- Joined
- 25 September 2007
- Posts
- 1,712
- Reactions
- 13
That's all very well, but no man can guarantee himself another 30 years.
What is freeganism? (Obviously I'm missing something obvious here.)
That will obviously change as you age, as will your risk profile.
"We forge the chains we wear in life."
- Charles Dickens
Chains of habit are too light to be felt until they are too heavy to be broken.
Warren Buffett
I'm all for freeganism, but it's hard to remain dignified whilst dumpster diving.
No.. dont think my 30yrs change cause wanna croak with larger capital base than have now...its called estate planning (also easy to run out if live too long)
If I had no children, grandchildren, would be different
, hopefully I can give the bulk away before I die.
Hopefully I can raise my kids well enough that they don't need welfare assistance from me.
I think it is nice to give your kids something.
I got a small inheritance from both sides of grandparents and will have some coming when my old man pegs it. I got a small amount throughout uni, but it was only enough that i appreciated it and didnt expect it
The difficulty is in knowing when you're going to die. I'd like to do as you suggest, too, but would then be a bit put out if I lived a lot longer and went back to being poor in the last years.
The difficulty is in knowing when you're going to die. I'd like to do as you suggest, too, but would then be a bit put out if I lived a lot longer and went back to being poor in the last years.
Would you? Well perhaps you're not taking into account that evolving government policy is that we will all have to make a substantial contribution to our own aged care.When you get really old you can't travel overseas, you can't drive!
Oh, you get the drift.
The things you can do dwindles towards nothingness, ...
I would risk being poor in the last years.
Would you? Well perhaps you're not taking into account that evolving government policy is that we will all have to make a substantial contribution to our own aged care.
The costs of providing full taxpayer funded aged care, given the blow out in the aging population, are simply not sustainable, so there is going to have to be a new model introduced where we pay for the level of care we want.
Certainly distasteful if this is going to mean that we get better care if we are able to pay for it, but essentially necessary.
So far the family home has been quarantined from assessment in aged care payments.
The new suggestion is that it won't be in future. Seems fair enough to me.
Why should succeeding generations of taxpayers have to fund our retirement because we want to hold on to the family home to pass on to our children?
No reason I can think of.
... we will all have to make a substantial contribution to our own aged care.
That's a sad story, Brian.You might be able to make a case that this story is extreme and not likely to be in any way representative. But I suspect that there are many similar stories in this age group particularly. These men worked all their lives, raised families, in most cases, on one income and now find themselves unable to improve their lot in even a small way. And meantime they are vulnerable to expoitation.
inq, it has to do with the culture of the time. A couple of generations ago, there was a genuine belief that if one paid all tax due, the ultimate benefit would include a pension in retirement that was sufficient to live on.What does sympathy have to do with it?
In the end, you have the choice between trying to set yourself up financially for retirement (A good period of 45 years between 20 and 65) and if you don't so be it.
I cannot wait for old age pensions to be grandfathered out of welfare, it will result in much greater accountability of individuals.
... there was a genuine belief that if one paid all tax due, the ultimate benefit would include a pension in retirement that was sufficient to live on. ...
What does sympathy have to do with it?
In the end, you have the choice between trying to set yourself up financially for retirement (A good period of 45 years between 20 and 65) and if you don't so be it.
Having browsed through several pages of the posts on this thread, I have come to the (not surprising?) conclusion that they are written by people who are not poor. For the most part I am not detecting much empathy with or sympathy for people who find themselves in depressed financial circumstances. And it made me think of someone I know very well and perhaps his circumstances may provide another perspective.
He is part of a small pool of aged pensioners, all in their late sixties, early seventies who are on call, seven days a week, to ferry drive vehicles for a rental car agency. The drive is often 200 plus kilometres each way and includes some city driving. For this they get paid $6 per hour!!!! This begs the obvious questions: why would they work for such a pittance and/or why don't they demand award rates. Their answer is that given their age, the prospect of getting any other work to supplement their pension is nil; and when they have made representations to their employer, they have been told that he is treating them as contractors and he can pay what he likes. I don't think any of them have high levels of education and would have little idea of what recourses they have they have open to them. And of course there is no union involvement at the place.
You might be able to make a case that this story is extreme and not likely to be in any way representative. But I suspect that there are many similar stories in this age group particularly. These men worked all their lives, raised families, in most cases, on one income and now find themselves unable to improve their lot in even a small way. And meantime they are vulnerable to expoitation.
inq, it has to do with the culture of the time. A couple of generations ago, there was a genuine belief that if one paid all tax due, the ultimate benefit would include a pension in retirement that was sufficient to live on.
.
Depends on whether they are on a single pension or are part of a married couple getting almost twice as much to meet all the same expenses. i.e. the single pensioner even with his own home still has to meet most of the same expenses such as rates, water, electricity, insurance. That can be very tight on a single pension.So they are on the pension, and have hobby with a very small income attached, I can hardly see how this person can be called poor.
Perhaps, but we don't know what difficulties they may have encountered before reaching age pension age. If e.g. there has been a relationship breakdown with the assets split that couple are then individually going to be in a disadvantaged financial situation. Or people can be retrenched, ill, etc during what would usually be working years.How ever their life could have been improved if they had a better saving/spending habits during their working life.
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?