2nd Jun 2018

Growing political support to fix pension poverty

Calls to fix pension poverty
Kaye Fallick

Australia is far from the ‘lucky country’ for those age pensioners who are living in poverty. They make up one-third of 1.5 million older Australians whose main source of income is the Age Pension, according to OECD data that compares pensions expenditure and ‘liveability’ across 33 nations in its annual Pensions at a Glance reports.

The information corroborates the widening gap between retiree ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ revealed in the quarterly YourLifeChoices Retirement Affordability Index™ (RAI) which measures household expenditure by retirement ‘tribe’ – Affluent Singles and Couples, Constrained Singles and Couples, and Cash-Strapped Singles and Couples.

Measured since March 2017, the RAI reveals a widening gap between ‘affluents’ who own their home and are self-funded in retirement, ‘constrained households’ who also own their home, but live on a full or part Age Pension, and the ‘cash strapped’, those who live on an Age Pension but are renting.

How bad is Australia’s OECD pension poverty ranking? With 36 per cent of Australians living on less than half of the nation’s median household income, Australian pensioners are the second worst off in the world, beaten to this dubious distinction by South Korea, where 50 per cent of older people live in poverty. The OECD average is 12.6 per cent, so there is plenty of room for improvement when it comes to the base rate of the Age Pension and rental supplements in this country.



Which is why The Benevolent Society’s ‘Fix Pension Poverty’ campaign is worthy of support. A not-for-profit and non-religious organisation formed in 1813, The Benevolent Society maintains that the Age Pension is not keeping up with the real costs of living. And that the 1.5 million older Australians who rely on it as their main income source are being denied a decent standard of living.

The Benevolent Society maintains that the substantial deprivation pensioners suffer includes going without food and heating, ignoring the need to see medical specialists and skipping medications to make ends meet, with some even mashing food to avoid the cost of visiting the dentist.
When YourLifeChoices references the RAI costs of living in retirement by retirement tribe, we can support the Benevolent Society’s contentions.

On 26 March, the campaign received strong support from independent MP Rebekha Sharkie (now subject to a by-election due to dual citizenship concerns).

In introducing the bill, Ms Sharkie stated, “I believe that the base rate of the Age Pension should be subject to the judgement of an independent tribunal and review, to consider in depth whether at its current level it is adequate enough to keep age pensioners secure and in a position to prosper.”

Ms Sharkie introduced a motion that called on the Government to:

  • establish an independent tribunal to assess the base rate of the pension and determine the best mechanism for annual review
  • increase the maximum rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance to reduce the gap between age pensioners who are home owners and those who are renters
  • establish a round table to review services provided to age pensioners.

 

In addition to Ms Sharkie’s initiative, two Labor MPs – Graham Perrett and Chris Hayes – also supported the motion. Ms Sharkie said she was looking forward to the Government’s response and called on the Minister of Social Services The Hon Dan Tehan to take action.
YourLifeChoices website supports The Benevolent Society’s call for the establishment of an expert Age Pension tribunal to review pension rates and provide a fair and decent standard of living for older Australians.

Age Pension facts

  • The Age Pension is a universal means-tested payment. It is universal in that eligibility does not depend upon prior contributions.
  • As of September 2017 (latest available data): In Australia, there are 1,552,340 full rate Age Pension recipients and an additional 931,669 part-Age Pension recipients
  • More than 70 per cent of the older Australian population receive the Age Pension, with 60 per cent of this number on the full Age Pension.
  • The qualifying age is increasing from 65 to 67 by 2023

 

On 1 July 2017, the qualifying age increased from 65 years to 65 years and six months. After that, it will increase by six months every two years, reaching age 67 by 1 July 2023.

The Coalition policy is to increase the qualifying age further to age 70, but since the ‘zombie measures’ of 2014, this policy has not been passed by Parliament.

Current amount of the Age Pension

Per fortnight

Single

Couple each

Couple together

Maximum basic rate

$826.20

$622.80

 

Maximum pension supplement

$67.30

$50.70

 

Energy supplement

$14.10

$10.60

 

Total

$907.60

$684.10

$1368.20

Per week

$453.80

 

$684.10

Per annum

$23,598

 

$35,573

Household expenditures, as measured by the YourLifeChoices Retirement Affordability Index, December 2018 quarter:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash-strapped – full or part Age Pension, renting

$22,593

 

$35,954

 

 

 

 

Constrained – full or part Age Pension, in own home

$23,644

 

$42,614

 

 

 

 

Affluent – self-funded, in own home

$42,447

 

$74,254


Possible rental supplement (for people without dependent children)

If you're …

Fortnightly rent is at least:

To receive the maximum payment, your fortnightly rent is at least:

The maximum fortnightly payment is:

Annual

Single

$120.20

$299.93

$134.80

$35,04.80

Single, sharer

$120.20

$240.02

$89.87

$23,36.62

Couple, combined

$194.60

$363.93

$127.00

$3302

One of a couple separated due to illness

$120.20

$299.93

$134.80

$35,04.80

One of a couple temporarily separated

$120.20

$289.53

$127.00

$33,02.00

Can you relate to the notion that more than one third of Australians on a full Age Pension are living in poverty? If you can, how would you like to see this changed? Or do you believe that the current rate of the Age Pension is adequate? 

Related articles:
Age Pension meaning changes
Age Pension inadequate
Age Pension too complicated





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
beachyj
6th Jun 2018
10:59am
Tony Abbott dropped the pension supplement when he was PM but the states took over the payment. From what i understand, as from the 1st of July, 2018, those still getting the energy supplement will lose it.
Sundays
6th Jun 2018
11:24am
No Beachyi that’s not right. If you were getting it before 20/3/17 you still get it. Those who qualified for the OAP after that date miss out
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
11:44am
No one should get it after 1/7/2018 as we no longer have a carbon tax. Scrap it for everyone on welfare.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
1:40pm
Yes - we're back to the age of the First and Second Class Pensioners - the one I fought Howard over before his political demise - and he lost.

It doesn't take long for those sucking deeply of the top layer of fat in Canberra to come up with the same old nightmares for the peasants over and over again.

We need a dramatical change in the outlook of politicians and parties in this nation - or a complete change of all of them.

Where's Rafe to demand that the peasant pensioners downsize - still waiting on a response to my question yesterday:-

WHY should it be mandatory? Lay it all out for us chapter and verse..... WHY??
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
1:43pm
There was no Carbon Tax, OG - it never raised a cent and had no impact on the economy.

Now that great government is whining that it has insufficient revenue (its own fault), and is picking away like the vulture it is at those with the least.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
1:54pm
Whether or not there was a carbon tax is irrelevant. What is relevant is that electricity and gas prices have continued to rise, therefore there is NO grounds for removing a subsidy that was intended to help meet the increased costs.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
1:58pm
It was bought in so that those on welfare got subsidised for the carbon tax so no carbon tax no supplement. It is as simple as that.
Triss
6th Jun 2018
2:04pm
The Age Pension is not welfare, OG, how many more times do you need to be told? It has become the politicians’ personal piggy bank.
Check back. When the pensioners get a cut in pension a few days/weeks later politicians get a large salary increase which, incidentally, increases their pensions.
A universal pension would take that hefty slice of cash out of politicians’ pockets and put it back in pensioner’s pockets. You’d hear the politicians’ screams of rage from one end of the globe to the other.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:06pm
OAP is nothing but welfare and anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:22pm
OG, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARBON TAX. The tax didn't increase prices and ostensibly removing it didn't reduce them. So the supplement is needed as much as ever and only a miserable miserly monster would suggest otherwise.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:45pm
OGR it was bought in so those on welfare would not be impacted by the carbon tax. So no carbon tax no supplement.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
3:08pm
And it's removal was an act of FRAUD. Plain and simple. There was NO saving by removing a tax that never really existed in the first place. Any claim of saving was a lie, and any attack on incomes by claiming saving was FRAUD.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
4:59pm
Agree so the supplement is also fraud as well. Get rid of it for all those on welfare.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
7:22am
No, the supplement was never fraud. It was an honest and fair payment to assist with the rising costs of power. It's needed. It's justified. And only a vile and disgusting inhuman monster would suggest it should be scrapped.
Russell
6th Jun 2018
11:12am
The aged pension is too complicated when without warning or explanation my aged pension regular payment was extended from the regular 14 day period to a 16 day period and was reduced by $121.37 from the 14 day period payment. Nothing had changed. When I tried to get the answer to why this has happened all I got was a letter with my new aged pension details on it. No answers to why this has happened. It appears that it could be another episode like the overpayments debarcle that they would not admit to until it went before the ombudsman. Maybe someone here can inform me of any changes over the last 2 weeks. I received my normal regular payment on Tuesday 29 May then I received a payment of $303.43 on the 4 June so I checked my.gov.au and it said my next payment will be on 14 June which is 16 days from my last payment and that it will be for $424.80 so when you add these together they come to $728.23 which is $121.37 below my regular payment of $849.60 so has anything changed.
Sundays
6th Jun 2018
11:33am
No changes Russell unless to your personal circumstances.You’ll have to ring them and be prepared to wait. The line for older Australians is often quicker. Our part pension was cut recently because our super fund provided the wrong info to Centrelink. Fixed quickly though
tisme
6th Jun 2018
11:13am
I'm in carer pittance ( payment ) poverty, the govt pays me 3.50 an hour to care for how ever many I have to and I will soon move to age pittance poverty
Rae
6th Jun 2018
11:27am
It seems silly doesn't it. If you'd chosen to work and use government carer services it would have cost the government more.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
11:45am
Government pays me nothing to care for my partner.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
1:45pm
You've got too much income, by your admission, OG.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
1:59pm
No matter what my income is I still have to look after my partner and I get nothing for doing so.
Eddy
6th Jun 2018
2:09pm
No Trebor, carer payments are not subject to the income or assets test. If OG does not receive carer payments it can only be because (a) he has not applied for it or (b) his partner is not sufficiently disabled or infirm to qualify for the payments. It may be that OG is a man of principle and refuses to accept any government 'welfare'.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:10pm
Then clearly your partner does not need looking after, because carers ARE paid, regardless of income and assets. Those with limited means get more, but ALL genuine carers receive a benefit. Stop whinging and start paying attention to the issue - which is that POVERTY in Australia is at unacceptable levels. And all decent human beings want that addressed. All you do with your ranting, OG, is show yourself to be a contemptible and disgusting monster with not one ounce of humanity.
Triss
6th Jun 2018
2:10pm
How is it, Tisme, that companies can be fined big bucks for paying below the minimum rate of pay but the government is allowed to do it?
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
5:00pm
OGR no not everyone gets paid to be a carer as you have to apply for it.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
7:47pm
So what's your problem with it then?
Misty
6th Jun 2018
8:50pm
Why would you expect to get paid for caring for someone you love OG, "In sickness and in health", remember.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
10:34pm
Maybe I am not married so didn't take that oath at all.
Boomah52
6th Jun 2018
11:15am
Up the top with politicians wages and entitlements, down the bottom...
bobby
6th Jun 2018
11:15am
I am living reasonably on the single pension but then I own my own home. I have always thought that the rental assistance paid to non-home owners was inadequate and should be increased. Young couples are finding that they will possibly never own their own home and the likelihood of living in poverty is only going to get worse.
Triss
6th Jun 2018
2:15pm
Unfortunately, bobby, if rent assistance went up rents would go up by the same amount so renters would be no better off. There would have to be safeguards in place first.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:28pm
And there is no practical way to implement safeguards. The bottom line is that rent assistance is not a solution to a complex problem. Many homeowners are as badly off as renters - or worse. It's not JUST rent that the problem. It's far more complex than that. The system needs a total overhaul and as many here keep saying, the ONLY sensible solution is to abolish means tests and get in step with other countries that show respect for their aged. Or at least abolish the assets test. While saving is detrimental, there will be less of it and more poverty. When saving is rewarded, more people will be self-sufficient, spending will rise to drive growth and jobs and revenue, and there will be more to provide housing for those who genuinely need it.
Hairy
6th Jun 2018
4:57pm
Unfortunately a rise in rent assistance activated an immediate rise to the rent even in goverment housing.so in one hand and handed to the other.a total waste of time.universal pension is way to go. I will swap mine for any of the pollies who have put in 53 years of hard work,but that would be an impossible find now wouldn’t it
Rae
7th Jun 2018
8:26am
That has seemed to be a consistent response to any rise in worker or pensioner payments in Australia. The landlords and business people just immediately take any increase so people can never get far ahead unless they all stop spending together and break the system.

It's just all so stupid and greedy but very Australian.

Wonder what will go up now the lowest paid get a 3.5% rise?
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jun 2018
2:03pm
Everything! Necessities by substantially more than 3.5%.
SuziJ
6th Jun 2018
11:15am
I have to live on the DSP, which pays the same as the AP.

There's very little left each fortnight after paying for essential expenses (rent, phone, electricity, food, insurances), to be able to put any savings away for the 'just in case' expenses of having to replace white goods, or do major replacements (tyres, battery, etc) for my 12 year old car.
ceejay
6th Jun 2018
11:17am
The age and disability support pension rates are not keeping pace with the costs of living. This cohort of citizens all too often need additional medications and in home supports to maintain a very basic standard of living. Provider co-payments further erode their meagre income to provide for orher life basics. What about our farmers who are penalised for owning more than 5 acres of land -classed as an asset beyond the principal place of residence. Age and disability mean the land is no longer income producing but costly maintenance must still happen to comply with land control regulations. For those people it becomes a choice between putting food on the table, medical and community care and treatment, land rates and regulatory compliance. Combine this with the everpresent drought. No wonder rural suicide seems the best way out!!
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
1:48pm
We know that one - we sold the property to move up-coast to warmer climes. Now the rates are sucking away cash anyway, especially huge water rates from zero consumption, and the water is vile.... wouldn't even consider brewing beer or wine with this garbage they call tap water.

