HILDA: low home ownership and doubling debt threatens pension system

The latest HILDA survey reveals a trend that may threaten the retirement income system.

young family in debt

The latest Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey shows that home ownership among the young is rapidly declining while mortgage debts are doubling. When combined, this could be disastrous for the Age Pension.

The annual HILDA survey is put together by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research and is a truly representative household study that’s followed the same 17,000 individuals since 2001.

This year’s results reveal that home ownership among those under 40 is on the decline. In 2002, 36 per cent of 18 to 39 year olds were home owners, compared to 25 per cent in 2014. Home ownership among families in the same age group with dependent children has fallen from 56 per cent to 39 per cent in the same time.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6lI7qddOXjg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And mortgage debt had risen significantly. In 2002, the average home debt was around $169,000. In 2014, that figure had almost doubled to $337,000.

While low interest rates have made repayments manageable, this group will be extremely vulnerable when rates inevitably rise.

Further detail in the data showed that more younger Australians are living with their parents for longer. In 2001, 28 per cent of women aged 22 to 25 lived with their parents. In 2015, the number had risen to 48 per cent. For men, that figure has risen from 42 per cent to 60 per cent.

It could be speculated that children living with parents for longer may put a financial strain on older Australians, meaning they’ll have less money for retirement and an increased likelihood of reliance on the Age Pension.

However, the real worry is in the declining levels of home ownership among the younger generation. This will have negative implications for long-term economic wellbeing and will put pressure on the retirement income system.

The Government’s plans to allow the use of super as a savings vehicle for a home deposit may seem like a good solution, but it’s more likely to be only a short-term fix.

The more Australians must draw on superannuation balances, the less they’ll have in retirement.

The upside is that if they own, unencumbered, their home, they should have a lower cost of living in retirement.

Either way, current trends suggest that there may in the future be a strain on the retirement income system. This may be why Australians are retiring later in life. The number of Australians who are retiring by 64 years of age has dropped by 20 per cent since 2001.

What do you think? If you own your home, how do you think you’d manage if you were renting? Conversely, if you’re a renter, do you think your quality of retirement would improve if you owned your home? How long did your kids live with you? Did that change your retirement plans?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Captain
    3rd Aug 2017
    10:36am
    Owning a home outright is important in retirement. There are costs associated, but perhaps only 30% of renting.

    We began our retirement planning at about 40 and became serious about by 50. Retired at 60 (no pension then or now). Could not be happier.

    Our son still lives with us (in his early 30''s) and owns a house that he rents out to help pay the mortgage. He says that he will move in when he pays it off (in about 6 more years). It is possible for younger people to buy, they just need to be disciplined in their saving habits. Having him live at home is pretty good for us as he pays a little board and the best part is he helps out around the garden or internal/external repairs when necessary.
    Puglet
    3rd Aug 2017
    12:54pm
    Well done all of you! Quite a few of my friends have their kids moving back into the family home while THEY save. These young people seem to think they are entitled to free Board and lodging and it doesn't occur to them that their parents' savings are disappearing rapidly. My kids moved home for 6 months. They offered to pay and I said no. They did buy extra food and helped with cooking etc. It was only after they'd gone did I work out how much extra they cost - gas and electricity were 2/3 more. I paid much more for water and paid for soap powder, cleaners etc. I dropped big hints about limited shower time and turning the lights off With no success. Last week I noticed a timer in their new bathrooms so they are now saving too! I could afford to help but maintaining a family of adults on the pension would be very hard.
    MICK
    3rd Aug 2017
    4:05pm
    Well said Captain. Your story is but one means to an end. There are many others.
    Whilst I do not want to argue with the statistics I do want to comment that there are REASONS why younger Australians cannot own a home. One is because they believe the world owes them a lifestyle (not true!) and the other is that our deadbeat government has pushed many younger workers into part time jobs with irregular hours and no guarantee of having a job next week.
    Nobody can do anything about the 'lifestyle' belief other than genY complainers themselves. Some do and prosper. Others just never get it and instead blame everybody other than themselves. Nothing anybody can do about that Leon!
    The jobs front is a tough nut to crack as well. We have a government which has closed down the car industry in this country and is flogging everything in the nation to foreigners, including the jobs of Australians. We have all heard the reports about the continued outsourcing of jobs and bringing in cheap workers from third world countries. That is simply BETRAYAL and the coalition government has been instructed by our wealthy to find slaves. Deal done!
    The second part of the jobs equation is the loss of jobs worldwide due to mechanisation. Robotics is going to make this much worse than it already is.

    I feel sorry for genY who for the most part have had their minds filled with feel good crap and are now destined to pursue what they see as being a deserved lifestyle. And then many are hit with phoney employment designed to keep them permanently hungry and on the lease. What a legacy we have left our children. God help the little buggars!
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2017
    11:53am
    Retirement needs planning ..some do it , some don't. Those who do reap the rewards.

    It is a pity there is not more emphasis on this in the workplace say when people are in their forties. So many just drift along through life and only get a jolt of reality when they retire or are made redundant.

    The OAP is not there to fund the same lifestyle we all had when in the workforce. It is to provide basic food and shelter...not the luxuries we would all like to have.

    Owing your own home/unit or whatever is imperative...I would hate to be at the mercy of the rental market and greedy landlords and knowing you could be kicked out at any time.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2017
    10:59am
    Radish, it's not always about planning. It's sometimes about capacity - determined by the cards life deals you. And it's been demonstrated very clearly that many who plan DO NOT reap rewards - but actually would have been better off not bothering under our stupid system. But that aside, the fact is that we all paid into a pool to fund our retirement, and if it hadn't been stolen we'll all be able to draw $500 per week per person - more than enough to fund a very comfortable lifestyle. But it WAS stolen. So stop blaming the victims of a terrible crime and start showing some respect. The Aged Pension is a right we bought and paid for, just as those who now pay into super have a right to the retirement lifestyle it affords them.

    Yes, owning your own home is imperative, and I'm glad a did the hard yards to own mine. I just wish the nasties on this forum would stop insisting anyone who was CHEATED out of their rightful retirement support should have to surrender their home, while the greedy fat cats who keep taking handouts they don't need get to keep all the loot. Let's be consistent at least. If aged pensioners should pay back their pension, those who got superannuation tax concessions should also pay back theirs. I know which group would be getting the larger bill!
    Old Geezer
    5th Aug 2017
    7:28pm
    Of course it is all about planning and planning is more important for those who lack capacity.

    Oh guess they could have keep that pool of money but you be lucky to get $5 a week out of it now with some many on the OAP. So be thankful the government changed it so people get a decent OAP. No it wasn't stolen but used up instead. It was such a terrible crime to give OAPs a decent pension instead.

    I know which group would have the larger bill too Rainey and it is not the fully self funded retirees.
    Anonymous
    6th Aug 2017
    7:38am
    You really are a dunce, OG. Anyone who can read knows that the poor didn't get one single cent of benefit from the assets test change. NOT ONE CENT! The only folk who benefited were those with a few hundred thousand in assets.

    And the cost of the OAP will soar because of this stupid and destructive change that kills incentives to save. Yes, the money we paid for our retirement was STOLEN. It was taken illegally and without public consent from a separate account and merged into consolidated revenue to be wasted by irresponsible and corrupt politicians. We were DEFRAUDED.

    Yes, OG, it WOULD be the self-funded retirees getting the largest bill if all that was immorally and unfairly taken had to be repaid, because they got far, far more over a lifetime than the battlers who get a pathetic pittance in old age. "

    You are wrong on every count, OG.
    ex PS
    6th Aug 2017
    4:25pm
    Young people are smarter than we think, they are looking at the governments and their sheep's position on Asset Testing the family home and thinking, "Why should I buy a home just so I can turn it over to the government to pay for a Pension that I am entitled to anyway?".
    This grasping government has cut off it's nose to spite it's face. The next thing to be forced into extinction by these parasites will be voluntary Super contributions, this governments greed is sending us all back into last century.
    Planning?! How the hell can anyone plan effectively when the government keeps changing the rules to suit itself and its contributors?
    Anonymous
    7th Aug 2017
    7:45am
    Correct, ex PS. As I keep saying, the assets test change reinforced a view already widely held that it's simply not worth the effort to save for retirement and accrue assets unless you can join the very well off. And unless you are very well off, you get no help from the government. Those on less than $34000 a year get virtually no tax benefit for putting money into super, yet those on over $180,000 get a huge benefit. Of all those making concessional contributions to super (or having them made on their behalf) 37% goes to the top 5%. In 2014, that represented almost $13 billion - being paid in tax concessions to the 5% highest income earners in the nation.

