Superannuation Discussion + market volatility

[anyonebutqantas]

The best thing for Australia would be to dismantle the welfare state.

 

[CaptJCool]

Thank you for the info and suggestions @SYD, I'll let him know.

Withdrawing your super

There are a number of ways you can withdraw your super in retirement—how you do this will depend on your specific circumstances. We can help you find the right option for your situation.

www.csc.gov.au

if its this PSS scheme

it was a once only offer and I would expect the scheme to say so

one can't go back and unscramble the egg...
and benefit pensions can revert to surviving spouses

https://csc.sitecorecontenthub.cloud/api/public/content/39dc4fb3e85b419e9859501e2ffb54a5?v=5fb5fb71

 

[SYD]

Withdrawing your super

There are a number of ways you can withdraw your super in retirement—how you do this will depend on your specific circumstances. We can help you find the right option for your situation.

www.csc.gov.au

if its this PSS scheme

it was a once only offer and I would expect the scheme to say so

one can't go back and unscramble the egg...

Yep, that’s pretty much my thinking.

I’m in another Commonwealth Super scheme that allows a pension from age 55 but member contributions are preserved until preservation age. After which they can by taken as a lump sum or rolled over. It looks like PSS might have something similar but assume in this case everything was converted to an indexed pension?

 

[get me outta here]

Withdrawing your super

There are a number of ways you can withdraw your super in retirement—how you do this will depend on your specific circumstances. We can help you find the right option for your situation.

www.csc.gov.au

if its this PSS scheme

it was a once only offer and I would expect the scheme to say so

one can't go back and unscramble the egg...
and benefit pensions can revert to surviving spouses

https://csc.sitecorecontenthub.cloud/api/public/content/39dc4fb3e85b419e9859501e2ffb54a5?v=5fb5fb71

He may need to find out what is a legal personal representative highlighted :

 

[get me outta here]

Yep, that’s pretty much my thinking.

I’m in another Commonwealth Super scheme that allows a pension from age 55 but member contributions are preserved until preservation age. After which they can by taken as a lump sum or rolled over. It looks like PSS might have something similar but assume in this case everything was converted to an indexed pension?

Yes, I believe it was converted to an index pension. And he is over preservation age. He wonders with his extra voluntary contributions, how they are treated. Perhaps, just adds to the indexed pension. If so, perhaps many more people could do it as short-term pain, retirement gain.

 

[MARTINE]

Yes, I believe it was converted to an index pension. And he is over preservation age. He wonders with his extra voluntary contributions, how they are treated. Perhaps, just adds to the indexed pension. If so, perhaps many more people could do it as short-term pain, retirement gain.

Usual PSS scenario is once you elect for lump sum or pension or combo thereof thats it and you cannot change your mind. Its how the actuaries calculate what you get.

Anything extra you put in just gets amortised across the pension.

I am assuming it is a defined benefit fund which would have been based on salary.

In the later years the generous PSS was replaced by an accumulation fund PSSA - assuming he is not in that basket.

The website is full of information

 

[SYD]

Yes, I believe it was converted to an index pension. And he is over preservation age. He wonders with his extra voluntary contributions, how they are treated. Perhaps, just adds to the indexed pension. If so, perhaps many more people could do it as short-term pain, retirement gain.

I’m not across the specifics of PSS but I would have thought personal contributions (regardless of whether they were above and beyond the minimum) were treated differently to the defined benefits component. But otherwise, if they were converted to a consolidated pension, then that ought to mean his meagre pension could have been even less without those extra contributions. Although, it really depends on how much over and for how long those contributions occurred.

If they are sitting somewhere outside the pension, an annual statement would show that.

 

[CaptJCool]

I’m not across the specifics of PSS but I would have thought personal contributions (regardless of whether they were above and beyond the minimum) were treated differently to the defined benefits component. But otherwise, if they were converted to a consolidated pension, then that ought to mean his meagre pension could have been even less without those extra contributions. Although, it really depends on how much over and for how long those contributions occurred.

If they are sitting somewhere outside the pension, an annual statement would show that.

no

the PSS lever was the capacity to shift your personal contributions between 2-10% (and for the Govt to match them on top of its own contribution) but you could put no more into the defined contributions fund)
it was in effect a lump sum deal which you could convert to a full INDEXED pension stream Maximising your super

(Unlike the CSS scheme where it was a mandatory 5% personal contributions - and if you chose to stick more in upto 10% they were counted as supplementary contributions and landed on the Non-Indexed Pension side)

 

[get me outta here]

I’m not across the specifics of PSS but I would have thought personal contributions (regardless of whether they were above and beyond the minimum) were treated differently to the defined benefits component. But otherwise, if they were converted to a consolidated pension, then that ought to mean his meagre pension could have been even less without those extra contributions. Although, it really depends on how much over and for how long those contributions occurred.

If they are sitting somewhere outside the pension, an annual statement would show that.

Yes, it is PSS, a defined benefit fund based on his salary. I'll ask him about accessing any annual statements. But, seems sensible that the amortisation would be in play possibly raising the pension.

 

[Buzzard]

The best thing for Australia would be to dismantle the welfare state.

Shame I didn't save the link but I read a very interesting article explaining why every (adult?) should get $500/week from the Government.
It's too long and detailed to go into here but it certainly raised some interesting points.

