Standard of retirement living for baby boomers on the decline

Baby boomers are claiming lower levels of financial comfort in retirement.

Standard of retirement living for baby boomers on the decline

According to the ME Household Financial Comfort Report, baby boomers are claiming lower levels of financial comfort in retirement.

The biannual report tracks the financial psychology of 1500 households as a benchmark for the perceptions of financial comfort among Australian households.

The report found that the overall ‘anticipated standard of living in retirement’ has fallen by four per cent in the last six months.

While there was a substantial decrease in perceived comfort in retirement across all generations, baby boomers feel they have been hardest hit, reporting a seven per cent drop in their anticipated standard of living – meaning boomers’ comfort levels have fallen the most of any generation to the lowest levels in recent years.

However, self-funded retirees are still reporting the highest level of financial satisfaction, even though their perceived standard of living in retirement also dropped by six per cent.

But it seems that Aussies are taking action to improve their financial prospects in retirement. In the past six months, more people have made additional contributions to super, with the number of Australians claiming they ‘sometimes’ make additional contributions rising from 17 per cent in December 2015 to 20 per cent in 2016. Households that ‘often’ make extra contributions rose from nine per cent to 11 per cent and those ‘always’ making additional payments increased from seven per cent to eight per cent. The number of people ‘never’ making additional super contributions has dropped from 66 per cent in 2015 to 62 per cent currently.

There was also a two per cent increase in Australians expecting to rely on the Age Pension to fund their retirement and a three per cent decrease in those who expect to partially fund their own retirement in addition to a Government pension.

One of the more disturbing results was that 16 per cent of Australians still don’t know how they will fund their retirement and 25 per cent of Aussies either don’t have a superannuation fund or don’t know which type of fund they have.

Another concern is that 10 per cent of Australian households estimate that they will not be able to afford essential items and services in retirement and 29 per cent saying they may be able to afford the essentials but nothing else. These findings are also backed up by the HILDA report released last month.

With the RBA expected to cut the cash rate to 1.5 per cent today, the prospect of a comfortable retirement looks precarious for those who rely on interest-bearing financial products for income.

The Government’s proposed changes to super may also be affecting retirees’ perceptions of future financial comfort.

Read more at www.mebank.com.au

Opinion: A sign of the times?

With stock market uncertainty, low interest rates and confusion over the Government’s proposed changes to super, it’s little wonder Australians are feeling less secure in retirement.

Australian retirees who rely on interest returns for their income have been hit hard by the RBA’s rate cuts. With the cash rate at a record low and another cut expected today, the prospect of relying on the interest from investments and super seems a little bleak.

Those retirees who also claim an Age Pension may have received a double hit with Centrelink deeming rates often above the rate of actual return.

Add to that the Government’s ‘tinkering’ with proposed super policies, including the $1.6 million tax-free cap and lifetime ‘retrospective’ cap of $500,000 on non-concessional super savings, and you have all the ingredients for a worrisome retirement.

A recent Actuaries Institute report also found that Australian retirees are at high risk of depleting their super before they die.

Apart from what retirees already have in savings and super, there seems no clear investment prospects for retirement security.

This lack of confidence in retirement security is a glaring beacon that the Government needs to notice now. The population is ageing and these issues won’t go away. So Mr Turnbull and co would be wise to make fair superannuation changes a priority, as well as look to increase the Age Pension to a level that ensures that Australian retirees will at least live above the poverty line.

The stock market is not going to settle any time soon, so sound fiscal and social policy is required to help alleviate the financial fears of current and future Australian retirees.

Are you financially comfortable? Do you worry about your future financial security? What measures do you recommend the Government take in order to help this situation?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    2nd Aug 2016
    10:19am
    I don't expect governments to fund my retirement but what I do expect is that the war on retirees ends and that revenue saving measures are directed at those who are protected: multinationals and rich Australians with all manner of trusts and offshore tax havens. Once tax is collected from these sources only then should governments come looking at retirees.
    Whilst our family has made its own arrangements we like many other families in a similar situation are starting to feel the pinch with diminishing returns. Add to that the fact that retirees have been turned into targets and we have a toxic future. And still people vote for the bastards...........unbelievable that the retirement community is so stupid as to do exactly the wrong thing and exacerbate their own ability to live a modest life free from aggressive governments. Defies belief.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    11:45am
    Give it a rest Mick, you keep going on about the "protected" tax dodgers with no real facts nor a solution. It appears your only solution is to get rid of the current government and install your mob. It should be pointed out once more that your mob had six years to fix the problems you whinge about and did what you are now doing. Nothing!
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    12:06pm
    Old Man, you'd have been deaf, dumb and blind not to see the repeated evidence of tax dodging. Goodness, even the current government has expressed concerns about the extent to which foreign corporations are using profit shifting and fake loan agreements to evade tax. There are repeated reports of how little huge and very profitable companies are paying.

    Then there are the very obvious injustices in the system - like that a rich man gets a huge tax concession on his super contributions while a poor man pays a higher rate of tax on what he puts in to super than on what he retains as wages. And a rich man can use capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing and ''grey area'' business deductions and family trusts and... on and on it goes... to minimize tax, while a poor man pays the full prescribed rate on every cent he earns, and gets well and truly slaughtered with indirect taxes because he has to spend every cent he earns just to survive.

    It's not about any ''mob''. It's wealthy vs. battlers, and ALL politicians, of ALL persuasions, are wealthy (after election if not before!) Also, ALL politicians are funded by wealthy lobby groups who demand return on their investment. And the wealthy naturally have more influence to drive legislative changes than battling poor who are less well educated, less well connected, and more likely to be spending all their time putting bread on the table rather than lobbying.

    Mick is absolutely right. Retirees are their own worse enemies. Sadly, though, our system doesn't give us very much wriggle room. And that doesn't auger well for the future of retirees, or for the future of the nation as a whole.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    12:23pm
    Thanks Rainey. I note you choose to label companies and individuals as tax evaders which, as you well know, is illegal. I believe that these same groups are, in fact, tax avoiders which is a way to use legislation to legally reduce a tax burden. The problem is not the avoiders but the legislation that allows this to happen.
    Alexii
    2nd Aug 2016
    12:39pm
    So Old Man, isn't it time for our wonderful government to close all this loop holes that enable those companies and the very wealthy to avoid paying the taxes that they ought to be paying. It'd solve most if not all of the financial problems.
    Alexii
    2nd Aug 2016
    12:40pm
    BTW, again, well said, Rainey!
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    12:48pm
    Alexii, has it ever occurred to you that these companies may be the political party contributors who seek protection from those on government office? or does this sort of thing not happen in this day and age of transparency, honesty, and the overall goodness in this perfect world. But, to answer your question, YES, it is LONG overdue for the government to step in and do something to get rid of the loopholes, but the politicians are too busy colluding companies and individuals who are avoiding and evading paying fair taxes.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    1:09pm
    They are not tax evaders or avoiders as everyone has the right to pay tax according to the rules.
    KSS
    2nd Aug 2016
    1:27pm
    Not just the right, Old Geezer, but the duty and responsibility to pay tax according to the rules.
    Dan
    2nd Aug 2016
    2:23pm
    and I ask , what about the new PM Mr Malcolm Turnbull with his tax avoidance arrangements in the Cayman Islands . even a Blind Freddy would have to be extremely naïve to take his excuse it is not tax avoidance . How does he get away with it ?
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    2:53pm
    Dan, etc - Malcolm or big companies - if playing by the rules - are not AVOIDING tax as avoidance is illegal - they are just legally minimising tax.

    The big companies rort tax systems using the skills of the big global accounting companinies who are in cahoots with their own auditing arms, often using transfer pricing where they lend money from an arm of their own company at high artificial rates that is located in a low taxing country like Singapore to a higher taxing country like Australia and effectively minimise their taxes. it is a fairly dubious process that the ATO and their global equivalents are trying to get to grips with these and like tax practices.

    Interestingly, our good ol' ATO have outsourced to and are employing these same auditing arms of the big accounting companies, to do the ATO's auditing on these same companies - go figure that logic!

    There are calls for these big accounting companies to have their auditing arms separated from them so they can't be complicit in their creative accounting practices.

    Seems very logical that you have to get to all levels and businesses that assist with the creative accounting processes that are enabling big businesses to rort the global tax systems.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:37pm
    All it takes then is the stroke of the legislative pen, and suddenly all these tax minimisation opportunities are a thing of the past, and become instead tax evasion.

    It is plain as day that the use of family trusts and such is just a neat way of avoiding paying tax, as are many other opportunities currently presented ONLY to the well-off under the current rules.

    A person who gets free use of something instead of a declared income should be adjudged or deemed to be in receipt of the value of that as income.

    No more free plane trips in the already tax deductioned private plant.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:19pm
    Unfortunately the government would be breech of all those free trade agreements with your legislative pen.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:25pm
    Ah - so we are held in thrall to the international market or the world economy..... nice to hear it stated loud and clear.

    Never a more positive reason to start positive changes right here and now.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:26pm
    'Ere be foine argument roight 'ere, bucko - use yer buckin' ears!

    http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1470059118
    PIXAPD
    2nd Aug 2016
    10:30am
    Baby boomers suffering? I'm having the time of my life, on the full aged pension and full RENT assistance, I'm saving $8000 or more a year. Folks needs to learn to live within their means
    MICK
    2nd Aug 2016
    10:38am
    Lucky you. I guess the real mugs are those of us who saved all of our lives and are no burden on the government and just expect governments to leave those on very modest incomes alone.
    East of Toowoomba
    2nd Aug 2016
    10:57am
    Wow Pixapd, how do you manage that? Do you live alone or are you a member of a couple? Do you run a vehicle or catch public transport? I don't doubt that anyone can live well within their means but many people who would struggle to save $8K per year if they are living alone and paying rent on the single aged pension.

    I just checked and the single pension plus maximum rent assistance is around $24K. To qualify for the maximum rent assistance your rent needs to be $290 or more per fortnight, which is $7540 p.a. Take your rent from your income (if you're a single) means you're left with $16,460 per annum, less the $8,000 you save means you are having the time of your life on $8,460 p.a. or $325 per fortnight for all your expenses, food, transport, medical, recreation, electricity (& gas), internet, telephone.

    It must be hard to live well on that amount, so presumably you are living with a (working) spouse or your extended family or taking in lodgers or something?

    Do share your secret, I am really curious now because I'd like to manage better on my very modest income too.
    Jannie
    2nd Aug 2016
    11:28am
    PIXAPD please explain.........................
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    11:57am
    Lucky you to be getting a full aged pension and rent assistance, Pixapd.

    A lot of retirees will, after Jan 2017, be struggling on incomes of HALF yours. Oh yes, that's right. They have assets and should spend them. After sacrificing lifestyle for 50 years, they should now be harshly punished and forced onto low incomes and to drain their hard-won savings so that people like you, who beat their chests and boast about ''living within their means'', can enjoy an apparently more than adequate income.

    Now, my question is ''If you are so good at living within your means, how come you are a full pensioner getting rent assistance?''

    I am not lacking in empathy, and if you have genuinely suffered crisis or disadvantage that put you in this situation, then I'm glad taxpayers can help you out in old age. But I really struggle to understand how people end up with nothing in retirement. My partner and I raised a family - putting all our kids through university - and supported a disabled child (who cost us 5 houses in medical and special care costs and prevented us having two incomes for many years), survived major disability and illness, and - both being uneducated - had a total family income of LESS than the dole for 25 years of our working lives (and no income at all for several years). After all those challenges, poor health forced us into self-funded retirement at 55 and I only just recently managed to find a way back into the workforce - which will hopefully enable us to top our savings back up enough to remain self-funded for all of our retirement. Yet despite all those disadvantages and challenges, we managed to pay off a very nice home and accumulate a healthy retirement nest egg. What the hell did other people do with their money?

