For the obviously not as bright sparks, any chance of explaining what you mean & why ?
Super who thinks they'll get it?
- Thread starter FormerLurker
- Start date
For the obviously not as bright sparks, any chance of explaining what you mean & why ?
you will get your money in nominal dollars, but the purchasing power of that money wont be worth what you think.
Another extreme d&g run to the hills, look cool, when by the time its proved one way or another, this guy wont be held accountable cause he wont be around.
Anyone else ?
what is the answer you are looking for?
the intial reply was quite explicit in its meaning.
Sorry but depsite the posts I have no idea what you / OA meant and I am just as consfused about that baview suggests will happen to $ in a super found which wil lmean they wont be there when people are ready to retire
The only thing I honestly understood is "inflation will mean a $ wont buy you as much in the futre as it does now"
The only thing I honestly understood is "inflation will mean a $ wont buy you as much in the futre as it does now"
Jaycee is stirring and knows exactly the answer he's looking for. Ballbreaker 
Look here's how it goes.
The government comes in and says "look, we can't tax young people to pay for your old age care and medical bills like we used to - how about you put in 5% (or whatever) of your pay as you're working into a super fund (a company that works for you buying assets and income bearing stuff) that will give you that money back in your old age to pay for your electricity/gas/timtams/coffee when you're old - that way, the government doesn't have to pay you, but you're still looked after"
Sounds good, hey?
So you put in 5% of your pay every year like a good little boy, thinking that you'll get it back when you're old and hungry for timtams.
So when you're 20 years old, your 5% might be $3000 because you're on $60 000 a year (as the average Aussie is). $3000 when you're 20 means that you'll buy a new corolla every 8-9 years or so.
So fast forward 40 years. You've slaved your guts out paying 5% of your money to your "trusted" super fund, who is looking out for your best interest. 5% of 40 years is 2 years worth of full time work, right? At those rates, you should have easy 4-5 corollas paid off, right? Or a house, that will give you rent, right? Plus 5% under compound interest will give you 10 corollas or 2 houses, right?
Except for one thing. In 40 years, after the super manager has taken his cut, after the government takes its cut, after the bank takes its cut, after the whoever it is takes its cut, you don't get your 4-5 or 9-10 corollas anymore. Or your house or 2 worth of money anymore. What do you get? You get a payment for $x amount of dollars, and if you cashed it in all at once, what can you buy? maybe one corolla. Maybe 15% of a house.
So yeah, put your money in your super fund. "Trust" those people to look after you, and give you your 5% plus compound interest back to you.
If you put your money into a super fund thinking they'll look after you like you trusted them to, as you paid them to, let me give you a piece of advice - make plans to kill yourself. Yeah you have a bank account full of dollars. But your dollars don't buy anything like they used to. So enjoy one last holiday when you hit 60, and then slash your wrists. The government has no use for you. Your super manager is driving around in his lamborghini. You? The guy who did the work? Who cares, drink poison and shut up, it's your kids turn to pay the vampires.
And that's how it is, ladies and gentlemen. If anyone can disprove me, I'll take my hat off and place at your feet to learn - but I doubt that anyone can. It's as obvious a scam as ever there was
Look here's how it goes.
The government comes in and says "look, we can't tax young people to pay for your old age care and medical bills like we used to - how about you put in 5% (or whatever) of your pay as you're working into a super fund (a company that works for you buying assets and income bearing stuff) that will give you that money back in your old age to pay for your electricity/gas/timtams/coffee when you're old - that way, the government doesn't have to pay you, but you're still looked after"
Sounds good, hey?
So you put in 5% of your pay every year like a good little boy, thinking that you'll get it back when you're old and hungry for timtams.
So when you're 20 years old, your 5% might be $3000 because you're on $60 000 a year (as the average Aussie is). $3000 when you're 20 means that you'll buy a new corolla every 8-9 years or so.
So fast forward 40 years. You've slaved your guts out paying 5% of your money to your "trusted" super fund, who is looking out for your best interest. 5% of 40 years is 2 years worth of full time work, right? At those rates, you should have easy 4-5 corollas paid off, right? Or a house, that will give you rent, right? Plus 5% under compound interest will give you 10 corollas or 2 houses, right?
Except for one thing. In 40 years, after the super manager has taken his cut, after the government takes its cut, after the bank takes its cut, after the whoever it is takes its cut, you don't get your 4-5 or 9-10 corollas anymore. Or your house or 2 worth of money anymore. What do you get? You get a payment for $x amount of dollars, and if you cashed it in all at once, what can you buy? maybe one corolla. Maybe 15% of a house.
So yeah, put your money in your super fund. "Trust" those people to look after you, and give you your 5% plus compound interest back to you.
