You have a generous employer or struck a good deal yourself. I see very few employers paying SG in excess of what they are statutorily required to do (which is a little less than 17k per annum). I know mine wont
SS's under 30: What's your plan with super?
- Thread starter Danrc
- Start date
You have a generous employer or struck a good deal yourself. I see very few employers paying SG in excess of what they are statutorily required to do (which is a little less than 17k per annum). I know mine wont
You have a generous employer or struck a good deal yourself. I see very few employers paying SG in excess of what they are statutorily required to do (which is a little less than 17k per annum). I know mine wont
I have an unusual employment situation. The payments to my super aren't really SG, but represent the minimum SG percentage of work I bill, following the cut my 'employer' takes. I am not on a fixed salary, or even a fixed hourly rate.
But VAS is also a fund managed who knows by a single manager?
Isn't the important thing here is both VAS and Aust Super measure their performance against the same benchmark index S&P/ASX300?
Vanguard -Read Objectives
Aust Super - Read Investment Objectives
Both have low fees so you should expect to get as close to the S&P/ASX300 returns over the long term?
Cheers,
Oracle.
I don't think the choice of benchmark is relevant here oracle, one is deliberately tracking the index (VAS), and the other is actually trying to outperform the index through active management isn't it? (ADD: that's what your links suggest)
If Australian Super only ends up matching the index it has not met its objective, and in attempting to outperform it may actually underperform.
Having low fees doesn't guarantee they will match the index, or give any assurances as to future performance, it just guarantees low fees.
Ofcourse..you are absolutely right..having the objective of beating the index does not guarantee beating the index. It could end up underperforming.
So far over the long term they have done OK in meeting their objectives.
I will be paying close attention to their performance and if I believe they are not meeting their objectives I will change.
Cheers,
Oracle.
Sounds like a good plan.
Filling your boots with a SMSF, especially if you are a couple on higher incomes, is a great strategy.
Its amazing how quickly it adds up if you're doing $25k each into growth assets (e.g. shares) - and compounding in there at the concessional tax rate.
Even if they tinker with the rules - you'll end up with a huge safety net for little extra cost.
Its amazing how quickly it adds up if you're doing $25k each into growth assets (e.g. shares) - and compounding in there at the concessional tax rate.
Even if they tinker with the rules - you'll end up with a huge safety net for little extra cost.
What's the point of a safety net if you will be almost dead by the time you can access it by the time the Govt raids it?
There's been talk of racism in the forum. This is pure ageism.
I can access my super. I'm not nearly dead.
No, it's not - you are a bit too hasty to scream some sort of 'ism'. If you are already a baby boomer then you can access superannuation because that's the current rules. What about those who are much younger? Who knows what the Government will do in the next 30-40 years? I don't know when I will be able to access my superannuation - but I am pretty certain that the age of accessing it will continue to creep up. Add more taxes into the mix as the working population diminishes as a % and you got a very big unknown unknown.
You were very hasty to characterise somebody a bit older as nearly dead. I'm not at retirement age yet so I like to think that I still have life in me for a few years yet.
The idea for compulsory super is that, with an ageing population and fewer taxpayers, the government want people to save for their themselves. It just hasn't been compulsory and untouchable long enough for people to have the equivalent of a pension when retired. While they may fiddle on the edges I don't believe that they are going to kill a golden goose that is going to save them immense amounts of money into the future.
An increased retirement age is probably a given.
My point is that by the time most of the younger generation get to retirement age it will be so far in the distance that it doesn't provide the support for as long as it might for today's boomers. Hence why I favour investments outside super to have retirement for a much longer time. Plus my innate distrust of Govt policy.
While it may be far in the future, it is still worth while IMO to be able to control that part of your super which has been put aside on your behalf. For somebody who is, or wants to be, financially independent, having a good sum which you cannot touch except for investing can be a good thing. Being able to control that yourself can be a good learning vehicle.
25 years ago when I was in the UK the government made a contribution to the equivalent of super for those who promised not to draw a pension from them when they retired. That's now a nice little bonus which I'll be able to draw shortly.
For somebody with a low income, getting a co contribution from the government is worth investigating.
Fingers crossed, I'm not planning on dying before 60!!
When I was in my teens I couldn't imagine being 30
One day will wake up 60 etc...Well you can't touch it when you are 60. By the time most of the younger generation get to retirement age the goal posts have probably shifted to 80. What fun.
We're talking at cross purposes here. We're not disagreeing, just looking at different viewpoints.
You keep saying that super is useless because you might not ever get there.
I'm saying that you have some money in there, and you can't do anything about that if you are an employee. When I was a business owner, I could do something. I structured my remuneration so that I didn't pay into super. Except that co contribution bit which was too generous to pass by.
However, I am saying that once you have a significant amount in your super, you should consider taking control of it, and use it to learn some investing skills, or to do something better than what your super company does. And don't waste it by keeping it in different funds with money whittling away in fees.
i agree with Aaron_C
theres too many unknowns to want to invest in it even if it can provide good returns as you cant get access to the money if/when you want it
what if i retired at 40, id have to wait 20 more years to access it.
when i do actually reach 60 is the age going to be 60,70 or 80?
going back to retiring at 40 if i retired at 40 i probably wouldnt need to worry about super as id already have a good buffer in place. super would be a bonus, so still un needed
on the other hand if your nearing retirement age i can see super could be a good thing
any tips / strategy's for someone retiring in the next 2-5 years on how to make super work for them better?
theres too many unknowns to want to invest in it even if it can provide good returns as you cant get access to the money if/when you want it
what if i retired at 40, id have to wait 20 more years to access it.
when i do actually reach 60 is the age going to be 60,70 or 80?
going back to retiring at 40 if i retired at 40 i probably wouldnt need to worry about super as id already have a good buffer in place. super would be a bonus, so still un needed
on the other hand if your nearing retirement age i can see super could be a good thing
any tips / strategy's for someone retiring in the next 2-5 years on how to make super work for them better?
And, what about if there is a massive Stock Market crash, two weeks before your Super is due to be accessible to you, and all you've ever thrown money at is Super?
That's a worry.
You probably shouldn't be 100% in shares in your super (remember super is just the structure) so close to your retirement age, unless you have so large a capital base that share price and dividend fluctuations wouldn't matter to you.
