# How much wealth is enough?



## burglar (9 December 2012)

Not in a position to curtail my acquisition stragedy!
I am not yet, well off.
But some time into the future, 
I hope to be in reach of obscene wealth.

It won't buy me a better steak.
My wants/needs in a car are modest.

I don't care for a mansion!

So. How much wealth is enough?


----------



## WilkensOne (9 December 2012)

burglar said:


> Not in a position to curtail my acquisition stragedy!
> I am not yet, well off.
> But some time into the future,
> I hope to be in reach of obscene wealth.
> ...




Questions like these are always interesting, especially with responses from people who may have already achieved their opinion of wealth and I am not in that boat =P

For me, enough places me in a position where I have things that are important to me, can spend time doing things I enjoy and have enough 'wealth' that I can use to do things for other people around me. 

Real specific I know, but I think it is something that until you achieve it, it may be hard to define, unless you just want $10m 

Wilkens


----------



## tech/a (10 December 2012)

If you own your own home and want to generate $100k a year in passive income
And are able to generate 
6% a year that's around $1,7 mill
10 % a year that's $1 mill

Figures alter with income required and return achievable.
Of course you can supplement a passive income with some
Earnings and you can even include some drawdown on capital
Funds if you don want to eat into you nest egg.

There comes a time in life where this question is very pertinent.
Now is that Time for me.


----------



## burglar (10 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> ... you can even include some drawdown on capital ...





Thanks tech/a,

I forgot to include drawdown on capital.   :


----------



## minwa (10 December 2012)

If you are achieving 6% a year you shouldn't really have draw downs. Nothing wrong with 6%, but it is just not worth it if experiencing draw downs. 

The richer financially you get, usually unexpected expenses soar..So I would take what the value you think you need and at least double it. To me that's 20M. 

I see it as a progressive stage though:

Under 1M: Will work super hard and extra hours for job. Willing to sacrifice some sleep to trade.
Have 1-3M: Gradually cut back, no working on weekends and no overtime for job.
Have 3-5M: Looking to quit job/move into part time work or full time trading.
5M+: Will not work for anyone unless I really want to. May try hand at owning business, but only structured so I am not stuck in it..

I am 21 and proudly consider myself materialistic so these figures might be different to others.


----------



## tech/a (10 December 2012)

You miss understand my meaning of drawdown in this case.
Drawdown as in annuity drawdown


----------



## minwa (10 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> You miss understand my meaning of drawdown in this case.
> Drawdown as in annuity drawdown




Ooh I see, thanks. My mistake


----------



## sydboy007 (10 December 2012)

Seems these days most people say more, but never quite enough.

I often look at the bank CEOs and think if I got just 1 year of their salary I'd be retired and hopefully helping to make the world a little better place than it was before I came into it.

I don't remeber the last time I read about a rich person that seemed too happy???


----------



## notting (10 December 2012)

When you are only seeking to give you are truly wealthy!


----------



## BBBS (10 December 2012)

notting said:


> When you are only seeking to give you are truly wealthy!




I don't beleive this. Typical advertisement of people who don't really follow through. Not aimed at you 

Just enough cash to travel anywhere i want and do anything, so a few mill.


----------



## Julia (10 December 2012)

notting said:


> When you are only seeking to give you are truly wealthy!



Agree.



BBBS said:


> I don't beleive this. Typical advertisement of people who don't really follow through.



Perhaps you don't believe the underlying philosophy because you're not in that position..
Not sure what you mean by  "people who don't really follow through".
You might like to expand on this?


----------



## BBBS (10 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Agree.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you don't believe the underlying philosophy because you're not in that position..
> ...




Kind of like the fat person drinking a diet coke, its a stupid idea altogether. It's a term famous for being completely unfeasable, so to me its famous for being unrealistic, and therefore stupid. It's used more as a term of purity now, a phrase that has lost its actual meaning.

I dont know how to word what im trying to say.


----------



## burglar (10 December 2012)

BBBS said:


> ...I dont know how to word what im trying to say.




I think ya did!


----------



## Julia (10 December 2012)

notting said:


> When you are only seeking to give you are truly wealthy!






BBBS said:


> Kind of like the fat person drinking a diet coke, its a stupid idea altogether. It's a term famous for being completely unfeasable, so to me its famous for being unrealistic, and therefore stupid. It's used more as a term of purity now, a phrase that has lost its actual meaning.
> 
> I dont know how to word what im trying to say.



Well, I have no idea what you mean.
My interpretation of notting's remark is that only when we feel fulfilled ourselves, whether generally or just financially, are we free from the striving to achieve financial independence, and thus in a position to focus on how we might help others.

How this relates to a fat person drinking diet coke eludes me.


----------



## burglar (10 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Well, I have no idea what you mean. ...




You all know how I hate to be rude.
I think the word BBBS is looking for is platitude, ...

No offence to notting, of coarse!


----------



## notting (11 December 2012)

Dear oh dear.
The last thing on your mind is how can I get more, if you are truely wealthy!!
You are abundantly wealthy if you just want to give to see the relief you can bring.  
Fullment is in that, not in hankering for more or worrying about what to do with it all.
If you are profoundly wealthy you know it's value - there are only so many hamburgers you can eat at lunchtime!
Caviar tasts disgusting.
'You still have to get on the treadmil fatso.'

Those that do not know wealth will instinctivly feel, "I can't believe Buffet and Gates are giving it all away, that's insane."

Tight fistidness is not a happy state, not a contended state, not a fearless state, not a state of feeling the warm overflow of wealthiness.
Wealth is a river, expect poison if your always try to dam it and intense fear when you eventually lose it, which you *will*!

'Never kept a dime past sunset, 
Aways burnt a hole in my pants'
_Keith Richards_ from the song - *Happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*​


----------



## Bill M (11 December 2012)

I reckon 45K a year for my wife and I is enough. Live on 40K have 5K left over for other causes and to be able to preserve all my capital without worrying about shares or property going down. That would be about enough for us and I might add I'm not there yet, still have to watch markets and the real estate.


----------



## Steve C (11 December 2012)

For me it would be enough to live comfortably with no financial stresses, have a nice car (car enthusiast) and have enough money to go on holiday's at least 3-4 times a year with my partner.


----------



## CanOz (11 December 2012)

For us it depends on where we settle. For Australia we'll need a weekly income of $2000, whereas Thailand is less, my ideal place. We will own our own home so that's not a worry, although my wife's idea of a 'home' is a little different than mine at this stage.

Not far off really...with some help from 'wise' investing.

CanOz

.


----------



## skc (11 December 2012)

Does anyone here actually know anyone who's accumlated enough wealth and is "Living the Dream" so to speak?

I know plenty of people who's achieved (and easily surpassed) what some are saying here ... how much $ per week, or how much total assets etc etc.

But not one of these people have stopped working / building wealth further. 

So I think it is important to ask yourself... will whatever you say is enough now, be enough when you get there?

My guess is, for 99.9% of people, the answer is no.


----------



## CanOz (11 December 2012)

skc said:


> I know plenty of people who's achieved (and easily surpassed) what some are saying here ... how much $ per week, or how much total assets etc etc.
> 
> But not one of these people have stopped working / building wealth further.




I know plenty as well, but in most cases the reason they're still working is because they love what they do. Its their passion. That's why they're so good at making money from it and want to continue doing it.

That's the key for me...doing something i love to do, that supplies enough for us to maintain the lifestyle we enjoy whilst having enough left over to give away...

CanOz


----------



## sammy84 (11 December 2012)

I doubt there will ever be a figure which is 'enough'. I imagine many on this forum would be same.

The reason why we are here is because we don't want to grow our income passively. I enjoy making money. I don't see that changing when I hit a certain amount.


----------



## prawn_86 (11 December 2012)

CanOz said:


> That's the key for me...doing something i love to do, that supplies enough for us to maintain the lifestyle we enjoy whilst having enough left over to give away...




While i agree with doing what you love, and i enjoy my job, there are much better things i would rather do with my time, such as travel or help others.



sammy84 said:


> The reason why we are here is because we don't want to grow our income passively. I enjoy making money. I don't see that changing when I hit a certain amount.




I enjoy making money too, but if i could have a passive income stream of 100k pa i highly doubt i would continue to try and make as much money, see comment above as to what i would rather do.


----------



## prawn_86 (11 December 2012)

skc said:


> Does anyone here actually know anyone who's accumlated enough wealth and is "Living the Dream" so to speak?




My old man takes 3 or 4 holidays a year and then just potters around on the properties when he is at home, which is work but he sees as a hobby so it ties in with what Canoz said.

I think the main issue is that if you are not making money you are spending it, but from my perspective if i did have 'enough' passive income i would rather spend that spare time helping others or supporting causes close to me, rather than working hard to make even more money


----------



## McLovin (11 December 2012)

skc said:


> Does anyone here actually know anyone who's accumlated enough wealth and is "Living the Dream" so to speak?
> 
> I know plenty of people who's achieved (and easily surpassed) what some are saying here ... how much $ per week, or how much total assets etc etc.
> 
> ...




I know plenty of people who have way more than the numbers being quoted in this thread. While I agree that you should do something you like, I disagree that doing that automatically brings wealth. A lot of it is just luck.

My grandfather was fighting in WW2 in North Africa, got a telegram one day, he assumed someone at home had died, instead it was a publishing agent in New York whom he had never met telling him he'd sold a collection of his as yet unpublished short stories to the Saturday Evening Post (at the time the largest magazine in the US). That was a complete stroke of luck that changed the course of his life.


----------



## >Apocalypto< (11 December 2012)

burglar said:


> Not in a position to curtail my acquisition stragedy!
> 
> 
> So. How much wealth is enough?




For me 46-52K a month would be all i need!


----------



## Julia (11 December 2012)

skc said:


> Does anyone here actually know anyone who's accumlated enough wealth and is "Living the Dream" so to speak?
> 
> I know plenty of people who's achieved (and easily surpassed) what some are saying here ... how much $ per week, or how much total assets etc etc.
> 
> ...



I've already said that I had a target of what was enough, pretty carefully calculated.  I've seen too many people become obsessed with continuing to make money long after they'd reached a very comfortable level of financial independence.  Some also had been so obsessed for so long with increasing the total that they found it difficult to spend e.g. wouldn't go on holiday because they didn't want to deplete the pile.

If you genuinely love what you do, then I guess the accumulation of more and more money is incidental.  I never loved work that much.  Was only too glad to get away from the competitiveness and artificiality of the corporate world.



prawn_86 said:


> I think the main issue is that if you are not making money you are spending it, but from my perspective if i did have 'enough' passive income i would rather spend that spare time helping others or supporting causes close to me, rather than working hard to make even more money



That has been my attitude also.  There's something immensely rewarding in voluntarily contributing to your community



McLovin said:


> I know plenty of people who have way more than the numbers being quoted in this thread. While I agree that you should do something you like, I disagree that doing that automatically brings wealth. A lot of it is just luck.



Agree.  My guess would be that most of the population works in jobs that are a means to an end only, just a pay packet, and it's just a constant grind for them.  Last week I admired a gorgeous bouquet of roses sitting behind a Woolworths checkout operator, a woman close to retirement age.  They were from her husband for their anniversary, in part to compensate for them being apart on that day.  He works at some distance in the mines and was away most of the time.  She said "what can you do?  neither of us want to do what we do, but you have to do it for the money."  Hundreds of thousands of people like that.

Luck can also play a part in accumulating wealth.  eg property at the start of a high inflation cycle has been a means of rapid capital growth, despite the high interest rates.
And luck can be there in many other small ways also.  Just prior to the 1987 crash I had a considerable amount in a managed fund 90% in equities.  It had been doing OK but I was irritated by their sloppy administration so pulled the money out two days before the crash.  Absolutely no cleverness of foreknowledge on my part, just pure luck.


----------



## young-gun (11 December 2012)

notting said:


> Dear oh dear.
> The last thing on your mind is how can I get more, if you are truely wealthy!!
> You are abundantly wealthy if you just want to give to see the relief you can bring.
> Fullment is in that, not in hankering for more or worrying about what to do with it all.
> ...




bit of a catch 22 isn't it? people who become wealthy enough to achieve this goal aren't usually those that want to give it all away and help others etc. If they had that frame of mind then chances are they are not wealthy.

Giving in small amounts perhaps, but there would be a limit to how much you could achieve, to how much 'wealth' you would have remaining. depends how much you have to give, and what sort of result you need to see to get that warm fuzzy feeling inside.

wealth for me is spending as much time with my future family as possible, which means working as little as possible, and still living the high life in every sense of the term (not private jets etc) naturally giving to family and friends along the way, but not so much that I am no longer wealthy


----------



## Julia (11 December 2012)

young-gun said:


> bit of a catch 22 isn't it? people who become wealthy enough to achieve this goal aren't usually those that want to give it all away and help others etc. If they had that frame of mind then chances are they are not wealthy.



I don't think anyone said anything about giving it all away.  Rather it's having achieved through one's own efforts (and maybe a bit of luck) a position where there is some money left over each year after providing for all that we need for ourselves.  That's the point where there is imo great pleasure and satisfaction in giving.
For me it's about being able to support the RSPCA, specifically to help them prosecute people who are cruel to animals.


----------



## trillionaire#1 (12 December 2012)

I think my forum name gives my game away,seriously id be happy with a waterfront home here and in the northern hemisphere,a passive income that allows me to be free and adventurous ,and the ability to help family and friends as needed,oh and a gulfstream g550 private jet,be rid the pesky general public air companion.


----------



## tech/a (12 December 2012)

In reality most of the figures touted here will not be achieved by our members.
Off the 33000 members around 231 will become millionaires.
Of the approx 1000 active members posting 7 of us are or will be in that group.




But those with 30 million or more will be more elusive.
Of the 33000 (Ive halved the Asia Pacific total ) 6.6 of us
Of the 1000 actively posting we may have 1




So even moderate wealth of $1 million is a rare achievement.


----------



## young-gun (12 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> In reality most of the figures touted here will not be achieved by our members.
> Off the 33000 members around 231 will become millionaires.
> Of the approx 1000 active members posting 7 of us are or will be in that group.
> 
> ...




Well I'll be one, so that leaves 6 spots for the rest of you all


----------



## tech/a (12 December 2012)

young-gun said:


> Well I'll be one, so that leaves 6 spots for the rest of you all




I really hope you do!

The distance between " I will be and i've made it " is immense.
Looking back is far easier than looking forward!


----------



## burglar (12 December 2012)

3% in New Jersey USA

I'll move there and improve my chances by manifold!:


----------



## McLovin (12 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> But those with 30 million or more will be more elusive.
> Of the 33000 (Ive halved the Asia Pacific total ) 6.6 of us
> Of the 1000 actively posting we may have 1
> 
> ...




I think you can halve that number a few more times. The BRW 200 has a entry level amount of ~$100m, iirc. While it is a pretty inaccurate list (I know people who would easily make the list but don't and others whose wealth is understated) it's still doesn't seem possible that there are ~32,800 in Australia with a net worth between $30m-$100m. My guess would be 1000-2000 people in that category.


----------



## young-gun (12 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> I really hope you do!
> 
> The distance between " I will be and i've made it " is immense.
> Looking back is far easier than looking forward!




Also a big distance between people who say they are going to be, and those who do it.... I can assure you I'll be there, sky's the limit.


----------



## young-gun (12 December 2012)

Julia said:


> I don't think anyone said anything about giving it all away.  Rather it's having achieved through one's own efforts (and maybe a bit of luck) a position where there is some money left over each year after providing for all that we need for ourselves.  That's the point where there is imo great pleasure and satisfaction in giving.
> For me it's about being able to support the RSPCA, specifically to help them prosecute people who are cruel to animals.




Allow me to re-phrase. People who want to become rich or 'wealthy' to give probably won't end up becoming rich or wealthy. I think the whole giving thing comes after people have accumulated vast wealth and then realise, or perhaps wonder if there is more to life than the money they have been chasing. They then find great satisfaction in sharing that wealth and helping others, whether by donating their time or money. Giving time is something that is also achieved through an accumulation of wealth as you don't need to be at work all week, if at all.

I'm in a bit of a hurry so not sure if that made sense or even if i went down the right track, wiull check later.


----------



## ROE (12 December 2012)

skc said:


> Does anyone here actually know anyone who's accumlated enough wealth and is "Living the Dream" so to speak?
> 
> I know plenty of people who's achieved (and easily surpassed) what some are saying here ... how much $ per week, or how much total assets etc etc.
> 
> ...




I know a few people retire at 55, they just work normal jobs up till then, what set them apart is 
they are frugal and they invest all their saving in stock market and properties...

they now travel oversea to different destination at least twice a year and live their dream..

why would you stop making investment even when you are retire and have enough money?
investment is nothing hard, it is just part of routine you do like anything else like traveling, go for a run,
catching up with friends...there are time for those and when you go nothing to do why not spend a few hours
a week growing your money?  

There are plenty of things you can do with extra money, like give to charity, help family out, spoil your grand children, get some else to do the cleaning for you 

I would never stop investing, I like it, I enjoy it and it part of my daily routine I would never stop even if
I have 50m...


----------



## Julia (12 December 2012)

young-gun said:


> Allow me to re-phrase. People who want to become rich or 'wealthy' to give probably won't end up becoming rich or wealthy.



Why not?  You're pretty much contradicting your earlier posts with this remark.



> I think the whole giving thing comes after people have accumulated vast wealth and then realise, or perhaps wonder if there is more to life than the money they have been chasing. They then find great satisfaction in sharing that wealth and helping others, whether by donating their time or money. Giving time is something that is also achieved through an accumulation of wealth as you don't need to be at work all week, if at all.



I disagree.  I think it's more of a mindset, an attitude to the community.  I and many people I know have always made voluntary contributions to the community.  If whilst not well off financially, then in our time.  And then as the financial situation improves, there's the capacity to give in monetary terms as well.

Something I believe is that the health of any community is as good as the contribution of its members.
Such contributions don't have to be financial.


----------



## CanOz (12 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Why not?  You're pretty much contradicting your earlier posts with this remark.
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I think it's more of a mindset, an attitude to the community.  I and many people I know have always made voluntary contributions to the community.  If whilst not well off financially, then in our time.  And then as the financial situation improves, there's the capacity to give in monetary terms as well.
> ...




I'm constantly raked with feelings of guilt...that I'm not doing enough to give back. Sometimes i think that true wealth is when i am giving back enough of my time or money that i rid myself of the guilt i feel for living such an abundant and full life so far.

I want to give back, would love to have an animal shelter, be a big donor to a major charity, but i need to be back in a society where there are ways to do this...I can't even give blood easily here, its all a big drama.

CanOz


----------



## joku (12 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> In reality most of the figures touted here will not be achieved by our members.
> Off the 33000 members around 231 will become millionaires.
> Of the approx 1000 active members posting 7 of us are or will be in that group.




That's not even close to true. Check the ABS household wealth statistics. You shouldn't be comparing % of total population, you should be looking at age group data like ABS provides. There is a very considerable portion of Australians in the $1mill+ range in the peak 55-65yr old bracket... their average wealth is already above $1mill. Median is still a bit below but having more than 50% of Australians peaking above $1mill wealth in their old age isn't many years away now (although an ongoing poor property market and/or further reduction in inflation pressure could hold that back much longer).


----------



## tech/a (13 December 2012)

joku said:


> That's not even close to true. Check the ABS household wealth statistics. You shouldn't be comparing % of total population, you should be looking at age group data like ABS provides. There is a very considerable portion of Australians in the $1mill+ range in the peak 55-65yr old bracket... their average wealth is already above $1mill. Median is still a bit below but having more than 50% of Australians peaking above $1mill wealth in their old age isn't many years away now (although an ongoing poor property market and/or further reduction in inflation pressure could hold that back much longer).




50% 
I'd like to see that stat!!,
You have a link to ABS household wealth stats?

Ah I see
Your quoting HOUSEHOLD nett wealth as in multiple occupants AND
The inclusion of the principal place of residence.

Mine is singular people principal place of residence Not included.


----------



## joku (13 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> ...




Fair enough that makes a big difference. My opinion is the measure should include any equity in an owner occupied house etc as well as super and dep. assets.. the whole lot minus all debts - this is generally how ABS stats refer to wealth and then this is often the source of data for news articles etc. I know the Aussie government ignores owner occupied home equity to some extent for pension and many other income/asset tests and the whole topic is clearly debatable (imo for what its worth is that this is just one of many emotionally driven short sighted flaws in our system that causes worse utilization of our resources & environment).  

The document i referred to is here:
www.abs.gov.au 
Type "wealth" in search bar should be enough... latest should be the first result (2009-10). 
If not your looking for the "Household Wealth and Wealth Distribution" reports. 

2009-10 is also roughly the recent peak in average aus property prices so I doubt it's risen all that much (or fallen) since then except it has since been recognized the wealth in private trusts in that report is grossly underestimated (you may remember news of them "finding" this money in trusts made it to mainstream media not very long ago). 

There's also plenty of wealth allocation statistics across different age groups and different wealth groups in this report that you may find interesting.


----------



## Tyler Durden (13 December 2012)

I'd like to say something like "enough so I can stop working", but realistically, I think the more accurate answer would be, as I saw someone here once quote Kerry Packer, "just a little bit more".

For those who have ever gone to the casino, you'll see most people don't stop when they win $25, $50, $100, or even $1000. As an observer, you'd think that would be enough. But to them, they always want more. They want one more win, then one more, and one more after that.


----------



## McLovin (14 December 2012)

joku said:


> That's not even close to true. Check the ABS household wealth statistics. You shouldn't be comparing % of total population, you should be looking at age group data like ABS provides. There is a very considerable portion of Australians in the $1mill+ range in the peak 55-65yr old bracket... their average wealth is already above $1mill. Median is still a bit below but having more than 50% of Australians peaking above $1mill wealth in their old age isn't many years away now (although an ongoing poor property market and/or further reduction in inflation pressure could hold that back much longer).




Except that tech was quoting net investable assets. Most households have the overwhelming majority of their wealth tied up in their home.


----------



## pavilion103 (14 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> In reality most of the figures touted here will not be achieved by our members.
> Off the 33000 members around 231 will become millionaires.
> Of the approx 1000 active members posting 7 of us are or will be in that group.
> 
> ...






Interesting. Is this a percentage of the entire population or a certain group of people (i.e. certain investors)?

If so, you'd think the percentage chances of people in this forum becoming millionaires is greater than the percentage of the overall population, as we are people specifically interested in investing and making money. 

It would still be a very small percentage but not as small as that of the overall population.


----------



## tech/a (14 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Except that tech was quoting net investable assets. Most households have the overwhelming majority of their wealth tied up in their home.




I see this with many of my friends. The topic of retirement is around the BBQ--over the restaurant table--on the Golf course---or during training. The general rule of wealth creation (not mine) seems to be to own the house
retire with as much as you can --- supplement where possible and pick up part pension---when you run out sell the house down size---instant money. So yes your right. I saw somewhere that the average retirement super nest egg is below $80k. Woefully inadequate.



pavilion103 said:


> Interesting. Is this a percentage of the entire population or a certain group of people (i.e. certain investors)?
> 
> If so, you'd think the percentage chances of people in this forum becoming millionaires is greater than the percentage of the overall population, as we are people specifically interested in investing and making money.
> 
> It would still be a very small percentage but not as small as that of the overall population.




I would argue that the odds are no better.
1000s play golf few make a living and even fewer become millionaires.


----------



## McLovin (14 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> I see this with many of my friends. The topic of retirement is around the BBQ--over the restaurant table--on the Golf course---or during training. The general rule of wealth creation (not mine) seems to be to own the house
> retire with as much as you can --- supplement where possible and pick up part pension---when you run out sell the house down size---instant money. So yes your right. I saw somewhere that the average retirement super nest egg is below $80k. Woefully inadequate.




Ed Zachery.

For the average person on an average wage, accumulating $1m in assets outside the home is not an easy achievement. A house was/is an easy one. You can gear at 2000% of equity and over the last 30 years they've been a long bull market.

Maybe I'm in the miniority because of my own circumstance, but I've never understood why you would want to squirrel away everything you have and live like a pauper until you retire. So many things can come up between someone and retirement (sickness/death etc) and you only live once. I'm not saying go out and spend 100% of what you earn, just live a normal life.


----------



## prawn_86 (14 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Maybe I'm in the miniority because of my own circumstance, but I've never understood why you would want to squirrel away everything you have and live like a pauper until you retire. So many things can come up between someone and retirement (sickness/death etc) and you only live once. I'm not saying go out and spend 100% of what you earn, just live a normal life.




I would love to know a 5 - 10 year window of when i was going to die. That way i could plan accordingly


----------



## tech/a (14 December 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> I would love to know a 5 - 10 year window of when i was going to die. That way i could plan accordingly




The answer to that one is pretty simple!

Live like you do! (Know when ish).
Unfortunately we need to live like we will be 100
but want to live like its our last month.


----------



## DocK (14 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Ed Zachery.
> Maybe I'm in the miniority because of my own circumstance, but I've never understood why you would want to squirrel away everything you have and live like a pauper until you retire. So many things can come up between someone and retirement (sickness/death etc) and you only live once. I'm not saying go out and spend 100% of what you earn, just live a normal life.






prawn_86 said:


> I would love to know a 5 - 10 year window of when i was going to die. That way i could plan accordingly




+1  My aunt (single & childless) is fond of saying she'd blow the lot at the casino if she knew when she was due to shuffle off this mortal coil.

There's a balancing act between putting aside enough to ensure a comfortable retirement and compromising your standard of life too much in order to do so.  Knowing your life expectancy would make the decision sooo much easier, wouldn't it?  I guess we all know people who have lived very frugally and done without so they could build up a nice nest egg only to die before they retire or very shortly afterwards.  On the other hand there are plenty of examples of those that live like there's no tomorrow while they're young and repent while existing on the meagre age pension well into their 80's.

I think I err on the side of caution and am trying to ensure the spouse and I have enough to see us comfortable well into old age, but also consider that part of my present "wealth" is my family, particularly my children, and I don't want to die regretting that I had no time to spend with them as I was always working, or no great family holidays that we all remember for years to come.   Likewise, I'd have more funds to invest for myself if I didn't send them to private school, or pay uni fees for them - but I consider the return on that investment to be worth more to me in the long run.  Not all wealth can be measured in $ terms imo - not much point being a rich old lady who's lonely, bitter and full of regrets.  Much better to be a rich old lady whose family still love her and has lived her life to the fullest   The trick is in getting the living/saving/investing balance right, if one can't win lotto!


----------



## Julia (14 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Except that tech was quoting net investable assets. Most households have the overwhelming majority of their wealth tied up in their home.



I think this changes as you get older.  A retired couple or single with no children around no longer wants the big house.  It only represents more maintenance and cleaning.



McLovin said:


> Maybe I'm in the miniority because of my own circumstance, but I've never understood why you would want to squirrel away everything you have and live like a pauper until you retire.



That's rather an extreme example.  It's possible to be sensible about investing and saving without making life a pauper-like misery.
Everyone will have a different priority.   I don't resent a single decision of saving/investing while I was working when I consider the immense relief I feel now at not being dependent financially on anyone other than myself. 


> So many things can come up between someone and retirement (sickness/death etc) and you only live once.



Agree.  However, for some a normal life is always being in debt.  What I've noticed is a quite large number of people who simply give no thought to the need to plan for retirement.  And then they get a helluva shock when they try to live on the age pension.



prawn_86 said:


> I would love to know a 5 - 10 year window of when i was going to die. That way i could plan accordingly



Prawn, the peculiar thing I've noticed is that what you think you will want to spend up on when you're dreaming about it, in fact can fade when the reality occurs.  I used to think when I reached my target I'd celebrate by having a month in a five star hotel, in an exotic place, room service for every meal.   When it became entirely possible, paradoxically I found I didn't really want to do it! 

A friend has just been diagnosed with cancer.  She has private insurance, of course, but there will be plenty to pay in the gaps.  It won't be any problem as they're well off.  This is the sort of thing most of us give little thought to when we're 25, but which is immensely important when you get older and the alternative is dying much earlier because you're hanging about on a public hospital waiting list, with no choice of treating doctors.

So quite different priorities at different stages in life.


----------



## burrow (3 March 2014)

Tyler Durden said:


> I'd like to say something like "enough so I can stop working", but realistically, I think the more accurate answer would be, as I saw someone here once quote Kerry Packer, "just a little bit more".
> 
> For those who have ever gone to the casino, you'll see most people don't stop when they win $25, $50, $100, or even $1000. As an observer, you'd think that would be enough. But to them, they always want more. They want one more win, then one more, and one more after that.




"He who has Enough is rich".


----------



## sptrawler (3 March 2014)

From what I have observed, it depends on the personality of the individual.
If you want to impress people and beat the Joneses, you will probably never have enough.
If your wants, are comensurate with your nest egg, you will be fine.

I've met a lot of older people since retiring, most can live comfortably on the pension, if they own their home.

All the people I know over 80 years old, have had enough of travel, and want to stay in familiar surroundings.

As someone told me, you can't control how much your investments earn. But you can control what you spend.

Also what many on this forum have said, time could run out, before money runs out. 
Life is a balance, life is compromise.


----------



## burrow (3 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> From what I have observed, it depends on the personality of the individual.
> If you want to impress people and beat the Joneses, you will probably never have enough.
> If your wants, are comensurate with your nest egg, you will be fine.




Epicurus sums it up nicely: "Plain fare gives as much pleasure as a costly diet once the pain of want has been removed". A dollar figure means nothing.


----------



## Tyler Durden (3 March 2014)

burrow said:


> Epicurus sums it up nicely: "Plain fare gives as much pleasure as a costly diet once the pain of want has been removed". A dollar figure means nothing.




"The pain of want". I like that 

If only the youngin's these days could hear something like that.


----------



## Muschu (3 March 2014)

Tyler Durden said:


> "The pain of want". I like that
> 
> If only the youngin's these days could hear something like that.




I agree but feel it applies to some super wealthy people too.... Where enough is always just beyond reach.


----------



## ROE (3 March 2014)

skc said:


> Does anyone here actually know anyone who's accumlated enough wealth and is "Living the Dream" so to speak?




I know a few retire at 55, never work again, travel over sea a few times a year, even have spare change to help their kids with their home etc...they are the typical people describe in the millionaire next door book by Dr Stanley

I didn't even notice these people until I read that book then I start paying attention 
His data I reckon can be replicate in most developed countries, obviously developing country as well but the framework and society in a developed countries make it easier for these people to exist and accumulate wealth.


----------



## burrow (4 March 2014)

Muschu said:


> I agree but feel it applies to some super wealthy people too.... Where enough is always just beyond reach.




It can apply to anybody, regardless of age, income or occupation.


----------



## Panaman (4 March 2014)

Greed is good.

Sadly I think in Australia today this rings true.

Recently started my own SMSF and in the process of doing so, meeting and enquiring about varies products and services about wealth creation and investing, nearly all gave the same greed type sales pitch about retiring early, not having to work anymore as if work is something nasty that no one wants to do (maybe iam a freak as I quite enjoy my job), then there was all the glossy brochures of happy smiling people on yachts or at Cafes sipping lattes with the golf clubs and expensive cars.

