How much do you need to retire in Australia in 2021?

[Paul1Perth]

20 hours ago, MARYROSE02 said:

I could not resist Googling the medical centre - open 8am to 9pm 7 days and in a number of locations in Perth. Do you have to pay? There's a 7 day medical centre 9am to 5pm or 6pm weekdays in Bondi Jn which bulk bills. Is there a 7 day dentist in the St John's place? I found out a couple of years ago BUPA have a 24 x 7 emergency dentist  - you don't have to be a member. I used them on NYE.

I did resist the temptation to look up yr illness however.  Nasty to get things like that. I had a problem last year which scared me, something "neuropathy" which the neurologist I saw said is not dangerous. I felt like I was unbalanced,  walking as if I was drunk.  It went away but I fancy it may return. 

I wish i could go to bed early and rise early. I fancy in Perth summers it's more pleasant early mornings and late arvos?  I'm in bed now at 1835, nap before the GF. I'll go for Demons because they've not won since 1964? I watched 2h of Penrith v Melbourne in NRL, Penrith v Souths in GF. I'll gir South's as that is my part of Sydney.

If I have to tie my shoelaces i can't get up easily. Reverting to being a kid when I could ask my mum or dad to do it.  

 

It used to be bulk billed but there's a charge now. You get most of it back through medicare.

[Parley]

2 hours ago, Wanderer Returns said:

 

 

These viewpoints are fine if you're one of those approaching retirement or have recently retired, and you own a sizeable property that you can downsize. The only homes that many young people can now afford are these 'lego brick cubes' they are throwing up, and they will be paying them off for decades, with very little scope to downsize in future. The average age Australians can afford their first home is now around 36. There's no way these first-time buyers are going to be retiring at 60 - they'll be lucky if they can stop work at 70. If you're happy to live in a country with a lower cost of living and rent your Australian home out for a few years, then you probably can afford to retire earlier - that's our (loose) plan anyway  

Most people's first homes are just that a first home. They are seldom the last home.

I suspect I am like most people who during their lifetime have a few financial windfalls and shocks along the way.  Most will receive inheritances as I did, some will get sizeable redundancy payments and many will have the financial setback of an expensive divorce. I had all these but fortunately overall am financially stable today.

My main point though was contributing to superannuation over a working life, there should be no need to downsize your home.

I do wonder what some people have done with all their money when they are approaching retirement and claim to have nothing saved. Really some people are the makers of their own misfortune.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Parley

[Tulip1]

6 hours ago, MARYROSE02 said:

I only really became a night owl when I worked for Royal Mail and realized I liked working late shifts from 1330 to 2130 thus avoiding rush hour on day shift and getting up at 5 am for 0600 to 1400 shifts.  I never had to set an alarm clock and could go to bed when I liked. Before RM I always worked daytime hours.  It is nice to be on day shifts in spring and summer when you have the long evenings. 

I suppose I should push myself to be more disciplined and go to bed before midnight but I like watching the English football.  Tonight Arsenal v Spurs kicks off at 1 am or 130 am and although I could watch it on record without knowing the score I'll probably stay up.

You don’t need to push yourself to do anything.  You’re retired, so do what suits you best.  If you enjoy staying up late then what’s wrong with that.  If that means you get up later than your neighbour so what.  It’s because you’ve enjoyed watching the late football.  Retirement must be about doing what makes yoh happy. 

[Tulip1]

3 hours ago, Wanderer Returns said:

There's no way these first-time buyers are going to be retiring at 60 - they'll be lucky if they can stop work at 70. If

Actually a great many people at 60 have paid their mortgages off.  If not by managing to do so themselves,  many have inherited money by that age.  Anyone who has parents that own a property will very likely be paying their own mortgages  off when they lose them.  Not a guarantee by a long stretch as they could have to spend much of it to pay for care home fees or other things but it’s still a fact that most children of home owners inherit when they lose their parents and for most, the first thing they want to do is get rid of their own mortgage.  For others there’s other ways.  I know of a few people that rent their spare rooms out in order to pay off the mortgage quicker.  Having strangers live in your house isn’t everyone’s ideal but it’s an option.  Even those in lego houses can often still downsize and clear that mortgage to live in an even smaller lego place.  There many options/alternatives to working until your 70. 

[Nemesis]

1 minute ago, Tulip1 said:

Actually a great many people at 60 have paid their mortgages off.  If not by managing to do so themselves,  many have inherited money by that age.  Anyone who has parents that own a property will very likely be paying their own mortgages  off when they lose them.  Not a guarantee by a long stretch as they could have to spend much of it to pay for care home fees or other things but it’s still a fact that most children of home owners inherit when they lose their parents and for most, the first thing they want to do is get rid of their own mortgage.  For others there’s other ways.  I know of a few people that rent their spare rooms out in order to pay off the mortgage quicker.  Having strangers live in your house isn’t everyone’s ideal but it’s an option.  Even those in lego houses can often still downsize and clear that mortgage to live in an even smaller lego place.  There many options/alternatives to working until your 70. 

There's no one-size fits all though, is there. Never been lucky enough to get a windfall of any kind, though I always rather foolishly expected a half-share in my parents' money/property as an inheritance - which would have got me somewhere decent to retire to. When it came to the crunch though, they moved in with my sister and signed everything over to her to enable the building of a "granny flat". I don't begrudge her the money at all, just makes me think I should have been more cynical at an early age and never anticipated anything so I couldn't be disappointed!

[Tulip1]

‘I do wonder what some people have done with all their money when they are approaching retirement and claim to have nothing saved. Really some people are the makers of their own misfortune.’

i couldn’t agree more.  I understand there are some situations where money has been so tight it’s hard to save anything but for others it’s just poor planning.  Most people in retirement today have probably worked 40 to 50 years.  How have many of them not managed to put anything away for their retirement.   The amount of times you hear people say things like pensions/savings are no good, might as well put it under the mattress.  What that actually means is nothing will go under the mattress, it will just be spent instead.  Then when they finally retire they moan that the state pension isn’t much.  I know of people like this.  One couple I knew (now deceased) never put by a penny for retirement but moaned constantly that their state pension wasn’t much.  They always managed to go down the pub several times a week and were big drinkers.   Also managed to smoke.  That’s ok if that’s how you want to live your life but don’t then moan after 50 years of working and not putting anything by that you don’t have much.  

Edited September 26, 2021 by Tulip1

[Tulip1]

21 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

There's no one-size fits all though, is there. Never been lucky enough to get a windfall of any kind, though I always rather foolishly expected a half-share in my parents' money/property as an inheritance - which would have got me somewhere decent to retire to. When it came to the crunch though, they moved in with my sister and signed everything over to her to enable the building of a "granny flat". I don't begrudge her the money at all, just makes me think I should have been more cynical at an early age and never anticipated anything so I couldn't be disappointed!

I appreciate not everyone has luck on their side.  You are nice not to begrudge your sister getting it all, I think I would.  I guess with your parents moving in with her and the granny annexe being built it’s reasonable a big chunk would go that way but to not have left anything to you is sad. 

[Parley]

16 minutes ago, Tulip1 said:

I appreciate not everyone has luck on their side.  You are nice not to begrudge your sister getting it all, I think I would.  I guess with your parents moving in with her and the granny annexe being built it’s reasonable a big chunk would go that way but to not have left anything to you is sad. 

Unfair I would say.

[Wanderer Returns]

41 minutes ago, Tulip1 said:

Actually a great many people at 60 have paid their mortgages off.  If not by managing to do so themselves,  many have inherited money by that age.  Anyone who has parents that own a property will very likely be paying their own mortgages  off when they lose them.  Not a guarantee by a long stretch as they could have to spend much of it to pay for care home fees or other things but it’s still a fact that most children of home owners inherit when they lose their parents and for most, the first thing they want to do is get rid of their own mortgage.  For others there’s other ways.  I know of a few people that rent their spare rooms out in order to pay off the mortgage quicker.  Having strangers live in your house isn’t everyone’s ideal but it’s an option.  Even those in lego houses can often still downsize and clear that mortgage to live in an even smaller lego place.  There many options/alternatives to working until your 70. 

I'm sure they have. I paid my first mortgage off at 52. I now have another one, although I won't have paid it off until I'm 85 so I just consider that I'm renting my property from the bank, and there will hopefully be a tax-free windfall when I come to sell it. I accept that I won't ever own this house outright, and that doesn't bother me at all. (Well, maybe just a little).

My earlier comment was referring to those who are now just buying their first homes in their mid-thirties. They are unlikely to be able to retire at 60, unless they are high earners or make some very lucrative investments along the way.

[Tulip1]

12 minutes ago, Parley said:

Unfair I would say.

In what way.? Do you mean what I think is unfair or the parents not leaving anything to their other child is unfair.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Tulip1

[Tulip1]

18 minutes ago, Wanderer Returns said:

I'm sure they have. I paid my first mortgage off at 52. I now have another one, although I won't have paid it off until I'm 85 so I just consider that I'm renting my property from the bank, and there will hopefully be a tax-free windfall when I come to sell it. I accept that I won't ever own this house outright, and that doesn't bother me at all. (Well, maybe just a little).

My earlier comment was referring to those who are now just buying their first homes in their mid-thirties. They are unlikely to be able to retire at 60, unless they are high earners or make some very lucrative investments along the way.

Or that they inherit money which is what many people by about 60 do.  It’s horrible to talk about inheritance but it’s a fact.  If it’s a couple that own a house they have two sets of parents that may well leave them a windfall which in turn pays off their mortgage.  So yes many are unlikely to be able to retire at 60 but many will be able to. 

[Cup Final 1973]

Every time I buy something I get a text from one of my daughters telling me to stop spending the inheritance 

[Parley]

39 minutes ago, Tulip1 said:

In what way.? Do you mean what I think is unfair or the parents not leaving anything to their other child is unfair.

I meant it was unfair for Nemesis to not receive any inheritance. Even if her Mum's money went to a Granny Flat that is an asset now belonging to her sister.

I would have thought a 60:40 split or 70:30 split might have been fair.

The trouble when this sort of thing happens is it leads to resentment between siblings.

Just my 2 bobs worth not really having much information.

[ramot]

11 minutes ago, Tulip1 said:

Or that they inherit money which is what many people by about 60 do.  It’s horrible to talk about inheritance but it’s a fact.  If it’s a couple that own a house they have two sets of parents that may well leave them a windfall which in turn pays off their mortgage.  So yes many are unlikely to be able to retire at 60 but many will be able to. 

Not all of us inherit anything, or fit the above demographic. What little my mother had was all used up by paying for her care after selling her house. I think 23,000 pds was the allocated amount to be left untouched? then, or would have been had my brother with power of attorney been competent. You could say luckily my husband had a similar experience with his brother, so we both shrugged our shoulders, and made our own way, and retired at 60.We were both ‘punished ‘ as we had gone overseas to work, leaving the responsibility to them, conveniently forgetting years of support from us, but that’s families. 

[Wanderer Returns]

29 minutes ago, Tulip1 said:

Or that they inherit money which is what many people by about 60 do.  It’s horrible to talk about inheritance but it’s a fact.  If it’s a couple that own a house they have two sets of parents that may well leave them a windfall which in turn pays off their mortgage.  So yes many are unlikely to be able to retire at 60 but many will be able to. 

Whatever the inheritance is (which is never guaranteed) it would likely be divided equally amongst siblings. (Sorry Nemesis, that does seem quite harsh - and respect to you for taking it so well). Other considerations are that any remaining parent may need to go into age care, which would drain the funds at a phenomenal rate (at least in the UK - I don't know about the system over here). Then there are funeral expenses, and the costs involved in selling the family home - not to mention inheritance tax, if you life in the UK. There are also a large number of people living in government housing who have never owned their own home. They won't be leaving much of an inheritance unless they win the lottery. I think it's much safer (and more rewarding) to rely on what you can create for yourself rather than waiting for hand-me-down wealth.

