Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people, and that we need a national insurance scheme to cover the 80 to 100 bracket. When they were working on the superannuation system in the 1990s, people’s life expectancy after reaching pension age was 81.

Going by the ABS’s 2016 life tables, a man having reached pension age has a 73% chance of reaching 80, a 29% chance of reaching 90. A woman has a 82% chance of reaching 80, a 42% chance of reaching 90.

A man’s median age of death having reached retirement is 85.5, while a woman’s is 88.5.

The mean age of a man’s death having reached retirement is 84.7. A woman’s is 87.2.

Keating can GAGF.

dv said:

Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people, and that we need a national insurance scheme to cover the 80 to 100 bracket. When they were working on the superannuation system in the 1990s, people’s life expectancy after reaching pension age was 81.

Going by the ABS’s 2016 life tables, a man having reached pension age has a 73% chance of reaching 80, a 29% chance of reaching 90. A woman has a 82% chance of reaching 80, a 42% chance of reaching 90.

A man’s median age of death having reached retirement is 85.5, while a woman’s is 88.5.

The mean age of a man’s death having reached retirement is 84.7. A woman’s is 87.2.

I heard a report on the radio a few days ago that Australians are paying over 200 billion in fees a year for corporations to look after their super funds, I haven’t checked it out but if true the system is fucked.

dv said:

Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people, and that we need a national insurance scheme to cover the 80 to 100 bracket. When they were working on the superannuation system in the 1990s, people’s life expectancy after reaching pension age was 81.

Going by the ABS’s 2016 life tables, a man having reached pension age has a 73% chance of reaching 80, a 29% chance of reaching 90. A woman has a 82% chance of reaching 80, a 42% chance of reaching 90.

A man’s median age of death having reached retirement is 85.5, while a woman’s is 88.5.

The mean age of a man’s death having reached retirement is 84.7. A woman’s is 87.2.

Then why not increase the superannuation by the rise in median age amount?

or increase the superannuation by how many people go over 80?

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people, and that we need a national insurance scheme to cover the 80 to 100 bracket. When they were working on the superannuation system in the 1990s, people’s life expectancy after reaching pension age was 81.

Going by the ABS’s 2016 life tables, a man having reached pension age has a 73% chance of reaching 80, a 29% chance of reaching 90. A woman has a 82% chance of reaching 80, a 42% chance of reaching 90.

A man’s median age of death having reached retirement is 85.5, while a woman’s is 88.5.

The mean age of a man’s death having reached retirement is 84.7. A woman’s is 87.2.

I heard a report on the radio a few days ago that Australians are paying over 200 billion in fees a year for corporations to look after their super funds, I haven’t checked it out but if true the system is fucked.

join an industry super.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people, and that we need a national insurance scheme to cover the 80 to 100 bracket. When they were working on the superannuation system in the 1990s, people’s life expectancy after reaching pension age was 81.

Going by the ABS’s 2016 life tables, a man having reached pension age has a 73% chance of reaching 80, a 29% chance of reaching 90. A woman has a 82% chance of reaching 80, a 42% chance of reaching 90.

A man’s median age of death having reached retirement is 85.5, while a woman’s is 88.5.

The mean age of a man’s death having reached retirement is 84.7. A woman’s is 87.2.

I heard a report on the radio a few days ago that Australians are paying over 200 billion in fees a year for corporations to look after their super funds, I haven’t checked it out but if true the system is fucked.

8-| I mean I hope that’s not true.

I don’t think it could be true … that would mean 10% of the economy was going towards fund management fees. That couldn’t be right. Could it?

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people, and that we need a national insurance scheme to cover the 80 to 100 bracket. When they were working on the superannuation system in the 1990s, people’s life expectancy after reaching pension age was 81.

Going by the ABS’s 2016 life tables, a man having reached pension age has a 73% chance of reaching 80, a 29% chance of reaching 90. A woman has a 82% chance of reaching 80, a 42% chance of reaching 90.

A man’s median age of death having reached retirement is 85.5, while a woman’s is 88.5.

The mean age of a man’s death having reached retirement is 84.7. A woman’s is 87.2.

I heard a report on the radio a few days ago that Australians are paying over 200 billion in fees a year for corporations to look after their super funds, I haven’t checked it out but if true the system is fucked.

Like electricity bills, it could all be computerized, and be a lot cheaper.

An unnecessary layer of paid employees .

Tau.Neutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people, and that we need a national insurance scheme to cover the 80 to 100 bracket. When they were working on the superannuation system in the 1990s, people’s life expectancy after reaching pension age was 81.

Going by the ABS’s 2016 life tables, a man having reached pension age has a 73% chance of reaching 80, a 29% chance of reaching 90. A woman has a 82% chance of reaching 80, a 42% chance of reaching 90.

A man’s median age of death having reached retirement is 85.5, while a woman’s is 88.5.

The mean age of a man’s death having reached retirement is 84.7. A woman’s is 87.2.

I heard a report on the radio a few days ago that Australians are paying over 200 billion in fees a year for corporations to look after their super funds, I haven’t checked it out but if true the system is fucked.

Like electricity bills, it could all be computerized, and be a lot cheaper.

An unnecessary layer of paid employees .

Absolutely.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people, and that we need a national insurance scheme to cover the 80 to 100 bracket. When they were working on the superannuation system in the 1990s, people’s life expectancy after reaching pension age was 81.

Going by the ABS’s 2016 life tables, a man having reached pension age has a 73% chance of reaching 80, a 29% chance of reaching 90. A woman has a 82% chance of reaching 80, a 42% chance of reaching 90.

A man’s median age of death having reached retirement is 85.5, while a woman’s is 88.5.

The mean age of a man’s death having reached retirement is 84.7. A woman’s is 87.2.

Then why not increase the superannuation by the rise in median age amount?

or increase the superannuation by how many people go over 80?

>>It’s often said that today’s children will have shorter average life spans than their parents, because so many suffer from obesity. But there is another view that says they will live longer – at the risk of spending their twilight years in poor health.<<

>>It’s also true that obesity-related illnesses have been on the rise. It was reported this week that the UK is suffering a “national health emergency” because of the numbers being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, an illness which is often linked to obesity.<<

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28191865

Tau.Neutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people, and that we need a national insurance scheme to cover the 80 to 100 bracket. When they were working on the superannuation system in the 1990s, people’s life expectancy after reaching pension age was 81.

Going by the ABS’s 2016 life tables, a man having reached pension age has a 73% chance of reaching 80, a 29% chance of reaching 90. A woman has a 82% chance of reaching 80, a 42% chance of reaching 90.

A man’s median age of death having reached retirement is 85.5, while a woman’s is 88.5.

The mean age of a man’s death having reached retirement is 84.7. A woman’s is 87.2.

I heard a report on the radio a few days ago that Australians are paying over 200 billion in fees a year for corporations to look after their super funds, I haven’t checked it out but if true the system is fucked.

Like electricity bills, it could all be computerized, and be a lot cheaper.

An unnecessary layer of paid employees .

On top of the employees are all the over paid CEO’s of all those super companies.

A computerized system should be a lot less than 10 percent, should even be less than 1 percent.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people, and that we need a national insurance scheme to cover the 80 to 100 bracket. When they were working on the superannuation system in the 1990s, people’s life expectancy after reaching pension age was 81.

Going by the ABS’s 2016 life tables, a man having reached pension age has a 73% chance of reaching 80, a 29% chance of reaching 90. A woman has a 82% chance of reaching 80, a 42% chance of reaching 90.

A man’s median age of death having reached retirement is 85.5, while a woman’s is 88.5.

The mean age of a man’s death having reached retirement is 84.7. A woman’s is 87.2.

I heard a report on the radio a few days ago that Australians are paying over 200 billion in fees a year for corporations to look after their super funds, I haven’t checked it out but if true the system is fucked.

8-| I mean I hope that’s not true.

