Age Pension: how the asset threshold changes affect you

Changes to the asset test thresholds took effect from 1 January 2017.

hundred dollar notes on scales

Changes to the asset test thresholds and associated taper rate took effect from 1 January 2017. All Australians who receive an Age Pension and whose payment will change as a result will have been notified by Centrelink of their new payment rate.

If you’re still unsure what the changes are or how you might be affected, then you should contact Centrelink direct. However, here is a summary of what has changed.

The asset free threshold is the value of assets that an individual or couple can own before their Age Pension payment is affected. Prior to 1 January 2017, for every $1000 worth of assets held above this threshold, the Age Pension payment was reduced by $1.50 until no payment was due – this is known as the taper rate. From 1 January 2017, Age Pension payments will be reduced by $3 for every $1000 exceeded over the asset threshold.

In addition to changes to the taper rate, the upper thresholds have been reduced, meaning fewer people will qualify for a part Age Pension. However, the threshold that determines whether or not you receive a full Age Pension has increased so you may find that you will benefit from the changes. The new thresholds are:

From 1 January 2017

 

Asset free threshold

Pension cut-off threshold

Homeowner

 

 

Single

$250,000

$542,500

Couple (combined)

$375,000

$816,000

Non-homeowner

 

 

Single

$450,000

$742,500

Couple (combined)

$575,000

$1,016,000


What if you’ve lost your Age Pension payment altogether?
Those who are no longer eligible for the Age Pension will automatically receive a Commonwealth Seniors Health Care (CSHC) card to help with the costs of prescription medicines, utility bills, rates, etc. The recipients of these CSHC cards will be exempt, indefinitely, from the income thresholds usually applied.

If your Age Pension payment has reduced significantly, or you’ve lost it altogether, and you’re worried about how you will manage financially, you should contact a Centrelink Financial Services officer on 13 23 00 to ask for a review of your finances.

If you’re concerned that you may exceed the asset threshold in the near future and would like to know what effect this could have on your Age Pension payment, you can receive an estimate by using Centrelink’s Asset Test Estimator.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    ozrog
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:43am
    We need to stop this and all governments from attacking pensioners.
    johninmelb
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:16am
    How??

    Tell us what you plan to do, and then we can help you.

    Idle whinging won't fix this major problem.
    Koj
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:21pm
    The table above should show the BEFORE and after figures regarding assets and taper for it to be useful. I and many readers will have little or no idea of the effect of the threshold changes, since you don't demonstrate what the $ change is.
    It wouldn't cost much more in paper and ink to fully inform the reader.
    Wait...no ink or paper cost? then print a full table!
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:38pm
    Before amounts are now irrelevant so not necessary.
    KB
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:08pm
    The best way is to not vote for the Liberals and put them lat at thethe next Federal election. Write to your your Federal MP Start petitions.
    KB
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:08pm
    The best way is to not vote for the Liberals and put them lat at thethe next Federal election. Write to your your Federal MP Start petitions.
    KB
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:08pm
    The best way is to not vote for the Liberals and put them lat at thethe next Federal election. Write to your your Federal MP Start petitions.
    MikeW
    4th Jan 2017
    4:39pm
    While KB's response may send a message to the Liberals, it will only have a positive effect if the party you vote for is committed to reversing the recent changes. Fat chance of that happening!
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:51am
    Nope. I divested myself of assets years ago when I smelt this in the wind.... now my kids own it all and have no inheritance.

    We need to assets test politicians and the like , and when they have excess assets, cut off their pension. Not a reason in this wide world in this day of global jobs economy and part-time casual, which they demonstrably are - for them to retain the perks of times past... those 'zombie' perks that no longer have a place in the economic world.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:06am
    I will add to those 'zombie' perks the running around in VIP jets to get to Cambra from WA etc. These clowns have ample notice of the sitting days of Parliament and have no need for a special flight - they can get a flight two days in advance and travel with the peasants - they get all costs covered anyway, so why should the taxpayer fork out twenty times that amount to fly empty heads and hollow mouths from far away?

    In times past polies left in plenty of time to get to Cambra by train etc.... Fer Shaitan's Sake... they're not royalty and it's not as if they're tied to their local seat to do genuine work, is it?
    Rae
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:30pm
    I have to agree. They get paid enough to save for themselves.

    There also needs to be a transfer from the government themselves to Fair Work Australia to determine salary etc the same as everyone else.

    Obviously politicians are earning too much and not spending it because of the perks. That is the argument being used isn't It?
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    1:23pm
    The masters of the universe never apply financial attacks on themselves TREBOR. That is for everybody else.
    Bernard Shaw said it well in his classic Animal farm when some of the pigs (quite appropriate terminology for our political leaders...how did Shaw know?) asked why a society where all were equal was showing some being treated differently. The response from the pig in charge: "all pigs are equal. It's just that some pigs are more equal than others".
    The above is exactly what you would get from the current depots posing as a government. I have to hand it to Shaw the man had insight not lost by the passing of time.
    McGroger
    2nd Jan 2017
    1:51pm
    Not Shaw about that, Mick; I think it was George Orwell, whose other classic, “1984”, would be another apt metaphor for the place some would like to take us. We are already drowned in “Newspeak”.
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    2:03pm
    You are right McGroger. The memory ain't what it used to be. Another year older does not help either.
    Thanks for the correction and your pertinent observation.
    Rae
    2nd Jan 2017
    2:48pm
    Orwell's recount of his experiences living with retired miners in Wigan Pier is a total eye opener to his writing. He saw the devastating effects that a total lack of compassion, empathy and unfairness from those in charge caused and documented it complete with photographs.

    Not surprising that his writing was tinged with that cautionary tale.

    And the neo liberal heros expound just that. They see the death of compassion, empathy and equality as being a very, very good thing indeed.

    For the Elite I suppose it is.
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:07pm
    To paraphrase Rae 'if it's good for the wealthy then bugger everybody else'.....the mode of operation from right wing governments generally and the last two specifically in this country.

    It is highly unlikely that even our brain dead constituents are going to ignore their own pain for too much longer as they watch the money transfer to the big end of town in full swing and I keep wondering at what point a revolution like the French Revolution is going to start in this day and age. Perhaps the bastards learnt their lessons and will not let people starve anymore. That certainly will hold things up....for a while....as the top end steals the wealth of the nation for itself.
    Farside
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:41pm
    Trebor, while cutting off politician's perks and reducing their pension entitlements might make you feel better it is irrelevant to the conversation around OAP means testing.

    Mick, there is no chance of a revolution in Australia in our lifetime.
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:00pm
    Discontent about crooked politics and class warfare are growing Farside.
    The day the bastards force average citizens to go hungry and live in lean to's is the day it is game on. Until then the bottom end do not like what is happening but are to apathetic to change their destiny, so that bastards continue with talk of 'mandates' as they do exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:07pm
    I wrote elsewhere that politicians are like aliens:-

    They live in a vacuum, they are shielded from the outside and its effects, they travel for long distances isolated from the problems of mere mortals, they don't pay for their passage but are paid for it, and their connection with humanity is miniscule.

    They need to be The Man Who Fell To Earth, and actually live and see what reality is before they are permitted to make decisions on the life of others.

    Immediate salary cut to $100k pa and refund of expenses on receipt of receipted invoices, same superannuation deal as everyone else, same assets test on pensions.

    Then let them speak of those greedy pensioners out there.

    Whether it makes me feel good or not, it will certainly be an eye opener for them.

    Mick - re your last - why do you thing the Coward John Howard worked so hard to remove firearms from the general populace? why do you think we hear intermittent reports of hundreds of firearms being intercepted etc?

    That beast called the people is getting hungry - thing is that so far only a few are active in securing the ability to fight if need be at this time.

    We need a general strike of everyone.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:42pm
    The Assassination of Jesse James Gun Owner By The Coward John Howard?

    Nobody remembered John Howard... nobody named their sons after him...... he died forgotten by all....... a lonely death of a meaningless man....
    BElle
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:07am
    Its amazing how people that are unaffected by this change seem to think that its OK. Its not.
    It is a bizarre punishment for being frugal and attempting to take responsibility for ones-self.
    To quote a friend " I may as well have chundered my money down the toilet or p....d it up against the wall. Or maybe gambled it away. No reward for trying to take care of yourself and partner"
    I am heartsick at the media who refer to anyone and I mean anyone, who is affected by these changes as "wealthy Australians". They are, of course, not even close to retirement in most instances and have no clue as to the nuisances of being retired. Who for example, if you have been forced to spend your saving on just living, is going to pay for your Aged Care in later years. We are constantly being told that we are living to an older and more healthy age but we are not permitted to make financial arrangements that wont impact our families. In fact making financial arrangements are futile as the rules are changed so often you cannot come close to predicting what they are likely to be, and no Grandfathering to enable people to make suitable provision.
    We need professional people running the country not the self-interested unqualified politicians. They wont even take advise from people who are better informed than they are. I have worked with managers in the past who are poorly qualified themselves, but their strength has been that they work with, recognise and appoint people around them who do have the right abilities.
    Australia's Governmental system needs a really good shake up, because the current model certainly isn't working for us.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:22pm
    Of course it is OK. Those of us above the threshold manage now so why can't those no,longer elligible manange? We don't even have the Health Care card.

    There are simply too many OAPs now with lots more to come. Something had to be done so those that need it getvwhilebthosevthatbdon't don't.

    I wish people would learn the truth about aged care. You pay what you can afford and can pay nothing and be in room next door to someone who has paid hundreds of thousands. I have seen this happen many times.
    Rae
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:42pm
    Exactly Bonny and we also can't afford the largess to politicians and big business either. They don't need it.

    We also don't need $50 billion submarines and $50 billion high income earner tax cuts either.

    The wealthy do not need more money to squander and the submarines simply won't help one bit now that the Chinese Communist party controls the grid, the ports and the supply lines. Total waste of money.

    Possibly a better spend might be sorting out the ABS which obviously can't count and the foreign office which needs a few employees over the age of 25.

    What a shock it must have been to suddenly realise the boomers had stopped paying heaps of tax and wanted a cut back. A really bad shock to the idiots running the place with absolutely no ability to see consequences or experience foresight.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    2:03pm
    No shock about the baby boomers as it was that they knew it was coming and no one wanted to do anything about it as it was so unpopular. Now they have left it at the eleventh hour and needed to do something as soon they could.

    Looking forward to more to come in the May budget. There is a lot of discussion going on about the OAP becomjng a debt against one's estate. Also being mentioned is scaling back the benefits to only those on the full pension.
    Farside
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:48pm
    Rae, the largesse granted to big business and politicians and more than a few medium enterprises is irrelevant to putting the OAP on a sustainable basis although admittedly there might be more spoils to divide amongst the needy and less urgency to deal with it. We should be doing all those things and the OAP is an easier target.

    The relatively small proportion of retirees losing their pension benefits can now spend some of the assets they have spent a lifetime saving for their retirement.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:13pm
    There will be no debt on anyone's estate, Bonny - stop dreaming and spouting the NAZI line put about by the LNP about pensioners 'owing' for a pension.

    No government is that stupid, even this lot.

    We don't care if the largesse, Farsie, if you consider cash to business relevant to the discussion of the OAP - it IS relevant when the discussion is about HOW the government places OUR money - whether it be for the benefit of the greatest number and those who have already paid their way, or for the benefit of 'business' mates.
    Farside
    3rd Jan 2017
    1:24am
    Trebpr, my point is that all of the challenges need to be tackled. Unfortunately for retirees, governments are more predisposed to tackle the OAP challenge before others like largesse.

    The present retirement funding model is fundamentally broken and unsustainable without significant reform. This is a challenge in its own right and even if all other ills were addressed, OAP reforms still need doing.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    8:27am
    Yes - we all agree that the current model is broke:- it is broken for the simple reason that governments successive have gleefully accepted tax revenue from all current and future pensioners, since the component of income tax and availability of other taxation to fill the Social Security coffers was never removed from taxation, but only consolidated into the slush fund titled 'consolidated revenue. These governments then proceeded to waste that consolidated revenue on their social wet dreams and other things, while ignoring the fact that they were leaving the till empty for the bills that were inevitably to come due - including Pensions.

    Then we have the farce of the current compulsory superannuation in lieu of pay rises - organised to assist in exactly that situation - but set up so as to permit those with already excessive incomes to benefit mightily from it by being able to add excessive amounts and thus accept tax concession and then generate a hefty non-taxable retirement package. Add to that portion the utter stupidity of government in not even permitting the compulsory superannuation concept to run a full 'generation' of fifty years of working life, before fiddling with the edges and finding more and more ways to make it unsustainable for the user. Throw in the industry that has developed around this, with all its costs and its hefty remunerations to boards and ceos and the other vultures, and the entire construct titled 'superannuation' is a rotting ruin.

    Then add in the farce of the government separating itself and selected mates from that super system, and developing off their own bat their own fund with out money, and then not only sitting back and calculating annually how much that market will bear for them in the full knowledge that if it does not meet their requirements there is plenty more in the public till to refill their personal coffer. Add to that the appointment of their own cronies and past politicians to the board and management of this slush fund, all of whom then benefit in two ways from it - via their 'pension' and their remuneration. then add in that the same thieves have taken that fund offshore and hidden it in a tax haven, so that it pays zero tax to Australia.

    I've long advocated that ALL superannuation should be brought under a National Sovereign Fund umbrella - including the $120 BILLION salted away in the tax haven as politician's 'sovereign fund', superannuation contributions from all including that proportion of income tax never removed but once slipped away into consolidated revenue so the peasants wouldn't notice they were still paying for what was no longer a right if the politicians stuffed up the economy, and all the additional transfers from general revenue that was mooted when the original system was set up. This National Sovereign Fund scheme to be totally removed from the grasping hands of politicians and their economist mates and maintained for the benefit of all Australians under the same rules of entitlement - meaning that IF there must needs be some 'asset test' it applies the same to all, and IF there is an income test - then it takes in all fringe benefits as well.

    I think that covers it, but it will take some a year to work out what I just said.
    Farside
    3rd Jan 2017
    12:25pm
    Yep, that pretty much covers it Trebor and there are some good ideas in there, which unfortunately many are predicated upon having an unambiguous charter of citizen's rights that would include safety nets, entitlements and so on, as well as separation of the sovereign fund and its operations from the political arm of government. Nevertheless it could work if there was traction in the community to create a momentum for substantial reform and long term sustainable thinking.
    Captain
    3rd Jan 2017
    1:22pm
    The estimated savings from the changed assets test are $2.5bn and the tax avoidance by business is estimated to be $48bn.

    So the discussion needs to centre on all income and taxation within all sectors of the community.

    However as I have said here and in other forums, none of our current politicians have the nous nor the guts to address the issues currently facing Australia.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    5:53pm
    Bonny, you sound like a brain dead idiot.

    ""Of course it is OK. Those of us above the threshold manage now so why can't those no,longer elligible manange? We don't even have the Health Care card.''

    Obviously those of you above the old threshold had a great deal more wealth. Only a fool would assert that someone with over $300,000 less can manage as well without a pension as someone with more thabn $1.1 million! What a dumb thing to say!
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:12pm
    I agree with Bonny as we have about $400,000 invested and we have lived on what it has returned for years now. Invested well $800,000 would appreciate as well as paying one's living expenses.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:44pm
    Yes, and you take your family on expensive cruises to Fairyland on the smell of an oily rag. LIAR.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    8:00pm
    Yes the cruise was paid for out of this fund.
    Mad as Hell
    3rd Jan 2017
    8:16pm
    If I had a black cat Old Geezers would be blacker.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:17pm
    I wish you had a black cat too as I need one to catch a rat.
    Mad as Hell
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:22pm
    Which one Tony Abbot, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison, Joe Hockey, Richard De Natalie ........??
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:27pm
    It's your cat you tell me.
    thommo
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:20am
    This LNP government will rue the day they changed the assets test. They will have 1 million votes less come the next election. I for one will be voting for the so called "calithumpian" party.
    johninmelb
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:27am
    I'll believe that when I see it.

