No chance of home ownership for over 45s

The dream of home ownership is all but dead for those over 45.

older moan moving to rented property

If you’re over 45 and haven’t yet managed to get your foot on the property ladder, or have fallen off it due to a life event, then you’re probably destined for a life of renting.

A study by Swinburne University has found that the increase in house prices, a change in wealth due to divorce or separation and, of course, the difficulty of being able to convince a bank that a mortgage can be serviced, all contribute to home ownership over 45 being less likely.

Lead researcher Dr Andrea Sharam said it was those living alone that were the most affected.  “There are currently 425,000 people in lone person or couple households over 50 renting in Australia with this number expected to rise to 600,000 by 2030 and again to 830,000 by 2050.

“This number of impoverished older people equates to a huge increase in demand for housing assistance.”

While relationship breakdowns can often have an effect on the wealth and ability of both parties to buy a home and get back on the property ladder, men and women are typically excluded from home ownership for different reasons. For women it’s the gender pay gap that has an impact on their ability to save and service a mortgage while for men, it’s usually a lack of educational achievement and subsequent low-paid jobs that is their barrier.

In order to combat this growing issue, the report recommended that there be increased investment to provide affordable public housing for midlife households who usually don't qualify, even though they can’t afford to pay market rates for homes.

This would ultimately help those condemned to a life of renting to at least protect some of their wealth and reduce the risk of exhausting their savings in retirement.

For renters, the report also recommended better rights, to include:

  • security of tenure in residential tenancies legislation,
  • institutional investment in rental housing,
  • age-specific rental supplements, and
  • a National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) type program targeted to age pensioners. 

Read more at Swinburne.edu.au

Opinion: No home means no retirement security

We may look at Australia’s housing ‘bubble’ and think it’s no wonder that it’s so difficult to buy a house, but it’s not only in this country that 45 has been quoted as the cut off age for being able to buy a home.

Research in the UK earlier this year also pointed to the fact that those under 45 would probably never own a home. Even if they could save enough for a deposit, the chances were slim of them being able to earn a salary to enable them to service the mortgage. 

To be brutal, not owning your own home is bad news for retirement.

As Patricia Pascuzzo, Managing Director and Founder of the Committee for Sustainable Retirement Incomes noted in her article for YourLifeChoices last week the family home is fast becoming an asset that can’t be discounted when considering retirement funding. But what happens if you don't have that asset?

All the calculations that we rely on to determine how much is enough to live on in retirement fail to take into consideration that not everyone owns their own home. As most people who are currently renting and trying to live on an Age Pension will testify, not owning a home is indeed a barrier to living even a modest lifestyle. And ask anyone who is paying rent what happens once the Age Pension is increased through indexation – the answer is that a rent increase is likely to follow. According to the Australian Centre for Financial Studies, the percentage of retirees between 65 and 85 who rent remains constant at 15 per cent.

And the outlook isn't any brighter. Sure, for those just starting out in life 40 years of paying into super may give them a better chance of sustaining a decent income in retirement, but it’s not likely. We’re simply not able to save enough in superannuation to successfully fund not only our retirement, but also cover the costs of our aged care.

The Government’s freezing of legislation to increase the superannuation guarantee from the current 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent is not just contrary to the purpose of super, it’s also short-sighted. As is the proposed reduction, from next July, of the concessional cap on super contributions to $25,000. Who, then, will have to fund the retirement income, through the Age Pension, of those who simply can’t save enough in super? The Government of course – talk about not being able to see the end of your nose.

At least those who own a home have options. Unfortunately for retirees stuck in the rent trap, very few options are available.

What do you think? Is it possible to sustain a decent lifestyle in retirement if you're renting? Should policy be considered to increase the level of affordable social housing for those who rely on an Age Pension? Would you be prepared to move out of the city for more affordable housing?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    PIXAPD
    11th Oct 2016
    9:53am
    Rent and be happy...have no debts and be happier.
    Tassie
    11th Oct 2016
    10:26am
    Own you own home...whatever that looks like, have no debt at all and that's even happier..????
    buby
    18th Oct 2016
    4:32am
    yes its better to own your own home, its been tough trying to find anything decent to rent, and after owning my own home and having to go back to renting after breakdown of marriage, my health has plummeted, money has been wasted hand over fist trying to find something better, all to no avail. If i had of had my own nook and cranny after marriage breakdown, i would have got back to work sooner, and still had my health. SO yes it makes a big difference.
    but heck, who gives a stuff, when all this happens. ITs tough when you don't have any support!!!
    old fart
    11th Oct 2016
    10:38am
    I agree with Tassie
    There is no logical reason to Rent when you are retired & claiming the FULL Pension as your only source of income
    There are of course benefits in your are NOT relying on the full Pension but thats another story
    vinradio
    11th Oct 2016
    3:35pm
    Well I have to rent, as I no longer own my own home due t a series of unfortunate events and being made redundant at 61. There are probably quite a few seniors, mainly women who have to rent, and what happens if you don't want all the home maintence issues?
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    4:33pm
    I was just reading that many more Women are joining the Homeless !! :-( :-( :-(
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    5:11pm
    It is a sad fact of life if renting privately you have no permanency...you are at the whim of the landlord. If he/she wants to sell you are without a home.

    If lucky enough to be in goverment housing you are fine in retirement but there are such long waiting list many will never get off the list.

