[Rain72]

Meanwhile, young folk can't afford a home, which is of far more value in retirement than a few hundred thousand extra in super. Take the example of a couple both earning $80K a year. Between them, they lose a whopping $19200 to super annually. Now, that's great from the perspective of how the money grows over time to fund retirement. But if they can't afford a house - one that might cost $700,000 today, and therefore require a $140K deposit - they pay ever-increasing rent for maybe 4.5 decades. Then, on retirement, they want to buy a home. If house prices have increased at the average rate of doubling every 7 years (and lately it's been faster than that!) they might be looking at paying a whopping $22 million+ for that house! Suddenly their nice fat superannuation balance doesn't look so great!

Conversely, if they were allowed to draw $100K from super at age 22, their mortgage payments would gradually reduce as a percentage of income (since unlike rent, mortgage payments don't generally increase) and after, say, 10 years, they could be positioned to repay that money to their super fund. In retirement, they would be far, far better off.

We used $2000 of 'super' (it wasn't actually called that then, and didn't work the same) as a home deposit in 1973. Best thing we ever did. We might not ever have had a home of our own otherwise. Rent was 30% of our income for a very poor quality and unsuitable residence, and increasing repidly. Our mortgage + rates, insurance etc. was nearly 40% of income, - a real struggle - but after 10 years, our mortgage payments were down to 10% of income, and rents would have been 30% of income.

The other major flaw in the super scheme is the unfair tax concessions that are costing the nation nearly as much as the Aged Pension, but 80% of the benefit goes to high income earners, while low income earners get nil benefit or actually pay more tax on super contributions and earnings than on their wages. I don't think Keating deserves the accolades some afford him, because the real purpose of the superannuation scheme he devised was to facilitate tax reductions for the wealthy. And super certainly became a real rort for the well=to-do. And it has contributed to making it harder for young folk to buy a home. That said, it has delivered huge benefits to a lot of the population, and with ongoing sensible reform it could deliver even better.

 

[Koda]

That’s only if it is secure people have already lost every penny they had in supposedly secure super it’s mandatory so the government should back it

 

[Koda]

Meanwhile, young folk can't afford a home, which is of far more value in retirement than a few hundred thousand extra in super. Take the example of a couple both earning $80K a year. Between them, they lose a whopping $19200 to super annually. Now, that's great from the perspective of how the money grows over time to fund retirement. But if they can't afford a house - one that might cost $700,000 today, and therefore require a $140K deposit - they pay ever-increasing rent for maybe 4.5 decades. Then, on retirement, they want to buy a home. If house prices have increased at the average rate of doubling every 7 years (and lately it's been faster than that!) they might be looking at paying a whopping $22 million+ for that house! Suddenly their nice fat superannuation balance doesn't look so great!

Conversely, if they were allowed to draw $100K from super at age 22, their mortgage payments would gradually reduce as a percentage of income (since unlike rent, mortgage payments don't generally increase) and after, say, 10 years, they could be positioned to repay that money to their super fund. In retirement, they would be far, far better off.

We used $2000 of 'super' (it wasn't actually called that then, and didn't work the same) as a home deposit in 1973. Best thing we ever did. We might not ever have had a home of our own otherwise. Rent was 30% of our income for a very poor quality and unsuitable residence, and increasing repidly. Our mortgage + rates, insurance etc. was nearly 40% of income, - a real struggle - but after 10 years, our mortgage payments were down to 10% of income, and rents would have been 30% of income.

The other major flaw in the super scheme is the unfair tax concessions that are costing the nation nearly as much as the Aged Pension, but 80% of the benefit goes to high income earners, while low income earners get nil benefit or actually pay more tax on super contributions and earnings than on their wages. I don't think Keating deserves the accolades some afford him, because the real purpose of the superannuation scheme he devised was to facilitate tax reductions for the wealthy. And super certainly became a real rort for the well=to-do. And it has contributed to making it harder for young folk to buy a home. That said, it has delivered huge benefits to a lot of the population, and with ongoing sensible reform it could deliver even better.

Really good idea

 

[novezar]

Meanwhile, young folk can't afford a home, which is of far more value in retirement than a few hundred thousand extra in super. Take the example of a couple both earning $80K a year. Between them, they lose a whopping $19200 to super annually. Now, that's great from the perspective of how the money grows over time to fund retirement. But if they can't afford a house - one that might cost $700,000 today, and therefore require a $140K deposit - they pay ever-increasing rent for maybe 4.5 decades. Then, on retirement, they want to buy a home. If house prices have increased at the average rate of doubling every 7 years (and lately it's been faster than that!) they might be looking at paying a whopping $22 million+ for that house! Suddenly their nice fat superannuation balance doesn't look so great!

Conversely, if they were allowed to draw $100K from super at age 22, their mortgage payments would gradually reduce as a percentage of income (since unlike rent, mortgage payments don't generally increase) and after, say, 10 years, they could be positioned to repay that money to their super fund. In retirement, they would be far, far better off.

We used $2000 of 'super' (it wasn't actually called that then, and didn't work the same) as a home deposit in 1973. Best thing we ever did. We might not ever have had a home of our own otherwise. Rent was 30% of our income for a very poor quality and unsuitable residence, and increasing repidly. Our mortgage + rates, insurance etc. was nearly 40% of income, - a real struggle - but after 10 years, our mortgage payments were down to 10% of income, and rents would have been 30% of income.

The other major flaw in the super scheme is the unfair tax concessions that are costing the nation nearly as much as the Aged Pension, but 80% of the benefit goes to high income earners, while low income earners get nil benefit or actually pay more tax on super contributions and earnings than on their wages. I don't think Keating deserves the accolades some afford him, because the real purpose of the superannuation scheme he devised was to facilitate tax reductions for the wealthy. And super certainly became a real rort for the well=to-do. And it has contributed to making it harder for young folk to buy a home. That said, it has delivered huge benefits to a lot of the population, and with ongoing sensible reform it could deliver even better.

Hi Rain72,
Ye & Ney, to your posting.

I, like 99.99% of us out there, in '73, house interest rates went from about 8% plus up to 17% by '85. We got nowhere fast trying to keep up with payments with interest rises.

As you'd know, in those days, you could only get a housing loan on the husbands take home pay.

They'd only give you a loan on what they considered repayments on what you could afford to pay back.

No other income was taken into consideration at all. No consideration was given if your wife was earning income from employment.

Things were damned hard.

Super was the best thing that Keating did for the worker. He wasn't much good at, or, for anything else.

Now, Chalmers is out to get us.

 

[Rain72]

Hi Rain72,
Ye & Ney, to your posting.

I, like 99.99% of us out there, in '73, house interest rates went from about 8% plus up to 17% by '85. We got nowhere fast trying to keep up with payments with interest rises.

As you'd know, in those days, you could only get a housing loan on the husbands take home pay.

They'd only give you a loan on what they considered repayments on what you could afford to pay back.

No other income was taken into consideration at all. No consideration was given if your wife was earning income from employment.

Things were damned hard.

Super was the best thing that Keating did for the worker. He wasn't much good at, or, for anything else.

Now, Chalmers is out to get us.

Yes. The future is worrying with these Communists at the helm, following the global elite's edict that they must ensure we own nothing. But I don't think Keating did such a great thing, because it was really all about a tax dodge for the rich, and he sure gave them a beauty, while in fact he has made life harder for battlers. They can't raise a house deposit because they are losing 12% of their pay to super. They have less disposable income to service a mortgage in the early years (when things are usually toughest), and the lower paid are getting little or nothing by way of tax concessions on their super while their taxes are funding billions in tax concessions to the wealthy. It's so easy to fix, and there have been repeated recommendations to fix it, but Chalmers would rather persecute older Australians who lived responsibly, struggled through the hideous Keating years of shocking double-digit interest rates, and managed to retire with a few dollars. This government is not interested in sensible solutions. They are just out to drive us all (except their elite privileged mates) into poverty.

 

[RobbyNotTheRobot]

Yes. The future is worrying with these Communists at the helm, following the global elite's edict that they must ensure we own nothing. But I don't think Keating did such a great thing, because it was really all about a tax dodge for the rich, and he sure gave them a beauty, while in fact he has made life harder for battlers. They can't raise a house deposit because they are losing 12% of their pay to super. They have less disposable income to service a mortgage in the early years (when things are usually toughest), and the lower paid are getting little or nothing by way of tax concessions on their super while their taxes are funding billions in tax concessions to the wealthy. It's so easy to fix, and there have been repeated recommendations to fix it, but Chalmers would rather persecute older Australians who lived responsibly, struggled through the hideous Keating years of shocking double-digit interest rates, and managed to retire with a few dollars. This government is not interested in sensible solutions. They are just out to drive us all (except their elite privileged mates) into poverty.