    The aged pension cost $39 million in that year and superannuation tax concessions - which benefit the well-off - cost $35 billion.

    It's easy to see where the government should be directing its efforts to reduce costs. Australia spends far less as a percentage of GDP on supporting the needy aged than virtually any other nation. But it gifts a whopping $35 billion every year to people who DO NOT NEED IT. And then the greedy recipients demand that while they keep their benefit, the poor forfeit their houses to repay a miserably inadequate pension. And they have the hide to suggest it's the poor who are dishonest and greedy! What SCUM!
    Anonymous
    7th Aug 2017
    7:45am
    Correct, ex PS. As I keep saying, the assets test change reinforced a view already widely held that it's simply not worth the effort to save for retirement and accrue assets unless you can join the very well off. And unless you are very well off, you get no help from the government. Those on less than $34000 a year get virtually no tax benefit for putting money into super, yet those on over $180,000 get a huge benefit. Of all those making concessional contributions to super (or having them made on their behalf) 37% goes to the top 5%. In 2014, that represented almost $13 billion - being paid in tax concessions to the 5% highest income earners in the nation.

    The aged pension cost $39 million in that year and superannuation tax concessions - which benefit the well-off - cost $35 billion.

    It's easy to see where the government should be directing its efforts to reduce costs. Australia spends far less as a percentage of GDP on supporting the needy aged than virtually any other nation. But it gifts a whopping $35 billion every year to people who DO NOT NEED IT. And then the greedy recipients demand that while they keep their benefit, the poor forfeit their houses to repay a miserably inadequate pension. And they have the hide to suggest it's the poor who are dishonest and greedy! What SCUM!
    FrankC
    3rd Aug 2017
    10:58am
    The RBA should never have kept dropping the interest rate, that only allowed greed to enter the equation enabling the prices to rocket. e.g. How can 12.7%increase in price in Melbourne be justified, only if the RE agent wants to go on a world cruise! We built a house in Tassie in 1979, and bought one in One mile, (nr. Ipswich) when we moved there in 1988, both at 14.25%
    Prices were sensible then.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    4:39pm
    Unfortunately you are correct.. the fingers in the dyke operation of the RBA has only made the cracks more prevalent and wider, and the looming disaster all that much greater.....

    Unfortunately the cavalry didn't arrive in time..... China hoarded iron ore etc, cornered the market and then began to control prices, and the governments of the day continued their fingers in the dykes by inviting in more rip-off merchants from Offshore to exploit OUR resources and remove all the profits from these shores (apart from the few shareholders here and the paper bag recipients).... no even 'Labor' Queensland is begging a raising its buttocks for Adani by offering a 'royalty holiday' - as if that benighted state can afford it...

    Where DO we get these people who go into politics?
    Rosret
    3rd Aug 2017
    9:36pm
    FrankC they had to drop the interest rates to compete with the foreign banks during the GFC who were offering almost 0% interest loans.
    Old Geezer
    5th Aug 2017
    7:10pm
    We are not competitive with low interest rates so how competitive would be with a dollar worth twice as much?
    Janus
    3rd Aug 2017
    10:59am
    Can't really retire in "moderate comfort" unless you have no debts, ie own your home.

    Don't trust this (or any) government to continue to provide a pension, despite the stated aims of the Act (read it!). If you don't have enough, keep working. Too bad for the young ones waiting for your job!

    Heaven help the manual workers, who can't retrain at 50+, can't keep working because the body gives way, nobody wants to employ them, don't have enough cash to retire. Might have to have a cull, send out free pills.
    Jannie
    3rd Aug 2017
    12:12pm
    I agree Janus once you have reached 50+ it is hard to get work. I am now 69 worked up until last year but would love to do some casual work, not bloody likely not enough jobs to go around. I also see that the suicide rate will increase due to lack of income and medical issues, the quality of life has decreased. Nobody cares about the elderly anymore. Our governments have let us down and keep blaming the baby boomers. The real truth is that funds are being spent elsewhere on refugees and the fast growing population of the unemployable from overseas. The horse has bolted and there is no stopping the downfall of our great country. We need strong leadership and alas there is nobody qualified to do this, other than Pauline who still gets laughed at, she is our only hope, but she has also gone a bit quiet lately. Maybe her life has been threatened, who knows, most are too scared to speak up.

    3rd Aug 2017
    11:27am
    To what extent do these figures show changed priorities and lack of discipline among the young? It was very hard for my friends and I to buy a home. We settled for a very low-cost 2-bedroom 30-year-old run-down cottage in dire need of extensive renovation, in a low cost rural area, and we worked weekends and holidays to renovate, teaching ourselves all the skills needed to paint, tile, fix electrical and plumbing faults, gyprock, render, lay concrete paths, etc. etc. etc. We had very little help. We grew vegetables and kept chickens to reduce food costs and made every stitch of clothing the family wore, plus soft furnishings and household accessories. We built furniture. We bought an old car from the wreckers and rebuilt it ourselves, again teaching ourselves all the necessary skills. Holidays and restaurant dinners were unknowns. Bought coffee and cake? Not likely! We pinched pennies at every turn - even making our own sauces and soaps and cleaning products and skin lotions.

    I know we live in a very different world, but I've just spent time with a couple aged in their early forties who are whining about not owning their home, but they eat out almost every night, buy hamburgers and thick shakes for lunch, have breakfast in a restaurant on weekends, holiday overseas every year, and buy coffee and cakes every time they fill the car with fuel. They have two new cars, despite working from home. They hire a gardener and cleaners. They buy expensive liquor, coca cola and other soft drinks by the carton, and huge quantities of sweets, candy bars, cashews, etc. They could own their home twice over if they just cut back on the extravagances.

    I am well aware that many are doing it very tough, and I'm not unsympathetic or judgmental. I just have to wonder if many young people just don't care enough about home ownership to make the sacrifices our generation made?
    john
    3rd Aug 2017
    12:00pm
    You know the hard work and hard life you put in ids all very noble and you should be congratulated, some people are not you, nor are you some people. But your friends do what they enjoy, its their life and they probably now days will never buy a home. BUT, in the future 20 30 years down the track they may be in strife. Proper safe superannuation is what younger people need now. If buying a home unless under extremes like your conditions were, young people will not ever be able to buy a home. The gov has let a terrible thing happen to the Aussie dream, they made that dream into an impossibility by allowing foreign buyers open slather. This housing thing could be solved with testiculerly powered politicains arriving on the scene. Ha ha.
    You on the other hand should have lived in an Australia where you didn't have to go to the back blocks in the bush and buy a run down cabin. You also did what the majority wouldn't do, and you must have had the need and the where with all in yourself to put up with that type of getting a home. But you did it worked ,but you are a tiny tiny minority, what if your life and work is in the city. You are up against rich Chinamen , not Aussie Chinamen but foreign ones. That is what has killed Melbourne and Sydney. So superannuation, like a saving for old age is the only way.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2017
    12:17pm
    John, I don't suggest people need go to the extremes we went to. We were VERY disadvantaged - two orphans with no education or skills training and no support or mentors anywhere. And we had health problems and a special needs child who cost us a fortune.

    Still, I agree with much of what you say. But I wonder to what extent people will be driven to continue to struggle to save for retirement or to buy a home when the government is constantly bashing those whose hard work yields a modest level of comfort, but not enough to be self-sufficient? Is superannuation going to be a popular savings vehicle given the continual changes and insecurity attached to it? Are people going to want to own a home when the nasty rich are demanding they surrender it to the government on death to repay the pensions they already paid for during their working life?

    There is too little incentive today for many. I recently acted as executor of a will that was disputed. What I learned through that process is that the ''lame ducks'' who don't work and save are favoured strongly by the courts under Family Provisions, and the hard-working savers are discriminated against heavily. It's the same with pensions. The spendthrifts and lazy get full pensions and generous benefits and concessions while those who struggle to come as close to long-term self-sufficiency as they can possibly are deprived.

    It seems to me that what we need is more incentive to strive - greater security and confidence that we will benefit from striving and our assets won't be taken away or lead to us being denied benefits we are morally entitled to. (I say ''we'' meaning society as a
    whole.) Maybe the young also need more education in basic life skills. I know the couple I referred to were stunned to think my partner and I could actually build a house. They can't do the simplest and most basic DIY tasks.

    I doubt I'll see it happen in my lifetime, but I think we need to get back to basics. I think we need to rekindle the survival instinct. Controlling immigration would also help, or course. And yes, save for old age - but that won't happen if the government keeps fiddling with the rules to punish those who do.
    RocketOz
    3rd Aug 2017
    11:45am
    Well maybe if they stopped pumping more and more people into the country you might find that house prices and land prices might stop rising and the HR budget might stop going up.
    Puglet
    3rd Aug 2017
    1:09pm
    Since Europeans arrived Oz has been built on immigration.i am an immigrant as are most of the people I know. I also worked full time for almost 50 years! Our population is barely replacing itself so we need immigrants and refugees. The vast majority work very hard and contribute enormous amounts to society. Don't you remember the camps they built from old WW2 stock and the men who built the Snowy scheme, the railways and the market gardens and built our fishing fleets and worked underground. The Jewish kids who came from Nazi Germany couldn't speak English, neither could the Greeks, Italians, Serbs, Croations, Latvians and later the Vietnamese. The children are now. Nobel prize winners, Governors of States, doctors and lawyers, miners, gardeners, bus drivers and very nice people.
    Rosret
    3rd Aug 2017
    9:44pm
    Puglet I don't think anyone would argue against total a total immigration ban. However we have to create infrastructure to match and make sure we aren't sending existing Australians on to the unemployment queue.
    It needs to be remembered that we didn't start from nothing 200 years ago - it was funded from Britain.
    New immigrants today don't come with that dowry and they rely on Australia's wealth - the question is, "Are we established enough to cope with the numbers who are migrating."
    Triss
    4th Aug 2017
    8:04am
    We need to stop for a breathing space. We have a great debt and for a while we need to concentrate on our own needs.
    There is no shame in saying we haven't enough money to keep shelling out for foreign aid or any more refugees, only when we sort out our own finances will we be able to help other countries again.
    Anonymous
    6th Aug 2017
    8:49am
    lower immigration numbers would help our already-overpopulated country.

    and phasing out negative gearing and restoring capital gains tax would restore billions of dollars to the budget.

    the howard government halved capital gains tax resulting in many more housing speculators entering the market. this, combined with banks easy lending and low interest rates have caused today's vastly over-priced houses, creating a growing class of homeless, debt-ridden people. thanks howard and costello, you really helped us....not!
    john
    3rd Aug 2017
    11:49am
    Owning your home in retirement is actually almost a total necessity . If not you are lost in a mortgage trap. Some people are I guess.
    Oldman Roo
    3rd Aug 2017
    12:05pm
    I can only start with saying : surprise , surprise . What else can we expect from Governments that have chosen the road to disaster for the low income earners and generally less fortunate in life .
    Just to name a few will explain the high house prices : negative gearing , low interest rates - both a great attraction for the wealthy , including Politicians , to purchase investment properties and driving up house prices . By adding to this list the foreign property sharks ,the recipe for disaster is tailor made .
    As usual the wealthy will prosper and the small man will face further welfare cuts and the LNP will again blame all sorts of failures out of their control ? or a consequence of the Labor years deficit . But we can afford $ 50 Billion for Submarines that will be outdated by the time they are made .
    There is also a strong possibility the Chinese will just about own Australia by the time the Submarines are made and would certainly not let another aggressor invade us because they have too much to lose .
    GeorgeM
    3rd Aug 2017
    8:20pm
    Agree, Oldman Roo, the Politicians have created this mess. This article is a bit ridiculous. A sensational headline - with the content linking the "threat" coming from reduced homeownership to pensions to make the pensioners worry about it. How about the morons who created the problem solve it themselves!

    The major issue is excessive prices.The simple solutions would be to a) remove negative gearing after the 1st property and, b) ban foreign investors especially the Chinese from owning property here.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2017
    8:56am
    The morons who created the problem aren't capable of solving it, George. The only answer these greedy morons can ever come up with is ''rob the baby boomers''. We are fair game. Those of us who worked hard and saved and bought homes are regarded with wild jealousy and the cry goes up daily ''take it off them. It's not fair they should get to keep what they earned''. The precedent has been set. Our retirement kitty was raided and the government got away with it. Why shouldn't they raid our bank accounts and take our homes as well? It's surely the easiest way out of the mess they've created.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2017
    8:03am
    Rainey welfare is for those who have no other way of supporting themselves so why allow those who have assets to support themselves to not pay for any OAP they receive from thier estate? Why should they be allowed to get welfare and then their heirs get a lottery win at the expese of the taxpayer? If that isn't double dipping I don't know what is.

    It is simply unfair that fully self funded retirees have to pay for their own retirement so that thier heirs get a smaller lottery win than what the heirs of those who cheat the welfare system do.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2017
    11:12am
    Poor folk's welfare is for those who have no other way of supporting themselves, Bonny. Rich folks' welfare, which costs the nation way more, is for the greedy. And that's most rich people, sadly. So why shouldn't rich people pay back their welfare? Why should Rupert Murdoch be able to shift his tax bill to the struggling workers? Why should the guy on $250,000 a year be able to dodge taxes using trusts and negative gearing and make people supporting families on $80,000 a year pay more to compensate? Why should the rich guy who dodged a million in taxes pass that million on to his heirs while the pensioner who slogged for decades on low wages to make the millionaire rich has to hand everything over to the government to cover the deficit the rich created by not paying their way?

    Get off your soap box and start showing some human decency for a change. We paid for the OAP. We contributed to our retirement just as folk today contribute to superannuation. Unfortunately it was all stolen. That doesn't mean we are not morally entitled to it. And it certainly doesn't mean our heirs owe a debt to the greedy, selfish rich whose greed has caused the nation's problems.

    I agree that SOME fully self-funded retirees - the poorer ones - are dealt with unfairly. Most got massive tax concessions all their lives and they (morally) owe the taxpayer a HUGE DEBT that they will NEVER repay. So stuff their greedy heirs. It's for sure nobody on welfare will be leaving the millions the greedy rich are able to bequeath after rorting the system for a lifetime. But whatever anyone on welfare leaves, they earned it a dozen times over.
    Priscilla
    3rd Aug 2017
    12:12pm
    It is imperative to own your own home when retired. I was employed full-time to age 77 ensuring I was debt free on retirement. Renting is just paying for someone else's property and certainly not improving your lifestyle. The younger generation need to stop using credit cards and cards in general. All they are doing is living beyond their means and making it impossible to save for a home of their home. Saving for a home is tough and needs discipline where money is concerned.

    I am 80 now and still have a granddaughter living with me. She is 25 and awaiting approval on finance to purchase her own home. There is light at the end of the tunnel if people are willing to sacrifice for it.

    Get rid of credit cards and spending money that is not yours, then you can save for a home!
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2017
    12:32pm
    Good for your granddaughter, Priscilla. And for you letting her live with you. I'm sure she's grateful, but clearly she's also deserving.

    Yes, it is possible to buy a home today if you are willing to sacrifice. After all, interest rates are at a record low and young folk and females earn far more (relative to living costs) than they did in our day. Appliances, furniture, cars, clothing, household goods, etc. are all way cheaper today relative to incomes. But visit the food courts and restaurants and see how the young spend their money! Two modern cars are the norm and lavish holidays are a necessity! Then there's the expectation of a new 4+ bed/2+ bath/2+ garage brick and tile, fully furnished with landscaped yard - and often a pool as well. How many will start with a modest older-style home and minimal furnishings?

    I suspect home ownership rates could be just as high today as they ever were if the young were motivated to make the sacrifices our generation made to buy a home. I know it's tough in the cities where the prices have gone insane, but the inner city was always the province of the wealthy. There are bargains to be had, and housing is quite cheap in many rural areas. Of course some are stuck in high priced locations because of their work, but that was always true also. And why can't they buy an investment house in an outer suburb or rural area. At least they'd have security in retirement that way! The rent should pay off the mortgage, and in 20 or so years they'll own the home and have an extra income stream, and on retirement a home to live in or to sell to finance purchase of a more suitable retirement residence.
    Hasbeen
    3rd Aug 2017
    3:25pm
    Me too Priscilla, & it really isn't that hard if they want that house more than clubbing, gambling & other entertainment.

    My daughter, 26 moved into her new house at Christmas. She has been married only 2 years, but both of them had some savings then, & did not do the millionaire honeymoon so many do.

    They lived rent free in my granny flat while the house was being built, but did a huge amount of maintenance on it for me. Win win for both of us.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    5:41pm
    .. if they want that house more than clubbing, gambling & other entertainment.... and would prefer to be rewarded for their years of dedication and loyalty and not be cursed with divorce, piss-poor management and zero real 'industrial relations' and fair play but simple arrogance and stupidity instead, and Titanic-esque government policy thrusts that destroy their opportunity to even consider a recovery...

    Dear Hasbeen - in your comment you see the seeds of why the Khmer Rouge drove all the 'fat cats' out of the cities and into the countryside to grow rice instead... to teach them humility and respect for the trials and tribulations of others, and to not seek to self aggrandise by even suggesting you are somehow of a better stamp than someone who has endured hell.

