the big risk in super is changing of the rules.
How much do you need to live every year?
- Thread starter sash
- Start date
the big risk in super is changing of the rules.
My accountant does handle quite a number of bigger companies and more sophisticated dealings than mine, so the ability to converse at the higher level is within him.
I would assume that as a professional in their field, an accountant would learn the skill to assess their customer and talk to them at the appropriate (financial) level.
My background is in professional golf - mostly as a retailer and as a teacher for about 30 years in the industry.
Now, trying not to sound conceited, I reckon one of my skills as a golf teacher is to be able to communicate with the pupil at their current level of knowledge - not their skill level especially - their knowledge. It takes me only a couple of minutes of conversation to assess where they are with this, and then I can adjust my language to suit. (It also helps if you know how to diagnose the swing problems quickly and correctly and can come up with a few exercises that can fix the problems). People recieve information 3 ways too; Auditory, Kinesthetic, Visual. The experienced professional can diagnose how each pupil recieves information, and tailor their communication to suit. For example; an accountant or engineer is often very left-hemisphere oriented, and like to think in geometric terms. They also are very visual, so the lessons often become me showing them specific positions and angles.
But someone who is more artistic such as a graphic design person, and most women (not sexist - just reality) learn more kinesthetic and auditorally. So, words using themes and phrases, or describing how the swing movements feel more successful with these people.
The engineer needs to see the plane of a "flatter" swing as I demonstrate it, while the graphic designer responds better to me saying "swing the club like a baseball player would - around your body".
The result is the pupil is able to receive the information much better and understand what you want them to do.
I used to assess the traineee professionals doing their teaching exams, and watching these 20 year olds in action giiving a total stranger a golf lesson was a huge learning experience for me.
Why? because I saw how poor they were at communicating to the pupil. The young trainees have tremendous knowledge, but no experience. They would often speak to the pupil like they were fellow golf professionals of many years experience, but the pupil might have beena relaitve beginner.
This is sort of what I mean with the accountant. He assumed my financial knowledge was the Mum and Dad level without really getting to know what level I am at.
This is common in all walks of life; my wife is a nurse, and she often has to sit and listen to a doctor discussing treatments and illnesses with their patient, but is talking to them like they are a fellow doctor.
I know it is a structure, but most people think when they put money into it they are "investing".
Many people also think that buying a brand new car or furniture is an investment, and what's worse; they even get told it is on the tv ads.
I've avoided this thread 'till now but I'm bored.
My thoughts are that you should have a bucket and an investment account. The reason for the bucket should be obvious: 'Tis those extravagances that you want to do in the first couple of years of retirement. I reckon your "bucket" could be reasonably defined: Assuming you are a stable person, there is only soooo much you can spend on your "dream" holiday.
So, assuming you are retiring on your own terms, which by my definition means that you own your home, have paid golf club membership, have a paid for boat which allows your form of sport, whatever "floats your boat" how much do you NEED after the first couple of years?
Let's list the things you DON'T need to fund:
While your income tax will still need to be paid, it will be on a lower percentage.
You are not paying off a mortgage, just rates and insurance, no capital repayment.
You no longer need to put 20% of your income into investments. Once you have arrived you no longer need to pay the fare.
You will find yourself ruling out much of your bucket list within a few years.
To be content you should budget a given sum for your first couple of years of "extras" and then I think you would be surprised how you would settle into being a grandparent and part of your community. 40k has been mentioned and that sounds OK for all but displaced oil sheiks.
Anyone who thinks they can become Wealthy enough to name their own retirement salary by borrowing money at the rates the banks charge and investing in residential property may be interested in this little bridge I have to sell.
My thoughts are that you should have a bucket and an investment account. The reason for the bucket should be obvious: 'Tis those extravagances that you want to do in the first couple of years of retirement. I reckon your "bucket" could be reasonably defined: Assuming you are a stable person, there is only soooo much you can spend on your "dream" holiday.
So, assuming you are retiring on your own terms, which by my definition means that you own your home, have paid golf club membership, have a paid for boat which allows your form of sport, whatever "floats your boat" how much do you NEED after the first couple of years?
