Keep unions out of superannuation funds

Agree Pete.... the Government ONLY should look after our surpationuation.

Agree with all points... good stuff!

The only thing is that banks and the big boys will not allow that because it means that they are cut out of so much wealth and power.

Hence, I still argue, under the warped system we have in place that we are well and truly better off with Union super funds... if only to keep the howling wolves in the form of banks and big boys, away from OUR money!!

You have stated before that you endorse Self Managed Super Funds, don't you hold that view anymore?

Of course I believe in SMSF . 

But this discussion is about those who choose not to manage their own affairs . 

Self Managed Super Funds are not a choice unless your fund has at least $300,000 or more in it because there are a lot of compliance, legal and other requirements.  

The costs of SMSFs is why it is not a choice for MOST employees.  It needs to be have specific trustee functions and accounting functions attended to, plus it needs to be audited every year.  Then, you also may need investment advice.

All this costs considerable money and is like paying exorbitant fees in a normal (bank) fund.  So unless it is cost effective, then it is not a recommendation that financial advisers are 'allowed' to make, I think the ATO have a ceiling of $250,000 + in the fund but that was awhile ago.

So Pete, it is not a choice that many have.  

Many members are taking their money out of union funds and into a SMSF. The drain on the industry funds has been significant and has prompted unions spending $millions on advertising. Dont know where you get the idea that fees are high at the banks? What are the fees on a RSA? Same as a bank account I would imagine? And they have been around since Keating played captain for the unions.

Did you get an answer to that Frank?

Frank

Before Industry Super Funds existed banks charged exorbitant fees and even today they charge way higher fees because Frank, banks need to make PROFITS!  

The Industry Super Funds are Not-For-Profit... hence cheaper. 

You are not making sense Retired Savings Account (RSA) has nothing to do with Superannuation, it is a 'savings account'.

As stated above people who move into SMSFs will be paying quite highly for compliance costs... trustee investment, accounting & tax lodgement, and annual audit of their fund.  These are very costly and the only way a fund could justify this is if thier fund was in excess of $300,000 (at least).  There are advantages to the investments you can undertaken under SMSFs but again it depends on having substantial assets and money in the SMSF.  If an ordinary worker with low super balance and contributions is put in a SMSF, by a financial group, they are being totally ripped off because their super contributions would be used up paying for the compliance costs.

Micha

Well, your so damn clever (not) why didn't you answer his comment, instead of sitting on the sideline doing a gollum.

Micha I havent looked to be honest, but I assume they would be a lot cheaper to run than industry super funds. I recall the RSA act 1997 included that as a raison d'etre.

mussitate, why do you suppose members of industry super funds have been rolling over to their own SMSF? Do you think its so they can pay more fees?

Not for profit= cheaper? Yours is a simplistic world. :)

Bear in mind we are not talking about a few, this exodus is biblical in proportion.

Frank

Come on now, you are just pulling my chain..... Not for Profit don't charge so much in fees because they only cover costs whereas Profit corporations need to cover costs plus a profit margin.

SMSFs.... read again my comment above.  "SMSFs will be paying quite highly for compliance costs... trustee investment, accounting & tax lodgement, and annual audit of their fund.  These are very costly.."

For example:  

Worker earning $70000pa super $6650pa.  

In an SMSF, costs of compliance can be as high as $4000pa, plus insurance if chosen, so the investments must be sufficiently higher to cover these extra costs which means you have to have a substantial balance in the super fund.... over $300,000 and an excellent return on your investment.  

Usually, this form of super fund, doesn't perform as well as Industy SFs as it doesn't have the investment power but it does give flexibility of fund investments and as the Libs have broadened this hugely there are considerable income TAX "saving" available to those with big incomes and lots of assets and good financial advice.  In other words SMSFs are yet another tax avoidance strategy for those with big money.  

The ordinary worker would get very little benefit from this form of SF.  They are not an alternative option for the average Australian.

In an Industry SF, costs are minimal because they are spread over the whole fund and no profits need to be made, hence (without insurance) an estimate of fees is $500, although I haven't seen them this high personally.  Returns have been proven in Industry SFs to be very good... better than other Commercial SFs.

Bank and other commercial SFs (they run under the same set up as Industyr SFs) which are a plain ripoff with fees (profit needed) and don't perform as well as Industry SFs!

OK mussitate, stick with your industry super funds. The Gillard government pushed up the cost of compliance, but that was for all funds including industry funds.

Of course The Australian would be pushing their bank 'mates' interests and promoting anything that gets rid of Industry Super Funds.

Please note, that the ONLY reason the Industry Super Funds have a so called monopoly, is that:

- they are a not-for-profit

- fees are minimal

- their returns are actually higher than bank superfunds (mainly because banks put everyone in their own schemes for which they take even more fees out of)

- Industry Super Funds are cheaper and perform better

Hence, it would be stupid for an ordinary worker to go anywhere else with their super!

WHY shouldn't unionist be on Superannuation Boards... they represent their members.

The REASON, the big boys want them off Boards is because then the Boards can be stacked with those that are in the pocket of the big boys who then direct all investments towards banks and other big boy megacorps.  If they go a*se up, it can be blamed on the fact it is an Industry Super Fund.

Hence, the beginning of the dismantling of THE PEOPLE'S Industry Super Funds.

No, the banks and big boys do not get legislation changed unless it is in their interests which means people you must scream and shout very loud to stop it because in ten years time your kids will have nowhere to go, except, to big boy super funds and then watch how much goes to fill the big boy parasitical pockets.

Get rid of unions representatives from Boards and you will shoot yourself in the foot.

Even if you don't like unions, Industry Super Funds are one of the best thing Unions have ever done for the ordinary worker.

When the industrial awards were being varied to include super and in some cases life insurance, the unions were very quick to set up some funds which could be ratified pretty dam quickly by the arbitration commissioner. I put it to you that there was a little of self help in the guise of helping the worker.

By the way, how hard was it to get rid of Williamson off the board of first state super even though he was headed for gaol? The rules need to swing toward fair play and open accountability. In many of the union funds there is absolutely no way of finding out the cost of board remuneration. This says to me that many costs are hidden. Once again, by telling members they have strong performance it seems to not matter.

And earlier in 2015, the trade union royal commission uncovered evidence that a slush fund had been created for Bill Shorten's campaign to become leader of the ALP. Among a series of revelations, it was demonstrated that the largest donation to the fund had been received from the Labour Union Co-operative Retirement Fund, an industry super fund.

Institutional links between trade unions and industry super are inappropriate, and have contributed to serious cases of mismanagement.

" extract from above "

Their dividend Frank is being protected from good governance by the Fraudster..

Pete what I dont like about union control and influence on industry super is the harm they could do to the economy. Recently we saw Harvey Norman suffer because of a $35m dairy farm investment. OK its fair to say that level of diversification wouldnt sit well with a few investors, but for aq $500m write down there had to be some fund managers involved in the sell off. Similarly with the threat some years ago by a Union boss on a board that he would sell off Murdoch shares. I dont like it at all.

As Pete said:        The best superannuation system in the world is a Government superannuation system... lowest fees ever (none) and biggest return ever and guaranteed provision of pension funds.

However, if we can't have that, why would be want to go backwards and allow the banks, insurance corporations, etc to take control of OUR super funds and simply pour money into their own pockets.

Transparency and accountability are one thing but to pass legislation to bar union representation on the Board is another and has nothing to do with transparency and accountability, quite the contrary... it locks up the Board room so that members do not know what is happening.

The biggest problem with workers super is the high number of corporations that do not pay their workers super and pocket it, then go into liquidation.... the numbers are growing and the ATO do not have the power or the $$$ to pursue it.  

Legislation is desperately needed to give the ATO power to seize directors private assets to cover superannuation unpaid but this is not being discussed at all.

This govt is there to facilitate the requirements of big business and getting rid of Industry Super Funds is the best way.... getting rid of union representatives on the Supers Board and putting in their own blokes, ensures that the big boys are able to insert the thin edge of a wedge, to break open and dispense with Industry Super Funds.

Combine that with corporate employers fraudulent non payment of workers Super .... the ordinary worker will be the poor bast*rd at the end of the line begging in the streets for food and shelter and being told he is a bludger for not providing for himself.

I wouldnt like to be in the QLD Public Sector scheme. The Palachuk government are using the super fund to pay government debt. And the debt is climbing faster than a rat up a downpipe. 

Pete & Frank

Govt. super would be set up just like private and Industry super funds.... can't be touched by those holding a trustee position but with all the advantages:

- bigger returns (because of the huge amounts)

- safer and guaranteed return of worker investments

- little or NO fees, and

- stops the big boys from rorting the system

As extra assurance, legislation could state that a national referendum must be taken with say.. 75% in agreeance for the government to use no more than say.. 10% of the fund.

Pete

Agree.... govt should not have access, the above was a proposal in case of a national emergency, but not essential.

Don't forget, private super can simply go missing at anytime, along with the corporations that are acting as trustees.... all our money into the pockets of who knows who.

Another way that 'private' super can steal our money is by putting a chunk of our investments into their own investing corporations which is then passed on to other corporations and disappears.  The investments don't work out and a huge chunk of our money disappears.... legally.

Frank

Really.... I find that difficult to believe but nothing is impossible these days.

You sure it is not just off the wall propaganda against a govt. that in extreme circumstances, took over of a State that both politically and financially was in turmoil and is doing reasonably well in getting the State back on its feet.  

I don't like everything they are doing but your statement is very damning ......can you supply some backup to what you are saying. 

If it was true, why are we not hearing this in all mainstream corporate media... it IS a Labor State govt and it is clear that the corporate media 'prefer' Liberals, so I would have thought it would have been plastered all over the news, if there was any truth in it!

Micha, thank you for your post. You have explained the situation very well and I agree with everything you say. I too can speak with some experience when I say that SMSFs are a great way to go especially while in accumulation phase. Many people have their own ideas on how much is a good starting balance but my thoughts are that it doesnt matter providing your investment strategy is sound and your management disciplined. I understand your $120k calculation, I started with a lot less 15 years ago. I would never have been so successful in an industry fund or retail fund.

Thanks again for your thoughtful post. Have a good weekend on Rottnest. It's on my list.

micha,

After reading mussitate's emotionally charged post below he made me realise that there may be others who may form some opinions from the information contained in these posts. With this in mind, I need to clarify the concept of having a minimum starting balance. The higher level of $200k plus presumes that a trustee of the SMSF would adopt a very conservative approach to asset management similar to that of more restricted master trusts. If one is risk averse and with limited knowledge, then my view is that a start up amount should be around the $250k level or even higher. But having said that, if you have a plan to grow the balance fast the inititial deposit is inconsequential. It would be akin to sitting down to a meal and concerning oneself with how much goes onto the fork for the first bite.   

I agree with comments made by both Micha and Frank. I too  manage my own fund. For my wife and I SMSF is the way to go and agree with you Frank when you say "If one is risk averse and with limited knowledge"...

What you have both written  in my opinion is not giving advice to anyone, I am sure that was not intended but provides awareness and so people can go and find out for themselves. The important thing is expanding your knowledge and I would certainly, if I were starting out, take more notice of you two rather than the ranting and ramblings of someone who obviously has very limited knowledge.

If something is working for you, and bringing the desired results then of course it's good. Everyone's circumstances are different and you have to invest to suit your pocket.

Banjo, I agree much of a persons success is in knowing the way they feel about risk and their own limitations. Many people I would imagine may need to learn the real meaning of risk before assessing the level of risk associated with a particular asset. I'm pleased to see you've found something that works well for you. We dont all have to be in Industry Funds.

Mussitate,

Please see my comments, for what they’re worth, in red.

Micha

Good comment.... Because you have basically REPEATED what I have said but come up with a completely different conclusion from the same info.  But you have added "firfies" to your story!

This should give you a clue that you have a bias.

The difference in minimum requirements before anticipating joining an SMSF is stipulated by the ATO and it was $200,000 but that was ages ago, I assumed that this figure would have risen by now and it should have... to at least $300,000 (but we do have the Libs in charge and they support big business).

This is also highlighted  on many industry super fund websites as discouragement.     

Other differences:

Returns: from Industry vs Retail/Commercial Super Funds.... this is where you are WRONG!  Retail superannuation funds, on average, over the last 10 years have delivered around $16,000 less to their members than the average Industry Super Fund.  

Past returns are no guarantee of future performance.

Advice: you state that financial advice is more professional with Retail Super (banks) than Industry Super, is utter rubbish... Industry Super funds engage  independent professionals to undertake the investments which these days offer about 15 options in most large funds... which matches most Retail Super.  Compare this to Retail Super (banks) and you will find that most banks use their own in-house advisors who mainly recommend various Bank investments.

Industry super fund advisors give advice on industry super funds. This is the sort of independence shown by Craig Thompson.

Fees: Industry Super Funds don't need to make profits and Retail Super Funds DO.  It's a no brainer, yes... particularly when seeing that the return from Retail/Commercial Super Funds is not as good based upon history and hence, the investment advice simply can not be as good, as it hasn't given better returns!!

In both cases funds have distribution and administration costs. Do your due diligence and check the costs associated with your probable choices. Many retail funds have outperformed industry funds in recent years. But as I stated previously this is no guarantee of continued performance.

Incidentally, how much does it cost existing members of Industry funds for the last couple of years advertising in many forms of media including primetime TV during major sporting events. The cost must be enormous. This is the price existing members are paying for the members who are leaving.

If something is so good, why spend so much in advertising to say that???? Surely results are the best form of advertising??

SMSFs.....THE BIG CON

You see, it is the banks that are promoting SMSF to all and sundry without due diligence and simply running the SMSF for the individuals by undertaking the trustee investments and compliance requirements - accounting, and auditing (another cash cow).  Even more fees than a Retail Super Fund.

The bank run SMSF, invests in Bank investment options which don't always get the best returns but make lots of money for the banks... you got it... (another cash cow).  

These so called SMSFs are run by the banks and the ordinary punter put into these structures can end up with less benefits than if they had left their money in an Industry Super Fund. 

I dont know that SMSF is big business for banks. In fact I dont know anyone who has gone to a bank for this kind of advice. Banks may benefit by having SMSF transaction accounts, investment  trusts, limited recourse loans etc. The unions have always seen them as competition.See my comment below.

Yes, there is flexibility in SMSFs but unless you have the big assets and income, that flexibility is useless, so you are paying through the nose for something you don't have the capability to utilise.

If you dont get flat tyres then why carry more than one spare?

I would check very carefully of any costs the banks (don't) detail, should you want to close your SMSF and shift your funds....(another cash cow).

******Before you enter an SMSF go to a financial advisor who is not attached to a bank or insurance company or an accountants office and seek the advice of an independent financial advisor before you jump, because, getting you to switch over to a Bank run SMSF can be worse than a Retail Super Fund, in that you pay higher fees, your investment stream is tied to the Banks money making schemes in most cases, you may not be able to use many or any of the benefits of an SMSF and it will then cost you (yet again) to remove yourself from the SMSF and transfer back to an Industry Super Fund.******

Do not under any circumstances ask to see a financial advisor. Financial advisors are Authorised Representatives of Big Financial Insititutions.This is beyond them anyway.

