Explore the latest developments concerning Why big super.
Why big super want to stop you using your savings on housing
It seems incredibly tin-eared that the mega rich superannuation lobby can’t be bothered to engage in the central issue of home ownership.
The superannuation industry is very good at selling itself. It is, after all, marketing a compulsory product. They spend our money to tell us how good superannuation is.
Their general assumption is that people are too stupid to work out their lives themselves.
Gift 5 articles to anyone you choose each month when you subscribe.
New superannuation rule could tackle sad retirement trend changing the 'character of the nation'
The Labor government appears quite happy to make compulsory superannuation an election issue. And the Coalition is more than willing to oblige, promising to support greater choice for Australians when it comes to their retirement money.
Opposition housing spokesperson Andrew Bragg has outlined his party's latest position in the debate about letting workers use their growing super money for more immediate advantage. In a speech on Tuesday to the Financial Services Council, Bragg said he wanted to "continue the conversation the nation needs to have", lamenting the growing number of people renting in retirement.
"Our national savings policy can help drive home ownership, especially in retirement," he said. "I am concerned the growing trend of retired renters will change the economic and social character of the nation."
USB Portable Dual Nozzle Cold Fog Bedroom Silent Humidifier with AI Intelligent Digital Display of Air Humidity
Coalition super plan would be a gift to banks
Opposition housing spokesman Andrew Bragg wants to give a gift to the banks (“Super wars escalate as Coalition leans into mortgage plan”, September 23). At present, if someone gets into negative equity because of slumping house prices, it is not in the interest of the banks to send them broke by taking their deposit and selling the property to cover the mortgage. The value might not be enough, so the banks leave the borrower alone in the expectation that they will pay down the mortgage and restore the bank’s safety. But if the mortgage were secured by a lien over the borrower’s super, the bank would then have an incentive to call the loan and sell the house, knowing that the difference would be recovered from the super collateral whenever the super amount was larger than the negative equity. The bank could then lend the money to a lower-risk borrower. This would leave the original borrower homeless and poorer, having forfeited the deposit and some of their super. We cannot rely on the banks to act in the interests of the borrowers. Bragg should drop this idea like a hot potato. Alan Stanley, Upper Corindi
For more detailed information, explore updates concerning Why big super.
