Hi Paul we have just closed our smsf after 19 years as we are getting on 72 much easier to look after a portfolio of shares without the paperwork of the fund especially if one of us departs Tax will be minimal so it's worth it

Question is have we done the right thing cheers kerri and Kevin

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

"...according to the Bureau of Statistics. Women typically retire earlier at 52 while men retire at 59.5 years. These figures go against the government's expectation that people will work longer."

This is the elephant in the room - I know myself because early retirement is a very real option for me because of mental health.

Creating a healthier person who retires at the average age - may in the long run be better than forcing people to work what seems to be an additional 10 years on average.

Those healthier retirees will be able to contribute more via volunteering and community work - which is one way we could harness the power of the "not so grey army".

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

I get that you're trying to show with the amounts is that you don't need a huge Super balance to have a comfortable retirement. But what I can't understand is how/why people have such a low Super balance. My wife and I are both approaching 50, have been working for 26 years, starting off earning around $26k each, now it's around $100k each. In that 26 years we've bought a house, paid off HECS debt, paid off the house, renovated and extended the house, purchased a couple of new cars, travelled, had a family, paying private school fees... yet we've still been able to contribute extra to Super, even in the early years when we weren't earning much and didn't have alot of disposable income, in fact sometimes we struggled to makes ends meet in the early years. But we were forcing ourselves to contribute extra to Super and pay off debt. So now we have about $600k each in Super. I guess we are now reaping the benefit of those early extra contributions. And for my wife that is with time off for having a family and working part-time. And yes, I know that combined our income now is alot, but individually it's not that much more than the average wage, and there are plenty of people earning alot more than us. We recently stopped extra Super contributions to save more money outside of Super, for an early retirement, until we can access our Super at age 60. I guess what I'm saying/asking is if we can do what we've done over the years and still have a nice Super balance, why aren't there more like us?

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Why don't more couples have $1.2 million in super?

Chronic illness

Divorce

Disability

Domestic violence

Mental illness

Terminal illness

Unemployment

How about not being eligable for HECS in the first place? Or not being able to afford university? What about losing a partner? Having to close down a struggling business? Or facing a pandemic as a casual worker?

I'm sure your life hasn't been entirely easy, but some people are dealt a tough hand.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Agree Mary J. Spot on.

Some people are dealt more difficult hands which severely impact their ability to earn continuously.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Whilst I agree Mary, there are some people who have been dealt a difficult hand, but surely those numbers are small, so Simon's point is still valid, why aren't there more people with larger Super balances? With what some people earn today, there must be people out there in their 40s and 50s with Super balances far exceeding Simon's.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Well how many are there like Simon? He's so opinionated on this that he must know all the numbers.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Being a little financially educated has helped you / us I guess Simon. There is a stigma in Australia around discussing money, like politics and religion. This prevents some people from becoming financially independent.

But discipline is also an issue.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

I am like Samuel. At 41, my partner and I have approximately $500k in super and more investments outside.

Reasons: By sheer luck, I got access to a free financial planner in my mid 20s and told her, tongue in cheek, that my financial goal was to be a millionaire by 35. To my surprise, she gave us a realistic roadmap that we followed. My partner and I started Salary Sacrificing from that day some 16 years ago just after entering the workforce. I earned $45k and my partner $38k pa, and we rented an apartment for $285 pw. As our salaries increased over the years, rather than increasing our lifestyle to the max we earned, we followed her advice and increased it by about 10% each pay rise and increased our Salary Sacrifice and investments with the rest. In 2010 we bought a house to get out of the rental market, but had to move very far away from work, friends and family to claim FHOG and Regional Bonus to get enough down payment to buy. In 2016, I heard of the FIRE movement mentioned in this article and found out my financial plan closely aligned with FIRE. As of 2020, we now sacrifice the fully allowed $27.5k each ($55k pa), and will continue to do so until we choose to retire. While we started with fairly average jobs, we have both achieved high incomes over the years. That said, we didn't start anywhere special, and my partner doesn't have a uni degree. Utilizing government programs, having a written financial plan with a radical goal, and building financial habits did it.

That said, it is also true that we have not (yet) had a divorce, major health issues, domestic violence, etc. These things are real, and only about 70% of people even living to preservation age last I heard. So, yes $500k is numerically achievable for the average person. Chance and access, financial education, and the ability to stick to some very unsexy habits for a couple of decades plays a large part in it too.

Further, there are downsides. When you have more income, you "forget" how to live on less. It's easier for someone who lives on $35k pa to retire on $35k pa than it is for someone who is used to spending $100k pa. People with high incomes tend to do things like get into debt and other financial obligations only to find out when they go to retire that they can't live on the measly $25k that their $500k in super theoretically earns them.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.