Unless there's been an astonishing rise in the last few months, this is simply untrue. The NZ pension - when currency difference is accounted for - is only slightly more than that paid in Australia. Certainly it's not means tested, but it's taxed which limits the amount paid in higher earners.New Zealand's age pension, for example, is worth about 80 per cent more.
Says a lot about the performance of 'financial planners' in my opinion.
As long as the commissions are rolling in etc etc.
I wonder how accurate the statements are in that article?
e.g. this is a quote from it:
Unless there's been an astonishing rise in the last few months, this is simply untrue. The NZ pension - when currency difference is accounted for - is only slightly more than that paid in Australia. Certainly it's not means tested, but it's taxed which limits the amount paid in higher earners.
I don't know about rent, Nyden, but given property prices are fairly similar, I doubt it would be much cheaper. Occasionally I compare e.g. rates, electricity etc with friends there, and overall it's also similar.
I wonder how accurate the statements are in that article?
e.g. this is a quote from it:
Unless there's been an astonishing rise in the last few months, this is simply untrue. The NZ pension - when currency difference is accounted for - is only slightly more than that paid in Australia. Certainly it's not means tested, but it's taxed which limits the amount paid in higher earners.
I was stunned by this (maybe I should read the paper more regularly). So, if you own a million dollar home you can still get a pension? There's a lot of talk about welfare-dependence on this forum, aborigines this, unemployed that, single mothers etc. ... probably going to touch on a nerve, but is anyone else flabbergasted by this?
I was stunned by this (maybe I should read the paper more regularly). So, if you own a million dollar home you can still get a pension? There's a lot of talk about welfare-dependence on this forum, aborigines this, unemployed that, single mothers etc. ... probably going to touch on a nerve, but is anyone else flabbergasted by this?
I was stunned by this (maybe I should read the paper more regularly). So, if you own a million dollar home you can still get a pension? There's a lot of talk about welfare-dependence on this forum, aborigines this, unemployed that, single mothers etc. ... probably going to touch on a nerve, but is anyone else flabbergasted by this?
Several years ago some bright spark in the then WA state Labor government decided it would be a good idea to introduce a 2%pa "premium property tax" on residential properties valued at $1m or more.I agree with it. Think about a couple who have lived in an area all their 40 years of married lives. Normal jobs; mum probably stayed at home and didnt work. Not wealthy in terms of $$ in the Bank, but they own their house and they have money to pay their bills. Close to the city, convenient, probably a very large '1/4 acre' block. Over the 40 years they have been living there, other properties nearby have been bought, the house bulldozed, and multi units installed. Or the suburb becomes popular because of its proximity to the city. So now the house is worth $1.2million. That wont pay the bills though. After 40 years are they supposed to sell?
I agree with it. Think about a couple who have lived in an area all their 40 years of married lives. Normal jobs; mum probably stayed at home and didnt work. Not wealthy in terms of $$ in the Bank, but they own their house and they have money to pay their bills. Close to the city, convenient, probably a very large '1/4 acre' block. Over the 40 years they have been living there, other properties nearby have been bought, the house bulldozed, and multi units installed. Or the suburb becomes popular because of its proximity to the city. So now the house is worth $1.2million. That wont pay the bills though. After 40 years are they supposed to sell?
Well considering other assets count towards whether they receive the pension, why shouldn't the family home?
I could have $300K worth of assets and own an average house worth $500K and be one year off retirement. Knowing my assets will make me ineligible for the pension, I could sell these assets and buy a $800K home so I could receive the pension.
Would you really want to tie up $300K worth of assets just to get $14K p.a. pension?
A 5% return on $300K would get you $15K and still have access to the capital when needed.
Would you really want to tie up $300K worth of assets just to get $14K p.a. pension?
A 5% return on $300K would get you $15K and still have access to the capital when needed.
Point taken.
However, two people could have the exact same value of assets - one decided to buy an expensive home, the other buys a cheaper home but has other valuable assets. Why should the second person be penalised?
Krusty, there seem to be a sizeable number of people doing just this, or thereabouts, if that article I quoted from is correct (it puts the number at 400,000 millionaires drawing the pension)?
ps. Apologies to Sir O for hijacking the thread.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?