Retirees suffer!

[bugeater (Marty)]

Originally Posted by Merlin66

Re topping up super...
""People were abusing it to evade tax."" Hmmm no, not to evade tax but to take advantage of the legal opportunity to put additional funds into super which is then effectively "locked up" until retirement. The idea, I think, was to reduce the dependency on the Gov. pension.

It was being used for purposes other than intended, hence they changed the rules. It's part of the whole discussion at the moment around most of the benefits of superannuation going to a very small minority of society.

The whole dumping extra into your super tax-free while drawing a partial pension thing was just fantastic That's what it was intended for.

[Merlin66 (Ken)]

""most of the benefits of superannuation going to a very small minority of society""
Don't understand this one???
You pay into your super and hopefully get some benefit when you retire???

[Kunama]

Look on the bright side, if the money runs out and you have to leave city life behind in favour of a small cabin in the backwoods, you will finally have the dark skies you longed for for so many years.

I try to not stress over things that I cannot control.
Personally I think people have been fed an unrealistic line about how much money you will need in retirement. I retired at 55 a few years ago and find that life is hectic enough without adding overseas trips etc into it. A new granddaughter keeps me entertained for hours and costs me nothing.

If I make into my 70s and 80s I am confident I will survive as long as I have 1 scope, some books to read and a bowl of soup per day.

[Merlin66 (Ken)]

Matt,
I agree 100%.
But the medical bills, insurances, rates etc. seem to spoil it a bit.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Marty

I think the accusation that government will just take your super at some point is utterly ridiculous.

I made a comment along those lines earlier in the thread, and it wasnt an accusation, just me trying to remember one of the "thought bubbles" i had heard being discussed on ( IIRC ) ABC morning radio.
The premise was that rather than bring in full death duties ( ie political suicide ), that only any residual super would forfeit to the crown, as it was only meant to be for "your personal" use in retirement, not a wealth creation model to pass to yr kids. That would then allow people ( esp in the upper income brackets ) to only put away what they really thought they needed.
Brings it closer to an "insurance policy" framework model ie if you never need it, you effectively lose the payments to date..

It would make no economic sense for them to do so.

When does a govt ever do anything that makes economic sense????

Andrew

[Chee]

The government seizing your super is legally untenable.
But, they can tax any lump sum withdrawals.
Why are they not looking at increasing the capital gain tax on investment properties?

[AndrewJ]

Gday Chee

The government seizing your super is legally untenable.

Unless they change the law ( but i did mention that would take guts )
It was only around 1980 that they abolished death duties, so i cant see why they wouldnt do a partial reversal, as a way to collect a bit more.

Again, none of this helps address the original post re what happens to a person who is still alive and no longer working when their current portfolio is destroyed by a market crash. The current system simply doesnt cater for that scenario.

Andrew

[Kunama]

I often hear people complaining about property investors getting too many benefits and not being taxed enough, the complaints are usually coming from people living in the rented accommodation the investors are making available for them.

I recently sold off my last investment property at a loss due to the current economic situation but although I have paid hundreds of thousands in gains taxes over the years, I cannot get a capital loss benefit unless I once again make a gain in the future.

[doppler (Rick)]

Originally Posted by Kunama

Look on the bright side, if the money runs out and you have to leave city life behind in favour of a small cabin in the backwoods, you will finally have the dark skies you longed for for so many years.

Nice idea, but the health issues that come with age usually but a damper on that. My retirement age will be 67 but for the younger ones that is going to be much higher in the future.

[bugeater (Marty)]

Originally Posted by Merlin66

""most of the benefits of superannuation going to a very small minority of society""
Don't understand this one???
You pay into your super and hopefully get some benefit when you retire???

The very wealthy disproportionately benefit in dollar terms, because instead of paying the top marginal tax rate on their investments they pay 15%. They benefit most because their balances are very large and well beyond what they would need to retire on. That's the accusation. Don't know the specific figures though

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

The retirement age is when you want to retire.
The pension age might be 67.
Super can be accessed from age 55 if you retire.
I retired at 61. Well, I would have kept working, but no one hires 60 year old women when you can get an ignorant teenager for 50%.
They never seem to work out that old people actually work, and know all the shortcuts and proper procedures.

[Kunama]

Originally Posted by jenchris

The retirement age is when you want to retire.
The pension age might be 67.
Super can be accessed from age 55 if you retire.
I retired at 61. Well, I would have kept working, but no one hires 60 year old women when you can get an ignorant teenager for 50%.
They never seem to work out that old people actually work, and know all the shortcuts and proper procedures.

Ain't that the truth !

[glend (Glen)]

Same here Jen, I was forced into retirement at 61 despite being a well qualified and experienced IT professional and business consultant. Lucky for me I had a significant Super account thanks to rolling in a big redundancy a decade before. My daughter, who is an HR manager, has a lot to say about the subtle descrimination that is practiced in all major organisations to exclude older workers.
However, as there is nothing (apparently) that can be done about it, and i'm already retired (and you can't go back) - I don't worry about it anymore and just get on enjoying my life. Retirement is wonderful if you can make it so. No traffic to get through, no idiots to put up with, you can wear what you feel comfortable in, you can travel when you want, and you can get out of big cities!

Most importantly I can sit out in my observatory all night long if I want and sleep during the day.

Much more positives than negatives.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by glend

Same here Jen, I was forced into retirement at 61 despite being a well qualified and experienced IT professional and business consultant.

You're probably not waving the latest digital gizmo high enough, say "bro" or "like... you know" every second word. A nose ring or eyebrow stud helps too.

[raymo]

Heading a bit off topic, but I just wanted to say that this ageism is not new. More than 40yrs ago I was accepted for a prawn trawler engineer's
position, and told that I would start in a couple of days time; just had to
fill in an application form. When the interviewer scanned the form and saw that I was 36 he said " I'm sorry, you're much too old".
raymo

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Again, none of this helps address the original post re what happens to a person who is still alive and no longer working when their current portfolio is destroyed by a market crash. The current system simply doesn't cater for that scenario.

Andrew

I'm genuinely curious - when you say the current system doesn't cater for that scenario, what would you like the system to do?

[Renato1 (Renato)]

The article states,
"Statistics continually show that over the long term the best investment returns are found on the share market."

The All Ordinaries Index hit 5000 in 2005.
In 2007 it nearly went to 7000.
In 2008 it crashed down past the 5000 mark to around 3300.
And today, in 2016 it is 5050.

I wonder what the statistics consider as "long term"?

I know that for a more accurate picture I should be using the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index, which includes dividends, but that isn't easily available. However, from a capital appreciation perspective, the All Ords hasn't really cut it in the last 11 years. If one had the misfortune to start investing back in 2006 or or 2007, one may still be struggling to recover.
Regards,
Renato

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by Kunama

Look on the bright side, if the money runs out and you have to leave city life behind in favour of a small cabin in the backwoods, you will finally have the dark skies you longed for for so many years.

I try to not stress over things that I cannot control.
Personally I think people have been fed an unrealistic line about how much money you will need in retirement. I retired at 55 a few years ago and find that life is hectic enough without adding overseas trips etc into it. A new granddaughter keeps me entertained for hours and costs me nothing.

If I make into my 70s and 80s I am confident I will survive as long as I have 1 scope, some books to read and a bowl of soup per day.

... Absolutely ' spot on ' ...couldn't have said it any better...

Flash .....

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by Renato1

The article states,
"Statistics continually show that over the long term the best investment returns are found on the share market."

The All Ordinaries Index hit 5000 in 2005.
In 2008 it crashed down past the 5000 mark to around 3300.
And today, in 2016 it is 5050.

I wonder what the statistics consider as "long term"?

I know that for a more accurate picture I should be using the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index, which includes dividends, but that isn't easily available. However, from a capital appreciation perspective, the All Ords hasn't really cut it in the last 11 years.
Regards,
Renato

"Long term" to me means 20+ years traditionally. Looking at an 11-year period that contained a GFC isn't representative.

However, if you believe another GFC is around the corner as some suggest, and then consider the possibility that markets may never return to pre-GFC stability, then you might consider it reasonable to adopt your own definition of "long term".

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by MortonH

However, if you believe another GFC is around the corner as some suggest, and then consider the possibility that markets may never return to pre-GFC stability, then you might consider it reasonable to adopt your own definition of "long term".

I can't see how the markets would go back to what they were. The game has changed dramatically. Profit is now based on people's debt. Over production is the norm to meet demand rather than risking shortage. As a result waste and accelerated depletion of resources is everywhere. We live in a finite environment yet you're still only as good as your last gig. Apple coped a beating in the media recently because it was the first time they didn't sell more iphones as last quarter. The investors are not happy. Yet they're still making a lot of money, but clearly not enough.