Oh come now *Rehctum* larger companies make a good earn out of using their employees super on the market in advance of paying it, when it should be making an earn for those who earnt it.

I agree that the admin could be done better, but when you get down to it all you are really going on about is a well maintained file and a few mouse clicks.

Currently, the rate that it is required to be done turns on how often you pay (weekly, fortnightly or monthly) which in turn takes into account the different cash flows of different types of businesses.

rehctub, "As for governments taking our super, I doubt that will happen"

Don't bank on that. It was years ago, but Menzies seized the money taxed from workers' pays to provide their aged pensions. He put it into Consolidated Revenue and it was lost forever. Then the feds turned around and acted as though it never happened.

While the federal government might not directly and obviously grab the present superannuation savings, there is more than one way to skin a cat (or pluck the taxpayer goose). Examples could include more taxation of superannution deposits and earnings, and forced investment by super funds in 'ethical' ventures and companies. An ethical investment could be in green energy production being pushed by a particular government. What about infrastructure? Kites have been flown. Some federal 'experts' have already said that national superannuation savings should be available for government to borrow at low interest to build infrastructure for Australia.

It's a small step in the right direction, but it begs the question - why have superannuation in the first place.

The assumption is that people cannot save, that they are inherently irresponsible, that government knows better what's best for you, which it therefore takes away your money to place it under a shroud of bureaucracy where ordinary people cannot manage their own savings and are instead preyed upon by shrewd managing-agents (only the rich can afford their own self-managed fund, that too with large costs).

Of course, having no debt is the best investment, next best is owning your own home, but why should it stop there?

Ben Eltham writes that if governments want to
address home affordability there's several
things that they can do:

1) Build new houses and flats close to jobs
and amenities that ordinary workers on low
and middle-incomes can afford.

He tells us that the market is failing to build
them for reasons that include huge tax subsidies tied
to existing properties.

We're told that it can be done. That Australian
governments used to build public housing all the
time. However, Joe Hockey has cut funding for
affordable housing killing off the National
Rental Affordability Scheme in last year's budget.

2) Eltham states that governments could also remove
the incentives that benefit landlords and home owners,
and penalise renters and home buyers.

3) Get rid of negative gearing, money spent on stamp
duty exemptions and home owner's grants could be
re-directed to building new houses.

4) Capital gains tax exemptions for property should be
tightened.

As for super? It needs reform too, according to Eltham.

1) Slash the generous tax concessions granted to high
income earners.

Eltham tells us that Super tax concessions will cost
the federal budget approx. $30 billion a year.

You could build a lot of affordable housing with
$30 billion.

Ben Eltham really needs to get out more if he isn't aware of the many initiatives taken around Australia to build low cost dwellings and close to transport hubs, many inner city.

Government doesn't have the money and expertise, and is relying on private investment.

The demand is driven by decades of wildly over-enthusiastic migration, populations that have lobbed in the larger cities. State Premiers, especially NSW, Victoria and Queensland and including Labor's Peter Beattie, Anna Bligh and Carr, just to name a few. Here is Bob Carr on the subject,
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/01/bob-carr-why-our-cities-will-really-choke-with-population-growth/

It is not assisted by the growth in single person households and destruction of the family (fatherless families).

The rest is tired old stuff and solidly rebutted on many previous occasions.

Allowing access to superannuation savings is a good idea - it should be by right, it is the worker's money. It is a good idea that is being opposed for the sake of opposing.

However, there must also be relief from the excessive population growth from migration.

My,

"The demand is driven by decades of wildly over-enthusiastic migration, populations that have lobbed in the larger cities. State Premiers, especially NSW, Victoria and Queensland and including Labor's Peter Beattie, Anna Bligh and Carr, just to name a few. Here is Bob Carr on the subject,
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/01/bob-carr-why-our-cities-will-really-choke-with-population-growth/"

should have read,

The demand is driven by decades of wildly over-enthusiastic migration, populations that have lobbed in the larger cities. State Premiers, especially NSW, Victoria and Queensland and including Labor's Peter Beattie, Anna Bligh and Carr, have been highly critical of excessively high migration, just to name a few. Here is Bob Carr on the subject,

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/01/bob-carr-why-our-cities-will-really-choke-with-population-growth/