Retirement Incomes....will you be in the top 3%!

Discussion in 'Property Market Economics' started by sash, 4th Nov, 2019.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. sash

    sash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,859
    Location:
    Sydney
    Some one asked about stats on retiree incomes...it seems you only need to earn more than 31k to be in the top 13%! The stats are from the ATO....most people will not believe this but it is very true....to be in the top 3% you need to have more than 67k coming...

    Retirement Incomes.jpg
     
    samiam, conork and Brumbie like this.
  2. Angel

    Angel Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,174
    Location:
    Paradise, Brisbane
    What happened to those between $20,801 and $31,000?
     
  3. SatayKing

    SatayKing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th Sep, 2017
    Posts:
    3,083
    Location:
    It is still all about ME!
    Archaon and MWI like this.
  4. Ummm

    Ummm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24th Feb, 2018
    Posts:
    46
    Location:
    Australia
    Surely this is an old article? only 3% over 67k...must say I am very surprised. I take it this is for the 65+ and effectively an after tax equivalent? Any info on what household is rather than individuals?
     
    Last edited: 4th Nov, 2019
  5. sash

    sash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,859
    Location:
    Sydney
    Well they must make the remainng 13%...I got this from the Your Investment Property Magazine.

    Frankly very surprised at anyone over 67k is in the top 3%. No wonder the gubbermint is looking at including some of PPOR assets into income generation..in the future.
     
  6. turk

    turk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    768
    Location:
    Brighton
    Don't ask the difficult questions, perhaps another question @sash can answer is that where does the age pension fit in here($24,258 per annum)?
     
  7. sash

    sash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,859
    Location:
    Sydney
    Nope that is quite true.

    Remember...the Super system is quite new. Over 80% of Australians nominate pensions as their key source of income at retirement. It also correlates that if someone has 300k combined super it will only generate about 10k income. The maximum pension for a couple is abou 34k...but the benefit is reduced...by the 10k income. So in the end they might end up with about 39k. That puts them in the top 13%.
     
  8. sash

    sash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,859
    Location:
    Sydney
    That is for a single person. Couple is about 34k assuming no assets. What is interesting..is some people have too much assets to qualify...say someone has 570k in assets as a single. That is bad news as in the current environment...they might only get about 20k income from private assets. The moral of the story is go hard or not at all..if you in somewhere in between you are stuffed!! :p:D

    The changes in 2017, 2018 caused this issue....
     
  9. The Y-man

    The Y-man Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,826
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Is that per person for being in the top 3%? So $134k pa per couple....

    The Y-man
     
  10. Nodrog

    Nodrog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    28th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    8,342
    Location:
    Me Me Me
    Maybe that’s just taxable income and doesn’t include tax free Super pensions:)?
     
    Ross Forrester and qak like this.
  11. sash

    sash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,859
    Location:
    Sydney
    134k...wow !!....no that is about 34.5k per couple!
     
  12. The Y-man

    The Y-man Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,826
    Location:
    Melbourne

    Sorry - I was looking at the photo in your first post - the top 3% - says annual income in retirement "$67,001+"

    If that is per retiree.....

    The Y-man
     
  13. turk

    turk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    768
    Location:
    Brighton
    Seriously @sash, you are saying that 75%+ of retirees don't receive the equivalent of the single pension.

    Other than believing an article in a magazine that can't even get the table correct where is your data from.
     
  14. sash

    sash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,859
    Location:
    Sydney
    This is what is around the corner.....I agree that people sitting on houses over say $1m in Sydney should contribute to aged pension costs....otherwise people living in $3m homes can get the pensions which is ridiculous!

    Older Australians claim pension despite owning $1m homes
     
    jimmy likes this.
  15. turk

    turk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    768
    Location:
    Brighton
    2 x $67001 = $134,000+

    Watcha on???:p:p
     
  16. sash

    sash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,859
    Location:
    Sydney
    Mate...remember....a lot of people via one property and some super would go over the threshold thus they would get minimal or no pension. Work it out....it is bloody hard to get a consistent income on 863k in assets....if you get 4%....it will be less than pension for a couple...that is the key point....remember over 85% of people have less than 1 property. Assuming a super balance of 300k and 565k in equity....no pension!
     
  17. sash

    sash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,859
    Location:
    Sydney
    Y-man clarified...if you have $134k per year...you would be in the top 0.5% of retirees......
     
  18. sash

    sash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,859
    Location:
    Sydney
    This clip would summarize my thoughts.....;):p:D

     
    mickyyyy likes this.
  19. SatayKing

    SatayKing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th Sep, 2017
    Posts:
    3,083
    Location:
    It is still all about ME!
  20. Ummm

    Ummm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24th Feb, 2018
    Posts:
    46
    Location:
    Australia
    Seems a strange tax system to support people just so they can pass any remaining assets down the line if they have the means to fund their own living costs....I don't agree with forcing anyone to move, and understand they may not have planned for their house to now be worth what it is. But there are methods to recoup some costs for the tax payer e.g. inheritance tax.