Is it just me or does the guy who wrote this article need to attend a primary school maths course?
www.news.com.au/finance/superannuation/unexpected-pay-rise-coming-your-way/news-story/1c6bc5c3c73cffbbb1cf7332688e2479

Which bit doesn't add up? I'll admit I did not get out the calculator and check all the sums, but the overall amounts quoted seem right.....

Are you guys reading the scenario right? you know it is quoting the additional amounts gained by a 35yo over the course of their whole working life right??

Also in most cases the increase is an employer cost ie must be paid in addition to your base salary and will increase your package overall.

I know it mentions some will not having an overall package increase, but I have no idea what arrangement that might be - except for a full Contractor.....however most contracts either should have allowed for this when created or if they predate the legislation should be able to claim the additional.

Quote: Below, we took the average super balance for a 35 year old — $45,000 — and did some sums on the amount extra they can expect to end up with due to the increase from 9.25 to 9.5 per cent on retiring. It calculated in average fees, charges and assumes a retirement age of 70, and a balanced investment option.For example someone on $60,000 will benefit with an extra $8,036 when they retire

Actually pays to read the whole article before sprouting that it had errors on a forum

russh said...
Quote: Below, we took the average super balance for a 35 year old — $45,000 — and did some sums on the amount extra they can expect to end up with due to the increase from 9.25 to 9.5 per cent on retiring. It calculated in average fees, charges and assumes a retirement age of 70, and a balanced investment option.For example someone on $60,000 will benefit with an extra $8,036 when they retire

Actually pays to read the whole article before sprouting that it had errors on a forum

Aha...that final paragraph got added to the article after the original post. I guess the Editor woke up...and the reporter then got fired - so no increase in his/her super contributions any more : )

Cambodge said...

russh said...
Quote: Below, we took the average super balance for a 35 year old — $45,000 — and did some sums on the amount extra they can expect to end up with due to the increase from 9.25 to 9.5 per cent on retiring. It calculated in average fees, charges and assumes a retirement age of 70, and a balanced investment option.For example someone on $60,000 will benefit with an extra $8,036 when they retire

Actually pays to read the whole article before sprouting that it had errors on a forum

Aha...that final paragraph got added to the article after the original post. I guess the Editor woke up...and the reporter then got fired - so no increase in his/her super contributions any more : )

Fair enough - my apologies - it looks like they didn't even have the decency to add : EDIT

It's still wrong.

Super on 9.25% at $80,000 per annum equates to $7400 per annum, or $284.62 per fortnight.

Increasing super by another 25 basis points (0.25%) = 9.5%

Therefore ...

Super on 9.5% at $80,000 per annum equates to $7600 per annum, or $292.31 per fortnight.

That's a MASSIVE increase of just $7.70 per fortnight or $200!

YEAH REAL MASSIVE INCREASE.

Thanks Abbott.

Actually the sample figures at the end of the article are wrong too, because each salary bracket ends up with varying ages of retirement - from 66 to 75 years! LOL

I thought the retirement age to access super is going to be 70?

Ctngoodvibes said...
. Good thing about online is you can sneakily change your article and leave no track of the change if you own the website.

you don't even need to own the website.

Paradox said...

Loftywinds said...


That's a MASSIVE increase of just $7.70 per fortnight or $200!

YEAH REAL MASSIVE INCREASE.

Thanks Abbott.

Really? you are criticising pollies for an increase in benefits - however small? Some peoples views are interesting to say the least.

Maybe it's just automatic - criticise anything, good or bad just spread the hate....??

I would be interested to know if it makes a difference if you realised that it was actually Wayne Swan in 2010 that put this is place? Does that mean it is now good or still bad?

If still bad (or not enough) you do know the same increase happened last year and will keep increasing at various steps to 12% super guarantee in 2021/22?

LOL

Here's another one Remo!




Actually, here is a fun fact for you...

Superannuation increases are not guided by political parties, but by legislation ...

Drum roll..............

Legislation

TheSuperannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992[Cth] is the primary legislation affecting employers and details the administrative arrangements for the operation of the Superannuation Guarantee (SG) scheme, including assessment of the employer?s liability, calculation of the SG charge, payment of the charge and distribution of payments received.

And who are the people that can change legislation?

Another drum roll ...

The Monarchy and down from there!

http://www1.curriculum.edu.au/ddunits/guide/guide.htm

So criticising pollies is just and correct, because they in the end are not the ones that gave us this pitiful increase, but the system of law and governance in this country that comes down from the Monarchy.

Paradox said...
Right - well......I stand corrected.....you keep floggin em.....

.....oh look, a bird....<exits>

While everyones at it . I may have to pass on the massive $7.70 increase to my customers. someones got to pay for it...
www.everlastpatios.com.au