6th Mar 2019
Age Pension Poll: Should the Age Pension be an election issue?
Age Pension Poll: Should the Age Pension be an election issue?

The Age Pension will increase – somewhat – and although many pensioners would have hoped for more, at least it was an increase.

But, instead of these minor twice-yearly increases, is it time the base rate – which hasn't budged since 2008 – received a healthy bump? Surely, an Age Pension base rate would do more towards solving pension poverty than an extra $9.20 per fortnight ...

Should this become an election issue? Will the 20 March increase be enough to even make a difference? 

Why not take part our Age Pension Poll and let us know?

Loading...

Are the nominal increases in the Age Pension insulting to struggling retirees? We welcome your opinions in the comments section below.

Age Pension rules are complex – let us simplify them for you. The PensionChecker™ tool has all the information you need.





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Chris B T
    6th Mar 2019
    3:17pm
    OAP should be % of Federal Politicians Base Rate.
    When they get a Pay Rise So Do OAP.
    Until you have set perimeters this will be a ongoing Problem, so cut THE "BS" and fix it with one stroke/legislation. This is a Merry Go Around, who wants the Pensioner Vote at the next election.
    Farside
    6th Mar 2019
    5:00pm
    Pensioners are no more likely to change the vote at the next election than they have been in the past, for some reason known only to themselves the majority feel the need to vote LNP. They need to vote as a bloc in marginal electorates if they wish to influence policy and I don't see this happening any time soon.
    Chris B T
    6th Mar 2019
    8:20pm
    Pensioners Don't live in one electorate.
    Farside
    6th Mar 2019
    8:33pm
    @Chris nobody suggested pensioners live in one electorate; are you stating the obvious?
    Mez
    8th Mar 2019
    8:32am
    TOTALLY AGREE!
    The paperwork behind each measly increase would cost more than our increases!

    6th Mar 2019
    3:37pm
    Yes, give the greedy leaners more, while they cheer the theft from the battling self-funded.
    Old Geezer
    6th Mar 2019
    5:34pm
    But they certainly do 't deserve it at all.
    eggles01
    6th Mar 2019
    5:44pm
    I am now 76yrs when I started work in 1958 there was no such thing like superannuation,to make it worse in my case I was pensioned of onto a disability pension in 1991at the age of 49,I was classified as "unemployable" due to my injuries whilst I was working,wait for it,it was the findings of the visiting Government doctor that placed me the d/pension,I had the injuries in 1982,so I ask you how well you would cope under those circumstances
    Sundays
    6th Mar 2019
    5:47pm
    Is that you OGR, changed your name but not the record! If it all goes pear shaped and you have to,go on the pension, I hope you and your mates, OG, Big Al, Lothario et al are treated with more respect
    musicveg
    6th Mar 2019
    6:00pm
    Yes Sundays, OGR has changed his name to OAW, and his attitude, used to make good comments but has been bitter since the franking credits announcements. Bring back the old OGR.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    6:12pm
    OG, Big All and Lothario are NOT my mates, Sundays. I don't like people with their attitude towards welfare recipients. I have great respect for those who genuinely need a pension and appreciate it. But I think those who cheer Labor's attack on people who DON'T take from the public purse to fund their retirement are greedy, selfish and utterly despicable, and it speaks volumes about their lack of character, inability to treat others with respect, and lack of appreciation for the sacrifices made by the people whose hard work enables our government to pay pensions.

    I was a welfare recipient for many years, by genuine necessity. I am deeply grateful for that support. I've worked hard to repay it and contribute, and hopefully avoid needing welfare again. But I have relatives who were pensioners for their entire retirement - in one case her entire life. They were good people. One dear lady used to go to the bank every fortnight and thank the tellers for paying taxes. When she went shopping, she thanked the store staff for paying taxes. She used to say she was incredibly fortunate to have a pension to live on, and deeply grateful. She would never have endorsed cruelty and unfairness to battlers who have worked hard to pay their own way, but struggle with low investment returns.

    It's the greedy, selfish leaners I treat with contempt - though far less contempt than they deserve. Decent people would NEVER support Labor's unfairness and cruelty. Empathy costs nothing.

    Human decency is in short supply among the selfish, greedy leaners on this site and others. It's a hideous indictment of a rotten society that people who rely on the public purse seek to see people who save the nation tens of thousands annually persecuted. And it's a hideous indictment of intelligence and integrity that so many quote Labor propaganda and lies in a pathetic attempt to excuse their selfishness.

    As for the SFRs like you who endorse hurting those who are not as well off - snobbery and assumed superiority are as contemptible as greed. But the issue shouldn't be about who wins and who loses or who can dodge the bullet. It SHOULD be about what's good for the nation. And making pensioners better off than those who saved to stand on their own two feet is a recipe for economic and social disaster.

    I have options. I can trade up to a more lavish house, or have a nice spend-up on a lot of needed home improvements. By doing so, I would gain about $20K a year. Only an idiot endorses a system that pays someone $20K a year from the taxpayer purse to squander a few hundred thousand. And only a liar then claims that doing so benefites the budget. Some of us have the integrity to stand up against such dishonesty and wrong, but others sadly just don't give a damn for our children's future.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    6:12pm
    OG, Big All and Lothario are NOT my mates, Sundays. I don't like people with their attitude towards welfare recipients. I have great respect for those who genuinely need a pension and appreciate it. But I think those who cheer Labor's attack on people who DON'T take from the public purse to fund their retirement are greedy, selfish and utterly despicable, and it speaks volumes about their lack of character, inability to treat others with respect, and lack of appreciation for the sacrifices made by the people whose hard work enables our government to pay pensions.

    I was a welfare recipient for many years, by genuine necessity. I am deeply grateful for that support. I've worked hard to repay it and contribute, and hopefully avoid needing welfare again. But I have relatives who were pensioners for their entire retirement - in one case her entire life. They were good people. One dear lady used to go to the bank every fortnight and thank the tellers for paying taxes. When she went shopping, she thanked the store staff for paying taxes. She used to say she was incredibly fortunate to have a pension to live on, and deeply grateful. She would never have endorsed cruelty and unfairness to battlers who have worked hard to pay their own way, but struggle with low investment returns.

    It's the greedy, selfish leaners I treat with contempt - though far less contempt than they deserve. Decent people would NEVER support Labor's unfairness and cruelty. Empathy costs nothing.

    Human decency is in short supply among the selfish, greedy leaners on this site and others. It's a hideous indictment of a rotten society that people who rely on the public purse seek to see people who save the nation tens of thousands annually persecuted. And it's a hideous indictment of intelligence and integrity that so many quote Labor propaganda and lies in a pathetic attempt to excuse their selfishness.

    As for the SFRs like you who endorse hurting those who are not as well off - snobbery and assumed superiority are as contemptible as greed. But the issue shouldn't be about who wins and who loses or who can dodge the bullet. It SHOULD be about what's good for the nation. And making pensioners better off than those who saved to stand on their own two feet is a recipe for economic and social disaster.

