Millionaire pension payments

Asset-rich retirees have been receiving around $500 million in benefits per year.

Millionaire pension payments

A recent study by the National Centre of Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) has shown that retirees who are considered ‘asset rich’ have been receiving government handouts worth around $500 million per year, prompting calls for an overhaul of Australia’s retirement system.

In fact, over a quarter of a million Australian households with a net worth of more than $3 million are receiving welfare payments to the tune of $800 million per year. The study also shows that wealthy families have access to more than $6 billion worth of taxpayer-funded benefits per year, such as education and public healthcare. Households with a net worth of more than $2 million also pick up around $1.4 billion in cash welfare each year.

Cash benefits among working age families with a combined income of $150,000 totalled $4.3 billion per annum – mostly in the form of childcare payments. Added to that figure, was a further $38 billion in non-cash payments (public education and healthcare) that were also handed out to families.

The findings have highlighted the disturbing ease with which wealthy retirees can qualify for the Age Pension, and have renewed arguments that the family home, or ‘principle residence’, should be included in the income asset test in order to help redress this discrepancy.

Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, has opened talks with various seniors’ groups to discuss plans for including the principle residence in future asset tests, as too many people who are ‘asset rich’ are receiving pensions – money that would be better directed towards those with little or no assets. But there is a general consensus that the process cannot be rushed, and the debate could continue for some time before a resolution is reached.

To find out more, read the article titled Not fair: welfare for the rich at The Australian.

Opinion: Is this funding fair?

At $42 billion per year and rising, the Age Pension is the one of the government’s largest and fastest growing expenses. With the budget currently estimated to be in a $40–$56 billion deficit (depending on the source), the government needs to find savings from public spending in order to get back in the black.

So far it has targeted unemployment benefits, education, a GP co-payment and family tax benefits as sources of revenue and savings to cover the debt. A raft of legislation changes, which include Age Pension indexation and eligibility age are waiting to be passed – such changes will hurt those on a meagre limited income, who can least afford to lose even a few dollars each week. Yet according to the NATSEM findings, around $500 million per year is being handed out to multi-millionaire retirees (with over $3 million in assets). A further $1.4 billion per year in benefits is being provided to those with a net worth of $2 million. These groups would seem ripe for the picking in order to refill the steadily emptying government coffers.

An upcoming intergenerational report is set to spell out the exponential increase in spending on items such as the Age Pension. So, in order to balance the books, the government faces the tough task of implementing policies that may adversely affect a large portion of constituents – who may also be conservative voters. Still, it may need to be done, and rather than taking more away from those who need it most, the government needs to take aim at those who can realistically fund their own lifestyles without the benefit of taxpayer-funded handouts.

Imagine the process of deciding how to change the asset test for the Age Pension, to make it fairer for all. It will be a monolithic task with many factors to take into consideration. What of the retirees who bought their family home in 1970, and who have seen the value of their home increase over the years? And those who were told that the pension asset test wouldn’t change and were advised to put their life savings into property? Is it fair for them to have to sell their home in order to live out their years as a self-funded retiree? Sure, there are many who may be taking advantage of this pension situation, but there are also many who could be undeservedly put at a disadvantage by changes to the asset test.

However, if it will help to ensure a sustainable pension system for future generations, the government needs to weigh the needs of the many against appeasing the wealthy.

What do you think? Do you feel that changes to the asset test are necessary? Do you think it is right to include the family home in the asset test? What suggestions can you make in order to create an equitable solution for all retirees?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    minniemouse
    18th Feb 2015
    10:25am
    The area I think needs attention is part pensions this not only excludes house value which is fair enough but assets allowed are too generous and don't warrant all the perks that go with a part pension no matter how small the amount .
    Gra
    18th Feb 2015
    12:55pm
    What do you call being too generous where would you make the cut-off point?
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2015
    3:12am
    Doesn't anyone think this report has come out exactly the right time for Morrison to base his prospective changes to pensions! We KNOW they will not affect the wealthy because they usually do NOT receive a pension…. not matter what Morrison's little report SUGGESTS!!

    Have you not noticed that exactly HOW and WHAT specific benefits these people are getting has not been detailed… just a lot of words and innuendo.

    Morrison has taken a LOT OF EFFORT to MANIPULATE and present figures ….. that tell us what exactly…. that some people somewhere who are well off are receiving some forms of govt benefits. The report, as shown, actually tells us nothing BUT that it is costing us millions and millions.

    Let us look at BENEFITS from EDUCATION.

    Gee, I have been talking about that for a long time….. the average taxpayer is paying taxes which are going to the WEALTHY to send their children to PRIVATE SCHOOLS, so that THEIR CHILDREN can have the best of the best in education. Those whose taxes are going to those schools, can't afford to send THEIR kids there!!! Created by and locked in by the Liberal GOVTs are MASSIVE HANDOUTS of PUBLIC FUNDS to PRIVATE SCHOOLS who DO NOT EVEN PAY TAXES, even though the schools are a BUSINESS. We are talking BILLIONS. How very clever to bring up these BENEFITS to bolster their figures, so they can CUT DOWN YOUR PENSION whilst LEAVING the PRIVILEGED with their children's education paid for by THOSE that PAY the MOST In TAXES but are denied access to those very same institutions!
    Morrison has absolutely NO intention of even reducing this GOVT WELFARE HANDOUT to the WEALTHY and THEIR CHILDREN.

    Let us look at PUBLIC HEALTH.

    The average taxpayer is FORCED to take up PRIVATE health insurance when we have… sorry HAD…. a perfectly GOOD health system. HOWEVER, the WEALTHY WANT their OWN HEALTH SYSTEM, so they FORCE US TO JOIN THEIR health system, so they can afford to have PRIVATE HEALTH FACILITIES erected all over Australia. Then we have PRIVATE health insurance BUSINESSES which receive GOVT FUNDING to the tune of 30% which under the previous govt was made incomes tested (at last). So what we have is BILLIONS spent of providing the WEALTHY with a BETTER and PRIVATE HEALTH INDUSTRY….. paid for by ORDINARY PEOPLE who have been forced by FEAR of NOT receiving adequate health care, to take out expensive health insurance. Not to mention that ORDINARY TAXPAYERS are FUNDING the WEALTHY out of the PUBLIC PURSE, in the form of HANDOUTS to PRIVATE HEALTH Insurance BUSINESSES.
    Morrison has absolutely NO intention of even reducing this GOVT WELFARE HANDOUT to the WEALTHY. It is YOUR HEALTH SYSTEM that will be RUN DOWN year after year, so that it will eventually be a health RISK to go to a public hospital!

    Let us look at GOVT PENSION for the WEALTHY.

    IF the WEALTHY WANTED to receive the piddling amount that represents the pension, then they COULD arrange it, irrespective of anything Morrison does.

    WELL, that MAKES UP about 75% of the millions upon millions, that the LIBS are more than willing to pay OVER to the WEALTHY….. of OUR MONEY, paid as taxes into the PUBLIC PURSE and HANDED over to WEALTHY INDUSTRIES.

    What is left is those benefits paid to the MIDDLE who are definitely struggling IF only one person is working or BOTH are working in poorly paid jobs! They need a helping hand because it is still a struggle to survive. IF we can GIVE HANDOUTS in the form of billions to EDUCATE and provide PRIVATE HEALTH to the WEALTHY, we can afford to look after those who are doing their best but still struggling.

    NO! REST ASSURED the report means that Morrison is going to REDUCE ANY opportunities that you may have, to enjoy the hard work that you did throughout your lives whilst ensuring that the WEALTHY CONTINUE to get as much as they can from Govt. HANDOUTS.

    Do NOT TRUST this CROCODILIAN …… remembering that what these creatures LACK in BRAINS, they make up for in their power and therefore ability to destroy.
    wally
    19th Feb 2015
    11:23am
    Is it possible to get some sort of breakdown into determining how you go about calculating a house holds' net worth? Would it be real estate in the value of a person's family home? How would you determine the net worth of a three generation household of six adults and three children living in a single dwelling where three of the adults are in paid employment? If the family were to be living in a gentrified former working class slum that has become a trendy, desirable place to live, how does that fit into the mix of determining what, if any, welfare payments these people would be eligible for?

    Until a balance of the considerations I have just suggested is made, I would not be jumping to any conclusions on the basis of this report. Methinks the bureaucrats are all too eager to hammer the hell out of square pegs until they can get them squeezed through round holes. And in true bureaucratic fashion, the sooner they present "findings" or a "report" (half baked as likely as not), the quicker they can get back to their real job of devouring their bikkies and tea!
    Precious 1
    20th Feb 2015
    10:50am
    This country needs millions of productive people living here permanently...then perhaps pensions on retirement would be there for all as a non contributiary delight..........I think we do extremely well seeing that the actual figures that are working and have been for many years is really low......some already pay more into the income tax system to somewhat quarantee a lump sum for a trip to Europe etc.....
    particolor
    20th Feb 2015
    2:16pm
    Grease is Nice this time of year !! :-)
    Mr Squeekyweel.....
    Anonymous
    26th Feb 2015
    5:24pm
    ***************
    ***************
    E V E R Y O N E

    I mentioned this below in a comment but thought that maybe it would be worth noting here because it may be a method of helping you enjoy your final years.

    ***************
    ***************

    DID YOU KNOW that HIDDEN in the CENTRELINK WEBSITE is the opportunity to take up a govt funded Reverse Mortgage Scheme (RMS) called a PENSION LOAN SCHEME (PLS) whereby you can borrow on the equity in your home to SUPPLEMENT your pension/holiday/car. IF you qualify (restricted to full pensioners with own home, I believe), the interest is low and fixed and given that you do not make any repayments, the loan will grow considerably, so that when you finally die, there may not be that much left for you to pass on to family. HOWEVER, you will be able to stay in your home AND live very comfortably AND pay for costly medical expenses.

    RMSs have been touted to Morrison for expansion to allow more people access and to encourage rather than hide the RMS in Centrelink. They will make money FOR the govt. say after about 10-15years, so it is NOT a cost to the govt but a money earning concept. A reasonable proposition.

    Unfortunately, I do NOT trust CROCODILIAN Morrison and fear that this expansion will simply be made available to the WEALTHY to get cheap loans and once again RIP the system. It will also end up with pensioners being FORCED to take up PLSs, as the pension to people with their own homes will more than likely be whittled away gradually or in small lumps
    sexeebear
    18th Feb 2015
    10:30am
    include the family home only after its value reaches say 1.5 million... noone need a house of greater than that value when they're retired..
    a lot of money could be saved if they cut out the subsidies on child care and paid the parent a supplement to stay home and look after their own kids..
    that in turn would provide their jobs onto the market making more employment for those without kids who are unemployed ...
    also stop negative gearing that mainly applies to the wealthy and we don't need it
    and dont give me the tune we need it to provide rental properties for the lower incomers.. it might drop prices for a while( boo hoo for the rich) but we were doing fine before it was bought in..
    and horror on horrors we might actually build some public affordable housing again.. no one listens any way but go on comment to your hearts content. sexeenbear
    LiveItUp
    18th Feb 2015
    10:41am
    The biggest problem with dropping negative gearing is that the supply of rent properties will dry up as it did last time they did it. Higher rents would be an impasse on the poor as well. So it's a no win situation.

    By all means pay these people the pension but deduct it from the value of the multi-million dollar homes when they die.
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    11:27am
    Rent Increase can be Corrected for via incrased supplement.
    There will be a NET Increase of Collections for the ATO to be shared out to the NEEDY.
    However, The RICH would LOOSE OUT with such an arrangement!
    Kato
    18th Feb 2015
    1:33pm
    every time negative gearing gets a mention the old chestnut rents will go up comes out?
    there is a surplus of rentals on the WA market and a lot are just sitting there? now if negative gearing was dropped they would rent them out to pay for them. and to earn an income instead of gouging it out of revenue.
    BeezNeez
    18th Feb 2015
    2:25pm
    'include the family home only after its value reaches say 1.5 million... noone need a house of greater than that value when they're retired..'. to make such a sweeping statement as this, for one thing, you obviously don't live in Sydney sexeebear! Many retirees would soon find they were looking for a new suburb, or new home (and penalised a massive amount in stamp duty to do so). As to your random figure...what will happen to retirees who have bought in an area many years ago and now find they are living in a home worth more than your designated figure. Where do u suggest they go? Do people with homes more than this specified amount no longer deserve the companionship of family and friends, services such as doctors etc. potentially built up over a lifetime? Do they need to move to cheaper suburbs so that the jealous amongst us feel better about ourselves!? Do they need to move into apartment accommodation because, in your opinion, their houses are worth 'too much' so they should live in something smaller, whilst those with homes worth less should be able to stay in their potentially larger houses? You can't eat your family home, it doesn't make you any money....I fail to see why those who find themselves in this situation, worked hard all their lives, just as I'm sure you have, should find they are cast out of their family homes now they actually have time to enjoy some time out. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be faced with that situation,

    And who are the 'we' that were doing fine before they introduced negative gearing? oh, that's right, that would be the thousands upon thousands that grew up in government funded housing estates and we've all seen what a success they were. I'm sure there are areas all over the country just begging to allow new government housing be developed! I hate to tell u, but it makes far better economic sense for the govt to pay private owners to provide accommodation than it is for them to build and manage such properties, it's also more socially viable.
    moke
    18th Feb 2015
    2:58pm
    sexeebear I agree with much you have said, but building for the elderly is a joke. A close relative was given a housing commission unit in a block of units supposedly for the elderly with a annex for a care taker/manager. Guess what there never was a manager and last time I passed the units there were a group of scruffy drunk people, who in the middle of the day must have been unemployed, lounging around the gardens using bad language. After some enquiry I was told that there were no elderly people left the last ones had moved out because there were prostitutes working there and a lot of drug use and drunken behaviour at all times of the day and night. So much for housing for the elderly.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    4:20pm
    Moke !! That sounds EXACTLY like where I live !! There are still 4 out of 12 Oldies still here, But I don't Know How !! Housing Has Lost The Plot !! :-(
    buby
    18th Feb 2015
    4:32pm
    yes i agree with you sexeebear. and i'm sure the housing Ministers have lost the plot. Much housing should be built for the elderly, and NOT high rise.....perhaps they can stick the younger none hopes in them. those that haven't worked a day in their life?
    Better still put them out too work. YOu won't be getting much revenue back, if there isn't anybody out there working. Too many hanging round the streets and running amuck. that wasn't found much in my day!
    and there wasn't that many Piss pots around then as there is now.......So whats gone wrong??
    buby
    18th Feb 2015
    4:39pm
    oh DEAR Bonny, you obviously don't rent. the rental market has gone crazy YOU can't find decent housing even in the private sector. and when you do its only for families.
    Where's the lone wolf supposed to live. Can't find any thing decent in the private sector, the rents are way way to high. Its rediculous! NO wonder there are so many living on the streets, and turn to alchol for consulation? I have been looking for decent rental accomodation for the last two years. Before my current housing it took me 15 yrs of looking before i found something decent, i nearly became homeless. It was suggested to me that i should be come, then i would get housing easier. that really did my dignity in. and my luck came in just on the verge.
    I worked hard, i don't smoke, don't drink, although i could start on it, if i don't find decent housing again soon......and i MEan DECEnt, they are like hens teeth to find.\
    Cause i'm sick of living in dogboxes that are stuck together with NO sound proofing from your neighbor, who likes staying up all night, and you have to sleep when you can to cope with life around you???
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    4:40pm
    Beer is too Cheap ! And Pot is cheaper than Cigarettes that's what's wrong !!
    Dotty
    18th Feb 2015
    6:28pm
    I can relate to that about elderly housing ! I have been in the Unit I am in now for 16 years and the Lady in unit 3 passed on and they have put a young person on her own in it! Although she is Deaf and almost complately blind ! And a lovely lady ! the one in between mine and that one is a young person that was put in there with two very young children over 14 years ago and has since had two more children and is into the usual happy havelock as i call it and Alcohol on a daily basis with men in and out the place all day and night and swear's like a Trooper although worse !
    I have had problems with her and her now eldest son who is now 18 yrs old at calling me crude names and swearing at me for no reason at all !
    Needless to say the eldest son got involved with a girl 4 yrs older and as I had to get Intervention order's against the Mother and son from next door the girl has now tried to bash me and tried to wrench open my front door to get to me ! So I have had to do the same to both her and her older sister!
    And now the son from next door and the girl from down the road are now parents to a new baby! and he has just turned 18!
    Many complaints have been lodged with Human Services but they know all the kwirks to get out of being evicted by the dept!
    So in the meantime myself and neighbours that privately own their own homes are also subjected to the constant abuse and threats from these two families !
    And it seems that nothing is being done in regards to all of this !
    When I was growing up in a Minerstry home in a Suburb if you so much as made problems for anyone you were out ! But the game has changed for those that are being housed in them now !
    Dotty
    Dotty
    18th Feb 2015
    6:32pm
    I also omitted to say that there are also drugs being brought and sold from this property next door and even the Police don't seem to be able to do anything about it !
    So in the mean time the time I have left that I thought would be a peaceful time of my life has now become a nightmare !
    Dotty
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    7:18pm
    Strewth !! And I thought I had it bad !! I only get Abuse Noise Mess Stolen Petrol Car Damage Swearing Parties Hobo's Spit and worse on the paths Security lights Smashed Domestics and a few more items !! But You've got it made there !! :-(
    TREBOR
    18th Feb 2015
    8:50pm
    Ditching negative gearing will not reduce rental properties - the number of properties will remain the same regardless of how it is cooked - the only real difference is that the first home owners might get above one in seven purchases....

    Do you seriously think all those properties will suddenly cease to exist?
    digiom
    18th Feb 2015
    9:03pm
    @BeezNeez
    "it makes far better economic sense for the govt to pay private owners to provide accommodation than it is for them to build and manage such properties, it's also more socially viable."