Let's list the things you DON'T need to fund:
While your income tax will still need to be paid, it will be on a lower percentage.
You are not paying off a mortgage, just rates and insurance, no capital repayment.
You no longer need to put 20% of your income into investments. Once you have arrived you no longer need to pay the fare.
You will find yourself ruling out much of your bucket list within a few years.
To be content you should budget a given sum for your first couple of years of "extras" and then I think you would be surprised how you would settle into being a grandparent and part of your community. 40k has been mentioned and that sounds OK for all but displaced oil sheiks.
Anyone who thinks they can become Wealthy enough to name their own retirement salary by borrowing money at the rates the banks charge and investing in residential property may be interested in this little bridge I have to sell.
well they're right. for the average fund it's not a very good investment though.
I was reading the latest stats from ARPP the other day, Oh, here it is!
It's a good little piece.
Do your own research…
By 2023 the retirement age will be increased to 67 and the number of retirees is set to double by 2047.
This amounts to over 7 million people or 25% of the population, all with greater life expectancies… and, it is highly unlikely that the government will be able to provide anything other than a basic pension allowance.
Most likely this could be somewhere around the equivalent of the unemployment benefit.
It is also a fact that currently more than 90 per cent of Australians retire in financial circumstances that are quite different from what they would have expected.
So, how much do we need to retire and maintain our current lifestyle?
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), when estimating the weekly and annual household expenditure for a comfortable retirement, suggested the following:-
• For a "comfortable" lifestyle, a single retiree would need $702 per week ($36,600 per year), whilst a couple would need $939 per week ($48,900 per year).
Modest or comfortable lifestyles may vary, but the figures give an idea of what you need to spend each year.
Financial planners often use the guideline that you’ll need 60–70 per cent of your pre-retirement income, each year, in order to be comfortable in retirement.
A mistake people make is thinking that their cost of living will dramatically reduce when they retire. Some feel that 60-70 per cent of pre-retirement income isn’t enough and you should aim for a retirement income that’s equal to the after-tax income you earned before retirement.
For instance, a couple with salaries of $50,000 and $75,000 will take home about $98,000 after tax, so that’s about the level of income they should aim for.
A lump sum of about $2 million would be needed to generate this level of income!
The question is, how are you going to fund your retirement?
This is a good article for me, because I earn around $50k a year.
I will have $2Million in net assetts within the next 10 years so am all set by the time I'm 40, but I'd like more. Who knows what the future will bring, stuff changes all the time. I can see my wife and I taking mini retirements, rather than waiting and then even possibly not enjoying, or regretting not living like we wished earlier.
It's a good little piece.
Do your own research…
By 2023 the retirement age will be increased to 67 and the number of retirees is set to double by 2047.
This amounts to over 7 million people or 25% of the population, all with greater life expectancies… and, it is highly unlikely that the government will be able to provide anything other than a basic pension allowance.
Most likely this could be somewhere around the equivalent of the unemployment benefit.
It is also a fact that currently more than 90 per cent of Australians retire in financial circumstances that are quite different from what they would have expected.
So, how much do we need to retire and maintain our current lifestyle?
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), when estimating the weekly and annual household expenditure for a comfortable retirement, suggested the following:-
• For a "comfortable" lifestyle, a single retiree would need $702 per week ($36,600 per year), whilst a couple would need $939 per week ($48,900 per year).
Modest or comfortable lifestyles may vary, but the figures give an idea of what you need to spend each year.
Financial planners often use the guideline that you’ll need 60–70 per cent of your pre-retirement income, each year, in order to be comfortable in retirement.
A mistake people make is thinking that their cost of living will dramatically reduce when they retire. Some feel that 60-70 per cent of pre-retirement income isn’t enough and you should aim for a retirement income that’s equal to the after-tax income you earned before retirement.
For instance, a couple with salaries of $50,000 and $75,000 will take home about $98,000 after tax, so that’s about the level of income they should aim for.
A lump sum of about $2 million would be needed to generate this level of income!
The question is, how are you going to fund your retirement?
This is a good article for me, because I earn around $50k a year.
I will have $2Million in net assetts within the next 10 years so am all set by the time I'm 40, but I'd like more. Who knows what the future will bring, stuff changes all the time. I can see my wife and I taking mini retirements, rather than waiting and then even possibly not enjoying, or regretting not living like we wished earlier.
We need to have a pension assessment scheme whereby pensions are calculated on hours worked over a life time (excluding those that are unable to work of course).
Those that spend much of their time unemployed should not move to the higher paid aged pension. (investor2009 the age pension is more than unemployment benefits) and those that are unemployed should be working for it till age 67.
Now I think this is interesting.
Labour market economist Bob Gregory, now at the Australian National University and Victoria University, also has reservations (re the new pension age). He argues the change won't do much to bolster taxation revenues to help pay the growing pension bill. The best it will do, says Gregory, a professor of economics, is to lower the welfare bill.
"Among those men who go on to the full OAP (age pension) at 65, 95 per cent are coming off a disability pension or unemployment benefits. For them it is just affecting the name of their income support," he says. "And among those men who go on to a part pension, about two-thirds come off another pension."
Gregory says the notion there will be masses of people forced to work another two years full-time after age 65 is not correct. "If you take men aged between 60 and 64, only about 45 per cent have a full-time job. That's the average, so the number at 64 would be much lower," he says.
"The average retirement age has fallen for decades to around 58 and only in the last few years has it turned around slightly. It would still be under 60."
Surely the majority of these are not disability pensioners.
We should be making people work. Many of these are the real burdens on our welfare system. Why is this not being addressed?
Those that spend much of their time unemployed should not move to the higher paid aged pension. (investor2009 the age pension is more than unemployment benefits) and those that are unemployed should be working for it till age 67.
Now I think this is interesting.
Labour market economist Bob Gregory, now at the Australian National University and Victoria University, also has reservations (re the new pension age). He argues the change won't do much to bolster taxation revenues to help pay the growing pension bill. The best it will do, says Gregory, a professor of economics, is to lower the welfare bill.
"Among those men who go on to the full OAP (age pension) at 65, 95 per cent are coming off a disability pension or unemployment benefits. For them it is just affecting the name of their income support," he says. "And among those men who go on to a part pension, about two-thirds come off another pension."
Gregory says the notion there will be masses of people forced to work another two years full-time after age 65 is not correct. "If you take men aged between 60 and 64, only about 45 per cent have a full-time job. That's the average, so the number at 64 would be much lower," he says.
"The average retirement age has fallen for decades to around 58 and only in the last few years has it turned around slightly. It would still be under 60."
Surely the majority of these are not disability pensioners.
We should be making people work. Many of these are the real burdens on our welfare system. Why is this not being addressed?
Cause it's prboably not that simple, as 100 + yeas of federation leading to this have shown ?
We are humans, not machines... we aren;t mnmbers wher 1 + 1 = 2 each avnd every time
And as indiviudals, as much as we belive we do, we don;t underatand ieveryting nor their implications anywhere near as well as we think we do.
For instance, an a snon medical professional, I have no idea that it is Obvious" how many people claiming a disability pension may / man not be disabled, how would I know that ? If I were to actually be honest, I would have to say I supect or guess, not that it is biovusly true jsut cause I thought of it...
The most common thing we undertand and feel is still the basic "Why;'s he allowed an I''m not" like when we were kids.
(I think)
It doesn't have to be fulltime employment or the same employment they were previously in.
I live in an area with a very large number of international students and I see them in employment everywhere.
I know of some studying that are also working in factories full time.
I'm just not easily convinced a healthy person between say 55 and 67 can't find any work at all, at any time, at this age.
Those that can should be required to put in a registered amount of volunteer work, ie. councils - helping elderly, assisting the public, assisting generally in community services.
It shouldn't be shameful having to work for the dole, as many argue.
That's because those international students work for cash. I know a lot of them and that's basically their only source of employment. And this doesn't include those people who work for cash and also claim centrelink benefits as well - but that's another story.
Plus, if I was an employer I would be reluctant to hire someone who is 65+ - why? Because it's harder to teach older people skills and they are quite 'fixed' in how they do things. Their knowledge of technology and speed of thinking is also impaired - so it's not so easy to find employment for them.
