Include family home in assets test: economist

Including family home in assets test ‘the right thing to do’, says economist

family home

As the Federal Government continues with its retirement income review, the family home has again come under the microscope.

This time from Deloitte Access Economics' Chris Richardson.

He told the ABC’s 7.30 that there is a case for including the family home in the asset test for the Age Pension.

However, Mr Richardson said there was no case for reducing the pension.

“Our pensions are not generous. You look at our wages and our pensions, and that rate in Australia is not terribly high compared to what’s paid elsewhere in the world,” he said.

“The politics are horrendous, but it [including the family home in the assets test] is still the right thing to do.

“You have some people who have incredibly valuable homes and yet qualify for the pension.”

Analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) predicts an ageing population will require an increase in government spending of $16 billion by 2029.

More than $9 billion of that will be on the Age Pension, the PBO says.

A Productivity Commission report claims that the Federal Government would save up to $6 billion a year by including the family home in the Age Pension assets test.

The report, Housing Decisions of Older Australians, states that around 360,000 pensioners would lose their entitlements if the family home was included in the assets test.

It says that the move could also make Australia’s tax system fairer, stating that asset-rich and cash-poor retirees could live a better quality of life in retirement if they were to draw on the equity of their assets instead of claiming a pension.

The commission believes “there is a strong case on equity grounds for setting limits on the value of the principal residence that is exempt from the Age Pension means test” but acknowledged that it couldn’t happen in the immediate future.

A YourLifeChoices Friday Flash Poll, Should the family home be part of the assets test?, drew a strong response, with an overwhelming 85 per cent of the 2481 respondents adamant that the family home should not be part of the Age Pension assets test. Ninety-six per cent of respondents either owned their home outright or with a mortgage.

However, when asked whether the home should be part of the assets test in future, 45 per cent were unsure, 26 per cent said yes and 29 per cent no.

To the question “If yes, when do you think this might occur?”, 37 per cent said “not in my lifetime”, 18 per cent between five and 10 years, 16 per cent within five years, and 11 per cent within three years.

Most responses were highly critical of the concept of including the family home in the assets test for an Age Pension – and many were critical of the assets test generally.

Member Trebor wrote: “In order to keep the government honest, given their proven history of moving goal posts – no home included in assets test! Furthermore, the assets test needs to be revised and countless items excluded, and only income-bearing assets included.”

Thommo took a different view on the family home, but also sought changes to the assets test. “Any government that includes the family home in the assets test will be removed from office pronto. However, any family home worth more than say $3 million should be included in the assets test … But for the assets test otherwise, only the income factor should be included in the assets test, not sundry other items like your car (unless it is worth a million), essential living items for the home (e.g. clothes, kitchenware etc) and house contents. At the moment, your toothbrush and toiletries even count in the assets test. What a joke.”

Gerry also believed the family home may be fair game, writing: “A house is money, same as the bit I have in term deposit. I have to use mine, a house owner doesn’t. They get to leave their house to their kids. I will have nothing to leave mine.”

Would you support any move to include the family home in the assets test above a certain value? Do you think such a move is inevitable?

If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Chris B T
    12th Jul 2019
    9:42am
    It already has, there is a arbitrary value of $370,000 when you take in consideration the non home asset difference plus rental assistance.
    Any home owner below this point is worse off.
    Alexii
    12th Jul 2019
    3:08pm
    Well said Crowcrag.
    I can well imagine that if they included the family home as an asset and even if they had some threshold to it, we could never plan for the future as, for sure, they'd make changes to wipe increasing numbers from the pension. There's no way I could trust any of our governments with such a major change. The only good change would be to get rid of the assets test.
    Alexii
    12th Jul 2019
    3:08pm
    Well said Crowcrag.
    I can well imagine that if they included the family home as an asset and even if they had some threshold to it, we could never plan for the future as, for sure, they'd make changes to wipe increasing numbers from the pension. There's no way I could trust any of our governments with such a major change. The only good change would be to get rid of the assets test.
    Alexii
    12th Jul 2019
    5:10pm
    For the life of me I don't know what happened with that post! I wish there ws a way that we could delete such things. Sorry about the numerous repetition of it.
    jackie
    12th Jul 2019
    6:08pm
    Chris B T, ScoMo wants to turn the home into an asset. It can replace the Labor's so-called death duty tax scare he lied about.
    Crowcrag
    12th Jul 2019
    10:09am
    As usual, these opinions and stats are based from a financial and economic viewpoint.
    I make the following points. I am a human, not a statistic.
    I paid off my mortgage so I could live in my HOME - not piece of property - in a location which provides the infrastructure to support my advancing years.
    Some may consider it too large for just a couple. We do not. It is ours.
    I have the pension. I paid for it with 50 years of taxes.
    The property will still be here when I’m gone, and in good condition. Wait for your turn!
    Paddington
    12th Jul 2019
    11:18am
    Yes, Crowcrag, it is all we have and it is for our family now. Just had a visit from a family and a daughter is living with us. It is a haven when they need it. My sister has jut moved into an even smaller unit from a small unit. It is very cramped for them. I don’t want that.
    It is not a mansion but it is nice and we like it. It is not worth anywhere near a million dollars, not in a big city, or overlooking the water, etc. It is also one we bought only 13 years ago when we moved here.
    Joy
    12th Jul 2019
    11:23am
    How do they get pensioners living in million dollar homes while on a pension,
    How do they pay thier rates.
    It's not an asset as such it's a home that people have a conne tion with they have worked hard to pay off. Are the pensioners picked on because they think we are helpless
    Ask the labor party , that's why they lost the election.
    Adi
    12th Jul 2019
    11:42am
    Well put Crowcrag
    inextratime
    12th Jul 2019
    12:01pm
    So the people who paid rent all their lives, and in many cases more than the mortgages that have been paid, and are still paying rent, have no property asset, have paid just as much tax as Crowtag and possibly more, who are struggling to make ends meet, probably because of the amount of pension paid to asset rich property owners, who did nothing more than make a deposit on a property 20 - 30 years ago is all justifiable. Sounds a bit naff to me.
    inextratime
    12th Jul 2019
    12:01pm
    So the people who paid rent all their lives, and in many cases more than the mortgages that have been paid, and are still paying rent, have no property asset, have paid just as much tax as Crowtag and possibly more, who are struggling to make ends meet, probably because of the amount of pension paid to asset rich property owners, who did nothing more than make a deposit on a property 20 - 30 years ago is all justifiable. Sounds a bit naff to me.
    Sundays
    12th Jul 2019
    2:28pm
    There is no such thing as a level playing field. If you chose not to scrimp and save for a home deposit (in our case 6 years) then why cry foul now? Everyone is entitled to a Pension and what is naff is suggesting that savers should be punished.
    Rae
    12th Jul 2019
    4:12pm
    But inextratime those renters lived happily in those unaffordable ares for decades. Refusing to buy a little cheap cottage in the sticks and rent it out ready for retirement but lived the dream in Balmain or Rozelle or the beaches areas of Sydney and Melbourne.. Maybe thinking about how to survive after retiring might have been something thought about well before retiring having spent every cent pay to pay.

    Why penalise frugality and saving and reward spendthrifts and lifestyles of extravagance?

    The way the young are travelling and spending now they are never going to own houses or have retirement incomes either.
    inextratime
    13th Jul 2019
    12:56am
    So people who rent do not practice frugality. That's a bit presumptive. They may have struggled more than people who were able to 'scrape together' a mortgage. There is always this presumption from home owners that their sacrifices were greater than renters when in fact there are a thousand of reasons people who were just a frugal and didn't chose to live in Balmain, but just could not get a deposit together for a house because just maybe they had children to raise and had minimal incomes. Relationship breakdowns also have an impact. Some people had to live where their work took them so a little cheap cottage in the sticks was impractical. Australia is one of the few countries in the world that does not a capital gain on the family home or have death taxes. But the divide between those that have and those that don't is getting bigger. Just saying.
    inextratime
    13th Jul 2019
    12:56am
    So people who rent do not practice frugality. That's a bit presumptive. They may have struggled more than people who were able to 'scrape together' a mortgage. There is always this presumption from home owners that their sacrifices were greater than renters when in fact there are a thousand of reasons people who were just a frugal and didn't chose to live in Balmain, but just could not get a deposit together for a house because just maybe they had children to raise and had minimal incomes. Relationship breakdowns also have an impact. Some people had to live where their work took them so a little cheap cottage in the sticks was impractical. Australia is one of the few countries in the world that does not a capital gain on the family home or have death taxes. But the divide between those that have and those that don't is getting bigger. Just saying.
    Rae
    13th Jul 2019
    7:48am
    Perhaps but that is no excuse to punish those who did scrape together a deposit and spend years going without to pay off the debt.

    I raised three kids alone as a widow on less than $42 000 and still paid the mortgage and saved for retirement.

    Disability and disadvantage does occur but that is also no reason to punish home owners for actually owning a home in my opinion.

    Many countries now have job guarantees. That should be looked at. There are plenty of jobs here not getting done. The city is looking grimy and in need of a good scrubbing and we have enough parks to keep workers busy for centuries.

    Global warming will require a lot of effort whether we like it or not.

    There is no excuse for not employing all able people in a fiat economy.

    There are a million excuses for not having but that still is no reason to punish those who do have in my opinion. This whole idea is fascism writ large.
    KeWi
    12th Jul 2019
    10:12am
    Although there would need to be other adjustments, eg raising the assets test threshold, processes to access the value of a home without selling it etc, I believe the concept of including the home is fair.
    There is something inherently wrong that a 70-year-old with their only asset being a $2m home gets the full pension, whereby another 70-year-old with their only asset being $2m in the bank gets no pension. As far as asset position goes they have the same value of assets. In fact, the one with money in the bank could have substantially less and still not get the pension.

    Again, the first one 'downsizes' to a $1m home and loses the pension - now has $1m in the bank - but their actual asset position has not changed.

    The current rules cause unequal distortions.
    Sundays
    12th Jul 2019
    11:02am
    KeWi, where do you draw the line. The percentages for pensioners living in $2M homes are not that high (around 6% last census). Would you make the same argument if someone’s home was worth $450K thereby forcing them to be renters. There would be no incentive to work and buy your own home. Also, the 70 year old with no home and $2m in the bank has choices. No need to force other people from their homes
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    2:02pm
    The difference is simple - one asset returns cash - the other does not.

    That sticks out like the proverbial manscaped mentioned yesterday in women's turn-ons...
    Triss
    12th Jul 2019
    3:59pm
    Where do all these ‘parroted facts’ come from? Where is your proof, KeWi, of all these pensioners living in $2 million dollar mansions? There might be a few but as a percentage of all pensioners it will probably be less than ten per cent.
    Golden Oldie
    12th Jul 2019
    5:08pm
    Kiwi, where do you draw the line. Valuation of home is the house, and the land it sits on, and its location. No-one has any control on how much the land and location increases in value of where the house is. Country areas are swallowed up within big cities with the urban sprawl. The government decides what land is available for building, and if not enough land is made available, then the price will go up. Most time the houses for sale for $1m + are sold and demolished, making room for a new house, this being the case, the house should be valued at -$0 as it has demolishing costs. A home is not a financial asset, it has numerous costs that don't affect renters, and does not supply an income. House value is already provided in the asset test. Also, a homeowner, with no income, cannot survive. Also very hard to sell a bedroom, kitchen or bathroom on its own. Homeowners have scrimped for years to get a deposit, and pay off a mortgage, doing without a lot of luxuries, just to get some benefit in later life, like not having to move whenever the landlord sells the house they are living in, or if wanting to increase the rent. Also, they have worked for most of their lives, paying taxes, including the 7.5% extra since about 1946 which was to go for an aged pension for all, and which has now been stolen by governments, transferred to general revenue, and spent on paying unfunded pension payments to government employees, when they wanted to have smaller government (and make redundant a lot of government employees).
    Discontented
    12th Jul 2019
    8:20pm
    Nicely put Golden Oldie
    Discontented
    12th Jul 2019
    8:20pm
    Nicely put Golden Oldie
    Rae
    13th Jul 2019
    7:53am
    You don't need taxes to fund government spending in fiat economies like we have after 1970. You just need to control inflation. As we have no inflation at present there is no issue with funding pensions.
    MICK
    12th Jul 2019
    10:53am
    Have listened to Richardson for a long time. He's mostly a rich man's economist and this demand about the family home is straight from the top end of town and the current government because those demanding this bad bad policy ALL have their private wealth and have no need of a pension. Why not then attack those who need a fair go?
    For the record Australia has one of the worst pension models in the entire western world. Our right wing governments would cancel ALL pensions if they could and this is the next step along that continuum.
    Sundays
    12th Jul 2019
    11:06am
    I agree Mick, and it’s becoming boring. The softening up process will take years before any Government will go down this path however.
    Rosret
    12th Jul 2019
    11:15am
    They want the oldies out of the centre of town so the developers can build more shoe boxes for our worker drones.
    Let them wait their turn and in return we might save something for our children's children.
    Discontented
    12th Jul 2019
    12:13pm
    My first thought was the same as yours Mick, wonder what this bloke Richardsons situation was? Not having to rely on the pension I bet.
    Karl Marx
    12th Jul 2019
    12:17pm
    Yes MICK, just more pensioner bashing from the top end of town
    MICK
    12th Jul 2019
    12:54pm
    They're trying to soften us all up and then strike. The trouble is these 'rumours' have been appearing at regular intervals and we are at the start of a new government cycle. Now is the right time.
    Personally we cannot access a pension and can survive, albeit frugally, on the income we generate. Others are not so fortunate. Sadly SOMEBODY voted this lot in. Oh yes.....we have to keep some pin money with our franking credits? Sad as the final price will be significant. The game is on.
    thommo
    12th Jul 2019
    1:41pm
    Agree with you Mick...Richardson is just another LNP stooge..
    Anonymous
    14th Jul 2019
    1:52pm
    dont know why people are getting all hot and bothered on here...it is NOT going to happen in our lifetime anyway as I hear it
    Young
    12th Jul 2019
    10:57am
    Your home should definitely be counted as an asset.
    Why should Toorak millionaire homes worth millions and millions allow the owner to get a pension.
    Rosret
    12th Jul 2019
    11:12am
    Except the average Sydney dwelling is worth $1m. To throw someone out of their home because the city has grown around them is very cruel.
    Old people committed suicide and suffered huge stress the last time this policy was introduced. It was terrible.
    I think what needs to be addressed is people spending all their superannuation on a huge house and then claiming the pension. However I have the feeling there are already regulations in place regarding this strategy.
    Paddington
    12th Jul 2019
    11:26am
    How many of those are there? Most have a modest home and it is all they have.
    Adi
    12th Jul 2019
    11:44am
    Because they've paid their taxes part of which was to provide a pension.
    Discontented
    12th Jul 2019
    12:14pm
    Too true Rosret.
    MICK
    12th Jul 2019
    12:57pm
    The real issue here is the assets test which this government lowered to an unreasonable level to force retirees into consuming their income producing assets. Now they want to bring the family home in to kick even more off. Show me where in the world this happens other than in our country.
    As Richardson said its not as though the pension is generous. He at the very least acknowledged that fact as he tried to sell his poison.
    Anonymous
    12th Jul 2019
    3:23pm
    Well Mick - a lot of people have a high exit tax in form of death or inheritance duties which amount to the same thing: just the concerned person does no longer see the rip-off.
    Rae
    12th Jul 2019
    4:17pm
    Equally why should someone who squandered every cent get a pension while a saver misses out? Give a universal pension and tax all income properly like the rest of the world does would be equitable.
    Triss
    12th Jul 2019
    5:27pm
    Yes, Rae, pity the pollies don’t use your logic.
    Rosret
    12th Jul 2019
    11:05am
    Here we go again. Just give every Australian tax payer or carer the pension at age 65 and stop the tests etc and none of this will be a problem.
    It does annoy me that people in $2m homes get a pension against someone who has made sure they live modestly and do not qualify for any benefits whatsoever. At minimum I would like the payment relief the pensioner gets on rates/rego etc.
    Rae
    12th Jul 2019
    4:20pm
    Exactly so Rosret.

