ACCI says family home should be included in assets test

The ACCI recommends that the family home be included in pension assets test.

ACCI says family home should be included in assets test

Senior welfare groups are up in arms over the ACCI’s recommendation that the family home be included in the Age Pension assets tests.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) has released its pre-budget submission, which urges the Federal Government to consider adding the family home or principal residence to the assets test for Age Pensions.

The group has recommended that should the primary residence be valued over $450,000, those retiring at 65 would not be eligible for a full or part Age Pension for five years.

It also recommends that retirees with assets above this threshold should be offered interest-free loans against the value of their home or other assets.

The pension loans would, in effect, act as a reverse mortgage and be repayable upon death, the sale of the house, or upon admission to an aged care facility.

"This provides retirees with choice so that they can remain in their primary residence, leave a bequest and afford their retirement," says the submission.

The report states that four in five retirees will be reliant upon a full or part Age Pension. It also states that a similar number own their home. The total value of these homes is believed to be around $1 trillion.

The ACCI also recommended that, by 2035, the retirement age should be gradually lifted to age 70.

The recommendation to include the family home in the assets test has drawn the ire of older Australians and peak senior welfare groups.

"We're not quite sure why basically the most vulnerable Australians should be responsible for budget repair," said Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association’s Paul Versteege.

"There are many other things that could be used to fix the budget.”

At this stage, though, the Government would be unlikely to include the principal residence in the assets test.

"That would be very much against the principles of the Coalition government," said Revenue and Financial Services Minister Kelly O'Dwyer.

"Never before have we included the family home [in the assets test] and I don't see why that would change."

Read the ACCI pre-budget submission

Opinion: Better ways to raise revenue

Targeting retirees as a quick fix for the economy seems to be all the rage at the moment, but lobby groups and institutes need to look elsewhere for their economic ‘remedies’.

The total value of housing owned by older Australians may be $1 trillion dollars. Reports such as the ACCI submission seem only to focus on a dollar amount. Do they forget that our population is ageing? So, of course, the number of houses owned by older Australians will continue to increase and add more dollars to that figure.

The ACCI thinks that four out of five retirees own their home. Our own survey of 6677 real retirees suggests that it is less. Just over 69 per cent own their home fully, with a further 17 per cent still paying off a mortgage and 13 per cent renting.

As far as retirees being reliant on an Age Pension, well, our research shows that around seven in 10 will rely on a full or part Age Pension. And this percentage is in line with what is quoted in the Treasury’s 2015 Intergenerational Report, which is 67 to 70 per cent – not 80 per cent. If the ACCI wishes to make recommendations, it needs to look at the core statistics more accurately.

Even if these people own their home, why are they being targeted as a fix for the economy? Why look at this particular demographic, of which 70 per cent will rely on Government assistance at some stage of their retirement, to fix the budget?

And is it fair that people who have worked hard all their lives in order to own their home, because they were told that they’ll have a tough time of it in retirement if they didn't, could then be penalised for doing exactly that: working hard and saving?

The real kicker is the inclusion of all houses over $450,000. At today’s housing costs, that would include pretty much every house on the market. Where can you buy a house for less than $450,000? If the family home has to be included in the assets test, then at least take aim at people with more value in their home, say, $2–3 million?

In all fairness to the Government, its response that it would be unlikely to include the family home in the assets test is one that all retirees will welcome. But this is a Government that has reneged on promises before, and if business lobby groups, such as the ACCI, and research institutes, such as the Grattan Institute, keep suggesting that retirees are fair game, then eventually, the Government will be worn down. Hopefully, though, that day is far away.

Do you think the ACCI recommendations are fair? Should the family home be included in the assets test? If so, what would be a suitable threshold? If not, what means can you recommend for injecting some life into our economy?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Kaz
    6th Feb 2017
    10:24am
    We need to have a government with vision. They depend on out dated business models which include selling off the Aussie farm, maintaining coal, lower wages and higher costs, respect and perks for 'entitled' and disdain for lower socioeconomic and vulnerable groups, etc. We need a government who looks from the ground up - what will benefit the ordinary person? This will bring about 'trickle up' benefits and hopefully create compassion by and for our fellow man/woman.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:44am
    Tis idea is a very good vision.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    10:52am
    The best they could do recently Kaz was to sell our manufacturing power supply to the Singapore and Chinese governments. Those new owners are laughing all the way to their banks as they ramp up the power costs and control availability. They would prefer to be doing the manufacturing themselves.

    The business Union won't be happy until they have caused a great recession by terrifying consumers.

    As far as I'm concerned they do their own members a disservice. Cutting your customers incomes is dumb.

    And no that older generation are not going to go back for more debt. They'll stop spending first. Wait and see.
    john
    6th Feb 2017
    11:44am
    Don't shout me down folks, but believe it or not , I think that a certain President of the USA is actually aiming for that type of situation to better his nation. So I believe that all the maniacal protesting against him around the world is from people who don't see the actual reality of his plans.
    Maybe its because he is a wealthy man, no one trusts him, well wait because I think he is a different type of wealthy man, I don't think he is preparing to kick his people in the head,but the chamber seems to love it ,they are establishment wealth schemers and thats all that organisation is!
    Oliva
    6th Feb 2017
    12:16pm
    Agree John.
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    12:36pm
    John,

    Agree with your comments. The Donald (in general) is a - in my opinion - "True patriot" & a "Trail Blazer" who is INDEED "Draining the Swamp" of the "Criminal Cartels" who have been in control since they EXECUTED JFK!!!!!

    Let's hope that this is successful and convince us - in general - that we also could achieve this.
    Let's hope he - also - does not meet with "A Bit of Lead".

    At the moment, I think that individuals in Russia are FREER than we will be soon IF these CLOWNS in Canberra "Get their way!
    It's just that we are materially more wealthy (???) but at this stage but the value of that will dissipate soon if Personal FREEDOMs are further limited & Restricted.

    Just remember, once we (individually & Collectively) OWN NOTHING, we're at the MERCY of this "Pack of WOLVES"!!!
    Eddy
    6th Feb 2017
    7:06pm
    I have made this suggestion before but I repeat it here. Note I do not receive an OAP myself, and probably never will. I receive pensions from my Defence Service and Public Service plus a disability pension from DVA.
    It seems to me by excluding the home as an asset benefits the beneficiaries rather than the Older person. I suggest a simple way around this dilemma.
    The OAP is paid irrespective of assets or income, merely on the basis of reaching a prescribed age. Any money received as an OAP be considered an interest free loan from the government to be repaid from the estate when one dies. in the case of a couple when both partners have died. If there are more assets that the OAP debt then that goes to the beneficiaries. If there are insufficient assets to repay the OAP debt then it is written off and is not a burden on surviving family.
    More well off people can choose to preserve their assets for their children and decline the OAP. Anti-rorting provisions will have to be stringent.
    Any other suggestions?
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    7:34pm
    Good idea Eddy. This idea is currently being discussed in various financial cycles.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:08pm
    Happy enough to have your own triple strand of income in retirement under the same rule, Eddy?

    I thought not..... and Pension is bought and paid for - not a loan and never will be.

    Who asked the ACCI to butt in where they have no business? Why aren't they out trying to rescue the economy by getting it on its feet again with a little hard work, risk taking in investment, and developing genuine infrastructure?
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    8:46pm
    Eddy and OG, I''ll agree with that proposal when every politician, government servant, lawyer, doctor, tradesman and company exeutive whose STUFF-UPS, EXPLOITATION and WRONGFUL DEALINGS have cost someone money that might have funded their retirement pays their victim full compensation with interest.

    Why are so many on pensions? Sure, there are all sorts of reasons, but canvass them and I'll bet every one of them can point to a major injustice that contributed substantially to their less-than-optimal financial health - and to a so-called self-funded-retiree (or wealthy deceased) whose incompentence or immoral dealing was the cause of the injustice. So why are these fat cats allowed to enjoy their ill-gotten gains while their victims are persecuted?

    I haven't done too badly overall, but I'd be rich today if it weren't for an IDIOT in the ATO whose stupidity cost me thousands in the early 70s, an inept doctor whose failure to diagnose a problem that could be treated had me off work sick for 2 years, an arrogant council engineer whose lies cost me $180,000 to fight a wrongful council decision.... it goes on and on and on. And don't even get me started on my partner. In a just world, he'd be owed millions.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    9:01pm
    So Rainey don't you think the rest of us have had those sort of issues plus some as well? I know I certainly have and have made more mistakes that most people do in many lifetimes. However I am not bitter about any of it because it has made me the person I am today and the great lifestyle I now enjoy.

    If I owned a house I would gladly have it in the assets test as most people will be better off it is included.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    9:46pm
    That's not the point, OG. The point is that those who are not wealthy should not be punished for working their guts out and saving as best they could in a stinking vile world while incompetents and the dishonest and corrupt who stuff up other people's lives are rewarded.

    Your last statement displays total STUPIDITY. Who would be better off and who wouldn't depends entirely on HOW it's included. The proposal put here would make most people FAR FAR FAR WORSE OFF, and be cruel, unfair in the extreme, and an economic disaster. (Though one that a lot of greedy morons would invite with their small-minded, short-sighted moronic grabs for dollars!)
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:08pm
    No all it would mean is that your kids will fly economy instead of first class to Disneyland.

    Self funded retirees already look after themselves without taking from the taxpayer and their heirs get a bit less so it would be no different.
    Eddy
    7th Feb 2017
    1:11am
    I agree with the concept that the OAP has been paid for but the time is fast approaching when the number of pensioners will be too numerous for the working/tax paying population to underwrite. The country will not bone able to afford the OAP as it currently exists. Then there is the dilemma of nursing home places for those too infirm to look after themselves. We have to find a different way to fund these. The 'pension loan' concept is a suggestion to ensure older persons who cannot work are looked after without putting too large a burden on the younger generations.
    Eddy
    7th Feb 2017
    9:01am
    Also I have never accepted that Social Security (ie OAP, unemployment support, disability support, et al) is welfare but community support for the less fortunate. Unfortunately it has to be paid for by someone, and that is taxpayers. We do not want to leave our children and grandchildren with a Greece like situation where the country effectively goes bankrupt by a large social security burden.
    It does not seem unreasonable to me to expect that ones old age should be financed for by the assets one accumulates during ones working life.
    If you have a better idea please put it up for discussion.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    10:57am
    "Tis idea is a very good vision. "

    Only to those who are blinded by their personal greed, by the piles of thirty pieces of silver in the donations they receive from their bank and real estate donors, and who can't see past their own swollen gut from feeding on the public trough for too long.

    Hang ten a week until they come to their senses....
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    11:00am
    Eddy, eddy - we did our share of paying into the social security fund, at a time when our dollars were fewer on the ground but bought more. No different today.

    I told you already - the issue here is government spending from consolidated revenue on all outlays - not just social security and medicare and so forth. Those are simply the areas these twerps choose to pick on for political reasons, but there are many more areas of genuine unwarranted expenditure.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    12:34pm
    Eddy, the problem with your theory - which is one all the simpletons in politics subscribe to - is that the system prioritizes the disadvantaged by creating more disadvantaged (ie. by stripping those who try to rise above disadvantage of all the rewards of their effort).

    To properly address disadvantage, we need to ensure that people are helped, encouraged and rewarded for climbing, not bashed back down with penalties for modest success.

    Taking from people who clearly don't have enough to be self-sufficient, but did responsibly save what they could, sends a strong message that it's futile to try - and more people will just quit trying and put their hands out. It's a dumb idea and one anyone with intelligence will resist strenuously.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    12:42pm
    Better idea? Yep. Get back to the sensible notion that each generation should, in turn, support their elders. Let older folk enjoy the fruits of their labour and pass on their savings to their kids - who will then be better off. RETAIN INCENTIVES TO WORK AND SAVE. More people working and saving means more tax which means pensions are more affordable for the nation. Take away the incentive and you have more bludgers drawing pensions and less tax to pay them. It really is mind boggling that so many can't grasp such a simple concept!

    Every aged person should receive a pension ideally. If not, then assess ALL assets (including the family home) but raise the threshold to $750,000 per person (at least) and apply the current interest rate as a deeming rate above that, then test the higher of income or deemed income. No assets test. Preserve the incentive to work and save and more people will.
    Eddy
    7th Feb 2017
    2:07pm
    Trebor and Rainey, I acknowledge your views. However the situation is changing and something has to be done to reduce the burden on coming generations. The status quo is unsustainable, a recipe for financial disaster sometime in the future. This has been recognised at government level by Paul Keating introducing compulsory superannuation and Peter Costello establishing the Future Fund.
    When the OAP was introduced in the early 20th century then biblical life expectancy of 'three score and ten' was about right, more people died before they reached 70 than lived past it. Now our life expectancy is 84 years, and a lot more people are living well past 70. This is due to better health, better nutrition, better sanitation and vaccination to prevent what were fatal diseases. The disadvantaged would be protected by receiving community support in the form of an OAP irrespective of means to repay it after death. The better off will be expected to contribute to their OAP, after death, from their assets.
    Why should the tax paying community be expected to support aged pensioners when they have the means to support themselves through their assets (both financial and property assets)? For aged pensioner with assets in excess of $1M (with house prices nowadays it is probably not uncommon) to receive the OAP gratis when another older person with no house and much less in assets receives less or nothing seems unfair.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    3:25pm
    Agree Eddy why should people get their OAP gratis and give an inheritance to the next generation?
    Patriot
    7th Feb 2017
    3:33pm
    OG

    Why should ordinary Taxpayers support the "Well to Do" with:

    1 Negative gearing to support their wealth Accumulation
    2 Super Concessions to support their Investment portfolio
    3 Many other "Lurks & Perks" which the "Ordinary Person" cannot afford to take advantage of.

    Would it not be nice to put "SOME BALANCE" into the equation and "Leave the Family Home Exempt" so that the "Ordinary Man" also has the opportunity to - to a certain extent - enjoy the "Twilight Years"????
    Eddy
    7th Feb 2017
    3:52pm
    Yes Patriot, I agree wholeheartedly with your 3 points, however the question is what do we do to preserve our (ie the over 65's now)future. If we do nothing then the Gen X or Gen Y or the Millennials' will do it for us, and they may not be as understanding of the plight of older people. We either act now (by now I mean the next 10 years or so) or we could have something more onerous forced upon us.
    Misty
    7th Feb 2017
    3:56pm
    OG, people are not getting the OAP gratis and anyway doesn't everyone pay tax of some sort wether they are working or not?, I know I do everytime I purchase anything or pay a bill I pay tax.
    Patriot
    7th Feb 2017
    4:02pm
    Eddy,
    The following quote from George Washington STILL applies in our times as OUR Government are now Embedding FEAR into every action as a "Matter of Routine".
    As an example, Take the "War on Terrorism" which is funded by the US-of-A & NATO in order to Force us into a "One World Government".
    The Aust Govt is not any better as they are "Just a Pawn" in the hands of the "Global Shadow Government".

    The solution is (Collectively) US!!!
    RESITS - RESIST - RESIST

    "Government is not reason: it is not eloquence; it is a force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    -Pres. George Washington
    Eddy
    7th Feb 2017
    4:03pm
    I might also point out Patriot that exempting the family home is fodder to those who rort the system. I personally know of a retired couple who sold their existing house and spent the proceeds and their superannuation on a luxury home on a very large allotment, with swimming pool and tennis court, as part of their 'estate planning'. The house would probably be worth over $2M. They get the full OAP as their 'assets' fall below the magic figure determined by Centrelink.
    Who benefits from them getting OAP, their beneficiaries.
    Patriot
    7th Feb 2017
    4:07pm
    Eddy,
    One simple solution - "Fix the RORTs"!!!!

    Why should I be Punished because others do not do the "Right Thing" but are Greedy beyond their needs.

    And - by the way - we should also fix the RORTS committed by our Politicians and FORCE them to "Lead by Example"!
    Eddy
    7th Feb 2017
    4:32pm
    Okay Patriot, how? Suggest a solution which is practical, fair and achievable.
    Patriot
    7th Feb 2017
    4:52pm
    Eddy,
    SIMPLE!!! Use the mechanism they subject us to. FEAR!!!

    I believe the greatest FEAR of most politicians is that they will not be re-elected so that the occasions when they "Spend $800,000.00 on a Units down the Gold Coast as a Spur-of-the-Moment Issue" will "Cease to exist".
    In other words - They will not be able to "Feather their own nest" any More.

    I believe that voting for Pauline Drives the "Fear of God" into them as she - to me - seems like Donald Trump.
    Not much experience & decorum, but a heart of Gold and "Well Intentioned".
    Or vote Independents or for some of the other minor parties you take a fancy to!
    In other words: "Break the Power of the THREE main Party System which does US no GOOD".

    Even with newly elected Individuals, be prepared to apply "Eternal Vigilance", scrutinise their actions and "Keep Tabs on what they do".
    Encourage them when they do the right thing but let them Meet with a "Sledge Hammer" when the display personal GREED.
    In other words: "Keep the Bastards HONEST".

    Above ALL, educate yourself in relation to the Australian Constitution and ensure that THEY are - finally & Once-Again - adhering to this Document.

    Being able to apply some of the GEMs within it provides us - mere mortals - with power.

    And finally: "Spread the Word". !!!!
    Patriot
    7th Feb 2017
    5:10pm
    Eddy,
    just one last point.
    Treat the commercial & ABC news of the Idiot box with contempt as most of it is Blatant Propaganda & Lies!!!!

    Check & Confirm ALL stories which do not make instant sense & demonise other parties/Countries.

    In every story: "Follow the Money" & you'll ultimately find the motive.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    9:53pm
    Eddy, you say ''Trebor and Rainey, I acknowledge your views. However the situation is changing and something has to be done to reduce the burden on coming generations. The status quo is unsustainable, a recipe for financial disaster sometime in the future.''

    That's precisely the point. The situation changed because governments drove change that creates a welfare mentality. The more they hurt the people who do what's right, the more people do what's wrong and harmful to the nation.

    It boggles the mind that people can be so dense and idealistic as to think that you can run a system successfully that bashes and punishes the honest worker. Keep it up, and we'll have NO workers or savers.

    Yes, the situation is changing - driven by WRONG POLICY. Change back to the old ways of looking after retirees and being fair to those who do what's good for the nation and you solve the problem. Keep bashing people and you make it worse. Wake up for pity's sake before your idealistic simpleton views stuff the country completely. We need some INTELLIGENCE.
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    7:21pm
    Eddy - we look at consolidated spending overall - not just at the already black and blue pensioners - and we work out what is really necessary, what is duplication (such as having 'corporations' to handle procure for Defence, which are just bullshit reasons to give an old party mate a free handout, or some social justice institutions that are basically the same when the law of the land already exists), where excessive spending on non-results is occurring, where the handouts in the OVERALL 'social security' sphere have gotten out of control (include, child handouts, childcare, nanny payouts to the rich etc) - and we apply the knife liberally to those areas that NEED to be cut.

    There are plenty of those out there as regards spending - then we need to review the revenue strand system, and ponder deeply over the outcomes of 'privatisation', the rising costs of which have effectively rendered the 'government share' worthless and have created hidden inflation, figure out why and how any nation could be so stupid as to permit massive investment from offshore in projects it could handle itself and then lose virtually all tax revenue from those projects through 'off-shoring' of debt for them etc.

    Then the rules need to be changed....

    Plenty of money out there for a government with real balls, so on that score, don't hold your breath.
    Fredklaus
    6th Feb 2017
    10:26am
    $1.5 million adjusted to price increases of homes.but politicians pensions to be subject to same rules as everyone .Trusts and company structures to be included
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:45am
    Pollies get a pension not welfare.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    10:57am
    It's welfare OG paid for by money gained through selling taxpayer owned assets and delivering the money to the Tax havens. They couldn't run a business venture if their lives depended on it. Both Labor and the NLP. Dumb and dumber.

    Anyway pension entitlements can and do change. We just need a bunch of Independents to change the legislation governing their pensions. We can call it Fair and Sustainable Mark 11.
    Fredklaus
    6th Feb 2017
    11:42am
    OLD GEEZER,pollies pension is welfare but not subject to same rules as the rest of us
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    11:47am
    Pollies get their pension because they were elected to parliament and served their time to get it. OAP is welfare that is given to those who have not other means of support. Big difference as the pollies can't get the OAP as they have other means of support.
    Triss
    6th Feb 2017
    12:10pm
    So, Old Geezer, as the politicians have other means of support wouldn't it be more logical to deny them taxpayer funded pensions rather than to take away the pensions of age pensioners who don't have other means of support?
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:17pm
    Pollies pension is an entitlement and has nothing to do with them having other means of support or not. OAP is welfare that is given to those with no other means of support.

    So we should pay our pollies a lot more and take away their pension instead? I certainly wouldn't be a polly for what they get paid.
    Triss
    6th Feb 2017
    12:48pm
    I beg to differ with you, Old Geezer, the pollies' pension is a corruption. Their so called pensions were made by various laws passed by themselves to line their pockets for their lifetime.
    Surely even a pollie lover like yourself would have to agree that the passing of a law granting huge lifetime payments and perks to a small section of the population for a working life of only eight years has to be corrupt.
    libsareliars
    6th Feb 2017
    12:52pm
    Well said Triss
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:02pm
    Many other people on contracts can similar payments so no I don't think it is corruption. It's a contract of employment that they agreed to to do the job.

    OAPs don't agree to do anything for their welfare so maybe that's where the corruption lies.
    marls
    6th Feb 2017
    2:31pm
    triss
    totally agree they should be under the same means test as normal taxpayers, and they just greatly increased their age of entitlements once again, if they buy property in canberra they dont have to pay stamp duty and agents fees, if this is not more corruption what is
    Triss
    6th Feb 2017
    3:20pm
    "Many other people on similar contracts have similar payments", Old Geezer, tell me who they are. Give me the names of other contracts which state that after working for eight years the worker will have bestowed on them a lifetime, fully indexed pension, passed over to the spouse at death, taxpayer funded business class travel including family. Give me a list.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    4:16pm
    A $10 million dollar payout should just about do it. Many CEOs get this and many a lot more. Probably more CEO get that than pollies get a pension now.
    Janran
    6th Feb 2017
    5:46pm
    Old Geezer you're at it again. Stop using the "welfare" crack to describe OA pensioners.
    But why are politicians given ANY entitlements beyond what Public Servants get? Why can't they save for their retirement like everyone else?
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:16pm
    I am using the correct term. OAP is welfare.
    Eddy
    6th Feb 2017
    7:32pm
    Before some people crucify the current crop of pollies remember it is only those elected to parliament before 2004 who receive the generous pensions which (as noted by other posters) was part of their remuneration package. Pollies elected after 2004 are on a different scheme which is not paid until they reach retiring age for superannuation (currently 55 I think)
    Also they have to serve for 3 terms of parliament to be eligible for a pension which is based on the number of years served and any ministerial positions held.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:10pm
    The remuneration package was designed by them, Eddy - not by us- and nobody voted for it. Like everything else in this 'budget emergency' (LMAO) that remuneration and retirement package is up for consideration for review.... we Politician Payment Reform here.....
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:14pm
    Jeez - this lot might deem that.... like Mad Maggie Thatcher (wake up, Maggie, I think I've got something to say to you!) cutting the pensions of WWII Veterans 'for the good of the Reich - sorry - country... they will 'need' to cut remuneration for Veterans and injured ex-service personnel.

    In that case I will be drawn into the fight on behalf of the Community.... mind you - I do try to look ahead and I see this idiocy as the thin edge of the wedge, and this 'government' is using the ACCI as its mouth-piece.....
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    8:51pm
    So, OG, a liar and a cheat EARNS and IS ENTITLED to a fat pension at taxpayer expense, but the guy who keeps the public toilets clean so we don't have a massive disease spread should be robbed of his savings in old age because he is NOT entitled?
    What sort of immoral, nasty creep suggests that only the cheats, corrupt and exploiters should be supported by taxpayers in old age, and keep their ill-gotten gains, while the honest hard workers should be stripped of everything just for the sin of growing old?
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    9:03pm
    Who are these cheats, liars etc Rainey?
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    9:53pm
    Politicans, for a start, OG. Open your eyes and you'll see all the others. They STRUT among us, beating their chests and pretending superiority.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    9:58pm
    You could start by looking in the mirror, OG. You'd be almost certain to see one there.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:20pm
    None in my mirror Rainey. No cheats or liars there only an Old Geezer who got an Australia Day award for his service to the community.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    10:52pm
    Well well, OG now I am convinced that light is coming from your HALO after the above comment.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    11:02am
    Ah - so now you admit to be a bought and paid for lackey, OG? With your views what possible service could you do to the community, other than as a Brownshirt supporting Fuhrer Mal?
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    11:50am
    Ha ha Trebor you certainly don't know me at all. But maybe you do?
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    7:26pm
    But... but.... but.... 'Bonny' told us last week that you don't vote, OG.... why then would you defend politician's payments?

    Just for the record again - service to the people via government is not a business.... as such politicians are in no way entitled to massive payout at end of contract. They may have perverted things to make it seem they are - but they were wrong.
    Travellersjoy
    6th Feb 2017
    10:27am
    Now which developers want our homes and land?

    Which media are going to help them try to get their hands on more of 'other people's property'?

    What a stunning display of the power the wealthy can exercise through manipulating public opinion and the Parliament to rig our economy and housing market to keep the gold rush in housing going.

    The aged and pensioners have become game for the moneyed class, because, of course, their own families are protected against their depredations.

    Now, watch young people demand access to our homes and land, rather than force the government to change the tax regime that is wrecking their chances of ever getting a home.
    Rosret
    6th Feb 2017
    11:42am
    Exactly Travellersjoy.
    Not sure about the Tax regime though. Lack of affordable housing seems to be the big issue. Very high prices for horrible rundown entry level homes.
    Trust me - I have been house hunting with my tertiary qualified son and my skin literally crawls as I walk through these homes.
    We never had these pitiful options when we were young - it is so sad that somewhere along the way successive governments forgot about urban development and infrastructure.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:10pm
    Too many old people living in houses that are way to big for their needs now that is the problem. If people downsized instead of upsizing when they retire this would go a long way to fit this problem. Even just only giving the benefits to those on a full pension would help a lot. This idea if you get a dollar in OAP you get full benefits is not a good one at all.
    Triss
    6th Feb 2017
    12:57pm
    Unfortunately, Old Geezer, none of us know if we will have to spend our latter years in care. We're told by government that the cost of care is very expensive and our house will have to be sold/given to pay for a bed in one of these places.
    If we downsize, as you and the government wish us to, then money for our fees is going to be far less and will mean either running out of money and having to rely on the taxpayer or having to live out our lives in one of the dodgy care homes.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:05pm
    Triss you only pay for care if you can afford it. You can pay nothing and have an identical bed and care to someone who has paid a lot of money. I have seen it many times myself in nursing homes.

    Why anyone would want to go into a nursing home is beyond me. Twiddling your thumbs waiting to die is not for me at all. I can't think of anything worse.
    Triss
    6th Feb 2017
    3:33pm
    I would hate to have to go into a home as well, Old Geezer, but having done voluntary work for many years in nursing homes I know there are people for whom it's necessary. People who have had strokes, dementia, etc but have no family left for support. Many of those people are unable to stand or move around safely and would not be able to cope on their own.
    They, like you, I imagine did not want to leave their homes but circumstances forced them to.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    4:17pm
    Why aren't thee people given a decent choice? I certainly will be.
    Spud
    6th Feb 2017
    10:39am
    My first reaction was " get the gun and shoot me now"
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    11:04am
    That's the problem right there Spud. A whole bunch of masochists letting the sadists loose.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    6:27pm
    Right idea - wrong target.... nobody ever won a social war by dying for the cause - he won it by making the bad guy die for HIS cause.
    Ashacairns
    6th Feb 2017
    10:41am
    Travellersjoy it is already happening. Facebook entries often tell us the old should sell up their homes and move, either out to woop-woop or into an aged care facitiy. This "war against the aged" is hapoening now. And it is about to turn even more vicious as this government floats these ideas - always with the view to distract from their lack of vision for the future - whilst saying they won't do it. And then turning around and actually doing what they said they wouldn't! I sometimes despair
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:17pm
    Why don't these /Facebook enterers move out to woop-woop? It must be a truly desirable place....

    Now you see the fruits of the social engineers undermining society by destroying the family, pitting women against men, and pitting generation against generation.

    Invasion of The Boomer Snatchers....

    I think it's time to fight back....
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:20pm
    The GOD (Golden Oldies Defence) Party....
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2017
    5:34pm
    Glad you clarified what the initial stand for Trebor. I would have guess ''Geriatrics and Old Dogs.'' Still, any name will do as long as the party has the right policies.
    Mum
    6th Feb 2017
    10:43am
    We have a modest apartment in an outer Sydney suburb. Probably worth about $480K.
    One small car, no boat caravan or investment property. We've already lost our part pension. What next?
    jemimapd
    6th Feb 2017
    7:29pm
    You would not be affected. Your home is of modest value. that would be exempt. They are suggesting $450K. The figure would need to be index linked and based on location but all in all it is good.
    My home is worth $350k because it is a small unit. Most of the homes in my suburb are worth $1M, $2M, $3M and more and most are occupied by retirees.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:43am
    Yes it is a great idea to include the house in the assets test. It is the most inequitable part of the whole OAP eligibility. It will stop people upsizing just to get the benefits.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    11:08am
    They don't have to OG. All they need is a nice family trust or a younger spouse that the accumulation fund can sit with or a tax haven SIV and they can get all the benefits house or no house.

    This is a terrible thing to go after the poor who bought a house over 50 years of saving with no concessions while the rich accumulate businesses, income producing assets, shares, bonds etc all tax concessions and subsidised by the taxpayer.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    11:39am
    Now you know why I don't own a house.
    john
    6th Feb 2017
    12:04pm
    Old geezer, when you comment you sound like your commenting on every single situation, you have no idea really , all you do is annoy people , I think your a set up, but you do generalise like a mad man, perhaps your just a bit of fun, or maybe your just plain ignorant uninformed living in your little bubble of success where you see no other side of the fence, because your side is all you got!
    maelcolium
    6th Feb 2017
    12:25pm
    Why do you come into this place and write this tripe OG? You've been a contributor since June 2016 and continue to write against the interest and needs of the retired.

    You are clearly not in receipt of the OAP, so are one of the lucky minority who happened to fall into a job that provided a retirement potential or you were born or bequested into it. Maybe you are a blood sucking negative gearer or some such parasite who thinks they have worked harder than everyone else so you strut around with an entitlement chip on your shoulder which replaces the thinking part of your brain.

    You are bitter because you've got too many assets or too much cash so that you don't qualify for the OAP and you're hell bent on excluding everyone else not as fortunate as you. Your comments are nothing but mean spirited elements of envy for your fellow human being. I'll bet you see the unemployed as bludgers and the youth as lazy and useless because they can't see a future for themselves. I'm sure in your world the disabled should be hidden away so they don't disturb your entitled sense of order. You are a moron and the tragedy is that you think you are above other people that read this site.

    You are exactly like the mean spirited political class who see the world as some kind of binary choice and as long as they are ok the rest of the world can eat shit. Well let me tell you that you are a dinosaur about to be conveyed into history just like the elite you think that you are. Why don't you do us all a favour and stop visiting this place so that we don't have to put up with your odious commentary.

    You are a stain on humanity that needs to be expunged from the lives of the rest of us - so just disappear quietly into the swamp you came out of ..... or like your comments suggest to everyone else you see as a problem - just disappear.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:48pm
    Ha ha thanks for my laughter medicine for today.
    libsareliars
    6th Feb 2017
    12:56pm
    Touche, john and maelcolium. Well said indeed. I think OG is just a troll for the government.
    Travellersjoy
    6th Feb 2017
    1:52pm
    Are you a troll?

    It begins to look very much as if you are.

    This scatter gun spray of incoherent rubbish looks and sounds like trolling to me.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:06pm
    Nope no troll I say it how it is. It is only rubbish due to people's narrow minds.
    marls
    6th Feb 2017
    2:34pm
    john

    good on you spot on
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    2:44pm
    I wonder why the government has never done anything about wealthy couples tying funds up in superannuation accounts and getting the full aged pension for a few years. Seems very discriminatory and a whole waste of money.

    Yet it is perfectly legal and being used frequently during the early pension phase.

    These wealthy people will also get to keep the discount card I suppose even after they draw down the often very large pension they will get from the fund once the younger member reaches retirement age.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    6:30pm
    OG - from your reports, you own a house or two - but you don;t own a home. That makes you a rorter. Unless you are a stakeholder, you have no right to comment other than as a passing remark in the street, same as the ACCI and other twerps who've benefited mightily from the work of we Baby Boomers.

    I sometimes think the worst thing Labor ever did to us was make tertiary education free - now e have all these qualified twerps dictating to us over their half-baked philosophies and ideologies.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:40pm
    Trebor I have every right to comment on what I wish just like you have. I probably have more rights than most as it is people like me that pay the taxes that pays for welfare including the OAP.
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    6:43pm
    OG,
    Your arrogance is "Disgusting & Appalling"!
    Don't EVER get "On Fire" because I certainly would not P on you even if I was looking for a Toilet disparingly!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:45pm
    Nope always as cool as a cucumber.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:21pm
    HOW is it 'the most inequitable' part of entitlement to the Aged Pension?
    None
    6th Feb 2017
    10:43am
    Leave the family home alone. Maybe hit those with several homes under their belt. You work hard all your working life and at times it was tough on one wage while mothers stayed at home and looked after the children while Dad worked seven days a week to keep everything payed for. In retirement we shouldn't be worrying about the Government taking this away from a lot of people.
    john
    6th Feb 2017
    12:07pm
    In retirement None , we shouldn't be worried full stop, but we're not worried , we're terrified.
    And our PM throws 1.75 million into a election campaign , and sends profits off shore, or at least used too.
    Farside
    6th Feb 2017
    4:58pm
    Inclusion of the family home in the means test seems a reasonable idea and worth further discussion and consideration if it is going to result in more sustainable OAP. Whether or not $450K is the right figure is irrelevant to the conversation however it is consistent with other OAP values.

    No doubt there will be a lot of rage among those in God's waiting room however retirees are no worse off in a practical sense as cost recovery only happens upon death, leaving less for their heirs. The quid pro quo is that current taxpayers will have less welfare burden to fund.

    The danger in the proposal is that it could be potentially the thin edge of the wedge for recovering the cost of all government provided services like health. It will do nothing to discourage wealthy retirees from hiding or disposing of assets pre-retirement if they are intent upon wanting to receive the OAP and benefits.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    6:31pm
    Why exactly is that, Farside? Anyone in 'god's waiting room' has every right to enjoy their earned retirement in peace.
    Farside
    6th Feb 2017
    11:01pm
    Trebor, why exactly is what? Nobody is advocating any less enjoyment in retirement. The proposal is simply facilitating retiree to use the equity in their home asset to contribute to funding their retirement.
    niemakawa
    6th Feb 2017
    11:07pm
    Farside and who will contribute to the retirement of non-home owners. Why should they not also make some contribution to fund their retirement? For many of the latter it was a choice not to own a home, so they should be taxed for a missed opportunity.
    Farside
    7th Feb 2017
    12:56am
    what is your point niemekawa? Non homeowners will still be subjected to means testing; the only change is that homeowners will lose some of the advantage from having the family home excluded from the means test.
    niemakawa
    7th Feb 2017
    1:07am
    Farside. There is no justification to include the "family" home as an asset. As I said before many non-homeowners through their choice opted not to buy their own home. Maybe to be fair in your assessment those that had the capacity to buy but did not should be penalised as if a home-owner as they deprived themselves of an asset.

    Age pensions for all, regardless. Additional financial resources can be provided to those that can claim and prove severe hardship.
    Farside
    7th Feb 2017
    11:27am
    niemakawa. just as you assert there is no justification to include the family home as an asset, there is no justification to exclude it either. Pensioner homeowners will still be advantaged by $450,000 or whatever the agreed threshold value is at the time. Non homeowners are of course already being means tested on income and assets acquired in their lifetimes. The fact that you, me and others chose to invest in a home does not make it sacrosanct and a means for wealthy homeowners to pass wealth to their heirs.

    I agree there should be a universal age pension, with additional resources for severe hardship so no argument from me in that regard. In fact I think we should be looking long and hard at the trials going on with national basic income.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    12:59pm
    Farside, homeowners are already paying a high price for their years of sacrifice to pay a mortgage. It's costing many $450+ a week to live in their own home in retirement. How much more, before everyone says ''stuff it, what's the point of trying''? It's a STUPID notion to suggest that people should be denied the benefit of their endeavours. All we are doing by attacking those who tried to achieve comfort in retirement is encouraging more manipulation and cheating and driving more disadvantage.

    I wish I'd never bought a home. I'd be far better off now renting. I can rent for $300 a week - a home equal to mine - get rent assistance, get a much higher pension, and laugh at the fools who worked their guts out and went without for a benefit they are now being told they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy and are finding unaffordable to live in.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    1:07pm
    Until your landlord kicks you out as they have sold to a developers who wants to replace your home with a block of units.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    1:11pm
    Which is why I own a home, OG, but the point is that it's not affordable. And the threat is to make it less so. When you make it unaffordable to do what's good for the nation, more people do what's bad for the nation. Simple logic, really. Astonishing that greed-addled brains don't get it, but greed does kill brain cells.
    Farside
    7th Feb 2017
    3:31pm
    Rainey, home ownership is also influenced by non-financial factors such as forced savings, security of tenure, flexibility to improve or modify, control over decor, pet ownership etc.

    I remember reading reports since the 1980s that clearly demonstrated that in most circumstances people would be better off renting and investing the difference in outgoings however few had the discipline to do so. I suspect if 3x3 (nine year) rental agreements and rent controls were more widespread, as they are in Europe, then many homeowners would choose to rent. Many of my friends owned an investment property but chose to live in rental properties.

    Today, homeowners receive numerous advantages not available to non-homeowners including excluding the family home from the pension assets test and other tax measures such as capital gains tax. This discourages people from downsizing to unlock capital. Despite this renting can be better in some circumstances.

    I'm sorry homeownership is not working for you; if affordability becomes a big enough issue for you then you can always sell. Search Google for more information but in the short term you might find the articles below helpful.

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/11/05/comment-rent-or-buy-lets-do-sums
    http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/should-you-rent-or-buy-heres-the-definitive-answer/news-story/61cd18b08adf7fa64eb7a9e2b792c9c6
    http://www.smh.com.au/money/planning/the-truth-about-home-ownership-and-the-age-pension-20160909-grd5pz.html
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    10:05pm
    My point, Farside, is that when you make it not worthwhile to own a home, all the retirees claim rent assistance and higher pensions. You DON'T HELP THE BUDGE IDIOT, by killing incentive to do what's good for the budget. Time for MORONS to wake up to reality. You kill off the reward for hard work, you kill the economy, and that's what the MORONS are doing.
    Farside
    8th Feb 2017
    12:01am
    Rainey, you are mistaken as to what is and isn;t good for the budget and your alternate reality is incorrect. The world has changed from the post-war era of low workforce participation, fewer services and social preferences.

    Firstly, not all retirees will claim rent assistance. It is reasonable to think many if not most homeowners would continue to own a home. Retirees with homes valued in excess of the threshold would have the option to release equity to improve their standards of living however those with means would do nothing. Those, like yourself, who cannot afford or choose not to be homeowners will simply be treated as non-homeowners for social security purposes.

    The economy is not being killed. Indeed it is likely to be boosted rather than hurt if investors own more houses; the housing market will function according to the laws of supply and demand and the investors will pay taxes on profits to offset the rent subsidies. Governments have several tools in their kit to manage this from rent controls to investment incentives to ensure the market operates in an orderly manner. You may be surprised to learn this is how it works in much of the developed world so we are not pioneers if we go this way.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2017
    11:29am
    No Farside, it's you who is mistaken, Sorry. The government has already done massive harm to the budget by the changed assets test. It will take a while for the effects to flow through and show up in reports, but people are spending (mostly overseas) because there is no longer any benefit in retaining savings if you fall into that persecuted category with assets between about $500,000 and $1.2 million (for a homeowner couple). Domestic spending will reduce, reducing business profits, jobs and the tax take, because some 300,000 retirees are up to $18,000 a year worse off. As these retirees reduce their assets (as quickly as possible in many cases), demand for pensions will rise. The same problems arise from flawed policies regarding home ownership.

    We can ONLY fix the economy by recognizing and rewarding endeavour and responsible living, NOT by bashing those whose responsible efforts position them in modest comfort - but unable to achieve wealth.

    And NO, it is NOT how it works in much of the developed world at all. Australia is among very few, if not the only developed country that aggressively means tests pensions. Most pay them to all - regardless. And many, like the US, allow home mortgage interest as a tax deduction, so any policy like this (which they DO NOT HAVE) would not be nearly as inequitable as it is here where no tax deduction was allowed while paying the home off.

    We are handing out to rich superannuants and property investors who negatively gear, yet threatening to bash poor retirees who have nothing but their modest home. THAT'S SICK! And don't anybody try to tell me it's in any way justified or beneficial. It's the wealthy man's way of making poor lifters support rich leaners.
    Farside
    10th Feb 2017
    2:11am
    Rainey, my comment re the rest of the developed world was in relation to the housing market however you are blinded by your bias.

    For what it's worth I do not agree with negative gearing outside the income class i.e. can only offset property losses against property profits. Nor do I agree with capital gains tax exemptions on the principal place of residence or rate subsidies on the land valuations.

    Also if you have read my remarks elsewhere you would note that actually favour a national basic income and am watching the overseas trials with interest. So I do not have strong objections to means testing as in the NZ universal model however my objective is supporting those who need assistance and staying out of the way of those who do not.

    p.s about one third of countries have means tested social security. In the OECD more than half of the over 65 population in Denmark, Australia, Korea and Chile receive means tested benefits and between a quarter and a third in Canada and the United Kingdom. Other countries to have means testing include Luxembourg, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Slovak Republic, France, Belgium, Italy
    Estonia, Spain, United States, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Ireland
    Slovenia, Portugal, Greece and Turkey however much smaller percentages of the population receive these benefits.

    http://www.cepar.edu.au/media/167089/means-testing-social-security-modelling-and-policy-analysis.pdf
    dougie
    6th Feb 2017
    10:43am
    What you did not say is which Government will buckle under these suggestions.
    Pauline Hanson made some intelligent suggestions regarding taxation at the weekend. A flat tax introduced at whatever % rate would catch everyone and at the level of their expenditure. Everyone who spends a dollar will incur the same % taxation. We small spenders will pay tax but at a lesser cost to us than the big spenders. Everyone who visits our country will pay this tax and so the contribution would be broader and income greater simply because it affects every transaction without exception.
    Maybe Pauline will rattle enough cages for those politicians who are rusted on to the old ways will hear the music and think just a little outside the square. Her thoughts on pollies housing in Canberra or in fact other capital cities for state government need to be heeded as a means of partially addressing the polly ripoff. Lets just see who decries her thoughts and who looks to support her thoughts. I would not be surprised if some of them had not emanated from elsewhere just to get them in the public thoughts. Then again this is belittling Pauline's thoughts and I do not wish to do that.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:47am
    That's when I take all my business off shore.
    Idontforget
    6th Feb 2017
    11:28am
    Why wait to go offshore with all your business, OG instead of doing it now. Surely, to even the blind and deaf, it is apparent that the current Politicians entitlements are obscene and are a teat from which they sucking unearned money from the tax payer. One does not have to be a mathematical genius to work out that many Politicians will receive a pension every year (I call it welfare) that is somewhere between ten and fifteen times what is received by an OAP every year. And you can add that the Pollie does not have to wait until sixty seven to access it like most Australians.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    11:42am
    Well Old Geezer if you have multiple business' to take off shore then including the family home in the Assets Test doesn't worry you it would seem.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    11:47am
    And the Parties are managing to get in two or three Prime Ministers ever election cycle as well. That is going to cost. Once we would only have to fork out for one every two or three cycles.

    Talk about scamming and biting the feeding hand.
    dougie
    6th Feb 2017
    12:43pm
    Old Geezer,
    By this statement I take it to mean that you will shop off shore or do you in fact have one or more businesses to take off shore. If it is purely to shop off shore than I feel that Pollies will be greedy enough and perhaps smart enough to put at least the same % tax on anything purchased overseas as it arrives in this country. They may be like our Donald and suggest a 20% tax on imports and then have other countries add that cost to our exports. What a dangerous net we weave.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:50pm
    No dougie I will not be bringing goods in or taking them out I will just run my business from off shore which is very easy to do. In fact I already do so when I am out of the country.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:58pm
    Misty I don't own a home so can't take it off shore.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    6:33pm
    Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out - we need positive contributors to this nation. When we get this sorted out, OG, if you operate here you will be paying tax here. This nation and countless others are beginning to see the error of their ways in allowing this off-shoring of tax burden.

    Shut The Gates.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:48pm
    It will never happen in my life time so it is not a concern at all.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    7:52pm
    Be sure your sins will find you out... the Trump of doom has sounded and all the world awaits with bated breath.....
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    9:01pm
    What gall you have, OG. Admit to being a filthy greedy leach bleeding the nation and then suggest OAPs should have everything taken away from them. You are beyond disgusting. And it seems nearly everyone here agrees.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    9:04pm
    Not everyone Rainey.
    dougie
    7th Feb 2017
    7:48am
    I wonder what Political Party it was that Old Geezer wanted preselection for and failed. Must have been so as he has an answer for every problem that crops up or an opinion on almost every posting. His frenetic denial of everything that is put forward and his knowledge of every subject would have made him at least Ministerial but probably Prime Ministerial material for any party.

    One thing that does concern me though is if Old Geezer is running business ventures as to how he has time for all of these comments. Surely he must have the best staff ever to give him all of this free time.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    11:40am
    Not worth it for me to be a pollie for what they get paid. I'd rather be a CEO on millions. However I love my life just how it is and I can work when I want and play when I want. I have no staff so do the lot myself. It is way to expensive to employ others these days and let's face it I am too old to be worried about their work as well as mine.
    Misty
    7th Feb 2017
    11:45am
    I commented on that too doughie, makes you wonder doesn't it, OG says he gets up early and attends his business then and seems to be free for the rest of the day. Good luck to him.
    None
    6th Feb 2017
    10:46am
    Why don't this lot get real
    Slimmer Cat
    6th Feb 2017
    11:19am
    Exactly - Every home owner I know saved hard and paid off their homes so the home could be used to support them in their retirement and Old Age not so they could upgrade the home to get welfare and then to leave the upgraded home to their children. If children want the "Family" home (which most children have never lived in) let them support their parents. We're sick of supporting beneficiaries of aged pensioners
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    1:13pm
    It is amazing how many people save for retirement and then don't spend it. They collect welfare instead.
    Farside
    6th Feb 2017
    5:03pm
    Inheritances should not be subsidised by the taxpayer. This simply reduces the amount available to support those truly in need of welfare support. The government should be facilitating ways to help retirees to make better use of their assets to fund comfortable retirements.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:18pm
    Agree inheritances should not be subsidised by the taxpayer.

    Centrelink stats would be telling the government that people are not drawing down their assets and that was the reason why the asset test was changes.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    7:51pm
    Inheritances are not subsidised by the taxpayer - those who are retired are equally entitled to pass on what they have accumulated over their years of work in any way they choose - that includes the rich as well as the poor.

    Since the Pension is not a subsidised payment in retirement - as opposed to superannuation and investment - there is no reason whatsoever to even consider attempting to recoup or cut down on pension.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    9:09pm
    By this dumb logic that ''inheritances should not be subsidized by the taxpayer'', gamblers and drinkers and extravagant holiday-makers should have their entertainment paid for by the taxpayer, but anyone who lived responsibly and chose to save for some future need - or to help their grandkids get a decent start in life - should be robbed of everything they worked for.

    So I guess the message, folks, is take up gambling, drinking and rioting and put your hand out. Got savings? Take a cruise now. Gt a house? Sell up now and spend the loot, or gift it to the kids, cop a pension loss for 5 years, and then join those milking the system.

    And tell your kids to forget about working - unless they can earn millions. No more street sweepers, toilet cleaners or garbage collectors. No point in doing that sort of labour. No. Not even working as linesmen, clerks, office cleaners, shop assistants, etc. offers any benefit. They will all be robbed also. So just STOP WORKING AND START PARTYING NOW.

    Honestly, it boggles the mind how STUPID greed makes people. And how GREEDY AND SELFISH some of the privileged in the retirement community are.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:23pm
    Your kids will have to work to survive as no more inheritances subsidised by the taxpayer.
    Farside
    6th Feb 2017
    11:07pm
    Rainey, hard to understand why you would think inheritances should be subsidised by taxpayers. It seems to be in conflict with your anxieties about deserving low paid workers to have a welfare safety net.

    There will always be a need for government welfare to support low paid workers as they will be unable to build superannuation accounts or save enough in their working years to fund retirement.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    3:04pm
    Farside, I think it's far healthier for both people and the nation for inheritances to be subsidized by taxpayers rather than gambling, alcohol, and expensive holidays. If people can't CHOOSE how they spend the money they earn, why bother to earn it? If we reward irresponsible use of money - i.e. drinking, drug-taking, gambling, etc. - and punish responsible use (i.e. leaving it to a disabled grandchild who will need a lifetime of special care), how the hell are we going to have lower taxes and a healthier society? Your simplistic and idealistic ideas make no sense. They just DON'T WORK.

    The best way to support low paid workers is to ensure that work and responsible living PAYS WELL. Make sure that those who manage to lift themselves up from disadvantage aren't pushed back down and don't suffer penalty for their efforts. Encourage and reward people for lifting themselves up and more will do so.

