what would you do with 200k cash lotto winning?

[HiEquity]

Super can be a dangerous waste of time when your young. Im the same age as you sanj, I enjoy looking at my super balance crawl higher and higher but I wouldnt lock away anything more than 9% in it because politicians cant keep their hands off the scheme, they have already moved the cashout age to 65, i bet by the time we reach that age they will move it higher again or make it so you can only derive an income stream from it no more lump sums.

By saying you think investing in super is a good idea your basically trusting your money with a politician...

While I completely agree and keep only the absolute minimum within super for this reason, I would also make the point that your last sentence can apply to any investment vehicle. Negative gearing, income tax, medicare levies, trust taxation, company tax rates, etc etc etc can all be and have been changed at the whim of politicians.

But history does show that they tinker with the rules for super far more and far more often than other entities, which makes long term planning very difficult in that vehicle, at the very least.

 

[murph14]

Buy some Billabong shares

 

[orangestreet]

Super can be a dangerous waste of time when your young. Im the same age as you sanj, I enjoy looking at my super balance crawl higher and higher but I wouldnt lock away anything more than 9% in it because politicians cant keep their hands off the scheme, they have already moved the cashout age to 65, i bet by the time we reach that age they will move it higher again or make it so you can only derive an income stream from it no more lump sums.

By saying you think investing in super is a good idea your basically trusting your money with a politician...

I don't think they have moved the preservation age for super from 60 to the best of my knowledge. I know that the Henry Tax review suggested aligning it to the pension age but the government decided against that reccommendation. There are many (even on this forum) who believe that it will happen over the next few years. But the preservation age as of today remains at 60 (unless you are close to retirement NOW). Happy to stand corrected if i am wrong.

 

[Jake D]

Buy some Billabong shares

What, all of them?

 

[ZachAnSel]

What I will do, buy PPOR (depends on serviceability and OP didn't mention have one).
Example : spend $100k for deposit, etc for house $500k

Offset the rest 100k, in 3-6 months time. I will pay down my ppor and contact broker for setup LOC. From there re-invest..

Optuons 2 if serviceabilty is poor, then park $100k in managefunds, and invest another IP (must cashflow+). Then drawdown LOC from ur fully paid IP, this will give u options to subdivide and build..

 

[ok180]

I don't think they have moved the preservation age for super from 60 to the best of my knowledge. I know that the Henry Tax review suggested aligning it to the pension age but the government decided against that reccommendation. There are many (even on this forum) who believe that it will happen over the next few years. But the preservation age as of today remains at 60 (unless you are close to retirement NOW). Happy to stand corrected if i am wrong.

I think your right it is 60. My bad. As early as 55 (wow) if you were born before 1960.

Regardless it is too late I feel, if you can prove you have substantial assets you should be able to access the whole lot by the time your 40. Super really is a strategy for Joe average. The kind of people who are on this forum don't need it so they should either not have to put money towards it or be able to access it much earlier.

 

[pinkboy]

I think your right it is 60. My bad. As early as 55 (wow) if you were born before 1960.

Regardless it is too late I feel, if you can prove you have substantial assets you should be able to access the whole lot by the time your 40. Super really is a strategy for Joe average. The kind of people who are on this forum don't need it so they should either not have to put money towards it or be able to access it much earlier.

Compulsory Super is paid by an employer, not an employee, so you have the choice to put $0 towards Super anyway. Its money you were never actually going to physically get anyway.


pinkboy

 

[Ed Barton]

Regardless it is too late I feel, if you can prove you have substantial assets you should be able to access the whole lot by the time your 40.

I disagree. The purpose of super is to replace, or partly replace, the aged pension. Allowing such early access would mean some will blow it and end up on the aged pension. Why 40? Why not 19?

Super really is a strategy for Joe average. The kind of people who are on this forum don't need it so they should either not have to put money towards it or be able to access it much earlier.

I disagree. It's a good strategy for high income earners, who don't need to rely on it to retire when they please.

 

[ok180]

Compulsory Super is paid by an employer, not an employee, so you have the choice to put $0 towards Super anyway. Its money you were never actually going to physically get anyway.


pinkboy

It's not a choice because the government is making it for you. If they said you can either lock it away for 30 or 40 years of have a 9% wage increase now I would take the increase. Im self employed anyway so it's a moot point I guess for me.

I disagree. The purpose of super is to replace, or partly replace, the aged pension. Allowing such early access would mean some will blow it and end up on the aged pension. Why 40? Why not 19?

Like I said, Im ok with it to a point but if you can prove you have enough assets by 40 they should let you access it. 19 is obviously too young as you don't really know enough about life by that age.

I disagree. It's a good strategy for high income earners, who don't need to rely on it to retire when they please.

Again, if your not going to need it because your a high income earner then why should it be locked away???

I can see why the government thinks it's good for the majority of people (and it is) but there should be a clause in there somewhere that if you hit xxx amount of net worth then you can access it early.

