Age Pension no guarantee

Font Size:

Treasurer Scott Morrison on Friday outlined the government’s vision for a new retirement income system in a speech to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).

Mr Morrison made it clear that the Turnbull Government’s position is that no Australian should expect to receive an Age Pension when they retire, while also suggesting the currently generous superannuation tax breaks enjoyed by the very wealthy will be reined in.

The Treasurer conceded that twenty years after the introduction of compulsory superannuation that the current system is not yet efficient enough to supplement or replace the Age Pension.

Scott Morrison said that the Age Pension should not be regarded as an entitlement, instead, it should be regarded as a welfare payment for those who do not have the ability to save enough to fund their own retirement.

The Superannuation Act will be altered next year to enable most Australians to enjoy the “worthy prize” of an “independent retirement”. These changes will reflect the recommendations adapted from the Financial Systems Inquiry. 

Read the full speech at treasury.gov.au

Read more from www.theage.com.au

Opinion: It’s an entitlement, not welfare Mr Morrison

Scott Morrison has once again gone out of his way to call the Age Pension a welfare payment, refusing to acknowledge that the Age Pension is an entitlement earned from a life of hard work and paying taxes.

As most of you reading this know first-hand, a life on the Age Pension isn’t glamorous. The labelling of the payment as a welfare handout is not only insulting to those living on it, but shows a real disconnect between Mr Morrison and the original reason behind the introduction of the Age Pension in 1908 as a ‘reward for service’.  

Mr Morrison is guilty of being ahead of his time in trying to push a transition away from Australian workers retiring directly into an Age Pension. He even conceded in his speech that the current superannuation system isn’t efficient enough to replace or supplement the Age Pension.

So why keep toeing the welfare payment line? Why not do something about the inefficiencies of the current superannuation system. For example, why not remove the hold on the current Government has placed on the increase to the rate of employer superannuation guarantee contribution? Why not stop plans to abolish the Low Income Superannuation Contribution? And why not do something about the rort on superannuation taxation currently enjoyed by many of the country’s high earners?

It’s time to start calling the Age Pension for what it actually is Mr Morrison, an entitlement.

What do you think? Is Scott Morrison side-tracking important changes to the retirement income system by getting caught up in playing politics on the Age Pension? Do you agree that the Age Pension should still be considered an entitlement or do you feel it has now evolved into a welfare payment/safety net? 

Join YourLifeChoices today
and get this free eBook!

Join
By joining YourLifeChoices you consent that you have read and agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

Written by Drew

Starting out as a week of work experience in 2005 while studying his Bachelor of Business at Swinburne University, Drew has never left his post and has been with the company ever since, working on the websites digital needs. Drew has a passion for all things technology which is only rivalled for his love of all things sport (watching, not playing).
Contact:
LinkedIn
Email

430 Comments

Total Comments: 430
  1. 0
    0

    When he gets kicked out of parliament how will he describe his huge pension. Welfare or entitlement ?

  2. 0
    0

    If our politicians had real integrity, they would all take a huge pay cut to save our country, instead of attacking the underprivileged, the mentally and physically impaired and those who have paid taxes all their lives, only to be told that WE are the burden! And how about having the intestinal fortitude to go after the large corporations who owe us billions in taxes???

    • 0
      0

      Not sure the pay cut is the issue but the allowances and access to their pensions on leaving politics are.
      Did our pollies not double their salaries in a 3 year period with a trade-off of removing the ridiculous allowances? So why do we still pay pollies to live in their own homes away from home and also to get rent from other pollies co-renting in the same house. Where is the ATO compliance??????

    • 0
      0

      Gee, Mick, I like it much more when you attack politicians instead of women. Keep it up.

    • 0
      0

      Mick, you are being a tad unfair I think. The system of Pollie’s super was changed by Howard and only affects those who entered Parliament after the 2007 election. Gillard changed the entitlements by almost doubling salaries but the trade-off was deleting Gold Passes and a host of other perks on retirement. This only affected those members elected after the 2013 election.

      It’s a bit like the super scheme devised under Keating in that it will take a number of years before the full effects come to pass.

    • 0
      0

      You have a point. Conceded.

  3. 0
    0

    carers like me are entitled to it , with the government paying us 2.50 an hour to care for family 24/7 if we didnt who would and where ??

  4. 0
    0

    I have worked hard all my life to put money into my house and superannuation to support myself in a comfortable retirement. I will mortgage my house if I need to when my super runs out.
    My taxes have been spent over the years in order for me to reap the benefits of living a good lifestyle in this lovely country for the last 60 years. Why should my children struggle to pay high taxes to support the large numbers in the baby boomer generation who can support themselves?.
    The pension should only be a safety net to allow those who cannot support themselves to live a comfortable retirement.

    • 0
      0

      So how do you feel about having to sell assets and live off the capital because your assets do not produce enough return in a low interest environment to keep you?

    • 0
      0

      Got to say you have a point there Lorraine.

    • 0
      0

      Uncalled for mick.

    • 0
      0

      I agree with you Lorraine. Life is about working, paying tax and providing for ourselves — if we are able to. For those not able, there needs to be support. But as far as Mick grumbling about selling assets, what are assets for but to use to support ourselves. I always thought that was the meaning of building assets — to use as needed.

    • 0
      0

      Mick’s comment is fair.

      My kids, and the kids of EVERY couple I know, are far, far wealthier than my husband and I could ever hope to be. But we funded our parents’ and grandparents’ retirement without complaint, through taxes.

      I agree that those who can support themselves, should. But being able to support oneself means receiving sufficient return on investments to match the level of pension and accompanying benefits WITHOUT drawing on savings that were carefully set aside in earlier years to enable greater comfort later.

      Low-income battlers should NOT be compelled to sacrifice everything they went without to save long before they reach the end of their lifespan. Nor should they have to sacrifice the opportunity to leave a little to their offspring or grandchildren if they’ve gone without luxuries (and often even necessities) to enable them to do just that. The money people save through overtime, weekend work, and extensive self-sacrifice should not be seen to be for the benefit of the nation. It should benefit those who worked hard to acquire it. If it doesn’t, people won’t save, and then where the nation be? Morrison’s policy change to the pension taper rate rewards people generously for being fiscally irresponsible and punishes those who work harder and save. That’s dumb!

      The aged pension IS an entitlement. That fact was enshrined in legislation decades ago, and a system was set up to fund it. Sadly, Fraser stole the funds from those of us who are now entitled to benefit from them.

    • 0
      0

      Maybe those enjoying taxpayer funded childcare could sell a few assets or forgo the annual overseas trips, brunches, coffees etc instead. Same thing isn’t it.

    • 0
      0

      I agree Lorrainehk. I’m over this I worked hard I deserve it nonsense. Today we have young families struggling while pensioners live in expensive houses and claim the full pension with all the benefits. These struggling families could also do with some of these benefits. But alas they pay full wack for them after they pay taxes as well.

      The age pension is welfare and should only be available to those who need it not to those who deemed their entitled to it so why not take it. I know a lot more people in the entitled category than the need it category.

      Don’t start me on childcare. Why would anyone have kids and then hand them over to others to look after them? Yes I know the government sees it as employing more people so assumes it is better for our economy.

    • 0
      0

      Bonny. The aged pension is not and never was welfare. However it will be classed that way if proposed changes to the language pass next year, Very Orwellian. A tax surcharge was introduced to be set aside for pensions then rolled into consolidated revenue decades ago. Working baby boomers all paid it for their working lifetimes.

      The struggling families around me live in huge houses, drive a couple of expensive cars and holiday overseas. They may whinge about the mortgage but in comparison to most baby boomers starting off in the late 60s and 70s they are much better off with a larger percentage of disposable income than we ever had.

      Those entitled to an aged pension take it because of the ridiculous cost of rates, medical, electricity etc that is discounted. A benefit of removing that entitlement will perhaps be a slowing of the 6% yearly increase of these fixed costs. A problem will be the forced sale of property, increased homelessness of aged and subsequent aged care situation when there is no bond money left.

      Childcare as set up by the government feeds into GDP whereas the past situation of stay at home mothers or locally sourced babysitters never did. The government does not care about employing more people at all just the GDP.

      Unfortunately retirees do very little for the GDP bottom line either. Not that GDP means much in the real economy but it is the figure government decisions are based on.

    • 0
      0

      LOOK THIS is where our money goes……..
      they have worked it out so they go without.

      http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/12/03/16/29/ex-pms-cost-taxpayers-500-000

      And i at my age 63, can’t even find a decent place to reside in?
      They disgust me. I didn’t vote in the suckers……

    • 0
      0

      It’s a good thing there are not as many ex pollies as pensioners.

  5. 0
    0

    Drew, ‘… the Age Pension is an entitlement earned from a life of hard work and paying taxes.’ Drew, you know that is a misleading statement!!!! The criteria for getting the Aged Pension includes neither of those conditions!!!! To be ‘entitled’ to get to a Age Pension one only needs to be of pensionable age, a resident of Australia and have a low income and few assets! Working hard and paying taxes gives this ‘entitlement’ … probably to others!

    • 0
      0

      I agree but the current government has changed the rules to force people to sell assets in a low interest rate environment and live off the capital. I would be in favour of an income test but the assets test needs to be put back where it was as it was reasonable.

    • 0
      0

      A universal pension scheme was set up and deductions made from everybody’s wages many years ago. Robert Menzies, when he became P.M., took all those contributions into consolidated revenue and stated that aged pensions would be funded from income tax.
      The age pension therefore is an entitlement and not welfare.
      There is also the contradiction in current government policy that the compulsory superannuation deductions were set up as a trade off for a wage increase. NOTE compulsory but the current government are now going to reduce the penalties for businesses who do NOT meet that legal obligation while having also reduced the ATO’s ability to identify those law breakers.
      I don’t think we need ask whose side Scott Morrison, and the LNP, is on as they are also talking about reducing company tax thus affecting the income side of the budget.

    • 0
      0

      Correct, Tom Tank. Thanks for reminding readers of history.

      Menzies made sure the age pension was AN ENTITLEMENT. He also declared that those who received it should NEVER be regarded as ”welfare recipients” because that term was degrading.

    • 0
      0

      What is wrong with spending your capital in retirement? Not much use to you after you die.

    • 0
      0

      mick, you are starting to get me really worried. Yesterday I said that I agreed ‘conditionally’ with one (1) of, your comments. And today, you said that you agreed with my posting above??? So no more of this as it has to stop forthwith!!! OK!!!!

    • 0
      0

      Bonney, what happens if you spend all your capital in retirement, but don’t die?

    • 0
      0

      Emps, ‘what if you don’t die’??? Aye? Can someone please tell Emps the ‘facts of life’???

    • 0
      0

      OK I tell those funeral fund sellers that I don’t need funeral insurance because I’m not going to die. Other than that I do know that one day I will die.

      Does it matter if your capital runs out before you die? At least you would of had the benefit of that capital not leave it to someone else to spend.

      Once you are dead your body becomes just a disposal problem. So as far as I’m concerned it won’t bother me how it is disposed of. Left instructions for no fancy funeral stuff for me and definitely no funeral service. If people can’t say things to me while I am alive why bother saying them after I am dead. Nothing in it for me.

    • 0
      0

      OK, for those of us who don’t know , when did the Menzies scheme end, and become normal general taxation for the good of the populace?? How many years did it run for? Did it run long enough that people realistically funded their retirement? Why did they stop it?
      Because that sounds like Entitlement to me, especially as I presume they were also paying their normal taxes.
      Nowadays though, no it’s a Pension,welfare for those who need it. No shame to it, but plain & simple taxes cover everyone & everything. We have no more claim to it than the heavily taxed young people saving for homes. Saying you paid taxes all your life means nothing. We all do, and we all have enjoyed the benefits of what our taxes provide.

    • 0
      0

      Bonny, some of us may live a lot longer than others. Being forced to sell assets now to live may imply hardship later on. For my part, I went without a great deal and made huge sacrifices to acquire savings and assets for three reasons:
      (1) I knew my husband and I would face heavy costs in later life due to health issues resulting from deprived childhoods
      (2) We had suffered unbelievable hardship as children and young adults and wanted to be sure our children and grandchildren would never know that kind of hardship
      (3) We have a disabled grandchild who has extensive needs and we wanted to provide for his future.

      Now, we are compelled to sell assets and drain savings in our early years of retirement, meaning that there won’t be money for those health needs later. We might live another 30 years. If inflation continues as it has, by then a million dollars will be a drop in the bucket. But our assets will have dwindled to a tiny fraction of that. There will be nothing left to pay for health care or aged care and nothing to leave to our disabled grandson – who, consequently, will be a burden on the state.

      We had a financial plan to be fully self-funded within 10 years by continuing to be frugal, and then to leave enough to our grandson that he would never need a pension. Morrison’s short-sighted and grossly unfair changes to the assets test have ensured that we can’t achieve that, and the cost to the taxpayer will be far, far higher – while we will be denied the benefit of our efforts. Meanwhile, our children are looking at us and asking why we worked so hard and went without so much, and are saying ”there’s no point. The Government just screws you over and steals whatever you don’t spend.”

      I don’t want a fancy funeral. I want to be allowed to choose how I spend the money I earn. I don’t want to see gamblers and holiday-makers propped up by taxpayers while those who save for longer-term goals are denied the benefit of their saving. I am disgusted that selfish people want to deny others the right of choice of how and when to spend their earnings.

      The assets test is WRONG on every level. It is cruel and unfair. It is very bad for the economy. It sends entirely the wrong message – i.e. that work and saving is futile but the lazy and wasteful are rewarded.

      And, by the way, many folk have assets that they CAN’T sell in the current environment. Centrelink puts absurdly unrealistic values on some assets. And some assets are of value ONLY if they are held long term. Being forced to sell them at the wrong time may render them virtually worthless. But self-serving bat-eyed or tunnel visioned fools can’t see past their long noses to appreciate the realities of life and to respect the rights of others.

    • 0
      0

      Rainey, I get your general drift. Putting aside personal tragedy many will be walking in your financial shoes before too long, they just don’t realise it yet!!!! I totally agree with this sentence, “The Government just screws you over and steals whatever you don’t spend.”

      Stats, I am only concerned by your stats. If you planned to be self funded then how does the lowering of the assets test impact upon your self funded plans? How is the Govt compelling you to sell your assets??? Age here is critical. If you are 5 years younger than being of pensionable aged then you could give some of your assets to your children, reduce your assets and then claim the Aged a Pension. If of pensionable age then you can still give away significant assets and 5 yrs later you could then claim the Aged Pension. But you planned to be self funded, so how are Aged Pension changes adversely impacting upon your plans??? Stats, I am only and purely interested in the stats, OK.

    • 0
      0

      Bonny some of us have family and friends who love us as we love them. The funeral service was never about the dead it is there for the living to help cope with the huge grief of permanent separation.

      Not everything is about you.

    • 0
      0

      Rainey if you are self funded retiree then the lowering of assets test shouldn’t be of a concern to you. It’s not for me in fact I think it doesn’t go far enough. It should also include the house and stop people up sizing just to get the pension. If less people relied on the pension then the government would be able to provide more for your grandchild.

    • 0
      0

      Once you realise people die then why grieve over something you have no control over. Never made any sense to me.

    • 0
      0

      Bonny, I said we had a plan to be self-funded in 10 years – using the part pension we’d receive for that time. So yes, the change to the assets test does concern me. In fact, it devastates us. But you love to make assumptions. And who trusts the government to provide more for grandchildren? I want to provide for my grandchildren, because the government will continue to waste money and give tax cuts to the rich, just like it always has.

      I relied on the government as a child, because I had no choice. And the government didn’t provide for me adequately. Not even reasonably. Instead of protecting me, as it is supposed to do under our Constitution and Human Rights law, it allowed bureaucrats and government-authorized people to abuse and deprive me.

      I worked my guts out and saved every cent so my children and grandchildren would never have to rely on the government, and so that I would have enough to retire in comfort. But the government just takes everything we battlers work for to give to the wealthy. And you endorse that cruel and unfair theft. Guess you must be among the privileged who don’t know what it is like to be screwed by government and society?

    • 0
      0

      Rainey, I won’t be touching on personal tragedy, but when you say you intended to be self funded then that means exactly that … You fund your retirement from your own money and not partly from the welfare payment of the Part Aged Pension. Surely being self funded in retirement does not include money given to you for free from the Govt???

      Having said that, the changes to the pension scheme in the New Year will be a betrayal of many decent pensioners like yourself!

    • 0
      0

      Is comprehension a problem for some? I SAID, Peterrj,that we intended to be self-funded IN TEN YEARS TIME – NOT NOW. We strove not need a pension at all, but the huge fall in investment returns meant we were eligible for, and needed, the part pension in the interim in order to achieve that goal. Now it’s unattainable, and in fact we will cost the taxpayer a lot more long term because being forced to erode our assets early in retirement means that as inflation bites, we will need and receive a part pension in a few years, and we will never become self-funded.

      Yes, the changes are a betrayal of many decent pensioners. Worse, they constitute fraud, because the government bought the votes of many by promising no changes to pensions in this term. Regardless of when it comes into effect, the change was made in this term, so they lied – and lying to get a benefit (power and a generous salary, fringe benefits and retirement benefits) is FRAUD.

      What angers me most, though, is that presumptuous people like Bonny endorse the gross unfairness of giving pensions to people who spent freely during their working life but denying them to people who chose to save for future needs or to leave something to loved ones who may have a very genuine need to inherit a little. She presumes to tell others how they should live, with no knowledge, understanding or empathy for their personal situation and clearly no interest in being fair and objective.

  6. 0
    0

    I, like most of the other people frequenting this site, have worked hard all my employment life, sometimes at two jobs, until the time when I had saved enough to GLADLY give work away and retire. To me the Aged Pension is a RIGHT, not a privilege or welfare. It is something I HAVE PAID FOR, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to be quiet and let the government CHEAT me out of it. The drop-kick on-the-dole bludgers, the baby factories, those feigning Mediterranean Back, couples living together and claiming single pensions, etc, etc, etc are the ones Centrelink needs to nail. There have been many Current Affair and Today Tonight type programs showing the inside of Centrelink’s “amazing” new IT systems to catch the pension cheaters, but there hasn’t been a lot of success stories about doing so. Pull your fingers out, switch the systems on, and take the unfair “entitlements” away from these lowlifes. Be interested in GENUINE pensioners who have paid exorbitant taxes their working life and only RIGHTFULLY want a bit of it back before they die!

    • 0
      0

      Rights up to a point…but there are people who have funded their own retirements quite well and should NOT be permitted to access the pension. The rules just need common sense and an absence of political perversion which always bow to vested interests.

    • 0
      0

      Oh, please, don’t tell me you believe anything on Current Affair or Today Tonight. Its just sensationalist rubbish. You need to watch quality news and current affairs if you want to be properly informed, that is non-Murdoch owned media.

    • 0
      0

      People who have funded their own retirement quite well should not be able to access the pension Mick?Where do we daw the line. The person who saved and has a few assets, but can access a part pension vs the spender who gets a full pension. The spectrum is wide. It is an entitlement and especially so when compulsory super has not been around long enough. Scott Morrisos speech may apply to our grandchildren, but not to us. I’d like to see him live on the full aged pension. If you are single and renting it is barely above the poverty line

    • 0
      0

      You make a good point Happy cyclist but a few things are worth watching on the two programs you mention. Not much though.
      There are still quality programs like the 7:30 Report…which already has a large following. Its one Tony ABbott and his crook cronies were unable to avoid and the belief that the government could could control the media came unstuck very quickly. This is why Abbott wanted to sell off the ABC. Good try!
      There are also other great avenues to become informed. Having suffered the propaganda so called ‘News’ stations for a long time I have all but swapped to SBS where you get a REAL view of the world. As for information the ABC has a number of good stations which give a fair appraisal. This government hates it as it keeps being exposed for the lying government it is.
      We live in interesting times.

    • 0
      0

      mick, it’s good to see that you are back on your medication as you have toned down your comments!! LOL!!!!

    • 0
      0

      Yes, mick, I’ve noticed that too. You’re doing very well, just don’t miss a dose.

    • 0
      0

      Peterrj: sarcasm is the lowest kind of humour. It appears to me that the comment “you can’t handle the truth” (jack Nicholson) has a bit of relevance here.
      The facts are there. Denial is useless. And Party lines is a sign of weak character.
      I actually have no allegiance to any Party because I recognise that all are dishonest. But then some are corrupt to the bone. Cheers.

    • 0
      0

      LOL mick, I have noticed a real change and mellowing in some of your recent posts!!!! I am actually starting to agree with some of them!!!! Emphasis on the word ‘some’.

      Fast Eddie: ummmm ‘… couples living together and claiming single pensions, …’ Now there is somerhing to think about. What’s the stats, the Aged Pension for a couple is about 34,000 and say $24,000 for a single. If elderly, and who isn’t on the Aged Pension, have two bedrooms, two bathrooms and for financial reasons can’t sell the family house and buy two houses then why can’t a couple say they live independent lives and remain under the one roof. Provided such assertions were true then hey presto, they can give themselves a Govt welfare payment of an extra $14,000 for having the courage to tell the truth!!! I know a couple in this situation, they live in opposite ends of the house and rarely speak to each other …. they claim the Aged Pension for a couple????

    • 0
      0

      Don’t believe any Peterrj. Check the facts for yourself. That’s what all parties should be doing…as well as trying to ut the (many) bits of the jigsaw puzzle in place to get a feel of how things are really progressing rather than taking the word of journos, who are often conflicted. In the end FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL. It never ceases to amaze me how this normally ties players together. Cheers.

  7. 0
    0

    The Government is so concerned about superannuation accumulation that they are dropping penalties against employers who do not pay their employees superannuation. Just like the Governments push to get rid of union influence on superannuation boards so that our industry funds become loss making ventures like those in the banking and financial industries. Get you hands off our super and fix the economy.

    • 0
      0

      Count on this government to allow the big end of town to ravage ordinary citizens who cannot afford legal action to get what is rightfully theirs in the first place.
      I found it striking that THIS GOVERNMENT went after unions ($80 million cost) and got no real scalps and also watered down legislation introduced by the previous government which protected citizens from bank fraud. The pattern is becoming familiar….as is the money trail.
      Voters who are considering voting this government back in would have to be brain dead as it must be obvious to even the most simple amongst us what the game is. And we are on the menu!

    • 0
      0

      So correct Old Red. The BIG banks (monopolies) are salivating at getting their hands on superannuation funds. We can’t win – these robbers are going to be excellent at carving out chunks from our super, all with the assistance of our governments. Everywhere you look you are being stalked for anything you’ve tried hard to put by to see that you can support yourself as much as possible into the future!!

    • 0
      0

      Not the big bank disillusioned. The government. It has been circling like a shark for some time. Give it a while longer and superannuation will be nationalised. Coming.

  8. 0
    0

    Honestly where do these guys get off? why not get big business to pay their share of tax instead of looking at people’s hard earned assets to pillage. Interesting to check out the spending by Coalition since they were elected. Scarey!

    • 0
      0

      Depends on who yours backers/owners are. Very likely that this government was backed by the big miners, specifically the coal industry and also the big banks.
      We can all see the results:

      1. repeal of Carbon Tax. Taxpayers now have to find an extra $80 billion a year. And Australia has an international reputation as being a high polluter…with Greg Hund doing what he is good at: standing in front of the cameras and lying again.
      2. big bank have been let off the accountability hook and may now resume their attacks on their customers.

      As I always say follow the money trail.

    • 0
      0

      I think that the bureaucrats should be put to work figuring out how to get multi national corporations like Google, Microsoft, American Express and the like to pay their fair of tax on money made in Australia instead of hiving it off to overseas tax havens. Certainly, the “horse has bolted” in this area, but surely there must be some ways the tax office and parliament can close this tax loop hole.

      All they seem to want to do is hit soft targets like carers and disabled pensioners instead of going after the fat cats that can hire hordes of lawyers to fight their cases for them. So once again, if it looks too hard, it goes into the too hard basket and is forgotten. So the little Aussie battlers wind up suffering from the misguided efforts of the Australian Tax Office to make up the losses that the “generosity” to big business by previous governments have foisted on the taxpayers.

      As an aside, what part of “Sunset Clause” don’t the parliamentarians and their advisors understand?

    • 0
      0

      Not rocket science wally as they are sending money TO THEMSELVES. Transfer pricing is a rort and this government is joined at the hip to the rorters. Why else do you think they refuse to act and that a well understood practise is not outlawed?
      I imagine that all that would have to be done is that legislators tighten tax law and put in place an ‘Arm’s length permissibility’ test. That way the ATO makes the call if a transfer is legit or not. And then add to that penalties for the time taken to unravel the web of deceit put in place by companies to disguise their movement of money. Maybe even use the proceeds of crime legislation and take assets where significant corporate fraud is detected.
      Now there would be a REAL government. Don’t expect the current one cannibalise its election funding providers though.

    • 0
      0

      Wally, it’s the “grandfather clause” we want, not the sunset or Santa.

  9. 0
    0

    If politicians and top public servants cut out there booze parties and 5 star accommodation when travelling this would probable support quite a number of people on the pension. Stop politicians from getting there pension when they leave politics then getting a high paid job make same rules for everyone. They should only get their pension when they have retired permanently and reach retiring age which I think is 70 in the mean time they could go on to the new start allowance but of course they would not qualify

    • 0
      0

      Talking of travel, why did Malcolm Turnbull need his wife along on the climate conference trips. Totally unnecessary expense. And another thing, what a load of crap that is regarding rebates for child care. If you are jointly earning $340K a year, you can afford the child care, you DO NOT need a rebate of 20% or any per cent.What was it for $250K, 40%??!! Words fail me. Who thought these figures up, Scott Morrison? Who is he looking after? Certainly not all the poor pensioners on “welfare handout”.!

    • 0
      0

      I know this is off the super’ topic ……. but those figures you quote FrankC for childcare rebates are unbelievable! If people can’t afford to have children then don’t have them. Child care rebates are ridiculous. Only people benefitting are Child Care Centre owners. Abolish the rebates altogether & reduce prices to a reasonable level.

    • 0
      0

      Good one Fair Dinkum.I quite agree with you They should be made to play by the same rules we do.

  10. 0
    0

    Likely Morrison will use the growing deficit problem to demonise the bottom end of society and pensioners whilst wanting to leave corporate criminals alone and continuing to pursue this government’s agenda of reducing taxes for the wealthy. It’s been no different since day1 and the new leader may possess more acumen but Turnbull is still at the helm of the SAME ship wanting to ravage the bottom end. Disgraceful behaviour from people who claim to be Australians but who are clearly little more than puppets of the rich.

    Indeed Drew the pension IS A RIGHT…although it needs to be moderated against wealth and income. The current assets test is nothing more than a rort to bring down draconian measure on those who have a few bob and maybe a rental property to help supplement a pension which only goes a certain way.

    If there is any reason to vote out this crew then add up the lies, deceit and attacks on ordinary citizens and you get the picture. This lot have to go!

    • 0
      0

      Scott Morrison will not qualify for the aged pension, but he will qualify for the most generous super scheme in the country. The contributions he makes to this scheme are small compared to the top up the Government makes. Yet, he would see this as an entitlement?

    • 0
      0

      This is the problem with politics. Nothing corrupts like absolute power and this government has turned bastardry into an artform. It will be remember for decades for its behaviour.

    • 0
      0

      It’s them against us mick?! David and Goliath?!

Load More Comments

FACEBOOK COMMENTS



SPONSORED LINKS

continue reading

Entertainment

Friday Funnies: Short jokes for the shortest month

February flies by too fast, just like these short but sharp jokes. What is the recipe for Honeymoon Salad?Lettuce alone...

Food

Succulent Spice-Roasted Salmon

These little salmon bites are something I've made time and time again over the years and this method of roasting...

Photos

How to take great pictures of gardens

If you've never been too good at taking pictures of your beautiful blooms, now's the time to brush up on...

Aged Care

Paid on par with cleaners: the broader issue affecting aged care

Paid on par with cleaners: the broader issue affecting the quality of aged care Ben Farr-Wharton, Edith Cowan University; Matthew...

Food

Researchers fear diet produces ‘untoward effects on the heart’

The keto diet, lauded for its purported fat-burning capabilities, could be bad for your heart, according to new research. The...

COVID-19

Vaccine overdose cases raise questions over doctor training

Australia's vaccine rollout suffered a major hiccup, with health minister Greg Hunt revealing on Wednesday that two elderly residents at...

Retirement Income

Why middle-income Australians are the big losers in retirement

Australia's middle-income earners are losing out when it comes to retirement income. That's the view of Mercer's senior partner, David...

Food

Nine food and heart health myths busted

Should you cook with butter or olive oil? Is that drink of red wine protecting your heart? Pink Himalayan salt is healthy, right? There...

LOADING MORE ARTICLE...