Sweeteners in store for older Australians?

The battle for the hearts and minds of retirees has already begun.

Government woos older Australians

The battle for the hearts and minds of retirees and pre-retirees ahead of the 2019 Federal Election seems to have already begun with the Turnbull Government reportedly set to guarantee tax rates for older Australians and superannuation rules.

A special taskforce on ageing would also be established, News Ltd has reported, amid warnings that nursing homes require expenditure of around $33 billion over the next decade.

The motivation for the policy information is that the latest Newspoll shows support for the Government among Australians over 50 has dropped from 50 per cent at the 2016 election to 40 per cent.

In recent weeks, Labor announced that if elected, it would remove franking credit refunds from the tax system, a policy it estimated would save $59 billion over 10 years. The policy was spruiked as a means to ‘hit the rich’, but was quickly amended after a public outcry that retirees were unfairly hit.

Just days later, Labor amended the policy to exempt 300,000 full and part Age Pensioners.

It made no admission the policy was flawed, saying the changes were fine-tuning and would reduce estimated revenue only from $11.4 billion to $10.7 billion in the first two years, and from $59 billion to $55.7 billion in the next decade, a fall of $3.3 billion.

Labor’s retreat was described by most political analysts as smart and strategic. However, some continue to pick holes in the policy.

Personal finance advocate Noel Whittaker, writing for Fairfax Media, says Labor’s revised policy is still unfair on older Australians.  

In The Age, he offers two key case studies:

  • The Browns own their home, have $75,000 in the bank and a share portfolio worth $710,000, returning dividends of $32,000 and franking credits of $13,700. They are eligible for a fortnightly Age Pension of $19 combined. Their total annual income would be $47,700.
  • The Smiths’ finances mirror the Browns except that they have shares worth $800,000 returning dividends of $36,000 and franking credits of $15,400. They are ineligible for an Age Pension. Their total annual income, with franking credits, would be $51,400.

“Under Labor’s proposals, the Smiths would lose $15,400 a year in franking credit refunds, reducing their net income to $36,000 plus interest of $1500.”

YourLifeChoices has asked the three main political parties for their policies relating to older Australians ahead of the May Federal Budget.

What issues do you want the Government to address?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Concerned
    3rd Apr 2018
    10:33am
    You forgot to mention the smiths would now be eligible for the aged pension. Slight slip. And why do you Not mention that the smiths could be like the rest of us and use the money in our superfund over a period of time. In your scenario it looks like the smith are poor but like everyone else they bought their shares for super and need to use the assets in it to fund their retirement. It will decrease but that is the whole idea.the way you word this the smiths die and are broke and then their children receive the share portfolio. While the rest of die and there is little left in the super. Fair No. and neither is receiving imputation credits and calling it their only income source and making out like they have no options. Very LNP of you
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    10:54am
    I agree, if I had $800,00 + in shares and money in the bank I do not consider myself poor and would not be trying to get a govt pension.
    Cowboy Jim
    3rd Apr 2018
    11:38am
    Browns and Smiths would be better off today if they were less frugal, spend it bit of money while the going was good and both would get a bit of pension money. If you put in all your working life you should get some back. I know it's not Concerned's way but it certainly is mine.
    Mad as Hell
    3rd Apr 2018
    12:07pm
    If the Smiths had another $37,000 in Assets such as a car, furniture or other non income producing assets, they would not receive any pension. Making them $10,200 a year worse off than the Browns.
    I planned for my retirement over a long time and budgeted accordingly, only to have flawed policies for the sake of re election.
    I’ll never vote LNP or GREENS after their change to the Pensioner Assets Test but LABOUR you’re making it hard to get my vote.
    Jim
    3rd Apr 2018
    12:16pm
    I am interested to know exactly why you consider receiving imputation credits are so wrong, imputation credits are tax that has been paid at the company tax rate of 30% so anyone receiving these credits is paying tax on their investment and like any other tax payer if their income is below the tax free threshold they are entitled to claim that tax back, if their income is above the tax free threshold they can only use their imputation credits to reduce their tax liability. in superannuation we pay a 15% earnings tax which isn't refunfable and cannot be used to reduce your tax liability, if we are still contributing to our super we also pay a 15% contribution tax, the Labor party wants to take a legitimate refund of tax from pensioners but not from anyone else, they are trying to create envy amongst pensioners and low income earners to justify a tax grab from what they consider an easy target, and it seems as though its working.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:07pm
    Receiving franking credits by many people I considered very wrong because of the con Shorten has done In by referring to it as a tax dodge of the super rich in that what he has said has little if any relevance to what his thought bubble is really going to do.

    To me he is very stupid and this could bite him in the bum very badly or he has been poorly advised. He is currently getting away with it simply because even people with shares don't understand how franking credits work.

    I hate to think that the full impact of this very unfair policy is going to go unnoticed until people fail to have their franking credits refunded or worse still people retire and their super is ten of thousands less than it should have been.

    MT is bad enough but Shorten is a real con artist. Remember what he said about Medicare during the last election. Those phone calls telling me to vote Labor or Medicare would be abolished. I remember saying to one well it's about time it was abolished as the treatment one receives under it is third world and I want better myself and everyone else in this country.
    HarrysOpinion
    3rd Apr 2018
    4:10pm
    Medicare privatisation concerns, prior to last fed elections were justified because, the current NLP government had it on its agenda in the same way as it has an agenda to privatise Social Security and Welfare services. No point being a "blind freddy" about it OG.

    However, of immense concern is that the leader of the opposition, Shorten, has demonstrated that his leadership is of shallow mind with the ineptness of not being able to assess the damage his policy, which he has backdown on in part, on franking credits, has created. It will cost Labor votes.

    In today's times we don't need a leader who says one thing, causes pain and then backs down. That's Abbott & Turnbull's ugly style. We don't need a leader who is coerced by the left wing or the far right to rip into the wealthy and / or the poor unfairly. We need a fed leader who can lead with best unbiased balance and fair federal government policies for the entire citizens of this nation, Australia !
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:15pm
    The question I was being asked before the last election by Labor was nothing to do with privatisation of Medicare but it was if I was in favour of Medicare being abolished by the LNP. Big difference there.

    Shorten is definitely no leader as seen now and by the way he failed to lead the union.

    Here he was saying that his franking credit policy was going to only affect the wealthy and then he back down and said anyone on welfare was exempt. Logic tells me two things here. We either have rich people on welfare or his policy is not going to hurt the rich.

    The problem today is that there is too much notice being taken of the small minority groups instead of the majority of the population. This needs to stop and government needs to govern for the majority of the people instead.
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:16pm
    I don't think so HS I am a pensioner and I consider what the Labor Party are doing quite legitimate.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:21pm
    If you do then Misty you have been conned by the Labor and you have no idea what this policy is all about and who it will be the losers.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:06pm
    Good luck to you and Concerned, Misty, when the Labor policy blows the OAP bill because SFRs are deprived of the benefit of fair taxation and forced onto the pension. It's pretty clear to me why neither of you have $800,000 in shares!! No basic comprehension of simple economics! OG is right. You have NO IDEA!

    Ovetaxing retirees at rates up to 30% just because they own shares will do hideous damage to the economy, and ultimately the poor will suffer most. But keep being selfish and ignoring facts if it makes you happy. Just be prepared for the longer term consequences. The OAP bill will rise and pressure will increase to contain costs, but with less to go around a greater number of pensioners, that won't be easy for any government. They certainly won't be keen to deliver increases in pension rates.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:41pm
    OGR not to mention the tens of thousands people will lose out in super as well due to this tax grab. Super funds will need some very clever accountants if they are going to not lose on this tax grab. Ten again super is not transparent so people won't have a clue until they retire and there is less than they thought in super for them.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    7:21pm
    Misty let me get this straight in my mind.

    You are prepared to accept up to $2 million plus in the form of the OAP (welfare) but you begrudge self funded retirees a mere pittance in comparison just because they are a bit wealthier than you are?

    I am thinking an awful lot more but I have enough manners not to say it.
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    8:32pm
    I don't know what country you are living in OG but I do not and never have accepted $2 Million in welfare, what gives you that idea, maybe because you have so much money you only think in millions well I have news for you OG the majority of Australians will never have a million in the bank, certainly not people on the OAP.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    9:40pm
    Obviously you know NOTHING about economics, Misty. You haven't bothered to try to add up the OAP and concession receipts a full pensioner enjoys over maybe 30+ years in retirement. Try it some time. It might be educational. It might even wake you up to how selfish and unfair you are being.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    8:38am
    Misty, if you had $800K in the bank you would be very worried about how you were going to survive maybe 30+ years of rising living costs in retirement, with an income way LESS than the OAP and constantly being eroded by unfair policy changes.

    But clearly you DON'T have $800K in the bank because you have no clue about economics or math. You can't see past ''that number sounds big''. Can't even add up pension benefits and multiply by 30 or so years in retirement, to see that you will collect millions from the public purse while the struggler with ONLY $800,000 in the bank has to fight for the right to an income equal to the OAP.
    P$cript
    4th Apr 2018
    9:16am
    For all to read
    https://grattan.edu.au/news/the-real-story-of-labors-dividend-imputation-reforms/
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    9:48am
    A very biased and inaccurate article that totally ignored very relevant points - most notably that if there is no benefit to saving for retirement, people will stop saving and claim millions in pensions.

    There are other ways to tax the GENUINELY wealthy besides stripping struggling SFRs of 30% of their very low incomes. And yes, they can top up with savings, but that's depriving them of the benefit of their saving and creating a massive incentive for people to be far more reliant on the public purse. That's STUPID.
    P$cript
    4th Apr 2018
    1:34pm
    OGR
    You apparently didn't read the article of or biases are so extreme you couldn't understand it because you disregard the fact as inaccurate.
    What is the relevant points, seeing the article went through how the policies worked.
    If you think this is the only way to invest savings you need to get out more an stop making Stupid Statements!
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    2:18pm
    OGR The Gratten article is possibly correct about income tax.
    It's possibly correct about the data too. It is not an article about the very rich though because they don't do any of that.

