereas PAYE workers pay tax on their Gross Income at a bracketed rate according to income.

    Cutting company taxes will not raise employment - it will only give more cash to shareholders and further divide the nation.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    6:25pm
    A far better idea would be to put companies on income tax brackets for their net income... that way the companies doing it tough at the bottom would be given a tax break, while those doing very well at the top would be paying a fair share.

    Let's look at this – all figures are rounded:-

    Lowest Bracket:
    0 - $18,200 net income = zero tax.

    Middle Bracket:-
    $18,200- $37,000 net income = tax19c in the dollar = $3,572 tax.

    $3,572/37000 x 100 = 9.65% actual tax paid.

    Middle High Bracket:-
    $37,001 - $87,000 net income = $49,999 = tax $3,572 + 32.5 cents in the dollar = $19,822 tax.

    $19,822/87,000 x 100 = 22.8% tax paid.

    High Bracket:-
    $87,001 - $180,000 net income = $93,000 = tax $19,822 + 37 cents in the dollar = $54,232 tax.

    $54,232/180,000 x 100 = 30.13% tax paid.

    Highest Bracket:-
    $180,001 and over pays $54,232 + 45 for every dollar over 180,000.


    So it follows that a small business earning just under $180,000 NET income pays – under this approach – about the mandatory 30%, and would end up with around $146,000 net after tax.

    Effectively this is your one man business and at a relatively low level of income for the venture... which throws your large companies into a VERY favourable light when they are ONLY obliged to pay 30% of their NET income as tax.

    I do hope those simple figures help to clarify the delusion about large companies paying through their arse in taxes and being on the bones of that arse....

    They are VERY well looked after in terms of tax compared to their little brothers and the ordinary worker.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    7:47pm
    Trebor your lack of understanding of company tax astounds me.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    11:50am
    OG - your utter lack of understanding of a discussion of changing company tax to PAYE tax on net income astounds me. Any discussion of placing these 'separate legal entities' (same as Jo and Joe Bloggs) on the PAYE system pure would men they go bust - which explains why Jo and Joe are perpetually on the verge of economic collapse .

    Try to keep up in class.

    Try re-reading what is written, and leave your own mind at the door.... what part of the word 'IF' do you not understand?

    it is clear from my figures that every company pays less than a PAYE earner - meaning all this whining about how much they pay is just hot air.

    Thanks for coming, but.. NEXT!
    Old Geezer
    6th Apr 2018
    8:48pm
    Trebor companies are the wholesalers of the PAYG tax system. They can have many different companies belonging to one consolidated company. It is a tax nightmare now with one rate of tax let alone multiply rates of tax like the PAYG system.

    A company pays tax on behalf of their shareholders so how much do they pay as they have many shareholders some multimillionaires and others as poor as church mice. Better just to pay one rate and allow the shareholder to pay tax at his marginal rate and deduct this tax paid off his tax payable. So it really doesn't matter how much tax a company pays as it is it's shareholders that pay the tax on that income at their individual marginal rate.
    Rae
    8th Apr 2018
    7:05am
    TTREBOR you are correct.

    Companies cannot function and make profit on the Income tax rates we have.

    Neither can workers.

    It is quite possible the average Jo or Joe PAYG worker gives up 70% of their wages to the taxes, levies, rates, regos, compulsory insurances, super, bank interest etc.

    That just isn't sustainable.

    The Politicians are crazy if they think it is.
    AJ
    5th Apr 2018
    12:54pm
    So here is a suggestion, as a trade off for the tax cuts increase the super contribution that a company must contribute to an individuals super fund to 12.5%.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    2:37pm
    It isn't the company paying the super contribution. It is coming out of worker's wages. If you take another 3% of workers pay off them many will go under.

    Companies don't contribute the savings workers do.

    Just because the paymaster is supposed to take the contribution out and remit it to the superfund doesn't mean the company is paying it for you.

    I do wish people would understand this point.

    Those employers not remitting the super and not paying it to the worker are actually stealing worker's wages and should be put in gaol.

    As it is big companies get to keep and invest millions in worker's pay until the three month period is up and they are required to send the worker's forced savings to the funds.
    Old Man
    5th Apr 2018
    2:47pm
    Sorry, Rae, the employer pays the compulsory super on top of what is paid to the employee. It doesn't come out of the employee's wages. This is what the ATO has to say about that.

    "Generally, you have to pay super for an employee if they're 18 years or over and you pay them $450 or more (before tax) in salary or wages in a calendar month. It doesn't matter whether the employee is full time, part time or casual. The maximum income on which employers must pay the Super Guarantee."
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    4:04pm
    When I paid wages for contractors the money I remitted to super funds was part of their wage package. If I hadn't sent it off I'd have paid it directly to them.

    In some cases I actually did because they were private contractors and not covered by union awards.

    My own contributions were taken after tax each pay fortnight and listed on the payslip for one of the jobs I had.

    A second job had contributions paid quarterly.

    It's not consistent is it?
    Old Man
    5th Apr 2018
    4:43pm
    When I paid contractors, Rae, I paid the amount of the contract, usually on a completion of work basis. It was never my responsibility to pay taxes or other items from the contract as that was, and still is, the responsibility of the contractor. Contractors do not belong to the company they contract to and, therefore, are not the responsibility of the company hiring them to do the work. On the other hand, casual workers may be the responsibility of the company hiring them unless they come through Labour Hire.

    The mention of union awards confuses me. What has that to do with paying super to contractors?
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    6:17pm
    They were Shearers OM. Totally different set of rules and you do not mess with that union ever. Great guys worked damn hard but the rules and awards were followed strictly.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    6:28pm
    It is in lieu of ongoing pay increases, OM.
    KSS
    5th Apr 2018
    12:57pm
    Perhaps Minister O’Dwyer has been asleep for the past couple of years since her Government embarked on a systematic removal of incentives to do as she suggests. Further this is not news. We have been told for years that the compulsory super is not enough even for those not nearing retirement age. Yet the super increases have been put on hold, the amount you can have in super has been lowered, the tax incentive for making pre-tax deductions has been removed, the maximum amount you can sacrifice has been lowered and in the wings, Mr Shorten will remove tax credits on share dividends.

