https://www.nestegg.com.au/superannuation/11535-aussie-super-could-fund-us-infrastructure What actually happens to our superannuation? Where is our superannuation invested? Does anyone actually know? Why is a compulsory superannuation levy even necessary? We know that our super can be frozen for two years because of government legislation. We know that Keating introduced the compulsory superannuation levy which should be abolished if our government had a brain. But where is our superannuation invested? The party that announces the abolition of this incompetent legislation (CSL) will win the election, as it will be the "salary increase" that everyone needs. In any case, why should it be necessary for an employer to provide for the retirement of his/her employees. Its not the responsibility of the employer. So why is it necessary to have a CSL? If the compulsory superannuation levy was abolished, or even just halved, then this would immediately put that money back into workers pay packets. A "claytons" pay rise. But how would it affect our lying, incompetent politicians retirement packages? Thats the big question. We dont want their super schemes to be disadvantaged now do we?
https://www.solepurposetest.com/news/superannuation-guarantee-2021/ The following is a quote from the above link....... "Prior to the election the Liberal party had said that: “Our clear, categoric commitment to the Australian people is that we are not going to make unexpected, adverse changes to superannuation.” The spin from the Government is that this is not a broken promise because, as Tony Abbott said: “There are no adverse changes as a result of this because, Madam Speaker, by delaying the increase in the superannuation guarantee levy, we are keeping more money in workers’ pockets.” Tony Abbott has previously been quoted as saying that “compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people”. Australia cannot afford a compulsory superannuation levy....just like the average worker cannot afford to pay for sickness and accident insurance. I also wonder how many Australians can even afford any form of life insurance... Isnt superannuation a form of "insurance" to provide for your retirement... If so, then it should be a matter of choice...not compulsory.... In any case the compulsory superannuation levy was sold to the Australian public as a benefit for us...but in reality it was simply to reduce the pension burden on the government...hence the delaying of the age pension now until 67....wont be long before its 70.....
You have to wonder whose side he's on, clearly doesn't give a **** about our own pending "fall backwards" Hockey wants to MAGA I believe Hedge Funds uses the JPMorgan’s benchmark indexes to determine where they will invest their money, obviously the higher the country bond risk the higher return. This is why sanctions can be so damaging for a country, once JP Morgan removes you from their index no one will invest there anymore. https://www.jpmorgan.com/country/US/EN/jpmorgan/investbk/research/indexresearch/vendor/packages
What do you think about winding back the compulsory superannuation levy, or even repealing it. Is it a con? I have always thought that young people would prefer to have the opportunity to actually use their money as they see fit...eg save for a car or a deposit on a home, or living expenses like furniture and starting a family...why should superannuation be compulsory.... I understand the benefits of superannuation, but why should it be compulsory... Dont forget that some state governments (Qld) raid super funds because they mistakenly think they are in surplus, so therefore they help themselves to the money and create infrastructure....then they sell it to China...a super fund is never in surplus.... The superannuation on hand for governments to use is just a treasure chest waiting to be plundered, and it should not be compulsory...this is just a con...and Abbott confirmed that....
Super in its original form was great, but successive governments realised the impending disaster that loomed when the bulk of the Baby Boomers came to retire, so parameters and rules changed to mitigate the mass withdrawals that may of occurred. They will continue to change and be abreviated. At this stage I am an advocate for compulsory super given the fact that Australians are either too stupid or just plain self centred to save and invest for their retirements. Having said that, greedy governments are salivating at the sheer volume of dollars just sitting there. They will con their way into plundering it at some stage. Until somebody comes up with a better way to fund the ageing non working population so it will not overly burden what will eventually be a dwindling working and tax paying population, this is the best we have got. By repealing compulsory super in the current financial environment you will only condemn the working populace to higher taxes to cover the retirements of those who were too selfish to save for the rainy day. A different government revenue programme that reflects our future societies may allow a more equitable outcome, but the heavily retarded system that we currently have is inadequate now for the needs of a burgeoning population and it will only fall further and further behind as the years progress.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/08/australia-scrap-compulsory-superannuation/ I really feel that this topic should be taken up by the media and the various political parties as an election issue, as it has a direct bearing on take home wages which drive the economy. Whilst I agree that the average Australian does not provide for his/her retirement, I have always thought that paying into a superannuation fund at an early age is totally unnecessary. If we have to have a CSL, then I would advocate for the levy to start at say age 30 rather than when one enters the work force as a teenager. Superannuation is a complex area, made even more complex by the ever changing rules and regulations. To have wage earners pay CSL without even having any knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of superannuation is mind boggling. Many times we ask the question for example.."how much is enough to retire on" Surely contributors have the right to decide how much is enough, as well as deciding when they wish to commence contributions. I wonder how many people know for example, that if a contributor choses to take an annuity upon retirement, if he/she does not name a beneficiary in that annuity, the annuity dies with the contributor upon his/her death. In other words there is no provision for the annuity to continue for the benefit of a widow/widower after death of the contributor..the balance of the annuity reverts back to the Fund. Taxpayers are compelled to pay into a super fund, but some know very little about superannuation. These are the complexities of superannuation...but I am digressing.... https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/06/superannuation-not-super-federal-budget/
I'm a firm believer in compulsory super contributions as well. Not going to pretend I know much about super so pull me up if I get anything wrong. Isn't one of the huge problems some of the super schemes themselves? Like I was briefly in a retail fund and the very little I had there was whittled away to almost nothing with all the rip off fees and charges. I was lucky because the vast bulk of my super is in a defined benefits fund ( guaranteed generous pension for life) but many people aren't that lucky. The whole point of the super system was to take pressure off funding the age pension for an increasingly aging population. The government needs to tighten up the super system and ban funds who are stealing the contributions of employees who usually aren't welloff to start with. Oh, and let's not forget the massive pensions for life for outgoing MP's. The latest bunch of retiring Mp's is going to cost the taxpayer millions and millions.
Like most grand social plans, super started with admirable intentions. This was back when governments actually thought about their people and planned for their futures. However as time has marched on and government revenue base has eroded under the pressures of a burgeoning welfare system and heavy bureaucracy, this nice fat fund of dollars has become an irresistible target they are struggling to leave alone. There is a plethora of super funds out there, some better than others. Make no mistake, they are designed to make money for their management company, like any other business. Defined benefit style funds are safe but sluggish. A good place for the bulk of your funds. And mine as well! I also have a self managed fund that I started far too late in life, but it allows me far more flexibility in what my money is invested in. I retired last year, but I have realised I am still too young for such a mundane lifestyle, so I took on a couple of clients in a mentoring capacity but that has since grown significantly. So I am now finding that I still make my compulsory deposits but I am flooding my self managed. As you could imagine this election will have a reasonable effect on myself and those like me. Believe me it is quite a number that may or may not be heard from until election day. I am pragmatic in regards to super. As I have said previously, until somebody comes up with a better option of future funding generations of non revenue contributing populations, it remains the only option we have. There are other ways but these would require a massive redirection in both our political system and revenue systems. Too hard it seems.
As I see it there are pro's and con's, Australian Super apparently makes up half of all Australian assets, I recall reading it's around $2 Trillion. Would it have been this high if Super were not compulsory? On the con side we have huge fines for those Self Employed who do not pay their Super, I know of someone who had to pay $40 000 in fines for not paying Super, the reason he didn't pay was financial strife...so the fine pretty much killed any chance of getting back on his feet. Also if your Super is heavily invested in shares it would have been far more beneficial to cash your shares in at the end of last year pre-Christmas and put this money on your mortgage. It certainly would be better if our Super arrangements were a tad more flexible. Makes me wonder if they use our Super to stabilise the market, can you imagine the unpredictability and volatility if we all had control of these investments
ps.. I wonder if said "infrastructure" is the Trump wall how appropriate... let the colony pay for it
Was the fine for not paying their own super or employees? If you are self employed and you are not an employee of a company you are a director of, you are not obliged to pay compulsory super to yourself as you do not draw a wage but instead a partnership or sole trader dividend, which can fluctuate from month to month. It is classed as drawings and super is not applicable. If he was an employee of a company he was a director of perhaps he may be fined( not even sure about that), but if this was the case he was given really bad business advice, as he could of paid his wages as a directors dividend. The only self employed I have seen fined for non compliance to compulsory super have been done for not paying employees super not their own.
I believe it was, as soon as you draw a wage or salary over $450 a month you have to pay super, as owner you also now become employee. I can confirm this because my husband is similar, His company is registered as employer, then he himself is registered as employee, even though he is owner.
I had a rollover amount in AMP for a few years. Didnt grow much. Once I moved ot over to PSS it took off a bit and itll be a handy lump sum bbc when I retire. I'd be telling anyone in a retail fund to move to an industry fund. I went to see a financial planner a whi li e back who tried to tell me I should move my super out of a defined benefits scheme into another fund as it would give me 'flexibiliy'. I was thanks but no thanks. I'm willing to stay in the public service till I retire so I can continue contributing to PSS even though i had to turn down an offer of a much better paying job in the private sector. A massive overhaul is going to be necessary. Governments dont baulk at making unpopular calls like raising pension age to 67. As long as it doesnt affect their nest eggs politicians dont mind how difficult their changes are
Yes as a salary earner under his own company he must pay Comp Super. Really why wouldn’t you do this if you had that capacity. Most sole traders are very small businesses and at times they need that 9% just to make ends meet. Drawing a dividend or drawing a sum of money does not constitute a wage, and is therefore not applicable to Comp Super. It is such a grey area, a good accountant can be priceless. Bad advice can end up costing you terribly. I feel sorry for your friend or anybody for that matter who put themselves out there trying to have a go and it turns sour. I have seen many a family business crumble and people lose a lot over the years. People like myself are generally called in when things are too far gone to save. If I had a dollar for every time I gave the advice to wind a business up........