    If it was me I would do all I could to buy something before I retired; no matter how humble or small. I would give up my privacy and take in a tenant if I had excess bedrooms to help pay the mortgage.
    particolor
    13th Oct 2016
    6:37pm
    A Very Wise Comment :-) :-)
    buby
    18th Oct 2016
    4:38am
    Yes particolor, because there is no decent places to rent out there.
    they are only building to house families, they don't care about the singles. I tried to share on many occasions. And it left me devistated, because i was robbed of my stuff, and money, and unbeknowing to me, some were even druggies and i didn't find out until i lived there a few days, then had to move out quick before they stripped me of everything i had. IT was tough.
    And now even tho i have something reasonable, still the Landlord is shit he doesn't fix what needs to be done. ONly is i said i would take him to court i'm sure he's jump to it, but i don't want to even go there. So again i'm working on moving out, and at my age, with my medical problems. its going to be tougher than ever
    Katie
    11th Oct 2016
    10:44am
    This is a serious issue facing non-home owners. Residential real estate was never meant to become a speculative playground for investors over the basic need for an affordable home for all Australians both now and future generations. The collaboration of Govt and Bank policies has created this. Some 30 years of pushing residential as a lucrative investment opportunity, particularly the most recent 5 years of allowing foreign investment and superannuation fund investment has left the domestic market unprotected - and now we have reached a stage where many Australians will retire homeless, and those that suffer life events may well be homeless sooner including children, and the socio-economic consequences for all Australians in the next 30 years is dire. Govt needs to stop using domestic residential as an investor playground for greed. Domestic housing needs to be protected if we want people housed, rather than creating an epidemic of homeless, and the rise in crime and infrastructure strain,that will follow placing mass numbers of people into such desperate situations. We will all be affected eventually by the impact in some way in years to come if this short-sighted strategy is allowed to prevail.
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    4:24pm
    And that is what Labor wanted to do by removing Capital Gains Tax exemptions for new investments unless they were newly built. Some of us clearly voted to return the current viruses.
    Rae
    12th Oct 2016
    7:31am
    It is too late Katie to stop the massive immigration growth. Each new immigrant costs the taxpayer around $200 000 in infrastructure costs.

    The 300 000 a year arrivals have literally bankrupted the place.

    The only benefits to this huge population growth occur for business who no longer have to train staff and can keep wages low. Businesses are not paying tax.

    In fact avoiding tax has become a Greek like affair in Australia.

    The LNP IPA wanted to destroy the unions and the social state and remove any power from the middle class and it appears they have been successful.

    Still a lot of Australians must desire this as they keep voting them into power.
    buby
    18th Oct 2016
    4:40am
    wow Rae, i'd believe that, for we are going down the Greek road.
    Lucky them they are being looked after. How quickly the Government forgets who has worked here, and whom they should be supporting in times of troubles>>??
    Charlie
    11th Oct 2016
    10:51am
    Renting forever that's me.
    Cant buy blocks of land and do slow owner builder, the council keep charging same rates (as if) the house was built.
    Large periods of unemployment. Good long term employment but unstable management. Periods of very high interest rates for unsecured loans. No inheritance of any great value. Not being able to tolerate the stress of being in debt.
    These are the things that sunk my attempts at owning a house.
    buby
    18th Oct 2016
    4:42am
    YEs what hope have we got?> Charlie. good luck, and trust me i'll need it too, for at 64 i can't see the sun rising too often on my patch either :(
    Boof
    11th Oct 2016
    11:03am
    Rents are rising dreadfully. If U are a single pensioner it is hard, if you have fallen on bad times. NEGATIVE GEARING has a lot to do with this. People want to buy an investment property, but they get greedy & put the rent up in order to have the RENTER pay off their investment unit or house, plus make a profit on the deal as well. It is forcing RENTS up, all over Australia.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    11:17am
    Investors buy property to make money. They are not charities. Renting property today is only marginally profitable so rents have to go up in order for more properties to become available.
    Grateful
    11th Oct 2016
    12:03pm
    Old Geezer. Have a good read of what Katie and Boof MEAN!!
    Housing has become a "commodity" thanks to government and bank intervention and destroying a "normal" market and the social fabric in the process.
    It amazes me that this government has been so quick to cancel the VET Graduate scheme because it was "being rorted" and had cost around $2 billion, yet do absolutely nothing about negative gearing which has "cost" the Australian community hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue and added borrowing, placing the social fabric PLUS the domestic economy at breaking point.
    WHY???? Damn obvious for mine and thanks for that $2.50 per week per couple rise in the couples' age pension.
    This government is ALL about the top end of town and the super rich.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    12:35pm
    If they get rid of negative gearing rents will skyrocket as demand will quickly outstrip supply as investors no longer buy investment properties. I used to have investment properties but with all the expenses there was not enough return it in for me. Many investors today are marginal even with negative gearing.

    Yes housing is a commodity and needs to be otherwise people will simply not invest in it.
    Retired Knowall
    11th Oct 2016
    1:40pm
    Housing has always been a commodity and an investment vehicle.
    If you believe being a Landlord is so good....become one.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    2:02pm
    If you think a renter is on the lowest rung then don't become a landlord as you will be a step below your tenant.
    Grateful
    11th Oct 2016
    4:01pm
    Old Geezer. That argument is simply not correct. The rental market is very competitive and if those investors turned their attention to buying new homes then it would be a win/win. Builders would build more homes to counteract the supply/demand imbalance and young families will be able to buy cheaper homes.
    I believe that this was one of the platforms of the Labor Party for the last election. But, Turnbull used your argument which was refuted by experts (not politicians).