I don’t think it could be true … that would mean 10% of the economy was going towards fund management fees. That couldn’t be right. Could it?

the 200 billion quote is over 10 years

from the pinko commie socialists…

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-09/superannuation-has-cost-australians-24230b-over-the-last-decade/8606362

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I heard a report on the radio a few days ago that Australians are paying over 200 billion in fees a year for corporations to look after their super funds, I haven’t checked it out but if true the system is fucked.

8-| I mean I hope that’s not true.

I don’t think it could be true … that would mean 10% of the economy was going towards fund management fees. That couldn’t be right. Could it?

the 200 billion quote is over 10 years

Oh okay so that’s more believable.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people, and that we need a national insurance scheme to cover the 80 to 100 bracket. When they were working on the superannuation system in the 1990s, people’s life expectancy after reaching pension age was 81.

Going by the ABS’s 2016 life tables, a man having reached pension age has a 73% chance of reaching 80, a 29% chance of reaching 90. A woman has a 82% chance of reaching 80, a 42% chance of reaching 90.

A man’s median age of death having reached retirement is 85.5, while a woman’s is 88.5.

The mean age of a man’s death having reached retirement is 84.7. A woman’s is 87.2.

I heard a report on the radio a few days ago that Australians are paying over 200 billion in fees a year for corporations to look after their super funds, I haven’t checked it out but if true the system is fucked.

Well the Internet says that the total value of Australian super is about $2.7 trillion, so if the fees are 200 billion, that’s about 7.4%, which seems a bit high for the average.

For some strange reason the industry association doesn’t seem to want to talk about total fees.

The fruit of the loins of baby boomer super annuaints will soon be awash with billions of dollars.
Now is the time to be in the super model and cocaine business.

Peak Warming Man said:

The fruit of the loins of baby boomer super annuaints will soon be awash with billions of dollars.
Now is the time to be in the super model and cocaine business.

:)

Peak Warming Man said:

The fruit of the loins of baby boomer super annuaints will soon be awash with billions of dollars.
Now is the time to be in the super model and cocaine business.

Another 10-20 years for that innit?

poikilotherm said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The fruit of the loins of baby boomer super annuaints will soon be awash with billions of dollars.
Now is the time to be in the super model and cocaine business.

Another 10-20 years for that innit?

My baby boomer parents died relatively young but unfortunately they were broke as a fuck.

Going by the ABS figures though, most of the boomer’s kids are going to have to wait until they retire to receive any inheritance.

dv said:

poikilotherm said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The fruit of the loins of baby boomer super annuaints will soon be awash with billions of dollars.
Now is the time to be in the super model and cocaine business.

Another 10-20 years for that innit?

My baby boomer parents died relatively young but unfortunately they were broke as a fuck.

Going by the ABS figures though, most of the boomer’s kids are going to have to wait until they retire to receive any inheritance.

I doubt there’ll be much left anyway, I mean, how long does super usually last? My boomer old’s have got another 20 years at least I think.

Yeah, way things are going Dad will outlive me.

I don’t have any super to speak of, as a sole trader I’ve never paid myself any.
At retirement age I’m in the same financial position on average as those who have been paying it.
Whether you get a part pension or not is still predicated on your assets including your super fund so has super really achieved anything apart from making super fund managers very rich?

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t have any super to speak of, as a sole trader I’ve never paid myself any.
At retirement age I’m in the same financial position on average as those who have been paying it.
Whether you get a part pension or not is still predicated on your assets including your super fund so has super really achieved anything apart from making super fund managers very rich?

It’s reduced wage earners take home pay by ~10% each year … and earnt some parasites a lot of money.

MIL spent all her super on overseas trips so she’ll be working forever. She’s already forced to sell her house because the bank withdrew its interest-only mortgage payments, and she can’t afford the new repayments.

poikilotherm said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t have any super to speak of, as a sole trader I’ve never paid myself any.
At retirement age I’m in the same financial position on average as those who have been paying it.
Whether you get a part pension or not is still predicated on your assets including your super fund so has super really achieved anything apart from making super fund managers very rich?

It’s reduced wage earners take home pay by ~10% each year … and earnt some parasites a lot of money.

I’ve always had base pay + super.

