Assumming there is trillions of dollars in personal superanuation floating around, do you think it will be yours for the taking when you retire, or, as I suspect, will we have to jump through hoops just to get at it.

With our government running on empty and many of our services at breaking point, this is before we see a huge increase in our population, can future governments keep their grubby little hands off our super.

My fear is that once retired, we will be allocated a certain amount on a weekly basis, then, if we want more we will be hit with huge taxes.

Do you think your super is safe?

The super you need to worry about is the super controlled by the unions.

You are right to worry, rehctub.

The current system is primarily set up as tax rort for the rich. This is because there is a flat tax rate of 15% on contributions and earnings, with no consideration of how much has been accumulated, up to a very high reasonable benefit limit. Ross Gittins, the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, has calculated that, for people earning more than $60,000 a year, the superannuation tax concessions cost the government more than it would to give them the full pension with no questions asked. Really high income earners can receive 3 or 4 times the value of the full pension. These are people who would save in any case.

The rational way to deal with cost blow-outs would be to tax super on the basis of how much has been accumulated. Needless to say, this would be unpopular with the people who matter. The federal government has been considering (but has ruled out for now) raising the superannuation preservation age to 67, along with the pensionable age. This would make people in their sixties desperate to go on working, because they would be unlikely to have enough other funds to retire and the unemployment benefit is heavily means tested and work tested. Another possibility, which hasn't been ruled out, would be forced longevity insurance. A big chunk of your super would be taken in exchange for a periodic private pension if you live longer than average, probably just enough to prevent you claiming any or any significant pension from the government.

A big chunk of your super would be taken in exchange for a periodic private pension
---

essentially all such devices are there already once you get into the nitty gritty of how system works and as I just came to retirement I DID put the lot [ie legislation] into a custom applic spreadsheet which I now offer to others at www.lopsystem.com to assist their own planning.

In a nutshell there is a delicate balance between wether ASSETS or INCOME "tests" any Aged Pension you might get. If you take an Alloc Pension [ie same as you suggest above] then some of your assets move to income, and if you take some super to get new car/caravan etc they become non deemed assets etc.

So everyone will have a different balance point so the task of a spreadsheet should be to "optimise" that to receive the max pension.

The part that astounded me was just how much you can own/earn and still get some pension, ie it can hardly be called "welfare" for such people.

You made a big assumption rehctub.It is not really your super.The Govt only gave you the illusion of temporary ownership.

The next step will be the selling of your house and then the Govt will dish out a pittance just enough for your survival.

This is the result of allowing an oligarchy to rule our lives.The wealth will always move to the hands of a few.

The next step will be the selling of your house and then the Govt will dish out a pittance

---

not even a howard/abbott would do that, but it is done in a far more subtle way by way of J Doe the taxpayer.

The aged pension scheme, as I said, is geared up to induce spending, hence every retiree is induced [by no deeming] to buy that half million dollar rig of 4WD plus caravan and tour OZ and spend money. Centrelink makes it dead easy to claim full rent assistance even if staying just one night at each caravan park, so it's all about stimulating the economy via taxpayer funding spending retirees.

The part that I don't like is even those that got their super on the never never [ie unfunded super for fat cats etc] and [contrary to the Constitution] have a reserve in the Smirk Future Fund, will in many cases be also drawing some Aged Pension.

Are honestly asking rechtub? do you truly think a danger exists?
And Simpson is it? controlled by unions? what is that about.
The trade union movement, no one else won superannuation payments for workers.
It/we also won first 44 then 40 then 36 now some times 36 hour week.
Sick leave workers comp long service leave.
Some Superannuation funds exist for workers, quite a few have unionists on the board, all are not for profit.
And they are up there with the highest dividend payers to members.
As your understanding of superannuation is at best minimal I want to advise every one.
Get ALL your different super funds into one, a fund that is not charging fees, such as an industries fund.
Know SOME employers get rewards for putting you in a fund that charges YOU huge fees, some Even take most of your money if you want out early.
Please those who have been in a fund ten years are way out in front, the last two years loss is more than matched by the gains.
No danger exists, EVER that ANY government will ever thieve your super.
No union can ever do it either.
rechtub, constantly you seek the worst in Labor/government.
Your posts are becoming satire.
Superannuation is brilliant for this country, if we ever get unions wanted 15%, I would willingly say those getting it should not get welfare.
It appears our best long term way around that problem.
We in time need not borrow over seas as we bank more in our country.
All views do have value some far less than others that lost comment legless and senseless about union controlled super is just plain uninformed spamming.