    Really wealthy people don't earn income so won't be affected. There are very few ways of taxing the GENUINELY wealthy as they don't earn money like we do. Money works for them instead.

    Shorten is using the Australian tall poppy syndrome to beat up votes from people with no idea of how finance and markets actually work.

    The rest of us if we have any sense will see a GOOD TAX ACCOUNTANT and change asset mix to avoid earning income too now.

    It's quite stupid really when we can make capital gains or organise cash flow and pay not much or even no tax at all.
    You can still pull it out of Super tax free for now and if that changes then we'll shut down our super accounts.

    The consequences could be very bad indeed for Superannuation funds, banks, the ASX and revenue in general but at this point " Frankly my dear I don't give a damn".
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    2:42pm
    Rae I was am asking myself if I needed a super fund that costs me more to have than any benefits it might have now. Take away the franking credit refund and it's a no brainer. No super for me anymore.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    7:56pm
    I recall it was the Grattan Institute that wanted the family home included in the assets test, and the same selfish people who are applauding them now were slamming them then. Apparently they are ONLY worth listening to when their argument suits the selfish listener.

    They also ranted on about intergenerational inequality and young people not being able to afford housing. but they completely ignored the fact that our generation paid 18%+ interest, often on ONE wage, had no childcare subsidy or maternity leave and did without a host of other benefits, and DID NOT have free education - because even if university was free for some, most didn't even get to finish high school. And while we were struggling with 18% mortgages and a major recession, our oldie were enjoying huge interest rates that gave them easy and risk-free investment returns. But did our generation ever rant about inter-generational inequality and want our aged deprived? Nope! We were pleased to see them comfortable after decades of hard work.

    Frankly, I think the Grattan Institute is an organization run by selfish, self-serving Y generation IDIOTS who wouldn't know what day it was

    Didn't see them mention one word about the fact that someone on very low wages who invested in shares to try to get ahead would lose his tax benefit, while someone one $1560K+ per year would keep his!

    They have always had an obsession with finding ways to take from the middle class, and they are exercising again.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    9:13pm
    Reading through that Grattan article I found it full of maybes and not enough actual facts. I was left with the feeling do they really have any idea on who are the ones that will lose out on this franking credit issue.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    8:10am
    They made no comment on the question of what harm will result from redirecting investment out of Australian companies. Nor did they acknowledge the patently obvious fact that making self-funding retirement harder will impose higher costs on pensions and ultimately cost the nation more.

    They have a very poor track record when it comes to policy comment, and they maintained their poor standard with this article. There are far more rational and logical comments on this policy, most of which CORRECTLY point out the dangers.

    If Shorten wants to tax the wealthy, TAX THE WEALTHY. Don't attack struggling investors who are doing what's good for the nation. And don't deprive Australian companies of the investment they need to grow.
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    10:56am
    Time somebody had the guts to make changes to who is eligible for what when it comes to pensions.
    Cowboy Jim
    3rd Apr 2018
    11:34am
    Yes, and thereby giving the younger people an idea that it's foolish to save for old age. Rather spend now and to hell with old age - it might never come. As if they need encouragement. Funny I saw that coming years ago, while people were busy accumulating money towards pension age I lived the life of Reilly. Spend your dough before you get to 67 years of age, that's my advice after Shorten's message.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:24pm
    If people ask me for advice I tell them the best advice I can give them is retire early have a good time while your are healthy as by the time you get to retirement age you may not be. I also tell them that it is no good being the richest person in the graveyard and it's your money so enjoy it. If it means you will get the OAP so be it.

    The more I see what s happening to self funded retirees the more I feel that one is a complete mug unless they have a lot of money to be one.
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:19pm
    You can still invest with super fund and receive an Allocated Pension and live quite comfortably without having to go on a Govt Pension.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:14pm
    Time somebody had the guts to tell pensioners to stop being so bloody selfish and acknowledge the massive contribution SFRs are making to the economy, instead of always demanding they be robbed of their savings and unfairly taxed so bludgers and spendthrifts can have more. Put a sock in it, Misty. Shorten's proposal is BLATANTLY UNFAIR, and if you can't see that, you are bat eyed and swallowing lies.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    7:34pm
    OGR you are wasting your time with someone who takes up to $2 million plus in welfare and then begrudges a self funded retirees a few crumbs every year. Looks to me like the only thing that matters to them is that they can get whatever they can and why let anyone else have anything at all.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    9:41pm
    Timer for an SFR revolt. I think. We are paying for these selfish green-eyed monsters, and all they can do is demand we be robbed of everything we worked and saved for. What disgusting creatures!
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    7:01am
    Why would you use over a million dollars of your own savings to buy an allocated pension when you can spend the lot and get the public welfare pension and concessions Misty?

    It no longer makes financial sense.

    Better to just save the maximum allowed and receive that very valuable public pension for free.

    No paying taxes for close to 50 years did not pay for it either otherwise we would all get it.
    Misty
    4th Apr 2018
    2:54pm
    Rae I do not have now, never had or will have, anything close to a Million Dollars in asserts, cash or shares, what gives you that impression?.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    3:03pm
    Misty but you will put your hand out for up to $2 million plus from the taxpayer and whinge because it is not enough.
    Misty
    4th Apr 2018
    4:28pm
    What rot OG I never put my hand up for anything what are you talking about?.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    5:20pm
    Your pension Misty.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    9:14am
    Exactly so Misty but if you get the OAP it is the same amount someone who did save a million dollars gets. That's the point. While returns are under 2% and deeming 3.25% it isn't worth saving as you get the pension, which is equal to $700 000 of saving for free.

    And they just keep hitting any investments still making money.

    With that eligibility Misty you are very wealthy indeed. someone funding themselves can have a million dollars in the bank today and only make $22 500 to live on. That is the problem. Money isn't worth anything now.

    Personally I think the Country is as bankrupt as Greece was and it's about to get very hard for everyone. Just a premonition from what is going on.
    Kathleen
    8th Apr 2018
    12:05pm
    I agree Misty! People can still have far too much and still get the pension. I believe one should spend down to a certain amount before even applying. Some on here think in millions and are bullies to those who do not understand or think in millions. I also suspect they are electioneering as they keep hammering Labor. Their comments are not neutral or unbiased. Of course we all have our biases but most of us try to be fair at least.
    The figure I would put is $100,000 as a safety net and we have nothing g like that.
    The other argument they use is the family home is sometimes worth millions and should be taken from people. They insist that people have no right to choose including private health cover if they are pensioners.
    A single or couple pensioner example of those who have worked all their lives and paid taxes but have not amassed wealth are bludgers. If they don’t state that, they at least infer it.
    Life deals different outcomes for people. Good luck to the wealthy, good luck to the pensioners, in other words, OGR and a few others stop judging and condemning people who are not in your club.
    I have also noticed that the cruel judges are all Liberal voters and spend many words slamming Labor. So are some even genuine? I doubt it!
    Anonymous
    9th Apr 2018
    5:30pm
    Yes, the COMMUNISTS and the GREEN EYES just hate for someone who worked hard and went without to save well to be allowed to enjoy a fair reward.

    Kathleen, the reason we think in millions is
    (1) you NEED at least a million today to retire, given that you might live for 30 years with no income and increasing costs; and
    (2) pensioners are GIVEN millions over the course of their retirement.

    If you want people to stop applying for pensions if they have savings, STOP ENDORSING POLICIES THAT DEPRIVE THEM. I'm on the brink of giving my money to my kids and claiming a pension, because all SFRs get is abuse and hatred and constant hits on their income - endorsed by the likes of you and Misty - and pensioners seem to think they are the entitled.

    I would be MUCH MUCH better off on a pension than as an SFR. And if Shorten has his way, I'll lose 30% of the income I thought I would have in retirement, so I'd be DAMNED STUPID to continue being an SFR and letting a stinking government rob me blind while I am abused on a forum by people who want to see me suffer - people who are enjoying the handouts I am not getting.

    Kathleen, I am NOT wealthy, and I have NEVER judged or condemned anyone who is ''not in my club'' - whatever you dream that club might be. Most of my friends are very disadvantaged, and I spend my time doing what I can to help them.

    But I will continue to object to the unfairness of people who insist it's fair that they should get handouts while SFRs are unfairly over-taxed and robbed of the money they saved by going without the lifestyle others enjoyed.

    I didn't call anyone a ''bludger'', though SOME on pensions were, and many were spendthrifts. I am just sick of the bullying of SFRs and wishing hurt on them.

    And as for your politics - they have NOTHING to do with the issues I debate. I don't like EITHER party. I am certainly NOT a Liberal voter. Actually, I was tempted to favour Labor until they decided to stuff the nation by shafting anyone who saved to NOT rely on a pension.

    You are the one NOT BEING FAIR. And why are you constantly harping about Labor and slamming LNP supporters?

    As for your BS about the family home - yes it is sometimes worth millions, and it's unfair that people with a very valuable one should get a pension while people with a modest home and other assets don't. If you think that's fair, you have no sense of fairness. But I don't see many here supporting any demand to take the family home - and I certainly have NEVER suggested it. And when it comes to private health - I CAN'T AFFORD IT, so yes, I strenuously object to some pensioner who can demanding that my income be cut by 30%. I'm already worse off than half the pensioners in Australia in income terms. And the government is enjoying a huge saving because I don't claim a pension. When is the greedy vicious grab going to stop?

