Salary sacrifice isn't for everyone, obviously. But for certain people, in certain circumstances, it is a great option. As lizzie said, it is hard to beat a tax free income for life, if you don't have much else in the way of investments outside super.
Tony Abbotts Sneaky Way to Increase the Retirement Age to 70+
- Thread starter rachels
- Start date
Salary sacrifice isn't for everyone, obviously. But for certain people, in certain circumstances, it is a great option. As lizzie said, it is hard to beat a tax free income for life, if you don't have much else in the way of investments outside super.
My point is they will change the goal posts by the time I get there. I still have 23 years until I can access my super, I reckon they might change the preservation from 60 to 70 years in that time. What do you think?
23 years is a long time (but will come fast!) and one thing is certain and that is the goal posts will keep moving.
Think back 23 years and see how things have changed - google didn't exist then for example.
I agree 100%. I am 37 and there is no way I would use any of my extra money to put into super. Who knows when I will be able to use access it the rules change so often.
However I do salary sacrifice a little bit into one fund but that money is being used directly with my life insurance policy.
There was a lovely cartoon in one of Noel Whittaker's books regarding this, which depicted the local newspapers boy delivering the newspaper, and then having to throw a second newspaper with all of the super rule changes that had occured that day.
That was back in about 1992, and I suspect the constant state of flux continues 20 years later.
Anyone putting extra funds into super, over and above the compulsory amount, can be guaranteed they have absolutely no clue whatsoever what the rules will be when they wish to draw upon the funds.
Completely agree - have never put in more than we have to ... but for some it is their only retirement savings, and to take away the encouragement for them to save more (ie, rolling cg from a ppor/ip/share sale) is crazy (imo).
And now - looking at the transition period - it would've been nice to be able to put in $50k tax free, and draw out only what we would have gotten net if taxable ... therefore no less "income" but the 30% difference is saved.
Does anyone know the history of the preservation age...
I think it was 55 y/o till 1999 when it was changed to a tiered structure starting from 55 y/o to 60 y/o depending on your birth date?
Has this changed in any way since it was initially introduced 13 years ago?
And for how long was the preservation age at 55 y/o?
I think it was 55 y/o till 1999 when it was changed to a tiered structure starting from 55 y/o to 60 y/o depending on your birth date?
Has this changed in any way since it was initially introduced 13 years ago?
And for how long was the preservation age at 55 y/o?
Last edited:
I agree with comments on Super on Forum
I am 62 now and have been running SMSF just after I retired
I put my hand up at 59 to fully retire so had to wait till 60 before I really tried to utilize it
I put a lot of money in aftrer 60 and didnt have to pay the 15% contribution tax you are allowed up to I believe 450k every 3 years
And I dont have any restrictions except I think 4% a year withdral minimum a year in your Super
So I dont pay any tax
To me its worked out fine up to now but as we know there always fidling with Super
The best thing I done was to get a SMSF as with property you do have some control
I am 62 now and have been running SMSF just after I retired
I put my hand up at 59 to fully retire so had to wait till 60 before I really tried to utilize it
I put a lot of money in aftrer 60 and didnt have to pay the 15% contribution tax you are allowed up to I believe 450k every 3 years
And I dont have any restrictions except I think 4% a year withdral minimum a year in your Super
So I dont pay any tax
To me its worked out fine up to now but as we know there always fidling with Super
The best thing I done was to get a SMSF as with property you do have some control
Technically, it's not tax free - you do pay 15% on SG and concessional contributions on the way in, but between 55 and 60, you get a 15% rebate on income from the taxable component (SG and concessional contributions) and no tax is paid on the tax free component (non-concessional contributions - since you have already paid tax at your marginal rate on these contributions) and after 60, all income is tax free.
The way the components are calculated is by determining the percentage of your super balance that is concessional and non-concessional. For example, if you made 50% of SG contributions and 50% of non-concessional contributions, then you pay tax at your marginal rate (with a 15% rebate) on half the income from the pension. Confused yet?
My view is that I don't give a **** about what age they ask people to retire. I do not intend to rely on a pension, "superannuation" or any of these other schemes the government give people. At 22 I have time to accumulate insane amounts of wealth on my own and will retire at whatever age I choose to.
Why anyone would place so much trust in an inept government is beyond me. There is nothing super about superannuation and retiring when you are practically dead!
Why anyone would place so much trust in an inept government is beyond me. There is nothing super about superannuation and retiring when you are practically dead!
