20th Dec 2017

Four mistakes that will wreck your retirement

Four mistakes that wreck retirement
Ben Hocking

According to the YourLifeChoices Retirement Affordability Index only 19 per cent of those surveyed believed that they would have enough savings to provide an income to the end of their life.

More concerning was the fact that 44 per cent of those that responded to the survey did not think they would have enough savings for their retired life, while the remainder were unsure.

Concerns about downsizing and looking after kids and grandkids and potentially elderly parent can make retirement decisions very difficult, but a lack of action can be one of the biggest mistakes you can make as you start planning your transition from full-time work.

Here are four decisions that can ruin your retirement.



1. Failing to consolidate
Many Australians work many different jobs over their careers, but they often fail to keep all of their superannuation savings in the one account. This can have a disastrous effect on your savings and your eventual retirement income. Not only do you risk losing track of some of your money, particularly if you have changed names or addresses with some of your funds, but you are also paying extra fees and charges on all of your different accounts. A better approach is to consolidate all funds into one superannuation account after speaking to an expert advisor to determine the best one for you. This will cut down on administration fees and ensure your balance grows stronger over time.

2. Not having an emergency fund
Any plan for retirement should include an emergency fund — money you can access immediately. What will you do if your health changes? What if your spouse or one of your kids has an emergency? Will you have money set aside to cover those costs? Most financial planners suggest having enough cash to cover at least three to six months’ worth of living expenses.

3. Not adjusting for 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. Although year-to-year it may not seem as if prices increase all that much, over a 20- to 30-year retirement, the differences can be drastic.

4. Worrying too much
Retirement shouldn’t be a time of worry and stress. It should be a time to relax and enjoy life after years of working. Some retirees have trouble remembering the reason that they worked so hard to save. They had an idea of the life they wanted in retirement, but they worry so much about running out of money that it can consume their retirement. A comprehensive retirement plan can help you transition from a saving mindset and help give you the confidence to spend on the things you always wanted in retirement.

Are you comfortable with your retirement plan? What would you do differently if you had your time again? What suggestions do you have for others based on your experience?

2018 Melbourne Retirement Bootcamp Workshop
Saturday 14 April 2018
Are you retirement ready? And do you love to travel? Whether you're still planning your retirement or already living in retirement, join us for a day of fun and information.
We even have a special early bird offer for you. Numbers are limited and the last two events sold out. 
Find our more information


Related articles:





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
floss
4th Jan 2018
10:17am
When the Federal Government start to change the super rules for no real reason that is a worry but when they grand father the rules that can lead to disaster and worry for some retirees.
Old Geezer
4th Jan 2018
11:15am
Government changed super rules because the system was not sustainable with people having millions in their super funds and paying no tax.

Change is a part of life so get used to it or.............
adbob
4th Jan 2018
12:18pm
The people with multi-million dollar super balances are doing fine - they were hardly affected.

Ordinary folk with balances of eg (for a single person) $450,000 to $900,000 are affected to the extent that it wasn't worth earning and saving that money in the first place. We were told by the financial advisers etc that the age pension wouldn't be enough to live on so we would need to save to top it up. Having saved we are now told that we don't *need* the age pension so we have to spend our own savings until what's left has us qualifying again - in the meantime others get a either full age pension or a tax break that's worth more than that. Joe Average (if he was silly enough to work and save (and pay tax in the process)) gets nothing.

BTW - contrary to what the article says - don't consolidate your super unless you really do have lots of funds and the fees really are adding up - I have two rather than one and I'm happier spreading risk for the small extra amount of fees involved. And don't consult a financial adviser unless you really need one - most people don't need one.

Eggs in one basket etc. Money in super is as safe as money in the bank - ie there's still risk - not just from the underlying investments.
Rae
4th Jan 2018
1:46pm
Yes indeed adobe. the government, through means test changes and tax cuts has created the unforeseen consequence of making superannuation unprofitable for the average income earner.
TREBOR
11th Jan 2018
3:27pm
What was unforeseen about it, Rae? It's part of the program to divide society into a majority group of landless tenant serfs and the few holding everything and total control over everything and everyone.

Feudalism re-visited. It's a fact of history repeated over and over, and the only safeguard is eternal vigilance against the frog-boiling tactics used against the majority.

That's pretty much why I oppose every government initiative in some areas of governance.

Fool me once, more fool me - fool me twice.... more fool you!
JO
4th Jan 2018
10:29am
Pay off your home than salary sacrifice to maximum, chose an Industry Fund, many have good performance with minimal costs, do not overinsure make sure you cancel insurance other than the one in your chosen super. Consider your financial needs short and long term before helping children and grandchildren and never go as a guarantee, they need to manage their own pathway.
Old Man
4th Jan 2018
11:42am
I agree JO, what a lot of people are unaware of is the tax change when salary sacrificing. If you sacrifice, say, $100 pw, the pay packet (gee, that makes me old) doesn't reduce by $100 because the tax payable also reduces. Do people need the insurance that is attached to super schemes? My experience with super fund insurance was that the same cover cost much less with a life policy with an insurance company.
Rae
4th Jan 2018
11:51am
Good advice Jo.

Also invest as much as possible outside super. Choose investments with the chance of capital gain as well as some that are very liquid and rebalance so you lock in profits occasionally.

This gives you savings that can be accessed and with less chance of sovereign risk.

The choice to help children is tricky. Now it may be better to gift savings intended for inheritance early. At least 5 years before retirement to maximise government pension options.

There is no point denying children a start if all it does is deny you the income other's achieve by not saving as much. That old aged pension and concessions will cost as much as $700 000 if you save it yourself.

It is pointless now to live frugally just to give away $32 000 a year income plus the terrific concessions you won't get and the worry of future high costing medical because you must pay full price.

You can still have around $375 000 in super but avoid having to save the $1 million or so to give you the exact same income but without the lovely concessions.

Perhaps hiring rather than buying expensive assets that are liabilities and produce no income in retirement i.e. boats and mobile homes, expensive cars or art works.
Sundays
4th Jan 2018
1:47pm
Regarding insurance through your super fund it depends on the scheme. Industry funds also cover illness if you can’t work for a while and will pay you a percentage of your salary for 12-18 months depending on the scheme. Many life insurance policies only cover death.
TREBOR
11th Jan 2018
3:28pm
Get with it OM - the handyman around here charges $35 an hour - an unheard of sum in my days.... I'm still trying to adjust to $25 an hour menial jobs.
Lyng
4th Jan 2018
11:04am
When is this age group going to stop being seen as the cash cow for all?? We would be the first generation to be so heavily sold on saving "enough" for our retirement, paying for our own funerals, even taking out funeral insurance to ensure we not only pay for our funerals but that we leave the kiddies huge sums of money to get through this event unscathed, helping out with childcare arrangements, helping out when families split up and need financial and practical support, agreeing to keep our kiddies at home so they don't have the "burden" of paying rent, utilities etc and possibly even giving small financial supports when needed. All this on top of having probably paid huge amounts of money on their young teeth, education and accommodation. Time to lay off the Pensioners.
Old Geezer
4th Jan 2018
11:20am
If they can't afford to bury me when I die then something is very wrong so no funeral insurance for me.

Funeral insurance is nothing but a scam anyway as one is better off just saying the money instead. Heard the other day someone reached 80 and got a better OBE than they planned. A cheque in the mail for what was left of their funeral insurance as they are now too old to insure even for funerals.

I taught my kids how to stand on their own two feet no matter what happens and today they are wealthier than I will ever be. Even when I visited they didn't ask me to mind the kids so they could go out to dinner but got a baby sitter and took me out with them.

Teach your kids well and you simply wont have these problems.
Old Man
4th Jan 2018
11:51am
I can't agree Lyng. The baby boomer generation is actually the first generation that does not feel it is incumbent on them to leave anything for their children. Baby boomers are the ones who invented SKI (Spending Kids' Inheritance) trips and could do so safe in the knowledge that we have set our children up by paying for their education and/or training to enable them to forge a successful pathway.
Tib
4th Jan 2018
1:17pm
OG I agree with you on this one. OM I don't agree with us being the first generation not feeling incumbent to leave anything for the children. My understanding of previous generations is that children were expected to support parents in their old age. Unless you are descended from aristocracy or the very wealthy who would leave massive estates to their first born. Working people were never in a position to offer much to the next generation. Most of us are just glad to be able to take care of ourselves.
OnlyGenuineRainey
4th Jan 2018
6:47pm
Old Man, I think it's far more likely that the baby boomer generation is the first generation that DOES feel it is incumbent on them to leave something for their children. Most of those in past generations - the wealthy excepted of course - did not feel any obligation, if only because it was damned near impossible for them to leave anything much, if anything, behind.

Of course today we are hearing the disgustingly selfish well-off say we have no right to leave something to our children, and we should work our guts out for a lifetime merely to hand it to the greedy government to squander. But that's just the rantings of the selfish. Most decent people today do want to leave something to help their kids educate grandchildren, pay off mortgages, etc. I would love to leave something to make my disabled grandson's life more comfortable, because a disability pension sure doesn't go far and he's unlikely to ever be able to earn an independent living - unless what I leave enables his parents to access some costly ground-breaking treatment.
Old Geezer
4th Jan 2018
9:23pm
It is certainly not my desire at all to do without so that I can leave money for my kids. Looks like I must be indecent with having such thoughts.
OnlyGenuineRainey
4th Jan 2018
9:25pm
I didn't suggest anyone ''go without'' to leave anything to children, but neither should we forfeit all we worked for to a wasteful government promoting communism. If people want to work hard and save to leave something to their children, they should be permitted to. Why should those who go on cruises be given handouts and those who save to leave something to grandchildren deprived?
Rae
5th Jan 2018
9:55am
Rainey you could set up a trust for the grandson and gift the money now. That is the beauty of not being in the welfare net. As long as you have 5 years living costs and no expensive assets that make no income you can do as you please.

If you save to leave funds the system will take that saving through means tests anyway.

The means test system actively discourages saving now with low returns on capital. Saving $700 000 to be in the same boat income wise as someone who saved nothing is financially crazy.

The saver also pays full costs unlike the beneficiary of that $32000 a year who achieves discounts from concession cards.

If you can save millions then there is no issue but the ordinary worker is financially disadvantaged by the current means test regime. Even gaining aged care is fraught for those with assets that can be stripped away by State and Federal legislation and means tests that are inequitable.
OnlyGenuineRainey
5th Jan 2018
2:20pm
You are absolute right, Rae. And some fools wonder why the nation is in a mess! Simply no point in saving if you can't be a multi-millionaire, because if you don't, you will get big handouts and be better off - WITHOUT effort. Mind-boggling that some people condone this insanity. Even more mind-boggling that some are dumb enough to think more cuts to welfare will solve the problem that cuts to welfare created.
Bonny
6th Jan 2018
7:20am
Rainey if people think the same as you no wonder we have become a country of people with a welfare mentality. Once people were proud not to be on welfare but today the wear it as a badge of honour making others feel like a mug because they haven't got such a badge. No wonder young people today has no thoughts of their future as welfare will take care of that.
Rae
6th Jan 2018
8:19am
Yes Bonny. Exactly so. The Government has created unseen consequences here because we no longer believe the propaganda and can do the maths ourselves.

Most workers will never achieve more than owning a home and around the $800 000 that will give them a poorer retirement than not saving all that money in the first place.

Pride in being a mug isn't exactly worth much.

Those in charge of the policy direction and legislation think like you that the propaganda will keep working but times have changed, We are gradually joining the greedy and the luxury lovers and wondering why bother with frugality and saving when there are few financial incentives to do so left.

Being a martyr isn't all that clever when it comes to money matters and lifestyle.

High income earners can lower taxes but the ordinary Joe pays so little today that his 9.5% is enough to save for a new car and holiday at retirement and maybe a bit for the necessary repairs etc. More than that is pointless as pride will not help you sleep at night nor elevate the worry of having to create income when a government pension is worry free and comes with all sorts of discounts and concessions.

Besides the millions of new immigrants all came with that welfare in mind so we'd be idiots to let pride deny us the same now wouldn't we?
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
9:04am
Very well said, Rae. It's good to see someone posting common sense, instead of this virtuous BS from the likes of Bonny.

Of course we have a welfare mentality - created by a government that ensured anyone who doesn't had better be VERY well-off, or they will pay a high penalty for being honest and conscionable.

The system is STUPID. It builds and fosters a welfare mentality and, as you say, it even invites immigrants who come specifically to access welfare.

People adapt to conditions, Bonny. When the conditions punish and create hardship for people with pride, they cease to worry about pride and start worrying, instead, about the lifestyle they are being deprived of.

The changed assets test killed a lot of pride and drove hundreds of thousands to focus on their income instead.
TREBOR
11th Jan 2018
3:29pm
When I die, OG, they can bury me upside down and doubled over and close to the surface so the world can kiss my ass....
Pendrey
4th Jan 2018
11:29am
Nothing new in this article.
floss
4th Jan 2018
11:43am
Old Geezer why is it any changes improve the conditions for politicians and never effect them.From your comment I think you enjoy being a smart ass.
Old Geezer
4th Jan 2018
11:59am
Yes they do as pollies can't access their pension now until they are the same age as everyone else.

If a post deserves a smart ass comment then it is appropriate to give one. You post was nothing but a whinge about well over due changes to super.
OnlyGenuineRainey
5th Jan 2018
7:15am
Floss is right. Changes - if and when they are made - never hurt politicians. They continue to stuff up the country polishing the seats of their trousers for a few years, then rip of the taxpayer to live in luxury for ever more.
Rae
5th Jan 2018
9:59am
The excessive daily rate needs cutting. There is no need for five star accommodation and fine dining at tax payer expense.

Nice to have but not necessary.

Neither do they need to travel first class or even business class. If we are short of public funds the cuts should be universal.

Capital Gains tax discounts need sorting as well. No need to encourage speculation in my opinion.
OnlyGenuineRainey
5th Jan 2018
2:37pm
Have you read the figures put out by the Australia Institute in their recommendations on cutting capital gains tax concessions? Quite astonishing how much struggling taxpayers throw at PUSHING HOUSE PRICES UP when the government claims to be wanting to control the increases.
Old Geezer
5th Jan 2018
8:01pm
Cut capital gain tax concessions and you will stifle investment in Australia. There would be no advantage in investing for capital gains if the government was to tax most of your gains. You think we have a problem with money going into tax havens then it will be much worse if people had to pay big taxes on their capital gains.
Rae
6th Jan 2018
8:22am
No fear of stifling the crazies punting on real estate, shares and cryptos now OG and I do think some of all that money they printed needs to disappear. How do you suggest we get rid of it?
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
9:51am
Yet another BS claim from the super-privileged who are never satisfied with the share of the pie they STEAL, OG.

Cut capital gains tax and people will invest for income, providing more homes for those who need to rent. Foreigners will be less inclined to buy up all our real estate. House prices will stabilize, enabling more young people to own a home. and greater affordability will enable the less wealthy to invest for INCOME - and moderate capital gain, which will benefit the nation because these people DON'T hoard in tax havens.

The unconscionable rich will continue to do what they do no matter what. We should STOP forcing the less well off to subsidize their activities.
Lyng
4th Jan 2018
11:50am
I agree Old Geezer ref Funeral Insurance. How on earth did it get so well marketed? Funeral Insurance? You can't get insurance against needing a funeral, it's a given! Pre-paid funerals, now that's different.
Old Geezer
4th Jan 2018
12:02pm
I agree. How can they market such rubbish? Love it when they ring me about it and I tell them I don't need it as I have no intension of dying. They tell me that everyone dies so I say not me.

I also wonder about the fancy ways one can be declared bankrupt now too.
Hasbeen
4th Jan 2018
12:34pm
If my kids can't find a couple of thousand to cremate me, [no funeral or burial, throw the ashes in the river & let me find my own resting place thanks], they sure won't deserve the few hundred thousands they will realise on selling up my assets.

I'm happy to leave them the assets, but I'm damned if I'm going to give up any of my very modest cash flow, so they don't have to pay to get rid of me on the way to those assets.
Tib
4th Jan 2018
1:31pm
I remember when Kerry Packer was investigated over paying almost no tax. Was it $50 dollars for the year? Clever accountants. Because I worked for a living no such luck for me. Maybe the Packer family might like to chip in for my funeral..... since I have been paying part of their rightful tax bill most of my life. ( legal doesn't make it right) what do you think?
OnlyGenuineRainey
4th Jan 2018
7:39pm
We need to adopt the Japanese model, where paying tax is a privilege and an honour and those who seek to avoid their tax obligations are shunned and embarrassed by the entire population.
The Japanese recognise that a fair tax contribution is a requirement for a healthy society, and that those who pay their taxes benefit far more than those who can't afford to contribute or who rely on welfare

The Japanese would regard Packer as filthy scum and demand his expulsion. Australians are too dumb and apathetic, sadly.
Old Geezer
5th Jan 2018
11:05am
I'm thankful I live in a country where it is acceptable to pay the minimum tax one can as then you can hep those who really need help.
OnlyGenuineRainey
5th Jan 2018
2:17pm
BS OG. People don't use savings from dodging tax to help others. They hoard it for their own greedy ends. Those who pay the minimum tax are selfish, greedy, and unethical. And it matters not whether or not their antics are legal. They are immoral and they harm the country.
Bonny
6th Jan 2018
7:31am
So one can assume Rainey you send the ATO a bonus each year so you are not selfish, greedy and unethical.
ex PS
6th Jan 2018
8:10am
When my Father died we were able to access his Credit Union Account in order to pay for his funeral costs. All we required was his Death Certificate, a quote for the services required and proof of our right to act on his behalf. If a person has not got enough in their bank account to pay for a modest burial, they have not got enough to pay insurance.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
10:06am
Bonny, unlike most, I do NOT claim unfair tax concessions. I pay the full percentage that the law requires, and I do NOT engage in minimization schemes. I DO donate to charity, but in ways that are NOT tax deductible - but ways that genuinely assist people in real need.
TREBOR
11th Jan 2018
3:32pm
Probably find me strapped to the wheel of my motor cruiser.... somewhere offshore on my way to yet another Promised Land... bury me not on the lone prairie... show me that horizon...

Crew wanted...... maybe....
TREBOR
11th Jan 2018
3:34pm
Oh -I have funeral insurance - it's to pay for the wake... the gu' mint can plant me for free...
Tib
4th Jan 2018
12:57pm
Good reminders but these things all come down to one problem. Not enough money. The problem is saving for retirement requires long term planning, the longer the term the better. Few people manage to do it. There also seems to be a problem for people who depend on the OAP when two pensions are reduced to one , when a partner dies or in divorce.
There is little encouragement for people to save for retirement when too much savings can end with the loss of the OAP, which in some cases can put you in a worse position than if you didn't save at all.
Anonymous
4th Jan 2018
10:17pm
Tib, the OAP is the "last resort" and designed to merely provide the basics. If a person saves money for retirement, then that person is NOT entitled, legally or morally, to the OAP. When the saved money starts to run down, then the OAP kicks in. This is the way it is, and should be, in a civilised society.

I live on the pension plus $60 pw from a small super. account. I own my own little country house that cost a pittance. I have WAY more money than I need with this income. It "can" be done.

There's nothing wrong with scaling down upon retirement. If a person wants all the treats that a job provides for, then don't retire .... just keep working. People should NOT expect a big super. account, a large bank account, a million dollar city house "plus" the full age pension.
OnlyGenuineRainey
5th Jan 2018
7:13am
No, Jim D. That's NOT the way it should be, because what that does is says ''don't work and save and those who did will finance a gift of nearly $1 million in retirement, but work and save and we'll take it off you to give to those who didn't.'' That's NOT the way it should be morally or practically. It's socially and economically destructive.

It's not a question of what you need or what you can live on. Our system is stuffed up. It loads up retirement coffers for high income-earners, at huge taxpayer expense, so they can live in luxury tax free. It hands out relatively generously to people who save a little. And it deprives those who struggled to save as much as they could, but didn't quite make the grade - and aren't investment gurus - of most of the benefit of their hard work. That's economically unsustainable, as well as being cruel and unfair.

Those who save should be allowed to benefit from their savings, without having to be investment gurus to do so. And those who don't save should be a little worse off than those who do. Creating a situation - as currently exists - where many just have to drain their savings to support those who have less, and get no real benefit from them, is dumb. Whether they can live on what they have or not isn't the issue. If they went without a cruise to put an extra $50K aside for old age, they should be able to spend that $50K on what they put it aside for - NOT forced to gift it to those who took the cruise.

Some people work and save because they want certain comforts in retirement. If that's what they choose to do, they should be permitted to do it. This nasty communist idea that we should deny people the freedom of choice to save for old age, and indulge those who choose to spend up big, is wrong. There's nothing ''civilized'' about handing $1 million to spendthrifts and bludgers and telling workers and savers to ''go screw yourself. You had no right to set yourself up to be better off than those who lived the high life''.
Rae
5th Jan 2018
10:25am
Yes Rainey. I'm bemused that I saved to afford home care and gardening etc in my old age only to find that I'd be given it if I hadn't saved.

All those years of struggling as a single mother for not much economic advantage.

I now understand why people convince themselves they don't earn enough to save. Why would you bother unless you were a very high income earner?
Old Geezer
5th Jan 2018
8:03pm
I'm glad I did save as I can choose my own without the middle man taking most of it before it even gets to pay for the clients needs.
Rae
6th Jan 2018
8:32am
That is a point OG. I haven't got to the point of needing outside help yet so we will see. I do have older friends on the OAP though who receive subsidised health costs, and home services.

I'll be paying full price and that may become an issue.
Rae
6th Jan 2018
8:39am
The policy of setting up business opportunities for the cronies is out of control. The middle man is getting hard working tax payer dollars to assist non savers while we pay ourselves. There is little equity in it at all.

Like that welfare card thing where hundreds of millions were squandered or the vocational colleges rorts that gave con men hundreds of millions more.

Or Baird spending $16 billion to get an $11 billion deal away and increase our unsubsidised energy bills into the bargain.

Why not give it too hard working Australian taxpayers instead when they retire in a fair manner not based on if they saved or spent?

You keep defending these action OG but honesty and fairness needs to be brought back into the discussions and decisions of our political representatives in my opinion.
johnp
4th Jan 2018
1:12pm
Some good comments here. But also from a self funded retiree (just) point of view its worth noting that the old aged pension is and has always been funded by the taxpayers (usually us !). So it was a right for all. Additional was tax begun and partitioned mid 20th century for aged pension purposes but later stolen by govt and absorbed into general revenue. You can look it up.
Old Geezer
4th Jan 2018
1:17pm
No they didn't steal they just used it to pay for the OAP. It didn't go far as there are way too many OAPs now.
Tib
4th Jan 2018
1:19pm
I think they would like to do the same to super.
Old Geezer
4th Jan 2018
1:45pm
That's why I tell anyone under 40 not to more than they have to into super.
OnlyGenuineRainey
4th Jan 2018
6:39pm
What a load of codswallop, OG. To pay for the OAP. Absolute rubbish from an ill-informed old fool!

1) The current retirees paid a tax levy all their lives which was supposed to be kept in a separate fund to pay for their retirement. Unfortunately, corrupt politicians STOLE IT. There should be enough by now to pay EVERY retiree over $500 a week - non-means-tested. But liars and cheats in Canberra stole it and added it to consolidated revenue

2) Australia spends 4% of GDP on aged pensions. Every other developed nation spends 8 - 9%. Australia's spend is FALLING and will be no higher in 2050 than it is today. Every other nation is seeing their expenditure RISE. There is something SERIOUSLY amiss if younger Australians can't contribute 4% of GDP to caring for the aged, given our contribution to the nation. We spent far more than that caring for our parents and grandparents in their old age.

3) The wealthy are ripping off the nation, claiming more than $39 billion a year in superannuation tax concessions that THEY DO NOT NEED - just so they can build multi-million-dollar retirement funds that they will then draw from UNTAXED. The aged pension costs LESS THAN THESE OBSCENE HANDOUTS. The big difference is that OAPs NEED their pension. The stinking greedy over-fed fat cats only want it to stash it in tax havens and gloat about having it.

JohnP is right, OG and you are DEAD WRONG.

But I agree if I was younger, I wouldn't trust the stinking corrupt pollies not to steal my super. After all, they stole our retirement fund. And they are still stealing from the populace in every way they can.
OnlyGenuineRainey
4th Jan 2018
6:41pm
Oh, and let's not forget that the poor get close to ZERO concessions to help them build a retirement nest egg. Only the high income earners enjoy that unnecessary and wasteful benefit. The battlers are supposed to somehow milk stones to save for old age, and are abused and insulted if they don't succeed.
Hasbeen
4th Jan 2018
7:04pm
Garbage Rainey.

When we were paying into the pension fund my total tax including the levy, on about the average wage was only 7.75% of about 28/30 pounds a week. With the low interest rates of that time, [I paid 3.7% on my home loan], it would have grown very slowly. Don't guild the cherry, some of us still have memories.

I do agree it would have been a good idea to keep it separate, as it might mot have been wasted by Whitlam's drunken sailor spending, but covering pensions today is a poor joke.
Anonymous
4th Jan 2018
7:59pm
"I have nothing to whinge about. I'm happy in a relationship. I have great kids and grandkids. I own a nice home in a lovely neighbourhood. I have a fabulous circle of good friends. I enjoy my work and my hobbies. Life is great"

Said Rainey.

So stop your whinging then
Old Geezer
4th Jan 2018
9:20pm
Agree Raphael if Rainey lives in such a lovely beds of roses why the need to keep on whinging? Golly gosh if someone has too much money to get welfare then they are so stupid to be worrying about not being eligible for the OAP.
OnlyGenuineRainey
4th Jan 2018
9:33pm
I'm not ''whinging''. I'm making an informed comment, refuting OG's untruths. And I'm not ''worrying about not being eligible for the OAP''. I am worried that this nation is so damned screwed up and the national debt is rising and social health is deteriorating because of it. I'm concerned that we are governed by corrupt thieves and fools are condoning corruption and blaming the battlers who made this nation what it is for the damage caused by theft and greed of the privileged.

I don't ''have too much money to get welfare'', OG. I work for a living. I don't want welfare. What I want is to see sensible reform that will restore this country to good economic and social health. And that won't happen while fools endorse a very unfair, economically unsustainable, and totally illogical pension system.
Bonny
6th Jan 2018
7:34am
People don't continually play broken records unless they have a need to do so.
ex PS
6th Jan 2018
8:40am
Some people just have a sense of natural and social justice. A government is, and should be judged by the way they look after the disadvantaged in society.
Many people who are involved in just causes that don't affect them personally will go all out to support that cause in order to help others.
Just as others who have personal hobby horses that suit their own theories will go all out to support their own views.
Maybe we should support or attack the idea rather than the person expressing it?
To me the person who has to resort to dishonesty to prove a case, has no real case to prove.

The Old Age Pension, some say it is welfare, some say it is an entitlement. At the end of the day what does it matter as long as it is provided where it is needed. It, like other government payments is provided out of taxes, therefore most the people who are taking advantage of that entitlement have paid taxes to fund it. Like any insurance scheme, they are taking the help they have paid towards providing. And, like insurance, there is no expectation that you pay as much in as you take out, in the case of the O.A.P., I have paid taxes most of my life, I will probably not see a dollar in O.A.P benefits, I don't care. I consider myself lucky. But I do not have any ill will towards those who need that entitlement, I hope they can manage it a way that will bring a little more than the bare necessities of life, I would like to think that occasionally they can indulge themselves, in most cases they deserve it.
Rae
6th Jan 2018
8:42am
That $39 billion going to wealthy income earners in tax concessions is unsustainable too. It will need sorting a bit further I suspect as the population explosion starts retiring.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
9:46am
So, Bonny, you and OG are DESPERATE to maintain unaffordable privileges for the wealthy because sensible reforms would make you less wealthy?

Yes, I need to keep on promoting common sense that will benefit the NATION as a whole, because I care about my friends and family and the next generation, and I don't want the country to continue going to hell in a basket because of the greed of people like you and OG, whose only concern appears to be protecting your unfair and unaffordable concessions for the rich.
Bonny
7th Jan 2018
5:32pm
Rainey it will not affect my wealth in any way unless the reforms affect everyone. Even if you took all wealth off the wealthy and distributed it among everyone that wealth would very quickly be back in the hands of it's rightful owners. It has nothing to do with concessions etc either.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jan 2018
10:53am
Bonny, if you took all the wealth and redistributed it evenly, there would be a lot of poor people who would become - and remain - rich and a lot of rich people who would suddenly be - and remain - poor. The system feeds inherited wealth and privilege. And it has EVERYTHING to do with concessions, because 80% of concessions benefit the richest 20% only. And the poorest get ZERO help to accumulate retirement savings, though the government untruthfully claims the purpose of the concessions is to reduce the cost of aged pensions. How can it, when they ONLY benefit people who will never need an aged pension anyway?

Reforms SHOULD affect everyone - ESPECIALLY those who arrange their affairs to avoid being impacted in the way most are.
TREBOR
11th Jan 2018
3:37pm
Your total tax is irrelevant, Hasbeen - it was proportionate to today's rates, and if it had been invested at CPI+ rates it would be worth more now than current rate of levy.

You could buy a Cooper S in the late 1960's for $400 - a princely sum then... now it's a day's work for many.

You are confused there.
Tib
4th Jan 2018
2:21pm
One of the mistakes in retirement that hasn't been mentioned is retiring too late! You don't need as much money as you think. It's unreasonable for wives to expect men to work very late in life to provide for their unrealistic expectations for retirement. Most men will die at a younger age than their wife and to expect them to work their last years to provide a very comfortable retirement for their wife that they may never actually enjoy themselves is greedy and self centred and very common.
bobby
4th Jan 2018
2:50pm
Tib. I prefer to think that most men want to provide for their families. They want to know that their wives and children are provided with accommodation at least and possibly some financial assistance. Some of us have had to work longer to achieve that goal.
Tib
4th Jan 2018
3:25pm
Bobby I agree men are too willing to sacrifice themselves for their families but it would be nice if wives would consider their husbands instead of accepting their sacrifice as their right. It's also important men realise that time is limited and they may want to enjoy some retirement before they die and reassess that gold retirement their wife is so keen on. Especially if she is not working herself.
Tib
4th Jan 2018
3:38pm
Bobby from your comment I hope you're not expecting your husband to continue working until your children all have houses as well , that would be taking unreasonable expectations to a whole new level. I would have to ask you what your last slave died of?
Sundays
4th Jan 2018
5:48pm
Tib you make a lot of sense generally, but your continual theme of women taking men for a ride needs to stop. It may fit your personal experience, but it isn’t everyone’s experience. From my perspective it isn’t even right. I haven’t met any women like those you describe. If you need to vent, see a counsellor because you’re bringing this up almost everyday, and you’ve laboured the point
OnlyGenuineRainey
4th Jan 2018
6:29pm
I could name 50 couples in which the wife worked for many, many years after her husband retired, and she still did most of the cleaning and household chores as well.

I agree with Sundays, Tib. You appear to have some kind of mental illness that is totally distorting your perspective. Either that or you are just a very nasty chauvinist pig with no appreciation of reality. Regardless, your constant bigoted rants are boring and grossly offensive.
Anonymous
4th Jan 2018
7:43pm
Rainey - the only bigot I see here is you, with your constant bashing of men who speak up and recently all you're nonsensical anti gay posts on the other forum
OnlyGenuineRainey
4th Jan 2018
9:23pm
Raphael, you don't read well. My posts are PRO-GAY. I care about ensuring that we don't see a backlash motivated by radicals who are angering a large section of the population. And I've never ''bashed'' anyone, but Tib's posts denigrating women are disgustingly chauvinistic and offensive, and blatantly untruthful.
Tib
4th Jan 2018
9:24pm
Sunday my comment was aimed at men who are being told they need to continue to work to provide bigger and bigger super payouts when what they need to realise that it is time they are short of not money. It's a reasonable comment and I will continue to make it to bring some men to their senses. Guys you need to realise you only have one life and if you sacrifice it to women's ever increasing demands for more money , more super you are being cheated of the few years of retirement you are likely to get. If that comment doesn't please you Sunday I don't care. I will continue to repeat it. Maybe a few guys will think about it and have a better life. As far as you never met any of these women then you must be living in your broom closet. Or maybe you are one of these and you don't want your husband to stop working for your ever brighter future.
Rainey more abusive language and name calling. Ha ha
OnlyGenuineRainey
4th Jan 2018
9:37pm
And what about WOMEN who are being told they need to continue to work to provide bigger and bigger super payouts. Or WOMEN who work and save to fund their husband's drinking and leisure? Why the sexist attitude, Tib. It works both ways. There are good and bad of both genders. If you acknowledged that, you wouldn't offend.
Tib
4th Jan 2018
11:00pm
Sunday before I go I'd like to introduce you to Rainey..Rainey this is Sunday. See now you've met one. Couldn't avoid this one even living in your broom closet. Ha ha
OnlyGenuineRainey
5th Jan 2018
7:17am
Are you leaving, Tib? That's good news. This will be a much happier and more productive place without nasties who get off on constantly denigrating women.
Bonny
6th Jan 2018
7:38am
As a woman I feel many women today ha e little respect for anyone except themselves and especially for men. Women's lib has certainky pushed the oendulum way too far.

As a lady I feel honoured to have a man open doors for me and acknowledge me by tilting his hat. It makes me feel appreciated.
ex PS
6th Jan 2018
8:49am
Tib, I totally agree, about the retiring too late part of your comment. I retired at 55, coming from a working class background, I saw too many people working till 65 in order to provide the best retirement opportunities pop their clogs five years later.

I retired at 55, my wife, who is younger is now 58 has just given up paid work. This is her choice and she has and is contributing as much if not more t our future than I have.

I think so called financial advisers have a lot to answer for with their stupid notion that a couple needs over $1 million dollars invested in order to retire comfortably.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
8:58am
I have a cousin who could easily accumulate about $1 million, but she's worked out that she can have the same living standard with far less stress with only $500K, and the other $500K can fund earlier retirement and some great travel experiences. It's an insane system that encourages people to collect pensions when they can easily save enough not to need taxpayer help in retirement!

I keep working - though well past pension age - but not for money. I work for the love of what I do, and because I choose my own hours entirely, and work when and where I please. I think I'd still do it if it wasn't paid, but the pay is nice. It enables me to avoid dealing with C/link and to live as I please - including gifting to my children and grandchildren when it suits me.
Bonny
7th Jan 2018
5:25pm
Your cousin seems like they have the right attitude. Retire early and enjoy your retirement instead of complaining about having too much money etc.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jan 2018
10:37am
She decided to cost the taxpayer money. Seems hypocritical to, on the one hand suggest that couples with $825K+ should forfeit the pension because ''they don't need it'' - and insist they forfeit the benefit of their saving -- but claim someone who deliberately plans to impose a heavier burden on the taxpayer has ''the right attitude''.

This is why I oppose the changed assets test threshold. Nothing to do with my personal situation. It's about the fact that people have been incentivized to make the choice my cousin made, and that will drive pension costs UP and make life harder for the genuinely needy.
bobby
4th Jan 2018
2:41pm
I suggest that failure to maintain an adequate budget is another mistake we can make.
Sundays
4th Jan 2018
5:50pm
I agree that having a budget and sticking to it in retirement is critical. You may think you know how much you spend on discretionary items, but until you track your spending you really dont
ex PS
6th Jan 2018
8:54am
I think another mistake people make is to determine that their fund will support an annual withdrawal of say $50 k, and draw that amount every year regardless of need. We only take what is needed, some years it may be $50K or more, but most years it is far less.

In other words budgeting, we pay ourselves a fortnightly wage and draw lump sums when needed to fund something special.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
7:45pm
But, exPS, that's EXACTLY what the government said people MUST do if they were slugged by the assets test change and left with inadequate income. Not draw out regardless of need - but draw well in excess of the Fund earnings, depleting the Fund such that in future years the earnings will be much more inadequate.
ex PS
6th Jan 2018
8:21pm
Rainey, all I know is that we live on what I have nominated from my Super account as a Super Income Pension, and income from a share portfolio funded through a house sale.
I must draw out a certain amount from Super but drawing that minimum amount will not drain the account in our lifetime. My wife still has her Super in an accumulative account that has so far been untouched.
We will hopefully never have to draw a part pension, and for that we are thankful, but even though it is not in our nature to waste money, we will not skimp in order to avoid getting an O.A.P entitlement.
Our experience with the government pension system so far has been non existent and we are happy to keep it that way.
I do agree that with the constant changes to the Super system it is harder and harder for people to plan for their future, it is almost as if the government wants everyone to depend on the Pension entitlement.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jan 2018
6:37am
You are fortunate, and obviously very sensible and responsible, ex PS. I'm also very fortunate. We have had to deal with Centrelink in the past, and I never want to again. It was a hideous experience, and one that convinced me completely that the welfare mentality is almost totally down to the suppressive and punitive Centrelink system - and some of the people administering it. And that the welfare mentality will continue to grow until we see a major change in attitude toward those in need of help.

Sadly, I know many who have found that the assets test change left them with incomes of HALF the aged pension, and having to draw much more than they are comfortable with from savings, and accept that important goals (like teeth reconstruction, eye surgery, or home help) are now unattainable. Sure, they are well off compared to people who saved less, but why shouldn't they be when they went without a lot to save? Why should they be deprived just because they invested instead of taking cruises or buying flash houses? And some of them are stuck with assets that they can't sell and that don't return much, if anything, but they are still penalized for theoretically being ''asset rich'' (though how having less than $1 million makes anyone ''rich'' by any definition in today's world puzzles me!). Meanwhile people with three times their income - who didn't save because they didn't need to - get pensions and concessions, as do people who sank their money into their home, gifted it, or spent it living the high life.

Seems wrong that when people saved for specific things they might need in old age, they should have to use those savings to live on instead, while others who saved much less get bigger handouts.

If the change had boosted the base pension it might have been acceptable, but to give the neediest not one cent extra but boost the incomes of those with hundreds of thousands in assets seems very wrong to me.

And the worst of it is that it has created fear and uncertainty. Nobody now can plan, because we just don't know from one day to the next what is likely to be changed in regard to superannuation (which actually does need major changes to reduce the massive amount of tax benefits going into the bank accounts of the very wealthy) or the pension (which also need changing - to make it FAIR and SUSTAINABLE, instead of discriminatory and punitive!)

Unfortunately, I doubt any of the needed changes will occur, but I'm willing to bet my house there will be more poorly conceived changes. And I know for a fact there will be a lot more pensioners drawing fatter pensions because of the assets test change, which has hundreds of thousands scurrying to upgrade homes or take that ''once in a lifetime'' cruise, so that they actually get some benefit from their endeavours instead of being forced to sacrifice it to finance handouts to people who have just a little less.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jan 2018
6:54am
Whoops, I mentioned the assets test again. OG or Bonny will once again post their untruthful claim that I'm motivated by selfishness because it impacted me.

Before they do: NO. IT DID NOT AFFECT ME. I WORK AND EARN. AND I HAVE MODEST ASSETS - BUT MOST LIKELY ENOUGH TO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE OLD SCHEME IF I STOPPED WORK TOMORROW.

Got that Bonny and OG?

I am concerned about the state of the nation and people who are hurting unfairly. NOT ABOUT ME.
Bonny
7th Jan 2018
5:22pm
Well stop bringing up the change in assets test as it's now ancient history and people then won't draw conclusions about y our motives.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jan 2018
10:33am
No, Bonny. I will not STOP bringing up something that is still a major concern for a lot of people and needs to be corrected.

Your ''conclusions'' are nasty and have been repeatedly refuted. It is only you and OG drawing these nasty conclusions and making statements - knowingly untruthfully - that attempt to denigrate me.

I have every right to speak up if I choose, and you can refute as you please, but it is extremely RUDE, DISHONEST AND OFFENSIVE to continually repeat an statement based on an ASSUMPTION that you have been repeatedly advised is baseless.
ex PS
9th Jan 2018
8:57am
Of course you should keep bringing something up that bothers you so much Rainey, if the rules have been changed once they can change again, even to the extent of being changed back. The one certain thing is that if you see a wrong being committed and you do nothing, it will be perpetuated.
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Jan 2018
2:32pm
Thank you ex PS. What's that statement - ''All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing''.

I have driven reform before, and it's never easy and I've been shouted down a million times both by people who, like Bonny and OG, wrongly assume I am progressing a personal vested interest, and by people who just think it's all futile and I should give up. But there are actually many hundreds of thousands of Australians who are better off because of the campaigns I've mounted in the past to drive correction of unfair policies and remedies for injustice. And I'll keep on, regardless of objections and nasty wrong assumptions.
Charlie
4th Jan 2018
3:23pm
If you have to retire early because of illness, don't draw all of your super and put it in the bank, as a certain amount of money in the bank may affect the amount of disability pension you are allowed to be paid.
Unless they have changed the system since I had to deal with it in 2008.
Kathleen
4th Jan 2018
4:25pm
People vary in their needs and expectations. What makes one individual or couple happy would not be sufficient for another. The budget provided by YLC every six months is much appreciated and I take the opportunity to revisit our budget. We don’t drink or smoke for example but need more money around Xmas so we can offer some luxuries to our family and friends.
I think we are very lucky to be alive now compared to our parents and grandparents. Both my husband and I were born during the war and our parents suffered through that and the depression that followed later. My mother made our winter coats from her sisters’ old coats.
I remember when my mother received the pension at age 60. It was the first money she had that was hers. It gave her a little boost.
Most of our children have not managed home ownership for various reasons so I worry a little for them as it is the only asset we ended up with. Super is better now and they may need that for security.
I suspect this is ‘the best of times!’
Tib
4th Jan 2018
4:54pm
I agree Grandma young people complain about how tough it is but interest rates and unemployment rates have rarely been lower. Yes it's expensive to buy a house in the capital cities but the rest of the country is still reasonable value. Their super will be very good , life is easy, easier than any other generation.
OnlyGenuineRainey
4th Jan 2018
6:25pm
I have NEVER encountered a young person who has any idea what hardship is. All those I've ever met live a life of luxury compared to mine - though all THINK they are hard up and doing it tough. They just don't know what it means to struggle. That said, my grandmother no doubt said that about me, because she sure did it a lot harder than I did. Thankfully, each generation gets better off than the one before it.
Old Geezer
4th Jan 2018
9:29pm
Well Rainey I certainly have had a string of young people through my door that lived lives that certainty weren't a life of luxury. Most have slept rough more times than they can remember and lived on dumpster food.
OnlyGenuineRainey
4th Jan 2018
9:48pm
There have always been people who have chosen that life, OG. Nobody NEEDS to in this day and age. I grew up very, very poor. My partner grew up in an institution and didn't even know what a decent meal was. We started adult life with nothing, and nobody to give a damn. Not a soul to turn to if we faced crisis. We battled for years against poverty and to pay off huge medical debts for a sick child. But we never lived on dumpster food and we never slept rough. We held our heads up and found ways to live respectably.

We mixed it with folk who worked long hours for nothing more than a basic meal, and who lived in tents. But they held their heads up. They avoided drugs, gambling and alcohol. They kept clean and well presented. They begged for honest work and took anything they could find, and they earned respect.

Goodness, my grandmother had six children and an unemployed drunken husband during the Great Depression and she found ways to feed and cloth the kids and provide decent housing for them. She even bought a house, after years of working from 3am until 10pm taking in laundry and baking bread to sell.

In today's Australia, NOBODY has to sleep rough or eat dumpster food. There is charity. There is welfare. Unless a person is mentally ill, there is no excuse for not living respectably.

This generation is far, far better off than any generation before it.
We are threatened with social and economic deterioration if we don't recognize the danger of growing inequality and do something about the greed and selfishness of the rich - but so far, living standards have continued to rise, even if only by a little over the past few years.
Anonymous
5th Jan 2018
12:13am
Rainey - the beauty of capitalism is that the ruch get richer and the poor get richer
Even my leftie friends Tib and ex PS have to acknowledge that
Yet the selfish buggers promote socialism - it slows down economic growth but never mind that , logic gets in the way of good economics where those 2 are concerned
OnlyGenuineRainey
5th Jan 2018
6:57am
Raphael, that has been true for 300 years, but it appears capitalism has a life span, and the continued push of wealth to the top will destroy it. Like a tower, you can keep going up for just so long, then it becomes top heavy and topples. Global leaders and economists are in strong agreement that we've about reached a crisis point and if we don't address rapidly increasing inequality, the capitalist model will collapse.

I am not a ''leftie'', but I believe we need a degree of socialism to make a healthy society. Where I see a problem is that the socialism we have is the wrong model. It's based on depriving the lower middle class and upper working class of fair rewards for their endeavours, while lauding and over-indulging the rich and blaming the poor for everything that's wrong. Instead of offering a hand-up, it's suppressing the poor and keeping them down. And I see a lot of well-off enjoying denigrating battlers and gloating about their superior wealth and perceived higher status, and enjoying keeping the battlers down - and certainly enjoying depriving the more successful battlers of fair reward for their efforts.

I agree that promoting socialism is generally selfish, and certainly the brand of socialism we are promoting in developed countries slows down growth. We need to get back to the notion that FAIR progressive taxation and compassionate and respectful welfare programs that support those who can't elevate their status adequately, while lifting others up out of hardship, is essential for a healthy society. We need to restore RESPECT and COMPASSION, and that means - among other things - ensuring that people who work hard and live responsibly enjoy the rewards; people who CHOOSE to be irresponsible or lazy are given strong incentives to change and only basic sustenance; and people who are down through no fault of their own are given generous and respectful support and help to raise themselves up, and well rewarded when they do!

The Japanese have the right idea in regard to taxation. They don't promote socialism, but they subscribe to the idea that it is an honour and a solid obligation to pay a fair contribution to the maintenance of a healthy society. Tax is the price you pay to live in a civilized world. Anyone who tries to avoid it is condemned as a most disgraceful individual and is socially excluded.

I have been at the bottom - but not by choice. To get up, I had to cheat the system. I could not do it legally. I could have stayed where I was and enjoyed relatively generous handouts - been much, much better off than I was struggling to get up! No wonder people CHOOSE to stay on welfare! I'm far from wealthy now, but I am comfortable, but what I'm seeing is people who worked hard and lived frugally being pushed back down - just as I was pushed back down when I was struggling on welfare and fighting to get up. It makes no sense, but it appears to feed the egos of the better-off, and certainly pandies to their self-serving desires.

The changed assets test is a classic example. I have a cousin who was always well off. She has planned to have only $500K in savings on retirement because she worked out that's the optimum position to be in. At that level, she'll have more income and less expenses than someone with nearly twice that much. That's just plain STUPID. Yes, it depends on what returns you can get from investments, and some with twice that much will be much better off. But no society should assume that everyone has to be an investment guru, or that those who aren't should be penalized in their retirement for working hard to compensate for not being gurus. We have hundreds of thousands reducing their savings, or buying much bigger houses than they need, to get more welfare, and that's just plain DUMB. Reforming the OAP could make it cost less and work better. Same goes for other welfare programs.

We are all better off than past generations. We need to reform our tax and welfare systems to ensure that improvement continues. And the reforms the selfish privileged want WILL NOT CUT IT. They are making things very much worse, and they will destroy our society. Reform needs to be based on a proper understanding of how the capitalist model works, and respect for the people who contribute most to its success - the workers who work for much less than they are really worth so entrepreneurs can profit. It's not about reducing profit. It's about ensuring those who facilitate it are respected and fairly rewarded and the incentives to continue to facilitate it are strong. And it's about ensuring that those who do not contribute to facilitating profit are helped and motivated if they are able, and compassionately supported if they are not.
Old Geezer
5th Jan 2018
11:20am
So you want the top 20% to pay more than 80% of the tax Rainey. I think that is more than enough already.
OnlyGenuineRainey
5th Jan 2018
2:14pm
That is the constant dishonest whine of the selfish rich, OG. But it's BS. Firstly, they DO NOT pay 80% of the tax collected. That's a lie. They DO NOT pay their fair share. And there is no certainty that anyone who DOES pay the legislated rate - without using unfair avoidance or reduction strategies, legal or otherwise - would pay even 1c more if there was proper reform. They would most likely pay LESS.

Reform means making EVERYONE pay their fair share. Right now, the richest global corporations pay NOTHING. The government says, let's cut their taxes. Why? You can't pay less than 0, and anyone who thinks they will pay more than 0 just because the legislated rate is changed is a total idiot!

You clearly have no idea about economics and are merely shouting rubbish that is frequently quoted out of self-interest, or are thinking purely of yourself. If you had any understanding of economics, you would know that the solutions to our debt and deficit problem - and to funding government services properly - is relatively simple. And it DOES NOT involve making anyone who pays their fair share of tax honestly pay a cent more. It just requires making the cheats, bludgers and manipulators pay their way.
ex PS
6th Jan 2018
9:06am
"As the rich get richer, the poor get richer". Who could possibly argue with that indisputable fact, well I must say that has changed my outlook on life, I will telegraph the comrades in mother Russia immediately and tender my resignation from the party.

Must admit Raphael, you do have a dark sense of humor.

But we all know you will say anything to provoke discussion.
Anonymous
6th Jan 2018
3:44pm
Don’t think I didn’t notice that old communist sleight of hand
I did not say “As” the rich get richer

Don’t try and confuse and con the masses with your socialist smoke and mirrors

Everyone gets richer when capitalism is allowed to flourish without stupid socialist intervention getting in the way
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
7:30pm
Capitalism, mixed with a healthy dose of socialism, makes everyone better off, Raphael. When there's inadequate socialism, the sick and disabled and elderly suffer hideously, the unemployed have no hope, and crime and mental illness flourish. Not the world I want to live in.

We NEED socialism. Yes, in moderation, and sensibly structured. Sadly, it is currently implemented very poorly, but that's as much the fault of the rampant anti-socialists as it is of the promoters of socialism. Policies that make welfare oppressive and punitive drive a welfare mentality. Either you have to get rid of welfare and let the poor die a painful and miserable death, after years of suffering, or you have to recognize that welfare should offer a hand-up, delivering incentives and rewards, rather than punishing those who strive to rise above their difficulties.

Either way, capitalism is doomed if we don't address growing inequality, because if wealth continually rises to the top (as is happening), eventually the tower topples.
ex PS
7th Jan 2018
8:44am
Yes Rainey, we need people in charge who are not afraid to take a balanced approach, or take the middle ground. Those who take a far right or far left approach show little imagination and make no sense to me. In fact I always assume that those who are far left or far right must be speaking tongue in cheek and treat them as a bit of a joke.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jan 2018
8:54am
I wish they actually were amusing, rather than dangerous ex PS.
ex PS
9th Jan 2018
9:00am
Rainey, they are only dangerous if people take them seriously, and those who do would not garner much credibility.

4th Jan 2018
5:03pm
Its never enough unless you have at least $2M and that exludes a fully paid off home
Tib
4th Jan 2018
5:13pm
Are we there yet. :)
Sundays
4th Jan 2018
5:53pm
You need a budget!
Old Geezer
4th Jan 2018
5:54pm
If you need $2 million you must have very expensive tastes or want to live to 130.
Anonymous
4th Jan 2018
6:04pm
I need to find myself a rich woman
Old Geezer
4th Jan 2018
9:25pm
Not the one that got rich by fleecing her late rich husband I hope. Be very careful of such women.
Tib
4th Jan 2018
9:35pm
Raphael if I was going to wish for something I'd wish for something else. You may be a liberal but even I wouldn't wish that on you. :)
ex PS
9th Jan 2018
9:02am
Someone with 2 billion would think they were hard done by if forced to live on a mere 2 million. It's all about perceptions.
Pratski
5th Jan 2018
8:28am
So a financial planner would like me to have between $12,000 to $24,000 sitting in an emergency fund?(see point #2) The non-worrying part of my retirement brain (see point #4) would encourage me to spend it on a bloody good holiday.
johnp
5th Jan 2018
11:29am
There is an old saying which still has some truism even to this day.
The definition of a successful man is one who can earn more than his wife (and daughters) can spend
The definition of a successful woman is one who can find such a man
;-) ;-)
Interesting to note that the "Beckhams" never wash underwear. They just buy new packets of them all the time. Suspect thats common among celebrities. So its really only the poor that are kind to environment .
Old Geezer
5th Jan 2018
11:32am
No wonder they have itchy asses as their is nothing worse than wearing underwear that has not been washed.
Lyng
5th Jan 2018
11:40am
The original title of the article that started this "wonderful, lengthy debate" was "Four Mistakes that will Wreck your Retirement" and it was based on "YourLifeChoices Retirement Affordability Index" that basically stated that 44% of people surveyed didn't think they had enough money saved for their retirement. Now I'm not advocating that there should be handouts/payments from the govt of the day to get us all through BUT I am going to pose some questions for those more knowledgeable on the matter than I. I read all too often about govts at all levels having to bear the burden of the ageing population and the drain on society. I am left dumbfounded and a little angry!! Even with my small amount of knowledge I knew I was a baby boomer when I was much younger. I knew I was one of many, many people who were born during this era; I knew I'd be working til I was in my 60's and I knew I'd probably retire when I was mid 60s. It stood to reason then that a whole load of other baby boomers could be retiring around the same time. In this day and age we have computers that can aggregate data, work out future population figures and identify trends etc. and so here are my questions (in case you're still reading and wondering when I'll get to them). Why haven't our govts (of all kinds and levels) cottoned onto the fact that they've had years and years to plan for this ageing population? Why haven't they owned up that it has been a gross dereliction of their duties, not to have had robust plans in place to manage this statistical bulge? Why have we only relatively recently seen anything like Ministers /organisations for "ageing"? Why are these people/ bodies not more concerned with providing care for the boomers who are sick and dying? Of course I understand why they focus is on wellness, I am one of those who wants to stay OUT of nursing homes for as long as I can. Why is it that we have to rely more and more on Volunteers to work with the elderly providing the care they need? Did they really not see this coming? Did they really not conduct impact anlaysis on areas that would be hit hardest? I'm talking many years before they actually did some of these things. How could they let this get away from them so badly?
Please don't tell me it's corruption because that doesn't cut it for me. It's 1 word that doesn't really tell us what happened. There has been talk of needing our tax and welfare systems reviewed and this is true, but if we'd held our govts to account all during the time we baby boomers were growing into this growing "burden" maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now, all blaming the retirees for making mistakes that could wreck their retirements.
Old Geezer
5th Jan 2018
11:47am
Governments only plan for the time to the next election and anything else is someone else's problem.
OnlyGenuineRainey
5th Jan 2018
2:09pm
Government decisions are made by people who are
(1) inept and tunnel visioned or just plain DUMB
(2) don't look far enough into the future (either because they aren't smart enough or because it doesn't matter to them)
(3) are self-serving
(4) are focused on looking after those who vote for them and finance their campaigns.
(5) are very dishonest, when false claims suit their purpose.

We know, for example, that a tax levy was introduced that was intended to fund our retirement, and we all paid into a fund that was supposed to be kept separate. We have cause to believe that it would contain a very large amount of money if left as it was intended - enough to pay EVERY retiree $500+ per week. So the government of the day DID plan ahead. Sadly, a corrupt and dishonest subsequent government decided to ignore that planning and use the fund for something other than what was intended. So, fund gone! Common sense says ''expect a problem''. Does a man with a family spend the kid's education fund and not expect a problem later? Does a family spend their house deposit on a cruise and still expect to buy the house? This is not even Finance101. It's plain common sense. But common sense just ain't common - ESPECIALLY IN THE HALLS OF POWER.

Nevertheless:
- to say we can't afford to support retirees is an outright lie.
- To say the cost of the OAP is excessive is an outright lie.
- To say that the number of OAPs is rising and costs will rise to become unbearable is an outright lie.
- To say that the aged are to blame for the deficit, because they didn't save enough, is an outright lie.
- Even to say we have a debt and deficit problem is an outright lie, because the problem is easily and instantly solvable. Its just that the greedy self-serving politicians don't want to solve it because their greedy self-serving supporters don't like any of the available solutions. Unfortunately the solution the greedy rich want - to cut welfare and starve the poor - isn't acceptable to the majority of the population.

Australia spends 4% of GDP on aged pensions. That proportion is not expected to rise before 2050, by which time superannuation will substantially reduce reliance on the aged pension.

Other developed nations spend more than double that percentage and THEIR costs of supporting retirees ARE rising rapidly.

In Australia, the government decided that creating a compulsory superannuation scheme would fund retirement in the future and take the burden of taxpayers. The government CLAIMS it pays out over $38 billion (and rising fast) in superannuation tax concessions to ensure this scheme functions optimally and to help people save enough to retire.

THAT'S A LIE.

People (mostly the well-off) claim that if you change the superannuation tax concessions, people won't be able to save enough to retire and they will need pensions more.

THAT'S A LIE.

The truth is that the government gives tens of billions to people who are so wealthy they would NEVER need help to fund retirement and certainly would NEVER need an aged pension. BUT it gives NOTHING to the poorest 20%, who need all the help they can get to avoid welfare dependency, and VERY LITTLE to the poorest 60%, the majority of whom could save enough to retire independently if given the help the rich get.

If we stopped the superannuation tax concessions, the national debt would be paid off in a year (assuming the saving was redirected to that purpose).

Now the government is saying we can afford to give $65 billion to huge corporations and that will stimulate growth. THAT'S A LIE.
The majority of that money will go to just 15 multinational giants. NONE of them are likely to expand their workforce significantly as a result of a handout they don't need.

The government (and the rich) claim companies will move to lower-taxed nations if we don't cut out tax rate. THAT'S A LIE. We know, for an absolute fact, that these companies operate in the Australian market BECAUSE THEY WANT TO. They have operations in other countries. They DO NOT base their operations where taxes are lowest - but rather where sales and profit is appealing. We can tax them in a way that ensures they pay a fair tax on all profits that are earned in Australia. The government knows that. The government also knows that 65% of Australians oppose the tax cut and almost ALL economists and business analysts - AND the directors of the companies themselves - have evidenced that the claimed benefits WILL NOT HAPPEN. The government even admits the benefit will take so long to reap and be so minimal that it's virtually worthless.

But the bottom line, Lyng, is that cop-outs and lies are easy. The government doesn't give a damn for retirees. It doesn't care about the sick or the disabled or the dying. It cares about the rich selfish people who fund election campaigns and the noisy self-interested lobby groups and media moguls that influence voters. And it CERTAINLY isn't focused on ensuring superannuation schemes reduce the need to fund old age pensions - because NOTHING in the superannuation legislation aims to do other than hand out generously to the wealthy and deprive the poor. End of.
Old Geezer
5th Jan 2018
7:57pm
If the government doesn't care about the elderly, sick or disabled then why do we have any welfare? Many countries don't.

Cut the super concessions and most would not put their money into super but spend it instead.

Companies will pay tax in the country that tax them the least and to change this Australia would be in breach of international law and all those free trade agreements.


No sense in going on about the old pension scheme as it was never going to be near enough to pay even pennies of what welfare costs today. Best thing government ever did was get rid of it.

Unfortunately many of your lies Rainey are in fact true whether you like to believe it or not.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
8:45am
You are totally misinformed, OG. First, your last point. There was MORE THAN ENOUGH money in the pension fund to support ALL retirees today - not just those who pass a means test. And contributions intended to go into the fund are STILL being made. We are all STILL PAYING. But the money is being stolen to use for other things.

Cut the super concessions and employers still have to make the compulsory contributions. Only the voluntary contributions THAT ARE NOT NEEDED FOR RETIREMENT and pile up cash in the accounts of the wealthy would stop. That would be a VERY GOOD THING. Australian Institute proposes stopping all concessions once the account reaches means test threshold. My suggestion was reducing concessions to 15% less than the top marginal rate that would be paid by the taxpayer if they were allowed ZERO deductions and rebates; cutting it out totally at incomes over $200,000 a year; and if the rebate results in a negative tax liability, pay that sum into the taxpayer's fund. That would transfer the benefit to the low paid and enable the super scheme to achieve it's goal. At present, all concessions do is feed fat cats. Better if people DID stop putting money in, because it's NOT helping fund retirement - which is always the claimed goal. (But of course that's OBVIOUSLY a lie)

Companies will operate in the countries they want to operate in. Sensible taxation would not change where they operate. It would merely ensure they pay a fair fee for the privilege of being here. It's been conclusively proven that the claim that lower tax rates increase employment and economic activity of foreign companies and benefit Australians is A BLATANT LIE. Even the government itself admits there will be virtually ZERO benefit from lowering corporate tax rates, and it will take to beyond 2050 to see any benefit at all. So why waste $65 billion doing it? To buy more party
donations with OUR money, that's why!

And finally, deluded old man, the government DOES NOT care about the sick, elderly or disabled. We have welfare because we live in a country where the public have some influence over government policy, and the public would not tolerate totally ignoring the needs of the elderly, sick and disabled. The government HAS to pay minimal attention (and it is minimal) to these classes in order to stay in power. In some countries, the government isn't controlled by the people and can do as it pleases. In others, there is so much poverty that the last thing the people are worried about is the welfare of others. Only a totally deluded fool would assume that a VERY BAD welfare system that costs a fortune to administer, benefits cheats and manipulators, and leaves the neediest in poverty, is an indication of a caring government. And just listen to their cruel and vile rants about the cost of welfare! Goodness, if that's caring, PLEASE DON'T!

No OG. You rave just like the rest of the greedy, self-serving rich and the gullible fools who swallow politicians' BS.

Try educating yourself. What you say isn't even logical or common sense. It's clearly the propaganda of the privileged. And nobody with a brain would believe it.
roy
6th Jan 2018
3:39pm
Where's MICK in this debate, he usually has all the answers?
Lyng
6th Jan 2018
1:27am
Thanks Rainey for a well-considered reply. Not saying everything you said is right but it certainly gives us all food for thought. We need more futures thinking people with solid fiscal skills in govt, but these portfolios are not sexy enough.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
8:51am
Lyng, sadly the people we NEED in government either wouldn't have a hope of getting in given the cost and complications of the system, or, more likely in most cases, wouldn't want to be involved with the corrupt vultures that dominate in the halls of power. Goodness, I wouldn't ever want to associate with the horrid creatures who claim the right to make decisions for the nation. I can't even stand to watch them on television, they are so disgustingly dishonest, self-serving, and inept.
Lyng
6th Jan 2018
2:21am
I guess it's also time to state the obvious. Successful and happy retirement management is NOT all about money.
• Retirement needs aren’t static, they change over time. If you shape the profile of your retirement, factoring in perhaps the first flush of wanting to consolidate finances, put travel plans into action and enjoy a different kind of life, as we age, we will see a tapering off of some pursuits. We may see less travelling, buying fewer clothes, streamlining activities or sports, accepting the need for less food /eating out etc
• How you keep active at the different stages of your life will change – you might take up Croquet, if you've been left with injuries from cycling, hiking, running, tennis, bowls etc
• If you become ill the whole profile changes and the fine balance between income and expenses does too
• How you keep up / manage your social circle will also change (could just be family if you have one). It is important to maintain social circles, especially as they change over time too.
• Keeping engaged with life in general becomes the goal– keeping constantly interested in something outside of yourself and your ailments etc. Stoking your passion or feeding your naturally enquiring mind is all important.
• Keeping positive in the face of adversity (not just reserved for the ageing I know) – learning to reframe events or situations so you’re not left with traumatic thoughts and developing phobias
• Seeing the funny side of things – not losing your sense of humour, and growing one if you don’t have one

Ask yourself the Deathbed Question. On your deathbed what will you wish for the most?
Will you lament not having enough money? I doubt it.
Will you lament not having gone to a little known place in Peru?
For most of us I would think that we would most wish that we had just a little bit more time to spend with family or friends, or that we had said something we think of as important, to someone we care about. These things I suggest will be far more important than money, to you on your deathbed.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
8:30am
I just want to leave my family and friends with happy memories of spending enjoyable time with me and valuing my presence in their lives. But I would also like to think I'll be able to look back, at the end of my life, and remember achievements that were worthwhile and activities that were enjoyable. That's a given, because I've already had a great deal of enjoyment and some recorded some achievements I'm proud of, but I hope there's very much more to come.

Money? It's a tool to achieve goals. Without it, your options are limited. Though there are plenty of ways to improvise, create and make-do, lack of money still imposes limits. The extent of the limits it imposes depends on what you desire to do and what non-monetary resources you can access.

For some, money MAY well be the defining factor in whether they die content. If, for example, their major life goal was to sponsor and orphanage or set up a charity or leave a trust fund to a disabled relative, or pay for treatment for someone with a serious illness, patent an invention, or a dozen and one other ambitions that involve high costs. So money MIGHT be important on your deathbed, but probably not for most of us.

I'd like to die as a friend did, with loved ones surrounding her bed singing with her. And in the meantime, I'd like to keep singing, keep caring for those I love and spending lots of quality time with friends, and keep working - doing what I love - for as long as possible, not for money, but because it is so fulfilling and it enables me to bring a great deal of happiness to others.
Cruzisuzi
6th Jan 2018
3:59am
Biggest con ever perpetrated by successive governments spending our pension entitlements paid for over many years by tax payers. Superannuation schemes were put in place initially to complement the aged pension which is an entitlement, not welfare our scheming pollies would have you believe. Having spent our pension funds they are now eying off the vast quantities of super funds and can't wait to get their greedy hands on it.
Bonny
6th Jan 2018
7:57am
The biggest mistake people make in retirement is have unmet expectations. People work all their lives for a wonderful retirement only to find it is anything but.

My only regret is that I didn't leave my job sinner as I have more of my time to what I want and not waste it on doing things to make others rich.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
9:23am
My retirement is wonderful in every way, but I feel sorry for people whose expectations led them to carefully plan, only to have the rug pulled from under them by a stupid government policy that promotes increased welfare dependency.
Robi
6th Jan 2018
10:41am
But Rainy, you have told us you are not retired at 9.33pm on 4/1: “OG. I work for a living”

And on 6/1:
“I keep working - though well past pension age - but not for money. I work for the love of what I do, and because I choose my own hours entirely, and work when and where I please. I think I'd still do it if it wasn't paid, but the pay is nice. It enables me to avoid dealing with C/link and to live as I please - including gifting to my children and grandchildren when it suits me.”
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
2:39pm
Yes Robi. I'm ''retired'' because I work when I want, where I want, and on my own terms. Sorry if I confused you by seeming to contradict. But for me, retirement is the freedom to live as you choose, and I have that now - after 6 decades of struggle.
Bonny
6th Jan 2018
10:21pm
Rainey having a job is not being retired. I also can't be classified as retired either due to my business interests.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jan 2018
8:27am
Depends on the job, Bonny. And according to the government and various authorities, according to the number of hours worked per month. I qualify as ''retired'' under the Government criteria.
Bonny
7th Jan 2018
5:19pm
So you must cheat the system to be able earn enough from a job to live and only work minimal hours so you are classified as retired. Even though I actually work very few hours most weeks I am not classified as retired under any criteria.
.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jan 2018
10:29am
And you have the gall to call me ''rude'' and 'offensive'', Bonny.

How dare you imply that I cheat? What basis do you have for such a disgusting and defamatory statement?

If you work very few hours, you ARE classified as retired under the government's definition. It has nothing to do with what you earn or what welfare you do or don't collect (I get NONE!) The government use a legal definition that relies on number of hours worked per fortnight.

And regardless of that, if I wish to refer to myself as ''retired'' because I do what I please and live life on my terms, so long as my choice of term doesn't affect anyone else adversely (and it doesn't affect anyone else at all!), that's my right.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jan 2018
9:38am
I find the illogical nonsense of some people astonishing. I'm seeing claims that we can't cut expensive superannuation concessions because that would top people putting money into super. And the same people say the changes assets test was good because ''those people didn't need the money and would only waste it''.

Let's analyse this using common sense, shall we?

Superannuation tax concessions: 80% of benefit goes to the richest 20%. They will NEVER need pensions, so the concessions do not help reduce the costs of retirement. So they stop contributing to super because the concession goes. So what? They still have the income, They are still wealthy. They either invest outside of super, or they spend. Either is just as good for the economy as them putting into super, but the government saves some $28 a year (and rising) billion to fund retirement for the 80% who DON'T have enough to retire on. So clearly no problem cutting superannuation concessions, whether it stops people putting money into super or not. Remember, the poorest 80% are COMPELLED to invest in super anyway via employer contributions. And cutting concessions for the rich would enable giving more concessions to the battlers - OR fund better pensions.

