Low balance members hit with fees under super changesBY ALICE URIBE | MONDAY, 8 APR 2013 12:25PMExtra administration costs borne out of the federal government's proposed superannuation changes could be passed onto all superannuation fund members, even those with small balances according to Deloitte. |
Editor's Choice
Frontier awards custody mandate for ICIO offering
Frontier Advisors has awarded a custody and administration mandate for its independent chief investment officer offering to the Australian market.
Alexander Funds names new chief executive
Alexander Funds has named a new chief executive, hiring from Australian Unity and set to take on the role September 7.
Soul Patts to pocket $1.89bn from Brickworks divestment
Washington H. Soul Pattinson & Co is set to receive $1.89 billion after agreeing to divest its stake in Brickworks' industrial joint venture property trusts to Goodman Group, freeing up capital for future investment opportunities.
ASIC expands list of super lead generation entities
ASIC has named 19 additional entities involved in superannuation lead generation activities as part of an ongoing review into business models that may encourage consumers to switch super funds unnecessarily or inappropriately.
Products
Featured Profile

Brian Redican
CHIEF ECONOMIST
NEW SOUTH WALES TREASURY CORPORATION
NEW SOUTH WALES TREASURY CORPORATION
What makes an economist an economist? TCorp chief economist Brian Redican reflects on over three decades of navigating Australia's economic cycles. Riddhima Talwani writes.







Likewise, the comment that smaller balances will be hit is jumping the gun. The Govt made a reasonable assumption that funds in retirement will earn 5% pa on average. Such funds tend to be more conservatively invested so this is sensible. The SMSF brigade is quick off the mark, trying to keep their tax minimisation plans going and maintaining a tax haven for large balances.
A little more analysis and insight, and a little less histrionics will help the industry move forward.
The basket known as "unintended consequences" is already full as a result of poorly thought through policy and this whole tranche of changes has simply caused us to get a second bucket to catch the overflow.
I would have thought that "unintended consequences" are those not identified at the outset. What do you call it when these consequences have been identified, but you arrogantly still push the changes through?
I call it "policy just to make it hard for the new government when they come into power to repeal".
The first term of the new parliament is going to be full time unravelling all the mistakes of this current one and the list continues to grow and grow and grow.
Why not make it official? Why don't they ask us all to give up our super for the greater good of the entire population?
Bad luck if you've made sacrifices along the way to stay off the dole and tried hard to make something of your life....too bad, we'll have that...thank you very much....I guess I better get back to work to pay my taxes so that I can be told that, even having donated my fair share to government coffers, it's still not enough...!!
Bring on September 14.