Superannuation! SMSF? Industry? Institutional?

[Deleted member]

First lump sum withdrawals will be disallowed.
Then the retirement age, and the age you can access your super, will be increased.

Now, there are perfectly good reasons for both of the above to be implemented, but as with most other national social/economic/tax policies over the last 40ish years, it will be designed and timed to maximise benefits for baby boomers, and tough luck for everyone else. If you're at the very end of the BB demographic, you might get left out - conversely, they might go long so if you're at the beginning of Gen Y, you may get lucky and be included - hence "about 45".

EDIT: And I forgot to add, they'll be coming for the SMSFs next, to make it uneconomical (if not impossible) for anyone with a fund of less than $200-300k to work with (ie: just about everyone).

It's uneconomical now to have less than $200 k in a SMSF.
The problem is there are too many idiots happy to let misguided individuals have a self managed fund with bugger all assets.

Increase the retirement agent to what?
At the moment you can access super from age 55 So increase it to 60, 65?
I think you may in fact be referring to the age pension age which is a fair point

 

[Pushka]

It's uneconomical now to have less than $200 k in a SMSF.
The problem is there are too many idiots happy to let misguided individuals have a self managed fund with bugger all assets.

Increase the retirement agent to what?
At the moment you can access super from age 55 So increase it to 60, 65?
I think you may in fact be referring to the age pension age which is a fair point

Our accountant set up our SMSF back on 1995 so we were early birds. Even at that time you needed to have $150k to make it viable. I think the age of access has already increased from 55 to 57? for people born in the sixties.

At 65 I think that is about the correct age for the pension. And that should also apply to politicians. They have no idea about the average persons needs. None of 'em.

Foot in mouth comments might make me cringe sometimes and laugh at other times but it makes them human. It's the lies and pledges made to be broken that peeve me.

 

[Pushka]

It's uneconomical now to have less than $200 k in a SMSF.
The problem is there are too many idiots happy to let misguided individuals have a self managed fund with bugger all assets.

Increase the retirement agent to what?
At the moment you can access super from age 55 So increase it to 60, 65?
I think you may in fact be referring to the age pension age which is a fair point

Our accountant set up our SMSF back on 1995 so we were early birds. Even at that time you needed to have $150k to make it viable. I think the age of access has already increased from 55 to 57? for people born in the sixties.

At 65 I think that is about the correct age for the pension. And that should also apply to politicians. They have no idea about the average persons needs. None of 'em.

Foot in mouth comments might make me cringe sometimes and laugh at other times but it makes them human. It's the lies and pledges made to be broken that peeve me.

 

[amaroo]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

EDIT: And I forgot to add, they'll be coming for the SMSFs next, to make it uneconomical (if not impossible) for anyone with a fund of less than $200-300k to work with (ie: just about everyone).

SMSF are not for everyone - thats why the unions created industry funds. Unions love nothing better than controlling your money and your life!

IMO Industry super funds should be approached with extreme caution .....any organisation that has a 50% union appointed board - will not be a good one.

 

[amaroo]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

EDIT: And I forgot to add, they'll be coming for the SMSFs next, to make it uneconomical (if not impossible) for anyone with a fund of less than $200-300k to work with (ie: just about everyone).

SMSF are not for everyone - thats why the unions created industry funds. Unions love nothing better than controlling your money and your life!

IMO Industry super funds should be approached with extreme caution .....any organisation that has a 50% union appointed board - will not be a good one.

 

[Skyring]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

IMO Industry super funds should be approached with extreme caution .....any organisation that has a 50% union appointed board - will not be a good one.

And if you see one with Craig Thomson and Eddie Obeid - both innocent men, according to the courts - on the board, you don't need to steer clear of it.

You need to run like hell!

 

[Skyring]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

IMO Industry super funds should be approached with extreme caution .....any organisation that has a 50% union appointed board - will not be a good one.

And if you see one with Craig Thomson and Eddie Obeid - both innocent men, according to the courts - on the board, you don't need to steer clear of it.

You need to run like hell!

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

SMSF are not for everyone - thats why the unions created industry funds. Unions love nothing better than controlling your money and your life!

IMO Industry super funds should be approached with extreme caution .....any organisation that has a 50% union appointed board - will not be a good one.

That is a fairly poor characterisation of industry funds who return all profits to their members accounts, but you just keep paying those SMSF and retail fund fees and see how much better off you are in retirement.

I despise unions as much as the next person, but work with industry funds closely and they do great work for very little cost.

Last time I checked, you can't control anything with only 50% of the vote. Oh hang on, Labour do it with far less

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

SMSF are not for everyone - thats why the unions created industry funds. Unions love nothing better than controlling your money and your life!

IMO Industry super funds should be approached with extreme caution .....any organisation that has a 50% union appointed board - will not be a good one.

That is a fairly poor characterisation of industry funds who return all profits to their members accounts, but you just keep paying those SMSF and retail fund fees and see how much better off you are in retirement.

I despise unions as much as the next person, but work with industry funds closely and they do great work for very little cost.

Last time I checked, you can't control anything with only 50% of the vote. Oh hang on, Labour do it with far less

 

[amaroo]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

That is a fairly poor characterisation of industry funds who return all profits to their members accounts, but you just keep paying those SMSF and retail fund fees and see how much better off you are in retirement.

I despise unions as much as the next person, but work with industry funds closely and they do great work for very little cost.

Last time I checked, you can't control anything with only 50% of the vote. Oh hang on, Labour do it with far less

What part is wrong?

Interesting to see the people that get appointed to these boards - I'll take my SMSF any day of the week.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

What part is wrong?

Interesting to see the people that get appointed to these boards - I'll take my SMSF any day of the week.

Enjoy your economies of scale and paying your commissions to your accountant and financial advisor.

The average industry fund will outperform your SMSF on fees and returns any day of the week. It can also be the most cost effective way to acquire insurance.

Half of their boards are made up of employer representatives, so it's not all union stooges.

 

[Pushka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Hmm, ok, I have to disagree here. The Union funds actually aren't all that bad. I know that some from personal experience are difficult to deal with as an employer (and I reported their threat letter to the ATO) but their returns are fine. The one I reported to the ATO stated that I must advise them of returns, even if there was a null return, and I must do this by the 15th of every month. And they would take action if I didnt do that. I knew that the only returns I have to submit monthly, are the salary sacrifice ones; all SG returns are only required to be submitted by the 15th of the month after the quarter. The ATO said I was completely correct. Thankfully we don't use that fund anymore as that employee is no longer with us. But that is the only time I have felt the Union heavy hand.

And I will also state that there are some very intelligent and sensible people on a few of those Boards.

 

[BadgerBoi]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Enjoy your economies of scale and paying your commissions to your accountant and financial advisor.

The average industry fund will outperform your SMSF on fees and returns any day of the week. It can also be the most cost effective way to acquire insurance.

Half of their boards are made up of employer representatives, so it's not all union stooges.

Union stooge, employer stooge - apples and apples really.

Having said that, I'm glad I never got sucked into a SMSF; I'm way better off with my industry fund as are most people (no matter how hard they try to convince themselves otherwise)

 

[Pukka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

There are certain times a SMSF can be excellent value

eg If you use your SMSF to buy the business premises and then you rent the business premises from your SMSF.

I'm not going into it but there are huge advantages which won't be popular with some here.

 

[amaroo]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Enjoy your economies of scale and paying your commissions to your accountant and financial advisor.

The average industry fund will outperform your SMSF on fees and returns any day of the week. It can also be the most cost effective way to acquire insurance.

How on Earth can you make this wild statement?

FWIW our SMSF is exactly that SM. No cost, no fees.....although the pillow talk can get a little boring

There are certain times a SMSF can be excellent value

eg If you use your SMSF to buy the business premises and then you rent the business premises from your SMSF.

+ 1......our investments along these lines are returning great dividends. Better than anything you see written in industry journals/print.

 

[medhead]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Well I haven't put any in recently not because its a mugs game though my SMSF is doing fine but because the worlds greatest treasurer decided to tax contributions at 30% rather than 15% if you earn over $300k so there's no incentive to lock up any more 'til I'm 60 (which is still 13 years away).

Hopefully TA will put things right and up the amount you can put away to a reasonable say $100k at a 15% deduction.

Lol cue howls of derision from the rabid lefties that haunt this thread

No incentive? So you'd rather pay more tax?

Personally I'd rather keep that extra 16.5% for myself, even if its locked away. Most normal people would see keeping more of their own money as a benefit regardless of political views.

 

[medhead]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

What part is wrong?

Interesting to see the people that get appointed to these boards - I'll take my SMSF any day of the week.

Oh yeah. And what did you smsf earn last year? Percentage wise

How on Earth can you make this wild statement?

FWIW our SMSF is exactly that SM. No cost, no fees......

Right. So can you put me in contact with the independent trustee who works for free.

 

[Pushka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

How on Earth can you make this wild statement?

FWIW our SMSF is exactly that SM. No cost, no fees.....although the pillow talk can get a little boring



+ 1......our investments along these lines are returning great dividends. Better than anything you see written in industry journals/print.

You must have at least an audit fee.

 

[Pukka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

No incentive? So you'd rather pay more tax?

Personally I'd rather keep that extra 16.5% for myself, even if its locked away. Most normal people would see keeping more of their own money as a benefit regardless of political views.

Unfortunately I still have a mortgage so I prefer to put it in the offset account rather than lock it away.

If I was over 50 I'd probably think differently

 

[Pukka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

How on Earth can you make this wild statement?

FWIW our SMSF is exactly that SM. No cost, no fees.....although the pillow talk can get a little boring



+ 1......our investments along these lines are returning great dividends. Better than anything you see written in industry journals/print.

Yes you couldn't get more reliable tenants and so happy to pay big rents too