Moving to retirement has entered my picture. So I currently have a
Family Trust and can distribute income to legally reduce tax. I have recurring income and say about 6 active clients of which 2-3 are
requesting new modifications and support. I also have a self managed
super fund.
There has been a natural evolution to retirement with 2 previous
clients moving to new software for complex reasons but both are
running my software in read-only mode with an annual fee.
Both these clients have a high regard for my services and we remain
on good terms Their move to new products results in higher on-going
costs.
By cooperating with their move to new software I gained some extra
income for producing CSV files.
I am talking Australia. Ones principal place of residence is not
assessable for assets or pension. I am expecting a change on this.
My software base could be assessed at over a million dollars but
annual revenue indicates $30,000 to $40,000. So what do I do going
forward? One option is to sell the business for sub-prime value and
another is to get two children (in their 30's) to become directors.
So my thinking is to cash-up on assets, move to a more expensive
principal place of residence, divest of my company to children and
start receiving a pension.
Any Comment?
Given that some of the regulars here have been posting for over 20
years, it seems likely that there will be some who are looking at retirement...
Greg Wallace asked for comments on his post regarding this and I have responded and added some thoughts of my own, below.
Quoting Greg with interspersed responses...
Moving to retirement has entered my picture. So I currently have a
Family Trust and can distribute income to legally reduce tax. I have recurring income and say about 6 active clients of which 2-3 are requesting new modifications and support. I also have a self managed super fund.
Many self-employed people forget to take care of this and it looks like
you have done well.
There has been a natural evolution to retirement with 2 previous
clients moving to new software for complex reasons but both are
running my software in read-only mode with an annual fee.
Both these clients have a high regard for my services and we remain
on good terms Their move to new products results in higher on-going
costs.
By cooperating with their move to new software I gained some extra
income for producing CSV files.
Ah, I see now your comment elsewhere about having them on ISAM as a
revenue generating move... :-)
This is fair and reasonable. People have to realize that any form of migration to new software WILL incur a cost. Sensible managers will investigate this fully, assess options, and look at benefits. If the benefits don't warrant it, then they shouldn't migrate. Migration based
on fashion or "staying up to date with technology" is not a sound basis
for incurring the costs that will result.
I am talking Australia. Ones principal place of residence is not assessable for assets or pension. I am expecting a change on this.
In NZ, the "Universal Superannuation" is exactly that and EVERYBODY gets
it at age 65 without means testing and irrespective of whatever assets
you may have. The argument is that you have paid tax and are entitled to
it. For myself, I find it is possible to live on it as long as you are moderate. (It certainly covers my food bills, and I eat well.) If you
had to pay rent/mortgage and that was your only income, then it would be "tough", (We have other agencies like WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand)
to help the needy.)
I think most countries are realizing that the money which SHOULD have
been set aside to cover ageing populations has instead been squandered
by successive governments over years and there is now pressure on the government currently in power to try and find ways to reduce this bill.
One way is to raise the retirement age. Here it is 65 but it may be
raised to 67; some places are looking at 70.
For Australia you are probably right that they will assess your assets
as part of the drive to relieve pressure on the funds available.
The bottom line for those of us who are NOT "Company Men" is to be sure
that we make some provision to look after ourselves in retirement.
(There are risks in being a "Company Man" just as there are in being a "Freelance"; Companies can be forced to fire long-serving loyal
employees... the days of "jobs for life" are long gone. Japan was the
last bastion of it where they had "generational" employees, but that is
no longer the case. Companies can also go broke unexpectedly; financial
risk is a fact of life for all of us and it can be tricky to walk
through the minefield of financial options which people are falling over themselves to sell us.)
Personally, I apply the Hamburger philosophy I may have mentioned in a previous post here: "YOU are responsible for the condition that YOU are in."
My software base could be assessed at over a million dollars but
annual revenue indicates $30,000 to $40,000. So what do I do going forward? One option is to sell the business for sub-prime value and another is to get two children (in their 30's) to become directors.
What do you WANT to do?
Do you enjoy the work?
Have you given any thought to what you would do if you retire?
So my thinking is to cash-up on assets, move to a more expensive
principal place of residence, divest of my company to children and
start receiving a pension.
Having worked for years to build your business, why would you sell it
for less than it is worth?
Two options:
1. Sell it, take the money and run...
2. Keep it running, either with yourself or your kids at the helm.
Option 1:
You may regret the fact that you undersold it and, if you have no clear
idea about what will make you happy in retirement, you may also regret
that it is gone and you are too old now to start over. (You're not
really, but most of us have days when we feel like we are...)
Option 2:
If your children have no real interest in it, they won't derive any satisfaction from running it and it is unlikely they can achieve the
client satisfaction that you have worked on for a long time. (I guess
that might be an argument for taking option 1... but you need to think carefully before deciding to sell it. If there is no compelling reason
to sell it and you enjoy working at it, then why would you sell it?)
Might you be setting your kids up for failure if you force them to take
it on?
How would you feel about watching it run into the ground?
Explore these questions with the people concerned.
Any Comment?
General advice to all: DON'T retire unless you WANT to (and have an alternative plan which you find attractive.)
Obviously, Company people will have no option because they will be
forced to retire by the Law and Company policy. Again, it is important
to have a plan in place for your retirement.
The nice thing about computer programming as a career is that you can do
it for as long as you can see and type; you don't HAVE to retire... :-)
Maybe, some time in the future, technology will devise viable ways to
get computers programming themselves, but until that happens I expect to keep going until they prise my keyboard out of my cold dead hands... :-)
Pete.
--
I used to write COBOL; now I can do anything...
On Friday, 6 January 2017 10:55:11 UTC+10, pete dashwood wrote:
Given that some of the regulars here have been posting for over 20
years, it seems likely that there will be some who are looking at
retirement...
Greg Wallace asked for comments on his post regarding this and I have
responded and added some thoughts of my own, below.
Quoting Greg with interspersed responses...
Moving to retirement has entered my picture. So I currently have a
Family Trust and can distribute income to legally reduce tax. I have
recurring income and say about 6 active clients of which 2-3 are
requesting new modifications and support. I also have a self managed
super fund.
Many self-employed people forget to take care of this and it looks like
you have done well.
There has been a natural evolution to retirement with 2 previous
clients moving to new software for complex reasons but both are
running my software in read-only mode with an annual fee.
Both these clients have a high regard for my services and we remain
on good terms Their move to new products results in higher on-going
costs.
By cooperating with their move to new software I gained some extra
income for producing CSV files.
Ah, I see now your comment elsewhere about having them on ISAM as a
revenue generating move... :-)
This is fair and reasonable. People have to realize that any form of
migration to new software WILL incur a cost. Sensible managers will
investigate this fully, assess options, and look at benefits. If the
benefits don't warrant it, then they shouldn't migrate. Migration based
on fashion or "staying up to date with technology" is not a sound basis
for incurring the costs that will result.
I am talking Australia. Ones principal place of residence is not
assessable for assets or pension. I am expecting a change on this.
In NZ, the "Universal Superannuation" is exactly that and EVERYBODY gets
it at age 65 without means testing and irrespective of whatever assets
you may have. The argument is that you have paid tax and are entitled to
it. For myself, I find it is possible to live on it as long as you are
moderate. (It certainly covers my food bills, and I eat well.) If you
had to pay rent/mortgage and that was your only income, then it would be
"tough", (We have other agencies like WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand)
to help the needy.)
I think most countries are realizing that the money which SHOULD have
been set aside to cover ageing populations has instead been squandered
by successive governments over years and there is now pressure on the
government currently in power to try and find ways to reduce this bill.
One way is to raise the retirement age. Here it is 65 but it may be
raised to 67; some places are looking at 70.
