Pension Age may move to 70

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

24th November 2013, 11:01 AM
101RRS

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigE

Well Garry you must have the best managed super fund in the world and if so good luck to you. The average is around 10% and documented, but we are also still a long way from the end of the FY and if history is anything to go by there is usually a huge crash around Christmas to Feb that pegs it back quite a bit.

You obviously have not read the other posts by others that confirm the numbers.
24th November 2013, 11:02 AM
mudmouse

The average probably is 10%, so for that to be achieved you will need some winners and losers....50% is very good and plausible.

In relation to haircuts, the difference between a good haircut and a bad haircut is 3 to 4 weeks, and if you stick at it and want one, you will learn to give yourself a good haircut.

If people don't have a job to go to and aren't yet eligible for a pension, then their existence will need to be sustained by some other sort of Government benefit. Raising the age won't necessarily change much, it's more to encourage people to invest in their superannuation by greater self contribution and less 'up wall p#55ing'. It's not for those in their 30's 40's etc, it's to be considered by people about to enter the workplace.

Matt.
24th November 2013, 12:46 PM
blitz

what gets me is the 23 yr old snot bag politician pushing it who says he's sick of carrying 'all the old' people - I want to knee cap him
24th November 2013, 01:16 PM
stevo68

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudmouse

The average probably is 10%, so for that to be achieved you will need some winners and losers....50% is very good and plausible.

In relation to haircuts, the difference between a good haircut and a bad haircut is 3 to 4 weeks, and if you stick at it and want one, you will learn to give yourself a good haircut.

If people don't have a job to go to and aren't yet eligible for a pension, then their existence will need to be sustained by some other sort of Government benefit. Raising the age won't necessarily change much, it's more to encourage people to invest in their superannuation by greater self contribution and less 'up wall p#55ing'. It's not for those in their 30's 40's etc, it's to be considered by people about to enter the workplace.

Matt.

A couple of points, the average has to be guaged against the risk profile of the client, the portfolio construction and the profile of the fund. Its also not about winners and losers but having an understanding of markets. A savvy investor understands that investing is a long term project. During that time their will be ebbs and flows. Ultimately over any 7-10 year period based on a well managed portfolio, they will come out ahead. However if they invest in high risk speculative shares the up and downside is magnified.

The haircut analogy is just that an analogy. To better understand the analogy is to google the facts in relation to retirement outcomes. One of the reasons I go into businesses and do free financial education seminars is because we arent taught about it at schools hence the average person has a limited understanding. If I can help one person in that area. ..even something like cash flow management. ..happy days. The big big problem is hope isnt a strategy yet that is the strategy of many.

Also would heartily disagree that the whole main issue doesnt apply to 30/40+ year olds. A male in his 30's will need around $1.6 mill and a woman $1.8 mill in super/investments to have a "comfortable" retirement. Bottom line is its not to late to start changing ones ball game.

For some good links click on my fb link below where you can punch in some basic info for outcomes etc.

Regards

Stevo

Sent from my GT-I9305T using AULRO mobile app
24th November 2013, 04:56 PM
UncleHo

Hey, Blitz :)

You wouldn't be refering to our local member Wyatt Earp -er Roy by any chance
24th November 2013, 05:11 PM
Mick_Marsh

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz

what gets me is the 23 yr old snot bag politician pushing it who says he's sick of carrying 'all the old' people - I want to knee cap him

I would like to see him not get his pension until he is seventy.
24th November 2013, 06:19 PM
Chucaro

Based on my experience in near 45 years in Australia I regard investing money in shares as a plain gamble and the worse think is that we give our money (or forced by the superannuation laws) to other people to gamble it for us.
Go and telling the people that lost money with AMP or FAI among other companies that they did not have done the best to save some money for the future :mad:
Allow people to invest in real estate instead of shares.
Look at Woolworth they sold Dick Smiths stores for 20 million and now the value is over 320 million + .
Good performance by Woolworth directors, they have done a good job for the shareholders :mad:
24th November 2013, 07:13 PM
bobslandies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Based on my experience in near 45 years in Australia I regard investing money in shares as a plain gamble and the worse think is that we give our money (or forced by the superannuation laws) to other people to gamble it for us.
Go and telling the people that lost money with AMP or FAI among other companies that they did not have done the best to save some money for the future :mad:
Allow people to invest in real estate instead of shares.
Look at Woolworth they sold Dick Smiths stores for 20 million and now the value is over 320 million + .
Good performance by Woolworth directors, they have done a good job for the shareholders :mad:

Well, well Arthur - all the usual suspects - refer to my post #69:

Dick Smith signs deal to operate David Jones' struggling electronics division - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Enough said.

Bob
24th November 2013, 07:30 PM
Gillie

So some of us are Defensive investors and some are high Growth or aggressive investors. I can respect that. So long as YOU know where you sit and YOU are comfortable, that is all that matters.

for those that don't know, why not?
24th November 2013, 07:49 PM
stevo68

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Based on my experience in near 45 years in Australia I regard investing money in shares as a plain gamble and the worse think is that we give our money (or forced by the superannuation laws) to other people to gamble it for us.
Go and telling the people that lost money with AMP or FAI among other companies that they did not have done the best to save some money for the future :mad:
Allow people to invest in real estate instead of shares.
Look at Woolworth they sold Dick Smiths stores for 20 million and now the value is over 320 million + .
Good performance by Woolworth directors, they have done a good job for the shareholders :mad:

Hey Arthur. ..hope you are well. Ok...the problem with your comment about investments in shares a gamble and with regards superannuation is based on your opinion, there is no factual basis. I say that because it shows little understanding to the mechanics of investing. Trillions of dollars are invested in a range of asset classes when it comes to super. I'm not going to bang on about it here, do your own research on the stock market.

Also speak to the thousands of people who have lost money on property, property ventures, commercial real estate and so forth over the years. Any investment class will carry a level of risk. Its the management of that risk and diversification that reduces the overall level of risk, regardless of asset class.

My mother listened to the likes of you, someone with an opinion but no education, qualification or work experience in that field and its cost her $1000's. If that same advice came from an adviser, they'd be stripped of their licence, fined and unemployed. So think about how your opinion may affect another person when it comes to their personal financial situation. I hope you understand my comments aren't meant to be inflammatory.

Regards

Stevo

Sent from my GT-I9305T using AULRO mobile app

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page