toOZ2012

There are some services online that you can record your answer to a question and they give you feedback for a small fee.

Lee family has a habit of strong arming anyone that goes against their interests. They certainly are in trouble, I just heard from friends about the full on political campaign going on at the moment.

People who are close to their retirement that posted here. Vested interests in keeping the age pension as is because it benefits them personally. One gentleman even resorted to a personal attack, that's how unpopular this topic is.

You mean people with vested interests? Of course not.

Yes they can but will they? The simplified calculations are to make it easier for people to understand the bigger picture. Home ownership is not the same as buying extra properties for investment. Super doesn't have leverage and the rent, which is wasted money, can be used to pay off the mortgage. I said that property prices tend to increase more often than not, which is true. Factor in all those factors and you can see how home ownership is not such a bad thing. Try getting the average person to invest outside super or in super for that matter. The aim of super reforms is help people to save for retirement and it's no secret that the family home is the biggest asset for many retirees.

You didn't follow it very thoroughly, then. I put two arguments forward 1) Including the family home in the assets test. Which I supplied plenty of supportive arguments while others where just crying foul. 2) Allowing access to super funds to help first home buyers get a break - Plenty of posts covering this as well. Just because the topic is unpopular with the people who posted here doesn't make my argument any less valid.

First, I would check if either of those agents are registered migration agents. If not, run like hell. Second, if you share some of your profile here - you'll get better feedback on your chances.

That depends on the person really but I found IELTS Academic to be easier. I can't for the life of me write silly letters in the writing task. Also, academic version has fewer reading passages but are a bit harder so if you have good comprehension you can finish the academic section quicker. If you are trying to improve scores in Listening and Speaking then it wouldn't matter which version you take. However, if you are trying to improve one of the other two then I would probably do some practice tests to find the one that easier.

Depends on the company and profession, I think. We were expected to complete our tasks but had great flexibility. Nowhere near as flexible as Europe or Australia for that matter but Australia is also moving towards a system where employees are expected to work extra hours. When I first moved here, a sales engineer and his boss came over to meet me. I asked the boss a question about something and he said I'll let him(sales engineer) answer that - that's what I pay him for. Heard similar *insults* from other people over time. I don't know if it's a uniquely Perth thing to insult employees in front of clients, thinking it's clever/funny. or if it is an Australia wide thing. In Asia, India and may be other countries. Employers never make personal comments in front of others - the whole saving face thing is really important for a lot of people.

Indeed. There was a public outcry over why so much credit is available to average income earners. It's a bit better now but only a few years ago, you'll have seen some of the most ridiculous offers from Banks to entice people to take up credit and go broke. Financial *agents* had the authority to get people to sign-up for credit in train stations, shopping malls, busy streets. Banks pay these *agents* and the cycle repeats. Offers such as a new $1000 laptop just to take up a $15,000 personal loan are not that uncommon. The official credit limit for most banks is 4 times monthly salary but they don't factor in what other banks have already lent. I think the govt set the official overall limit to 20 times monthly salary for all banks combined. I think this also has a lot to do with growing middle class like in many developing nations that just go on spending sprees as they never had the experience of actually spending money let alone going broke from overspending. But for people who have some decent money management skills, especially women, can find real bargains and value for their money.

There is this joke. When MM Lee visited the UK(I think) in the 50's he saw people people put in money, the box opens and they only take 1 newspaper. He though to himself, wow - what a civilized country. One day Singapore will be like this. Fast forward 50 years, Singaporeans take the paper and also take the money. Was a joke, of course, but good to put things in contrast. The first generation of Singaporeans rose from the dirt, I guess old habits die hard. The younger generations have slowly grown out of it. The coming election will be a tough one. Last election was a very close call for the ruling party. Interesting tidbit: HK'ers, humorously, call Singapore as Lee Dynasty (Reference to the Lee family being in power).

I understand that welfare payments are a sensitive subject. I think we covered a few aspects of current aged pension system and wish to conclude this thread here. Thanks everyone for their 2c or taking 2c - I kid, I kid.

You mentioned working man which from the context is inferred as common-man. We wouldn't be talking about a wealthy man working for reasons other than money? Not the life gives lemons, make lemonade non-sense. It's easier said than done and sometimes people fail even if they have sincerely tried. God forbid, I may fail too and when I do I want the welfare system to be fully functional with decent rates to really make a difference and get me back up on my feet and start giving back to the system again.

It's current generation not leaving a s**t of a mess to clean up for the next. You have an interesting definition of a common-man and also assume that all people without savings are there by choice. I say, people with wealth should take on more fiscal responsibility - whether it be a working person with higher income, a business with higher revenues or retirees with higher wealth than the common-man. Mind you, I pay taxes (more than an average person I might add), have private insurance, don't get or expect any hand-outs and with a bit of hard work and luck, I will retire with sufficient wealth to not rely on the welfare system or anyone else for that matter but not all people are dealt the same cards. The point I am really trying to drive home is that welfare is not an entitlement as some seem to believe.

Won't work as is in politically or practically? Let's say I've a home that's worth $1.2mil(fully paid) and median price is around $650k so 150% of that would be $975k. So anything over that, which is $225k, is included in my assets test. If I am asset rich but income poor and the reduction in payment due to including the extra $225k will cause me financial hardship then I can take out a pension loan scheme worth $225k which will give me a regular income to top-up my pension. Thereby reducing the overall burden on welfare. Once my home equity drops below $975k I'll be eligible for full pension. Why isn't that fair?

I think it can be something like any value of the house over say 150%-200% of median price(Australia wide) or something like that. Asset limit (effective 2017) for non-home owners to qualify for full-pension is around $600k but for home owners it is around $400k so they reckon the average family home is only worth $200k?

Read up on pension loans scheme and the document in my first post. It is necessary for aged pension to be sustainable. Guidance in money management is not wrong as it took compulsory super contributions to force people just to think about retirement. Dole queues are also getting stricter. All welfare payments are prone to abuse but welfare is such a wonderful thing - giving people in need a helping hand and another go at life. I believe, health and education are two most important factors for any economy but we spend 40% of our tax on welfare - certainly room for improvement.

The current aged pension system is not fiscally sustainable. By not handing out payments to those who don't need it, it'll still be available in 50 years time. With retirements expected to last 20 to 30 years, most retirees would eventually go on the aged pension. By managing it better, people in need can get better payment rates. My parents have a family home here, they are not millionaires but are financially comfortable. I would rather they spend their wealth, after decades of hard work than worry about passing it down or putting their hand out for pension. A lot of younger Australians are just taking their parents wealth for granted and not doing their bit to move up. How can they, when housing affordability is a joke and their taxes are being used to fund people who don't really need it, aged pension or otherwise.

This I agree with. The govt probably will expand the pension loans scheme.

I would imagine reverse mortgage will be a income scheme not a lump sum access to equity. The person that benefits from the reverse mortgage will be the retiree himself, ofcourse. It's his money after all. Retirement savings are well savings to be spent during retirement and by definition an expense. If one wants to invest part of the income then go for it, create more wealth.

The health system is not as generous as Medicare but it also prevents a lot of abuse. There are quite a few safety nets and private insurance is quite affordable and a lot of companies make that part of the packet. However, from time to time people slip through the cracks. I saw this one story where the person didn't even know about the (complex) multitired safety net until media found him and set him on his way. The ugly Singaporean debate pops up every now and then. Singapore is a place of polite people but only when interaction is involved. Some seem to be turning a blind eye instead of offering help. IMO, Singapore can learn a thing or two from the Japanese. The politest people I've ever met - they literally go out of their way to help.

Neither. The asset-rich income-poor problem is not new and there are solutions for it, reverse mortgage for one. It'll let you stay in your family home as long as you want while giving you a regular income. Aged pension tests for means (both assets and income).

That's the thing no one really knows the future and most predictions are speculation at best. Now, everyone has a 20/20 vision looking back. Property in Australia is indeed overpriced but its not the only place. Now the average person can listen to all the spruikers and doomsayers and be overwhelmed by it or just shop around (with some common sense) for what they can afford and hang tight. Both the spruikers and doomsayers will be right at one time or the other. Property as a investment/PPOR has higher odds of succeeding in the long term.I also find that having a mortgage kind of inspires people to work hard and bring it down as much as possible. Once sufficient equity has been built, the interest rates won't be so bothersome.

Not necessarily true as prices keep increasing more and more people can only afford apartments thereby increasing demand - Though it doesn't help that investors are unloading too many apartments during boom times.

Good on them for who did the sensible thing and saved and if they ever run of those savings they have a safety net to fall back onto. Both options are indeed available and people who blow all their savings because of their lifestyle choices are no different to people who just rely on dole payments forever. They are bad for the system and should be considered as abusers more than anything else. The entitlement feeling is a funny thing. Every year at tax time, you hear all the SINKs(Single income no kids) and DINKs (dual income no kids) complaining that they didn't get any tax benefits while still shelling out massive taxes. Excuse me, if you are on a single income(no benefits means you are already getting decent income) with no kids and complain that you are entitled to benefits then to quote Matt Okine - "you have a serious drug problem and you should stop spending money on drugs". At the time of retirement, if you are sitting on a fortune(again talking about people with million dollar homes) by way of family home it's safe to classify them as someone with no need for a helping hand. I say it is fair to include family homes that are worth over say 150% of the median price or something in the assets test to determine payment rates for aged pension. The new proposal also suggest measures like deferred income schemes so that people don't draw down super as a lump sum and are back in the system the following year. One things clear, if people are not forced to save then most wouldn't even think about it.