    It is definitely NOT more socially viable. We have such a property next door to us (we own our home and have lived here for 25+ years). Next door is disgusting with rubbish all over the front yard. The tenants have broken down their fence and have other "visiting rellies" living in the carport for lengthy periods. The Govt spin is that they will be amongst nice houses with nice gardens and this will inspire them to do the same. HAH The only thing that has happened is that we have lost a lot of value on our house and have to put up with a lot rowdy loud parties. Let them all live together I say.
    Jurassicgeek
    18th Feb 2015
    10:40am
    you cant eat assets!!!...you work all your life and up with a nice house,car boat whatever...having said that I think the assets test for the pension or part thereof is too generous..but instead why not penalize those who can least afford it so these rich bitches can maintain their lifestyle.???
    Gra
    18th Feb 2015
    1:00pm
    Agreed, there are those of us who do have some assets which have been acquired through hard work and saving while only on a modest income - our combined assets wouldn't come anywhere near a million dollars, so why should we be penalised in a general slash and burn attack on pensioner assets? Those with the multi million dollar list of assets could probably be targeted, those who have inherited healthy sums could probably afford to have the fat trimmed a bit.
    retroy
    18th Feb 2015
    1:33pm
    What rubbish pops up on this site. Gra is on the money (sorry for the pun)
    The people who went to the pub and the TAB and never saved for their retirement are now hell bent on trying to deprive a little perk from those who worked hard and have some thing to show for it. Jealousy in spades shame on you all.
    buby
    18th Feb 2015
    4:43pm
    and i bet troy that the Polli's aren't saving for it either........they are milking the main domain for it. Then cry OH poor us??? But hell we should save for it right???
    Gra, i know a young man who Owns a home, and bought another, and still whinges he's poor, even tho he's got heaps to live on, and cry's cause they won't give him a benefit.......Poor Luv lol
    Virginia
    19th Feb 2015
    11:43am
    Rich bitches like me worked hard and long did not buy all in sight did not overspend on junk so I could have a nice home.... Super is the best thing they should compulsory take more to put away for old hoplesses retirement.
    moke
    19th Feb 2015
    2:35pm
    Jurassicgeek Their accountants get on well also that's how the RICH ??????? Can do so well and get away with it. How about someone selling their rather nice $1000000 home buy a New 4 wheel drive extra large fifth wheeler with all the mod cons and take a year or so two to tour good ole Oz, using only the top accommodation then come back buy a small unit and get the full pension. Aren't accountants useful
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    4:58pm
    Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious !! :-)
    mangomick
    19th Feb 2015
    6:42pm
    Well moke....... If they had kept the house it wouldn't count in their asset test anyway so they could get the full pension but the value of the extra large fifth wheeler and new 4 wheel drive does count so depending on what other goodies they own they may not get the full pension. Just wondering though why they would only use the top accommodation if they own an extra large fifth wheeler with all the mod cons???
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    10:43am
    GREEDY PIGS always look after one-anther very well!
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    11:42am
    GOT IT MAID ..
    I was talking to an Elderly Lady down the street one day , and said Oh! Your on the Pension ? and she said Yes!,have been for years ! :-) I said, but look at the House You live in it must be worth 4 Million Bucks ? She said, OH! Dad owns that and He lives in a Retirement Village !! And when I get to old I'll give it to My Son !! I Said, You've got it made ! She said Yes ! I've got one of those too, and My Son pays for Her !!...I walked away Mesmerized ?? :-)
    Nan Norma
    18th Feb 2015
    1:02pm
    particolor. So the elderly lady has a cleaning lady come in, big deal.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    1:21pm
    I Said A Maid !! And as somebody said below there somewhere He also pays ALL Her Bills !! No wonder She was buying an Expensive Clock ! I was getting a Battery for My Old Neighbours Watch !! :-)
    Nan Norma
    18th Feb 2015
    1:29pm
    Don't split straws. I bet the maid cleans. What about the pensioners that live with the family and pay nothing.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    1:34pm
    Good Luck to them !! They must be the ones some on here see Down the Cub Boozing and Playing the Pokeys ?? :-)
    Kato
    18th Feb 2015
    1:36pm
    what about the pensioners who live with there family and baby sit the kids do the coocking and cleaning and still pay some rent. well that saves the taxpayer a bit would you not think.
    Kato
    18th Feb 2015
    1:37pm
    I would like a maid. free rent free bed. use of a car.
    Kato
    18th Feb 2015
    1:38pm
    no payment though.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    2:02pm
    Keep Looking !!
    Nan Norma
    18th Feb 2015
    2:14pm
    Koto, Thats the start of elderly abuse.
    buby
    18th Feb 2015
    4:45pm
    I wonder parti, if the maid is related to Rose Port........they will do a bit of scamming that lot lol
    buby
    18th Feb 2015
    4:46pm
    i'm with you kato i'm a bit worn out and tired?? i need a maid
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    5:03pm
    I need a GREEDY PIG to get rid of all these Thawed Out Frozen Berry's (Oxymoron) I found in the Skip behind the S Market !! :-(
    older&wiser
    18th Feb 2015
    10:45am
    Can someone please tell me HOW this can be? More to the point - what do you classify as 'asset rich'? My brother recently went on the aged Pension. Does not own a house, and has less than $160,000 in bank - yet already has his pension reduced. Is this minimal amount classed as 'asset rich'? What we don't understand is - why are (single) aged pensioners allowed to earn $160 a fortnight in a job without it affecting their pension, yet if you earn that amount in interest on your savings, you get penalized? What is the difference?
    Pamjean
    18th Feb 2015
    10:49am
    I feel you have been misinformed, there is no difference in whether the $160 comes from work or interest.
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    11:15am
    Pamjean,
    You're incorrect!
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    11:23am
    I have a mate who receives an Overseas Supplementary pension additional to his Australian one.
    Because of this, his Aust pension is reduced.
    However, he can still earn $5,000.00/year before further reduction of pension takes place.

    There is a severe "Lack of Consistency" here.
    Either he should not loose money because of his overseas pension OR he should not be able to earn $5,000.00/year without reduction.
    MONEY IS MONEY!!! INCOME is INCOME!!!
    RosePerth
    18th Feb 2015
    1:33pm
    Wow $160 a fortnight in interest on a savings account! Which bank is that with? I'll change my accounts tomorrow!
    Retired Knowall
    18th Feb 2015
    7:05pm
    You need to understand the difference between Income test and Assets test..
    If you have $160/fortnight in an interest bearing account, you would fail the assets test and current deaming rules.
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    7:13pm
    Retired Knowall
    As per above, in the case of My Mate, it was his overseas partial pension which was reducing the Aust OAPension.
    I view this as INCOME and NOT an Asset.
    TREBOR
    18th Feb 2015
    8:56pm
    It sounds to me like this entire area needs to be looked at and the same basic rule applied to all - if you earn income above a certain amount that is pension amount - you pay tax on that and not on the ens amount.

    Pretty simple to me. Let's say for argument's sake you get $500 a week pension - if someone has an account that returns to them $600 a week - their tax liability is $100 a week... if a pensioner with no account earns $100 a week - their tax liability is $100 a week - NOT the current $600 a week that it is!
    TREBOR
    18th Feb 2015
    8:58pm
    AND the same formula for pension reduction should apply.

    Good for goose - good for gander.. if you have so much money put away or so many income earning assets that your pension rate cuts out - you already have enough.

    The question of determining the deemed value of assets that are idle is another question.
    TREBOR
    18th Feb 2015
    9:04pm
    Sorry not that clear on the first post... I was trying to say that tax starts when you already earn pension rate, whether it be pension or income, and the rate of pension reduction should be the same for all.. i.e. if you get ONLY pension you lose nothing, but you lose according to the formula when you earn above that.

    At pension age the equivalent of a pension should be the benchmark for all - after that you lose pension and pay tax.

    I could be wrong.
    Sam
    18th Feb 2015
    10:46am
    I am a self-funded retiree and at the moment I don't need, or receive, a pension from the Government. But I am, under the current taxation rules, forced to take out more than I need from my pension funds every year - the maternal side of my family lived to their 90s and 100s, and I could be self-funded and need no pension, but fear that it will not be possible under the current laws to keep enough in my fund for my possible long life
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    10:59am
    Good on you Sam good you can provide for yourself, and you are right the current laws need to be changed or all the self funded retirees will run out of money. (however you can transfer some of that money back to your superannuation if you don"t need it, ask your financial people how it is done.)
    tia-maria
    18th Feb 2015
    1:06pm
    ROBO....I wonder about you and your comments
    KSS
    18th Feb 2015
    1:12pm
    The minimum drawdown from a pension fund is 4% of the value of the fund per year. If you don't need that much for your living costs you can 'park' it somewhere else, bank account, term deposit, sock under the bed....Or as you say, you can put it back into super but I think you have to be still contributing to super i.e. earning over $450 a month from work. You can run an accumulation fund and a pension fund at the same time but they are separate funds and not calculated together.
    Retired Knowall
    18th Feb 2015
    1:24pm
    You can only contribute into a Super fund if you meet the Work Test. X hours over a 4 week period in any one year.
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    2:07pm
    Assets are assets whether they be cash in the bank, shares or property. I have been saying ad nauseum that something has to be done about those who are getting a part pension in able to access the Concession Card. They really do not need the extra money if they are very close to the threshhold limits. I personally know of people who buy something (i.e. a new car or go on a cruise etc) just to remain below the cut off line.

    I understand there are 700,000 who are on part pensions.
    Sceptic
    18th Feb 2015
    3:44pm
    The minimum drawdown is age dependent. Thus:
    Under 65 - 4%
    65-74 - 5%
    75-79 - 6%
    80-84 - 7%
    85-89 - 9%
    90-94 - 11%
    95 and over - 14%
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    4:16pm
    Sceptic if I make it to 95 I am not sure if I would have the ability to draw down 14% or have it to start with
    TREBOR
    18th Feb 2015
    9:08pm
    Would my basic formula that you must receive the pension as minimum and only pay tax on income above that level help? As your income fell from losing assets saved, you would fall into the pension category and begin to receive part pension.

    Surely your income generating assets are reviewed every year or so already???

    I don't know everything, just think things through for right or wrong - somebody can help here, I'm sure.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    10:46am
    A Mans home is His Castle !!
    "Raise the drawbridge Strawbridge"

    18th Feb 2015
    11:04am
    It's certainly a difficult area to attack.

    On one hand, someone occupying a $3M or $5M value home or home site is still sitting on $3M or $5M in asset value - and to say, "you can't eat it", is not strictly correct.

    More than one person has had to make a decision to "downsize" when times got tough and expensive assets had to be sold to access required funds.

    However, the law should not be that the Govt can force you out of your house that you have lived in for a long time.

    Many a little old lady is quite happy residing in a $3M or $5M home site, that they only paid $15,000 for, 50 or 60 years ago!

    To force them to vacate their long-time home when they become "asset-rich and cash-poor" and apply for the pension, isn't right.

    However, I do believe that Bonny has it right, when she states any value of pension paid to someone sitting on a multi-million dollar asset, should be deducted from their estate after they have died.

    A maximum value of around $1.5M for a home should be instituted, and anything above that counted as a means-tested asset.

    I see way too many wealthy people pouring vast sums of money into their home to avoid tax - and the tax free status of the family home, regardless of its value, is one of the major distortions in our economy.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    3:33pm
    If you are going to use $1.5 million as the magic number then don't live in Sydney.
    The view that the family home should be included in the assets test is the next step in stripping people of all that they own. Whilst there probably should be a sliding scale of some sort to be fair how do you treat the little old lady who owns an expensive home only because it was purchased for zilch 70 years ago and has appreciated with population growth and its position? I mean there are more than a few of these old dears who do not have 2 razoos to rub together and throwing them out of their homes and telling them to head for Campbelltown is the sort of thing I would expect from the current government, not decent Australians.
    A sensible way out is to end the 'free' superannuation which is not counted as income or as an asset. This is a rort and is only kept on to advantage those with wealth.
    I find it appalling that posters on this site believe that the family home should now be included in the assets test. The next thing will be the return of Estate taxes and I believe that this is coming. Just wait for 2 years of bad trade figures and it'll be game on.
    I have to ponder what has become of a once fair country?
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2015
    1:03pm
    Mick, the simple fact remains that many wealthy people utilise extravagant homes as the biggest tax avoidance scheme available to them.
    I have stated how the "little old lady" sitting on a $5M home/homesite should be treated.
    Leave her happy in her home, give her the pension, but deduct it from her estate.

    No-one should be thrown out of their home - however, we live in a society of rapid development, and more than one family has had their property resumed for major works.
    We all have to cope with major turmoil in our lives.
    I have had my home burnt to the ground through no fault of my own. I lost everything.
    I have lost all my assets after a bank foreclosed on me with no warning - no arrears or anything.
    They simply demanded all their loan monies back within 48 hrs.
    They can do it to anyone, anytime, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
    What I am getting at, is that total security in your home is only an eyeblink away from being totally gone.
    A major weather disaster will do it.
    There's nothing fair or free in life, I can tell you that much.

    Taxing the family home on a sliding scale will almost surely be on the agenda in the future - just as the super-rich in Britain were slugged for their "country estates" - i.e. - castles built by ripping off the peasants.
    Yes, I agree, superannuation is another rort of the rich, excessive super will have to be taxed in the future as well.
    However, the national debt will need to get a lot worse before anyone takes the necessary action to prevent the rorts by the rich.
    Rob
    18th Feb 2015
    11:12am
    I am a self funded retiree and do not receive any pension from the Government. I think the family home should be included in the assets test once the value of the home reaches a certain value. But my main gripe is that the system allows people to organise their financial affairs in such a way to qualify for the pension or part thereof. I would like to see a situation where Centrelink looks at a persons income and assets in a holistic way and deems income to the individual where the finances are held in structures designed to shield their money.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    3:35pm
    This is a great post Rob and so true. Remember that the system is controlled by wealthy people and these folk would not want to take away something which advantages them. The question to ask is HOW did such a system get established in the fisrt place, who put it forward and in whose interests was that person acting.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    3:59pm
    The same as a couple of Contracts going at the Moment they are making a Big Noise about !! Wait till the Public finds out they were signed long ago !! :-)
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    5:22pm
    Spot on Rob. The first thing a financial advisor says to you when you go to him Ok we will see how we can organise your assets etc to enable you to get a part pension. This is fact not fiction.
    Those who can support themselves should and those less fortunate should be helped. The idea that because you worked all your life and paid taxes is no longer applicable otherwise everyone would get the pension and it would be a very meagre one at that if that was the case.

    We were told years ago that there would not be enough money to pay welfare for all in retirement and that is why compulsory superannuation was bought in 20 years or so ago.
    Travellersjoy
    18th Feb 2015
    11:25am
    Assets at 2 million or more and crying poor? Shame on them!

    Simply targeting people's homes is too blunt because city houses are so much more expensive, and pensioners have no control over that. A house bought 50 years ago in a slum can now be worth much more. Forcing elderly people out of their homes and communities can end up costing tax payers much much more. A person with a fairly ordinary home should be left with their home and be able to maintain it until they are unable to live independently.

    The price of farms is probably also a factor for some.

    Perhaps homes over $2 million? Perhaps target total assets over $2 million.

    A return to death duties would solve the whole problem of course, but just watch the propertied classes fight that one. Too many believe tax payers have a responsibility to support the kids inheritance. The end of death duties enables generational theft at the level of grand larceny. Don't expect the present government to do anything.

    Either we go for universal entitlements and the affluent, corporations and asset rich contribute more, or we have a genuine safety net that excludes millionaires. Unfortunately, the affluent can't help wanting to dip into the safety net.
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    11:37am
    I - in general - agreed with your discussion until DEATH DUTIES.

    Death Duties is just another opportunity to tax the same income for a 2nd & 3rd time.
    The wealth of a "Personal Home" has been WELL & TRUELY taxed already.
    However, when such a "Personal Home" becomes an "Elaborate Mansion or Castle", I agree that this should be counteracted via either:

    1 No pension
    2 Downsizing of property with the remaining money now becoming "Asset tested"
    3 Reverse mortaging the property in order to release funds to finance lifestyle.

    Additional to the above, such measures are extremely dangerous as - once the legislation has been passed - amendments are very easy to make in order to extend such legislation & hurt those who were (initially) never intended to be affected by it.

    Government is a Dangerous Servant & a Fearfull Master.
    Forgot which USA president said this!
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    11:47am
    Teddy Cruiserfelt !!
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    3:40pm
    Death duties? Whilst I suggest that Death Duties are coming back lets not be so inept as to believe that the rich will not be able to get around this. Rules are made to be broken and in an international world mixed with private companies pertaining to be genuine businesses I think that Death Duties will just redefine the mix.
    Only average people will get caught up in this one. The smart money will escape.....as normal.
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    5:23pm
    No government will bring back death duties.
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    5:30pm
    Radish,
    Hope these are not "last famous words"!
    Just saying it might give them ideas!
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    6:08pm
    Wait until the music really stops Radish. They will.
    Rob
    18th Feb 2015
    11:31am
    Inheritance taxes were a state government tax if I remember rightly. Can't see a state labor government or for that matter any government reintroducing this type of tax.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    11:45am
    Where there's a Will there a WAY !! :-)
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    3:41pm
    Wait until other forms of revenue dry up.
    Grateful
    18th Feb 2015
    11:46am
    Leon. Let's first start by removing the word "fair" when we talk about the Age pension, in fact, any benefit paid by the government to individuals.
    Let's start by coming up with a universal interpretation of the word "need" which should be the absolute basic criterion for determining eligibility and was the original intention of the Age Pension.
    "Fairness" has got absolutely nothing to do with determining eligibility and IF that was going to be considered, then, we should all be very wary of what at least one Liberal MP thinks and she is the Parliamentary Secretary of the Treasurer, no less, Kelly O'Dwyer.
    She stated on Page 1 of yesterday's The Australian, that "fairness is RELATIVE" in the context of this discussion of the Age Pension. Not hard to see where she is going there, the old evergreen that people who have paid taxes have "an entitlement" and from Kelly O'Dwyer's view, then the more tax one pays, the greater entitlement.
    Or, more consistent with the current discussion, when consideration is being given to reducing eligibility for those that have higher assets, it is NOT FAIR to reduce the pension from a millionaire who has "paid" more tax when NOT reducing that of a person who has paid much less tax!!!
    Her argument is that the millionaire has "contributed" more to the government than the poorer person, so, when considering "fairness" then we must be consistent.
    So, EXACTLY why "fairness" should be eliminated entirely from the discussion and stick strictly to NEED!!!

