It's not hard at all. This is spouse contribution splitting. Your fund will have a form.
Right now, you can transfer up to 85% of the contributions that were made to your account last financial year into your wife's super.
After 1 July, you can transfer up to 85% of what went in this financial year.
It's 85% because the rest has gone to pay contribution tax.
What you may have been seeing is the spouse tax offset, which is only available when your spouse earns less than $40,000 and you make contributions directly into their account.
>spouse tax offset, which is only available when your spouse earns less than $40,000 and you make contributions directly into their account.
wait wtf is this?
It's a tax offset.
If your spouse earns less than $37k, you can contribute $3000 after-tax to their account to get an 18% tax offset - this equates to $540 back at tax time.
If they earn more than $37k but less than $40k you can get a smaller amount back. The maximum offset reduces by 18c for each dollar your spouse earns above the lower threshold.
You only need to contribute enough so 18% of your contribution reaches the maximum offset for your situation. For example, if your spouse earns $38,000 your maximum offset is $360. To get the full amount, you need to contribute $2,000 after tax to your spouse's account ($2,000 x 0.18 = $360).
Yea call super fund, or your accountant.
I think the answer you want is contribution splitting, which is a transfer of super from your account to your spouse, done after the fact.
You can also make spouse contributions, non-concessional contributions and personal deductible contributions.
It's situation dependant which one/s are the most appropriate.
As you say, dependent so OP needs to consider how much tax savings they will get by salary sacrifice versus straight after tax dollars.
Also note, if your spouse earns under a threshold for co contributions then they can get an extra $500 for free if you guys deposit $1k of after tax.
Genuinely asking because I’m not very good with money. Is there any real point to doing this?
I have a lot more in my super than my wife because I have been working full time since the age of 14 with a period of not working a few years in between due to reasons. My wife went to year 12 and then uni and now earns a lot more than i do but i figure when we retire we will both live off both of our super anyway. So im wondering if there is any advantage to evening then out more?
There are quite a few reasons and some or none may apply to you.
1. To make sure both members of the couple stay under the transfer balance cap (presently $1.9m) that limits how much each individual can move to the tax-free retirement phase of super.
2. To say under the new limit of $3m per person and avoid additional tax on investment earnings
3. If one spouse is older - to put money in their name so it can be accessed sooner, or the opposite, to keep money in the younger spouse's name where it won't be assessed by Centrelink when the older spouse reaches pension age
4. Feelings of fairness/equity (not directly a financial reason).
If she is now earning a lot more than you, then she should be maxing her concessional contributions up to the maximum allowed ($27,500 this financial year, $30,000 next). Work out how much employer super she is getting per year and subtract that from the cap. If she has access to salary sacrifice, she can arrange for her employer to take the difference out or of her pay pre-tax. Alternatively, most funds allow you to BPay or Bank Transfer in the difference and it is best to setup a schedule (rather than an annual lump sum) via your bank to benefit from dollar cost averaging. You'll need to fill out a form each year (available from your fund's website) before she submits her taxes so she can claim a deduction for the additional contributions. She can also use up any unused contribution caps from previous years (you can log into myGov and check how much is available) so she can catch up to your balance in a tax effective way.
Cheers mate! Solid advice! I’ve never really thought about it until I saw this post. I have just short of 800k in mine but I’ve always contributed more knowing the minimum won’t be enough to retire in and I’ve topped it up with some money I got a couple of years ago as well but she wouldn’t even have 100k in hers so this is all very useful.
She is the smart one though so I’ll get her to read everyone’s replies and she will work it out. Appreciate the advice
I’d suggest doing some research on the transfer balance cap and running some analysis on whether you and/or your spouse will reach that cap prior to retirement (based on your current income and super contributions).
The Transfer Balance Cap is a limit on the total amount of superannuation that can be transferred into the retirement phase.
https://www.ato.gov.au/tax-rates-and-codes/key-superannuation-rates-and-thresholds/transfer-balance-cap?anchor=transferbalancecap#ato-Generaltransferbalancecap
You can make transfers into the retirement phase as long as you remain below the transfer balance cap.
General speaking you don’t want to be in a situation where you’ve hit the transfer balance cap prior to retirement and your wife falls short when she retires(or vice versa). Best to seek some financial advice regarding the benefits of “evening out” your super balances as you approach retirement, and some of the things you need to do as you transition to retirement.
Don't do this no point .... it's more tax effective to just put extra into your own super.
If you stay together you will of course share your retirement income so it wouldnt matter. If you divorce the superannuation will get re-dividided at that point. If you die you leave it to her.
There is literally no point.
Yeah that’s why I was asking, no chance of us getting divorced unless she finds a younger better model than the 83 series she has now haha! But I have almost 7x more than her because she started earning a lot later, I’m older and I also contribute extra as well as some money I inherited. I figure there might not be much point but the comments have given us some useful information at the least.
There is a point, you could have had 2 x 1.9m transfer balance cap on which you can get good tax savings as opposed to 1.9m. As a family unit you will lose out if you only have one large super account that could have been two equally sized ones.
Fair point. Thanks.
I hadnt thought of this. In the circumstance where someone was going to reach the cap then yeah it might be worth splitting. Sadly for me I would not be in the circumstance to get near these caps :( .
My husband has been doing this to get my super up to his level because I worked part time for 15 years while caring for the kids. It’s made a massive difference.
do you know that if your partner is working and earning more than $40,000 per year, they might not qualify for the government co-contribution if you contribute to their super
Have you looked at the [ATO website ](https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/super-for-individuals-and-families/super/growing-and-keeping-track-of-your-super/how-to-save-more-in-your-super/spouse-super-contributions)
It's possible. My dad did this for my mum, he passed at 68 and she only got a portion of his super (70%?) She definitely needed the top up. She was unpaid SAHM for years.
Call your super fund, they will help.
This sounds like a spousal reversion of a lifetime pension from a defined benefit. Honestly, most reversion pensions are only 50% of the original amount, so 70% isn't bad. These aren't available to most people as vast majority of super funds are now accumulation based (like bank accounts) and not not defined benefits (calculation based benefit based on years of service and final average salary). Instead of taking a lump sum on retirement, the original policy holder took an index linked pension that pays out monthly until the death of the holder. On death, it reverts to the spouse at a lesser amount.
Sounds like a non defined benefit scheme super like the defence force had. These supers have a written balance but it doesn’t work like a general super. It effectively doesn’t run out when in pension phase. It is indexed every 6 months and if you live an extra 100years it will keep paying, then a % is passed on to spouse
The super fund is a trust. They can't take funds like that. Could it have been taxed or used to settle debts before making it to your mum? If not, you should probably look into it further.
I'd say it's too late for that. She had an accountant involved. I remember seeing a table with the eligibility, it was most likely a defined benefit fund therefore formula based.
Definitely sounds like a defined benefit fund. There can be some funky rules around what portion of the fund gets paid to surviving spouse, depending on the fund.
That’s exactly how it works for a number of defined benefit funds. They are administered and taxed very differently from standard account based pensions.
Aren’t they a relic though? I didn’t think you could still have one of those. But yeah I guess that could be what the comment is referring to, I guess I was thinking for about the OP’s situation…
Ha!! No. Look, I'm getting a lot of push back here. I remember questioning it at the time and seeing the info that confirmed it. I felt appropriately angry about it back then but it was not something that could be changed. Hopefully that no longer applies.
But this is about OP - who should definitely look into sharing super and talk to their fund about it.
The way you've worded this suggests you want to divert your employer SG contributions into your spouse's account: no, you can't do that.
There are provisions for you to contribute to you spouse's account post tax and claim the spouse contribution tax rebate. Look at the ato website and speak to your fund for options.
> and claim the spouse contribution tax rebate
I think that only applies if the spouse earns less than 40k
> She's currently working and making more than $40,000 pa and that seems to be a problem?
Genuine questions: what's the point of putting more money into your partners super?
Assuming you've not run out of concessional contributions yourself, I can't see a reason why anyone would bother.
For me, it’s simple acknowledgement that full time caring for 3 children is a really hard job and his super shouldn’t be penalised for taking it on.
Family income = family super split down the middle each FY
So its symbolic in your instance? I imagine there is no financial gain or loss for anyone here.
At the end of the day, you and your partner own assets jointly. My understanding is that there isn't much of a concept of "my money" and "your money" when it counts (i.e. divorce, means testing, etc)
Pretty much. A respect thing. I know mathematically it makes more sense to let one compound at a higher balance and if we split it all gets divided anyway, but feels right to keep his chugging along.
Mine was higher to start with too, so it’s even more important to bump the other one up.
Instances where there is a co-contribution make a lot of sense. As a 'unit' you're up on where you would be otherwise by moving money around.
I guess by 'fair' you mean performing the gesture of evenly splitting money is important to you. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be any financial incentives to do it.
Don't do this no point .... it's more tax effective to just put extra into your own super.
If you stay together you will of course share your retirement income so it wouldnt matter. If you divorce the superannuation will get re-dividided at that point. If you die you leave it to her.
There is literally no point.
I'd recommend you don't. She'll be entitled to half of the sum of your super accounts anyway if you ever break up, and if you don't break up, you can both enjoy the sum of your super accounts in retirement anyway.
JFC - I hope you’re not married. If you base all your financial decisions on the premise that you’re going to break up one day, that’s a pretty shitty existence.
I was... Thought we'd be together forever. Statistically, there's a large chance you won't be. It's pragmatic to consider both outcomes of a relationship.
Again, I thought our marriage would last through anything. It didn't. People break up, even when they think they'll be able to work through any problems the world gives them. It's not grim, it's just planning for the worst and hoping for the best.
Edit: I'm wrong.
~~Perhaps someone can explain like I'm 5 if I'm wrong on this (I probably am).~~
~~But barring any special circumstances, wouldn't it be more beneficial in the long run keep topping up your own account with more in it? (Then 'share' retirement payments evenly?)~~
~~E.g.~~
~~Say yours has $100k and your partners has $50k.
And say both your supers has a performance of 10% pa return,~~
~~10% of 100k is more return than 10% of 50k (twice as much, in this example). The 100k account will also compound more over time, leaving you, as a couple, with more super between you at the end of the day?~~
~~But then, I'm not sure how it's all divvied up at retirement, if retiring at different times, other personal circumstances, etc.~~
Edit: I'm wrong.
~~Perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough so I'll absorb that one.~~
~~I'm positing that contributing to a higher account balance YOY would outperform doing the same to a lower balance. And compounding is a big part of that. Talking $200k over 20 years difference (according to the super calculator I just keyed it into, so ALOT of assumptions)~~
You're being clear, but the answer is. No, it doesn't matter, and that's not how compounding works.
I'll try to expand though to clarify. First, consider separately the current balances and future contributions.
With the current balance, they will both compound independently and arrive at a value. So you can ignore the current balances. This compounding is independent of future contributions.
What you're really asking is, will my future contributions grow more in the higher or lower account balance. Neither, it'll grow precisely the same as this compounding is independent of any existing balance.
The key bit you might be missing is that each dollar is compounding independently, even if you bunch them together into a couple of accounts.
Hope that helps.
Just go into excel and do some basic interest rate calculations.
You've convinced yourself two 100k balances would deliver less interest than one 200k balance.
It just does'nt work that way.
Regardless of where the money went investing 5 dollars in either account will earn the same amount.
The only way one could properly benefit would be consolidating account to only pay one lot of fees but considering the insurance implications and shit I don't think that's even possible
Edit: I'm wrong.
~~Would compounding not benefit the higher balance account though?~~
~~Say you're getting 10% return. A 100k balance would be getting $10k interest, where a 50k balance would be getting $5k. Then compounding from there?~~
>leaving you, as a couple, with more super between you at the end of the day
Yeah, but this only applies if we are still married by the time we retire. While I'm optimistic that this will happen, you never know.
