Hasbeen: What is the relevance of your response to my post?

I'm talking superannuation that people pay with their own earnings either directly themselves via voluntary contributions or they pay indirectly by government mandated employer contributions which make up part of their wages/salary deal. While your talking about the government's public servants and their pensions.

thinkabit,
Are you seriously trying to convince us that Public servants & bureaucrats are contributing enough from their pays to end up with a Million + Super ?
They'd have to be on much higher salaries than they're trying to tell us if they can afford that much out of their pay !
The average blue collar jockey is hard up paying for Super as well after all the taxes. They don't have the luxury of just having to be there for 40 years & have enough to retire in comfort.
The ordinary wages earner does not have the luxury of not having to worry about an income if they stuff up in their job.
I have worked alongside Public servants for most of my working life, I KNOW what's going in their World. Forget trying to pull the wool over my eyes ! It might not be so obvious in the cities but up here in the remote communities it's in your face, impossible not to witness !

individual: In answer to "Are you seriously trying to convince us that Public servants & bureaucrats are contributing enough from their pays to end up with a Million + Super ?"

Well in most cases the answer would be, Yes! Exactly so!
The only instances where this would not be the case is if they had some other source of money that was not paid wages/salary that they voluntarily contributed to their super. Eg: from investments (such as shares in a company), inheritance, gifts, lottery winnings, they have a their own business*, etc.

And in response to "The average blue collar jockey is hard up paying for Super as well after all the taxes. They don't have the luxury of just having to be there for 40 years & have enough to retire in comfort."

Well what do you mean by "average blue collar jockey"? Does it include those with trades? Office workers such as secretaries and paralegals? Most of these would be earning more than $35/hr (and some, like electricians/plumbers/mine site truck drives/etc. multiple times that). However, even if someone earned a low wage of say $22/hr+super they can easily save enough to retire on after 40 years of work if they're smart with their money and live within their means.

[*: public servants have to be very careful here because there are very strict rules that limit/prevent public servants running their own business particularly if the business is in the same field that they are employed in.]

Whoops, in my last post I read the amount mentioned in individual's question as a million in super. But I think he means million in assets generally plus their super. Anyway it doesn't change what I'm saying by much- it is still the fact the public servants who retire with this much did it by earning the money. They don't get secret handouts from the government that is only available to them and not us.

Also, I said that money-smart people on low pay can self fund their retirement after 40 years of work. It should have been 45years (from 20 years old to 65 years old).

Come off it thinkabit.

Paying a public servant &70,000 a year when working at 62 years of age, then paying him $78,000 a year in retirement pension at 65 is not equitable in anyone elses mind, other than those getting it.

Bringing all public servants including politicians, judges, professors & the rest to the standard pension would free up billions a year, which would make the pension for all quite equitable & sustainable. Time to drain the swamp, & rip up the gravy train tracks.

Hasbeen: Once again you have made a response to a post of mine that is in no way relevant to it!

TO BE CLEAR: I'm talking about superannuation NOT pensions!! Also, I've never said that public servants are worthy of the amount that they are paid.

If you follow the thread of posts between individual and me all I've been doing is correcting/calling-out his completely ludicrous claims. Basically he seems to think that the rich and/or public servants* have access to special handouts/schemes that are not available to lower paid people. He also seems to think that superannuation costs the government more than pensions, which is truly bizarre since superannuation is basically people saving/investing their own money for their retirement whereas pensions are paid for by the government. I've no idea how he forms these off-the-planet ideas. One would think that anyone who has worked since 1983, when super was made compulsory, should know how superannuation works.

As well, as I've already pointed out, in the case of his claims regarding wealthy people getting government handouts added to their super, it is the exact opposite. Lower paid people can get some government largess whereas the wealthy may end up having some of their super contributions very heavily taxed.

--continued below--