The Future of Retirement with Alan Kohler: Part Two | 7.30
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- Compulsory super has turned us into a nation of savers, collectively investing $3 trillion but 30 years after its introduction, is the superannuation system still looking after all Australians as well as it was intended?
Alan Kohler continues our four-part retirement special. This was produced by Laura Francis and Chris Gillett.
Part One, click here: • The Future of Retireme...
Part Three, click here: • The Future of Retireme...
Part Four, click here: • The Future of Retireme...
For more from ABC News, click here: ab.co/2kd3ALi
You can watch more ABC News content ad-free on iview: ab.co/39iq2Xt
Subscribe to ABC News In-depth: / abcnewsindepth
For breaking and trending news, subscribe to ABC News on TH-cam: ab.co/1svxLVE
You can also like us on Facebook: / abcnews.au
Or follow us on Instagram: / abcnews_au
Or even on Twitter: / abcnews
PJ Keating the legend. left the school at 14 and still smarter than everyone around.
You praise him, yet ignore the damage he did putting the neoliberal economic model on steroids. Wake up fool.
Legend in his own lunchtime. Dinosaur trying to stay relevant
5:05 Most young people didn't take out their super to pay down mortgages, pay off car loans, or wipe out credit card debt. We don't have mortgages. My friends withdrew it to pay rent. To feed their kids. To put petrol in the car so they could get to work, if they were lucky enough to keep a job. I've had 9% super for my entire working life and my longest career break was 3 months, and I'm still being told that by the time I retire, I'll only have half what I need to live.
Amen.
It’s pretty simple problem ....it’s because some young people spend more money than they earn ...SIMPLE... they have been sucked into the 21st century consumer society
@@davidh6811 And you've been sucked into the crappy media narrative that says millennials are all whiny snowflakes who don't know how money works. Cost of living, rent/mortgages, childcare, and inflation have all steadily increased. Wages have barely moved. Companies turn most of their full-time positions into casual positions to save money. Affordable opportunities (rent/home purchases) and decent jobs have hundreds of applicants each. Gen Y is the first generation in a long time to be financially worse off than their parents, and despite what the Daily Telegraph might tell you, it's not because we're lazy idiots.
“Some” young people ... (in all different generations ) spend more than they earn each month ..... living for the day and not thinking of their future .... and therefore often setting themselves up for a life time of financial woes .... today’s trinkets payed with credit or payed with future money they have not yet earned ...... the basic rules of money and of accumulating financial wealth has not changed in thousands of years so it’s is NOT just a millennium generation problem OK ! ...... .... don’t give us the old “whoa whoa us poor millenniums” ...... previous generations would have loved to have the privileges and lifestyle you accept as the norm in your life
@@davidh6811 And "some" old people are terrible with money too. Stagnant wages and growing job insecurity are why women over 55 are Australia's fastest growing group in homelessness. Just because you heard about one 22 year old buying a smart watch on a credit card doesn't indicate a trend. Young people in the last 10-15 years smoke less, drink less, go out less. The problem is that rent, bills, groceries and transport eats up our entire paychecks. Anyone who didn't start their careers in the 70s & 80s, at the start of the biggest economic boom in Australia's history, doesn't have the same security and are now suffering in comparison. This includes women who took career breaks to resist children, as this video series discusses. There is far more involved in the current state of young people's retirement funds than "young people just want everything now". Please do some more research and reading involving current financial data and statistics before your next rant on the internet.
Superannuation wasn’t possible without the active buy-in by the ACTU, who were reluctant initially. While PJK is seen as the ‘architect’, let’s not forget Bill Kelty and the rank and file who supported it, including Australia’s public service union members. In short, without unions and their members, the current petit bourgeois (aka the investment class of modern Australia) wouldn’t be considering upgrading the Audi or refinancing to grab another investment property. Union members and the movement have been fundamental to our prosperity.
True, Paul always acknowledges Bill Kelty when talking about the formation of Superannuation, perhaps not as much as he should but then you would expect nothing less from Paul. There were also a lot of public servants involved.
Exactly. We’ll put.
Paul Keatings the gold standard.
@Anthony Timmers what’s out of touch?
@Anthony Timmers so that part about business productivity going up by 9.8% means wat to u?
The gold standard with putting the neo-liberal economic model on steroids. Wake up! Most of our economic woes today started under Hawke and Keating. Goes all the way back to Whitlam and Fraser too. Howard walked into a finely tuned machine and just ran with it.
Same character who gave the banking institutions the right and obligation to "police" their customer base? I think that was a shocking outcome, empowering the banks to do that which they wish.