    So Minister O’Dwyer how are you going to incentivise people to save for their retirement when they cannot trust that this or any other Government will not change the rules down the track to specifically target and punish those that do?
    Knight Templar
    5th Apr 2018
    1:24pm
    Absolutely spot on KSS. Governments of all political persuasions continually move the superannuation goal posts.

    Young people commencing their working lives must view superannuation and its alleged long term benefits with considerable cynicism.
    Tib
    5th Apr 2018
    2:05pm
    I agree.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    2:42pm
    Indeed. I don't trust them now and will never do so again.

    Minister O'Dwyer needs to understand they have betrayed our trust one time too many.
    maelcolium
    5th Apr 2018
    1:00pm
    Let's call bullshit on this one before any further discussion. If politicians were serious about saving for retirement they wouldn't have frozen the super contributions from wages. They wouldn't have changed the rules for SMSF accumulation schemes which are working better than the private schemes. They wouldn't have introduced legislation to include super payments as income to reduce the age pension. They wouldn't have capped top up voluntary taxable contributions to silly amounts that do little to increase super balances in later stages of a person's working life. In fact, they wouldn't have changed the superannuation system at all, because each time they do, people get suspicious that it will be tinkered with each time a Government needs to balance this ridiculous budget they waffle on about. Financial investment is about trust which is why people like to have their own SMSF funds or why Industry Funds are favoured by most folk.

    And while they are talking about self reliance, how does this talking head Dwyer think that young people out of work which is caused by a failure of Government policy are expected to save. What about the gig economy much touted by the Turnshit as being an agile solution to unemployment. What about the contracted workers who have no workers compensation, annual leave and sick leave, let alone super contributions. What about the casual workers who were shit on by the Fair Work Commission while the fat politicians cheered the Commission on from their Parliamentary benches.

    Each time this air head Dwyer opens her gob, unfounded nonsense falls out which is nothing more then ideological waffle. Of course she will make sure her defined benefits scheme will continue to get healthy on our dime and that her entitlements for Canberra housing and gold ticket flights for her latest squeeze are kept, because .........well. she is deserving and not part of the problem is she? What is lost on this stupid twat is that people like us actually fund her lavish life style and pension scheme and yet she has the audacity to lecture us every time she takes the floor.

    I urge anyway who is fed up with this crap from the LNP and other politicians to join GetUp or just make a donation so that they can continue to fight for us because sure as hell, the unions are buggered and no one else is in our corner.
    Seadove
    6th Apr 2018
    1:47am
    Right on maelcolium. Totally agree with everything you said.
    Sundays
    5th Apr 2018
    1:03pm
    Ms O’Dwyer can’t have it both ways. On one hand she wants to freeze compulsory super the employer pays, but workers have to save more for retirement. Employers are not going to pay workers any more than required, so without extra super how can workers possibly save more. It just shows how out you of touch she is . Her anti industry super fund stance doesn’t change the fact that their fees are lower and returns higher.
    .
    Olga
    5th Apr 2018
    5:13pm
    I know, right? I also found her argument perplexing. On the one hand she said Average Joanne/Joe has to save more for retirement. Then she says she is against workers contributing more to super when that is the only do-able means available to most of us. Hoping to interview her soon for our series on What Pollies Really Think about Retirement Income. Shall ask her to Please Explain this apparent contradiction. Hope she says Yes to interview and doesnt just fob me off with preprepared answers to my questions...wish me luck. Olga G
    Sundays
    5th Apr 2018
    7:34pm
    Yes, Good Luck. Should be interesting!
    GeorgeM
    5th Apr 2018
    11:27pm
    Yes, good luck, Olga, hope you give it firmly to her. Can you please tell her / ask:

    a) We expect our politicians to get themselves off their pedestals, scrap their own special pension "entitlements" and subject themselves to the same rules for qualifying for pensions as everyone else. Until they do that, any comment about pensions from them is NOT CREDIBLE!

    b) Given all the nasty issues created by the Asset Test changes from Jan 2017 which encourages all to spend down their assets to reclaim pensions, can they scrap the Age Pension system altogether and replace it with an Universal Pension system for all (as in all advanced countries) with no tests other than Age and Residence in Australia (say 15 or 20 years)?

    c) Implement proper Funding for affording pensions instead of whinging about it's unaffordability - by implementing Minimum Tax system (as in USA) for all large companies and wealthy (as many pay NIL taxes), and expand the Future Fund to support Universal Pension by putting aside the 7.5% taxes collected since 1946 to pay pensions?
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    11:52am
    Got it George.... put OUR money into that fund, not just OUR money to feed them in retirement.

    You've been working hard in class.. good man.
    Suze
    9th Apr 2018
    7:18am
    Spot on George

    "Universal Pension system for all (as in all advanced countries) with no tests other than Age and Residence in Australia (say 15 or 20 years)?"

    Look how much money we would save on Centrelink.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    1:11pm
    The Government didn't plan any changes last election either and look what happened.

    The words are not worth a thing as they don't keep election promises and change Superannuation and Centrelink policy every single budget.

    My investments are outside Superannuation and they can't mandate a fixed income product there at whatever age.
    vercoi
    5th Apr 2018
    1:28pm
    Politicians need to start making well informed and researched decisions for the benefit of the Australians instead of putting the ballot box benefits or what's in it for me, first every time.
    Less posturing and infighting would gain more respect from voters.
    johnboy
    5th Apr 2018
    4:18pm
    why do we keep voting ,Its all BS.why not just get our names crossed off and walk out.we are suckers,we just follow like sheep.me include.But I did not vote last time and iwill never again.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    5:49pm
    I haven't voted for years as I can't find anyone worthy of my vote.
    GeorgeM
    5th Apr 2018
    11:17pm
    That means a) OG, you must be paying a fine, and b) you are contributing to these bad guys getting in.
    I have often noted that one votes for the least worst person!

    Start by putting the worst person (say the current seat-warmer who doesn't do any good except for himself / herself and is looking forward to a fat undeserved pension) last in preferences, and then go up the list using the same logic!
    Old Geezer
    6th Apr 2018
    10:40am
    George it does not matter who you vote for you vote for LNP or Labor.

    I have never been fined for not voting and I'll admit to paying people to get my name crossed off at polling booths. Many people do very well out of polling days.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    11:53am
    Criminals all.....
    GeorgeM
    7th Apr 2018
    12:04am
    OG, I understand your strategy is to discourage retirees to not rebel against the current Liberal Govt, because the status quo suits you. However, your strategy will backfire and the status quo WILL CHANGE when Labor gets elected next time and Shorten comes after SFRs like you.

    It is important for all NOT to waste your vote, and instead vote AGAINST the sitting member (by putting them last) and in favour of anyone who might support retirees (Universal Pension being a key policy). This is a first step to shake up the system and make maximum MPs lose their seats (and their pensions if not already eligible). Then, we may get Independents or new MPs who may start listening. Action needs to start now. Retirees overall is a large group and CAN make a difference especially in marginal seats.
    Rae
    8th Apr 2018
    7:12am
    Good comment George. Yes that sounds a good plan.

    I also think after the election will be far too late to change investment strategies. It will have to be done before as Labor really has it in for the Boomers and has a belief that those not on pensions are "rich".

    Changing that belief before the election and taking evasive action to preserve capital seems a wise move.

    I'll be consulting sooner rather than wearing the consequences yet again. I'm pretty much over being the fall guy now.
    Puglet
    5th Apr 2018
    1:59pm
    I am a self-funded retiree. To achieve this I had a fairly well-paid permanent job, a generous superannuation fund and the ability to add to my super with added tax benefits. I also was well enough to work until I was over the standard retirement age and owned my own home. An era of casualisation of the workforce, fewer permanent full time jobs and changes to workforce requirements and skills plus the high cost of housing - rental and permanent means saving for retirement will be almost impossible. Those whose health or circumstances precludes them from full time work can barely survive on the pension. O’Dwyer’s comments are cruel and unneccessary.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    2:56pm
    She is cruel and stupid to even make these comments. It shows absolutely no understanding of the real world and the lives of the working wage slaves.

    The ones paying her way as they actually pay the extremely high burden of income taxes, levies, rates, GST, Superannuation contributions and fees and charges, insurances etc.

    It's a wonder anyone can afford anything with the pittance left after paying all that.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    5:52pm
    I'm a self funded retiree too and sometimes feel that I would be just as well off if I wasn't. Other than not dealing with Centrelink and ll the privacy issues that involves I can't find another reason why any one would want to be.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    11:54am
    Yet you're the first to point the finger at everyone else, claim that only SFRs worked and such, and the rest are just lazy, pokie-swilling bludgers...

    Do you, like O'Dwyer, ever think before you utter anything?
    Suze
    9th Apr 2018
    7:23am
    O’Dwyer is what you get when the best person does not get the job ... it is based on a feministic movement of having quotas.
    Old Man
    5th Apr 2018
    2:39pm
    The Minister is actually saying what is needed to have a comfortable retirement. It's not rocket surgery. Of course having more money can mean a more comfortable retirement and if enough can be saved in super to be self funded then that means a savings for the taxpayer. The superannuation set up by Keating was a great idea but it has yet to run a full cycle. there is nobody who has yet retired who has worked a full working life with the benefits of compulsory super so we don't know what the affects will be for that group.

    An interesting point has been raised about the use of superannuants' funds and whether the fee structures are being properly set. Its not that the Minister is incorrect just because she appears to be singling out some funds which she claims are misusing members' money, maybe all super funds should be more closely examined to determine if there should be a better return to the member. Perhaps an overhaul of the legislation is well overdue?
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    3:11pm
    The Superannuation set up by Keating is a long way off the chaos we have now though isn't it? Keating knew taxing funds going in and taxing profits while accumulating was foolish and stuffs up compounding. Keating was a neoliberal and destroyed a lot of investors but he was smart and he understood markets.

    It would be far better to borrow when young buy an investment rental and put say $50 000 in a diversified index fund and then forget all about it until retirement when you'd have two houses and a fair whack of indexed shares and bonds. No taxes on the profits would actually allow compounding to work. So you'd pay capital gains as you drew it out. Discounted by 50%. Far better use of 10% of wages used to pay down the debt.

    These clowns currently blundering along with little idea and no financial education are dangerous to all our futures.

    Superannuation would have worked and for some early savers with decent salaries it did but it's broken now and so is the whole Employment system.
    Old Man
    5th Apr 2018
    3:47pm
    Yes, Rae, it sure is a long way from when Keating legislated the compulsory super scheme. His legislation was for contributions of 3% whilst today the contributions are 9.5%. I note that the system of taxing whether depositing, gaining profit or withdrawing has been stuffed around by all sides of politics. It seems that politicians generally cannot see a pile of money without trying to get their hands on it.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    7:18pm
    You are right OM - and she is singling out industry funds so as to lay the groundwork for those to be taken over by the banker mates.
    Rae
    6th Apr 2018
    7:18am
    TREBOR it would be interesting to know the exact leverage position of the banks. I think they are up to their necks in debt and scared the whole shebang will blow up.

    There is a reason the Government snuck through the Bank Bail In Legislation and it is worded quite openly. What for example are the "instruments" that can be taken. Shares for sure, hybrids yes indeed,
    deposits probably not unless over the $250 000 government guarantee or they slyly change that. What about Superannuation? Is it an "instrument"? Are Mortgage off set accounts safe?Are they "instruments"?

    Hard to know until after an event because no-one including the press will talk about it.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    11:57am
    I'd be interested to know how much of the cream skimmed off in greater proportion by the banks and such, goes into personal use for those running the show etc.. and exactly how, when, where and why.

    How many such are never scrutinised for taking a high class escort to a function on the company card, etc - yet a Union or industry super fund is labeled criminal in every aspect if one employee does that...

    Is the Royal Commission into banks going to look at that... or is that kind of investigation reserved only for the 'lower classes' and the 'social pariahs' who work for a living?

    It stands to reason that when more is skimmed off the top - it has to be going somewhere, and these cats are living the high life.....
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    12:00pm
    What you discuss there, Rae, is very scary for the common person out there with a small heap....

    Banks should have been never permitted to 'grow' beyond a certain point, so that if they become unsustainable (through mis-management, mind you) their collapse will not take down everyone else as well.

    When will governments act to curtail these situations instead of pushing their ideological barrows at our expense? do they all imagine we vote them in and pay them well just to push their own personal agenda?
    Rae
    8th Apr 2018
    7:21am
    The huge problem with ideology TREBOR is it is a belief system the same as religion and true believers never see the consequences coming.

    We need to protect ourselves because neither party seems to have any solutions other than trying to get at our pots of savings.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    2:41pm
    Well, O'Dwyer - you idiot - they would be if you morons would cease fiddling with the superannuation and pension systems, bring it all under one roof as far removed from the filthy hands of your selves and your mates, restored the Stolen Contribution money into Social Security, stopped feeding yourselves and your mates instead of nurturing this nation, and stopped playing silly games withretirees who've earned their retirement in peace.

    It would also help if you twits would not hit the panic button over the current superannuation approach at its current age of 25 - half-way through a full working life - and let it be until it reached 50 years of working life, instead of your using it as a political football to try to rob retirees of their earned quiet time of life.

    while you're at it, girlie - we want the pension age restored to 65, and your 'super' age raised to the same as that of pension, as well as your super being brought under the same rules and controlled amounts as everyone else's - and means tested since much of it is a gift from the taxpayer and is thus welfare.

    That's just me being nice.... (dopey twat)....
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    2:49pm
    (sounded more like a full broadside from an Iowa class battleship to me......)
    Old Man
    5th Apr 2018
    3:49pm
    Don't hold back, Bob, tell us what you really think. You been at the whisky wine cabinet with Bapu again? (For movie buffs, that's Harry Black and the Tiger)
    Old Man
    5th Apr 2018
    4:47pm
    I note your condescending comment, Bob, calling a female Minister of the Crown "girlie". You can get away with demeaning and misogynistic comments like that because it's primarily a mouthpiece of the left.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    6:23pm
    It's a shame our Politicians have completely lost our trust and respect.

    Betraying people over and over will do it every time.

    I don't believe a word they say anymore. It's all just an appearance of earning their half a million or so in salary and entitlements.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    6:36pm
    No - not at the whiskey cabinet - I just get very dead set when I see something stupid done or said.... and like Boongs and others, I use the term 'girlie' here as a clear indication of my utter lack of respect for her skills and ability to do her joband her 'playing up' about something stupid and potentially harmful to others.... essentially she shows herself to be a nobody with a very nasty sting for ordinary folk - and like any Muso or Kaffir or indeed anyone who attacks me and mine without good reason - I will first belittle them and then strike back.

    Whether or not it is 'misogynistic' is irrelevant - we salute the office - not the holder of it.. and if that holder is of no value and has no direct control over us - we will speak our minds freely.

    As the scorpion said to the frog - it's my nature....
    Ted Wards
    5th Apr 2018
    3:00pm
    At the end of the day if I have $20 real dollars to save thats all I can save. Yes over time that adds up but then you have to take into account the banks fees, the tax we pay on interest and the fees we pay to move funds around, the costs of having people assist us, that $20 doesn't go far in reality. SO if a politician wants me to save more, they have to make my money to be able to go further now.
    Puglet
    5th Apr 2018
    3:32pm
    If I remember correctly Helicopter Bishop receives a yearly ‘pension’ of 244,000.00 a year for life plus a Gold Travel Card which includes business class flights etc. when she was bundled out she was worth over 5million in super and she also collected thousands in resettling compensation.
    O’Dwyer’s not on the same lucrative gravy train but she’d have well over a million or two super plus her 300,000.00 a year salary and allowances. She’s happily negatively gearing investment properties. She also gets free air travel as well as free limousines or taxis so she pays no car insurance, petrol, parking etc. they all get subsidised meals and alcohol in Parliament. On the other hand you sound much nicer.

    I’d say both politicians would both be saving more than you and I so I am not surprised she can’t understand why some people can only save 20.00 a week!!
    Old Man
    5th Apr 2018
    3:57pm
    Can you provide some proof of your accusation that O'Dwyer has negatively geared investment properties? Her Register of Members' Interests fails to disclose any negatively geared properties.

    Have you forgotten how much past PM's are costing us? Names like Hawke, Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard are not without cost on the taxpayer. I think that it is only fair to show all entitlements when discussing what retired politicians cost the taxpayer.
    Puglet
    5th Apr 2018
    4:28pm
    OM if I made a mistake about O’Dwyer’s negatively geared properties I withdraw my comment.i thought she had two, perhaps not. Asking me to list all the entitlements of retired politicians is pointless and would take up several pages. I used Bishop as an example because she was shown to be a serial abuser of benefits by both sides of politics. Not only did she take what she was entitled to she claimed money she was not entitled to. The only ex-PM who didn’t use his entitlements was Harold Holt.
    Old Man
    5th Apr 2018
    4:36pm
    Wrong again Puglet, Holt's entitlements didn't stop on his death, his widow was allowed to use most of his entitlements until her death.
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    6:42pm
    Yes, OM - they know how to look after their own - is the alternative to treat her like Lady Hamilton was treated by the British government in contravention of Nelson's dying wish after Trafalgar?

    I suppose the level of Entitlement for politicians is what is under scrutiny - there is no valid reason they should be living in riches from the public purse for life - especially when the majority of them move immediately into another lucrative post.