    But, the damage has already been done and with house prices where they are now, investors, ;landlords< will simply not be able to get an "economic" return, but, will have no choice but to rely on the huge tax benefit from the "negative" part of their investment, MORE loss to government revenue.
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    4:29pm
    Correct Boof. Either side of government could easily end the feeding frenzy in existing housing by removing the Capital Gains Tax exemption for all new purchases other than new constructions. That way investors would have to build houses to get a tax deduction and those struggling to get into a house of their own would have an easier run. Of course the return for ALL speculators and even home owners would be much lower and this is a part of the reason why the status quo is not touched. So those who do not have any financial clout suffer. As normal the well off feeding off those near the bottom. Welcome to the human race!
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    5:12pm
    Grateful new homes have much bigger tax write offs than normal homes so the higher your income the more tax you save. Investors I spoke to said one important thing to me and that was who do we sell our second hand homes to when we have exhausted out tax deductions? A very small market as investors and young couple want new homes not used ones. There is no capital gains in selling these on so investors will not invest in them. That is why Labor's negative gearing and capital gains package will never work. Most of the gain (income) in owning an investment property is when you sell it not from renting it.
    ex PS
    11th Oct 2016
    7:52pm
    Boof, yes there are some greedy owners who try to ring out every cent they can for short term gain. But most people renting out houses are just trying to make a reasonable return.
    I rented out a house for three years and eventually ended up selling it as it was not worth the hassle.
    Apart from the fact that one bad tenant can wipe out two years of profit by damaging the property and not paying rent we had to contend with continual unreasonable demands for instant repair of trivial items.
    Whenever we had reason to get rid of a bad tenant we invariably found that the law was weighted very much in the favor of the tenant. It just became too difficult and stressful to continue renting the house out.
    As I had paid off the house in question I didn't really have much to claim against negative gearing, so this was not a factor for me. When we sold, it took ages as people did not want to buy a basic three bedroom home with only one bathroom and no Media Room. We got a fair price but not an exceptionally good one, but did not care too much because half of what we gained would have been taken as a Capital Gain.
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    9:20pm
    Geezer: "A very small market as investors and young couple want new homes not used ones."
    What a load of codswallop. The normal pro government line!
    Young couple may want new homes but this means they need to live on the outskirts of a city unless they have a significant amount of money to buy, knock down and rebuild. THEY DON'T!
    Investors may want new homes but they do not want stamp duty and they want to buy in an appreciating area. That means the select locations where only existing homes are available.
    I don't know why you cannot post factual information. Malcolm will understand.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    10:02pm
    Mick I'm only repeating what property investors have told me. A lot of investors are now land banking instead of buying properties. This will only make land for housing more expensive in the future. Also areas appreciate because people buy in those areas. If people don't buy they don't appreciate.

    I'm not talking existing homes in established areas. I'm talking about used homes in relatively new areas that will not appreciate because there is simply no market for these houses.

    Buying an existing house cost a lot more in stamp duty than buying land on which to build. The removal of stamp duty would help make property more liquid. You can buy $500,000 worth of shares for no stamp duty and a small cost for brokerage ($500) but a $500,000 house the stamp duty is approx. $18,000 plus conveyancing and transfer costs.
    buby
    18th Oct 2016
    4:45am
    yes boof the greedier get worse, and the struggler has to struggle on :( i too have been a renter for 24years now. It was better when i was in my own home. until hell broke loose :(

    11th Oct 2016
    12:08pm
    Not owning your own home ALWAYS HAS and ALWAYS WILL be bad news, and MOSTLY in retirement. This does take WORK and GOOD PLANNING though, and few people are willing to roll up their sleeves and do this.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    12:41pm
    In reality it would not surprise that it actually costs more to own a house than to rent an equivalent one.
    Anonymous
    11th Oct 2016
    12:52pm
    Fast Eddie, according to the article, 85% of retirees have made the decision to be homeowners which, I suggest, is more than a few people.

    Old Geezer, you may be correct but I'd like to see your calculations. I think your generalisation won't take into consideration those living in parts of capital cities where rental far exceeds the costs of upkeep by a homeowner in the same areas.
    Anonymous
    11th Oct 2016
    1:09pm
    OG, show us the facts, old boy? It seems like you are doing the "lucky dip" AGAIN with your crystal ball figures.
    OM, your "reasons" for not owning a home by the age of 45 (comment below) are MAINLY because they aren't holdin' the foldin' because of their priorities of drink, gambling, drugs, laziness, no thought of the future, reliance on the dole, etc and very few other "reasons", as you refer to these excuses.
    Rae
    11th Oct 2016
    1:16pm
    I worked out it costs $230 a week to live in my own home.

    I could share a house for $140 a week so you would be right OG.

    Not as nice a house but a two bedroom unit can be had for $280 around here. The owners are not making much money.

    They can't get more than that as wages are low and jobs scarce.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    1:22pm
    If you own a $1 million house it costs you rates, insurance maintenance etc every year. If you invest the $1 million instead at a conservative 5% (not a lazy bank investment) you will make at least $50,000 a year. So you have $961 a week plus the cost of owning a house (rates, insurance, maintenance etc) to spend on rent. That would rent you a decent property indeed. I'll leave the working out of home owner ship to you but a quick calculation has it $10,000 or more. So you now have somewhere about $1153 a week to pay for a rental property.
    KSS
    11th Oct 2016
    1:29pm
    Old Geezer I think you may be right there. Let's take my own building as an example:

    Renters pay a 'fixed' amount for the term of their lease. The rent may increase at the start of a new lease. This rent generally includes water supply - some lucky renters also get electricity included. Renters pay no rates or maintenance charges. They are generally not responsible for general upkeep or replacing things such as cookers faulty light switches and the like provided they have not done the damage. Renters are in control of utilities expenditure and their own other living costs. The typical going rate for rents in my building is around $550 a week for two bedroom unit with a LUG.

    Home owners pay their mortgage which may be variable and unpredictable subject to the whims of their lending institution, strata fees (which cover shared area maintenance and cleaning, building insurance, shared area utilities e.g. water and electricity,) rates, utilities, contents insurance and internal maintenance and upkeep. They are responsible for all household equipment and upkeep costs. In addition, they are subject to 'special levies' (in our case this has been close to $20,000 per unit in the last 4 years as a result of council demands - I have heard of individuals in one bigger block having to raise $60,000 each in a single year).
    Given that about half the units are rented and the others owner occupied (and half the owner occupiers bought in recently), I'd say the owners are likely paying more per month than the renters.

    I suspect the same could be said of a house too.
    KSS
    11th Oct 2016
    1:55pm
    Fast Eddie there may be many reasons why people may choose to rent not buy and one of those is indeed lifestyle choices. In fact home ownership is itself a lifestyle choice and it means serious compromise on a previous lifestyle.