rechtub, constantly you seek the worst in Labor/government.
Belly,
Look around & you'll see that there's no need for seeking the worst, it always comes one's way as sure as hell.
As for no Government ever taking one's Super ? Well, maybe not directly taking it but I have yet to see a Government to make a stand to get stolen Super back for people. I Governments were so keen on establishing a healthy financial society then they wouldn't leave it up to privateers & with impunity. Ok so they put on a well choreographed show of nailing the odd chairman. So what, it still doesn't compensate those who lost their future.
Btw. When the W.A. Super under Carmen Lawrence went, did anything ever get done to help those pensioners ? As a vehement Labor supporter I thought you might know & tell us.

Ar belly, you just can't help yourself, can you. >>rechtub, constantly you seek the worst in Labor/government.
Your posts are becoming satire.

Go back, look at my post and see that I clearly said ' can future governments keep their grubby little hands off our super.
'.

You are becomming droll and predictable.

Now as for a danger existing in the future, yes I do fear the worst as where else is the money going to come from to support the massess.

Mining can't continue to boom if they are taxed by an ETS.

After all, this is what is running our ecconomy to a large extent now.

Now as for being a 'rort for the rich', well I have always been of the view that the more taxes you pay, the better rewarded you should be and this, in my view, is one of the main reasons so many avoid taxes as they are simply propping up the system while missing out themselves. But this is another topic altogether.

And belly, I don't hate labor governments in general.

Bob was great, goss also, but these guys (rud and bligh) are hopeless. Please, take the cheque book away from them before we all go under.

Two more recent F-ups, broardband and gold cost motor racing.

Just remember, once the dust has settled and these fools have run their race, they will still have their personal wealth as they are financially unaccountable for their F-ups, unlike the rest of us!

Who can we rip off.
This imfamous phrase is the whole reason why government and private institutions have developed the current compulsory scheme.
I purchased a whole of life policy from AMP some forty five years ago.
The idea was that I would get a tax free savings plan and when I reached sixty five I would get a big bonus plus my contributions.
This con was put on me when I was fifteen,today the policy is not worth the paper it is written on.Caused by excessive insurance rates and the governmnet stopping tax free payments on whole of life policies.
Today my son is faced with the same bull,he thought it might be a good idea to put more money into his super.
I advised him that a home purchased last year in Melton Victoria was worth $200,000 today it is valued at $250,000.The interest being $12,000 minus rental of $12,000.
Work out the maths and we can see that super funds are ripping of our young.
Millions of people work for an employer for less than three
the super is often paid into a new super scheme,and lost forever to
the employee,this amount is hived into various institutions.
Most non union super schemes gamble with super,as has been exposed to the public over the last three years.
The poor Icelanders and Greeks have experienced this super rip off.
The safest place to put super is in a government backed Bank account,and have compulsory savings.

Individual first, well no way you will let reality shine on your dislike.
But yes under Howard, and Rudd/Gillard government is unwilling and unable to force some employers to just pay super.
It is an offense under the tax act not to, but gutless governments, all of them do not always act.
rechtub my fault this is how I wanted it to read, Labor and governments, ANY GOVERNMENT
Tax is the first and only tool governments can use to take too much from our super.
Gutless slothfulness in retrieving unpaid super is the another so two ways exist.
Now come. think it out bank rates, gee I am the uneducated one here.
Having passed only in emptying garbage bins and collecting empty milk bottles, with flying colors thou.
Who truly thinks super has not walked all over bank interest in just the last 5 years, or ten, or 20 years?
After 55 I became a whistle blower, took a redundancy, paid my tax bought my home started work again putting it in super putting in 28% of total income.
no rechtub not rich not even close but will survive without being on welfare just.
super is the answer, get in a fund that will not rip you of one fund not many and understand the trade union movement got us super and will, if you are a member fight to see your super is paid, more than the Australian tax office does.

you can be sure the public servants and politicians super is safe. as for the rest of us we just have to hope that the next lot of financial advisors turn out better than the current crop.

