when you have forced someone to lock away their money for 40 odd years then it becomes tricky as to how to 'fairly' treat it ....... and part of me wonders if it is all worth it for the country. I have no answers here ...... this is all way above my pay grade.Maybe a better/fairer system would be that earnings on super balances once preservation/access age is reached reverts to individual marginal tax rates.
Earnings during accumulation phase left to be taxed as they are.
Withdrawal of capital untaxed as it is your money.
(not meaning to devalue anybodys life efforts) If I was approaching retirement age right now I would be seriously considering that situation if it was a near thing. That is the bit I do not like ... that the option presented of going on the taxpayers tit should be 'more' attractive than paying for my own retirement ..... that was an earlier point I made.I suppose an easy answer to all your questions is.
Why save and not have holiday's, or flip new cars to save $800k and get no pension and earn about $35k of income.
When you could have a great time and spend and all your money, then have $300k in super and get $35k in pension.
It really doesn't make sense.
I'm probably missing something, maybe the great feeling of doing without for the greater good. Then being told your just a selfish fat cat. What a hoot, what a flicked up system.
Is there any wonder we are going down the tube. Lol
So in 40 years the funds need IMO, have gone from $600k to say $2.4m that is about 4 times, which is about right if you use the general rule that everything doubles about every 10 years
Maybe if you adopt the live off dividends and not spend capital approach.But generally, if you are in your 40's you will probably need about 3.5-4m to retire comfortably at 60-65 and never require State assistance.
Hey, numbers confuse me so I will not comment on that .... I do like that you have some skin in the complexity of this.Maybe if you adopt the live off dividends and not spend capital approach ......
There's some rational logic in investing outside super in order to be able to retire early should you choose or be forced to by whatever circumstances.It really doesn't make sense.
first bit yeahThere's some rational logic in investing outside super in order to be able to retire early should you choose or be forced to by whatever circumstances.
The system certainly isn't encouraging people to fund their own retirement as such though, that's for sure.
My concern is that if you factor in losing the pension plus the risk that government changes the rules and has you working until you drop then it doesn't look too good and encourages a "spend today and don't worry about retirement" approach.I must say that it is currently financially beneficial for nearly every worker to max their concessional contributions from a taxation view
My concern is that if you factor in losing the pension plus the risk that government changes the rules and has you working until you drop then it doesn't look too good and encourages a "spend today and don't worry about retirement" approach.
That's the exact opposite of what I've been hearing from government for decades but it seems to be where it has ended up.
The Government funded pension, will have to absorb much more feed in the next 5 years IMO, there is no sense in saving anything other than the super guarantee rate, any extra should be put into the PPR.
To save $1.6m for a blue collar worker, is a lifetime of sacrifice, to get a return of 3-5% is just ludicrous return for the effort. Just my opinion, but if i had my time over, I would not be investing in shares for retirement income.
I would upgrading the house enjoying the ambience, and the free capital gains, then working on pension upgrade facility. lol
Unfortunately I've missed the boat, but others should really take heed. IMO
I would upgrading the house enjoying the ambience, and the free capital gains, then working on pension upgrade facility. lol
Unfortunately I've missed the boat, but others should really take heed. IMO
.
To save $1.6m for a blue collar worker, is a lifetime of sacrifice, to get a return of 3-5% is just ludicrous return for the effort. Just my opinion, but if i had my time over, I would not be investing in shares for retirement income.
30% on 1.6m tax free in retirement is a nice little earn, much bigger than a pension
$40k (no extra contributions) compounded at 20%p.a over 20 yrs will get there. Most 30 year old would have well above $40k especially by the time they reach 40.It's getting the $1.6m together, in the first place, that is difficult.
Tell me in five years time, how you are going with that plan.$40k (no extra contributions) compounded at 20%p.a over 20 yrs will get there. Most 30 year old would have well above $40k especially by the time they reach 40.
Its the rate of return that is the issue for most, but with a bit of interest, passion, dedication one can learn how to outperform the market.
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?