23rd Jun 2015
Pension changes approved

The Government’s legislation to tighten pension eligibility was passed by the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon and also passed through the Senate last night. The $2.4 billion savings measure was the Government’s largest budget item and was passed thanks to a deal being struck with the Greens last week.

The asset test changes will see 170,658 people around $15 better off each week, while 235,756 will have their pensions reduced and 91,378 will be cut fully from receiving a part Age Pension.

The changes come into effect January 2017 and Senator Glenn Lazarus expressed his concern that those banking on receiving an Age Pension may not have sufficient time to make alternative arrangements. "Don't change the pension and retirement goalposts without fair warning" he told the Senate.

Read more from www.abc.net.au
Read more from www.news.com.au

Opinion: Too much, too soon

In just under 18 months 235,756 people will have their pensions reduced and 91,378 will have their part Age Pensions cut fully. No matter where you sit on this issue, the implementation of this fast-tracked legislation through Parliament last night seems very hasty.

Senator Glenn Lazarus was spot on the money when he said that “Retirement is one of the biggest life changes a person can make”. Retirees have planned their current and future retirement lifestyle around the old assets tests and adjusting to the new legislation isn’t a simple overnight change for most.

There is no middle ground on these pension changes. There will be winners, and there will be losers. In the end, the biggest winner is the Government which has successfully ripped $2.4 billion out of the pension system without creating a full blown riot.

What do you think? Are the changes fair? Will these changes effect which party you vote for in the next Federal Election? 





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Fredklaus
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:00am
    greens have been lied to,abbot won't change super for the filthy RICH.
    PlanB
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:05am
    You are dead right any one that trusted Abbott is very silly he is a sneak and a liar
    tia-maria
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:02am
    Anyone be a right fool to trust PM Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey they will hit us pensioners like a ton of bricks...........
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:06am
    Do I dare call it "Collusion"???
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:22am
    This government has REFUSED to remove the superannuation tax shelter for the rich? This rort allows the rich to avoid the taxation system which has been set up to get everybody else and despite repeated calls to fix it the prime minister simply refuses to engage. But what else would you expect from a political party funded by the rich to pursue its interests: money.
    There is an election coming and it is my hope that voters remember what has been playing out for the past couple of years with the rhetoric but with always the same attack on average Australians BUT NOT THE RICH.
    We all need to be very careful of the so called pensioner political parties at election time as well. Some are no more than fronts for this government and your vote will simply filter through to it. PLEASE BE VIGILANT AND ONLY VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO AGENDA IS FOR RETIREES AND WHICH IS NOT A CLONE OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:39am
    Many of the rich I know only put what they have to into super because they are not happy with the regulations and their constant change. They wold prefer to have their money where they have control over it instead. So I'm wondering who these people are with bit super funds. PMs maybe. If that's the case then I need not say any more.

    Yes I know of these pensioner political parties and one in particular is talking about nationalising super. By that they want any excess super left after your death to go into a pooled fund to help those who have used up all theirs. I think this is not a good move and many others here wold be of the same opinion.
    bookwyrm
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:49am
    Too true, Bonny!
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:01pm
    Yes Bonny. I think the time has come for the general public to have access to the financial registers of all political public servants and anyone else who has influence over policy such as lobby groups like Get Up. Also while we're at it make Unions accountable for wrong doing. I have had a gutful of hearing about Unions breaking the law and not being punished.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:49pm
    Frank, Frank and more Frank? Looks like it. Whatever happened to your other aliases Frank: miss aisle and Solomon?
    I response to your Liberal Party post Frank: the rich use super to AVOID PAYING THE 49% TAX RATE, leave it in there where fund earnings are only taxed at the same rate (15%) and draw it out as a pension. RORT!!!!!!!!!!!
    I do agree with the public being able to see where election funding comes from...and that includes THIS GOVERNMENT. My bet is that you would see funding from the coal industry, miners, the big banks and any number of other vested interests lining up to get their private government elected.
    But given that liberal party funds are secret and that Abbott refuses to put a federal ICAC in place it seems like the dishonest game is going to continue. Real scrutiny requires BOTH SIDES of politics to be scrutinised and THIRD PARTY GROUPS who engage in lobbying to be included. I am sure that you would find that GetUp, just like the ABC, is not bought like your boss' side of politics. So let the scrutiny begin....I EXPECT YOUR BOSS TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS. Yeah right!
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:23pm
    It is interesting to know which groups are funded by Unions for example but I am more interested in the public having access to the personal register of interests. So that their voting can be scrutinised more closely by the public, because sometimes a politician's view is in contrast to how they vote. I think we deserve to know why.
    moke
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:35pm
    Things Political Never change, many years ago I worked for a company that had me very quietly type a cheque for a certain political party. Big business and the Rich will never be downed if the Liberal party stay in power. LIBERAL meaning is Given or giving freely or a person of liberal views. This does not sound very much like our Liberal Party.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:19pm
    It would be very interesting to know exactly WHO is funding liberal party election campaigns. It would be even more interesting to know if the coal industry paid for the Carbon Tax repeal or if the banking industry paid for the repeal of legislation introduced by the previous government to protect bank customers from their banks. And then lets have a look at the mining industry.
    I believe that we do indeed need to scrutinise election funding, particularly for this dishonest, misleading government which has shown its true colours since lying its way into power. And now the next anti-Labor smear campaign is under way.
    GreyViper
    24th Jun 2015
    1:52am
    It must be hell inside your head Mick. It's seems that you think everyone who has a bit of money is a liar and a cheater and involved in a rort. I've never seen such resentment of people who have accumulated a bit of wealth. It's like you think Abbott and Hockey sit in their offices and plot ways to beat down the "greedy pensioner" and rob them of their money so they can give it to the "filthy rich". That is a really twisted view of things. Why do you have such resentment of people who have worked hard to build some wealth so they can live a comfortable retirement? The fact is that 37% of all government revenue goes to pay for welfare and that over 41% of the welfare expenditure is spent on the aged and it is growing year by year! This is unsustainable and governments of all persuasions will need to reduce this payout or we will end up like Greece! That is part of their problem. A far too generous pension payout for retirees! I can assure you that if Labor wins the next election they will not be reversing these changes. We simply don't have the money! I agree that the government could bring in some tax at the higher end of the super earnings but the fact remains that people with lots of money in superannuation don't cost the government money. It is the people with little or no money invested or saved that costs the bottom line. I gather by your rantings that you have no money in super otherwise you wouldn't hold such resentment for those that do. What went wrong to give you such a twisted view of things??
    Just remember - You can't make poor people rich by making rich people poor!
    Adrianus
    24th Jun 2015
    7:51am
    GreyViper, mick is an ex Independent politician who is not short of a dollar. Far from it. He has a healthy income stream provided by the taxpayer, plus income from property. His twisted view is what we pay for unfortunately.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:15am
    I see you have another alias Frank.
    The only twisted view is yours and the lies you tell are no different from those which come from your employer.
    Unlike you the taxpayer pays me not one dollar but we make ends meet. Wealthy? I wish....but happy with what we have, and do not need to sell my soul like you do. It is much better sticking up for ordinary Australians who your boss has been going after.
    Misty
    29th Jun 2015
    8:59pm
    Well Frank today I heard that the Mafia had donated to the Liberal Party so I wouldn't be throwing mud at Labor about the unions, remember that old saying," People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
    GreyViper
    1st Jul 2015
    7:36pm
    Hello Mick. Not everyone who doesn't agree with you is a clone or an alias of Frank's. I am quite capable of reaching my own conclusions. Listening to some good advice when I was young I started to contribute to superannuation when I first started work and continued to do so for over 40 years so I now live off my superannuation, receive no money from the current tax payers of Australia and in fact continue to be a tax payer myself even though I have been retired for about 5 years. So I guess I'm one of those horrible "rich" people who are involved in the "Super RORT" that you speak of. Funny - I don't feel rich but my wife and I are comfortable due to our own hard work and diligence and we are not a drain on the current tax payers due to a life time of saving and discipline. However, you seem to resent us for that and condemn us for being involved in some form of "tax shelter". Is it envy that I detect? Remember .... it is only a RORT if you are not involved in it!
    Also I guess come next election I shouldn't vote for that "lying, dishonest, misleading" Mr. Abbott and vote for that nice, honest, and truthful Mr. Bill Shorten?
    Teddyboy.
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:09am
    Spot on. They won't take anything from their cash-cow.
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:13am
    Just the START of "Things to Come".
    That is, IF WE LET THEM!
    tia-maria
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:03am
    Patriot, that's right if we let them...........ABOUT TIME THESE POLITICIANS PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH..........
    retroy
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:12am
    You stop them Patriot.

    Let us know when you are successful!
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:25am
    Gutless wonders are everywhere - that's the problem!
    disillusioned
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:28am
    What a miserable, wretched government they are changing the rules on us at this stage of the game, and the greens are just as bad. I'm just under the cap at present for the part aged pension, after years of working and paying taxes and putting any extra I manage to have into my super in later years, but that'll change at the end of next year. The pollies have got their own nests nicely lined, so the rest of us oldies are chucked to the wolves, along with the homeless, the mentally ill and any other sick, vulnerable people in our society. Vote Liberal again? Not this little oldie!
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:00am
    ...and how are you going to vote for? Do you really think a Labor government will reverse these changes? I think they will see how successful it has been to the bottom line and do a bit more pruning.

    Sorry the party is over and time to be thankful that you had it so good for so long.
    tia-maria
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:04am
    Bonny that's your opinion only.....................
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:05am
    Bonny
    For ONCE, I agree with you!
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:35am
    How could anybody in their right mind ever vote for this bunch of lying low life creatures again.
    Just like the last election we are seeing the next smear campaign roll out from this morally corrupt government and just like last time around we all await to see if there will be any truth to it. Nothing came of the last one and unlikely that anything will come of this one as this is a media scare campaign designed to win over the feeble minded. About time the vested interests in the media started to probe the relationship between this government and the coal, mining and banking industries. Now there I suggest you will most likely find real corruption.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:41am
    Mick don't get me started on vested interests...we'll leave that for another day.
    Daffoir
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:55am
    Make that another one agreeing with Bonny.
    Daffoir
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:55am
    Make that another one agreeing with Bonny.
    Radish
    24th Jun 2015
    4:11pm
    I dont know why people keep saying they paid their taxes all their life etc etc...come on all where were in the workforce did the same thing.

    Some were more successful than others during their working life. Ok, so life is not always fair, we have to accept that...some wasted their money, some did not have the opportunity to contribute to super, some had great jobs and were able to save/invest.

    I don't get a skerrick from government but I accept the rules and I will live within them. I do not begrudge anyone who fits the criteria and gets a pension and its associated benefits.

    What does annoy me is those who hide assets so that they get what they perceive as "their share" of the spoils.

    I want those less well off to be looked after and those who can afford to look after themselves to do so. People who are over the limits and want a part pension can always get them by going on a good holiday or spending money on their homes or give some to their children.

    It is nice to know that if at some stage I do fall on hard times the safety net will be there for me.
    Misty
    29th Jun 2015
    9:02pm
    Bonny and Leila what do you think of the news today that the Mafia donated money to the Liberal Govt?.
    Mike
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:35am
    The very wealthy have not been touched, 475 people have super accounts of $10m or more that earn over $1.5m tax free every year. Hockey has attacked the middle class, those that worked and saved for their retirement under existing guidelines whilst those who lived life to the full, enjoyed themselves and didn't save for the future have been rewarded. Hockey has also attacked the disabled calling them rorters. Hockey himself lives in a $6m house on the north shore, and claims travelling allowance of $271 every night in Canberra where he stays in his $2m house which is close to Parliament House, which is in his wifes name. He justifies this by saying he is paying his wife rent. This amounts to over $1000 a month ( since 1997 ) which is more than Job search people get to live on. But he also has a number of MP friends who stay with him, each paying his wife $271 a night of taxpayers money. I wonder if his wife declares this on her tax return. This is immoral, all this taxpayers money ends up in Hockeys pocket, and he is a multi millionaire, and he has the arrogance to call disabled people rorters. It is estimated that up to 560000 people, most of whom were Liberal Party voters, will NEVER vote Liberal again.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:03am
    Only 475 people that hardly worth even discussing in parliament as realistically how much can they gain out of further taxing these people. I'd say less than nothing.
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:32am
    Bonny
    Just because it won;t make much difference in the "Over All" picture does NOT mean is SHOULD NOT BE DONE.

    JUST DO IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    jeansievers
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:38am
    Mike you are spot on with your assessment. Yesterday I could see this coming and I called up a few politicians, tried to contact ACOSS and COTA but either they were not available for comment, feigned ignorance or didn't have the facts about what these changes really mean. Fast track this sort of legislation is not democracy. My heart weeps for the people who are going to be badly hit by this and it won't be the rich. This is what we are going to get in the future with this government they are very tricky indeed. If they ever say anything is FAIR that is doublespeak for it is going to rip off ordinary Australians.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:38am
    Bonny: so who owns you...or are you one of Frank's avatars?

    So you believe that the superannuation system tax shelter of the rich should be left alone? The view of this government.

    So you state that the few huge tax avoider should be let go? The view of this government?

    Tells a story!!!!!
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:49am
    Tax avoidance is a crime but tax minimisation is perfectly legal.

    All I'm saying about such a small number with big super balances is that it is simply not financially worth the government's time to do anything about it. Any move will probably collect less money not more money.
    Misty
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:55am
    Jeansievers I saw an interview with a Labor politician on Sky or 7.30 or some such program and he said that anyone with an income of $25,oo.oo and above would lose $8,000,00 in pension payments, I think there will be quite a few part pensioners that this will affect.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:52pm
    Ta minimisation is fine Bonny but when you pay to elect politicians and then change the rules to benefit YOURSELF we have crossed that line. The current super tax shelter was PUT IN PLACE FOR RICH AUSTRALIANS with a whole pile of rhetoric about "saving for retirement" which diverted attention from its true purpose: TO AVOID THE TAX SYSTEM. That is not "minimisation". That is corruption. And now Abbott inc. refuses to end the loophole for his benefactors.
    Bonny
    27th Jun 2015
    3:59pm
    Every Australian has the right not to pay a penny more tax than he is required to. That is not corruption.
    worker
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:51am
    The self created life time pensions and other parks By the Australian citizens employees MPs after they are no longer a employee MP should be removed saving quite some millions of dollars and bringing them in line with all other employees of this nation.
    Stop the rot by MP and remove there parks they give themselves from the Australian citizens monies when they are no longer a employee and let them live in the real world like others.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:39am
    MPs and the rich. Part of the same problem: rules for us and then rules for everybody else.
    marls
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:57pm
    i agree with you worker
    Bonny
    27th Jun 2015
    4:01pm
    We all play by the same rules. If you prefer not to learn the rules and play the game anyway then that is your choice.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:57am
    Good to see the Greens have decided to back the government and do something about the over generous pension system. It is a welfare system and should not be given to people with more than ample assets they can use to fund their retirement.

    Now they need to address the inequity that exists with home owners and no home owners by including the home in the assets test.
    raymondp
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:11am
    Open your squinty eyes Bonny, look around you see what is happening - instead of looking just at your self with a centred attitude. Or are you one of those Liberals that has not been touched? Obviously you are....
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:18am
    No not a Liberal just a realist that see what is really going on. Yes I have attended meeting for retirees and left disgusted from what I heard and saw. It's all give me give me give me.
    tia-maria
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:19am
    raymondp, sounds like a Liberal to me
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:24am
    If it Squakes like a Duck - it's a Duck!!!!!
    retroy
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:39am
    Jealousy is a vile thing don't you think.
    Just because I have not got a lot, then others who have worked hard do not deserve to have a lot either.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:40am
    Bonny: yes it is you Frank. These are the exact utterings of your employer.
    bookwyrm
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:54am
    Take it all back, Frank!
    Wstaton
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:59am
    So if you are a realist Bonney why are you not saying anything about the rich rorting the super system when they do not need the super concessions.

    Why are you not saying anything about negative gearing once again in the main benefiting the rich.

    Why is one side keep getting bashed when the rich side doesn't.

    I'm sorry the rich are the lifters (so it is said). If they are so why do they need these concessions if they are.

    If they are relying on concessions are they really leaners as well.

    Yes I do think that the Abbott government is all for these lifters/leaners but I think they are going to regret it. The groundswell is growing. Seniors are getting more vocal and those poor youngsters who now can vote will have a profound effect from the outcome of any election. It will be nice to see the rich squeezed as much as the less well off for a change.

    Now to put this into context. I do not have a problem with anyone being rich but I do have a problem with them getting richer at the expense of the taxpayer with the collusion of the government. Lifters indeed.
    Daffoir
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:10pm
    Well done Bonny. The responses to your statement have re-inforced my life experience that those who howl loudest about rorting and it ain't fair your honour tend to be the ones from the wink wink nod nod brigade.
    KSS
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:15pm
    I agree Retroy. The problem is that many here think that anyone who has more than them are 'rich' and deserve to be punished. They seem to want everyone to brought down to the lowest level. Then what?

    Redistribute all the wealth equally among all Australians - wait oh lets say 5 years - there will be those who sent the lot and have their hands out for more, those who spent some and saved some and those that spent least, saved most and lent some to others for a small fee. Thus creating the poverty stricken, the middle class and yes the rich all over again. And guess what, the poor will start whining all over again about how hard they have it and that the rich should hand over their 'ill-gotten' gains amassed at the expense of the other two groups. And back on the merry-go-round we go.
    sirmikd
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:19pm
    Bonny - " more than ample assets" ?

    Can you please define what is "ample" ?
    Ask ten different people and I'm sure there will be ten different answers.
    You over simplify the matters
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:14pm
    I see you have rolled out the KSS alias again Frank.
    You avoid the facts (what else is new) when you begin talking about redistribution. We are talking about PAYING TAX, a fair amount of tax.....not the 15% superannuation tax shelter tax which many of the rich pay. NObody ever said that rich and poor should pay the same amount. This is the sleight of hand which your employer pulls at regular intervals.
    There is difference!
    Captain
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:42pm
    Mick, I think what KSS (Frank) ) is saying is that if you redistributed Australia's wealth equally to all current aussies, in a short time some would have none left, some would have the original amount and some be wonderfully rich. In this theoretical case tax does not enter into the discussion.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:01pm
    Bonny, I agree. Let's see that $200,000 and raise it to an actual valuation. We are finding the real crooks and they are squealing like stuck pigs.
    tia-maria
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:46pm
    looks like Bonny and her friend Leila are sticking together??
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:23pm
    Respectfully Captain Frank, like his employer, is a great deceiver. Nobody EVER stated that wealth needs to be 'equal'. Why should it be?
    What many here have been saying is that the rich have their own deal from which the rest of Australians are locked out. The rorts are set up and the rich are protected. You would realise that with the refusal from Tony Abbott and his cutthroat ministers to end the SUPERANNUATION TAX SHELTER.
    Wstaton
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:12pm
    Typical Liberals. No-one is saying that all the rich riches should be distributed to those not so well off. We are talking about the payment of TAX, the reduction of CONCESSIONS that mainly are taken advantage of by the rich. The big problem of some of the rich is that they want to be richer by hook or by crook reducing their tax liabilities and taking advantage of the liberal concessions in a way that they were not intended. All the unrich want is a livable income.

    If you have worked to become rich then stay rich because of your own endeavors not by the endeavors of others who are paying truthfully all their tax tax liabilities and not taking advantage of concessions over and above whats reasonable.

    Now we have the situation of some of these same people who have worked all their lives creating their somewhat modest super for their retirement being penalized yet the real rich not being touched.

    It makes me sick to the stomach.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:54pm
    Hit the nqil on the head Wstaton.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:18am
    Well spoken and so true Wstaton. We need more posters like you who understand the game .
    Anonymous
    24th Jun 2015
    2:34pm
    There are a few immutable rules of wealth creation that the Government clearly doesn't understand, and neither do those who are praising this move. Oh, we shouldn't be creating wealth? That's right. We should be REDISTRIBUTING it. We should take it off everyone who works hard and saves and plans sensibly and give it to people who spend like drunken sailors. That's what this move does. It punishes financial responsibility and rewards fiscal foolishness, and ultimately it won't save the Government ANYTHING because there will be more people wasting money and more people needing help because they wasted it. It's idiotic!

    Rule 1 of relieving poverty is to ensure that everyone has incentive and enjoys reward for effort. Rule 2 is educate and provide opportunity. The Government has broken Rule 1, and EVERYONE WILL LOSE AS A RESULT.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    2:53pm
    You are MISCONSTRUING the facts. Nobody wants to share the gains of hard work and/or fortune.
    The issue is that those who very well also get dishonest perks like the superannuation Tax Shelter where they can avoid the real tax system. And then we have companies, trusts and the large number of tax deductions, many of which should not be allowed. I call that an unfair system, not a redistribution.
    Anonymous
    24th Jun 2015
    2:58pm
    Mick, that's NOT correct. Many who saved did NOT get any perks. (I sure didn't!) What I have is a result of bloody hard work and frugal living to save, because I was so disadvantaged in earlier life that I made up my mind to make sure I didn't retire poor and my kids had a better chance in life. Well, my kids thankfully did get a better chance, but I will probably retire poor because all my savings are being ripped off me to give to people who had far more than me and lived more lavishly. And I'll bet at least half those affected by these unfair changes are in similar circumstances, because those who benefited from dishonest perks are very much richer than anyone this change is hurting.
    raymondp
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:07am
    Well, It doesn't affect me butI won't be voting for the Liberals next election. All they have done is line the pockets of the wealthy with more money and hurt those that can barely afford to live now. Mean, short sighted,lying pack of ba...rds
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:09am
    Line the pockets of the wealthy. How?
    raymondp
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:12am
    Your a true blue LIBERAL aren't you? What are you doing on a pensioner site?
    raymondp
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:14am
    Lining the pockets of the rich by not taxing their fortunes stashed away, thats how.
    Its pretty obvious if your not blinded by Liberal thinking
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:15am
    No I'm not a Liberal. I don't like any of them so I don't vote.
    raymondp
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:18am
    You don't vote, now there's an intelligent person. No wonder we end up with what we have right now when people just sit on their hands and do nothing. Intelligence is not your middle name.
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:19am
    Bonny
    In that case, You should start your own party & go into competition with the LNP.
    You certainly have the same "Mind Set"!
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:20am
    I just lobby PMs for what I think is right instead. It doesn't matter to me what side of the fence they sit as long as they listen.
    tia-maria
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:23am
    Bonny how on earth have you gotten away from not voting????????? you have so much to say............ and don't act by voting ???? ........... that is no at all intelligence
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:28am
    If enough people did what I did about voting then they may do something about our voting system. Unfortunately it is against the law for me to tell you what I do. This how corrupt our voting system really is.

    What I can tell you is that the parties elect who they want to represent us and because we vote for them the that is democratic. Not in my books.
    tia-maria
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:44am
    Bonny, you need to start voting and acting more responsible adult if you want to have opinion on political opinion..........cheers
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:45am
    Bonny: I'll answer your questions about HOW the pockets of the rich are being lined by your boss:
    1. reducing the company tax rate with further ongoing talks about reducing the tax rate generally. Who do you think for?
    2. refusing to fix the superannuation tax shelter which allows the rich to squirrel away huge amounts of money from the real taxation system the rest of us are COMPELLED to use.
    If those two things alone do not line the pockets of the rich then I fail to understand how anything else does....and that is without even considering the large numbers of legitimate 'business deductions' available to the big end of town and other schemes.
    Misty
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:59am
    Bonny just imagine all the fines you could save by going in and voting and have you ever thought about the people who would give anything to have the freedom to vote?, it is a privilege not to be abused.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:04pm
    The only boss I have is he who should not be obeyed so don't know what you are on about.

    I must admit though when I started working for myself that I was surprised I only had to pay tax on what was left after I deducted my expenses.
    marls
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:02pm
    tia maria - maybe bonny is not an aussie citizen thats how he can get away with not voting.
    tia-maria
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:19pm
    marls maybe not???................ OK BONNY are you an Australian Citizen ??????
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:14pm
    Yep I was born here so I'm an native of this land.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:17pm
    Perhaps tell us all what PERCENTAGE of your real income (that part after you take off 'legitimate' deductions) you pay in tax as well as what you put into super every year....including your redistribution to partners and children using company and trust structures.
    Sceptic
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:34pm
    Mick, do you know anything about rules governing Super? Do you even know that there is a limit on what can be put into Super each year? How can your statement of " refusing to fix the superannuation tax shelter which allows the rich to squirrel away huge amounts of money from the real taxation system" actually work then. Is it more of your proclaimed avatars, but this time undetected by the ATO????
    KSS
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:48pm
    Yes Sceptic, you are correct there are limits as to how much someone can sacrifice into super and get the lower tax rate. For someone over 55 for example it is $36000 and that includes the employer contribution. All other contributions are non concessional and therefore you pay your full tax rate on it before you put it into super. So there is no squirrelling away huge amounts into super at the expense of taxation. The maximum being the modest $36000 per year regardless of how much you actually earn. The more your employer pays (say 9% of your salary) the less you are able to sacrifice for the tax advantage. AND there are heavy penalties for making a mistake and sacrificing more. The ATO issues very high penalties for doing so even by a dollar.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:04pm
    Heavy penalties alright! In one year the ATO raised $16.4m from SMSFs alone. It's clear mick has no idea. Those who are paying him should ask for their money back. Or at least take the case up with Fair Work Australia.
    Sceptic you make a very good point!!
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:30pm
    Sceptic: whilst you are correct that there is a limit on super this has not always been the case. And you conveniently avoid mentioning that company structures and trusts pretty well get around limits as the family dog (sic) can earn money and then have superannuation payments made on his behalf.
    You are simplifying something which is rorted to death......with no end in sight.
    Sum1
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:39pm
    KSS..spot on....$36000 is the limit... Those who have accrued large Super accounts in the Accumulation Phase are paying 15% tax on their earnings each year...Strange the informed did not bring this up?.. Most would not have had a great tax advantage if they earned under $180000 per year. It would seem Success Envy is the main theme in many of the posts on this site.
    Misty
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:02pm
    KSS I don't know what sort of world you inhabit but I don't know too many people, especially not in our town who could afford to squirrel away, what you call a modest sum, $36,000, one of my sons doesn't even earn that in a year.
    TREBOR
    24th Jun 2015
    12:02am
    Aha - so Bonny is not living and working here..... no relevance whatsoever to the current issues at hand.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:22am
    Yeah Trebor. Ignore some of these so called 'private' posts as they are paid advertisements. The reality is that rich Australians use company and trust structures to distribute money into various superannuation accounts. So the apparent $36 000 pa can quickly run into much more. And that is the rort: tax system avoided and average Australians expected to make up the difference!
    Anonymous
    24th Jun 2015
    2:46pm
    Good thing Bonny doesn't vote, I think, since she has no comprehension of reality!

    Misty, the reality is that most Australians could ''spirit away'' half a million or more during their working life if they worked hard, lived frugally, and managed sensibly. My husband and I started married life heavily in debt after an illness and a car accident, had a child with special needs who cost us over $100,000, suffered extensive illness and eventually disability, earned LESS THAN THE DOLE for 30 years of our working life, retired early due to disability - when he was 55, and never had a single cent given to us, never inherited a cent, and had very little support or advice through life. Neither of us finished high school. He started work at 15 with less than 6 years' schooling in total. Yet we put three kids through university AND saved a tidy sum for retirement. I repeat, NEARLY ANYONE CAN. But we never had a holiday. I sat up all night many nights making clothes for the family. We built our house ourselves, living in a shed without power or plumbing, we built our furniture, we grew vegies, we made preserves, we lived on stews and casseroles rather than steak. And now we are supposed to hand over all the benefits of that sacrifice and our hard work to people who drank, gambled, had expensive holidays, etc. And NOT ONE CENT extra goes to the genuinely disadvantaged!

    Sum1 is spot on. Success envy is what is happening in Australia at the moment, and there's a stupid notion that punishing moderate success (while leaving the obscenely wealthy well alone) and giving more to people who have no idea what to do with it is going to solve problems. Well, news flash people! If you offer someone 13%+ return for wasting money that they are only likely to be earning between 3% and 8% on by saving it, there aint much incentive to save it. If they don't save it, the Government pays out more in pensions. More people with less means higher costs for the Government for health, aged care, etc. DUMB DUMB DUMB!

    I am so sick of the jealousy and selfishness of people who had a better lifestyle than us and now want us to suffer because we saved and they didn't. It's disgusting.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    3:20pm
    Rainey: my wife and I meet your criteria and we have (by choice lived tough life. We understand!
    What you call jealousy is anything but. The issue is the lack of transparency where rich people and the media (owned by other rich people) hide the dishonest rorts employed by the rich to avoid the real tax system. If this end of society paid their fair share others would not have an issue. But there is something inherently wrong with those who do well then putting the burden onto those who have little. This is disgraceful and this government has taken the lead in shame: bring in countless new taxes for average citizens whilst giving your silver spoon mate a tax deduction and ignoring the corrupt superannuation tax shelter which was set up for them. That is the issue!!! No jealousy here and certainly not selfishness of any sort. Just FAIRNESS!!
    Anonymous
    24th Jun 2015
    4:37pm
    That's the point, Mick.There is NO FAIRNESS here. The rich aren't being touched. The poor aren't getting anything. A few in the lower middle are being given bonuses and the majority of those who slogged their guts out and went without to try to save are being savaged. What is happening is precisely those who DON'T do well being forced to carry the burden for those who do and for the irresponsible. The people being hurt by this ARE NOT WEALTHY. They don't have enough to be self-funded in retirement. Not even HALF enough in fact. They are facing maybe 30+years of inflation with potentially soaring home maintenance costs and huge health costs and they are being forced to drain their savings far too early in their retirement, while the rich party and those who can keep working enjoy a much more generous means test and a fat pension.

    If you believe in fairness you will oppose this cruel change, because it's anything but fair. But more to the point, it's economically stupid, because it rewards people for being irresponsible and punishes them for being sensible. You cannot reduce the costs of retirement and aged care by punishing people for saving to pay as much of the cost as they can themselves. But I'm smiling. Always wanted to go around the world. Now I can do it at the taxpayers' cost, thanks to a dumb government.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    8:30pm
    Rainey: everything you say is correct. The solution is for people who support this government to forget their political leanings and VOTE IT OUT...in a big way so that the message sinks in.
    As I keep saying this government is morally corrupt and the most blatantly dishonest I have seen in a (long) lifetime. GET RID OF THEM.
    Radish
    25th Jun 2015
    10:40am
    Not voting is easy and you wont be fined either.
    All a person has to do is turn up at the voting booth, get your name ticked off take the voting paper and not fill it in.
    Easy. No brainer.
    tia-maria
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:09am
    I feel its dam time that the Australian voters took a stand and attack the Politicians and stop their Massive Perks as their the ones who are ripping off the system...........ALSO when retired from politics live on a normal pension like the rest of us................after all your doing a bloody lousy job all of you running our country
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:13am
    The reason for their poor performance could be that the right people are not attracted by what the job offers. I certainly wouldn't do it for what's on offer.
    raymondp
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:15am
    You talk through your ar.e Bonny
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:22am
    Bonny
    Neither would I Bonny because - in the not too distant future, there will be a "Horde of Slaves" armed with "Pitchforks & Stones) surrounding Parliament House in Canberra!
    Once Australians get angry, they're unstoppable I Hope!
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:23am
    Mmmm never thought of trying that.
    tia-maria
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:26am
    Bonny you talk with false thoughts......you don't votes.........but have so much to say like a politicians..........I don't understand you Bonny
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:28am
    Bonny,
    Seen Frank &/or KSS lately?
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:46am
    Thanks Patriot. Spot on.
    bookwyrm
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:59am
    Let‘s storm the castle and show them our bums, like in Braveheart. And then set up a tent embassy. That way there‘s always a home available for any elderly homeless.
    Wstaton
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:08pm
    Now, now, Patriot, you may be considered a terrorist saying things like that and the minister may take away your citizenship.
    marls
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:06pm
    yes it is about time all the perks are taken off the politicians and they live like the rest of us. also seems like bonny is not a genuine person. politicians are way overpaid and have far to many perks. if bonny would not do it for what they get all i can say is that bonny must be making millions upon millions and has no idea what is real and not real
    KSS
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:19pm
    Patriot I thought Frank and I were supposed to be one and the same? Nice to know you now appear to see us as the two separate people we are.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:18pm
    You are!
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:15pm
    Wstaton
    Vlad is offering more Democracy that we are I think. So, as long as they "Pay me Off" and provide "warm Clothing" such might not be such a "Bad idea"???
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:17pm
    KSS
    You might just be?? Maybe each personality is part of a "scitzo's" and so, you would be one.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:23pm
    I think, therefore I am... I am Frank.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:36pm
    ....and I think I'm Bonny.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:10pm
    Sometimes I wonder about that. he he he
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:24am
    As I have said before Frank THE WEBMASTER SHOULDER NOT ALLOW MULTIPLE USER ACCOUNTS LIKE YOURS. It is deceitful....but why does this not surprise me given your government employer.
    retroy
    24th Jun 2015
    1:51pm
    And I know I am not Frank, even though I have been told I am.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    3:22pm
    Who knows who is who. All that is certain is that when the propaganda attacks on one side of politics happen and the smear campaigns begin then look for Frank. He is always there.
    Olympics
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:17am
    Remember how this mob in opposition went vile on Gillard for one "lie ". Now you can bury them under all their LIES. One being " no changes to pension ". Can't wait for the election.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:22am
    Whenever it is the Liberals will be back in sow hat does it matter.
    Olympics
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:44am
    Remember a guy called Campbell Newman? His gone in spite of the historic
    majority so don't be too arrogant Bonny.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:48am
    Gillard last time around, now Shorten. Gillard was cleared by the courts. And so was Slipper from what I understand. But never let a good smear campaign go where the Liberal Party is concerned. What low life people are these creatures?
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:34pm
    If you believe Gillard told only one lie then you haven't been paying attention. That lie "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" was a whopper because she fought hard against Rudd on this issue. Then heading for government and in need of support from Brown and his Greens she back flipped. There will be a carbon tax under her government. It showed Gillard as a weak character willing to say anything to seize power.
    Patriot
    24th Jun 2015
    7:22am
    Frank
    Agree - Her lips were moving "MORE than ONCE" during her time in office and leading up to that!
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:27am
    So we are back on the the smear campaign are we? No mention about the last election and the fact that THE COURTS found that Gillard had no case to answer. But never let the truth get in the way of a Liberal Party smear campaign to convince the feeble minded that the other side is not honest when the exact opposite is true.
    Lets turn the conversation around to Tony Abbott who was never made to properly account for his ELECTION FUNDING FRAUD. Now there is a story worth pursuing.
    Olympics
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:17am
    Remember how this mob in opposition went vile on Gillard for one "lie ". Now you can bury them under all their LIES. One being " no changes to pension ". Can't wait for the election.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:29am
    Gillard has subsequently been shown to have NO CASE TO ANSWER by the courts. Abbott on the other hand has NUMEROUS LIES to answer for. Lets have a 'he lied' election campaign.
    Misty
    24th Jun 2015
    2:41pm
    Mick I think that is already in process for when the time comes, by the way what ELECTION FUND FRAUD do you mean?.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    8:34pm
    Misty: Tony Abbott has travel rorts accusations against him during the last election. These were not too dissimilar to the allegations against the speaker Peter Slipper. Abbott got ONE short question on the 7:30 Report. Slipper got months in court.

    My mistake Misty. I did call it Election fund fraud rather than Travel fraud. Now corrected.

    23rd Jun 2015
    11:26am
    If you are an asset tested Age Pensioner and want to be within a more financially attractive eligibility pension income level come 1/1/2017 now may be the time to act, depending on your individual circumstances. By increasing your allocated pension payments, after taking your Centrelink's annual earning capacity into account (this figure will be on your Centrelink Age Pension Statement) to just below the annual taxable level you may be in a higher pension payment level when the new taper level takes effect. This, however, depends on each individual's situation like: partnered/single, homeowner/non-homeowner, amount of assets, present and near future wants and needs, etc, etc. There are only about 18 months left before the new rules take effect so time can be fairly important in some instances, so talk to someone who is financially cluey and who you can trust (yes, I know, this is sometimes a difficult combination to find!), get the info and go by your gut feeling. With financial dealing sometimes today is better than tomorrow, but not as good as yesterday, but all our situations are different. It is difficult trying to stay ahead of someone who is chasing after you for the money which you have worked long and hard for. Good luck!
    mangomick
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:30am
    If you don't want to be on the pension get back out to work. There's plenty of jobs out there like bricklaying and mining. You have all been allowed to retire 10 years earlier than you should have so stop your whinging. Geez, Life wasn't meant to be easy, you know........
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:52am
    If I was paid according to my ability to lay bricks then I'd starve after a day.
    Funny mango. The whole concept about some workers continuing on until 70 is quite ludicrous and could only come from a bunch of clowns like this lot. The reality is that many bricklayers and plumbers are forced to retire early now because their trades destroy their bodies. THe likes of Abbott, Hockey, Pyne and Bishop need to try it.
    mangomick
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:42pm
    Mick,There's always Bunnings :-) Seems to be a world wide push by Governments to privatise everything, means test everything and to cut pensioner entitlements. Governments are only there for a few years so they tax and cut assistance from the easy pickings this time middle class (and not so middle class) pensioners,many who are just scrapping by and kick the can down the road for real taxation and fiscal reforms. It's just going to force many pensioners to try to rort the system so they can make ends meet.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:21pm
    Bunnings: the 4 hour shift for abused workers, better known as the working poor?
    Governments will go after the easy money and this government will not go after the rich or the big end of town because that is where their election funding comes from.
    Sum1
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:54pm
    The Government will begin increasing the aged-pension age in six-monthly increments from 65 in 2017 to 67 by 2023. I guess that age increase was OK because it was legislated by LABOR? This will increase to 70 by 2035..isn't that 20 years from now?You only have to work until you are 70 if you want to live off the government.
    I don't.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:31am
    You may not Frank/Sum1/KSS....and whatever other aliases you write under. Sadly lowly paid physical jobs which ruin the bodies of the workers do. This is is what so heartless from the bunch of cigar puffing low life paper pushers currently running the country. But what do they care!!!!
    Anonymous
    24th Jun 2015
    2:51pm
    How callous, MangoMick. One of the major complaints I have about the changes is that they attack people who CAN'T work, while allowing those who can to enjoy fat pensions on top of their earnings. You sound almost as arrogant as Joe Hockey!
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    3:25pm
    So lets now call superannuation INCOME. That is what it is. And then lets start to talk about a whole pile of relevant options: BRACKET CREEP, tax shelters for the big end of town and forcing the well connected to pay the correct rate of tax. That'll upset 'em!
    Jacka
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:31am
    once again it's the middle income earner who is kicked in the gut. the person who's worked 1,2and 3 jobs all his live to have a reasonable retirement is now under the pump. And thanks for the concern for your fellow man Bonny, your either a bludger from west sydney who's never done a days work in your life and live in a housing commission house and get the full pension or married some wealthy guy, probably drove him to an early grave and sitting on a mountain of money (possibly super) in a large home at Vaucluse or somewhere similar. You should keep your Tory comments to yourself. Have a nice day, Jack.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:59am
    Just maybe I'm a self made millionaire with my own toy boy retired to an estate in the country. Also that I learn't many moons ago that trading time for money was just so limited so decided to do something positive about it and just adapted to changes along the way. I'm not one of those 475 with big super balances as that's too risky for me.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:24pm
    Sucking the lifeblood out of the superannuation system are we?
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:50pm
    I do have a small amount in super so the return might just about cover my food bill.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:32pm
    And downplaying the amount are we? How "small" is small?
    TREBOR
    24th Jun 2015
    12:12am
    Without wanting to waste my time and everyone else's Bonny - your story has changed so many times I assume - with little fear of contradiction - that you are some kid troll or some mouth piece for some paid group.

    First you were making $80k a year out of $400k investment.... paying no tax... now you are an Australian but you never vote.... so you are offshore somewhere and not a real Australian at all... now you might be a self-made millionaire (on a cold day in Hell)....

    Your stories are the purest fantasy and one clear sign of a liar is that their stories keep changing. Yours clearly fit that bill.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:34am
    Trebor: after a while on this website I have started to recognise the style of writing and content from our own resident government troll Frank. It never much changes, is full of lies and normally is an attack on Labor with never a mention of the huge amount of dishonesty from the other side. It is what it is.
    jeansievers
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:32am
    Too late to debate It is not too late for Greens senators to reject Abbott's pension cuts.
    Listen to National Seniors Australia:
    "The changes mean a single person with a small home, with an income of $17,875 p.a. (3.25% current upper level DSS deeming rate) from $550,000 in additional savings will no longer qualify for a part pension.
    "Yet a single person with a small home but no additional savings will continue to receive the full Age Pension of around $22,365 a year (2015 Age Pension amount) plus state and territory concessions on rates, utilities and registrations." This will effect many people very hard, especially women.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:57am
    A lot of us are in the same boat jeansievers.
    My wife and I are on a modest (less than the pension) income but will not get a single dollar. Nor will we even get half rates, etc. But I am not bitter as we have always survived and manage well, and will continue to do so unless the financial system is totally destroyed and there is no return anywhere. But maybe that is the intent so that everybody other than the real rich are forced to spend EVERYTHING they have saved. The jury is still out on that one.
    hedi
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:36am
    So, does that mean that the politician wont get anymore money paid and freebies after they retired because they have tooooo many properties and money in there Bank accounts ?
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:58am
    Politicians do not apply the rules for everybody else to themselves. That is know as the corruption of absolute power.
    Cruiser
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:36am
    So the economy is in trouble, contributions are required from all sections of the community to reduce the deficit, sounds fair enough to me. What is not fair is that only certain sections of the community have been targeted in some random adhoc manner. Weak thinking by the current government, appear to be influenced by the big end of town, labour needs to stand up and promote alternate solutions that are reasonable and fair. I have voted Lib for the past 25 years, no more, the next election will be interesting!!
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:47am
    Cruiser
    It was NOT a "Random & AdHoc" selection for those people to be targeted.
    It was simply those who cannot support them Financially to be elected the next time again that were selected to be "The Suckers".
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:00pm
    Multinationals and the superannuation tax shelter of the rich are OUT OF BOUNDS Cruiser. That is why Australians get understandably upset.
    retroy
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:02pm
    Agree Cruiser, but they would have more credibility if they looked in their own back yard and reduced some of the outrageous perks and super given to "retired" politicians, and then perhaps Mr and Mrs General Public would be more sympathetic.
    They would also need to stop giving aid to lost causes like Indonesia, and cut back on the waste, before people like me would feel the need to part with my hard earned cash to get us back in the black.
    Oops!!!
    I just looked out the window and a pig flew by.
    bookwyrm
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:46am
    They have already got planned next the abolition of full pension portability for the age pension next. They split it away from this bill to get it through quickly. They have been saying for over a year now old age pensioners shouldn‘t have the right to live overseas on the pension as it‘s not their money but the taxpayers. They never stop, everyday it gets worse and worse, they would like people to use the equity in their home instead of getting a pension, they want to manage your super because thats a ton of money they can rip off, etc etc.

    Also the Greens are traitorous fools.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:03pm
    This whole 'overseas' witch hunt is a nonsense as it costs about the same no matter where you live. And why should retirees not escape the high costs of living in Australia when they are on fixed incomes with a few dollars coming from the taxpayer? A lifetime of work in the country should perhaps count for something.
    dougie
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:46am
    Me thinks that the people affected by the changes to be made may well be able to afford the small loss. After all most of them will keep the thing that they most desire - their health care card.
    Honestly let those of us who can afford to look to ourselves do so and assist those not in such a position. Care for those who cannot control their expenditure or the cost to some of their addiction by seeing that their families do not suffer due to benefits being wasted.
    The Government is not able to care for all people in all needs. This is why our borders must be controlled to ensure that we do not as in Europe have countless thousands arrive in our community demanding housing and welfare that we are not able to provide to our own.

    I am sorry if this seems hard and cold hearted but one must be pragmatic and look after those in need in our own community.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:13pm
    Lets go after the real rich dougie....and that includes retirees with investments of over $1.5 million.
    Reducing the assets test to around $800 000 is nothing more than a way of cutting many off the pension in a day and age where $800 000, whilst still being a fair bit of money, fails to buy you a retirement. Whilst there will be many who have nothing who disagree with me on this we need to understand the that $800 000 will get a return of about the same as the pension and this is a bit mean given that people who have worked towards independence from government handouts are now being chased as wealthy people....which they are not.
    The real argument continues to be ending the rorts of the top end of town and reforming the taxation system so that it is not optional for rich investors who have the advice to minimise their tax to the point where (as a percentage) they are paying very little tax. Warren Buffett made this point when he stated that he paid less tax (as a %) than his secretary. Any system where this happens is clearly not fair.
    dougie
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:52pm
    Mick,
    I couldn't agree more but my comment was only about the changes made to the pension and not about the tax system in general which surely needs a great overhaul and place the burden on those who can easily afford it. Some make the statement that if this happens then those wealthy may well move overseas or in fact do less to garner wealth. I do not see this as that is not the way of man.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:07pm
    dougie I agree, it is very important to keep our people safe and we need a government in control to facilitate this. I don't wouldn't mind dropping $50 per fortnight if I knew it was going to give someone less fortunate another $30. But I don't get any welfare, never have.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:28pm
    Neither do I Frank.
    I also do not support EITHER side of politics and put it to you that the current crew is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Murdoch empire and the interests of coal, mining and big banking in this country.
    YOU do not want to give $1 to average Australians and your employer has been after working class Australians and shifting THEIR MONEY to the big end of town for the last 2 years.....the fossil fuel industry gets $8 billion every year since this bunch of lying cutthroats came in. And you are one of their mouth pieces!
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:56pm
    Anyway, at least you're back on the job mick. There was a time I thought you had fully retired to your house in Japan or Canada and Rainey had taken your job? Or are you two simply playing tag?
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:34pm
    You forgot Germany and the US Frank.
    Retire there? I wish!
    TREBOR
    24th Jun 2015
    12:18am
    Neither have I, Frank - I live on my bought and paid for by many years of work and honest tax paying Pension Right - the national super fund that I am drawing on. I do not receive welfare in any way shape or form. I receive my Right to a pension.

    In my view, there should be a massive rise in pension to compensate many from my generation who've been blatantly ripped off of our chance to a fair go by policies of successive governments.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:36am
    And for the record....unlike you Frank I am not on the government payroll.
    bohemian
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:47am
    If you have to, today, pay for aged care accommodation fees of up to $750.000, and other required daily fees (I've done the research), most of your savings will be spent. The person still living in the family home will need the pension for daily expenses. How certain will the second person that there will be enough left to fund his/her own aged care costs is a matter for discussion.

    The pension cut is a short term grab for money with no long term budget benefit.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:21pm
    These accommodation fess are the maximum they can change not the minimum. The last place I negotiated one of these fees wanted $500,000 but we settled on $100,000 instead without any daily fee penalty. There is calculator on the government age care page now that might help you work it out.
    Misty
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:48am
    Bonny where did you hear about nationalising Super?, I watch Sky News Political views programs every day and there has never been a mention of this in any of the discussions or interviews with all political parties.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:15pm
    There is a investment newsletter mob called Port Phillip Publishing that sent out an email the day before the budget with their version of how super would be nationalised. One must remember these people do this sort of thing regularly to sell their newsletter.

    I can't remember the name of the political party or organisation that was saying similar things but from memory they were behind those who have nothing and only get the basic pension.

    It not a good idea to nationalise super but who knows what the future holds.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:16pm
    Frank (alias Bonny) has that one right. There is a move under way and playing out, albeit slowly, to nationalise superannuation. How else can governments get their mitts on some of this huge pool of money....which they all want so that it can be wasted as they choose.
    Have a read from a guy called Kris Sayce. This guys is a spruiker but he makes a pretty compelling case for the above.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:41pm
    mick I wish you would stop trying to insult people by calling them "Frank". I may have my faults but at least I am not a wealthy politician who is getting paid for his comments.
    mangomick
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:53pm
    Mick ,Your saying that Frank is Bonny and Bonny is saying she is living in her Country estate being chased by her Toy Boy so does that mean that it's actually Frank is being chased around a country estate by a Toy Boy..... Run Frank run.....
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:08pm
    Get back to work mango!
    mangomick
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:49pm
    The day after tomorrow Frank. Not long though before I become one of the idle rich like all you Gentlemen.............
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:34pm
    I have no doubt that you are well off Frank, not that I hold that against you. My issue with you is that you are publishing paid political advertisements for the government and claiming to be 'citizen'.
    Give me your details and I'll drop around unannounced one day and say g'day.
    Dongers
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:49am
    Thanks (not) to you Your Life Choices for your support in trying to have the Asset changes not supported by the Senate.
    We praised you for the organisation of the campaign and petiton against Indexation but your lack of action on your members and readers requests to support a campaign makes one wonder what the aims of your site are?
    jeansievers
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:45pm
    Dongers I did my best to inform this site about the changes, called MPs, ACOSS, COTA and some were not available for comment, others feigned ignorance, and some just didn't know the details. Fast tracking this through the Senate is a sign all is not well with our democracy.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:11pm
    It wouldn't surprise me that ACOSS was behind the changes from what I've read.
    Carol
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:53am
    Yes it's really terrible what the Government is doing so hastily, changing the goalposts after just a few years ago they were telling everyone to put their money into Superannuation so as not to be a burden to the taxpayers of Australia.

    What incentive is there now to put your money into Super if you are going to be just as well off on the Aged Pension.

    I do agree only on one thing with Bonny that in the interests of overall fairness if Asset testings are going to be curbed that the home should be included.

    Why should someone be able to leave their family a million dollar home but nothing if they had a million in Super (then been paid out with no Government Pension) and no home.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:18pm
    The key word you use is "hastily"....before the election so that it is a done deal.
    KSS
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:34pm
    Carol there is something not quite right about what you say. If you die with a million dollars in super, unless you have a dependant who you named as the beneficiary, the money would be added to your estate and distributed to your heirs as per your will, in just the same way as your house and other assets would be.
    TREBOR
    24th Jun 2015
    12:25am
    Pay everyone the aged pension they've earned through paying their income tax, and tax excess incomes as pensioners are currently taxed who work as well.

    Simple enough. I've done this for you before.... contributions to super get a tax deduction, then they cop through the fund's investments dividend imputation, then they are paid out tax free. The Pensioner, on the other hand, has paid income tax on full income, and is then taxed on additional income /and pension is included as taxable income - a double whammy.

    So some are getting three free rides, and the rest are getting two rip-offs.

    Call that fair?

    Pay everyone the pension they've paid income tax for, then tax them all the same on income above that.

    Budget, super, and pension issues resolved in one hit.
    TREBOR
    24th Jun 2015
    12:28am
    THAT's how you should start nationalising super. Then you set it aside in a fund that no sticky-handed politician can touch, and it is administered as the national retirement fund. You put all super, the portion of income tax etc into that basket, and people can earn what they earn from it.... everyone gets the basic payout of pension, but they pay tax on income derived above pension.

    If the fund works well - the pension could actually be a livable income for all..
    Gwenwiver
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:53am
    So people who lose the pension are still be eligible for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card? My understanding was that being able to get Concession cards was an aim of most retirees. Is this still the case?
    KSS
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:36pm
    If you already have the Health Care Card and a part pension now, you will be able to keep the card even if you lose the part pension.
    gravy
    5th Jul 2015
    5:24pm
    What KSS has noted is true however....

    To keep the Seniors HCC after the changes you will not be allowed to change your income stream. This is due to the Grandfathering Clause that came into effect on 1 Jan 2015 in line with the new deeming rules on Superannuation Income Streams. From The Human Services Dept website:

    "
    This measure will affect new CSHC holders who are granted on or after 1 January 2015. Customers who are existing CSHC holders as at 1 January 2015 will not be subject to deeming of existing superannuation account based income streams. However, existing CSHC holders who purchase a new product on or after 1 January 2015 will be subject to superannuation deeming arrangements on that product.
    "
    Further to this....

    "
    The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card is subject to an income test that includes:

    adjusted taxable income, which is indexed on 20 September each year, and
    a deemed amount from account based income streams

    There is no assets test.

    You should have an annual income of less than:

    $51,500 for singles
    $82,400 for couples combined, or
    $103,000 for couples combined, couples separated by illness or respite care, or where one partner is in prison

    The income limit is increased by $639.60 for each dependent child you care for.
    "

    Current Age Pension Cut Off Income level is about $74920 for a couple combined and $48942 for a single pensioner.

    So if a single pensioner who loses their pension due to the Asset test changes, alters their income stream upwards to adjust for the pension loss to more than the above Seniors HCC cut off level may lose their HCC.

    This could be as little as a $2600 change in a year (about $100 a fortnight) which considering the added cost of things like increased rates, increased car rego, increased Health Care costs (which may include glasses, hearing aids, Bulk Billing) and increased power costs that come with the loss of the HCC, seems callous.

    The Income test is a little more generous to a couple but it still could create a struggle even for them (cut-off is around $7000 more than the Age Pension limit).
    Gwenwiver
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:57am
    My concern is that I actually don't know if I am affected. My nerves are now shot to pieces!!!
    jeansievers
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:46pm
    Feel exactly the same Gwenwiver you are not alone.
    mIKER
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:57am
    On the plus side some of the least wealthy pensioners get an increase, but note carefully the increase in scale for reducing pensions for those with assets has been doubled and will impact on far more people than promoted by this Government. On the down side pensioners with a few bob are going to be hardest hit and don't forget the assets test covers all possessions like cars, household goods, not just dollars in the bank. Yet again this Government has ignored Negative Gearing where tax payers subsidise the affluent to buy more property, and concessions on superannuation that are just a rort for the already wealthy at the expense of pensions and other needy in our community. It’s a disgrace.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:19pm
    The devil is always in the detail.
    Jude
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:58am
    Obviously many people have forgotten the huge debt our country has and which government caused it, and the huge amount of interest being paid that is increasing our debt even further. Neither government would want to make cuts, after all cuts don't bring votes, but it's just as obvious that cuts need to be made. If I had adequate funds for a basic moderate retirement lifestyle without relying on the age pension or part-pension it would be so wonderful not to have any dealings whatever with Centrelink. Bliss!
    Misty
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:08pm
    If you listen to the governments rhetoric lately there is no Debt and Deficit problem any more.
    bookwyrm
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:10pm
    We can tell who are promoting false goverment propaganda on here. The ‘budget crisis‘ was proved to be a big fat lie, so the Aussie people could be screwed by the far right LNP.
    Misty
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:11pm
    Anyway Jude the current Federal Government has doubled the deficit/debt since they came to power so they have to take some of the blame too.
    Wstaton
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:23pm
    Yes indeed Jude,

    I don't think anyone here doesn't realize that the debt has to be reduced. That is not the point here. The point is who is being and who is not being targeted to accomplish this. Yes It is the lower end of the spectrum being targeted and not the upper end.

    Of course they are the lifters and need all the concessions they can get to remain so.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:23pm
    Here we go again Jude.
    Please explain how your extended family was NOT thrown out of work during the GFC when ALL other countries experiences extreme levels of unemployment.
    Please explain why the current side of politics NEVER makes the big calls which the nation and average Australians always benefit from. Whilt will be one of the clones who attack the NBN YOU will likely be one of the first to benefit from it and use it. And so it is for Medicare and universal superannuation.
    So lets not repeat the propaganda from Frank and his other aliases as these are what they are.
    marls
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:19pm
    there is only a deficit for the peoples needs, there is never a deficit for what govt wants to do. there is plenty of money to give away to overseas and all the illegals that are coming in, but when it come to the people like our ex service men and women their is no money. its all about what the govt priority is
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:37pm
    Jude I have not forgotten and many people I know still remember.
    There are those who believe the nonsense dished up on the ABC about Kevin Rudd saving us all from catastrophic events during the GFC that Australia didn't have to have. Kevin Rudd enjoyed the theatre of it all as a type of superman on a mission to save this part of the world flying around the world. While back home Wayne Swan said he could feel the earth shake.
    Yes mick, we got insulation in houses courtesy of taxpayers, we got a very costly NBN hooked up to houses which, in some cases wont be used. The Unions got $10m for training. But at what cost mick? At what cost?
    It's time to repay the loans now.
    Jude
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:58pm
    For Mick, I haven't got NBN and not likely to get it in my area during my lifetime. I remember life before Medicare, also missed out on Austudy, baby bonus, first homebuyers grant. Was around during the time of the 22% home loan era under ALP but was one of the lucky ones actually saving for a home and getting 22% interest on my savings. All this has nothing to do with the topic, just in answer to your very weird comments.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:27pm
    I can relate to some of what you are going on about Jude. I also did not get the Baby Bonus (Costello stupidity). Nor did I get the Rudd cash splash to try and keep Australians spending. But lets be grateful for having survived politics as well as ups and downs and ended up with what we have. I am.

    Sadly Frank uses every other opportunity to turn this forum into an anti Labor propaganda campaign whilst NEVER mentioning ANY of the many dishonest behaviours from his political master, the bad policies and the corrupt associations with big business who owns this lot. That is the tragedy of it all.

    As for Frank's rant above I note that BUSINESSES are going to be hooked up to the NBN whilst households are going to pay to bring the service up the street and into their homes. Real fair!!!

    Insulation scheme???? I certainly did not think that this was a good use of funding but the issue at the time was to roll out something fast so that business in this country kept ticking over. So where was your voice with better suggestions at the time Frank? And then perhaps those people with the insulation are now saving on energy as all of us with solar hot water are. And then there are the PV panels saving reducing carbon and starting to pay for themselves.....except the greedy coal industry and resellers of electricity have decided to buy the energy back from households at around 2 cents per kwh and then it back for 50 cents. Blame the Liberal side of politics for that.

    As for the supposed $10 million in training for unions I do not even know if this is truthful. At any rate it is certainly much less than the $8 BILLION WHICH IS HANDED BACK TO THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY EVERY YEAR....the dirty deal for repealing the (not bad) Carbon Tax which the rest of the world is beginning to embrace.

    Run for office Frank. I'm sure Tony will endorse you but I won't be voting for you. Nor will most of the readers on this site. Good luck.
    tia-maria
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:51pm
    marls, your spot on with your comment.............they definitely don't look after our return veterans...............our dam politicians should be a shame of theirselves
    TREBOR
    24th Jun 2015
    12:32am
    Nobody has forgotten the debt issue and many here and elsewhere have addressed the issues that would help to alleviate that without ripping off those with the least.

    When the politicians and their cronies start kicking in for this issue of debt, and take a few hits for the team... then we will believe. when the politicians and their mates lead by example instead of endlessly showing us their arse by rorting over and over... there might be some response.

    It's called LEADING - not trying to drive people along...
    Patriot
    24th Jun 2015
    7:34am
    TREBOR
    Driving people usually happens when they want us in a direction we do not want to go.
    Back to the "Feudal Days" of the 12th century where the RICH were the MASTERS & we were the SLAVES!
    ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT HERE WE COME !!!!
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:47am
    Trebor: the supposed huge debt Australia has is one of those anti Labor propaganda attacks that this government is well known for and which our own resident government troll Frank pushed a fair bit. Have a look at the attached graph which puts our debt into perspective:

    http://portphillippublishing.com.au/wp-content/uploads/DR20150609a-01.png

    Australia only has 5 relatively small countries better off in front of it. We have no big debt.
    Bonny
    27th Jun 2015
    4:23pm
    Just another graph to sell investment newsletters. I subscribed to one of their newsletters once and asked for my money back after the first issue.
    Adrianus
    27th Jun 2015
    5:37pm
    It 's true, this government has done a lot in it's first 2 years. In my view, while we are back on track, we are still not out of trouble. Although I was buoyed by the Green's and Labor's slight change in attitude recently. Inherited debt and budget deficit forced borrowings at $134m per day is now down to $95m per day.
    Jim
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:03pm
    Just a new by to the comments page, a bit disappointed with what appear to be personal attacks on people giving their opinions, it shouldn't matter which political party you support, in my 50 years in the workforce ( blue collar) I haven't noticed a great deal of difference no matter which party has been in power?
    Misty
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:14pm
    Don't know here you have been for the last 50 years Dim but REALLY?, no difference in the political parties?, maybe you have been on a space ship to the moon, I can't think of any other explanation.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:16pm
    I agree there is very little difference between both the major political parties.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:28pm
    I guess you may be referring to some of my comments...which are in response to anti Labor comments published on this site for political purposes.
    Keep the discussion on topic, avoid UNFAIR ONE SIDED PROPAGANDA and private views will be respected.
    My issue remains with a poster known as Frank who uses other aliases to post political propaganda meant to persuade voters to vote for this most dishonest and disreputable of all governments.....which resembles no other Liberal government I have ever seen!!
    Good try Dim, or whoever you may be, but follow the above and you will have my utmost respect.
    Jim
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:05pm
    No I haven't been on a space ship, when I refer to all political parties, I have yet to see any of the major parties changing the rules to their benefits and rorts that they continue to enjoy at the expense of everyday pensioners. I am not referring to any contributors in particular, it is just a general comment on my part, insulting contributors that disagree with your comments is not a productive means of getting your point across, in fact it does the exact opposite.
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:13pm
    Dim
    Generally I also believe that there only difference between the parties is the way they are "Skinning" us & "Stripping us of OUR wealth!
    At this moment in time it would seem that the NLP is putting us under a "Barrage of Attacks". I believe that this is just coincidence and COINCIDES with the "Ultimate Goal" of the International BANKSTERS in order to introduce a 'ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT".
    i DO NOT BELIEVE THAT - IF LABOUR WERE CURRENTLY IN POWER - THINGS WOULD BE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:29pm
    You are making my point for VOTING INDEPENDENT Patriot. The only way to shake up the failures and corruption within the big two is to show them the door. A guaranteed instantaneous fix once they realise we do not want them.
    The problem is not that we have Independents in the parliament. The problem is that we do not have enough.
    TREBOR
    24th Jun 2015
    12:37am
    Now there I agree with Bonny and you. There no real difference between the parties running the show. Both are a waste of time and I created the title the Tag Team for them...

    You have to admit, though, that some people's silly comments invite a reaponse...
    Patriot
    24th Jun 2015
    7:43am
    mick
    With Independents alone we will not get "Across the Line" and that - in my opinion is a fact proven by time!
    However, IF those Independents were to form an ALLIANCE (like the Nationals & Liberals) they will beat the "Preferential Voting MONSTER" and have a much better chance to beat the 2 major parties!!!
    Additionally, WE - the People - must be sure that preferences can only be allocated as we want them to be.
    In other words, (with INK) put (on your ballot paper) a straight line through the NAME & Box of the person you do NOT want in the "Pref Vote Allocation" and write in the margin that those crossed out are "Unsuitable Candidates".
    This process in accordance with Arthur Chresby's procedures who was the member for Lockyer & a Constitutional Analyst when he was alive.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    3:30pm
    The problem with Independents is not that there are too many but rather that there are too few. Both sides of politics are horrified at the thought of having what I suggest happen....but it will bring to an end very quickly the corruption in our political system. Get rid of the rats and their vested interests and then the political system begins to work again.
    I agree with your suggestion and have written to Xenophon suggesting this. The day it happens will be the first nail in the coffin of the perverse duopoly.
    Young Simmo
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:16pm
    I don't have a problem with this new set up except, for the $30 increase being 18 months away. I would have preferred it to have been retrospective from January 2010.
    Stopping the RICHIES from screwing us honest people is a move in the right direction.
    I mightn't be rich, but I am HONEST.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:16pm
    Senator Lazarus needs to come up with some solutions and play the ball not the man.
    If 18 months isn't long enough to rearrange affairs then what would be a more suitable time frame? Anyway, who in their right minds would plan to retire on welfare???
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:02pm
    Who would want to deal with Centrelink unless they had to?
    KSS
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:43pm
    From comments on this site over the past few months Frank, it seems there are many who clearly did plan to retire on welfare! And given these changes to be instigated in January 2017, there will be a great deal more.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:14pm
    KSS if that is the case then the only thing wrong with these changes is they should have been implemented years ago!
    If people have been sinking all their dollars into a bigger house and paying off the kids mortgage, there will be some very sorry would be pensioners around. Especially if the so called housing bubble bursts.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:31pm
    Frank talking to himself again? Or KSS talking to himself? Abandoned mate! Just like your employer nobody wants a bar of you.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    8:43pm
    Glad to see you are lifting my text Frank...or is that KSS today.
    Whilst you go after average Australians you ignore the rich and their manipulation of money to escape paying their rightful taxes. Read the following:

    https://theconversation.com/the-super-rich-and-tax-lifters-or-leaners-27700

    Here is an extract which indicates the problem:

    "The 2011/12 tax statistics show that only 2% of income earners return a taxable income of more than $180,000, contributing 26% of the total tax revenue.
    This compares with 37.4% of income tax collected from the 14.4% of individuals earning between $80,000 and $180,000.............
    Many people would be surprised to find out that only 2% of Australians pay the top rate of tax, which raises questions over how high flyers are reporting their income, or structuring their tax affairs."

    So it is average Australians who are to blame for the fact rich AUstralians have so much to retire on is it?
    Travellersjoy
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:23pm
    Why is 2 years not enough?

    I could easily live on $800,000 and still leave some for my kids.

    What is wrong with these people? Tax payers are not obliged to gold plate your retirement, or preserve capital for your children.

    Get over yourselves, and do some proper planning.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:31pm
    I see your point but it seems a bit tough expecting those who have saved hard, done without for decades and then get less in retirement than those who made no effort to save a razoo, ever.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:09pm
    $800,000 would be enough for me to live on too especially with pension safety net there once you have drawn down your capital. It was their choice to save hard and done without for decades. I certainly haven't done that myself.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:42pm
    It's very interesting how some posters have turned against the poor and unfortunate, describing them as people who have not made an effort. So it's the rich and the poor who now have the wrath of the Labor elite.
    Misty
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:45pm
    $800,000, I wouldn't know how to spend that much money, how could anyone with this amount of savings even want to apply for a government pension beggars belief. My late husband and I both worked past our retirement age and had a modest super that we converted to annuities and with that and a part pension we lived quite comfortably but no where near a $800,000 saving account/ super/investments did we have or need, although it would have been nice.
    KSS
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:06pm
    And now Misty you seek to punish those who do happen to have $800,000 in super. Its not so much the pension per se, its the 'extras' that go with it that matter to them; the concessions on a wide range of expenses, the Health Care Card etc not the few dollars in pension money.

    If you don't know how to begin spending that amount of money, give me a call, I am sure I could point you in the right direction and show you how to put a significant hole in it. hahaha
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:33pm
    The normal spiel from Frank. Labor did cause WW2 didn't they.
    Misty
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:18pm
    No KSS I don't seek to punish anyone what ever their bank balance is, I just can't comprehend why anyone with that sort of savings would even want to get a government pension. I cannot see why anyone on this site would be blaming or calling the poorer people on pensions leaners or squealers when it seems to me to be the ones with the most who are doing that.
    TREBOR
    24th Jun 2015
    12:40am
    No, mick - the feminists caused WWII... and the Titanic disaster....
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:48am
    So it wasn't Rudd and Gillard after all?
    Adrianus
    24th Jun 2015
    11:39am
    Talking about which.....I was in need of a laugh last night so I watched "The Killing Season" episode 3.
    Having only seen snippets of the first 2 episodes I grabbed a glass of port and settled comfortably expecting to have a good old belly laugh at some stage.
    I was a little disappointed due to my level of laughter not reaching the anticipated heights. This was due mainly to the constant crying and snivelling of the actors.
    I don't know about you but I cant laugh when everyone else is crying. I defy anyone to laugh at the sight of poor Albo sobbing uncontrollably while trying to defend the Layba Pardy. When I look back it's hard to believe it was real. I think we were all crying back in those days.
    Patriot
    24th Jun 2015
    12:00pm
    Frank
    Have to admit frank, you've got me laughing with this one!!!
    I don't watch the CRAP on the TV - All lies & 1/2 LIES from ALL SIDES of the Political Scenery!!!
    I REFUSE to be PROGRAMMED by EITHER side of politics!
    They ALL (with a few exceptions) are there to FEATHER THEIR OWN NESTS.
    This either DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY via SUBMISSION TO THE GLOBAL CABAL &/or the BANKSTERS.
    THEY ARE THE SAME MOB OF CRIMINALS ANYWAY!!!!!
    Misty
    24th Jun 2015
    12:46pm
    Frank I know just how you feel, I bawl my eyes out or laugh madly every time I watch TA, JH, CP, SM AND CO, NOT TO MENTION BB at work in Question Time, a carbon copy of the last Gillard, Rudd Government, this Liberal Coalition Government learnt well from Labor didn't they, HOW NOT TO RUN A GOVERNMENT.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    3:33pm
    I can't wait for the series with Howard and Costello or Hawke and Keating. Maybe even Fraser and Kerr.
    Lets be serious gentlemen, politics has some strange bedfellows and it is not just the Gillard and Rudd shown which our government troll Frank constantly uses in his smear campaign,
    Dave V
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:42pm
    When you say "the biggest winner is the Government" you actually mean the Australian people as a whole don't you? Some of us do pay taxes.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:54pm
    Dave I think Drew means the Government has had a win by doing the impossible. You are absolutely right we have all had a win.
    TREBOR
    24th Jun 2015
    12:40am
    ALL of us pay taxes, Dave - get a grip on the tax system.. It's not only income tax.....
    TREBOR
    24th Jun 2015
    12:43am
    Anyone who thinks the government having a win equates to everyone having a win is delusional. Every time governments grab more money they find more ways to spend it and then generate the 'need' to grab more from the apparently endless pot of gold out there in the hands of the ordinary person.

    Government and people are most emphatically not the same - hence my treatises on the Never-Ending Civil War Between State and People and The
    Divine Right (or otherwise) of Elected Government......
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:49am
    You are so funny Frank. ABout as believable as a pregnant nun crying immaculate conception.
    Gwenwiver
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:49pm
    "What do you think? Are the changes fair? Will these changes effect which party you vote for in the next Federal Election? "

    While I am aware that these are the 3 questions on which you were asked an opinion is there any chance someone can also answer my earlier questions:
    So people who lose the pension are still be eligible for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card? My understanding was that being able to get Concession cards was an aim of most retirees. Is this still the case?
    As I am only in the survival game and don't want to divert people from answering the designated question can I also ask just one other question is it just the asset test that was changed?
    Chris B T
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:21pm
    Fair or not, Lower or higher asset tests it would be the ones more effected, can answer those questions.
    Changing who you vote for, the choice is bleak!
    There is no winners for The Older Generation in the mix of the Political Parties,just the same old retort of each other polices and no real commitment.
    Gwenwiver
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:28pm
    Chris,
    Thanks but I am no better informed.
    KSS
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:50pm
    Gwenwiver, Yes it was just the asset test that was changed. If you are a couple then from 1 January 2017, you will be able to have up to $835000 in assets (shares, artworks, super, investment property, car, caravan, other property etc) before losing the age pension altogether. For a single it is about $550,000. The family home is not included in the asset test.

    If you currently receive a part pension and the Health Card but, come January 2017, you lose the part pension, you will be able to keep the Health Card.

    If you are currently on the full age pension and not a home owner, you should see your pension increase by about $15 a week in 2017.

    That's it in a nutshell.
    Gwenwiver
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:52pm
    Thank you KSS. Your explanation has helped.
    In the meantime I googled to see what I could find and found an article on newmatilda.com so I thought I would provide the linksfor others who lie me are still struggling with understanding the impact
    https://newmatilda.com/2015/06/23/why-greens-were-right-do-pension-deal-scott-morrison
    this link took me to a fact sheet put out by the Greens
    http://greensmps.org.au/content/materials/better-pensions-fact-sheet
    It was the 2 pdf files I found when I scrolled down to the bottom of the page that I found interesting
    1. Homeowner Pension Impact
    2. Non- Ownership Pension Impact.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:55pm
    Here are another couple of articles

    https://theconversation.com/why-pensioners-are-cruising-their-way-around-budget-changes-42544

    https://theconversation.com/budget-brief-will-i-lose-my-age-pension-41447
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:42pm
    Pretty dumb spending your savings in the hope that there may actually be a pension in future. Australians need to look at the huge amount of goods and services we import, the rate at which we are flogging off the nation to overseas investors and governments and the fact that we have to import almost everything because we have closed down our manufacturing industries.
    I suggest there is a day of reckoning within the next 2 to 3 decades. Forget about a pension after that. Ok....am I being pessimistic? She'll be right!
    Gwenwiver
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:12pm
    Thanks Bonny. I often read the articles on the Conversation
    https://theconversation.com/au. It is actually interesting to read past articles as well as the current ones and become involved in some of the discussion. Though in many cases I do not have the required expertise. The comments are often as informative as the article itself. The most recent one on this topic appears to be
    https://theconversation.com/super-savings-are-meant-to-fund-retirement-not-be-bequeathed-to-others-43627 . Must wait to see how the discussion develops.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    11:31pm
    Looks to me like the government is trying to get people to spend down their assets. If they don't then they risk further tightening of the assets test.
    TREBOR
    24th Jun 2015
    10:01am
    Simple enough, mick, Bonny - the aim of accumulating super was to cut out the need for a pension - not to save money up to spend. I see absolutely zero reason for a person spending down their money so as to end up receiving a pension.

    This entire are of retirement funding plus pension issues need to be resolved NOW - and take out of the hands of successive governments who find every which way to change things without doing anyone any good apart from themselves and their fat cat mates.

    The entire issue of pension and super needs to be taken out of their hands and placed with a statutory body - and I don't mean made up of mates from the banks either, based on their recent history.

    I'm starting to think of who should be running the show... the lists of genuines is very short..... perhaps if someone were to nominate as a Volunteer without pay and for a expenses I might consider them....

    I'll nominate first as a Board member without pay in return for expenses.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:52am
    I agree with you on what retirement income is supposed to be Trebor. Sadly people play the system. Never much changes.
    The government has been circling the self funded super system for some time and would love to get its claws into the huge pile of cash there for the taking. I believe it is coming.
    migmag
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:52pm
    We read all the policies and speeches of the Abbott government and still voted him in, we got just what we deserved!!! nothing much.
    Gwenwiver
    23rd Jun 2015
    12:55pm
    Any chance of an answer to the questions above.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:36pm
    Yes migmag. You were conned by a totally dishonest politician and media which is essentially owned by the rich and their big business interests. Say no more!
    Supernan
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:06pm
    More concerned about the retirement plans of the recently retired than future Retirees ! How are you supposed to plan for this when not working or earning money ?
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:12pm
    Changes are a part of life so one needs to adapt their plans to suit.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:37pm
    When change is fair and honest. That is the issue with this government. Neither of these things are happening.
    Captain
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:28pm
    Supernan, we retired recently and though the assets changes will not affect us as we do not qualify for a pension, we feel sorry for those who are on the edge of the threshold.

    No govt in Australia or anywhere in the world should be so heartless as to pull the rug out from under the feet of people who have run the race and at the finish are disqualified for no better reason than to pinch pennies from the many and leave untouched the ever increasing dollars from the rich.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:43pm
    That is so spot on Captain.
    Gwenwiver
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:18pm
    Article: The Greens, the Libs & pensions: Who's keeping the bastards honest now?
    at http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about
    provides some interesting facts
    Already, for Australians currently aged 55-59 and nearing retirement, and even with the super system in place, pensions will be the largest source of retirement income for around 60% of couples and single men, and around 70% of single women. Because this legislation affects pension arrangements for the future, if you factor in inflation, the deal's reduction of the threshholds for pension support will adversely effect single women currently aged 25-29 on annual incomes as low as $24,000. The deal destabilises the future retirement income stability of Australians who are decades from retirement.
    Star Trekker
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:41pm
    Very interesting article. As a full-time carer, I have very little super and will have to rely on the full aged pension when I reach retirement age, I can see the quality of life dropping for most older Australians. Even with 823,000 in assets it is going to be a hard slog for any couple.
    If you take away $100,000 to cover furniture, cars, and other non-monetary items, you are left with $723,000 multiplied by the deeming rate of 1.75% for $48,000 & 3.25% of the balance $675,000. This gives a joint income of $22,777.50 nearly $11,000 less than the Aged Pension for a couple of $33716.80, how is this fair.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:22pm
    Your $100,000 for those assets must include some sort of new prestige car. What about the $723,000 the sooner you get in down the more pension you will get so it's not easy to have more than the aged pension itself to live on. This is very fair as those with nothing have nothing to draw on for that bit extra.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:39pm
    The intention is that you spend everything and then (maybe) you'll get your crumbs. The more I think about it the more I am beginning to wonder if the rich are forcing people to sell their assets (to them) and do the unthinkable" live off the capital rather than the income derive from the assets. If you think about it that is the way the rich can own everything.....their aim in life.
    thommo
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:23pm
    The Abbott Govt, and the Greens, will rue the day they made these changes to the age pension. This is disgraceful treachery and a blatant act of bastardry, which will see them kicked out of office come next election.
    This is grossly unfair, especially for those who made irreversible decisions to retire. They wouldn't even 'grandfather' the current pensioners.
    thommo
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:31pm
    And the other thing, The Labor party should immediately announce that they will reverse these measures if and when they get back into Government, otherwise they are just as bad as the Abbott Govt and the Greens (both traitors)
    KSS
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:09pm
    Thommo, the ALP could announce exactly that but it doesn't mean they would actually do it if elected.
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:44pm
    KSS
    Both parties have an "Excellent Track record" of THAT !!!!
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:42pm
    My hope thommo is that when Labor gets in it will close the current superannuation tax shelter which Abbott and his government refuse to stop. And I also hope that Labor forces the multinationals to pay the going rate of tax by closing the transfer of profits and other attempts to cook the books.
    That should see a fairer distribution and a heap of extra tax revenue roll in.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:37pm
    I can't see either of them making changes to super because put simply super will become unattractive an no one will invest any more than they have to into it. Not good when the compulsory super will not be enough to fund retirements.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:48pm
    Rich people do not put all of their money into super. That is one of many structures they use and they have money in real estate/speculation, shares, fine art and gold. And then they take some funds overseas.
    FYI - super will always be attractive to the rich whilst they can avoid the 49% tax rate and instead pay 15% tax. A no brainer.
    Bonny
    27th Jun 2015
    2:56pm
    Super losses most it's shine for the rich now with it's 30% tax. A lot of rich would use companies and only pay 30% tax so super is not attractive.
    Chris B T
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:49pm
    Assets include the shirt on your back, sticks of furniture, the Kingswood as well as money, shares, bonds and supperannuation.
    Some people have have more material wealth than monetary wealth. (Life Time Of Collecting).
    The $800K asset value may have a liquidty value of less than $100K.
    Just an observation, how assets may not be converted to monetary value quickly.
    Most people have assets other than money.
    KSS
    23rd Jun 2015
    1:58pm
    And exactly how much is the shirt on your back worth on the second hand clothing market Chris B T?

    I said at the beginning when this move was first mooted before the budget, the concept is fine, after all isn't it funding retirement living costs exactly what people were saving for? BUT I do think that the rates have been set too low. Particularly when you consider that in the current financial climate, people with $800,000 in super are unlikely to be able to generate an amount equal to the age pension, resulting in using capital to make up the deficit (or selling their Kingswood or sticks or furniture). Given that for many, many people, retirement may well last around 25 years and that $800,000 in super doesn't look so much now does it?
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:29pm
    It looks to me like the government wants the effected people to spend some of their assets first (as that is what they saved them for) and then when they hit the limit start drawing a part pension as well. Currently for a couple that limit is now approx. $830,000 instead of the previous $1million plus.

    "shirt on your back, sticks of furniture, the Kingswood" valuation would be very little unless the Kingswood now has classic care value to a collector. Remember you value these at what they are worth in a fire sale and not what you paid for them. You are not valuing your furniture for insurance.

    The sooner you spend your capital down the sooner you get your valuable pension back.
    Jude
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:11pm
    Your assets for Centrelink purposes, as I understand it anyway, is the value if you were to sell them so obviously clothes are not included unless they include fur coats, designer gowns, etc.worth thousands. Car resale value isn't much these days and decreases with depreciation. A lot of people apparently make the mistake of giving the insurance assessment or replacement value of assets rather than re-sale value which is much lower.
    Chris B T
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:23pm
    Why I made that comment The Only Reference Was To Monetary Wealth Of A Particular Value $800k, No One Includes Other Assets.
    Assets Are All Accountable, Are They Not.
    The $800k In Super Or Bank would be Added To All Other Assets, or Your Not Adding Up Your Assets Correctly.
    Anyone with $800k in Monetary Assets would be outside The Top Threshold.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:03pm
    If you are of pension age your super will be counted as assets. If not then it is only counted if you are drawing pension from it. Yes old husbands have transferred their super to their young wives accounts so that it doesn't count as part of their assets. So when you wife /husband gets to close to their retirement age trade them in for a younger model so you can keep your pension.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:54pm
    Some interesting posts albeit from our own troll methinks.
    The failure of the logic, which is suggesting that people spend everything before they access any pension at all, is that retirees SHOULD be able to live on their savings. This is what superannuation funds do: invest and pay out the interest/dividends.
    The real problem those who have saved for their own retirement are having is that RATES are so low that they are really not able to live on the returns they make...so they need a bit of a leg up (for some). Otherwise the assets these people are holding go into the hands of the rich.....who end up owning everything. This part needs to be thought out.
    As I have said above governments need to generate their revenue stream through COLLECTING TAXES FROM THE BIG END OF TOWN.....which they refuse to do.
    Gigi
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:17pm
    Seems a lot of people are missing the point with these changes. We as a country can't keep paying ourselves more than we make from a shrinking PAYG base. The pension was introduced as a safety net for those less able to provide for themselves & for a long time those who didn't have Super. It seems some babyboomers have forgotten when Sir Robert Menzies collected the Aged Pension at 70 years of age to highlight the need for change but we did nothing then & now we have people complaining about loosing a few dollars in a part aged pension whilst getting bulk of retirement money from other sources. whilst people on full aged pension are barely managing on a subsustance amount & are only going to recieve a meager increase of $30 fn. This is not a political issue this is about providing an adequate safety net to less able amongst us & a shrinking taxpayer base.
    robin hood
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:13pm
    So right Gigi
    KSS
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:40pm
    The point is Gigi, it SHOULD be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice to be relied on at the expense of providing for yourself.
    mangomick
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:57pm
    Pension was introduced as a Social Security Contribution paid by everyone in addition to Income tax so people could retire on some sort of an income to live on. Superannuation contributions for everyone is only a fairly recent introduction brought in by Paul Keating . And that was a trade off instead of getting wage increases. Bottom line is pensioners of today have already contributed towards a pension which should be equivalent to minimum wage. I don't have any real problem with means testing pensions as long as self funded retirees still get access to the health care card because in my mind if you are self funded you are saving the Government heaps of money much in the way a Private School saves the government money and yet it still receives government assistance per child.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:58pm
    Giji: we have a shrinking tax base because the rich are NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. Not even having tax rates come down from once upon a time rates of 60% has made any difference. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PAY because the rich lobby has apparently bought the game.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:21pm
    Yes Drew, the changes are fair. Let's put the fair back into welfare! I don't know about voting? I haven't voted for a long time because I don't think it's fair that a party can get more votes and still not win.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:53am
    And lets put the honesty and accountability back into the political system. That would see you out of your job straight away Frank!
    Oars
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:44pm
    I dared return to this political hate show- looking for a change in dialogue. Alas the lewdfties are in full swing with their mindless out-of-touch comments. Irrispective of your political bias, answer me one SIMPLE QUESTION> If you were left with another person's debt, and had to feed a huge mob of bods who were unable to feed themselves, HOW and WHERE would you turn to? There is no money bag in the sky- the last mob stole it. So are you going to dig for gold ? Oh no -as that would upset the environment. So where and how do you raise the billions of bucks to spend on the retirees, dole "slackoes" and other bods that I will not name. Where and How ?? Ey ?????
    I look forward to a rational and realistic reply.
    mangomick
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:46pm
    Not a fan of Abbott at all but not a leftie and not a rightie. When I'm retired I'll be self funded and never see a gram of any pension but let me say this. If I had to raise billions of bucks to spend on those who were less fortunate than I, or who had contributed to the nations wealth for all their working lives, I wouldn't be allowing any Tom Dick or Harry to come into my backyard and take all my resources without them paying a fair price for,it no matter how many of my relatives they employed. Yes they need to clean up rorts and waste but our Governments need to ensure they get a fair price for our natural resources while at the same time maintaining a strategic reserve for future Australians.Present Government shouldn't be doing it as tough as they reckon with Interest rates at record lows.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:03pm
    That you Frank? Very few "lefties" here. Only people putting the facts on the table as well as Frank whose remarks nearly always are Labor attacks.......
    You are wrong about who stole the money bag. Go and see your mates in the fossil fuel industry (this government gives them $8 BILLION a year since your mate Abbott got in).
    And then we have a tax cut for the big end of town whilst repeated attempts to tax ordinary Australians to pay for it.
    Tell me about "lefties" Oars/Frank.
    Oars
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:07pm
    Well that sure as hell tells me that NOBODY has an answer to my questuion- still warped ideas of balancing the beconomy. Yeah whew. I'm out of bref and patientsor is it paciense, I'll have to start a benevolent funbd and pretend to be "not for profit" but pay myself a big fat Director's fee to lkeep muma happy.

    Gotta go- thyis is all too much like Oz in the '50's. Get with it you old farts- the days are drawing near when China won't give us the right to be left, or is it the left to be right. Who cares. I' m signing out of this bitter twisted forum. Bye.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:54pm
    Good to see that you are not here to throw mud at one side of politics Oars...or are you?
    The answer to your question: end the superannuation tax shelter. This has been costed as saving $billions. Collect the proper amount of tax from multinationals. $billions again. Retirement squabble settled.
    The reality of this argument is that this government has been unable to squeeze the money it wants out of average citizens and is running a deficit because it has repealed good legislation which now pays $8 BILLION more, annually, to the fossil fuel industry.
    If you get your calculator out you will see that retirees could all have a generous pension if this government WANTED to do the right thing. It doesn't!
    I hope that helps with your lefty comment and out of touch accusations.
    Captain
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:35pm
    Mick, can you please explain the $8bm annually? Not taking sides just don't know where figure comes from.
    Jude
    24th Jun 2015
    8:48am
    My answer-get rid of a good percentage of politicians, we have far too many. Don't really know much about politics but do we really need senators, not sure what they actually do! Do we really need a governor for each state, why not just one Governor of Australia. After all the main role is to represent the Queen and to open parliament. Also stop the perks for retired prime ministers, far too many of them. Just a few ideas which would save the government heaps.
    Patriot
    24th Jun 2015
    8:59am
    Jude
    RETURN US TO A DEMOCRACY!!!
    The rest SIMPLY DOES NOT MATTER.
    POLITICIANS MUST STOP STEALING OUR COUNTRY & SELLING US OUT
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    10:57am
    Oars: the repeal of the 'bad' Carbon Tax (and Mining Tax) which was working so well....the fossil fuel industry now pockets $8 billion every year more compliments of taxpayers. And there is a budget problem????
    The sad irony is that a heap of jobs in the renewables industry were destroyed whilst coal mines in Queensland were closed down anyway with the loss of many jobs.
    outlander
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:53pm
    seems to me if you don't vote you don't have the right to whinge about the government of the day, however wrong you think they are.
    yes Abbott and Hockey want middle australia to pick up the tab.
    BUT have conviction and VOTE.........................................Linus
    Mar
    23rd Jun 2015
    2:56pm
    The only constant is "the rich get rich and the poor get poorer". It's been that way forever!
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:12pm
    That is just a cliché. The poor are getting richer! And so are the rich! Last year there were 40,000 more millionaires in OZ.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:05pm
    The poor are getting richer???? Let them eat cake?
    Not heard of INFLATION Frank? Did you not hear that the average price of houses in many Sydney suburbs is now over $1 million.
    Gwenwiver
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:40pm
    Frank you need to look at the evidence - the facts show what is actually happening.
    Maybe you could start with the report that was recently released by the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS). - See more at: https://newmatilda.com/2015/06/22/top-fifth-households-hold-70-times-wealth-bottom-fifth-report-finds#sthash.uIIMacsK.dpuf
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:55pm
    Response Frank?
    Gwenwiver
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:00pm
    Frank, There is another site that may help inform you - and at times possibly agree with your contentions though they tend to do it on the basis of empirical evidence
    https://theconversation.com/au You may enjoy the latest on this topic:
    https://theconversation.com/super-savings-are-meant-to-fund-retirement-not-be-bequeathed-to-others-43627
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:56pm
    Gwenwiver, Do you know of many other social security lobbyist sites?

    mick, forget the house. These are individuals with a $million plus to invest. Previously these people would have had less, maybe a lot less. During the period 2007-2013 there were fewer millionaires produced. I suppose that was probably inflation?
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    11:00am
    Frank: FACT - the divide between rich and poor continues to increase!!! Whilst rich employers cry in front of the cameras every time lowly paid workers get an annual wage increase of 3% they take pay increases which are off the Richter scale.
    Gwenwiver
    24th Jun 2015
    1:08pm
    Dear Frank,
    Try copy and paste to check out the newmatilda.com to see if it is a social security lobbyist group. I have followed them for a while and did not realise it was a social security lobbyist site especially given the information at
    https://newmatilda.com/about-us
    Strange how they also uploaded the following
    Why The Greens Were Right To Do A Pension Deal With Scott Morrison - See more at: https://newmatilda.com/2015/06/23/why-greens-were-right-do-pension-deal-scott-morrison#sthash.EtWjg7LZ.dpuf.
    Gwenwiver
    24th Jun 2015
    1:21pm
    Frank, Did you actually check the conversation site at https://theconversation.com/au . Given that in its charter they set out that they are "Academics and researchers work with journalists to provide evidence-based, ethical and responsible information."
    My expertise are not in the area of social security so I usually concentrate on other areas that the academics are discussing but as I said you may enjoy the latest on this topic:
    https://theconversation.com/super-savings-are-meant-to-fund-retirement-not-be-bequeathed-to-others-43627
    Can you get back to this discussion to explain which are the social security lobbyist writings on this site? Also if you know of any social security lobbyist sites can you provide their site addresses because you have now got me interested in visiting one of their sites?
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    8:45pm
    Have a read of this Gwenwiver:

    https://theconversation.com/the-super-rich-and-tax-lifters-or-leaners-27700
    Dave
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:04pm
    We went without many luxuries while we were earning to cater for our retirement. We are NOT wealthy Australians, just careful ones and now our out of touch government will punish us for being careful with our money and denying what we rightly deserve. If the politicians cut their extravagant pay and allowances and caught up with the wealthy who have billions stashed in tax free havens they would not have to steal from us pensioners. Your time will come Mr Hocking &co!
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:40pm
    Dave
    They're only "Out-of-Touch" with US.
    Their MASTERS - the Shadow Government - is keeping "Very Tight Control" over them. They are making sure that they are very much "On-the-Ball" with THEIR AGENDA !!!
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:07pm
    Good post Dave. A part of a bigger problem where the rich use means to make the poor give them their money.
    andromeda143
    23rd Jun 2015
    3:10pm
    I know where my protest will occur - next year at the ballot box. If pensioners vote for this abortion of a government next year then they deserve everything they get.
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:38pm
    andromeda143
    "Just declare Mashall Law" and the AUST Constitution is OFFICIALLY over-ridden (I believe).
    We won't have nobody to vote for them!
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:08pm
    Good one andromeda143. This is what they fear....and the next propaganda and scare campaign is already under way. IGNORE THE MEDIA and you will get it right!
    bohemian
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:09pm
    Replying to Bonny's post
    These accommodation fess are the maximum they can change not the minimum. The last place I negotiated one of these fees wanted $500,000 but we settled on $100,000 instead without any daily fee penalty. There is calculator on the government age care page now that might help you work it out.

    Can not imagine any aged care facility agreeing to such a low payment, as they all have to get the money in to keep the places operating. Please verify which aged care accommodation place you have this arrangement with in support of your comments.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:38pm
    It is a five star private nursing home in NSW but since the negotiations were private I don't wish to name the home. As far as I am concerned nothing is not negotiable. You will be surprised what some people will do to get you business.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:09pm
    Easy way out...and dubious Bonny.
    Captain
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:48pm
    Bonny, aged care facilities that you talk about are private companies and they do not negotiate on accommodation fees. Also the bond payment is generally non negotiable. I have some idea how it all works as I was the Finance Manager for an aged care and retirement village group.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:52pm
    Best thing then is to have very few assets in one's name when they are assessed for ages care.
    Captain
    24th Jun 2015
    9:15am
    Bonny, what type of response is that - few assets!!!!

    Please have some informed and firm ideas and do not just put up some glib statement in an effort to deflect attention away from your rather weak comments.

    My earlier comment was a way for you to share your knowledge with the rest of us on how to negotiate a deal not only with aged care providers but almost any company in Australia so that we can all receive a financial benefit through lower prices.
    Adrianus
    24th Jun 2015
    9:34am
    Captain, how about you providing some help and advice? A person with your experience as a Finance Manager for an aged care retirement group surely would have some helpful hints on how the system works? If you know something, why not share it?
    Captain
    24th Jun 2015
    4:23pm
    Frank, unlike some others I do not give advice on financial matters as I am no longer in the workforce and legally cannot give financial advice.

    My advice is as I have said to people who worked for me and also friends - do your homework on what your needs/requirement are and find a reliable financial advisor. If you ask the right questions of an advisor you will generally have a gut feel if the advice is good or bad. Also watch them whilst you are interviewing them as their body language will also help you decide whether you can trust and work with them.

    The ATO and ASIC also have advice on how to choose a financial advisor.
    bohemian
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:24pm
    Here is a facetious but interesting idea for discussion.

    What if the government print money to settle the debt, so the burden is not on the people.

    Who created the debt in the first place, not the people.
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:35pm
    bohemian
    WHY NOT ???

    The International Banksters created the money we borrowed "Out-of-Nothing".
    So WHY should be not be able to PAY THEM BACK with NOTHING????
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:39pm
    Welcome to Greece who are now blaming their borrowers for taking on such dodgy loans and not themselves.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:58pm
    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....the American, European and Japanese solutions. Monopoly!
    The only trouble is that some time down the track there will be inflation.....and that will hurt all retirees because this will create, and already is creating, inflation worldwide as inflation is actually exported.
    chrysallis
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:31pm
    I can understand everyone's anger & frustrations with regard to the new Pension changes. However don't stay within the Box. A much bigger picture is coming. The collapse of the Financial world. And World War 3. Unless u convert yr money to gold or hide yr money, u will have nothing.
    Patriot
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:33pm
    chrysallis
    So true - it will be the "Great Equaliser".
    That is - except for e few of the ELITES - of course!
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:46pm
    Funny I've been hearing that for more years than I can remember now. It goes on to say that since our currency is no longer backed by physical gold then our currency is worthless so no good hiding that either.

    Last time I enquired there was a nine month wait on buying physical gold so good luck buying it. What about some of those gold securities? Last time I read about them I think there were about 500 times more of them than physical gold.

    Time it buy a metal detector and some instructions on how to use it as my gold panning days are over.
    adbob
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:52pm
    That's hardly a cheering thought.

    So as the mushroom cloud goes up, evaporating us all in the process, my dying thought will be of Joe having ripped me off.

    I can hear St Peter now:
    "Surely not - that's Australia - the fair go country."
    Me:
    "Sorry mate - you're way out of date. It's the b***** you Jack - I'm allright country these days."
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:04pm
    There are more than a few people who are telling this story chrysallis and warning that paper money will go the way of Germany in the 1930s with rampant inflation. Not happening just yet but I'll be watching.
    For those who say 'no way' these folk need to ask how America has managed to TRIPLE its money supply (the paper dollars in circulation) since 2008 and then end up with a rising currency whilst ours has fallen.
    Misty
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:31pm
    Chrysallis if World War 3 eventuates I don't think many of us will be around to worry about saving anything, let alone gold etc.
    Patriot
    24th Jun 2015
    7:20am
    Misty
    As Einstein said: I don't know about WW3 but WW4 will be fought wit "Sticks & Stones".
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    11:02am
    And as Einstein also said: "there are only 2 things infinite, the universe and human stupidity....but I am not sure about the universe".
    Fready
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:48pm
    Having skimmed the blogs above I see many comments against the rich and the filthy rich. Who decides what is rich when a million dollars in a term deposit will not pay as much as the full pension for a couple. There are lots of complaints about the way super is structured, but it was open to all of us to take advantage of. It has to be generous to encourage people to lock away access to their funds for many years. The changes introduced yesterday punish those who saved to have a modicum of independence in retirement and reward those who blew it all. Both groups were playing to the rules, as those who opted for a pension were promised a minimalist income. The Government has destroyed the incentive to save because now no-one can be sure the rules won't change again at a minutes notice. In fact it may have destroyed the incentive for people to try to get ahead because there are continuing attempts to try to take more from the wealthy, the top 10% of income earners who already pay most of the income tax in this country. Yesterday there was a suggestion that they should pay to send their children to school.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    11:05am
    The issue is those at the top who skim off their money into the superannuation system (TAX SHELTER!), those who use Trusts to redistribute income, those who have offshore tax shelters and those who have deductions and schemes available to them which the rest of society is locked out of. Maybe not all rich Australians are able to use all of the above but nearly all use at least one.
    adbob
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:53pm
    As a single homeowner the following will apply after 1 Jan 2017

    If I have $550,000 in my pension pot (ie mainly savings) I will get $0
    If I have $250,000 in my pension pot (ie mainly savings) I will get $23,166 plus some other minor benefits indexed against average wage growth.

    Can anyone explain to me what the point was of earning (and paying tax on and saving) the other $300,000 in the first place?

    At the time I thought it would make me a bit better off in retirement.

    Not only will I be no better off but I will feel rather silly as the following people, having taken me for a sucker will be laughing their socks off:

    a: Joe's rich mates with >$3,000,000 SMSF balances - who do not pay a single penny in tax on their enormous unearned income.
    b: People who have chosen benefits as a lifestyle option.

    What is more, if a do more than a tiny amount of work to supplement my income I'll end up paying tax to fund the above people - yet again.

    Lucky Country - Fair go. What a joke.

    There is not another country in the developed world (not even the US) where politicians could get away with reneging on their age pension obligations.

    It's not welfare - and I'm not wealthy - Im just middling hard-working Joe Average - sneered at by Fat Cigar Joe and his rich mates - despised by the welfare spongers for doing what they didn't do - getting off my backside and working - and then not blowing it all.

    What a fool I've been.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:28pm
    adbob, so you're a single homeowner with $550,000 and you think you cant support yourself?
    You ask "what was the point?" You did well by yourself adbob. Stick that extra $300k away and count your blessings. You will be grateful for it one day.
    adbob
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:45pm
    No Frank - I don't think that I can't support myself.

    Obviously I can live off my savings (enjoying the lifestyle of a welfare recipient) until they're all gone at which point I'll qualify for the same level of "welfare" as those who never put anything by - irrespective of whether it was through misfortune, profligacy, idleness or a determined commitment to enjoy benefits as lifestyle option and continue to do that into old age while I paid for it.

    Looking around the world (you don't have to go beyond NZ) you'll find that most age pension systems were introduced by (equivalent of) Labor goverments - ie workers' parties - with a view to letting ordinary workers get ahead a bit thorough their extra efforts or modest expenditure.

    Only here has age pension been conflated with welfare and then in order to run the slogan "middle class welfare" and then renege on what we were all promised.

    I can remember in the 80s paying 48.5% income tax (inc medicare levy) on the top slice of a fairly modest income. Maybe you can't. We were told at the time that it wasn't valid to compare with eg the UK-France Germany etc because in those countries you paid a separate welfare (eg NI in the UK) contribution.

    Blurring the distinction was the starting point of the decline.

    Both major parties have been complicit.

    It remains to be seen whether the ALP will promise to undo this. So far we only have some carefully chosen words from a backbench ALP senator.

    My point remains - whatever savings I might have over $250,000 it wasn't worth working for. They're only worth having when the tax-free status of super cuts at a big enough level to compensate for the loss of the Age Pension. From then on up you're laughing - and Joe's laughing with you. We're talking doctor income up level there.

    This is an attack on middle Australia. The so-called poor are getting off Scot-free - as are the genuinely rich.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:11pm
    adbob, we are all in the same boat here mate. It's a pity we wasted so much money. But look at the bright side. We didn't have a GFC. We were saved from a recession.
    Captain
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:56pm
    Frank, glib responses. Ad Bob has valid points. He saved for his retirement and has now been shafted. Makes one feel really good doesn't it.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:11pm
    Frank is such a tool. Really.
    The problem you discuss adbob is that caused by low rates. Where do you earn enough on your small nest egg to live on without the pension? You can't!
    The second sneer from Frank about the GFC ignores the fact that Australians missed the GFC. We did not have mass unemployment like the rest of the world, but we now get the Franks of the world to demonise how this was achieved....yes Labor spent money....but you were employed mate.
    It is likely that AUstralia's GFC is coming though. Just like a householder flogging off all of his assets to strangers so too the country will arrive at the same end: broke. Then what? This will be the price of the Lucky Country being run by deadbeat politicians and their rich masters who do not have a clue.
    Not a Bludger
    23rd Jun 2015
    4:59pm
    On the whole I agree with Bonny.

    For the rest, stop whinging & bitching & moaning - suck it up.
    adbob
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:26pm
    Suck what up exactly troll. The theft of half of a person's life savings - reducing them to the position of welfare recipients - genuine or otherwise.

    Clear message to anyone now in their fifties. Don't whinge - don't bitch. Follow Not bludger's advice - suck it up.

    Do what's best for you under the new rules.

    Stop working and saving right now - at the very least reduce to part-time - it won't be worth a penny to you when you retire. If you've already got too much super as a result of the superannuation guarantee (just a payroll tax really) draw down the biggest allowable lump sum at the first possible opportunity and blow it. Don't blow it here in Australia -that'd make Joe too happy - blow it on a big overseas trip.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:56pm
    Ooops did the wrong thing in booking an Australian cruise then.

    These changes only effect those with assets in certain ranges. People with lower assets benefit and those who were already outside the asset limit it is business as usual.
    adbob
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:10pm
    Well Bonny - you're pretty good at spouting LNP spin.

    Does that make it OK then?

    Victimising all pensioners wrong - victimising 300,0000 of them OK.

    Calling middling people "wealthier" retirees.
    Crocodile tears for the so-called poorer.
    What a joke,

    Wealthy is the $2,000,000 plus SMSF balances of those who pay absolutely no tax whatsoever on either earnings or drawdowns.

    Justify that with your LNP spin.

    BTW I can remember back in the 70's a dentist mate of mine who told me that basically, for folk like him income tax was voluntary in Australia. It was only over time that the preservation rules etc were brought in and more recently the contribution limits and their lowering - and there was no salary sacrifice for Joe Average back then. They'd put money into super - avoiding tax on the top slice of their income - and then come up with a pretext for cashing it in a few years later.
    Only works if you earn a lot more than you really need to live on.

    That's where some of these balances come from. Total tax avoidance.

    Counter-intuitively some of the tightening up was done by LNP governments - but that's going back a long way - back to when they were hoping to have a realistic chance of getting re-elected.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:40pm
    Back then if you ran a business you could only claim 75% of anything you contributed into your super fund so you paid full tax on 25% of it plus the 15% contribution tax on the lot.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jun 2015
    6:50pm
    Problem for you adbob is that those super balances are there. So what?
    adbob
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:15pm
    Wrong again Bonny.

    Prior to 30 June 1988, superannuation funds paid no tax on deductible contributions.

    More recently the 75% limitation could be overcome by working through a limited company and paying yourself the necessary part of your salary (100% if you wanted) as "salary-sacrifice" super.

    It would probably pay for you to research the real facts instead of running on the spin your LNP people have given you.

    Brian Toohey in the Fin has been very good on this subject. He's been saying for years now that it would be cheaper to give everyone a full age pension and to get rid of all the tax breaks.

    It would of course be fairer too - and more in line with a strange place called - the-rest-of-the developed-world.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:18pm
    Enlightening post adbob. Can't you see Liberal Party written all over Frank and his aliases? Ask Frank if he thinks the Hockey budgets which targeted ONLY average and poor citizens were good? Or if dropping the tax rate for rich AUstralians should happen? Or if he thinks that this government should close the superannuation tax shelter for those with assets over $2 million. You can work out Frank or his aliases will either not respond or put up some LNP crap rather than discuss the merits of a FAIR system which does not financially benefit the big end of town.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:31pm
    I haven't put anything into my super since the early 90s so much of it was put in prior to 1988.

    No I don't want or need the age pension so have to disagree with Brian Toohey.

    If you get rid of the tax breaks then most people would only contribute the compulsory super. My kids only contribute the compulsory super as it is much better to get their mortgage under control and pay a bit more tax.
    Captain
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:44pm
    Bonny, I presume you were a public servant if you put money into your super prior to 1988.
    Bonny
    23rd Jun 2015
    10:01pm
    No I wasn't a public servant I just bought super bonds and got a bit of compulsory super in the few years before I decided that I no longer wanted to trade my time for money. Those days if you was a women in the public service you could opt out of super.
    P3
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:29pm
    I can see a few federal members of parliament seriously hoping we seniors have short term memory loss come the next elections.
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:19pm
    That actually worries me with average Australians P3. We need to remember those who abuse us and those who do not.
    Thinker
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:48pm
    The Government is only returning to what was the phasing out formula in 2007. Nobody complained when they relaxed it!
    adbob
    23rd Jun 2015
    5:54pm
    Prior to 2007 there were income stream products whose capital value was halved before being applied to the assets test.

    They have not been reintroduced.

    Had they been the effect would not have been so bad.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    3:38pm
    The forecast in the future is RAMPANT INFLATION: the result of money printing programs around the world on steroids. Guess what governments are waiting for? CAPITAL GAINS TAX which of course is NOT ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. I can see a bonanza on the way.........
    Vin
    23rd Jun 2015
    7:48pm
    It is my understanding that pensions are indexed to inflation. Will the new cut-off of $800,000 be indexed too, or do we lose out on that as well, making us even worse off as time goes by?
    MacI
    24th Jun 2015
    10:44am
    Vin - Actually indexing of the Aged Pension is based on a more complex formula than inflation that includes factors such as average male earnings. Between March 2006 and March 2015 the Aged Pension has increased by an average of 4.95% per annum while CPI averaged about 2.8%. The government tried to wind back the Aged Pension indexing to match CPI in their 2014 budget but failed to get it through parliament. From my research over the past 9 or 10 years the various threshold/limits for the Asset and Income Tests have generally been adjusted by CPI. Of course the new Asset Test to be introduced in 2017 has resulted in a radical change to the Asset Test threshold so who knows what the future holds.
    Patsy
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:06pm
    This is blatant disregard of the people who were duped to save for their retirement - a little more comfortable retirement than being one the full aged pension. They said "Wouldn't you like to have a little bit more than surviving on the aged pension (which at that time was around $30K). So we all ploughed money into our super funds. Now guess what, over the years of scrimping and saving and putting a little bit more aside so that I don't have to worry about paying for elect, gas and water bills, they pull the rug from under our feet - and GUESS WHAT - I will earn less than the $30K in interest from my life savings! GET REAL TONY ABBOT AND LIBS - No one will work and save towards their retirement any more - YOU HAVE ENGINEERED A CLASSIC GENERATIONAL THEFT. The young ones coming after us are not silly - they see, watch and experience how their parents struggled throughout their working life so thy can be independent - BUT HOW WRONG WE WERE - WE WILL BE BACK ON THE GOVERNMENT'S PENSIONS SCHEME SOONER THAN THEY (GOVT) EXPECT - WHAT WILL YOU DO THEN LIBS - SEND US TO THE ALMS HOUSE - WHICH YOU WILL HAVE TO BUILD FOR A LOT MORE THAN THE $1.3bL AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED HARD, DONE THE RIGHT THING AND PAID BIG TAXES ALL OUR LIVES - SHAME ON YOU LIBS/COLIATION - NEVER WILL YOU GET MY VOTE AGAIN!
    MICK
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:25pm
    I believe that we were all ecouraged to save for our retirements....so we did.
    I believe that Peter Costello said, amongst other things, go buy a rental property. Many Australians did.
    Now we are all "leaners" and those who have nothing should work until they are 70 so that they drop dead and have no need of a pension.
    God help us when genY takes over.
    MacI
    24th Jun 2015
    9:37am
    Patsy - You appear to have an attitude in common with a number of contributors that you should not have to draw down on your accumulated assets to help fund your retirement. You say that your earnings on your assets are less than $30K. I assume therefore based on annual returns of between 6% and 3% you have accumulated between $500K and $1M. We were encouraged to save for retirement to spend it in our retirement years, not to accumulate savings to pass on as an inheritance.
    Patriot
    24th Jun 2015
    9:55am
    KCI
    Very much agree with that attitude.
    This exclusive of the HOME!
    Anonymous
    24th Jun 2015
    4:28pm
    KCI and Patriot, maybe Patsy knows a thing or two about economics - like most who are being attacked by this Government - and understands that if she burns her capital now, it won't be available to cover high health costs, aged care costs, and home maintenance costs and the massive increased living costs as inflation continues to bite and the Government continues to cut services. She is right. The Government hasn't anticipated properly the increasing costs over time and hasn't budgeted correctly. Changing the assets test will merely strip the more responsible retirees of their savings prematurely and drive a massive increase in the number of poor pensioners needing larger handouts in years to come. It's stupid economics. It offers a massive incentive to spend up big and a massive disincentive to saving. It is totally irresponsible. But of course those who are not financially savvy enough to be hurt by this can't be expected to understand economics well enough to see how flawed the proposal is.
    Gigi
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:27pm
    Clearly some people on this site don't know the facts or Australian HISTORY. Aged Pensions were paid by State Governments, (NSW Gov from 1900), Aged Pensions were paid by Comonwealth from July 1909 & paid to men from 65 & women from 60 years of age. Largely criteria for Aged Pension had remained unchanged until Labor Gillard Gov introduced retirement age of 67 years for both men & women AND as of 1st January 2015 Superannuation changes which WILL effect whether individuals will qualify for the Aged Pension in the future because they have Superannuation. Keating didn't introduce Superannuation as Superannuation had existed for many many years for Government employees & under Industrial Awards & indidviduals took out their own Super policies. Keating introduced Super Guarantee, that is employers having to contribute to Employees Super. How can individuals debate what they clearly don't know anything about? Pensions were introduced as a safety net in a time when no government welfare existed just generosity of strangers & community. Changes have been a long time in the making & this ridiculous situation & these absurd arguments being offered on this site are because we have stripped our Politicans of their balls! REFORM, REFORM, REFORM but fair, reasonable & factual in our arguments & leave the emotive clap trap at home!!
    Misty
    24th Jun 2015
    10:22am
    Gigi this discussion is not about the history of the pension, aged and otherwise, but the changes to the current pension, if we want to know the history we can Google it ourselves.
    Patriot
    24th Jun 2015
    10:50am
    Misty
    In order to understand the current situation it is VITAL to understand the past history.
    That is why ALL POLITICIANS change history!!!
    Adrianus
    24th Jun 2015
    11:13am
    Gigi thanks for bringing some clarity to this discussion. If I may also add the Hawke government introduced a 15% contributions tax and a 15% income tax on Super Funds. The Gillard government added increased administration costs while the Shorten opposition if ever they have the opportunity will introduce even more taxes. I say any more taxes on super will be getting close to the last straw.
    Misty
    24th Jun 2015
    12:57pm
    Frank and Patriot this discussion had nothing to do with past history and all to do with how the proposed pension changes will affect those people on a full or part pension and as for more taxes The Coalition have done their fair share of introducing
    taxes although they like to hide that fact by calling them Levies or some other fancy name. By the way with the abolition of The Carbon Tax has anyone noticed a reduction their power bill?, mine actually went up by $400.00 this last quarter.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    3:40pm
    Misty: Frank is a government employee posting propaganda to help his employer win the next election. Take no notice of him. Most of his posts lead straight back to the previous government with much of the facts misrepresented. It is what it is.
    ollie48
    23rd Jun 2015
    8:40pm
    trust this government, you have to be joking,=labors debt crisis well it got us through the G.F.C.and what is it now,[double]attacking pensioners and giving people 18 monthes before it comes in,well when I was working I didn't budget for this to happen..millionaires running the country only look after the mr/mrs big business,and themselves and to hell with the older class.is there aim..
    MacI
    24th Jun 2015
    7:21am
    Like many contributors to this forum I was shocked and aggrieved by the change to the Asset Test and while I don't like it, after doing some research, I have come to the conclusion that something drastic needed to be done to reign in the ever increasing cost of the Aged Pension to the taxpayer. During the period March 2006 to March 2015 the Aged Pension has increased on average by 4.96% per annum while inflation during this same period has averaged around 2.8%. During this period there has been a couple of 'catch up' years - between March 2009 and March 2010 the Aged Pension increased by more than 10%. Taking out these 'catch up' years the average increase in the Aged Pension was about 3.9% or about 1.1% above inflation. Taking this into consideration I would rather the change to the Asset Test than the alternative that the LNP proposed in their last budget which was to to restrict the Aged Pension increases to CPI. At least this way those in the most need are protected from falling behind. (As I run down my Super balance more quickly due to the change in the Asset Test I will benefit from a higher Aged Pension in my latter years).

    In spite of changing from my initial reaction of opposition to the change to the Asset Test I am still extremely disappointed with the LNP because of their failure to tackle the Super side of the retirement income equation. They have in effect put the burden of the reign-in of the Aged Pension on middle-income retirees while leaving the Super concessions for the very wealthy untouched.
    Anonymous
    24th Jun 2015
    2:55pm
    KCI, something did have to be done, but what was done will COST the government, not return savings. The idiots can't do math. They are now offering asset-tested pensioners around 14% to SPEND money that is probably earning between 3% and 8% in savings. So when it's spent, there are more people claiming bigger pensions. It's STUPID!
    MacI
    24th Jun 2015
    4:41pm
    Rainey - I don't follow where you get 14%. Even so, I do agree an increase of $7800 per $100K spent will encourage some people to spend more freely. Mind you I think it would be folly unless it is spent on an non-assessable asset such as the family home as there will likely to be more changes by governments in the future to further squeeze pension expenditure.

    Another likely outcome is that people will be encouraged to take more risk with their investments.
    Jim
    24th Jun 2015
    8:46am
    Thanks Gwenwiver, I have followed your suggestion and had a look at the newmatilda web site, it was very informative and has eased any concerns I had regarding my pension status. I currently receive a part pension come the changes I will get a small increase, that was exactly the information I was looking for, so again thanks for your valuable input.
    The sarge
    24th Jun 2015
    9:53am
    The honest people who have scraped and saved to have a little extra in retirement are again selected as scapegoats for the dishonest tax avoiding really wealthy who never seem to be taken to task for anything, NO vote for me who has voted Liberal all my life and will be NO to Labour a well. Informal for me unless a seniors party is established.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    11:09am
    Don't waste your vote sarge. Send a clear message...vote INDEPENDENT....but please make sure the preference does not go to this government as it is becoming clear that there are some Independents out there who are little more than Liberal Party funded stooges already. ASK ON ELECTION DAY WHERE THE PREFERENCE IS GOING.
    The sarge
    24th Jun 2015
    9:53am
    The honest people who have scraped and saved to have a little extra in retirement are again selected as scapegoats for the dishonest tax avoiding really wealthy who never seem to be taken to task for anything, NO vote for me who has voted Liberal all my life and will be NO to Labour a well. Informal for me unless a seniors party is established.
    Patriot
    24th Jun 2015
    10:39am
    Sarge
    Is this what you're looking for may be?
    Mature Age Party Australia
    http://themap.org.au/
    Oars
    24th Jun 2015
    10:23am
    There you go again. Hiding in tghe 50's with your rob the rich and feed the poor. Robin hood was a well healed greenie, and had too many camp fires to be able to tell the truth. The idea of flogging the 5% of the income earners ( the rich who already pay 85% of income tax as well as GST tax on their expenditure, is a bit like drowning your life guard so he can't get vack to shore. Wake you twits. Certain people have the talent, gutz and sometimes luchk to make a big buck. They also spend that big buck in wages, and make things happen. I wish I had the gutz that they have, but I am envious not jealous as some of you lot are. I am happy to live within my means and get no handout. I am NOT happy to see the rorts at both ends of the scale of income,. The problem seems to be the lack of being "fair dinkum" at ALL leves. I'll say no more - I have no problem being tagged as a REALIST. That's what we should all be.
    Adrianus
    24th Jun 2015
    12:23pm
    Oars you have the attitude that results in success and I imagine you are successful. There is nothing wrong with being a little risk averse especially when the government is finding it tough going trying to balance the budget. I would like to see them in for another term at least before the left increase taxes and spending.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    3:52pm
    So the rich pay 85% of tax? In your dreams Oars. Read the following:

    http://21stcenturyaustralia.com.au/posts/should-the-rich-pay-more-tax-by-jamie-mcintyre/

    The article states that the top 1% of Australians paid around 22% of the tax in 2011. NOT 85% as you state.

    And as for "making things happen" average citizens spend 100% of what they earn. They have to. This makes the economy go around.

    The rich you talk about save and put not too much in unless there is a king's ransom to be made out of it. And then they cheat on their taxes and have tax shelters and rorts available to avoid the real tax system.

    Not jealousy Oars. Just a call for FAIR TREATMENT and HONEST BEHAVIOUR.

    But don't expect anything other than propaganda from the government troll Frank.
    Adrianus
    24th Jun 2015
    4:00pm
    Correction, "spending" should read "re-introduce profligacy."
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    5:48pm
    Here's more in the same vein. Read about the rich:

    https://theconversation.com/the-super-rich-and-tax-lifters-or-leaners-27700
    marto
    24th Jun 2015
    10:26am
    Its the next election results that count hey lets start a your choices party then you can have your real say come election time it is time these low lifes lib and greens and labour if they don't toe the line get the boot I have recently retired and I have had a gut full of them all ready abbott the rabbits policy is dont do what I do just do as I say well this is one bunny that had enough bring on the election I cannot wait and then all of us that are dissatisfied can then grill all our MP'S its time for the grey army to stand up and be counted
    Oars
    24th Jun 2015
    10:47am
    If you think that another election and a possible change of polies will change the endemic problem of Aus, you are deluding yourself. The top 5% income earners pay 85% ( please correct my figures with FACTS) of income tax, and since they have disposable income they spend up too paying GST. If you sit down and quietly think through the process of who pays for what, it seems that the top income earners deserve a few perks, seeing they are keeping the wheels of business going. That is the point, not rubbish about tax avoidance. They pay for your roads, schools, dole "bods" and pensions. So are you going to shoot the mailman ???
    Misty
    24th Jun 2015
    2:34pm
    Rubbish Oars, anyone in the high income bracket who are not minimising their tax has rocks in their head, anyone who can afford a good accountant/financial advisor arranges their affairs so they pay little or no income tax, wasn't that the advice Kerry Packer gave?.
    MacI
    24th Jun 2015
    3:35pm
    Oats - Please direct me to your reference to your claim that the top 5% income earners pay 85% of income tax.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    3:58pm
    KCI - perhaps have a read of the following article:

    https://theconversation.com/the-super-rich-and-tax-lifters-or-leaners-27700

    It puts the government line tripe from Oars and all of the Frank aliases into context. But what else would you expect other than lies from anybody associated with the current government?
    Adrianus
    25th Jun 2015
    2:53pm
    Oars, I don't know where your figures come from but your message is resonating with me.
    Based on income tax returns from the 2010-11 financial year, the top 1 per cent of individual income earners - who in the 2010-11 tax year were those with taxable incomes of more than $281,800 a year - paid $23.55bn or 17.7 per cent of the total income tax haul, up from 17 per cent in 2009-10.

    The top 10 per cent of taxpayers - with taxable incomes of more than $105,500 - paid 46 per cent, up from 45.3 per cent a year earlier.

    The bottom third paid less than 5 per cent in both periods.
    If you are in the bottom third, stop complaining because both sides of politics have been asking high income earners to carry the load. Yes even the Abbott Government slugged those on incomes above $180,000 for another 2% Budget Repair Levy. The levy will apply from 1 July 2014 and apply to the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 financial years.
    The above figures don't include welfare.
    bohemian
    24th Jun 2015
    11:42am
    One thing is certain.

    If you start drawing down on your savings for daily expenses, and unable to make up the difference from growing the investment, the solution is simple.

    Within a few short years,you will be back on the part pension.

    Happy thought
    marto
    24th Jun 2015
    1:03pm
    could not agree more but you have consider that the bunch of boofheads we have running this country would not be able to figure that out they are too busy accumulating property thanks to their perks which need to be looked at and are paid for by the tax payer they have lost sight of what they were put in there to do I just think people will now look at the situation and in future will make sure they stay below them so they can receive a part pension and I suspect a lot above them now will reduce their levels so they can again receive a part pension so we will be back where we started hell our pollies are SMART a guy by the name of Kris Scayce has been alerting people about this for months but maybe a lot of people here had not listened or heard
    Anonymous
    24th Jun 2015
    2:53pm
    Agreed. I actually told the boofheads running the country that they were offering people a $146,000 reward over 10 years for taking $100K out of the bank and cruising the world. I told them they are giving people around 14% to SPEND money they might only be earning between 3 and 8% on, so more people are going to spend up big and then claim a fatter pension. But the boofheads were too stupid to understand simple mathematics.
    Patriot
    24th Jun 2015
    3:17pm
    Rainey
    They understand the equation VERY WELL.
    The money you're talking about will stimulate the economy for a short while and that's what they're after.
    This WHILE is JUST LONG ENOUGH they hope to last until the NEXT ELECTION and HOPEFULLY we'll be stupid enough to vote3 for them again. After all. they're good money managers and the economy is "on the UP".

    LET'S hope we're (Collectively) smart enough NOT to vote them back in because ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE DURING THEIR NEXT TERM in Canberra.
    We think they're ignorant pigs now. Think again!!!
    Anonymous
    24th Jun 2015
    4:40pm
    Most of those I know who are intending to go on a spending spree, Patriot, are determined NOT to spend in Australia, but to spend overseas, so that the Government gets no benefit from it's unfair, cruel and destructive policy. But yes, we do have to hope people are smart enough NOT to vote these bastards in again, because if we think things are bad now, it's nothing to what it will be if they get a second term.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    8:51pm
    Rainey: you need to ask yourself what would happen if this government were to be re-elected with a senate majority. Think about who this crew have been after since day 1 and who they are sending taxpayer money to.
    If you think now is bad then I suggest you ain't seen nothing yet!
    Adrianus
    25th Jun 2015
    7:53pm
    I give up mick. What is your conspiracy theory? Who are they going after? It cant be high income earners because they are already worse off under this government. It cannot be pensioners because they are better off under this government. It's certainly not small business because they are better off. It's the terrorists isn't it?
    Bonny
    27th Jun 2015
    3:26pm
    People affected by these changes need to be thankful you have it so good for so long and move on. I agree with Frank many others are worse off under this government and it's not the pensioners. The government has more to do to get the budget under control.
    Bonny
    27th Jun 2015
    3:34pm
    The idea behind these changes is for you to draw down your capital (savings).

    24th Jun 2015
    2:02pm
    The changes are not only grossly unfair and damaging, but they WON'T yield the claimed savings when those affected realize the ONLY way to respond without suffering serious unfair hurt is to take a luxury cruise or invest in a more expensive home. The changes are not economical for the government long term because they remove incentive from the system and kill savers, so more retirees will be poor in years to come and more dependent on the government for health care, aged care, etc.

    The Government should have consulted the pensioners it is attacking. They have proved they know how to manage money! They would have been able to offer sensible advice on the subject.
    Bonny
    27th Jun 2015
    3:08pm
    These changes are not grossly unfair or damaging and will help the budget's bottom line. If you have assets then you should be required to use these assets before assessing welfare. Under this change you can still have assets and still get welfare.
    cat
    24th Jun 2015
    3:39pm
    Many people seem to be under the misapprehension that their part pensions will increase b/c they are under the assets limit but for most people it is the income test ( the income derived from their assets ) that determines the rate of pension.I am sure the Liberal Govt. knows this but do the Greens? I am afraid they have been duped into voting for something they do not fully understand & the Libs are laughing up their sleeves. cat
    Anonymous
    24th Jun 2015
    4:53pm
    I think you are partly right, Cat, but this is one of the aspects of the change that is grossly unfair. Income from assets is only deemed at max. 3.25% if you are income tested, REGARDLESS of how much you earn on it. And you could be earning good returns ON TOP of a healthy income from earnings. But if you are asset-tested, your returns on assets are effectively deemed at a comparison rate of 15.6%.
    MICK
    24th Jun 2015
    5:51pm
    The Greens have been most disappointing. With the twisted face of Sarah Hanson-Young and the homosexual marriage and a 'let 'em all in' immigration policy who takes them seriously. Time to find some decent INDEPENDENTS whose preferences do not go to this contemptuous government.
    cat
    24th Jun 2015
    5:54pm
    Yes, I agree. What puzzles me is the following.....people who have a lot of assets eg cars, caravans etc that are NOT income producing but who are judged under the assets test. I think if they try to sell their assets to produce more cash flow they will find that their assets are not as valuable as they supposed. My previous comment was that the Govt is clouding the issue by not making it clear that people with a limited income judged under the income tests will NOT get any increase in their part pension. It stays the same as now.
    Cat
    29th Jun 2015
    3:30pm
    What the? My user name is cat. Who are you????
    chub
    25th Jun 2015
    1:16pm
    JANUARY 2017.........JANUARY 2017 FIFTEEN BUCKS A WEEK, WILL BE WORTH MAYBE FIVE BUCKS BY THEN, SO, THE POOR CONTINUE TO GET POORER.....
    bohemian
    25th Jun 2015
    4:50pm
    There is a rumour of another election looming.

    Keep tuned in
    Radish
    26th Jun 2015
    10:29am
    I take little notice of the media hype. Been wrong many times.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    11:32am
    If there was no speculation and gossip in the news, the news wouldn't be news worthy.
    Anyway, we need to go through the exhaustive ritual of Bill Shorten's Union days, what the Unions are doing with Super, and how the Unions find a Labor leader who doesn't look like an ex Union Boss. All this before the next election. That should take us through to say August 2016 when we can vote on both houses. It cannot happen before.
    Grateful
    27th Jun 2015
    8:51am
    Hey, bohemian, didn't you hear what Tony Abbott's answer to that was?
    "Have a cup of tea, a BEX and a good lie down"!!!!
    He is 40 years behind the times, BEX was banned in 1977, killed more people than it "helped"!! Can't you remember the BEX ad? It was like going back in history when I heard him say it. Tony, this is 2015 and YOU are trying to make laws affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people living in 2015!!!!!
    And that Frank Sinatra look??? From another age.
    worker
    26th Jun 2015
    1:35pm
    Yes my vote to employee MPS will change given the outright lies told
    Gee Whiz
    29th Jun 2015
    4:30pm
    Once again the idiot Greens have sold out pensioners and retirees. And Bill Shorten has been very quite on this matter. Has anyone heard him say he will repeal these changes to the pension if he gets elected? No? I didn't think so.

    Shorten has done a deal with the greens that will benefit his union friends. The pensioners as far as he is concerned can go jump in the lake.

    Thanks Bill. I'll remember you at the next election.
    Adrianus
    29th Jun 2015
    5:08pm
    Bill Shorten is not a leader. He is too weak to be a leader. He is too weak to stand up to the unions. He is like the rest of the Labor Party, too much baggage! Australia needs strong leadership if we are to be secure, both physically and economically.
    Patriot
    29th Jun 2015
    6:10pm
    Frank
    Do you mean DICTATORSHIP?
    Misty
    29th Jun 2015
    9:48pm
    You must be joking surely Frank?, who would have any confidence in a PM who says "They are coming to get us", WHAT AN IRRESPONSIBLE COMMENT TO MAKER IN PRIME TIME TV, what if young children and naïve people were listening to this, how many sleepless nights might that have caused them I wonder. I remember when I was a small child listening to my parents discuss the possibility of another world war ( they didn't know I could hear them), I had nightmare for months.
    Misty
    29th Jun 2015
    9:57pm
    I cannot actually think of anyone in Parliament that I would be happy to have as Australia's PM right now.
    Adrianus
    29th Jun 2015
    11:12pm
    Misty, that may be the case, but in response to my post regarding the need for strong leadership you made reference to Tony Abbott.
    chad
    29th Jun 2015
    9:42pm
    Liberals will never again receive my vote. Abbot could not LIE straight in bed but is now known as our best ever LIAR..Goodbye Tony
    chad
    29th Jun 2015
    9:49pm
    Goodbye Tony Worlds greatest LIAR Chad
    chad
    29th Jun 2015
    9:52pm
    Never will vote for Liberals again ,cannot ever trust them
    Not Senile Yet!
    30th Jun 2015
    1:20am
    Read all you comments.....can only see those that are brainwashed into the only way to vote is for a Party....I say brainwashed as you all obviously do not understand that the person that represents your Party is nothing less than a PUPPET!!!!
    Mick and the rest of you......some agreeance with the inequity of the tax loopholes and legislations that allow exemptions where necessary but are now being abused to allow tax dodging !!!
    But Mick....the Greens are a Party.....they are Puppets too!!!
    As for the Right Wing View....the KSS's and Frank's etc......no one has accused anyone of breaking the law......however you steadfastly avoid the fact that those loopholes are unfairly distributing tax money to those who do not need it!!!
    You also make it obvious that you consider greed for greed's sake with the tax payers money is okay.......it's Not okay!!!!
    As for the rest......well......most are either Left or Right Wing in terms of Point of View.....understandable given the massive amount of your own money that has been spent to convince you all that voting for a Party is okay....that it is the right thing!!!!
    Hitler won election by deliberately creating a Us and Them debate based on hatred or bias....and it worked!!!
    Once in his party eliminated all opposition through Policy that was Legislated by a domination of Parliament....no opposition!!!
    He refused to comment on negative comments...became deaf!
    The people on this site need to understand that if they like being attacked and labelled Lifters or Leaners or prefer to be a Left Wing or Right Wing....then they violate their heritage.....the Aussie Heritage of being an Individual ......of being different from everyone else!!!
    We raise sheep for meat & wool but are renowned for NOT being easily led......but with the advent of the Propaganda machine from Both Major Parties......we have slowly become subdued!!!!
    Our Forefathers.....most rebels at best....convicts at worst.....would be horrified that we do not take our Political Voting Rights seriously!!!!
    Our diggers would hate Both the Party Machines with a Vengeance!!!
    I mean this with all seriousness.....your vote is what they believed in!!! It is what they were fighting for!!!!
    To give your vote to a Party Machine Puppet is an insult!!!!!!
    All the World over...even in the USA......the vote for the Independent Candidate.....who truly wishes to serve.....is growing larger and larger at every election!!!
    It is simply because the Party Machines have become Clubs...they have become a corrupt version of looking after your mates!!!!!
    THEY are UNWORTHY of your Vote.....so STOP giving it to them!!!!
    As for those schooled in Party Politics......Most people with basic education know that you vote for who will do you the most good....and rightly so if greed is your motive!!!!
    But for those that want more....those that want fairness and equal sharing of opportunities.....there is no room for these Political Clubs that corrupt the Parliament to fill their own pockets or further their mates in the Party!!!
    Time has come where the average Aussie needs to remove them from Parliament like the Corrupt Cancer that they have become....to remove them by simply not giving any of their Puppets a vote.....nor a preference either!!!!
    Patriot
    30th Jun 2015
    7:06am
    NSY
    The Party machine is subservient to a "Shadow Government" that consists of the MultiNational Industrialists & Banksters who are "Pillaging & Raping" the earth.
    They are so short sighted that they will - even for their own kids - leave a DEAD & TOXIC planet.
    Their religion is MONEY and their god is the DOLLAR!

    I agree with all you are saying & MORE!!!!!
    Captain
    1st Jul 2015
    6:22pm
    I have written elsewhere Not Quite Senile that our current crop of politicians are not worthy of being the leaders of this great nation. They will all gather what they can and leave the people, especially those currently retired or close to it with nothing. Both major parties have the aged in their sights and won't stop until they are bled dry.

    I agree with all you have written.
    Adrianus
    2nd Jul 2015
    10:59am
    I think unfair distribution of tax money is when $billions are given to car makers who in turn sell us overpriced pieces of garbage.
    Pinky
    1st Jul 2015
    12:12am
    I will be happy to get a little extra each fortnight thank you!
    Not Senile Yet!
    2nd Jul 2015
    1:21am
    And the Greens are DEAD at the next election!!!!!
    Sold all the over 50's out big time.....won't get a Senior's vote in hell....and I hear most Seniors are now lobbying all their Family & Friends to Rally against the Libs and the Greens.
    I say Vote all the Party Puppets out Next election!!!!
    Take their donkeys Cards and use them to Reverse what they want and then put an Independent as No.1.
    That will remove their majority and insider trading!!!!
    All the parties have become like gangs with their back slapping and affection for how sly they are in gouging the tax payers hard earned money!!!
    They make Ned Kelly look like a Saint but also a Dumb Asss!!!!
    marto
    2nd Jul 2015
    8:17am
    could not agree more so all the over fiftys now need to stand up and dont just complain about them we certainly need to punish them so 2016 is "D" day standup and be counted if we do nothing not a thing will CHANGE and they will continue to send us into poverty is that what we want ?
    Patriot
    2nd Jul 2015
    8:36am
    Hi Guys,
    Could not agree more!
    Solution???

    http://themap.org.au/
    Adrianus
    2nd Jul 2015
    10:52am
    Some of you oldies sure do wake up pretty grumpy.
    In my office my desk faced a wall with 2 pictures. One big and the other beside it very small. They looked odd so I occasionally had some comments while others simply gazed at the 2 pictures I guess wondering about their placement and how I should stay away from interior decoration.
    I never told anyone, but they served me well over the years, as a constant reminder to keep my eyes on the big picture.
    Kato
    2nd Jul 2015
    10:50am
    And amongst all the hatred and vitriol spewing out of Canberra they think they are doing good. Goebbels , Hitler and crew would be proud of this current lot.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles
    you might also be interested in...

    Retirement Planning

    When retirement planning becomes life planning it is a challenging, fun and fulfilling task.

    Age pension explained

    Anne explains whether you will qualify for an Age Pension and simplifies some of the more complex scenarios you may encounter dealing with Centrelink.

    Cruising

    Got the travel bug or need a break? Take a look at our latest Seniors travel discounts and deals.

    Meal Ideas

    Be inspired by our easy meal ideas. Search through hundreds of recipes to find the perfect one for any occasion.

    Trivia

    Have some fun and keep your mind active with our Daily Crossword, Trivia, Word Search and Sudoku Games.