4th Dec 2017

Super experts believe they’ve found the retirement income sweet spot

Super experts believe they’ve found the retirement income sweet spot
Leon Della Bosca

Australia’s superannuation system may be confusing but an apolitical superannuation information group and a clever economist believe they’ve found the retirement income sweet spot.

According to Save Our Super and economist Sean Corbett, there’s a way to work the super system where you can save less, retire early and still have enough for a comfortable retirement.

It’s a formula based on balancing private retirement savings and assets with the Age Pension.

Learn the rules and you can play them to your advantage, Save Our Super Head Jack Hammond told The Australian: “The rules were set in a strategic framework of lengthening life expectancies, rising incomes and expectations of higher retirement living standards, so that people could save for themselves, with declining reliance on the Age Pension.”



Retirement income usually comes from one or two sources, or both: private investments (including property, superannuation, term deposits and accumulated savings) and the Age Pension.

Too much of the former leads to a reduction of the latter. This means that some retirees who have worked hard to build up savings and assets over their lifetime will receive very little or no Age Pension once they break the income and asset thresholds.

Save Our Super and Sean Corbett have calculated the optimal level of savings required to achieve a maximum level of benefit from both superannuation and the Age Pension.

They based the sums on a mix of Age Pension benefits and a five per cent annual drawdown of super, and worked out optimal benefits for both singles and couples.

The resulting formula busts the $1 million super myth by a long shot. According to the researchers, a single person with a home needs just $300,000 in super to receive a $33,958 annual income, while a renting single needs $550,000 for a $42,549 income.

YourLifeChoices’  most recent Retirement Affordability Index™ placed a single homeowner in the affluent tribe if he or she had an income of $42,078 and in the constrained tribe with an income of $23,426.

Homeowner couples need $400,000 for a $52,395 annual income, while renting couples need $650,000 for a $60,833 income.

The Retirement Affordability Index™ labelled homeowner couples as affluent if they had an income of $73,524 and constrained with an income of $42,240.

The team also found that owning too many assets may actually work against retirees. A couple who own their home and have $800,000 in super would receive an annual income of $41,251. Halve that super, and the couple receives 94 per cent of the Age Pension payments meaning that their income increases to $52,395.

The sweet spot would kick in at age 67, because that is when you can receive a tax-free account-based pension.

As far as being able to retire early, knowing you have $800,000 in super at age 60 means you could retire, spend $400,000 to fix up your home, travel and set yourself up for age 67, when you would have $400,000 left in savings and the ability to earn more Age Pension benefits.

It’s a handy formula for those who will never earn $1 million in super – the amount required to receive a $52,395 annual income without government assistance.

This “sweet spot” may be good in theory, but you should always consult a finance professional before making any decisions about money – especially retirement income.

Do you believe this could work? How do you feel about reducing your assets so you can receive more Age Pension benefits? Do you agree with the sentiment of this theory?

Related articles:
Five unexpected retirement expenses
Noose tightens on super funds
Not enough money for retirement





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
Rae
4th Dec 2017
10:08am
Yes I agree. The Concession card actually assists hugely with medical costs that really become unaffordable if full prices have to be paid.

It is pointless saving extra if all that does is strip $10 000 a year from income in retirement.

The far right tried to be too clever by half when they dreamed up this nonsense and expected people to just cop it sweet.

A home with little debt, the full pension and concessions and $300 000 sounds just about right.
Greg
4th Dec 2017
11:08am
Tony and Joe thought people would spend their funds now, boost the economy, make them look good and who cares about the future. They certainly didn't, as long they look good now it will be someone else's problem in the years to come.
Jim
4th Dec 2017
11:15am
The ammount you mention is about right, pollies are a crook mob no matter what their political persuasion.
George
4th Dec 2017
3:16pm
Rae, if you save $10,000 extra over the limit you may earn say 5% or $500 income p.a. on it, yet lose $780 p.a. pension as per the new rules since Jan 2017. Hence, the sweet spot as noted in the article.

A major indictment of the morons in the Liberal Party who came up with this dumb-ass change to assets test. This article merely confirms what many on this site have noted repeatedly that it is better to spend down any excess assets over say $400,000 for couples as you get more in Pension and have MORE OVERALL income!
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
3:22pm
Correct George. Sad that some can't see that the change in the assets test will drive the cost of pensions UP, because people who find they are worse off having savings will spend and younger folk will save less. It's mind-boggling that the politicians are too stupid to see that.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
3:34pm
Rubbish Rainey all it will mean is their kids go cattle class to Disneyland and there will be cheaper first class tickets available for my kids.

The government save that people were not spending their capital in retirement and relying on the OAP so it was an awesome move to decrease the asset test so that they would spend their capital. If people still hoard their capital more changes to the asset test will be made. The government has all these statistics now available to them.
Rae
4th Dec 2017
5:23pm
Yes George indeed. The people targeted by the LNP are quite capable of doing the maths on this and acting accordingly.

The current cashflow out of superannuation and savings prove that.

It was a shame Credlin was able to sack sensible public servants and that Hockey and Morrison had no idea of the consequences they were setting in motion.
Rae
4th Dec 2017
5:29pm
Honestly OG I'm sure you don't believe that nonsense. The kids have been to Disneyland. They are now flying business to Italy, Iceland, Sardinia and who knows what will be the next hot spot.

Nobody is saving more than they have to and being good little frugal vegemites.

Let's hope the government is geared for when the money runs out and the music stops.

You'd be loony to buy assets at current prices anyway. Historically we are around 1927 and the party is in full swing now.

The LNP wanted the capital spent down and they are getting it.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
6:31pm
Only parties in full swing are bitcoin and the Aussie property market. We are now seeing bus tours to view discounted apartments in Brissie.
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
8:41pm
Yep, this STUPID government has destroyed the economy and the lifestyles of retirees. Lots of wailing about how ''lucky'' the baby boomers were and how poor the young are by comparison. My neighbours are taking 4 kids on a 21-day cruise next week. Last two years they holidayed in Bali. Neighbours on the other side have a 15-year-old who has holidayed in China, Japan, and Brazil and is going to Italy next year. Poor souls can't afford houses though, and are joining the scream to screw retirees.

The money will run out, because the IDIOTS in power are forcing the cost of the OAP up with their dumb policies, and driving a spending spree by folk who recognize how much better off they will be with less.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
9:38pm
Of course the baby boomers are lucky Rainey. They are more wealthy today at their age than any other generation. Most live in million dollar houses, drive new cars, have a 4 wheel drive and new caravan or motorhome with all the bells and whistles, travel the world crossing off their enormous bucket lists etc. When their money runs out the government pays them to live. What more cold they want?

Airfares are cheap today so why can't people travel as it's not near as expensive as it was when we were their age. Cruising is cheap too and kids have a ball. Bali is also cheaper than holidaying here in Australia.

Now the government are not idiots but have had the sense to realise that people are wealthy enough not to need the OAP so have made some necessary changes. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Rainey
5th Dec 2017
7:28am
Nobody ''realized'' anything, OG. A lot of fools made idiotic baseless assumptions. You have made comments about SOME baby boomers. Others are struggling. Many have had a horrendous struggle all through life. There have always been people living in million-dollar houses and driving new cars. There are more now because cars are cheaper and house values have risen, but that doesn't make retirees better off when the costs of the things they have to spend on - like electricity, gas, food, council rates and home maintenance or rent - are skyrocketing. Health costs are soaring and health insurance is becoming increasingly unaffordable.

Both you and the government couldn't be more WRONG judging need based on observation of a minority of affluent retirees and ignoring the reality.

Wealth is relative. How far $800,000 goes depends on investment return, investment risk, health, and longevity. For people who can't achieve strong investment returns and have maybe 30 years to live, the part pension was NECESSARY to ensure their money doesn't run out too early. And to take it away from those whose incomes from investment fall below the level of the pension was just crucifying people for saving and ensuring fewer are self-funded in retirement in the future. DUMB. But greed, envy, and spite drive STUPID policies, and greedy, envious, spiteful and ignorant people endorse those stupid decisions.

As for your dumb argument about travel - if one can't afford a house, a cruise or trip to Bali is NOT cheap. It's frivolous waste, whatever the cost.

