Things you want changed in Australia

[Jovial Monk]

Not a way to save for retirement?

[J o h n S m i t h]

Not a way to save for retirement?

no. It's a way for the government to remove themselves of their obligation to provide a pension.

Super should be voluntary, not compulsory.

[Jovial Monk]

I don’t agree. Low paid need some top up from employer and/ot government.

[J o h n S m i t h]

I don’t agree. Low paid need some top up from employer and/ot government.

and making it voluntary does not take that option away from them

[Jovial Monk]

Will in practice.

[J o h n S m i t h]

Will in practice.

Thats the users choice. I decide what I do with it. I'd rather pay off a few investment properties and cash in the rent plus 500% capital growth over 20 yrs than get 3% a year, less fees and charges, I would get if I gave the money to a super fund.

Do you know WHY SMSF's are the fastest growing industry in the country? Because those with money to spare, want to control where their money is goes. Those on low incomes have no choice but to give their money to the likes of Rest, Qsuper of Commonwealth Bank financial etc. I wouldn't be so opposed to compulsory super if the govt. guaranteed it, but any one of those funds can go broke and you'd lose EVERYTHING. And the govt. won't give a shit because it'll be their mates who have run off with the cash

[Outlaw Yogi]

What is wrong with compulsory super?

It's compulsory!

If it was any good it'd be optional.
It's a scam, a privatised tax, with the promise we'll get it back with interest.
But the orgs running it think it's their money and are constantly looking for excuses not to give it back.

When introduced in 1989 (not 1992 as the official story goes) it had one thing going for it - "That we could retire at 55".
Once they changed that rule it's not worth the toilet paper it's written on.
The fact they have to keep changing the rules it proof enough it's a scam and a dud.

The original rationale was to "save the govt money" on pension obligations,
but the reality is it costs the govt heaps in forgone income to invalidate our pension entitlements.

[J o h n S m i t h]

What is wrong with compulsory super?

It's compulsory!

If it was any good it'd be optional.
It's a scam, a privatised tax, with the promise we'll get it back with interest.
But the orgs running it think it's their money and are constantly looking for excuses not to give it back.

When introduced in 1989 (not 1992 as the official story goes) it had one thing going for it - "That we could retire at 55".
Once they changed that rule it's not worth the toilet paper it's written on.
The fact they have to keep changing the rules it proof enough it's a scam and a dud.

The original rationale was to "save the govt money" on pension obligations,
but the reality is it costs the govt heaps in forgone income to invalidate our pension entitlements.

Amen