- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump looking 'very strongly' at Australia-style retirement system
Posted on 7/9/26 at 1:41 pm to Auburn1968
Posted on 7/9/26 at 1:41 pm to Auburn1968
Economics isn't my thing, so I can't weigh in on which system is better, but from my experience, old people in Australia are poor as frick (unless they had personal savings and invested wisely). They do get a break on land rates and some other taxes, though, but not enough to really offset the rising cost of living I'm sure.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 1:42 pm
0
Posted on 7/9/26 at 1:46 pm to HubbaBubba
Rosland Capital
If gold is such a great investment why the frick are they selling their's?
If gold is such a great investment why the frick are they selling their's?
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:06 pm to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
it would be interesting if we could determine the inflationary impact of having a much larger number of retired millionaires.
Inflation aside... In a world of AI threatening jobs, it would make a lot more room for a younger workforce if the older millionaires would retire.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:46 pm to Auburn1968
Since my wife and I are self-employed, we've been paying 15.3% in FICA (Social Security and Medicare) since 2003. At least we get the tax benefit from an "S Corporation". Large employers operating as a "C Corporation"don't benefit. Forcing them to pay 12% will just fire up another round of "offshoring" like it did in the late 90's and early 2000's.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:00 pm to BCvol
quote:
With a 30k/year job in 2000 and never getting a raise it would be worth 600k today. I bet lots of gen x would be ecstatic with that number.
While true, employers are going to pay you less (takehome pay) if they are forced to offer more retirement benefits than they currently do. Let's use 100k salary for example since it's easy. My employer will currently match up to 5%. So, their total cost of employing me is 105k (plus all other benefits, but ignoring those). My take home before taxes is still 100k and I can save more if I please. If they are forced to put 12% away for retirement, and want to keep the same cost of employment, then ~12k of that goes into retirement and my take home before taxes is now 93k. I'm fine with that because I'd be saving that anyway. All those who aren't prepared for retirement and living paycheck to paycheck are going to be up in arms about that. They want the extra money to come out of thin air. This is basically forcing people to invest in retirement not forcing employers to provide more benefits. I'm all for it, but you know damned well that wouldn't fly with the average American who's got nothing prepared
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:07 pm to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
if we could determine the inflationary impact of having a much larger number of retired millionaires.
Well, he said small fortune. Some people would have no fortune, others would have large fortune, then others would be frick off fortune like Musk.
And not everyone just retires when they hit 1 million. Some people don't even retire at 65 already having a fortune.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:12 pm to Jon A thon
Nvm. I was reading about the super package.
Looking this up, it started in the 90s. Old people are still on pensions.
quote:
, old people in Australia are poor as frick
Looking this up, it started in the 90s. Old people are still on pensions.
quote:
Australia's modern superannuation system began in the early 1990s.
quote:
One reason Australia adopted the system was demographic. Lawmakers realized that as people lived longer, relying mostly on a government pension would become increasingly expensive. By requiring employers to save for workers throughout their careers, they hoped future retirees would be more financially independent and the government's pension costs would be lower.
quote:
What has worked
1. Australians retire with much larger savings.
Before superannuation, many people relied almost entirely on the government Age Pension. Today, most retirees have substantial super balances.
2. It has reduced pressure on taxpayers.
Instead of the government paying full pensions to everyone, many retirees use their own savings. People with large super balances often receive a reduced Age Pension or none at all because it's means-tested.
3. Huge national investment pool.
Australian super funds collectively manage over A$4 trillion in assets. That money is invested in Australian businesses, infrastructure, overseas stocks, bonds, and real estate, providing a significant source of long-term investment capital.
quote:
The downsides
It's not perfect.
Market risk. Since the money is invested, balances can fall during recessions, though they often recover over the long term.
Uneven outcomes. People who spend years out of the workforce—such as caregivers—or who work part-time or have low wages generally retire with much smaller balances.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:50 pm to Huck Finn
quote:
it would make a lot more room for a younger workforce if the older millionaires would retire.
Why the hell has this morphed into a prime bitching point when 20 years ago we rarely heard it?
Posted on 7/9/26 at 4:37 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
mandatory savings program that requires employers to contribute 12% of a worker’s ordinary earnings into tax-favored retirement accounts
I’m an employer. For some reason I’m trying to figure out why I owe anyone a retirement? Especially a 12% bonus every year.
The easy way out is to keep the government as far away as possible from retirement or insurance.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 6:10 pm to Jon A thon
For people that have an employer 401k match the difference is fractional.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 6:34 pm to RedSoloSpitCup
quote:
1000% correct. W tried to save our country and they crucified him.
Bush was corrupt as frick
He was tight with the Saudi royals and gave them a pass when it was very clear that their government played a major role in facilitating the assembly of the Hamburg cell that caused 9/11. All because our state economy was (and still is to this day) dependent on purchasing oil subsidies from GCC countries.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 6:39 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News