"Enn I was going to compliment you on your post until you changed your mind half way through and decided it isn't My Super anymore it is the govt's super to be held in trust forever and only frittered away, oops not even frittered away, make that annuitied-away at a few percent of it per year I suppose limited by gov't."
Thank you for your comments, etherazer. You seem to have somewhat misunderstood my comments or perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.
There is a world of difference between my own opinion about what should happen and what I believe are likely to be decisions made by this and future governments.
For the record, I'm a self funded retiree, retired more than a decade prior to the 'retirement age' because I'd worked and invested sufficiently diligently (and made many sacrifices in the process) to be able to afford to. I am not eligible for any government pension and that's fine with me. I like being independent.
But I've been around long enough and observed the behaviour of enough people to acknowledge that far too few people actually even think about making provision for their own retirement. You only have to look at the figures of what the super balances are of current retirees to understand why most people get at least a part pension.
The reality is that, with the forthcoming blow out of pension claims with the baby boomers, the age pension in its present form is going to be unaffordable.
I'll offer you a quite typical example of a couple I know. They both worked all their lives, no children to provide for or educate, spent all their income on entertainment and travel. So in retirement they are eligible for the full age pension.
Do you really think it's fair that a young family struggling to get into their own home, perhaps single income of only about $60K p.a. should be paying taxes to support such a profligate retired couple ? I don't.
Neither do I, as a self funded retiree, want to see all the taxes I've paid on the way through going to people who have declined to invest and save but have rather frittered away all that has come their way.
I did not say that we should see all our super converted to an annuity. Neither did I say that any of it should be. I just suggested that one of the measures I believe future governments will probably take will be to legislate that a proportion of one's super must be taken as an income stream.
Isn't the provision of an income stream in retirement largely the whole point of offering the tax concessions in the accumulation phase of Super?
Why should someone be able to access that very favourable tax environment, then withdraw a lump sum, blow it, and then receive the age pension?
As I already suggested, there's nothing to stop anyone saving outside of Super and retiring when they have enough to do so. Nothing to do with getting the age pension. Retire at 35 if you can support yourself. Plenty of choices.
All that is being discussed by governments is how much access should be available at what age to taxpayer funded retirement. No one is saying you have to work until you collapse.
There will always be people who for whatever reason are unable to provide for themselves. We need to look after these people generously and with understanding.
And to whomever it was who suggested that there's virtually no difference between the unemployment benefit and the age pension for those who want to not work but have not reached age pension age, the actual figures are available on the Centrelink website, but from memory the age pension is about $130 p.w. more than the newstart allowance. There is also the consideration that, afaik, the usual concessions do not come with Newstart as they do with the age pension, eg discounts on rates, electricity, public transport etc. all of which add to the effective income of people on the age pension and which are also not available to self funded retirees unless they are earning under $50K p.a.
