Government is not doing enough for retirees: YLC members

YourLifeChoices members believe the government is not doing enough to support retirees.

Government is not doing enough for retirees: YLC members

An overwhelming majority of YourLifeChoices members believe the government is not doing enough to support retirees.

As the federal election draws closer, YLC members had a clear message for the Government: it must do more to support retirees.

YourLifeChoices asked members a range of questions in the recent Insights survey and we received nearly 8000 responses. The results on whether the government currently did enough to support retirees was emphatic, with 73 per cent stating the government did not do enough. Only 8.5 per cent thought that the government did do enough for retirees, while the remainder of respondents were unsure.

You would be forgiven for thinking that the Age Pension rate was the area of most concern for YLC members, but you would be wrong. While 59 per cent of respondents thought that increasing the Age Pension was an important step for the government to address retirement needs, the overriding area that people would like to see addressed came in the ability to work harder.

Just over 62 per cent of respondents said that they would like to earn more money without reducing their pension entitlements.

The next area where older Australians told us they would like to see additional support had little to do with their hip pocket, with 45 per cent explaining that they would like better access to Centrelink.

This response supports a story YourLifeChoices reported on last month where Centrelink officials said external contractors were giving out the wrong information to clients.

This led to simple problems taking weeks and multiple calls to resolve, with contractors mostly handing calls over to public servants to resolve problems.

One respondent had this suggestion to replace Centrelink: “Set up a separate organisation for retirees with the opposite approach to Centrelink, one that respects those who have contributed to the economy and community all their lives as they should not have to live in fear of a mean government agency as they age.”

Among some of the other suggestions made by YourLifeChoices members were:

  • a universal right to an age pension
  • increased access to seniors’ programs
  • private health insurance subsidies
  • lowering the pension eligibility age
  • a healthcare card for everyone aged 65 and over
  • increasing the voluntary pre-tax superannuation contributions limit
  • financial guidance for single women
  • increasing affordable housing.

What would you like the government to do to better support the needs of those in retirement?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    in2sunset
    18th Apr 2019
    10:29am
    Absolutely agree! Having recently joined the ranks of being solely on the Aged Pension, I was offered a casual part time job. BUT - after my accountant went through the figures, turned out it simply did not pay me.
    Even driving for a share ride company - with all the extra costs involved, does not pay unless you do it 40+ hours. Which defeated the purpose - I don't want to work full time now.
    There is NO incentive to work when on the Aged Pension. For a single person, the F/N pension is $926. If I worked 30 hours a fortnight, I would effectively gain only around $11 an hour - and would then have to pay petrol, etc on top. My 16yo neighbor earns more per hour at fast food outlet.
    If they still had the Pensioner Bonus - then yes, I would stay working. But no incentive now. This is a common cry from a large group of singles I am involved with. Would love to work - if they could find some - but too heavily penalised.
    Better off doing the occasional baby sitting, and dog minding....
    Cowboy Jim
    18th Apr 2019
    10:43am
    In the old days, a fit pensioner could get a casual job driving a courtesy bus for his local club maybe 16 hours a week. That avenue has been closed as cash in hand is not possible any more. As you say the incentive to be productive has been taken away from us oldies. If you're a workaholic you can still volunteer to do chores for zilch.
    JB
    18th Apr 2019
    4:21pm
    Agree 100%
    sunnyOz
    18th Apr 2019
    8:41pm
    Absolutely totally agree! I was in similar situation, on Aged Pension, with a casual job. I too had a helpful accountant, and neither of us could reconcile the (small) amount I was getting as part pension. No matter what Centrelink Calculator we used, the amount I was getting as part pension was way too low. And as casual, with wages changing every week, it was a real nightmare.
    I was constantly contacting CL to clarify amounts. Twice they admitted they had made an error (that in itself was a miracle!) and made a small adjustment. What made it more annoying was that CL do not have to give you a breakdown of their payment! So rather than encourage me to keep working, the stress and constant worry about just what income I would end up with, led me to give up working.
    But the final straw was the fear of getting a Robo-Debt in years to come. My brother kept working and was eligible for the (now ceased) Pensioner Bonus Scheme and that was a huge incentive to stay working. Made a huge difference. I agree with in2sunset - if that was still in effect, I definitely would be still working, and paying taxes.
    Not a brass razoo of a benefit in working now.
    Farside
    19th Apr 2019
    3:06pm
    From 1 July 2019, both employed and self-employed social security pensioners over pension age will be eligible for the Work Bonus, and able to earn up to $300 per fortnight from work before this income is assessed under the pension income test.

    https://www.dss.gov.au/seniors/programmes-services/work-bonus
    Anonymous
    20th Apr 2019
    4:36am
    How generous. And those who can't earn much but saved to support themselves will continue to be totally screwed and robbed of all they have. And if the vile stinking Labor Party succeeds in its disgusting discrimination and theft, they might as well throw their savings in the sea.
    Farside
    20th Apr 2019
    9:29pm
    O&W, I agree, it is generous if you are on a pension.

    If the ALP win on after May 18 I for one will not throw my savings in the sea but let me know where and when and I will come and take a photo of you and the sea for your album. No charge. I think capturing the moment you throw your savings in the sea ... priceless. Perhaps you could even sell your story to YLC if you were not so full of your own hyperbole.
    Anonymous
    21st Apr 2019
    12:02pm
    My point, Farside, is that the IDIOTS in the Labor Party will make it more profitable to throw savings in the sea than to retain them. I didn't say I intended to - but only a half-witted moron thinks it a good idea to create such a situation.
    Jenny
    18th Apr 2019
    10:37am
    I grant you - pensioners need more attention to their concerns. But my greatest concern by far is the environment. Pollution, global warming and dwindling resources are an enormous challenge, all exacerbated by the global rise in population numbers. To me, all other concerns are of little real relevance.
    Old Geezer
    18th Apr 2019
    11:32am
    If you have concerns about the environment then you simply have little to be concerned about.
    Jenny
    18th Apr 2019
    2:58pm
    Of course OG it won't be the greatest concern in my lifetime, but for those coming after it will be a massive problem. Unless you are one of the climate change sceptics??
    Old Geezer
    18th Apr 2019
    3:14pm
    Only though s I will give it is how can I make money out of this con?
    Pentop
    18th Apr 2019
    3:47pm
    Hi Jenny.... you have every right to be concerned!!! If it keeps going to way that it is the first impact is a huge rise in insurance premiums (which has already happened in northern Australia). Also what has already happened is a rise in the cost of food which will continue to rise as we have more so called 100 year events every five years or so!!! We live in the driest continent and any rise in temperature will result in problems with water again a major concern to the farming community etc.

    The climate sceptics choose to ignore everything and just go on about how this has always happened etc etc etc!!! It always amazes me that the same people go to the doctor, get blood tests, take drugs and use all the more recent technological devices but find it beyond their comprehension to believe the thousands of scientists that are telling us what will happen. We ignore their advice to our peril.
    Jenny
    18th Apr 2019
    4:13pm
    Thanks Pentop! It seems that many are concerned only about how something will impact on them personally in the here and now, and are unable or unwilling to glimpse the bigger picture. I can see so many problems coming towards us, and those in positions of power simply don't want to know.
    Old Geezer
    18th Apr 2019
    6:05pm
    I see the bigger picture but many others don't.
    Paddington
    18th Apr 2019
    10:27pm
    So do 29% of voters have it as top concern up from 9% last election so this election is much different. If you choose to ignore the issue you do so not so much at your own peril but that of your children and their children and so on. If in doubt then still address the issue as it not worth the risk that you could be wrong.
    OG you def don’t see the big picture ...
    Anonymous
    19th Apr 2019
    10:48am
    Best find a way to stop volcanoes erupting then. They spew more carbon into the atmosphere than an entire continent generates in two decades. And that's just ONE of the many ways nature generates carbon.
    Misty
    20th Apr 2019
    11:14am
    I wonder how many of those Climate Change sceptics have shares in coal mines. People all over the world are holding protest rallies for action on Climate Change. just look what is happening in London this week.
    Anonymous
    21st Apr 2019
    12:40pm
    Probably have shares in volcanoes too, Misty. They do far more harm than humans can even contemplate.
    Anonymous
    21st Apr 2019
    12:40pm
    Probably have shares in volcanoes too, Misty. They do far more harm than humans can even contemplate.
    Anonymous
    22nd Apr 2019
    6:02pm
    I agree climate change is a worry, but NOTHING man can do can stop it. Australia generates less than 1 five-billionth of the carbon nature produces... and guess what? Carbon is essential for life! Shorten is playing a money-grabbing game.
    Anonymous
    22nd Apr 2019
    6:59pm
    And electric cars emit more carbon than diesel cars!
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2019
    8:31am
    Take a wild guess what country has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions the most? Canada? Britain? France? India? Germany? Japan? No, no, no, no, no and no. All signatories to the Paris Climate Accord!
    The answer to that question is the United States of America. Wow! How can that be? This must be a misprint. Fake news. America never signed the Kyoto Protocol some two decades ago, never enacted a carbon tax, don’t have a cap and trade carbon emission program! That environmental villain Donald Trump pulled America out of the Paris climate accord that was signed by almost the entire rest of the civilized world, and yet US has reduced greenhouse gas emissions the most! Wow!

    Maybe Labor voters should suggest Short-on-brains take lessons from Trump?
    Farside
    23rd Apr 2019
    9:45am
    O&W, can you share the source for the emissions reductions information?
    ardnher
    24th Apr 2019
    6:43pm
    be prepared for huge cost increases after the next if Shorten gets in. he will NOT reveal how much it is going to cost..WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    inextratime
    25th Apr 2019
    2:21pm
    If anyone can advise me what difference Australia can make to 'climate change' then I will listen.
    When the biggest polluters in the world i.e China, USA and Russia choose to do nothing, the noisy climate change brigade would be better off making their combined noise in the direction of those three world powers. However that could be in the 'too hard' box.
    inextratime
    25th Apr 2019
    2:21pm
    If anyone can advise me what difference Australia can make to 'climate change' then I will listen.
    When the biggest polluters in the world i.e China, USA and Russia choose to do nothing, the noisy climate change brigade would be better off making their combined noise in the direction of those three world powers. However that could be in the 'too hard' box.
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2019
    5:18pm
    inextratime, Australia cannot make any difference to climate change. 32% of carbon emissions come from nature. Australia is responsible for .02%. But isn't it convenient - for some -that the climate change argument gives Shorten an excuse to partner with Tesla to make petrol cars unaffordable and push us all toward the Tesla invention?

    Norway has implemented Shorten's dream solution, at a cost to Norwegians of $500 million a year - making petrol and parking unaffordable for half the nation and blocking hundreds of thousands from owning a means of transport. And guess what? A huge chunk of the cost of Norway moving to electric cars is being met form the Sovereign Fund, which makes a lot of its money from investing in... wait for it... MINES! Oh how we are being conned!
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2019
    5:20pm
    BTW. The nation that has reduced greenhouse gas emissions the most successfully is...? UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. A nation that did NOT consent to any of the agreements entered into by Australia and others, and DID NOT impose carbon taxes or emission limits.
    Cowboy Jim
    18th Apr 2019
    10:48am
    That is quite a wish list from YLC members. What about a carton of beer a week as well? Also maybe a free walking stick or walker for anyone over 65? I do not think lowering the pension age will float - Labor brought in 67 and in more than 6 years the LNP has not wound it back. But one can wish, certainly. Good luck!
    Mad as Hell
    18th Apr 2019
    12:15pm
    I budgeted for two cartons of beer a week then the LNP and Greens changed the Pensioner Assets Test in 2017. They stole my beer money.
    The Care Bear.
    26th Apr 2019
    12:08pm
    He who expects little is seldom disappointed.
    ex PS
    18th Apr 2019
    10:48am
    All I want from this government is for them to keep their grubby, sticky fingers off my Super Pension Fund. They can't manage their own money, so I don't trust them with mine.
    Anonymous
    19th Apr 2019
    10:51am
    Hear Hear, ex PS. And recognize that self-funding retirees HELP the budget and should be respected and supported - NOT abused and lied about.
    cat
    18th Apr 2019
    11:02am
    I agree with in2sunset working on the pension doesn't pay. I am lucky and get a small pension from the UK once every 4 weeks which gives me a boost and I am unable to work. I also agree with Jenny, but unless we have another world war or every country only allows 1 child per family I can't see the reduction of population happening. Pensioners spend their money as there is not enough to save and there's not enough for big things like buying a car or renovating a house perhaps. It's also a struggle to keep the car you have on the road as it gets older and needs work. I have a cleaner who is subsidised by the government but it still costs $12 an hour. I am alone with 3 cats and I manage reasonably well until I need something that costs a lot. I don't drink , don't smoke and rarely go out.
    Yes I think the pension should be raised, look at what the politicians give themselves and they certainly don't need it. Do they have to save if they want new curtains? Or a recliner chair? Or a vet bill? or a new fridge? Or new shoes? I can't shop in places like John Martins or any of the big stores, they are too expensive for me. Sorry to rant but theres an election coming up and I can't see that either big party cares much how the general population manages, not just pensioners but low paid workers and new start people who are probably even worse off. Grrrrr.!
    maelcolium
    18th Apr 2019
    11:17am
    If you get a UK pension then your Australian pension is reduced accordingly. If this is not happening, be careful or you could end up owing Centrelink a huge debt.
    cat
    18th Apr 2019
    11:28am
    not a whole UK pension just a small one within the amount one is allowed to earn
    Cowboy Jim
    18th Apr 2019
    4:44pm
    Getting a small one from Europe, C/Link sends me a summary once a year how my foreign currency translated every month, not necessary really as I can see it in my account. My amount (in foreign currency) is frozen and has not changed in 6 years. Should they ever decide to increase it C/Link would be the first to know I am sure.
    Notoverthehill
    18th Apr 2019
    11:15am
    I agree with in2sunset. There is almost no incentive for pensioners to work apart from a pathetic work bonus which permits $150 or so per week before penalties. Make that $20000 per annum without any taxation and it would be a lot more attractive.

    My wife is not pension age so her earnings are counted and deducted against my pension.

    The whole pension/'welfare' system is designed to keep pensioners in penury. Most pensioners who are able would like to work, at least part-time, but without penalty, otherwise what's the point.

    As a long term immigrant I am appalled at the various federal governments' attitude to the aged over the years.

    As for the superannuation scheme, while I heartily endorse the right for individuals to add savings for their retirement, the pension should be a right not a privilege and certainly not welfare! The only people who have majorly benefited from the superannuation scheme are the financial institutions and politicians who have very generous super schemes based on the excessive salaries they have awarded themselves.

    I would like to remind any politician who reads this that the Australian population is ageing, which means an ever increasing voting block of older citizens increasingly disenchanted with parliaments' apathy and inactivity regarding pensioners.

    As a cab driver once espoused to me in a moment of insight. 'We get the politicians we deserve.' Actually paraphrased from a French politician who made a similar statement about 250 years ago. Obviously politics has not matured much in that time.
    sunnyOz
    18th Apr 2019
    8:55pm
    So right - I get so sick and tired of hearing politicians rave on how Aged Pensioners can earn $150 a week (for a single) and still get the full pension. I went to a talk in my local town last year with (ex) PM Malcolm Turnbull and he must have raved on for nearly 10 minutes about how the $150 would help boost pensioners income. What they conveniently forget to say is that you then get taxed on both your income, and pension.
    I remember so clearly my very first job in the late 60's... So clearly. The HR manager sitting the new staff down and telling us how to fill out out Tax Form. We were clearly (sorry - that word again!) told that 7% of our tax would be allocated towards a pension when we retired. When the super system came in in 1992, in my naivety I assumed I would have a nice little amount already in the pot. Stupid me... Found out it had all been stolen, and put into consolidated revenue. Had I not been lied to from my first job, I would have been putting extra money aside. Instead, I lost nearly 25 years. So now have minuscule super (had to take some years off to care for elderly parents), then worked in low paying jobs.
    The pension is a right - not welfare.
    Farside
    19th Apr 2019
    3:19pm
    sunnyOz, you will be dismayed to know your pension levy was never credited to your account and paid into Consolidated Revenue well before you joined the workforce. The National Welfare Fund was never anything more than a poorly designed good intention and was a dead horse walking in the 1950s. You were very naive to think you would have a pot of money in super when it commenced; did you ever see a statement showing your pension levy contributions and earnings?
    MICK
    18th Apr 2019
    11:17am
    Not doing enough?
    First there was the assets test to rob retirees of a pension the rest of the western world gets and we have always been able to get.
    Next comes the attempt to bring the family home into the assets test so that retirees would have to sell their homes and live off some of the capital.
    Then trying to push retirees out of their family homes, downsize and put money into superannuation........which then reduces any pension they would be able to claim.

    Doing enough? I think this bad bad government has done enough!
    Old Man
    18th Apr 2019
    12:55pm
    Oh MICK, still pushing the lie about the family home being made a part of the asset test. You are also lying about the government trying to push retirees out of their family homes. What was done was that those who wished to downsize could place a part of the proceeds into their superannuation. Quite a good thing any unbiased, sensible person would think. You're over the moon about Shorten's four new taxes covering superannuation I presume?
    Rae
    19th Apr 2019
    8:51am
    Not yet Old Man but if Grattan and ACOSS and the other think tanks who believe saving and investing is very bad get their way then it will be added to the asset test. Nothing surer.

    I can't see why saving into super for your own future needs tax concessions anyway. It's just a means to create a huge financial industry making billions from forcing workers to save with that industry i my opinion.
    Anonymous
    19th Apr 2019
    11:03am
    Grattan, ACOSS and Australia Institute are all demanding the family home be included in the assets test. It will happen, and it will most likely be Labor that does it because (a) all those organizations are left wing and (b) historically it has always been Labor that attacked retirees who had worked, saved, and acquired any asset or continued to earn income.

    Labor introduced means testing. Labor introduced the disgustingly unfair assets test. Labor is killing incomes for self-funded retirees by denying them franking credits. And Labor is driving elder abuse by lying to claim people who get franking credits are 'rorting' or 'greedy and selfish', 'receiving a gift', 'ripping off taxpayers'. And Labor is lying to claim they are only attacking the wealthy when in fact they are NOT hurting the wealthy at all - but are targeting battlers (including stealing ANOTHER up to 30% of people who already lost up to 30% a couple of years ago and will become the ONLY Australian PAST PENSIONERS (therefore definitely NOT rich) to lose up to HALF their income in a couple of years.

    Bottom line: Labor hates retirees - especially any who work, save and live responsibly. Labor wants all older Australians to be poor and begging.
    Farside
    19th Apr 2019
    3:31pm
    O&W, means testing the pension has been around for more than 110 years so even you should have had plenty of time to get over it.

    And if it makes you feel better about your bottom line that Labor hates retirees, it should be reassuring to know that two-thirds of retirees hate Labor so the feeling is mutual.
    Anonymous
    20th Apr 2019
    4:32am
    It doesn't matter how long it has been around, Farside. It's still patently WRONG. It's unfair. It's detrimental socially and economically. It's elder abuse.

    And as for retirees hating Labor - they SHOULD. So should anyone with a brain when it comes to the current Labor. They are out to destroy this nation and everything it used to stand for. They are immoral, indecent, dishonest, and discriminatory. The LNP is almost as bad, but not quite. We need BOTH PARTIES abolished forever.
    Anonymous
    20th Apr 2019
    4:34am
    Farside, war, killing and taking other people's land and property by force has been around for hundreds of years. I suppose you approve of that on the same grounds?
    Farside
    20th Apr 2019
    8:26am
    O&W, WE don't need the ALP and LNP abolished, that is your bandwagon and free choice will ensure that you your ilk will be long gone before that eventuality comes around. Each of the majors is slowly becoming less relevant and losing support but people are entitled to their democratic views. Try to learn a little tolerance and life may become less sad and miserable.

    You are on a spiral into your own lonely special kind of madness. Only you would equate means testing of pensions with war, killing, and acquisition by force. Take a chill pill and stay away from sharp objects until you can make an appointment with your therapist.
    Anonymous
    20th Apr 2019
    6:03pm
    It was you who justified means testing by saying it has been around for hundreds of years, Farside. That's about as stupid as saying something is automatically wrong because no other country does it. My point was that time doesn't make anything right. Intelligent people seek to improve on the past, not use it to justify a bad policy. And yes, we DO need both major parties gone, because neither care about Australia or Australians.

    As far as equating means testing with taking property by force - it's actually VERY similar. Means testing is using the force of law to steal the savings of select groups of people.
    Anonymous
    20th Apr 2019
    6:03pm
    It was you who justified means testing by saying it has been around for hundreds of years, Farside. That's about as stupid as saying something is automatically wrong because no other country does it. My point was that time doesn't make anything right. Intelligent people seek to improve on the past, not use it to justify a bad policy. And yes, we DO need both major parties gone, because neither care about Australia or Australians.

    As far as equating means testing with taking property by force - it's actually VERY similar. Means testing is using the force of law to steal the savings of select groups of people.
    Farside
    20th Apr 2019
    9:48pm
    O&W, there is no need to verbal me. I did not justify means testing by "saying it has been around for hundreds of years". I said, and you can scroll up, but I shall repeat here for your ease and edification – "means testing the pension has been around for more than 110 years so even you should have had plenty of time to get over it."

    I am beginning to understand that perhaps your problems begin with comprehension rather than ideology. The means test was introduced in 1908 in Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. 1908-1912 and neither it or subsequent legislation has been intended to using the force of law to steal the savings of select groups of people. Rather it was to prevent payment of pensions. Naturally the tests have changed over time but don't let the facts get in the way of your story.

    http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/4/10/30
    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/0910/ChronSuperannuation
    Anonymous
    21st Apr 2019
    8:26am
    I did not 'verbal' you, Farside. I said justifying means testing by referring to time was as stupid as deeming something automatically wrong because other countries don't do it. I was referring to a statement being stupid, not a person. Perhaps its you who has poor comprehension? I certainly do not.

    I am well aware of the history of the pension and means testing. Nothing is made right by time or history any more than it's made right by others doing it. And whatever the original purpose of means testing, Labor is now using it to steal savings from selected groups of people it dislikes. And even without Labor's vile policy, it IS being used NOW to deprive of favour people unfairly and to cause social and economic distortions. It IS NOW being used as means of using the force of law to steal the savings of select groups of people. The history isn't relevant. This is the problem with our society. Politicians can't think NOW AND TOMORROW, but lazily and mindlessly reverse past reforms with no attention to the broader range of consequences of doing so, much less to the BENEFITS they delivered and could continue to deliver, though perhaps needing modification to address negatives that have become apparent.

    I have never heard a clearer admission of incompetence than the Labor Party's excuses for changing the franking credit rules. "No other country does it' (well maybe no other country is smart enough - but no other country means tests pensions or has our tax system either!) and 'We can't afford it anymore because the cost has blown out' (and you are too inept to address the blowout without a massively harmful but lazy reversal of the entire reform?) These statements just scream massive incompetence and laziness - unless of course they are just peddling excuses for doing something that has nothing to do with their stated economic goals but is really for filthy hidden political reasons.
    Old Geezer
    18th Apr 2019
    11:33am
    Not a thing on that list concerns me at all.
    MICK
    18th Apr 2019
    12:16pm
    That's what all ex pollies sucking off taxpayers say OG.
    Old Geezer
    18th Apr 2019
    2:06pm
    I wouldn't know anything about that Mick.
    OlderandWiser
    18th Apr 2019
    11:42am
    Universal pension from 65 on as per most developed countries. No more assets, income or deeming tests, 99.9% rort free. no robo debt, minimal administration cost saving millions possibly billions.
    If one still requires assistance then they apply for welfare.
    All retirees & pensioners will pay tax on appropriate incomes from working, super, income streams etc etc.
    OlderandWiser
    18th Apr 2019
    11:51am
    It is a simpler system, takes away the huge complexity that it's morphed into that even so called Centrelink experts can't agree on the interpretation of legislation most of the time.
    The LNP, ALP, Greens etc can't see that or have the balls to introduce it.
    All our politicians are pathetic & blinded by greed & power
    Rae
    19th Apr 2019
    8:55am
    Wouldn't need the tax concessions for super and that would easily pay for a universal pension.

    Other savings would then be encouraged rather than discouraged and also the upgrading of home after home over decades would become unnecessary as the only way to save without missing out on the income and benefits non savers receive.
    Anonymous
    19th Apr 2019
    11:04am
    Not good for the rich, and the pollies and their mates are rich, so the greedy bastards will never even contemplate the idea.
    johnp
    18th Apr 2019
    11:58am
    Cease ripping off, victimising and prejudice against self funded retirees !! Maybe an enterprising law firm could look at a class action for this sector of the aged population ??
    Old Geezer
    18th Apr 2019
    12:16pm
    Class action is already to go if Labor doesn't refund franking credits to self funded retirees and SMSFs.
    ex PS
    18th Apr 2019
    12:30pm
    As a SFR, I don't put Franking Dividends high on myy list of problems.
    johnp
    18th Apr 2019
    3:30pm
    Thats great; re. where you said "Class action is already to go"
    Would you know which law firm is running that ??
    Old Geezer
    18th Apr 2019
    3:34pm
    With a few adjustments the non return of franking credits wont have any effect on me now either.

    But thanks to all the buybacks and special dividends I have collected this year I will get a decent refund cheque this year.
    Old Geezer
    18th Apr 2019
    3:36pm
    A friend of mine who works for one of those law firms that does class actions has told me that they have enough information to take it to the high court if required.
    johnp
    18th Apr 2019
    3:48pm
    Thats great OG; re. where you said
    "works for one of those law firms that does class actions has told me that they have enough information to take it to the high court"
    Would you know which law firm is that ??
    Old Geezer
    18th Apr 2019
    6:06pm
    Yes I know which one it is but I'm not at liberty to tell.
    Paddington
    18th Apr 2019
    6:14pm
    OG, does the franking credit thing even affect you or are you just jumping on a band wagon for LNP to help get them back in? Don’t bother saying you care because no one believes that. You see a chance to muster support for the LNP and that is the story!
    OlderandWiser
    19th Apr 2019
    12:40am
    OG is full of the proverbial. Class action against the government my arse. The government only needs to pass legislation to stop any class action. ROFL.
    Get rid of FC's, stop the rort of negative gearing & make the national & multinational companies that haven't paid any tax on profits for years pay their share including those millionaires reported recently that haven't paid one cent in tax
    Anonymous
    19th Apr 2019
    11:07am
    The selfish and unfair are at it again. Persecute people who save and invest responsibly in Australian companies.

    I sincerely hope OG is right - and definitely there SHOULD be a class action if Labor continues with this disgustingly discriminatory abuse. Although many are confident they won't have a hope in hell of getting their legislation through the Senate in its current form. Certainly on Senator with an ounce of human decency or concern for the economy would approve it as is.
    Farside
    19th Apr 2019
    3:38pm
    The SFRs would be advised not to hold their breath waiting for OG's class action; never gonna happen. It simply requires legislation to repeal Howard's amendments and it will be all over bar the shouting as the Senate crossbench won't fight to retain it.
    Anonymous
    20th Apr 2019
    4:29am
    God help us all if that's the Australia we now live in Farside. How disgusting and vile that selfish, greedy, inhuman monsters can actually approve of stealing 50% of someone's hard-earned retirement income to hand to bludgers, cheats and manipulators, while those who worked and saved to ensure they could meet their own needs in old age are ground into hardship. Never in my life have I seen such disgusting and sickeningly inhuman behaviour by fellow Australians. This used to be the land of the 'fair go', Now it's the land of immoral thieving scum take all and make working a crime.

    Self-funded retirees should have been exempted rather than pensioners - who are already GUARANTEED a secure, regularly increasing income from the taxpayer purse, PLUS their investment returns. SFRs get NOTHING and suffer huge risks, management costs, and often reductions rather than increases unless they are very lucky. They DESERVE some help to continue saving the taxpayer money. Only a blithering idiot thinks it better to tax them onto pensions.
    Farside
    20th Apr 2019
    9:33am
    O&W, SFRs survived without franking credit refunds before 2001 and have enjoyed them since. If they go then they will make new investment choices however regardless what happens they do not deserve to have their choices subsidised or guaranteed by the government. There are already too many instances of privatising gains and socialising losses.

    I suspect God will do little to change the "disgusting and sickeningly inhuman behaviour" in Australia however if faith rocks your boat then go for it. Do you think your God would approve you labelling half the population as "selfish, greedy inhuman monsters" and "blithering idiots"? What have those receiving social security done to deserve being uniformly labelled "bludgers, cheats and manipulators"?

