23rd Nov 2017

Five unexpected retirement expenses

FONT SIZE: A+ A-
Five unexpected retirement expenses
Ben Hocking

To ensure you don’t run out of money, planning for your retirement requires a great deal of foresight. Some of your expenses are easy to plan for, but there are others that you simply can’t predict.

That means that you will always need to leave a little bit of room in your planning budget for the unexpected expenses that will occur throughout your retirement.

Here are the five most common unexpected expenses.

Helping family members
Whether it is your children, your grandchildren or your parents, at some point in your golden years you are probably going to be called on to help in some financial sense. Life events like wedding, the birth of children, divorces or health issues are impossible to predict, but they will almost certainly happen at some point. You don’t want to fall into the trap of constantly bailing out your kids or you will find your nest egg whittled away very quickly, but you will need to have an allowance for some major life events that may require your assistance.

Medical expenses
You may feel as fit as a Mallee bull now, but it won’t stay that way forever. The latest report from the Productivity Commission explains that while Australians have high life expectancy, they also have the highest number of years spent in ill-health compared with other OECD countries. Many Australians have, or are at risk from, chronic conditions such as mental illness, diabetes, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, and we have one of the highest obesity rates in the world, one that appears to be increasing. One of the most basic and important uses of finance in retirement is to be able to pay your medical costs and potentially afford aged care, if required.

Living longer
At the other end of the spectrum, you don’t know how long you are going to live in retirement, either. Australians do have a high life expectancy; in fact, a couple aged 65 has a 50 per cent chance that at least one of them will survive until they are aged 95 or over. The possibility of outliving your retirement savings is a very real prospect for many, with financial advisers now suggesting you could live at least five years longer than the statistical average.

Death of a loved one
While not entirely unexpected, most people prefer not to think about the point in their life when they will suddenly become single. As well as the emotional costs there are significant financial costs and it pays to be a little bit prepared for this eventuality. If only one of you looks after the finances, it is worth changing that arrangement in retirement, and work together as a team. Regular conversations on this taboo topic are important to ensure you have adequate life insurance and have planned ahead, including your will, estate planning, powers of attorney, etc.

Inflation
We know prices are forever rising, but the rate at which they increase is anyone’s guess. Power prices have been a good example in recent years, but there will always be some expense that rises at a rate much faster than predicted. This can present significant challenges when trying to work out your cost of living year on year. When you are working, the rises in inflation are offset by potential pay increases, but you rarely have that luxury in retirement, with the indexation of the Age Pension offering little respite.

What unexpected expenses have cropped up since you retired? What tips would you offer our readers when planning your retirement?

Related articles:
Seven common retirement mistakes
How much is enough?
Does your retirement need a rethink?





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
floss
1st Dec 2017
10:31am
Fed.gov. changes to superannuation rules is the biggest problem with a lot more to come.Try as they will it will be just another stuff up, most people are worried about their retirement future.
Old Geezer
1st Dec 2017
5:13pm
Change is a part of life so get used to it.
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
3:04pm
Those who planned for retirement should NOT have to ''get used to change'' in the conditions under which they manage their retirement finances merely due to stinking cheating lying politicians pulling the rug. If people can't have confidence in their retirement plans, they will save less and the costs of funding retirement will rise. Only an idiot condones policy that deprives people of the security they earned and should be entitled to enjoy.
Dee
1st Dec 2017
10:50am
I agree with Floss. Feds threw our careful planning out the window and mocked our frugality through working years. So spend up I reckon. Who knows what they will do next to our savings. But to get back to the topic, Dental expenses can ruin a budget and insurance costs are huge with reducing benefits - particularly medical benefits. And further to medical benefits, they are a bit like the super changes, don’t value preventative action that will reduce big claims in the future.
Annie
1st Dec 2017
11:03am
Agree with that, plus cost of house repairs, increases in government charges and utilities when you are home all day energy use and cost goes up
Hasbeen
1st Dec 2017
2:23pm
Then there is the white goods replacement.

So far for me there has been new stove, hot water service, fridge, freezer, cloths drier, pool pump, ride on mower & a few TVs & computers.

Then there is my ladies cars, 2 in 16 years at a total depreciation loss of about $35,000 & already about $15,000 on the current one.

If you are at all mechanical you can save a fortune on cars. I drive a 37 year old classic, & have for the last 15 years. It owed me about as much as one of my ladies hatchbacks when I started driving it, & has cost only $10,000 in maintenance in that 15 years. Better still is no depreciation, at all, in fact it is worth about $10,000 more than my total expenditure on it today.

Talk about win win. Drive a car you really love driving, & make a profit doing it.
Hasbeen
1st Dec 2017
2:23pm
Then there is the white goods replacement.

So far for me there has been new stove, hot water service, fridge, freezer, cloths drier, pool pump, ride on mower & a few TVs & computers.

Then there is my ladies cars, 2 in 16 years at a total depreciation loss of about $35,000 & already about $15,000 on the current one.

If you are at all mechanical you can save a fortune on cars. I drive a 37 year old classic, & have for the last 15 years. It owed me about as much as one of my ladies hatchbacks when I started driving it, & has cost only $10,000 in maintenance in that 15 years. Better still is no depreciation, at all, in fact it is worth about $10,000 more than my total expenditure on it today.

Talk about win win. Drive a car you really love driving, & make a profit doing it.
Hasbeen
1st Dec 2017
2:24pm
Then there is the white goods replacement.

So far for me there has been new stove, hot water service, fridge, freezer, cloths drier, pool pump, ride on mower & a few TVs & computers.

Then there is my ladies cars, 2 in 16 years at a total depreciation loss of about $35,000 & already about $15,000 on the current one.

If you are at all mechanical you can save a fortune on cars. I drive a 37 year old classic, & have for the last 15 years. It owed me about as much as one of my ladies hatchbacks when I started driving it, & has cost only $10,000 in maintenance in that 15 years. Better still is no depreciation, at all, in fact it is worth about $10,000 more than my total expenditure on it today.

Talk about win win. Drive a car you really love driving, & make a profit doing it.
Tib
1st Dec 2017
2:32pm
Has been you didn't mention what your classic car is ?
Old Geezer
1st Dec 2017
5:56pm
My car is 3 years old and I have ben offered a good deal on a new one. Should I take it?
Blossom
1st Dec 2017
8:11pm
Old Geezer, It depends how well you care for your car or whether it is just a means of A to B and the km you have done. Also what make it is.
Old Geezer
1st Dec 2017
8:50pm
Nay I just buy a new one if I need it or not.
ex PS
3rd Dec 2017
1:44pm
Yes go ahead O.G. don't worry about the 40/60% depreciation you will bear, its new and shiny.
If the vehicle were shares would you sell it after taking such a loss and then invest the money in the same shares?
Bonny
5th Dec 2017
7:40am
Maybe he leases his car and pays the same no matter if he keeps it or takes the new one. Lease costs can be then fully written off against his income.
ex PS
7th Dec 2017
2:35pm
" Nay I just buy a new one if I need it or not", does not sound like a lease to me.
Rosret
1st Dec 2017
11:00am
You left tradesmen off the list.
As long as your house can weather the next 30 years you are fine. So fix stuff when you first retire and are still capable of painting and climbing on rooves because its all going to cost more tomorrow.
Spitfire
1st Dec 2017
11:19am
To TRUE
Blossom
1st Dec 2017
8:15pm
Just cleaning out the gutters can be a hassle and quite a dangerous exercise after a few years.
Painting usually means using a ladder too, not to mention changing light globes and small jobs like that. How many have noticed that the "power saving" globes don't last as long as the old type?
BElle
1st Dec 2017
11:22am
Opt out of Superannuation Fund as soon as possible. We did this and have not regrated it. Any loss, which in our case was considerable, is more than made up by taking charge of your own investments. Don't know how to invest? There are on-line coursed to tell you how. Or speak with a reputable accountant and/or stockbroker. One that is completely independent of any Funds managers etc.
Old Geezer
1st Dec 2017
5:40pm
Better to have you own SMSF fund instead and no tax on it's earnings. You are also in charge of your own investments.
BElle
1st Dec 2017
11:24am
I should have said in my previous comment that escaping the claws of Centrelink is impossible, unless you have completely independent means, which if you're reading this is probably not so.
Old Geezer
1st Dec 2017
5:42pm
I have escaped the claws of Centrelink and after seeing what others go through It is a real blessing.
Chrissy L
1st Dec 2017
11:55am
Be careful what you pull out of your Super/Income Stream. I had to pull out $70,000 to help my Mum enter a Retirement Village whilst her house was being sold to ensure she could buy her unit, when she was unable to look after herself any more. In the end it wasn't needed as the sale of her house went through, but under the rules I couldn't put it back. Now it earns a measly 2.5% in a term deposit, instead of the 9% plus it was earning in my Income Stream.
Tib
1st Dec 2017
1:13pm
These are all good points and need to be thought about. But guys don't put off your retirement too long you are unlikely to be the one who lives to 95 and you don't want to die without having retired at all, you deserve that rest and recreation if you wait too long you won't get a retirement at all.
john
1st Dec 2017
1:52pm
Owning your home is almost an essential ingredient. But now we are having a banking commission and insurance and Superannuation looked into at the same time, the average retiree now and in the future you hope gets what they deserve and in the positive not the negative, but Super goal post movement is almost like a rackett.
This Royal Commission better have some teeth.
Tib
1st Dec 2017
2:21pm
I wouldn't trust a Royal commission run by the Liberal part. As far as super goal posts moving there seems to be a lot of people telling guys to work longer because they need more money, it's up to the individual but you don't need that much. I think it's a bit rude for wives who don't work or work part time (already retired) to be telling guys they need more money to retire. Because the guy will probably die before he gets a rest, but it does set their wives up for a nice comfortable retirement. This would be a great opportunity for the guy to retire and the woman to get a job after all it gives them an opportunity to built up that super theyre always complaining about just like us , work hard long hours without complaining. What's the bet they don't need so much money after all :).
Old Geezer
1st Dec 2017
5:52pm
I wish I had retired sooner than I did too now as it's no where near as expensive as they make it out to be.
Tib
1st Dec 2017
6:01pm
OG time is the thing we have least of.
john
1st Dec 2017
1:48pm
Helping family members financially has almost busted me. Circumstances unavoidable , but getting back in front takes time, and really there are times when the help simply runs out.
So beware , if you have a relative in strife , that you are careful how you hand the helping hand out.
So all can walk out of the bad time in reasonable shape.
If you don't, you will be living a cardboard box!
Old Geezer
1st Dec 2017
5:45pm
I just tell them as they walk through he front door I haven't got any money to lend them. Saves all the sob stories too.
Tib
1st Dec 2017
6:06pm
When the relative comes through the door tell them you're broke how about a loan , then watch how quick they leave. All my relatives think I'm broke, they avoid me like the plague. But guess what I'm not. ;)
Old Geezer
1st Dec 2017
6:46pm
My twin brother reckons he is going to leave me all his debts and he must be at least twice as wealthy as I am. He is the eldest so he reckons he should die first too.
Tib
1st Dec 2017
9:19pm
OG my brother was paying a million dollars a year in tax in the early eighties , if he wanted to know what he's worth it would take the accountants a few days to work it out. Unfortunately he hates me. Ha ha when's he's dead he will be no richer than me.
Old Geezer
1st Dec 2017
5:50pm
My greatest fear is that I don't live long enough to spend it all so the government has to pay for my funeral.

Ill health not a problem as Medicare covers that and you spend a lot less when you are sick too.

If my better half dies I get to go first class everywhere instead of counting my pennies. Yes they are a real scrooge.

All you have to do is earn more than the inflation rate and that one takes care of itself.

Family members can look after themselves as I'm certainly not looking after the outlaws.

Now I'd be happy to die with nothing.
Tib
1st Dec 2017
6:11pm
It's only money as long as you have enough. Who cares about the rest. Money never really made me happy but a lack of it can make me miserable.
floss
1st Dec 2017
6:30pm
I am not talking about change O.G. I am talking about Fed. Gov. stupidity and don't try to tell they are not stupid.
Old Geezer
1st Dec 2017
6:39pm
If you are talking about the asset test changes then it was a well over due change. If you have enough to be affected by the changes you simply should not have been on welfare in the first place.
Rainey
2nd Dec 2017
8:50pm
You persist with this DUMB argument based on ASSUMPTIONS about other people's circumstances, OG, and ignore the reality that the change was BAD FOR THE NATION, because it reduces the incentive to save and will result in more people on higher pensions. But like our pollies, some people are just too thick to see past ''doh, they have money - take it away''!
Bonny
3rd Dec 2017
11:03am
It is good for the nation as the money saved can be spent elsewhere instead. As a taxpayer I'm glad the government has made a tough decision here. However I was very annoyed when they gave that concession card back to those who can afford not to have it. This is nothing but greed.
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
3:07pm
There's NO SAVING, dunce! The policy change will push the cost of pensions UP UP UP UP UP. You can't SAVE money by putting people in the position where they can't benefit from being responsible, because they become irresponsible in response.