Now compare the assets test change. It impacted people who DO NOT generally have enough to retire entirely self-funded. It left vast numbers worse off than if they hadn't saved and deprived them of the benefit of years of sacrifice and saving. Response: Those affected spend on bigger houses or luxuries to reduce their savings and increase their income; younger folk reduce their saving to ensure they maximize their income. Welfare dependency increases. The welfare mentality is promoted. Any minimal savings are consumed quickly as more and more people see the benefit of retiring with less.

Despite this logic, some fools continue to claim that it's all about ''who needs what'', and people affected by the assets test don't NEED their savings (oh, so they shouldn't be allowed to benefit from going without or working harder to save - is that what you COMMUNISTS are saying?)

But, we SHOULD keep giving more to people who clearly DO NOT NEED the handouts - and would NEVER need a pension - because if we don't they will stop doing something that isn't benefiting the country anyway, isn't going to reduce pension costs - but is only enabling them to hoard more gold in tax havens.

Sorry, but to me it sounds like some folk either have a major problem with logic and common sense, or are speaking purely from a vested interest perspective.

And no, I'm NOT motivated by vested interests, because I DO NOT benefit from superannuation tax concessions (and never have) and I DO NOT qualify for a pension because of income, and if I stopped earning I would still not qualify even under the old scheme. So neither policy has any effect on me, except that one policy change (that the government REFUSES to make) would pay off our national debt, and the other (which WAS made) DRIVES THE COSTS TO TAXPAYERS UP and feeds an increasing welfare mentality.

And while we are on the topic, the Government also refuses to cut capital gains concessions, which it admits are driving house prices UP, are benefiting the wealthiest, and are costing way more every year than welfare and the deficit combined. But once again, 80% of the benefit goes to the richest 20%, so we can't tamper with that! Don't want less gold hoarded tax free in the Caymans, do we?
Bonny
6th Jan 2018
10:25pm
Many wealthy people I know don't put any more than they have to into super as there is simply better investments available that make them a much better return. Surprisingly the people with the biggest super balances are not the wealthy.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jan 2018
6:52am
Then we have no reason NOT to cut the massive and totally unaffordable superannuation tax concessions to the richest 20%, do we Bonny. And if we did that, we could reduce the national debt substantially and we wouldn't have to threaten battlers with taking their houses away from them to pay for excess handouts to the rich.
Bonny
7th Jan 2018
10:50am
I often wonder who these people are that get these concessions. I don't know of anyone now who puts extra into super since it was capped at $1.6 million. I know of a lot taking tnier money out of super as they are above tbis cap. If the rest are like the people I know then those figures for savings by abolishing super concessions are very rubberly indeed.
Bonny
7th Jan 2018
10:52am
Also what use does a person have for house once they are dead? No problem then using it to pay off a person's OAP debt with the proceeds.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jan 2018
12:03pm
Neither do the fat cats who rort the taxpayer coffers for billions in tax concessions need their piles of gold when they are dead - so let's take it all, shall we? Stop persecuting the battlers and show some respect, Bonny. We work hard for our homes and if we want our children to have them, pensioners have just as much right as the rich have to the massive piles they store up in tax havens.

When death taxes take everything from everyone, I'll agree pensioners should give up their homes on death - not until. And it's disgusting that people can be so selfish as to demand yet more persecution of the workers while the rich continue to party.

As to who gets these concessions, statistics say 80% of over $38 billion goes to the richest 20%. That may have reduced minimally since tighter restrictions were introduced - way past time!
Bonny
7th Jan 2018
10:43am
That Retirement Affordability Index December 2017 fails to acknowledge that a lot of retirees are doing very well in retirement even under the present system.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jan 2018
10:26am
Maybe because it's NOT RELEVANT Bonny. The problem is that most are NOT doing very well. And most of us are more concerned with highlighting and fixing problems than claiming that SOME people doing well means all is fine and we should ignore those who are struggling.

Then again, perhaps the Index SHOULD highlight the gross and increasing inequality in our society and the selfish attitudes of those who oppose measures to reduce it.
Old Geezer
8th Jan 2018
10:38am
If anyone is not doing well in this country then they have no one else but themselves to blame. It costs me considerably less that the OAP to live and I really can't see how others would struggle on it.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jan 2018
10:46am
It's that sort of arrogant, self-opinionated and uncaring statement that angers me, OG, and occasionally drives response that some might call offensive. It's disgusting to be so self-centred. It has nothing whatever to do with what it costs YOU to live. Others may be in very different circumstances, for a host of reasons. For a start, very few can claim to be able to live without owning a house or paying rent. There's a massive chunk of privilege that sets you apart from the battlers straight away.

There are some who have enormous medical or personal care costs because of illness, injury, or birth-disability. Others have huge costs relating to family circumstances - needing to contribute to the care of grandchildren for some reason or to travel extensively to help family in times of crisis.

Respectful people LISTEN to others and show them courtesy and consideration, rather than boasting endlessly about their privileged circumstances and dismissing other people difficulties.
Old Geezer
8th Jan 2018
11:04am
I agree those people are more than adequately looked after now too.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jan 2018
1:35pm
Who died and made you the universal arbiter of who is ''adequately looked after'', OG. You are very presumptive and unkind, and you wouldn't have the first notion of who is looked after adequately and who isn't. You don't even get the concept that most have to either own a home or pay rent, and either way that takes a massive chunk of one's income.

It really would be a horrid world if there were a substantial number who think like you do. Thank goodness most have more decency and compassion.

8th Jan 2018
4:44pm
They left out the "5th" mistake that could wreck your retirement. What is it? The 5th mistake is not being an Australian.

There's several countries with a better age pension system than Australia, but they number just a handful.

Pensioners in Australia have no need to whinge, and most don't. "Most" comprehend their good fortune. As long as a pensioner has good health, then he/she is on easy street. The single age pension is $894 a fortnight. If an age pensioner owns his/her own home then that's enough to easily provide the basics of life like food, clothes, water, petrol (pensioners get lots of discounts, concessions and even free things like totally free car registration etc etc etc).

We are very, very, very lucky we live in a country where life is so easy for the "vast" majority of age pensioners.
Bonny
8th Jan 2018
10:20pm
I agree. It would not matter how much those on welfare got it would never be enough. I guess if you get something for nothing then you don't appreciate it like one does when they earn it.
Anonymous
8th Jan 2018
11:44pm
Bonny, the age pension as I see it isn't something for nothing. Current age pensioners spent their lives supporting past age pensioners via taxes, therefore I see it as a reward for past efforts. The same applies to the current generation of young people ... eventually their children and grandchildren will be paying for their parent's and grandparent's pensions via taxes. That's how the system works, and we are very lucky that we have it.

The idea of the age pension is to cover the "basics". If a person wants lots more than that then the person can save lots of extra money over 50 working years and then live it up upon retirement. And if a person can't save much money over the 50 years (there can be a million different legitimate reasons for that) ...... then they'll have the full age pension as a safety net to cover the basics.

However, some people on "part" age pensions are really quite well off with quite large superannuation amounts, big savings and million dollar city houses. Age part pensioners like this are often the ones who whinge about their circumstances, whereas those who get the full age pension and who have small super. amounts, cheap houses, and little savings realise that possessions and "things" are not what contentment is about ..... these folks tend to appreciate the "basics" more.
OnlyGenuineRainey
11th Jan 2018
7:33pm
But, Jim D, there's a massive flaw in your argument. ''If a person wants lots more than that then the person can save lots of extra money over 50 working years and then live it up upon retirement.'' So how much is ''a lot''? Because if you save less than $1.2 million, for a homeowner couple, you might as well not bother to save past about $500K, because you get $0 benefit for that extra $700K.

People who save SHOULD be better off than people who don't - in direct proportion to their saving. Under the current system, that does NOT happen. Yes, many part age pensioners do whinge - with good reason. Having gone without for decades to pay off a home and save, they are worse off than if they hadn't. It's not a question of appreciating basics less. It's a question of resenting being deprived of what you worked for and earned honestly, while bludgers, cheats, manipulators and spendthrifts get handouts.
Anonymous
12th Jan 2018
2:35pm
No massive flaw.

(1) I said that people who have lots of money can save it and live it up. Nobody's stopping them from doing that, nobody's saying they shouldn't. If they spend it all, then they have the full age pension as a backup. People either saving or spending money are not flawed.

(2) A "lot" is anything over $100,000. A "big lot" is anything over $200,000. A "bigger lot" is anything over $300,000. A "bigger still lot" is anything over $400,000. A "happy amount" is anything over $500,000. A "happier amount" is anything over $600,000. A "really happy amount" is $700,000. A "really, really happy amount is anything over $800,000. A "gorgeous amount" is anything over 1 million dollars. A "truly gorgeous amount" is anything over 1 and 1/2 million dollars. A "wonderfully gorgeous amount" is anything over 2 million dollars. A "heavenly amount" is anything over 3 million dollars. And finally a "very heavenly amount" is anything over 5 million dollars.

(3)People who save, compared to people who don't save, are better off. Why? Because they can spend that million dollars having fun and living it up and when it's all gone still get the age pension. Whereas the person who did not save "can't" live it up and has the age pension and nothing else. Yep, the richer folks are WAY better off.

Nobody whinges like a well off person with hundreds of thousands of dollars in their savings. They believe they are "entitled", and after they spend their wealth resent being paid the same pension amount as pensioners who didn't amass half a million dollars.
TREBOR
11th Jan 2018
3:23pm
i) Yielding to government at any level when they pressure you to down-size or sell off your assets to fund your retirement.

ii) Choosing any advisor associated in any way with the Big Four Banks etc.

iii) Accept anything Centrelink tells you at face value.

iv) Continue to vote for either of the major parties in this nation.

That's it in a nutshell.


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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