    Effectively '''FINING'' people for saving say, $600,000, but not having the ability to generate an income equal to the pension, or FINING people for struggling to pay off a mortgage and own their home in retirement merely sends a message that it's futile to try and we should all just be far more welfare dependant. It creates a welfare mentality - which is precisely what the powers-that-be claim to want to be ending.

    Equate it to kids. If you tell your son ''put pocket money in your piggy bank so you can live more comfortably at university, and I'll refuse to pay for your textbooks or buy you ice cream when we go on family outings, but squander it all on sweets and videos and I'll pay for everything you need'''. What do you think he'll do? This is the STUPID mentality behind our dumb pension system, and '''do-gooder'' fools are demanding it be made a thousand times worse.

    I had a friend who dropped out of a training course intended to qualify him to be a social worker because he realized that the system is deliberately designed to keep people down. And it does so very effectively indeed! And we have a lot more disadvantage, PLUS a lot more cheats and manipulators, because we simply cannot recognize that to reduce the problems, we need to help people get up - not bash them down.

    It would be nice if everyone just responded to calls for honesty and prioritizing need and was self-sacrificing, but there are two reasons why that will never happen. First, many have genuine needs or special circumstances that aren't recognized by the system and they feel unjustly dealt with and determine to get revenge. Secondly, it's not in the nature of most people to be self-sacrificing. We have to deal with what people ARE, not what we want them to be - and what they are is self-interested. So design systems to recognize that, rather than based on an assumption that a big stick is somehow going to magically change human nature.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    3:30pm
    Most people I know with disabled children set up a special fund for them and it doesn't count towards their pension.

    When it comes to money many people are in it for what they can get no mater what it takes.
    Farside
    7th Feb 2017
    3:39pm
    Rainey, unfortunately your attitudes are 100 years out of date and you cannot prescribe how people should live. I would also suggest that it is better to fund disabled grandchild sooner rather than later when the money can do more good. And as OG says, a fund to care for them is excluded from pension calculations.
    Patriot
    7th Feb 2017
    3:48pm
    Rainy,
    Only when we classify COMPASSION to be 100 years out of date should we consider ideas like yours (& Others similar to yours) "Out-of-Date" by 100 years!

    Of course, we understand that COMPASSION (as opposed to "Dog-eat-Dog") is the only attitude which will provide a chance for the Human Race to SURVIVE with some dignity and into the future!!!

    Our Civilisation (???) currently has managed to re-create the triggers Identical to the Demise of the Roman Empire so many centuries ago.
    So much for learning from history & mistakes.

    If we (collectively) WILL NOT Learn, we MUST repeat!!!!! HOW SAD!!!
    Farside
    7th Feb 2017
    5:28pm
    Patriot, it's not Rainey's compassionate qualities that are 100 years out of date but rather her wowser like zeal to deprive others what many might regard as fun and enjoyment – a bet, a drink, a holiday.

    There are plenty of old dears whose leisure involves taking a lotto, going to bingo, an occasional flutter on the races or football, imbibing a sherry or beer when the family visits and even going on an occasional holiday while they still can.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    10:00pm
    Farside, you are FULL OF IT! I am not a wowser, nor do I want to deprive anyone of enjoyment. I just don't want to see people rewarded for irresponsible living and punished for doing what's good for the nation. And you are DEAD WRONG (and OG also) about a fund for a disabled grandchild. It is NOT exempt from any pension gifting rule. And it's damned hard to give the money to the kid before he exists or is even contemplated! What utter STUPIDITY you people rant on with.

    The problem with the utterly STUPID AND EONCOMICALLY DISASTROUS proposal under discussion is it that creates yet another huge incentive for cheating and manipulation and will drive more disadvantage and higher pension costs. You can't keep taking from people and expect them to cop it. They will find ways to circumvent the injustice. As they are doing now. That's what's driving up our welfare bill, and continuing the UTTERLY IDIOTIC idea that continuing to bash people will help is TOTALLY MORONIC. No wonder the country is in a mess.
    Farside
    8th Feb 2017
    12:34am
    Rainey, so the disabled grandchlld you want to benefit in your estate is not and may never be born. Bit of a stretch even for you to argue that. And before you spread more disinformation please read up on Special Disability Trusts which allow a gifting concession of $500,000. It's one thing to be misinformed but choosing to do so takes a special kind of stupid.

    https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/special-disability-trusts

    You have not done the modelling of the ACCI proposal and are no position to make an informed comment. By what criteria do you determine Australia is in a mess or are you another Debbie Downer?
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2017
    5:28pm
    You are the master of MISINTERPRETATION, Farside. I DID NOT say the grandson hadn't been born yet. But YOU should check your facts. Gifting impacts severely on age pension entitlement. Unless you can gift BEFORE you turn 60 (and the child HADN'T been even thought of back then) you can't gift more than $30,000 over 5 years without it severely impacting a pension. Yes, a Special Disability Trust provides exemptions, but the conditions are rigid. In our case, the child's condition is not yet known to be severe enough to meet the conditions. The whole point of wanting to help him now is to ensure that, like his mother, he develops sufficient to NOT be severely disabled. $100,000 spent wisely now MIGHT result in almost normality. But a Special Disability Trust requires that there be very little hope that the money will assist remedy.

    Fortunately, I don't currently draw - or need - a pension of any kind, but the point remains that the system discriminates heavily against people who wish to spend in particular RESPONSIBLE ways, that are good for the nation, while favouring those who live IRRESPONSIBLY, spending on parties, gambling, extravagant holidays, etc. And THAT IS AN INSULT TO THE TAXPAYER AND A SURE AND CERTAIN RECIPE FOR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS.
    Farside
    12th Feb 2017
    3:28am
    Rainey, your thought process is bordering on incoherent so maybe that is why I am misunderstanding you.

    On 7 Feb "And it's damned hard to give the money to the kid before he exists or is even contemplated!" and then 11 Feb "I DID NOT say the grandson hadn't been born yet".

    IOn 7 Feb say "I would also suggest that it is better to fund disabled grandchild sooner rather than later when the money can do more good" and you then agree "The whole point of wanting to help him now is to ensure that, like his mother, he develops sufficient to NOT be severely disabled". I am aware of the improved outcomes that can come from early interventions and hope you achieve this for your grandson.

    The thing with judging how people choose to live their lives is that what a Downer Debbie might consider irresponsible or extravagant may not be shared by others.
    Anonymous
    12th Feb 2017
    11:19am
    Farside, if you were not so hell bent on ridiculing me for disagreeing with you, you might actually open your mind to possibilities and ask questions instead of jumping to wild conclusions.

    I said it was damned hard to gift money to a kid before he exists, meaning that it was hard to make a gift before I turned 60, which is the ONLY time someone who will qualify for a pension at age 65 can gift without suffering disadvantage - UNLESS the child meets the very rigid requirements to be the beneficiary of a special disability trust. So my statement was NOT ludicrous or contradictory as you nastily imply. It was perfectly sensible and logical, if only you had made a little more effort to interpret correctly instead of being determined to abuse and denigrate.

    My grandson DOES have a serious disability - but not sufficient, YET, to qualify under the rigid terms of a disability trust. His mother had a disability that led doctors to declare I should institutionalize her and forget about her because she would ''never lift her head off the floor''. Today, she is a primary school teacher, wife, and beautiful loving mother to a little boy who has a very different disability, but one equally threatening. I want to help him develop the way his mother did. I know, from experience, what early intervention can do. But having not known he would even exist when I turned 60, had I wanted to apply for an aged pension at 65, I would have been barred from helping beyond gifting (in total - to ALL loved ones) a meagre $30,000 over 5 years without suffering pension loss.

    Yet a pensioner can put $100,000 through the poker machines tomorrow and suffer no pension loss. A pensioner can take a $200,000 overseas holiday and suffer no pension loss. In fact, in both cases, part pensioners GAIN SIGNIFICANTLY.

    Now, my question is, how does anyone JUSTIFY that someone should be FINANCIALLY PUNISHED for helping their disabled grandson, but REWARDED for gambling, drinking, partying or taking extravagant holidays. Talk about JUDGING HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES!

    And now the ACCC is JUDGING people who choose to sacrifice for 30 years to pay off a home, and demanding they be harshly punished. They already suffer massive disadvantage, but it's not enough for the greedy, self-serving bastards who want to destroy the middle and working class.
    LiveItUp
    14th Feb 2017
    8:53am
    Rainey why not just wash your money through a Casino like the crims do when they launder dirty money? Many OAPs do this to get rid of excess assets.

    Anither thing they do is take small amount of money out of the bank in cash and put it in their grandkids account in the bank accros the street. Another one is book an expensive holiday and get a refund that just disappears.

    All you have to do is work out what expenditure is acceptable and play the game of disappearing cash.

    Buy a less expensive house and the balance goes to to another member of th family. Even if Centrelink want the front page of the contract it is not hard to make it fit your circumstances even done legally.

    Gosh I've just given away way too many strategies of playing the Centrelink game and will now have to take all the flack from those who lose out when they disallow these strategies.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2017
    4:44pm
    And you've proved me right, Bonny. The system is WRONG. It encourages and rewards cheats, manipulators, and the irresponsible. It screws honest, decent, hard-working Australians, and therefore it cannot possibly help the disadvantaged. So anyone who ISN'T condemning it as a gross failure and demanding change is supporting wrongdoing.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    10:46am
    Poor people buy houses with their savings. Those houses are not negatively geared. They are fully paid with interest earned and paid for as well as all rates, insurance and maintenance. Paid for after tax.

    Rich people, like the ACCI have their net wealth in financial products which are tax concessional. They get tax deductions for the interest on purchasing assets and can deduct costs.

    Now if poor people's houses are to be classed as a financial product then surely negative gearing must apply.

    The ACCI are running on a belief that supply services the economy and they are the heroes. I imagine some time very soon the reality that it is actually demand will hit them.
    Spending will stop regardless of all the lovely baubles they are trying to sell and the Great Recession will slam into them. Idiots are biting of their own noses to spite their faces.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    11:00am
    The loan on the house is not for business purposes so negative gearing does not apply.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    11:15am
    Yes OG only the rich can rip off tax concessions and convince themselves it is a legitimate thing as it is "business".

    The loan on the house could very well be for investments in shares and bonds for income and thus the interest tax deductible. That will fix the damn government and business groups. If you can't beat them then join them.

    The retirees can then live on ATO refunds like wealthy people do.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    11:36am
    Problem is anyone using a loan would sell their shares etc before accessing the loan. Yes I'd keep the shares and access the loan and then write off any expenses against the income. An interest free loan would be very attractive indeed.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    11:37am
    Ooops we have already found a loophole in this to be exploited.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    11:51am
    Yes and if we bought franked dividend producers we could theoretically break the government. Fabulous idea NOT ACCI.
    Triss
    6th Feb 2017
    12:20pm
    Don't pensioner house owners already have their houses assessed for pension/benefits? If a pensioner rents then a rent subsidy is paid to them. A house owner does not get that subsidy therefore a saving is made from them by government.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    1:01pm
    No all those rent subsidies do is save the government have too OAPs one for renters and one for home owners. Nothing more.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    2:50pm
    Old Geezer any loan made to buy shares or bonds can be negatively geared or are you suggesting these bunnies not only go without interest tax rebates on that financial asset called the home they now have to live off but also can't get tax rebates for the investments they buy with the money as other investors do. Sounds like a lose- lose situation for them and a win-win for the banks.

    You don't work for the banking lobby by any chance do you?

    Only a banker or a businessperson would think this deal makes any sense.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    4:24pm
    Rae it is an interest free loan so no interest tax rebates required. I'm thinking of getting one myself as it's cheap money and good for using to make a few extra bob.

    They will be suing the money to live on so can't get any tax breaks on it. Then again if they use it to make money to live on them they can get tax breaks on it. Just add another step into the process and it's a different ball game.

    Never worked for the banking lobby. Why do you ask? I'm not that fond of banks myself except they are good to negotiate great deals off.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    5:25pm
    Well seeing Australia is broke the loan money must be coming from overseas which means that eventually all our houses will be owned by overseas savers. This does not sound like a good plan for anyone with Australia's interest at heart but more like something a banking cartel would dream up.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    11:09am
    If the house is to be treated as an asset - then business rules must apply and all costs must be concessions against the purported value, including all past payments calculated at the current rate per dollar.

    You can.t have it both ways - either your home is your personal property or it is an asset that can be considered in determining your right to pension - and when you go down that road - you throw into question all assets owned and paid for over a lifetime should be treated the same.

    But no government will actually want to go to such an extreme declaration that your personal property is not your personal property to do with as you choose..... that's called Tyranny, and we can't make it too blatant, can we? So let's just rob them with a fountain pen.....
    Farside
    7th Feb 2017
    11:37am
    Trebor, fair point about the costs of the investment being deductible however this would only be argued on a going forward basis. The $450,000 or whatever the threshold will reflect past costs so only a reason to go back to zero is if the threshold were set at zero. For now the proposal advantages the homeowner by $200,000 over non-homeowners so there is some wiggle room.

    The property aspect is unaffected by the proposal and homeowners still have all enjoyment rights as well as the capacity to release some equity at no interest cost while still being able to reside. The loan is simply an encumbrance on the property to be actioned when eventually sold.
    Rae
    7th Feb 2017
    2:49pm
    You are beginning to sound like a banker there Farside. Watch that dribble as you contemplate the fees and charges you can get from all those home owners who hold no debt.

    How dare they?
    Farside
    7th Feb 2017
    5:18pm
    Rae, did you even read the proposal? What I said is pretty fundamental and germaine to the topic and hopefully be easily understood by those interested without needing to be a banker.

    The proposed equity release loan will be administered by the government and is free of interest and fees. It does not increase the homeowner's level of indebtedness, rather it reduces the value of the home asset.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    10:09pm
    Bonus for the kids. We'll have the retirees and soon-to-retire racing to divest their houses to their kids, rent them back, and claim rent assistance. Honestly, these ideas are conceived by idealistic simpletons who haven't a clue about anything except how to screw someone else for their own selfish gain.
    Old Geezer
    9th Feb 2017
    10:45am
    Not too sure about that Rainey with so many marriages ending in divorce. The outlaws would end up wit the bulk of it.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2017
    7:51am
    No. Just give it to your child and ensure they have a written agreement with their partner that it is theirs alone if the marriage fails. Easy! There are plenty of folk with prenup agreements. It's no different.
    margie
    6th Feb 2017
    10:48am
    I have fire streaming from my mouth, this is outrageous. Why do we constantly have to fight to keep what is ours? We have worked, saved and gone without to own our homes and we should be able to do what we bloody well want with it. The greedy, grasping, politicians had better think long and hard before going down this road. Perhaps we can start culling from their ranks, that would save money and give most Australians a lot of pleasure. Way to be sure no one bothers to own a home in the future, everyone can rent, I'm sure that will work (dripping sarcasm). I've said it before and I repeat it, stop the perks for politicians once they cease work, no continued payments other than their super. No one else continues to be paid by their former employer, why do these free loaders? Give them a wage and only increase it in line with the CPI and if they want to travel first class they can pay for the upgrade from their own purse, they certainly have enough money to enable them to afford it. Start from the top and lead by example.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    11:18am
    Because you are poor margie and thus fair game to the likes of the business council types. They are deserving recipients of tax funds as they are lifters but you are not in their books.

    This id the business people's lobby group suggesting this. Take it up with them.
    john
    6th Feb 2017
    12:23pm
    Well Margie I believe a certain PM has had his coffers filled with millions of tax payers money over the years so I guess we can look at all those benefits to politicians cabinet members and shadows etc over decades and back benchers , and realise just what a pack of disgraceful bleeders these people are , and is there one who thinks it is bad, they lie they cheat they promise and never deliver,and they think they do a good job and they think they are entitled to some way over the top benefits for bloody life!
    I say it all the time , but we need some NEW BLOOD running this country our system has turned politics into a racket, youngsters find "hell" while looking for a house to buy , then cannot be guaranteed anything but maybe a part time or casual position (yes old Geezer ) that happens to thousands and thousands, of them , at the other end retirees are threatened by smart alec half brains sitting behind desks on fat pay packages telling the country what a good idea it is to make it harder and harder for the majority (yes majority Old Geezer!) of retirees who sit and wonder whats next.
    And here on Your Life Choices, every day some new bit of garbage comes out and off go the poor buggars ON LINE who just got over some other unfair rubbish this establishment we call the Gov and the Opp, and the ACCI DRIBBLE OUT TO US.
    New Blood in our political set up. Get out all you long term pollies go to hell, let some younger brains take over , I hope the people will do that in all state and federal elections coming up, because Establishment , YOU HAVE FAILED MISERABLY.
    libsareliars
    6th Feb 2017
    1:12pm
    Hear hear john!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:20pm
    John be careful what you wish for? Ask the people of Germany who put Hitler in power?
    Janran
    6th Feb 2017
    6:32pm
    I agree John, we need a new regime, but we must be very careful about how we construct it.
    Many people voted for Adolph Trump because he ticked just one box like, eg "Make America great again" (whatever that means - dominating? manufacturing? affluent? no blacks? women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?), less gun control, build the Mexican wall, stop Muslim immigration or stop the TPP. He had something for everyone! But what can, or will he deliver? Will he set us back socially and culturally? I think so. Or will he start WWIII?
    Rae
    7th Feb 2017
    8:23am
    If he does we are in deep doo as we no longer have any manufacturing, China owned the Grid and Ports and we don't process oil.

    I'd give it a week or two, after the shipping stops, before the rationing begins and the shelves start to look empty but gee let's worry about retired workers owning homes.

    In fact it makes sense. The ACCI don't have business and Industry to worry about anymore do they.

    Just about obsolete.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    11:11am
    Cop yer whack fer this then:-

    moviesub.org/watch/revelation-dawn-of-global-government-2016-hd.online.html
    Farside
    7th Feb 2017
    12:25pm
    Trebor, seriously? Delusional fears of gun toting, white, conservative christian americans. You really should wear your alfoil hat when watching propaganda like this. Still, it's good to know what some people are thinking.
    Patriot
    7th Feb 2017
    12:36pm
    Farside,
    Sad enough NO propaganda in that movie at all!!!
    Not like their & OUR nightly NEWS Broadcasts which - generally - are 100% propaganda or Trivial CRAP!!!

    While Americans can be somewhat gullible at times they certainly are holding on to their guns in order to be able to defend themselves.
    Wish we - collectively - had had more brains on this issue.

    Government there - as it is here - is just becoming a "Force of Harassment"!
    Just look at the CenterLink disaster!
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    7:33pm
    One of those people was a retired Lieutenant General who commanded all US special forces and their training.... I tend to think he knew what he was talking about and derived his reasoning from his education and training ... some of the other you can argue with and perhaps cast aspersions ... but he spoke solidly and drew fair comparisons. His theory was solid and his experience cemented it in place for me.
    andromeda143
    6th Feb 2017
    10:56am
    I would not trust this government to lie straight in bed. The Liberals are the ones who give ear to these right wing elitist 'think tank' organisations and while they are around retirees are not safe. The sooner this repressive and elitist government goes the better. Although I do not see much in the way of leadership or vision from the opposition, they are the lesser of the two evils. It is mostly since the Liberals have been in power that families and retirees have been targets for cutting funding. They are only interested in feathering their own nests with exorbitant expenses claims and huge retirement payouts or in giving money to their corporate mates to exacerbate the ever-increasing gap between rich and poor.
    Between Turnbull, Morrison, Kormann, Dunstan, Pyne and Bishop they are ruining the best place to live on this planet and despite all this they still cannot improve the budget bottom line.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    11:47am
    Don't you mean President Trumbull andromeda?, when will Sean Spicer get his facts straight, shouldn't have this position in the White House if he can't do that simple thing or maybe he cannot read do you think?.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    11:50am
    Sorry to go off topic here but it annoys me to see this idiot repeatedly making these mistakes or is he deliberately insulting the PM ?.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    11:51am
    He was thinking of Barney Gumble from The Simpsons (buuuuurp)...
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    7:38pm
    I thrashed that one out before - none of the 'boomers' except the privileged few, have had the opportunity to accumulate massive superannuation etc towards retirement, since compulsory super only cam in in 1992 (correct me if I'm wrong there) - so has yet to even approach the halfway mark of fifty years to create a 'nest egg'.

    Fat Joe the Ambassador started this one - without once taking the figures into account - and no government has let go of the idea that it is simply impossible to generate that retirement income for many over that short period. So these fools started rattling the bars to frighten some of the old birds to death, by telling them they were too well-fed.

    What total stupidity... given another twenty-five years, this system would have gone a long way to reducing the Aged Pension demand, through more people having a nest egg (provided they could get a job - another story) - but no - these raving lunatics had to hit the panic button and bash the ideological button in an attempt to paint Pensioners and the Unemployed by THEIR policies as losers and thieves.

    They should all be hung from a lamp post and their pockets rifled for their unearned riches.
    Farside
    9th Feb 2017
    12:15am
    Trebor, I don't know the numbers but there were certainly more than s few boomers in non-contributory provident funds, pension plans and generous defined benefit superannuation schemes at least a decade before 1992. I joined a super scheme in 1981 and I was one of the youngest in the organisation (a major mining house). My wife was in a government provident fund in 1979 so you could safely assume many others were also receiving that benefit. What happened in 1992 was that super was made available to all workers rather than those who worked for enlightened employers.
    Herbie49
    6th Feb 2017
    11:04am
    So our generation gets caught in the web, not enough years to acquire a decent super fund, ok what next. Younger people will see how their efforts to get ahead will be thwarted by greedy can't do politicians, so spend it all along the way don't bother buying a home. I wonder how any government can supply public housing to the masses, when people simply do not buy homes. The whole economy is geared around housing, farming and industry, we may as well go and occupy the vacant mud huts all the so called refugees are abandoning in their hurry to get to the land of milk and honey, where of course they don't need to contribute to society. PS I don't know why "Old Geezer" bothers to read and comment on these articles, he got enough to live on the fat of the land.
    Slimmer Cat
    6th Feb 2017
    11:32am
    I doubt "Old Geezer" is living off the fat of the land - I would think "Old Geezer" was the Ant in Aesop's Fable and the rest of you were Grasshoppers.

    Since 1970 the writing was on the wall if you wanted a good retirement you would have to support yourself and you needed to take appropriate action for the rest of your working life.

    As "OG" would be able to tell you, it was not easy at times BUT it was worth the effort now.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    12:26pm
    Not everyone had your good fortune Slimmer Cat, different job opportunities, location, family commitments, health,education, all contribute to what happens in a person's life and their ability to save for their retirement, PLEASE SHOW A BIT OF COMPASSION FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT HAD YOUR OPPORTUNITIES IN LIFE, same goes for OG.
    Slimmer Cat
    6th Feb 2017
    1:04pm
    Misty, the reason I have no COMPASSION is that I have watched friends and work colleagues who were in a better financial position to ourselves who did not take the save for retirement option and are now on the OAP or part pension. Their attitude to us is that we are LUCKY. There is no luck attached to hard work and saving to get yourself in a position of being self supporting.
    libsareliars
    6th Feb 2017
    1:19pm
    Well said Misty but you are bashing your head against a brick wall trying to change people like Slimmer Cats ideas.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:23pm
    So I am to have compassion for those who didn't apply the principals of good management to their affairs. I don't think so.
    Triss
    6th Feb 2017
    4:24pm
    Slimmer Cat, for there to be no OAP you must first have no unemployment so people can work and save. You also have to realise that the range of salaries also has a bearing on how much a person can save for their retirement. People on $40,000 per annum will have a lot more difficulty saving for their old age than someone on $600,000 per annum.
    On a different note, does anyone find it ironic that government didn't have the time to pass legislation to remove the gold card travel entitlements of retired politicians but had all the time in the world to pull the rug out from under pensioners?
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    4:34pm
    If I was a betting person I'd say that the person on $40,000 a year would save a lot more than the one on $600,000. Most people adjust their lifestyle to suit their wage so as their wage goes up so does their living expenses. I would find it hard to spend $40,000 a year myself even though I earn more.
    Triss
    6th Feb 2017
    5:42pm
    Probably you would, Old Geezer, because you're an old geezer. I'm talking about people much, much younger who still have a mortgage, health care fund if they can afford it, children to educate, school uniforms to buy and all the other stuff for school.
    People don't all come out of the same doll factory, some people through no fault of their own have health concerns, children or other family members with special needs and that also costs money.
    There are many more items to spend on when you've just started your adult life than when you're at the end of it and have everything.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    6:07pm
    Spot on Triss, maybe Old Geezer is so old he or she has forgotten what it is like to be young, saving for a home and bringing up children.
    Wonder what sort of business he/she has?, must be one where he/she doesn't need to pay much attention as he/she has been on here commenting most of the day.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:26pm
    Get up very early and do lots of work when it is cool. By the time I got on here it was siesta time. I have my fingers in many pies much to my family's disgust at me still working away.

    I know all about bringing up children even disabled ones and have been saving for a rainy day all my life so nothing forgotten there.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    7:55pm
    Sounds more like the cockroach on the sidelines to me watching the ants work away and get shafted.. only a grasshopper would make that kind of comment.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    11:57am
    Good God, man - but your reasoning is bizarre - 'people adjust their living style to suit their income' - they sure do - the guy on $600k has nice holidays, jaunts at regattas, has a nice car swapped for a newie every two years (as a tax concession, of course), sends his kids to private schools, lives in a comfortable home, never has concerns when the fridge breaks down but just get the chauffeur to go get a new one, watches the footie from someone's corporate box, never has to worry about the quality of the food he feeds his kids, and so on ad infinitum... the guy on $40k wonders where his next mortgage payment of half his after-tax income is coming from, or rent if he pays it, drives an old car that needs constant repair, pays to get to work, shops for specials for food for the kids, gets the kids into any school nearby, holidays by going to Manly for the day on a ferry once in a blue moon, watches football on the tellie if it is working...

    YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT THEY ADJUST THEIR LIVING STYLE TO THEIR INCOME...... (Jesus God - this guy got some award for Oz Day - he says?) For Services to Insanity.
    MITZY
    6th Feb 2017
    11:20am
    Including the family home in determining the aged pension just keeps bobbing up all the time.The government keeps saying it won't happen, but if it gets enough air-play with no opposition to it, it will eventually happen.
    As soon as this obscene suggestion from the ACCI hit the media, all the other bodies with the pensioners' needs at heart should be pushing for media space to forcefully and angrily depose the suggestion of it.
    $450,000 and you lose your pension/part pension for five years!? and also increase the retirement age to 70!?
    The ACCI must be housing a pack of imbeciles running their business. What next is the pensioner going to lose? Even the recent changes to superannuation entitlements and the pension were more generous than this "thought" process or lack of it. Pensioner advocate bodies should be hot-footing to protest against this preposterous move even if the government says it won't happen. How many times have we heard a government say something won't happen but it does. And, then again, how many times have we heard a government say they "won't break a promise" when the general consensus is they should, example: the current stand-off re a plebiscite or a free-vote on gay marriage. Abbott keeps threatening Turnbull on this agenda indicating the Coalition went to the election promising a plebiscite and yet many of the promises he made soon after being elected were abandoned. It's always the pot/kettle scenario. No wonder the voter is disillusioned.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    11:41am
    It will happen.
    Slimmer Cat
    6th Feb 2017
    11:48am
    It has to happen!
    KSS
    6th Feb 2017
    12:27pm
    Mitzy, blame Labor for the lack of a plebiscite, they and their Green mates were so afraid of the wider Australian public that they refused (and still refuse) to support it.
    libsareliars
    6th Feb 2017
    1:21pm
    Agreed Mitzy.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    2:08pm
    What good would a Plebiscite have done if it did get up?, the Govt was not legally obliged to honour it so the situation could still be the same, a free vote is the only sure way to go.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:24pm
    What happens when the free vote fails?
    Farside
    6th Feb 2017
    5:10pm
    Retirement is already moving to 70 and will continue to rise, probably 75. Expect the five years to become indefinite until the home asset less interest free loans equals the threshold amount.
    Triss
    6th Feb 2017
    6:00pm
    The Libs and the Greens needs throwing out completely at the next election for this piece of garbage.
    How can a house price of $450,000 be bandied about when Turnbull knows that Susan Ley has just paid $800,000 for an investment apartment?
    How can Turnbull be serious about $450,000 when his own house is worth tens of millions? He is just so much out of touch.
    How can he insist pensioners are stopping young families from buying property when many politicians have multi properties, separate properties from politicans before pensoners.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    6:09pm
    Status quo Old Geezer.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:24pm
    IF this happens - I will be the old geezer with the Australian flag marching towards Canberra on a Coo-EEE March.... join if you have the balls....
    Rosret
    6th Feb 2017
    11:32am
    $450K! The house next door - a 3 bedroom nothing special far far away from Sydney sold for $950K - just where do you think the old people are going to live?
    While it is quite apparent that some young people want us in a coffin before we are actually dead they need to be reminded that if we sell our family home it won't be bought by young families it will be acquired by investors.
    Yes, there are people putting all there super into a home and then accessing the pension however for the rest of the elderly community it would mean moving away from family and an infrastructure that can support them.
    I don't want to live if I don't have my family ...but I guess that is the aim ...one less person to care about.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    11:54am
    And where will the supposedly "Old People" live?, no accommadation now, thousands of homeless living on the streets according to a report on the weekend
    Farside
    6th Feb 2017
    5:14pm
    The old folk will not have to move. If the home is valued at $950K then the proposal is they could draw down $500k of loans against the house before receiving the pension. Nobody is hurt and loans are settled on death.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    5:29pm
    And when that last person owns all the world Farside what happens then or haven't you people figured that one out yet?

    8 people own more than half the world right now. Australian's annoy them because we paid off debt and then stopped borrowing. That is very bad for the more and more debt ponzi bubble.
    Farside
    6th Feb 2017
    5:52pm
    Rae, what concerns should I have when the last person owns the world? The house would be sold on the market after the owners have passed away. If one person buys every house on the market then they would have to price rents at a level such that it would not be economic for anyone other than government to build new accommodation.
    Rae
    7th Feb 2017
    8:28am
    Read Orwell's recount" The Road To Wigan Pier". The answer is there.
    Patriot
    7th Feb 2017
    8:46am
    Rae,
    George Orwell is/was - apparently - an ex-member of the Fabian Society and so, he should know the planning the is (has been) happening on our behalf by secret societies who want to "Own the World"!

    So, his writing, might be just be a representation of "The Future"!
    Cautious
    6th Feb 2017
    11:35am
    You would need different asset tests for every region in Australia. I.e Parramatta and Penrith could not be assessed by the same value as Kirribilli, let alone Sydney vs Darwin.
    Asset "book value" richer does not mean richer in the extra disposable money sense.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    3:16pm
    Oh I'm sure they will be able to sell off a bathroom or two. There is sure to be some whiz kid out there willing to develop an algorithm that will create a derivative we can use to do they. Bound to be.

    Those business types are very very clever.

    Just create more debt and she'll be right.
    jackyd
    6th Feb 2017
    3:25pm
    Exactly, leading to yet another example of bigger government in an all ready over governed society.
    All in an effort to collect more revenue for the ever revenue wasting bureaucracy that seeks to keep us tightly secured in cotton balls while they themselves retire comfortably on the generous but unfunded public service superannuation entitlement.
    john
    6th Feb 2017
    11:37am
    This story is a good way for the chamber of Commerce to get themselves a new government or Liberal leader or whtt ever it is that they think they want or think a good idea.
    They are business advisers and representatives and their only ambition is for profit and for ways to make the "people " pay out more and more.
    To suggest the population be dredged of more of what they've worked for for their lifetimes is an obscenity just in the words let alone some pack of over wealthy greedy people.
    Most importantly , it will never happen, because the government that brings it in will be gone very quickly.
    So whats going on, is this another bit of weaponry to give Bill to lie about at the next election, maybe he's got some plans to work on with the chamber , he's been in negotiations with business'before today, to the detriment of that business's workers.
    I give up on both main streams, really !
    Rosret
    6th Feb 2017
    11:47am
    Ah - a conspiracy theory! You maybe right there John ... more fake news.
    Molly
    6th Feb 2017
    11:42am
    I guess I wouldn't feel so disillusioned if someone had advised me 40 years ago there will be no pensions. I am not sure how I would have been able to save more money as super did not come into the picture till much later in my working life. But when they keep changing the goalposts it is very hard to stay calm. Realise that the Government is struggling to provide the money for welfare but what about the women who keep having babies to different partners or keep having babies as soon as one starts school so they do not have to work. What about addicts, alcoholics who are seen as having an illness so do not go to work but someone who is struggling with cancer has to. So if the family home is included in assets and a supposedly loan a reverse mortgage is introduced and our children who are struggling to buy a house will not inherit our property because we have had to mortgage it which took us 40 years to buy then they will never be able to own a house. Only able to get part time work, lower wages so down the track we will have so many people struggling to make ends meet but negative gearing for people with lots of properties no worries! The only thing I can say is very seriously think about who we vote for.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    11:50am
    I was told the day I started work many decades ago that there would be no OAP when I got to retirement age so I didn't expect it.
    Rosret
    6th Feb 2017
    11:51am
    There are so many people this would affect. I think John (above) has probably got it right.
    If not - we can all meet in Broken Hill for the best party this side of the black stump. Cheers :)
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    12:01pm
    Sorry to have to inform you Old Geezer but here are thousands of people who never had your insight or opportunities, often through no fault of their own, to be able to save for the future and I believe there are now also many thousands, if not millions of future Australians who will be in the same position in years to come. Automation and technology will make many of the jobs available now obsolete in the future WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THESE PEOPLE, who will provide for them?.
    Slimmer Cat
    6th Feb 2017
    12:04pm
    We were married in 1970 and knew we would have to support ourselves in retirement and have worked hard to make it a reality.

    We're sick of supporting beneficiaries of aged pensioners.
    Let your children do what my children have done and follow the example set by their parents and they have their own family homes.
    It can be done.

    If children want the "Family" home (which most children have never lived in) let them support their parents.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:55pm
    I agree Slimmer Cat. It is simply stupid that people with such expensive houses take form the public purse and then their heirs squander it on things they could never afford themselves. Let them earn their inheritance by supporting their parents.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:28pm
    OG - some of us never even considered pension while we were flogging our guts out sometimes 24 hours a day.... we had every intention of retiring in comfort in our own home. Somewhere along the way too many 'social engineers' and other backyard Fascists got in the way and stuffed it up for many of us in many ways.

    I've done my bit - more than you could possibly imagine - and I will keep what I have come hell or high water, and none of these shiny arsed bastards is going to take it from me.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:34pm
    Does that last comment apply to the rich as well, OG - or are they exempt from having their children work to earn their inheritance? I don't see why it should, since those rich have benefited from many concessions along the way.....

    A good rule should be, for those suggesting this kind of nonsense, that it be applied to them first..... for example, if Harry Fudger the retired Chocolate King has too much in the way of assets, every benefit his business ever received should be paid back into consolidated revenue on his departure from this earth..... if Rebecca Sweinsgirth the fremantlist politician has too much in the way of assets on retirement, she should receive no pension and should have to repay all the subsidy and perks back into consolidated revenue...

    You lead the way - promise - we'll be right behind you, all the way....!!

    That works for me...
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    9:07pm
    Trebor my kids can never do enough to help me and ask nothing in return.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    12:37pm
    That is not the point.... the point is should all children be subjected to the same regime of working to get an inheritance, or does that only apply to the peasants?
    monette
    6th Feb 2017
    11:43am
    Obviously those who form our government are turning a blind eye to the atrociously high perks and income they agree to pay themselves. To address this outrageous cost to the taxpayers in Australia and make changes so it becomes more in line with the rules that politicians like to make for the public would be a good start. A little piece of practice what you preach or what is good for the goose is good for the gander ideology.
    libsareliars
    6th Feb 2017
    1:23pm
    Spot on monette.
    Farside
    6th Feb 2017
    5:26pm
    There is a lot of noise about pollies' benefits however few hold concerns strong enough to counter other factors that influence voting intentions. If they really were concerned there would be more turnover of politicians until they were prepared to represent the wishes of the electorate. It is a nonsense to expect politician's to treat themselves as ordinary citizens so long as the terms of their employment provide otherwise. If you want to see change then you need to vote for change.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:41pm
    The problem, Farsie - as I've explained here and elsewhere - is NOT that 'social security is busting the budget' - it is that spending from consolidated revenue is busting the budget, and social security is but part of that expenditure. Unfortunately, Social Security has been paid for out of a proportion of income tax all my lifetime anyway - and even further back (as outlined for you elsewhere here) - and thus is NOT up for discussion.

    There are plenty of cash positions for failed and retired politicians being paid for out of consolidated revenue, along with all the infrastructure and staff etc for those perks - those are called QANGOs - Quasi Autonomous Non Government Organisations - such as Australian Submarines etc... we pay once for Dept Def to handle that stuff, then we subsidise a retirement package for politicians we've booted out and for some of the party mates as well, to sit on their arses on a 'board' of Aust Subs (etc).

    What do they do? They shuffle the papers that Dept Def has already created, put a paper clip on them, and collect their pay.

    The other Black Hole of Economy is in offshoring and allowing profits to go overseas, and also by over-feeding the already well-off, who will only hoard money or spend it offshore et or use it to buy offshore products such as private jets that they then get as a tax loss, thus depriving this country of the economic activity of their cash and the opportunity for that cash to be used for solid infrastructure and investment HERE.

    Just because some jumped-up twerp in a suit comes along and shouts 'Social Security is busting the economy' - in no way makes that true.
    Farside
    7th Feb 2017
    12:45am
    Trebor, your taxes go into the CRF and payments are made from CRF. The enabling legislation for the National Welfare Fund was repealed more than 30 years ago after it had become nothing more than a fiscal bookkeeping exercise because it's contribution rate had nothing to do with its outgoings.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    12:43pm
    You got the first sentence right - now extend your thinking to include all expenditures, and don;t remain bogged down in the propaganda war that screeches that it is purely social security, health care etc that is 'breaking' the budget. ALL expenditure is breaking the budget at the moment - so ALL expenditure needs to be looked at carefully, not just the cherry-picked 'social' benefits ones, which this current government opposes by ideology *)

    On your second point - as explained elsewhere here by another educated person, that 7.5% was never removed from income tax, and thus the social security component remains funded. Just because you dig a canal from a river into a dam doesn't mean that river ceases to exist.

    *Ideology is cheap when it doesn't affect you in any way - just any other group chosen within society. As before - such a calculated choosing of a social group to be treated as less than others is a Crime Against Humanity as adjudged by the United Nations and the International Court at The Hague.

    Now where's MY AM for services to enlightening the public? If Old Geezer can get one for Services to Fascist Propaganda, surely I'm as Entitled?
    Farside
    8th Feb 2017
    12:57am
    Trebor, I accept the LNP has form with going after soft targets like welfare, health, infrastructure and research however you will get no argument from me that all budget line items should be carefully considered. I am the last person who would argue for cherry picking and cross-subsidies. Our social services and health expenditures however are not immune from review. Indeed I would empanel citizens to sit on review committees to add a more diverse perspective and reality check. Have a look at some of the identified BS identified in The Centre for Independent Studies Waste Watch project.

    The National Welfare Fund was dead decades before the enabling legislation was repealed more than thirty years ago. The progressive tax rates and the the wider tax legislation has changed enormously since then so it is a phantom if it exists. Good luck with recovering your contribution; I expect as much success getting my welfare contributions to governments in Africa and Europe.
    Bobho
    6th Feb 2017
    11:43am
    I wonder if ACCI members whose own members provide Aged Care & Community Services, along with those providing medical, dental,pharmaceutical, financial, banking and telecommunications services are in agreement with the recommendation that the family home be included in the Age Pension asset test? Perhaps we should ask them.
    Does my doctor agree? Does my chemist agree? Does my bank agree?
    The ACCI seems to suggest they do?
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:47pm
    Wonder if they'd like the same rule applied to their very sweet super deal?

    I'll bet not.....
    Teddy
    6th Feb 2017
    11:46am
    Has anybody done the figures on the values of parliamentarians entitlements? If they were all ended tomorrow it would not pay the national debt of $500 bill. Give it a rest and try and generate sensible options.
    KSS
    6th Feb 2017
    12:34pm
    Teddy if it were a $500 bill even I could pay that off! haha
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:46pm
    Not relevant - everything is up for review and we need Politician Payout Reform NOW! Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves...

    Another thing that renders you position irrelevant, Teddy, is the concept of 'leadership' - if but one of those twerps crying for the life's blood of the pensioners and the unemployed just once refused a perk or a rort, or even came out and said - "We need to look at politician remuneration, their retirement package, and their opportunity to gather assets from public service, since this economy is on a downhill slide!" .. they might have a leg to stand on.

    Until then - they got nothing.....

    "The Sar'major and me - we come from the paratroopers, where the officer is always the first out of the plane - because to follow your instincts and inspire your men - you need to be with 'em where the metal meets the meat!"

    Show me the pollie first out the door..... then get back to me....
    john
    6th Feb 2017
    11:47am
    OLD GEEZER , you stirrer, every one on an OAP, everyone , IS NOT ON WELFARE, they are recieving what they are entitled too. People who don't understand that are just blind.

    But I still think your a stirrer , is all.
    Slimmer Cat
    6th Feb 2017
    11:51am
    Paid tax all our working lives and still paying it so we are entitled to the OAP BUT we don't get it, so it is welfare.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    11:56am
    OAP is not an entitlement as people like me are not entitled to it so it is therefore welfare given to those who have no other means of support. It is not even a true pension as it is linked to nothing financial to support it so it's definitely welfare.

    No I'm not a stirrer but telling it how it really is. OAPs are welfare recipients so get used to it.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    12:07pm
    Sour grapes Slimmer Cat?, I don't begrudge people getting the OAG pension and yes it is an entitlement if you look it up Old Geezer, there are restrictions of course.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    12:07pm
    Sour grapes Slimmer Cat?, I don't begrudge people getting the OAG pension and yes it is an entitlement if you look it up Old Geezer, there are restrictions of course.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    12:09pm
    Did not mean to post twice, apology Slimmer Cat slow computer today.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:18pm
    Your are right Slimmer Cat the rest like to think it is an entitlement but it certainly isn't.
    Idontforget
    6th Feb 2017
    12:29pm
    Slimmer Cat and Old Geezer, the arguments that you use to refer to the OAP as welfare are probably the most ridiculous that I have ever heard. Please, if you insist on posting messages, rather than coming up with some outlandish phrases that you have cooked up in your heads, how about quoting ALL the Legislation that uses the word 'pension' when it refers to all pensions, including Politicians and Bureaucrats. That way you might both have a little credibility rather than a vacuum as you both have.
    Triss
    6th Feb 2017
    12:40pm
    Actually, Old Geezer, the Age Pension, if I read the history of it correctly, was a basic entitlement for everyone and if you wanted to save to provide extra for a few luxuries in your old age, that was your right. Then the pension pot got big enough to catch the eye of lazy, greedy governments and steps were taken to remove it from legitimate hands into corrupt government hands. Various laws were passed to change its status from entitlement for all to payment just for people who had no other means of support.
    That meant, in many people's opinion, that because they had some savings the 7% they had paid into the pension fund had been stolen from them as they were not given a pension or given back the money they had put into the penion pot over their working lives.
    Which would mean, Old Geezer, that legally you should be entitled to the OAP.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:59pm
    That is precisely why the OAP is welfare and not an entitlement. People like me have paid for it but it's can't be an entitlement as we are not entitled to it. No I'm not better that I don't get it. What irks me is that there are so many loopholes in it that it leaks like a sieve and many people take it when morally they should not.
    Farside
    6th Feb 2017
    5:34pm
    I doubt the debate over OAP being welfare will ever be resolved to the satisfaction of those who believe it to be an entitlement. There is no doubt a noisy majority on this forum believe it to be an entitlement and are quite comfortable to disregard any evidence to the contrary. 'Tis a pity they will not source independent advice to confirm their opinions. Seems 'alternative facts' are alive and well outside Trumpland.
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    5:50pm
    Farside,
    Govt Hansard "Does NOT Lie".
    It is the exact reflection of actions which are REALITY.

    To REDEFINE NEW PARAMETERS in relation to this is simply if THEFT IF actions (as they seem to) are:

    1 CONFISCATE the Accrued PERSONAL Capital,
    2 NOT STOP the deductions which have/are contributing to this PERSONAL Capital
    3 & claim ALL to be NULL & VOID!!!!

    This is "Wishful Thinking" for those who NOW want to cease honouring the commitment to the Australian People and are "Reprogramming" the nation thereby causing "Unrest, FEAR & Decisiveness".

    In other words they are converting a beneficial SCHEME into a SCAM and are therefore part taking in CRIMINAL Behaviour!!!!!
    Farside
    6th Feb 2017
    10:57pm
    Patriot, as a Hansard reader you will be aware that Hansard is not necessarily a work of truth but rather the words of parliament.

    A quick check nevertheless would show that Australian pensions introduced in 1909 were modelled in part on the New Zealand scheme and were similar to the NSW scheme. The pensions were non-contributory, non-discretionary and means tested. These details are also reflected in the legislation and reviewed essays documenting the history.
    niemakawa
    6th Feb 2017
    11:00pm
    Farside you are offside. The age pension is not only an entitlement but a RIGHT for all regardless of one's assets / income.
    Farside
    7th Feb 2017
    1:04am
    niemakawa, using capitals does not alter the fact that the age pension is an entitlement subject to means testing. End of story.

    Act reference: SSAct section 1064-G4 Pension reduction for assets in excess of assets value limit
    Misty
    7th Feb 2017
    11:52am
    Good luck trying to convince OG about the OAP being an entitlement Farside, he just won't hear of it.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    12:51pm
    Slimmer - good to see you are online with the Trebor Party Policy (TPP????) that all receive the Aged Pension and are then taxed on all income and fringe benefits over and above that, and that owned assets that are NOT income-generating are not included in any 'assets test'.

    (Back to the great teachings of Monty Python):-

    "Ohh, yes - regular jailer's pet you are! What I'd give for just one day of not being eligible for the Aged Pension! I could get by very comfortably on that, let me tell you! All those assets.... I've been hanging on this wall for three years now - does wonders for the back... and you come in... Not Eligible! Jailer's pet for sure!"
    Farside
    7th Feb 2017
    5:09pm
    no problem Misty, OG already understands the entitlement is conditional upon satisfying the qualifying conditions including the means tests. He regularly argues that the OAP is welfare, which it is, and it is not a right, which if it were then it would not be means tested.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    9:48pm
    You miss the point entirely, Farside. We all KNOW what the corrupt dishonest politicians have legislated. When we talk about the OAP being an ENTITLEMENT, we are talking MORALITY, not corrupt law made by the privileged to screw the rest of the population and drive the middle and working class into endless hardship.
    Farside
    8th Feb 2017
    12:14am
    Rainey, your view of morality is exactly that, your view and one that is completely at odds with Australia's political system. Sadly you will be disappointed to learn that Australia is a constitutional democracy built on three branches of government – legislature, executive and judiciary. There is no evidence the law if corrupt, if you disagree vote someone else into the legislature where it can be changed. Perhaps New Zealand is more you go with its universal pension and lower cost of living.
    mIKER
    6th Feb 2017
    11:49am
    This Government is entirely focused on policies that will enable it to give even bigger tax relief to big business, the main contributors to their Party coffers, whilst it penalises the average citizen to pay the bill.
    Pensioners are low hanging fruit for the trinity of Morrison, Cormann and O’ Dwyer, who dictate financial affairs, to hit us yet again by including the family home in the assets test. This unholy trinity has dismally failed to take real action to collect taxes from multi-nationals like Apple, Amazon and so on; and eliminate Negative Gearing and a hefty discount on Capital Gains Tax for wealthy property investors.
    When the next election takes place and they are tossed from office, maybe they will wake up to the fact there are a lot more voters hurt by their unjust tactics than are on the boards of big business, but I doubt it. We will be told that we are “deplorables” for not returning them to office!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    11:50am
    What happens then when Labor bring it in?
    Rosret
    6th Feb 2017
    12:04pm
    No, I honestly think its targeted at the asset rich cash poor who buy a huge house on retirement and then put a hand out for government money. I get that - I see it in my country retirement town all the time.
    However I am sure there must be a way around this besides stressing out the vast majority of people who don't play the system.
    Perhaps there needs to be a fixed reserve amount in Super before a lump sum withdrawal can be made. Tricky issues there - but we didn't set up this terrible private super fund system. The Keating Government did and all parties agreed as it would take the burden away from the welfare debt as the baby boomers came through the system.
    mIKER
    6th Feb 2017
    12:24pm
    I guess we can always rely on OG to have a crack at Labor, but for the rest of us, we can also rely on Labor to act with some degree of compassion and equity.

    I am not sure which country town that Rosret lives in, but in the Metro reducing your assets to a level that leaves you with a full pension would make life very challenging, as your cash reserves would be minimal.

    I am reminded of the comment passed by an accountant some years ago "be very grateful if you have acquired enough funds not to get the pension"
    KSS
    6th Feb 2017
    12:38pm
    mIKER you can certainly rely on Labor to sprinkle taxpayer money like confetti to all comers with their hands out!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:45pm
    Labor is worse than LNP in that they need a lot more money to spend like confetti as you say KSS so they will get it where ever they can.
    mIKER
    6th Feb 2017
    1:41pm
    OG and KSS never let facts get in the way of their one eyed support for the LNP. Fact check: spending by this Government has increased as a percentage of GDP since they took power. The national debt has increased progressively throughout their term. The LNP are poor economic managers, end of story.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:08pm
    the Real Fact Check Labor left behind many financial time bombs that the LNP can't defuse. That is why the national debt is increasing.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    12:55pm
    Again - what are these financial time bombs, OG? Oddly enough - you make many bald statements but have no support for them...

    Lay it all out so we peasants can see how bad Labor was by having half the borrowing and half the deficit...... must be down to that non-existent inflation the government is always telling us means the pensioner and such can't get a pay rise while pollies regularly give themselves a rise more then a year's pension...

    So far - you've got two question that remain unsanswered -

    1. What exactly is 'inequitable' about a pensioner living in his/her own home?

    2. What exactly are these ' financial time bombs' left behind by Labor?

    Sometime this month would be fine.... but cut-off date for submissions is closing in...
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    1:48pm
    The ''time bombs'' were huge tax concessions and wealthfare handouts left by the LNP (Howard/Costello) that squandered most of the boom profits gifting to the richest 80%.

    Yes, OG, what is ''inequitable'' about someone who worked and struggled and went without for 3 decades to pay off a home being allowed to enjoy it?

    What's really inequitable is that some retirees are losing hundreds of dollars a week in benefits, PLUS paying out hundreds, to live in their own home while renters are getting much higher pensions PLUS rent assistance. So if you bludge on the system, you get fat handouts and if you work and save you are crucified and abused. No wonder we have a ''welfare mentality'' in this country!!!!
    Ted Wards
    6th Feb 2017
    11:55am
    Its not rocket science. Older, retired people have spent their lives saving for their future and should be rewarded, not penalized. Working in aged care gives you a very different of how older people live, even those who do own their own homes.

    They are mostly asset rich and cash poor. Most are isolated, their families provide some support (as much as they can).

    However, what is not being discussed in the person's rights to independence and to stay living in their own homes with minimal support, which after all is the current Government rhetoric around CHSP and care packages. They want us all to stay living in our own homes, with as little support as possible.

    From the end of this month (27th), aged care goes entirely to a user pays system. I find it fascinating that no one has even picked up on that fact!

    Its quite simple, give them what they have earned and stop taking it off them and then expect them to go without when they have been working all their lives for this. The ageing population is not a problem. Its just being portrayed as a problem to take the focus off the real issues.

    Here's a real question. How many billions of tax payers dollars have been wasted to create the new aged care system which is already failing dismally. Now people are being told that if they shift providers, they will lose their packages and services which is absolute rot! There is so much misinformation around about aged care and entitlements that its no wonder people are frightened.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    11:59am
    Those age care packages are just for providers to make money the people they are intended to support get very little. Give the money to those who use it not to those who use it to line their pockets.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    12:56pm
    Watch out, OG - you are bordering on socialism again... my god you are a confused man.
    john
    6th Feb 2017
    11:57am
    4 or 5 retirees will be on a part or full pension the article says?
    Well then the governments that squandered the special fund set up to give EVERYONE a pension need to get their heads around reforming such a benefit fund , because itsOUR MONEY, but they won't or can't or couldn't, something dreadful happened to an obligation the governments of this nation always had, that was to look after the elderly and the retired, not push them down on a quick road to poverty then death.
    What horrid squirming little minds have these think tankers? I know another word for them sounds a bit like that. The more this debate about the most important branch of any nation its older or elderly who without them no one has anything, makes me realise that really we are at a time in our history when massive change is needed, not career politicians and career thieves locked in ivory towers!!!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:03pm
    You can't take your house with you when you die so why not use it to provide for your living expenses while you are alive? I agree with the ACCI recommendation.
    Rosret
    6th Feb 2017
    12:09pm
    Old Geezer - the only reason I can retire comfortably is because of the legacy the my family have bestowed upon me. I intend to do the same for my children.
    We are no burden to the government and hopefully never will be. Take away that family asset and the whole scenario changes. If those people who can look after their own do then there is more in the government coffers for those who have not been so fortunate in life.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:23pm
    Agree but you could do what a lot do and take that family asset and turn it into an expensive house and then collect the OAP. There in lies the problem too many people are too greedy and want their cake and eat it too.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    10:07pm
    So wake up and structure a fair and equitable pension system that recongizes and rewards hard work and incentivizes saving, instead of punishing the responsible and handing out to the useless. Yes, include the family home, but assess assets ONLY for the purpose of estimating a minimum income. $750,000 per person unassessed, and the HIGHER of actual income or 3% of anything over $750,000 reduces the pension at the rate of $1 for every $2 of earnings or deemed. No rent assistance. A special ''poverty'' top up for anyone in genuine hardship and a small bonus for anyone who can prove they genuinely live alone. Reward for effort would slash welfare costs, restore dignity and initiative, and provide a strong incentive for people to work, save and invest.

    Or just acknowledge what's morally right and pay pensions to all over 65.

    Welfare costs are rising because people are rewarded for being irresponsible and putting their hand out and punished for doing what is good for the nation. Stupid, short-sighted policies dreamt up by morons who can't see past the ''quick fix - steal from the working class'' are driving a welfare mentality that's sending Australia broke. Greed drives stupidity, and we have so much greed now that it's hard to find any intelligence among the policy-makers or their supporters.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    12:57pm
    Aye - but you can take your house with you when you retire.....
    ray from Bondi
    6th Feb 2017
    11:57am
    this is extremely unfair in that house values change dramatically depending on where a person lives, My place has an unbelievable value but is a very small one and half bedroom unit, somebody living in the country in something similar would have a significantly lower value BUT the government would just put some stupid unrealistic blanked value on everybody. sadly our right wing government has made many comments to the effect that pensioners are draining their trough and it has to be stopped.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:06pm
    That's why it needs to be included in the assets test. It is so inequitable.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:12pm
    HOW is it inequitable? Someone earns their own home and then has to pay for it again? THAT's inequitable... some schemer and scammer on the inside gets to own several homes, yet is not means tested for already subsidies super.

    THAT's inequitable...

    So explain to me in small words why and how it is 'inequitable' for a pensioner to live in his/her own bought and paid for home?
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    1:00pm
    Disclaimer:- I am not directly involved in this fiasco idea from the ACCI - I live in a home bought for $230k and now worth less still than that Unicorn $450k this pack of unelected clowns are mumbling about as they partake of their magic mushrooms or that stuff they smoke.

    Talk about unrepresentative swill..... they are quite welcome to go live in Kyakatoo and enjoy the climate..... and they are quire welcome to refund all the tax perks they get in life and sell their home to fund their retirement...

    The challenge is up, OG - HOW is the ownership of a home by a pensioner in any way 'inequitable'?
    Boof
    6th Feb 2017
    11:58am
    Rather than taking out prejudice claims on Pensioners family homes, lets look at the many pensioners, living in PUBLIC HOUSING who are (secretly), boarding siblings, sons Or daughters, who are earning $100,000 +, & driving Landrovers & BMWs.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:04pm
    Many also get a carers allowance too to look after their old folk as well.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    12:50pm
    My God Old Geezer don't get me started, are you now going to begrudge people legitimately caring for someone their pension too?.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:26pm
    No read the post.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    6:13pm
    OG that's what it reads like.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    7:59pm
    You pair could always join the Nation of Dobbers...(not Dobbie in Harry Potter - a little different) .. but you shall not hurl Harry Potter from his home....
    Misty
    7th Feb 2017
    4:06pm
    I hope you are not including me in that "pair" TREBOR.
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    7:47pm
    Nah, Misty - it was OG and Boof. I was in a Macca's the other day (a rare event - toilet stop) and saw a sign with a link and all to dob in a trash thrower..... wow... you can dob in anyone these days - just like in Stalin's Russia.....

    "Tovarish, this sugar you have not bought with coupon... we not arresting you now, but you are coming to KGB office tomorrow morning 9 am!"

    (tomorrow morning 9.05)...

    "God comrade - is plain you engage in anti-revolution anti-socialist republic activity by purchasing on black market this sugar.... you may go ... but from now you will reporting to us every thought or anti-revolution sentiment of your neighbours. No exception! For you - failing is not option!"
    maelcolium
    6th Feb 2017
    12:07pm
    Woe betide a Government of any persuasion that tries this little pearl on. Can you imagine turning every home owning pensioner to vote for the opposition? Won't happen - nothing to see here so move on and stop worrying.
    Rosret
    6th Feb 2017
    12:11pm
    It has been tried in past. It caused so much pain and grief that pensioners did commit suicide. It was a horrible era.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:12pm
    It will happen with either current government or opposition so you better find another party to form government to stop it.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:20pm
    If people are that stupid then so be it.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:30pm
    Won't happen.....
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    7:48pm
    It may well be that I know you, OG - some aspects of your stories sound familiar somehow......
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    12:10pm
    Here we go again.
    Joy Anne
    6th Feb 2017
    12:12pm
    DEFINITELY NO TO ADDING THE FAMILY HOME TO ASSETS TEST. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY STUPIDITY AND IDIOTIC. THESE PEOPLE PENSIONERS WHO OWN THEIR OWN HOME HAVE WORKED OVER 40 YRS TO HAVE A COMFOTABLE RETIREMENT AND NOW WANT THIS. I WILL TELL YOU NOW PEOPLE WILL VOTE AT THE NEXT ELECTION AND THE TWO PARTY PREFERRED WILL NOT EXIST.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:14pm
    Agree a better alternative would be to make any OAP collected a debt upon one's estate instead.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    8:00pm
    Same as superannuation concession and all other perks....
    Grey Voter
    6th Feb 2017
    12:23pm
    Why don't they look at cutting the defence budget ?

    ......which is spending that has never been justified to us. Tell us for example, why we need to spend billions on submarines, planes and sophisticated battleships when they tell us how great are our relations with our Asian neighbours ?

    Maybe our allies need to keep their arms industries running at huge profits and need our suupport.

    So we throw billions at our allies' industries and crucify our retirees, young families and the homeless.

    The latters are indeed soft targets unlike the might of the USA, France, Germany, Britain and the rest of the club.

    No wonder every government loses so much popularity when in office. Our politicians are gutless on the world stage but excel in bullying their own vulnerable citizens.

    Help us Pauline :-)
    libsareliars
    6th Feb 2017
    1:30pm
    +100. Was watching a show the other night that said the country didn't have a defence force, they had had no problems with being invaded and had enough money to spend on health, welfare and education.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:31pm
    Never forget Grey - many of those 'vulnerable citizens' became vulnerable due to government policies in affirmative action, industrial relations and offshoring of businesses....

    On that basis alone the government should put up and shut up.....
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    11:33pm
    Was OGer's business one of those do you think TREBOR?, he said he took them off shore.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    1:04pm
    Yes - he is part of the problem not of the solution.... that much is plain. Like any great criminal (ever read QBVII by Leon Uris?) he works in a charitable position to allay his conscience, while he is creating the very situations in which he does his charitable work.

    Ebenezer Scrooge to the max....

    As an aside - the ex goes to this ladie's spiritual meeting and they are remarkable - they deal with alien language, Atlantis and all sorts of things... funny thing is - like OG'c claims to fame (or is that clams?), the one who is onto Atlantis was one of the ruling class struggling to stop the mystical disaster wrought by humanity's evils being played out. I responded that yes - I was in Atlantis in a past life, too - I was running from the waves.....
    Oliva
    6th Feb 2017
    12:25pm
    I think the family home should be included in the assets test. AND the owner of that home should be able to get a loan against that property to pay for his/her care as he/her decides, to any design that he/her decides without interference from his/her children. I see some very sad cases where old parents are herded into old peoples homes by their children when their best option is to stay in their own home with paid help or family help. Old peoples homes are worse than jails-avoid them til your dying breath and did-inherit any of your children who want you locked away in one of those soulless regimented understaffed institutions.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    12:42pm
    Living in a nursing home is being in God's waiting room playing bingo and waiting for your number to be called. My mother was in one (her choice not ours) and she used to ring me saying she had had enough. I'd just tell her to be patient and wait for her number to be called.
    Rosret
    6th Feb 2017
    12:47pm
    The retirement homes have changed these day Oliva. They have a wonderful time in the ones near me. You just have to choose carefully. But that's the point - choice. We don't need Governments taking our asset from us so we have no choice.
    Rosret
    6th Feb 2017
    12:49pm
    Good on you OG. I do hope your Mother understood your sense of humour!
    Idontforget
    6th Feb 2017
    12:49pm
    In your own words, Old Geezer, you have now told all the readers of this site just what a low life you are. Fancy treating you own mother like that
    Slimmer Cat
    6th Feb 2017
    12:51pm
    Well said Oliva. You worked hard and bought your own home it is now yours to use as you wish in your old age to keep you still living in that home.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    12:54pm
    Ditto Idontforget, my thoughts exactly about Old Geezer when I read the comment about his mother, he should have explained or worded his comment better if he doesn't like our replies.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    1:08pm
    Lighten up death is not so morbid at all. It is a celebration of one's time in this mortal world and should be celebrated not mourned.

    My mother actually enjoyed such comments and loved her bingo.

    Many people working in nursing homes describe living in one as playing bingo in God's waiting room. If this is being a low life so be it. At least I'm not scared of death or my own mortality and welcome death when it comes with open arms. If I get an incurable illness that cause pain and suffering I know what I have to do so that I don't endure it. Palliative care is definitely not for me at all. There is nothing worse than killing someone by using legal drugs in such a way they takes days or weeks to die.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:32pm
    Home bought and paid for - no loan required to obtain entitlement to aged pension...
    johnp
    6th Feb 2017
    12:47pm
    Often the family home serves as the capital for entry into an aged care facility
    Young
    6th Feb 2017
    12:47pm
    I agree that homes over $450,000 should be ncluded in assets test.
    Too many people living in mansions worth millions and taking money that should go to those who need it.Bring it on.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2017
    11:37am
    Yep, and ''those who need it'' will pay the price. The WORST thing for the disadvantaged is to create more disadvantage and more incentive to cheat, manipulate or be irresponsible.

    Taxpayers are funding world cruises after the last STUPID pension change, Young. They'll be paying for accommodation for half the retired population if this IDIOTIC change gets through.

    Wake up my friend! You can only hurt the disadvantaged - AND the economy as a whole - by punishing people for hard work and responsible living. Taking from the working and middle class is the COMMUNIST theory, and we used to oppose it strenuously. Why are people now subscribing to it?
    libsareliars
    6th Feb 2017
    12:49pm
    The next election can't come quick enough for me. If this government brings in something like this I hope they are throttled at the next election.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    1:09pm
    If they don't then the next government will.
    libsareliars
    6th Feb 2017
    1:33pm
    Doubt it OG, they are too focussed on their own survival to do something so stupid.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    3:00pm
    I don't. There will be more OAP changes in the May budget.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:33pm
    There will be more politician changes in the next Budget, too.... if they don't toe the line and start doing Right - they will lose their constituency....
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    1:12pm
    I feel the need to "Broach" a subject which is "Off Topic" but is raised OFTEN by a few of the TROLL Posters.
    When the OAP was initially introduced/enacted as Legislation, a 10% levy was introduced (look it up in the HANSARD) at the same time to be reserved in a Govt Managed Fund to ensure that money was available "When the time to Collect" came.
    It was even printed on Pay-Slips as OAP contribution!!!!!
    I call this a "Government Sponsored & Administered Insurance Scheme"!

    Whilst there have been MANY changes since then this, 10% levy has remained and was NEVER REVERSED. The Contributions of EVERY INDIVIDUAL Tax-Payer were also NEVER REFUNDED!!!!!
    I challenge those who disagree with these statements to provide proof of their statements.

    Thus the OAP is essentially the same as Private Health Insurance - You pay the premium, You "Get the SERVICE". You don't pay - NO Service.
    People of OUR AGE DEMOGRAPHIC have ALL "PAID THE PREMIUM" and therefore the OAP is A RIGHT rather than WELFARE.

    Additionally to this, the TROLLS - as do our Government(s) - like to portray the world in a "Dog eat DOG" fashion.
    A little bit of "Compassion" would "Hold this world together" rather than "Destroy it" as the current attitudes will/are do(ing).

    The Govt is making a worthwhile & Fully Funded OAP scheme into a SCAM as usual and - at the same time - serves the Corporate "End of Town". Despicable!!!!

    COME THE REVOLUTION!!!!!!!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    1:15pm
    That was last century and it has certainly hanged since then. You need to move with the times and forget about ancient history.
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    1:17pm
    OG,

    Just prove where they refunded MY contributions and STOPPED deducting the 10% levy for OAP!

    You do that and I'm a "Happy Vegimite".
    After you achieve that, I'll even let you peddle YOUR CRAP and will support it!?!?!?
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    1:23pm
    OG,

    Was the OAP Fund Squandered by Governments so there is NO Money To refund??
    Was this money - may be - used to support the negative gearing initiatives to support the FATCATs????
    libsareliars
    6th Feb 2017
    1:34pm
    The silence from OG is deafening Patriot!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:00pm
    No Patriot the pension money has been all up used to pay all those the OAPs that didn't need it but was nice to have.
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    2:10pm
    OG,
    That's the "biggest load of BULL" you have sprouted so far today.

    I can prove that the "Actual Pension Fund" was Confiscated /STOLEN by the Aust Govt of the time and converted into consolidated revenue!!!!!

    The following story/Timeline explains ALL!!!
    IT ADHERES TO THE FACTS!!!!!!!

    http://www.sosnews.org/?p=262
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:29pm
    No the biggest load of BULL was that such a bucket of money existed to pay OAPs.
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    2:33pm
    OG,
    So you're happy about Malcolm Frazer STEELING OUR MONEY???????

    I'm happy that you at least admit THE FACTS"!!!


    And, by the way, are you a Govt. TROLL on "Triple Time today"????
    Your dedication to "Try & Dilute the FACTS" is deplorable!!!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:43pm
    NO I'm having my siesta as I've been up working since before daylight.

    "Your dedication to "Try & Dilute the FACTS" is deplorable!!! '
    I'm thinking the same with a lot of other people's posts too.
    Captain
    6th Feb 2017
    3:36pm
    Patriot, I think it was 7%, but I may be wrong. However the rest of your statement is pretty well spot on.

    After more than 45 years of working, I do not qualify for a pension.

    As someone else wrote earlier, the Aged Pension, not old age pension (oap), is an entitlement with restrictions, not welfare.

    As for OG, that was "last century, move on" statement. The truth is the truth is the truth and does not go out of date. No moving on here.

    I may not meet the restrictions for a pension, but that does not mean I should not speak on behalf of others.
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    3:58pm
    captain
    7 1/2 % to be exact.
    Thanks for the correction to "Keep the FACTS straight".

    Also, thanks for having compassion for others nor as well of as yourself!

    We ALL MUST & DESERVE life with DIGNITY!!!!
    KSS
    7th Feb 2017
    8:56am
    Patriot "Come the Revolution" you'll do as you're damned-well told! Now who said that?
    Patriot
    7th Feb 2017
    9:01am
    KSS,
    Don't know who said it and less I care.

    Ultimately, and I'll do my utmost to be alive at that time in the future, we once again MUST get Elected Representatives who adhere to; "you'll do as you're damned-well told"
    We - collectively - will escape the CURRENT DICTATORSHIP we are subjected to!!!

    If not, without personal FREEDOM life is becoming existing rather than living!
    mIKER
    6th Feb 2017
    1:15pm
    At first glance the AACI proposal seems practical. If “cash and other property” assets are assessed why not include the family home in the pension test, surely the family home is an asset?
    However, the big problem for this proposal is that home prices fluctuate both up and down; often quite dramatically, so valuations would have to be updated at regular intervals. What happens if the valuation goes down, like in Perth in recent times?
    Next, is the valuation to be based on the net value after allowing for a mortgage, or gross value?
    Is the valuation calculated by the market, i.e. real estate agents or by the local council; imagine the number of disputes over how the “value” is calculated.
    How would the policy impact on elderly farmers with large properties where the land value was substantial, but who have low incomes?
    Property values have sky rocketed in Melbourne and Sydney, and aren’t far behind in other major cities; whilst in the rural sectors they have not increased to the same magnitude. The disparity in the value of the family home dependent on location would make it very difficult to draft any legislation that fairly dealt with the difference between them. As other correspondents have suggested an entry level of $1 million would include virtually every house in Melbourne, and that’s a lot of disaffected voters.
    So what may seem like a good idea to organisations who view pensioners as an easy target, is actually a disaster to implement.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    1:45pm
    Rubbish properties are easily valued. Just type the address in Google and you will get at least 3 sites that will calculate the price for you. I use this a lot to value properties for people.
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    1:51pm
    OG
    That (Computer generated) data probably will have the same reliability/validity as and be "As Valid" as the following anecdote!

    In the "Late 80s" is was "Called on the carpet" by my then Bank Manager and confronted with the statement that: "I had missed 3 payments my on my Housing loan.
    "Rude & Objectionable" threats were made!!!!
    What the Computer Failed to tell him (and what he did not bother to investigate) that I was more than TWO YEARS ahead on this same loan!!!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    1:58pm
    Nothing to do with online valuations at all. These are what Centrelink would use so get used to it.
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    2:04pm
    OG
    That's how Centerlink would VALIDATE the Valuation on your house - you mean to say. Would it not and is this not identical to what I described????????
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    2:16pm
    Who would trust Centrelink on anything these days after the last debacle.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:32pm
    Ring up any real estate agent and that is what they will do too. Ever wondered why they don't even want to loo at you house to value it?

    Centrelink has done a great job with their audit with over 85% owing money. I'm a very satisfied taxpayer.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    6:16pm
    I couldn't work out what that bright light coming from my screen was but now I realise it is the HALO AROUND OLD GEEZER'S HEAD.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:44pm
    Me thinks your computer may be on the blink as I have no halo. I'm alive and kicking not with the angels yet.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    8:25pm
    You may be alive and kicking OG but one gets the impression from reading your comments that you think you are better then us mere mortals therefore the HALO.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    9:11pm
    You put the halo there not me.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:39pm
    You reckoned before you don't pay tax, OG.. you're slipping with your stories again...

    Now where's Bonny to inform us again that 'she' has $400k in assets from which 'she' derives $80k a year.... I suppose investing in loan sharking will do that for you.... but you need to watch the company you keep...

    Never give up, OG - all the mooted and NECESSARY changes could still come in your lifetime.... once we divest ourselves of jumped-up and unsubstantial views such as those of this ACCI .. I think they need to leave those magic mushrooms alone for a while...

    I tell you three times, Ach-med my Friend - do not smoking of that Tibetan Loco Weed - it burn you brain!

    You're a young guy, aren't you, OG? Otherwise you simply could not be real.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:45pm
    Get your facts right Trebor. Your memory is fading.

    I don't own my home, I have $400,000 in investments and live off the returns and have done so now for many years. I set it up so that I didn't have to cash in any of my other investments when I didn't want to for living expenses.

    Oh I wish I was a young guy knowing what I know now I reckon I could take on the world but alas that was 2 lifetimes ago for me. that said I still think I'm only 21 but the old body tells me differently at times. Yes I am real and quite a character in my community.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2017
    1:08pm
    Ah - so you ARE Bonny - it was Bonny who made the claim of $400k in assets that returned $80k...

    Remember Smiley in John Le Carre`s books? Wait long enough and the body of your foe will float past you....
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    1:46pm
    No Trebor if my memory serves me right Bonny lives on a country estate with her toy boy. She probably pays all her expenses using the estate's expenses instead. I know I would.
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    7:51pm
    No doubt - but the estate must be in the process of producing something in order to do that... otherwise it is nothing but a home - put it on the register for reduction of income or for taxation....
    LiveItUp
    12th Feb 2017
    8:39am
    Yes I live on my country estate with my toy boy and house keeper. The estate has it's own set of accounts to my personal ones and makes a profit every year so that our government can pay its welfare bill etc.

    I have about 3 years living expenses in cash with the rest invested well. Late time I worked it out was earning over 15% a year so even taking the low cash rate on my 3 years living expenses ut would be averaging out well over 10%. I'm not saying this to brag but simpky showing what people should be achieving if invested well.

    Been up since before sun rise doing things so now time for a rest as it is getting quite warm now.
    Misty
    12th Feb 2017
    1:33pm
    Bonny what and where in the world are investments earning 15%?, let us all in on the secret so we can do the same.
    Not a Bludger
    6th Feb 2017
    1:19pm
    Most emphatically NO.

    Rentseekers such as the paid servants at ACCI should stick to representing their members interests and stop trying to further their own careers as social engineeers.

    In particular, they should stop trying to get into my hard-earned - I own it not them.

    If you want to breathe some life into the economy, get rid of both the unions and industrial self protection groups such as ACCI, VECCI, AMA and the like.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    3:37pm
    Very well said. I agree. Time for all these self serving and expensive groups, unions, councils, associations or whatever to be told to shut up.

    We are up to it in debt and spending more than we earn.

    How about some of the other groups not targeted last budget do their bit.

    Businesses are not investing and expanding but want pensioners to pay for that lack of gumption.
    Grazza
    6th Feb 2017
    1:19pm
    It's outrageous that someone with a 3 million dollar home can receive a pension, and someone with 1 million dollars in a superannuation account can not! The sooner this sort of inequity is addressed, the better!
    MjP
    6th Feb 2017
    1:41pm
    What a distorted view, a person with $1m in superannuation can get an income from it whereas a house simply provides a safe place to live.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    1:47pm
    Except than person with the $3 million house bought it so that they could get a $1 in OAP and all the benefits. That is the distorted view.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    2:20pm
    Maybe that house was only worth $250.000 when the person bought it and land value has skyrocketed since then and maybe that person only has an OAP TO LIVE ON so what, I wouldn't moove if it was close to family and friends and my Dr and hospital either.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:40pm
    So take out the interest free loan and have it paid back when you die. It's that easy.
    Captain
    6th Feb 2017
    3:42pm
    OG, you are so last century. Please move on.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    4:14pm
    No I'm a man of this new century and have been since year 2000. I certainly don't live in the past like a lot of others do.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    5:40pm
    If I didn't own a house I'd be grabbing as much of the governments loan money as I could before they wake up.

    Bit like the HECS debts that will never ever get paid back haha.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:38pm
    HECS debts will shortly be debt upon one's estate when they die. Government has the support it needs to get it through the Senate.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:41pm
    Are they going to backdate it so Tony and Joey and all the other twerps we put up with will pay back their student fees? Or is it only those caught up in their selfish changes that will be affected?
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    11:15pm
    Anyone with a HECS debt Trebor. I have no idea if Tpny or Joey have one. I certainly don't have one myself.
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    7:53pm
    We're planning to back-date it so that all those who benefited from free tertiary education will be back-feed for that service - the economy needs it - and the amount required will be at current going rates, since the difference in dollar cost is taken up by inflation etc since their time in the schools.

    Tones and Joey and all the rest, such as Julia, will no doubt have the capacity to repay now for their past freebies....
    Waiting to retire at 70
    6th Feb 2017
    1:20pm
    We wouldn't have to sacrifice an asset most of us have spent our lives paying for if member companies of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry paid their fair share of tax.

    Remember it's the taxation receipts that are down ... people are paying less tax than I had to ... people don't have to pay mortgage rates of up to 18% as may 'wise' Australians did.

    So ACCI, 'feck' off and go REBUILD the 'industry' you sent to Asia over the last decade in the name of gaining the benefits of 'globalisation' for us all.
    libsareliars
    6th Feb 2017
    1:35pm
    Spot on, feck off ACCI - you losers.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    1:47pm
    I say keep up the good work ACCI.
    Waiting to retire at 70
    6th Feb 2017
    2:49pm
    Sorry "Old Geezer" you need to change your posting name to "Post Truth"
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:55pm
    Nope Old Geezer is good with me.
    MjP
    6th Feb 2017
    1:34pm
    This is a very unfair proposal that will cause much disruption to older people and should be roundly condemned. This is just another proposal to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
    Sundays
    6th Feb 2017
    1:44pm
    $450k cap on the family home is way too low. $2M maybe. Expecting people who worked to pay off a mortgage to then get a reverse mortgage to be able to stay in their own home is ridiculous. The Financial Institutions would love it, as they would make even more money administering these products. Also, if young people think there will be a glut of expensive homes on the market which would drop the price, they are naive in the extreme. It will only benefit investors. We downsized to a smaller place, and it actually cost us more, so what they are saying is downsize to live in an unfamiliar low cost area, take a reverse mortgage or sell up and rent. Political suicide for any government which implements this policy. Also, it will be many years before the pension is 'paid back', so I can't see changes to the budget in the short term
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    1:50pm
    $450K is a starting point so when they bring it in at a higher level many people will think it is OK as it will not affect them.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:42pm
    Inflation - don't forget inflation and rising prices.....
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    2:02pm
    The CRUD we are discussing at the moment is just an action from OUR Government to "Test the Waters" and "Float this idea once again" for us to get used to it. SLOW CONDITIONING is the appropriate Terminology!!!

    How do you boil a frog:

    Slowly move him towards the "Pot of Boiling Water" so that he/she can perceive the heat and wriggle/slip from your fingers to escape??
    OR
    DO you put him in a pot of nice COOL & Comfortable water and let him "Settle for a while" before you slowly "Turn on the HEAT" and "COOK HIM" without him even realsing it (Before it is Too Late)?

    I caught a Cane Toad the other day and subjected him/her to a cryogenics experiment.
    Put him in a Double Sealed Plastic bag in the freezer!!!

    Unfortunately for the toad, the Cryogenic experiment failed and I could "Not Breath life into him/her".
    I feel so much better to know that the death for the toad was painless as it is not HIS/HER fault that he in not naturally part of the Australian ecology!!

    Am I the same as our Politicians or what??? DO I HAVE COMPASSION????
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:16pm
    Compassion to being it in. Let's hope so.
    Swinging voter
    6th Feb 2017
    2:03pm
    Who pays for the valuations? Would there be a dispute/appeal process? Would people be made to move out of their homes to somewhere dictated by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry? I've never heard so much utter rot - when they come up with nonsensical, ruthlessly cruel ideas like this one, it renders their entire organisation brain dead.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:09pm
    It takes a few seconds to get a valuation on any house. Just type the address into google and you will find them.
    Old grey
    6th Feb 2017
    2:04pm
    How many retirees own a house in a capital city? How many homes in capital cities are worth less than $500000? How many retirees who live in capital cities (where the main infrastructure requirements for older people are concentrated) will then be eligible for any sort of OAP (to which we have ALL contributed), and that about equals the number of people who will support the LNP and their stooges in the ACCI. Malcolm needs to get his head out of his A___
    Old grey
    6th Feb 2017
    2:08pm
    Just like to add that Old Geezer and Old Man (don't know if they're the same person, but sounds like it) are STOOGES for the LNP and their wealthy mates (trying tom get richer on the backs of whoever has any money left aka General Bullmoose from Lil Abner), and the opinions they express are just that, expressed from their rears
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:11pm
    My wealthy mates don't belong to the LNP not sure about Old Mans though.

    Some of those that would like to be my mates brag day in day out about how they are using the OAP system when they have more than enough without it. Time this was fixed.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    2:02pm
    So stop supporting measures that make it worse, Old Fool!
    EVERYTHING you support makes it worse. To fix it, we have to REWARD people who do what's good for the nation, not punish them. One would think EVERY parent would understand that concept.
    Justsane
    6th Feb 2017
    2:11pm
    The family home is already included in the assets test because you are allowed $200.000 more in assets if you do not own a home than if you do. No pensioner should have to sell or mortgage their house to fund their pension. St..f the ACCI!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:18pm
    $200,000 is only a deposit n a house not a house so it's not included at all.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    9:10pm
    I can buy a home for $200,000. Lots of choices available.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:47pm
    I could cop a neat little doer-upper in Bourke for $7k ... don't knock yourself out looking for a $200k if you happen to have all your family in a city.

    I live in a $230k house that I am 'doing up' (at 67) - pulled down two walls today and insulated them ready for gyprock.... too hot and I can see why the moment I remove the interior walls.... 2-3 top layers of HARDWOOD!! weatherboards at the top are missing in action and let all the heat directly in from the roof.... must have run out of boards and then clad it.....

    Frame is ironbark - the builder owned a sawmill....
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    11:59am
    I can't even buy a block of land where I want to live for $200,000. A real dump of a place just sold for more than 3 times that around here.

    Who would want to live in Bourke?
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    1:14pm
    You support people being forced to, OG - people who worked and saved and tried desperately to be at least substantially self-supporting in old age. Why? So people who rent can be thousands a month better off than home owners instead of just hundreds. So more people will be driven to cheat and manipulate. So there will be lots more disadvantage and a higher cost for pensions. Pretty stupid if you ask me, but I know you are not smart enough to ask anyone. You THINK you know it all already. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you couldn't be more wrong.
    bobbalinda
    6th Feb 2017
    2:23pm
    So I should sell my home, let's face it very few in Sydney etc can be valued at under $450K, and then cruise till my assets are below the threshold so I can collect the pension I worked and paid taxes for from age 15? Who is going to value the property and how as values fluctuate year from year! I worked damn hard to own my own home, went without and budgeted and did all the right things and now they want to take that away too?
    bobbalinda
    6th Feb 2017
    2:34pm
    Further to my comment apart from my home I have no super or investments as super was not in when I was working so all I have is my home.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:34pm
    Just type your address into google and you will have a valuation in seconds.

    Are you not taking from the taxpayer of today by collecting the OAP?
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:48pm
    Sell your home and you've got to buy another one.... maybe some clown sitting on their arse in the ACCI or government can do that, but not everyone can.

    Leave the pensioners alone.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    9:49pm
    Less than the egomaniac well-to-do STEAL from the taxpayer by exploitation and tax minimization, claiming fat super concessions and other ''wealthfare''. How come it's always the underpaid hard workers being told to give everything they earned back, while the fat-cat bludgers keep stealing?
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    9:57pm
    Trebor, we should all sell our homes, cruise the world until the money is gone, and claim rent assistance. That's obviously what the morons who support these stupid ideas want. Bigger welfare bills... bigger deficit. Why don't we help them out?
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:51pm
    Maybe I could claim rent assistance without cruising the world.
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    7:59pm
    As citizens of the world we should get a pension and rent assistance from each country we visit.... that 35 ft yacht is looking good... now if only I could gun it home by getting that diesel going, then fix her up.... I could fix the diesel etc, but the seller won't sell to me because he feels this lovely yacht needs a live-on, and it has to be moved from its mooring (funny that - it's still there though it's be on sale for months now.. hmmm). I can't do both at the same time while repairing that diesel..... and the cost of road transport is way too high.

    Anyone got any ideas for a name? Crew applications open to beautiful women...... got a couple of young ladies to visit around the world, and one I really should look up in England.... professor of chemistry she is......
    marls
    6th Feb 2017
    2:24pm
    just think why would people work their butts off to own a home and then retire and having to sell it, how dam stupid is this idea because there is no incentive and what will happen is they will live the high life most of their life knowing they are the smart one that will qualify for the age pension.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    3:48pm
    Sounds about right. Pretty silly to own a home that business types covet.

    If I lived in an expensive spot I'd sell anyway as I think business must be in a bad spot to get involved with their customers homes like this. Are business bankruptcies rising? What are they hiding?
    KeyC
    6th Feb 2017
    2:32pm
    Quite frankly we have some business lobby groups that have become hooked on the notion that the aged and rising retirees are fair game. This has come about since ageism has become more visible whilst the ageing and the aged are becoming more and more invisible. We are becoming numbers: dollars and cents.
    Furthermore, these lobby groups are now more and more comprised of millennials, Gen Y and X who have made no secret that the 'baby boomers' have everything, that the BBs have turned up the heat in the housing market making it unreachable for the younger generations, etc.
    For sure, the economy issues are not going to disappear, but what concerns me is that the government is sitting on its hands when it comes to reeling in the big corporates that have been able to pay little to no taxes- so we are told and because they can. The businesses all know that it can hold the government to ransom with threats to taking business elsewhere. And taking business elsewhere is not new as one can hardly find businesses that are truly and fully Australian owned.
    The major problem with fixing economy is the uncalled for callous and punitive measures that are taken against the most disadvantaged in our society. That would include the aged and ageing who now seem to have to work until 70! They are the ones that are squeezed and trodden down even further. And in today's political right-thinkers, the government seems an easy push-over.
    My advice to everyone is to become more active, speak up, write to your local MPs, let them all know that they are on notice. Make a noise. Prove that there isn't such a thing as as 'silent' minority. But to remain silent would be giving them the stamp of approval. Make a noise people. Got to stand together. It is not about you alone. If it can be done to others nothing will stop it from happening to you next. We shall overcome. Be aware of social justice, your human rights.......It will be an evil act if the family home is asseted - don't remain silent when you see evil happening.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:36pm
    Evil act? Well it's coming.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:48pm
    Oh, look, OG - is that a unicorn?
    KeWi
    6th Feb 2017
    2:39pm
    Please separate arguments about when the pension should apply, be reduced or cut entirely, from discussions about whether the family home is included. It is patently unfair that someone with the same total assets as someone else is treated differently because of how they hold that asset. If a pensioner with $1,000,000 in the bank and nothing else cannot get a pension, why should someone with a $1,000,000 house and nothing else get a full pension?

    Yes, argue about the cut-off levels. Discuss whether a pensioner should be entitled to keep what they have no matter how much they have. Decide that those with assets should be forced to help themselves, or whether the pension should be paid to all irrespective of their worth.
    But do not support an unfair and arbitrary system that punishes people because they do not own their own their home.
    In the current rules, the 'no-pension' threshold is just over $800,000. So add a value to that to cover a 'normal' house (whatever that is) and then include all assets in the test (including the family home). Not perfect perhaps, but so much fairer than what we currently have!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    2:46pm
    That's why paying any OAP received should be a debt on your estate. If you have nothing you pay nothing but $1M house then you pay your debt. All those who can afford to pay it back do and the genuine battlers get a means of support in their old age.
    Rae
    6th Feb 2017
    5:52pm
    Then it will be tax concessions into super, childcare rebates, hospital fees and on and on. Now we know this dimwit government can't organise a thing but are old folk's houses really the only wealth left in the land that isn't hocked to the hilt.

    Idiots all OG. They have just about stuffed it all. The only wealth left we own is a few old people's homes.

    So glad Gough isn't around to see the mess made by all political parties of a once prosperous country.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:35pm
    Have you seen the list of changes One Nation and the other independents are going to support the government to get through the Senate? Some old people are not going to be very happy at all.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:49pm
    Neither will those who vote for it when they hit the road, Jack, and don't you come back no more, no more...
    POLLIE BACKFLIP
    6th Feb 2017
    3:21pm
    I read the following with a slight smile -
    "At today’s housing costs, that would include pretty much every house on the market. Where can you buy a house for less than $450,000?"
    I live in South East Queensland less than 100klms from the capital and you can buy a mansion for under this amount. Maybe more retirees should be enticed to live in the country, but I guess that will not happen. I was raised in a capital city, but could never understand Australian's love (except for the increased job opportunities) of living near salt water and the larger cities.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:53pm
    People are entitled to live in their own home of their choosing in the place of their choosing without all this nonsense.

    You want to go live there - you go.... but I don't see a single one of those advocating this stupidity saying they are selling up and headed for the cheaper places... they want their big house in the city and all their perks and concessions on business and super right there - and they also want to chance to get hold of the homes of the retired for profit.

    Hasn't the ACCI etc heard that de-centralising to the country, a la` Barnaby, is the way to go? They could all live for a song in Kyakatoo, save on the costs of a big house in Point Piper, and watch the dingoes run past in the fifty degree heat..........

    I'm convinced some here are terminally insane or terminally stupid... how DARE you even suggest that a retiree should lose home or pension rights for owning a home?
    Rae
    7th Feb 2017
    8:42am
    TREBOR these are the sort of dim ideas the ACCI come up with after too much booze on their yachts on yacht day. Happens every January and then they get a grip.
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    8:01pm
    Drinking in the hot sun and glare off the water is not a good idea.....
    Tassie
    6th Feb 2017
    3:36pm
    HANDS OFF OUR HOUSE, WE WORKED OUR BUTTS OFF TO OWN OUR HOME AT FORTY..NOW WE GET PENALISED, WE ONLY GET PART PENSION NOW ANYWAY...WHICH WE SEE AS A PRIVILEDGE..ITS ABOUT TIME US WORKERS GOT SOME APPRECIATION..ITS NOT OUR FAULT THE WELFARE BILL IS SOO HIGH..ITS THE WAY THE GOVT MADE IT..NOW WE HAVE TO PAY.FOR WORKING HARD ALL OUR LIVES..GRRR..NOT FUNNY ..
    kinkakuji
    6th Feb 2017
    3:49pm
    The Turnbull solution is to cut aged pensions leaving old people in a dilemma whether the share the Whiskas or eat the cat while they have to sleep fully clothed for warmth.PM Malcolm Turnbull expected to make this statment anyday now ' My fellow Australians, following expert advice from the reknown Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, your government has decided that no further taxpayers funds will be allocated to Aussie pensioners. These people whose working life expired some time ago,during which they paid their taxes and help build this worlds greatest multicultural nation have become a drain on this prosperous country..a cesspool of nonwhites and foreign cults, all of whom required unlimited support from your govt. Remember Australia is the most successful multicultural nation on the planet. For this reason Aussie pensioners MUST be gotten rid of ASAP..Forcing them out of their homes onto the street, sends a strong message of rejection etc........
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    4:11pm
    No it would be easier to give everyone a pill instead.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:57pm
    A small pill to the back of the head for twerps, somewhere around 58 grains, would do the job.

    You do realise that the origins of the Mafia in Sicily was the people being trodden down by the (often) Norman and others who ran the place..... Cosa Nostra was originally a self-defence group against ruling class depredations... that's why some think they are heroes..................

    Keep kicking people around and they will bite you... very firmly on your assets....
    Dot
    6th Feb 2017
    4:21pm
    Lay your bloody hands of our home, target the negative gearing instead you rich bastards.
    Looking forward to a revolution so that we the innocent pensioners who have worked hard and paid for every piece of dirt we own without any assistance from Government can retaliate against scum like you who sit in your boxes with no doubt multimillions in banks and many houses.
    kinkakuji
    6th Feb 2017
    4:21pm
    Can I Be Your Servant..-..Please.
    Senior federal public servants get a minimum $678,000.
    With that income you can expect they would live in a home of $2million plus.
    They have many other perks such as free mobile phone, expense cards and department cars.
    Very generous leave and super……But wait,…there’s more –
    To attract them to move to Canberra the taxpayer pays for their cost of selling their home,
    moving and buying a home in Canberra.
    Using the minimum value for their home of $2 million,…and buying a $2million home in Canberra.
    Selling costs : $54,000
    Agent fee 2.2%,44,000,….Advert cost 5,000,…Ddressing home for sale 5,000,…Legals $3,000.
    Buying costs : $104,000
    Removals $6,000,…Stamp duty 95,000,…Legals $3,000.
    The taxpayer pays out almost $200,000 to cover the costs of a senior public servant earning at least $678,000 per year to sell and buy a home.
    Even worse – you’d be lucky to get 3 productive hours a day out of the bastard.
    Public Service,.. Public Servant ,.. Public Rort….Since when did they serve the public ?...
    What a Public Joke on the taxpayer,..at a time when they want to means test a pensioners home..
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    4:27pm
    Many private companies do this as well. There was a certain telco that made it very lucrative for their employees to move. I have never seem a house packed up so well for a move. It took over a week with at least 3 people working on it.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    6:20pm
    And he/she says he/she runs a business.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    9:59pm
    Poor darlings can't afford it on their salary and perks......... I weep for them daily over the plight they are in...
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    4:42pm
    Maybe it won't be as costly to move in the future when stamp duty on the sale of homes is abolished.

    There is talk in the pipeline about eliminating stamp duty on purchase of homes in NSW and replacing it with a land tax payable every year by all property owners not just those above a certain value.

    Reason is that stamp duty is very cyclical with up and downs in revenue year on year so this land tax instead would provide the NSW government with a more reliable form of revenue. Ideas bank has it being collected as part of one's council rates.
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    4:46pm
    OG,
    Is Malcom Turncoat paying you per each posting of per word posted.
    Your activity suggests your "on the money making trail".
    Rodent
    6th Feb 2017
    5:01pm
    Why am I not surprised that Old Geezer is posting his distorted views on this subject, but where is his best mate Bonny? ops sorry they really are the same person
    Swinging voter
    6th Feb 2017
    5:08pm
    Old Geezer is one of the reasons the Donald Trump Movement will be taking over the western world.
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    5:20pm
    SV,
    Hope you're right and - if so - we need more of OGs calibre!
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    10:00pm
    We do indeed - he does a wonderful job as an agent provocateur, stirring up the people to near revolt... I reckon still he's a Labor plant - but Bonny told me last week he didn't vote, so I asked how then did he get to sit on the two juries he claims to have sat on... oh, well...
    B J
    6th Feb 2017
    5:02pm
    I have a question for all you bloody experts on everything, how does the value of anyones home put food on the table, clothes on your back or petrol in your car. You may have a million dollar house but that will only give you cash if you sell it & then what, live in a bloody tent.
    As for OG who knows all & is so busy running his Empire, he is every second person on this site. Must have a staff of dozens that he can afford the time to respond to all comments on every subject
    Rodent
    6th Feb 2017
    5:15pm
    BJ some valid comments, but don't worry OG will push an alternative view after all this to him is a "Hot Button issue"
    Rodent
    6th Feb 2017
    5:24pm
    Quite Frankly after reading the ACCI Budget submission and that parts that relate to this issue, I would seriously doubt that the person who wrote it understands what they have written, or how it may ever be implemented.

    I will say this once more - you cannot include any Percentage of the Family home "value" (however that is determined) in the CURRENT Assets Test - it simply will not work .

    If they had to be a change the only way forward is to have a Income based test (all Income).

    You will not that the Person who wrote this rubbish, does not directly talk about the other Pensioners ie the non Home Owners , whao would continue to receive their Pension at the same level while the Home Owner would receive even LESS Pension (because some part of the Family Home Value has been included is a Calculation!!!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:42pm
    However the person writing it is just echoing what is being said all over our society. We can no longer afford to pay OAPs to live in expensive homes.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    9:41pm
    Why not, OG? Apparently we can pay multi-millionaires to accrue massive superannuation funds to leave to their kids, and rich real estate investors to negative gear vacant houses. What's the difference?
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    10:04pm
    Yes - on another forum we've got a guy who 'runs a business teaching business people communication' (say what.. ROFL), he's also got four psychology books published as well as a 'teenage fiction' novel... as a communicator his primary resource is insult and personal attack, he claims that the ability to sack someone is a valid negotiation tool and is a great way to establish communication with the workers, and he spends so much time on the forum there is no way he does anything but sit in his mum's basement pumping that keyboard.

    I'm retired, I do write books, and I do a lot of work refurbishing a house etc - and I also learnt to touch type at age 15....

    THAT's how I can post so much here.... but even more so when the weather and the subject matter are hot.....
    MICK
    6th Feb 2017
    5:21pm
    The Australian Chamber of Commerce? Why am I not surprised. It may be pertinent to ask the Chamber how many of its members hold their own family homes in trusts.
    This is yet the next attack on ordinary Australians from the big end of town wanting tax cuts for itself and new taxes for everybody else to fund the country.WE NEED AN ELECTION SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. This government is on the way out and we need to get this sorted before it destitutes ordinary citizens. This is the game and every policy they bring in is the next one on the list.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:28pm
    Only just had one so they still have lots of time in power.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2017
    8:30pm
    I wouldn't bet on that OG according to Peta Credlin the Libs are leaving the party in droves, Corey Bernard is tipped to announce he is leaving tomorrow to start his own party who knows how many more will follow him.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    8:47pm
    Corey Benard has already left to form his own party.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    10:05pm
    Here's to absent-minded friends......
    kinkakuji
    6th Feb 2017
    5:35pm
    At this point in time, the only unknown about Turnbull, is whether his systematic destruction of the Liberal Party is a result of him being a psychopath with zero understanding of politics, or something more deliberate than that.
    So good to know that we have such an excellent team of money managesrs looking after the country's finances and that they managed to do this with no GFC.
    Well done Tony-Joe-Malcolm and Scotty
    I am no economist but since the Lieberals have been in government we have seen nothing but cuts to pretty much everything so where is all the money going exactly? It is not like they have implemented any programs that cost money, they are the do nothing government so again, where is all the money going???
    500 billion in debt ,own nothing ,and no way to get out of it ,but still can find millions to bring in more refugee to burden our welfare system and housing ,while Australians sleep on the streets , I hear china has 3 trillion to spend maybe just sell them the whole country ,they already own our heart beat our power production
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:27pm
    The money is going into the time bombs left behind by Labor.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    10:07pm
    .. and those 'time bombs' are?????? Enlighten us peasants.....
    Rae
    7th Feb 2017
    8:46am
    When you can't blame Labor for it then just blame the workers or the union. Bosses are always good and right and efficient and the one's that deserve stuff 'cause they are lifters. Yes heard it all before.
    KSS
    7th Feb 2017
    9:02am
    Trebor, umm..... Gonski, NDIS to name just two
    Ny19
    7th Feb 2017
    10:56am
    "Gonski, NDIS to name just two". At least Labor when in government tried to do some good things for the people. This current rotten mob have done nothing positive and so much that is negative. They are not governing for the people.
    Misty
    7th Feb 2017
    11:57am
    So you don't want better education for children Rae or better help for people with disabilities?, but OK for people with the know how to buy multiple homes courtesy of Negative Gearing.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    1:40pm
    A child came home from school and asked her mother what Gonski would do for her. Her mother replied nothing as you are not disabled or struggling at school. Child was very upset as teacher had told her how good it was. It won't help the average kid at all.
    Better to spend money on the average kids to build up the wealth of the nation.

    How many NDIS packages of $110,000 plus per years can we really afford?

    Can we afford to keep rolling out a white elephant like the NBN when there are already much faster speeds available on the mobile network and faster ones in the pipeline?

    That said I'm glad because my phone line has died and it won't be fixed for over a week.

    Scrap all those carbon tax incentives as we no longer have one.

    Stop all those people doing university courses that will never earn enough to pay any of it back. Pay upfront if you want to do a course.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    1:43pm
    Actually, the ''time bombs'' that are causing the problem are those left by Howard and Costello - who blew most of the profits of the boom on tax cuts and wealthfare for the richest 20%. If you check your history carefully, you'll see that the Labor deficit was largely a result of the obligations inherited from the previous LNP.

    As for Gonski and the NDIS - not sure if they are better alternatives to what went before, but our kids are failing and our disabled are not well cared for so we can hardly make cuts there. Any change would have to involve just as much expenditure, if not more, if it's to serve the nation's interests.

    But yes PLEASE cut negative gearing. And make multi-nationals pay tax. Let's start taking form the HAVE A LOTS instead of always the HAVE A LITTLE THANKS TO DECADES OF STRUGGLE AND HARD WORK.
    Misty
    7th Feb 2017
    4:14pm
    OG, Gonski, as I understand it, has nothing to do with disability but helping children with their learning, NDIS is the one the child above should have asked about.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    5:36pm
    Gonski only helps those kids struggling not those who are normal or who excel. As I have said many times you can't make elephants climb trees but that's what Gonski tries to do. It's success is therefore very limited and the cost is way too high for such poor outcomes.

    There are way too many people profiting out of the NDIS just like that home help program. One piece of equipment for example costs $1000 to buy but by the time it get charged by the NDIS it becomes a $16,000 piece of equipment. Who gets the profit of $15,000?
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    8:05pm
    I thought Gonski was a rationalisation of the school system and was an overdue requirement to even out educational opportunities - the ex's oldest son is on NDIS and I looked into it... mostly it brings existing services under one 'roof' (damn - in the Russian Mafia a 'roof' is police or political protection for a criminal activity*), and is still limited to areas where it is accessible.

    I'd need to look at cost/benefit figures to get a solid idea...

    *I may travel around the world here, but I do entertain and educate as we go..... a friend in Yankland said I was a very good teacher, sometimes in the Patch Adams style....
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    8:07pm
    Lots of good ideas coming out of this part of the discussion......... from all sides....
    Misty
    13th Feb 2017
    9:17pm
    I would still like to know where you can get more then 1% interest that is not high risk.
    Misty
    13th Feb 2017
    9:17pm
    I would still like to know where you can get more then 1% interest that is not high risk.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    6:00pm
    The only 'calls to add the family home to the assets test are coming from those who are not directly concerned - the overly fed fat cats with nothing to lose and no interest. They can therefore STFU and go about their business after saying 'thank you' to all the Baby Boomers for providing them with a healthy 'education' and a nice shot at life.
    Rae
    7th Feb 2017
    8:49am
    They actually have a lot to lose. In the US the Great Recession was caused because people just stopped spending.

    They didn't buy anything not needed.

    Every single recession has been caused by a big drop in demand.

    So ACCI scare your customers witless. That's a great idea. Stop them spending. DUH!!
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    1:07pm
    According to news reports, spending has already slowed dramatically. Retailers are going broke. I know caravanners who are saying the roads and camps are empty. I took a trip recently over ground I covered a year ago. A year ago, I was running into people everywhere and the camps were crowded. Streets were full of travellers eager to spend. This trip? DEAD. Nobody in sight.

    Financial advisers are telling me those hit by the changed assets test are rushing to spend - OVERSEAS, not in Oz. They are determined to punish the idiots who decided breaking election promises and stealing from responsible workers who struggled to try to be at least party self-sufficient in old age was a good idea.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    1:58pm
    Everywhere I have been lately is still crowded. We will have more idea when the Mexicans head north for the winter.
    Rae
    7th Feb 2017
    2:06pm
    Yes. In my scrabble group a few of the players are taking overseas trips and paying for Premium Economy. One is an ex accountant who worked out the trips would be tax payer funded eventually.

    I'm the only idiot not getting any OAP or even a card but paying full price for almost everything simply because I saved my money.

    On my way back from Noosa at Christmas the motels were empty this year too. Both places said it had been the quietest Christmas holidays for some time.

    Even the shopping mall car park seems quite.

    Sales of cars and motor homes will show up a drop in demand early. I haven't checked them but with the asset changes you'd be a mug to buy one with all the added costs when you can go to the US and take the road trip of a lifetime for a lot less than here. Even the food , beer and fuel is heaps cheaper.

    One of the most sensible economic theories lately is the Levered-Losses Framework that has data that shows every recession has prior build up of excessive debt levels followed by a sudden, often unexplained huge drop in demand.
    Our Reserve Bank caused a lot of the trouble by raising and keeping interest rates far too high going into the GFC.

    The fall out is only just beginning and I simply cannot believe the stupidity of timing this idea now.

    If there is a Great Recession catch up here then the ACCI can claim a share of the blame.

    Hubris at work.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    3:36pm
    For the first time for a long time I am currently debt free as I am just not comfortable holding debt at present with the sort of returns I can get going forward.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2017
    8:19am
    Love your accountant mate's thinking, Rae. Obviously one of the minority in this country with reasonable intelligence. Yes, trips for retirees are now taxpayer-funded. Good one, OG. Thanks!

    My friend declared yesterday, ''I'm going overseas and I'm going to spend a bucket load - courtesy of the OG's of this nation who are too dense to understand the implications of supporting destructive economic policy. And I'm gonna give my house to my kids and rent it back. Taxpayer can support me comfortably in old age, because fools insist there can be no reward for trying to be self-sufficient. That's a crime that must be harshly punished - unless of course you get wealthy. Well I'm not likely to get wealthy - just affluent enough to be hurt badly by a stupid, unsustainable system, so I'm gonna stop being honest and play the game like all the other smarties out there.''

    Most of my friends have already participated in the game. One couple gave $2 million to their kids before turning 60. Now on full pension + all benefits and their kids pay for everything. Now they are gifting their $1.5 million house to the kids as well. Pension loss for a few years, but they are scared of proposals to include it in the assets test and figure the best solution is to divest now. They'll rent it back and continue to live in it. Meanwhile, the kids have their $2 million and will support them in style!

    Another friend went around the world 5 times before retiring on a full pension + benefits, in government housing. Not sure where her money is, but probably in her son's account. She spends extravagantly and lacks for nothing.

    A relative has $500,000 hidden in a foreign bank and a false name and gets a full pension. (I would dob her in but I don't know the name or the location and nobody in C/link or our police force will ever find it!)

    This is the behaviour you want and encourage, OG, and the result of the stupid, shallow idea that you can beat everyone with a big stick and make them behave. Never happen! The more you tweak the rules to punish the responsible, the more irresponsible folk and cheats there will be putting their hands out.

    Taxpayers paying for expensive overseas holidays? Yep. It's happening. And I love it. It's EXACTLY what the idiots who supported dumb changes to the assets test deserve. The tragedy is that it will further stuff the economy, and the people who we should be looking after are the one who will suffer most. But they are the loudest voices yelling that hard work and responsible saving should be punished. Poor darlings just don't get it that they are signing their own death warrant!
    Rae
    8th Feb 2017
    9:29am
    Yes I expect there will be some very low value sales of homes to kids going on Rainey. Makes perfect sense.

    I have a couple of friends whose parents used the strategy to save the home from nursing home thieves.

    They both still have those houses now earning them money instead of having to sell to earn money for some government sponsored tax haven business person.

    The other two solutions is a shelf company and put any property in there with a family structure or a trust that pays dividends.

    Yes there is a bit of tax but if you can get the full pension, a few thousand of dollars saved by having that card and stop the thieves from taking it all then that bit of tax is just fine. Hardly any tax left to be paid anymore anyway.

    Everyone in the family can get $18200 before tax.

    Give OG the benefit though of always saying the rules are there to be used. They certainly are.

    I also like the one for couples where you can have tens of millions in an accumulation account paying only 15% on profits and the older spouse can get you both the full OAP for a few years plus benefits. You probably get to keep that card at the end. That is worth somewhere around the $100 000 to those using the strategy.

    This government thinks only the wealthy know the tricks haha.
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2017
    8:11pm
    Still getting a lot of people through here - this is one small town where you can camp by the river in the park for free - they still spend their money in town, and they've got more to spend since they aren't paying ground fees.

    'Mexicans', OG? Are you from my old area? Hmmmm.... just hmmmmmm..... I'll track you yet.....

    With this weather I'm thinking of heading south again... looked at a house in Tasmania that had three feet of snow around it......
    LiveItUp
    12th Feb 2017
    8:27am
    Retire a penniless bum that owns nothing but controls everything.

    I really can't understand why people go to all this trouble for such a pittance compared to their wealth. Sure I could fo it but to me it just doesn't make sense to tie up your assets for so little return when you xan earn far more by investing well instead.

    Just another example if the welfare mentality of the people in our country today.

    The only way that this nonsense can be stopped is fir the OAP to become a debt to be repaid in full from one's estate. That would reward those who save and do the right thing and punsih thise who play the system.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2017
    4:51pm
    No, Bonny, it would screw the disadvantaged and deny them any hope of improving their situation no matter how hard they tried, and boost the coffers of the greedy narcissistic egomaniacal privileged.

    Making the OAP a debt would advantage those who play the system and punish those who save - the EXACT OPPOSITE of the lie you tell.

    The welfare mentality is CREATED BY SELFISH EGOMANICS LIKE YOU.

    People don't tie up their capital for no return by choice. They do what they perceive to be best for their individual circumstances given their education and ability. But self-serving PIGS want to steal everything they have worked for over a lifetime just because they aren't LUCKY enough to have found high-return investment opportunities.

    You are SCUM to want to hurt good people for selfish gain.
    jemimapd
    6th Feb 2017
    6:54pm
    I think it is fair. I know of people who are upsizing/upvaluing their PPR so as still obtain the pension.
    I recently sold a property for $450,000 and downsized so that I had a bit of money in the bank to assist with my living costs. The profit was barely $100,000 and I will need to spend some of that on the property. MY PENSION HAS BEEN REDUCED
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    6:59pm
    I see it helping people with modest homes.
    KeWi
    6th Feb 2017
    7:08pm
    I agree with you and that was my earlier point - downsize and lose part/all of pension, but your asset position has not changed. Use all your super and buy a bigger house - get the full pension, but your asset position has not changed.
    How is this rational or fair?
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    7:31pm
    It isn't fair at all. That's why the house needs to be in the asset test.

    Also because the house is not an asset you can downsize and then have a cheque for the difference written out for one of your grandkids and the money just disappears. You still have a house so nothing has changed. I have seen that happen many times.
    jemimapd
    6th Feb 2017
    7:43pm
    I have no super. I get only a part pension because I came to Australia in 1998 and worked under a 457 visa through a recruitment agency as an IT professional. I did get my citizenship with a struggle.
    I had very little super and used it as a self managed fund, now gone.
    As a retiree I work with a full real estate licence and see the gouging all of the time. People want to retire to the coast or the country. I live there in Queensland.
    Cashed up folk from NSW and VIC buy thee mansions and expect to get the pension as pocket money.
    I am no leftie but leave us modest retirees alone and set an index linked/location linked value on a family home.
    I do not want to feed the beneficiaries of these peoples wills.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:28pm
    Yes they leave work blow their final pay. sell their house, cash in their super and buy a mansion so that they can live happily ever after on the toil of the taxpayer for their pocket money. Get their kids to maintain and pay their house expenses as it will be theirs one day. .

    Kids then get windfall have a great time spending it and then apply for the dole as they can't get a job as they are too old and fat.

    Awesome system we have for the OAP.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    12:52pm
    Yes, it is - and YOU WANT TO MAKE IT WORSE! Wake up, dunce. You don't fix it by increasing the incentive to do precisely what is most harmful to the nation.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    5:21pm
    It will get worse before they fix it.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2017
    8:03am
    Probably, because there are way too many arrogant IDIOTS refusing to support demands for a fix. The only way to get something fixed is to demand it and let the politicians know in no uncertain terms they will lose their seats if they don't pay attention. But supporting STUPID suggestions, as you do OG, will make the situation far worse. It might expedite a review if it makes things bad enough, but it will cause horrendous pain in the meantime.

    Your views are consistent with the COMMUNIST view, OG. Squash everyone who isn't wealthy and priviledge. Two classes - the rich and the slaves. Nothing between. No way for battlers to elevate their status. Yet you claim to have climbed from hardship yourself (falsely, obviously, or you wouldn't have such Commo ideas - or maybe not. Maybe you had such an easy climb that your ego over-inflated to the point of bursting and you just can't get your head around the fact that others don't get it so easy. I have a son like you. He THINKS he struggled out of hardship - but we put him through Uni and then he married a millionaire!)

    Please take your COMMO ideas to a Communist regime. They are NOT wanted in Australia. We have always hated and feared Communism, and defended against it (at great cost!)
    Old Geezer
    9th Feb 2017
    10:58am
    You crack me up Rainey. It's the first time I have been called a CMMO.

    My partner a millionaire maybe now but it wasn't always that way. One of my kids was engaged years ago but the person they were engaged to decided that they couldn't go through with it because our family was so poor compared to theirs. Today it is the but of many family jokes and relief as they found someone far more suitable. History would have been so different if they had realised the truth.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2017
    11:20am
    You don't have to be wealthy to be a Commo, OG. Communism would never have grown in such proportions if not for the fact that millions of poor were deceived into believing it offered benefit. You have a communist mentality. Nothing funny about it. It's terrifying that people are sucked in by the Communist propaganda. But you clearly have been.
    Old Geezer
    9th Feb 2017
    11:46am
    Ha ha Rainey keep trying but I'm not about to be sucked in by anything or anybody. Too old and set in my ways now for that nonsense. When you are not afraid of death nothing terrifies you any more.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2017
    5:32pm
    Nice that you have no fears, OG, but you DO HAVE A COMMUNIST MENTALITY. Sad if you are too dumb to recognize the fact. Doesn't change it. Communists want to beat up on the working and middle class, throw crumbs to the poor and favour the rich. That's Australian today, and it's DEFINITELY YOU.
    Ruben
    6th Feb 2017
    6:59pm
    Everyone is saying that the family home is not included in the assets test for full or part pension entitlements. If that is the case then why are there two threshold tables in the guidelines?- one if you own your own home- the other table if you don't. If you own your own home your pension entitlement threshold is a lot less. OFF COURSE THE FAMILY HOME IS INCLUDED IN THE PENSION ASSET TEST! Can everyone stop saying that the family home is not included in the asset test for pensions. We have all been stooged.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    7:04pm
    House is not included in the assets test at all.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    9:40pm
    Yes it is. It's costing over $400 a week NOW for many retiree homeowners to live in houses they spent 30+ years struggling to pay for. We should all sell up, cruise the world (or give the money away) and claim rent assistance. There's just no point in working, saving, and being responsible.

    If people can't BENEFIT from work and saving, why bother? But then the greedy IDIOTS complain when people stop working and put their hands out for welfare. OG wants it both ways. Well, there's only one way to have it both ways, OG, and that's to bring back SLAVERY. And yes, I get it, that's precisely what you want. I can just see you standing their with the whip and a smug look on your face. Trouble is, slavery drove a civil war and a lot of smug pigs like you got shot - and it will happen again. Nothing is surer.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:04pm
    Ha ha Rainey what utter rubbish!
    Patriot
    6th Feb 2017
    10:05pm
    Aye Rainy,

    And those who KNOW hnow the "Game was Played" will be the first ones under the guillotine!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:22pm
    Rainey first your second Patriot? They certainly wouldn't bother with me.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    12:24pm
    You'd be first to be shot, OG, and nobody here would be sorry to see you go. We would all cheer!
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    1:04pm
    Good I die in peace.
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2017
    12:29pm
    I know an older couple who dropped $10k from pension over the assets test... again I say - their assets bring them no income, and even if they sell some, the cash derived from sale will also be taken into account, and thus by selling they would be no better off - in fact, worse off, since they would not then be able to enjoy their assets in their retirement.

    His answer was :- "I'll take a $100k world trip and then get a full pension."

    Helpful policy this idiotic idea....
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2017
    5:40pm
    You are so dense, OG. Ig they drop assets and spend the money, their income rises. In the case of a couple $9K over the upper asset limit, it rises dramatically because they qualify for thousands of dollars in additional concessions and benefits. They would be a LOT better off.

    A financial planner showed me a spreadsheet he constructed for a client that proved if the client took a $100,000 world trip, he would be $180,000 better off over the next 15 years in retirement. Now ONLY AN IDIOT would endorse a government policy that has that result, but there are clearly a LOT OF IDIOTS in Australia - particularly in government policy making, because it doesn't take much to recognize that if you take more than people can earn in their investments, the incentive is for them to reduce their savings. And that's EXACTLY what is happening.
    LiveItUp
    12th Feb 2017
    8:15am
    Interesting Rainey. I just did some sums myself. Over 15 years that $100,000 invested at 7% (less than average investment yield) would be worth over $300,000. So that world trip really cost $300,000 not $100,000.

    Gee these planners know how to malipulate spreadsheets to prove a point. I hope that person didn't spend that $100,000 on a trip they regret for the rest of their life.
    Misty
    12th Feb 2017
    1:38pm
    Does anyone know where you can 7% on investments these days?.
    LiveItUp
    12th Feb 2017
    7:02pm
    Most of my investments are currently doing better than 7%. Leaving money in the bank is not investing as it loses nearly every year after tax and inflation.

    Got a good idea where i will invest in the future but I'm not a financial planner so the law says I can't give out financial information.
    Anonymous
    13th Feb 2017
    6:33am
    In the first place, Bonny, the AVERAGE return rate is 5% currently, and it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT what YOU can get on YOUR money. YOU are not EVERY RETIREE. What is relevant is what the retiree considering taking the trip can achieve. Narcissists do not assist debate.

    In the second place, the current return from SHEDDING assets is 7.8%++ which is a lot more than 7%, so your post is totally irrelevant.

    The FACT is that there is no benefit to saving and therefore the government policy makers and all who support them are INCREASING PENSION COSTS AND THE DEFICIT by driving retirees into greater hardship instead of giving them incentives to save.
    Old Geezer
    13th Feb 2017
    10:29am
    Rainey the long term average on investment return is 10% so that makes your 7.8% totally irrelevant too. Taking Bonny's example at 10% that $100,000 and the magic number 72 that $100,000 will be worth over $400,000 in 15 years time.

    I too would the $100,000 and forget about the OAP as I would earn more money and keep my capital. It's a win win for me.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2017
    4:39pm
    WRONG, OG. There's no '''long term'' for those who have to live off their investment income and don't have sufficient invested - or not at high enough rates - to earn a living income.

    In any case nobody can predict whether future returns will rise or fall, so the ''long term'' could be 2% for all you know. History does NOT accurately tell us what the future holds. It's VERY LIKELY, given current trends, that $100,000 will be worth $20,000 in 15 years time.

    But what really shoots your INCORRECT CRAP apart is that if you have to live on the income, the investment DOES NOT GROW. Your buying power and your real income reduce every year with inflation.

    You and Bonny are full of it with your ambitious theory and egomaniacal boasts. Stop pretending and admit that the system is HIDEOUSLY FLAWED and needs to be reviewed - urgently. It is crippling honest hard workers who lived responsibly, removing all incentives and rewards for effort, and driving a welfare mentality.

    And anyone who supports rewarding people for reducing their capacity to partly support themselves is either STUPID or CORRUPT.
    Old Geezer
    14th Feb 2017
    11:58pm
    OK I get it Rainey. You really have no idea about investing and the compounding of money. Yes we live in an era of low interest rates but this makes other investments so much cheaper to finance therefore more profitable. These times are one of the more profitable times for investing money and results are showing it. Investment returns are much higher than your 2% and could be for some time with low interest rates.

    At 10% inflation $100,000 today will only be worth $20,000 but I can't see 10% inflation for some time yet.

    That said you are the one that supports reducing people's capacity to support themselves by telling them to spend up big.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2017
    6:44pm
    No, OG, I am the one who supports FAIR SENSIBLE POLICY that encourages and supports people who are responsible and diligent and try to be self-sufficient and works to the advantage of the nation - rather than against the national interest.

    YOU are the one who supports screwing people into hardship if they worked and saved and only allowing the privileged to prosper, and driving the nation further into debt to support all the new poor created by BAD POLICY.

    As for investing and compounding of money, I know a lot about it - much more than you obviously, because your fairy-land crap doesn't work when someone has to live on inadequate returns from an investment, and only a nasty self-serving pig supports policy that disadvantages people and plunges them into hardship because they, for whatever reason, can't achieve handsome returns on their investments.

    6th Feb 2017
    9:15pm
    I strongly disagree and my reasoning for this is that all homes are not of equal value although they may look similar. To support this view, I have attached links to a 3BR, 2bath brick home at Northmead with an asking price of $1,200,000 as compared to a 3BR, 2bath brick home at Barellan with an asking price of $149,000. Both are family homes. Until this disparity is worked out, the family home must remain exempt.
    http://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-nsw-northmead-124488714
    http://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-nsw-barellan-123868386

    *Disclaimer* our family home is worth less than $500,000.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:03pm
    What difference does this make? The person owning the house in Northmead has more assets than the one owning the house in Barellan. That why not having the house in the assets test is so inequitable. The sooner it is added the better.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    10:08pm
    Those assets are not income-bearing... for the last time....
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:17pm
    Trevor it does not matter if they cost money they are still assets according to Centrelink.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2017
    10:41pm
    The difference OG is that people need to live somewhere and those who own or are paying off a home are saving the government money in that there is no rent subsidy provided. My point is that bringing in a family home is discriminatory because where a person lives will dictate the value, not what the family home looks like. All other criteria in assessing eligibility for an age pension are non discriminatory because they are quantifiable and applicable to each pensioner.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    11:33am
    So it would be fair if I went and bought myself a nice abode with a great location and great views for millions and then had nothing left so I could collect the full rate of OAP? I guess I could also get the kids to pay all expenses and maintenance and use the OAP as my personal spending money. How many cruises could I do a year on the OAP?
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    12:48pm
    It wouldn't be fair, OG, but it's what people are doing - and the instances of it will continue to increase while the government fails to recognize that you can't rely on people's integrity when the system punishes the honest. You might do what's right. So might I. But most do not, and will not. So the system needs to be designed to address that problem. Taking from the honest, hard-working to give to the bludgers, cheats and manipulators (as well as the disadvantaged) can do only one thing - CREATE MORE BLUDGERS, CHEATS, MANIPULATORS AND DISADVANTAGED. And that's EXACTLY what is happening. And the problem is exacerbated by the fact that those losing are not seeing the rich losing - but only the striving battlers who worked hard to improve their situation.

    The system needs reform by people smart enough to understand that you have to reward responsible behaviour in order to motivate more of it.
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2017
    12:34pm
    Well - those fools in Parliament raised the issue by shoving it down people's throats - now the counter-argument is simple and comes to the fore on behalf of the many - why should a person be punished for using their money wisely during working life, accumulating some comfort and non income-generating assets for their personal use, and owning their own home instead of being paid to pay rent?

    So now the counter-argument falls squarely into line with the long-running idea that all assets tests be abolished, all be paid the same pension, and all be placed under the same tax regime for income and fringe benefits, including deemed percentage of trusts etc.

    All the falsehoods out the window in one fell swoop.... (wow - saw an eagle dive on the centre strip of the highway a while ago - thought he was being a silly buggar and trying to hit a car - he swooped a snake and off he went, snake wriggling in his claws.. poor old snake...)

    6th Feb 2017
    9:30pm
    There's a simple answer to this CRAP. Everybody who doesn't earn enough to be a millionaire STOP WORKING. Everyone who has a house, give it to the kids now and cop 5 years without a pension for gifting. Those under 60, give it away quick and lose nothing. Everybody blow your savings, quit striving, take up gambling and drinking (those pursuits are rewarded and apparently to be commended!) and then put your hand out. Tell the government, thanks - but if you are going to take everything I ever earned, I'll bloody well stop earning. And I'll make damned sure my kids stop also.

    When there are no street sweepers, no toilet cleaners, no shop assistants, no linesmen, no road builders, no factory workers... etc., then the greedy, self-serving rich and privileged who think they can take everything might just decide they are not so smart after all.

    Bring on the WELFARE MENTALITY! These IDIOTS who come up with this ''steal from the working class'' BS are building for an economic disaster of mammoth proportions. The deficit is climbing, welfare costs are soaring... and it's all because IDIOTS think they have a free hand to steal from the hard workers who make this nation and give to the dishonest, corrupt, overfed LEACHES who contribute NOTHING and then beat their chests and claim superiority.

    I read complaints about people buying $3 million homes to dodge the means test. Why do you think they do that? Why do they take world cruises and come back to claim pensions?

