Originally Posted by
Roger
Allow me to return the compliment, I really like the bit highlighted.
Some good posts here. Thanks for so many good contributions and its turned into quite an interesting thread.
I think we can all agree its a very good idea as an absolute minimum to have a debt free home by the time you retire. I also think its a good idea to have at the minimum some other asset that pays a regular income whether that's an investment portfolio, rental property, part of your existing home converted to a flat or some other reliable form of income as its a fairly modest lifestyle just existing on the national Superannuation alone even with a debt free home.
I'd like to take up the debate about Trusts.
Trust law is long established and I would perhaps somewhat boldly suggest most of our politicians have their family home in a family trust.
At present my understanding with rest home and in home care costs is they're looking back 10 years for gifting, used to be 5 AND they look through family trust structures in regard to regular income payments from same, I don't think they did this several years ago.
Now for some pure speculation.
Will that look back period increase or will they look through the family trust structure completely ?
I doubt there's the political will for the latter option but I could well be wrong but there's the distinct possibility that they'll look back further in an effort to stem the rising health care costs in this area.
In my view this underscores the importance of establishing your family trust early and getting the gifting done and dusted, (this process is helped by the recent abolition of gift duty so you can now gift it all in one step provided you're solvent and the Trust is too).
Will we see the re-introduction of some form of national superannuation surtax ?
In Australia I believe if an individual earns more than $72,000 they're ineligible for Super.
I suspect with the baby boomer population tsunami we'll see some sort of similar system here eventually and / or possibly an increase in the eligibility age from 65 ?
Whether this is in tandem with new look through trust provisions who could possibly know ? but I think it doesn't do your lifestyle any harm by having your assets in a family trust.
I'd rather not get into a social debate about whether its morally right that some sectors of the population gain an advantage through trusts, (real can of worms that one). I'd prefer to examine how the law works today and suggest some possible extrapolations based on logic and trends.