    The Libs have nothing to fear. They know they can do what they like, and get away with it.

    Shorten has no credibility, specially with his rorting mates, no better than the rorting Libs. In the unlikely event Labor was to win, the budget problems mean that they cannot restore the pensions anyway.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:23pm
    Ha ha do you really believe that anyone in power will chnage it back? I can see it being tightened much future.
    Oldman Roo
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:02pm
    johninmelb , It is certainly possible for Labor to win the next election because the medium and low income earners are starting to feel just who the LNP is really governing for . It was close last time but their forked tongue style will not be enough to fool the voters again .
    Oldman Roo
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:31pm
    Bonney , I believe Labor can and will change it back when they reign in the deficits blowout increased by the Liberals , All they need is tackle the Corporation Tax dodgers and over generous tax minimising loop holes for the wealthy , including Politicians .

    I agree with you on one point that under LNP management it will even get tighter in future - they will have to , all in order to pay for the folly of the present short - sighted quickfix . Forcing people to use up their savings will only increase the Pension payout when these people have no savings left and go on a much higher rate of Pension .The young will no longer save and work hard and line up for the full Pension . So much for the fib the Pension reform will reduce the welfare payout .It does not need an Einstein to figure this out but fools or fibbers or both don,t .
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:17pm
    OLDMAN - I seriously doubt Labor will do the reining in required. They're too busy navel-gazing over their 'equality by enforced numbers' social programs to consider taking on the hard jobs. Besides - they're all in bed together.

    ALL current policies in unemployment benefits, job off-shoring and pensions/superannuation are steering this country directly to a massive blowout in the Social /Security bill - and not amount of desperate sticking of fingers into the dykes of pensioners will change that.

    Forcing people to live off their assets first at ANY part of their life guarantees they will become Social Security dependent later in life.

    Stoopid is as stoopid does, as they say down in Green Bow, sir!
    johninmelb
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:21am
    This is what my local (Liberal) MP told me:-

    "On the pension changes, the Liberals strongly believe in respecting your savings. But they are savings. And if we provide a pension so people don't need to use their savings in retirement it amounts to taxpayers subsidizing inheritances; something we cannot afford to do as a nation."

    I am using my savings to supplement my part pension to live on. I am not leaving any inheritance to anyone. When I go, my partner will have the unit we live in, but not much else.
    Oldman Roo
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:21pm
    It just confirms LNP avoidance of the truth and trying anything hoping most voters have a short memory . When the Pension reform was introduced we were told the welfare payments had to be reduced . What they are doing will result in increasing it . To avoid repeating myself , please read my detailed reply to Bonny above .
    We are also not all inclined to follow your decision as everyone in old age should have the right to make decisions they feel comfortable with . Some elderly even have serious health problems that can not be treated with locally available medicine and services and can cost a small fortune to get cured .
    And of course the LNP have to find a milking cow for paying welfare to the 19000 refugees they are bringing in . A figure that seems higher than what Labor allowed in .
    john
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:51pm
    Your Liberal MP is obviously seriously ill informed or just a stupid pollie. When I read this stuff I wonder who the hell we put into government in this country ,and I mean both sides.
    These people who are supposed to look after us have no idea!
    johninmelb
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:36pm
    All politicians, no matter what colour, are seriously misinformed about how the other half lives.

    I pointed out to my MP, that my part pension PER YEAR, is just $1000 more than his BASE salary as a backbench MP for ONE MONTH. He did not comment on that.

    He worked for the IPA, so say no more.

    I found out yesterday that his step father is a State Liberal politician. It's like a dynasty, but Labor does the same thing, sons follow fathers etc.

    Sadly he's just a young little rich kid, who doesn't want to make the world a better place, just look after Number One. He has a blue ribbon seat he can't lose, so he has nothing to do, just keep his filthy rich supporters happy. The less well off people in the electorate will never have the numbers to roll him.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:23pm
    Did he apply that to politicians, those more than equal pigs?

    "Sorry, Mr Abbott/Keating/Turnbull/Hawke/Howard/Ms Gillard etc... your application for your Parliamentary Pension has been placed on hold due to your excess assets threshold and other ongoing earnings ... we will review your application once you have wound down your assets and earnings sufficiently to access your Pension on a pro rata basis. Please keep in mind that whatever Pension you do draw between now and your personal demise will be resumed against your estate as a debt owing to the State. It is therefore in your best interests to live off your saving, any current earnings and off sale of your assets before applying for your pension."

    (signed:- Joe Bloggs, Director Of Dept Of Inhumane Services).
    Happily retired early
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:23am
    Politicians with high salaries, and a super scheme that is unjustifiable and that is just stealing from the public purse, not to mention all the other perks that cost the taxpayer heaps will never understand the financial struggle of pensioners and self funded retirees.
    The cost of politicians and parliament needs to be reviewed as well as a Royal Commission into the banks. May I suggest that the inquiry commissioners be ordinary pensioners, self funded retirees, working people and a unionist with wide ranging powers to implement their findings. The outcome would be just and fair the way it should be.
    johninmelb
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:33am
    Did you forget to take your tablets this morning?

    No politician of any colour will ever countenance an enquiry into their salaries, perks, costs etc.

    Bank enquiry will never happen either, Libs have too many mates there, and future board jobs for ex-pollies would be in jeopardy.

    So you can forget that rubbish right now. Ain't gonna happen, not now, not ever.
    Tom Tank
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:43am
    You are correct "Happily retired early" but unfortunately so is "johninmelb".
    It is a cosy club in Canberra when it comes to looking after each other.
    Happily retired early
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:29pm
    I didn't take my tablets because I can't afford to buy them!
    I know you are right, it won't happen but we can vote out our members of parliament every election to keep each mp's super total down until someone maybe an independent listens.
    Hit them where they hit us .... the hip pocket.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    2:04pm
    Most pills only work becuase people believe they will.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:44pm
    The poisoned chalice going the rounds in politics works on many...... just not on those passing it around....
    Snowflake
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:35am
    They knocked off $95 a week from my part pension so now I am going to sell my investment home, which I mostly relied on for an income, will buy another house to live in and claim the full pension. (I currently live in a motorhome) Good move Turnbull and Morrison you sad tossers. And no I am not super rich, worth about $420000, which allowed me to pay part of my way. Not now you money grubbing politicians, now you will have to pay me more as a result of your shameful money grubbing tactics. Let's hope that all the pensioners in this country realise this is only the thin edge of the wedge and make their voice heard.
    older&wiser
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:12pm
    Snowflake - unfortunately, you are right. This is only the start - there will continue to be changes which is grossly unfair to current seniors. I am sick and tired of them changing the rules all the time (but conveniently not for themselves). Their changes are effectively retrospective, which is cruel and unjust.
    I am approaching OAP age, and may face loosing my job. I am single, and have worked my bloody bones off to try and be self sufficient, but am no way near being self funded. I look at my bludger of a sister who has never worked (only if it was cash in hand), had 2 kids as a single mother, lives in a govt house (has been painted twice whilst she has lived there), and knows every lurk to live a better life than me. Drives a 5yo car, and even goes on a cruise every year. My car is 19yo and any idea of a holiday is staying home and going for a ride on my bike.
    But I worked, had limited social life, managed to pay off my small cheap little home (that needs quite a bit of work) and put some away into super. I am now pretty convinced I have done it all wrong. Effectively punished for trying to support myself. I too have contacted Govt politicians to voice my disapproval but have not had the courtesy of a response.
    The most obscene thing is that politicians are not subject to the same restrictions and limits. To see Bronwyn Bishop receive a 'pension' of over $200,000 regardless of her assets and income, is obscene and disgusting. The same with expected pension for Tony Abbott - over $307,000 per year, regardless. Obscene, sickening. But nothing will change. The rich (politicians) get richer, and the poor (old age pensioners) get poorer.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:28pm
    Why can't your investment home be classified as your home and be exempt? Many people with 2 houses elect to have the most expensive as thier exempt property even though they don't live in it.
    Cheezil61
    2nd Jan 2017
    2:37pm
    Agree with Snowfake & in2sunset, similar situation for me in2sunset- working my arse off all my life & getting nowhere (broken marriage/relationships I have had to borrow money to pay exes out to keep a familiar roof over my kids heads) whilst seeing many others around me do as well & even better off good times/no stress whilst they use my tax dollars to receive pensions etc.
    I'm 55 so too young to take the small amount of super I've struggled to save when my job possibly ceases soon & every day goes by looking more impossible to claim any pension at all & a miracle if one still exists when I'm 67 anyway. Struggling/going without things to put every cent to mortgage on my dump of a cheap house with plenty of debt left on it that I'm putting every cent into to attempt to pay it off before I lose my job like everyone else in this dead-end town so it's impossible to even think about selling it before or after this happens because most of the under 10,000 population rely on the same employer & will be in similar situations with debt they struggle to manage unemployed!
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    2:59pm
    I'd say congratulations Cheezil61 if you managed to get wealthy enough to be affected by these chnages. So what are you whinging about?
    john
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:54pm
    Once again these are the sort of low calibre politicains we vote in, but that seems to be the type that go in for politics and easy way, to become a fat cat and make terrible mistakes then get a huge pension for life, like Bromwyn Bishop for doing nothing , but look after her repulsive self.
    Farside
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:55pm
    Snowflake, if you are only worth $420,000 including your motorhome and investments as you claim then you would be well advised to see a professional adviser because single, non homeowner worth $420,000 is eligible for a full pension.
    Chrissy L
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:39am
    I hope Part Pensioners never ever forget this low act by this government and vote them out at the next opportunity we get. I am certainly not a "Wealthy Australian" I have saved for a modest retirement and have been targeted by this government for a pension reduction. Shame on all the politicians who supported this legislation, it is unfair, unjust and Un-Australian. The sooner they go the better, what a shame we can't call a double dissolution of parliament and get rid of them sooner.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    2:56pm
    Let's be realistic. If people have had their pension reduced or cancelled then they have more than enough to fund thier lufestyle until the safety net kicks in. It is not be used to preserve wealth for the next generation which people are doing by not spending down thier assets.

    There are more people benefitting from these changes than losing from them so the government will have increased support.
    Farside
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:58pm
    By election 2019 most of those affected will fall into the same old habits ... not enough votes amongst them to change outcome in a seat let alone the election. And as Mick has suggested, there will be the same numpties voting against their interests as there always has been.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    5:39pm
    So Bonny, you claim that rich and privileged who can stash $3.2 million into super should get taxpayer-funded concessions, and the privileged who can earn over $70,000 a year (for a couple) should get a part pension, but anyone who DARED to sacrifice holidays and restaurant dinners in the hope of having a little more in old age should have it all taken off them? A rather NASTY AND UNFAIR ATTITUDE THAT ACTUALLY STINKS!
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:18pm
    I still sacrifice restaurant dinners as they serve food that looks like art and is no longer eatable. I really don't blame people for doing so.
    Glen48
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:40am
    CSA helped me decide,,so instead being self funded I am now one a Invaled pension for the next 20 30 yrs,,Thanks taxpayers..
    mike
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:44am
    I have supported the Bastard liberals for the last 45 years, with a lot of respect for Howard and Costello. I worked and saved for my retirement under the previous Centrelink rules. After watching that Bastard Hockey attack the pensioners, the disabled, whilst he himself rorted the travel allowance, and walked off with a huge pension and current perks and salary in the US, for the first time in my life I voted the bastard Liberals LAST.
    Anonymous
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:02pm
    So did I, but it didn't help as there are a lot of blind and deaf and dumb people who vote.
    john
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:56pm
    Yes , Hockey is a failure in many ways, but Bonny above is misinformed!
    Farside
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:00pm
    Mike, did it make you feel better? Possibly, but more than likely did not achieve much so spend the next two years trying to mobilise and extend your influence else historical patterns will just repeat themselves.
    Herbie49
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:46am
    Ok so it is what it is, and extremely difficult to do much about. What irks me the most apart from the trough feeders maintaining their lifestyles is that.
    Everything we see, touch, buy or eat or consume etc has and constantly goes up, that is a given. After living in OZZ for 46 years the only thing that has genuinely gone down is air travel, but I digress. How when every thing we consume goes up can the value of assets be reduced, if anything the assets test should be linked to CPI in order to actually maintain a constant value.
    It is so easy to assume that we are leaving it all to the kids, and what if we do ! It's all been saved after tax and mostly by doing without those little extras. I will not be voting for any major party again, and maybe in a year or so after some renovations and a cruise or two I will re apply. Good luck to all.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    3:03pm
    Centrelink statistics would show that for the people affected thier assets are not reducing. So it is not rocket science to assume that the OAP is a wealth preserving strategy.
    Farside
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:03pm
    Having the asset at retirement is the reward for saving. There is nothing writ that says one is entitled to keep it for posterity and leave as part of an inheritance.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:47pm
    There is nothing written that you don't have the Right to choose to leave is to posterity or as an inheritance.... that has been a given for thousands of years - so common usage in this case over-rides the lack of common law....

    It is your inalienable Right to do with your assets as you choose - not what some twerp in office tells you to do.... we don't live in a Fascist society just yet....
    Farside
    3rd Jan 2017
    1:32am
    Of course there is choice Trebor. One can choose to accumulate assets but should not expect their retention to be cross-subsidised by others if they also choose not to liquidate assets. In other words pensions should only be paid to those who do not have the means to support themselves. Personally I would like to see pensions increased so that minimum quality of life is improved to a level appropriate to a developed nation. In the absence of a national living wage this does not happen by paying pensions to those who don't need them.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    8:36am
    Yes - Farside - that is precisely the argument - and precisely why I draw a clear distinction between income-generating assets and non income-generating assets - precisely why the family home etc cannot be included as an asset.

    You can't eat a house, a boat or Windbag (my examples only); however when you can continue any business activity and are sponsored and office and staff for free for life - that is an income-generating asset and must be included in assets test for all and taxed.

    We cannot have one rule for the ordinary pigs and another for those who sit around and pontificate to the ordinary pigs and spend their lives in meetings that build nothing, while using the funds of the ordinary pigs to live at the top of the hog....
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    8:43am
    N.B - you CAN eat the proceeds of the SALE of a home, boat or Windbag.... and The Good Colonel C'Link already views that extra cash as available to reduce pension.

    P.S. After the evils of life, I have no home, boat or Windbag - as a true fighter for justice for all I need none.... one clear reason why I can see the utter lack of reason for all the largesse handed to politicians to do their jobs. Susan Ley VIP flights Canberra-Brisbane for one meeting - she ever heard of tele-conferencing or internet conferencing? She ever heard of commercial flights regular between Canberra and Brisbane at less than 1/10th the cost of the FLIGHT alone (remember my former commentary on 'standing costs' etc of VIP aircraft? Unfortunately my computer crashed (was crashed? If it dies it will be wearing the Australian flag etc .. please explain?) and in recovering its guts I lost a lot of internet stuff including operating per hour costs of various aircraft. I could have given you a precise rundown on the WASTE involved in Lay's self-given largesse for one little meeting with a bunch of equal nobodies who achieved nothing. Was it even a Department meeting - or another political meeting like Bronnie's at Geelong? What kind of Department meeting requires the Minister to flit to Brisbane from Canberra for an hour or two?
    Rae
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:48am
    If you did that Farside there would be little incentive to save at all.

    As it is the 50% of workers earning less that the median wage of $42000 will never generate savings great enough to produce income over about $12 000 in retirement.

    Thus they are really only saving for a new car, trip and perhaps some house renovations and then going on the OAP.

    Those on defined benefit pensions had to hand over their lump sum at retirement in return for a pension so have no ability to change anything or leave savings to heirs.

    Perhaps all super would be better used to purchase an annuity at retirement in the same way. It would be fairer.
    Farside
    3rd Jan 2017
    12:43pm
    Rae, the rewards for saving are the incentive however some, like the workers earning less than $42,000, will always and not unreasonably expect some form of social support in retirement. It should not be too difficult to develop some reasonable limits around savings e.g. x times minimum salary.

    The defined benefit pension and non-contributory provident funds are historical anachronisms that will soon work their way out of the system. I would support the notion of using superannuation to purchase a mandatory minimum annuity that is progressively taxed as ordinary income. This conceptually could be the basis of a national wage.
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:58am
    What's an age pension?
    The current rules are all about cannibalising people who have mostly done the hard yards in a disciplined life without bells and whistles and personal indulgences. So when they manage to fund their own retirement you hit them hard, a fitting reward from a rich man's government which will not attack the top but never stops with the rest of the nation.
    When will people see the forest for the trees?
    Rae
    2nd Jan 2017
    2:58pm
    Not to worry MICK. Those rich will get slammed as the money dries up. This incompetent government won't see it coming nor will the business owners bemoaning paying workers. This is exactly how Depressions get started.

    People lose income, stop spending and down the spiral we go.

    $50 billion to a french company and $50 billion to overseas business owners will not a strong economy produce.
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:06pm
    Already under way Rae. Selling our jobs to the third world and then buying the goods and services back on borrowed money? Selling freehold farming land to foreign governments who will not sell the produce in Australia but rather escape tax by loading it onto their own ships and taking it home.......and THEN selling it.
    We have governments made up of imbeciles who should be doing labouring jobs. These dimwits cannot see that destroying your ability to look after yourself eventually ends up with a Titanic event when your mineral exports falter. The the country is stuffed and those who did it to us are retired with (over) generous benefits. And I have not even mentioned the halving of jobs once robotics becomes entrenched.
    I am sort of happy (??) that I may not be around in 30 years time. Who'd want to be alive at a time when the nation has been sold out by our most trusted individuals.......whose personal greed is only superseded by their stupidity and inability to look forward. God help our children.
    PIXAPD
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:00pm
    Saving 1000's from the aged pension<<<< the way to go
    older&wiser
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:17pm
    Here we go again....same broken record.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:28pm
    From a bludger who never saved during working life but just planned to bleed the taxpayer in retirement, and then pretend to be holier than though!
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    11:37pm
    Here's your sniper's badge, Rainey - you got him dead centre.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jan 2017
    12:00am
    You really amaze me Rainey you defend the poor but heaven forbid anyone that has nothing and gets the full OAP.
    PIXAPD
    4th Jan 2017
    10:00am
    Rainey, SO...that is in regards to yourself then ? 'From a bludger....' it's good you are honest about yourself.
    Anonymous
    4th Jan 2017
    2:26pm
    No Pixapd, I'm no bludger. I work and pay taxes, and have done all my life. I've never saved 1000s from a pension because unlike you, I never bludged and overspent in my working life so I could brag about saving out of a welfare payment in retirement.

    Yes, OG, I defend the POOR. Pixapd isn't poor. Nobody who ever knew genuine hardship brags about saving thousands out of a pension and sneers at the hard workers who pay their way in life.
    PIXAPD
    5th Jan 2017
    8:56am
    Rainey , You are a self righteous piece of work, I worked 50 years and paid tax, and if I now save money from the OAP, and let folks know they too can save too, that if they have to rent then Affordable Housing is the way to go, and they can then save money from their OAP, then I will. That is also based on not spending OAP on drink smokes, or gambling it away, then crying 'poor'

    You see, unlike you I am not in the businenss of running folks down, but showing them how they can be better off, Ineed many folks do save some of the OAP..... end of lesson for today
    sunnyOz
    8th Jan 2017
    12:45pm
    Pixapd - but that's the problem - you DON'T show them how, you just brag that you do it. A hell of a big difference.
    I see my dear lovely friend who has lived all of her 80+ years in a small country town and don't tell ME you can save on the OAP. No public transport. A car is a necessity. Medical tests? - travel more than 620kms, on a $68 health dept subsidy. Her last test - bus fares both way, 2 nights accommodation, tests - NOT covered under Medicare - costing over $420. That $68 sure doesn't go far - then the medications, etc. She was so distraught, I helped pay for it as a Xmas present. Had to laugh at the budget Planner in the Retirement Update Planner - shows weekly rates of $32. Can someone please tell me WHERE this was based on? Remote rural Qld town, even for pensioner, is over $40 per week. Savings? - what rot.
    Oh - that's right.... perhaps in a caravan park somewhere. Met some friends on the Sunshine Coast a few months ago and was shocked, stunned, at the number of OAP pensioners permanently residing in caravan parks as it is the only place they can afford. But still worried due to the number of parks having to sell up.
    Costs rise far in excess of any pension rises so please don't insult genuine struggling OAPers with your patronising codswollop.
    JKB
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:17pm
    What is classified as an asset please?
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:41pm
    To me something that makes me money. To Centrelink anything that saves them money.
    Farside
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:04pm
    anything that can be converted to cash or benefits
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:47pm
    Anything this government can say you can sell to reduce your access to a pension.
    Anonymous
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:49pm
    It can also be a small version of an arse.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    8:47am
    There is hope for you yet, bonny.... but you need to learn not to confuse The Light Side with The Dark Side. No person can serve two masters while straddling a barbed wire fence....

    Fast Eddie with his American Idiom (as opposed to American Idiot) got it right.. the same as a wallet can be described as a small wall between prosperity and poverty.
    Infinityoz
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:23pm
    I'm losing $115 per fortnight from my part age pension. One big reason for this is that they count as assets my car, my furniture, my TV, my computer and so on - all these are assets under Centrelink rules, even though they cannot possibly provide me with any income, I cannot sell them to fund my retirement and they are worth nothing to anyone except me. I think this should be taken into consideration by commenters and shouted about loudly! Even if one goes bankrupt, necessities of living such as furniture are not taken away, and unless you have valuable art, jewels etc that can be reslised, why should they be included in the assets test?

    One small mistake in the article is that Debbie says "In addition to changes to the taper rate, the upper thresholds have been reduced" ... no, Debbie - the upper threshhold is reduced BECAUSE the taper rate has doubled! So the pension runs out earlier :)

    I plan to do a few things around the house, such as update my tired old kitchen. My entire private super is counted as an asset because I'm drawing it down as an allocated pension - the rationale is that if I need a lump sum [eg the washing machine dies] I can still access it ... so the smart thing to do is to add value to my house [thank God I own my house!!] by drawing down a bit more ... I won't lose by that, I'll get more of the part pension back :)
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:36pm
    Unless the assets you mention above are new or near new they should be worth very little for Centrelink purposes. Computers and TVs over about 3 years old are worthless. What is the wholesale price of your car? How much would the second hand man give you for your furniture? Lots of people put down the same values they use for insurance which does them a disservice.
    Farside
    3rd Jan 2017
    12:12am
    Bonny is correct. If you are losing $115 per fortnight then it will for other reasons. Incidental life assets such as those you describe would not come close to threatening the full pension let alone the part pension or transitional arrangements.

    As an example, my mother was so proud at the grand total value of her accumulated incidental life assets untilCentrelink told to re-estimate value by what she could achieve if sold for cash within the next two weeks. Value plummeted from over $100K to less than $30K; most value was in the car. Electronics, electrical gadgets were less than $2,000. Furniture and beds were less than $5,000. Remember even charities are very picky these days - friend had to pay to have a household of effects taken away from her father's estate.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:33pm
    Many people I help fill out forms think I'm doing them a injustice when I change their asset value to such low figures. People believe things are worth so much more than they are in reality. Big confusion between what something is worth and it's insurance replacement value.

    You have to be careful though with insurance now because Centrelink they are cross referencing with them. Those items like expensive pieces of art that you specify a value for are being picked up.
    JYAM51
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:34pm
    Has this Govt forgotten the 25+ odd years of this generations working life where there was NO Employer paid Super. These people had to scrimp & save to try to play catch up & if you could I am guessing most people thought that a small Part age pension might help with living expenses in later life. WRONG. Think we could all live with this if we were not seeing Big Mal and his crew rorting their Entitlements what a JOKE this whole debacle is. My vote will no longer go to the Libs it didnt last Election either, they are a mob of short sighted idiots.
    Rae
    2nd Jan 2017
    3:03pm
    There is still no Employer paid super. That is a misconception.

    Your super is 9% of wages you would have received if not forced to save that much.

    Before compulsory super you could have saved that 9% yourself.

    Most people don't though. They pay the bills and spend everything else each fortnight.

    Then they get rewarded for that with a very nice OAP.

    Savers get slammed.

    Go figure the government pointing that out to everyone. Idiots.
    Farside
    3rd Jan 2017
    12:17am
    Sadly Rae is correct. This point came up in a conversation I had earlier today about when employers are not permitted to pay into a super fund because employee is too old. The employee will simply receive the cash that might otherwise have been paid as it has always been her money.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    8:48am
    They haven't forgotten it, YJAM 51 - they simply choose to overlook reality...... and thereby hangs a tale....
    floss
    2nd Jan 2017
    12:43pm
    We have lost almost the lot,but I guess we have to share the pain.If we keep bringing more and more people to Australia welfare has to reduce as a lot rely on CLink.
    JYAM51
    2nd Jan 2017
    1:04pm
    Yes exactly and why should these people get handouts. Go back to the 50' & 60's the Aust Govt wanted migrants and I know for a fact that all those migrants worked hard kept themselves NO GOVT CL or Dole in those days. Just reading yesterday about Syrian family arrived in Aust husband cant work as he has a bad back Hello. So this means the Aust taxpayer is keeping a family of 4. No wonder the Govt has cut pensions of older Aust to pay for thus sort of thing. What a joke.
    Mad as Hell
    2nd Jan 2017
    1:16pm
    This Liberal Greens policy is an attack on pensioners because they are an easy target.

    The harder target is collecting a fair return for Royalties from LNG on the North West Shelf.
    In 4 years time when Australian production for LNG surpasses Qatar's,according to Tresury estimates Australia will receive $800 million Qatar's government will receive $26.6 BILLION.

    We have a Budet Crisis because there is a Management Crisis.

    Instead of robbing the pensioners collect fair revenue from the multinationals.
    Aussie
    2nd Jan 2017
    3:06pm
    Hey Hey I love your picture ...tells the trues of our politicians

    Well I never vote LNP ...always Democrats or Labour .... now ??? I think I will just null my next vote .... not a nice thing to do but what do we have ??? Nothing ..... hey hey maybe Pauline will be able to do something ... Yeaaa lets vote for her ...What do we Loose ????? None

    So next vote is .....Viva Pauline .....
    Mad as Hell
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:55pm
    Yes I think a donkey vote is a wasted vote. Can't bring myself to ever vote Liberal or Greens. Labour has stated they won't reverse this stupid legislation if they get back in. Pauline gets it for me.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:18pm
    No sense in voting as the outcome is known before the polls even open.
    Bes
    2nd Jan 2017
    1:21pm
    HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS CRAZY SITUATION?
    When the Coalition showed their true colours you got angry and elected the ALP.
    When the ALP/GREENS showed their true colours you got angry and elected the Coalition.
    When a new Party suggests to you that NEITHER Party is looking out for YOUR best interests….you say they can’t be trusted and it would be crazy to vote for a new party!
    BUT the real definition of CRAZY is doing the same thing OVER and OVER again
    And hoping for a different RESULT!
    In Australia we suffer from OVER GOVERNMENT!
    The Westminster system bestowed upon Australia by England was originally designed as ONE government for ONE country. That being England!
    Upon Australia being surveyed and it's sheer size being established, England then settled for SIX states to be governed separately by SIX state governments overseen by SIX state Governors.
    Here is a quote from 1923 in a letter from Hubert French to the Ford Motor Company in Canada. He came to Australia to establish Ford agencies.
    “Australia’s great disease is over government. Thirteen houses of parliament, six Governors and one Governor General, all appointed by Britain speaks for itself, especially when it is borne in mind that no MP receives less than 500 pounds per annum.”
    The population at this time was 6 million!

    Fast forward to the 21st century and add an average of 30 local councils per major city.
    All State governments continually sell off public assets! State governments, upon gaining power, continually raise prices! State government continually blames the previous party although there is little between their style of governance, other than the wording!
    All government are elected to govern our taxes to the very best of their ability in the best interests of both the state and federal electorate (the voting public).
    Please note; NO POLITICIAN will lose entitlement no matter what cuts are made to the populations pensions and public services!
    So, what is the biggest expenditure incurred by the Australian Electorate?
    Attempt to calculate the TOTAL cost of all of the above and then realize that ALL of the above is paid for by YOU before 1 cent is spent on your services.
    ALL of your local services, your state government and your federal government is PAID for by YOU while they continue on an annual basis, to raise YOUR rates, raise your taxes in any way they can, sell off YOUR public assets, and FAIL to manage, in YOUR best interests YOUR collective taxes.
    My 17 year old Grandson is about to start work.
    His taxes, in part, will go toward the supportive payments to remnants of past governments from the 1980’s to the present day!
    And also the debt of today into the future!
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:53pm
    We, the people, had no power to stop these self-entitled twerps working everything out for themselves first.

    When I went to primary school in the 1950's, one of the teachers was on the local advancement committee that ran a few road works and a few other things and sought funding and work for the area (not a council). He received nothing for doing so, just went to regular meetings and worked to get stuff done (Bloody Commo!)..... Once that committee was absorbed into Lake Macquarie Shire Council, they had an elected councillor who nobody ever met or saw - who received remuneration. That remuneration has steadily risen until rather than being a few dollars to cover costs, it is now a salary with perks. Same with the Mayors etc..... now they are on massive salaries instead of cost money and tea money.

    Same applies across the board.

    THEY voted that for themselves in connivance with their mates at State and Federal level - after all - they were 'entitled' to remuneration for work, not just for doing charity for the area.

    Bunch of bludgers.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    8:52am
    ...Oh - it was originally a local 'progress association' staffed by volunteers.....

    Now the cry is :- "Where are all the volunteers?".... gone to salaried spots for the likes of Slim Mehajer every one... when will they ever learn.. when will they e-e-ever learn?

    Living on the Gold Coast for a relatively short time in 1999-2000, I was astounded that the local 'Mayor' copped in excess of $100k a year and car and perks, while running a business empire alongside and using council to self-benefit .... WTF??
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    1:28pm
    I can't help but notice that one of our political government trolls has returned. As normal massaging opinion by defending this bad bad government's position.
    I would mind this government coming after rorts but let's start with multinational tax evasion (fraud and a crime by any other name) and then offshore tax shelters for the wealthy so that they also can avoid paying tax. After that let's have a look at retirees.......starting with wealthy ones who are gaming the system. Then open season for the rest of society.
    This bad bad government is rotten to the core and only seeks to play it's class warfare game. Targets are always the same: average citizens and the poor. The rich are set for the next round of tax cuts.
    john
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:09pm
    Well whats that say? To me it says we stupid Australian voters are too gutless to think for ourselves and look at getting into parliament good people independent or small parties that have the capacity to actually do a job properly , not have to toe the line as in Labor and Liberal, which makes me sick, I will not vote for main stream parties again. Ever they have failed miserably. And I do not care what anyone thinks but all who worked a life time paid their taxes didn't cheat anyone, deserve a pension IT IS THEIR RIGHT! Your right my right every Australians right! There is no argument that's is how it should be!
    Apparently there was a system of saving the governments used to do to provide this pension when people hit 65 , what happened to that, more still what happened to the money.
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:50pm
    Pretty well what I have been saying since I began posting on this website. Sadly we all have to wear what the mentally challenged amongst us decide. What has shocked me is the ease with which people are herded like sheep to do exactly what is bad for them as they repeat the sick party doctrines intentioned to enslave them.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    2:10pm
    I just can't believe no one saw this coming. I certainly did. The same with super. Both were unsunstainable the way they were. People getting hundreds of thousands tax free income each year. I know one fellow who had to take $250,000 out of his super fund each year just so no tax was payable.
    Rae
    2nd Jan 2017
    3:08pm
    Not to mention companies doing negative interest rate deals with banks to get loans to avoid tax.

