Federal Budget 2018: Exclusive with Kelly O’Dwyer

Minister Kelly O’Dwyer speaks exclusively with YourLifeChoices.

What’s in the Budget for retirees?

YourLifeChoices has interviewed Labor’s Families and Social Services Shadow Minister Jenny Macklin and Greens Senator Rachel Siewert on their parties’ approaches to the 2018 Federal Budget.

This week, we quizzed Kelly O’Dwyer, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, and Women. We asked for her views on the Age Pension, superannuation, the rising cost of healthcare and energy, and other issues affecting retirees. We thank Ms O’Dwyer for her time.

YourLifeChoices: There are a couple of so-called ‘zombie’ measures still on the table from Budget 2014–2015. These are to increase the pension age in 2023 to 67 and gradually to 70 by 2035; and to reduce the energy supplement to zero. What are your views on these two proposed legislations?
Kelly O’Dwyer: By 2054–55, the number of Australians aged over 65 will have more than doubled to 8.9 million, representing over one-fifth of the expected population.

There will be a much smaller proportion of people paying taxes for a larger proportion of people receiving the Age Pension. Currently, 4.5 people of working age support every person aged 65 years and over. This will drop to 2.7 people by 2054–55.

When the Age Pension was introduced in 1909, the pension age was set 10 years above the average male life expectancy of 55 years. The pension age is now more than 15 years below our life expectancy of 80 years.

A good government needs to ensure our Age Pension is strong and sustainable. When Jenny Macklin increased the pension age in 2009, she said: “Increasing the Age Pension age is a responsible reform to meet the challenge of an ageing population.” Now, Labor attacks the Government for a policy position it supported.

The Energy Supplement was introduced in 2013 to provide compensation for the introduction of the carbon tax. The carbon tax was repealed from 1 July 2014, so it is no longer necessary to provide this compensation.

Since 20 March 2017, the Energy Supplement is no longer being paid to new recipients of Family Tax Benefit or to new holders of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, so these proposed changes will ensure consistency across payments.

The current Bill before Parliament will only close the Energy Supplement to new income support payment recipients who began receiving the Energy Supplement on or after 20 September 2016. It will not completely abolish the supplement.

Do you support the current pensioner eligibility and assets and income limits or would you change them? If so, what would those changes be?
Changes to the pension asset test resulted in additional assistance being provided to about 165,200 pensioners, including around 47,600 previously part-rate pensioners who have qualified for a full pension. More than 90 per cent of pensioners were better off or had no change as a result of this measure.

Downsizing legislation (from Budget 2017–2018) is due to take effect from 1 July. Do you support it? While it may free up housing stock, the proceeds would seem to reduce most people’s Age Pension eligibility. Does this concern you?
The intent of this policy is to encourage older people to downsize from homes that no longer meet their needs in order to free up housing stock for younger Australians.

Many retirees aged 65 and over are currently unable to contribute to their superannuation because of the existing age restrictions and caps – this acts as a disincentive to downsizing.

Allowing older Australians to make superannuation contributions from the proceeds of the sale of their home is designed to encourage these individuals to downsize into housing that is more suitable for their needs.

It is also designed to help people be self-sufficient in retirement. The $300,000 contribution per person is in addition to the current caps.

Should the family home continue to be exempt from the Age Pension assets test? 
The principal home was exempted from the assets test when it was introduced in 1985, in recognition of the unique importance placed on the family home in Australian society. There is broad political and community support for this exemption.

The exemption of the home also enables people to remain in their own home as they age. This provides benefits such as proximity to services, family and friends, and maintaining links to their local community.

What is your view on Labor’s franking credits policy?
Labor’s retiree tax is unfair, full of contradictions and riddled with flaws that will require ongoing changes.

When it was announced, we were told by the Leader of the Opposition that his $59 billion retiree tax 1.0 was carefully crafted to hit ‘millionaires’. The only problem was it affected hundreds of thousands of pensioners. Mr Shorten’s new version, retiree tax 2.0, isn’t much better.

Perversely, millionaires can still benefit. It is those on modest taxable incomes who will be hit hardest, around 85 per cent of whom have a taxable income of less than $37,000.

Labor’s ‘guarantee’ is nothing more than a guarantee to turn more self-funded retirees into pensioners. And to punish those pensioners and self-funded retirees who dare to want to control their own money through a self-managed super fund, by making SMSFs more complex and less tax effective.

Labor’s retiree tax will also severely distort investment decisions by making Australian companies with shares that have high-paying dividends less attractive. People will invest more in property, or seek out investment opportunities overseas rather than invest in Australian companies.

The practicalities have also clearly not been thought through. What happens if somebody with a self-managed super fund becomes a pensioner halfway through the year? Or ceases to be a pensioner halfway through the year?

What if somebody is just $1 outside the eligibility for the pension? Is it fair that all their refundable credits are pocketed by the Labor Party?

Worst of all, when we should be using retirement income policy to help more people be self-reliant, their policy will put more pressure on the Age Pension.

What is your view on the Age Pension?
The Age Pension is paid at the highest fortnightly rate of income support payments in the Australian social security system. Since the Coalition was elected, pensions have increased by $99.20 per fortnight for singles and by $149.40 per fortnight for couples combined.

The Government provides comprehensive support for older Australians through the health system, the age care system, social security system, and concession taxation arrangements for retirement income.


The Australia Institute recommends the scrapping of super concessions and the introduction of a universal age pension for all retirees. What is your view on those topics?
A prosperous Australia needs a well-targeted superannuation system that supports and encourages all Australians to save and not be dependent on the Age Pension in retirement. We have a world-class superannuation system and we want to keep it that way. Superannuation tax concessions remain an important feature of our superannuation system as they provide important incentives for retirement saving.

The Government introduced a number of changes to better target the superannuation tax concessions through the Budget 2016–17 Superannuation Tax Package. These changes improved the sustainability and the integrity of the superannuation system. The Government is committed to making no further adverse changes to the taxation of superannuation.

In addition, by assisting and encouraging Australians to retire with a larger level of savings, the concessions are also expected to reduce future Age Pension expenditure, helping to manage growth in Age Pension expenditure over time.

Superannuation is taxed concessionally because, by law, wage earners are denied access to a portion of their own wages (the 9.5 per cent Superannuation Guarantee) until they retire.

While they are working, people are taxed at their marginal rate, but the tax on the super portion of their wages is lower (15 per cent) as a trade-off for that delayed access.

If you ended concessional taxation of superannuation contributions and earnings, there would be no incentive for taxpayers to save for their retirement in superannuation. There is a big difference between what is spent out of general taxation revenue on the Age Pension, and the taxation arrangements that apply to people’s own retirement saving. The Australia Institute doesn’t seem to understand or value the difference.

The Government has no plans to introduce a universal pension that is paid to all retirees.

Energy prices and the cost of private health insurance have increased at a greater rate than the CPI-pegged increases to the Age Pension and energy rebate, leading to a view among our members that the value of their Government payments has eroded over the past few years. What can be done to ensure pensioners are not disproportionately disadvantaged by these rises?
During six years of Labor government, electricity prices doubled.

Federal and state Labor policies have continued to increase pressure on prices, through: shortages in gas supply, unrealistic renewable energy targets, and open hostility to reliable baseload power.

The Turnbull Government is taking action to fix this mess and reduce household electricity bills.

The Government’s National Energy Guarantee will cut electricity prices by:

  • ending subsidies for energy, which are passed on to all customers
  • creating a level playing field that ensures all types of energy are part of Australia’s mix
  • providing certainty for investors – more certainty will mean more supply and, in turn, lower prices
  • reducing volatility, by ensuring reliable energy sources which provide power when it’s needed.

The National Energy Guarantee will ensure Australians will be $300 a year better off than they would be under Labor.

We are taking decisive action to help families and businesses with their electricity bills right now by:

  • requiring power companies to provide better deals
  • securing a priority gas supply for Australia, and
  • putting downward pressure on network costs (which are passed on to customers) by stopping the energy networks from gaming the system.

Labor is the party of blackouts and higher electricity prices. When Labor was last in office, electricity prices doubled.

Bill Shorten wants to replicate South Australian Labor’s 50 per cent renewable target on a national level, which will mean more subsidies and, therefore, higher prices and greater unreliability.

And Mr Shorten plans to introduce a new tax on electricity (or EIS) which means that if Labor got back in office, the electricity bills of Australians would be $300 higher ever year.

Labor also wants Australia to go far beyond the rest of the world and cut carbon emissions by 45 per cent. This reckless policy will harm our economy and cost local jobs.

The OECD estimates that a quarter of retired Australians live in poverty, which is twice the OECD average of 12.5 per cent. Are you alarmed by this finding?
Australia has one of the strongest social safety nets in the world. This is achieved by the significant expenditure on welfare of around $160 billion a year, equating to a third of all government expenditure. This represents 80 per cent of all individual income tax raised in Australia.

Seventy-four per cent of Australian age pensioners, unlike many age pensioners in other OECD countries, own their own homes. As a result, their housing costs are, on average, lower than most of the rest of the population, and their income goes further.

In Australia, the Government provides an Age Pension as part of the retirement income system to act as a safety net payment that is designed to support a basic, acceptable standard of living, particularly for those with few other resources. The Government-funded Age Pension is an important part of Australia’s three-pillar approach to the provision of retirement incomes that seek to deliver incomes efficiently and effectively. The three pillars comprise compulsory superannuation savings through the superannuation guarantee arrangements, voluntary superannuation and other private savings, plus a means-tested Age Pension and associated social security arrangements.

Poverty in developed countries is multidimensional, with complex causes and remedies.

The OECD considers individuals to be in relative income poverty if their income is less than half the national median income. This OECD measure disadvantages Australia for a number of reasons.

First, it does not fully reflect payments from superannuation. The OECD noted that the discrepancy between old age income poverty rates in Australia and the OECD average is ‘partly related to the high prevalence of taking superannuation funds as lump sums rather than annuities at retirement, which obscures the comparison of relative income poverty measures between age groups and between countries’.

Also, a number of benefits and concessions for Age Pension are not captured by the OECD measure. In addition to their main social security payment, Age Pension recipients receive a range of additional benefits and concessions that increase their security, including through Rent Assistance, subsidised prescription medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, subsidised health care and related products and concessions provided by State and Territory governments.

Australia is one of the most prosperous countries in the OECD with higher incomes, and provides a generous Age Pension, in comparison to many other OECD countries. The Australian system targets assistance to those who need it most, with a higher share of benefits to lower-income groups than any other country in the OECD.

Retired Australians who rely on the full Age Pension and who are forced to rent because they do not own a home are among the most financially vulnerable citizens. Do you think the rental assistance they currently receive is adequate?
As at June 2017, there were 300,681 individuals and families aged 65 years or over who received Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA). This represents 12 per cent of all Age Pensioners.

It is estimated that 64 per cent of these older Australians would be paying more than 30 per cent of income on rent without this assistance. After CRA is paid, this proportion drops to 33 per cent.

CRA is indexed in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in March and September annually, to maintain its value. CRA is means tested and subject to the income and/or assets test applied to these primary payments. Payments are means tested to target assistance to individuals and families in greatest need.

Do you agree with the Government’s policies? Are there areas that you believe need attention?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Onemore
    26th Apr 2018
    10:15am
    After watching Kelly O'Dwyer with Barrie Cassidy on Sunday it is a wonder that she answered your questions, and if her answers are to be believed.
    mogo51
    26th Apr 2018
    10:23am
    I agree, I watched some of that interview, she was pathetic. Still it is difficult to defend total 'crap'
    Grateful
    26th Apr 2018
    11:01am
    Onemore. You CAN believe this comment.

    Kelly O'Dwyer says that "since the Coalition was elected, pensions have increased by $99.20 per fortnight for singles and by $149.40 per fortnight for couples combined.
    The Coalition was elected in September 2013.

    Official Department of Social Security records show that in March 2013 the combined maximum Age Pension for couples was $28,760 per year and in March 2018 it was $32,384.00 per year. That's an increase of $3,624, around 12.5% over 5 years.

    But, she didn't say that In the 5 preceding years under the Labor government, the rates went from $22,932 in March 2008 to $28,760 in March 2013, a rise of $5,828 per annum or nearly 25%, DOUBLE.
    HarrysOpinion
    26th Apr 2018
    12:18pm
    Grateful- You are correct.
    The maximum base rate is indexed every six months to the higher of growth in the CPI or the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI). The PBLCI is similar to the CPI but adjusted for the basket of goods typically purchased by people on pensions or allowances. The maximum base rate of the pension is then ‘benchmarked’ to Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) – 27.7 per cent for the single rate – which is currently driving the indexation of the payment. The rates of the supplements are indexed to CPI only.
    This affected the OAP bi-annual indexation down by approx 50% since 2014 compared to Labor's policy when they were in government.
    OAP voters were deceived by the then Abbot, leader of the opposition, to vote for the Coalition because there would be no changes to the pension. However, the immediate change to the pension was the method of indexation in the first year of his office followed by other changes in their 2nd term of office and so on.
    Unfortunately, politicians, in general, are exempt from criminal prosecution for deception to make a financial gain during the pre-election process. In other words, they can lie all they like to steal votes.
    Knight Templar
    26th Apr 2018
    12:40pm
    I agree Onemore. It is hard to believe that O 'Dwyer was able to provide the detailed responses indicated above judging by her previous inept TV appearances and inability to impress as someone who is across her portfolio.

    I suspect that her Department and Ministerial Office may have subsequently provided YLC with an official written response to each of the questions.
    Grateful
    26th Apr 2018
    12:56pm
    I have little doubt that Kelly O'Dwyer, a qualified LAWYER, who had been in parliament since 2009, had become a major spokesperson for the Liberal Party during the 2013 election and being the only other female in the party who was allowed to speak, HAD to be rewarded.
    So, they gave her what they thought was a nice quiet cushy job as Assistant Treasurer where she famously botched answers on most financial questions.

    So, instead of just sacking her and to cover the embarrassing dearth of females on the front bench, she was "elevated" to what was considered to be another nice cushy behind the scenes job as Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. How that has now turned so very ugly and will probably further expose Kelly O'Dwyer's lack of expertise in financial matters. Sad really.
    GeorgeM
    27th Apr 2018
    10:14pm
    Onemore, her answers are that of a Liberal-trained robot, and the type of answers one gets from robots such as Corrmanator and her. Nothing worthwhile here from her - this Govt is no good for Older Australians and must be turfed out.
    mogo51
    26th Apr 2018
    10:22am
    Neither side of politics caring two hoots about pensioners, what they do is make a lot of noise and deliver nothing. The gab between the rich and 'poor' or 'middle class' is far too excessive. Yet the policies both are rolling out does not address this and they continue to hit the 'rank and file'.
    The first thing they must do is increase the amount of income each pensioner can earn, up to $50k which from my assessments, are the minimum you must have to be able to live a fair and respectable life in Australia. The way to do that is reduce the benefits the 'rich' still get out of the Social Security system. Bring in assessment of family homes above $2m as assets. If you are struggling it is logical that you downsize to a more modest home, but without any penalty!
    I am not an economist but a 'realist' and these few ideas seem to be very basic but both major parties refuse to address them - all looking after they 'golden goose' ie US, the tax payer.
    Finally, a total review of Politicians remuneration and 'sponging' packages. If we paid them on performance, they would owe US.
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    7:32pm
    If they increase the amount pensioners can earn, they also MUST increase the assets limit, which is already grossly unfair. It's impossible to generate the more wealthy pensioners enjoy from less than $1 million. In fact, it takes around $2 million for couples to generate the income the wealthiest pensioners receive.

    The assets test Is by far the most unfair and economically detrimental aspect of the aged pension. It's discouraging saving and making more people manipulate to reduce their assets because they are better off with less! A stupid situation!
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    8:19am
    OGR. The LNP policies are actively stopping people from saving more into their super funds. I saw the graph of extra contributions recently and it suddenly went into negative in 2016. That graph tells the whole story of how people have reacted.

    Not surprising this Minister is trying to encourage savings. They probably have no idea why this happened as they would never believe their decisions could be wrong.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    8:41am
    I wrote to all of them before the vote on the assets test change and told them that would happen. Only one politician even had the courtesy to acknowledge my letter. It took me 45 minutes to get through to him that they were destroying the benefit of saving, and many would decide 7.8%+ was better than the 5% or less they were getting on investments that carried risk. He kept saying he didn't understand! When he finally got it, he said he would have to consult urgently with his colleagues as clearly they were making a big mistake. Well, we know the outcome!
    GeorgeM
    27th Apr 2018
    10:20pm
    Politicians have their own special pensions without having to subject themselves to Asset or Income Tests, hence they don't care to understand the issues with the asset test changes from Jan 2017 - as it doesn't affect them.
    OGR, your last comment merely re-confirms that all Older Australians need to unite without further delay and turf the no-good sitting members of Liberal, Labor and Greens out at the very next opportunity (we missed the last one as many were sleeping)!
    Crowcrag
    26th Apr 2018
    10:36am
    She is still using the old, tiresome trick of saying a lot without answering the question. Most of the figures presented are available from govt sources anyway. I challenge her to answer a set of questions with a simple YES or NO first, then clarify if needed. And not once blame the opposition for something. She is an irritating talking recorded speech puppet.
    Onemore
    26th Apr 2018
    10:37am
    Policians such as her disgust me.
    thommo
    26th Apr 2018
    10:41am
    this interview was just a load of BS..The interviewer at no point gave any critique to O'Dwyer regarding her responses. It was just another load of spin...
    Rocky2
    26th Apr 2018
    11:12am
    Australia's STOLEN Aged Pension, this will open your eyes to our politician's lies, “The Aged Pension.” Well, it certainly was collected, but it amassed such huge amounts, this government and those preceding, couldn’t help themselves and have spent billions of it over the years in a manner they had no right to. “the money earned by the people themselves through hard work and often deprivation ( as a legislation obligation part thereof was collected by the Tax Department for this very purpose ) was in fact and still is, collected as a tax originally, specifically and intentionally so as to fund, “The Aged Pension.”
    To dispel some misinformation currently being promoted by Party Politicians and their spin doctors and lying ex Ministers, listed here are some historical facts every Australian, especially the young who are under the miss-guided belief and/or assumption that they are funding the Aged Pension from their current hard work; They Are Not, they’re funding their own Pension Fund; a fund that governments have no intention of paying and to add insult to injury, legislate to force you to pay into a Super Fund to boot.
    1939-1945 – WORLD WAR II
    1942-1943
    As a Wartime measure, the Federal Government gained sole control over Australian Income Tax. Labor Prime Minister ( Ben Chifley ) introduced three bills to establish the National Welfare Fund, to be financed by a Compulsory Contribution (levy) of one and sixpence in the Pound (20/- ) on all personal income.
    1946
    Opposition Leader ( Robert Menzies ) stated that the Compulsory Contribution (levy) should be kept completely separate. That it should be shown separately on the Taxation Assessment and paid straight into a “TRUST” account and not mixed with the General Revenue.
    Menzies said “The stigma of charity should be removed from the Age Pension.” ”It should be an entitlement earned by the person’s personal contribution to the fund.”
    Prime Minister Chifley agreed and established The National Welfare fund as at 1/1/1946. A “Trust” Fund with the Parliament as “Trustee.”
    The Compulsory Contributions (levy) commenced as at 1st January 1946.
    It was shown separately on the personal Tax Assessments for 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950
    and the compulsory levy was properly paid straight into the Special “Trust” fund
    and Welfare claims were paid out of the fund.
    The balance in the fund in 1950 was almost 100 Million Pounds.
    1949 Robert Menzies became Prime Minister and he introduced Bills to amend the acts governing the National Welfare Funds.
    The Compulsory Contributions (levy) was then grouped with the Taxation Assessment and appeared as one amount on the Taxation Assessments and was paid as one straight into the Consolidated Revenue Account.
    1951-1985
    The Compulsory levy of 7.5% now included in the tax continued to be collected and placed in the Consolidated Revenue Account treated as General Revenue and spent, until 1985.
    1974-1975
    Labor Prime Minister ( Gough Whitlam ) abolished income test for all persons 70 years of age and over and paid pensions to all people over that age.
    1975
    Liberal Prime Minister ( Malcolm Fraser ) cancelled the Withlam achievement of abolishing the test for all 70 years of age and over.
    1977
    Liberal Prime Minister ( Malcolm Fraser ) with Treasurer Philip Lynch ) transferred the balance in the Welfare Fund Account ( approximately $ 470.000.000 ) to Consolidated Revenue Account.
    1985
    Australian Labor Government repealed acts No. 39, 40, and 41 of 1945 ( The National Welfare Fund Acts ). Thus the funds finally ceased to exist yet the 7.5% levy continued to be collected as a proportion of the Income Tax revenue. It also introduced the (much maligned) Income and Asset Tests, thereby excluding millions of levy and tax paying Australians from receiving Social Services Pensions.
    This money these self funded contributions paid as a percentage of the total income tax collections are today worth far more than the amount of means tested pensions paid out.
    Actuaries have calculated the non-means tested entitlement due to each retiree, today is in excess of $ 500 per week.
    This surely debunks the politicians claim that the generation are paying a proportion of their current taxes to cover the payments made to pensioners. The obvious short fall has been swallowed by the government’s Taxation Black Hole.
    The historical summary above highlights the fact that politicians of opposing political parties each contributed to the agenda to destroy the entitlement as it was intended why ?
    When it clearly would not have been the will of the people.
    While Party Politicians are controlled by a few people who are hidden from public view yet are open to Manipulation and Outright Corruption , there can be no certainty of the payment of pensions.
    Only a majority of truly Independent representatives can bring about a change from Government under corporate control, to Government for the People, of the People, by the People.
    Just because a cabal of political miscreants become so GREEDY and they change the way a tax looks in the Ledgers,
    IN NO WAY REMOVES THE FACT THAT THIS TAX IS TILL COLLECTED AND IS SO COLLECTED STILL TO THIS DAY TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUPPLY AND CONTINUATION OF THE OLD AGE PENSION.
    A STIPEND TO THE ELDERLY CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY WHO HAVE WORKED FOR DECADES OF THEIR LIVES TO BUILD A NATION AND HAVE FROM WORKING DAY ONE OF THEIR LIVES, BEEN PAYING 7% PLUS OF THEIR TAXES DIRECTLY TOWARDS THIS PENSION.
    The old age pension is not a privilege;
    Is not a right;
    Is not a gift;
    Is not even welfare;
    The Old Age Pension is an asset;
    Owned and accrued by each Australian Citizen who has funded this asset from their very own purse.
    The governments of the day were employed to amass, secure, invest and manage a fund that in its first 5 years bulged to almost 100.000.000 Pounds ( am amount in that day that equated in that day in this day’s dollars and cents, to approximately AU $240 million give or take a million or two ).
    They did amass, secure, invest and manage and the figures were colossal and frightening to them and hence they conspired to hide them back into the Consolidated Revenue Bucket and to this day, the bucket has been brimming with a 7.5% tax collected specifically and only, for the Old Age Pension.
    Now young Australians ! You are not paying for the welfare of Baby boomers, you are paying for yourselves, new immigrants, the needy in society requiring social services and welfare, dole recipients and the bludgers, – BUT YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE OLD PENSION OF ELDERLY AUSTRALIANS WHO HAVE WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES IN THIS COUNTRY AND PAID THEIR DUE FAIR SHARE OF TAXES. Nick Minchin on the Tony Jones ABC TV Program Q & A 11/09/2008 stated quite clearly that funds were not, have not and are not collected and held in a bank account waiting for the government to pay it out in the form of the Old Age Pension, or words that meant, “exactly this.”
    As an ex Australian Federal Government Finance Minister, this man knows that this statement on that television program, was a blatant lie ( and he said it with a look of sincerity on his face, the ability of doing so obviously a political prerequisite ).
    Mad as Hell
    26th Apr 2018
    12:13pm
    The OAP is an entitlement don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
    Kathleen
    26th Apr 2018
    12:29pm
    Thanks for this Rocky2.
    Sen.Cit.90
    26th Apr 2018
    12:47pm
    Well said Rocky2
    I'm one of the robbed, now considered by the unenlightened to be a parasite because I'm an aged pensioner.
    Ted Wards
    26th Apr 2018
    12:56pm
    Wow what a great snapshot of the facts Rocky2 thank you for doing that. If you remember one of our illustrious politicians said the age of entitlement was over Mad as Hell. Except of course for politicians ;)
    At 53 I know for darned sure that by the time I am able to retire Ill be well on my way to 90. Ive already worked for 35 years so I am really looking forward to working another 30 years. If I was a pensioner now Id be happy at what Im getting because future generations will not be so lucky. I agree with another poster, let future governments worry about what will happen in 30 years time. With a bit of luck we might have a better quality of politician by then, those with experience in their portfolio areas. How does a minister become a minister of revenue, finance oh and women? Talk about your after thought!
    Knight Templar
    26th Apr 2018
    1:05pm
    Thanks Rocky2. A very interesting summation.
    Pisces
    26th Apr 2018
    1:20pm
    Thanks Rocky2 - plain speaking and factual.
    Pisces
    26th Apr 2018
    1:25pm
    Could I please have your permission to post this on Facebook? Cheers Sallie
    Rae
    26th Apr 2018
    1:50pm
    Thanks Rocky.

    I'm one of those who worked 43 years paying high taxes and get nothing back at all.

    Ripped off.

    To O'Dwyer I'd say worry about the here and now because anything could happen between now and 2054. What a cop out!
    Kathleen
    26th Apr 2018
    2:44pm
    Pisces, Facebook and anywhere else that people are connected to!
    Janiel
    26th Apr 2018
    3:51pm
    So very well said Rocky2, this should run on the front page in every Australian newspaper
    Old Geezer
    26th Apr 2018
    4:35pm
    That was last centuryso it very different today as the OAP is now welfare paid to those who have no other means of support.
    Kathleen
    26th Apr 2018
    7:49pm
    OG, read above again more carefully.
    It is an asset. 7% of tax paid for over 60 years by a couple is sufficient to allow for pensions.
    People do not need to feel they are not entitled. They are.
    Good on anyone who can save and have more, that is fine too.
    But don’t disparage pensioners!
    Old Geezer
    26th Apr 2018
    8:50pm
    Kathleen it aint there now and welfare including the OAP is paid out of tax revenue collected now not that of yester year. People are not entitled to get the OAP as it is not available to everyone.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    8:28am
    Yes OG. Fraser stole the Fund. Simple. Probably the beginning of the great Government theft of everything we the taxpaying owners built.

    It is too late as there is not much of a revenue base now. All that infrastructure and all those service departments are privately run now at twice the price and half the efficiency.

    The biggest shame was that those who drafted The Constitution never imagined a Government selling out it's own people and resources so there was no clause to prevent it.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    11:10am
    Kathleen, the money is gone. But let's consider the scenario if it weren't. Why should those who didn't plan and save for retirement receive pensions while those who did get nothing? That's the issue most of us have with pensioners. They seem to think they are the exclusively entitled. All this talk of ''need'' is BS. The vast majority of today's retired had ample opportunity to save for retirement. They just didn't bother! And now they want to be rewarded, while supporting policies that demolish the lifestyles of those who did.

    Pensioner denigration will stop when pensioners unite with SFRs to demand A FAIR DEAL FOR ALL.
    Retired Knowall
    27th Apr 2018
    1:17pm
    Kathleen, What about those that never had a job, never paid Tax, are they on Welfare?
    GeorgeM
    27th Apr 2018
    10:54pm
    Thanks, Rocky2, for the re-cap of history. Clearly shows how both Liberal (Fraser in particular) and Labor (Keating in particular) destroyed the pension system for all Australians - while feathering their own nests with their special untested massive pensions.

    All MUST unite and vote all from these parties, especially sitting members (and Greens) OUT - IF YOU WANT THE SYSTEM TO CHANGE!
    (Ignore the many other Diversions on this Forum)
    Kathleen
    28th Apr 2018
    12:09pm
    Good point Retired Knowall. Of course not, the rest of us have paid enough to cover all. It would be discrimination to exclude people who have not worked because some have not been able to.
    I only worked half as long as my husband because of family commitments. Some may never have held down a job especially the generation of our parents. When my mother got her pension at age 60 she was so thrilled as she had not had any money of her own before that. People work outside of paid work as well. My mother died a decade later sadly. We should all look after each other. Anyone who tries to turn us on each other is evil. No one has it easy. Everyone has some burden or another. For a few on here it is ignorance!
    Rae
    28th Apr 2018
    12:56pm
    Why is it not discrimination to deny the OAP to someone who worked two and sometimes three jobs and saved up for extra help in their old age?
    I worked hard to raise my kids alone and I also learned the lesson of saving because it avoided problems with bills and maintenance etc.
    I've had no Government welfare help ever and yet paid hefty tax bills all those decades.
    How is that fair?

    If we have paid enough to cover all then why deny those earning franking credits income if they are SMSF retirees?

    I don't invest in Australian shares so do not rely on franking credits but many SMSF incomes depend on them.

    How is it fair to allow some pensioners the credits but deny others, to give some pensioners concessions but deny others and to pay for those who never worked a day but deny those who did?

    It wasn't easy raising three little ones after my husband died and it is quite unfair now that after 43 years working I'm denied even a concession card. Very unfair.

    I had to work very hard because of family commitments. Nobody else was going to house, feed or cloth us.

    The advice I received was that all those non concessional contributions would be taken into account and then a Government decided that they would change the rules when there was nothing we could do to go back and change our decisions at retirement.

    Not fair at all. Looking after each other includes telling Shorten to lay off SMSF retirees. Maybe give everyone the concession card. A bit of fairness would go a long way indeed.
    Kathleen
    28th Apr 2018
    2:25pm
    Rae, I don’t know your circumstances but the fact that you raised three children by yourself deserves a medal. It is hard enough when there are two of you.
    I don’t know how much you are living on each week but if it is insufficient then it is unfair. I am not judging you.
    Maybe spend down to the amount you are allowed. I am not cognisant with all the ins and outs of how this all works.
    If you feel it is unfair then it probably is.
    You should be at least given the benefits that we all have in our old age, a concession card to reward you for all your hard years.
    Retired Knowall
    29th Apr 2018
    8:25am
    Kathleen posted " I am not cognisant with all the ins and outs of how this all works". I guess that explains the ignorant views, perhaps a little research would help before posting dribble.
    Kathleen
    29th Apr 2018
    12:56pm
    Retired Knowall, I was trying to be supportive and you turn on me?! I don’t know everything, do you?
    I am a very capable researcher, are you?
    Everyone’s situation is different. I would need to know the detail but people are not going to share their individual circumstances.
    How much is the income? What assets are there? Has someone looked at your circumstance?
    General questions only!
    Until you walk in someone’s shoes you cannot judge.

    Example:
    Approx $300,000 in super
    Home owner value $600,000
    Owns a rural piece of land

    Is this person able to get the pension?
    Retired Knowall
    30th Apr 2018
    9:39am
    Commenting on who should get the pension or how much they should get is pointless, as is a history lesson on the evolution of the pension over time. Welfare and Social Security will always be subject to Sovereign Risk. Here are some facts to consider:
    * There are some 1952700 persons getting the pension today and climbing annually
    * The annual cost of providing the pension this year is approximately $50 Billion dollars.
    * There are 6624080 full time workers and approximately 4500000 part time workers, this workforce as a percentage of population is falling, it's approximately 5 workers for every pensioner now and will fall to 4 to 1 over the next 10 years. The average cost per taxpayer per year just to provide for the pension scheme is $4680
    * The Govt. in it's wisdom (Both sides of politics) is continuing to create an environment where those that expend the effort to be self sufficient are penalised and motivated to join the welfare cue.
    * The Present Govt. in it's wisdom is also intending to lower the Headline Corporate Tax Rate thereby reducing the Tax intake by some $65 Billion over 10 years. Where is this shortfall going to come from? We are pointed to Trickle Down theory, it's not called Trickle Down by mistake. When compared to OECD countries our Headline Tax Rate is comparable, but, when compared using the ACTUAL tax rate (after the complex and myriad tax concessions) our tax rate is actually very competitive. Last year ONE in FIVE major companies PAID NO TAX.

    So to argue who should get what is pointless when the whole scheme is BROKEN, we should be educating the next generation to become self sufficient and reward the existing self sufficient retirees to a level where it is economically beneficial to be so.

    Able Bodied people who have never worked I fell should get the BASIC PENSION, those that worked should get an incremental increase based on years of service as a reward for effort.
    Where is money to come from?
    Tax Corporations fairly to ensure all loopholes are removed.
    Tax the High End Earners fairly, in 2015 - 2015 48 of Australia highest earners PAID NO TAX due to the ability to drive their taxable incomes down below the $18,200 tax-free threshold. Thirty-four reported taxable incomes of zero, while 12 reported combined losses of $13.9 million.
    The biggest deduction claimed by 19 of the 48 was "cost of managing tax affairs", averaging about $1.07 million each.
    So if you are going to rely on the Govt. to provide for you in retirement...best of luck.
    Kaz
    26th Apr 2018
    11:24am
    Will she say she was wrong later if she’s not got it right?
    What an embarrassing govt. No matter what you vote, they really are not very bright.
    Kaz
    26th Apr 2018
    11:25am
    ...and she will do it soberly...
    Rosret
    2nd May 2018
    9:04am
    Oh, they are very bright. The harsh reality is they don't want to give people the pension and they are working on means to exact all your assets before you die.
    What they don't realise is that inheritance helps keep the next generation from needing a pension and becoming a burden on society.
    The governments of the day need to realise that individual wealth is a bonus for society and is more beneficial in the hands of self sufficient individuals than the government conglomerate.
    Pancake
    26th Apr 2018
    12:06pm
    I took the time to read some of this before I fell asleep. If you notice she does a lot of comparing to what Labor is going to do if they get into power rather than what's good for Australians now. I am 60 now and not really concerned with the raising of government income and it's capability to pay pensions in 2054-55. That will make me 86-87 and fairly entrench in the pension system if I am still alive. As I said before. it would be good if the Government of the day - Labor or Liberal or Greens - acted in the best interest of Australians now rather than worrying about what's going to happened in 30 + years. Leave that to the Government of the day then.
    Rae
    26th Apr 2018
    1:53pm
    Exactly what I thought. These politicians cannot see consequences happening right now much less in 35 years time.
    Old Geezer
    26th Apr 2018
    4:38pm
    Unfortunately their actions of today are the results in 35 years time. People have lost interest in providing for their own retirement.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    8:30am
    Yes OG. Extra saving into super collapsed after the 2015 budget. The graph shows it very clearly.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    8:48am
    Yes, OG. But you aggressively supported the stupid 2015 change that reduced saving for retirement. You even boasted about writing to the government to endorse the change. Have you seen the error in your thinking yet? Short term gain caused long term pain. We have yet to see the worst of the long term results.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2018
    10:59am
    No OGR I still agree with the government for changing the asset test.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    11:17am
    Then you are NOT TOO BRIGHT, OG! Sorry, but creating an environment in which saving for retirement is penalized and you are better off not is just plain IDIOTIC. We've seen the results. Retirement savings have fallen dramatically, and no wonder!

    I have a relative who is about to retire and could easily have retired with $1.5 million. Chose to retire with $500,000 only because she discovered she would have the same income with far less management worries and risk. Nice fat part pension and all the benefits. Great for the nation when people are opting to do that because it's been made the more attractive option.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    12:41pm
    OGR I wonder if Peta Credlin has contributed to this. She sacked so many experienced Public Servants and replaced them with young sycophants sold the neoliberal ideology. With common sense gone decisions are resulting in consequences these young advisors do not seem to be able to predict and yet here they ae talking 2054 when they have practically destroyed saving for retirement in three years.
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Apr 2018
    12:47pm
    That is the same woman who wants to abolish the $100 note; she reckons too many of us are stuffing them into the mattress. She made these utterances in December last year. Some people believed her and offered me $100 notes in exchange for $50s. Does not take much to frighten the little people. She should be proud of herself.
    Old Geezer
    26th Apr 2018
    4:40pm
    It is a great idea to get rid of $100 notes and an even better one to make notes expire which means one has to take them back to the bank to have them replaced. It would certainly show where all those stuffed mattresses were.
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Apr 2018
    8:44pm
    Old Geezer - just change them into US currency before you stuff them into the mattress. That currency never goes out of date. Another way would be coins. Still digging up coins now and then in old Europe some people were hiding 100s of years ago.
    Last year in the papers here was a story about an old woman going into hospital in Tel Aviv. While she was in there her daughter in law bought her a new mattress, the old one was rather out of shape and lumpy. The old chook had a fit when she noticed, as there was close to a million dollars hidden in the thing. The council used earth movers in the tips trying to recover the mattress, I never heard the result. So leave the mattress alone, eh?
    VeryCaringBigBear
    27th Apr 2018
    8:16am
    New Zealand replaced their coins as well as bank notes so old coins needed to be taken to bank to be replaced too.

    I agree notes should have a chip with a use by day so they can't be hoarded. If people change them into US currency then that is recorded. It would stop people hoarding money and being targets for thieves.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    12:47pm
    What is wrong with hoarding money if that is something you like doing? I can think of worse uses for it than putting some away for a future use.
    Misty
    30th Apr 2018
    6:59pm
    VCB some people buy coins and notes for investment, if you know which ones are valuable could be a good investment.
    Old Geezer
    1st May 2018
    11:05am
    Yes Misty all you have to of to realise the value of anything is find a bigger fool than thou. I prefer to invest in something with many fools not just a few.

    26th Apr 2018
    12:50pm
    Another lying Lieberal zombie trying to lie her way back into office after the next election.
    Pisces
    26th Apr 2018
    1:17pm
    totally agree with you
    Old Geezer
    26th Apr 2018
    4:42pm
    She does make a lot of sense about how unfair Labor's policy of not refunding franking credit really is though.
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    7:29pm
    That's the only truthful and sensible statement she made, OG. The rest just shows her as inept, ill-informed and uncaring.
    Travellersjoy
    26th Apr 2018
    1:03pm
    The LNP consistently link aged pension rates and numbers of pensioners to numbers of workers because they will never admit they have no intention of taxing capital.

    The LNP expect the primary burden of funding the country should fall on workers and 'consumers' via the GST, ie the self same people. Corporations, landlords, and millionaires are free loaders on our tax system, and all the other systems we fund to make Australia a great place to live - and to have a business.

    Make the free loaders pay their dues, then I will listen to an argument that working people and 'consumers' should pay more.

    Raise the pension rate to a liveable level for everyone who needs to live on it.
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    4:19pm
    But she didn't acknowledge that as late as the 60s, most married women didn't work, so often one worker was supporting a wife, family and TWO sets of retired parents.

    Also didn't acknowledge that Australian spends HALF the amount on the aged that is spent by almost all other developed nations, and our expenditure is FALLING while theirs is set to double in the next few years.

    All these excuses they drum up leave out half the relevant facts.
    Old Geezer
    26th Apr 2018
    4:45pm
    I certainly hope you don't rent or have a house worth $1 million.
    Adrianus
    26th Apr 2018
    1:06pm
    None of my business, but you lot need a lesson in diplomacy. Kelly O'Dwyer has a little pull I'd say. And hurling abuse and name calling at the person who is trying to help you is not very bright.
    Onemore
    26th Apr 2018
    2:53pm
    You are very funny.
    floss
    26th Apr 2018
    1:07pm
    First it was the Libs due to their crazy asset test on part funded Retirees that devastated a lot of retirements then along came Labors ill thought out franking credit disaster . Put both together and you ask yourself why did I do the right thing and put money into super ,in the long term it will come back to bite Australia on the bum.Yes Kelly was a disaster.
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    2:09pm
    She says: ''In addition, by assisting and encouraging Australians to retire with a larger level of savings, the concessions are also expected to reduce future Age Pension expenditure, helping to manage growth in Age Pension expenditure over time.''

    Well then, why is the stupid LNP DISCOURAGING retiring with a larger level of savings by making SFRs with less then $2 million WORSE OFF than pensioners? Will these IDIOTS never wake up to their own stupidity? Or do they have a sinister alternate agenda?

    I wish someone would put the numbers to her and ask her to answer the hard questions instead of letting her get away with mealy-mouthed half-truths.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    7:12am
    BTW. The concessions WILL NOT reduce Age Pension expenditure going forward because they flow primarily to people who would never need a pension anyway. The battlers get very little benefit from the concessions. The big benefit goes to the rich.

    Sad that that wasn't pointed out in the questioning. Don't ask the hard questions! Just let these lying leeches get away with mealy-mouthed BS!
    Charlie
    26th Apr 2018
    1:09pm
    We have some brilliant minds in government? "You cant work if you are dead, so we will take the ability to continue full time employment and tie it to life expectancy."

    What about the people who have to drop out of full employment at 55 because of health problems or the ones who have good health and work 70. These are the things that should determine the pension age, not how long a person lives.

    26th Apr 2018
    1:14pm
    Retirees should expect nothing from this government and only pain from labor
    Those still working better pay attention and invest towards self funding their own retirement
    Rae
    26th Apr 2018
    2:04pm
    Yes. I wouldn't get welfare in retirement in China either but I also wouldn't have paid hefty taxes for 43 years to get nothing at all.

    My biggest mistake was believing the dribble and expecting them to keep promises made.

    Never again.

    The young workers I know are saving but not in Superannuation if they can help it.

    Take a look at the graph of non concessional or extra contributions. It went negative just after that last budget.
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    2:12pm
    Invest toward funding your own retirement and then have it all taken away and be ground into hardship if you don't achieve more than $2 million. The system is absurd. What is the point of encouraging people to save (as Dwyer claims the govt is doing with super tax concessions) and then making them WORSE off in retirement than if they hadn't? They are all IDIOTS.
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    2:39pm
    $2M ?

    A single person can live well off a fully paid home and maybe $1.2 m

    ANything above that is cream surely
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    4:21pm
    Single person being the operative word, Raphael. A couple needs close to $2 million to be as well off as a couple on a pension with maximum allowed assets. That's just plain IDIOTIC! You can't encourage people to save for retirement by making them worse off it they do.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:04am
    And how does the median income earners the bottom 80% manage to get $1.2 million saved up in todays markets with current returns?

    Come the corrections even the money there could be halved or worse and if it's held in Superannuation good luck doing much about that.

    The original idea was good but once again Governments couldn't't keep their hands off a pot of money and have stuffed the whole thing up. It's better to be out of it. At least you can control your own savings and avoid excessive rules and regulations.

    A single person today has Buckleys and none of paying down a mortgage and saving over $1 million while living at current costs as well unless they are in the top 20% of income earners or are market speculators with lots of luck and great timing ability.

    I suggest after the Bank's collapse under all that debt they have flung at all and sundry including the family dog in some cases the number of aged pensioners will skyrocket.

    Capital can disappear very quickly indeed and the capital locked up in superannuation is not exactly safe right now.

    Even in cash that $1.2 mill isn't safe. Only $250 000 is guaranteed.

    The new Bank Bail In laws saw to that.

    Why bother when you can do none of it and then get a pension and concessions and still have several hundred thousand for emergencies or special treats?

    It's not all Government fault but the LNP have completely ignored the current market conditions as if they don't matter in dealing with a saving vehicle and that is plain silly in my opinion.
    Pisces
    26th Apr 2018
    1:15pm
    And what Kelly O'Dwyer tells us is believable - get real.
    PlanB
    26th Apr 2018
    2:01pm
    Kelly O'Dwyer is a disgrace and she ought to be bloody ashamed of herself with the way she --AND ALL THE LIBS -- always, in every interview have to bring the Labour or Shorten into it, they have been in Government darn well long enough to have sorted thongs out -- but NO we are in even more debt now than we ever were -- she ducked and weaved the questions Barry Cassidy asked her and her never does answer a question, even to look at her let alone hear her makes me want to puke.

    She ought to try and live on the likes of the pension-- WHICH WE HAVE WORKED LONG AND HARD FOR AND PAID TAXES FOR, IT IS NOT WELFARE IT IS A RIGHT!

    As far as taking the pension age to 70 that is not on! It might be OK for bludgers like her -- but think of the people that do hard manual work -- also there are also people that are not well maybe and are a few years younger than 65 and could well do with some help. I have a Friend who has worked hard all his life saved and done without -- and is now not at all well but is he able to get any pension -- not on your life,
    even though he is 60 + and on a LOT of medication which he has to pay FULL price for even though he is not able to work a full week. I say leave the pension age at 65 and also try and have a heart for those that might not be well and might have to get a pension at even an earlier age. Things do not ALWAYS work out as they are MEANT to.

    As far as including the home in the assets --- that means that people that have done without and own their own home would have to be penalised and have to sell up and find another place far from their friends and Drs etc when they are older and not in a state to be searching for homes and paying fees to agents and moving their stuff, FGS let them stay in the home they love and lay off!
    While they are trying to cut out some of our pension-- the likes of these oxygen thieves are spending more on their 'Luncheons' than pensioners get in a YEAR
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    2:10pm
    Well, they are already punishing people for saving and making them worse off than pensioners, yet claiming the government aims to encourage saving. That's pretty dumb!
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:11am
    Yes PlanB. All the recent changes make it very hard for anyone who is ill and needing medication. Even the tax discounts, that acted as a safety net, were cancelled.

    Private medical insurance has been priced out of lower income earners reach as well.

    Who would have thought we'd do this to the very people who have worked for decades to make Australia wealthy?

    26th Apr 2018
    2:13pm
    Clearly, there is NOTHING in the budget for retirees except a pack of lies, more cuts, and more senior bashing.
    PlanB
    26th Apr 2018
    2:15pm
    OGR, I say let ALL politicians be made to live on the aged pension for 6 months b4 they can get into Parliament
    Pisces
    26th Apr 2018
    2:57pm
    Only 6 months ?
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    4:16pm
    Wouldn't help, PlanB. Knowing that had a huge income and assets to fall back on afterward, they would do just fine for even a couple of years. There's a huge difference between living on a low income for a short time, knowing you are fine in the long term, and being genuinely poor.

    Maybe restrict the holding of political office to people who have experienced genuine long-term poverty and worked their way out of it over time.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:16am
    I suggest killing off Party politics and having genuine representatives of Electorates working together for their constituents and not the Party and It lobbyists and donators.
    Bes
    26th Apr 2018
    2:16pm
    I think it is a pathetic statement by any government to attack the aged.
    We constantly hear about how the Australian Aged Pension may come to an end and Pensioners may also be forced to sell the family owned home as the Government could run OUT of money.
    How come we never hear of the TRUE costs of WELFARE of bringing in refugees, some with TWO WIVES or of FOREIGN AID running out of money?
    When you think about it, a majority of the electorate WORKED, paid tax, paid a mortgage to buy their home while FUNDING the other TWO?
    And how about keeping check on ALL tax free money collected in the name of religious charities going offshore?
    Some religions own businesses……tax free?
    PlanB
    26th Apr 2018
    3:12pm
    Most own a business and yes ALL tax free --
    GrayComputing
    26th Apr 2018
    2:24pm
    Dear PM MPs and senators
    It is time for the government (and for all of us to rant at them) to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVERV AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    For the retired and retiring people in your electorate do you think they really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

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

    As an MP do you really like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

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

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

    As a MP you even stand to lose your chance at being part of the government unless all these criminal asset tests for a pension are dropped now.

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    almost a grey hair
    26th Apr 2018
    5:19pm
    NZ may be poorer hence the expression (our poor relations) but they are a lot smarter. The gov there started a campaign to inform people that welfare is paid for by the taxpayer, the gov are mere administrators and if you knew anyone anyone rorting the system to dob them in. Well, Australians are just a bunch of Ned Kellys rorting as much as they can get away with without a care.
    When NZ introduced GST they removed stamp out at the same stroke of midnight. It was promised here by little Johnny rotten but when it came to the crunch he reneged. I have lived on both sides of the ditch and I know which is the best country to bring up kids and to retire to and its not here.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:21am
    NZ also has a universal aged pension so saving is not being discouraged or distorted. If I'd had any inkling of what Hockey and Morrison have done I'd have moved to NZ decades ago. It's cold but that can be easily fixed. Beautiful people and lovely landscapes.
    downunder
    26th Apr 2018
    2:30pm
    This woman is a disgrace, but she fits into this pathetic government
    johnp
    26th Apr 2018
    2:51pm
    I agree, she is a waste of time and space especially the expenses the pollies waste money on for the entitlements, trips, jollies etc etc. Its often more than pensioners receive in a whole year
    Mad as Hell
    26th Apr 2018
    2:44pm
    In the words of Paul Keating
    “ How can she be a minister and be so dumb?”
    Mad as Hell
    30th Apr 2018
    6:10pm
    SMH Headline 30/4/18

    A “humongous” lift in Australia’s tax take has put the Turnbull government in the best position to deliver personal income tax cuts in nine years.

    Does that mean changes to the Pensioner Assets Test was brazen theft by the LNP and Greens of our pension entitlements?
    Thoughtful
    26th Apr 2018
    2:49pm
    I have little time for most politicians - they are way too far out of touch with the general population. But this one? How on earth is she in this job?
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    6:57pm
    She's a lawyer. That says it all! I have never met one with either intelligence or integrity. They are money-grubbing thieves who support and assist crime and corruption.
    Gee Whiz
    26th Apr 2018
    3:21pm
    I would trust her about as far as I can kick a cannon ball.
    BElle
    26th Apr 2018
    3:27pm
    I didn't see anywhere in your questions that you asked
    what her opinion of the Labour Party was. She certainly seemed to be laying most of the blame on them anyway. The Liberal party have been in power long enough to right any wrongs they see in their inherited financial system.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:23am
    Party Politics is failing us badly. While the Ministers work for the Party they cannot represent the People properly.
    floss
    26th Apr 2018
    3:29pm
    O.G.R keep giving them a serve, you have right on your side.
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    4:33pm
    I'm writing to her, Floss. Will be interesting to see how she responds. Tanya Plibersek replied to my questions about the logic behind a franking credit tax policy that allows the rich and high income earners to retain their benefit, but takes up to 30% of the income off struggling self-funded retirees with small asset balances by saying ''It was a hard decision but we had to do something about the cost of refunds''. Yep! You had to crucify battlers and keep feeding the rich. Good one, Tanya! No wonder you couldn't give an intelligent response.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:36am
    They have no policy now to earn revenue. Selling everything, destroying a home based public service, growing the population quickly with little infrastructure and awarding foolishly expensive contracts to foreign companies is ruining the current account.

    This is desperation from a Government in strife. If they just print the money then inflation will take off an the debts will collapse the banks. I think they want the ALP to win the election and take the blame.

    26th Apr 2018
    4:31pm
    She says ''The Energy Supplement was introduced in 2013 to provide compensation for the introduction of the carbon tax. The carbon tax was repealed from 1 July 2014, so it is no longer necessary to provide this compensation.'' Yes, repealed AFTER energy prices skyrocketed, and the claimed saving NEVER HAPPENED, so the supplement is more necessary than ever before, but that doesn't bother this stinking government. Trouble is, we now have a choice between VERY VERY VERY BAD and MUCH MUCH MUCH WORSE! Our only hope lies with independents and minors, but sadly they never seems to be able gather much traction, and they don't unite.
    Sundays
    26th Apr 2018
    4:56pm
    Yes, and if you follow her argument why are only new pensioners missing out? Setting up yet another anomaly in an already complicated system full of grandfathered rules and exceptions. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone committed to a complete overhaul of retirement income but with the view of having an equitable system where everyone is treated with fairness and dignity, and hard work rewarded. Not from this Government unfortunately
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:39am
    Sunday they twigged that a lot of people eligible for a part pension but not claiming it were contacting Centrelink to apply to save their franking refund. They never expected that. Total inability to see consequences.
    Sundays
    26th Apr 2018
    4:50pm
    Unimpressive. Glossed over the answers which were probably prepared by others. 330,000 pensioners were affected by the change to the asset test, with a 100,000 losing the OAP but she claims that 90% of pensioners were not affected? I’ve seen her being interviewed a couple of times. She’s a lightweight who doesn’t understand the issues but just follows the speel she is given. I am also tired of hearing about what Labor did/will do. What will you do Kelly? You had an opportunity and missed it
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    7:25pm
    I will never understand how the fact that XX% benefit from a change makes it okay to treat ANY minority unfairly or to disadvantage them cruelly. I don't care if 99% benefit from a change. If 1% suffer unfairness, it's WRONG. Labor is now using the same stupid argument, along with the ''you've got time to adjust your affairs''.

    Bad policy is bad policy. It doesn't matter what percentage suffer or how much time is provided.

    Bottom line: Any policy that makes a pensioner better off than a self-funded retiree is STUPID and HARMFUL and reflects gross incompetence or a sinister hidden agenda by every politician who supports or condones it.
    Kathleen
    26th Apr 2018
    7:53pm
    OGR, it is not a war between pensioners and self funded retirees. Stop causing a divide. Good luck to anyone in their twilight years. We are all in the same boat, trying to enjoy our last bit of time.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    6:58am
    I'm not causing a divide, Kathleen. The policy-makers and those supporting and approving bad policy are. YOU should accuse ME!!! My goodness, YOU said it was ''too funny'' that SFRs were being deprived while pensioners were enjoying favouritism.
    STOP CAUSING A DIVIDE. Have enough respect to support protests against unfairness and demand policies that benefit everyone.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:43am
    We are not in the same boat Kathleen. Some of us are in the boat the Government is drilling holes into and finding it totally unacceptable. We worked and paid our taxes as well. The only difference is our choice of spending and lifestyle.

    Being punished for saving is not fair.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2018
    11:14am
    Agree if the pensioners don't stand up for the self funded retirees they will all move into their boat and sink it too.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    11:21am
    Pensioners are too blinded by envy, OG. They can't see past their own noses. All they ever do is should ''not fair, take it off them'', because having been too irresponsible to save, they think savers must have been ''lucky''' and had it all fall in their laps. Can't reason adequately to understand that they had the same opportunities.
    GeorgeM
    27th Apr 2018
    10:42pm
    Sundays, you are spot on - she simply ignored the massive numbers of retirees (not to mention the pre-retirees whose numbers will swell each year) who were royally screwed-over by the Liberal Govt with the asset test changes, after Tony Abbott PROMISED "No change to pensions".

    OG - forget about pensioners supporting SFRs like you in particular, as you have been dead against (and envious of) the part-pensioners all along with your multiple nasty pro-Liberal comments supporting for their b*llshit policies.
    If people like you had any sense, you would have stood up for part-pensioners (as OGR did) when they were attacked severely by the Jan 2017 asset test changes. But you were too happy that it didn't affect you, now you hope that SFRS won't be next! Well, wait and see...
    GeorgeM
    27th Apr 2018
    10:45pm
    There is another way - OG, others - I have explained in a comment at the end about Universal Pension being the fair solution for all - if all Older Australians can agree to unite, with the 1st step being to force out the current sitting members of Liberal, Labor and Greens by voting them last in preferences.
    Kathleen
    28th Apr 2018
    11:57am
    OG....”Pensioners are too blinded by envy!” And yet you argue you are not trying to create a divide.
    People are friends who are self sufficient and pensioners, rich or poor, in fact, everyone is unique in their financial position.
    My friends and acquaintances are comprised of a range of people. Most people do not even discuss their wealth or lack thereof. They just enjoy each other’s company and friendship.
    The proudest ones are the poorest being renters and do not accept pity or financial aid from their relatives or friends. They just get on with it!
    Old Geezer
    26th Apr 2018
    4:52pm
    All I can say after reading all the comments what a whinging ungrateful lot we have here. It wouldn't matter how much most of you got it would never be enough. It's time things got tough so people can appreciate the things that really matter once again.
    Sundays
    26th Apr 2018
    4:59pm
    As long as you’re alright OK. Having a Government which cares for its older
    Australians is something that matters!
    Old Geezer
    26th Apr 2018
    5:30pm
    Older Australians have never had it so good but they still whinge.
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    7:16pm
    Actually, that's totally untrue, Old Geezer. Older Australians had it a hell of a lot better in the 80s, with high interest rates giving them easy to manage, secure, high returning investment opportunities with no risk, and much more generous pension means tests than today. Even a few years ago, the means tests were much more generous, and energy costs and rent were much lower.
    Going back further, there was NO assets test, so people actually benefited from working hard and saving well, instead of suffering the hideous and illogical unfairness we are seeing today.

    As for whinging - I think there is very good cause to object to ridiculous government policies that are driving the cost of aged pensions up by encouraging manipulation, and by punishing those who try to be self-sufficient - making them worse off than if they hadn't saved. If we don't complain about such stupid policies, we have no hope of having them sensibly changed, and the nation will continue to go downhill. I know you endorse the idiotic assets test change, but clearly you are not thinking logically about the consequences for the federal budget of penalizing people for saving and making BigBear's strategy the most attractive option.

    In a democracy, citizens have an obligation to speak out about issues of concern, and although most do a very bad job of it - and are far too self-serving and arrogant - politicians are actually paid to LISTEN and to REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE PEOPLE.
    Circum
    26th Apr 2018
    8:04pm
    I find the given answers unconvincing as I did with Jenny Macklins answers recently.As for people whinging,it seems to me that most comments have assessed the answers for validity and not purely made a comment because of political bias.

    Besides OG I seem to recall you saying "we have enough idiots in power now so can we afford to have even bigger idiots in power.God help us if we do" Isnt that a whinge?
    almost a grey hair
    26th Apr 2018
    5:07pm
    I don't know how this figure of 85 yrs of age is now become some kind of norm for departing this earth. From what I can see they are overcooking people by an average of about six years. All around me at age 62 I see people dying of cancer, we have been to two funerals already this year. Crimes are becoming more violent to a point of every morning on the current affairs shows on tv, several murders take place every night . I can't see what the problem is with paying people their rightful pension . Maybe they should look at how we are over governed and how much those pollies are wasting on their own pensions. After paying tax for 44yrs I will be making sure I get mine , after all its only fair
    Blondie
    26th Apr 2018
    5:29pm
    Nothing that Ms O'Dwyer says makes sense! Could not believe her eye opening ' performance' on the ' Insiders'!! There are LNP trolls on here who make the mistake of calling the Aged Pension, ' welfare'. It never has been, and is not, NOW! Ms O'Dwyer never wastes an opportunity to bad mouth Labor......we all know why.....since the present government has been in power, they have systematically sucked money from the average earner.....the wealth trickles upwards....never down!
    Anonymous
    26th Apr 2018
    7:05pm
    Trouble is, Blondie, Labor is no better. I had hoped they might offer a reasonable alternative, but their franking credit policy is evidence of their elitism. It lets the wealthy and high income earners retain their full tax benefit, but takes up to 30% of the income of SFRs with low incomes and relatively low asset balances. All that will do is push them onto the pension, increasing pressure to reduce the aged pension or delay retirement. And it continues the trickle of wealth UPWARDS, to the wealthy.

    Seems we have a choice between hideously bad and evil and much, much worse - and I'm not sure, anymore, which is which!
    Kathleen
    26th Apr 2018
    7:57pm
    OGR, LNP is much worse, especially now! They support the banks and big business and the super wealthy. They are fighting internally and sprouting the same rubbish over and over.
    What you say is what you are and you are a LNP troll!
    Old Geezer
    26th Apr 2018
    8:47pm
    Kathleen if nothing else what the franking non refund policy of Labor says to me is that they fail to admit they are telling lies about their policy just like they did with the NDIS and Gonski how can we even consider putting such an untrustworthy bunch of idiots into power? Let's face it we have enough idiots in there now without getting any bigger one in power.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    7:08am
    Kathleen, you show gross ignorance with your insults. Obviously you don't have any comprehension of what you read, much less the intelligence to debate policy objectively instead of ranting with party politics.

    I do NOT support the LNP and never have and I've made that very clear in my posts. But I will NOT refrain from condemning BAD POLICY - no matter which party puts it forward. And Labor's franking credit policy is BAD POLICY. And any decent, respectful Australian with even moderate intelligence should see that and support opposition to it.

    Worse, Labor is LYING about the policy, claiming it attacks the wealthy. IT DOES NOT. It is worse than the worst of LNP policy in that it unfairly taxes ONLY those battlers who have taken responsibility for their retirement and sought to save the government money so pensions remain affordable.

    Only a fool pensioner would endorse Labor's franking credit policy, but greed and selfishness does warp thinking, sadly. Many can't see past ''I want more now and take from him 'cause he's got too much''. That selfishness will come back to bite big time, and the poorest will suffer most. It's tempting, given the attitude of some, to say ''Bring it on''.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:51am
    Both Parties are facing an empty Treasury and little prospect of filling it any time soon. Both have brought us to this point through policy decisions.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    11:06am
    Yes, and BOTH parties have been able to do that because there are too many blind party followers and too few people taking an interest in specific policies and directing politicians to consider the implications of their thought bubbles.
    Lescol
    26th Apr 2018
    5:45pm
    Who really gives a rat for the thoughts of a 'wantabe'?

    I'm sorry but I believe in a non means tested old age pension pro-rata against working time.. .

    I also believe in paying tax after $1. Simple.

    cheers
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:51am
    Yes indeed. Me too.
    ozrog
    26th Apr 2018
    7:53pm
    Forget all the questions just raise the age pension to equal the average wage. Sick of our pensioners living in poverty while these politicians line their own pockets procuring jobs related to their portfolios after politics.
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Apr 2018
    8:57pm
    Not a bad idea, pension the same as average wage and then tax them the same. Just make sure you give the unemployed the same and nobody needs to get out of bed to look for a job again. Maybe the politicians on average pay as well, what a hoot!
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:52am
    Nobody would have to save for the future either. Yah!
    micreen
    26th Apr 2018
    7:58pm
    I also watched part of that program and was disgusted with the BS that came forth. Made them look very guilty of covering up what is now being revealed. Shame Shame.
    Kato
    26th Apr 2018
    9:43pm
    I seem to remember Electricy was cheaper before the LNP oppose the carbon tax and told the voter it will double everything you buy as it will be passed on to business etc. No carbon tax but there scare tactics have increased every aspect of the cost of living. Why doesn't some one ask a politician as time goes by pensioner numbers increase but Politicians will as well yet they cost the Taxpayers treble the amount. But you seem to have made adequate arrangements for yourselves From the Australian Taxpayer's funds.
    Crazy Horse
    26th Apr 2018
    10:26pm
    Kelly O'Dwyer couldn't lie straight in bed. Her performance on Insiders last Sunday was disgraceful.

    26th Apr 2018
    11:57pm
    So many ignorant and deceitful comments
    Kelly merely said LNP have no intention of making any changes to a good system
    Labor wants to dessimate it by moving more people into pension
    It works for them because then the people have no choice but to vote labor
    Labor is all about enslaving the people into a welfare mentality . Same as their immigration policies where they bring in more and more refugees and immigrants who will be loyal to labor
    Shame so many people can’t see that
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    7:01am
    LNP is refusing to address a BAD system. Justifying billions in handouts to the super-wealthy by claiming superannuation tax concessions help reduce retirement costs is disgusting. We all know most of the concessions go to people who would never need a pension under any circumstances. Yet LNP attacks people who struggle to be at least substantially self-funded and gives billions to the rich. Disgraceful. And yes, Labor is about enslaving people into a welfare mentality. Unfortunately, LNP is about restoring the class system of nobles and peasants.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2018
    9:57am
    The LNP have done nothing but change the system to make saving into Superannuation unviable. People are voting with their feet on it.

