Paul Keating says raising superannuation to 12 per cent will 'barely cut it'   

ABC News
13 Nov 2018



Former prime minister Paul Keating has rejected a Grattan Institute report that suggested scrapping plans to raise compulsory super payments from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent, and raising the retirement age to 70.

Mr Keating, whose government introduced compulsory superannuation contributions, said Grattan Institute chief executive John Daley had a "miserable view" of the world.

Mr Keating told 7.30 that super payments had to be raised to 12 per cent, though that would "barely cut it".   

"When I introduced super 32 years ago, people retired at about 65 and they died about 83 or 85," Mr Keating said.

"In the 30 years since, people are living three to five years longer, so people now live into their late 80s and the superannuation pool isn't large enough to maintain the sort of standard of living we wish for them."


Finding the best super arrangement can be complicated. But it's an important part of you and your family's financial future — and taking steps to improve your retirement savings may be easier than you think.

The Grattan report also suggested including the family home in the Age Pension assets test where the home value is above around $500,000.

Mr Keating said Mr Daley "doesn't get it with his miserable view about having the two Australias".

"The privileged Australia where the wealthy people can have all sorts of assets but ordinary people are condemned to the pension. This is $460 a week. I mean don't whoop it up on 460 bucks a week. This is the John Daley view of the world," he said.

"Daley's recommending people work till 70, put their house in the assets test where now it isn't. In other words, you eat your house.      

"Work till 70, eat your house, and then basically find yourself at a certain point in your life where you just don't have financial assets."   

In response, Mr Daley told 7.30, "If Paul Keating actually read our report rather than repeating ASFA [Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia] talking points, he would know we don't advocate 'two Australias'".

"With 9.5 per cent compulsory contributions almost all workers will have quite a lot of retirement income from super," he said.

He said that on 9.5 per cent, "very few Australians will be on a full age pension until late in life".

whiteknight.

you rarely post anything without a flood of  .

when you get into your 80's you will have severe severe disabilities, pain, possibly dementia, possibly a fatal illness, people around you will be dropping like flies.

you need to infuse your emotional state with  now whilst you have the chance or you are going to be one very sad retiree and you are going to construct a living hell for yourself ,

and whether you have 9.5 % or 12 % is going to make very very little difference to the joy(or misery) of your final years

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 6:42am:

Increasing superannuation to 15% is affordable. The solution is to tell the wealthy company owners to buy fewer yachts.

Raise superannuation.

Super fund managers and finance industry workers have obese families and they need to eat more than normal people.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 6:45am:


Once again, incredibly ignorant and out of touch with the real world.

ahhh another

GIMME GIMME !thread from the I WANT IT NOW  club....

no idea where its coming from of course.....but why worry about  that small detail its  the last thing we want to think about

why spoil a good idea with that crap.

Bam wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 9:47am:



you do see that would be at the cost of small business EMPLOYING more people  maybe even providing full employment   

as it is   this applies to only those who are employed......


how about those who are only part time employed....who can only work part time..

is anyone thinking of the changing landscape here?....to me its in a very fragile state   and looks to be getting worse......full time work may be a luxury in 20 years...

See if it were 15% all those years ago and left as Keating set it up the money saved on pensions would be in the billions these days

The super contribution needs to go higher and Chris and Bill need to drop that stupid $5,000 per year tax on retirees with franked dividend shares.

Rather than having more Self Funded retirees, we will end up with more on the Pension or part pension. 

Carl D wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 10:29am:

I once told my workmates who didn't know what to do with super to go with an industry super fund and avoid retail funds. It was very good advice.

Noel Whittaker says you only need $279K in super.

How much do you want?

lee wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 12:32pm:

How much does this Noel Whittaker have in super? Does he have other assets?

Bam wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 12:26pm:


Yep, but it was an industry super fund (and, a leading one at that - they're always advertising on TV, etc.) which slowly drained my 2 accounts with fees and charges.

Sounds like I probably would have lost my money in half the time if it had been a retail fund.

Bam wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 1:40pm:



How much super do you want?

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 5:19pm:


So earnings tax is 15% on super. If the RoI is 6% the tax is 0.9%.

CBUS say their return over the last 5 years is 10.41%. Fees would have to equate to more than 4.32% to do worse than 6% net of tax and fees.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 5:19pm:



Perhaps you could show where I said to use a retail fund.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 9:43am:


Yes bu that is Aqua.

An extra 3% over 30 or 40 years makes a huge difference.

lee wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 5:11pm:

How much does this Noel Whittaker have in super? Does he have other assets?

You have ducked this question twice now. You won't be answering it this time either. Here's why.

This person is someone who has substantial wealth outside of superannuation and isn't going to be relying on the relative pittance he's recommending for other people as his sole source of savings in retirement. I don't take that kind of hypocrisy seriously.

Bam wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 8:35pm:



The answer is how the F.. would I know? You could of course use Google and see if you can find out.

Bam wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 8:35pm:


So at 68 or thereabouts - $1m dollars.
Life expectancy about 88 years. Life expectancy tables show 80.4 years for boys born 2016, girls 84.6.
Even at 50K a year you wouldn't run it completely out as what is left in the kitty keeps growing.

At 68 you should own you own home. The kids should have left home. As you draw down the super you may be able to access the age pension.

Some pittance that $50k. I get by comfortably on far less than that.

Of course you could always top up your super if you feel afraid.

Now tell us how much superannuation you think you need.

Edit: even those pushing for more super seem to think $1m is enough.

https://www.superguide.com.au/boost-your-superannuation/crunching-the-numbers-a-...

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 10:03pm:



yeah. retired defence forces. Too bad for you.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 10:03pm:


So you don't trust union super funds? How sad.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 10:44pm:



What didn't you understand about me being retired? What didn't you understand about me being ex ADF?

But to calm your tits - I have never worked in the finance industry.

I did after retirement from the ADF work for the ATO.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 10:44pm:



And industry super funds are low cost. Damn.

You really are looking stupid. Nothing new I'm sure.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Nov 14^th, 2018 at 11:07pm:



yep. Size 12 hobnailed boots, whips and leather.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 15^th, 2018 at 6:12am:


How is contributing more to your super "taking"?

Spot