Belly, I hope and pray that you are right and that our super is safe.

In the past 10 or so years however, many shifts have occurred with the goal posts.

Originally, one could take their super and invest into a building to house their business. This was done in conjunction with a 'unit trust'. All was fine until the government of the day decided that they would change this which sent many on a head spin.

I seriously doubt they (future governments) will be able to resit the temptation of getting their grubby little hands on those trillions of dollars.

Rehctub, IMHO our super is about as safe as the Australian economy
and as none of us can predict the future, its really an impossible
question to answer.

You are quite correct of course, the Govt has the monopoly power
of taxation, so if they run short, they will simply take it from
those who did the right thing and saved a few pennies during their
working lives. When Conroy pointed a gun at Telstra's head, we saw
how little they care about mums and dads who indeed have tried to
do the right thing.

As to our economy, well IMHO thats a little less certain then some
of us might think. We are really riding on China's coattails. If
they keep driving resource prices, things will keep bumping along,
but if there is some banking collapse or political crisis, they
are still not a market economy and can shut things down in a jiffy,
which would cripple us.

Next we have the Aussie housing bubble and I still think its a major
problem. Roughly half the money that our banks lend out, comes from
overseas. Right now you have a crisis developing, as countries like
Greece, Spain, Ireland and others are risking defaulting on their
huge loans. The net effect will be that global interest rates
are expected to trend highly upwards, that is why Westpac is already
offering 8% on 5 year deposits, whilst lending money for housing
at 6.7%. What the RBA thinks simply won't matter, if banks have
to pay heaps more for their overseas loans. Homeowners will have
to cough up 9-10% and at that point, I would be amazed if house
prices don't crash, with tears all around.

The best way to protect yourself is really to take note of the
saying, not to have all your eggs in one basket. Spread your
risk over a number of investments and industries. You can run your
own super fund, no need to trust the big ones. Buying some shares
in BHP etc, is not rocket science

Actually I don't think that anyones' money is safe.The US Federal Reserve has created too much cyber money.It is now filtering down to the real economy.The US $ has remained incredibly stable since it is still the international trading currency esp for oil.

China like many other countries have a $ trillion US,who are quietly trying to reduce their exposure slowly.However when the collapse beings,nothing will stop it.The panic will be for the doors and the price of gold will double or treble.Our $ too will probably follow.

Oh runner,

Just to prove I'm not a curmudgeon, how's this....

*both* sides of parliament, including *all* professed christians will accept their super willingly. Do note that Sen Brown of the Greens lives in a yurt with minimal services (when he is not stuck working elsewhere). Who is genuinely modest? Who is *most* likely to decline the money?

Hope your money is safe. The only thing they can't take from us are our skills.

Rusty

Yabby as usual I find little to disagree with.
But if China stops buying BHP is in trouble too.
I overlooked a real problem, so make it three threats.
I am not greedy, will live on about a quarter of my income on stopping work, for 5 years.
No welfare.
But if government says it MUST be taken only as pension?
No second hand 4x4 no old boat out the back no lifestyle dreams, and believe me they are few and cost less than $20.000 in total.
But it should never happen in our life times it may well one day come to pass, if we let it.
Our super however is safe IF we use our brains.
EVERY one must/please do look at the fees charged, I did recently seeing $700 a year plus the losses.
I moved to an industries fund, only weeks ago, my faulty I tell people every day not to let it stagnate.
And some have three or four more often, funds eating up cash in fees you need not pay, sometimes taking every cent forever, rechtub you can run your own, but look at your lifetime interest rates they are huge .
Some do even better in investing their own way.

Yes belly, I do run my own fund, have done for 20 years.

I hold a 'tree farm' and a unit, along with a small amount of cash and shares.

My main fear is not so much that we will not be able to draw from it upon retirement, but more so that we will be restricted in the amount we can draw, then taxed hard for any extra we draw.

I also tip a return of the 'death duty' taxes. After all, how else are we going to fund our forecasted population boom.

We have already seen a lot of manufacturing being out-soursed overseas, along with an alarming new trend for 'IT' work.

As our population grows and our tax inputs decline, the money has to come from somewhere. But where?

I actually don't have a problem, if they restrict how much can
be drawn at any one time. I've seen too many starry eyed dreamers
cash in their super, have a go at small business and lose the
lot in a short time. Next they are back on a pension, sucking
on the Govt teat.

Next we have those who want to rort the system. They've claimed
all the super tax deductions, but try and draw out what they can
to leave to the kids or spend up, then on the pension they go,
again the Govt teat suffers.

And that is really our problem! Too many on the Govt teat, not
enough providing for themselves.

rechtub/yabby I too have no fears about how much we can withdraw.
Well lets not allow them to go down the paid as pension track, but we should not get pensions we do not need.
My mid life job change took a very large settlement on retirement away.
It would have been huge.
My home and all is mine, but my intention to live without welfare will leave only the home to be fought over.
I you both, we all have spent our tax's every cent of them, in living in this great country and YES too many will not make the effort to feed themselves
Our super is safe, even more so, if we come to understand that fact.

Yes, Blind Freddie could see that the superannuation funds are going to become irresistible to the thieving of politicians.

And now we have clowns saying the "rational" way to deal with the problem is more tax! The scheme was not set up to help "the rich". Both the pension and super were set up by Labor to help the workers steal from others, and it hasn't worked out that way because the interventionists can never seem to understand that they can't just engineeer society at will.

Compulsory super is a classic example of one failed government intervention being used as the pretext for a further intervention, which in turn fails, and so on. In this case, the original intervention was the old age pension. When it was introduced, the proportion of payers to payees was about 27 to 1; now it’s more like 2 to 1. And people who were taxed all their lives to pay for the pension, feel entitled to receive it in their old age. But there was never money in trust. It was always ever only a tax-and-spend, an immoral steal-and-redistribute scheme. If a private company ran a Ponzi scheme like this, the directors would all be in prison, as our politicians should be.

In principle, each person should be able to provide for their own old age from their own savings. Provision for the poor must logically be from savings surplus to that. It is completely back-the-front to think that the primary consideration is provision for the poor. If the system is structured that way, as it has been, the result will be unsustainable, which is the problem we've got now.

The solution is to phase out governmental provision for the aged. More government intervention can only make the problem worse. The successful end result would be a self-sufficient retired population, with charitable provision for the poor. The government needs to stop taxing income and savings, and tell everyone to prepare now for their own retirement or rely on charity. The transitional provision is to grant relief from taxes into old age.

JKJ forgive me, but you are kidding are you not?
Superannuation is a Labor/Union gain, yes.
Often paid for in wages rises being redirected to? Superannuation.
Other increases come from increased productivity in enterprise agreements.
In fact very many years ago, a prime minister said we would all bank In social security 6 penths a week, to pay our pensions it did not work.
Tell me I am wrong, but you appear to think those who have not provided for old age should be let die in the streets.
Single mothers get the short end of the stick less wages less super less hope.
Do you understand you apparent good fortune may be based on luck? and bad luck may be a reason others fail.
I am not defending parasites, we have plenty who will not work and bosses who thieve workers wages ,but you sicken Me.

Jardine K. Jardine
I couldn’t agree more.

I would also add that of the 2-1 ratio we have now, many of the 1’s take family hand-outs along the way, further stretching the funds.

Those of us who are in the mid to late stages of our working lives have seen first hand how our predecessors have been robbed blind of their promised entitlements, so much so that many now cheat taxes as they know they will be forgotten at old age, or, they waste every cent knowing that they will be looked after.

As I have often said, work hard, spend hard and waste all you have and you will be rewarded with a pension. Save hard and contribute maximum taxes and you are on your own.