    BUT, If "fairness" is being considered, then it would be in the context of "interim adjustments", because there is NO WAY that there will be a total overhaul of the pension "system" due to the huge political fallout.
    In fact, exactly what has been criticized in this government's last budget. They wanted to hit the one's that could least afford it, without at least an equivalent hit on the "wealthy". But, that wouldn't suit those that share the view of the likes of Kelly O'Dwyer, would it!!!
    Be interesting to see if Scott Morrison has the same "capitalist rust" as Kelly, could be an interesting "conversation" between them in the party room, now that they are, allegedly, allowed to open their own mouths.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    11:52am
    Sounds Relatively Fair to Me !!
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    3:43pm
    I'm glad you have a working knowlege of how the top end of society own the game. And guess who owns the current government?
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    4:08pm
    The Pied Piper of Wall Street ?? :-)

    18th Feb 2015
    11:54am
    I think there should be some thought and adjustment given where a number of the one family are living together and have a weekly benefit of thousands of dollars paid by the taxpayer. The single pensioner is battling on there benefits particularly if they have to pay rent.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    12:38pm
    Enough of that ! Just pay Your Jizra and Halal and be Quiet about it !! :-)
    Blossom
    18th Feb 2015
    2:51pm
    Thousands of dollars ? Are they in Govt. owned housing? Are there children school age or younger included in tghe number?
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    3:24pm
    Of coarse they are ! And Dinkum Meant same Family name I think ? And ALL the Children are trained Nicely at the local Madrassa !! :-)
    Oars
    18th Feb 2015
    12:09pm
    In NZ they pay everyone who has been in residence there for 20 years. Think carefully before you start paying pensions to only the lower income bracket that is almost 75% of retirees.. Who do you think paid the taxes over the 40 years prior to their pension entitlement- yes that;'s right. The so-called wealthy. They paid 85% of tax income yet you want them to be closed out of a miserable pension. I look after the hand that fed me. What about you???
    sexeebear
    18th Feb 2015
    12:20pm
    oars your sort of right
    i paid half my income in tax since i started working seriously.. raised 4 kids to uni degrees and now they want to deny me the pension. ilke nz everybody should be entitled o the pension . right thru the income spectrum we all have varying degrees of expenses.. personally there was no way of getting the pension( to much other income) i paid into so i structured my self so i could get it but you need to think ahead many years before the event the govt is canny you have to be as well.
    Misty
    18th Feb 2015
    1:29pm
    Oars if the so called wealthy had any brains the would have employed their accountants and financial advisers to be minimising their tax and therefor end up paying nothing or very little, if you didn't do that then you have obviously been dudded.
    adbob
    18th Feb 2015
    3:09pm
    Sadly your arguments don't wash with some on account of their massive sense of entitlement. While you were halfway through a morning's work, having dropped off the kids at (unsubsidised) childcare and then made it at your own expense (not tax-deductible) to work and paid full commercial price for parking, these people wandered out to their mailbox in their carpet slippers to collect a dole cheque which was very little short of what your net pay was after tax and expenses.

    A lot of that tax you paid went straight into their pockets - you made slightly more but how they resented the difference - and now they still do. They've got used to the situation where you work and pay - they draw out and idle and complain.

    It's hard to change the habits of a lifetime.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    3:47pm
    Oars: Your right winf leanings miss the point that the rich are always with us and they always take more than their fair share. A Pension system should NEVER be aimed at the rich who can look after themselves. These people normally set up their affairs well in advance and the pension is just pin money to many of these people.
    The word NEEDS should be the only word which determines elegibility.
    Retired Knowall
    18th Feb 2015
    7:15pm
    Well said adbob. The pension was meant to be a safety net, not a hammock.
    The whinging and moaning will only get worse as time goes on.
    dougie
    18th Feb 2015
    12:27pm
    Let the Government examine Family Trusts and the effect that they have on pensions and benefits. Must be great savings to be had there.
    Young Simmo
    18th Feb 2015
    12:45pm
    Well I am a little bit out of this story as I am a pensioner living in a $40,000 On-site Caravan, and what really terrifies me is, if I win $5million in lotto will I stop getting my annual $500 fuel card from Royalties for Regions.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    1:06pm
    Somehow I think that will be the Least of Your worries ! You will be too busy chasing away 10,000 Fake Charity's !! :-)
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    5:24pm
    Not as silly as it sounds Young Simmo lol.
    I have heard of an elderly lady who did have a large lotto win and her biggest worry was that she would lose the pension.
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2015
    1:13pm
    Young Simmo - How can you afford lottery tickets in your situation??

    We'll have someone come around straight away, and check on why you're getting too much money off the Govt!!
    Anonymous
    22nd Feb 2015
    11:58am
    Go to any shopping centre have a look at the number of seniors in there, heads down scratching away at not one but a number of scratch tickets; see it every Saturday morning when I buy my lotto ticket.
    particolor
    22nd Feb 2015
    1:02pm
    Aaron.. Maybe He can afford to buy them because He keeps on WINNING !! :-)
    Dob Him in Anyhow !! Undeclared Income :-( He He !! :-)
    Thogo
    18th Feb 2015
    12:46pm
    I purchased my house 43 years ago in a an city suburb for $35,000 it is not a fault of mine that it is now worth close on $2m. Why should I have to move from the suburb I have grown up (and old) in because of this asset?
    MaryR
    18th Feb 2015
    3:44pm
    You shouldn't have to move. This is an instance of when there should be an exception. And for older people who have lived in their home for this long.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    3:53pm
    I worked 7 days a week for decades and built my own very nice house on the beach whilst in full time employment. 15 hour days were not exactly uncommon. Now I have a few investments and draw $0 pension. Some pensioners probably earn more than I do.
    Guess who the government will be after? Not rocket science but not exactly fair.
    You shouldn't have to move Thogo. What needs to happen is fairness, not blatant blanket attacks on anybody perceived to be well off.
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    5:26pm
    I do not believe you should have to move but I think when you leave this mortal coil all the money you have received via pension should be paid back to government out of the sale of the home. If you had 2 million in cash or shares you would not be entitled to a pension.
    Retired Knowall
    18th Feb 2015
    7:19pm
    Radish (F), that rule should apply everyone that receives a pension.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    8:28pm
    The real question gentlemen is does everything belong to the state? We all need to be careful about what we wish for.
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2015
    1:17pm
    Because, at the end of the day, you are still sitting on $2M in asset value!
    You are worth $2M! (or more!).
    Why should we taxpayers fund your pension, when you are a multi-millionaire??
    What you should be obliged to do, is repay any pension out of your estate!
    BeezNeez
    20th Feb 2015
    10:18am
    I think what Aaron is trying to say here Thogo is that whilst you slogged your guts out all your life and worked an inestimable number of hours to make a better life, that he and his should be the recipients of your hard earned assets when you leave this mortal coil. You missed the point Aaron, Thogo said he earns $0 pension...no pension....he owes no-one anything. And if he did...who are you to decide at what point someone should pay back part of their pension....what magic number do you think makes someone rich. He isn't a multi-millionare....I suspect he's likely a person of moderation who now just happens to live in a suburb that has appreciated in value....his own home. Would you like someone to come along and tell you to move out of the home you'd worked hard for all your life because, well it's just worth too much....and that's making some people a little uncomfortable...how dare you own something worth more than they do. (sounds like a sandpit dispute between 3 year olds!) Most of us in this country are fortunate enough to have a roof over our heads, food on the table, clean drinking water, a few friends and family to love and be cared for and by, access to health services. By many country's standards we would ALL be considered wealthy, rich. This is a case of people attacking the right of another to have or own something because of their own perception of 'wealth' - which is based purely on comparison of their own circumstances or where they themselves live. Even the state you live in will affect this 'judgement'. You are attacking the wrong people here....these are not wealthy people .... these are hardworking people. You are only looking at money and not the effort. It is not this group of people who are 'stealing' from others, it is the truly wealthy at one end who pay almost no tax and who feel no compunction to do so...and at the other end, those that have never known a hard days work and again, feel no compunction to do so!
    Anonymous
    22nd Feb 2015
    12:01pm
    I think everyone needs to take a deep breath as Morrison said that "IF" the family home was ever to be included there would be a "grandfather" clause and that would mean it would not affect anyone already retired...or that is the way I read it.

    But he had stated that the family home is NOT going to be assessed.

    We have no other option but to believe him do we!
    particolor
    22nd Feb 2015
    1:08pm
    He's a Politician ! :-( His Lips Moved :-( Reverse the Spoken Words ! :-)
    Sam01
    18th Feb 2015
    12:47pm
    Let me say at the outset, I'm not complaining, I get by ok on my own funding. I'm just saying I'd do it different if I had my time over. I'm over 60, worked hard my whole life, saved hard, never had a flash house, never driven a flash car, so I'm just an ordinary person like many others. I'm funding my own retirement because I'm just over the limits, but there's nothing extravagant about the way I live. If I had my time again, I would not scrimp and save and make do with just the basics through out my life to become independent in retirement. Given my time again, we would still work hard and save responsibly to pay our own way, but along the way drive a nice car, have a really good house, travel regularly overseas, dine out regularly, buy some nice things for ourselves and family through my working life, which means I'd qualify for some pension now. Unless you can be super-rich, there's no longer any benefit in being the 'sucker' who lives modestly and saves hard their whole life, never taking government support. The government gives NO thanks or consideration or support whatsoever for doing so. So within reason, enjoy your earnings throughout your life, and receive some government support in retirement, along with those who did spend it all away. There has to be some incentive and recognition for those who aspire to look after themselves. Maybe the focus should also be to bring the politicians wildly extravagant superannuation schemes into focus too! Not complaining, I just would just enjoy it along the way rather than be penalised, almost vilified, for being self sufficient at the end.
    Nan Norma
    18th Feb 2015
    1:05pm
    Sam01, I'm with you 100%. Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it?
    tia-maria
    18th Feb 2015
    1:09pm
    sam01, one thing is for sure mate looks like you have lived a healthy life.........remember mate many have not......
    Nan Norma
    18th Feb 2015
    1:13pm
    tia-maria, Yes but, he's missed out on a lot of pleasures he could have had and now feels to old or too ill to enjoy them.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    1:14pm
    I had a Wonderful life and never did any of the things mentioned above ! :-) And thankful I didn't !! The Guv would be Salivating over My House now !! :-)
    Blossom
    18th Feb 2015
    3:04pm
    tia-maria, some struggle and work hard even if they aren't healthy physically. Because I was thrifty and my super is just over the assets level, I don't get a Health Care card. That's all I would like. Medical Fees Gaps because of it annoy me.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    3:55pm
    Sam: what you propose will be the legacy of attacking those who made a confortable future for themselves. Why would anybody not enjoy their spoils more if the government intends to steal them anyway? The greatest sadness is that the next generation is being dudded.
    tia-maria
    18th Feb 2015
    4:06pm
    Blossom, I do understand and I also feel all retired Aussie should be given a health car...........you paid your taxes like the rest of us........Blossom in my early days and today I have chronic Renal and health issues...... plus I had to work.in between being in hospital.........not every one of us had it easy. cheers
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    5:28pm
    Many a time I have thought the same thing Sam01 but on the other hand I am not accountable to Centrelink for anything.
    tia-maria
    18th Feb 2015
    5:55pm
    Radish(F) that must be a wonderful feeling??? sometimes I wonder why some of you even write on this post when you have had it more easy going than others cheers
    Bella54
    21st Feb 2015
    9:53am
    I am in the same boat. Unfortunately, it is not in my nature or upbringing to squander money for the sake if reducing finances. Our house is modest ( worth maybe 500K) but we are happy here. Savings and investments have come from hard work for 40 years. As long as we can pay our bills, go out for a meal or coffee every now and again and I can visit my children who all live overseas, I am happy. As to leaving an inheritance, my kids in their 30 s are better off now financially than we are!
    Anonymous
    22nd Feb 2015
    8:31pm
    I find that offensive to say I have had it easy Tia Maria. No one knows my circumstances at all.
    What I have I have worked hard saved hard and invested wisely. Nothing was given to me at all.
    I will continue to voice my opinion on this site and if you have read some of my past posts you will see I am against wealthy people getting welfare because they have "arranged" their finances via a financial advisor to do so. I have not done that but I could easily have done so.

    This site is not only for those on welfare or maybe it is.
    shanners
    18th Feb 2015
    12:47pm
    One example of how the system can be easily rorted goes like this.

    A woman I know lives in a house worth about $1.8 million and receives the full pension.

    She lives a good life because her successful businessman son pays all her bills and gives her extra money to top-up the pension.

    He won't miss out because as the only child he'll end up with the house one day.

    I am not sure if any aspect of this is outside the rules but I suspect its all perfectly legal.

    But is it fair?
    Nan Norma
    18th Feb 2015
    1:00pm
    I'm not envious. Good luck to her that she has a good son. These days a$1.8 million is not really a big deal and would have an expensive up keep. Oh, my house is worth about $320,000
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    5:32pm
    Not the first time I have heard of that Shanners. I know of a pensioner (now deceased) handed over the family farm to son who paid all his living expenses and bought him a new car whenever he wanted one.
    There are plenty of ways to get around things if you put your mind to it.
    Personally I could not be bothered wasting time and energy at my time of life to bother.
    Nan Norma
    18th Feb 2015
    12:49pm
    Concidering Centrelink reduces your pension payment by $3 a fortnight for each thousand dollar of assets, whether an car, caravan, boat or a long time life insurance policy, I don't know why anyone thinks that's not enough. None of these things, which are often aquired over a number of years, make money, in fact, other than life insurance, are a libility. And of course if you have cash etc investements included in the asset test, that too atracts a reduction of $3 per fornight, which is less that the interest rate at the moment.
    It is quite possible that even with the interest you make from investmants, and the part pension you could be no better of than those on the full pension.
    As far as including the home as an asset, tread very carefully. Its far more complex than it might first appear.
    RosePerth
    18th Feb 2015
    1:58pm
    You make it sound like your pension is reduced per $1000 of value regardless. However, as a single person without a house you are allowed to have $348,500 worth of assets before it affects your pension ($202,000 worth if your own a house).
    Precious 1
    20th Feb 2015
    2:06am
    Can be very complex...$348.500 is a high amount to be able to contain before claiming a pension...work out investments from that amount...crikey how much do people want to live on when retired at 65/70...there is only so much youo can do in a day which times goes by very quickly as each year so rapidly...our needs are nothing like when we were youn g I
    Precious 1
    20th Feb 2015
    2:06am
    Can be very complex...$348.500 is a high amount to be able to contain before claiming a pension...work out investments from that amount...crikey how much do people want to live on when retired at 65/70...there is only so much youo can do in a day which times goes by very quickly as each year so rapidly...our needs are nothing like when we were youn g I
    Precious 1
    20th Feb 2015
    2:06am
    Can be very complex...$348.500 is a high amount to be able to contain before claiming a pension...work out investments from that amount...crikey how much do people want to live on when retired at 65/70...there is only so much youo can do in a day which times goes by very quickly as each year so rapidly...our needs are nothing like when we were youn g I
    mangomick
    21st Feb 2015
    11:12pm
    That's total assets Precious. That's their car boat furniture jewellery etc. Even if they had no car furniture etc. and all that money was in cash in the bank, that would only be $17250 a year if invested at 5% to live on, obviously that would be on top of the pension and at todays interest rates they would probably be lucky to get a 5% return from the bank. So if a single persons pension is $21900 that gives someone with absolutely no other assets $39000 a year to live on. Don't know about you but when I retire I don't want to vegetate watching "days of your life" on TV. So look around at work out the value of your car furniture clothes etc. and that $348500 comes down fairly quickly as does the interest you can additionally earn. Wouldn't be pleasant without the pension as a back up I would imagine.
    Soon retired
    18th Feb 2015
    12:49pm
    I agree in NZ they pay everyone a pension who has been in residence there for 20 years and in the UK you get a pension regardless of assets if you pay you national insurance stamp for 30 years to the government. You get this regadless of where you live in the world as long as you have paid stamp. Why should you pay tax etc all your life to get nothing. But now the government is looking at how it can grab more off you because of the amount of money invested in peoples super, its ripe for the picking. Because of their incompetance to manage the country and the money they take, like the amount we give away overseas countries and to various odd groups, we now all have to pay.. Sorry keep your hands off my house I've paid all my tax's over the years of work.. By the way I am a self funded retiree from next month.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    3:59pm
    Governments are supposed to regulate a sociey. What often happens is that they steal whatever they can, mostly from average citizens, and then go on their own deadbeat spending sprees...because they can just steel more if they run out of funds. This is the game we are seeing at present. Not content with their own belt tightening they come after those who have the least.
    particolor
    20th Feb 2015
    10:45am
    Take that Bucket and Rope off the Barsteads they have Drained the Well !! :-(
    Oldie84
    18th Feb 2015
    1:22pm
    Darn, missed out again! We are self-funded. Apart from the Seniors Allowance, which I never ever asked for, I receive no cash. How can I rectify this. B reals my heart to see all those rich people getting these handouts .
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    1:26pm
    You'll get over it !! It wont change any Time Soon ..Be Happy :-)
    mangomick
    20th Feb 2015
    10:51am
    Well Oldie 81. There's a fair few pensioners struggling to make ends meet on here so just give some of your dough to them until it puts you under the threshold and you can get the pension too.
    particolor
    20th Feb 2015
    2:06pm
    Don't give Misery Company !! :-)
    mangomick
    20th Feb 2015
    10:26pm
    Oldie81, Oldie81...Damn , he's gone...Just as I was about to send him my BSB and A/c numbers so I could help him out with his dilemma of not getting a pension........ I just hate to see a bloke with a broken heart.......
    particolor
    21st Feb 2015
    9:38am
    Treat Me well Treat Me Good..
    Give Me dough like Robin Hood !! :-)
    terryB
    18th Feb 2015
    1:38pm
    This is a very difficult issue. Is it fair for only some people to pay taxes and others to receive without ever paying. Is it fair for those who have contributed taxes as a fruit of their hard work and study and training to not get government help help in return.
    Karl Marx's ideas of "to each according to his ability, from each according to his needs" did't work.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:02pm
    The other side of the "paying taxes" argument is that these pay for roads, hospitals, schools and infrastructure. Pensions are just one component and people should not make too big a deal about this.
    I keep coming back to the point that pensions should not be an entitlement (God help me....I am sounding like commandant Hockey!!) but rather a basic survival safey net for those who have not been able to put away enough for themselves. And yes some of the people who qualify under this have blown it all because they had to have a life!!
    Woody
    18th Feb 2015
    1:53pm
    Just because you have been financially savy , worked hard and paid taxes all your life, why should you be punished and receive No benefits. Some people choose to live in a million dollar house, others live in more comfortably affordable homes and choose to keep their money to help fund their retirement. Should we be punished for this!
    Kazz
    18th Feb 2015
    1:57pm
    I can't but help think that this is a bit of a furphy, most of my friends(unlike myself) are self-funded retirees, they are certainly not rich by any standards, usually they have just an additional home, and perhaps modest savings that they have accrued in order to assist their retirement, they do not qualify for the pension or handouts, neither does my daughters family, her husband works at the mines, she is at home with a 2 year old and struggling with the absence of a husband to help her as he does "week on/ week off" their 2 days of childcare which they have, to help her cope is paid for by them, not the government, sooooo, as this is more the norm of today and they don't qualify just WHO are all these WEALTHY people on benefits, as I would just love to engage their accountant!
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    1:59pm
    Its about Old Age Pensioners not Mining Magnates ?? :-)
    Nan Norma
    18th Feb 2015
    2:24pm
    Daughter stays home and is struggling to care for one child and she gets two days child care? This lady has a problem, she doesn't know how lucky she is. Why should she get a pension?
    dougie
    18th Feb 2015
    2:00pm
    We now have the most sensible move to Government yet seen. In Queensland we are governed by women, perhaps this surfeit of the gentle and wiser sex will see a change in the method of government. No more breakfasts at Chinese restaurants but tea and scones in the Board Room to discuss the finances of Queensland in a genteel way. Maybe more women means a less confronting style of Government. Maybe more women will mean that the pollies will have to bring cut lunches instead of eating in the pollie dining room. Maybe there will be such savings and alternate spending that Queensland will become the model state. Just maybe someone will learn how to govern and look out anyone who speaks out over mother "off to bed and no TV for s week".
    Just maybe! What a dream.
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    2:10pm
    I will wait before I give judgement on the performance of the new government in Queensland.
    mangomick
    18th Feb 2015
    2:16pm
    Well Dougie you obviously haven't spent much time around a group of alpha females. Wont be long before the claws come out and the fur starts flying........
    Oldie84
    18th Feb 2015
    2:17pm
    Hi dougie, as long as your new Premier doesn't turn into Queen Bodecia (?).
    I am certainly following with interest how it turns out.:-)
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    2:21pm
    Really Dougie, women are here to save the world again. In every government in Australia i.e. Federal and State the end result has been bankruptcy aka Kirner, Gillard, Keneally. We'd still be wearing lap laps and grass skirts if women were running the show. Women are born to have someone pay their way and do the same in Government.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    2:21pm
    She will tear those Romans to Shreds !! He He !! :-)
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:04pm
    What a sexist statement dougie. Next you'll be on about the 'glass ceiling', breast cancer and all the female ailments....chuckle, chuckle.....
    dougie
    18th Feb 2015
    4:30pm
    Mick,

    Not a sexist statement but a statement of fact. You just have to realise that a womans natural ability to multi skill has already come into play. Less Ministers more depth to Job Titles. Less cost to the taxpayer in this first move. Gillham you forgot to mention the most appropriate woman in this list, Anna Bligh. This does not mean though that the current list of Ministers and members will follow that trail. The men of Queensland are for what its worth are under petticoat government. Smile and enjoy boys but do not stay late at the local or your tea will be in the bin.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    4:57pm
    :-) Your Dinner is in the Dog !!
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    5:16pm
    Dougie, multi skill and multi task are two completely different analogies. Multi task is women's delight. Start everything focus on nothing and finish nothing. Its called the critical path which women do not have. Multi skilled means you have many skills.
    Skills, now you are talking about men, who have skills focus on the task at hand and don't worry about the side issues. i.e. stay ohm the critical path.

    There endeth today's lesson.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    6:12pm
    dougie: I'm having a bit of a dig at you.
    Women can multi-task real well but I feel that women do not have the same reasoning ability that men have (not all). Ok, I'll be shot down for that one and fair enough.
    dougie
    18th Feb 2015
    7:13pm
    Gillham and Mick,

    Thank you for your comments and I do understand the facts of multi skilling and multi tasking.
    Do you understand the threads of Critical Path Planning - Critical Path Operation and Critical Path Analysis. I do and I hope that the new Government in Queensland does also.

    I shall now say goodnight and will endeavour to remove my tongue from my cheek to enable me to eat the beautiful dinner my wife has prepared. And no I do not go to the local so am never late home. My wife and I (56 years married) have a nice wine each afternoon and bless the good life we have had together. Bon appetit!
    mangomick
    18th Feb 2015
    2:10pm
    I wonder if they will ever have a closer look at loop holes connected to family trusts that allow very wealthy pensioners the ability to hide vast amounts of money while also claiming the pension.
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    2:14pm
    Pollies NEVER investigate their own "LURKS" if such might prove to be detrimental for them personally by forcing them to curb their own greed.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:07pm
    Guess who owns the system mangomick? And why did it take decades to close the well used and well understood 'Bottom of the Harbour' tax dodging scheme?
    Loop holes are ALWAYS let go until the media picks up on them and there is public outrage. By this tiem they have been running for a long time and the beneficiaries just find a new loop hole. Known as 'accommodated corruption' by any other word.
    bebby
    18th Feb 2015
    5:14pm
    mangomick. I agree with Patriot and mick, no point in getting the pollies to have a closer look at Family Trusts. It would surely be a case of "Do as I say, Not as I do"
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    5:25pm
    bebby,
    Disagree with you. Just because they hace convinced us that we cannot make a difference does not mean we should "Give Up".
    LET'S FORCE THEM - VIA ANY MEANS NECESSARY - TO LOOK AT IT.
    Let's not "pussy Foot" around any longer!

    The best slave is the one that does not realise he is enslaved.
    mangomick
    18th Feb 2015
    8:30pm
    And the Government wonders why it has a short fall???
    A leaf from Centrelink’s book.
    Someone who sells a big property to fund their way into aged care may wish to set up a family trust that then invests the house proceeds in an investment bond. Because such bonds don’t distribute income, no assessable income is registered against the trust and the person may pay little or no income-tested fee. They may also be able to retain aged pension entitlements.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    8:32pm
    Ahhh Patriot. Somebody give the man a medal.
    You have hit the nail on the head mate. Society has the power to free itself from the shackles which are put on us. But you forget the old saying 'a fool and his money are quickly parted'. My meaning is that voters are dumb with a capital D and are little more than sheep to be moved one way and then the other at the will of those who hold power. Slavery is self imposed and the question is how can we cut through the propaganda campaigns to tell people the truth?
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    9:00pm
    Mick,
    I think that the only way to "CUT Through" the veil is to buy some time on the "Idiot Box". It seems that everything - no matter how irrational - that is reported on this device is The "Only & Ultimate" truth!
    Edward Bernais, you've done well by creating/promoting the Propaganda machine!!!

    ALL - yes ALL - discussions on this forum are the representation & treatise of TWO problems:
    1 Our Politicians are NOT adhering to (executing) the "Will of the People"
    In a "War Setting" such would be considered to be TREASON and rewarded accordingly
    2 This country is BORROWING money from the International Bankers AT INTEREST.
    The Aust Constitution demands that the money required by this nation be issued by the Aust Government at ZERO interest rate. Failing this is once again failing to enact the Australia Constitution as section 128 (referendum) was never launched to ask us IF THAT IS HAT WE WANTED! Shame on you Politicians!!!
    And don't tell us the BULL that we just don't understand!!!

    We keep discussing these TWO problems in their infinite "nuances of enactment" and seem to not get any further towards educating those who do not yet understand these issues.
    We are wasting our time if we are driven by such "Fear and/or Selfishness" that we cannot/refuse to do the "Right thing" and secure the freedom of this planet for the future of the human race.

    I have a "clean Conscious" when my grand children - eventually - confront me with the question: "And you, you old B, what did you do when all this was implemented?"
    I can honestly say that (for about 35 years now) I have spent most of my spare time and considerable sums of money in an atempt to educate people and "raise" them from this FEAR INDUCED LACK OF ACTION.

    Without understanding the CORE PROBLEMS we are just "Letting off Steam".
    And then one wonders why one gets frustrated!
    Bebe
    18th Feb 2015
    2:10pm
    SAMO1 I am with you my husband and I worked hard and saved. We built our house on
    a block of land costing 200 pounds, our last valuation for our land was $511,000. We
    are Westies home prices around here have gone through the roof, my husband retired
    25years ago we kept our selves for 18 years. I decided we should have some back up
    money behind us as his memory was slipping away; we applied for the pension, we get
    a part pension which we are grateful for.
    All these people who are saying we should not get it ,that it should go to people who
    put their money down their throat or in the pokies or gave it to the bookies. Because
    we were thrifty we are to be penalised. We also raised and educated a family without
    government assistance our ages are 91 and 89 years all we ask is to be allowed
    to live out the rest of our lives in peace and dignity not having to look over our
    shoulder to see someone badgering us.
    Oldie84
    18th Feb 2015
    2:20pm
    Hear, Hear, Bebe
    Nan Norma
    18th Feb 2015
    2:30pm
    Hear Hear again, Babe
    Sam01
    18th Feb 2015
    3:08pm
    Hi Bebe, Like many we raised our family and took care of all ourselves without Govt support. We still live within our means which are self funded, basic appartment, 8 year old car. As others have said, its not our fault that the basic apartment we paid 195k for has gone up to 450k and puts part-pension out of reach. As said, not complaining, just hate being vilified and penalised because we sacrificed and put aside for ourselves.

    18th Feb 2015
    2:14pm
    Why do we continually single out individual groups in these discussions. What is needed is reconsideration of welfare across the board, including ALL recipients, figure out what is fair and what is not and go from there.

    One thing that irks me is that being a self funded retiree I continually here welfare recipients,or those self appointed representatives of recipients, whinging about who gets what while I get nothing. I do not want for much but I worked hard, saved hard, am prudent in spending, and for that I'm not on the radar. Being male means I'm less on the radar and possibly not even part of this egalitarian Society.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:08pm
    You sound like my twin. And of course your post is on the money.
    None
    18th Feb 2015
    2:29pm
    WHAT ABOUT THOSE THAT ARE STILL WORKING AT 68 THAT HAVE NOT GOT ENOUGH SUPER TO RETIRE ON OWN A HOME WHICH IS NOT HIGH IN VALUE STILL HAVE TO PAY ALL THE BILLS GOING ON A PART PENSION WILL NOT HELP MUCH IF YOU ARE A COUPLE AND ONE IS NOT WORKING
    biddi
    18th Feb 2015
    2:30pm
    Yes, retroy. Even attempting to get a card of some sort is hard for those that have worked and saved for their future. That said, reverse mortgage was mentioned as a means to help pay for pensions to those living and owning mansions.
    TREBOR
    18th Feb 2015
    2:33pm
    There are two sides to this argument.

    One is that people with excessive (definition please) assets should be able to self-fund entirely. The only way SOME such would be able to do so is if they sell off some of their assets and cash in.

    Which leads us to the issue of 'the family home'. How much of an asset IS a residence, and how should it be determined how much or how little a person is (gasps) entitled to have as a 'family home'?

    Which leads us to the issue of people who bought a family home when it was a relatively cheap thing(if ever), and now find that their 'asset' is now worth as million bucks or so.

    Point is they can't EAT a house, and I have to draw the line at any government dictating that they should, by force of reduction in pension (barring any other assets and incomes) be compelled to sell and down-size.

    I've raised the issue elsewhere that the enforced selloff of 'family homes' in this way is - from some perspectives - simply another way of sustaining the currently unsustainable 'housing boom' for INVESTMENT properties.

    Which in turn leads us to ASSETS outside the family home.

    OK - there MAY be an argument for assets outside the family home to be the focus of pension reduction..... in which case many a politician should rightly find they are ineligible for government benefit in any way (change needed there!)

    Assets outside the family home should be incurring income - that is a very real issue.

    So the end of all this is - at what point do we arbitrarily decree that a residence pure and simple without other assets is an asset worthy of reduction of pension rights, which could force people who've worked for their home to sell it?

    My view is that the family home as defined - one only and pure and simple - should be exempt from discussion. OTHER properties owned are a real issue.

    I would venture to say that many of those in the millionaire bracket have many assets outside of family home that should rightly be taxed.

    I've also argued elsewhere that superannuation income above a certain limit should incur tax in the same way as a pensioner's income from working is taxed - and either that superannuation is included as is pension or pension be (rightly in my view) excluded from any taxable income (not the case at present.. don't get me started on that one!), and only income above pension rate should be taxable. i.e. everyone is entitled to the basic free one way or another - after that it is income and you pay tax on it.

    There is NO excuse for tax concessions on super and then lack of tax on income derived from that super... NONE!
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:11pm
    The rich live on the interest and the poor live on the capital. Think about it. It took me half a century to understand the difference.
    TREBOR
    18th Feb 2015
    6:44pm
    You are correct, Mick, and that is why all income above pension rate should be treated equally. If a pension is deemed to be an adequate income on which to live in retirement, all income above that should be subject to the same regime of tax etc. If tax has been paid in order to accumulate a mass of income generating assets, then it can be offset.. but under no circumstances should those with the most get the most while the rest have different rules if they dare to earn extra income.

    A pensioner who chooses to work on and thus pays tax on pension as well as earnings is absolutely in a far worse position than someone who has put cash away without tax to generate superannuation and then reaps the benefit without paying tax.
    None
    18th Feb 2015
    2:39pm
    my HUSBAND AND I HAVE JUST DOWN SIZED OUR HOME FROM 5 BEDROOMS AND BECAUSE THE MARKET WAS NOT GOOD DID NOT GET ANY MORE FOR IT THAN WE PAYED 7 YEARS AGO WHAT LITTLE WE DID GET WE HAVE HAD TO SPEND DOING THIS ONE UP AND THE VALUE OF THIS IS LESS SO TELL ME IT IS FAIR TO INCLUDE YOUR HOME AS A ASSET AND ALSO MY HUSBAND IS STILL WORKING AT 68 AND MAY HAVE TO GIVE UP HIS JOB BECAUSE OF ILL HEALTH THEN WHAT FOR US AS A COUPLE
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    3:41pm
    Dear My Husband and I .
    Now that You have down sized Buckingham Palace, If You look on the left side of Your keyboard You will see a Key marked "Caps Lock" It will stop You Shouting at the Audience and You will get some Reply's !! Maybe ? :-)
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:12pm
    You should NEVER NEVER sell your house to live on. This is the sort of bad advice greedy governments are putting out there. Your own home is your saviour when you retire and without it people are mostly up the......
    Anonymous
    23rd Feb 2015
    9:38am
    Good idea to down size None. Less housework for you as you age and less maintenance costs.
    Judy in the hills
    18th Feb 2015
    2:48pm
    I think if you've got a very valuable home and look short on cash, you should SELL OUT and reassess what money you then have. Do sell out and buy into an alternative if you are running out of ready cash - a smaller but very nice home. Or else get the bank to lend against the value of your extremely valuable home. Just do what everyone else has to do. You reassess your money or lack of, and reassess your life. I can't work out how you get a fair estimation of what is a "very expensive home" though - no one ever admits theirs is "very valuable" if they want to keep it and try for pension assistance!
    particolor
    23rd Feb 2015
    11:29am
    Tell Centrelink You lost it at the Races !! :-)
    adbob
    18th Feb 2015
    2:51pm
    I am heartily sick of reading about "need". Most people on long-term benefits in Australia have enough money to run a car - so they're hardly desperate.

    Age Pension is not welfare - it's an entitlement. Obviously we are now being conned into thinking it's welfare so that yet another government can renege on the deal that we originally bought into, which was: pay into the national pension pot through taxation during your working life - draw on it in retirement - and top it up with what you've put by through diligence, economy and hard work.

    Easy to highlight the super-rich, but there's not enough of them for that to be important. Any change to the present set-up (which is already bad-enough) will have to hit Joe Average to have any significant effect - usual story - massive poverty trap for the squeezed middle.

    If you want to do envy and talk about actuarial outcomes that went adrift take a look at public servants living out long retirements on gold-plated final-salary related pensions they hardly paid anything for. they're the new super-rich who are getting away with murder.

    Also of course the spongers who never lifted a finger to work all their life - intentionally avoided finding one - and now want to take away from hard-working Joe (and Jill) Average so that they can continue to sponge into old age.

    Retirees who have just enough money saved to disqualify them (through the assets test) from Age Pension are lucky to generate enough income from those savings to matcht he full basic Age Pension - so they have to use up their capital, which gradually reduces. If they live long enough they are gradually dragged down to the level of the spongers who never worked. Most of them would of course have paid quite abit of tax along the way to generate those savings in the first place.

    It's all a con and age pensioners are being hit because we're a soft target. A nation that could (until a moment ago) afford a massively generous government funded parental leave scheme and can afford to keep GST at only 10% wants to renege on its deal with a whole generation in order to buy votes from the next one (and keep the spongers and their industry docile) - pull the other one.

    So much for the Australian fair go - when the place becomes a republic don't just change the flag - change the name - Spongerland - that's what it has become.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    3:00pm
    Nice Read ! :-) It wont matter if Sponge Bob reads it, they have No Conscience anyhow !!
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:19pm
    I mostly agree but the rich (That's not people with a $2 million house and not much more) often avoided the real tax system all of their working lives. These people skite about how much tax they paid in $ terms, never as a percentage of their income. The latter is the litmus test and just like some multinationls are paying 5% tax on their profits so are some rich AUstralians doing the same. Rich AUstralians NEED TO PAY TAX if they earn income in the nation. Its not rocket science.
    My often complains that people are not encourage to save more for their own retirements because they are nobbled every step of the way. The only saving mechanism is the concessional treatment of superannuation and the rich have managed to rort this for decades with governments of both persuasion not lifteing a finger to stop blatant tax evasion. And now they come after the poor.
    Retired Knowall
    18th Feb 2015
    6:00pm
    There are those that Make Things Happen
    There are those that Watch Things Happen
    And there are those That Wonder What Happened
    TREBOR
    18th Feb 2015
    7:13pm
    And there are those who made it all happen, then watched someone else wreck the whole thing...

    Get over it.
    Retired Knowall
    18th Feb 2015
    7:22pm
    TREBOR, time to change your medication, it's no longer workin.
    TREBOR
    18th Feb 2015
    7:57pm
    Ah, yes - the old traditional ad hominem from those who have no answer but parrot someone else's words...

    Do you REALLY have such little life experience?

    Care to address the issues instead of parroting nonsense? (damn - where are the emoticons here?)

    WHO makes thing happen? How, when, where and why?

    WHO watches things happen?

    WHO are those who wonder what happened?

    Be specific or change YOUR meds.... being non-specific is a sign of a serious mental illness.


    (touche`) your surrender is accepted....
    niemakawa
    18th Feb 2015
    8:13pm
    Mick, yes they should go after the "poor" they are the biggest rorters of the tax system ( they pay next to nothing) and the social welfare system DSP in particular.
    TREBOR
    18th Feb 2015
    8:32pm
    Ya gotta have an income ter pay tax, Pilgrim.... that's why they're called 'the poor'.

    Yardle, yardle, yardle....
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    8:35pm
    niemakawa: whilst you are correct you miss the point that the poor get away with a little whilst the top end of town gets away with murder. Poor people often feel duded by the system which nobbles them and feel a right to do their own bit of rorting. I am not saying that this is right but just that this is the perception at street level.
    Retired Knowall
    19th Feb 2015
    7:38am
    Well TREBOR
    Those that make things happen are those that worked to improve themselves, built businesses, developed infrastucture, hired people, worked in the community to help others.
    Those that watched things happen are those that went along for the ride and were too lazy or incompetent to go that extra mile to improve their lot.
    Those that wonder what happened, are like YOU who after 40 odd years of working life get to retirement age and find the pension wont fund their lifestyle.
    If you are so clever, how come you need to have the Taxpayer support you?
    I've read the dribble you post, so here is another pertinent saying.
    Better say nothing and risk people think you are a dill, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
    ronnieb
    18th Feb 2015
    3:03pm
    Why doesn't the Government introduce a kind of HECS scheme if a pensioner doesn't take the option of selling their 1.5m + home to support their "lifestyle"?
    Setting the bar could be tied/connected to a multiple of whatever the median for the type of house and the area the person lives in. Whatever the Government does it will have its objectors but something needs to be done about people who own multi million dollar homes and draw the full pension. Perhaps the Government could consider getting into reverse mortgages also?
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    3:49pm
    Not such a bad idea!
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:20pm
    They shouldn't have to sell the family home. Only destitute people think that is a fair idea.
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    8:26pm
    A lot of these homes are "Tax Havens" and Family Trust investments.
    A decend pticing structure for homes should be accepted with "strict & Fair" rules to ensure that the "ravages of Inflation" are kept fairly "At Bay".
    I cannot see that anyone needs a personal home priced above $1.5 to $2 million and can say that this "Modest Home's" inhabitants should be entitled to support.
    sexeebear
    18th Feb 2015
    3:21pm
    ok all you sydney types with million dollar properties back off.. heres another anomaly
    we live in housing commission.. we work part time and are on a part pension... after earnings of $160 per fortnight we loose from our earnings 15 tax 50% to govt 25 % to housing... so 85% of what we earn goes straight out..Not a great incentive for getting younger people in housing out into the workforce... they will be lots worse off.. GOVT DOESN'T WANT TO KNOW TYPICAL
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    3:47pm
    You'd be better of not working as running a car is not cheap these days & dressing (etc.) to a standard also costs money!
    LUDICROUS 7 REDICULOUS if it was not so serious.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    3:52pm
    Yes I knew that and that is why none of them will work at all around here in Guvmint Housing ! I'm nearly 70 so have an excuse, I think ? I did work for a living for 50 Years thou ! There are some here in their 40's and Never Worked in their Bloody Lives !! OH ! The Joy !! :-)
    sexeebear
    18th Feb 2015
    4:54pm
    i've raised this so many times with the various ministers federal and local... its to much of a hot potato for anyone to make a decision... heaven help us of a government actually cared about the generational unemployed and public housing people and got them out to work and paying real rent on their properties instead of like where i am they all work for cash cleaning and doing odd jobs and gardening.. ratbags..
    Beachlover
    18th Feb 2015
    3:22pm
    Pension is an entitlement...a citizen's right NOT a privilege!!! Pension is our democracy....taxation is the basis of democracy.....what the problem is that the super rich....the Packers, the multi-national companies e.g. Glenco, Google pay little or NO tax...there lies the problem. But we are conned into this squabble between the have's, the have nots, the have some, the have plenty etc....keeps us at each other rather than see the REAL problem!!!
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    3:45pm
    Beachlover,
    You just confirmed my "Long Standing" suspicion.
    We are NOT a DEMOCRACY anymore and have not been for a long time.
    The system has been HIJACKED by the BANKERS and the Government is ENSLAVED to them.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    4:03pm
    Hoist the JOLLY ROGER !! :-(
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:23pm
    Disagree. The Pension should always be a SAFETY NET. If you want a 'right' then take out a personal super policy and get the concessional tax treatment which comes with this.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    4:33pm
    Then hoist the JOLLY ROGER when it gets Stolen !! :-(
    Rob
    18th Feb 2015
    5:24pm
    Your right Mick, people need to understand that the pension is a safety net not an entitlement. A lot of comments on here are about I've paid taxes all my life and I am entitled. The majority of wage earners have received government handouts of some form all their life which counterbalances the supposed tax paid.
    TREBOR
    18th Feb 2015
    7:46pm
    Nonsense.. how can a pension bought and paid for - the national superannuation scheme - NOT be an entitlement? for many years there has been a significant proportion of personal income tax deemed to be for eventual retirement and pension - a national superannuation scheme by another name, and there have been significant tax increases over the years to cover that very eventuality.

    What we are hearing now is government seeking to welch on the deal whiel organising the revenue of government so as to provide for themselves and their chosen social group the best... at taxpayers expense.

    The only 'safety net' aspect of Pension is in providing a calculated minimum on which a pensioner can live - above which the whole issue becomes one of calculation - UNLESS you are in the privileged position of government pension and superannuation.

    I refer you again to my post on that issue - where superannuation contributions have been tax free - the income generated therefrom generates income tax, same as pensions when the recipient works.

    Good for goose - good for gander.

    It is APPALLING that a fat cat can put away tax-free superannuation and derive tax-free benefit from it - while the ordinary taxpayer pays a proportion of income tax over lifetime as guarantee for pension in retirement, and then cops it again - several ways - if they have the guts and the temerity to work on after pension.
    Retired Knowall
    19th Feb 2015
    2:34pm
    TREBOR, WRONG AGAIN, contributions to super are not tax free.
    You should realy get your facts straight before you dribble on.
    Contributions to super are either Consessional or non concessional, ie, before tax or after tax. The before tax contribution is taxed at 15% for taxpayers earning up to $180K
    after that it goes up to 30%.
    After Tax contributions are not taxed because the taxpayer has already paid tax on the money.
    FYI there is a cap on both the concessional and non concessional amount that can be contributred each year. Look it up on the Govt. website.
    MaryR
    18th Feb 2015
    3:25pm
    I don't think they should receive an income/pension as such, but I do believe all self funded retirees should be able to get the health care card once they turn 65 and no longer earning an income. Most of these people have worked hard during their working life to become self funded but are penalized with receiving the benefits. They have paid their taxes and that is something they should be able to get. It is a time that their health needs extra care, probably from working so hard. Mary
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    3:33pm
    I Agree !! :-)
    biddi
    18th Feb 2015
    4:12pm
    Well said, Mary. The Health Care Card would at least be an acknowledgement for having worked hard for years. We paid our taxes.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:24pm
    Good post MaryR. Refusing to give self funded retirees a health care card is just low life and more or less ignores the true status of the applicants. We are not talking about rich people here!
    Rob
    18th Feb 2015
    5:25pm
    But do you give it to all self funded retirees irregardless of income/assets?
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2015
    9:00am
    Maybe if all self funded retirees were given the health care card this would stop so many trying to manipulate their assets to get a "part pension" thereby saving money for the government in that way. I would suggest the age of 70, not 65 though.
    Patriot
    19th Feb 2015
    9:43am
    Radish,
    I doubt it - in General.
    Whilst I agree that there would be SOME - the general principle that GREED breeds GREED would apply.
    Overall, i think it would make little difference in HIDING ASSETS.

    NOTWITHSTANDING that, I fully agree that the Healthcare Card should be extended to Self Funded retirees!
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    3:52pm
    Exactly ..Like biddi said !!
    Abby
    23rd Feb 2015
    8:41am
    Yes totally agree that self funded retirees should be entitled to a Health care card and as Radish says the Government would actually save by people not manipulating their assets to get part Pension ... but guess that would put a lot of accountants out of work.
    particolor
    23rd Feb 2015
    11:05am
    Breaking News ... 2,000 Accountants thrown out of work by Welfare Changes !! :-)
    randpm
    18th Feb 2015
    3:50pm
    We retired to Australia from the UK and I don't think you guys realise how well off you are overall. I paid into a UK pension system and will get £113 per week to live on($221). It will never increase and I am not entitled to anything from Australia for 10 years ( rightly so ).
    You are talking about a non contributory pension paid for only by taxes. In the UK we paid separately for our pension contributions.

    The discussion should leave the family home out of things and most of my friends that are well off and on the pension do so purely to get the health benefits. I say put up the requirement to receive a pension but give every pensioner free health care. It when its needed after a life time of contributions in whatever form.
    ronnieb
    18th Feb 2015
    4:23pm
    So, there it is. Many have mentioned they only apply for the pension to use the medical benefits entitlements. That is the bottom line and EVERY person of pension age should be ENTITLED to that, but NOT ENTITLED to an income - without strings attached - when living in a multi million dollar home. People who argue that "ïts not my fault the house appreciated 400% since i bought it " can't see they have a choice,such as sell the house and buy something a bit smaller, allow the proceeds to be invested to earn a part income and, after a qualifying period, apply for a part or full pension. Clearly, if people sell their family home simply to survive then this needs to be taken into consideration for pension assessment as a special case. But don't complain about not having enough cash to live on when you are living in a $2m asset. The pension is NOT an entitlement, it is (or should be)a needs based top up.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:27pm
    Agree ronnieb. We either have health care or we don't have health care in this country.
    I go to the doctor perhaps once every 2 years (touch wood) and it looks like I am just going to miss out on a health care card. Not happy about that and am wondering whether I should spend every razoo and then throw myself on the pension system as destitute. Maybe not!
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    5:03pm
    That was Funny Mick !! :-) And You go to the Doctor 4 times more than I do !!
    Samsara
    18th Feb 2015
    4:10pm
    "Age pension will not include family homes as part of assets test, Scott Morrison confirms". As reported by the media today (ABC). Seems like this topic is redundant so why are we even having this discussion now?
    biddi
    18th Feb 2015
    4:17pm
    Things change even so ....
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    4:30pm
    And "we will not cut funding for the ABC" to mention one of many lies.
    The fact that this topic is continually discussed indicates that it is very much on the agenda. With falling exports and a country spending more than it earns don't think that this is not going to happen.
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    4:31pm
    Samsara
    That's today he says that. As his "Lips are Moving", could he be LYING????!
    When Age Pension was introduced, they were putting these contributions away for when needed.
    LOOK at today!!!!
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    4:50pm
    Stolen Long Ago !! I think they built the New G Headquarters with that !
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2015
    8:39am
    Scott Morrison has indeed ruled out including the family home in the assets test so no need to get all hot and bothered about it.
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    9:24am
    If Lips Moved, Reverse all that was Said !!
    Patriot
    19th Feb 2015
    9:44am
    particolor,
    CONCUR with that statement
    Patriot
    19th Feb 2015
    9:49am
    It just facinates me that - whilst our politicians have CONCLUSIVELY proven that they LIE & do not deserve our TRUST because of that - we still seem to want to believe everything that comes out of their mouth!
    Or is this because of the hypnotic effect of "The Tube" which is the media via which most these LIES are conveyed to us ???
    TAKE CHARGE of your own DESTINY.
    Pollies have proven that they will take us to SLAVERY rather than DIGNITY of life!!!
    David
    18th Feb 2015
    4:15pm
    Thanks for highlighting this. Unfortunately this discussion is all about the Government saving money-never min the pensioners who need to rent a house.
    So what really needs to happen is-forget the people fortunate enough to have their own home-so no rent-freeze their payments at current level-then take a realistic look at how peopLe who have to pay rents (especially in capital cities) can do that on the pathetic amount they get from Government. A single person gets about $400 a week-just enough to pay rent on a one bedroom apartment in Sydney - so its a choice have a roof and die of starvation or live on the street and eat well. Never mind $42 million a year, what about the millions of dollars some of these people paid in taxes when they were working.
    consecutive Governments knew this was coming 10-15 years ago, and both parties have buried their heads in the sand and hoped it would go away. Well it hasn't and it wont, so do the right thing - take it out of the defense budget if you have to, or away from the civil service or dole bludgers
    David
    18th Feb 2015
    4:15pm
    Thanks for highlighting this. Unfortunately this discussion is all about the Government saving money-never min the pensioners who need to rent a house.
    So what really needs to happen is-forget the people fortunate enough to have their own home-so no rent-freeze their payments at current level-then take a realistic look at how peopLe who have to pay rents (especially in capital cities) can do that on the pathetic amount they get from Government. A single person gets about $400 a week-just enough to pay rent on a one bedroom apartment in Sydney - so its a choice have a roof and die of starvation or live on the street and eat well. Never mind $42 million a year, what about the millions of dollars some of these people paid in taxes when they were working.
    consecutive Governments knew this was coming 10-15 years ago, and both parties have buried their heads in the sand and hoped it would go away. Well it hasn't and it wont, so do the right thing - take it out of the defense budget if you have to, or away from the civil service or dole bludgers
    Bebe
    18th Feb 2015
    4:53pm
    SAM01 Do you live in the basic unit, if so it should not be classed as an asset. If the
    previous government hadn't left us in deep doo doo, perhaps we would not be having
    all this drama. I sometimes wonder who wields the sword when deciding who gets what.
    I had a friend who received the pension for 17 years and had a holiday house which he
    sold last year for $360,000. I also have a neighbour who had a holiday house worth
    $480,000 he also had some cash how much I do not know. He was told by Centrelink
    sell it or loose the pension. He sold on a low market and lost quite a lot of money.
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    5:08pm
    Bebe,
    Nothing to do with the previous government - They are all SLAVE to the BANKERS!
    Don't solve the issue with the banks - we will be on this forum forever with an increasing level of frustration and not able to resolve anything.
    step
    18th Feb 2015
    4:57pm
    I think the total welfare systems need to be addressed, in conjunction with the groups that changes may effect.
    Pensions could be considerably increased if the system was correctly assessed
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    4:04pm
    Good News !! Someone stuck a Stick in the Rats today ! They are looking into Some Quacks for Issuing False Assessments for Disability Certificates !! Let Me Guess ?? :-)
    4065
    18th Feb 2015
    4:59pm
    This government continually looks at ways to cut spending instead of looking for ways of increasing revenue. How about this: Let's means test the pension received by MPs. Currently, when they retire (and it could be due to losing their seat in parliament) they receive their entire salary - indexed - for the rest of their lives. Even if they go out and get themselves a job - usually an executive position - where they can earn $150K +. They might also have assets etc - but they still get that full salary!!!
    JJ
    18th Feb 2015
    5:06pm
    We also have to look at the unaffordable 'gravy train' the pollies have built for them selves -. their lifelong pension and allowances/air travel etc when they leave office amounting several 100K / year! Unbelievable
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    8:07pm
    EACH !! :-(
    nomad88
    18th Feb 2015
    5:18pm
    I have worked and saved all my life to be able to live in a nice place when I retire. So now I should be forced out of the area where I have made friends over the years, where I know my doctor, neighbours, news agent, where I feel home and safe? Why? Because our Government is not capable of governing and allocating funds appropriately, because they are too busy trying to free two convicted criminals from a prison overseas.
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    5:28pm
    Nomad88
    As long as we "Let the Bast**rds" get away with it (and we really are) - This will be the verdict.
    Let's get "Off our Asses" and TELL THEM!!!
    Rob
    18th Feb 2015
    5:29pm
    A bit silly nomad. The current government did not get us into the situation the country is currently in debt wise.
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2015
    5:33pm
    The money tree is not growing as well these days Nomad, that is why!
    4065
    18th Feb 2015
    5:37pm
    Hey Rob...who cares who got us into this situation - they need to start looking at ways of raising revenue not pulling the rug out from under the most vulnerable groups
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    5:54pm
    4065
    THEY are NOT willing & Capable to get us out of this mess so we must FORCE THE ISSUES.
    It is essenmtial to understand who/what has caused this mess as this will proved the info where WE must start to resolve it!
    Keep Bitching as we are and THEY will keep pi**ing them selves laughing all the time as they well understand that out methods are totally FUTILE.
    GETTING OFF OUR ASSES is the only solution.
    Accept it, we are living in a DICTOTORSHIP rather than a DEMOCRACY!!!
    Rob
    18th Feb 2015
    6:19pm
    4065 i agree as long as people keep wanting governments to fund everything and we also continue to vote for governments that keep promising more at election time then the revenue has to keep rising or activities cut.
    Rob
    18th Feb 2015
    6:20pm
    patriot - not sure what it is that you are proposing apart from venting?
    Patriot
    18th Feb 2015
    6:37pm
    Rob,
    I'm proposing that we do something more than venting as is happening on this - and many other - forums.
    We have - time & time again - proven that just bitching is NOT going to resolve the issues. As Einstein said, it is foolish to even remotely consider that a problem can be resolved by using the mechanism (to resolve it) which is the cause of it.
    Our Pollies 'Running Riot & are not enacting the Will-of-the-People" is the cause of the problems we - and all other countries on the globbe - are facing.
    THEY HAVE FOREIGN MASTERS - INTERNATIONAL BANKERS!!!

    And here we are, still - via bitching at/about them - trying to resolve the issues that (apparently) are bothering 90%+ Of the people posting on this forum.

    I am Harassing my Elected Representatives very regulary about issues of Democracy (or lack thereof).
    Are any of the others WHO ARE posting on this forum TAKING THE SAME ACTION?? and IF NOT - WHY NOT!
    Sitting behind a keyboard typing away may resolve some personal issues & frustrations but will not - in any way - make THEM uncomfortable enough to make amends and return this country to a functional democracy as such would NOT be in their Personal & Immediate interest!
    That is IF we're all - really & Truely - so unhappy.
    I say it again: "Get off our ASSES" and "Go & Tell Them" rather than bitch about is.
    Educate yourself about the Australian Constitution and ASK the Questions WHY it has been abandoned without a referendum approving such action.
    CONFRONT THEM!!
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    9:48pm
    Rob: you conveniently ignore the fact that both sides of politics have caused the debt. Some of this debt was good (Australians not thrown out of work during the GFC) and some is bad. Horses for courses.
    Fred
    19th Feb 2015
    7:52pm
    Radish (F) so you are saying that a person who has an expensive house which they would probably have saved for or they bought many years ago and due to property rises should pay back to the government any pension they received during their life time and the property sold. What if the property is not sold but just passes to one of their kids do they have to pay the money why not go the whole hog and anyone who owns any property and receives a pension should when that property is sold they should pay the government back the amount of money they received in a pension. If a person with a disability who cannot work is willed an expensive property by a relative where are they going to get the money to pay the government. The vast majority of people in this country have brought there owner owned property they have paid rates, they have paid rip off lawyers to make sure everything goes correctly by the time they have paid of this property they would have paid approximately double what they paid for it in interest payments to the banks and now you want to rip them off once again. All these properties have been bought by the average worker with the wages they received after paying taxes, 1.5% medicare level, and superannuation contribution and for a majority of them Private Health. These are people who helped to make Australia and they wish to pass something onto their kids but you would deny them that pleasure.
    Squib
    18th Feb 2015
    6:26pm
    These people have worked hard to get their money and have paid taxes the same as everyone else. Why shouldn't they get some small benefits - and believe me it's not that much!!
    niemakawa
    18th Feb 2015
    6:52pm
    Of course not. The family home has been paid for out of hard work and commitment. Better include the huge subsidies given to those that live in Government housing or taxpayer funded rent assistance. That's where the savings can really be made. Far too many people who live in subsidised accommodation have never worked and still they want more. No leave the family home alone.
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    6:59pm
    YEP !!
    minniemouse
    18th Feb 2015
    7:17pm
    It seems everyone has spent the day venting unfortunately it still means you'll stay poor
    niemakawa
    18th Feb 2015
    7:22pm
    If the truth be known the poor are the rich. They do nothing, get everything provided free medical services and the list goes on. This is where any Government can save and reduce all services. What an incentive for people to do something for themselves, work comes to mind, less children and pay taxes.
    MICK
    18th Feb 2015
    9:16pm
    Come on niemakawa. Be fair. We both know that there are people and there are people.
    I support an end to rorting but will never agree to the removal of the safety net. People should not be fair game for the greedy and their governments. Nor should they be subject to unprecedented attacks like the current deadbeat government has tried on average citizens whilst delivering tax cuts to the rich who put them into power.
    richo
    18th Feb 2015
    7:19pm
    i have just applied for the age penion and had to add the value of my home as part of my assets
    particolor
    18th Feb 2015
    7:44pm
    I felt so guilty reading all this here today that I just Cancelled Mine !! :-<
    I'll make more begging on the corner anyhow !! :->
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2015
    8:45am
    Everyone applying for a pension has to list ALL assets. As your home is an asset it has to be listed. It is only for Centre Link's information (from what I gather) and it will not be included in the assessment as to whether you qualify or not.
    Patriot
    19th Feb 2015
    8:47am
    Will NOT YET be included!
    However, they now have the figure fir future inclusion though
    And it did not cost them much effort to get it either.
    mangomick
    19th Feb 2015
    8:33am
    As a component was added to the Tax bill of all Australians back in 1945 it's fair to say that the pension is actually a right and not a privilege but having said that it isn't designed to fund ones lifestyle but merely as a support mechanism in your later years to ensure you can afford basic medical care and allow you to eat basic meals. Anything outside those parameters like smokes, grog and pokies and you probably should have learned to live more within your means before you reached pension age.
    Patriot
    19th Feb 2015
    8:42am
    Hooray,
    Somebody else has done their homework!
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2015
    8:51am
    It it totally unrealistic to expect the goverment (i.e. taxpayers) to support the same lifestyle as one had when working.

    The pension is not there for that. It is for the basics, food, shelter, medical etc. Not for smokes, grog and pokies as you said mangomick.

    That said I know of people who manage to do all three on the pension.
    Patriot
    19th Feb 2015
    8:53am
    Radish,
    Is that not what MangoMich said????
    BASIC - PRUDENT LIVING
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    9:22am
    Yes !! Please Re Read !!
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2015
    10:27am
    Hey fair shake of the sauce bottle ...I don't criticize others for putting up similar posts..no need to be rude guys.
    Tigers
    19th Feb 2015
    10:29am
    Why shouldn't everyone be entitled to an age pension? It should be age based and nothing else. The, so called rich, would have paid more in tax during their working lives than most. Greed, selfishness and jealousy is why most "underachievers" are anti "achievers" receiving what they have rightfully earned.
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2015
    10:32am
    Probably because the country could not afford it Tigers
    bebby
    19th Feb 2015
    11:03am
    Tigers, many of the "so called rich" as you say,would not have paid a higher tax as they would have had clever accountants to advise them on how to pay less, not more.
    Retired Knowall
    19th Feb 2015
    4:45pm
    Well Said Tigers, I gather from the posts that the majority are under achievers and expect the tax payer to fund their retirement. When the pension was introduced Australia had 6.5 workers for every person on the pension, now it's 2.3.
    in 10 years it will be 1.8. Basic maths tells you it's not sustainable.
    Anonymous
    20th Feb 2015
    8:38am
    what happens when you have more on the welfare than workers?
    particolor
    20th Feb 2015
    1:55pm
    A holiday on the Mediterranean Sounds Good ?? :-)
    Fred
    19th Feb 2015
    10:32am
    Some of the posts suggested that the main residence be calculated as part of the assets for the pension, There are a lot of people out there who as others have said bought a home many years ago for a low price and due to the cost of housing their homes are now worth a lot of money we good luck to them they should not be penalised just because property went up in staggering amounts. THE MAIN HOME PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN DECIDING THE AMOUNT OF PENSION LEAVE IT ALONE. Some people have scrimped and scraped to be able to buy a nice home it was bought with the money they earned after they paid taxes again leave it alone. Some mentioned the tax rebate on private health is only for the rich a lot of people who can only just afford it take out Private Health because they can get into hospital sooner see the Doctor of their choice and they don't trust the Public Health System (I know this because many years before there was any rebate I was a very low paid worker but still managed to afford Private Health just in case I needed it it also gave me peace of mind. There are many people in the community that saved hard ie Superannuation, Property, Shares etc and to do this they went without other things and now the majority on this site want to punish them for being frugal during their lives.

    As far a negative gearing goes one person said that if negative gearing was stopped the properties would still be there YES they would but they would be for sale and the people whom this idea is supposed to help would not be able to afford to buy them. Stopping negative gearing has been tried before and it was a disaster the people who owned the property along with the banks started selling them so there were less properties for the lower income to rent.

    A lot on this post just appear to condemn the people who have made a good living and become rich whilst some who have sat on their backsides all their lives and done nothing except collect government hand out they feel sorry for

    One even suggested raising the cost of beer now who is that going to hurt except the low to middle class person as they are the main drinkers of beer.
    Retired Knowall
    19th Feb 2015
    4:50pm
    This site and the majority of these posts remind me of Orwells "Animal Farm".
    Patriot
    19th Feb 2015
    4:53pm
    In other words, it seems to reflect the TRUTH!
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    4:54pm
    Only the Pigs have been Changed to Protect the Innocent !! :-)

    19th Feb 2015
    11:45am
    Why should the wealthy get free Doctors visits , free public schooling .
    Patriot
    19th Feb 2015
    11:53am
    Because they also have paid TAXES all their lives!
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2015
    11:59am
    There taxs were spent when they paid them . Now this generation is paying for their FREE use ...
    Fred
    19th Feb 2015
    7:30pm
    Wealthy do not get free Doctors Visits they pay like everyone else. Private Health only come into effect when you go into hospital now just think how the public health system would stand up if all those with Private Health decided to ditch it all the same people who are complaining about people with Private Health would now start complaining about them all clogging up the Public System. You cannot have it both ways.
    Squib
    19th Feb 2015
    12:02pm
    Exactly Patriot and they didn't expect the Government to support them with everybody elses taxes!
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    7:40pm
    I Googled Taxes ! And they said What's Taxes ? :-)
    worker
    19th Feb 2015
    5:43pm
    Lets first look at the full costs of state and federal MPs and benefits and pensions payed their employee the citizen of Australia.
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    5:58pm
    Don't be Cheeky !! :-)
    marymint5
    19th Feb 2015
    6:00pm
    I wish they would leave the pensioners alone.
    If they have a house and want to stay in it regardless of how much it is worth .
    They have worked very hard all their lives to buy it.
    IT is not their fault the house prices have gone up.
    So fed up with pension bashing/disgusting. The government could very easily make their money by taxing the BIG Companies,fix all the loopholes and make if against the law to send their profits overseas. Stop negative gearing. Stop Politicians perks. Stop paying the politicians pension for life and perks after they have left their job. Let them get another job and let them receive their pension when they are pension age. The family home should
    NEVER be included in the assets test. If a person worked all their life they paid their taxes and health insurance for over 25 -40 yrs. So leave the pensioners alone.
    particolor
    19th Feb 2015
    6:04pm
    Hear Hear Hear !!!
    Precious 1
    20th Feb 2015
    1:56am
    Many get these things by getting a good accountant....hiding lots of dosh, giving to charities and gifts to family ..I think...only saying this as I was told by a close friend...shame really because in UK everyone gets it regardless even the Queen.....she is eligible.....there are many more thousands etc working there I suppose and the Holidaymakers coming into the country bring Billions I read somewhere......
    mangomick
    20th Feb 2015
    5:21am
    Funny how Holiday makers bring in Billions to the U.K, my old man gave them 10 quid just to get out of the place. I Reckon it was the best 10 quid he ever spent :-)
    particolor
    20th Feb 2015
    10:33am
    Their Not Holiday Makers !! :-)
    Mango.. Ill bet he's still Celebrating the Escape !! :-)
    mangomick
    20th Feb 2015
    10:40am
    I imagine he is parti, but only the worms will really know for sure :-)
    particolor
    20th Feb 2015
    10:53am
    If Your in Queensland ? Has the Wind blown all the Mangoes orf the trees Yet ?? !!
    mangomick
    20th Feb 2015
    11:02am
    Queenslanders...... Our farts are stronger than that. Actually Ive got a place near Yeppoon and all residents have been evacuated as it is in a storm surge area.
    A bit windy here but not that strong at this stage.
    particolor
    20th Feb 2015
    2:01pm
    Big Fella Willy Willy ? :-)
    mangomick
    23rd Feb 2015
    11:28am
    You know what they say about Big fella Willy Willy.
    What used to be 6 inches and no wrinkles is now 6 wrinkles and no inches.........
    Precious 1
    20th Feb 2015
    1:58am
    Mum got the widows pension, Dads non contributary Pension from the his company.........this was in the sixties.....
    Precious 1
    20th Feb 2015
    10:56am
    Making two complete pensions ...Dads non contributory was also indexed to current cost of living too six monthly...those were the days.....people with wealth often wouldn't even think of applying for welfare as it was called.......seniors retirement payments.....
    Precious 1
    20th Feb 2015
    1:59am
    Be a very difficult job to assess any cut off point from wealth to pension availability..........
    Fred
    20th Feb 2015
    6:13am
    From what I understand the Australian Government was going to run a scheme similar to the Pension Scheme in England and various Scandinavian countries which guaranteed a pension at the end off a working persons life They in fact set up the scheme and were putting money into it but alas just like a loot of such schemes in this country which ever government was in power at the time decided Australia did not need and and moved all the money in the scheme into consolidated revenue and that is why we do not have a universal Old Age Pension Scheme in this country. With the scheme it did not matter how much you were worth from the richest to the poorest everyone got the pension. In those countries that have such a scheme the money in it is invested and the main part is the government cannot get their grubby little hands on it as it is protected by law.
    Precious 1
    20th Feb 2015
    10:46am
    Similar to the start of selling Land....It used to be given to new migrants to start their lives off here but when they realised they were overspent in other places they decided to sell the land and I believe that's what happened to all the money supposedly saved for pensions on retirement....too much to think they couldn't keep their fingers out,,The people then were strongly advised to start their own personal Pension Funding........
    mangomick
    20th Feb 2015
    10:56am
    Phillip Lynch and Malcolm Fraser wound up the Social Securities Fund and rolled the money into the Consolidated Revenue account.
    particolor
    20th Feb 2015
    2:10pm
    I wondered what the Gulag did with it ?? :-(
    Abby
    20th Feb 2015
    7:08pm
    Frazer was the worst Pm we have ever had but he was trying to recoup some of the funds that Whitlam had overspent into the future.
    dougie
    20th Feb 2015
    9:46am
    No comments about Bill Shorten and his stuff up re David Hicks comments. How stupid is that?

    What a nasty little man he is, we will pay for the medical expenses for the time he spent in Guantanamo Bay. The prison is not ours, he was there because of America, sue them.

    How many good Australian citizens who have worked hard and saved now put off visits to Doctors and Dentists because of costs involved.

    Hicks had his "holiday" in Iraq so why should we pay for his care. Let the people he was there to support pay them.
    particolor
    20th Feb 2015
    10:39am
    Send The Idiot back to Iraq !! :-(
    Before some Half Wit Judge Awards The Idiot 12 Million Bucks !! :-(
    Stress and Shell Shock !!
    Abby
    20th Feb 2015
    7:05pm
    Not a bad idea particolor
    dougie
    20th Feb 2015
    9:46am
    No comments about Bill Shorten and his stuff up re David Hicks comments. How stupid is that?

    What a nasty little man he is, we will pay for the medical expenses for the time he spent in Guantanamo Bay. The prison is not ours, he was there because of America, sue them.

    How many good Australian citizens who have worked hard and saved now put off visits to Doctors and Dentists because of costs involved.

    Hicks had his "holiday" in Iraq so why should we pay for his care. Let the people he was there to support pay them.
    Adrianus
    20th Feb 2015
    10:26am
    I am surprised he is still called an Australian.
    During my younger days I, as well as a few mates, were offered a mercenary position guarding oil pipelines in the ME. Our CO got wind of it and told us that we would loose our Australian citizenship if we accepted the offer. When it was explained to us not one of us was tempted by the high pay. The loss of our Australian identity was seen by all as too high a price to pay.
    David Hicks or Muhammed Dawood, whatever he calls himself also joined the Kosovo Liberation Army fighting against Serbia before joining Al Queda.
    His problems started when he joined a mosque in Adelaide. Shorten's logic is steered by his training as a HSU boss. Always looking for anyone who looks like an underdog to make himself look good.
    dougie
    20th Feb 2015
    12:11pm
    Unfortunately Shorten is his own worst enemy. As you say any so called or seeming underdog will get his attention. Hicks is neither, he is a man who obviously knew what he was doing and what he wanted to do. Shorten has shown an absolute lack of both judgement and decency in his approach to this matter. I think that he will be seen as he is by many - an opportunist.
    mangomick
    20th Feb 2015
    1:14pm
    Still trying to work out what the tie in is between Hicks,Shorten and Millionaire Pension Payments. Obviously a bit of early onset dementia has caused you both to post a comment in the wrong forum topic.
    particolor
    20th Feb 2015
    1:59pm
    Sometimes in Old Age minds go Astray I Think! :-(
    dougie
    21st Feb 2015
    9:38am
    Mangomick,

    This is no less a thread to the original item than much of the garbage written by some on many other matters. Just keeping up with the standards set.
    mangomick
    21st Feb 2015
    1:05pm
    That explains a lot ,if you feel happy to lower your standards just to keep up with the Joneses.
    Oh well........ whatever rocks your boat............
    Fready
    20th Feb 2015
    5:36pm
    It is difficult to believe the attack on the so-called wealthy on this blog. Contributors don't seem to understand that the top 2% of taxpayers pay 26% of all income tax collected. The top 17% pay 67% of all income tax collected. They are paying for your pensions. Those in the lowest 20% of those who put in a tax return end up taking 320 times as much out of the system than they put in.
    We have to question why those whinging about the level of pension didn't save a bit more for their retirement. Current arguments about reducing superannuation concessions could be self-defeating as people adjust their habits by saving less and arranging their affairs to get a pension.
    Where do the contributors to this blog think the money is coming from to fund all the services that people now think they are "entitled" to. The Commission of Audit reported in 2014 that school funding (Gonski) is expected to increase by 9% per annum until 2023/24, the NDIS by a massive 45% per annum till 2023/24 and Medicare by 7% per annum till 2023/24. Think about it.!!
    Abby
    20th Feb 2015
    7:02pm
    Typical tall Poppy Syndrome shows.
    Cannot understand the pensioners on this site as to how envious they are.
    Anonymous
    21st Feb 2015
    8:25am
    You are correct in what you say Fready.

    Sadly people dont want to know these things. It would be wonderful if there was an endless supply of money but there ain't ;) .
    Patriot
    21st Feb 2015
    11:08am
    Fready & Abby
    I take some offence to the attitude that: "The Whiner's" pensions are now paid by YOU, being those who either were luckier, smarter (in some aspects but probably not in others as we all have our talents) possibly were able to take advantage of WHO YOU KNEW rather than WHAT YOU KNEW or were born with A golden spoon IN YOUR mouth.
    Let's remember that we ALL have our role to pay in a functional community as is "Time & Time again" proven when garbos don't collect the refuse so amply generated by ALL of us. It brings cities/communities - including YOU - to a HALT!!!

    Also, let's not forget the INDIRECT Taxes that were paid by those Pensioners at THE SAME LEVEL & RATE as YOU paid those taxes. Often, such indirect taxes far exceed the payroll taxes we pay.
    320 Times more take than "put In" sounds very excessive and - unfortunately - was NOT qualified. The whole issue unfortunately reflects that (SOME of) the "Well-to-Do" have little compassion for the less fortunate in Society. How shameful. They probably worked harder that YOU ever did and did most of the CRAP jobs that you WERE NOT WILLING TO DO.

    As the pensioners YOU are whining about - generally - earned far less than YOU, them paying their taxes was a considerably greater hardship which left MUCH LESS money left for the fun things in life to experience (especially) with their kids.

    I STATE AGAIN: When OAPensions were introduced, the Pensioners referred to started to pay their extra TAX LEVY that was imposed for the purpose of being "Paid Back" as OAPensions when the time came! Wise investment would have multiplied those funds enormously!
    THEY HAVE PAID THIS FOR (just about) THEIR WHOLE WORKING LIFE!!!!!
    Whilst I understand that Governments since then have taken this "OAPension Fund" and used it as "Consolidated Revenue" for purposes like: YOUR kid's (Private & University) Education, Company Cars & Tax Deductions, Fringe Benefits, Company Holidays, Super Annuation Tax Lurks, Salary Sacrifices, Maternity Pay, Child Care, Negative Gearing & other TRIVIALITIES associated with the "Up Market" Lifestyles of the "Well-To-Do".
    In many situations accumulating this wealth was at the expense of the "Less Well Off" who paid for these PERKS whilst their kids also could not find a job because (your) wives were in the workforce helping to accumulate YOUR wealth whilst THEIR wives & Kids could not find jobs because of this (Connections you know).
    I have been associated - in my work - for long enough with the "Well-to-Do" sector of our society to know the advantages often enjoyed by those who are "Better Paid" in our workforce.

    Who am I:
    1 Yes I have been to the "Halls-of-Learning" as I have 2 FULL (2 x 4 Yrs) scientific degrees in completely different, but, complementing disciplines.
    However, this does NOT ENTITLE me to provide an EXTRAVAGANT (way beyond dignity) lifestyle & Future for my family if such DISTRACTS from others finding a job in our Communities. It also does NOT make me a BETTER PERSON. Just a DIFFERENT one!
    2 No, my wife has NEVER (except for a few hours occasionally to "Fill a Hole") worked (and occupied the job of a young kid coming up from the bottom)
    3 I (as a subcontractor) have always found enough work to pay "My own Way" and always refused the temptation to - at the expense of my family & Community - accumulate more wealth than required to live Well & Dignified
    4 Yes my daughter has National & International Titles in her favourite sport which could not have been gained with out Family support in the form of "Oodles" of Time & Money. This is now starting to provide her with a decent living which will - hopefully - be without the (perceived) need/greed to accumulate Vast Financial Wealth (???)
    4 In my "Idle Time" I have been associated (still am) with charity work to (non-selectively) help "Lighten the burden" for those who - for what every reason - are not as well of than most.
    5 Yes - in times of low work availability, I have worked as Service station attendant & Yard cleaner/Tree Pruner elc. Not quite a garbo - but I know what's going on in the MUD as I have "Rubbed Shoulders with it on numerous occasions". And I make sure that I maintain doing so! I can assure you, It's a very HUMBLING experience at times.
    6 Yes, I have a beautiful home in an, environmentally exquisite location. ½ Million $ "Pulls it Up". I intend to leave this home to my daughter when we finally depart from this planet. I HAVE PAID TAXES (every way) on it WHILST it was build. So "BUGGER OFF GOVERNMENT!"
    7 Yes, I draw the FULL Pension by "My Design" as I HAVE PAID FOR THAT (in my extra taxes as levies) and , therefore, it is MY ENTITLEMENT.
    8 NO - I'm not religious!
    9 My need for accumulation of SURPLUS wealth has always (???) been curbed BY THE COMPASSION to ensure that I was NOT taking excessive work/resources needed by others to support the dignity of fellow human beings.

    MONEY - like GOVERNMENT - is a dangerous SERVANT & a FEARFULL MASTER!

    When Money becomes more important than PEOPLE (or living beings for that matter) we, by design, create EXACTLY the world we currently live in!
    That is because: "WE BECOME EXTREMELY ARTIFICIAL & VERY PLASTIC".

    And yes, there is a small percentage of pensioners who (have & will) continue to smoke, drink, tattoo etc. And possibly deserve SOME of your criticism.
    But think, in many of those cases it was probably (and still is) the greed of others who contribute to their situation! Just think of the taxes they pay on smokes & grog!?!?!?
    Just think how Packer's Casino's are LEGALLY (Government Supported) allowed to create DESTITUTE Families! Just remember we ALL (???) have Vices & Addictions! Just that some of those are more SOCIALLY ACCEPTED than others.
    Notwithstanding that, cops CANNOT sit at the exit of a pub to breath test and it is Illegal to grow your own tobacco. Contradictions????

    CONCLUSION
    1 If you really want to know how this world works, go to YouTube and do a search on "money creation". Money is just 1s & 0s in a computer and is created "Out Of Thin Air". There NEVER SHOULD be a shortage!!! That is, If the government was doing its job.
    2 Enjoy the wealth you've accumulated - Enjoy & Spend It - and stimulate the Australian economy. You cannot take it with you. No matter how much you've got, "Seats in Heaven" are out of your Price Range!
    3 Don't treat your money like an electronic stamp collection - and watch it grow as this eventually becomes an addiction. It keeps you awake at night because you might be missing out on a ¼ % interest.
    4 Just "LAY OFF". I for one am not jealous at those who think they are "Wel-to-Do" as having excessive wealth often is an impediment to their happiness.
    Whilst I do NOT have wealth as YOU would define it, I consider myself VERY WEALTHY as I have dignity in life, respect for (ALL) life. The rewards for that are SIMPLE but IMMENSE!
    4 LEARN TO HAVE COMPASSION

    A BIT MORE COMPASSION & CONSIDERATION WOULD FORM A MUCH SOUNDER FOUNDATION TO -AS SOON WE MUST - REBUILD OUR COMMUNITIES.

    The time is near when NEED rather than GREED is important.
    Fasten your Seat Belts FELLOW SLAVES.

    FINAL - I am no ANGEL but I Know that - in order for this world to remain & (once again) become a "Good place to Live" we MUST replace DESIRE/DEMAND FOR GREED with ATTENTION TO NEED!
    We do not own this planet but are the guardians of it for the sake of future generations.
    There is NO PLACE for GREED.
    Precious 1
    21st Feb 2015
    1:17pm
    Fready, I can only agree with you... the sightless glasses era has long gone but sometimes I think some governments in power still like the people to think that way for the sake of politics...they must enjoy being in debt to those ceaseless cards offering unlimited access to unlimitless cash ..I hear it at times the endless argument oh well will rack up the card til we die and the left behenders can pay the account.... gutless wonders with chicken brains I reckon...mind you I was brought up in the 2WW back in Blighty and families were tight then and Mums etc had to learn very quickly how to manage on ten bob...today all been spoilt and you know where a spoilt child ended up......
    particolor
    21st Feb 2015
    2:22pm
    That Was Wonderful !! :-) Patriot for PM !! ..
    Spare the Stick and Spoil the Child !!
    Patriot
    21st Feb 2015
    3:58pm
    particolor,
    I believe that there is enough evidence to prove that Punishment is - generally - counterproductive.
    Ownweship for the consequences of your action is - in my opinion - much more positive as it ceates (to a certain extent) predictable outcomes via the law of: "Cause & Affect".
    These days society (in general) refuses to "Take Ownership" and attempts to blame everything that is wrong in their opinion on everybody else.
    What they find is right, they take credit for and - if needed - away from others!
    Once one understands this Law, outomes (& destinies) are usually very pridictable & stable.
    It is also very character forming to have to account for your personal actions.
    That is to your self & the community that supports you! It teaches that you also should support that community and therefore, in my opinion - is social engineering "At its Best"!
    My personal conviction is that: Anybody should be allowed to do what ever they want as long as such action does NOT inflict (has negative inpact) on anybody else for the short &/or long term.
    THAT - in my opinion - is the freedom we should be striving for!
    particolor
    21st Feb 2015
    4:08pm
    OK ! Don't punish Anyone for Anything ! And they will be Back to do it Again and Again and Again !!
    I got the Cane at School ONCE !! I never did go back for another Dose !! :-)
    Patriot
    21st Feb 2015
    4:37pm
    particolor
    I believe it to be much more beneficial to "Mould" people's behavious than "Bet" them into submission which has the risk to "Break" a spirit which - hopefully - would have been much better container with FIRM Guidance.
    The again - we might have to sgree to disagree on that one!!!
    Patriot
    21st Feb 2015
    4:51pm
    Just to add to the above,
    I them darn days Kids did Not have rights and were not told by the educational institutions that they did. Lock them up in their room if they refused to clean it!
    Parents had duties though to ensure that kids were not "Beaten to Death".
    I don't diagree with 50 years ago.
    However, I think it is dangerous to apply such measures in todays world.
    particolor
    21st Feb 2015
    4:55pm
    I learnt a lesson !! Don't put Epsom Salts in the Teachers Room Kettle !! :-)
    Patriot
    21st Feb 2015
    7:27pm
    And I thought I was a little A**hole as a kid!
    You've topped me on that one! Good one though
    particolor
    21st Feb 2015
    7:47pm
    Pre-emptive Strike !! Get Even Before Punishment ! They Earned it !!
    marymint5
    20th Feb 2015
    10:04pm
    I worked here full time for 25 years and when I applied for a pension I was told i had to apply to the UK first. I worked there for 15 years. I applies and received a pension in 2 weeks from the UK. Then got in touch with Pensions here and I received a part pension from Australia much less than the UK one. I got the part pension and my UK pension was classed in my assets. I had some super (not much and that was in my assets as well. My husband applied for his pension when he turned 65yrs in July he died in the October and his pension came in the NOVEMBER ( which I had to let centrelink know) of course it was cancelled. I got nothing from that But again UK sent me 3 months pension he would have got . So if Australians think we people from the UK get 2 pensions you are so wrong.
    I get nothing for nothing and I had work 40 years for what I do get. So no one is getting their hands on my House ever.Also for some stupid rule my UK pension never ever goes up it is frozen to what I receive when I first claimed. Something to do with living in the Colonies. I am not envious of the rich they can stick their money anywhere,just leave me alone. Thats my rant for today.
    particolor
    20th Feb 2015
    10:24pm
    But very Interesting !
    mangomick
    20th Feb 2015
    10:27pm
    I always thought Aussies rant and Pommies whinge....
    Precious 1
    21st Feb 2015
    1:26pm
    Loved your screed...but have read most of this over and over...Its very sad isn't it that some of us become very greedy as we age and really and truly how much do we really want on retirement....I have done most things during my very privileged life up to 77 years...was brought up to think that discussing money was indeed very crass and just not done.....I now find living in the Antipodes its THE only subject to talk about...very sad...now I know where all the beautiful smiles have gone in the older generation .....disgruntled...one said to me a child of mind...Mum don`t ever get to be a miserable whingey older one like some....we love your smile...............that is something I will never do being brought up to manage on a shoe string and that shoe string has been of immeasureable consequence to me and many in helping others........
    particolor
    21st Feb 2015
    3:07pm
    Shoe Strings Wear Out :-(
    mangomick
    21st Feb 2015
    6:24pm
    Thank god for velcro
    particolor
    21st Feb 2015
    7:39pm
    God !! :-)
    mangomick
    21st Feb 2015
    10:47pm
    Well Thank God for George de Mestral then.
    Not Senile Yet!
    21st Feb 2015
    10:41am
    Sorry...but any report suggesting anything can be conjured up by anyone just as a magician can produce a dove from a hat!!!!
    The report is Crap. The "We are Broke!" story is also crap!!!
    Al hard working Australians deserve and are entitled to collect a pension...regardless of their wealth!!!!!
    Hay...just because I earned 1Million a year for Ten years should not exclude me from getting a pension......unless I did not pay my taxes or shipped the money overseas to avoid doing so!!!!
    Whatever the average price of a Family home in each State that you live in......should be exempt from any assets test!!!!
    Those who have higher priced houses than the average...should have a choice.....either be deemed on the difference OR encouraged to sell and downsize by being exempt from ALL Taxes to do so!!!! They should not be penalised!!!
    We currently have had Government Laws that are all about Penlising...be it for speeding or for working hard and investing wisely!!!!
    Time the Government moved into the 21st Century...stop penalising and adding more & more tax.....start Rewarding effort and good behaviour/hard work by offering Incentives....not just Penalties!!!
    Deeming is a Penalty Mentality Law......it should be removed entirely ....it is not necessary and saves the Government very little in return for the effort to Administer it!!!!
    The only Assets Test that should be applied to a Pension should be for the Health Care Card and other Seniors Governments benefits.
    Applying an Asset Test to the Pension is straight out Discrimination....regardless of how you dress it up!!!
    WE are NOT America!!!! God help us if we Copy them into Oblivion!!!
    Yes they have some good Policies.....but we are not Sheep...we do not need to blindly copy them or follow them with our Society structure or taxation!!
    Most of you have it completely WRONG on this site!!!
    The Pollies want you arguing over everything...it distracts you from what they are actually doing!!!
    They want you distracted ...so they can manipulate our system to how THEY want it....not how WE want it.
    Everyone deserves to receive a Pension...provide they have been here long enough and contributed their share of tax...that is the Australian Way...always has been!!!
    As to being unable to afford it....they are telling you whopping great Fibs!!!
    Our Tax base has not just doubled it has quad rippled as the Baby boomers have all got kids working as well as themselves and the Government has SOLD OFF most of it expenditure items to private enterprise.
    The truth is that they need to do the opposite of what they are doing....they need to STOP putting limits on the amount one can earn whilst on a Pension.....Allow more to work part-time...pay tax and help pay for their pension....rather than limit them as they currently do!
    Not all will or be able to...but those who can and choose to do so....should not be penalised....but rewarded and encouraged!!!
    It is well known that advances in Health & Education increase a Countries ability to produce a stronger and better economy.....but it takes time!!!
    Both the Red Corner and the Blue Corner of our Political Party Machines are so embroiled in corrupting our MP's to Party View and Policies....they are neglecting both the People they are supposed to SERVE....and the Countries Future....by only thinking short-term!!!
    Time to vote BOTH of them out of OUR Parliament next election....just as a way to show them we do not like what they are BOTH doing!!! Too far Left or Too far Right....is not good for the Majority...nor for OUR Country!!!!
    STOP VOTING FOR PART PUPPETS!!!!
    Patriot
    21st Feb 2015
    11:22am
    This post PROVES that "You're Not Senile Yet" as there is an enormous amount of mileage in what you are sharing with this forum.
    Government IS BULLS**T and tells us BULLS**T.
    BLATANT LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    particolor
    21st Feb 2015
    2:10pm
    I subscribe to Many things on the Net ( Mainly as Spy Bar stead ) :-) Including People who can afford PARTY'S !! I just got one about the Unfairness of Awarding Contracts that Exclude Australian Manufacturers ! You know ? About those things that Sink !
    They Must think the Australian Public are All Suckers for Tripe ? I will bet You anything that the Contract was already SIGNED (Or may as well have been) before the Contract was even Issued for Bids ?? :-).. SS
    Stay Well heeled Boss !! :-)
    Precious 1
    21st Feb 2015
    1:31pm
    Years ago some cultures who emigrated here used to give their homes etc to their offspring ...that way would qualify for the pension here...They didn't have any super or investments as most of their iinvestments used to go over seas to build structures in their home lands.....so they never ever had any actual capital investments here .......they occupied small units etc .......with little or no maintenance for themselves or families...I don`t know if these units belonged to government at all or their agencies...but they never seemed to be very explicit about their affairs at all...changing their names with one letter was common and so forth enabling them to acquire many properties here as assets which truly belonged to nobody at all......
    particolor
    21st Feb 2015
    2:12pm
    Welcome to Land of Ponzi Schemes !! :-(
    Patriot
    21st Feb 2015
    7:30pm
    SCAM rather than scheme would provide the full expression
    particolor
    21st Feb 2015
    7:52pm
    I called it Schemes because a lot of it wast Pulled off .. Thank God !!
    The best laid Plans of Mice and Men !! :-)
    Anonymous
    26th Feb 2015
    7:40pm
    Precious 1

    Yes, lets lampoon and direct all evil against people who come from overseas….. ALL of them are obviously here to extract and reap havoc. The wealthy that actually live here, wouldn't do any of the stuff you talked of…. no, of course not.

    Yet, you appear to accept Australia being screwed completely by multi-billion dollar FOREIGN mega-corporations who DO NOT PAY TAX and actually, in some cases, receive SPECIAL tax and utility concessions, then take all their profits overseas, interfere in our democratic processes and change environmental and other laws to suit their own purposes. A scourge on the prosperity, growth and wellbeing of this nation, yet, you espouse no disapproval.

    Murdoch and those he represents (foreign megacorps) would smile satisfactory because you 'appear' to have swallowed the bigotry they weave into their propaganda…. keeps your focus away from the real issues and rorts that are being conducted by these megacorps.
    geomac
    21st Feb 2015
    6:25pm
    Don,t come between adults wanting their inheritance ie million dollar family home and sensible asset assessment. The fact that they did not buy the home or scrimp to pay it off has no relevance to them. Its a property investment for free or a property for sale without having to purchase it in the first place. Win, win whichever way you look at it.
    particolor
    21st Feb 2015
    7:42pm
    I've seen it First Hand !! Glad I wasn't born into that Animal Pack !! :-)
    GeorgeS
    23rd Feb 2015
    7:33pm
    Here is a suggestion re a sustainable Old Age Pension. The pension is available to anybody, no means testing, but is secured by a charge on assetts owned. In effect the pension is a loan from the government secured against appropriate assetts, whether a home, cash in the bank, shares whatever. The security is actuarily computed and frozen. On death the government calls in the security and is refunded the paid out pension. A lot of care would be required to build in safeguards to prevent rorting. Surely something like that is worth looking at in detail.
    particolor
    23rd Feb 2015
    7:41pm
    I've only got an Old Saddle and a 30 Year old Car ?? They're welcome to them :-)
    Patriot
    23rd Feb 2015
    10:17pm
    Over MY DEAD BODY!!!
    Fred
    23rd Feb 2015
    7:49pm
    Particolor you say 2000 Accounts out of work due to welfare changes. I would rather see 10000 Lawyers out of work because of a fairer Australia.
    particolor
    23rd Feb 2015
    8:11pm
    Yeah ! Them too ! :-) Did I miss them ? I was listening to one of those Immigration Leechy Lawyers last night !! Do We pay them ?? :-(
    Patriot
    23rd Feb 2015
    10:18pm
    Layers, Bankers & Politicians.
    The SCUM of society!
    particolor
    25th Feb 2015
    9:55pm
    But think of all the Missing Tax with all those Lawyers out of Work ? Wait a Minute !! Anent they the ones who's Clients didn't get away with it ? They know why now, and Have all the Clues !!
    Fred
    24th Feb 2015
    8:21am
    and the majority of Politicians are Lawyers no wonder we cannot trust them.
    Patriot
    24th Feb 2015
    9:42am
    Dont forget the bankers - Malcolm Turnbull & Joe Hockey's wife.
    Joe is the son of a spy.
    Tony is a Jesuit Rhodes Scollar.
    WHAT A COMBINATION - No wonder were SLOWELY but SURELY being converted to SLAVES
    Abby
    25th Feb 2015
    3:08pm
    OFF TOPIC
    Just thought some of you may be able to help out with this Survey

    "A High School student is conducting research into ageism (stereotyping of seniors by the general public, government services and the media), how it affects our seniors and why old age has such a negative image in Australia.

