Scott Pape tells why you don’t need $1 million to retire

Financial adviser Scott Pape outlines the retirement strategy ‘that works for everyone’.

Scott Pape tells why you don’t need $1 million to retire

Independent finance expert and top-selling author Scott Pape offers his tips to help everyday Australians build their financial literacy. The Barefoot Investor: The Only Money Guide You’ll Ever Need 2019 Update Edition, is being released to bookstores this month. He shares this extract.

•••

Introducing the Donald Bradman Retirement Strategy – why you don’t need $1 million to retire.

This strategy works for everyone, regardless of how much they have in super.

What we’re focusing on is getting you to a comfortable retirement …

As I’ve said, if you can’t explain your financial plan in 30 seconds – or sketch it on the back of a serviette – you really don’t have a financial plan at all.

Thankfully, there are only three steps to achieving a comfortable retirement.

Rule 1: You must have the banker off your back
This strategy only works if you retire debt-free … as in no mortgage …

Rule 2: Nail your number
You can’t retire until you’ve nailed your retirement number as a minimum (more money is better): $250,000 in super for couples and $170,000 for singles.

Hang on, what’s so special about these numbers?

This is the maximum dollar amount of assets (excluding your family home) that you can have and still get close to the maximum rate of Age Pension. At the time of writing, the maximum rate of Age Pension is $36,301.20 per year for couples and $24,081.20 for singles. And it will get you 60 per cent of the way towards your comfortable retirement number on its own.

Think of this as your safety net: it’s guaranteed by the government; it’s indexed twice a year to keep up with inflation; and it will be paid until the day you die.

In other words, if your assets are worth less than $250,000 or so – excluding your family home – that’s the gift that pension-age retirees receive from the government by virtue of living in the greatest country on earth.

Hang on.

From experience, I know that last paragraph has probably made you spit out your Tetley’s tea, especially if you’re what’s known as an ‘in-betweener’ – someone who has slogged away and saved up enough money in super that you don’t qualify for the pension, but not enough to be ‘rich’.

I have two answers for you:

First, you will always be ahead financially if you don’t need to qualify for the Age Pension. That’s the way the system’s designed – as a safety net only.

Second, as someone who pays my fair share of taxes – something I’ll continue to do for decades to come – the idea of ‘welfare’ rubs me the wrong way. I’m certainly not planning on relying on the pension in my retirement. And anyone under the age of 50 who reads this book and puts in place the Barefoot Steps won’t have to either.

However, I’m a financial adviser, not a politician, and my job is to help you, your family and friends live comfortably within the rules. In my opinion, the government will not get rid of the Age Pension (besides, comparatively, Australia spends less on its pension safety net than many other countries), though they will limit who can get it. As they bloody well should.

Let’s take a look at the retirement scoreboard so far.

1. You’ve paid off your home.

2. You’re getting an Age Pension of $36,301.20 (per couple) a year, indexed for life. And you’ve got $250,000 in super, which will allow you to draw a tax-free income of $12,500 a year. I’ll explain exactly how to invest it in the next few pages.

So, you’re now at $48,801.20 per year. Even better, this money is guaranteed to keep up with inflation, and it’ll last until the day you call stumps.

And you’re closing in on your ‘comfortable’ target of $60,997 for a couple.

Let’s keep going.

Rule 3: Never, ever retire
It’s said that the two most dangerous years of your life are the year you’re born and the year you retire.

Well, it looks like you made it through the first one, so let’s talk about the second.

The golden rule of retirement is … keep working.

That doesn’t mean you have to keep your existing job (especially if you’re a tiler with dodgy knees).

You can do something less labour-intensive – just a day or so a week, and it doesn’t need to be every week.

Work is good for you: retirees who continue doing some kind of part-time work are found to be the happiest and the least likely to suffer depression.

Why not use the skills you’ve honed over your career to do some useful work?

I meet so many Uber drivers who are well-to-do retirees who don’t need the money – they just like chatting to people and earning their keep at the same time.

And better yet, if you do work, the government will bend over backwards to help you.