    I fail to see why a non concessional amount in an income stream of 48% is now deemed only 10%. What sort of lying sort was that little scam the LNP and Greens dreamed up to refuse relief to rates/regos/ etc for self funded superannuates locked into income streams.
    Crowcrag
    12th Jul 2019
    4:43pm
    Everyone seems to resort to extremes when justifying an opinion. $2 million ? How many are in that position, and drawing the pension? Not enough, and I presume here, to affect the govt. coffers. There will always be exceptions and ‘what ifs’. Leave the rest of us, the ordinaries of the world, alone.
    Tez R
    12th Jul 2019
    11:05am
    Include the family home in the assets test by all means. To offset this the interest on the first family home should be made tax deductible each year as we lodge our tax returns. As this is potentially going to mean a savings to Government in the long run the sooner this is implemented -subject to it applying to those who receive a deduction only- the better off we will be as a country
    Rosret
    12th Jul 2019
    11:18am
    ?
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    2:06pm
    Don't forget indexed tax deduction going back many years for those who do own homes... can't cut them out... be a nice hefty sum, same as what I'd get for time off to be a SAHD - one year at the income I was on then indexed would be around $250k now **holds hand out* ....
    Rae
    12th Jul 2019
    4:24pm
    Yes TEZ. All the interest and ongonig costs are deductible in countries that have houses in tax treatments after retirement or have death duties.

    The depreciated house would be worth very little over tome anyway if inflation was counted and costs of holding and buying subtracted Of course Mt Richardson hasn't pointed out the long term returns of property after all that is less than 2%.

    Perhaps he should tell it truthfully so people can really see the excessive costs of owning homes compared to sharemarket returns.
    Alan
    12th Jul 2019
    11:20am
    A house is a major asset and should be included in the means test so that people are discouraged from being asset rich and cash flow poor and thus qualify for a pension. There needs to be a reasonable allowance in the assets before qualifying for a pension.

    I live in a comfortable house and do not receive any pension. According to some people I should rearrange my assets, sell my existing house and buy a McMansion and thus qualify for the pension. I find the attitude that I paid my taxes therefore I am entitled to a pension, even though I live in an expensive house, ethically objectionable.

    If we are not going to consider the house as an asset then maybe we should have the pension as an interest free loan against the value of the house and when the occupants die the value of pension paid should be the first claim on the value of the house when it is sold or passed to children
    .
    Rae
    12th Jul 2019
    4:27pm
    What about people who choose to live in unaffordable areas and rent. Maybe adding up all gross earnings over a lifetime and using that as a base might be fairer.

    Just give everyone a pension and sort the taxes out. All income should be taxed fairly.
    Anonymous
    14th Jul 2019
    9:32am
    as someone in a similar position Alan I totally agree...why should children inherit a home tax free courtesy of the taxayers

    12th Jul 2019
    11:20am
    What about the politicians homes and other assets?

    Please check out the ethnic background of our current treasurer!

    If they continue making it difficult for Australian pensioners there will be an exodus of Australians from this country ! Mark my words !
    jackie
    12th Jul 2019
    6:13pm
    HKW, I don't think there will be an exodus but a flood of more grateful immigrants from overpopulated countries.

    People pay big money to be able to stay in Australia. The immigration industry is big business.
    Anonymous
    14th Jul 2019
    9:35am
    as politicians do not get an aged pension I do not see what that has to do with the subject.
    as for an exodus of Aussies I doubt it very much...where would they go...apart from NZ ??where many are coming this way because of the cost of living
    AutumnOz
    12th Jul 2019
    11:21am
    The family home is only an asset once it is sold. Previous to selling it does not bring in an income and any rise in the values of homes do not produce an income.
    The Australian government is unfortunately unable to understand that we cannot break a piece off our home to feed ourselves, and if it was possible we could not digest the piece broken off.
    Personally I am sick of being threatened by politicians who seem to be incapable of understanding simple maths.
    Discontented
    12th Jul 2019
    12:21pm
    I feel that I am under siege as a SFR and own my house, WTF going on,thought I was doing the right thing and now everybody is after me.
    maelcolium
    12th Jul 2019
    11:30am
    What about other assets that are included in the test which reduce the pension? Essential items such as the family car, household goods, hobby stamp collections, works of art that may be part of the family culture for years and such that the rules say must be counted as assets ………….. why?

    These items, including the family home, do not produce income, so why are they included? I can hear the chirpers already complaining about people living in empty mansions or driving Mercedes or having antique furniture, but really? It's an easy check to see if people have knowingly done this, but most are simply victims of increases in capital values, which have nothing to do with their attempting to cheat the system.

    Very few countries apply these draconian rules to access what is a right in modern society, so why do our pensioners suck it up? I suggest organisations like COTA and ACOSS start representing pensioners properly by using their lobbying power to put the view of pensioners front and centre of the politicians thought processes ………. and warn them in no uncertain terms they will pay at the ballot box.

    Retirees have enormous power, but are not sufficiently organised to advocate against these unfair rules. And enough of the nonsense about Government not being able to afford to treat pensioners fairly. At the drop of a hat they will find money to wage wars in distant countries, so no one should be in any doubt that Governments can fund fair and equitable social services. They are just practicing a nasty ideology using fake excuses. Teach them a lesson and vote the bastards out ……… oh wait, we had that chance, but fudged it. Sigh.
    Tricky
    12th Jul 2019
    11:41am
    This is BS about the house being included in assists, try and down size the cost is horrendous. Then there is the stress of changing locations, changing medical practitioners, besides net work of family and friends. This is crap suggested by people that are not effected. Plots and Prayers.
    Adi
    12th Jul 2019
    11:41am
    The family is just that - a FAMILY HOME - not just a house but a home for all the family - where they grew up , where they renovated, had christmas, birthdays, celebrated births,deaths. It is their LIFE. Not to be forced to leave - and then what ? Sell? Rent a place - get the pension ???!! What a STUPID idea with no thought given to the consequences or the importance of family life. Owning or paying off a home is difficult - rates, water, maintenance - not much worse than rent after spending 50 years paying it off and keeping it OK. A better idea would be to scrap ALL tests income and asset - if a person has paid taxes they are ENTITLED to a pension regardless of income or asset - a fund as part of tax was made for that a long time ago. Think of the billions in administration that would save. Think again idiots.
    LiveItUp
    12th Jul 2019
    4:21pm
    A house is a house not memories at all.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    10:41pm
    A house owned for ages is a HOME... leave it alone...
    Tricky
    12th Jul 2019
    11:47am
    Now we get penalised for scrimping and saving to buy a house.
    john
    12th Jul 2019
    12:04pm
    I'D LIKE TO TELL THE ECONOMIST WHO WANTS TO INCLUDE THE FAMILY HOME IN ASSETS TESTS, THE WAY THINGS ARE NOW, THAT IF I SEE HIM/HER, I'LL BREAK HIS/HER NOSE WITH MY FIST OR ANYTHING i CAN FIND TO HIT HIM /HER I DON'T CARE WHAT WITH. THEY ARE PAPER PENCIL PUSHING FIGURE PEOPLE, WHO KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING REAL, THEY ARE ABOUT AS IMPORTANT AS STATISTIC GATHERER FOR AFL FOOTY TEAMS, USELESS!
    Now I don't suppose I should say that hey? But I would just feel really good doing it!
    No long term injury just initial shock pain and a little anger , the anger from them coming no where near the fury they have just made build up in me right now. No I am not a wealthy investor by a long shot but I own my home and I 'd like to live a reasonable retirement , so you economists go crawl under a rock, and don't come out.
    john
    12th Jul 2019
    12:07pm
    PS The government that ever brought that in, will find itself not just the opposition, but more than likely, a non existent political party!
    Anonymous
    12th Jul 2019
    3:20pm
    Yep john - as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike, that economist is!!
    Discontented
    21st Jul 2019
    4:33pm
    Feel the same as you John but thought I had better not voice it. Rage that these people have the nerve to say these things.
    Discontented
    21st Jul 2019
    4:33pm
    Feel the same as you John but thought I had better not voice it. Rage that these people have the nerve to say these things.

    12th Jul 2019
    12:07pm
    By all means change the system to the European standard - include the house in the asset base. But to achieve home ownership overseas you can deduct all your interest, rates and repairs to your own home from taxes payed. All your renos are also deductable from your earnings and after paying everything off then it can be an asset to be included in the asset test, and overseas when paying taxes you include it under "property taxes". If you bring in such a system then by all means include the family home in the pension asset test. Other than that you will encourage waste of money. Buy gold, hide it, and collect rent assistance. You have something in old age (a thing they did in the Middle Ages).
    john
    12th Jul 2019
    12:09pm
    But I'm an old fashioned Australian and I don't like it , Cowboy Jim, I just don't like it.
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    4:17pm
    there is no need to deduct outgoings from taxes paid, simple enough just to offset against the capital improved value per the rates certificate.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    10:42pm
    So now a pensioner can eat capital improved value?

    Who'd 've thunk it!
    Karl Marx
    12th Jul 2019
    12:15pm
    More pensioner bashing from someone from the top end of town.
    We never hear the top end of town criticising politicians asset free pensions, perks & everything else they can parasite from the public purse, can't start attacking their mates who make sure they keep getting richer on the back of the poor.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    10:42pm
    BOTR! Ned Kelly had it right!
    Mad as Hell
    12th Jul 2019
    12:17pm
    Maintain the status quo on homes.

    Return the Pensioner Assets Test to pre 2017 level.
    inextratime
    12th Jul 2019
    12:28pm
    You can dress it up anyway you like. An increase value on a property is a capital gain whether it be the family home or a manufacturers factory or office. Why the 'family home' sacred cow ? We all paid taxes all our lives so that's no argument. The truth is that some capital gains on homes are massive. The fact that some people, through many differing circumstances, were not able to take advantage of owning a home and making capital gains are disadvantaged in their older age. It creates a social division between the have's and the have nots through no rational circumstances. If the government had any nouse it would give everyone over 65 the same amount and get rid of the massive beaurocracy created to sort out the very complicated pension system. Trouble with that is the unemployment figures would go through the roof.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    2:11pm
    A family home is not a business asset..... read above - it has never been treated as such for taxation during working life - why should that change in retirement??
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    4:19pm
    Trebor says "A family home is not a business asset." and yet it is accepted as security for business related activities ... go figure.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    10:44pm
    ... not because is has been treated as a business asset, Farside - because it is possible to take it if the business related activities fail...

    If it were treated as a business asset, even when used as collateral for business - all payments and repairs and such would be tax deductions - they are not.

    Thank you for opening up the vultures in government to yet another avenue of attack.... then there are their mates in banking who sneak such things in ...
    Farside
    13th Jul 2019
    12:10am
    Trebor, do you really believe the vultures and bankers are actually taking notice of anything mentioned here?
    inextratime
    12th Jul 2019
    12:28pm
    You can dress it up anyway you like. An increase value on a property is a capital gain whether it be the family home or a manufacturers factory or office. Why the 'family home' sacred cow ? We all paid taxes all our lives so that's no argument. The truth is that some capital gains on homes are massive. The fact that some people, through many differing circumstances, were not able to take advantage of owning a home and making capital gains are disadvantaged in their older age. It creates a social division between the have's and the have nots through no rational circumstances. If the government had any nouse it would give everyone over 65 the same amount and get rid of the massive beaurocracy created to sort out the very complicated pension system. Trouble with that is the unemployment figures would go through the roof.
    Rae
    12th Jul 2019
    4:40pm
    This Richardson is definitely in the haves group. Perhaps a revolution to get rid of them might be the way to shut their greed down.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    10:45pm
    So now a retiree can eat capital gain?

    Who'd 've thunk it!
    inextratime
    13th Jul 2019
    12:42am
    Semantics Trebor. Its an asset that has a resale value. The difference between what was paid and what it is worth is a capital appreciation on that asset. One can borrow against the asset at record low interest rates and there have been some massive appreciations on property. With that money people can buy food to eat... Who'd 've thunk that ? Mostly people who want to find reasons why the family home should not be considered an asset despite a family home contributing absolutely nothing to productivity but creating a big division between the haves and the have nots. Yes it is a very sensitive subject but don't let that get in the way of a illogical argument.
    inextratime
    13th Jul 2019
    12:42am
    Semantics Trebor. Its an asset that has a resale value. The difference between what was paid and what it is worth is a capital appreciation on that asset. One can borrow against the asset at record low interest rates and there have been some massive appreciations on property. With that money people can buy food to eat... Who'd 've thunk that ? Mostly people who want to find reasons why the family home should not be considered an asset despite a family home contributing absolutely nothing to productivity but creating a big division between the haves and the have nots. Yes it is a very sensitive subject but don't let that get in the way of a illogical argument.
    Farside
    13th Jul 2019
    12:01pm
    no need to be concerned that unemployment figures might go through the roof – it's easy enough for the government to persuade a gullible population that higher employment courtesy of increased participation and population growth equates to lower unemployment.
    eileenellen
    12th Jul 2019
    12:33pm
    Lets hope the house never counts as an asset as we we have worked hard to get decent life and the home paid for
    Paddington
    12th Jul 2019
    12:37pm
    A point that seldom gets made is that Australia’s natural resources belong to everyone. So when pensioners are attacked for costing the country money it should be remembered that they are entitled to their share of the natural resources. Also, most have paid a lot of tax during their lifetimes. The family home has always been sacred so to start looking at that will not only hurt pensioners but all who have multiple assets.
    It would get a bit dicey valuing a home because of where it is too because maybe the person or persons do not want to move and the value is not important to the inhabitants because they are there to be near family for help and support. The house could be run down as well.

    12th Jul 2019
    12:50pm
    Again we hear from people who have no input into any decision making that the family home should be included in the assets test for a pension. How many of these people are retired and trying to exist on the age pension? My guess is that none of them are.

    My argument on why the family home should not be included has been constant over the many times this subject is raised and that is that there is no consistency in house values over Australia. Our home is not priced high enough to cause any worries about losing the bit of pension we get but if it was moved a couple of suburbs away, it would fetch triple the current value.

    There are many people living in popular areas who purchased their home when the area was "working class" and was considered to be an outer suburb. Through no effort by these people, they no longer live in an outer suburb and their modest fibro and iron home is worth over $1M. They have lived there and raised a family there so why should some economist who has no idea of anything but statistics suggest that they move out and live in a smaller home in an area that they are unfamiliar with away from lifelong friends.

    It should be pointed out that this subject is raised on a regular basis by this forum and it is about time that we move on. The bureaucrats quite often throw this idea up to the government of the day as a cost cutting measure and on each and every occasion, the government of the day has roundly rejected the suggestion. Bureaucrats do this to show that they are actually doing something and justifying their jobs.
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    4:23pm
    There is little wrong with the idea except the politics and noise from the disgruntled opposing it. At the end of the day it's introduction is inevitable when the millennials take over so no point in trying to turn back the tide.
    Rae
    12th Jul 2019
    4:42pm
    The millennia's are way too busy travelling the world taking selfies to post on instagram t do any sort of taking over.
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    6:38pm
    if that is true then nothing to worry about hey Rae?
    Rae
    12th Jul 2019
    7:32pm
    Exactly so Farside. They seem to be having a pretty good time out there in the world. I doubt they'll be bothered about a few old farts except to whinge about how slow they are at getting out of the way.

    12th Jul 2019
    1:00pm
    "Would you support any move to include the family home in the assets test above a certain value? Do you think such a move is inevitable?"

    yes and yes! there needs to be a cut off point...anything over a certain amount...i.e. $2Millon, should mean that a percentage be paid back to the government on the demise of the owner.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    2:14pm
    Why so? It's the owner's bought and paid for property - I also extend that to such things now included as 'assets', such as a Windbag or a boat etc... private plane...
    Paddington
    12th Jul 2019
    8:05pm
    They did not pay $2m though! It is probably run down due to only having a pension. Imagine the rates for a start. It is not simple.
    We will swap our home for a million in cash (we would make a lot lol) and I guess the people living in a so called $2m may also think that. It is an imagined amount anyway because house prices are falling.
    The land is the valuable part. You have to get a buyer prepared to pay that. Next door just sold well under the asked for price.
    I doubt any government will go there in the foreseeable future.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    10:47pm
    In my sea change retirement home - we'll accept $2m against future rises in value - NOW!