Think sometimes we lose sight of the important things in life, I think far too many people will spend there entire lives striving for more, and then even more when they have more than enough and don’t realise it.

Oh, and I didn’t buy into any of it, instead went with esuperfund and ETF,s, and defiantly none of the sure thing real estate offerings that involved massive debt, property and massive loans is being flogged to death right now, i hope all those who are buying the dream do ok, but my gut feel is many wont.


----------



## burrow (4 March 2014)

Panaman said:


> Greed is good.
> 
> Sadly I think in Australia today this rings true.
> 
> ...




You'll enjoy these then:

http://www.bravenewlife.com/
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/


----------



## qldfrog (4 March 2014)

burrow said:


> You'll enjoy these then:
> 
> http://www.bravenewlife.com/
> http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/



I like the second and will look at the first link.
wealth is so relative
1 million here 20k in the phillipines ..
and what for a new bmw... or a rent free lifestyle on 40k a year...


----------



## Vixs (11 March 2014)

Saw a couple who are amongst the leaders of their profession in Australia this week with a household income of $700,000 and a lot of spare hours in the fortnight. They couldn't pay their bills last year and remortgaged their home to pay their tax bill.

I saw another client this week who is in his early 20s, income of $75,000 as a recent graduate in an in-demand field, and has just put down a 20% deposit on his own home worth $450k and a 5% deposit down on an investment property worth $500k. He saves 75% of his net income.

I don't think it takes a genius to decide who you think is happier.


----------



## Julia (11 March 2014)

Really interesting, Vixs.   How do the high earning couple explain their situation?


----------



## beachlife (11 March 2014)

Vixs said:


> Saw a couple who are amongst the leaders of their profession in Australia this week with a household income of $700,000 and a lot of spare hours in the fortnight. They couldn't pay their bills last year and remortgaged their home to pay their tax bill.
> 
> I saw another client this week who is in his early 20s, income of $75,000 as a recent graduate in an in-demand field, and has just put down a 20% deposit on his own home worth $450k and a 5% deposit down on an investment property worth $500k. He saves 75% of his net income.
> 
> I don't think it takes a genius to decide who you think is happier.




So the 20 something has just strapped themselves up with over $800k debt, on $75k income, over 10 times their income.  My guess is they wont be smiling for long, so my vote goes for the $700k couple.  Spare hours and lots of bills, sounds like they have been enjoying life.  Unless their mortgage is over $7m, they are way better off than the 20 something.


----------



## CanOz (11 March 2014)

beachlife said:


> So the 20 something has just strapped themselves up with over $800k debt, on $75k income, over 10 times their income.  My guess is they wont be smiling for long, so my vote goes for the $700k couple.  Spare hours and lots of bills, sounds like they have been enjoying life.  Unless their mortgage is over $7m, they are way better off than the 20 something.





Didn't the 20 something just put down a deposit on a house, where he has 75% of his disposable income as savings and the other couple just took out a loan to pay a tax bill.... pretty obvious to me.


----------



## beachlife (12 March 2014)

CanOz said:


> Didn't the 20 something just put down a deposit on a house, where he has 75% of his disposable income as savings and the other couple just took out a loan to pay a tax bill.... pretty obvious to me.




Yes that was before he committed to two mortgages.  He will now have very little spare money and will be chained to his job to make the payments, and of course now has tenants and property managers in his life.  Take it from me thats no pleasure trip.  He probably was happy with no debt and surplus income, but those days are gone now.  He now has to pay the costs of running a bigger home, or perhaps his first home, you know rates, maintenance etc.

The others refinanced, meaning they had some equity to use.  Sounds like they are having a good time spending like crazy in their spare time.  My guess is that their bills are now up to date and they are still extremely happy.  

I'll take $700k pa and a big tax bill over 2 houses and $75k pa every time.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 March 2014)

beachlife said:


> Yes that was before he committed to two mortgages.  He will now have very little spare money and will be chained to his job to make the payments, and of course now has tenants and property managers in his life.  Take it from me thats no pleasure trip.



Yeah I can't believe the mortgagee allowed the investment property when the 20 something only has about 60k net to play with per year. That is about 1100/ week in the hand. After loan payments and living expenses the 20 something will be stone broke every week. Take the tenant out of the rental property and the 20 something will default.


----------



## Vixs (12 March 2014)

Julia said:


> Really interesting, Vixs.   How do the high earning couple explain their situation?




Husband just wants wife to be happy. Wife thinks happiness comes from high end retail stores.

Both miserable.


----------



## Trembling Hand (12 March 2014)

beachlife said:


> I'll take $700k pa and a big tax bill over 2 houses and $75k pa every time.




 

Same. Anyone can save a little to then load up on housing debt. Very very few will have the capacity to earn 700k. You can get yourself out of any trouble very quickly with that kind of income. Not so on 75k.


----------



## Vixs (12 March 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yeah I can't believe the mortgagee allowed the investment property when the 20 something only has about 60k net to play with per year. That is about 1100/ week in the hand. After loan payments and living expenses the 20 something will be stone broke every week. Take the tenant out of the rental property and the 20 something will default.




Mortgage repayments are about 1900 a month for his PPR, which is a LOC that he directs all of his income to.

Costs of holding the investment property interest only are about nil after tax assuming 95% occupancy.

If he has any cash flow problems he said he'd be happy to have friends move into his PPR after the 12 months period is up for the Great Start Grant and stamp duty concession restrictions. That's 2 bedrooms to rent out @ 100-150 a week, or around half his mortgage repayments.

I'm not saying I'd be comfortable with that level of debt on that income, but I hadn't saved $150,000 cash by the time I was 25 either, so we're not really in the same boat.


----------



## pinkboy (12 March 2014)

Vixs said:


> Mortgage repayments are about 1900 a month for his PPR, which is a *LOC* that he directs all of his income to.




This is not ideal should Mr. 20 something ever move out and make the PPOR an investment property -  if he draws anything out that is not investment related (i.e the other 25% of his wages needed for living expenses).  Mr. 20s always move out when they meet a Mrs. 20 and move on in life etc etc.  Should be using a mortgage offset.  Doomed from the get go.  Are the properties from the same lender?  X-Coll?  Many things to consider when starting out as the first investments we make are the cornerstones and foundations of further investments.


As for 'How much wealth is enough'?  My take is to be able to create a capital base that >tracks inflation, and provides an income the individual/pair are accustomed to until the end.  Once this is reached, then amassing further wealth is relative to how much more time an effort is required to achieve this further wealth.  That in turn, is called 'working'.


pinkboy


----------



## ftw129 (12 March 2014)

"“Most of us,” said the cosmic humorist, “go through life not knowing what we want, but feeling damned sure this isn’t it.”

Over 99% of the people in the western world live on lower consciousness levels characterized by trying to find enough security, sex, “groovy”sensations, ego rushes, prestige, money, power, and status. This endless struggle yields lives of constant resentment, worry, suspicion, anger, jealousy,shyness, and fear. Everything people tell themselves they must do to be happy ends up yielding more frustration than joy. The more successful a person is in making money, collecting skills and possessions, developing exciting sexual relationships, acquiring knowledge and degrees, and achieving positions of status, power, and prestige, the less loving, peaceful, and contented he may find himself or herself. 

And yet it is not these things in and of themselves that create an unhappy life-- it is the internal mental addiction or desire for them that minute-by-minute keeps one from enjoying life. Addictions (or emotion-backed demands) bring fear of non-fulfillment; jealousy that someone may steal our source of fulfillment; anger when someone thwarts us; cynicism if constantly under supplied; paranoia if constantly threatened; boredom if we’re making no progress toward satisfying our addictions; worry if we can’t see a steady supply; anxiety if we’re worried about being worried; and unhappiness when the outside world does not supply us with whatever it is we are addicted to. Since the nature of life is such that we win some and lose some, an addicted person has no chance of living a happy, loving, peaceful, conscious, wise and effective life. And the addictive programming is not necessary to find and enjoy that which we prefer in life. 

