Of course, the Super system itself needs considerable reform.

As far as I am concerned, Super is part of a person's wages and should be paid automatically at the same time as tax and wages, and not 3 months after the fact.

The business community really needs a good kick in the guts.

So, again, pay day is ahead, wages go into a holding area, tax is paid directly to the tax dept, super is paid directly to the beneficiaries account and wages directly to each respective employees bank account.

In short, there should be no free kick for 3 months for businesses with the super of their employees. It's another very bad joke.

People need to be made to understand that with Super it is the individual's right to choose, and not to allow themselves to be bullied by their employer into using their chosen fund.

Unfortunately, particularly with casual workers, we have a situation where some people have multiple accounts with small amounts which in turn, after they have been signed up numerous times without consent to multiple insurance policies which they don't need -> chomp, chomp, chomp and it is all gone.

Underpinning this is a rubbish education system that does not teach the essentials of first aid, the guvment, legal and financial systems, all of which are crucial for success in Australia.

It seems plain that the parasites in the guvment far prefer a situation which keeps people ignorant, such that they are more easily predated upon.

Dear Graham,

Treasurer Joe Hockey has to raise all sorts of
prospects in his attempts towards trying to
gain a "surplus," I guess. However, his latest proposal
of allowing first home buyers to dip into their
superannuation to buy a property doesn't quite
make sense, at least to me.

Sure being able to buy your first home sounds
great - however, if you're going to dip into
your super for a deposit - you'll end up having
to pay tax on it. Plus this idea will also push
up the price of houses.

John Daley from the Grattan Institute tell us that
"We have been here before."
"It won't improve the problem around supply. If
supply remains constant and you effectively increase
the amount that people can pay then prices will go up.
This is economics 101."

Apparently this idea was something Finance Minister
Mathias Cormann had previously ruled out. It appears
that this idea will undermine the very purpose of
doing the most good for young people. Plus as others
have pointed out if you open up superannuation balances
for housing, where will it end?

Saul Eslake, the chief economist of Bank of Americ a,
Merrill Lynch, agreed with Mr Daley, saying the
proposal would only inflate the pcie of housing and
make it harder for young people to buy their first
homes.

"It's exactly the same principle as first home owner grants
and stamp duty concessions." Mr Eslake said.

Mr Eslake also added that if the Abbott government was
considering using the superannuation system differently,
it ought to consider raising the age at which people
could access super and pensions.

Taken from an article by Gareth Hutchens -
The Age, Saturday, March 7, 2015.

Well, what I would take from that *Foxy* is that, as I have already indicated, it could be a minor concession for those most at need

(and better that than burning money on rent)

BUT only as an adjunct used in conjunction with a mix of other corrective actions.

Let's face it, the price of property is an obscene joke and Australians from the middle down are getting terribly screwed for 25-30 years to what amounts to little more than 90% dirt.

Australians should not only have universal medical and legal in addition to a house, but a big fat investment fund on top.

The price of property is a blight, a pox and a stone around the neck of this nation, which serves to ingratiate the wealthy and those to whom they donate.

*OntheBeach*

I have attended the UN, participated in some its discussions and spoken to some of the delegates. Your comments to me indicate that you know next to nothing about what the UN is about.

If you don't like the Asylum Convention then GET OUT! The biggest advertisement for boats is Australia's illegitimate membership of the convention.

Of course now, the guvment advertises its mandatory detention policy in far off places to make potentional Asylum seeker's aware that Australia is every bit as bad as some of the places they are fleeing persecution.

So, how to stop the boats by the scum in the coalition is not to stop the boats per se, but rather to become child abusing torturers such that the boats want not to come.

And tony thinks he should receive congratulations on this? No, I think not ..

Yes Graham, I agree, & my kids also agree.

I have always thought it ridiculous that at the very time when young people are trying to buy homes, all the white goods & furniture a young family need, start that family, &/or pay the cost of schooling a family, a large chunk of their gross is being extracted to get governments off the hook of the age pension.

Granted the cost of welfare has grown out of control now bordering on the ridiculous, & has to be rained in, but that young married starting a family time is the very time kids need their full earnings.

If that forced loss of income could be channelled into securing that first home, the critical one for future security, it would remove this damaging effect of super on young families.

DreamOn, "Unfortunately, particularly with casual workers, we have a situation where some people have multiple accounts with small amounts which in turn, after they have been signed up numerous times without consent to multiple insurance policies which they don't need -> chomp, chomp, chomp and it is all gone"

You are right and it is grossly unfair. Many students and others who for whatever reason cannot build their deposits to where the earnings can more than cover the fund's minimum management fee will lose all of their savings.

Previously contributors and funds were happy to help along the small depositors in their early years, but now the minimum fee is taken regardless and if that means eventual nil in the account, tough luck. It is quite unlike the previous ethics of cooperatives like credit unions and building societies.

Dream on,you can keep dreaming on if you seriously think businesses like the idea of with holding your money.

As a business man myself, I can assure you super is a nightmare with one problem being the fact that employees can choose their own fund.

Super, along with annual leave, should in my view be paid weekly as a portion of the wage and left up to the employee to save their annual leave and contribute their super to which ever fund they choose because it's just another case of unpaid work performed by employers simply because so many employees are too il disciplined to look after their own affairs.

Alternatively, super should be paid into a no fee general account, which employees then manage from their. Either way we have to stop placing the burdens on employers because what cost $10 per hour when super started, now costs more like $35 per hour when valuing the add ons.

As fir governments taking our super, I doubt that will happen, but what I think will happen is they will limit the amount we can draw each week/month/year before increasing taxes as a deterrent, all in the name of reducing the burden on taxes and looking after those who failed to look after themselves for what ever reason.

Take from the rich to support the poor, or the looser.