the savings nightmare

THE SAVINGS NIGHTMARE

Imagine around twenty years from now you decide that it’s time to retire, to do all those things that you have not been able to do because you have been working all your life bringing up the children and paying off a mortgage. The vast majority quickly discover that they will not have enough money to maintain their current lifestyle and many will not even be able to afford the basics without some form of Government support. On current projections, in Australia within a short period of time around 80% of retirees or around 20% of the projected population will be living on under $12,000 per year.

In New Zealand where there is no compulsory superannuation and coupled with lower incomes the situation is even more bleak. Nearly all Western countries are facing similar problems. In the United States people have fewer savings than Australians and their debt ratios are far higher. The Baby Boomers may well cripple some countries.

If the current predictions are true, then what effect will this have on Australia and New Zealand? Here we come to the second problem; thirty years ago the average family was having three children. Today only two out of four couples marry and only two out of four have children. We are also having children at a much later age today where the average first time mums are 30 compared to 21 thirty years ago. With many professional women starting families in their late thirties. What this means, is that we are not replacing our current population.

If we follow the facts through, it will indicate that we will not have enough people in the workforce to fill all the jobs. This means that there will be less tax payers than there are today. So with the number of people aged over 65 doubling in the next twenty years, where are the funds coming from to support them?
Although a GST will help, if people are spending less then there is less money in circulation and less being collected in taxes.

Rather than retire, many Australians and New Zealanders will have to work far longer than they do at present. That is, if people wish to maintain something close to the lifestyle they have today.
So what can we do about these issues? Firstly and most importantly we must save more. We cannot keep spending more than we earn. That is the quickest way to go broke. The 9 percent superannuation is not enough. If you are hoping to live at least 20 years in retirement on an income of around $50,000 per year you will need around one million dollars in either invested funds or property. That’s cleared funds without debt. There is no other option. The government in Australia could do far more to encourage long term savings. In New Zealand when it comes to property investment they have no capital gains tax, no stamp duty, and the rate of depreciation is double compared to Australia. This encourages New Zealanders to save. In the United States all mortgages are tax deductible, in other words you can negatively gear your own home. The taxes in Australia are simply too high. The Australian government must make significant changes to our tax system to encourage us to save. If they fail to do this most of us will face a bleak future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nigel,

Wouldn't you consider this to be spam?

Bit too much like an advertorial - and some of your information is factually wrong - perhaps you could, at least, remove the blatant advertising in the final paragraph

Cheers
 
Changed Ending

I have changed the ending it was off my website

However the issues are real and until the government puts more incentives for people to save the problem will remain
 
Hi Nigel,

You want super to go up but taxes to go down?

Do you think the average leeming can forge it's own path?

No doubt the government is aware of the problems we will be facing "moving forward" hence the recent changes to Taxes, Superannuation & Retirement ages

The Superannuation Guarantee rate will be increased gradually with increments of 0.25 percentage points on 1 July 2013 and 1 July 2014. Further increments of 0.5 percentage points will apply annually up to 2019-20, when the SG rate will be set at 12 per cent.

The retirement age is currently 60 for women and 65 for men but it will increase to 67 years of age for both men and women in 2023. The changes will also increase gradually.

"From 1 July 2017, the qualifying age for Age Pension will increase from 65 to 65.5 years. The qualifying age for Age Pension will then rise by 6 months every 2 years, reaching 67 by 1 July 2023."

It's happening in many countries (remember the riots in France when they raised the retirement age from 60 to 62).

Regardless, It doesn't sound like much of a after-work party to me and I hope not to be relying solely on the governments plans to fund me in my "golden years".

I also think there is no way I can 'save' my way to retirement :confused:
 
On current projections, in Australia within a short period of time around 80% of retirees or around 20% of the projected population will be living on under $12,000 per year.

Not quite?

They would qualify for a part pension on top of the 12K bumping up what they live on dramatically (just a single person's pension is 18K not inc. other freebies).

Not satisfactory for most here, but lots of people live on less now, because they have much less or no super at all.
 