    I have options. I can trade up to a more lavish house, or have a nice spend-up on a lot of needed home improvements. By doing so, I would gain about $20K a year. Only an idiot endorses a system that pays someone $20K a year from the taxpayer purse to squander a few hundred thousand. And only a liar then claims that doing so benefites the budget. Some of us have the integrity to stand up against such dishonesty and wrong, but others sadly just don't give a damn for our children's future.
    Paddington
    6th Mar 2019
    7:32pm
    Leaners is a derogatory term and should not be used.
    Where are all these pensioners with huge amounts of money under the bed and taking cruises and overseas trips?
    There may be a few who have wrought the system but it would not be easy to do.
    Some pensioners may have some cash but many do not.
    I have a brother and a cousin with their partners rent and have very little.
    No one is worse off than the renting pensioners. To own your own home is such a comfort and it does not have to be lavish, just a roof over your head and a place you know is yours to keep and do with what you like without inspections and rules.
    Sundays
    6th Mar 2019
    7:55pm
    Yes Paddington I agree renting pensioners do it tough. However, pensioners aren’t a homogenous group. There are some part pensioners who have a good life, but the point is that they are partly funding their own retirement not rorting the system. The minimum you can get is $38 a fortnight plus a concession card. It hardly makes them dependent on the public purse. I mix with a lot of different people and I don’t know anyone who lives and maintains a mansion and also gets the full OAP although I did know a taxi driver who gave everything away to his kids before retirement, but he would have qualified anyway.
    Sundays
    6th Mar 2019
    8:12pm
    I also abhor the Term Leaners. The pension is a right paid for by taxpayers past, present and future to anyone who qualifies. It is not Newstart where you are rightly expected to look for work.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    8:41pm
    According to you socialists, the pension is a right paid for by taxpayers, but if you paid tax for a lifetime, raised kids who pay tax, continue to pay indirect tax, and save the nation a fortune by NOT claiming a pension, the only rights you have are to be robbed, screwed, and abused.

    I don't call pensioners leaners unless they are, but the vast majority ARE leaners - manipulators who claim a pension they don't need because idiot socialists bash people who don't put their hands out for handouts and make life miserable for them. And nasty pensioners cheer that abuse and scream that they have superior entitlement.

    We have a nation of leaners, and anyone who doesn't recognize that is living in la la land. As for renting pensioners - most of them deserve their lot. Buying a house at 18% interest was damned hard. Owning a house is bloody expensive. 90% of the population had as much opportunity as I did to own a home. They took holidays and nights at the club while I worked overtime and weekends and every day I had off from paid employment. Good luck to them. They made a choice. But they made their bed and they should lie in it. It's not up to the rest of us to fund the lifestyle they chose while we are deprived of any reward for our choices. The selfishness has gone way too far.

    I have great sympathy for the disadvantaged, but it's time this country told people to help themselves and stop expecting those who have helped themselves to sacrifice everything to fund handouts to those who didn't. The genuinely disadvantaged are few and far between. If we stopped rewarding manipulators and bludgers, there would be ample to look after the genuinely needy. The first thing this nation needs to focus on is ensuring people enjoy the rewards they EARN, and those who don't earn don't get.

    And yes, Paddington, I also have a relative who rents. She drinks. She gambles. She drives a nice new car. She and her partner have been around Australia four times - taking 1 year off work for each trip. And now she's whining that rent assistance isn't enough. Well I don't get rent assistance to pay my huge rates bill or the maintenance costs or my constantly rising insurance. And I didn't get rent assistance to pay the 18% interest on my mortgage or the crippling repayments. I worked overtime and weekends. I went without. I sat up all night making clothes for the children. I grew our food. And if renters wanted to be better off in retirement, they should have done the same. But stealing my savings is ever so much easier.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    8:41pm
    According to you socialists, the pension is a right paid for by taxpayers, but if you paid tax for a lifetime, raised kids who pay tax, continue to pay indirect tax, and save the nation a fortune by NOT claiming a pension, the only rights you have are to be robbed, screwed, and abused.

    I don't call pensioners leaners unless they are, but the vast majority ARE leaners - manipulators who claim a pension they don't need because idiot socialists bash people who don't put their hands out for handouts and make life miserable for them. And nasty pensioners cheer that abuse and scream that they have superior entitlement.

    We have a nation of leaners, and anyone who doesn't recognize that is living in la la land. As for renting pensioners - most of them deserve their lot. Buying a house at 18% interest was damned hard. Owning a house is bloody expensive. 90% of the population had as much opportunity as I did to own a home. They took holidays and nights at the club while I worked overtime and weekends and every day I had off from paid employment. Good luck to them. They made a choice. But they made their bed and they should lie in it. It's not up to the rest of us to fund the lifestyle they chose while we are deprived of any reward for our choices. The selfishness has gone way too far.

    I have great sympathy for the disadvantaged, but it's time this country told people to help themselves and stop expecting those who have helped themselves to sacrifice everything to fund handouts to those who didn't. The genuinely disadvantaged are few and far between. If we stopped rewarding manipulators and bludgers, there would be ample to look after the genuinely needy. The first thing this nation needs to focus on is ensuring people enjoy the rewards they EARN, and those who don't earn don't get.

    And yes, Paddington, I also have a relative who rents. She drinks. She gambles. She drives a nice new car. She and her partner have been around Australia four times - taking 1 year off work for each trip. And now she's whining that rent assistance isn't enough. Well I don't get rent assistance to pay my huge rates bill or the maintenance costs or my constantly rising insurance. And I didn't get rent assistance to pay the 18% interest on my mortgage or the crippling repayments. I worked overtime and weekends. I went without. I sat up all night making clothes for the children. I grew our food. And if renters wanted to be better off in retirement, they should have done the same. But stealing my savings is ever so much easier.
    GeorgeM
    6th Mar 2019
    8:56pm
    A very unfortunate and deliberately vicious & stupid generalisation from OAW - I used to respect most of her views! Just because all don't agree with her issues is no reason to start insulting & attacking other people - Joe Hockey style. Joining up with the Lib party trolls is also a serious mistake, although I don't mind occasional agreement if a non-biased view is expressed even by them - very, very rare. BOTH Libs & Labor (as well as the Greens) need to go, if we are to get any improvements for the people of this country.

    I fully agree with the balanced comments from Sundays above.
    It is important for all Retirees to stop bickering, attacking each other, and instead give a united push to all their MPs to promote Universal Age Pension for all, and vote OUT all MPs who don't agree.
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    8:11am
    George, I made NO generalisations about pensioners. I specifically stated that I have been on welfare myself and appreciated it greatly. I support demands for a strong pension system and respect for those who need to rely on it.

    My criticism is of the huge numbers who rort the pension system unfairly, and the people who support policies that encourage such rorting and abuse anyone who seeks to highlight the wrongs of such policies.

    You are right that because people don't agree with your views is no reason to attack them - but defending against bullying and insults is a rather natural reaction, and I've certainly been viciously attacked, bullied, insulted, accused of lying, the victim of online stalking, and suffered the continual cheering of people who are clearly delighted that my lifestyle is at serious risk and they will suffer no loss.

    If Sundays has ever suggested that its important to stop bickering and attacking each other, that's the most hypocritical comment ever made on YLC, because Sundays has been running an ongoing campaign of attack on me - even to the point of online stalking!

    Yes, we need a Universal Age Pension. We should all fight for that. But in the meantime, we MUST defend the rights of those Labor is threatening unfairly. The rules of human decency demand that we look out for each other - and particularly that we look out for those who are suffering for being honest and ethical, while the manipulators party unfairly. And anyone who denies that manipulation of the pension system is common is blind. It is pure hypocrisy and evidence of arrogance and contempt to claim pensioners are entitled to respect but struggling self-funded retirees should suffer unfair hurt and constant denigration,
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    8:11am
    George, I made NO generalisations about pensioners. I specifically stated that I have been on welfare myself and appreciated it greatly. I support demands for a strong pension system and respect for those who need to rely on it.

    My criticism is of the huge numbers who rort the pension system unfairly, and the people who support policies that encourage such rorting and abuse anyone who seeks to highlight the wrongs of such policies.

    You are right that because people don't agree with your views is no reason to attack them - but defending against bullying and insults is a rather natural reaction, and I've certainly been viciously attacked, bullied, insulted, accused of lying, the victim of online stalking, and suffered the continual cheering of people who are clearly delighted that my lifestyle is at serious risk and they will suffer no loss.