You need to seek out a Financial Planner and know the difference between each qualification. Financial planning qualifications are Certified Financial Planner (CFP), Diploma of Financial Planning (DipFP) and Advanced Diploma of financial Planning, Fellow Chartered Financial Planner (FChFP), Master of Financial Planning with a DipFP, preferably one who is also a member of Aust Inst Chartered Accountants. These people can be found in larger Accounting firms or law firms. They will also have an affiliation with much larger research firms. This is the most important step you will make on your journey to financial freedom in retirement so don’t F it up!

EFFECTIVELY, do not, repeat do not take any notice of the advice given to you by Micha.... it has basic facts right but the advice extruded from those facts is INCORRECT and based upon personal ideology.

I found micha’s advice to be an honest account of reality without predjudice. Your choice. 

MINE is NOT....... If I thought that the best was SMSFs or Retail SFs or Commercial SFs I would be arguing full on for you to use them.... my ideology is well known but it would NEVER infuse my professional judgement.

Just what is meant by your “professional judgement.” If you have an interest in your bias then let’s hear it!

Also, when it comes to your hard earned money.... never trust the likes of banks, insurance companies, as we have all become accustomed to doing.  If they suggest their super fund or their bank run SMSF, then ask them to prove to you that they will be better than the Super Fund you are already in..... in writing!  Always in writing, people! and if they say they can't, then you say, I am sorry but then I can't either.  If they put something in writing, check it out with an independent financial advisor.

GOOD, independent financial advisors are hard to find but worth their weight in gold, literally.

Like hen’s teeth because they don’t exist. An advisor is a salesperson operating under a license issued to his employer. If you see a qualified DipFP then you will not need to ask for the paperwork.

Good Luck!

The more research you do the luckier you will get! J

How bloody simpler would this be if the Government controlled our super for us!!!  No fees, bigger returns, guaranteed retirement money.... sigh... the only way to go.

 The government controls enough of our lives already. Give a fishing rod this Christmas not a fish.

Back to topic:  IF Industry Super Funds are knobbled, bloody hell I feel sorry for your kids and grandkids.... because like banking there will be NO competition and the fees will just keep rising and the financial advice (return on your investments) will get lower and lower as more and more is put into bank/insurance coy 'investment opportunities'.  They control our mainstream media... so you will be fed all this info, day in and day out and eventually you will believe it.

Again, if I thought getting rid of Industry SFs was a truly better option for the average worker... I would telling you exactly that.

I can see now why you and mick have commonality.

Wow Frank, just returned after a short spell and will return with my comments. Must say from what I've seen, you know what you are talking about. See you later!

Before I go any further let me say that a SMSF is not suitable for everyone. Some people do not have the necessary acumen to operate one, nor are they prepared for the risk, which greatly diminishes if you know what you're doing. In that case an Industry Fund would be the safest way to proceed, but certainly not the most profitable. In order to “sell” an idea, you have to know the other products on the market in order to make a credible judgement. It’s obvious Mussitate has NOT got the awareness which is crucial to make the assumptions he is making – and yes, they are only assumptions because anyone who has an ounce of brainpower can see he hasn’t got a clue, but is rattling off his ideas on how things should operate based on his own personal beliefs and not on fact.

Before making a decision how to use your funds, people should always seek advice from all quarters, that means the Retail fund sector, Industry Fund sector and SMSF sector. Then weigh up all the pros and cons, which I am quite sure the majority do, so nobody needs to be taking any notice of a fanatical personality who feels his way or his ideology is “the way.”

Now, because I have investigated for many long hours years ago and decided then that a SMSF was best for us, I’m only going to talk about that, not in an effort to persuade anyone, but just to share. According to ASFA, the SMSF sector is the fastest-growing component of Australia's super system and quickly changing the nature of Australia's retirement industry. This report is also consistent with findings by the Australian Taxation Office. ATO statistics show more younger Australians are looking at SMSFs with greater interest, with more than 42 per cent of all establishments for the December quarter being for people under the age of 44.  A survey released this week shows that the popularity of self-managed super funds remains very high. This is shown not only by the number of funds being established each month but also by the increasing value held in these funds. With more than 1,044,000 members and 550,000 funds, SMSFs are certainly the fastest growing super sector in Australia.