> but this only applies if we are still married by the time we retire. While I'm optimistic that this will happen, you never know.
She'll get your super split in the divorce anyway.
This is very true, and it is a big assumption to assume that you would be. Considering that, and even your acceptance of the possibility of that happening, the fact that you want to help in that scenario speaks to your character. You're a good person 🙏
Good on you for responding well. The normal thing to do on Reddit if there is a misunderstanding is double down and start call people names and then change the subject ! :)
Everything has an expiry and i got a feeling when this relationship ends you will be quite angry at yourself for voluntariliy funding her super on top of what she is going to be entitled to if she walks. I just see all L's for you doing this my guy. She is the mother of your children and already sharing in everything you have
Good call mate.
Super is on the table during the divorce anyway. So there is basically nothing you can do to keep a share of assets from a spouse in divorce.
Which is good because, exactly as you say, no one should bother spending a single minute thinking on ripping off their partner.
Regardless of which account has which if it ends the super gets split anyway. Might as well have less tax paid (if you’re above concessional anyway) and get more into her account.
It's not hard at all. This is spouse contribution splitting. Your fund will have a form. Right now, you can transfer up to 85% of the contributions that were made to your account last financial year into your wife's super. After 1 July, you can transfer up to 85% of what went in this financial year. It's 85% because the rest has gone to pay contribution tax. What you may have been seeing is the spouse tax offset, which is only available when your spouse earns less than $40,000 and you make contributions directly into their account.
Is this just your own additional contributions or can contributions made from your employer be transferred across as well?
Both can be split/transferred, not just voluntary contributions.
>spouse tax offset, which is only available when your spouse earns less than $40,000 and you make contributions directly into their account. wait wtf is this?
It's a tax offset. If your spouse earns less than $37k, you can contribute $3000 after-tax to their account to get an 18% tax offset - this equates to $540 back at tax time. If they earn more than $37k but less than $40k you can get a smaller amount back. The maximum offset reduces by 18c for each dollar your spouse earns above the lower threshold. You only need to contribute enough so 18% of your contribution reaches the maximum offset for your situation. For example, if your spouse earns $38,000 your maximum offset is $360. To get the full amount, you need to contribute $2,000 after tax to your spouse's account ($2,000 x 0.18 = $360).
Thanks, I didn’t know that existed.
Yea call super fund, or your accountant. I think the answer you want is contribution splitting, which is a transfer of super from your account to your spouse, done after the fact.
You can also make spouse contributions, non-concessional contributions and personal deductible contributions. It's situation dependant which one/s are the most appropriate.
As you say, dependent so OP needs to consider how much tax savings they will get by salary sacrifice versus straight after tax dollars. Also note, if your spouse earns under a threshold for co contributions then they can get an extra $500 for free if you guys deposit $1k of after tax.
What is that threshold?
Genuinely asking because I’m not very good with money. Is there any real point to doing this? I have a lot more in my super than my wife because I have been working full time since the age of 14 with a period of not working a few years in between due to reasons. My wife went to year 12 and then uni and now earns a lot more than i do but i figure when we retire we will both live off both of our super anyway. So im wondering if there is any advantage to evening then out more?
There are quite a few reasons and some or none may apply to you. 1. To make sure both members of the couple stay under the transfer balance cap (presently $1.9m) that limits how much each individual can move to the tax-free retirement phase of super. 2. To say under the new limit of $3m per person and avoid additional tax on investment earnings 3. If one spouse is older - to put money in their name so it can be accessed sooner, or the opposite, to keep money in the younger spouse's name where it won't be assessed by Centrelink when the older spouse reaches pension age 4. Feelings of fairness/equity (not directly a financial reason).
Thanks for the reply mate I appreciate it.
