Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
investor daily logo

Australians slowing super investments

  •  
By Katarina Taurian
  •  
2 minute read

Proposed changes could cause "massive failure"

The government's intention to revisit the proposed introduction of new taxes on superannuation payouts for retirees is causing Australians to search for alternative investment strategies.

Ken Raiss, director at Chan & Naylor, said if the government continues to "tinker" with superannuation it will cause Australians to lose confidence in their superannuation investments.

"In the last year to 18 months, the comments I hear are, 'Why would I put extra money into super? I just don't know what's going to happen to it in the future'," Mr Raiss told InvestorDaily.

"People are definitely saying that they've lost confidence in what's going to happen ... you don't know whether the government is just arbitrarily going to attack."

According to Chan & Naylor's forecast, a pension fund worth $1 million today will need to be worth at least $2.5 million 30 years from now in order to support a comfortable retirement.

Mr Raiss suggested that the government's plan to tax super funds with more than $1 million is likely to create a false sense of security regarding what constitutes a comfortable retirement.

"If Australians understood their super better, there would be a human outcry from every corner," he said.

"So, the government is almost taking advantage of people, poor knowledge, and poor involvement in their superannuation to almost sneak in the middle of the night to take something off them in the hope of not being seen."

Mr Raiss suggested the government should be focused on the wealth of the economy, as opposed to focusing on "penalising" self-sufficient retirees.

"[We shouldn't be] penalising those that are trying to be self-sufficient in retiring or trying to create additional wealth for the country which creates more jobs, more taxes and more innovation," he said.

"If there are honest people who maximise their benefits, you don't penalise them just because they're maximising their potential retirement income. I mean, that goes counter-intuitively to what we're trying to do."