Australia's RIDICULOUS Requirements for Retirement Visa! (real estate market, condo, to buy)

[danielsa1775]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Thank you, Vichel, for all your extremely interesting replies. Though I will be dreaming about moving to Aussie but not actually doing it, it is still nice to have the info.

Nice that you at least get interest returned, however small, given the current rates, but the real hangup is that your money is untouchable for likely 30 years (I'm betting it's a 30-year bond) so a retiree is never going to see a dime of that money for the rest of his life. Hey, it just dawned on me about one of the conditions I left out in my original post for brevity---that the retirees cannot have dependent children. Maybe it's a strategy to lure in childless couples so that when they kick off the money goes to the state. Verrrrrryyyyyyy interesting----and smart.

If you die the same things happens to the bond that happens to the rest of your assets, its passed onto the executor of your estate.

The Australian government may a blood sucking parasite, but its not the mafia.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by minibrings

I've even encountered lots of conservatives with that 'you owe me' attitude.
Dunno if its typical Californian, its something. I mean the Silicon Valley would not have been made if people were slackers.

CA hosts the largest number of welfare recipients in the US...I don't think that is a coincidence.

SV is a very small part of CA. CA is a very large state. CA is a broke state due to slacker abuses.

Now back to the topic!

[Wild Colonial Girl]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

. Hey, it just dawned on me about one of the conditions I left out in my original post for brevity---that the retirees cannot have dependent children. Maybe it's a strategy to lure in childless couples so that when they kick off the money goes to the state. Verrrrrryyyyyyy interesting----and smart.

Because children over the age of 18 can't inherit. Genius.

[kanhawk]

In the U.S. you can can sneak across the border illegally with no money and in a few years the government will offer you and your children amnesty even though you are virtually penniless. Who's ridiculous again?

[artemis agrotera]

Originally Posted by kanhawk

In the U.S. you can can sneak across the border illegally with no money and in a few years the government will offer you and your children amnesty even though you are virtually penniless. Who's ridiculous again?

we have our own issues with illegal immigration.

[minibrings]

The only thing I find ridiculous are people who expect a country to have immigration policies that suit their needs. Australia has the right, as a sovereign nation, to administer immigration policies as it sees fit. Don't like it, try Ecuador or (insert country name)

[minibrings]

Originally Posted by TVC15

CA hosts the largest number of welfare recipients in the US...I don't think that is a coincidence.

SV is a very small part of CA. CA is a very large state. CA is a broke state due to slacker abuses.

Now back to the topic!

You forget dear.. TX is your home state, Cali is mine.
SV contributes significantly to the state coffers.
I think its time for you to move back to Texas.. you dont' seem happy at all in California.
Go east young woman!

Now back on topic.

[minibrings]

Originally Posted by minibrings

You forget dear.. TX is your home state, Cali is mine.
SV contributes significantly to the state coffers.
I think its time for you to move back to Texas.. you dont' seem happy at all in California.
Go east young woman!

Now back on topic.

I just realized this came across as "California love it or leave it" which wasn't my point.. apologies.
It was too late to edit. Bascially my point "why pay high taxes to support slackers" was the point I was trying to make, but did not come across as intended. Sorry!

[joycey1000]

I came across an angry, very liberal American guy years ago. He thought he could move to New Zealand and "retire" there and collect a New Zealand pension and healthcare and other benefits despite never even having been there, ever. Ummm yeah that is not how it works.[/quote]


I am glad you said liberal. Because only they expect everything for free. They expect the government to provide for their every need. ( probably because they can't provide for themselves )

But seriously, I don't see any reason why one can't move there, if you have steady income, lets say with a minimum requirement of 55k a year and you are required to get a private health insurance policy.

That way there is no need to become a burden on the state. And retired people do spend, and could stimulate the local economy.

But I understand, the reason why Australia is so nice is because it is not densely populated. And it would change when too many people move there.

[ExNooYawk]

So, if my daughter moved down there for a job as a nurse and I wanted to move with her, I would be prevented from doing so? Despite having my own income and means to pay for my own medical insurance?

What if moving to Oz had nothing to do with wanting 'free stuff'. What if it was about the lifestyle, the beaches (especially the beaches) and the beautiful country? I'm a liberal and would expect to pay my own way; I'd even buy a home there for my daughter.

I guess the answer would be for me to visit her for up to six months a year and return to the US for the remainder. Great.