    And you can THINK INCORRECTLY as much as you like about me being ''genuine'', but it is incredibly rude and offensive to make an accusation without any substance.
    fred
    3rd Apr 2018
    11:43am
    here we go again Concerned , targeting retirees who have gone without and saved and are self funded without getting any or minimal handout from the Government . Next you will want to sell up the family home and of course take a 30 % cut in income with loss of imputation credits when Shorten and his thieving socialists implement the politics of envy . very labour of you maybe , The smiths would not be eligible for a part pension if the shares value went up slightly . No one said they were poor as pushed out by Misty another one having ago at the self funded
    Seadove
    3rd Apr 2018
    12:20pm
    Some of you SFR certainly are a touchy bunch aren't you? Well done that the examples were able to save hundreds of thousands and buy your portfolio of shares - one has to ask though did they buy them before or after Howard changed the rules? In either case the rules were changed to help the more wealthy in society leaving the battlers yet again merely existing. Battlers don't have seven or eight hundred thousand to do anything with and they never will, if they are lucky they might scrape up seven or eight thousand and then they would be more likely to put it in to the bank for a rainy day. It was your own choice to buy up big on shares instead of putting it in to a super fund (preferably an industry one) where your investment would have been more diverse and not totally on shares. With that sort of money you could draw an acceptable pension and not worry about what Shorten is doing. If your money decreases over time then you all become eligible for the aged pension. Did you all pay high prices for the financial advice you received to buy these large packages of shares? If you did I think you have all been dudded. What's the old saying? - don't put all your eggs in the one basket.
    Jim
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:23pm
    Well seadove the politics of envy are certainly working in your case, not all retirees have hundreds of thousands in shares or superannuation Shorten's original policy was to hit all people with a few shares, it wasn't until he realised that he would lose a few votes, he was advised to change his policy, who is to say he won't change his mind again after the election, Shorten believes if he can convince some pensioners that it's unfair that other pensioners have a bit more than them he will create a false class divide and get more pensioners to vote for a Labor/Green's coilition I am quite surprised it's working so well
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:37pm
    Well Seadove if you think super is not going to be effected by this tax grab think again.

    It is not hard to see that you are very envious of those who did invest their money instead of giving it to the banks to make money on and are now benefiting for the rewards of investing their money well. You eggs haven't hatched at all for you it seems.
    Seadove
    3rd Apr 2018
    4:12pm
    I don't care how many people have how many thousands of dollars, what I do object to is double dipping and rorting and tax loop holes which it seems only the very wealthy are able to do/afford. BTW Old Geezer my eggs hatched very nicely thank you through nothing but hard work and determination but I am still a battler and will stand up for us all.

    Who could the imputation credit changes affect?
    Broadly the impacts on retirees’ incomes fall into two categories – impacts on shareholdings through super funds and other entities, and shares held directly by individuals.

    The impact on superannuation depends on the type of fund. Large APRA regulated funds which pool assets of accumulation and pension members and pay tax at an entity level are largely unaffected. Self-managed super funds which have a greater share of assets in the tax free pension phase are more likely to be impacted because there are insufficient or no tax liabilities which can be reduced by imputation credits.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    4:59pm
    So you think it is fair that the wealthy will not lose one extra cent under this tax grab but those low income earners not on welfare will be hit hard? If Shorten thinks he is going to take all that money from the wealthy he is in for big disappointment.

    Sure under my current structure I will lose quite a bit with this tax grab but do you think I am that stupid I wont change the way I make money so much so he doesn't get a cent out of me.

    Now if I can do it then why can't the wealthy with their smart accountants do so too. They didn't get wealthy by being stupid.

    It is those that haven't got smart accountants and who just want a little bit more income than the lousy rate they get from the banks that will see their income cut by 30%. A lot of those who lost their pension under the assets test change and those who have retired but are not old enough to get the pension. The paper boy who invest his money in shares, the uni student who has inherited a few shares and many others that rely on this extra income that will be disadvantaged badly by it.

    If you think that this is double dipping or a loophole then sadly you have no idea what double dipping or a loophole really is.

    Any super fund in the growth stage will have their annual return cut by this tax grab whether it is an APRA one or not.

    Many people are starting to realise that super is not a good investment at all and tax grabs like this only reinforce that. Many people will be better off just taking their money out of super as soon as they reach retirement age as they will be better off financially and have the added bonus that their money is no longer subjected to sovereign risk.
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:23pm
    Well OG I can tell you now envy is the last thing on my mind, I couldn't care less who has what, it is none of my business anyway but I am like Seadove and object to people avoiding paying their fair share of tax .
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    7:35pm
    So your OAP should be taxed at 30% to make it all fair?
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    9:29pm
    Misty, the people Shorten is attacking are NOT avoiding their share of tax. His proposal taxes them unfairly on income that should be tax free. They paid tax on their earnings. They paid tax on their income from investing. The deal was that their retirement income should be tax free in recognition of the fact that they are saving the government a lot of money by not drawing a pension. Now Shorten is asking them to pay 30% of their income in tax on income that is supposed to be non-taxable. If the same income came from property, wages, bank or bond interest, or any of several other sources, it would be tax free. Just because it comes from shares - already taxed before receipt - he's saying people who rely on it to live without a pension should be deprived of it. It's UNFAIR IN THE EXTREME. Obviously you, like many, believe the lies. Please wake up to the truth. His proposal will NOT hurt the wealthy at all. It won't hurt manipulators and cheats. It will devastate a lot of low income retirees who have worked and saved to avoid drawing a pension and are effectively already paying $20-30K a year by not asking for a pension. Now they will pay up to half as much again, making their contribution to the government up to 160% of their income. And you think that's fair? Only envy and selfishness, or being totally deceived, could drive support for Shorten's BS.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    9:44pm
    Geez, Misty. You want a handout of up to $40K a year with concessions, but you want people who get NOTHING to be robbed of 30% of their income. How greedy can you get?
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    7:17am
    Misty the only way the rich get very rich is by not paying tax.

    If you think people like Shorten and Turnbull pay tax you have no idea of how tax works.

    OG is entirely correct. I'll be changing tactics as well to now make sure I don't produce income to be taxed into poverty.

    I thought it the right thing to do up until now.Pay my fair share. Take take take and give nothing back doesn't work over time and never works when there are escape routes.

    I lost $10 000 a year and the concessions two budgets ago and wore it. Not anymore.

    This is telling me loud and clear the Country is broke. Time for evasive action and savings in instruments these desperate bankrupt governments can't get into.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    4:08pm
    Rae I agree we pay our fair share but when our fair share is not enough we take action ourselves. We know the the rules and we play their game our way.

    The rich do one basic thing that others don't. They employ the best people for what ever their price. They certainly don't ring around for the cheapest accountant or solicitor to use. They know if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    9:31am
    Yes OG it is well worth finding and paying a good tax accountant.

    A good Solicitor available when needed is also expensive but worth it.

    When you play fair and then get abused over and over it would be foolish indeed to keep playing the same game.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    5th Apr 2018
    9:36am
    Rae I have both myself. However you have to know this stuff too as if you don't how do you know you have good people working for you? I have proved both accountants and lawyers wrong at times.
    Rae
    6th Apr 2018
    8:30am
    Yes indeed VCBB. I try to keep up myself. I recently had a bright intern attached to my accountant find something she had missed that needed fixing quickly. It was a rule change both of us had missed but he had had a lecture on the week before.

    I rarely make a big investment decision without asking the accountants advice.
    patti
    3rd Apr 2018
    12:10pm
    None of this means a great deal older Australians not fortunate enough to own shares or other income producers. Although I realise interest doesn't amount to much any more, I ge
    t by on a single Aged Penion, paying all the costs associated with having a home, running a car, and waiting ages on the public hospital waiting list because there is not enough left over to fund private hospital care, nor the inevitable gap, sometimes several thousand $$s.
    Better late than never, Turnbull and his mates are realising that there are many of us, and we all vote. How about a better deal rather than the pre-election sweeteners?
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    7:26am
    There is nothing "fortunate" about buying shares. It is a choice of how you save if you are one of the 40% that actually do save that is.

    You are wanting a better free deal by taking from the people who saved a little each and every pay for decades buying shares instead of whatever it was you spent your money on.

    The "fortunate" are often on less than the public welfare gives with the same bills but no discounts.

    I'd say you are "fortunate" patti.

    If our generation had been sensible and saved regularly like the SFR did there would be money for the health system.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    1:01pm
    This is the problem in Australia, Rae. The weird and baseless assumption that anyone who works hard and saves and invests responsibly was ''fortunate''. What a load of garbage!

    Patti, I can't afford private health either, but I work and pay tax and if I retired I'd be self-funded and save the nation tens of thousands every year, yet I'm a third class citizen, it seems, being attacked and denigrated at every turn. Time to turn the tables, give my money to my kids and become a pensioner. Clearly more financially viable. Why should I care about the national budget when nasty people are so keen to demolish mine?
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    4:19pm
    The only fortunate people are those who win lottery etc but most of them end up worse off than before they won.

    If a person owns shares then they must have forgone something to have enough money to buy them. That is not being fortunate at all but good management in making good financial choices as opposed to bad financial ones.

    A fellow knows he needs a new car in 5 years time so he can either put the money in the bank or he can invest the money in shares. Now both choices will yield different results in 5 years time. One is more likely to buy him a better car than the other.

    Most people would not worry until they needed a new car and then make one of the worse choices in borrowing to buy a depreciating asset.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    7:47pm
    Actually, OG, most people would buy the new car that they DON'T need, on hire purchase, with terms they really can't afford. Then they whinge that they need a pay rise. By the time they retire on a pension, that over-spending and whinging has become a firmly entrenched habit.

    That's MOST people, by the way. I know there are people who suffered GENUINE disadvantage, chronic ill-health, or crisis, and the pension is not enough for them, but there are VERY VERY VERY FEW OF THEM.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    9:10pm
    OGR I buy new cars even though I don't really need them but I am also the same bloke who starts investing for the next one the day he get his new car. I only borrow to invest in appreciating assets but haven't done that for quite awhile now either. I was very surprised when I found out over 90% of the cars on the road today have money owing on them. Also that finance companies won't lend money on cars over 10 years old either. So you can't borrow to buy a cheap car any more.