When I was just hitting teenage years my Granddad told me that educated people are the bane of all Governments and since then I have seen the dumping down of people.
The crux for me is being witness to the draconian measures of Covid lockdown and the fear mongering media.
My Grandparents lived through the Spanish Flu epidemic and the lessons learned from that.
My Grandmother would of turned in her grave because we where treated as Murderers during lockdown just for walking along the beach getting salt air that is good for you. a lesson learned from The Spanish Flu epidemic.
My Grandmother would be the first to say go to the beach and get the salt air into you if I had a cold or flu. When all of those people protested on Bondi beach all the brainwashed people where going on how bad they whee doing that I responded with the salt air and sunshine will do them all good. A sure sign of the dumbing down of people by thinking that was bad to be on a beach.
Notice I had said not a thing about vac vs anti vac.

 

[Rain72]

When I was just hitting teenage years my Granddad told me that educated people are the bane of all Governments and since then I have seen the dumping down of people.
The crux for me is being witness to the draconian measures of Covid lockdown and the fear mongering media.
My Grandparents lived through the Spanish Flu epidemic and the lessons learned from that.
My Grandmother would of turned in her grave because we where treated as Murderers during lockdown just for walking along the beach getting salt air that is good for you. a lesson learned from The Spanish Flu epidemic.
My Grandmother would be the first to say go to the beach and get the salt air into you if I had a cold or flu. When all of those people protested on Bondi beach all the brainwashed people where going on how bad they whee doing that I responded with the salt air and sunshine will do them all good. A sure sign of the dumbing down of people by thinking that was bad to be on a beach.
Notice I had said not a thing about vac vs anti vac.

Oh yes! They are dumbing the population down, and sadly they are succeeding very well. They are also driving division - race against race, younger generations against older (how sick is it that they are feeding this myth that the Boomers had everything handed to them on a platter and are hoarding all the wealth so young folk can't buy homes?), women against men, straights against LGBTQI... The just keep on and on deliberately creating and feeding discontent, and they want the population to be too dumb to understand what is happening and fight back. The media is complicit in this too.

 

[dabski2]

You have given Labour the gift of a Majority Mandate, so DEBT and more DEBT has to be paid by somebody from somewhere.

 

[Rain72]

You have given Labour the gift of a Majority Mandate, so DEBT and more DEBT has to be paid by somebody from somewhere.

Unfortunately for the 2/3rds of the population who did not give Labor any mandate, it seems it only takes 1/3rd to vote Labor to authorise Labor to destroy the nation. The problem, I guess, was that many of the 2/3rds with brains didn't want the LNP in power either, because they are Labor-lite, and not offering valid solutions. Several of the minority parities would, I think, do a good job of cleaning up the mess, but with so many of them, they will never get a chance. We need someone at the helm who has the courage of Trump (not necessarily his ethics, ideas or specific policies) and will take definitive action to clean up the disaster that the last few decades have bequeathed us.

Pause immigration until housing and infrastructure catches up
Restore the restrictions to ensure immigrants fit with our culture and learn our language
End the stupid obsession with renewables and net zero, It's clearly not delivering.
Audit Indigenous spending and cut the waste and corruption
End favouritism based on race and declare all Australians equal in every respect
Get tough on crime - really tough!
End the stupid gender garbage and restore common sense and basic morality
End the idiotic obsession with equal numbers of different genders, race, etc. in jobs and just employ the best people for the role
Ban career politicians. Limit terms to 2, with no retirement benefits other than the standard 12% super everyone gets, and impose a requirement for at least 6 years of real world business experience
End the gender nonsense and just recognise that there are two genders, determined by biology
Sort out the NDIS to stop the abuse
Implement universal aged pensions, fully taxed, to incentivise responsible planning and lifestyle and eliminate the hideous admin costs and errors
Change the superannuation tax concessions in accumulation mode to 15% discount on the member's marginal rate
Allow people who are genuinely struggling to use super for a house deposit on a very basic home, potentially as a loan repayable when their mortgage payments fall to x% of family income
Impose sensible limits on paid parental leave and childcare subsidies (families on $300K a year do NOT need it), and extend childcare benefits to mothers who want to stay at home and care for their own kids.
Make income tax family-based to remove discrimination against single income families

In other words, restore common sense! Abandoning it just costs way too much.And the fixes are not hard.