In its pre-budget submission to Treasury, the institute said the government should “enable the provision of appropriate financial advice for all Australians at an affordable price” as part of its response to the Retirement Income Review, which noted the significant financial and emotional benefits advice could provide to retirees.
The Actuaries Institute also recommended the government legislate to provide an objective for the retirement system, establish a task force to reduce regulation in super and review areas where retirees needed additional financial support, such as rent assistance.
In addition, the institute said legislation to establish a retirement income covenant – which senator Jane Hume recently flagged would be on the table this year – needed to be quickly finalised to give funds time ahead of the start date of comprehensive income products for retirement in 2022.
“The institute believes Australians should be able to confidently live their retirement with dignity,” the Actuaries Institute said.
“Australians should be able to get good financial advice at an affordable price and funds should be able to confidently develop retirement income products ahead of changes due in 2022.”
The institute also said the government should make a firm decision on the level of SG contribution, following recent debates that have suggested the future increases may be cancelled or made optional.
“The most appropriate super contribution rate is likely to be in the range of 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent, to ensure more Australians live in dignity in retirement,” the institute’s submission stated.
“However, the complex and difficult question which need to be addressed is the level at which compulsory SG contributions should be set.
“Some of the complex interactions that will need to be considered include the government’s overall objective for the compulsory SG system, its interaction with the age pension, rental assistance and other forms of welfare that support older Australians, as well as whether other assets such as the home could or should be used to provide some income in retirement.”
I could provide strategic only advice that WOULD be life changing for people, in one hour increments, bite sized pieces, and they would pay $550 an hour for it too.
A one hour meeting re everything they need to know about estate planning, then they go do their wills and EPOA’s, BDBN’s, etc. Come back 2 months later, another hour, discuss investing for kids education in future, they go and set something up as homework and come back 3 months later for their next bite sized piece.
Life changing simple advice that people in their 20’s and 30’s would pay for (and perhaps more if we did the execution too), yet we turn these people away in droves because its easier to give them free unofficial advice than it is to take them through the process for a loss to our business or a cost of $4,400 to them…
this is exactly as it could be. If you are a money coach you could get away with it. If you have a youtube channel you could get away with it – all under the guise of “look at what I am doing and watch the trades I am making”
If you are an adviser, you would need to give them an SOA if there was any personal advice otherwise ASIC would come chasing.
I can get life changing financial advice via Tick Tok and Insta in 16 seconds. It’s free too. One of the advisers is even a 23 year old Accountant and on Insta giving me great life changing tips. Why on earth would i want to go through the “financial planning process”
Sounds like another ASIC success story. This is exactly the sort of thing their regulatory approach of indiscriminately persecuting professional advisers, while letting everyone else do whatever they want, is delivering.
Yeh good luck with that Tommy. You are spot on mate. Relying solely on the age pension to live on in your retirement will be pretty life changing for you.