Just read in Google News that a Superannuation body has indicated that when you retire you will need $54k if married or $41k single to maintain your current lifestyle. So you get $400k from your super, safe investment 6%, you might be a little short each year, have to eat into capital to keep up with the Jones's. Don't tell me! that the pension will have to top it up. Politicians answer. Lets put the retirement age when you can access Super up to 75 years.A few should fall off the perch by then! Hope the government doesn't have to raid the super funds like the 401k's in the USA. Ah! but we have great financial Managers in this country..Worlds three best treasurers, Keating, Costello and Swan. Joe Hockey may make it four in a row. Not to mention the experts in charge of the super funds. What recession? How were we to know! Ask the Bank Manger, Should I invest in silver and gold? Now way young man, we need your money to make us bankers rich so that we can pay tax to keep you alive when you are 75. Sorry for the rant. But I just don't believe that you need that much $ to live a happy and contented life in your latter years! If you have good health and a loving family, then you are truly blessed. When you are in the twilight years, three feeds a day and a warm bed under a roof is all that can be expected! Regards Errol 43 /
How is it that Australia, one of the "wealthiest" nations, needs to up the retirement age to 75? In Greece there were riots in the streets when the gov wanted to raise retirement age to 67.
Depends on your cultural lifestyle too. My family's background ensures that retirement income isn't relevant. That is, we don't throw the oldies in our families to fend for themselves. Our older family members stay with us and we look after them for the rest of their life. It's only western culture that continually hammers on the concept of a broken up family unit.
It is an obvious point, but how much you need in retirement depends upon your financial position before you retire. If you have organised your financial position in such a way that you are assured cash flow, and your debt position is significantly smaller than assets and is working to produce income and increase your wealth even as you are in "retirement", you may need comparatively little in order to live. It is the quality of your living that determines how much you need. Sitting in a caravan while watching fellow retirees trip up the coast in their 26 foot boats for weeks at a time is not my idea of an ideal retirement life. If your family are scattered across the country or nation, and you intend to spend significant time with them in your retirement, fishing with the grandkids etc, then you will need more than just a minimum pension. I've got this now, I'd want more than that in my retirement to make all the years of hard work worthwhile.
Retirement age in Australia has been raised to 67, but this only to receive a government pension. You can still access your Super at 60 and this has been raised from 55. The only reason the government would raise the age you can access your super to say 65 would be to prevent people from using up all their Super during the years say 60-80 and then falling back on the pension.
Is it for real that they want to raise the retirement age to 75? Is so that's absolutely preposterous.
You can retire tomorrow if you want to salty lemon formerly geewiz. Just don't expect a government pension. Matthew's post is very relevant.
The whole idea of working right up until you are no longer healthy enough to do any work and then you have to eek out your money to survive until you die is pretty screwed up in the first place. At the moment we are saving like mad, not taking any holidays and investing in houses and silver just so that we might be able to have a comfortable lifestyle when we retire. The idea that life will somehow get magically better when you no longer have to work is crazy. you are old, broken from years of slave labour and you still won't have enough money. After 40+ years of work we should all be millionaires. A married couple should be multimillionaires when they retire. I was going ok on three days of work a week, I had time for long weekends, I could get all my banking done, I could start projects (and finish them) the house was clean and tidy, the garden was flourishing. Then I went back to full time work. The house and garden need loads of work but we are too knackered at the weekends to do much, there is no food in the house because no one feels like shopping after work, bills are slipping through unpaid, the banking isn't done and the brick bbq is still not finished. The extra money earned just gets swallowed up into paying the mortgage (which we need to provide for the future) We are doomed but I would tell my kids (If I had any) live at home and pay rent to the family Don't get a mortgage, there is no need to own a home, or an investment property stay out of debt, paying interest is a mugs game work three days a week at most enjoy the other 4 The main reason we are working is to pay down the debt on the mortgage of the investment property. the main reason we have an investment property is so we can have an income when we retire. That income will be the equivalent of $15k a year (Rental income). I am paying $32k a year on the mortgage repayments. $32k a year saved would be better than $15k a year earned. The only way it works is because I work 5 days a week and therefore get the $32k off my tax bill. The extra 2 days a week that I have to work are so I can get more money so I can pay more tax so I can get more of my tax back from the negative geared property. Get rid of the property, save $32k a year, remove the requirement for self imposed slavery. Now I just have to convince my wife to ditch the property and let me drop to 3 days a week
Waits to see if the pro-IP crowd come and shit all over your 'real world' experience as they do the rest of us when we say the same sort of thing with 'no real world' experience. I'm guessing they won't come within cooee of tackling you on this issue tiger... you speak a lot of sense that us non-debtors have been advocating for years, but can't get taken seriously on because we're not market players. Your honesty is very refreshing though, especially around these parts. Kudos.
ummmm....wrong ......cooee!!! That would be his personal choice as it is yours to do or not with your life as you see fit . Theres a big difference in jis's post being he has actualy done it & is still doing it now & dare i say will still be doing it for years according to his missus.& he did say that he gets the money off his tax bill ...im surprised you didnt call him a parasite for doing so .He said something you liked so you ignored the bit you usually hate Because he doesnt like the way it has turned out doesnt mean he wont be better off in the long run & some just dont like being tied to the grindstone like yourself .I would say theres many that would dislike it just as he does . I did i hated it with a passion That was the motivation for me to get off my arse & get it paid .I would say that a very large % of people hate it as much as him & myself but realise that in the long run its what you have to do & will go someway to having a better retirement .. Each to their own
Retirement is essentially a meaningless concept to me. I can't imagine the idea of having nothing much to do day after day, week after week, year after year. I don't have any intention to take the government pension and hope, and think, that I won't need to. So whatever age they pin retirement on isn't going to affect me. This isn't to say I intend to work for the rest of my life, but let's face it, I haven't worked particularly hard up to now anyway. You only need to look at my hands and the appropriate phrase is "hasn't done a hard day's work in his life". I haven't done the stock standard 48 weeks a year (4 weeks off) or whatever it is, for over 7 years now. The point is, like jis said, you should be setting your own schedule that suits you. And that usually requires thinking outside the box. The one size fits all, 40 hours a week, 48 weeks a year, 18 to 65 is just ridiculous when you think about it. It suits government accounting, not real people in the real world.
If I remember correctly, the government intends to raise the retirement age to 70years before 2020.. The next step will be to raise it to 75years by 2030. Now if you retire on your super at 60, you have 10 years to go and who knows what your health will be like. You just have to hope inflation isn't too bad in this period! Look at the USA situation, less than 1% interest on your savings. These are just a few of the scenarios that will face the people in their retirement. I am so glad that so many members here on SS have a SMSF..IMO that's the only way to go. No, I am wrong, stack silver/gold..You will always have a little extra if you can sell a little each week or when needed. Remember time slips by so fast.. One day your 30 then 40 and before you know it you're in the twilight zone. Regards Errol 43
That has been taken care of in other posts, don't worry! As to being better off in the long run... If I left it as it was then I would be paying $32k for the next 20 years (Interest only mortgage, retiring at 60). So I would need to be retired for 42 years on my $15k rental returns to make that worth while. Instead we are paying down the mortgage with an offset account which still gives us a bit of flexibility. We don't pay so much interest so the house isn't so negatively geared so we don't save so much tax. So we will earn more and we will probably jump up to the next tax bracket and pay more tax as a result. I don't think this is a game you can win. But I guess the money is going to the government rather than to the banks.
Because sir, the moment I call out people here or retaliate to a little good natured trolling like this, I get slapped with the ban hammer while instigators and protagonists get a free ride. I know where I stand here nowadays, so I pick my words & battles accordingly. But back on topic, I look after my own come what may. We might disagree on the methods, but the underlying principle is the same.
I am sure you are aware by now of the obsession older greeks (and their aussie born children) have with property. It was always seen as a safe bet and most greeks wouldn't even look at shares or other investments. However it aint the 50s anymore and the days of buying a house in the inner city and paying it off within 5 years are long gone. So are the days when greeks/italians had a monopoly on milk bars/takeaways etc and paid very little tax as it was all cash in those days, no monstrous ATO or TFN, cross referencing etc. No worries, simply declare what you felt like declaring and pay as much or as little tax as you felt like.
Access to super benefits is generally restricted to reaching your preservation age. Your date of birth Your preservation age Before 1 July 1960 55 1 July 1960 to 30 June 1961 56 1 July 1961 to 30 June 1962 57 1 July 1962 to 30 June 1963 58 1 July 1963 to 30 June 1964 59 1 July 1964 or later 60
So saying you've got a huge SMSF, enough to retire twice over, yet you still need to wait until the government allows you to access it? Is that fair? Reminds me of that trick where you put a dog biscuit on your dog's nose, then make him wait 5 mins before he can eat it.
