How old are the vice chancellors?
Just a little follow-up to my note on the university super scheme. My "normally reliable source" asks me to note that the 14% employer contribution for all under the scheme equals 11.9% after 15% contributions tax. The member puts in 7% after tax. A total of 18.9% at all ages.
But up to age 40, the benefit only accrues at 18% of Final average Salary which is less than current salary. Only at age 45 is the benefit accrual rate of 19% higher than the contribution rate. In short, 20 year's service from age 20 to 40 gives a benefit of 3.6 times final average salary. This is despite fact about 3.8 times salary has been put in over this period no return. At age 65 benefit accrues at 23% of final average salary. Twenty year's service from 45 to 65 gives 4.6 times final average salary. How can this be considered a fair scheme.
Compare Telstra defined benefit fund. Five per cent from member gives 20% of final average salary at all ages.
PSS Commonwealth Government Scheme 5% employee gives 21% of final average salary at all ages.
UniSuper is surviving on the young being forced to be members and like a Ponzi schemes as the older members take their larger benefits and run, including via redundancies, the funding problems for the younger people get worse.
Perhaps a little unkindly my source asks me to ponder how old vice chancellors are.
Maybe not so clever
. Letting charity begin at home is more likely to be a vote winner than giving aid to foreigners overseas so the criticism by the Opposition of government plans to use millions in aid money to feed and accommodate asylum seekers in Australia is something of a surprise. Surely the experts at negative politics have not discovered principles?
Still seen as an honest lot
. The Australian Wheat Board's dealings with Iraq and a problem or two with banknote printing contracts notwithstanding, the Australian public sector is still seen by the world as being an honest lot. The annual Corruption Perception Index for 2012
from Transparency International has Australia near the top of the list.
The Corruption Perceptions Index ranks countries and territories based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be. A country or territory’s score indicates the perceived level of public sector corruption on a scale of 0 - 100, where 0 means that a country is perceived as highly corrupt and 100 means it is perceived as very clean. A country's rank indicates its position relative to the other countries and territories included in the index. This year's index includes 176 countries and territories.