The LNP used the pandemic to start the slow dismantling of Super. They fought against Super in the 90s. Now they are going to tell all workers that if they every need money to survive, eat your retirement you pleb.
Well, to be fair, more millionaires should be expected to use their capital. The point of super is not to leave it to your children. Its to fund your retirement.
@@alphabet_soup123 The millionaires, a small percentage of the superannuates, may leave it to their children. But these are the people who would have left their super untouched. The majority of superannuates have modest balances and may leave it to their children or not. The point is that the very people who can least afford to reduce their super balances were the ones who did. Maybe it was their choice but the young rarely plan ahead, only later in life does it come back to bite them in the a***. Judging from the uptick in retail sales, some, maybe much, of this money was spent on non essential items, not food, not rent, but big TVs, plastic surgery, cars, partying, all the things that many young people consider essential . In any case, the idealogical hatred of super expounded by many in the current government colours all the decisions this government makes in regards to super. Industry funds are particularly hated by the government as they are half "owned" by the unions. What puzzles many is the silence from the other half owners, the industry group employers. Believe what you want but i don't think the government can be pardoned because of a few wealthy superannuates. The conservative party's intent is clear and always has been.
@@robertnicholson7733 true. That’s why don’t ever vote LNP. Ever!
It seems to be LNP’s answer for everything covid- raid your super, need to flee domestic violence- raid your super, need a house deposit since government can’t put meaningful legislation in place- raid your super.
another great coverage from Alan Kohler (& what great name he has)
I agree. My lawn mower is great.
I have super but I also invest $100 a week in market tracking ETFs for Aus, US and China. History shows fund managers dont beat the market so buy the market. Easy... automated and care free! If only people looked!
You're going to learn the hard way that it is not a good idea to buy the market at the top.
@@peterjones8872 u know what an ETF is right
Agree mate - invest inside and outside super in broad market tracking ETFs. Need to take care of ourselves with our own investments. I’ll never be a burden on society with the aged pension.
I never bought a house. I do however have a quite a respectable portfolio of stocks, cash etc. I wouldn't qualify for the pension because of this reason, but people with million dollar homes do.
Paul Keating is my hero .
Then you have gone tropo, like the rest of us. Have a nice day and ciao for now
Then you are a fool.
They are ALL corrupt!! Can’t trust ANY of them. Please done be so gullible. 🙄🙄
I am retired, without super I will be a pauper.
Just hope that if you have ample Super that they don’t amend the rules and stop you from getting it. Always seems like if you do the suggested things they’ll introduce a change to stuff up any chance of happiness.
so many different scenarios on why many people retire without sufficient means - for sure there are those simply hit by bad luck (and that is sad) but it would be great to see some statistics on how many struggle in retirement because of poor choices they have made in life - and then how many of the poor choices can really be attributed to the government. eg can the govt be blamed for those who choose to buy a new car when their income level could really only justify a second hand car?. can the govt be blamed for a life time of over spending on cigarettes / alcohol or over consumerism of branded products. it always seems easier to blame the govt than to take responsibility for ones owns actions.. i know so many who over consume in the NOW - no big deal - just dont complain when you have to struggle in your retirement years.. it seems so hard for so many people to find balance..
Exactly. The woman profiled in this story, the only breadwinner due to her partner's disability, obviously felt a new car was more important to her right now than sacrificing extra into super.
Can you please release the full interview, instead of just splicing and dicing it with beyond hilarious "counter-arguments" from the minister, and artistic shots of retirees? Yes, your average viewer has the attention span to listen to two middle aged men talk for an hour.
Middle aged is generous, how old are you expecting them to live?😆
Joe Rogan proves this point...
It takes a lot more than 3 taxpayers to look after a retired politician
the average pensioner is not a huge burden on society, the average politician is sending the country to bankruptcy
Janet Hume, Minister for Superannuation, at 4:48 min:
"If you are talking about people tapping into their super to pay their bills, that, well, I actually don't think that that's necessarily the worst thing in the world at that time at massive financial uncertainty when people were you know loosing their jobs at such a rapid rate, ah the ability to tap into your own savings, your choice to do so, ah to spend that money on paying down your mortgage, paying off your car loan, um you know paying down debts, cutting up credit which we saw at a rate that we've never seen before last year, that's a good thing, ah but it wasn't compulsory it was their decision and I think that the coalition
Governments trust Australians enough to make the best financial decisions for them and their families."
(... a question of sorts on this for here, in a bit ...)
