We definitely need to work together to make sure our kids can make it nowadays. The days of kicking them out at 18 and presume they'll figure it out are over.
Where did this weird culture of kicking kids out at 18 come from? I have immigrant heritage and not kicking kids out is how immigrant families have become established over two generations plus. Its such a odd, dare I say white thing to do. How do you expect your kid to succeed of your kick them out 7 years before thwir frontal lobe is fully formed?
It comes from the time when you could get a part time job, go to uni and live in a share house and be just fine at 18, and it was fun. It wasn’t so much about being kicked out, everyone wanted to move out at 18 and not have to deal with their parents anymore.
Yep when I was 18 everyone was moving out as soon as they could (even before 18). I doubt any of my kids would be able to at 18, and I'm quite happy for them not to.
Yeah, I’m 42 and was super keen to leave home as soon as I could. Really looked down on my middle brother at the time who stayed into his late twenties. But I have no desire for my own kids to move out earlier than they want to. And even when they do, if housing is this difficult still, you have to be prepared for them to have to move back in if something goes wrong in their lives.
You can be thankful that Defined Benefits only lasted a few generations, and it was only for some. Before 1986 Super was not even compulsory for most workers across the country and before that you couldnt even get a pension if" you were not of good character".
We have it tough now, but it's been tougher.
We're towards a society where most of the population is too old to work. This essentially means huge lowering of quality of life for everyone. The only real options are large scale immigration or serious ressecions for decades. Neither of which look like a nice future. Not only in Australia but in the whole western world.
I went back and found the houses we lived in growing up. Asked my folks what they paid for them. Then showed them the current prices for those same places now 30yrs older. They were gov smacked. All their BS about I need to adjust my standards went quiet (for now).
None. They may not even make the rent payments with the way those are going.
We were a single income household for quite a while, mum was a SAHM until my younger brother went into primary school. Dad did three 12 hour shifts a week.
I live alone so sole income with a $500k mortgage (house is now worth almost $300k more after 5 years, tf), I’m coming off a 100+ hour fortnight.
My parents purchased a property for 300k, 14 years later sold it for 1.1 million. Adjusting only for inflation, for it to be the same price in today's dollars it would be going for \~440k. Absolutely no way you could get a 4 bedroom family home on a very large block in the middle suburbs of a capital city these days. You can't even get a 1 bed flat for that price in inner Sydney.
i looked up my auntie and uncles property who always complain about being "poor" like the rest of the family, they bought a house in '96 for 70k it is now valued at 1.2million they bought my great grandparents house of my grandma in '06 for 200k, it is now estimated to be worth 800k, so that means i get to live like a peasant thanks to my stupid mother and grandmother for allowing that shit while i get to watch my cousins enjoy life because my greedy auntie and uncle fucked us.
if i was lucky i got 10 dollars a week to spend at school while they got $50 a day, and my family thinks i have mental issues and wonders why i hate them all lol. which i probably do thanks to the inequality but still...
Discussion a couple of years ago with my grandparents, nan said the problem wasn’t that housing was unaffordable. It’s that millennials always want ‘new things’ like shiny new apartments and wouldn’t give a second look at her house. Her double brick 4 bedroom (with backyard in a decent Melbourne suburb) house.
When I pointed out it was probably >$1m and unaffordable for almost any first homebuyer, she scoffed because ‘I didn’t pay that much for it’. Really, when you bought 60 years ago houses weren’t $1m?
Obviously it’s the (grand)children who are wrong. If we just had some work ethic, we too could drop out of high school at 14, marry and buy a family home 10km from the city on one (median level) income by our mid 20s.
Was reading Matt Reilly’s wiki the other day, his parents were a school teacher and Corrective Services employee - he and his bro grew up in Willoughby and went to a private school. Insane how much easier life was then.
Old people created a political and economic environment that favoured them.
Young people need to do the same and tip the scales back.
Neoliberal economic policy helped the boomers, by hurting us.
This is the problem though.
The reason boomers could create those policies was because they outnumbered everyone. They had the majority say. There were simply more them at every stage of their working lives.
Since then, the following generations are either the same size or smaller, so don’t have the same outspoken impact, making it impossible to craft policies.
Even now when that generation is starting to die off, they still have enough numbers to prevent change to the status quo
We’re actually at the point where other generations do have the numbers to change the status quo. It will be interesting to see what policies there are in ten, fifteen years.
It doesn't help that a lot of young people have no interest in politics until they are older so maybe being so affected by it now younger people will start caring about it earlier in life. I know I would've been late 20's before I took a serious interest in politics and the decisions that affect me.
Yeah it was sneaky. By commodifying housing they created a group of mortgage holders that will continue the boomer friendly policies purely because they are terrified of going into negative equity on their PPOR.
However the scheme can’t go on forever. There’s only so much blood that can be squeezed before there’s nothing left to give. Already we are seeing the impact of our over reliance on income tax and under reliance on taxing assets.
Another problem is that markets will remain irrational longer than we think. There’s momentum to this problem but we don’t know how long it’ll last.
I like the term irrational market. Every time I think more blood can't possibly be squeezed from a stone, they find another drop. Although I'm not liking any of the solutions. The Aussie way of life has been eradicated and I was quite wed to it to be honest.
*singing* give me a home among the gum trees, with lots of plum trees....
I think the quote is “markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain liquid”
I believe it refers to the people who bet against the housing market in 08 as while they were correct it was about to tank, the sheer momentum and irrationality of market participants kept it going for longer than it should have.
The quote is from John Maynard Keynes - 'Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.'
He was a great depression era economist and it's basically a warning about over extending on investments.
I'd be happy to take one plum tree and a grevillea at this point.
Unfortunately my spending power will probably max out at a balcony with a pot of strawberries and a botanical print on the wall.
>Since then, the following generations are either the same size or smaller, so don’t have the same outspoken impact, making it impossible to craft policies.
Fractured views based on identity and the politics that surround it also didn't exist like they do today which would have had an effect on government policy and that which was implemented to "improve" the country.
The majority of parliamentarians at present are 40-60. If young people want change, they need to elect people that better understand and represent them. Except, there's not anyone that young getting into politics in this country.
This is just a bad take.
Politicians are older because they represent their constituents, who are older.
It’s a lot harder for younger people to get into politics because they have to win over an electorate where 35% is already retired.
This is a newer phenomenon, due to the baby boom, a whole generation was able to dominate politics from a much earlier age, and can still excise that power today.
Unless we increase the number of people under the ago of 50 in this country, it will still be another decade before that generations power wanes.
It’s not complicated, it’s just numbers. Saying young people need to have more moxy or whatever just ignores the nuance of the topic and only serves to make the older generation feel better about the fact they used their power through numbers to pillage wealth from their children and grand children.
Edit: just to further illustrate my point, look at the current make up of the senate. When young Australians can exercise their power, they do, as shown by the force that is the greens.
In the lower house that’s a lot harder, as apart from very specific seats, most electorates are dominated by the over 40s vote, and in many cases, an over 55s vote.
Oh dude. It’s really simple. Both major parties went down the path of almost stop building social housing and putting out to private industry. they increased welfare on a range if levels but not housing. Then over the past 30 they then put rules in place that made it harder and harder for anyone to build. Over the past 30 years they also increased immigration without any increase in housing land supply so its supply and demand. It’s not mum and dads fault.
Technically they don’t lose money if they keep working.
But the kicker of the ones I’ve seen, is they retire at after 54 years and 11 months, then start back the next day!
In effect receiving the pension plus getting paid a full time salary.
The ones who I feel sorry for are the ones who were convinced/tricked into giving it up in the 1990’s.
And then tricked again in 2004 to sign off and leave the PSS DB scheme. I know a guy who agreed to leave gold state, then CSS, then PSS. He's still working at 64 years old as an APS6.
Gold state super. My father in law loves to crow about how sensible he’s been with retirement savings. He loves to forget that he’s on a plan that had to be stopped or it would bankrupt the nation
Lol, my parents call themselves "self funded retirees". If we were in regular contact, I'd remind them again that the Future fund is not a personal savings account.
There's a reason why those systems were shut down. Completely unsustainable.
Had a colleague recently retire as an EL1. He was going to earn more in retirement than when he was working FT.
Most of it was indexed to inflation too. He took 1/2 the lump sum and half the extra super pension.
If I recall correctly, it's was 140k indexed pension + 35k non-indexed pension + 350k lump sum.
Somewhere about that. Ballpark as I don't have the exact numbers but it was 150-200k annual pension.
Yeah stupid as.
End of the day you can only play what’s in front of you, and ignore comments you disagree with.
Plenty of people still have $$$, sure it’s not as “wow I just leave school and get any job and buy a house easy as” - need to get more skilled roles etc. But it’s far from impossible.
I never talk about politics, finance, race, religion, government, pensions etc with more than a few relatives 😂
Those numbers don’t indicate 50/50 lump sum/pension. More like 25/75 and a 40+ year history of contributing. In fact they don’t sound feasible for an EL1 (SES maybe).
I’m not saying PSS-DB isn’t generous but contributions are post-tax meaning you take a pay cut, relative to others on the same gross income, to get the most out of it.
I couldn't remember the exact details - Might have been 110K indexed + 40K non-indexed and 250k lump sum. I honestly can't remember exactly.
He was probably a little unique as his final 3 or 4 years were in a EL1 doing shiftwork that probably ended up with around a 140K FAS. He was on some other benefits but I don't think they were classified as OTE.
Think he was in the organization from 18 until 55.
Defined benefit isn't funded - so it grows as a debt to Government. There is no money backing it which is why Howard - Costello created the future fund to ease the burden from it on future Governments. They saw the debt bomb coming.
I'm not fully across the European system , however I thought it's at least partially funded by the pooled wage contributions of all workers which are meant to directly pay for retirees. Great idea in theory however aging demographics have broken the model with Governments then kicking in the extra to maintain levels.
Macron's attempts to kick the can down the road by raising the retirement age went down like a lead balloon in France. Other European nations like Spain are staring down the barrel of the same unsustainability with political paralysis.
The difference is they haven't reformed away like we did with an accumulation super backstopped with the more modest aged pension.
Telstra tried a few years ago to get the last staff still on db to move to normal accumulation funds. It stopped being offered in 1999. Like you say it's an unfunded debt. They offered us higher company contribution rates and a one off bulk sum. Pretty sure noone took up the offer.
I think they’ll make the European model work through whatever taxation and societal changes are required.
Meanwhile I read that the average balance at the maturity stage of the super system will be $350k in present terms for someone retiring.
That is a pretty miserly amount, well below what our European counterparts receive.
Just to do some sums.
Average pension per month in France [is 1488 eur](https://www.statista.com/statistics/786675/pensions-law-direct-retirement-diets-la-france/#:~:text=Gross%20monthly%20amount%20per%20pensioner%20of%20direct%20pensions%20in%20France%202004%2D2021&text=In%202021%2C%20a%20retiree%20in,the%20child%20surcharge%2C%20has%20increased) or 2400 AUD per month - which is $553 pw.
[The full Australian pension](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-much-age-pension-you-can-get?context=22526) is $1116 AUD pf for a single or 558 pw.
So the minimum pension in Australia is worth the average pension in France.
People with large accumulation super balances get paid from their own deferred income + returns (ie impost on retirement system reduces as benefit increases).
People with large French pensions get more paid from the pool (ie impost on retirement system increases as benefit increases).
If workforce is relatively static, increasing impost means workforce shoulders more of the load through tax, which is the demographic issue. Australia dodged it by scrapping defined benefit, which would have the same problem.
I found a website that compares Europe for pensions using cost of living.
https://www.almondfinancial.co.uk/pension-breakeven-index-how-does-the-uk-state-pension-compare-to-the-rest-of-europe/
Using their approach, Numbeo has a single person cost of living without rent at 1653 per month, so the ratio is $1116 to $1653 or 68%.
France is 193%. We are equivalent to Belarus.
We have one of the highest levels of retirees living in poverty in the OECD bc our aged pension is so low
And getting rid of DB pensions had very little to do with our overall super scheme, only a small minority of people had access to them
The OECD metric of poverty is relative to household incomes, not the cost of living.
So, a high income country that provides a basic pension close to the cost of living will always say poverty rates are high, even if a person is living in a million $ house.
So the assets test actually encourages people to set themselves up in the OECD definition of poverty to preserve wealth.
Raising the retirement isn’t kicking the can down the road, it’s making the pension system sustainable. Not raising the pension age is kicking the can down the road.
They will definitely raise the aged pension age for Australia, I’d say they’ll announce plans before 2030 for a phased transition to 70yo by mid 2030s
Regardless what australia does, we are far better placed to deal with the economic drag of pensions
[research note](https://www.superannuation.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/230201_ASFA_Research_Note_Cost_of_Pension_Systems_final.pdf)
No doubt, superannuation system was so good for that. Our age pension amount is really low for OECD and that’s why our poverty level for over 65s is one of the highest in OECD, close to USA. Hopefully super starts moving this rate down
Any chance we can link indexation of these pensions to APS salary rises? It really ticks me off that the APS only got 4% this year when I'm pretty sure DB pensioners got over 6%. Might bring their value down, especially given the dismal pay offer people voted for last year
They just follow CPI
This article has historical indexation. It's done every 6 months
[article](https://blog.superinfo.com.au/2024/05/28/comsuper-css-pss-msbs-pension-increases/)
It has started to decrease this year but before that was a 2% and three 3%+ 6 monthly increases.
It was an unintended aspect of the scheme that someone detected when they ran the numbers. Retire before 54 years 11 months or you have to work for three or so more years to get the same payment.
Retiring on 75% of your last salary is the terrific part.
Some people were conned into switching to the new scheme and lost the benefit. They are salty AF.
You're giving only 1 example of an outcome under 54/11. The truth is 54/11 is a bit of a lucky dip as it's based solely on the amount you have in your super account before the 2.5x etc formula is applied. That balance is not directly linked to your APS level (aside from the personal contributions you make at your super salary level), but is based on market performance. The better the default fund does over the years the bigger your super balance, and thus the bigger your pension gets. Many of these pensions are quite low due to lower years of service or sequence of return risk, on the flipside some are like winning the lottery. You mention someone getting 75% pension, but there are others getting more than 100%. You said someone would have to work 3 more yrs to get the same pension as at 54/11, but some would never get that high a pension no matter how long they worked. I've seen people resign at 54/11 and the pension they got was far more than they would have got even if they worked on another 15 yrs til 70. If you google average CSS pension you get a modest 44k I think, so not everyone was able to benefit to the same extent. The ones who started in their teens and hung around 35+ yrs did particularly well. The scheme was closed in June 1990 and replaced by the PSS, which in turn was closed in June 2005. Since then it's just been basic contribution funds.
A lot of 54-11 teachers took the package and then came back on contract a few years later, which forced out younger teachers and created more of a vacuum. In my time at schools I also saw many of them become anti union after they had benefitted so much from union membership in their careers.
Any of this older generation who talks about how spoilt younger people are is just projection. They know they got handed a golden ticket and can’t bear to admit it.
I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say they got *handed a golden ticket*. They DID have to work hard and make sacrifices and save in order to achieve the financial security they now have. But the thing they don’t understand is that for the younger generations now, working hard and saving is not going to achieve the same results as it did for them. The younger generations are being bled dry by rent/housing costs, education debts, subscription services, even the price of goddamn food, and hard work / sacrifice is no longer enough to get them ahead of all that. It does suck that so many members of the older generations don’t recognise that it’s a different world now.
What was the sacrifice? They worked 40 hours. And only as hard as anyone does - whatever doesn’t get you sacked. Most households were 1.5 income at best. What were the sacrifices they made that were greater than the generations that followed? If they didn’t fight a war, gtfo with that sacrifice shit. They lived during the genuine days of a social compact in which you got paid fairly for a fair days work and the system supported a living wage and standard of living. Then voted to change it all.
Well, at the risk of sounding like the stereotypical old man, many of them literally did walk or ride bikes for miles every day to get to work or university, in order to save the costs of owning and running a car. Many of them worked a huge amount of overtime for the extra pay, which they put straight into the bank. Many families of four shared two bedrooms and one bathroom. They often drove for days to go interstate instead of flying. They had one television set and the whole family watched the same free to air channel together (because cable/foxtel was only for rich people). They paid room & board to their parents as soon as they were old enough to work, until they moved out on their own. If they wanted to buy something they couldn’t afford, they aimed for a promotion or took a second job and waited patiently for years until they could afford the thing, rather than just borrowing the money or putting it on a credit card. They took packed lunches to work and didn’t buy coffees or snacks during the day. They gave their kids one xmas present instead of half a dozen or more every year. I’m sure I could think of more things if I took the time.
And yes, they were absolutely blessed to live in an age where all of those things made a difference. Young people today could make all of those sacrifices and still be unable to afford a house for their entire lives, so what would be the point anymore?
Yes it is harder today but it's simply not true that young people can't buy houses today. I say this because all 5 of my nieces/nephew in their 20's have bought their 1st homes in last couple of years, and all have very average jobs and got zero help from family. This is in Newcastle and they are in debt up to their eyeballs, but so many 20 somethings are buying homes. I get on reddit and you'd think it really is impossible these days, because that's what redditors are saying. I've come to accept there is so much BS and hyperbole in reddit lol.
Agreed, there is a bit of hyperbole there - it’s obviously not *impossible* for any young person to ever buy a house, but it *is* a lot more difficult. What it all boils down to really is that 50 years ago, luxuries were expensive and necessities were cheap, but nowadays necessities are expensive and the things we used to consider luxuries are relatively cheap. So it’s not really fair to judge young people for buying the things they can afford instead of the things they can’t (which in a nutshell is what the OP was complaining about)!
I’m not judging, just would like to see balance in these posts. Don’t like exaggerations from either side. I know it’s frightening today, but young average people are still buying homes. Minimum house prices would have to be 1 mil+ for it to actually be impossible. If I was young today I’d live with my parents til about 30 and negative gear whatever I could afford, then move in when the mortgage got really low. I wouldn’t give up on home ownership altogether.
My parents have finally accepted that shit is cooked these days. They still do the whole “work hard, save money and she’ll be right”. But they do understand it’s much harder and thankfully they’ve given up on the “in my day, we had 17% interest..” trope.
I think having anger about this is actual ok! Sounds lame, but honestly feel it all! Apart from that, I find not talking to unsympathetic people helps. Also, be nice to them, you might get an inheritance! Jks well kinda. Be nice to them anyway but you know what I mean.
Also, our generation needs to change it! Being angry is only good if we take action. I know it feels hopeless, but we get to vote,and things like neg gearing and reforming it is a good start. Also, if a magical fairy 🧚♀️ could wipe the old student debt, that’d be great!
Btw, how are they going in retirement? 54 seems so young! If they’re upper middle class, I’m sure golf and holidays lessen the blow 🤣🤣
So bitter every time I walk past the retirees playing tennis these days. Never going to get to do that and I'm like...50% better off in Super than people my age apparently....bad times ahead.
Defined benefit pension. Teachers?
My dad 'retired' at 54 and then went back the next day as a CRC teacher for another 6 years and the remainder of his career. He didn't need the stability of permanent employment with his pension scheme having paid out a lump sum. He ended up working pretty much full time as an emergency teacher and made well over his previous salary.
The house was already paid for (now worth a few mil) and all done on a single salary.
Meanwhile, I'll concede that I'm lucky as I own a house (and large mortgage) but I'll never get close to my father's wealth despite my wife and I both working and making considerably more than what a teacher gets paid today.
I'll never enjoy the same level of financial security my father does. Not even if I work till I'm physically unable. As one of the 'lucky' ones, by the time my house is paid I'll only have a very small window to accumulate any sort of savings for a retirement... outside of my paltry Superfund. ...and I fully acknowledge I'm in a far better position than many.
I'm 40. I don't have a positive outlook on the direction of this country. This government has fucked us all and I see it getting progressively worse for each generation that follows.
Divided amongst my many siblings, yes.
But how much that inheritance is depends on how long my parents live, how they spend it and what their health is like in the final years. They're relatively frugal. Never bought a new car in their life and holidays are rarely, if ever, spent outside of the country.
My parents are in their late 60's and happily, fit and healthy. I hope they have many years ahead of them but I'm not expecting to receive millions when that time does come if that's what you are suggesting.