I own a home because I didn't take a holiday for 25 years. And now some creeps call me ''lucky'' and say I should suffer in retirement for having done that! (Fortunately, I can still work at a job I love and only semi-retire, working fewer hours from home, so the pension changes didn't affect me. But unlike you, OG, I consider and empathise with those it did affect, and I understand how economically harmful the change was for the nation when the ''sweet spot' is achieved by saving less.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
12:15pm
So it is OK for people to have houses worth $10 million and get the OAP. Families are using this loop hole to set Mum and Dad up in a $10 million plus mansion because as it is their own home no only is it not counted in the asset test but it is also capital gains tax free. Houses doubles so family gets $10 million tax free.

That Rainey is what you are proposing with all your so called good intensions and defending these people.
Rainey
5th Dec 2017
12:25pm
You obviously can't read or comprehend, OG, because I have NEVER said it was okay for people to own a multi-million dollar home and get the OAP. What I said is that people who work and save should be allowed to enjoy the rewards of their endeavour, otherwise people will stop working and saving.

The system I support would STOP manipulation and cheating. Either pay everyone the same pension after age 65 and tax their income, OR assess income only - counting the higher of actual income or deemed income (at a fair rate relative to current interest rates) on all assets over, say, $750K per person. (That figure can be adjusted based on research and cost calculations). The assessment should then INCLUDE the family home. That would end the manipulation and unfairness and drive a work and save mentality that would reduce the cost of supporting retirees considerably.

Retirees SHOULD be able to enjoy a comfortable home that they worked and paid for, and SHOULD be able to leave it to their children. They should NOT suffer penalty either for investing in a home, or for saving for retirement. What you propose is COMMUNIST mentality - let the rich prosper, give the poor a bare subsistence income, and take everything away from those who strive and achieve moderately, grinding them and their heirs into hardship.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
1:23pm
No Rainey if you have assets they should be used to support you in old age and not the taxpayer. Your children should not be entitled to an inheritance if you have a welfare debt to the government. That the only fair way to do it.
Triss
5th Dec 2017
3:16pm
I would perhaps agree with you, OG, if it applied to everyone but Turnbull with his $52 million house and $22 million assets, Rudd with his multimillion house and assets and all the rest of the corrupt corps are still fleecing the taxpayer for their pensions.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
9:34am
Yes, Triss, the well-to-do take handouts by the bucket load, claiming superior entitlement because they are rich. Then when the less well off want their fair share, they scream that it's wrong and want to strip them of everything they worked for. It's a communist mentality and OG is clearly red.
Old Geezer
6th Dec 2017
10:22am
Gee I must have it all wrong as I get nothing but pay heaps instead.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
3:08pm
Like most well off, OG, you mot likely get bucket loads but don't recognize it as a handout. The rich think it's an entitlement - some sort of debt they are owed by the masses - and are as ungrateful as they are selfish.
Old Geezer
6th Dec 2017
5:16pm
Well Rainey I have just been through my tax return with a fine tooth comb and there is nothing extra in it as a present from the government.
Rainey
7th Dec 2017
7:54am
You wouldn't recognize a benefit, OG, and you certainly wouldn't admit to it, but you didn't get $1.6 million in super without getting benefits by the bucket-load funded by the poor struggling taxpayers you now want to see persecuted.
Bonny
9th Dec 2017
7:41am
Rainey I take offense in that just because we may have more wealth than you it doesn't automatically mean we are dishonest and have robbed everyone to gain our wealth. Most wealthy people give back more to society without wanting anything in return than many others do. Even owning a country estate has no tax benefits but I do save two people from being homeless. OK they help out a bit but they do so willingly and would like to do more. We are all good friends and help each other out like friends do. We have gatherings where we invite the neighbours and they do likewise. My family visit me very week and we have lunch together every other Sunday.

Yes I could kick my friends out and get a home care package instead.
Rainey
9th Dec 2017
4:20pm
Bonny, I'm sure you are virtuous in some ways, but the fact remains that you continually denigrate the less well off and wish hurt and loss on them. By failing acknowledge their contribution to society and their entitlement to enjoy fair reward, you are being dishonest. It's robbery to use people's skill or labour for less than it's worth under any circumstances. Sure, people who have few choice in life will tolerate it willingly - even gratefully, knowing that they have limited choices and what you offer is better than the alternative. That doesn't make it any less dishonest to use them. But that's the capital economy. It's not your fault. It's the way capitalism works. What IS your fault is that you seem intent on denying hard working battlers the right to enjoy what they have worked so hard to earn, just because they didn't get as rich as you.
Richied
4th Dec 2017
10:24am
Hmmm. Seems to be something wrong with a system that penalises people for saving through their life.
Janus
4th Dec 2017
11:25am
Fully with you, Richied. A system that penalises those who did not waste their money and saved up, so that they need to spend it on overcapitalising their house and spending it overseas, seems stupid to me.

Saving the money in various locations, so that others can borrow it and invest it in the meantime, seems logical.

One thing in our favour: when this lousy stupid pensioners-should-hurry-up-and-die government decides to chop pensions and benefits (again) those with a decent nest-egg will be OK.
Rae
4th Dec 2017
5:32pm
Yes indeed Janus pity that there is so much money though that it's not worth much even when you do lend it out.

I've never seen coupons this low before and there is little appetite to feed more money into that Great Huge Bond Bubble.
Bella54
4th Dec 2017
10:30am
Richied has a point. I have tried to prepare for a comfortable retirement throughout my working life. I have retired at 62 and live off my savings with my husband who is also retired. We live simply and are fortunate we own our home. I suppose the only blessing is we don’t have to deal with Centrelink!
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
10:31am
That's why the pensioner concession card should only be given to those on the full old pension.

Let's hope the government takes note of this and makes the necessary changes to the concession card.
Janus
4th Dec 2017
11:31am
Old Geezer,
What is your address, so I can send you a copy of the whacking-stick that our government has to punish retirees for being too old to work.

Why punish people for being old and wise? Maybe they forget that some of us still have our marbles and vote.

And some of us, Old Geezer, still use logic in our comments.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
11:39am
Well it does seem logically that the government will make further changes to the old age pension which is a good idea. However others may not think so due to their own greed.
Waiting to retire at 70
4th Dec 2017
12:46pm
Old Geezer, you've forgotten you pills again. It'll be alright when you take them...go on now!
Rae
4th Dec 2017
12:49pm
Pretty much the greed of councils, electricity providers, pharmacies and medical as far as I can see OG. All those things cost a bomb in Australia compared to just about everywhere I've ever travelled.

That is why we need a concession card. Of course as more don't get one and stop spending the prices may very well have to fall.

Less huge boats down in the harbour can't come soon enough.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
12:53pm
Nope I don't take any of those prescription poisons others take to keep big pharma big and getting even bigger.
Rosret
4th Dec 2017
3:13pm
Yes, Old Geezer I am trying to get my head around it.

Lets start with the "$800K equates to a $40K p.a." Is this an assumption on a 5% income from super or a 4% compulsory draw down?

How does a single person on a super fund of $300K get an income of $33K. What portion is government payout and what is personal super.

It really does seem very unfair. At least its nice not to be at the whim of Centrelink and if I want to earn an income I can.

I would love to know how the formula is devised. What is the point of saving?
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
3:41pm
If you are over 65 you have to drawn down a minimum 5% of your super which is $40,000 with %800,000 in super. The rest of the $41251 must be the little bit of OAP they get.

The drawn down has nothing to do with what your super earns.

$300,000 in super 5% draw down is $15000.
Rae
4th Dec 2017
5:42pm
This current Government does not appear to do logic or common sense well.

Rosret there must be a very fine line where a single person can own their home, no other real assets bar a few thousand of furniture and a car and get the full OAP of just under $900 a fortnight plus the $4000 a year odd concessions.

If they have medical needs then that makes very good sense.

You'd have to talk to a good accountant/financial advisor who knows the rules.

Save too much and you'll need to spend it down to get to the same income. It's not logical.

There is a benefit of not having to deal with Centrelink and if healthy you'd be just fine with around $800 000 or more.
Whether that benefit is worth the lost $22 000 a year plus concessions I'm not sure.