    However, another reason is that they can afford to rent in areas they may not be able to buy in (think Sydney inner city or the eastern suburbs for example) and still have the lifestyle they want e.g. overseas holidays (indeed any holiday), the latest gadgets etc.

    There are many countries round the world where renting is the norm not home ownership. It may be that times are changing here in Australia and a different mindset is needed.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    1:58pm
    I owned several strata titled units a few years back and those strata title fees just kept rising. So I had a agent in and valued them so I told him to sell them. Shortly after I heard that they had a major structural problem and it was a big impost on the unit owners. I had bought these units off the plan so they were only a couple of years old.
    Rae
    11th Oct 2016
    3:49pm
    The price of real estate and the costs involved added to the fact that rents can't rise due to stagnating wages and falling investment incomes means landowners are currently out of the money.

    You did well to sell when you did OG.

    The only reason you might rent a place out now is if you were paying it off because it was somewhere you could afford for retirement and you earned enough to negatively gear.

    The median wage is under $60 000 so that isn't many people earning enough to buy a home right now.

    Property is overvalued due to population explosion from government policy and foreign investment.

    Those over 45s should buy a nice motor home while they can afford it.
    Anonymous
    11th Oct 2016
    4:26pm
    Gee Old Geezer, you've certainly hit the upper side of the market. If I did the calculations on our modest home, not in Sydney, I will finish up with $20,000pa which is a lot different to your figures. BTW, I didn't see where taxation came into your calculations. Is the investment tax free or are you planning to try and hide your income.
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    4:31pm
    Spot on Eddie. The only caveat I would have is that some just do not earn enough to get a house.
    I America the government has introduced a title where only people who live and work in some areas can buy these homes. Investors a re locked out. Perhaps that is the way forward for very low wage earners.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    5:04pm
    Old Man I just took the price of a modest house around where I live. There is one a couple of doors down on sale for $1.1 million and I expect they will get more than $1 million for it.

    A retiree would pay little tax if anything on $50,000 as investing has lots of expenses that can be written off.

    Yes I was certainly good management to sell those units when I did.
    buby
    18th Oct 2016
    4:48am
    thats if YOU have ONE million. Sheez dont' assume,
    I don't have that sort of money......
    Blossom
    11th Oct 2016
    12:43pm
    I know somebody who got a home land package in 1983. The interest rate was 22%. Interest rate on Term Deposit if you had money to invest was 18% Admittedly house prices were lower but so were wages. It depended on the bank if you could make extra payments in advance then miss one if you had insufficient income the next month. One bank I know of wouldn't take a month's payment out of a large credit balance (money paid in advance). I know a self employed person who would have liked to do that. Their bank said no. One advantage with rental is you don't do maintenance yourself. If you're not a handyperson and need to pay a tradesman it costs a fortune. Also, sometimes it is cheaper to rent than own. By the time you make repayments , pay rates & taxes and absolutely necessary maintenance it is sometimes cheaper to rent. However bear in mind that most only lease out their properties for 10 years. After that they can no longer claim on their taxation at all
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    12:51pm
    Interest rates were only 8% or 9% in 1983 it wasn't until the early 1990s that interests went over 20%.
    buby
    18th Oct 2016
    4:53am
    trouble is blossom, that often the owner does not want to do maintenance, and they do it when they ready, not when you need it done!! and it can make it stressful because sometimes to get it done you gotta push the buggers. Who needs this type of stress in their life at a ripe ole age when they should be winding down relaxing into their old age!!!

    11th Oct 2016
    12:43pm
    We have another beat-up from the editors trying to scare people and using statistics to try and prove their illogical point. Let's look at what has actually been said. Firstly, the study says that if you're over 45 and not a home owner then you are PROBABLY likely never to own a home. No figures to prove the percentages of those affected.

    Secondly, the projected figures for renters will increase around the same percentage as the projected population increase for Australia. This mean that the constant figure of about 15% of retired people who are renters will remain.

    Can it be suggested that 85% of retirees are homeowners and will have a more comfortable retirement than the 15% who are at the mercy of landlords. There is a number of reasons why people choose to rent and not owning a home by age 45 is but one of those reasons.
    Jacqui
    11th Oct 2016
    1:44pm
    We must not support a government who brings in 12000 refugees ( the size of a town )
    Of whom will be supported by the hard working tax payer of this country and taking the precious housing available. We should be accommodating our own desperate homeless first!
    Not paying into their entitlement programs!
    Now this government wants to accommodate refugees into 'Aged Care Retirement Facilities'
    The more I research of this crazy attitude the less confident I am of this government.
    Political Correctness gone mad!
    Rae
    11th Oct 2016
    4:00pm
    It is the 300 000 immigrants with skills taking local jobs that are the real problem Jacqui. They come on planes and buy houses as they have sizeable deposits.

    No way can we compete with that number each year.

    Our 10 million in 1970 is now 24 million and growing fast.

    Here where I live we still have the same number of hospitals and roads for a vastly growing population and it is really becoming unpleasant.

    Seeing our kids are earning around $60 000 and not being skilled particularly well by the private VET money making providers I doubt many will be able to buy houses at current prices and wages.

    Have the refugees got the $400 000 bond needed for an aged care retirement facility?
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    4:38pm
    Sadly Jacqui governments of both persuasion seem happy to borrow money from China which they then give away as Foreign Aid and which we then need to pay back. Then there is the scam of 457 visas whilst our own are intentionally cut out of the job chain. And then there are the immigrants calling themselves 'refugees' who come here, go onto social security for life in many cases and contribute little to our nation other than being consumers who cost us all.
    This is what I call MISMANAGEMENT of the country. And you wonder why the flogging off everything is occurring and a growth industry.
    LiveItUp
    12th Oct 2016
    7:45am
    Rae you only need $400,000 for a nursing home if you have it. Got nothing it costs nothing.
    Rae
    12th Oct 2016
    8:05am
    Yes MICK I visited a library in one of the lower socio economic towns in our region yesterday and was shocked by the number of homeless sitting in the park and in the library.

