×

How much wealth is enough?

How much wealth is enough?


My personal philosophy on wealth building is simple: invest slightly more than necessary to achieve my financial and lifestyle goals comfortably, but no more than that!

None of us knows how long we have left on this planet, so I think it’s essential to maximise enjoyment today or at least enjoy the wealth-building journey as much as possible.

Research consistently shows that experiences, rather than material possessions, deliver greater and longer-lasting happiness.

And your ability to enjoy experiences is dependent on health and time.

In short, invest a little more than you think you will need for retirement, to pass on to loved ones, donate, etc. and spend the rest on holidays with the people you love.

What do you do with property in retirement?

Most readers of this blog are property investors.

Investing in property offers two distinct advantages over other assets: (1) the power of gearing and (2) compounding capital growth.

Gearing accelerates wealth accumulation and is especially beneficial for investors who are still in the accumulation phase.

However, in retirement, when employment income ceases and you are solely reliant on investment income, gearing becomes less appropriate – or at least it is not appropriate to gear to the same level as you do during your working life.

That said, gearing is also less necessary if you have already accumulated a strong asset base.

Investment-grade property returns come predominantly in the form of capital growth.

Whilst property does generate income after expenses, it’s a low amount, relative to the investment value.

This provides a significant tax advantage during your working life, and capital gains are not taxed until you sell the property.

This means your capital growth is reinvested each year without tax.

This makes investment-grade property more tax-efficient than shares, which tend to provide a higher portfolio of income.

However, in retirement, in a tax-free environment like super, whether returns come from income or growth makes no difference, essentially equalising the tax efficiency between property and shares.

Put differently, the tax benefit of compounding capital growth that property provides whilst you are working can be replicated in super in retirement.

To summarise, property’s advantages over shares, being gearing and tax-effective returns, diminish in retirement.

I am not suggesting retirees necessarily sell all property holdings.

Diversifying across many asset classes, including property, minimises portfolio volatility and offers diversification benefits.

What I’m suggesting is that property investors would likely benefit from reducing their exposure to property investments after retirement, particularly because they should aim to maximise the tax-free advantages of superannuation.

If you have less than $4 million, put it all in super

Individuals can hold up to $2 million in superannuation each without paying tax on investment income or capital gains, and pensions drawn from super are also tax-free.

So, if you expect to have less than $2 million in investment assets (each) by the time you retire, and some of this wealth is held outside super, you should consider strategies to move this wealth into super in a tax-effective way.

It’s important to note that the Transfer Balance Cap (TBC), which is the term used to describe the amount of wealth you can hold in superannuation tax-free, is indexed in $100,000 increments.

This means if you are not planning to retire soon, you could eventually be able to hold more than $2 million (each) in super, tax-free.

  • 1 July 2025: TBC will be $2 million per person.
  • 1 July 2035: TBC could be $2.5 million per person (projection).

  • 1 July 2045: TBC could be $3.2 million per person (projection). Note that this projected cap exceeds the proposed Section 296 tax limit of $3 million, which would apply a 30% tax rate on unrealised capital gains. It’s proposed that this cap will not be indexed. This is not the law yet, and of course, a lot can change over the next 20 years!

If you have more than $4 million

If you and your spouse have more than $4 million in assets, it probably makes sense to hold some of these surplus assets in personal names.

If individuals earn up to $45,000 in personal taxable income, they will pay an average tax rate of only 11%.

Any taxable income above $45,000 attracts a tax rate of 32%.

Therefore, assuming a 7% annual return, individuals can hold up to around $600,000 of investments in personal names (each).

If your wealth exceeds these amounts, it is generally better to hold any additional assets in a family trust or company.

In summary, for each individual, the first $2 million should be held in super, the next $600,000 in personal names, and any surplus beyond that in a company or trust.

Post Comment

You May Have Missed