If you put your money into a super fund thinking they'll look after you like you trusted them to, as you paid them to, let me give you a piece of advice - make plans to kill yourself. Yeah you have a bank account full of dollars. But your dollars don't buy anything like they used to. So enjoy one last holiday when you hit 60, and then slash your wrists. The government has no use for you. Your super manager is driving around in his lamborghini. You? The guy who did the work? Who cares, drink poison and shut up, it's your kids turn to pay the vampires.
And that's how it is, ladies and gentlemen. If anyone can disprove me, I'll take my hat off and place at your feet to learn - but I doubt that anyone can. It's as obvious a scam as ever there was
Yeah like i said an extreme D&G post that has no idea on how LONG TERM asset classes move.
Take your cues boys and girls, i have no intention of hanging around to 'disprove' because by the time it can be 'disproved' you will have run away into the sunset and i will have wasted my time.
Don't paint me with that brush buddy. It isn't doom and gloom, it's market fundamentals. I learn from history and put my money where my mouth is. Go ask an octaginarian about long term asset class movements before casting such words at me. I'll look after my own retirement. If you're happy with enough money coming from government to pay for a few biscuits and tea while you ride the bus to stay warm as citizens in the UK are doing presently, then good luck to you - I'll trust to my own endeavours.
"Long term asset classes" yeah right. Try being 65 years old in the 1930s in precisely the same pattern and see how you go.
OK... I'm confused.
Hubby worked 29 years, only the last few at higher than "average" salary and his super is worth $500K. That's a fair few bikkies he can buy.
Mine, after stopping work 19 years ago, and after having actually paid into super for 20 years (paid into it whilst getting NO pay but still employed) sits around $200K.
That time for me out of the paid workforce has made a HUGE difference, but that is not a concern for me. I'm just providing our numbers for analysis.
Hubby's has been worth a little more, but the GFC has had an effect, and I have to say that for two months now, and until the end of June, he has salary sacrificed his whole salary, plus the employer's 9%, into his super and the balance has gone down a couple of grand.
I look on that little "problem" as being a bit like dollar cost averaging and fingers crossed we see it increase again. I liken the past two months to flushing his whole salary down the loo, except that his money is buying shares that hopefully will rally and we will NOT have thrown the money into a black hole (which is how it feels right now).
He certainly, even at what his fund is worth today, will get back way more than he would have had he put the super money into a savings account, and we look at it like our IPs, humming away nicely. In three years he can get his money out, but I doubt we will do that.
I just hope the share market holds up long enough and we don't lose any more value.
Hubby worked 29 years, only the last few at higher than "average" salary and his super is worth $500K. That's a fair few bikkies he can buy.
Mine, after stopping work 19 years ago, and after having actually paid into super for 20 years (paid into it whilst getting NO pay but still employed) sits around $200K.
That time for me out of the paid workforce has made a HUGE difference, but that is not a concern for me. I'm just providing our numbers for analysis.
Hubby's has been worth a little more, but the GFC has had an effect, and I have to say that for two months now, and until the end of June, he has salary sacrificed his whole salary, plus the employer's 9%, into his super and the balance has gone down a couple of grand
.I look on that little "problem" as being a bit like dollar cost averaging and fingers crossed we see it increase again. I liken the past two months to flushing his whole salary down the loo, except that his money is buying shares that hopefully will rally and we will NOT have thrown the money into a black hole (which is how it feels right now)
.He certainly, even at what his fund is worth today, will get back way more than he would have had he put the super money into a savings account, and we look at it like our IPs, humming away nicely. In three years he can get his money out, but I doubt we will do that.
I just hope the share market holds up long enough and we don't lose any more value.
Is it really that much??? I mean, in order to access it, you have to give the Govt a cut (tax), ongoing management fees will be far more noticeable once the contributions cease & this amount is supposed to last how long?
500k in super is a paper figure. You could't actually ever touch all of it as the system is geared to continually erode the capital. How much of it is REALLY yours? As in, truly accessible in hard currency?
I don't intend to belittle the figure or anything (it is an arbitrary figure to me), but rather postulate that what we think we have and what we actually get, are two different things entirely.
I have no issue with anybody belittling the figure. I think it is not a bad figure considering it has been quietly accumulating. I KNOW that if it was not compulsory, we would not have saved it, so I look on it as $700K "gravy".
