Noel Whittaker is the author of Wills, Death & Taxes Made Simple and numerous other books on personal finance. Email: [email protected]​

The election’s getting close, and between now and polling day, we’ll be bombarded with an avalanche of sensational headlines, all designed to sway us one way or the other. They might grab attention but scratch the surface, and they often fall apart.

Take this week’s example: ‘True cost of super raids for deposits.’ The headline screams crisis. The claim? That letting first homebuyers access their super could cost taxpayers more than $1.4 billion a year by 2050 in extra age pension costs.

It sounds dramatic, but dig deeper.

The figure came from the Parliamentary Budget Office – theoretically independent – but hinges on a hypothetical 40-year-old pulling out $50,000 next year, then retiring at 67 with no attempt to rebuild their balance. That’s a shaky foundation. It gives no credit for the upside of getting into a home sooner or the wealth that can come from owning property earlier. And there’s no mention of the downsizer contribution – $300,000 into super after age 55 – which could more than make up the difference.

What does it really mean? Image Credit: Shutterstock

Labor MP and Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economics, Daniel Mulino, weighed in, warning that ‘Peter Dutton’s reckless plan to raid super will push house prices up.’ But it’s not a raid – it’s a proposal to let first homebuyers use part of their super for a deposit on the condition it’s repaid with earnings.

Yes, it may push house prices up, but every other scheme to help buyers does, too: stamp duty concessions, Labor’s shared ownership proposal, and even interest rate cuts.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque in diam id erat facilisis consectetur vitae vel urna.

Ut lacus libero, suscipit auctor ipsum sit amet, viverra pretium nisl. Nullam facilisis nec odio nec dapibus. Integer maximus risus et velit porttitor ullamcorper

Read more for FREE!

Become a member today and join over 200,000 Australians already taking advantage of daily news, weather, petrol costs, games, jokes, deals and more.

• 

  FREE 400-page Discount eBook upon joining

• 

  FREE Aussie-made eBook & many more

• 

  Multiple daily discounts for members

• 

  No payment required

Register Faster Using

• Continue with Facebook
• Continue with Google
• Continue with Apple

Or Register with email

Join the club

Already a member?

Log In

[kerrikennel]

Now THIS makes sense!

 

[Anthony Ellul]

There is no better and trusted finance commentator than Noel Whittaker. This is beyond doubt a great idea for homebuyers especially first home buyers. Security of a home at retirement is as good as Super and is as a good a wealth accumulator as Super too. The original article to which Mr Whittaker responded was another biased attempt to favour the ALP which is quite Normal at SDC.

 

[peteloo]

It’s a great idea to allow using our super to at least pay for the home deposit. It’s our equity and the value grows, just like in the superfund.

 

[Catherines]

Now THIS makes sense!

Might make some sense but the government has to come on board first for it to take effect. Thank goodness we don’t owe anyone a cent on anything. We’ve been careful all our lives and can reap the rewards now, even helping our children out with small amounts when they need it. I hope those in need get personal face-to-face financial advice before doing anything.

 

[Towing]

Some don't put extra in Super if they think they are going to buy a home. They simply bank the extra and hope they will have enough or spend it. Being allowed to withdraw some for a first home would be a good way to save to do so. At the moment the only way you can withdraw funds early is to prove financial hardship with all documents including utility bills and other regular items showing amounts you pay. Just don't go bankrupt waiting. I know somebody who nearly did.

 

[Jest]

iif it helps young ones to purchase a home I am all for it. better the use of their money now than when they are past the use by date.

 

[Sherril54]

There is no better and trusted finance commentator than Noel Whittaker. This is beyond doubt a great idea for homebuyers especially first home buyers. Security of a home at retirement is as good as Super and is as a good a wealth accumulator as Super too. The original article to which Mr Whittaker responded was another biased attempt to favour the ALP which is quite Normal at SDC.

Well if you think SDC is biased toward ALP find yourself another social media site and make everyone`s life easier. You are a PITA!

 

[Sherril54]

The Government should invest in affordable housing (it has been done many people lived in Public housing no stigma attached) so people have a roof over their heads. They invest in deals that come to nothing and the wastage of our money is unforgivable. There is now talk of a breakdown in the AUKUS deal, before this was a breakdown in the conrtact with the French ( French Submarines). There is now talk of Nuclear Power Stations when there has been huge investment in renewables. Do any of them realy know how to plan and do they think about who`s money they are spending. I could go on and on but it`s is exhausting. No, I don`t think that raiding Super is a good idea. Once again it will force up real estate prices and inflation and everyone is back to square one!!.

 

[Quietkate]

What happens to those of us who have no super, my husband had to use our super because of my health and things we needed to get for me. We are also in our 70's they believe we should also have a house but some things come into play which stops that. So once again we are not catered for and we are not the only ones I am sure.