Private sector pensions in seismic collapse

chewmylegoff

kabayiri wrote: »

Are you saying that the government should take money out of peoples' pockets right now, when many are facing a real drop in living standards due to flatish wage inflation prospects or loss of employment ?

It doesn't sound like a vote winner to me, more like an election loser.

Yes, it would be a massive vote loser because people want someone else to pay. Hence it won't happen in one go it will be gradual dilution over decades rather than any radical change now.

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Aus system requires the employer to pay 9% into a superannuation scheme which is basically the same as a money purchase pension scheme - so each employee has their own pot, and can top it up with extra voluntary contributions.

I think the way it works is more that the employer takes 9% from your salary and pays it into a super fund rather than them paying another 9% on top, so if an aussie says they're on $100,000 that includes the 9% super. May be wrong on that and I guess it's just semantics anyway.

thanks for the info

and what does it pay out?

is it an commercial annunity based on your accumulated funds?

grizzly1911

Part of the problem is that we are increasingly becoming a country of have and have nots, We are regressing to a time 100/200 year sago.

The haves resent paying for the have nots.

The have nots are probably growing at a faster rate than the haves making the problem worse.

Many of the have nots don't have the income to "save" by what ever means, pension or savings. Even if they are forced to save in a pension it will be no where near what they will need to subsist if they ever get to retirement.

The have nots will probably have a poor diet and will either die obese or of malnutrition with all sorts of ill health reducing their life expectancy. I wouldn't be surprised if the average life expectancy even for the haves doesn't plateau and start to fall due to more and more sedentary lifestyles and having all their skivvying done for them.

Compelling people to contribute to a pension will have limited effect.

"Income" distribution across the whole country is the problem.

Don't dispute that consumption has been driven up by embracing Capitalism in it's worst form, with little redistribution.

Successive Governments undermining the private pension industry is just as big an issue as increases in average age expectancy and short term investment performance.

As a country we have gone from one of thrift to one of spendthrift in 4 or 5 generations. Janet and John have been milked whilst a few keep the cream.

daveyjp

35-40 years ago we had the opportunity as a Country to set up a Sovereign Wealth Fund from our huge unexpected 'lottery win'. Namely oil.

Working on the premise that you don't miss what you have never had all oil revenues could have been used for a SWF and we would now have a pot worth billions, but as someone has pointed out the cash was used to win votes in the short term.

Andy_L

CLAPTON wrote: »

thanks for the info

and what does it pay out?

is it an commercial annunity based on your accumulated funds?

http://www.australiansuper.com/

DiggerUK

kabayiri wrote: »

.......Perhaps we should find a way of hibernating pensioners for the coldest 6 months of the year.

That would be too expensive.
Give the elderly inheritance tax breaks for commiting suicide, get the government to award extra tax free allowances, for signing granny and grandad up to a mass suicide march on Downing Street.

Honestly, some of you have no imagination.
..._

grizzly1911

DiggerUK wrote: »

That would be too expensive.
Give the elderly inheritance tax breaks for commiting suicide, get the government to award extra tax free allowances, for signing granny and grandad up to a mass suicide march on Downing Street.

Honestly, some of you have no imagination.
..._

Would they get a bigger benefit if they were more inventive, going out Darwin style?