The Meeting Place

Kaye jumps into the fray on the retirement income debate

From The New Daily report Australians doubt their retirement savings will last a lifetime

Less than a quarter of Australians believe their retirement savings will be enough to provide them with an income for life, despite a recent Grattan Institute report suggesting most Australians will have “more than enough” to last.

A survey of more than 200,000 older Australians conducted by retiree advocacy platform YourLifeChoices found only 23.4 per cent are confident their savings will support them for the duration of their lives. 

These findings undermine a Grattan Institute report released on November 6, according to YourLifeChoices publisher Kaye Fallick, who added parts of the report are “factually incorrect”.

“They say [Australians] are retiring with more than enough, they’re not. Many Australians are retiring on very little,” she said.

Specifically, the report failed to factor in longevity and the cost of aged care and medical needs, Ms Fallick said. These two factors contribute to Australians’ fears about running out of money in retirement.

Additionally, Ms Fallick said the report’s focus on average balances masked underlying challenges that face lower-income Australians, which using median balances would have highlighted.

Ms Fallick’s comments are the latest in a series of criticisms levelled at the Grattan Institute’s report, with a series of senior superannuation figures questioning its recommendations.

FirstPrev12(page 2/2)

Micha, you are not only showing your ignorance but also your immaturity. Give it a rest.

You know what your problem is Adrianus. You are jealous of me, yep jealous.

I have the capacity to play a good game of political tennis whilst you are overcome by rust. Try some RP7 and start again hon!

Grandiosity wins the day? Does it?

Quit your bullying Robi. It is BORING.

Ha ha ha Micha. You are really showing yourself up for what you are and you don’t even realise it.

Quote Banjo - "When the Keating Government introduced compulsory superannuation in the form of the Superannuation Guarantee (SG) in 1992 there were two objectives in mind -  increase private provision for retirement and increase national savings. It has succeeded in doing both."

You fail to mention the third objective?

As the Unions in the USA moved from their waterside operations into garbage removal and pension funds, so too did the Australian Unions. Hawke and Keating had, not only the political capital, but also the political will to influence the Arbitration Commission (Industrial Relations) to steer workers funds to newly set up Super funds, which would later have signicant taxes applied.

Sure, Compulsory Super was a great idea, but it was an idea which could have worked a whole lot better for members if it were not motivated primarily by lust for power.  He who has control of the money also has control of political leadership and legal outcomes.

Ask yourself this question? Would Hawke have been able to get the 3% super contribution started if in todays low inflation rate, low cash rate economy?


Must warn you Adrianus..Banjo knows his onions..he lecturers this stuff at Uni !

You'll have to do a lot better than you are right now..

I am simply giving my views of historical matters and opinions on matters concerning the political motivation of how starting compulsory super may not be as altruistic, as in Banjo's interpretation. If you have a differing view then by all means lets hear it. So far, your's and Micha's view is to not have a differing view than your clique members. I can understand that some people may think this way for various reasons.

I still think that Hawke had all the planets lined up. Apart from being the most popular PM we have ever seen, he was also very highly skilled negotiator. But the deal breaker would have been having a slow economy. I think the 3% was reasonably insignificant in 1983 because of the high inflation we had. It was about to go higher. The Share market during the 80s was raging at 30%. So there was not much of an argument against compulsory super. But to suggest we increase the amount to 12% at a time when we are revovering from a world wide economic slow down is in my opinion not wise. It would be great for the industry super funds but not so great for Australia's economy. Super funds' management fees are based on a percentage of contribution and account balances.


Quote Adrianus.. "I am simply giving my views of historical matters...".

Mark Twain said.."Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you wish."

I do not share your opinion but I do take heed of what Banjo says..nor do I follow blindly the directives of any political party which you appear to do. 

I liken myself to someone who bends in the political winds of party is right all of the time as you seem to think. 

As for this "So far, your's and Micha's view is to not have a differing view than your clique members. I can understand that some people may think this way for various reasons."

All water off a swan's back..I care not (as you appear to) for the opinions of those faceless posters on a public forum who have nothing better to do than point the finger.. I find it all very amusing.

Enjoy your day..

I'll put my facts up against your facts any day.

HESTA started 1987. Austsafe Super 1988. Legal Super 1989. And others. During the mid 80's under the Hawke Government the Arbitration Commission was giving approval to union industry funds. These super funds were sprouting like mushrooms from the ground. Employment awards were being rewritten to include not only a 3% contribution from employers but also mandatory life insurance. The fees and life insurance premiums (often uneccessary) eroded retirement savings. But the biggest impact on retirement savings came from the Hawke government's new taxes on Super, which effectively made superannuation a tax advantaged investment for those who had money, not for those who did not. 

I applaude the Turnbull/Morrison government for the work they have done in at least saving members with low balances from the high fee erosion of industry funds. I know many retail funds have high fees as well, but the big difference is that members were not forced into retail funds by law.   


Alex Turnbull names list of Liberal Party ‘crazies’. You’re not one of those are you?

Malcolm Turnbull’s son will fund independents to take on Liberal MPs. Good on you Alex. Why did they shaft your dad, I want to know.

You seem to have a similar problem to Alex. 


Boo hoo. My dad's not PM anymore !!!

No Fair !!!!


Image result for tantrum gif

LOLOLOL the twins adrianus and lotario are at it again.

What is so worrying is the 40s plus do not think they are every going to arrive at 60!          Perhaps they are relying on the increase of property values!                I remember years ago talking to a woman that had sold their home and were about to go travelling for a few years, I asked her about her super.  Her reply really shocked me!  We will apply for an Aged Pension came the reply!

Yes Celia - the OAP is more than adequate to live on. In fact those who won their opwn home and car can save enough of the pension to go on cruises and multiple trips to Bali and  Thailand.

I see them all the time, happy as pigs in mud

don't judge everyone by your own muddy patch lothario. Some pensioners are doing it rough. It's a little easier for those who own their home.

FirstPrev12(page 2/2)