Jump to content

Talk:Superannuation in Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Are these really necessary? I think it's noteworthy that the two funds mentioned are administered by the same company. The description of industry funds appears to be more than adequate and I think the funds mentioned should be removed. Magictorch 11:26, 6 September 2007 (AEST)

Agree, it is just advertising. Kewpid 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been moved

[edit]

From Compulsory Superannuation in Australia

I think that the purpose of superannuation in Australia should be outlined more clearly

(User:actuarial disco boy) says - I think this would be a worthwhile refinement. Trouble is - does the Government really know? I'm not sure an overall purpose of retirement incomes policy has ever been coherently articulated. (is it to save government money? boost retirement incomes? make the budget more robust with an ageing population?)

Also what is the purpose of the age pension vis-a-vis the purpose of superannuation?

Tarich 10:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC) With reference to the final question; the age pension is funded by the government to assist individuals meet their financial needs in retirement. Superannuation is funded by employers and individuals but I believe they are both designed to assist people financially at retirement.[reply]

I believe the question was asked with a certain degree of cynicism. ;) Kewpid 10:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed a section that said the 9% can be paid on loadings. It can't. It gets paid on OTE (Ordinary Time earnings) which don't include loadings or unused leave.

title of article

[edit]

Should this artlice be renamed "Superannuation in Australia"? not all superannuation is compulsory. The page has grown to cover broader aspects of superannuation than just compulsion.Actuarial disco boy 12:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

[edit]

Any comments? Actuarial disco boy 20:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move. It probably would have made more sense to start the Superannuation article with the broader title in the first place. -- Kewpid 05:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to Superannuation

[edit]

Some of the changes mentioned are already included in the article. The others should be included within the existing headings in the article. Kewpid 16:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graph out of proportion

[edit]

The graph Image:Aus_super_funds_asset_growth.png is out of proportion, exaggerating the negative performance. Newspaper do it all the time for sensationalism, but I don't think this is how it should be in an encyclopaedia.--Sir Anon (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Umm I am not sure but I don't think that superrannuaiton is compulsory per se in Australia. I think there is a 9% tax on business a business for each of its employees, and tax can be avoided if they pay that sum the employee. Check it out not sure if its right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.173.65 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err no this is not right it is a element of a workers pay Digmores (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Share of superannuation industry fund assets" image data is about 5 years out of date. Current ARPA data (sourced here: ARPA Super stats June 2010) shows SMSF 31.8% / Retail 27.6% / Industry 18.4% / Corporate 4.6% / Gov 14.3% / Other 3.3%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max bxl (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Access to superannuation

[edit]

The section makes no reference to DASP and WHM, it may be added as "exceptions" for the cases where you can access your super. Of course, this is a minor things, but it may be important for many non-Australians working there, who have no idea they can take those money back. LaurV (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

--124.78.225.90 (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--124.78.225.90 (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--124.78.225.90 (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--124.78.225.90 (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--124.78.225.90 (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--124.78.225.90 (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search results for the industry guidances.....

[edit]

--222.67.210.82 (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.210.82 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.210.82 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.210.82 (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amounts in super

[edit]

Are there any stats on how much money people have in superannuation? That would be useful info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.116.161 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AMP/NATSEM and ASFA have some stats (based on ABS HILDA data) Actuarial disco boy (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

$1.227T As of June 2010 [1] (Key Statistics Page 7) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.226.53 (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.apra.gov.au/Statistics/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=26180

Criticism?

[edit]

Why is there no criticms section about how Superannuation is a glorified Ponzi scheme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you can find documentary proof of this, by all means add it. However, considering that most superannuation is based upon standard investment mechanisms - shares, property, bonds, and so forth - you would arguably need to show that such a criticism is specific to superannuation, and not to the broader investment market. 216.14.198.60 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The claim that "Superannuation is a tax-advantaged method of saving as the 15% tax rate on contributions is lower than the rate an employee would have paid if they received the money as income" is not accurate unless it is specified for particular tax brackets. If somebody is earning under $18,000 for instance superannuation is an increase of 15% from 0 in tax terms.Twyn3161 (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australians

[edit]

The article describes the situation for "Australians" again and again - lets me wonder what the legislation is for non-Australians who contribute to Superannuation. Any difference? No? Then we should change "Australians" into "people", "employees", "retiree".... Thanks Mme Mim (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Pension section

[edit]

I added a section that discusses the impact of super on pensions. It would be good if someone could check that I got it right. Hard to find good info.

What is really needed is a summary of the common case, namely Compulsory super, retire 67, take a super pension, what happens.

(I have read up on this and I cannot figure it out. The docs are scattered, full of obscure cases and terminology. I doubt that any government bureaucrat that wrote them really understands the system, and certainly not outside whatever tiny bit they administer.) Tuntable (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derrida derider (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)You need to look at Chapter 2 of the Treasurer's Intergenerational Report 2015 http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/2015-Intergenerational-Report/HTML/chpt2 . Australia currently spends 2.9% of national income on its age and service pensions and this is expected to actually FALL slightly over the next 40 years. According to the OECD that's less than half the average spending on age pensions in developed nations NOW! (http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/pensions-at-a-glance-2015/public-expenditure-on-pensions_pension_glance-2015-31-en#.WCQlofl97Dc).[reply]

Compulsory super was sold on two grounds: the age pension will become unaffordable and superannuation would prevent it becoming unaffordable. Both parts of that claim were and are demonstrably false. Certainly, when compulsory super was introduced no projections of age pension expenditure had even been made, so the claim in the article about a future age pension fiscal crisis being "conclusively demonstrated" is flatly untrue. I've altered it.

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Superannuation in Australia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class==

The taxation content of this article needs more references then after that raise the classification level to B class, matching the other wikiproject.EECavazos 06:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax Priority==

Low priority because this article is not on the taxation of superannuation in Australia, but the article that is on such taxation will be a mid.EECavazos 06:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 06:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Employer contributions (Superannuation Guarantee (SG) obligations)

[edit]

I've tried to fix it a bit, but the first paragraph needs to be re-written

These resources don't mention separate contribution rules for 70+

Making super payments

super obligations

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU24 - Sect 200 - Thu

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 May 2024 and 24 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryan1232378 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zq2197 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superannuation_in_Australia&oldid=1240744395"