It is a back to front world we live in, but hey, the powers to be are simply not financially accountable for the actions. They simply have an open cheque book to pretty much do with as they like, while, all the time racking up personal super and ongoing benefits in the millions

Belly
You do understand, don't you, that the only way the poor can be provided for, is out of savings surplus to the requirements of those who provide for themselves? If that is not so, then the only other logical possibility is that the poor must be provided for at the expense of those who provide for themselves. If you don't understand that, as you don't seem to, then you don't understand what you are talking about.

At present, the old aged pensioners are being provided for out of the income of people who are now working, thus preventing the current generation from providing for their own retirement. The problem with the current system is, it's not sustainable. Thus it *doesn't matter* whether you think the current system is good, it must eventually crash, and leave large numbers in poverty and distress, because the governments have more pension liabilities than they have revenue to pay for them. Do you understand that?

So if it's not sustainable, why was it set up? Because economically illiterate people, stupid people, greedy people, idiots, and halfwits, didn't understand that. They thought, like you, that the problem of poor people being poor was because of not enough government intervention, as if wealth was a genie, and only government could rub the lamp. But government intervention doesn't solve the problem of poor people being poor. It merely takes the original problem, and makes it much bigger and worse and unavoidable in the future, which is now coming due.

You have not given any reason why people should not provide for their own retirement. Even if people have bad luck, they can still insure against it.

There is not the slightest reason why the population should be forced to pay for single mothers to look after their own children. They can make extra money doing other people's shopping, cooking, cleaning, gardening and so on. They also have everything they need to earn extra money, and it's right between their legs.

JKJ RECHTUB no way not a chance I want to have a beer and a sausage sandwich with you butcher.
For a start my WASP dad and mum entrenched in me work for a living, an honest days pay for an honest days work.
I NEVER left a job, humping wheat spuds hand cutting cane driving trucks 16 hours a day construction steel fixing concrete and form work plant operating.
That did not see the boss asking me to stay.
20% of my income has always gone to help my family, as a child I left school and gave 90% to mum to feed us.
I pay cash owe no man a cent.
Would, ask anyone, give you the last cent I had.
But you two tell me poverty is self inflicted that all welfare is theft that yesterdays tax payers are todays bludgers?
Your dad rechtub will be rolling in his grave.
We should not support bludgers, but let no man live in the gutter to please such as you two.
rechtub I truly thought much better of you , are you sure you understand politics? social welfares intent? who your customers are.

Belly don't attack me just because I agree with much of what JKJ says.

Granted I should have read his post a bit better before supporting it as I don't agree with the elderly being left to rot, rather the reverse. But, how can you think a system is fair when one works all their life and receives ZERO! Not even a health care card.

As for welfare, no I don't think it is theft, but I do think the time has come to earn welfare. After all, they are being paid about 10hr per week for nothing. Now take 10 hrs from 38, this leaves 28 hrs, or, more than 5 hrs mon to fri to seek work.

The facts are that 'free rides' must end.

JKJ, you will cop a lot of flack from this site as it appears to be loaded with 'under achievers' who seem hell bent on supporting those who contribute the least. Although I must admit, your coment on single mothers 'flatbacking' for extra cash goes a bit far.

They defend the low skilled, yet, there has never been more support for these to better themselves than there is now. Traineeships, etc.

They also hate those of us who are succesfull. After working up to 80 hours per week at time, over the past 30 years, of course one should be in a reasonable position, but why they have to adopt the old 'tall poppy' sydrome is beyond me.

As I say, I think it's a case of 'underachivers' defending 'underachievers' and they don't like to have their feathers ruffled.

Then there's belly. Our die hard labor unionist who can't see anything wrong with the way Krudd is sending us broke in record time, but hey, my dad was like that and it's like talking to a brick wall.

But he's a likeable bloke and we often have fun although he got the last laugh when his beloved saints stole our coach.

I don't know if Hawkey had this foresight when compulsory super was introduced in 1986, but by 2030 all retirees will have had super for their entire working lives. A government could justify virtually eliminating aged pension.

BUT, then there's politics. A good long term plan gets lost in the short term goal of keeping dimwitted joe average voter on side. He just wants to have more money now so he can keep gambling, smoking and drinking. (seriously it's disgraceful how much money Aust spends on these three useless habits)

So some genius politician thinks he can just take a little bit of the accumulated super, not much in the big scheme of things, then this repeats, etc.

If it were up to me, contributions to super would be untaxed. If someone is smart enough to sacrifice now for their retirement, GREAT. Regardless of what they earn.

All you guys who whinge about "fatcats" answer me one question. Name one "fatcat" who hasn't worked his arse off to get where he is, or name one who doesn't work a million hours a week. I say good luck to them. They deserve the money they get.

My approach, pretend your super's not there. I reckon the concept of super (and all the money) will be gone by the time I retire.

I think people need to be doing a bit more taking responsibility for themselves and stop looking for handouts that you think you deserve.

Nobody's suggesting the old or poor should be left to rot - an absurd hysteria.

Belly is assuming that the welfare state produces better outcomes, overall, for poor people. It doesn't. It makes them worse off overall. It is the main cause of the poverty it is supposed to prevent and relieve, and nothing he has said has shown otherwise. His charitable impulse is fine, it's just totally misplaced into a belief in government.

If people can earn their living, they should. Australia is currently bringing in cooks and drivers and fruit-pickers. So why are we being forced to pay part of our income to Australians while employers can't get Australians to fill these positions? If the purpose of social security is to stop women from having to earn money by selling sexual services, then it's got nothing to do with poverty, and everything to do with sexual morality. We are in effect being forced to subsidise a dysfunctional version of the theory of romantic love.

The point is, government's attempts to manage the retirement income of the population result in planned chaos. More of it will only result in more planned chaos. Phasing it out does not mean people dying in the streets. It means most people must and will provide for themselves, almost all people must take out income insurance against misfortune and accident. We as a society must continue to provide for the small minority who are destitute, but that does not justify jumping to the conclusion that it must be done by government confiscating our income and pouring it down a bloated bureaucracy to hand out on the basis of political fashion. It is a complete furphy to identify the government with humane purposes. It's the other way around. The charitable impulse comes from us as a society, and is better adminstered by us as a society - voluntarily. It is completely misguided, dysfunctional, destructive and anti-social to assign this function to government.

Peter Hume you are an adult are you not?
Then in your rush to be seen in print do not forget to read the threads.
See the inflammatory words of JKJ indeed he is saying just that and more.
who said anything about fat cats? rechtub may have attempted to put words in my mouth but I never mentioned them.
rechtub, benefit of the doubt from me to you.
But you convict your self by re entering the debate on the side of a flamer, surely that b est describes this poster.
Get this right.
I am proudly a worker
A unionist
ALP member.
Know, without doubt, some welfare is wasted, think we need to pay it, but to the needy not greedy not slothful.
Have nothing against fairly earned wealth.
Know some bosses are true great people, some are not.
Know it was the union/ALP who had the foresight to give us super, and that it should be used to live not squandered.
as just a child who had not eaten for 3 days a rich bloke gave my dad and me, broken down on the outback road a loaf of bread, I became a giver that day.
Never ever would I leave anyone without a feed, never, good men share.
any one who would let another suffer in my view is no man/woman

Just a few thoughts.

Welfare is there to basicly help people when they are down, however, to many, it has become a way of life. In fact, if there were no payments made to parents and kids were fed three square meals a day and privided with ample cloths etc, then many parents would re-think their situation, as, unless you are in denial, billions gets wasted every year while kids suffer. Why, because looser parents simply can't help themselves when presented with money.

Super. A great idea however where the planners went wrong was to invite private funds in to invest on the contributors behalf.

By all means gamble with your own money, but not someone elses.

All super should be controlled 100% by the government. Perhaps all funds should be dismantled and the money put in to buy back some of our assetts. Telstra etc.

Private super fund managers are like any other agent. The more they make for the client, the larger their cut and so they take risks with our future.

After all, all they risk is their jobs!

this thread has gone like all others, appropriately up the ass of Rhectum as he and "the usual suspects" of "the chattering classes" go cheek to bowel with the usual beat up on how we can't afford to pay what they see as the Little Ozzie Battler.

but I said in post #4:

"The part that astounded me was just how much you can own/earn and still get some pension, ie it can hardly be called "welfare" for such people."

The truth is that maybe 80% of funds designated as Aged Pension goes to those who are not struggling at all, even some who are supping at the Smirk Pig Trough of the Future Fund, having put in a paltry 14% towards what they are taking out.

IF Aged Pension was only paid to those without an adequate income from super etc, we could afford to keep PROPER pensioners PROPERLY.

the amendments of sept 2009 at least started to address this absurdity with changes to the retraction rate, and I for one hope what Kevin 07 called "better targeting" will continue

DD take a breath, why use terms like that, our flamer JKJ does are you happy in that company?
As sure as the sun will come up talking about other posters as lessor beings is undeniable evidence the posters self confidence is miss placed.
Rechtub, you wander from red neck right wing to pure Socialist.
Did you think that out, government take all our super, then would it be safe?
Invest in infrastructure? what interest would we earn
Yours too or would you reserve the right to keep yours while making me contribute to low interest maybe risky government funds.
Now industry funds take little out of my earnings via super, some bosses BELIEVE ME put employees super in shonky funds that take BIG fees.
That CAN take the lot on exit, these funds and those bosses should be destroyed.
Free market drives the stock market, it drove super investments to highs we made big money.
So we have had two bad years, such is life our funds are safe but not if in the hands of people who are not accountable for them.
Your dad, he would be chuckling now you give evidence why he would not listen to you, rest in peace old fella I will try and straighten him out for you, keep an eye on your budding Socialist.

Belly
"...our funds are safe but not if in the hands of people who are not accountable for them."

When was the last time a politician sent you an account for the money they have taken from you, or caused to taken from you?

but I said in post #4:

Which backs up what I say. Work, play hard, spend hard, waste every cent and, you will be rewarded. On the other hand, try and save and you get dismissed.

Any wonder there is resentment in the way the current system works.

Belly, I would appreciate if you would refrain from mentioning my late father. Although we may have had differing views on unions and polotics, I loved him dearly.

Perhaps I should have worded my thread i bit better and said, 'Do you think you will be able to access your super without having the jump through hoops'.

I just feel that when we get there, 55, 60, or even 70 as some suggest, will we be able to draw any more than what is equivilent to the pension of the day?

good men share.
Well Belly,
That's very noble but try & tell Public Servants to share this mentality who use up the bulk of Super funding by denying the lower paid the opportunity to contribute in the first place. There is enough funding out there for everyone, the problem is the inequality in distribution.
We all pay tax & in this tax should be sufficient to fund pension. We must never abolish pension unless we get Government capable of running an economy which allows for self-funded retirement. Somehow I fail to envisage such a Government because there aren't sufficient voters with a caring mentality. It's all well & good to say we should fund our own retirement. Guess what ? Most of us do, it's just that our contributions are misused by the public service's excessive benefit schemes & Governments failure to protect pension & social security funds which again, are run by public servants..

individual, You are right. There is just so much wasted money in governments, at local, state and federal levels and, they are not accountable for their actions and, they still retire from office on a big fat lifestyle reward, regardless of how badly they performed.

Meanwhile, we the tax payers, the very ones who pay their wages and fund their retirement packages get screwed.

This is why I worry about our super.

This is why I feel we may well have to jump through hoops to get at it, esspecially if we want to live a life in retirement that is better than surviving.

I don't take much notice of what happens outside of QLD, other than on a federal level. But I can assure you that if Bligh and Rudd continue to hold the cheque books and continue along their wastefull ways, they may well have to turn to our savings (super) in the future as the dwindling tax payers simply won't be able to keep up with their compulsive, knee jerk spending habits.

Maybe it's already to late!

rehctub,
I wonder if the Labor supporters will get back on this one ? You never know they might have a logical explanation.
I was told come hell or high water I would not be financially worse off under the new Qld Council amalgamation. What do I call the lesser amount bankable ?
Why doesn't Anna Bligh amalgamate the teachers & other public Servants with Local Government ? Yeah right !

Possibly the final say on the OP question is that the Family Court can and will TAKE your super if you are a man.

I should know as I become 65 with no super having lost it all 20 years ago to the experts in fam law, and now even easier with the super splitting amendments