    Who else would buy negative yield bonds.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:31pm
    There are many investments that most people have no idea exist let alone use.
    Pass the Ductape
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:10pm
    'I know one fellow who had to take $250,000 out of his super fund each year just so no tax was payable.' ?

    I'd love to know how he worked that one Bonny!
    Mad as Hell
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:15pm
    I know of one retired politician who gets $255000 pa for the rest of her life. That's $698 a day. She needs it for her taxi copter.
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:53pm
    The only thing "unsustainable" you government troll Bonny is that average citizens are expected to pay more taxes and the rich are getting tax cuts at a time this bad bad government crows "budget repair" and borrows more money to stoke the fires further.
    I recognise corruption and collusion with the wealthy when I see the results.
    The game is in full swing and you are employed to massage opinion. That never changes.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:01pm
    $300 billion to be borrowed over the next three years on top of the current $405 billion PLUS

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_government_debt

    say $750 billion by 2019 directly borrowed by government ....

    .... courtesy of Hockey's demolition on the 'debt ceiling' - now they can go hell for leather to it and spend it all on their cronies' schemes, and other rorts, buy submarines in France, build free railroads to ports for coal projects that will pay zero tax to Oz while ruining the Great Barrier reef, then vote themselves a huge pay rise for a job well done, and raise taxes on the little guy and cut pensions to pay for it.

    Bunch of thieves.
    floss
    2nd Jan 2017
    3:06pm
    You are so right JYAM51. People that have paid tax all their life will loose a pension and it will be given to a new arrival that has paid zero tax and in some cases never will . My new pension will be sixteen dollars a week which our big Mal can stick any where he likes.
    LiveItUp
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:07am
    Well all I can say is that welfare has nothing to do with the past. It is based on what you have now.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    8:59am
    Bonny - please explain? Are you one of those, for instance, who cite politician's retirement packages as a sacred cow, yet say without batting an eyelid that the same politicians have every right to alter the conditions for everyone else's retirement packages using an assets test they themselves would be in utter terror of facing*?

    When do we adopt the Hitler Salute? And Barnstable (that's a character in one of my books) those who may have any thought of dissidence?

    * "Gentlemen, do not be deceived! Neither this new technology nor your status as officers will keep you above the danger! The Sar' Major and me - we come from the paratroopers - where the officer is always first out the door of the aircraft, because to follow your instincts and inspire your men, you need to be with 'em where the metal meets the meat!" .. Mel Gibson doing Hal Moore.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:21pm
    Pollies pension packages have nothing to do with welfare. Just like anyone's else private pension has nothing to do with welfare.

    OAP is welfare.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    11:42pm
    They are part and parcel of the superannuation/retirement scheme, OG - they are just as open to change and 'adjustment' to generate a proper flow than anyone else's retirement scheme.

    Theirs is a costly anachronism that is long overdue for change - and as long as they perpetrate 'part-time casual' and 'zero job tenancy' on the working people - they will be subject to the same rules. They are ONLY short-term contracted employees - NO business on earth gives such employees a lifetime income.
    Anonymous
    7th Jan 2017
    9:14pm
    I am also one of those who paid taxes all their life (from the age of 15) just like all of you...but I get nothing from the government.

    I am not complaining. I am happy to fund myself. I want nothing to do with Centrelink.
    Koj
    2nd Jan 2017
    3:08pm
    Bonney - apparently they are irrelevant to you. I guess that must mean you knew what the previous rules were. Folks like me that are unaffected, and therefore don't know what the changes mean for you or others that are effected... have no idea whether you have a fair case, or it it is relevant.
    If you think more broadly surely you can see that if I (and the rest of the world that aren't informed) don't know what the changes actually mean to real people, then it means nothing to us.
    I hope you can understand the message I'm trying to get across.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:34pm
    I'm unaffected - but I still take up the cudgels for my fellow man and woman who is rorted. There may be a few who are rorting the system and abusing assets etc declarations - most affected will not be.
    Rae
    3rd Jan 2017
    10:30am
    Time will tell the effects Koj. I'd say by about October we will know if taking billions out of the real economy was a good idea or not.

    That's the thing with these sorts of discriminations. There are always consequences.

    It could very well be great but personally I can't see how it won't cause damage to discretionary business people and their staff.

    As we cut back on spending it will be tough for business. And rents, insurance and electricity is still rising in price. Gas is about to get very dear for the States without wells as Queensland foreign owned companies start shipping LNP off shore.
    Anonymous
    4th Jan 2017
    2:35pm
    Yes Rae, then there's the GST loss and the loss of taxes on the extra business profits and wages that result from senior's spending, and the higher pensions to all the many who manipulate to recover their losses and then some.

    $2.4 billion taken out of circulation is going to have a major damaging impact on the economy.

    There will be no savings from this STUPID change. There will be huge increased costs and a big budget blowout.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jan 2017
    3:40pm
    I really can't see that it will make any difference as the shortfall will be taken up by people spending down their capital. It was an excellent move by the government to save some money.
    Chrissy L
    2nd Jan 2017
    3:21pm
    I think many of us did see change coming. What we didn't expect was the extent of this change. We thought it would be fair and just and only apply to the very wealthy. When single part pensioners earning less than $30,000 pa have their pensions cut, that is not fair and just.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:25pm
    It is fair in that people who assets can support themselves so that those with nothing can be supported by welfare. Do you go to charity for help with a wallet full of cash? I don't think so so what is the difference?
    Rosret
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:59pm
    Chrissy L I am not making any political under tones here I am just trying to get my head around it. When you say $30 K p.a. is that interest on your super, an old super scheme that pays a set amount P.A. adjusted to the CPI for life, or your draw down on your super or what?
    I am new to this and I thought we had to spend most of our super before the government chipped in. You need a lot in a super scheme for them to pay a dividend of $30K p.a. That means as a nation we are in big trouble.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:03pm
    Can't eat assets that don't return dollars to you, Bonny. When will you learn....?
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:38pm
    Why have you got such assets in retirement then? Retirement is for spending not hoarding useless assets.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    11:45pm
    Choice-mobile, son - that's what it's all about. They're YOUR (non income bearing) assets - you do with them what you want. If and when you sell them, the Guv certainly takes that extra money into account in your pension calculation, so why are they taken into account before sale?

    The ONLY assets that should be considered are those that are income-earning ones or are fringe benefits.
    Inquisitor
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:02pm
    The mindset of those born to rule was recently encapsulated with the quote from a MP from this region ( a minister) that pensioners were horror of horrors spending their money on holidays to help them qualify for a higher pension, they could even be enjoying themselves while doing it. It must be a lifestyle that themselves and other political hacks were entitled to
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    11:05pm
    Well...................................... (long pause to let it work in).................... THEY don't spend THEIR money on holidays so as to secure a pension!! How DARE you, sir! So pensioners who can do that are over-rich!! (ROFL emoticon implied)....
    Rosret
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:22pm
    Would someone mind telling me what a pension cut off threshold is? Is that the amount held in your personal superannuation account?
    Rosret
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:28pm
    So a couple who own a house and have $375K in the bank and $815K in super. i.e. $1,191,000 total will no longer receive any pension?
    Why are they getting a pension in the first place. Have I missed something. Perhaps I just don't understand the terminology.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:28pm
    Centrelink adds up all what they deem are assets except your house. It includes super in most instances.
    Rosret
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:02pm
    So Bonny exactly what is a pension cut off threshold? Assets plus Super or just super?
    johninmelb
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:47pm
    The pension cut off threshold is the maximum allowed amount of assets you can hold, before they start reducing your pension by $3 for every $1000 of assets you hold over that amount.

    All this has been discussed many many times on this site, and the information is freely available on the DHS website, and other seniors and financial websites.

    It has never been a secret, so I am unsure just how you seem to be ignorant of these simple facts.

    Assets consist of shares, cars, caravans, boats etc, chattels like furniture, household goods, computers, jewellery, stamp collections, antiques etc etc. Anything that is worth money and has a value. There is a whole other discussion about that, as most household furniture etc is practically worthless. A good is only worth what someone will pay you for it on the day.

    Assets also include interest earned on bank accounts, shares, property other than your principal residence, superannuation, unless you were on the pension before the new rules on Jan 1 2015, and any other income from whatever source, such as overseas pensions etc.

    None of this is rocket science.

    You are responsible for advising Centrelink regularly on the value of your assets. Every few months, I print out all my bank account, and superannuation balances and take them in, so they can update my record. As I am using my savings to supplement my part pension, my savings are reducing, so I get a small pension increase every time I go in.

    It is up to you to make sure your records are accurate. Failure to do so means you could be missing out. A friend of mine found out they still had an old bank account he'd long cancelled, still recorded and being assessed. He hadn't told them it had been cancelled.

    As for your car and furniture, value it at firesale prices. If you had to sell them quick, you'd get almost nothing for them. Centrelink knows that. One of the FIS guys told me that I had mine valued way too high.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:48pm
    $375k in a bank at 3% interest will recoup you $11,250,, on which you will pay tax at the going rate for income, i.e. $0.00 unless the Guv adds in pension paid as well.

    $815k in super at 5% will recoup you $40,750.

    TOTAL $52000 P.A.

    Single cutoff rate is $49,873.

    Couple is $76,356.

    So superficially this looks like zero change to a single in that situation ALONE - but if you are a couple.... look over the figures again.

    I see no valid argument for even suggesting that a non-earning asset is an asset to be included. It IS included at sale price on sale, with the money earned viewed as income - but until then generates zero income.

    The only reason for this is to compel people to offload their assets earned over a lifetime of work or lose pension - quite frankly a disgusting piece of theft in my eyes.

    I am NOT one with mega assets - I have a few things and a car on a loan.... not much else... but I know injustice when I see it, and I don't envy those who've earned a Windbag and a big boat for their own enjoyment. Maybe they should licence them as tour vehicles and take along some steerage paying passengers to make up the shortfall.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:50pm
    Perhaps this is the thin edge of the wedge.. the tip of the iceberg - of those idiots who advocate including the family home as an 'asset' and those who advocate any pension being a 'debt' owed to the government, even though pensions and unemployment benefits are paid for upfront (unlike super which cops tax deductions along the way).

    Dumb as planks.....
    Rosret
    3rd Jan 2017
    4:47pm
    JohninMelb there is a two column table in the article one is the Asset free threshold and the other is the Pension threshold.
    This is not applicable to me (so there is no "you" or Centrelink in my comment) however I am trying to get my head around it.
    It may not be rocket science but it is not clear to me.
    If we were talking TAX there is a tax free threshold. I get that. And then there is a graded tax scale for anything after that.
    I presume the Asset Free threshold is the maximum amount you have acquired (not including the family home) before your pension will be gradually reduced.
    So then what is the Pension Threshold - actually - by definition?
    I am assuming its the total of your assets (not including the family home) whereby a person will receive no pension benefit.
    Is it that pension threshold amount plus the $250K Asset Free (eg single homeowner) allowance or just that amount.
    From this table the family home is taken into account to the value of $200K - so it actually does count.
    Rodent
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:31pm
    If this statement is true- (Centre for Independent Studies)

    40% of homeowners on the pension don’t even meet a modest standard of living in retirement.

    Then why are Home Owners, both Singles an Couples more savagely attacked than non homeowners in these Pension changes

    Specifically 362,155 Home Owner Age Pensioners LOSE something with these changes (in same cases all their Pension) But for Non Homeowners- ONLY 9502 Age Pensioners LOSE something (or in some cases all their Pension)

    Really makes you wonder

    But wait at $825,000 in Assets a Couple Non Homeowner will receive an Annual Pension of $14,888 and at that HIGH Asset Figure NO OTHER PENSIONER RECEIVE ONE SINGLE CENT!!!!
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:35pm
    $14,888 will not even cover the rent in many places so home owner is well in front.
    john
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:15pm
    Bonny they are not in front if they have an assett, but not enough money to live on. You are a generaliser , I don't know what angle you are coming from, but you are one way then the other. Vanish.
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:58pm
    Rodent: some Australians did some pretty hard yards so that they would not be a burden on their fellow citizens in retirement. I am not talking about wealthy people but rather those who had a go and are earning around the same income in retirement as the pensions.
    Their reward: repeated and ongoing attacks from this bad bad government engaged in class warfare.
    You'd think governments would give self funded retirees a bit of a fair go. Not this current batch of rich man's prostitutes intent on giving our taxes to the rich and putting larger and larger burdens on those who did so much to help the country. And (some) people still vote for these cretins? Unbelievable.
    LiveItUp
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:13am
    John one can spend thier capital as well as the interest on it. Returement is spending time not a time to hang onto your assets so that you become the richest corpse in the graveyard.
    PAYEdmydues
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:38pm
    Pension system is fairer and still people complain. 3.7 million will be better off or see no change. 236,000 will have reduced benefits. 171,500 will an extra $30 a fortnight. And many get to retain the health card. Seems fair in light of substantial deficit.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:53pm
    Not fair in light of a substantial deficit not of our making - let those responsible fix it under the old YFI-YFI Rule.

    Bring back onshore the $120 Stolen Billions sitting in the Caymans for the Futures Fund to benefit politicians and a few others.

    Suddenly no deficit problem at all and they can all get their pensions etc out of operating expenses like everyone else - and take a hit when things aren't run properly. Someone said it above - we don't have a budget crisis - we have a management crisis.
    Rodent
    3rd Jan 2017
    10:15am
    Dear PAYEmyduties

    Pension system change is fair- I don't think so, please read my earlier posts .
    You really have to understand Govt Speak re this pension change, Their words are misleading, and selective- no surprise there

    The often quoted figure of 3.7Mill people better off OR will see No change is deliberately misleading. Their own DSS data does not support it. The Minister says the changes only Impact 10% of the Target Audience.
    Facts - As at June 2016 there are 5,094,056 people potentially impacted by these changes If the 10% figure was true then 4,584,650 would be either better off, or unchanged and that's not what the numbers say.

    In the case of ONLY Age Pensioners this applies
    There are 2,538,161 people, of that number 129,116, or 5.33% Gain SOMETHING, and 371,657 or 14.64% of people Lose Something (or in some cases ALL their Pension.

    The Govts claims are many any various about how many WILL get the $30 per fortnight Increase. They initially quoted 166,000, now they say 171,500-- the reality WILL be different, BECAUSE the Unchanged Income Test will NOT allow SOME people to get an increase. I am not the only person who understands this aspect, Several other organisations, and people understand this point well.

    Some Pensioners MAY get more than the $30 per Fortnight, and guess who that group are - Couple Home Owners on $625,000 in assets WILL receive a $115 per fortnight INCREASE
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:48pm
    Those being screwed for saving $816,000 should take a luxury cruise. Blow $200,000 and collect the booty! Which overpaid IDIOT devised this RIDICULOUS exercise in social engineering?
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:42pm
    Seriously how many people will spend $200,000 on a cruise? A couple I know just returned from a 75 day cruise that cost them $25,000 each. If you work it out they will be at sea for quite some time.
    Dot
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:44pm
    Some one there with the gift of words could start up Change.or and I know many pensioners out there would sign it.
    Which Party helped The Liberals get it through, yes you guess it the Greens the very same party that want all refugees released from detention centres and brought here.
    Have a good look around and see how Australia has changed in the past decade and all new comers are been taken care off, it amazes me how many of them drive 4 wheel drives, how they dress, it wasn't that long ago there were living in shanty towns, now while we are been attach at ever turn this people are living the lap of luxury.
    What about all our own homeless who the hell is taken care of them I ask you. Compassion is being directed in the wrong place. Oh well what else can I say.

