Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ella
Our superannuation contributions are totally separate from our potential social security payments upon retirement. We have our superannuation that is paid out on permanent retirement from the workforce (for me, that would be at the age of 55). We can either opt for a lump sum, or an indexed pension, administrated by our superannuation fund.
In addition to this, we can claim the age pension through our social security provider, Centrelink. This pension is income and assets tested, however the income and assets test is quite generous, and many retirees are granted a part pension to supplement their indexed superannuation pension.
In terms of my interest figure, it could possibly be higher, although I have not received my annual superannuation statement for the 03/04 income year. We pretty much have zero inflation at the moment, so whatever interest I receive is good interest.
And you do get annual statements? That's reassuring. What seems to be concerning is the instability of your funds, subject to government needs and wants.
|
After going to the Australian Sucurities and Investment commission website, it looks like your superannuation scheme is a similar to our 401(k) plans--only that the government mandates private employers to contribute a certain amount (looked like 9% currently).
We have that, as well. But the government does not mandate that corporations pay into it, although many larger corporations used to match employee contribution. I think that trend is waning, however, and many 401's are no longer matched, even though employees can still contribute to them--maybe tax reasons would be the incentive.
So we have 401(k)'s and then, seperately, social security. In addition to those, we have tax deferred Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's). So we actually have a wide array of retirement options. Although they hinge upon the strength of the stock market, which should not surprise anyone given our cultural emphasis on free market investment being a panacea.
Our social security is supposed to be secure from tampering and/or looting. However, I have read some shifty ways politicians have dipped into it. But it mainly seems to be political posturing to create an insolvent system to facilitate public approval of dismantling it--not something that is inherent within the social security system itself.
But you will likely see posts in here and comments when you canvas US citizens that speak to the inherent instability in reference to worker to consumer ratios, rather than how the system is being managed.