How much capital do I need to retire comfortably on ?

[Sgt Pepper]

I didn't even know this was up for discussion. Chipping away at an overly generous scheme, obviously not many affected. Not as good as income and asset testing so welfare is not being paid to those who don't need it but a step in the right direction. The last boomer retires in 2029 so expect to see some big changes after that.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/126...r-for-nz-super

Although born in NZ I was entitled to have an Irish Passport which I acquired in 1979. Although being a dual NZ/Irish citizen for 42 years I am not entitled to any Irish pension. Completely fair as I have never contributed any tax to the Irish state. NZ has been, until this change a rather generous outlier in respect of paying NZ Super

[fungus pudding]

Hey FP I was thinking that your reply was pretty weak so wasn't going to comment, but as you immediately contradicted yourself and I quote "I agree that those I am referring to are in a minority." I just couldn't let it go.

So to recap. A lot don't? or is it A minority don't?

Either way I agree that the minority of genuine bludgers make me angry as well, but lets not tar everyone with the same brush as justakiwi has kindly pointed out.

Probably getting a bit off track.

Altough a minority of NZ'ers live in the South Island that's a lot of people.

[Bjauck]

Benefits should just be loans that you pay back on future earnings...
cc

...including capital gains.

[Sideshow Bob]

Mind the gap: Couples need $809,000 nest egg to retire with 'choices' at age 65 | Stuff.co.nz

[Fred114]

Opinion piece from David Boyle states "plan to eat your savings", meaning that the days of living off interest from capital are gone, and suggests an alternative using "buckets"

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/opini...irement-bridge

I like the strategy, but don't agree that living off interest from capital are gone. Or am I missing something important?

Cheers

[fungus pudding]

Opinion piece from David Boyle states "plan to eat your savings", meaning that the days of living off interest from capital are gone, and suggests an alternative using "buckets"

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/opini...irement-bridge

I like the strategy, but don't agree that living off interest from capital are gone. Or am I missing something important?

Cheers

It would be difficult to live off interest for a sustained period without several million dollars just rotting in the bank - which I doubt many have. Certainly the days of living off investments are not gone, and never will be.
The question to ask yourself should be 'how much income do I need to live on?'

[Aaron]

Opinion piece from David Boyle states "plan to eat your savings", meaning that the days of living off interest from capital are gone, and suggests an alternative using "buckets"

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/opini...irement-bridge

I like the strategy, but don't agree that living off interest from capital are gone. Or am I missing something important?

Cheers

Maybe if yields stay low and your financial advisor's fee is a percentage of capital invested.

[GTM 3442]

Opinion piece from David Boyle states "plan to eat your savings", meaning that the days of living off interest from capital are gone, and suggests an alternative using "buckets"

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/opini...irement-bridge

I like the strategy, but don't agree that living off interest from capital are gone. Or am I missing something important?

Cheers

Christine Benz of Morningstar US has a whole bunch of stuff about the "Bucket Portfolio" model.

For a starting point: https://www.morningstar.com/articles...erform-in-2021

[fungus pudding]

What a load of cr*p. Its welfare pure and simple. Bludger mentality means people who don't need it consider it some sort of "right" even though it is being paid for out of current and future taxation.

What are you suggesting that we should pay tax so govt. can pay someone on $100,000 plus a year to upgrade the car or go on another overseas jaunt. Not all bludgers are poor.

Fair enough , so let's reduce taxes for those who will not need a govt. pension. e.g. the wealthy for a start.

[Bjauck]

Fair enough , so let's reduce taxes for those who will not need a govt. pension. e.g. the wealthy for a start.

If you want to reduce taxes on the wealthy, then presumably you must assess a tax based on wealth in the first place. Not all those on higher incomes are wealthy; not all those with wealth have high assessable incomes.