SUPER ---- Is it THE answer??

[tech/a]

There has been a fair amount of discussion on other threads re the topic of SUPER and I though that its own thread would generate enough interest.

In answer to the question my answer is a resounding NO.
It appears that Van Tharp,Barton and Sjuggeraud in their new book of 2004 agree--ISBN 0-07-142147-5, Safe Stratergies for Financial Freedom.

The true achievement of financial freedom comes from PASSIVE INCOME.
Of which I'm implementing 3---Super could be in this group but to create a worthwhile Super Value you would forgo the opportunity of developing some or all of the others I've implemented---at the very best their implementation would be stunted due to allocation of funds to Super---in my veiw.

(1) Business --for years I have ploughed profit back into the company--today it is big enough for me to have a semi passive income to the Maximum tax rate while I live as I wish---thats not working EVERYDAY---not retirement either.Plus banks love income flow so I'm not having to sell it to retire!

(2) Property --now freeholding properties buy selling those which have least potential and least return---as I have had them from 1996 50-60% of holdings will be freeholded and generating a very good passive income.(If ever I sell a property where tax would take more than a wage then We will ive in it before sale for 12 mths---there is another wage!!!)

(3) Shares--Spare or excess cash goes here and compounds as holdings are long term much is held well over 12 mths limiting tax issues.As time goes buy I intend to sell COST and trade profit only adding continually to those in the "Free Trade Stable" a continuing passive income which may not even be required to live.

Money does make money---ferret into a super fund and you are limiting its use--sure you cant get it and hence youll save it but you cant utilise it either.Freeholding your home makes more sence to me---walk into a bank with a freehold house of $300-600k (Todays value you could have paid <200K) and a good job and youll get at least that which you COULD with the right advice and planning double it in a few years---Super is limited by whats in it and what its return is--if ANY.

Tax is my cost of the freedom to create a standard of living MY WAY.

This is my own personal veiw.

[doctorj]

For you, then perhaps super isn't the best option.

For the great majority of Australians that aren't as discplined, superannuation is the best answer we have. It'd be interesting to hear if anyone here has a better alternative for Joe Average.

Remember Joe Average is financially illiterate, fiscally undisciplined and would generally prefer to spend the time at the pub watching footy rather than pouring over a set of financials trying to work out how to maximise his ROI, the NPV of his cash flows and many other things that some consider as normal as going to the bathroom first thing in the morning.

[GreatPig]

Quote: Originally Posted by tech/a It appears that Van Tharp,Barton and Sjuggeraud in their new book of 2004 agree

[tech/a]

In one of Jan Somers' books, she's rather scathing on super - and financial planners

I like her already.

How do you know it's the best? I think until a lot of contributors have reached retirement and tried living off their super, we can't say anything about how good it is. It could turn out to be the disaster of the century.

How very true those words maybe.ALREADY the stage is set for blame shift---you pick your fund and when it fails or underperforms ---You can convieniently retain blame!

Frankly those who dont take control of their own destiny by searching out alternatives and educating themselves----rather than taking what seems to be the simple option of BLINDLY expecting someone else to do it for them---will fall into the majority.

RESULT IS = TO EFFORT.

And where do those who wish to educate themselves go--Financial Planners cant help they need to make a profit and are generally searching for the same answers as the clients who trust them to know!
Seminars are seen as a sham due to the high fees charged and the slow drawn out costly method employed by some educators to get to THE answers.
The other--Self Teaching is long and just as costly,if not THE most costly---but in the end probably the best path currently available.

[RodC]

I certainly don't see Super as the answer for myself.

As an employee I have super, but there's now way I'm willing to put extra funds into (what I see as) a limiting investment vehicle (money tied up until 55+, no gearing) which is at the mercy of government tax changes.

Any extra I have goes into property or shares, with a view to providing passive income.

However, having said super is not for me, it may well be a good part of the answer for most of the population. At least they should get something out of it. Which is probably more than if it was just left up to themselves.

Rod.

[money tree]

you CAN use leverage in Super via instalment warrants.

you CAN create passive cashflow from Super by receiving dividends with franking credits taxed @ 30%, then getting taxed 15% on Super, thus leaving a 15% refund. Do this with self funded instalment warrants and you will be VERY surprised.

Have you considered the compound effect of funds taxed @ 48.5% vs funds taxed @ 15%?

Why cant you trade shares out of your SMSF like you currently do?

Until you know ALL the rules and possibles outcomes for your situation, you cannot possibly say Super is suitable / unsuitable for your situation. I suggest everyone do some spreadsheets to determine exactly what scenario works best for them. An ignorant "I dont like Super" answer may well be costing you a lot of money.