    One good thing about YLC providing you with a platform to spew your bitter and twisted views is that it increases awareness that intolerant, selfish and divisive folk like you are out their in the community spreading FUD.

    Perhaps consider emigrating for better life elsewhere and to preserve your mental health instead of spending your remaining months and years fuming in the "land of immoral thieving scum".
    Anonymous
    20th Apr 2019
    5:57pm
    Farside, interest rates were much higher before 2001. Retirees were able to get decent returns for cash. The assets test was also not nearly as harsh. And self-funded retirees' choices are NOT SUBSIDIZED BY ANYONE YOU FOOL. They are being repaid THEIR OWN MONEY THAT WAS TAKEN IN TAX. And YES, they DO deserve help. Pensioners get TRIPLE benefits. Only greedy scum would suggest others are not entitled to the retirement they worked their guts out to EARN. Why do pensioners deserve TRIPLE handouts while self-funded retirees are ripped of with 30% tax just for trying to manage their affairs so they do not have to ask taxpayers to support them.

    It's not me that divisive or greedy. It's folk like you who claim superior entitlement to handouts funded by theft from folk like me who worked and earned my retirement.

    What have those on social security done to deserve to be labelled 'bludgers, cheats and manipulators'? Bought expensive houses. Taken expensive holidays. Indulged themselves instead of saving. Gifted to their children. And then turned on the self-funded and called them 'selfish' for expecting to be allowed to retain enough of their income to fund a modestly comfortable lifestyle. Basically, just what you are doing now. Supporting blatant theft, gross unfairness, and disgraceful elder abuse - being selfish and greedy, denying others a few thousand refunded tax while you take take take and claim entitlement.
    Farside
    20th Apr 2019
    9:21pm
    O&W, it was you who said "SFRs get NOTHING and suffer huge risks, management costs, and often reductions rather than increases unless they are very lucky. They DESERVE some help". How is this help given if not by subsidising your investment activities. You cannot have it so your wins are yours but your losses are ours.

    You are wrong to think I claim "superior entitlement to handouts funded by theft from folk like me who worked and earned my retirement". I am yet to receive any handout so whose greedy now? Where is my entitlement, indeed what have I been missing out on?

    I know many pensioners who seem to be quite different to those in your circles. They do not "live in expensive houses". They do not "take expensive holidays" (or indeed any holidays for when you get down to it). They have not "indulged themselves instead of saving" unless you consider spending on mobility aids, a fridge, basic tv, three meals/day etc an indulgence but yes these would be luxuries to someone living out of their car or under a bridge or starving. But you double down on calling them "bludgers, cheats and manipulators" ... I don't think so and perhaps you should realign your centre before calling them out. And you call me the fool, you're a riot. Must be gnawing at your black soul to think dignity for these pensioners represents elder abuse.
    johnp
    21st Apr 2019
    6:13am
    In regard to where OG said
    ""
    works for one of those law firms that does class actions has told me that they have enough information to take it to the high court"
    Old Geezer 18th Apr 2019
    Yes I know which one it is but I'm not at liberty to tell
    ""
    That was a dodgy cop-out " !!
    Anonymous
    21st Apr 2019
    7:39am
    Farside, I said SFRs 'deserve' some help, and they do. I did not say they get any, and they don't. All they get is abuse and false accusations, and nasty sneers from ignorant fools who call them 'wealthy' and claim they are 'rorting the tax system'.

    I also know a pensioners who don't take expensive holidays or indulge themselves - but they DID earlier in life. I know a tiny handful who were disabled such that they genuinely couldn't save for retirement, but that is a VERY tiny handful. Very few will admit it, but anyone from my generation who worked and lived responsibly COULD have saved for retirement. I certainly had no 'luck' or opportunity and plenty of major challenges. And as for sleeping under a bridge or in a car... there are just so many options to do better than that! Anyone in reasonable mental health and having a modicum of personal pride can find a decent bed and roof. There are farmers crying out for helpers and families desperate for household and childcare help - unable to pay a wage but delighted to offer a clean bed and use of facilities and generally food as well.

    The reason I want to preserve my savings is because I have a seriously disabled grandson who will be among that handful of GENUINELY needy if my savings go to prop up others, and there's no way the State is ever going to give him what I can give him. But no, I am subsidizing greedy people who live in two-million dollar houses and gave millions to their kids. I am subsidizing people who tripped around the world and have two new cars in their garage. And I am subsidizing people earning $200,000 a year and getting a 30% tax break on their superannuation contributions and income. And your beloved Labor Party wants to tax me 30% on an income LESS than the pension because I saved LESS than pensioners are GIVEN over the term of their retirement.

    There are hundreds of ways to raise more money for the genuinely needy other than cheating and depriving struggling self-funded retirees, and any competent politician would be looking at PROGRESSIVE strategies rather than stupidly reversing a past reform that was highly beneficial, but may have incorporated flaws and need some sensible adjustment.

    Labor is declaring itself inept. LNP was inept reversing the assets test change. Labor is inept reversing franking credit reforms. We need to abolish these two lazy inept parties and elect politicians who can be FORWARD thinking, analyse a situation, define REAL problems and fix them with constructive and PROGRESSIVE reform, not lazy, sloppy, reversals of past social and economic improvements.

    A major inquiry highlighted massive problems with Labor's policy, but instead of acknowledging that it's wrong and looking for ways to fix the problems, Labor and it's supporters justify wrong with massive lies and continue a vile attack on those it hurts, abusing them in ways we have rarely seen in this society. Labor can't even tell the truth about their figures - that they are grossly exaggerated because they claim to be targeting people with more than $2.4 mil and they won't get one cent from them because the LNP got to them first - with a PROGRESSIVE AND FORWARD THINKING policy rather than one that unfairly attacks battlers.

    If Australians stopped their idiotic 'football team loyalty' to parties and started analysing policies and standing up for what is RIGHT AND GOOD FOR THE NATION, and demanding parties refrain from implementing bad policy - supporting those who are threatened with unfairness - we might have a hope of getting this nation back on track. But it will be destroyed by apathy, selfishness and greed. And today's age pensioners are the worst of all when it comes to apathy and selfishness.
    Farside
    21st Apr 2019
    10:33am
    O&W, I empathise with your motivation for keeping your family savings but realistically government policies are not set up to cater for every unique set of circumstances. This is why as a society we need to ensure there are adequate safety nets with checks and balances so the vulnerable do not fall through.

    Are you aware of disability trusts for providing long term care and accommodation needs for a family member with a severe disability? Potentially this could eliminate one of the causes behind your angst and provide you with options better able to cope with proposed and actual regulatory and legislated changes. A disability trust can give you a gifting concession up to $500k and an assets test assessment exemption of up to $669,750 (indexed 1 July each year).

    https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/special-disability-trusts
    Anonymous
    21st Apr 2019
    11:59am
    Yes. Farside. I know about disability trusts. and they are no help at all at present because the child is very young and doctors are not yet willing to confirm permanency at the required level of disability, and his parents don't yet want confirmation because it would disqualify him from other opportunities. The requirements make it extremely difficult. We know there is very little hope of substantial improvement, but I can't blame his parents for clinging to whatever slim hope exists and fighting to keep all doors open. Medical miracles DO happen.

