Thread: Thinking about retirement? you may have to think again.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

Troll.

Yes , a troll bridge and all who pass must pay !

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Superannuation contributions should have been 15% from day 1, so people might have had more money by now to provide for themselves and less need for a government pension.

Originally Posted by Pickles2

You are absolutely right, but if you are absolutely honest, you would absolutely realize that that would've meant a decrease in the take home pay of Aussies who are simply concerned about what is in their hands TODAY, without thinking about the implications of THEIR future.
Pickles.

I think your both right there. So many people I've met through out my working career (Im only 36 so it hasnt been that long) that are a similar age to me dont give a rats arse about super. I think part of the issue is that its money that you dont get to see until later in life so its low on peoples radar and I think most people seem sceptical that they will ever see it. But its certainly within peoples own power to top up their super contributions with their own money to make up to 15%. I seen recently a table of average super amounts per age group - my group was around $55,000 which to me seems low so I think that even by the time I get to retirement age there will still be some sort of pension available (it certainly wont be the same as what we currently have). All I know is with my super balance Im certainly on track to need very little of the "pension" as Im well and truly up on the average.

Originally Posted by bob10

And you are blaming a generation for that?

Well Bob, I reckon you could, in a circuitous way, as our generation didn't have to endure the NIMBY and Extremist Tree Hugger sectors , which were spawned by the later generation. (Trying to avoid being political here.).

I'm certainly not condoning environmental destruction, by the way, just saying that radical minorities weren't as prevalent or powerful in our day.

Steve

Originally Posted by trog

I am always looking for a nice bridge to set my cardboard tiny house under ��

Here you go, Trog!

Drawback is the extended "Family" it will create.

Yes that would fit into plans just nicely. A few stages for live bands , a little workshop for a future Landy rooms t rent. Ok give me the keys 🤑

Originally Posted by Pickles2

You are absolutely right, but if you are absolutely honest, you would absolutely realize that that would've meant a decrease in the take home pay of Aussies who are simply concerned about what is in their hands TODAY, without thinking about the implications of THEIR future.
Pickles.

That's true, but it would still have been good for the country if our best PM in recent history had got his way, instead of being stopped for political reasons, but I can't discuss that outside Current Affairs.

Also note that each annual 0.5 percent increase in the employer super contribution is deducted from the overall wage rise, so it doesn't actually cost the employer extra, it is just diverted into super instead of being paid and spent.

I'm on a transition to retirement plan, but the rules have been changed to make it harder to save to be self-supporting, which I think is just dumb.

Originally Posted by shanegtr

I think your both right there. So many people I've met through out my working career (Im only 36 so it hasnt been that long) that are a similar age to me dont give a rats arse about super. I think part of the issue is that its money that you dont get to see until later in life so its low on peoples radar and I think most people seem sceptical that they will ever see it. But its certainly within peoples own power to top up their super contributions with their own money to make up to 15%. I seen recently a table of average super amounts per age group - my group was around $55,000 which to me seems low so I think that even by the time I get to retirement age there will still be some sort of pension available (it certainly wont be the same as what we currently have). All I know is with my super balance Im certainly on track to need very little of the "pension" as Im well and truly up on the average.

I'm well up on the average and the plan will allow me to choose to retire any time after February 2019, but I'll still need an aged pension top-up because the government taxes me if I save more than a certain amount extra above the employer contributions. They have just cut that from $35,000 to $25,000, which I think is dumb.
Note that the politicians super is 18 percent, they are looking after themselves.

Originally Posted by shanegtr

I think your both right there. So many people I've met through out my working career (Im only 36 so it hasnt been that long) that are a similar age to me dont give a rats arse about super. I think part of the issue is that its money that you dont get to see until later in life so its low on peoples radar and I think most people seem sceptical that they will ever see it. But its certainly within peoples own power to top up their super contributions with their own money to make up to 15%. I seen recently a table of average super amounts per age group - my group was around $55,000 which to me seems low so I think that even by the time I get to retirement age there will still be some sort of pension available (it certainly wont be the same as what we currently have). All I know is with my super balance Im certainly on track to need very little of the "pension" as Im well and truly up on the average.

Spot on. I saw the value of super after 21 years in the military, so when I joined the Post Office, as soon as I could , I increased my contributions to 15%. Having said that, I had a DFRDB super pension coming in, so it wasn't really a financial hardship. It's short term pain for long term gain. Having said that, I understand low income earners need every cent they have, to own a home and just live, I guess. Bit of a catch 22, but if people can raise their contributions by small increments as they can afford it, it would be worth it in the end.