Now Im not an expert on Super. I thought Super was crap until recently when I started doing some study and sums. I chose not to do the Super module in the Diploma cos I thought it would be boring as hell and useless. I now regret that decision. I have not put money into Super for 8 years, though I will be lumping $35k into a SMSF on June 29 2006.

Oh and tech, the whole "I have such contempt for Financial Advisors" thing is getting a little old. Must we hear about it every 5 mins? We are all well aware of your stance by now and even I have said I agree with some of it. You may put someone off getting valuable advise when they really need it.

[tech/a]

ABC

Quote: Originally Posted by money tree you CAN use leverage in Super via instalment warrants. you CAN create passive cashflow from Super by receiving dividends with franking credits taxed @ 30%, then getting taxed 15% on Super, thus leaving a 15% refund. Do this with self funded instalment warrants and you will be VERY surprised. Have you considered the compound effect of funds taxed @ 48.5% vs funds taxed @ 15%?

[ghotib]

Didn't anyone see the Smart Money section in this weekend's Fin? It's headed "How to Retire at 50". The focus of the article is really on (relatively) new rules which enable you to continue working while drawing on Super, but the headline message is to live on savings, plus part-time or casual work (or consulting) from age 50 to 60 (or less if you're old enough to claim it) and then live on your super plus other income and earnings if necessary. Put like that it sounds pretty dangerous IMO, but the twist is that you can continue to contribute to super for some years after you start drawing on it, in some cases with extreme tax effectiveness.

The article also quotes more than one financial adviser who suggests that clients should aim to keep substantial savings (i.e. 40-50%, presumably depending on their age and their savings) outside super. The logic of one is "that super is inaccessible until retirement [only half true] and... there is always a chance that future governments will change super rules..." Prezackly, but not the only problems.

IF we've understood our financial adviser correctly, as the rules stand now there comes an age when you're no longer permitted to contribute to super and where you must take an actuarially calculated minimum amount out each year. We both come from long-lived families, and that rule seems to mean that we could be forced to draw down more super than we need early on and be left with less than we want - or maybe even less than we need - in the last and most expensive years of our lives. So we're still saving in super, but we don't want to touch it till we're 70 (older if we're let) and we're now building assets outside super, both for the years before 70 and for our expensive final years if necessary.

My ideas about all this have changed a heck of a lot over the years. I used to think that so long as I owned my home I could live OK on the pension. I bought my inner city renovator's delight on a terrifying mortgage, and got to know my neighbour who lived on a pension in a damp, mouldy dump of a flat in an old 2-storey shop building. Scared the socks off me, and I started a personal super fund using after-tax dollars because I really wanted to lock the money away from myself (I also paid extra on the mortgage, partly as a form of income protection insurance insurance). Then compulsory super came in and I just lost interest in the whole thing because I was working casual and contract jobs, and I couldn't keep track - it's taken me 4 years to collect all my super funds from that period... I think.

Didn't mean to go into my life story, especially when I have no doubt that Tech would be perfectly happy to say that SUPER is AN answer. But I think super will a very important answer for many people simply because it means that they are saving consistently long before they realise how powerful saving can be. That is also one of the sleeper inconsistencies in the changes to IR laws - a casualised workforce will save much less consistently, which works against the government's rhetoric in other areas.

Ghoti

[RodC]

Quote: Originally Posted by money tree you CAN use leverage in Super via instalment warrants.

[money tree]

Quote: Originally Posted by RodC But you can't use this cashflow to live off unless you're over the "super" retirement age.

[RodC]

If the warrants which are attracting the franking credits are owned by the SMSF then they would be declared on the tax return of the SMSF. If this is the case wouldn't the tax refund be made out to the SMSF and have to be invested back into the SMSF?

Yes, I've seen your views on margin lending before. But as far as I'm concerned it works for me.

Rod.

[tech/a]

I'll go a little further.

Government has implemented compulsary super to (it was hoped) release it from the burden of an aging population---the financial side.

Seems that its fallen in a heap as performance is no where near the idealistic expectation of the majority being capable of supporting themselves in retirement.

Not only that but any attempt by you and me to get ourselves in that position the government want their share of your hard earned in the form of tax up on tax.So not only are we expected to be smart enough to look after ourselves in retirement but also continue to feed the government TAX.

I think
Tax on Super and its contributions should be abolished.
Stamp duty abolished on investment housing.
Tax on investment property Profit (Capital Gains) abolished if proven funds are invested toward retirement.
Tax on Shares (Capital Gains) abolished if it can be proven ---etc.

Even if there was a threshold of say $1.5 mill in Funds for retirement adjusted for inflation etc.

Governments should be looking at ways of long term gain for them not short term.

Not enough is being done here!!