Now, I'm pretty certain there is an age cut-off date for the pension, am I right? I remember vividly that I will not be elightable to receive the pension by the time I retire. Anyone have any more info on this>?

I don't see how this is going to work though, many people will be homeless, right? And Today Tonight will do a story on them and try to change the Government's mind :D
 
Now, I'm pretty certain there is an age cut-off date for the pension, am I right? I remember vividly that I will not be elightable to receive the pension by the time I retire. Anyone have any more info on this>?

I don't see how this is going to work though, many people will be homeless, right? And Today Tonight will do a story on them and try to change the Government's mind :D

are you saying the pension will not be available at all for people born after a certain date? if so you're wrong.

you may be getting confused with the government raising the eligible age from 65 to 67, which is being phased in over a long period. if you're born after 1957, then you are not eligible till 67 yrs old.
 
are you saying the pension will not be available at all for people born after a certain date? if so you're wrong.

you may be getting confused with the government raising the eligible age from 65 to 67, which is being phased in over a long period. if you're born after 1957, then you are not eligible till 67 yrs old.

Like investor, I also remember something about rule changes where after a certain date, there wont be a pension cause we should have superannuation. It wasnt just a raise in the eligible age.
But I dont remember the details....... maybe it was just a policy and never made it into law?
 
I think the idea that by the time we get to retirement age there will be no pension is one of those throwaway lines to encourage people to take responsibility for their own retirement. Then it was repeated so many times, that we all (hopefully) listened to it and started doing something towards saving or investing to provide for ourselves.

I don't know if it was ever based on fact, but on the assumption that at the time there were (something like) five workers per retiree, and by "some time in the future" there will be two workers per retiree, and blind freddy can see that this just isn't going to provide a pension to everybody who does nothing to get a nest egg together themselves. (From memory - someone will have the correct figures - maybe 40 years ago there were something like 20 workers for every retiree. Back then many people didn't live until their 80s like is common now.)

More like a warning from your mother than a statement based on any facts.

Good advice though. Hopefully it meant some people actually thought about it and got their act together and started some sort of "retirement" plan without just assuming the government will provide for them :rolleyes:.
 
As the self proclaimed frugal here, these are some practical solutions for seniors to consider:

Share housing.
Buy groceries in bulk.
Carpool.
Plant a raised bed garden.
Share utility expenses.

Many problems are solved.
 
As the self proclaimed frugal here, these are some practical solutions for seniors to consider:

Share housing.
Buy groceries in bulk.
Carpool.
Plant a raised bed garden.
Share utility expenses.

Many problems are solved.

Sounds like seniors should all move to Nimbin or Bellingin and join a commune, we could reduce the above costs even further ;)
 
your theme is correct, however id liek to see refernces to back up some of your claims, eg the 12 k per annum, the retiring generation. if you can put references in then it would be a good written piece
 
Sounds like seniors should all move to Nimbin or Bellingin and join a commune, we could reduce the above costs even further ;)

The point is, if the seniors have done nothing to improve their future when they had the chance, they have the same choices they had when they firs tleft their parent's home.

There will always be the ones who act surprised when they reach retirement, and can't understand why they are not better off.
 
re

Pension pay out is not the only cost an ageing population does. As one age, its more likely that they will be less healthy than when they are young. And therefore, they will need more doctor's visits, take more medications, and if they are unable to look after themselves, they needed a carer - and that means someone younger, and someone would otherwise work but now wont be able to.

So we are talking proportionally even less tax income for the government, and more spending on - infrastructure (to house elderlies, and hospital beds), on health (more visits to health facilities and pharmacy cost aka PBS), and public transport (many elderlies will lose ability to drive).

Now lets hope our mining boom last for the next one hundred years, otherwise you would have an added problem of stalling economy and high unemployment. IF this happens, would mean personal income tax would increase, driving our intellectuals overseas.

Warrenkh
 
There may be some young seniors who are willing to take in mobile seniors in their homes.
My grandmother died at age 94. For over 10 years, she lived with a lady who was in her early 60's. This lady provided assisstance to my grandmother and another old lady.
She basically received their old age pension.

That could help alleviate the shortage of younger workers.
 
Back
Top