Julia wants you to keep working

[Intrinsic_Value]

What's not to be optimistic about? It's not like we're living in Angola or the Congo.

The debt is circa 2% of GDP. Due to the GFC stimulus spending. Are you losing touch with reality Aaron?

That's what I meant in a post last week about you guys reminding me of the princess and the pea story. You know, the princess who couldn't sleep all night because there was a pea under 10 mattresses that she slept on.

What exactly is so bad that it needs constant whining on a forum? ho w has the Labor govt so materially affected your lives that you need to complain and whine endlessly. You must be a barrel of positivity and fun Aaron.

The govt is encouraging workers to retire at 67. Being 60 now is like being 50 twenty years ago.The unthinking whingers can complain that they will have to be obedient and work to that age, whereas the thinking and optimistic have already retired/semi retired at a young age. As I did.

Your choice guys. Blind obedience and complaining about the pea under your matress won't get you there.



.

(a) higher the government debt the more pressure will be placed on social services.
(b) Somersofters in the vast majority are taking control of their own futures. They will not be reliant/less reliant on government benefits so they will be in a financial position to give the middle finger extended upwards as to what age they wish to retire.

And the only reason, current debt is your 2% (i have no idea what the exact debt level is), is because of your two favourite buddies: Mr Howard and Peter Costello.

 

[Bargain Hunter]

These discussions and changes are the main reason that I am profoundly sceptical of superannuation as being a useful investment for me. I simply do not trust either this or future govts (regardless of which political party) not to change superannuation rules so as to blow a super-based strategy out of the water at some point.

I don't care about paying a bit more tax now if it means I can have complete control of my assets, which should be sufficient to give me an affluent retirement by the time I'm 45.

The problem with Super is that you never really have control. Even with SMSF a stroke of the pen can add many years to your working life. We work to live not the other way around.

There was no way that 9% was ever going to cut it, and now that people are living longer there's an even greater shortfall.

My only concern is that future costs will result in a wider net being cast to fund with investors being targeted as a new tax bonaza. Of course this will all go down well with the battlers who currently blame us for the high cost of property.

 

[Aaron_C]

There was no way that 9% was ever going to cut it, and now that people are living longer there's an even greater shortfall.

For savvy investors 9% is too much because it's basically untouchable for the majority of their working lives.

 

[Intrinsic_Value]

The problem with Super is that you never really have control. Even with SMSF a stroke of the pen can add many years to your working life. We work to live not the other way around.

.

yes and no, and this is what really annoys me. I have to say one thing about the benefits of being apart of 'private banking' depending on whether thats just run of the mill, or more excusive, they can provide 'action plans'.

I am fortunate in that the 'private banking' that i subsribe to, also caters for some very very wealthy australians (and i am at the botom of this scale), but as i am in the 'system', they are showing me some very interesting ways to prosper.

For the 'average' Australian out there, these situations are not highlighted to them. Hence my overall belief that the only way for the 'average' to prosper is for minimal governement, low tax rates and market capitalism.

Unfortunately for most people (ie Mr Average high or Mr Average low) there are a lot of people like Evan, on this forum, taking the moral high ground. This does not effect the rich, only the middle class.

 

[evand]

Ok, if it wasn't for Keating/Hawke reforms before Howard Costello and the Libs being In power in a period of unprecedented world prosperity and growth (later shown to be built on debt and imploded as the GFC,which, by the way, Labor had to deal with). Not to mention typical Liberal lack of infrastructure spending and reform, there would have been no surplus.

I have never seen so much whinging from a community of people who taking control of their futures and are so action oriented (are you sure?). The constant blaming, complaining and whining over nothing on here is absolutely amazing.

Higher govt. debt? That's a relative term. I don't think the low levels Australia has always had,( not to mention mostly surplus) would come under your definition of "high govt. debt"

(a) higher the government debt the more pressure will be placed on social services.
(b) Somersofters in the vast majority are taking control of their own futures. They will not be reliant/less reliant on government benefits so they will be in a financial position to give the middle finger extended upwards as to what age they wish to retire.

And the only reason, current debt is your 2% (i have no idea what the exact debt level is), is because of your two favourite buddies: Mr Howard and Peter Costello.

 

[evand]

If someone were to offer me 9% compounding return 20 years ago on all my investments every year for the rest of my life, I would grab it with both hands.

To average 9% nett over a long time period (20 - 40 years) is pretty rare, if not unheard of.

There was no way that 9% was ever going to cut it, and now that people are living longer there's an even greater shortfall.

.

 

[lizzie]

If someone were to offer me 9% compounding return 20 years ago on all my investments every year for the rest of my life, I would grab it with both hands.

problem is that it's not 9 compounding ... as hubby's conservative super fund plunged near 30% only a few years back.

Takes a lot of clawing back to return to the start point - haven't been game to look recently as there is nothing we can do anyhow.

