• By -


The irony of reddit serving me a gambling ad in this post


ahaha, yes, I got one as well, lol




I don't know if it's just gambling, but anecdotally: 3 friends used it to buy cars 2 used it towards an IP deposit in Brisbane. A recently married couple bought a cavoodle for $3k (very cliche but they are from the inner west of Sydney so they have to fit in) The policy was stupid at the time, and it is also contributing factor to inflation.


Yes, my sister and her husband used it to buy 2 new cars, and a couple friends I know used it for boob jobs. All of these people did not have high supers as it was. Terrible money management.


> a couple friends I know used it for boob jobs. I mean you don't know if this is a business investment...heard some fans focused platforms are really lucrative


2 new cars?


Yeah, it's like 1 new car, but twice.




The article said that 3/4 of people who withdrew any super withdrew the full $20,000 and the average spent on gambling was $293. So definitely not just gambling.


But that's not a very compelling headline is it!!


3k for a cavoodle is a good price though.


I mean, the second one, as much as I wish we could discourage, wasn't the worst decision. Still probably much worse than just leaving it in super, but at least they're not throwing just buying something for the here and now. You can see it as buying a better life now at the expense of your retirement life. If you make a high enough income, I could even see it as a good decision. Why delay a better life until retirement if you'll have enough money in the end anyway? You'll end up with less money long term, but that won't help you if you die of a health problem in your 50s.


One of my mates paid off all of his debts and then a week away to Whitsundays. A person I worked with purchased a motorbike and a Vespa. Another one purchased a boat. Several people I know purchased new cars. One or 2 purchased an IP (well, not a full one…just a deposit) My wife and I withdrew the max and dropped it on our mortgage. Combined with selling my Ute when I got a company car…saved me three direct years on my mortgage and possibly another couple years in interest repayments. Thank goodness because that interest going up is a bitch and I’d rather let phillip lowe hit me with a baseball bat, than rip my entire arsehole out.


> My wife and I withdrew the max and dropped it on our mortgage. In retrospect, I would have done the same, $40k off the mortgage is a decent amount!


3 grand is almost a cheap dog these days


That’s sad when we have rescue dogs.


Non-paywalled https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fpolitics%2Ffederal%2Faustralians-drained-38-billion-of-their-super-in-the-pandemic-here-s-what-they-spent-it-on-20230312-p5crdx.html


Heroes, capes, etc etc.




Oooft nostalgia.


My dumbass mother withdrew as much as she could and then went on daily Kmart sprees, while regularly ringing her landlord crying that she couldn’t pay her (already severely reduced) rent…now she is crying that her super is low


How do you possible spend all your super in a store that sells shoes for $10


Well... she's got a lot of shoes now. And fake house plants.


Polyester bed sheets. A LOT of polyester bed sheets.




That's right young Patrick Bateman. You sure do know your menopause.


To be fair she’d have to be at least 40 by now and sounds financially screwed regardless. 20 grand isn’t saving someone who doesn’t own a house and is going to be on the aged pension before they know it.


She could salary sacrifice and buy a cheap apartment in broken hill!


Lol if you view time in that kind of lens you may as well say they'll be dead before they know it. They're still 30 years away from the pension..


Narcissist ?


200%. I had a giggle at everyone else discussing her hypothetical finances and what she’d be able to buy etc. as in reality, her housing situation isn’t her problem, but for everyone else to sort out for her


Ex took out half of his meagre super (20+ years as min wage hospo worker) and bought stuff. Stopped paying rent, didn't buy food or pay his debts. Just gadgets, clothes and other useless crap. It was a terrible policy.


It was a shit policy but I think the same people who withdrew their super and spent it on useless crap are the same people who will do exactly the same once they hit retirement age.


Although perhaps true. At retirement you’re actually faced with the mortality of your working life, as opposed to having that money now thinking you’ve got time to earn more.


I wonder if there are any stats for this, it’s actually an interesting point. On one hand, without an income you’re worried about money and will be more careful overall. On the other, who gives a toss dead soon anyway might as well spend it


Terrible policy, yes, but your ex (and people like your ex) also needs to take some personal responsibility. Can't blame the system for everything.


The system was designed to not allow early withdrawal for a reason. If the population can be trusted to manage their retirement money responsibly, why do we even need superannuation in the first place. It’s like taking off the speed limits on the roads. In an ideal world, we would expect responsible adults to still drive carefully and responsibly. But we don’t live in an ideal world and it’s incredibly unrealistic to expect such thing from the population.


We have it so rich people can receive the tax breaks


Well, everyone gets very good tax breaks out of it.


It's less about blaming the system than it is realising that people's individual irresponsibility affects others. People like their ex, who gamble their savings away and make bad financial decisions, will have to rely on the system later in life to survive. That potentially affects all of us, especially if many other people make bad individual decisions as well. The term 'personal responsibility' is an oxymoron. Responsibility is about the way one's actions affect others.


You’ll probably see that same dude on r/Australia complaining life’s unfair


Worked hard all his life, can't buy a house because the system's corrupt.


Lol downvote. Learn say, the neurological aspects of addiction and physical structural deficits in frontal lobe executive functioning for example. It can be literally scientifically harder. We don't need BS US-style hyper-individualism in Australia


We still expect people with executive deficits, which are most often not 'structural' in nature, to account for their behaviour. Which is why you won't see a criminal defence on account of the executive dyscontrol from ADHD.


Guess what. A lot of criminals are often diagnosed with ADHD while in prison. Guess what also often exhibits ADHD-like symptoms later on in adulthood? Childhood trauma i.e. the cycle. Not to mention in a criminal law sense,it's a tad more complicated: https://www.mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk/executive-dysfunction-under-the-judicial-spotlight/ I'm not saying it is fully to blame, but more it puts them at higher risk (which the crime stats and scientifically shows it does), particularly with a poor environment. Mental illness and severity of it is ALWAYS the degree of the disorder,combined with environmental factors in terms of "difficulty".


Everyone has their own difficulties and challenges in life. What do you want me to say?


People often overemphasis personal responsibility and underemphasis how environment and personal health affects this. Not saying personal responsibility isn't a thing, but it is often harder for some than others.


I hear you, but I wonder if people can over emphasise environment and personal health and underemphasise personal responsibility too. Personally thought the early super withdrawal was not a super good idea (especially with hindsight!) But maybe Australia has some systemic gambling problems leaving people with these neurological deficits more vulnerable; and maybe this is independent on financial policy


A lot of things are hard.


And some things are easier for some people.


The ex would have relied on a pension *regardless*, so in essence we saved the government some money by forcing the ex to bail himself out with his own money.


He would have relied on a pension but had at least some super to supplement. By allowing him to squander his super he will now be even more reliant on pension and other government support in old age. It was such a dumb policy.


And likely would have squandered it as soon as he got access to it in the future as well. The end result is likely the same, you're just delaying it.


Maybe, but that money grows in his super. And it's not often but people *do* learn and change. Who's to say he wouldn't have learnt a bit or gotten a new partner who was financially literate to keep him in check. Any number of things could have happened but the government allowing him to squander his super now has ensured that the worst outcome is the one that will occur


I agree, lots could change. Keep in mind, we also went through a global pandemic and the decision was to dip into super to help people get through, rather than (more) government hand-outs. It's easy to look back and say things could have been done better, but we were in unprecedented times. Many people didn't use super, and many used it for its intended purpose (although it could be argued that frivolous spending stimulated the economy, which was its intent) so it's hard to make a judgement call on the general publics usage of their own money.


As if he was going to have enough super to constitute a significant income stream that would have saved the government an appreciable amount of money


He would have had significantly more than what he'll have now


>will have to rely on the system later in life to survive. People don't like the most obvious solution to this though.


To me the most obvious is a UBI or something similar, which a lot of people don't like because they prefer to dictate what people deserve instead of actually solving problems.


"what people deserve"? You deserve what you contribute. No one *deserves* freebies from others - at the end of the day, someone had to put in the effort to produce everything.


I'd argue there's a fair few basic rights of access people have by default. Shelter, food, water, education, healthcare... At the very least if we're going to keep up the Rat Race, we should make sure all the runners get to start at the same place. But beyond that, I'm a bit of a Utilitarian and am quite happy to sideline beliefs on what is fair for what works best. One of the major driving factors behind criminality, addiction, health issues, educational deficits, homelessness and just about any social problem you can think of is poverty, most noticeably having an effect when the person in question is a child without means and opportunity to make changes. A UBI system might very well be a functional solution to those issues, and might even be a sound financial choice given the burden those issues place on the population at large. Besides, over the last half century we've seen a massive rise in productivity and wealth generation for the elite, and a stagnant or decreasing share for the rest of us. Taken as a whole, the population seems to deserve a correction over that.


>I'd argue there's a fair few basic rights of access people have by default. >Shelter, food, water, education, healthcare... I've no illusions that this will be popular, but no. I subscribe to a George Carlin(-esque) concept of rights: it's only a right if someone can't take it away from you or, in this case, you don't need someone else to give it to you. Say the right to food. Can I walk into Coles and just take it? No. Can I walk into Centrelink and take it? No. They might give me money, but what if I spend all that money on, I dunno, Matchbox cars. Where's this food that I have a right to? But assess it even more strictly - what does this right even mean? If it's so basic that everyone has this right, if I live in a sub-Saharan Africa nation that literally doesn't have enough food for everyone, what exactly is this "right"? Taken at its highest, what you seem to be saying is that these (food, etc) are things which a society should ensure that everyone has some way of accessing if available. Does that definition work as a starting point?


The point of a UBI, and welfare in general, is to prevent marginalisation of people who lack structural support so they can get to a point where they can contribute. Poverty-induced adversity stacks and interacts in ways that people who have lived with the security of structural support have zero idea about. It's not about giving away freebies - it's about creating opportunities for people to contribute.


Exactly the attitude I'm talking about. Thanks for playing


It's only a problem if you think people getting the consequences of their decisions is a problem. I think it's a feature.


Another beautiful example. Thanks again.




However there will be a group of people with similar characteristics no matter what you do. The goal is to make the pension affordable, not non-existent. There will also be people that clear out their super and blow it between 60 and 65, then go on the pension, and also people hiding income (cash, grey and black market) and minimising super contributions. Super will always be driven by people that want a better retirement because the pension will always be meagre. I think that's the reality and responsible people will plan around it.


The whole idea with super was an understanding that a lot of people don't have personal fiscal responsibility, so the government made you squirrel money away so you wouldn't be a burden on society.


Yes, terrible policy, self responsibility etc, but super is useless for people who will only ever acquire meagre amounts of it. What do you think people with only $40,000 saved up (if someone took out half and were eligible to take out $10,000 per year for 2 years, then that's $40,000 total original, plausible if they've been working for 10 years at 40,000 per year and have put it into a commercial fund rather than industry fund) will actually be able to do with that $4,000 per year they might be able to withdraw for 10 years after retirement? All it is, is foregone wages for those who'll have to survive on the pension anyway.


This still saves (well over) 40k in the future as older people are far more of a burden on the taxpayer than just their pension.


People like her ex just applied for centrelink to escape the consequences of their decisions. This world wasn’t made for mirror holding. Side note: I’m pro centrelink, I just recognise that the system can be and is exploited and was exploited heavily during Covid.




I don't understand how people on NDIS get by, rent is so expensive now, even before these interest rate rises, I have no idea how people on NDIS or Centrelink are going to live in a years time when these interest rate rises start effecting more people


Yes you can blame the system. Politicians take absolutely zero accountability for their poor financial decisions. We’re owed a decade of pay rises and royalties from everything they dig up and sell in our country. And here you are blaming everyday people. We’ve had a decade of wage stagnation, priced out of having kids or homes; people don’t have much to look forward to. Of course people will make bad financial decisions. Also worth mentioning that school doesn’t teach financial literacy by design. Can’t stand pompous judgements from the likes of you.


> but your ex (and people like your ex) also needs to take some personal responsibility so with that attitude you must have the opinion that super should be entirely optional and should be left to personal responsibility whether someone contributes or not?




Silly decisions everywhere. I know someone disabled enough to not work but not "disabled enough" for disability pay who decided to take out all the 25k they had in super and buy a brand new car. They rarely drive because of disability and don't need the car for others to drive them around, plus they can't work steadily so that super is unlikely to be beefed back up.




It's crazy. It's not like they don't have retired family members living solely on an aged pension in gov housing. They can see how bad it could be and then do everything they can to make it happen.


To be fair, growing up poor is meant to be linked to poor decision-making around money due to the psychological impact of it - impulsive decisions, meeting immediate needs vs long-term goals, that kind of thing. I don't see it come up on Ausfinance as much, but it does on the American poverty subs.


Think about how much worse that is going to be for people retiring in the future with low super, aged pension and no chance of Government housing.


Everyone should think about this and *plan for their own futures*.


These laws are a vicious cycle. We take away all personal responsibility, continually intervene with backstop policies and then wonder why people make poor decisions...




Yeah, but before we let them bear the consequences of that stupidity. Now we bail them out.


https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2011/February/History_of_Australian_pensions https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2122/NationalWelfareFund We actually didn’t 😀 Not to mention all government jobs like military, teaching etc all had extremely generous pension schemes. It actually brought about the whole “I paid some tax now I deserve to get free money for a few decades”. I’m sure if you include inflation and housing prices, today is the least help there has ever been. Super isn’t “free help” it’s docked from your wages and forcibly locked away. _One source of contribution is tax. According to a 2018 survey, around a third of voters see the Age Pension as a repayment of tax rather than a safety net for people who have not saved enough for their own retirement._ 66% of people are liars 😂 It’s actually quite a complicated and interesting subject. At the end of the day this easy example always creates some doubt. You do the ‘right things’ and get a high income. Pension doesn’t exist though so you need to fund your parents $36k/year pension on top. That’s quite a burden you ‘must’ bear through no fault of your own, and ultimately 7 figures of lost money you should have had later and didn’t. A lot of people would be in this scenario and certainly to have that kind of cash floating around extra every year is going to have huge lifestyle implications on most people.


I cry nanny state because the protection of stupid people like that means rules are imposed on me. I don't need to be paying 10.5% of my salary to an assest manager which I can't touch till I'm 65. But I'm forced to because of idiots around me. Edit: downvotes are fine, but exactly is offensive about this view?


You'd prefer to invest outside super and pay more tax?


100% I have a decent sized investment portfolio which I manage. I could pay my mortgages 15 years early instead of 10 if I had the extra income. That investment portfolio can be liquidated for emergencies, to help my family or just fund a lifestyle change if that's where life takes me. With super I don't have access till 65. I will have more than enough money at 65 anyway, so for me personally super is a hindrance. This probably resonates with a lot of strong earners/ investors who don't come from old money in Australia


You can access super at 60 (not 65), once you retire. If you want to be part of FIRE yes you need some money outside super: but surely some in super helps given the tax breaks (unless of course your income is very low). I had a good income, and no "old money", and it's been very beneficial for me. I retired at 61. Yes I have more money that I need: but let's me help the kids.


It has some benefits. But it's still sub optimal for me. I have a bad health history so I probably won't have great mobility in my old age + I'm not a flashy person. The combo of my investment portfolio plus all my unnecessary super will be way too much for me in my old age. It would have been better now and during the rest of my youth personally. I'm trying to say it's sub optimal for me and people like me, not that it's bad for everyone


Probably resonates with the smallest number of people tbh. I think this specific policy benefits the overwhelming majority


A small % of ppl, but still a lot of people. But agreed. I was just answering the person I was responding to


No. It’s only a very small amount of people that would be better off without super.


So your super is forcing you to be more diversified than you would otherwise be? Maybe that’s not a terrible thing?


Maybe it's not. But it's still imposing restrictions on me. Maybe it's preventing me from doing even better with my private investments.


Have you considered an SMSF?


My super is a pittance tbh, need to get at least 200k before it's worth it right? I'm only in my 20s for reference


If looking at it from a pure cost perspective (to make it at least competitive cost wise to a retail/industry type fund) the current recommendation is an SMSF needs a minimum of $500k in it, due to ongoing accounting and audit etc fees. (When I was last in practice in 2015 it was indeed a min $200k). There is more than cost to consider though, also consider the potential benefits of active control which may make the higher costs more ‘worth it’ to you than someone else.


No this doesn't resonate at all, it's an excellent tax free investment and heavily reduces the reliance on the state for all of us in the future. Look at any financial guide and it.will encourage maximising super first. People are terrible at saving for the future, and make sub optimal decisions like paying off their mortgage early or liquidating assets to spend money.on things they don't need. Countries without this are already suffering from the consequences and as Australia ages we would.be no different..


I'm saying it doesn't resonate for people who actively invest and create their own wealth/savings. As it's a separate piece of the pie we can't consolidate and optimise. You didn't read what I said, I said it's bad for me and some (not all) other more advanced participants. We get lumped into restrictions because of the limitations of people less competent


Libertarians are just annoying. Move to a different country with less regulation.


It was a once in a lifetime massive shock to the system. One way or another there's gonna be one-off universal support payment. Either that money is coming out of the government directly or out of your own "savings".


It goes against the point of mandatory super, but it's only as stupid as the people who used it for stupid things.


The policy was ok, people were terrible.


I don't think it was a terrible policy. People like your ex are going to be sponges in retirement age anyway - they'll receive the pension because they'll never build enough assets by themselves to be self-funded. We saved the government some money by letting your ex fund his own spending for once.


>People like your ex are going to be sponges in retirement age anyway True but even when used responsibly, it was still a policy that disadvantaged the already disadvantaged because the gvt didn't want to increase income support to a liveable level.


? They doubled tons of Centrelink payments for a while there, and increased others. Caused even more of an issue because suddenly this free money tap was turned on, lifestyles adjusted up, then it was turned off.


Super withdrawal (at least the first round) came before the CL increases. That's what I meant. They were hoping it would be enough and they wouldn't have to increase CL.


How is it terrible that people were allowed to withdraw and spend their own money. It’s their money. The terrible policy is forcing them to save it when many of them need it right now.


Yes, because things were so much better for old folk back before the days of mandatory super. Especially poor old folk. Who needs retirement? /s


Imo the way I think of it is it's not your money yet, it's for retirement. It's the governments way of reducing their pension liability. the way I see it is that It's effectively a 9.5%+ tax you pay to be looked after when you're retired, but unlike many other government services, the more tax you pay over your lifetime the more you get out of it.


The same dumb population will do the same thing at 60 and waste their nest egg only to get on the age pension at 67 and start complaining about being poor.


Given how the pension is being whittled away it's unclear if there'll even **be** an age pension by then.


There will be some sort of pension, would be politically unfeasable to have who knows how many older folks rotting on the streets


dont worry, you'll just work until you die


Governments of the world will probably roll out another pandemic if that happens


Even if there is some kind of pension living on the pension is poverty level stuff. It's not a future you want to aspire to. And it's only going to get worse.


There’s a lot of old folks on partial pensions who don’t need it at all. What is the incentive for the middle class to save when if they spend irresponsibly, the pension will kick in for them anyway to cover the difference.


It mightn’t be a pension, but there’ll be some welfare for retirees.


Given the state of the world and climate its unclear if there willl even be an old age.


At that point, thumbs, ears, plugs.


Heh you’ve described about a third of my clients


>Users of the scheme withdrew more than $1000 from ATMs despite the use of cash crashing Good to see the local drug dealer was kept afloat during lockdown


They're called stimulus payments for a reason ❄️


“Gambling jumped by $300”


Gambling culture and advertising in this country is disgusting


Indeed, so Disgusting


The people who withdrew super during the pandemic are the ones who need it the most when they retire. Financial literacy needs to be taught in schools.


A lot _is_ taught, teenagers in particular just don’t care. Compound interest was mentioned in primary school, banks visited and gave out the money boxes etc, early high school we had a whole subject dedicated to “life skills” which included getting a fake job and lifestyle and doing a budget, this was again repeated from high school. We had numerous speakers about drink driving, date rape drugs and all these things that sunk in for a week and likely made no difference in the end. Most don’t work, those that do are just starting in shit kicker roles, $10 an hour feels like tons of money etc. Barely any will have experience running a household or budget. At best you can convey some concepts and hope that it sinks in later, the issue is anyone switched on as a teenager to be financially smart would likely have turned out well anyway. Lacking financial experience and a time of their life when so much else is going on.


Needs to be taught. But after myself, my wife and three kids reaching adulthood - teaching =/= learning. It's only as I got older, I got wiser. I don't know what the answer is, tbh. But adding that to the curriculum is probably not the answer. It's only when we're drowning in debt and struggling to get ahead that these lessons are heeded. Telling a 14 year old is generally not going to work. And I desperately wish that wasn't the case.


Simple, drown your 14yo in debt


Funny you say financial literacy needs to be taught, how about teaching people the idea of adding 10% of value to a market doesn't increase that market's output and thus leaves everyone with overinflated assets? Wishing upon a system propped up by those living next to the money printer (bankers) in insane. The level of financial literacy here is outstandingly low, yet you people acting like you're such a leg up on others is a joke. Invest in yourself, and yes, take out your super to do so.


Have a friend that works at The Good Guys. Said his best period of commissions in the last few years was from the TVs he sold when that policy first kicked in. EDIT: for context, he works in a lower SES area


For the privacy minded: > This gave the researchers the superannuation balance of people as of June 30, 2019, previous super contributions and past withdrawals. > > It also included the occupation, whether a person had a spouse, their number of children and the income derived from wages, interest, rent and dividends. > > The same data project gave researchers access to anonymous weekly pre-tax wages as well as welfare payments. > > They also had access to bank transaction data from credit bureau Illion which is among the nation’s three largest credit companies. > > This information includes date and time of the transaction, a description of it, the type of transaction plus its value. > > This was able to shed light on all 4.5 million approved applications for superannuation withdrawals under the scheme. Given the vast amount of data, it's probably feasible to identify at least some of the people in the dataset. Privacy laws in Australia seem very weak.


Yeah this is not at all "anonymous". Half of those data points could be used to fingerprint an individual.


The researches received two sets of data, both de-identified. One with administrative data from ATO and other government agencies via MADIP and the subset of data about transactions from the Credit agency. These two data sets were not linked and were analysed separately. MADIP is an established data asset in use since 2015 and pulls data from a variety of government agencies. The researchers never would have had any access to any information at any point which they could use to definitively say “this is the data for Joe Smith”. You would have to be a such an extreme outlier to be identified in this type of data, that you would actually end up being excluded from the set for exactly that reason, similar procedures like they do with census reporting. The transaction data itself from Illion was also aggregated into weekly expenditure and broad category types, which makes it even more difficult to ID or match up with a single person. You would need to know someone extremely well on a personal level, plus have access to every aspect of their financials, and then locate it with some certainty among 25 million other entries… many of which will be identical, or so close to it that it would be impossible to distinguish between them. The biggest concern is the cyber security of the agencies individually, which already know who you are and hold things like banking details or identification documents/records. If anyone is interested in reading the research paper directly, its availble online [here](https://www2.gwu.edu/~iiep/assets/docs/papers/2023WP/HamiltonIIEP2023-02.pdf)


I’m a Pom and was currently on a 482 visa at the time of lockdown. I had not other choice to access the money as I had no other income for 4/5 months. I spent it as it was meant to be spent, on food and bills.


Yeah, the treatment of non PR taxpayers was shoddy.


Must be one of the smart ones, paid off my car loan with first withdrawal and had 2k left over. Then 2 months later pulled another 10k out and held it. Saved for another 12months and then bought a house.


I paid off a crippling credit card debt. In the long run - saved me a lot of money and made life far less miserable. Worth every single lost cent in future Super earnings. And now my three credit cards are cut up and in the bin, accounts closed. People can say it was bad policy, but it made a huge difference to me.


Same. Broke the cycle and gave me a leg up.


Lots of people did good with it. Some put it to a house deposit, others put it in offset / savings for a safety net (remember the uncertainty in early 2020? Who wasn't scared for their job?), some invested it, some paid off debts. Also plenty of people wasted it.


However the house prices were inflated and now the rates have returned to a historic norm so their repayments have tripled….so I’m not sure if using it to buy a house in that period was a smart thing to do!


House prices are up 50% since then, it was a perfect idea


I broke my debt spiral by paying out my credit card and car loan, and had some left over which allowed me to go onto yearly billing for everything. That 20K injection pulled forward my cashflow plans by at least a year, and allowed me to breathe for the first time in ages. Now? Debt-free, saving lots, good budget, having fun.


Making extra super contributions?


That would probably go against - ‘having fun’ so most likely no lol


i worked with a guy who did something similar,he just bought a fairly brand new car so he pulled out whatever the amount was paid it off and put the car payments onto his mortgage


Yep mine went towards a down payment on a house and I am so thankful we got in the market when we did.


>Must be one of the smart ones, Don't be so sure... Unless you've since topped your super back up with that 10k you probably would have been a shitload better off paying that car loan back gradually.


Work pays 15.5% and I add in an extra 2%. So it's still looking healthy @ over 200k and not even 40. Who downvoted lol.


That's great to hear, but you'd still be significantly better off if you hadn't withdrawn that money. Think about the interest you saved on that car loan compared to the investment returns forgone on that 10k over the next 20 odd years.


There is something to be said for not having a huge loan having over your head


Also bought house for 530k 2+yrs later it's about 750k value now, I'm happy with that gain. Also when I pulled it out I wasn't working and my old employer was only paying 10%. Switched to new employer about 6 months after last 10k withdrawl, so the extra I'm paying and they are paying I've probably almost put it back in** yes would be better super balance if it was never touched but then would still be renting and in today's market.. yuck. Cleared all my debts* and now a home owner with equity :)


Love a punt


Get around this lad


Why let a fund manager gamble your money, when you'd rather gamble them yourself yourself? Smart!


I'm surprised they can match ATO data with a person's transactions. A link in the article explains how they got the data. They got it from a Credit Bureau called Illion which apparently collects all credit and debit transactions for the preceding 13 weeks whenever a company like a telco or a bank requests a credit check on someone. Although the data is anonymised from the tax office and the transactions are sorted in to categories of spending to anonymise the transaction data I'm still concerned about the implications. Not too much of a stretch to see this kind of data set used to target "undeserving" welfare recipients given we've seen some governments are perfectly willing to exploit these people for political gain.


just when i think i could be doing better because im not saving enough each year. and there you go, people blowing their super on gambling / frivilous crap. how dumb can you be?!


