What most don't know is the high end wealth in Australia is held in the 50-70 age groups,over 70 very low in %wealth,the same from %50 below, Labor would be more worried about that50-70 age group then any other..
Big demographic changes ahead
- Thread starter trendsta
- Start date
You've lost me W. Are you saying it unfair/greedy of 50-70 YOs to have saved some of what has passed through their hands over the years? I know with absolute certainty that had they failed to do so Gen X, Y would scream bloody murder and refuse to look after them. The gas chambers and ovens would be re-commissioned.
Will you youngsters please spell out clearly what you expect of us? You seem to resent that we still hold some property which YOU want to own (rights don't come into this, according to you) but it also abundantly clear that you have no wish to fund our retirement. If Mrs Fish and I are still earning an income, (we do) we are selfish and holding down a job that a more deserving "young person" should have.
Yes I am pissed! Too many mixed messages.
The only thing they have in common is that you seem to want us to follow the famous Antarctic explorer (a mind blank, sorry. Edit: Scott?) who's last words were "I may be some time." just before he went out into the blizzard when he felt he had become a burden on his mates.
Last edited:
If the 50-70s are the wealthiest group in the nation, then why would the government (or anyone ) need to worry about this group?
On another note, I cant think of any BBs (over 50s) who receive family tax benefit, child care benefit and baby bonuses. The mind picture is scary!
Because when they stop working there's no more income anymore so they're no longer 'wealthy'...
Yes they are. They still own all that property you wish YOU owned.
Yes, that's true. But when you are asset-rich cashflow-poor you are far less 'wealthy'.
In no way do i think like that all i'm trying to say is that age group holds the money,their is data out there from surveys the Banks have done over the past few months ,facts don't lie..
In very simple terms,what happens when that group stops spending,as a lot are starting to do..If the 50-70s are the wealthiest group in the nation, then why would the government (or anyone ) need to worry about this group?
On another note, I cant think of any BBs (over 50s) who receive family tax benefit, child care benefit and baby bonuses. The mind picture is scary!
You didn't answer the question I asked in bold. Just what do you expect of us?
Are you not aware of the Paradox of Thrift? The world economy has been in turmoil for four years now and anyone who thinks the Yanks and the ECU will ride to the rescue is a Pollyanna. It ain't gonna happen.
The whole world is moving into "thrift mode", at least the smart ones, so if you are unsure how you will handle us oldies settling down, how will you handle it when it becomes the norm, worldwide?
If the 50-70s are the wealthiest group in the nation, then why would the government (or anyone ) need to worry about this group?
On another note, I cant think of any BBs (over 50s) who receive family tax benefit, child care benefit and baby bonuses. The mind picture is scary!
A lot of their wealth (ie family home) isn't liquid. You may recall the seniors groups screaming blue murder earlier this year when it was suggested that seniors should be forced to sell their homes to pay for their aged care places.
the biggest rort at the moment is the preferential taxation of capital gains which is half the rate of income. Bad luck if you're a PAYG lemming. Next after this is the tax free status of super after retirement. Neither of these is sustainable in the long term. All the other handouts are just chump change and not worth thinking about let alone whinging about.
All this to me is very short termism. What is being invested for in the future ? Infrastructure increases productivity but no one seems to be able to build it. How hard can it be.
I'd like to see everyone paying their fair share of tax. Retirees and investors included. With current population aging and heath care inflation, people will have to pay tax in retirement in 20 years time, so why kick the can down the road. Just start now. If you want better health care for more people, it has to be paid for.
All this to me is very short termism. What is being invested for in the future ? Infrastructure increases productivity but no one seems to be able to build it. How hard can it be.
I'd like to see everyone paying their fair share of tax. Retirees and investors included. With current population aging and heath care inflation, people will have to pay tax in retirement in 20 years time, so why kick the can down the road. Just start now. If you want better health care for more people, it has to be paid for.
Last edited:
What would you expect? It would be exactly the same if farmers were forced to sell up.
In case you haven't noticed: People WHINGE!
But you are still sending mixed messages. What do you want us to do?
ps I don't know anyone who fits your description of "asset rich, income poor". If you own your home without spiraling maintenance costs, the pension is livable, provided you don't have the RSL as your second home.
Those that own just a modest family home would hardly be considered wealthy anyway - they're probably the one's screaming blue murder.
There are 'poor' in that age group just like there are in the younger groups who will also go on to own only a modest PPOR and not much else in their old age.