It depends on how hard it was to save that $800 000 plus and what exactly you had to do and go without to do so.
seadog
4th Dec 2017
11:02am
Years ago we were encouraged to save for our retirement and now those of us who have are being penalised for doing so. If you partied, smoked, drank, had expensive holidays on the "never never" you are now rewarded. Pretty poor as the age pension was brought in for one reason and that is all. That reason was to pay ALL people in retirement a form of living expenses. Unfortunately successive governments of all flavours have watered this don but then I am sure that they can all afford it with their pensions funded by us which they can draw on at will.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
11:42am
No you are not being punished as if you have enough to be affected by the asset changes then you have more than enough to live on. What has happened is that your chickens have come home to rest with your greed in applying for the OAP when you didn't need it.
Richied
4th Dec 2017
12:00pm
The article makes clear a person on pension can have a higher income than someone who saved through the years. So why would anyone save so they have a lower income in retirement? The system penalises those who save through their lives, and encourages people to game the system so they can get part pension (and benefits that come with it).
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
12:04pm
That's why you shouldn't get the benefits unless you are on the full OAP.

Give me the $800,000 any day rather than the OAP and I'll have more income than I would on the OAP plus the benefits. People are very lazy about investing their money these days.
Waiting to retire at 70
4th Dec 2017
12:49pm
Old Geezer ... PILLS
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
1:02pm
Nope I don't take any of those prescription poisons others take to keep big pharma big and getting even bigger. You know it's just a big con by big pharma.
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
3:26pm
You need some, OG. But more to the point, you need as brain that can actually process data correctly. Yes, SOME folk with $800,000 will be better off than on a pension, despite not getting concessions. And many will be FAR WORSE OFF because they don't get good investment returns.

Only a very STUPID government positions savers to be worse off than those who didn't. It makes people save less, and depend more heavily on the taxpayer - thus pushing the deficit UP UP UP UP UP. So sad that self-obsessed egotists can't grasp that concept.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
4:27pm
The true savers would have a lot more assets than even allowed under the old asset rules or they would have arranged their affairs just to get the OAP. It is a very small minority that would have played the game fairly would have been affected by the asset test change.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
4:49pm
Rainey most of those prescription poisons are only sugar pills anyway as it' all in your mind they actually work.
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
8:43pm
Nothing works to fix your bias, meanness, and lack of logic, OG. That's very clear.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
9:43pm
Nothing works for you either Rainey. We all have problems in our lives and just deal with them and get on with life. No sense on dwelling o the past at all. OK the asset changes have cooked your goose so now it's time to move on and live with it. Whinging is not going to change the government's mind on this one. While you are at it prepare for more changes to come.
Rainey
5th Dec 2017
12:41pm
That's a stupid defeatist attitude, OG, and too many people take it - which is why governments get away with bad policy. I have driven changes to legislation three times in the past, and I'll do it again. I will continue to object to the changed assets test on the grounds that it is economically unsustainable because it rewards irresponsibility and punishes working and saving - so it will drive pension costs up. It's nothing to do with me personally. It does NOT affect me. You seem to be very lacking in comprehension because I've said that many times. But I've said it all many times and you just keep on with your IDIOTIC argument based on WILD ASSUMPTIONS about other people's needs. You obviously don't have the intelligence to focus on what is good for the nation. Sad!
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
1:33pm
I too Rainey continue to lobby for a better use of taxpayers money and continually tell them welfare should only be given to those without any others means of support.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
9:39am
Yes, OG, you continue to lobby for more STUPID SHORT-SIGHTED changes that will increase hardship for retirees and blow the budget big-time by further incentivizing irresponsible lifestyles and cheating and manipulation. DUMB DUMB DUMB.
Greg
4th Dec 2017
11:04am
Yes...worked this out a couple of years ago. I just went back to look at my spreadsheet and my super balance at 67 will in theory be $400,105 for an income of $50,000 in today's dollars. Amazing I hit the sweet spot - I do have a sweet tooth.

Of course that $1 million quote was a load of crap, put out there by Challenger Ltd to increase their fund balances.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
11:14am
$2 million is not enough for some people either.
Rae
4th Dec 2017
5:51pm
Good work Greg. That position will be hard to beat. A full OAP and all the benefits and just enough for a bit extra and no worries about having funds to replace or repair as time goes by.

As I said plenty are taking that option now and that explains the flow of funds out of super funds and term deposits.

The LNP are entirely responsible for these consequences.
Jim
4th Dec 2017
11:07am
Who determines what a super expert looks like, I realised many years ago that the so called financial experts are a myth, they have always exaggerated the ammount you need in retirement, the obvious reason being that the more you put in their hands the more they make out of you, irrespective of how well or poorly your super performs, it's been one of the biggest cons of our time, the fees you pay to some of these con merchants are sometimes obscene for the service you recieve. I have been retired for almost 8 years now and I retired with a fraction of the money that the experts said I needed, I am not smarter than the average person, the best advice I got was from the retirement expert at Centrelink, I know that different people have different expectations and experiences in retirement, but I firmly believe that if you have realistic expectations in retirement you won't go far wrong.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
11:24am
Now I have found a super expert but it took awhile to find someone who really knows how super works and how to play the game.
Rainey
10th Dec 2017
8:09am
NOW you have found the expert your other post lies about having been with for many, many years. Oh but you had to tell THAT lie to try to cover up the other that you were caught out telling - you know, the one about me being wrong in noting your confession to very substantial wealth.
Old Geezer
11th Dec 2017
1:59pm
Yes you are right Rainey it has only been seven years since I found my super expert. She actually found me.

Yes I am comfortable with my lot but if there was a silver spoon it was worn out and very rusty when I got it.
Rainey
11th Dec 2017
2:47pm
Now you expect us to believe someone who won't take on anyone with less than $1.6 million in super sought you out despite you having much less than that. Crap! We are NOT stupid, OG. You are clearly filthy rich and disgustingly selfish, and also extremely dishonest.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
11:19am
Doesn't this joker know that the sweetest spot of all is not dealing with Centrelink?

You don't have to have much money to earn the same income as the old age pension and what good are the concessions if you don't have any use for them? Most people automatically think because you are of a certain age you have one anyway.
Rosret
4th Dec 2017
3:15pm
Agreed Old Geezer. I can even go OS without being tracked!
Rae
5th Dec 2017
9:00am
I've a few friends using the park the younger members super in accumulation and get the OAP for free trick right now. They have had no trouble with Centrelink and the few years of $33 000 and concessions makes financial sense. You can still draw down lump sums if needed for those bucket list trips. Nobody would buy expensive assets now if they have any sense.

Now that is a sweet spot nice to have but not necessary.

Wonder why the Government let that run but slammed public servants taking pension options. Just hate unionists maybe?

Trying to understand the reasoning behind the fascist far right is impossible because the end game is unimaginable.
johnp
5th Dec 2017
11:51am
Thanks OG, look forward re that Super Expert. Its always good to look around and see the options that are available.
Old Geezer
6th Dec 2017
5:12pm
As I have said my super expert only takes on those with balances of $1.6 million plus. So if that you send me a PM and I'll ask her if she is interested for you.
Tib
4th Dec 2017
11:54am
This is a really good article for guys, take note you don't have to keep working till your dead or almost. Retire take it easy you deserve it. It's surprising how little money you need if don't shop till you drop. If your wife does that she will have to stop. In most cases men's lifestyle hardly changes and the wife will have to get used to it.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
12:00pm
If your wife shops till she drops then you haven't trained here very well at all.
Tib
4th Dec 2017
12:12pm
OG agreed but it's still very common. Shop till you drop and retail therapy is a very common attitude. You will often see women with that attitude on here. Retirement is quite a shock for them.
Raphael
4th Dec 2017
2:12pm
Just shoot her - she’ll drop
Tib
4th Dec 2017
3:06pm
Raphael ....oh that's bad ha ha.
Sundays
4th Dec 2017
4:11pm
You amaze me Tib. There are a lot of men who are spenders. Many with expensive hobbies which cost way more than a new pair of shoes for example! This article is factual, but regardless of your retirement income, have a budget and stick to it.
Tib
4th Dec 2017
6:24pm
Sunday's what about hundreds of pairs of shoes. Let's just say almost every woman I've ever met was a crazy shopper. Especially if they didn't work for the money.
Rainey
5th Dec 2017
12:45pm
How sad that you know so few women, Tib. 99% are hard working, careful with money, and contribute a great deal to the family's security, the children's education, buying a home, and saving for retirement. You must have been dead unlucky to meet only the 1%.
Tib
5th Dec 2017
3:58pm
Rainey you made a typo, you have your percentages back to front.
Bonny
5th Dec 2017
10:42pm
Why is there so many dress shops but maybe only one menswear shop in shopping centres? Someone must be supporting them.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
9:44am
No Tib. My percentages are spot on. It's you who has it all wrong.

