One in 10 Australian adults are millionaires

No more than we currently have. It's a BASIC income. To cover necessities. Everybody who wants more will still be working.

 

Is that a problem though? I would have thought what happened during the pandemic would show people that putting cash in the hands of people that spend it benefits everyone - including the top end. I dont care that a number of big businesses that received jobkeeper also posted big profits, because jobkeeper did exactly what it was supposed to do.

 

This is where I find the arguments for/against incredibly amusing. Quite often those opposed to the idea of welfare, or critical of those on welfare, still support someone who is rich receiving it. Sure, it may be asset rich, but they are still capable of supporting themselves.

 

A high % of retired friends I have, certainly would be considered millionaires. Many of them have structured their financial affairs around receiving various levels of Part Pension.
Many see this as an entitlement after paying into the tax system over their working lives of 40+ years. It provides for robust debate over a few beers!

 

If you've bettered yourself in after tax dollars, you should be spending it! Why else would you save your money? To give your kids an inheritance when they're 60? I'm not saying it would be compulsory, I'm saying the option should be there as a way of moving away from giving the PPOR a hall pass when it comes to the assets test for the pension. If you have $4m in assets, you shouldn't get the pension just because it's all tied up in your PPOR. Either everyone gets it (with no means testing), or only the needy get it. Not those who try to work the system.

If you kept reading, you'd have seen that you responded to a rhetorical question, and that I 100% agree with you.

 

We have a lot of people in this country who have and will retire asset rich but cash poor. That's not good for the economy, that is money that could/should be circulating that isn't. Those are jobs for young and old that could be but aren't.

I cannot defend anyone who has converted their investments into their PPOR just so they can get the pension. Why would you want to live on $37k as a couple, when that $4m portfolio you just used to buy a PPOR with could have paid out $160k comfortably in perpetuity. That makes no sense to me at all.

 

The mentality of baby boomer was they were sold the idea of a guarantee "CARROT" pension by the government. All workforce with get a pension if they work till 65yo.
How else will you get citizen to work after the WWII? They have just been to hell and back from the war. The last thing on their mind is work till they are retired.

 

If I've bettered myself financially over the years, shouldn't it be I who determines what is done with that financial improvement; either spending or investing?
Why should people be penalised for investing well and having a high value PPOR?

 

a lot of people were able to save $4m by living on 37k a year. they are used to saving lifestyle than a spending lifestyle. Many multi millionaires are just a product of time in the market not earnings.

 

Why should the tax payer pay you $37k a year tax free when your PPOR is worth 100x that.

You are free to use your money how you like, but you're taking the **** if you think you can have a free funded retirement whilst sitting on a pile of money.

 

I don’t think they had $4m investment property portfolio. They sold their existing house, bought an older house and did a knock down rebuild using proceeds from selling IPs in QLD. I am not sure how much they got out of their IPs and how much their house cost to build.

 

Not this BB.

There is NO way I would want ANY government dictating to me the lifestyle I can live in retirement. I want that to be MY decision.

I started paying into Super in 1977 (nearly 45 years ago), I started my IP journey in 1992 (nearly 30 years ago), I worked for 35 years and paid my taxes, I owned 4 x businesses in my professional career and forced to be a tax collector for NIL remuneration, …

I have always worked hard, took risks, lived a frugal life, …

Surely I am entitled to a $4M PPOR and the aged pension?

Why can’t I join the entitlement generation?

 

How are they sitting on a pile of money? They own a piece of real estate (PPOR) which doesn't produce income. It is NOT an income producing asset.
For this very reason the family home is exempt under the assets test for the pension.
Your house is not cash!

 

Delivered pizzas in the 80s and got paid wages + $1 per delivery address and had to use own car (Datsun 180B btw ). Pretty sure a delivery deal was almost $20 back then similar like now

How much are pizzas selling nowadays? It's not wages theft or competitions caused such affordable prices are for all those carb lovers

 

Well, we can agree on this. I don't understand why you'd sell up investments to live in a better PPOR, but have to live on a pension. It's not something I'd do personally, but equally I don't believe that those that already have an expensive PPOR should be made to reverse mortgage it.

 

But you are still not getting it. Why should those who could have bought a house, but instead chose to rent, get a full pension AND rent assistance, while someone who bought a house, now has to reverse mortgage it. If everyone got given their life earnings in one lump sum, and nothing else for the rest of their lives, some would invest & provide for themselves, the others would rant & rave & cry 'whoa is me', and expect a handout. Your argument supports the second example. Mine the first.

Obviously there is an answer somewhere in the middle, and nothing you say is going to change my view on this & I'm guessing nothing I say will change mine. Hence my stance that everyone receive the pension & it get reduced only due to income, not assets.

 

Some people paid taxes all their working life so they are just getting their ROI according to the tax law Who wouldnt want to live in a nice house and suburb if they could? Maybe they plan to leave some to their children or charities or for younger sugar ... or etc

Not everyone can afford to have millions in SMSF or businesses or trusts to earn tax-free income or very minimum taxes

 

This is an actual equivalence though? The former wouldn't get pension + rent assistance because their property would be subject to the assets test.

The problem is that the latter would be getting the pension even though they might own the same amount of assets and be a literal multimillionaire.

Personally I am in the camp of there being some sort of reverse mortgage or clawback of pension money upon passing of the pension recipient. Otherwise really we're just giving tax free money to beneficiaries for little good reason.

 

It's people have $4 mill equity in their house, then decide to live on a pension and they then pass the house onto their kids when they die. But people who don't get the inheritance due to not having the "right parents" get nothing. Maybe there should be some tax on it.