And then there is the real possibility that the retirement age may be extended to 70 in the not too distant future, as the Gubbmint see it as a way of saving $150b per year - according the to the teev news the other night.
When the Money Runs Out
- Thread starter Graemsay
- Start date
I'd like to know what jobs they think we will be doing if they want to sack everyone who turns 50?
Yeah i saw that. No pension or access to your super until you are 70. Anyone want to explain to me again why i should be putting extra money into super...
…so it can be traded on the stock market to keep the vestige of a healthy market alive.
I wouldn't consider myself a doomsayer..more of a realist.
We are headed for difficult times.
If governments would actually start attacking the problem now, the solution won't need to be as severe.
Lots of people want to stick their heads in the sand. This is the time when you can actually do something. Get your home paid off. Have food reserves.Just having money in the bank, may or may not be a good thing.(I think not)
I always like to compare a country to a household.
If we ran our budget the way a country does, it wouldn't take very long before we declare or be forced into bankruptcy.
When life expectancy is increased, pensions need to be delayed. I would change, that Super be accessible sooner, so a person can retire earlier (without gov pension) until they reach that age.
In Canada ours is called a RRSP (registered retirement pension plan)
By the age of 71 we must start withdrawing a certain percentage (9%, I think) and it must be completely depleted by age 91.
Governments also need to stop rewarding people who refuse to save for retirement, by allowing "low income" supplements.
Treat them like children who refused to do their extra chores...they don't get extra pay.
When all the Baby Boomers are dead, the Gen Y will be complaining about the drain Gen X are to their economy...and so forth.
We are headed for difficult times.
If governments would actually start attacking the problem now, the solution won't need to be as severe.
Lots of people want to stick their heads in the sand. This is the time when you can actually do something. Get your home paid off. Have food reserves.Just having money in the bank, may or may not be a good thing.(I think not)
I always like to compare a country to a household.
If we ran our budget the way a country does, it wouldn't take very long before we declare or be forced into bankruptcy.
When life expectancy is increased, pensions need to be delayed. I would change, that Super be accessible sooner, so a person can retire earlier (without gov pension) until they reach that age.
In Canada ours is called a RRSP (registered retirement pension plan)
By the age of 71 we must start withdrawing a certain percentage (9%, I think) and it must be completely depleted by age 91.
Governments also need to stop rewarding people who refuse to save for retirement, by allowing "low income" supplements.
Treat them like children who refused to do their extra chores...they don't get extra pay.
When all the Baby Boomers are dead, the Gen Y will be complaining about the drain Gen X are to their economy...and so forth.
The real problem will be in a few short years when most "BB" retire and go out of the tax system,out number the replacement under or over 20 years olds that are coming into the tax system because the important advances are the least predictable ones..
I don't have any numbers to back me up...but I don't think the generations following BB have increased birth rates to look after their previous generation.
It will be a continuing cycle.
The problem, always comes back to welfare, or too generous welfare programs.
There are too many people getting benefits, compared to the amount of people paying taxes.
They can cut tax breaks for all type of investment
Apart from for creating and running business.
No share margin lending deduction
No negative gearing
No 50% CGT concession for shares and properties etc
Dutch has 12b dollar hole with their housing deduction
And they are closing it...Australia has 13b hole for negative
Gearing and growing ... It will be a matter of when not if ...
Apart from for creating and running business.
No share margin lending deduction
No negative gearing
No 50% CGT concession for shares and properties etc
Dutch has 12b dollar hole with their housing deduction
And they are closing it...Australia has 13b hole for negative
Gearing and growing ... It will be a matter of when not if ...
Add to that a trend to employ folks on a part-time and/or casual basis, and the tax base will be even less.
What are the rent yields like, though?
Honestly, I don't know how to figure that out.
but in every case, you either break even, make a profit, or carry forward certain allowable deductions.
Our rentals are a combination of that.
When we first moved to the USA, I looked at the possibility of buying an IP or two.
Most times the yields were in the 20% range and more, which I thought was astounding compared to Aus, with our shiddy 5,6,7%.
Of course; when you look deeper, you need that sort of yield to even contemplate it there.
Rob's mum asked us about her buying an IP in canada, and we steered her away from that. The tax laws etc aren't in her favor.
As you know, I'm a strong beleive of buying close to where you live. Even though we spend more time here, I consider that I live there.
Our moneymakers are in multi unit buildings, and cheap mobile homes.
The remaining single family homes will be moneymakers, in about 10 years, when we have their mortgages paid off.
Do you employ the same risk mitigation strategies in your profession? I'll certainly be looking you up for my next home loan
Thanks
But have no idea what you mean?
Interesting! I assume this is financilally rich you are referring to. I think theoratically yes, but firstly you have to set the standard of what rich is because humans always want more. When we are all rich, there will always be people richer than you and according to the new standard, you will be relatively poor.
Secondly, some people just cant get the level of education and knowledge required because of their family/country situation. And it wont be anytime soon that their circumstances will change.
Also, most people will not be able to have the discipline and motivation to do what is required. Becoming rich requires a lot of commitment and they want instant gratification. Look at the amount of dole bludgers in australia
. And what if they dont want to be rich by choice eg buddhist monk.So imo, 'anybody' can be rich in a free country like australia.
" where there is a will, there is a way"
Cheers
Allan
Interesting! I assume this is financilally rich you are referring to. I think theoratically yes, but firstly you have to set the standard of what rich is because humans always want more. When we are all rich, there will always be people richer than you and according to the new standard, you will be relatively poor.
Secondly, some people just cant get the level of education and knowledge required because of their family/country situation. And it wont be anytime soon that their circumstances will change.
Also, most people will not be able to have the discipline and motivation to do what is required. Becoming rich requires a lot of commitment and they want instant gratification. Look at the amount of dole bludgers in australia
So imo, 'anybody' can be rich in a free country like australia.
" where there is a will, there is a way"
Cheers
Allan
Thanks Allan,
I guess it was a bit of a vague question. In Australia I think anyone can be 'rich' if they make an effort. Not everyone would make the effort though - for various reasons.
