Better quality of life or Not?!

[MARYROSE02]

 

Is there as much sailing done around Manly as in the Solent though? I guess Aussies have a much bigger choice with harbours and sailing clubs up and down the coast and the whole of Sydeny Harbour to go at. The winter has certainly not stopped the sailing in Perth, we see yachts from Hillary's Marina most weekends and they have a few organised race days in the winter.

 

It's a bit the same here though with loads of yacht clubs around the river where they can get some safe sailing in all year round.

 

You might not see many yachts on the ocean side of Manly but in the harbour it should be different, especially on the particular days when the clubs have their races and regattas. Wednesdays perhaps, plus weekends.

[Gbye grey sky]

These days the assets of deceased parents is probably the only way kids will get their own home. The taxing of it is pure theft by the government.

 

That is complete nonsense. I am 53 and parents still going strong which is quite common. If I was relying on an inheritance to buy my first home I would be in trouble. :wacko:

[MARYROSE02]

I don't know which country is better, but eventually, you have to make the choice, one or the other, and for me, I chose Australia. I'm making my breakfast, toast, cup of tea, and I'm not looking out of the window and thinking, 'God, I HATE this place.' I'm not listening to the radio and thinking 'What rubbish! I should be listening to Radio 4.'

 

Naturally, I'm still thinking about English matters, primarilly the Premier League, but I'm also looking forward to the footie finals here in September, wondering, hoping, that the Swans and the Storm will do well.

 

If you have given Australia a go, decided it's not for you, and gone home, good luck to you!

[Guest Bora]

If you must London has ben voted most important city of international status. A better question to formulate would be why no German, Dutch, Belgian, Swedish, etc cities and the answer lays with the measurement looked at in passing judgement.

 

And this is my destination tomorrow!

 

And when were on the tube bustling through stations and down into ancient tunnels with smells and noise that only London gives you, I'll look down into my bewildered little girls eyes and assure her....this my darling, is what they call an adventure.......

[Keith and Linda]

Why should the state be expected to fund the entire retirement issues like nursing homes etc, when many have ample means to contribute? As I wrote either from the house inflated value or the kids make a contribution. Why should a million dollars untaxed go towards kids gain? Australia can not afford such extravagance. In Europe kids have a legal responsible to care for parents to their ability.

 

so, the parents that work hard and plan for the future, struggle in the early years in the hope of a better future for their selves and their children get penalized ! and the ones that do nothing get benefits and these benefits are paid by ?????? the ones that worked hard and struggled!

 

There are very many people that are looked after by family or from their own resources (usually gained from earlier hard work and planning)

 

I do seem to get the feeling that you are jealous.

[Keith and Linda]

Do that by all means. Every system has avoidance strategies. But if living in an inflated one million dollar house, or even more there is every reason by that untaxed earning after a certain fair amount should not be forced to pay for nursing home care. No one likes to pay taxes but everybody wants the benefits.

 

Why are you just picking on houses? and million dollar houses? trying to make your view more attentive? The items I mentioned were not an avoidance strategy but an example of some other forms of assets and investments just like your home.

[ramot]

So person (A) = me has worked my butt off, started with nothing in the 1960's, gone without to buy property, as a home for the family! as came from a dysfunctional background and made the financial sacrifice, eg no holidays, and was old enough to have bought before property prices boomed, has to penalised by being taxed yet again when dead. Ok it's the estate that gets taxed.

certainly didn't buy a family home for anything but stability as in those days property had never increased in value in any thing like it did many years into the future.

Just because I am old and my property has increased in value beyond all expectation our estate is taxed on death.

that's why We might as well spend like mad over the next few years so at least we have enjoyed it!! Then the government can take over.

won't actually do that but it's a thought.

[Parley]

Or come to Australia where there is no death duties.

[ramot]

Or come to Australia where there is no death duties.

 

Live in Australia, but have kept property in Uk, as on long term temporary retirement visa, so have hedged our bets.

[Keith and Linda]

So person (A) = me has worked my butt off, started with nothing in the 1960's, gone without to buy property, as a home for the family! as came from a dysfunctional background and made the financial sacrifice, eg no holidays, and was old enough to have bought before property prices boomed, has to penalised by being taxed yet again when dead. Ok it's the estate that gets taxed.

certainly didn't buy a family home for anything but stability as in those days property had never increased in value in any thing like it did many years into the future.

Just because I am old and my property has increased in value beyond all expectation our estate is taxed on death.

that's why We might as well spend like mad over the next few years so at least we have enjoyed it!! Then the government can take over.

won't actually do that but it's a thought.

 

You are not alone on thinking that way and I suspect that's what a few people have actually done. We are downsizing at present and will enjoy the benefit now, we will most likely downsize again in the not too distant future, so the kids will not end up with that so called million dollar house, but then again I don't think they are expecting to get it anyway and in reality (at present) they don't need it.

 

I have relative back in the UK that thinks and talks on similar lines to flag, but he then goes and puts his home into a 'family trust' thus avoiding death duties, why should the tax man have it he says, or the Government make me sell it to pay for later care costs, noooooooooo way, I'll let the government look after me when the time comes.

[MARYROSE02]

Why should the state be expected to fund the entire retirement issues like nursing homes etc, when many have ample means to contribute? As I wrote either from the house inflated value or the kids make a contribution. Why should a million dollars untaxed go towards kids gain? Australia can not afford such extravagance. In Europe kids have a legal responsible to care for parents to their ability.

 

 

You should be in 'The Tea Party', Flag, with a philosophy like that! Why should the State be expected to fund ANYTHING that an individual could afford to do out of their income, if they chose to do so?

 

Every person who lives in a council house, should be contintually monitored, and means-tested, to ensure that they are not 'wasting' any money on holidays, new cars, beer, fags, and horses, when it could be far better saved towards their retirements/ill health?

 

Come to think of it, not just people in public housing, but EVERYBODY in the community. Why should anybody be allowed to waste their resources on unessential frivolities? Of course, the brewing, racing, tobacco, and holiday industries would all collapse, but they are run by immoral capitalist tyrants anyway.

 

And many people DO look after their parents in their old age, usually the ones who have already spent their own lives building up assets, then the state expects them to look after both their parents and themselves, with no, or little help from said state.

 

Naturally, said state is expected to live up to its obligations to the UN and spend (waste) large sums of money on foreign aid, and looking after illegal immigrants, but whoever said charity was supposed to begin at home!?

[flag of convenience]

I don't know which country is better, but eventually, you have to make the choice, one or the other, and for me, I chose Australia. I'm making my breakfast, toast, cup of tea, and I'm not looking out of the window and thinking, 'God, I HATE this place.' I'm not listening to the radio and thinking 'What rubbish! I should be listening to Radio 4.'

 

Naturally, I'm still thinking about English matters, primarilly the Premier League, but I'm also looking forward to the footie finals here in September, wondering, hoping, that the Swans and the Storm will do well.

 

If you have given Australia a go, decided it's not for you, and gone home, good luck to you!

 

There is no such thing as to which country is better or maybe better. In fact both are wanting and numerous folk make choices to live out their days in third countries, where retirement can be advanced by a good decade or even more in many cases, with a greater quality of life due to reduced costs pretty much ensured.

 

The movement to such countries appears to be escalating as baby boomers seek out more satisfactory alternatives. Problem being of course it may fall victim to its own success. As numbers seek out better and more affordable ways of living the costs rise in those places.

 

At the end of the day the England /Australia comparison is a personal one. It's a trade off while those that harp on about death taxes the issue of assets not ruling out a pension for me would make UK a clear winner on pure economic terms. The ability to travel cheaper and shorter distances would be another winner.

[flag of convenience]

And this is my destination tomorrow!

 

And when were on the tube bustling through stations and down into ancient tunnels with smells and noise that only London gives you, I'll look down into my bewildered little girls eyes and assure her....this my darling, is what they call an adventure.......

 

Ah,The sights and sounds of London. Indeed a real adventure combined with what is available outside the great city as well.