    As for how government policies are set up - of course they can't take personal circumstances into account, but they CAN be fair and reasonable to the majority and what Labor is doing IS NOT. They have created a policy that has no impact on the wealthy or high income earners. They have provided a loophole for selected people who have relatives in accumulation phase with sufficient savings to join an SMSF and soak up credits. They are exempting wealthy pensioners - even excluding individual retirees with incomes of close to $80,000 a year, while attacking savers with incomes well below the aged pension and very limited savings. Clearly, there is absolutely no truth in their claims of chasing budget savings by taxing the well off. They are attacking a select group of people who are NOT well off and have no reasonable options and who will suffer serious unfairness.

    If they had any sincerity whatever, there are a dozen far fairer and more economically viable options for raising more money. Taxing superannuation FAIRLY is the obvious. Though I disagree strongly with means testing, making it age related is another that would make far more sense - as a 95 year-old with $500,000 is obviously far, far, far wealthier than a 67 year old with the same savings. Letting younger retirees retain more would help ensure they had savings remaining when they need them most.

    Please stop excusing the inexcusable and admit the policy is disgusting and the claims being made to try to justify it are BLATANT LIES.

    If that's the best this inept mob of union gangsters can do, they should be put before a firing squad - not given the keys to destroy the nation.
    KSS
    18th Apr 2019
    12:33pm
    Why only financial guidance for single women? Are men born with this knowledge that they don't need financial guidance?

    I do agree every retiree should get a health card whether on the pension or not.
    Arrowmaker
    18th Apr 2019
    4:14pm
    I can't understand why the government has limited the amount of pre-tax voluntary contributions to super by over 60's. It is a win-win for both the retiree and the aged pension.

    I can understand that there needs to be a cap to stop rorting, but $25K PA? Why not something realistic like $100K PA?
    OlderandWiser
    19th Apr 2019
    12:44am
    the $25k is a before tax contribution same as what's salary sacrificed or employer contributions which attracts only 15% tax. I agree this amount should not be increased. You can however make far higher contributions with after tax monies.
    Rae
    19th Apr 2019
    9:00am
    If a universal pension was paid you wouldn't need tax concessions for saving for yourself. Those defined benefits everyone reckons were so amazing never had tax concessions. All contributions were after tax and the employers contribution is taxed when the income stream is collected or the lump sum taken. ie NO tax concessions.
    Anonymous
    19th Apr 2019
    1:19pm
    It's been pointed out over and over that the tax concession on superannuation is grossly unfair and heavily favours the wealthy while doing virtually nothing for battlers - AND it costs the nation far more than the total cost of the OAP and the cost is rising rapidly while the cost of the OAP is falling - yet Labor attacks battling self-funded retirees and refuses to do anything at all to address the massive superannuation concessions to high income earners. Claims to be 'for the battler' are clearly grossly dishonest. but look how many believe those lies!

    The LNP is nearly as bad in that area. Also won't do anything about superannuation tax concessions that heavily favour the well off. But we expect it from them. What astounds is that anyone is gullible enough to believe Labor is better.
    Rae
    21st Apr 2019
    7:22am
    Yes. End tax concessions for rich people saving and do something about rewarding ordinary workers who save for a change instead of punishing them and making it not worth saving or buying shares.

    Those tax concessions only help the very high income earners who can put $25 000 away each year and they cost far too much.
    Chuck
    19th Apr 2019
    3:42pm
    Retirees on reaching age 65 and having paid tax for at least 15 years, should automatically get the Age Pension, no income or asset tests .It could be managed by the ATO who have the required infomation regarding retirees' age and the number of years they have paid tax. Go to the ABC Votecompass website and complete the survey. Vote for retirees' right to a Universal Pension.
    ardnher
    21st Apr 2019
    9:52am
    a health care card for everyone over 65 is the main thing I would like as a retiree
    Cassius
    21st Apr 2019
    11:06am
    My greatest concern is the mounting national debt.
    If we followed the governments example we would all
    get overdrafts we cannot afford and then give the money away.
    OlderandWiser
    21st Apr 2019
    11:19am
    National debt, but the LNP claim we are in or nearly in the black, are they lying, OMG.
    Anonymous
    21st Apr 2019
    11:47am
    No they are not claiming that at all, SFR. You clearly don't pay attention. They are claiming that for the current year we would have had a surplus if not for tax cuts and heavy investment in infrastructure. They never even hinted that the massive debt was nearly paid - but we have to have annual surpluses to start reducing it. and Labor is insisting on continuing to increase it by spending more than the Treasury receives.
    JOHN T
    21st Apr 2019
    7:24pm
    If the Government if fair dickum in hoping to reduce the realiance on welfair they should lower the amount you have to withdraw from Supperation at 5% it is impossible for anyone who who wants to get off realiance on the pension by saving 2% it would mean it would encourage us to save and hoprful achieve that goal as not everyone thinks the pension is a
    right
    Anonymous
    22nd Apr 2019
    5:59pm
    Anyone who can live on 3% of their super has no worries about getting off the pension, John T! You would need to have far more than the allowed asset level to be able to get by on 3% of your super.
    Anonymous
    23rd Apr 2019
    8:29am
    Besides, John T, nobody said you have to spend that 5%. Draw it out and invest it in your own name if you don't need it and want to increase your savings.

    23rd Apr 2019
    11:41am
    I think that SFR who have an income just above the pension should be entitled to the concessions that pensioners get there possibly could be a cut of point say around $35000
    Farside
    23rd Apr 2019
    12:50pm
    Not a bad idea though I think lowest tax bracket above the pension, i.e. $37,000, is a sensible threshold. Problem is it will simply shift the targets, which may be enough time for this issue to work its way out of the system.

    Alternatively, a policy that sets the ceiling at pension so SFR not receiving less than pension. This won't stop those with means intent on rorting the system but seems a sensible action.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2019
    4:28pm
    The system is hopelessly broken when a couple with an income of nearly $80,000 can get a part pension but a couple with an income less than the OAP can't because they saved well.

    Take an SFR couple with $900,000 earning 5% on the investable portion (probably no more than $750,000 when you allow for furnishings, car, and liquid cash). Allow a few thousand for management expenses and their income is about the same as the OAP. Assume they lost a part pension in the assets test change. Their income probably fell from about $47,000, and now Shorten is planning to take up to $12000 more, leaving them with between $23,000 and maybe $30,000 if they are lucky. Worse. they will suffer loss for the rest of their lives because they saved enough to be slugged by the assets test change. This is the 'reward' for heeding Keating's and Howard's urging to save for retirement!

    Now compare with a couple who sank an extra $250,000 into the family home before the assets test change. Using the same invested amount, they have $500,000 to invest yielding $250000 per annum plus about $1400 pension plus concessions plus up to $8000 franking credits. Total about equal to the OAP with all concessions and no risk of lowing their $8000 a year franking credits. If they survive another 25 years, that's $200,000 in extra benefits for having $250,000 less in assessable assets. Conversely the couple who saved diligently lose up to $300,000 IN ADDITION TO LOST PENSION INCONE because they saved $250,000 more in assessable assets.

    It should be SFRs exempted from Shorten's policy, because they are NOT currently getting any other taxpayer-funded benefit whereas pensioners are already getting handouts and if they can afford to own shares they are not poor.
    Anonymous
    24th Apr 2019
    4:28pm
    The system is hopelessly broken when a couple with an income of nearly $80,000 can get a part pension but a couple with an income less than the OAP can't because they saved well.

