Car Insurance Comparison – Home, Life, Business & Travel Insurance Quotes

Continued from Super ain’t so super – Part 1

ABISMAL PERFORMANCE

One of the main reasons why almost nobody will ever make enough money from super to fund their retirement is the abysmal performance of super funds. SuperRatings is a company which keeps track of the performance of the largest super funds in Australia, and produces a statistical analysis of their returns ranging from one month to ten year performance. The super funds are also divided into eleven categories or indexes, which are: High growth, Growth, Balanced, Conservative balanced, Capital stable, Secure, Australian shares, International shares, Property, Diversified fixed interest and Cash.

We all know that super indexes have been hit hard over the last few years, so we really need to look at the ten year records to get a balanced view on super performance. To those people that may claim the ten year performance is skewed by the global financial crisis driven share market collapse, we should also point out that the ten years have also been skewed in the opposite direction by a spectacular 5½ year boom, meaning that overall it is a fair representation of results.

Australian shares were the leading performing category over the last ten years, averaging 9.67% per annum. Conservative balanced and Growth were the next best of the eleven indexes, both averaging a 6.04% return. At the bottom end of the scale, International shares was the only index to return a negative result, with -3.54%. The Property index was the next worse, and rose by 4.27% on average in the last ten years. Assuming an equal weighting for each index, the overall average of the eleven SuperRatings indexes was a tad below 5% per annum.

When the average inflation rate of 3.15% is included in the calculations, this represents an overall average superannuation fund performance of just 1.85% each year. Abysmal, pathetic and ridiculous are a few words that come to mind. To think that Australians are being forced to invest 9% of their income into an investment that returns just 1.85% each year certainly raises a few eyebrows concerning the current superannuation system.

UNLIMITED PROBLEMS

The problems with the Australian superannuation system aren’t limited to low returns. There are a myriad of other issues which are detrimental to its overall benefit, as well as additional factors which compound the low return issue. One of these is the severe restrictions on available investment classes, which forces people to continue investing in mediocre options.

The Australian system forces investors to primarily invest in the Australian share market. This props up share prices to unrealistic levels and at the same time allows the elite members of society to earn big profits from the share market. Property is the other main alternative, for which the forced investment is a contributing factor behind the present property bubble waiting to burst.

Going hand in hand with the share and property super options are the fund managers lining their pockets from excessive fees. So not only are they poor investments to begin with, but the fund managers will make sure that they take a healthy share of your profits too. Although there are self-managed super funds, these also face restrictions on investment classes, although not as severe. But the outrageous fees will deter all but the wealthy from being able to use them.

The government is also guilty of further greed in regards to superannuation taxation. They are like a two-headed monster, with one head encouraging people it’s for their own good to invest in super for retirement, while the other head scavenges every dollar it can by taxing money being put in, taxing while it’s in there, and then taxing when it is taken out. They also claim it is your money, but won’t let you withdraw it or use it when you want.

All of the issues plaguing Australian superannuation give weight to the scam argument -which is that superannuation is nothing more than a scheme to make fund managers, share traders and politicians rich. Whether it is a scam or not can be argued for years, but one thing is for certain – it is impossible for superannuation to fund the retirements of the Australian public. The maths tells the story that super ain’t so super after all.

MOST DON‘T HAVE ENOUGH

The media have been running their latest scare tactic campaign and warning the public that their current levels of superannuation contributions will not be enough to fund a comfortable retirement. While there is a lot of truth to their claims, they fail to touch the more sensitive topic of whether the Australian superannuation system is a scam.

If you look at the parties quoted in the news reports, it is easy to recognize that the scare campaign has been instigated by members of the superannuation industry. The objective is clearly to get more people to make voluntary contributions into their super funds, and convince the public to get behind their push for compulsory employer contributions to be raised from 9% to 12%. More super under management equates to more fees and more money in their pockets. Businesses serving the super management companies have also got in on the act and given their opinions in interviews with the media.

They have certainly succeeded in painting a dire picture for the future of Australian retirees. Unfortunately, they have failed to detail just how bad the problem will actually be, which gives weight to the argument that the current superannuation system is just not working. It is plagued by problems such as fund mangers charging exorbitant fees, restrictions on investment classes, inability to withdraw when you see fit, and excessive taxation issues.

PICKING APART THEIR STATISTICS

Industry groups are throwing up big numbers to enhance their case for more money to be put into super, such as recent reports detailing that Australia is facing a $450 billion super shortage, or $80,000 per person. But examining the actual figures more closely reveals that these shortfalls are just a drop in the ocean compared to how bad it really is.

A recent news article quoted a survey by ASFA (Association of Super Funds Australia) and Westpac, which stated that a comfortable retirement requires $40,000 per annum for a single person or $50,000 per annum for a couple. This was followed by claims that these levels of income require a lump sum of $400,000 to $500,000 by retirement. There are two major problems with these assumptions. Firstly, they have either assumed the people the die early or put the money in a very high returning investment. Secondly, they have failed to take into account the effect inflation will have on the end value.

Wealth management firm Yellow Brick Road has some equally dubious claims. They show that a 30 year old with no savings and a salary of $80,000 will only have $381,000 by retirement if they rely solely on their employers super contributions, and run out of money by the time they reach 77. They then go on to say that salary sacrificing an additional 3% of their income each year will build up a retirement fund of $540,000 and last beyond the life expectancy age of 82 years.

It is interesting to note that they used a 3% increase in their example, which magically adds up to the 12% figure the superannuation industry is pushing the government to raise employer contributions to. Although the example used salary sacrificing, the main point was to convince both the public and government that 12% is now the minimum requirement and that immediate action should be taken to raise the figure. The example reeks of further 3% manipulation, by containing an unrealistic salary for a 30 year old. The models always seem to be based on a death date as well. Can’t they work out that sometimes people live above the average life expectancy age?