    She would love to find out your opinion about this topic and has prepared a survey, which takes about 10 minutes to finish and is completely anonymous.

    If you are happy to participate, please complete one of the following surveys:

    For people below the age of 70:
    http://www.survio.com/survey/d/W6B0G9E4H8M7Q5W3K

    For seniors and/or people 70 and above:
    http://www.survio.com/survey/d/G1L8M2J7B1P8L3V6D

    Surveys are open until 15 March or until 100 responses have been received.

    Thank you for your time and participation.

    This post has been approved by Webmaster Drew"

    http://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/the_meeting_place/9865
    Patriot
    25th Feb 2015
    5:56pm
    Done,
    just becaue you're blond!
    particolor
    25th Feb 2015
    8:23pm
    Its Pay Day today And I bought a Dozen Sydney Rock Oysters and a Bottle of Stout !! :-)
    mangomick
    25th Feb 2015
    8:47pm
    is it old age when ,what you used to do all night now takes you all night to do ....or is that middle age???
    particolor
    25th Feb 2015
    8:51pm
    Gawd that Wind was Strong !! A Mango just rolled down the Street here !! 800k away ! :-)
    Abby
    25th Feb 2015
    8:57pm
    Hey guys stop this mucking around and do the survey ..it is for a High School student ... and I must add the Survey is impressive .. Australia needs students like this.

    Thank you Patriot :)
    particolor
    25th Feb 2015
    9:46pm
    I could find which one theres thousands of them in there ? Has it got a Name ? :>)
    Abby
    26th Feb 2015
    12:03am
    What is your opinion about Old Age and Seniors?

    http://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/the_meeting_place/9865
    or use one of the links above
    mangomick
    26th Feb 2015
    7:31am
    Don't get your knickers in a knot. I've done it already..........
    Abby
    26th Feb 2015
    9:13am
    Mango
    that sounds about right ..
    'what you used to do all night now takes you all night to do "
    mangomick
    26th Feb 2015
    11:07am
    Are we still talking about filling in surveys ???
    Abby
    26th Feb 2015
    11:23am
    Possibly .... but thinking more about bonking as one ages.... that too would make a very good survey :)
    mangomick
    26th Feb 2015
    11:57am
    I see Particolor is into Sydney Rock Oysters. Don't know about those oysters though. Last time I had a dozen oysters only one worked ;-)
    Abby
    26th Feb 2015
    12:12pm
    HaHaHaaah!!!!
    particolor
    26th Feb 2015
    7:23pm
    I see Your Problem You drank all the Stout !! Didn't You ? and fell asleep on the Job !! :-)
    Lula
    26th Feb 2015
    8:06am
    I don't think the family home should be included. I don't think if people have more property or many assets and wealth they qualify for the age pension.i don't know how those people manage to access benefits.
    Abby
    26th Feb 2015
    10:05am
    Most probably have accountants but why do you say family home should not be included ...some family homes are worth $15 million +
    Now this person would be entitled to a full Pension + all benefits.

    How is that different to a senior living in a living in a $400 Thousand house and 5 x $400 Thousand rentals who is NOT entiled to a Pension or even a Health Care Card ?
    Anonymous
    26th Feb 2015
    4:43pm
    Abby….. come on!!!! TOTALLY different…... one is making at least $1500 PER WEEK in income from rentals. So why would they be entitled to a pension or a health care card???? They have enough income to live a VERY GOOD LIFE…. they are earning more than some people receive after working a 40hour week!!!!!

    The ones with the $15m+ home….. what a RIDICULOUS CLAIM….. there are NOT that many homes worth that much and the occupants CERTAINLY are NOT on the PENSION. Homes that are work over say $2m may be more accurate and to leave a family home when you are old is sometimes distressing. I don't begrudge these people a pension, although if they are cheating the system then that would need to be addressed.

    DID YOU KNOW that CENTRELINK offers a REVERSE MORTGAGE SCHEME (RMS) whereby you can borrow on the equity in your home to SUPPLEMENT your pension/holiday/car. IF you qualify (restricted to full pensioners with own home), the interest is low and fixed and given that you do not make any repayments, the loan will grow considerably, so that when you finally die, there may not be that much left for you to pass on to family. However, you will be able to stay in your home AND live very comfortably.

    RMSs have been touted to Morrison for expansion to allow more people access and to encourage rather than hide the RMS in Centrelink. They will make money FOR the govt. say after about 10-15years, so it is NOT a cost to the govt but a money earning concept.

    Unfortunately, I do NOT trust Morrison and fear that this expansion will simply be made available to the WEALTHY to get cheap loans and once again RIP the system.
    Abby
    27th Feb 2015
    8:05am
    Why should the Pensioner getting all the lurks and perks not have to sell their mansion and buy a modest home and a few rentals then they would not be a drain on the Government.
    Wolfman
    26th Feb 2015
    4:47pm
    Any asset, that does not generate an income should never be means tested for the aged pension, until actual sold. Liquid wealth and any asset generating income should be the only items to asset test.
    It does not matter if your home is worth $300,000 or $3,000,000.00. If you are required to sell your home to fund your retirement then everyone should be treated equally and all assets, no matter the value, should be included.
    Rosret
    27th Feb 2015
    8:00am
    In Sydney, homes cost $1m and if yours doesn't it probably will in 10 years. Superfunds under $1m for a new retiree will barely make the life time expectancy of 30 years in our inflationary world. The cost and heart ache of the the bureaucratic checks on those who have paid exceeding amounts of tax over the years is expensive and unproductive. Those who know how to manage money will continue to do so. The rest will get hit hard by the tax creep through inflation in a world where we don't earn new money.
    particolor
    27th Feb 2015
    8:31am
    Please point out Tax Creep and we will have them Replaced by one that can Really Run !! :-(
    Not Senile Yet!
    27th Feb 2015
    5:37pm
    It should not matter how much you have invested in the Family home with regard to a pension.
    All tax payers who have worked and paid tax all their lives should be entitled to a Pension!
    Next you will want someone who doesn't look Australian to get a Pension....such discrimination on this site!!! Shame,,,shame ...shame!
    The Real crooks here are the Liars that call themselves MP's!!!
    They can't Balance a Budget, so they rip money off Seniors and Invalids!
    They tell us that we are Broke...ie budget deficit.....yet sign a contract for Billions to buy Planes from the USA the same week!!!
    The following week they give Business Owners (all of them) a 1.5% tax bonus!!!
    What are you all crazy??????? or just Senile????
    Even Ned Kelly was more honest than these so-called MP's!!!
    Give me a Break......stop voting for the Party Puppets!!

    28th Feb 2015
    9:57am
    I think extreme caution is needed assessing ''assets'' and there are flaws in the current system that need to be recognized. For example, we recently were told we had a $380,000 asset (a block of land), but it was actually a liability because a local council planning error blocked access and made it worthless and unsalable. We lived in poverty for 2 years while fighting the council because Centrelink insisted the land was worth the purchase price. We now can't afford to sue the council for the $180,000 it cost us to fight them.
    Family heirlooms that may be valuable are another issue. In some circumstances, it would be patently unreasonable to insist they should be sold out of the family. Should someone be forced to sell their grandfather's war medals, just because they have monetary value?
    I strongly support the idea that taxpayer funds should be allocated to provide pensions to the neediest, but I see both sides of the argument. My husband and I struggled all our lives and never had a holiday or a restaurant dinner. We built our own home (despite having no building skills whatever), working weekends and nights. I worked all day, then sat up and sewed all night to cloth the family cheaply. We lived on the cheapest foods. Should we now be forced to continue to go without, living on very meager returns on a quite small savings nest-egg, while people who traveled, gambled, dined out, gave money to their kids, etc. collect the pension? I would happily sacrifice to fund pensions for battlers who really never had a chance to save and who lived as frugally as we did, but I know pensioners who inherited a few hundred thousand and spent it on a world trip. Why should we go without to fund their retirement?
    If interest rates were where they were when we were paying off a home, many people with modest savings or super could get by without a pension, but someone with $1.2 million in assets is likely to be struggling in today's conditions, and if they acquired that through working much harder than others and foregoing lifestyle in their younger years, is it really fair that they should have to sacrifice lifestyle now and have nothing left to leave their kids so that some people who had in all in younger years can collect a pension? Perhaps there's a need to examine WHY people are in the position they are in? Did they get a good education? What age did they start work? Did they suffer crippling sickness or disability? What kind of work and earnings did they enjoy in younger years? Those who prospered despite serious hardship should maybe be treated more generously? Of course a system that factored those variables in would be almost impossible to administer and would be wide open to corruption!
    I'd like to see the income test tightened. I'd like to see the government find ways to address asset hiding and taking unfair advantage of exemptions. But the assets test is NOT too generous given the low level of returns achievable in today's world. Take out non-returning assets such as furniture, a car, etc. and most people would be very hard up on the returns on $1 million.
    As for the family home, I think it should be counted if the value is excessive - perhaps with some exceptions in special circumstances (where someone has lived in it for a very long time and it was not initially valuable by community standards when purchased). There should be a very generous floor limit - at least $1 million - because people who were NOT privileged, but worked very hard to ensure they could enjoy comfort in retirement shouldn't be penalized for their efforts.
    The other area of concern for me is gifting. I have friends on a full pension who carefully ensured that six years before they became eligible they gave away all their wealth to their children on the understanding that their kids would give them back cash handouts whenever they needed anything later in life. They gave away $1 million, put $1.2 million into a house, and now are very comfortable on a full pension plus a thousand a month their kids give back in cash or kind. How does the government stop this?
    The current system has an absurd - but probably un-fixable - flaw in that pensioners can't give money to their children or grandchildren, no matter what the circumstances - but can put it through poker machines, gamble on racehorses, or take luxury cruises without penalty. Essentially, the system harshly punishes the frugal, the hard working, and those who strive to pass on wealth to future generations (which ultimately relieves the taxpayer of a heavy burden of support) while rewarding anyone who was lazy or squandered their money in earlier life (And I'm not for an instant suggesting ALL full pensioners did that. Some are needy through no fault of their own - but ONLY some!)
    I would hate to be the one responsible for solving this problem because it may sound simple to some, but in fact it's extremely complex and whatever measures are finally agreed, the system is ALWAYS going to patently unfair to many and benefit some unreasonably. It's also ALWAYS going to have some negative implications for the country and future generations.
    Abby
    28th Feb 2015
    10:29am
    That is well put Rainey but as ypu say the solution is very difficult.

    At the same time I strongly feel that the same laws that the common Australians are under should also apply to Politicians and cancel all their perks. Yes they can have a travel allowance but be made to claim it through tax like everybody else.
    geomac
    1st Mar 2015
    12:56am
    The Age Sunday letters
    Wealthy can pay more

    Joe Hockey tells us that for our children's sake, we must tighten their belts to bring the budget into surplus. Logic tells us that to achieve this he must reduce expenditure or increase revenue or both. On the revenue side, however, the government says we already pay too much tax. So services must be reduced. But some Australians can afford to pay a lot more tax than they do. According to one list, in 2014 the 10 richest Australians were collectively worth about $73 billion. The richest 0.1 per cent of Australians own a hugely disproportionate share of the nation's wealth and their share is growing. This cannot be in the national interest. Yet Australia has a relatively flat income tax regime and is one of the few developed nations with neither wealth nor inheritance taxes. Sooner or later, we must tackle the inequality issue. And taxation is the way to do it.

    Peter Lynch, Kew
    Rosret
    1st Mar 2015
    8:36am
    There are a very people in Australia who are exceeding rich and who have paid very little tax. The poverty line pension we are referring to is just a drop in the ocean to them. The rest of us pay tax and everyone deserves a base line pension no matter what. Those very rich have employed thousands, paid the Superannuation funds of thousands and kept Australia a prosperous nation. Yes, the top 0.1% have too much of the worlds wealth but taxation isn't the way to share it. Dividends, increase pay for workers, bonuses, philanthropy etc. Reward don't penalise.
    Abby
    1st Mar 2015
    8:48am
    Now that the Age of Entitlement is over Politicians shoulder their share of the weight
    1. Scrap political pensions.
    Politicians can purchase their own retirement plan, just as most other working Australians are expected to do.


    2. Retired politicians (past, present & future) participate in Centrelink.
    A Politician collects a substantial salary while in office but should receive no salary when they're out of office.
    Terminated politicians under 70 can go get a job or apply for Centrelink unemployment benefits like ordinary Australians.
    Terminated politicians under 70 can negotiate with Centrelink like the rest of the Australian people.


    3. Funds already allocated to the Politicians' retirement fund be returned immediately to Consolidated Revenue.
    This money is to be used to pay down debt they created which they expect us and our grandchildren to repay for them.


    4. Politicians will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Politicians pay will rise by the lower of, either the CPI or 3%.


    5. Politicians lose their privileged health care system and participate in the same health care system as ordinary Australian people.
    I.e. Politicians either pay for private cover from their own funds or accept ordinary Medicare.


    6. Politicians must equally abide by all laws they impose on the Australian people.


    7. All contracts with past and present Politicians men/women are void effective 31/12/14.


    The Australian people did not agree to provide perks to Politicians, that burden was thrust upon them.

    Politicians devised all these contracts to benefit themselves.

    Serving in Parliament is an honour not a career.

    The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so our politicians should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work. (Dr. Dale Kerwin)
    particolor
    1st Mar 2015
    9:39am
    Beware the Ides of March !!
    They are Ordinary people ! Very Ordinary !!
    I like Your Recipe ! Put that to the Vote in Parliament !! Yeah Right !! I can hear the Racket of Disapproval from here !! :-)
    Good Luck .... Submit !!
    particolor
    1st Mar 2015
    9:41am
    I just heard OINKING & SQUEELING !! :-)
    Rosret
    1st Mar 2015
    12:30pm
    Abby, If you want quality politicians they need to be paid and receive a reasonable subsidy for giving up their career to manage the country. Politicians pay is so low compared to that of a business CEO there has to be some reason for them to put themselves in the perpetual media firing line. Pay for quality and you will get just that - pay peanuts and you will get not just monkeys but graft and corruption.
    particolor
    1st Mar 2015
    12:41pm
    How much should a Quality Monkey be paid ?
    Abby
    1st Mar 2015
    1:58pm
    AUSTRALIAN MPs are among the best paid in the world
    Prime Minister ...... ...............$507,338

    Deputy Prime Minister..............$400,016

    Treasurer............................ $365,868

    Leader of the Opposition.......... $360,990

    House of Reps Speaker............. $341,477

    Leader of the House................ $341,477

    Minister in Cabinet.................. $336,599

    Parliamentary secretary............. $243,912

    Other ministers*......................$307,329 x 71 = A$21,820,359

    Shadow ministers*....................$243,912 x 71 = A$17,317,752

    The TOTAL ANNUAL SALARIES (for 150 seats) = $41,694,311 - PER YEAR!

    It’s worth remembering that this is EXCLUDING all their other perks!
    particolor
    1st Mar 2015
    2:27pm
    That Peculator is Stuffed !! :-( Time to get a New One !! :-)
    particolor
    1st Mar 2015
    2:31pm
    PS And most of them Barely get enough to Live On !! :-(
    Abby
    1st Mar 2015
    7:56pm
    Rosret
    Somehow I think we would be better off with monkeys on peanuts rather than paying them all that money.
    Rosret
    1st Mar 2015
    8:23pm
    $41m per year is less than $2 per person to administer the country. I wish my super fund was so obliging with their fees charged to administer my retirement fund.
    Abby
    2nd Mar 2015
    9:30pm
    If you added the perks to that I do not think you would be as pleased.
    indiana Jones
    1st Mar 2015
    11:04pm
    My question is, why do the pollys have substancial pensions and do not have their assetts assesed or deeming rates applied. So why is there not an uproar about this unequality.If we pensioners have worked hard all our lives with no superanuation,all our income spent on educating the kids, buying a house ect . We had five dollars a month towards costs for the kids from the goverment no paid parental leave, wife stayed at home looking after the kids,which meant only one wage. So whats good enough for the gander is good enough for the goose, so to speak.
    particolor
    2nd Mar 2015
    8:18pm
    Yes but their Goose lays Golden Eggs !! :-)
    Bubbles
    2nd Mar 2015
    5:22pm
    Only houses over a certain amount for couples and singles
    clydecladidlehopper
    3rd Mar 2015
    12:34pm
    Twenty to thirty years ago, a couple would sell their house in the city at a very high price (600K) , purchase a much better house in the country (200K) and could live the rest of their life happily on interest (10%) from the difference (400K). The exemption of the "family home" and changes to inheritance tax has now distorted the situation in many ways. By contrast, the "family farm" is often still included in the asset test, with exceptions. The inheritance value of a city house is so high now, that the city - country divide between the wealth of families is growing greater with the passing of each generation. In addition, as more houses in the city are held tightly by the family, then there are less houses sold, putting further pressure on prices. There needs to be a change to policy that encourages people to use the equity in their city homes for their retirement needs, as well as more equity in the calculation of assets between the city and the regions.
    Abby
    3rd Mar 2015
    12:40pm
    That needs to be done but if a political party did that they would be voted out of power as everybody expects something for nothing.
    BB1
    17th Mar 2015
    11:44am
    What people have to remember, a lot of these pensioners bought in the now 'million dollar' area when they were not a fashionable area. 30 years ago, one wouldn't have bought a place down in the inner city. People wanted the 3 bed and back yard place, so bought accordingly. The younger people now a days, don't want this. They want to be in or near the City so have bought properties, most need renovating.
    This has put the prices up on surrounding suburbs, ie Greenacre which one will say is not 'city' but the house originally would have been bought in the 1960's for 4,000 pounds. Which in those days was an expensive house. The house then was worth more than the land. The same house now will sell for around $600,00 - $800,000. Not the persons fault. Some of the houses have been pulled down and newer ones put up, these houses are now selling up towards the 1 Million area. It is the land that is expensive now. The younger people are wanting to buy as close to the city as they can possibly do, a lot is to do with their work and what it is and where it is. In the 1960's we thought nothing to travelling 2hrs to get to ones job, now - young people wont get out of bed if they had to travel for that amount of time. Times change and so do attitudes . Now a days by bus and train it can take you 1 hr to get from a suburb in Campbelltown to Liverpool, and to the City 1 1/2 hrs - 2hrs. But you don't pay the million dollar price for a house down here.