    A member of my family is currently quite ill and I have been taking them into the hospital daily for treatment. Last week I had issues with parking and I apologised for being a couple of minutes late. I was then given a parking sticker so I said I thought they were only for disabled people. I was told that my relative was sicker than the majority of people with parking stickers and to use it. It certainly has made things a lot easier for me as I don't have to pull up get them out of the car and sit them on a bench seat while I find a park a block away and walk back to the hospital.
    fairplay
    3rd Apr 2018
    12:13pm
    Concerned, think you have misread the examples above ie the Smiths are INELIGIBLE for any Pension and although they have very similar amounts to the Browns they will lose their franking credits and end up much worse off. Suppose an option would be to spend up big and qualify for the FULL age pension, then if everyone did that not only would the Labor Govt. not be able to fleece the Smith's of their franking credits, the taxpayer would have to fork out the full age pension of around 34K....could the system afford this for everyone in similar circumstances.Please remember the Smiths and the Browns did their best to fund their retirement and worked to the rules in place at the time and now find the rules are changing yet again...simply not good enough, perhaps the best option is to pay everyone the age pension and have everyone pay tax on their total income.Unfortunately Govts have made the whole retirement arena a mess with some people opting for negative gearing, others Super,some Govt pensions that may be taxed etc etc .The only real winners seem to be the politicians who go out on exorbitant pensions and even after paying tax they are far and away better off than the general public ...many rules that continually change for the horde and special rules for those few in parliament without any accountability.WE REALLY ARE OVERGOVERNED and the age of entitlement should be over for Politicians, THEY GET WELL PAID and like the rest of us should have to provide for themselves after they are no longer working and should not have their snouts in the public purse.If they do not like the uncertainties of their political future then work for a living like everyone else
    Cowboy Jim
    3rd Apr 2018
    12:38pm
    About the best comment since Shorten's announcement 2-3 weeks ago.Thanks to "Fairplay" for giving us the facts.
    fred
    3rd Apr 2018
    1:29pm
    Well said Fairplay and Jim, you will recall the last big change to the Superannuation tax laws was to impose the $1.6 million cap on the retired members super account , which at say 2.5% interest at approx current bank rate returns $40,000. Why shouldn't this income remain tax free as the Government and politicians ?,
    why shouldn't the dividend imputations credits remain unchanged ? it was paid previously by every shareholder of the Company in which we pay our savings into .
    Yes, I am very touchy about losing 30 % of my income and also about fully government pensioners who cry out when they dont get another rise or have concession reduced . most of them blew their savings to just creap under the threshold to get the concessions Talk about socialism it is bordering on communism
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    7:38am
    Great idea and would certainly level the field and make the outcome fair because right now it is anything but equal.

    Good comment too fred. Question is why anyone would save $1.6 million for a similar income to an OAP that can be "earned" by not saving at all.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    8:17am
    Yes Fred, your comment about the 305 double tax and pensioners who cry about not getting a raise is so right.

    Why would anyone save over $1 million to get a income less than the OAP? Oh, because they can drain their savings paying tax that's handed out to people who had the same or better opportunities but chose to bleed the nation's coffers instead!

    How the hell does anyone think the budget is going to be improved by making it harder and harder to retire on savings? It's IDIOTIC.
    Sundays
    3rd Apr 2018
    12:14pm
    The Smith have less. What will they do? It’s like anyone who was borderline when the Asset thresholds were changed. They will spend a bit, reduce their capital and qualify for some OAP including all the discounts and benefits which are worth at least $2,000 per year. That’s the problem whenever a line in the sand is drawn. A universal pension would be fairer. I also think people should spend some capital and enjoy life. Trust me, the kids will.

    3rd Apr 2018
    12:44pm
    Kudos to the Turnbull government for caring for retirees and pre retirees
    Totally the opposite of Labor who are hell bent on making their lives a living hell
    fairplay
    3rd Apr 2018
    1:18pm
    Raphael, don't forget it was Turnbull who changed the asset test rules in the first place which meant a lot of pensioners lost all or part of their entitlements and now we have the other mob wanting to disadvantage those same people further.... These are the rich guys and because they have continually stuffed things up(over time... ie jobs have gone offshore in the name of Globalisation, thus decreasing our tax base and they need to find the money to pay for those out of work and on benefits....but do agree that to us retired or soon to be retired Turnbull would seem the better option.Just need to sort out their entitlements and their ACCOUNTABILITY.!!!!
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    1:03pm
    Both parties have been attacking retirees for years, and anyone dumb enough to believe Turnbull will now genuinely change his ways is naïve and easily conned. You can tell when he's lying. His mouth moves.
    ex PS
    5th Apr 2018
    9:13am
    I only have this to say to Malcolm and the LNP. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."
    Never again will I vote for a party that lies in order to win power.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    5th Apr 2018
    9:33am
    So you certainly won't be voting Labor either as they have just told a big lie too.

    If only the wealthy are effected by not refunding franking credits why exempt pensioners?

    Sorely you don't believe pensioners are wealthy?
    Misty
    5th Apr 2018
    9:48am
    Depends what sort of pensioners you are talking about VCB.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    9:05pm
    Then how about the low wage earners who earn too little to pay tax but will lose their franking credits while those on huge wages keep theirs. I suppose that's fair, Misty? Or are very low wage earners really ''wealthy'' too?
    ex PS
    6th Apr 2018
    7:38am
    I will never agree with the stupid notion that party A did something wrong, party B did something wrong, but what party A did was not as bad as party B, so somehow that makes what party A did OK.
    In no world does that make sense, wrong is wrong. As far my vote goes, it will go to the party who is going to cause me the least discomfort both mentally and physically. The one that treats Retirees with the least amount of contempt.
    Coles or Woolworths, I may just flip a coin on the day.
    Old Geezer
    6th Apr 2018
    10:55am
    No I say ****** them all and go to Aldi instead.
    Not a Bludger
    3rd Apr 2018
    12:46pm
    This continual tinkering with retirees and near retirees planned, implemented and wholly legal situations is unconscionable.

    If Turnbull wanted to do something, all existing situations should be grandfathered by law and near retirees given a three to five year time frame before implementation of any changes.

    What a vote winner that would be for nearly 25% of voters.
    fred
    3rd Apr 2018
    1:42pm
    Hi NaB I am sure he would not be smart enough . Too occupied in giving hand outs to big business or advisers in the Cayman Islands with his and Lucy's tax shelter . Shorten is almost past the post and in the Lodge
    Not a Bludger
    3rd Apr 2018
    2:53pm
    Fred - truly hope that you are wrong but instinct says you are not.

    Re Lucy, yes and she runs Malcolm - and both are completely tone deaf to political reality, indeed, to politics at all.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:43pm
    Grandfathering is in itself vey unfair and should never be used at all.
    Not a Bludger
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:36pm
    SOB - OG
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    7:46am
    I'll agree OG if there is an ability to change investments.

    However for those who had bought allocated pensions the 2016 income test rule change broke the no disadvantage rule completely and should have been grandfathered. The lump sums had been paid over and those people had no way of undoing the situation.

    I bet the sale of allocated pensions and the locking into decisions dropped off a cliff after that budget. And there were less than 100 000 affected saving very little in terms of revenue for a destruction of something that would seem like a good idea to financial markets.

    I think it was another of the dumb mistakes they've been making since they sacked any experienced public servant in Treasury.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    9:54am
    Breaking the no disadvantage rule was clever though because now there is a precedent for cuts to pensions and concessions etc.

    Nobody gave a damn about the public servants caught up in the policy change, our nurses, teachers, firefighters, police but it will bite when it comes around to their turn.
    Anonymous
    9th Apr 2018
    3:44pm
    I would have thought that if a person is fully self funded and not taking a cent from government in any way shape or form (no concession card) they should not be belted over the head.
    Kathleen
    3rd Apr 2018
    1:12pm
    So funny! LNP would have brought in the franking fiasco but Labor beat them to it. Now, LNP is trying to woo self funded retirees and probably something for pensioners too if they are after votes. Sneaky stuff like attacking Medicare by stealth and reducing government contribution for private health cover and other similar things that have occurred but not noticed or publicised escape criticism though!
    People will vote for the most part for the party or individual they always have despite any attacks on their finances.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    4:43pm
    Kathleen, can you please provide the proof of your statement that the Coalition had planned to change the franking rules? What do you mean by "attacking Medicare by stealth"? Should you have mentioned that Labor started the reduction of government contribution?

    I don't mind a sensible debate but it's always nice to debate someone on facts, not fiction.
    Seadove
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:39pm
    How about Abbott wanting to introduce a Medicare co-payment or don't you recall that? That is attacking Medicare by stealth.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:44pm
    No Seadove, I suggest that attacking by stealth is doing something that is hidden from others, not made public. Any changes to medicare by the Coalition has been open and transparent. Sure, it may not have been popular but at least we were able to see what was proposed.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    7:31pm
    The Medicare co-payment was a great idea as it would have stopped many people seeking unnecessary medical attention and doctors over billing patients. Saw a doctor myself recently for a normal consultation and they bulk billed me. I checked my medical records and they had billed Medicare over $300 for a 15 minute visit.
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    8:00am
    That is outrageous OG. I'd query it.

    Did you get the magic grow young again pill the people keep trying for? Haha.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    3:42pm
    Rae what really irks me is that they made a big thing about bulk billing me and what a great bloke that doctor was. They didn't realise I would look it up to see what they did charge Medicare because most people don't even know they can.