    The franking changes will never get through the Senate. It's purely a pre election attempt to gather support from the don't haves.

    The fact is our Treasury is empty and the dreams of wealth and efficiency from privatising everything and running with the Corporations now lie in dust.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    11:18am
    "The franking changes will never get through the Senate. It's purely a pre election attempt to gather support from the don't haves."

    I agree with that Rae, but it might backfire. A lot of people saw through the lies.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2018
    11:18am
    "The franking changes will never get through the Senate. It's purely a pre election attempt to gather support from the don't haves."

    I agree with that Rae, but it might backfire. A lot of people saw through the lies.

    27th Apr 2018
    1:46am
    This twit is a complete waste of time and tax payers money, like Barnaby the Libs would do well to get rid of her, she was so pathetic on the INSIDERS last week.
    MD
    27th Apr 2018
    3:38pm
    Rocky2, thanks for the history lesson. Lescols' comment - an interesting take on this issue; and acknowledgment by Rae suggests it's worthy of further consideration.

    That the pension system has evolved to its present manifestation by the many and varied means - as that disclosed by Rocky2, is neither here nor there. We are compelled to deal with an administrative govt body that you can bet your life was structured with an entirely legal imprimatur. Whether the process is considered a travesty of justice or bloody minded (govt) covetousness is beside the point, it is what it is and resignation to the here and now may somewhat ease the burden of retirement - compared with lamenting something that occurred decades ago.

    Whether we condone or condemn former govt process has little bearing on the present situation. Like it or lump it, learning from past experience should see us better suited to dealing with the present.
    Tzuki
    27th Apr 2018
    8:07pm
    Shouldn't the title be "The inadequacy of the Aged Pension"?
    GeorgeM
    27th Apr 2018
    10:31pm
    Kelly O'Dwyer's responses are robotic and moronic, and she is the one who doesn't understand the Australia Institute's analysis. Recent YLC article of 23rd April 2018 had also mentioned that a large number of economists had written to the Govt about it's Revenue problem - which this Govt refuses to acknowledge, and simply goes out to attack Pensioners and others.

    It was mentioned in that article that "Australia is one of the lowest taxing countries in all of the OECD", and “if Australia had the same tax to GDP ratio as the United Kingdom we could triple the Age Pension.”.

    She also has failed to explain why we cannot have Universal Pension when the rest of the civilised / advanced world has it in some form or another.

    We will have NO PROBLEM to also implement an Universal Pension system for all from Age 65 (with Residence of say 15 years as only test) - with a suitably increased Age Pension, with all income above that (except a capped Super assets return on concessional tax) taxed at normal tax rates - if we simply implement a Minimum Tax system and also scrap Centrelink administration saving heaps.

    We MUST address the Revenue issue and have a Minimum Tax system to ensure large companies and wealthy pay a Minimum Tax on Gross income (say 20% for companies, and 30% for Individuals) without allowing any shonky deductions. If we provide any deductions, it should only be for Local Australian expenses, and NO UN-AUSTRALIAN Expenses such as Outsourced labour, materials or parts.
    JustGus
    27th Apr 2018
    11:27pm
    I see a lot of whining in these comments,but, just remember that you are the”PEOPLE” that voted her and the LNP back into power at the last election. I remember the comments of many here that swallowed all the codswallop and promoted the Libs leading up to the last election.
    Onemore
    28th Apr 2018
    1:58am
    And all the BS has started already with Morrison backing down on the planned medicare increase, was there ever going to be an increase in the first place?
    Anonymous
    28th Apr 2018
    8:57am
    Not me. But I might in the next because Labor is showing itself to be a bigger disaster. I just wish we had some real choice.
    PlanB
    28th Apr 2018
    7:51am
    I see O'Dwyer has had to admit she was wrong

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-27/banking-royal-commission-kelly-odwyer-says-she-was-wrong/9703862
    Anonymous
    28th Apr 2018
    8:56am
    Not admitting she's wrong about retirement funding policies.
    "A good government needs to ensure our Age Pension is strong and sustainable. ''

    Well, a good government would stop making it useless to save, and then we might have more people who could contribute to making the pension strong and sustainable and less people relying on it. Only a blithering IDIOT, or a hypocrite with sinister motive, would keep making penalizing people who save for retirement and then make statement like that.

    Unfortunately, we have a choice of politicians who are blithering idiots and politicians who are hypocrites with sinister motives. They are ALL pursuing the same objective of ensuring the retirement funding system is on the verge of collapse so they can justify cruel policies.
    Lescol
    28th Apr 2018
    9:56am
    Yes there is little choice of politician and that is why as a group, to improve the OAP, we need to vote out the incumbents and continue to do that until they make the needed changes. Its simple. A unmeans tested OAP based upon years of tax residence is the vision and changes will only occur if the pollies are forced to make them! We control our own future.

    cheers
    GeorgeM
    28th Apr 2018
    11:47pm
    Agree. What you say exactly matches with my own suggestions above.
    They have to be FORCED to act by voting out all sitting members.
    PlanB
    28th Apr 2018
    10:10am
    Best way to vote is not for one of the BIG two but vote for an Independent -- trouble is one of the BIG two STILL end up with your vote because of the darn preferential system, it should be 1st past the post IMO
    Lescol
    28th Apr 2018
    10:17am
    Remember, it is YOU who decide the preference; not the politician. Vote for an independent but theres no guarantee they'll remain same however incumbent governments have to be replaced until the needed changes occur.

    cheers
    Lescol
    28th Apr 2018
    2:46pm
    I prefer the preferential voting as it means we get a canidate acceptable to all though it maybe not their first choice. Use the system to make the needed changes & vote out the incumbents! Its simple.

    cheers
    GeorgeM
    28th Apr 2018
    11:53pm
    I have said this many times - YOU DO have the power to choose your preferences. You can simply PUT THE CURRENT SEAT-HOLDER LAST IN PREFERENCES, thereby making sure your vote will ALWAYS go to someone else. That way, the existing member may get turfed out - if enough people use this strategy. Next time, if the newly elected member does not perform / listen, adopt the same strategy and get them out as well.

    If the MP cannot get minimum 8 years in parliament, they do not get their large untested undeserved pensions, and the above strategy may finally make them start listening when they get hurt.
    PlanB
    29th Apr 2018
    8:21am
    Yes I always do my own preferences -- but still, the ones that get in are the BIG 2 -- there are also so many people that have NO idea as to how the voting works and they do Donkey votes as well
    libsareliars
    30th Apr 2018
    1:19pm
    I wouldn't believe anything that comes out of Kelly O'Dwyer's mouth or for that matter any of the LNP. She was appalling on Insiders and is appalling on the outside!
    gerry
    1st May 2018
    5:02pm
    I think anyone who is receiving any kind of welfare including age pension should have to polish road signs ,pick up litter and care for the less unfortunate, I also see people living in 2 million dollar homes and getting full pension swanking about the overseas holidays their pension has done for them.I am 80
    Misty
    1st May 2018
    10:35pm
    I am 80 too, what has age got to do with it?.
    Anonymous
    3rd May 2018
    10:14am
    Go take a flying leap into the nearest creek, nobody. A lot of people worked very hard for many decades, paid taxes, raised children who pay taxes, and contributed extensively to society. In their autumn and winter years, they are ENTITLED to rest and a comfortable lifestyle at taxpayer expense. It is THEIR RIGHT.

    I do agree that the assets test is seriously flawed. The aged pension should be paid to all, as in other countries.

    2nd May 2018
    5:02pm
    My name is Milagros Riverva from United States, I’m sharing this testimony to give thanks to Dr.Edward Arabba who helped me to bring back my EX lover that broke up with me 4 months ago.I have been looking for advice on what to do and how to get back my EX lover but all my effort prove fruitless until when i came across a post of a woman in USA called Gloria giving thanks to Dr.Edward for helping her to get back her husband. I contacted the spell caster for help due to the fact that i needed my EX lover desperately because he is my husband and my life. To God be the glory my husband came back to me within 48 hours after Dr.Edward finished preparing the Reunion love spell and i want the world to join me and thank him for helping me. Anyone reading my testimony and also need his help should contact him with his below details.
    Name: Dr.Edward Arabba
    Mobile Number: +27833153741
    Whatsapp Number: +27833153741
    Email: dredwardarabbatemple@gmail.com
    I’m given you 100% guarantee that as soon as you get in touch with Dr.Edward your problems will be completely solved.
    Lescol
    2nd May 2018
    5:35pm
    THIS IS A LOT OF CRAP AND APPEARS UPON A NUMBER OF THE ylc SITES.HOPEFULLY SOON IT AND SIMILAR OTHERS WILL BE DUDUCTED IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTE.

    CHEERS
    Mugsie
    3rd May 2018
    12:12pm
    I would like to see some promise of “fixing”, the retirement villages’ rip-offs. People are trapped in an unfair system under a very old Legislation which has not been changed since 1986. Some of us are living in discomfort and with The opaqueness of dodgy contracts.
    All we are doing is making these operators and owners rich, please stop it now!
    Mugsie


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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