Its not just super fees that are more expensive in this country, many, many consumer items in Australia are more expensive than overseas.

Not sure our Government's onerous compliance, disclosure and reporting obligations it places on funds and trustees are conducive to lower fees.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Vamos; ever the Public servant at heart dictating what is best for everyone. Expecting everyone to "live" on an impossibly low pension when money is constantly needed for health care such as cancer drugs which can cost $100,000 per annum or hip and knee surgery (etc) which can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The fact is that some people do save for their retirement so that they can live in comfort and security and the common figure of $55,000 pension for a couple to live satisfactorily is rubbish! The more people can save the less the likelihood that they will need government age pension or have to use the public health system, for example.

The problem with super in retirement is that too much is being leaked away from those who own the investment, i.e. especially to their children and grandchildren or on wasteful overseas holidays.

Fees are justified if all the providers of the super service give investors higher returns consistent with risk. And it is not difficult to provide investors with better returns than Industry Funds which have average account balances raging from about $15,000 to $30,000.

The way Vamos is arguing the ultimate solution will be to revert to a government pension proportional to the total compulsory savings of workers over their life times.

But could governments be trusted with such money. NO WAY!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

While it is true that our superannuation system is not perfect, government needs to ensure that any changes made do not create a mood of distrust or negative sentiment. Any negative changes need to be focused at the top end or the big end of town, not the moms and dads and middle class who are relying on super to fund their golden years.

On the other hand, one of the roles of Treasury is to look 10,20,30 years ahead and project where the country will be based on current trends. With our aging population and wealth accumulating within the super system, changes will need to be made.

While it might not be an attractive comment to make, we will need to revert to some tax on pensions at the top end. It would not be unreasonable to see a system similar to the RBL days. Where a 15% income tax on balances above say $1.25m per member is introduced.

I am a capitalist at heart, but if we do not have some fairness in the system those still working will be penalised while those retired are paying no tax on their accumulated wealth. While $1m in super to fund the retirement of one couple is not above what they will reasonably require, $5m is.

Most of us want to see the government debt paid down and have the benefit of government health and education services, roads, etc. As the population ages too many of us will not be paying any form of income or wealth tax and yet require an increased level of health services. That is what Treasury is concerned about, and why they are getting stuck into the politicians to wake up. This is a looming problem.

Or do we tax the 30 to 50 year olds so high that the educated mobile ones move offshore?

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.