Retirement review reveals how much the wealthy benefit from government support

Font Size:

Australia’s wealthiest are given twice as much financial support as those on the lowest incomes, says a new government report on the state of the nation’s retirement income system.

The report is sure to spark debate over the intended purpose of superannuation, as well as other tax breaks that favour the rich.

It revealed that government payouts and tax concessions are, by retirement, worth more than $700,000 to Australia’s top 10 per cent of earners, but just $350,000 to the nation’s lowest earners.

So far, the three-person panel leading the retirement income review is not recommending any changes. It has, however, tabled a paper intended for community response and has signalled its interest in making the system fairer for younger taxpayers as well as for those in retirement.

The paper also points out how our ageing population may eventually put pressure on remaining workers to fund older people.

“Age Pension expenditure is funded from government revenue, affecting the tax impost on working Australians,” said Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

 




“Australia’s ageing population means there will be a declining number of workers for every retiree. It is, therefore, important the retirement income system does not place an undue fiscal burden on future generations.”

However, in contrast to this supposition, the paper also showed that super savings had increased from $229 billion in 1995 to $2.9 trillion today and that reliance on the Age Pension had dropped from 80 per cent to around 68 per cent.

While the staggering increase in accumulated super means more self-funded retirees and fewer people reliant on the Age Pension, the paper warns against the use of super by those in higher income brackets as a way to accumulate wealth or pass on wealth to ensuing generations.

“The retirement income system is not intended to boost private savings per se, nor is it intended to be a source of savings for the purchase of large assets during an individual’s life (such as housing), or to assist with wealth accumulation in order to provide for inheritances,” says the paper.

One table in the report clearly illustrates how wealthier people benefit from government support and generous tax concessions.

retirement income table 

While some are critical of these tax concessions, others defend them, saying that wealthier people pay more tax over their lifetime and that outlay for the pension outweighs revenue lost on favourable tax treatment of super.

However, according to research from Anglicare and Per Capita, tax concessions to the wealthiest fifth of households cost the budget about half as much as the total cost of welfare payments.

“Using Treasury data, as well as various ABS figures and the University of Melbourne’s HILDA survey, Per Capita calculated that major tax concessions totalling $135 billion per year were costing the budget more than the four main welfare payments – the Age Pension, family assistance payments, disability benefits and Newstart – combined,” says an ABC report.

The paper also raises questions about equitable outcomes for women and whether the system did enough to support poorer workers. It also noted how home-ownership levels had dropped in the past two decades.

“Does the system provide most support to those with the least capacity to save for and support themselves in retirement?” the paper asks. “Is support for non-homeowners equitable?”

It questions how the family home is treated under the assets test:

“There has been debate about whether the exclusion of the value of an owned primary residence from the Age Pension means test may result in Australians overinvesting in their family home,” says the paper.

And it points out the complexity of Age Pension and aged care tests: “The means test for the Age Pension is structured differently to the means test for aged care and the interaction can be complex to understand.”

Overall, the paper highlights the almost overwhelming complexity of the system and how lack of understanding of the system could lead to poor decisions when planning retirement.

“Given the complexity of the retirement income system, it is important individuals are able to achieve good outcomes even where they have not engaged in retirement planning. Default settings have the potential to improve outcomes by guiding individuals’ behaviour in saving for, and consuming, their retirement incomes, whilst still providing support for individual choice and decision making,” it says.

“The degree to which individuals can understand how the system affects them, the impact of their decisions on their income during their working life and in retirement, and whether the system supports them to engage without difficulty will affect its overall adequacy and sustainability.”

Labor has called the paper a “stalking horse” for the government to put a freeze on raising compulsory contributions to 12 per cent, but the government maintains that it has no intention of changing plans to raise contributions, nor does it wish to change any tax concessions.

Do you find the retirement income system overwhelmingly complex? Help us send the government a message by answering a few questions in the YourLifeChoices’ Retirement Income Review Survey.

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

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

RELATED LINKS

Government slammed for its proposed super tax grab

Government idea called "nothing less than a tax grab" by one industry expert and "farcical" by

Experts, members add their voice to retirement review

Ensure your concerns are heard in the Government's retirement income review.

Retirement review the perfect time to assess the family home

Terms of reference offer the Government a chance to scrutinise such policies as the treatment of

Written by Leon Della Bosca

Leon Della Bosca is a voracious reader who loves words. You'll often find him spending time in galleries, writing, designing, painting, drawing, or photographing and documenting street art. He has a publishing and graphic design background and loves movies and music, but then, who doesn’t?

Contact:
LinkedIn
Email

92 Comments

Total Comments: 92
  1. 0
    0

    Re – the content of ” The Retirement Review ” as revealed in this lengthy article. The federal Government should have the tockleys to switch the outrageous tax breaks & pension perk generosity they currently give to the ” wealthiest 10% ” of Australia’s population, to the poorest welfare recipient, regardless of support payment they receive.

    All Australians who currently enjoy annual working ” life Net Income, & retirement streams ” of well in excess of $200,000 annually, should not be eligible for any income support from the taxpayer. Income tax across the board, above $60,000 must only & ever be set at 10% . . . . period! Income brackets should also be permanently abolished, so that the working public can work longer hours if they so choose & not be penalised by paying all their overtime to the ATO.

    It’s quite simple folks, in fact it’s a no-brainer! Set the system up so income earners can earn as much as they like, in a tax system as described above & they will happily pay tax as required & then be entirely able to live comfortable, secure, productive lives; no matter how long they live.

    History is littered like landfill sites, with examples of Governments, Monarchies & Tyrants globally who have favoured high tax regimes, oppressed their populaces & ultimately by their actions either caused calamitous societal collapse, or massive uprisings of their peoples & have been rightly overthrown.

    • 0
      0

      We are not encouraged to save. We are not only taxed on our wages we are also taxed on the amount that we manage to keep in our bank accounts for a rainy day. Sometimes I wish I had spent it all on luxury holidays and other luxurious items
      We certainly pay most of our overtime money to the ATO. We changed our accounting computer system. It was a nightmare doing some of the extra work we had to do manually to do before the complete switch over could be done. Some of us were doing overtime 2 nights, sometimes 3 nights a week for a few weeks. A chunk of our extra pay went to ATO. We all got very tired by the end of the week so it was physically and mentally draining.

    • 0
      0

      We are not encouraged to save. We are not only taxed on our wages we are also taxed on the amount that we manage to keep in our bank accounts for a rainy day. Sometimes I wish I had spent it all on luxury holidays and other luxurious items
      We certainly pay most of our overtime money to the ATO. We changed our accounting computer system. It was a nightmare doing some of the extra work we had to do manually to do before the complete switch over could be done. Some of us were doing overtime 2 nights, sometimes 3 nights a week for a few weeks. A chunk of our extra pay went to ATO. We all got very tired by the end of the week so it was physically and mentally draining.

    • 0
      0

      The Government is just focused on turning the new taxpayers against pensioners. It improves their chances of re-election. They will never stop screwing the poor as it is Liberals manifesto. They are too invested in their self interest and are controlled by the rich overlords.

    • 0
      0

      I can guess “tockleys” from the context but that is a new word for me; origin?

  2. 0
    0

    More nonsense spouted from the Treasurer. He needs to take an economics lesson on the dependence ratio which is somewhat more scientific than comparing the crude numbers of taxpayers to numbers of aged. The reality is that unless the Government creates jobs for people rather than have a million plus wallowing in un-underemployment then the dependence ration will fall. It will become a self professed problem of their own creation unless they manage unemployment policy. Taxation doesn’t pay for anything. It’s not revenue in the ordinary sense of the term. Abundant idle economic resources are available in Australia for Government policy to ensure wealth is fairly distributed among society irrespective of age. So far their policies have failed which is why we get this whinging about aging which is a fool’s response. Little wonder agencies like Centrelink are using stupid mathematical methods with robodebt when out political leaders can’t comprehend simple mathematical calculations. I fear for Australia with these uneducated idiots at the helm.

    • 0
      0

      One in six – in a workforce of 12 million – that’s 2 million…. that’s the true extent of the reality – and then add in lack of permanence and enduring insecurity and instability of work.

      Many – including ‘tradies’ – live hand to mouth in the eternal hope of another job coming along… some may live better – but that is the reality.

    • 0
      0

      the Treasurer has more than his fair share of issues but lack of education is not one of them – he went to two of Melbourne’s top secondary schools, has two honours degrees (economics and law from Monash) and a pair of masters degrees (Oxford, Harvard). He also has access to all the talent in his office as well as the RBA and numerous advisors. One can only wonder how he has such poor judgement and makes so many damned awful decisions.