When I rinse my teeth pre-brushing, I get a half-gag reflex instantly... now that's bad water....
Rocky2
6th Jun 2018
11:17am
Australia's STOLEN Aged Pension, this will open your eyes to our politician's lies, “The Aged Pension.” Well, it certainly was collected, but it amassed such huge amounts, this government and those preceding, couldn’t help themselves and have spent billions of it over the years in a manner they had no right to. “the money earned by the people themselves through hard work and often deprivation ( as a legislation obligation part thereof was collected by the Tax Department for this very purpose ) was in fact and still is, collected as a tax originally, specifically and intentionally so as to fund, “The Aged Pension.”
To dispel some misinformation currently being promoted by Party Politicians and their spin doctors and lying ex Ministers, listed here are some historical facts every Australian, especially the young who are under the miss-guided belief and/or assumption that they are funding the Aged Pension from their current hard work; They Are Not, they’re funding their own Pension Fund; a fund that governments have no intention of paying and to add insult to injury, legislate to force you to pay into a Super Fund to boot.
1939-1945 – WORLD WAR II
1942-1943
As a Wartime measure, the Federal Government gained sole control over Australian Income Tax. Labor Prime Minister ( Ben Chifley ) introduced three bills to establish the National Welfare Fund, to be financed by a Compulsory Contribution (levy) of one and sixpence in the Pound (20/- ) on all personal income.
1946
Opposition Leader ( Robert Menzies ) stated that the Compulsory Contribution (levy) should be kept completely separate. That it should be shown separately on the Taxation Assessment and paid straight into a “TRUST” account and not mixed with the General Revenue.
Menzies said “The stigma of charity should be removed from the Age Pension.” ”It should be an entitlement earned by the person’s personal contribution to the fund.”
Prime Minister Chifley agreed and established The National Welfare fund as at 1/1/1946. A “Trust” Fund with the Parliament as “Trustee.”
The Compulsory Contributions (levy) commenced as at 1st January 1946.
It was shown separately on the personal Tax Assessments for 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950
and the compulsory levy was properly paid straight into the Special “Trust” fund
and Welfare claims were paid out of the fund.
The balance in the fund in 1950 was almost 100 Million Pounds.
1949 Robert Menzies became Prime Minister and he introduced Bills to amend the acts governing the National Welfare Funds.
The Compulsory Contributions (levy) was then grouped with the Taxation Assessment and appeared as one amount on the Taxation Assessments and was paid as one straight into the Consolidated Revenue Account.
1951-1985
The Compulsory levy of 7.5% now included in the tax continued to be collected and placed in the Consolidated Revenue Account treated as General Revenue and spent, until 1985.
1974-1975
Labor Prime Minister ( Gough Whitlam ) abolished income test for all persons 70 years of age and over and paid pensions to all people over that age.
1975
Liberal Prime Minister ( Malcolm Fraser ) cancelled the Withlam achievement of abolishing the test for all 70 years of age and over.
1977
Liberal Prime Minister ( Malcolm Fraser ) with Treasurer Philip Lynch ) transferred the balance in the Welfare Fund Account ( approximately $ 470.000.000 ) to Consolidated Revenue Account.
1985
Australian Labor Government repealed acts No. 39, 40, and 41 of 1945 ( The National Welfare Fund Acts ). Thus the funds finally ceased to exist yet the 7.5% levy continued to be collected as a proportion of the Income Tax revenue. It also introduced the (much maligned) Income and Asset Tests, thereby excluding millions of levy and tax paying Australians from receiving Social Services Pensions.
This money these self funded contributions paid as a percentage of the total income tax collections are today worth far more than the amount of means tested pensions paid out.
Actuaries have calculated the non-means tested entitlement due to each retiree, today is in excess of $ 500 per week.
This surely debunks the politicians claim that the generation are paying a proportion of their current taxes to cover the payments made to pensioners. The obvious short fall has been swallowed by the government’s Taxation Black Hole.
The historical summary above highlights the fact that politicians of opposing political parties each contributed to the agenda to destroy the entitlement as it was intended why ?
When it clearly would not have been the will of the people.
While Party Politicians are controlled by a few people who are hidden from public view yet are open to Manipulation and Outright Corruption , there can be no certainty of the payment of pensions.
Only a majority of truly Independent representatives can bring about a change from Government under corporate control, to Government for the People, of the People, by the People.
Just because a cabal of political miscreants become so GREEDY and they change the way a tax looks in the Ledgers,
IN NO WAY REMOVES THE FACT THAT THIS TAX IS TILL COLLECTED AND IS SO COLLECTED STILL TO THIS DAY TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUPPLY AND CONTINUATION OF THE OLD AGE PENSION.
A STIPEND TO THE ELDERLY CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY WHO HAVE WORKED FOR DECADES OF THEIR LIVES TO BUILD A NATION AND HAVE FROM WORKING DAY ONE OF THEIR LIVES, BEEN PAYING 7% PLUS OF THEIR TAXES DIRECTLY TOWARDS THIS PENSION.
The old age pension is not a privilege;
Is not a right;
Is not a gift;
Is not even welfare;
The Old Age Pension is an asset;
Owned and accrued by each Australian Citizen who has funded this asset from their very own purse.
The governments of the day were employed to amass, secure, invest and manage a fund that in its first 5 years bulged to almost 100.000.000 Pounds ( am amount in that day that equated in that day in this day’s dollars and cents, to approximately AU $240 million give or take a million or two ).
They did amass, secure, invest and manage and the figures were colossal and frightening to them and hence they conspired to hide them back into the Consolidated Revenue Bucket and to this day, the bucket has been brimming with a 7.5% tax collected specifically and only, for the Old Age Pension.
Now young Australians ! You are not paying for the welfare of Baby boomers, you are paying for yourselves, new immigrants, the needy in society requiring social services and welfare, dole recipients and the bludgers, – BUT YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE OLD PENSION OF ELDERLY AUSTRALIANS WHO HAVE WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES IN THIS COUNTRY AND PAID THEIR DUE FAIR SHARE OF TAXES. Nick Minchin on the Tony Jones ABC TV Program Q & A 11/09/2008 stated quite clearly that funds were not, have not and are not collected and held in a bank account waiting for the government to pay it out in the form of the Old Age Pension, or words that meant, “exactly this.”
As an ex Australian Federal Government Finance Minister, this man knows that this statement on that television program, was a blatant lie ( and he said it with a look of sincerity on his face, the ability of doing so obviously a political prerequisite ).

The ALP & LNP They found the Loophole in the Original Legislation that allowed them to Legally Access that Pension Retirement Trust Fund!
Labor & Liberal had to both agree for it to be legal!!!!
Guess what the Carrot was for Labor?
LNP promised to Build a Brand New Parliament House in Canberra FOR All Politicians!
So Labor took the Bribe and agreed!
Legal Theft by BOTH PARTIES!
Conditions agreed upon....
No MP from either party is to ever admit or discuss that deal before death!
No MP will answer any questions on the Subject...they walk away or change the subject!
Sworn to Secrecy!
GREATEST LEGAL THEFT OF BILLIONS BY ANY GOVERNMENT EVER!
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
12:14pm
Rubbish the OAP is welfare paid to those who have no others means of support.
George
6th Jun 2018
12:44pm
Thanks for supplying the information again, Rocky2, useful for those not listening earlier to understand how BOTH major parties have stuffed the Australian Age Pensioner and STOLEN their contributions by acting as a Tag Team.

Scrap the Special Politicians Pensions - this won't happen unless they are ALL voted out, and NO MORE are allowed to get to their Minimum 8 years on the seat to get their fat, undeserved, untested, Minimum 50% of Base Salary as Pensions.

Hence, all Voters (Retirees, in particular, Age Pensioners even more so) MUST NOT allow these creeps to get re-elected - vote them all OUT (put the current seat-warmer last in Preferences)!
Rae
6th Jun 2018
12:45pm
Rocky2 we should have rioted when they sacked Whitlam and kept it up especially when Fraser stole the welfare fund that PAYGs finance.

I didn't recall being told about it by the media at the time. Bit like the bail in legislation I expect.

Anything to save their own tails at worker's expense.
patchy
6th Jun 2018
1:24pm
very well researched & said
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
1:51pm
Yes - we've been through that, Rocky - thanks for putting it all out there for everyone.

OG - your reasoning, as usual , is false - OAP is not given to those with no other means of support - it is a right of everyone - but currently bounded by an assets and income test.

You simply whine because your politics of envy dictate to you that you can't bear to see someone getting an income that you don't get... as usual Thatcher was half-right, but utterly failed to have an inclusive view of reality, so you can forget your neo-Thatcherite whining.

Pension and unemployment benefits are a bought and paid for right.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
1:59pm
Nope welfare is not a right or an entitlement at all.
Triss
6th Jun 2018
2:22pm
If you are right, OG, then all pensions are welfare because if you took away everyone’s non-OAP pensions, ex teachers, ex nurses...ex anyone who’s retired, the majority would have no means of support.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:46pm
Triss the OAP is not a pension in the true sense of the ward as there is nothing backing it unlike other pensions.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
3:10pm
Nor is there anything backing half the other ''pensions'' paid securely to the more privileged, but nobody is attacking them. There WAS money backing the OAP - a HUGE amount of money. It's hardly the pensioners' fault that it was stolen by fraudsters.
Triss
6th Jun 2018
4:04pm
Very true, OGR, and now government has the gall to tell taxpayers that pensions and pensioners are a burden when the real burden is politicians’ criminal act.
Alexii
6th Jun 2018
4:56pm
Thanks for that report, Rocky. It's very comprehensive. Perhaps you should, if you haven't already done so, submit it to all there newspaper and media outlets in the country.
Rae
7th Jun 2018
8:31am
OG you are right and that is a total disgrace. Perhaps we do need to rise up and pull the Government down and insist on our welfare fund being restored and the aged pension being reinstated as an entitlement.

You keep telling us the truth about the theft of it and you're right of course. This lousyy LNP government hates workers with a vengeance spiteful and corrupt.
Grateful
6th Jun 2018
11:21am
Apart from the obvious answers that it is a disgrace that only South Korea is worse than us in supporting our aged citizens, there is also a glowing discrimination against married individuals (not couples).
Those married "individuals" ARE equally "individuals" as a single person, yet they are paid only 75% of what a single person receives, $500 per month less!!!
That "two can live as cheaply as one" went out with the dark ages, married people DO enjoy basic individual activities and contributed equally to EARN that pension payment. That disparity in payments is an insult and highly discriminatory.
Big Al
6th Jun 2018
12:34pm
Grateful - you have overlooked the fact that a married couple only pays one lot of rent/mortgage. Just one gas bill. One electric bill. The rates are the same on a property whether it is a couple occupying, or a single. Otherwise your argument has some merit.
I know plenty of unmarried couples, who don't declare their relationship to CentreLink, and thus benefit from two single pensions. So there is unfairness in many ways, not just the way you are inferring.
Rae
6th Jun 2018
12:48pm
It's getting harder for singles to live alone. Perhaps the solution is to share house with another or to move to a cheaper area.

Before driven into poverty by unaffordable rents or home costs ie rates, insurance, maintenance.
George
6th Jun 2018
12:50pm
Good comment, Grateful, it's nothing but a nasty rule to cut back pensions for couples. Also, encourages break-ups, and fraud as Big Al has noted.
Big Al, why do Politicians get their fat, undeserved, unfunded, untested huge pensions without looking at whether they have a partner (always a matter of doubt as per Barnaby) or not, or whether they have other Assets / Income or not? Protected species?

So, NO tests, and Universal Pension with only Age (65 yrs) and Residency (say 15 yrs) is the way to go. And, scrap all Politicians Special Pensions so that they also follow the same rules if they want OAP.
Grateful
6th Jun 2018
1:49pm
With true respect Big Al. The point that I am trying to make is that married or single, they should be treated equally as they are both "entitled" under the regulations deeming entitlement, and have both "earned" the right to be granted a pension just for being an Australian citizen who has paid all their taxes and contributed to the community throughout their lifetime, thus deserving to be treated as that single individual regardless of their race, creed or marital status.
And married couples eat and drink twice as much food and drink, use twice as much hot water, twice as much clothing, twice as much for treats such as a rare coffee with friends at the coffee shop or a movie, twice as much public transport costs, individual medical, pharmaceutical and dental expenses and personal hygiene items, separate hobbies, just to name a few.
It definitely encourages fraud and certainly discriminates against marriage. How ironic and hypocritical is that?
Triss
6th Jun 2018
2:32pm
That’s a good thought for builders or downsizes, Rae. It can’t be that difficult to split a four bedroomed house into two separate areas and each renter will have a lower rent.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:41pm
Yes, Grateful, and married couples often need a larger home and consume more lighting and heating to allow the partners to occupy different rooms - or should they not be allowed to have privacy and pursue different activities just because they married? Many genuinely NEED to run two vehicles for valid reasons.

I could live on 1/4 of my current income if my partner wasn't around. I have a partner who suffers PTSD and cannot live in confined spaces, so needs a stand-alone house with no close neighbours. I could live very happily in a small home unit or even a caravan if single. I could eat far more cheaply if alone, but I am hardly going to buy, store, cook and eat a whole different set of foods while sitting across the table from someone I love.

Mean people - who do not have to tolerate the harsh conditions imposed on others - are quick to support any measure that might feed their greed by reducing taxes marginally. But nothing is as simple as they pretend. And it IS mean and disgusting to be continually demanding that the aged be further deprived. We earned a much better deal than we are receiving. We deserve respect. Other nations have no problem looking after their aged far better than we do. What's wrong with Australia? To consumed by GREED among the privileged, it seems!
Sundays
6th Jun 2018
2:50pm
Rae, the Qld Govt is piloting a scheme matching singles on the OAP who want to share accommodation. All the participants are fully vetted. I think it’s a god idea
Rae
6th Jun 2018
3:11pm
Yes Triss and was an original idea for those dual villas built all over.
I can't believe the cost of those villas now in a lot of areas.

Too many people want to live in the same desirable spots.

I always thought the motel arrangement a good idea as a type of boarding house with paid management who cooked for maybe up to a dozen residents. Joint dinning room, kitchenette and recreational facilities including an outdoor area with BBQ and seating.

Subsidise with the rental grant and say $200 of each persons pension a week. $3400 a week should run the place surely as public housing for the elderly.

There are barely viable motels all over the country that could be bought and renovated to suit.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
9:12pm
.. and a disabled person with some problems needs heat control all the time... here I'm often amazed to hear the air conditioning going on a cool night.... it's nothing for 'the other room' to go from heater to air con in one night.

Some people cannot control body heat, and all that adds to costs, and as people age, these things become more prevalent.

Just one example of how costs can add up.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
7:13am
And some with mental disabilities cannot live in confined spaces or close to others. But I suppose - regardless that their mental disability was caused by abuse by the State - they should just be forced to suffer, for the convenience and morbid satisfaction of the privileged who get their thrills from seeing others in pain.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
2:25pm
I see a rather discriminatory anomaly in paying married pensioners less. When it comes to tax, they are treated individually! Rather unfair!
Sundays
6th Jun 2018
11:36am
It’s not enough. I agree rent assistance should be increased but at the same time research into average costs of running a home should occur. Rates, insurances, repairs and maintenance are not cheap. Can’t compensate one sector at the expense of another
Rae
6th Jun 2018
12:49pm
But that is exactly what they have been doing lately.

Compensating working mothers now at the expense of single retired people.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
2:02pm
Spot on, Rae. I've laid out before what 'welfare' actually is - and it's not paid for Pensions and Unemployment Benefits.

Welfare is PPL, childcare subsidy, and a host of other things that are not part of the Social Security budget. You can throw in tax concessions for corporations and a host of other things as well - as many have been doing here for ages.

No wonder society is become a wasteland for the many - the bottom line these days is the dual income family - all market prices are based on the expectation that both parents in a family are working - and thus unless you have a massive single income or two good dual incomes, you simply cannot compete.

The pension should be calculated at the going rate for the Dual Income Family to make it fair. Take the total male AWE and the female AWE :-

$3072 x 27.5/100 = $844.80 pw......... $1689.60 pf.

Nearly double the current amount, and closer to what is actually required to get by these days.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
2:04pm
Sorry - that calculated figure was:-

Total M/F AWE = $3072, calculated at 27.5% of REAL AWE for the MADIF (Mandatory Dual Income Family) = $844.80 a week.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
9:15pm
Again - on this nonsense of including the family home in the assets test - if that is to become the case, compensation should be paid for all the costs of procuring, maintaining and extending etc that asset. If it is to be treated as an asset - it should be treated as an asset from the date of purchase.. and all costs deducted, or at the current time, all costs refunded on an indexed basis before chopping away at pension rights.

These loudmouth politicians and their tame mates can stick it where the sun doesn't shine....
Kosmo
6th Jun 2018
11:40am
I hope they do something about They just keep talking about, but nothing happen, this is ridiculous.!
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
11:46am
We live quite well on considerably less than the OAP so we must be well below the poverty line.
Hasbeen
6th Jun 2018
12:40pm
I agree Old Geezer. As a single pensioner, I have no trouble living quite well.

Yes I own my home on 20 acres. The acres are simply an extra expense, owned still so the grand kids can have their horses here. Fortunately I have owned the place for over 25 years, so the acreage is not charged as an asset, or I could not do it.

I can run a nice car, & an old ute, & fly remote control aircraft as a hobby all on the pension.

Obviously I don't drink, smoke or gamble, & with the horses & my dog to look after, can only be away if someone can baby sit them for me, so holidays are rare. So what, I love where I am. I can see no reason that todays young families should be expected to pay for oldies bad habits anyway.

I have a number of pensioner neighbours, both owners & renters, & none of then seem to be starving, so It can't be that bad.
Rae
6th Jun 2018
12:57pm
OG I too live on less than the OAP until I spend savings on something I want.

I'm not sure what is included in the spend that is causing such a large cohort to be struggling.
Some education in budgeting and saving perhaps.


More research is needed. It's probably rent or medical or addictions.

How you sort that is not pleasant for those who don't want to share or mov or change in any way. The other is a health issue and needs more of the medicare levy used properly. Propping up private health not spending properly in my opinion.
Big Al
6th Jun 2018
2:30pm
OG - that is an extraordinary blanket statement - 'we live on considerably less than the OAP....". Presumably, and obviously you live in your own (owned outright), home. Secondly, you must have assets considerably above $812k (I think that is the figure). So lets say you have $900k - then at a return of 5% you would have an annual return of $45k p.a. So, if you are living on less than the OAP (around $35k at present - give or take), you are obviously 'saving' more than $10k p.a - which will increase you asset pool, which will increase your annual income, and allow you to save more. So, if you aren't achieving a 5% return, then you either need to sack your financial adviser; or, if you don't have one, go and get some financial advice. Personally, I think your claim is dubious.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
2:35pm
Big Al - a fine neutral stance of a statement...
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:39pm
Yes I earn a lot more than I spend and always have done so. Why should I increase my spending just because I earn more when it is totally unnecessary.

No I don't own my home but I was thinking about buying a McMansion so I qualify for the OAP but will wait as I don't expect a change on government any time soon.

I don't have a financial advisor and so glad I don't if all they can earn for me is 5% as I aim to earn at least double that if not more.

Yes I do live on considerably less than the OAP so I know how much it costs to live well and if people can't live on the OAP then they are simply wasting their money.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:47pm
It's very easy to live on the OAP when you have plenty in reserve for those unexpected expenses or the occasional luxury treat. That's the difference between the rich morons who carry on about it being enough and the poor strugglers who KNOW it isn't. The battler has NOTHING to fall back on when that big bill comes in for repairs or replacements, or they get sick and incur medical costs, or there is a family crisis and they need to travel to be with loved ones in a time of need. The rich morons never count those costs, because they can just fall back on their huge pile of savings to meet them.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:50pm
OGR anyone that doesn't put a bit aside no matter how much they earn for such expenses is doing themselves a disservice.
Triss
6th Jun 2018
2:55pm
OG, I’m shocked, shocked to my very soul that you just considered being in receipt of the OAP...that very pension that you’ve spent so much time spouting venom over.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
3:02pm
And OG, anyone who thinks someone CAN put something aside when they don't have enough to live on is a blithering idiot. Of course we all know what ideally we should do. Having the capacity to do it is something else entirely. Coins and money bills DO NOT STRETCH.
Big Al
6th Jun 2018
3:09pm
OG, it just doesn't ring true that you can live on less than $700pw and be paying off your house. We all have got fixed costs - council/water rates, utilities, phone expenses, insurances. Then we do the grocery shopping - I would think for 2 people for a week, even the most prudent shopper would struggle to do better than $150 (weekly); and then there are car expenses. We haven't even figured in medical/pharmacy; alcohol and/or entertainment; clothing and a bunch of flowers for the wife occasionally. So your $700 weekly looks mighty thin to me! What do others think?
Hasbeen
6th Jun 2018
4:17pm
I don't know what you folk spend your money on, it can't be just food, & basic requirements.

OGR, it would appear that any blithering idiot around here must be you, if you can't live on the pension, with a little to spare.

This last year I had to spend $960 on materials to fix my fence damaged in the flood, & $180 on a new microwave. The pension covered this, & another $300 spent on my remote controlled aircraft hobby, with out touching my nest egg.

Big all I don't know what you eat, but I can guess it is all packaged meals & fizzy drinks, rather than fresh foods. My weekly food shop never exceeds $60 a week, including feed for a cat & dog.

The things that are likely to start to cause a problem are House maintenance & insurance, along with council rates, car registration & insurance, & the ridiculous increase in electricity cost, driven by solar panel & windmill stupidity. Without these the pensioner should be rolling in clover. Government could do a lot about these if enough pressure is brought to bear.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
5:18pm
Big Al, your insults are not justified. I said NOTHING about what I live on, personally, and I don't get ANY pension. All I said is that needs vary, and I know some who are really struggling. Ultimately, the facts are reflected in the OECD report and it says that Australia is treating its aged appallingly. It's not a question of what you or anyone else thinks or assumes. The facts are documented, and they condemn our society as disrespectful of its aging, uncaring, callous and selfish.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
6:05pm
You said you pulled $80k a year from your investments - 20% per annum..... that's not less than the pension, OG.

You need to keep your stories straight.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
6:43pm
Trebor I have never told anyone how much I earn and no that $80,000 is not right either. Yes I have $400,000 set aside to live on in case my other investments don't have to be sold in a fire sale and it makes enough each year to pay my bills.

I don't have a mortgage on a house either. I don't smoke, drink or gamble or even buy lottery tickets. I can't see the sense of any of them myself. I don't take drugs of any kind even those so called legal ones. I bought some new clothes the other day and I can't remember the last time I bought any but I'm off on a trip so need some new ones. Groceries for the 4 of us costs less than $200 a week. I look after two young people at present while they get back on their feet. Flowers grow in our garden so no need to waste money buying them. House has lots of solar for power and hot water so no much cost there. House is heated by a fire and I haven't bought any wood for 10 years as I get enough with the trees that fall down in my yard. I go to town once a week and write a list so I don't forget anything.

As you can see I don't spend much as I have no need for anything.
Sundays
6th Jun 2018
7:39pm
Big Al, of course no couple can live easily on $700 per week. I think $150 for food is reasonable if you want good quality including meat. I’m sure we’d save heaps if we just ate soups and lentils but that’s not the point. It’s a lot easier if you don’t have to stress every time an unexpected bill comes in. It’s like these politicians who live on the dole for a week, and say there is no problem! Btw, it’s nice that you buy your wife flowers.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
7:50pm
You've said several times that you have $400k in investments and pull 20% return - that's $80,000, OG.
Sundays
6th Jun 2018
8:42pm
Yes Trebor, but OG also says he lives on the smell of an oily rag, so must be reinvesting. Saving his money, watching every cent, but not really having to stress because he knows he has a lot of money to fall back on. Good luck to him, but why be so condescending towards those less fortunate.
Misty
6th Jun 2018
9:02pm
I don't know what planet you are living on OG but I don't know anywhere on this one that you can safely get 20% interest.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
9:19pm
He's in loan sharking - AKA payday loans....

OGR - Big Al wasn't the one with the nasty comments - that was Hasbeen.... may god rot his soul.......

I sense Big Al is coming over to The Light Side... there is a movement in The Force..... enough exposure to 'the other half' tends to have that impact on some people... now we need to see a few - make that every - politician showing us how it's done on $40 a day with no other support network set up.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
10:18pm
You are right, Trebor. Apologies, Big Al. I meant to address Has been with my objection to unwarranted insults.

Trebor, OG not only claimed 20% return on his $400K in super, but also said that was only a small portion of his assets. He claimed to have many times that in shares and other investments held privately. His income would be well in excess of $150,000 a year, so it's very easy for him to gloat about living well and to lie about the amount he spends.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
10:40pm
OGT wrong again as I have never said how much I have in super and it's not $400K. All I said is I have $400K set aside for living expenses so I don't have to access my other investments.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
11:33pm
Yet you pay no tax, do not vote..... hmmm....
Misty
7th Jun 2018
1:28am
Something not quite right here TREBOR.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
7:21am
Nothing is right when it comes to OG's wild lies, Misty. He couldn't lie straight in bed.
Magic Touch
6th Jun 2018
11:54am
Rocky2 you are very very right, This two ALP &LNP had found the loophole in the legislation and become legal politicians thefts of both parties to remove those hard working Australian of their old Age Pension, SO FELLOW AUSTRALIAN THING PROPERLY BEFORE YOU VOTE.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
10:21pm
It's called Grand Theft Canberra.....
Old Man
6th Jun 2018
12:08pm
I stand in awe of the compilers of these statistics as they have apparently used a crystal ball to look forward to December 2018 to obtain their figures. Hey folks, maybe they can give us some Lotto numbers or the winner of the 2018 Melbourne Cup?
Rae
6th Jun 2018
12:59pm
The amount of money being flung at lotto, powerball, lotteries and horses by retirees is appalling Old Man. It's part of the problem.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
2:36pm
Desperate people try desperate measures - one chance in ten trillion is better than none...
Triss
6th Jun 2018
2:43pm
Not wishing to throw doubt,Rae, but how do you know how many retirees and how much they spend on lotteries and horses? How does anyone know? And why have retirees been selected? I imagine there are lots of working, disabled or unemployed people who like a flutter.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:48pm
Well the amount of money spent on horse, lotteries and other forms of gambling show that a lot of people are part taking and many are on welfare.
Triss
6th Jun 2018
3:03pm
I ask again, OG, how do they know? If I amble down to my local TAB and put a couple of dollars on a horse, or join a syndicate for the lottery, how would anyone know whether or not I was on welfare or a pension? Even if I went to Bingo no one would know how many books I bought.
Rae
6th Jun 2018
3:23pm
We don't know Triss apart from the habits of friends. All my friend on the OAP buy these each week, enjoy it and so be it but that could be the $1000 to buy the appliance that blew up.

Australians in total spend an incredible amount gambling and it ads to poverty. We know this from the research.

Wyong Leagues Club takes over $500 000 a day just in gambling receipts and that's a low socio-economic area with high poverty levels.

It's desperation as TREBOR said and very sad.
Old Man
6th Jun 2018
3:25pm
I think y'all missed the point. The figures are false because they have compiled detail from December 2018. 2018, get it? We're not there yet so because they can see into the future hence my suggestion for Lotto and Melbourne Cup. You see Rae, it won't be a gamble, will it.
Rae
6th Jun 2018
6:18pm
LOL Not won't Old Man. We can only dream of knowing the future.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
11:34pm
Clerical error - run it through Centrelink and they'll fix it for you by telling you they are correct.

(oooooooh!)
mogo51
6th Jun 2018
12:13pm
Well said and delivered Rock2, it was very interesting reading. But alas, as you say, none of them will own up to it!
thommo
6th Jun 2018
12:20pm
Our politicians on both sides have been doing a disservice to retirees and aged pensioners over time. Instead of increasing it as needed to provide a respectable and reasonable standard of living for pensioners, they have done everything possible to reduce the pension so that many pensioners are now living in poverty, when there is absolutely no need for this disgraceful situation.
Australia is a rich country and can easily afford a dignified retirement for pensioners by paying them a reasonable and sensible pension, instead of treating them like sub-humans.
The pension is an entitlement, no a discretionary matter for our ruling class (regardless of what the Old Geezer says).
To add insult to injury, Abbott, Morrison et al in the LNP changed the assets test in the 2015 budget and which came into effect on 1.1.17, which reduced my retirment income by $15K per year, something which I and a million other part-age pensioners will never forgive this government (or forget).
This government almost lost the last federal election, but they will certainly lose the next one because of the backlash by pensioners, who are now starting to realise they alone have the power to change governments. This is what happens when a government treats one or more sections of socieyt with contempt.
Goodbye LNP and good riddance you bunch of morons...
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
12:25pm
The LNP will win the next election as the alternative is worse than what we have today.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
12:26pm
OAP is also welfare that is paid to those who have no other means of support. If you think differently then you are living in fairyland.
KSS
6th Jun 2018
12:56pm
thommo you must have significant assets to have 'lost' $15000 presumably from your pension. That being the case, why do you think that the taxpayer should continue to support you at the previous level when clearly you could make up the difference yourself from your own assets?

The only 'entitlement' anyone has is to apply for the age pension. There are no guarantees anyone will actually receive (in part or otherwise) a payment from the Government since it relies on the applicant meeting the criteria. Those that fully or partially meet the criteria will receive welfare payments. In the case where someone does not meet the criteria either fully or partially, they are expected to fund or supplement their living costs from their own assets. I fail to see the problem this.
Rae
6th Jun 2018
1:06pm
Not so KSS because they have simply deemed the non concessional amounts that were discounted and made up a lump sum figure to suit themselves as none of it was real.

The problem affects annuity holders.

I imagine all will be forced into annuities or pension arrangements over time though. You'd be a total idiot to put non concessional amounts into super at all now.

If you think they'll be considered on face value I know for a fact that they won't. Best to keep savings outside superannuation where you have control over it yourself.

The problem is the criteria keeps changing and in some super products you are locked in and can't change to compensate.

The no disadvantage rule has been truly broken by this current government. The other side is equally as bad though.
thommo
6th Jun 2018
1:16pm
These "reply" comments reek of class jealousy/envy, even hatred. You either don't like anybody having more than you or if you are rich, you loathe people trying to have as much as you.
You can have whatever opinion you like, but my vote says the OAP is an entitlement, and for the life of me I can't see why any fair-minded person would think otherwise.
KSS
6th Jun 2018
1:17pm
Either way Rae, savings are still an asset and so the person would still have to support themselves, in full or in part, if they don't meet the criteria for a pension. That's the point surely.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
1:40pm
I can't see how welfare can be an entitlement and the OAP is welfare. It has nothing to do with whether someone is envious of people having more than them or anything else. That s just the reality of how it really is.
KSS
6th Jun 2018
1:41pm
No so thommo. I have no problem with anyone 'having more than me' - actually it wouldn't be that hard for someone to do given my assets are few.

The point is, people who have worked and saved hard and amassed assets, ostensibly for their retirement and old age, should be using those assets for that purpose. Not relying on the Government for a pension in order to maintain those very assets.

I had my first job at 14 (if you don't count the paid babysitting i did from about the age of 12). I have gone without most of my life in order to save towards my own retirement I do not have millions in super or the bank or anywhere else, nor do I live in a million dollar house or even one I could downsize from. Yet I am not expecting to qualify for anything like a full single person's pension indeed if anything at all. And that's OK. That's why I went without holidays for decades, shop in discount stores to this day for my clothes, have no clothes dryer, heating or aircon in my home, turn everything off at the wall to save on electricity, prepay a mobile phone for calls and internet to avoid running up a large bill, always cook from scratch - it's cheaper, never eat out in cafes or restaurants and do the same things millions of others do to cut down on expenses. And that is just fine. I am responsible for me - no-one else!

Good luck to you. Absolutely no class envy here, thommo. Just taking responsibility for myself and not outsourcing to a third party (i.e. Centrelink and/or the Government of the day)!
Sundays
6th Jun 2018
2:02pm
That’s great KSS, but if things get tough and you need to spend some of your assets, I hope you’re not too proud to accept what is every Australians right. The Old Age Pension. It is not Welfare
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:20pm
KSS, the point is that people who worked hard and saved hard should be able to retain their assets to meet expenses they saved for - not deprived in early retirement and forced to run their assets down so they have nothing left when it's needed, while those who didn't save get handout. The logical result of these stupid mean policies is that the cost of supporting the aged rises because people save less and divest assets more rapidly in order to avoid being deprived of the benefit of the savings they worked so hard to acquire.

Meanness DOES NOT SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY. It costs. Your communist attitude can only drive higher stress on the taxpayer and higher government deficits, as more and more people quit trying to acquire savings that will yield no benefit.

If we want to reduce the cost of supporting the aged, the ONLY way to do that is to encourage and reward personal responsibility. Every self-funded retirees MUST be allowed to have more income than the most affluent pensioner, otherwise they will choose to become that most affluent pensioner. That's common sense! Pity common sense is so uncommon these days!
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
2:41pm
When the push is on for a US-style economy - it is well to look at the figures I posted yesterday - when one nation uses 60% of world resources to cater to less than 5% of the world's population, and engineers into itself massive poverty, poor healthcare (unless you've got money),and all other social ills on the mega-scale - it is NOT a viable economy of a 'rich' country.

The reason for that is simple - the same corporations run by the same individuals who are pushing for the 'global economy'.

Our home-grown hayseeds of politicians (Barnaby - where are you - chew that grass boy, time to come down off'n that bridge and stop playing that banjo to them passing canoe-loads of tourists) figure that is the way to go - massive riches for the 'top end' and grinding poverty for the rest... in the same self-defeating 'global economy'.

More socialism needed and more nationalism ... heeemie - here's your chance - you've still got one foot to put in your mouth - I guess that makes any fair-minded Australian a national socialist................... but hardly a National Socialist.

See what a massive difference use of capitals can make, son?
Triss
6th Jun 2018
3:17pm
I agree with you, OGR, when someone has worked and been frugal that money should be able to be used for the odd luxury or as a security buffer. A decent, basic universal pension is a must so no one goes hungry and it would encourage more folk to save a bit more over their working years.
heemskerk99
6th Jun 2018
6:39pm
another deluded brainfart of tremor, wish for once IT would come up with something even near the intent of this article but at least IT spared us from his beloved forefathers language this time, have not seen any comments from our dear labor slave micky on this page, ah forgot he owns houses, however the one who gives me the giggles has to be the one and only genuine shower, the amount of cases he/she can cites of people being wronged, never their fault, man what a book that would fill
as I have stated before, we should help those who have to rent, suggestion, more public housing, for those who own their home and state they can't live on to-days pension, think back to your last pay when you was employed and how much money you wasted without any thoughts for your retirement.




without having regard to not been able to work.
Misty
6th Jun 2018
9:05pm
OG you are the one living in fairyland if you think the LNP will win the next election.
Misty
6th Jun 2018
9:11pm
And heemskerk if you think you are being funny by not using peoples YLC'S names here you are wrong, look to you mate OG if you want to see someone who can tell as many tall tales as you say OnlyGenuineRainy does and I think you need glasses TREBOR is not spelt tremor, you are not fooling anyone.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
10:25pm
heemskerk is an idiot non-savant struggling with mental illness... have sympathy for him......

“If a madman were to come into this room with a stick in his hand, no doubt we should pity the state of his mind; but our primary consideration would be to take care of ourselves. We should knock him down first, and pity him afterwards.”

- Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), British author.

As a writer I collect quotes..... pretty much got one for every occasion... must get back to writing again... some time soon.....
KSS
7th Jun 2018
7:12am
WOW OGR. Usually I am accused of being a paid Liberal troll. Now I have a Communist attitude!

Must be doing something right then..... lol.
Rae
7th Jun 2018
8:57am
KSS if we can get that Future Fund off them to replace the stolen welfare fund then the disadvantages, the squanderers of income and the savers can all share the pie. Right now only the savers are being denied a bit of the action.
Triss
7th Jun 2018
11:06am
Hey, Rae, brilliant idea. Turnbull reluctantly called a Royal Commission on banks and we need one on the return plus interest of our stolen pension fund.
Dabbydoos
6th Jun 2018
12:20pm
Sunday I totally agree. During my working life I put every penny into paying off my mortgage. I now own my property however as you stated I have to pay insurance, maintenance and repairs. I receive no allowance for this.A married couple get 75% more than me for heating and lighting the property they inhabit. I am on a full pension, I went without whilst working and am going without now. My superannuation is negligible due to a divorce late in life, no doubt a married couple where the husband has been gainfully employed would have a good amount in superannuation. How pensioners that have to pay rent even manage to exist is a miracle.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:06pm
Please don't attack married pensioners to make your point. Many couples where the husband was ''gainfully employed'' have little or no superannuation, and many struggle with health issues as a result of conditions in that ''gainful employment''. Costs vary depending on many factors - not just married status. We should all be banding together to demand improvements across the board, not pitting one group against another. I also went without a great deal while working, and I can't get a pension at all so continue to struggle to work and earn a little to avoid draining savings I know will be desperately needed down the track. Yes, I'm lucky to have savings, but that doesn't make it right to penalise me for having struggled to accrue them, nor to deny me the right to use them for their intended purpose and force me to use them for the taxpayer's benefit instead.
The system is WRONG on every level. We need to band together to demand it be changes across the board, for EVERYONE'S benefit.
George
6th Jun 2018
12:34pm
"Lucky country"??? What a pathetic outcome being 2nd lowest on the list of OECD countries! It's a direct indictment of the UTTER FAILURE by BOTH major political parties to treat the Age Pensioners decently in this highly Resource-rich country with a small population.

Artcle says "...there are 1,552,340 full rate Age Pension recipients and an additional 931,669 part-Age Pension recipients, (and)
More than 70 per cent of the older Australian population receive the Age Pension, with 60 per cent of this number on the full Age Pension."
WOW! That's more than enough to join together and THROW OUT BOTH MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES (add Greens as they helped cut pensions), and let WHOEVER you want to replace them. Vote the current seat-warmer last in Preferences. WAKE UP all of you (Part-Pensioners in particular)! Any Independent (such as Ms. Sharkie) would be more likely to help.

Universal Pension for ALL with NO Tests, based only on Age (65 yrs) and Residence (say 15 yrs) is the ONLY FAIR SOLUTION. Ask your MPs to push for it. Also, remind them we will be getting rid of them if they don't help. Politicians Special Pensions also need to be scrapped to make them equal to other humans!
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
12:55pm
If people are starving why have we got an obesity problem that's getting worse in Australia today? More like people are living too well by eating way too much and getting no exercise as they can afford to own their own transport instead. It is certainly a lucky country. Maybe we are too lucky as it's made people lazy or not able to control their eating habits.
George
6th Jun 2018
1:15pm
Attempted topic diversion by a Govt troll. We are NOT discussing obesity which has many causes including lack of proper diet.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
1:18pm
If people are obese then they are not living below the poverty line.
Mad as hell
6th Jun 2018
1:32pm
Look at this scenario.

A couple who own their home and have $800,000 in super receive an annual income of $41,251. Halve that super, and the couple receives 94 per cent of the Age Pension payments meaning that their income increases to $52,395.

Please explain how this encourages Australians to not be a burden on the government.
thommo
6th Jun 2018
1:50pm
George...I agree with you 100%.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
1:58pm
Mad as Hell, it boggles the mind that idiots actually endorse a system that makes people better off on a pension, then claim they are saving the country money by depriving people and pushing them to divest savings. This morning, I spoke to an auditor who is part of a taxation advisory group and he was shocked and appalled at the situation and said it evidences grossly irresponsible and inept economic management by the government. Yet the blue-ties still rant that it's a good thing. Of course all they are interested in is seeing others crushed so they can gloat about their superior wealth!
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:02pm
OG will find any BS nonsense excuse to rant that people get too much. It really comes down to HE IS GREEDY AND NASTY. He wants others to suffer so he can gloat about his superior prosperity. The worst kind of monster!

The facts say aged poverty is a problem. Raving about obesity does NOT change the facts. There are many causes of obesity. One is poor diet due to poverty. Another is depression - often caused by poverty and fear or by not being able to afford the minor comforts that make for an enjoyable lifestyle.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:03pm
OGR self funded retirees can also use their capital as well as the earnings on that capital to pay their way. We have to put a stop to people getting handouts to live and then their heirs getting a lottery win at the expense of the taxpayer.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:15pm
Nothing to do with heirs, OG. It's about being allowed to conserve NEEDED savings for what they are NEEDED FOR WHEN THEY ARE NEEDED. And it's about saving the government money by NOT encouraging people to retire with less than they could have saved. The country is broke because of idiots peddling stupid policies that impose high costs on the taxpayer, and because of mean, nasty rich folk supporting those policies because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy to see others hurt and to feel superior.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:20pm
Good to see I am right as when people start abusing me a do get a warm and fuzzy feeling as I know that I am right.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:29pm
We know why you feel warm and fuzzy, OG, and we know you are deluded. TOTALLY DELUDED. AND THOROUGHLY BRAINLESS.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:46pm
ROFL
Raphael
6th Jun 2018
3:25pm
If the pensioners and dole bludgers cooked healthy meals instead of waste money on fast food , they'd be healthier and have a lot more to spend on some luxuries.
But if eating expensive junk food makes them happy, good luck to them. Just don't whinge and ask for more handouts
Triss
6th Jun 2018
3:41pm
OG, obesity is not necessarily caused by too much money. Poor people can be obese from eating low quality food that might be cheap and staves off hunger but it doesn’t supply the correct nutrition.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
6:50pm
Junk food today is a lot more expensive than good food so to get obese one has to spend a lot more on food than they should to live well.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
10:26pm
Why exactly is that, OG? So only the well-off can hand their heirs a lottery win?

Who the hell do you imagine you are.... and imagine is the correct term.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
10:52pm
I plan to die a penniless bum so the state has to dispose of my remains.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
11:36pm
No heirs then, who you might want to help start a good life? Oh, well... them's the breaks....
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
11:38pm
I was just thinking today, that if my grand-kids suddenly lost both parents, those kids would have at least two homes they could come to... probably three....

It seems that investing wisely in the future of your children pays dividends... when they have homes they can always go to in crisis - so can their kids.

My door, and their grandmother's door that I paid for, is always open to them.....
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
7:20am
My goal was to provide adequately for my disabled grandson so that the state wouldn't have to, but scum like OG would rather he be a poverty-stricken welfare dependant living a life of misery.

I worked my guts out in crap, low-paid jobs so scum like OG could profit and get rich, and now that FILTHY DISGUSTING SCUM wants to steal the little I saved to give my grandchildren a better life. Well of course they do, because if my grandchildren have a better life, the FILTHY DIGUSTING SCUM can't exploit them the way they exploited me. Can't have anyone giving the poor folk of the next generation a leg up. That would totally mess up the plans of the nobility.
KSS
7th Jun 2018
7:20am
TREBOR that is what families do - take care of each other.


It's not the job of the Government to do that except in very exceptional circumstances. And getting old of itself is not an exceptional circumstance!
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
2:27pm
KSS, it's a bit hard for families to take care of each other when they are unfairly deprived of the funds they put aside to do that.
Grey Voter
6th Jun 2018
1:20pm
No comments :-(

Annual Incomes compared:

Retired Prime Minister $450,000
Retired politician $174,000
Soldier $40,000
Pensioner $12,000

Figures are average / approximate BUT relative and relevant.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
1:45pm
Qantas CEO $20 million.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
1:55pm
What a disgrace! Anyone who endorses paying such obscene salaries to people while the aged live in poverty is the lowest form of SCUM.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:00pm
Many public servants get more than the PM as well.
Triss
6th Jun 2018
4:20pm
And on top of that, Grey Voter, is the extra income that is not taken off their pensions, unlike OAPs. John Howard and Paul Keating for example on the speaking circuit getting $10,000 - $15,000 each booking.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
6:09pm
.. and people actually pay to listen to these destroyers of this nation expound on their genius....
floss
6th Jun 2018
1:37pm
Great comment Rockey2 it explained a lot and gives a history as to why we are in the mess we are today many thanks.Yes pensions are falling behind but keep in mind self funded retirees that have a income below the full pension as pointed out by one of our regular contributors.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
1:42pm
Oh - and that $23,644? It gives the lie to OG's assertion that people on minimum are worse off.... you mean there are degrees in sucking wind at the bottom while the lairds pontificate on the laziness and shiftlessness of the common herd??

We're gonna need more, bigger, more high-tech, and well-greased guillotines...
floss
6th Jun 2018
1:58pm
Mad as hell you can blame fat Joe and the Mad Monk for that piece of ill thought out rubbish.
Mad as hell
6th Jun 2018
2:03pm
I do and the GREENS
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:04pm
Watermelon party. Green on the outside red on the inside.
Raphael
6th Jun 2018
1:59pm
Look it’s very simple folks. The full OAP should be sufficient to meet all your basic needs
It does that and then some
Even sufficient for many pensioners to waste the extra on pokies
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:00pm
And go on cruises in balconies and suites too.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:12pm
Say the arrogant self-serving blue-tie government trolls who have huge wealth and will never have to worry about the inadequacy of it. Easy to LIE when you are not affected and never will be. Only SCUM would suggest poverty levels that rate us close to the worst in the world at caring for our aged are acceptable.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:13pm
Dream on, OG. OAP's with no other assets or income DO NOT CRUISE - let alone occupy suites. LIAR.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:21pm
So yes cruises are full of people on the OAP with most in balconies and suites.
Sundays
6th Jun 2018
2:38pm
So OG, when you meet retirees on cruises, you always ask them how they paid for the holiday, are they on the full OAP and are they sleeping in a suite or balcony room. I know what I’d tell you if you asked me such personal questions!
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:42pm
I don't have to ask they just tell me how well they live on the OAP and what a fool I am if I am in anything but a balcony or a suite. No need for personal questions at all. It's great as they think that I'm struggling to make ends meet as I didn't book a balcony or suite.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:42pm
No Sundays. He makes this BS up because it suits his disgusting agenda. Nobody on a full OAP with nothing else goes cruising in balcony cabins or suites. NOBODY.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:44pm
I never take formal clothes either and just tell them I can't afford such finery. I imply can't see the point of lugging clothes I may wear once or twice around myself. I just take what I know I will wear and nothing more.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
2:49pm
The only way I get to cruise is to buy an older sailing boat and work on it until it's up and running well... good thing I can do woodwork and mechanical stuff and even electrics.... the joys of being a bushie born and bred. (Fireside chat).. the old man used to tell the tale of catching young parrots in the trees after they'd settled for the night, to sell for a few shillings..... up around Werris Creek that were...

You been going through those people's bags in their cabins while they're out in the deck sun, OG, and going through their mail boxes and their phone lists and their internet connections while they're gone on a cruise??

Been wondering who's been doing that.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
2:52pm
Remind me to mention you to Her Majesty next time I'm dining at the palace, OG...
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:53pm
So they tell you they are on the OAP. They obviously DO NOT tell you what other assets or income they have. Why would they?
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
2:54pm
I was actually introduced to Her Majesty when she first come to Australia but I don't expect she will remember me.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
2:59pm
OG, many folk I know personally who are on the OAP has $20,000 or more per year more income than I do as a worker with private investments - but that's because they have the maximum allowed assets. They make sure to run down their assets in order to maximize income. That's the STUPIDITY of the system you constantly endorse. But I also know many who have nothing but the OAP and they are in dire straights, and it is NOT because they are wasteful or extravagant.

Yes, I also know some who manage nicely on the OAP, because they happen to live in an area where housing costs are low, they can walk to everything because the town is small so they don't need a car, and the local community is generous with home grown vegies, used clothing, etc. Of course they don't have holidays or eat out, nor do they have any hobbies to speak of. They just sit in a rocking chair and wait to die. I guess that's what you would have all struggling aged folk doing. How dare they want a LIFE after decades of working their guts out for peanuts to make fat pigs rich?
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
3:00pm
Yes, well I presented Her Majesty with flowers on one of her visits. So what? Big deal! Who cares, OG, other than a gloating egomaniac.
Raphael
6th Jun 2018
3:20pm
A short cruise to the Pacific Island cost upwards of $7000

Perhaps they get pensioner discounts and buy on specials or get group discounts.

Still if they can afford to go on these cruises once in every couple of years, they only need to save around $3000 per year or thereabouts.
Easily do-able on full OAP.

Ive never been on cruises myself, dont think they are value for money. But then I've always lived frugally and saved so that I would not have to rely on OAP. $7,000 I'd rather spend on more important things
Misty
6th Jun 2018
9:17pm
Raphael what rot, I received an email from a cruise company, you can go on a 9 night cruise of the Pacific Islands for $1,190.00 twin share and much less for quad share, depending on the month of course.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
10:06pm
And as a widowed pensioner, Misty, you spend three times that amount to cruise in a suite a couple of times a year, without even blinking? Right? I'm quite sure you do. I'm sure because OG says cruise ship suites are filled to the brim with folk just like you, who have no idea how else to spend the fortune the government hands them every fortnight.

And while on those cruise ships, they freely tell OG - whom they don't know from Adam - all about their personal finances and spending habits and chastise him for not indulging in the luxury of a suite. Well, you would, wouldn't you? You would tell him all your private business - even taking him to the casino with you and detailing how much you put in the poker machines each week and how much alcohol you consume each day and how many cigarettes you smoke and how many lottery tickets you buy? I mean, of course you offer that information to a total stranger every day of the week - while you are spending your huge pension income on all those luxuries.

Geez... OG must think we are all totally brainless! Imagine even THINKING such stupid rubbish, let alone writing it and expecting anyone to give him an ounce of credibility! Dozens and dozens of diligent surveys and statistical analyses verify that the aged pension is inadequate to fund a reasonable lifestyle and 1/3rd aged pensioners live in poverty, yet OG expects us to believe poor pensioners are cavorting about in a rich man's paradise all day gambling and drinking cocktails and spilling their guts to perfect strangers detailing how much they have and earn and where every cent of income goes.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
10:27pm
Jeez - all these better-betters.. I only provided security for Her at the opening of the Comm Games way back....
Misty
6th Jun 2018
10:32pm
In my dreams OGR I wish, I am surprised OG would spend the money to go on a cruise, aren't you?, I didn't think he would lower himself to spend time mixing with OAP.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
10:47pm
OGR you certainly would be very surprised what people tell me. It is not unusual for people to tell my all about themselves as I am a good listener and they feel very relaxed in my company. I get to know all sorts of things and on my last cruise I saved hundreds of dollars from tips given by Americans.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
11:39pm
You work for M.I.6, OG? Or M.I.5? Or their local equivalents....??
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
7:07am
Yes, sure, OG, while you are cruising in luxury spending less than the OAP. Dream on idiot! What you are is not a good listener but a pathological liar. Sorry, but it's patently obvious. You are wasting your fingers here. Nobody believes a word of your crap.
Magic Touch
6th Jun 2018
2:15pm
IN YOUR AREA YOU DON,T HAD THE PERSON OR PARTY TO VOTE, THEN SPOIL THE VOTE SO NO ONE GET YOUR VOTE THAT THE ONLY WAY OUT. IF YOU DON,T VOTE YOU WILL BE FIND.
Big Al
6th Jun 2018
2:46pm
That is idiotic, Magic Touch - I really resent having paid taxes for more than 50 years to have it wasted on people who think along such moronic lines. Hope you have had the decency to not have had kids!
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
2:53pm
Settle down, Big Al... he/she's just advocating that you refuse your vote to the kinds of clowns who stand...

Sounds like a Groucho Marx... I wouldn't stand for any party that would want me...
KSS
6th Jun 2018
3:00pm
If you give up your right to vote, then you give up your right to criticise.

You may not always get what you want by voting but at least you played your part. And it's a right (and a part), I might add, that thousands have died for round the world and millions more wished they had the right.
Rae
6th Jun 2018
3:41pm
There has to be someone good out there. What happened to the days when the constituents supported a candidate and had them elected. Party Politics is the problem.

We need more concerned Independents without ideology dominating their vision.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
6:12pm
Who said anything about giving up a right to vote? All that was mooted was refusing to vote for The Tag Team and their hangers-on...
inextratime
6th Jun 2018
4:04pm
pension | Definition of pension in English by Oxford ...
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pension

Definition of pension - a regular payment made by the state to people of or above the official retirement age and to some widows and disabled people


OG -No mention of welfare in this definition so unless you have a different dictionary or you just like the word, I suggest you are wrong yet again.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
6:21pm
Pensions and Unemployment Benefits are handled under the Social Security budget - they are social security. Welfare includes such things as PPL, childcare subsidies, special scholarships, and other freebies designed to enhance the prospects of any selected group.

Someone rightly said that working mothers were being supported at the expense of pensioners (etc).... I've long said that there should be no PPL and no childcare subsidies - those are inflationary and equate to a higher rate of pay for the same job, something totally hated and lambasted when the special interest groups look at comparative AWE for men v women (without reason - NOBODY in this nation is paid less than the mandatory minimum for the same job unless they are being ripped off by their employer).

It is frankly bizarre to listen to all these high-flying politician women ranting on about 'wage gaps' without any reference to the facts, while demanding more and more Ministerial posts and more and more pre-selections to 'compensate', then full pay for all time off to sprog and feed and take care of their own kids.

Then we have the demand for women to get first shot at all the high paid professions... and a heap of special scholarships to get them there.

Talk about a higher annual income for less hours worked in the same job........
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
9:52pm
Trebor, I predicted, back in 1976, that the move to push women into the workforce would have dire consequences for both the economy and society in general. It was a hideously bad thing! But I have letters from Pru Goward telling me to stop lobbying against it because it is ''government policy'' and ''vitally important to the Prime Minister to ensure women have choices''. Excuse me! They took the choices away. How many women now can choose to stay at home and be full-time mother and homemaker? Women pursued careers in the early 1800s and before. They have always had the choice to work. What they LOST was the choice NOT to work outside the home. And as for ''fulfilment''... Gee, I doubt there's much fulfilment in standing behind a shop counter all day, picking flawed product of a factory assembly line, cleaning public toilets, or wiping tables and sweeping floors in food courts. Only the privileged have any hope of ''fulfilment'' - whereas a lot of women were very fulfilled caring for children and keeping a husband happy and a home homey.

But Goward was right. The government wanted women at work - for the extra tax revenue. Women's lib had nothing to do with what women wanted. It was a political campaign driven to reshape the economy and drive increased government revenue. And why does the government subsidize childcare? To push more women into the workforce - because without that subsidy, vast numbers would realize what ought to be patently obvious to anyone who can do math: that it's actually not improving the family financial situation for Mum to go to work unless she is in a high-paid occupation. Most women do not cover the costs of transport, work clothes, work lunches, convenience meals because they are too tired to cook, etc... Not to mention that they don't compensate for the money-saving activities stay-at-home mums pursued like making clothing and soft furnishings, gardening, fixing broken things, making toys, etc. If they had to pay full price for childcare, they would stay home, and the government DOES NOT WANT THAT! Pushing the ''make it easier for women'' agenda has nothing to do with gender. It's about ensuring women don't wake up that they have been totally CONNED - deprived of a lifestyle that was far more pleasurable and rewarding in every way than being part of a rat race. And the high-flying women driving campaigns? Like Ms Goward, they are the bum-lickers the government pays a king's ransom to bully or trick other women into supporting the government's sick agenda. After all, we want it to LOOK like it's the women driving the changes. They would hardly be quick to come on board if they thought MEN were making decisions about their future!

Oh, and finally, let's not forget that pushing women into the workforce and subsidizing childcare gives the government more control over the thinking of the next generation - the opportunity to brainwash the young. Tired, overworked, underpaid mothers haven't much strength to resist or counter bad influences, and in any case they are just not physically present for enough hours in the day. The kids spend their day with ''educators'' who are required to adhere to curriculums. And we all know what is in those curriculums, don't we?
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
10:40pm
..and the harm it causes to relationships between men and women in the home.... leading to continual family breakdown and stress.. and massive loss and the need to start again, in some cases over and over - all of which plays into the hands of a government intent on reducing under despotism of neo-poverty the many, while enriching itself and its cronies.

Marriage breakdowns keep a continuous supply of homes on the market for the vultures ...... and keep many constantly improverishedno matter how much the income levels rise.

Not to mention the unemployment and the simple reality that more women than men are stuck forever in a low socio-economic bracket, and are raising kids on their own with all the ills that follow from that (see your post about the curricula), and having essentially no real future but a sense of despair and thus of entitlement to demand more in retirement and in special treatment and such.

That's another area I was alluding to in discussing 'what work is' - it's damned hard work for someone to raise kids on their own and not have an adequate income to do so - yet the rewards are not there at the end of the day unless you 'worked hard and saved hard'... if you had the chance to even begin to do that.

Not to mention the current war between men and women that I am discussing elsewhere at the moment... (rolls eyes)... never ends...

Terrifying to consider what that curriculum means and gives those kids... all run by lunatics and very small special interest groups.... and kids are taught it wholesale. We had that with the 'feminists', and one result was the hostility of young men to older men.... up to and including violence... but certainly a total lack of respect.

Now it is being extended to include all 'special interest groups' and engender violence as the solution.... JayZuz...
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
7:03am
Well, Trebor, anyone who has ever sought power knows that the stable family and healthy community are the enemies of the power-mad. Control requires eliminating the supportive social network and the healthy influences. Hence, we first had the ''women's liberation'' lie that stressed families to breaking point and allowed the government to substantially control children's learning, and now we have the ''abolish gender'' nonsense that seeks to ensure the end of marriage and the family (by open admission of those driving it - despite the lies of their supporters and the mis-beliefs of the gullible!). It's all about destroying the social structure that is supporting democracy and people's rights. It's all about gaining supreme control.

Hitler wrote ""The best way to gain control over people and to control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time...''

Gun laws, anti-terrorism laws, anti-discrimination laws, forcing women into the workforce, controlling children's thinking, reducing social welfare to force people into unacceptable jobs... it's all happening folks. A little at a time. And all with polished speeches that make it sound oh so right and good for us.
Magic Touch
6th Jun 2018
4:44pm
Big Al, Kss you are not that pensioner you did not feel the punch and how hearting it was. The house price go up its not the pensionet fault, you don,t get any monies unless you sell the house but on the other end your OAP is totally cut off. Instate of you are able to make end meet by paying off the bills that come another land tax so you had to get money to it. Don,t forget there it,s bank loan to pay and no more super because job are not always full time. If it,s universal pension then it,s diffetent. I had work so many years and work so many job to buy something for my old age was punish by this government then why should I work that hard.Trebor it is OK.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
5:21pm
''With 36 per cent of Australians living on less than half of the nation’s median household income, Australian pensioners are the second worst off in the world, beaten to this dubious distinction by South Korea, where 50 per cent of older people live in poverty.''

It doesn't matter what a few privileged blue-tie wearers think or assume. The facts are stated and verified, and they declare our society disgustingly disrespectful of the aging, unfair and uncaring. Anyone trying to justify allowing 500,000 aging folk to live in poverty - regardless of how it's measured and whether or not you agree with the standard of measurement - is a disgraceful and contemptible selfish individual.
Raphael
6th Jun 2018
5:55pm
Rainey - do you even know what the statement "36 per cent of Australians living on less than half of the nation’s median household income" means ?????

Its just a meaningless statistic with no context?

Pensioners need less income so of course their OAP will be less than median.
Even well off pensioners would rather have their assets returning nil or modest incomes so that they can be eligible for OAP

Hence the multimillion dollar houses - asset rich income poor but still a bloody good income they chose for themselves in order to maximize handouts
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
6:47pm
Raphael I agree that statement is meaningless to me too.

Retired people need less than those working as they don't have the big costs of working to pay. Lots are now asset rich too.
heemskerk99
6th Jun 2018
7:11pm
only grouch genuine last shower could come up with these comments, what a life this person lives, hates the country, hates the government, hates other contributors unless they agree with his/her brainless and ill thought out arguments, never able to find anything decent to say about anything or anybody yet he/she persist in attempting to villify those who have another thought on the subject, good luck o.g you got them stumped!!!!!!
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
7:53pm
You're raving again, heemie - take your pills..
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
7:55pm
That smoking ruin on the ground over there is Old Geezer.... he's been shot down so many times that he no longer notices..... if he ever did.
Misty
6th Jun 2018
9:19pm
Raphael and OG of course that statement would be meaningless to you both as you have no idea how the other half live.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
9:33pm
Yes, Raphael, I know what ''36 per cent of Australians living on less than half of the nation’s median household income" means. It means that we have a serious problem of inequity and poverty that is driving up health costs, reducing people's capacity to contribute to economic growth, increasing crime, increasing mental illness, increasing homelessness, increasing unemployment and underemployment, denying children fair opportunity, reducing innovation and creative endeavours, reducing enterprise activity... It means our society is sick! It's not ''meaningless'', except to arrogant, ignorant, self-serving privileged folk who have no concern for the health of the economy or our society, much less the human decency to care about people.
Raphael
6th Jun 2018
10:15pm
Do you knmow what median means ?
Only 36% - that’s good .it means a greater proportion are skewed to the right of the median

What is our median income purchasing power - pretty darn good I would suggest , since almost everyone at the far end to the left Have their basic necessities met
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
10:41pm
Agree that mean has pretty good purchasing power and with most above it they are doing pretty dam well indeed.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
10:42pm
Oh - that's goo... able-financed to the right - the Untermensch to the left for the gas chambers......
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
6:54am
Of course those on the far right would cheer that 36% are on the far left. Never mind that 500,000 are aging without adequate warmth or food. Who cares? As long as the stinking folk on the right are enjoying the profits they gained from exploiting these aged folk when they were fit and healthy, let them all suffer and die. After all, it's ONLY 500,000. Only 36%. Nobody gives a stuff about them.

Hang your head in shame, Raphael and OG. You are the lowest of the low.
floss
6th Jun 2018
7:33pm
O.G. you are more than a clown you are the whole circus.Some people are doing it hard out there and all you and your mates can do is to pass smart ass remarks.
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
10:33pm
Rubbish.
Misty
7th Jun 2018
1:22am
Totally agree Floss.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
6:51am
Correct, Floss. Only he's not funny or entertaining like a circus. He's poison.
Dotty
6th Jun 2018
7:47pm
OG you are sounding like a broken down record ! get off it and shut the hell up !
I am totally dependent on the Aged Pension and I know what I pay out of that each fortnight and how much I "Dont" have left after bills and utilities are paid plus Rent and food and medication which I have lots of !
I don't go anywhere as cannot afford it and so I am stuck at home reading each and every remark you keep repeating about the $14.10 per fornight that we are given and you are saying we don't need !
Well I am telling you to shut your cake hole and let up as without that small extra and with the price of Energy I say we do need it!
So get on another horse and ride the hell out of that !
As I think you just like playing repeat yourself all the time ! So shut up for once and stop driving everyone nuts so that we become like you an old cranky geezer!
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
10:32pm
Why should I not have my say?
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
10:43pm
You have your say - over and over again like a cracked record.... and you are still wrong and not matter how many times you are given the true information you will never change.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
6:49am
And this is the clown who claims to like change!

But then, he is also the CLOWN (caps intentional) who expects us to believe that he lives on less than the pension but spends his days on luxury cruises, AND that while cruising perfect strangers spill their guts to him - voluntarily telling him everything there is to know about their financial affairs, income, assets and spending patterns. You know those strangers? The ones who spend their lives cruising in suites and balcony cabins with no income or assets other than the aged pension, and who live in luxurious mansions and are hoarding enormous wealth to leave to their rich children!!!

OG, living with change requires the ability to absorb factual information, understand, empathize, and embrace difference. Since you have NONE of those abilities, you clearly are incapable of living with change, and again you evidence that you live in la la land and waste your days dreaming up the most absurd and ridiculous nonsense and contriving ways to insult, offend and hurt at every opportunity.
GrayComputing
6th Jun 2018
7:55pm
It is time for all of us to rant at our MPs and Senators 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?

Does your MP really like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

Why do MPs normally compassionate persons let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

Some opposition and independent MPs stand to lose their chance at being part of the needed government changes

We need to tell our MP and senators that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.

NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
Misty
6th Jun 2018
8:47pm
Well OG if the Carbon Tax was supposed to have increased the cost of electricity how come it never went down when the CT was scrapped?.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
9:05pm
It went up due to privatisation, so as to feed shareholders who never existed before, and mutiple CEOs, board members, and duplicated time after time staff......
jackie
7th Jun 2018
2:05pm
Trebor...privatisation did increase utility bills but it was when they were deregulated that corruption set in just like it did with the banks when they were deregulated. All done by the ALP. It makes me wonder that these two parties are fooling us all.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
2:20pm
Jackie, the two parties are a tag team. They are working together for a common goal - and it is not a goal that any decent Australian wants to see accomplished.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
9:04pm
Folks, we should be a little more tolerant of Raphael, OG, and their blue-tie privileged mates. After all, they are living in fear that the coming radical changes - and they ARE coming - might upset their world, reducing their wealth and claimed superiority.

Leaders are starting to recognize that poverty is expensive, both in economic and social terms. They are beginning, slowly, to realize that addressing poverty is cheaper than allowing it to persist. They are starting - very slowly - to recognize that social change is inevitable and necessary. For too long, market dominance - too often achieved by exploitation, corruption and immoral abuse of power - has been the determinant of wealth and success. Our market system has mis-defined work and created an unhealthy attitude to valuing people and their contribution to society. For example, we value carers and stay-at-home mothers at next to $0, yet we place huge value people on who abuse power to make wrong and harmful decisions that impoverish people, drive unemployment, result in abuse of children and the aged, deprive people of needed education, and generally harm the economy.

Our society is sick, and Raphael, OG, and their mates are sh... scared of changes that might lead to a degree of healing, because they rely on the immoral rent-seeker model to maintain their precious wealth and social standing.

Intelligent people know that affording poorer folk respect and control over their lives results in them making better decisions. Intelligent people know that guaranteeing people a living income results in a healthier, better educated, better skilled, more motivated, more creative and innovative and more enterprising society. Intelligent people know that income security drives initiative and the desire to contribute to society to the greatest extent possible. But guaranteed income security doesn't sit well with the greedy privileged whose desire is to maintain a status quo that rewards corruption, exploitation and abuse of power and increasingly impoverishes the socially and economically disadvantaged.

Poverty equals higher health costs, more crime, and reduced economic growth. Perpetuating it is stupid. Only the greediest and most self-serving would resist beneficial change. And beneficial change can ONLY come from increasing rates of pensions and benefits and reducing the eligibility restrictions. Any other change will drive far worse problems and a far sicker economy. But of course Raphael and OG are too wealthy to care. They just don't want to see changes to the status quo, because it serves their selfish whims well.

Bring on the Universal Pension - hopefully as the first step toward the Universal Basic Income that will inevitably be introduced and is the ONLY way to restore social and economic health in a very sick and troubled world.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
9:08pm
By George - that's almost poetic.... and so correct.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
9:27pm
Intelligent thinkers may wish to check out ''Utopia for Realists and How we Get There''.
https://www.rutgerbregman.com/books
It's a great read from someone with extraordinary vision.
Misty
6th Jun 2018
10:03pm
Be careful OGR, Raphael and OG and heemskerk will be accusing you of being a commie next.
OnlyGenuineRainey
6th Jun 2018
10:09pm
Quite likely, MIsty, but they would be showing their ignorance, because Communists support the rent-seeking model more aggressively than capitalists. They do NOT support a universal income. Nor do they support a strong safety net for those who can't earn enough to fund a decent lifestyle. They pretend to support a measure of equality, but in fact their objective is a noble/peasant social structure - just with a lot more peasants than the capitalist nations have and with far less opportunity for peasants to improve their status.

It's actually forward-thinking capitalists supporting the idea of a universal income, because they see the writing on the wall.
Raphael
6th Jun 2018
10:11pm
The countries that tried Universal income have abandoned it
Doesn’t work
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
10:31pm
OGR we love change and all we do is adapt to it. If we didn't we would have gone the way of the dinosaurs decades ago but we are still thriving. We are certainly not scared of change at all as it just brings more and better opportunities for us.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
10:44pm
Glad to hear you are on board with the necessary changes to your financial structures, OG... that's a relief.... just to know you won't oppose and fatuously argue every change....
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
10:47pm
"It's actually forward-thinking capitalists supporting the idea of a universal income, because they see the writing on the wall. "

That's always been the way, Rainey. Any fool must know that if you undercut your own market you cannot prosper..... go - tell the politicians that we who lie dead here have done our duty...
Old Geezer
6th Jun 2018
10:48pm
I really can't see much changing in my lifetime quite frankly.
TREBOR
6th Jun 2018
11:29pm
Oh, well - Darwin-ed out of the equation...
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
6:44am
Raphael, where Universal Income was tried sensibly, it worked well. It has been abandoned by governments that made incorrect assumptions. The major experiment was ended after 4 years when a new government randomly decided to abandon it, without cause - except that they thought it a ''silly idea''. Sadly, they also abandoned the examination and compilation of an enormous amount of evidence gathered during the experiment. That evidence was examined by a professor 25 years later and it was found to prove conclusively that the experiment DID work. It proved that - contrary to the claims of arrogant, self-serving privileged folk - poor people do far better when allowed to manage their own income and when treated with respect. It proved - again contrary to the lies told by the rich - that people are NOT inherently lazy and if given income security will expend boundless energy on productive work - though it may not be the kind of work that benefits the exploiting wealthy, which is why the rich don't like the idea of giving the poor freedom to create, innovate, engage in enterprise, and contribute to social health.

The UI works. It works for social and economic health and general well-being. It's just that it doesn't work in the way the stinking privileged in control want it to work. It delivers the RIGHT social and economic results. It doesn't support criminality, corruption, abuse of power and exploitation.
Raphael
7th Jun 2018
12:20pm
Wrong Rainey
Check out the latest abandoned experiment in the Scandinavian countries

Suck a shame you fill your head with crazy information. Were you dropped on your head as a baby or take acid as a teenager
Rae
7th Jun 2018
1:53pm
That's like the Fraser Government randomly deciding to steal all our welfare money.

Like the Germans stealing the Greek Gold.

Or Costello stealing our gold and almost giving it away.

There are bastards everywhere apparently and they just can't be trusted.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
2:18pm
Raphael, anyone can claim an experiment failed if it doesn't suit their agenda. It didn't fail. It just didn't achieve what the rich and powerful wanted.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
2:19pm
And of course there will be an abundance of lies to justify the change the powerful wanted.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jun 2018
2:02pm
Raphael - and others - FYI. ALL experiments to date with the UI have proved conclusively a number of facts:

1. While there are some who will bludge, take drugs, gamble, drink alcohol, etc. under ANY conditions, fewer do so when a UI scheme is in place because it removes income stress and it affords people self-respect. It is stress, depression, fear, and lack of hope that drives people to these vices in most cases. Remove the stress and despair and the problems reduce dramatically.

2. There are VERY few who will do nothing when paid a UI. The rates of work participation increase, and productivity jumps because people have the freedom to pursue satisfying work opportunities instead of being locked into situations that cause misery and despair. There is much more enterprise. People demonstrate more creativity and innovative ability. Society is healthier because more people are free to engage in work that is traditionally unpaid but is needed - such as caring, and charity and community work of various kinds.

3. Poorer people do far better in all areas of decision-making and life management because they have security and freedom to make choices that benefit them longer-term, instead of being constantly worried about short-term loss of needed income because of cruel means tests or bureaucrats making assessment mistakes. They are also less vulnerable, so less likely to be cheated or ripped off or to fall prey to poor or dishonest advisers.

4. Administration costs crash to next to nil - for very obvious reasons.

5. Exploitation and abuse of employees no longer needs to be policed much because employees are free to leave if they wish, so they have fair control over their work conditions.

6. There is always significant opposition to the UI because the UI system moves us away from an artificial value system driven by market power and closer to a healthy value system that allows people to achieve the payment they are really worth, rather than what they can position themselves - via corruption, unethical or immoral conduct, abuse of power, etc - to demand.

The bottom one explains the claimed ''failure'' of experiments. The rich hate the idea because it deprives them of control and the ability to rort and exploit.
Raphael
8th Jun 2018
2:05pm
Fake news Rainey
UI doesn’t work and that’s why it was abandoned

Nothing you can say takes away from the truth that UI is a failure
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jun 2018
2:33pm
You have no credibility Raphael. Anyone can say ''it doesn't work'' with no substantiation whatsoever. Anyone can claim that's why it was abandoned. It takes INTELLIGENCE and THINKING and CONSTRUCTIVE ANAYLYIS to figure out what benefits accrued and why some people might want it to fail - and might lie to claim it a failure.
Raphael
8th Jun 2018
2:47pm
Read for yourself why all the UI experiments failed and had to be abandoned
I haven’t got time to cut and paste what are facts available form the respective governments that tried abandoned the schemes
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jun 2018
6:06pm
Unlike you, Raphael, I have studied the results of the experiments in depth. I don't swallow a few convenient lies from folk who had a vested interest in claiming failure. I already stated the reasons for opposition. And sadly those who oppose hold the power. It's all about keeping the wealth in the hands of the privileged - preserving the status quo for the benefit of the rich.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jun 2018
6:08pm
And since you totally misread the article above, and have no comprehension of what was written, you clearly wouldn't have the ability to read ANYTHING and understand it correctly. If you did cut and paste, you'd probably just prove you misread.
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Jun 2018
8:02am
UI won't work for one reason alone people today are too lazy so will just survive on it instead of doing anything productive. Take away the need to work and people will say why work?
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Jun 2018
11:30am
That has been CONCLUSIVELY DISPROVED, Nasty Uncaring Bigoted Big Bear. People, by nature, want to be productive. Set free to pursue satisfying work instead of ground into misery, their productivity soars. The only opponents to UI are the stinking selfish rich who want the poor to be downtrodden so they can abuse them.

Pay some attention to science instead of sprouting your bigoted, nasty lies.
VeryCaringBigBear
11th Jun 2018
12:16pm
Nope people are too lazy and most would just exist and have all sorts of health problems instead of lifting a finger to do anything.
OnlyGenuineRainey
11th Jun 2018
5:25pm
Says the greedy, selfish unethical DISGUSTING VGB who is taking money intended for battlers to satisfy his and his family's obscene greed and selfishness!

People are NOT lazy, VGB. Health problems arise when they suffer hardship, depression and a sense of hopelessness because nobody will give them a break. Obviously you are among the stinking vile privileged fat cats who have no idea what life is like for battlers - most of whom work incredibly hard. Poverty is NOT a result of laziness. It's a result of DISADVANTAGE. And SCUM who claim otherwise are the cause of it.
Ron Raines
7th Jun 2018
6:28am
Rocky 2 I have been posting this repeatedly on Facebook , the thieves ,when they realised there was so much money just sitting there,couldn’t wait to change things and get their grubby hands on it! That’s why they bought in compulsory super which now sits in the trillions , they are trying their best to do the same to it!! Doesn’t matter whose political party was in power they all worked on getting their hands on it.Thieves and traitors! Most of them couldn’t lie straight in bed!
Magic Touch
8th Jun 2018
4:08pm
Ron Raines you are right both political party are thieves and traitors they will change things so that they can work on it to grub that easy monies.
Radish
7th Jun 2018
1:40pm
Not everyone in receipt of a pension is in poverty...far from it.

It is a sweeping statement to classify all pensions as living in poverty....quite silly!
jackie
7th Jun 2018
2:02pm
Radish...Welfare for the rich takes away from the poor.
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
2:14pm
I don't believe the article suggested ALL pensioners were living in poverty, Radish. Of course many are well off - better off, in fact, in income terms than SFRs, who are forced to drain their savings for the benefit of taxpayers and forfeit the benefits they saved for. Hence financial advisers are telling people not to save more than about $500,000 unless they can get to $2 million+ - which of course is going to impact adversely on the Federal Budget, but the LNP and their supporters are too dumb to get that!
OnlyGenuineRainey
7th Jun 2018
2:17pm
Yes Jackie, and it's been widely acknowledged that the biggest budget problem is NOT the aged pension - which costs Australia less than half of what other developed nations spend, and is costing progressively less each year. Rather, it's the absurd superannuation tax concession system that hands out massive tax concessions to the wealthy and high income earners and gives virtually nothing to low income earners. The cost of these concessions - only 80% of which benefit folk who don't need help to fund retirement - is rising at 10% per annum and makes up the best part of the $80 billion spent this year funding retirement.
Raphael
8th Jun 2018
2:03pm
The max concessional contribution is $25k per annum
And you can only have $1.6m max in pension / retirement phase
Non concessional contribution is capped at $100k per annum
So where is the bias ?
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jun 2018
2:05pm
Strong bias, Raphael. $1.6 million is nearly double what a couple can have and get NO pension, yet those who can contribute those high amounts and build a huge balance get far bigger concessions than those with much lower incomes who still lose their pension entitlement but get far less superannuation tax concession benefit.
The bias is heavily toward the wealthy, as in everything in this disgustingly greedy society.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jun 2018
2:31pm
Let's spell it out in numbers, shall we? Exclude employer contributions for now and just look at voluntary contributions. Also, ignore inflation to make the calculation easy.

X gets $250,000 a year and puts $25K a year into super. Over the time it takes to accrue $1.6 million, he has saved a whopping $480,000 in tax. Now he retires and earns $160,000 p.a. tax free, gaining another nearly $47,000 a year in tax savings - less say $23,000 in pension he doesn't get and over 20 years in retirement he's gained another $480,000, to total nearly $1 million contributed to his retirement by the taxpayer.

Someone who had no super or savings gets a pension for 20 years and costs the taxpayer just $460,000 over the course of their life - less than half as much! Yet some greedy pigs here say the pension should be repaid by selling the poor guy's family home!!!

Now take someone who accrues $460,000 by retirement. He might have saved some $133,500 in tax, and perhaps earns $46,000 in retirement (if he's lucky!) - saving around $6500 a year, but he forfeits pension entitlements so he actually saves the tax man some $16500 a year. His total lifetime benefit, if retired for 20 years, is negative - ($196,500)

So in fact it's the lower paid workers who are funding retirement for the poor (who we don't mind paying for) and the overpaid greedy rich (who SHOULD NOT be getting such obscene benefits)
Raphael
8th Jun 2018
2:35pm
$2.6m @4% is only $64k
Math and Finance not your strong points
Have a cuppa tea and lie down dear
Raphael
8th Jun 2018
3:03pm
Sorry typo $1.6m
Adrianus
8th Jun 2018
3:43pm
Rainey, are you saying that X who is earning $250k pa should be paying the full $85k pa tax?
Rather than having it reduced by 47 /15 = 32% therefore having the $85k tax reduced by a lousy $8,000?
Wow, only a very mean spirited person would think that way. Poor X is saving for retirement as encouraged by the tax system but still manages to pay $77k every year to the ATO and you think its unfair that X is not paying $85K.

I see? You're setting up X for a $25k universal pension whether he wants it or not, so you can raise his tax to $97K pa. X is not happy and wants to know Y.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jun 2018
6:03pm
Raphael, I don't know where 4% comes into it, but clearly math and finance isn't your strong point. All the arrogant well-off here are boasting constantly that returns are running at over 10%!

Adrianus, I'm not saying anything about who should pay what tax. I'm merely pointing out the unfairness of giving the rich guy nearly $1 million and then screaming that the poor pensioner who gets less than half that should give up his house as payment and the guy who is struggling to survive self-funded ends up paying a massive cost for the privilege - but is also bullied and abused claiming he's ''greedy'' for wanting to keep his franking credits!

You seem worried about the rich guy paying a little more, but have no issue at all with the battling low-income worker being forced to contribute nearly $200,000 while his mates, both rich and poor, get benefits.
Adrianus
9th Jun 2018
8:14am
Rainey, what is fair about a hard worker paying $77k income tax and his neighbour paying zero income tax, while complaining that the $77k isn't high enough?

Your interpretation of what's fair has no relevance?
Why should one person's income (regardless of source) be placed on some sort of illogical fairness scale?? Why is it relevant?
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Jun 2018
8:55am
You obviously are unjustifiably wealthy, Adrianus, or you would understand that hard work and high salaries are totally unrelated. The hardest workers are NOT well paid. Progressive tax was intended to balance the inequity that results from allowing the wealthy to profit from rent-seeking and labour exploitation. When people work for lower pay, their labour enables more privileged people to profit handsomely. Either they directly produced much more value than they are paid for, or their work contributes to enabling profitable production - providing resources that are not paid for at their actual cost. Furthermore, their low pay positions them powerless to avoid paying excessively to rent-seekers who are fortunate enough to own property or control supplies of needed goods.

Progressive taxation and welfare systems were designed to balance that unfairness and ensure that those who contribute labour for much less than its true value are partially compensated by other means - i.e. reduced taxation and social security.

Unfortunately, what the greedy and selfish privileged have decided, over past decades, is that they are not satisfied to be able to profit handsomely from the labour of the less privileged. They want to abolish the compensation systems and have it all. They want to reduce the working class to peasants and slaves.

BTW. You should learn to read, Adrianus. I never suggested $77K wasn't enough. I never suggested increasing anyone's tax. Nor did I say anyone was ''complaining''. I simply provided evidence of who is actually getting what - evidence that makes liars of those who claim aged pensions are unaffordable and battlers should have to sacrifice their family home to achieve a reasonable quality lifestyle in retirement.

From where I stand, the complainers are the wealthy, constantly screaming for tax cuts and belly-aching in protest to inquiries that might expose rorting - insisting the victims of corruption are at fault and the corrupt rorters should be protected - unless, of course, they are disadvantaged folk allegedly rorting Centerlink. THEN they should be jailed, and they are guilty until conclusively proved innocent.
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Jun 2018
8:05am
It would not matter how much most people got it would never be enough to get them out of poverty.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Jun 2018
11:28am
That's a vile, cruel, disgusting remark UNCARING NASTY BIG BEAR.
Most people would escape poverty if afforded just a little help and fairness, but that doesn't exist in this self-serving society.
Adrianus
11th Jun 2018
8:12am
"Most people would escape poverty if afforded just a little help and fairness,"

In my opinion, most people would escape to poverty if incentivised by a welfare system.
There is nothing fair about increasing the tax on our man "X" because we think he is unjustifiably wealthy or that his high salary bears no relationship to his level of productivity.

VCBB is partially correct. Australia has the highest pension in the world. We also have the highest minimum wage in the world. And yet many of us think this is unfair and should be increased, so that prices and taxes are increased, so that we can continue to cry unfairness.

Unfairness and inequality have become an industry.
Adrianus
11th Jun 2018
9:13am
A self perpetuating industry.
OnlyGenuineRainey
11th Jun 2018
5:21pm
As a percentage of GDP, and relative to costs, Australian has the MEANEST aged pension in the world and treats its retirees worse than any other developed country. We also have among the lowest taxes in the world. But the well-off still bellyache and want tax cuts, and lie about the pension and poverty.

Welfare systems DO NOT incentivize escape from poverty. Means tests restrict escape routes and push more people INTO poverty. There is plenty of incentive to escape poverty. There just isn't enough support and help for most who are locked into it. But of course the privileged continue to lie to themselves as well as to others to justify their greed and selfishness. Pretend it's the fault of the victims of your greed and you can sleep at night. Heaven forbid you should have to face the truth - especially those like VGB who STEAL from the taxpayer to satisfy their obscene selfishness.
Adrianus
12th Jun 2018
11:48am
I don't even know why we still use GDP as a measure of the strength of our economy. If our ore exports are in strong demand this year with very high prices, in your estimation we look mean. Conversely, if next year the bottom falls out of prices and demand then we are seen as not mean?? Pensions have absolutely no relationship with GDP. A better relationship exists with the budget. After all that's where the money comes from and the welfare cut is very high.
OnlyGenuineRainey
12th Jun 2018
2:17pm
No, Adrianus. The portion spent on welfare is low, but too much of the welfare budget is spend on high income earners. And now the LNP wants to cut taxes for the 20% highest income earners, claiming they are ''low to middle'' - but of course manipulating the data unrealistically to justify bad policies.
jackie
7th Jun 2018
2:01pm
This is disgusting....So many Australians living below poverty because of shameless, corrupt Governments that are run by the greedy rich.
Raphael
8th Jun 2018
3:05pm
Where does it say below poverty ?
No one is living below poverty
36% have income below median and median is pretty well off
Adrianus
8th Jun 2018
3:25pm
Jackie, Australia has the highest minimum wage in the world. Some economists are saying this could become a set back for employment.
But I do agree with your point about the greedy rich running the show. We have previously singled out those. Here's a couple.. Beijing Bob and Shanghai Sam.
Misty
8th Jun 2018
5:11pm
Sorry Adrianus the 2 you mention here are no longer in parliament and have nothing to do with running the show where as M Turnb---s--t does and has a lot to answer for.
OnlyGenuineRainey
8th Jun 2018
5:55pm
Raphael, you show your gross ignorance saying ''Where does it say below poverty ? No one is living below poverty
36% have income below median and median is pretty well off''

It says ''With 36 per cent of Australians living on LESS THAN HALF of the nation’s median household income''.

Yes, median is reasonably well off. Less than HALF of median is a very different story. You've shown you are not qualified to comment as you have done, because you can't even read!

Having less than half the nation's median income means you are living in poverty.

So the article is certainly saying 36% are living in poverty. Yes, we are referring to relative poverty as opposed to absolute poverty. But relative poverty means you are unable to participate in society to achieve an acceptable quality lifestyle. In a country as wealthy as Australia, nobody should be unable to participate in society sufficiently to enjoy a decent quality lifestyle. Being isolated by financial hardship, unable to afford adequate warmth, unable to meet the cost of essential medical and dental care... those are all indicators of poverty in a developed nation, and 36% of Australians are unable to afford those necessities. That's a hideous indictment of government - and of the self-serving arrogant privileged who try to tell us this situation is acceptable. IT CERTAINLY IS NOT!
Adrianus
9th Jun 2018
7:46am
Sorry Misty, I thought Bob Carr was the director of the China-Australia Institute.
You've raised an interesting question though? What happens to ex Labor power brokers?
Misty
9th Jun 2018
9:15am
He still is Adrianus but I don't see what that has got to do with running the show, and I guess the same question applies to ex power brokers from any political party wouldn't you say?, why single out one particular party?.
radish
9th Jun 2018
2:01pm
All these posts are like a dog chasings its tail.

Quite frankly nothing will be achieved; everyone has their own view on things so I cannot see the point in going on and on and on.

There are too many variables re the pension; some full pensioners, some half pensioners, some getting a few dollars just to qualify for the concession card.

Write to your Federal member...no point doing it in here as far as I can see...nothing happens.
Misty
9th Jun 2018
2:38pm
Maybe nothing happens Radish but people can air thir views and let of steam occasionally and reading these posts and replying is one way of passing time too I guess.
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Jun 2018
11:03am
Below the poverty line is different for everyone. Some might think they live below the poverty line if they can't take a luxury trip every year whereas others think it is not being able to afford a weekly coffee and cake.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Jun 2018
11:26am
Below the poverty line is NOT different for everyone. It's a statistical measure determined by the OECD. Stop lying to justify your greed and selfishness, VGB.
Magic Touch
7th Jun 2018
2:55pm
OGR, People here don,t see the whole picture how this government had steal their pension payment in a way like that money it,s welfare, so they can blame those who work very very hard and save for their old age. They don,t under stand that after the pension payment it,s use up than you had to relay on welfare. But if you had save up for yourself than you don,t need the welfare to had food on the table. Every retirees is entitle to the pension payment without asset test and income test because it,s your social security. MONIES YOUR WAGE PAY INTO AS TAX. Not the TAX you pay for GST, TAX come from the profit of doing bussiness, etc..etc. So why you need to have asset test and income test. FELLOW AUSTRALIAN WAKE UP. True Blue Aussie. Don,t yout self get rob.
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Jun 2018
11:00am
We need an income and asset test to stop greedy people from getting welfare when they don't need it.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Jun 2018
11:25am
Greedy people like you, you mean - who cheat and manipulate to get a pension they don't need?

The assets test is stopping needy people getting a fair deal and making them erode savings they genuinely need for care in later years. It's patently wrong! People who waste and gift and cheat (like you, VGB) can get a pension, but honest, responsible people are denied.
Magic Touch
10th Jun 2018
11:51am
VCBB you dont see the whole picture,during your working time you work so hard inorder to save up to buy investment property or shares etc..etc for your old age also keep some money for the rainly days are beening screw up due to the income and asset test. Pension payment it,s your social security for your old age not walfare payment. To get to this stage it,s a very very hard work,you secretfile alot of your life, like no traveling, no long break or holiday to get monies to pay the banks and alot of goverment taxs etc etc..and you still own the bank with some loan. If you were in this retiree shoes you will feel that pain. This government are good for those who dont own any and those who do business and rip off all the employee with contract to work and not aloud to complain. If you complain you will be out of the job.and these days it,s hard to find full time job so not much super for your old age when you retire.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Jun 2018
1:48pm
He sees the whole picture, Magic Touch. He just thinks it's okay to persecute honest people, but people like him - who have no integrity - can manipulate to cheat the system and that's okay, as long as others are paying for him and his family to retain their ill-gotten riches.
VeryCaringBigBear
11th Jun 2018
12:12pm
Magic Touch I saw the whole picture and retired at 55. Bought a more expensive house and bought houses for the grand kids as well as travelling for about 5 years which left me enough just to get full OAP plus benefits. Basically I had way too many assets to get OAP but decided to help out my family with the extra assets. Family is very happy and I'm even happier as I don't have so many assets to worry about. They pay all my bills and I spend my pension on trips etc.

So you see I saw whole picture learnt the rules and played the game.
Misty
11th Jun 2018
1:22pm
How could you get the OAP after divesting your assets?, Centrelink only allows so much to be given away each year?.
OnlyGenuineRainey
11th Jun 2018
5:17pm
If you give it away more than 5 years before retirement, Misty, it's fine. Even if you gift it after that, you are only disadvantaged for 5 years after gifting. What VGB did is legal. It's just totally immoral and unethical in my view. The needy are getting too little because the greedy are taking money they don't need.
Endon
11th Jun 2018
12:25pm
When you have to go without heating because it is too expensive. And have to live on a very small pension, not have enough to live on. By the second week of the fortnight we are struggling to exist. We are not alone we know but if nothing else the WA government needs to HELP pensioners to be able to live and now it appears we will lose the small amount the government give us. I challenge the government to try and live on our pension. After paying rent which is more than half of our pension.
BigVal
14th Jun 2018
5:22pm
I see the deniers here too on age pension entitlement. Anyone who worked and paid income taxes has paid into the fund for their pension. Sounds good until 1950 when Menzies with the agreement of Labor, stole the Pension Fund contents and used it to pay off WW2 debts etc and from then on the levy of 7% of income tax paid went into General or Consolidated Revenue.
Now all Politicians deny this. They would of course. But this levy continues today.
Best bet for next election for pensionrs is to vote for new Aussie Conservatives if a canddiate as going to limit who can draw welfare etc by having to work a number of years prior to being entitled.Also limit immigration. And other good policies badly needed. Laboir and Liberals have lost the plot long ago - Labor when Hawke took first large money donation from Business and then The Accord held back wages - made bigger profits for bosses and worse, too down Tariffs off cars and imports - why we have no car industry today and 33% unemployment in Adelaide due to car factories shutting down. And loss of manufacturing as employers sort bigger profits and cheaper labour overseas. Neither of main 2 did anything to stop this.
[Search domain www.onenationwa.asn.au] onenationwa.asn.au/Old_Age_Pension.pdf
Magic Touch
14th Jun 2018
9:09pm
BIG VAL you saw the whole picture and you know what is happening. Very very good Aussie to speak it out. A Big Thank You.
Magic Touch
14th Jun 2018
9:09pm
BIG VAL you saw the whole picture and you know what is happening. Very very good Aussie to speak it out. A Big Thank You.
GrayComputing
15th Jun 2018
9:39am
It is time for all of us 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?

Does your MP really like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

Why do MPs normally compassionate persons let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

Some opposition and independent MPs stand to lose their chance at being part of the needed government changes

We all need to tell our MP and senators every day that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.

Also contact opposition and independent MPs who can help us to get a fair deal on pensions

NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
*Loloften*
19th Jun 2018
9:23am
Old Geezer I'm so sick of your supercilious posts, lack of compassion for 100,000s of now struggling OAPs who had to stop working much earlier than would have chosen to care for spouse/child/parent battling cancer & many other debilitating often l/term illnesses. Pls get off your 'high horse' & stop being such a nasty poster on this website....you make me not want to open/read the comments.
Magic Touch
19th Jun 2018
7:15pm
Come on LOLO FTEN don,t get so madto Old Geezer we are AUSSIES mate we only get mad to this GOVERNTMENT who attack on STRUGGLING OAPs.


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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