    Methinks there is more than one on here who could do with a stint in the rice paddies...
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2017
    6:13pm
    dear old trebor or should I say labor micky no one stopping you of
    applying!
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    8:53pm
    heemie - there's a special spot reserved for you in the rice paddies... watch out for the snakes... now go do your homework... I live at least 200 miles from Mick and have never met him, so grow up...

    You could learn a little respect for your elders and betters.... maybe the rice paddies will help you there....
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2017
    8:08am
    I know of 4 young blokes that all own their own houses. They have all moved into one of the houses and have rented the other 3 out. They are all earning big money and the rent they receive is paying the mortgage on all 4 properties. They will own them all in under 5 years. If they each lived iin their I wn house it would take 4 or 5 times longer to pay off the mortgages. This is how our young folk should be buying houses.

    3rd Aug 2017
    12:15pm
    Here we go again! This article is so full of unsupported suppositions that it is meaningless. Housing purchase has always been difficult for some groups yet persistence and a change of lifestyle in a lot of cases led to owning one's home. There will always be people who will be renters when retirement age comes around through low paying jobs, unemployment, divorce, illness or many other reasons.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2017
    12:36pm
    Agree, Old Man. But I honestly suspect a major reason for the decline in home ownership is simply different spending priorities among the young. They don't have the motivation our generation had to struggle to get a home and pay it off. There were always folk who either couldn't or wouldn't, but I think maybe the number who don't choose to do the hard yards has increased at least as dramatically as the prices that challenge them.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2017
    1:05pm
    Yes Rainey, maybe we should have been called the "ant" generation and today's young generation called the "grasshopper" generation. They seem to live for the moment whereas we looked to the future.
    MICK
    3rd Aug 2017
    4:07pm
    As Malcolm (Fraser not Turnbull) once said: "life wasn't meant to be easy". I sort of have to laugh at the thought of Turnbull even thinking such an obscenity. Chuckle.....
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    8:55pm
    Well - we looked to the future until that future was steadily eroded away in many ways......

    Time to take back the asylum.... send a runner to headquarters.. the whorehouse is ours, and the beer hall, and we taken the bridge intact, but we won't rest.. the asylum is next....

    3rd Aug 2017
    12:47pm
    Well, if it's going to break the pension system, we'd better get rid of the LNP quickly and somehow - though I'm sure I don't know how! - get some politicians in parliament who are capable of original thought and genuinely want to solve the problems, rather than feathering their own and their rich mates' nests.

    The problems won't be solved by the stupid thought bubbles or selfishly motivated illogical policies that we've come to expect from career politicians who have no idea how the real world works. We need innovators. We need problem solvers. We need people who've faced huge challenges and found ways around them.

    What about education programs to teach young folk the survival skills and money management that came naturally to older generations, and to get them thinking about how their careless spending today might result in poverty in old age? Tackle immigration and foreign ownership. Tackle outrageous development costs and ridiculous building standards that drive costs up. Work on innovative ways to build affordable housing. Honestly, it boggles the mind that a government can just let the nation go to hell in a basket but scream blue murder when the opposition wants to make rich people pay their taxes! But that's what you get when you pay absurdly high wages and offer obscene benefits. The current environment will never attract innovators and original thinkers and people with the national interest at heart.
    Retired Knowall
    3rd Aug 2017
    4:44pm
    "What about education programs to teach young folk the survival skills and money management that came naturally to older generations, and to get them thinking about how their careless spending today might result in poverty in old age?"
    How do you explain the number of Oldies on Welfare if they had money management skills. In my humble opinion the mess we are in is because of the lack money management skills of the Baby Boomers, who now complain that the pension is not enough to live on.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    5:46pm
    RK - those people with ONLY OAP did have management skills - they functioned within a much lower age and perks regime, often working long hours at hard, dirty and dangerous jobs, and part of their earned income was levied in tax to fund retirement pensions and other social security.

    I think you are confusing the issues here.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2017
    1:11am
    The only baby boomers I ever came across with poor money management skills were the well heeled. What most of the oldies now on welfare lacked was opportunity, not management competence. When you were forced to leave school at 15 and work in low-paid jobs, with no way of accessing adult education or skills training, and you paid a tax levy to fund retirement believing sincerely that you were providing properly for your old age in accordance with society's expectations, you had little capacity to accrue hundreds of thousands of dollars to supplement the retirement income the government pledged.

    That said, some baby boomers spent too freely. But that doesn't mean survival skills and money management didn't come naturally. It just means the environment was such that it seemed safe for them to live the good life. Few of us anticipated the current economic and political climate. Australia was always the ''lucky country'' and the ''land of the fair go''. I don't think most baby boomers foresaw a time when neoliberalism and ''trickle down economics'' would destroy that.
    LiveItUp
    4th Aug 2017
    7:40am
    I agree Retired Knowall. I too can't understand why so many baby boomers are on welfare OAP if they had good money management skills. They had great opportunities to make lots of money so where has it all gone? I think the younger generation have a much better saving ethos and money management skills than the older generation ever had. If for no other reason than they need to have.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2017
    7:57am
    Bonny, you live in la la land! SOME had great opportunities. Hundreds of thousands didn't even get to finish high school, had no access to skills training, and struggled for a lifetime on miserable wages, paying 18%+++ interest if they had to borrow money, and paying two to three times today's prices (relative to wages) for cars, furniture, appliances, clothing, household goods, etc.

    Younger people need good money management skills? Yeah, sure! That's why they buy four cups of coffee a day, hang out in food courts and restaurants at lunch and dinner time and for Saturday and Sunday breakfast, insist on having two late model cars, hire lawn mowing services and pet grooming services, take lavish holidays (often overseas), frequent clubs in the evenings gambling and drinking... Goodness, the waste I see by the young boggles my mind! I could show them how to raise a house deposit in a year just by cutting out all the ridiculous extravagances they indulge in.

    How many mobile pet grooming services did you see three decades ago? How many lawn mowing services. We didn't have the plethora of coffee shops, fast food outlets, restaurants, etc. because demand was minimal. People stayed home and cooked meals and took packed lunches to school and work.

    But for the most part, the young CAN have it all. There are strugglers, I'm sure, but the majority enjoy two generous wages and a ton of government benefits that our generation could never dream of accessing. AND they have employer-funded superannuation - something few of my generation ever benefited from. No, we paid into a tax fund to provide for old age, and the money we contributed was all STOLEN. That wasn't our bad management. That was a corrupt and dishonest government.

    Gen X and Y don't know what hardship is. If they can't have the new brick and tile with 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 3 living rooms, double garage, and landscaped gardens, fully furnished and with every mod con, they think they are hard up!
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2017
    8:07am
    Here's just one case in point, Bonny. Tradesman on award electrician wages, widowed with 4 very young children when his wife died of cancer. Paid a host of medical and funeral costs. Now supporting 4 kids on a single income. Owns a lavish $1.1 m house outright. Owns TWO new SUVs (why two? He can only drive one at a time!). Sends two eldest kids to an expensive private school. Pays for very high cost sporting activities for all 4 kids. Sent eldest to Japan last year to play sport and to China this year. Buys most meals because he's too tired to cook after work (fair enough in this case!). Takes family to up-market restaurant twice weekly. Engages in four wheel driving (costly hobby) on weekends. Pays cleaning service, live in au pair and gardener (again fair enough in his case, but still....) Takes kids on expensive holidays every year for 4 weeks. Bought all four junior motorbikes for Christmas and installed a swimming pool. Gives the kids so much pocket money that when one lost $50 he declared ''Oh well, it was only 50 bucks. I've still got 300 in my wallet plus a couple of bank accounts with lots in them.''

    I wonder how this poor Gen X tradie does all that in an environment in which the young ''need'' to be good money managers? Given that most earn TWO wages and four kids is not common, I suspect a lot of Gen X and Y are way better off than this fellow, and he's certainly cruising!

    For sure there are some doing it tough, but not nearly as tough as the strugglers of my generation did it.
    Retired Knowall
    4th Aug 2017
    7:01pm
    Rainey, the problem you have is you Don'T Know What You Don't Know.
    From your many posts, it's apparent that it's a lot. Unfortunately Ignorance is not bliss, in your case its downright embarrassing.
    You either fill this site with the Poor Me stories or post continuous dribble, if it wasn't so pathetic it would be humorous.
    Please don't stop as it serves as a warning to others what may happen to them if they don't educate themselves.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2017
    11:16am
    RK, I'm sure I don't know what you are on about. What LIFE FACTS are you disputing?
    GeorgeM
    5th Aug 2017
    3:17pm
    Most of what you say, Rainey, is spot on, so I can't understand what Retired Knowall (or is it Mr/Ms Ignorant) is saying. Maybe he doesn't like your level of detail - which I can understand is often provided to back up your statements especially to counteract certain extreme types. So, good on you.
    Old Geezer
    5th Aug 2017
    6:26pm
    I understand perfectly what you are on about Retired Knowall. I agree lack of knowledge can be embarrassing for the person concerned by is humorous to those who are not so ignorant. I feel like playing my violin at times.
    Anonymous
    7th Aug 2017
    7:50am
    OG, you said precisely NOTHING. Like RK, you are ranting like an idiot making no sense at all. I quote real life examples and all you can do is waffle! You should be severely embarrassed, displaying your ignorance as you do.

