Home | Log in | Join Now! | Blog | Contact    Subscribe to the InvestEd Blog via RSS
InvestEd :: Wealth Education for Australian Investors




Welcome to InvestEd.

You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please:


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support.

Workers and taxpayers to pay for better super

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-08-2008, 10:40 AM   #1 (permalink)
Tropo
Member
 
Posts: 1,863
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NSW
Workers and taxpayers to pay for better super

11/08/08
Workers and taxpayers to pay for better super

Workers and taxpayers will shoulder the financial burden of providing better superannuation outcomes for employees because the government has ruled out raising the nine per cent Super Guarantee Charge on employers.
The minister for super Nick Sherry said last week that the SGC could move to 12 per cent under by charging workers 1.5 per cent of their weekly wage and giving them a matching 1.5 per cent from the government.
The industry and former Prime Minister have called for the SGC to be lifted to 15 per cent.
Funds industry looby group IFSA says 12 per cent may be enough for many people.
Westpac and ASFA say a retired couple need $939 per week or $49,000 per year to support a comfortable lifestyle which includes occasional holidays.
A single person needs $702 per week.
Current average pay outs from super are not enough to support a comfortable retirement.

Source: Herald Sun
Tropo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
   
 
Hide these adverts with a Free Membership
Old 12-08-2008, 12:06 PM   #2 (permalink)
crc_error
The Rule of 72
 
Posts: 1,346
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Is this a scheme to remove the government co-contribution? as currently the government matches up to 150%, not just 100% as proposed here.
crc_error is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 08:00 PM   #3 (permalink)
Rob G.
Member
 
Posts: 499
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Why doesn't the Government ban trailing commissions to Financial Advisors.

That will effectively add to your contributions exponentially by reinvesting those fees !!!

Failing that, switch to an Industry Fund.

Cheers,

Rob
Rob G. is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 08:50 PM   #4 (permalink)
crc_error
The Rule of 72
 
Posts: 1,346
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob G. View Post
Why doesn't the Government ban trailing commissions to Financial Advisors.

That will effectively add to your contributions exponentially by reinvesting those fees !!!

Failing that, switch to an Industry Fund.

Cheers,

Rob
why doesn't the government mind their own business, and let you choose if you want a industry fund without trailing comissions, or retail funds with trailing comissions?
crc_error is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 08:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0
Some graphics originally by vBStyles.com

Copyright © 2006 Investor Education Pty Ltd (ACN 114 677 226)
Site by Hampel Group