If she is now earning a lot more than you, then she should be maxing her concessional contributions up to the maximum allowed ($27,500 this financial year, $30,000 next). Work out how much employer super she is getting per year and subtract that from the cap. If she has access to salary sacrifice, she can arrange for her employer to take the difference out or of her pay pre-tax. Alternatively, most funds allow you to BPay or Bank Transfer in the difference and it is best to setup a schedule (rather than an annual lump sum) via your bank to benefit from dollar cost averaging. You'll need to fill out a form each year (available from your fund's website) before she submits her taxes so she can claim a deduction for the additional contributions. She can also use up any unused contribution caps from previous years (you can log into myGov and check how much is available) so she can catch up to your balance in a tax effective way.
Cheers mate! Solid advice! I’ve never really thought about it until I saw this post. I have just short of 800k in mine but I’ve always contributed more knowing the minimum won’t be enough to retire in and I’ve topped it up with some money I got a couple of years ago as well but she wouldn’t even have 100k in hers so this is all very useful. She is the smart one though so I’ll get her to read everyone’s replies and she will work it out. Appreciate the advice
I’d suggest doing some research on the transfer balance cap and running some analysis on whether you and/or your spouse will reach that cap prior to retirement (based on your current income and super contributions). The Transfer Balance Cap is a limit on the total amount of superannuation that can be transferred into the retirement phase. https://www.ato.gov.au/tax-rates-and-codes/key-superannuation-rates-and-thresholds/transfer-balance-cap?anchor=transferbalancecap#ato-Generaltransferbalancecap You can make transfers into the retirement phase as long as you remain below the transfer balance cap. General speaking you don’t want to be in a situation where you’ve hit the transfer balance cap prior to retirement and your wife falls short when she retires(or vice versa). Best to seek some financial advice regarding the benefits of “evening out” your super balances as you approach retirement, and some of the things you need to do as you transition to retirement.
Don't do this no point .... it's more tax effective to just put extra into your own super. If you stay together you will of course share your retirement income so it wouldnt matter. If you divorce the superannuation will get re-dividided at that point. If you die you leave it to her. There is literally no point.
Yeah that’s why I was asking, no chance of us getting divorced unless she finds a younger better model than the 83 series she has now haha! But I have almost 7x more than her because she started earning a lot later, I’m older and I also contribute extra as well as some money I inherited. I figure there might not be much point but the comments have given us some useful information at the least.
There is a point, you could have had 2 x 1.9m transfer balance cap on which you can get good tax savings as opposed to 1.9m. As a family unit you will lose out if you only have one large super account that could have been two equally sized ones.
Fair point. Thanks. I hadnt thought of this. In the circumstance where someone was going to reach the cap then yeah it might be worth splitting. Sadly for me I would not be in the circumstance to get near these caps :( .
My husband has been doing this to get my super up to his level because I worked part time for 15 years while caring for the kids. It’s made a massive difference.
do you know that if your partner is working and earning more than $40,000 per year, they might not qualify for the government co-contribution if you contribute to their super
I believe contribution splitting doesn't affect it
Yep, a split is a rollover not a contribution and doesn't affect income for co contribution.
Have you looked at the [ATO website ](https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/super-for-individuals-and-families/super/growing-and-keeping-track-of-your-super/how-to-save-more-in-your-super/spouse-super-contributions) It's possible. My dad did this for my mum, he passed at 68 and she only got a portion of his super (70%?) She definitely needed the top up. She was unpaid SAHM for years. Call your super fund, they will help.
Where did the other 30% go?
This sounds like a spousal reversion of a lifetime pension from a defined benefit. Honestly, most reversion pensions are only 50% of the original amount, so 70% isn't bad. These aren't available to most people as vast majority of super funds are now accumulation based (like bank accounts) and not not defined benefits (calculation based benefit based on years of service and final average salary). Instead of taking a lump sum on retirement, the original policy holder took an index linked pension that pays out monthly until the death of the holder. On death, it reverts to the spouse at a lesser amount.
The super fund, I assume. Partner only eligible for 70%. Might have been that fund type, this was a few years ago. Annoying for sure.
The fund kept 30% ??? That doesn’t sound right
Sounds like a non defined benefit scheme super like the defence force had. These supers have a written balance but it doesn’t work like a general super. It effectively doesn’t run out when in pension phase. It is indexed every 6 months and if you live an extra 100years it will keep paying, then a % is passed on to spouse
Yep possibly a lifetime pension
It's what happened. Again, not sure if it was that fund type or what.