[Tulip1]

1 hour ago, ramot said:

Not all of us inherit anything, or fit the above demographic. What little my mother had was all used up by paying for her care after selling her house. I think 23,000 pds was the allocated amount to be left untouched? then, or would have been had my brother with power of attorney been competent. You could say luckily my husband had a similar experience with his brother, so we both shrugged our shoulders, and made our own way, and retired at 60.We were both ‘punished ‘ as we had gone overseas to work, leaving the responsibility to them, conveniently forgetting years of support from us, but that’s families. 

I know not everyone inherits which is why I said many do and many don’t.  Even if someone pays their mortgage off by 60 they still may not be able to retire or indeed want to.  You’re right, the amount you can be left with without having to use it for care costs is £23k.  Such a small amount, especially as the funeral will take that to below £20k.  I take it from what you put your brother as attorney let the pot run dry and didn’t park the £23k somewhere not to be touched. That’s a big shame and must happen sometimes. That’s going to change here from 2023 I believe.  From then you will only have to pay £86k maximum towards your care costs leaving the rest as part of your estate.  The move will eat into the tax pot big time.   

[Tulip1]

2 hours ago, Parley said:

I meant it was unfair for Nemesis to not receive any inheritance. Even if her Mum's money went to a Granny Flat that is an asset now belonging to her sister.

I would have thought a 60:40 split or 70:30 split might have been fair.

The trouble when this sort of thing happens is it leads to resentment between siblings.

Just my 2 bobs worth not really having much information.

I agree.  I know of a similar situation.  slightly different but same outcome.  A couple (now deceased) were struggling financially in retirement.  They had four grown up kids, none lived at home.  One of their sons split from his partner and moved back home.  An agreement was soon put in place that the son paid the parents quite a lot each month.  I don’t know exactly how much but it was a lot (about £1000 a month)  and the agreement was that he’d get a big chunk of the house when they died.  All the family thought it was a good idea.  The parents could enjoy their retirement and the son had a place to live and would one day keep a chunk of the house which was fair being as for years he paid a lot to them.  When the parents died it became apparent they had left the whole house to this son.  The other three siblings weren’t happy.  Sure they expected him to get more.  Perhaps a split of 40% to him and 20% to them would have been fair.  The house was in south London so worth quite a lot.  The son sold it and bought himself a nice posh apartment.  The other children got nothing.  I haven’t seen this family for some years now but they were all on talking terms when I last did but it left a sour taste as it would. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Tulip1

[Tulip1]

2 hours ago, Wanderer Returns said:

Whatever the inheritance is (which is never guaranteed) it would likely be divided equally amongst siblings. (Sorry Nemesis, that does seem quite harsh - and respect to you for taking it so well). Other considerations are that any remaining parent may need to go into age care, which would drain the funds at a phenomenal rate (at least in the UK - I don't know about the system over here). Then there are funeral expenses, and the costs involved in selling the family home - not to mention inheritance tax, if you life in the UK. There are also a large number of people living in government housing who have never owned their own home. They won't be leaving much of an inheritance unless they win the lottery. I think it's much safer (and more rewarding) to rely on what you can create for yourself rather than waiting for hand-me-down wealth.

Certainly safer to rely on what you create yourself and even if your parents are home owners, safer to assume you won’t get it as it may get used up in care costs.  That said, it’s still factual that many do inherit and those that do may well be able to pay their mortgage off or certainly not have to work until they’re 70.  

[rammygirl]

We are waiting for our share of my husband’s father’s estate. Probate is taking forever at the moment. 
the money will be passed directly to our sons equally to help with deposits for their first homes. Need to skip a generation as we don’t intend to die any time soon!

[ramot]

2 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

I know not everyone inherits which is why I said many do and many don’t.  Even if someone pays their mortgage off by 60 they still may not be able to retire or indeed want to.  You’re right, the amount you can be left with without having to use it for care costs is £23k.  Such a small amount, especially as the funeral will take that to below £20k.  I take it from what you put your brother as attorney let the pot run dry and didn’t park the £23k somewhere not to be touched. That’s a big shame and must happen sometimes. That’s going to change here from 2023 I believe.  From then you will only have to pay £86k maximum towards your care costs leaving the rest as part of your estate.  The move will eat into the tax pot big time.   

My brother was my mother’s power of Attorney as we lived overseas, there was no choice as to who put him there, had we been told the truth, there would have been a different outcome. There was obviously more going on than I have written. 

[Tulip1]

27 minutes ago, ramot said:

My brother was my mother’s power of Attorney as we lived overseas, there was no choice as to who put him there, had we been told the truth, there would have been a different outcome. There was obviously more going on than I have written. 

I’m sorry to hear that.  

[Wanderer Returns]

13 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

I know not everyone inherits which is why I said many do and many don’t.  Even if someone pays their mortgage off by 60 they still may not be able to retire or indeed want to.  You’re right, the amount you can be left with without having to use it for care costs is £23k.  Such a small amount, especially as the funeral will take that to below £20k.  I take it from what you put your brother as attorney let the pot run dry and didn’t park the £23k somewhere not to be touched. That’s a big shame and must happen sometimes. That’s going to change here from 2023 I believe.  From then you will only have to pay £86k maximum towards your care costs leaving the rest as part of your estate.  The move will eat into the tax pot big time.   

Only £86k?! That's a huge amount of money for most people.

This policy is an absolute disgrace and yet another shining of example of 'rip-off Britain'. I'm not getting into a debate about who should pay for aged care but this is a typically-cynical UK government policy, designed to protect the assets of the wealthy. Brits are currently leaving an average inheritance of around £125,000, so this £86,000 cap will be of little benefit to most. They might end up with an extra 10 grand in their estate, if their benefactors are lucky. Meanwhile, those without a brass razoo will continue to receive heavily-subsidized aged care, just as they have been heavily-subsidized throughout their entire lives. This system is outrageously unfair.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Wanderer Returns

[Parley]

56 minutes ago, Wanderer Returns said:

Only £86k?! That's a huge amount of money for most people.

This policy is an absolute disgrace and yet another shining of example of 'rip-off Britain'. I'm not getting into a debate about who should pay for aged care but this is a typically-cynical UK government policy, designed to protect the assets of the wealthy. Brits are currently leaving an average inheritance of around £125,000, so this £86,000 cap will be of little benefit to most. They might end up with an extra 10 grand in their estate, if their benefactors are lucky. Meanwhile, those without a brass razoo will continue to receive heavily-subsidized aged care, just as they have been heavily-subsidized throughout their entire lives. This system is outrageously unfair.

That figure was a maximum. I think I read somewhere the average stay in an Aged Care home is only around 18 months. That was Australia but people are going in to these facilities usually nearly at the end of life.

With my Mum her unit was sold to fund the bond for Aged Care I think it was about $250K at that time. Depending on the length of stay the estate gets money back when the resident passes away. There are ongoing costs which the Aged Pension covers.

I think my Mum was in about that 18 months or so and we received most of the bond back.

[Parley]

Should add too it is all means tested. People with assets are expected to contribute to the cost of their care.

Someone who has no assets will still get aged care, but will be unlikely to get the choice of where they want to go. The government will pay for those with no assets.

[Paul1Perth]

On 26/09/2021 at 14:02, Parley said:

Most people's first homes are just that a first home. They are seldom the last home.

I suspect I am like most people who during their lifetime have a few financial windfalls and shocks along the way.  Most will receive inheritances as I did, some will get sizeable redundancy payments and many will have the financial setback of an expensive divorce. I had all these but fortunately overall am financially stable today.

My main point though was contributing to superannuation over a working life, there should be no need to downsize your home.

I do wonder what some people have done with all their money when they are approaching retirement and claim to have nothing saved. Really some people are the makers of their own misfortune.

When I retired at 66, about 18 months ago, I asked a guy I'd been working with for about 20 years and is a year older than me if he'd thought about it. He had asked me how I'd managed to get on to 3 days a week, transition to retirement terms. It was just an application and if your direct boss agreed fine.

He talked about doing that but never got round to it. When I asked him why he'd not bothered he said he couldn't afford to as he'd been divorced twice.

He's still working at 68.