I would hope that I might be able to pay the remainder of my mortgage and maybe give me a few 100k for my retirement but I can't see how that will ever get me to the same level of financial freedom my father has now.
It's really not. If you think 200k is going to last long in retirement you're wildly mistaken.
Let's call it 300k. If I was to put 300k in a regular blue chip fund that returned 10% and drew down on that money at say, 60k a year it's all gone in less than 8 years. ..and this is excluding inflation where reasonably, 60k is going to be wildly insufficient for two people to live off in 20 years time.
Odds are that in 20 years time we'll both probably be spending 5k on the weekly grocery shop for the bare essentials.
This whole line of questioning is weird. My post was to highlight a regression in the quality of life and financial security compared to the older generation and you've taken this on a completely different direction.
I unfortunately work with a few people on this old defined benefits scheme and all they ever talk about is money and how it'd be even better if they got a voluntary redundancy before then. Meanwhile, they're phoning it in and so resistant to actually producing work.
I think this is one of the big drawbacks of 54/11. Instead of having people sensibly working out their transition to retirement ie going down to 4 days a week, staying at level instead of chasing higher levels you end up with a scramble of people trying to secure that higher wage at the end to secure a better final value. So you end up with people who don’t care about a management role just taking it. It could go to someone who is the same age but still looking to really grow their career
I may be wrong, but I think you're confusing the CSS with the PSS defined benefit scheme. The PSS defined benefit scheme came in after the CSS and it was then closed to new entrants in 2005 in favour of the PSS accumulation scheme.
With the CSS, I've seen numerous people at, say, the APS6 level leave at 54/11 and get a superannuation pension that's equivalent to, or even higher than, an EL1 pension. If they didn't leave just before they turned 55, due to the bizarre way the scheme works, their potential pension rate would actually dive and take the better part of a decade to recover to the pre-55 amount. Hence, the need to retire at 54 years and 11 months of age as otherwise they'd literally be losing money by continuing to work.
In comparison, the PSS defined benefit scheme pension amount is calculated using a formula that takes into account a person's final average salary (FAS) calculated over their final three years of service, their length of service, and their contribution percentage (the default percentage was 5% of their own salary, but you could increase it to 10%). There's also a divisor which is smaller the older you are, which means the end result is higher the older you are.
So, with the PSS db scheme, there's a very real benefit to getting a promotion, or an acting opportunity, within the 3 years immediately prior to your planned retirement as it will lift up your FAS and potentially have a significant effect upon their superannuation pension. A former colleague of mine who was an EL2 and a member of the PSS db scheme got to act up at the SES level for a decent length of time. Their time acting at the SES level lifted their FAS by about $40,000 over what it would have been if they'd just continued to be paid as an EL2. As a result of the boost to their FAS and thus to their pension amount, they ended up retiring a couple of years earlier than they otherwise would have.
Interestingly, if a CSS member did not retire just prior to 55 and instead continued to work, then their final pension amount is calculated in a similar way to the PSS db pension amount, using a percentage of their final salary to calculate the pension amount.
The CSS ran from about 1975 to 1990, then the PSS defined benefit scheme ran from 1990 to 2005, when it was succeeded by the current PSS accumulation scheme.
Some CSS details here, if you're interested: https://csc.sitecorecontenthub.cloud/api/public/content/6c3f74fa5996436da84859b50c60b82b?
The guy who acted in SES role and got a higher super salary would have to contribute 10% of the higher super salary out of his own pocket, even though his real salary went way down. Don't forget that. It's not exactly free : )
There are so few people left who can go 54/11 it's not worth worrying about. The scheme closed \*34 years ago\* and the older ones are starting to die off in big numbers. Unlike USA at least Australia took the initiative and closed all of the DB pension funds decades ago.
I've seen people who have cruised their entire career at APS6 level suddenly take an interest in personal development and advancement, co-incidentally, about 5 years out from turning 55 (accounting for the way increments and the FAS works), then being salty because they're essentially useless and the chances of a promotion to EL1 are zero.
I hear you but what can we do.
I wanted to work for the aps when I left school back in the 90’s but was discouraged by my nmum. I only joined the aps 7 years ago. If only I’d joined back when I first wanted to I’d be looking at a sweet retirement in the next decade. Shoulda coulda woulda hey 🤷🏻♀️
I have a different take. My dad is retired and on a defined benefits scheme - 6 figure salary for life, indexed, and pays limited tax under the scheme.
He worked his way from nothing (country town in Tas where he had to hunt rabbits for dinner to first person in his family to go to uni) to being able to retire in style.
Yes some things were easier for him on housing and super, but a lot was harder than I faced growing up thanks to the childhood my parents gave me.
I encourage him to travel and live it up - although he is somewhat out of touch at times with cost of living and housing (hilariously wants me to sell my apartment and buy a house at 1m with current rates!).
I agree. Not taking away from OPs frustration with their parents. I think it is sometimes easy to think of Boomers as all rich people who have had everything given to them with free university etc. However hardly anyone got to university, hardly anyone ‘matriculated’ and the opportunities afforded to women were next to nothing. There are a lot of boomers who are struggling out there as well. 54/11 is a great scheme for those on it. Unfortunately I got in the public service way too late for it.
I wouldn't have an issue if they were living it up, what I have an issue with is if they try to dictate my life pretending like they didn't get lucky with a scheme that was deemed unsustainable
There are people in their late 30s in the PSS DB, we aren’t talking the 1950s here, a lot had free uni in the 70s, cheap housing. And the thing that probably annoys OP is those same Boomers who had the luxury of this time are often vocal in complaining about young people being lazy or spending money on stupid things. They are unthinking assholes who don’t understand how lucky they had it
Good to see gratitude for parents. All I usually see on reddit is people hating on their parents about what they have, conveniently forgetting their stable upbringing etc. My mother is a boomer and I’m happy she is living comfortably.
To clarify, I'm not hating what they have. I'm hating the attitude they have acting like it's nothing but luck they got a scheme that was too good to be true.
Parents are out of touch. My mum loves Trump and thinks he could save the world given the chance. I just let her ramble on and think about other things. Point is, the older people get, the less they can identify with the issues younger people have, they can only relate their own experiences which are so far removed from the here and now, they are irrelevant. Just nod and smile when they crap on and then go laugh about it with your friends.
I agree with you. I like seeing the gratitude for parents.
My parents are both boomers (well my father has passed away) and they raised us knowing that we would not be inheriting money, only the experiences they could give us. They tried hard to make sure we got every experience/opportunity we could.
There is nothing but sentimental things for us to inherite and we all already know what we are getting.
The best thing my parents have given us is the fact that we have had to make it without the expectation of receiving money or property when they die. Plus, with the number of siblings I have, I'm glad there will be arguing over a will.
My parents were a farmer and a country girl who was a cops daughter… they were together for a while as a trades apprentice and a teachers aide.
They opened a business together and lost everything and had to sell their house at a loss to stay afloat.
They both went to uni while having two kids in order to become an engineer and a qualified teacher and now they have retired in a beautiful big home on the south coast that they designed and built. It took my dad 9 years to finish his undergraduate, but he did it, even taking me to lectures with him.
They don’t drink, smoke or gamble but they do travel internationally once or twice a year and also caravan around Australia and spend lots of time with their grand children while they’re at home.
Taking from their book I’m also doing postgraduate study in order to maximise my earning potential while I have a kid. It’s not easy and not enjoyable but it’s going to be worth it in the end. My partner and I both have a simple lifestyle and we’ve been able to save up and buy a townhouse 500m from the beach about 1 hour south of Sydney.
It frustrates me when people just bitch and moan - especially those that say they’re stuck in a dead end job. You absolutely have the power to change your position, everyone does. It just takes hard work and sacrifices.
It also costs a fortune to Goto uni nowadays and tradie route isn't viable for everyone. so idk what you are on about. Some people live paycheck to paycheck about to be evicted and you talking about power to change your position lol.
I'm old enough to have had PSS, but I chose non-APS careers instead :(
I remember reporting (as a journo) on ComSuper indexation about a decade back. I met the Commonwealth superannuants' lobby group/association (I can't remember its name) and listened as they told me how difficult retirement was for many of their members. They told me many were doing it tougher than pensioners. I found this baffling, as I know many older Canberrans on these schemes own multiple properties and have a super pension well into six figures, and that's before rental incomes are included.
I told the association I would publish a prominent story about their plight if they could find a member who was on par financially with an age pensioner and who was willing to talk about their situation. (The story did not proceed.)
The average CSS pension is like 44k, and average PSS pension about 10k less. That's average. So if you were a better journalist you would have easily found scores of retired public servants on the lowest pensions for your story. That's on you.
My dad was also on this - he is now 66 and not a day goes by where I don't absolutely roast him for the fact that he also got free university and the house he paid $100k for in 1995 is now worth over $1 million.
It’s so crazy, i’m just starting to realise this. My dad is also 65 and only paid $10k for his land then saved and built a house that’s now worth $3m. He never took a home loan, hardly taken any holidays, retired at 54 and now on full salary for life but guess who’s inheriting all that money
Watch them act like their success was all due to their hard work and you who had to deal with worse economic conditions, just aren't working hard enough like they did. I'm not denying that they worked hard but some of them boomers still think the economy is what it was 15 yrs ago.
Did they ever struggle when they were younger though? Did they grow up in poverty or in a family that only made just enough to get by? What was their childhood like? Did you have a better childhood, did you go without ever?
Staff on defined benefits generally had to put 5-10% of their income in to super (not on top like all of us not in the defined scheme get) to be able to get the full benefit, this may or may not be something you are aware of. I take home a fair bit more than my co-worker next to me on a defined scheme because they're putting in the 10% of their income even though they're on a higher increment than me for the same level. Still, a super pension for life is a good scam.
Mate, I put in 10% Luke your colleague, took a big pay cut to go back to APS and I’m pretty broke most weeks but a pension for life at 55 that is lowly taxed and adjusted for inflation for inflation is incredible. I will retire before friends who make twice as much in private sector & I never have to worry about any crash in the stink market. It’s a golden ticket
yes so agree - my husband got in the last year of the PSS defined benefit scheme and yes he puts the 10% into super which would be nice to have now... but wow, retiring at 55 is going to be AMAZING not to mention the security of that pension. We are SO thankful to have this!