The coalition love to run this angle - that the public know whats best, they know how to handle their own money. That is actually incorrect. The majority of people have no idea what they're doing when it comes to money. Its a much smaller percentage who really understand what they're doing. What shocked me is that people have withdrawn their superannuation to put towards housing deposits. At the time, the banks said that wouldnt work because it would signal hardship and they were unlikely to give people a loan. The ATO said this was also against the rules. Yet people have gone on to take on mortgages and buy houses that they wouldn't have been able to purchase without their super withdrawal. I am shocked that the ATO isn't even bothering to hold these people - the ones who have broken the rules - to account. It is so unfair for everyone who followed the rules.
I was disgusted at how she deflected the attack . Regulations and rules are here to protect people from self harm 40 years into the future. Federal Liberals/Nat never think past the three year election cycle.
Minister offers a mealy-mouthed post-hoc rationalization of their policy position... What's new?
@@alphabet_soup123 governments are great at wasting money. Last year 3 tiers of government collected $596billion and wasted it all and also ran up a deficit. You say the public cannot handle money and should not be allowed to decide when or how to spend their own money. Perhaps the government should introduce 100% taxation and then administer our money via their superior skills?
Although there will still be a "retirement" phase, increasingly it's becoming a time to continue buying and selling investments, and if you are unlucky and lose money, back to the workforce to regain those losses!
It was only introduced in 1990s. How can it be fully evaluated when nobody has worked a full career with superannuation contributions
its all speculation
That’s not entirely true, many federal/state/local government staff and corporates have have been paying super for over 50 years and at multiples of what was provisioned for anyone who started receiving super in 1992. Part of the problem with anyone who first received the SG in ‘92 is that they received 3% of salary. In other words, far less was put aside and it began much later. Then and now, many employers resisted the impost and accordingly absorbed that into pay rises. It has taken decades to increase to the still inadequate ratio of 9.5% and the self employed are still not required to contribute at all. Consequently, most simply don’t. Given the choice of taking the money today or having a tithe of wage put toward the future, I’d suggest that most younger folk would choose option 1. This is completely understandable too - it’s intuitive to prioritise our present needs ahead of the future. However that mentality won’t bode well for the future of the individual nor will it it ease the burden of subsequent governments in funding age pensions. Keating was very astute in realising that three decades ago.
Modelling, there is certainly sufficient information available to model the system either through back testing or via projections.
@@robertnicholson7733 that's not true it's called scaling
@@blakepeter5334 Many things are referred to as scaling, just what context are you specifically talking about. You will have to explain why the system can't be modelled given the 30 years of superannuation specific data, known structure and over 100 years of general investment data. Quite good modelling tools are available at the personal level. At the system level, there are several groups who regularly compare retirement systems throughout the world to test their capabilities and how effective they are in meeting their stated goals.
Why would you ever rely on the government dealing with money. Feel sorry for people who put their trust there
Why can't Australians just put extra in Super? Why do you they have to wait for the government to mandate it?
We can. It would be a very good idea for the gov to incentivise people who withdrew their super to contribute to top it back up again
i put in extra every week
A Person in Finance Taking on a Role For Womens Economic Security. Good Luck with That. You will need it.
Paul is spot on, lets cope the current crop stop talking and start listening
Hume : 'we want people to have a standard of living beyond the pension' then allow them to only earn a pathetic 5 grand a year before you start loosing it. Living in an Apartment that is maintained is becoming one of the few choices for the aged but body corporates come with it but that is not taken accounted for by our government... We have America as an example of what will happen to the less fortunate if we don't do things smarter than them..
I think some people over estimate the return on investment which we will get over the next 30 years.
Back in the 70's when inflation was at 8 to 10%, sure we could expect 10% plus compounded interest, year after year.
Today with inflation (ABS measured CIP) at around 2 to 3%, 20K today isn't going to turn into 500K in 30 years.
Even in the 70's when inflation was at 8 to 10 percent, your 20K still isn't going to become 500K in 30 years. Your point?
@@joebloggs1804 The point is, when inflation is high, everything else is also higher. Share market returns, property price growth, Term deposit rates.
Understand that its always been possible to get a return of 10 to 30% more than the inflation rate, due to a growing economy and particularity a growing population.
So if CPI is 6 to 8%, getting 10% ROI is possible (for the long long term), whereas if CPI is 2%, 10% ROI for the long term just isn't going to happen.
Means nothing when stagflation comes.
@@williamcrossan9333
I've been getting 10% returns for at least a decade in an Industry Super Funds, Growth option, no insurance. CPI has been in that 2-3% bracket for that long too!
@@joebloggs1804 For sure. So have I. But 10 years is not my def of long term. 30 to 40 years at 10%? I very much doubt it. Happy to be proven wrong of course.
1. Keating is no doubt aware the industry fund managers are most union executives and ALP officials. Superannuation was little more than a bribe brokered by Keating and Bill Kelty to ram through The Accord, under which, the right to go a strike was pratically lost. In return union executives could get away handsomely with their fund manager fees, the productivity commission can disallow every single disput in favour of the employers while workers share of income and wealth since the time of the accords has been declining steady since.
By the time Howard came to power and without the power to strike the Australian working class was defensless and as anyone who knows anything about class struggle will tell you the only thing working men and women have to rely upon is our own strength! Not some bs about '"the social wage".
2. Financialisation is a cancer on the Australia and economy and with the introduction of Superannuation there was been a marked change in the stance and attitudes of union leaders. the ACTU Executive is more interested (some of them at least) in protecting supercontributions then they are about tradition working class objectives like, worker control of workplaces, reduction of working hours and days, full employment. The Australian financial system disadvantages working people far more than even a 15% super contribution could ever make up for.
3. The corrupt financial system needs dismantling, Superannuation means the ALP and the unions are APART of the financial system and as the great man once said "You cant reform a corrupt system if your still taking money from it"
4. Abolish Superannuation.
Since when did Union Executives get fund manager fees? They get fees for being on the boards but those fees are ceded to the unions. The rest I will not bother with.
Wish I could afford a land cruiser
Useless money pit
Consider the fact the coalition do all they can to minimise the pension as well as weakening super by turning it into a "savings account".
Super managers are to limited in what they can invest in,
Blue chip shares is considered high risk investment,
Like BHP is going to disappear,??
It wasn't virus that has created the problem, it was politicians who had nothing to loose personally that have put Australians in the position of using their super which should never of happened.
A few points about this that annoy the bejeezus out of me:
1. Sue Walton complaining about the 9.5% "freeze" is just feckless whining. She can contribute the additional 3% on her own free will. What she's really whining about is the lack of a pay rise.
2. The corollary to this is the abominable chicanery of politicians who conflate compulsory superannuation contributions as some kind of employer contribution. It comes out of your aggregate remuneration package, *every time*. The initial 3% SG was a pay increase simulacrum that was negotiated between politicians and unions.
3. Paul Keating is mostly correct about the preservation principle. This is the basis of how capital and wealth accumulate. Individuals don't get wealthy by spending money on short-term consumption.
4. The "gender superannuation gap" could be almost entirely erased if people were encouraged to contribute to their superannuation in their younger years. *Before* marriage, babies and divorce. See Keating's preservation principle.
5. Equity in owner-occupied housing *should* be a legitimate savings vehicle. That it isn't, leads me to think that this whole superannuation system is a scam perpetrated by the banking and finance industry. Capital is forced into investment vehicles, preventing hard earned capital from defraying long-term debt positions, hence increasing the total interest paid over the duration of a typical residential mortgage. This is an egregious anomaly, which goes against the stated principles of the system. Owning one's residence free and clear in retirement is a key part of financial security.
6. Someone needs to explain how a nationwide superannuation system can achieve compounding capital growth in the in excess of compounding national GDP growth. From where does this additional capital come? From which foreign nation is it plundered? Is the national "family silver" being liquidated slowly, being sold to foreign interests? Is it a mirage of debt accumulation in other sectors of the national economy? I suspect it is a combination of all of these.
He did good. Forced people to save money for their retirement. SO we could retire with dignity without relying too much on the government.
The erosion and dismantling of Australia superannuation retirement savings system is such a huge story that I'm surprised it's not a major issue among voters.
The freeze on the 9.5% superannuation guarantee is also crazy.
Unfortunately Australia's opposition party are currently not able to convince voters of anything. I guess you get the politicians you deserve.
i dont think the weather has any impact on the peoples super
@Anthony Timmers If you can't afford to pay someone's super, you can't afford to employ them. No one should miss out on super because a small business took on more than they could afford. Employees are meant to generate income - if they don't, you need to reassess. In many states the payroll tax decreased by more % points than what the superannuation was supposed to go up by. So when business owners in these states say they can't afford the super increase, they are lying. They can take the money saved from the reduction in payroll tax and put it into their employees super.
I agree super is good for working people on the whole but I would rather have all my wages thanks.
I know how much I need to invest to retire and I'd rather have cplete control of those investments.
@Anthony Timmers He is entitled to seek what he wants, everyone is. If you can't afford it, then he won't be working for you, so it is not you concern. Conspiracy theories about central banker will not help you make a go of a small engineering company. Competency and reputation will make it much more likely to succeed. All fiat currencies are created out of thin air, where do you think it comes from? Anyhow, how does that effect your business? I am intrigued.
@@teatowel11 So you don't want the tax advantaged superannuation environment for your investments? If I was making investment, no matter what they were, I would rather it be tax advantaged. Most people who talk this way, don't actually invest, at least not for the long term. Well, you can always become self-employed, no Super to worry about then. Of course, you would not be getting wages so no worries.
Super is not a person's own savings, it's a trust for a person's retirement. Stupid to consider it an at call account.
Minister for Superannuation did not answer the question, spoken for the LNP, people are not high on their agenda until voting day
It's so wrong with what happens to woman's super taking time to raise families
@Anthony Timmers If we don't have kids, the system would collapse you numbnut
Asset tests for pension must include the house in future - surely?
Bugger off!
@@sandponics come on mate!! Too many wealthy people take the pension. They need to tighten up on who gets it.
@@perthpete7906 Stop picking on old people and go pick on young dole bludgers instead.
@@sandponicsit is just targeting those owning 1million dollar homes and above. I say this as it is fair. People should not just abuse the system so they can pass on great wealth to their kids.
@@sandponics you mean those bludgers with million dollar homes getting gov handouts? Or the big retailer who made multi million profits who and bludged taxpayers money to boost bonuses and dividends? No? The young you say, it's the kids who are wrong. Riiiiiiight.
i took 20k out - il put it back in June and claim a tax deduction - yeh boiiii
I hope the money was invested while you took it out otherwise the reduced earnings will outweigh the tax savings
The Dutch version sounds fine.
Ummm, I would look it up if I were you. Perhaps not as rosy as you would think.
The LNP IPA flogs just don't want Australians to have nice things
Solution: Invest $6,000 on the day the child is born.. by the time the child is of retirement age they will have enough to retire! Just $6,000 very cheap but costs money now... need progressive Government.. dont have one.
So many speculations and presumptions contained within this above statement, which likely qualifies as financial advice. You realise you need to be a financial advisor to give financial advice, and if you do so without being licensed you could be sued?
Won’t hurt
The need to declare "I'm not a fin advisor, general advice blah blah blah" is idiotic. Make your own damn decisions, it's your fault if you listen to someones idea which turns out to be a bad one.
@@discretelycontinuous2059
I don’t know where you are from but from my country if you give financial advice without knowing someone’s situation, you must give a disclaimer stating that it is intended to be general advice and does not take into account your personal goals or limitations. I guess that’s the next level above other places full of cowboys who think they know it all.
@@joebloggs1804 I'm from Australia, mate (the country whose public broadcaster produced this video).
While I may not be fully aware of all the ins-and-outs of financial law, I have certainly seen in many (or any?) "official" outlets that provide information regarding financial products that the do indeed declare the whole "General advice only" schtick.
While I think that people need to be a bit more intelligent with their money in-general, I do think it is a good idea that in media with a large reach that hold (at least some perceived degree of) authority, that such a declaration is a good idea.
However, it looks a lot like a (and while I generally identify as a leftie and would normally not like the use of the term, I feel it is apt here) Nanny state for someone to attempt to sue somebody who, ventured an opinion in a largely anonymous online forum that turned out to be a poor idea and a complete stranger decided to take a financial risk by following this stranger's opinon.
Jane Hume. Why do politicians like this think that just spouting meaningless nothings is OK? I understand the ABC has to give both sides of the story but she just wasted everyone's time.
Alan shoulda retired years ago lol
i cannot believe they let people withdraw their super, absolutely absurd and wreckless
If used correctly it was beneficial.
For example i could not see me and my wife owning our own home anytime soon but having $20k ontop of the minute savings we had got us closer to the deposit and were able to make the sacrifice to save more and spend less with the vision close in sight and now we are building our very own home.
I’ve turned my $10k super withdraw to $30k within 8 months through investments. On track to reach 100k within the next 10 years. I’m 40 this year.
I guess it went into real estate
Exactly, $10k withdrawal in March, into the Sharemarket at the bottom then the purchase of my first house in November which is now up at least $100k. Nothing against Super but I think I’m a better judge of how to use my own money thanks Paul.
You took on additional risk though. I am glad it has worked out for you but it what you did isn't trivial.
Thats awesome well done. Unfortunately not everyone is financially savvy and I think you're in the minority. I know a lot of people that just took the money and blew it. They wont realise the impact this decision has had for about 30 years but its gonna hurt alot. It should never have been allowed to happen.
@@danielknight1032 How do you feel about going down the SMSF route?
Ughhh daddy
very far thinking and excelent australian
Hi I’m yearl to news