Once you reach pension age, you’ll not only be able to draw a tax-free pension from your super, but in addition a couple can earn up to $28,974 each without paying a cent of income tax (singles can earn $32,279 per year).

Yet, your adviser says, ‘You’re a winner, you don’t have to work another day in your life’.

Barefoot says, ‘Work anyway, even if it’s a day a week’. The biggest mistake you’ll make with your retirement is to give up working.

You’ll never, ever run out of money
Let’s take a final look at the retirement scoreboard, after you’ve applied all three rules:

1. You’ve paid off your home.

2. You’re getting the full Age Pension of $36,301.20 (per homeowner couple) per year, indexed for life.

And you’ve got a balance of $250,000 in super, of which you are legally required to draw down a minimum 5 per cent each year.

Now, after you turn 65, you’re legally required to draw down a minimum 5 per cent of your account balance – in this case, $12,500 of tax-free income per year. As you get older, the minimum you’re required to draw down gradually increases. Why? So you spend it … and don’t hoard your nest egg in a low-tax environment! And, if you don’t need to draw down the full 5 per cent to live la vida loca – and in this plan you don’t – you have the option to squirrel the excess back into super.

3. You and your partner each work just one day a fortnight (and not every fortnight – you’ll be in Noosa, remember) to bring in a combined $15,600 a year, completely tax free. (You can both earn $300 per fortnight – as an employee or via a side business – without paying tax or affecting your pension.)

Age Pension: $36,301.20

Super pension: $12,500

Work: $15,600

Total: $64,401.20

Are you on board with Scott’s strategy? Are you determined to never fully retire?

Scott Pape is an investment adviser, author, radio host and television presenter. He writes for News Corp newspapers and is the ‘Money Guru’ for Triple M Radio.

The Barefoot Investor: The Only Money Guide You’ll Ever Need has been in the top 10 bestsellers since its release in 2016. It is now updated and in all good bookshops.

If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Farside
    22nd Aug 2019
    1:31am
    This strategy should ease concerns for those approaching retirement but without doubt it will have its detractors. Working the numbers and planning ahead to minimise likelihood of pesky inheritance taxes does it for me.
    Maggie
    22nd Aug 2019
    11:45am
    Why don't you write to the barefoot man via the Sunday Herald. You may get your letter published and answered with great strategies. We could all benefit from the reply.
    Farside
    22nd Aug 2019
    3:41pm
    Maggie, what do you think I need to write him about? I already have a spreadsheet model with my optimal numbers that I just need to update it as life happens. Scott Pape is not the first to write about this strategy. Besides I don't have a subscription to the Herald.
    Anonymous
    22nd Aug 2019
    6:29pm
    unfortunatley the majority wont take an ouce of notice of Scott...a very nice and smart young man
    Chris B T
    22nd Aug 2019
    8:53am
    I have a Doubt about this Statement:
    "Now, after you turn 65, you’re legally required to draw down a minimum 5 per cent of your account balance – in this case, $12,500 of tax-free income per year."
    OAP minimum age was 65 but now is increasing to 67 @ 6 monthly intervals.
    Wouldn't the Legal Minimum Age 65 Draw Down Requirement increase the same to 67.
    Chris B T
    22nd Aug 2019
    12:28pm
    PS
    If you are on New Start,wouldn't it be in place until you Reach the Progressive OAP age.
    This Minimum Legal Draw Down at 65 is Doubtful Now.
    Skiing
    22nd Aug 2019
    1:19pm
    The drawdown requirement relates to super in pension phase. Up to age 64, it’s 4% of the balance. 65-74 it’s 5%. Nothing to do with age pension age(at least not at the moment)
    Chris B T
    22nd Aug 2019
    2:34pm
    A person on New Start at 65 plus as OAP is now 66 is able to Receive the 5% minimum amount of Draw Down From Super as well I doubt That.
    New Start Will Be Replaced With OAP or you chose to use Super Before OAP age.
    Everything to do with OAP if Claiming New Start.
    This what was Stated Above The minimum and start age of 65.
    OAP age is now 66.
    Skiing
    22nd Aug 2019
    9:55pm
    You can start a super pensio at age 65 to top up Newstart if you like but the asset test is more restrictive than age pension so if a dollar over the limit then Newstart stops. So it is possible. You don’t have to be on age pension to convert super from accumulation to pension. You can do it before
    MICK
    22nd Aug 2019
    10:15am
    Advertising to sell a new book. On top of that you get personal bias.
    FYI Scott Australian retirees have been under attack from the current government since it took office. You may want to compare our pension system, its accessibility brick walls and its lack of generousness before you develop your bias.
    Perhaps remember that WE also contributed to retirement benefits for our parents and they before us did the same. Your reluctance to want to contribute is a sign of your generation and its ill founded beliefs that IT is being discriminated against, which is plain BS.
    We live outside the pension system but earn not much more than the pension equivalent. Its possible but its not always the wonderful experience you make out and on top of that it takes extreme discipline. It does however work.

