Most retirees have modest spending habits regardless of income

New research has found that the expenditure levels for most retirees is similar.

Most retirees have modest spending habits regardless of income

New research has found that the expenditure levels for most retirees is similar, regardless of income – but low-income households are spending more than their income.

The study of around 8000 households, was conducted by Monash Business School’s Australian Centre of Financial Studies (ACFS), using data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics (HILDA) survey.

It showed that single retirees aged 65–74 spend an average amount of $18,400 annually, with couples in the same age range spending an average of $33,200.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) retirement standard estimates that, to live a modest lifestyle, single retirees aged 65–84 would have to spend $23,489 while couples would need to spend $33,784. To live a comfortable lifestyle, single retirees in the same age range would need to spend $42,579 with couples spending $58,326.

The results of the survey also showed that income plays less of a role in required spending for retirement. Rather, it seems regional variations have more influence on retirement expenditure, with the average household in Sydney spending just over $44,000, compared with $34,000 for Melbourne retirees and $25,000 for those living in Tasmania.

As with the ASFA standard, which assumes that retirees own their home, the ACFS research does not take into account the fact that many retirees are still renting. The study claims that 15 per cent of all retirees are renters, with eight per cent still paying off a mortgage.

Other key findings of the report include:

  • Housing costs are high for those who do not own their homes.
  • Self-funded retirees have a higher standard of living than those relying on the Age Pension.
  • Today’s retirees spend more than earlier cohorts at a similar age.
  • Household spending does not decline through the course of retirement.
  • Superannuation is the fastest growing source of retiree household wealth.
  • Wages and super contribute significant income in the early stages of retirement.
  • Food is the major expense for retirees over 65.

The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) CEO Tom Garcia said the research challenges traditional notions of retiree spending and hopes it will influence discussions about “the fairness of the super tax concessions, super’s objective and what is considered to be an ‘adequate’ income in retirement”.

“Learning more about what retirees actually spend compared to their income will help us make evidence-based decisions about adequacy and super policy,” Mr Garcia said. “There are a lot of myths and fear about what retirees need to live on. This study suggests that most older households, including wealthy ones, have relatively modest expenditure and – on average – have the highest financial satisfaction.”

Read the ACFS report

Opinion: Use this data with caution

If the aim of this report is to help shape future retirement policy and planning, it should take into account the housing (un)affordability trend which, on its current course, will affect retirement spending and make this data almost irrelevant.

The study was created using HILDA data over a period of 12 years. So it’s fair to say that it does provides an overview of modern retirement, although there are new implications that may not be accurately predicted by using older data.

YourLifeChoices’ research taken from the August 2016 Retirement in a digital world survey (with over 5000 respondents), indicates that 13 per cent of retirees are renters, 16 per cent are still paying off a mortgage and the remaining 71 per cent are homeowners. A report by ING Direct shows that, these days, retirees will enter retirement with an average debt of around $158,000. The same report estimates the number of over 65-year-olds with mortgages has increased by 28 per cent in the past three years alone.

Our own research provides a more accurate ‘snapshot’ of retirement and, if it’s anything to go by, the proportion of retirees who are still paying off a mortgage will increase year on year.

The average cost of rent paid on a one-bedroom apartment in Australia is around $16,900 per year. If expenditure is the same for the rich and the poor, it is no wonder that renting retirees struggle to make ends meet.

Of the 3.57 million Australians aged over 65, a staggering 33 per cent – or 1.2 million – of those live in poverty. So, is it fair to say that, maybe, ultra-wealthy retirees are skewing the ACFS data by offsetting the spending of the very poor?

Saying that older households enjoy the “highest financial satisfaction” might also be a bit of a stretch, especially considering that low-income households are already spending more than they earn. This proves the danger of generalising from ‘averages’, where the wealth of one individual, such as Gina Rinehart, can dramatically skew the results.

The reports states in its introduction:

“…the analysis should be used to help shed further light on the range of standard living incomes for retired Australian households at present". It also aims to “improve the understanding of the Australian pension system, including the use of both the [Age Pension] and superannuation entitlements” and “understanding the likely pattern of expenditure in retirement may help improved decision making on planning for the retirement phase”.

So, if this report is to be taken as advice by the Government or the individual, it must be noted that it does not consider retirees who are renting or paying off a mortgage. Even if we add just $10,000 per year in rent or mortgage costs, retiree expenditure, based on the ACFS estimates, falls well short of what is required for a modest standard of living.

The difference between low-income earners and high-income earners is that the wealthy cohort still has the disposable income to pay off a mortgage. Low-income earners will have to take on debt or sell off assets to meet their living expenses.

Australians entering retirement (who don’t own a home) expecting to spend only what is quoted in the ACFS report could be in for a rude awakening.

Do you agree with the ACFS figures? Are you comfortable in retirement? If so, is it because you own your home? Do you think this data could be skewed by the ultra-wealthy?

If you have a few spare minutes this week, we’d love you to share your thoughts on Retirement in a digital world.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Robin7
    29th Aug 2016
    10:16am
    An LNP Federal Government will selectively use data and statistics to ensure they spend the least possible supporting the Elderly and Disadvantaged.
    It is the LNP's belief that if working to 70+, being unable to afford proper medical care, or poor nutrition bring about your early demise then the whole country is better off.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    10:56am
    If people are not spending down their capital then it tells the government they are getting paid too much in welfare. That is why they are tightening up the assets test.

    Also you do not have to work to you are 70. You can retire at any age even 40 if you want to. You will just not be able to access the OAP until retirement age. So if you want to retire before retirement age you have provide for it yourself.

    I really can't see a problem with the retirement age being 70 myself.
    Rosret
    29th Aug 2016
    11:36am
    I am very happy for you Old Geezer that you will work on until you are 70. The community thanks you for your contribution to society. However, women in particular, have not had the continuity of income or the access to the high paying jobs in the same manner as men. That means limited super.
    Many women who thought they were doing to be provided for when they married have found the harsh reality of a very rapidly changing world. Divorce, returning to the workforce, raising a family alone etc etc. I am sure there is a parallel universe in the male world.
    However its the single people who will suffer most by these statistics. $18K for singles as opposed to $33K for couples. Its unrealistic. I can name $30K of fixed costs associated with maintaining a home, car, medical and dental, and means of communication. They don't change whether you are married or single. The only difference is food and clothing.
    The goal is to not spend down your assets and live off the interest gained so you will continue to be self funded in 30 years from now - but that's no going to happen. In fact it is compulsory to draw down 4% each year and even more as you get older.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    11:52am
    I left my job a long time before I got to 70. A quick calculation has me not even spending half of that $30,000 on your fixed cost items. Clothing costs me very little and food costs a bit more than normal as we only eat the good stuff.

    OK you might have to take out 4% of your super so your super fund doesn't pay tax but there is nothing stopping you putting in back in until age of 75 if the new super laws pass.

    I have very little in super myself as I haven't had a job for decades and super was only just coming in when I left.

    You assume I am a man but I may be a divorced single woman who stayed home and looked after their family instead of working.
    mangomick
    29th Aug 2016
    12:10pm
    Would have thought if you were a woman and not a man then you would be calling yourself "Old Duck and not "Old Geezer". Maybe it just shows how times have changed. Maybe we need to call you Ms Old Geezer to avoid any potential confusion........
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:30pm
    Why do women always denote themselves by putting themselves down? A woman can be as good as a man and in same cases better. That is the point I was trying to put across.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    12:33pm
    I don't think retirees all selling down shares, putting homes on the market and withdrawing deposits from banks is such a great idea OG. It is typical of the nonsense that has dominated debate.

    If there was a sudden selling up or even a spending halt the screaming would be incredibly loud.

    However you just might get what you seem to consider a great idea.

    The transfer of wealth from savers to debtors has a time to run but it won't be pretty once it is over.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:40pm
    I have no idea what you are talking about Rae as they are not my ideas at all.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    12:52pm
    That is great OG. If there is a mad scramble by the retirees to sell down assets quickly we will know it is not your idea.
    jackie
    29th Aug 2016
    12:54pm
    Old Geezer...As a mature age worker, I do see a big problem with having to work till 70. You try constantly learn new skills and adapting to change with deteriorating vision, hearing and other illnesses amongst a young agile workforce with KPIs. It is stressful and as we all know stress kills. This Government wants all peasants it can no longer bleed to simply drop dead.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:55pm
    I'll just watch from the sidelines then and maybe pick up some bargains when the dust settles.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    1:31pm
    Agree with you robin. Interesting to watch the rusted on LNP posters continue with the Party line. Never changes.
    The reality of the current government is that we now have the oldest retirement in the western world, that retirees are being hit from all sides in an attempt to destitute them whilst they are still alive and the bastards justify their malevolence with any sort of claim whilst refusing to tax corporates or the very rich at the correct rate.
    What we have going on in politics is a game with average citizens the targets.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    2:26pm
    Retirees do very nicely Mick so even better than the fully self funded retirees. Like everyone else the more they get the more they want and the more they whinge.

