The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Compulsory super - not so super duper > Comments

Compulsory super - not so super duper : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 20/2/2006

Government should allow us a say regarding superannuation and what we want do with our money.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I agree, what a conspiracy.

The money should go to direct investment, ie property shares and the like, and the government should license existing financial planners to provide the most beneficial investment.

Property is the way to go, no questions, and i will never put more than the compulsory into the fees and taxes feeding frenzy that is superannuation.

Use your equity to invest at the right time (ie 2008) and watch the power of leveraging realy get your retirement in order.
Posted by Realist, Monday, 20 February 2006 12:02:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I usually avoid reading the crap Mirko Bagaric excretes on OLO. I really wish I had this time as well, he really should avoid economic issues, as he quite obviously has no idea. And he couldn't even produce any supporting information for his argument (but then, it IS an opinion I suppose).

To add insult to injury, I decided to see what was on the comments page, only to find the usual insight provided by "Realist". Good luck in the property market mate, perhaps you could invest in Westpoint?
Posted by Jude, Monday, 20 February 2006 12:32:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hallelujah!
Finally someone pointing out the outrageous nonsense that is compulsory super.
Here is another negative for your next article.
Putting such vast sums in the hands of financial managers has damaged public oversight of company management. When wages for managers and board members are decided, it is board members and managers of Superannuation firms which do the deciding, not the public. I believe this has a lot to do with the absurd escalation in management recompense in recent times.
Who would consider for a minute wage rises for James Hardie execs. or A.W.B. execs except other company executives who expect the same treatment.
Many small shareholders who once kept a close eye on companies in which they invested are no longer interested, and the flaws which they used to expose remain hidden.
This failure of oversight is damaging the performance of many companies.
Posted by Bull, Monday, 20 February 2006 12:41:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is little logic in the argument. If you reckon that everbody should have the choice of what to do with their money, then you do away with the whole tax system as well.

Compulsory super has been a great policy. Without it, most people will not provide properly for their retirement.

Problems in the financial planning industry should be fixed by proper oversight and regulation, not by scrapping the whole compulsory super policy.

Compulsory super does not preclude people from also accumulating money and investing outside of super. If they want to risk it in the property market or dodgy investments, that's up to them (and many do), but compulsory super at least means that they won't be totally dependent on the tax payer in retirement if the investment fails.
Posted by AMSADL, Monday, 20 February 2006 1:03:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jude,

Direct Property Investment I stated if you bothered to read.

Not trusts, not something managed, not things like westpoint, Buy your own investment property directly without being suckered by the thieving trusts.

It upsets me your opinion is like it is. Perhaps it is due to your lack of understanding. Dont knock the only method that will take people like you to financial security without having to trust and rely on 'managers', if you bothered to learn how you would know what i mean.

What was the price of property in your suburb 10 years ago?

Are building costs going up, or down over time?

Is land becoming more scarce in prime locations?

Any fool can see it, so someone of your intellect must.
I agree, dont trust any shemes, investment funds or the like, DIRECT INVESTMENT YOURSELF is the way to do it.

Hope fully without an ambush next time you read my comments.

Also, there are very few people licenced to provide INDEPENDANT advice on investment property, dont see your trusted real estate agent.

My advice is buy a property (within 2 years of being built) at a resale price 10-20% cheaper than a new home, make sure it is 600sqm and it is functionable, in an area of at least 50/50 investors/owner occupiers. Ensure the rental return is comparable with purchase price, you have a quantity surveyor report done to assist with deductions, you do a 221d form to recieve your tax break in your pay packet, you borrow interest only and use your equity, and let the property cycles (kicking off end of 2008) do the rest.

Westpoint? Dont let others manage your money. Thanks for the wrap Jude
Posted by Realist, Monday, 20 February 2006 1:08:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Superannuation funds are owned by the old life insurance companies and haven't they done a wonderful job of reinventing themselves as a key player in the Australian economy from their low point in 1974 when everyone realised that life insurance was a waste of space.

I agree that fund managers benefit from all of those compulsory super funds. I have also heard property investors complain that the property market is over inflated as people with no experience buy property for their superannuation portfolio.

Most people are ill equipped to deal with the complex choices that our superannuation system allows so they are at the mercy of their investment advice - may it be good advice.
Having worked for super funds I can say I haven't been over impressed with their contribution to society or their members but admire their ability to return a profit for their owners.

I had a friend who ran his own business who contracted cancer at age 42. He was unable to access Centrelink benefits because he was self employed, he was too sick to work so thank goodness he had direct investments in property because thats what he had to live on. Fortunately no one ran after his executors asking why he hadn't made any compulsory super payments.

In this area there are many people in their early 50s who are unable to find employment. Although they often have funds tied up in super they are unable to access their money. It's about time we stopped talking about low unemployment and trying to project our future workforce requirements because the Australian Bureau of Statistics only surveys 30,000 households each month to estimate the unemployment rate. You are deemed to be employed if you have 30 minutes of paid or unpaid work per week or you are studying. Most people assume employment leads to income.

It would be far more efficient to adopt a universal old age pension system like New Zealand.
Posted by billie, Monday, 20 February 2006 1:50:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy