Isn't the point about superannuation is that it is there when you are older?

[i-need-a-martini]

Wouldn't taking it early or putting it to your mortgage be illogical?

To suggest it shows Hockey's (continued) ineptness. To make a show of not disagreeing shows Abbotts stupidity.

[***super_nova***]

I think it would be considered a loan.  That way people who have money in superannuation fund could pu the amount as a deposit.  That way their repayments on the house loan would be reduced, but the money borrowed from their fund would at some later date go back.  I can sympathise; there was a time in the 1980s when I had mortgage at 17% (or something like that) and 45 000 in my supper fund.

But, this scheme could backfire badly, if people buy during housing bubble, which will finally burst.  People might find themselves with house worth half what they paid for it, and interest rates lot higher, and the fund wanting the "loan" paid back.

[vicr3000]

SuperNova

That is a good point, "house worth half what they paid for it" although over the long term, unlikely.

I need

Abbott actualy said

"saying his suggestion was "a perfectly good and respectable idea" and he hoped Australians keep debating it."

To NOT look at it and debate it for all its pros and cons is stupid not letting thoughts and ideas be discussed.

Hockey suggestiing it is not ineptness.

[lyndal1838]

It is not exactly a new concept.  Governments of both persuasions have looked at ways to make housing more affordable and also looked a fiddling the superannuation rules for all sorts of reasons.

[***super_nova***]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

That is a good point, "house worth half what they paid for it" although over the long term, unlikely.

---

That is true, but for instance when houses are acquired for road widening, the amount paid is always bellow market value.   Or what if the interest rates go up to more normal levels?   Or take into consideration change of the owner's circumstances and having to sell in few years time.  Remember the scheme to help low income families to buy house with no deposit?  Then the interest rates went up to 17% and these people could not afford to service the loans, and the houses had much lower value than when they bought them.

I have also heard people wanting access to their superannuation so they can buy investment property.  It was discussed on TV few months back, and I could not believe it when this woman was saying something like:  "then everybody could have house they live in and one they rent out, and sell one when they are retiring, and it would be better than superannuating .........."  Obviously did not to stop to think, that if everybody who has money in in super would be able to buy 2 houses:

a.) price of housing would explode even more - there is not enough now

b.) there would not be anybody left wanting to rent, except the very poor who have no supper and cannot afford rent for anything but the very low end of the market.

[vicr3000]

I remember well.

I purchased a house and the interest rates were 17% when I signed the docs and 15.5% when I moved in. My mortgage was more than I earned.

It needs discussing, the whole idea has so many pros and cons.

[wilk1149]

What if your family history means you might not live long enough to get it. I'm expected to work until I'm 70. No male on either side of my family has lived that long.

[imastawka]

You can access your super (tax free) at age 60

[lyndal1838]

You don't have to work until you are 70.   If you can support yourself you can retire any time you like.

If you want the government to support you then you have to wait.

[gleee58]

---

@imastawka wrote:

You can access your super (tax free) at age 60

---

That depends on your age and the super fund, apparently.