Anyone can retire whenever they want. Your retirement age is up to you.
The age many are eligible for a pension is 67.
The 2 things are entirely different.

I retired at 62, my wife at 64. We have no debts and 2 old cars.
It depends what you want in life.

A friend of mine bought a $70K EV. It depreciates at about $300 a week. He could have put $50K into his Super, bought a Camry/Mazda and retired a few years earlier.

My super balance is pretty good, thanks.
I worked for 40 odd years and looked after my super when it counted.
Salary sacrificed into it as much as I could for 6+ years, same as my wife.

We live an unpretentious life. We buy what we want, we just don't 'want' a lot of stuff.
One of our friends always has a new phone, new watch, new laptop, new car, many tv services, personalised number plates .
I have a S9 phone, 7 year old laptop, no watch, no pay tv services, 16 year old camry.

We make lots of meals at home because they are nicer.

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 6:07pm:



Near right - that was the basis on which it was SOLD as the surefire way to reduce the 'cost' of pensions - it's not a mindset - it's the reality for far too many and shows the pure paucity of political prognostication on peripheral points such as retirement funding for the majority. (phew - that was a lungful!)  If governments could rightly expect people to save their own money, they would not put so many barriers in the way of people earning money.... ergo - the game plan is NOT to permit the peasants sufficient discretionary income to save adequately towards a future retirement - but to use economic forces to create an environment of master/serf, as they all secretly dream will one day be the reality.

Most people I know would prefer to put that 12% into investment, rather than having it removed sideways so the vultures can pluck at its guts...  politicians, in the main, are grifters and neo-Fascists (whether they be Nazi or Stalinist)...

NOTE:-  NO 'part-time casual' will EVER have a super balance worth mentioning.... so without major changes in the approach to national economy and service to the people, many will still retire with only pension.

Sinn Fein, my son - we, as a nation, must stand together alone.... and tell the international and global parasites to stick it.

This kind of internationalist investment is not the answer - it's a handout and most likely to be wasted.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/hope-they-pull-it-off-655-million-unlocked-...

Australia's gas 'crisis' is another example of 'investment' and 'policy' going totally off the rails, and not in the national interest.

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 6:55pm:


Yes - but they are also forced, unless they are very fortunate or are excellent grifters, to live beyond their means due to never-ending rises in costs of living...  if they merely work for a living, they are doomed to be in the latter category.

Quote:


It's a good argument not to tell them that in exchange for paying taxes, the government will fund their retirement. It will take a generation or two for that mindset to change.

Compulsory super costs each Australian wage earner about $1000 per year in administration fees alone. Probably more. Then add in the fact that they make poorer investment decisions. Someone just starting out should put their super into their home loan instead, or save for a deposit. Until they have a lot of spare money, they are not going to put the mental effort into investing wisely, so they get taken advantage of. That $1000 goes into the pockets of the people who keep loudly advising the public and the politicians that 10% super simply is not enough, with a scare campaign that we all need millions of dollars sitting in an investment account or we will starve when we retire. Plus we have the unions who seem to think that increasing superannuation is a free pay rise that would never end up coming out of salaries.

Australia also exacerbates the problem by making it difficult for our poorest to live within their means. It is illegal for example to sell or rent a cheap house to a poor person if it does not meet a 'standard' decided on by a politician, who is being advised and funded by all the people who profit from the approvals process. Australia keeps trying to replace freedom of choice with welfare.

The thread is a confused mismatch. The topic "average super at retirement", it gives that and then  morphs into the "median".

My dispute with it is that it is severely unbalanced in favour of some and not many others, and particularly against the PTCs who never generate enough super in fund to make the charges and fees worthwhile.  You need to look at that on a proportional basis... one man's $10 bill is another man's fortune.....

Then there is the question of outlandishly unbalanced super schemes.. but we all know that already.

I bring you - again - the Grappler One-Roof One Set Of Rules Fund, with hoarded cash available to state and federal and maybe local governments for approved solid infrastructure projects at a fair return in interest.  That way we should see the country actually go ahead in one small way.

median may be more meaningful, but it is not the thread topic.

super ?

when i was really grinding in my 40's i was basicly working 51 and 1/2 weeks a year.
didnt have time for a haircut

accountant would tell me to take more out of the business but myself and my wife always understood that

'your happiness is the differnece between what you have and what you want"
and its much easier to just want less (the best things in life truly are free).

anyway, the accountant always said that rather then pay tax on the business surplus funds, dump it in super .

and john howard let you dump 50 k a year
(effectively at the marginal rate, you only lost 25 k and the government chipped in 25 k)
i think for a few years there , you could even dump 100k  and same went for the wife

(there may or may not have been a 15 % contributions tax back then.)

either way , for about 10 yrs i dumped the max.

never thought about it
i was totally focused on the business

and (gods truth) i didnt look at the balance for 10 yrs
it was with HESTA as my wife was with hesta and i thought the nurses union wouldnt rip off nurses and they were happy to take my cash (despite me not being in health).

anyway i did look at the balance a few years back and i was stunned

i thought it would be about a mill, it was close to 2.

i dont need it
i dont want it
the idea of retiring to a beach and lazing about is poisonous to me

it may well tank if the stock market tanks
who knows

the only thing i like about it is if i fall off a horse the kids get a house each

but the daughter already out earns me, so now i really dont need it

the missus has a profoung hate for noisy neighbours with loud cars and loud trail bikes

so i have told her if we ever get neighbours like that we will move and buy a place on 500 acres with the house in the middle of the block so we can have peace


so it does give me some peace of mind

other then that, its just a number

who cares

buying a lot of crap i dont need would deplete my quality of life because then you have to spend time looking after "said crap"

you never want a dollar you didnt earn and i dont even see how i earned it

it doesnt feel like the money i got from my customers

it feels like a ponzi scheme of funny money and if it goes, i shant miss it 

aquascoot wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 9:28pm:

So that was you and your son, then!

MeisterEckhart wrote on Sep 5^th, 2024 at 10:51pm:


You would prefer the people went homeless?

Do you really think you should have the right to tell people they are not allowed to decide for themselves what standard of housing they buy or rent?

BTW, that has nothing at all to do with why genuine slums form.

Letting people choose for themselves seems like a simple solution.

The government funded pension age of 67 should be lower.  A pension age of 65 is more than enough.   

Bobby. wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 3:42pm:


How many slums have you been to Bobby?

Those are completely different phenomena Bobby. A lot of the places in the US are pretty much the opposite of a slum. The buildings are run down because everyone left down. The drug dealers and homeless people then moved in, because there was basically free housing, or close to it. But that does not mean they caused the problem by hanging around making the place look untidy or punching holes in the wall.

You wouldn't go near a genuine slum, because of the smell.

Yes Bobby right again, but I cant see the government funded pension age, going down to 55.  Then again though, at least the greens, support a pension age of 65.  Think I will vote green at next election.   

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 4:44pm:



Video is a powerful tool -
you see it with your own eyes.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 4:24pm:

It happens in Australia, although on a much smaller scale relative to major cities worldwide.

It's the unavoidable trade-off: social housing and/or removing mandated minimum housing standards, risking their becoming antisocial and/or crime hubs, or their otherwise would-be tenants homeless living in the streets and parks.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 7^th, 2024 at 6:35pm:


Guess what?  We oldies couldn't give a rat's.  Take it out of the politician's early resignation scheme... pension for life at an early age for not retiring... bewdiful.

Look at Poor Billy Shorten - won't make ends meet on $1.8m pa in his new 'job', so he desperately needs that top-up ... poor bastard.... all those years of service at first class rates ... it's a tough life.... no way could he have put enough away to cover his RESIGNATION....

I say put the bastards all on the chain gangs they designed for everyone else and make them work for a change - and not at taking a wrecking ball to this country.... put everyone on the same super scheme and salary and perks and tax deductions ... bit extra to take the family on a jaunt... (wink, wink) .... you know...

Now what about we put everyone on the same perks. Go on a work trip - boss pays to take the family along..... travel to work - fully paid and costs tax deductible.... heavily subsidised top range food.... mega-rich retirement fund.... all assistants paid for...