15th Dec 2016
How long will your super last?
How long will your super last?

How long your superannuation will last really depends on how quickly you spend your savings and how you choose to access your money.

Perhaps the most important thing is to work out how much you will need as income, once you have taken into consideration the lifestyle you hope to live and indeed, how long you are likely to live.

So, how long will you live?
We all know that generally we’re living longer, but what you may not realise is that the older you get, the longer you’re likely to live – this is called the survival bonus. While the average life expectancy of someone who is currently 65 is 84, this increases to 87 if you live to 75 and 91 if you make it to 85. Therefore, your superannuation may have to fund an extra seven years if you remain hale and hearty.

If you’re interested in calculating for how long you could possible live, why not try the SHAPE Analyser?

What kind of retirement lifestyle do you want to have?
While jet-setting around the world may appeal to many, the reality is that it costs a considerable amount of money. More realistically, you should consider the following:

  • where you want to live – will you own your home, have a mortgage or need to pay rent?
  • what your big expenses will be – will you travel, buy a new car regularly, or have to cover high medical and health costs?
  • what your everyday expenses will be – do you hope to continue eating out regularly, enjoy going to the theatre or plan to lead a more frugal existence?

The cost of living in retirement can come as quite a shock to many people. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) issues a Quarterly Retirement Standard that breaks down the budgets required to live a modest or comfortable life in retirement. The latest (June) quarter suggests that, for a single female, the annual amount for a modest lifestyle is $23,767 and $43,062 for a comfortable lifestyle. However, it should be noted that neither of these figures takes into consideration paying off any debt or rent, nor does it allow for money spent on gifts, alcohol or tobacco.

When you have a detailed idea of the costs you have to cover, consider the other income that you will receive in retirement:

  • work – will you continue to earn an income from part-time work, consulting, or your own business?
  • investments – do you have shares, property or business investments that will provide a regular income?
  • Age Pension – will your income and assets be such that you are eligible to claim a Government support payment?
  • savings – do you have other money from which you can draw an income or cover larger, one-off expenses?

Taking into account how long you are likely to live, what your annual expenditure will be and how much income you can derive from other means, you should be able to calculate how long your super will last based on the income it needs to provide.

If you plan on converting your super to an account-based pension, Moneysmart has a useful calculator that enables you to gauge how long your savings will last.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    BElle
    5th Jan 2017
    10:12am
    Its not a case of How long will it last? But of How long am I and my partner likely to live? What expenses am I likely to incur in unforseen circumstances.
    We all like to think that we will not need to enter care, or a nursing home of any type, but this is not the reality.
    It is most definitely not something that the current Government has taken into consideration when making the current changes to the pension allocation.
    Not Amused
    5th Jan 2017
    10:38am
    Not only has the Turnbull outfit attacked pensioners and part-pensioners because they earned assets to keep them in good stead or living in standards to which they aspired in retirement, they are further humiliating and harming people with this latest Centrelink bungle. Where is Turnbull and why doesn't he front up to our senior citizens and take some responsibility?
    johninmelb
    5th Jan 2017
    10:46am
    Berating Turnbull and his motley mob on an obscure website he does not read, will achieve nothing.

    He doesn't care. End of story.

    We have debated this over and over again on this site. Nothing has changed, nothing will.

    You can rant and rave until the cows come home. It won't change a thing.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    11:43am
    I rang Centrelink a couple of days ago about one of those letters for a friend of mine and they were very helpful and fix the problem while I was on the phone. So from my experience I really can't see that it is a problem.
    Polly Esther
    5th Jan 2017
    11:48am
    johninmelb -- yes you are so correct
    john
    5th Jan 2017
    12:03pm
    Johninmelb. People who sit back and give up, never comment, never write to their local member never complain or stand up and argue when they think they are right, they are the people who generally vote for the same old same old forever, Turnbull and his incompetent government need to be reminded , NOT ONCE! but every single day you sit down to write a comment into this Forum , (which you may not believe , but it is monitored don't worry about that, like other ,as you call them, obscure sites)
    When you sit down , write to your local member also , every time, and every voter should do the same , but it appears to me that most simply sit back read the news interpret it how they want to, or feel at the time, and whinge on here , but do nothing.
    Our system is that we vote people in but if they are doing things the wrong way , we have to tell them by huge numbers not by giving up. Sounds a bit airy fairy , well it might but that's our system , imagine if every one by the thousands was emailing or ringing their local member every time or every day , they might get the picture , and see their safe little seats are not that safe . It is ten times better than the go to the streets rubbish that causes more problems than what it fixes.
    What may be correct is that the Turnbulls of the world really are in a bubble , and they have ideals that they follow , you can't run nations on ideals you have to run the country on reality and what your citizens tell you, if not you are in a democracy , and I doubt what we have now is really a democracy at all.
    So the people actually have to be involved in the smallest way , if only that.
    And every body, email or ring your pollie , if you know who your local member is , and I wonder how many people do? COMPLAIN AND BE PERSISITANT.
    But if you sit back and never be heard.
    You'll never be heard!!!!!!!!
    Anonymous
    5th Jan 2017
    12:43pm
    John, correct.
    Old Man
    5th Jan 2017
    3:39pm
    I suppose it's OK to attack the government, Not Amused, but it's annoying when the opposition joins into the attack but won't reverse the decision when they get back into government. Politicians are great at talking and changing the subject when asked a simple question they choose not to answer but they are not very good at listening. Decisions such as these are usually taken early in the life of a government as they hope we will forget at the next election.
    KSS
    6th Jan 2017
    7:22pm
    Please tell me John who exactly is monitoring this site (other than you and the site moderators)?
    TREBOR
    8th Jan 2017
    3:17pm
    Here's a sad comment on 2016 from the retirement update:-

    "There are not many people who won't be at least a little glad to see the back of 2016, but what does the year ahead hold? "

    At a time when we deserve to be enjoying life and doing it quietly, without all the pressures of fools around us - this government sets out on a path of destruction. What a bunch of economic fools and ideological psychopaths.