SMSF  take up time and expertise, the most relevant being expertise, and if that commodity is missing then stick with an Industry Super Fund. In my opinion  a Retail fund is what I would go for, had I not decided years ago to have a SMSF, instead of an Industry fund. Personal opinion. With running an SMSF, you need to have a good knowledge of the super system and what is required under the law. If you’re not experienced at making investment decisions, it might not be a good option for you and I can see this is one of the areas where Mussitate falls down. If you're in the habit of not thinking for yourself, then a SMSF is not for you.

Self-managed funds now comprise about a third of Australia’s $2.04 trillion superannuation system and account for 99% of all funds by number. For seniors who have more time to devote to the running of one and who want more control over their savings, not a bad way to go. This is my opinion only and NOT a recommendation. I agree with Micha, Frank and Banjo and have a completely jaundiced view of Mussitate's input here since he does not appear to have had much experience with the products in the market place, not even the one he is singing the praises of.

Information gathered from: ATO, ASFA, APRA and my own personal experience and does not constitute the giving of advice.

...and just before I go, I forgot to correct you Mussitate on this point directed at Frank, and I quote:

"You are not making sense Retired Savings Account (RSA) has nothing to do with Superannuation, it is a 'savings account'."

Well, what a D/A statement, of course RSA has something to do with superannuation.  

A Retirement Savings Account (RSA) is a superannuation account that’s similar to a savings account that banks and other financial organisations offer.

Mussitate, I suggest you educate yourself, before jumping in anywhere. You make yourself look utterly ridiculous time and time again.

Ray, some very interesting statistics. It's also very interesting to learn that you are in those statistics as well:) Having moved from an Industry Fund? 

Your disclaimer at the bottom suggests you know a lot about this subject.

Contrary to Mussitate's disclaimer which is an urge to take the leap of faith because he himself is trustworthy.

"Again, if I thought getting rid of Industry SFs was a truly better option for the average worker... I would telling you exactly that."

Mussitate has the government expressed a desire to get rid of ISFs or balance the boards? Doing away with restrictions on board member's being removed and nepotism?  

I think for anyone needing more information on a SMSF the important step is finding a Financial Planner you can work with.  They may even do the investing for you at a cost of course. :)

In answer to your question Frank, I was not one of the statistics, I never went near an Industry fund. I've been self employed most of my life so SMSF was the way for me. When I spoke of personal experience, what I meant was several friends of mine had these funds, were bitten and I helped get them out of the mess and learnt a lot in the process. 

You gave excellent advice in your last paragraph. Getting the right kind of financial advice is the key and well worth the extra dollars. Many people resent doing this and live to rue the day.

Cheers

Frank

I haven't answered your reproduction of my comment with some RED responses which do not add anything... they are just one liners.  Can't see the point.

IF that is all you have to say about my comment... then it must be pretty spot on!  Thanks.

See over the page Ray Micha...... in relation to your RSA account which you stole directly from a CBA advert!  Hence, your lack of real knowledge.

Frank

Franko, please don't take this the wrong way but ....don't be silly, WHY would I be better off in an Industry Fund - you forget Frank that I don't even qualify for a pension - too many assets and too much investment and business income.  

I'm not a greedy pig and do pay my fair share of taxes even though I assist others (on occasions) with 'tax' savings, to put it nicely.  I am also one that does not believe that the wealthy should steal taxpayer's funds or control the services and benefits to the ordinary taxpayer whilst not contributing their share to the Govt coffers.  I believe that a country is better off without megacorporate (foreign or not) contol of our govt or our democratic system and our economy.  I believe that small and medium business are the crux of this nation and employ more people, are more innovative and spread around more wealth...creating a healthier economy.  I believe in a govt. that provides services and benefits to the people, is innovative and is not a patsy to any foreign power.  I believe that there should be a balance in society between the business sector and workers and that unions represent that balance.  EmployERs have their own unions (ie.Chamber of Commerce; professional associations) and that EmployEEs need also to have their own representations to balance the process, especially given that individual employERs alone have way more power than employEEs.  

