Driven by a desire to help others, Elaine worked in sectors like aged care and social services, taking on jobs the government is still desperate to fill.
But after nearly five decades in the workforce, she retired with just $45,000 in superannuation.
I’m 46 and have about the same due to health problems.
There’s a few different things going on here but sadly, one of them is poor financial decisions on Elaine’s part.
I’m not blaming her for that, lord knows I’ve made more than my share of poor decisions financial and otherwise, but while there are valid criticisms to be made of our superannuation system, Elaine’s situation isn’t really a useful prism through which to enumerate them.
One of the biggest problems is as always, privatisation. Some super funds are for profit, some are not for profit, and some are self managed. My point here is, because of the eyewatering amount of money in superannuation, and because it’s not managed by the government exclusively, it has attracted an entire industry of bottom feeders leaching off the pool of money. That wouldn’t necessarily be a problem in and of itself, but that industry spends a lot of time advocating for even more complex rules to ensure that it’s not navigable by the lay-person.
Is there a law that money managed by a superfund can not take more in fees than its generating in returns? I feel that should be a thing.
That’s not really possible.
In a year in which there’s a share market “adjustment” returns will be negative. Super fund staff still need to get paid.
Rightly or wrongly, it’s up to members to ensure that their fund’s fees are reasonable.
