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

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...

 

What happened to those between $20,801 and $31,000?

 

In some ways this is more telling to give an indication as to where you sit on the tree. Have a glance at the Median weekly equivalised disposable household income.

6523.0 - Household Income and Wealth, Australia, 2017-18

 

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?

 

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.

 

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)?

 

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%.

 

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!!

The changes in 2017, 2018 caused this issue....

 

Maybe that’s just taxable income and doesn’t include tax free Super pensions?

 

134k...wow !!....no that is about 34.5k per couple!

 

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.

 

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

 

2 x $67001 = $134,000+

Watcha on???

 

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!

 

Y-man clarified...if you have $134k per year...you would be in the top 0.5% of retirees......

 

This clip would summarize my thoughts.....

 

Age Pension - How much you can get - Australian Government Department of Human Services

Age Pension rates - current.

 

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.