Author Topic: Australian super question  (Read 9168 times)

Schpeet

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Sydney
Australian super question
« on: August 11, 2014, 11:31:00 PM »
Australian Mustachian starting out, and I’m a bit confused about super contributions.  I have recently realized that I can contribute a total of $30k at the 15% rate ie salary sacrificing.  My current income is 75k base, plus 18k car, a yearly bonus (8k last year, no idea what it will be this year) taking my taxable income to $93k, plus whatever the bonus will be this year.  My employer contributes 75k base rate * 9.5% = $7, 125.  I should therefore salary sacrifice $22, 875 to make the most of the tax gains.  This works out to be $880/fortnight pretax.  The actual difference in what will come out of my take home pay is $555.  So, I will get an additional $750/fortnight into my super (after taking out the 15% super contribution tax) for a $555 reduction in take home pay, leaving me with $325 to invest.  I am working on reducing my costs and will probably bump this up by around $300-400/fortnight shortly by making a few other significant changes.

1.   From what I understand, even though maxing out my contributions creates a great tax incentive I won’t be able to access super until I reach 65.  Are there any ways to access this money if I retire at say, 40 instead of 65 (I am 25 now)?

2.   Am I better off making a smaller pre-tax contribution and using a larger amount to invest through Vangard so I can actually access this money?

Primm

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1319
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2014, 11:47:11 PM »
Australian Mustachian starting out, and I’m a bit confused about super contributions.  I have recently realized that I can contribute a total of $30k at the 15% rate ie salary sacrificing.  My current income is 75k base, plus 18k car, a yearly bonus (8k last year, no idea what it will be this year) taking my taxable income to $93k, plus whatever the bonus will be this year.  My employer contributes 75k base rate * 9.5% = $7, 125.  I should therefore salary sacrifice $22, 875 to make the most of the tax gains.  This works out to be $880/fortnight pretax.  The actual difference in what will come out of my take home pay is $555.  So, I will get an additional $750/fortnight into my super (after taking out the 15% super contribution tax) for a $555 reduction in take home pay, leaving me with $325 to invest.  I am working on reducing my costs and will probably bump this up by around $300-400/fortnight shortly by making a few other significant changes.

1.   From what I understand, even though maxing out my contributions creates a great tax incentive I won’t be able to access super until I reach 65.  Are there any ways to access this money if I retire at say, 40 instead of 65 (I am 25 now)?

2.   Am I better off making a smaller pre-tax contribution and using a larger amount to invest through Vangard so I can actually access this money?


1. No, not under current legislation, although there are options if you are 55 years old and still employed. 

2. Depends on your goals. If you want to retire before the super preservation age (currently 6570 - see what I mean? ;) ) then maybe.

Note my answers include vague disclaimers. The reason for this is that you are 25 years old. I started contributing to super when I was about your age. I'm currently 45, so 20 years ago. In that time the legislation and the preservation age have changed a total of I've-lost-count-how-many-times. Pretty much every budget announcement every May contains fairly substantial changes to the super scheme. I would absolutely not start my life at your age with any assumptions that the super scheme will continue the way it is, either partly or substantially.

Vague enough for you? Sorry about that! My broad advice would be to invest for yourself, and not make any future assumptions around tax or super. :)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 02:14:39 AM by Primm »

bigchrisb

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1233
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2014, 02:13:13 AM »
I make full use of the super salary sacrifice arrangements.  I'm 32.  Its the best (legal) tax haven you will find.  However, as pointed out, there is some huge regulatory (soverign) risk.  I save about three times as much out of super as I do within, so I'm comfortable with some of my portfolio having this risk (and tax benefit). 

That said, if this was the total of what I was able to save from my income, I'd spread my risk a bit.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7065
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2014, 03:41:08 AM »
Do you plan on buying an apartment/house anytime soon?

If so you will need all the take home pay you can get initially....

***Sorry, editing this, ignore me. Just reading through your journal post which gives the answer :)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 03:44:36 AM by marty998 »

agent_clone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2014, 05:48:49 AM »
1. Currently you can start accessing it from age 55, 60 without tax.  However there is definately talk about raising the preservation age.

2. It depends on what you plan on doing with your life.  If you want early retirement then I would invest somewhere other than super.
If you want to buy a house/apartment then depending on the timeframes involved it may be advisable to put it in a high interest savings account rather than shares.  We get higher interest rates then they do in the US.

This_Is_My_Username

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
  • Location: Australia, Mate.
.
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2014, 05:56:30 AM »
check that your employer will not reduce the SG contribution in light of your own voluntary contributions.  This is legal, but a very shit thing to do, but it saves $$ for the employer.  e.g. if you sal-sac $10k, the employer can legally cease contributions, because your total contributions are greater than the legal minimum of 9.5%.

Quote
1.   From what I understand, even though maxing out my contributions creates a great tax incentive I won’t be able to access super until I reach 65.  Are there any ways to access this money if I retire at say, 40 instead of 65 (I am 25 now)?

1. I would LOVE to access super when I retire early (at age 40), but this is illegal.  Except under rare and specific circumstances.  This area is pupular for scams, so watch out for that too.


Quote
2.   Am I better off making a smaller pre-tax contribution and using a larger amount to invest through Vangard so I can actually access this money?

2.  This is a very important question.  And it depends a lot on your circumstances, age, and wealth, and super balance.  If you sal-sac too much, you will delay your FIRE.  If you sal-sac too little, you will delay your FIRE.  There is a perfect amount for your circumstances, if you are aiming for the earliest possible FIRE. 


edit: I just read your journal.  I think super is a a bad idea for you at the moment for the following two reasons: (a). you are 25, and there will be 35 Federal Budgets before you can access super at 60(65?)(70?). Rules will change significantly.  (b). You are currently on $100k, with expected raises/promotions throughout your career.  With 9.5% Super-guarantee contributions (increasing to 12%), of an increasing salary, you will have a shitload in super anyway.  With an efficient low-spending lifestyle, You super balance at withdrawl age (60?) will likely be more than enough for you to live forever off the earnings. 
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 06:06:21 AM by This_Is_My_Username »

Schpeet

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Sydney
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2014, 05:52:40 AM »
Hi all, thanks for your input!

I'm planning on salary sacrificing some of what I put away into savings (about 1/3 of my current savings rate, dropping down to around 1/5 of what it will be in a few months time due to structural budget changes).  This gives me some benefit from the tax advantages, but means the majority of what I am putting away will be under my control to use as I choose.  I agree that there is a large soverign risk, as who knows what the laws will be when I reach 65?  But I feel  like it's too good an opportunity especially as I don't have ANY strategies to reduce my income tax at the moment (Except for private health insurance, but that only helps with the medicare levy).  That'll be the next thing I start looking at!

I've updated my journal thread as well with a few more details on my shorter term goals.

PS, my base income is $75k, the remainder is made up of allowances, bonuses etc meaning employer contributions are only calculated from the $75k!  Still, if I continue in my line of work for another 15 years my base salary will definitely be enough to push the employer contributions beyond the concessional cap, assuming todays rates, caps etc!

KPB

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2014, 08:03:43 AM »
Quote
check that your employer will not reduce the SG contribution in light of your own voluntary contributions.
???

I'd look up superannuation on the ATO website, there is very comprehensive information for both employees - outlining why your employer cannot reduce their  9.5% contribution in response to your own contributions, about salary sacrifice, and also on the circumstances under which you can access super (not many,- and you lose all the tax advantages)- more in depth information is in the self managed super fund section. My understanding is that employer guaranteed super must be paid on all income - including bonuses (but not all types of allowances). If you aren't being paid it on bonuses, that does not sound right at all. Look at your PAYG annual summary - your stated income has to include your bonuses, and the total income is what your employer guaranteed super is based on. Better still, ring up your super fund and ask them about your employer's responsibilities.

I agree that superannuation law is likely to change and is unpredictable, but paying tax at the highest rate instead of putting money into super doesn't make financial sense to me. It is unlikely that the money in super will be completely lost to you, but tax  paid is money gone elsewhere permanently. Your two tiered saving strategy sounds excellent, and changing the proportions in line with your short term and long term goals (and the every changing tax tiers) is where you need to look hard at the numbers.

Schpeet

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Sydney
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2014, 03:37:38 PM »
KPB, thanks I've checked it out and my employer is required to pay 9.5% on ordinary time earnings.  Which is basically my base rate, as I am a salaried employee.  So from what I understand no super contribution on bonuses or allowances sadly!

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6643
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2014, 12:58:30 AM »
Just to be clear, the preservation age is already increasing in a sliding scale up to 60, unless you are old like me. So you wouldn't be able to access until 60 if the laws remain the same. Like everyone else I think it likely the preservation age will rise.
The govt will certainly transform super gradually into a old age pension replacement in the coming decades, and I'm pretty sure that the lump sum option will disappear at some point. There are rumours ("leaked Deloitte report") that mooting changes such as residual super after death not being able to be passed onto heirs, but returned to a big super pot to be used for others. Not sure whether this will ever see the light of day or be passed, but the govt is certainly getting desperate re funding the aged tsunami. The tax advantage I think will gradually be trimmed to ensure everyone saves their OAP equivalent, maybe a bit more, but I suspect tax sheltering huge amounts will become less and less possible.

For what its worth I sacrifice to the caps, but I am 55 already.

For someone your age (this is the advice I've given my nonmustachian son age 19), I would work out what you would need to put in to be assured of a comfy mustachian retirement say 41k a year (since that is what a single is said to need these days). Work out what you would need to put in above the compulsory 9.5%, increasing to 12%, and sacrifice the difference. I can't do the figures  for you because it depends when you want to retire. Consider this a comfy mustachian old age retirement annuity. Personally I would not put more than that in.

You could either decide to sacrifice a lot now and hit the target, then direct more to non tax sheltered investment, or sacrifice a bit less and do a bit of both for longer. The argument for sacrificing more now might be that at least you know what the cap is, and you've got your old man money done. But its entirely personal.

All the above  advice is just my opinion and nothing is certain..

The most important thing is to keep your ears and eyes open with regard to changes to super. Not just what is in the budget, but the discussions around changes being floated. And adjust your plan if you need to.



agent_clone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2014, 02:22:02 AM »
The govt will certainly transform super gradually into a old age pension replacement in the coming decades, and I'm pretty sure that the lump sum option will disappear at some point. There are rumours ("leaked Deloitte report") that mooting changes such as residual super after death not being able to be passed onto heirs, but returned to a big super pot to be used for others.
I would hope to hell they don't do this.  Technically super is meant to be your money, it is part of your salary, so it should be distributed to heirs.  I have no real objection to it not being able to take it as a lump sum I think this would be a sensible policy for the masses, however I do have an objection to them taking money which is there because I can't access it until I'm x years old.  It would also be problematic for those widows/widowers who have no/little super of their own.
I honestly think one of the best things that they could do for super is to make it untaxed on the way in perhaps up to $x p.a., but tax it on the way out, that way you at least have some form of tax base with the aging population albeit potentially smaller, as opposed to now where you have tax concessions on the way in, and no tax on the way out which also stuffs up the pension eligibility criteria.
I don't think complete pension removal is a good idea (this will be problematic for those on lower incomes throughout their lives), however eligibility for it should be tightened.

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6643
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2014, 05:15:02 AM »
Quote
I would hope to hell they don't do this.
Yes me too - would seem UnAustralian to me. In the current clime I don't think it would be possible, but after priming the public for a few decades I guess its possible. I suspect its merely wild rumour to stir the pot: removing the lump sum option would sound like good news in comparison.

Don't forget though once you get to 12%, the shockingly simple maths shows you can retire after 47-48 years approx. And that would be at your full salary albeit averaged over your earning life time.  If you started working at 20, lets see now that would make you 67. I'm sure there will be a safety net for those who cannot amass sufficient super for a variety of reasons, but many more people will be self-sufficient.

I like your tax idea…makes good sense.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10988
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2014, 03:06:32 AM »
I guess I have a different take on Super than all the other respondents.

In the past, the rules for what is already inside superannuation have not become worse. The government has either changed the rules completely and made them better, or has said that pre-existing money in super follows the previous rules, but from now on the rules are xxxx.

Now, everyone is going to tell me that they have changed the preservation age to the worse, but it was separate from the rules when those rules were brought in. Having seen the number of people over 50 who cannot get jobs after being retrenched or getting some debilitating health condition, I actually cannot see the preservation age rising to more than 65 because this will just mean more people on permanent unemployment benefits. This is part of why so many people are against the rise in the aged pension age to 70.

However, I do expect that the whole superannuation scheme will be overhauled soon. Taxing both on the way in and the way out (if it's not taxed on the way in the existing government will lose a lot of revenue and give it to later governments - and I really can't see this happening), having tax free thresholds above which you get taxed, changing the entire scheme so it isn't your money (so it can be put into a big pension pot for others) - or some other permutation.

As a result, I think people should take as much benefit from the current rules as possible, and salary sacrifice as much as they can. When the rules change, they will wish that they had.