    There was over two dozen. I don't know if they have been moved on from somewhere else or what was the cause. It was the young people who looked despairing.

    It reminded me of the panhandle area in San Francisco. Only worse.

    Unlike America though food costs are high here and we don't have the food races and showers for homeless to use. Nor the security.

    If this is the result of government policy, and I suspect it is, then a bit of planning for these people will need to occur.

    The problem I see is that our leaders actually are unable to see consequences. It is worrying.
    KSS
    11th Oct 2016
    1:47pm
    Here we go again, yet another article bemoaning the plight of the single woman. Now seemingly she is incapable of owning her own home.... yawn!

    I am a single woman who bought my own home in a Sydney suburb in 2012 on my own, from my savings built up over 25 years and from a below average salary. Prior to that I had rented the same unit for 18 years! I was 57. And Yes I have a mortgage which I pay On MY OWN! (And I fully sacrifice the maximum into super - all on a salary well below the average.)

    It CAN be done but it takes sacrifice and determination and a willingness to live in a smaller property in a less desirable - but still nice - suburb, - just as home ownership has always done.
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    4:41pm
    I always thought you were a bloke. My mistake.
    It is always pleasing to read that it can be done. The reality is that many choose other ways to spend their money and then cry poor. Sorry if that is cutting to the quick for anybody but not all have dire circumstances and many who have nix at 60 years of age have only themselves to blame.
    Congratulations on making the dream happen. Now if only you were not a right wing rusted on............. Ex pollie?????
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    4:47pm
    MICK... Except for the "Salary well below average" I thought it was Bronwyn :-) :-)
    buby
    18th Oct 2016
    5:03am
    Its not that i too couldn't have done it too Kss.
    Except that i had a morgage, and a husband who was worse than an overgrown kids, who just had to have the motorbikes and all that he needed to go with that. So i had such a different life.
    and i barely managed to pay for the morgage just about on my own.
    If i didn't have the husband i've had owned my own home and been a millionaire. But since the breakdown and separation, and loss of home.
    After debts were paid back to the bank, not much was left to start again. And i had No job basically as well as health had gone down hill fast. So okay your situation was different to mine. So don't assume anything you did it cause things was different for you. Lucky you.
    Now me64 and i will never own my own home again, and will never have that security, and health has plummeted. Many things happen in life that perhaps has not happen to you. LUCky you hey>?
    nena
    11th Oct 2016
    1:55pm
    Only if left their own home crumble down is a retired person better off money ways. If the home is to be kept safe and sound a retired person who own their home is worse off than those who are renting. Okay, the government would much better off and…happier!
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    2:23pm
    Just buy a caravan register it in Vic (cheapest by far) and travel around our great country.
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    4:43pm
    That is like an employee who gets a job in a chocolate factory. So what happens after a couple of years?
    Anonymous
    11th Oct 2016
    9:17pm
    You turn said caravan around and drive the other way. You lefties have no imagination.
    Rent free and on a pension - you would live very comfortably
    LiveItUp
    12th Oct 2016
    7:13am
    I know of people who live in their caravan on the road full time with no fixed abode other than one for Centrelink. You can't get welfare without a permanent address so they use that of one of tneir kids. Pull up any night in a free camp and odds on your neighbour us one of these people. So of those rigs are very comfortable.
    CindyLou
    12th Oct 2016
    11:44am
    Agree the caravan free camping thing is great, but I alwys feel that it is advisable, if possible for folk to have SOMEWHERE permanent to call home, be it a very very modest unit etc. anywhere.

    I've travelled heaps in a van, have seen folk, who I assume were pensioners, fuel cost is the biggest killer for all travellers - I've observed on many occasions in outback areas particularly, folk set up for several days in backwater nothing interesting locations. I sense for these folk that they are waiting till pension day to head off - travelling to nearest town so as to put $70 plus fuel in vehicles.

    Still a great experience and one I'd recommend to anyone.
    buby
    18th Oct 2016
    5:04am
    So good idea Geezer, so where do i find a cheap caravan to do that, and then i must be able to tow the darn thing??
    floss
    11th Oct 2016
    2:46pm
    Yes the gap is getting bigger between the have and the have nots, but that is what you expect from this Greed is Good party we have in power. Old Geezer do you come from Victoria I think you may.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    2:52pm
    No Victoria way too cold for me in winter. I just wrote an article on caravan registration so I know that I live in area where people pay the most but in Victoria a caravan is a classed as a box trailer. I guess if you live in on of the best climates in the world then you everyone else wants to too so you have to pay for it.
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    4:04pm
    I am not sure I agree with you on this one Debbie.
    Home ownership has always been a matter of hard work, self deprival and putting your money into the mortgage rather than lifestyle.
    Once 45 people should be close to owning their first property but given that there is a working life of 25 years (if retirement age does in fact change to 70) then all is not lost.
    Whilst house prices are high interest rates are at historic lows. The difference, however, is that genY wants it all: new cars, entertainment, dinners out, annual holidays (abroad?) and regular trips to the coffee shop and fashion outlet. Ok, in all fairness I am soooo boomer but this is how we and countless thousands of other boomers got on. GenY needs to take a leaf out of their parents' book.
    Anonymous
    11th Oct 2016
    5:53pm
    I agree Mick, I'm a generation back, the Silent Generation, but the same frugality applies. Kids these days seem to want what mum and dad have without thinking that mum and dad may not have started in the home they now have. The kids also want a double garage with a car in each whereas dad may have ridden a pushbike to work. When we bought our first home, my in-laws wondered how we were going to pay for it as house prices were so high. Not a lot has changed as regards the percentage of a house against income if a McMansion is not the first choice.