    Frankly, Pixapd, while I am delighted to be able to help support anyone who is genuinely disadvantaged through no fault of their own, and I'm grateful that I'm not among those who will lose up to 1/3rd of their income in Jan 2017, I am furious and disgusted that some people think it's okay to disadvantage folk who saved for their retirement and who might well need those savings to get through the next few decades to hand out more to people who, in so many cases, lived much better and worked much less.

    The aged pension system should not reward irresponsible lifestyles and punish the very behaviour that is needed to restore our economy to health.

    Leon hasn't mentioned the changed assets test, but it's dumb measures like that threatening the security and confidence of retirees and ensuring that pension costs rise over time and fewer and fewer people bother to save for retirement.

    We need a dose of common sense in Parliament - badly! We need to recognize that in a healthy economy, the workers and responsible savers are properly rewarded, the minority of genuinely disadvantaged are supported, and those who simply squandered their money or lived it up in earlier life are told ''now pay the price. You made you bed. Lie in it.'' It's foolish to do as we are doing now - which is the precise opposite. ''If you worked and saved, screw you. We'll take it to give more to those who didn't!"'
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    12:12pm
    I really can't see why a lot of retirees will be struggling on half the income of the pension. All I can think is that they must have it invested in lazy assets where others make money off them. If their pension has been reduced then they must have substantial assets and I can't see why they can use them to make up any shortfall.

    The government has seen the statistics where people are not spending their assets in retirement so they have made the right decision in decreasing the value of the assets you can own to get the pension. People need to stop hoarding money and spend it instead.
    Rae
    2nd Aug 2016
    2:04pm
    I know a few people on the full aged pension who do very well. Two of them have full time renters on the premises and the other has a lot of cash from the cash economy saved up.

    So it can be done. Good luck to you.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:40pm
    The 'lazy assets' most people invested in are employers and governments - none of which have produced the goods for Australia or Australians.

    Talk about living in cloud cuckoo land, OG - you actually think most retired people have spent their life running around and finding investments for their excess cash?

    You said you were in business - did you pay your workers enough for them to be playing the stock market with all their excess income ... or enough to get by on and maybe... just maybe.... own the home you now want to rob them of?
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:42pm
    Same to you, Rae - so you reckon we should all play the black market in renting out plus spend a lifetime operating on the black market?

    Did it ever occur to some of you people that apart from most people being nowhere near that position in real life, some of us even have integrity and would never dream of 'black' money.

    Which would you prefer to be running this country? The liars, cheats and thieves or those with integrity?

    Tell yourself you're dreaming.....
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:17pm
    Trebour Why don't retired people take more responsibility and find better opportunity for their spare cash? I do. It's better than sitting on one's posterior and whinging about how low interest rates are hurting them. I had a bad year last year but earned a lot more than the cash rate on my excess cash. Some of the fees I pay would help people play the stockmarket.

    I didn't employ people directly I paid other businesses to do work for me for a fee. I still employ people for a fee to do things for me.

    Unfortunately around here if you want something done it's the black market or do it yourself.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:27pm
    Pix - not everybody gets to sit on a bridge all day playing the banjo to passing tourists like you do....
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:29pm
    'spare cash' - you do realise that the very vast majority don't have the kind of 'spare cash' you're talking about... and with the economic ups and down of the past forty years or so - many have had huge slumps in income from which they've had to recover... sometimes time after time.

    Count yourself blessed and move on.....
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:50pm
    All those negatively effected by the change in the asset test in 2017 would have lots of spare cash. Anyone who suffered during the market downturns must have panicked and sold. These people should never had been in the market in the first place.

    I'm not blessed at all.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:11am
    OG your arrogance is beyond any level of tolerance. You have no concept of the reality of some people's lives. I deal daily with people who were stolen from family as young children, abused and neglected in institutions, denied contact with loved ones, forced out to work at 14 in menial, soul-destroying jobs and left without a soul to give a damn for them, battling depression, anxiety, insecurity, fear of authority, inability to trust.... on and on it goes.

    You would have to be the world's nastiest most ignorant monster to suggest that people like that should be able to understand investment markets and make their money work for them.

    And they are far from the only ones whose hurtful life experiences have destroyed their capacity to pursue profitable investments. There are all sorts of reasons why people can't achieve the returns SOME PRIVILEGED FOLK obtain, and NO DECENT AUSTRALIAN would ever suggest that government policy should ASSUME ability to achieve high investment returns. That's appalling!

    Only vile scum blames victims for the cruelty of a hideously unjust society run by disgusting lying bureaucrats who persecuted innocent people and destroyed their lives.

    YOU ARE BLESSED not to have suffered that awful fate, but YOU ARE NOT BLESSED with any sense of decency or compassion.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:14am
    And once again, OG, you make a total ASS of yourself with your stupid invalid ASSUMPTIONS about matters you know NOTHING about.

    Many affected by the assets test change DO NOT have lots of cash. Many have assets that are unsalable and not returning. And many are far needier than a lot of cheating, dishonest or manipulating full pensioners - AND far more deserving.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:39am
    Rainey I just happen to know why those young children were taken from their families and in most cases thank goodness they were. I doubt if many if any would be alive today if they hadn't been. I call them the recued generation.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    1:29pm
    WRONG AGAIN ASS -UMER! You really are ill-informed. SOME children were taken for good reason. Thousands were taken because LYING BUREAUCRATS AND DISGUSTING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS MADE MONEY FROM CHILD ABUSE.

    The people I work with daily were STOLEN from good homes where they would have been loved and cared for - and even those who were taken for cause deserved better than the vile abuse and neglect they suffered.

    They were MOST CERTAINLY NOT ''the rescued generation'' and only the most arrogant, ignorant, ill-informed mongrel would make such an assertion.

    Get your head out of the sand, Ostrich. You know NOTHING.

    (And BTW, in case you THINK you know something - I am not talking about Aboriginals. I'll bet it's never even occurred to you that it happened to nearly 100,000 whites - contrary to government lies?)
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    3:05pm
    No I'm not talking about Aboriginals at all. However I do know a thing or two about them as well. I also know that for every one aboriginal child there was about 12 white children in distress. Unfortunately I am not ignorant and I do know what really happened? Do you really know what happened or are you just hearing the stories second hand? Members of my families actually cared for these unfortunate children when I was growing up. They were not stolen from good homes at all and in fact he exact opposite. I remember the physical and mental state of these children which still haunts me today. One relative looked after young pregnant girls as their families had thrown them out on the street. If the truth offends you so be it.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    9:17pm
    Old Geezer, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you. Your base every wild assumption on minimal anecdotal evidence gathered from someone you claim to know.

    You ARE IGNORANT - IN THE EXTREME.

    The people I speak of WERE stolen from loving homes, and they were then seriously abused, deprived and neglected. And regardless of the quality of the home they were taken from, nothing changes the fact that the abuse and neglect left them unable to invest profitably - and it stinks that vile monsters suggest they should SUFFER in old age because of what they suffered in childhood.

    To answer your question, YES I DO REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. From extensive research, intimate knowledge of victims, and vast amounts of GOVERNMENT documents that evidence the truth. Unlike you, I don't claim knowledge based on one or two people I happen to know. I deal in FACT.

    But if you weren't so self-opinionated and arrogant, you would recognize the FACT that the existence of people such as you yourself describe is sound reason why it is such a disgrace for anyone to suggest that people who can't invest for strong returns should be left to suffer.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    6:55pm
    Rainey you really haven't got a clue about this.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    9:57pm
    It's you who has no clue, OG. I have first hand experience, close links to a vast number of directly affected people, and volumes of research, including extensive government records that prove the facts. Sorry YOU ARE WRONG.

    And regardless of the facts, you contradict yourself. On the one hand you claim to understand that children who were in dire straights were '''rescued'', and on the other hand you seek to claim that these poor disadvantaged people should be able to be brilliant strategic investors and survive economic downturns through intelligent strategy. What an idiotic proposition! Why don't you just admit to being an elitist and a snob, and determined to see anyone who isn't as privileged as you persecuted and denied their rights. That's the truth of it.
    Old Geezer
    5th Aug 2016
    2:20pm
    Maybe I was one of those rescued children.
    Anonymous
    6th Aug 2016
    7:37am
    You might well have been among the tiny minority lucky enough to be ''rescued'' to a privileged life, OG. But if you were one of the tens of thousands who suffered hideous abuse and neglect and deprivation after cruel and dishonest government interference in your family, you would have empathy and respect. You would be HUMAN. And you would certainly know how hard it is to overcome the psychological problems that losing self-respect, confidence and the ability to trust creates.

    You have NO CLUE, OG. Your arrogance betrays you.
    Old Geezer
    7th Aug 2016
    5:06pm
    Ha ha Rainey you have been reading too many books and listening to too many fairy stories.
    Anonymous
    8th Aug 2016
    10:18am
    You obviously believe fairy stories told by lying bureaucrats and biased journalists and corrupt politicians OG, and you have no awareness of the real world outside your little utopia.
    catsahoy
    8th Aug 2016
    10:30pm
    PIXAPAD, good on you if you can save $8000 a year, but how you do it is beyond me, unless you have other income, such as boarders, as my husband and myself, both get the aged pension, and even with a rebated rent we pay $350 a fortnight rent, every pay day I pay out $120 to cover light, gas, water, hubby pays into a funeral fund for the two of us, and believe me, after grocery shopping I don't have enough over to save, maybe you live on scratch food, I don't know, we do eat well, but certainly not avish, and don't eat out, or get take away, I cook every night, lets into your secret, cause im sure , many on here would like your secret,

    2nd Aug 2016
    11:48am
    This is a story that has millions of answers which all depend on the individual. Some retirees are doing it tough and some retirees are doing OK. A lot of the reasons depend on previous employment, lifestyle and current needs, all of which are different for each retiree. More than any other topic this one cannot ever have a "one size fits all" answer.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:43pm
    Now you've got it right. Some here live in a dream land.....
    Farside
    5th Aug 2016
    11:37pm
    And some have simply made poor choices and feeling the consequences of those choices.
    Anonymous
    8th Aug 2016
    10:08am
    And many have made GOOD choices and been honest and suffered for it.
    Farside
    8th Aug 2016
    10:21am
    Bad luck for those that sufferred despite good choices but there are no guarantees in life and one of those choices should have been to mitigate or diversify risk.
    Charlie
    2nd Aug 2016
    11:58am
    PIXAPD must be living overseas
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    5:43pm
    Yeah, in LaLa Land. Don't take too much to heart from it's comments.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:44pm
    In a government funded mental institution? Are there any such left?
    Nanday
    2nd Aug 2016
    12:15pm
    I'm one of those SMSF retirees who would fall into the category of drawing down too much, thereby depleting my savings so that it won't last.

    The truth of this is that for the last two years, of the monies drawn out $100,000 has gone into the costs of subdividing my block of land (my personal residence). By doing this, I now have retained nearly all the value of my original house plus added another $500,000 of value in a block of land. I will build on the new block in the next couple of years and sell my bigger family home thereby increasing my cash assets.