All of this even though I belong to the class of people who think they are 'entitled' to more of the PIE even though it is the average Australian that supplies that PIE.

The same goes for Industry Super Funds...... they provided a brilliant SERVICE to the Australian Worker.... they provided competition.  They gave the Australian Worker an alternative to the greedy megacorp Banks (and others) and offered a service that provided the Australian Worker with less fees and greater returns which equals more money for the Australian Worker.

Your ideology must be spinning because the Unions have put back competition into Super Funds and have come out on top.

STACKING THE Industry Fund boards with PROFESSIONALS is TAKING CONTROL OF INDUSTRY SUPER FUNDS.... in no time returns will decline and fees will rise (to pay for the extra cost of (excessively) highly paid board members.  

REMEMBERING, of course, that Industry Super Funds have already OUT DONE Banks and all the other big boy funds.... see comments above which you have not bothered to counteract or consider.

Again FRANK..... Industry Super Funds have OUTDONE Banks and other big boy funds in relation to BETTER returns and LESS fees.

This is what you can't get over.

Banks are megacorps with so much power in Australia and they use that power.... our banks, at least a few of them should be government owned, this will give Australia POWER over its OWN ECONOMY.  Not communism... what a silly word.  Australia used to have control of its own destiny and economy with owning both Federal and State banks ... but now privately owned BANKs DO.  

Banks make BILLIONS in profits out of Australians and own TRILLIONS in assets....they control huge segments of our economy.  

MY BELIEF IS THAT NO Private Institution should CONTROL Australia's ECONOMY.  That is what govts are for and if we allow these mega giants to control our economy, they can hold our govt and the Australian people to RANSOM and hence control our very democracy.  

This is what happened in the USA.... they are not 'Yanks' Frank, they are Americans and there is nothing wrong with Americans, at all, JUST the HUMONGOUS megacorps that CONTROLS their democracy and both political parties.... hence, the government.  It is CORRUPT and look what they have done to the USA.... in many places it is nearly a third world country!  Slums, poverty, drugs, violent crime...... DYSFUNCTIONAL.

Frank, why is it that when someone points out the evils of something that is happening or has been done, they must have a problem.  Hell, I have never had a problem with banks, they fall all over me to help me make money and the USA has produced some fine Americans that I call my dearest friends and have been for well over 20 years.  BUT this doesn't mean that I can't see the negatives that they represent.  I can list the good stuff but bugger me, that is what you are fed, day in and day out.... you need to really look and throw all the indoctrination out the window and actually SEE what is happening.

If you don't... Australia will end up just like the USA.... I will be alright, I am well off BUT the middle classes will disappear and the lower classes and poor will bulge, violent crime and drug use will rise, slums and poverty, undereducation of the masses, and no hope for most people.  You see, there isn't much room at the top, they are rather greedy and prefer to be exclusive, so they can 'feel' better than everyone else.

They don't earn anything... but think they are entitled.... you need look no further than our current govt... telling us 'the people' that the 'age of entitlement' is over but then spending $17m on travel allowances with abuses and excesses abundant.

GOT ANYMORE YOU WANT TO DISCUSS FRANK.... I've just had some bad news and couldn't really give a sh*te at the moment... just writing away to occupy my mind!

What happened? Anything you want to talk about?

Frank

The first word of my comment calls you Franko... the 'o' was a typo.. I just noticed it.

Thanks Frank but no, too raw at the moment.

Mussitate,

As you point out "I'm not a greedy pig and do pay my fair share of taxes even though I assist others (on occasions) with 'tax' savings, to put it nicely. "

I have seen an example above of your advice and I am bewildered, no... in a state of disbelief, when contemplating the thought that anyone would take financial advice from you. You have no idea how the system works and much worse, you dont know that you dont know. These people who you assist with tax savings, are they allowed visitors?

 As Ray has explained, you were called out on BS and now you want to change the topic. 

Frank,

There is a saying somewhere and it goes like this: "Sometimes when you know you have lost a battle, some people find a way to win a war by diverting the subject."

I can't see anybody, and I mean anybody who has a brain, taking financial advice from this guy. Whenever Mussitate is completely off the track, he quickly introduces a batch of red herrings. So I agree fully with your post.

Have to admit I gave up reading his posts a long time ago and only came on here because You, Ray and Micha were commenting, because you guys seem to know what you are talking about.

Cheers

Frank

That's the problem, dear Frank, I know exactly how the system works (I was part of it for over 30 years) and am not as easily conned... as some ... doesn't mean I have to continue to participate in the greed and keep recommending systems that screw the economy and ordinary Australians, just so a few big boys can stuff their pockets with the peoples money and fortify their power.

**Have you been informed offline to be a rude nasty by the GANG instead of a human being... pity, you downgraded your standards.

Banjo Fleur 

Either way, from now on ..... Banjo Fleur and Ray and Micha and other attendees and apostles gathered along the way, I shall entitle all as members of 'de gang' (of personne mal adaptée).

Bring on your nastiness.... of course with Pete's assistance, you could always get the topic taken down again, to hide your embarrassing bad behaviour.

Re TOPIC.... how can I be off track when most of what I have said you or Ray or Micha or Fleur whateverrrr (!) have all mimicked what I have said BUT then come up with a completely different outcome.... you can't have it both ways... petites gens.

Well then, roll up your sleeves my little dears and lets get on with it, yes!

Oh oh, looks like Misstake is working very hard trying to keep up with those in the know! 

Signed: de gang!

Ray Micha

Little boys playing with moving pictures.... nothing has changed with the personne mal adaptée aspect of de gang.

I like the picture of you though.... your avatar represents what your brain's image has of yourself but the little mouse running madly represents the truth of who you are, it seems... forever trying to keep up with everyone else but more than ever, wanting (desperately) to appear more than you are.

Sheez, I nearly said "what you think of yourself"... then realised my error.  

Sorry but your post simply doesn't make sense... if Micha is on Rottnest Island she would get an email IF you PMed him/her and she would get the message on her phone.  

However, being on Rottnest Island which is a holiday island.... she/he would never see the message because he/she would be on holidays.

So, other than putting the info up for all to see, what purpose was it?  Why don't you just PM him/her?????

At least you are talking in a 'proper' manner to another commenter (?).  It would be nice if you expanded that to everyone.

Have a good one.

Aha! so you wish to fight wiz me???? Catch me if you can mon enfant! I ride in Tour de France  hehehehehe!

Hi Ray,

It was a great weekend on Rottnest, the bad weather we expected didn't eventuate, windy but great conditions for the kite surfing race which was why I was there. It wasn't a holiday per se really, just took clients over to see the race. It was their holiday! Still I had a lot of free time to watch the racers take off.

In answer to your question re: SMSF Foundation. I've been an Affiliate member for some years but in a couple of years will reduce that to a Retired Membership. I will email you some info. If you're interested and if Frank and Banjo are,  their next conference is coming up soon and there are some great speakers.

                                         THE SMSF ASSOCIATION

National Conference

17-19 FEBRUARY 2016
ADELAIDE CONVENTION CENTRE

                                       http://www.smsfconference.com/

I usually go every other year, so I'll be going to next year's since our son lives in the area and it's a good opportunity to visit. If I can be of any further assistance email me.

Cheers

PS: the above had me in stitches!!!!!!

Great mate, thanks!