Super who thinks they'll get it?

This applies fairly similarly to all entities - all entities are subject to goverment legislative changes respectively. Just look at trusts for example.

Does the fact that the tax laws for trusts might change mean that you wouldn't use them to their advantages in the mean time? Of course not.

The difference is, there are few advantages for young people to use super. And with super there is no 'in the meantime'. Once it's in there, it's in there. If I want to move assets out of a family trust, I can, though at a cost. Super is locked in.

In any case, trust law, for example, has a lot more history and more political support. Super is relatively new. It's less likely that there will be massive changes to trust law compared to super law.

It's the same for super. For a lot of us super is pretty useless, but for those with enough wealth, in their 50s and above, self-managed super is there to be taken advantage of. If you are that age bracket and you have the means, why wouldn't you?

Agree that for SOME people, super is a great vehicle. For most, it's useless, and the problem is that you can't switch assets OUT of super until a certain age.
 
Alex,

For super to be a great vehicle for people in their 50s, there needs to be money already in there, so you must start contributing even earlier, I would say in your mid-to late 40s at the least.

And also purchase assets capable of being transferred to super later eg. shares, comm property, unit trust assets...
 
For super to be a great vehicle for people in their 50s, there needs to be money already in there, so you must start contributing even earlier, I would say in your mid-to late 40s at the least.

Unless it's a business.

In any case, if you start early and can continue to use leverage outside super, you may not need to even consider super by your late 40s.

And also purchase assets capable of being transferred to super later eg. shares, comm property, unit trust assets...

True.

I'm generally against super, but I recognise that in some (very) limited cases, it's a good vehicle.
 
Interesting info

Posted on another forum I frequent http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-9993-salary-sacrificing-warning.html:

Found out this morning that what I thought was a common understanding of salary sacrificing additional superannuation contributions was incorrect, and it appears to be pretty common misunderstanding!

If you salary sacrifice into super, it REDUCES the amount of super that your employer is required to pay - in fact you can salary sacrifice to the point where your employer does not have to make any contributions at all!

For example, if you're on a salary of $100,000 (to pick a round number), your employer makes an additional 9% superannuation contribution (known as the super guarantee payment). This is 9% of "ordinary time earnings", or OTE, and you get a $9,000 contribution.

Now, two important facts:

1. Super guarantee payment is calculated on the reduced salary

Salary sacrificing reduces your OTE, and therefore the amount of super that your employer has to contribute.

2. The salary sacrificed amount counts towards your super guarantee obligations

Your employer can count your OWN contributions towards the 9%!!!!

So with the example above, if you decide to salary sacrifice an additional 3%, or $3000, into your super, you don't necessarily end up with $3000 plus $9000 in your super.

So you salary sacrifice $3000, leaving your OTE at $97,000. 9% of $97,000 is only $8,730 - and you've kicked in $3,000 of this, so your employer only has to contribute a minimum of $5,730! You can actually receive less superannuation overall by salary sacrificing, in addition to reducing your salary!

This is the letter of the law - you can negotiate salary sacrificing on top of the normal contribution, but if your employer follows the letter of the law, they can count your salary sacrificed amount towards the super guarantee, and reduce the amount they pay by a corresponding amount, and the overall total is less than what you would have received in both salary AND super is less than if you had not sacrificed at all.

Now obviously many employers still pay the 9% as expected, i.e. $9,000 in this case, and the employee's contribution takes it to $12,000 overall - but the point is, this is NOT how the law can be interpreted.

I worked out that salary sacrificing 8.26% effectively cancels out your employer from making any contributions at all if they interpret the law strictly, and that you would have to set your sacrifice at the full 9% just to get the amount of super that you would have if you didn't sacrifice anything, and over 9% to get ANYTHING more into super than you would have without sacrificing. Obviously while you're sacrificing, your OTE and therefore your after-tax takehome is also being reduced.

Read http://www.ato.gov.au/nonprofit/content … &page=6&H6 carefully, and pay attention to the example at the end.

For the purpose of this example, Sally and Zoe's quarterly salaries equal their ordinary time earnings.

Sally and Zoe are both eligible employees for super guarantee purposes, and their employer is required to contribute a minimum amount into their super funds - that is, 9% of their ordinary time earnings.

The super guarantee amount their employer is required to pay for Sally is calculated at 9% of her quarterly salary of $11,250, which is $1,012.50 per quarter or $4,050 per year.

Since Zoë has salary sacrificed $10,000 of her earnings into her super fund, the minimum super guarantee amount her employer is required to pay for Zoë is calculated at 9% of her reduced quarterly salary of $8,750, which is $787.50 per quarter or $3,150 per year.

However, as Zoë's salary sacrificed amount of $10,000 is an employer contribution and is more than the super guarantee amount the employer is required to pay, the salary sacrificed amount satisfies her employer's super guarantee obligation. This means Zoë's employer is not required by law to contribute an amount to her super fund in addition to the salary sacrificed amount of $10,000. Zoe and her employer may agree that her employer will continue to make additional employer contributions equivalent to the super guarantee that would have been payable if not for the salary sacrifice agreement.
If you're salary sacrificing, make sure you have a written agreement that your employer will still continue to make employer contributions equivalent to the super guarantee that would have been payable
 

Do you really really belvie the govt will steal it like you say ?

I must make a disclaimer here.

I am the most cynical person on the planet that I know.

I trust no-one. I dislike most humans because many humans are dishonest and deceitful.

I expect everyone in any business transaction to try and rip me off.

I dislike politicians - anyone in a suit basically; too many people wear suits and are crooks.

Probably why I don't like any real estate agents I'd wager....trying to look professional and squeaky clean, but...

You get the picture.

So, when I believe that our super is in danger...watch this space in 20 years.

Think of it; our society is ever-increasing in welfare sponges, and the society is ageing, and living longer.

Add to that the fact that most people are too stupid to organise their financial lives early enough to be free of a pension in some form by the time they retire, and this is in spite of all the free and unlimited financial advice available to humans today....

It is D&G, but hey; I'd rather be in control of my own outcome.

If others like super, that's great. Go for it.
 
I had heard about the traps with salary sacrificing only last year when hubby sacrificed a substantial portion for a short time. I also learned that the $50K cap (he is over 50) includes superannuation paid by the employee.

He is sacrificing his whole salary right now due to making a capital gain. I just checked and there are two figures on his payslips - one is 9% and the other figure is 100% so I am assuming he is lucky that the employer portion is not being reduced (or so it appears).

Although, right now, with the share market having dropped 7% in the past month (or so I heard a few nights ago) it seems we are tipping his total salary into some black hole :eek:.

His super has not risen :eek:. I suppose it is like dollar cost averaging. As soon as July 1 rolls around, we will stop the sacrificing. I am wondering whether we would have been better to take his salary and pay the extra tax :rolleyes:
 
I must make a disclaimer here.

I am the most cynical person on the planet that I know.

I trust no-one. I dislike most humans because many humans are dishonest and deceitful.

I expect everyone in any business transaction to try and rip me off.

I dislike politicians - anyone in a suit basically; too many people wear suits and are crooks.

Probably why I don't like any real estate agents I'd wager....trying to look professional and squeaky clean, but...

You get the picture.

So, when I believe that our super is in danger...watch this space in 20 years.

Think of it; our society is ever-increasing in welfare sponges, and the society is ageing, and living longer.

Add to that the fact that most people are too stupid to organise their financial lives early enough to be free of a pension in some form by the time they retire, and this is in spite of all the free and unlimited financial advice available to humans today....

It is D&G, but hey; I'd rather be in control of my own outcome.

If others like super, that's great. Go for it.

Fair enough & thanks for the laugh (I guess it's sort a "funny cause it's true)

But you mentioned you might look at self managed super for yourself. Not as worried about that ? What's the difference there ?
 
It is D&G, but hey; I'd rather be in control of my own outcome.

Your super account is YOURS, no less so than your bank account or your property deeds.

If one can be confiscated they all can be. How are you in control?

Got gold yet? If you are as sceptical as you say, gold bought and stored anonymously is for you. Personally I have found totally distrusting people to be totally untrustworthy. Do not wear it as a badge of honour.

Lend a friend $10. If you never see him again it was prolly money well spent.
 
Your super account is YOURS, no less so than your bank account or your property deeds.
But the gov tells how much and when you can use it.
gold bought and stored anonymously is for you.
You can store cash yourself too. But since were on the subject in 1930s type law comes in , it may no longer be annonymous.
Personally I have found totally distrusting people to be totally untrustworthy. Do not wear it as a badge of honour.
I agree here, what I consider to be some of my greatest achievements is doing deals on a handshake or even over the phone of >$100k.
Lend a friend $10. If you never see him again it was prolly money well spent.
Unfortunately this is a myth, I'd gladly give $10 to many people if it were true but I know they will come back for $20, then $30, then $50 then I may be the one needing the happy pills...
 
Fair enough & thanks for the laugh (I guess it's sort a "funny cause it's true)

But you mentioned you might look at self managed super for yourself. Not as worried about that ? What's the difference there ?

For me, the whole mindset will be about control.

With the SMSF, I get to pick the vehicles I put the funds into for a start, I can borrow what is there to buy other assets.

Effectively taking the funds away from anyone (Gubbmint) who wants to utilise (borrow) our super funds for other uses.
 
Got gold yet? If you are as sceptical as you say, gold bought and stored anonymously is for you.
My investment choices will only ever have income streams attached to them SF. I want to replace my income with passive income asap. Gold won't do it, and I'd rather be putting any spare funds and profits back into my investments and business.

Unless I can borrow from it's value to buy other assets with income?

Personally I have found totally distrusting people to be totally untrustworthy. Do not wear it as a badge of honour.
I never said I was trustworthy! :D

But seriously, I am one of the more trustworthy people I know. My word is my bond, and this is what makes me mad at many of the human race - they aren't this way, and I can't understand why they aren't. I guess we wouldn't need lawyers and police if they were?

Lend a friend $10. If you never see him again it was prolly money well spent.
I lent a friend $30k once in a business deal when he was a bit down and out...never saw $10k of it at the end - he did a runner and disappeared. Turned up 2 years later a declared bankrupt and wiped his hands of all debts. Thanks...friend
 
Last edited:
My investment choices will only ever have income streams attached to them SF. I want to replace my income with passive income asap. Gold won't do it, and I'd rather be putting any spare funds and profits back into my investments and business.

Same for me. An investment without yield doesn't suit me. Is that a shortcoming? Maybe. But I would rather have investments that generate cashflow.
 
For me, the whole mindset will be about control.

With the SMSF, I get to pick the vehicles I put the funds into for a start, I can borrow what is there to buy other assets.

Effectively taking the funds away from anyone (Gubbmint) who wants to utilise (borrow) our super funds for other uses.

Sounds like you're suggesting it's the investments rtuns more that are of concern than the actual $ being taken off us by the government ?

I can see that SMS could deliver more appropriate results, especially when one has goals and plans.
 
Like a few on here my partner and I manage our own SMSF.

We have found it very easy to do and have total control over it.

Most of it is in precious metals (naturally)
Some in blue chip shares and the rest in cash...
 
Sounds like you're suggesting it's the investments rtuns more that are of concern than the actual $ being taken off us by the government ?

I can see that SMS could deliver more appropriate results, especially when one has goals and plans.

No; my worry is the use of the money, and the ability to recoup it when you are eligle when it matures.

Me, and many others, have the sneaky suspicion that there will be an empty money box when we want to go shopping.
 
Well from Bayview's rewasoning, I can only assume the fudn you invetsed it in lost it through bad investment etc

my worry is the use of the money, and the ability to recoup it when you are eligle when it matures.

Me, and many others, have the sneaky suspicion that there will be an empty money box when we want to go shopping.



I still dont quite udnerstand how that involves the government though....


Perhaps I don't get it afterall :p
 
I sincerely believe that I will get every dollar worth of super I gave to government back when I retire.

I also sincerely believe that I may, if I am lucky, be able to buy maybe a used toyota corolla with the money when I get it.

The dollars that you get, and what you can buy when you get it, are just a tad different.

If you think you're going to get everything you put into it back, well, what can I say, and so, so appropriate on this forum - "Ya dreamin'"
 
Back
Top