15th Jan 2018

Are Age Pension changes ruining your retirement?

Are Age Pension changes ruining your retirement?

The legislative changes to the assets test rules that kicked in on 1 July 2017 are having a detrimental impact on the Australian retirement landscape, particularly on SMSF managers, middle-income earners and age pensioners.

The SMSF Association claims that the changes discourage sensible retirement savings habits and are also having negative effects in other areas, such as estate planning and death benefits.

“In the lead up to 1 July 2017, the industry’s focus was on optimising contributions and reducing pension accounts to under $1.6 million as well as considering CGT relief for those affected by the transfer balance cap and transition to retirement changes,” said SMSF Association Chief John Maroney.

“A consequence of this understandable focus on these issues requiring immediate action was less attention being paid to the longer-term strategic consequences of the changes,” he said.



“Now the industry has had time to reflect on the changes, it has recognised the enormous impact on estate planning that wasn’t appreciated at the time the changes were introduced.

“It’s also had the effect of making death benefits, always a complex issue, even more complex. The reality now is that SMSF members who fail to appreciate what these changes mean, or who fail to get specialist advice, could find themselves being forced to move money out of superannuation.”

Mr Maroney said the changes have also led to “significantly adverse and presumably unintended consequences” for age pensioners who’ve had a reduction in entitlement as a result of tapering and thresholds, as well as middle-income earners trying to save for retirement.

“For home-owning couples who have a superannuation balance between $500,000 and $800,000, the increased taper rate creates a 'black hole' where their assets above the asset test-free amount cause them to be worse off in terms of income,” he told superannuation journal Financial Standard.

“This is caused by the taper rate of the equivalent of 7.8 per cent a year, reducing their pension entitlement at a rate exceeding the income they earn from their superannuation balance above the asset-free area. This is especially so in a low-interest rate and investment return environment.”

For middle-income earners, the rules have led to “detrimental behaviour” such as shifting investments from assets included in the means test, such as superannuation, to assets that are excluded, such as the primary residence.

There are fears that, while the rules may help to ensure pension sustainability, they may not be working well for everyone.

“We believe having the superannuation and social security systems properly integrated is a key facet to achieve an efficient and sustainable retirement income system, and that the current siloed approach to policy making in these areas is creating perverse outcomes for individuals and couples,” said Mr Maroney.

Do you think the rule changes are fair? Have you been adversely affected by them?


Related articles:





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
10:39am
Yes the changes are fair and long over due.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
11:04am
The changes were utterly STUPID and will drive the cost of pensions up over the long term by discouraging saving. But manipulators who gave their money away to cash in on benefits they have no moral entitlement to will always be happy to see others hurt. Sad to see that selfish side of human nature reflected so often.
Cowboy Jim
15th Jan 2018
11:05am
Might agree with you BigBear, and of course we took action years ago so the changes will not severely impact on us. Vision impaired Freddie could see where the Govt was leading us. People with modest
super balances would have taken their money out long ago.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
11:12am
There is nothing wrong, unethical, immoral or anything else in using the rules to give yourself to a better deal. If you think it is then you are simply regretting that you didn't do the same. Thinking back I would probably have done the same no matter what the rules as the difference it has made to my family is awesome whereas if I had kept the money then it would have been a very selfish act indeed.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
11:34am
There is plenty wrong, immoral and unethical in exploiting the flaws in a system in such a way that you get unfair benefit while others suffer unfair less. I don't regret anything. I take pride in my integrity and respect for others.

Good luck to those rich enough to enjoy giving money away. It's not SELFISH to keep it. It's NECESSARY when you don't have a lot. But it's VERY SELFISH to claim handouts that should go to needier folk when you could have done quite nicely without those handouts.
john
15th Jan 2018
12:34pm
What Rainey said!!!
john
15th Jan 2018
12:43pm
Cowboy Jim , another self satisfied individual that always says "up you jack, I'm alright" without having a clue about the many that don't understand and go onwards and get shafted and don't even know whats happening. But you smarties, your OK , well, that's good , and good on you, it still says exactly what Rainey said , the selfish couldn't give a stuff about anything but your own smartness, now you may be a nice person , but you sound like self satisfied braggart , that needs to make a comment on here when you are already set, don't be so presumptuous and remember you need not comment , when your already up there, hah?. But to offend others in your ignorant comments is very annoying, bit like Geezer. What's with people who think they know it all?
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
12:56pm
There is nothing smart about how I sorted out my affairs at all. I did what most people should do and that is plan yo retirement well before you actually retire. You plan holidays before you go so why not plan other aspects of you life?
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
1:16pm
Because Mr Arrogant Self-Satisfied Over-privileged Ignoramus, vast numbers simply don't have either the education or the access to advice that the ARROGANT PRESUMPTUOUS PRIVILEGED have. And in many cases circumstances change unexpectedly and often very dramatically. I couldn't gift to my children before retirement. My situation changed very suddenly and without warning AFTER I retired, bought my dream retirement home and settled in, and structured my investments to achieve the income I believed my partner and I needed. Okay, I'm not impacted by the assets test, but under other circumstances I might have had my retirement plans wiped out.

The system SHOULD NEVER require that people have privileged educational status or sophisticated investment knowledge in order to avoid UNFAIR hurt. And no decent person would suggest that the less educationally advantaged should suffer in retirement because the privileged selfish fat cats endorse a system that lets them manipulate unethically and justify it with nasty barbs implying those who can't manipulate unethically are inferior and deserve hardship.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
2:32pm
Well I guess you can't help people who can't help themselves either.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
2:40pm
More contemptuous egotistical arrogant ranting based on ignorance and a vile attitude. Your comments are disgusting, BigBear. You clearly have no idea what It's like to suffer educational disadvantage, let alone psychological challenges resulting from suffering major trauma, crisis, or ongoing injustice and abuse.

People like you are really sickening.

Yes, you CAN help EVERYONE - whether they are ABLE to help themselves or not, and many are not able because of cruelty and injustice perpetrated on them by people like you.

You CAN devise a fair and equitable system that DOES NOT require people to be investment geniuses or clever manipulators to achieve fair benefit for their hard work. But the greedy and self-serving would hate that, wouldn't they?
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
3:17pm
You need nothing more than common sense Rainey.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:21pm
BULL SHIT, BigBear. You are showing your arrogant, contemptuous IGNORANCE again. Clearly you have no idea about other people's lives, and you are far too egotistical to learn.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
3:34pm
I do know that those who you are referring too lack basic common sense though and that is their real problem.
Tib
15th Jan 2018
6:13pm
Rainey you may reduce your need for so much typing if you stick to the point, instead half of every comment you make is spent calling people names.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:35pm
Most people also don't have the money lying around to give it off to their family, buy a McMansion outright, and then get it all back as gifts.

Stop being a supercilious prat.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
7:55pm
BigBear, you deserve all the adjectives and more. Lack common sense? The only person here who lacks common sense is you - can't acknowledge the realities of life, but have to insist adamantly that anyone who isn't as privileged as you must be lacking in sense. It's PRIVILEGE they are missing. The PRIVILEGE that you refuse to acknowledge but that makes you arrogant, egotistical, and hideously selfish.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
9:32pm
BB - do you miss the point that you are exactly what Rainey described in the second post above?
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
9:35pm
Rainey - no need to get angry... BB has just taken a hit to the engine room on a Kent class cruiser like HMAS Canberra... stupid thing was the engine room, to draw air for the fuel fires, was negatively compressed, so when a breach occurred the fires blew back and killed the entire engine room crew, leaving no power.

There's a parallel in here somewhere.....
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Jan 2018
11:10am
Rainey no one not even me deserves to be treated the way you treat people. If you treat others like you treat me no wonder you have struggled most of your life. I have given many times more than I have ever taken so the universe has treated me well though out my life.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Jan 2018
5:55pm
BigBear, I treat people as they deserve to be treated. And my struggles have nothing to do with how I treat people. I can't think of any person, other than a couple of criminals, who have treated me poorly. People are generally quick to offer me favours, and I am very well liked, because I am very good to most people. I just can't abide dishonesty. Sorry if it offends you to have your conduct called what it is.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Jan 2018
6:02pm
Goodness, BigBear, who are you to accuse anyone of treating others badly. You are happy to see others unfairly deprived and battlers having their houses taken off them so you can prosper by ''playing the game'' - forcing taxpayers to fund your grandchildren's lavish lifestyle, instead of supporting the needy. NOBODY deserves to be unfairly deprived by being forced to subsidize the lifestyle of the greedy with money that is intended to be directed to the needy.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Jan 2018
6:47pm
I'm sorry, BigBear. Perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh. You are only doing what the arrogant privileged rich do. Somehow, they have come to the absurd conclusion that they are ''entitled'' and the whole world owes them. They think that taking what THEY think is their right, regardless of law or morality, somehow makes them smarter and superior. They also think they are more deserving than others - that their PRIVILEGE was deserved. They have no capacity to comprehend what privilege actually is, or that others don't have their opportunities, let alone to have any concept at all of real disadvantage and hardship.