    Either that or they'll carry me out one way or the other - and that in the middle of the war I'll start against them.....
    Not a Bludger
    12th Jul 2019
    1:11pm
    OMG - another from the so-called dismal science (except that there is little scientific in economics) spruiking on behalf of one of those rent seeking consulting outfits who pontificate on all manner of non issues, usually for pots of my taxpayers’ coin.

    Just use your common sense - say No - and reject all such consultants “recommendations”.
    thommo
    12th Jul 2019
    1:39pm
    This Richardson bloke is just a LNP stooge. He's got dollar signs in his eyes..Anyone who advocates including the family home in the assets test is looking for trouble..
    The age pension should be enhanced, not shrunk.
    Better still, bring in a universal pension...and don't let any government say it is too costly, because it's not..in fact it will be neutral cost effective and more equitable...
    But why doesn't Richardson and his cronies suggest politicians must wait till 67 before they can access their parliamentary pensions..Now that would not gain any traction at all would it..What a bunch of hypocrites...
    The australian voter will rue the day they re elected this Morrison Government.
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    1:44pm
    Richardson was not wrong when he said "The politics are horrendous, but it [including the family home in the assets test] is still the right thing to do.".

    It is a nonsense that someone that chose to rent during her working life, by choice, and then lived off investments on retirement should then be assessed on those assets while someone who bought or inherited a house is exempted.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    2:16pm
    As above - one produces income - the other does not...

    NO non-income producing asset should be included until sold.....

    A windbag might be 'valued' at $150k - but sell for $75k in the real world.... hardly fair is it?
    Captain
    12th Jul 2019
    3:26pm
    Trebor, same old argument:

    Who values the home (asset?)
    What is cut-off point?
    How often is it re-evaluated?
    Who are these idiots that suggest such rubbish?
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    4:26pm
    It is irrelevant if one chooses to spend his or her hard earned on income or non-income producing assets. Such distinctions simply encourage distortions in the market.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    10:51pm
    INCOME garnered is totally different from assets owned.... one brings in cash - the other sucks up cash like a vacuum cleaner...

    A Windbag or a boat cost money - it is not for nothing that a boat is called a hole in in the water into which you throw hundred dollar bills.... and a Windbag is a huge outlay in cash that costs to maintain and run and even to sell....

    Neither brings in the ready....

    But when I see those whales out there - show me that horizon, so I can take the grand-kids whale watching...
    Farside
    13th Jul 2019
    12:11am
    taking the grand-kids whale watching sounds like a splendid idea
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    2:00pm
    Abolish the assets and income test and tax all income and benefits over and above....
    Captain
    12th Jul 2019
    3:33pm
    Trebor,

    We don't receive a pension and we would be happy with your suggestion.

    I discussed this with our local pollie (Liberal) during the last election and was met with a look of disbelief. The Labor candidate was lost for words when I mentioned it to her.
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    4:30pm
    Trebor's suggestions would be the cleanest and most easily implemented solution to our broken social security system. It provides the means to easily provide welfare and support to those who need it. Valuations can come from rates notices, insurance certificates etc. Bring it on.
    Captain
    12th Jul 2019
    6:25pm
    Farside,

    With Trebor's suggestion there would be no Income or Asset Test, therefore no need for a valuation on the property, just a pension for all retirees.
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    6:43pm
    Fair point Captain but government social security not necessarily limited to pensioners e.g. universal basic wage. Trebor said "tax all income and benefits over and above" - does income include deeming? And don't forget those franked dividend credits.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    10:56pm
    Well, Skipper - you did say 'her'... not notoriously good with figures those Labor chicks.... and I'm no chauvinist - ask my coffle of female slaves .... the ones I haven't put to market yet ....

    Yes - income over and above would be calculated for tax, along with fringe benefits and gifting (such as Harry Fudger's free plane rides etc in the Fudger Chocolate Factory company plane).... a lazy mill or so to throw at the ponies on Saturday etc....

    You use the cash - thanks for the tax, bucko...

    My view is that franking, since it already must be included as part of the recipient's gross income for taxation purposes, should simply be abolished. It would make no difference at all if there is no cheating going on, and company taxes are not shareholder's personal income tax.

    The reality is that someone is not paying tax on franked dividend income..... either the shareholder or the company....
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    10:58pm
    What discernible difference could there be if the company did not pay up to 30% on shareholder's behalf that is part of shareholder's gross income, but instead paid the full dividend without franking - unless someone is getting a free ride?

    The dollar amount of dividend should be exactly the same - so where is the money going?
    Tarzan
    12th Jul 2019
    2:23pm
    I have an idea that could be used in a sensible discussion.
    The retiree in the $2 mil mansion who is cash poor can receive a lesser pension and make up the difference with a reverse mortgage, sell a painting or one of his/ her Mercedes, A persons home is an asset, this is proven when it is sold, you can't have it both ways, just create a new pension for some of our luckier and more affluent retirees
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:00pm
    ONLY when it is sold ... ONLY when it is sold - and then the Good Colonel C'Link reduces pension anyway due to excess cash and deeming...

    The government cannot have it both ways........
    neil
    12th Jul 2019
    2:45pm
    Of course it should, afterall any asset that can provide an income steam, including super, should be taxed to the appropriate level.
    Neil.
    Heart of the Sunrise
    12th Jul 2019
    2:50pm
    Chris Richardson, your suggestions are pure evil. May you end up sick and broke.
    Then you will know what it is like to be poor.
    johna53
    12th Jul 2019
    2:51pm
    My two bobs worth. This guy Richardson is usually quite smart so maybe I’ve just read a part of his statement. He’s also well paid and not likely to retire on the pension so maybe he doesn’t fully understand what he’s talking about. Pensioners have worked to get the best they can for them and their families for later life. They want to delay moving into care as long as possible. They have comfort, convenience and memories in the home they worked hard to pay for. When the kids move out they usually have a house too big so they can downsize or stay. If they downsize there may be change for assets, or not. But their home is not something they can go back 20 years and change their plans on retirement for. So Richardson - stick it!
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:00pm
    Smart does not equal intelligent - more like gutter rat cunning ....
    Susanb
    12th Jul 2019
    3:14pm
    Yes it should be included. It’s outrageous to think that you could have a home worth 3million (and more) and still be claiming a government pension. Downsize, put the leftover money in super, and live off the income. Forget the pension.
    LiveItUp
    12th Jul 2019
    4:17pm
    Some people now buy the most expensive house they can and just leave enough for the full age pension.
    Anonymous
    12th Jul 2019
    5:51pm
    ........and the kids who will inherit will help pay the high rates in the knowledge that the property is in all probably going to increase much quicker than money in the bank. it is not fair at all to those who have cash on term deposit at a very low rate...
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:02pm
    Personal choices in where you put income prior to retirement are your own business....

    List these people on pension living in a $3m home.... all nine or ten of them....
    Poppa
    12th Jul 2019
    3:14pm
    No home should be but it possibly will happen at some stage. Once the deeming rate comes down Ha! Ha!
    BillF2
    12th Jul 2019
    3:16pm
    The question that has to be asked whenever controversial suggestions like this are made, is "who benefits?" Answer that and you begin to see why they are made. The statement 'you have some people who have incredibly valuable homes and yet qualify for the pension' is made without any supporting facts and figures and intended to stoke the fires of jealousy and righteous indignation. And it works. Add to this the extra amount that pensioners will theoretically cost the government, and it becomes obvious that the suggestion is just another cash grab and a step toward total control of the population. Nice one, Chris!
    LiveItUp
    12th Jul 2019
    4:15pm
    So someone with a house worth $10 million should get the full pension? Great way for a family to have a nice tax free asset accumulating their wealth.
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    4:46pm
    Increase property taxes and behavioural economics will drive homeowners to decide what is important for them.
    Anonymous
    12th Jul 2019
    5:53pm
    anyone with an ounce of "fair play" can see it is totally wrong that someone living in a ten million dollar property gets the pension when someone with $10 million in cash does not.
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    6:46pm
    I agree with ardnher however it seems there is a large enough cohort without an ounce of "fair play", especially if it is a property they are reluctant to sell.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:03pm
    How many pensioners live in a $10m home?

    The excessive 'superannuation' of some who pay no tax is more of an issue at that level of cash flooding around ...
    Rae
    13th Jul 2019
    8:05am
    Yes TREBOR that is the elephant that Howard let loose. There is absolutely no need to have no tax on superannuation pensions or returns or tax concessions either. Tax concessions for sensible saving is insane.

    Treat people the same. We have enormous discrimination going on based purely on lifestyle choices and sheer luck or disadvantages.

    A well planned land tax would stop the buying of excessively priced homes instead of saving for income generation.

    It's not cricket.
    Farside
    13th Jul 2019
    12:10pm
    Rae nails it, and the economists will concur that a "well planned land tax would stop the buying of excessively priced homes instead of saving for income generation". Further it would encourage efficient use of land and drive businesses to look more closely at relocating operations to reduce their costs. In doing so this could encourage decentralisation, which would be a bonus for the regions. A virtuous cycle for all but the disgruntled who would no doubt find a myriad of reasons to object to the land taxes.

    She observes it's not cricket ... true, and we all know how good a cricketer was tragic fan John Howard.
    DavoWA
    12th Jul 2019
    3:28pm
    Given the response of the electorate to Bill Shorten's Negative Gearing and Imputation Credits policies at the last election, it would be a very brave political party that went to an election with a policy to include the family home in the Assets Test. In the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: it would be a "courageous decision".
    LiveItUp
    12th Jul 2019
    4:13pm
    I certainly would vote for the party that does.
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    4:50pm
    Sir Humphrey would have been the first to suggest doing it from opposition was indeed courageous, perhaps even foolish, but doing it from government as part of an overall reform of the tax and social security acts far less so. People will look at how they end up after the music stops and if little worse off may well accept it before the problem gets worse. Hawke did something similar with the Accord when people said it was impossible to bring all the opposing forces together.
    Rae
    13th Jul 2019
    8:13am
    Yes Liveitup then we could all not bother about owning homes, let the professional landlords loose and just have the best time possible then let the taxpayers pick up the tab at the end. Some plan hey!

    If we all sold out together boy could we party for a long time all over the world. It would be fantastic. NOT!

    A fiat economy is not a home budget. Not that it seems many Aussies actually worry about a budget anyway.Apparently 60% just spend everything they earn each pay. It burns holes in the wallet otherwise. That's why Keating forced the 9% saving regime on workers.

    Government can fund what it likes as long as inflation is controlled. The CPI has shown deflation now for too long. Some government spending wouldn't be an issue.

    We have no shortages of goods or food yet to cause inflation.
    Old Fella
    12th Jul 2019
    4:02pm
    My understanding is fewer people are working full time, fewer can afford the cost of a home and technology continues to encourage underemployment and lesser wages/salary to those in work as we progress to the future. So who is going to pay for the allegedly very expensive assets tied up in some homes to allow the Government less contribution to its retired population by way of pension payment? Does the Government intend financial rebate to those selling or buying anew for the sales tax on homes or past expensive interest payments paid by the retired owners now forced to sell? And what infrastructure costs will be born by the Government when downsized/ smaller homes in outlying areas are built to house the evicted from their previous geographic location, hospitals, roads. Utility connection and other community services all cost money or is it the intention that the retired will pay all over again for what they previously had already contributed to . and then and only then will be eligible to claim a retiree pension. I can clearly recognise the discrimination involved in this proposal but fail to see any economic benefit to the population or the Government. The retired homeowners forced to sell will have effectively spent twice their life's earnings and will be looking for Government assistance by way of pension or subsidy for housing costs as they all will no longer be able to be denied pension due to asset values.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:04pm
    True, Old Fella...
    Old Fella
    12th Jul 2019
    4:02pm
    My understanding is fewer people are working full time, fewer can afford the cost of a home and technology continues to encourage underemployment and lesser wages/salary to those in work as we progress to the future. So who is going to pay for the allegedly very expensive assets tied up in some homes to allow the Government less contribution to its retired population by way of pension payment? Does the Government intend financial rebate to those selling or buying anew for the sales tax on homes or past expensive interest payments paid by the retired owners now forced to sell? And what infrastructure costs will be born by the Government when downsized/ smaller homes in outlying areas are built to house the evicted from their previous geographic location, hospitals, roads. Utility connection and other community services all cost money or is it the intention that the retired will pay all over again for what they previously had already contributed to . and then and only then will be eligible to claim a retiree pension. I can clearly recognise the discrimination involved in this proposal but fail to see any economic benefit to the population or the Government. The retired homeowners forced to sell will have effectively spent twice their life's earnings and will be looking for Government assistance by way of pension or subsidy for housing costs as they all will no longer be able to be denied pension due to asset values.
    Rae
    12th Jul 2019
    4:04pm
    Taxes should be much higher for people earning the amaounts Mr Richardson does as well and anyone earning those amounts should not be eligible for tax concessions of any type. There fixed it for you Mr Richardson.
    Rich bastards envious of savers assets is doing my head in.
    LiveItUp
    12th Jul 2019
    4:12pm
    You should pay the same amount of tax in the dollar no mater what you earn.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:05pm
    Spot on, Rae - those who benefit most should pay their way - no questions asked.

    As for bracket creep (that argument), the simple solution is a few more brackets on income... those on the huge can pay much more and still have masses of residual...
    LiveItUp
    12th Jul 2019
    4:11pm
    No asset or income test. If you get the pension it gets all paid back when you die.
    That's fair to everyone.
    Rae
    12th Jul 2019
    4:48pm
    Only if you add up all the gross income earned and have a job guarantee like many countries do. In fact Sydney could do with a good scrub and clean up. It's looking filthy right now. Employ people to do the things needed and have fair taxes then the elderly can be looked after equally well.

    Savers paying while spenders get a free ride isn't fair at all from where I'm sitting.
    Triss
    12th Jul 2019
    5:23pm
    No it isn’t, LiveitUp, because some will still be careful with their pensions whilst others will spend whatever they have and have nothing with which to pay at the end of their lives. Politicians, public servants, etc don’t have to pay their pensions back so to make special rules for one section of the community is discrimination.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:06pm
    You don't pay for a pension in life and then pay it back in death...
    Rae
    13th Jul 2019
    8:23am
    Triss politicians and public servants receive superannuation from their super fund not pensions from social security or treasury. They pay contributions like all other workers do. There is no special government funded pension for them.

    Never believe Murdoch's propaganda. There is a lot of lies told about the public service to aid privatisation of everything.
    geordie
    12th Jul 2019
    4:59pm
    Just have a commie or socialist government. Everything owned by the state or government. Solves all problems right....no. Im a SFR, dont want the damned pension but if I have paid my fair taxes all my working life, saved and gone without to by a pile of bricks (after tax) so that I can be comfortable during my older years and not having to worry about government interference, then get out of my buisness. Just because I have a nice house doesnt mean a thing if I 'qualify' for a pension. I have worked for an average wage all my life, never out of work, and have saved for my retirement which may be in a year or two at 66yrs old. I have paid all my taxes so should get a pension whether I own a mansion or just a dunnie. A respected old boss of mine used to always say, " you only get one bite at the cherry". That is unless you are government. Then they can keep hitting you time and time again. They make the goal posts out of aluminium these days so that its easier to move them.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:07pm
    What's the difference between an entire society owned by a communist elite and one owned by a capitalist elite?

    Thinking caps on, people.... BOTH are anathema to everything that makes us human...
    geordie
    12th Jul 2019
    5:02pm
    When did I get the choice to either pay tax and get a pension or dont pay tax and dont expect a pension?
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:08pm
    When Bob Menzies -that bloody Commo - set up the system to create a common pool that paid out regardless of individual contribution, but instead worked for the common good.
    Triss
    12th Jul 2019
    5:18pm
    Perhaps we are going about it the wrong way. We are in a ‘yes, no’ situation, they say ‘yes’ we say ‘no’. Perhaps we need to stop allowing the government to turn us into nervous wrecks and start a viral tsunami that if everyone else is entitled to pension then so are we and being treated differently violates our human rights.
    etc1
    12th Jul 2019
    5:21pm
    My wife had 2 jobs and I worked 3 jobs to pay off our home when the mortgage home loan rates were18.5 per cent. Our children helped keep the house duties going while we worked up to 16 hrs per day. Of course they deserve to share what ever is left when we die. We both worked for 60 years. Paying excessive penalty taxes for our extra jobs. All retirees worked as hard to own what they have now. We are told that 9b to fund the pension till I think 2030. A drop in the ocean compared to what taxes we've all paid. I could also ask what happened to the Pension fund we all contributed to 40 years or so ago. The Govt scrapped it and spent it. It's time that all Australians, Politicians and workers are paid the same pension and are subject to the same rules. Shame on the Australia Govt for trying to convince the electrate that the OAP is a hand out. While they all collect 10 times the OAP in continued payouts, tax free. While going on to earn 100,s of 1000's in other jobs.
    Triss
    12th Jul 2019
    7:19pm
    Yes, etc1, so did we. We had train ourselves to cope on four hours sleep. After all that my house is mine, I’ve paid for the mortgage and I’m not paying protection money to any political sleazes.
    Anonymous
    12th Jul 2019
    7:48pm
    Times have changed etc1, and the people on New Start all their lives will get the pension and you will miss out - the lazy shall inherit your wealth. That is the future and we should have seen it coming. I did somewhat late but stopped work in my 50s. Did not want to end up with too many assets moaning not getting anything for all the effort. Hey, you younger people think about it! - spend your loot now while the going is good.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:11pm
    Many of us did - and many took a lot of the hard knocks of this current parasitical form of government that has been foisted upon us since the 1980's now... you know ... active discrimination against certain groups, legalised violence against those groups, disempowerment of those groups, industrial relations that enforce brutality and usury by 'management', social conditions that remove from many any genuine opportunity to prosper in society, policies and legislation that do the same....

    No wonder this joint needs a good revolution....
    thommo
    12th Jul 2019
    5:23pm
    Age pensioners are starting to smarten up about this LNP government, and they will get a big shock at the next election....The pensioner voting block will oust them...just wait and see.
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    6:52pm
    offering odds on the pensioner bloc changing its rusted on habits? Don't even need many votes to flip and oust the LNP but my tip is the post boomers are the more likely hope for change.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:12pm
    Only if there is a pensioner party with real balls and real policies.... for all...
    Farside
    13th Jul 2019
    12:16am
    that "for all" part is the kicker Trebor. What odds of a ball toting pensioner party that does not place the interests of pensioners first? The only question is whether their voting preferences will flow the same way they have done historically.
    Kaz
    12th Jul 2019
    5:24pm
    How many times must we say bugger off? We live in it, it took all our lives to pay for it and we can’t realise It’s value unless you want us to rent and get some rental assistance?
    'Chelle03
    12th Jul 2019
    6:45pm
    What happens to people who own their own home but have no other 'income' like super or shares, investments etc when they can't work any more. Why should their home be included as an asset when it costs money to maintain - rates, repairs etc and does not provide any income? The govt gives renters assistance - are they going to give these people rate assistance? I doubt it :(
    Play Fairly
    12th Jul 2019
    6:53pm
    I don't care what Deloitte's economists think.
     
    Let's just be honest and say what this really is.   It is another weasling attempt at reducing pensioner's eligibility to receive the full Aged Pension.

    About time money and morals were separated.  
    Any society that refuses to properly care for the aged,  the infirm, and those who are destitute,  is morally bankrupt.   I suggest economists look somewhere else to save the Australian Government some money.  Instead,  take a look at the amounts paid to Parliamentary members in Remuneration, Travel Allowances,  and as Parliamentary Pensions.

    Crikey,  so someone works all their life paying off a home, raising a family,  and finally reaches the stage in life when age catches up with their body, and there's always someone around suggesting a reduction in Pensioner's entitlements to reduce government expenditure.

    Bad Luck!   Today's Pensioners were yesterday's tax payers.  This being so,  they have contributed much to our country.  Time to leave Aged Pensioners to live out their remaining years without continually worrying "what will come next"  from those who plan and scheme to change the goalposts and  reduce the government's expenditure on Pensions.

    Not good enough.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:14pm
    Several years ago, the figure for full 'employment package' for a politician was around $2.5 MILLION a year.. around 12+ times their nominal salary .... that has surely gone up by now... and that's just the average... the top dogs are on much, much more of a 'package'...

    I'd suggest $3m a year to run a politician is about right at the moment....

    Nice work if you can get it... no wonder the parasites are lining up for a shot at it...
    Rae
    14th Jul 2019
    10:18am
    Perhaps adding up the tax we paid would be a fair way. We paid high taxes and many retired before all the tax cuts after paying for all the builds these governments have flogged off. Where has all that money gone?

    Yes TREBOR it seems immigrating to Australia and running for office in government is a world wide plan regardless of the rules in place to prevent it.

    Then take whatever you can, sell everything else and create poverty for the natives. Talk about colonisation being a bad thing. It sure is.
    Trevine
    12th Jul 2019
    7:04pm
    HANDS OFF OUR HOMES PLEASE. MINISTERS GET HANDSOME PENSIONS FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES WHEN THEY RETIRE AND OUR ONLY HOME IS NOT SAFE FROM THESE JOKERS
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:15pm
    That's why Wee Johnnie Weasel Howard stole the guns from the community..... otherwise it'd be on now...
    Chooky
    12th Jul 2019
    7:29pm
    Yeah sure, go after pensioners who have contributed to age pension coffers via the tax system set up in 1945. But of course keep giving free money to those with a fistful of franking credits to the tune of $6,000,000,000 every year.
    YOU VOTED FOR IT so don’t complain.
    Paddington
    12th Jul 2019
    8:08pm
    I didn’t! Those who did have hurt everyone except the super wealthy!
    Rae
    14th Jul 2019
    10:21am
    It's not free money but tax concessions. Just like the tax cuts passed last week for workers.

    Seems the government doesn't need taxes and that's very true. They don't. They can fund what they like and cut any tax they want.

    Nobody objects to tax cuts and that is exactly what franking does to share returns. It cuts the tax.
    LiveItUp
    16th Jul 2019
    11:51am
    Franking credits are a with holding tax just Like workers pay on their salary. I can hear workers complaining very loudly if they were denied their refunds for over paid tax but franking credits are exactly the same.
    Paddington
    12th Jul 2019
    8:11pm
    Today it was announced the average wealth which assumed the lowest people had something like $40,000?
    What about the people who have nothing. I know heaps of them. It should be zero to ?
    They have no home, no bank funds, little income, no franking credits, no shares, nothing!
    They don’t even make it week to week without help. They have clothes and a few bits of furniture.

    12th Jul 2019
    8:53pm
    The very last thing any government should do is to rely on economists for policy advice. -Particularly economists from the globals, that are always spruiking for work.

    How irresponsible of the ABC and its 'expert' though to be starting more rumours and fostering more doubts in the residential home market.
    Farside
    12th Jul 2019
    10:06pm
    if not professional economists, then who should governments ask for policy advice - realtors? pensioners? the IPA (Institute of Public Affairs)? Fox News? This is a conversation that needs to be had even if it is uncomfortable for vested interests. The residential home market is just a market and does not need propping up by outdated policies.
    Willfish
    12th Jul 2019
    10:32pm
    What a joke. I can have a $2 million (or more) home, and/or throw my excess cash into the home to minimise my savings to qualify for the aged pension, and claim the aged pension without having to consider my most valuable asset, then when I kick the bucket pass the house on to my kids tax free. The sooner the family home is put into the pension mix the better.
    TREBOR
    12th Jul 2019
    11:18pm
    Well - many fat cats get to pass on plenty ..... what's good for the goose is good for the gander....

    The alternative is a society desperately and increasingly riven by social and economic divides.... meaning Western civilisation will have gone backwards about 200+ years or more, and the same cycle will begin again... with the peasants demanding a more equal share of power and all it brings... and revolution and so forth a constant...
    Rae
    14th Jul 2019
    10:27am
    All because returns on capital savings are so risky and so little these days.