    Take an SFR couple with $900,000 earning 5% on the investable portion (probably no more than $750,000 when you allow for furnishings, car, and liquid cash). Allow a few thousand for management expenses and their income is about the same as the OAP. Assume they lost a part pension in the assets test change. Their income probably fell from about $47,000, and now Shorten is planning to take up to $12000 more, leaving them with between $23,000 and maybe $30,000 if they are lucky. Worse. they will suffer loss for the rest of their lives because they saved enough to be slugged by the assets test change. This is the 'reward' for heeding Keating's and Howard's urging to save for retirement!

    Now compare with a couple who sank an extra $250,000 into the family home before the assets test change. Using the same invested amount, they have $500,000 to invest yielding $250000 per annum plus about $1400 pension plus concessions plus up to $8000 franking credits. Total about equal to the OAP with all concessions and no risk of lowing their $8000 a year franking credits. If they survive another 25 years, that's $200,000 in extra benefits for having $250,000 less in assessable assets. Conversely the couple who saved diligently lose up to $300,000 IN ADDITION TO LOST PENSION INCONE because they saved $250,000 more in assessable assets.

    It should be SFRs exempted from Shorten's policy, because they are NOT currently getting any other taxpayer-funded benefit whereas pensioners are already getting handouts and if they can afford to own shares they are not poor.
    johnp
    24th Apr 2019
    4:43pm
    Agree 100% with OlderandWiser
    Farside
    24th Apr 2019
    8:32pm
    swings and roundabouts O&W, never here peep from the SFRs when their investments are running for them and they are feeling flush. SFRs should be grateful if there is a floor on their despite their choices. And yes, the system is broken and too complex but making it more complex by pandering to one group does not move us closer to a more sustainable and fair solution.
    OlderandWiser
    24th Apr 2019
    11:37pm
    We all have a choice with our investments & if a couple with an income of nearly $80,000 can get a part pension but a couple with an income of less than $36,301.20 which is the OAP maximum for a couple because they saved well, then your investments for today's circumstances are not working for you my friend. As I've said before, you are in control of your investments & when they stop working for you then you need to change. Just like the rest or most of us have done my friend. It's ongoing so you just can't invest today & sit back & expect it to be ok in 5 years time, to many variables.
    I do agree that the system is broken & way to complex even for those administering it & it seems to get far more complex every year.
    Solution is & always will be a universal pension & those still feeling hardship then apply for welfare.
    johnp
    25th Apr 2019
    8:32am
    Simple and fair. Bring everyone under the standard tax system with all aged receiving the aged pension. Simpleness. The normal tax system will mean most SFRs will now pay some tax. Cuts the bureaucracy and like in other countries.
    Anonymous
    25th Apr 2019
    5:10pm
    SFR you are full of it... We can't all be financial wizards in retirement, and to suggest that a couple with just over the assets limit can consistently yield over 10% return in today's economy is playing with your privates. The Government's own figure is 5% as a rolling average, and that's optimistic for many. Old people may be uneducated, sick, losing mental facilities, etc. and they are supposed to find ways to increase their investment returns to compensate for unfair taxes. What a load of disgustingly self-serving BS from a Communist!

    Farside, Nobody is suggesting 'pandering to one group'. Rather, SFRs are rightly objecting to blatantly unfair discrimination AGAINST a group that is currently supporting the budget by striving to not be a burden on taxpayers. Taxing some UNFAIRLY while others are exempt is blatant discrimination, unfair, and anti-Australian. And the reason you don't generally hear from SFRs is that they are busy trying to remain independent in a very challenging investment environment and despite constant government interference and gross unfairness - and the majority wouldn't know what 'flush' is.

    It boggles the mind that idealists who claim to seek 'equality' and 'fairer wealth distribution' are actually blind to Labor's shift of privilege TO THE WEALTHY, closing the most accessible and lowest risk investment opportunity ever opened to battlers and making it the exclusive domain of higher income earners who can use franking credits to reduce their tax burden. Howard and Costello's enlightened reform - WHICH WAS INITIALLY CONCEIVED AND 100% SUPPORTED BY LABOR - paved the way for far more battlers to achieve financial security and was a major step toward greater equality and national prosperity, and Labor is intent on wiping that out and creating greater dependency and hardship.
    OlderandWiser
    26th Apr 2019
    8:24pm
    O&W you really are a bitter & twisted & uneducated soul.
    Simple maths mate, if your earning LESS than the pension & don't qualify for the OAP but next door is earning over twice as much & qualify for the OAP or part thereof then YOU have invested totally wrong & wouldn't make a economists or accounts poo hole. Mate with your maths I wouldn't even trust you to go to the corner shop & come back with the correct change, bugger me
    And you saying old people may be uneducated, sick, losing mental facilities, etc. and they are supposed to find ways to increase their investment returns to compensate for unfair taxes. In that case 99.9% of them wouldn't be SFR then would they, & my particular response was for SFR like ourselves.
    Get a life mate, pull you head out of your rear end & wake up & stop being the father of fear or the Prophet of doom & gloom
    And as far as using abusive language towards me goes
    F U mate
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2019
    6:40pm
    SFR, calling me names only proves your arrogance and rudeness. I am not formally educated, but I'm very intelligent and well-read, and I'm anything but bitter and twisted. Unlike you, apparently, I have the intelligence and objectivity and concern for the national good to recognize the shocking flaws in our pension system and acknowledge with empathy how patently unfair and cruel it is to many and how it is being exploited by so many.

    Bottom line is that people SHOULD NOT have to be investment gurus in their old age to earn sufficient income to survive without a pension. The assets test is WRONG. It's evil and disgusting and Labor is vile for having created it - and even more vile, dishonest and disgusting for lying to the public to push it's very wrongful franking credit policy. Nothing you can say justifies that Communist 'take from battlers to give to the rich' evil. And nothing excuses the blatant lies they tell to win support from the gullible and the self-interested (AND ONLY THE GULLIBLE AND THE SELF-INTERESTED ENDORSE THEIR EVIL)

    I'm not a prophet of doom and gloom, but they WILL do massive harm to the economy if allowed to. They ARE intent on causing greater hardship and dependency, because the dependant vote for them.
    OlderandWiser
    28th Apr 2019
    3:43am
    Get real O&W. Go back over your posts & you'll see that you attacked me many many times, calling me names etc long before & replied with name calling. I'm not educated past 10th grade but would run rings around you on an intelligence level or crunching numbers.
    Get a fkn life mate & over the last 6 months or so YOU HAVE BEEN THE PROPHET OF DOOM & FATHER OF FEAR.
    So as I said F U.
    ALP to stop FC's, stop negative gearing
    Up yours AH

    23rd Apr 2019
    11:52am
    I see some of the comments are on climate one of the big problems we have to many people in the world . When some countries bread like rabbits with there multiply wives that produces a dozen children or more. No one seems to mention this. So in the overall picture this is the biggest problem with climate control if it keeps going this way we wont be able to produce enough food to feed the population.
    johnp
    23rd Apr 2019
    12:18pm
    Agree fair dinkum re the issue of breed like rabbits with there multiply wives that produces a dozen children. Adding to the problem; there are religions and cultures that encourage that with the aim of taking over the world !!
    Farside
    23rd Apr 2019
    1:19pm
    Nobody mentions population growth because it is not the issue you think it is. Max population is being approached. The world’s poorer nations are not going to go on exploding world population forever.