Just thought I'd throw the figure out there for anybody who thinks super is a waste of time and money to see that one day it could be a nice little surprise due to the effects of compounding.
i think what others are getting at is that if you didn't do any investing outside of your super ... like 95% of the population ... than the $35,000/yr would be it. all you get. nothing more.
even assuming the average investor has paid out their mortgage (which many won't have) - even in today's dollars $35k ain't much.
and that is all they'd get per year for the next 20 years - what happens when things start breaking down?
need a new reliable car to last 10 years or more? even 2nd hand that's your entire year's worth of super gone. oh, and then you have to register, insurance and maintain it. that'll be a further $2k a year. forget the petrol.
need a new fridge, washing machine, tv to see you to the end of retirement? gone - another $5k easy
need to pay private health insurance? that'll be $4k/year
don't have private health? hips buggered and you can't walk? either go on the public waiting list for 2-3 years whilst in horrible pain - or pay $30k to have the op done privately.
council, water, electricity costs? thanks - we'll take another $5k/year
sorry - but $35k just ain't going to cut the mustard for most retirees.
even assuming the average investor has paid out their mortgage (which many won't have) - even in today's dollars $35k ain't much.
and that is all they'd get per year for the next 20 years - what happens when things start breaking down?
need a new reliable car to last 10 years or more? even 2nd hand that's your entire year's worth of super gone. oh, and then you have to register, insurance and maintain it. that'll be a further $2k a year. forget the petrol.
need a new fridge, washing machine, tv to see you to the end of retirement? gone - another $5k easy
need to pay private health insurance? that'll be $4k/year
don't have private health? hips buggered and you can't walk? either go on the public waiting list for 2-3 years whilst in horrible pain - or pay $30k to have the op done privately.
council, water, electricity costs? thanks - we'll take another $5k/year
sorry - but $35k just ain't going to cut the mustard for most retirees.
no your argument is complete hogwash.
what has british citizens have to do with anything?
what has money coming from the government have to do with superanuation?
blah blah blah scare scare scare.
yes spot on lizzie, for the average thats exactly what will happen. Superannuation was never ment to provide 'gravy land' whereby everyone can just live happily ever after.
but thats not the fault of the superannuation scheme itself.
Over long periods of time the scheme opperates as it should.
This is exactly my point....
Super is supposed to be the "primary" income stream in retirement for the general populace. The sad reality is that the meagre amount is often barely enough to survive on, let alone live a comfortable existence.
My other main point is that it is TAXABLE... it is just like when someone says "I earn $100K a yr" when what they really mean is "I earn $100K gross which is really $75k after tax, medicare etc..."
Super is NO different. Whether it be $100k, $500k or $2M, the figure isn't real..... you can NOT touch ALL of it as it is taxable. Even at concessional rates, you still loose a decent %.....
I don't understand this either
I thought super was employee & employer contributions, not government ????
Said contirbutions are manged by a superannuatoin fund mangement business - again no government ?
I'm not being a balbreaker, I actually dont understand what you are not telling us..
I hope I was clear that our super is "gravy", ie. on top of the main course.
I wouldn't like to be relying on super alone to fund our retirement but it's not bad for something that we don't really see, don't really miss as it accumulates and can take out tax free at age 60 (my understanding anyway).
I wouldn't like to be relying on super alone to fund our retirement but it's not bad for something that we don't really see, don't really miss as it accumulates and can take out tax free at age 60 (my understanding anyway).
This is exactly my point....
Super is supposed to be the "primary" income stream in retirement for the general populace. The sad reality is that the meagre amount is often barely enough to survive on, let alone live a comfortable existence.
My other main point is that it is TAXABLE... it is just like when someone says "I earn $100K a yr" when what they really mean is "I earn $100K gross which is really $75k after tax, medicare etc..."
Super is NO different. Whether it be $100k, $500k or $2M, the figure isn't real..... you can NOT touch ALL of it as it is taxable. Even at concessional rates, you still loose a decent %.....
So like anything else, peopel kned to udnerstand how to count & deduct taxes / expenses befoire they derive a a "profit figure"
How is this unique to superannuation ??
If you're stupid and think investing in 1xIP worth $300k will give youall the income you need to retire on (where you think you need over $100k p[a net income) then you wil lbe in for a surprise....
If you make the same miscalucation with super than you're in for a surpirse
What am I missing here ?
My investments are my gravy, super is my bread and butter (anticipate a reasonably decent but not lavish income). It's ticking along nicely without me having any anxiety over it.
It just happens my fund is an old one an not affected by any superannuation changes of recent years, but I certainly would, if I didn't have that, salary package some into an industry like fund.
My fees last financial year were $10 for admin fee and $4.61 for investment management fee.
I believe the industry funds are much the same - they don't eat up your earnings, which are clearly stated on the yearly statement.
that's all well and good, but having my super exposed to the ravages of the stock market is almost an oxymoron with regards to intents and purposes.
