4 ms·
Well, it's good, but don't for a minute think that your employer is contributing to your retirement. You're contributing to your retirement by deducting 9% of
by brc 15y ago
Well, it's good, but don't for a minute think that your employer is contributing to your retirement. You're contributing to your retirement by deducting 9% of your wages into a retirement fund.
In most salaried positions, they drop the charade of 'employer contributed super' and talk about your 'total package' which includes your super payments.
I'm not arguing against the merits of forced investment, but you shouldn't believe your employer is paying it for you. You are paying it.
- nl 15y agoYes and no. It is different to salary, because it is taxed differently, and when the superannuation rate increased (which happens occasionally) you never see a reduction in your take-home pay. But it does reduce the amount they can afford to give you as your take-home pay. Actually, the really interesting discussion is about superannuation-as-forced-savings vs a sovereign-wealth-fund. They aren't really equivalent, but they have some similar outcomes (eg a large amount of capital available for investment). I've gone back on forth on if we should have a sovereign wealth fund - there are good arguments both ways.