    What countries are "breeding like rabbits" and increasing population? The countries with highest birth rates also tend to have the highest infant mortality rates thereby slowing growth. Fertility rates are levelling off as social and economic development increases, principally as a result of female education which leads to equalizing health outcomes, lower child mortality, and family planning.

    Population growth going forward will mostly be determined by more 30-85 year olds existing in the future than now. Global population at end of this century will be very different makeup to what it was in 2000.

    If you want to learn more watch Hans Rosler's Gapminder presentation that uses hard statistics to explain population trends at https://vimeo.com/79878808.

    26th Apr 2019
    7:44am
    Well, after a conversation with the United Australia Party candidate for our region, I am finally feeling confident that I know who to vote for - and it has NOTHING to do with Clive Palmer (who I find quite objectionable based on what I think I know of him). It's about a Party, it's policies, and the individual candidates I have spoken with and their attitudes, which are refreshingly different and respectful to ordinary Australians.

    United Australia is looking after retirees. It will vigorously oppose Shorten's disgusting franking credits policy, AND it will substantially increase the aged pension rate. A win for all retirees - and one that is long overdue. They also have sensible policies on the environment but will not be taxing Australians into hardship to achieve Shorten's useless 0.32% emissions reduction! They want to encourage more Australian ownership of assets and more personal responsibility and enterprise.

    It's a shame the head of the party has such a poor reputation, and how deserved that reputation is remains questionable given the dirty tactics Labor and Liberal use against opponents (especially those who achieve any measure of success!), but it's policies that matter. Policies, and the attitude and energy of those who work to implement them.

    If retirees want a better deal, it seems to me United Australia is their best option in this election - not because other minors or independents don't offer as good or better, but because United Australia actually has the clout to deliver. Labor and Liberal are toxic and out of touch. We need a new team to 'keep the bastards honest'.

    26th Apr 2019
    7:44am
    Well, after a conversation with the United Australia Party candidate for our region, I am finally feeling confident that I know who to vote for - and it has NOTHING to do with Clive Palmer (who I find quite objectionable based on what I think I know of him). It's about a Party, it's policies, and the individual candidates I have spoken with and their attitudes, which are refreshingly different and respectful to ordinary Australians.

    United Australia is looking after retirees. It will vigorously oppose Shorten's disgusting franking credits policy, AND it will substantially increase the aged pension rate. A win for all retirees - and one that is long overdue. They also have sensible policies on the environment but will not be taxing Australians into hardship to achieve Shorten's useless 0.32% emissions reduction! They want to encourage more Australian ownership of assets and more personal responsibility and enterprise.

    It's a shame the head of the party has such a poor reputation, and how deserved that reputation is remains questionable given the dirty tactics Labor and Liberal use against opponents (especially those who achieve any measure of success!), but it's policies that matter. Policies, and the attitude and energy of those who work to implement them.

    If retirees want a better deal, it seems to me United Australia is their best option in this election - not because other minors or independents don't offer as good or better, but because United Australia actually has the clout to deliver. Labor and Liberal are toxic and out of touch. We need a new team to 'keep the bastards honest'.
    johnp
    26th Apr 2019
    10:18am
    Good info you have given O&W. And agree with you. Any chance of finding out the United Australia Party attitude towards the Assets test ??
    johnp
    26th Apr 2019
    1:24pm
    as an aside here are Clive Palmers policies https://www.unitedaustraliaparty.org.au/policies-for-a-better-australia-clive-palmer/
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2019
    6:31pm
    I have requested confirmation of their policy on the Assets Test, but thus far I have found all their policies to be based in common sense and forward thinking, and aimed at increasing overall national prosperity by improving individual prosperity and rewarding personal responsibility, endeavour and enterprise. I found their reports on the state of the economy refreshingly reassuring. Clearly, we are not in the dire straights the Libs and Labor would have us believe and austerity is NOT necessary. We are actually doing rather well overall, though there is always room for improvement driven by innovative thinking and policies designed to benefit the nation and its people rather than self-interested political groups.

    Interestingly, among UAP's policy is to restrict politicians' pensions such that politicians cannot access retirement benefits until they reach age pension age. I congratulate the party for that!
    Anonymous
    29th Apr 2019
    11:52am
    john, I heard back from our UAP candidate today - in impressive detail. He explained UAP's position on a number of policies. One interesting one was the electric car policy, which he says is too much, too soon and simply not affordable at the moment - but we need to keep our eye on technology developments and UAP will do this. (I agree absolutely!) We also need to balance efforts toward genuine environmental protection and efforts to ensure that costs don't lock the disadvantage out of a decent lifestyle (which Shorten's policy threatens to do).

    In terms of the OAP, he says he supports a universal aged pension and although it is not yet a fixed UAP policy, there is a strong push by UAP to ensure the entire welfare system is totally overhauled. Here's his exact words:

    "I am a supporter in principal of the concept of a universal age pension. It is not one of our policies going into government, however I will be seeking secure footing around this once elected. Based on the Danish model, from my understanding, the introduction of a universal pension, would improve the retirement income for the average income earner, but would have a reduced effect at a higher income, as it would represent a fixed payment in dollar terms. If adopted, the increases could be offset by income tax of those with higher taxable incomes. Superannuation guarantees would not need to be increased as planned and full pensioners would not be effected.

    Alleviating the impact of abuse and people who are living in poverty and suffering, is the essential function of government, particularly for our seniors. Nonetheless, there are diverse views as shown with our major parties, once again ignoring our families and people living in poverty. The provision of taxpayer funded assistance payments has been and should continue to be an important public priority. Our primary purpose should be to ensure a minimum, adequate standard of living for all people who are unable to support themselves through work or their savings."
    johnp
    29th Apr 2019
    12:43pm
    Thanks for the efforts there O&W
    johnp
    29th Apr 2019
    4:56pm
    Hi O&W; Re. UAP's policy is to restrict politicians' pensions such that politicians cannot access retirement benefits until they reach age pension age
    Would you know a link where that can be found ??
    David
    21st May 2019
    1:56pm
    As an aged pension eligible on a carer allowance (same amount as age pension) while caring for two of my family (autistic spouse and child) I don't have sufficient time to work, even part-time. Caring is a full-time and demanding occupation.

    A significant increase in pension payment would be extremely helpful in my case and I'm sure I'm not alone in this category. We rent as we don't have our own home, at a cost of $340 per week. We barely exceed that amount in total income, and although we receive rent assistance, it doesn't go very far towards offering any real benefit towards these costs.

    Even if I was able to work, it would not be worth my doing so, as there would be too much of a reduction in my pension payments.

    The other problem is in the attitude of most employers, that older people are not capable of beneficial employment. This is a fallacy that needs to be addressed at a far higher level than I can reach.

    The other thing is the erroneous assumption that anyone who has been out of the workforce for more than a couple of years needs to be re-trained to work in any capacity. I spent 13 years in an office management capacity. I was introduced to the use of computers and various software during this time and corporately trained to utilise same.

    I was offered an office position but only as a junior clerk, running errands and making coffee etc. The laughable part of this was my previously proven ability to manage an entire office full of staff, and they wanted me to do so for a minimum of 6 months, without pay, as "work experience."

    Need I say, I respectfully declined their offer... LOL...