    Who are these LNP posters Mick I haven't seen any?
    roy
    29th Aug 2016
    3:46pm
    MICK does love to get political,why bring LNP into it? Taking of rusted on, sheesh.
    Alex
    29th Aug 2016
    5:39pm
    Old Geezer. It does not tell you any such thing.
    It is not a measure of whether or not people are drawing down lump sums and savings. In fact people are required to draw down a portion of their lump sum every year if they have one.
    This silly survey only looks at routine expenses. It does not take into account the major one off expenses that go with replacing household items such as fridges, TVs etc. and repairs and replacement of such items as roofs, gutters, fences, painting and after some years kitchens and bathrooms; or the cost of trades people such as plumbers and electricians. They do not take into account major health expenses that are unpredictable and vary from one person to the next as well as from one year to the next. It costs as much to live as a retired person as it does as a working person apart from the expenses of travelling to work. Are they looking at cutting the incomes of the researchers because they do not need all the money they get to live?
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    6:19pm
    Old Geezer is a woman. Her name is actually ''Bonny''. We've seen loads of her self-serving posts before. Like her alter-ego, she wants anyone who struggled financially - for whatever reason - to suffer poverty in old age, and all those battlers who sacrificed to save deprived of all the rewards for doing so.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    6:31pm
    Rainey the OAP is welfare that stops people living in poverty in old age so why would I want people to live in poverty in old age? You make no sense to me at all.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    8:14pm
    The OAP is NOT welfare, Old Geezer. Read some history and inform yourself. Only the vile and disgusting would suggest that senior Australians are not ENTITLED to respect and care in their old age.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    8:18pm
    Of course it is welfare Rainey as it is a welfare payment to save old people from living in poverty. To call it anything is because people are guilty about not being able to look after themselves. Calling the OAP welfare has nothing to do with respect and care of old people in old age. So get over it Rainey and called it for what it is WELFARE.
    particolor
    29th Aug 2016
    8:25pm
    Rainey....Forget Mr Plant , not worth arguing with !! :-( You get them on all sites, And the worse part is WE are paying for their Retainer !!:-( :-(
    Rae
    30th Aug 2016
    6:56am
    Actually Alex your comment is one of the most sensible solutions to the haves and haves not problem.

    If we did cut the incomes of those getting excessive amounts then just maybe those being underpaid through the past 40 years could catch up and earn something that allows them to save.

    Income redistribution in Australia was once the envy of the world and most workers enjoyed a quality lifestyle.

    Then neoliberalism appeared and we find ourself here where a lot of hard workers are not receiving a fair share at all.
    LiveItUp
    30th Aug 2016
    7:14am
    Kif you have a job you will only get the least amount an employer is required to pay or the amount you will accept to take on that job. I worked this out years ago and as soon as I cut out the middle man and worked for myself I realised how much I was really worth.

    Unfortunately schools today teach people to be slaves that have jobs to make others rich. What can one expect have no experience other than having a job themselves.
    particolor
    30th Aug 2016
    7:04pm
    Telstra News Tonight... Pauline said Muslims with 4 Wives and Numerous Children were Destroying the Welfare Budget !! :-( TRUE !!

    I couldn't make this up ! :-)
    What hope have Old Age Pensioners got now of ever getting anything in the Future :-( :-(
    And here was me thinking that we have laws in this land against Multiple Marriage's ??
    But my motto is If you cant beat them Join them !!
    So tomorrow I will be converting to Islam And then go Wife Hunting :-)
    But I'm wondering if only FOUR Wives will be enough ? :-)
    particolor
    30th Aug 2016
    7:16pm
    PS Anyone with a Telstra Account can read about this By logging into your Account !! Don't be shocked !! :-( Apparently there are 2 Sets of Laws in this Land ?? Trust Pauline to dig it up :-( :-( What else are they Hiding ?? Stay Tuned :-) :-)
    CarolAT
    29th Aug 2016
    11:06am
    Being a female, I never received any superannuation for any job that I ever worked. Can I therefore look forward to a retirement similar to my late mother's, living on 3-minute noodles and party pies? I suspect that this is going to be the case.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:03pm
    Yuk 3 minute noodles and party pies are not even food.
    jackie
    29th Aug 2016
    1:03pm
    CarolAT...I am in the same boat. I remember all pensioners were poverty stricken in the past. They never owned shares, investments nor Super, many rented and just lived frugally off their measly pension. None spent time travelling on cruises or overseas trips and none moaned how hard they had it. At least Governments allowed them to retire early unlike this one.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    1:08pm
    You can retire whenever you like. So why not retire early spend your money when you are able and then get the pension at 70. Sounds like a good plan to me.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    1:32pm
    I did Carol but like most Australians it did not amount to a real lot as we started too late. You would not be too far behind....and now have equal conditions.
    Brissiegirl
    29th Aug 2016
    2:13pm
    The most important plan is to own the roof over one's head by pension time. No matter how small, modest or whatever its value, owning the home means singles and couples can and do live quite happily on the pension. My mother-in-law and my mother both owned their units and lived well on the pension. My MIL even saved money on it. My mother had saved a nest-egg, so was able to keep her car and maintain it and also take an occasional holiday.
    The problem for governments is going to arrive with the generation of pensionable people who are non-home owners. Taxpayers will not be able to fund their resultant social housing needs. Governments will do well to encourage home ownership. Organisations like ACOSS and other outfits that would like to punish success and prosperity should stop their campaigning to assess the family home for pension because it is a disincentive to provide a home for ourselves and would lead to all sorts of problems.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    2:19pm
    You are correct Brissiegirl but keep in mind the more welfare dependents the more powerful ACOSS becomes. It is not in their benefit for too many to be self sufficient. I bet the CEO of ACOSS is paid a pretty penny.
    ex PS
    30th Aug 2016
    4:08pm
    That was my intention O.G. but my Super did so well I have no hope of spending it all by the time I am 70. I guess I was not as clever as some, other than making sure my Super was invested in a low risk strategy and salary sacrificing for the last 5 years I worked, I did not fiddle about with my Super. Yet those who chased better returns did not seem to do so well. Lucky I was content to just use lazy investment strategies and be patient.
    Of course the reason I was able to salary sacrifice was that we paid off our house 5 years before I retired, another long term investment mistake in some peoples eyes. I wonder how much better off I would be if I was just a bit smarter?
    Old Geezer
    1st Sep 2016
    12:41pm
    Got a similar problem my super will last to I'm 104 plus so I'm going to try and live to 104 plus just to see if they are right! Not sure who designed those retirement calculators but they are giving me some silly results as shown above.

    I too am in low risk strategy where I am beating inflation and earning more than I have to take out each year. Certainly not just getting a pitiful return by having lazy bank deposits. These are hardly ever positive after tax and inflation.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    11:30am
    I don't understand the food being the main cost.

    I eat very well on around $60 a week with a salad green garden and a few fruit trees to pad it out.

    It requires choosing fresh foods in season, cooking and using a chest freezer to avoid waste.

    My main cost is insurance at nearly $100 a week for health, property and contents and car.

    Another $85 for rates, water and electricity.

    I'm self funded but most weeks spend well short of the OAP amounts.

    Some weeks I spend much more but that is entirely discretionary.

    I do believe health costs of medicines etc are rising and this is especially hard for self funded retirees who have to pay full costs for everything with no discounts or rebates.
    Perhaps this discrimination could be looked into.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    11:38am
    I don't even bother getting prescriptions filled as I believe they are poisons that I don't need. I even ask Doctors if I really need them. Most people feel cheated if they leave a doctor's visit without a script so I think doctor's feel they have doen their job unless they rite one out.
    Rosret
    29th Aug 2016
    11:45am
    Yes Rae, things where we can operate in the our old world with are inexpensive. i.e. food, cheap clothes, self home repairs etc. But as soon as you need something in the spinning real world, Internet, phone, house repairs, car, rates, electricity etc its a bridge too far.
    Today's costs are based on what an average income earner can pay and $18 is not an average wage.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    12:20pm
    I don't need prescriptions either OG but I realise how lucky that makes me.

    Even with shopping around and using the cheapest discount chemist the cost to friends who do need medication is expensive.

    And I have not been able to get below $40 a week with Telstra for computer, fixed line and mobile.

    I may yet have to lower insurance costs by only using third party property, ditching the extras health and using a dongle and just the mobile on pre paid. We will see how much lower dividends and yields go.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:51pm
    It actually costs me less the fully insure my car than third party property does so you may not save much there.

    Not sure what you are invested in by the last couple of months have been good to me.

    Forget the dongle just get a smart phone and use it like a dongle instead. Dongles are a real pain unless you have a hot spot to use them in. I just take a smart phone and a tablet now with me when I'm going anywhere. That's all I need with lots free WiFi about.
    jackie
    29th Aug 2016
    1:07pm
    Old Geezer....I am not one for prescriptions too but no one knows what lays around the corner. Never say never there is always a first time for everything. I contracted a deadly virus and would not be posting this if it weren't for life-saving medications with nasty side effects. I do believe in medication when there is no other option.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    1:36pm
    Good post Rae. What you highlight is that the official figures are nonsense and do NOT represent the true cost of living. I can relate to your list as ours is similar and on a modest return on equity we can survive well and travel on what is left. People just would not believe how little they need to spend if they invest some time and put themselves out, which is not on the agenda for a lot of folk who cry poor all too often.
    Brissiegirl
    30th Aug 2016
    8:14am
    Old Geezer I don't believe for a minute that "most people" feel cheated if they are not given a script when visiting a doctor. Doctors know from their research that the vast majority of patients spend as much money on health during the last five years of life as in all previous years put together. If mature age patients have chronic illness it is most unkind to lump them all into a category of script-seekers.
    Anonymous
    1st Sep 2016
    8:25am
    Old Geezer lives in a utopia somewhere in the ether - must be dead and gone to another world. In his dream utopia - that the poor deluded soul thinks is real - nobody gets sick and needs medicines, disability is a crime, people are paid to use electricity, and some astonishingly privileged folk can get comprehensive insurance for less than the price of third party. Politicians are all honest and competent and deserve to be paid obscene amounts and given disgustingly large pensions after only a few years of sitting on their shiny lazy bums doing nothing of worth, but people who spend 5 decades slogging it out in low-paid jobs helping nurses or cleaning in hospitals or building roads - keeping the nation going - should suffer a miserable old age branded ''welfare recipients'', paid a pittance, and treated as fifth-class citizens.

    What a sick puppy he/she is!!!
    worker
    29th Aug 2016
    11:39am
    Age pension should be payed to the individual Australian citizen when reaching the appropriate age however, a life time payment such as that given to those we employee as members of parliament after they have left or removed as MPs (employees) would be helpful to live on as pensioner.
    Remembering that MPs after leaving or removed from parliament are the only former employees throughout how nation that continue to receive monies and other perks after they are not longer how employees. note Holden s, fords , Toyota formers employees git zep in life time forms of pensions and other perks from there former employee.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    12:28pm
    MPs are well and truly overpaid in relation to the salaries of comparable public servants.Backbenchers used to earn the same as an experienced nurse or teacher. Now they earn more than three times the amount. The daily amount for accommodation and meals is also excessive, as is travel.

    With the current deficit all these excessive entitlements need to be reined in.

    It has gotten quite out of control.

    Not as bad as senior employees of large companies but getting there.

    The increase in these few incomes is skewing average income levels and hurting ordinary people by increasing prices above reasonable levels.
    E?L
    29th Aug 2016
    11:52am
    Being a pensioner of 80 years+ superannuation was not heard of in earlier years or if it was you had to be earning a really good wage and no children to be able to contribute. This government and all associated would not know what hardship is. Just look how the system is wrought by them and what they are paid, therefore no thought is given to the elderly and the needy. Attitude is "I'm right Jack, you get on the best way you can, We don't care."
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    1:37pm
    Eh gad, you must be the oldest living Australian.....140?

    29th Aug 2016
    12:04pm
    I wonder who sets the standards in deciding what is "modest" and what is "comfortable". What is the level one has to climb out of to escape being described as "living in poverty"?
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:10pm
    I'd be very comfortable on that modest level myself. That comfortable level sounds like luxury t me.
    MD
    29th Aug 2016
    12:25pm
    Yeh, coupla good points OM, tx.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    1:39pm
    Depends on how good you are at maximising your dollars and if you are prepared to live on the smell of an oily rag or not. Most people are not.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    2:41pm
    I wonder if they have done figures on the effect on the economy if 20%+ of the population are living on the amounts they suggest.

    Business might not be prepared for that level of loss of income.

    The LNP is talking about taking another 6.6 billion out of the economy to add to the 2.3 and other amounts already going from past legislation.

    What is the tipping point I wonder.
    LiveItUp
    30th Aug 2016
    7:17am
    I doubt it will make much difference as people have already stopped spending.
    ex PS
    30th Aug 2016
    4:13pm
    All I know is that I would not like to be on a Pension and paying rent. Those people who are, can't have much left over to enjoy retirement.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    10:47pm
    Ditto ex PS.
    There are of course all shades of grey and many who do not own a home have a story to tell of why this is so which involves lifestyle chosen before the hardship to get and pay off a house.
    E?L
    29th Aug 2016
    12:15pm
    CarolAT......That about sums up the situation that the single person is left with. Either hospital care or car or funeral plan, cannot afford all three pay rent, clothe and food to survive, leave alone when health problems come along and you need special care. Maybe we are not meant to live long lives according to the Highrachi...... LOL
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:19pm
    Don't worry about the funeral plan as it's not your problem when you are die. The government will pay for your remains to be disposed of if no one else does.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    2:46pm
    I'd seriously consider health insurance for hospital as well. It does leave you thousands out of pocket if you use it for private treatment.
    Most full aged pensioners with no savings are better off relying on the public system. That way you can save at least $50 a fortnight in insurance costs.

    Rent is the nasty cost. I'd keep the car as long as possible.
    Nicko
    29th Aug 2016
    12:17pm
    I'm very glad that you can't see a problem with the retirement age being 70 Old Geezer but maybe spare a thought for all the bricklayers , concreters and hard manual labour workers or even just people that aren't blessed with bodies that wear very well that aren't fortunate enough to self fund retirement before the age of 70.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:26pm
    Well I know of manual workers in their nineties that are still very active. Maybe it's not the manual work that is the problem but their lifestyle instead. These people just need to look after themselves and leave the grog and ciggies alone and eat proper food instead of that crap they now call food. Bodies only wear out if you don't look after them well.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    3:34pm
    Couldn't agree more Nicko. It's all well and good for people to cite the odd one or two manual workers who have been fortunate enough to pick the right parents but the vast majority are worn out from good, honest hard physical work. It's not the lifestyle that is the problem, it's the constant use of muscles and sinews that have not been designed to work for 55 years.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    11:30am
    A post from our sponsor? Let's up the retirement age to 80.
    MD
    29th Aug 2016
    12:17pm
    I pre-empted this article on the weekend - see 'Forum-Hot Topics-Really ? nah just kiddin.'

    It wasn't my intention to steal anothers' thunder, anyway this contribution offers more perspective than mine.
    The Hilda data was compiled over 12 yrs and a good deal has since changed - interest rates, real estate values & so on. Yes, I do agree that "the wealth of one individual --- can skew the results. To claim that "Of the 3.57 million Australians aged over 65, a staggering 33 per cent – or 1.2 million – of those live in poverty." is questionable indeed. What exactly constitutes "poverty" by todays' standards ? Does this mean a third of >65's do not have a roof overhead, a bed to sleep in, a square meal a day (at least), access to charities/institutions, much less be recipient of a social benefit ? I seriously doubt the veracity of that claim. Oh I'm aware that I've gone overboard to balance the considerations however, I seem to think the author(s) of these article(s) plus those of the respective reports may have 'donned a hair shirt' prior to commencing the exercise. Far from levelling blame I would also suggest that 'poor souls' (individuals) or representative charities are almost always prone to skewing the results to best affect.
    So what if some few enter retirement indebted, isn't this a matter for themselves to address ? The wealthy - those presumed to skew the findings disproportionately - are obviously the fortunates. Our democratic/capitalist system never envisaged a collective 'well being', ie, everyone lives in relative comfort/satisfaction. Sure the well off may explore tax dodges & the like but then relatively speaking don't most of us maximise our tax return (by stretching figures) ? Shit happens - regardless of the >65's varying degrees of what constitutes their comfort zone or individual satisfaction - everyone is personally responsible for their own retirement preparedness. In most cases the profits/liabilities are of our own making.
    "Are you comfortable ---- ", is a matter of perception. My wife & yours truly ARE comfortable in our owned, small (by todays standards) bungalow in a regional country town. However I am not comfortable with someone living in a $2M pile overlooking the water views and receiving a social benefit. Then again I'm going to be happier than the poor sod in a public housing tenement with: dropouts, drongo's, single mothers (with multiple kids to various sires) and druggies for neighbours. It's all relative.
    The data is skewed as much by the wealthy few as by the poor masses and any degree of meddling will achieve little than further exacerbate the divide.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    3:39pm
    Thanks MD, well put. I wonder if some of those people sitting in a $2M pile with water views are actually rich or if the modest family home that was is now in a much sought after area with the land value being 90% of the value. And can I make a suggestion that shit doesn't just happen, it's caused by arseholes.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    4:09pm
    If you are sitting on a $2m pile with water views then you should not bee on the OAP. It is as simple as that.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    4:28pm
    You and I can disagree Old Geezer but the disagreement is merely academic. As things stand, the family home* is exempt as an asset and, I hope, always will be. The value of the family home can sometimes be excessive because of location and exemption appears to allow for this anomaly.