    2nd Jan 2017
    4:47pm
    POLITITIANS & PENSIONS
    (taken from facebook)
    Change the Entitlements
    I absolutely agree, if a pension isn't an entitlement, neither is
    theirs. They keep telling us that paying us an aged pension isn't
    sustainable.
    Paying politicians all the perks they get is even less sustainable!
    The politicians themselves, in Canberra, brought it up, that the Age of
    Entitlements is over:
    The author is asking each addressee to forward this email to a
    minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to
    do likewise. In three days, most people in Australia will have this message.
    This is one idea that really should be passed around because the rot has to
    stop somewhere.
    Proposals to make politicians shoulder their share of the weight now
    that the Age of Entitlement is over:
    1. Scrap political pensions.
    Politicians can purchase their own retirement plan, just as most
    other working Australians are expected to do.
    2. Retired politicians (past, present & future) participate in
    Centrelink.
    A Politician collects a substantial salary while in office but
    should receive no salary when they're out of office.
    Terminated politicians under 70 can go get a job or apply for
    Centrelink unemployment benefits like ordinary Australians.
    Terminated politicians under 70 can negotiate with Centrelink like
    the rest of the Australian people.
    3. Funds already allocated to the Politicians' retirement fund be
    returned immediately to Consolidated Revenue.
    This money is to be used to pay down debt they created which they
    expect us and our grandchildren to repay for them.
    4. Politicians will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
    Politicians pay will rise by the lower of, either the CPI or 3%.
    5. Politicians lose their privileged health care system and
    participate in the same health care system as ordinary Australian people.
    i.e. Politicians either pay for private cover from their own funds
    or accept ordinary Medicare.
    6. Politicians must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
    Australian people.
    7. All contracts with past and present Politicians men/women are
    void effective 31/12/16.
    The Australian people did not agree to provide perks to Politicians,
    that burden was thrust upon them.
    Politicians devised all these contracts to benefit themselves.
    Serving in Parliament is an honour not a career.
    The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so our
    politicians should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
    If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will
    only take three or so days for most Australians to receive the message.
    Don't you think it's time?
    THIS IS HOW YOU FIX Parliament and help bring fairness back into
    this country
    johninmelb
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:01pm
    So tell us your plan as to how you are going to implement this.

    We'll all support you.

    Let us know when you get started.

    Just so you know, NOTHING will happen until you get moving on it.

    I wait with bated breath for your next move.
    Pass the Ductape
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:07pm
    Save your breath trood. It ain't never going to happen. They've spent years working all this out for themselves and they'll never part with one cent of it!
    KSS
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:09pm
    When are you going to accept that the politician's pension is NOT the same as the age pension or any other form of welfare? Their pension is a term and condition of employment and in that sense no different to pensions available in many private executive pension schemes.

    Where I do agree is that the cost of all the 'extras' handed to either retired or fired politicians (the offices, the travel for themselves and their partners, the staff, the car and driver etc etc) should be axed. The existing politician pension scheme would be more than enough to cover these 'extras' on its own if they are needed, even without the extra salary of Directorships, speaking engagements, book deals and the like on top.
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:59pm
    Spoken like a true politician KSS! FUnny how the rules are different for those in power or those who have wealth.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:10pm
    All terms and conditions of their employment are as malleable and up for renewal and change and upgrading to suit the current social and economic conditions as everyone else's they are trying to change at their will.

    In this day and age of lack of tenure in work, there is no argument to retain a preferential pension system for short-term contracted employees subject to review after every four years. Their contracted status implies that their superannuation funding is contained within their salary.

    Their ability and opportunity to receive funding as pension while also accruing massive assets and other income strands is not a position that anyone in this country ever voted on except they themselves, and it is time for it to be changed so as to bring government to reality.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    4:53pm
    What a lot of rubbish!
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    11:47pm
    You are correct - in this day and age politician's salaries and perks are rubbish, and have long lost their meaning.
    KSS
    2nd Jan 2017
    4:59pm
    How come no-one has mentioned the fact that if you lose a part pension under these new conditions you will automatically receive the Commonwealth seniors health card even if you didn't qualify before, and that will allow you to claim reductions on many expenses such as rates, utility bills, medications, car registration etc. And that card is a significant benefit to many. What you may may have lost on one hand is being given back with the other. And this in addition to the fact that you have sufficient disposable assets to fund your own pension as it was intended in the first place. You just won't be able to leave it to the kids or the cat's home.
    Rosret
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:08pm
    Will you? - and at what age? Do you have to have at least some pension?
    If you saved your pennies you can't afford to go to the doctor but you have food on the table. If you didn't save your money you can go to the doctor but you have no food on the table!
    KSS
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:14pm
    Rosret: from the article above:

    What if you’ve lost your Age Pension payment altogether?
    Those who are no longer eligible for the Age Pension will automatically receive a Commonwealth Seniors Health Care (CSHC) card to help with the costs of prescription medicines, utility bills, rates, etc. The recipients of these CSHC cards will be exempt, indefinitely, from the income thresholds usually applied.

    And from a previous article:

    3. Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (CSHC)
    Self-funded retirees who are of Age Pension age but do not qualify for the Age Pension, may be eligible for a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card if their annual adjusted taxable income is below the following thresholds:

    $52,796 (singles)
    $84,472 (couples combined)
    $105,592 (couples separated due to ill-health).

    Holders of a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card are entitled to discounts on prescription medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. You may also qualify for additional health, household, transport, education and recreation concessions that may be offered by state or territory and local governments and private providers.
    Rosret
    2nd Jan 2017
    6:39pm
    Thanks KSS that is good news. - However it is really going to cost the nation. Its a very surprising move considering they wanted us to pay our own way. I must admit with the exponential growth in housing prices and rates to follow suit I did wonder how we would manage.
    john
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:18pm
    Just tell me what qualifies you for a CSHC , I got told no pension no health card. It is a rackett a rort and I think its deliberately confusing, and Bonny or is that Bronny should think harder. Because I don't know where she's coming from. Got to go and eat, all the best for new year , hope we can get rid of both major parties in the next three years!
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:00pm
    KSS: please specify how much help these discounts actually provide. Not much I dare say.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:23pm
    It was never intended that you dispose of your assets before getting a pension.

    Show me the law that says so.... what we have is regulation by those with their hands on the purse strings, under orders from their political masters, who will change those orders to suit their own personal self-benefit and that of their cronies and to suit their political philosophy.

    None of these things has any valid place in the running of other people's lives in this country - they have crept in. You are as free as a bird to have your political philosophy - you are not free as a bird to inflict harm on others in doing so.
    LiveItUp
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:17am
    No you don't have to dispose of your assets at all but if yiu have too many then you get no welfare. Anyone thinking otherwise is simply being greedy.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:06am
    How is it that anyone formerly on a part pension did NOT receive a Commonwealth Health Care Card already? I think your government is telling you porkies again.... trying to cloud over the real facts...

    Squid's Ink....

    Bonny - remember income-generating assets as opposed to non income-generating assets.... government gleefully hands defunct or sacked politicians freebies for life without a second glance, even when they have additional and often massive income strands and assets.

    Why one rule for them and another for others? You can't see very far ahead when you're sitting on your assets and trying to push a crowd the way you want them to go.
    Captain
    3rd Jan 2017
    2:05pm
    KSS, the CSHCC does not give deductions n utilities such as rates, gas electricity. The benefits are for medicines and medical.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    4:55pm
    An ordinary health care card does give a discount on electricity in NSW.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:08pm
    CSHCC does not give deductions for specialist visits in our area. Only pensioners get specialist visits bulk billed.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    11:56pm
    I get bulk billed for all my specialist visits with no health care card.
    Foxy
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:02pm
    lol lol - from reading all the "posts" on here LOTS of OAP's are quite well off - "rich" in fact? So why all the "whingers"??? Beats me??? Happy New Year anyway - :-)
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:04pm
    What's your definition of "well off"? Many are earning around the same amount as the pension but earnings are not stable. These are also the same folk who the government is after to decimate the few assets they rel on to survive.
    Let's not go after the wrong people. It's the top end who should be ratted out for the tax evading crooks they are including those who enter into (fraudulent) arrangements to gain favour for political donations.
    Most people who post on this website are likely only marginally well off.....and then we have the trolls put here to massage opinion for the government.
    LiveItUp
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:20am
    I don't consider myself as "well off" at all.

    A recent survey results showed that there were over 400,000 people with over $1 million in assets other than thier house.
    Rae
    3rd Jan 2017
    1:11pm
    Come now Bonny surely you don't believe the fairytales being told by the government and the ABS especially.

    You can't believe a word of it.
    KB
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:06pm
    Wealthy pensioners do not need pensions or need a concession card/ I think that the government is pandering to the wealthy for votes.The pesnion should only be for people who need the extra income to pay for essentials.The less wealthy will have nothing to give away because the high cost of living.Disabilty and age care pensions do not keep up with the cost of living.The Liberals are slowly phasing out Medicare whereby people will have to pay for their own medical care.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:24pm
    Wealthy people don't need massive tax free super, either... they've already got enough....
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:26pm
    Perhaps it should also become the rule that all tax concessions made to super are a 'debt' to be owed back to government from estate, as are all other tax concessions throughout your lifetime, and that includes companies. Once wound up they should be served with a bill for all tax concessions (not legitimate deductions for operating) handed to them, as a no-discussion bill, same as The Guv pulls on everyone else.
    LiveItUp
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:24am
    Trebour there is already a tax on super assets passed to non dependents. Anything that had a tax concession is taxed at 15%.

    That why the givernment wanted to stop people washing their super assets.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:11am
    Ah - so why only when it is passed down? And then the argument is that ordinary pensioners with assets must accept a down-sized pension for having them BEFORE sale or 'passing down' of their assets?

    Pigs again..... and I was discussing the logical extension of the idea of 'making a pension a debt repayable on death' to all retirees equally.... thus incorporating super concessions as a 'debt'. Taxation is another matter.... and only compensates government for the tax reductions along the way - not for the concessions surrounding tax-free income on retirement etc.

    At what rate, for example, is any super asset handed down taxed?

    Using the same logic as the assets test for pensions', the very asset of a super asset should reduce your super payment.......

    One reason why the whole deal is a wreck desperately trying to sink....
    KB
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:06pm
    Wealthy pensioners do not need pensions or need a concession card/ I think that the government is pandering to the wealthy for votes.The pesnion should only be for people who need the extra income to pay for essentials.The less wealthy will have nothing to give away because the high cost of living.Disabilty and age care pensions do not keep up with the cost of living.The Liberals are slowly phasing out Medicare whereby people will have to pay for their own medical care.
    tex
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:23pm
    we are allowed to earn 250.00 per fortnight without being crucified for it, why not increase it to 500.00 per? ill get a job at the local kindy as a bouncer. ...ill vote for p. Hanson in a heartbeat if she says the words we all want to hear her say to the turnbully Govt--Please explain. whats all the big deal about going on a cruise ? it doesn't cost much more th an a holiday on the gold coast tex
    Rosret
    2nd Jan 2017
    6:48pm
    A cruise is money spent overseas a Gold Coast holiday returns money to the Australian economy. Do we have any Australian owned cruise ships?
    KSS
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:03pm
    Yes Rosret Scenic Cruises see here:https://www.scenic.com.au/why-scenic/the-scenic-story
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:07pm
    Not sure the government cares Rosret. Only an excuse. If they cared they would not be sending jobs to third world countries or letting our farming land fall into foreign ownership.....with the produce not being sold here but rather loaded onto ships and sold overseas. So no tax payable in Australia! The we need budget Repair...and new taxes on average citizens...plus tax cuts for the rich.
    It's a perverse game of corruption and dishonesty run by often malicious and contemptible people who have the hide to call themselves Australians.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:28pm
    I can go on a cruise for less than $1000 .. planning to do just that next year - one pension payment a year scrupulously saved up ..... What The Shaitan are these fools talking about?
    LiveItUp
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:26am
    Be careful Trebour as ince on board it will cost you atleast another $1000 as well.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:13am
    What's ince? Ink?

    Thanks for your timely warning.... I'm but a humble mouth-piece for those afflicted who have no voice... and since the Reaper and I have faced of a couple of times already, time is off the essence.

    Someone has to speak for those who have no voice or have not the words to express the depth of their discontent.....
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:13am
    OK - I got it - once on board.... oh, yeah.... I drink too much...
    Rae
    3rd Jan 2017
    1:22pm
    Why is it so expensive to holiday in Australia? A fortnight cruise around the Caribbean costs less that three days on the Murray and a train from SF to Chicago is only 30% of the Ghan from Adelaide to Darwin.

    At minimum hospitality wage rates someone is making way too much money in Oz.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    5:20pm
    The Ghan and the Murray cruises are overpriced for what you get.

    Have you tried booking them from overseas? Set up Google Chrome with the Hola plug in and you can set your computer anywhere in the world. eg You can book train travel cheaper in NZ if your computer is in virtual NZ. It would not surprise me if it was the opposite in Australia.
    Needy not Greedy
    2nd Jan 2017
    5:52pm
    Oh " Bonny Princess Liberal Lover" I don't think anyone in here can take much more of your obviously paid for Liberal Party drivel, your statement " $14,888 will not even cover the rent so the home owner is well in front" WOW, so there is a home owner in a modest $485,000 home like us ( thank god it's not in Sydney or Melbourne and worth twice that) that does not have to pay $4372 insurance, $3537 rates, $228 termite treatment, maintenance of the home $2425 (govt estimate which only allows for structural) and haven't even listed all the other bits and pieces, I can't believe that someone who owns as many houses as you, happened to forget that they also incur costs which often eclipse rent expenditure.
    KSS
    2nd Jan 2017
    6:37pm
    Yes Needy not Greedy, this is something I also don't understand. Whilst I accept that paying rent in the private sector is difficult - especially in the major cities for example, there doesn't seem to be any recognition that being a homeowner comes with its own non-negotiable expenses long after the mortgage is paid off. Yes people can (and perhaps should) downsize to release funds but there are still the same expenses to deal with even if you do live in a small one or two bedroom unit/house - those you mention plus strata fees and water/sewage for example. I do not begrudge the 'higher' asset cap for renters per se or the fact they can also claim a rent allowance, just that there is no recognition of the high costs of homeownership.
    KSS
    2nd Jan 2017
    6:40pm
    "I can't believe that someone who owns as many houses as you, happened to forget that they also incur costs which often eclipse rent expenditure." Perhaps because the costs would be able to be offset against the income thus lowering the cost of the investment?
    Rosret
    2nd Jan 2017
    6:45pm
    KSS those two bedroom even one bedroom units cost as much as the family home. The apartment price scale is quite different to the family home housing price scale. Sell the home and the cost of moving is huge. There is no real advantage to downsizing unless you live somewhere close to Kirribilli and will benefit from the massive housing boom.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:09pm
    Insurance $4372 Wow I only pay just over $1000 for my country estate. Rates are about the same. So you must have a house worth mega millions.