 

[Ed Barton]

Like I said, Im ok with it to a point but if you can prove you have enough assets by 40 they should let you access it. 19 is obviously too young as you don't really know enough about life by that age.

Although super provides generous tax savings (particularly for high income earners) it's primary role is to replace state pensions. You may have enough assets at 40 to not need a state pension in 27 years. A lot can happen in 27 years and one might end up on the pension.

If you have enough assets to generate a retirement income at 40 then why should the govt allow early access?

Let me guess? You aim to retire at 40 but can't quite get there without getting your hands on super?

Again, if your not going to need it because your a high income earner then why should it be locked away???

Not all high income earners are good at accumulating wealth. As above, if you can get your hands on it at 40, you have another 20-30 years till retirement. Bankruptcy, failed business ventures, crazy spending sprees etc can easily see that money evaporate.

Super provides tax concessions in exchange for locking $$ away to provide for retirement. I contribute to super to get a tax rate of 15% (on what I earn and what that will earn in the future) in exchange for restrictions on when I get my hands on it.

Again, if you're not going to need it because you're a high income earner then why shouldn't it be locked away.

 

[ok180]

If you have enough assets to generate a retirement income at 40 then why should the govt allow early access?

Because... You can never have enough money

Let me guess? You aim to retire at 40 but can't quite get there without getting your hands on super?

Not at all, My super is a small amount compared to other assets we own. As I have said, I think super is good for Joe average 9-5 worker but there needs to be special rules for self funded retiree's. If the pensions is means tested why can't early access be means tested? The idea that you'll lose the lot if you access it early is possible but highly unlikely for someone who has accumulated significant net worth for themself.

Think about this too, how many peoples super got lunched in 2008 when the GFC hit? A LOT! The government shouldn't even let you put your money into risky investments in the first place. Super should be a cash only investment.

 

[pinkboy]

It's not a choice because the government is making it for you. If they said you can either lock it away for 30 or 40 years of have a 9% wage increase now I would take the increase. Im self employed anyway so it's a moot point I guess for me.


.

Its even more moot point for you as Super was introduced instead of a wage rise, a forced savings if you will - a choice made with the best available information at the time. It may or may not work you you, but rules are rules. You can only work with the rules of today, unless you have a crystal ball handy.

I too am self employed and don't contribute extra to Super either. Same as you, any excess funds are used to create wealth today, and not locked away where I cant utilise it for 30 odd years . I want to be financially secure earning passive income a lot earlier than when I can access my Super.


pinkboy

 

[pinkboy]

Super should be a cash only investment.

I think you will be seriously appalled if you did the sums for 'cash only investment' of Super.


pinkboy

 

[atti]

i think i am just average joe, there for the maximum i would put into super would be dollar match dollar by goverment co contribution. but i havent even been doing that, i rather put it in towards paying off investment house today. thats how i payed off my first investment.

i am 30 and i think i already archived what i wanted to do which was working part time while having enough passive income so i dont have to slave it out 70 hours weeks in my mid 20s. eww nightshifts never going back to that again.....

 

[sanj]

. Super should be a cash only investment.

are you serious???

lets just agree to disagree here because that is a ludicrous suggestion imo. you complain about government having control of our super and then advocate that they also decide how our super is invested?

 

[Terry_w]

Don't forget that super isn't an investment it is just a 'structure'.

 

[ok180]

are you serious???

lets just agree to disagree here because that is a ludicrous suggestion imo. you complain about government having control of our super and then advocate that they also decide how our super is invested?

Yes I am serious. If there was a massive plunge on the market your super could be halved over night. That's ok if your in your 30's, not so nice when your in your 50's.

The government is all care and no responsibility when it comes to super.

 

[Brady]

Yes I am serious. If there was a massive plunge on the market your super could be halved over night. That's ok if your in your 30's, not so nice when your in your 50's.

The government is all care and no responsibility when it comes to super.

Take responsibility yourself and change how's its invested.

Me I'm 25 I'm not planning on having any super, it will just be a bonus... Therefor mine is in the highest risk...

Whereas my father is over 50 so through the GFC he changed to cash investment and timed it nicely back to growth

Stop complaining and take control of your life.

 

[sanj]

Yes I am serious. If there was a massive plunge on the market your super could be halved over night. That's ok if your in your 30's, not so nice when your in your 50's.

The government is all care and no responsibility when it comes to super.

sounds like you are all no responsibility too

why should the govt decide how we invest our money??

 

[alexlee]

why should the govt decide how we invest our money??

That's the mistake people make with super. It's a separate legal entity with its own rules. It's not 'your' money. Similarly, money that you contribute to a trust, say, isn't 'your' money either. You have to play by the rules of trust law.

Super was created to lower the government's costs of providing for people (especially those on lower incomes) in their old age. Try to make it do something else at your peril.