    STEAL the hard-earned savings of responsible worker and you have NO SAVING WORKERS. So bring on the party. Let's all drink and gamble our savings away before they steal it all.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    9:54pm
    All for the measly amount of only to OAP Rainey> No thanks.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    12:20pm
    OG, you miss the point. Nobody is suggesting you or I want to live on the OAP. What I'm saying is that EVERYBODY except millionaires will be denied choice if this CRAP continues, suggesting the government should steal everything workers accrue if they don't retire with millions. Nobody suggests stealing from those who rip off the tax system with negative gearing and moving money offshore. Everybody just wants to STEAL from the honest, hard working retirees who built this country, and have struggled to retire moderately comfortable. Grind them into poverty. Well, when you do that, people will STOP WORKING. If there's no reward, why do it.

    Last week, a relative who is on an OAP + rent assistance told a friend's kids their parents were idiots. ''Look at me'' she said. Money every fortnight. No worries. Having a great life, funded by the taxpayer. Your folks worked their guts out for 40 years to buy a home that they might have stolen from them to give to people like me who didn't bother. They've already had their pension taken to give me a pension increase. Now they have less to live on than I do until they drain their savings. What was the point. Learn from it. Be a bludger. It doesn't pay to work in this crap country.

    You know what's scary. She's right!
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    12:20pm
    OG, you miss the point. Nobody is suggesting you or I want to live on the OAP. What I'm saying is that EVERYBODY except millionaires will be denied choice if this CRAP continues, suggesting the government should steal everything workers accrue if they don't retire with millions. Nobody suggests stealing from those who rip off the tax system with negative gearing and moving money offshore. Everybody just wants to STEAL from the honest, hard working retirees who built this country, and have struggled to retire moderately comfortable. Grind them into poverty. Well, when you do that, people will STOP WORKING. If there's no reward, why do it.

    Last week, a relative who is on an OAP + rent assistance told a friend's kids their parents were idiots. ''Look at me'' she said. Money every fortnight. No worries. Having a great life, funded by the taxpayer. Your folks worked their guts out for 40 years to buy a home that they might have stolen from them to give to people like me who didn't bother. They've already had their pension taken to give me a pension increase. Now they have less to live on than I do until they drain their savings. What was the point. Learn from it. Be a bludger. It doesn't pay to work in this crap country.

    You know what's scary. She's right!
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    12:46pm
    Yes Rainey I have an extended family full of those people so know what you mean. Worst is that they then have the hide to ask me for money!
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    12:49pm
    Well if you know what I mean, why do you constantly argue in support of a system that CREATES and WORSENS this problem? DUMB!
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    12:53pm
    I don't like the system any more than you do Rainey. I do however loathe those who use every loophole they can just to rip off the taxpayer. My own sister is probably to worst.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    1:03pm
    Then STOP defending the system that creates the problem. Wake up to the fact that CHANGE can fix it - but the change you support is the change that is making it far, far worse. To fix it, we have got to STOP attacking the hard working, responsible retirees who struggled and saved to try to be at least partly self-sufficient, or at least have a home and not claim rent assistance. Let them enjoy the rewards of their efforts instead of taking it all away and there will be more of them.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    1:50pm
    Rainey it will have to get far far worse before they fix it. That is the problem.

    One of the easiest things to do is only allow those on the full pension a senior's health card as that is what most people are after that rearrange their affairs to get the OAP.

    We would all benefit then.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2017
    9:46pm
    NO OG, that would make it worse still. The problem is depriving those who work and save of benefits given to the irresponsible. The more you do that, the more irresponsible people ( or cheats and manipulators) there will be. NOBODY benefits from bashing the battlers who strive to be partly independent. That's the cause of the problem.

    A father tells his kids ''save your pocket money and you can pay for your own ice creams next time we go the beach. Spend it on lollies and I'll pay for your ice creams.'' What do the kids do? Squander their pocket money of course. It's EXACTLY the same with the pension. Tell people save and you get bashed up and screwed, but squander and we'll look after you and you create a welfare mentality and a huge pension bill.

    When the DIMWITTED MORONS wake up that incentives and rewards drive productive behaviour, THEN we'll solve the problem. And anyone with a brain should be lobbying for that solution sooner rather than later.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2017
    10:31pm
    A little light viewing for you - not the range of contributors to this film including a retired US Lieutenant General who commanded all Special Forces etc....

    http://moviesub.org/watch/revelation-dawn-of-global-government-2016-hd.online.html
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2017
    12:40pm
    Interesting point made - returning service people are considered a threat to the US government/establishment. The reason for this is the same as WWI and WWII - once those men and women have sacrificed so much, they feel as much a sense of entitlement to a fair go as those running the show. That lead, in Britain, to social security and national health changes to better suit all (which sent Thatcher into shock), and the same applied here and in the US.

    Indeed those who put self on the line feel entitled to a more fair go out of their nation...... so if they are a 'threat' to the establishment, it is the establishment that is wrong.
    niemakawa
    6th Feb 2017
    10:48pm
    So how will non-homeowners pay for their pensions under such a proposal? I would suggest a tax of 10% on their pensions, should this scheme ever be introduced( which is very unlikely) Why should they not have to PAY for their pensions? As some people keep saying a pension is not a right, which of course IT IS. The sooner this madcap idea is nailed on the head the better. All political parties must state unequivocally their intentions on the age pension. I would go further and say that the RIGHT to an age pension is enshrined in legislation.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2017
    10:52pm
    Nay bring it in ASAP and make the system more equitable for everyone.
    niemakawa
    6th Feb 2017
    11:24pm
    OG it is already inequitable because of means testing. Age Pensions are a RIGHT for everyone.
    *Imagine*
    6th Feb 2017
    11:42pm
    “Equity”, OG is the crux of the matter.
    The problem with seeking “equity” is that we have to give birth to a whole industry to determine whether a senior person is eligible for government assistance. How much income? What is income? How much in assets? What is an asset? Which assets earn income? How much income should the asset earn? etc. What is fair? What is equitable? It is never ending, we could bring in all sorts of variables such as health status, happiness, ability to grow vegetables or any other “think tank “ crap.
    Maybe we should stop seeking “equity” and instead base our retirement support on “equality”, that is we all get the same Government handout, irrespective of how long or hard we worked, what asset and income that we enjoy, we simply get a share of the country’s assets, paid as a fixed pension on reaching a predetermined age. Simple, straightforward and easily administered. The “Equality” approach is used by the superior cricket nations such as the UK and NZ, in AUS “equality” is just not cricket!
    niemakawa
    7th Feb 2017
    12:02am
    "Imagine". The Government has the wrong approach with the current system. Everyone who reaches retirement age should be able to apply for an age pension, regardless of one's financial position. Provided applicants meet the criteria, such a residency, then all should be paid a minimum pension. Additional Government financial support over and above the basic pension can still be given to those who can prove hardship and meet all the requirements. Simple to administer, the same basic pension paid to those that apply successfully.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    11:34am
    With 4 out of 5 getting the OAP there is that many of us not getting it so in theory your idea has merit.
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2017
    12:59pm
    Yes, OG - but remember that income and fringe benefits will be taxed instead. I believe that is the case in New Zuland.
    niemakawa
    7th Feb 2017
    12:53am
    The age pension is nothing short of a dividend on a life-long investment. Age pensions for all, stop means testing and provide additional Government financial support for those that can prove hardship.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    11:28am
    Gee my investment then has a nil return with no interest or capital.
    niemakawa
    7th Feb 2017
    7:55pm
    OG that is the reason all those of pension age should receive a basic pension regardless. So by your own admission you believe so too.
    frank45
    7th Feb 2017
    3:15am
    get all the Jehovah's Witnesses working they are costing you $800 a week get the "bes"
    working.
    Rodent
    7th Feb 2017
    11:20am
    WOW OLD GEEZER 147 "COMMENTS"so far, you have been busy, its just a shame that your views on this subject are so narrow and ill informed
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    11:22am
    Nope it is just that other people have narrow minds and also can't see through their brain fog. I can see the big picture and I don't like what I see.
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    11:45am
    Do you realise that I am also reading and typing emails as well as answering messages while I am posting here? Must be well over 50 browsers pages open on my computer as well.
    Misty
    7th Feb 2017
    12:02pm
    OG I can see that HALO getting bigger by the minute, your holier then thou attitude coming through loud and clear.
    Rodent
    7th Feb 2017
    12:04pm
    OG All that PC software working overtime must be why you make so many spelling grammer errors, (as I do some times)

    Extract from Macro Business 12 months ago

    Including the family home in the assets test would reduce the proportion of people on the Aged pension to 62.3% from 73.3% currently:

    sorry cant post the table that goes with this
    Rodent
    7th Feb 2017
    12:06pm
    But here's a link that may help SOME
    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/12/pc-bring-the-family-home-into-pension-assets-test/
    Old Geezer
    7th Feb 2017
    12:43pm
    Good it sounds like it will save us taxpayers some money in welfare.

    No spelling mistakes are from my predictive over corrective word checker in Windows 10. Windows 10 has some awesome features but that is not one of them. My tablet and phone are a lot worse. it changes when I hit the Post Reply button.
    Snowflake
    8th Feb 2017
    11:50am
    Despite all that has been said, I think we should look closely at what the government spends tax payers money on.
    What is the cost of changing the name of government departments every few years? Millions, think about it.
    Foreign aid to countries that are corrupt and those that need it never get the benefit.
    Billions on defence. I still can't work out who we are defending ourselves against. And let's face it, if a country like China wanted to take us over all the defence in the world wouldn't stop it.
    The list goes on with government waste. Let's see some accountability from the government and I'm sure when money is not spent on such stupid things as government name changes and the like, we might find that a lot of money has been saved and can be put to better use.
    But will it happen?
    "The stupidity of mankind knows no bounds, its bounds are solely self serving." My quote but feel free to use it.
    Cuddlycas
    8th Feb 2017
    4:56pm
    I would be interested in finding out the age group of those employed by the ACCI. I would bet it would be 40ish. People who have had it fairly easy and will retire on generous superannuation packages. My advice to younger people commenting on pensioners and retirees would be to pull your head in and research your history regarding past government legislation before trying to put another further pressure on retirees

    8th Feb 2017
    6:28pm
    A discussion of this proposal with a financial adviser today led to him asking the question, ''Have you compared the financial situation of someone knocked out (marginally) by the recent assets test change with someone in an optimal position pension-wise?''

    Answering his own question, he remarked that the value of a full aged pension for a couple in today's dollars is $550,000. Add to that the $375,000 a couple can have without loss of pension based on asset assessment, and a homeowner couple on a full pension - with notionally $925,000 plus their home, can potentially be very much better off than a couple receiving nothing because they have $816,000 in assets. And that's not even considering the benefits the full pensioner couple receives that the ''wealthier'' couple (???) misses out on, NOR the fact that the pensioner couple might potentially have a home worth several times the value of the non-pensioner couple.

    It kind of puts the assets test change in a different light when you look at those numbers, doesn't it?

    As to the issue of the family home, he suggested that the family home SHOULD be counted, but NOT as a separate asset, and the assets limit should be significantly more than doubled to compensate. Then a loans program should be implemented to assist anyone who doesn't wish to sell a home that is of very high value OR who has any other non-returning assets that put them over a very high threshold. Income tests might be tightened a little to assist in reducing the aged pension budget, but people who save should not suffer unfair penalty, and people who invest in expensive housing should not enjoy unfair gain.

    All sounded quite reasonable to me.

    He added that he and his colleagues are actively advising clients to SPEND SPEND SPEND - take overseas cruises, because the taxpayer is paying! If you are caught in the seriously UNFAIR assets test change, there is just no benefit to hanging on to your money. There's a $550,000 reward for many just for spending $441,000 having a grand time!

    No doubt acturians will point out that these figures are not quite accurate because a part pension becomes payable at some point to the $816,000 couple who have to reduce their assets to survive, but the gist of the argument is valid - that the issue of relative means, fairness, overall pension costs, and economic sustainability hasn't been properly considered. And ''quick and dirty'' suggestions like the one reported here can only make a bad system very much worse.
    Old Geezer
    9th Feb 2017
    10:31am
    Interesting but I'll take the $816,000 instead. I can earn a average of over $81,000 per year which would make me better off than the OAP plus the benefits. I also get to keep my $816,000 as well. So the full age pension is not worth $550,000 it is only the same as having a income generated by $550,000. Even at 6% per return someone with $816,000 would be better off as you have the capital as well as the income.

    Not too sure where your financial advisor is getting his figures from but it must be very lazy investing.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2017
    11:17am
    The point you are missing, OG, is that the government CLAIMS to be prioritising the LESS advantaged. Now, someone who can only get 2.5% or 3% return on their $816,000 IS LESS ADVANTAGED, yet suffers unfairly. It's easy for arrogant, nasty people to call them '''lazy investors'', but you have no idea what circumstances have positioned them to be unable to get better returns. Mostly, it's related to illness, disability, or past crisis or trauma of major proportions. These are people who ARE DISADVANTAGED, and they are being denied benefits many who are far less disadvantaged can access.

    It's very nice that YOU can get $81,000 a year on $816,000. But some of us might be forgiven for thinking your selfishness is showing, and you have a very cruel attitude to those in less favourable circumstances. Or perhaps it's just that you are such a simpleton that you can't grasp that everything isn't about your level of assets. There are many other significant factors that contribute to financial health.
    Old Geezer
    9th Feb 2017
    11:36am
    If nothing else it did remind me why I don't see financial planners. That advice you got is very wrong.
    Old Geezer
    9th Feb 2017
    10:34pm
    So we are now going to educate financial planners to do a better job?

    http://www.nationalseniors.com.au/be-informed/news-articles/higher-standards-financial-advisers?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Connect%20505%3A%209/2/17&utm_content=Story%202%3A%20Higher%20standards%20for%20financial%20advisers%20&utm_source=www.vision6.com.au

    Better job at what?
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2017
    5:16pm
    You just keep making everything about YOU, don't you OG? Not a thought for the nation of the people who need the nation to run more efficiently so the disadvantaged get a better deal. Just keep ranting about OG's welfare as though you are the only person in this country. Sad that some people can be so utterly self-absorbed.
    Blossom
    8th Feb 2017
    10:01pm
    NO. Peoples homes that were less than $35,000 in 1980 are worth $540,000.00 or more now.
    Especially in some parts of the metropolitan area. Partly because some blocks have been subdivided and little houses built on them but luxurious inside. Elderly people don't want to be forced out of their homes because of changes in Assets Test. It is not their fault that the value has risen +govt rates and taxes because of it.
    Misty
    9th Feb 2017
    11:53am
    That depends where you live Blossom, my home has only been valued at @ $250.000, a 4 bedroom, part brick and weatherboard, underfloor heating in the Family room, 26 Solar Panels, Carport, Garage and workshop, large under house area separated into bedrooms and living area with shower and toilet but as yet not finished. I live in a country town, Cooma, not that far from Canberra and the coast or at least what us country people call close, don't know what you city dwellers would think of this.
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2017
    1:05pm
    Should've known from your sense you were a Snowy girl, Misty... the clear air up there helps set the mind right.... we (the ex for whom I am carer and I) moved up from Bega Valley in April last year.. now that's close to the ocean, but only a couple of hours to the snow.... a good deal all round, I thought.
    Misty
    9th Feb 2017
    3:45pm
    What is this government about?, now young people up to 25, looking for work, will be taken off New Start put into a different category, YOUTH ALLOWANCE and will lose $50.00 a week and depending where you live this is not enough to live on if you have to use Public Transport and rent, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2017
    5:06pm
    They're just a narrer-gutted, money-hungry, ideologically driven, overfed pack of twerps.

    I've got three grand-kids who will be entering the workforce in ten years or so... the oldest maybe before that unless he continues study.... and I find it amazing that a government would deliberately starve the 'seed corn' of the nation.

    I was on my own from age 16, and to even have government begin to assume that the living costs of a younger person seeking a job can be less or can be subsidised by their parents is outrageous.

    25 is hardly a 'youth' - just a bunch of thieving rascals in Parliament, and what never ceases to amaze me is that so many people who are not of the 'fat cat' demography vote and continue to vote for LNP, when they clearly do not represent the best will for the majority of the people.

    Again - I hold no brief for Labor these days, either - they lost it starting with Bob Hawke and his 'government of national reconciliation' (or of wrecking a silly nation), when his 'accord' began the drive to deprive Unions of the right to even defend their own, and left their coal-face (unpaid) delegates in the clutches of vicious management. I know since I was on such.

    All traitors to their own.....
    Rodent
    9th Feb 2017
    4:23pm
    WOW!!! 519 comments so far and OG has contributed 167 of them
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2017
    5:06pm
    An outstanding performance even for one so lost in specie......
    Old Geezer
    9th Feb 2017
    6:14pm
    Trebor get the dong though as he has out done me.
    Rodent
    9th Feb 2017
    7:02pm
    OG No way Trebor only has 100
    Old Geezer
    9th Feb 2017
    10:59pm
    Gee some people have little to do.
    Farside
    10th Feb 2017
    2:28am
    "Old Geezer" only appears 144 times last count, which is still impressive enough.
    Old Geezer
    10th Feb 2017
    3:18pm
    Did you noticed he was mentioned 152 times in replies too.
    mikegtu2005
    9th Feb 2017
    5:38pm
    a version of this will eventually happen , the last of the boomers will be the first to get hit and its yet another example of thinking in this country that kicks the very people who support the nation. Subsequent generations will put less in property and the bubble will burst. It gets to a point where one feels completely used and like many feels like blowing the savings and have a good time. Even those who dont think completely that way their decisions involving self funding retirement will change and include thoughts of the more I work the more the govt want

    9th Feb 2017
    10:03pm
    Yes of course the house should be included
    Why does a pensioner living in a $1.5M house with minimum assets get a full pension while a decent person living in a $500k house with $1M in super not get a pension

    Wealth is wealth
    Farside
    10th Feb 2017
    2:23am
    Codger, look forward to reading more of your posts. It seems you might have been a bit late this time around but this topic has a tendency to repeat itself and you will find plenty of opposition
    .
    Anonymous
    10th Feb 2017
    6:04am
    Why or how can anyone argue against what is blatantly clear

    Unless it's from purely selfish perspectives
    Farside
    10th Feb 2017
    12:27pm
    Gough Whitlam is reputed to have said "The punters know that the horse named Morality rarely gets past the post, whereas the nag named Self-interest always runs a good race". No shortage of self-interest on this forum.
    Patriot
    10th Feb 2017
    12:41pm
    Gough knew his "Ps & Qs" as he proves "Once Again".
    Old Geezer
    10th Feb 2017
    3:19pm
    I agree Codger it should be included ASAP.
    Rodent
    10th Feb 2017
    11:10am
    Farside -with respect this silly system- says OG NOW up to 180 posts, we should give him an award!!
    Farside
    10th Feb 2017
    12:45pm
    OG has been busy for sure and added more references but I guess a number of these were about him but not posts by him. I searched for "Old Geezer" but for sake of completeness I just now searched the page source for 73023 (OG's ID) and it counted 133, which is still impressive. It would be a nice feature if the system showed top three posters.
    Old Geezer
    10th Feb 2017
    3:03pm
    NO I already have enough awards and have run out of room to house them all.

    12th Feb 2017
    11:33am
    Maybe reducing expectations would help? We settled for a run-down 30-year old weatherboard 2 bedroom, 1 bath (in bad shape with leaky plumbing) with a single garage down the back yard, and in a low-value location. We worked our way up, spending weekends and holidays renovating and working 2nd jobs instead of having fancy vacations abroad and restaurant dinners.

    Most of today's young spend very freely on lifestyle, AND want the grand new mansion from day one - complete with professional landscaping and a swimming pool - and then whinge about the cost. My neighbour whines that he can't pay his rates, but he takes 3 kids to Bali every year and bought his daughter a brand new car for her 16th birthday.

    Yes, there are some young who are genuinely struggling. There have ALWAYS been strugglers. But the expectations have risen far too high, and an interest rate increase just might be a good thing if it brings people back to earth a bit and makes them recognize the dangers of excessive debt and the benefits of making some sacrifices to prioritize reducing the size of the mortgage.
    Misty
    12th Feb 2017
    1:53pm
    When I look around at some of these huge homes in our country town I wonder how on earth young people can afford the up keep, insurances etc, family life and relationships must suffer if 2 people have to both work and sometimes both have 2nd jobs. I must say looking back I only worked at evening jobs and my husband worked overtime when I was at home, I was lucky to get a job at a school and worked 8.30 t0 3.30pm so it fitted in with children and then some days I worked in a Nursing Home 4-11 pm weekends. I think most people my age did this and relied on family and friends to babysit when necessary, we also had cheaper child care in those days it is really hard for the young ones with families now to afford before and after school care. We enjoyed window shopping and planning for things when we could afford them, I have never owned a brand new car in my life but have had 4 overseas trips to meet my husbands rellies, sometimes with our 4 boys when they were young, we had boards on bricks for a coffee table until we could afford one, you have to get your priorities right or what is important for you not to keep up with the Jonses.
    Misty
    12th Feb 2017
    1:58pm
    I meant I only worked at evening jobs until I was able to get the School job where I stayed for 25 years as a School Assistant in the office, saw many changes over the years some not for the better I must say.
    cdbstock
    22nd Feb 2017
    12:47am
    Leon Am I correct in thinking you argue against counting the value of the family home re pensions?
    Why should a person be able to 'hide' his/her wealth in the home (eg restoration, extension, upscaling etc) & still claim full or part pension? Why should a person be allowed to 'game' the pension scheme to maximise the value of the home for eventual bequeathal purpose?
    The current exemption of the family home encourages pension-age people to occupy larger houses than needed, & investment in highly desirable (valuable) locations (eg near transport, cbds, etc - out of the reach for younger people who must commute for work). The scheme is also inequitable in that: a home owner in a country town cant 'hide' as much wealth as a city dweller.
    It would seem politically feasible to count the excess of (say) $500000 of the value of the family home as an asset for pension purpose - ie if a family home is valued at $600000 then $100000 is counted as an asset - although it would be desirable to count the whole value as an asset.
    This would: direct funds to investment, & improve the federal budget bottom line.
    Eve
    3rd Mar 2017
    12:27am
    Why does the ACCI wish to make itself entirely irrelevant to the aged pension debate. Their proposals can only help to make sure that any wealth that remains in the fast dwindling resources of are remaining middle and working classes is wiped out completely. Funny how no mention of inheritance tax on the wealthy is never part of their proposals. ACCI - please remove the sociopaths from your public policy branch, and start proposing some sensible AND EQUITABLE proposals that do not seek to destroy the fabric of this country.
    VJ
    28th Mar 2017
    2:55pm
    So the family home is included as part of the assets test! If through no fault of our own, our house value has increased dramatically, we are already paying higher land rates, how do we live if this is to happen? Older people who are asset rich will be queueing for help at the various charities because we have no income. Is this fair for people who worked and paid taxes all of their lives, built a home, raised their children and contributed to society are left high and dry.
    Howard
    3rd Apr 2017
    2:46pm
    The idiots who keep on suggesting that the family home should e included in the assets test have not thought out the problems that go along with that & more particularly the costs involved. By the time that the existing house had been sold & something else purchased or rented with all the charges & taxes then I feel that the owners wold be scratching for money to live on & the gov't would end up by paying pensioners more than they are paying at the moment. Don't forget that owning a house requires a very large expenditure in maintenance rates etc etc. Typical of govts & those living on easy street?
    None
    10th Jan 2018
    1:46pm
    I do not think your home should be asset tested as you work hard all your life scrape and save and go without a lot of things to be free hold when you retire our children even felt the impact of hard times while we tried our best to support them at the same time . My husband worked 7 days a week while I did 80 hour weeks to get where we are today. We have no Super and little savings so what we get now is fully appreciated a little more would help pay bills . Food ,electricity and water and insurances .
    Blinky
    28th Mar 2019
    1:22pm
    The ACCI are not living in the real world and I bet all of them are, like all politicians are filthy rich and live in expensive homes in expensive suburbs.
    If Peter bought a house in his young age it's cause he worked hard, paid taxes n raised a family. Forty or fifty years later, Peter is old enough to retire. He was never a high income earner so he will -unfortunstely x him- have to retire on a govt pension. (If he was "rich" he would have a fat super plus shares, etc).
    He bought his house x, say, $50k many years ago. Now, both his house n suburb have appreciated in value n his house is now worth $800k.
    According to the ACCI morons, he is RICH, and should either sell his house n move to a cheaper house n suburb, or risk not getting the miserable Aussie pension.
    That is pure and absolute Communism.
    Aussie retirees do not have to be poor n live miserable lives in their old age. LET THEM ENJOY THE FRUIT OF THEIR LABOR. LEAVE THEM ALONE!!
    Why would any Australian govt need to save money at the pensioners' cost?
    U wanna save money: cut thr numbers of asylum seekers, cut foreign aid, restrict welfare x dole bludgers, etc
    DO NOT PUNISH AUSSIES IN THEIR OLD AGE!!!