    No magic grow young again pill for me. I didn't even get offered a jelly bean (no prescription).
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    4:22pm
    An optometrist mixed up prescriptions and gave me the wrong glasses. I complained and demanded replacement. He asked me to sign a form so he could charge Medicare for the consultation to sort out his mistake and he was furious when I refused. He said ''It's not like it's YOUR money. Why wouldn't you help me out here when I'm losing money?'' He was raking in a small fortune charging high fees but not even willing to take responsibility for his own mistakes!
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    8:21am
    But back to Kathleen's claims - I notice she produced NO EVIDENCE to substantiate her claim that the LNP was going to end franking credit refunds. Given their opposition to the policy and the fact that they correctly pointed out the major harm it would do, I suspect they would never have considered it. They DO understand the economic damage it threatens. After all, it was an LNP government that introduced franking credit refunds TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIAN COMPANIES and to give the less wealthy a chance to improve their circumstances by accessing rewarding investment opportunities.

    ALP says we are the ONLY country in the world that has this policy. Yep! And we also survived the GFC far better than almost any other nation. Maybe that's because we had a smart policy on franking credit refunds - one that boosts Australian investment and helps strugglers get ahead by giving them good investment opportunities.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    5th Apr 2018
    9:29am
    OGR The LNP changed the rules as they saw how unfair it was to tax one source of income much more than other sources of income. Our only hope if Labor gets elected is that we have a Senate that understands how this really works.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    10:02am
    The Senate has no idea how it all works. Most think the Australian Economy is like a home budget.

    They don't realise the ASX is a 2% of the Global sharemarket and is only successful because of forced superannuation and dividend imputation. They will not see the consequences to Superannuation savings nor investment funds in ASX listed companies.

    They didn't understand the effects of the asset or income test changes and their consequences.

    The certainly were bamboozled into distraction so the Bank Bail In legislation was snuck through.

    The Senate is not doing it's job in my opinion.
    Kathleen
    3rd Apr 2018
    1:19pm
    Nearly a million in super, wow, how many have that?!
    We are in our seventies and raised a big family and never had that kind of money.
    We educated our kids and helped them where we could which is what they were entitled to.
    I guess I have never realised that there are some elderly people with millions.
    fred
    3rd Apr 2018
    1:39pm
    Kathleen . if one works for 50 years and tops up their super with their
    own after tax savings, it is not hard., Many state and federal public servants especially those academics in the Universities ( receiving 17 % employer contribution from the Government ) easily have over a million dollars in their super , probably closer to 2 million dollars . Bill Shorten know that because many unions have their own super funds and yes guess Shorten will exempt them as recently stated publicly in new policy . they usually retire the next day after they are entitled and early in the financial year eg July / August By the way they are usually labor supporters and vote accordingly
    Sundays
    3rd Apr 2018
    2:30pm
    Kathleen 330,000 lost a part pension when the Asset rules changed on 1 Jan 2017. These people had more than $823,000 in Assets, many close to $1 million. High income earners, good super schemes, savvy investors.

    Then there are others who have never claimed any pension because they had way over a million in Assets or incomes in excess of $80,000. Many were born rich, inherited money or were on a good wicket like politicians and senior public servants. They will tell you that anyone could do it and it’s nonsense. Maybe with two well paid jobs, or the incredible discipline to go without any of life’s luxuries.

    Then everyone else who did their best on average wages, raised a family and managed to save and buy a house. Yes, some people never worked or spent it all but they would be the minority in my view.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:37pm
    A million dollars in not a lot of money and would not even buy you a house in Sydney.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:09pm
    What the gullible unthinking don't recognize is that a pensioner couple retiring at 65 and living for some 30 years will collect $1 million in HANDOUTS from the government over their retirement. Yet they belly-ache and demand those who SAVED A MILLION FROM THEIR OWN RESOURCES BY BEING FRUGAL and DON'T COST THE GOVERNMENT, should be robbed of their savings. Very selfish and unfair!
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:12pm
    And BTW. Kathleen... I saved $1 million out of a single basic wage, while paying off a home, raising and educating kids, and paying huge medical bills for a disabled child. It is entirely doable. Not easy - but doable. And I strenuously object to greedy people now wanting it taken from me and handed out to people who didn't bother to save as well.
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:36pm
    OGR, I know from your previous posts how you lived and your circumstances and as I said before to both you and OG, who I suspect are one and the same, don't blame other people for your lifestyle choices they were your decisions no one else's and not everyone wants to live like a monk or a pauper.
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:41pm
    GET IN THE REAL WORLD OG, very few people I know in our town would have, or ever hope to be able to save $1 Million in their lifetime, I think a lot of people commenting on here have no idea how the majority of Australians live
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:48pm
    Misty you could be living next to neighbour that was a multimillionaire and you wouldn't have a clue. Most people think we live on welfare and I have even heard comments said about it. I get given discounts without even asking. To say no would just cause embarrassment so I say thankyou very much instead. eg Had a haircut the other day and got charged pensioner rates without asking.

    People don't walk around with a T-shirt that says I'm worth millions.
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    9:01pm
    So you are a millionaire OG.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    9:39pm
    Misty, I think most people on here know very well how most Australians live. They KNOW for a fact that most could easily own a home and have hundreds of thousands in savings, if they had bothered to try.

    I was born and raised in abject poverty, as an orphan, married an orphan. Neither had education or opportunity. I worked for minimum wage and for most of my life supported a disabled partner. Yet I paid off a house and saved hundreds of thousands. I watch what people do with their money. Part of the reason is that there's no reward for saving. There's rich reward for manipulating or spending to ensure you qualify for a pension. And now people like you want to make it IMPOSSIBLE for people who saved to avoid claiming a pension by unfairly taxing them to the point of desperation. Well, all I can say is ''enjoy your poverty when the overloaded system collapses. Only a fool wants more pensioners claiming higher pensions.''
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    9:49pm
    Sundays, you are wrong about people who saved well. Many were never in high income jobs and did NOT inherit or have windfalls. They just worked and saved well. I did it on a single minimum wage.

    And yes, Misty, it WAS my choice to live as I did. And how DARE YOU, you selfish person, now support a policy that deprives me unfairly of the benefit of that choice while you take handouts as a reward for choosing the opposite lifestyle. That's disgusting!
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    9:59pm
    Well Misty it is not rocket science that I am a millionaire as I am a self funded retiree. Unlike you I don't cost the government close to $2 million plus to support me and yes I do currently get a franking credits that Labor wants to grab off me. Unlike you I don't begrudge self funded retirees from being refunded the tax they paid which belongs to them because they have low incomes.
    Sundays
    4th Apr 2018
    7:53am
    Yes Rainey and hats off to you but as I said, not everyone had your incredible discipline. People on minimum wage did very well to just pay off a house. I know we could have saved more, but at what cost to our health. I prefer to look back at the fun times and don’t regret the family holidays which were always cheap, or the money spent giving our kids the things we missed out on. However, unless you have been sick, sick child, or widowed, divorced etc then to retire with absolutely nothing points to a completely different mentality.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    9:08am
    I don't begrudge anyone their fun, Sundays. We had ours in other ways. I have wonderful memories of falling off supports that broke in half while I was trying to fix guttering on a house we built, and chasing pigs that escaped captivity up a creek bank and back and forth across the creek. Our mentality was shaped by early poverty and the fact that we knew we would never have a decent wage. When a child was diagnosed with a rare condition, we accepted that we would have a horrendous struggle and the pleasures others take for granted would be out of reach, but we resolved to educate our kids for a better life and have savings to ensure comfort in retirement.

    I understand the mentality of others who experienced life differently. Good luck to them if they enjoyed comforts we missed out on. They missed out on a lot that they probably wouldn't regard as desirable, but that gave us both pleasure and satisfaction. We had fun - just in different ways.

    What disgusts me, now, is that those who had it far easier are being so nasty and selfish, demanding that we be stripped of the benefits we worked so hard for and accusing us of selfishness when we object to patent unfairness.

    It IS a fact that pensioners are being handed millions from the public purse, so anyone who thinks it reasonable for someone who saved $1 million to suffer unfair taxation is just plain greedy and disgusting. I have not asked for handouts. All I ask is for support to demand the ALP withdraw from a blatantly unfair and discriminatory policy that will hurt the nation by depriving people who are already contributing millions to the public purse of 30% of a badly needed and well-deserved income.

    And for their own sake, these selfish people should wake up and recognize that if SFRs are constantly bashed unfairly, they will quit being SFR and claim pensions. When the pension system is overloaded as a result, and there are calls to cut pensions, it's the greedy selfish people who supported policies that caused the problem who will squeal loudest.
    HarrysOpinion
    3rd Apr 2018
    2:05pm
    Labor is like a headless 'chook' running around bumping itself into things it can't see.
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    8:15am
    Revenue must be falling off a cliff for this type of hysterical attacks on the same group of people because they are the only ones not in debt up to their eyeballs and with some money left.
    Waiting to retire at 70
    3rd Apr 2018
    2:12pm
    Well if Noel is providing advise to "Browns" his very FIRST piece of advise should be to spread their investments over a range of sectors. Having an amount of $710K in a single sector is financial suicide.

    Ditto the "Smiths"? Well maybe not. The 'Dow' dropped just over 1.9% overnight, and assuming the Smiths Portfolio of shares mimicked the Dow's spread of investments, today their portfolio is down to less than $785,000. Couple of days it'll be less again, but too late to sell some and purchase alternative investments, as the market for alternates will have gone up commensurate with the fall in shares - they have simply 'capitalised' their loss because their investment spread was flawed. Don't worry Smiths, with your investment record you're likely to be down to the level shortly when you will be eligible for a pension. And that's what is UNFAIR on millennials. They have to pay for your investment stupidity.

    These "two key case studies" are a nonsense and would best be labelled "fake news". Shame on you Noel. As for Your Life Choices, you're beginning to sound like Fox News. Come on guys, you're better than that, print the whole truth or don't print at all - half a story is never enough.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:19pm
    Having money in the bank on deposit is worse. It is not an investment at all because it costs you money after tax and inflation nearly every year. Give me a basket of shares any day.

    Noel just gave an example of how unfair this tax grab will be and did it very well I thought. It is not to be a lesson in how to invest one's money well at all.