You are ready for growth into the happiness of higher consciousness when you realize the utter futility of trying to live a beautiful life by your efforts to rearrange or change the world of people and things outside of you to fit your addictions and desires. You will find you have only to rearrange your own personal, automatically programmed responses to life situations -- most of which are childhood hangups.

As you work toward higher levels of consciousness, you will find that you have always had enough to be happy. It is the patterns in your head that make you unhappy, although you usually blame the people and conditions outside you for your unhappiness. Your journey into higher consciousness can enable you to be loving, peaceful, wise, and free of a constant barrage of unpleasant emotional feelings. Living Love offers you four advantages in your adventure into higher consciousness:

1.For many people it can be one of the most powerful and rapid ways for growth into higher consciousness that has ever been available to mankind.

2.It does not require you to detach yourself from your present life. Living Love can be used most effectively if you stay with your present business, personal life, and other conditions until you have grown to a high enough state of consciousness to be fully perceptive of the arbitrary mores,folkways, and social roles you are guarding and living out.

3.Once you thoroughly understand the system, it is not essential to have a teacher for continuing your growth. Your life will be your best teacher, for you will discover that you are always putting yourself into learning situations that are ideal for your growth. The programming that you most need to change has an unerring way of putting you into life situations that can make you aware of the exact inner work you should be doing.

4.When you use the Living Love Way to find the love, inner peace, wisdom, and effectiveness of higher consciousness, your inner work on yourself immediately adds to your enjoyment of life. With the Living Love Way, happiness is not a distant goal -- it is an ever-growing part of your here and now.

Think of the energy you now put into the up-and-down hour-by-hour coping with your feelings while you continually try to rearrange the people and situations in your life so that you can then be loving, serene, effective, and happy. And yet year by year your quest for happiness is as elusive as finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Since almost everyone around you seems to be having similar trouble in becoming a happy, loving being, you may have lowered your standards and decided that continuous happiness is probably not realistic.

The Living Love Way invites you to set the highest imaginable standards of love, serenity, peace, wisdom, effectiveness, and continuous happiness for your life. and then you are ready to begin your journey into higher consciousness."

-Handbook to Higher Consciousness
Ken Keyes Jr.
(1972)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17658844/Handbook-to-Higher-Consciousness-Ken-Keyes-Jr


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 March 2014)

ftw129 said:


> The Living Love Way invites you to set the highest imaginable standards of love, serenity, peace, wisdom, effectiveness, and continuous happiness for your life. and then you are ready to begin your journey into higher consciousness."
> 
> -Handbook to Higher Consciousness
> Ken Keyes Jr.
> (1972)



Ah yes, exchanging one set of beliefs for another (for a fee). The mastery of self is when the neighbour poisons your dog, the wife is diagnosed with cancer, a bad car driver tail ends you, the mother-in-law nags incessantly, the bush fire burns down your house and throughout it all you remain this remarkably calm individual who has developed the higher consciousness of "I don't give a #&*@".


----------



## Buckfont (12 March 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Ah yes, exchanging one set of beliefs for another (for a fee). The mastery of self is when the neighbour poisons your dog, the wife is diagnosed with cancer, a bad car driver tail ends you, the mother-in-law nags incessantly, the bush fire burns down your house and throughout it all you remain this remarkably calm individual who has developed the higher consciousness of "I don't give a #&*@".




Ah yes, nice sentiments and heavy duty crises and dramas. If one had all the lovey dovey 'the world is a beautiful place' stuff, they wouldn't be part of this forum. And I'm still trying to work it out after all these years.


----------



## Vixs (12 March 2014)

pinkboy said:


> This is not ideal should Mr. 20 something ever move out and make the PPOR an investment property -  if he draws anything out that is not investment related (i.e the other 25% of his wages needed for living expenses).  Mr. 20s always move out when they meet a Mrs. 20 and move on in life etc etc.  Should be using a mortgage offset.  Doomed from the get go.  Are the properties from the same lender?  X-Coll?  Many things to consider when starting out as the first investments we make are the cornerstones and foundations of further investments.




The LOC fits his goal of starting a regular investment facility to build a managed fund portfolio over time with a view to having a direct share portfolio once he has the funds.

Pay down principal, redraw into a sub-account on a monthly basis for regular investment, increase the portion of his debt that is deductible over time. Sure he won't have the ability to just move out and have the original loan amount be deductible, but that's not his plan for now anyway. That's why his investment property is structured that way.

Interest only with an offset works just fine for most people with the view to upgrading and retaining as an investment, though. It's not a great idea recommending a giant credit card secured against their home to people with bad cash habits haha.

As far as how much is enough, I think that one was nailed earlier in the thread - "Just a little bit more."


----------



## pinkboy (12 March 2014)

Vixs said:


> The LOC fits his goal of starting a regular investment facility to build a managed fund portfolio over time with a view to having a direct share portfolio once he has the funds.
> 
> Pay down principal, redraw into a sub-account on a monthly basis for regular investment, increase the portion of his debt that is deductible over time. Sure he won't have the ability to just move out and have the original loan amount be deductible, *but that's not his plan for now anyway.* That's why his investment property is structured that way.
> 
> ...




The way it appears to be structured robs Mr. 20 Something of options and precious deductible interest from the start of his investment journey, when it can be easily preserved.  Your suggestion that an IO mortgage with offset is a 'giant credit card' is thin, as an LOC is just that moreso.  Mortgage offset accounts preserve the deductible portion of the loan, and has ready access - so you can have your cake and eat it too.  An LOC doesnt allow this, as if you mix any personal funds, or take out funds for personal use, you have to apportion the deductible and non deductible portions, creating more cost for an accountant to do so.  Continuing this has potential to create a real mess.

You said yourself Mr. 20 Something saved 75% of his net income.  That is not a person with 'bad cash habit'.  He has proven discipline, and would probably adjust quite easily to a well structured loan structure that allows all the principle of his HL paid down to be deductible using debt recycling.

Plans should start with the end goal and work backwards to work out how to achieve that goal. Plans don't work any other way, otherwise it's not a plan, but a motion to nowhere. 

pinkboy


----------



## burglar (12 March 2014)

Vixs said:


> Husband just wants wife to be happy ...




high end retail stores
big end of town
the mall

today's people have so much to contend with

we just had the corner deli


----------



## Vixs (12 March 2014)

burglar said:


> high end retail stores
> big end of town
> the mall
> 
> ...




If she wasn't so successful professionally she would have had to face the hard facts like everyone else. She is not going to be able to retire with the kind of lifestyle she has lived with, though.


----------



## sptrawler (13 March 2014)

Vixs said:


> If she wasn't so successful professionally she would have had to face the hard facts like everyone else. She is not going to be able to retire with the kind of lifestyle she has lived with, though.




This is the problem, everyone thinks that $50k a year is enough, it probably is if you have been on the bread line most of your life.
Generally I think $50k is o.k if your wants are modest, if you want to travel overseas probably $80k.
To earn $80k in todays market, without risking your capital, will require lots and that's a rough estimate.lol

So if we extrapalate that out, how much is enough, as much as you can save.

Then you have to contend with those, who save sod all, saying you are a fat cat.lol

What's the saying " never shall a saver go unpunished".

Spend your money have a great time, there will be taxpayers and savers to support you, because you have it so tough. 

Just do it. enjoy.


