The headline reads "Retirees ignoring potential of dipping into home equity: income review", so you get an idea where this is going.

The LNP have apparently received their long-awaited Retirement Income review which, like the "Commission of Audit" which led to the 2014 Budget, had all the answers they were expecting...

Naturally, they haven't released it (yet, anyway), and being an LNP Government, when they do release it, it will likely be so heavily redacted that it's unreadable anyway...but I digress.

Key take outs:

1) They are ardently opposed to hiking the SGC. No surprise there. So the report "finds" that doing so would impact on wage rises, and through-working-life standard of living. Just how have those wage rises gone over the last few years, while the SGC has been frozen at 9.5%?

2) They mention people being able to "access the equity in the family home", through the Pension Loan Scheme, or reverse mortgages. Look for legislation forcing people to enter these arrangements, sometime down the track.

3) From the article, no mention of increasing the ability of people to put more into Super voluntarily, by way of increasing the concessional contributions cap (for example).

4) ""Importantly, the report also reaffirms the need to simplify and enhance the efficiency of the superannuation system and lift home ownership rates as a driver of higher incomes in retirement", according to the Treasurer.

I get that home ownership is one of the key underpinnings of a comfortable retirement...but we've seen where incentivising people to "hit the market" via any means possible has gotten us, in terms of housing affordability.

I worry for people coming through and entering the workforce...They'll be hit with almost unaffordable housing, for which they'll be taking on 50+ year mortgages. They'll be "stuck" with SGC rates that will be eroded by inflation over time. They'll be faced with virtually zero chance of getting any kind of age pension (because it's a "privilege", not a right*), and also faced with Super balances that virtually ensure that by the time they retire - if ever - they'll be reverse-mortgaging their home, just to make ends meet.

A typical LNP-style "worker's paradise"...

*In the early 1900s, an Act was passed called something like the Age Pension contributions Act. That hived off 7.5% of worker's income, to fund an Age Pension. Sometime in the 50s, it was removed as a separate Budgetary line item, and the revenue was rolled into Consolidated Revenue. They didn't stop collecting the tax, they just stopped attributing it to the specific purpose for which it was being collected.

Cue later LNP narrative about "lifters and leaners"...

If forced to reverse mortgauge my home.

I will simply sell it.

Then over some time I will withdraw a few thousand here and there with an ever increasing frequency.

When all the cash is gone and I have it all squirrel away, I'll join gamblers anomalous and admit to wasting all my cash on gambling it away.

Then I'll apply for the pension as a destitute.

I'll have plenty of cash to play with all nicely secreted away.

And the grubberment will pay me a nice pension.

I might have to even get them to pay for my housing as I'm destitute.

F#@k am all.

How much do you need to retire on?

Bertie wrote on Nov 25^th, 2020 at 7:48pm:


If you own you own home and car, with no mortgage, no other debts and your kids are self supporting, you'll be surprised how little you need for a comfortable life, esp if you are in a stable relationship sharing the bills.   

Jest wrote on Nov 25^th, 2020 at 6:29am:


They have to prove it.

I'm smarter than any dead beat public servant.

I know someone who did just this about 5 years ago.

He is still getting his pension and has all the cash he needs.

It's surprising how well he does on the doggies and horses from time to time.

No records, no proof.

If you live that long, by all accounts you are an extremely obese unfit individual.

$800K in super, hubby still earning $100K pa for another 5 years, no mortgage, two kids at uni with some expenses.
Bailing next year -  good or bad?

Bertie wrote on Nov 26^th, 2020 at 8:10pm:


TBH...not the forum to be asking this question.

Go and get some proper "fee for service" (as opposed to "conflicted remuneration") advice.

There's a reason why most financial services add a disclaimer around "Our advice is general in nature and may not work for your personal circumstances" (or something to that effect). Most of the well-meaning advice you'll get on an Internet forum fits quite neatly into that disclaimer.