    If Sundays has ever suggested that its important to stop bickering and attacking each other, that's the most hypocritical comment ever made on YLC, because Sundays has been running an ongoing campaign of attack on me - even to the point of online stalking!

    Yes, we need a Universal Age Pension. We should all fight for that. But in the meantime, we MUST defend the rights of those Labor is threatening unfairly. The rules of human decency demand that we look out for each other - and particularly that we look out for those who are suffering for being honest and ethical, while the manipulators party unfairly. And anyone who denies that manipulation of the pension system is common is blind. It is pure hypocrisy and evidence of arrogance and contempt to claim pensioners are entitled to respect but struggling self-funded retirees should suffer unfair hurt and constant denigration,
    Sundays
    8th Mar 2019
    9:52am
    How dare you accuse me of online stalking! I’ve read your public posts on other websites which I subscribe to via email. Not the same thing. You posted the same rubbish as here, but used your Facebook. Easy to spot. You put yourself out there providing all your details.

    I have never contacted you directly. Why would I bother. You’re not that important. I’m not even on Facebook. Don’t make that sort if accusation again, or I will report you for lying and defamation.

    And yes I think Labor are on the right track re Franking credits but agree a threshhold is needed, Yes, I have a big problem with your language regarding pensioners ie, a...hole, stinking, greedy, bludgers, leaners to name a few. YLF should have pulled you up!

    You are the bully and you get more than your fair share of time on this site regarding Franking credits
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    10:02am
    Sunday’s 8 happen to agree 100% with Older snd Wosers cures on labor , their franking credit policies and the greediness and selfishness of some pensioners and people like yourself .
    You are the one attacking her views which I must say are entirely spot on
    Give it a rest Sunday’s
    Sundays
    8th Mar 2019
    10:31am
    Lothario, whichever it is today you are entitled to your views as am I. OWS, however has sunk to an all time low to make her point. I have never stalked her online. It’s all been in the public domain.
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    3:50pm
    You most certainly did stalk me, Sundays. You went searching for posts on other sites that you thought were mine and you made public derogatory comments on those posts using a name you believe was my real name. That's stalking and bullying. Sorry if the accusation offends, but when the cap fits you have to wear it.
    Sundays
    8th Mar 2019
    4:17pm
    That’s total garbage, you might have a stalker then but it’s not me. I wouldn’t be surprised if you have a string of enemies with your bile. I have seen your other posts, but never comment because you have to use Facebook. Therefore, you should know who they are. Take it up with them directly. I only comment on this site. Like I said you’re not that important. Stop!!
    Anonymous
    9th Mar 2019
    8:14pm
    You are the only person I saw referencing other posts you assumed were by me and trying to expose my identity, Sundays. That's stalking. YOU STOP. And stop endorsing theft of other people's hard-earned income. It's offensive, selfish and disgusting.

    No, I'm not aware of any enemies. I have lots of friends, and many of them admire me for various reasons (poor deluded souls!). And I love them. But they are respectful and considerate and have empathy. They appreciate logic and reason and FACT. And I have no 'bile' - just disgust and contempt for the appalling selfishness I see here.
    Anonymous
    9th Mar 2019
    8:14pm
    You are the only person I saw referencing other posts you assumed were by me and trying to expose my identity, Sundays. That's stalking. YOU STOP. And stop endorsing theft of other people's hard-earned income. It's offensive, selfish and disgusting.

    No, I'm not aware of any enemies. I have lots of friends, and many of them admire me for various reasons (poor deluded souls!). And I love them. But they are respectful and considerate and have empathy. They appreciate logic and reason and FACT. And I have no 'bile' - just disgust and contempt for the appalling selfishness I see here.
    Sundays
    10th Mar 2019
    7:52am
    Stop banging on. You weren’t exposed. My cousin Lorraine was called Rainey. Its very common. Maybe people think you should use your super to fund your retirement rather than paying no tax yet expecting a cash refund via Franking credits. Welfare for the wealthy. In any case it’s a flawed strategy as companies reduce the amount of dividends. Not to mention a stock market crash.
    Anonymous
    11th Mar 2019
    10:59am
    People who think anyone pays no tax on franked dividends are ill-informed fools who can't understand logic but swallow ALP lies.

    ALL recipients of franked dividends PAID TAX on the dividend. It's stated on the dividend advice. It's published on the ASX website. Franking credits are NOT welfare. They are a fair acknowledgment of tax paid and a proper adjustment of to ensure tax isn't OVERPAID.

    Furthermore, the GREEDY SCUM who support the ALP on this ignore the fact that self-funded retirees CONTRIBUTE TENS OF THOUSAND ANNUALLY TO THE TAXPAYER - many contributing far more than 100% of their income.

    And yes, Labor will probably CAUSE a stock market crash with their stupidity. Certainly they will deny battlers one of the best opportunities available for growing a retirement nest egg and limit the benefits of blue chip investing to THE RICH. Only over-privileged greedy scum and ill-informed fools would support such a policy.

    Why should self-funded retirees pay more tax (proportionally to income) than anyone else in Australia just because they saved to fund their retirement and choose to invest in blue chip shares to earn their living?

    And why should rich self-funded retirees keep their benefit while the poor lose theirs?

    How is tax a 'tax' when paid by the rich and 'welfare' when paid by the poor?

    I used to support Labor, but they've shown themselves to be bigoted, dishonest, and evil with the lies they have peddled to excuse this theft. And giving to THE WEALTHY AT THE EXPENSE OF BATTLERS.
    Anonymous
    11th Mar 2019
    10:59am
    People who think anyone pays no tax on franked dividends are ill-informed fools who can't understand logic but swallow ALP lies.

    ALL recipients of franked dividends PAID TAX on the dividend. It's stated on the dividend advice. It's published on the ASX website. Franking credits are NOT welfare. They are a fair acknowledgment of tax paid and a proper adjustment of to ensure tax isn't OVERPAID.

    Furthermore, the GREEDY SCUM who support the ALP on this ignore the fact that self-funded retirees CONTRIBUTE TENS OF THOUSAND ANNUALLY TO THE TAXPAYER - many contributing far more than 100% of their income.

    And yes, Labor will probably CAUSE a stock market crash with their stupidity. Certainly they will deny battlers one of the best opportunities available for growing a retirement nest egg and limit the benefits of blue chip investing to THE RICH. Only over-privileged greedy scum and ill-informed fools would support such a policy.

    Why should self-funded retirees pay more tax (proportionally to income) than anyone else in Australia just because they saved to fund their retirement and choose to invest in blue chip shares to earn their living?

    And why should rich self-funded retirees keep their benefit while the poor lose theirs?

    How is tax a 'tax' when paid by the rich and 'welfare' when paid by the poor?

    I used to support Labor, but they've shown themselves to be bigoted, dishonest, and evil with the lies they have peddled to excuse this theft. And giving to THE WEALTHY AT THE EXPENSE OF BATTLERS.
    Farside
    11th Mar 2019
    6:47pm
    @OaW ... "GREEDY SCUM", really?? Seems this rant is like a case of pot calling the kettle black. Any self funded retirees able to "CONTRIBUTE TENS OF THOUSAND ANNUALLY TO THE TAXPAYER" is not doing it tough no matter how much the caps lock is used, and is definitely not a battler.

    6th Mar 2019
    3:37pm
    Yes, give the greedy leaners more, while they cheer the theft from the battling self-funded.
    musicveg
    6th Mar 2019
    6:03pm
    The real leaner's are the retiring MP's collecting money left right and center, even though they have millions and a lot of property they are not asset tested and often get another job on retiring but still get a pension, why not spend your time attacking them instead of a the pensioners who are struggling, not all are leaners.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    6:57pm
    Oh, I agree musicveg, but their policies are creating a nation of leaners and manipulators. We need to focus on incentives and rewards for people who save the nation money by standing on their own feet in retirement instead of favouring people who manipulate to claim a pension they don't really need, or to claim more than they need.