For Australia you are probably right that they will assess your assets
as part of the drive to relieve pressure on the funds available.
The bottom line for those of us who are NOT "Company Men" is to be sure
that we make some provision to look after ourselves in retirement.
(There are risks in being a "Company Man" just as there are in being a
"Freelance"; Companies can be forced to fire long-serving loyal
employees... the days of "jobs for life" are long gone. Japan was the
last bastion of it where they had "generational" employees, but that is
no longer the case. Companies can also go broke unexpectedly; financial
risk is a fact of life for all of us and it can be tricky to walk
through the minefield of financial options which people are falling over
themselves to sell us.)
Personally, I apply the Hamburger philosophy I may have mentioned in a
previous post here: "YOU are responsible for the condition that YOU are in." >>
My software base could be assessed at over a million dollars but
annual revenue indicates $30,000 to $40,000. So what do I do going
forward? One option is to sell the business for sub-prime value and
another is to get two children (in their 30's) to become directors.
What do you WANT to do?
Do you enjoy the work?
Have you given any thought to what you would do if you retire?
So my thinking is to cash-up on assets, move to a more expensiveHaving worked for years to build your business, why would you sell it
principal place of residence, divest of my company to children and
start receiving a pension.
for less than it is worth?
Two options:
1. Sell it, take the money and run...
2. Keep it running, either with yourself or your kids at the helm.
Option 1:
You may regret the fact that you undersold it and, if you have no clear
idea about what will make you happy in retirement, you may also regret
that it is gone and you are too old now to start over. (You're not
really, but most of us have days when we feel like we are...)
Option 2:
If your children have no real interest in it, they won't derive any
satisfaction from running it and it is unlikely they can achieve the
client satisfaction that you have worked on for a long time. (I guess
that might be an argument for taking option 1... but you need to think
carefully before deciding to sell it. If there is no compelling reason
to sell it and you enjoy working at it, then why would you sell it?)
Might you be setting your kids up for failure if you force them to take
it on?
How would you feel about watching it run into the ground?
Explore these questions with the people concerned.
Any Comment?
General advice to all: DON'T retire unless you WANT to (and have an
alternative plan which you find attractive.)
Obviously, Company people will have no option because they will be
forced to retire by the Law and Company policy. Again, it is important
to have a plan in place for your retirement.
The nice thing about computer programming as a career is that you can do
it for as long as you can see and type; you don't HAVE to retire... :-)
Maybe, some time in the future, technology will devise viable ways to
get computers programming themselves, but until that happens I expect to
keep going until they prise my keyboard out of my cold dead hands... :-)
Pete.
--
I used to write COBOL; now I can do anything...
Given that some of the regulars here have been posting for over 20
years, it seems likely that there will be some who are looking at retirement...
Greg Wallace asked for comments on his post regarding this and I have responded and added some thoughts of my own, below.
Quoting Greg with interspersed responses...
Moving to retirement has entered my picture. So I currently have a
Family Trust and can distribute income to legally reduce tax. I have recurring income and say about 6 active clients of which 2-3 are requesting new modifications and support. I also have a self managed super fund.
Many self-employed people forget to take care of this and it looks like
you have done well.
There has been a natural evolution to retirement with 2 previous
clients moving to new software for complex reasons but both are
running my software in read-only mode with an annual fee.
Both these clients have a high regard for my services and we remain
on good terms Their move to new products results in higher on-going
costs.
By cooperating with their move to new software I gained some extra
income for producing CSV files.
Ah, I see now your comment elsewhere about having them on ISAM as a
revenue generating move... :-)
This is fair and reasonable. People have to realize that any form of migration to new software WILL incur a cost. Sensible managers will investigate this fully, assess options, and look at benefits. If the benefits don't warrant it, then they shouldn't migrate. Migration based
on fashion or "staying up to date with technology" is not a sound basis
for incurring the costs that will result.
I am talking Australia. Ones principal place of residence is not assessable for assets or pension. I am expecting a change on this.
In NZ, the "Universal Superannuation" is exactly that and EVERYBODY gets
it at age 65 without means testing and irrespective of whatever assets
you may have. The argument is that you have paid tax and are entitled to
it. For myself, I find it is possible to live on it as long as you are moderate. (It certainly covers my food bills, and I eat well.) If you
had to pay rent/mortgage and that was your only income, then it would be "tough", (We have other agencies like WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand)
to help the needy.)
I think most countries are realizing that the money which SHOULD have
been set aside to cover ageing populations has instead been squandered
by successive governments over years and there is now pressure on the government currently in power to try and find ways to reduce this bill.
One way is to raise the retirement age. Here it is 65 but it may be
raised to 67; some places are looking at 70.
For Australia you are probably right that they will assess your assets
as part of the drive to relieve pressure on the funds available.
The bottom line for those of us who are NOT "Company Men" is to be sure
that we make some provision to look after ourselves in retirement.
(There are risks in being a "Company Man" just as there are in being a "Freelance"; Companies can be forced to fire long-serving loyal
employees... the days of "jobs for life" are long gone. Japan was the
last bastion of it where they had "generational" employees, but that is
no longer the case. Companies can also go broke unexpectedly; financial
risk is a fact of life for all of us and it can be tricky to walk
through the minefield of financial options which people are falling over themselves to sell us.)
Personally, I apply the Hamburger philosophy I may have mentioned in a previous post here: "YOU are responsible for the condition that YOU are in."
My software base could be assessed at over a million dollars but
annual revenue indicates $30,000 to $40,000. So what do I do going forward? One option is to sell the business for sub-prime value and another is to get two children (in their 30's) to become directors.
What do you WANT to do?
Do you enjoy the work?
Have you given any thought to what you would do if you retire?
So my thinking is to cash-up on assets, move to a more expensive
principal place of residence, divest of my company to children and
start receiving a pension.
Having worked for years to build your business, why would you sell it
for less than it is worth?
Two options:
1. Sell it, take the money and run...
2. Keep it running, either with yourself or your kids at the helm.
Option 1:
You may regret the fact that you undersold it and, if you have no clear
idea about what will make you happy in retirement, you may also regret
that it is gone and you are too old now to start over. (You're not
really, but most of us have days when we feel like we are...)
Option 2:
If your children have no real interest in it, they won't derive any satisfaction from running it and it is unlikely they can achieve the
client satisfaction that you have worked on for a long time. (I guess
that might be an argument for taking option 1... but you need to think carefully before deciding to sell it. If there is no compelling reason
to sell it and you enjoy working at it, then why would you sell it?)
Might you be setting your kids up for failure if you force them to take
it on?
How would you feel about watching it run into the ground?
Explore these questions with the people concerned.
Any Comment?
General advice to all: DON'T retire unless you WANT to (and have an alternative plan which you find attractive.)
Obviously, Company people will have no option because they will be
forced to retire by the Law and Company policy. Again, it is important
to have a plan in place for your retirement.
The nice thing about computer programming as a career is that you can do
it for as long as you can see and type; you don't HAVE to retire... :-)
Maybe, some time in the future, technology will devise viable ways to
get computers programming themselves, but until that happens I expect to keep going until they prise my keyboard out of my cold dead hands... :-)
Pete.
--
I used to write COBOL; now I can do anything...
On Friday, 6 January 2017 10:55:11 UTC+10, pete dashwood wrote:<snipped unreferenced previous>
Given that some of the regulars here have been posting for over 20
years, it seems likely that there will be some who are looking at
retirement...
Hi Petecomments as food for thought.
It was finger trouble. Your replies are always interesting. I am taking your
Greg
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 910 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 83:24:21 |
| Calls: | 12,123 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 186,510 |
| Messages: | 2,229,324 |