Treasurer announces guidelines for retirement income review

Review to assess how the retirement income system will perform as the population ages.

Treasurer announces guidelines for retirement income review

Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announces first major review of Australia’s retirement income system in 30 years, with a focus on ‘putting more money into the pockets of retired Australians’.

And he led with some good news for most older Australians, ruling out including the family home in an assets test for the Age Pension.

The Government’s announcement follows continued pressure from the Productivity Commission (PC) to conduct a retirement income review prior to increasing the superannuation guarantee rate from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent.

The review will examine the machinations of the Age Pension, compulsory super and voluntary savings.

“It will be very important in helping to determine future policy positions by creating a fact base of what is happening in the system, particularly as we have an ageing population, people are living longer and our superannuation pool is growing dramatically over time,” said Mr Frydenberg.

He said the Government would not consider including the family home in the assets test.

“Our position hasn’t changed and that will never be part of our policy,” he said.

So far, the Government has announced very broad terms of reference for its inquiry.

Mr Frydenberg and Assistant Superannuation Minister Jane Hume said in a statement the review “will cover the current state of the system and how it will perform in the future as Australians live longer and the population ages”. It would “establish a fact base of the current retirement income system that will improve understanding of its operation and the outcomes it is delivering for Australians”.

The terms of reference say: “It is important that the system allows Australians to achieve adequate retirement incomes, is fiscally sustainable and provides appropriate incentives for self-provision in retirement.”

The review will examine the three pillars of the retirement income system: a means-tested Age Pension, compulsory superannuation and voluntary savings, including home ownership.

It will also identify how the retirement income system supports Australians in retirement; the role of each pillar in supporting Australians through retirement; distributional impacts across the population and over time, and the impact of current policy settings on public finances.

The family home is off the table, as is, it seems, increasing the pension age to 70. It remains to be seen whether superannuation concessions and dividend imputations will be analysed. However, the superannuation guarantee increase remains government policy.

“Our position hasn’t changed, it’s legislated,” said Mr Frydenberg.

“The Productivity Commission recommended we conducted a review; we’re going ahead with the review. Our focus is putting more money into the pockets of retired Australians.”

YourLifeChoices has been researching and analysing retirement income and retirement affordability since its establishment in 1999. Over this time, despite the growth in superannuation savings, little progress has been made for many retirees, says YourLifeChoices publisher Kaye Fallick, with money spent on superannuation concessions (according to the Australia Institute, currently $43 billion) set to overtake that spent on the Age Pension (currently $48 billion) in 2024.

“The retirement income review is the first comprehensive review of the different facets of retirement income for decades. It presents a real opportunity to get the settings right – and to ensure a more equitable division of Australia’s wealth pie,” she says.

“Sadly, it seems it is already compromised. Any review of retirement income should include all aspects of retirement funding, not just super, private savings and the Age Pension – but also the very significant role the family home has to play. If the family home is not important, why then did the Federal Government introduce a greatly expanded Pensions Loans Scheme in July?

“Unlike most Federal Government reviews and inquiries, this review is not required to offer recommendations. It is, instead, being asked to put ‘facts on the table’ for the government of the day to consider.

“So it is fair to ask if we could be spending millions on a review that goes nowhere and does nothing, while so many retirees continue to live out their days in genteel poverty?”

The Actuaries Institute also has succinct views on what should be achieved by the review.

“The overarching objective should be to ensure that Australians can confidently live their retirement years in dignity. At a minimum, it will require better integration of the current disparate Age Pension and superannuation systems, but it can go much further and better integrate with our aged care and healthcare systems. In assessing any proposals for reform against such an objective, the institute has considered three guiding principles: Australian retirees should have financial security; the system should be efficient without unnecessary complexity or costs, and it must be fair,” it said in a paper released earlier this month.

“Ultimately, at stake is the opportunity to deliver landmark reforms which will deliver a better quality of life to Australian retirees in a way that is efficient and fair for all Australians. The Actuaries Institute encourages that debate to start now. If it does not, Australians may lose the opportunity presented by the fiscal headroom of the projected declining Age Pension costs, and the lead time we have to prepare for known longer-term changes such as patterns of home ownership and work, longevity, and growing health and aged care costs.”

The review will be overseen by a three-person panel led by former senior Treasury official Michael Callaghan accompanied by Carolyn Kay, a member of the Future Fund’s board of guardians, and Deborah Ralston, chair of the Self-Managed Super Fund Association and a member of the Reserve Bank’s payments system board (and coincidentally a spokesperson for the Alliance for a Fairer Retirement System which opposed Labor’s franking credit policies).

The Opposition has concerns about the Government’s commitment to the review, evident, says Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers, by the timing of the announcement.

“If the Government was serious about this retirement income review, they wouldn’t have dropped it out on the eve of (AFL) Grand Final weekend, hoping nobody would notice,” said Mr Chalmers.

What would you hope to see included in the review? Do you think it’s fair that two key items have already been removed from the table prior to the review?

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

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    VeryCaringBigBear
    30th Sep 2019
    10:49am
    Nothing in it for those who plan and save for their own retirement. They will get fleeced even more.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    12:03pm
    You got that right - and that includes you, who had a good run without all the modern destructions that rip the heart out of your retirement plans... it isn't just the fortunate that plan, you know - but you simply can't see around corners... or control piss poor handling of your economy or the company you are holding together so the bosses can crash it into a wall, leaving you on the street at 50 or so and recently divorced etc...

    Not all beer and skittles, you know....
    Paddington
    30th Sep 2019
    1:07pm
    Very uncaring bear, spare a thought for an old lady or man who pay their rent each fortnight and their bills and look at what they have left which is not enough for their food and medicines. They decide not to eat every meal in order to get to the next fortnight. And it happens all over again and again. They feel desperate and sad even depressed.
    Do you enjoy a wine with your restaurant meal? Do you go on holiday even overseas?
    Count yourself lucky for all the lovely things you can manage financially and be glad you are not in the position of a single renting pensioner.
    I do.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    30th Sep 2019
    3:19pm
    I don't drink wine or eat out at restaurants either.
    Chooky
    2nd Oct 2019
    11:03pm
    You get franking credits even when you don’t pay tax.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    3rd Oct 2019
    10:27am
    If I get franking credit then I have paid tax as they are a withholding tax the same as PAYG and PAYE.

    Are you saying that if anyone over pays their tax by paying too much withholding tax then they shouldn't get a refund?
    Triss
    30th Sep 2019
    10:53am
    Excuse me for being cynical but will it be the usual $1.50 per fortnight?
    Arvo
    30th Sep 2019
    11:38am
    Triss... and the usual 2.5% increase of parliamentary salaries to give themselves an extra $192 per fortnight because they worked so hard to achieve an Age Pension payment increase in September 2019.. the usual $6.80 Age Pension and 0.40 cents towards the Supplement for single age pensioners, per fortnight. Oh...did I mention the 0.80 cents per fortnight in Rent assistance? How gracious of them!!
    libsareliars
    30th Sep 2019
    1:17pm
    Spot on Arvo.
    ray from Bondi
    30th Sep 2019
    11:00am
    I can imagine what will happen another 10c instead of anything that really will make a difference, and all the politicians running around crowing and flapping their wings like crows over a dead pensioner.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    12:04pm
    ROFL ... well put...
    Arvo
    30th Sep 2019
    11:06am
    "He said the Government would not consider including the family home in the assets test"...Hope he is not having a Julia Gillard and a Tony Abbott false statement moment.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    12:10pm
    As many times before - an asset such as that bought and paid for out of post-income tax, is an absolute personal ownership thing, and must not be taxed again in any way... it is owned, lock, stock and barrel, and should have no part in any assets test - and nor should anything else bought out of honestly paid, post-income tax....

    Reducing pension for having bought and paid for assets is double taxation.... no matter how you look at it.... and Colonel C'Link reduces pension in accordance with any sale income derived and banked.... how many bites does The Good colonel want at the one cherry??

    Tell 'em to go to buggary..... and mean it at the election.... hammer your opposition to bring in a reality based assets test....
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    2:01pm
    Furthermore, since it was not treated as an asset for taxation purposes along the way to its final ownership - it cannot now be classed as an asset...

    Simple enough.... leaving it out is merely compensation for not including it - like a serial house owner can - for tax deduction while it is being paid for through the nose...

    Same applies to EVERY OTHER OWNED ASSET, BTW - No Double Taxation!!
    Mary
    30th Sep 2019
    5:34pm
    I agree with Trebor. If you buy a home for 300k. and then pay rent to the banks.. oops I mean interest for 30 years, Then your cost on purchase is 300k Plus the interest paid. In my case near 310k. So total cost to me is 610k for that home. Now add on the cost of rates, insurance, maintenance, renovations, stamp duty etc. Over 30 yrs probable cost is 180k. so add it up. To date my home has cost me approx 790k to own and live in. It is worth around 780 to 820 now. Everything has been paid for in after tax dollars. So every time I pay the bank $1000, the government has taken $300 in payg tax. If they want to treat a house as an asset then all costs paid should be able to be offset against it.... otherwise what is the point of owning a home?
    Mary
    30th Sep 2019
    5:59pm
    So does the govt assess me on an actual 30k gain after costs, or do they assess me on valuation price minus bought price (520k). or do they assess me on the market value? 820k. I don't trust governments.. any govt.
    Horace Cope
    30th Sep 2019
    11:07am
    What I see as important is firstly that the family home is excluded from the assets test and secondly that the increase in age eligibility by Labor to 67 will not be increased to 70. To include the family home would be unfair due to the differences in values, not only from state to state but from cities to country towns. The legislation to try and overcome this obvious disparity would be almost impossible. The retirement age will sometimes depend on the type of work carried out as those who work physically may not have the stamina to continue to a later age and this is discriminatory.
    Tanker
    30th Sep 2019
    11:10am
    It would appear that the review panel has been selected to give the government the "facts" that the government want to hear. Governments of all colours use such devices to obtain so called "independent" advice which is then used to legislate in the way the government wanted all along.
    Given the LNP's favouring of the well-off it confirms why there is no one from a social welfare background on the panel. Inequality is an ever increasing fact of life in Australia and I don't hold out much hope of the current government doing anything to modify that.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    12:11pm
    Another Commission of Useful Idiots handed a hefty retainer and a rubber stamp and told to go for it???
    ray from Bondi
    30th Sep 2019
    12:16pm
    I remember a comedy show many years ago "Yes Minister" and one of the thing highlighted was that no government calls or initiates any enquiry without ensuring the result is what they want, though on second thought there are a number of enquiry ended where Our benevolent big brother has decided it is secret to save us any anxiety.
    ALL governments stack the members or enquiries and the like with people they know will support what they want.
    libsareliars
    30th Sep 2019
    1:18pm
    Yes Tanker, another confederacy of dunces for us to pay for.
    Misty
    30th Sep 2019
    1:26pm
    I am sure you don't mean "Usefull" in your comment above TREBOR, I can think of many other names to call the idiots but useful is not one of them, Useless maybe, what do you think of that one for eg?.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    2:03pm
    I meant in the limited sense of being a blind follower... one that suits the party first and foremost and has no real mind of his/her own.... Useful ONLY to the party, Comrade...
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    7:54pm
    I noticed Don Pedro Castella (Peter Costello or Costalot), Il Treasurio to Don Juan Huarte (The Rat Weasel John Howard) of Central American potentate fame... was on tonight talking about super ... what could it mean to him? His overly massive preferential 'super' is paid for every time on the dot and fully indexed for life, out of the $130Bn he and Don Juan stole from Il Treasuria Nacional and lodged in The Caymans so it pays no tax here.

    And that's just this parasite's parliamentary gig...

    I don't think we want to hear from him or his kind.......... they have ZERO idea what they have done and continue to do to this nation and its people... and they care even less..

    GEXIT anyone? Global Economy Exit?
    Tanker
    30th Sep 2019
    11:11am
    It would appear that the review panel has been selected to give the government the "facts" that the government want to hear. Governments of all colours use such devices to obtain so called "independent" advice which is then used to legislate in the way the government wanted all along.
    Given the LNP's favouring of the well-off it confirms why there is no one from a social welfare background on the panel. Inequality is an ever increasing fact of life in Australia and I don't hold out much hope of the current government doing anything to modify that.
    ray from Bondi
    30th Sep 2019
    12:17pm
    here here.
    changes?
    30th Sep 2019
    11:11am
    Excuse my cynicism on this news and any said benefits for those on pensions. I am 72, was medically retired in 1988, deemed unemployable back then, my records of the incident that caused my retirement were lost/never put in to the compo section by the witness to my injury. My wife and & I then had to raise three children on an older sickness pension. Through the loss of both of our Parents we were able to get a home, we now own but now struggle on the aged pension.

    Whenever the 6 monthly increase in pensions is about to come in, the thing notices in our shopping is prices for essentials go up. I have watched for around 10 years now and coined the term, High Cost of Low Inflation, and that happens as a result of so many of the general bare packaged nessecities have in general gone up ever so slightly but they have been reduced in size, meaning one has to buy more items, that overall cost more.

    These include Soaps, was 125gm now most are 94gm, drinks down is size and increased prices, Biscuits, cheeses, breakfast cereals, are just a very few items that have gone that way. Many other items have been reduced in sizes from the older (not that long back either) of rounded weights eg, 100gm down to 93gm 1.25ltr down to 1.1ltr A visit to supermarkets of all brands finds the amount of delicatessen items, up by 20% at least.

    Companies that also change canned product sizes, one being to reduce Baked Beans from 250gm down to 240, now to 220gr. Another removing the same product size in the 200g range to under 200, at same old price and introduce a lager can that's more expensive. The old 500gm jars of jam, have gone from the shelfs and replaced by 400gm for one company and 480gr by another.

    All these and many other items, including both essential and non essentials have been reduced in size, yet the prices have stayed the same as what the larger items cost.

    I doubt many if any of our politicians and those on high incomes would really notice these areas. but even a 5% reduction in size of a product, and the price remains the same, hurts aged pensioners in more ways than the governments would like to consider.

    Its no different also when the pension is split with different components in it, and the increase in pensions are also applied on the % base of each component rather than an overall amount of the total pension payment.

    One could go on
    sunnyOz
    30th Sep 2019
    11:35am
    Totally agree with you changes about 'downsizing' of foods. I make a point of reading labels both for quantity and nutrition reasons, and soon - due to so many downsizings - you won't be able to tell the difference between real foods and the 'Coles Mini Giveaways'. And it is not just food items - fly sprays, toilet paper, hand towels - all are shrinking.
    When I do have a bit of chocolate, I love the peppermint Freddo Frog, saw one recently so bought it. Opened the pack - and nearly feinted. Suddenly it has become a 'mini' frog, but still in the same size packaging. They cut down the size of the actual food, not the size of the packaging/cans, etc.
    Pensioners are also penalised shopping in other ways. A local store often promotes 'spend $200 on groceries - get $20 free vegetables/fruit'. Which pensioner could spend that on groceries?
    ray from Bondi
    30th Sep 2019
    12:22pm
    yes I remember in school many years ago and this is one of the few things that stuck for some reason. A teacher said that companies can not be trusted that is why the government (in those days governments did care about the constituents) all sizes are deemed, so that there could be no cheating like now, just about everything has shrunk in size and increased in price, and as everything is even the same product from different manufacturers in is a different size, it is impossible almost to compare products, I know the price per whatever is there in very small printing, but very hard to read.
    KSS
    30th Sep 2019
    12:28pm
    Changes? Manufacturers have a choice: when their costs go up they can either increase the cost to the customer, or reduce the amount packaged and keep the shelf cost the same. Ether way, ultimately the customer pays more. Its just that actually handing over more cash is more evident than reducing package size.

    sunnyOz, it is not just 'pensioners' who may not be able to afford $200 on groceries. No supermarket near me offers such an incentive as you mention either. Coles and Woolies do offer 'points' incentives of the 'spend $130 a week for 4 weeks' to get extra points but if you don't spend that amount the next offer you get actually goes down! Spend the amount and the next offer will increase. Supermarkets are in the business of selling stuff and making a profit. They are not charitable organisations looking after pensioners any more than any other shop on the high street is. Even the discount days for pensioners are aimed at retaining the customer base i.e. you may shop tthere on days when there is no discount as well!
    Paddington
    30th Sep 2019
    1:15pm
    Who spends $200 a week on groceries? We might at Xmas with a houseful but about half that or a bit more most of the year. Buy half price and watch for when it comes around again as it is cyclical. Buy specials don’t pay full price on most things. Load up when they are half price to last til the next time. Say I pay $50 I can usually expect to same that much.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    2:04pm
    Damn - when did a schooner become 330 ml? Curses ...
    changes?
    30th Sep 2019
    11:11am
    Excuse my cynicism on this news and any said benefits for those on pensions. I am 72, was medically retired in 1988, deemed unemployable back then, my records of the incident that caused my retirement were lost/never put in to the compo section by the witness to my injury. My wife and & I then had to raise three children on an older sickness pension. Through the loss of both of our Parents we were able to get a home, we now own but now struggle on the aged pension.

    Whenever the 6 monthly increase in pensions is about to come in, the thing notices in our shopping is prices for essentials go up. I have watched for around 10 years now and coined the term, High Cost of Low Inflation, and that happens as a result of so many of the general bare packaged nessecities have in general gone up ever so slightly but they have been reduced in size, meaning one has to buy more items, that overall cost more.

    These include Soaps, was 125gm now most are 94gm, drinks down is size and increased prices, Biscuits, cheeses, breakfast cereals, are just a very few items that have gone that way. Many other items have been reduced in sizes from the older (not that long back either) of rounded weights eg, 100gm down to 93gm 1.25ltr down to 1.1ltr A visit to supermarkets of all brands finds the amount of delicatessen items, up by 20% at least.

    Companies that also change canned product sizes, one being to reduce Baked Beans from 250gm down to 240, now to 220gr. Another removing the same product size in the 200g range to under 200, at same old price and introduce a lager can that's more expensive. The old 500gm jars of jam, have gone from the shelfs and replaced by 400gm for one company and 480gr by another.

    All these and many other items, including both essential and non essentials have been reduced in size, yet the prices have stayed the same as what the larger items cost.

    I doubt many if any of our politicians and those on high incomes would really notice these areas. but even a 5% reduction in size of a product, and the price remains the same, hurts aged pensioners in more ways than the governments would like to consider.

    Its no different also when the pension is split with different components in it, and the increase in pensions are also applied on the % base of each component rather than an overall amount of the total pension payment.

    One could go on
    ollie
    30th Sep 2019
    11:14am
    This mob believe that the pension is a handout even though we paid our taxes to guarantee us an aged pension and they say that they are going to give us more? Better throw those walkers away and start looking for a job goodbye Franklin credits
    Triss
    30th Sep 2019
    11:27am
    Yes, ollie, when the handout is really the politician’s pensions with some ex MPs being on it for 20 or 30 years. Some of those MPs were in their thirties when they left Parliament so could easily be a burden to the taxpayers for 60 plus years.
    libsareliars
    30th Sep 2019
    1:22pm
    Yes we know who the Leaners are in this society - and it ain't the pensioners.
    Sundays
    30th Sep 2019
    11:20am
    I cant believe YLC are supportive of including the family home in the discussion. The family home is the only asset that some pensioners have gained through years of hard work! The.Govt introduced the Pension Loan Scheme so some could choose to access cash. Nothing more. Leaving it off the table and not increasing pension age to 70 are things I definitely agree with. Also so unpopular with voters that the Review would lose all credibility
    Rosret
    30th Sep 2019
    11:28am
    YLC is Labor/Greens biased. - and they are not old enough to remember the damage and emotional trauma it caused families when they did experiment with this option.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    12:13pm
    See above (again) - any asset bought and paid for out of post-income tax income is YOURS exclusively and is no concern of government.... reducing pension because of assets is double taxation...
    Farside
    30th Sep 2019
    3:07pm
    Why assume that all else remains equal if the home is included? Will there be so much angst if home is included and the assets test threshold is raised to $2m? Too many folks grizzling with imperfect information. The idea is not bad and ensures family home treated equally with other assets so let's wait and see what is proposed.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    7:55pm
    Best to exclude all bought and paid for assets purchased out of post-tax income now, instead of running the risk... the system is already unfair and involves double taxation....

    Exclude all bought assets - no problem-o then with any ideas about the family home...
    GeorgeM
    30th Sep 2019
    8:56pm
    Quite correct, Sundays, both the items ruled out of the review of pensions - family home and changing pension are to 70 - are good decisions.

    YLC should not waste time on trying to change these good decisions, and instead focus on the other major areas needing massive overhaul, e.g. massive Super concessions used by the rich (thanks to Keating), nasty Assets test (thanks to Keating + Hockey / Morrison), nasty deeming rates (thanks to Keating), etc.
    cupoftea
    30th Sep 2019
    11:22am
    If you believe any of that you believed in death tax and he called it aged pension I thought all LNP and there minions say its welfare
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    7:57pm
    Welfare is when you go to Vinnie's in need of help with the power bill or the food bill etc.... and arguably should include such things as PPL, childcare subsidy etc, which do NOT cover necessities... but are luxury 'rights' installed to capture votes...
    cupoftea
    30th Sep 2019
    11:22am
    If you believe any of that you believed in death tax and he called it aged pension I thought all LNP and there minions say its welfare
    floss
    30th Sep 2019
    11:23am
    Perhaps a review into the effect of our immigration policy on the C/Link budget,they dare not go near that one.And we must also keep in mind that most pensioners have paid for their pensions in their past tax payments.
    Rosret
    30th Sep 2019
    11:33am
    The immigrants actually support our pyramid pension scheme. They are workers and not solely consumers. They arrive fully educated and will work for 40 years before being a burden on the superannuation scheme. - Long after the politicians have retired.

    What the government didn't count on was the young age their children get married and the number of children they are having.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    12:21pm
    .. and on their ability culturally or otherwise to not pay tax anyway... where they come from tax is just a word for small nails...

    How many of them have found the Nirvana of 'business' instead of working for wages .. or have ethnic group 'in-house' businesses for cash? How many find it easy to sneak up on Australian social initiatives such as NDIS and PPL etc? How many of them receive affirmative action to create them equal while the rest get nothing (how equal is that?)...

    I'm one of those who believes our current approach to immigration is unsustainable and is self-destructive - and by contrast I am a fierce advocate of refugees, having studied that at uni (among a host of other things)...

    Just as an example - while I greatly admire my Sri Lankan GP - the introduction of masses of foreign trained doctors who get free university removes incentive for Australians to enter or even be considered for such professions... and does nothing to improve the teaching facilities and give incentive to train adequate numbers of locals.... not just in medicine, either...

    Perhaps one answer to the rural doctor crisis is to offer subsidies for fees in return for a five year residency in a rural district....

    Sorry again - welcome to Around The World With Trebor... just remember that all issues are inter-related, and we need to get cracking with a plan to take on one issue at a time.... hard to choose where to start ...
    older&wiser
    30th Sep 2019
    12:21pm
    Not necessarily Rosret. Only this morning watched item on ABC, Australia will run out of water due to high immigration. Needs to produce 50 million litres of water a day to cover increase in immigration. We can't even manage now.
    And not all immigrants work - in some areas, the highest percentage of welfare recipients are recent immigrants who don't work.
    As for 'arriving fully educated' - definitely no so.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    12:31pm
    I recall Mark Latham's interviews with various people outside Fairfield Centrelink - most did not speak English and were on some form of Social Security... in fact all were... so much for "they all come here qualified and work and pay taxes"....

    The Greater Sydney Basin (etc) will one day drown in its own excrement.... not a bad thing, really....
    libsareliars
    30th Sep 2019
    1:27pm
    Agree with you Trebor. We are running out of water and it is only going to get worse with higher population and Climate catastrophe.
    Triss
    30th Sep 2019
    1:35pm
    In my opinion Mark Latham has nothing to say that he’s better than a CentreLink recipient, Trebor. He left Parliament with a nose bleed sized pension plus perks then got elected to Parliament with a nose bleed sized salary on top of his pension...no assets test for him.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    2:06pm
    I wasn't siding with Mark Latham totally, Triss - I always say they're all tarred with the same brush... but I give credit where credit is due (I hope)... but I'm not always right....
    Farside
    30th Sep 2019
    3:15pm
    Floss, how do you figure most pensioners have paid for pensions in past tax payments? Workforce participation excludes around one third of the working age population and female participation is even now only 60% and has historically been as much as half this level?
    VeryCaringBigBear
    30th Sep 2019
    3:58pm
    Welfare including the old age pension has not be paid for in past tax payments by anyone. You only get eh OAP as you have no other means of support.
    Karl Marx
    30th Sep 2019
    4:43pm
    Still trolling for the LNP Old Geezer er I mean VCBB lol. The OAP has been paid in part by our taxes over our working lives & still is as the tax rate hasn't been reduced by the 7.5% that has, is collected. The tax threshold also hasn't moved in over 7 years so a lot of bracket creep is also happening that affects low income earners.
    The OAP is not welfare either Old Geezer but an entitlement that has been stripped from many by greedy governments past & more so the present. This (your employer) government is evil to the core & for the PM to call himself a so called christian with christian values borders on blaspheme.
    As someone here points out, welfare is what you receive from the Smith family, Salvos etc when you need food or a bed for the night.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    7:58pm
    No point giving them the FACTS, Karl - they just ignore them and repeat.. repeat... repeat a la Dr. Goebbels...
    Farside
    30th Sep 2019
    11:23pm
    "The OAP is not welfare either ... but an entitlement " pot-kettle-black
    TREBOR
    1st Oct 2019
    1:14am
    Pension is not welfare - it's Social Security - a pot that has been fed religiously since the days of Menzies...

    When are the dunderheads who keep trying to maintain that it is some form of handout going to learn that it is what it is - Social Security.... and as such is a Right and and Entitlement in OUR society...

    It's been explained and referenced countless times - yet some just repeat and repeat the old lies about it... tell a lie often enough and it will become truth - but in this case, the lie that social security is welfare has no traction and never had any...

    Nobody's buying, boys...back to the drawing board..
    Rosret
    30th Sep 2019
    11:25am
    OK - I read it.
    What does this mean? " Productivity Commission (PC) to conduct a retirement income review prior to increasing the superannuation guarantee rate from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent."
    What is a superannuation guarantee rate?
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    12:28pm
    It's a guarantee that you will put in a specified percentage of your gross wages, peasant - but not that you will retain that once it is in the hands of the parasites who currently handle superannuation under the current flawed scheme..

    Of course, such chicaneries do not affect Frydenburg and the like's 'superannuation'... they just cop a hefty handout without fees and costs.... and unlike yours at retirement - it is indexed so they never go poor and have to beg at Vinnie's for super... yours,of course, could be crashed in any stock market Downfall or suddenly cut back, goal posts shifted, by State or Federal government if that is where you work/worked...

    Our FedPols, by contrast, have $130Bn and climbing in investments sitting tax-free to Australia in the Bahamas... so even if we drive them out at pitch-fork point, they can escape and live the life of Reilly on our cash... the Rat Weasel Howard arranged that one in true Central American potentate style... and we want it back NOW as a start to OUR National Future Fund, you thieving little rat....

    That sound about right???
    sunnyOz
    30th Sep 2019
    11:39am
    "More money in the pockets of retirees" - who actually believes this rubbish. Since when does the government - any government - actually really genuinely want to give anything to pensioners? What will that be - 10c like the latest increase in supplementary allowance for singles per fortnight?
    What they will do is give on one hand and take with the other.
    KSS
    30th Sep 2019
    12:36pm
    There is a big difference between 'retirees' and 'pensioners' as you are well aware sunnyOz. Better you don't conflate the two.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    2:10pm
    Well...... politician and their mates retirees won;t suffer..... that's for sure.... if the pension is boosted, they'll need a top-up to 'compensate' . . gotta retain 'equal treatment, you know - even Labor will agree with that....

    Labor, of course, is about as much for The People as the Chinese government is for its people via Communism - the form of 'communism' that allows the ruling elite to use every aspect of society to further their own billions, including the military to suppress anyone who disagrees and a bullet to the head for quite a few such .... and never forget our politicians drool at the tho0ught of developing for themselves the same 'right '.....
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    2:10pm
    Footnote:- Go The Honkers! And now the Indos!! Stick it to the corrupt bastards....
    Tricky
    30th Sep 2019
    11:42am
    With this hypocritical Government, tomorrow will see another interest rate cut, which the government will not apply to Deeming Rates on cash deposits, another Tax on Pensioners and Part Pensioners!
    Rosret
    30th Sep 2019
    11:49am
    The Reserve bank is an independent body. We are really at the mercy of the American Banking system.
    Tricky
    30th Sep 2019
    2:45pm
    Government sets Deeming Rates not Reserve Bank!
    VeryCaringBigBear
    30th Sep 2019
    3:23pm
    Deeming rates have little to do with cash deposits but what people earn on their money in retirement.
    Tricky
    30th Sep 2019
    4:05pm
    Deeming Rates on Cash Term Deposits set by government has an adverse impact on over 60,000 pensioners and part pensioners.

    Reserve Bank Interest rate cuts tomorrow will further impact on those persons. As to whether this hypocritical government does another review and reduces the rates will be another matter.

    That is why it is a TAX on pensioners and part pensioners as government complains about banks not passing on interest rate cuts and this hypocritical government does talk the talk but does not walk the talk.
    Millie
    30th Sep 2019
    11:59am
    I want to see the Assets Test and its effect in particular, upon the single pensioner addressed.
    The allowable amount in assets for a couple before a pension is reduced is so much greater than that for a single. If the asset happens to be in the form of property, and therefore not readily accessible such as cash, this has a very negative effect on the amount of pension paid to the single person. Who works out these formulas? Meanwhile, the single person still has the full costs of maintaining the property, paying rates and insurances etc all on a greatly reduced income.
    libsareliars
    30th Sep 2019
    1:28pm
    Spot on.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    2:12pm
    See above - assets bought and paid for after honest work and paying taxes are YOURS exclusively - and no business of any government...

    No way should anyone be taxed twice for having assets they've bought out of honest after-tax money ...
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    8:07pm
    **coughs** mind you - some of these people with a housing or business portfolio who have apparently never had any other form of income from work etc... seriously need to be looked over .... all records checked for income and sources thereof for as long as possible - which is a long, long way these days with computerised bank records...

    Don't tell me they simply disappear.....

    I've known career criminals, drug traffickers/dealers, who have a property portfolio with no apparent means of support........ once again - their descendants will get into all the best jobs, including politics (look at Labor at the moment with the Chinese friendly societies and their open pockets but closed secret dealings - including not a few ethnic MPs from Chinese and other groups), while the Old True Blue becomes the subject of myth - much as the Aboriginal Civilisation was a myth and even the good bits are treated as myth .....

    (Downe at Ye Olde Macquarie Street:-

    Wun Hung Lo, Member for Wentworth -

    "You cannot seriously tell me that these 'White Australians', with names like Finch, O'Connor, Kauter and such - actually had a decent civilisation and a good standard of living! All they do is sit around filthy and dirty, work low jobs if you can get them to work, they beat their missuses, drink drink booze and complain about their past and their land rights, and how those were stolen!"
    Millie
    30th Sep 2019
    11:59am
    I want to see the Assets Test and its effect in particular, upon the single pensioner addressed.
    The allowable amount in assets for a couple before a pension is reduced is so much greater than that for a single. If the asset happens to be in the form of property, and therefore not readily accessible such as cash, this has a very negative effect on the amount of pension paid to the single person. Who works out these formulas? Meanwhile, the single person still has the full costs of maintaining the property, paying rates and insurances etc all on a greatly reduced income.
    TREBOR
    1st Oct 2019
    1:18am
    One reason I've tried to set up this household so that in the event I cark it (nearly lost me people - those damned cardiologists have learned a lesson - if a patient complains for six years of pain relieved by nitrate spray - it's time to take a look instead of running more costly and income-generating tests - as a surgeon there is no option for your being asleep on the job - maybe a stint as a military medico would adjust your minds), my ex can still get by. Solar power and stuff all work towards that end.....
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    12:01pm
    Perhaps the super contribution needs to be indexed so as to incorporate genuine hidden inflation... I know it goes up periodically, but the simple reality is that the amount contributed does not equate to its equivalent after fifty years....

    Remember Keating's $300,000 in super when you retire? Not worth a tinker's lunch these days...

    Also one of the major costs is the... costs ... levied for someone handling your account for you... which, as we all know and in this day and age of ZERO employment certainty, means your tiny fund will die slowly by withering on the vine unless fed regularly...

    Then employer cheating comes into play - with phoenixed companies and the like disappearing with the super fund.... and their bosses living at Point Piper and having the 70 ft power yacht built by Mal Vorsen at prohibitive cost, and spending $25m to upgrade their house, while their active constituents past are wallowing in neo-poverty and looking down the barrel of a flatlined retirement... due to super theft...

    Ummmm.. I think I'll lock in d), Eddie..... "The Trebor Scheme out of the hands of parasites of all kinds sounds like the way to go"....

    BTW - if Eddie had me in the Hot Seat last Friday, he'd be handing me a cheque for $1,000,2000 - third time I've got every question right... but never when I get the call... thentheyask you five questions over the phone, totally unprepared and no options - and they are dicky questions to say the least.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    8:10pm
    Wait a minute - that's $1,002,000 - I was also top gun at the pre-questions ...

    Now - what are you going to do with a millyun dullahs?

    Oh - pay off the mortgage, get some goodies like water tanks and solar hot water on the house, get my dental work done... then take the holiday I've never really had, Eddie - all my holidays are work in one way or another.... but that's after I take the other contestants tonight out to dinner.. on me.....
    Happy
    30th Sep 2019
    12:10pm
    I am 68 years old and get a part pension mainly because I work part time, only 19hours per fortnight, to supplement the pension and because I enjoy the work I do in the disability sector, after my $300 per fortnight work bonus is taken into account I then loose .50cents in the dollar off my pension, I would like to be able to earn more and not have it affect my pension, my health doesn't allow me to work full-time
    TREBOR
    1st Oct 2019
    11:07am
    The funny thing is that while reducing pension is another form of taxation, the government then goes out of its way to give bonuses on income tax, and thus it pretty much balances out...

    Easier to just say 'no tax (reduction of) on pension - pay income tax'. the last few years I worked casual, I got it all back in tax return.... so not sure what their reasoning is ...
    stevo
    30th Sep 2019
    12:43pm
    Have a REAL GOOD LOOK AT THE FULL AGE PENSION and how elderly people on this Pension are not being able to pay their bills, buy the food they need etc. The AGE PENSION NEEDS TO BE INCREASED before more elderly Australians die. These deaths are on the Federal Governments hands.
    libsareliars
    30th Sep 2019
    1:32pm
    "The AGE PENSION NEEDS TO BE INCREASED before more elderly Australians die. These deaths are on the Federal Governments hands"

    Hear hear. They should also raise Newstart for the same reasons. People are dying and have no hope. We are a rich country and the government are always telling us what good managers they are. Instead of giving billions in tax breaks to the extremely wealthy it should go to the disadvantaged and poor. What sort of country have we turned into when we can't help our most vulnerable?
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    2:13pm
    Can Frydenburg join the chorus and live on $40 a day without all found???

    SHOW ME!
    hyperbole
    30th Sep 2019
    2:55pm
    There are lots of pensioners who live very well on the pension. How people can say they cannot pay their bills etc. A sweeping statement. rubbish!
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    8:11pm
    Pure hyperbole..................
    rtrish
    30th Sep 2019
    12:51pm
    Somehow I don’t feel reassured. I can’t imagine that the Gov’t is going to be more generous. Will have to wait and see.
    TREBOR
    1st Oct 2019
    1:23am
    Nah - this is just an excuse to hand some of their mates some taxpayer lovely for doing nothing, and then trying to make it look like something solid.

    Anyone else want to defend Josh Frydenburg? My great-greats were Jews from Hamburg - not one survivor in that city of that name...... so don't ever think that being the descendant of Holocaust survivors is any recommendation that you are actually human..... and not just another twerp driven by the dollars you send to them by the train-load.

    My grandfather was the top of his profession... and the list goes on - but NONE of them were parasites.... they worked for their place in the sun ...

    To me, Frydenburg is a disgrace .....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwtSK1gLBBk
    KSS
    30th Sep 2019
    12:53pm
    Over the last 25 years or so the population of Australia has increased whether through migration (all forms) or by birth rate. It is a reasonable assertion that many of these have been and/or are now contributing to superannuation. The pool of superannuation has therefore increased as would have been expected. However, that does not mean that the amount in individual accounts has likewise increased. We have been told for at least the last 10-15 years that super contributions would not be enough to provide retirement income and that people should be saving a minimum 15%. Currently the legislated amount is 9.5%. People need to remember that this is salary/wages forfeitted by the employee for their furture - compulsory savings effectively. It is not the largess of the employer and frankly they should have no say whether the rate should be increased or not.

    I do agree that the entire system should be reviewed to see if it is still 'fit for purpose'. There needs to be a balance bewteen incentives for people to sacrifice more into super (this was reduced heavily from $35000 to $25000 including the employee contribution paid by the employer) and disincentives for those on super high salaries who place unnecessary funds into superannuation accounts, buy larger homes just prior to retirement, in order to 'hide' assets to gain an age pension. Punishment of those who save for their own retirement must cease and the politics of envy from those who made different choices must have no place in any review. Monies saved to fund retirement should be used for that purpose and not for trips round the world, gifts to childen or grandchildren, new cars etc. IF there is anything left over (apart from the home) fair enough leave it to the kids but the preservation of financial (or other) assets simply to leave to the kids or their kids is quite ridiculous. This should be part of the review, how to ensure retirement funds are used for that purpose.
    On the Ball
    30th Sep 2019
    2:44pm
    KSS: Re "People need to remember that this is salary/wages forfeitted by the employee for their furture - compulsory savings effectively."

    I remember when compulsory Super was introduced. It was definitely paid for by your employer. This is the way Labor legislated it (no wonder they weren't popular with business!)

    However the company I worked for then proceeded to a TRP payment plan where your Super was bundled in with your wage. So in any comparison between your pay and that of other employees in other companies' resulted in your pay appearing to be higher. So for a few years, no pay rises. Eventually we employees ended up paying our own Superannuation Guarantee.
    This is still the situation now. Albeit the Public Service lists job ads with salary PLUS Superannuation (at 15%!!!). AND annual CPI increases! Something which virtually NO private employer offers!
    KSS
    30th Sep 2019
    3:03pm
    I do not work for the public service nor do I work for a commercial organisation On The Ball, yet my salary (and all positions in the organisation) was and are advertised as salary PLUS super to make a salary package. There are numerous companies and organisations that do the same. If anyone is not sure, then when an employment offer is received, they should check before signing on! I also know of many organisations offerring above the legislated super amount e.g. 10% and they are not public servants either. The point is this is the employees' money and is not given at the whim of the employer (well at least not the legislated amount - above that is a perk of that workplace).
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    8:14pm
    Not quite On The Ball - the super to be paid by employer was in lieu of a pay rise.... ergo it's only 'cost' on the business was instead of higher wages .... same-same.....

    Don't listen to spin doctors - to even get into the SP.D (Doctor of Spin) course they first need to hold a Spin Certificate (Tertiary Entry Requirement) - commonly known as a SPINCTER... and about as good and useful as something that sounds similar...produces the same output....
    Mad as Hell
    30th Sep 2019
    12:57pm
    Will reversing the 2017 changes to the Pensioner Assets Test be up for review?
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    8:15pm
    Not as long as their little rissoles point downwards ...
    GeorgeM
    30th Sep 2019
    8:58pm
    Review of the Assets test is absolutely within the terms of reference, therefore the more people write to not just reverse it (giving good reasons about how it is massively unfair), but preferably scrap it altogether, the better. Pressure of numbers writing to this review should not be underestimated.
    floss
    30th Sep 2019
    1:02pm
    Roset you used the correct term a pyramid scheme .We could fix almost all our problems in Australia by limiting our population growth and save money as it happens.
    libsareliars
    30th Sep 2019
    1:33pm
    Well said floss.
    Farside
    30th Sep 2019
    3:17pm
    rubbish. We rely upon immigration and foreign investment to keep the economy ticking. Few Australians would make the necessary adjustments to maintain their current quality of life if these were to disappear from our society.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    8:16pm
    GEXIT NOW! then we make deals with the world on OUR terms .... not those of some self-appointed and shadowy global market hierarchy bent on ripping off as many nations as possible...
    ronloby
    30th Sep 2019
    1:55pm
    Must be getting close to the next election. Still trying to buy votes. This Government has no intention of helping out the "Hasbeen" workers who have given their hard work, time and TAX to help the Government increase their own Pensions but no one else.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    30th Sep 2019
    3:21pm
    No need to buy votes with today's polls.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    8:19pm
    Useless mouths - they couldn't even get one of Fat Joe's 'good jobs' ..... not worthy of consideration.. and all those ladies who raised families and didn't work as much as a result - just breeders of the next useless mouths.....

    That's the attitude ....

    Now - where do I get a walk-up start to one of Fat Joe's 'good jobs'? Plenty of jobs just lying around waiting for people to pick them up, and all paying fantastic salaries and perks and world trips on the taxpayer's dime - and the best form of welfare is a job, isn't it?
    Misty
    1st Oct 2019
    1:00am
    Don't tell me you believe what the polls say VCBB?, who believe in those fairy tales after the debacle of the last Federal Election Polls.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    1:59pm
    Another point - just why exactly in the fork do we need an 'Assistant superannuation Minister" - or for that matter a 'superannuation minister' - other than as just another handout to a party favourite and especially a sheila to sop up the hostility over the purported imbalances in the LNP?

    Another wasted space and feather-bedding with public funds (for life) - why not just make them all Ministers? Just hand the bastards the Treasury keys and forget the rest...
    ray from Bondi
    30th Sep 2019
    2:26pm
    goog point, and I think you are right on with the feather bedding
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    8:24pm
    That term 'feather-bedding' was used by the LNP in its war against wharfies - they claimed that additional and often duplicated positions were being made necessary in order to offer basically free money to mates etc.... thing is .... with OH & S - there are countless extra jobs without which you cannot even start to work*.... and not one peep about politicians and their mates and their Feather Bedding ... how many ministers does it take to change a light bulb?

    * I knew a diver who was contracted to check fish stocks - to even leave the boat he needed a mandatory crew of five - nowhere near enough money in the till for that so he stuck to himself and one - otherwise the contract was absolutely unsustainable... so people are often forced to cut corners on OH & S - but don't you dare tell our council that... it took a truck, a boat and a gang of six to plant some reeds in the pond out back of our place....

    None of this two blokes and a pair of waders for a ten minute planting job... apparently only private contractors such as the diver need to cut corners... no 'feather bedding' in OUR council - just ask the Mayor on the now enormous salary and perks... for doing what, I ask?
    hyperbole
    30th Sep 2019
    2:53pm
    not everyone lives out their lives in genteel poverty at all. Needs a review; lots or rorts go on.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    8:26pm
    True - one out of two isn't bad...
    Farside
    30th Sep 2019
    3:23pm
    I would like to see a cap introduced on superannuation. Superannuation is to fund retirements rather than being a low tax environment for the well heeled to invest and grow their fortunes.
    Mary
    30th Sep 2019
    7:36pm
    there already is a cap of 1.6 mill per person. but I agree. It is a minefield because the rich can afford creative accountants. If you put restrictions on one investment option. they will move their money to another. Family trusts are another that are used. Investment companies are another that are set up by the well heeled to avoid paying top bracket tax. Company tax rate is 30%. A 47% top bracket income earner saves 17% in tax using that strategy effectively. so if you earn $31000 to 50k they pay the same tax rate as you. If you earn over 50k you pay more per rate than them! They can also offset their lifestyles by using assets the company owns or leases. like luxury cars, computers, phones etc etc.. all plant and equipment and assets can be depreciated against profit. you can't do that if you are on a pension or low paying job. Yet they can save themselves thousands and thousands in tax. So what does a govt do to get revenue. They smash the pensioners, middle and lower classes. This is something that I find offensive that EVERY government and politician allows. And do you know why? It is because Labor, Liberal, Greens, Nats etc all allow it and will do nothing to change it. Why would they? Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Brown, Abbott, Shorten, Turnbull, Morrison, Di Natali are ALL multi millionaires with their snouts in the trough. The whole lot of them are rotten to the core. You and I Farside are just insignificant plebs in their views. Sorry for the rant
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    8:26pm
    Got it, Mary - takes some of the burden off me to say the same things... thanks...
    GeorgeM
    30th Sep 2019
    9:02pm
    All Super concessions, including the cap of $1.6 Mill, should be reviewed and reduced as they are a major contributor to excessive rorts benefiting the rich rather than giving a helping hand to deserving retirees.
    Farside
    30th Sep 2019
    11:38pm
    The $1.6 million cap relates to the amount that can be transferred to the retirement phase. The SMSF enjoys a number of other benefits for the patricians such as taxing earnings at 15% as well as no tax payable on income produced by assets wholly supporting an income stream e.g. a pension. As far as I am concerned the SMSF should be capped to say 30% above the amount required to support a comfortable retirement as determined.
    TREBOR
    1st Oct 2019
    11:11am
    Good thinking, Farside - be sure to write that to Frydenburg's choir ...
    4b2
    30th Sep 2019
    6:12pm
    If they just followed the ules set up by PK they would not have a problem. One thing for certain they wont look into or change their super scheme or as many of us call it SCASM.
    TREBOR
    30th Sep 2019
    7:48pm
    While they're at it a little relief for the pensioner who works to make ends meet, and for the carer whose allowance rose not one jot... meaning a full-time carer on $130 a fortnight is paid $1 an hour for regular hours seven days a week..... and nothing for nights and penalties....
    GeorgeM
    30th Sep 2019
    9:19pm
    There are too many cynical and negative comments here, although a few good comments are also there. Retirees need to join together, and together as well as separately, pressure this Review to seriously overhaul the Broken Age Pension system. If you don't do it, you are not only letting yourselves down, but also future generations of Retirees. There are many areas where most Retirees can give their normally strong views e.g.

    a. Reduce massive Super concession rorts to limit the benefits to reasonable Caps only.

    b. Scrap the complete Age Pension system of Tests, and implement Universal Age Pension with NO tests except Age and Residency.

    c. Along with b above, scrap Centrelink administration of Age Pension, as payments can be issued out by the ATO after one simple initial application.

    d. Along with b above, put aside all taxes collected (e.g. the 7.5%) for pensions into a separate Future Fund with no Govt interference. The existing Future Fund money should be rolled into it, as that is all money from taxpayers.

    e. Scrap Politicians Special Pensions (both past & current politicians) being paid for all pre-2004 elected politicians. They can then apply for the Universal Age Pension if they wish.

    f. Although not part of this Review, there is also a desperate need to remove Tax loopholes limiting the tax intake - I would suggest the Govt must consider a Minimum Tax system for both Rich Individuals and Large Companies, as there is a massive Revenue shortfall due to poor / dumb Liberal & Labor Govts not acting smartly for this country.

    No excuses to deny Universal Age Pensions in this rich country. No excuses to be the worst country in the OECD for pensions. Politicians must be turfed out if they don't take this seriously, however first, the Retirees must speak for themselves.
    TREBOR
    1st Oct 2019
    1:29am
    Good, George... it's all coming together...
    TREBOR
    1st Oct 2019
    1:08am
    A member of the Future Fund's board of guardians? One of the thieves who stole it from the treasury and put it in the Caymans to benefit politicians, public servants and the like, and to insulate them from the disasters they are visiting upon this nation and its people?

    Now there's a recommendation.... put one of the thieves in charge of the bank...

    Bring the Future Fund home NOW - and use it as a basis for THE Future Fund for all Australians - not just those with the gall to lift it from the treasury...

    How do you know a true psychopath? They have no idea they are psychopaths, they always lie, and they have no guilt or remorse...
    johnyperth
    1st Oct 2019
    3:07am
    I'm on the full age pension, and, I received an extra $3:60 per week!!
    Where's Tim Wilson to stand up for us pensioners as he did with the franking credits!!??
    When I was a kid growing up in Melbourne she taught us about respecting seniors!
    Where is this respect from Morrison!!??
    GrayComputing
    1st Oct 2019
    10:05am
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

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

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

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

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

    Help scrap it now. Become a hero.

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

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

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

    We all (that means you) need to tell our MP and senators every day that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.
    Misty
    1st Oct 2019
    12:32pm
    So GC, you think it is time Scott Morrison's Quiet Australians stopped being quiet and started making a noise?.
    PlainLogic
    3rd Oct 2019
    9:10am
    Although everyone here is entitled to their opinion there is one undeniable fact that you are all not taking into consideration and it's the most important one and that is ... "While the Beneficiaries of the legislation are the ones actually passing the legislation how do you expect anything to ever change?" ....
    Mondo
    5th Oct 2019
    11:52am
    Don't we just see the outright hypocrisy of this government at every turn? We have just had an interest rate cut which will affect many retirees and we have the PM, Treasurer and all complaining about the meanness of the banks (which are substantially owned by superannuation providers) for failing to pass on the cut. But what have we heard about the meanness of this government on reducing deeming rates on both this and previous occasions? Absolutely nothing!