Quote:


No they aren't. Your confusion goes to the heart of the mindless compulsion to increase super. In fact, you are the one that brought up the distinction between money earned and money saved.

Nor is it a straight answer. It is you being evasive. If you refuse to think about what you say, perhaps you shouldn't respond. Let's try again for a straight answer. Just because you are a union man doesn't mean you have to lie, right?

What is the difference between having an extra $100 000 in income and having $100 000 fewer expenses?

Consider the following two scenarios:

You own a $1 000 000 house, which you rent out for $100 000 per year, on which you pay $30 000 in tax. You pay $100 000 per year in rent.

You own a $1 000 000 house. You live in it. You pay no rent.

Which scenario is better financially? I'll give you a hint, whether you have a job is irrelevant. Whether you have other expenses is irrelevant.

Gnads wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2021 at 7:16pm:


Plenty of people do. The average Sydney price is about $1 million. Try looking past your petty jealousy and you might see the point.

Quote:


Sure it does. It's why you completely missed the point, and why you still do not realise you have completely missed the point. The price is irrelevant to what I am saying. I could have made it one dollar or a billion dollars. I was trying to use round numbers to make it simple to understand, but I guess there is a limit to how much you can dumb this down.

Have another try Gnads. I'm sure even you can catch up and figure out what we were talking about. I have deleted a zero from the end so it doesn't trigger your jealousy. Consider the following two scenarios:

You own a $100 000 house, which you rent out for $10 000 per year, on which you pay $3000 in tax. You pay $10 000 per year in rent.

You own a $100 000 house. You live in it. You pay no rent.

Which scenario is better financially? I'll give you a hint, whether you have a job is irrelevant.

It's a way to invest your money Gnads. It should be obvious. Even when the PM announces that he will not be increasing superannuation because people would be better off having the option to pay off their home loans earlier, the rusted-on unionists cannot figure out why it is relevant, let alone give a straight answer.

Consider the following two scenarios:

You own a $100 000 house, which you rent out for $10 000 per year, on which you pay $3000 in tax. You pay $10 000 per year in rent.

You own a $100 000 house. You live in it. You pay no rent.

Which scenario is better financially? I'll give you a hint, whether you have a job is irrelevant.

You still think it's free money, don't you Grapps?

I'm in favour of higher Super savings.

I salary sacrificed into mine as I am of the generation who had Super come in part way through their working lives. The more the merrier. 

Mind you, I paid off my home loan very early and have been "debt free" for decades.

I also enjoyed "free education" so had no HECS fees*. Those were the days. 

Kids today?

Blimey. It must be tough to get a home deposit together.   


As for Super keeping more people off the aged pension? ... that would only succeed if little ratbags like Shorty; Bowen and Chalmers don't get to steal struggling retirees' tax returns. 



* Let's not forget who brought that system into being.


Hint:

Introduction of HECS In 1989, the Hawke Labor Government began gradually re-introducing fees for university study.

Sure, if you think objecting to them taking your money against your will "for your own good" must be some kind of ideology.

How do industry super funds compare to retail non-super funds?