Aust super system failing retirees

  As a 24 year old who is well aware of the benefits of saving early in life for the best possible retirement outcome, I can tell you now that it is very hard to justify putting my money in super where I have less control over what I can do with it until an as yet undetermined age (2043) at 55? Not likely. 2048 at 60? Doubt that too. 2058 at 70 (is probably a safer bet.).

Better off investing it in my own name until I'm 10 years out from preservation age and know what the policies affecting my super will look like.

No chance I'll let the government commandeer my savings to fund city-building projects with crappy returns.

This sort of 'Can't trust people with their own money, better dole it out to them bit by bit' thinking is not helping at all. My life expectancy based on family health history could be 75, my best mate comes from a line of people who have consistently lived to over 100. Why should someone else dictate that we can both only access 5% of our super per year (for example) just because financial illiteracy is widespread with others?

  

It could be a smart decision for government to pay for or subsidise two fee for service assessments by qualified financial advisers of all retirees transitioning from accumulation to distribution of super savings. There are often legitimate capital needs for new retirees. In most instances I would have thought, retirees use their lump sums to create an income stream as intended, for their continued support.

  

As a former Financial Planner, the impression I gained was that the great majority of people who ended up with reasonable sums of money for Retirement were those who received benefits from compulsory Superannuation schemes that required them to also contribute (usually a minimum of 5% of income). Others received this PLUS redundancy payments. The actual number of "self funded" Retirees (those who took determined wealth creation actions of their own accord), are very few as a percentage of the population. The primary problem of the current system is that no Politician has the courage to make the decisions necessary (substantially increase contributions, including imposing member contributions) as they are ALL driven by the "need" to be elected or re-elected above all other considerations, not by what is best for the country. Workers in Singapore have to contribute 20% of earnings (plus employer contributions)! Go figure! Also, when the Government promotes debt as being good, what hope when "leadership" shows the wrong objectives?

  

Its interesting to note the push for further taking away a persons right to choose by making the comment we should use' compulary' income streams in retirement. In my opinion, this will simply make the problem worse and people less likely to save via super if we now dictate what and how they use their own money they worked so hard to save for. And where has he gained the evidence that people are using the lump sum as a 'windfall'?. In fact the recent whitepaper by the actuaries institute on 'Australia's Longevitiy Tsunami" states that there is absolutely no evidence to date that people are taking their lump sums out at retirement.
We need to educate, encourage and simplify a complex set of rules, and remember we live in a democracy which gives us a right to choose and the big stick approach does not sit well with the wider community.

  

The Federal Government needs to re-evaluate the tax haven status of the family home, free from any assessment by Centrelink, individuals are pouring money into the principal residence, incurring debts, then using the Superannuation to pay of the debt.