    Savings may be on small items such as a cup of coffee or a takeaway meal which by themselves don't add up to much. The total of the money spent on so called small items, when added together, can make a large saving. When we grew up, these things were taught to us at home and either parents aren't passing on the message or the kids are ignoring it.
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    4:22pm
    As long as I get my $2.40 after Housing deduction ever 6 Months !! I don't think I'll care anymore !!
    I think the Muzzlum Beagle Boys got into their Money Bin :-) :-)
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    4:44pm
    So how's the tent particolor? Just kidding.
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    4:53pm
    I'm still in housing Mick !! :-) :-) I just witnessed a Gigantic Brawl on my doorstep ! ( Not Me) Cops came and I never saw a thing ?? "What Brawl ??" And that's how it is with me now :-)
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    9:04pm
    You need a change of venue. No future living with ferals as they make your life hell. Good luck.
    Anonymous
    11th Oct 2016
    9:18pm
    the ferals are labor voting leaners on welfare
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    9:19pm
    I'm used to it !! Except when they damage my Things :-( :-( But they soon learn not to ! I'm a Cunning Deviot ! I don't get Mad I get Even !! :-) :-)
    Rae
    12th Oct 2016
    8:21am
    Carlos the ferals are voting LNP or we wouldn't be in this mess. They don't need better wages or jobs just the public teat.

    It suits the LNP to have them to keep wages falling.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    4:28pm
    I don't think they care WHO they Vote for !! As long as they get their name Crossed Off :-( :-(
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    4:31pm
    PS.. that's the fault in Compulsive Voting ! Or they wouldn't even turn up :-)
    particolor
    18th Oct 2016
    11:56am
    Compulsive ? :-) :-) Make that Compulsory :-)
    CindyLou
    11th Oct 2016
    7:14pm
    If I was in a tight position re housing I'd move to a regional area and rent there.

    Housing costs a lot to hold for the homeowner and/or landlord. Rates, house insurance, landlord insurance, repairs, maintenance. As well costs to buy are high (stamp duty), so especially for investors, properties are not a 'good investment'.
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    7:23pm
    If your in a Rented House and your Outside, and there's an Earthquake You can just walk away :-) :-)
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    7:25pm
    I forgot.. and the house falls down !!
    CindyLou
    11th Oct 2016
    7:41pm
    I've travelled a fair bit around this beautiful country and have seen some lovely country towns that have shops (IGA), doctors, op shops and friendly locals. I've just had a quick look at rentals in some of these regions, it appears there are cheaper rentals around (ie cessnock, Muswellbrook, dubbo and Tamworth region). These are lovely areas, there are plenty more - my favorite country town is blackall qld.

    Note - I appreciate it's tough to have move, a family friend relocated from inner city Sydney to Tamworth, he didn't have any connections there - 5 years later heis still in his tiny 1 bedroom flat, he has been able to kep his pet cat and he is doing ok.

    Just a thought
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    9:10pm
    People who do not own a home do not understand how costly it is. Apart from rates the cost of properly maintaining a place is expensive unless one wants to run your place into the ground.
    Ho hum....I am grateful for what we have so not complaining. Just putting home ownership into perspective.
    Anonymous
    11th Oct 2016
    10:12pm
    Yes Mick and yet you criticize decent people who invest in property and get negative gearing benefits. The same people who are trying to be self supporting in their old age instead of living off the taxpayer
    Rae
    12th Oct 2016
    8:28am
    If you got negative gearing or concessional superannuation you are living off the taxpayer.

    The only people who aren't are those defined benefit people who paid full taxes, then saved and lived on 60% of what everyone else got to live on while being told how damn lucky they were.

    They are also the only ones that have been asked to go without as yet as well.

    Their entitlements got cancelled at the beginning of this year.

    Besides which it is crazy to deliberately lose money to save a bit of tax when positive gearing somewhere else would be making you money even if you did have to pay a bit of tax.
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    5:14pm
    I would not own a rental property if you paid me to do so. A good tenant is as scarce as hens' teeth. I know of friends who rented out a property...never again....by the time they paid out for damage to their property etc....they made zilch.

    Could not wait to offload. Put the money into shares instead.
    ex PS
    11th Oct 2016
    7:37pm
    Like most people my age I made the decision to buy a home and have it paid off well before I retired. It has worked out well for me, but I am running into more and more friends and relatives who have given up paying their mortgages as they feel that it is not worth the angst.
    I am increasingly hearing people I know commenting on the cost of rates, insurances, maintenance and interest payments compared to renting and passing all of those costs onto the house owner.
    They are also aware of the differentiation between the Pension paid to renters and home owners. The way things are going in this country, it looks like we are heading in the same direction as Europe where it is normal for people to rent with long term leases rather than aspire to home ownership.
    Renting can be made far more economical if people look at the process in a more flexible way. I have often thought that two or three couples or even a mixture of couples and singles sharing a large rented house could live quite a comfortable lifestyle. They would also have the advantage of sharing life skills and chores amongst a larger pool of people.
    We just have to think beyond 19th. century ideals.
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    7:44pm
    Don't try that Caper in Public Housing :-( They Slug each person the same Rent ! :-) Any wonder they've run out of Houses !! Greed !! But OK if your Imigrunts from what I've seen :-( :-( No Charge :-(
    CindyLou
    11th Oct 2016
    8:02pm
    I think older folk sharing is an excellent idea, HOWEVER, I feel some older folk are not flexible enough to tolerate sharing with others, which is a shame.
    ex PS
    11th Oct 2016
    8:08pm
    particolor, by public housing, do you mean state funded housing, as in Housing Commission. If so I would agree that the fee should be based on the number of occupants who are bringing in an income.
    I have for some time questioned the idea of one or two people living in a subsidized three bedroom home when family's are living in cars.
    If you are talking about private housing, we always had the view while renting out our small three bedroom house that it was suitable for two parents and however many children they wished to house there but we drew the line at seven adults as it would have placed too much wear and tear on the facilities.
    We would not have agreed to the latter situation no matter how much money was offered.
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    8:33pm
    I meant Housing Commission !! None of these are bringing in an Income ! Only Dole ! But I've seen them pack them in on the sly !!