 

[lizzie]

I know a lot of 40 year olds with kids under 5. I fear that many of these people will be supporting their stay-at-home twenty something kids at 60.

Ditto - the oldest I knew is a couple who were 47 and 48 when they had their youngest.

Means they'll be around 70 before he's even thinking about leaving home.

 

[evand]

I was talking long term, up to 40 year averages. All investments have negative periods, no biggie. That's expected.

I think the last time i looked at my super was 18 months ago.

I dont understand looking at super returns every wee or every month.

problem is that it's not 9 compounding ... as hubby's conservative super fund plunged near 30% only a few years back.

Takes a lot of clawing back to return to the start point - haven't been game to look recently as there is nothing we can do anyhow.

 

[wylie]

I dont understand looking at super returns every wee or every month.

Crikey! Every wee!

When would you have time to do anything else .

 

[evand]

Hilarious.

Crikey! Every wee!

When would you have time to do anything else .

 

[geoffw]

I was talking long term, up to 40 year averages. All investments have negative periods, no biggie. That's expected.

Even then, it's not 9% compounding.

9% of your wage is put into a super fund. Fees are taken out, the balance invested. 9% return was achieved by the top performing funds in the five years preceeding GFC, but not since. Over a longer period and over all funds the performance would have been much worse.

 

[evand]

I have no idea what the performance of funds are, i dont even know what my super balance is.

I was just saying if someone offered me 9% return over a long period, i'd grab it.

In response to Bargain Hunter saying:

"There was no way that 9% was ever going to cut it, and now that people are living longer there's an even greater shortfall"

Even then, it's not 9% compounding.

9% of your wage is put into a super fund. Fees are taken out, the balance invested. 9% return was achieved by the top performing funds in the five years preceeding GFC, but not since. Over a longer period and over all funds the performance would have been much worse.

 

[geoffw]

But Bargain Hinter was talking about the 9% super contribution. You are talking about a 9% compounding return. They are two different things.

Granted I would accept 9% compounding if it was safe and guaranteed. But that's a different thing from the topic, and I don't think that compounding safe return is going to happen.

 

[Aaron_C]

The simple fact is the 9% is part of your wage that you will not have access to until you're retired - and it's the 9% that you would have gotten as part of your normal wage (and free to spend how you so choose). It's not 'extra' - it's all included in your package.

 

[evand]

ahhh...yes....i misread the meaning of his post. DOH!!

But Bargain Hinter was talking about the 9% super contribution. You are talking about a 9% compounding return. They are two different things.

Granted I would accept 9% compounding if it was safe and guaranteed. But that's a different thing from the topic, and I don't think that compounding safe return is going to happen.

 

[Francesco]

Actually if you are getting simple interest at 9% p.a. with low risk, grab it. Investors are staring at real risk of losing their principal when they lend to sovereign borrowers such as Italy and getting only 7.5% p.a. This would be available to sophisticated professionally managed funds. What chance would there be for the layman? Not so long ago, seniors and retirees were offered high interest rate on a fund in Australia, which went bust. From memory it was offering about 8%. For pursuit of 8%, retirees have lost their principal money.

So, if you can get simple interest at 9%, which is about twice what you can get in best of the market, grab it.

 

[willair]

So, if you can get simple interest at 9%, which is about twice what you can get in best of the market, grab it.

That might be a bit hard to get those investment levels,9% in this market and with what several of the high end Australian Banks intend to do early next year,from what i read several will close 20%-30% of their face to face outlets and give their staff the"DCM"..IMHO..

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

People hear don't like super because they have a perception that it's taking away money from them that they could otherwise invest in other things. This may or may not be true.

What is true, is that many Australians never really invest anything towards their retirement. 9% super is the only thing they invest. The recent results for super may not be great, but it's better than what most people would have otherwise.

People moan about the fact that they don't have any choice in what their super invests in which is rubbish. If you don't want to go with your own self managed fund, there is plenty of choice in the market. Most of the share funds haven't done so well recently, but some property and fixed investments centric funds have performed very well.

Furthermore almost every legaslative change to super has been adventagous to the investor. Those that were a mistake were also repealled reasonably quickly.

There's even an option if you still think you can do more with your money now...

Run your own business. There's no requirement to pay super if you're self employed. There's all sorts of nice planning tax opportunities. Almost all of the worlds wealthiest people are self employed.

Demographics dictates that it's simply not sustainable for Australia to have an old age pension in the future without increasing the pension age or by massively increasing population through immigration.

Increasing pension ages and increasing mandatory super contributions are probably the easiest way move towards self funded retirement. There are other ways to do it, but these tend to take longer term thinking that most democracys can sustain as they can take up to a generation to implement.

 

[coastymike]

Almost all of the worlds wealthiest people are self employed.

And so are most of the worlds poorest as well.