How Much Do You Actually Need to Retire in Aus

LHappyBigKid on 15/05/2025 - 09:03

New around here but have been getting deals from ozb for over 6 years now….

So my question is - most of our goals in life is to replace our income and most would probably retire if the income was replaced by an investment or what not.

How much is actually enough for you to retire? These days life is expensive…especially in most parts of Aus.

From my research and understanding i think if you have an investment portfolio paying out around 150k net a year you could easily "retire".

The more the better, but is it really worth wasting your younger years for more and missing out the past parts of your life? Young years would be say 35-55….

Thoughts?

Financial Retirement

Comments

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 15/05/2025 - 09:10
    +44

    I saw a post on ausfinance the other day that mentioned aim at $4 million and just live off the interest/ dividends

    Me: 😭 - why was I too shy to get up on camera and shake my ass / do silly dances on instagram/ TikTok back in the day.

    • star-ggg on 15/05/2025 - 09:28
      +4

      I assume that's $2m in fixed income which still yields 5% currently to act as a "salary" and $2m in investments to keep ahead of inflation.

      • cloudy on 15/05/2025 - 09:48
        +1

        I don't know any 2m investment that still yields 5%.

        Most high interest accounts cap well before that figure.

        • TEER3X on 15/05/2025 - 09:51

          What about spread over some tiny air bnb places or a couple of houses where you just rent out the rooms individually?

          • Ade99 on 16/05/2025 - 08:26
            +3

            @TEER3X: …unless you live in the Socialist Utopia of Victoria where mini me Jacinta loves to suck blood from stones to pay for her spendthrift ways…🤔

          • Dr Phil on 17/05/2025 - 23:30
            -1

            @TEER3X: Property / Property / Property

          • frewer on 19/05/2025 - 19:52

            @TEER3X:

            What about spread over some tiny air bnb places or a couple of houses

            Would push you over 3m in assets, and the unrealized profit tax is meh

        • star-ggg on 15/05/2025 - 09:54
          +1

          Open multiple accounts? The govt guarantee only goes up to $250k anyway

          • cloudy on 15/05/2025 - 12:15

            @star-ggg: that could work, I haven't gone through and looked at every 5% online account and added their caps.

            But if they're like ING, man, i'd be sick of splitting transactions at supermarket over my 10 banking accounts. What a pain.

          • Dr Phil on 17/05/2025 - 23:33
            -2

            @star-ggg: Cash is useless.
            Inflation eats it away in no time at all.
            You need assets with a decent income in which both the value and the income typically rise in value over time and for that - Property is easily the best bet….but Blue chip shares as well

        • Poor Ass on 15/05/2025 - 16:37
          +1

          this is probably why you're not part of the group that does

        • brad1-8tsi on 15/05/2025 - 17:39
          +6

          I don't know any 2m investment that still yields 5%.

          Most high interest accounts cap well before that figure.

          Is placing your money in a HISA really an investment? I don't think so.

        • timuzhti on 15/05/2025 - 18:36
          +4

          Australian 30 year bonds have been yielding about 5% for the past few months, some have lower coupons but they're trading at below face value. That would be the type of fixed income I would expect if you have a duration about equal to the maturity (so little duration risk), want to take relatively minimal credit risk, and are less concerned about inflation risk. The inflation protected versions appear to yield lower.

          Floating rate products like bank accounts actually have higher interest rate risk than fixed rate if the intended purpose is to hold for a long period of time, since we'd normally expect short term interest rates to eventually go down to the neutral rate, and on average stay around that rate. (though, as a tradeoff, there is less inflation risk, since the central bank is expected to raise rates if there is inflation)

          If needed you can take credit risk by adding in some investment grade corporates (BBB- or better), at 2 million you can probably directly purchase a reasonable portfolio with even say, half that amount, though it still probably would be easier to go with a fund manager if you find one that's suitable.

          Fixed interest yields are still very high compared to what they've been in the past decade or two, basically since the GFC.

        • V2L on 16/05/2025 - 11:08
          +1

          if you keep it simple, fully invested VDHG will give you around 4% yield and keep up with inflation

          • idonotknowwhy on 19/05/2025 - 11:39

            @V2L: Isn't that the disappointing one that under performs VGS, but everyone on Reddit down votes you when you point it out?

            • V2L on 19/05/2025 - 16:23

              @idonotknowwhy: depends on your goals, if you want CGT, its not great. if you are near retirement age and want an all in one fund that is defensive and gives great dividend income, possibly. VGS gives you next to nil income

          • samsta7866 on 26/05/2025 - 10:50

            @V2L: the yield will also increase as the dividend payout increases over time

        • Hangryuman on 16/05/2025 - 15:40
          +1

          'I don't know any 2m investment that still yields 5%'

          I presume you mean guaranteed fixed interest from like a bank account

          not 2m, but in other news, I just updated my records of my super today

          and saw it returned 8%pa last year, down from 24%pa as at December 2024

          and that's without any additions like salary sacrifice I used to do before I retired.

      • brad1-8tsi on 15/05/2025 - 17:37
        +5

        I assume that's $2m in fixed income which still yields 5% currently to act as a "salary"

        That's nuts. When the interest rate drops it's dumb money. You've got to remember that your investments rarely drop to zero income. You just need emergency money.

        Also, structured correctly you pay almost no tax post 60yo.

        OP is right, if you want a FAT retirement of $150k/yr you need close to $4m in income producing assets but most folks can have a very comfortable retirement on $75k net if they own their home.

        NB: it seems unattainable but making concessional contributions, being agressive with your investment profile, ignoring ScoMo when he tells you to withdraw $20k from super and the power of compounding returns can give some crazy good outcomes for retirement.

        • Jackson on 16/05/2025 - 18:51
          +4

          If you own your house you can easily live on 75k, what do people think they need the extra money for? Should retirement mean you never cook again and get a massage every day of the week?

      • skid on 15/05/2025 - 10:00
        +6

        If your super balance happens to exceed 3m on any particular year (month?)

        • jv on 15/05/2025 - 10:45
          -6

          Yes… theft…

          • ferry594 on 15/05/2025 - 11:30
            +47

            @jv: Super was never meant to be a vehicle for you to retire in luxury - it was meant to be so you don't leech of the tax system in your old age.

            I've got no tears for anyone being hit with taxes because theyve got a super balance above 3m - that said it should absolutely be indexed over time

            • jv on 15/05/2025 - 11:49
              +11

              @ferry594:

              Super was never meant to be a vehicle for you to retire in luxury

              Super is your money that you saved for your retirement.

              It's not the government's role to decide how you choose to live your life….

              Someone may choose to go through life without luxuries, without new cars, without smoking, withought gambling and retire in comfort travelling the world and buying nice things to make them happy…

              Why doesn't Albo steal money from those people who choose to waste their income on other things instead of saving for retirement?

              • vid_ghost on 18/05/2025 - 09:30
                +6

                @jv: People keep saying Albo is taking their money.. NO he is not.. All he is doing is removing a tax deduction for rich people. Using super as a untaxable loophole to park your money. Albo is only taxing the interest/gains. Not the lump sum just like if it was in the stock market after you cash out. The issue is with super you never cash out and when you do they cant tax you otherwise it defeats the purpose of it for everyone with supers under 3 million.

            • jv on 15/05/2025 - 11:51
              -2

              @ferry594:

              hit with taxes because theyve got a super balance above 3m

              They've already paid their taxes. It is their money, not Albo's…

              It is also a tax on unrealised gains, so there is no profit….

              What's next? Is he going to tax the house you live in everytime it goes up in value???

              • Crow K on 15/05/2025 - 12:25
                +10

                @jv:

                They've already paid their taxes. It is their money, not Albo's…

                Okay, so people who put their after tax dollars into term deposits or buy shares with them shouldn't be taxed on those earnings either?

                bUt I"vE aLrEAdY pAiD mY tAx oN iT

                • brad1-8tsi on 15/05/2025 - 17:42
                  +3

                  @Crow K:

                  Okay, so people who put their after tax dollars into term deposits or buy shares with them shouldn't be taxed on those earnings either?

                  Do you understand the difference between an unrealised capital gain and a realised CG?

                  • Crow K on 15/05/2025 - 17:52
                    +5

                    @brad1-8tsi: Yes.

                    Do you understand I am responding to the argument "how can you tax this, I already paid my taxes"?

                    • brad1-8tsi on 16/05/2025 - 09:07

                      @Crow K:

                      Do you understand I am responding to the argument "how can you tax this, I already paid my taxes"?

                      Obviously not. Your statement was too obtuse.
                      Are you aware of the proposed taxes on unrealised capital gains with no explanation on what happens with unrealised capital losses?

                      • Crow K on 16/05/2025 - 09:15
                        +1

                        @brad1-8tsi: JV said

                        They've already paid their taxes. It is their money, not Albo's…

                        I said

                        Okay, so people who put their after tax dollars into term deposits or buy shares with them shouldn't be taxed on those earnings either?

                        If you can't follow that thread (in which we both mentioned paying taxes), it isn't a "Crow being obtuse" moment, it's a "brad needs to try harder at comprehension" moment.

                • Ade99 on 16/05/2025 - 08:31
                  +4

                  @Crow K: taxed when you earn it, taxed when you invest it, taxed when you spend it…..

                  • Crow K on 16/05/2025 - 09:20

                    @Ade99: Yeah, that's basically how the economy works, the same money moving around in circles, usually being income for whoever receives it.

                    Which makes JV's "but tax on that money has already been paid" all the more facile a remark, really.

                • SlickMick on 16/05/2025 - 09:26
                  +1

                  @Crow K: Super is taxed too. The question is should term deposits and shares get an EXTRA tax if you have more than everybody else.

                  • Crow K on 16/05/2025 - 09:29

                    @SlickMick: Which plays into the use of tax as an incentive/disincentive in shaping economic investment and individual behaviour.

                    "We want to encourage people to save for their retirement"

                    Okay let's create a tax system where they pay 15% of tax on income in super funds in accumulation phase and 0% in pension phase.

                    "We want to prevent people hoarding what we deem to be excessive wealth in a super environment at lower tax rates"

                    Okay let's look at super funds with $3 million plus balances and figure out a tax to disincentive that.

                    Etc. I think we all know the answer but:

                    The question is should term deposits and shares get an EXTRA tax if you have more than everybody else.

                    Yes, they already do, this is what marginal tax rates are for, a person on $50k a year pays less tax on a $10k term deposit than someone on $1 million

              • nedski on 15/05/2025 - 12:27
                +1

                @jv: They have paid taxes at a concessional rate for their super.

                Also it is not Albo's money, it goes into consolidated revenue to pay for public services. Taxes are the cost of living in a civilised society.

                  • Usernames on 15/05/2025 - 13:24
                    +6

                    @jv: I’d be more interested to know if/how unrealised capital gains taxes will be applied to his and his colleagues’ defined benefit super accounts.

                    • jv on 15/05/2025 - 13:34
                      -4

                      @Usernames:

                      I’d be more interested to know if/how unrealised capital gains taxes will be applied to his and his colleagues’ defined benefit super accounts.

                      the ones that keep getting paid to his spouse after he dies…

                      it'd be nice if the same rules applied to all Australians…

                      Albo is only interested from stealing from other people's super, and not his own…

                    • RMBC on 16/05/2025 - 11:25
                      +2

                      @Usernames: They aren't; politicians, judges and some public servants are explicitly exempted from Div296. As an FYI, a comparable superannuation account to the defined benefit Albanese's is to receive would need to be greater than $10,000,000 to be equal. Also his pension is indexed and increased every six months.

                      • leigh8904 on 17/05/2025 - 05:55

                        @RMBC:

                        They aren't; politicians, judges and some public servants are explicitly exempted from Div296.

                        What is your source for this? I heard Jim Chalmers on the radio the other day say explicitly that this is not true.
                        Also see for some further into: https://www.firstlinks.com.au/public-servants-demanding-3m-d…

                        • RMBC on 17/05/2025 - 11:25

                          @leigh8904: My information came from the original legislation for Div 296 which was put before parliament; the exclusions mimicked those of Div 293. During the election it was stated by Labor there were to be no changes to the legislation should they win. It's disingenous for Chalmers to say that the exclusions were not true, despite his current, and changed, claims.

                          I've heard Chalmers' discussions recently that there would be no exclusions, however, I'll believe it when I see it, particularly in relation to judges.

                          The judiciary have protected remuneration meaning they can't be made worse off. The theory being if their remuneration is reduced, they are susceptible to financial enducement and corruption. There is case law which has exempted them from similar laws previously, so it will be interesting to see how that's handled.

                          • leigh8904 on 17/05/2025 - 18:37

                            @RMBC: Okay, fair enough. Noted that the actual law is only vapourware at the moment.

                        • vid_ghost on 18/05/2025 - 09:41

                          @leigh8904: He was asked on camera. He said no one not even MP are exempt.

                  • ferry594 on 15/05/2025 - 17:28
                    +1

                    @jv: are you being intentionally obtuse? You dont have a capital gain on an asset you just purchased.

              • ferry594 on 15/05/2025 - 17:30
                +2

                @jv: Trust me, I probably hate taxes more than you do. But getting taxed at a concessional rate for an excess amount of money means that no, you havent already paid your whole amount of tax.

                • jv on 15/05/2025 - 18:50
                  -3

                  @ferry594: Yes they have. They paid the full legal amount and the super is theirs….

              • LFO on 16/05/2025 - 12:15

                @jv:

                What's next? Is he going to tax the house you live in everytime it goes up in value???

                Ouch!! Too dangerous to even mention!!!

                • jv on 16/05/2025 - 12:35
                  -4

                  @LFO:

                  Ouch!! Too dangerous to even mention!!!

                  Don't worry, that's where Albo is heading with this…

                  First stealing your super, then stealing your inheritence, they stealing your house…

                  • idonotknowwhy on 19/05/2025 - 11:56

                    @jv:

                    Don't worry, that's where Albo is heading with this…

                    I don't think he will. IMO he's only going after the >3mil because only a relatively small percentage of the voter base would be impacted (and they probably vote LNP or Teal anyway), so low risk for his re-election.

                    Similar reason why they banned vapes, I'm guessing most of that (relatively small) group voted Greens, and they'd still put ALP > LNP on the ballot. Interesting how cigarettes are still fine though :)

                    More than half the population would be affected by unrealized gains tax on PPOR.

                    • jv on 19/05/2025 - 12:25

                      @idonotknowwhy:

                      I don't think he will.

                      He definitely will… Just like Jacinta is now doing to Victorians…

              • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2025 - 19:10
                +3

                @jv:

                They've already paid their taxes.

                No they literally didn't. It's superannuation money that was only taxed at 15%.

            • Crow K on 15/05/2025 - 12:53
              +13

              @ferry594: Hat tip to ferry594 for discovering the SovCit All Taxation Is Theft mode on jv

            • ceej11 on 15/05/2025 - 20:38
              +1

              @ferry594: Glad someone said it. 3m is plenty in today's money, I'm more annoyed that it's not indexed.

              Also you're right jv. They should just scrap super so they 'steal' your money. /s

              • jv on 15/05/2025 - 20:59
                +6

                @ceej11:

                They should just scrap super

                Except Australia cannot afford to pay everyone the pension.

                That is why people choose to save their own money to pay for their own retirement…

                Of course Albo doesn't care. He will get almost half a million per year for life, paid for by your taxes and not by his savings….

                • ferry594 on 15/05/2025 - 22:21
                  +2

                  @jv: just to be clear - are you aware that there comes a point where super tax concessions are more expensive than simply paying people the pension?
                  that's why its a good idea to cap super tax free thresholds in the first place.

                  • jv on 15/05/2025 - 22:41
                    +1

                    @ferry594:

                    where super tax concessions are more expensive

                    They're not more expensive.
                    It doesn't cost the government anything, it is not their money….

                    If I couldn't put my money in super, I'd just choose another pre-tax investment instead… Probably overseas…

                    • Crow K on 16/05/2025 - 02:52
                      +2

                      @jv:

                      They're not more expensive.
                      It doesn't cost the government anything, it is not their money….

                      Super funds in pension mode with a 0% tax rate are getting refund cheques from the ATO (which is government money).

                      Literally syphoning government money out of the tax system that they aren't paying into.

                      • RMBC on 16/05/2025 - 11:26
                        +4

                        @Crow K: Refund cheques are never government money as it is owed to the individual. You only get a refund for having paid more tax than the amount you owe.

                        If you paid no tax, you get no refund.

                        • Crow K on 16/05/2025 - 11:45
                          -1

                          @RMBC: Time for you to go away and look up "franking / imputation credits on dividends" and increase your knowledge.

                          • RMBC on 16/05/2025 - 12:33
                            +3

                            @Crow K: Franking credits are tax that has been paid by a company on behalf of its shareholders, hence the term imputation in the name, and is an assignment of the tax credit to the dividend. That isn't government money, and differs in no way to PAYG withholding from salaries, ie it is an amount held for the benefit of the taxpayer as a credit against their tax bill.

                            • Crow K on 16/05/2025 - 12:49
                              -1

                              @RMBC: Congratulations on catching up, albeit with some incorrect details.

                              The entire point to franking credits was to avoid a double dip of taxing the same dollar twice (it is not "paying tax on behalf of someone else" like PAYGW). When the dividend is sent out, the company attached a credit to it informing the tax office 30% tax (say) had already been paid on that income.

                              People would then report that income in their tax return, get assessed at their tax rate, and then get a credit for the 30% that had already been paid.

                              But what happens if a super fund that doesn't pay any taxes gets a dividend? Company pays 30% tax into the ATO money pot, which is now government money. Super fund pays 0% into the ATO, shows its credit slip and slurps all that money straight back out again. It's been reimbursed for a tax amount it never paid.

                              In that example the money pot is now empty because the government is "refunding" to entities that never pay tax anyway.

                              And that's how super funds concessions cost the government money.

                              • tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 09:50
                                -1

                                @Crow K:

                                But what happens if a super fund that doesn't pay any taxes gets a dividend? Company pays 30% tax into the ATO money pot, which is now government money. Super fund pays 0% into the ATO, shows its credit slip and slurps all that money straight back out again. It's been reimbursed for a tax amount it never paid.

                                The same thing that happens for someone who is under the tax free threshold who receives dividends with attached franking credits? They get a refund adjusted by the amount of tax they should have paid, in this case 0%. They're being reimbursed for the tax that was paid but should not have been.

                                • Crow K on 18/05/2025 - 12:31
                                  +1

                                  @tenpercent: The tax was paid the first time because the company had a profit.

                                  No more taxes have been paid since.

                                  There is no "tax that was paid but should not have been".

                                  Like I said before, dividend imputation is to prevent the same dollar being taxed twice, it isn't taxed once on behalf of someone else like RMBG stated earlier.

                    • ferry594 on 16/05/2025 - 10:04
                      +3

                      @jv: Are you being intentionally dense?

                      Of course it costs the government (and taxpayer) something.

                      The government forgoes >50bn per year in taxation income due to tax concessions on super, which obviously rises over time as super balances get larger and inflation increases wages.

                      Believe it or not, there is a breakpoint where it's cheaper to simply remove super tax concessions and pay anyone who needs money in their retirement, a pension.

                      If you could simply throw your money into another pre-tax investment and avoid this whole issue - what's the problem? Why not just do that instead and avoid the whole hassle? Why complain about any of this at all?

                      • Crow K on 16/05/2025 - 10:42

                        @ferry594:

                        Why complain about any of this at all?

                        Click on jv's profile and look at the number of comments they have for your answer

                      • jv on 16/05/2025 - 10:47
                        +4

                        @ferry594:

                        Of course it costs the government (and taxpayer) something.

                        No it doesn't.

                        If I choose to invest pre-tax elsewhere, the governement gets nothing and misses out on the 15% contribution tax…

                        Maybe Albo should look at taxing the $500,000 per year he'll get from taxpayers every year when he retires…
                        The money he will still get, even if he chooses to keep working elsewhere…
                        Now that is a RORT !!!

                        • ferry594 on 16/05/2025 - 11:08

                          @jv: what are you on about? how does someone choose to invest pre-tax elsewhere? give me a firm example.

                          and he does get taxed on that? but it's also a red herring and totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

                          • jv on 16/05/2025 - 11:21

                            @ferry594:

                            how does someone choose to invest pre-tax elsewhere?

                            Talk to an accountant experienced in these areas.

                            I can't give financial advice here…

                            • Randolph Duke on 16/05/2025 - 13:37

                              @jv:

                              Talk to an accountant experienced in these areas.

                              I can't give financial advice here…

                              No one is asking for tax advice, they are asking for examples.

                              • jv on 16/05/2025 - 14:01
                                -1

                                @Randolph Duke:

                                they are asking for examples.

                                I can't disclose my personal finances here.

                                Speak with a good accountant.

                                • Randolph Duke on 16/05/2025 - 14:59
                                  +2

                                  @jv:

                                  I can't disclose my personal finances here.

                                  Speak with a good accountant.

