How much capital do I need to retire comfortably on ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by winner69

A trend in NZ as well?

Could upset retire sector assumptions about the grey tsunami going into retirement villages in droves

---

Continued growth in house prices exceeding growth in household incomes and growing inequality of wealth is not so good for the RV sector in its current form. Oldies owning multiple properties are unlikely to want more than one ORA for a unit. Whereas those who are priced out of home ownership are unlikely to be able to afford an ORA, unless they have accumulated substantial pension funds, which seems unlikely with Kiwisaver in its current form. At least the Australian pension scheme is more conducive and appealing for people to build up substantial balances.

Using debt to leverage assets with almost guaranteed capital gains, has become the bedrock of the Kiwi nest-egg building. So I am sure kiwis too would be comfortable with debt carrying into their senior years to be able to get an ever more expensive piece of the action.

This statement from Mary Holm reads: for every $100,000 you have saved, you can spend $100 a week. How accurate would you rate that statement? Is there a basis for her claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred114

This statement from Mary Holm reads: for every $100,000 you have saved, you can spend $100 a week. How accurate would you rate that statement? Is there a basis for her claim?

---

Here is her comment - https://maryholm.com/nz-herald-27-january-2024/

Probably working on the basis of returning circa 5% pa - whether interest, shares, other investments and paying lower tax rates when retired.

I note she says 'conservatively', and a simplistic calculation.

She's right though. $4m in the bank then hubby can retire!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred114

This statement from Mary Holm reads: [FONT="]for every $100,000 you have saved, you can spend $100 a week[/FONT]. How accurate would you rate that statement? Is there a basis for her claim?

---

As a generalisation it's a fair enough starting point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred114

This statement from Mary Holm reads: for every $100,000 you have saved, you can spend $100 a week. How accurate would you rate that statement? Is there a basis for her claim?

---

$5,200 equates to 5.2% pa. If the $100,000 is in term deposits and with current 6% interest rates at about 4.2% after about 30% tax, then your capital would only shrink by about $1000 pa. However the following year’s return would be smaller.

What are the assumptions with the inflation rate? Presumably Mary’s statement was set within the context of an article or response to a reader’s question?

Means test superannuation? Interesting idea. Interesting and varied views in the article.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350177...ion-commission

Why invest in the future and the younger generations.

Do old people provide any return on investment to the country? Does investing in young people provide a return to the nation? I suspect I know where the bigger investment returns are for a nation looking to allocate capital.

Does capital allocation matter when capital is cheap and readily available.

A cynical vote grabbing move today by National, pandering to selfish aholes. Why is superannuation not changed along with other benefits, it is over half the welfare spend? (see page 74 Note 8)

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/d...fsgnz-2023.pdf

https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350...anges-benefits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

Means test superannuation? Interesting idea. Interesting and varied views in the article.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350177...ion-commission

Why invest in the future and the younger generations.

Do old people provide any return on investment to the country? Does investing in young people provide a return to the nation? I suspect I know where the bigger investment returns are for a nation looking to allocate capital.

Does capital allocation matter when capital is cheap and readily available.

A cynical vote grabbing move today by National, pandering to selfish aholes. Why is superannuation not changed along with other benefits, it is over half the welfare spend? (see page 74 Note 8)

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/d...fsgnz-2023.pdf

https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350...anges-benefits

---

A sensible fella' or fellowess would keep a healthy store under the mattress in case some of these plonkers change the rules so they can keep more of other peoples earnings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

A sensible felle or fellowess would keep a healthy store under the mattress in case some of these plonkers change the rules so they can keep more of other peoples earnings.

---

I suppose if it were only income tested you could buy a bigger house to reduce income and put your hand out for a rates rebate and maybe some sort of accommodation supplement if you are a bludging ahole.

Here is another great idea from government, rather than a capital gains tax and investing in housing and young NZers wanting to get onto the housing ladder, get foreign landlords to build rentals so our young people can rent.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...2619c537&ei=14

Why is there a housing crisis? Too many f*cking foreigners coming into NZ. Solution get rich foreigners to build houses to rent, keep the property market inflated and boomers happy while young NZers lose all hope of getting ahead.

What a pack of unpatriotic aholes but sadly they represent the average home owning Kiwi. No surprises if talented young NZers continue to head elsewhere for a better life.

At least the foreigners may not be just buying existing assets but building new ones.

I suspect Chris would like the foreign demand to keep house prices high. The building angle is probably to make it more palatable to the average xenophobic NZer (like me) and to assuage concerns about home ownership for those not on high incomes or with family help available.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350179...re-rich-people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

I suppose if it were only income tested you could buy a bigger house to reduce income and put your hand out for a rates rebate and maybe some sort of accommodation supplement if you are a bludging ahole.

---

Yes, fact is they have contributed to fund so its justified. A more balanced super like Ausi is probably fairer being means tested with better tax incentives for people to contribute to thier retirement savings.