Draining entire superannuation savings wouldn’t cover most young couples’ home deposits, research finds

Comments

• WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • ComradeBunnie@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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.

    source
  • Longmactoppedup@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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.

    source
• PeelerSheila@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • trk@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    At the risk of being insensitive… Why not sell the house and move in to something smaller and more manageable at that point?

    source

    • PeelerSheila@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      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.

      source
    • zik@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      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 just own a leasehold on it. You’re not allowed to even improve or renovate it - they impose rules on you more like a rental. And when you move out you’re not allowed to sell it, they reserve the right to sell it and pay you a massively discounted price. 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 theft from old people who are trusting and compliant.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• rainynight65@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  For the Coalition, this hits two birds with one stone: weaken the concept of super, while pumping more money into the property market.

  source
• DolphinLundgrin@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Why would it? Super is its own scam

  source

  • theroff@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Scam a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation*

    Can you elaborate on super being its own scam?

    source

    • zik@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      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 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 it’s our retirements which are being stolen from us.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • DolphinLundgrin@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Government mandated coke-fuelled gambling parties for investment bro’s

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• ramble81@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  For the non-Aussies, what’s a superannuation?

  source

  • ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    401k, RRSP, etc.

    Retirement investment account.

    source

    • zero_gravitas@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      With the key difference that it’s compulsory to have one and contribute 11% of your income to it.

      source
  • BrikoX@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Pension type fund.

    source
  • Ilandar@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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, completely 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.

    source
  • bfg9k@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Kinda like americans 401(k)

    source
• Nath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • bfg9k@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    lol I have been working since I was 16 and have less than 40k in super

    I don’t think I’ll even make it to retirement anyway

    source
• hanrahan@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  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.

  theguardian.com/…/the-social-housing-secret-how-v…

  source