Bonny, women dress to please men. Most men don't bother much with dress as there are only so many ways to vary a formal suit, sports trousers and casual shirt, or jeans and T-shirt.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
9:48am
BTW. Bonny. I just checked the two major shopping centres in my area and both have more men's wear stores than women dress shops.
Big Al
4th Dec 2017
12:00pm
Old Geezer, you are all over the shop with your comments, and they don't make any logical sense. Why shouldn't those of us who have a reasonable Super balance, and only get a small part pension, not also be eligible for Health Care and other pensioner concessions? If we don't minimize our expenses in this way, then our Super will run out faster, and the govt/Centrelink will have to pay us a higher aged pension. Wake up and try to use some logic, Old Geezer, or are you past it?
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
12:08pm
Logic tells me that people are after the benefits not the OAP itself so will do whatever it takes to get a $1 of OAP. How much money is hidden in the mattress bank or safe deposit boxes? We need to recall notes every five years so that they have to change them. How many people live in houses worth many millions? I live in a street full of them owned by OAPs.

That is why the present system is so wrong.
Rae
4th Dec 2017
2:39pm
The present system is unsustainable. Howard left so many structural problems behind to be fixed sometime or other. It's a dog's breakfast.

It makes sense though to spend up and get a guaranteed income with concessions now.

The far right wanted to destroy superannuation for all but the very wealthy and I think they have succeeded.
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
3:20pm
OG is a green-eyed monster, Big Al, Can't stand the thought that someone else might enjoy a benefit he doesn't qualify for. He is also obsessed with making out he is smarter than anyone else here. His ego is hurting because he wrongly predicted the budget would further screw the retired, rather than giving a little back to some (very discriminatorily and unfairly, I might add! EVERYONE under the old assets limit should get the concession card, whether they hit that level before or after the limit was changed.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
3:57pm
Gee Rainey why would I be a green-eyed monster if I don't get something that is of no use to me all. That's right those concessions are useless to me.

OK got my timing wrong but I can assure you that whoever is in power there are more changes to the OAP coming. Their pencils have already been sharpened.
Raphael
4th Dec 2017
4:22pm
If the government is giving me an extra $10-20k a year in concessions even though I can afford it, I'd say thank you very much and take it
Thats money of my own I can put to good use - like taking more extravagant holidays, buying a better car every 3 years, or blowing it on the kids ....

OG - youre not very bright for someone on OAP
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
4:32pm
You don't get it I don't have any use for those concessions. I don't own a house or car and I don't use prescription poisons and get bulk billed for doctors and specialists so what else can I use it for?
Raphael
4th Dec 2017
4:55pm
So you still rent and take public transport OG?

Cant afford a nice mansion or a penthouse apartment overlooking the harbour and a jaguar/porche in the garage

Shame - all that investment nouse and wasted
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
5:07pm
No I don't rent or use public transport. No public transport here to use anyway. I drive a late model car and have just been asked if I want it replaced.
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
8:53pm
You don't rent, but you don't own a home, and you have experienced hardship. Who do you think you fool with your contradictions, OG? Your nose is growing very long indeed.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
1:38pm
My nose is getting smaller if anything so you are wrong there too.

Maybe it not me that is the fool after all I am a fully self funded retiree and it's takes more than a fool to achieve this.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
9:37am
NO NO NO, OG. Most of the well-off retirees I know either inherited wealth, or obtained it through good fortune, corruption, theft (of various kinds - even if only taking a high wage for performing very badly!) etc. And most of the battlers I know who have nothing have been ripped off, cheated and abused by bureaucrats misusing power or simply stuffing up at their jobs.

You got a university education, but clearly it didn't help your ability to read or comprehend. That makes you an overpaid FOOL.
johnp
4th Dec 2017
12:17pm
Re where Old Geezer said - I have found a super expert
We all would like to know who that is so we can be as intelligent as him
Over to you - Old Geezer
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
12:29pm
I doubt if Your Life Choices would like me to advertise on their site.
Raphael
4th Dec 2017
2:14pm
Why do you need a super expert if you’re not on OAP OG ?
You’re telling fibs - me thinks you’re on OAP and your comments are just to stir
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
2:19pm
I need a super expert so that my SMSF is compliant so I don't get sent to gaol. I also got sick of fighting so called expert auditors who didn't have clue about super.
johnp
4th Dec 2017
3:13pm
Still waiting for OG's super expert. That excuse of :
"doubt if Your Life Choices would like me to advertise"
Was just a copout
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
4:01pm
Johnp if you have around the maximum $1.6 million in super send me a message and I'll ask my super expert if they are taking on new clients.
Tib
4th Dec 2017
6:55pm
OG my experience is if you have 1.6 million all financial advisers are experts just ask them. Ha ha. Good luck with yours.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
7:29pm
Yes Tib they all think they are experts. Those high and mighty auditors are the worst as they have no idea and thus can get you into a lot of trouble with the ATO.
Rae
5th Dec 2017
9:17am
The Government has sort of made it easier though. Just play the volatility for all it's worth them splurge on wonderful trips and experiences.

Taking away the sensibility of saving and the stupidity of buying expensive toys has freed us all up so that is one unexpected consequence.

I had a young lad at my accountants pick up a glitch that we missed for a decade or so recently so it could be sorted out. The rules are now changing so fast it's very hard to keep up.

Not surprising people are just going and doing what they refused to do when saving was seen as a sensible option without penalty.
Rae
5th Dec 2017
9:21am
Let's not forget the wonderful gift of 50% discount on speculative gains. Wow that one is a doozy. No tax much on capital gains but heaps on labour income. Another Government policy that makes no sense to anyone not privy to far right machinations.
MICK
4th Dec 2017
12:29pm
Theory is a great feel good tool. And then a government changes the rules! What then????
We are in the assets/low income trap but manage ok. You do not need $50 000+ pa to live well and I guess the definition of what constitutes living well is at the heart of this debate.
My wife and I travel extensively every year and do this on a low income but the rest of the year is about controlling spending. Seek and ye shall find!
Raphael
4th Dec 2017
2:19pm
Good for you Mick

Too bad you’re a labor supporter though.

No amount of travel will change your whining LNP bashing ways
MICK
4th Dec 2017
2:25pm
Do not vote Labor or perverse LNP.
I'll keep telling the story until voters see what the propaganda hides: the truth. The mentally challenged will of course continue to vote as they always have.
You might want to read a few of your own posts Raphael. Cheers.
Cruiser
4th Dec 2017
12:31pm
Interesting article, I believe we still have a generous retirement system not withstanding the changes recently made. I think the retirement target should be somewhere between $600k and $800k for a home owning couple as the 67th year approaches. Start your retirement by exceeding the $60k pa withdrawal, this will mean exceeding the 5 % annual withdrawal recommended, start ticking off the items on the bucket list, aim for a super balance of between $400k and $500k by the time you get to 75. The aged pension contribution will rise as your super balance diminishes still leaving you comfortable for the remainder of your life assuming you are lucky enough to last the distance. "Seize the day" my friends!!!
Rae
4th Dec 2017
12:56pm
Excellent advice Cruiser.
johnp
4th Dec 2017
1:10pm
Yes, a good practical way to go by Cruiser
MICK
4th Dec 2017
1:25pm
And hope and pray the next coalition government does not sharpen its pencil again. Those who have been removed from a pension might just disagree with you.
It is a game but the goalposts do change.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
4:52pm
Mick Labor would have already sharpened their pencils on this one.
Raphael
4th Dec 2017
2:17pm
For those whose have more than the sweet spot , it’s a good incentive to gift to the kids so they get a leg up in the property market .
Once they have property covered , their savings will accelerate
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
2:21pm
If you had taught them well then they would have paid for their own property themselves by now.
Rosret
4th Dec 2017
3:17pm
Isn't it Raphael. What a wacky system.
Raphael
4th Dec 2017
4:01pm
They still in college OG

Even I didnt earn enough in college to buy property, no doubt you did
justme
4th Dec 2017
2:22pm
So set yourself up by age 60, enjoy the next 7 years; then trust the pollies not to make any changes to the system during that 7 years.
Why didn't I think of that.
Rae
4th Dec 2017
2:42pm
Yes. When they come out and say they don't plan changes to win an election you can be sure they are lying. Pretty much sums up the past few election promises. Total fabrications.
BElle
4th Dec 2017
3:07pm
Why do people respond to Old Geezer? He is obviously there to be Devil's Advocate. As one by a different name was previously. Don't feed his ego,
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
3:13pm
This is what I've been saying all along - though sadly folk like OG and Bonny can't see it. If you save more, you a penalized and have less. If you save less, you enjoy a better lifestyle while working and a higher income in retirement. So there's no incentive to save more, and therefore pension costs will rise as people realize that unless they can achieve very high wealth or huge investment returns, they are better off saving less and taking more from the taxpayer.

Changing the assets test was therefore very STUPID policy by the government and it will drive the deficit up.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
3:54pm
There are only about 300,000 people affected by the asset change and that is a very small percentage of those on welfare. Fully self funded retirees would not be seeing it as a disincentive to save at all. Why would you if you can earn a good income to reach your threshold and your drawn from super is also tax free.

So $800,000 in super gives you a minimum drawn down of $40,000 and with another $400,000 earning a lousy 5% with give you another 20,000 tax free. considerably more than the OAP plus the concessions. If your SMSF earned 15% and you drew down 10% tax free you would be laughing.

Unfortunately I do get it!
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
8:50pm
Oh, so if ONLY 300,000 are hurt, that's okay then! What a disgusting attitude, OG. I guess it's okay that ONLY some 150k000 are homeless too?

The drawdown has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH INCOME. If you are not earning enough return on your super to draw $40K without eroding capital, you are worse off than full pensioners with maximum assets, and you are using your hard-won savings for the benefit of others - which is grossly unfair after you gave up cruises and new cars and nice clothes to accrue those savings.

Yes, is you are getting 15% on your SMSF you are laughing. If you are only getting 4%, you are being cheated by an unfair pension policy that hands out a million or so to anyone who DIDN'T save, while you are told to go suck eggs because you did.

You DO NOT GET IT AT ALL, OG. You have no logic whatever - but that's true of most bigot and scrooges.
Rae
5th Dec 2017
9:40am
I wouldn't count on that tax free staying that way nor tax concessions for super savings and capital gain discounts remaining either. Those tax concessions are costing more than welfare now and while nice to have are not necessary.

It would have been equitable to do as all other OECD countries and give a universal pension and tax other income in an appropriate fashion.

Our current system is discriminatory and further erodes equality.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
1:46pm
Rae the problem is take away the tax incentives and super concessions and people will find other ways to earn money and cut the government completely out of the loop. All those anonymous ATM cards now in use will only increase and not too sure what the government is going to do about all the alternative currencies about to hit the world either. Have you seen what's happening with shares in block chain companies?
Rae
5th Dec 2017
3:08pm
Yes OG an almost vertical index there. It must have Central bankers concerned.

I still believe the instability of the halving of capital gains is driving excessive speculation.

A lot of wealth is going to be lost when the dust settles.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
9:42am
Yes, OG, because the well off are SUPER GREEDY AND SELFISH. And they - like you - have the gall to call battlers greedy for wanting just a little of the pie that the greedy rich feast on so lavishly.

Don't try to argue. You just admitted the well to do are super greedy and will resort to anything to avoid paying their fare share of tax.
George
7th Dec 2017
11:38pm
Absolutely agree with your comments, Rainey. OG also lies regarding numbers as it was estimated 420,000 (not 300,000) had pensions reduced or lost it altogether. But then facts are not important for him, as he is blinded by jealousy of others who may get some benefits which he couldn't get because of his own stupid planning (e.g. no house). Also, probably paid by the Liberal party to make comments here, given the large number of useless repeated crap comments from him.
Old Geezer
8th Dec 2017
10:01am
So I am now a mug because I don't own a house and have to pay all the expenses associated with owing one.
ex PS
8th Dec 2017
12:05pm
O.G. I am surprised you have not realized yet that you in fact pay for the rates, insurance , maintenance and other expenses uncured in owning a home in your rent payment. Do you not imagine that all these factors are taken into account when the owner of the rental property decides how much to charge for rent.

Wouldn't you if you were managing real estate?
Old Geezer
8th Dec 2017
6:39pm
I don't pay any rent so no I don't pay them in my rent payments either.
ex PS
9th Dec 2017
12:15pm
Don't own a home, don't pay rent, who are you bludging off O.G?
MO6B
4th Dec 2017
3:36pm
Just for once I would like to read fair and non judgemental comments on this website. For one, slandering women and making us all out to just shop till we drop or reigning in this behavior is a need for us to “ controlled” is misogynist drivel. Every time I see the assumption that anyone does not have excess

assets is someone who has drunken and smoked

and wasted money it makes my blood boil.
Usually the women in this society have worked
full time, raised families, put all their children
through a higher standard of education than
they ever had the opportunity of. They have
run household budgets, looked after aged
parents, contributed voluntarily in their
community organizations all whilst on average
earning up to 25% less than their male
counterparts. In our case I have put six children
through university plus dealt with numerous
health crisies in our family. .to me an exotic
gift would be a new nickers and a trip to
for an outfit for my children’s weddings.
I have had to retire under circumstances not of my choosing. In doing so I have found that the pension and it’s concessions are welcome and with jiggling we can make ends meet.
We should all rejoice in the fact we have reached retirement age and take pride in all that each and every one of us has done in our hard working productive lives. Their should be no judgements and perhaps we could ask what we could do to make each day the best it can be for each any everyone of us .we live in a fabulous country and, at retirement age we are lucky to be here as many of my colleagues did not make it.
Triss
4th Dec 2017
6:24pm
Well said, MO6B, and ,as you said, there are many more like you. Misogynists need to be offensive to successful women as it is the only way they can feel good about themselves. Luckily they are in the minority...irritating but very much in the minority.
Tib
4th Dec 2017
10:26pm
Most women I know didn't work or hardly worked at all. Wasted any money they had, emptied their husbands bank accounts buying rubbish because they were bored. Shop till you drop and retail therapy are phrases used by women to describe their greed not phrases used by men. I went to Kmart the other day to buy some work shirts for around the house. There were 10 female change rooms and 2 for men. Retailers know who do all the money wasting. Just look around any small town and see how many shops are aimed at female waste.
Triss almost all men think like this because it's obvious, but they don't tell you because they can't be bothered. Besides never tell a women the truth if you want sex, there is no point describing an adult concept to children. Women and children same thing.
Triss
5th Dec 2017
9:23am
No, Tib, most men don’t think like you do. There are more change rooms for women because men don’t wear a bra and that needs a fitting room. Men very rarely bother to go into a change room to try on a shirt but women do, but I’m not going to change your way of thinking, am I as I feel it’s more psychological than rational.
Rainey
5th Dec 2017
12:36pm
What a strange artificial world you live in, Tib. I have never met a woman who didn't work incredibly hard and look after the family money far better than her husband. They would have had no time to be bored, and they certainly wouldn't waste money on rubbish because they worried about the kids' education, paying off the house, and planning for the day when hubby stopped working. Most did several jobs at once - working to top up the family income as well as caring for the kids, cooking, washing, cleaning, gardening, and often sewing as well to save a few extra dollars.

Very few men think as you do, Tib. All those I know value their wives' contribution enormously and are quick to say that few men would prosper without a strong and supportive partner. You obviously chose the wrong partner(s) and are bitter and twisted because of it. Very sad! But with your attitude, it's a sure bet you'd never attract anyone from the 99% of good, hard-working women who make ideal partners.
Rainey
5th Dec 2017
1:22pm
Tib, I actually did hear of a woman such as you describe - from her ex-husband actually. He descried someone just like you refer to - a lazy spendthrift. Then I met one of her children and I learned that she is now happily remarried, working very hard, living very responsibly and frugally, and giving her husband wonderful support. The problem before was the selfish chauvinist she was married to and his nasty attitude. She couldn't see the point in working and saving to help someone who was so nasty and unappreciative, and would have been a classic user if she had let him be. He will forever rant as you do - blissfully unaware that HE was the problem. And I strongly suspect most women who are lazy and overspend do so because they are married to chauvinist pigs.

By the way, I know a lot of men who drink, gamble, have expensive hobbies, and contribute minimally to the family budget. But I don't judge an entire population by their conduct. Nor do I fail to acknowledge that it takes two to make a partnership, and often the fault - if there is one - is not where it appears to be. People react to the way they are treated.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
1:32pm
Rainey all I'll say is that you must live in a very limited little world.
Tib
5th Dec 2017
3:12pm
Sure ladies , whatever you say , just because you're ranting doesn't make it true. By the way when you asked your husband if your bum looked big in jeans and he said it didn't , well he was lying about that as well, ha ha.
Tib
5th Dec 2017
3:23pm
Triss women need 10 change rooms and men only need 2 because women wear a bra. Ha ha that is hilarious.
Triss
5th Dec 2017
10:10pm
For Heaven's sake, Tib, do grow up.
floss
4th Dec 2017
3:59pm
Just ignore O.G. he is just a Liberal stooge and a lonely one at that.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
4:04pm
Lonely I don't know what being lonely is. Sometimes I wish I could have some quality time to myself. However while I am typing on this forum people think I am busy and leave me alone.
Rae
5th Dec 2017
9:53am
Me too OG. Strange how that works. I usually do this in a coffee break . I enjoy your insights although I'm not quite sure about the far right now. They are beginning to concern me. I can see a danger there if the Centre doesn't grow some balls.
Manne
4th Dec 2017
4:38pm
This ok for a sweet spot now. But they will keep changing the system and it becomes a moving target.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
4:51pm
So you need to be flexible to move with the changes as change is part of life.
Baz
4th Dec 2017
6:17pm
Be very careful about spending capital to reduce assets as the government can pull the rug out very quickly like they did in Jan when they cut the assets threshhold test. Barry
Raphael
4th Dec 2017
7:19pm
that's an oxymoron - all the more reason to spend capital
Mad as hell
4th Dec 2017
7:49pm
Tony Abbott on the eve of 2013 election gave an absolute guarantee “ .... there would be no cuts to pensions...” Why would one ever trust the Liberals ever? The Greens were in bed with the LNP on the 2017 Pensioner Assets Test, they are both on the nose and will never get my vote in any election Federal, State or Local.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
7:54pm
There were no cuts to pensions. Some just now have too much money to get the pension.
Mad as hell
4th Dec 2017
8:10pm
Rubbish OG
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
8:36pm
Tell that to the many thousands who had their pensions cut or cancelled, OG. You are full of it!
Raphael
4th Dec 2017
8:42pm
OG is full of contradictions. Can't keep up with his own fins.
One moment he doesnt own a house, the next he does. One moment he only has $400k in investments , next he has $800k

I thought he made sense on some topics, but then most people do make sense some times.
Mad as hell
4th Dec 2017
8:54pm
Stick to the facts OG. 330,000 pensioners lost all or part of their pensions because of retrospective legislation as a result of harsher taper rate and assets limit.
Tib
4th Dec 2017
9:27pm
I think this is one of the problems with making financial decisions that include the OAP.
Old Geezer
4th Dec 2017
9:30pm
Yes most of those who lost the OAP should not have been given it in the first place. Party had to end and now it has they do nothing but whinge. Let's hope the government makes more of these necessary changes and the sooner the better. I also tell them that I agree with what the government has done and they should not have been given back their concession card either. They had 18 months warning that the asset test was going to change which was more than ample.

Yes I put aside $400,000 in short term investments for us to live many years ago so that I didn't have to sell other assets at the wrong time in fire sales in order to live. As the $400,000 earns as much as I need to live each year it stays around that level.

No I don't own the house nor do I rent it. I don't collect the seniors welfare payment incorrectly called the OAP.

Nothing complicated about all that at all.
Mad as hell
5th Dec 2017
7:00am
OG. After 47 years in the work force and 20 years of super savings 18 months notice from the LNP and Greens is not ample time once one has retired. It’s like kicking a goal and moving the goal posts once the ball is in the air.
Rainey
5th Dec 2017
7:17am
You don't own and you don't rent. No wonder your living costs are low OG. Very few are fortunate enough to be able to achieve that situation in retirement, yet you judge everyone by your situation.

Mad as Hell is correct. 18 months notice was NOT enough for people who had already retired or were about to retire. Gifting has to be done 5 years before retirement. For many who had already moved into their planned retirement home, upgrading was not an option, and renovation/extension/improvement might not have been desirable. That leaves only the option of spending, which many find unpalatable because there is no certainty what future needs might arise or further changes create hardship. So those impacted were left to suffer unfairly for having saved while, as the article above evidences, those who saved less enjoy higher income and lower living costs.

You keep harping with the same boring argument, OG, but you can't respond logically to explanations of why the change was wrong or how it will drive the budget deficit up. All you can do is make stupid rants - with no evidence or logic to back them up - CLAIMING that people didn't need the part pension (how the hell would you know what someone else needs?) or that they were using it to take luxury trips to Disneyland (what a STUPID and baseless assertion!) Like our politicians, you work on wild baseless ASSUMPTIONS, driven by a nasty mentality, lack of respect for others, and complete lack of empathy. You should either study fact and evidence and learn how to present it sensibly, or just shut the hell up. You are showing yourself to be a very unlikable person.
Bonny
5th Dec 2017
7:24am
So you had more than the old asset test but organised your affairs to get the OAP etc and now you realise that your scheme has come undone. Shame on you as that is nothing but pure greed.

I too invested my money bought myself a country estate to live in whereas I could of bought something a more lavish and expensive so I could get the OAP etc. That sounds like being foolish to me tying up ones assets for a few extras free bucks with no room to move if things change.

I hope you sacked your financial advisor and found a better one who knows how to structure your affairs to take advantage of any changes.
Mad as hell
5th Dec 2017
9:55am
No Bonney I did not have more the the old Assets Test allowed. I did not sack my financial advisor but I will be sacking the LNP and Greens at the next election.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
12:19pm
So you would have no issues with the change in asset test and would just have to spend it down until you qualify for the OAP.
Raphael
5th Dec 2017
12:33pm
Rainey - OG never moved out of mum and dad’s
Hence he doesn’t own and doesn’t rent
Rainey
5th Dec 2017
12:42pm
Probably right, Raphael, though the way he slanders his parents you would think they would throw him out! He is obviously an ingrate and a user, and thinks we should all follow suit.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
1:01pm
Nope Rachael you still haven't worked it out.

Funny as my parents today if they were alive would be some of the oldest people on earth today.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
9:47am
And when they died, you moved in to bludge off your rich brother! Clearly you are bludging off someone, OG, or you would either own a home and be paying the maintenance costs or renting.
Old Geezer
7th Dec 2017
10:13pm
Good heavens Rainey if we lived together we would kill each other within a week as we are too alike.
George
7th Dec 2017
11:41pm
Spot on with your comments, Mad as hell. All retirees need to join and vote out the Liberals, Greens & Labor by putting their sitting members last in preferences.
Florgan
4th Dec 2017
10:54pm
Soon enough the government will impliment a new rule that will stop you from spending a large amount of your super on the house upgrade, new caravan etc. they will decide how long you might live and allocate a pension from your super. Another incentive not to save. It's so counter productive.
Everyone should be given a pension and if you saved, you are now rewarded for your diligence.
Bonny
5th Dec 2017
7:13am
No caravan and new forbie to travelling around OZ you will have the Motor Vehicle and Caravan Associations cutting their political donations to the major parties.
Triss
5th Dec 2017
9:33am
If everyone were given the pension, Florgan, it would be fascinating to see how long it would take those who have poured scorn on pensioners to have their hands out, and how long it would take them to forget the word “welfare”.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
12:18pm
It would still be welfare as it's unearned income.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
12:18pm
It would still be welfare as it's unearned income.
Triss
5th Dec 2017
2:58pm
I’m shocked, OG, would you really call yourself a welfare recipient?
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
3:37pm
I guess I would be on welfare if I applied for it but I don't need it so wouldn't even apply for it only to pay it all back in tax.
Triss
5th Dec 2017
10:14pm
I don't believe you, OG, you're so green-eyed over people who get a few dollars that you don't get, you'd apply.
Bonny
5th Dec 2017
10:51pm
There would be no point in applying for it if you pay more back in tax. Welfare comes with many strings attached to it.
Bonny
5th Dec 2017
7:10am
So you give all your money except $800,000 to your wealthy kids so you can deal with Centrelink. Then the rules change again and rules your pension become a debt on your estate. Sounds like a real sweet spot to me.

