Percent of Population who have Multiple Properties

[Rixter]

Yep those average retirement figures sure are a very sobering thought for an investor who is well aware of the returns & income that can be generated from Property.

On one hand I feel a bit sad for them but then on the other hand they have all had opportunities to be grasped but elected not to.

 

[Pete]

JJ, am intrigued by

The slide show is from the regular seminar at the office I work at.

The fellow who gives the seminar has said ...

Wondering about the regular seminar.

regards,

 

[asdf]

11+properties 0.2% 1,940 1/10,000

1 in 1500 people own more than 5 and less than 11!!!! Not many people with decent sized residential investment portfolios....

Jimmy

I find it hard to believe that there is only 2000ish investors with more than 10 IPs. It has to be more than that. And the stat about 90% retire below the poverty line? Perhaps we are all way ahead of the wealth creation pack by being IP savvy?? Was at Bill Zheng's seminar on Sat and he said that the rate at which the mortgage industry is changing we're going to get to 50% renters, 50% home owners (no timing as to when though). My take is probably in about 10-15 years time. Still at 70%/30% right now from what I'm reading but more experts are promoting the benefits of renting vs owning, wealth creation through IPs, easier credit, yadda yadda.... We might get to some numbers like Europe. I heard a culture of home ownership doesn't really exist there.

 

[JimmyJames]

Sent you an email Pete,

Cheers,

Jimmy

 

[Rixter]

Sent you an email Pete,

Cheers,

Jimmy

Dont forget to let me know too

 

[JamesGG]

Originally Posted by geoffw
They might be able to survive a lot better on $25k pa.


I make a big distinction between 'surviving' and living....

Hiya,

For the record, I managed to live a reasonable lifestyle on under $25k pa during my first year in real estate (I wasn't a brilliant salesperson by anyone's measure!)

And, in doing so, was able to save and purchase my first property.

Being able to realise that you cannot have everything goes a long way to maintaining that lifestyle on that income.

Cheers

James.

 

[see_change]

I find it hard to believe that there is only 2000ish investors with more than 10 IPs. It has to be more than that. And the stat about 90% retire below the poverty line? Perhaps we are all way ahead of the wealth creation pack by being IP savvy?? Was at Bill Zheng's seminar on Sat and he said that the rate at which the mortgage industry is changing we're going to get to 50% renters, 50% home owners (no timing as to when though). My take is probably in about 10-15 years time. Still at 70%/30% right now from what I'm reading but more experts are promoting the benefits of renting vs owning, wealth creation through IPs, easier credit, yadda yadda.... We might get to some numbers like Europe. I heard a culture of home ownership doesn't really exist there.

I must admit that I'd be suprised if there was only 2000 property owners with more that 10 IP's , but then I realised we don't own more than ten.... our trust do. I wonder if they're talking about direct ownership , or control.

See Change

 

[Peter Parker]

I don't know if that is a fair limit to put on a "poverty line".

If you were young, with no house and possibly very few possessions, it would be very hard to survice on that level- especiall if there were other members of the family. But people retiring typically no longer have children at home, they are much more likely to own their own house, and they have a lot of possessions. They might be able to survive a lot better on $25k pa.

Definitely.

A pensioner (or even a pensioner couple) who owns their home outright on $25k pa could easily have a higher living standard than a younger working couple on $40k (or maybe even $50k pa) who is paying off a home.

This could be for the following reasons:

- The young couple (if they don't have kids) would pay at least $10k pa income tax. In contrast retired folk would pay little and might even get a bit back.

- The retirees would have no mortgage. Their only housing expenses would be maintence, insurance and council rates (for which pensioner concessions may apply). All up, only about $3000 pa if that.

- Retirees don't have many of the expenses of working people, for instance no work commuting costs or need to maintain business clothes.

- We are a generous society when it comes to benefits for Seniors Card holders*. Concessions may apply to basics like rates, car rego, water, power and more. Public transport fares for pensioners can be up to 75% off the full amount, and under certain conditions some trips (that would cost working people over $100) are free. Also many clubs and entertainment venues offer cheap pensioner tickets, as do services such as hairdressers. Doctors may be more likely to bulk-bill pensioners than working people.

Add all that up and $25k pa should (just) be enough to sustain a pensioner couple in 'frugal comfort', ie the same standard (adjusted by the general rise in living standards) that was the aim of Australian wages policy for working people in the early 1900s. If they want much better than that, then they will most certainly need to invest.

Peter

(*) As I understand it, Seniors Cards are available to people over 60 who are not in full-time employment (35 hrs/week). For many the Seniors Card would be such a useful thing that it would be in their interests to change working arrangements (whether it be working part-time, contract, consultant or self-employed) to keep under 35 hrs, no matter what.

 

[Rixter]

Beside the obvious age restriction is the seniors card means tested for elligibility at all ?

 

[JimmyJames]

Add all that up and $25k pa should (just) be enough to sustain a pensioner couple in 'frugal comfort', ie the same standard (adjusted by the general rise in living standards) that was the aim of Australian wages policy for working people in the early 1900s. If they want much better than that, then they will most certainly need to invest.

Is this not the poverty line???? The point at which you can JUST live in comfort??? To be living ONLY on a pension essentially means that you are poor, doesnt it?

 

[Rixter]

Is this not the poverty line???? The point at which you can JUST live in comfort??? To be living ONLY on a pension essentially means that you are poor, doesnt it?

I agree, thats why the govt is providing the hand out

 

[Peter Parker]

Beside the obvious age restriction is the seniors card means tested for elligibility at all ?

No, at least in Victoria.

The only requirements are:

- aged 60 years or more;
- a permanent resident of Victoria; and
- retired or working less than 35 hours per week in paid employment.

http://www.seniorscard.vic.gov.au/w...84FC0B11E04DCEADCA2570F1000B0588?OpenDocument

Thus you can have unlimited wealth, unlimited income yet qualify for benefits that not even people of genunine limited means (eg health care card holders) receive, provided you keep working hours down.

Just like the First Home Owners Grant, the Seniors Card is more to do with politics than sound social welfare policy, good economics or helping the needy. The distribution impact is somewhat regressive and it includes a mild disincentive to work (full-time). The political pressure to introduce these sort of concessions is a constant risk that taxpayers should be wary of.

Peter

 

[Pete]

Without wanting to diverge too much from the topic, there are probably different ways to measure the poverty level.

 

[redwing]

Reminds me of another sometimes quoted statistic along the lines that 1% of retired people have a wealthy lifestyle.

Here's a US quoted one which seems similar to those posted in Australia

Here is the latest USA Welfare department statistics;
Out of every 100 people that finish work after 40 years of working;
1 is financially free
4 are still working because they have to pay the bills
36 are dead (probably from working for 40 years non-stop)
59 are dead broke