    Good investors buy shares at good low prices and sell when they are over valued. They are not concerned what the DOW does over night at all. What if I told you the Smith's shares were only worth $50,000 ten years ago would you still think it was a bad investment? If they had put it on deposit it wold be luck to be worth $50,000 now and it would certainly buy a lot less than it did 10 years ago.

    I think what you have said is the real "fake news" as to a good investor you are talking complete nonsense.
    Rae
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:26pm
    If the trade wars don't crash the ASX then I'm sure Shorten and the LNP will.

    At least the envy will stop because we'll all be much poorer together.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:31pm
    Rae interest rates could also double as well so it may be better earning interest instead of dividends under Shorten's tax grab.
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    8:23am
    Yes OG glad you can see that coming too. The rapid rises in the 10 year US bill issues is disturbing for a country like ours with huge private debt levels and only raw resources contracted for very ordinary prices and owned by foreigners in most cases now.

    None of the airports, ports etc are returning revenue but they now cost the Government in rents and fees.
    The private contractors are charging high fees for poor service and we have little control now.

    I saw Greece do these same stupid things and I wondered why?

    Perfect example of turning a prosperous country into a basket case.

    When the pension cuts start they won't be claiming it's a fair idea I bet.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    10:32am
    And those Government decisions, trade deals, privatisations etc is what will crucify the Millenials not the Smith's investment in the ASX going pear shaped.

    Then again with the way iPhones and iPads are scrambling their brains and destroying their language capabilities they may never notice any of it or care for that matter.

    Too busy booking the next trip to Iceland or where ever the current fad is taking them or driving around looking for that next coffee experience and then the bottled water because the coffee made then thirsty.
    Rae
    3rd Apr 2018
    2:59pm
    I want two things addressed.

    The price rises of everything we actually need to buy is escalating and inflation is looking to be getting away.
    I want the CPI to reflect the truth and pensions and wage rises matched to a properly constructed CPI.

    Secondly I want the health system sorted out. Hospitals built and staff hired to reflect the huge increase in population. We should not need expensive health insurance and waiting times shouldn't be frightening people into forking out thousands of dollars just in case.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:09pm
    Wait until you find the third tier in our health system where neither Medicare or Private Health pays. That's right only those who can afford it get the best treatment in Australia today.
    Rae
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:36pm
    That I would believe OG. Plenty of smart people don't pay tax and so can accumulate assets and afford private treatment from the best medical experts.

    I'm just beginning to wake up to the joys of capital gain and cash flow as opposed to highly taxed "income" haha. Wish I'd twigged earlier but better late than never. As long as I can cover the debt used I'm now happy with the outcomes.
    I'm over paying tax for other people to waste.

    We recently experienced the third tier in seeking treatment from one of those experts on the Gold Coast. Cost a packet but was worth it. Cheaper than a years insurance to boot.

    We could have a terrific system if it was public, staff public and was properly run. I know I'm dreaming.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:41pm
    I invest mainly for capital gains and cash flow myself but I do collect dividends along the way as well. I'm looking at using derivatives to turn those dividends into capital gains now instead. A little bit more work but it is likely to actually yield more income and cash flow.

    Shorten can then forget about the franking credits he thought he was going to rob from me.
    Rae
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:49pm
    Thanks OG I'm actually looking to alter my investment mix as well.
    Without the dividends/ credits the ASX isn't very rewarding at all.

    There is no way I'll support either the ALP or LNP financially any longer.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    4:02pm
    Rae it's time to being out the old tools and use them as a game changer in one's favour.
    Sundays
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:50pm
    Rad and OG whatever you both do, don’t get caught in a Ponzi scheme. I know at least 5 couples who very close to retirement panicked. They were fair game for unscrupulous tactics and all lost everything including the family home
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:08pm
    Sundays I too know of people who have trusted their life sayings to others who have lost everything. These people like many others don't even understand what they are investing in. All they see is the big dollars that are being promoted.

    I can assure you I don't get where I am today by using any get quick rich scheme but have taken the very slow road and build it all up bit by bit over many years. Yes I have had the odd big gain but I can count them on my fingers as they have been very rare. Anyone who thinks they can get big wins all the time is doomed to failure as they are quite rare.
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    8:59am
    Sunday thank you for the concern. I agree with OG.

    I am very careful and too good to believe is just that.

    Slow and steady does work.Up until now anyway.

    I got caught at age 20 by one of those Forestry Share scams and that was a fortunate lesson.

    Keeping Capital safe is important and I have made plenty of mistakes but treat them as learning experiences.

    The biggest risk now seems to be coming from crazy Government's policy.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    8:13am
    I suspect a lot of retirees will discover that it doesn't matter if they take a huge risk and suffer a big loss. They will then get a pension, so they win either way. If they have a big win, they can continue to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. If they lose, they enjoy pension benefits to top up their income and compensate for Shorten's theft. Either way they win. Mostly, the tax man loses!
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    10:45am
    Not sure about that OGR.

    We are short hundreds of schools and need new hospitals etc because of the immigration policies simply to prop up the GDP and Banks.

    Construction has entered the receivership stage again and will leave small sub contractors owed millions yet again.

    Rents are falling, sales are down, hundreds of apartments are coming online and a trade war is on.

    I was in Greece when the market for money collapsed.

    Two years later I went back and it was terrible.

    The IMF forced pension cuts and public service cuts.

    Work it out. Every time the IMF visits some new austerity measure cuts in.

    The days of pretending everything is okay are gone. Even the new immigrants can't get jobs.

    And Shorten and the tall poppy hating brigade think stopping tax returns to self funding retirees will fix it.

    When it's their pensions and concessions cut they won't think it such a great thing. What makes them think only Self funded retirees can have income cuts? It's just the beginning from desperate governments with no revenue and the bracket creep failing to arrive as wages stagnate or fall.

    Austerity ( increasing taxes and cutting public spending) never does anyone any good.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:29pm
    I have done a case study for a couple who have over a million in super and about just as much outside super. Under Shorten's tax grab they are better off cashing in their super and just paying tax on their returns themselves as individuals.

    If Labor thinks super is such a good idea then why is this possible?
    Rae
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:43pm
    I figured out the changes to the asset and income tests coupled with the $1.6 mil cap and $25 000 cap and very low returns had destroyed any benefit of holding savings in Superannuation.

    For median workers and below it is not viable at all and they would be far better off with the 9.5% going into an investment property off setting tax and providing a home in retirement in my opinion.

    The insane tax on income is crippling most people.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    3:53pm
    My son years ago was told that he would pay less tax if he put his money into super. He decided to buy a property instead and he hasn't looked back since.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    4:08pm
    Tell me one thing.

    If Shorten's tax grab only affects the wealthy why has he since exempted those on welfare?

    He simply makes no sense to me at all.
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    9:00am
    Great Question. Any thoughts of voting ALP are gone now for me.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    12:57pm
    Me too, Rae. I will oppose and denigrate them at every opportunity.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    5th Apr 2018
    9:24am
    Labor has gone too far with it's pokies on this one for me too.

    3rd Apr 2018
    4:20pm
    YLC asks what issues do we want a government to address.
    1. Build more coal fired power stations as renewable sources are not able to carry the load.
    2. Build more dams to support country areas where current storage has been outstripped by an increase in population.
    3. Take a stronger stand against unions. Treat unions the same as businesses and start charging taxation. Stop anyone with a criminal record from being employed by a union.
    4. Investigate all entities receiving charity status and remove them from the list if there is any doubt as regards tax avoidance.
    5. Remove the Senate. It has stopped being a House of Review as originally intended and has become a House of Blockage. It is a farce when a government becomes opposition and starts blocking bills in the senate that have the same content as they wanted to push through when in government.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:07pm
    1.Coal or nuclear power stations are Ok by me.

    2. Build more dams to make use of all that water that just goes out to sea.

    3. Yes treat unions as businesses and tax them as they are just tax havens now. It the people without criminal records that worry me in unions as they haven't been caught yet.

    4. Churches definitely and some charities should be classed as businesses and taxed accordingly. If you are rich you build a church or create a charity to save on tax.

    5. Yes remove the senate as it thinks it runs Australia now instead of the government. They are now way beyond being a house of review as they are making more policies than the government now.
    *Imagine*
    3rd Apr 2018
    5:51pm
    THE FOLLOWING NEEDS ANSWERING
    Case Study 1
    A 70yr old former teacher who is married, is receiving $44 000 income from the SA State Pension Scheme so pays tax at 32.5%, her spouse has a small super income that is untaxed. The SAPTO rules penalise this married couple, who will be paying tax at ordinary marginal rates. This comes about because this couple’s combined income is below the $83,580 income threshold, but then is tested against individual threshold of half that amount ($44 000 > $41 790) because the superannuated partner is deemed ineligible for SAPTO and the unused partner’s concession is unavailable. This retired couple pay thousands of dollars in tax per year.
    Case Study 2
    If the former teacher in Case Study 1 was single and on the same superannuation benefit ($44 000) she will be receiving a tax refund because she is below the shade out income threshold of $50,119 for single people. $44000 < $50 119

    Case Study 3
    A second couple is receiving $22 000 each (the same shared income but from different sources to Case Study 1) they will not be paying any tax at all because their income falls below the individual full offset threshold. ($22 000 < $41 790)
    Case Study 4
    A couple living apart due to illness have a shade out income threshold of $95,198 but if the income is from one member only, then, as in the above example it is tested on half that amount ($47,599) this figure is still below the single threshold.


    Questions: What is the policy driver behind the decision to:
    1 - discriminate between the source of a couple’s income (separate or combined)?
    2 - allow a larger tax concession to a single person on the same income as a couple combined?
    3 - tax an aged member of a couple living apart due to illness at a greater rate than a single aged person likely living in similar circumstances?

    Both Major Political Parties have neglected (refused) to answer these questions.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:33pm
    A quick calculation of Case 1 tell me that that couple would be paying less than $1000 in tax which is not thousands of dollars in tax.

    I really can't see where you problem is with all this.
    HarrysOpinion
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:44pm
    *Imagine*, "Both Major Political Parties have neglected (refused) to answer these questions"

    Both parties are, allegedly, responsible for creating INEQUITY. The accused are innocent until proven guilty. In the meantime, they have the right to remain silent, anything they say now may be used as evidence against them.

    Of course, they will not answer your logical questions. Most of them don't understand the policies legislated in the past themselves.
    Sundays
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:45pm
    It’s not equal. However, you would also have a tax free component which doesn’t go on your tax return, and you can also claim a tax offset on your State Super
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    7:28pm
    With that sort of taxable income the associated tax offset would be more than enough to pay any tax levied.
    *Imagine*
    3rd Apr 2018
    7:56pm
    FACT
    I have in front of me a statement that shows a fortnightly income of $1674.24 and a tax of $72. Multiply that by 26 fortnights per year and you have an income of $43,530.24 and taxation of $1,872. Do not be fooled by the statement that retired people pay no tax and can earn up to $58k before tax is levied.

    BTW this same person just received a CPI increase of $7.67pf, the tax was increased by $4.00 and her part pension was reduced by 50¢ in the dollar or $3.84. That is a CPI increase of minus 17¢. Who else but a pensioner would stand for that?

    The point is OG that there is no senior tax offset for case 1, only a low income offset of less than $500. That is the point of the statement. It is called SAPTO shading and removes the tax offset altogether for Case Study 1
    And Sundays, yes there is a tax free portion of $50.69 pf that is a return of the after tax contributions paid by this person.

    The post is just one example of many inequities that have been designed, my question is why? Is it incompetence or ignorance?
    And Somebody does need to answer why? It affects many people on the old State Super Schemes.
    Sundays
    3rd Apr 2018
    9:50pm
    I doubt you will get the answers you seek, but maybe from the ATO. There are many anomalies and inconsistencies and the whole system needs an overhaul. For example, people with an allocated pension prior to 1 January 2015 Did not have their deductible counted as income by Centrelink, and neither was their balance deemed. After that date, the balance is deemed for new Pensioners. Is that fair? I’d say ignorance, and a desire to tighten rules without fully understanding the implications eg Shortens latest proposal. Personally, I don’t even understand why we have SAPTO. It was clearly introduced as vote catching. Why should seniors pay less tax on their income than everyone else. That’s the question I would like answered
    TREBOR
    3rd Apr 2018
    10:00pm
    Only pay tax at 32.5% on the $7k over $37000.... $18200 - $37000 at 19%, and $18200 at zero.

    People who whine about 'being in the top tax bracket' only pay a portion of their tax in that bracket - and for the neo-conservative kind, that puts paid to Thatcher's dumb 90% tax on the rich nonsense...

    Perhaps all income in a bracket should be charged at the highest applicable rate - that'd bring the whiners out.
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    9:14am
    That teacher also paid after tax dollars into the fund and that money should not be taxed coming out. It was non concessional.

    She would not have received the 9.5% guarantee after 1992 either.

    The 1915 budget changes were entirely unfair to ordinary public servants in compulsory pension funds that had compensation based on their non concessional contributions wiped away.

    I think it was LNP punishment for being in unions. There was no other reason to do it apart from possibly discouraging allocated pension options to favour lump sum withdrawal and the option of receiving a full aged pension instead.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    3:22pm
    Imagine all your fortnightly statement says is what you earned and what tax was taken out. At the end of the year when you put in your tax return it is recalculated with that 15% off set tax taken off etc.

    Did you put in a tax return?
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    10:59am
    Imagine.

    Firstly no one questions those State Super Funds or the very odd returns and whether money was stripped out or not paid by desperate governments over the decades.

    Secondly they are trying to get those retiring to take a lump sum rather than an allocated pension by making the pension option come with penalties others don't have applied.

    The clever people switched over to accumulation funds in 1992 so they could receive the 9% super guarantee and the tax concessions.

    Defined benefits was a unit scheme without tax concessions for contributions by employees. The returns were appalling.

    Nobody can talk about any of it due to commercial in confidence and public service declarations of silence signed by anyone involved.
    *Imagine*
    5th Apr 2018
    5:55pm
    Old Geezer. Perhaps I should write this slowly so that you can comprehend.
    SAPTO is the Seniors and Pensioners Tax Offset. Case study 1 above, shows that that Tax Offset is no longer available when one member of a couple earns in excess of $41,970. THERE IS NO SENIOR TAX OFFSET. If you doubt this then go to the ATO SAPTO Calculator and put the figures in for yourself. It will return a 'not eligible' response.
    Far from receiving a tax refund, this couple have to pay extra tax on the part pension received. This is why they approached me, to see if it was correct.
    It is correct (although I believe unfair) because they are already in the 32.5% tax bracket, all other income is taxable at that rate INCLUDING THEIR PART AGE PENION.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    7:39pm
    On $44000 I get a tax offset $2358 which is more than your tax of $1872 so that person pays no tax and the #1872 is refunded. That's what I thought would happen.

    Someone is not telling you the whole story here.
    *Imagine*
    6th Apr 2018
    4:08pm
    You are right OG. I had a talk with my friend about her husbands income. Although he has a taxable income of just under $5000 from share dividends and interest, he has a super balance of just over $200,000. About twenty years ago before starting an allocated pension, he was advised to draw down the lot and pay tax on it, then re-contribute the balance as undeducted contributions. This reduced the tax on his pension. As you know, since that time, nobody pays tax on allocated pensions anyway but nobody knew at the time. Although he pays no tax and has an unused SAPTO that his wife could use, she has to include her husband’s untaxed pension on her tax return. Last year, this was $11,000 thereby excluding her from any tax offset. Their total income is a little under $60,000 before tax.

    However, using the ATO SAPTO Calculator, it shows that if they both had an income of $30,000, then they would each be eligible for a tax offset of $1474.

    And, if my friend was single, she would be eligible for a tax offset of $765

    Therein lies the inequity.

    3rd Apr 2018
    6:30pm
    Goodness, there are some SELFISH and GREEDY people here. The taxpayer hands a pensioner over $1 million over the course of their retirement, but the greedy, selfish recipients want people who paid tax and saved unfairly overtaxed and robbed of their savings, AS WELL AS missing out on the $1 million handout. Unbelievable! And when SFRs throw up their hands and say ''I can't keep being self-funded while being overtaxed unfairly'' and go on a pension, the budget blows out and then what? The first to whinge will be the selfish green-eyed monsters who delighted in seeing others hurt unfairly.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:37pm
    I am thinking of buying myself a very expensive house so I too can go on welfare. Saw a really nice one the other day so I might just make an offer.
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:46pm
    OG and OGR you 2 would make good housemates but then I think you are really one and the same anyway.
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    6:47pm
    The only SELFISH and GREEDY people commenting here seems to me to be those with Millions.
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    7:24pm
    So it is not selfish and greedy to accept up to $2 million plus in welfare payments and begrudge a self funded retiree a mere pittance in comparison?
    fairplay
    3rd Apr 2018
    7:44pm
    OGR , We are certainly on the same page, but can also understand where others may be coming from.Lets face it everyones position will be different depending on a myriad of circumstances ie salary/both working/how many children raised/housing costs/overheads/health etc etc ,but remember there are some that receive the FULL age pension because they are under Govt thresholds and there would be countless others that have manipulated the system to their advantage to be under that same threshold (which is well within the rules, but perhaps is not morally right depending on your beliefs...i'm ok with that part), but here is the kicker ..if we all did that Mr Shorten would have to pay a lot more people the FULL age pension.Surely he would be best to do his sums a hell of a lot better before opening his mouth ( by having his advisers look at ALL the variables and come up with an answer that is fair and equitable to all.People who plan carefully base their retirement on half a lifetime (or more) of work and should at least be in a position to have some control over their future and not be subject to changed rules at the whim of politicians that only need serve a much shorter time in their jobs make decisions that affect the lives of others and invariably depart politics ( having made their mark and stuffing things up further) and go to live the life of Reilly with little regard to the turmoil they have caused others.We need some certainty in retirement, Politicians have it so why shouldn't the rest of the population ?
    Misty
    3rd Apr 2018
    8:25pm
    What are you talking about OG?, I do not know of anyone accepting $2 Million plus in welfare payments.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2018
    9:34pm
    You probably are, Misty. Over the term of your retirement, you will probably collect close to that much if you live for 30+ years on a pension. Yet you want the savings of other STOLEN from them.

    Sorry, YOU ARE SELFISH. And anyone who has read my posts knows I seldom agree with OG and I am often quite brutal in my responses to him, but this time he's right. Shorten is cheating decent, hard-working, honest Australians, and it's disgusting that some who are taking government handouts - PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE HE'S STEALING FROM - are endorsing that theft.
    TREBOR
    3rd Apr 2018
    10:02pm
    One miserable million? Hardly compensates for what they've done, does it....
    Old Geezer
    3rd Apr 2018
    10:05pm
    Yes Misty you are a millionaire twice over and you didn't know? Goodness me.
    Misty
    4th Apr 2018
    12:05am
    I am sick and tired of all these wealthy people on this site crying poor, stop your whinging NO ONE IS LISTENING ONLY OTHERS WITH THE SAME VESTED INTEREST and learn to do your maths OG you know nothing about me.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    8:56am
    Misty, find a calculator and push some buttons to multiply $34,000 a year (LESS than the couple's pension with concessions) by 30 years in retirement. And that's NOT counting all the 6-monthly increases. At TODAY'S rates, it's more than $1 million.

    I guess it's obvious why you don't have $1 million in the bank! Can't even do a simple multiplication sum, with all the modern technological aides available to help you.
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    9:24am
    If the Government stuffs this up then not only self funded retirees will suffer because government pensions can be cut and are being cut in countries just like ours that were once wealthy but have killed off their golden geese.

