Thread: Pension Age may move to 70

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.

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

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

Hey, Blitz

You wouldn't be refering to our local member Wyatt Earp -er Roy by any chance

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.

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
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

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
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

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

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?