    So while my SMSF balance has gone down, I have increased the value of my other assets. How many others that are judged as drawing down too much fall into this category? One of my supporting reasons for doing it was that the all political parties are targeted SMSFers and I don't see this changing. This time the limit is 1.6 million, what will it be in ten years? I might as well diversify my investments now, while I can, because I don't trust governments to honour their SMSF rules by grandfathering any new legislation. SMSFers have become a hated and therefore easy target. I scrimped and saved, sewed my kids' school uniforms, cooked home cooked meals and all so that I could have enough for retirement so that I didn't have to go on Aged Pension. Now I feel that instead of being rewarded for that, the government is labelling me rich and trying to tax what they promised they wouldn't.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:45pm
    Very wise - in the back of my mind is doing the same with our large block with rear lane access. Sub-division is not out of the question here....

    You could easily fit two modern 'house blocks' on our block - which I am about to fill up with my vegetable gardens - raised 600mm for ease of use by old backs.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    9:01pm
    Nanday - have a look at the seniors and pensioners tax offset (SAPTO) rules on the ATO site. A pension age couple can generate ~$58K tax free using these rules outside Super. Super for over 60's is tax free so it does not count towards any SAPTO calculations.

    Mix that with a family trust that is favoured by most people on this site from what I read - and you could generate well over $58K with $1m of assets outside of Super at 6% per annum - and it can be tax free like your Super.

    The rules are there for all to use - be you rich or poor.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:31am
    Reasons, there might be rules for all to use, but the past lives of people determines their capacity to use them. Poor people are not just monetarily poor. They are deprived educationally and emotionally, and it's that deprivation - not lack of money - that keeps them down.

    Once upon a time, society respected battlers who had done it tough and didn't make government policy to favour only the privileged, or based on wild and unfair assumptions. Once upon a time, people had the human decency to acknowledge what life is like in the real world for people who haven't enjoyed the opportunities and privileges some are fortunate to have bestowed on them.

    Today, selfishness and greed prevail, and we see vile intolerance of anyone whose early disadvantage left them unable to understand a complex world of investment and taxation. The attitude of the arrogant privileged is ''I'm okay. Stuff you. If you are struggling, the government should take whatever you have and throw you crumbs, and give me the gold.''

    It's a horrid world we live in, and it makes me thoroughly sick to see repeated evidence of the inhuman and contemptuous attitudes of some of the well-off toward the victims of injustice and social abuse.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    3:36pm
    What a lot of rubbish Rainey.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    5:18pm
    It's just that the rich, being more equal than the poor, get to use it more often........

    Sorry 'bout that.....
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    9:22pm
    You are a lot of rubbish, OG. Too ignorant, arrogant and self-opinionated to understand even the most basic facts of life outside the utopia you claim to dwell in.
    Alexii
    2nd Aug 2016
    12:58pm
    Hi Fast Eddie, of course I realise that. Even "blind Freddie" would know that. And of course it's just a pipe dream of mine that our governments would do anything to stop their rorts. One just do that to one's friends, does one? It just ain't cricket. Gotta love the friends in the best position on the so-called level playing field.
    KSS
    2nd Aug 2016
    1:26pm
    It is difficult to understand just what the Government intends with its changes to super, particularly at the level they want to impose. If the intention is to make people responsible for funding their own retirement (and that was the intention of the compulsory super in 1992), then surely there must be incentives good enough to make people forego immediate spending to save that same money for future use. Restricting the concessional contributions to an annual $25000 (including for those now over 50), limiting lifetime non-concessional contributions to $500,000 and capping the total amount in super to $1.6m would seem to actively discourage self-sufficiency right at the time when most people are finally in a position to make those extra payments. Add to that the removal of the current TTR arrangements and any hope of passing the employment baton to the next generation is also curtailed. The lowering of the asset threshold to the newer low levels ensures that those close to or just retired are seriously disadvantaged (requiring a rethink of retirement plans) whilst those retired for some years may well be financially worse off (although they will retain the health care card) than many on the aged pension.

    Whilst I think many would agree that super needed to be looked at, and I do agree that people should be responsible for funding their retirement, I do think that the changes are ill-conceived, poorly thought through and will affect far more than the 1% of top earners. Super needed to be considered along with a complete review of the taxation system. Limiting the super wealthy to a $1.6m in super and requiring them to withdraw anything over that amount will not miraculously bring the Government multi-billion dollars in extra tax. People who have multi-millions stashed in super (with perhaps the exception of those who won lotto or mega inheritances) are likely to have the wherewithal to place the excess beyond the reach of Government anyway. It is middle Australia who will be hurt the hardest - as it always it - the poor will be taken care of, the very rich (those with the mega millions) already take care of themselves and will continue to do so. It is those in the middle who will pay the price.
    Rae
    2nd Aug 2016
    2:23pm
    KSS I read it was 4% that will be affected. These people really don't rely on super and often organise their affairs so as to claim a full aged pension the same way they claim incomes less than taxable limits while living in mansions with luxury cars, boats etc.

    Lot's of money is never accounted for and cash ends up being hoarded for use in later life.

    Only the honest and PAYG are being punished by the government.

    As to whether they have any idea of consequences I seriously doubt it.

    I've just found out all licences, boat, drivers and firearm will now be sent through the mail as the new service centres can't produce the licence.

    Just think of the identity theft that will be going on now.

    Not a brain in their heads apparently.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:48pm
    If that were the case, KSS - why jump all over people who have not had the opportunity to put away super funds over a lifetime of work?

    Before any government should be whining about overpaid retirees, it should have the decency to wait until those retiring have had the opportunity for fifty years or so - not half that.

    THEN they might have a case for reducing assets limits etc for pensions..... until then, all they are doing is attacking people without any solid reason at all.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:54pm
    "If the intention is to make people responsible for funding their own retirement (and that was the intention of the compulsory super in 1992), "

    This is the bit I mean. 1992 - 2016 is 24 years, during which inflation has caused what was my then income of $100k+ to become around $270k by today's standards. So slagging those who started super when the dollar was only worth 30c of what it is now and saying those people should have all this cash salted away, after half a lifetime's work and not a full lifetime's - is pure and absolute stupidity on the part of any government.

    Can't even do pre-school maths it seems, the lot of them.

    "Joey - what is 65 less 15?"

    "24, miss!"

    "Sorry, Joey, that's not right.... Scotty - what's your answer?"

    "24, Miss! Joey is right, and Malcolm and Swannie agree, too! It's a consensus in the class. And Julia says that 65 is the wrong number, Miss, and it should be 70!"
    Phil1943
    2nd Aug 2016
    2:03pm
    I'm a bit late to post my opinions on this subject. Too many others in our situation - SMSF retirees, I mean, have voiced their views and they're pretty much the same as mine. Those of us who scrimp and save for our retirements have become targets for a money hungry government that's unconcerned about the welfare of its own senior citizens. It's too depressing to analyse here, so I'll just say that all of us are really on the same side and the recent election has revealed that no political party gives a damn about us. There will be another election soon - not sure when but a one-set majority can't hold back the flood of factional disagreements, so next time around let's be more active and leverage that anger we feel to influence those grubby pollies that seem to only want to pick our pockets. It can be done if we get our act together.
    Needy not Greedy
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:29pm
    Your dead right Phil, this is exactly the sentiment of the greater majority of retired people I come in contact with, but the problem with this last election was that the three main parties were all as keen as one another to shoot the cripples (being us) than to take on the hard targets such as big business that can afford to employ specialists to create never ending tax havens and money trails that even have the ATO bamboozled, and your right there is plenty of anger building in our aged community, apart from a few old geezers that just bury their heads in the mire lol.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    12:20pm
    Most retirees have done very well out of the government. I really can't see what people have to whige about myself.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    12:57pm
    Speak for yourself Mr IGNORANT KNOW NOTHING OG. I don't know many people who have done well out of the government. Almost EVERYONE I know has been shafted, cheated, stolen from, and suffered massive injustice and torment. YOU obviously live in Utopia. Guess what? The real world is NOTHING like you think. Get your head out of the sand, ostrich, and wake up to reality.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    3:10pm
    Many retirees now enjoy a pension from their super funds that is tax free after the age of sixty. I see that as a real positive. Many pensioners enjoy discounts on many things that the rest of us have to pay full price plus more to cover the discounts. That is another positive. The pension was bought in so that our elders did not live in poverty. Another positive.

    The 2017 asset test has corrected the over generous one that should never have been bought in in the first place. Another positive.

    OK where are the negatives as I can't find any? Maybe it is that people like me get no assistance from the government to live in retirement. To me that is another positive in that my share is given to those who really need it.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    9:39pm
    You can't find negatives, OG, because you are too arrogant to give a hoot about anyone but yourself and too self-absorbed to take an interest in anyone else's circumstances, or in FACTS.

    Some people are just so wrapped in up in their ego that they will remain ignorant forever.
    floss
    2nd Aug 2016
    2:06pm
    Well done Mr. Hockey you destroyed our retirement then disappeared to a grand life across the sea we hope you have a one way ticket.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:30pm
    At least you won't have to worry about Fat Joe going bust - he's set for life. Takes a real load off the mind, that does.....
    floss
    2nd Aug 2016
    2:11pm
    Well said Mick what planet is old man on, lower case. Rainey was also right on the mark.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    2:29pm
    Ha ha I was thinking the exact opposite myself.
    Alexii
    2nd Aug 2016
    3:59pm
    Agree with you. Looney.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    2:27pm
    My standard of living never varies but I have noticed that things have been looking up lately. The government is finally realising that people are getting the pension that don't need it and are not spending their money in retirement so are doing something to address it. Let's hope they see some more sense and add the house to the asset test so that people will downsize not upsize their houses when they retire.
    Gra
    2nd Aug 2016
    4:09pm
    Obviously another renter, envious of those who DID buy a home during their working life.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    4:26pm
    Nope I don't rent and I'm not envious of people owning their own homes. I use my assets to make money not lose money and personally owning a house is a big loser not a money maker.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:57pm
    That's because most people are lucky to own that home, OG, and don't have the wherewithal left over after their major life purchases such as that home, carts to go to work in, costs of living etc, to be playing the stock market.

    You need the same education process as our politicians - to do it tough for at least twelve months and then see how you come across with your brilliant ideas.

    The challenge to all of you is this:- Live one year on the pension without any extras coming with you - then we'll talk.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:22pm
    I already live on an amount below the pension level as I don't need much in life and don't feel like I'm doing it tough at all.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:32pm
    Looxury! When Ah were a lad, we lived in pot-hole in road, had to get grandfather up at 4am five hours before he went to bed to lick road clean, we did! Tell them young 'uns that these days - they'd naught beleive yer!
    KB
    2nd Aug 2016
    2:45pm
    The majority of people do not like to rely on the government for money. For some of us who are disabled we have no choice and live within our means. The aged pension should only be for people who are on low incomes and be accessible as a last resort to soley pay for essentials like utilities and health care.Not for flitting around the world/
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    2:53pm
    I agree.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    5:22pm
    True!
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:01pm
    Politics of envy again - someone who's paid into the tax bucket over a lifetime has no right to trip the world if they so choose....

    You seem to imagine that people on the aged pension are all living in mansions and taking world trips - nothing could be further from the truth. Even apart from that, after putting up with the evils of poor government and governance and terrible stewardship of the economy from both governments and business over a lifetime - I think they're Entitled ™ to a world trip or two.

    I doubt that many people living on Pension ONLY are doing world trips. Maybe the occasional cheap cruise or similar, maybe once a year if they are lucky.
    vincent
    2nd Aug 2016
    3:05pm
    Comments about cash hoarding can be addressed easily. Periodically change the notes and give a time of 12 to 18 mnts for them to be handed in for changeover before they become invalid. Any large amounts will stand out quickly and need an explanation. Keep the 100 dollar note as the largest note as well. In Europe you will be hard pressed to pay with a 1000 Euro note but there are plenty of them in circulation. Mainly used by criminals as they represent a lot of value in a small space. As far as the changes to super are concerned they are counterproductive no matter the arguments that are put forward in this forum. The full effects will only be felt in the years to come.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    5:24pm
    Very good idea. Personally know of allady with a safe in her garage which has a couple of hundred thousand in it. She is on the penison and would be well over the limit if she did not have this stashed away.

    Of course she is not the only one doing it, is she!! ;)
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:03pm
    There ya go, Pepe:-

    https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/contact-us/reporting-fraud
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    7:24am
    There will be a lot more of it now that the stupid idiot politicians have decided to discriminate against people who saved and favour those who didn't.

    Take a world trip at 55 and squander $200,000, and you lose nothing in pension benefits. Postpone the same trip to age 70 and you lose bucket loads. Give your kids $50,000 each toward a deposit on a home at age 60 and you lose nothing. Give it to them at age 65 and you lose pension benefits for 5 years.

    The guy who can afford to sink $3 million into a luxury home draws a full pension. The battler with $820,000 put aside and a run-down $200,000 cabin that he plans to use some savings to renovate in 5 years' time has to drain his savings to live and forego the right even to spend his own savings on basic maintenance.

    Someone in poor health or disabled, with huge costs for disability aids, special care and home help gets $500,000 in compensation, added to their personal savings of $350,000, but earning only 2% because disability obstructs any ability to invest more profitably, and they have to use it to live on rather than to meet their special needs. But a fit, healthy, well-educated person who spent their wealth travelling and partying can earn $70,000 a year and still get a part pension courtesy of the over-burdened taxpayer.

    What a patently IDIOTIC and GROSSLY UNFAIR and IMMORAL system!

    I have no issue with means testing that is fair and sensible. But the system is anything but fair or sensible. It's totally idiotic, grossly discriminatory, a massive disincentive to working, saving, investing and planning, and hugely socially divisive.

    We need an URGENT overhaul, by people with a proper appreciation of the different circumstances and needs of different groups of people and with RESPECT for the folk who worked and saved for their own future - NOT to hand their savings to people who didn't.

    It's NOT about giving pensions to people who don't need them. My personal belief is that Australia CAN afford, and SHOULD give aged pensions to all - at least to all who didn't have superannuation for most of their working lives, because they paid into a fund for their retirement and that money was stolen. But if we must have means testing - if the country GENUINELY can't afford not to (which I doubt, given the level of tax avoidance that is tolerated and endorsed) - then means tests should be devised to be equitable and respectful of people's entitlement to benefit from their own endeavours.

    This nation is going broke. Proof positive that either foolishness of corruption is driving every decision by government.

    We will go broke much faster because of the recent thoroughly STUPID and DESTRUCTIVE changes that were so carelessly and thoughtlessly implemented (and even those who approved them are starting to admit they have doubts about the wisdom of them and are seeing problems)

    What is mind-boggling is that there are actually people who are so egocentric, arrogant and ignorant that all they can think of is ''I'm okay - bugger you. Take more off the other guy.'' Apparently don't have the intelligence to understand that people will do what is in THEIR best interests - and if governments are too harsh and unfair, people will find ways to manipulate and circumvent and the costs of pensions will skyrocket. It's beginning to happen, and it will get far, far worse.

    What we need to do is make a UNITED call for sanity. Unfortunately, that will never happen, because greedy, self-serving egotists are more concerned with chest-beating and victimizing others than with justice and national benefit.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    6:59pm
    Nothing fair in life Rainey but all one has to do is make the most of their circumstances and live a happy life.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    10:01pm
    No, OG. In a DEMOCRACY, we have an obligation to stand up for the rights of citizens and to demand reform to make society fairer. That's what democracy is. Sad that so many citizens can't honour that obligation and therefore democracy fails.
    Anonymous
    9th Aug 2016
    8:59pm
    Nope,nothing fair at all.

    However, I am not lying awake at night getting shitty at people getting the pension (even though I know they have hidden cash/assets) and should not be getting it.


    I get zilch from the government and quite frankly I don't care; I am using my own money and super to fund a comfortable retirement.

    I chose to take certain actions to make sure I would be OK in my later years and I am...others can do what they like..makes no difference to me at all. Envy only eats away at a person and life is too short for that.
    ex PS
    10th Aug 2016
    1:59pm
    Quite right Pepe L, envy is a terrible thing, the trouble is that when you bring down the people you envy you look around and there are even more people who are better off than you, so the envy lives on forever.
    And the one who suffers most is the envious one because they will never be happy.
    vincent
    2nd Aug 2016
    3:05pm
    Comments about cash hoarding can be addressed easily. Periodically change the notes and give a time of 12 to 18 mnts for them to be handed in for changeover before they become invalid. Any large amounts will stand out quickly and need an explanation. Keep the 100 dollar note as the largest note as well. In Europe you will be hard pressed to pay with a 1000 Euro note but there are plenty of them in circulation. Mainly used by criminals as they represent a lot of value in a small space. As far as the changes to super are concerned they are counterproductive no matter the arguments that are put forward in this forum. The full effects will only be felt in the years to come.
    MD
    2nd Aug 2016
    3:15pm
    The Actuaries Institute finding regards retirees at risk of depleting their super; the poor man me's, the disadvantaged & challenged, the selfish souls that led irresponsible lifestyles, the few on full age pensions (+ rent assist) & SMSF retirees - each and every one of these groups have & will shortly be re-recorded in statistics. I'm sure it's no surprise to anyone that bye & large they've been present in society all along, still they are with us & all our tomorrows they will remain. Over the years the ebb and flow of societal values to lifestyle, work and retirement has seen significant change. In the future we can expect to experience yet more changes, good for some & questionably an impost on others.
    What anyone chooses to do with their money; be it ill gotten, a windfall or earnings, prior to retirement is not a matter for any other to pass judgement on, much less condemn or criticize. Too many pontificators herein are quick to point the accusing finger at others - richer, poorer or each other. The Dept of Human Resources do not require the para legal services of self appointed advisers, they being perfectly capable of creating their own chaos. Rest assured, no sooner will everyone begin to grasp current changes than the powers that be will implement yet more.
    One man's financial comfort might well be another's downfall.
    Why worry about future financial security, a safety net exists for any that fall. (Although for those that seem to think it a necessity to ensure an 'inheritance' remains, then you'd best make your own provisions - social contributions aside ).
    As regards the Government's input, think Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
    Franky
    2nd Aug 2016
    4:01pm
    I can't understand why the RBA still wants to cut interest rates, when it is obvious by now that it's a tool that is not working anymore. Japan is a good example. They are causing more harm to the economy than comes good out of it. We have to transition from a growth economy to a sustainable economy. It's a different concept, but its time has come! We should be happy that there is no inflation, stable prices mean a stable society without conspicuous over consumption. What we do need to look at is how to transition to an environment where there are less jobs as the internet of things will put away with up to 40% of our jobs. Lots of challenges and opportunities here. Reducing interest rates further only hurts the retired and the savers, sending a wrong message.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    4:03pm
    Simply because our interest rates are amongst the highest in the world and the carry trade will invest in them and inflate our dollar.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:03pm
    1.5% is horrendously stratospheric as regards interest rates....
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:24pm
    We still have a positive interest rate which can't be said for a lot of countries today. Most have negative interest rates.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:34pm
    Get the bank to pay to lend us money? There's a thought... will they be relying on the 'trickle down effect' then to earn? It works for the peasants so I'm reliably told, so it should also work for business......
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    9:01pm
    Geez, by the vast financial knowledge you seem to have you must have a diploma in enemas.
    HarrysOpinion
    2nd Aug 2016
    4:08pm
    "baby boomers feel they have been hardest hit"
    -Yes. Because they were damned by the likes of Joe Hockey and his government for living longer than statistical expectations.
    "Are you financially comfortable?"
    -No.
    Do you worry about your future financial security?
    -Yes and more so for the people worst off than me.
    What measures do you recommend the Government take in order to help this situation?
    -Many recommendations have been made in the past by various people and all such recommendations fell on deaf ears of this government. The MP's earn huge salaries that they don't deserve because they are inept to manage the society in its entirety. What do you expect from the minority political party such as Liberals with 45 seats in federal parliament? If it wasn't for the coalition structure they would never be in government.
    -The 1.5% cash rate is a win for the Banks to make more profit, eg: Credit Cards, where they charge between 20% to 24% pa plus "fees by definition". It's a win for the banks because they can now pay .25% pa less on your savings than they did 3 months ago and use your savings on short term share markets for a lowly cost to make huge profits for themselves.
    - By the way, if a real war is declared against Australia the people will insist that all the MP's be the ones that go to the front line first, including the female MPs gender. We will sit back and watch their misery as they are sitting back today and watch our misery.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    4:21pm
    No baby boomers have had it easy for far too long.

    Yes I am financially comfortable.

    No I don't worry about my financial future.

    MP's wages are too low as they fail to attract the right people.

    Banks are doing it tough in the low interest rate economy as their margins are being squeezed and can't make the profits they do in a normal interest economy.

    Problem is we fight other people's wars and not our own.
    HarrysOpinion
    2nd Aug 2016
    5:06pm
    "MP's wages are too low as they fail to attract the right people"

    If the saying that " when you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" is true
    then Old Geezer, you concur that we have monkeys in our government running Australia.

    Banks are not doing it tough at all !

    Problem is Old Geezer that you don't give a damn about people worst off than you and neither do your Liberal party mates.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    5:33pm
    I admire those who live happily on only the pension. Some of my friends do just this and I help them out if I can.

    What I can't stand is those who think that they are entitled to a pension but are now whinging because the government has finally done the right thing and tightened up the ridiculously high assets test. Folks the party is over so you now have to spend some of that capital on your retirement and not keep hoarding it like some perpetual trophy to be handed on. Only last wek I had a couple tell me that they had bought a bigger house and had taken and planned lots of overseas holdiays so that they will still qualify for the pension come 2017.

    I have nothing to do with the Liberal party and have no mates in the Liberal party. I do however have a couple of friends who are or were MPs but they are either Labor or Green.

    If banks are not doing it tough then why are their share prices lingering and not following the rest of the market up. They are currently experiencing a tougher time than they did during the GFC and it is likey to get worse for them before it gets better. They do not do well during times of low interest rates.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    5:52pm
    I noticed today with the RBA cut in interest rates to 1.5% that the Aussie dollar hardly moved. If the RBA hadn't cut rates it would have skyrocketed up.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:59pm
    Old Geezer, there is NOT ONE sensible comment made by you above. Been on the grog, mate?
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    8:08pm
    Ha ha that just show your lack of financial intelligence. I don't take any poisions of any sort and that includes the hair of the dog.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    8:48pm
    Geez, you have been forgetting your appointments at the clinic again, haven't you?
    HarrysOpinion
    2nd Aug 2016
    10:41pm
    Old Geezer - if you listened to the news on SBS, the banks have not passed on all of the .25% reduction in cash rates only a portion of it which will not take effect for 2 months. But, surprisingly they have increased the Term Deposit rate. This sounds as though they have lost a huge bundle on their short term share market and can't pay good dividends to shareholders. But, given past profit reserves in billions they are hanging on to the banks are not doing it tough at all.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:46am
    HS the reason why the banks have not passed the whole rate cut on is that borrowing has become competitive once again and they need wiggle room to offer lower rates to keep their customers. The truth of the matter is they will eventually pass the whole rate on.

    If you check you will find that the term deposit rate is only for a limited time.

    I find it is good of the banks to do this so that their shareholders are being looked after.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    5:22pm
    Ah - I see - so shareholders come before anyone else .. or anything else?

    You've explained the whole malaise of the West at this time in a nutshell........
    Old Geezer
    7th Aug 2016
    4:57pm
    Exactly no one is more important than the shareholders. Without shareholders (owners) you don't have a business it is as simple as that.

    2nd Aug 2016
    4:43pm
    First of all, people have TO WANT to help THEMSELVES, as NO amount of government assistance will guarantee a comfortable retirement for ANYONE, and taxpayers' "alms" will end up being peed against the wall before retirement age, or early into it.
    The horrible, God awful truth of Autralia's government is that they simply don't give a sh_t about retired people, so if you haven't had enough sense (AND MONEY) to provide for a comfy, carefree, do-what-you-want retirement you will go without while all the bludgers are subsidised by funds you have paid in taxes throughout your working life. AND, even IF you're holdin' enough foldin' you will have to be constantly on you toes so it isn't taken from you and/or you are penalised for having the forethought to provide yourself and your partner/spouse with financial security. We, the retired, are continually being robbed and cheated by the government through changes in legislation lowering pensions via plummeting asset thresholds, absurd deeming rates, and now have been hit again by the RBA lowering savings interest rates. Nothing but doom and gloom for struggling old people!!
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    5:03pm
    I have not been cheated and robbed by the government in fact by retiring it has been the exact opposite for me.

    If however you depend on welfare then things needed to get tougher as it was far too generous and was providing our scare resources to those who didn't need them but took them as they were nice to have for the luxuries of life since they had already funded the necessaries of life themselves. It needs to get tougher as there are still too many people accessing welfare who don't need it to keep them out of poverty.

    Let's face it many are finding it tough to live on the pension alone so I see that as punishment for no putting money aside for retirement. I would be nice to go 5 star instead of economy but that's a bit difficult on the pension alone.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    12:59am
    You have yet to live......
    Rodent
    2nd Aug 2016
    5:38pm
    Dear ALL I will publish this apology more than one
    YLC Editor will confirm to all soon that the Assets Test Threshold that was to be FROZEN as from 1 July 2O17 , as part of the 2015 Budget WILL NOT PROCEED.
    I apologise for my error in earlier posts (both recently and in past months) this has turned out to be incorrect- some good news therefore!!!!
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    5:47pm
    Rodent, please comment in a comprehendible manner. What is true and what is not? You are rambling.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    5:50pm
    Now that would be a very bad move indeed.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    5:59pm
    For whom, Geez?
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:28pm
    I reckon you have been gnawing on some crook grain, Rodent.
    Rodent
    3rd Aug 2016
    1:27pm
    Dear Fast Eddie

    I thought I was clear - but in SIMPLE terms the Proposed Freezing of the Assets Test Thresholds as from 1 JULY 2017 will NOT proceed.
    Rodent
    3rd Aug 2016
    3:43pm
    Dear Fast Eddie, love your sense of humor, but have I made my self clear with last post @1.27pm today?
    Oldman Roo
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:03pm
    Would someone honest just explain what our Government is really trying to achieve by targeting the person who has saved trying to live without welfare [ a great mistake of course ] , who presently receives 200 Dollar from Centrelink to draw the savings and will eventually qualify for a much larger slice of the Pension .
    The reason given by the Abbott - Morrison outfit at the time were that the welfare costs had to be reduced and explanations that nobody would be worse off . And they wonder why only the LNP trolls still believe them because they are in the wealthy class and , like our governing party , do only treat the battler with contempt .
    I am aleady at the point of having to draw from my savings and am accepting the cruel reality that come Jan, 1st 2016 , the only way to survive will be bigger draw downs and appeasing the fools or scoundrels who were planning on reducing the Pension burden . They obviously also have no conscience as it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out just how the cash rate downturn has made a mockery of their strategy .But who gives a damn about the poor bastard .
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:27pm
    1/1/2016 has come and gone. Don't you mean 1/1/2017 or are you on ADST (Annual Daylight Savings Time)?
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:29pm
    You are not a poor bastard if you will have your pension reduced in 2017. You need to draw down your capital until it is at a level lower enough for your to qualify for the pension again. If you are not drawing down your capital then you obviously are being given too much in the way of welfare. Until then you get less welfare or no welfare and it saves us the tax payers money.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:34pm
    Geez, you have to notify Centrelink if you draw over and above $2,000 more than your monthly allocated pension amount and let them know what you are using it for. It's a bit too late - the rocking horse is already gone, mate. You missed the tram BIGTIME.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:48pm
    I don't draw a monthly allocated pension I just make one withdrawal a year from my super to satisfy the conditions of the pension. As long as I draw out the minimum I can draw out the lot if I so wish without telling Centrelink. I don't have to tell Centrelink anything that's the good thing about being a fully self funded retiree.

    Last tram I caught was one in Melbourne.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:04pm
    Nice weather.
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:08pm
    As a fully self-funded retiree, OG - why do you have any need to play games to keep Centrelink in the dark?

    'satisfy the conditions of the pension' - so you ARE receiving a pension or part thereof? Or do you mean something else?

    Please explain?
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:28pm
    I am not receiving any welfare from Centrelink. I only receive a small minimum pension from my super fund. I am well with my rights not to tell Centrelink anything.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:28pm
    Trebor, this character, Old Geezer, must be related to the other dysfunctional one, PIXAPD. They seem to have derailed long ago and both walked out through the open gate. Scary.
    Oldman Roo
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:34pm
    Fast Eddie , Of course you are correct about the date and unfortunately I only noticed my error after I posted it . I do hope , all the same , that you may have also found something positive in my comments .
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:36pm
    'a small minimum pension from my super fund' - you must have plenty of perks on the side then, and plenty of hidden avenues of garnering income.

    Does your pension fund take into the account your assets before it gives you your pension?
    Oldman Roo
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:52pm
    Old Geezer and Trebor , I guess you two firstly do not like the crux of the matter I raised but that is not abnormal with the wealthy and their usually devious agenda . Call a spade a spade and spare me your devious agenda . But this is how they made their money is what a friend of mine always has to say about the rich .
    Trebor I have quoted that I am receiving $ 200 from Centrelink , so how does that make me or anybody a self funded retiree ?
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:53pm
    Oldman Roo, no, I can't honesty say I've gained anything from your comment. There are minimum and maximum withdrawals from an allocated pension, whether you withdraw monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, or annually. You can alter the amount up or down between these limits, but it is by no means an unregulated figure. You best check with your super provider (fund) before making any last minute grandiose withdrawals, as, from what you have stated, I believe you are in for an unpleasant surprise. Actions of the sort you have alluded to have been anticipated long ago our putrid politicians.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:53pm
    My pension fund doesn't care what other assets I own it pays me what I ask for not what it reckons it should pay me.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    8:38pm
    Geez, I think you have been eating too many trumpet lillies or pot pies.
    Oldman Roo
    2nd Aug 2016
    8:54pm
    Fast Eddie , My main point is really all about the way part Pensioners are gutted for no good reason and certainly not for the good it would achieve in the eyes of the LNP.
    As far as drawing down my savings is concerned , considering the low cash rate and in my case no longer worth the mention Centrelink payment after Jan. 1st 2017 , I will be forced to draw on my savings just for everyday living expenses . Before I starve or have to beg in the gutter , I would like to see them stop me or anybody who struggles to survive . Can you live on $ 30 per fortnight and $ 250 from investment per fortnight ?
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    8:59pm
    I was talking to The Dread Pirate Old Geezer, Roo - not you.

    I don't have any fortune to retire on, and am lucky to have a roof of my own after a lifetime of hard work, interspersed by acts of treachery and betrayal from governments and people I've been good enough to work with.

    I've earned high through sheer effort, and have also suffered serious downturns which left me on the street at age 51 and with heart troubles. I'm on my fourth or fifth comeback.... never fear, I'm young yet.

    You need to read the entire body of my arguments to understand me - your response was out of context to the discussion I was having with OG on your strand - sorry.
    Oldman Roo
    2nd Aug 2016
    9:58pm
    Trebor , I appreciate your reply and ,yes Old Geezer can be quite irrational but I guess life takes all kinds . I have had a similar experience to you in my time and did therefor not make it big time . Just like you , I was reasonably happy with my lot when I retired 11 years ago . Unfortunately I now live to regret my years of sacrifices due to a savage cut in the Centrelink part Pension and Cash rate that is more likely to get worse than better .
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    1:03am
    Fully understand, Roo. Few of us have that pot of gold for the efforts we've put in, and if some are copping 'black' money - it is they who need to be looked at, not those who worked and paid their way and maybe own the home they want.

    Colonel C'Link already asks if you own a home, a boat, a caravan etc, as if accumulating such things in life to enjoy retirement are a crime.

    The crime is the people with all the rorts who continue to get away with it while the government vilifies the genuine people who hide nothing.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    1:07am
    I keep looking for a restoration project boat/cruiser - I'd be putting in a lot of work to get it on the water again and how I'd like it. Does that mean if I buy a vintage cruiser for $500 and restore it, and it's suddenly worth a motza - I own too much?

    Where does anyone, and especially this dock-head government of two parties, draw the line on the input of genuine hard work and self-sacrifice, and someone who just happens to cop it all for free with excess income to spend on a new luxury cruiser?

    If Colonel C'Link wants to look at it that way - then they need to take into account the work performed to get such a beast up to the value it is first!

    How much does a boat restorer charge? $10 an hour on a 457 Visa? I doubt it!
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:28pm
    1.5% interest rates won't be helping many.....

    What was it Joke Hockey said? Low interest rates are the sign of a struggling economy or words to that effect.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:29pm
    Who cares, he wouldn't know which way is up.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:31pm
    Good for those holding REITs as they were becoming a bit over valued but will run higher. Other dividend paying shares will also do well.
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    8:55pm
    Hate to dampen your day, Geez, but the arse has fallen out of the property market of late, so you will be finding no profits there. Back to collecting returnable bottles for you, and don't forget the aluminium cans, as well. Happy hunting.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    9:18pm
    That interesting Fast Eddie as I have done very well out of REITs and infrastructure investments. Good interest return and capital gain as well. Might hang on to the rest with latest increase rate cut for a few more pennies yet out of them.

    Been doing OK out of furnerals as well but the weather has been too mild and people aren't dying at the usual rate so been cashing in on them.
    Happily retired early
    2nd Aug 2016
    6:59pm
    Nothing will change for the average Australian until politicians super is subject to market conditions like the average Australians. Politicians gold plated age of intitlement scheme is funded by the tax payer and is guaranteed and indexed for inflation for life.
    We are constantly told by politicians that they all only enter parliament to make a difference, that's true ...... To have a gold plated super system for themselves!!!
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    9:02pm
    Yes - this 'money for monkeys' argument is ridiculous - these clowns would be literal nobodies without their stay in politics.

    I mean, seriously, what kind of 'career' has the branch secretary of the Ardvarkian Party foregone to enter politics at 3-4 times the salary plus the perks for life? What has some downtown lawyer foregone to enter politics - and why would he/she do so if they were already 'so successful'?

    They do it to garner a lifetime income, plus a much higher salary than they would be getting outside, plus all the perks which run to about 9-10 times their salary each.

    How many of them would be touring the world first class if they were not in politics?
    TREBOR
    2nd Aug 2016
    9:07pm
    Let me put this in perspective. I'd do the job for $50k plus all genuine costs of the job, and I'd likely drive myself to work etc and fly 'cattle class' to go home. And put my super into an ordinary fund without the special privileges and extra dollars added.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Aug 2016
    9:20pm
    Trebour what have you been smoking mate?
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    12:55am
    Certainly not what you've been smoking, with all of your amazing financial acumen.

    You REALLY think we are being best served by time-servers on good salary and perks for life, who actually produce nothing of value to the Australian people, apart from endless lies and whining ab out how somebody might get something out of the system they've all supported so well for a lifetime of work?

    Tell yourself you're dreaming....
    Rae
    3rd Aug 2016
    8:52am
    Has this government done anything other than slamming working class savers in retirement over the past four years?

    If they have I must have missed it.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    5:28pm
    No, Rae - as far as I can see they haven't.. and never forget Auntie Julia's government came up with the bright idea that everyone could cop pension at 70 - as long as politicians could cop it for life after a few years and well short of 45 or so, just in case they wanted to 'spend time with their family'.

    Oooh, yes - absolute jailer's pets they are! What I'd give for one day of being able to spend time with the family - in between me working 18 hour days and the missus making movies about the same hours per day....

    There are traitors on both sides.... not just the LNP.
    Needy not Greedy
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:03pm
    What's happened to PIXAPD? Me and mum have been waiting with bated breath for him to enlighten us on how to have the time of your life on $8460 per year, we are guessing he has public transport close by, maybe has a bike with a trailer so he can get outside the city limits and pick up the odd roadkill, never be sick or require dental work, maybe goes to a hotspot in a shopping centre for Internet access, lives up north so no heating required, guess it must be possible, but " time of your life" ?
    Anonymous
    2nd Aug 2016
    7:15pm
    Don't be so naive to believe ANYTHING this person prints. The gears are definitely not meshing.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:22am
    I'm still waiting for a response to my question of how someone so frugal and capable with money ended up so poor in retirement. If the claims were true, odds on Pixapd ought to be a millionaire several times over by retirement age.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    5:49pm
    Thus far today (Wednesday) I've seen Pix claim millionaire status, pension privileges such as cheap transport fares, and unemployment getting rental assistance.

    One very confused puppy, and not alone here it seems.
    Alex
    2nd Aug 2016
    9:39pm
    There are endless articles that equate baby boomers with retirees and talk about how very well off retirees are, though this one does the reverse and refers to retirees as baby boomers. Most baby boomers are not retired as someone previously pointed out on this website. Many will not retire for another ten to fifteen years. Those that are not retired are mostly at their peak in terms of their assets and earnings. They need to be to accumulate enough to see them through decades of retirement and aged care without an actual income. Equating them to actual retirees has provided a basis for endless attacks on retirees by the likes of the Grattan Institute and Peter Martin who complain that the assets of baby boomers are growing. This is to be expected as baby boomers approaching retirement build up superannuation. It would be a problem if they were not. However that will not be the case after years of retirement when they have to live off their investments especially if returns on investment continue at current low levels.
    Of course actual retirees are not doing well. Their savings are not producing the returns expected to support them in retirement and that were enjoyed prior to the GFC and in Australia up to a few years ago. Many have lost a significant portion of their superannuation and they have to draw down their savings and use up assets at a rate that will quickly erode them completely something that would not be the case if returns on investment approached anything like those of the past. With further cuts to interest rates today it looks like this will go on for a very long time. Yet we have a Government that has reduced the support that would help people preserve their capital a bit longer by cutting the taper rate and reducing the pensions that people have paid for and a lobby that is advocating taxing the homes of retirees and pushing them out so that millennials can move in without doing the hard work of investing at the cheap end of the market and working their way up.
    Circum
    2nd Aug 2016
    11:07pm
    Alex you have made many valid points.Those affected by changes to the pension assets test 1/1/17 is only the tip of the iceberg.Many baby boomers are heading towards that iceberg but at least have the opportunity to reassess their life plans to enjoy life before they retire as the government will be reducing that ability when people retiree.Simply the message from Canberra is "spend,spend,spend or we will punish you and start rumours that you are rich.
    Sadly the government is more interested in reducing the deficit and sees superannuation as an easy pot to raid without taking into account how it will affect retirees (correction..it did take the affect on retirees into account but figured "We can sell this as excessive welfare,rather than the promised pension scheme we asked them to pay for a few decades ago).
    The latest cut in interest rates is rubbing more salt into the wounds of retirees who largely rely on bank/term deposits. Neither governments or the reserve bank show retirees needs as being relevant in its decision making process
    .It is hard to see how more interest rates cuts are justified.I do not believe it assists growth or keeps the aussie dollar low by cutting further.Anybody who wanted to invest at low rates has already done so.I can only conclude that either the reserve bank is incompetent or that there are other motives.Maybe it keeps the national debt down.I don't know.In the case of property investment,maybe the reserve bank wants to delay the pain of prices going down but by doing so it increases the devastation.Scary
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:21am
    My partner insists low interest rates are indulging wealthy property developers and people wanting to acquire distressed property from battlers who have been hurt by economic downturn.

    Yesterday, I read an article on why lowering interest rates is bad policy. It made a lot of sense. It said people are NOT using low interest rates to increase consumption (as is the claimed purpose) but rather to pay down mortgages because they are afraid of the future (and rightly so!). At the same time, low interest rates are slashing incomes of retirees and greatly reducing consumption which leads to lower tax revenue (higher deficit), more unemployment, less business profit... which leads to lower consumption, etc. etc. etc. And so the negative cycle continues.

    The article ended by saying raising interest rates would generate more spending which would generate higher business profits, more jobs and more tax revenue to fund reduced deficits, which would allow more generous pensions to generate more spending... and so it continues.

    This government is DESTROYING the economy and driving us into recession. And the Reserve Bank is helping.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:55am
    Rainey the smart investors would be sitting back and waiting for interest rates to rise to buy distressed property like they did in the early 1990s after the property boom ended and interest rates went sky high.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    5:30pm
    Gotta have money to do that OG - once again - most people don't have that privilege, especially when those who do hold on to it like a miser hangs on to his constipation.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    7:28am
    That's it, OG! Smart investors. That's your focus. Give it all to the privileged and screw the strugglers. Don't let ANYONE profit from hard work and honest endeavour. No, we must support a world in which the workers are stripped of all they earn and the smart-arse bastard privileged who were fortunate enough to be able to become ''smart investors'' get it all.

    And you claim to be charitable? What vile hypocrisy.
    pfbnug
    3rd Aug 2016
    1:15am
    I am over 80 years old and because I opted to retire overseas when it was encouraged by the government (to save on Health Care and all the other perks), I don't get a pension and the reason I got from Centrelink was that they don't have the budget now because they have too many people who have never worked and now all the incomers so they need my pension that I bought and paid for. So, what did I do? I carried on working. Until we get a set of politicians who aren't totally focussed on getting their snouts in the trough, near retirees can expect to get zilch. Why can't the government take money from those who have never contributed instead of those among us who worked and paid taxes all their lives.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    5:36pm
    If we had a genuine full employment economy and not the current half-work one, there could be an argument for that. With the current climate for jobs (non-jobs) there is every chance that some will not work much, if at all. Most advertised positions are taken up by people already in a job, and thus the net unemployment level never changes.

    It's the old shell game.

    You simply cannot, either in conscience or in common sense, leave a significant proportion of people who may never, in this lifetime, get the chance to 'contribute', without money to live on.

    To do so is to encourage an Underworld - and the results of that are clear from what happened in the past under such a regime of little to no Social Security.

    Centrelink has an obligation to provide you with a pension if you have lived here for life, are a citizen, and have reached the correct age with the (current) level of assets. I find it impossible to believe they would say they could not give you a pension due to their 'budget'.

    If that is the case you were mislead and should go back and lodge an objection - and get back pay (though they will limit that - always good to play with all the cards in your own hand, eh?).
    Baby Huey
    3rd Aug 2016
    2:48am
    If governments of all flavours keep screwing baby boomers who have saved to fund all or most of their own retirement the governments short sighted and short term savings will backfire as more and more baby boomers end up on a full pension. The politicians and the public servants will not care as they will have their snouts still in the trough of the public purse long after they are out of office/retired. Once you are over 65 you are fair game for the government.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:33am
    If you saved for your retirement what is wrong with spending it on your retirement? Seems dumb to me to do otherwise.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:35am
    Maybe some people SAVED FOR RETIRMENT, OG - for the expenses they know will hit in LATER LIFE. Only a FOOL would suggest they should spend it prematurely and be left with nothing when it's really needed. But then, most politicians ARE fools, as are those who support their IDIOTIC policies.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    12:17pm
    What expenses later in life? If you are in a nursing home you spend very little as everything is provided. Many people in nursing homes actually accumulate assets not use them. If you get ill Medicare takes care of you. If you get disabled then you get what you need for free too. So what do you need money for later in life?
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    12:48pm
    What an idiot you are, Old Geezer, with your dumb ASSumptions! Lots of folk have high expenses in later life, and many NEVER go into a nursing home. But even if they do, EVERYTING IS CERTAINLY NOT PROVIDED. Medicare DOES NOT pay for all a sick person's needs and you DO NOT get everything you need to cope with disability free,. That is the biggest pack of LIES I've ever seen. Either you are totally ignorant or just enjoy fabricating stories to cause hurt.

    My partner pays hundreds of dollars a month for medications that are NOT on the public health list, but are essential. My daughter spends thousands on speech therapy, physio, dieticians, osteopaths, special shoes, and special education for a disabled child. The government provides $12000 for 7 years' of treatment. It costs her that much per year.

    I will need eye surgery in 5 years' time that will cost thousands and is NOT covered by Medicare. I've been quoted $40,000 for dental care. A public dentist would ''roughly patch'' - IF I qualified for public dental (which I don't).

    And I have a child who lives overseas. I want to visit. I saved to visit. Why should I be forced to give up that dream so some bludgers and cheats and spendthrifts can have pensions and greedy rich bastards can have massive tax concessions?

    You are really full of it, OG, and it's disgusting that people like you are permitted to influence others to believe gross untruths.

    You have no concept of fairness or decency, much less recognition of reality. You are a danger to society with your false assertions.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    3:34pm
    Rainey that sounds to me like your family goes way beyond what is actually required. Speech therapy, physio and many other things were provided free for my child. I could have done more at considerable cost with my disabled child but chose to teach him to cope in the real world instead. Normally he copes very well but does get himself into situations from time to time and needs assistance. Of course if you want the best Medicare is not going to provide for it. Also it didn't cost me any where near $40,000 for my mothers dentures so you must be having so very fancy dental work. My mother had her eye surgery done under Medicare.

    If you are not on the pension then you must have plenty of money to afford an airfare as they are as cheap as chips these days. Earlier this year I went NZ for under $400 return. So I can't see what welfare has to do with your planned trip.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    9:28pm
    What kind of disgusting person criticizes someone for spending their own money on their child, but endorses a policy that takes from workers and savers to give to spenders and bludgers.

    I don't know an aged pensioner who hasn't holidays overseas. Why the hell should I subsidize THEM to get a pension when people who have never been overseas can't go because their income is too low and they have to use their savings to live on because they can't get a pension?

    You have no sense of fairness or decency, OG. You are totally WRONG in everything you say, and clearly too arrogant to bother with FACT or LOGIC.

    I will be proved right. When the number of pensioners skyrockets because people can't benefit from saving, fools like you will whine and blame and bitch about the destruction YOU and YOUR ILK have caused supporting IDIOTIC POLICY that can only destroy the economy. But of course you won't admit your mistake.
    Old Geezer
    7th Aug 2016
    5:02pm
    I very doubt that it will effect me at all Rainey as I like a very fugal life and it will take a lot more than that to destroy the economy.
    Anonymous
    8th Aug 2016
    10:19am
    And that's the problem OG. Selfish people who only care what affects them. This forum is not about YOU.
    Anonymous
    8th Aug 2016
    10:19am
    And that's the problem OG. Selfish people who only care what affects them. This forum is not about YOU.
    PIXAPD
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:25am
    Ah well......that's all I can answer... if a person can't live on $1004 a fortnight and save...even when renting......something is very wrong
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:32am
    I agree.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:33am
    So why didn't you, Pixapd? Why do you need a pension and rent assistance? You SHOULD be a millionaire. Are you a pension cheat, or just telling untruths about your money management skills?
    PIXAPD
    3rd Aug 2016
    11:56am
    Rainey, you and others bring much MIRTH by your comments and allegations, ha ha ha. And in a certain way I am a millionaire and that gave me wisdom in life and how to manage finance and budget, not having any debts, owing nothing to anyone.

    www.richard-2782.net/poem78.htm for I AM A MILLIONAIRE

    Old Geezer understands that if a person can't live on $1004 a fortnight and save...even when renting......something is very wrong
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    12:14pm
    Agree as I doubt if I would spend that much a fortnight myself. You are right the secret is no debts and none of those monthly contracts. Just pay for what you need up front instead. Grow your own veggies and produce your own power.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    12:37pm
    Something is VERY wrong when people who worked hard and saved well and went without luxuries - PROBABLY living on little - now have to sacrifice the lifestyle they saved for an EARNED in retirement because people like you, Pixapd, claim a full pension and rent assistance that it appears to me you have no moral right to.

    No mirth here. YOU are insulting the people you appear to be stealing from.

    If you lived it up earlier in life - as so many did - why do you now support denying those who didn't the benefit of their earlier frugal lifestyle?

    My neighbour lives well on the full pension and rent assistance, after blowing hundreds of thousands on cruising the world. But those who delayed their pleasures until later life are apparently not entitled to the same delights and the greedy enjoyed in younger years. That's a disgustingly self-serving attitude that reflects extreme greed.

    You owe all those you insult a profound apology. You take THEIR money and then spit in their eye.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    3:17pm
    Rainey I live on about the same as Pixapd but I have the capacity to spend a lot more. But I don't need to. He has every moral right to say what he does and is a good example to others on welfare. Most people no matter how much they had it would never be enough but this simply can't happen if you are on welfare. People should be grateful that they live in a country that supports them as well as it does and stop whinging about it.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    5:39pm
    "I am a millionaire " (much mirth) (rofl emoticon implied)...

    Oh - in that case we have no need to hear your views here, since you know and understand nothing of the issues for the majority of people.

    Thank you for coming.
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    9:33pm
    People should STOP justifying immoral conduct, OG. NOBODY has a moral right to a pension after wasting money or being lazy. Why has this Pixapd character got no money? Such a frugal person should be loaded - whether retired or baby boomer. Is he/she a cheat or a manipulator?

    What I am NOT grateful for is that we live in a country that over-indulges cheats, bludgers and spendthrifts and takes from people who worked their guts out and saved. It's WRONG and no amount of BS from you can make it right.
    PIXAPD
    4th Aug 2016
    9:06am
    YOU assumers do bring MIRTH to me, ha ha ha. BUT Old Geezer seems to be the only one among you lot who can think
    PIXAPD
    3rd Aug 2016
    12:23pm
    I can get a train, go to Sydney, get a ferry to Manly, have a look around and lunch, ferry back, maybe get a train to somewhere else...then after all that train back home and all for $2:50. Pay no licence fee, no registration fee, discounts on gas and power, etc etc. So why wouldn't a pensioner save money???
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    12:40pm
    I repeat my statement above. Non-pensioners DON'T escape license fees, registration costs and many other discounts, and certainly DON'T get rent assistance. Your gloating is vile, Pixapd. You are bludging off savers who are suffering for their frugality, and spitting on them while stealing from them. The people YOU condemn are funding your lifestyle. Bow down and THANK them instead of gloating and insulting.
    PIXAPD
    3rd Aug 2016
    12:57pm
    Rainey does not know that folks on NEWSTART also get rent assistance, back to the drawing board for such a one
    PIXAPD
    3rd Aug 2016
    1:03pm
    Rainey seems also to have missed this article is concerning the Baby Boomers.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    3:22pm
    I agree it is a great system where pensioners and NSW seniors can travel for a mere $2.50 day on trains, buses and ferries. You would want to bother with your own transport with that available to you. Keep it up you are an inspiration to many others.
    TREBOR
    3rd Aug 2016
    5:40pm
    You're a 'millionaire' yet you get pension and benefits?

    Thanks for coming - I'm sure the ATO and Colonel C'Link will be pleased to pay you a visit.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Aug 2016
    5:52pm
    It's easy to be a millionaire and get the pension and benefits. All you need is an expensive house.
    Circum
    3rd Aug 2016
    8:10pm
    Your logic is a bit sus Pixapd.You obviously didn't do clear thinking as a subject at school
    Anonymous
    3rd Aug 2016
    9:19pm
    I think it's more than Pixapd's logic that's flawed. There appears to be a lack of moral fibre and integrity here that's more than a little disturbing.
    PIXAPD
    4th Aug 2016
    9:10am
    Oh yes, I am a millionaire....but you fail to understand and assume, you bring much MIRTH by your comments to me about the ATO and Centrelink...hee, hee.
    catsahoy
    8th Aug 2016
    10:44pm
    RAINEY, here is one pensioner who hasn't travelled overseas, or had a holiday ANYWHERE, on top of household bills, it costs me $102 on medications that are not on the pbs, my husband also has bill chemists bills,
    PIXAPD
    4th Aug 2016
    12:51pm
    RENTING is the way to GO......it's fun and you can do as you like....it's also cheap
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    10:03pm
    It's cheap when you bludge on the taxpayers you offend with your insults and chest beating. It's NOT cheap for the hard-workers who are forced to pay for your accommodation, Pixapd.

    No wonder this country is in a mess, when people who won't get off their backsides can drain the public purse and gloat about it.
    PIXAPD
    5th Aug 2016
    9:26am
    NO one is forced to pay anything, taxes are used as needed, the money comes back by way of spending. Of course over my working life I paid tax and was happy to see pensioners get helped.
    Farside
    4th Aug 2016
    2:24pm
    I can't remember a conversation on this site so filled with hyperbole, self-interest, exaggeration, avarice and vitriol as this. Time for many to take a chill pill and retire to count their pennies.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    7:25pm
    Ha ha It's a shame I gave all my pennies away back on 14th February 1966.
    Farside
    4th Aug 2016
    8:47pm
    It seems to be back to the same old avarice battle between the "haves", "wish we haves", "have nots" and the "we're happy with what we've got" tribes. No doubt some "haves" and "wish we haves" are suffering with low returns despite many having benefited from the largesse of the Costello years.

    The "haves" don't care and it's hubris of the "wish we haves" that prevents them from recognising the way out.

    The "have nots" just think life has done hard by them and they want to see everyone reduced to their circumstances in order they be improved.

    The "wish we haves" could have more cash if they were willing to downsize to release equity. Instead by and large they have excuse after excuse why they should be permitted to keep capital for their heirs. Wrought with envy and indignation they then begrudge the "we're happy with what we've gots" for living within their means.

    You can work out who belongs to which tribe.
    old fart
    4th Aug 2016
    9:32pm
    I agree Brian
    This is the last time i will be reading all this BS
    There is more to life than money
    Think more about your family, relatives & friends
    If you haven't got money - Stiff shit
    & If you have - I don't give a shit
    Get a life you mob of whingers
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    10:30pm
    There is more to life than money, but I think the message is being lost in a lot of angst about personal circumstances.

    What we should be focused on is the future of this country and the society we are bequeathing to the next generation.

    The most important gift we can bestow on younger Australians is the gift of security that they will be cared for and respected in their twilight years, and allowed to enjoy the rewards of their hard work, planning and saving. A close secondary concern should be the economic prosperity of the nation generally, and ensuring a respectful and compassionate society in which there is a reasonable level of social and economic equity.

    It's NOT greed or selfishness that drives the complaints of many who don't want to spend their capital. It's valid fear of the future, knowledge of specific future needs, and understanding that it is never in the interests of society to deny people fair reward for effort or to encourage or reward indolence or irresponsibility. It's about standards of fairness - fairness that determines motivation and thus determines the future economic prosperity of the nation.

    It's about what's good for Australia - and what's good for Australia is to ensure just reward for endeavour. Our current system fails to do that, and recent changes grossly compound that failure.

    If reforms focused on income testing, I would support them completely. I have no issue with those who can support themselves being required to do so. And I absolutely support prioritizing ensuring the disadvantaged are adequately supported. But I have a major issue with penalizing people for accruing a savings nest-egg, and wrongfully assuming they don't need it - with no consideration of age, health, accommodation standard, or other important circumstances that influence future need, and no consideration of past experiences that may present special needs or justify special consideration.

    I may be seen as a ''wish we have'' because I object to unfair means tests, but they don't actually affect me, and I'm very content with what I have. I complain about wrongful economic policy, unfair social policy, and flawed decisions that will have damaging long-term effects. You simply cannot send a message to the populace that there is no point in accruing an extra few hundred thousand in savings because you will suffer income loss for doing so and expect the populace to save effectively for retirement.

    If we continue to applaud tax minimization and progress the transference of the burden of keeping the country running to a select few battling retirees, those unfairly burdened will structure their affairs to avoid unfairness and the costs of funding retirement will skyrocket. It's simple logic. You can't bash someone and expect them to come back for more!

    If retirement incomes are falling, consumption is falling, profits are falling, jobs are declining, and tax revenue is falling. (And we know that is so!) So falling retirement incomes are a problem we should all be deeply concerned about, and it often has nothing whatever to do with personal circumstances. Some of us CARE about others.

    If we united to stand up for the rights of retirees, without all this bickering and nastiness and self-interest and envy, but with RESPECT, we might actually drive reform that would deliver improved economic prosperity and a higher standard of living for all.
    Farside
    4th Aug 2016
    10:57pm
    Retirees had every opportunity to stand up and be counted only a few weeks ago. We get the governments we deserve.

    Any economist can tell you changes need to be made but vested interests use their resources to derail reforms that adversely affect them regardless of social benefits. Look at the outcry over banks not passing on interest rate cuts; they could be paying more in interest to investors if interest rate for borrowing were higher.

    It is not rocket science to remove the CGT concession on shares, unpopular but it should be done as it distorts the market.

    Negative gearing should be restricted to deduction against income from the same asset class.

    GST should be applied across the board, no exceptions.

    Tax thresholds should be adjusted to provide for a national wage.

    Couples should be treated as singles for calculation of benefits – what is difference between a mother and daughter living together compared to a husband and wife?

    Ken Henry report has a heap of recommendations not implemented. We need to have more world competitive manufacturing capability.

    And that is just for starters.

    We would be still manufacturing cars if deductibility was limited to Australian built vehicles.
    Anonymous
    6th Aug 2016
    7:50am
    You make a lot of sense, Brian. Obviously a thinker. And yes, retirees did have the opportunity to stand up and be counted. What is sad is that selfish, egocentric people (and we see several of them here) don't care about anything but their own circumstances.

    We have the chest-beating ''self-funded'' claiming entitlement and ignoring the fact that they are taxpayer-funded through obscenely over-generous tax concessions, while the less well-off have to struggle with minimal or no government assistance at any stage.

    And then we have the gloating ''entitled'' pensioner who wasted their wages and now bludges on the taxpayer and gloats about living well of a far higher income than many who struggled to save can ever enjoy.

    Very few here seem to acknowledge injustice or unfairness, much less care about the rights of victims.

    Goodness, one even claims a parent's spending on help for their special disabled child should be restricted, yet asserts that people who enjoyed world trips and expensive restaurant dinners should be taxpayer-supported and people who just want to help their disabled grandson or pay for eye surgery or dental care in old age should be deprived.

    No doubt OG would also support the absurd notion that wills should indulge drug addicts, alcoholics and no-hopers and punish the offspring who live responsibly, save, and care for Mum and Dad in their old age?

    We've become a nation of bleeding hearts supporting the whingers, the spendthrifts, the bludgers, cheats, manipulators and the irresponsible, while over-indulging the privileged, and slaughtering the LIFTERS who keep this country running. And you simply CANNOT do that without causing economic collapse.

    Every society should have a strong social safety net and a generous system of protection for the sick, the disabled, the unemployed, and those who face genuine crisis. And that's where the hand-outs should stop.

    Put taxes up for high income earners, close the ridiculous loopholes, and properly reward the battlers whose hard work and responsible living has the capacity - if they are not bashed and robbed - to restore the economy to health.
    Farside
    6th Aug 2016
    8:19am
    @Rainey, I don't think you would find much opposition to your stated principles like "Every society should have a strong social safety net and a generous system of protection for the sick, the disabled, the unemployed, and those who face genuine crisis. And that's where the hand-outs should stop." Likewise to "closing the ridiculous loopholes"; maybe taxes would not need to go up for high income earners if we actually recovered more in general taxation.

    No doubt there has been injustices and unfairness and there are issues with children removed from families but those are unrelated to these principles or the article itself, which discusses perceived declines in the standard of living for boomers.

    And just as there would be little opposition to your statement, I think you would find little opposition to mate OG's view on the choice faced by self-funded retirees – "I really can't see why a lot of retirees will be struggling on half the income of the pension. If their pension has been reduced then they must have substantial assets and I can't see why they can use them to make up any shortfall. People need to stop hoarding money and spend it instead."

    Take the agro out of the conversation and you find more in common than not so far as boomer living standards go. For the rest you need a broader conversation as addressing boomer living standards is not a panacea for all social ills.
    Old Geezer
    6th Aug 2016
    6:24pm
    Rainey the biggest proportion of dug addicts are those addicted to prescription poisons. GP had them out like lollies to children so that they get people will come back for more.

    Take away the CGT exemption and people will not invest in growth investments. Why would you take the risk and have to share so much of it with the government and inflation? Not much left for the mug investor here.

    Increase GST and black market will also increase. The food barter market will also thrive with a GST on food. I can't see it would be good for education and health either.

    Have you wondered why our best people head overseas? They get better paying jobs and pay less tax. That's why the top tax rates need to be a lot lower. Higher tax rates also feed clever accountants and tax professionals.

    Yes I am self funded and with only a small amount in super I didn't get much in the way of tax concessions from the government. I have been self employed most of my life and as such have not put money into super simply because I'd rather pay the extra tax and not be constrained by the rules governing what I can do with super.

    If you are not entitled to welfare Rainey why are you defending those who are? Especially those who shouldn't be getting welfare. The way you are whinging about the new assets test coming 2017 it is not hard to see that it must be a problem to you. Time to move with the goal posts and rearrange your affairs like I do.

    My biggest beef is that people in Australia today now have a welfare mentality and that is not good for our future at all. Why work when you don't really have to mentality. I have a disabled son who should be on welfare but he has a normal job and is so proud of himself. OK he gets into bother at times but we work though it together and it all eventually works out for him.
    Anonymous
    8th Aug 2016
    9:53am
    OG, you seem to have a major comprehension problem. I'm agreeing that we have a welfare mentality BECAUSE WE PUNISH WORK AND SAVING AND REWARD INDOLENCE AND WASTE.

    Moving the goal posts for pensioners to hurt those who saved, but now have minimal income, was cruel and destructive. But people earning $70,000 a year still get pensions, as do many with substantial assets AND big incomes. So the premise isn't need, and the system isn't fairer than it was.

    We needed pension reform. I agree with that. But we needed FAIR AND CONSTRUCTIVE reform that recognized the need to encourage and reward battlers who worked hard and saved well.

    And full markets to your disabled son. My daughter spends heavily on her disabled child precisely in the hope that he, too, will be ABLE to work and be self-supporting. But you criticize her for that.
    PIXAPD
    5th Aug 2016
    9:42am
    I'm a happy little pensioner
    As happy as can be
    I paid taxes all my life
    Now I'm getting pension free

    And when I pay some back in rent
    To the Govt that gave
    I am entilted to have fun
    And a little rave... HA HA
    Jolly
    5th Aug 2016
    10:09am
    Ok I have read most of the posts on here and to be honest they are a bit lame. We have just had an election that stuffed the two majors. Because many people voted for others. The Libs lost a massive amount of seats and now only hold a 1 seat majority. But the big plus was the number of new Senators. They are the people all you whingers should be writing to with all your tales of woe. I have not retired yet but hope to soon. So get the emails going to the New Senators - the saviours of Australian legitimate Pensioners!!!
    Jolly
    5th Aug 2016
    10:09am
    Ok I have read most of the posts on here and to be honest they are a bit lame. We have just had an election that stuffed the two majors. Because many people voted for others. The Libs lost a massive amount of seats and now only hold a 1 seat majority. But the big plus was the number of new Senators. They are the people all you whingers should be writing to with all your tales of woe. I have not retired yet but hope to soon. So get the emails going to the New Senators - the saviours of Australian legitimate Pensioners!!!
    PIXAPD
    5th Aug 2016
    11:18am
    A person on the full pension, with supplements and rent assistance, can live really good and still save up to $8000 a year
    Rodent
    5th Aug 2016
    12:48pm
    PIXAPD

    A question please- are you talking about a Single Non Home owning Pensioner Couple, or do you mean a Single Non Home owner Pensioner, and are you speaking about today's Pension rates , or the Pension that will apply after 1 Jan 2017?
    PIXAPD
    5th Aug 2016
    1:35pm
    Single, NON home owner, at todays rate of $1004.30 f/night
    Of course the better a person wants to live and spend the less saved, that is the individuals business. I'm pointing out what others have told me, it can be done. and shows a safe 'buffer' can be obtained to meet any unexpected event where an expense might be needed. Self funded retirees and those on the Aged pension have different life styles I suppose.
    Supernan
    5th Aug 2016
    11:20am
    Yes the war on retirees should end. Its been nothing but stress for us since we retired. As war baies, not Baby Boomers, we thought our future was all sorted. Didnt allow for GFC, low interest, having to pay out super to staff, changes to asset testing, fear of homes being classed as assets. And still the Gov pays huge tax free amounts to big companies, give people who earned millions in wages tax cuts to put money into their own super, allows huge companies to divert profits into tax havens & pay no tax !
    fish head
    5th Aug 2016
    12:20pm
    Stop changing the rules. Let them stand for a reasonable interval and THEN change them if necessary.
    MD
    5th Aug 2016
    5:57pm
    Yes, thankyou Brian. Your post @ 10.57 on the 4th pretty much addresses the issue. Most the remainder are dreamers, schemers or creamers.
    Also, I am not aware of any reference in the constitution as regards "inheritance" for family relatives either immediate or extended.
    Judging by the response within, it might seem as though most folk expect to live forever. Just how long do they think their beneficiaries are prepared to wait for their overvalued homes, accounts, investments, shares or anything else that they most seem to place far too much value on ? Yet the same avaricious souls squeal the minute interest rates slide, their pension's reduced, shares devalued or the deeming rate is changed. One wonders whether their sense of inner direction and purpose is lost in maintaining their status quo rather than enjoying the few precious years remaining.
    Dare I say I think PIXAPD is, in all probability, far happier & content with his/her lot than the majority of the self righteous mob - baying for his blood.
    Farside
    5th Aug 2016
    6:17pm
    Dreamers, schemers, creamers ... I like it.
    PIXAPD
    6th Aug 2016
    10:09am
    Money will never bring contentment, but being content with the things you have is good, and Godliness with contentment is great gain. And chasing after money is a waste of time and energy, for you shall die and anther shall spend it. thus having food, clothing and shelter, be content.

    No amount of worry or anxiousness is going to alter anything, each day is enough. All I was doing by comment, was to show that you do not need a fortune to live happy and that a person on the Aged pension can save some, now if some folks are not happy about me saying that, then I suppose that's their problem, not mine...I just go on saving and thanking God each day.

    But I will say this, giving gifts to charity will increase your wealth, it's a spiritual truth, for God is no mans debtor and he repays those who give, by many blessings.
    Old Geezer
    6th Aug 2016
    6:30pm
    I have found the more I give the more I receive back in return. Simple things like donating my excess produce to the needy or leaving another for a cup of coffee for someone not having a good day at a coffee shop.

    The less I worry about money the more abundant my life becomes.

    I am not concerned about leaving anything for my kids but I really can't see myself spending it all in the time I have left so what will be will be.
    ex PS
    7th Aug 2016
    1:56pm
    MD, I find it hard to believe that someone who is content with his lot can be so judgmental about his fellow human beings, such criticism as his is usually put forward by those who are in some way envious.
    Surely someone who is truly content does not feel the need to be so vocal about it?
    Circum
    6th Aug 2016
    5:51pm
    Pixapd.If you are content and having fun as you say you are and are a charitable person as you say you are,then maybe you should consider refunding the $8000 taxpayers are providing you in excess of your requirements.I am sure hospitals could use the extra money.
    PIXAPD
    6th Aug 2016
    8:11pm
    Perhaps the Govt could cut back the aged pension and DSP rate by a THIRD, and use that money to build Affordable living for them to rent
    ...that would be a good idea.
    Circum
    6th Aug 2016
    11:24pm
    I prefer you refunded the $8000 of taxpayers money.Or has money suddenly become important to you? Pixapd
    PIXAPD
    7th Aug 2016
    7:09am
    Being wise in budgeting is a blessing.
    Anonymous
    8th Aug 2016
    9:46am
    I agree with Circum. Others have different needs to you Pixapd and may well need the pension at its current level for valid reasons (eg. needing disability aids, home care or maintenance help, expensive medicines, travel to specialists, etc.)

    Affordable living only helps a small minority - many of whom were too irresponsible to provide for themselves. Why should a large number suffer to benefit a very small number whose needs may be less genuine?

    I think you are being very self-serving, Pixapd. The world is a big and diverse place. YOU are only one tiny spec in a vast ocean, and it would be very, very wrong for anyone to assume the world should be changed to suit you and disregard the needs and rights of millions. I can't fathom how anyone could be so arrogant as to make such a suggestion.
    Anonymous
    8th Aug 2016
    9:47am
    PS. You must have become wise in budgeting very late in life, otherwise you would NOT be a pensioner getting rent assistance now. Obviously you were wildly extravagant and wasteful earlier in life. (Of course some have valid claims of crisis or disadvantage creating their late-life needs - and they have my respect and sympathy - but your arrogance suggests you not among them.)
    PIXAPD
    8th Aug 2016
    4:41pm
    Well, that got a few BITES...I never said anything should change for me or anyone...but it got a FEW BITES. ha ha. Now folks, just do the Census tomorrow night and don't forget to add your name.