    The year ahead holds more stress and unwarranted pressure on pensioners who've already spent a lifetime outside the fairy castle of politics, striving to do the best they can against sometimes impossible odds stacked by idiot management and social policy of this nation.

    It's time to take back the asylum - put these Canberra fiends out in the rice paddies in Year Zero and let them see the value of toil.
    floss
    5th Jan 2017
    11:02am
    My super was going to last as I planned it, a long time . But our P.M in his wisdom changed the rules and it will not last as planned and we will be on a full pension a lot quicker , hard to work out but I hope the HEAD EUNUCH knows what he is doing for once.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    11:41am
    Good to see you spending your super instead of the taxpayers money.
    OlderandWiser
    5th Jan 2017
    8:08pm
    The HEAD EUNUCH will be retired and blaming the government that inherits the disaster HE created with his utter stupidity.
    TREBOR
    8th Jan 2017
    3:26pm
    Waal, OG - if Looney's super doesn't last the distance - where do you imagine he'll be picking up his cash? That's what's wrong with this whole silly scheme of slash and burn - all this dumb government is doing is postponing an even bigger 'social security bill' into the future... exactly the sort of nonsense they sling (fairly or otherwise) at their opposition and at the Baby Boomers when they carry on about a massive 'debt' to the grand-children, etc.
    Patriot
    5th Jan 2017
    11:06am
    How do/can we "factor in" all the future Government changes inclusive of their impact?
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    7:02pm
    Plan for the worst and hope for the best.
    mrusability
    5th Jan 2017
    11:32am
    There is too much emphasis on the ASFA Retirement Standard.
    The items making up the standard have not been reviewed since 2009. One needs to look at their fine print
    "The ASFA Retirement Standard methodology was last reviewed in 2009"
    "The ASFA / Westpac data is only a guide and it does state "Both budgets assume that the retirees own their own home outright and are relatively healthy."
    I also suspect it is worked on someone getting a pension and thus the various discounts on rates, water, electricity, transport etc. No consideration of the difference for self-funded retirees.
    Rae
    5th Jan 2017
    3:30pm
    When the ABS comes out and quotes the average cost of living in your owned home is $38 a week then it is obvious there is no reality happening in these forecasting departments.
    Bonny
    6th Jan 2017
    7:49am
    You need to find out what they have included in that $38. My country estate costs about doubke that for the basics and since it costs less just for a house then that could be about right.
    Rae
    6th Jan 2017
    8:16am
    Most of us live by the seaside or in cities Bonny and council rates are high and rising. Insurance also then there is the new separate water and sewerage costs and maintenance. I budget around $120 a week for my simple cabin on a large block in a desirable beachside location.

    Of course a country estate or farm will be different and have deductable costs as well. I owned a large wheat/wool property for 18 years and so am well aware of the type of situation you are talking about. It is quite rare really.

    Good on you but remember most people can't just off and run an estate or motel or b&b.

    The point is the government figures are very likely incorrect.

    The IT is appallingly bad for a government supposedly based on business leaders.

    If they can't get the basic programs right then nothing else will be right either.

    You keep making excuses for the incompetence and claiming everything is just fine.

    Does the ABS know what is included or are they just pulling random figures out of the air based on the current ideology and belief systems. I suspect the latter.

    No way has inflation only risen 0.9% either. The CPI is rigged too and that does effect those on welfare and workers.

    I believe our government is blatantly lying to suit their IPA agendas.
    MacI
    8th Jan 2017
    5:04pm
    I don't give the ASFA Comfortable lifestyle much credence. In their Comfortable Lifestyle budget they include nearly $7000 a year for holidays (domestic and overseas), dining out $4254, alcohol $2127, clothing $2989. We spend substantially less in each of these areas and still reckon that we live a comfortable lifestyle.

    They budget $3076 for electricity and gas. We spend less that half this amount - admittedly we have the benefit of a 1.5KW solar panel on our roof and feed-in tariff. Even so, without the solar we would be spending less than $2000. Perhaps living in Brisbane has its benefits.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    11:40am
    As my super increases more than I take out then me thinks it will last longer than me.
    Anonymous
    5th Jan 2017
    12:00pm
    Yes a little wise investment will always get you there Old Geezer
    Anonymous
    5th Jan 2017
    12:48pm
    Geez, from all your comments since this site opened you would have to be the richest, most wealthy, and smartest investor EVER! (or so you want us to think.)
    Rae
    5th Jan 2017
    3:35pm
    The fastest way to get the government to reconsider all this would be to do as you suggest OG.

    Just stop spending any money except for essentials.

    Then the super will last a great deal longer. Prices will have to fall oretty fast too as the consumption dries up.

    Win-win for retirees.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    4:06pm
    It is not hard to achieve. Spend less than you earn and time and compounding interest take care of the rest.
    OlderandWiser
    5th Jan 2017
    7:29pm
    Spend less than the $22500 your investment returns, for a couple with bills of over $100 a week for essential medication and $60 a fortnight for essential physio, and high expenses for glasses and dental work. Yeah, right!
    Old Geezer
    6th Jan 2017
    11:05am
    Not to sure where the $22500 came from Rainey but I have to take a bit more than that out of my super fund each year. I usually just reinvest in somewhere else as I have enough to live on using my $400,000 investment account.
    OlderandWiser
    6th Jan 2017
    10:35pm
    So you have a lot more than $400,000 and you are LYING about living on the returns of $400,000. And if your $400000 investment is growing while you take living expenses out, it's returning very much higher than the average and you should SHUT THE F... UP AND SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE MAJORITY. WE ARE NOT ALL SUPER-PRIVILEGED GENIUSES LIKE YOU - nor, thankfully, vile condescending judgmental pigs who wish hurt on others.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    1:17pm
    Now Rainey if OG is doing as well as most others then he would be earning 15% pa or move in the current investment market. That gives him close to twice the OAP for a couple and nearly 3 times for a single on his $400,000. That more than enough to live on in retirement. Lots of wealthy people put aside money for living expenses and let the rest of the assets accumulate.

    From reading OGs posts about the $400,000 he uses to generate his living expenses he is merely using it as an example of how much you need to have invested to live on. He has a good agrumemt about those affected not needing the extra money from the OAP. I haven't seen a better one from anyone else.

    Just because you do things a certain way it does not follow that others do the same.
    OlderandWiser
    7th Jan 2017
    7:34pm
    You are really showing your contempt for truth, Bonny. Very few get anywhere near 15% return. 5% is the average according to the government, and thousands get less than 3%. So if he's getting 15% he should SHUT THE HELL UP and stop gloating and condemning those less fortunate to suffer hardship. And if he's only using $400,000 to generate living expenses he should STOP LYING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO LIVE ON IT.

    He hasn't got a good argument. He's an arrogant pig who hates anyone less fortunate than he is and wants everyone who wasn't born to his privilege condemned to misery. And the harder they worked and saved, the more miserable he wants them to be. And you are right there with him, you nasty woman.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    10:13pm
    If I was only getting 5% return in the current financial market I would be very disappointed knowning what I am getting. So if people are getting that sort of return then they are not investing thier money well at all. Even average super funds are doing better than 7% and that is thevscraps after everyone has taken their cut.

    Rainey I really think you need stop whinging and find out what is really happening in the investment world.

    So I have no doubt that OG does managed to earn enough to live on with his $400,000 money pot and has probably been doing it for quite some time. That said anyone with $800,000 would generate enough to live on with only half the returns that OG gets. He certainky shows that a lot of people are just whinging about losing thier welfare they don't need.

    Maybe OG could enlighten us with his current rate of return. From my own returns it would not surprise me if it is a lot better than 15%.
    OlderandWiser
    7th Jan 2017
    10:17pm
    5% is the average return in Australia today Bonny. 15% is very very high indeed and very few can attain it. And only selfish arrogant nasty people wish hurt on the average Australian based on their own extraordinarily fortunate circumstances.

    Shut up bragging about your wealth. It's extremely offensive. Learn some respect and empathy and human decency. There's a whole world out there of people in pain because of vile individuals like you who want government for the elite only and to hell with the rest.
    Bonny
    8th Jan 2017
    10:59am
    Rainey the average super fund return is over 7% for the last year so your average 5% just can't be right at all. I haven't mentioned what my returns are because Rainey that would be bragging.

    Please get your facts right for everyone's sake.
    Retired Knowall
    12th Jan 2017
    10:17am
    Rest Core strategy has returned 7.53% last year and averaged 10.68% PA over the last 5 years.
    Old Man
    5th Jan 2017
    12:54pm
    Well here we go again! This topic has been done to death and I'm sure that all of the responses will have been posted many times before, not the posters but the content. If this is a site to assist retirees, what about telling us how we can access rebates on utilities and government and semi-government services. Here in NSW a pensioner can get a free licence and register one vehicle for free (greenslip has to be paid) as well as some free rail travel and rebates on rates, electricity and 'phone.

    Sure, most of us know these things exist but I often wonder if everybody is aware. Different states have different rebates for different services and although it may take a bit of work for those running this site, the end results could be worthwhile. Perhaps it's wrong of me to suggest that those running this site are too lazy to try and dig out details to help retired people but as we are getting super and pensions put up for discussion on a rotational basis it would seem to be the case.

    Retirees enjoy holidays and maybe letting them know of free stays for caravans, discounts at some motel chains, extra spending money on cruises, cheap travel insurance and the best time to book for cheaper fares would be advantageous. Not all retirees want to discuss super and pensions but I'm sure all retirees would love to know where they could save a quid.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    1:02pm
    Only those on a full OAP should be getting those discounts. Hopefully that will be rectified soon.
    Old Man
    5th Jan 2017
    3:21pm
    I can't agree OG, anyone eligible for an age pension or a part thereof should be allowed to get ancillary benefits.
    Captain
    5th Jan 2017
    3:32pm
    Anyone with an aged pension or part aged pension is eligible for the discounts.

    If you are a Self Funded Retiree you get no discounts. However if you are a SFR and have a Low Income Health Care Card you may be eligible for discounts depending on which State you live in.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    3:40pm
    Ha ha except that you have to have assets under the OAP limits to get a Low Income Health Card too.
    Captain
    5th Jan 2017
    3:49pm
    The LIHCC is based on income not assets.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    3:58pm
    LIHCC is based on assets not taxable income. They take you assets and deem them to get their funny income figures. If you have a rental property they take the gross rent. If you work it out you only have to have the OAP limit and you are not eligible.
    Captain
    5th Jan 2017
    4:10pm
    According to the Dept of Human Services the LIHCC is assessed on your gross income over an 8 week period.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    4:16pm
    Dig a bit deeper and try filling out their form.

    Income
    Income includes:

    employment income - wages, salary and self employment income
    employer provided fringe benefits
    rental income
    reportable superannuation contributions, salary sacrifice
    Centrelink pensions or benefits and some supplementary payments
    Department of Veterans' Affairs payments
    deemed income from financial investments such as bank accounts, managed investments and shares
    deemed income from account-based income streams
    income from income stream products such as superannuation pensions and defined benefit income streams
    foreign income
    private trusts and companies
    compensation, including periodical and lump sum
    New Enterprise Incentive Scheme
    Paid Parental Leave
    lump sum payments such as redundancy, leave, or termination payments

    That is certainly not gross income over 8 week period.
    Old Man
    5th Jan 2017
    4:25pm
    OG, to quote directly from the Centrelink website;

    "You may be eligible for a Low Income Health Care Card if you are on a low income and meet the Low Income Health Care Card income test.

    There is no assets test for this card."

    Perhaps an apology to Captain would be in order?
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    4:34pm
    Definitely NO. If your income is deemed it is based on your assets not your income. Therefore the LIHCC is based on your assets not just your income.
    Captain
    5th Jan 2017
    4:37pm
    Again according to DHS if you are over 65 and not receiving an aged pension, they will automatically send you a non-income tested CSHC and a LIHCC.

    These cards will be retained without having to meet the income test.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    4:43pm
    If I had a dependant child at school and I got Family Tax benefits and my taxable income was under approx. $50,000 I would automatically be given a LIHCC.

    But if I don't have a dependant child the LIHCC is based on completely different income calculation which takes into account my assets.

    I wonder if I could borrow a child for awhile for the more generous test.
    Captain
    5th Jan 2017
    4:53pm
    To be eligible for the aged pension your total assets are taken into account and a deemed income applied to determine eligibility for said pension.

    The LIHCC has a question re monies invested in a superannuation fund and if it is in accumulation or pension mode.


    This begs the question as DHS says it will AUTOMATICALLY send CSHC and LIHCC as you do not need to meet the income test.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    5:04pm
    If your super is in accumulation mode then it is not counted for LIHCC or OAP.

    So if you have a partner younger than you and has not reached pension age then you can put as much money as you can into their super and it does not count for the OAP assets test. However their super fund pays tax on any earnings.

    So you have to work out whether the OAP or LIHCC etc is worth more than any tax paid by the super fund.

    I had a fellow who had become disabled at the age of 55 talk to me about whether he should apply for the disability pension. So we did some calculations and he was well in front by putting his super into pension mode and forgetting about the disability pension.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    5:39pm
    Nope I'm not wrong at all.
    Old Man
    5th Jan 2017
    5:40pm
    No, I didn't think OG was man enough to apologise when he was wrong.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    6:29pm
    Maybe not but I'm not that stupid either.
    micko
    7th Jan 2017
    10:55am
    From CentreLink's website:

    Low Income Health Care Card:

    Gives low income earners access to cheaper prescription medicines, and various concessions from government and private organisations.

    Eligibility Non-income tested Low Income Health Care Card:

    If we cancel your payment on 1 January 2017 because of the changes to the pension assets test, and you were age pension age or over, you will be automatically eligible for a:

    non-income tested Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, and
    non-income tested Low Income Health Care Card

    Concessions and discounts
    A Low Income Health Care Card entitles you to:

    cheaper medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
    You may also be entitled to:

    concessions offered by private companies, and
    state and territory government and local council concessions, such as:
    energy and electricity bills
    health care costs, including ambulance and dental and eye care
    public transport costs
    educational fees, and
    water rates
    Check with your state or territory government to find out what concessions are available to you. Concessional entitlements may vary between states and territories.

    When using services covered by Medicare, you will need to present your Medicare Card with your Low Income Health Care Card.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    1:19pm
    OG is right if they use assets to calculate income by deeming it is an asset test not an income test.
    inextratime
    5th Jan 2017
    12:59pm
    Old Geezer. You must have got lucky. Dealing with Centrelink is akin to having your teeth pulled one at a time. My last experience with Centrelink took four visits an hour wait each time and three phone calls that took 40- 60 minutes to answer. However getting back to the question if the cost of living increase at a higher rate than the pension, anyone on a pension will be going backwards. Private health cover has doubled over the past five years, rents have gone through the roof (not everyone owns a house) and there seems no end to the further day to day increases. Working out how much Super you need to last your lifetime is a bit like asking how long is a piece of string...
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    1:09pm
    All I do is put the phone on hands free and get do other things while they take their time to answer.

    I haven't noticed that things have increased a lot over the last few years. In fact our grocery bill has been decreasing lately.

    I have had about $400,000 invested for years now and use it for my spending. It seems to earn enough each year to pay for my expenses. I don't need the super I have to take out each year so just reinvest it.
    Anonymous
    5th Jan 2017
    3:09pm
    OG, with all your wealth you will have no problem. Yeah, right, we all believe you.

    5th Jan 2017
    1:10pm
    It will last your full lifetime if you're prudent, it's that simple.
    "Spend less than you earn" always was a good motto.
    My wife drew out 5% from her super last year (the minimum), and her super balance went up 7.2% during the year.
    Net result - her super total has actually increased over the last 12 mths, despite drawing it down, and getting a tidy monthly sum from it.
    Anonymous
    5th Jan 2017
    1:26pm
    We are concerned about LIFEtime, not WIFEtime.
    OlderandWiser
    5th Jan 2017
    8:07pm
    Lucky to get more than the 5% average, Aaron.
    The most harmful people in society are those arrogant self-serving ''I'm okay bugger you'' folk who condone government actions that hurt others and don't have the basic respect and empathy to consider that others might not be as fortunate as yourself.
    Patriot
    5th Jan 2017
    8:34pm
    Rainy,

    If we are willing to learn from historical events during the past 6000 (or more) years, it will become clear that civilisations (???) are nearing their destiny by descend into chaos when the "UNADULTERATED GREED" of the ruling Elite does not allow for those who are ruled to lead decent, dignified and meaningful lives.

    We are currently racing towards a "Point of no Return" in this enigma. The "slaves" are stirring and awakening to the fact that, what they thought was freedom is, in reality, slavery.

    I think that some of us understand that there is no "Happier Slave" than the one who thinks he's free.
    However, there is also no unhappier human being than the one who, all of a sudden discovers that he's been taken for granted and has been used (wholly & Solely) to support the GREED of the Ruling Classes under false guise, malicious propaganda and a multitude of lies!

    I am awaiting the day that we'll break free again and am doing my utmost to ensure that I'll be in "Good enough Health & Spirit" to celebrate that day.
    Bonny
    6th Jan 2017
    7:44am
    History also tells us if the wealthy suffer the poor suffer even more.
    Rae
    6th Jan 2017
    8:32am
    The poor usually suffer because they lend savings to these wealthy speculators, are taxed severely on consumption, labour or assets or join in the speculation towards the end of the boom.

    It is a pattern.

    Funnily enough highly intelligent bastard ripping off the less intelligent or educated has always been okay somehow and not classed as discrimination.

    You can discriminate by skin colour but not by IQ.

    Humans are crazy.
    Retired Knowall
    12th Jan 2017
    10:23am
    I guess it's true that "A Fool and his money are soon parted".
    inextratime
    5th Jan 2017
    1:45pm
    Old Geezer
    If you haven't noticed the cost of health cover, rent, petrol, beer, cigarettes and insurance over the past five years ( I don't smoke but know people who do) then something's wrong. The rent of my shared apartment has gone up $5000 per year over the past three years. Good on you for having 400 grand stashed, you must have had a well paid job and possibly didn't raise kids. The cost of raising one child has been estimated at between $500 - $1mill. We had three. So while you may be sitting pretty at the mo and lets hope the stock market doesn't crash as per 2007, not everyone is in the same boat. Oh and by the way we are still supporting two of our children because they are finding it difficult to save for their own home which is looking less likely by the day.
    Anonymous
    5th Jan 2017
    3:10pm
    inextratime, you apparently haven't noticed that OG lives in another world.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    4:56pm
    Thanks for asking yes I do have children and they are all doing very well. I can't say I ever had what you would call a well paid job but I did learn as a young adult that having a job was making money for someone else so did something about it.

    I am not concerned about stock markets crashing and have now been through quite a few. I know that at some point they will turn back up and one can make a lot more money. I successful picked that capitulation day in the last 2 crashes and with a little investment you can make quite a bit of money at such times. We had similar things happen with both the Brexit and US election in the last year. I basically sell as markets start to peak and buy back in after the downturn.
    *Imagine*
    5th Jan 2017
    2:15pm
    HI old geezer, perhaps you could explain the following.

    A person (you) has $400 000 invested for many years. All indications from reputable investment sources suggest the average annual return for the past decade (includes GFC) has been between 7 and 8%. Even if this person had a stellar return of 10% every year, the income would be only $40 000pa or $1,538.46 per fortnight.
    Now this same person (you) has previously said that they only have a tiny amount in super, let’s put that at $50 000. We have to draw down 5% pa or $2500 which is $96 per fortnight but centrelink would not count all that as income because it includes a return of capital. The absolute maximum fortnightly income for this person (you) is in total $1538.46 + $96 = $1634.46

    Now Centrelink has an income and assets test. The assets of this person ($450 000 plus incidentals) are well under the cut off limit and the income of $1634.46 is below the income cut off of $1980.2

    Question; why would this person (you) not get a pension? Is it pride that prevents this person from applying or is Rainey correct when she berates you for being less than honest?
    Anonymous
    5th Jan 2017
    3:12pm
    *Imagine*, you are wasting your time as the ole boy is away with the birds. Illusions of grandeur, I think.
    Captain
    5th Jan 2017
    3:16pm
    Like Bonny, OG does not talk about the investment properties returning upwards of $12k -$15k per year each.
    Anonymous
    5th Jan 2017
    3:44pm
    They both go to the same clinic.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    3:47pm
    I have my fingers in many pies. One is a pie for living expenses.

    All I'll say is that things will be very bad the day I'm eligible for the OAP. My luck government won't be able to pay it to me.
    McGroger
    5th Jan 2017
    4:15pm
    *Imagine*, Old Geezer is simply a troll. Don’t you get the user name? Old Geezer says he doesn’t celebrate Christmas. He is the most frugal person around - uses a torch to move from room to room rather than turning a light on. But can easily afford to take his relatives along with him on a two week cruise - which is cheap if you go through the right channels - but he doesn’t enjoy them anyway. These two gems were on the same day. Bah, humbug! Old Geezer = Ebenezer (Scrooge). I also think of him as Swiss Cheezer for some of the conflicting rubbish he posts. He rarely if ever contributes - just skites. Perhaps his real name is FIGJAM.

    And Bonny? I notice both OG and Bonny can distinguish between “affect” and “effect” these days. The same person or tag team partners? They certainly sing the same way from the same hymnbook.

    Ignore both versions.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    4:21pm
    You need to think outside the square nothing is conflicting at all. You simply make too many assumptions using very narrow thinking. Don't worry most people do the same and wonder why others succeed and they don't.
    Anonymous
    5th Jan 2017
    4:41pm
    Good to see you are self sufficient Old Geezer no need to give all your business away and if you did the people on this web sight wouldn't believe you anyway.

    Why? I think it is called envy?
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    4:46pm
    More like they know what I say is possible but it doesn't fit their whinging arguments.
    PIXAPD
    5th Jan 2017
    5:02pm
    I often use CANDLES, so how's that?
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    5:05pm
    A wind up torch is better as you don't burn the house down when you leave it on.
    PIXAPD
    5th Jan 2017
    5:34pm
    YES, I have a dynamo torch.. so I can see to light the candles
    OlderandWiser
    6th Jan 2017
    10:23pm
    Nobody could possibly envy a miserable narcissist mongrel like OG. He must be the most pathetically mean, disgusting, nasty person on earth - not to mention a raving lunatic who lives in a dream world and expects us all to be stupid enough to believe the most obvious lies and absurd rants.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    12:03pm
    So Rainey you expect people to believe you. I do notice that OG is man enough not to take no notice of your raving and ranting.
    PIXAPD
    5th Jan 2017
    4:47pm
    If you take an Income Stream where payments are only from the earnings, your balance will continue to grow. Rocket science it ain't, common sense it is.
    OlderandWiser
    5th Jan 2017
    7:38pm
    Except if the earnings aren't adequate to live on because they are HALF the pension, with no benefits. Rocket science isn't it pensioner who hasn't a clue what you are on about? $816,000 x 5% (average return according to govt) is $40,800 but since some $60,000 is likely to be non-returning, it's down to $37500. Now if someone is getting less than average - with no benefits - someone with high health needs is STUFFED.
    PIXAPD
    5th Jan 2017
    9:58pm
    A person ceases to have health needs when they die, so it's all relative to your situation
    Bonny
    6th Jan 2017
    7:42am
    An income stream generally includes a return of capital as well as interest based on your expected life expectancy. So a return on $816,000 would be a lot more than your figures Rainey.
    OlderandWiser
    6th Jan 2017
    10:41pm
    Who said anything about an income stream, Bonny? See this is the problem. Dim-witted idiots can't think past their own wild unsubstantiated ASS-UMPTIONS, or nonsense spat out by some badly programmed computer that purports to assess ''averages''.

    People who saved $816,000 by sacrificing lifestyle didn't make those sacrifices so they could gift their hard-won savings to the government to squander Bonny. And they don't have ''income streams''. They have savings that hopefully pay some sort of return that they are struggling to live on because they NEED to preserve their savings for whatever it was they saved for - and that was most certainly NOT to hand their money to greedy, self-serving bastards who want to engage in a social engineering exercise redistributing from people who worked hard and saved to people who worked and saved less.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    11:58am
    Rainey you replied to a post about income streams.

    If someone has $816,000 they have enough to drawn down $50,000 a year using disciunted cashflow for about 30 years. But rememberbthe OAP would kick in along the way too. If that is not enough to live on then they are living beyond their means.
    Inquisitor
    5th Jan 2017
    6:01pm
    The social security in this country now known by the initials SS as was another fascist organisation in the 1940,s
    Patriot
    5th Jan 2017
    6:55pm
    Inquisitor,
    I thought you'd call them the "Inquisition" with a Handle like yours!

    After all, If you don't think exactly as they do, they call you a Pagan or "Conspiracy Theorist" and "Burn you at the Stake.
    Rosebud
    5th Jan 2017
    6:38pm
    Yes BEllle, I was just going to say if we need to enter care we are looking at a 550,000 Deposit, which my Brother-in-Law has just had to pay, which is more than the New Asset Test limit to receive a Part Pension.
    The Gov.needs to get its act together. Disgraceful.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    7:01pm
    Only have to pay to go into a nursing home if you have assets. Your brother-in-law would have been assessed as being able to pay that amount.
    OlderandWiser
    5th Jan 2017
    7:53pm
    OG. You are just so full of BS. When none of us can pay for a room, what then? There is already a shortage of govt-funded rooms in old age homes. When we are all too poor to pay, what then? Starving the kids rarely helps the family budget. It ends up generating major costs down the track.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    9:08pm
    No idea what you are talking about Rainey.
    in2sunset
    5th Jan 2017
    10:28pm
    Rainey totally agree. I personally know of someone desperately in need of a nursing home but cannot get in anywhere - even looking interstate. With no family, he is now living in a converted garage, courtesy of a kind friend. He has literally lost the will to struggle any more. I have had 2 friends take their own life purely due to the hell of trying to manage and survive in old age. Nursing homes are required to have one or 2 units available for 'needy' cases only. Please tell me where these mythical nursing homes that can take anyone who doesn't have the funds. Believe me, we have looked.
    Bonny
    6th Jan 2017
    7:38am
    A funeral chain was complainging about the weather being too good and not enough people were dying and it was affecting their profits. Maybe we need better dying wheather to release some places in nursing homes.
    Rae
    6th Jan 2017
    8:53am
    Are you a real person Bonny or a robo- comp programmed by the IPA?

    Of course the government is in panic mode because they have f**ked up big time.

    They are bullies so attack the poor, elderly, ill, disabled and less intelligent/educated.

    It isn't going to help. The poor don't have the $50 billion needed to pay high income earners and corporations more.

    In 20 years or less when our savings are all gone and millions need palliative care there will be chaos.

    All the millions of new immigrants and one or two new hospitals to accommodate them. Total incompetence by both parties of government.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jan 2017
    11:15am
    I really don't think those affected by the change in the asset test can be classified as poor etc. It doesn't take too much imagination to realise that they have the statistics available to tell them that these people haven't been spending down their assets. The only assumption that can be drawn from that is that they don't need to extra OAP they were receiving. So a budget saving was identified.

    Unfortunately I have been taken by ambulance a few times to public hospitals and I'm not sure whether it is the bean counter in me but after being in private hospitals the inefficiencies in the public system are alarming. This is only going to get worse.
    OlderandWiser
    7th Jan 2017
    7:26pm
    OG, generalizations are not a sound basis for social or economic policy. What the statistics apparently say is very different from the reality of life in our society. Vast numbers who lost out in the taper change DID most certainly need the pension they were receiving - far more than many who still get it. And there is NO SAVING. Only an idiot thinks the government saves by stopping the populace from saving and driving a welfare mentality. Typical of the LNP, they seek short term gain followed by long term pain - but they'll blame the unfortunate Labor government that succeeds them for the long term damage they have caused.

    As for public hospitals - I had surgery twice in private hospitals and then a very similar operation in a public hospital and I cancelled my medical insurance. Public hospital was 1000 times better. Private cost me tens of thousands in gap fees.
    OlderandWiser
    5th Jan 2017
    7:59pm
    Probably not nearly as long as I will given a stinking government constantly bashing savers, lousy investment returns and some very heavy health and care costs for my partner who suffered hideous deprivation and abuse by the government during childhood.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    9:28pm
    The government has not been bashing savers at all. Returns on properly structured investments have been doing a lot better than their average returns lately, Nothing has changed with healthcare either.
    OlderandWiser
    6th Jan 2017
    10:30pm
    And of course EVERYONE in the world has property investments, don't they moron? And a lot has changed with health care for those who lost their pension benefit card. Suddenly they have to pay all the expensive specialists who used to bulk bill. But you can justify anything, OG, because as long as you are okay the rest of the world can go to hell in a basket and you - you judgemental, condescending prick - will find a way to make it the victim's fault.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    11:52am
    OG used the word properly not property. Big difference.

    Get used to paying more for health as a lot of people will lose thier senior's health card in the May budget.
    OlderandWiser
    7th Jan 2017
    7:42pm
    Solution to that problem seen on FB tonight:


    Say you are an older senior citizen and can no longer take care of yourself and the government says there is no Nursing Home care available for you. So, what do you do? You opt for Medicare Plan G.
    The plan gives anyone 75 or older a gun (Plan G) and one bullet. You are allowed to shoot one worthless politician. This means you will be sent to prison for the rest of your life where you will receive three meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating and air conditioning, cable TV, a library, and all the Health Care you need. Need new teeth? No problem. Need glasses? That's great. Need a hearing aid, new hip, knees, kidney, lungs, sex change, or heart? They are all covered!

    As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you at least as often as they do now! And, who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you they can't afford for you to go into a nursing home. And you will get rid of a useless politician while you are at it. And now, because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any more income taxes!

    Is this a great country or what? Now that I've solved your senior financial plan, enjoy the rest of your week!


    Only the stupidest and most vile morons support these socially and economically destructive policies.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    10:36pm
    No it would be a step backwards for me as I would have to share a cell with someone than snores.
    Golden Oldie
    5th Jan 2017
    8:42pm
    Two major things will have an effect on how long your super, or savings out of super, will last, and unfortubately, both of these are affected by government policy. The major one is recessions, you can loose a lot of your capital if you need to sell shares to provide an income to live on during a downturn in the market. Another one is interest rates on bank deposits. The capital is protected, but with the current low interest rates this does not create the income you need to live on. On top of this, a number of part pensioners have either had their pension reduced, or completely lost, and those who have lost the part pension now also have lost concession on coucil rates water rates, gas and electricity accounts, car registrations, etc. Bit hard to pay these extra expenses when living on an income less than $25k pa. Thank you Mr. Turnbull, penny pinching and going without to save somethjng for retirement for the last 40 years has really paid off. I can now exist on sn income less than a full pension.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    9:11pm
    Easily overcome. Just have 2 preferably 3 years of drawn downs available in liquid assets in your super fund. I have 3 sometimes 4 years myself.
    OlderandWiser
    6th Jan 2017
    10:17pm
    Oh, really easy, OG! Just reduce your income further by cashing out modestly returning assets for non-returning liquid cash. And this from the LIAR who claims he only has $400,000 and lives off the returns on it! 2-3 year's draw-downs (if drawing only enough to make up for lost pension income) might be around $33,000, so that's yet another $1650 income lost at average return rates. Add another $4000 loss if you also lost pensioner benefits and the 3-year provision goes up to over $43200 and you've lost $2160 per year.

    At average returns, $400,000 would yield $20,000 a year, minus $2160 per year on the $43,200 you have to keep liquid is $17840 total income in year 1. By year 2 you've drawn $14400 to achieve an income of $32,240 (not even equal to the couple's pension), and your capital is down to $371,200 after setting aside another year's liquidity allowance.

    $400,000 won't last long at that rate. But OG claims he shouts his family luxury cruises on the returns from that $400000, and it continues to grow. Anyone dumb enough to believe his crap?
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    11:48am
    The way I read it OG by using the word drawdowns is he is talking about his super. If so it would having nothing to do with his $400,000 living account. If he has been getting returns like others that have their money well invested then he would be gettiing a current return of 15% pa or more on his money which would be more than adequate for most people to live on. I would not be surprised if he was acccumulating wealth in the current investment climate as I know that I am.
    OlderandWiser
    7th Jan 2017
    10:13pm
    Then you are a vile, selfish person given your constant harping that others should suffer hardship because YOU and OG are doing fine. Very few get 15% returns on investment. That is a high return that usually comes with high risk, and it simply isn't accessible to most of the population. Only the most disgustingly greedy and self-serving support making policy for the super-privileged.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    10:31pm
    I know many people getting those sorts of returns and some doing much better. One fellow has doubled his weath in the year alone. OK he may be taking a bit more risk but I'm personally taking less risk than having term deposits.
    OlderandWiser
    8th Jan 2017
    5:00pm
    Bonny, some of get that world isn't all about them and who they know. It's about THE MAJORITY. And the MAJORITY are getting 5% or less return, and the government should be ignoring the ELITE FEW who you know and governing for the MAJORITY. And if you had an ounce of decency and respect for democracy and social justice, you would stop ranting about yourself and your elite mates and recognize the facts of THE MAJORITY.
    Rosebud
    5th Jan 2017
    9:34pm
    Old Geezer Mr Brother-in-law only had just over $550,000.00 now he & his wife have nothing except go one the OAP which the care home will take 1/2 and his wife left with virtually nothing.
    in2sunset
    5th Jan 2017
    10:30pm
    Agree
    Bonny
    6th Jan 2017
    7:34am
    Someone is stretching the truth here.
    Rae
    6th Jan 2017
    9:07am
    They must have a house. Having a house is not a good idea when the LNP ideology insists only their business colleagues are allowed homes.

    If you are a wage slave paying the bank for a mortgage that is okay but actually owning the house is doing their little heads in. How dare you get so wealthy on their watch.

    That is the only explanation for the ridiculous nursing home discrimination in fees and charges.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jan 2017
    11:02am
    Rosebud seems to be only telling half the story as that sort of bond is only required if people have lots of money. If only one goes into a nursing home then the house isn't considered as the remaining person needs somewhere to live.

    Sometimes it is better just to pay the whole daily fee and tell them nothing about your personal affairs.
    OlderandWiser
    6th Jan 2017
    10:45pm
    Give you house to your kids, spend the money on a splash up world cruise or two, then rent the house back and claim rent assistance in addition to a much higher pension because your assets are reduced. But make sure you tell TurnBULL and his dim-witted mates this is what you did. It's perfectly legal. They need to know how STUPID they are making rules that invite manipulation to ensure pension costs skyrocket.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    7:41am
    Good idea let him know but be careful what you wish for as this is only phase 1. I'm looking forward tp phase 2 in the May budget.
    OlderandWiser
    7th Jan 2017
    10:56am
    No doubt it will be another ill-conceived cruel and unfair act to blow the budget and further burden taxpayers. But just maybe the flak the idiots have copped recently might make them think twice about further vile attacks on senior citizens. They are rapidly earning a reputation as disgustingly greedy scum, even among previous die-hard LNP supporters.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    11:40am
    It is the first budget after an election so it is the ideal time to make further changes and a lot more needs to be done to stop people using the system for benefits they don't need. One thing I believe is on the agenda is that the seniors health care card be only available to those on tge full pension.
    OlderandWiser
    7th Jan 2017
    7:31pm
    Oh what a good idea. Make health care unaffordable unless you are dirt poor, so all retirees will rush to dispose of their assets so they can access health care on affordable terms

    What sort of idiotic MORON would support that idea. Oh, that's right. An LNP-supporting MORON who supports social engineering to restore the feudal society.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    10:22pm
    Way too many people now have health care cards and a doctor's receptionist told me that they no longer bulk bill or give discounts for them. Just part of our now welfare dependent society.
    inextratime
    5th Jan 2017
    10:17pm
    Old Geezer, you sound like the proverbial smart Alec. We are discussing typical situations here not the actions of a financial genius such as yourself. Your comments are condescending at least and arrogant to the core. Good luck to you in the future but stop gloating. No-one knows what the future holds and that goes for someone as smug as you.
    in2sunset
    5th Jan 2017
    10:34pm
    Agree - I am so close to ceasing to follow this site due to the condescending, egotistical, boasting, insensitive and in many occasions- totally wrong - comments. But you can't say anything as he is ALWAYS right and absolutely hates being questioned. I like to read comments but am so sick and tired of seeing the name Old Geezer. Now totally puts me off.
    Bonny
    6th Jan 2017
    7:31am
    I actually find most of what OG has to say is very helpful and learn a lot from their comments. From what I read OG has come from humble beginnings and knows that the normal way people do things is not always the right way. One can only imagine him with a problem and throwing curbed balls at every turn in trying to fix it. Many people here have very narrow minds and if you would stop whinging and think you may actually learn soomething.
    OlderandWiser
    6th Jan 2017
    10:27pm
    The only person who comes close to OG's vile and disgusting arrogance is Bonny, who also lives in fairy land and rants like a raving lunatic. These two LNP trolls are really making visits to YLC unpleasant.

    I'm with you both, inextratime and in2 sunset. These smug, arrogant, condescending, judgmental and nasty ravers are enough to put us off visiting YLC at all.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    7:43am
    I could say lots of nasty things too but I'm too much of a lady to be so judgemental about people. Your jealousy astounds me though.
    OlderandWiser
    7th Jan 2017
    10:52am
    I'm not jealous of anyone, Bonny. I'm just disgusted at the greed,selfishness and arrogance that is destroying what used to be a great nation and a healthy, caring society.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    11:36am
    So we agree that thise who have be affected by the recent asset changes were just being greedy and selfish in acepting the OAP when they duidn't need it. I certainly do.
    OlderandWiser
    7th Jan 2017
    7:28pm
    No. Many who were affected needed the OAP far more than many who still receive it. A small minority may have been greedy and selfish. Most were needy and deserving, and it's disgusting that they have been cheated out of the retirement they worked so hard for and that vile, self-serving pricks think it's okay.
    OlderandWiser
    7th Jan 2017
    7:29pm
    BTW. You are displaying gross ignorance and lack of any of the qualities of ladies - who have empathy and respect. You have no idea what other people need or deserve. You are just a rude, arrogant, judgmental ASS working on ASSUMPTIONS.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    10:27pm
    Ha ha except I now have an extended family all now dependant upon welfare. Went to a funeral recently and I was the only taxpayer in the room except for the funeral director. We had a good discussion about his funeral business as I have shares in it.
    Rosebud
    6th Jan 2017
    8:34pm
    OG I AM not telling a half truth, what I didn't say in my first post also is that they did not own a home. So all the money has gone and the wife has to go onto the OAP.
    The N.home in Sydney.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    7:49am
    Good thing that safety net is available then.

    However it is not a good use of taxpayers money as the nursing home gets to use the funds interest free plus a fee and the balance is given to ones hiers to spend how they wish.

    Much better to keep the money and pay a regular fee to the nursing home. I know one family that did this because it worked out better for them.
    David
    7th Jan 2017
    8:54pm
    My super will last as long as I live and then when I go, most of it will go to my wife until she dies as I've got a defined benefit scheme.
    Bonny
    7th Jan 2017
    10:34pm
    Mine will too and as I don't spend what it earns it will grow and my kids are going to get a lottery win each.
    PIXAPD
    11th Jan 2017
    9:15pm
    Mine will just keep lasting..... 100, 200 ,300 years etc etc, no problem... things can alter but over long term it earns. Whatever God wills


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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