Yes, of course you were annoyed others got something you didn't, you green-eyed monster. It never entered your empty little head to think that over time reducing costs for people whose savings are not adequate to last a lifetime will reduce their need for a pension in later life.
floss
1st Dec 2017
6:30pm
I am not talking about change O.G. I am talking about Fed. Gov. stupidity and don't try to tell they are not stupid.
floss
1st Dec 2017
6:31pm
I am not talking about change O.G. I am talking about Fed. Gov. stupidity and don't try to tell they are not stupid.
Sundays
1st Dec 2017
6:44pm
Do a budget and stick to it. In an ideal world you also need a nest egg for replacement of cars, appliances, white goods, repairs and maintenance. If you want to travel factor that in before you retire. Find hobbies which don’t cost a fortune and be realistic. If you’ve always felt a need for nice clothes, expensive hair cuts, regular outings, books and magazines etc. that won’t change. Just work out the best way to achieve on a budget. I love retirement and no longer running other people’s agendas!
Blossom
1st Dec 2017
8:07pm
Considering the food I have seen overseas visitors pile up onto their plates while on coach tours I'm suprised their country isn't the highest. A lot of the food was very sugary too.
Kathleen
1st Dec 2017
8:17pm
Have a budget and live within your means. Keep your car in good repair and it will last. No need for a new car! Make your home comfortable and repaint before you retire. Assume you will need to replace or repair some items and factor that into your budget. For this have an emergency fund factored into your budget. Be frugal and look for ways to save.
Old Geezer
1st Dec 2017
8:55pm
So if I don't spend my budget I'm not living within my means?
Tib
1st Dec 2017
9:31pm
Good advice grandma it's tougher for some of us more than others, people like me and OG by the sound of it have more than we need. But if OG is anything like me we have always budgeted.
Rainey
3rd Dec 2017
7:16am
I managed on a very tight budget for most of my life, but in recent years it's become much harder because health costs for my partner have risen and due to loss of health and eyesight, we can't DIY anymore like we used to and we have to pay people to do home maintenance and furniture and appliance repairs. Also, aging parents have put a strain on our budget. We just couldn't ignore the fact that parents who lived in poverty all their lives - without complaint - suddenly found heat and cold extremes intolerable and couldn't continue to shop wood and stoke an ancient old wood stove and heater, nor the fact that their homes were falling down around them because they couldn't do maintenance tasks themselves anymore and had no money to pay to have them done.

Budgets are great, and living within your means is always advisable, but when the income is just not sufficient to cover the cost of essentials, you have no choice but to draw on savings. And when the savings are gone, you are in trouble. That's the situation now for many who lost out in the assets test change. With incomes reduced drastically, and higher costs due to losing concession cards, they are forced to draw on their savings. In theory, that's okay because they have healthy savings, but many will find those savings now nowhere near adequate to last a lifetime.

I did a theoretical calculation on assets of $840,000 for a 65 year old couple needing extensive dental work and eye surgery and they were broke by ago 80 and solely dependant on the OAP from that point on. Had to sell their house to pay for aged care. Now, some would say that's as it should be, but it seems grossly unfair that people who worked hard and lived very frugally should get nothing from the state while those who lived the high life or bludged received a taxpayer gift of more money than the saver saved!

When people rant that someone with over $820,000 don't need a pension, they forget that the day you retire, if you are below the cut-off limit for a pension, you are given, if you live another 20 years, more than $820,000. Save and it's taken away. Don't save and it's gifted. Why would you sacrifice lifestyle to save? In a healthy return environment, the harsher assets test made perfect sense, but in a low return environment, it's just plain wrong. An INCOME test including deemed income on all non-producing or underperforming assets (with a fair deeming rate adjusted to current interest rates) would be fair, and would probably achieve far higher savings for the nation, especially if the income threshold were lowered. Currently couples with over $70,000 a year qualify for a pension, while couples achieving less than $30,000 a year do not if they saved well. How is that equitable or logical?
Bonny
3rd Dec 2017
11:07am
Rainey what do you want a medal or a chest to pit in on.

All of what you saysay is easily afforded by those who have $820,000 and if not then they qualify for welfare.
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
3:09pm
Sorry, Bonny, but you clearly miss the point. If people have to spend their savings just to live - to compensate for not getting a pension - instead of what they saved for, they will save less and lean on the taxpayer more. Some people are smart enough to get that. Obviously you, like many of our dumb pollies, are not among them!
Bonny
5th Dec 2017
7:44am
Gee one has to wonder why a set of false teeth cost over $800,000. My mother's only cost a mere fraction of that.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
3:29pm
I'm sorry you are so lacking in ability to comprehend fact, Bonny. Clearly, it's a waste of time answering you because you aren't capable of understanding. I sympathize.
Kathleen
1st Dec 2017
8:17pm
Have a budget and live within your means. Keep your car in good repair and it will last. No need for a new car! Make your home comfortable and repaint before you retire. Assume you will need to replace or repair some items and factor that into your budget. For this have an emergency fund factored into your budget. Be frugal and look for ways to save.
Rainey
2nd Dec 2017
9:08pm
Fine if you enjoy good health and don't experience a family crisis or a natural disaster that does serious damage to your home and possessions. But as the article points out, unexpected expenses do arise, and the extent of them is neither predictable nor manageable in many cases.

A friend lost a huge chunk of savings caring for his son's family after his son's wife died tragically leaving very young children. Another lost a chunk of change helping a daughter whose premature son spent 200 days in neo-natal intensive are fighting for life. What should they have done? Abandoned their children in a time of need. OG would, of course!

In both cases, the children tried to be financially independent, but all sorts of costs add up. Even driving to and from the hospital to visit and parking fees costs. My friend bought clothes for the kids and paid for them to have hair cuts, bought them medicine when they were sick, fed them when they stayed with him while their parent was unable to care for them, paid school expenses, etc. When your child is struggling, you don't want to ask them to reimburse every expense.

I lost a chunk of my savings helping out an aging parent who was in desperate need. I should have recouped it from the estate but a greedy relative, greedy lawyer, and disgustingly flawed 'Family Provisions Act' thwarted that.

Now I'm caring for a partner who is in poor health and requires costly medication and physio therapy.

It really sickens me that some think just because they are fortunate that anyone who isn't must be irresponsible.
Bonny
3rd Dec 2017
11:10am
If you lost a chunk of your savings on any of your scenarios you must of had considerably less than the asset limit for old age welfare. We are not that stupid.
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
3:02pm
Obviously you are, Bonny, because your comment makes no sense at all. How would anyone have to have considerably less than the asset limit to lose money helping family? It wouldn't matter whether one had $300,000 or $1.5 million, they still lose a chunk of savings if they have to spend on family in a crisis.
Bonny
5th Dec 2017
7:47am
No Rainey those costs with that sort of savings are minor inconveniences. If you are talking cancer drugs costing $100,000 A month that would be a chunk of money after six months.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
3:36pm
Who said anything about cancer drugs, Bonny. You really do struggle to read and understand don't you, you poor thing?

I said the costs of supporting family through trauma took a chunk of savings. If it was $50K out of a few hundred thousand, or even $50K out of a million, that's a CHUNK OF SAVINGS. It's enough to mess up your budget and retirement plans. Even $5000 is a ''chunk of savings'' for people who don't have much. There's no ''minor inconvenience'' there. But then, the rich and privileged never get it.