    • 0
      0

      Ah – so that’s why he’s economically and socially blind… got economics degrees… **rolls eyes** ..

      Blinded by ideology – a disease of personal choice… Choice-mobile – that’s what it’s all about – and where money is concerned blindness takes on many hues… and money speaks all languages and one at the same time..

      ‘talent’? Why are they not out there doing some good then? If economists had it so right, we’d all have been in clover many times over …. the term ‘talent’ should be avoided when discussing politicians and their lackeys… a little knowledge in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing…

      One wonders why – with all those qualifications – he can’t make a go of it outside politics…. but must instead rely on the sweet ride…

    • 0
      0

      I think that the Treasurer’s problem in regard to economics is that he probably doesn’t understand some of the basic concepts in economics and if he does he certainly doesn’t apply them to the real situation.

    • 0
      0

      Trebor – Don’t know of many ‘tradies’ who can’t afford the annual cruise to an overseas destination….. Just an observation.

  3. 0
    0

    The only revenue a government has is from taxpayers paying tax, so I can see why they would be concerned with the population ageing forecasts. As a taxpayer for the last 30 odd years I would think that I am entitled to a pension when I finally do retire, but am aware it may not be around, so I am taking steps now to prepare for this to happen.
    I have said many times that we do retirement all wrong, it’s not an ending but a new beginning that we can plan for, if we are fortunate. So planning I am, to retire early and well!

    • 0
      0

      I have mentioned many times before and will mention again and again, the real problem is that all the money trees were sold for plastic trinkets, the commonwealth bank, Qantas, Telstra just to name a few and there are many more, not only did we the constituents enjoy the benefits like money for hospitals but it also gave the government control of the costs by setting the prices people would pay for these things owned by us the constituents of the Commonwealth of Australia, now all sold so the only revenue is from the struggling Payee, and bashing pensioners to squeeze another drop of blood from that cold stone. Do you really believe those with significant wealth pay the same tax there are so many loopholes it is not funny?

  4. 0
    0

    The majority of older retired people did not have the advantage of Salary sacrificing a % of their Superannuation so I like many others did not get the tax advantage. Those who spent most of their money on gambling and smoking had a lower balance in their bank accounts + Super so they still qualified for a pension. Those who managed to put more money into Super don’t qualify for any benefits at all. In some respects we are being penalised as most medical places charge huge gaps on treatment, tests to check for Osteoporosis even if you have a record of bone fractures and Xrays and Scans for things as Kidney Stones, Gall Bladder. Appendicitis unless you are admitted to a Public Hospital or on a long waiting list

    • 0
      0

      Most didn’t have a ‘salary’ high enough to do that… etc… only the fat could and can take advantage of such things.

      It’s not all Us and Them – the gamblers v the savers, Blossom – there are innumerable factors that come into why any individual might have nothing in retirement… more than you can count. Do try to avoid looking for extremes and making things black and white.

    • 0
      0

      I think most folks would like to be in a position that meant they could have enough for shelter, food, and the ability to stay warm in winter and for some, be able to be cooler in summer. It seems most Australian’s right now have trouble with feeling secure about these things. Then with planning, if one has enough in earnings they can make themselves free of old age pension and all the nonsense and unsettling changes that come with that. However, invested money can vanish if global economic issues create what it seems we have now. Those that are on the low paid, part time casual jobs are the ones I worry for the most. We could have more prosperity if the fossil fuel industry did not have a choke hold on government policy. One of the problems I suspect are in play re government policy and affordability of medical care is how they sneak in these little increases on tests. There are some places where even if you go to the public hospital, the tests are not ordered and people are just sent home. I know from personal experience. We are left with what we have managed to accrue over a life time of work. Not everyone went and wasted their money, they just did not make enough. I feel there is major pressure from USA based health products and service providers on our Australian way of life. I remember when the government employees health insurance changed their name to Australian Health Management. This was years ago now. We wanted insurance and they wanted to manage us. Now we see all these prices being tossed in. Those who have a problem find out at the hospital. In that way, it is a sneaky grim step down the road to a greed ridden health care system where we all are just economic units and some one working in a provider to defray medical costs, is able to determine what kind of care we might receive. Trying to live on an income that was adequate 20 years ago, puts many in sever poverty today. That does not get a mention and it should. Our retail businesses have to rely on tourists and monied up migrants because too many Australians just can’t afford dinners out, trips away to stay in hotels and motels, or even nice gifts. We must all remember that it is at bottom always government policy of the day. We have the negative gearing for the property investors, making homes unaffordable for our struggling young families. Food prices continue to go up. Franking Credits for the wealthy to take and they can do very well on that. I am completely surprised that most Australian’s are not clamoring every single day to our government who protects the industries that are contributing to harming our global climate, banksters who can mistreat their customers and now blaming the old people for all the troubles. Give me a break.

  5. 0
    0

    No surprises here as the no tax on super after 60 on super only benefits the wealthy. Many less wealthy are better off paying tax the 15% super rebate. Those retired on high incomes are laughing all the way to the bank.

    • 0
      0

      Living up to your name today, BB.. keep up the good work.

    • 0
      0

      BB is spot on, Anonymous. The superannuation tax concessions enable the wealthy to hoard millions in super and then take huge tax-free incomes from super in retirement, while the less wealthy are screwed. Those who don’t save get around $1 million from the taxpayer purse over the course of their retirement. The high income earners enjoy massive tax concessions. The less wealthy who are marginally excluded from the pension but have only modest assets get screwed at both ends. And then Labor threatens to rob them of a big chunk of their very low income merely because they saved responsibly to try to be self-sufficient in retirement.

      Plenty of SFRs are wishing they hadn’t bothered to save as well – and please note that SFR DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE SUPERANNUATION. It certainly doesn’t mean you enjoyed employer contributions or tax concessions. Many SFRs are living on savings from earnings that were fully taxed, and paid tax on the earnings on those savings all through their working life. And now they are being screwed AGAIN.

  6. 0
    0

    This article is complex but fails to tell who is getting the major tax concessions totalling $135 billion per year. Is it individuals or is it companies? More information is needed to fully understand the extent that tax concessions are unfair or being exploited. As an example, mining companies get a concession on the purchase of diesel fuel because the levy used for roads has been deleted due to the fact that the majority of vehicles and equipment don’t use the road network.

    Again we see the inclusion of the family home as an asset in deciding eligibility for an age pension raised but surely this is covered almost every week by this forum and in general rejected by the bloggers. The rejection is mainly because of the disparity in prices, state by state, city as against country and suburb by suburb meaning that a formula to arrive at a fair decision is almost impossible.

    I note that the dependence on pensions has dropped from 80% to around 68% and this is well before the full effects of Keating’s compulsory superannuation scheme are felt. I also note that there seems to be some stigma attached to those who wish to leave their children a legacy. Why is this considered such a bad thing when in most cases it’s the result of hard work, careful management and a bit of luck?

    In answer to the question, the retirement income system is complex because of all the different scenarios that arise because each of us is different. How can a simple formula be struck to cover homeowners, renters, those with a government superannuation pension, those with private means, those with a lot of assets, those with no assets, those who are healthy, those who have chronic health problems and the list goes on.

    • 0
      0

      Saving for retirement is one thing, it is intended to be spent or (decumulated in the jargon), which is why it should be capped. Saving for the kid’s inheritance is a separate issue and should not require subsidies and incentives from the taxpayer. While this remains the case is why children’s legacies attract scrutiny and perhaps stigma.

    • 0
      0

      .. but… but… but… the inheritances of the ‘better classes’ is always subsidised by taxpayer money in countless ways…. you know (wink, wink) the ‘company car’ Range Rover that the 17 yo girl of the manor gets to go to school… wink wink… their investments in tax dodges…. their offshoring of money so as to avoid tax here…. wink, wink ….

      These are things that need to be Outlawed immediately and tax paid on them… any resident, whether company or individual, who has cash or cash-earning assets ‘residing’ offshore and not paying tax here, should be charged a minimum tax for bringing cash in and sending it out…

      That will drive the out, you say? What the hell difference would that make? They’d still pay no tax….. but those who want to prosper from this economy will pay tax….

    • 0
      0

      Thank you Farside, I’m not sure why you think savings must be spent and as for capping this is already done isn’t it? Isn’t there a limit of $1.6M for superannuation accounts? Again, what are the subsidies and incentives from the taxpayer that you and this article claim loudly but will not elaborate?

      TREBOR, we agree that people are avoiding (not evading) tax by using the rules as laid down by the ATO and the loopholes should be plugged. However, this article and others of the same flavour, seem to ring loudly with the politics of envy. I was born with nothing and I have most of it left but I bear no ill-will to those who have made good and are defined as “rich”. BTW, people do go on about the “rich” but nobody will state what the border is between “rich” and us.

    • 0
      0

      I like that phrase Horace – “I was born with nothing and have most of it left.”

    • 0
      0

      Farside. why shouldn’t the taxpayer assist a retiree to leave something to their offspring when the taxpayer assists gamblers, drinkers and those who take luxury cruises? If my choice is to save to leave something behind to pay for my grandchildren’s health care and education (thus saving future taxpayers!) or to help them buy a home (thus saving future taxpayers!), why should I not be as entitled to taxpayer assistance as the person who chooses to spend their money on luxuries and then claim a pension? How can you justify dictating – via the pension and tax system – how people choose to use their earnings? I think you are being very unfair here.

      Look at it this way. X and Y both have $500,000 at retirement age. X decides to put his $500,000 aside for future needs. He suffers pension loss and has to spend his savings, thus having nothing left to leave to his family. Y decides to cruise the world for 5 years. He is then handed a full pension for the rest of his life. Taxpayer subsidized 5 years of cruising, for zero benefit to future generations, but denied X’s offspring the chance to be more prosperous and pay more tax. How does that benefit future taxpayers?

      The current system is so hideously unfair that some people can’t even elect to save for future home renovations and health or dental care or personal care when ill or incapacitated by age without suffering penalty, yet those who spend up big and then put their hand out are readily obliged.

  7. 0
    0

    There’s nothing new here. I’ve been writing this for years and the list has more items in it which are never looked at.
    What do you get when you have the wealthy have THEIR government in power most of the time? Corruption and money routinely pushed into the bank accounts of their supporters. We just had tax cuts for the rich pushed through thanks to Jacquie Lambi. Disgraceful. In the meantime ordinary citizens are being pushed into a growing poverty………..but still keep voting in LNP governments.

    • 0
      0

      I tried to warn Jackie Lambie about that – do not side with the powerful against your natural constituency – those who actually work for a living… and don’t become another Hanson and vote with The Big Boys while saying the opposite…

      In her position, no way would I have made a trade-off for some benefits for Tassie… that is such a limited view of what her position is… but then, you know.. Provost Corps Other Rank …. **rolls eyes** …. The Body-Snatchers…

    • 0
      0

      Lambie might be the new Senator Harradine – everything for Tassie!

    • 0
      0

      My idea, is unless Labor can organise some better policies, with the global warming events happening so often now, many of those marchers and protesters are going to vote Green. I think I plan to this next round. Every single Green that is in parliament works hard to be informed and to develop decent policies that are in the interest of the people and the environment. If they become the major party, then the old coal barons will be stuffed. The fracking will be stopped, attention will be given to enliven our rivers and to ensure food security. Please let us stop thinking that only Liberal or Labor will do. They are both parities steeped in special interests and it is difficult to believe that either one has the interests of average Australian’s at heart. Right now, we have a do nothing government who seem to hate anyone who is struggling, and their policies are punitive. I think of how many good things we have lost over the last 30 years. Adult Education is gone, Homes are baiscially unafordable, education has become costly, health care is expensive or dangerous and nonexistent due to policies and lack of money, our numbers of homeless are on the rise, good permanent jobs are more scarce, wage is stagnated, and these glib spin gurus and trying to convince us that things are great. Each time we change governments, we have big change expenses because their priorities change to suit. I so wish Jackie the best of luck but I think she is playing with seasoned manipulators. Going forward, it is in all of our interests that we have better people who actually care and work hard. That spells Green to me. They are not wing nuts, they are the most hard working, the most compassionate and they owe the least to vested interests. We will be smart to save our wild country, why give it over to 5 star hotels for the rich when it is currently owned by the public. We are importing the talent we don’t want to train ourselves, leaving those on the bottom even worse. I doubt that I can convince anyone to share my views but honestly the special interests and the ideology fight is ruining our country and potentially our lives.

    • 0
      0

      linda, WHAT are the greens polices???
      Their main ones have caused no end of problems. It was them that voted for the ‘no back burning’ policy. Look at the state of things now!
      They come up with all these ideas of things to ban but NEVER have solutions i.e. ban coal -replace with WHAT?
      Don’t say wind or the solar we do not have enough of the technology here to do so – nor the willingness to spend the money, long term, that would make it happen.
      Why have the greens not advocated for catchment areas in ALL new suburbs [why are they only in a select few]
      Why are they not advocating for all grey water to be sent up the country rather than into the sea? Government could build treatment areas beside country towns then 50% of the water could be used in the town and the rest sent into an outback above ground /underground lakes to be returned to the rivers as needed.
      Not only would this create jobs in the country but it would also benefit the wildlife with any sludge being turned into fertilizer and sold. If other countries can do it whay the blazes isn’t Australia doing it?

  8. 0
    0

    Someone from a Pensioner’s organisation spoke about this subject on the news last week, jhe also said he didn’t know who the govt had giving them advice on this subject but he riducled them, also came up with the same graph above. He also said how hard it wsas for seniors to find weork and suggested that instead of offering reduncies to older workers they should be allowed to work part time 2/ 3 days a wseek and as tax payers would still be contributing to the economy and paying into super as well. Apparently in SA some big companies and govt depts work on the assumption, get rid of the oldies, build up from the bottom, (Younger emplees).

    • 0
      0

      A classic story among my mates was that they had good jobs and when they reached the age of about 55, their work status would be changed, by a 30 something HR person hired to do exactly as you say. If they could not sack them outright they would demote them to a position that would cause them to quit if they could. I have at least 6 friends that this happened to. All were women.

  9. 0
    0

    So the wealthy pay more tax than average Joe, I don’t think so, not if they can get away with it they don’t.

    • 0
      0

      In the same way there are advisors telling retirees how to structure thier finances to maximise their pension and retirement income, so there advisors telling people how to minimise tax liability. Both are within the law and both are fine.

      The so called “wealthy” (always undefined but which seems to mean ‘anyone with more than me’) do pay more in tax than those further down the scale and not just in income tax, but on every single thing they buy. They are highly unlikely to be shopping at Big W and KMart and or buy the cheapest smallest Kia car so the 10% GST will be of far more value for a start.

      I am heartily sick of this continual battering of ‘the wealthy’. Seems envy politics is what people want economic policy to be based on.

    • 0
      0

      And that is clearly the problem – some things need to be Outlaed…..

    • 0
      0

      here here, my thoughts exactly

    • 0
      0

      KSS, the problem with your statement ‘do pay more in tax than those further down the scale and not just in income tax, but on every single thing they buy. They are highly unlikely to be shopping at Big W and KMart and or buy the cheapest smallest Kia car so the 10% GST will be of far more value for a start.’
      Is that while they may pay more initially for whatever they buy they will only buy big items i.e. cars furniture, ONCE in about 10. 20. 30 years. On the other hand a ‘poor’ person, except maybe for the car, but even then it will be at least 10 /15 years between purchases, will have bought furniture etc 4 or 5 times in the first 10 years – mainly because they can only afford cheaper quality things. Thus they are paying MORE tax [gst] than a richer person will. Not only that but ‘poor’ people spend MORE of their income on everyday necessities than a rich person will.
      The rich save more of their income while the poor spend theirs thus keeping business solvent.

  10. 0
    0

    The so-called “wealthy retirees” are NOT a burden to the govt in their old age because they do not get a govt pension. This was the overall idea, i.e. allow people to fund their own retirement n save the govt some money.

    What the govt should concentrate on is on improving the govt pension x the middle n lower income Aussies who need govt help.
    For example: raise the asset and the income test so these pensioners enjoy a better pension and go work if they want.
    The asset test x a couple is now circa $400.000, that”s almost equivalent to a politician’s salary, how is that fair?
    The income test is so low (circa $150 a week x a couple, that is not even worth bothering about.
    Leave self-funded retirees alone, allow them to enjoy their retirement because they are not a burden to the govt and they estimulate the economy.
    Help Aussie pensioners, that is where the problem is.

    • 0
      0

      You reckon? They continue to cop a free ride, and have the wherewithal to slot cash and equivalents into hidey holes that pay no tax… Jo Bloggs can’t do that… it is not ‘the poor’ who are a burden on tax revenue – hence on ‘government’, during their working life… they pay for everything and have little to hoard in tax havens and tax-free ‘ventures’….

      I’ve explained countless times that the ONLY Black Holes of Budget come from those with plenty being able to Offshore it, hoard it into avenues that do not pay tax and even cop a concession, and spend it Offshore on nice trips that the peons can’t afford , thus depriving the Australian economy of flow-on taxes….

      There are NO Black Holes from pensions, unemployment benefits etc… it all goes straight back into cash-swapping IN the economy … until ambushed by some fat cat with a hidey-hole to put it in – when it disappears from the tax horizon.. i.e is taken OUT of the economy and ceases to pay its way.

    • 0
      0

      I agree Blinky self funded retirees save the government over $1 million each by not collecting the OAP plus benefits. Fleece them more and they will just spend down their assets to get the pension instead.

      Under current welfare system it I simply not worth saving for your retirement at all.

    • 0
      0

      They get and got it back in tax concessions already, BB.. you have no argument… ‘welfare’ one way or the other – though the proper term for Pension is Social Security….

    • 0
      0

      The OAP is welfare.

    • 0
      0

      VCBB – you definitely must be Old Geezer, above phrase is exactly what he kept spouting. Just because you are rolling in money and do not get the pension you denigrate older people needing it. Chifley introduced the pension with the words “to give workers dignity in old age and so they do not have to live on welfare”. All that is forgotten with that stupid introduction of superannuation which only helps the better off making the family rich with
      lots of tax deductions. Unless you have the dough to make voluntary contributions you will never get anywhere as a wage slave.

    • 0
      0

      Might as well spend it all while you can KSS, Blinky and VCBB as it seems the govt is looking at introducing an Inheritence Tax, I am sure that will go down well with voters next election.

    • 0
      0

      Mariner I collect the full OAP plus benefits. I bought all my grandkids a house, travelled the world and put the rest into my house when I got back so I qualified for the full pension. Biggest problem I have is withdrawing enough so I keep my full pension. An inheritance tax would not affect me much at all.

    • 0
      0

      Yes VCBB – you managed to game the system. That is exactly the way it is done and possible here in Australia. You check to do it at the right time – somehow not all that much different to our politicians. No politicians has poor grandchildren, the shirt is always closer than the coat.

    • 0
      0

      All I did was learn the rules and play the game. Anyone can do this but many just can’t be bothered and thus suffer the consequences.

    • 0
      0

      Anonymous – “They get and got it back in tax concessions already, BB.. you have no argument… ‘welfare’ one way or the other – though the proper term for Pension is Social Security….” NO. You are mistaken, sorry. The wealthy get it and got it back. The battlers who saved only just enough to not qualify for a pension in many cases got nothing back and get nothing now. They are discriminated against harshly for having saved responsibly. Hence, we have folk like Retiring Well gaming the system, and financial advisers now telling people they should and advising them how to. The system is WRONG. It is grossly unfair to the hardest workers and biggest contributors.

Load More Comments

FACEBOOK COMMENTS



SPONSORED LINKS

continue reading

Age Pension payment rates

Age Pension and supplements set to increase this month

More than five million Australians have received welcome news with an increase to their social security payments from 20 March...

Finance News

Financial planners know they need to build trust with retirees

Financial planners know they must win us over. They know they must find new ways to help retirees sustain an...

Health

The 'big O' and ageing - what to expect

A client recently told me that she "always had ripper orgasms, but they seemed to be getting more intense" as...

Finance

Avoid these products at the dollar store

Discount retailers that sell inexpensive household items might seem like the ideal place to find bargains but not every product...

Health

The easy way to get medication delivered to your door

Australians will be able to access their medications and over-the-counter remedies by ordering online or downloading the new Chemist2U app....

Nutrition

Do you really need breakfast? Or three meals a day?

Is nothing sacred? Nine lifestyle writer Sarah Berry says we don't need three meals a day to be healthy. Older...

Health

How to spot the signs of stroke and reduce your risk

Strokes might be something we tend to associate most with older generations, but some figures are painting a different story...

Health

Who needs a colonoscopy most? Ensuring those at risk head the queue

Professor Jon EmeryMary was 55 when she started having on and off tummy pains, and noticed she needed to go...

LOADING MORE ARTICLE...