There is a much better sweet spot. A save a million dollars and earn much more than the OAP plus all the benefits. Benefits are overrated unless you own your house take heaps of pills, are deaf and use public transport for nothing leaving your car in the garage. Pity the poor bus driver trying communicate with you about helping you with your walking frame and having to ask the lady in the front seat with the walking stick to move to the back of the bus.

Soaps the more they get for nothing the more they expect from others for nothing. Time I got a walking stick to play the game too.
Triss
5th Dec 2017
9:48am
I suppose it’s the inequality, Bonny. The majority of OAP have paid tax throughout their working lives, part of which has gone towards paying the $2,000 per week pensions of retired politicians many of whom retired in their 40s and 50s and it’s the politicians who are cutting the pensioners’ pensions. Perhaps if all pensions were administered by CentreLink and subjected to the same rules and regulations we would have more equality and fewer complaints.
Rae
5th Dec 2017
10:26am
It's the cash flow falling everywhere due to the changes Bonny.

I suspect the far right ideology says all the things you believe and so created tax concessions and halved Capital Gains and whoopee No tax after 60. Structural disaster right there.

All that is costing far more than giving all a pension and taxing extra income accordingly like every other OECD country does.

What we have is unsustainable. And as Triss says inequitable as well. It serves high income earners only.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
12:17pm
Yes it is a 2 tiered retirement system where those who pay get nothing and those who pay less get the lot.
Triss
5th Dec 2017
2:56pm
We certainly agree there, OG. As I pointed out about retired politicians getting lifetime, indexed pensions plus business class holidays for working 8 years...and many others.
ex PS
5th Dec 2017
10:14am
This story is no revelation to me and most of my friends, most of us retired at 55 and are using this same strategy to meet our needs. My problem is that I underestimated the performance of my Industry Style Super, we will have too much money to claim a O.A.P. Pretty good problem to have I say. But I expect that if this government gets involved in managing Super Funds this problem will be solved.
They will surely find a way of closing down best practice industry funds and give the money to their banking mates to finance their life styles. If I see the banks anywhere near my Super I will draw it out immediately, I would rather spend it on myself than just give it to the banks.
Chris B T
5th Dec 2017
1:01pm
It would be nice to limit the amount of times someone can make a comment on each Article made by Your Life Choices.
Especially when It Is About One's Self and all the Bull and Stink that goes with it.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
1:02pm
Agree as I post nothing but good advice.
Rainey
5th Dec 2017
1:14pm
No, OG, you only post about yourself, with plenty of Bull and Stink to go with it.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
1:20pm
I thought that was your expertise Rainey. I post nothing but good advice.
Rainey
5th Dec 2017
1:23pm
You are delusional, OG. The nasty nonsense you post is boring most here, and many have made note of their objection to your garbage.
Old Geezer
5th Dec 2017
1:28pm
Ha ha Rainey I don't even read most of your rubbish either.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
9:32am
That's obvious from your stupid comments, OG. No wonder you get it wrong all the time!
Old Geezer
6th Dec 2017
10:22am
Wrong is such a subjective term Rainey. Maybe wrong in your eyes but awesome in mine.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
3:06pm
Given your tunnel vision and poor comprehension, OG, it's not surprising that you delude yourself. Seems most here agree with me.
Old Geezer
6th Dec 2017
5:09pm
Ha ha Rainey I love it!
George
7th Dec 2017
11:46pm
Good on you Chris, hope YLC acts on your suggestion.
Old Geezer
8th Dec 2017
10:02am
Good but some will use multiple login on multiple devices so you won't know who is who then.
Rainey
9th Dec 2017
4:22pm
Of course you would, OG. No way would you ever be silenced.
Good choices
5th Dec 2017
5:42pm
Found some of the comments very entertaining, would make a good show....
Bonny
5th Dec 2017
10:53pm
Lots of good brain exercise in some of those arguments too.

5th Dec 2017
11:12pm
Are you looking for a business loan, personal loan, home loan, car loan, student loan, debt consolidation loan, unsecured loans, venture capital, etc.. Or were you refused a loan by a bank or a financial institution for one or more reasons. You in the right place for your loan solutions! I am a private lender, I give out loans to companies and individuals within inside and outside of the country at a low and affordable interest rate of 2.5% yearly. Please contact us via Email: kw007042@gmail.com
Bonny
6th Dec 2017
7:51am
Gee mate you would be pushing your luck here lending your money and expecting it to be paid back. These people want everything given to them not lent to them.
Mad as hell
6th Dec 2017
2:17pm
I only want my entitlements.

Read these facts.


THE stigma of charity should be removed from the age pension. It should be an entitlement earned by the person’s personal contribution to the fund,” said a very famous Australian long ago.
Who? Former Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies. When? At the time the current pension scheme was introduced. Fund? What fund and what personal contribution?
You wouldn’t know about it listening to the major parties’ politicians or Senate crossbencher David Leyonhjelm who, echoing former Treasurer Joe Hockey, told the ABC he wants Australians to drop their sense of entitlement to the aged pension, which should only be paid to poor people, and receiving it should be “nothing to be proud of”.
?

media_camera
Menzies (above in a 1951 file shot) insisted that the Compulsory Contribution (levy) should be kept completely separate; that it should be paid straight into a trust account and not mixed with the general revenue.
Well, no David, most pensioners worked and spent a lifetime paying for their pensions. It’s not welfare and, when it was introduced, it was actually meant to be an entitlement. A 7.5 per cent tithe was taken from wages to put into a fund to pay their pensions. Just as workers now have superannuation collected.
What a good idea! Unfortunately (for pensioners) the Labor Party insisted the contributions shouldn’t be kept in individual accounts as in the UK and the US where retirees get the entitlement earned by their contributions. Instead, it all went into one big pot, the National Welfare Fund. And when the pot got really big, the politicians took it.
They won’t talk about the historical facts because these days politicians have developed a new “ending the age of entitlement” narrative while pushing the disingenuous line that younger workers are paying tax to support pensioners.
Menzies was opposition leader when then prime minister Ben Chifley announced a National Welfare Fund to pay for pensions, unemployment relief, child endowments, even health care with a 7.5 per cent tax increase.
Menzies insisted that the Compulsory Contribution (levy) should be kept completely separate; that it should be paid straight into a trust account and not mixed with the general revenue.
The levy and the National Welfare Fund began on January 1, 1946, and contributions were shown separately on workers’ personal tax assessments for 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950, with the money paid straight into the special fund from which claims were paid out.
In 1950 the balance in the fund was almost £100 million or $200 million – in today’s money the equivalent of several trillion dollars.
?