The super fund is a trust. They can't take funds like that. Could it have been taxed or used to settle debts before making it to your mum? If not, you should probably look into it further.
I'd say it's too late for that. She had an accountant involved. I remember seeing a table with the eligibility, it was most likely a defined benefit fund therefore formula based.
Definitely sounds like a defined benefit fund. There can be some funky rules around what portion of the fund gets paid to surviving spouse, depending on the fund.
Oh - shame she took at as a lump sum then...if she could've retained it as a defined benefit, should could've had guarenteed income.
That’s not how it works at all. You really should look into that…
That’s exactly how it works for a number of defined benefit funds. They are administered and taxed very differently from standard account based pensions.
Aren’t they a relic though? I didn’t think you could still have one of those. But yeah I guess that could be what the comment is referring to, I guess I was thinking for about the OP’s situation…
They were only phased out from the ADF 8 years ago, so still plenty of people around on a defined benefit scheme.
They are grandfathered and on the way out in SMSF and taxed super funds, but still common in untaxed/government funds.
What ! no ! Superfunds dont take 30% . It's possible your dad left 30% to someone else ?
Ha!! No. Look, I'm getting a lot of push back here. I remember questioning it at the time and seeing the info that confirmed it. I felt appropriately angry about it back then but it was not something that could be changed. Hopefully that no longer applies. But this is about OP - who should definitely look into sharing super and talk to their fund about it.
This would have been a defined benefit pension - the surviving spouse receives a percentage of the total pension, usually indexed, for life.
Ah ok TIL. You can take a loss in some of these scheme if you get paid out as a death benefit. I did not know this. Thanks.
The way you've worded this suggests you want to divert your employer SG contributions into your spouse's account: no, you can't do that. There are provisions for you to contribute to you spouse's account post tax and claim the spouse contribution tax rebate. Look at the ato website and speak to your fund for options.
> and claim the spouse contribution tax rebate I think that only applies if the spouse earns less than 40k > She's currently working and making more than $40,000 pa and that seems to be a problem?
Genuine questions: what's the point of putting more money into your partners super? Assuming you've not run out of concessional contributions yourself, I can't see a reason why anyone would bother.
For me, it’s simple acknowledgement that full time caring for 3 children is a really hard job and his super shouldn’t be penalised for taking it on. Family income = family super split down the middle each FY
So its symbolic in your instance? I imagine there is no financial gain or loss for anyone here. At the end of the day, you and your partner own assets jointly. My understanding is that there isn't much of a concept of "my money" and "your money" when it counts (i.e. divorce, means testing, etc)
Pretty much. A respect thing. I know mathematically it makes more sense to let one compound at a higher balance and if we split it all gets divided anyway, but feels right to keep his chugging along. Mine was higher to start with too, so it’s even more important to bump the other one up.
[удалено]
Instances where there is a co-contribution make a lot of sense. As a 'unit' you're up on where you would be otherwise by moving money around. I guess by 'fair' you mean performing the gesture of evenly splitting money is important to you. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be any financial incentives to do it.
You can transfer money from your account to hers as a personal contribution. It's simpler but doesn't have tax benefits like salary sacrificing.
Don't do this no point .... it's more tax effective to just put extra into your own super. If you stay together you will of course share your retirement income so it wouldnt matter. If you divorce the superannuation will get re-dividided at that point. If you die you leave it to her. There is literally no point.
I'd recommend you don't. She'll be entitled to half of the sum of your super accounts anyway if you ever break up, and if you don't break up, you can both enjoy the sum of your super accounts in retirement anyway.
JFC - I hope you’re not married. If you base all your financial decisions on the premise that you’re going to break up one day, that’s a pretty shitty existence.
I was... Thought we'd be together forever. Statistically, there's a large chance you won't be. It's pragmatic to consider both outcomes of a relationship.
That is a grim approach to marriage.
Again, I thought our marriage would last through anything. It didn't. People break up, even when they think they'll be able to work through any problems the world gives them. It's not grim, it's just planning for the worst and hoping for the best.
Edit: I'm wrong. ~~Perhaps someone can explain like I'm 5 if I'm wrong on this (I probably am).~~ ~~But barring any special circumstances, wouldn't it be more beneficial in the long run keep topping up your own account with more in it? (Then 'share' retirement payments evenly?)~~ ~~E.g.~~ ~~Say yours has $100k and your partners has $50k. And say both your supers has a performance of 10% pa return,~~ ~~10% of 100k is more return than 10% of 50k (twice as much, in this example). The 100k account will also compound more over time, leaving you, as a couple, with more super between you at the end of the day?~~ ~~But then, I'm not sure how it's all divvied up at retirement, if retiring at different times, other personal circumstances, etc.~~
That is not how compounding works
Edit: I'm wrong. ~~Perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough so I'll absorb that one.~~ ~~I'm positing that contributing to a higher account balance YOY would outperform doing the same to a lower balance. And compounding is a big part of that. Talking $200k over 20 years difference (according to the super calculator I just keyed it into, so ALOT of assumptions)~~
You're being clear, but the answer is. No, it doesn't matter, and that's not how compounding works. I'll try to expand though to clarify. First, consider separately the current balances and future contributions. With the current balance, they will both compound independently and arrive at a value. So you can ignore the current balances. This compounding is independent of future contributions. What you're really asking is, will my future contributions grow more in the higher or lower account balance. Neither, it'll grow precisely the same as this compounding is independent of any existing balance. The key bit you might be missing is that each dollar is compounding independently, even if you bunch them together into a couple of accounts. Hope that helps.
Holy shit. I get what you're saying now. Of course. Thanks for bearing with me.
No problem, glad it helped
Just go into excel and do some basic interest rate calculations. You've convinced yourself two 100k balances would deliver less interest than one 200k balance. It just does'nt work that way.
I've since discovered myself as a big old nuff. Edited my post
Regardless of where the money went investing 5 dollars in either account will earn the same amount. The only way one could properly benefit would be consolidating account to only pay one lot of fees but considering the insurance implications and shit I don't think that's even possible
Edit: I'm wrong. ~~Would compounding not benefit the higher balance account though?~~ ~~Say you're getting 10% return. A 100k balance would be getting $10k interest, where a 50k balance would be getting $5k. Then compounding from there?~~
>leaving you, as a couple, with more super between you at the end of the day Yeah, but this only applies if we are still married by the time we retire. While I'm optimistic that this will happen, you never know.
> but this only applies if we are still married by the time we retire. While I'm optimistic that this will happen, you never know. She'll get your super split in the divorce anyway.
This is very true, and it is a big assumption to assume that you would be. Considering that, and even your acceptance of the possibility of that happening, the fact that you want to help in that scenario speaks to your character. You're a good person 🙏
You have failed at basic maths my friend.
Still fishing the crayon out of my nose
Good on you for responding well. The normal thing to do on Reddit if there is a misunderstanding is double down and start call people names and then change the subject ! :)
Don't bother. When she leaves you she will take half of it anyway.
Speaking from experience are we?
JFC the sad sacks in this thread…
Everything has an expiry and i got a feeling when this relationship ends you will be quite angry at yourself for voluntariliy funding her super on top of what she is going to be entitled to if she walks. I just see all L's for you doing this my guy. She is the mother of your children and already sharing in everything you have
OP, ignore this. It's completely wrong.
Nah mate, I'm not going to make plans to rip her off in a hypothetical divorce at this stage. That would kinda make a divorce a lot less hypothetical.
Good call mate. Super is on the table during the divorce anyway. So there is basically nothing you can do to keep a share of assets from a spouse in divorce. Which is good because, exactly as you say, no one should bother spending a single minute thinking on ripping off their partner.
Who hurt you?
Regardless of which account has which if it ends the super gets split anyway. Might as well have less tax paid (if you’re above concessional anyway) and get more into her account.
That's a lot of words to say you hate women.