zaph

Families earning $250k pa struggling

54 posts in this topic

Sounds fair.

$35K cap at aged 50, fair? Pull the other one. It should be 'whatever you need' to get to 11x your FAS by your designated retirement age. Some may need to contribute 100K, some 10K. Once you reach that limit you pay marginal rate on contributions. plus there should be asset tests. The 5 investment properties don't count?

I notice no one brings up the parliamentary pension gravy train.

Some serious discussion among folks I know involve taking every cent the day after retirement and moving to places like Spain and Thailand. Leave this country to its welfare surfing zero-ambition bogans.

As a side issue, I wonder how much bank interest on cars, credit cards, furniture finance and personal loans is being paid by recipients of Family Tax Benefit A&B and School Kids Bribe Bonus?

Maybe one can nominate for Swanny to pay Ford Finance, GE Finance and NAB direct? Some of those family tax B folk are only on 145K a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Work will set you free.

Cheap shot sorry ...

Not necessarily. Many will have to work until death if the government can't afford to provide a living pension. Biggest problem with super is that the f@cking government changes the rule just about every year, each time lowering thresholds until your super will be taxed like your normal income. This is looking like the road to Cyprus by a government that can't control its spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...This is looking like the road to Cyprus by a government that can't control its spending.

Oh there is a different type of government? huh, learn something every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many will have to work until death if the government can't afford to provide a living pension

That's how it has always been with the exception of recent times.

Biggest problem with super is that the f@cking government changes the rule just about every year,

THIS - This is what makes Super untrustworthy. If it were only that they were fine tuning it it'd be fine. But they're not. That ministers have had to come out and assure the public that Super is "safe" from sticky fingered government speaks volumes and the sound from the warning bells is deafening to all those with ears

This is looking like the road to Cyprus by a government that can't control its spending.

The demands from the public are unending. And when a largess is granted it's nigh on impossible to retract. I suspect as a collective we're all to blame. I personally want to see all handouts that I'm not eligible stopped. I mean, I can't even get onto the public housing waiting list whilst my co-worker on more money than me is guaranteed subsidised housing for life.

Whilst I'm at it. WTF is wrong with governments? Giving long long term contracts out such as "for life"? or the Solar fiasco? For crying out loud LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about you tip it on its head, if you earn 10k in super payouts a year you pay %10 tax, and if you make it to 100k a year you pay no tax at all. sure would incentive every f*cker piling as much as they could away for old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That ministers have had to come out and assure the public that Super is "safe" from sticky fingered government speaks volumes and the sound from the warning bells is deafening to all those with ears

Never believe a rumour until it is officially denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side issue, I wonder how much bank interest on cars, credit cards, furniture finance and personal loans is being paid by recipients of Family Tax Benefit A&B and School Kids Bribe Bonus?

Thanks to the Goose and Co. it looks like Mr and Mrs Medved will be the recipients of middle-class largesse (but I can't be fecked claiming FTB, too much paperwork). Now to convince Mrs Medved that a NAS is a necessity and source cheap HDDs. smile.gifThat's your tax dollars at work! Well, I guess my tax dollars at work too... but at least no interest payments.

I have NEVER trusted superannuation. They change the rules more often than they change their underwear. I'd rather have my savings as far away from the gubment as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how it has always been with the exception of recent times.

Disagree on that one. In prior years, the government provided a living pension from a big tax base relative to the number of pensioners. But the average age of a person was much lower, such that when they retired at 65, they would only live for a couple of year and then no more pension required! Now the average wage is in the mid 70s and increasing, together with the social welfare and health costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never believe a rumour until it is officially denied.

I liked when Tony was ranting on about it and someone asked if he would roll back the changes if he got in and he couldn't bring himself to say yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked when Tony was ranting on about it and someone asked if he would roll back the changes if he got in and he couldn't bring himself to say yes.

proceeded by "we will fight ferociously fight to prevent these changes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Many will have to work until death if the government can't afford to provide a living pension. Biggest problem with super is that the f@cking government changes the rule just about every year, each time lowering thresholds until your super will be taxed like your normal income. This is looking like the road to Cyprus by a government that can't control its spending.

I agree this could be the thin end of the wedge. It's generally the way all governments operate. Full blown HECS fees started as a $250 dollar 'administration' levy.

Ironically, the new rules will disproportionately affect senior public service retirees and politicians on defined benefits schemes. :)/>

AK made the point that the reason the government are looking at people with savings to top up the accounts is that everyone else is burdened by so much debt they can't afford to pay. The downside of a government sponsored ponzi scheme.

The changes will ensure more people take the lump sum and stick into the PPOR to remain under the income threshold for a partial pension. The medical coverage alone makes this worthwhile. There will end up a lot less wholly self funded retirees and who can blame them? The policy defeats the purpose of having super in the first place but what the hey?

I will wait and see if I keep my job after the elections. If I do I will likely buy a house. Saving is a mugs game in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saving is a mugs game in this country.

You actually have money and no debt, you silly sod!

And where is the government going to find the cash to pay for all those patriots that are deeply in debt? From those in debt?

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and the population with debt is the ultimate Too Big To Fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

try saving in US UK or Japan , once you realize that money in your bank, wallet, or under the matresss, is their money not yours. you are halfway to wisdom. the other half is WTF to do about it,. and i dont know

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You actually have money and no debt, you silly sod!

And where is the government going to find the cash to pay for all those patriots that are deeply in debt? From those in debt?

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and the population with debt is the ultimate Too Big To Fail.

Therein lies my concerns Anders. I don't expect the banks to go bust imminently of course but the Cyprus thing has shown that governments/banks aren't averse to confiscating your savings if they decide they need to. There was an interesting piece on the 7.30 report this week around the relationship between the RBA and the banks. I don't generally agree with much Chris Joye has to say this quote I agree with.

CHRISTOPHER JOYE: The relationship between the RBA and APRA and the four major banks is a little too cosy. APRA is controlled by Treasury, and in the last few years we've had two Treasury secretaries, Ken Henry and Ted Evans, sitting on major bank boards. We've got the last boss of the RBA, Ian Macfarlane, on the board of ANZ. And we've had other Treasury and RBA officials running Westpac and AMP in the past.

The conflict of interest is obvious. The regulators will go easier on the banks when their future employment depends upon it.

Truth is Ms clown wants a house. We have enough of a deposit saved to not rely on a massive mortgage to buy a place in an area we like so the rent vs buy equation is getting more even by the day for us. We earn enough to pay it down within 5 years. I've got no expectation of capital gains. Indeed I realise the risk of house price deflation is real.

Even so having large deposits in a bank is not without risks. Moral hazard specifically. Unlike you I am not fortunate enough to have another country to which I can flee.

The interest earned on large deposits is taxed at the top marginal rate so real returns are about at inflation levels. Hardly spectacular. The share market doesn't reward the risk either.

I am lucky enough to have a defined benefit pension scheme so I have less to fear than those in accumulation funds. We also have accumulation super funds.

If the economy weakens I'm backing my ability to stay employed. The department I work for is one of those that a coalition government would favour. We are likely to receive more funding rather than less. They could outsource me but even then I'd be confident of being employed by the chosen vendor. I have system specific knowledge AKA I wrote a large component of it.

Anyway, I have thought a bit about the decision but I emphasise that I will wait and see what happens post election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth is Ms clown wants a house. We have enough of a deposit saved to not rely on a massive mortgage to buy a place in an area we like so the rent vs buy equation is getting more even by the day for us.

Even so having large deposits in a bank is not without risks.

1. The amount of cash you have does not affect the rent vs buy equation.

2. There is no risk with large deposits if managed correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The amount of cash you have does not affect the rent vs buy equation.

2. There is no risk with large deposits if managed correctly.

I beg to differ on point 1 syd. I will only buy in a area I want to live in. These areas are not on the outskirts of the town (where I could have afforded to buy years ago) with the same mortgage as I would have now. ~300k. So the repayments on a property I want to live in require me to have a large deposit.

You're possibly correct on point 2. The government guarantee applies to individual accounts up to 250K. I may just be paranoid. But this thread shows the fickle nature of governments with regard to the legislative risk to super/savings. Things can go badly quite quickly. I'm erring on the side of caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ on point 1 syd.

Pull up any rent vs buy calculator and show me where it asks: "How much cash do you hold?" Your cash holding does not influence the rent vs buy decision.

Edited by sydney3000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree on that one. In prior years, the government provided a living pension from a big tax base relative to the number of pensioners. But the average age of a person was much lower, such that when they retired at 65, they would only live for a couple of year and then no more pension required! Now the average wage is in the mid 70s and increasing, together with the social welfare and health costs.

I can't be bothered chasing up the information. However the pension was set at 65 years when most died before then. Even then, not everyone was eligible to claim it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your mortgage

Australian Mortgage Broker

free online rent vs buy calculator

Look under 'deposit' or 'down payment' fields

We are talking apples and oranges. I was arguing that your cash wealth has no bearing on the decision while you used the term deposit synonymous with the foregone conclusion that some or all of your cash wealth is the down payment. In your mind you seem to already have decided that the cash you hold is the down payment instead of being unassigned cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking apples and oranges. I was arguing that your cash wealth has no bearing on the decision while you used the term deposit synonymous with the foregone conclusion that some or all of your cash wealth is the down payment. In your mind you seem to already have decided that the cash you hold is the down payment instead of being unassigned cash.

What are you talking about? I'm not the EU. I don't have 'unassigned cash'. I have cash which I will use to purchase a house. There was no mention of fruit at any point.

Edit: drunken profanities removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? I'm not the EU. I don't have 'unassigned cash'. I have cash which I will use to purchase a house. There was no mention of fruit at any point.

Edit: drunken profanities removed

Is this a real argument?

It seems to me the main difference between your opinions is that Syd is referrring to the mathematical equation for rent versus buying, and is correct, when viewed at each house price level and how best to spent your money. Whereas da clown is talking personal constraints e.g. rent because can't afford to buy, and is also correct.

Everyone is correct!

hammer time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More in the link.

Cost of raising children jumps by more than 50 per cent since 2007

http://www.abc.net.a...-before/4708076

The cost of raising children in Australia has skyrocketed in the past five years, with middle-income families spending up to $458 a week to raise a child.

A report from AMP and the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) looked at the cost of raising children in Australia across all income groups.

It has found middle-income families have had the biggest increase in costs, and are now spending up to 50 per cent more than in 2007.

"The cost of (raising) two children to the age of 21 is about $800,000, Ben Phillips, a NATSEM researcher said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More in the link.

Cost of raising children jumps by more than 50 per cent since 2007

http://www.abc.net.a...-before/4708076

The cost of raising children in Australia has skyrocketed in the past five years, with middle-income families spending up to $458 a week to raise a child.

A report from AMP and the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) looked at the cost of raising children in Australia across all income groups.

It has found middle-income families have had the biggest increase in costs, and are now spending up to 50 per cent more than in 2007.

"The cost of (raising) two children to the age of 21 is about $800,000, Ben Phillips, a NATSEM researcher said.

That must be complete BS, since official figures show we have minimal inflation! rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the main drivers of this are the big ticket items such as food and transport and recreation.
A major factor behind the increase, is that many middle-income families are opting for private school education

Make up your mind.

I do like the way that low income families get most of it paid by the government but no mention of how much the middle class get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now