 

[pagingjoan]

Shame I didn't save the link but I read a very interesting article explaining why every (adult?) should get $500/week from the Government.
It's too long and detailed to go into here but it certainly raised some interesting points.

SMH - probably paywalled - but search on
Adjunct Professor Everald Compton AO, 92, has been the most successful professional fundraiser in the country. He is the founder of National Seniors Australia, co-founder of the Brisbane Lions and one of the leaders of the team that got voluntary assisted dying legislation through the Queensland parliament.

 

[CaptJCool]

SMH - probably paywalled - but search on
Adjunct Professor Everald Compton AO, 92, has been the most successful professional fundraiser in the country. He is the founder of National Seniors Australia, co-founder of the Brisbane Lions and one of the leaders of the team that got voluntary assisted dying legislation through the Queensland parliament.

yes its paywalled

here's a few brief notes

What’s been proved ... is that once people know they are to get a monthly remittance from the government, they are more inclined to try and set up their own business rather than go to work because they have the confidence to take risks. It helps with mental illness and the overall social benefits of a happier society are massive.

you just get rid of all the narrowly applied means-tested social welfare programs and all the costly apparatus to work out who should get it and who shouldn’t.

it actually encourages people to do something, and it also enables people who are in a job that they don’t like to break out and learn a new profession while they’re living on their UBI.

a different tax code where instead of people dodging high tax on income, people would have to pay a low tax .... with no loopholes, no write-offs, no deductions. There will be no more tax evasion, and the rich will at last have to pay their fair share.

 

[anyonebutqantas]

yes its paywalled

here's a few brief notes

What’s been proved ... is that once people know they are to get a monthly remittance from the government, they are more inclined to try and set up their own business rather than go to work because they have the confidence to take risks. It helps with mental illness and the overall social benefits of a happier society are massive.

you just get rid of all the narrowly applied means-tested social welfare programs and all the costly apparatus to work out who should get it and who shouldn’t.

it actually encourages people to do something, and it also enables people who are in a job that they don’t like to break out and learn a new profession while they’re living on their UBI.

a different tax code where instead of people dodging high tax on income, people would have to pay a low tax .... with no loopholes, no write-offs, no deductions. There will be no more tax evasion, and the rich will at last have to pay their fair share.

Most tax in this country is paid by high income earners. The nation is literally being carried on their backs.

The guaranteed $500 a week would achieve the goal of abolishing Centrelink - you would abolish all the other allowance, entitlements, tests, etc, and it would probably save money.

 

[CaptJCool]

Most tax in this country is paid by high income earners. The nation is literally being carried on their backs.

The guaranteed $500 a week would achieve the goal of abolishing Centrelink - you would abolish all the other allowance, entitlements, tests, etc, and it would probably save money.

yes, the view is that in giving everyone $500 a week, there's no excuse for working instead of surfing at Byron Bay

of course 5 people in a house makes $2,500 per week makes $125,000 per annum

what we are really addressing is the attraction of reciprocity plus being productive and generous - everyone loves someone picking up the dinner tab!

the further view expressed was for the millionaires who don't need it, they either refuse to take it or donate it to charity

 

[andye]

5268 7

The best thing for Australia would be to dismantle the welfare state.

I strongly suspect that Australia without a welfare state would not be the prosperous, stable and safe place to live (and do business) that it is

 

[anyonebutqantas]

5268 7
I strongly suspect that Australia without a welfare state would not be the prosperous, stable and safe place to live (and do business) that it is

Australia was prosperous, safe and stable long before the 1970s when the welfare state was built.

 

[burmans]

It may only be me thinking this but would suggest this is both OT and perilously close to breaking the ToS.

 

[33kft]

Australia was prosperous, safe and stable long before the 1970s when the welfare state was built.

Yes, because nothing says abolishing the welfare state like paying $500 a week in welfare UBI to you, I and Gina Rinehart (who can tick a box to refuse it, yes yes, it's a watertight proposal indeed).

Anyway having read the article, it was insinuated that there was additional cost involved to this approach (the flat tax to be implemented, which optimises for efficiency but will result in some people paying greater tax), so the idea that this is simply abolishing centrelink and redistributing the gross welfare outgoings is not accurate, nor is it reducing the welfare commitment that is a significant component of our income tax. I can't see how it isn't increasing welfare spend, am I missing something?

Not to mention the impact on things like immigration - who exactly benefits from these payments? Citizens, PRs? Doesn't this just create an incentive to move as many adult family members to Australia as possible, especially elderly retirees, to benefit from this generous UBI payment?

 

[JessicaTam]

[mod hat]
Back to the superannuation discussion, please.
[/mod hat]

 

[justinbrett]

I’m not across the specifics of PSS but I would have thought personal contributions (regardless of whether they were above and beyond the minimum) were treated differently to the defined benefits component. But otherwise, if they were converted to a consolidated pension, then that ought to mean his meagre pension could have been even less without those extra contributions. Although, it really depends on how much over and for how long those contributions occurred.

If they are sitting somewhere outside the pension, an annual statement would show that.

That is how MSBS works (Military - closed to new members in 2016).

5% mandatory contribution which may be increased to 10%. Defined benefit is based on final average salary over the last three years.

If you convert to a pension that is only from the defined benefit. Member contributions are treated like normal super - can't be converted to a pension.

Very good deal though (pension conversion rate is usually /12 I believe) - understandable why they changed it. It however did penalise those who weren't lifers.