    If anyone comes to my door for a tin of Sardines I'll say "Yeah !! Across in Number Whatever :-) :-)
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    9:14pm
    Renting a large house and having heaps of people share the rent is what dole bludgers used to do when I was young. I remember a huge house on the North Shore which had quite a few of these folk living there. Unit cost was cheap so they enjoyed the good life.....if you can call living with 15+ other people you don't know the good life.
    I think that these days the maximum number of occupants is on the lease though so not sure if that game is still playing.
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    9:22pm
    Its still going Mick Its only Half Time !! :-) :-)
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    10:08pm
    We used to house sit some very expensive houses as students. Most even had a cleaner and a car available.
    ex PS
    12th Oct 2016
    9:05pm
    particolor, MICK, I think that it would not be hard to have rental accommodation rated to establish the number of people that a particular house can accommodate, as rental price is generally worked as a percentage of the house value, this should stop people from either side being taken advantage of.
    MICK I was on the Dole for a short period in the 70's and the method of house sharing as you described worked for me during that period. Just because it was and probably still is used by people on the Dole does not mean it is not a good idea for retirees.
    I am seldom in the house so a house with a good yard and quiet housemates would suit me if I required rented accommodation.
    When I had a rental property I always regarded the house as the home of the person paying the rent and avoided interfering unless I had complaints from the neighbors or a warning from the rental manager.
    particolor
    18th Oct 2016
    11:52am
    It is stipulated here I PERSON UNITS !! But do you think Feral's take any notice of that ? :-) :-) O DEAR !! :-(
    Cops here 4 Times on Sunday Night and doubled back on last night for another Circus !!:-(
    Where does the Public Housing find them ?? :-(
    There were 3 units involved in it on Saturday night Cops everywhere !! :-) :-)
    Never Dull Here !!
    Pamiea
    11th Oct 2016
    8:34pm
    And what happens if you rent and the owner wants to sell up. This could happen easily and often!! Would that be so great in your old age??
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    8:46pm
    That's the reason I stay where I am Pamiea !! The Company's not Great at times ! But I tolerate it ! I'm too old to be traipsing around the Countryside now !! I think housing Hand Picks the Despots though ! Because I certainly wouldn't give some of them a Chook Shed to live in :-) :-) One moved out ( Shoved Out) a while back and it cost Housing $24,000 to repair the unit :-( :-(
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    8:54pm
    PS.. I think I've said this on here before, But anyhow !! I was sitting having a Cuppa with a friend one day, and the Bozzo Opposite me in Number 8 reefed the Bathroom Cabinet from the wall and Threw it through the closed Bathroom Window !! :-) :-) Sounded like an Explosion !! My friend nearly jumped on the table, She was horrified !!:-) :-) I said that's Normal around here ! :-) I think he forgot his Medication :-) :-)
    MICK
    11th Oct 2016
    9:16pm
    OUT!
    One of the big attractions of owning is that if you have a neigbourhood you love then you can stay as long as you like. Very conducive to a happy family life.
    LiveItUp
    12th Oct 2016
    7:16am
    Some people rent for their whole adult life in the same house. Their is really not much difference from owning or renting a house other than you can rent a better house for same outlay.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    3:31pm
    Not around here you cant :-( They think its 2 Miles out of Sydney:-( :-(
    ex PS
    12th Oct 2016
    9:13pm
    I think once we change to a culture of mostly being renters, we will find that the same thing will happen that happened in many European countries where renting is more common than owning.
    Most rentals are not yearly and are for several years rather than for twelve months, plus because the actual buyers market is not overheated, owners don't sell as often.
    We own and are happy that we are in that position, but I am coming across more and more people who have given up on the idea of ever owning there own home.
    The positives of home ownership are slowly being eroded and it is almost at a stage where people feel they are being penalized for owning a home or trying to look after their own retirement funding.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    9:17pm
    Noticed that have you ? So have I !! :-(
    PIXAPD
    12th Oct 2016
    8:16am
    Single full pension with rent assistance is $1007:70 f/night and can save up to $7800 a year too, permanent rental no problems. Renting is the way to go, oh yeah.
    Katie
    12th Oct 2016
    9:02am
    My husband and I rented all our lives and were fortunate enough to rent at reasonably low rates. I am still renting now that I am on my own and am very happy in a unit provided by Public Housing in a complex built specifically for pensioners. However, my three children all have their own homes and as the youngest is now 45, I guess he has dodged the bullet as he also owns a unit as an investment. I am appalled at the high prices that some people young or old, have to pay to either buy or rent. I am grateful that I have been blessed and thank the Queensland govt.,for its foresight in providing public housing and hope this will continue.
    Katie
    12th Oct 2016
    9:08am
    I see someone else has called herself 'Katie' and I wonder if there is any way to correct that?
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    3:28pm
    I have a Suggestion !! But I think its Illegal :-) :-)
    CindyLou
    12th Oct 2016
    9:48am
    I notice this thread has somewhat gone off topic again... !!
    The rent vs home ownership is an ongoing debate...benefits either way.
    I may be wrong, but I don't think renters can appreciate the dramas of home ownership, an example, was watching the 'block' last night, daughter came in and put the show on hold to tell us 'my tenants have messaged, the back fence has blown down...etc'.

    Now, there is additional stuff to do, talking with rear neighbor, getting quotes, paying half etc. - daughters not on high income, earns about $680 clear a week so she's not rolling in the dough. (lives at home, relationship breakdown).

    For myself, our home is 25 years old, needs up to $10k repair to roof...hit wter system is looking unwell again etc.