Plus, if I was an employer I would be reluctant to hire someone who is 65+ - why? Because it's harder to teach older people skills and they are quite 'fixed' in how they do things. Their knowledge of technology and speed of thinking is also impaired - so it's not so easy to find employment for them.
But they're not the ones this article spoke off. It was referring to those on the dole and disability pensions.
Wunderbar, are you serious that people under 67 can't learn new things.
I think where an older person really wants to work, and providing thay have experience, a good work history and work ethic, they'd bring with them far more than what many young people can.
I think if you want to work you can find it.
My mothers gardener/roof cleaner/odd job man and the painter neighbour across the road are both in their 70's and both work fulltime (self employed).
weg - self employed is obviously not included in the scope of your original proposition. I am talking about people being employed by others, which is what we are talking about here.
Yes - I am serious that older people have more difficulty learning new things. I don't care about anti-discrimination legislation or what not - that is the fundamental truth. Have you ever tried to teach your mother how to use a computer or facebook? Mine struggles to even turn on the computer without help, no matter how much I try to teach her. It's just a natural biological function of being human
Yes - I am serious that older people have more difficulty learning new things. I don't care about anti-discrimination legislation or what not - that is the fundamental truth. Have you ever tried to teach your mother how to use a computer or facebook? Mine struggles to even turn on the computer without help, no matter how much I try to teach her. It's just a natural biological function of being human
Well go and pionneer the change !
What';s the point of pointing fingers and calling people names (direclty or indirectly doicalling them names besdies causing fights with people ?
Chagne the system if that's what you w3ant and people will follow the sytem hjsyjstu loiek they do today's systems
I know wthat's hard to do.. .but compalaining doens;t acheive anythign but noise, diviison and alienation amongst peopel who all ahve the same rights to live within the same society as you & I do.
Your opinon about the dole is your opiniomn, can you not accept that others' views in our democratic society are just as valid as yours ?
Honestly jaycee, where did I call people names and cause 'fights' 
.
Wunderbar, work is work, self employed or not.
This is what I said.
I'm just not easily convinced a healthy person between say 55 and 67 can't find any work at all, at any time, at this age.
Those that can should be required to put in a registered amount of volunteer work, ie. councils - helping elderly, assisting the public, assisting generally in community services.
A very small percentage of this age group may have some problems learning more than the basic functions of a computer, but that hardly makes them unemployable.
My whole point really is that the welfare given prior to retirement is a big chunk of our payments yet it doesn't seem to be addressed.
They often talk about the post 67yo being a burden yet not the pre 67yo.
There could easily be more incentives and programs to get these people working, which in turn would take some of the pressure off the system.
.Wunderbar, work is work, self employed or not.
This is what I said.
I'm just not easily convinced a healthy person between say 55 and 67 can't find any work at all, at any time, at this age.
Those that can should be required to put in a registered amount of volunteer work, ie. councils - helping elderly, assisting the public, assisting generally in community services.
A very small percentage of this age group may have some problems learning more than the basic functions of a computer, but that hardly makes them unemployable.
My whole point really is that the welfare given prior to retirement is a big chunk of our payments yet it doesn't seem to be addressed.
They often talk about the post 67yo being a burden yet not the pre 67yo.
There could easily be more incentives and programs to get these people working, which in turn would take some of the pressure off the system.
When you say 'find' work, that means getting employed by someone else in this particular context. Self-employed don't 'find work' in that respect, because they are the employer....
in any case, the pending retirement/pension funding is a big issue right now. That is why we're getting taxed left right and centre by Labour.
in any case, the pending retirement/pension funding is a big issue right now. That is why we're getting taxed left right and centre by Labour.
Reread the passage: Gregory says the notion there will be masses of people forced to work another two years full-time after age 65 is not correct. "If you take men aged between 60 and 64, only about 45 per cent have a full-time job. That's the average, so the number at 64 would be much lower," he says.
That is a simple statement without qualification referring to the whole of the group. It is you who narrowed the meaning and drew the conclusion that there was wholesale rorting of the system
I said burden, not rorting... btw, the term most often used when discussing pensions and the over 67's.