When you think about how dumb the average person is, then realise that half the population is even dumber... ![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|grin)


People are dumb, definitely, but gambling addictions are real. A mate I know ended up in $150k in gambling debt. He was private school educated and worked at a big 4 consulting company as an accountant.


Neither of those things reflect intelligence or sensibility, obviously.


I took 10k out both times and put it back into super to use for FHSS in the future


Wouldn't it be taxed going back in?


Nah I think personal contributions are assumed to be after income tax, so therefore you're in the clear.


The same thing happens with normal FH early release. The conditions on which it can be accessed need to be reassessed, and support services should also be provided. Compassionate grounds should really be the only early access scheme allowed.


Everyone here on this sub will say they used it for a home deposit. But I personally know over a dozen people who took the full money and just bought ‘stuff’ - not super dumb shit like jet skis and cocaine, but generic non essential stuff like kitchen appliances, homewares, clothing, a new car, etc.


I feel like I didn't qualify at the time to withdraw from super


Pretty loaded headline. Of those who took out super, their spending on gambling increased by $300. About 2% of withdrawn super was gambled. But hey, let's write a headline which makes it look like majority of it was gambled.


You mean government policies don’t stop people from doing stupid stuff with their own money? I’m shocked.


Most people I knew withdrew and used it towards property, bills etc. We used to to make improvements to our property and I got a puppy.


bloke from high school who thought he was an investment guru took as much as he could to put on ZIP at its peak. lol




dunno he stopped posting in his little "investment group" a while back haha


Paywall. But yes, it was a stupid policy.




How dumb are we?


Surely they had a gambling \*system\* though?


I remember pulling out money to wipe 12% pa debt, and put extra into super ever since. Coworkers were buying things with no interest in paying off debts.


It was awful policy. However it did help a lot of people repay debts and break out of the debt cycle. A lot of people waisted it. New PCs / tvs / cars etc. They should have done it similar to HECs HELP and had people repay it at a certain income level.


I drew mine out and the wife...dumped it straight off the mortgage and now we own our house ......Winning


I wish I took the money out, not to blow but to spend on the house


Lmao So much for the narrative that the super withdrawals and other cash splashes during Covid were spent on sensible things rather than, say, Betfair, jet skis and flat screen TVs


Honestly, the biggest losers here are the gambling companies. If this policy was never enacted, those people would have been putting tens of thousands through the pokies at retirement instead of just hundreds now


Thia is pretty harshly written People used their withdrawn super for furniture, office equpiment, supermarkets and takeaway - yeah, because when you're confined to your house, you want a decent couch. When you wfh you need a desk. And when you exist.. unfortunately eating isnt optional. Is it bad that a portion of people gambled? Sure, but thats an addiction. Its absolutely unfair to lump together "people paid for their addiction " and "people paid to eat" as if they're equivalent and somehow prove that everyone who touched their super is a morally bankrupt moron. And the comment "people traded a few weeks spending for their retirement ". Yes you privileged twat, people did trade being able to survive now for the potential of nice things later. There is no point in saving for retirement if you starve today...


They are equivalent, you don't NEED a couch, you don't NEED takeaway food. If they are working from home why would they NEED to access super to buy work related expenses, use your income? Hopefully they had the sense to put money back into super afterwards


Yes, that life sustaining necessity called... gambling.


Wow... did you hear that woosh noise as the point went zooming over your head?


If your point was just denying reality, I guess.


Perhaps read it again.


Either they are a troll, or they are severely limited in comprehension. Either way, you are right and they are wrong, so I wouldn't bother arguing with them.


I used mine to help my family. It really helped us. We've since had a total turn around and things are great. The ability to access that help was so important. People should have access to small amounts of their super to help bridge a gap.


I renovated my kitchen, built a deck at the back of the house and built a new PC...