These are common misconceptions among the rich, and apparently you are infected with the sickness that causes people to harbour those misconceptions. I feel sorry for you, really. It must be miserable to harbour those ridiculous notions. And no doubt a great many folk dislike you for it.
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Jan 2018
11:12pm
What a lot of rubbish! Only people with a lot of envy would write such rubbish. Obviously you have no idea about the the real wealthy people treat others. One of my best friends is very rich and we have a mutual friend who is as poor as a church mouse. We have to out and have a lot of fun together even if web just boil the billy for a cuppa in the park. We also go away for a few days fishing in my rich friends motorhome too. No one talks about money as it simply isn''t necessary.
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Jan 2018
8:08am
On the contrary, BigBear. I know a lot about really wealthy people. I have lived among them all my life. And many of my good friends are very well off also. But they DO have a sense of entitlement and superiority. That's a fact that nobody with a brain can deny. It's got nothing to do with fun or talking about money. It's about the behaviour and the excuses offered for it.

You admit to taking money from the taxpayer that you have no moral entitlement to because it's intended to fund sustenance for the genuinely needy. And you justify it, and denigrate and insult anyone who objects. That's having a sense of entitlement. No good denying it, because your posts speak for themselves. Oh, but I do agree that most privileged don't KNOW what drives their selfish behaviour. They don't understand privilege vs. disadvantage. And they don't recognize their behaviour as selfish or driven by a sense of entitlement. They ALL justify it by claiming superior intellect, poor deluded fools.

Envy? Never! I have the perfect life, BigBear. I have everything I want, and I got it HONESTLY. And I appreciate it because I've known real hardship. I've experienced social injustice of the worst kind, and so I stand up for people who are struggling or suffering unfairly. If I were to envy anyone, it would be people with superior intellect and talent who use it for the benefit of society - not someone who prospers through exploiting a flawed system and gloats about being better off than the people the system is supposed to e helping.
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Jan 2018
12:35pm
Question, BB. If you are so nice to poorer friends and don't talk about money, why do you come here and abuse and insult battlers who don't exploit the system, and demand that struggling pensioners have their homes confiscated after death so that fat cats can prosper?

Why don't you try showing some respect for the honest battlers instead of gloating about taking them down and insulting them for being less successful at cheating the system?
Knows-a-lot
18th Jan 2018
11:18am
Rainey and BigBear deserve each other... Their energy consumed by their verbal diarrhoea is contributing to climate change. Both have egos bigger than Donald Trump's.
Charlie
15th Jan 2018
10:46am
Just about everything is ruining retirement, I feel like I have to spend my time preventing Australians from becoming a fat, lazy, slack, mob of pussies. Every day the newspapers have a new insult. Are they just trying to sell papers.

Why the abbreviation SMSF, what does that mean. How can anyone understand what this is about, unless they are part of a select group.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
11:06am
SMSF stands for Self Managed Superannuation Fund and is the only super I would ever have as it's your money and no one looks after your money better than you do.
john
15th Jan 2018
12:47pm
Big bear , that's my point , not everyone is a brilliant financial operator like you, hey?Hah !
I read lots of things Charlie and the fact is abbreviations are like AFL footy statistics, sometimes they mean NOTHING? And if you don't understand how are you meant to know.
To the brilliant who only regard themselves , Get off!
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
2:45pm
There are a few selfish egotistical snobs who contribute to YLC who want to preserve the class system at all costs and who think it's smart to gloat about their wealth and demand that those who were less privileged suffer persecution. It's sad that such people exist, and sadder still that many of them get into positions of power and perpetrate their disgustingly indecent and self-serving policies on a nation that USED to renowned as the country of a ''fair go''. They have totally stuffed what was once a great nation, and they still aren't satisfied. They won't be until they have ground everyone but those as rich or richer than them into poverty and misery.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
3:29pm
I don't know anyone like that or I can't recall even meeting anyone like that either.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:32pm
Look in the mirror. You'll see one staring back at you.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:33pm
BTW. Welcome back OG. You are not fooling anyone.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
3:35pm
Who is OG?
Charlie
15th Jan 2018
6:44pm
WTF?
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:36pm
..and not everyone has the money to establish a SMSF..... let's not be silly here.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:40pm
OG is Old Geezer - an absolute riot of nonsense superiority and absurd utterances, and who hates pensions with a vengeance because he can't get one..... also known as Ebergeezer Scrooge...

Long suspected of being a plant for the LNP or just another ill-informed twerp trying to irritate the older people and especially the retirees and pensioners, OG has excelled both of those in his inane and supercilious utterances about his personal superiority and right to look down on others.

There could be a lesson for you there, BB.... but you're young yet - even though you are a pension rorter and doomed for the scaffold when the REAL government takes over.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
8:17pm
Actually, Trebor, I'm pretty sure BigBear is OG, telling a different set of furphies. I am pretty good at picking style, and I can guarantee we've sussed him - no matter how often he denies.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
9:37pm
Perhaps so..... has the same ring of struth to it....

Now why would a genuine contributor want to change names and enter a sock in the game?
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
9:39pm
I also think I smell the scent of a user from Elsewhere.... (Elsewhere is not a Spanish curse, but a suburb of MauMaulbourne to which everyone would like to move)....
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
9:47pm
MauMaulbourne you have to be joking. Who wants to join the Mexicans in their annual migration? Not me as I prefer to go south in the summer instead.
TREBOR
16th Jan 2018
1:25am
Tasmania looks good in a heat wave.... or Dunedin in NZ.. did I tell you a former sis-in-law was a former Farmer's party MP in NZ?

Good people generally..... love the beer and the countryside...
Franky
15th Jan 2018
10:55am
The whole superannuation / age pension system is a mess. An easy fix, and what most developed countries do, would be to pay everyone an age pension regardless of assets and income. This means people who saved all their lives will be rewarded and not penalized, it would stop people spending all their money to be able to go on the age pension, or investing all funds into their primary residence which will later become white elephants for those left behind on death. Why should someone who earned lots and paid lots of taxes not be entitled to an age pension? Doesn't make sense and sends the wrong message.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
11:07am
I agree it makes little sense and especially when a bit of planning can make so much difference.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
11:11am
How come the privileged and the manipulators always support bashing the less fortunate and less well educated, BigBear? Yet they boast about taking more than their fair share through unethical game playing. Such selfishness is disgusting.
Cowboy Jim
15th Jan 2018
11:11am
Yes Frankie, give everyone over 65 a pension on top of super and/or
working still and tax the lot as income like it happens in overseas countries. It would stop all the manipulating but it would throw a lot
of financial advisors on the no-longer-needed heap. It would make
for a thriftier population.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
11:31am
And it would reduce pension costs and enable the government to both reduce taxes and give more to the genuinely needy. Anyone who opposes that sort of common sense and ethical conduct is disgracefully selfish.

Furthermore, it would generate economic growth. The more affluent retirees would spend more, creating higher business profits and more jobs and more GST revenue, and more business profit and more people employed would generate more taxes and more spending, and so the cycle of growth would continue. Seems to me the politicians are outright liars claiming they are focused on jobs and growth. Either that or they are blithering brainless idiots. They are deliberately killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
11:48am
So I should have kept the money and missed out on seeing the big difference it made to my family so that strangers could benefit instead? I don't think so. Remember charity begins at home.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
11:51am
You should be supporting changes that are good for the nation and encourage and reward ethical and moral conduct, rather than selfishly gloating about being positioned to act selfishly and wishing hurt on those who aren't in such a favoured situation.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
12:02pm
Rubbish Rainey one should support their own family before they do what is good for the nation. There is nothing unethical or immoral about supporting one's family first.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
12:48pm
There is when you are actively lobbying in favour of policies that hurt those who aren't in a similarly favoured position and make it a punishable offence to be UNABLE to gift your assets. When you do that, you are SELFISH and unconscionable.
Gee Whiz
15th Jan 2018
12:51pm
My sentiments exactly Franky.

In this country you are penalized for saving for your retirement.

Unless you are a politician, then you have unfettered access to Aladdin's cave.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
12:53pm
Punishable to gifts one's assets? Anyone can do what they like with their money.
john
15th Jan 2018
1:02pm
Of course , pensions for all. It is not a privilege it is a right, whether you earned millions or thousands, you paid for it. That is plain fact of life.
Another comment I found brilliant , "it would stop people spending all their money to go on the age pension" And I knew someone who spent on two huge things to cut down his asset and keep his perks and some payments. So he gets only benefit from concessions had more to the point that he couldn't actually get a fortnightly pension, but he had two big spends to cut his assets, that benefitted his family, yes but they are gone, enjoyed but done and dusted .
So where is the smart part of creating a level where people are forced to manipulate their own wealth , by spending , well perhaps 50 to 100 thousand dollars, seems idiotic to me!
At the same time remember there are those with not that much in the pocket that still have to jump through hoops to get something they worked all their life for , placing money in super and paying taxes. Every one should get a pension.
Seriously who are these absolute raving idiots we vote for???
These same raving idiots that fritted away the Pension Fund , and both sides are to blame for that thievery!
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:04pm
''Punishable to gifts one's assets? Anyone can do what they like with their money'' And you claim to know the rules, BigBear! DUMB.
Yes, it IS punishable to gift one's assets, unless you are privileged enough to be ABLE to do it before turning 60, or you don't need a pension at all.

John, it sounds like these absolute raving idiots we vote for are people like BigBear. Seems they are all arrogant, egotistical, contemptuous, ignorant, and with no respect. And they certainly don't have the national interest at heart.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
3:57pm
Only fi you are stupid enough to write someone a cheque.
Tib
15th Jan 2018
6:18pm
I agree Franky but it won't happen.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
8:18pm
''Only fi you are stupid enough to write someone a cheque'' - So Centrelink wouldn't notice the odd $100K disappearing out of a bank account or share portfolio? Don't be daft!
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
9:44pm
Next move from Colonel C'Link and Fat Hank, under the guidance of his direct political overseers and masters...... (let that one hang for a while).. will be to review every transaction for a period into the past so as to catch asset shifting by pension applicants.

Whenever an LNP plant appears in discussion, you can guarantee that he/she is operating from a perspective that incorporates a future direction of this 'conservative' government and its mates in the Opposition... ergo - BigBear appears here claiming to have offloaded all assets to get pension - next thing is the 'social security minister' will come out and say they MUST crack down on those rorting the system by offloading asset before retirement so as to receive a pension (that.. BTW.. the nation can't afford, etc)....

Propagandists are very cunning and very sneaky....... BigBear's stated situation will lead to a hue and cry throughout the land that the government must move to catch rorters of this kind....
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
9:46pm
(completes that thought)...

...and Labor will leap into the fray saying they need to protect the interests of genuine social security recipients by diligently ferreting out such rorters..... and they have a sworn duty to protect the social security system.....

SS - DD......
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Jan 2018
2:01pm
Rainey your lack of imagination astounds me by that comment about $100,000 disappearing out of your bank account or share portfolio.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Jan 2018
5:58pm
I don't lack imagination, BigBear. I lack the will to act dishonestly and unethically, motivated solely by greed and selfishness.
Knows-a-lot
18th Jan 2018
11:20am
There's an extraordinary display of moronics in this congeries.
Knows-a-lot
18th Jan 2018
2:21pm
"John, it sounds like these absolute raving idiots we vote for are people like BigBear. Seems they are all arrogant, egotistical, contemptuous, ignorant, and with no respect. And they certainly don't have the national interest at heart."

A perfect description of the Lieberal-Hillbilly COALition (LNP).
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
11:09am
''while the rules may help to ensure pension sustainable'' .... NO NO NO NO NO. How can it help to ensure the pension is ''sustainable'' when it makes it detrimental to save and rewards folk for spending heavily and claiming a bigger pension? Financial advisers are telling people to take expensive cruises. In some cases, taking $100K cruise will net the retiree couple $180K over ten years in extra pension income. Why bother to struggle with management issues and risks to get MAYBE a 5 - 7% return, when the return from simply spending it is a secure 7.8%+, indexed to inflation, and dropping into your bank account fortnightly with ZERO effort.

It's mind-boggling that the politicians could have ever been DUMB enough to vote for such a change. But they need to urgently reverse it.

And NO, I'm NOT affected. But I know a great many who are and they are investing in bigger houses that they neither need nor want or taking costly cruises. And those under 60 are gifting generously to offspring, with informal agreements that the beneficiaries will pay a lot of their expenses in retirement - thus enabling them to attain all the benefits of the maximum pension PLUS the benefit of retaining their assets.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
11:16am
I can't see anything wrong in a bit of forward planning.
Cowboy Jim
15th Jan 2018
11:18am
@Rainey - not all cruises are expensive and I find seeing other places
after 45 years of working preferable to sitting on a lot of money and
thus losing the pension, only to see no hopers collecting $900 a fort-
night. And that 7.8% is about right, that is equal to the $3 per $1000
extra in your account. Well calculated.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
11:28am
Can't disagree with that, Cowboy Jim, but that doesn't make it RIGHT to create a system that benefits only those who choose not to save or those who can unconscionably manipulate to take more than their ethical share. This is supposed to be a free country. Endorsing the notion that people who choose to save for a better retirement or to pass on to their heirs after death should suffer unfairly for that choice, while drinkers, gamblers and manipulators party, is a denial of basic freedom.
john
15th Jan 2018
1:18pm
No hopers Cowboy ? You are a cowboy, a self satisfied one at that, get off here, go and enjoy your wealth instead of insulting every time you open your mouth or press a button. Really you seem to be now in childish argument mode.
You and Bear ,really have no reason to even comment you are good! Yes, so why bother getting on this site and making ignorant "look at me I am great" idiotic statements , except for the fact that maybe you are telling a load???? Bye.
Cowboy Jim
15th Jan 2018
3:23pm
Seems to me John has a problem with BigBear and myself, wants us to go away. Have the same right to be here as he is. Cannot really see what upset him apart for him may being a Socialist and they
do not have a sense of humour.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:29pm
John clearly is NOT a socialist, Cowboy Jim, since he supports pensions for all regardless of their wealth. Socialists want ''equality'', which really means they want to crush the middle and upper working class to hand out to the lower class, while ensuring the upper class keep partying. Precisely what BigBear is proposing. John just wants what's fair and equitable, as do I. I don't have any issue with you, Cowboy Jim, but BigBear's socialist attitudes certainly offend.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
4:17pm
I've been certainly offended being called a socialist just because I fail to follow the crowd and make the same mistakes as they do. I am no longer wealthy and have no means of support so if you want to use a class system I belong to the one called "poor". I couldn't care less what anyone earns or what wealth they have. I do object to people who play the game of life without knowing the rules and then try to cut down those who have followed the rules and did what they should have done themselves. Take the blame for your own mistakes not try and demean those who followed the rules and put themselves in a better position than you did by cutting corners.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
8:07pm
You ARE a socialist, BigBear - the most offensive and obnoxious kind. The kind who constantly wish hurt on the hardest workers because they aren't as privileged as you, and who claim entitlement to steal from the public purse because you are ''smart'' and privileged to have money enough to manipulate. Sick!
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
9:48pm
**falls about laughing** This nation IS socialist, BigBear... if it were not there'd be no subsidies for anything from government and pure laissez-faire capitalism ....... even the LNP can't quite go that far.... so they rely on The Sellout the removes responsibility for social and economic disaster from them...
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Jan 2018
7:31am
''Take the blame for your own mistakes not try and demean those who followed the rules and put themselves in a better position than you did by cutting corners.''

BigBear, I didn't make mistakes by cutting corners. I put myself in a very good position - relative to most - by economizing and working hard. To rise from abject poverty and extreme disadvantage, faced with the challenges I faced, is rare indeed. But I am now proudly self-sufficient - and will be, according to the ASIC Retirement Calculator, for approximately the next 15 years.

You didn't do anything laudable. By your own admission, you cheated. You admit you robbed and plundered a fund INTENDED to provide for the genuinely needy, and now you boast about it to people who accumulated less wealth, but did it honestly and ethically.

Actually, you appear to be worse than a rampant socialist. Your behaviour looks to be similar to that of Communist leaders - pretending to support a system that has some theoretical merit, while rorting the public purse for their own benefit and looking down their noses at people whose hard work and integrity was not fairly rewarded.
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Jan 2018
11:07am
Rainey all I have done is support the other members of my family to have a better life by using money I don't need. They now help me by paying my bills and I get to enjoy life using the money I receive form the OAP. I have cheated no one, stolen nothing, haven't broken any rules, have worked hard all my life so I deserve a great retirement. As far as I am concerned my family had just as much need as anyone else in society so I have provided for the needy as well.

There is nothing ethically dishonest or morally wrong with what I have done. I have just done it differently from the normal way through the use of forward planning.

Yes I could have keep everything myself and watched my family struggle while I sat on a lot more money than I would ever need. I could have stayed in my old house which was much too small to house my struggling relative as well as myself self and partner. So I have not only made a great life for myself but for a lot of other members of my family as well.

If you think what I have done is wrong because I just did it differently from what others do then you have a very narrow view on life and what one can do.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Jan 2018
5:53pm
No, OG. I don't have a narrow view on life. I have integrity. What you did is morally bereft. You are stealing from the needy by taking a pension you don't need. You contrived to give money to people who had no legal or moral right to pension benefits, and you financed the gifts by claiming pension benefits you had no moral right to. If your family had as much need as anyone else in society, they would have been entitled to benefits, and then anything you gave them would have reduced their entitlement.

Sure, we can all ''play the game''. It's not hard to be dishonest or unethical. But if we all did it, the system would collapse and the genuinely needy would starve.

You assumed the right to compel Australian taxpayers to fund gifts to your grandchildren that the taxpayer had no obligation to give and that your grandchildren had no right to claim from the taxpayer. The money you are now receiving as compensation for having wrongfully directed money you should be living on to people who had no right to it, should be directed, instead, to people in real need. You are cheating the genuinely needy and robbing the taxpayer, and that's dishonest and immoral, no matter how you choose to present it and no matter what pathetic excuses you tender.

One would hope you did something different from what others do. I fear it's not too different, and that's a large cause of our economic problems in this country. People doing what you do are reducing the size of the welfare pie and thus causing needy people to live in poverty and decent, honest, hard-workers to be unfairly deprived. If you think that's acceptable, you have a very sick view of life and society.
Knows-a-lot
18th Jan 2018
11:22am
Blah blah blah... Rainey ought to change her moniker to Pourey!
Knows-a-lot
18th Jan 2018
2:29pm
"Socialists want ''equality'', which really means they want to crush the middle and upper working class to hand out to the lower class,"

That is total BULLSHIT, Rainey. Sorry, but a socialist is a person who supports the idea of a societal safety-net funded by taxation imposed on those able to pay (i.e. the wealthy), in such a way that the lifestyles of the wealthy are not adversely impacted.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Jan 2018
8:01pm
You are right in theory, Knows-a-lot. Unfortunately the right wing in our society have redefined socialism and implemented a different version of it - one that is actually closer to Communism, or maybe Facism. And it does involve crushing the middle and upper working class. I guess, though, I should have said to ''purport to handout to the lower classes'', because they actually don't. They only claim to, as in the lies they told when introducing asset test changes - which, contrary to their dishonest claims, did not give one cent to those who had no assets at all, or virtually none.

I've been accused, nastily, of being a socialist. Well, I am in the purest sense of the word - and proud of it. But I certainly do not support the flavour of ''socialism'' I'm being accused of endorsing.
Beeman
15th Jan 2018
11:31am
Good idea, Frankie, except that by cancelling the income and assets test you would reduce the staff of Centrelink to about half a dozen and all politicians hate to see the unemployment figures rise.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
11:38am
Unemployment figures wouldn't rise, Beeman. The job creation by allowing people to enjoy the fruits of their hard work and enjoy the standard of living they earned would be huge. We'd have more tax revenue through indirect tax collection, higher business profits. and lots more jobs generating still more tax revenue and more spending to make more jobs. We'd actually realize the ''jobs and growth'' objective this lying or incompetent government claims to be pursuing.

Besides, common sense dictates that having abolished the income and assets test, the government should tax the incomes of higher income retirees and the extra tax could be invested in infrastructure projects that create jobs that genuinely benefit society.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
9:50pm
Yes, Rainey -with a proper handling those people would be absorbed into the private sector - a 'right wing' wet dream..... but not bad when it works properly.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
11:41am
The entire concept of an assets test is absurd and unfair. Means testing income and deemed income is acceptable, but punishing people for having acquired assets during the working life - ignoring the fact that they paid tax on that money already - is both unfair and counterproductive, because it discourages endeavours to save and thus drives the total cost of retirement up.
Rae
15th Jan 2018
12:40pm
So punishing people for saving into income producing assets is okay but if they saved for other types of assets to leave to heirs it's okay?
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
12:46pm
No, Rae. Punishing people for saving into any kind of asset is wrong. If we must have a means test, apply it to current income only. But if you apply it to assets, tax is paid when it is earned, and again at a horrendously high rate when it SHOULD be helping you enjoy the retirement you worked and saved for but in fact it's making you far worse off. Personally, I don't think there should be a means test at all, but it DEFINITELY shouldn't apply to assets in a way that makes it detrimental to save.
john
15th Jan 2018
1:05pm
Big bear , as I said its NOT ABOUT YOU!

EVEN THOUGH YOU SEEM TO THINK IT IS.
So now Mr successful , have a think on other things.

And leave this topic alone .
john
15th Jan 2018
1:08pm
Rainey you talk good sense, I wonder what the other reason politicians have, to make them complicate something that is logical and simple , or do we elect blithering idiots to parliament?
We live in a too complicated set up, that appears sometimes so tricky that its a hoodwink?
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:26pm
John, we clearly elect blithering idiots. I sent a detailed spreadsheet analysis and clear explanation to every politician before this stupid policy was voted on. Only ONE responded. He phoned me at 6:30 am on the day of the vote asking for further explanation. After 45 minutes he exclaimed ''Oh my goodness. I had no idea. I need to tell my colleagues IMMEDIATELY. We have to stop this.'' It was voted over the line anyway, and SOME of those who voted did so on the condition that the government committed to a total overhaul of the aged pension system - which, as we know, never happened. But did those who extracted the promise follow up? Nope!
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:46pm
"Lock in b), Eddy --- yes.. lock in b)..... 'we elect blithering idiots to parliament'.......lock it in!"

"Here's your cheque for Wun Millyun Dullahs!!"
Gee Whiz
15th Jan 2018
11:43am
Another nail if the coffin of superannuants, retirees and pensioners from the LNP. All you would expect from the dumb and dumber twins Turnbull and Morrison.

The waiting in the wings are the "young Liberals" who want to include the family home in the assets test.

The LNP just cannot leave retirees and pensioners alone. They are like the retirement Gestapo. What next, internment camps for pensioners.

And not a peep from the ALP.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
11:50am
Ever wonder why you have heard nothing from the APL? My guess is that we aint seen nothing yet as they have even bigger changes in store for pensioners when they get in power.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
11:52am
You are right, Gee Whiz. So we need to lobby the ALP to wake up to the one major election promise that might win office for them AND do good for the nation.
Cowboy Jim
15th Jan 2018
3:30pm
It is not only about the Liberals, Gee Whiz. As has been noted before it was the Alp under Hawke/Keating that abolished our pension system as it was before 1983 and introduced the assets and income tests; and it was Mr Rudd from the ALP that made us work two years longer, to the age of 67. BigBear is quite right, the ALP would get us to 70 probably, so watch out, pilgrims!!
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
5:33pm
I agree" if you think the LNP are bad then you aint seen nothing yet.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:47pm
Time to march on Canberra......
john
15th Jan 2018
12:32pm
I wonder how many retirees that read this and feel a little let down by this system and the economists who devise them ,really understand exactly what it means.
One thing is for certain the politicians and economists who do go through this to change policy , to confuse people, appear to actually not realise what they create, and have never got anything concrete it seems , in a plan that is good for everyone.
Perhaps that's a little unfair to the economists who sit and work with pens and calculators etc.
But what is their brief from politicians, because to me , it seems the instructions to the people doing the mathematics, from politicians is, while you're at it watch the bottom line, we can't spend too much , they are only pensioners waiting to die. Try and make things NOT look worse , even though for some it will be OK, but for others it will be disastrous, nothing you can do about that. With a banker for a PM at one end and an elitist wanna be at the other end, All assuming most Aussies are well off, we have not much hope , as Mr Barefoot says we're the richest country in the world , with $78,000 average income . Well all my working life I never got near that, and I 've only been finished a couple of years.
So I think the confusion and the statistical bulldust is well and truly alive , and most politicians have no idea of the real world.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
1:10pm
So now a couple work extra jobs to earn an extra $200,000 for retirement. It costs them over $335,000 to save $200,000, and they contribute more than $135,000 extra to government coffers. Then they retire and find the extra saving costs them $15600 a year in pension benefits, plus they lose all the pension concessions, and they have to earn 8% on their money, in a market where 5% return is the stated ''average'' and many would consider that figure generous, so for giving the government an extra $135,000+ in tax during working life, they suffer the loss of at least $5,600 a year in income - maybe more, plus thousands in benefits - and they have to manage that $200,000 and suffer risk of loss. Is that fair? Dumb question!
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
5:32pm
Yes it's fair if they fail the assets test.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:49pm
If 'economists' had it right there's be no problem with the economy these days at all - the best they can do is come up with some new theory of how to handle each crisis that develops from the last one....

Crisis Management at its best - I'm looking (among others) at a boat named 'Angler Management'.... but they want too much for what it is right now.
Rodent
15th Jan 2018
12:55pm
Big Bear not wishing to contribute to the interchange between you and Rainey, BUT your statement about the changes made being FAIR is full of BS
Compare all Pensioners on the SAME $550,000 in Assets.

The Single Home Owner, savaged by these changes, gets ZERO pension assistance, BUT a Single Non Home Owner receives $15,975pa in Pension. A Couple Home Owner receive $21,837pa in pension and a Couple Non Homeowner receives $30,476, if that's fair then I really would like to see whats UNFAIR!!!
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
12:57pm
Yes that is fair.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
1:20pm
Only a total idiot would deem that fair! Giving a couple an extra $586 a week because they didn't bother to pay off a mortgage, while the couple who worked two jobs and sacrificed for 30 years have to pay up to $160 a week in accommodation costs. So the renters have about $750 a week to spend in rent, thus being able to afford luxury accommodation at taxpayer expense as a reward - in many cases - for being irresponsible.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
1:22pm
And on top of that unfairness, selfish morons are supporting proposals that would make it far, far worse - such as insisting that the home owner hand their house to the government on death. Who would bother to work and earn in such an environment. I think it's tine for a mass walk-out by all workers, with a clear message that ''you bastards are taking all the benefit of working away, so it makes sense to just stop working.'' Let's see how the greedy rich and privileged fair then.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
1:30pm
''Only a total idiot would deem that fair!'' No, I take that back. Also greedy self-serving people who want the system structured to their unfair advantage would call it fair.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
1:59pm
With the rent of a decent house $500 plus a week the home owners are miles in front of renters even with those differences.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
2:05pm
They SHOULD be a lot further in front, after 3+ decades of hard slog to acquire a home and pay it off - often at 18% interest. Why should those who didn't bother be compensated in any way at all? Work should be rewarded - so reward those who buy homes and let those who don't live with the consequences of their own conduct. For the genuinely disadvantaged, there is government housing available. Cut the benefits for renters and put it into more government housing. It's not fair that people who worked and saved should be penalized and people who didn't rewarded.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
2:38pm
Great idea Rainey with what is it now a 20 or 30 year wait for public housing?
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
2:59pm
Because the money is being doled out to greedy manipulators instead of used to service GENUINE need. I know a woman who inherited $1 million USD but STILL has lifetime rights to public housing. Stop feeding greed and start applying RESPONSIBLE FAIR ETHICAL policies that encourage responsible living while acknowledging genuine need and we'd have plenty of tax dollars to go around.
Aussie
15th Jan 2018
5:34pm
HI THERE OG ....WOOOPS I MEAN BigBear ..... I like your new name but still the same OG ....welcome back BB (or ...Brigitte Bardot)

Here she is 2017 beatiful as ever ......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ojDPdNJcIM ......
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:52pm
Where's Bonny? I made a comment on a gesture I make - cutting the currently injured and away old lady's grass verge (keeps any undesirables away - long grass is an invitation) - and she has not yet arrived to say she does the same... same as happened when I said any excess vegetables I grow go to the communal kitchen run by a church (I'm not religious, BTW - just a humanitarian).

Bonny would make it a fivesome....
evelynne
15th Jan 2018
1:39pm
BigBear, I am right with you 100%! I don't know why some of the people attacking you for being smart with your money? Everybody should get the pension, especially if they worked for it and paid their taxes all their lives, doesn't matter how much money and/or assets you have. I worked 3-4 jobs when I was younger, saved and invested wisely, so I can have a comfortable retirement. Why shouldn't I get the Age Pension, just because I saved and looked after my future, I get penalised?? Don't understand why you get called selfish by some of the people who comment here? All these people who call the Age Pension a handout, don't know what they are talking about. Pension is not a handout!! Unemployment benefit is! BigBear glad that someone has a strength to stand up for him/herself like you just did and don't give into the bullies on here.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
1:57pm
Evelynne, you are misreading. Everyone SHOULD get the pension. BigBear's position is that only those with both the means and the capacity to manipulate unfairly should get it, and the hard workers who saved and lived frugally should suffer to pay for the excess paid to manipulators like BigBear. That's why he's being called selfish!

You SHOULD get the pension, and so should I. We should NOT be penalized for working hard and saving. But BigBear says we should ONLY get the pension if we unethically manipulate around the stinkingly complicated and grossly unfair laws that currently apply. That IS selfish.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:53pm
.. because he's a self-confessed thief under the current rules... evie - get with the program...
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Jan 2018
1:54pm
Evelynne it's called the tall poppy syndrome where if anyone is seen to be doing better than others they will try to chop him down as fast as they can anyway they can. They will call you all sorts of names including being a thief just to try and get you to conform to their standard. I have never let such people mould me and I'm not about to start now either. However I do pick my battles in real life and conserve my energy for only those that are important to me. Personally I could not care less how other people play the OAP game as there are many different ways of playing it. What I do is best for me and my family. To me I can't see any sense on sitting on a big pile of cash that I will never use but to others it is important to do so.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Jan 2018
3:20pm
What garbage, BigBear! It's nothing to do with cutting down tall poppies. The poppies being cut are those in the middle, actually. The tall ones aren't being touched. And what is sickening is that you support cutting honest people down and letting dishonest behaviour thrive and be rewarded. Decent people delight in cutting down crooks.
Rae
17th Jan 2018
8:47am
There is no illegality in gifting to family within the 5 year time frame legally allowed.

I suggest many will do this if they are unable to generate an income better than the OAP.

The budgets of 2015/2016 changed everything and people with any brains will change plans if they are able. Still within the rules.

The ones I feel for are those who were caught out without any hope of selling assets or reclaiming funds from annuities or defined benefits. They handed over their lump sums based on promises well and truly broken and now have no ability to change anything.

It won't happen in the future though as people respond in a sensible way to maximise their own families future just as Bog Bear has.

I too have wealthy friends playing by the rules. Many now get part pensions or even full pensions.

It was the Government that betrayed retirees so no point blaming people who are playing by the new rules.

Welfare is still available to those unable or unwilling to help themselves. The hard working saver is just fed up with always missing out on any help and I don't blame them one bit.

I've taken a different tack and fund myself and still work hard at investing for income. Hopefully I'll never need to visit Centrelink.

Any promises of a little help after decades of hard slog were wiped away in those budgets. That betrayal will never be forgiven.
TREBOR
17th Jan 2018
10:26am
BOG Bear... hmmmmmmmm.. Freudian Slip?
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Jan 2018
12:32pm
Rae, I actually agree with you, but what I cannot tolerate is the arrogant gloating and boasting about having ''played the game'' and won, and the denigration and insults of those who can't. And worse still, the suggestions and endorsement of policies that hurt others who have worked hard and saved honestly and just accepted the injustices.

You are right. Many simply were not - and are not -positioned to get around the cruel changes. You have to gift FIVE years in advance to avoid pension loss, so those who claim there was adequate warning are WRONG. Not everyone is in a position to invest further in the family home, and many don't want to just spend on luxuries or travel because they saved for specific needs - which they will now be unfairly denied.

It's not so much ''playing the game'' that offends me really, it's supporting a system that disadvantages those who can't, and endorsing proposals to make life even harder for the honest and ethical.
Rae
17th Jan 2018
2:17pm
I agree Rainey. The system is grossly unfair and inequitable and I can't even see the benefit of the change.

The closest I can come to an explanation was that Credlin just hated being told so sacked the Public Servants with experience and appointed sycophants who knew nothing and they just made up policy with no thought to the consequences.

Abbott just went along as he is not very bright.

None of them had a clue how it would be perceived or how it would skew the retirement savings plans of everybody.

I personally lost $10 000 a year promised plus the concession card.
No I don't need it but as I took no tax concessions or any thing else over a lifetime working at two jobs and running a business paying huge tax burdens I felt it an entitlement. No more. Neither is the government entitled to my trust or respect either.

They give that much to working mothers these days without a problem. Millions of them but denied a few hundred thousand because they saw us as powerless.

All loses are learning events and I learnt to never ever believe a word they say or a promise made.

They have destroyed the superannuation system as far as I can see at current market returns because it makes no sense.

When markets finally correct there will be huge amounts of loses from superannuation funds as it is a dodgy system with no ability to take profits until a birthday sometime in the future for most. That's no way to run a portfolio of volatile and risky shares, bonds, REITS etc.

And the banks are also risky thanks to the huge debt burden, stagnant wages and the bail in rules. All those with funds in fixed interest or bank savings accounts because they trust they are safe are in for one hell of a betrayal too.

I've never seen governments do more damage to a great country with wealth behind it and owning countless revenue raising assets.
And all within a few decades. It's unbelievable really.

Unless you take the UK and they may just beat us in the mismanagement stakes.

Anyone not taking evasive financial action isn't paying attention.

The gloating and so forth here is troll behaviours. They don't know much. It's all how wonderful am I and attacks on others. No real comments with any knowledge attached. Best just ignored.

One thing I do know is that we savers may be the last money available in a world awash with debt and headed towards a worse GFC than 2008. Stay honest and ethical Rainey but don't trust any of them to do the right thing because they won't.

The future is unknowable but you can look out for your family here and now.
floss
15th Jan 2018
1:46pm
I have to agree with you Rainey if changes are made it generally means the legislation was flawed in the first place and if it is gran fathered it can cause a financial disaster. A lot of people are avoiding super which long term will cause a disaster of another type.Well done our Federal Government may the rich prosper.
Rae
17th Jan 2018
8:56am
Yes floss. It is very hard for the average person to save the $650 000 that equates to an OAP. Then you have the concessions. The medical side might be vital. I know SMSF people paying $6000 a year full price for medicines all because they fund themselves so are forced to pay full costs. No discounts for anything including having to pay rego.

If people can change that I don't blame them.

Our Government is doing a great job working for wealthy foreign nations and corporations.

Can you honestly think of a single thing they've done that benefits you because I can't.
The Bernster
15th Jan 2018
1:56pm
Question to the brain trust. As a couple we are both 55, have worked all our lives, paid off our home, raised 2 kids, never went on expansive trips, drive ordinary cars and earn ordinary pay. Realised about 10 years ago our super was small so we both started salary sacrificing, with an inheritance investment we have about $570k in super/tem dep, aiming for $800K when we retire at 60. We'll then be self funded until 67. I would then expect at least a part pension with a concession card. Surely this doesn't make me greedy simply because I was frugal, hard working and saved well. Please comment either way.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
2:01pm
Three classes of people will call you ''greedy'', Bernster:

(1) the green-eyed who didn't bother to work hard and save and think everyone should be equal in retirement, with those who worked hard being deprived to give to those who didn't

(2) the much wealthier than you who are desperate to maintain the class structure at any cost and want everyone who did it tough to remain poor so the rich can continue to boast and gloat.

(3) the idiot politicians and bureaucrats who don't have the brains to comprehend that encouraging and rewarding people like you and your wife fosters growth and prosperity for the nation
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
2:24pm
Sounds like a good idea to me. Great to see you are planning your retirement well in advance of when you retire too.

As you will be under retirement age when you retire at 60 be sure to tell your super fund that you are retired so that your super fund becomes tax free and if you draw down at least the minimum it will also be tax free. Be also aware that anything you draw out after 60 from your super in the pension fund is tax free. Don't let them pro rata it over the whole financial year so you get taxed.
The Bernster
15th Jan 2018
2:46pm
Thanks for the comments Rainey & BigBear.
Yes I'm aware of the tax free after 60 scenario.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
3:06pm
Gee Rainey I can't see myself in any of those structures.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:23pm
That's because you are too arrogant and egotistical to see what's in front of your eyes. Sadly, your comments give you away as not just belonging to, but standing way out in front in group 2.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
3:33pm
Now that would be the last one I'd choose as I couldn't care less about the class system and never had. It does not worry me being poor in fact it worried me more when I had a lot more assets. I don't dress to impress anyone only to blend in with the crowd.
Cowboy Jim
15th Jan 2018
3:37pm
Bernster - please do not count on the tax free situation after 60
five years from now. Remember the changes in the last 5 years.
Apart from that: you use your brain. Congratulations!!
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
3:53pm
Even if you get taxed after 60 you will get a rebate back for any tax already paid so if your other income is low then it may not make much difference to you any way.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:56pm
Nobody can see you in any structure, BB - unless it's a prison for social security fraud......

Like the Abbott government, comments loke yours may well be a watershed in the way such things are handled in the future.... and pension applicants maybe required to offer up their transactions over the past ten years or more so they can be vetted. Then it will be some automated system and fur will fly...

the more things change.....

Better to go with the Trebor Scheme and pay a universal pension and tax income, fringe benefits and deemed benefits over and above at income tax rates.

Why won't that happen? Because politicians would lose big time......
Rae
17th Jan 2018
9:04am
The TREBOR scheme would suit me just fine.

And yes that tax free after 60 is unaffordable, especially when tax concessions were given along the way.

I'd like to see some equality returned to the system to avoid the manipulation that is going on.

It is legal to gift monies 5 years before applying for the pension.

You could legally give everything away.

In the past a lot of people transferred homes early to avoid having to give that money to the aged care billionaires. Smart if you ask me.
TREBOR
17th Jan 2018
10:32am
Re your last comment, Rae - the ex is considering just that - getting out so the aged care vultures don't get a chance to gather for the feast - and using the money to go into something with her kids that will benefit them all in the short and long term.

This is what bad policy decisions have wrought. As opposed to selling up to 'open the market' - around here the agent tells us they get calls all the time and have no listings..... this is the perfect location right here with childcare centre across the back lane, school around the corner... and I bloke already looked it over with the prospect of moving here with his kids after separation.
Rae
18th Jan 2018
8:17am
You have to change to suit the new rules. There is nothing wrong with that. I have several friends who have just built lovely new homes and taken a few trips away and now get the OAP. They were tired of falling incomes due to market yields falling and no security at all.

They were also able to gift certain amounts as well to children.
ray from Bondi
15th Jan 2018
2:11pm
the real problem is that there is no certainty, all governments fiddle with the rules every year and every change makes it worse for the poor and disadvantaged they just do not have clue. If politicians were forced to live with the same pension as a common people they would not survive more than one day, no politician seems to have a clue even those that claim they have roots with the common constituent seem to forget very quickly.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
2:43pm
I agree things can change so you have to be flexible enough to go with the punches.
dontwantwun
15th Jan 2018
2:18pm
While changes were needed these ones are not great.
Certainly for a couple, home owning or not. relying on the pension life is survival and little else.
Rodent
15th Jan 2018
2:19pm
Big Bear - unfairness part TWO

At $825,000 in assets ( a lot of Money) Couple NON Home Owners STILL receive $16,221 pa in pension where at the Same $825,000 Asset Value All Other Pensioners receive ZERO Pension - how could that EVER be Fair?
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
2:26pm
Sounds like those home owners need to go on an expensive trip or do some house renovations to me.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
2:34pm
Maybe they have some upcoming medical or care expenses that they want to conserve their funds for. Only idiot politicians and bureaucrats would deny them the right to preserve their savings for a genuine future need.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
2:40pm
Oh well they can live on their savings before they spend it on their requirements.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
2:56pm
And then they won't have it to spend on their requirements, fool! Why should they be denied the benefit of their savings while those who did not save are rewarded from the taxpayer purse? You can't defend that kind of stupidity, BigBear, unless YOU are equally stupid.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
3:13pm
Nothing stupid there at all. If you have other means of support you don't need welfare so you should not get it. I have no other means of support so get welfare.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:17pm
Yes, BigBear, you do. You admitted it. You gave away that means of support in a manner that enables you to benefit from it while dishonestly claiming you don't have it and depriving the taxpayer. You DON'T NEED welfare, but you selfishly take it while declaring that people who have less than you but are honest about it should be deprived.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:19pm
And you are claiming that someone who can afford to give their money away should be allowed to milk the taxpayer, but someone who needs to preserve their money for significant future health or care needs should be denied the right to benefit from their savings. That's not just stupid. That's disgustingly selfish and greedy.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
3:27pm
That Rainey is how the system works!
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:30pm
And the point is that it SHOULDN'T, and decent people don't defend wrong. They stand up for what is right.
Knows-a-lot
18th Jan 2018
2:45pm
"... and decent people don't defend wrong. They stand up for what is right."

I'm with you 100% on that point.
don
15th Jan 2018
2:25pm
Have a read of this, the richest countries with the poorest pensioners. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/12/02/which-countries-have-the-highest-levels-of-poverty-for-pensioners-infographic/#361402ac216f
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
2:30pm
I certainty don't want to get into an argument about what is poverty as everyone has a different definition of poverty.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:15pm
No. There are two types of poverty and each are easily and accurately statistically defined. Nothing to do with what ignorant people might THINK or want to argue to prove their self-serving claims.

There is absolute poverty, which is the inability to acquire the basic necessities for survival; and there is RELATIVE poverty which means one has an income and resources below, by a specifically defined percentage, the income enjoyed by the bulk of the population. Poverty can also refer to social, educational and cultural disadvantage in some circumstances.

There's nothing vague or arguable about poverty. And it is a fact that the richest countries have the most pensioner and retiree poverty, relative to the bulk of the population, which is the ONLY valid measure of prosperity and social justice.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
3:18pm
So I guess I live in relative poverty then.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
3:19pm
By choice - which doesn't count. Poverty has to be imposed entirely by outside forces or it doesn't exist.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:58pm
No - BB - your deemed income under the New Rules will be very fine, thanks you for the future income tax.
marto
15th Jan 2018
3:40pm
If you look at what our current bunch of morons in canberra do to rort the system and say or do nothing why the hell are you demonising our retires they have spent alife time getting here and I say good luck to you all you cannot have one rule for the idiots in canberra and one for pensioners who try and look after themselves in later years its a fact of life that some will manage better than others Thats life
Rae
15th Jan 2018
4:04pm
People will respond to changes.

The LNP were not very clever in seeing the consequences of the 2015/2016 budgets.

Of course it is pointless to give up a public guaranteed pension that would cost you around $650 000 if you saved it yourself especially when the concessions card saves thousands and may very well be vital if you ever need expensive medicines.

I know people who have divested savings as they just could no longer afford the thousands of dollars for full priced medicines.

Anyone thinking people will strive, work two jobs, live frugally all for some silly idea of what's good for the Nation is crazy.

If you've been to Amsterdam you can see the effects of tax changes by just looking at the architecture. People will always adjust to suit the tax changes.

These changes were blatantly discriminatory and unjust. There is no fairness left within a system means tested to a level both ridiculous and impracticable.

The whole system needs changing. Starting with tax concessions and rebates that are unsustainable and moving towards an equitable solution. We cannot afford no taxes for retirees over 60 who have millions in accumulation accounts neatly tucked away.

The median wage is around $45 000. That means over half earn less than this. Basing our system on the average when we have only 24 million and some earn tens of millions is ridiculous.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
4:23pm
I agree the present system is not sustainable. It might sound good to have your super tax free after 60 but in reality those with low incomes receiving a rebate for tax paid may be better off than receiving it as tax free income as the tax rebate can be offset against other income.

The tax concessions were scaled back in the latest changes to super with the reduction of concessional contributions to $25,000 and the taxing of transition to retirement funds and the cap on the amount in pension phase.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
8:10pm
Part of the Trebor Scheme is that you can either get concession for super along the way at income tax rate and then pay income tax on it in retirement, or you can have no concession along the way and pay tax on it in retirement. You can't have both as the current situation permits, especially for those with the means to put away massive superannuation.

No such scheme will ever get off the ground here for the simple reason that those who are handling (in more ways than one) the retirement packaging scheme are set to benefit most from the current situation.

THAT is what is needed to change before a viable system will come into play for all.

Imagine a politician in retirement paid a pension, then paying tax on super, plane flights, deemed office etc, and all other strands of income they've enjoyed from cronying it up while in public office? They'd die before they'd give those up.... Age of Entitlement 101.
thommo
15th Jan 2018
4:48pm
I retired in 2014 aged 68 and complied with government and Centrelink rules at the time. I left a well paid job, having worked out my retirement funding supplemented by part age pension, TO WHICH I WAS ENTITLED.
But alas, Abbott broke his solemn promise at the 2013 election not to change the age pension by changing the assets test in the 2015 budget (which took effect from 1.1.17).
This was an act of treachery and betrayal, adversely affecting several hundred thousand age pensioners, who had the rug pulled from under them and their retirement plans completely stuffed up, having either lost their part pension completely or severely reduced.
Australia is a rich country and can afford to pay their retirees a decent and respectable age pension, and this rhetoric about needing this austerity measure to save the budget bottom line is just plain BS.
I and many thousands of retirees will never forgive or forget what this mongrel LNP Government has done in this regard especially, as they are only interested in looking after themselves and the big end of town.
They get their fat salaries and lurks and perks and lifelong taxpayer funded pensions, but they don't apply any austerity measures to themselves. They just demonise the retired pensioner.A decent age pension is an entitlement, and if governments don't accept that, then we'll put one in power that does.
Rae
17th Jan 2018
9:11am
It was and remains unforgivable.

I will never trust my Government again nor believe a single workd or promise as they lie so convincingly.
Knows-a-lot
18th Jan 2018
2:47pm
That's why I call those bastards LIEberals, Rae.
Aussie
15th Jan 2018
5:29pm
Ok guys stop kicking each other back side and do something useful for yourself you guys sound that have nothing to do well here is something .... you can kick my back side I don't care I just provide you guys with something to do other than waiting your time kicking each other .....

If you worry about your pension and further changes .... well right or wrong nothing we can do just take it the way the Politicians want to do it correct ?????? What can we do other than complain and nobody do nothing so here is something to do that may help keeping a bit of the pension and keep you busy having fun and making money ...... Part of DIY projects

Something for the boys and girls that can use some tools ....(If you do not know how ..Time to learn) ....Have fun and make extra money

First go to Centrelink and join the Work bonus program - will give you $6,750 maximum to deduct from your posible income so do not affect your pension ($250 x fortnight) not a lot but every $$$ counts

1.- Get a ABN number (if Free) for a sole trader business
2.- Join the trade program in Bunnings and get your trade card (Get you good discounts)
3.- Build or refurbish your workshop
4.- Get ideas from DIY in you tube or around the internet (You know how because you are reading this in your computer)
5 .- Ensure you keep all your dockets when you buy materials or tools (All deductible)
6 .- START THE FUN AND MAKE SOME EXTRA MONEY .....

Some ideas to start making some extra money .....

http://myoutdoorplans.com/free-outdoor-plans/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYHrDZAtW_s&t=53s
and this ------ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMTTNm7sM08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPhRjs_2qfY

And many many more in metal and wood just do a search you will find lots of stuff to kame and things to learn how to do ......

Just remember that ...."IF ANYBODY ELSE CAN DO IT YOU CAN DO IT TOO" ....so have fun and make some extra money

Have Fun and let me know if I can help in any way with any advice or research you need .......

Good Luck

Aussie..... ready to help anybody that needs help in making things and be useful person rather than a winger ......

Sorry Rainey, Cowboy Jim Big Bear and ofcourse OG (he he he he really got a new name wowowo OG so smart) I do not want to upset you guys but is time we all become more constructive and do not play the game that the organizers of this forun give us to wingw and complain and as consequence we kick each others back side ..... not very nice

This days there are more important things to think about like the new election and find a proper candidate ???? or support the Republic ...Not sure what ....maybe do something .....
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
6:01pm
No way I want to dig out more splinters. Last one I got I spent a day in hospital.

Also way too hot out in my shed in this weather. I prefer to play with my keyboard in a nice air conditioned room instead.

Odd the NZ in a few days so that will give you all a break from me. Currently got my computer in NZ so I can book at prices the locals pay. Can't believe that some prices are less than half the tourist price.
Tib
15th Jan 2018
6:36pm
Big bear I heard NZ is having a bit of a sale. I've been too many times or I'd go again. Might think about a bit of hiking though?
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
7:29pm
I'm only going over there as it is cooler over there at this time of year. I usually go to Tassie or NZ in summer.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
8:13pm
I like New Zealand... once during a Bledisloe Cup match I was in Wullington and the Maoris in the bar kept buying me beer because I was the only Aussie there and I picked thefirst try scorer - who was at that time roundly cricicised in the media as an All Black - and went on to be their Captain.

They figured I must be smart if I knew Rugby and was one of them.

Love the scenery, too....
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
8:20pm
Living in poverty, but can afford to travel, BigBear. More lies!
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
9:54pm
Deemed income.. income tax applies....
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
9:55pm
Yes I'm off to Kiwiland on a couple of days and have my bag already packed and ready to go. Got an awesome train journey booked and some walking tours. Although cooler here today I'm looking forward to cooler weather for a few weeks.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
10:03pm
I don't have to worry about deemed income as I have no assets to be deemed or taxed.
TREBOR
16th Jan 2018
1:32am
Ah - but those you've given away in a specified time period will be re-calculated including indexation, and a back bill is coming your way.
TREBOR
17th Jan 2018
10:38am
A suspicious mind (I prefer to keep an open mind - open to all possibilities) would say that is the LNP game plan all along - send in Big Bear to stir up public sentiment against asset shifters, then shut the gate on asset shifters with a demand for paperwork going back ten years or even five - and bill 'em.

Remember that in politics nothing happens by accident... every one of these absolutely stupid and selfish ideas run up the flag pole is a test of public sentiment. The difference these days is that the general public is more and more aware of politician's tricks and every time a silly flag pole run-up is tried, more and more people rebel.

Trick is to see where that rebellion is taking us - never under-estimate the cunning of politicians - they have selves and flunkies sitting around all day to work out their 'policy directions' - so they are most likely shepherding the public to a certain view.

Blind and double-blind...... keep you eyes open, careful what you swallow, and watch where you put your feet.
floss
15th Jan 2018
5:46pm
Give it away BigBear you have done your job for the day you must be on over time by now. M.T. give you a pat on the head.
Tib
15th Jan 2018
6:30pm
I won't get the pension because I worked too hard and saved too much but it would seem reasonable for the government to at least offer self funded retirees some of the discounts and medical support that pensioners get. People who do the right thing shouldn't be penalised or the system won't work.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
8:15pm
Yes - I've always considered that Tib - why is someone who is SF at a level near that of pension or part pension not allowed a card that gives health benefits etc?

Not much equality in retirement all round unless you are a fat cat who's rorted the system for your own benefit or are one of the self-appointed ruling class with special privileges.
johnp
15th Jan 2018
7:17pm
Where Cowboy Jim said - People with modest super balances would have taken their money out long ago
What is that amount or threshold in dollar terms ??
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:32pm
Universal pension for all under the Trebor scheme and tax on income and fringe benefits and gifting over and above.

Only way to catch the fat cats.
TREBOR
15th Jan 2018
7:43pm
We-ELL! We've got BigBear, OG waiting in the wings... all to tell us how wonderful they are at rorting the rules for personal benefit and how stupid anyone who had less money and opporunijty or more honour and integrity is for not doing so .... all we need now is Roby to tell a selected few that we are losers while he's sucking a beer in the pub with his mates after knocking off on his part-time casual labouring job and driving home on the roads that our generation built - or Heemie to do the same....

A Quadrella!!
TREBOR
17th Jan 2018
10:40am
Buggar! Roby doesn't get time until Friday afternoons when he's in the pub with his ''herh-herh' mates sticking it to those old buggars.... end of the week on his part-time casual labouring job.

I expect him Friday afternoon for about 2-3 hours.
Careworn
15th Jan 2018
7:45pm
Vision impared Freddie here. The system is totally immoral and the government has made losers of honest people who wanted to do the right thing.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
7:59pm
Correct, Freddie. I think it's BigBear, rather than you, who is ''vision impaired''. You are clearly seeing it and calling it as it is.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Jan 2018
9:43pm
Nope not vision impaired as I just got new glasses so I can see clearly now.

I'm doing the right thing and I'm completely honest about it as well.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Jan 2018
7:18am
Blind as a bat, BigBear. Can only see what you want to see. You need a lot more than glasses. A lobotomy might help. Or perhaps implant of a heart, since you appear to me not to have one.
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Jan 2018
11:12am
If you say so Rainey but I do note the envy in what you say.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Jan 2018
3:17pm
Me envy you???? Not bloody likely, BigBear. I would hate to be arrogant and lacking integrity, let alone lacking in intelligence and perception. I value my pride far more than money - but when it comes to money, I have enough. I have no desire to sacrifice my ethics out of greed, thankyou. And I would NEVER envy anyone who did.
TREBOR
17th Jan 2018
10:43am
The politics of envy works the other way in fact - those who have too much and had a sweet ride to get it flatly refuse to allow anyone else a fair go to get there. Desperate little people in reality, these Thatcherites and neo-Thatcherites with their economic nonsense, and these used car salesman types who've had a sweet ride.

Anyone over a certain net worth should not be permitted to vote or stand for elected office, for clear reasons of self-interest and conflict of interests.
*Imagine*
15th Jan 2018
7:54pm
Rainey, BigBear, Let us take a step back here and look at the real culprit - poor political leadership, no real retirement system and a hotch potch of band aid rules. I imagine that no ten couples with the same net worth are being treated the same way by our administrators in Centrelink and the ATO applying these complex rules. This lack of a systematic, understandable, retirement income system breeds the 'what about me' attitude. YLC talks of the retirement tribes, well I would like to add that we also have two distinct attitudes along a continuum that has 'welfare ignorance' at one end and 'welfare savvy' at the other. It is not a matter of education or money that sets the position either. We have all heard of the bludger with the bad back who has a partner being paid carer allowance, yet they both go fruit picking or similar. And we have all heard of the rich person who used their business deductions to educate their kids, have a family trust, live in multi-million dollar house with a car and yacht in their child's name and receive a full pension.
Urban myths or not, I imagine that if we had a basic pension for all there would be fewer examples of system rorting, there would be little, if any need. Under the present approach the Government, knowingly or not, have designed a situation that sets us against each other instead of against them for being so dammed incompetent.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Jan 2018
7:57pm
You are absolutely right, Imagine. But it's the arrogant and selfish defence of a flawed system against common sense criticism that angers and disgusts me. Why would anyone want to preserve a bad system, unless they are unethically and immorally benefiting from its faults and enjoy seeing others suffer for having integrity?
roy
15th Jan 2018
10:20pm
Does anybody know where MICK is today, I'm quite worried.
TREBOR
16th Jan 2018
1:33am
Pardon me, Roy - is Mick the cat that chews the bad news?

Mick will be here..... with a dose of sense....
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Jan 2018
12:07pm
I don't agree with the system we have either but it's the system we have to use so why not use it the best way you can within the rules.

Seeing the results of distributing my wealth I wish I could have helped my kids the same way that I have helped my grandkids but the system don't allow me to do that. My kids are already talking about helping their grandkids now too so more than one generation will benefit. To see how happy my grandkids are now is worth more than anything money can buy.
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Jan 2018
11:19pm
No time to comment as it's late and I have an early plane to catch so I can have some more fun in retirement.
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Jan 2018
7:58am
Of course, BigBear. Spending more of the dollars that taxpayers want directed to genuinely needy people. Party on. And keep denigrating people with more integrity.
Linda
15th Jan 2018
8:44pm
Most retired people seek certainty in terms of their income. We want to know the rules are stable, so that we can make our plans with existing rules. When the rules are changed, after retirement, some, well heeled can seek top quality financial advice about how to negotiate the systems that determine our retirement income. Any government that creates further uncertainty re retirement income is hurting seniors.

We as a group may or may not know of a good financial adviser. Add too that, the dark dark story re end of life care and nursing homes who do not provide adequate safeguards on quality of life and home care packages that are scarce and open to variations in the number of hours available for home care causes distress in older people. Some of us have the good adviser, some of us have the money to pay for it. Some of us do not.

Those of us who have some extra income beyond the pension, may not be in a position to pay for good advice. Since it seems to be a moving feast, any amount of advice can only apply to the rules as they are now.

It seems fair to request of Government that what ever arrangements are made at the time of retirement for those in the position with some retirement income separate from the pension be made aware of where they stand with the changes.

What do we know? We know if one needs support, that there are new rules that apply.
We know that the landscape has changed re income and assets. We know that there is more need for quality care than what the public purse wants to help provide. We know that governments change and just that fast the rules can change. We know that some folks want to see what we have built on a life time of hard work and sacrifice may fall short of what we might need in retirement. We know that the industry has written the rules regarding retirement villages, nursing home care, home care packages and community care for those who need support.

We know that the John Howard years started a future fund but it was designed to cover the future of those in Federal Employment, not the futures of regular hard working Australians.

We know that some in the community want to make us the pirates who have stolen their chance to own a home when in fact it was the tax laws, fostering real estate development and foreign money people who are inflating our property markets.

We know now that nothing is sacred and that old people can be disadvantage while others are not. We as a group can experience that feeling that we are draining the coffers of government.

My response is to say maybe some of that has legs, however the real leaners in all this is in fact the coal mines, the natural gas set up which robs Australians of decent prices for heat and fuel. We know that Murdoch gets tax breaks that would make most of our heads spin while we suffer from the changes and the cuts.

Basically, there is an election coming up. Let us as an interest group, begin to ask each party about their plans to help the oldies get through these times of low retirement income and relatively speaking high wages. Let us ask how they feel about changing the rules for those who have retired and made their plans. Let us ask about the quality of our news and our ABC who often were in the past paying attention to the plight of ALL Australians not just the super rich.

Let us now look to what it is that is locking out our young Australians from home ownership and make the laws that help our young families get into affordable housing that meets their needs.
TREBOR
16th Jan 2018
1:36am
With an election coming up -expect a donation to the pensioners, and then look forward to another three ye3ars or so of the kind of insanity pushed about like floaters in a sewerage treatment plant, such as 'home included in assets test' - from the scheduled mouth-pieces such as the 'young liberals'.

What else are these twerps for other than to push a stupid and frightening idea up the flag pole, so their big mates can offer something only half as bad, and for doing so receive their future endless privilege by being a party favourite?

You reckon I don;t understand politics as practiced in this nation?
Mad as hell
16th Jan 2018
10:27am
Hi Rainey. Agree with your comments they are on point and make sense to me.
BigBear aka OG aka LNP stooge is just a stirrer who makes no sense.
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Jan 2018
10:56am
Ha ha as they make very little sense to me.
Mad as hell
16th Jan 2018
11:38am
OG buy a calculator and do the maths it’s simple.
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Jan 2018
11:54am
It does not takes maths to understand the rules so why does anyone need a calculator?
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Jan 2018
3:14pm
If you knew how to use one, BigBear, you might actually see the stupidity and unfairness of the assets test. Apparently, you lack the intellect to key in numbers and read results correctly.
Joy Anne
16th Jan 2018
11:55am
YES DEFINITELY. I had to retire early at 62 due to severe medical reasons. I used my super what there was of it to live. Now I have nothing. I rent and the rent is increasing every year I pay $600 per fortnight now and will be paying more when I move closer to my daughter on Sunshine Coast. I live alone and I am struggling to live off the pension.
Not Senile Yet!
16th Jan 2018
2:46pm
No the changes are only Fair for the Govt.
They are rejecting the Original Intent of the Age Pension by Fiddling...adding an Asset Test....which was neither the Original Intent nor desirable!
It has necome all about saving them expenditure and avoidance ever since they raided the Tax Payers Original Fund worth Billions.
Oh Yes! They legally accessed it!
Loophole was Both Parties must agree!
Not hard when the Carrot was a New Parliament House in Canberra!
But that Fund's Investment Return would have Financed over 1/2 of ALL Aged Pensions!
In short...They raided the Piggy Bank!
Now just as with Super....they want to fiddle & fiddle to shortsheet the Pensioner!
Rogues in Suits....Too bloody Smart for their own Good!
Scewing the Pensioner is the same as Screwing with the Economy....less money to go into it!
Sad reality?
They simply do not give a Shit!

16th Jan 2018
4:24pm
just eliminate the asset test and provide pension to everyone over 65
reduce the pension entitlements if you have to but fair is fair, everyone should get it
bob menzies
19th Jan 2018
3:13pm
Hi all - there is a lot of heated discussion here so can I please ask a slightly different question- last year I heard a politician respond to a question and say that many many interests groups visited his office and all had ideas for more handouts but NONE had any suggestions for savings.
So what spending should we cut to reduce budget deficit and then how quickly should we aim to pay of debt (so ultimately we have money in bank) to pay for infrastructure (not the NBN kind) but say warring Australia,dams, very fast train, roads etc.
Imagine what we could do with the $13b currently going on debt interest payment.
To bring my discussion together we might then find a way forward to afford a fair and equitable OAP.
bob menzies
19th Jan 2018
3:14pm
I meant to say "watering" Australia
marto
19th Jan 2018
3:27pm
If any one came up with something sensible i doubt the morons in canberra would be able to to implement it you would be hard pressed to find any brains down there just look at the mess trumble made of the NBN
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Jan 2018
5:03pm
Bob Menzies, if the morons in Canberra would listen to common sense, we wouldn't have debt in the first place.

1) pension cuts WILL NOT save money, because they punish people for saving and reward them for putting their hand out for more. The assets test change can only drive costs up because it makes it futile to save for retirement. I did tell politicians that before they made the change, but they ignored the warning

2) they have been told a million times that $37 billion in superannuation tax concessions are unaffordable and only benefit the well off, doing NOTHING for battlers, but they ignore.

3) they have been told over and over that multi-national companies should be taxed properly, but all they can talk about is cutting taxes, when the companies are already paying NIL. How you pay less than NOTHING?

These are only a handful of the very sensible and quite obvious savings suggestions that have been put forward again and again and again.

Whoever this fool was you spoke to, he should resign admitting incompetence, because the ways to save have been stuck under their noses over and over and over, but they take no notice.
heemskerk99
5th Feb 2018
7:22pm
cowboy Jim, big bear, don't waste your breath with the likes of rainey, john, knows nothing and trebor or is it labor mick who's alias seems to be trebor, it is very hard to get sense into a brick let alone a rock and as for gee whoosh, gestapo, obliviously he/she never lived under them, probable was still in nappies or worse still was a twinkle in his father eye which would have turned into a tear of sadness by now, as for rodent how much is your rent as an home owner?
the system sucks
8th Feb 2018
8:23pm
I worked 3 jobs to increase my superannuation, I don't mind now not getting a pension but why can't we get a pensioner concession card.
I tell my kids now, don't put anything extra into super, the goal posts will change again.


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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