    That said I though pensioners got cheap rates as the rest of us how to pay more to make up the difference.
    john
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:19pm
    GREAT POST!
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:11pm
    Needy Not Greedy: you need to recognise posts from deadset trolls. For the same reason Vladimir Putin has a whole building set aside where his trolls work against anybody who has an opinion other than that of the state so too our own crooked lot have their paid trolls working this and other sites. You see who they are when you read enough of their posts....which shore up even the worst of government policies. Obvious dear Watson! But not sure some of our community can see it for what it is.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:31pm
    Just as there is no support for pensioners who go into retirement with a mortgage. We, the ex and I, are in that position, and we have extensive and high bearing raised gardens I built in the heat and with severe gastric reflux and all the other issues of my age. We just dropped off about five kjilos of garden fresh vegies to another couple with a mortgage and both disabled as well.

    Are my gardens 'assets'? I CAN, after all, eat them in lieu of spending......
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:33pm
    Maybe we should be receiving extra under the revised (to be announced when The Trebor Government comes in) Rental and Mortgage Assistance Payment........
    LiveItUp
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:29am
    Ha ha I can't ever remember even voting Liberal let alone had anything to do with them. I did attend a xopuple of Bob Hawkes famous dos years ago and know couple of Green pollies well but Liberal now you are kidding right?
    LiveItUp
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:35am
    I just checked my records and I own a rental property worth nearly $500,000 which I rent out for $550 pw but the costs of rates and insurane as less than half what you quoted.

    There are not enough $550s in $14888 as it only cover the rent for half the year.
    john
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:41pm
    Funny but I got knocked back earlier last year for any pension whatsoever, but I still got no CSHC , They simply gave me nothing. I am still confused though as to what assetts you are allowed to have, up to $816,000 dollars, my family home and my investment , would add up to about $800 grand. I am one of those on a super pension, and my wife works part time , the rent for the investment pays for the investment, but nothing over, and we don't have a huge income. So we generally live week for week.
    Seeing that I believe people when they retire are owed a pension of some kind, it is what we paid taxes for , for decades. I 've been on here before and I am not destitute, please this is not a complaining old whinger, but I am far, far from wealthy, and a part pension or a CSHC would help , I have a states seniors card, gets you on a train for nothing out of peak hour?
    But if people are getting a pension and there assetts go up 20 thousand dollars even though they are low income people , they would lose $60 dollars per pension payment, I am astounded that a government who pays out horrid individual trough feeding politicians 200 thousand dollars per year for life can destroy the old age pension like that.
    Now maybe I read the penalty of loss wrong, but I have no pension as I said, and I would be smacked in the mouth at the moment if I lost 60 dollars a fortnight!
    So how on earth does this confusing thievery work. And remember the Bronwyn Bishop upheaval, I will NOT VOTE Liberal or Labor or National again as long as I live and I will be reading all the information on small parties independents every thing, so as I know I am giving any leg up to another elitist that thinks my preference might go his/her way. And every one should be doing the same, they have failed all Australians with the money they used to put away specifically for pensions down the track, now its all gone or in general government revenue , and they say they have no money.
    I don't believe them.
    Also if this is some stinking idealogical "lets get the debit down" that is a lie too.
    Mad as Hell
    2nd Jan 2017
    7:56pm
    Good comment John. In a similar boat, retired but not 65 till March this year, I will miss out on part pension that I was legislated for when I retired. Will never vote Liberal or Green ever.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:11pm
    John your super is also xounted by Centrelink as an asset.
    MICK
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:14pm
    The irony John is that you do not have enough income and assets so you are a target. The bad taste is that those who made an effort to not be a burden on the current batch of workers are now targets when their income may be less than the pension. That is the thanks you get from Liberal governments and why this lot will be out at the next election. They won't get another chance. Not even the propaganda Press will achieve that next time around.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    5:10pm
    $816,000 is more than ample for a couple to earn enough to live on. We have been doing it for years on less than $400,000. Looks like we are not spending enough as it has now gone over $400,000.

    You have to be a bit more creative than just putting it in a bank as the bank makes all the cream.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:16pm
    Because one or two arrogant self-serving egotists can get good returns - or more likely LIE through their teeth - the rest of the less privileged world can go to hell. What a nasty creep you are OG. You would do well as an LNP politician.

    I don't suppose it every occurred to you - you self-serving opinionated CREEP - that some people can't do better than put money in the bank?

    BTW. You do LIE, because you rant about taking your family on cruises every year and you can't do that on the returns on $400,000.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:55pm
    Interesting Rainey as I only recently took the whole family on a cruise for the first time.

    Just by having your money in bank shares you can earn approx. 9% in interest alone. That $36,000 but I average a little better. It is not that hard to do.
    Needy not Greedy
    2nd Jan 2017
    8:31pm
    Ah well Bonny Princess Liberal Lover we can't all have a nice country estate like you, even though we both worked full time until we were 67yo we could only afford a place that backs onto government owned bushland that has seen arson attacks almost every summer, we pretty well know the emergency personnel by first names, and unfortunately with neighbouring properties being lost in the fires our insurance has spiralled up, I was hoping to sell our home to some Syrian refugees who are more adept to fire and smoke but when I approached Homeswest they told me that they prefer to locate them in their own homes and townhouses closer to the city so they can walk to Centrelink until they buy cars, and before you ask, yes we have approached the government authority about installing a sizeable fire break on the border of our housing estate but the environmental department has vetoed that, as apparently the bushland is the habitat of an extremely rare frog.
    LiveItUp
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:42am
    My country estate is also at the risk of fires and I have to provide and maintain the fire breaks at my expense. I also need water tanks and water pumps that can be run with no power. I also have roof sprinkler system installed. All these have to be maintained and tested regularly.
    Blossom
    2nd Jan 2017
    9:47pm
    I was told by a lady that Centrelink reckon she got $5000.00+ income more than she reckons she did. She's going to ask them for the details. She can't find where she got it at all.
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:37pm
    Yes - the ex, when here husband died, went on Widow's Pension, and The Good Colonel C'Link told the shattered and grieving widow with three children that she could get nothing because of her super.

    She had $10k TOTAL in super and they figured that meant she RECEIVED $10k a year (at that time)....

    Bunch of pirates.... bloody thieves....
    LiveItUp
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:47am
    Centrelink have some odd rules and it certainly pays to know them before filling in thier forms.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:15am
    You have to be watching the whole time when they move those three little cups on the table....
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    11:58pm
    Just don't watch the cups.
    PAYEdmydues
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:23pm
    It is fairer.
    Just not as generous
    TREBOR
    2nd Jan 2017
    10:38pm
    Please Explain?
    Rae
    3rd Jan 2017
    1:37pm
    No it isn't. Savers lose and spenders get the cream. That isn't fair.

    And it certainly isn't sustainable either.

    All it does is encourage consumption instead of saving but make sure the consumption is stuff like experiences, holidays, meals etc.

    Have you noticed that is what money is being spent on now?

    You'd have to be crazy to buy a physical asset over the age of 50.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    5:06pm
    It is only those savers who have arranged their affairs to get the OAP under the current rules that lose. Those of us already above the old thresholds lose nothing. We don't even have a senior's health care card.

    Even at my age I still buy and sell physical assets.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    5:51pm
    Those already above the old thresholds HAD A SHIT LOAD MORE WEATLH, DIMWIT!
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:14pm
    $800,000 is more than ample for a couple to live on in their retirement too.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:43pm
    That depends on a million variables that YOU - YOU ARROGANT CREEP - know NOTHING about. But the point is that hurting people who save STUFFS THE NATION. It's IDIOTIC IN THE EXTREME. A healthy economy grows by ENCOURAGING responsible planning, work and saving - not by bashing anyone who does what's good for the nation.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:26pm
    The welfare mentality of these people is what is stuffing the economy. That is not responsible work, planning or saving at all.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    11:51pm
    How so, OG, when the amount of unpaid corporate tax far out-weighs the Social Security Bill?
    Old Geezer
    4th Jan 2017
    2:59pm
    People now expect welfare handouts instead of doing any work.
    Chrissy L
    3rd Jan 2017
    12:05am
    Rosret, I earn under 30k/pa. I am assessed under the income test. I get a part pension, a small amount of UK pension and I draw the minimum amount from my Superfund as an income stream. I have my own home which is valued under $500,000. I am a Widow, my late husband never received any Employer sponsored super, we both salary sacrificed to try and put together a small nest egg for our retirement. We both worked hard, paid large amounts of tax, had interest rates of over 16%, no childcare benefits, no first home owners grant, no family care payments and I now have had my part pension cut by $10.50/week, because we saved. I am not on skid row just yet, but I do not consider myself to be a "wealthy Australian" and I am greatly offended by our Social Services Minister on 7.30 report tonight who claims I am, as I am part of the 10% of Wealthy Pensioners, who live in McMansions, who have copped a reduction in pension. In Superannuation speak my income is considered modest-not even comfortable! I budget, watch what I spend to try and eke out what I have until I turn up my toes! Any wonder, I am totally peed off with the Government and the Greens who have passed this legislation. I still have not received a reply to my correspondence from them regarding this unjust change........funny that!
    Rae
    3rd Jan 2017
    1:40pm
    You won't receive a reply. Even they can't make up a big enough lie to explain the changes.

    And they aren't smart enough to see the implications of the changes.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jan 2017
    3:37pm
    Yes you are one of the wealthy Australians. You have money for choices many don't.
    CathinHobart
    3rd Jan 2017
    3:41am
    My 87 year old mother has just received a letter from Centrelink advising that she has to provide receipts for expenditure if she is to retain a part age pension. She doesn't have a credit card and didn't know she had to retain receipts for purchases. I am now scrambling to find paper dockets for groceries and other living expenses paid using cash.This is just pathetic! Is it even legal under the Act?
    LiveItUp
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:54am
    That the problem of using cash for everything as it is had to trace and can be treated as suspicious. A know an old lady who takes cash out each week and walks accross the road and puts the money in her grandkids account to reduce her assets. She has reduced her assets by 10s of thousands. Her grandkid recently bought a nice house too.
    Ny19
    3rd Jan 2017
    2:01pm
    I went to Centrelink with a receipt a while back and was told they do not require receipts, just the new bank balance or super balance if you spend above $2,000 on something.
    Trevine
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:20am
    It is a really good idea to asset test the politicians so that their pensions can be reduced. It he Polies waste so much of our money.
    rtrish
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:20am
    I am not affected by the possibility of a loss of pension, but want to know about those who might get a RISE in pension. Have seen little about this. Checking my MyGov account does not show any rise. When might we know about this?
    Rodent
    3rd Jan 2017
    10:22am
    rtrish

    My Comments in reply to PAYEmyduties just posted may assist you, or I may be able to assist.

    Were you expecting an increase. Did you receive ANY letters from Centrelink?
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:23pm
    Nobody needy gets a rise, rtrish. Only folk with a few hundred thousand in the bank. Screw those who saved a little too much and overindulge those who are already well off and have secure pensions, but stuff the needy. It's called SOCIAL ENGINEERING - destroy the middle and upper working class.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:24pm
    More people benefit than those who lose the OAP they should never have had in the first place.
    Anonymous
    4th Jan 2017
    2:29pm
    That makes it okay then, OG? Let's rob a few to give handouts to others. Hopefully it will soon be your turn to be among the losers. I hope you suffer dreadfully when that time comes. I'm sure NOBODY will speak up in your defence.

    And who the hell are you to judge who should have had a pension in the first place. You must think you are God Almighty?
    Old Geezer
    4th Jan 2017
    2:57pm
    Yes they have finally put an end to double dipping. Yes you are double dipping simply by accepting something you do not need from the taxpayer. It is the same as having ample food and accepting food vouchers from a charity.

    Fortunately I'm not dependent upon welfare so I have nothing to lose.
    Very little super as I can see the day it will be nationalised.
    Rodent
    3rd Jan 2017
    10:49am
    I thought I would RE POST this, It may assist some to better appreciate the background.

    There has already been significant comment in the Media by Veterans impacted by these changes. Note the last two paras in my explanation
    ................................................................................................................
    Re Age Pension Asset Test , and Taper Rate Changes due 1 January 2017

    I have read with great interest all the comments in recent weeks that relate in any way to these proposed changes. Also I have taken notice wherever Welfare gets a mention.
    The following are reproduced comments I received in a reply to a series of questions I raised with the Department of Social Services , following an initial reply I received from Minister Morrison. These words explain in FULL detail the Categories/Types of Payments that are affected by these legislated Asset Test changes.

    As many would be aware the main categories of payment are Age Pension, Disability Pension, Carer Payment – however there are others that are under the umbrella of Social Security Income Support Payments. The changes to the Assets Test apply to these payments as follows

    Age Pension
    Carer Payment
    Widow B Pension
    Wife Pension (Age)
    Wife Pension (Disability Support Pension)
    Bereavement Allowance
    Disability Support Pension

    The changes to the Assets Test also apply to the Social Security Income Support Allowance payments set out as follows

    Newstart Allowance
    Sickness Allowance
    Special Benefit
    Parenting Payment
    Partner Allowance
    Widow Allowance
    Youth Allowance *
    Austudy *
    Austudy- Living allowance

    * The Assets test changes apply to these allowances only when parental means testing arrangements do not apply.

    The changes also apply to Service Pensions and Income Support Supplement paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs. All these payments were included in the analysis of the number of income support recipients that would be affected by the changes to the Assets Test, and the estimated financial impact.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    1:07pm
    Service Pensions in isolation I can see - Disability payments should in no way be affected. I'd need to look at the figures and see what is going on - remember that clear statement - "It's my view that all disabled Veterans should receive AWE for life".

    I suppose there is room for discussion over levels of disability..... but total loss of ability to earn should be regarded as worthy of AWE, in my eyes.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    4:59pm
    Youth allowance is based on the person receiving it income and assets. However it is only based on the parents taxable income not the parents assets.
    bumper
    3rd Jan 2017
    11:59am
    Can someone explain why Turnbull gets paid $507,338 a year when Australia has a 24 million population.
    The UK prime Minister is paid $269,529.00 a year with a population of 65,339,155
    The President of the United States is paid $582,411.00 with a population of 325,110.000. This is apart from all the over generous perks that these politicians get like a complete empty aircraft to fly one or two politicians between WA and Canberra, what's wrong with flying on a normal airline schedule with Qantas.
    Surely something is wrong here! yet this government attacks pensioners who are easy prey, we need another party of grey power to protect our rights to have a comfortable retirement instead of worrying about the future, we don't need extra strife at this time of life. What happens if we have spent all our savings and need aged care, who helps us then!!
    Mad as Hell
    3rd Jan 2017
    12:13pm
    Why will Bronwyn Bishop get $255,000 pa for life?
    Because she was a Lifter not a Leaner.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    4:56pm
    You can't compare different currencies.
    floss
    3rd Jan 2017
    1:44pm
    Me thinks OLD GEEZER has changed its name to BONNY.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    4:43pm
    Wrong OG is back after a few days R & R.
    Rodent
    3rd Jan 2017
    5:45pm
    For those of you that want to refresh your Memory as to why the GREEN'S supported the Pension change here it is, ass follows

    I only have this Question -Where and when is the Retirement Incomes Review that the Greens got in return for their treachery?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Retirement Income - Fact Sheet



    Materials
    GreensMPs/ 16 Jun 2015/ Family, Ageing, Community and Disability Services/
    Share

    The Greens have reached an agreement with the government to reverse an unfair Howard-era decision on pensions, and secured a much needed review into retirement incomes. Our agreement means that pension payments will be more targeted to those who need the most support.


    The Greens support a retirement income system that allows everyone to live with dignity. We support a retirement income system that will care for Older Australians and would protect those who are unable to build a health super balance from poverty in their old-age as well as providing the means by which individuals can save for their retirement thorough a superannuation system.

    What is the change?

    The level of assets that a person has, such as property, super, shares and money in the bank determines how much pension they get (the family home is exempt). At the moment, the pensions asset test allows couples with as much as $1.1 million dollars in assets on top of the family home to qualify for a Part Pension.

    Two things have been changed:

    Minimum Threshold: The amount of assets you can hold before you go from a full-pension to a part-pension will be increased, so more people with modest assets will receive higher part-pensions.

    Taper rate: The rate at which pensions are reduced once you pass the minimum threshold will increase (from $1.50 to $3). This means that those with substantial assets will get smaller payments from the Government. The pension cuts out for a couple (with their own home) if they have more than $823,000 of assets on top of their home value. At the other end of the scale, a couple (with their own home) can hold an additional $50,000 before their full pension is reduced (an increases from $400,000 to $450,000).
    Reasons to support these measures:

    1 / More Australians who don’t have the advantage of a healthy super balance will be able to access a full or part pension

    2 / Creates a fairer system by reversing Howard’s 2007 measures (which the Greens opposed) that gave high income earners a more generous retirement income

    3 / As part of the Agreement, we secured a broader review of retirement incomes; particularly looking at the interaction between pensions, superannuation, taxation and employment

    4 / This is an outcome that stakeholders including the Council of the Ageing, Uniting Care and ACOSS have been seeking for a long time

    5 / We are a caring society and all older Australians deserve the best possible retirement. With this agreement we have helped ensure a pathway to a decent retirement for everyone.

    6 / We’re building on a decade of work by the Greens to improve retirement incomes for all Australians. We’re keeping superannuation on the national agenda and ensuring it gets proper consideration in the Tax Review.

    Impact of the measure

    In the first instance, 171,500 pensioners will benefit (50,000 more people will now get a full pension). Those with fewer assets, who benefit from this scheme, will on average be about $30 a fortnight better off. 327,300 will be negatively affected (90,000 of these will have their pension cancelled).

    80% of all age pensioners will not be affected at all.

    - Of all pensioners (veterans, disability, age) only 2% will have their pension cancelled, 6% will have their pension reduced and 4% will have their pension increased.

    - Of age pensioners, only 3.2% will have their pension cancelled, 8% will have their pension reduced and 6% will have their pension increased.

    Seniors Health Care Card

    The 2% of pensioners who will have their part pensions cancelled will still be eligible for a Seniors Health Care Card. Holders of Commonwealth Seniors Health Cards receive the same concessional rate on pharmaceutical benefits, the lower extended Medicare safety net threshold, and bulk-billed doctors’ appointments without the discretion of the doctor, as for pensioners.

    Most state concessions are available to all health card holders, regardless of the card type.

    The role of savings in retirement

    Superannuation is designed to ensure that people save throughout their life for their retirement. It is the intention of the policy that people who have accumulated wealth can use this to help fund their retirement needs, while those with more modest means can rest assured they too will be able to have a dignified life in retirement by relying on the aged pension.

    It is absolutely appropriate that individuals draw down on their super over the course of their retirement.

    Improvement on cruel indexation measure

    The new pension reform plan replaces last year’s cruel pension indexation measure which would have hurt those on low incomes by linking pension increases to CPI instead of wages. This indexation change would have seen the 62% of age pensioners, who retire with little or no assets apart from their home, slugged the hardest. These pensioners would have lost $80 a week from their payment by 2050. This was unacceptable.

    Superannuation tax concessions are not creating a sustainable system for the future

    There has already been a lot of evidence provided to the Tax Review which shows that one third of all superannuation tax concessions are going to the top 10% of earners. This means that the well off are able to get richer, while those in lower and moderate income jobs are unlikely to have enough to retire comfortably. A range of submissions to the Tax Review has already demonstrated that a number of people will be unable to retire comfortably if we do not make structural changes to how people save for the future during their working life.

    Women in particular are poorly served by our current arrangements and the numbers affected are likely to increase over time.

    Are you someone who could be affected?

    This measure does not come into effect until January 2017, so there is plenty of time for people to make changes to their personal situation. A number of organisations have tried to model the effects of the pension changes. They have used a range of figures to achieve this assessment. It is important that individuals get appropriate advice, tailored to their situation. Centrelink provides a phone service for people to better understand the changes. We strongly encourage individuals to seek professional advice that takes into account their exact circumstances.

    What’s in the review?

    The review is an addition to the Tax White Paper process that will give special consideration to retirement incomes – particularly the interaction between the age pension, superannuation, taxation and employment, including broken work patterns.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    5:48pm
    ""This measure does not come into effect until January 2017, so there is plenty of time for people to make changes to their personal situation.''

    According to my financial planner, the only choices for people over 60 were to gift and sacrifice their pension for 5 years; separate from their partner; trade up to a much more expensive home; or dump assets in a hurry - maybe taking a world cruise.'' There was NOT sufficient time to make changes because the rules require 5 years to change circumstances without losing entitlements.

    Yet another lie from the master LIARS.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    5:51pm
    Rubbish Rainey people have had ample time to adjust to the changes. Best idea is to spend down your capital until you reach the OAP safety net. All those others are like using a big stick to kill an ant.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    5:54pm
    Yes dickwit - Let's plunge all those who saved for retirement into poverty and then wonder why people don't save. What a moron!
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:05pm
    Poverty? I don't think you have any idea what poverty is Rainey as these people are no where near poverty. They have ample capital to live on for years before they will even draw down to a level to get the OAP again.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:22pm
    Wrong again fool. Many will be back on pensions before the year is out because their incomes have been slashed to HALF the aged pension and they will have to draw $25000 or more to survive.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:25pm
    Good as retirement is time to spend not save. No good being the wealthiest corpse in the cemetery.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:40pm
    Some of us have the BRAINS to want to save for OLD AGE, OG - not be ground into hardship in the first decade of retirement
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:23pm
    Gee you will be doing some spending with that amount of assets to be ground into hardship within the first decade of retirement. If that happens then you alone are responsible for being so stupid.
    Rae
    4th Jan 2017
    3:02pm
    Does this mean the Greens think the cruel indexation measures that apply to defined benefit pensions need fixing.

    Sounds like they do. Or do they only support consumers and not give a fig for savers.

    I'd like to see the CPI actually measure inflation properly. At the moment it is a joke. 0.9% inflation and 438 to live in your own home.

    Must be a bunch of kids scamming the figures. They certainly don't do any shopping or bill paying do they?
    Rae
    4th Jan 2017
    3:04pm
    Sorry not 438 but $38

    3rd Jan 2017
    5:45pm
    More LNP lies! The CSHC DOES NOT attract discounts on rates, car registrations, or a hundred other things - even down to haircuts - that pensioners get cuts on. And in my area specialists do not recognize the CSHC but charge full rates to anyone not on a pension. So there's a huge incentive for retirees to shed assets and claim a fatter pension.

    As for the CRAP about poor renters - I can rent for $300 a week and get rent assistance, but it costs $450 a week to live in my own home when pension loss and costs of ownership are counted.

    This government is DESTROYING SOCIETY and WRECKING THE ECONOMY with its STUPID attacks on anyone who isn't rich. No Bonny.... $816,000 including some $50,000 of non-returning assets does NOT make a couple wealthy if they have another 30 years to survive deteriorating health and increasing home maintenance costs. It doesn't return enough to fund a decent lifestyle, and the Howard Government recognized that punishing savers would hurt the economy by discouraging responsible behaviour and driving a welfare mentality. Sadly, the OVERPAID IDIOTS NOW IN POWER DON'T GET THAT. They will when they've destroyed everything our generation worked our guts out to build.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:01pm
    The OAP is unaffordable in it's present form and going forward so the government had to do something. It should have acted years ago as those affected should never have gotten the OAP in the first place. To do nothing would have destroyed society and wrecked the economy.

    If it's cost you more to own your home than rent one what are you doing owning a home?
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:19pm
    Yep - that's a moron's response! Drive everyone into poverty and renting and wonder why the country goes down the gurgler. What an idiot!

    The OAP was VERY AFFORDABLE. It's massive obscene tax concessions that are NOT.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:23pm
    I guess you are too concerned about losing your OAP to notice that the Tax concessions are being gradually eroded too.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:40pm
    Not nearly enough, OG. Nowhere near slashing incomes to half the aged pension and grinding people into hardship as punishment for saving for their old age!
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:53pm
    Less than 10% of OAP have been affected and many more are going to benefit by the changes.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:48pm
    Oh that's okay then. Rip $115 a week off a battler who saved well and give it to someone with a house and over $600,000 in assets, and it's okay because only 10% suffer unfairness. What a moronic remark!
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:15pm
    It is OK simple because these people have the means to look after themselves. They have been ripping off the taxpayer so that they can keep their capital intact for years. People will have to understand that the days of using the OAP to provide an inheritance are over.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:31pm
    You really are STUPID, OG. The person with $816,000 saved by hard work and frugal living ripped off the taxpayer (despite NEVER getting even the tiniest tax concession in 50 years of hard work) but the person who saved $60000 (quite possibly benefiting from tax concessions) isn't ripping anyone off getting an extra $115.00 a week at the expense of the battler who save more?

    Only a totally STUPID LNP STOOGE could make such an IDIOTIC remark.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:35pm
    NO Rainey these people who saved that sort of money didn't do it from wages alone.
    TREBOR
    4th Jan 2017
    12:11pm
    Drug running? Riverboat gambling? A good day at the races? Bank robbery?

    Oh - I get it - they were on a better screw all along, so they had more opportunity than the poor old wages earner...

    Remember Ken Bruen:-

    Those who actually work say
    “I get wages.”
    Those who just think they work say
    “I'm on a salary.”
    (Jack Taylor – Ken Bruen's hero noir)
    Anonymous
    4th Jan 2017
    2:22pm
    OG. I saved that sort of money from VERY VERY VERY LOW WAGES ALONE, despite having spent $100,000 on a special needs child and having years out of work with chronic illness and disability.

    Oh, well, I did build my own house and renovate a 14-year-old wrecked car and drive it for 12 years. So I guess I didn't do it all on wages alone. Just one bloody hard work 80 hours a week with no holidays and virtually no entertainment.

    I never owned a share, had no super, never invested in managed funds, never inherited a cent, never received a cent in gifts, never benefited from any trust.... and NEVER benefited from tax concessions, grants or rebate of any kind except a few measly dollars in child endowment.

    You are full of BS - an arrogant ASS-U-MER who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the lives of others.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jan 2017
    2:52pm
    Only one in a million would do that sort of thing Rainey. I prefer the much smarter way to wealth myself.

    3rd Jan 2017
    5:49pm
    Happily, the government is copping a lot of flak over this STUPID AND DESTRUCTIVE change. People are finally waking up and taking notice. It could well end Turnbull's reign.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    5:57pm
    Many more are realising that those affected have more than ample to provide for there own retirement and should not have got the OAP in the first place. Lots of talk about greed going on.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:18pm
    Quite the opposite if you stopped ranting and took notice, OG. Public opinion is very ANTI the LNP. The populace is ANGRY.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:19pm
    Agree people don't like our present PM but that will change soon when they bring back Abbott.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:38pm
    OMG! You approve of the RABBIT? The STUPIDEST AND MOST EMBARRASSING PM WE'VE EVER HAD? He made us the laughing stock of the world.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:51pm
    Ha ha.
    Mad as Hell
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:56pm
    Agree Tony Rabbot was the worst PM
    Triss
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:16pm
    Old Geezer, I cannot understand why you are so against the Age Pension. Why not every other pension? There are multi millionaire ex politicians in their 50's drawing 'as of right' huge pensions because of corrupt policies years ago. We should be insisting on an investigation to reverse that. If politicians, public servants, judges and the like get pensions 'as of right' then so should everyone, surely that is democracy.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:55pm
    OAP is welfare and should only be given to those who have no other means of support. All the other pensions you mention are entitlements which they get as part of their employment.

    Many people manipulate their affairs to get the OAP even though they do not need it and have other means of support. This to none other than stealing from the taxpayers.

    Too many people today have a welfare mentality and prefer handouts to working. This is not good for the country now or it's future.
    Triss
    4th Jan 2017
    10:51am
    The Federal liability for unfunded public service pensions stands at around $200 billion which the taxpayers will have to pay out for, Old Geezer. This makes public service pensions welfare not entitlements.
    TREBOR
    4th Jan 2017
    12:14pm
    Puts a big hole in their 'sovereign fund' of $120bn stashed in The Caymans, eh? Only enough there to feed the gaping maws of the ghosts of politicians past....

    Here yez go.. read this and read between the line:-

    http://www.futurefund.gov.au/
    Triss
    4th Jan 2017
    1:22pm
    That does not give me a warm, fuzzy feeling of confidence.
    Anonymous
    9th Jan 2017
    9:30pm
    Have people NOT heard of The Future Fund??

    "The Australian Government Future Fund is an independently managed sovereign wealth fund into which the Australian Government deposits funds to meet the government's future liabilities for the payment of superannuation to retired civil servants of the Australian Public Service."
    Adrianus
    10th Jan 2017
    7:28am
    Yes Radish, those who would like to see a reduction in private enterprise and increase in the Public Service should be happy about Costello's Future Fund. It underpins the successful growth in the high cost of a growing PS.
    The Black Fox
    3rd Jan 2017
    6:59pm
    You poor peasants. I have sold all my assets and bought a new $12 million dollar house just off the beach - and I now get a full pension to boot. My kids have been set up by some clever accounting and they will be picking up a few of my extraneous expenses such as my rates and my annual trip abroad. The only thing I have any regrets about is that, after getting this sorted, my mates took a picture of me and my partner Mathias smoking a celebratory cigar. That may be a minor distraction but don't worry, I'm alright Jack.

    Talking about Jack, silly bloke put all his money into assets which he can't liquidate (about $500,000 I think). He owns his house but it is so run down I wouldn't put a dog in there. It's not worth much anyway and he couldn't sell it without a massive makeover. Now they've cut his pension off totally. He reckons he's hard done by. I told him "just get a life." He reckons he'll be on the streets - what a joke - more fool him.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:28pm
    If he can't liquidate his "assets" then they are not assets at all. He needs to get them written off and then can claim a big loss.

    Yes I had a look at a $10 million house myself but it was too close to the water and with all this climate change hysteria I thought that my humble abode was in a much better location. Need Noahs ark if it gets flooded by rising sea levels.

    That said one has only to look in exclusive areas and you will find that the family elders have been set up by the kids in houses that make that $12 million one cheap. Kids pay all expenses and elders use their full pension as spending money. Where else can the kids invest their wealth tax free and CGT free and it doubles every 7-10 years. When their elders depart it becomes theirs with only a small amount in probate to pay.

    This is where the OAP really comes into it's own.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:41pm
    Another one for you.

    A couple have got too old to look after their $5 million dollar house and decide to downsize. They sell it and buy a smaller place for $1 million. On settlement a cheque is written out for $1 million to buy the new property plus cheques of $1 million each for their 4 kids. House is exempt so Centrelink don't know it value so they have simply swapped one house for another. Their OAP remains the same as no extra money has been put in their account.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:35pm
    Doesn't work unless they sell before going on the pension. Centrelink asks for a valuation if you are on even a tiny part pension and sell you house. You have to prove you didn't sell for less than it's value.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:47pm
    Got that wrong Rainey as they don't even ask. Your house is exempt so they don't need to know anything about it. These people were in their 80s and had been on the OAP for many years when they downsized.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:49pm
    If you more into a nursing home Centrelink will ask you for details of your house sale but not if you just change your house.
    TREBOR
    4th Jan 2017
    12:20pm
    If he can't liquidate his "assets" then they are not assets at all.

    Precisely the point, OG, the assets test does not cover income-generating assets and is just the politics of envy for real.... anyone with a little more from hard work is a user and exploiter of the system .. anyone who coasted through life on a sweet ride and has heaps is entitled ™ to decide what that user should be forced to swallow...

    That, my son, is the prevailing attitude, and its intent is clear - to create a society of master and servant......

    No wonder the country is approaching boiling point....
    TREBOR
    4th Jan 2017
    12:37pm
    And remember the old principle of double-dipping - old Harry Traveler and his wife Bessie have a Windbag they bought for $200,000. The Good Colonel deems that Windbag to be $200,000 of assets, which, in their case reduces their pension by putting them over the top.

    Then Old Harry has a health breakdown,and they sell the Windbag. the Good Colonel then deems the amount they sell it for to be income-generating asset in the bank, so they lose part of pension as a result....

    You'd have to look at Harry and Bess' overall figures on 'assets' - but doesn't it seem just a tad unreasonable to be forever 'taxing' those who've EARNED their retirement Windbag etc?
    Anonymous
    4th Jan 2017
    2:17pm
    Funny, OG. I have 8 sets of friends who sold recently while receiving pensions and every single one had to produce a valuation for Centrelink to prove they didn't sell for below market value.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jan 2017
    2:51pm
    But did Centrelink ask them what they paid for their replacement abode? No I didn't think so.
    Charlie
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:42pm
    You have a matrix that shows the age pension cut off points. IT DOESNT READ CLEARL'Y.
    The words "home owner" and "non-homeowner" get lost in the matrix. They should be in bold print.
    johninmelb
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:45pm
    250 mostly vitriolic comments, and attacks on others.

    Not one mention of what action anyone is going to take to start to fix the problem.

    Yes, it is easy to say don't vote Liberal. It'd be safe to say that many or most here don't anyway. So that is not a solution.

    But then, I guess, fixing the problem deprives you of the pleasure of just repeating the same garbage over and over again, in discussion after discussion on the same topics.

    Remember the definition of insanity:-
    DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT.

    Ain't gonna happen.

    Good night all.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    7:56pm
    What problem? If anything many more changes need to happen.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:23pm
    Yes, OG. Creeps like you need to be exterminated.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:48pm
    Me thinks that if I live as long as my parents and grandparents then I will be around for quite awhile yet. So I can keep lobbying.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    11:55pm
    Lies - all lies. I laid it out clearly above... I can't force people to read it....

    Essentially it's called 'play the game and not the man' - and put all retirement packaging under the same roof with the same rules.... argument ends.

    3rd Jan 2017
    7:58pm
    Relative is married to a soldier and was frustrated that soldiers are dogmatic LNP supporters. Not any more. She says pension changes have turned pretty much a whole battalion. They are all FURIOUS at seeing senior Australians treated so badly, and worried that their hard work will result in them being screwed over in the same appalling manner. Bye bye LNP! It will be great to see you bastards thrown out unceremoniously - no matter who replaces you and what their policies. Nothing could be as bad as these disgusting engineers of social disaster.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:12pm
    Rubbish Rainey soldiers prefer the LNP as they get looked after better than the alternative.
    Anonymous
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:33pm
    Got that wrong fool. They used to, but they've been educated - partly thanks to arrogant and vile comments by Senator David Leyonhjelm - who seems to be as disgusting and contemptible as you are, OG.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Jan 2017
    9:44pm
    Yes I agreed with everything Senator David Leyonhjelm said. He was spot on with his comments. I hope to see a lot more take a similar stance.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    11:57pm
    Yeah, yeah, OG - it was the Howard Government that brought in the seriously hard test for disability from DVA, such that many complained and complain over how long it takes to get things sorted, even with full documentation (some of which is mysteriously missing, like medical records).

    Howard and Co came up with that one when it became apparent that PTSD was going to be the growth area for pension up to and including TPI... and they hadn't budgeted for that.
    TREBOR
    3rd Jan 2017
    11:58pm
    When Lies At the Helm sells down his own assets before receiving pension, let me know.... until then he can eat my shorts.

    One rule for all.....
    Rae
    4th Jan 2017
    10:24am
    David Leyonhjelm should be forced to lead the next charge into irradiated war zones so he can get a feel for the portfolio.
    TREBOR
    4th Jan 2017
    11:59am
    Many will suffer Gulp War Syndrome - characterised by an inability to swallow bulldust...
    Adrianus
    5th Jan 2017
    10:26am
    Old Geezer you are absolutely correct. The ADF are never happy with the way a Labor/Union government deprives the ADF of much needed funding. Any fool can see that. It got that bad by the end of the Gillard government, there was no bullets so no activity at the target range.
    MacI
    6th Jan 2017
    7:55am
    Rainey - I think you are over optimistic concerning the backlash over this issue. There are over 2.4 million recipients of the Aged Pension of whom 326 thousand have been negatively affected by the change to the asset test. Of the remaining 2 million plus Aged Pensioners a significant number have benefited from an increase in the pension due to this change. By the next election even more will have benefited due to indexation of the asset threshold and the increased taper rate as they draw down on their assets.

    I'm sure there will be many amongst the 326 thousand who are negatively affected who will still be raging come the next election but neither the LNP nor the Labor party will be concerned over 326 thousand retirees spread over the length and breadth of Australia. Especially since you can be sure that Labor will not reverse the decision given they 'banked' the savings to fund their election promises during their last campaign.
    Mad as Hell
    7th Jan 2017
    6:45am
    Yes it's only 326000 whinging pensions they don't matter.
    Tony Abbot said "...no cuts to pensions..." that doesn't matter.
    The poor pre 2004 retiring politicians can still get their 10 free business class trips a year.
    This is legislation stealing money from pensioners.
    I will not vote LNP, GREENS or LABOUR and I will give my vote to a minor party for what it's worth.
    LiveItUp
    7th Jan 2017
    1:33pm
    Of course it matters as that's 326,000 estates with smaller lottery wins. That is the real reason for these cuts so people spend thier money not hoard it for others to waste.
    taylah
    4th Jan 2017
    8:58pm
    pensioners may have happily accepted theses changes, after all they have probobly always turned every dollar over before spending, its the fact SMorrison only hit the low income people, and has not even talked about hitting the public service, polititions or any of the top end of town, also no cuts to expenditure eg what about say a 10% cut to all pollies flights, the ABC/SBS past polititions etc etc just cut spending.
    Adrianus
    5th Jan 2017
    10:29am
    What a pack of whingers!
    Just as I thought, not a word from those who have had a pension increase.
    Captain
    5th Jan 2017
    1:13pm
    We did not receive a pension despite being over 65. However I believe that the new asset and income limits should have been left alone for those already retired and the new lower limits set as from 2026. Those who were already retired before the legislation was set in 2015 had little chance of rearranging their affairs without reworking their retirement plans.

    By 2026, superannuation would have been in play for about 35 years and most would have been to satisfactorily set up their retirement plans.

    If politicians were keeping up with voters thoughts, they would start scaling back their pariamentary superannuation schemes and after parliament entitlements (welfare).

    However I don't think it will happen as the supposed lifters then will become wingers.
    Adrianus
    5th Jan 2017
    2:22pm
    I'm just saying, These forums are supposedly filled with egalitarians who want a better deal for the battlers. I'm left to wonder if there are any real battlers here. There are people sleeping rough who would be grateful for an increase.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jan 2017
    3:51pm
    You are right Frank there are no real battlers here. Just lots of whingers.
    MacI
    6th Jan 2017
    10:34am
    Frank - I get the impression that this forum has been hijacked by a few who rail against anyone with the temerity to put a contrary view. I note one particular contributor regularly attacks another contributor with labels such as disgusting, a fool, contemptible, a creep to name a few of the vitriolic comments. (All power to the recipient of these attacks not to respond in kind). This is hardly conducive to a vigorous yet friendly exchange of views.

    Perhaps the battlers just find the tone of some of the commentary to be too bitter and divisive to be bothered.

    I call this my "cranky site" that I visit only now and again and for a short time because the tenor of the discussions is such that it leaves me feeling a little aggravated and a little depressed after a while. Though it does give me a buzz occasionally to put a contrary view, some times playing devils advocate, some times my opinion, and hopefully backed up with some substance to challenge some debate.
    Adrianus
    6th Jan 2017
    11:35am
    KennyBoy, I've posted on this site off and on during the last 2 years. YLC has attracted a few hard lefties who would like to see all industry shut down and more generosity from other people. The Balmain basket weavers have moved upmarket, they have grown in number and taken over Newtown as well. LOL

    " Perhaps the battlers just find the tone of some of the commentary to be too bitter and divisive to be bothered."
    I agree. The real battlers have their hands full just surviving. The extra $30 will mean more than the sum of it's purchasing power to them. And that makes me happy!
    Chrissy L
    6th Jan 2017
    11:33am
    Finally got a reply to my emails to the Government complaining about the reduction in my Part Pension. I got the usual" Act as a Safety net rhetoric" and "pensions being funded by taxpayers," of which I used to be one! The most interesting comment was "The changes to the assets test ensure that retirees who have the capacity to support themselves do not receive support from the taxpayer.(I used to be one OF THOSE TOO!!) "Those most affected by the changes would "ONLY" have to draw down around 1.8 per cent of their assets to make up for the LOSS of their part pension."
    I have to ask myself, why did I bother seeking financial advice to plan for my retirement - only to have the rules change at a stroke of a pen. Why did I salary sacrifice to fund a modest retirement? Why did I live a careful lifestyle, whilst working to put a bit away for a rainy day? Why do I have to live on less than Ministers allowances and perks? Why do many Multi-National Companies pay little or no tax in Australia? Why am I helping to support negative gearing when I don't own an investment house. NEVER MIND..... I ONLY HAVE TO DRAW DOWN 1.8% OF MY ASSETS TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS OF MY PART PENSION!
    Old Geezer
    6th Jan 2017
    1:29pm
    So what are you whinging about?
    Chrissy L
    6th Jan 2017
    11:47am
    Whoops! Forgot to ask where do I join "The Stop Stealing from the Pensioners Party"?
    Adrianus
    6th Jan 2017
    12:44pm
    Chrissy, I think the party is all but over.
    Chrissy L
    6th Jan 2017
    1:45pm
    People like you OG who do not have the temerity to stand up and be counted for injustice.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jan 2017
    5:52pm
    You are certainly wrong on that one. I've lost count the number of times I have represented myself in courts and I have no hesitation about confronting someone about a wrong doing. Best of all I just love throwing them curved balls which completely throws people off their feet.

    Only the other day I received a payment that I was 99% sure didn't belong to me. So I rang them to discuss and asked them to check it for me. No matter what I said they would not omit their error so I said that I was going to give it to charity and if they wanted it back later they would have to ask the charity instead of me. They still wouldn't admit they were wrong and sort it for me even though it was in their benefit to do so. So I sent the money off to a charity.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jan 2017
    5:54pm
    If you are referring to the change in the asset test then yes I will stand up in support of it as I think it was a good move by the government. I have already sent them a letter thanking them for doing it.
    Chrissy L
    6th Jan 2017
    6:35pm
    OG I really wonder about you! How can you write to the Government congratulating them, when they are taking money [part pensioners] who living on less than the Minimum Wage. Their allowances are more than what we get. Wouldn't it be great, if we could all fly up to the Gold Coast to buy an Expensive Unit on Taxpayers expense. Get Real OG!
    Chrissy L
    6th Jan 2017
    6:35pm
    OG I really wonder about you! How can you write to the Government congratulating them, when they are taking money [part pensioners] who living on less than the Minimum Wage. Their allowances are more than what we get. Wouldn't it be great, if we could all fly up to the Gold Coast to buy an Expensive Unit on Taxpayers expense. Get Real OG!
    Old Geezer
    6th Jan 2017
    10:25pm
    I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If these part pensioners are living below the poverty line then it's their own fault as they have heaps of capital to spend. Welfare is for the basics of life and never was and never will be anything like the minimum wages. Keep dreaming on that one.
    Chrissy L
    6th Jan 2017
    7:11pm
    Wouldn't it be great OG if Rainey & other free thinkers came back to haunt you like the ghosts in Dickens a Christmas Carol? Maybe then you would get it?
    Old Geezer
    6th Jan 2017
    10:21pm
    I'd love it as I'm not afraid of ghosts either. In fact I have one that looks after me like a guardian angel.

    Free thinkers me thinks not. I'd say more like very narrow minded thinking which explains why they are what they are today.
    Chrissy L
    6th Jan 2017
    11:15pm
    If I had a reason to go to the Gold Coast on "legitimate Government Business" and suddenly I had the need for an "impulse buy" to purchase an Investment Unit, whilst I was there 'on business''? Wow, wouldn't that be great! Unfortunately, I have had my modest part pension cut to less than the Minimum Wage, So I will have to really study that, to see if that fits my modest budget? Wake up Australia, these are the "pigs in the trough" we have voted in. It is time we voted them out!! Enough is Enough!
    LiveItUp
    8th Jan 2017
    8:07am
    I really can't see what the problem is here. Su you are saying that if a person is on business they can't even eat a meal in a restuarant as that is not government business. Why not use one's free time how one likes?

    The envy of some people truely amazes me skmetimes.
    Mad as Hell
    8th Jan 2017
    8:39am
    Would love to know if Liberal Minister Sussan Ley has used negative gearing to purchase this property. Then if the Liberals and Greens
    withdrew negative gearing would it be grandfathered or made retrospective. Bet my bottom dollar it would be grandfathered, just as any changes to the should have been grandfathered.
    Chrissy L
    6th Jan 2017
    11:50pm
    OG! The only Guardian Angel you have are Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison,Tony Abbot, Corey Barnardi and all the rest of the right wing, horrible people and watch this space, they are about to disappear into a Vacuum at the next election!
    johninmelb
    8th Jan 2017
    9:30am
    Dream on Chrissy.

    They won't disappear unfortunately. I'd say it is more than likely they will be back.

    Shorten has too much baggage, and Labor has to find a proper leader who can unite the party, get rid of the factions, and stop being beholden to the unions. I doubt I will see that happen in my lifetime.

    If the Libs win again, then I will seriously consider moving to Malaysia. I don't like their government either, but I could survive in Malaysia on my part pension. I can't survive here with the constant rises in electricity, gas, water, and essentials of life.

    I would like the current Liberal party consigned to the scrap heap once and for all. But they have way too many supporters WHO ARE PREPARED TO GET OFF THEIR BACKSIDES AND WORK TO MAKE SURE THEY WIN.

    The rest of us are not prepared to do anything, in the mistaken belief that spouting rubbish on a website over and over again will fix the problem.

    I am prepared to take over the job of Prime Minister tomorrow and start fixing the problems we face here in Oz. But the simple fact of the matter is no-one will support me. Malcolm is a safe pair of hands in the eyes of the majority.
    Adrianus
    8th Jan 2017
    4:14pm
    Maybe Shorten is just mixing with the wrong crowd?
    Chrissy L
    7th Jan 2017
    12:41am
    OG you have selective hearing and reading. You have no concept of what it is like to be the average Aussie. You have absolutely no concept of what it is like to try and plan for your old age! You should go and buy a Oxygen bottle and stop stealing Oxygen from the rest of us who believe in a Fair Go!
    LiveItUp
    7th Jan 2017
    1:30pm
    Now Chrissey L that sort of comment just shows that you have no compassion for your fellow humans at all. Envy does strange things to people.
    floss
    7th Jan 2017
    4:41pm
    Chrissy L you are good.
    Justsane
    11th Jan 2017
    1:41pm
    To Debbie McTaggart et al: At the top of every YLC article, there is a list of the most popular articles (only 5 in the list). YLC should make every article easily accessible by listing them all in date order. This is done on numerous other websites. If an article that one is following drops off the most popular list, it is very hard to access it again. Methinks that YLC might be trying to discourage people from commenting on articles that are a little old or not particularly currently newsworthy, but a lot of the content in the articles is of interest longterm. So how about a proper, comprehensive list of articles, YLC?


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles