-
Originally Posted by dobby41
Interestingly it isn't only the young who are having to cut back - many boomers are broke and suffering too.
My son (30) is following in my property development footsteps, working 2 jobs and renovating himself etc and he will be as wealthy as me way before I was (age-wise). This is without any financial help from me - just knowledge and he is willing to give it his all.
Maybe it was easier 'then' but I didn't notice (though I am at the end of the boomers), isn't super hard now if you gain knowledge and get stuck in.
Fair enough, rather than complaining and wanting change, work with the system available. Invest in residential housing with huge leverage and wait for central banks to inflate away the debt. Tax free capital gains.
I guess we need lower interest rates and to bring in more immigrants to optimise this economic system? Doesn't really appeal to me for some reason.
-
Originally Posted by dobby41
Interestingly it isn't only the young who are having to cut back - many boomers are broke and suffering too.
And dobby my beef isn't with people who are trying to live on national super alone. That looks like it can be a struggle and I guess that is why we delay gratification and invest the surplus.
I just think trickle down economics is a joke and I don't think people should get welfare if they don't need it.
Last edited by Aaron; 22-11-2023 at 08:42 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Aaron
And dobby my beef isn't with people who are trying to live on national super alone. That looks like it can be a struggle and I guess that is why we delay gratification and invest the surplus.
I just think trickle down economics is a joke and I don't think people should get welfare if they don't need it.
I agree on trickle-down economics.
It seems that Govts are scared to change either welfare (including Super) or the tax settings to any great (or necessary) level.
They tend to stay away from the hard stuff.
-
How much capital do I need to retire comfortably on
For a lot of people, it's more capital than they have access to.
Many people approach retirement with little or no capital. Many others approach retirement with no debt-free housing. Sadly, New Zealand's retirement model is based on debt-free home ownership at retirement.
This is already causing problems as the working poor morph into the retired poor. Changes in population structure will only emphasize this.
The model is broken, but politically it's a live-rail issue which nobody - irrespective of party - has any intention of touching.
-
Originally Posted by GTM 3442
For a lot of people, it's more capital than they have access to.
Many people approach retirement with little or no capital. Many others approach retirement with no debt-free housing. Sadly, New Zealand's retirement model is based on debt-free home ownership at retirement.
This is already causing problems as the working poor morph into the retired poor. Changes in population structure will only emphasize this.
The model is broken, but politically it's a live-rail issue which nobody - irrespective of party - has any intention of touching.
The question should be 'how much income do I need to retire on'? Invest for income, otherwise buy a kid's money box and throw your money in it.
-
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
The question should be 'how much income do I need to retire on'? Invest for income, otherwise buy a kid's money box and throw your money in it.
Without a general CGT In NZ, Wouldn’t it best to invest for the total return in retirement? During your working life invest for the long term in assets that return as much as possible in untaxed capital gains, whilst your income from employment or self-employment is assessed up to a high marginal rate. Then if you need extra funds in retirement this appreciated asset can be disposed of gradually (if shares.)
Likewise, Investor real estate held for a long time could be disposed of without incurring CGT and invested in bonds or assets producing higher income, if your income from Self/employment has dropped to a lower marginal tax rate. So the investing for taxable income should be after retirement.
-
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
The question should be 'how much income do I need to retire on'? Invest for income, otherwise buy a kid's money box and throw your money in it.
Capital drawdown is a pretty tax-efficient form of income.
-
Originally Posted by GTM 3442
Capital drawdown is a pretty tax-efficient form of income.
Agreed - but not with housing which is the favourite.
Shares are great and fund my lifestyle.
-
-
Member
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?
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks