The cuckoo in the empty nest: would you downsize at 55?

I have never welcomed the term ‘empty nester’, although now we are all being wooed by a Coalition promise at the 11th hour of the election campaign.

The carrot of superannuation breaks is being waved to encourage more of us to downsize our homes and make more room for younger families.

The election promise is to lower the age by ten years to allow you to tip the benefits from selling a big house into buying a smaller home. But is it going to be tempting enough for you?

The policy, if it gets up, would mean at 55 instead of 65, you could put $300,000 per person, i.e. $600,000 per couple, into your super fund outside the present contribution caps.

And if you were on the pension - and remember the family home is outside the present assets test - you’d be given two years grace to sort out your finances without any impact on the pension.

I don’t know about you, but I’d seek financial advice from a fee-for-service professional before committing. 

Yet without knowing all the pros and cons yet, would this policy make any difference to you?

There are some 1.3 million householders, according to government figures, who’d have access to the scheme, and you may be one of them.

A waiver on stamp duty, levied by the states, would help. But if you were considering a downsize and moving to perhaps your final home, would the policy be enough to make the difference?

Any information contained in this communication is general advice, it does not take into account your individual circumstances, objectives, financial situation or needs.