    They are, after all, in this day and age, only short term contracted employees - their salary and perks already reflect that - ergo - there is no reason to support them for life, and they can compete on the open market like everyone else for a real job.
    adbob
    5th Apr 2018
    3:06pm
    All those criticisms of Industry super funds may well be true but her real complaint is that despite that they still represent fantastic value compared with her own mates and their rip-off "retail" funds.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    5:57pm
    I set up my own SMSF as my union fund was not performing any where near my investments outside super. Something was very wrong if the experts couldn't match my returns. To me I was getting little if any value.
    adbob
    5th Apr 2018
    6:05pm
    @Old Geezer

    No doubt you would have done even worse with a retail fund.

    Maybe your union fund had a particularly bad share-picker.

    Since we all know what a financial genius you are mybe you should offer them your services.

    A lot of them buy mainly wholesale fund units rather than doing their own share-picking.

    Generally a monkey with a pin can do just as well.

    They just steal less for themselves than the retail funds do.
    Serious 57
    5th Apr 2018
    3:15pm
    Political hypocrisy is a constant distraction....Same galaxy but a totally different orbit -in some cases Lost in space ! Yes Minister ?

    5th Apr 2018
    3:23pm
    OMG! The government and opposition have done nothing but DISCOURAGE AND PUNISH saving for retirement, rewarding people for disposing of assets and claiming pensions. In response to my complaints that they were rewarding irresponsible living and making life harder and harder for people who saved, they pedalled a lot of BS excuses, none of which made sense. Now they are saying we need to save. WELL WAKE UP, IDIOTS, AND MAKE IT WORTH THE EFFORT.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    5:57pm
    For once I agree with you OGR.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    6:30pm
    Exactly. Not rocket science is it.
    Rae
    8th Apr 2018
    7:25am
    Interesting articles in yesterdays AFR actually quoted the same figures you've been telling us about OGR and suggesting Superannuation is not a good option for anyone not on very high incomes.
    islandguy
    5th Apr 2018
    3:29pm
    I had a heart attack at age 45. Given that I didn't know if I'd make retirement age I saved for my own retirement. The government has gradually taken it all away, heavily taxing me any time I made a profit on an investment. Unless your money is in super, the government is your enemy in retirement.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    6:00pm
    I haven't found that at al myself in fact it is the exact opposite for me. I could write off lots of expenses not available to employees right down to my morning and afternoon teas. I used to give away coffee cups as presents as I had some many of them.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    12:02pm
    Exactly what is wrong with company tax, OG - thanks for relaying this gem to us.
    Curious
    5th Apr 2018
    5:13pm
    Just want everyone has the right perspective about how well Australians are saving for their retirement. Just on the record, the total assets of Australian Superannuation totalled $2.05 trillion at the end of the March 2015 quarter, a new record according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. This is a great effort for a nation of only 12.50 million workers in the work force.

    According to Edmund Tang Benchmark Report Australian Economy FDI International Investment in 2016, Assets of Australian Superannuation Fund is the third largest Fund in the World. This is what Edmund Tang has to say about our Superannuation savings: -

    "Australia’s pension funds (“superannuation” in local terms) are the third largest in the world with total assets of almost US$1.5 trillion (or A$1.9 trillion) in 2015. The latest figure represented a 10 per cent increase (in Australia dollars (A$) terms) from the level of 2014 and meant that Australia accounted for 5.7 per cent of the world’s total pension funds of about US$25 trillion last year. Australia’s pension fund assets rose to 118 per cent of the nominal GDP in 2015, up from 78 per cent a decade ago. The ratio was the fourth highest among the 58 major pension markets in the OECD survey, Pension Funds in Figures".

    Do you think, we need a lesson from our Minister to save more for our retirement. If we save anymore, we will own the world. Minister, where have you been?
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    5:56pm
    The problem isn't the size of the fund, it's the distribution. We have a system that subsidizes multi-millionaires generously to save mega-millions, while struggling low-income workers get no subsidy at all and sometimes are actually penalized for putting money into super.

    When retirement time comes around, people with modest means are suffering for having saved and finding they would be far better off with hundreds of thousands less. No wonder we have problems funding retirement when the best investment there is for hundreds of thousands of aging is the mattress bank!

    And now stupid Shorten wants to make it much worse by taking up to 30% of the income of struggling low-income self-funded retirees. How on earth does he think pushing people onto pensions is going to help the budget? It's unbelievably dumb!

    What we need is MORE incentive and reward for the moderately well off to continue to be as independent financially as they are able in retirement.
    Curious
    5th Apr 2018
    6:01pm
    Then it is a question of inequitable distribution of wealth and not savings. The Minister is barking up the wrong tree, again, as always.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    6:11pm
    Looks like the cruise and RV market is in for another boost thanks to Labor.

    Cruise companies are already taking record numbers year after year with most of the money and profit going off shore.

    RV industry can't build caravans and motor homes fast enough so cut corners with shoddy materials and workmanship. Almost every day I hear of a near new caravan being stolen as people at so desperate to by them and there is a ready market to rebirth them. So we have people setting up caravan making companies building a few and rebirthing hundreds. No one wants a second RV these days either. A lady mentioned on FB that she was looking for a camper trailer. The response was overwhelming. I hope she got a good deal as I know I would have haggled hard with that many offers.

    Coffee shops are full so no where to sit down even if you wanted one.

    What is going to happen when all this dries up?
    Rae
    6th Apr 2018
    7:33am
    Some of those companies need some serious management changes and marketing help OG.

    We tried to find a slide on for the ute. There is a company making about 10 a year but you can't get any information from them only the dealers. Totally rude if you dare ring them.

    The nearest dealer is 500 kms away in Dubbo. No Not Sydney or Newcastle...Dubbo.

    I rang Dubbo and yes they sold one slide on a few years ago but only Bob could tell me anything about it and he wasn't there.

    If you wanted to write a comedy skit just trying to buy something manufactured in Australia would be a great place to start.

    It's also no wonder we find it so hard to get a slide on camper for your ordinary ute.
    Bee
    5th Apr 2018
    6:06pm
    Is this woman serious??? All of us who have saved for our retirement to become self funded retirees keep having the rug pulled from under us by government changes to superannuation and financial policies eg Coalition change to super limiting amount we can put into super and now ALP looking to penalise self funded retirees by not allowing franking credits even though working people, churches and universities will be exempt. How can anyone believe any government when they talk about saving for retirement. My advice to young people is don't save fro your retirement, spend while you can and live of the taxpayer like politicians do!!!
    marls
    5th Apr 2018
    6:42pm
    Malcolm Fraser stole the 1950's pension fund that was set up to be non means tested
    1977 he transferred $470 million into consolidated revenue all taxpayers contribute 7.5% tax for their pension
    "Who stole the workers compulsory pension fund 'Aust morning mail
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    6:46pm
    The Stolen Contributions....
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    6:46pm
    The Stolen Contributions....
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    7:49pm
    But if you are on OAP then you are on so much more today than that fund would ever paid you. It is only those who are not on welfare that have missed out.
    Rae
    6th Apr 2018
    7:50am
    Costello implemented the clever heist though when he sold our gold at the bottom of the market.

    The day Frazer worked out the Constitution didn't cover theft and sale of public assets by Government he opened a whole lucrative grab bag and changed politics here for ever.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    12:56pm
    For such a self-proclaimed financial genius, OG - you really are lost in the concept of inflation and dollar value, aren't you?

    That funding went to produce things at the going rate for the time - if the value of that dollar is now fifty times more - so is the value of that pension.

    Do try to keep up.

    2 Bob could buy us a bar of chocolate - 20c - now you pay up to $7 a block.... leessee now - that's .. oooh - let's say $6 a decent block at full price.... that's thirty times what it cost back then.

    Finding ten bob on the beach once was a windfall for the gang - a chocolate each.... now that ten bob - $1 would need to more likely be $50.

    Do keep up and cease distracting the discussion with silly things - you could be another O'Dwyer with that sort of inanity.
    Anonymous
    6th Apr 2018
    3:56pm
    I agree, Trebor. We are all missing out. But why are pensioners so hateful and mean towards SFRs, who are missing out far more than pensioners are? Now a lot of greedy pensioners want SFRs deprived of their franking credits and losing 30% of their income, while those same pensioners take millions from the public purse over the course of their retirement. Rather mean and nasty I think!
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    5:34pm
    I thought it was the government and government-in-waiting that was so down on SFRs, and pensioners in some ways as well.

    All Retirees need to stand together on this and force through some guarantees. It is bizarre that a SFR couple on $37k pa have no health card or whatever, and thus pay massively more for medications and such.

    As Big Tony said about PPL - the mortgage doesn't stop when you have a family - likewise the illness doesn't stop when you are retired..... mostly they get worse.
    marls
    5th Apr 2018
    6:42pm
    Malcolm Fraser stole the 1950's pension fund that was set up to be non means tested
    1977 he transferred $470 million into consolidated revenue all taxpayers contribute 7.5% tax for their pension
    "Who stole the workers compulsory pension fund 'Aust morning mail
    marls
    5th Apr 2018
    6:42pm
    Malcolm Fraser stole the 1950's pension fund that was set up to be non means tested
    1977 he transferred $470 million into consolidated revenue all taxpayers contribute 7.5% tax for their pension
    "Who stole the workers compulsory pension fund 'Aust morning mail
    KB
    5th Apr 2018
    7:00pm
    Super needs a overhaul. I do nor have super but I understand that fees are hefty The fees lessen her current earnings that do go to super. Fess are too excessive and this must be looked at by the government.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    7:08pm
    There are lots of hidden fees as well.

    Money goes into super - fee charged

    Administration etc - fee charged

    Money invested - hidden fee charged to invest money plus ongoing yearly fees

    Money taken out of investment - hidden exit fee charged

    Money reinvested - hidden initial and ongoing fees

    Pension paid - fee charged

    So by investing in super through a super fund you are paying fees on fees.
    Sundays
    5th Apr 2018
    7:51pm
    OG despite the fees, anyone in a Balanced option is getting more than bank fees. No tax on the interest. Not everyone is financially savvy, or wants the stress of managing their own money. There is still a lot to be said for an allocated pension especially if you can get a part pension as well. Many who take the Lump Sum option, end up spending it far too quickly
    Old Geezer
    6th Apr 2018
    10:45am
    I wouldn't have anything but a SMSF myself and find it more stressful I don't manage my own money. No allocated pensions for me either as I am not giving my money to someone to lose it all.
    MD
    5th Apr 2018
    8:32pm
    "All the things I could do
    If I had a little money
    It's a rich man's world"

    Apologies to ABBA.
    At least they made money which is more than can be said for all the exceedingly poor (in spirit) lost and lamenting souls herein that seemingly haven't a clue which way to direct their energy and spin their next almighty bloody dollar.
    If I didn't know otherwise I'd swear most you lot were on a retainer to contribute - at so much a pop. On and on, same old, same old, yardah, yahdah, yardah. Maybe you just like reading these lamentations because they act as a salve to your conscience ?
    Everyone that lives to pensionable age, whatever their financial standing; SFR's, full/part pensioners can rely on the knowledge there exists a 'safety net' for those that fall short of the mark. Add to this, cream on the top - pension 'privileges' - are legion.
    If - as most seem to imply - you feel cheated, or are being short changed, then maybe a little soul searching might explain how it is that having achieved that time in life, when, instead of enjoying retirement, waste countless hours lamenting your lot AND blaming any/every other party for the shortfall.
    Strive to be happy, live within your means and take an occasional peek in the mirror - chances are you'll find someone else to blame.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    1:00pm
    You're missing the point - the point is the way governments are using retirement as a football to make silly points that only apply to their mythical ideology.

    If all was simple smooth sailing as you say - nobody would be here - and governments are rocking the boat - not us.
    Jezemeg8
    5th Apr 2018
    11:16pm
    Typical politician, she has no worries as she'll receive a tax payer funded pension, well in excess of the aged pension, and still be able to work at a full paying job when she leaves parliament....
    MICK
    6th Apr 2018
    12:03am
    And the game goes on. Tax cuts for those who have no need of them, banter about the obvious and retirees gone after with a vengeance.
    Please remember all of the above at election time readers. Make a difference rather than be a tool of the media which is working against your interests and those of fairness.
    Thoughtful
    6th Apr 2018
    1:42am
    I think I'll save more for my retirement by going into politics.
    PlanB
    6th Apr 2018
    7:30am
    This absolute BITCH of a woman Kelly O'Dwyer needs to get her facts right -- people of my age group and older NEVER had a cent of super AND we also were stay at home Mothers AND also looked after Dying family members as well SAVING the #*^%$ Government a stack of money -- AND were very frugal with our savings --what little we had --
    She ought to go on about the amount of money HER Government are wasting of OUR Taxes on such things as carter planes/football/concerts/and luncheons etc etc etc, she makes me want to puk!
    PlanB
    6th Apr 2018
    8:07am
    Also, people have to have a decent wage b4 they are able to save -- there have not been wage increases for ages --- we don't all have the obscene perks and salaries of these scum.
    We also not able to get A PENSION and also have a very well paid position AFTER leaving our place of work like these leaches
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    1:01pm
    Maintain the rage at election time.... they'll be trying to buy you off before the next downward cycle in your fortunes to suit whichever lot get in with their lofty ideals and thoughts on running the show way above yours.
    PlanB
    6th Apr 2018
    2:23pm
    You can bet it will be me that will maintain the rage for sure TREBOR -- I have had it to the back teether with these crooked scum
    dante
    6th Apr 2018
    8:20am
    If there ever was a contest as 'Who is the lightest weight I Federal politics', Kelly O’Dwyer would win by a long margin, although she would have some competition from the likes of Ciobo, Cormann and many others.

    How a person can be so comprehensively confused? On one hand she states the bleeding obvious, ie 'need to save more for retirement', and yet oppose the measures that would achieve that, particularly for low income earners, ie lifting compulsory super to 12% faster.

    She then opposes industry superfunds lobbying, and why? No, not because they want workers to chose them so that, given their superior performance and lower fees workers can have more in retirement. No, not for that sensible option for better outcomes. No, her opposition is that industry funds are run by Unionists. Gee, what a sin, Unionists, the same that ask for higher wages, better working conditions, etc etc.

    This disgrace of a human being wants workers to put their funds in the hands of sharks currently being investigated by a Royal Commission as if commissions paid to these 'professionals' within the banking industry dealing with super do not eat up into workers retirement funds. Oh no, we can't have industry super funds spend members funds for political leverage aimed at providing better outcomes for their members, that is a role this inept government has earmarked for their mates in banks engaged in shonky practices.

    How a person with so little to offer to Australia could be a Minister? Hopefully her and her party will be thrown into the dustbin of history after the next election.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    1:03pm
    Tell it like it is, bro....
    PlanB
    6th Apr 2018
    2:30pm
    Yes dante, the Libs always seem to bring in the Labour or the Unions in a demeaning way -- I know who I would sooner trust and it is NOT the Libs -- yes there are crooks in the Unions -- (high up) but if it was not for the Unions we would still be working like they were in the salt mines -- well that what the Libs would like us to be doing now -- along with Gina.

    This oxygen thief Dwyer -- and her mob --needs to get into the REAL world -- but there is NO chance of that
    rob101
    6th Apr 2018
    10:14am
    Hi Ray,You are correct ! Industry Super Funds do much better than the others!
    After all it was the Unions (and Paul Keeting) that gave us Super in 1993.
    Don't forget anyone on an Income Stream from Super is getting it TAX FREE and if you get Franking Credits you are getting FREE money from the Tax Payer.
    rob101
    Old Geezer
    6th Apr 2018
    10:36am
    Wrong you are not getting your super tax free. You have paid 15% or 30% tax on it when you put the money in and the fund paid 15% tax on it's earning until you started to draw your pension. So you have paid atleast 15% tax on your so called "tax free" super. Logically it is not tax free at all.

    Franking credits are tax paid on your behalf by the company from where you earned you dividend. If you pay no tax then you are entitled to a refund of that tax paid. If you earnt your income from any other source but dividends you would pay no tax and get a refund of any tax withheld on your behalf from the ATO.

    Rob101 you need to do your homework on this issue instead of being coned by Shorten's lies.
    ex PS
    6th Apr 2018
    11:18am
    No not wrong, as was stated, the income stream is Tax Free, stop altering the information provided to try and prove an incorrect argument.
    You are just peddling right wing propaganda.
    Maybe you need to do some homework Re: comprehension.
    Old Geezer
    6th Apr 2018
    11:37am
    Rubbish it is not tax free at all. If something has been taxed it is not tax free. If you look into to most people would be better off if it wasn't tax free and as they could use the 15% rebate and pay less tax. I have seen this happen when people retire below 60 where they are paying more tax once they turn 60 with their so called tax free income from super. So to me making income form super after 60 has left many people worse off and it's just another con from our "wonderful" government.

    Time to learn the rules so you can recognise you have been well and truly coned on this.
    Anonymous
    6th Apr 2018
    3:52pm
    Rob101, like most ALP supporters, you seem to subscribe to the argument that if someone didn't save, they should get $20-$30K a year handout, increasing twice annually, from the taxpayer purse, but if they DID save - having paid tax on their earnings and then tax on the income from their savings, they SHOULD NOT get a benefit from franking credits despite saving the taxpayer tens of thousands per year.

    Please explain how it is fair for one group of people to get $2 million or so over the course of their retirement, and another group - who possibly had no better opportunity or lifestyle - to be forced to live on their savings and get NOTHING?

    Gosh, right now a homeowner couple might be getting $15K a year from franking credits, and donating $25K a year to the tax man by not drawing a pension. And you want to take that $15K away from them and make them donate $40K a year, while the rest of the retired population donates NOTHING.

    ALP supporters have a very WEIRD sense of fairness!

