One in 10 Australian adults are millionaires

Yeah, I had a 120Y. Rusty little bugger but that's all I can afford to drive me working in a restaurant. The job: waiter, cleaner, chef assistant, delivery boy, take away order phone receptionist... just one salary...

 

But then there's no issue of whether the house should be subject to the assets test for a pension.

 

While I'm happy to be a beneficiary of RE growth, I don't think it's a win for Australia that home ownership has decreased.
It would generally be much better for the long term if there was a slower growth in prices an increasing growth in home ownership.
As for a 4m ppor, well they worked and paid their taxes. On wages they'd be paying 42% or 46% tax to get there. If they sell IPs they be paying the same + council rates + land tax and providing homes.
Why should that asset be taxed again or more?
Why should the owner be forced to dispose of that asset by force?
It seems to go back to authoritarianism and the Marxist concept that private propery should not exist.

Those days it was a work, pay taxes and then you get looked after by the "system", in a basic way.
They failed to account for the exponential growth in umployement benefits and govt expenditure around it.
And that now there is a mentalitly that *insert wateva* must be done for the social good regardless of cost. It's a "human right".
The new paradigm does not include any "input" into the the "system" which must pay out regardless.
This process has happened in many countries, we just started later and lag by about 20 yrs.

Actually it was the opposite for many. They were very happy to be working and being productive.
Hard work was a walk in the park compared to going to war, so they did it. Didn't complain and actually it like a badge of honor to them.

Why would they work? Either that, starve or pretty close.
Australia was a picnic compared to EU & UK, those coming back would've been happy to be here and work, pay taxes and retire at 65.
In EU people literally starved after the war. There was not enough food.
And life expetancy wasn't much more at time.
But most people want a bit more than the basics and are happy to work for it.

 

No moral high ground there, nothing was put away.
The promise was always a tax on a future generation.
In fact it is the largest part of recurrent spending.

 

Average wealth, google ….

Revealed: How rich Australians REALLY are - and what you need to do to become better off | Daily Mail Online

 

Not necessarily true, some may some may not.
My mum was a migrant in this country, is quite old, came with nothing, had to deal with divorce and settlements, so not all are millionaires that do it intentionally. Some will just have one house, and where they bought and when plays also some luck.

 

I don't see any example anywhere in the world where high cost of ownership has created adverse side effects on the wider economy. London is a prime example of expensive real estate and it continues to churn out unicorn start up companies too and jobs are aplenty.

 

So a death tax on pensioners as a clawback and no death tax on self funded retirees. I can't see anyone complaining about that idea.

 

That was a time when for 8 people working 2 were recieving and life expectancy was less.

So is free education, health care, child care assistance, roads, school and infrastructure and social programs.
The difference is that in that system those recieving still ended up net postive contributors.
These days only 6 people work for every 4 recieving. The % of people who will never contribute and 100% net negative is increasing exponentially.
You can see the data from the, it's all there. And it's the same in the other 1st world countries.

Well the numbers are showing the decline across all western nations.


And it creates obvious resentment and an increase in social spending. And a growing % of people not interested in being part of the economy that will vote for anything that may help those that are.

 

Thats the job of a politician. Make policies for the rich and sell it to the poor as if they are designed for them.

 

surely they are talking about NET assets in these measures?

 

yes, my BIL retired on super and receives part pension.

Do you know what the cut off point is? Curious

 

what’s a good target for a “FAT” lifestyle..?

assuming you have a family with 3 kids, and want to send them to good schools, maybe that number is $500k in spendable after tax income per year?

so assuming average tax is 40%, you’d need to net 833k per year, and if the average net yield of resi property is 2%, you’d need a $41m net asset portfolio ...

—

If we used a leveraged portfolio where your return on equity might be squeezed up to 3%, you’d still need 27m invested

—

finally, if you could assume 4.5% using a mix of stocks, commercial interests and commercial property assets, along with some minor leverage, that number is just 18.5m in net assets

—

fun calc, if you’re targeting 20m in net invested assets by retirement at 65, let’s assume you’re in the middle of your working life, so 40 years old, and you’re a USD millionaire so you have 1.35m in net invested capital/equity/assets

assuming you’d have 25 years to hit target, you’d need an RoI on net assets of 11.3% p.a. This doesn’t include savings from your job income. If you include that you might hit 8% or so.

You’d have to run a good business, invest in other businesses or otherwise find other high risk investments ..

 

Age Pension - Assets test - Services Australia

 

I think the details would be on a Government website.....possibly Centrelink.

 

500k NET per annum with no debt is a whole lotta money …. Pretty close to 10k per week . That’s a lot of fine dining and Penfolds Grange
While it may be a pay cut for a very small % of the population , I would have thought 250k NET would be more than enough for most people to enjoy a pretty “fat” retirement …

 

250k net would halve all the net assets required.

I guess $10m net assets generating cashflow is a decent target and achievable with a regular job and a very aggressive attitude towards investments, chase those %% opportunities wherever/whenever you get them.

 

Even 250k net is going to be waaaaaay beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority . It’s certainly going to be waaaaay beyond the reach of people with regular jobs . Most will be lucky to get near 80-100k . They will spend a huge proportion of their working lives paying down an owner occupier mortgage , and will face restrictions on how much they can borrow to invest in income producing assets . The pre APRA generation had 30 years of Uber generous conditions and a very small percentage have done better than 6 figures

 

beyond the reach of those that don’t plan for it, obviously, because then you’re relying on slim chances of luck.

if you plan and try and execute, your luck might improve, and your odds might improve.

I think it’s within reach for most people! Just requires attitudes which are hardest to have at the most critical time, which is in the first 5-10 years before the compounding magic really pulls its weight!

the first 1k is the hardest, the first 10k is the hardest, the first 100knis the hardest, the first 1m is the hardest, etc etc