Using super to buy a house is a crazy idea, which completely defeats the reason for superannuation.

“According to a 2013 OECD report, Australian's aged over 65 were second only to Korea” sounds highly unlikely, too. It depends on how people define 'poverty' and,stupidly, too many Australians expect to live their retirement years at the same standard they did when they worked.

If 'one in four' people are still paying off a mortgage after the age of 65, then they have been wastrels in their younger years. I they are renting, so what? There is no right to own a home, and Australia has always had a totally unrealistic level of home ownership compared with other countries.

“Estimates of what's needed in superannuation at retirement.... start at $500,000 and rise to $1 million.” Well, there's another bucket of bulldust, put about by the superannuation industry, and naively believed by people thinking that the are 'entitled' to have the same bells and whistles until the day they die. We are living in la la land. I know people living on nothing but the Age Pension who are more than satisfied with their lot, because they are realists who accept that they simply do not need the material things that people who want to profit from them say they do. Anybody or group telling people that they will not have enough to live on when they retire, are people who have something to gain from you

People also rightly figure that a dollar now is worth more than a dollar in the future, let alone in 20, 30, or 40 years' time.

It is ironical that on the one day we have an article about the 'retirement affordability problem' at the same time as an article on the government's constant inflation of the currency.

Quite apart from taxation, the government currently steals the average worker's life savings twice over in the form of inflation, and then has the gall to impose the superannuation industry on everyone, and then pretend to be concerned about the alleged retirement affordability problem.

The Australian obsession over investing in real estate is in turn a symptom of the fact that all other kinds of investment are so heavily regulated that it's much easier to invest in residential real estate - which is politically difficult to meddle with - and rely on the inflation bubble, than it is to invest in actual productive activity. I mean honestly, you'd need rocks in your head to employ anyone and then be treated as a class enemy by the accumulated anti-capitalist policies of the last 100 years. And who would provide for retirement by actually saving? You'd need rocks in your head.

The result is the whole smoke-and-mirrors economy of going into debt to buy lifestyle assets in real estate with a view to capital gain, minimising any profit to minimise governmental tax gouging, minimising savings to avoid governmental inflation thieving, and maximising expenses for tax deductibility. It's like, the *exact opposite* of productive and economic activity.

So with government having effectively nobbled both savings and investment, is it any wonder that so many Australian arrive at old age broke?

But obviously people are not going to work and save to provide for themselves in retirement if they are only going to be punished and exploited as class enemies for it, and forced to pay for the welfare mentality of others who aspire only to fall across the line and into the old age pension.

Perhaps we should try freedom for a change?

On an individual level, using super to buy a house is entirely sensible. Your standard of living would immediately increase and you'd be saving money all the time so you'd be no worse off in retirement. Indeed failing to use super to buy a house would be a crazy idea.

However, on a collective level, allowing super to be used to buy a house would push up house prices, making things even harder for homebuyers. It would also mean that more money was going into land speculation, and less money going into productive activity. So it is indeed a crazy idea.

But what if there were some way to allow super to be used to buy a house that did not push up house prices? We could gain the advantage to individuals without the collective disadvantage.

If we substantially shift the burden of taxation onto the value of land, land would no longer be seen as such a fantastic investment, and prices would rise a lot more slowly even with more money available. The only significant disadvantage would be to existing homeowners; to mitigate this the land tax would have to be phased in over decades, thus measures like allowing homebuyers to access their super may also have to be phased in slowly - but probably not AS slowly, because the knowledge that land will be taxed in the future might be enough to dampen house price growth.

"According to a 2013 OECD report, Australian's aged over 65 were second only to Korea as having the worst seniors poverty in the world, based on the percentage of seniors with incomes below 50% of the median income."
This merely highlights the idiocy of defining poverty relative to median income rather than standard of living.

________________________________________________________________________________

Jardine, I've found that those who go on about "inflation of the currency" have three things in common:

• They think they know a lot about economics.
• They actually know very little about economics
• They think the ability of the rich to maintain the value of their wealth while doing nothing is more important than the wellbeing of the population.

IOW they're Austrian School.
Everyone else has a basic understanding of what inflation is.

I'm getting pretty bored with the constant allegations of pensioners living in poverty in this country.
From what I've read around the traps it seems some people think our aged pensioners should be able to live a life of luxury in 3/4 bedroom homes,money for holidays and freedom to live wherever they choose, regardless of the costs of the specific area.
What few seem to understand is that all pensioners receive enough money to live on, whether they live in public housing, rent privately and receive rental assistance, or own their own home and have the ability to rent out bedrooms to supplement their income.
They also have the option to move to a cheaper suburb or town, or to share accommodation with others etc.
People need to think outside the square, look for alternative lifestyle choices and savour the fact that we live in a country that provides us with an income and free health care.

An income just 25% of the average male income, with 25% of that gone every month in mortgage payments. And although the car rego is along with rates subject to a very modest subsidy, they still need to be paid! The car doesn't run on fresh air, and our public transport is a single taxi that doesn't run after sunset!

An amalgamated council replaced our debt free entity, with one mired in derivative derived debt; to who we pay double and in advance!

With the only improvement, mayoral salary entitlements, which are now treble!

I have to pay to get my grass cut and other services, which can include a callout fee just to get a handyman to change a light bulb.

Medicine is subsidised not free! Today the laptop crashed thank to an industrious hacker, who left, it would seem a call back number, that I can call to recover my data and amenity? And for a small fortune! I bought the laptop for less!

Yes sure, we are better off than folks in Peru, the Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia, just to name some of the most glaring examples, or a stand out Venezuela, with more oil than Saudi Arabia!

And more poverty than also oil endowed Philippines? Venezuela a socialist (democracy in name only) dictatorship! The Philippines a capitalist democracy, run by the elite for the elite and of the elite!

I don't have to fossick through garbage just to eat or be steal or borrow to get medical aid or a safe roof over my head.

Not to worry, we've got the priorities spot on. With negative gearing, family trusts, capital gains subsidies and other pressing welfare maintained to the max!

Poor old Kevin Andrews, looking forward to absolute penury in retirement with a paucity public service pension and the very modest income derived from 123 negatively geared houses?

How will he and other politicians doing it tough, manage? Actions always speak louder than words, as does priorities! My heart bleeds!
Alan B.