    SFRs pay tax by NOT drawing a pension. It's money they forfeit and the tax man gains. Therefore, it's TAX. No intelligent person could see it as anything else. And now you want it increased to the point where many SFRs won't have enough to survive on and will have to divest their assets and apply for pensions. And Shorten thinks this will save money? How? Wealthy people aren't going to lose. They will merely rearrange their affairs to dodge in other ways. Every employee in Australia will lose through their superfund. SFRs will lose up to 30% of their income, which in many cases can ONLY be recovered by going on the pension. Less retirement money means bigger OAP costs.
    wisky171
    6th Apr 2018
    11:41am
    It should be remembered that s.f.r s funds will be providing the largest ongoing stimulus package ever, as we all have to spend . It's up to the government to make sure the money is spent in Australia not o/seas like when the dud government spent the surplus left by the coalition , most of that money went to China.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    1:07pm
    Really? There must be a lot of pensioners out there with double lives as SFRs then, if SFRs are going to be the largest ongoing stimulus.

    Most SFRs don't have near enough income, and all put together will never match, the income of a vastly higher number of pensioners....

    Not only that, but the higher-end SFRs spend too much offshore and not here or into non-tax paying areas and thus create a Black Hole in the budget by not having their money returned into the tax cycle.

    Only those with the least prop up the tax cycle and thus the economy with 100% of their income.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    2:04pm
    I'll just expand on this for you - 80% will retire on pension or part - that leaves 20%, and from the posts here, many of them are near death's door financially.

    Perhaps the one saving benefit for some is like Ebergeezer Scrooge, who claims tax dodges all over the landscape... still wants a free ride while roasting anyone on earned pension.

    However - your REAL rich people are not even SFRs - they get everything free via gifting from their 'former' companies and such, as never-ending fringe benefits for their dedicated 'work' over the years - and yet.. and yet - these ongoing into infinity Fringe Benefits are NOT TAXED.

    Hello?

    So, anyway - out of that far less than 20% who are really doing well as SFRs - and are enjoying their ocean cruises and trips through the world of Offshore, where that money goes offshore and not into our tax system here - there are quite clearly a totally inadequate number to be any ' the largest ongoing stimulus package ever'...... they are, in reality, in many ways a drain on the economy.

    Raising the pension rate and changing the rules to include more on a low SFR income is a stimulus package than SFRs as a group will ever be.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    2:06pm
    MORE of a stimulus package than SFRs will ever be... damned censor software... one finger slip and it chops away the sense in what you say.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    2:07pm
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/a-super-fail-80pc-retire-on-pension-benefits/news-story/f53147276286f68ed06e6fa0a3dd0ee2

    From treasury - 80% will retire on pension despite 25 years of super....
    Old Geezer
    6th Apr 2018
    2:38pm
    Gee that an increase on the 70% retired we now have on the pension.
    Old Geezer
    6th Apr 2018
    4:12pm
    Gee Trebor we aren't all as rich as you can afford to subscribe to the Australian.

    That is we can't read you link unless we cough up dollars.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    6:01pm
    Not only that, but that 20% of non-pensioners includes politicians, public servants and the like on 'other' benefits...

    Anyway - the pay wall wasn't there when I dug that up...

    Try this one:-

    https://actuaries.asn.au/Library/NANCE.pdf

    The reality in 2008

    Super savings for recent retirees

    $136,000 males

    $63,000 females

    Percentage with super > $100,000

    8% of males

    4% of females

    80% over 65 rely on the Age Pension

    55% rely on full Age Pension


    Anyway - 25% of those on pension are part pension - I am still left wondering why and how some can get that part pension on a similar or lower level of income but others can't... that assets test it seems.

    That's why some of us are pushing for its abolition.
    TREBOR
    6th Apr 2018
    6:02pm
    .. and of course retired military personnel living on superannuation.
    Old Geezer
    6th Apr 2018
    8:59pm
    Trebot so as a SFR I am drain on the economy? All I know is that I get drained by paying full price for everything plus extra to make up for what the pensioners get in discounts. I get drained every year by sending a cheque for tax owed to the ATO. Yes I did go on a cruise recently but my Australian Travel Agent got a nice commission benefit out of my booking. I have recently taken my caravan down to Victoria and all that diesel was a drain on my wallet, caravans parks did well our of me as well as the pubs along the way. I feel drained even talking about it all.
    wisky171
    6th Apr 2018
    7:28pm
    Two trillion in super!! the dud claims he avoided a recession with 45 billion. we put money into super over and above what we had to, to help us in retirement, instead we could have spent that having a good time when we were young, now we are retired with extra funds and have vacated our jobs for the next generation so that with our extra funds we will be paying that generation for goods and services. Five bucks will pay millions of dollars of bills , so long as it remains in Australia.
    Rae
    8th Apr 2018
    7:45am
    It isn't remaining in Australia though. Our balance of payments is one of the worst in the world at nearly 24% of GDP. It's on par with South Africa and is unsustainable.

    Even when you ring a call centre the chances are those dollars are being spent overseas somewhere.

    Very poor performance by Government after government for the past 4 decades now.

    The only money left is that $2 trillion in boomer savings while the young have $3 trillion debt to pay back.
    Circum
    7th Apr 2018
    7:31pm
    If the government wants people to save more for retirement,it needs to stop making policies which encourage people to not save for retirement.And to stop changing the rules.
    Suze
    9th Apr 2018
    7:36am
    Changing the goal posts for superannuation sure worked for Rudd and Gillard ...one year as Prime Minister and you get a six figure pension.
    Crazy Horse
    10th Apr 2018
    12:30am
    The Liberal Party has opposed superannuation (except for the rich) at every stage of it's development. They believe we peasants should be grateful and content with for whatever crumbs fall off our betters tables.
    Old Geezer
    10th Apr 2018
    11:19am
    So why haven't they abolish the super guarantee?
    Adrianus
    11th Apr 2018
    10:13am
    Crazy Horse, The Libs have been the friend of Superannuation. I agree they didn't get it all right but they haven't tried to destroy it in the way Labor has. I have to be honest, I was shocked when the Hawke government introduced all those taxes which disadvantaged the battlers. 15% going in, another 15% while it there, another 15% when it comes out.
    Superannuation is not an investment for the rich.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles