''correct me if I'm wrong...but from what I can make out.. part of your argument is.. regardless of how much a person has..they should still be entitled to a part pension.. or.. maybe a full pension because they have worked extremely hard...''

Thea, I never said regardless of how much a person has they should still be entitled to a pension. I don't think that at all. What I say, and I stand by my statement, is that someone who worked hard and saved well should not be deprived of the benefit of that work and saving if they are unable to achieve an adequate income. Why should people who didn't work and save nearly as well be better off than those who did?  We need incentives and rewards in our economy to stimulate growth. If you deprive people of the benefit of their endeavours unfairly, they cease to strive and develop a welfare mentality - which is what is happening in Australia.

It's not an issue of giving pensions to people who don't need them. It's a question of ensuring fairness and reward for effort. I proposed an income assessment system that takes assets into account, but unlike the current system does NOT force someone who saved to drain their savings for the benefit of others until they are as poor as someone who didn't save. It's ludicrous to suggest that someone who saved $820,000 should either tolerate a poverty-level income (less than half that of folk who saved less than half that amount) or give their savings away to the taxpayer and other pensioners until they are as poor as those who saved less than half that much.

When interest rates rise to 7.8%, the new assets test will be sensible. Until then, it's damaging, because it hurts the honest hard workers and deters doing what's good for the country.

Thea, I'm not suggesting anyone with $820,000 and a home is in poverty. But someone with $375,000 and a home isn't either. The latter is guaranteed an income of over $42,000 a year, but the former may well be struggling on $22,500 a year, with none of the pension benefits and discounts, if they can't invest other than in standard bank accounts. There are lots of reasons why some people can't invest profitably, and just because they have some money doesn't mean they know how to use it well.

These savers may also have very high costs. Perhaps their money was compensation for injury - intended to pay for care, mobility aids, home help, etc. Perhaps it was saved for a particular long term need they identified. But no! They have to spend it for the benefit of others who are, in many cases, far better off than they are.

Under our current system, OG and Bonny (recognize those names?) can apparently earn 15% return on investments, and have an income of $60,000 a year from assets of $400,000, yet still qualify for a pension (if they had no other assets or earnings). But someone who can't do better than earn $22,500 on their $820,000 is expected to get by on $22,500 or drain their savings.

What I am saying is that if you take away incentive and reward, you create a welfare mentality. If saving doesn't pay, many people stop saving. If work doesn't pay, many people stop working. The government has created a situation that is grossly unfair and inequitable, and that sends a powerful message to people to stop striving, stop saving, stop planning, and just put your hand out for benefits, because striving and saving delivers a LOWER standard of living for many than doing nothing. Cheating pays handsome rewards. Manipulating immorally pays handsome rewards. The honest, hard working, responsible battler suffers harsh punishment if they happen to fall into that unfortunate group of retirees who have between $400,000 and about $1.5 million and don't have the knowledge and confidence to achieve high investment returns.

What do we achieve by punishing people for saving over $800,000 but not making it to a level that generates the income those with $375,000 are guaranteed?  A few dollars saved in the short term while they are forced to GIFT their savings to others?  Yes, and long term resentment, anger, and determination to find a way to hit back at an unfair government and promote one's own interests. That may sound selfish, but it's human nature. And I can't condemn it, because I think any sensible society recognizes that the best way to drive a welfare mentality, reduce endeavour and increase dishonesty is to punish those who do the right thing. And guess what?  WE ARE SEEING IT.  It's happening. The odd thing is that those who are whining most about the ''welfare mentality'' are those who support the very policies that create it.

There will be more money for the poor - and less poor to be supported -  when society recognizes the need to support, encourage and reward those who strive to rise above poverty.

The taper rate change will drive the cost of pensions up and money circulation/profits/jobs/tax revenue down. It can't do otherwise. Anyone who supports it is blind to reality and trading on simplistic nonsense assumptions that will proven to be hopelessly flawed. It may deliver short term gain, but for huge long term pain.

And apologies for wandering off topic.  Yes, Thea, I agree that some women have large, robust bodies and could look like a man when fully covered. Perhaps ''almost certainly a man'' was the wrong choice of words. Perhaps I should have said ''thought by many observers to be most likely a man''.  Satisfied?

OG and Bonny are two very frequent posters who have been branded ''LNP trolls'' and who have succeeded in angering many YLC members with extremely arrogant, self-opinionated and offensive comments branding anyone who complains about pension changes ''greedy'' and insisting that everyone can obtain 15% return on investments and those who don't are just ''lazy and undeserving''. Both demand further cuts to welfare, including making the pension a loan that has to be paid back from the estate on death - but at the same time they aggressively defend obscene concessions for the wealthy and big tax cuts.  They have been very vocal on the issue of the Centrelink debt letters, branding anyone who receives a letter as a ''welfare thief'' and ''a fraudster'' and insisting the government is ALWAYS 100% RIGHT, Centrelink is a model of efficiency and compassion, and anyone who disagrees is just trying to get away with crime. 

Yep, they are quite vocal on other parts of YLC but not in these forums.  

Need to click on the house symbol top left as you come into YLC and under the heading Top Stories you will see a list of about five...plenty of posts from others in there.

Pauline Hanson is putting up 21 candidates for the WA election in March, it is going to be interesting as she may well take away seats from the Liberal/National parties and put a whole new slant on the WA election.Bookies have odds in Labor Party favour.

I am sure she will take seats.  I know of seniors who are going to vote for her in my area.