[flag of convenience]

so, the parents that work hard and plan for the future, struggle in the early years in the hope of a better future for their selves and their children get penalized ! and the ones that do nothing get benefits and these benefits are paid by ?????? the ones that worked hard and struggled!

 

There are very many people that are looked after by family or from their own resources (usually gained from earlier hard work and planning)

 

I do seem to get the feeling that you are jealous.

 

The issue doesn't tend to befall someone from struggle street who managed to purchase a house and made a little capital gain on it over the years which was clearly stated. It does include those whose houses increased many times through no effort on their part, which does nothing but add to the cycle of over inflated housing in this country.

 

The great working class divide being brought up again as an argument. Those that do versus those that don't. Of course if housing was what it was intended to be, a place of refuge, comfort where one raised their family, instead of a tool for wealth creation, that argument would hardly take place.

 

The choice to rent or buy should not be part of the equation into deserving or none deserving. Those at the end with a house will have an asset to sell and more choices regardless of the requirement to pay towards their age care. As mentioned it would be quarantined in that besides the price paid, and inflation was taken into account a sensible capital gain would be allowed over time.

 

Well actually the greed it installs in kids let alone dissent between siblings and inter generations over expectant inherited usually property wealth is hardly happy families.

 

Jealous of what may I ask?

[flag of convenience]

You are not alone on thinking that way and I suspect that's what a few people have actually done. We are downsizing at present and will enjoy the benefit now, we will most likely downsize again in the not too distant future, so the kids will not end up with that so called million dollar house, but then again I don't think they are expecting to get it anyway and in reality (at present) they don't need it.

 

I have relative back in the UK that thinks and talks on similar lines to flag, but he then goes and puts his home into a 'family trust' thus avoiding death duties, why should the tax man have it he says, or the Government make me sell it to pay for later care costs, noooooooooo way, I'll let the government look after me when the time comes.

 

I don't think I ever said that the tax man should ever have it all. That would be daft. It would not impact on those with the real wealth who are in a position to use creative measures of avoidance. Better and fairer than that. No one would lose the original price or allowance for inflation and a moderate gain to be worked out, but something akin to the highest bank rate over a period. The rest would contribute towards age cost expenses and would have the added winner of keeping house price rises to an acceptable level.

[Keith and Linda]

I don't think I ever said that the tax man should ever have it all. That would be daft. It would not impact on those with the real wealth who are in a position to use creative measures of avoidance. Better and fairer than that. No one would lose the original price or allowance for inflation and a moderate gain to be worked out, but something akin to the highest bank rate over a period. The rest would contribute towards age cost expenses and would have the added winner of keeping house price rises to an acceptable level.

 

So nothing for upkeep, maintenance, improvements? as they would attract a better price ( more profit) against those which are left uncared for and/or untouched.

I never said the taxman should get it all either.

[Guest]

Ah,The sights and sounds of London. Indeed a real adventure combined with what is available outside the great city as well.

 

Unfortunately it wears off after a couple of months living there and everything starts stressing you out. Probably why everyone needs a beer after work

[flag of convenience]

You should be in 'The Tea Party', Flag, with a philosophy like that! Why should the State be expected to fund ANYTHING that an individual could afford to do out of their income, if they chose to do so?

 

Every person who lives in a council house, should be contintually monitored, and means-tested, to ensure that they are not 'wasting' any money on holidays, new cars, beer, fags, and horses, when it could be far better saved towards their retirements/ill health?

 

Come to think of it, not just people in public housing, but EVERYBODY in the community. Why should anybody be allowed to waste their resources on unessential frivolities? Of course, the brewing, racing, tobacco, and holiday industries would all collapse, but they are run by immoral capitalist tyrants anyway.

 

And many people DO look after their parents in their old age, usually the ones who have already spent their own lives building up assets, then the state expects them to look after both their parents and themselves, with no, or little help from said state.

 

Naturally, said state is expected to live up to its obligations to the UN and spend (waste) large sums of money on foreign aid, and looking after illegal immigrants, but whoever said charity was supposed to begin at home!?

 

No I shouldn't be in the Tea Party. We've pretty much got one in power in Australia at the moment messing up the place. You don't get the drill. Nothing about building up assets. The next generation, Generation Rent, will have little chance to profit as their parents done through nothing but luck of the biggest boom in OZ history and no doing of their own part.

 

I can only smile at those that constantly repeat the mantra, "But we worked for it" You worked for nothing of the sort the gains were made regardless if you even had a job. Only criteria being to own bricks and mortar. Unlike share and other means of creating wealth a house is rather different in that it is an essential.

 

I'd suggest the world wide trend these days is kids have little time to spend with ageing parents let alone caring for them in this fast paces, time scarce world that has been created. If anything the sibling rivalry over fairness about who gets what or parents spending the kids entitlement expectations are all too a common feature.

A clarity in policy with legally enforceable requirements would certainly eradicate those burdens for starters.

 

What people do with their resources within their working life is of course their business. They can spend the lot on perpetual cruising if they wish. Nothing to do with wasting resources. We are entitled to be as frivolous as we wish.

 

But a contribution should be made towards own care on houses than have increased multiple times on original value to a certain amount. Fair to all. Those with property well join them in state housing if consider that an option.

[flag of convenience]

So nothing for upkeep, maintenance, improvements? as they would attract a better price ( more profit) against those which are left uncared for and/or untouched.

I never said the taxman should get it all either.

 

If a house is purely a means of profit and not a place of pride in the space you live, then so be it.

[ramot]

Flag what is your definition of the next generation? Our 3 children are our next generation, and guess what they own their own houses.

 

should read have bought their houses, won't own them till the mortgage is paid off.

[flag of convenience]

Flag what is your definition of the next generation? Our 3 children are our next generation, and guess what they own their own houses.

 

should read have bought their houses, won't own them till the mortgage is paid off.

 

Well as you note when paid off. Until then property of the bank I'm afraid. I take it your kids are hardly in the young range, at a guess I'd imagine over thirty. The price of a fairly average house say for $550,000 with a $50,000 down payment is quite mind boggling. I can do the math for you if you wish, but wouldn't dream of insulting your intelligence.

While doing the equation, don't look at todays exceptionally historically low rate, but of course the average rate. That being 7%. I would suggest in a time of 20% youth unemployment. Close to 25% casual employment and over 6% unemployment, a whole section of younger folk have little choice but to remain in Generation Rent or possibly lucky if not still paying a mortgage off in retirement.

[Parley]

All the more reason not to begrudge them getting their fair share inheritance from their parents.

[Guest]

Nothing wrong with renting your own place, when you consider the cost of mortgages and upkeep of the property you are probably bet off investing the money elsewhere in the long run in many areas.

[ramot]

Well as you note when paid off. Until then property of the bank I'm afraid. I take it your kids are hardly in the young range, at a guess I'd imagine over thirty. The price of a fairly average house say for $550,000 with a $50,000 down payment is quite mind boggling. I can do the math for you if you wish, but wouldn't dream of insulting your intelligence.

While doing the equation, don't look at todays exceptionally historically low rate, but of course the average rate. That being 7%. I would suggest in a time of 20% youth unemployment. Close to 25% casual employment and over 6% unemployment, a whole section of younger folk have little choice but to remain in Generation Rent or possibly lucky if not still paying a mortgage off in retirement.

 

Son age 39 bought first house last year funnily enough at almost the price you mentioned.

We also lived through the horrendously high mortgage rate in the UK, and survived but it was tough.

also we still have a mortgage and are well into retirement, as we only moved to Australia 11 years ago, but to be honest so what as long as you can afford it. Otherwise you would probably sell and downsize.

[Paul1Perth]

Nothing wrong with renting your own place, when you consider the cost of mortgages and upkeep of the property you are probably bet off investing the money elsewhere in the long run in many areas.

 

Comes back to whether you are just interested in property as an investment or more of a place to live, settle, enjoy, bring up a family, feel at home.