Re: Do you support increasing the qualifying age for the age pension to 70?
I've always perceived it as the governments way of trying to tell you that you have past your used by date...
your employer will make you redundant by that stage
I don't know, if it was about rewarding the years you have spent in the labour force, they certainly don't give enough to express that...
Paying you for doing nothing until you die is a decent reward.
superannuation will apparently save us... If a stock broker doesn't decide to gamble it on a dodgy investment...
Your super isn't controlled by stock-brokers, its controlled by fund managers. They don't just sit there with your money putting it all into one or two stocks that take their fancy, let alone one or two asset classes. Here's an example of superannuation fund asset allocation:
Fund managers have a lot more to lose from a 'dodgy investment' if it goes bad than they stand to gain if it performs well .
To be totally honest, I think having a super is useless if it will lose value every and then...
Just put the saved income in your bank and don't touch it for 40 years .... Simple!
No, its not useless. Over their working life most people's super grows substantially.
Shares provide much greater returns than savings, even accounting for severe market fluctuations, which in addition to superior growth in most yerars are also offset my dividends. Furthermore, unlike superannuation payments you have to pay full income tax on it if you put it in the bank.
So no, savings are a terrible idea for retirement until you're nearing the end of your working life.
