Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 11
Boomers Greed. 72% would rather spend their money than leave an inheritance.
Topic Started: 19 Sep 2014, 05:55 PM (7,158 Views)
doubleview
Member Avatar


ThePauk
19 Sep 2014, 07:25 PM
Interesting...
I feel that boomers refusing to retire is partly contributing to our high youth unemployment levels.
On boomer retirement, some of our public services are a very high percentage of boomers, so we defiantly have a major issue to deal with soon. It will not be that there will not be enough young to replace them, but more the experience drain.

http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/managing-and-sustaining/introduction

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/02/the-baby-boomer-bust/

http://www.ssa.vic.gov.au/products/workforce-html-only/retirement-intentions.html
I know of 2 people taking advantage of T.R.A.P.S via super and a lot more thinking about it.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


doubleview
19 Sep 2014, 07:16 PM
Quick question - which is the bigger problem; the boomers refusing to retire or the boomers leaving the workforce?
Throw away thought I guess - But the boomers that have squat to contribute will dig their toes in and refuse to go. Whereas those what's got a bit going for them will be out of there like the proverbial. Knowing they can come back in one way or another if they really need/want to - Least that's how voluntary redundancies have always worked - IME - With this phase being a bit like voluntary redundancies across the board - At this time at least ...

With that being about boomers who earn more than ?0K pa maybe? (60? 70? 80?) - With boomers earning less than that (with them not being the upper echelon pretty obviously) being damn happy to go regardless 'n leave their shitty jobs behind. To the youngies. Is my punt ...
Edited by herbie, 19 Sep 2014, 08:00 PM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


ThePauk
19 Sep 2014, 07:25 PM
Interesting...
I feel that boomers refusing to retire is partly contributing to our high youth unemployment levels.
You must be kidding. The issue that your idiot mates at MB go one about is the ratio of workers to retirees on a pension, and now you are complaining about the one thing that will keep that ratio lower.

Now I've heard everything. One part of your complaint is that people are retiring and the other complaint you have is that they are not retiring.

What would make you happy? Can we establish that?

Here is Leiths graph
Posted Image
Attached to this post:
Attachments: Aust_Dependency_Ratios_300x200.gif (9.99 KB)
Edited by peter fraser, 19 Sep 2014, 08:27 PM.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Bardon
Default APF Avatar


The worst thing that you can dod for your kids is to let them aspire to receiving your inheritance. My 15yo hasn't spoken to me for a month since he found out that I wasn't going to buy him his dream first car, or any car for that matter.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
peter fraser
19 Sep 2014, 08:17 PM
You must be kidding. The issue that your idiot mates at MB go one about is the ratio of workers to retirees on a pension, and now you are complaining about the one thing that will keep that ratio lower.

Now I've heard everything. One part of your complaint is that people are retiring and the other complaint you have is that they are not retiring.

What would make you happy? Can we establish that?

Here is Leiths graph
Posted Image
Peter
MB mates? You are suspicious indeed.
While people stay in the workforce longer, that must put pressure at the other end on youth UE rates.
The aged must move from success to significance and the youth from exclusion to inclusion.

All up, I feel it is more important to get youth UE rates down, rather than aged rates up.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


ThePauk
19 Sep 2014, 08:30 PM
Peter
MB mates? You are suspicious indeed.
While people stay in the workforce longer, that must put pressure at the other end on youth UE rates.
The aged must move from success to significance and the youth from exclusion to inclusion.

All up, I feel it is more important to get youth UE rates down, rather than aged rates up.
Well can we take it that you want boomers to retire at 65 taking a pension rather than working on to support themselves.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
peter fraser
19 Sep 2014, 08:49 PM
Well can we take it that you want boomers to retire at 65 taking a pension rather than working on to support themselves.
That all depends on why they would want to continue on working?
Most boomers feel entitled to the pension, regardless of the value of their PPOR and some are delusional enough to think that they are owed the tax paid during their working life back.

If someone actually 'needs' to continue to work, fine, however if they are just trying to build an asset pool outside of their PPOR which they own outright, then yes, they should retire.

Once again, I am currently lobbying for the VG amount over $500k to be included in the asset test.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Foxy
Member Avatar
Zero is coming...

Well if you don't buy a Ferrari in this life it was all for nothing.
The kids will be ok, they don't need a house.
Peter
http://www.afr.com/content/dam/images/g/n/2/1/u/8/image.imgtype.afrArticleInline.620x0.png/1456285515560.png
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
miw
Member Avatar


ThePauk
19 Sep 2014, 08:30 PM
While people stay in the workforce longer, that must put pressure at the other end on youth UE rates.
Why? As far as I know all the evidence is to the contrary.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
--Gloria Steinem
AREPS™
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


ThePauk
19 Sep 2014, 09:30 PM
That all depends on why they would want to continue on working?
Most boomers feel entitled to the pension, regardless of the value of their PPOR and some are delusional enough to think that they are owed the tax paid during their working life back.

If someone actually 'needs' to continue to work, fine, however if they are just trying to build an asset pool outside of their PPOR which they own outright, then yes, they should retire.

Once again, I am currently lobbying for the VG amount over $500k to be included in the asset test.
Paul, one of the nations real resource is its labour force, but you want to reduce that in an effort to make us all wealthy. Totally absurd.

We live in a nation that just doesn't encourage people to save via superannuation, it's COMPULSORY for workers to save for their retirement. The government also encourages home ownership so they don't have to provide it.

What you propose will discourage people from participating in providing for their own retirement which might in fact lead to a far worse state than we would otherwise end up in. People may simply spend their savings to qualify for the aged pension if you are going to tax the life out of them or take away their pension entitlements.

Then the state can pay for their hip replacements, nursing home care and hospitalisation without any contribution from them. I know that it's fashionable for your mates at macrobusiness to make simplistic suggestions without fear of anyone questioning what they say, but you haven't thought this through. How do you know the state will be better off, and the general populace will be better off. Have you really looked at the repercussions of this proposal. When you change a tax or benefit you alter peoples behaviour. People generally are not greedy, but given options people will always take the option that benefits them the most - surprise surprise.

And how will you convince people to vote for a change that would hurt them all when they retire?
Edited by peter fraser, 19 Sep 2014, 10:21 PM.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 11



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy