I am a 37-year old professional employed with the same employer since coming to Australia 12 years ago, making between 70k and 110k every year (it varies as i choose the amount of work i take on). Would love to know how much super have people (who have been working for a comparable time) accumulated
PS Found an article with study across Australia
sounds good. unfortunately, i can't formulate it satisfactorily in a short period of time. just assuming a standard professional salary (say 100k +/- 30%)
Maybe just ask if people are contributing more than the employer contribution?
Otherwise you can't tell if someone has a high balance due to lucky investment or extra saving.
But why would we tell you ?
Well why not, who cares!! You are anonymous anyway dude!!
If that's your goal.. wouldn't it make more sense to put as much as possible into super? Get the tax benefits now, and can withdraw it when you leave the country so no need to wait for retirement age to access it.
Wherever you go, I suggest you look into what their health cover and pension plans are like when you are older. There is no problem with going overseas when you are healthy and can work, but you mind find it is a different thing if you are old and looking for support. We all "dream" of working overseas, but the realities can be much harder.
I suggest you look into what their health cover and pension plans are like when you are older.
I can guarantee you that both are much better in Germany than Australia.
Also, you'll still get your Australian super once you reach the eligible age, no matter where in the world you live by then.
So that means you have investigated it and that you are eligible. You are also said you are minimising your super so you won't have much available.
@try2bhelpful:
Sorry, I'm not the same guy. Just some random bloke who has lived in both countries and knows how both systems work.
Your concerns are still valid, but not too big of a deal unless you go to a 3rd world country or the US.
Germany?
One of the harder places to get citizenship. Need to live and work there for 7-8 years and also surrender any other citizenships.
If you want to go to Europe, try France or Belgium. Just needs 5 years and both allow dual citizenship.
Other than that, Argentina is relatively easy and Brazil has some ways to get citizenship really quick.
you asked, so probably need to disclose yours first..
cant get without give
i have voted already. i am not asking you to disclose yours but choose an option.
been working just over 20 yrs started from $0 have between $150k-$200k, have not add a cent yet. I don't know if it's good or bad but that's what it is.
I'm 23 and have 25k in super
where is the 'none of your business' option?
then don't vote.
..or just select above 500k option.
i did that lol
why isn't there a above 5 million vote?
frankly, I think you only have a banana in your pocket.
well it is lunch time
This is Ozbargain, not Whirlpool.
well beam me up Scotty and transport me back 2 years.
If everyone vote above 500K, would that make OP life more miserable?
LOL!
Plenty, hoping the Govt opens up super regulations so I can put some of it towards a house deposit.
I would love that too but seems very unlikely (as the govt. has to cough up the money rightaway vs. getting to hold on to it for another 30 years)
It's not the government holding the money (and hence coughing up), it's the super funds.
In most funds, it is taxed on the way in, so it wouldn't make a difference to the government if you held it for another 30 years or not. They take their cut at the start, and whatever is left can grow (or not grow) as the fund manager sees fit.
It's for your own good, and more importantly for the good of our society as a whole. The whole point of Super is so that the government (and hence the average tax payer) does not have to pay to support you once you retire (when you are "too old" to work anymore). This is a good idea because with an ageing population we simply can't afford it. They lock it away though, to force it to be invested and grow to a large enough sum to enable this to occur. Most people in general are notoriously bad investors though, and so they deliberately don't allow you free reign to do whatever you want with your super to stop it being wasted kindly distributed to others. But there are 2 sides to this coin. The government also doesn't directly control the nations retirement savings, which also prevents the politicians from wasting it. Just look at what we have to show for the mining boom (hint: nothing much except some holes in the ground), and you can see that this is also a good thing, given the amount of money in super is already greater than what came out of the mining boom.
People who really think they can do better themselves can set up a Self Managed Super Fund, but there are all sorts of hoops they have to jump through to make sure only those who really know what they are doing (and why) actually do it.
Our super system is not perfect by any means, but it's a darn sight better than nothing. Which is what plenty of people in America will get because their pension system doesn't have enough money to pay for them all…
thanks :) truly appreciate your informed input!
It's not the government holding the money (and hence coughing up), it's the super funds.
Fully aware that my super is held in a fund, but doesn't the Govt define the conditions under which you can access your super?
It's for your own good, and more importantly for the good of our society as a whole.
The idea of Super in general - yes, it's a great idea but why shouldn't first home buyers (and only FHB's) be able to access part of their super, say up to 50% to invest in a first property to live in? If current trends are anything to go by your money is far better invested in property than in a managed fund. This sort of scheme already exists in some other countries, for example, Canada.
@bluephonebox: You're most welcome, and glad to help a little. +1 for you for being item to learning too :)
Fully aware that my super is held in a fund, but doesn't the Govt define the conditions under which you can access your super?
Yes, absolutely. They certainly do define the conditions, and could (and have as you'll see from the budget last night) make changes to allow access for FHBs for example. But I still don't think it's a good idea. Here's why (personal opinion from here on).
The idea of Super in general - yes, it's a great idea but why shouldn't first home buyers (and only FHB's) be able to access part of their super, say up to 50% to invest in a first property to live in? If current trends are anything to go by your money is far better invested in property than in a managed fund. This sort of scheme already exists in some other countries, for example, Canada.
1) Allowing FHBs to use their super will give them a bit more money for a deposit, but the vast majority of people in that situation wouldn't be able to buy a place outright, so it will simply have the effect of increasing prices by their super contribution (as that's the extra they'll be able to afford at an auction). For example (with round figures), say I have $50k deposit saved. This would give me a deposit for a place worth $250k (at 20%). Adding $25k super would allow me to buy a place worth $375k. Now you could make the argument that I could now put down a 30% deposit instead of 20% for the same $250k place. But in reality, I suspect what will happen is if I find a place at auction that I like, I know I can bid it up to $375k, rather than $250k (regardless of what it is actually worth) and so I will to outbid that investor who has a different advantage, which brings me to:
If current trends are anything to go by
2) I don't think current trends are a reliable indicator of future trends, and that's what makes me really concerned. House prices traditionally rise with population growth. More people wanting land/house = higher prices. And people tended to ride out downturns because it was their home and they didn't have to move. But more recently house prices have risen not due to lack of supply, it's due to unquenchable demand by investors, because of the unfair advantages they have (over owner occupiers such as FHBs) of the negative gearing/capital gains discount combination. They write off costs now (tax reduction), with the assumption of capital gains later, and another tax reduction on that. So they bid the prices up and up, not caring about what it's actually worth, just assuming that someone else will come along and want to pay more for it in a few years. But why are these places worth that much? If something happens where it no longer becomes as viable for investors they will choose or be forced to dump properties that they can't afford or that aren't getting more expensive (i.e. no capital gain). And when that starts to happen en-masse, property prices are in big trouble.
There are loads of potential scenarios that could trigger this. Australia hasn't technically had a recession in ~26 years now, but we will at some point. Prices will not keep going up forever, and we are more likely to be closer to the end than the start. If there was large unemployment or interest rates rise, or no tenant because there's no jobs there or they can't afford to live there, or bank restrictions, or reduction/elimination of NG and/or CGT discount, or, or, or. Eventually, whatever the cause, people will stop coming along to pay higher prices for a shed the size of a postage stamp in Sydney. And when that happens, then everything unravels…
What's this got to do with FHBs super though? Well, if they use their super to buy a bubble-priced property, and the bubble bursts, and for some reason they are forced to sell (job loss, moving, whatever), they will be bankrupt, with no retirement savings either.
This could be mitigated, for example by only allowing 50% of super to be used as you suggest, or FHB super users might be fine and not have to sell. But the real issue is that houses are too damn expensive for what they are, and that is what needs to change. I don't believe that giving people more money to spend is the solution; bringing prices back to reasonable levels is the solution.
As I said before, I agree that super (and managed funds) have major issues, but I'm very hesitant to suggest that investing in bubble property is a good idea. But what would I know, I'm a statistician not an economist…
Apologies for the somewhat rambling essay, but I hope you can see my point.
Why would this be an advantage? It's not going to reduce house prices…
Property investors will set a sale price that factors in how much reckon you have at your age - $60k, $200k?
You'll get a semi leg up on investors but ultimately it could hurt long term financial stability.
Not enough.
It's rude to ask.
Who'd care what you had anyway! It's all in the mind. People who care just think they are being judged or sump'n!!
Not enough!
Where's the option for a defined benefit pension? Lump sums mean nothing when you can take an indexed pension for the rest of your life once retired.
Yes, it amazes me how many people with defined benefit pensions decide to take the lump sum rather than a lifetime indexed pension. I would've thought that the lifetime indexed pension is a total no-brainer. Apparently, last time I heard, more than 50% of people take the lump sum, go figure!
Prior to 2007 taking a lump sum and investing in property gave excellent returns. The GFC ended that extended honeymoon period and many people got very badly burnt. Why people still do it I am unsure, though nowadays people are retiring with outstanding mortgages and other debit which forces them to pay them off. I worry for the current generation of 20 year-olds who don't think saving is cool and would rather job hop and travel the world. That's great if you have a long term plan, but many I know don't.
Agree with that!
You also need to know how their income compares to yours for the poll to be relevant (and over the last 12 years).
Maybe ask for their super balance as a multiple of their income.