----------



## qldfrog (13 March 2014)

based on my own searches: 
for a couple:
$60k(2014) a year after tax, with no debt and own PPOR is enough to live  a reasonably indulgent lifestyle (inc a holiday O/S a year).
Not a splashing budget but you will have a life.
if you want this to be done without touching your capital and not loose on inflation (return let's say of 3 % above inflation on average)->
these 3% would need to be able to give back $60k+$20k tax->$80k a year 
 80k at 3%-> investment  of 2.6 millions (excluding PPOR)
so IMHO wealth is enough for me at $2.6 millions:
at that level, you do not have to work, you may work but you do not have to
and your wealth should return you an income however old you will ever get

So the answer is:
2.6 millons in 2014 AUD  
maybe 2.5 if you do not expect to live forever


----------



## Vixs (13 March 2014)

pinkboy said:


> The way it appears to be structured robs Mr. 20 Something of options and precious deductible interest from the start of his investment journey, when it can be easily preserved.  Your suggestion that an IO mortgage with offset is a 'giant credit card' is thin, as an LOC is just that moreso.  Mortgage offset accounts preserve the deductible portion of the loan, and has ready access - so you can have your cake and eat it too.  An LOC doesnt allow this, as if you mix any personal funds, or take out funds for personal use, you have to apportion the deductible and non deductible portions, creating more cost for an accountant to do so.  Continuing this has potential to create a real mess.
> 
> You said yourself Mr. 20 Something saved 75% of his net income.  That is not a person with 'bad cash habit'.  He has proven discipline, and would probably adjust quite easily to a well structured loan structure that allows all the principle of his HL paid down to be deductible using debt recycling.
> 
> ...




pinkboy, I see your point, but there isn't a one size fits all strategy. 

I think there's been something lost in translation here. I did in fact state that a LOC was a giant credit card, not a mortgage offset account on an IO loan. I also stated that a LOC was a bad idea for people with bad cash habits, which you're correct, he doesn't have. Because of that, a LOC on his PPR was a suitable outcome for him to allow debt recycling. Obviously mixed purpose loans would be a nightmare, and so having a facility with separate loan accounts is the better outcome. That's how he's set up.

Not everyone wants to carry the maximum possible debt just because it's deductible, especially when their plans don't have earning an income from that asset as anything but a contingency plan and with no estimated time horizon. Some people want to build equity through things other than time, or want to diversify their investments out of 100% real estate in the same city.

I can appreciate where you're coming from. You've been spot on with what you've said, however there are individual circumstances to consider and only one of us was able to consider that.

I don't want to keep taking this thread off course, so I might step out until I have something to add to the topic.


----------



## sptrawler (13 March 2014)

qldfrog said:


> based on my own searches:
> for a couple:
> $60k(2014) a year after tax, with no debt and own PPOR is enough to live  a reasonably indulgent lifestyle (inc a holiday O/S a year).
> Not a splashing budget but you will have a life.
> ...




I'd agree with that.


----------



## havaiana (18 March 2014)

LeeMilligan123 said:


> When you are only seeking to give, you can truly have the wealth in your heart.




Hi Lee. Your reading speed and comprehension is truly impressive


----------



## Buckfont (18 March 2014)

LeeMilligan123 said:


> When you are only seeking to give, you can truly have the wealth in your heart.




Jeepers, I'd almost forgotten about the hippies. That's what happens when you get into the 60's


----------



## DB008 (18 March 2014)

qldfrog said:


> based on my own searches:
> for a couple:
> $60k(2014) a year after tax, with no debt and own PPOR is enough to live  a reasonably indulgent lifestyle (inc a holiday O/S a year).
> Not a splashing budget but you will have a life.
> ...




But if you get a return of 6% or 10%, you obviously don't need as much tied up in investments.

If you have $1mil in cash and can find something that returns 10% (shares/property, can be done), that's more achievable than saving for $2.6mil


----------



## qldfrog (18 March 2014)

DB008 said:


> But if you get a return of 6% or 10%, you obviously don't need as much tied up in investments.
> 
> If you have $1mil in cash and can find something that returns 10% (shares/property, can be done), that's more achievable than saving for $2.6mil




can be done...but would you risk it my 3% above inflation is not that bad.Ask any japanese investor in the last 30years...


----------



## sptrawler (18 March 2014)

qldfrog said:


> can be done...but would you risk it my 3% above inflation is not that bad.Ask any japanese investor in the last 30years...




Sorry danny, but I agree with frog, you can't rely on stupid returns or on a government pension.
If you don't want to rely on luck or a hand out, you need 2.5mill, in todays terms.
So forget about quick get rich schemes, get a plan in place and grind it out.

It's not that hard, I tried to talk my m.i.l to buy 2000 CBA share in 1994 at $10 i.e $200,000.

Today she would be getting $120,000 dividend, she chose to leave it in CBA on term deposit. OMG

But she is still happy with her choice.  the government pension is still there.

Just buy for the long term.IMO


----------



## burglar (19 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> ... I tried to talk my m.i.l to buy 2000 CBA share in 1994 at $10 i.e $200,000 ...




If I point out the mathematical error will you post me a cheque for the difference?


----------



## DB008 (19 March 2014)

qldfrog said:


> can be done...but would you risk it my 3% above inflation is not that bad.Ask any japanese investor in the last 30years...




I agree.

However, when you retire at 60 or 70, do you/should you, really take inflation into account? Or as much as people harp on about it?

How long will you be active for after you retire? 15 years? Do you still want to go on cruises/flights at 85?

With your numbers you are talking about people retiring at 65 and still going on O/S trips till they are 95.


----------



## sptrawler (19 March 2014)

burglar said:


> If I point out the mathematical error will you post me a cheque for the difference?




Oooops, should have been 20,000, too busy wiping my eyes.


----------



## DB008 (19 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> What if you want to retire at 50 - 55.
> 
> I think what frog is getting at, is the sum required to ensure the capital isn't eroded and a reasonable standard of living maintained.
> If like the U.S and U.K, returns fall to extremely low levels, $2.5m will still give a livable income.




Yes, but getting to 2.5 million is a big ask and might be too high for average people to aim for?

Aiming for something lower, with a higher return might be easier?


----------



## burglar (19 March 2014)

DB008 said:


> Yes, but getting to 2.5 million is a big ask and might be too high for average people to aim for?
> 
> Aiming for something lower, with a higher return might be easier?




If I had 2.5 mill, I could live on an annuity drawdown alone, for 25-100 years (depending on inflation and lifestyle).


----------



## pinkboy (19 March 2014)

DB008 said:


> Yes, but getting to 2.5 million is a big ask and might be too high for *average people *to aim for?
> 
> Aiming for something lower, with a higher return might be easier?




If being average is all that a person aspires to, then they should settle for average.

Only those with extraordinary drive will see the fruits of their labour/sacrifice.

If you always do what you've always done - then you'll always get what you have always got!


Never assume something with higher return is a sure bet.  High return = Higher risk.  Hedge you bets with some more trusted return in your core holdings to at least fall back on when the risk element bites.


pinkboy


----------



## DB008 (19 March 2014)

pinkboy said:


> If being average is all that a person aspires to, then they should settle for average.
> 
> Only those with extraordinary drive will see the fruits of their labour/sacrifice.
> 
> ...




Points taken. And I agree, which is why I was kind of saying that $2.5mil is a fair amount of money to accumulate.

High return _doesn't always_ mean higher risk IMO. If your after 20%+ returns it probably does, but l wouldn't classify my shares that consistently return 10% high risk, which is a lot more than 5% (ie, cash).


----------



## Craton (19 March 2014)

Why did the word infinite rear its ugly head when I read the OP subject :

Very subjective and I guess too, how much materialism one is into but I'm simples and as long as the bills can be paid, there's fuel in the tank, food and drink on the table and there's a shekel or two for the odd trinket/toy and the inevitable rainy day, that's enough.

Of greater importance to me at least, is the amount of love that's in one's life, sorta like notting's post. So in that regard, infinite wealth can't buy what we all really crave for, to love and be loved. 

I think the main thing though is to have enough so that the almighty $ doesn't send one to Beyond Blue...


----------



## Julia (19 March 2014)

DB008 said:


> With your numbers you are talking about people retiring at 65 and still going on O/S trips till they are 95.



Realistic point.  As would be some suggestion that if you still had 2.5M at 90 then why on earth wouldn't you be prepared to spend some of that capital?



DB008 said:


> Yes, but getting to 2.5 million is a big ask and might be too high for average people to aim for?
> 
> Aiming for something lower, with a higher return might be easier?



Agree.   Considering the meagre amounts the next generation of retirees will have saved, the notion of the average person amassing between $2.5 and $3M is pretty unlikely in the foreseeable future.

I'd also say, from the POV of a self funded retiree since late 40's, the satisfaction of achieving such a status is questionable when you see all the wasters getting more and more while one's own access to any benefits is zero.
Sends a pretty poor message in terms of incentive imo.


----------



## Vixs (19 March 2014)

pinkboy said:


> If being average is all that a person aspires to, then they should settle for average.
> 
> Only those with extraordinary drive will see the fruits of their labour/sacrifice.
> 
> ...




Sounds like Grant Cardone. Certainly doesn't sugar coat mediocrity for people - I like the way he talks.


----------



## qldfrog (19 March 2014)

the figure given 2.6 once reached allows anyone to retire  straight away and never touch the capital,
I also believe that at 95, you may not need holiday but while dribling  lying on your hospital bad, the bill will still be $200+ per day!!!!!!
so expect to actually need more at the end..unless a swift end is your fate, many are not so lucky


----------



## sptrawler (19 March 2014)

qldfrog said:


> the figure given 2.6 once reached allows anyone to retire  straight away and never touch the capital,
> I also believe that at 95, you may not need holiday but while dribling  lying on your hospital bad, the bill will still be $200+ per day!!!!!!
> so expect to actually need more at the end..unless a swift end is your fate, many are not so lucky




I still agree with you. 
Too many people are expecting the government pension to kick in. 
From personal experience, years ago, the government could quite easily say "come back, when you have spent your savings".

Then as Julia stated.

I'd also say, from the POV of a self funded retiree since late 40's, the satisfaction of achieving such a status is questionable when you see all the wasters getting more and more while one's own access to any benefits is zero.
Sends a pretty poor message in terms of incentive imo. .

So $2.6m makes sense.


----------



## coolcup (20 March 2014)

qldfrog said:


> based on my own searches:
> for a couple:
> $60k(2014) a year after tax, with no debt and own PPOR is enough to live  a reasonably indulgent lifestyle (inc a holiday O/S a year).
> Not a splashing budget but you will have a life.
> ...




Hi QLDfrog - I don't mind the maths above at all, but was just wondering why the $20k in tax would be paid in retirement?


----------



## ROE (20 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Sorry danny, but I agree with frog, you can't rely on stupid returns or on a government pension.
> If you don't want to rely on luck or a hand out, you need 2.5mill, in todays terms.
> So forget about quick get rich schemes, get a plan in place and grind it out.
> 
> ...




I cant really blame her even with hind insight, you don't want to put money where you aren't comfortable
and for whatever reason you lose that money in the investment, you not only bitter and twisted because you aren't comfortable in the first place, you lose a good chunk of cash and that is a recipe for a very unhappy life.


----------



## qldfrog (20 March 2014)

coolcup said:


> Hi QLDfrog - I don't mind the maths above at all, but was just wondering why the $20k in tax would be paid in retirement?



retirement is whatever definition the government of the time attach to the name , I am not yet 50 but do not want to wait 65 or by that time what 70 maybe to retire and get the advantages given to retirees if any left.
If I retire in 3 years (and no, not to join  the grey nomads or do endless cruise but have a life free of going to "work" for activities I do not enjoy).
Then whatever income i get will be taxed at around 30% hopefully less if the amount  as given is relatively low but as I have seen australia following the European way in the last 20 years I have spent here, I expect it to carry on doing the same mistakes in the years ahead and that means overregulation, deficits and ever increasing taxes with contemps for achievers..sound familiar already..isn't it sad...

so my figures are conservative and you can replace retire by 
financially independent regardless of any personal work income.
hope it helps


----------



## coolcup (20 March 2014)

qldfrog said:


> retirement is whatever definition the government of the time attach to the name , I am not yet 50 but do not want to wait 65 or by that time what 70 maybe to retire and get the advantages given to retirees if any left.
> If I retire in 3 years (and no, not to join  the grey nomads or do endless cruise but have a life free of going to "work" for activities I do not enjoy).
> Then whatever income i get will be taxed at around 30% hopefully less if the amount  as given is relatively low but as I have seen australia following the European way in the last 20 years I have spent here, I expect it to carry on doing the same mistakes in the years ahead and that means overregulation, deficits and ever increasing taxes with contemps for achievers..sound familiar already..isn't it sad...
> 
> ...




Thanks mate. That is eminently sensible.


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2014)

ROE said:


> I cant really blame her even with hind insight, you don't want to put money where you aren't comfortable
> and for whatever reason you lose that money in the investment, you not only bitter and twisted because you aren't comfortable in the first place, you lose a good chunk of cash and that is a recipe for a very unhappy life.




Agree completely.

Two thing you realise when you retire, you can't afford to back too many losers and you have to keep back some money in 100% secure.


----------



## burglar (20 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Agree completely.
> 
> Two thing you realise when you retire, you can't afford to back too many losers and you have to keep back some money in 100% secure.




Put aside a lazy million?


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2014)

burglar said:


> Put aside a lazy million?




That would be nice.

So adding that to frogs scenario, $1m @ term deposit and $1.6m in blue chips.

O.k lock it in and get on with it.lol


----------



## TikoMike (24 March 2014)

Been reading this thread with interest and thought I would share this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDEAVsYqpns

Probably one of the better videos I have watched on the subjectivity of wealth. Although done by an American I would think the principles could apply here.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 March 2014)

TikoMike said:


> Probably one of the better videos I have watched on the subjectivity of wealth. Although done by an American I would think the principles could apply here.



Without doubt the worst video I have seen. A genaralised, self opinionated, agro, no idea numbskull chasing youtube face time.


----------



## TikoMike (24 March 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Without doubt the worst video I have seen. A genaralised, self opinionated, agro, no idea numbskull chasing youtube face time.




Attack the character not the content. Good stuff  . I wish there was a facepalm emote.


----------



## burglar (24 March 2014)

TikoMike said:


> ... I wish there was a facepalm emote.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 March 2014)

TikoMike said:


> Attack the character not the content.



Mate, Uncle Fester should have stuck to  acting as he has no idea about wealth and happiness.


----------



## TikoMike (24 March 2014)

burglar said:


> View attachment 57344




Thanks.




Wysiwyg said:


> Mate, Uncle Fester should have stuck to  acting as he has no idea about wealth and happiness.


----------



## Lincoln Poynton (25 March 2014)

I would like say that it doesn't matter how much wealth you have the thing is how you utilize it. I think if a anyone have sense of handling the money then there is nothing better then this.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 March 2014)

I find that the anxiety about gaining and the fear of losing wealth are the two main drawbacks to wealth.

I've managed to conquer the latter, and couldn't give a monkey's if I lost it all, as long as I had my family, friends and house. 

I still have the anxiety about gaining more wealth, but am working on it, the anxiety that is. I tried very hard a few years ago to increase my wealth but assets are going sideways atm, apart from the bubble of property, and it's difficult to make a quid easily anymore, apart from working at a day job. I haven't increased, just gone sideways. 

As to how much, 42 is the answer. 

gg


----------



## sptrawler (29 March 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I find that the anxiety about gaining and the fear of losing wealth are the two main drawbacks to wealth.
> 
> I've managed to conquer the latter, and couldn't give a monkey's if I lost it all, as long as I had my family, friends and house.
> 
> ...




You are spot on GG, the same as frog, he says $2.6million, is required. He's right.
You say, it is overcomming the anxiety of attaining it. Your right.

At the end of the day, if you can afford to sit back with family and friends, and enjoy a stress free red wine and cheese platter.
It doesn't get better than that.


----------

