My husband and I have recently retired and are self-funded retirees. We thought we did not qualify for a part Age Pension but were recently advised that we may indeed be able to get one. We have now applied for a part Age Pension, but it is possible that we may be just over the maximum amount. If this is the case, would it be legally acceptable to use $100,000 for home renovations? This could then reduce our assets and deem us eligible for part Age-Pension.  
Also, with assets of $1m, how much part Age Pension could we expect to receive?
A. You can use money to carry out renovations to your home at any time and this will naturally reduce the amount of assets you hold and may take you below the threshold and enable you to claim a pension.
If your claim is rejected in the first instance due to your assets being too valuable, you will have to wait until you have spent the money on renovations before asking Centrelink to reconsider your claim.

The above is from YLC

" Forgive me if I am covering old ground but I too was dismayed by the ACCOS proposals which cherry picked some statistics to enforce their argument for tapering which in the real world will leave many part pensioners worse off than those on full pension. "

The above is your comment. My question is how do you come to the conclusion that many part pensioners will be worse off than those on full pensions ? Assets and income would negate that happening because when you drop to a certain level then you are eligible for part or full pension.

I get Comsuper wifes allowance and part age pension,comsuper taxes me

Sorry meant to say those just outside the 800k cut off. If you had $800,000 the first 50-100 would most likely be non income producing accounting for cars,maybe a caravan, household items and some trinkets gained over a lifetime. Bit of a generalisation there.

This leaves $700k to produce the income. If it were invested in equities or bank term deposits with a nett return of 5% this would equate to an income of around $35000. Tax on this amount would be around $3200 leaving   $32000 to live on. This is at a tax rate of 19c/dollar on earnings above $18200. If franking credits were involved they get added to the earnings before tax and this being the case  you would most likely go partly into the next highest tax bracket which is 32.5 cents in the dollar but you would get some tax credits due to the franking. The whole issue is highly complex and interwoven that is why I asked the question who is listening to or promoting the views of those actually living with the system to get the broad cross section views.

My understanding is that with pension supplement and energy supplement allowances a couple receive around $33.700 for a full pension.

With the outcomes being so close  my point is why go to the trouble of saving instead of spending up and receiving the full pension. Yes but you should spend your principal I hear you ask but all that does is (a) reduces your earning capacity and (b) bring you back into the system at a steeper rate which costs the government more anyway.

The US, UK New Zealand and a number of other OECD countries have got it right

no income or asset test for pension

Sorry Dens thought I was talking to your uncle