I couldn't open the original article but an Accountant was o Ch...

I couldn't open the original article but an Accountant was o Ch 9 this morning saying a similar thing and promoting income streams.

FWIW - my opinion is it's another media beat-up about super.

Has anyone checked the actual amount of super balances that are cashed out to pay down debt? Last time I checked (was a couple of yrs ago) it wasn't a great deal so govt then wasn't concerned when tax-free lumpsums were allowed.

Also - if debt was for negative gearing (as CPA said today) then they should have an investment asset to generate income (and be assessed by Centrelink). Right or wrong, they are choosing assets in own name over super.

If debt for own home (the mansion theory, which some would do and has been espoused on this forum a few times) then that is their choice and yes it may give them a bit more pension but it also means more costs and NO cashflow, so they will either have to sell down later, live on less or leave a better inheritance for the kids. In any event, in my limited experience I don't think it is 'rampant' except maybe in lower 'socio-economic' thinking where maximising age pension anyway you can, is a valid strategy.

The SGC to fund an income stream idea has some merit but adds complexity (remember RBL's??)

The Leftist thinking does scare me though! Just look at the contribution caps now.

Anyway, that's my opinion. If you like it, how about a thumbs-up?
Cheers