                                  No one is asking for your personal finances. Off the top of my head, pre-tax:

                                  • tax exempt or tax deferred employee share plans
                                  • additional super contributions
                                  • business owners I think can re-invest

                                  What other pre-tax investments vehicles are there that are readily available (with a good accountant)?

                                  • ferry594 on 16/05/2025 - 15:25
                                    +3

                                    @Randolph Duke: Yeah he's clearly making things up given he clearly can't make an argument in good faith. Bro just wants to be correct.

                • Protractor on 16/05/2025 - 19:13

                  @jv: Yes because he's the only one who gets it. The rust is strong in you,Luke.
                  Gina should mine you

      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 15/05/2025 - 10:22
        +12

        I wish I was rich enough that this actually made any difference to my life lol

        • Randolph Duke on 16/05/2025 - 13:38
          +3

          I wish I was rich enough that this actually made any difference to my life lol

          Like poor Republican voters - I might be rich one day!

          • Protractor on 16/05/2025 - 19:14
            +2

            @Randolph Duke:

            I might be rich one day!

            as they pour every single cent of their cash into Trumps coffers or the local evangelists "condo" fundraiser

      • serpserpserp on 16/05/2025 - 08:02
        +3

        You have 3 million in super jv?

        One of the 1%ers I see…

        • Ade99 on 16/05/2025 - 08:42
          +7

          ….and in 20 or 30years it will be the norm as opposed to the top 1%..🤔

        • jv on 16/05/2025 - 09:07
          +7

          You have 3 million in super jv?

          That it is irrelevant. It's their money, not Albo's.

          Tax Albo's $5 million house paid for by tax payers.

          • IamHere2 on 16/05/2025 - 12:52
            +2

            @jv: It's interesting to see how some people are defending the super reach people in the name of capitalism. Even though it is the super reach people who uses all tax loopholes (legal or otherwise) to minimize the tax.

            FYI: The list of millionaires and big corporations who zero income tax or company tax is keep growing.

          • serpserpserp on 16/05/2025 - 21:27

            @jv:

            Tax Albo's $5 million house

            Can we just tax people with $5 million houses?

        • Protractor on 16/05/2025 - 19:16

          He'd be one of the greatest sponges on the public teat, at every opportunity.

      • shaibankek2 on 16/05/2025 - 18:32
        +2

        @jv Imagine caring about this. Classic weird conservative.

        • jv on 16/05/2025 - 18:42
          +2

          Imagine caring about this. Classic weird conservative.

          Imagine taxing someone on imaginary profits… Classic weird lefty.

      • ForkSnorter on 18/05/2025 - 08:19
        +1

        I feel like some people don't really understand capitalism and democratic capitalist-socialist societies.

        Such societies are structured and maintained so as to reward people with wealth.

        Wealthy people could not obtain their wealth without the existence of any extraordinary large number of people on low/median wages, and without the existence of a government that helps maintain the structure of society, thereby enabling wealthy people to obtain wealth.

        If you are wealthier than average in such a society, you are extremely fortunate, lucky, and privileged, because you are wealthier than probably 99% of all people throughout human history.

        It's not like people have some inherent entitlement to wealth that is an unchanging, essential principle of the universe. We are lucky enough to live in probably the wealthiest period of human history, and the few % of people who have $3 million at retirement age are among the luckiest.

        Furthermore, it's not true that wealthy people across the board necessarily worked harder than poorer people or people with average/median wealth. I know people who have not stopped working for 50 years, and yet through a combination of bad/unlucky timing of property purchases, sickness, or redundancy, have ended up with nothing. And I know some lucky people who have been in the right industry and the right position at the right time and become millionaires in their 30s.

        I think we have an obligation to ensure sufficient redistribution of wealth to compensate for the unfairness of luck playing a large part in wealth distribution, and for the fact that wealthy people could not obtain their wealth without the existence of poorer people and a government that protects their way of life.

    • Seaword on 15/05/2025 - 09:57
      +17

      It's easy on Ausfinance as you have to have a salary of $400k to post.

      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 15/05/2025 - 10:23

        That’s true - it’s an interesting bunch on there. Conservative early 00’s Camry for work m-f, lambo and yacht on weekend.

        • serpserpserp on 16/05/2025 - 21:30

          No lambo's, all money goes into an ETF.

          Unless of course you have paid off your mortgage and bought the Lambo by "debt recycling" that is the only way you are allowed to do it.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join