    Work forever? In your dreams mate. You must be a public servant who has a 1 hour day with time wasting and coffee & lunch breaks the rest of the day. Try doing a difficult job, physical and/or mentally, and then crow on about working on until you drop.
    Maggie
    22nd Aug 2019
    11:52am
    Where does it say the author doesn't want to contribute? I bet he's paying a lot more tax than most people and it's likely he won't need to apply for the pension.
    This is not someone to be sneered at. He's full of good honest and sound advice. If he makes money out of the career he has chosen, bully for him. And if you take the trouble to do a bit of research, you will find that he plans generous gifts into the financial plan he suggests.
    MICK
    22nd Aug 2019
    12:13pm
    People pay tax according to what they earn. This is the (false) lament of the well off who believe they should not be paying tax.
    I understand the good financial advice as its common sense for the most part. Not much new there but a couple of things he said did not go down well.
    Buy the book by all means. That's the point of the blog.
    KSS
    22nd Aug 2019
    2:19pm
    Did you miss the bit where he says "Second, as someone who pays my fair share of taxes – something I’ll continue to do for decades to come – the idea of ‘welfare’ rubs me the wrong way". He is not reluctant to contribute as you say. But then you always have an opinion and although frequently incorrect, on you go.

    And Scott is Australian. He has also been through some very difficult times like losing everything he owned in bush fires and having to start again from scratch. And he isn't talking about working until you drop. He is suggesting as little as one day a fortnight paid emplyment. Many people do more than that as a volunteer! There are many good reasons for continuing doing something and most have little to do with finance.

    I suggest you go back and re-read the extract. Better yet go and borrow a copy of his book from the library and read the whole thing. For many people this is the first time they have ever properly managed their money. You don't have to follow his advice but at least read it properly before going off half cock!
    MICK
    22nd Aug 2019
    3:52pm
    You have a point KSS. My issue was the lament about paying taxes and welfare.
    We all pay taxes and the fact that some of this money is wasted by politicians is a tragedy, but welfare mostly occurs when THERE IS NO WORK available or people are incapacitated and unable to work.
    None of us should be complaining about welfare KSS. If we were in the position other Australians are in then we'd expect to be looked after as well.

    I will reread as I acknowledge I skimmed through and stopped once the whining began.
    dontwantwun
    22nd Aug 2019
    10:31am
    All very simplistic and mostly common sense.
    Made a lot of money for Scott though.
    Oldpom63
    22nd Aug 2019
    10:36am
    What is considered earnings? I have an annuity of approx $200,000 and I have an English pension of 11,900 (approx) both per annum!
    Farside
    22nd Aug 2019
    3:47pm
    you are doing very nicely if you are picking up $211,900 (approx) each year, more than 9x the OAP. You should be looking elsewhere for financial tips and traps to avoid.
    Horace Cope
    22nd Aug 2019
    11:22am
    Sounds OK to me. If you just accept the age pension and the compulsory 5% from super the result is about what the average wage is in Australia after tax and medicare levy. Industry super funds average higher than the 5% so, in effect, the money doesn't run out and the compulsory 5% gives a higher return. If the average couple has a car and furniture as their assets as well as some cash and super, the figure of $250,000 in super could be closer to $300,000. Maybe this article can ease a few minds as we have been bombarded with the need to have over $1M in super to have a comfortable retirement.
    purplejan88
    22nd Aug 2019
    11:28am
    i like the sound of this but would you be required to put in a tax return ? each component may be tax free but when combined would this be considered total income on which tax would be payable??? trying hard to get my head round this as my hubby says we will never have much in retirement as compulsory super came in late in our working lives. but there may be opportunity in the near future to boost our super balances.
    Sundays
    22nd Aug 2019
    3:25pm
    Drawdowns from Super after age 60 are tax free. They never go on a tax return. Income from working would have to be added to the old age pension but over 65s qualify for a seniors tax offset and you would also qualify for a low income tax offset so tax usually not payable
    cupoftea
    22nd Aug 2019
    1:01pm
    I believe the super at the moment is still 65 retirement age not what the government says
    cupoftea
    22nd Aug 2019
    1:01pm
    I believe the super at the moment is still 65 retirement age not what the government says
    adbob
    22nd Aug 2019
    1:13pm
    The numbers given here are reasonably correct and reflect the ridiculous situation that we are currently in where, as pointed out in a previous article, you are actually better off in retirement (income-wise) with less super, once you get above the "sweet spot" described above.

    The problem is that all this is bound to change, particularly if a lot of people follow the advice given.

    Don't forget that prior to ScoMo's sudden doubling of the Assets Test clawback rate the accepted financial advice was to *supplement* your part age pension with super and various companies and advisors showed you how to fine-tune the amounts to maximise the result. Many of those that did then ended up losing their part-pension altogether - others lost most of it.

    If lots of people aim to get full-pension-plus in their planning the government (of either stripe) is bound to change things to stop that.

    Contrary to the other advice given - to keep working - not all of us love our jobs so much that we would want to do that - many even struggle physically to keep going during the latter years of their working lives - others are just wage slaves and dream of nothing more than quitting for good.

    In those scenarios anyone with more super than they "need" might well take an early retirement - ie finance the early years of retirement with their own super - and then aim to cut in to the age pension on the sort of figures shown in the article.

    Good for them - expensive for the government.

    It tickles up the unemployment figures a bit, but at that cost no government will leave that in place for very long; in fact we are in the adjustment period right now. The only thing stopping people targetting the above is the knowledge that governments of both stripes are aiming to tinker further with the age pension rules with a view to reducing the overall cost of age pension support whilst minimising the harm to the donors and lobbyist interests involved, none of whom represent ordinary hard-working Australian savers.
    purplejan88
    22nd Aug 2019
    2:34pm
    yes adbob the governments of both stripes change the goalposts around super and retirement and it is hard to know what to do to plan ahead
    Priscilla
    22nd Aug 2019
    1:45pm
    The most important thing when retiring is to ensure you do not have a mortgage so you can live rent free. If you have to pay rent you will be struggling. Can't emphasise enough how important it is to not have to pay rent when retired!
    KSS
    22nd Aug 2019
    2:23pm
    Yep. Scott says:

    Rule 1: You must have the banker off your back
    This strategy only works if you retire debt-free … as in no mortgage …
    cupoftea
    22nd Aug 2019
    2:53pm
    He works for News Corp say no more
    Maggie
    23rd Aug 2019
    6:15am
    Why so cynical? He works for himself as you would discover if you did a bit of research!
    cupoftea
    22nd Aug 2019
    2:53pm
    He works for News Corp say no more
    Maggie
    23rd Aug 2019
    6:18am
    And instead of sending double posts you can always remove one of them if you click on the remove option which shows under your post soon after you have posted.

    22nd Aug 2019
    3:02pm
    That "step 3" about not retiring is definitely not for me.

    I don’t think anyone ever said on their deathbed “Geez I wish I had worked more”.
    Then again, some workaholics might have.

    I'm now very happy to have ditched my alarm clock & associated early mornings.