    I would never attack genuine pensioners, musicveg. The problem is that there are just so many leaners now, and such powerful incentives for people to be leaners - and harsh punishment for lifting.
    Alan
    6th Mar 2019
    3:56pm
    If we pay politicians peanuts and their pension is part of the overall package of renumeration then we really will have monkeys running the country to the detriment of all. I support a reasonable pension with appropriate means testing of both income and all assets (especially including the family home) so that the pension goes only to those who really need it and exclude those who can manipulate their wealth so that they are asset rich but cash flow moderate.
    Blinky
    6th Mar 2019
    5:59pm
    Why the family home? If u buy a home now, it will appreciate over the years. By the time u retire it will cost several times over, it's called "appreciation." So, will u have to sell your hard-earned house to go n live in a cheaper suburb 8n your old age? I DONT THINK SO. IF POLLIES CAN KEEP THEIR HOMES AND STILL GET A PENSION, SO SHOULD EVERYONE ELSE!
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    7:00pm
    The only solution is to abolish the assets test and test income and deemed income. Why should someone who settles for a lower value home be punished and deprived while someone who sinks a million into a house gets a nice pension and concessions?

    Abolish the assets test and test income and deemed income only. That removes the incentive to over-invest in the family home and ends the unfairness to those who can't generate good investment returns.
    patty
    6th Mar 2019
    4:23pm
    we get 7.90 rise each and our rent goes up 25 per cent so this doesn't help much with our electricty and food bills and medical side of it
    Old Geezer
    6th Mar 2019
    5:38pm
    Rents are about to sky rocket.
    Aussie
    7th Mar 2019
    3:54pm
    We do not pay for medical only some specialist and those should be free ... we get electricity concession etc etc but is not question of increase the rent will be a lot better to reduce the bills from the utilities to special rates for pensioners (Cost price or less) and provide some tax incentives for the owners that rent to pensioners

    I believe that this way they can save lots of money and will be a lot better for us so increasing the rental is not going to alleviate our problems because the utilities (Private) companies will continue making good profits and no way they will reduce the cost to us other than just the minimum as it is now ..... they make a lot of money but not able to help us by reducing a consistent amount that can help us ...... JUST GRID GRID GRID ...Thanks coalition you guys are doing F... all nothing for us and only allow them to fill up their pockets wowowowowo Great Australia ..... keep selling all the utilities ....wowowowo disgrace
    terrib
    6th Mar 2019
    4:38pm
    YES YES YES
    Old Geezer
    6th Mar 2019
    5:55pm
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
    Farside
    6th Mar 2019
    4:43pm
    OAP is already too generous on the basis Newstart is suitable for someone under 65. No increase is warranted at this time.
    Old Geezer
    6th Mar 2019
    5:34pm
    I agree.
    Misty
    6th Mar 2019
    8:29pm
    Just the sort of answer I would expect from you 2, no surprises there.
    Farside
    6th Mar 2019
    8:38pm
    @Misty do you objectively think an unemployed 60-something on Newstart is less deserving than an OAP? Seems to me that is typical thinking of those OAPs seeking to grab whatever they can from the public purse.
    Sundays
    6th Mar 2019
    9:19pm
    The two aren’t mutually exclusive Farside. Newstart for those over 60 is top priority and plunges people into poverty. They can’t find work despite what this Government says and they are really struggling using up any super they might have had, selling their home and possessions. Ask any charity helping the poor.

    Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean the whole age pension doesn’t deserve to be looked at with anomalies, and grandfathered rules. A universal pension is the only way to go. Around 75% of people over 65 receive some form of pension. Eventually, they will be heard.
    Farside
    6th Mar 2019
    9:33pm
    @Sundays, I do not believe increases to OAP and Newstart are mutually exclusive, rather the increase to Newstart is a higher priority for the reasons you mention. The welfare system is unarguably broken however the current crop of pensioners and politicians are unlikely to influence a complete redesign. Perhaps we will see changes when millennials shape the ruling class; the boomers have been a dud and the subsequent generations have taken greed to the next level. Just look at the way pollies like Hockey, Frydenberg and others sold out their principles in pursuit of power.

    A universal pension is not the only way to go if it leaves the Newstart for under 65 at a disadvantage to OAP recipients.
    Sundays
    6th Mar 2019
    9:52pm
    Good points Farside. I think your original post gave me the wrong impression that you were happy to maintain the stays quo
    Farside
    6th Mar 2019
    10:14pm
    @Sundays, I am happy to maintain the status quo for OAP if it means more for those on Newstart and reducing the gap. If both can be raised then well and good although I would not be surprised to see the usual suspects complain Newstart recipients received larger increases. Self-interest is strong among the OAP forces.
    Misty
    7th Mar 2019
    8:30pm
    What give you that impression Farside?, I wouldn't know what sort of amount DP is or Newstart either, why would anyone say such a thing?.

    6th Mar 2019
    4:48pm
    Given the slow growth in wages, housing price crash, and labor's decision to take money away from low income SFR's , there should be a freeze on pension increases, until the economy and everyone else is collectively better off
    We simply cannot afford a pension increase at this time
    Old Geezer
    6th Mar 2019
    5:35pm
    I agree.

    I think they should have to have a cut in income like self funded retirees too.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    6:02pm
    A quarter of the average wage for a couple and an eight for single would be fair
    Blinky
    6th Mar 2019
    6:03pm
    Lothario, if pollies have money to increase their pensions, so should everyone else.
    A lot of money goes towards helping migrant, tefugees, asylum seekers and foreign aid.
    If there is money for them surely there should be money for AUSTRALIANS who have worked hard paid their taxes n contributed to the economy.
    musicveg
    6th Mar 2019
    6:06pm
    OG, Farside and Lothario are unbelievable, what we can't afford is the ongoing payments to retiring politicians who don't get asset tested and often are already millionaires.
    GeorgeM
    6th Mar 2019
    9:04pm
    We also can't afford the massive tax rorts by the Rich and the Large Companies who are avoiding taxes in the Billions by shifty accounting tricks. A sensible Govt for the people MUST look at implementing Minimum Taxes for them based on Gross Income less only fully reasonable, proven & only local expenses allowed as Deductions.

    These Lib party trolls almost defeat the whole purpose of this website to exchange any views and ideas - the sooner YLC takes actions to limit their excessive posts, say restricting posts to not more than 5 per member per article, the better for sensible debate. I believe the large (silent) majority are suffering in silence seeing these obnoxious floods of posts from the trolls.
    Farside
    6th Mar 2019
    9:10pm
    @Veg, what is unbelievable about the disparity between the OAP and other welfare?

    Your thinking is muddled if you think the OAP has anything to do with funding MP remuneration and benefits including retirement. Cost of payments to former MPs and widows is about $100M ($45M in 2015 for super and $52M in 2016 for expenditure) compared to a little under $50B for the OAP in the same period; in other words about 0.2%. Your affordability statement is emotive nonsense in a total budget spend upwards of $400B.

    Increase in the OAP is a lower priority than addressing Newstart regardless how their salary packages are structured. And for what it's worth I think MP remuneration should be structured the same as any other public service employee, including superannuation contributions and access.
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    3:55pm
    George, there is far, far more Labor Party propaganda and Labor-influenced comment here than LNP support. Labor Party trolls definite proliferate. What would be really nice is if people would stop the political BS and focus on issues and policies.
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    3:55pm
    George, there is far, far more Labor Party propaganda and Labor-influenced comment here than LNP support. Labor Party trolls definite proliferate. What would be really nice is if people would stop the political BS and focus on issues and policies.
    BigAl
    6th Mar 2019
    4:56pm
    Everyone we know who is on the pension is rorting the system. I am always amazed at pensioners buying new cars and going on overseas holidays. $50billion in $100 notes stashed under beds, under the table cash payments for work etc.Self funded retirees get nothing.
    Old Geezer
    6th Mar 2019
    5:36pm
    I amazes me too. We only have a cruise industry due to our generous welfare system.
    musicveg
    6th Mar 2019
    6:07pm
    Who are they and where are they? What a load of rubbish, Big Al joins the trolls.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    6:47pm
    It's not rubbish, musicveg. It's sadly a fact. Not saying it's all pensioners. Of course there are some out there who are genuinely struggling, and they deserve a better deal than they currently get. But the number who are rorting is mind boggling. I honestly can't find a single one among those I know who isn't far, far better off than I am or was far better off all their lives but a huge spender who gave a great deal away or bought a lavish house.

    The point is that a retired couple is highly likely to be far better off with $400,000 than with $850,000. With $850,000, they just have to live off their savings until they reduce drastically. Why bother to save? Take a few nice cruises and spend up big and enjoy $20K per year more income, all the nice pensioner concessions, and no need to touch savings. For those who manipulated to do that before March 2018, they also get franking credit refunds that battlers who save the nation tens of thousands a year will be denied if Labor has its way.

    It's a flawed system, and we should all be fighting it. Labor will make things so much worse. It just won't be worth even trying to be self-sufficient anymore unless you are rich, but what is really alarming is that they aren't touching the wealthy. I agree with the objective of their policy, but they are either totally inept or thoroughly corrupt to have designed it the way they have. It's cruel. It's been dishonestly presented, and the dishonesty is creating hideous social division. It's economically harmful. And it's going to encourage far more rorting and manipulation to by people who are well off putting their hands out for pensions they don't need. Ultimately, that can only mean less for the needy.

    We need incentives and rewards for people to self-fund retirement if they can, so there is more money in the kitty for the needy and for services. Common sense says we should be building national wealth, not tearing people down for having a go. We need to recognize the realities and unite to demand that governments do what's good for the nation - not pursue sinister political objectives at economic expense.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    6:47pm
    It's not rubbish, musicveg. It's sadly a fact. Not saying it's all pensioners. Of course there are some out there who are genuinely struggling, and they deserve a better deal than they currently get. But the number who are rorting is mind boggling. I honestly can't find a single one among those I know who isn't far, far better off than I am or was far better off all their lives but a huge spender who gave a great deal away or bought a lavish house.

    The point is that a retired couple is highly likely to be far better off with $400,000 than with $850,000. With $850,000, they just have to live off their savings until they reduce drastically. Why bother to save? Take a few nice cruises and spend up big and enjoy $20K per year more income, all the nice pensioner concessions, and no need to touch savings. For those who manipulated to do that before March 2018, they also get franking credit refunds that battlers who save the nation tens of thousands a year will be denied if Labor has its way.

    It's a flawed system, and we should all be fighting it. Labor will make things so much worse. It just won't be worth even trying to be self-sufficient anymore unless you are rich, but what is really alarming is that they aren't touching the wealthy. I agree with the objective of their policy, but they are either totally inept or thoroughly corrupt to have designed it the way they have. It's cruel. It's been dishonestly presented, and the dishonesty is creating hideous social division. It's economically harmful. And it's going to encourage far more rorting and manipulation to by people who are well off putting their hands out for pensions they don't need. Ultimately, that can only mean less for the needy.

    We need incentives and rewards for people to self-fund retirement if they can, so there is more money in the kitty for the needy and for services. Common sense says we should be building national wealth, not tearing people down for having a go. We need to recognize the realities and unite to demand that governments do what's good for the nation - not pursue sinister political objectives at economic expense.
    Sundays
    6th Mar 2019
    8:01pm
    How do you know they are Pensioners Big Al and not just retirees with money enjoying the rest of their life. Do they tell you about their financial situation?
    Misty
    6th Mar 2019
    8:35pm
    Somehow these people who say they know many pensioners are rorting the system must have access to the pensioners financial affairs, otherwise how do they know this, do they know their income, do they know what their assets are?, no one other then the Govt and myself know what mine are, not even my family and certainly not my friends.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    8:51pm
    They boast about it; They complain about the pension not being enough, and then boast about the overseas trip they are taking next month. The houses they live in speak volumes. The furniture and appliances are visible if they invite you inside, and we can all see the cars they drive. They talk freely about the meal they had out last night and the great restaurant they discovered last weekend. They can't help themselves! Goodness, they even whinge that they HAVE to buy a new car to unload cash and avoid losing a few dollars of pension.

    Misty. you boast about having a financial adviser (something no poor pensioner needs or can afford!) and you told everyone here about having a superannuation fund that holds shares and gets franked dividends. And we all know the full pension rates. When someone says 'I make sure I get the maximum', it's not hard to know how much income they get from Centrelink. And it's pretty damned easy to figure how much extra they are raking when you hear them boasting and see the house they live in and the car they drive.
    Sundays
    7th Mar 2019
    10:01am
    Well there you have it. They are part pensioners keeping assets under he threshold. They are a comfortable couple earning $60k plus through a combination of pension and their own income. The nice house, car etc paid from their own money. They are following the current rules as their financial adviser would have suggested. Despite your personal views, the pension forms part of the current retirement strategy for around 75% of people aged over 65. No manipulation or rorting required

    They can’t possibly get the maximum of around $35k for a couple. No couple on the full OAP can afford fancy restaurants or overseas holidays. These pensioners are struggling especially renters. I’m sorry you’re so judgemental, or is it jealousy. Like Misty I never discuss my finances with others for this very reason
    Farside
    7th Mar 2019
    10:28am
    Sundays' comment "No manipulation or rorting required" is spot on. Advisers are helping everyday Australians to use the pension as part of the current retirement strategy and it is no secret. Suggestions on how to arrange affairs are widely available in the media if you care to look.

    For example well-known WA advisor Nick Bruining says a couple with $270,000 in superannuation and savings can easily:

    - Generate an after-tax income of $48,000 a year (~ before-tax salary about $60,000)
    - Have it indexed for life, using lower-risk strategies
    - Still have funds for travel and other “fun things”.

    https://thewest.com.au/business/your-money/dont-panic-nick-bruining-busts-the-1m-retirement-myth-and-shows-you-how-to-live-well-on-so-much-less-ng-b881006119z
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    8:29am
    Sundays, you are dead wrong. Couples certainly CAN AND DO get a maximum pension of $35,000 and enjoy restaurant dinners and overseas holidays. Many, in fact, have grandfathered income streams that give them a huge income that isn't even counted by Centrelink. Others have gifted to their children and their kids pay all their bills. I have a neighbour who just sold $12,000 worth of tools for cash that Centrelink will never know about. He also makes illegal alcohol and sells it, raking $200 a week in cash that is not reported. He and his wife claim to be separated - living at opposite ends of a $1.5 mil house that is designed with studio apartments at each end and shared living in the middle. They are both on full pensions. They gave their daughters $1 mil and their daughters pay their rates, water, electricity, gas, phone, and insurance bills and for any needed house or appliance repairs and furniture replacements.

    I am neither judgemental nor jealous. I am just disgusted at the ongoing attacks on honest and ethical people who are suffering because they didn't manipulate, but proudly tried to reduce the burden on the public purse.

    It's a national disgrace that those people are now suffering such horrendous abuse and cruelty, and even their own fellow retirees have turned on them in the most appalling manner, cheering their hurt and bullying them with justifications of other retirees' behaviour but not a hint of empathy or respect for those whose integrity and concern for the welfare of others led them to do what was best for the country rather than to selfishly pursue their own interests.

    I am continually falsely accused of denigrating pensioners - but I'm the one looking after the interests of the disadvantaged by NOT taking more than I need from the taxpayer purse. Yet I'm the one being insulted and bullied and falsely accused, and I'm the one whose threatened income loss Sundays, Misty and others are cheering loudly.
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    8:29am
    Sundays, you are dead wrong. Couples certainly CAN AND DO get a maximum pension of $35,000 and enjoy restaurant dinners and overseas holidays. Many, in fact, have grandfathered income streams that give them a huge income that isn't even counted by Centrelink. Others have gifted to their children and their kids pay all their bills. I have a neighbour who just sold $12,000 worth of tools for cash that Centrelink will never know about. He also makes illegal alcohol and sells it, raking $200 a week in cash that is not reported. He and his wife claim to be separated - living at opposite ends of a $1.5 mil house that is designed with studio apartments at each end and shared living in the middle. They are both on full pensions. They gave their daughters $1 mil and their daughters pay their rates, water, electricity, gas, phone, and insurance bills and for any needed house or appliance repairs and furniture replacements.

    I am neither judgemental nor jealous. I am just disgusted at the ongoing attacks on honest and ethical people who are suffering because they didn't manipulate, but proudly tried to reduce the burden on the public purse.

    It's a national disgrace that those people are now suffering such horrendous abuse and cruelty, and even their own fellow retirees have turned on them in the most appalling manner, cheering their hurt and bullying them with justifications of other retirees' behaviour but not a hint of empathy or respect for those whose integrity and concern for the welfare of others led them to do what was best for the country rather than to selfishly pursue their own interests.

    I am continually falsely accused of denigrating pensioners - but I'm the one looking after the interests of the disadvantaged by NOT taking more than I need from the taxpayer purse. Yet I'm the one being insulted and bullied and falsely accused, and I'm the one whose threatened income loss Sundays, Misty and others are cheering loudly.
    Sundays
    8th Mar 2019
    9:08am
    The problem is you seem to know a few people who are milking the system and that has coloured your views. In fact the people with grandfathered super are not rorting the system and not just living on $35k, the man selling the tools has to report it if he banks the money, but not if he spends it immediately. If he had a job he could earn the same amount without affecting the pension. Yes, their living arrangements seem like a rort but there are many more good people doing the right thing. I understand your concern about Franking credits and believe Labor should set a minimum. However when you link your situation to pensioners as a group, calling them terrible names you lose credibility. You’ve set yourself up and criticising others has not helped your cause. When I chose to be self funded, my motives were not as altruistic as yours. I just didn’t want to be poor in retirement. However, I still believe that a pension is a right for all, this is where we disagree
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    3:48pm
    No, Sundays. What has coloured my views is the disgusting greed and selfishness I've seen among pensioners demanding that people who already contribute more than 100% of their income to benefit the budget should be robbed of more and deprived of all that they worked a lifetime to achieve, and left worse off than pensioners unless they drain their savings.

    I also believe a pension is a right for all. We DO NOT disagree on that point.
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    3:48pm
    No, Sundays. What has coloured my views is the disgusting greed and selfishness I've seen among pensioners demanding that people who already contribute more than 100% of their income to benefit the budget should be robbed of more and deprived of all that they worked a lifetime to achieve, and left worse off than pensioners unless they drain their savings.

    I also believe a pension is a right for all. We DO NOT disagree on that point.
    ozrog
    6th Mar 2019
    5:01pm
    OAP should be equal to what the government says is the average wage.
    Old Geezer
    6th Mar 2019
    5:37pm
    Definitely not as it cost a lot less to not go to work. About a quarter of the average wage is ideal.
    Farside
    6th Mar 2019
    10:08pm
    @ozrog, do you refer to median or mean when talking averages? The "average" numbers vary depending on what state you live in, and whether you live in a city or regional area. If overtime and bonuses are included, average Australian earnings for 2018 were $85,982 per annum; clearly raising OAP to this level is ridiculous and not worth consideration. The median for full-time workers is $65,577 and for all workers $52,988; these amounts are slightly less ridiculous but also not worth consideration. Where is the equity in paying OAP more than half of the workforce?

    At a little under $22,000, the OAP is around a quarter of average earnings, unsurprisingly about the same fraction advocated by the geezer.
    Farside
    7th Mar 2019
    12:29am
    A better idea would be to link the OAP to the minimum wage as a reference. The debate is then expressed in percentage of that wage.
    Annick
    6th Mar 2019
    5:58pm
    Not all OAP were lucky enough to get a good super. I (female) certainly didn't I received $5.500 super when I retired. My partner was a taxi driver and on $5-$6 per hour by the time tax was paid on this plus GST there was little remaining to be able to afford to pay into a super fund. We don't own our own home so renting is a constant worry. I am 75 my partner is 77 we still do a little work to get a little extra each fortnight to afford the basics. Previous Governments have stripped the Pension Fund that was started with a % of our taxes being paid into a special account years ago. That account is now empty that is why all the protestations are about from the current government.
    musicveg
    6th Mar 2019
    6:10pm
    The account is empty, why? Possibly going to the already rich, overpaid, greedy politicians, we need to scrap their pensions so we can afford to look after all Australians. We all pay tax via GST, we all keep the economy going by spending, if pensioners stopped spending money then it will be a big hit on the economy, whether they are self funded, on a pension or other.
    Misty
    6th Mar 2019
    8:38pm
    Pensioners and low income Aussies cannot afford to spend, that is one contributing factor in the slow growth of our economy which was announced today.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    9:03pm
    Luck had nothing to do with the retirement of many of us, Annick. Compulsory super is a relatively new innovation. Most who retired with a nest egg got it through damned hard work and a lot of sacrifice. My partner and I lived way below the poverty line, but we paid off a house and saved for retirement. And I assure you, we had nothing but bad luck!

    I agree the government did a dreadful thing stripping the pension fund, but it wasn't the 'current government'. It was a lot of past governments, and Labor has slugged pensioners at every turn. If people stopped blaming and assuming others were 'lucky' and started demanding common sense economic management that rewards endeavour and responsible living instead of persecuting workers and savers to hand more to those who don't contribute, we might actually restore the prosperity this nation used to enjoy - and then we'd be able to afford more handouts to the needy. The focus has to be shifted off giving and onto nation-building, because regardless of who is to blame, there obviously isn't any more to give. If there was, we wouldn't have a massive debt and we wouldn't be needing to even consider robbing people who currently get NOTHING to help fund their retirement.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    9:03pm
    Luck had nothing to do with the retirement of many of us, Annick. Compulsory super is a relatively new innovation. Most who retired with a nest egg got it through damned hard work and a lot of sacrifice. My partner and I lived way below the poverty line, but we paid off a house and saved for retirement. And I assure you, we had nothing but bad luck!

    I agree the government did a dreadful thing stripping the pension fund, but it wasn't the 'current government'. It was a lot of past governments, and Labor has slugged pensioners at every turn. If people stopped blaming and assuming others were 'lucky' and started demanding common sense economic management that rewards endeavour and responsible living instead of persecuting workers and savers to hand more to those who don't contribute, we might actually restore the prosperity this nation used to enjoy - and then we'd be able to afford more handouts to the needy. The focus has to be shifted off giving and onto nation-building, because regardless of who is to blame, there obviously isn't any more to give. If there was, we wouldn't have a massive debt and we wouldn't be needing to even consider robbing people who currently get NOTHING to help fund their retirement.
    Farside
    7th Mar 2019
    12:54am
    @Annick, you say "Previous Governments have stripped the Pension Fund that was started with a % of our taxes being paid into a special account years ago."

    if you are talking about the National Welfare Fund then you should know the Menzies Government merged the social services contribution back into consolidated revenue in 1950, when you were about six years old. There has been plenty of time for you to sort your financial arrangements.

    For what it's worth, no taxpayers had a separate balance in the Welfare Fund under their own name, so there was no possibility monies paid in would or could be allocated to the contributors. The fund was rolled into the coffers the next decade and the enabling act repealed in 1985. It is a persistent myth the National Welfare Fund was a contributory social insurance system so what empty account are you talking about??
    bandy
    6th Mar 2019
    6:09pm
    I have to agree with Farside if you want change then you have to think about it & not vote for a party because ive aways voted for them otherwise we will still be complaining
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    8:53pm
    Trouble is, there is no alternative. Whoever we vote for, we get greedy, self-serving, inept and corrupt politicians.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    8:53pm
    Trouble is, there is no alternative. Whoever we vote for, we get greedy, self-serving, inept and corrupt politicians.
    Farside
    6th Mar 2019
    9:19pm
    @OlderandWiser, choices have consequences and fact is the voters are reluctant to elect those who are not politicians in one form or another. If you do not vote out the incumbents then do not be surprised at the result.
    SuziJ
    6th Mar 2019
    6:40pm
    Somewhat? Does anyone else think that $9.90 is a 'somewhat' increase? Of course not!!!!

    There should be an immediate $160 per fortnight (for singles), or $100 per fortnight for couples just so that we can keep up with the rising cost of food, fuel, electricity, insurances & medicines needed for everyday needs, not to mention the cost of renting - that's not being addressed fully. The rent assistance is a mere 'drop in the ocean' compared to the prices we have to pay.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    8:23pm
    And who should pay for it, SuziJ? Labor is ripping off people who spent their entire lives working and saving, making them worse off than pensioners. Who will pay for this generosity that leaves workers so much poorer than... oh, sorry, we can't say 'leaners'.

    Sadly, making the pension and rent assistance too generous means there is no incentive to work and save, and we end with a nation in poverty. Just how do you think those Labor is ripping off, who have LESS the pension to live on, should live. On their savings? And when they run out?

    Communism and socialism don't work. We need to drive prosperity. The only way we can make pensions higher is to make the nation more prosperous. We MUST reward the nation-builders first. Then there will be more money for those who don't contribute.
    thommo
    6th Mar 2019
    8:58pm
    if there was a substantial increase to rent assistance,which i agree with,what do you think the landlords would do,you got it !!!!
    Misty
    6th Mar 2019
    8:40pm
    I can't see this increase happening any time soon.
    Anonymous
    6th Mar 2019
    8:43pm
    And neither it should. If we can't afford a fair refund for people who worked hard and saved to be self-supporting, so they can enjoy an income somewhere close to that pensioners enjoy, we can't afford to hand out more to those who don't contribute. The lifters should be rewarded FIRST.
    johndouwe
    6th Mar 2019
    9:30pm
    Definitely a increase in basic rate to at least 60% of the basic wage we gave the government a lot of money during our working live and nothing was giving back to the community in services or infrastructure
    Farside
    6th Mar 2019
    10:23pm
    Minimum wage is a little under $37,000, 60% is $22,439, which is little different to the OAP when you take the supplements into account.
    Chris B T
    7th Mar 2019
    8:56am
    Make it 50% of Politicians Basic Wage and increase when there is an increase.
    Is that to Generous, make it 25% or is that still to Generous.
    There needs to be a Realistic Measure and Set so this is not on going "BS"
    Farside
    7th Mar 2019
    10:14am
    @Chris, even 25% of backbencher salary ($203,020) is BS and totally unrealistic. No right minded person is going to advocate raising the OAP to a little under $51,000; it is more than almost half those in the workforce are earning.

    A better idea is to link the OAP to the basic wage, which is a little over $36,000; a rate of say 60% which is $21,600 represents about a $1500 increase which would bring a smile to most OAPs but that said, any increase is in the OAP is a lower priority than raising Newstart allowance which is more than 40% lower than the OAP. From a Newstart recipient's perspective the pensioner is living in the proverbial land of milk and honey.
    Chris B T
    9th Mar 2019
    12:12am
    I said a Realistic Measure, OAP was and is Fully Paid for by one's Income Tax plus other Tax Revenues in the preceding years before OAP age.
    Newstart is only a Handout to Help While Looking for a Job. I stress Not All looking for jobs or out of work People Receive Newstart.
    Linking to Basic Wage is as Ridiculous as your comments about mine.
    Handout to Prepaid are not common in any sense.
    Farside
    9th Mar 2019
    12:35pm
    @Chris, eligibility to receive the OAP is unrelated to whether or not one has paid income taxes during his or her working life. Why do you think linking it to a basic wage is as ridiculous as linking to MP salaries? Have you thought that statement through before coming to a conclusion? Perhaps it's you who does not understand why the FWC sets the minimum wage.

    https://www.fwc.gov.au/awards-and-agreements/minimum-wages-conditions/annual-wage-reviews

    Newstart is welfare, as is the OAP, and its recipients have every right to the same level of support as pensioners even if it is while looking for work though I wonder if you have spoken to any unemployed in their late 50s and early 60s to see how that is going for them.
    Misty
    9th Mar 2019
    3:25pm
    Farside if you Google. "Is the Old Aged Pension Welfare?", an interesting post from YLC'S from 5 years ago shows up, with links as to why the OAP is not classed as welfare, but an asset.
    Chris B T
    9th Mar 2019
    8:08pm
    Newstart/Unemployment Benefit Has grown from a 6 to 12 month duration to this life time benefit.
    Over 18 and after 12 months full time employment back 45 years ago. It was Welfare a helping hand to cover while unemployed, not a career as unemployed.
    There are more unemployed who do not Receive This Handout/Welfare and can not get help from Private Employment Companies (No Old Commonwealth Employment Service) as the number they give you has no Benefit For Them.
    As the Private Ones Receive A Fee for Placement. Now without any Monetary Help your Expected to Pay A Fee For Service/Placement this Group are Further Out of Pocket.
    With your lumping and Thoughtless Mouthing about who is Receiving Welfare is Hurtful to all those on OAP.
    What supporting Reference Proves OAP is Welfare Than Your Say So.
    How is OAP anything to do with the FWC. When you receive OAP are you Still Working.
    Linking to Politicians Base Rate Has far Greater Movements.
    Anonymous
    9th Mar 2019
    8:09pm
    So why is it restricted to those who are classified as needing welfare, Misty? If it's an asset, it should be shared with all who worked and earned a part share.
    Anonymous
    9th Mar 2019
    8:09pm
    So why is it restricted to those who are classified as needing welfare, Misty? If it's an asset, it should be shared with all who worked and earned a part share.
    Misty
    9th Mar 2019
    9:30pm
    I didn't check out the links OAW, so I don't know the answer to that question.
    Farside
    10th Mar 2019
    5:14pm
    @Chris, you wanted a reference to prove the OAP is welfare viz. "... can include health and education, as well as income support payments such as the Age Pension, Carer Payment, Disability Support Pension and Newstart Allowance.

    Welfare can also refer to the administrative category of ‘social security and welfare’. This category is used in budget papers and includes spending on aged care, child care, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), family assistance payments and income support payments."
    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/WelfareSpend

    You also ask the link between the FWC and the OAP ... you wanted to link it to MP salaries, a ridiculous proposition, and I suggested linking it to the minimum wage, which is set by the FWC and considers the cost of living upon the vulnerable. Seems like you have some difficulty connecting the dots.
    Farside
    10th Mar 2019
    5:35pm
    @Misty, the YLC post from 5 years ago is bollocks, forum headline clickbait quoting an opinion from someone known as Pillaged with links to disinformation and propaganda attempting to confuse readers by appealing to self-interest.

    A link to why the OAP is part of the suite of government welfare spending is given above.

    A more accurate history of the pension and superannuation can be found at https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/eco/chron_superannuation.pdf

    A concise abstract of the history of the National Welfare Fund is at https://www.aspc.unsw.edu.au/node/36/paper/2140
    Aussie
    7th Mar 2019
    5:20am
    Bloody Hell .....we got a new increase maybe small but hey lets be graceful because is better small that nothing with our politicians that are killing all Australians and complaining that the country does not have money .....Far out ....listen at this report to learn a bit about our politicians

    https://www.facebook.com/PetaCredlin/videos/309595733084672/UzpfSTg0Mjg4OTU3MjoxMDE1ODU3NjE2MjI1NDU3Mw/
    gonebush
    7th Mar 2019
    8:36am
    what about the rent assistance would be helpful
    micky
    7th Mar 2019
    12:54pm
    I believe that the age pension needs to be the same as the basic wage after all most of us have worked most of our adult life
    micky
    7th Mar 2019
    12:54pm
    I believe that the age pension needs to be the same as the basic wage after all most of us have worked most of our adult life
    Pnina
    7th Mar 2019
    2:42pm
    The mean means test should absolutely be abolished. It is unpredictable in that retroactive changes that affect the old aged are constantly being introduced. It imprisons people in their principle dwelling for life. Any changes to real estate, like deposits paid to a pensioner upon selling his/her property, become an asset until new property is bought, become immediate and adversely affect vendors. Centrelink, in my humble opinion, is an opaque chaotic mess. The government spends billions to run a lame enterprise to police and mar the lives of thousands of aged people who worked hard and paid taxes throuhgout their lives. ., money that should be should downsize it and
    Aussie
    7th Mar 2019
    3:37pm
    One thing I never understood is the retroactive changes ...???? WHY retroactive WHY WHY WHY ....any changes should be from the date of the change and forward ...WHY WHY WHY retroactive ....it is totally unfair and this apply to any changes our governments wants to do ..... SHIT SHIT SHIT ..... well they are killing this country bit by bit .... the beautiful Australia is going out the window ....... WE WILL BE VERY SOON LIKE VENEZUELA ......
    Aviator
    7th Mar 2019
    8:10pm
    Just like a leftie leaner.
    Misty
    7th Mar 2019
    9:34pm
    I see Lothario 1 is back again.
    Reagan
    8th Mar 2019
    12:19pm
    LOTHARIO

    Quit calling people "leftie leaners"

    If you can't make a civil contribution you should bugger off.
    julias
    7th Mar 2019
    5:17pm
    I am having to move to another home because of circumstances. I rent and I am having to find something that is affordable for me on the pension.
    Like many others, when I started working there was no such thing as superannuation. Now, I am helping my son raise his two children.
    Perhaps grandparents who help with grandchildren should get some sort of allowance too. I have the boys during the school holidays because both parents work.
    I would like to see politicians live on the pension and pay bills and buy food, etc.
    Farside
    7th Mar 2019
    10:53pm
    The government should not be paying grandparents to help with grandchildren, that is what family does. If anyone should be kicking the tin to help the grandparents with their grandchildren it is the parents who are avoiding childcare costs.

    Pollies have no incentive or reason to live on the pension, to do so would be a token gesture and prove nothing. Those on Newstart can only dream of a 40% increase to receive anything close to the OAP.
    Aviator
    8th Mar 2019
    1:04am
    So juliass, you want more handouts??
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    8:16am
    If both parents work, they should pay you to care for their kids, Julias. It's NOT the taxpayer's responsibility to fund care for your grandchildren so their parents can have a higher standard of living.

    I also care for my grandchildren during holidays, but not because both parents work. Rather because one parent tragically died when they were very young and their surviving single parent is struggling to raise them alone. He has to work, and that makes caring for them during holidays difficult. As a self-funded retiree, I am now facing the real prospect of my income being slashed to where I can't support myself, let alone help my grandchildren. Just who should foot the bill for more handouts, Julias? People like me who saved well and are now being punished for supporting ourselves AND the grandchildren with no taxpayer help?
    Reagan
    8th Mar 2019
    12:11pm
    LOTHARIO pensioners do not get "handouts"

    They get what they worked for.

    Why are you allowed to get away with these insults???????
    Misty
    8th Mar 2019
    12:35pm
    I do not know why the YLC'S STAFF ALLOW THIS SORT OF COMMENT Reagan, I don't think they monitor these topics and the comments posted here, as so much abusive, insulting, nastiness is allowed to continue, there should be a CODE OF CONDUCT and if people do not abide by it their comments should be removed and the posters cautioned about their behaviour.
    Anonymous
    8th Mar 2019
    3:43pm
    What nastiness. Misty? You claim the right to cheer the demolition of other people's income and to insult and abuse, yet you object to a mere opinion that the taxpayer shouldn't have o pay grandparents to babysit while their kids go to work and earn more money. You have double standards. I think you should be removed.

    Reagan, pensioners DO get handouts. Self-funded retirees paid tax also and get nothing, and a lot of greedy, selfish pensioners are claiming that they should be taxed on their dividend income as well as getting nothing. Why aren't SFRs entitled to what they worked for? There is no insult here. Just fact. Pensioners get money from the taxpayer - whether they worked and paid tax or not - and SFRs did work and pay tax but get nothing. Therefore, pensioners get a handout. And Julias is asking for more, as payment for enabling his children to earn a nice income without taking responsibility for their own offspring. There's no nastiness here. Just plain simple fact. If pensions were a reward for working, they would be paid to all who worked and none who didn't. So they are a handout. They are a handout that I absolutely agree SHOULD be given to those who need it - or rather to ALL over qualifying age with qualifying residency. But they are still a handout.
    Mez
    8th Mar 2019
    8:44am
    "Older and Wiser"- you're a darling!
    Not many of you around, especially in the younger generations!
    DEFINITELY, OUR PENSIONS SHOULD BE MORE ON PAR WITH THE POLITICIANS' PENSIONS!
    WHY NOT.......ANYWAY!
    Age Pensions should NOT be on par with Newstart!
    RENT ASSISTANCE SHOULD KEEP UP WITH PROPERTY PRICE AND COUNCIL RATES INCREASES and which have been PHENOMENAL!
    No wonder increasing numbers of older people are HOMELESS OR LIVING IN CARAVANS!
    Farside
    8th Mar 2019
    1:36pm
    this has to be one of the more risible posts seen on this topic. Pollie pensions, like them or not, are part of politician's employment remuneration arrangements and have no equivalence to the OAP.
    Aussie
    8th Mar 2019
    4:00pm
    Mez ... You forgot the over 95,000 living overseas because they can not live here .... and many of them do not have anything only the basic pension
    GrayComputing
    11th Mar 2019
    2:45pm
    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

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    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 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.
    Farside
    11th Mar 2019
    6:53pm
    and Gray trots out the old myth again. How many times has this been posted?

    Welfare includes "income support payments such as the Age Pension, Carer Payment, Disability Support Pension and Newstart Allowance."
    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/WelfareSpend
    Misty
    11th Mar 2019
    7:55pm
    I never receive a phone call from Centrelink and usually only have to see them once or twice a year to update some details and usually get to see someone straight away, depending a lot on what time you go. Of course country Centrelink offices are probably not as busy as those in the cities.