Your Age Pension fact check

The claim that super should replace the Age Pension is a porky.

Your Age Pension fact check

Was mandatory superannuation really introduced to replace the Age Pension, as Assistant Treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer has claimed? The ABC decided to investigate.

The statement was made by Ms O’Dwyer on the ABC Insiders TV program when she said that " (the) whole objective behind the superannuation system" is for people to be able to live on their superannuation savings without recourse to the age pension …When it was set up all those years ago in 1993, it was set up to be an alternative to the age pension so that people didn't have to rely upon the age(d) pension or even the part pension."

The full ABC Fact Check is well worth the read, but the salient points are:

  • Superannuation as we know it (i.e. compulsory occupational superannuation) came into law in 1992, not 1993.
  • It was intended to be a supplement to the Age Pension, not to replace it, according to Bob Hawke who said the pension would ‘always be there for those who need it’.
  • Paul Keating, whose government passed the legislation further stated, “Such a scheme would maintain the age and service pensions as the foundation of equity and adequacy in retirement income arrangements”.
  • But the governments of the day did not sell the policy as a way to get people off the pension and instead said that most people would still get at least a part pension.

The final ABC Fact Check verdict on the claim that super was set up to replace the Age Pension?

Ill-informed!

Opinion: Stop the Age Pension spin

It’s about time we dismantled the spin around super and pensions. So thank God for the ABC putting a few facts on the table.

Our ‘ageing crisis’ and the need for Australians to work harder and save more for retirement is a constant theme in Canberra. If not one minister, then another will take a swipe at the ‘burden’ of our ageing population and the need to rescue future generations from the obligation to finance old buggers who seem to be living on forever.

One popular theme of this spin is that the Age Pension is unaffordable and that virtuous citizens will try harder to save more in super thus alleviating the need for younger people to fund them.

This is a misleading argument and a highly dangerous political ploy which pits generations against each other for no good reason. The fact, according to successive Intergenerational Reports (IGRs), is that the Age Pension, when expressed as a percentage of GDP, is not increasing very much at all. A faster growing cost, due to overtake the Age Pension, is the revenue foregone through tax concessions on superannuation which largely favour the top 20 per cent of households. So the actual cost of the Age Pension is not nearly as threatening as we have been led to believe.

Superannuation, as noted by the extensive investigation carried out by ABC Fact Check, was introduced as a third pillar of retirement – a supplement to the Age Pension (note, not a replacement) and private savings. As the superannuation system is still relatively immature, most baby boomers who are currently transitioning to retirement have had insufficient time to build a nest egg which will fund their next 30 or so years, without the support of a full or part pension.

This is entirely in line with the expectations of the government which introduced mandatory super (again fully documented by the ABC).

So to suggest that superannuation should replace the pension is simply rubbish. But I doubt it’s merely loose scholarship that made Ms O’Dwyer suggest this is the case. It’s far closer to an ongoing political revisionism that suggests we should all pick up the entire risk for our old age and fully fund our own retirements, regardless of our educational, occupational and general socio-economic status. It is simply not good enough to applaud the self-funded when many have had such a massive free kick from tax concessions unavailable to those who earn less. The current system is far from perfect – ask the self-employed, those who can’t get back into the job market, and women with a fragmented work history. We have an Age Pension for good reason – when it was introduced in 1908 it was described as a ‘reward for service’. So it is, and so it should remain.

What do you think? Do you agree with Kelly O’Dwyer that super should replace the need for an Age Pension? Or do you believe that the pension should remain as a pillar of retirement income?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    andromeda143
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:13am
    Thanks for supporting the ABC and for debunking this rubbish statement by Kelly O'Dwyer. The Age pension is not a privilege, it is our right to reap the reward in retirement for our contributions to society and industry during our working lives. Moreover, it needs to be defended and preserved because our children will one day need it as well. I do not generally find that younger generations object to us receiving the age pension and Ms O'Dwyer would do well to remember that most of her constituents will be expecting to benefit from it either now or in the future. Of course, she is in line for a nice fat superannuation benefit as payment in her retirement for the years spent attacking the less wealthy. Beware Kelly, you may not last that long!!
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    12:47pm
    Politicians need to be careful when they speak.
    What is undeniable is that THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT is certainly trying to replace the pension with personal superannuation. Sorry Kaye but the behaviour from Hockey especially and several other players makes it quite clear that government wants to distance itself from paying pensions. If you do not agree then please explain why,
    1. we have seen the retirement age pushed up?
    2. why we have seen the assets threshhold dropped like a rock?
    3. and why Scott Morrison has in the past few days floated the idea of people selling the family home, downsizing and living off the proceeds?
    It is what it is......and it has not come from the Labor side of politics!

    Where I agree with you Kaye is in the refusal of this government to end the superannuation tax shelter for the rich. Add to that the refusal to make multinationals pay tax in Australia and the continued support of foreign tax shelters (Turnbull has one!) and you have to ask what the game is......... Obvious really.......same game as always......hit those living from pay packet to pay packet whilst at the same time reducing already low tax rates for our rich citizens. It makes you sick to think that other Australians are so brazen and care so little.
    Anonymous
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:59pm
    mick, you are absolutely correct with your comments. "Foghorn" Hockey started this and Morrison is going to try and carry it through to fruition, albeit with a little more discretion and no cigar. Tuxedo Turnbull couldn't care any less for the average Australian and is only interested in himself, Lucy, and rich contributors to the LNP.
    Anonymous
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:15pm
    And shame on these vile politicians who have lied to deny older Australians their entitlements and the respect, appreciation, and consideration they have earned and deserve.

    It's time for the people to stand up and say ''enough''! Stop the lies. Stop the attacks. Recognize the rights of retirees and honour the country's obligations to them as we honoured our obligation to support and respect our parents and grandparents.

    Only the very fortunate among today's retirees have had the opportunity to save enough to be self-funded. Many who have been frugal have been cruelly denied their rightful entitlements by thieving, fraudulent or incompetent fund managers or investment brokers. And all of us are now being defrauded by a dishonest government that has decided it's convenient to lie to the young about the cost of pensions and thus garner support to deny retirees their rights.

    Of course aged pensions are affordable. The cost is not high by world standards, and is certainly NOT rising unacceptably. The recent cuts via asset test changes - and any contemplated changes through assessing the family home - are solely about giving more to the rich and greedy, and enlarging the gap between rich and poor. Never be foolish enough to believe otherwise!
    marls
    23rd Nov 2015
    8:35pm
    Mick
    I agree with you, I have elderly aunty in Germany and what they have done is reduced the amount they are paying aged pensioners, as they need the money to pay for the invaders. our govt does not want to pay people that worked all their lives the age pension but more that happy to pay people living on benefits that have never worked a day in their entire life.
    jennyb
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:15am
    I'd like to comment on the statement above ".... tax concessions on superannuation which largely favour the top 20 per cent of households."

    Not so. The recent capping at 10% for the "tax-free component" of defined-benefit superannuation pensions will reduce my part-Age pension, taking me from my present "Modest" standard of living (AFSA standard) to just over "Age-Pension" standard only.

    That's hardly the "top 20%" of households", is it? NCertainly not to me, nor the estimated 37,000 other defined-benefit super pensioners who will also suffer a reduction in living standards from January 1 next year, when the reduced part-Age pension will kick in.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    12:48pm
    So how many people are on a defined benefit pension? Not many I might think....other than public servants.
    Rae
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:12pm
    mick I think about 48 000 which is not many. Mostly nurses, police, teachers and fire brigade, ambulance workers. Also a lot of financial industry workers such as bank tellers. The average amount of superannuation was less than $500 000. as although the workers and employer contributions were quite large the returns were appalling.
    For many defined benefit workers after paying in for 35 years the lump sum would not have kept them for very long.

    The problem with changes to the tax free component will come if the government next decides to count any savings put away after tax as income when withdrawn. It is the same thing really. The tax free component should be 100% discounted as it was initially.

    These people saved for their entire working life to be less well off than an aged pensioner when you take the discounts offered to government pensioners into account.

    Of course the Super Funds will love it as no one in their right mind would take a defined benefit pension now unless they were high income earners or politicians.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    2:48pm
    I thought that defined benefit pensions had been killed off years ago because they were too generous.....except for our pollies and top public servants who believe they are above the rules everybody else should obey.
    Anonymous
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:20pm
    Jenny's, it's 1/1/2017, not 1/1/2016.
    Adrianus
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:54pm
    A defined benefit scheme is one in which, as the name implies, the end benefit is clearly defined. Such as 7 x FAS of last 3 years of work etc. In the past these schemes were funded from general revenue, so how can the returns be poor? I don't get it???
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    4:39pm
    Perfect for high income earners like MPs and senior public servants. Of course Frank you are one of the club.
    Adrianus
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:12pm
    Yes, I know a couple of politicians who got a huge pay increase just before getting tapped on the shoulder. Do the names Gillard and Rudd mean anything?
    Rae
    23rd Nov 2015
    7:15pm
    Frank ordinary workers contributed after tax income into defined benefit funds for decades. The money did not all come from revenue at all. It is understandable you would think this as the propaganda regarding these schemes is huge. The worker paid 40% of a unit price after tax and the employer paid the other 60%. This was used to keep salaries of nurses, teachers ,police, bank tellers etc in check. It was also a compulsory part of employment. Entitlement to units was based on salary so rose ever year.
    For example a public servant on top scale of $72000 would pay marginal tax and then have about $600 taken out a fortnight and put into super. This was the non concessional amount now being denied by the government. It literally meant these workers never took home more than about $45000 a year.
    To get the pension on retirement all the money was surrendered although a one off lump sum could be taken and this reduced the pension.
    That money in the fund had terrible returns year after year making just 3%. In my opinion an investigation of the whole thing would not go astray. The schemes were closed in 1983 as this was when it was realised these workers were not going to die at 65 and the fund might have to pay up for longer than they thought.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    8:42pm
    You must be a total idiot Frank. Seriously. Mention how much Hockey and Abbott are getting with their parliamentary pensions (NOW COLLECTED) whilst being handed ambassorships with a huge income on top of that.
    Please tell me where Gillard and Rudd have a razoo after politics?
    I wish I knew how much you were being paid to post some of your political tripe.
    Jana
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:22am
    I strongly believe that part of our tax should be allocated to large government owned pension fund as it is practised in most civilised countries such as Sweden, Germany, Czech republic etc. it would also make us oldies feeling lesser burden to our society as the money paid by us in tax would be used later as a pension.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    12:49pm
    This happened decades ago apparently. This money now goes into consolidated revenue with never a mention as to its original purpose.
    TREBOR
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:44pm
    It's a thing called the Social Security Contribution, and it was and IS raised as a part of Income Tax and contributions from other revenue strands.

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de00296978!OpenDocument

    The chicanery began when it was not lodged into a separate account (much as you might do with, say, your mortgage bill), but was folded into Consolidated Revenue.

    As part of Consolidated Revenue, politicians of all 'sides' view it as just another part of the Budget process and not as the absolute right it is in reality - and they use it as a plaything and a political football that they toss back and forth between them

    Far better to consolidate it all, including superannuation, into a single account that they cannot get their grubby mitts on.

    Read that link and it will tell you all.
    Fair Go
    12th Jan 2016
    12:43pm
    totally agree Jana, I have been 'rattling' on for ages that we need a European style pension scheme - no means testing, no worrying about Centrelink on your case, and a decent amount on which to live in your retirement years. But that would be too simple for our pathetic govt to entertain. I have seen first hand how well Germans live on their retirement incomes, having been to that country 3 times. I know they pay a high taxation rate but then they get a good return, also in the form of a really good health scheme, free education etc etc etc.
    redxdingo
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:30am
    A really good article Thank-you I have worked very hard all my life from 1958 -1990 .first as a registered nurse and then after some Self-funded training and education ....as a counselor and therapist ..raised my sons as a single mother...
    They are both working and self-sufficient now.
    I have had no time or funds to accumulate assets and funds for my retirement .There are many and will always be many like me who work and deserve to be supported in later years .Trim teh pollies pensions and privilegs The age pension is miniscule compared ..Awet
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    12:50pm
    According to this morally corrupt government you should now sell your house, move into a cave and live off the difference.
    TREBOR
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:45pm
    A cave? Why such luxury accommodation?
    mogo51
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:32am
    Can someone explain to me the changes relating to what changes are coming on 1/1/16 - to aged pension. I have a small Super Fund that I will access from 4/1/16 when I turn 65, my Super is under the C/link amount of 145k (approx) that I can have in Super BEFORE it affects my pensioner- is this still the same?
    Peterrj
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:18pm
    mogo51, a good question but no real answer can be supplied on the scant info supplied. Some think that the Aged Pension is free Govt. money when you retire. Is not! But it is totally free money paid by the Govt to those of Pensionable Age and pass the residency, income and asset test! (Did I miss something.) You can still claim the Aged Pension if in permanent employment and pass the other requirements. Suggest that you actually put in an Aged Pension application when you reach pensionable age and have your fingers crossed. Then you will have a definitive answer. If you do not receive the full Age Pension payment then enquire, 'Why not??' If you 'don't' then you probably have too many assets and/or too much income which includes deemed income. If you have a spouse the financial status of your spouse must also be calculated into your 'Aged Pension' entitlement!
    SwineViolet
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:41am
    Thanks for making clear that Kelly O'Dwyer's comments were in fact part of a broader political ploy...I have been in the paid workforce since I was 16 and have saved and done all the things as required to go into my older age and retirement when I am 70 in the best space financially as possible. What bothers me is this constant carping about how the 'baby boomers are sucking up the health dollars and the age pension is in blow out mode'. None of these statements is correct and when I look around my friendship network most women are continuing to do some work and are trying very hard to be independent of government support. Since when did it become a crime to get old as that is how it feels. My superannuation will most likely last my partner and I for 20 years at which time I will be 90 and I expect to be 'kept' by government in acknowledgement of what I have contributed throughout all of my life...is that really going to happen? Who knows but I will most certainly remain politically active to ensure it does.It is a right not a privilege - I have been a PAYE tax payer all of my life so my contributions are very clear - are the people such as O'Dwyer in the same boat? I think not as she will retire with 67% of her last salary - I most certainly won't!
    Peterrj
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:32pm
    SwineViolet ... '(the Aged Pension) is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE'? That's such an interesting assertion. Frankly, I have not heard any person say that getting the Aged Pension is a privilege for the less well off in society? In any case, it could be a 'right' but it is not an enduring nor permanent right! If today you are eligible to claim the Aged Pension then, 'ye's', you have a right to it. BUT that right can change from one momens another. Very soon many who receive the Aged Pension, as is their current 'right', will have their pension reduced or stopped totally in the New Year as they will loose that right to the Aged Pension when the changes to the pension eligibility test are enforced (once more). I don't consider that the Aged Pension is either a Right nor Privilege but free Govt money given to those eligible, which is a day to day test,
    TREBOR
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:46pm
    It's a Right all right... and only bounded by the rules for getting it... now there's the rub:-

    Consolidated Revenue

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de00296978!OpenDocument
    Chrissy L
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:47am
    As per usual Ms O'Dwyer opens her mouth before engaging her brain. She would do well to remember that many current retirees did not receive employer contributed superannuation nor the ability to contribute themselves. Unlike public servants like her who have one of the best pension schemes in the Country. Remember Tony Abbot Kelly? He made many thoughtless remarks like this and look where he ended up!
    ghoti
    23rd Nov 2015
    11:24am
    Remember Tony Abbott, you say? Who dat?
    Gra
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:25pm
    These politicians never miss the slightest opportunity to stick the boot into we pensioners do they.
    As it is, most of us had been in the workforce for 30 years or more when Labor introduced the Superannuation Contribution Scheme in '92. That really didn't give us much opportunity to build up a super fund that would consist of anywhere near the amount required for us to be totally independent of a government pension. Not unless you were a high flyer and raking in the dollars like CEO's and politicians do.
    PlanB
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:52pm
    You are right about that Kelly O'Dwyer she always has her mouth engaged b4 her brain, she is a true Liberal.

    There was no Super when I was working NONE
    Inky Black
    23rd Nov 2015
    11:06am
    Kelly O'Dwyer is a politician. Is it really necessary to comment further?
    Peterrj
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:35pm
    And no need to say that your banjo is in tune!!!!
    Jacka
    23rd Nov 2015
    11:20am
    good on you ABC. no wonder the present government keeps trying to silence you. old men were young men once. the government would be better advised to assist older Australian who may not be able to work for one reason or another and spend less time assisting the young who can work but choose not to, (not all but enough) and with the proposed GST it's not a 5% rise by a 15% rise in health fresh food and a lot of essentials, previously not included in the GST. Good old backdoor Malcolm, he is trying to sneak 15% on health prescription visits to the GP all visit to Xray, scans etc. 15% , couldn't get it through the front door now they're trying to make it through the back door. and we vote for this Vernon. Jacka
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:07pm
    I just went and read the full conversation between the interviewer (Barry Cassidy) and O'Dwyer. She is clearly little more than the next stooge and parrot repeating the lies we have all heard for the past 2 years. A few snippets:

    1. it is clear that this government wants to jettison the pension. 'Sell your home' is the new cry.
    2. 'lifters and leaners'. The rich getting tax cuts are the apparently the lifters and everybody else being taxed to death are the leaners. Yeah right!
    3. and now the latest from O'Dwyer: "Average income earners largely are the people who do get to take advantage of negative gearing". I have to state that the RICH are certainly benefiting the most because they are avoiding the top marginal tax rate. Not average punters wanting to get their nest egg.......which will remove them from the pension down the track. You talk about wanting to have a bet each way!!!
    VOTE FOR AN INDEPENDENT AND END THE GAME.
    Rae
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:24pm
    The GST rise will come as the government has sold off any income producing asset and only has taxes left to supply revenue.

    However those on fixed incomes or falling incomes will need to lobby local members hard to limit rises in food prices, rates, electricity and other fixed costs. Price rises over the past few years in these items have been much too high. In some cases 4X the CPI.

    Otherwise the only choice will be to sell up and move to a much cheaper house and area.

    Retirees will suffer a decline in living standards but perhaps we can limit that a bit by political activism.

    Voting for an Independent may work depending on their policies.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    2:54pm
    Mostly agree. The nation has been sold a real dud as politicians have revelled in the cash for OUR national assets. Now it is drying up so they are reaching for the 'tax' option. I mean you can't have governments living within their means when they need money to waste on garbage and propaganda campaigns in the media.
    Who would ever forget the current government's Royal Commission which cost taxpayers $80 million and failed to find any culprits. Same with the previous Royal Commission. Political propaganda tools used to sway public opinion so that undecided voters would vote the most dishonest government in living memory back in. Shameful. I am waiting for the Liberal Party to offer to pay the cost of these malicious campaigns back to taxpayers from their personal funds. If not the Party then the individual MPs who agreed to the witch hunt.
    Fitza
    23rd Nov 2015
    11:37am
    The Age Pension in this country is NOT a right. That is one of the problems. Joe Hockey had no problem removing mine entirely on 1st July last year, without any notice.
    I have since learnt not to work so hard (I am 70) and go with the flow instead. SO a part Age Pension was restored recently.
    The Age Pension IS a right in the UK, where we used to contribute to the National Insurance Contributions each pay. Even the Queen, or the likes of Mick Jagger and Elton John are still entitled to the age pension in the UK.
    The Age Pension cannot be taken away at the whim of a Govt Minister in the UK.
    Here, it can be, as Hockey proved to me last year.
    So, a much fairer system in the UK - no income and asset test and the Govt there does not care how much you earn in retirement. You put in a tax return and pay tax if you have to but the system does encourage you to work.
    Meanwhile, back in Australia, not only do we have some of the dumbest politicians in the Western world, but we also have one of the dumbest retirement systems.
    There is a link somewhere between these two things.....if only I could put my finger on it?
    Golden Oldie
    23rd Nov 2015
    12:11pm
    Put you finger on the word "dumbest".
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:10pm
    "Dumbest" yes.....and perhaps also those with the greatest hide: continually lie to us all and engage in their class warfare games.
    It astounds me that the electorate will vote on a picture or for their Party (footie mentality?) and then wonder why Australia has hit the skids.
    Scrivener
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:20pm
    If you look at Babiak and Hare's criteria for Psychopathy you will discover that almost all Australian Politicians are certifiable psychopaths or sociopaths. Utterly self interested and utterly without conscience or the capacity to feel guilt.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:34pm
    You missed lack of any empathy Scrivener. There may be a few who do feel for the rest of us though...but not many. It's a club.
    TREBOR
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:50pm
    Indeed - correct in one way Fitza - but not n another. The Pension IS a Right - but it is hedged with very self-serving rules that serve the government in several ways, including the power to dictate.

    That is one clear reason why handling of retirement income streams needs to be removed from the hands of government and everyone treated equally.

    Everyone should receive the Pension and then be treated the same for any additional income. EVERYONE - including the ghosts of politicians past who infest our Budget like lampreys in a corpse...
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    4:45pm
    Trebor: If the pension were a real big deal (it isn't) then governments would pay it and TAX recipients. Those with nix would pay nix. Those who added the pension onto their other income would pay the top marginal rates. As it should be.
    Fredklaus
    23rd Nov 2015
    11:39am
    pension should be an entitlement for all

    23rd Nov 2015
    12:00pm
    Ms. O'Dwyer's top floor is vacant.
    NGE
    23rd Nov 2015
    12:24pm
    Good one Fast Eddie...You brought a smile to my dial...very funny
    TREBOR
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:52pm
    Couple of kangaroos short in the top paddock... nothing new.
    THE FORGOTTEN
    23rd Nov 2015
    12:03pm
    Another great find by Our ABC. No wonder the LNP wants it shut down.
    Like other commentators on this topic,I have worked from the age of 15 (actually from age 5 unpaid on our dairy farm), have paid taxes and still do,as well as Medicare levy, and disability insurance scheme,and Howards gun tax, but come retirement age next year I probably will not be entitled to anything under Fat Joe's amendments.I also paid Henry Bolte's Illegal Tax in the late 60's. Since starting work I was REQUIRED to contribute 6 % to super as an employee of CBA, and my aim has always been to be able to live comfortably. I didn't smoke,drink to excess,party every night,spend recklessly on NEW GADGETS, Hitch hicked to work 60 kms away until I could afford a loan to buy a car,had no mobile phone (God how did I survive without one ?),didn't sponge off my parents who had nothing anyway,and the list goes on. Most of the current generation WANTS everything to be handed to them on a silver platter without contributing to TAX,single mothers with a dozen kids and a dozen UNKNOWN fathers who taxpayers have to fund; you can make one,or two mistakes, but 6 to 15 times is no mistake.
    It's time that people are held PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their actions, as above, and in cases of our Americanised litigation system, where it's always someone else's fault. I was stabbed in the throat by a 17 year old thug,and he was given the Max. in benefits,and he knew that being under 18 he could get away with murder). I was entitled to 10 counselling sessions,and a lifetime of nightmares.
    Wake Up Australia, and bring back the old values where everyone helped each other,if you paid tax you were contributing to the generation before you, and had an expectation that in old age could expect a little return on TAX capital paid, if you lived long enough.I remember the days of the 'Swaggies' who had no DOLE to rely on,but travelled and worked hard to support family living somewhere else. Unlike people who live and pay tax for a few years and go to live overseas then expect us to fund them.
    FAT CAT politicians are entitled to Tax Funded Pension from the day of leaving parliament,and like Fat Joe get an Extremely Highly overpaid job in an Embassy while still claiming the pension. FAIR GO JOE. What about the baby boomers who created such high living standards for everyone.
    My story may be mixed but the essence is there.
    TREBOR
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:54pm
    Spot on. Never even entered my mind that grandma and grampa shouldn't get the Pension while I worked. They earned it and paid for it several times over in their generation, taking every hit in life in some cases, including dead children.
    thommo
    23rd Nov 2015
    12:06pm
    Kelly O'Dwyer is a blockhead. Even looks like one. Obviously no brains, and can't understand how she got into parliament. Obviously to feather her own nest and look after the big end of town.
    Paulodapotter
    23rd Nov 2015
    2:09pm
    I wish you were right Thommo, but Kelly isn't dumb. She's following the party line. This is part of the manifesto of the Institute of Public Affairs, which is the advisory group for LNP policy. They see the Pension as Social Welfare. Social Welfare is something they want to get rid of including Medicare and any other government funded initiatives. They will give mealy mouthed support for these things while they work to undermine them. They want everything to be run by private enterprise as they believe this will make us all rich. It's the ideology of those who believe they were born to rule. They still believe if you make the rich richer the wealth will trickle down to the poor. Trickle is right.
    Kato
    23rd Nov 2015
    4:33pm
    She may not be dumb but once she opens that trap it goes feral no on can a word in. These mongrel mob are trying there utmost to belittle the aged of Australia. And drive the thought into the mind of the younger workers that they are paying for it. Put her and her cronies on a leaky boat to nowhere.
    JohnS
    23rd Nov 2015
    12:16pm
    Totally agree with jennyb. It is an outrage that the rules change part way through the game. People have organised their lives on certain expectations only to find the rug pulled out from under them. If the rules arevto change let them change for those still to enter the system so people know where they stand. JohnS
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:20pm
    This can work both ways John. If the rules are unfair then I agree. In regard to killing off the pension this is wrong.
    If politicians had to live on what they had contributed whilst in office without all of the special deals they have made for themselves then I wonder if the pension would be double what it currently is and if it would be available to all. Methinks so.
    thommo
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:37pm
    I agree John S. This Tory govt changed the assets test in this years budget, after making solemn promises at the 2013 election that they wouldn't do such a thing, and now the retirement plans of at least a million retirees are torn to shreds, having made irreversible decisions to retire in 2014 based on the current centrelink rules.
    And we have this blockhead O'Dwyer telling us rubbish about Super and the Pension
    I'AM ENTITLED TO AN AGE PENSION, even with some assets, and will fight tooth and nail for it. This govt is out to rob the poorer people in our society, but they leave the rich and the big end of town alone. They're just a bunch of low life morons. And if the voters put Turnbull (a wolf in sheep's clothing) and his conservative cronies back into govt at the next election, they deserve what they get
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:12pm
    Agree thommo. Many will vote for the same political party with a different leader now. What is the definition of ultimate stupidity? Answer: when things are going wrong and you keep doing the same thing.
    Adrianus
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:20pm
    mick, mick, mick, do you realise how funny that sounds??!!
    You're one of the 18% mick. That is a tiny minority and you think everyone else is stupid?
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    8:37pm
    People who make the same mistake at every election and then wonder why things never get better ARE STUPID. They ARE the problem because they refuse to change their political affiliation/football team. I ask if that is how intelligent human beings operate?
    Adrianus
    23rd Nov 2015
    9:46pm
    But you don't change mick, you are rusted on Independent supporting Labor? So why are other people stupid for doing the same thing?
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:27pm
    No troll Frank. I am a rusted on Australian trying to protect our way of life whilst both sides of politics do their best to destroy the rights of all of our offspring to enjoy what we enjoy.
    And yes.....I do currently support voting for Independents whose preferences go to Labor: not because I have any links to Labor (I don't) but rather because the current government is the personification of dishonesty and corruption and needs to go ASAP.
    Read my lips.
    Adrianus
    24th Nov 2015
    9:31am
    Just reading thommo's post above started me thinking about greed. It exists in many people regardless of how much wealth one has. I would imagine most posters here have reasonable wealth, enough to live on without relying on welfare anyway. I often read about the wealthy making substantial donations, as I'm sure many poor people do on a pro rata basis. But having said that, listening to the hatred and language coming from some posters makes me wonder if greed is much more commonplace in those who are neither poor nor wealthy? I was talking to an accountant friend recently and he said you would not believe what some people are doing to deprive themselves of wealth in order to reduce tax liability or maximise welfare.
    Supernan
    23rd Nov 2015
    12:30pm
    A well written article ! We were self employed. As I always say: just when we paid off the house & were planning to start paying super, they bought in laws to make us pay our employees super.
    As well as women who have work breaks to have kids, the unemployed who cant find work there are also people who have time of work for illness, or accicents & those who care for their parents & grandkids.
    Interesting that Super concessions soon will cost more than Age Pensions !Thanks for that info !
    KSS
    23rd Nov 2015
    12:42pm
    •It was intended to be a supplement to the Age Pension, not to replace it, according to Bob Hawke who said the pension would ‘always be there FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT.'

    •Paul Keating, whose government passed the legislation further stated, “Such a scheme would maintain the age and service pensions as the FOUNDATION OF EQUITY AND ADEQUACY in retirement income arrangements”.

    Where here does it say that the age pension would be for EVERYONE regardless of need and where does it say that compulsory superannuation was not meant to at least go some way to support you in retirement? So much for the ABC 'fact check!'

    And by the way when the concept of an age pension was introduced back in 1908, most people (and that would be mostly men at the time) did NOT live to age 65 to collect on it at all never mind stay on it for up to 25 years as they do now.

    Notwithstanding that baby-boomers are caught in the middle (i.e. not enough savings if superannuation came too late), what is so bad about expecting/requiring gen X.Y,Z and the next to finance their retirement through superannuation?
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:32pm
    The rich and even the well off will always fund their own retirements as this will far outweigh what the pension can offer. That is a given. The issue under discussion is the move from this government to remove the pension from all but the totally destitute. They are trying hard and it is morally obscene that a government 'owned' by the big end of town is wanting to flatten those who do not have much in the bank or in reserve for when they cease working.
    The issue which should prevail KSS is to make the superannuation system FAIR. Not just a lolly jar for the rich, which it currently is. There should be no salary sacrifice available for anyone in any form and contributions should be taken from GROSS INCOME at a rate which is fair and which has limits. That way nobody will rort and the rich will not evade the tax system. Lets not forget that the huge savings made from ending the tax shelter for the rich will more than sustain the pension system, as it should.
    Kaz
    23rd Nov 2015
    2:42pm
    If you read the fact check, KSS the ABC provided the correct info and the rest is interpretation by others. If your super can support you through the years, it will have achieved its aim and the pension will be there for those who did not receive adequate super. Young workers should be able to survive on their super, and the pension should be there for those who could not work, etc. There is no surprise that members of this government do not understand history or have a good grasp of their portfolios. It should not be a surprise that they approach their work with blinkers and implement their flawed ideology into proposed solutions. Watch Mr Turnbull, he barely disguises his mockery of any respectful challenge (see his retort that Obama should read the NT news). This is an embedded defensive reaction of those in business to challenges, not of a smart man.
    KSS
    23rd Nov 2015
    2:54pm
    Salary sacrifice currently DOES come from GROSS salary mick, taxed at the concessional rate of 15% and that is open to everyone. On top of that there is a cap on the amount that can be saved in this way and that cap includes the employer contribution as well. Example for the over 55s the cap is $36000 a year. That is the same for everyone regardless of wealth.

    It is the non-concessional contributions where people can add to what you call the 'lolly jar' but non-concessional contributions are made AFTER tax is already paid (or from say an inheritance, from selling an asset or winning lotto). The benefit may well come after retirement when the income from super is currently tax free. But please, do not confuse the two.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:04pm
    Great post Kaz. You show an insight that many do not have.

    KSS: I think you are misconstruing the argument. You are correct that tax is levied at 15% for money going into superannuation and that is the problem. The rich are effectively avoiding their 49% tax rate and electing to pay 15%...and then get this money tax free on retirement. To add insult to injury the earnings of the fund are also taxed at 15% for the lifetime of the account. The only good thing which has happened is that the annual sum which can de dodged away from the tax system has been reduced....but given that this option is being milked by the rich, who already have millions squirrelled away for retirement, I find it wrong that such a system is permitted to continue and that those who have so little are really funding those who want to avoid paying tax. The latter group already have plenty put away for retirement so somebody please explain the ethics of this?????
    nameste
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:25pm
    We should all remember that we are all human beings with times in our lives where we need compassionate support from others. We all of us need support usually for the first twenty years or so of our lives and many of us also require support over the last twenty years as well. Some of us need support at other times as well. It is part of our responsibility as human beings to to be strong when we are able and assist those less able. In turn we may expect that the favour is returned when we are less able. This is just what being a compassionate member of the human family means. A fair and basic pension is just one of the ways we as members of a a compassionate society do this. We were all young once and relied on the adults around to provide. Most of us will be fortunate to grow old and each of us can pay back the favour we have received by contributing to a pension system that will support the ex-supporters should they find themselves in need.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:07pm
    Unfortunately not many people these days are like that nameste. A sad reflection of what we have become. I hear it all the time on the media: "spend the kids inheritance....ha, ha, ha", conmen who revel in their trade, crooks at every corner, etc. Were we truly like this even 30 years ago?
    mareela
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:44pm
    The trouble with this government and all their brilliant ideas is that they don't take into consideration the fact that most Australians do not earn over $100,000. Those with children and mortgages (if they are lucky) can't afford to stack away money into super until their children are independent and leave home. They also don't consider that there just aren't any jobs for the young and definitely none for those over 40 and unskilled. What Australians need are jobs and someone in government who lives in the real world and is aware of how the other half live. There are many reasons why people will never be able to fully support themselves in retirement and I have to say I am absolutely fed up with this government implying that the baby boomers are sending the country broke. Leave the system alone and work towards helping all citizens save for their retirement. All these changes are creating anxiety and should not be made retrospective. Getting employers to pay the correct super or any super would be a good start. Bring changes in slowly so everyone has a chance to work out what they need to do to optimise their retirement income. For such a rich democratic country Australia has some of the worst short sighted politicians in the world. And by the way their greed is astounding to say the least.
    Kaz
    23rd Nov 2015
    2:44pm
    Well put - although I think you say brilliant ideas tongue in cheek?!
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:10pm
    You make one big assumption mareela: that they care. They don't and they know full well what they are doing. So who voted for Tony Abbott and his coal and wealth funded political party complete with moronic slogans and intentional lies? I certainly didn't!!
    As I keep saying: VOTE FOR AN INDEPENDENT whose preferences do not go to this government. That way you send them a message. If not we deserve what we get.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:16pm
    Morrison is indeed pushing the same (Hockey) wagon. Hopefully reporters will not sit by and let this snake oil salesman work his game on the stupid.
    Bozo
    23rd Nov 2015
    1:59pm
    What about farmers. They either have to sell up or keep farming. They can't just sell all their stock and stay on their property that they have owned all their life. Farmers should be able to get a pension and stay on his land. What if you just want to live on small acerage for peace and quiet. Anything above 5 acres and there goes your pension...
    Kaz
    23rd Nov 2015
    2:47pm
    I agree Bozo and crop farmers are among the hardest working. We will need them in the future and we should be enhancing this industry for the future, not selling off the farm as it were...
    KSS
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:01pm
    I have a question Bozo. If you want farmers to stay on their land after retirement and get a pension to allow them to do so, how will the rest of Australia be fed given that the retired farmers are no longer working their land? Just asking.

    No argument from me that farmers are hard working but please there must be some semblance of reality in this discussion.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:12pm
    Don't worry about farmers guys. Both sides of politics are selling freehold farming land (the BEST of our land) to the Chinese government.
    In future there will be no Australian farmers as the Free Trade Agreement will allow the Chinese government to buy our farms and then bring in its lowly paid workers. Pay no attention to those who claim that it cannot happen because of 'protections' already in place. All the pieces are almost in place. Game on.
    Scrivener
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:15pm
    Yeah! Wot about the workers?
    Give over.
    Ever heard of 'magical thinking'?
    TREBOR
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:59pm
    We're selling acreage - partly because local government will not permit us to sub-divide, which, if we could, would assist us greatly with retirement funds and allow us to stay here, considering increasing disability as we age.

    Just looking for a small yard home now instead of acres of grass, and just a place to grow a few tomatoes.

    Sell the home to fund your retirement? It's a reality for some now.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:15pm
    Trebor: Think about standing your ground until the pressure to subdivide overwhelms the refusal to act OR become a councillor like all the developers do...and then act corruptly to get what you need.
    SUggest you think about the first option. The second is for scumbags whatever their title is.
    Good luck.
    Oldman Roo
    23rd Nov 2015
    2:30pm
    There is no doubt , this present Government treats the less fortunate in life as undesirable rubbish . Our Pension payments are among the lowest in the OECD countries but our Politicians and the rich are living in splendor , with no sign of an end to the age of entitlement .
    We have only two options left and number one is to put up with their persecution , stop saving , do not work hard , spend all your money before you get to retirement age and be rewarded with a full Pension .
    Option 2 is put up with them until the next election and make sure you do not give them another chance to govern us . So far Labor has not clearly spelled out what exactly they have in mind for people who have some savings and will be seriously disadvantaged when the Pension reform starts . So really we can not vote for the major Parties , and when you choose from the minor parties and independents , make sure not to vote for those who supported the Liberal Party Pension reform to get through the Senate .
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:16pm
    Option 2 is what should happen. However, there are a lot of dim wits out there who are easily sold the lies and who will vote for this bunch of liars again. The polls are telling this story already. Sadly SHorten is a complete nincompoop from what I can see and is more a liability than anything else. If anybody can lose the next election SHorten is probably it and voters need to remember that they are VOTING OUT A DISHONEST AND PROBABLY CORRUPT GROUP OF POLLIES. This should be the number one priority for the sake of the country. Not the lies which are still served up as average Australians get the next great idea on how to tax them and reduce taxes for the rich.
    MD
    23rd Nov 2015
    2:52pm
    My my, but hasn't this article opened the proverbial 'bucket of worms'.
    Very obviously everyone contributing & dare I say a good many otherwise (who didn't) feel extremely vexed about what is perceived to be either a "right" or "privilege".
    In sourcing a definition of 'right' I found - (adj) 'morally good, justified, or acceptable',
    likewise for 'privilege' - 'a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people'.
    Everyone will make of these definitions what they will, however when applied as the basis or thrust of contribution to open discussion in relation to subject matter is both conjecture and debatable.
    Everyone will retire at some point; regardless of age and for any number of reasons. Although the number of folk who do so; either because of failing health or lack the ability to work is an unknown quantity, for those who meet the age requirement they can then apply for the age pension. Most everyone knows in advance of when we PLAN to retire and this involves some pre-planning. Plans oft-times go awry, particularly when the government of the day sees fit to alter the 'game plan', however each is responsible for their own welfare and to this end most everyone will position themselves so as to benefit positively from savings, real assets & etc, to MAXIMISE the social benefit EXPECTED from the pension.
    The bulk of taxes paid directly into consolidated revenue from personal Income Tax, on a per person basis falls far, far short of the amount that each retiree will realize for the average period of retirement. Regardless of this the value of past Income Tax paid has already been largely realised by everyone in our daily standard of living - infrastructure, government services and etc.
    Living within our means is everyones' responsibility, regardless of earnings, status or role within society. We can debate this matter endlessly but ultimately each of us will determine our own self centred idea of 'privilege' or 'rights'.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:22pm
    Nothing to do with "rights". Everything to do with EQUITY. What this government is trying on is like giving the rich a 20 metre start in a 100 metre race. it is what it is.
    If revenue concerns you MD then I say 2 things to allay your concerns:

    1. collect tax from multinationals and close the tax shelters available to the rich. In case you have not notice Malcolm Turnbull has money in the Cayman Island tax shelter. Disgraceful!!
    2. end the superannuation tax shelter as well. The rich have no need of this and the amount put into super for average workers could be upped to 20% with much lower concessions. That would be fair.

    Revenue problem more than fixed. We could even get the national balance sheet back in the black. That would be government!
    MITZY
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:50pm
    It's hard to live within your means if you haven't got a job. It's hard to live within your means if the only means of support is possibly the New Start allowance. So lots of people find it hard to pre-plan for retirement. This is not me, myself, I'm well and truly retired (74 years) and managing. We can't all fit into the same size box. Life doesn't deal everybody "lucky" as Malcolm T. refers to himself. If we are lucky enough to have had a job for our entire working lifetime, regardless of whether it was a job in public service with lots of benefits and superannuation or a job in private enterprise where there were no such benefits, or we have worked independently of anybody, one would imagine that these folks would have some savings and eligible for the age pension or a part of it. However there is also the possibility that a person's partner never worked at all in the good old days and would be entitled to a full age pension even though he or she had never contributed a cent to taxation. This government keeps crying poor mouth and blaming the age pension/pensioners for the lack of funds in the coffers. They insist they can only keep paying pensioners if they "up" the retirement age to 70. Statistics show that there will hardly be any difference in the numbers of people on age pension in 30 years time as there are today. People drop off their perches and the people replacing them will be able to fund a larger majority of their retirement from their superannuation in 30 years time than the ones retiring today and at the current rate of increase to the age pension it won't be costing governments much more to fund it in 30 years time.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:19pm
    MITZY: Turnbull is "lucky" that he worked for a known corrupt organisation, that he got the right advice and invested in the right share and that he was able to send his money to a Tax Shelter in the Cayman Islands. So where are the journalists screaming the facts from the tallest buildings in the country? The silence is deafening!
    MITZY
    24th Nov 2015
    3:57pm
    mick: There are a lot of "corrupt" "luckies" in high/prominent positions, today I note Mr Lucky is insisting one of his private investment companies be taken off the "grandfathered" list of 1500 companies that don't have to disclose their taxation affairs. Its not a good look if he is currently fighting to shield these large private companies from having to disclose three simple figures: revenue; taxable revenue and tax paid and he is one of them. Turnbull & Partners Holdings P/L had as its directors at one time Kerry Packer and a close friend Bruce McWilliam the commercial director at the Seven Network, as well as the convicted businessman Rodney Adler (FAI Insurance) - see SMH today. I'm no fan of Mr Lucky and what you say I could add a lot more, more than our Annabelle Crabbe of Kitchen Cabinet managed to try to expose last year.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    12:20am
    Good post Mitzy. A pity more real Australians take it lying down rather than putting it up to the crooks in suits.
    Scrivener
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:13pm
    Kelly O’Dwyer is severely limited in her job. It's her job that should be 'on the table'.
    thommo
    24th Nov 2015
    12:16pm
    Is that you Col?
    Gee Whiz
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:16pm
    Try telling this to Joe Hockey who has just walked away with a Kings ransom and a fully indexed Government pension for life. And we daren't mention the nearly $400,000 he will get for his American appointment, plus all found, including his kids private education, and an open Credit Card for all and every expense.

    How dare this government talk about paying too much for pensions. And Turnbull hasn't even hit full pace yet. Just wait until he does
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:32pm
    Unfortunately the media refuses to pursue the big end of town.
    Why is there no ongoing campaign to shame those who have their own special deals in place?
    Why does the media chase the union movement and Labor Party crying "corruption" for months on end whilst NEVER attacking the government and the apparent relationships which exist between the captains of industry and this government. Surely the money trail with donations from the coal industry to this government are not too hard to uncover. Surely the same exists for the captains of industry who make contributions. Many might view this as corrupt as it must be as clear as mud that any funding has been paid back with legislation. In the coal industry's case the wonderful Carbon Tax was repealed. For no good reason other than Tony Abbott stated it was bad. And then there was the repeal of banking legislation so that average customers were again unprotected from being cannibalised by financial behemoths.
    I agree with you Gee Whiz. This government and its lying salesmen have a hide. And the media is not far behind as it mostly protects the big end of town. What a world we live in.
    Jack
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:30pm
    Why is the government eager to stop or reduce pensions on the one hand and yet freely throw money to refugees and illegal immigrants on the other. Also our returned soldiers are not looked after as well as the refugees and illegals. Pensioners have paid their taxes all of their working lives and deserve some consideration at the completion of that working life. What have the refugees and illegals done for the money that is being thrown at them.??
    Adrianus
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:37pm
    Jack, nobody is as well looked after as the "refugees" but now that they are here, what can we possibly do? We need to show some humanity.
    Oldman Roo
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:59pm
    Frank , It seems you are still pushing the Governments barrow . It is time to treat those in need who worked all their life and paid their taxes with the respect they deserve , and not just throwing a pittance of support to them .
    If the Illegals were treated the same way , they would not bother to come here in the first place and we would not have to worry just where the next Martin Place Horror will take place .
    PIXAPD
    23rd Nov 2015
    4:09pm
    MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
    SO THIS LEAD TO

    They’re not happy in Gaza
    They're not happy in Egypt
    They're not happy in Libya
    They're not happy in Morocco
    They're not happy in Iran
    They're not happy in Iraq
    They're not happy in Yemen
    They're not happy in Afghanistan
    They're not happy in Pakistan
    They're not happy in Syria
    They're not happy in Lebanon
    They're not happy in Nigeria
    They're not happy in Kenya
    They're not happy in Sudan

    So, where are they happy?

    They're happy in Australia
    They're happy in England
    They're happy in Belgium
    They're happy in France
    They're happy in Italy
    They're happy in Germany
    They're happy in Sweden
    They're happy in the USA & Canada
    They're happy in Norway & India

    They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves... THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy
    Adrianus
    23rd Nov 2015
    4:57pm
    PIX when you say it in that way, it sounds like a grand plan. I have tried to understand why they are fighting but it does my head in.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:24pm
    PIXAPD: you pretty well cover it. Add to that attempts in western countries to blame us all and then silence any dissent using the normal calls of 'discrimination', 'racism' and the rest. Australians need to ignore the government and ignore the do gooders within the biased and blind media.
    We all know things are not right and that no matter what we do to help our economic migrants (NOT refugees in most cases!) it will come back on us as the demands for a separate state in our country continues to ring out.
    Adrianus
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:33pm
    There can be absolutely no doubt that compulsory super was set up to ease the burden on our ever increasing aged pension.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:26pm
    Whilst at the same time our governments are too gutless to collect the correct taxes from multinationals for money they have earned IN AUSTRALIA and are shipping home.
    It has been suggested that if multinationals paid the correct tax then we could easily fund pensions as well as pay off our debt.
    Your post is the normal stuff you post Frank: devoid of reality, facts and truth.
    Adrianus
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:34pm
    mick if you renew your AVG security then you are contributing. Your dollars go straight to the Netherlands with no GST paid to the ATO. So think about your lifestyle needs rather than continually blaming others for situations you are making possible by voting Labor!
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    8:34pm
    Don't use AVG. Do you?
    What a statement from a right wing employee Frank. Shameful.
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    9:37pm
    Frank, you will have to take an upper cut on tne chin from mick on this one!!! Hey, I use AGV but I use the free version ... Can't afford the dearer option!!!! LOL!!!!
    Adrianus
    26th Nov 2015
    9:47pm
    Ha Ha Ha Ha, Peter, I was just putting that out there as an example of how easy it would be to be hypocritical. mick thinks the world revolves around him. LOL
    PIXAPD
    23rd Nov 2015
    3:55pm
    When payment is nearly $1000 fortnight, the pension is fine
    Anonymous
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:21pm
    For those who get it. What about those who are disqualified despite having an income of below $25,000 a year and getting virtually no benefits, just because they committed the terrible sin of saving a little in the hope of part-funding their own old age? Now they are urged to blow their savings quickly and promised a rich reward for doing so. How dumb!
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:29pm
    I'll join your club Rainey. I often wonder why we did not do the same as everybody else: work a 40 hour week, go out to dinner once a week, go to the footy and shows, buy a new car every 5 years and then go on an annual overseas holiday.
    No regrets because we did something for the country. Not surprisingly this government is now after us and most other average citizens whilst doling out money like confetti to its rich benefactors. Welcome to the right!
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    10:14pm
    Rainey, if you were single then you can earn $162/fn and have no Aged Pension reduction .. That's $4,212/yr. leaving you with $20,788 income from the $25,000 and from this lower income you lose 50c in tne dollar from you pension ie. The pension would be reduced by $10,394. The Aged Pension is $22,542/yr less the $$10,394 reduction giving you a single Aged Pension payment of $12,148/yr or about $390/fn. Which is more than half of the single Aged Pension!!!! Combine the Aged Pension to your other income and you have $37,148/yr instead of the single Aged Pension payment of $22,542.

    If you spend and no longer have the $25,000 other income then you reduce your current annual income by $12,606/ur for life! If married then the stats are more in your favour!!!!

    Perhaps spending your nest egg would be unwise and the $25,000 income still gives you a handy free Aged Pension of $12,138/yr.

    How did I go, are these stats close???? If not, where is I go wrong????
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    10:40pm
    Rainey, if you claim as a couple then you get a combined pension of $25,228 having deducted $8756 from the $33,984 Aged Pension. Add the $25,000 and you now have a combined income of over $50,000/yr. I think that the $25,000 income/yr is costing you a lot less then you may realise???? If getting a combined couple Aged Pension payment then I calculate you receive about $970/fn free from the Govt???
    dstark
    23rd Nov 2015
    4:00pm
    Prof. Borrie in 1973 identified our ageing population and the stress this would place on the economy (those now paying tax to fund those not paying tax), but Borrie did not take into account the significant improvement in medical science that cause the ageing cohort to be have become, and will continue to cause, a shrinking workforce to retirees ratio.

    The 1906 concept of a reward, to sustain those who retired at 65, for their retirement, when life expectancy for males was 67, is so out of date, that we do need a complete rethink.
    Anonymous
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:27pm
    He also didn't take into account the fact that most families then had ONE income-earner, supporting spouse, kids and two sets of aging parents, whereas today most families have TWO income earners. Improved health and safety enables more people to work longer (if the nation is managed to provide job opportunities and unemployment is kept low!) Juniors and women earn much more, and thus pay more tax. But at the same time, huge tax concessions granted to the wealthy have imposed a cost burden on society - and retirees are being blamed for the impost and the society is being lied to about the cause of the problem, because retirees are an easy target when it comes to cutting outlays to improve the budget.

    FACTS: Our budget is quite healthy by world standards. Our retirees are worse off than in most countries in the world. Our total aged pension bill is small as a portion of GDP and is NOT rising rapidly. The real problem is a transfer of wealth to the rich. It is NOTHING TO DO with retirement age or pension levels. Finally, SOME people are telling the truth.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:32pm
    dstark: you sound like those who advocate GROWTH WITHOUT END. The planet simply is not big enough and sooner or later something will stop the endless march to destroy the place we all depend on for survival. It won't be pretty.
    What people need to understand is that old folk will eventually die and that a balance will be restored without killing off the planet.
    Anonymous
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:32pm
    BTW, dstark. Life expectancy is only part of the equation. Increased longevity doesn't necessarily imply that those who engage is very high stress, dangerous, or physically strenuous work can continue to work past 65. Many won't make it to 55. And the problem of availability of jobs compounds the difficulties of those denied a pension at 65.

    It's both cruel and unfair to suggest that a later retirement age is appropriate for all. If we are to delay retirement for economic reasons, it should be on an occupation by occupation basis. Let's start by denying politicians and senior bureaucrats any retirement benefit until age 80! They are among the few whose work is such that they can continue working well into old age. And perhaps add professors to that list - especially those who mouth off about delaying retirement while having no regard for those who sacrifice their health working to keep this country moving.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    8:33pm
    That is spot on Rainey. Imbeciles like Abbott and his cronies refuse to acknowledge that some people are not able to work on to 70...and nor do they care as they wave their arrogant wand over the nation.
    peedee
    23rd Nov 2015
    4:21pm
    Thanks for highlighting the 3 pillars principle. This was clearly expressed in the Henry review a few years ago but is lost on politicians as highlighted by the gutless attack on 90,000 part pensioners in the last budget. Those 90,000 persons will lose part pensions from 2017. The decision was a knee jerk reaction to ACOSS and a way of getting only 90,000 voters offside as against 2.3 million offside. What was not understood by Xenophon and De Natalie is that the part pensioners who are being done over largely fell into the upper bracket due to "bracket creep" i.e. the incredible returns of the super funds over the last 3 years. Just as the funds went up they are now retreating albeit at a slower rate than the previous increase. The resultant unintended consequences of that cut to the taper rate is that many will forgo private health insurance thus placing more strain on the public system, the new changes are a disincentive to save over $400,000 in super and as the super balances fall the part pensioners will come back into the system at a far steeper rate, which will be good for them but bad for the budget. Their is a need for change but it needs to be far reaching, all inclusive and based on fact. For me the ire is caused through knee jerk policy introduced without proper consideration and ignorance as expressed in Ms. O'Dwyers statements. It follows if you don't what the principles of a program are you cant expect to manage it.
    Anonymous
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:40pm
    Huge rewards now on offer to those 90,000 for taking a world trip and blowing a few hundred grand - and to the young who slow down their contributions to super, give to their offspring generously, and splurge on a few luxuries to ensure they don't exceed that magic threshold. In the end, the changes to the assets test were stupid vote-buying that was both patently UNFAIR (slashing the incomes of those already hardest hit by falling investment returns and punishing savers to reward the less responsible) and ECONOMICALLY INSANE!

    Taxpayers will, over the coming decades, suffer a massive cost burden to pay for this stupidity. It was short term gain for long term pain. But only those smart enough to have accrued some retirement savings of their own are intelligent enough to see the flaw in the dumb arguments put forward. Sadly, those without the financial savvy to achieve part-self-funded status also lack the ability to comprehend how damaging the change was, and why.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    8:31pm
    You are both ASSUMING that the pension will be available. Can you not see that the desired (stated) outcome from several ministers in this government are that retirees should sell their homes, downsize to a cheaper suburb and a much smaller residence and then spend every razoo they have. Then there will be a pension of gruel and water.
    As has been said above and before the pension system is not the problem despite being the scapegoat. The real problem are the refusal to collect taxes from corporate Australian, the refusal to close the many tax avoidance tax shelters and the ongoing push to reduce the tax payable by those who already bleed the system. THAT IS WHAT NEEDS FIXING, not retirees who deserve to be treated with respect rather than being done over.
    Capn Dan
    23rd Nov 2015
    5:30pm
    Too bad us oldies are not on the good deal politicians look forward to
    Bones
    24th Nov 2015
    1:06pm
    Nice one, reckon they all missed this lol. To busy fixing the country and arguing ????
    Adrianus
    24th Nov 2015
    4:28pm
    I must admit, I rarely express dissatisfaction with a post. However, on this occasion Capn Dan I must point out that not everyone gets paid the same. You of all people should realise this. If you want to get a politicians wage or pension then you need to be a politician. If you want the wage of a Doctor, then you need to be a Doctor, etc. I thought these high expectations were confined to our inexperienced youth. :(
    Politicians pay a price for their remuneration. Either pay the price or argue that they are overpaid.
    Grateful
    23rd Nov 2015
    8:36pm
    I just wonder why a Law degree and one in Arts, majoring in History, qualifies one to be an Assistant Treasurer? Maybe it's because she succeeded Peter Costello in his former seat?
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:31pm
    Remember Paul Keating did not have a degree in anything but was one of the sharpest minds around who learned on the job. The trouble with the current lot (both sides of politics) is that most have single digit intelligence and are little more than tools for those not in politics pulling the strings. So who is really in control?
    Grateful
    24th Nov 2015
    10:39am
    Surely not mentioning Kelly O'Dwyer in the same ball game as Paul Keating?
    Anonymous
    24th Nov 2015
    10:45am
    Then of course there was a bloke called Wayne Swann with an Arts degree which is a bullshit degree anyway he had absolutely no brains and just about bankrupted this country.
    Adrianus
    24th Nov 2015
    11:00am
    robbo, Wayne Swan was a long time "advisor" to many Labor ministers who could not match Swan's comparative superior intellect. They recognised his abilities and made him treasurer. In hindsight they should have read the peter principal theory first. Advisors are great at coming up with ideas, many of which have someone else's name on them.
    Anonymous
    24th Nov 2015
    11:29am
    And of course Frank there was Paul Keating that they are talking about didn"t we have a recession under him or am I wrong
    boardlumps63
    23rd Nov 2015
    9:52pm
    How people live on a full age pension is beyond me due to all the high living costs. If you own your home you get slugged rates, have a car you pay connected to electricity you pay but you do receive a small discount. If you are lucky to have super great just hope its enough just over the cut off your strugglimg and you miss out on some of the discounts and of course cheaper medical. If you live in the bush somethings might be cheaper ie rates but if you live in an area lets say close to the beach where every rich person may desire to be your held to ransom by the local councils who cry poor and want another rate rise.
    What gave rise to me commenting was the suggestion from Scott Morrison "downsize your home and live off the proceeds".
    Well if you live in Manly say have a view of the ocean were talking millions. But my friends are there i like this place but i havent got super or not much but dont get the pension as im over the cutoff. Hell my rates are high some rich guy wants to buy what will i do. You will be forced to sell to the rich cause your not that affluent sorry.
    So thats how it will be the rich drive the cost of living up and the poor be damned.
    My dad had a two bedroom house a wife two children a secondhand holden then acquired a crownland block at the beach built a shack on a small wage. Retired on a small wage until a friend clued him up about a war pension well after his wife died. Were talking the sixties here how did he do that i suppose because he didnt spend anymore than he has which wasnt much. Oh retired at 59 and had no super yep just that old age pension until he was able to accept that he went to war for that TPI pension.
    So now to survive in this new world you had better be rich have a lot of super, be luck to be able to downsize and still live in a nice area or be capable to work til you drop.
    Well done our leaders of this great nation as you sell the farm to overseas interest allow our local councils to force us out with their mismanagement.
    God its still a lucky country just hope our leaders can save it.
    So now
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:35pm
    The age pension for a couple is heaps to live on if you have no debt and own your own home. But if people expect an opulent lifestyle then forget it.
    You'd be shocked at what $30 000 pa can do.
    You are of course spot on the money about Morrison. What another little government twerp trying to rout average Australians of every cent they have whilst at the same time handing the rich the next tax reduction since this bunch of pirates came to office. Obscene!
    Rae
    24th Nov 2015
    6:54am
    Last week our local parer had an article stating that the rates in North Avoca are $11000 a year for a pretty average house, not on the beach. No curb or guttering and very few services. Pensioners can't afford that.

    23rd Nov 2015
    10:25pm
    Of course super was introduced to reduce the burden on taxpayers supporting the Age Pension. When I started work in 1960 in a government job, I was in the government super fund and it was well known that, on retirement, that there would be a government super pension paid, not an Age Pension.

    At present 8/10 taxpayers are supporting welfare and pension payments. The population is aging so unless something is done, either taxes will need to rise or payments will be reduced. When the age pension was introduced, it was paid on reaching 65 although back then the average male age was 56. Now the average male age is almost 85.

    Some of the comments are very biased and, in some cases, plain wrong. I won't address all of them but I find it passing strange that there is anger against people with a lot of super and yet we are being told that an Age Pension is an entitlement. It can't be both ways. Compulsory super has not been around long enough to make much of an effect but will be very advantageous when all workers have had the benefit of it during all of their working life.
    MICK
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:39pm
    We all understand the issues but the real game has nothing to do with retirement incomes. The game at hand is to asset strip average Australians whilst delivering tax cuts to the rich who have no need at all. That is the obscene manner in which this government is still operating and the reason it needs to go. Don't believe a word they tell us and refuse to take any handouts/bribes before the election. Expect one the same as Abbott promised Paid Parental Leave when he had no intention of keeping the promise, which he has and could not keep.
    Anonymous
    23rd Nov 2015
    10:44pm
    Thanks Mick, please support your accusations with some facts. How is the average Australian having assets stripped? What are the tax cuts to the rich? You have no proof that the PPL was never intended to be brought in.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    12:22am
    Thanks old liberal supporter. Take the shutters off and do a bit of research yourself. All there if you want to see it.
    Adrianus
    26th Nov 2015
    9:53am
    Old Man, you are asking too much for mick to support his criticism of the government with hard facts. He is such a strong labor supporter, he has to be on their payroll.
    Circum
    23rd Nov 2015
    11:27pm
    Kelly O,Dwyer is just following the party line.The theory is if you repeat the comment ie"it is not a right"often enough people will believe it.Unfortunately this often works.It can even sound logical to younger people who are not aware of the history of Age Pensions or that Superannuation was a SUPPLEMENT.The concept of denying average wage earners pension benefits is a more recent development.Moral obligations by all governments sadly takes second place to balancing the budget or subsidising ideological spending depending what group are in power.With the oldies being seen as a small powerless group who will moan and grown but do not have the numbers to affect voting,we are not seen as a threat.
    Yes,it is all spin and more spin.Pensions are being vandalised for many as its an easy target.There are valid savings which can be made to make the system fairer but the government doesnt seem interested in being fairer.Why? Multi millionaires use the system to avoid millions in tax (legal).Whose pockets are being filled to let this system to continue?Personally i believe everyone should get the pension .The RIGHT to a pension has been purchased by a lifetime of paying taxes by most,which was used to pay a pension to earlier generations.The fact that government coffers are struggling is sad but not the responsibility of our elderly who do not deserve to be punished .
    Not Senile Yet!
    24th Nov 2015
    1:50am
    OMG!!!!!
    So many brainless dimwits on this site......probably half the lefties even voted the Right Wing Liberals in!!!!
    Not that the Left Wing (what a joke.....they are now ruled by the right Wing View) off er anything remotely different!!!!
    All labor has to do is stand up and pledge to REVERSE all the legislation passed by the Liberals against our Aged Pensioners and they will be in Government......so why don't they?????
    Because BOTH Parties are on a free for all snack at the Public Purse and have been for the last 20years!!!!
    In that time the Prime Minister has increased his Salary to more than the USA's President....Every State Premier is even on more Money than the USA President......Mayor's are now on Full time Salaries and every Council has a CEO and at least 6 Executives on a $200,000 plus Salary!!!!
    Oh so you are not aware of this?????
    There have been very few strikes in the last 20 years and every wage increase has had a 10 to 15% productivity increase attached to the lousy 2-3% Wage increase whilst inflation.... (Not CPI).... has run at close to 5-6% on everyday food and necessities and Reals Estate running at 10% a year inflation caused directly by withholding the release of land by refusal to subdivide by re- zoning!!!!
    ALL Executive Salaries has risen steadily by 10 - 20% Annually in the same time and CEO's of Large Corps and Banks have reaped large rewards through increased shares as rewards for performance results in increasing Profits!!!!
    IT IS THE AMERICANISATION of Australia through adopting a Policy approach that rewards GREED and PRIVATISATION of EVERYTHING!!!!
    This is NOT the AUSTRALIAN WAY...Nor is it OUR Culture!!!
    What made us GREAT was our Ability to pick the teeth out of other Countries FAILED Policies and COMPROMISE between the Capitalist Right Wing View and the Left Wing Social Values that work!!!
    SADLY the Liberal Party has become a Neo facist Party that wants to RULE not SERVE the people......and their Propaganda machine of turning lies into Truths has worked on everyone by simply dividing the opinions of most....so they are busy arguing....whilst they change our very culture!!!!
    Aged Pensions in OUR Culture has always been a right that you earn by working hard and paying your taxes!!!!
    It was never considered Welfare!!!!
    Welfare was the Dole....Single Mothers Pension....and disability Pensions!!!
    The Parties...both of them .....put aged Pensions....(which were a separate departments).....together for Administration savings and called it Human Services!!!!
    Now they want to label the Pension as Welfare......simply because it all comes under one dept.!!!!
    Propaganda CRAP!!!!
    As for them being broke??????
    Well that is all Propaganda Crap as well!!!!
    They now have more tax from more people that ever.....Population has doubled and most women are working as well!!!
    Tax on Cigs 160% Tax on Alcohol & Fuel is greater than the Manufacture's profit!!!!
    Let not forget the GST and Stamp Duties nor the Sales Tax on all registered Vehicles nor Registration Fees that are not only not negotiable but also tied to CPI..!!!!!!
    How can they possibly be broke????
    They have sold off the Water , Power & Gas to private Enterprise and pocketed the Taxpayers Money yet still collect the GST on all of them!!!!
    THEY ARE NOT BROKE AT ALL...It is all a LIE!!!!
    To prove my point.....look at what the Liberal Party has ordered since coming into office....
    Billions of Dollars worth of NEW JETS from the USA!
    Currently closing a deal for New Ships for the Navy...more Billions!!
    Just signed a deal to build 100 Vehicles at a cost of 1 million each to be built in Bendigo by an American Owned Australian Registered Company.....Yes $100 Million contract!!!!
    Then they say but we are broke!!!! We have to cut back on Welfare!!!
    THEY ARE LYING !!!!!!!
    We pay $100 a day to American Corporations to house our Criminals (who do not pay tax) in Jails across Australia.....yet we are only prepared to pay a Pensioner who has paid tax all his life ........not $700 dollars a week and free board and food with fulltime guards to protect them...to keep them safe!...... NO No NO!!!
    We pay a Pensioner $70 a day or $450 per week and they have to find their own shelter and buy their own food, electricity, gas and then pay for their water as well!!!!
    What a sad statistic that it!!!!!
    We are slowly adopting American ideals of ...." I am okay...stuff you.....solve your own problems"!!!!!
    We are not the USA.....We dot not believe in their Greed is Good Motto!!!!!!
    We are Australians.....We look after our Mates who fall on hard times!!!!
    Cutting the Pensions and reducing Welfare or forcing people to sell their Home......Is Un Australian!!!!!!
    America is our Allie BUT NOT our Rulers!!!!
    Stop our Modern Party Puppets from trying to make us the Next American State.....Subservient Country......Stop it Now!!!
    Get rid of the Corrupt Party Puppets that serve the Money Men......vote them out ......Vote Independent Next Election!!!!
    That way neither Party will be able to Bulldoze through changes without a Healthy debate and Plenty of Bartering......the way it should be!!!
    Adrianus
    24th Nov 2015
    10:47am
    Quite a few dimwits voting Independent too who voted Labor in I would imagine. :)
    Kaye Fallick
    24th Nov 2015
    10:56am
    Hi 'not senile yet' - thanks for your post and ideas. I think it is worth saying that we do not believe we have 'dim wits' on our site - we value our members and their input - so do you mind keeping it polite so we can keep the conversation going? many thanks Kaye
    Donga
    24th Nov 2015
    4:55am
    turnbull , should be looking at the 54/11 retirement pay out to public service workers, where apparently they receive 2.5 times thier super at 54years of age and 11months and in some cases start back at public service employment,this is paid by taxpayers why can"t all workers recieve the same
    Sundays
    24th Nov 2015
    8:09am
    They have Donga. Your are referring to old schemes which have been closed to new members for many years. The number of public servants who can access this are diminishing.
    Adrianus
    24th Nov 2015
    9:44am
    The PS have a great PPL scheme as well. They also have salary sacrifice arrangements for all sorts of things such as child care, cars, etc. The problem is we cant all work for the PS. Somebody has to do the heavy lifting.
    Strummer
    24th Nov 2015
    10:28am
    I don't remember hearing the younger generation complaining when us "old buggers" were paying for their education.
    thommo
    24th Nov 2015
    12:15pm
    Strummer. Excellent point.
    Chris B T
    24th Nov 2015
    2:09pm
    Fact Check no one has reached the retirement age from when compulsory superanuation 1992 came in. There is early elected retirement 55 years now 60 years old(2037) at earilest for now.
    15 years old min age to now retirement age of 67, would be 2044 earliest to age pension/superanution combination.
    That would have full superanution coverage from employment, others may have eariler but this is the compulsory starting point.
    Rules governing superanution should reflect 2041/2044 new age for age/pension combine superanution if unable to live off superanution alone.
    Gradual changes that reflect the years of complusory superanution collection to to age pension which is at this time 2044 which is 29 years away.
    boardlumps63
    24th Nov 2015
    9:42pm
    Because im over sixty excuse me for not being able to reply to comments following a thread i posted. Rae commented that rates in a seaside village of nth avoca were $11000 therabouts which i find a little over the top not kerb and guttering appreciate a confirmation on that. Rae where i live same no k&g but have a footpath which my dad contributed money. Rates here $3500/yr council Coffs Harbour. Rates are based on land values Nth Acova is much sort after place for the rich this is how it is the rich buy at priced determined by real estate agents and the Valuer General goes oh yeah so that block in that area will be that price and council goes and the rates will be this so thanks.
    Apparently if you live in Glenreagh over the hills to the back of where i preside rates are around $1500 to $1800 considerable difference. But they draw their water from the same river/dam and the council charges more for me then them go figure must be the length of pipe.
    No there is a lot we need to have clarified by the councils who rip us off and the state government who do the same and then our illustrious leaders in Canberra who dont know crap from clay.
    There was also a comment about the lefties or righties on this forum. Well let me ask does it really matter as neither of them have the ability to run a chook raffle. I declare i vote for the Libs and Nationals but really. I also thought Kevin Rudd had the goods and what a turkey he was. So my point is we are in desperate need of a complete overhaul to get this country working again. Get the lazy asses off the benefits and back to work thats what im trying to do and it gives you a sense of worth. Try it its great.
    Rae
    25th Nov 2015
    8:32am
    Yes Local Councils need an overhaul. Personally I thing an administrator would be a lot cheaper and run local areas without the involvement of property developers etc.

    The reference was in the Central Coast Advocate Express newspaper about 18th November. You can view it online.

    Our council is renowned for wasting money on surveys, meetings, reports,land and environment cases, losing records and changing it's mind. The mistakes they make are legion and cost ratepayers dearly.

    The City of Gosford, if you can call it a city which is doubtful, is a broken down, boarded up mess after decades of mismanagement.

    Retirees not entitled to discounts really do need to co operate and work towards keeping excessive costs down or they will be forced to sell up and relocate as Morrison has indicated recently.

    The increase to 15% on most items including rates will cost thousands extra in fixed costs going forward and very little chance of increased income especially for self funded retirees.
    Adrianus
    25th Nov 2015
    9:17am
    Local councils are a leftist organisation formed to gatekeep on development. When a new precinct is developed they purposefully minimise the zoning so they can collect money later from rezoning applications. Only developers can afford to build houses these days, because if you want to build outside Melbourne or Sydney it's far cheaper to buy an existing dwelling.
    boardlumps63
    24th Nov 2015
    9:49pm
    Does anyone from the government actually take any notice of posts on this forum. Be good if they did might be some good info to take to next election.
    Jacqua
    25th Nov 2015
    5:47pm
    i believe society should support those who have spent the majority of their lives supporting society, in other words, a society needs to care for elderly or incapacitated citizens, and the pension is one of the best ways of doing that.
    and thank you for clearing up that mess - i had remembered correctly!
    bartpcb
    2nd Dec 2015
    1:14am
    Blaming the Aged Pension is just another smoke screen put down by this Right wing government to cover their own incompetence. As all right wing governments in history their mandate is to benefit the top 20% of the population (to which they belong) at the cost of the other 80%. They can't change, it's in their DNA. They believe in two basic principles; (1) They have the right to rule and (2) The peasants can manage well enough from the crumbs that fall from the social elite's tables.
    roboz17
    9th Dec 2015
    10:50pm
    My beef is with a couple we know who are in the million dollar plus bracket who openly talk about the huge benefits they get from their super plan and who are now soon booked to go on several very expensive overseas holiday to use up the excess to enable them to continue to receive their part pension
    Cooky
    14th Dec 2015
    10:30am
    I agree, We AGED Pensioners are ALL Entitled to the AGED Pension, we have WORKED for it.


    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.