    Now that I know I don't need to rise early, getting to sleep is so easy since it’s no longer forced.
    Before retirement, I chronically fretted about being able to get to sleep the night before, & needed to take a Valium with a shot of whisky to help me sleep.
    Even then I would often toss & turn simply because I consciously tried to get to sleep, & this very fact often prevented sleep.
    I had absolutely no trouble ditching the Valium “cold turkey” upon retirement, since I’m not one of those weak-willed, addiction-prone people we hear about.

    I was never a morning person, preferring to stay up late at night & rising late, so it was a huge relief to now be retired & no longer watching the clock.

    Counterintuitively, getting up early in the morning is now no longer a pain in the *ss since I know I can, if I wish, go straight back to bed.
    Also, I’m now highly motivated to rise at a reasonable time since I now have interesting things to do like trying out new recipes for dinner, playing chess online, & share trading.

    The thought of ever having to go back to work, no matter how little, sends shivers up my spine,

    Thankfully I'm well enough off to never have to do this.
    sunnyOz
    23rd Aug 2019
    1:08am
    LUVCO2 - I totally agree with you. I was forced to leave my job that I had wanted to stay working in for a number of years. But I inherited the boss from hell, who was determined to get all senior workers out of her department (and fully supported by HR dept who were useless). I was 12 months off Aged Pension eligibility, but one day I said to myself 'which is more important? - a paypacket, or my health'. So I walked.
    I would like to get a casual job a few hours a week, but after numerous applications, employers are so blatantly discriminating against senior workers. Hell, it is SO obvious! I now make no apologies for being a non worker. I am single, I have worked all my life, first on my families farm, then in any job I could get, paid off my little house, and with little super. But I have plenty to do, find plenty of things to keep me busy, I don't live extravagantly, and I enjoy doing what I want to do, when I want to do it. Not an ounce of guilt.
    Sundays
    22nd Aug 2019
    3:30pm
    Good advice, but not everyone wants to, or can continue to work. Certainly not in their later years. The pension and drawdown from Super might have to be eneough for many
    Oldpom63
    22nd Aug 2019
    5:04pm
    farside
    I have 200,000 in an annuity which pays me 11,000 pa (approx)plus aus pension, plus 11,500 (approx) in English pension!
    Farside
    22nd Aug 2019
    7:29pm
    sounds much more like the income I would expect to see from someone on this site.

    Out of interest do you receive a full Aus pension as well as the English pension? I am entitled to a part Belgian pension but not sure whether worth the effort to try and obtain it given the SSA.
    Oldpom63
    23rd Aug 2019
    12:54pm
    I receive almost full English pension and about $100 shortfall on aus pension
    Plus my annuity payment
    Cowboy Jim
    25th Aug 2019
    11:22am
    Farside - if you are entitled to a foreign pension Centrelink requires you to access it. They gave me all the relevant forms and the Swiss pension people are sending me $115 per month into my bank account. Once a year C/L sends me a summary about the total amount as it varies from month to month because of currency fluctuation.
    Elizzy
    22nd Aug 2019
    6:17pm
    I may have missed something but if you get the maximum age pension of $36,301 as a couple and draw $12,500 from super surely you have to pay tax. Can someone enlighten me?
    Skiing
    22nd Aug 2019
    10:02pm
    Super drawdown is tax free after age 60. Only taxable income is the age pension and any employment income. As stated by Scott no tax payable until income over $28,974 each so almost $58,000 combined.
    Jocky
    22nd Aug 2019
    6:55pm
    "And, if you don’t need to draw down the full 5 per cent to live la vida loca – and in this plan you don’t – you have the option to squirrel the excess back into super."
    Persons 65 to 75 yo have to satisfy the 'Work Test' to make personal contributions to super (both concessional and after tax. To satisfy the Work Test, the person must have worked at least 40 hours in a consecutive 30 day period in the financial year they wish to make contributions.
    Scott's example of "work[ing] just one day a fortnight" wouldn't get you over the Work Test line. Three days a fortnight (in any given month) and you're cooking with gas.
    bobm
    22nd Aug 2019
    6:58pm
    I agree with Scott. Most important is to get rid of the bank for your house. I got rid of the bank approx 33 years ago.
    Designed my retirement around a super fund and OAP, only part, giving me the benefits.
    Retired at just over 66 (OAP 65) Money from the Super fund of approx 6% and 2/3 of the OAP. My Super has grown approx $100,000 since retiring even living off it plus 2 new cars.
    Just budget and follow Scott's advice however, I have not done any partime work since retiring.
    I worked P/T for a while before retiring and had a lot of PROBLEMS with CENTRELINK. My contract shows I worked for 33 hrs one week. C/Link showed 34hrs worked. I insisted that THEY make the adjustment back to 33 hrs. C/Link comment "It will be O'K" Like hell it will ,was my comments, NOW ADJUST back to the correct figures.
    If it had been the other way C/Link would be after my blood. Took 4 people 1 Hr to work out how to get the correct figures to match my contract figure. Left C/Link Office at approx 5.30pm after they got the adjustment correct, and at the same time I asked for a copy of the transaction on paper for my records. They were not happy bunnies with me advising I don't trust C/Link now do the adjustment please.
    Follow Scott's advice if you can and enjoy your later years without problems
    I always get a copy of C/Link adjustments before I leave the Office to ensure they do the figures and any errors THEY made them NOT me.
    sunnyOz
    23rd Aug 2019
    1:28am
    Bob - I can absolutely sympathise with you regarding dealing with Centrelink if you have a part time job. I got a part time job soon after going onto the Aged Pension, and the amount of problems and wrong calculations they made were a joke. The staff member I spoke with knew very little about the Work Bonus - I ended up showing them how to calculate it. I worked 2 days a week - the other 3 days, I was usually in the Centrelink office trying to sort out the mess and wrong amounts they paid me.
    I was to work 2 days a week - but before I started the job, I went to Centrelink and said I would be working full time the first week (for training) - then on to the 2 days. So filled out the forms - then received no part pension. Found out they had stupidly worked out that I would be working full time every week, the amount above the limit for pension, so had cancelled my pension! Trying to work out the back pay, etc was a nightmare, and there was actually 2 further adjustments, but it was still wrong. Was hugely underpaid, and in the end, the stress and worry saw me chuck in the job. What annoyed me the most is that Centrelink don't have to give you a break down of figures. I also don't trust them that in X years to come, they will come back with some so-called Robo debt and say I owe them money.
    Quite simply, I found dealing with Centrelink a huge headache, totally inefficient, and their staff - very unhelpful. Like you, I keep a printed record of every dealing with Centrelink, keep record of all visits, phone calls, etc. When I sold my caravan and tow vehicle, I notified Centerlink of the changes. I bought another car, and with the excess funds I paid to get a carport built. They had the nerve to ask to see the invoice for the carport, which I refused to provide. That is nothing to do with them, who I spend my money with, and how much.
    I also sold an investment property, only a very small gain, but I was astounded that they really only looked at the money I sold it for - NOT the offset of the mortgage I needed to pay out. That too lead to some lengthy to-and-fro, and at times, some heated discussions. The number of times they said to me 'you sold it for X amount'... I would have to add 'but that went towards the mortgage, not into my pocket'. They really could not (or more accurately, would not) see that. Was just so stupid. I too do not trust them, at all.
    Jocky
    23rd Aug 2019
    2:20pm
    You'd think, in today's 'connected' world, that you'd be able to log on to C/link via the MyGov portal and record your weekly/fortnightly work hours. C/link could then adjust your pension payments accordingly.
    Maybe that's too much to ask for? Well, they seem very good at 'auto-calculating' peoples' debts to them.
    Charlie
    23rd Aug 2019
    10:28am
    Try it, try getting a part time job at 65, experience and qualifications don't help much with part time.
    See how much a Toyota land cruiser takes out of that minimum retirement.
    Wait a few years and watch the appliances breaking down and needing replacement or the house needing repairs.
    Watch the electricity prices double over ten years.
    johnp
    23rd Aug 2019
    10:59am
    Have I missed something ?? Without reading thru all the comments I thought that the maximum dollar amount of assets to get the maximum rate of Age Pension was $394,000 in super for couples ??
    Not as said
    ""$250,000 in super for couples.
    This is the maximum dollar amount of assets (excluding your family home) that you can have and still get close to the maximum rate of Age Pension
    ""
    ??
    Farside
    23rd Aug 2019
    11:58am
    I think it is just clumsy expression. He does say the $250,000 in super is a "minimum (more money is better)". The difference to the assets limit would include assessable assets like savings, cars, furniture, investments etc. If you had no assets of value outside of super then clearly you could use the $394,500 amount.
    johnp
    23rd Aug 2019
    12:35pm
    thanks Farside. But agree it was clumsy of Scott Pape. Hope he sees these comments !!
    adbob
    26th Aug 2019
    11:56am
    I thought I already said this - never mind I'll try again.

    @JohnP

    You're right. Either the OP has confused the rates for singles and couples or else he has factored in the additional problem that the income test would pose if someone also had earned income.

    Although the assets test is the real killer you also have to keep an eye on the income test - because income at the deeming rate will be applied to whatever financial assets you have.

    Most people don't want to work in retirement and often even those who do can't find any suitable work - so that's not a big issue for most people.

    The main weakness in this article, apart from that, is the combining of the financial stuff with the notion that ideally most of us would like to continue to work - a notion which many posters have already criticised.
    grumpyoldwoman
    23rd Aug 2019
    2:28pm
    Heck! After reading all your comments guys, I am now convinced I need a Financial Advisor I don't understand half the stuff about Centrelink it was a battle just to get where my husband and I are now, let alone future dealings with them. They better have their books in order when it comes to our files as their not getting any money back from us if they have made a mistake! Centrelink, Government and for that matter local Councils and State Governments should be held responsible for their mistakes NOT the victims of their mistakes. Break the law expect the consequences, make a mistake be responsible for that mistake and wear it!
    adbob
    26th Aug 2019
    12:09pm
    @Grumpy ( I bet you're not really)

    Most people don't need a financial adviser and most financial advisers don't actually do what it says on the tin - ie give financial advice. What they do is take your money - invest it - take lots of fees out of the income and (if you're lucky) give you the remainder.

    That's in a good year.

    If your investment is heavily exposed to stock markets (most are) - then in a bad year you will lose. Far from being able to claim from them for having given you bad advice you will have a negative return and you will also have their fees on top of that to make it even worse.

    Ie you will have some good years and some bad years.
    They will have good years every year - at your expense.

    If you don't understand money matters much and your pension pot is not huge then the default fund of an Industry Fund is probably your best bet. I don't say that they're great but they are by far the best of a bad lot.

    Financial advisers will not help you with Centrelink. Best advice I have heard is to physically go to a Centrelink office bright and early in the morning - ie before the lowlifes have got up and filled the place.

    Some Centrelink staff are good people. It's not their personal fault that others aren't and that the whole organisation treats people badly on the whole.

    Good luck.
    grumpyoldwoman
    26th Aug 2019
    2:50pm
    Yes! I meant it, but now I have read your post! Good Grief Charlie Brown isn't better to get advice and learn something that MIGHT help than to just wade around in a pool of rules, thresholds, etc., etc., wondering if you are doing the right thing? I am not the sort of person that just "signs on the dotted line" haphazardly in fact quite the reverse. I just need to know what I can or can't do and achieve with the little amount of super we have (yes it is an Industry super!) and with the possibility of an Aged Care Facility coming into the mix in the not to distant future, I am odds to know what are the right steps to take or think about! When you know nothing about Super even though it is there(it is my husbands), and what the future holds, you feel like your life is on hold until you have to act....and then it is essential to know your options....thus I think I need perhaps to go to a Centrelink Financial Advisor to see what he or she can tell me.
    KB
    26th Aug 2019
    10:03am
    Great advice
    johnp
    26th Aug 2019
    10:57am
    Actually Scott is wrong. If you are a self funded retiree you need more than a Million $$
    Greg
    26th Aug 2019
    12:06pm
    Actually Scott is correct - "....why you don’t need $1 million to retire"

    He's correctly saying you don't need $1 million to retire, you don't, if you have more you draw down on those funds and will (unless you have truckloads) eventually start getting a pension.