    *Our family home has no water views and is perhaps best described as modest, what ever that means.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    5:06pm
    Funny OG but I see the outrageous price inflation as a problem directly linked to the Central banks and governments that have created a property bubble through lax immigration policy and weak control of banks.

    I fail to see why owners of modest homes around Sydney Harbour should have to pay for the nonsense by losing well earned aged pensions.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    5:21pm
    Property has gone up in Sydney because of supply and demand fuelled on by low interest rates now and for the next decade.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    5:37pm
    Yes the demand of an extra 300 000 immigrants each and every year and incredibly low interest rates, historically low. I'm not at all sure about the next decade though. That doesn't account for older home owners that paid very high interest rates being penalised because young people with too much money and too little sense are paying far too much for houses.

    If they are entitled to welfare they should not have to sell a long held house to speculators.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    2:09pm
    It's a different world alright Rae. Don't expect any concessions from genY though.
    For the record just because something (houses) has been rising in value for 60 years does not mean that the trend will continue. Whilst Sydney prices have driven the market (due to demand) Australian real estate is expensive by international standards and that is a worry.
    If the financial markets do not blow up as they are predicted to do then house prices likely not to suffer. If they do then all that newly created 'money' from a creative accounting system will disappear faster than a formula 1 car going past.
    In the meantime we all have to do the best to get by with a government intent on stripping all assets from the retirement community for no other reason other than to shore up its mismanagement of the economy.

    29th Aug 2016
    12:18pm
    If these "modest" amounts are good enough for pensioners, why do we pay politicians so much?
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:27pm
    Because they actually work welfare people don't.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    12:37pm
    OK, so why do we pay retired pollies so much?
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:41pm
    Because like any other job that was part of their salary package when they took on the job.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    12:47pm
    The backbenchers earn far too much today and have lost touch with ordinary people on ordinary incomes. Just the nightly rate and meal allowance is much more than most people earn in a day.

    They should be well paid but current incomes and allowances are excessive.

    They should be tied to ordinary public servant incomes as they once were.

    An MP does not work harder than a police person, nurse or teacher with seniority. Once MP income matched these salaries.
    Rodent
    29th Aug 2016
    5:06pm
    Old Geezer, Male or Female, I really don't care

    You say this- Because they actually work welfare people don't

    How about a dose of reality or facts - you INCORRECTLY imply that no people on Welfare are actually working- Perhaps you need to look a little closer at what really constitutes the specific Welfare categories, rather that just writing B.S.
    particolor
    29th Aug 2016
    8:10pm
    Rodent.. I whole Heartedly AGREE with You !!
    LiveItUp
    30th Aug 2016
    8:08am
    I agree with OG the pollies have a job to do and fet paid to donthat job. Welfare including the OAP is not paid according to work performed. Infact it is paid to people who do nothing at all. Big difference here.

    Also pollies are not well paid and I for one wouldn't do thier job for what they get paid when I could earn lots more working in private enterprise. Department heads and other senior publivc servants are paid more than a lot of pollies.

    Stop whinging and be thankful that we have welfare to keep you out of poverty.

    Meanwhile I continue my trip around this beautiful country thankful that I have the freedom and means to see such wonderful things.
    ex PS
    30th Aug 2016
    4:15pm
    Of course you do Bonny you have to.
    Anonymous
    4th Sep 2016
    6:11pm
    I've yet to find a politician who does any work of value in retirement, and most do very little - other than stuff up the country - when sitting on their shiny bums claiming to be ''working'' (except they don't know the meaning of the word''.

    If payment for contributing nothing is ''welfare'', then politicians are on ''welfare'' and most pensioners ought, by any standard of justice, be on generous retirement benefits.

    It is sickening how disrespectful some people are of the people who made this nation great - the roadworkers and electricity workers and nurses and cleaners and all the rest who busted themselves serving the nation for 40+ years for bugger-all payment, while greedy turds screwed up the economy and the society and claimed millions for doing so.
    particolor
    4th Sep 2016
    9:28pm
    I've sent you a Packet of Sorbent (36 Pack) to pass on to your Beloved Polly's :-)
    Nicko
    29th Aug 2016
    12:36pm
    You need to get your head out of the sand old geezer, I also know of the exceptional few that have weathered this earth very well and I know of a lot more that haven't and for you to assume that "ALL OF THESE " people drink plenty of grog and smoke and eat crap food is quite absurd. Also not everyones body degenerates because they haven't looked after themselves.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:42pm
    My head is well out of the sand and that's what I see around me all the time.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    2:15pm
    Don't expect anything other than the party line from rusted on liberals Nicko.
    Anonymous
    1st Sep 2016
    8:31am
    Tunnel-visioned bigots see what they want to see, Old Geezer, not what is real. I've met people like you. They are all suffering from what is referred to as ''personality disorder''. It's a serious and incurable form of brain damage that results in a nasty attitude and a warped view of the world. Look us Narcissism and you might get some understanding of it. It's a terrible thing to suffer from. You have my sympathy, but more so I sympathize with your family. They must suffer terribly. It's agony for the loved ones of sufferers.
    Nicko
    29th Aug 2016
    12:48pm
    Well if that is what you see all around you all the time then you need to find somewhere else to live and somewhere else to socialize.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    12:53pm
    Why because I tell it how it really is and don't tell white lies instead?
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    2:16pm
    Funny Geezer. You routinely tell blatant black (?) lies.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    2:20pm
    Maybe the truth Is more far fetched than you imagine Mick.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    11:45am
    Not sure you would recognise the truth if it bit you on the rear end.

    29th Aug 2016
    12:55pm
    Most retirees come from an era when we were taught to be sensible in our spending, not to buy anything until you could afford it and then only by cash, and when there was no such thing as the widespread "crowdfunding" where the lowlife withouts have their hands out for money they don't have when an emergency rolls around. There's a totally different generation around now and there has been for decades. I love cars and when my wife sees me reading about or remarking about a new BMW or Lexus or whatever she'll say "why don't you get yourself one?" [Yes, we could afford it but have two cars, both of which are fairly new, and each does us fine, so why "waste" the money on a newer one?] = an example of where I am coming from with the differences in generations. Does this sound familiar?
    jeffr
    29th Aug 2016
    1:21pm
    Fast Eddie, where I agree with what you have said,do you also think that real issues are being avoided. Topics like "Selling off Australia to the Chinese" "Selling off the Corporate Data Base""TPP" and the list goes on. People like Geezer simply prolong discussions and like Turnbull deflect the major issues that we should really be discussing?
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    1:24pm
    I have no problem with the Chinese investing in Australia provided Australians can also invest in China.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    2:33pm
    I do have a problem with allowing a communist government of any description from buying public assets and rural land. In case the idiots in Canberra have limited intelligence and the public has not noticed we use rural land to grow OUR FOOD without which we cannot survive. And then there is the issue of a much larger population with the small amount of land left down the track.
    The concept of 'foreign investment' is a sham and what is happening has nothing whatsoever to do with investment for the national interest. Its just about getting money to live on. And when it's gone we still have to live, have no strategic assets left and face a war when we try to nationalise what we so readily sold.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    2:38pm
    jeffr, Malcolm "Turn on the Bull" couldn't care any less about this country, Les Patterson could do a better job. He CONTINUALLY defl cuts the important issues because they are TOO HARD for him. I often wonder who ties his shoelaces for him. BIG issues: keeping what is Australian owned AUTRALIAN OWNED, making the Age Pension on parity with the cost of living realities, providing a stricter court system with penalties in line with the severities of crimes, and keeping terrorist related religions from entering the country, to name just four. All of these are dependent on a STRONG, NO BULLSHIT government which DOES NOT pander to the minorities and we do not have a government like that at this moment, but with a few of the newly elected Senators there "may" be a chance to start changes on the right direction for the country. By God I hope so!
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    3:45pm
    Fast Eddie, I agree wholeheartedly with all of your original post and it's right on topic. Doesn't it annoy you that, suddenly, a post about personal lifestyle turns into a rant about something totally unconnected with what you wrote?
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    4:00pm
    OM, that's life.

    29th Aug 2016
    1:09pm
    A barrier to working beyond 65 is the unavailability of Income Protection Insurance.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    1:20pm
    By 65 you should be wealthy enough not to need income protection. Never used it myself as I just saw it as a way for insurance companies to get rich. Way too many strings where they could wiggle out of paying it as well.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    1:21pm
    So why stop it at 65?
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    1:21pm
    Too much risk after 65 for them I guess.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    2:35pm
    In case you haven't noticed Barak there are very few jobs other than shelf stackers available for over 55s. There will be no jobs and this is simply another attack on retirees to force them off a pension and make them sell off the kids' inheritances.
    LiveItUp
    31st Aug 2016
    7:05am
    Well Mick you will just have to go shelf stacking. My son did and now manages the supermarket.
    Anonymous
    1st Sep 2016
    8:33am
    But you taught your children never to be slaves for others, Bonny.

    Liars have to have good memories.
    HarrysOpinion
    29th Aug 2016
    1:17pm
    To all the old geezers of this world if you were drowning in a lake you'd wouldn't expect any one to save you, would you? You are so full of it...What the hell are you doing on this site?...Go and spend down your wealth you little misers !
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    1:18pm
    What are we doing in the lake in the first place?
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    2:38pm
    My sentiments for the most as well HS. Posters like Geezer often post the LNP line. They are either rusted on Liberals supporting their bastard of a party or paid political trolls.
    Have you noticed posters like Frank, Bonny, etc. disappear since the election is over? Tells a story about who these trolls are and what they are doing on this website.
    Kactus
    29th Aug 2016
    5:16pm
    OG, perhaps he was looking for Old Ducks?
    particolor
    30th Aug 2016
    7:10pm
    I'm wondering if he's one of the Bozos from Elsewhere with 4 Wives and NUMEROUS Kids on WELFARE, that I read about on the News Tonight ?? :-(
    LiveItUp
    31st Aug 2016
    7:07am
    I couldn't imagine anything worse than 4 bitchy wives and dozens of screaming kids. They can have them.
    particolor
    1st Sep 2016
    7:48pm
    For close to 6 Grand a fortnight I think I could NEARLY put up with it !! :-( :-(
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    1:27pm
    You know the old saying about 'lies, damned lies and statistics' Leon. We do not fit into the above category with the exception that we watch the pennies pretty closely as this is our travel money.
    It has been shown that people moving into retirement stop buy cars (like they used to) and cut down on a lot of what they used to do because retirees are generally not flush with funds once the pay packet stops. I can relate to that.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    1:31pm
    I didn't cut down on anything when I retired. Things just went on as normal for me.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    2:39pm
    The bastion of the rich. Congratulations. I just hope you paid a fair amount of tax during your working life.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    4:00pm
    No Mick I have always lived on what I needed not what I could afford. Yes I guess I did pay a fair amount of tax over the years and still do. I therefore like to see that my tax paid is spent well so I support the new OAP asset test.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    11:50am
    What you support Geezer is turning people who have done their best to provide for themselves into the new poor. This is the reward which the coalition government is offering many Australians who are not bludgers.
    ex PS
    30th Aug 2016
    4:23pm
    But as you keep saying O.G. you pay your taxes and that is the end of it, you have no say or control in what it is spent on, it is not put to any specific application such as the Pension, it is allocated when and where the government decides.
    HAPPY DAYS
    29th Aug 2016
    1:50pm
    As someone who is about to retire....I am really interested in what it ACTUALLY costs to retire.... for a homeowner couple with no debt. We will retire to a regional town.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    2:24pm
    As long as you own your own home and have no debt you are looking positive. Good health is also a VERY important issue. Provided you have the above, a decent car, and no real pressing home structural problems the amount of liquid assets is next on your checklist. At a rough guess I would think a homeowner couple in a rural area would need all up about $25,000 p.a. for a comfy subsistent life. This is, of course, without any extensive travel and holiday plans, a Ferrari, houseboat, or racehorse. Now, before you start objecting to the above suggested amount p.a., this is contingent that you have everything you need, not want, for a relaxed home life - like TV, Internet connection, air conditioning and all the rest which makes a house a great home, and is inclusive of any Age Pension you may receive. This CAN be done and my wife and I have proved it for a couple years running, without any financial discomfort. Anything in excess of the 25k is cream and means an even more comfortable lifestyle with a restaurant at least once a week, further travel, weekends away, etc, etc. The very best of luck to you HD and a happy retirement. - F. E.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    2:41pm
    Agree with Eddie although we pay all of our bills and eat on under $20,000 pa. It just depends on whether one can be bothered to find ways of cutting costs without abandoning the things we have to spend on and want to do.
    Good luck.....but get a hobby other than living on this website. Guilty!
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    2:57pm
    Thanks for the confirmation, MICK, and, yes HD, don't let YLC be your only consuming passion, by ANY means!
    fordyoot
    29th Aug 2016
    2:17pm
    There seem to be two streams of thought on this subject. The first being the holier than thou smug I am ok Jack mob. Nothing to offer on the subject these people and others who have to deal with the realities of a difficult situation. For the latter there is not much light at the end of the tunnel because the smug self righteous mob have control of the ship right now.
    Maybe this is a wake up call for you and come the next election vote for somebody who has a vision for the future rather than stupid slogans and put downs for folks who are not wealthy.
    Some political people have a vision for the future but some just want to hold onto some misty eyed picture of a golden past when it was all good. Guess what? we are all destined to live in the future.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    2:24pm
    The government is only responding to the behaviour of people. If people are not spending their capital down in retirement then quite simply they are being paid too much in the way of welfare. That is it is not being paid to those who need it but to those who get because they can. This is just greed.

    ACCOS is right about the family home it is the most inequitable part of the OAP and needs to be accounted for ASAP.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    2:35pm
    You are not wrong with this and that future is looking decidedly dodgy.

    Economising and making do, repairing and doing without are skills that may very well come into action again.

    I didn't live through the ration years or the years when the ships couldn't safely carry trade but I have read the recounts and the histories.

    People can be very clever when they need to and very generous.

    A real Statesperson Leader with Vision would be wonderful.

    We can live in hope.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    2:44pm
    Geezer: you contemptuous piece of right wing work!
    So now you advocate leaving the next generation a razoo. Did you get an inheritance of any sort from your parents? Many of us did...and want to leave our own something as well. Of course your dreadful government has other views.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    2:50pm
    Best of all the next generation does not expect me to leave them anything. They tell me to spend it instead as it's my money not theirs.

    I never expected my parents to leave me anything either. They did leave me a very small inheritance that I have put away for my kids.

    I think it so wrong for people to expect their parents to leave them an inheritance. If you want money then it is up to you to make that money not hang out for some one to die.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    5:02pm
    We are of the generation that didn't have all of the benefits of education that our children have enjoyed. A lot of us left school because our family couldn't afford to keep us there and our contribution to our children has been to keep them in education longer or subsidise an apprentice's pay in the early years. We have been able to do this because we didn't live through a depression or world wars, employment was good and wages were also satisfactory.

    Our parents tried to leave a little something and they are the last generation to do that because most of us have been told by our kids to spend what we have. Those same kids are, in the main, better established than we were at a similar age and have compulsory super to assist with their retirement. Our generation is the first one to want to spend it all on SKI* trips.

    *Spending Kids Inheritance
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    5:38pm
    You can't get out of it Geezer. Your opinion is low life in action.
    Who cares what children expect. A decent parent would want to leave them something other than a bill for your funeral. Personally I don't care if genY is broken because I want to leave them something. Your post tells me that you are quite something....else!
    Why does it not surprise me that posters like you and Old Man are a cynical old ratbags who are owned by the right. If the shoe fits wear it I guess.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    6:03pm
    Mick as I have already said I have put the small inheritance that my parents left away for my kids but I don't have to and they don't expect me to. I think it is wrong for people to expect inheritances.

    I have left instructions that I not be given a funeral and my body to be disposed of privately. If people want to honour me then I an them to do while I am alive not dead.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    6:28pm
    Old Geezer, are you actually capable of considering anyone else's circumstances other than your own? Every post is I.. I... I.. I.. I. Every post implies that everyone SHOULD do as you do and say and anyone not in the same circumstances as you is not worthy of consideration, is useless, stupid, and to blame for their problems.

    What a horrible attitude! I am glad I don't know you well. You sound like a very obnoxious person to me.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    6:35pm
    I'm actually a very likable person that get more invites than they can ever accept but I prefer to stay at home a potter around instead.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    11:52am
    Geezer: GIVE YOUR CHILDRENS' INHERITANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT. That is what you are wishing on future generations.
    Old Geezer
    30th Aug 2016
    12:42pm
    Mick I hoping I can spend it all myself instead.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    1:15pm
    And that makes the strongest statement yet about who and what you are Geezer. May the Lord have mercy on your miserable soul.
    ex PS
    30th Aug 2016
    4:35pm
    O.G, much the same as you my next generation neither wants or expects anything from me. It makes it even more important for me to try and leave him a little something as a reward and a pleasant surprise.
    I can not express the pride I have in guiding a responsible hard working and kind young man through the intricacies of life, he is my legacy to the world and has proven to be a much better man than his father.
    I truly feel sad for a parent that is so disillusioned with the world and his children that they would be gleeful about leaving nothing to his family. I will not go without or see my wife go without in order to leave something behind, but I would not waste money rather than make life easier for those left behind.
    I genuinely hope your life turns around for you and you can manage to squeeze a tiny bit of joy and hope out of life.
    Farside
    1st Sep 2016
    12:37pm
    I'm sure there are contributors to these forums who just post for the sake of it. Here's a tip – speak your view aloud to see whether you are making sense and not just venting your envy of others who are better off.

    If somebody wants to spend down his or her assets to enhance retirement rather than leave as an inheritance then well and good. This is choice and what is expected hence the mandatory 4% drawdown from super.

    If somebody wants to eke out an existence so they have something to leave to his or her heirs then that is also a choice however they should not expect the public purse to subsidise that legacy. The public purse is there as a welfare safety net for those who need it.
    Not Senile Yet!
    29th Aug 2016
    2:21pm
    They prefer to use averages that are not real averages so they can justify CUTS to Expediture on Pensions to Fix there overspending of OUR TAX DOLLARS.
    ex PS
    30th Aug 2016
    4:36pm
    Lies, damned lies and statistics, not a lot of difference between them.
    Old Fart
    29th Aug 2016
    2:31pm
    I know that I am one of the lucky ones (in both health and other matters) however my post is just a confirmation that there are a wide range of variations in reaching an average position.

    I am within spitting distance of 87 and yet I work just as hard (in my own home business doing the same work as I did when I was "employed") now as I did when I "retired" at 55.

    I know that many tradesmen are physical incapable of sustaining their trade as they get older however many in office style occupations (who enjoy good health) do not have that problem.

    I am sure that many people in my situation are more than capable of working to 70 - or even longer.

    All things being equal I hope that I can keep going until I am past 90.

    I am not doing it for the money but to keep occupied and senility at bay.

    I am continually arguing with professionals a third of my age and, because of experience gained during a work life of some 70 years (not to be devalued), I usually come out on top.

    In fact, because I am aware of the strength of my position before I enter into discussions (and am too long in the tooth to be bluffed) I rarely come off second best

    In fact I am better now at what I do than I was in my 40s-50s.

    I am sure that this would also apply to many people in a similar situation.

    I live alone (a widower after almost 60 years of married life) and there are just so many movies or TV that one can watch.

    I also regularly play lawn and carpet bowls and, to keep those grey cells further occupied, I also play bridge.

    In a nutshell although I realise that I do not stand much chance of being selected to play in the AFL or to compete at the next Olympics (I understand that they are loath to select players over 85 years of age) I do not feel mentally inferior to those far younger than me.

    From reading these posts for some years I would imagine that I am not alone in this respect.

    Personally I have never once applied for full time (or part time) employment since I retired however I know for a fact that I (like many here with similar experience and capacity) would be of far more use to an employer than many youngsters of 40 and 50.

    That may not necessarily apply to bricklaying or shearing.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    2:52pm
    Many farmers today are well over 70 and still going strong. My own Dad could still shear a sheep well into his nineties. I think I'd could do it myself today even at my age. It is not your age that is the problem it is how you treat our body that makes it possible.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    5:44pm
    Different programs I have seen over the years seem to indicate that physical work is all but a necessary part of an old person's life if they want to kick on. Well done Old Fart. I have to tip my hat to you and your positive attitude. I wish.....but at least I have the work habit, the one thing about owning your own home and being house and garden proud.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    6:37pm
    Not everyone CAN do physical work into old age, and not everyone has the qualifications or ability to do any other type of work. The arrogance and selfishness that drives some remarks here is astonishing and appalling.

    Those who can work on to 70 or beyond are fortunate. They should have some empathy for those who can't and have the human decency to support policies that recognize the different circumstances of folk who wrecked their body in hard work or who were unfortunate to be born with - or acquire - health issues.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    8:21pm
    Anyone can do physical work over 70 if they put their mind to it and stop thinking they can't.
    particolor
    29th Aug 2016
    8:35pm
    Do us a favour and Go Away will Ya !! Or I'll throw My Wooden Leg at Ya !! :-)
    LiveItUp
    30th Aug 2016
    7:26am
    Gee OG must be on the money with comments like that.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    1:16pm
    Good one parti. Take the nails out first though....chuckle.
    particolor
    1st Sep 2016
    7:35pm
    Gee their "Safe Schools is working out Well Mick !! Just heard the news again and some Boy wants to be a Girl, and a 6 year old "attacked" by 2 Twelve Year old Thugs in the Toilet !! :-( :-( :-(
    And not a Mention of who the Creeps were ??? :-(
    floss
    29th Aug 2016
    3:03pm
    Old Geezer you would have to be a spin doctor for our stupid Government to try dress up their flawed policy ,you are so wrong as to be unreal.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    5:45pm
    Sort of easy to pick. Nice to see Frank the crank and Bonny have been redeployed until the next election comes around. A good barometer to predict its coming methinks.
    moke
    29th Aug 2016
    3:27pm
    What is enough money if you have hayfever or sinus the products used for them have been removed from NHS anything worth using now costs around $60.00, many elderly have Arthritis, OsteoPanadol removed from the NHS price up and Specialist Services are generally anything up to 50% more than the recommended fee. Two services totalling $620 the refund is $394.70 so that puts paid a lot of money especially if you have to go very oftenWhen that is added to Food Rent Electricity Rates Water & Insurance life style can be very limited.
    Young Simmo
    29th Aug 2016
    3:35pm
    Yes moke it is all a big rip off, Panadol Osteo at my local Amcal $9.95 and at Priceline Pharmacy $5.95. When I bought 6 packets the other day the girl looked at me like I was stupid until, I told her 6 bucks beats 10 bucks any time.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    3:35pm
    Once you reach the Medicare safety net it cost you very little for these doctors. My specialists all bulk bill me.

    There is a product they use on horses that is so much better for arthritis than anything they have available for humans. People who have used it think it is great. I don't have any arthritis myself as I keep my joints well oiled.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    5:47pm
    We have to count ourselves fortunate as so far we have been able to avoid the pharmaceutical industry. But I can feel it coming so maybe I'll be lamenting in future.
    Gerry
    29th Aug 2016
    3:38pm
    I believe that the biggest problem was that the government did not organise compulsary Superannuation many years ago. I was with the local government, and had Superannuation in 1963. I also worked until I was 79 (part Time), I am now 81.
    I have over $,500,000 in super and the bank and was not in the high income bracket, I did however have two jobs most of my life.

    Horse
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    5:49pm
    Local government is not my favourite 'business' Gerry but glad you did ok.
    Jacky
    29th Aug 2016
    3:43pm
    I am a few years off retirement but do not have a job and at 58 can't get an interview. My husband is retired. We have a rental property which we are thinking of selling. Would like to know if this is a good move, it would mean a full pension for my husband. But I have to wait until I am 67 before receiving a pension. Or keep the rental and part pension.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    5:53pm
    You might want to see a good financial advisor. From my perspective I would not trust the government but there are other issues afloat in the world. The really big worry you won't hear much about is that several pretty well credentialled people who have gotten the big calls right in the past are agreeing that we are going to see a collapse worse than 1929. One of the subject discussed is what these guys claim is going to happen to real estate. Not pretty. But what do you do? I face the same dilemna.
    LiveItUp
    30th Aug 2016
    7:23am
    Mick these guys sprook this stuff all the time so they must get it right when the markets correct. They then cross about it very loudly.

    Problem now is world is awash with money and no one really wants it. At some point this money will have to be taken out of circulation to normalise the market.

    Real estate is just catching up to where it should have been and with nothing else making investors money it still has a way to go before it corrects. It is no where near a bubble as yet.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    11:02am
    Don't tell me that Malcolm does not have any other duties for, Frank and the team today. Come on....
    Not what I read apart from the excess cash. The prediction is a real estate collapse (yeah...that never happens) and with it all of the money invented by the accounting system will disappear. Then money will head to a safe haven (don't laugh.......the US). Then the US (with the largest debt on the planet) will collapse. Grim Reaper territory? Maybe.
    HAPPY DAYS
    29th Aug 2016
    4:00pm
    THANK YOU all for your responses. I have a defined Benefit Pension of $50,000 per yr & additional income source of around $15,000 per yr. We should be ok by the sounds of your comments. I love to read these threads........interesting debates!!. Cheers.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    4:05pm
    You're welcome. You will be able to afford quite a comfy lifestyle. Enjoy it.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    5:31pm
    Congratulations and best wishes. You should have a very nice retirement. That pension would have cost you a lot over the years but will be well worth the effort.

    Do travel lots while you are able as it is a wonderful world out there well worth exploring and meeting so many interesting people from other lands.

    Sort your trips out yourself and make sure you do magic stuff. It can be surprisingly inexpensive if you are sensible and I imagine you have discipline if you managed a few decades of paying for a defined benefit pension.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    5:54pm
    You have the right name. Good luck.
    ex PS
    30th Aug 2016
    4:41pm
    Happy Days, I've been doing it on less by choice for four years, and have just come back from a trip to Hong Kong and Britain, without dipping into my balance. You should be more than OK. Good Luck.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    4:56pm
    Ditto ex P S. It can be done.
    Alex
    29th Aug 2016
    5:23pm
    We do need to beware these studies. Older people are not spending at the moment because many are scared to. They are concerned about not having enough money to last them for some years of their retirement with current low returns and the Government targeting pensioners for all their cuts. As we know there are some years where outgoings are low followed by years when people have to spend significant amounts of money on home repairs. People budget and save for that.
    Assertions like this have been used for the past couple of years by John Daley from the Grattan Institute who treats superannuation as an asset while ignoring the fact that it has to be drawn down to provide income, in a push to have taxes on retirees increased significantly. He would like to see retirees pay a property tax as well as income tax on the pre taxed income they are drawing down. Can anyone find out what he is being paid by this Institute that is partly funded by taxpayers and partly by business?
    This sort of push has also come from Peter Martin from the smh and Tony Shepherd and was made last week by George Cochrane. Cash for comment?
    It is undoubtedly part of a political agenda and Business agenda.
    Rae
    29th Aug 2016
    5:46pm
    They were always going to try to get the money Alex. Not satisfied with PAYG workers being forced to give up 9% of income they now want a share of it.

    Surprisingly though self employed, business owners and contractors are not forced to contribute to compulsory superannuation.

    Seems the one rule for ordinary people and another rule for those in charge continues unabated.

    How difficult would working out the concessional super from the non concessional be for taxation. A nightmare I would expect. If you suddenly double dipped then even franked dividends would be fair game.
    MICK
    29th Aug 2016
    5:58pm
    Whilst I agree Alex they never have.
    Your information does not surprise me as this government has been after retirees for some time and just like the rest of its vicious legislation it cannot wait to get its hands on pensioner assets. I do see a property tax coming and that will make us close to the highest taxed nation on the planet when added to other taxes. When that day comes I'm out of here. There are countries where people are appreciated.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    6:11pm
    We will shortly have a fire levy added to our rates instead of our house insurance policies. Good thing too as those that are not insured will have to pay it as well.

    I'd rather pay a property tax than the ridiculous stamp duty to buy a house myself. It will make property more liquid instead a big impost to trade up or down.
    roy
    29th Aug 2016
    8:30pm
    Safe journey MICK and the sooner the better, send us a postcard please.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    11:03am
    The smile will be on the other side of your face fred if what has been brewing for so long finally blows up.
    roy
    30th Aug 2016
    2:34pm
    Just don't forget the post card MICK, I'll pay towards your fare and the stamp on the card, but promise you you won't be posting here from wherever you go, please please please.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    4:58pm
    The truth hurts fred and some people prefer to live in the never never. Enjoy.
    particolor
    30th Aug 2016
    6:53pm
    You could always ask for a Loan off Happy Days up there :-)
    MD
    29th Aug 2016
    6:02pm
    Old Man, the mention in your post @ 5.02pm re SKI* trips strikes me as a very subtle dig - to save an avalanche, no names no pack drill. Good one.

    29th Aug 2016
    6:32pm
    I see this as a very dangerous report in that I believe it seeks to support further attacks on retiree's incomes.

    I do not accept the ridiculous argument that people who don't draw down on capital are getting too much. How arrogant and nasty! Many of them are sensibly planning for future expenses. Many are conserving capital knowing they are likely to live another 3 decades or so, and that if they deplete their capital now, they will have too little in the future.

    There are some very short-sighted idiots in government (and on this site) who can't think past ''he has money - take it all off him''. It's disgusting and vile to suggest that people should not be ENTITLED to plan their retirement, enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, AND leave a little to their offspring if they saved for that purpose. Why should people be rewarded for cruising and partying and buying grand homes and gifting early in life, and punished for planning and saving for old age? Only a total fool suggests that people should ignore future needs and drain their savings in the earlier years of their retirement.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    6:42pm
    Rainey it is not my fault that the government has these statistics. If you want welfare then you have to give all your details to the government. They are then collated and conclusions are made from them. I'm only the messenger here suggesting what might be the reasons behind certain government policy. I have not been told anything but just thinking beyond the square as to why certain decisions are made.

    Reports like these are good for the government as they support their decisions.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    7:46pm
    How about we do a report on how much CEOs and Politicians and company directors and senior bureaucrats NEED to live, and tax them accordingly?

    Why don't you stop arguing FOR the government and show some respect for those their cruelty is hurting, and for the younger generations whose future is being destroyed?

    Your COMMUNIST views are not welcome in our socialist/democratic society.
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2016
    7:47pm
    BTW Old Geezer- I didn't mention your name above, so I guess it's guilty conscience that motivated your response?
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    7:59pm
    It does not matter how much anyone who earn their money needs to live or how much anyone on welfare needs to live either. Obviously though if people are not spending their capital then they must be living on what they earn be it income or welfare. If people can survive on welfare without spending their capital then it doesn't take much intelligence to work out that these people must be getting too much welfare. That is they don't need it to keep them out of poverty.

    I'm a capitalist not a communist. Your views however are close to communism in that you want the rich who already pay their fair share to pay more because some people cannot manage to live within their means.

    No I don't have a guilty conscience at all. I don't have anything to feel guilty about.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    11:05am
    Rainey: the attacks have been pretty clear since ABbott got into office. The transfer of wealth is the main event and retirees are a target which deflects attention from the pathetic performance of this crew. They won't be around much longer though.
    ex PS
    30th Aug 2016
    4:51pm
    O.G. of course these reports are good for the government, they pay good money to have the numbers manipulated to support their arguments. They all do it, if a report does not go in their favor it is quite often buried.
    Not everyone can steal enough from other tax payers to finance their retirement, the honest ones may have to apply for a Pension. An entitlement that should be given in a way that bestows the correct shade of dignity to the recipient.

    29th Aug 2016
    6:57pm
    Well I guess this proves that our retired politicians don't need their fat retirement pensions and benefits. Can't take them away because they were legislated? So was the pension taper rate, but they changed that. Anyway, if you can't take the benefit away, apply a special tax to retirement incomes over $80,000 a year. Like 95% of all retirement income over that amount, including 95% of the value of any benefit.
    Old Geezer
    29th Aug 2016
    7:03pm
    It won't worry me Rainey as my income is not over $80,000 a year. However if it was then I would simply say I was no longer retired and just pay ordinary income tax.
    particolor
    29th Aug 2016
    8:12pm
    CFC for the year so far goes to Old Geyser

    29th Aug 2016
    8:49pm
    Here we go again, a simple subject about retirees and Mick has taken over the article with his leftie views, his insistence that all those who disagree should immediately change their mind and his usual bile and vitriol and name calling. A spewing of statements without facts and an immediate change of topic when verifiable facts are presented. I note that since the definition of a troll has been given to him that he has dropped that word.
    roy
    30th Aug 2016
    9:54am
    Is there no way that MICK can be banned from this site, he is a Troll personified.
    C'mon LifeChoices do something about him please.
    Some of the names he has called people above should get him banned, calling somebody a contemptuous piece of right wing work as an example plus many others.
    My guess is that a lot of people, me included will stop looking at this site which will be a shame.
    Ban him ASAP
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    11:28am
    And here come the right wing trolls............. No sensible or honest argument. Just the same propaganda from the same people who claim to be ordinary Australians posting a view.
    Perhaps the government needs to go post in the Murdoch rags or get some of the TV stations which routinely run their one side spew to take up their case.
    MD
    30th Aug 2016
    11:10am
    Saints preserve us, somebody, anybody, please save me from having the last say. I know, I know - can't help myself.

    We were presented with a couple of comparable findings from various sources, the idea being to prompt response. Most of that realized has spun around the usual contributions of left vs right, right vs wrong, you're wrong, I'm right and thus, bye and large managed to side step the pertinent issue.