    If I was renting it wouldnt be my problem.
    particolor
    13th Oct 2016
    6:42pm
    Just got a Brand New Water Heater ! :-) :-)
    And the Price was Magnificent ! Zilcho !! Thank You Public Housing !!
    :-) :-)
    PIXAPD
    12th Oct 2016
    9:55am
    Home ownership isn't what it's cracked up to be...it really is a false concept developed by banks so they can sell money, then you've got Insurers who seek rip customers off and not pay claims. the whole thing is a racket. If you inherit a house, fine...but other than that...forget it.
    ex PS
    12th Oct 2016
    9:18pm
    Yeah, I paid of my house ten years ago and have lived rent free since then, I have also used the money saved and my retrenchment payout to pay cash for a brand new house designed for us to live in comfortably.
    Gee I wish I was still paying rent to someone else with no option to save expenses by using Solar Energy and installing water tanks. Silly me.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    7:30pm
    Pixad...question if you did not have public housing what sort of predicament do you think you would be in?

    I would suggest you would be at the mercy of a landlord who can raise rent or kick you out any time he or she liked.

    Not all are fortunate enough to get public housing.
    Snowflake
    12th Oct 2016
    11:00am
    Interesting topic.
    I have been a home owner since the middle 70's. First house I bought for $18000 in Newtown, Sydney. Very run down and hardly livable. I learnt a lot of trades in a very short time. Now I rent out a house in Nowra, get a part pension (no super) and travel about in a Winnebago. Very comfortable lifestyle and over heads minimal.
    However, I am grateful that I have a home and that eventually I will sell it and be able to buy something in an area I want to live in, maybe Tasmania where property is still very affordable. As a single guy, if I was renting and living on the old age pension I reckon it would be super tough.
    nena
    12th Oct 2016
    4:46pm
    Oh yes, Snowflake come to Tassie if you don't mind a perpetual wintering weather!!! It is 11 degrees at the momnet
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    5:16pm
    Best idea in retirement is to flog off your family home (if you own it) and buy something brand new and smaller. HOpefully you will have little maintenance for the rest of your life.
    MD
    12th Oct 2016
    11:22am
    KSS, I admire your tenacity - that which you disclosed in your post: 1.47pm on the 11th.
    Regardless the percentile of home owners vs non home owners being irrelevant, the fact has always been and yet always will continue to be a non sequitur. The homeless also. What most folk cannot seem to grasp is governments, regardless of ideology are merely a reflection of the (voting) population. To be sure, one side is seen to favour workers and t'other business, not to mention the 'tree huggers', 'dinkies' (independants) et al.
    Homeless statistics seem to be rising but then so is total population. Numbers are insignificant and meaningless in consideration of the 'big picture'. As I've said on numerous previous occassions - we do not live in a bubble and neither does Utopia exist. As long as historical record of past societies exist, we find population stratification at every level. Mankind may consider we've progressed, but I'd suggest, technology aside, the gain seems inconsequential once demographic's are factored in.
    Regardless of any one persons' social status each and every one of us is responsible, first and foremost, to ourselves. Birth and thereafter life, has no guarantees, and as has been recorded, society will continue to be a diverse mix. Flapping our gums;feeling sorry for, or reacting to the questionable/erroneous claims of population statisticians will do little to alleviate anyone's lot.Regardless of whether we're satisfied or not, I'd suggest we should be thankful for our lot, live within our means, succour the less fortunate (accordingly) and desist from whinging, moaning and groaning (purportedly) on behalf of our fellow man. The poor, homeless, helpless will yet thereafter always be present.
    Crazy Horse
    12th Oct 2016
    3:14pm
    I owned my home outright until it was stolen from me via the Family Court at aged 53. Then the Child Support Agency took so much of my income I couldn't even save a deposit to start again. So I'll be condemned to renting for the rest of my days.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    4:10pm
    :-( :-( :-( :-( OOOW ! I KNOW !! :-( :-(
    They have No Sense and NO FEELINGS :-(
    ex PS
    12th Oct 2016
    9:27pm
    Crazy Horse, went through the same thing, even had my ex telling the CSA that I had provided for her and my son and she didn't want any more money from me. At the end of the day I paid her on Friday and she gave it back on Monday.
    Don't give up, I met a woman who worked along side of me and had the same values as me and we built a life much better than the one I had before.
    CSA was formed for one reason only. to identify people who were already trying to do the right thing and squeeze more money out of them, I was told by the solicitor representing the CSA ( I was not allowed legal representation) that she did not care if I could afford to live, her job was to save the government money by taking more money from me and reducing the amount that the government gave to my ex.
    Jezemeg8
    13th Oct 2016
    10:12am
    Quite frankly, I don't want to own property. I've always rented, and if something breaks or needs attention I just ring the landlord and it's fixed quickly and without expense to me. I couldn't afford to live where I do now if I wasn't renting.

    Stop giving renters a bad image, most of us, like homeowners are proud of their homes, and are reliable.
    PIXAPD
    13th Oct 2016
    4:13pm
    Good one, you are right too, be a renter, it's fun. Oh dear me, the house burnt down, ah well no matter, it ain't mine, ha ha ha.
    ex PS
    15th Oct 2016
    2:32pm
    It's like most things, we hear about the 2% who do the wrong thing but never hear a word about the renter who always paid on time, looked after the rental property as if it were their own and caused no problems with neighbors.
    Human nature.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    3:46pm
    Heard today about an elderly couple who have to leave their rental home because their overseas landlord wants them out as he is coming to live here

    Apparently they are in tears and very very stressed about this and now have to find somewhere within their price range to rent.

    Not good late in life to have all this stress.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles
    you might also be interested in...

    Retirement Planning

    When retirement planning becomes life planning it is a challenging, fun and fulfilling task.

    Age pension explained

    Anne explains whether you will qualify for an Age Pension and simplifies some of the more complex scenarios you may encounter dealing with Centrelink.

    Cruising

    Got the travel bug or need a break? Take a look at our latest Seniors travel discounts and deals.

    Meal Ideas

    Be inspired by our easy meal ideas. Search through hundreds of recipes to find the perfect one for any occasion.

    Trivia

    Have some fun and keep your mind active with our Daily Crossword, Trivia, Word Search and Sudoku Games.