BAD ASSUMPTIONS

Basing superannuation retirement models on the fact that someone will die at a certain age is a grave mistake. A certain proportion of the population will always live longer than the average, so what happens when they run out of money to live on? The other problem is that they are expected to spend all of their life savings in retirement and leave nothing to pass on to their family.

Getting back to the AFSA and Westpac survey, we need to emphasise that the figures quoted were the recommended amounts to achieve a comfortable retirement. But they also released a bottom line figure of $19,686, which they have described as the absolute floor to achieving only a modest standard of living – In other words, living just above the poverty line. Similar to the Yellow Brick Road statistics, they have also made calculations based on a thirty year old person with no savings receiving the basic employer paid superannuation entitlements and working for the next 37 years.

They have estimated that a worker on the median average annual income of $45,000 will end up with $23,482 to spend each year in retirement, and those on the average of $60,000 per annum will be slightly better off with $25,623. AFSA has been pushing the line that the government expects people to survive on $25,000 a year in retirement, and have demonstrated that the Australian public expects to need more to live on from their survey, which showed that more than 60% of respondents believe they will need greater than $40,000 per annum as retirement income.

Once again, all of these models fail to take into account the effect of inflation on the buying power of money. Using the models 37 year timeframes and combining this with the average annual Australian inflation rate over the last 10 years, which has been 3.15%, we can easily demonstrate that the superannuation system is grossly inadequate. A $25,000 annual income in 37 years time will be worth the same as $7,649 today. Even at $40,000 there is still a problem, with that amount only being worth $12,239 a year.

Assuming that today’s rate of $25,000 per year is a fair amount to survive on; when we take inflation into account we will need to receive $61,256 per year in 37 years time to achieve the same dollar buying power. Can anyone spell IMPOSSIBLE? It really makes you wonder why the government is making it increasingly difficult to put earnings into super, by cutting maximum contribution rates and increasing taxes.

Continued at Super ain’t so super – Part 2

Paying pensions is a huge problem for the Australian government. That’s why they have raised the retirement age ever so slightly, in the hope that nobody will stir much trouble over a small increase in working years. If the retirement age keeps increasing, it will only be a matter of time before news headlines will read ‘Retirement age increased to 80’

The government has recently announced that from 2017 to 2023 the retirement age will gradually increase from 65 to 67. With the age of pension eligibility increasing, it will force Australians to work longer before they are able to retire.

Raising the retirement age follows the modern age raising trend in almost all facets of life. We are starting and finishing school later, entering the workforce later, marrying later, having children later and buying and paying off a house later too.

When we are young, starting something later has a minimal effect, but as the years get on it becomes increasingly difficult. You don’t see a 40 year old applying for their first job or a 50 year old couple deciding to start having children. Similarly, a person in their latter years will struggle with an increased retirement age, since they will not be able to find any work.

During the current economic downturn and throughout Australia’s recent recessions, older people have been the first to lose their jobs. In each of the previous recession periods, they struggled to regain employment, which led to many of them entering an early retirement. If the clamps are put on the retirement age this time, it could spell trouble for many Australians.

Manual labour is out of the question for an aged person, as are most jobs requiring a portion of physical work such as lifting heavy boxes. Call centre positions may not be suitable due to time pressures needing quickness of mind and speech. But surely they can fill the large number of other administrative and sales positions.

Quite simply, businesses are unwilling to employ old people. Young people generally cost less, provide a vibrant and youthful image to the companies customers, and to be ruthfully honest, they have less chance of dying and needing to be replaced.

Rather than being unsuitable for most administrative type roles, older individuals can provide great value to a business willing to consider hiring them. While there are benefits to the employer in hiring the younger generation, the oldies have a long list of advantages and present a strong case over their less experienced counterparts. They:

• Will not turn up for work with a mega hangover or high as a kite on drugs
• Are not aiming to bustle their way up the corporate ladder, and will be more content with their position and becoming a long term employee
• Will treat the job as a long term position, rather than running off to the first competitor who offers an extra dollar per hour pay
• Will not run off with the company secrets and set up a competing business
• Do not believe that its ok to take a sickie to watch the cricket or attend a rock concert
• Have valuable working experience that can not be taught in just a few years
• Will not be spending work hours on Facebook or chatting to friends on MSN Messenger
• Are not interested in getting into bed with the secretary and will not be participants in the workplace love triangle
• Will not be racking up the company phone bills by calling all their friends mobiles and gasbagging about how smashed they got on the weekend
• Are unlikely to cause personality clashes and be the cause of strained workplace relationships between employees
• Will not clog the servers by downloading porn on the office computers

As long as the aged population are computer and internet savvy, they offer tremendous benefits to companies willing to employ them. But in this statement lies the problem, as most of the aged population do not even know how to send an email.

This problem should be the target of a government initiative. If they want people to work longer, they need to guarantee that jobs are available. One way is to ensure that older Australians are given the training they require to perform most of the work roles on offer, both at the moment and into the future.

Many local initiatives have been established and provide free basic computer classes for pensioners. But the key is to teach them computer and internet skills before they become reach the pension age. Considering the future population predictions, steps to establishing relevant workforce training should be taken immediately.

At present there are on average 5 workers for every retiree, but if the retirement age was to stay at 65; by 2050 this figure would have dropped to just two workers per retiree. Clearly the pension age has to be raised dramatically to keep the workers and retirees balance. The imbalance is being caused by an extension in life expectancy figures, with Australians living for longer and hence more people being on the pension.

If the Australian government wishes to keep the worker to pensioner ratio at 5:1, then it is highly possible that we will see the retirement age raised to 80 in the near future.