media_camera
Well, no David, most pensioners worked and spent a lifetime paying for their pensions. It’s not welfare and, when it was introduced, it was actually meant to be an entitlement. Picture: Lukas Coch
But the pot was too big for the politicians to leave alone. Menzies, supported by the Australian Labor Party, amended the Acts governing the fund so the compulsory contributions levy was lumped in with people’s income tax and the whole lot paid straight into consolidated revenue.
But the compulsory 7.5 per cent “levy” was still collected and spent.
In 1977 Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser transferred the balance left in the welfare fund account (by then almost $500 million, or several trillion in today’s terms) to consolidated revenue. But still the 7.5 per cent was taken out of everyone’s pay packet every week.
Then in 1985 the Labor Government repealed Acts No. 39, 40 and 41 of 1945 (The National Welfare Fund Acts) and introduced income and asset testing, thus excluding millions of levy and taxpaying Australians from receiving the pension for which they had paid.
But still the 7.5 per cent levy continued to be collected (while hidden in general income tax revenue.) And to this day it still is collected.
There have been estimates that the trillions of dollars stolen from the fund and the money paid and similarly stolen (sorry, transferred) since 1985 would be enough to pay a non-means-tested pension to every retiree of far more than $500 a week.
If it had been invested, like the Future Fund, the pension might be $1000 a week. Small beer compared with the politicians’ pension deals but a huge leap for older Aussies, 420,000 of whom had their age pensions cancelled or reduced from January 1.
Ironically, they are the very pensioners who would have the highest pensions if their personal contribution to the “fund” was the yardstick as in the UK and the US.
They probably generally have been Coalition voters. But no more.
Spend time in the RSLs, bowling clubs, voluntary organisations and the like, where these people gather and it is clear they are Liberal-National voters no more.
In lieu of an Australian Trump, they see no alternative but One Nation.
The Coalition, supported by Labor and the Greens, has turned 180 degrees from Menzies’ view the age pension is “an entitlement earned by the person’s personal contribution to the fund” and portrays it as charity.
For many Australians this alone shows how far the parties they once supported have strayed from principle.
The arrogant politicians think they can hypocritically and sanctimoniously speak condescendingly of older Australians.
They are in for a shock.
Brian Hale is a former business editor of The Courier-Mail and The Australian
johnp
6th Dec 2017
2:24pm
Thats interesting; is that the first advertisement seen in these forums and is that allowed ?
Anyway re lending his money and expecting it to be paid back
He may get what he did not wish for !!
Old Geezer
6th Dec 2017
5:14pm
That is so last century and died out with Menzies himself.
Rainey
8th Dec 2017
11:54am
History lives forever, OG. What happened happened, and no amount of dishonest denial can change the facts.
Old Geezer
11th Dec 2017
2:09pm
Only in the minds of those who dwell upon the past and don't live in the present embracing the future.
Rainey
11th Dec 2017
2:44pm
What a stupid remark. History lives forever. The past doesn't change because some corrupt politician decides things should be different now than they were.
johnp
6th Dec 2017
12:30pm
Still havent heard from OG re that so-called super expert !!
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
3:11pm
Give up, Johnp. You won't hear anything constructive or logical from OG. Only rants about how battlers should be stripped of all they have worked for and die destitute so the rich can keep on with their lavish parties.
Old Geezer
6th Dec 2017
5:14pm
Rainey as I have said my super expert only takes on super fund with balances of $1.6 million plus. If that's not you then it is no good me even telling you who she is.
Rainey
7th Dec 2017
7:51am
More proof that you have no comprehension of how it really is for those affected by the assets test change. Anyone with $1.6 million or more has no worries about running out of money and can get adequate returns to keep accruing more. Not so for many with only half that amount.
Old Geezer
7th Dec 2017
10:29am
Rainey you have done it again. You just assume something without knowing the facts.
johnp
7th Dec 2017
1:07pm
Your right Rainey. I am going to get off this roundabout now, never ending circle; before I disappear up my own a**e
ex PS
7th Dec 2017
2:30pm
O.G. you are constantly telling us that you only have a very small amount of your money in Super, why would you need a Super expert?
Old Geezer
7th Dec 2017
10:11pm
That's correct I only have about 10% of my wealth in super and yes it is cheaper for me to have my super expert than it was to do my super returns myself.
Rainey
8th Dec 2017
8:34am
WOW, $1.6 million + in super but that's only a small portion of your wealth. No wonder you are so arrogant and self-centred, OG. Of course you could have no appreciation of the challenges the majority of retirees face. You simply don't live in the real world.
Old Geezer
8th Dec 2017
9:43am
You are making assumptions without all the facts again Rainey.
Rainey
8th Dec 2017
11:53am
No. I'm responding to what you said, OG. You said you use a super expert who won't engage with anyone who has less than $1.6 million in super. And you clearly and repeatedly said you only had a small part of your wealth in super. It's a common problem with people who tell untruths repeatedly that they can't recall their own statements, and so they contradict themselves.
ex PS
8th Dec 2017
11:57am
To be a good liar you have to have a good memory.
Rainey
8th Dec 2017
11:57am
You've certainly confirmed once and for all why nobody here should pay attention to your bigoted and nasty comments, OG.
Old Geezer
8th Dec 2017
1:06pm
Yes I am a bad liar that's why I never tell anyone the details of my circumstances. I have never said how much I had in super I have only given a percentage of my wealth in super.

I have been a client of my super expert since she started up her service and she told me recently that she was only taking on clients who had high super balances. When I asked her how much was that she told me close to the limit.

So Rainey yes you are guilty of assumptions without knowing all the facts. I guess if you are that with me then you believe all those sob stories of people who have been affected by the change in asset test. Gee let's be realistic they have been laughing all the way to the bank for far too long and these changes were well over due.
Rainey
9th Dec 2017
4:25pm
But you said you only found this expert recently, after a lot of searching. Honestly, OG, you couldn't lie straight in bed.

OG, I don't ''believe'' sob stories. I know the circumstances of the people I refer to. Unlike you, I deal in FACT and EVIDENCE and real life situations - NOT nasty self-serving WRONG ASSUMPTIONS.
Rainey
9th Dec 2017
4:25pm
But you said you only found this expert recently, after a lot of searching. Honestly, OG, you couldn't lie straight in bed.

OG, I don't ''believe'' sob stories. I know the circumstances of the people I refer to. Unlike you, I deal in FACT and EVIDENCE and real life situations - NOT nasty self-serving WRONG ASSUMPTIONS.
Rainey
9th Dec 2017
4:27pm
Clearly, OG, you have no brain matter between your ears, or you would know that an assumed 7.8%+ return (which is what the government asset test assumes) is LESS than most people can achieve on investments, and therefore THE ASSETS TEST IS UNFAIR AND ECONOMICALLY DAMAGING. It has nothing to do with bank accounts or sob stories or your nasty mean assumptions about people you know nothing about.
Old Geezer
11th Dec 2017
2:03pm
No idea where you got the 7.8% return but give me the $800,000 odd any day over the OAP and it will make me more than I would ever get on the OAP and leave a nice lump sum in my estate as well.
Rainey
11th Dec 2017
2:42pm
You really have no idea, do you OG? No idea where I got the 7.8% return? Do some basic math, if you are able!

News flash egomaniac. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU! It's about the majority of the population. A system that looks after the HAVES and bashes the HAVE NOTS is NOT a good system. It's irrelevant what return YOU can get. Only a very nasty and selfish individual wants to see people hurt for not being as fortunate as you.
Rainey
11th Dec 2017
3:27pm
It really is mind-boggling how someone so totally ignorant of the basic FACTS of the changed assets test can be so aggressively supportive of it. But then, ONLY someone totally ignorant of the facts could support such an ill-conceived and ill-considered policy. Anyone who can do math, has logic and common sense, and can actually THINK will immediately see the massive flaws in the policy.

Of course your motive is clear, OG. It has nothing to do with what is logical, sensible, mathematically viable, economical, fair, or good for the nation. It has everything to do with you stroking an ego that just loves to see others hurt and suffering.
Old Geezer
14th Dec 2017
10:54am
Rainey I have actually work it all out myself and that 7.8% makes no sense at all to me. One is far better off investing the $800,000 odd and not collecting the OAP or it's measly benefits.
Greg
14th Dec 2017
11:36am
Old Geezer surely you know what Rainey is on about or are you just trying to get a reaction.
Pension payments reduce by $3.00 per fortnight for every $1,000 of assets above the lower assets test threshold - therefore $3.00 per fortnight, 26 fortnights in a year equals $78.00 or 7.8% of $1,000.

Hence it could be argued that you are better off spending the cash and receiving an increased pension as you can't SAFELY receive over 7.8% income.
Not Senile Yet!
11th Dec 2017
5:51pm
Old Geezer & Rainy...
get a shared house or exchange Phone Numbers!
So others get a chance to have a say!
Talk about personal debate sight and hogging??
Bothe your get another hobby or three!
Rainey
13th Dec 2017
9:28pm
Nobody is stopping you having your at, Not Senile Yet.
Old Geezer
14th Dec 2017
10:52am
Well I for one can see well beyond the whingers and realise that they wold whinge no matter how well off they are. Rainey just sees poverty everywhere even though most OAPs live the life of Reilly in Australia. It amazes me how many people can't wait to stop work and get on the OAP and then tell me they wish they could have done it sooner. Things are so much better for them now.
johnp
14th Dec 2017
11:12am
I think OG just enjoys goading everyone so I'll take the bait yet again. He must have plenty of time on his hands. Nothing else to do and all day to do it in ;-)
He contradicts himself. In one breath its
"the OAP measly benefits"
In the next its
"OAPs live the life of Reilly"


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

  • Receive our daily enewsletter
  • Enter competitions
  • Comment on articles