Once again we see there is to be a lift in the rate of super contributions by employers.

We started with 3%, then 6%, now 9% and now they want us to bump it up to 12%.

So, why not make employees contribute to their own retirerment as well.

At what point do we, the employers, get to stop 'breast feeding' the retirement plans for workers?

Now I have no problems in an employer assisting with super, but, what about a 'dollar for dollar' matching scheme, whereby for every dollar employees contribute (of the gap between 9% and 12%), we, the employer can match that.

We already have the burdon of extra 'red tape' when an employee gets to choose their super fund.

By all maeans choose your own fund, but we as employers should be able to contribute to the one industry fund then employees can 'roll over' to thier 'fund of choice' at any time. What's wrong with that?

Of cause, as always, this will simply cost jobs and increase costs/prices. An interesting note was the reference made to future pay rises.

It is another burden for business, particularly small business. It is the government's way to reduce the burden of an ageing population which we seem intent on repeating with talk of a Bigger Australia.

The fact is business will increase prices to pay for this so in the end we all pay - just a different form of tax or an indirect GST. Costs of business will always be passed on, but I get the angst over red tape.

As for rolling over into another fund, the issue is cost. Every time you rollover you are charged ridiculous fees and lose some of your super to company profits. It would certainly be easier for business if employees could rollover without incurring these costs thus reducing red tape for business. But I suspect the Financial Services industry will lobby hard for any change to regulation on that, without some reciprocal financial benefit such as tax relief.

Ideally government should be responsible for retirement income as a first base - paid for via business and personal taxes, with voluntary top-up in the private sector as an option.

Turning retirement savings over to the private sector is fraught with risk and there is no guarantee that the government won't need to pick up the pieces in the long term. Without any form of guarantee ordinary wage earners are hesitant to top up super lest the whole lot ends up being lost due to mismangement or fraud.

Yes, some very good points pelican. I have always thought that governments should have held a super, not private institutions which attract huge salaries for thier chiefs, all comming from mums and dads super dollars. And of cause, as usual, if these mums and dads funds are lost, or errodded, nobody is financially liable.

It's your ultimate 'win win' for these guys.

As usual, the whingeing employers forget the origins of super: "So, why not make employees contribute to their own retirerment as well", says rehctub... "We started with 3%, then 6%, now 9% and now they want us to bump it up to 12%".

Indeed, super did start with 3%, and it was a wage offset, paid for by employees.

It would suit me fine if we hade a national super scheme, let's call it a pension shall we, and all our OAP contributions went into it.

No 'industry' funds, no 'private rip-off funds there, just a national scheme that produced a pension with no massive lump sum payouts.

"We already have the burdon of extra 'red tape' when an employee gets to choose their super fund"..., well, you can blame that on the anti-redtape man Howard, and Costello.

Designed to induce punters away from the well performing industry funds, into the poorly performing private funds.

"By all maeans choose your own fund, but we as employers should be able to contribute to the one industry fund then employees can 'roll over' to thier 'fund of choice' at any time. What's wrong with that?"..., well, you'd probably stick it in a dodgy private fund not an industry fund.

It should be all paid into a ATO fund anyway.

My super returns, over all, less than what is charged for a mortgage, and has twice lost money for a couple of years at a time...even when mortgages were at skyhigh rates.

Since 1997, it has grown, but is barely keeping up with the inflation we have, and that is with some very high returns prior to the GFC.

At one stage, I foolishly had it parked with AMP when George Trumbull was running it down into the ground.

As I recall, he got paid $40m to clear off, and my super, then about $12k worth, earned something less than $5.00 for the tax year... while my mortgage was at least 10%, if not still 17%.

Super is a total rip off.

It doesent, you can always employ people as contractors then its their problem. It will really come down to "can you afford to employ people", which is pivotal upon the services and goods you provide and their relationship to market forces. There is/was a super co-contribution scheme, but the rumblings about new taxes on super kind of counterract the benefits of co-contribution. My super is never going to benefit me by the time I am 67 or whatever it will be down the track, I dont pretend tax is part of my income as I dont recieve it.

The blue cross>>
As usual, the whingeing employers forget the origins of super:

Yes, well you got one thing right here, the word 'origins'. So what about the other 6%. Are you suggesting they to have been instead of pay rises?

Well this sums it up for you, doesn't it. It's very hard to hide your hatred for small business sometimes, hey!

>>>By all maeans choose your own fund, "..., well, you'd probably stick it in a dodgy private fund not an industry fund.

As a metter of fact, AMIST was one of the best performing funds of late. Get your fact right before defaming me mate!

Pat the ....
>>>It doesent, you can always employ people as contractors then its their problem

Well the governments closed that one as well, as one can't earn more than 80% of thier income from the one source and remain a contractor.

I would love to pay my staff as 'contractors' , most of us would, however the governments know, in most cases, they would blow the lot and save nothing. This is why we have to hold their hands, collect their taxes, pay their super. Proof that the 'red tape' is a joke for employers..Meanwhile, the employee is not required to save for their own retirement. Why?

>> I dont pretend tax is part of my income as I dont recieve it.

It is as long as you can claim a portion of it back.