[Smurf1976]

A key point is that the government, not you, decides when you will be permitted to access your super.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent the government from changing the rules as it sees fit. Already we are hearing constant to the effect that people ought to stay in the workforce until they drop.

There is no guarantee that the "retirement age" at which you may access your super wont be raised to 70, 75 or even 100. I would go so far as to say that IMO it is likely to be raised significantly beyond 65.

Voluntary contributions to super? Not unless I already have enough outside of super to see me through the rest of my life. All things considered, super is an ultra-risky investment due to the risk of government policy changes. (Already they've changed the rules countless times.)

[Julia]

Most of these posts seem to refer to super held in "professionally managed super funds". I actually think the term is a bit of an oxymoron.
SMSF's are quite different. I've this eveniing added a further post in the Beginners' Lounge on this topic which may add something to the discussion on this thread.

Ghotib: you make a really good point when referring to the actuarially contrived minimum amounts one has to take out of a Fund as, say, an allocated pension on reaching retirement age. In my case, this will be far more than I need to live on. It is determined by the $ amount of the Fund and one's age and increases every year as one ages. At present I don't see any way round that but hope the rules will change (again!) by the time I reach retirement age.


tech-A: I'm sure we'd all agree with your Wishlist re taxes and stamp duty.
However, at present I guess we just have to find the best way to work within the rules.

Main advantage of holding funds within a SMSF is the low tax environment which at 15% is usually less than we would be paying on a personal basis.

Julia

[serp]

Super is not the answer. However if you are in a position to start your own super fund in a family situation you can use it in conjunction with a family trust to accumilate commerical property tax free.

[krisbarry]

I believe that Super is a great idea and I have just recently taken up the governments offer of super co-contributions.

no where else offers you the chance to add $1 of your own money to get an additional $1.50. My account balance is looking much healthier now.

[krisbarry]

Glad I switched my super on the 1st of Nov. Now I have 100% of it in the Australian market. Thought this would be a great idea after the recent correction, time for some growth now.

Look at the all ords today, beautiful!

[BSD]

Super is not an asset class, it is a tax haven.

Sure, you cannot have all your money in there if you want to retire at 50 - but when you do retire, you want as much as possible in there.

The leverage argument falls down also when you consider your objectives when retired. How much leverage do you want to carry when generating an income from investments in retirement?

The whole addiction to leverage in this country is a recipe for disastor at some point.

Semi educated (Jan Summers) investors who have experienced a 12 year bull market in property and shares think that leverage is great and the more the better. Study risk management and you will understand that leverage is something to be controlled and not the be-all and end-all.

Is super THE answer? No

But I would prefer to have my unleveraged holdings paying 10% CGT in accumulation or 0% in retirement than 47%.

How are the property speculators who bought 6 apartments on razor thin deposits two years ago in Sydney and Melbourne doing? I bet they aren't generating too much 'passive income' only stamp duty.

The argument around the government 'changing the rules' is a little weak too. For the last decade the changes have made super increasingly lucrative.

They want everyone to put money in there. In this country it is now almost impossible for a person aged 55 and above, who is structured correctly, to pay income tax if they have household income sub $100.

Even if you work above 55 you can now pay yourself a tax free pension and have your income taxed at 15% going back into super.

Finally, the reason the minimum pension rates can be excessive is because the govt wants people to eventually get their money out of the pension environment because it is so bloody attractive.

Although seeing the recent rule changes for term pensions extending the terms to age 100 - the government continue to make it more attractive.

The horrible life insurance salesman of the last two decade have a lot to answer for - but the wealthy Australian have grown to love super.

[BSD]

Oh - and I would be very careful thinking that living in an 'investment' property for twelve months before sale makes it CGT free.

The ATO may prefer you apportion the investment gain between 'taxable' and 'tax free' when you sell.

[bullmarket]

Good morning everyone

in general with BSD.

I don't think super is THE answer but imo it's certainly ONE answer/option.

I joined my second employer's super scheme back in the mid 80's and rolled it over into a roll-over fund when I was employed by my third and last employer and then joined my last employer's super scheme. When I took early retirement a few years back I rolled over my last super into another roll-over fund to spread the risk.

Imo super can be looked at as a tax effective long term saving strategy. The earlier you start (say in your 20's) the better off you'll be at the other end of your life. Although super as a stand alone wealth creation strategy during your working life is unlikely to keep you in the lifestyle you have been accustomed to during retirement, it should go a long way, provided of course you started super early. When you reach retirement age your super should be a nice bonus for you

For me, joining a super scheme back in the 80's was one of my better decisions and whilst not wishing my life away any faster than time already passes nowadays, I'm looking forward to my 55th birthday in a few years time

cheers

bullmarket