New package could encourage older Australians to sell the family home

New package could encourage older Australians to sell the family home.

New package could incentivise older Australians to sell the family home

A new package expected to be announced in the 2017 Budget may provide new incentives for retirees to downsize and help to redress housing affordability issues for younger families.

The Federal Government may create some leeway in the Age Pension assets test and the existing caps on superannuation that would ease penalties on those who gain a windfall from selling the family home.

The new rules could allow retirees to put sale proceeds from a primary residence into super without suffering a loss of the Age Pension. By incentivising more older Australians to move home, this could potentially release around 50,000 properties to the market each year.

Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison maintains that the rules will not be designed to force older Australians from their homes, rather, that they will simply remove disincentives to sell their homes and move to more practical residences.

The Budget package will also include measures to increase existing supplies of housing for older Australians, such as retirement communities, so they won’t have to move far from their current community.

The changes to super rules may include lifting the $100,000 annual non-concessional contribution cap, that will come into effect from 1 July this year – but only for people over a certain age who sell their family home.

It is believed that the Government is also reviewing how the $1.6 million lifetime cap could be amended, as well as how boosted super balances as a result of a house sale would affect Age Pensions. Rules that could be adjusted for retirees who downsize may be implemented.

The idea for change came after the Government received a report from the Productivity Commission which showed that an estimated 15 per cent of older Australians wanted to move to smaller homes, but couldn’t because of the existing rules.

Read more at The Australian


Opinion: Finally, a Government incentive that addresses the issues facing ordinary retirees

Having spent the years before compulsory superannuation paying down their mortgage to own their own home, baby boomers often find themselves asset rich yet cash poor. The plan to sell off the family home, buy something smaller and live off what’s left is often thwarted by the fees associated with buying and selling, and the amount actually needed to buy a smaller, often sought-after unit in their local area.

To make matters worse, what little cash they add to the bank that may make living in retirement possibly more affordable, they lose what Age Pension they had. This puts them right back to square one or worse off than when they started the downsizing process.

Over the years, there have been a few schemes considered to help older Australians downsize – stamp duty concessions was once such an assistance program – and a Government-backed equity release another. However, on the face of it, this current plan from the Government seems to have all angles covered.

Not only will older Australians be able to move to a home that is more manageable, any money they do manage to release from their home would actually be able to be used to either boost their super in a tax-effective manner, or not count against their Age Pension. And if something can be done to limit stamp duty, all the better.

Of course, the intended outcome is that houses will become more affordable for those trying to get their foot on the rung of the country’s hot property ladder. Whether this will actually come to fruition remains to be seen.

What do you think? Do you think this is a good idea? Would you like to see any further incentives added?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    10:41am
    Choice-mobile, son - that's what it's all about! If a pensioner/pensioner couple CHOOSE to down-size, that is their prerogative; if they CHOOSE to remain in their chosen home, that is their prerogative. As adults they can work things out so that it best suits them, and I, for one, am way of government offering any 'incentive' these days, for the simple reason that this is often the precursor to a move to - "Oh, well - if we can't encourage you with the velvet glove, we'll slug you with the iron hand", so we get what we want from you - which is that you open up the housing market to suit our policies and to cover our failure in house OWNERSHIP as opposed to investment by putting your nice big family home on the market. Of course, if we and our mates in the 'housing investment' racket get a free shot at your property... all the better.

    Beware of Freaks Bearing Grift.......
    HarrysOpinion
    14th Mar 2017
    11:06am
    TREBOR- There is insufficient in-depth information provided in the article to appreciate this "new" idea, but I like your warning because, it is very true.
    Farside
    14th Mar 2017
    11:26am
    I think the idea has potential but I fear it could just as easily be reversed when sufficient homes have been released. Bandaid approaches are inadequate to heal are broken pension system. It's time we looked at the three pillar system adopted by Sweden.
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2017
    12:01pm
    Has potential, yet, but what of those who have already downsized and are suffering? Will they be given concessions, or discriminated against because they downsized before the cruel assets test change was announced? (I doubt many would have downsized after it was announced. Upsized more likely!)
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    12:59pm
    Rainey people suffering because they have a wad of cash after downsizing? More like enjoying their lives and having money for those things on their bucket list.
    GeorgeM
    14th Mar 2017
    1:24pm
    I agree with your sentiments, Trebor and Rainey. Who can trust this Govt for planning their future, as they can simple change the rules again later?

    Much better to pay all the full Pension (if they have paid taxes for say 20 years in Australia), and tax all income above that. Then older people can also sell their homes without any fear of affecting their pensions.

    For housing affordability for younger people - get rid of Overseas (mainly Chinese) investors being allowed to buy property here, and limit use of negative gearing to only 1 property - and you will have a more sensible property market with prices Australians can afford - simple!
    HarrysOpinion
    14th Mar 2017
    2:04pm
    There is merit to your comment George -Of the Sydney foreign buyers' club, Chinese make up 33 percent of that group, followed by the UK and Kiwis at 11 percent and 10 percent from India.

    Source- http://www.msn.com/en-au/money/homeandproperty/rise-in-foreign-buyers-and-mothballing-heats-up-sydney-property-market/ar-AAohFHh?li=AA54Gb&ocid=spartandhp
    Rosret
    14th Mar 2017
    4:02pm
    Yes, Trebor I can see it coming too.
    There are so many reasons for not downsizing despite the government seeing it as an opportunity to reduce pension payouts.
    1. You have the required infrastructure in close proximity.
    2. You probably have some family close by.
    3. You have a house large enough to help your children out or to receive visitors if required.
    4. You have an inheritance for your children - and this is a significant buffer for the next generation who will not have enough super.
    5. The apartment market is on a different scale to the house market and it be likely you will receive very little extra cash after the sale of the family home.
    6. A family home has no body corporate fees that escalate over time nor does an elderly person have to deal with the theatrics of the body corporate executive.
    7. An apartment is often small and up several flights of stairs. 40 years ago we seemed to be able to afford ground floor homes.
    8. The sale of the family home will most likely benefit developers who are dividing land and building minuscule apartments that are not big enough for a family at massive prices. Our children don't win with that one.
    9. The massive apartment blocks that are replacing the family home are already purchased off the plan with Chinese investors at minimal interest rates.
    Come on guys in government - look at what you are doing to our children!
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2017
    4:18pm
    Something of some importance has not been addressed. It all looks rosy the way it is presented but what about the penalty for those who make a lot of money on the downsizing? Did I miss the part where assets can be waived for downsizers? Super becomes an asset after it starts to be used to assist retirement. It may be possible for someone downsizing to lose their age pension. I hope I'm wrong.
    Rosret
    14th Mar 2017
    7:43pm
    No old man that is exactly what will happen. So the little old lady living in her run down house in the seedy side of town and struggling to survive would sell her home for the land value and move into a tiny apartment and no longer qualify for the pension.
    Wow - that is cruel.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2017
    9:07am
    There you go again, OG, making a total ASS of yourself with your ASS-U-MEs. Many who downsized had absolutely no intention of going on a spending spree. They planned their retirement to cater to their known future needs and leave a healthy margin of savings for unexpected health issues, home maintenance needs, or other potential crisis. And then they had the rug pulled out from under them and were cruelly screwed over by a dishonest government.

    You always rant about people you know nothing about and you are ALWAYS WRONG. Why don't you just shut the hell up? You are making a fool of yourself and just about everyone here finds you extremely offensive.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2017
    9:07am
    There you go again, OG, making a total ASS of yourself with your ASS-U-MEs. Many who downsized had absolutely no intention of going on a spending spree. They planned their retirement to cater to their known future needs and leave a healthy margin of savings for unexpected health issues, home maintenance needs, or other potential crisis. And then they had the rug pulled out from under them and were cruelly screwed over by a dishonest government.

    You always rant about people you know nothing about and you are ALWAYS WRONG. Why don't you just shut the hell up? You are making a fool of yourself and just about everyone here finds you extremely offensive.
    Old Geezer
    16th Mar 2017
    12:13pm
    Mmmm so you don't like me telling it how it is Rainey.
    TREBOR
    18th Mar 2017
    12:55am
    No - just telling it how you see it. We all have an absolute grasp on reality here....... that's why opinions and POV are so different.... the Great Philosopher George Dubbye Bush said it would take time to restore chaos... chaos is the way things normally are, so he was 100% correct, in that restoring order would mean restoring chaos to its proper function and place......

    Get with the program here....
    Anonymous
    20th Mar 2017
    4:15pm
    You don't tell it like it is, OG. You tell it how your warped, bigoted and very mean and nasty mind imagines it is.
    Rosscoe
    14th Mar 2017
    10:43am
    Perhaps this cheating federal government can repay the $4,000 it ripped off me in January 2016 after it changed the superannuation rules. No applause from me!!
    Mad as Hell
    14th Mar 2017
    12:08pm
    I feel your pain also.
    thommo
    14th Mar 2017
    1:09pm
    Me too Rosscoe. I'll never ever trust this mob again, whatever they promise in the future...How could anyone be so stupid as to trust them again....
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    2:41pm
    I too feel your pain every year when I have to pay my tax.
    Rae
    14th Mar 2017
    3:05pm
    I'd be wary of having any funds that could be suddenly "deemed" something made up. Who can trust any government that makes it up as they go changing rules for people with no options. Once sold you can't often get back in and if they betray the deal then you'd be stuck.
    al
    14th Mar 2017
    10:44am
    "New package could incentivise older Australians to sell the family home".

    Shame on you! Incentivise is NOT an english (australian) word. Lets not go down the Americal path please
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    1:44pm
    More like 'de-sensitive' older Australians to being beaten about the head, methinks.....

    (ain't I a cynic? Bite my ass once - more fool me - bite my ass twice and be prepared to be bitten)....
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    1:46pm
    Sorry - that was 'de-sensitise'..... I blame spell check for all the ills of modern society.... the idea was to gast-house all pensioners, immigrants, unemployed etc, not gas-house them.....
    Travelling Man
    14th Mar 2017
    10:51am
    I take anything this completely out of touch "Government" says with a grain of salt! If they care to look at the weekend electoral result for their pals in the West these parasites will glimpse what is in store for them at the next Federal poll.
    thommo
    14th Mar 2017
    1:44pm
    I agree with you travelling man...
    fearlessfly
    14th Mar 2017
    11:19am
    Two things they need to do to make this any sort of option:
    1. Totally remove Stamp Duty from this process
    2. Reduce the cost of houses by 50%
    Ergo - it ain't gonna happen at this place, I'm going to rattle around in my 5 bedroom house until I die !
    Rosret
    14th Mar 2017
    7:54pm
    My son put forward an idea. Determine the median price value on all homes by location. Tax anyone who sells their home above the CPI and give rebates to anyone who sells below the CPI.
    ...might work.
    At the moment I am seeing outrageous strategies of "dutch auction" sales where you have no idea who you are bidding against and how much you need to bid to win a purchase in a short supply market. It is nothing but inflationary.
    Rae
    16th Mar 2017
    8:47am
    Interesting Roscret. Historically we are in a huge bubble and the speculation you are witnessing is part of it. Money is far too easy with the trillions of debt trying to find a home.

    Best to keep out of it for a while, keep saving and keep your money ready.

    Something will give. Possibly the interest rises forcing sales. The Bond market is decidedly skittish and the bulls are roaring up Wall Street.

    My son managed to buy a brilliant estate in Noosa during the last correction at discount from a forced seller who needed cash for a margin call.

    These markets reward the patient eventually.

    Rent in Sydney or Melbourne. Buy in the foothills for the grandkids.
    midnight
    14th Mar 2017
    11:21am
    I have been waiting (fearfully) to see whether we would be punished or encouraged. I am trying to sell my home but am still uncertain of what actual punishment I will receive for down sizing... I worked for years to pay off my home, no real holidays for 40 of those years... I am moderate in my spending, but I sometimes think I should have just partied out and blown it all.. We need more concrete evidence or at least to be directed to either an individual or a government department that will give us solid answers as to how the Government will hit us, and I am sure they will... But I would love to be surprised by something positive...
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    12:48pm
    If there's a way for government to view any 'windfall' of yours from your own efforts over a lifetime etc as a profit that means you must lose something, they'll find it.

    Pity the same rules don't apply to them as well.
    Rosret
    14th Mar 2017
    8:01pm
    If you downsize and convert your housing asset into cash which then results in your assess-able assets being over the pension threshold you will lose out.
    It may be better to ask your children if they will pay for a gardener and cleaner in exchange for a more sizable inheritance at days end.
    mogo51
    14th Mar 2017
    11:22am
    Well I think this is a good plan. I recently did a costing for a friend who was thinking of doing the very same thing and his costs were prohibitive via Stamp Duty, Taxes etc.
    Anything that will help the younger generation to achieve home ownership without causing pensioners distress is welcome IMO.
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    11:57am
    a. Depends on who buys these homes - investors or young couples.

    b. While ever we have politicians who are deeply into investment housing, they should not be permitted to create any open-ended rules as regards house sale/purchasing.

    Perhaps this raises the issue of:- Should such sold homes be open ONLY to new home buyers, and zero investors?

    Investment is one major reason for the 'shortage' of available homes to young and some old.
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    12:51pm
    Got a 'rellie' here today - a tradie doing some work for us - and he's thinking of down-sizing and doing some traveling... I keep saying :- "Never lose your capital"... an old maxim of the US New England 'old money' set. If he buys a Windbag - it won't return full value, and if he sells his house to buy a Windbag..... he's exchanging an increasing asset for a diminishing one...

    Not a good idea to me. Hang on for a couple more years and see where you go.....
    tia-maria
    14th Mar 2017
    11:29am
    I would be very concern regarding Mr Morrison as he always has an hidden a gender and not for the best interest for us
    Strummer
    14th Mar 2017
    11:29am
    I smell a rat!
    Triss
    14th Mar 2017
    11:50am
    More like a few rats!!
    TREBOR
    18th Mar 2017
    12:57am
    A plague of rats.....
    Teddy
    14th Mar 2017
    11:32am
    I doubt this will reduce the costs of houses but it will increase the stock of family homes available for purchase in established suburbs.
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    1:31pm
    Question is by whom.................... FAMILIES or investors both foreign and domestic (as the oath goes to defend against enemies both foreign and domestic - just saying)....

    Maybe a percentage of homes should be quarantined for new ownership as a HOME - not as an investment - maybe NG etc should only apply to block housing, units etc, which are clearly for investment purposes and have long been.... whereas houses traditionally were built to be homes....................
    grounded
    14th Mar 2017
    11:33am
    What a truly first rate Treasurer Australia is fortunate to have in Mr. Morrison.....and I don't even vote for the LNP.

    Older aged Australian will not be forced to sell their properties, though if they do, no disincentive penalties shall a apply. How much better does it get than that!? A real choice at last....backed by the continually demonstrated sincerity of Mr. Turnbull's Government!

    I'm off to luxuriate in the comforting thought God is watching out for us...in the form of Mr. Morrison's credible hand being on the Treasury tiller, and..... have myself a Cooper's....
    Rosscoe
    14th Mar 2017
    11:43am
    LOL!!!!
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    11:51am
    Your tongue-in-cheek comment is roundly applauded.
    grounded
    14th Mar 2017
    11:58am
    Tah Trebor....only the fortunate, and a select few of us can see the mountains..... beyond the foothills.
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    1:49pm
    I can see the mountains from the back room and soon-to-be deck out there... foothills of the Great Dividing Range.... and a single mountain out front.....

    14th Mar 2017
    11:44am
    Ok if we downsize where are the 50000 smaller home going to come from. and as for trusting
    Scott Morrison or any of the others in the current governments one would have to be crazy.
    Although I don't agree with everything Pauline says and she is the only alternative to get us back on track by cutting immigration cutting foreign aid and improving our infrastructure like hospitals water supply etc then we can look at more emigrants .By cutting the intake of Muslims who come here and wont integrate and depend on and think it is there right to get welfare we would save billions
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    1:31pm
    Plenny of lan' available roun' Broken Hill, Bro.....
    Triss
    14th Mar 2017
    11:45am
    Are we about to be duped again by government? If 15 per cent of older Australians want to move house that means that 85 per cent don't want to move. Also, promises from government are largely useless so build those smaller houses first and then ask pensioners to move.
    Why are retirees the first port of call when government hits a problem? Why are the elderly being targeted to help solve the shortage of housing when it is the government's responsibility to ensure more homes are built? And you can guarantee that the larger homes the elderly move from will be bought up by investors and dropped into the rental pool.
    To practically imply that our elderly are the cause of widespread homelessness is offensive to the point of vilification, Morrison needs set his sights on the MPs and ex MPs who have corralled so many negatively geared properties into their portfolios and shake them loose.
    Just as a matter of interest, how many rooms are empty in Malcolm Turnbull's multi million dollar home. At the age of 62 perhaps he should be told to move into a smaller establishment or a retirement community.
    GeorgeM
    14th Mar 2017
    1:32pm
    Absolutely agree, Triss - who would trust them any way?
    First, all rules for Pensions for Politicians past and present) should be made exactly same as for other people, before they tinker with the system for others. I have further (constructive) comments against the 1st Comment above.
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    1:50pm
    Perhaps retired politicians should be required to sell down their assets before they can pull their 'pension' for life indexed. Same rules as some advocate here for the Average Joe and Jo....
    Triss
    14th Mar 2017
    4:24pm
    George, I agree with your earlier suggestions about overseas investors. Where I live there are a load of high rises and you can see in the evenings there are only a handful of lights on in the units, all the rest are empty. They would house a good proportion of homeless folk except that because they are investments for overseas buyers the prices seem to be higher than average.
    franky
    14th Mar 2017
    11:46am
    That was the plan we have since I hit the age of 60. I'm scouting for a smaller home but then I just found out it doesn't make a difference. Value wise.. It cost almost the same, be it small or big house.. what little you get from the difference will not last you till tomb's day. Now I'm 67 working overseas cause my super is gone to pay up my house and with the help of my current employer from overseas. I hope to rest my aching muscle at 70.. hoping my government pension will last me till tomb's day.
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    11:59am
    We (the ex for whom I am carer and I) are renovating to suit her disabilities. How then do we sell to move to a smaller accommodation that has the same facilities? Will we, in future, be punished in some way for not down-selling?

    Just an issue for aging persons....
    Not a Bludger
    14th Mar 2017
    11:55am
    Got the frightners, have they?

    Trying to win back all of those retirees that they shafted in recent times, are they?

    Realisation that Turnbull is incompetent and politically hopeless finally setting in, is it?

    Let's hope so.
    Mawsk
    14th Mar 2017
    11:58am
    Absolutely correct Triss, worded brilliantly.
    Knight Templar
    14th Mar 2017
    12:02pm
    It is not evident from the article that house proceeds placed in a super fund will be totally exempt from the current asset test in determining pension benefits. The article does state that pensioners would not suffer a loss, nevertheless, the devil is in the detail.

    Until legislation is introduced clearly providing such an exemption, I would remain sceptical of such promises.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    12:16pm
    If the proceeds are placed in a super fund and that super fund is in pension mode then those assets under current rules will not be exempt.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    12:16pm
    If the proceeds are placed in a super fund and that super fund is in pension mode then those assets under current rules will not be exempt.
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    12:44pm
    Thank you, OG - that settles that.
    Rae
    14th Mar 2017
    4:48pm
    Legislation regarding superannuation and retirement rules changes constantly. You can no longer base decisions on current legislation and hope it holds.
    Mad as Hell
    14th Mar 2017
    12:04pm
    Negative gearing is the problem. Stop blaming pensioners.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    12:25pm
    Nope it's not negative gearing that is the problem as negative gearing eventually catches up when properties are sold. It's all those vacant properties that just sit there waiting for a capital gain.
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    1:33pm
    Hmm - doesn't really 'catch up', OG - since Capital Gains are concessional.... I doubt the indexed value of NG is actually recovered through CGT.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    6:22pm
    Negative gearing comes off the cost base of your property and you eventually pay CGT on it. Indexing has not been available for a long time now.
    Rosret
    14th Mar 2017
    8:09pm
    It isn't negative gearing. Investors aren't even going via the bank. The land is being taken up by developers and the homes and apartments with superannuation savings.
    The government needs to take their fingers out of the superannuation pie and let people deposit more than the $560K.
    Surely it is more important to let our children buy homes and we oldies have independent super that we can count on. That way no one is asking the government for help.
    Mad as Hell
    16th Mar 2017
    12:25pm
    Yes Old Geezer negative gearing in the problem.
    This is part of an article from SMH.



    The analysis from NAB shows median dwelling prices have climbed up to nine times higher than gross household incomes in Sydney and seven times higher in Melbourne on the back of surging investor demand.

    CoreLogic head of research Tim Lawless said despite record low rental yields, investor demand remained high, suggesting investors are likely to be relying on a negative gearing strategy to compensate for their losses.

    Housing finance figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics released on Friday showed that investors now make up more than half of new mortgages across NSW.
    Ny19
    18th Mar 2017
    10:06am
    That's the real problem in a nutshell Mad as Hell. Why on earth doesn't this government do something about negative gearing? Could it be because many of our pollies are investors?
    Adrianus
    18th Mar 2017
    10:31am
    My view is that Foreign investors should not be allowed to buy res property and should not be allowed to negatively gear their res property. It just doesn't make sense that OZ citizens don't have the same advantage as residents of other countries.
    Let the foreigners invest in Industrial, Commercial?
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    12:14pm
    The problem is too many vacant houses and units as investors don't want people in them as the wear and tear takes away more value than any rent received. We need a tax on vacant houses and units to discourage this.
    KSS
    14th Mar 2017
    12:33pm
    I suspect that many of those vacant houses and units are owned by overseas investors unconcerned with the housing worries of Australians.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    12:43pm
    Many are owned by Australians too who just want to hang onto them for the gain. Renting them out makes them look used and therefore not near as easy to sell.
    Knight Templar
    14th Mar 2017
    12:45pm
    Agree with you Old Geezer. Negative gearing usually catches up when a property is sold by way of capital gains tax ... which is invariably the case in the inflated housing market. This aspect is usually ignored when negative gearing is discussed.
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    12:45pm
    It seems we are all learning the investment property business.. thanks again, OG.
    Triss
    14th Mar 2017
    5:12pm
    Yes, Old Geezer, we do need that tax. Where I live there are literally hundreds of empty units. It must also have a detrimental effect on surrounding businesses as empty apartments don't have people who will spend money with supermarkets, cafes, etc.
    Rosret
    14th Mar 2017
    8:15pm
    Would you include holiday homes as well and people who have gone into hospital for extended care.
    There would have to be some exclusions.
    I had a friend who rented his holiday home and it cost him $30k in repairs. He now just locks it up until he needs it as it broke his heart to see his home ruined.
    Blinky Bill
    14th Mar 2017
    12:50pm
    There is more to "down-sizing" and putting a few bob into your super. How many seniors what to move, which can be stressful. How many want to move away from the neighbours who have become close friends and keep an eye on seniors. How many wish to move away from the convenience of their local shops, library, doctor that they have built a trusting relationship with etc. As people age they tend to stick to their familiar surroundings, so how will moving effect this important part of their lives, or is the almighty dollar the only consideration these days?
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    1:38pm
    Good thinking, BB - the Young Fella here (me at 68 this year) cut the lawn for the Old Couple next door yesterday - he's got Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and is finding it tough...

    Just leave the hard work to them young 'uns... you won't get that kind of service from neighbours in the Big Smoke, you mark my words....

    The neighbours are close to family and friends and are in a good 'support network'.... and golly gee whiz - nobody seems to begrudge them their pension and such.....

    A far cry from the Badlands of Cambra - 'Heart' of the Nation... they should change the number plates to:- "..... of the Nation".
    KSS
    14th Mar 2017
    12:58pm
    For all the squealing that goes on on this site about 'fairness' and 'equity', I am surprised there are no comments pointing out the obvious loophole in this 'proposal'.

    What is the family home and how is it deemed to be so?

    Unless there is a significant term of ownership attached to the 'family home' (say 20 - 30 years), what is to stop someone taking their excess funds out of super (i.e. the amount over $1.6m) to reduce it to under the current cap and retain a government pension, selling the current residence and pooling both monies to purchase a new you bewt McMansion for multi millions. Then wait a year or so, sell the McMansion, 'downsize' and put all the millions back into super with no penalty, no stamp duty, no loss of pension and an increase in the non-concessional contributions limits resulting in a higher amount than the $1.6m in super.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    1:03pm
    I was thinking along similar lines KSS. However there is a bigger incentive with McMansions. They are free from capital gains tax and so help create wealth in wealthy families. Know one family where a pensioner couple live in a beach front penthouse on the Gold Coast so that their wealthy kids have a capital gains free investment.
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    1:40pm
    Good point - there is the possibility of rules to prevent such things... you'd need to be planning a long way ahead to evade the super drawing rules... perhaps a further argument there for a fully removed from grasping hands and minds national super fund run by the same rules for all.

    Just a thought... (bloody socialist)....
    Hawkeye
    14th Mar 2017
    2:27pm
    I think you've hit the nail on the head KSS.

    We definitely need to make a differentiation between a "home" and a "house"
    And it needs to be a common language definition easily understood by the masses, not hidden in "lawyer-speak"

    Trouble is, EVERY time these corrupt politicians (and that means ALL of them) introduce any new legislation about anything they ALWAYS leave loopholes whereby themselves and their rich mates can make a profit at the expense of everybody else. AND I'VE HAD A BLOODY GUT-FULL OF IT!!!!
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    2:43pm
    They are all houses homes are for animals.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    8:14pm
    Not quite what was meant there, OG - a Home is where you buy and set down roots etc (or even rent if you are forced to) - a House is simply a set of walls and roof etc...

    Anyone can be housed in any accommodation - but to build a Home is another thing.... but you already know that.
    thommo
    14th Mar 2017
    1:08pm
    This is just another ploy with smoke and mirrors. Whatever the government's plan, it will cost pensioners. I wouldn't trust this government as far as I can kick them.
    So what if they did say at next budget that you can keep the balance of sale proceeds from a downsize without it affecting your age pension (or part thereof).
    How could you ever trust them that that would be the case, after breaking similar promises after the 2013 election.....
    This mob is never ever to be trusted again.
    PlanB
    18th Mar 2017
    10:17am
    Darn right thommo, you can ALWAYS bet that if they come up with ANY idea it is NOT to benefit anyone but themselves
    older&wiser
    14th Mar 2017
    1:11pm
    Two words that do not go together....Government. and Help. There is not a hope in hell the Govt would be doing this unless it benefits them.
    TREBOR
    14th Mar 2017
    1:42pm
    FDR said it:- "In politics nothing happens by accident - if it happened at all, it was planned that way."

    You can bet your bottom dollar (you may very well be doing so) that any 'cast-iron commitment' would last as long as the next start-up of the Budget Black Hole smelter....
    Triss
    14th Mar 2017
    5:18pm
    Yup, wouldn't trust a politician as far as I could spit in a head-wind.
    Dollars over Respect?
    14th Mar 2017
    1:45pm
    With the current surreptitiously introduced new Strata legislation brought under the radar last November (which basically means strata plan owners have had their property rights taken away from them - i.e. only 75% of strata unit holders need to agree to sell the building to a developer, meaning that the remaining 25% have their property sold out from under them)! Does this mean this State government is looking after retirees who have already downsized? Not at all!! The State government introduced this -undemocratic legislation last November (they did not go to the voting public proposing to do this, nor did they have a mandate to do it. It is now law!! This MUST be reversed!!! This is legislation is a result of pressure from interest groups - such as DEVELOPERS (contributors to the electoral coffers), unemployed architects and designers looking to procure a previously non-existent job for themselves, and big-time investors (knock down an existing building to replace it with a mega-complex with no sense of 'community' - just look at Waterloo - who'd choose to live there? Who in their right mind (who is retired, 'a senior or elderly") would want to? After being convinced to sell their large comfortable, well-located home, and after just getting settled into an apartment this legislation means they can suddenly find they are now being kicked out, displaced, have no voice and not able to afford to buy into a similar area - can anyone seriously consider downsizing from a free-standing home as being a wise decision? The worst possible outcome for elderly people is having to move away from community, family doctor, neighbours (help) and relatives and dealing with massive change to environment - no government body 'cares' they are only looking after self-interests - i.e. profitable decisions for their funding supporters and kick-backs or pay-backs to lobby groups. Give us a break!
    Hawkeye
    14th Mar 2017
    2:08pm
    And which state would that be?

    Are you aware that this country we call Australia is much bigger than just whatever state you may live in?
    KSS
    14th Mar 2017
    2:16pm
    Dollars over Respect, the new Strata Laws in NSW were in process for at least a year if not more and significant consultation was undertake. 'We' had several opportunities to make submission to the Strata Law review and comment on the proposed changes over many months. I know because I did actually make submissions at each stage of public consultation.

    I really can't agree that the eventual new strata laws were brought in "surreptitiously" at all. Yes the 75% sale rule may not seem so great (although it will stop the intransigence of a single owner who refuses to see sense) but the model by laws covering things such as smoking, pets, noise etc are quite good and each strata does have the ability to adopt them or not.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    2:51pm
    I remember years ago I had enough equity in a strata to keep pets out of the whole complex. Best thing I ever did was not allow companion dogs.
    HarrysOpinion
    14th Mar 2017
    4:24pm
    So what penalties exist for owner/ occupier with pets that allow the pets ( dogs, cats) to roam free on common property without supervision that attract other ferral (cats and dogs) to the annoyance of other strata owner/occupiers? In such cases it would not be unreasonable to declare a definite "No" to pets that are allowed to roam free on common property. Allowing pets in strata complex is a stupid and a reckless idea, eventually they will break the by-law noise rules or if it's an escaped python it could kill a baby or an adult. Allowing rental tennant occupiers in to AG meeting is also stupid because they might be disruptive tennants coming to meetings with a "don't give a damn attitude' causing personalty conflicts. I agree with the comment "This is legislation is a result of pressure from interest groups - such as DEVELOPERS (contributors to the electoral coffers), unemployed architects and designers looking to procure a previously non-existent job for themselves" -
    KSS
    14th Mar 2017
    5:56pm
    Oh really HS, tenants have the right to representation ONLY if more than 50% of the strata is rented. They then have to select ONE who can go to the AGM. That one can have a say but DO NOT VOTE. Frankly if a tenant is of the 'don't give a damn' variety they are hardly likely to nominate to represent the others, be elected by the others or turn up on the day are they?

    And you CAN have a by-law that prohibits pets - all pets -just not existing pets. Even with a pet friendly strata you can still prevent any particular pet but you cannot be unreasonable about it. BY LAW you cannot prevent companion animals from anywhere e.g. guidedogs.

    This is all just more scaremongering from both HS and Dollars over Respect. Par for the course here but try to remember this is only their opinions to which they are entitled, not facts they are quoting and evidencing!
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    5:27pm
    OG - yes - those companion dogs are soooo noisy at night etc.... now I KNOW you are a joker here....

    14th Mar 2017
    1:57pm
    Great news
    This government is finally doing something about the elephant in the room
    Well done turnbull
    grounded
    14th Mar 2017
    2:07pm
    ditto
    Rosscoe
    14th Mar 2017
    4:32pm
    About time he actually did something. WA election result has scared the pants off him!
    Migrant
    14th Mar 2017
    2:04pm
    There are some good ideas here, but not much of use to a retiree who has already downsized.
    We sold and moved to a retirement village, and despite being leaseholders, we are deemed to be house owners , and a lower threshold applies. Surely we are non house owners, or can Centrelink make up definitions just to suit themselves regardless of the real position.
    I am reminded of the dictum by GrayJ that a duck is a duck no matter
    whether the parties agree to call it a gander. A lease is a lease no matter that Centrelink would like to call it " freehold".
    Migrant
    Rae
    14th Mar 2017
    3:28pm
    Yes most definitely. Centrelink rules have absolutely nothing to do with the real situation at all in a lot of cases.
    Rosscoe
    14th Mar 2017
    4:36pm
    Excellent point, Migrant. Where does CentreLink come up with these rules? They don't make sense to any reasonable person.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    5:29pm
    Centrelink rules are whatever suits their 'bottom line' most - not yours.
    Sundays
    14th Mar 2017
    2:08pm
    I agree completely with you George. Your ideas make a lot of sense. The problem with this government is that all their ideas appear to have a hidden agenda. In this case, allowing property developers and the wealthy to get their hands on well located housing stock.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    5:30pm
    Absolutely - you'd need to be terminally blind not to see that one coming...
    Dollars over Respect?
    14th Mar 2017
    2:16pm
    Apologies....I should have stated it is NSW state Government that has managed to take away our democratic right from Strata unit holders.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    2:47pm
    Strata title rules needed changing badly and the latest move is a good one.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    8:15pm
    Fascist.....
    floss
    14th Mar 2017
    2:31pm
    Pensioners beware if the new rules are to our advantage it would be a first for this Federal Government please get advice from more than one source. We have to wait for the budget but this mob are not to be trusted they have stuffed up a lot of retirements the short time they have been in power.
    floss
    14th Mar 2017
    2:38pm
    If O.G. thinks it a good idea don't don't even think about it.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    2:44pm
    OG is thinking about the rules and how he can play the game.
    Rae
    14th Mar 2017
    3:26pm
    Is that the ability to put money from a property sale into super even after 65 and not working?
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    7:04pm
    Nope Super is not where I'd put money today.
    Rae
    15th Mar 2017
    10:30am
    I don't put my investment funds and property anywhere near super either Og. Far too much government manipulation and rules etc. Even SMSF are fraught with danger. Better to pay the little bit of tax on amounts earned over $33000 and use fully franked dividends as well.

    In retirement you need a fairly decent income before you pay income tax anyway. I really don't understand the fascination with super for low income earners. It makes no sense. It is compulsory but surely the government realise that a lifetime saving on median income or less will not provide for retirement. The whole thing only works for those on $80 000 or more.

    Do the figures on it OG and you'll see what I mean.
    Old Geezer
    16th Mar 2017
    10:38pm
    Yes Rae I only have about 10% of my wealth in super but it is good as the income is tax free and it continues to grow. I more than max out my tax free threshold every year as well so no sense in drawing it out. I also can't understand why anyone would have everything in super when you can earn some much outside super before you pay any tax. Try explaining it to some people and they think you are stupid.
    Dollars over Respect?
    14th Mar 2017
    2:40pm
    KSS. Whether or not YOU were aware of the proposals, the fact is that the general public was not - especially the majority of those who are adversely impacted - the elderly who should have the same rights as any other property owner. Perhaps it depends upon whether your Strata Management company was well-informed or cared enough to pass on the implications of such an unjust proposal to the Strata he was managing? How can it be OK or justifiable to 'move the goal posts after the game is in play'? It is an undemocratic and un-mandated legislation that entitles more powerful interest groups to combine forces to violate the existing laws and have them changed to their advantage. It was NOT WELL PUBLICISED, just wait and see what is to happen now that groups are getting organised to reverse this political party's dictatorship decisions. An individual's voice and property ownership is as valuable as the next man's (or it used to be) in Australia. This is about removing property rights - for such a law to be manipulated into place is 'wrong'. An individual unit holder has the right to sell his property - so they should, and also an individual should have the right not to sell his property. It's about the wealthy (or current income-earners advantageously) wanting to make more profits. People who want to live in their own home and who don't care about 'greed is good' pursuits have been railroaded by this State of NSW Govt. Don't buy into a strata complex if you want to be able sell and relocate because some people buy to own an affordable HOME, We're not all motivated by greed and profits.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    2:46pm
    Wow we live in constant change so the goal posts move no matter what you do. That is called living.
    KSS
    14th Mar 2017
    3:32pm
    Dollars over Respect, the main aim of the ONE item you are upset about is a sensible one when it comes to ageing buildings. Eventually buildings reach their end by date - the point at which it is no longer financially possible to keep repairing the building. Were it to continue many of the owners in a block could well be financially ruined by extra levies to raise the capital. How would your elderly owner on a full pension be able raise an individual amount of $60,000 to repair concrete cancer throughout the building for example? Selling to a developer allows for a fair price to be paid to each owner and even in some instances a guaranteed unit in the newly built block. Why should the other owners be held to ransom by a single owner as was happening before? Meanwhile failure to sell could well devalue the property for all INCLUDING your elderly pensioner because who would buy into a building with such high repair costs outstanding?

    ALL buildings reach their end date including the the free-standing home on a quarter acre block!
    Rae
    15th Mar 2017
    10:44am
    And remember if you buy into the modern buildings there is no guarantee shoddy materials and concrete have not been used.
    Anything built after around the mid 90s needs a full investigation. I'd want to know who did the build and so forth.
    My father and husband were property developers back in the day and I know our 1980s units are good for quite a while but the complex next door is very shoddy. I've been watching some of the new builds from ground works up and I wouldn't have one if you gave it away.

    All those rules and regulations for the appearance of safety and suspect materials from China.
    Phil1943
    14th Mar 2017
    2:59pm
    Much as we might want to downsize, or not want to for that matter, there's nothing this government will ever do that will make it genuinely easier for us. And just how much good will having another $1.25 million house on the market if you're trying to free up property for first homebuyers? No, whatever this government offers in the way of 'incentives' will be window dressing and won't benefit seniors downsizing.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    3:12pm
    If there is enough of them on the market who is going to have the money to buy them?
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    8:17pm
    Plenty to go around when the market collapses due to the sudden realisation that the whole thing is a bust..... plenty of people will be hurt...
    chris
    14th Mar 2017
    3:26pm
    This sounds great. We made the move nearly 5 years ago into an over 55 retirement village and have not regretted the move. For us it was a sideways slide as far as finances go. However we have seen a lot of people making the move to a village when they should really be moving to aged hostel type accommodation, where there is more assistance for them as they have left the move to late and don't cope with the move as well as they would.
    Mum
    14th Mar 2017
    3:32pm
    We downsized to an off-the-plan apartment, with a stamp duty-free offer. The apartment still cost more than the amount we received from the sale of our house, but we managed it. We would not have been able to do this if the stamp duty had not been waived.

    14th Mar 2017
    3:33pm
    Vote Billy Shorten in next election he will have all the answers to our growing debt level.

    No pensioner will suffer while he is in power...trust me!
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    3:36pm
    NO we will all suffer with OAPs the most.
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2017
    4:03pm
    Great sense of humor Radish :)
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2017
    4:39pm
    Nah OG...we have plenty of money...we are awash here in OZ.

    Land of milk and honey...no one need bother about where the money to pay for everything will come from...there is a wonderful thing called a money tree in Canberrra and only Bill Shorten has access to it so the sooner he is back in power he can start picking the fruit.

    The taxpayers make sure there is plenty hanging on it and if not enough, taxes can be raised to make sure there is plenty to go around.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    5:37pm
    Funny - I tought I taw a puddy tat, named Abbott, Hockey, Der Corrmanator, then Morrison, and Big Mal who dines with Mafia capos, all hard at work borrowing money like there is no tomorrow....

    They must have a vice grip on the money trees of this nation to pay it all back.

    That said, I have little to no doubt that Bill will do little beyond push the current Labrador agenda - which is not for the benefit of all, same as the current lot is - BOTH sides of The Tag Team work for their insider groups.
    Jess M
    14th Mar 2017
    3:36pm
    Liberal Senator Michaela Cash bought another house next door to her home in Perth it is the fourth house in her portfolio. I don't think it will be the young ones buying the properties older people sell. Definitely need to do something about negative gearing.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    3:43pm
    Negative gearing is a time bomb that is paid back when a property is sold.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    5:39pm
    A fine argument for accepitn my long-stated position - you either get NG and pay full capital gains (no more concessional), or you get no NG and you get to keep full capital gains.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    5:40pm
    Cash is a perfect example of why stakeholders directly benefiting should not be permitted to introduce, promote or vote on legislation that suits them first and foremost.

    Sounds like we need to reverse the situation of the 19th Century, and EXCLUDE persons over a set personal wealth from politics and from voting.
    Anonymous
    20th Mar 2017
    7:00pm
    What rubbish you peddle, OG. You just keep on with the untruths, wild assumptions, and utter nonsense to justify attacking battlers who achieve modestly but don't get rich. Typical communist philosophy. Allow the rich to prosper and pretend charity to the poor, but NEVER permit anyone to stay in-between and climbing!

    Negative gearing is NOT a time bomb. It's a huge benefit. When the property is sold, CGT applies to PART of the profit. Yet another gift to investors from struggling taxpayers who can't afford to invest.

    14th Mar 2017
    4:06pm
    So many negative and conspiracy theory comments.

    Its a wonderful idea and will free up cash for pensioners to have an even better life in their golden years.

    bring it on !
    niemakawa
    14th Mar 2017
    5:10pm
    Very naive on your part.
    Triss
    14th Mar 2017
    5:27pm
    I'm hoping that was a tongue-in-cheek remark, Raphael.
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2017
    6:32pm
    not tongue in cheek

    its a brilliant idea

    now I can free up $1m in equity and still get full pension

    bloody beauty!!!
    Rae
    15th Mar 2017
    10:49am
    Where are these apartments, in leafy suburbs with parks and wonderful lifestyle facilities, that are cheaper than the house you are selling?
    TREBOR
    18th Mar 2017
    1:03am
    Plenny o' empty lan' out dere near Bourke, Bro - ay - yo' godda smork?
    niemakawa
    14th Mar 2017
    4:14pm
    Why is a Government (the opposition is no different) intent on scrapping the pension for a large number of retirees now considering a scheme to help these same people? It is nothing but an attempt to trap people into using any residual balance after downsizing to finance their retirement without any Government assistance whatsoever. (pension). How can anyone trust any Government, when they always change the rules to suit them. Don't be fooled by their "generosity".
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    4:20pm
    I agree with the government it is s a great idea.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    8:18pm
    That's why nobody else agrees with this idea.
    Rae
    20th Mar 2017
    10:36am
    Yes because you cannot put money into superannuation after 65 anyway unless you are still working.
    Not Senile Yet!
    14th Mar 2017
    4:17pm
    I'm all for it!
    But Leaders need to lead by example....so when Hal-al Mal downsizes...so will I????
    But removing taxes is only a trap.....remove the punishment mentality as well..!!
    The you can sell...buy a campervan or tent and become a Grey Nomad....wondering wherever you please and Spend the Money or invest!
    But this is just what they (LNP) Want.....for your to boost the economy by spending the lot!
    The Baby Boomers are just Cash Cows to the LNP.
    10% GST....free tax without doing a thing when you spend!
    Come into my home...said the Spider to the Fly????
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    4:31pm
    Sounds like a good plan to me.
    Rae
    20th Mar 2017
    10:28am
    Why is it a good plan to have hundreds of thousands of 80+ year olds in camper vans with no money left OG.

    It sounds more like a desperate government hell bent on scrapping that $50 billion of tax cuts to non tax paying businesses from anyone who moves.

    14th Mar 2017
    4:21pm
    It's March so we can now expect judicious leaks from the upcoming budget. It's normally the bad news that gets leaked with an exaggeration. If we are told that excise on alcohol will go up 10% we will get upset but if the budget leak is that excise on alcohol will go up 25% and we find out it is actually 10% we accept it and somehow believe that there has been a reduction.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    5:42pm
    Correct - the reaction is 'Phew - dodged a shell - only to cop a bullet' - the real difference is marginal to the recipient of shell or bullet.
    floss
    14th Mar 2017
    4:25pm
    Why go to all this trouble just stop immigration and solve all our problems in one hit and will balance the budget as well. It will save Australians billions.
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2017
    4:32pm
    I,m glad youre not running our economy

    we'll all be poor
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    5:43pm
    Too many are already..........
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    5:46pm
    ... and if this lot continue down their well-trodden path.... many more will accrue in the future through serial unemployment and under-employment and now even threat of zero inheritance, consequent inability to develop a significant nest egg or assets for working life as well as retirement, and thus creating a lifetime burden on Social Security by many through no fault of their own.

    The ONLY solution is JOBS - REAL JOBS - not Jobson Growthe - he's still on holiday in Asia with the blessings of the OzGov and is not expected back any time soon.
    Therese
    14th Mar 2017
    4:27pm
    How dare goverment or anybody else to tell the older people get out of your house we want it now. For a start, the Goverment should not allow foreign investor to buy so many properties. Secondly, the bank should be forced like it was in the 1980's that one could only have a 1st mortgage payment that was 25% of one person salary. This should be brought back from what level it is at the moment. It is rediculous that 2 people have to work to service a mortgage this days. The greedy people will simply not get those prices when selling those buildings bought. Soon all those over priced house will come down to an affortable level. If a second building for investment is bought these people should not get the 15% Capital Gains tax. It should be only few %. I for one will not be told when to sell my house. We as grandparents (I am sure many of you have those experience) the children come back home after a divorce and I need that for my family in these events.
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2017
    4:32pm
    hold your horses Therese
    No one is being told to sell

    you are given a choice and if you sell, your pension will not be affected

    Geez - calm down already
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2017
    4:40pm
    Don't go off half cocked everyone...no one is or will be forced out of their homes.

    It is not China!!
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    4:50pm
    Not yet?
    niemakawa
    14th Mar 2017
    5:08pm
    Raphael, a choice on the face of it, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be the catalyst to force pensioners to downsize or else. Don't expect any different from the opposition for in the Labor manifesto home ownership is not one of their core values. In fact Labor would like to abolish such and all housing provided by the Government. (public housing). To make it easier for them it is the Globalist aim too. Put no faith in Lib/Lab/Greens as in this situation they are in collusion.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    6:25pm
    If you have spare bedrooms they will put a value on them and adjust your OAP accordingly.
    niemakawa
    14th Mar 2017
    6:30pm
    OG I tend to agree, nobody will be exempt be that person a home-owner or not. Look at all the displaced people around the world, they need to be housed and the Globalists will take measures to ensure that they are. I only support and vote political parties that have a Nationalistic outlook and promote exclusion from the Globalists network.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    5:50pm
    Nobody genuinely believes, from what I'm reading, that they will be able to sell and down-size without it affecting pension. The moment Colonel C'Link sees all that excess lovely sitting in the bank etc, the knives will be out since the possessor of those funds will be deemed to be receiving income from the funds.

    Never let that left hand know what the right hand is doing - and if it does - ensure the rules are different for both so you don't lose out on a chance to get some cash from those unable to resist.

    I told yez - beware of freaks bearing grift..... they will tell a lie without telling a lie...

    "Oh, we only said that selling your home and down-sizing wouldn't affect your pension (like DUH) - not that Colonel C'Link would not continue to reduce pension due to any earnings from your excess cash...."
    floss
    14th Mar 2017
    4:31pm
    The Sydney Morning Herald stated that there are some 90,000 homes and apartments vacant can that be true and who allowed this to happen .This was for the Sydney area.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    4:46pm
    Melbourne is just as bad but looks like they are doing something about it.

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vacant-property-tax-expected-to-raise-80m-in-push-to-increase-housing-affordability-20170305-gur4zn.html
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2017
    4:48pm
    If it's true it's a good thing no?
    Rents will come down
    niemakawa
    14th Mar 2017
    5:47pm
    They are private properties nobody else's business if they remain empty. The owners still have to pay all the overheads associated with home ownership. What about people that have a spare room(s) in their homes that remain unoccupied! Believe me the Globalist government(s) have these in their sight to house the hundreds of millions of people from all parts of the globe. Who knows who will be your housemate!! So be careful for for what you wish.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    6:11pm
    I no longer have any spare bedrooms as they are now rooms for other purposes.
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    6:12pm
    If you don't have them available for rent you can't claim the outgoings off your tax. Just ask 10 times the market rental and you are unlikely to ever get a tenant but your property is available to rent.
    niemakawa
    14th Mar 2017
    6:15pm
    OG please give full details as to their usage. The Government demands to know and they will be sending a representative to your home for investigation!!!!!!!!!!
    Old Geezer
    14th Mar 2017
    6:23pm
    Niemakawa I don't own the property only the caretaker so it isn't a problem to me.
    Rae
    15th Mar 2017
    11:16am
    If I owned investment property in NSW I'd have it on the market right now. Once this damn road is built the state will be broke with nothing left to bring in income and huge demands on the few schools and hospitals left in public hands.

    Baird certainly played the neo lib win/lose game.
    Therese
    14th Mar 2017
    5:13pm
    Raphael, I do not like how some finance people advocating in the media and Goverment in a subtle way. I am glad for those people who want to downsize at it becomes more affortable. I heard recently where this very subject was brought up in a family and it has upset this older couple very much, as they had to justify to their kids why they do not want to downsize. Media can give so many ideas to people. The younger people feel encouraged to talk about that subject with their older parents. We also have to think of the wider consequences which is not that visible first up. Hence my comment "I will not downsize anytime soon""
    Jess M
    14th Mar 2017
    5:28pm
    Retirement villages are so expensive and many say you will loose 30% of your initial payment. To downsize and leave a lovely property backing onto the bush, peaceful, sunny and plenty of room with lovely neighbours why would you sell to move to a two bedroom one garage place facing other units or villa's?
    Anonymous
    14th Mar 2017
    7:06pm
    I know of quite a number who have in recent times moved into villages. The reason....no maintenance, companionship,and a good social life.

    Not all villages are for profit. You need to check around.

    All who have made the move say they wished they had done it sooner.

    Rattling around in a four bedroom home on your own in your 80's (for a lot of people) can be lonely and socialising with others is very important for your health as you age.

    The money aspect is of no concern for most of them. As they say you cannot take it with you and their kids are mostly better off than they are anyway.

    I don't live in a village myself so I don't have a vested interest in saying this.
    MICK
    14th Mar 2017
    9:02pm
    And when the next 3 booms roll over retirees their money will effectively depreciate.
    This is likely a way for governments to get their hands on more taxes down the track as currently the family home is a no go tax zone despite the current government trying to cash in on working Australians and get them to spend their only real asset BEFORE they die.
    I for one will not be going there and those who have managed to get a nice area to live in and/or a nice house should spit this offer out as well. I suggest it will be a toxic pill.
    Oldman Roo
    14th Mar 2017
    9:19pm
    Having lost all trust in the present Government long ago , I think this may be just another ploy to free up more properties to the wealthy , Politicians and the Chinese property sharks .The way the latter are buying up nearly all good real estate for sale in my state reinforces my opinion that we are selling out to the Chinese .
    The only merit I can see in it is that we need not spend 50 Million on Submarines as they will not allow us to be invaded because they have too much to lose and will intervene .
    I would not entertain any sweeteners by this Government to sell my house as they will betray us again and change whatever promises they make .
    Oldman Roo
    14th Mar 2017
    9:25pm
    Sorry my error the Submarine costs are actually around 50 Billion .
    Jtee
    14th Mar 2017
    10:16pm
    I think that my superannuation asset is listed by Centrelink as an asset even though it is in pension phase so if house proceeds were deposited I reckon that they would also assess them. I didn't commence aged pension until 2015
    LiveItUp
    15th Mar 2017
    9:04am
    If your super is in pension phase or you are over retirement age it is currently an assest under Centrelink rules.
    Blue Sky
    15th Mar 2017
    4:52am
    Governments love to blame someone else for conditions they have caused. What about the reduction in public housing over the last decades, forcing low income people into the private rental market with a totally inadequate $60 rental assistance from Centrelink. Where would people live if investors didn't provide rental housing? Stop harassing and blaming older Australians who've worked hard to put a roof over their families heads. The housing shortage is causing this problem, do something about that!!
    In Outer Orbit
    15th Mar 2017
    5:32am
    Sigh. Here we go again.

    One of those threads which may warrant reflection that in the end there will be no super, no houses and no grandchildren. All life on earth will burn as the sun expands, assuming anything is left to burn after ourmilky way (including our solar system, ie earth ie all of us) collides with the Andromeda galaxy. This is reality for the future of the human race. Worth considering. For those in our dotage now, perhaps we should just try to enjoy the time left and stop worrying about tactical decisions about our house size, the next generation, taxes, death. Ultimately there is no future; our genes and every conceivable record that we and all our offspring ever existed will disappear for ever. The universe is utterly indifferent to us all. Odd really that we still expect the pollies to care.....try and have a nice day everyone.
    LiveItUp
    15th Mar 2017
    9:02am
    Well it aint going to happen for a few more billion years. Humans will destory themselves way befiore then.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2017
    9:08am
    Scientists say climate change will make the earth uninhabitable by 2090. That's a lot less than even one billion years, Bonny.
    Old Geezer
    15th Mar 2017
    12:27pm
    Climate change has been happening since the world was made and will continue to change in the future. Nothing man can do will change the fact that climate is always changing. Climate change is the least of our worries today.
    Rae
    16th Mar 2017
    9:12am
    I'll disagree OG. Making money has never been easier with all those trillions washing around.

    Climate change has frequently decimated quite thriving civilisations. Nothing worse than out of control droughts/ floods.

    As our ancestors knew. When people destroy Mother Earth then eventually Father Sky loses His temper and sorts them out.

    And not a damn thing money can do about it.
    Mad as Hell
    15th Mar 2017
    6:20am
    This is article below from the SMH highlights the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AUSTRALIAN POLITICS
    If politicians did their job we could all have affordable housing and a decent pension.


    Japanese collecting more money than we gather from our gas
    Exclusive
    Heath Aston Political correspondent


    Japan is collecting more tax revenue from Australian liquefied natural gas than the federal government, heightening concern the public is missing out on the wealth benefits of the gas export boom.

    Japan, which is the singlebiggest buyer of Australian LNG at 30 million tonnes a year, levies an import tax that will deliver $2.9 billion to its national coffers over the next four years.

    By comparison, Australia will not receive a cent in petroleum resource rent tax from the multinational-owned gas projects operating in federal waters over the same period.

    And with a growing pile of $238 billion in tax credits to insulate against PRRT, it may be decades before any LNG exporters are forced to pay any PRRT, some experts believe.

    The $800 million-a-year PRRT collected in Australia, which has halved over recent years, is largely paid by established oil operations in Bass Strait rather than LNG producers.

    Tax campaigners said on Tuesday that it was a ‘‘ national scandal’ ’ that Australia’s customer, Japan, could derive more financial benefit than the country that owns and sells the resource.

    The latest question over the PRRT emerges as Treasurer Scott Morrison weighs up a revenue fix in the budget against veiled threats from the petroleum industry to launch a mining tax-like campaign against changes to the system.

    It also comes as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull prepares to sit down with energy company chiefs on Wednesday to discuss the government’s other gas-induced headache , supply shortages and spiralling prices in east coast markets.

    In October, Fairfax Media revealed that by 2021, when Australian LNG exports eclipse the market leader Qatar, the government of the Persian Gulf state will take $26.6 billion in royalties compared with Australia’s $800 million.

    Research by the International Transport Workers’ Federation, a member of the Tax Justice Network , found customers such as Japan appear to benefit more than Australia from Australian LNG at a national government level.

    Japan’s petroleum and coal tax applies to imports at a rate that equates to $22 a tonne of Australian LNG. The levy was raised in 2012 from 1080 yen per tonne to 1860 per tonne under a new rate known as the ‘‘ special provision for tax for climate change mitigation’’ .

    Tax Justice spokesman Jason Ward said: ‘‘ This is a national scandal . As it stands, the Japanese government collects more direct tax on Australian gas than we do.

    ‘‘ Our five new offshore LNG projects are selling their gas overseas at a premium price when Australia is suffering from a domestic shortage . This needs to change and the public won’t stand for our natural resources being given away for free.’’

    Mr Morrison is awaiting the findings of a PRRT review by former Treasury executive Michael Callaghan, amid calls for the introduction of a flat royalty on production to replace the existing profitsbased system.

    Fairfax Media sought comment from Mr Morrison.

    When he announced Mr Callaghan’s review, the Treasurer conceded that in relation to the PRRT: ‘‘ We think it is a problem.’’
    Rae
    15th Mar 2017
    11:40am
    The gas fields, wells, pipelines, trains and ports are privately owned. Corporations don't pay tax. What did you think would happen?

    Whitlam wanted to keep it all in public hands to support Australians and look what happened there.

    The Australian public are obviously happy with decisions as they keep voting these people in that are predominantly salesmen of our assets.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    5:55pm
    Been telling yez fer years the 'global economy' is an idiot's game and that 'privatisation' is an idiot's game as well... both end up costing the common person more with no real benefit.

    I was talking to a fish farmer about this - and said to him that the global economy was the same as he sending his best fish and indeed all the rest) into that market, then buying back fish cakes for self and family... (well, DUH!!).

    Quarantine local gas supply - sell the rest, and stop wasting our time and money with this idiotic nonsense.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    7:09pm
    BREAKING NEWS: The dust is still settling on the details, but Malcolm Turnbull has just announced that gas companies will be forced to reserve Australian gas, for Australian use, at a lower Australian price.

    When the AWU started pushing for a gas reservation policy three years ago, our position was considered extreme. Gas was a fringe issue. But we fought hard and we fought persistently, in public and behind closed doors. We made gas reservation a national priority.

    Two weeks ago, we wrote to Malcolm Turnbull calling on him to meet with energy companies, and renegotiate a better deal for Australians. At our National Conference we called again for gas reservation.

    Well, today, after meeting with the gas exporters, the PM has promised Australians reservation and “reliable, secure, and affordable gas.”
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2017
    7:12pm
    Japan, which is the singlebiggest buyer of Australian LNG at 30 million tonnes a year, levies an import tax that will deliver $2.9 billion to its national coffers over the next four years.

    What was that someone was telling me about tariff barriers every time I call:- "Lock The Gates!"

    Level playing field, my ass.
    Rosret
    15th Mar 2017
    8:59am
    Just an added thought.
    Where I live the retiring city dwellers are selling the family home and buying monster homes on the foreshore. Eliminating stamp duty for these people will only enhance our locals inability to buy a home in the region where they work.
    floss
    15th Mar 2017
    11:23am
    Many thanks Mad As Hell as we all should be.Your research is spot on, how could this happen
    A government should be sacked if this problem is not acted on.Thanks again for exposing this scandal to us.
    Rosret
    15th Mar 2017
    9:43pm
    Ah - but which government. When did we stop protecting our gas resources.
    We had strategies in place now all of a sudden its apparent they have all gone.
    KB
    15th Mar 2017
    1:08pm
    Why should older folk be pressured into downsizing? They should be allowed to stay in their own homes for as long as they are able to. Downsizing usually means nursing homes. Most apartments and units have stairs which would not be accessible for older folk. Down sizing should be the choice of the couple not the government .
    Jolly
    16th Mar 2017
    11:40am
    I have just realised why none of the comments any of us make get any credence. Nobody in government probably monitors this site. It is probably too obscure for the below 60's. So why don't you put your comments onto the LNP Facebook page like I have about the gas issues. https://www.facebook.com/LiberalPartyAustralia/. At least you will get a lot of LNP votes see your message.
    Old Geezer
    16th Mar 2017
    12:15pm
    Don't worry Jolly I post more comments elsewhere than I do here.
    Anonymous
    20th Mar 2017
    4:12pm
    Heaven help us then. No wonder Australia is in such a mess.
    disillusioned
    16th Mar 2017
    10:06pm
    Limit negative gearing and foreign investment in the property market, and this will solve the housing shortage quicker than all these other "high faluting" ideas the LNPs come up with.
    Mad as Hell
    18th Mar 2017
    6:50am
    If this is a "gift" from the Liberals as a vote catcher after changes to the Pensioner Assets Test and taper rate they're still out in the wilderness where I'm concerned.
    PlanB
    18th Mar 2017
    9:09am
    Have not read all the posts but IMO they can all go to hell-- as if a person of a great age is up to moving and settling in a new house -- and new area -- at what cost!!!! leaving all Friends and Family -- and giving up where they have maybe struggled to be for many years -- leaving garden they have spent decades in building
    LARGE MIDDLE FINGER to them!
    PlanB
    18th Mar 2017
    9:11am
    Also there is a housing shortage -- no one can afford to buy a decent place in a decent area now so where the HeLL do these creeps expect pensioners to buy?????????
    Adrianus
    18th Mar 2017
    10:32am
    My view is that Foreign investors should not be allowed to buy res property and should not be allowed to negatively gear their res property. It just doesn't make sense that OZ citizens don't have the same advantage as residents of other countries.
    Let the foreigners invest in Industrial, Commercial?
    Anonymous
    19th Mar 2017
    10:21am
    Cannot argue with that Frank.

    Also re negative gearing...only one property should be allowed to be negatively geared.
    Adrianus
    19th Mar 2017
    11:05am
    I wonder if a certain SA "Independent" would block that? :)
    Rather than limit the number of properties, I believe the ATO should view and treat PE income and Investment income separately, and vary the income tax rate accordingly.
    Tassie
    21st Mar 2017
    11:18am
    Exceptionally great idea...win win for many..

    21st Mar 2017
    1:51pm
    When I looked into this I would not get enough for my nearly 50 sq home to purchase a small 3 bed room apartment infact I would have to take a new morgage to pay the stamp duty agents fees and moving expenses and this is in the ACT not in an up market suburb
    Cruzisuzi
    28th Mar 2017
    12:23pm
    Open up the housing market?? Who for the Chinese?? You can bet they will snap up any homes that become available. To them our property prices are nothing compared to what they pay back in China. Adding the family home to the assets test will force more pensioners out onto the streets or into units where merciless body Corp will make quick work of any money they have left in the bank. Where to then?? Current pensioners were not privy to super savings and had every right to think they would be entitled to a pension. The governments over the years have shifted money for pensions, payed by the taxpayer, into general revenue and erroneously spent it all. Where are all our mining royalties, carted out of the country by overseas companies who have been allowed to dig up our coal and gas for a mere pittance. Selling off our assets, ports utilities, hospitals, health centres,sends a warning to all Australians, we are broke because of poor budget management. Now they want our homes, or else! Out we go into an impoverished existence.