What "so called big money"? What do you mean by "just blown on some rental property"? I'm not talking renting, owning, public housing or anything else. Your original question was "Is it really even worth holding super or investments anymore as the person who accumulated not a cent often via cheap public housing ends up better off as you wouldnt believe the places they give some single men these days most people who get super wouldnt be eligible but wouldnt be able to afford what these public housing tenants get"
What I am trying to point out is that regardless of your housing arrangements, you still need money to live on day to day. The accepted figure of $43,000 pa income for a single person in retirement to have a modest standard of living makes the assumption that they own their own home and have no debts. So this is spending money only. Not to fund accommodation. If you are in free public housing, you still need the $43,000 of income to live on.
Your theory is that by not investing either in or outside super you will be better off having minimal assets and going on welfare and getting free accommodation and a pension. In cash flow terms, the scenario of your mate on $15,600 pa vs what you would have if you had $100,000 in savings which could let you generate that $43,000 pa is a difference of $27,400 pa. So you are saying you wouldn't want that.
I don't how how I can make it any clearer. To me, your logic is flawed. Who willingly wants to live like a pauper just because its easier?