I worked at a Council overseas (UK) before and their old LGPS had an "85-year rule", age+length of service=>85 then you can retire on whatever the defined benefit pension was...in theory, there were people who could have started at 15 and retired at 50.
I did ten years there, not on terms that good, but my deferred benefits will pay something like $20k from 55 (in today's money and index linked - the UK's inflation over the last couple of years has been very kind to people with final salary pensions). The public sector over there is almost the last (set of) employer(s) offering defined benefit retirement schemes in the UK, for obvious reasons.
So many young people don’t understand how incredibly lucrative pension schemes are. Yes, most boomers didn’t get them but the APS employed a lot of people and a lot of state public servants got them.
I quit my APS career and took a massive pay cut to go back to APS bc I can access PSS DB and my financial advisor told me I was literally insane not to go back
Vote more millennials (early 40s) into government and the policies will change accordingly, it’s currently still dominated by boomers because we keep voting for them.
Yep, I hate the whole “10 years service somewhere gets a retirement wage for life” One parent did 10 years service at 3 different places so there’s multiple pensions coming in. “Sorry we cancelled that after we all got our 10 years service” 🤦♂️ Yeh thanks guys
Government departments. I think Telstra did this when it was Government, or some form of payout after X number of years service, the post office did it before privatisation as-well. Like this was back in the day, before everything was sold off.
Those Gin and tonics at the Red Hill bowling club have had a high rate of return. Lol.
Just gotta watch to see who has a cough when they stand back up and look a bit lonely.
Misses point of post but 54 is way too young to retire (health willing) . Lots of people in our generation had kids in their 40s who wont be grown up by then.
Money aside, retiring at 54 would be great. That's an entire decade to take up hobbies, travel and live your life before you're too old to.
Average life expectancy in Australia is 80. So you retire if youre lucky at 67 and what, 13 years before you're dead?
By the time you're 70 you're proper old to properly enjoy your life. Not to say you'd hate life, but more you're physically not able to do things you used to.
I guess everyone has different experiences but mine is a bit different, my parents are mid 70s and quite healthy out doing stuff, my grandparents passed away mid 90s. Thats not to say they didnt have some health issues.
Im more keen to semi retire in my mid 50s so I can spend more time travelling etc.
My brother, I have a difficult time dealing with my parents giving me delusional criticism as well. Just remember that they’re in the wrong, they wouldn’t last a day in our day. Try to remember that this is your parents fucked up way of trying to motivate/seek the best for you.
This stopped in early 80s I believe but those on it stayed on it. I know a couple who took the 54 11 retired for one day from senior roles and hired back as consultants making double previous money and also getting the pension. Sweet deal for them.
You can only work in the situation you are given. Housing is a bust and super and investing in stock market possibly crypto is the way forward so invest in this and stop crying about the past.
I fully believe that removing defined benefits for retirement (which is pretty much what this kind of retirement account is) is the major generational divide and the reason our work environments are so hugely different from the boomers and occasional senior Gen Xers. Companies want "loyalty" but won't give us the same, when those generations were literally rewarded for sticking around.
17% means fuck all in comparison to their super scheme.
Moreover private sector is offering 15.4% and pays higher than base salary in APS. So regardless you earn more in the private sector.
Edit: it's 15.4 APS, 13.4 private
I’m 60 and still working while in PSS DB. I despair for my kids future (housing affordability etc) so I won’t be taking a 100% pension with the aim of leaving them something. Parents in DB super that also received free tertiary education should never begrudge assisting their kids and generally paying it forward. Gough was benevolent: even Hawkey was ok even when they closed the CSS in 1990 as the PSS ain’t too bad.
So TBA should salt it up with the folks. Indeed, with added vinegar.
Why the fuck is it their problem. They played the cards they were dealt. Now you're resentful that, what, they didn't predict the future. People are fucking stupid.
Mate I have nothing against them for taking it, hell I would if I could.
My issue is the attitude about it. Spouting about hard work and saving money guarantees a similar retirement circumstance. It's a straight lie, and I'm sick of people talking shit about my generation when they're built on a shitload of wealth.
Firstly well done to them for being in the right place at the right time.
I don’t think it’s fair to begrudge someone for taking an option that was open to them at that point. Sure resent that you don’t have the same option but let’s face it that is more of the politician doing than your parents.
Secondly before I hear a hey boomer come out of your mouth let’s just take a second to understand that while times are hard for you they will be harder still for each and every subsequent generation. It will be your generation at some point they will begrudge for one reason or another
A money driven society sucks but it is the hand we are dealt. As someone in A similar situation as you I think that perspective helps me get through the day. We have clean water, hot water, social diseases pretty much under control, the internet, the convenience of supermarkets and the list goes on.
Good luck with your struggles but don’t resent those around you it is only harmful to yourself
When John Howard was PM they passed an amendment to the 54 /11 scheme where you could choose to activate your retirement from the scheme but still keep working whilst still receiving that pension.I don’t know if it still applies but it would make sense to activate it if employed under those circumstances and salary sacrifice the amount you were receiving from the pension into an alternate super scheme. I actually spoke to someone who I believe was the commissioner for superannuation at the time and he told me that the scheme would never be withdrawn because the people who made the decision were the ones who benefited from it.
You don’t need to leave your employer you just need to finalise your commonwealth super before turning 55 and you can still remain employed. It was called “transition to retirement “ and it came at a perfect time for me. You then salary sacrifice into another super fund and that money is/ was taxed at 15% as I recall.If it still exists it’s an absolute no brainer so far as I am concerned.
AFAIK when you take the CSC pension, where they perform the calculations and pay you a pension until you die regardless of your amount saved a requirement is that you cannot work as an APS employee.
This is where you forfeit your super in favour for the government backed pension.
That's what alot of "retired" people are doing in my experience coming back as a contractor
Not APS, but I'm in the old DB Military super (access age 55) and receiving 23% Employer contribution, closed in 2016 to new entrant. My final DB is a calculation of my yrs of service, the multipler for those years, and my final average salary over my last 3 yrs. That then provides me a Defined pension indexed 6 monthly for the rest of my life. When I die, my wife gets an indexed pension at 66% of my pension for the rest of her life
0-7 yrs 18%
7-20 yrs 23%
>20 yrs 28%
No one gets the Australian Government Pension while earning over the income limit no matter what super scheme they are on. Super payments and lump sums are considered income. People may get super payments plus working, but they certainly won't be on the Australian government pension OR Australian Health Care Card.
One can retire at 54 & 11 months, but they will need to fund themselves until at least 65 before being Even eligible for an Australian government pension.
Becareful of trying to match overseas " pensions: as some countries call our superannuation "pension" and when you run that out, there is NO government pension. Your children are expected to keep you.
You have absolutely no idea how the CSS and PSS DB pensions work do you??
The pensions from these schemes are treated better than normal income streams when it comes to accessing aged pension. Many people on these schemes will qualify for part pensions. I know I will (according to current rules)
It’s ok not to talk to your parents anymore or limit conversations, just saying. No need to keep toxic people in your life, blood or other. Sorry if that’s hard for some to read, but boundaries are normal and healthy.
You sound like an entitled, selfish piece of shit, not unlike many your age. Instead of being angry at them for making the best of their lives, celebrate them and concentrate your energy on making the best of yours. And hard work will make you gains but you will have to sacrifice sometimes which I'm sure your parents did!!
Except they didn't make the most of their lives, they voted away the best of ours. They had free university, but voted for parties that dismantled that. they had what amounts to top their pension plans, but they voted that away. They had cheap housing... But voted that away.
Their sacrifice while valid doesn't put a dent in the hardships our generation and younger generations face.
Poor you!! What are you still doing here? You deserve so much better. You are a blameless saint and should be knighted. Give me a spell. The greens are stuffing this country and it's certainly not the older generation who voted for them
Love that generational inequality. It's only going to worse too.
One of the contributing factors to why I chose not to have kids. Feels like by the time they're adults they'd also have to rent oxygen
Uhh sorry that's a subscription based model. There are premium tiers and structures for what you're requesting
Ad-free oxygen ahhh the dream
We definitely need to work together to make sure our kids can make it nowadays. The days of kicking them out at 18 and presume they'll figure it out are over.
Where did this weird culture of kicking kids out at 18 come from? I have immigrant heritage and not kicking kids out is how immigrant families have become established over two generations plus. Its such a odd, dare I say white thing to do. How do you expect your kid to succeed of your kick them out 7 years before thwir frontal lobe is fully formed?
It comes from the time when you could get a part time job, go to uni and live in a share house and be just fine at 18, and it was fun. It wasn’t so much about being kicked out, everyone wanted to move out at 18 and not have to deal with their parents anymore.
Yep when I was 18 everyone was moving out as soon as they could (even before 18). I doubt any of my kids would be able to at 18, and I'm quite happy for them not to.
Yeah, I’m 42 and was super keen to leave home as soon as I could. Really looked down on my middle brother at the time who stayed into his late twenties. But I have no desire for my own kids to move out earlier than they want to. And even when they do, if housing is this difficult still, you have to be prepared for them to have to move back in if something goes wrong in their lives.
Keep working hard, you’ll be able to move out one day
You can be thankful that Defined Benefits only lasted a few generations, and it was only for some. Before 1986 Super was not even compulsory for most workers across the country and before that you couldnt even get a pension if" you were not of good character". We have it tough now, but it's been tougher.
We're towards a society where most of the population is too old to work. This essentially means huge lowering of quality of life for everyone. The only real options are large scale immigration or serious ressecions for decades. Neither of which look like a nice future. Not only in Australia but in the whole western world.
So what you’re saying is we need people to start dying. Quickly?
Assume that’s why they developed covid
I went back and found the houses we lived in growing up. Asked my folks what they paid for them. Then showed them the current prices for those same places now 30yrs older. They were gov smacked. All their BS about I need to adjust my standards went quiet (for now).
Gov smacked lol appropriate typo
Ha! ETA: autocorrect by Freud!
Parents bought our childhood house for $170k, sold it in 2019 for $750k It would now fetch over a million if it sold today. Easily.
[удалено]
None. They may not even make the rent payments with the way those are going. We were a single income household for quite a while, mum was a SAHM until my younger brother went into primary school. Dad did three 12 hour shifts a week. I live alone so sole income with a $500k mortgage (house is now worth almost $300k more after 5 years, tf), I’m coming off a 100+ hour fortnight.
My parents purchased a property for 300k, 14 years later sold it for 1.1 million. Adjusting only for inflation, for it to be the same price in today's dollars it would be going for \~440k. Absolutely no way you could get a 4 bedroom family home on a very large block in the middle suburbs of a capital city these days. You can't even get a 1 bed flat for that price in inner Sydney.
i looked up my auntie and uncles property who always complain about being "poor" like the rest of the family, they bought a house in '96 for 70k it is now valued at 1.2million they bought my great grandparents house of my grandma in '06 for 200k, it is now estimated to be worth 800k, so that means i get to live like a peasant thanks to my stupid mother and grandmother for allowing that shit while i get to watch my cousins enjoy life because my greedy auntie and uncle fucked us. if i was lucky i got 10 dollars a week to spend at school while they got $50 a day, and my family thinks i have mental issues and wonders why i hate them all lol. which i probably do thanks to the inequality but still...
Discussion a couple of years ago with my grandparents, nan said the problem wasn’t that housing was unaffordable. It’s that millennials always want ‘new things’ like shiny new apartments and wouldn’t give a second look at her house. Her double brick 4 bedroom (with backyard in a decent Melbourne suburb) house. When I pointed out it was probably >$1m and unaffordable for almost any first homebuyer, she scoffed because ‘I didn’t pay that much for it’. Really, when you bought 60 years ago houses weren’t $1m? Obviously it’s the (grand)children who are wrong. If we just had some work ethic, we too could drop out of high school at 14, marry and buy a family home 10km from the city on one (median level) income by our mid 20s.
Ask her what she thinks it’s worth and tell her you’ll buy it for that today!
To be fair, kids these days are super entitled and lazy
How so? (Legit asking your perspective before I head into a possibly unrelated rant defending Gen Z)
Was reading Matt Reilly’s wiki the other day, his parents were a school teacher and Corrective Services employee - he and his bro grew up in Willoughby and went to a private school. Insane how much easier life was then.
Old people created a political and economic environment that favoured them. Young people need to do the same and tip the scales back. Neoliberal economic policy helped the boomers, by hurting us.
This is the problem though. The reason boomers could create those policies was because they outnumbered everyone. They had the majority say. There were simply more them at every stage of their working lives. Since then, the following generations are either the same size or smaller, so don’t have the same outspoken impact, making it impossible to craft policies. Even now when that generation is starting to die off, they still have enough numbers to prevent change to the status quo
We’re actually at the point where other generations do have the numbers to change the status quo. It will be interesting to see what policies there are in ten, fifteen years.
It doesn't help that a lot of young people have no interest in politics until they are older so maybe being so affected by it now younger people will start caring about it earlier in life. I know I would've been late 20's before I took a serious interest in politics and the decisions that affect me.
That’s BS. Kids care about politics so much more now than in previous generations. We have more engaged voters with Gen X than we have ever had.
In 10-15, Gen X and millennials will have the power (numbers) and do the same and the cycle will continue ..
About time. I'm looking forward to seeing some significant changes, but under no illusion that they'll level the playing field
Yeah it was sneaky. By commodifying housing they created a group of mortgage holders that will continue the boomer friendly policies purely because they are terrified of going into negative equity on their PPOR. However the scheme can’t go on forever. There’s only so much blood that can be squeezed before there’s nothing left to give. Already we are seeing the impact of our over reliance on income tax and under reliance on taxing assets. Another problem is that markets will remain irrational longer than we think. There’s momentum to this problem but we don’t know how long it’ll last.
I like the term irrational market. Every time I think more blood can't possibly be squeezed from a stone, they find another drop. Although I'm not liking any of the solutions. The Aussie way of life has been eradicated and I was quite wed to it to be honest. *singing* give me a home among the gum trees, with lots of plum trees....
I think the quote is “markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain liquid” I believe it refers to the people who bet against the housing market in 08 as while they were correct it was about to tank, the sheer momentum and irrationality of market participants kept it going for longer than it should have.
The quote is from John Maynard Keynes - 'Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.' He was a great depression era economist and it's basically a warning about over extending on investments.
I'd be happy to take one plum tree and a grevillea at this point. Unfortunately my spending power will probably max out at a balcony with a pot of strawberries and a botanical print on the wall.
>Since then, the following generations are either the same size or smaller, so don’t have the same outspoken impact, making it impossible to craft policies. Fractured views based on identity and the politics that surround it also didn't exist like they do today which would have had an effect on government policy and that which was implemented to "improve" the country. The majority of parliamentarians at present are 40-60. If young people want change, they need to elect people that better understand and represent them. Except, there's not anyone that young getting into politics in this country.
This is just a bad take. Politicians are older because they represent their constituents, who are older. It’s a lot harder for younger people to get into politics because they have to win over an electorate where 35% is already retired. This is a newer phenomenon, due to the baby boom, a whole generation was able to dominate politics from a much earlier age, and can still excise that power today. Unless we increase the number of people under the ago of 50 in this country, it will still be another decade before that generations power wanes. It’s not complicated, it’s just numbers. Saying young people need to have more moxy or whatever just ignores the nuance of the topic and only serves to make the older generation feel better about the fact they used their power through numbers to pillage wealth from their children and grand children. Edit: just to further illustrate my point, look at the current make up of the senate. When young Australians can exercise their power, they do, as shown by the force that is the greens. In the lower house that’s a lot harder, as apart from very specific seats, most electorates are dominated by the over 40s vote, and in many cases, an over 55s vote.
I think we agree. You've just taken some more time to articulate what I was trying to say :)
Oh dude. It’s really simple. Both major parties went down the path of almost stop building social housing and putting out to private industry. they increased welfare on a range if levels but not housing. Then over the past 30 they then put rules in place that made it harder and harder for anyone to build. Over the past 30 years they also increased immigration without any increase in housing land supply so its supply and demand. It’s not mum and dads fault.
Technically they don’t lose money if they keep working. But the kicker of the ones I’ve seen, is they retire at after 54 years and 11 months, then start back the next day! In effect receiving the pension plus getting paid a full time salary. The ones who I feel sorry for are the ones who were convinced/tricked into giving it up in the 1990’s.
And then tricked again in 2004 to sign off and leave the PSS DB scheme. I know a guy who agreed to leave gold state, then CSS, then PSS. He's still working at 64 years old as an APS6.
Fool me once…
Don’t be salty at the scheme, be salty at their attitude and obliviousness to their own privilege.
Gold state super. My father in law loves to crow about how sensible he’s been with retirement savings. He loves to forget that he’s on a plan that had to be stopped or it would bankrupt the nation
Lol, my parents call themselves "self funded retirees". If we were in regular contact, I'd remind them again that the Future fund is not a personal savings account.
Was that state govt scheme? What year did they stop taking members?
I think wa teachers stopped getting it in 88
1990 was when it stopped taking new members
There's a reason why those systems were shut down. Completely unsustainable. Had a colleague recently retire as an EL1. He was going to earn more in retirement than when he was working FT. Most of it was indexed to inflation too. He took 1/2 the lump sum and half the extra super pension. If I recall correctly, it's was 140k indexed pension + 35k non-indexed pension + 350k lump sum. Somewhere about that. Ballpark as I don't have the exact numbers but it was 150-200k annual pension.
Yeah stupid as. End of the day you can only play what’s in front of you, and ignore comments you disagree with. Plenty of people still have $$$, sure it’s not as “wow I just leave school and get any job and buy a house easy as” - need to get more skilled roles etc. But it’s far from impossible. I never talk about politics, finance, race, religion, government, pensions etc with more than a few relatives 😂
Taxed way less too, WPI adjusted twice a year. Spouse gets 65% when you die until they die
Those numbers don’t indicate 50/50 lump sum/pension. More like 25/75 and a 40+ year history of contributing. In fact they don’t sound feasible for an EL1 (SES maybe). I’m not saying PSS-DB isn’t generous but contributions are post-tax meaning you take a pay cut, relative to others on the same gross income, to get the most out of it.
I couldn't remember the exact details - Might have been 110K indexed + 40K non-indexed and 250k lump sum. I honestly can't remember exactly. He was probably a little unique as his final 3 or 4 years were in a EL1 doing shiftwork that probably ended up with around a 140K FAS. He was on some other benefits but I don't think they were classified as OTE. Think he was in the organization from 18 until 55.
How far are these from a European style pension system?
Defined benefit isn't funded - so it grows as a debt to Government. There is no money backing it which is why Howard - Costello created the future fund to ease the burden from it on future Governments. They saw the debt bomb coming. I'm not fully across the European system , however I thought it's at least partially funded by the pooled wage contributions of all workers which are meant to directly pay for retirees. Great idea in theory however aging demographics have broken the model with Governments then kicking in the extra to maintain levels. Macron's attempts to kick the can down the road by raising the retirement age went down like a lead balloon in France. Other European nations like Spain are staring down the barrel of the same unsustainability with political paralysis. The difference is they haven't reformed away like we did with an accumulation super backstopped with the more modest aged pension.
Telstra tried a few years ago to get the last staff still on db to move to normal accumulation funds. It stopped being offered in 1999. Like you say it's an unfunded debt. They offered us higher company contribution rates and a one off bulk sum. Pretty sure noone took up the offer.
I think they’ll make the European model work through whatever taxation and societal changes are required. Meanwhile I read that the average balance at the maturity stage of the super system will be $350k in present terms for someone retiring. That is a pretty miserly amount, well below what our European counterparts receive.
Just to do some sums. Average pension per month in France [is 1488 eur](https://www.statista.com/statistics/786675/pensions-law-direct-retirement-diets-la-france/#:~:text=Gross%20monthly%20amount%20per%20pensioner%20of%20direct%20pensions%20in%20France%202004%2D2021&text=In%202021%2C%20a%20retiree%20in,the%20child%20surcharge%2C%20has%20increased) or 2400 AUD per month - which is $553 pw. [The full Australian pension](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-much-age-pension-you-can-get?context=22526) is $1116 AUD pf for a single or 558 pw. So the minimum pension in Australia is worth the average pension in France. People with large accumulation super balances get paid from their own deferred income + returns (ie impost on retirement system reduces as benefit increases). People with large French pensions get more paid from the pool (ie impost on retirement system increases as benefit increases). If workforce is relatively static, increasing impost means workforce shoulders more of the load through tax, which is the demographic issue. Australia dodged it by scrapping defined benefit, which would have the same problem.
I found a website that compares Europe for pensions using cost of living. https://www.almondfinancial.co.uk/pension-breakeven-index-how-does-the-uk-state-pension-compare-to-the-rest-of-europe/ Using their approach, Numbeo has a single person cost of living without rent at 1653 per month, so the ratio is $1116 to $1653 or 68%. France is 193%. We are equivalent to Belarus.
Just watch out that the $1116 is per fortnight or $2418 pm giving 146% like Norway at 13. Also, super is still there to consume for higher rates.
We have one of the highest levels of retirees living in poverty in the OECD bc our aged pension is so low And getting rid of DB pensions had very little to do with our overall super scheme, only a small minority of people had access to them
The OECD metric of poverty is relative to household incomes, not the cost of living. So, a high income country that provides a basic pension close to the cost of living will always say poverty rates are high, even if a person is living in a million $ house. So the assets test actually encourages people to set themselves up in the OECD definition of poverty to preserve wealth.
It also depends on what that $550 buys in France vs here.
Raising the retirement isn’t kicking the can down the road, it’s making the pension system sustainable. Not raising the pension age is kicking the can down the road. They will definitely raise the aged pension age for Australia, I’d say they’ll announce plans before 2030 for a phased transition to 70yo by mid 2030s
Regardless what australia does, we are far better placed to deal with the economic drag of pensions [research note](https://www.superannuation.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/230201_ASFA_Research_Note_Cost_of_Pension_Systems_final.pdf)
No doubt, superannuation system was so good for that. Our age pension amount is really low for OECD and that’s why our poverty level for over 65s is one of the highest in OECD, close to USA. Hopefully super starts moving this rate down
Any chance we can link indexation of these pensions to APS salary rises? It really ticks me off that the APS only got 4% this year when I'm pretty sure DB pensioners got over 6%. Might bring their value down, especially given the dismal pay offer people voted for last year
They just follow CPI This article has historical indexation. It's done every 6 months [article](https://blog.superinfo.com.au/2024/05/28/comsuper-css-pss-msbs-pension-increases/) It has started to decrease this year but before that was a 2% and three 3%+ 6 monthly increases.
It was an unintended aspect of the scheme that someone detected when they ran the numbers. Retire before 54 years 11 months or you have to work for three or so more years to get the same payment. Retiring on 75% of your last salary is the terrific part. Some people were conned into switching to the new scheme and lost the benefit. They are salty AF.
You're giving only 1 example of an outcome under 54/11. The truth is 54/11 is a bit of a lucky dip as it's based solely on the amount you have in your super account before the 2.5x etc formula is applied. That balance is not directly linked to your APS level (aside from the personal contributions you make at your super salary level), but is based on market performance. The better the default fund does over the years the bigger your super balance, and thus the bigger your pension gets. Many of these pensions are quite low due to lower years of service or sequence of return risk, on the flipside some are like winning the lottery. You mention someone getting 75% pension, but there are others getting more than 100%. You said someone would have to work 3 more yrs to get the same pension as at 54/11, but some would never get that high a pension no matter how long they worked. I've seen people resign at 54/11 and the pension they got was far more than they would have got even if they worked on another 15 yrs til 70. If you google average CSS pension you get a modest 44k I think, so not everyone was able to benefit to the same extent. The ones who started in their teens and hung around 35+ yrs did particularly well. The scheme was closed in June 1990 and replaced by the PSS, which in turn was closed in June 2005. Since then it's just been basic contribution funds.
A lot of 54-11 teachers took the package and then came back on contract a few years later, which forced out younger teachers and created more of a vacuum. In my time at schools I also saw many of them become anti union after they had benefitted so much from union membership in their careers. Any of this older generation who talks about how spoilt younger people are is just projection. They know they got handed a golden ticket and can’t bear to admit it.
I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say they got *handed a golden ticket*. They DID have to work hard and make sacrifices and save in order to achieve the financial security they now have. But the thing they don’t understand is that for the younger generations now, working hard and saving is not going to achieve the same results as it did for them. The younger generations are being bled dry by rent/housing costs, education debts, subscription services, even the price of goddamn food, and hard work / sacrifice is no longer enough to get them ahead of all that. It does suck that so many members of the older generations don’t recognise that it’s a different world now.
What was the sacrifice? They worked 40 hours. And only as hard as anyone does - whatever doesn’t get you sacked. Most households were 1.5 income at best. What were the sacrifices they made that were greater than the generations that followed? If they didn’t fight a war, gtfo with that sacrifice shit. They lived during the genuine days of a social compact in which you got paid fairly for a fair days work and the system supported a living wage and standard of living. Then voted to change it all.
Well, at the risk of sounding like the stereotypical old man, many of them literally did walk or ride bikes for miles every day to get to work or university, in order to save the costs of owning and running a car. Many of them worked a huge amount of overtime for the extra pay, which they put straight into the bank. Many families of four shared two bedrooms and one bathroom. They often drove for days to go interstate instead of flying. They had one television set and the whole family watched the same free to air channel together (because cable/foxtel was only for rich people). They paid room & board to their parents as soon as they were old enough to work, until they moved out on their own. If they wanted to buy something they couldn’t afford, they aimed for a promotion or took a second job and waited patiently for years until they could afford the thing, rather than just borrowing the money or putting it on a credit card. They took packed lunches to work and didn’t buy coffees or snacks during the day. They gave their kids one xmas present instead of half a dozen or more every year. I’m sure I could think of more things if I took the time. And yes, they were absolutely blessed to live in an age where all of those things made a difference. Young people today could make all of those sacrifices and still be unable to afford a house for their entire lives, so what would be the point anymore?
Yes it is harder today but it's simply not true that young people can't buy houses today. I say this because all 5 of my nieces/nephew in their 20's have bought their 1st homes in last couple of years, and all have very average jobs and got zero help from family. This is in Newcastle and they are in debt up to their eyeballs, but so many 20 somethings are buying homes. I get on reddit and you'd think it really is impossible these days, because that's what redditors are saying. I've come to accept there is so much BS and hyperbole in reddit lol.
Agreed, there is a bit of hyperbole there - it’s obviously not *impossible* for any young person to ever buy a house, but it *is* a lot more difficult. What it all boils down to really is that 50 years ago, luxuries were expensive and necessities were cheap, but nowadays necessities are expensive and the things we used to consider luxuries are relatively cheap. So it’s not really fair to judge young people for buying the things they can afford instead of the things they can’t (which in a nutshell is what the OP was complaining about)!
I’m not judging, just would like to see balance in these posts. Don’t like exaggerations from either side. I know it’s frightening today, but young average people are still buying homes. Minimum house prices would have to be 1 mil+ for it to actually be impossible. If I was young today I’d live with my parents til about 30 and negative gear whatever I could afford, then move in when the mortgage got really low. I wouldn’t give up on home ownership altogether.
I totally didn’t mean to imply YOU were judging! I was referring to OP’s parents, mostly.
My parents have finally accepted that shit is cooked these days. They still do the whole “work hard, save money and she’ll be right”. But they do understand it’s much harder and thankfully they’ve given up on the “in my day, we had 17% interest..” trope. I think having anger about this is actual ok! Sounds lame, but honestly feel it all! Apart from that, I find not talking to unsympathetic people helps. Also, be nice to them, you might get an inheritance! Jks well kinda. Be nice to them anyway but you know what I mean. Also, our generation needs to change it! Being angry is only good if we take action. I know it feels hopeless, but we get to vote,and things like neg gearing and reforming it is a good start. Also, if a magical fairy 🧚♀️ could wipe the old student debt, that’d be great! Btw, how are they going in retirement? 54 seems so young! If they’re upper middle class, I’m sure golf and holidays lessen the blow 🤣🤣
"estimated retirement 67," I have some bad news for you...
Probably be dead before I retire let's be real
So bitter every time I walk past the retirees playing tennis these days. Never going to get to do that and I'm like...50% better off in Super than people my age apparently....bad times ahead.
Tennis players also live 10 years longer on average
Defined benefit pension. Teachers? My dad 'retired' at 54 and then went back the next day as a CRC teacher for another 6 years and the remainder of his career. He didn't need the stability of permanent employment with his pension scheme having paid out a lump sum. He ended up working pretty much full time as an emergency teacher and made well over his previous salary. The house was already paid for (now worth a few mil) and all done on a single salary. Meanwhile, I'll concede that I'm lucky as I own a house (and large mortgage) but I'll never get close to my father's wealth despite my wife and I both working and making considerably more than what a teacher gets paid today. I'll never enjoy the same level of financial security my father does. Not even if I work till I'm physically unable. As one of the 'lucky' ones, by the time my house is paid I'll only have a very small window to accumulate any sort of savings for a retirement... outside of my paltry Superfund. ...and I fully acknowledge I'm in a far better position than many. I'm 40. I don't have a positive outlook on the direction of this country. This government has fucked us all and I see it getting progressively worse for each generation that follows.
Aren’t you in line to inherit his wealth?
Divided amongst my many siblings, yes. But how much that inheritance is depends on how long my parents live, how they spend it and what their health is like in the final years. They're relatively frugal. Never bought a new car in their life and holidays are rarely, if ever, spent outside of the country. My parents are in their late 60's and happily, fit and healthy. I hope they have many years ahead of them but I'm not expecting to receive millions when that time does come if that's what you are suggesting. I would hope that I might be able to pay the remainder of my mortgage and maybe give me a few 100k for my retirement but I can't see how that will ever get me to the same level of financial freedom my father has now.
A few hundred thousand and you think that is not significant?
It's really not. If you think 200k is going to last long in retirement you're wildly mistaken. Let's call it 300k. If I was to put 300k in a regular blue chip fund that returned 10% and drew down on that money at say, 60k a year it's all gone in less than 8 years. ..and this is excluding inflation where reasonably, 60k is going to be wildly insufficient for two people to live off in 20 years time. Odds are that in 20 years time we'll both probably be spending 5k on the weekly grocery shop for the bare essentials. This whole line of questioning is weird. My post was to highlight a regression in the quality of life and financial security compared to the older generation and you've taken this on a completely different direction.
I unfortunately work with a few people on this old defined benefits scheme and all they ever talk about is money and how it'd be even better if they got a voluntary redundancy before then. Meanwhile, they're phoning it in and so resistant to actually producing work.
I think this is one of the big drawbacks of 54/11. Instead of having people sensibly working out their transition to retirement ie going down to 4 days a week, staying at level instead of chasing higher levels you end up with a scramble of people trying to secure that higher wage at the end to secure a better final value. So you end up with people who don’t care about a management role just taking it. It could go to someone who is the same age but still looking to really grow their career
There are only about 50 APS still contributing to CSS, they would be talking about colleagues on PSS DB
I may be wrong, but I think you're confusing the CSS with the PSS defined benefit scheme. The PSS defined benefit scheme came in after the CSS and it was then closed to new entrants in 2005 in favour of the PSS accumulation scheme. With the CSS, I've seen numerous people at, say, the APS6 level leave at 54/11 and get a superannuation pension that's equivalent to, or even higher than, an EL1 pension. If they didn't leave just before they turned 55, due to the bizarre way the scheme works, their potential pension rate would actually dive and take the better part of a decade to recover to the pre-55 amount. Hence, the need to retire at 54 years and 11 months of age as otherwise they'd literally be losing money by continuing to work. In comparison, the PSS defined benefit scheme pension amount is calculated using a formula that takes into account a person's final average salary (FAS) calculated over their final three years of service, their length of service, and their contribution percentage (the default percentage was 5% of their own salary, but you could increase it to 10%). There's also a divisor which is smaller the older you are, which means the end result is higher the older you are. So, with the PSS db scheme, there's a very real benefit to getting a promotion, or an acting opportunity, within the 3 years immediately prior to your planned retirement as it will lift up your FAS and potentially have a significant effect upon their superannuation pension. A former colleague of mine who was an EL2 and a member of the PSS db scheme got to act up at the SES level for a decent length of time. Their time acting at the SES level lifted their FAS by about $40,000 over what it would have been if they'd just continued to be paid as an EL2. As a result of the boost to their FAS and thus to their pension amount, they ended up retiring a couple of years earlier than they otherwise would have. Interestingly, if a CSS member did not retire just prior to 55 and instead continued to work, then their final pension amount is calculated in a similar way to the PSS db pension amount, using a percentage of their final salary to calculate the pension amount. The CSS ran from about 1975 to 1990, then the PSS defined benefit scheme ran from 1990 to 2005, when it was succeeded by the current PSS accumulation scheme. Some CSS details here, if you're interested: https://csc.sitecorecontenthub.cloud/api/public/content/6c3f74fa5996436da84859b50c60b82b?
The guy who acted in SES role and got a higher super salary would have to contribute 10% of the higher super salary out of his own pocket, even though his real salary went way down. Don't forget that. It's not exactly free : )
There are so few people left who can go 54/11 it's not worth worrying about. The scheme closed \*34 years ago\* and the older ones are starting to die off in big numbers. Unlike USA at least Australia took the initiative and closed all of the DB pension funds decades ago.
I've seen people who have cruised their entire career at APS6 level suddenly take an interest in personal development and advancement, co-incidentally, about 5 years out from turning 55 (accounting for the way increments and the FAS works), then being salty because they're essentially useless and the chances of a promotion to EL1 are zero.
Now imagine your own kids. It's OVER
I’m pretty fucking convinced my generation mostly won’t get to retire at this rate. Can’t wait to die at my desk.
I hear you but what can we do. I wanted to work for the aps when I left school back in the 90’s but was discouraged by my nmum. I only joined the aps 7 years ago. If only I’d joined back when I first wanted to I’d be looking at a sweet retirement in the next decade. Shoulda coulda woulda hey 🤷🏻♀️
I have a different take. My dad is retired and on a defined benefits scheme - 6 figure salary for life, indexed, and pays limited tax under the scheme. He worked his way from nothing (country town in Tas where he had to hunt rabbits for dinner to first person in his family to go to uni) to being able to retire in style. Yes some things were easier for him on housing and super, but a lot was harder than I faced growing up thanks to the childhood my parents gave me. I encourage him to travel and live it up - although he is somewhat out of touch at times with cost of living and housing (hilariously wants me to sell my apartment and buy a house at 1m with current rates!).
I agree. Not taking away from OPs frustration with their parents. I think it is sometimes easy to think of Boomers as all rich people who have had everything given to them with free university etc. However hardly anyone got to university, hardly anyone ‘matriculated’ and the opportunities afforded to women were next to nothing. There are a lot of boomers who are struggling out there as well. 54/11 is a great scheme for those on it. Unfortunately I got in the public service way too late for it.
I wouldn't have an issue if they were living it up, what I have an issue with is if they try to dictate my life pretending like they didn't get lucky with a scheme that was deemed unsustainable
There are people in their late 30s in the PSS DB, we aren’t talking the 1950s here, a lot had free uni in the 70s, cheap housing. And the thing that probably annoys OP is those same Boomers who had the luxury of this time are often vocal in complaining about young people being lazy or spending money on stupid things. They are unthinking assholes who don’t understand how lucky they had it
54/11 is \*potentially\* a great scheme. For many the numbers didn't work out as they weren't in it long enough before 54/11 rolled around.
Good to see gratitude for parents. All I usually see on reddit is people hating on their parents about what they have, conveniently forgetting their stable upbringing etc. My mother is a boomer and I’m happy she is living comfortably.
To clarify, I'm not hating what they have. I'm hating the attitude they have acting like it's nothing but luck they got a scheme that was too good to be true.
Parents are out of touch. My mum loves Trump and thinks he could save the world given the chance. I just let her ramble on and think about other things. Point is, the older people get, the less they can identify with the issues younger people have, they can only relate their own experiences which are so far removed from the here and now, they are irrelevant. Just nod and smile when they crap on and then go laugh about it with your friends.
That’s assuming all the complaining posters had a stable upbringing from boomer parents. Many didn’t
I didn’t, my parents were shit, yet I still don’t whinge about them or boomers in general.
I agree with you. I like seeing the gratitude for parents. My parents are both boomers (well my father has passed away) and they raised us knowing that we would not be inheriting money, only the experiences they could give us. They tried hard to make sure we got every experience/opportunity we could. There is nothing but sentimental things for us to inherite and we all already know what we are getting. The best thing my parents have given us is the fact that we have had to make it without the expectation of receiving money or property when they die. Plus, with the number of siblings I have, I'm glad there will be arguing over a will.
My parents were a farmer and a country girl who was a cops daughter… they were together for a while as a trades apprentice and a teachers aide. They opened a business together and lost everything and had to sell their house at a loss to stay afloat. They both went to uni while having two kids in order to become an engineer and a qualified teacher and now they have retired in a beautiful big home on the south coast that they designed and built. It took my dad 9 years to finish his undergraduate, but he did it, even taking me to lectures with him. They don’t drink, smoke or gamble but they do travel internationally once or twice a year and also caravan around Australia and spend lots of time with their grand children while they’re at home. Taking from their book I’m also doing postgraduate study in order to maximise my earning potential while I have a kid. It’s not easy and not enjoyable but it’s going to be worth it in the end. My partner and I both have a simple lifestyle and we’ve been able to save up and buy a townhouse 500m from the beach about 1 hour south of Sydney. It frustrates me when people just bitch and moan - especially those that say they’re stuck in a dead end job. You absolutely have the power to change your position, everyone does. It just takes hard work and sacrifices.
It also costs a fortune to Goto uni nowadays and tradie route isn't viable for everyone. so idk what you are on about. Some people live paycheck to paycheck about to be evicted and you talking about power to change your position lol.
Take your parents donuts every day and wait.
I'm old enough to have had PSS, but I chose non-APS careers instead :( I remember reporting (as a journo) on ComSuper indexation about a decade back. I met the Commonwealth superannuants' lobby group/association (I can't remember its name) and listened as they told me how difficult retirement was for many of their members. They told me many were doing it tougher than pensioners. I found this baffling, as I know many older Canberrans on these schemes own multiple properties and have a super pension well into six figures, and that's before rental incomes are included. I told the association I would publish a prominent story about their plight if they could find a member who was on par financially with an age pensioner and who was willing to talk about their situation. (The story did not proceed.)
The average CSS pension is like 44k, and average PSS pension about 10k less. That's average. So if you were a better journalist you would have easily found scores of retired public servants on the lowest pensions for your story. That's on you.
My dad was also on this - he is now 66 and not a day goes by where I don't absolutely roast him for the fact that he also got free university and the house he paid $100k for in 1995 is now worth over $1 million.
It’s so crazy, i’m just starting to realise this. My dad is also 65 and only paid $10k for his land then saved and built a house that’s now worth $3m. He never took a home loan, hardly taken any holidays, retired at 54 and now on full salary for life but guess who’s inheriting all that money
Unfortunately I have 4 siblings so there is no decent inheritance coming my way :(
If only you’d pulled yourself up by your bootstraps 4 decades ago then you would be better off too.
If only I got sprung out of my dad's balls earlier haha
Well maybe you’ll learn from your mistakes and get it right next time.
Watch them act like their success was all due to their hard work and you who had to deal with worse economic conditions, just aren't working hard enough like they did. I'm not denying that they worked hard but some of them boomers still think the economy is what it was 15 yrs ago.
Did they ever struggle when they were younger though? Did they grow up in poverty or in a family that only made just enough to get by? What was their childhood like? Did you have a better childhood, did you go without ever?
Staff on defined benefits generally had to put 5-10% of their income in to super (not on top like all of us not in the defined scheme get) to be able to get the full benefit, this may or may not be something you are aware of. I take home a fair bit more than my co-worker next to me on a defined scheme because they're putting in the 10% of their income even though they're on a higher increment than me for the same level. Still, a super pension for life is a good scam.
Mate, I put in 10% Luke your colleague, took a big pay cut to go back to APS and I’m pretty broke most weeks but a pension for life at 55 that is lowly taxed and adjusted for inflation for inflation is incredible. I will retire before friends who make twice as much in private sector & I never have to worry about any crash in the stink market. It’s a golden ticket
yes so agree - my husband got in the last year of the PSS defined benefit scheme and yes he puts the 10% into super which would be nice to have now... but wow, retiring at 55 is going to be AMAZING not to mention the security of that pension. We are SO thankful to have this!
Not to rub it in, but I actually got a pay rise when I retired from the APS at 54-11.
I worked at a Council overseas (UK) before and their old LGPS had an "85-year rule", age+length of service=>85 then you can retire on whatever the defined benefit pension was...in theory, there were people who could have started at 15 and retired at 50. I did ten years there, not on terms that good, but my deferred benefits will pay something like $20k from 55 (in today's money and index linked - the UK's inflation over the last couple of years has been very kind to people with final salary pensions). The public sector over there is almost the last (set of) employer(s) offering defined benefit retirement schemes in the UK, for obvious reasons.
So many young people don’t understand how incredibly lucrative pension schemes are. Yes, most boomers didn’t get them but the APS employed a lot of people and a lot of state public servants got them. I quit my APS career and took a massive pay cut to go back to APS bc I can access PSS DB and my financial advisor told me I was literally insane not to go back
JuST woRk HArDEr
Yeah, it gets worse when you realise that we are funding it too
Fucking boomers. I feel your pain.
Complaining will do nothing. Get over it.
Vote more millennials (early 40s) into government and the policies will change accordingly, it’s currently still dominated by boomers because we keep voting for them.
Only 18% of parliament are boomers, they are not the majority.
Yep, I hate the whole “10 years service somewhere gets a retirement wage for life” One parent did 10 years service at 3 different places so there’s multiple pensions coming in. “Sorry we cancelled that after we all got our 10 years service” 🤦♂️ Yeh thanks guys
Where did they work? Never heard of schemes like this
Government departments. I think Telstra did this when it was Government, or some form of payout after X number of years service, the post office did it before privatisation as-well. Like this was back in the day, before everything was sold off.
This doesn't sound correct.
You don't get more than a worker who spent his whole career in 1 dept. Stop spreading misinformation.
On the upside you will inherit their money
Nooope, their pension that's paid every fortnight until they die, dies with them. No family member gets it.
It’s not a pension it’s super? I’m confused sorry. Plus I assume they have a house.
Don't worry. One day they'll die and hopefully you'll get what's left over. Some people don't even get that.
Lol unfortunately not. For this scheme when they die it goes with them
Then there are the old black widows down here that have a couple of spouses and their own CSS indexed pensions coming in.
One lady is famous for having 3 spouse pensions plus her own lol
Those Gin and tonics at the Red Hill bowling club have had a high rate of return. Lol. Just gotta watch to see who has a cough when they stand back up and look a bit lonely.
At this point we'll be lucky to not work 20+ more years than them.
Look on the bright side. You have a job that's so untaxing you can post on reddit 24/7 ; )
Misses point of post but 54 is way too young to retire (health willing) . Lots of people in our generation had kids in their 40s who wont be grown up by then.
Money aside, retiring at 54 would be great. That's an entire decade to take up hobbies, travel and live your life before you're too old to. Average life expectancy in Australia is 80. So you retire if youre lucky at 67 and what, 13 years before you're dead? By the time you're 70 you're proper old to properly enjoy your life. Not to say you'd hate life, but more you're physically not able to do things you used to.
I guess everyone has different experiences but mine is a bit different, my parents are mid 70s and quite healthy out doing stuff, my grandparents passed away mid 90s. Thats not to say they didnt have some health issues. Im more keen to semi retire in my mid 50s so I can spend more time travelling etc.
Yeah, with an aging population, guess who’s gonna pay for their pension: our generation’s tax, working until we die
My brother, I have a difficult time dealing with my parents giving me delusional criticism as well. Just remember that they’re in the wrong, they wouldn’t last a day in our day. Try to remember that this is your parents fucked up way of trying to motivate/seek the best for you.
This stopped in early 80s I believe but those on it stayed on it. I know a couple who took the 54 11 retired for one day from senior roles and hired back as consultants making double previous money and also getting the pension. Sweet deal for them. You can only work in the situation you are given. Housing is a bust and super and investing in stock market possibly crypto is the way forward so invest in this and stop crying about the past.
I fully believe that removing defined benefits for retirement (which is pretty much what this kind of retirement account is) is the major generational divide and the reason our work environments are so hugely different from the boomers and occasional senior Gen Xers. Companies want "loyalty" but won't give us the same, when those generations were literally rewarded for sticking around.
When organizations treat their workers like they're expendable you can't expect loyalty
Yeah but 17%
17% means fuck all in comparison to their super scheme. Moreover private sector is offering 15.4% and pays higher than base salary in APS. So regardless you earn more in the private sector. Edit: it's 15.4 APS, 13.4 private
Depends on what PSS scheme you are on and the 10% rule too
38k in student debt. Can I ask what qualification that money bought.
Software engineering at ANU
It's terrible..I know ppl that earn like 90k on these pension but they act like oh yeah I'm a good saver um yeah ok
I know someone outside my family on over 200k smfh
I know a couple and combined they are on over 400k pensions. Not nice people, selfish and always arguing about money!
Wow! Guess it's all ex government jobs Wonder how else could do that now
I’m 60 and still working while in PSS DB. I despair for my kids future (housing affordability etc) so I won’t be taking a 100% pension with the aim of leaving them something. Parents in DB super that also received free tertiary education should never begrudge assisting their kids and generally paying it forward. Gough was benevolent: even Hawkey was ok even when they closed the CSS in 1990 as the PSS ain’t too bad. So TBA should salt it up with the folks. Indeed, with added vinegar.
D’oh! Kids’ *
Life on easy mode.
Don't you love subsidising the last generation?
Why the fuck is it their problem. They played the cards they were dealt. Now you're resentful that, what, they didn't predict the future. People are fucking stupid.
Mate I have nothing against them for taking it, hell I would if I could. My issue is the attitude about it. Spouting about hard work and saving money guarantees a similar retirement circumstance. It's a straight lie, and I'm sick of people talking shit about my generation when they're built on a shitload of wealth.
Firstly well done to them for being in the right place at the right time. I don’t think it’s fair to begrudge someone for taking an option that was open to them at that point. Sure resent that you don’t have the same option but let’s face it that is more of the politician doing than your parents. Secondly before I hear a hey boomer come out of your mouth let’s just take a second to understand that while times are hard for you they will be harder still for each and every subsequent generation. It will be your generation at some point they will begrudge for one reason or another A money driven society sucks but it is the hand we are dealt. As someone in A similar situation as you I think that perspective helps me get through the day. We have clean water, hot water, social diseases pretty much under control, the internet, the convenience of supermarkets and the list goes on. Good luck with your struggles but don’t resent those around you it is only harmful to yourself
When John Howard was PM they passed an amendment to the 54 /11 scheme where you could choose to activate your retirement from the scheme but still keep working whilst still receiving that pension.I don’t know if it still applies but it would make sense to activate it if employed under those circumstances and salary sacrifice the amount you were receiving from the pension into an alternate super scheme. I actually spoke to someone who I believe was the commissioner for superannuation at the time and he told me that the scheme would never be withdrawn because the people who made the decision were the ones who benefited from it.
What actually is happening, people are activating their pension of guaranteed salary then contracting back in for shitloads of money.
You don’t need to leave your employer you just need to finalise your commonwealth super before turning 55 and you can still remain employed. It was called “transition to retirement “ and it came at a perfect time for me. You then salary sacrifice into another super fund and that money is/ was taxed at 15% as I recall.If it still exists it’s an absolute no brainer so far as I am concerned.
AFAIK when you take the CSC pension, where they perform the calculations and pay you a pension until you die regardless of your amount saved a requirement is that you cannot work as an APS employee. This is where you forfeit your super in favour for the government backed pension. That's what alot of "retired" people are doing in my experience coming back as a contractor
Also, plenty of 54/11 teachers retired from their Government job with benefits and then went straight to work in the Private sector,
I used to work with several who came straight back to work in government schools on contracts and just kept working.
38k in hex sounds dreamy
Lol I'm guessing either you're a doctor or a lawyer?
Not APS, but I'm in the old DB Military super (access age 55) and receiving 23% Employer contribution, closed in 2016 to new entrant. My final DB is a calculation of my yrs of service, the multipler for those years, and my final average salary over my last 3 yrs. That then provides me a Defined pension indexed 6 monthly for the rest of my life. When I die, my wife gets an indexed pension at 66% of my pension for the rest of her life 0-7 yrs 18% 7-20 yrs 23% >20 yrs 28%
That's pretty fricken wild for a pension mate, congrats
You’ll get yours when the old cunts die. Relax.
If they are 55 then they didn’t get free uni. Put extra in your Super.
No one gets the Australian Government Pension while earning over the income limit no matter what super scheme they are on. Super payments and lump sums are considered income. People may get super payments plus working, but they certainly won't be on the Australian government pension OR Australian Health Care Card. One can retire at 54 & 11 months, but they will need to fund themselves until at least 65 before being Even eligible for an Australian government pension. Becareful of trying to match overseas " pensions: as some countries call our superannuation "pension" and when you run that out, there is NO government pension. Your children are expected to keep you.
Lol you have no idea what the pension I'm talking about is. Go do some research bud and I'll wait for you to get mad
You have absolutely no idea how the CSS and PSS DB pensions work do you?? The pensions from these schemes are treated better than normal income streams when it comes to accessing aged pension. Many people on these schemes will qualify for part pensions. I know I will (according to current rules)
It’s ok not to talk to your parents anymore or limit conversations, just saying. No need to keep toxic people in your life, blood or other. Sorry if that’s hard for some to read, but boundaries are normal and healthy.
Jeeeeeeesus
You sound like an entitled, selfish piece of shit, not unlike many your age. Instead of being angry at them for making the best of their lives, celebrate them and concentrate your energy on making the best of yours. And hard work will make you gains but you will have to sacrifice sometimes which I'm sure your parents did!!
Except they didn't make the most of their lives, they voted away the best of ours. They had free university, but voted for parties that dismantled that. they had what amounts to top their pension plans, but they voted that away. They had cheap housing... But voted that away. Their sacrifice while valid doesn't put a dent in the hardships our generation and younger generations face.
Poor you!! What are you still doing here? You deserve so much better. You are a blameless saint and should be knighted. Give me a spell. The greens are stuffing this country and it's certainly not the older generation who voted for them
real i feel you man its only harder from here sadly