gobbledonk Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 This is more a philosophical question than a financial one, but here goes: I am now 45, and, God willing, I expect to collect a reasonable super payout and have finished paying off my current mortgage by 55. Even assuming modest growth in the housing market and conservative returns on my Superannuation, I should have enough to be able to fund my own retirement, even if it means downsizing the house. The problem isnt that I couldnt have a damned good time for 10 or so years on the money that I will have accumulated, its the fact that I dont know how long this money has to last me. When I see people in their 70's and 80's shuffling to and from the shops, agonising over every purchase, I just think 'No f*cking way !'. My question is : why the hell would anyone want to live past the age of 65 ?? There is an entire industry out there exploiting the fear of an aging population that we are all going to live much longer than we think, and a health and welfare lobby which has a vested interest in seeing that his happens. I'm not proposing that we euthanase our senior citizens - they've earned their retirement - simply stating that I'd far prefer even *5* genuinely fantastic years upon retirement to 30 years of trying to string the money out ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoiledCowboy Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Good points regarding retiremment Arty and I just love dumping this info upon all the Aussie Super contributors who are under the impression that they will get paid their Super on top of a pension. Sorry, but you can't get both - get your Super payout and the government divides the total payout by the current age pension, eg $200,000 by $10,000 = 20 years and thens says do not return to claim your pension until then, that is 85 years of age! You're funding other peoples retirement out of your taxes currently and because of Super, may probably never get to receive a return from your lifetimes contributions. The value of your house by then will most probably exclude you from receiving an age pension anyway, so the system has you f**ked from both directions. Well, ok, I'll just fund 20 odd years plus of retirement from my Super fund contributions - well, I hope that you have lots and lots and lots in there, they say that those of our age to retire above the future poverty line at retirement age, you need to have $750,000 approx to scrape in. Will you have that amount in Super payout, because I sure as eggs won't. Superannuation is a con-job, setup as another fruitful tax-dodge for the extremely wealthy and as a massive, massive money-pool for big business to utilise - note the American Super Funds who can't shovel the trillions into the furnace quick enough. It was never introduced as a safety blanket for anyone. If you can contribute at the very maximum allowable, you will get something out of it, but if you are a pleb like me, then you are just losing currently 9% of your gross for what? And soon to rise to 12% and onwards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khwaimaisabai Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Hi sc, Good points, but a bit cynical. I don't know how the Australian system works, but I do know that most people vastly underestimate the amount they need for a reasonable pension at retirement. To provide that costs a lot of money, over a long period. My advice to artie would be to consult a professional who knows how to work these things out, and possibly think about some sort of annuity from an insurance company. Then he will have some hard facts to base his planning on. To take everything as cash is probably unwise for the reason artie gives - what do you do when the money runs out? It may be impossible now to imagine being 80 years old, without the health and physical fitness you now enjoy, but there is a fair chance that one day you will be in that position and you will be glad if you have a reaonable income to keep you going. In fact, if you don't you are in for a pretty miserable time. Regarding the philosophical question, it is not really a matter of choice, is it? We all hope to remain healthy and older people still have a wish to live on, healthy or not. That's life. Khwai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted July 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 I agree, SC - the whole idea of mandatory super is so that our govt wont have to keep paying the pension, and I certainly agree with that in principle. What I'm trying to say is that I dont want to see my precious 'golden' years as being this slow decline into old age : I'd rather see it as a time when I can have a finite number of really good years. If that means I have to sell the house and take my chances, then so be it - I really cant see the point of trying to make *whatever* assets I have finance 30 or more years of a basically shit life. I am increasingly seeing things from the point of view of those who choose to retire in Asia, where a reasonably modest amount will still buy something in the way of a good time, at least till my Pacemaker packs it in :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoiledCowboy Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Hi kh, yes, it does comes across as cynical, but it currently is how the system is over here and not a lot of people care to realise...until collection day...and everyone dutifully pays a large chunk of their hard-earned gross earnings into Super funds. With no reduction of taxation rates that previously were capable of funding retirement. For milleniums, all pensions were funded out of taxation revenue quite successfully, but now we have an extra large impost that is scheduled to rise and rise and rise...we are paying twice for exactly the same benefit. What possible benefit is Super for the millions of people on barely livable wages, like $25,000 per year? None at all. You need to be well into the upper percentile of earnings (and contributions of course) for Super to have strategic benefits to you. It benefits the wealthy and penalises those that aren't. Which is the vast majority. If you can use the maximum contribution rate and the corresponding taxation deductions, then Super is another handy lurk, but if you're not so privilidged to do this, then Superannuation is a con-job upon the masses. Cynicism completed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thalenoi Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 What will be left of you at age 65, 70,75? I had a "heart attack" at age 54 after 10 years of happy bar hopping in LOS. That made me stop working. Although I am nailed by the insurance company paying as little as possible iso the full contract value I live "retired" in LOS 10 months a year and enjoy live as much as possible. Time is running out, you guys in your 30thies or 40thies don't seem to realise that. I won't have much cash once over 65, but then I won't be "handsome" neither. I do enjoy live NOW whilst most of you are working your ass off for a hypothetical "good old age" My advice would be: don't wait to long for that super payout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khwaimaisabai Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 thalenoi said:My advice would be: don't wait to long for that super payout. Hi thalenoi, Very good point. I am in the process of making these judgements myself at present. Over the last six months or so I have spent a lot of time putting my financial affairs in order in various ways. I am in the fortunate position of having a decent frozen pension in the UK which I could take now, if I wanted to. Of course, if I took it now it would be reduced and the longer I wait, the higher it will be. Also, by continuing to work I am accumulating more funds. If I go on to 63, the official retirement date, I will have quite a stash, but I don't necessarily want to do that. Different people have different commitments and I have quite a few, which makes it more difficult to retire too early. I have several friends, around our age, who are retired and enjoy life very much. Another friend said he had tried retirement and didn't like it so he is now back involved in several different business ventures. For younger people, it is vital to plan and make sure you are putting away enough. Unfortunately, many people don't do this and take the attitude that they will enjoy life while they can and let old age take care of itself. SC and artie may think I'm a boring old fart, but I think they are making a mistake by pretending the problem doesn't exist. Just my humble opinion. Khwai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoiledCowboy Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Hi khwaimaisabai - it appears that maybe your countries pension/super could well be different, but that really is the way it works in OZ - there ain't no benefit for anyone except the Super Funds and those that have access to their massive funds, in earning $30,000 gross (with 9% gross super deductions) for say 30 years until one's retirement to collect the pittance when one turns 65, let's say you get $110,000 payout - either take the payout in cash (but divide the $10k pension into $110k, that's 11 years and that's the time you are excluded from applying for the pension!) or take payments at which it is calculated for pension eligibilty as the equivilent of the pension times X number of weeks until your payments are exhausted and then you can apply for a pension, if you're still alive that is. If that's a good deal, then buying a beer bar in Pattaya would rate at the top of the ladder for quality investment strategy! And let us not forget that last year the Super Funds lost, I say again lost money, ie you got less than what you put in. Kinda funny that one - I could have put the money into the local ING Bank or Citibank and got between 5.25 to 5.50 percent at call - but these Funds managed to LOSE our enforced contributions. Cynical someone said? Dead right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singhaman Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Artiew, I hope this remains to be a philosophical question. My grand mom died at the age of 54 and my grand dad with 66. I was devastated and couldn't believe, that very much loved members of our family departed so early and I still miss both very much, since they gave me a brilliant childhood and gave everything they could possible give. Both have worked their entire lives and had no chance to take a rest until cancer called them home. Both would have deserved a time of rest, fun, harmony and quality time with their families after long hard working years....... Food for thoughts..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzz Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 I retired at 50 and have been retired 6 yrs now. It seems like older I get, faster time moves. The years have blazed on by since retirement, so you may not feel like ending your life after only 5 or 10 yrs of retirement, if you retire at 55. Your ideas are similar to mine when it comes to not hanging on when the quality of life gets too low. My middle class pension is indexed to inflation but I expect to check out when I'm around 75 or so, depending on my health situation. I feel life will be so hard by then that it will be better to go on my own terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.