Those however, that have over and above the family home would more likely be more liquid than any other age group, ie. term deposits, cash, shares or other paid off income producing investments, super, etc., but for most it's money in the bank (why this age group prefer high interest rates).
They're also the ones most likely to preserve the little they have because they know how to. The elderly are more thrifty and have always had the knack to be better savers, regardless of their earnings, and have always had very little bad debt apart from the PPOR. IMO, their ability to survive hard times will be a easier than it will be for others.
All the elderly in my extended family have from 5 to 6 figures in cash (term deposits) in the bank and some paid off investments, and will hardly feel any of the pain associated with high LVR, high interest rates, high inflation, etc.
The Boomers strike me as being lucky more than anything else.
As member of Generation X, I was one of the last in the UK to get an almost completely grant-funded university education. (Thanks for that boomers.) My sister, who is seven years younger, still owes several thousand from her study. More recent graduates are leaving with £20,000 to £30,000 and rising.
There isn't really a solution of education or pensions. More people studying means higher spending in that sector, and the decision has been made that it'll fall on those benefiting. Retirement provision is becoming more expensive because we've got into a habit of living longer and having fewer children to pay for it. (OK, there are solutions to that, but being euthanised at 70 or 75 won't appeal to most.)
Housing will probably sort itself out eventually. I think that's probably the biggest issue (and gripe) for generations X and Y.
- Because the preceding generation is relatively small they don't have huge numbers to support in retirement, which reduced their tax burden. As such they're expected to get nearly 120% of the tax they paid in benefits over their lifetime.
- They were able to get generous pension schemes that have subsequently been proved to be unaffordable, due to a smaller succeeding generation.
- And they were at peak earnings when the housing boom kicked off in the late nineties or early noughties.
- Accept that in an age of austerity that the government will have to cut back on perks, and that the argument, "I paid my taxes for years" doesn't hold any weight, particularly if you're likely to recieve more than you gave. This is more relevant to the UK, US or Eurozone than Australia.
- Recognise that house prices rising at a rate in excess of incomes for ten or fifteen years has made it really rather difficult for the younger generations. Yes, there is some evidence that they're not as frugal as you were, but the sort of places you could buy at a given stage in your life are far, far better than a Generation Y can.
- And also realise that high property prices are an intergenerational transfer of wealth from the young to the old.
- As a corollary to the above, stop going on about how it was a real struggle back in the day.
- If you want a practical solution, then Michael Kinsley suggested that Boomers pay off the national debt.
As member of Generation X, I was one of the last in the UK to get an almost completely grant-funded university education. (Thanks for that boomers.
) My sister, who is seven years younger, still owes several thousand from her study. More recent graduates are leaving with £20,000 to £30,000 and rising.There isn't really a solution of education or pensions. More people studying means higher spending in that sector, and the decision has been made that it'll fall on those benefiting. Retirement provision is becoming more expensive because we've got into a habit of living longer and having fewer children to pay for it. (OK, there are solutions to that, but being euthanised at 70 or 75 won't appeal to most.)
Housing will probably sort itself out eventually. I think that's probably the biggest issue (and gripe) for generations X and Y.
I guess I would define the age pension as "income poor". There's lots of seniors in Sydney and Melbourne who brought a house in the 60's in what were working class areas and over time the area they are in has gentrified and they are sitting on a million dollar property but survive on the age pension.
As to far as what should be done I think it's entirely reasonable that if someone is going into long term aged care and they have an illiquid asset (and no other means to fund it) they should be compelled to sell the asset to fund their care.
Hang on! What has this got to do with the Boomers? We bought our houses in the '60s, '70s, '80s when prices were pretty flat so clearly it was not us who pushed up prices, WE never chased prices up. Look at the Double Income Delayed Kids, many of whom were too selfish (not a term I would choose, but you are finger pointing) to have kids to see who pushed up prices. And Gen X demanded far better housing than their parents ever thought possible outside California. Get off the boomers' backs and look more closely at Gen X who are over represented on these pages. Get rid of neg gearing and the pensions would be a doddle.
Unsustainable Pensions? Really? It's the middle class welfare that is unsustainable. None of what you guys consider your "right" was around when we were raising our families. There wasn't even pre-school.
Who is objecting to this, the oldies or their heirs? I would suggest the latter.
This simply isn't true. Capital gains was halved as a method of simplifying from the previous system of indexing cost base against inflation (which is frankly much fairer).
There's no point arguing between generations. Each generation (as a group) had some significant advanges as well as significant disadvantages.
Smart individuals play the cards they are dealt as best they can.
Smart individuals play the cards they are dealt as best they can.
Similar threads
