Should you check to make sure your employer is paying you the correct superannuation amount? [Australia]
As poolie mentioned, you should get online access to your account. This will do a couple of things: Also, consolidate any super you have with different companies. Now. Yes, there are checks and balances.  Employers can be, and have been, prosecuted for failing to pay super before the statutory timeline, which is three months from the pay date. However, it is still in your interests to check for yourself.  The most common point for missing super to be discovered is when the company goes broke, at which point it's too late for you.  What you should do is  Check on your payslips that the right amount is allocated to super.  It should be 9% of gross, plus any salary sacrifice or additional component. Check your super fund's half-yearly statements line up the deductions given on your payslip. Consider getting online access to your super account so you can check more quickly. If something is missing, call your super fund and/or payroll office. Resources:
I suspect @SpehroPefhany is correct and that your bank will cash a check from the US Department of the Treasury.  Especially since they're the same ones who guarantee the U.S. Dollar.  They may hold the funds until the check clears, but I think you'll have good luck going through your bank.  Of course, fees and exchange rate are a factor.   Consider browsing the IRS and US Treasury Department websites for suggestions/FAQs.   I suggest you line up a way to cash it, and make sure there's enough left after fees and exchange rate and postage to get the check that the whole process is worth it, all before you ask it to be shipped to you.   If there's no way to do it through your bank, through a money exchange business (those at the airport come to mind) or through your government (postal bank?), and the check is enough that you're willing to go through some trouble, then you should look into assigning power of attorney for this purpose.  I don't know if it is possible, but it might be worth looking into. Look for US based banks in your area. According to this section in Publication 15:  Collecting underwithheld taxes from employees.   If you withheld no   income, social security, or Medicare taxes or less than the correct   amount from an employee's wages, you can make it up from later pay to   that employee. But you’re the one who owes the underpayment.   Reimbursement is a matter for settlement between you and the employee.   [...] it seems that if the employer withheld less than the correct amount of FICA taxes from you, it is still the employer who owes your FICA taxes to the government, not you. I do not believe there is a way for you, an employee (not self-employed), to directly pay FICA taxes to the government without going through the employer. The employer can deduct the underwithheld amount from you future paychecks (assuming you still work for them), or settle it with you in some other way. In other words, you owe the employer, and the employer owes the government, but you do not directly owe the government. If they do deduct it from your future pay, then they can issue a corrected W-2, to reflect the amount deducted from you. But they cannot issue a corrected W-2 that says FICA were deducted from you if it wasn't. Paying off the high-interest debt is a good first start. Paying interest, or compound interest on debt is like paying somebody to make you poor. As for your 401k, you want to contribute enough to get the full match from your employer. You might also consider checking out the fees associated with your 401k with an online fee analyzer. If it turns out you're getting reamed with fees, you can reduce them by fiddling with your investments. Checking your investment options is always a good idea since jobs frequently change them. Opening an IRA is a good call. If you're eligible for both Roth and Traditional IRAs, consider the following: Most financial institutions (brokers or banks) can help you open an IRA in a matter of minutes. If you shop around, you will find very cheap or even no fee options. Many brokers might try to get your business by giving away something for ‘free.' Just make sure you read the fine print so you understand the conditions of their promotional offer.  Whichever IRA you choose, you want to make sure that it's managed properly. Some people might say, ‘go for it, do it yourself’ but I strongly disagree with that approach. Stock picking is a waste of time and market timing rarely works.  I'd look into flat fee financial advisors. You have lots of options. Just make sure they hear you out, and can design/execute an investment plan specific to your needs At a minimum, they should: Hope this is helpful. A falling $AUD would be beneficial to exporters, and thus overall good for the economy. If the economy improves and exporters start growing profits, that means they will start to employ more people and employment will increase - and with higher employment, employees will become more confident to make purchases, including purchasing property. I feel the falling $AUD will be beneficial for the economy and the housing market. However, what you should consider is that with an improving economy and a rising property market, it will only be a matter of time before interest rates start rising. With a lower $AUD the RBA will be more confident in starting to increase interest rates. And increasing interest rates will have a dampening effect on the housing market. You are looking to buy a property to live in - so how long do you intend to live in and hold the property? I would assume at least for the medium to long term. If this is your intention then why are you getting cold feet? What you should be concerned about is that you do not overstretch on your borrowings! Make sure you allow a buffer of 2% to 3% above current interest rates so that if rates do go up you can still afford the repayments. And if you get a fixed rate - then you should allow the buffer in case variable rates are higher when your fixed period is over. Regarding the doomsayers telling you that property prices are going to crash - well they were saying that in 2008, then again in 2010, then again in 2012. I don't know about you but I have seen no crash. Sure when interest rates have gone up property prices have levelled off and maybe gone down by 10% to 15% in some areas, but as soon as interest rates start falling again property prices start increasing again. It's all part of the property cycle.  I actually find it is a better time to buy when interest rates are higher and you can negotiate a better bargain and lower price. Then when interest rates start falling you benefit from lower repayments and increasing property prices. The only way there will be a property crash in Australia is if there was a dramatic economic downturn and unemployment rates rose to 10% or higher. But with good economic conditions, an increasing population and low supplies of newly build housing in Australia, I see no dramatic crashes in the foreseeable future. Yes we may get periods of weakness when interest rates increase, with falls up to 15% in some areas, but no crash of 40% plus. As I said above, these periods of weakness actually provide opportunities to buy properties at a bit of a discount. EDIT In your comments you say you intend to buy with a monthly mortgage repayment of $2500 in place of your current monthly rent of $1800. That means your loan amount would be somewhere around $550k to $600K. You also mention you would be taking on a 5 year fixed rate, and look to sell in about 2 years time if you can break even (I assume that is break even on the price you bought at). In 2 years you would have paid $16,800 more on your mortgage than you would have in rent. So here are the facts: A better strategy: You'd probably have to sue them to get the money. In most cases those statements have disclaimers all over them telling you about the vesting period and technically that extra money was probably never really in your account.  Normally the statements also break out the actual contributions from the employer match part and have a footnote about the vesting policy. Unless the employer was completely incompetent in their management of this account, I am betting they will have documentation of the policy that you supposedly were given.  You probably have very slim chances of prevailing on this unless they were very lax in their documentation. I'd say re-check the statements and your employee manually carefully for any mention of vesting. If you don't find it, ask the employer (nicely) where you were notified of this. If they still can't produce any documentation, then sue them. I routinely max out my 401k contributions.  The company's stupid website actually forces me to make two contributions -- one for the regular contribution, and another for the Catchup Contribution. I routinely adjust my 401k contribution throughout the year -- at the first of the year, I calculate how much to withhold such that I can adjust withholding to 6% of salary more than before, once I hit the SS tax limit.  At the first of the year, I ignore bonuses.  I re-adjust (if needed) once I know bonuses. I've worked for my company for almost 30 years now. "Lachlan has $600 cash and a car worth $500. That's $1,100. The new car is priced at $21,800. Lachlan needs a loan for $20,700. However, the finance company insists that the buyer must pay a 10% deposit, which is $2,180. Lachlan only has $1,100, so no loan.  The car dealer wants to make a sale, so suggests some tricks. The car dealer could buy Lachlan's old banger for $1,500 instead of $500, and sell the new car for $22,800 instead of $21,800. Doesn't make a difference to the dealer, he gets the same amount of cash. Now Lachlan has $600 cash and $1,500 for his car or $2,100 in total. He needs 10% of $22,800 as deposit which is $2,280. That's not quite there but you see how the principle works. Lachlan is about $200 short. So the dealer adds $1,200 to both car prices. Lachlan has $600 cash and a car ""worth"" $1,700, total $2,300. The new car is sold for $23,000 requiring a $2,300 deposit which works out exactly.  How could we have found the right amount without guessing?  Lachlan had $1,100. The new car costs $21,800. The dealer increases both prices by x dollars. Lachlan has now $1,100 + x deposit. The car now costs $21,800 + x. The deposit should be 10%, so $1,100 + x = 10% of ($21,800 + x) = $2,180 + 0.1 x.  $1,100 + x = $2,180 + 0.1 x : Subtract $1,100 x = $1,080 + 0.1 x : Subtract 0.1 x 0.9 x = $1,080 : Divide by 0.9 x = $1,080 / 0.9 = $1,200 The dealer inflates the cost of the new car and the value of the old car by $1,200. Now that's the theory. In practice I don't know how the finance company feels about this, and if they would be happy if they found out." Overcontributions made after the calendar year are not usually a problem. This is because while contributions made in Jan and Feb can be counted towards the previous year, they do not have to be. This appears to be what has happened in your case. If you had an RRSP limit of $18,000 for 2015, and in Jan 2016 you contributed $22,000 to your RRSP, then it is perfectly legal to claim $18,000 of that in 2015 and $4000 in 2016. The extra $4000 is never counted against your 2015 limit and so is not an overcontribution. If your 2016 limit is going to be less than $4000 then you will eventually have an overcontribution problem in 2016, and if you think that's likely you should sort this out now. But for most people that's pretty unlikely.