My sister gets something like 14% super because she works for a superannuation company.

Divine Angel said:

MIL spent all her super on overseas trips so she’ll be working forever. She’s already forced to sell her house because the bank withdrew its interest-only mortgage payments, and she can’t afford the new repayments.

That’s a bit dumb

Divine Angel said:

poikilotherm said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t have any super to speak of, as a sole trader I’ve never paid myself any.
At retirement age I’m in the same financial position on average as those who have been paying it.
Whether you get a part pension or not is still predicated on your assets including your super fund so has super really achieved anything apart from making super fund managers very rich?

It’s reduced wage earners take home pay by ~10% each year … and earnt some parasites a lot of money.

I’ve always had base pay + super.

My sister gets something like 14% super because she works for a superannuation company.

Love that redistribution of wealth…

;)

Divine Angel said:

poikilotherm said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t have any super to speak of, as a sole trader I’ve never paid myself any.
At retirement age I’m in the same financial position on average as those who have been paying it.
Whether you get a part pension or not is still predicated on your assets including your super fund so has super really achieved anything apart from making super fund managers very rich?

It’s reduced wage earners take home pay by ~10% each year … and earnt some parasites a lot of money.

I’ve always had base pay + super.

My sister gets something like 14% super because she works for a superannuation company.

You mean loses 14% of her income to help fund a shitty industry.

I thought if was going to get super this year, had plans for it. But somewhere along the way the rules changed, in the recesses of my mind it used to be 55 because that was compulsory retirement age in the military. I could get it early but you get a tax hit.

AwesomeO said:

I thought if was going to get super this year, had plans for it. But somewhere along the way the rules changed, in the recesses of my mind it used to be 55 because that was compulsory retirement age in the military. I could get it early but you get a tax hit.

Including civilian army personnel

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

I thought if was going to get super this year, had plans for it. But somewhere along the way the rules changed, in the recesses of my mind it used to be 55 because that was compulsory retirement age in the military. I could get it early but you get a tax hit.

Including civilian army personnel

Not then, the scheme was military only and allowed for the pension/super after 20 years.

poikilotherm said:

Divine Angel said:

poikilotherm said:

It’s reduced wage earners take home pay by ~10% each year … and earnt some parasites a lot of money.

I’ve always had base pay + super.

My sister gets something like 14% super because she works for a superannuation company.

You mean loses 14% of her income to help fund a shitty industry.

Are you opposed the retirement savings in general or just Australia’s system?

> Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people.

Bull.

Quite the reverse, the CPI indexed pensions from superannuation means that people are getting much more out than they out in. Unless they were silly.

But that’s OK because the only purpose of superannuation in the first place was to reduce the amount paid out in age pension. A job that it’s done superbly.

More bird happenings today. I heard yellow tailed black cockatoos being noisy in a neighbour’s silky oak, so I went out to see if I could photograph them. The light was a bit wrong, crappy photos.

I thought I might stick around for 20 minutes after that to do the Aussie Backyard Bird Count. Stood looking around for ten minutes, nothing, thought this is going to be just the 3 black cockatoos. Then 11 sulphur crested cockatoos flew past screeching, followed by some rainbow lorikeets, all upset, then some very annoyed noisy miners. And there was the culprit, a white bellied sea eagle, being harassed by one of the noisy miners. I wonder if they will think I made it up.
https://aussiebirdcount.org.au/

mollwollfumble said:

> Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people.

Bull.

Quite the reverse, the CPI indexed pensions from superannuation means that people are getting much more out than they out in. Unless they were silly.

But that’s OK because the only purpose of superannuation in the first place was to reduce the amount paid out in age pension. A job that it’s done superbly.

CPI’s got nothing to do with it.

You get out what you put in, plus earnings, less fees.

Unless you are a politician of course.

ruby said:

More bird happenings today. I heard yellow tailed black cockatoos being noisy in a neighbour’s silky oak, so I went out to see if I could photograph them. The light was a bit wrong, crappy photos.

I thought I might stick around for 20 minutes after that to do the Aussie Backyard Bird Count. Stood looking around for ten minutes, nothing, thought this is going to be just the 3 black cockatoos. Then 11 sulphur crested cockatoos flew past screeching, followed by some rainbow lorikeets, all upset, then some very annoyed noisy miners. And there was the culprit, a white bellied sea eagle, being harassed by one of the noisy miners. I wonder if they will think I made it up.
https://aussiebirdcount.org.au/

I don’t think you made it up.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people.

Bull.

Quite the reverse, the CPI indexed pensions from superannuation means that people are getting much more out than they out in. Unless they were silly.

But that’s OK because the only purpose of superannuation in the first place was to reduce the amount paid out in age pension. A job that it’s done superbly.

CPI’s got nothing to do with it.

You get out what you put in, plus earnings, less fees.

Unless you are a politician of course.

Depends on the scheme, thats what the sovereign fund was about, unfunded defence and public service liability, and you get out much more than you put in if you live long enough.

Ooops, wrong thread.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people.

Bull.

Quite the reverse, the CPI indexed pensions from superannuation means that people are getting much more out than they out in. Unless they were silly.

But that’s OK because the only purpose of superannuation in the first place was to reduce the amount paid out in age pension. A job that it’s done superbly.

CPI’s got nothing to do with it.

You get out what you put in, plus earnings, less fees.

Unless you are a politician of course.

Depends on the scheme, thats what the sovereign fund was about, unfunded defence and public service liability, and you get out much more than you put in if you live long enough.

I’m talking about funds available to most people in Australia.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Paul Keating made the point today that increased life expectancy means that superannuation is not going to be adequate for most people.

Bull.

Quite the reverse, the CPI indexed pensions from superannuation means that people are getting much more out than they out in. Unless they were silly.

But that’s OK because the only purpose of superannuation in the first place was to reduce the amount paid out in age pension. A job that it’s done superbly.

CPI’s got nothing to do with it.

You get out what you put in, plus earnings, less fees.

Unless you are a politician of course.

That’s the point. If you get your super as a pension you don’t get out what you out in. You get a lot more if you live longer.

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

Divine Angel said:

I’ve always had base pay + super.

My sister gets something like 14% super because she works for a superannuation company.

You mean loses 14% of her income to help fund a shitty industry.

Are you opposed the retirement savings in general or just Australia’s system?

Australia’s rort.

poikilotherm said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

You mean loses 14% of her income to help fund a shitty industry.

Are you opposed the retirement savings in general or just Australia’s system?

Australia’s rort.

You aren’t the lone stranger there.

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Are you opposed the retirement savings in general or just Australia’s system?

Australia’s rort.

You aren’t the lone stranger there.

What specifically is different about Australia’s rort to everyone else’s rort?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

Australia’s rort.

You aren’t the lone stranger there.

What specifically is different about Australia’s rort to everyone else’s rort?

the fuck do I care about everyone else’s rort? I live in Australia…

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

You aren’t the lone stranger there.

What specifically is different about Australia’s rort to everyone else’s rort?

the fuck do I care about everyone else’s rort? I live in Australia…

good answer apart from the fact that most of those rorting Australia, don’t happen to actually live here.

I’m not entirely sure where the problem is with having compulsory superannuation. OK, in the first years there was no choice of fund, but we’ve had that for sometime now. It is just forced saving so you use your own money when you retire, at least for a while. And if it’s not used up, it becomes part of your estate. Mr buffy and I do not approve of taking lump sums for holidays – if you want to have a holiday, save for it specifically. Your super is for living in retirement. But we are grumpy old farts who tend to independence…

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

You aren’t the lone stranger there.

What specifically is different about Australia’s rort to everyone else’s rort?

the fuck do I care about everyone else’s rort? I live in Australia…

OK then, what specifically is different about Australian super rort to every other Australian long term savings and investment rort?

buffy said:

I’m not entirely sure where the problem is with having compulsory superannuation. OK, in the first years there was no choice of fund, but we’ve had that for sometime now. It is just forced saving so you use your own money when you retire, at least for a while. And if it’s not used up, it becomes part of your estate. Mr buffy and I do not approve of taking lump sums for holidays – if you want to have a holiday, save for it specifically. Your super is for living in retirement. But we are grumpy old farts who tend to independence…

Is someone saying there is something wrong with compulsory super?

dv said:

buffy said:

I’m not entirely sure where the problem is with having compulsory superannuation. OK, in the first years there was no choice of fund, but we’ve had that for sometime now. It is just forced saving so you use your own money when you retire, at least for a while. And if it’s not used up, it becomes part of your estate. Mr buffy and I do not approve of taking lump sums for holidays – if you want to have a holiday, save for it specifically. Your super is for living in retirement. But we are grumpy old farts who tend to independence…

Is someone saying there is something wrong with compulsory super?

I’d prefer it to be voluntary like NZ, the compulsory system here has led to laziness (it should have had economies of scale, but hasn’t) and weird tax concessions for rich retirees.

NZ – has a Universal Aged Pension and Super, and the savings rates there are the same as here.

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/personal-savings

What is the definition of household savings ratio?

Does it include super?

The Rev Dodgson said:

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/personal-savings

Does it include super?

Yes.

dv said:

buffy said:

I’m not entirely sure where the problem is with having compulsory superannuation. OK, in the first years there was no choice of fund, but we’ve had that for sometime now. It is just forced saving so you use your own money when you retire, at least for a while. And if it’s not used up, it becomes part of your estate. Mr buffy and I do not approve of taking lump sums for holidays – if you want to have a holiday, save for it specifically. Your super is for living in retirement. But we are grumpy old farts who tend to independence…

Is someone saying there is something wrong with compulsory super?

Choice of fund was a mistake IMHO, it encouraged fly by nighters with no long term gain experience to play with other people’s money.

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/personal-savings

Does it include super?

Yes.

I still haven’t seen a definition anywhere, but it seems it doesn’t include value of the place of residence, so variations in the “savings rate” are likely more related to fluctuations in house prices than anything else.

On the question of compulsory super, if government pensions are provided, then there has to be compulsory super in some form to pay for them. It’s just a question of whether they are visible or hidden.

In principle, I’m in favour of unhiding hidden costs, and therefore in favour of compulsory super.

The Rev Dodgson said:

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/personal-savings

Does it include super?

Yes.

I still haven’t seen a definition anywhere, but it seems it doesn’t include value of the place of residence, so variations in the “savings rate” are likely more related to fluctuations in house prices than anything else.

On the question of compulsory super, if government pensions are provided, then there has to be compulsory super in some form to pay for them. It’s just a question of whether they are visible or hidden.

In principle, I’m in favour of unhiding hidden costs, and therefore in favour of compulsory super.

And yet, evidence shows compulsory super has increased cost (of the super).

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

poikilotherm said:

Yes.

I still haven’t seen a definition anywhere, but it seems it doesn’t include value of the place of residence, so variations in the “savings rate” are likely more related to fluctuations in house prices than anything else.

On the question of compulsory super, if government pensions are provided, then there has to be compulsory super in some form to pay for them. It’s just a question of whether they are visible or hidden.

In principle, I’m in favour of unhiding hidden costs, and therefore in favour of compulsory super.

And yet, evidence shows compulsory super has increased cost (of the super).

I have yet to see any such evidence.

The Rev Dodgson said:

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/personal-savings

Does it include super?

Yes.

I still haven’t seen a definition anywhere, but it seems it doesn’t include value of the place of residence, so variations in the “savings rate” are likely more related to fluctuations in house prices than anything else.

“Net household saving is defined as the subtraction of household consumption expenditure from household disposable income, plus the change in net equity of households in pension funds.“https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-savings.htm

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/5202.0Main+Features12007

“The Household saving ratio does not take into account capital gains and losses as these are not considered to be part of Household disposable income. Thus a period of high asset price inflation (e.g rising house prices) will not directly influence the Household saving ratio. When considering the “wealth effect” it is possible that consumption in current quarters will rise on the basis of strong gains in the value of assets and in this situation saving will fall, all else being equal. “