A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
If you're posting anything related to:
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
https://aussie.zone/communities
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]
The whole concept of using super to pay for housing is identical to the approach that created the housing crisis — a neoliberal non-solution that deepens and extends the crises for the benefit of the wealthiest.
Kicking the can down the road by robbing from the future to satiate the greed and failures of both the past and present.
Every time I see these ridiculous solutions being proposed, I get so frustrated. My partner and I are trying to do the right thing, saving and not stealing from our future selves - but we're competing against these insane policies that do nothing but drive up the price even further.
We just met our original goal, but the cost of a home in our regional area has pretty much doubled since we moved back after giving up on Sydney a few years back now, so we're no further ahead.
We know the liberal party have been itching to do this for a while now. Scummo mentioned it in the last days before the election.
No doubt it's happening next time the liberal party gets in.
As if it isn't enough that they transfer tax dollars to established real estate owners, they will transfer super balances to them as well.
I think using your super as a deposit for a house is a terrible idea because you could basically end up like my mum: an elderly homeowner having to pay to maintain and repair an ageing home and no income other than the pension to live on. She's long gone now, but I'll never forget how hard it was for her, and how she had to borrow money from a friend to replace the old heater that broke and couldn't be fixed. Every pension day it was decision time, what to pay and what to delay. Meanwhile the house was slowly falling into disrepair.
At the risk of being insensitive... Why not sell the house and move in to something smaller and more manageable at that point?
That's a perfectly reasonable question, and the answers are many. It was the house she and dad bought together, and after he suddenly and unexpectedly died, she was really attached to anything which held her memories of him. They had been active in volunteering in the area and had many friends and a strong connection to it, and she just didn't want to move anywhere more affordable where she didn't know anybody and had to "start again". She had an extensive garden which was her main hobby and which gave her an enormous amount of pleasure, and she was loathe to give it up (it was admired by local people and when she died, people came to take photos of it). Mum had Parkinson's disease at the end, and found mobility a challenge, so the house was easy to modify for her increasing disability. The truth also was that the house itself was kinda crappy and wasn't actually worth very much and she wouldn't have gotten much more than it cost for a unit in the area at the time (prices for units in that area were starting to get a bit crazy). After dad died she got all morbid and was talking as though she was going to die soon too, even though she outlived him by about 20 years lol. I guess she thought, why go to the trouble of moving when I'm just going to die anyway? I hope my answer hasn't bored you with rambling on, my apologies if it has.
Aside from anything else, I've seen a couple of examples of downsizing up close and in neither case did it end up with them making very much money on the deal. They just ended up with smaller places.
In the first case they ended up with a small apartment which they actually ended up having to sell some of their retirement investments to be able to afford after selling a large family home in the outer suburbs and paying all the costs associated with selling.
In the other case she moved from a large family home in the outer suburbs into one of those "retirement communities". The whole thing's a massive scam. You "buy" the unit but you don't actually own it, you only own a leasehold on it - something they didn't make clear to her at all. You're not allowed to even improve or renovate it. They impose rules on you much like a rental. And when you move out you're not allowed to sell it - they contractually reserve the right to sell it themselves and pay you a massively discounted amount for it. Essentially they steal half the value of what you originally paid in a time when house prices are going up as well. It's straight up exploitation of people who are old and struggling to even do everyday tasks, let alone understand complex contracts.
in neither case did it end up with them making very much money on the deal.
The point isn't really to make money (you're not supporting the current housing crisis with your desire to financially gain from a home are you?? 😉 ), it's more to move in to something more size and maintenance appropriate.
I guess I was addressing the "living in poverty" part of the parent comment and the suggestion to downsize in your follow-up. I thought you meant to downsize to get some money to pay the bills. But it seems like you're saying to downsize to get a house which is easier to maintain?
¿Por qué no los dos?
Can't manage a large property... sell large property, acquire money... purchase suitable sized property and use balance of cash for a motorbike, or a jet ski, or just keeping up with the rising cost of living.
Why go broke (both financially and physically) in a large house as an old person?
For the Coalition, this hits two birds with one stone: weaken the concept of super, while pumping more money into the property market.
I don't understand the point being made, here. Yes, when I was young, my super fund was small. I think I had less than $100k in my super when I was 30. Which makes complete sense - Super is designed to grow over 40ish years of employment, not be accessed after 5-10 years.
The point is that the Coalition's plan is idiotic just like it was idiotic when they allowed people to drain their super during the pandemic.
lol I have been working since I was 16 and have less than 40k in super ( I'm ~30 now)
I don't think I'll even make it to retirement anyway
For the non-Aussies, what’s a superannuation?
@ramble81 @BrikoX In Australia, if you work full time, your employer is required to deposit 11% of your income into a retirement savings account, known as a superannuation (or "super") account.
Most people use a member-owned industry super fund, but you can also opt for a super account from a for-profit private financial institution (but the fees can tend to be higher).
In most cases, you can access the money in your super account once you turn 65 (but there are some conditions where you can get early access).
The Australian government also offers a (government provided) aged pension, but it's quite low.
You can access super at 60
401k, RRSP, etc.
Retirement investment account.
With the key difference that it's compulsory to have one and contribute 11% of your income to it.
Pension type fund.
Kinda like americans 401(k)
To be clear, the percentage of your income paid in superannuation is in addition to/on top of your regular wage. So you don't lose access to money you've earned through super, it's like a bonus payment your employer makes to an investment fund that you can access at retirement. The basic idea is that the payments and interest build into something that can replace the age pension in retirement, which reduces financial pressure on the Australian government.
Historically super has been a very hands-off investment with strict rules about who can access it and when. People cannot be trusted to use the money wisely and so it is locked away for our own benefit. In 2020 the conservative government in power at the time allowed people in "financial stress" to withdraw their super early. There have been reports that this completely fucked some people who, unsurprisingly, wasted all their super on nothing of long-term value. In 2022, the conservative government promised in the lead up to the election that people buying their first home would be able to withdraw up to $50,000 of their super to spend on a deposit. Thankfully they lost the election.
It's a neo liberal "solution" to keep kicking the can down the road.
We either go to social housing or this.gets worse, the only path to social housing seems.via the Greens. I own my own small place outright but Vote Green.
Why would it? Super is its own scam
Why would it? Super is its own scam
Scam: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation
Can you elaborate on super being its own scam?
I worked in the superannuation industry for a while. I wouldn't say that super is exactly a scam but it's a terrible mess and the fees we pay on super in Australia are insane. Basically we have a lot of parasites taking a cut and that ends up making the standard funds poor investments. Median returns on the super funds are around 5.6% pa (over the last ten years for the standard "balanced" option) at a time when stock market tracking funds have appreciated by over 8% pa. A lot of that is being lost in inefficiencies and fees.
By comparison Americans with a 401k invested in the NASDAQ would have made 17.3% pa over the same period.
We're getting a terrible deal with superannuation, and for many it's the difference between retiring comfortably or retiring in poverty.
Cherry picking an article seems to suggest the US has similar problems https://www.investmentzen.com/blog/average-401k-return
Australia's superannuation has improved over time. For example, the MySuper reforns led to consolidation and an exodus of underperforming funds.
A quick search on some of the biggest super funds in Aus shows returns of > 9% in a more equivalent, potentially volatile "high growth" fund.
There are funds that offer lower cost index-tracking products if that's your thing.
The biggest problem, IMO, is financial literacy which needs to play a bigger role in education.
Are you comparing a balanced option against a 100% stocks option? That's hardly a fair comparison.
It's a fair point but my intention was to bracket the possible returns.
Government mandated coke-fuelled gambling parties for investment bro's
Where do you suggest people invest their long term money to avoid the scourge of coke bros? If one is to believe the stereotypes, real estate and non-Super investments seem just as likely to face the same problems.