Originally Posted by rld1177 (Post 10788865)

With the new Super rules I noticed my take home pay was adjusted down in my latest pay check. Not a big deal but just curious if other employers are doing the same or giving people a slight raise to offset the new super rules? If there is a .5% hit on take home pay across the board though you'd think this would have a slight negative short term drag on the Australian economy - if you were on 100K including super you'd now have a few hundred less per year to spend on critical purchases like 7$ coffee's and 15$ pints of European beers in Melbourne for example.

So, were most given a take home pay cut or was this just something evil that occurred to those of us in the banking sector?

Originally Posted by Dreamy (Post 10788871)

It's really going to depend on how people's pay packages are worded - if you're on $x+super then you won't get a paycut, if you're on $x inc super then I would reckon most employers will let the employee bear the rate increase (that's what's happened in most of the OH's sector)

Because of the way it's being phased in, I doubt most people would really notice a big difference in their pay packets on a monthly basis, though.

Originally Posted by the troubadour (Post 10789160)

I went backwards for a couple of years when the share market was on a downer, so not overly convinced by super. It's just another method of investment which will hopefully be worth something in retirement.

Originally Posted by commonwealth (Post 10789323)

The major benefit of super v other investments is the tax benefit. You pay only 15% tax. That's why those who are good at actively investing would set up SMSFs and they contribute up to the concessional amount to take advantage of the tax benefits.

Originally Posted by commonwealth (Post 10789323)

The major benefit of super v other investments is the tax benefit. You pay only 15% tax. That's why those who are good at actively investing would set up SMSFs and they contribute up to the concessional amount to take advantage of the tax benefits.

Originally Posted by swans (Post 10794484)

Erm not really,super is a con with the non stop repetition of tax benefits as the carrot,everybody repeats it, BINGO.

Keeping it out of super is probably better,for example say CBA costs $100 per share,to buy this in super costs around $117 of before tax income ($100 minus 15% approx $100).

Various strategies are thus,borrow $100,pay the interest say$6,get 32.5% of that back from ATO,and collect $3.61 in dividends.Leverage up and use the dividends to pay the interest,wealth is always free.

Pick any whole number you like $10,20,30 etc as a starting point.Start at $30,a record high around around 2001 for CBA.Take an average interest rate of 7% over the 12 yrs since.Your outlay of 30k to buy 1000 shares costs you $2100 per year in interest,say $1500 after tax,far less than goes into super.

Take an average dividend of $2 per year,put that into the bank,so you have $24k plus interest in the bank.The shares are worth around $70K now,good steady plodding growth,perfect.Your outlay obviously is $18k ($1500 x 12),so the returns will always be far greater than super will get.Reinvesting those dividends would mean you have 2000 shares in CBA,so your outlay of $18k produces $140k now.The bonus is the thieves in the financial industry get no money out of you.CBA also hit $30 around april 2009,the excuse to use not to buy when they are cheap is "catching a falling knife', the financial industry keeps repeating it so it is burnt onto everbodies brain and must be great wisdom.When the next crash comes you'll hear it a lot, and see it on the board a lot,and it means the financial industry keeps getting their pound of flesh for evermore.

geordie downunder

Originally Posted by swans (Post 10794484)

Keeping it out of super is probably better,for example say CBA costs $100 per share,to buy this in super costs around $117 of before tax income ($100 minus 15% approx $100).