would you work if ...

Forums › Off topic › would you work if ...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1294698 1-May-2015 06:54

networkn: I would work even if I had millions in the bank, or won lotto.

I probably wouldn't work, because I wouldn't be employable, because I wouldn't put up with all the crap and idiocy I do now.

I'd get an early start on my retirement projects.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1294700 1-May-2015 07:18

I'd do hobbies, exercise, kids lawns and chores, run young ones to school a coupla times a week. Be useful, with minimal responsibility, turn responsibility to "I want to"

JayADee

2148 posts

Uber Geek

#1294739 1-May-2015 08:25

Yes. Due to a serious, ongoing illness I had to take almost three years completely off work. Now I only work a couple hours a week as an ICT tech and I am so happy to be doing it. I enjoy working. I liked my full time job before this too. My favourite employment period was as a new graduate when I worked about 60% of a work week for an employer and ran a small business on the side. That was a nice work/life balance.

If my health improves over time (big if) I'll try to get more hours somewhere.

Shindig

1587 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1294816 1-May-2015 09:28

Sure, a job satisfies many social elements of being a human etc...

The little things make the biggest difference.

trig42

5816 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1294861 1-May-2015 10:31

joker97: Still cheap. Imagine the MPs saying ah our average wage is higher than the rest of the country we should pay less tax ...

But yes i get that the poorer regions still need money to build roads and pump sewage ... And taxing a big house owner Proportionally a lot more to fund that ... Eg how much must am akl property be worth before they pay 10-20k in rates?

A friend of mine owns a property with a GV (which they base the rates calculation on) of just over $4million.
Her rates on the property are about $16,000 (Auckland City Rates).

The actual value of the property were she to sell it, would be two to three times that.

my, much more modest property has a GV of $500,000 and rates of about $1800. (Market value apparently, according to what has sold around us is about $650,000)
We also have a rental property in Napier (Much bigger house than our one in Auckland too), GV of $345,000 and the rates are about the same as Auckland (about $1800). Market value of that property, for comparison, we would be happy to get GV. We bought the Auckland property 4 years ago for well under $400k, increased in value by more than 50% in that time.

What I would do (at my age - 42) if I had a freehold home, and $300k I could liquidate would be buy a cheap house in a good area, and do a tasteful, but cheap do-up and flick it on (in Auckland). Rinse and repeat and hope the bubble doesn't burst.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1294928 1-May-2015 11:29

frankv:
networkn: I would work even if I had millions in the bank, or won lotto.

I probably wouldn't work, because I wouldn't be employable, because I wouldn't put up with all the crap and idiocy I do now.

I'd get an early start on my retirement projects.

That's what I did. I retired from a corporate career when I was 45 or so - as it stopped being fun, and I was in a very fortunate position of being able to afford to do so.
The clincher was looking at my colleagues at age ~55. I sure as hell didn't want to be in their shoes when I reached that age. Life is short. Spending it worrying about the future will probably shorten it in years, and those years won't be pleasant.
The reaction from others to my decision was remarkable - it was taken as a threat by some against the basis of their entire existence.

I still "work", (and sometimes very hard) but doing what I choose to do.

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1294996 1-May-2015 13:01

I have a target of $2 million for sustainable financial independence for my wife and me. The expectation that would be enough to grow the capital in line with CPI and still have enough return to live on. We would then work for the satisfaction of it rather than because we had to. And for splurges.

Oh, and a $1 million house in Welllington would have rates of a bit over $4k I think.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20165 posts

Uber Geek

#1295006 1-May-2015 13:19

trig42:
joker97: Still cheap. Imagine the MPs saying ah our average wage is higher than the rest of the country we should pay less tax ...

But yes i get that the poorer regions still need money to build roads and pump sewage ... And taxing a big house owner Proportionally a lot more to fund that ... Eg how much must am akl property be worth before they pay 10-20k in rates?

A friend of mine owns a property with a GV (which they base the rates calculation on) of just over $4million.
Her rates on the property are about $16,000 (Auckland City Rates).

The actual value of the property were she to sell it, would be two to three times that.

my, much more modest property has a GV of $500,000 and rates of about $1800. (Market value apparently, according to what has sold around us is about $650,000)
We also have a rental property in Napier (Much bigger house than our one in Auckland too), GV of $345,000 and the rates are about the same as Auckland (about $1800). Market value of that property, for comparison, we would be happy to get GV. We bought the Auckland property 4 years ago for well under $400k, increased in value by more than 50% in that time.

What I would do (at my age - 42) if I had a freehold home, and $300k I could liquidate would be buy a cheap house in a good area, and do a tasteful, but cheap do-up and flick it on (in Auckland). Rinse and repeat and hope the bubble doesn't burst.

Those rates are very low. I thought Aucklanders were complaining about high rates. A friend lives in a small town, the value of the house is around 300k, and they pay nearly 3k in rates. Unfortunately rates in NZ have become a wealth tax, when they really should be for covering reasonable costs. The person who own that house that could sell for 10 million are pretty much set. The rates are irrelevant really unless they can't service them . But if that was the case they should sell and just live off the interest which would probably be between 200-400k a year if put in the bank.

mattwnz

20165 posts

Uber Geek

#1295008 1-May-2015 13:25

TinyTim: I have a target of $2 million for sustainable financial independence for my wife and me. The expectation that would be enough to grow the capital in line with CPI and still have enough return to live on. We would then work for the satisfaction of it rather than because we had to. And for splurges.

Oh, and a $1 million house in Welllington would have rates of a bit over $4k I think.

Would depend on your age though as to whether 2 millions is enough, and that would be 1 million each. Also does that include a freehold home, or is that cash in the bank. You would b e getting about 50-80k a year in interest, but the buying power would be decreasing due to inflation. Low interest rates also make a different, and as interest rates keep dropping, you need more in savings to be able to live off the interest. This is one reason the elderly aren't retiring like they used to, as the interest rates are helping young people buying (although it is pushing up house prices due to people being able to afford to pay more), but the low interest rates are hurting savers

mattwnz

20165 posts

Uber Geek

#1295013 1-May-2015 13:28

trig42:
joker97: Still cheap. Imagine the MPs saying ah our average wage is higher than the rest of the country we should pay less tax ...

But yes i get that the poorer regions still need money to build roads and pump sewage ... And taxing a big house owner Proportionally a lot more to fund that ... Eg how much must am akl property be worth before they pay 10-20k in rates?

A friend of mine owns a property with a GV (which they base the rates calculation on) of just over $4million.
Her rates on the property are about $16,000 (Auckland City Rates).

The actual value of the property were she to sell it, would be two to three times that.

my, much more modest property has a GV of $500,000 and rates of about $1800. (Market value apparently, according to what has sold around us is about $650,000)
We also have a rental property in Napier (Much bigger house than our one in Auckland too), GV of $345,000 and the rates are about the same as Auckland (about $1800). Market value of that property, for comparison, we would be happy to get GV. We bought the Auckland property 4 years ago for well under $400k, increased in value by more than 50% in that time.

What I would do (at my age - 42) if I had a freehold home, and $300k I could liquidate would be buy a cheap house in a good area, and do a tasteful, but cheap do-up and flick it on (in Auckland). Rinse and repeat and hope the bubble doesn't burst.

You have to pay capital gains tax though, so the benefits aren't that great. Although depends on what needs doing to improve it, and the least cost. Plus doing up homes isn't easy work. You make more money in Auckland sitting on a house at the moment, and not doing anything to it. Personally I wouldn't touch houses in Auckland, the bubble has to burst at some stage. Sales are at levels of 2007 and we know what happened in 2008.

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1295021 1-May-2015 13:39

mattwnz:
TinyTim: I have a target of $2 million for sustainable financial independence for my wife and me. The expectation that would be enough to grow the capital in line with CPI and still have enough return to live on. We would then work for the satisfaction of it rather than because we had to. And for splurges.

Oh, and a $1 million house in Welllington would have rates of a bit over $4k I think.

Would depend on your age though as to whether 2 millions is enough, and that would be 1 million each. Also does that include a freehold home, or is that cash in the bank. You would b e getting about 50-80k a year in interest, but the buying power would be decreasing due to inflation. Low interest rates also make a different, and as interest rates keep dropping, you need more in savings to be able to live off the interest. This is one reason the elderly aren't retiring like they used to, as the interest rates are helping young people buying (although it is pushing up house prices due to people being able to afford to pay more), but the low interest rates are hurting savers

Shouldn't depend on your age in if you grow the capital in line with inflation, so you never need to use your capital. A couple with $2 million will be better off than an individual with $1 million, because many costs are shared. That number excludes the home, but it does assume that there is a freehold home (i.e. assumes there are no rent or mortgage payments). It also assumes no kids at home! ($2 million was just a ball park figure. Who knows what we'll need when financial independence becomes a reality!)

Geese

1028 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1295027 1-May-2015 13:48

$1 mil sounds a lot to me. I guess it depends on your perspective. Someone earning minimum wage would need to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, for 48 years to earn $1 million in todays dollars. That would equate to working from 18 to 66 YO.

mattwnz

20165 posts

Uber Geek

#1295029 1-May-2015 13:50

TinyTim:
mattwnz:
TinyTim: I have a target of $2 million for sustainable financial independence for my wife and me. The expectation that would be enough to grow the capital in line with CPI and still have enough return to live on. We would then work for the satisfaction of it rather than because we had to. And for splurges.

Oh, and a $1 million house in Welllington would have rates of a bit over $4k I think.

Would depend on your age though as to whether 2 millions is enough, and that would be 1 million each. Also does that include a freehold home, or is that cash in the bank. You would b e getting about 50-80k a year in interest, but the buying power would be decreasing due to inflation. Low interest rates also make a different, and as interest rates keep dropping, you need more in savings to be able to live off the interest. This is one reason the elderly aren't retiring like they used to, as the interest rates are helping young people buying (although it is pushing up house prices due to people being able to afford to pay more), but the low interest rates are hurting savers

Shouldn't depend on your age in if you grow the capital in line with inflation, so you never need to use your capital. A couple with $2 million will be better off than an individual with $1 million, because many costs are shared. That number excludes the home, but it does assume that there is a freehold home (i.e. assumes there are no rent or mortgage payments). It also assumes no kids at home! ($2 million was just a ball park figure. Who knows what we'll need when financial independence becomes a reality!)

I think it does depend on age though, becuase 2 million in 20 years will be worth a lot less than 2 million now. I doubt that is going to support a couple for 40 years. If you are living off the interest from the 2 million, but never touching that capital, then over time the capital will lose value due to inflation. The only way to protect the capital not losing value from inflation, is to also save the interest, which then compounds. That way you then make interest off both the capital and compounding interest. But doing that, you won't be able to use the interest to live on, and will need to work or have some other form of income. But if you are over 65, you will get the super, which with a bit of the interest from your savings, is likely to be enough to live on, espeically if you already own a home. I think to be really financially independant and expect to live on it for 30-40 years, people would need savings closer to 5-10 million. I remember when 1 million used to be a huge amount of money, but now many aucklanders have houses that are on paper worth that.

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1295031 1-May-2015 13:51

Geese: $1 mil sounds a lot to me. I guess it depends on your perspective. Someone earning minimum wage would need to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, for 48 years to earn $1 million in todays dollars. That would equate to working from 18 to 66 YO.

You're right, but the minimum wage isn't designed to allow people to save enough for financial independence - it's designed to give people enough to live on from day to day!

muppet

2571 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1295032 1-May-2015 13:52

Hell yes.
My job is awesome.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5