I remember my mother arguing with a wealthy man over the church tithing. He claimed 10% of income was fair because everyone paid the same portion of income. She pointed out that 10% of $100K a year was $10K that would hardly be missed, because there was still way more than enough to live very well, whereas 10% of an aged pension was a huge impost because the pension was barely enough to get by on BEFORE the 10% was taken. Like you, he didn't get it. Everything is relative. What is a ''minor inconvenience'' for the rich is a devastating loss for the poor. But you will never understand that simple fact.
Knows-a-lot
2nd Dec 2017
6:08am
I've been hit by a few of these. And I've been largely abandoned by my family.
Knows-a-lot
2nd Dec 2017
6:08am
I've been hit by a few of these. And I've been largely abandoned by my family.
mike
2nd Dec 2017
9:44am
The biggest problem facing retirees is the changes that Hockey made smashing the planned retirement plans of all those who worked and saved whilst rewarding those who drank and gambled. Then Turnbull said that all those who lost the pensioner concession card due to Hockeys changes would have it reinstated, and this was welcome news to retirees but quickly turned to ANGER when it was realised that on;ly those that lost it on 1/1/17 would have it reinstated. Thus those who had MORE than $817.000 and up to $1.25million and lost the part pension on January 1st would have it reinstated, but if you had LESS than $817,000 and lost it a few days later, say due to increase in your super, or a christmas bonus, YOU DID NOT. This is unfair and discrimination and bastardisation on Turnbulls part. He also said those who lost their PCC would have the Commonwealth card indefinately, BUT THIS WAS ALSO A LIE. many who lost their PCC a few months or even a few days after 1/1/17 are finding that they cannot get the commonwealth card either. I know one person who lost their PCC a few days after 1/1/17 due to a part time Christmas Bonus, and lost everything. I voted for the Liberal Party for the last 50 odd years, but Turnbull is a liar and I now vote One Nation
mike
2nd Dec 2017
9:44am
The biggest problem facing retirees is the changes that Hockey made smashing the planned retirement plans of all those who worked and saved whilst rewarding those who drank and gambled. Then Turnbull said that all those who lost the pensioner concession card due to Hockeys changes would have it reinstated, and this was welcome news to retirees but quickly turned to ANGER when it was realised that on;ly those that lost it on 1/1/17 would have it reinstated. Thus those who had MORE than $817.000 and up to $1.25million and lost the part pension on January 1st would have it reinstated, but if you had LESS than $817,000 and lost it a few days later, say due to increase in your super, or a christmas bonus, YOU DID NOT. This is unfair and discrimination and bastardisation on Turnbulls part. He also said those who lost their PCC would have the Commonwealth card indefinately, BUT THIS WAS ALSO A LIE. many who lost their PCC a few months or even a few days after 1/1/17 are finding that they cannot get the commonwealth card either. I know one person who lost their PCC a few days after 1/1/17 due to a part time Christmas Bonus, and lost everything. I voted for the Liberal Party for the last 50 odd years, but Turnbull is a liar and I now vote One Nation
mike
2nd Dec 2017
9:45am
The biggest problem facing retirees is the changes that Hockey made smashing the planned retirement plans of all those who worked and saved whilst rewarding those who drank and gambled. Then Turnbull said that all those who lost the pensioner concession card due to Hockeys changes would have it reinstated, and this was welcome news to retirees but quickly turned to ANGER when it was realised that on;ly those that lost it on 1/1/17 would have it reinstated. Thus those who had MORE than $817.000 and up to $1.25million and lost the part pension on January 1st would have it reinstated, but if you had LESS than $817,000 and lost it a few days later, say due to increase in your super, or a christmas bonus, YOU DID NOT. This is unfair and discrimination and bastardisation on Turnbulls part. He also said those who lost their PCC would have the Commonwealth card indefinately, BUT THIS WAS ALSO A LIE. many who lost their PCC a few months or even a few days after 1/1/17 are finding that they cannot get the commonwealth card either. I know one person who lost their PCC a few days after 1/1/17 due to a part time Christmas Bonus, and lost everything. I voted for the Liberal Party for the last 50 odd years, but Turnbull is a liar and I now vote One Nation
Bonny
2nd Dec 2017
1:07pm
Long over due change and let's face it anyone with enough money to lose their concessions has more than enough to pay full price for them stop whinging and enjoy your wealth instead. After all it is only a pittance to what you have already got. The greed of those affected by these changes is extreme.
Rainey
2nd Dec 2017
8:54pm
Bonny, you are totally IGNORANT of the facts. The FACT is that many who were affected are now far worse off than if they had saved less, and are spending to reduce their assets and increase their income, because otherwise they end up having gone without luxuries so the government could take their savings and hand it to people who saved less.

Whether or not someone has enough depends on how much longer they have to live, their health, and their family circumstances. Many saved specifically because they KNEW they would need that extra cash. But now their savings will run out well before they die, and they will go without things they went without to save for. It's patently UNFAIR and it has nothing to do with greed. It is about enjoying a fair reward for your hard work and frugal living. Now that the fair reward is gone, many will spend up big and the young will save less and the cost of pensions will go thru the roof. How sad that so many are too shallow to focus on the cost to the nation but can't see past ''doh, they have money - take if off them!"
Bonny
3rd Dec 2017
11:13am
Nope you are way better off having excess assets than the old age welfare. If you can't like on welfare then you should have saved for your retirement.
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
2:59pm
You miss the point, Bonny. People who DID save for their retirement are now worse off for having done so.
Bonny
5th Dec 2017
7:50am
Rainey I'll m much better off today than I have ever been so how can anyone who saved be worse off? If you draw down your assets in retirement you get the OAP which is not available if you are still of working age.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
3:26pm
Can you not read, Bonny, or did you miss the post about the ''Retirement sweet spot''. Of course if you can save a huge amount, you are fine with savings. It's those caught in the changed assets test trap - who had less than $1 million but more than $820,000, who may well be better off blowing half a million quickly, because unless you are some sort of investment whiz, or very lucky, the extra savings don't benefit you one bit. They are taken to give to people who saved less.
Rainey
2nd Dec 2017
8:56pm
Yes Mike, it should be said three times, and more. But sadly the fools in power aren't capable of understanding the consequences of their stupid, short-sighted, ill-conceived thought bubbles.
Bonny
3rd Dec 2017
11:16am
The change in the asset test was a good start but more needs to be done. Give everyone old age welfare but make it a HECX type debt that is payable on their death. HECX debts should also be payable on one's death.
Rainey
4th Dec 2017
3:00pm
It was a ''good start'' if you want the budget to blow out further and pension costs to skyrocket. Otherwise it was plain idiotic. Yes, Bonny, rip everything off the workers and savers - and then wonder why people don't want to work and save. Some people really are dopey!
Bonny
5th Dec 2017
7:53am
Rainey why don't you just give up work go on a world trip first class and then you will have drawn down enough to get your beloved OAP. Yeah no more whinging about now ancient history.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
3:24pm
I'm not ''whinging'', Bonny. I don't want the OAP. What I want is for the government to stop wasting the taxpayers' money implementing stupid policies that hurt people unnecessarily and blow the budget. I want them to stop wrecking a good country with their idiotic, mean, self-serving policies and start doing what is good for the nation. Creating disincentives to save is DUMB and economically unsustainable. The changed assets test compounded unfairness enormously, added further complications to the administrative nightmare and sent a clear message that working and saving for retirement is a punishable offence unless you can get very wealthy, so you are better off limiting your savings and putting your hand out for a full pension and benefits.

Your post proves you a hypocrite, because you obviously understand that what I say is true, yet you endorse a bad policy. Is it just meanness on your part - that you enjoy seeing others hurt?
Old Geezer
6th Dec 2017
5:19pm
Rainey if you don't want the OAP then stop whinging as you are in a good paddock.
Rainey
7th Dec 2017
3:13pm
I'm not whinging, OG. I'm pointing out the deficiencies in a very bad system in the hope that more people will lobby for SENSIBLE and ECONOMICAL changes - changes that enable the system to fulfil its proper objectives, not changes that just satisfy mean and nasty greedy privileged people who love to persecute those who have less.
Rainey
6th Dec 2017
9:55am
Add government and semi-government rip-offs to the list! 40% increase in council rates in our area in just 3 years.
Old Geezer
6th Dec 2017
5:18pm
Rainey that has gone up 10% since yesterday. Very progressive council indeed.


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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

you might also be interested in...

How to budget (in retirement)

Are you brave enough to follow Kaye Fallick’s formula to save?

Why the rich live longer

The sad truth that income and occupation control your longevity.

Is a reverse mortgage for you?

Reverse mortgages may become more popular as a means to fund retirement.

Could annuities save your retirement?

Many Australians may turn to annuities as a way to fund their retirement income.

Retirement: the risk is all yours

The risk of funding retirement income has well and truly shifted – and now it’s all yours.