    I can't see any possible consequence apart from a full system collapse and correction. When that happens there won't be many $2 million homes or hundreds of thousands in suer funds left. The term deposits will be gone but we will still eat, sleep, clean the house and do whatever.

    The central bank nonsense won't end well. It never has so why expect it will this time around.

    At least the grandkids will have a roof to share if they are lucky and that is a good thing surely. Or would you prefer some foreign landlord to own it all just as they own all the infrastructure sold off over the past 20 years.
    etc1
    13th Jul 2019
    6:26am
    What we must never do is criticise each other for our good or bad misfortunes. That's what these Govt's want. We must not be divided. The OAP should be for all retirees. If some have been able to save a little or a lot should not matter. Some have had sickness in the family, kids that needed care all their lives, so unable to save, let alone buy a house or have a bank balance. The OAP should be paid to everyone. Let's all stick together and let every party know how we feel. Especially at the ballad box. Having you're own home is a great expense. Rates, Insurance and water costs alone are $5000 a year, and I live in a country town on the other side of Ballarat with septic tanks. Govt's are purposely stressing ppl out. Enjoy your retirement. Cheers.
    GrayComputing
    13th Jul 2019
    1:11pm
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    Now is the season for discontent, so do something about it!
    It is time to kill off this insane hugely expensive pensioner whacking bureaucracy.

    It is time for all of us (yes that means you) to rant at our MPs and Senators daily to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules.

    Hiring more Centrelink staff will only increase taxpayer’s costs for processing the creeping insane red tape monster system politicians and well paid bureaucrats have created.

    Help scrap it now. Become a hero.

    Even the UK and much poorer New Zealand has a NO ASSET pension so it is cheaper and user friendly.

    Why worry that few million$ earners get it too. That is peanuts to them, not enough for a good vintage champagne.

    Do retired and retiring people really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    We all (that means you) need to tell our MP and senators every day that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.
    Anonymous
    14th Jul 2019
    3:26pm
    it is not going to happen...waste of time
    Lookfar
    14th Jul 2019
    6:50pm
    A Helpful Comment..

    An old pastor lay dying. He sent a message for
    an Internal Revenue Service agent and his lawyer to come to the hospital.

    When they arrived, they were ushered up to his room.

    As they entered the room, the pastor held out his hands and motioned for them to sit on each side of the bed.

    The pastor grasped their hands, sighed contentedly, smiled and stared at the ceiling.
    For a time, no one said anything.

    Both the IRS agent and lawyer were touched
    and flattered that the old man would ask them to be with him during his final moments.

    They were also puzzled because the pastor had
    Never given any indication that he particularly
    liked either one of them.

    Finally, the lawyer asked, "Pastor, why did you ask the two of us to come here?"

    The old pastor mustered all his strength, and then said weakly, "Jesus died between two thieves, and that's how I'd like to go."
    pjvixen
    14th Jul 2019
    10:46pm
    My parents lived in the one home for 50 years. It was at the end of a dirt road with no public transport but on a suburban river. Within the 60 years in which they lived there paying higher and higher rates as a suburb grew up around them. Still very little transport, tar on the road after 50 years, lots of houses but no shops or any other facilities. In the end the property was worth a lot more than they paid for it and had it been included in the assets test they would have received no pension. However my Dad received some superannuation, which was 50% of his wages at retirement. It stopped when he died and left my Mum pennyless as far as income was concerned. Would you have her in her 80's be forced to sell the only home she had known because her land was work a lot of money. She could not buy groceries with her home and she could not move to a strange area where she knew nobody. It was only a 2 bedroom, blue brick bungalow but was spread across 2 blocks of land. Fortunately she qualified for a pension, but had her home been included in the assets test she would not. This is why the family home should not be included in the asset test
    Farside
    15th Jul 2019
    5:48pm
    and the kids inherited the land ... kept in the family or sold off for profit???
    LiveItUp
    16th Jul 2019
    10:39am
    That's why all OAP received should be paid back when you die.
    Lookfar
    16th Jul 2019
    2:51pm
    pjvixen I agree, - to look at ordinary real estate investors, they are taxed on the money they earn on selling the property they bought for investment, - just normal taxation practice except it doesn't seem to apply to the super rich. 01%, - whatever, it is normally only legal to tax a person for their monetary earnings, and as old folk we are talking about don't want to sell their houses, they do not owe any tax until they do so sell.
    And if they die, their children will have to pay tax on their income, not the dead person, so that is another ballgame altogether.
    There is a principle, or several principles of Law being considered by the Govt. wanting to include the INCREASED supposed value of a house, - eg. do you have to pay, when you bet on a share price increase by buying shares in a company, income tax on the Possible profits of your share purchase? - No that would be ridiculous, the future is unknown, - when you buy a Mars Bar for $1. to entertain a customer, and claim it on your expenses, should the tax dept come back to you because Mars Bars have gone up, or you come back to the tax department likewise? - no, ridiculous! - just shows how the whole economic sphere has lost sight of value as the yardstick, - and wants to, - but that is another issue.
    To my mind the important thing is that the increased value of the house is only truly evident when it is sold, - that is also when the Tax department needs to take it's share, - and the very right time for it so to do, otherwise there should be a death tax.
    I would have no problem with both, after all, most of the wealth in our society is held by a very small number of very rich people, - who mainly live in insane America, and that huge financial situation converts to enormous power, which like all power corrupts, - that corruption should not be carried on to their children just to satisfy the egotism of the dieing, as it is in opposition to Democracy, and we are a Democracy, not a Feudal Society with the corrupt "Lords" having all the power, much as some twisted people seem to want that, - usually for their own benefit.
    I would add, that if the living owners of that property use it's increased value to earn extra money or assets, tax should be paid on that, as it is in a way partly selling the asset. - Just my opinion.
    LiveItUp
    17th Jul 2019
    10:26am
    Definitely no death tax as that only hurts the savers in our society who don't collect the pension. However if you collect the pension it should be paid back from your estate when you die. That's fair to everyone.
    etc1
    16th Jul 2019
    7:42pm
    I found this link and thought I would share it. It's about the pension scheme that the Govt commence in the 1900's. But now call our pension a hand out.
    https://www.cirnow.com.au/more-criminals-in-government/?fbclid=IwAR32sE_6x9_yaxwLP3-ObfShJFlo8kj6uk3OalM5O3BoBo3ttTR06GbZHl0
    LiveItUp
    17th Jul 2019
    10:27am
    That was scrapped many moons ago and is therefore not relevant.
    Lookfar
    17th Jul 2019
    10:55am
    Good link to share etc1, we had a member in a very recent discussion on YLC arguing that he was bored 'because the Govt discontinued that scheme many years ago,' - but he was incorrect, it was illegally re-named but the amount continued to be deducted and still is to this very day.
    As I understand it the Constitution required a referendum to change that legislation, but of course the Govt of the day knew they would lose a referendum that allowed them to spend all our Pension money on their pet schemes, thus allowing corruption to enter Australian Parliament.
    Perhaps one day a Constitutional Lawyer will have someone with patience and very deep pockets pay him to take the Govt to court as with section 44, as really the legals, though complicated, are probably winnable.
    As to that poster, he is advancing the Neo-Liberalism argument that there should be no Welfare, no Medicare, no Government, really, just a dog eat dog world with the Super rich at the top, locked into their madness of greed as the world's climate draws the curtain over the human race.
    Well, Boredom is in the mind of the beholder, and cheap, just ask many teenagers :) - actually much more true than the statement Beauty is in the mind of the beholder as there are Beautiful things that draw near to Objective, - how many people do you know who hate a glorious Sunset?
    etc1
    17th Jul 2019
    12:48pm
    That's what I thought LiveItUp. But I have been emailed by many saying that the Pension Scheme title was dropped but levy continued.
    Lookfar
    17th Jul 2019
    1:38pm
    Hi etc1, I have acceess to the constitution, - the original, can email it to you if you want.
    Liveitup seems to have different masters to us ordinary folk, he seems to want to preserve the fortunes of the Super rich .01% - the new and totally immoral would be (are almost already) World Government of the super rich, - I guess liveitup has no children..


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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