    3rd Aug 2017
    1:01pm
    HIlda should stop scaremongering

    All will be well
    Anyway the Australian leftist dream is for everyone to be on welfare
    Just tax the rich more
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2017
    1:10pm
    That's how bad the welfare mentality is in Australia today. If you aint on welfare you are outnumbered by a mile it seems.
    Tom Tank
    3rd Aug 2017
    1:46pm
    Old Geezer you can be relied on for ridiculous statements which are not borne out by the facts but which the wealthy rely on to justify their place in our society.
    Raphael is also playing a supporting role using the old "leftist" terminology which is quite ludicrous.
    The rich simply do not NOT pay their fair share of tax courtesy of the minimisation avenues set up for them by the likes of Howard and Costello.
    Tax minimisation can be considered another form of welfare.
    I await the response from the well heeled contributors to this topic.
    Rosret
    3rd Aug 2017
    1:53pm
    Hilda is not scaremongering she is future projecting and that's just what the Government is rationalising at the moment as well.
    It is a change to asset ownership and security. The property market boom will either be significantly inflationary making all self funded superannuation savings worthless or it will mean an entire homeless generation will be relying on government funding in retirement.
    It isn't that hard to fix - control the real estate market, increase supply and ease travel congestion and parking to central locations. Relocate government departments to satellite towns and decentralise cities.
    Finally, evaluate the immigration numbers p.a.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2017
    3:58pm
    Tom - The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money

    Tax minimization is welfare? ROFL

    The 10% of pay more than half the tax bill

    Yes there are crooks who cheat the system , and these are both the rich and the middle class . So pull your head in Tom
    MICK
    3rd Aug 2017
    4:29pm
    And the problem with capitalism is that the rich own everything and have nearly all the money and wonder why their businesses are failing. Next step is more tax cuts FOR THEM. Sound familiar?

    Your post misses the logic and understanding that we will always have rich and poor, but steamrolling most of the population is as bad as unbridled handouts.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    6:19pm
    Tax the over-rich more as should properly occur - since they already have plenty of deductions before even getting to declared income, and since the once deep well of the working masses at the bottom is rapidly drying up - so as to afford the infrastructure needed for this nation to start getting back on its feet.

    Install a 50% impost on any large amounts moved offshore from 6.12pm tonight - and that will control the flood of rats seeking to leave the ship' gold bunkers empty.... lock the gates and allow nothing out or in without close scrutiny..... any cash seen flying the scene will be shot down....

    (hmm.. sounds like a potential book there.... 9/11 Economy Australia or something....World Trade has collapsed etc.. rammed by global economy terrorists .... hmmm.. just hmmmmm.... I always have great ideas for books and I write some.... but many ideas never make it past a passage or two... too busy saving the world from itself)
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2017
    1:05pm
    Oh dear sounds like I am disadvantaged after all as I don't own my own home! If I was young would I buy a house to live in? NO.
    MICK
    3rd Aug 2017
    4:08pm
    BS!!!
    You do own your own home...and probably a lot more than that as well.
    Oldman Roo
    3rd Aug 2017
    5:21pm
    Mick , perhaps you should give O, G. the benefit of the doubt that he does not own his on home like a lot of people on the loony fringe .
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    5:51pm
    Give OG his due - it's nearly meds time at the Dream Factory.... wait a few minutes for sense to kick in...

    He doesn't "own" anything - he merely shuffles it all off into the twilight zone of tax avoidance and lives off the profits and uses the facilities that he doesn't own. That's his spiel, as well as his insider contacts within Centrelink who tell him about all these evil nasty 'welfare' types out there...

    Trust me - he'll be caught up with in the fullness of time... he's either the ultimate cheating rat or he's a computer.... and no wonder he comes out with the nonsense he does whenever his little kingdom is under threat of change....

    Goodbye Paradise.....
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2017
    7:04pm
    Well bring about change and I'll just embrace it! I love change as it brings more opportunities. I'll admit I have been looking at property so that I'll know what is a bargain after the bubble bursts. Looking to buy for at least 30% less than current prices.
    MICK
    3rd Aug 2017
    8:29pm
    Thanks for the reality check Oldman Roo. I've put the violin away.
    For the record OG has some worthwhile comments in between the right wing nonsense.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    8:57pm
    Yes - his multi-faceted personality does do that....
    Beeman
    3rd Aug 2017
    4:34pm
    This continuing comparison of prices over a long period is pointless. In the 1980's I was the manager and part owner of a manufacturing business on a salary equalling $325 per week.
    And we paid off a new house well inside the planned mortgage time. Today that job possibly pays around $1,500 per week. We have all had to plan and save but, with today's costs,and yesterday's savings, some find it difficult especially those of us who never had superannuation because of age.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2017
    1:19am
    I agree Beeman. We constantly hear how housing costs have risen relative to income, but never how the OVERALL affordability has altered when interest rates and the costs of other necessities are factored in and expectations of house size and quality are considered. I might not have had to borrow as much to buy a house, but it wasn't the quality or size of the average house today and I did have to take a large personal loan to buy the very basic essentials of furnishings. Today, I could buy those furnishings with a month's wages! There's a lot more to consider than just how many years one has to work to buy the average house.
    LiveItUp
    4th Aug 2017
    7:47am
    Rainey I have never taken out a loan for anything that didn't make me money. So if I couldn't afford new curtains etc I used sheets or made some temporary ones out of hesion until zi coukd afford better ones. Using debt for consumption is a recipe for hardship. My kids and grandkids don't do that either even though some of their peers do.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2017
    8:50am
    Lucky you, Bonny! How good it must be to be so FORTUNATE and PRIVILEGED that you never needed to take a loan.

    I didn't buy curtains on borrowed money either. I never bought any non-essential with debt funds. But I somehow couldn't see how to do without a cot, fridge, and bed when I had two toddlers to care for. A high chair and pram was also essential. Not my fault my partner had a car accident just days before we married and was lumbered with a massive debt after the insurers defrauded us. (It was common back then. In fact, we were responsible for getting laws changed to stop insurers conspiring to defraud soldiers serving abroad.) Nor was it my fault I had a serious illness just before marrying that left me heavily in debt for medical expenses over and above what my insurer paid. We started marriage in heavy debt through no fault of our own, and we struggled to get through it. Then the ATO erred on an assessment and we fought for 2 years to get a refund that should have cleared all our personal debts. No interest or compensation back then. You just wore it - along with the costs of having an accountant lodge an appeal.

    Life was easy for some, it seems, and now they gloat and chest beat and wrongly assume everyone else had the same opportunities. You have no idea, princess!
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2017
    1:58pm
    Seems like you were very foolish to have kids to me when you couldn't even look after yourselves. We didn't have kids until we could afford them and it is that hard to plan when one has kids.

    Also we didn't bother about having furniture for our kids other than a cardboard box to sleep in and a backpack to carry them in until they could walk. Once they could walk they used adult furniture.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2017
    10:52am
    Put a sock in it, OG. You really are vile and disgusting.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    4:35pm
    Wait until the Twerp Brigade have their way and you will be forced to run down your accumulated assets and downsize your home before even getting a pension. Once that is cemented in place - then it will be the turn of the SFRs, who will be forced to spend down all their accumulated assets etc before accessing their nest egg....

    Of course - the retirement packages of politicians, public servants and fat cats will not be included...

    And some of you people think I'm joking.... put your ear to the ground with these twerps running the show at this time....

    I say a total change of government - anyone with me?
    Oldman Roo
    3rd Aug 2017
    5:30pm
    Trebor . I am with you all the way on this one - the only problem is the people who are governing us want to keep their gravy train going and will never agree to a total change of government . So where to from here ?
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    5:57pm
    When these clowns start spouting the nonsense that the 'baby boomers' ripped it all out and ripped off 'their' entitlements in life, leaving them with nothing but endless future debt... when the reality is that most Baby Boomers (the real thing) worked damned hard and long at creating the very world in which these twerps even get a say, let alone the use of all the facilities they enjoy - you would laugh if it weren't for the fact that these clowns think this is real... and they get to vote as well.

    Then when you consider that this Age War is but one of the little internecine feuds that 'governments' here have installed with their policies, for their own ends first and foremost and not those of the populace, you can begin to see the outline of a long-term policy thrust of rendering this population under despotism.*

    If you consider that to be extreme - look at the near-despotism under which the worker, the ordinary person, and so forth, are currently labouring while the insiders romp to the bank ...

    That is the tip of the iceberg...

    * hint:- first step - reduce the power of men in society......
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2017
    6:40pm
    Do you really think that a change of government would do anything different?
    GeorgeM
    3rd Aug 2017
    8:23pm
    Agree, TREBOR, total change of Govt - meaning get rid of LNP, Labor and Greens, or say vote all sitting members last in references. Yes, such a change will shake up the morons to actually think about what people want. Maybe a Trump-like force will emerge to drain the swamp of these self-serving leeches!
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    9:01pm
    Depends on how it's done and whether or not they hold to their promises, core and non-core... and accept that there will be a hell of a lot of blood, sweat and tears before the damage of the past forty years is undone.

    Some love to praise to high heaven the vultures such as Fat Joe and The Corrmanator when they 'make the hard decisions' that rob people with not too much of dignity, retirement and even life..... but the same people weep rivers when the same demands are placed on those with more than enough to pay their way, and decry any genuine move to actually generate those 'hard decisions' to cover everyone, and not just those who can't fight back and who can't afford to pay for a voice.
    Rae
    4th Aug 2017
    8:12am
    Yes TREBOR. I live in NSW and in three years these carpetbaggers have managed to sell off all the wealth accumulated since Federation. I'm concerned about actually staying here as I can't see how they will be able to run the State in the future with all the dividends from those assets gone.

    What has been surprising is the absolute silence from any group or any demonstrations about this so called "privatisation" of taxpayer assets.

    The secrecy surrounding these sales and who was paid how much is also concerning. Including the sacking of legitimately elected Councils and appointment of Administrators to oversee sales of local parks, schools, halls .

    There is a book in itself if anyone is game enough to go after the facts.
    Triss
    4th Aug 2017
    11:21am
    I,m with you, Trebor, with a couple of extra qualifications. No millionaires, multimillionaires because, as we've seen, being in government is their own personal piggy bank. Also being in charge of finances and legislation is a means to enlarge their personal assets...negative gearing, trust funds, salary rises, etc, paid for with age pension money that they,ll keep by putting the pension age up to 70.
    TREBOR
    5th Aug 2017
    1:14am
    .. and outstanding qualifications they are, too, Triss. Thank you for extending my thinking at least two steps, especially that last about the theft of the pension fund.

    The day I don't learn something from someone else, you'll be attending my funeral...
    Seabird
    3rd Aug 2017
    4:43pm
    Seems to me it would have been a much better solution to allow a superannuation fund to be listed as on off-set account to the home mortgage account. That way you would get the benefit of lower interest payments and your super would still be intact for retirement. While many people just put their hands out and say gimmee, gimmee, gimmee instead of living within their means, and voting for the party that promises to give, give give - nothing will change. America has just changed their immigration laws to only accept people who will not be a drag on the welfare system. They have to be educated and self-supporting. Compared to Australia where there are many people who think they can just produce children and stay home while receiving a Government payment, that may be a good option.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2017
    5:22pm
    There is a way with the use of a trust where your super can be used to buy your own house. However I suggest you employ an expert so you get it right so your super still complies.

    I agree way too much easy welfare available in Australia today.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2017
    5:43pm
    To be able to "offset" means that the super is in effect paying the interest on your mortgage account.
    This has the effect to leave less in super to compound and grow.

    Also means that we are giving a tax concession for mortgage borrowing.

    I would prefer it if government simply amends tax law to allow interest on principal residence to be an allowable tax deduction like in the US

    Helps people buy a house , pay off the mortgage, get tax free capital gain, and move house again
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    6:04pm
    Super is for retirement - housing should be affordable for all who are prepared to function responsibly within a society that provides them with adequate permanent employment...*

    Next question?

    *(pretty simple, eh? - under the Trebor Plan ONLY the losers would fail to own a home, though you'd have to install some sort of off-set for disability)... .. (or perhaps we could all get one of Joe's 'good jobs'... what a far king idiot! If everyone held those jobs, there'd be no jobs because such jobs are limited, and if you flood the market and have people refusing the pissy jobs, society collapses)..

    What DID we do to deserve our body politic? Must've looked at a cross-eyed Chinaman.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2017
    6:23pm
    Housing is affordable Trebor, I dont know what you're whinging about.

    Average family earns $160k a year
    An average house costs 3.5 times household annual income

    Nothing has changed much in 50 years except peoples expectations
    Rae
    3rd Aug 2017
    6:37pm
    Not tax free capital gains Raphael. No need for that. Depreciation works well.

    The reason many are on OAP is this constant trading up and trading up and all the savings ending up in a big house and a lot of expensive toys deemed assets.

    People were doing this to "get ahead" because it was encouraged by banks, government policy and real estate agents.

    Rather than save to buy income producing assets that are nowhere near as sexy or as obviously impressive but which do allow freedom to rent just wherever you like and can negotiate a deal. Plenty of those too in real nice locations.

    The big ask is handling risk and many just can't.

    OG knows exactly what this means.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2017
    7:34pm
    I only ever owned one house that I lived in. It actually makes more financial sense not to own the house you live.

    Yes Rae I know all about non sexy investments. People used to laugh at me when they found out I had money invested in a funeral business. I also have quite a liking for black gold too.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    9:04pm
    Your figures are skewed, Rafe... those who actually earn that mythical $160k a year or well above the median.... most families earn well below that figure....
    Rosret
    3rd Aug 2017
    9:58pm
    A house for $480K? Not in Sydney Raphael..... and it was 3 years salary on one income 40 years ago not two.
    If you remain single are you supposed to live a life of poverty?
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2017
    1:49am
    When were houses in the inner cities ever affordable for ordinary Australians, Rosret? Those areas were always the province of the well-heeled. Population growth has expanded the boundaries of the ''inner city'' and many houses that were once considered to be in outer suburbs inflated in value because of that, but the fact remains that inner city housing was NEVER affordable for the average Australian. And you can buy very good houses in many areas for $300K.

    I agree to a point with the singles vs. couples argument, but similarly junior wages for our generation were pathetic, and educational opportunities nowhere near as good. The young single today either enjoys a very much higher wage during early working years, or studies and gets a much better paid job than many of us could ever hope for. And females today get far better wages. Women's wages used to be very low indeed, and girls earned virtually nothing until they reached the age of 21.

    It's a different world today and for some that means greater challenges. For others, it means life's a hell of a lot easier than it was for their parents and grandparents. Ultimately, it's still what you make it. Most of my peers claimed what we achieved was ''impossible'', despite them having a far better start in life than we did. And I will never be convinced that expectations aren't a major part of the problem today. Those of my peers who grew up in comfortable homes couldn't cope with the struggle and sacrifice we had to make to get where we are. Today's young just don't understand what it is to struggle and sacrifice. They've had it too easy, and they expect the easy life to continue for ever.

    And sadly, they are getting bad advice. A teacher married to a soldier wanted to buy an older style, low cost home they could own in a short period. She had to fight with bankers and real estate agents who insisted she could afford bigger and better! Instead of encouraging a sensible financial plan that provided adequate accommodation, they tried to push her to max out her borrowing capacity and ''have it all now''. No wonder our young are struggling with that attitude prevailing. As evidenced here, plenty of younger Australians are buying homes. All of my kids did. In fact, they are buying investment properties as well as their own very nice homes. And they are laughing because interest rates are so low, but they are paying way more off loans than they have to so they are covered when rates rise.

    Frankly, I feel far more sympathy for retirees who have suddenly had the rug pulled from under them, or who are battling on a grossly inadequate pension income than I do for young folk who have to make some sacrifices to achieve home ownership. But maybe that's because I did it really, really tough, and I see most young folk wasting half their income living the high life, and then whining that they can't have it both ways.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2017
    2:49pm
    Rainey who are these retires that had the rug suddenly pulled out from under them and now are battling on inadequate incomes? A few people for whom the OAP was nice to have but didn't need it had it thankfully cut back or taken away. However there are none of those people you talk about in our society.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2017
    10:50am
    Says the great god, Old GREEDY, who has no interest in anything beyond himself but presumes to judge everyone from a perspective of total ignorance and arrogance. You have no idea, OG. You are a pumped up ignorant egomaniac who knows nothing about the real world, and doesn't care as long as it keeps feeding your fat gold chest. The sooner people like you are eradicated from this earth, the better. It's your kind who have destroyed what used to be ''the lucky country''. Put a sock in it, you sicko! You don't know my friends or associates or those I help, and you have no idea of their circumstances. But just like ScoMo, you PRETEND the world is how you want it to be, because changing anything would be to YOUR disadvantage, and nobody else matters.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2017
    10:50am
    Says the great god, Old GREEDY, who has no interest in anything beyond himself but presumes to judge everyone from a perspective of total ignorance and arrogance. You have no idea, OG. You are a pumped up ignorant egomaniac who knows nothing about the real world, and doesn't care as long as it keeps feeding your fat gold chest. The sooner people like you are eradicated from this earth, the better. It's your kind who have destroyed what used to be ''the lucky country''. Put a sock in it, you sicko! You don't know my friends or associates or those I help, and you have no idea of their circumstances. But just like ScoMo, you PRETEND the world is how you want it to be, because changing anything would be to YOUR disadvantage, and nobody else matters.
    Old Geezer
    5th Aug 2017
    6:39pm
    OK I get it those retirees that had the rug suddenly pulled out from under them and now are battling on inadequate incomes don't actually exist. Very interesting.
    Anonymous
    7th Aug 2017
    7:56am
    They exist, OG. It's just that selfish arrogant a... holes would rather wear blinkers and pretend than have to face unpleasant realities.
    Watto
    3rd Aug 2017
    6:11pm
    OG as my grandmother used to say if your are going to tell lies you have to have a very good memory. And Mick aren't you on record as having 2 or 3 investment properties and aren't you always swanning around the world on holidays ? Sounds like you are a rusted on Liberal
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2017
    6:19pm
    No - like all good labor pollies, Mick is a champagne socialist.

    Steal from the suckers who vote them in
    Rae
    3rd Aug 2017
    6:48pm
    What is wrong with that Watto? surely it's allowable to buy investment property, shares, bonds, gold, bitcoins or any other income earner out there. In fact it's damn sensible if you can do it.

    If you do it well you can afford to swan around the world on holidays any time you like. The markets are always open somewhere.

    OG has always claimed not to own direct property and if I recollect as well as regular investments also trades the markets.

    So do I when they are worth it. Yes OG the VIX is a problem.

    Plenty of investors also manage unit blocks, parks, resorts etc which they own and save them having to own or rent.

    I have children on contract and have worked on contract where a residence is included in the package.

    Not everyone is a PAYG owning a home and a super fund.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2017
    6:54pm
    No I don't currently have any property investments as I am waiting to pick up some bargains when the bubble bursts.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2017
    7:38pm
    Rae I would never work for wages and have even written my own labour contracts instead. Trading money for time is a mugs game as you can only charge for so many hours in a given period.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2017
    1:32am
    Yes, OG, and EVERYONE should do exactly as you do, because EVERYONE is as privileged and blessed with opportunity as you. We have all studied accounting at university. We were all children of small business operators with two parents earning a living income. We can all write our own employment contracts.

    Get over yourself, you egomaniac! It's a big world, and diversity is essential to keep it turning. PAYG workers are part of our society, and our social and economic system dictates that vast numbers will have to trade time for money. They should be thanked and applauded for doing so, not denigrated and punished. Their trade enables others to prosper. A little gratitude wouldn't go astray - but clearly you are too egomaniacal and narcissistic to know what that word means.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2017
    1:48pm
    It aint that hard Rainey to learn the rules and play the game. Rules change game is played a little differently. Laziness is what stop people succeeding nothing more. If people put as much into other parts of their life like they do with footy then they wold be much better off. By the way I detest football myself as it is such a stupid game where players willingly put themselves at risk of being hurt.
    TREBOR
    5th Aug 2017
    1:17am
    If everyone played the same game by the same rules - there's be no game, for the simple reason that no advantage would be available within it..... the market would drown through being flooded.

    One day you - and countless others - will realise that. The reality of life is that not everyone can do the same for a crust of bread - if they did - the bread would not be baked at all... so get a grip on a national economy for a change and not just some shallow money trench that can be clawed out by a few before the door closes.
    Old Geezer
    5th Aug 2017
    6:36pm
    Trebor if you don't paly the game by the rules you will lose not that there will be no game. Of course not everyone does the same for a crust of bread but everyone would be a lot better off if they learnt the rules and so would our economy.
    Anonymous
    7th Aug 2017
    7:54am
    OG, the rules are written by the rich for the rich. Example: I know the rule that the top 5% of income earners get massive tax-payer funded handouts to help them load up their super fund, and those earning less than $34000 a year get nothing. But the guy on less than $34,000 a year CAN'T become a high income earner just by knowing that high income earners are immorally subsidized to be rich in retirement and low income earners are screwed over. It's NOT about knowing the rules. It's about PRIVILEGE. And to a very large extent, PRIVILEGE IS INHERITED, or else OPPORTUNITY to rise to privileged status is bestowed via inheritance or good fortune. The disadvantaged haven't a hope. But you will never understand that. Like MT, you are to stupid and arrogant to know what privilege is.
    Old Geezer
    7th Aug 2017
    11:53am
    No Rainey the rich no longer get massive tax-payer handout to put money into super. In fact they only get the same as everyone else. Those earning $34,000 a year can now put money into super and get a refund of any excess tax it costs them. It has nothing to do with privilege at all and I certainly didn't inherit any privilege or be given any inherited opportunities. If anything it is people don't have the right mindset to succeed and given the right training anyone can succeed. Remember the old adage nothing ventured is nothing gained.

    As I have said many times I only have about 10% of my wealth in super as there is no reason to have anymore. Just because one gets super income tax free over the age of 60 doesn't mean that it is the best place to have money invested.

    Many of us have succeeded in life without inheriting anything or winning the lottery.
    Anonymous
    7th Aug 2017
    3:07pm
    OG, you should learn the facts before you mouth off with crap. The super concessions have NOT changed. Those earning high incomes get 30c in the dollar tax concession for every dollar put into super and those earning very low incomes get $0 tax concessions.

    You DID inherit privilege. Your parents were small business operators and you got to finish school and go to uni. THAT IS PRIVILEGE. You have no idea what it is to be underprivileged.

    Yes, with the right mindset and training anyone can succeed. But that's the point, dim wit! The underprivileged DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE TRAINING. I succeeded despite hideous disadvantage. But it took me 40+ years because I was so deprived, and I worked 100+ hours a week to do it. You won the lottery alright. A university education is a lottery win. Two parents is a lottery win. Parents who run a business is a lottery win. You have no idea, OG, you nasty old man!

    3rd Aug 2017
    6:25pm
    having read trebor or should I say labor micky's comment "me thinks there is more than one on here who could do with a stint in the rice paddies", trebor[labor micky] no one stopping you of applying!
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    9:07pm
    methinks it's way past your bedtime... besides - I'm watching the football... and repetition is the best form of praise, laddie - you may consider that an assist with building your wings to find your reality in life, one feather at a time...

    We'll start on your English next..... one feather at a time (you have no idea what I'm talking about, do you, kid?)...
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2017
    9:36pm
    trebor ala labor micky, you watching the football? even the goalposts would be a challenge for you as they are not coloured red and the teams playing are not in the alp colours, may be you could follow new south wales, oh sorry they got an hiding of victoria's queensland, still you always can hope that one day you may back a winner.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    11:02pm
    I know who you are from sources.... you are Frank Lee Insane.....

    Thanks for coming...
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2017
    6:33pm
    was this a comment of labor micky or from red trebor or the siamese twins trebor and micky after all they are the same person, I wish they would stop one of using different contributor names commenting on these columns
    TREBOR
    5th Aug 2017
    1:19am
    *treated with the contempt it deserves*

    YOU call me 'red'? Where is your active contribution to this discussion, twerp?

    Go back to your cellar and your computer games.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2017
    11:16pm
    Well - at the end of the day, this global economy, this trashing of national economies to suit some myth that the 'trickle-down' from that 'global economy' will benefit all nations - will inevitably lead us to the greatest blood sweat and tears available.... the rise of national governments that demand socialist equalities for all the people (national socialists)**, while many nations remain in lord/serf status, and this will inevitably lead us to another World War.


    ** the only thing wrong with the term 'national socialist' is that the NAZIs got hold of it first.... ALL nations are, perforce, nationalist and socialist first and foremost - and the adherence of some misguided and, one may see, compensated somehow from that very global economy they pursue so assiduously without regard for their own people, governments - will lead to the same kind of things that created Fascism in the first place.

    The difference this time may well be that this style of 'government' and governance will come from what were once the democracies that opposed such apparent, superficial totalitarianism.

    That totalitarianism was, put simply,the result of power residing in the hands of the wrong people for the job... and once that mantle is taken over by the once democratic nations - who is left to oppose? The dis-united Asian nations, with all their huge divisions? The relatively powerless Southern American nations? The African nations (don't make me laugh)?

    No - the ONLY potential opponent(s) to the future National Socialist governments that must appear to save the once democratic West - will be the relatively united and cashed-up Muslim nations.

    Then - once again - we will see the difference between military fanaticism backed by one trick pony cash (petroleum), and the established industrial and military might of the West.

    The only fly in this ointment is the sell-out of industrial capacity to China... something that is right now, for those who can see, being actively reduced by some in the West.

    I'd like to thank you all for the background canvas for my WW III series, and my novel Austrochine...... your contributions are gracefully acknowledged.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2017
    10:22pm
    trebor, fancy, reading your comments stating somebody is insane, god help you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    TREBOR
    5th Aug 2017
    1:20am
    No second prizes, sonny - if you can refute any comment I made, go for it... but personal attack will get you banned.....

    Go learn some life before you comment to your betters....
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2017
    8:51pm
    as always the same threats of the unbalanced and indentical comments of our siamese twin laborites micky and red trebor, always threaten to get you banned if you dare to show them up as, in their minds having a personal attack on them, however it is allright for this siamese twin to have a go at other contributors, well trebor or is it micky or is it, tremi, mitre, roby, boris, I give up, as for refuting any comments you made, which one would you like, hope you/micky only go back 6 monts or less as I don't want to spend more than 10 minutes showing the stupidity of your comments to these columns during that time.
    libsareliars
    4th Aug 2017
    10:52am
    I would hate to be renting and on a pension - fortunately I own my own house. It would be very difficult otherwise.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2017
    1:51pm
    That's what aged care is. Renting with a big bond that gets eroded with time as well as charging rent.

    7th Aug 2017
    3:43am
    “…(superannuation) tax concessions flow overwhelmingly towards the well-off, with those earning less than $34,000 per annum receiving almost no assistance and those earning over $180,000 per annum receiving the most. Astonishingly, the top five percent of individuals account for 37 per cent of concessional contributions.”

    That's 2014 data, and it's gotten much worse. So why would the aged pension be under threat and not these obscene concessions to the wealthy? Oh, that's right. Because RICH PIGS ARE GREEDY and the government caters to RICH PIGS.
    Anonymous
    7th Aug 2017
    3:45am
    And then RICH PIGS want pensioners to have to give up their homes to repay pensions, while these over-indulged RICH PIGS keep their ill-gotten gain and the country goes down the gurgler.

    Why can't we just fix the tax system so it's fair? And then a lot more people COULD save for retirement and a lot less would need the OAP.
    LiveItUp
    7th Aug 2017
    7:55am
    The top 20% also pay 80% of the tax in this country and that's after any tax concessions they get.

    Bill Shortens Equality Tax:

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.
    The sixth would pay $3.
    The seventh would pay $7.
    The eighth would pay $12.
    The ninth would pay $18.
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
    So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". So drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
    They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
    So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay:
    The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
    The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!”
    "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he received ten times more benefit than me!"
    "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? “The wealthy get all the breaks!"
    "Wait a minute" yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor!"
    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
    The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered they didn't have enough money between all of them for even half the bill!
    And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
    For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
    Anonymous
    7th Aug 2017
    7:59am
    Better that the greedy selfish leeches don't show up at all. The nation would be far better off without them.

    $13 billion to rich greedy overpaid pigs while there's not enough to pay decent pensions.

    And NO, Bonny, the rich DO NOT pay the most. The richest people in this country pay $0 in tax. That's an acknowledged fact.
    Old Geezer
    7th Aug 2017
    10:29am
    It is clear that you are in the category where no explanation is possible Rainey.
    Anonymous
    7th Aug 2017
    3:00pm
    No explanation is possible because progressive taxation has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH CONSUMER SPENDING. Clearly the idiot who wrote this BS doesn't understand progressive taxation. And doesn't want to. It was created to balance the gross inequity that would otherwise destroy the capitalist system - to force people who make greater use of community resources and who use the labour and skill of others for less than it's true worth to pay SOME compensation for their privilege. But the fat, stinking, greedy have devised every immoral rort in the book to avoid paying their way and now the economy is on the verge of collapse as a result, but still they lie and try to blame the poor they exploit.

    Actually, the tax office tells us the people who pay $0 are the multi-millionaires - the richest 5% who are just so unbelievably selfish that they would rather pay a million to an accountant to deceive the tax office than pay a cent for the community resources they STEAL. Vile disgusting creeps!
    Old Geezer
    7th Aug 2017
    4:42pm
    Rainey you have missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do with rich people paying no tax (yes there are one or two) but those rich people who do pay tax. Yes there are lot more of them than those who pay no tax. Remember 20% of the people pay 80% of the tax.

    If you would put your envy away for a minute or two you might just get it.

    Also how does the accountant hide that million he gets in income? Somewhere that million will get taxed.
    Anonymous
    8th Aug 2017
    3:21am
    It's not one or two, OG. It's almost ALL. Dodging tax has become an art form and society applauds people for it.

    The accountant might pay some tax on that million, but he also has his rorts - superannuation tax concessions, negative gearing, CGT concessions, grey area business deductions, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. And in any case tax on $1 million is a lot less than the tax on tens of millions that million pays the accountant to avoid.

    I'm not envious. I'm disgusted at the greed and selfishness of the rich and the way they are content to destroy what used to be a great country just to feed their greed.

    There is a debt and deficit. There's only ONE way to fix it, and that's for people to pay their taxes. I agree it would be nice if the government was more frugal in its spending, but the answer is NOT to persecute the disadvantaged. Increasing pensions would not only improve social health but create more economic activity and generate more jobs and tax revenue. Letting the rich escape their moral obligations can only have one outcome - DISASTER!

    The 20% who pay 80% of the tax are NOT rich. They are strugglers who don't have access to the rorts of the wealthy. They are the PAYE workers who are slugged at every turn. I'm one of them, although I am a contract worker now rather than PAYE. And I am NOT wealthy - not by a long shot! I can't find a single person who has more than I do who pays fair taxes. But I can sure find plenty who have less and pay hefty taxes. It's the working and lower middle class paying tax. The rich DO NOT PAY THEIR SHARE.
    Old Geezer
    8th Aug 2017
    10:46am
    Rainey we all know the strugglers get more back in welfare than they pay in tax. A family has to earn more than $60,000 a year before they pay more tax than they get in welfare.

    If you are on a contract then you are taking advantage of the tax system and pay less tax than you would as a PAYE worker. So you are yourself not paying your fair share of tax.
    KB
    7th Aug 2017
    12:43pm
    My daughter lives with me and helps pay the bills, She is a savvy saver She will live with me until she saves for a deposit on a house and pays off her university loan.On a pension is it is cheaper to rent because you do not have to pay for council rates emergency levy and repairs.Either way people people can live a good life if you stick to a budget/Many young people will not be able to afford to buy a house because they are on low wages die to many being employed in the hospitality industry. My daughter was fortunate and able t0 get a really good and get ahead unlike her friends,
    ex PS
    9th Aug 2017
    4:28pm
    K.B, as someone who used to own a rental property, I can assure you that you do pay for all of those things you listed, it is factored into the rental price. You will also have to add insurance and post rental cleaning costs, all factored into the rental price. You just don't get to see them.
    Old Geezer
    9th Aug 2017
    10:42pm
    PS rental prices are dictated by market demand and what people are prepared to pay. Hopefully you will get enough in rent to pay all outgoing and make a small profit.
    *Loloften*
    11th Aug 2017
    6:10am
    The only way our children can afford to buy a home within 25kms of CBD in their 20s (like many of us did) is if we help them, as we did with ours when both working f/time & kids all @ Secondary College. My dear long departed hard working father insisted that "the best investment is bricks & mortar, a house - they dble in price every 10yrs." They did back then but thx to o/s investors & wealthy Aussies taking advantage of our continuing lowest ever %interest rates to inflate the prices even further in recent yrs, we retirees (approx 7% of the voting population) on an age pension get bu*ger all for the remainder of our savings.When will this Fed Govn'mt realise that we've saved them heaps by working our butts off & ensuring our kids are housed/well educated/fully employed + babysit grandkids (no need for Govn'mt subsidies), but now struggling to upkeep our old homes which we do not want to sell even if it's now close $1m (t'was $16,750 in 1972) re maintenance/repairs. Damn fed up with being treated like a burden on our economy.