    To date 147 comments have been received and by my questionable powers of perception I'm suggesting fewer than ~10 responses actually addressed the issue by disclosing (vaguely in most instances) the degree of retirement spend - or cost.
    If we negate the comments that presented as any one of; could've, should've, would've, couldn't or shouldn't and set aside the sufferers, pill poppers and party poopers: what little remains indicates that it is possible to survive on an aged pension.

    "Renters" - at "13 percent" is an intangible given that some rent for convenience - ie, from/for family, trusts, location (proximity to family, friends, healthcare etc)- all of which will diminish the veracity of the claimed figure.
    Whether those still paying mortgage - quoted (presently) at 16 percent - "will increase year on year" IS indicative of future hardship is both YLC's prediction and a matter for individual control, it being the result of personal decisions. If you don't have a home big enough to handle it, don't befriend the elephant handler.

    For those expecting Government to curtail spending on the one hand and yet would favourably consider "entitlement" increases, what can anyone say to relieve the pain but 'pop another pill'.

    I admire; Old Geezer for resilience in the face of adversity, Fast Eddie for something approaching reality, Rae for balanced opinion, Old Man for the bleedin obvious and Old Fart for hanging in there.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    1:29pm
    Sadly MD any topic of 'rich vs poor' will by its very nature end up a political argument because people who are rich rely on government favours to get that way and stay that way.
    The issues often presented are significant and we all need to stand up to prevent a future where average citizens are destituted. I know some people believe that is never going to happen here but then neither did the good citizens in Germany when Hitler turned the country into a cesspit.
    I will not agree with your comment about Geezer and I do not think too many of us would either.
    Cheers.
    roy
    30th Aug 2016
    2:30pm
    MICK just never gives up, now he brings Hitler into the discussion, that is the pits MICK and you know it.
    Rae
    30th Aug 2016
    3:15pm
    Thanks MD. I am always interested in your opinion as a valuable contribution to discussions.
    ex PS
    30th Aug 2016
    4:59pm
    MICK, unfortunately, once an argument becomes political reason seems to fly out the window. It is hard but I often wonder if we left out all political references, if the discussions would be more substantial. I can't see either of the major political organisations as the answer to our problems, in reality only we can solve our problems.
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    10:43pm
    You make a good point ex PS but it may be a bit more involved than that given some of the posters we have. The unfortunate thing we do have is two parties representing opposite sides of the social and financial divide. That by its very nature leads to battles for outcomes.
    I hear what you are saying. Cheers.
    Gammer
    30th Aug 2016
    5:43pm
    Rae

    Check out Optusnet - fixed line, mobile and Internet (10gb and includes calls Australia wide) for $90 month. I'm very happy with it!!
    particolor
    30th Aug 2016
    7:27pm
    Thanks !! I've got to do something REAL SOON ! :-( My Telstra Account was $90 a year back and has now crept up to $134 a Month :-( :-( :-( :-( I cant afford it anymore :-( The Mobile went up and the Fixed Line went up And I've done nothing !!! and hardly ever use either, Except I need the Home Phone for the Internet !
    Your 10 Gigs for $90 seems rather Puny if it was 25 Gigs Id be interested !!:-)
    MICK
    30th Aug 2016
    10:35pm
    Please take note Rae: we have just recently been disconnected for over 2 months whilst with Optus. Negligence of the worst kind. And you get stuck with their Indian Call Centre which refuses to fix and nothing happens. And then in the end they claimed an MSD (Mass Service Disruption...that means the infrastructure was broken) and refused to pay legislated compensation.
    I would suggest anybody who is thinking of using Optus think again and google 'ProductReview Optus'. Horrifying stuff. And repeat for other ISPs. Same result.
    The only solution is to go with and ISP like Internode or go NBN with a naked phone service.......but you lose your existing phone number. The plus is you are not with Optus or Telstra.
    Good luck.

    particolor: you are paying too much and should be paying that for almost unlimited broadband including phone. They do however slug you a local call charge for 1300 numbers. Cheers.
    particolor
    30th Aug 2016
    10:52pm
    I don't pay for calls at all Mick :-) And Only use it about twice a Month anyhow ! That Charge is Just Having the Phone and having the Internet, I own my own Mobile !! I get 100 Gigs but only ever use about 20 Gigs ! Its getting beyond me ! :-( And many other Pensioners too I suspect ! I'm thinking of finishing it all at the End of this billing period !! :-(
    LiveItUp
    31st Aug 2016
    7:16am
    My NBN $100 a month everything included. All calls even OS ones, 1000GB internet, messgae bank, caller Id etc. I still have the old copper phineline as I live in the bush.
    MICK
    31st Aug 2016
    7:31am
    You are about par for the course parti. If you wanted to stay with Telstra its cheaper arm is known as 'Belong'. That was one consideration for me but when I checked it out on ProductReview it, like Optus, had around 70% of complaints in the worst category. The one thing in its favour was its Call Centre was based in Tasmania, not India.
    There are plenty of cheaper combos but they all use the Optus network. Whilst my iSP also uses Optus it has its Call Centre in South Australia and I am changing to the NBN anyway but just pondering the implications of a new phone number. A bit like jumping off the 5 metre diving platform. I will but need a shot of testosterone first. NBN plans with a naked phone service (=internet phone) are cheaper than landlines.
    The downloads offered are immaterial for most of us unless we download movies (coming!). Broadband speeds are around 5 MBps compared to NBN speeds of 4 times that on a cheap plan and faster if you pay a bit more, which is unnecessary methinks.
    Decisions, decisions. Good luck.
    particolor
    31st Aug 2016
    7:34pm
    I've made my decision I'm outta that Greedy Setup at the end of this Billing Period !! What's wrong with this Bloody Country when Your Communication's Bill is HIGHER than your Electricity bill ???? And I cant even Boil the Kettle on my Computer :-( :-( :-( BAH HUMBUG :-( :-( And with no hope of EVER getting 2 Bob out of this mob ! :-( :-( I'll trim down what I have now, Ill sit in the Dark and Remain Ignorant ! The News is all Fabricated Garbage now anyhow, to suit their Political Agenda !! We are Stuffed now until we get a Benevolent Honest Government, Or at least until we get one that has a Clue how to run a Country not a Corporation for the Wealthy :-( :-(
    BYE !!
    Anonymous
    1st Sep 2016
    8:27am
    I agree particolor, but unfortunately I don't have a choice. The communication lines in this ''advanced'' nation are SO BAD that nobody but Telstra can service my area, and even Telstra's service is outrageously poor and expensive. But I'm better off than some. My daughter lives in the heart of a big city and has been on a waiting list for an internet connection for TWO YEARS.

    And some folk think Turnbull knows what he's doing!
    Rae
    1st Sep 2016
    1:46pm
    Thank you all. I was having a whinge wasn't I. I'm feeling much happier now thanks.

    I have managed to get my bill down about $16 a month by recently signing up to the NBN on a $69 a month plan. I'm stuck for two years as I signed a damn contract, something I rarely do.
    It does give me a landline and computer and a fair amount of netflix if I want to use it.I don't at present as I find free to air enough for my limited viewing of TV.
    The mobile is $50 a month on top.

    I probably don't need the landline but it is only a small % of the package.I do check on a few elderly who I find can sometimes need a lengthy listen to and the landline is cheaper than calling them mobile to landline.

    I agree Rainey that we do seem like a third world nation at some points especially in the country where coverage still doesn't exist but a heap of people live. eg between Gulgong and Mudgee for example.

    Never travel in Australia without a paper map is my advice.

    Overseas friends do not believe the high prices we pay for telecom and electricity. Especially the retailers part of it.
    Why does it cost so much to send out a bill and collect the money. There must be a lot of non payment going on.
    Mez
    31st Aug 2016
    11:46am
    Those figures appear to be international and not related to Australia alone or either the FIGURES ARE WAY OFF BEAM!
    From all the elderlies that I have encountered through working in the healthcare sector, most or half of them do not own their own homes!
    John
    20th Sep 2016
    10:38am
    I'm a pensioner Lived in my car I for over two years can afford to rent on the pension can I get a commission home I'm still waiting for an MP to take up the challenge and see our pensioner lives in his vehicle in a long while chance in hell because I was the same goals they look after rich i'm still waiting on any comments about cooking the MPs pension $150-$250,000 a year for the rest of their life's cancelling all the free flights for the MPs cancelling all the shelf address in college and maybe a pension can get more than a three dollar raise i've worked impaired my taxis and wasn't super when I was working a pad for the all the population believe me I know it comes to my tune I have to live in a car for the rest of my life
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    10:55am
    I lived in a Toyota Van on the Gem Fields for nearly 3 years ! And loved every bit of it !! Step out the door into the Fresh Air and there was the Days Work and NO Boss ! :-) Until Centrelink told me I needed a fixed Address ?? I told them 10 miles from Bullamekanka !! They never stopped my Pension :-) :-)


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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