Thread: Pension Age may move to 70

Originally Posted by Fatso

Gday mate hows it goin you made foreman yet ??? , naaa cant get any of the old dudes blocking advancement to **** off or retire .

You raise an interesting point. If the pension age is raised to 70 that means more older workers are still in the workforce, many because they don't want to be but are required to because of the pension age.

At the moment with the pension age set at 65, most of the older workers are now retired leaving only a small percentage, such as myself still in work. It's a double edged sword. The taxes paid by the younger workers are not enough to support the baby boomer generation in retirement, but if the older worker continues in employment he/she is blocking younger workers.

Before anybody mentions, that the older worker should have enough superannuation to fund their retirement, let me say this, compulsory superannuation has only been in force over the last few years, before that there was no compulsory superannuation. Companies "invited" their workers to join a company superannuation scheme after a worker has worked there for a length of time. (not sure, I think it was 5 years)

When and if you left that company you were paid out and you could not transfer your super because you had to go through that induction period again with your new company. so trying to save for your retirement was very disjointed....at best.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Originally Posted by garrycol

Well you are clearly in rip off funds - my super fund made 50% over the past 12 months and that is with no deposits. The last couple of years have been some of the best ever for super though the couple of years before that were among the worst ever.

Are you in a SMSF or retail fund?

If it is retail please share who you are with and what plan so we can all be as successful as you have (apparently) been

G'day Ausfree

Hear! Hear!,I worked in the motor trade which had the practice of 4.? years "staff re-orginisation" =fired/put off redundant, 6 months later they would call,new better pay offer/better conditions, why,well at 5 years you had to be offered Super,the Coy.had to put in X amount, it would cost the company over and above your wage,GONE-------

If you rejoined you were at Ground Zero--five years to go.

Uncle Ho I remember that kind of practice in the early 70's and was one of the reasons why so many people did not contributed to the private "invited"supa. No to mention what will happens if the company went broke.

I too took a hit with the GFC, it happens.

My real concern is when the Govt sees the amount of resources held by the super funds, and then decides to help them out of the current financial situation they are going to take a bit from everyones super.....for the good of the country of course.

Think it can't happen, give Cyprus or Greece a call. Very dangerous precedent has been set, and all the Govts have been watching.

And this is the problem. There is a serious shortfall of education when it comes to investments.

If you have 100,000 units in a fund and it is worth $1 per unit you have $100,000

If the unit price goes up to $1.20 you have $120,000

If the unit price drops to $0.80 you have $80,000

Have you lost any money?

Mean whilst you have been receiving income from the interest component of the cash and fixed interest as well as dividends from the share price. Possibly you have also been receiving the Super guarantee from your employer and you may of been putting money in. What happens to this money? It buys more units at whatever the unit price is.

Therefore you have increased your asset base.

If I put it another way, Imagine that you own your own home and the council give you a statement to say your house is worth $300,000. Next year you get a statement to say your house is worth $280,000. Have you lost money? The answer is of course no you haven't. you still have the asset, whether it is a house or units in a managed fund or superannuation. It is a paper loss. Unless you sell and convert the asset to cash and crystalise the loss.

50% on super last year? It is possible and you definitely could of done it last year. Could you do it consistently, year in year out? Not on your life!

Originally Posted by FeatherWeightDriver

Are you in a SMSF or retail fund?

If it is retail please share who you are with and what plan so we can all be as successful as you have (apparently) been

There would be a number of funds that spring to mind. Here are two.

The Platinum Japan Fund APIR code PLA0003AU did almost 70% Sep 2012 to Sep 2013, I didn't see what it did last financial year.

the Colonial First State Wholesale geared Shared Fund APIR code FSF0043AU did just over 60% for Sep 2012 to Sep 2013, Back at the end of the Financial year this fund was doing a bit better closer to 70%

If you google the APIR codes you will get all the information you need.

therefore if you have these funds in your Super as many platform funds would have, and you had exposure to them for the last 12 months you have done very well.

RISK and RETURN
The more risk you take on the opportunity of greater returns. I have seen the CFS WS geared Share fund do -40% return as well. Hence You will not get these great returns year in year out consistently.

If you are looking for work in your 50's in a few years time then you will be classed as one of the youngin's.