Jump to content
IGNORED

Spinoff - how much super do you have and how much to retire?


SleepyBear

Recommended Posts

I'd like us to have at least a million in super, plus our investment properties & principal place of residence paid off 100%. 

A modest income stream from investment properties, or having them that we can sell if needed, would be to supplement super.  There are some shares as well, but I have no idea how that shit works, that's DP's job haha

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bornagirl said:

The agent who sold my MIL's said that she told the developers to stop building so many two storey apartments, make them all single level, because that's what people need.  Walking up one flight of stairs to you unit is one thing, having your bedrooms upstairs and living downstairs makes most downsizers wary.

 

Yeah, my mum and her partner went with a friend (whos wife had recently passed suddenly) to have a look at a new development on the beach on the Mid-North Coast of NSW.  It was advertised as retirement living yet there wasn’t a single, single storey option. They were all 2 or even 3 levels.  He questioned the guy trying to sell them as to how is this retirement living and does he expect everybody to sell up in 15 years. 
He was after a forever home base (on the water as he loves fishing) and travel around a fair bit while he still could.

He was selling their huge, recently completed home on the mouth of the river as it was just too big for him alone and I think he wanted a fresh start.

He ended up buying a place in town as all the places near the water just weren’t suitable for elderly people.

Edited by BECZ
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Catzilla said:

Mid 40s and just under $12,500 in super. I’d be stuffed if there ends up being no aged pension in my lifetime.

Looking at the outrage at the mere thought of phasing out franking credits for self funded retirees, I doubt the Government would be able to stop aged pensions. I do think though, that the family home should be means tested for anything over $5M (or  less) in today's terms (not including family run rural properties), should disqualify you for the pension.  I find it hard to believe you can't downsize or don't have any super.

Edited by Gumbette
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LemonMyrtle

Nah, I don’t care where you live, your home shouldn’t be taken into account. It’s easy these days to end up living in a multi million dollar home simply due to time passing. And downsizing then means moving out of your home area where all your supports are. $5 million does not mean your wealthy at all, not in the inner city. $50million, maybe. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gumbette said:

Looking at the outrage at the mere thought of phasing out franking credits for self funded retirees, I doubt the Government would be able to stop aged pensions. I do think though, that the family home should be means tested for anything over $5M (or  less) in today's terms (not including family run rural properties), should disqualify you for the pension.  I find it hard to believe you can't downsize or don't have any super.

Yes, I agree. 
I understand that many people’s homes have grown in value from the basic house they bought many years ago and they don’t want to leave them, but I also believe that if you want a benefit, you can’t always have everything that you want.

Edited by BECZ
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StillFreddiesMum

As a relatively young just turned 50 year old - I am already contemplating our next move out of the 3 bedroom townhouse we currently live in.  It has stairs.  Stairs to the front door, stairs to the garage, stairs to get in and out of the house.  Wherever we go to next has to have NO stairs.  Not a place that is over 3 or even 2 levels.  I am talking flat, flat, flat.

Our neighbour who sold up about 2 years ago downsized from our complex of 3 bedroom townhouses (with lots of stairs) to a 2 bedroom modern apartment with floor to ceiling windows, gorgeous open plan living, dining and kitchen, huge master bedroom, and balconies off both bedrooms.  It's beautiful.  In her words "they can carry me out of here in a box".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not actually sure how much super we have, but not much!

Last time we checked was about 5 years ago and we only had around 80k each.  Mind you, I have not worked for the last 15 years.

We hope to move to up the coast once all the kids have moved out and hope to have a decent chunk to add to our super from that as we just want a nice, but decent 4 bed, 2 bath home.  We live in a cheaper area of Sydney, but our block is large (1300 sq. M) and hope to KDRB in the near future and our house will be larger than average as we have 4 kids and don’t see them moving out any time soon.  I really don’t want another mortgage and we are trying to save as much as possible first.

We are also not in the best position relationship wise, so don’t want to commit to anything more for that reason too. Time will tell on that one.

 

 

Edited by BECZ
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mooguru said:

There's also the assumption in many units Etc that singles/couples have no wish to entertain. My parents have a very active social life (forgetting covid for a minute) they have a big dining table that extends to seat 12 people. They regularly have 6-8 people for dinner and nearly all their friends are the same. 

The majority of apartments barely have room for a 4 seater dining table. Our apartment has one of the largest living spaces we've seen. We can comfortably/easily fit 6 people (lounge area). We've had 10 once and it felt crammed i.e. people having to climb over others, chairs having to be moved if someone wanted to go to the bathroom. Many of the apartments we look at the living area is significantly smaller than what we have.

Yes, mum and dad came up against this, they wanted a dining table to seat 10 (9 in our immediate family) and an outdoor table the same or more. They've gotten it in the end but those pokey little courtyards weren't going to do the job.

 

Edited because I can't number today.

Edited by Rosie28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rosie28 said:

Yes, mum and dad came up against this, they wanted a dining table to seat 10 (9 in our immediate family) and an outdoor table the same or more. They've gotten it in the end but those pokey little courtyards weren't going to do the job.

 

Edited because I can't number today.

I was about to try to sell them our Melbourne apartment lol it’s huge a downsizer‘s paradise 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mocha said:

This is for current retirees isn’t it? I think if you qualify for pension and are about to retire, it’s very possible. Super keeps compounding so current balance won’t be all you have through retirement but in 20-30 years, the figure will change. 

Of course the figure will change. But the point being you don't need as much as financial planners say you do.

Case in point, my parents were told they would be on the poverty line if they retired 10 years ago. Despite this as It got forced upon them. My dad told me the other day that they have more in their super account than they did than when they retired 10 years ago. And he has drawn down a lot from it over that time. I think 1 new car (if not two), and 1 runabout car. My dad worked a bit in the beginning and mum still works 10 hours a week. (not every week, ie not school holidays and maybe an extra 4 weeks taken on top of that) so a little bit going in. (remembering Barefoot thinks you should still work in retirement - up to what you are able to and still get a part pension) 

Dad also told me their outgoings are higher than that last year they were in Sydney.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Downsizing with kids still home a friend recently did it. It was amazing what happened when they told the kids. this is your deadline to move out.... they did.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ozgirl said:

On the Downsizing with kids still home a friend recently did it. It was amazing what happened when they told the kids. this is your deadline to move out.... they did.

Oh yes, my kids know that there will be a deadline.

 

 

My mum stupidly let dad have all of his super.  They were both teachers and only kept dads really good (gov) super plan as one was enough for retirement and they couldn’t afford the extra money while raising a family.

She worked her butt off in her last years of teaching, taking up any option (such as year advisor) to add as much as she could into her super. 
she still only had a smallish amount, but it has actually increased since retirement.  They actually keep upping the amount she withdraws and she has to keep changing it back as she doesn’t need any more and she and her partner live very comfortably.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sugarplum Poobah
2 hours ago, Bornagirl said:

That's the tricky bit isn't it?  A couple can live in a one bedroom unit, but people with grandchildren naturally want to have them come and stay.  Unless they're my mother. ('People only move close to their parents for the free babysitting.')

My MIL's three bedroom unit, five minute level walk to a lovely and extensive shopping trip, single storey, on its own title, had five serious bidders and flew to nearly 30% above reserve.  

A three bedroom unit which had auctioned a week earlier, much nice, better outlook, more modern, struggled to reach reserve because you had to get in the car to get to the shops and station. Even being fit and very mobile, if I buy something I can't rely on that remaining the case.

The agent who sold my MIL's said that she told the developers to stop building so many two storey apartments, make them all single level, because that's what people need.  Walking up one flight of stairs to you unit is one thing, having your bedrooms upstairs and living downstairs makes most downsizers wary.

 

A couple can live in a one bedroom unit, but if they want a comfortable old age then they're much better with at least 2 beds and 2 toilets (don't need 2 whole bathrooms) if they really want to be able to stay in the home for as long as possible. The reality is that health issues/snoring/care needs etc can make separate bedrooms far more attractive, if not simply an outright necessity. One bedroom places are fine when you're young, loved up and could sleep through world war 3. When you're older, not so much. I think there's a reason that most retirement villages offer 2 bedroom villas ;-)

 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Escapin Xmas
17 hours ago, Jolly_F said:

We are absolutely fucked if these amounts are anything to go by :lol: 

As are most people I know! 

Aim is to own a house, use what super we have and hope for some pension or alternatively die before we retire!! 

 

16 hours ago, Biscuits said:

Jeez these conversations stress me out. Probably fucked too. Although at least we bought an affordable house so we will hopefully pay that off one day. Time to bury my head in the sand again! 

 

15 hours ago, Greatmum said:

Yeah stressing me out too have $45000 and nearly 50. How depressing. 

Assuming you all stay married and pay off your respective houses, you’ll all be ok.

here are the combos (assuming you’ve got little or no super):

2 people, own house - good retirement

2 people, renting - ok

1 person, owns house - ok, just.

1 person, renting - stuffed :( 

this is one of the key reason why women over 50 are the fastest group group of homeless people.

The legislation (and thinking behind it) all assumes that there’s a husband and wife living in a house they own. Which is bloody stupid. Single person dwellings are now at 30% of all housing in Aust (I think that’s right anyway) and rising…

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LemonMyrtle said:

Nah, I don’t care where you live, your home shouldn’t be taken into account. It’s easy these days to end up living in a multi million dollar home simply due to time passing. And downsizing then means moving out of your home area where all your supports are. $5 million does not mean your wealthy at all, not in the inner city. $50million, maybe. 

As mentioned upthread, whatever price range your property in, the vast majority of that value is land value.  The house itself has minimal bearing on the overall value in many suburbs, which is particularly true the closer you get in towards our major cities.

Unfortunately what this means, is that if people want to downsize, and they are going from two storeys to a single storey, it is likely that the downsized home may actually have a bigger footprint on land than the one they moved out of.  (Think, what would you need to move from your upstairs to your downstairs to have a comfortably liveable home.  In our case that would be a bathroom at least, and a bedroom.  So yes, we reduce the living area space to get that, but the overall house footprint we would want would be similar to what we have now).  Because most of the value is in the land rather than the house, moving from a two storey house to a single storey in the same suburb is highly unlikely to have you pocket anything much once you have paid the stamp duty, estate agents fees, unless you are also getting rid of a big garden.

There have been many stories published over the years demonstrating that health outcomes are greatly compromised when people move away from longstanding support networks, which is why although older Australians could move a few suburbs out in the course of downsizing, its not necessarily the case that they should.

The issue, and its impact on housing affordability, public health outcomes and the economy as a whole is incredibly complex.

As I mentioned upthread, with stamp duty being what it is, it might well be cheaper for us to do a major conversion of our downstairs to create liveable accommodation (currently no shower down there) than it would be to sell and look for somewhere else.  So, based on the current structure of the market, it might well make most economic sense for us personally to effectively have half a fair large house almost entirely unused in our retirement than to move to a more suitable property. 

It's also the case that no everyone actually has the ready cash for down sizing.  There are significant up front fees to be paid in establishing the sale process, and if you can't afford to buy a new property before you sell, then you potentially have a period of time you need to find accommodation for of some months - if you are selling the house to improve your financial situation, there are a few sticky months to be negotiated in actual cashflow terms if things are tight.

Structurally, the market can't groan on like this forever, but I don't know what the solution is.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Not Escapin Xmas said:

 

 

Assuming you all stay married and pay off your respective houses, you’ll all be ok.

here are the combos (assuming you’ve got little or no super):

2 people, own house - good retirement

2 people, renting - ok

1 person, owns house - ok, just.

1 person, renting - stuffed :( 

 

This is what scares me.  I do have super so I'll be okay (fingers crossed), but so many of those around me are in the midst of getting divorced.  One just found out her DH has a $500K gambling debt $500K!!!!!

Edited by Gumbette
  • Surprised 5
  • Crying 1
  • Angry 5
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Escapin Xmas
1 minute ago, Gumbette said:

This is what scares me.  I do have super so I'll be okay (fingers crossed), but so many of those around me are in the midst of getting divorced.  One just found out her DH has a $500K gambling debt $500K!!!!!

Yeah, divorce really fucks things up financially. But in your friend’s case, prob better to part with ‘only’ $500k debt since it will probably just get worse and worse!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LemonMyrtle
6 minutes ago, Not Escapin Xmas said:

 

 

Assuming you all stay married and pay off your respective houses, you’ll all be ok.

here are the combos (assuming you’ve got little or no super):

2 people, own house - good retirement

2 people, renting - ok

1 person, owns house - ok, just.

1 person, renting - stuffed :( 

this is one of the key reason why women over 50 are the fastest group group of homeless people.

The legislation (and thinking behind it) all assumes that there’s a husband and wife living in a house they own. Which is bloody stupid. Single person dwellings are now at 30% of all housing in Aust (I think that’s right anyway) and rising…

Yup. My other grandma was number 4. Stuffed. No rentals that she could afford on her own on the pension. She only survived cause she had 4 children, and most of them were able to help.  Vastly different to my other home-owning grandma. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LemonMyrtle

@mose, the need to incentivise single level housing. 

have you seen the latest trend of “townhouses” that are split across 3-4 levels?? They have a sub-ground single Garage, then living, then bedrooms, sometimes a master level as well. Soooo many stairs!! And stairs you need to use every 5 minutes going from room to room and bedroom to car. And stairs are such a space waster. Instead they could make 3 generously sized single level apartments. Even if you have to walk up to the second or third floor, you would only have to do it once a day. Or even less if you don’t go out much. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me - stuff all

He - a tonne

Guess who's been SAHP for far too long?

He is defined benefits too so we are stuck in Victoria until he retires.  I now remind him of his super each time he whinges about Melbourne's weather with a "happy to give up your super for somewhere warmer?"  I can say this because when I met him 20 years ago I wanted to go off galavanting/developing my career and his response was "No! My super is too good."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StillFreddiesMum

Gumbette - we really need a Jesus H Christ emoji !!  Half a million in gambling debts !!  That's all kinds of messed up.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know.  I thought I heard wrong.  He earns a lot though (investment banking), she's stayed home looking after the kids and he's trying to financially screw her, and holding the threat of pulling the kids out of their private school over her head. 

  • Crying 1
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LemonMyrtle said:

@mose, the need to incentivise single level housing. 

have you seen the latest trend of “townhouses” that are split across 3-4 levels?? They have a sub-ground single Garage, then living, then bedrooms, sometimes a master level as well. Soooo many stairs!! And stairs you need to use every 5 minutes going from room to room and bedroom to car. And stairs are such a space waster. Instead they could make 3 generously sized single level apartments. Even if you have to walk up to the second or third floor, you would only have to do it once a day. Or even less if you don’t go out much. 

Yes...and they are advertised to down-sizers!  Which just seems absurd to me.  Even if you had your kids young, and they had all flown the nest by your mid fifties, I would think most people would only manage in such a house up until their early seventies at best, so it's not like it's your "forever" downsized home.  I think people don't realise just how hard stairs are for most people as they age, and dangerous too.  Or maybe they realise, but the industry is actually incentivised to ignore this fact - that is, estate agents as a whole do better if you do family home - smaller townhouse with lots of stairs - single level living than if you skip the middle property.  So does the state government for that matter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We currently live in a 2 1/2 storey house.  Never again.  No one, I mean no one, wants to go upstairs to fetch stuff during the day.  I once counted 13 trips before leaving for work / school drop off (kids were younger and their clothes were upstairs).  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advertisement

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...