Search results

That's fair enough, but again, 'I never plan to retire' isn't a good reason to use a vehicle that locks your money away. Even if you have enough money outside super not to have to work, you can still go to work if you want. However, if you don't want to work for whatever reason, I'd prefer to...

Sheryn, aren't your kids still limited by the rule that they can't access the money until they're 58 or whatever? If your kids said 'but I intend to be financially free by my 40s', would you still consider super a good vehicle to use? Alternatively, would it be better (certainly more flexible)...

The problem is that super is designed as a vehicle for people who otherwise wouldn't save, to save for their retirement. It's designed to limit risk, because most people don't know how to manage it. It's designed to lock money in, because otherwise people would just spend it. For someone who...

I was thinking debt recycle so that the PPOR is debt free, transfer it to the spouse, then have the spouse do a 60% LVR no-doc (or whatever) and lend it back to me. The usual way is to separate businesses (which have higher bankruptcy risk) and passive assets like IPs and shares (which have a...

So does a family trust, if you set it up before you set up a business. Likewise assets held in a spouse's name, for example. Most salaried employees are unlikely to ever go bankrupt from the jobs. I disagree, since investments outside super can be more easily managed for tax (depreciation...

My understanding is no. You can't access super just because you have enough to not work anymore. There are certain circumstances like you're dying and so on, but in general, money put into super is locked in until you're 58 or whatever it is. Which is a massive limitation for using super as a...

You won't be able to access super for more than 30 years, and that's assuming they don't change the rules. Super has tax advantages but also lots of limitations.