If I am wrong, people can always cease salary sacrificing when they feel they have 30 years worth of expenses in super.

agent_clone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2014, 05:11:00 AM »
Part of the issue with the rise in the pension age to 70 (and I guess the pension in general) is that you have young 70 year olds, and old/dead 70 year olds.  Health differentiation is probably starting to happen around 50-55.  At the age of 65 there are many who are incapable of working, and those who can.  There are also other issues, for example my parents are a reasonably healthy 73 and 74, I doubt that either of them would be able to work full time and certainly wouldn't be able to work full time and maintain other interests they would just be too exhausted.
On the other side of the fence to my parents reasonable health, a cousins, husbands mother at their wedding was about 70 she was what I would consider as a little old lady, one of those who shuffle along, she is also now dead.

AustralianMustachio

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 167
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2014, 07:10:25 PM »
I would hope to hell they don't do this.

Me too. However when it comes to personal finance and investing, hope is a dangerous word

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6643
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2014, 05:52:51 AM »
Part of the issue with the rise in the pension age to 70 (and I guess the pension in general) is that you have young 70 year olds, and old/dead 70 year olds.  Health differentiation is probably starting to happen around 50-55.  At the age of 65 there are many who are incapable of working, and those who can.  There are also other issues, for example my parents are a reasonably healthy 73 and 74, I doubt that either of them would be able to work full time and certainly wouldn't be able to work full time and maintain other interests they would just be too exhausted.
On the other side of the fence to my parents reasonable health, a cousins, husbands mother at their wedding was about 70 she was what I would consider as a little old lady, one of those who shuffle along, she is also now dead.

Yes I fully agree, but I think it was always so. I've had 2 colleagues recently drop dead in their 50's, also know of a relative who worked until in his mid 80s part-time at his own pace. Anything after 65 is a bonus if you ask me.
The statistic is  something like the av Aussie has ?70k in super at retirement ( can't recall where I got this figure)… so I think the idea is that they should spend it on supporting themselves, not blowing it on trips and fancy cars and boats. In policy speak raising the OAP alters the incentives. Less likelihood of voter backlash than  stopping lump sum payouts, or a soft entry to the idea i.e. get people to stop having a sense of entitlement about blowing the stash in one go and rather used to using it like a pension, then  there will be less resistance to stopping lump sum pay outs.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7065
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2014, 04:02:01 AM »
I've just decided to salary sacrifice my latest pay bump. Socking away my 9.5% + $240 a week salary sacrifice. Saving myself a tick over $3,000 income tax a year now and keeping my investments in a low tax environment forever.

So what do I see today in the Money liftout of the Sydney Morning Herald?

Bloody Noel Whitaker advising a 26 year old high income earner against putting money into super because "you are too young and many rule changes are a certainty before you can access the money"

Ridiculous. So what if there are rule changes? I'm prepared to bet $20,000+ per year there will not be a government stupid enough to do anything totally adverse to the system, if they value their electoral survival.

26 is the perfect age to dump as much as you can into super, concessionally taxed compounding silently away for 35 years.

You can then save for your "gap" years between FI and preservation age a little later on.

Captain and Mrs Slow

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Munich Germany
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2014, 04:36:02 AM »
Just currious but is this product similar to a 401K or an RRSP (Canada) or a German Rurup. In an RRSP the money grows tax free and than added to your income when you withdrawal. Also an RSP contribution reduces your taxable income (hence most people get a refund)and you can invest how can invest it (more or less) how ever you want and when you remove cash it is added to that years income.

On the other hand a German Rurup is a private pension plan in the sense that you will get back in what you paid as an annuity. You do get a tax break but I haven't quite figured out the tax end when you recieve income.

as an aside few Canadians realize upon death an RSP is collapsed and added to your income, in esence half will be lost in taxes

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6643
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2014, 04:51:11 AM »
Depends what you mean by "similar". Its a scheme rather than a product. One's employer must contribute 9.5% of your wage, and the employee can make extra contributions up to a certain limit if they wish. All contributions and investment earnings are taxed @15%. Once you hit 60, withdrawals are tax free.
This is a rough approximation only there are lots of variations and complex rules. If you are interested in  more detail try www.superguide.com.au/

Notch

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 97
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2014, 04:52:52 AM »
Some good advice in here.

I'll add:
If you put in $1000/y from age 20 to 30 and then stop, you'll end up with more money than someone who puts in $1000/y from 30 to 65.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7065
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2014, 05:16:17 AM »
Yes thats exactly right Notch - for the typical 7% return per year:

Under the first scenario you end up with $157,838 ($10,000 in total contributions)

Under the second, you finish with $147,913 ($35,000 in total contributions)


AustralianMustachio

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 167
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2014, 08:03:47 PM »
I agree that the maths adds up, but here is an argument I read a while back against investing too much into super. Though it's partly tongue in cheek, the writer is a very serious investor, and I must admit I find it a compelling case as well

http://rogermontgomery.com/dear-under-50-investor/

Edit - fixed link
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 08:05:47 PM by AustralianMustachio »

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10988
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2014, 08:58:55 PM »
I have read the article - it was difficult as he is so ageist - and incorrect. All of the changes disadvantage just about every Baby Boomer as they hit before all but the very first Baby Boomers as Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1965. And if there are no more changes, the Baby Boomers are the worst hit because they had very little warning and a lot of their working life was before the superannuation guarantee, so they have less super than younger generations. As for the aged pension - it wasn't Baby Boomers who were the beneficiaries of the changes - they're too young, and the Baby Boomers are the ones who are gradually getting older before they can take the aged pension.

However, he is missing a fundamental point - probably because he hasn't been around long enough. The superannuation system has changed enormously during my lifetime. Every government appears to have tinkered with it. However, through the years it gradually became more complex as prior "better deals" were grandfathered into the system, until it was really difficult to work out what you could do with what money. For instance, before a certain date (let's say 1992 or sometime around then), you could actually withdraw any of your superannuation that you had put in after tax - and that money can still be withdrawn early (in fact I have a feeling that initially everything you put it were after tax contributions). It was very much simplified some years ago, and the superannuation system we have now is the simplified one. BUT each time changes like this occur (including the ones he mentions), grandfathering of money already there occurs.

It is unfortunate that the preservation age is something that the simplified superannuation did not define - it was left to the government to change whenever they liked.

Yes, the government will tinker. Yes, superannuation is a good deal, and was progressively made a better deal because successive governments thought our resources boom would never end. Yes, it is probably too good a deal to last now that the resources boom is winding down. But money already in it will probably be subject to some of the current better conditions - no government could stand the backlash if it didn't.

AustralianMustachio

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 167
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2014, 09:46:46 PM »
But money already in it will probably be subject to some of the current better conditions - no government could stand the backlash if it didn't.

Hmmm you make a reasonable sounding point, but I disagree. You could easily say "no government could stand the backlash if they did _____" - and here you could insert any of the things the government has done recently.

More importantly, he's talking about these changes happening ever so gradually over the coming decades, drip by drip. In which case, any backlashes would be drip by drip as well, and therefore manageable for the governments.

I guess it comes down to how much you trust the government with your future money in this regard. And that's really the whole point of the article. I don't know how much I do, and Roger Montgomery clearly doesn't.

Captain and Mrs Slow

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Munich Germany
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #24 on: November 22, 2014, 07:46:02 AM »
Depends what you mean by "similar". Its a scheme rather than a product. ....... If you are interested in  more detail try www.superguide.com.au/

Wow I thought the Germans could make the simple complicated, that takes it to a whole new level. But to answer the question an RRSP (Registered Retirement Savings Plan) which is nothing more than a wrap for you investments. The money grows tax free and is taxed as regular income. So closer to the German Rurup than an RSP.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10988
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2014, 01:09:24 PM »
But money already in it will probably be subject to some of the current better conditions - no government could stand the backlash if it didn't.

Hmmm you make a reasonable sounding point, but I disagree. You could easily say "no government could stand the backlash if they did _____" - and here you could insert any of the things the government has done recently.
Change that to tried to do recently...

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7065
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2014, 03:54:58 PM »
Boo hoo. So much complainypants in Roger's article.

For anyone who believes the super system is crap, no one is stopping them from saving outside of super if that is their preference. Play by the rules that exist. If the rules change, then change your strategy.

My strategy is to get $250,000 in there before I'm 35 and then let that sit there and compound for 25 years. I'll then stop my salary sacrificing and top up my 'outside of super' savings and investments with that money.

If the rules change then so be it, I'll adapt and move on and seek out the next best strategy.

AustralianMustachio

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 167
Re: Australian super question
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2014, 06:37:42 PM »
Yep, that is similar to my plan - some inside and some out. Was mostly posting the article as food for thought, not to scare people from investing in super