    They can raise GST, introduce land taxes and include the house in the asset test.

    Just because so far it has been all cuts to self funded retirees does not mean public welfare retirees are safe.

    If the images of "wealth" are wrong or that "wealth" disappears in market corrections there will need to be cuts to welfare.
    Misty
    4th Apr 2018
    9:31am
    Dream on OG and OGR, most people are lucky to see 10-15 years of life after they retire, especially those on the basic wage who have to work to 65-70 as my husband did and died 9 years later, so where do you get your 30 years from?.
    Misty
    4th Apr 2018
    9:37am
    As I said before OG and OGR how you live your lives is up to you but don't blame other people if they want to live differently, I bet if a poll was done amongst the people commenting here you would not find many willing to live their lives the way you 2 have.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    9:45am
    Misty, it's you denying US the right to live as we choose, not the other way around. YOU are supporting demands that we be denied the benefit of our savings, while you collect a secure income. How we live our lives is NOT UP TO US. It's up to the stinking vile politicians who change policy unfairly - supported by selfish people like you who cheer because it doesn't hurt you are you are jealous of people you THINK might have more.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    10:13am
    Misty, most of the people in my neighbourhood, and all my relatives, are in their nineties. Statistics say that we are living LONGER, not dying young. I belong to clubs where the average age is 85, and these people are in good health and very active and expect to live another 10-15 years.

    Now, how about you just TRY to sort out the muddled mess in your head. YOU ARE SUPPORTING CALLS TO DEMOLISH OUR LIFESTYLE - not the other way around. We are not denying you anything. YOU are the selfish person denying others the right to live as they choose and be dealt with fairly.

    And I could care less how many people would choose my lifestyle, or OG's (which I suspect is VERY different from mine). That's NOT relevant. What IS relevant is that YOU ARE DEMANDING WE SUFFER UNFAIRNESS for no other reason than you have made WILD AND BASELSS ASSUMPTIONS and you are jealous.

    WE should have the same right as you to choose our lifestyle. And anyone who seeks to deprive us of it is nasty, selfish in the extreme, and very unfair.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    3:57pm
    Misty yes I live a minimalistic lifestyle but do so out of choice. Let's face it a person my age doesn't need much. I also regularly take my family on cruises and rent a big holiday house so we can all holiday in comfort without filling up lounge rooms with guests. I also give 10% of my income to charities of my choice every year. I don't hesitate in giving some one a few dollars so they don't have to go without when they haven't got enough money to pay for their groceries. Just gave one of my grandkid's boyfriend some money to help him buy a car so he could get to work. I often feel like I get back so much more than I give.

    I am sure many here like to be part of my family.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    4:15pm
    Btw. Misty - everyone I know who worked at low paid, physically taxing jobs lived to a ripe old age. It's those who get it easy who die young, because they over-indulge I'm an unhealthy lifestyle. We had a 96-year-old help us fix roof sheeting a while back. He bounced up and down onto that roof like a teenager. I know a 97-year-old woman who mixed and laid concrete to make a path in her back yard.

    But it's the poor old low wage earner who will be hurt by Shorten's cruel and unfair policy change. The fat cat on $150K a year will still enjoy the full benefit of his franking credits. The bloke on a minimum wage with a couple of kids or the fellow who loses his job and is struggling on Newstart will get ZILCH. Think about that while you are enjoying spending your next pension payment!
    TREBOR
    3rd Apr 2018
    10:43pm
    After the recent rain and flooding there has been a stench rising from the river when the tide comes in... rotting vegetation.... or at least I thought it was..... until I caught the scent of an election year...........

    First year in - bash 'em all senseless with stupid ideas citing a budget crisis and black holes left by previous government....

    Next two and a bit - coast along and pretend that all your needed changes can't be pushed through due to a hostile senate and independents who just have no idea, along with a recalcitrant public service who simply will not co-operate (unless their boss is held in chains on contracted employment)........

    Final run-in - promise the world, give generously, find that somehow the desperate budget crisis was just a passing phantom..... and blame the other side religiously for all failings and for offering stupid promises that can;t be kept - add more handouts and a little honey to go with the dead flies to make them easier to swallow...
    GrayComputing
    3rd Apr 2018
    11:50pm
    NOTE TO ALL PM and MPS and Super rich support teams and robots

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVERV AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    For the retired and retiring people in your electorate do you think they really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules

    Do you or other MP like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

    This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

    Why do you as a compassionate person let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    You even stand to lose your chance at government unless all these criminal asset tests for a pension are dropped now.

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    Misty
    4th Apr 2018
    12:08am
    YOU HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING GC, so it is ok for multi millionaires to apply for a govt pension?.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    8:08am
    Why not, Misty? It's okay for bludgers and cheats and spendthrifts who could have saved and invested to apply for a government pension, and then support unfair abuse of those who did save with double or triple taxation that reduces their income to half that of a pensioner. So you would go without holidays and restaurant dinners to hand 100% of the savings to someone who was better off than you were in working life, would you? That's what you are asking people to do. You claim freedom to decide what to spend on, but deny people the right to enjoy their savings.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    8:52am
    Here's an idea that would save the government millions. How about instead of paying pensions, the government offers all the ''needy'' people $800K (for a couple - maybe $500K for a single) in cash on retirement in return for a signed undertaking never to apply for any benefit ever again, and to accept without complaint any changes to taxation of retirement or investment income?

    I reckon most of the greedy dunces here would grab that with both hands, and then they might learn a valuable lesson in economics. I guarantee they would deeply regret their decision in a big hurry when they discovered just what it's like to try to achieve a living income from investing $800K. And they would have the advantage of having it GIFTED to them - and not having to sacrifice pleasures to save it. Just as they are having millions gifted to them now but are too selfish, or just too dumb, to acknowledge it.

    (Apologies to those who do appreciate the contribution SFRs and workers make to the budget and do show respect for them. I am not generalizing here. It's just very disturbing that so many are so self-obsessed and disrespectful.)
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    3:46pm
    OGR most would spend the lot and be broke inside 12 months like lottery winners.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    4:17pm
    Well, given that the THINK it's a fortune and can't understand basic facts, I fear you are right, OG.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    5th Apr 2018
    9:21am
    We will have a booming economy for a year or so and the rich will certainly benefit handsomely.

    4th Apr 2018
    8:34am
    If Turnbull wants the votes of older Australians, all he has to do - apparently - is steal more from workers and savers and hand out more to the greedy, self-serving, disrespectful, ungrateful pensioner nasties who can't think past ''he's got more than me, take it off him''.

    On the other hand, if he wants to fix the economy, he would be very smart to start delivering fairness and security to self-funded retirees and ensure there are strong incentives for people to save for retirement, because currently the incentive is to divests wealth quickly and benefit from the millions being handed out to those who claim ''need'' - too often after living the living the high life earlier.

    Sad fact is that doing what's good for the nation doesn't win votes. Far too many people sucking off the public purse and selfish enough to demand that those who aren't be persecuted, because it's just intolerable that some people might have more - after a lifetime of saving - than those who lived it up and then put their hands out.

    Interesting that those who GENUINELY struggled are much more likely to be respectful to those who saved. It seems to be those who enjoyed the good life who want others to fund a fatter income in retirement and are too selfish and greedy to support demands for fairness - much less to think about the well-being of society as a whole,

    Labor has it sewn up, I think, with their plan to stuff the economy double-taxing people for the crime of investing in shares. I wonder what crap they will peddle to win favour when property prices have skyrocketed again and billions in investment capital have left Australia and gone off-shore, tens of thousands more are on the OAP, and the claimed ''savings'' from ripping off share investors who NEED their franking credits to achieve a standard of living somewhere near that OAPs enjoy have totally evaporated?
    P$cript
    4th Apr 2018
    9:13am
    These simplified explanations in the media are not reflecting the policy truthfully.
    The Grattan institute has excellent article, but a bit heavy reading.
    https://grattan.edu.au/news/the-real-story-of-labors-dividend-imputation-reforms/
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    9:43am
    It's a very biased presentation though, because it correctly points out that many of those targeted are wealthy, but it doesn't note that the wealthy WON'T PAY. They have offset options and options to change their investments. It's the battlers who will be hit hard. Morrison is right on that point.

    I agree with taxing retirement income - BUT NOT IN THIS DISCIMINATORY AND UNFAIR WAY.

    As to the issue of low income earners having the option to draw from savings, the report ignores the fact that savings are very often the result of earlier sacrifice and designated for specific needs. It's clearly NOT FAIR that savers should have to use their savings merely to compensate for not getting handouts that non-savers who were just as well off receive.

    The report misses entirely the point that if there's no clear benefit from saving $1.6 million, more will be dependant on the public purse.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    2:38pm
    There is one big problem with that report. I have done some modelling and if franking credits are not refunded many retired people would not benefit from having super at all. Many would lose more money if they leave their money in super. So many will just say stuff having super and paying extra fees for no benefit and draw it all out.

    Let's pull this report apart.

    We also know that only 70% of those over 65 are on the OAP. So 30% are not on the OAP.

    When superannuation withdrawals are stripped out from income in ABS survey data, as is done to calculate taxable income, almost half of the wealthiest 10 per cent of over-sixty-fives report incomes of less than $18,200. On average, though, they have wealth of nearly $2 million — and that’s even before considering the value of their home or any other property assets they might own.

    So only 16% of people over 65 are wealthy with incomes of less than $18,200. So 83% of these over 65s not on the OAP are hardly wealthy with assets under $2 million. Many would be closer to $1 million per couple than $2 million.

    So we know that couples with $1 million would be doing very well to earn $18,200 each which is over $20,000 with low income tax rebate. If they try and earn a bit more by investing shares they will be screwed big time if their franking credits are not refunded.

    Time for couples to have a house each and claim the single pension each instead so they keep their franking credits.
    Misty
    4th Apr 2018
    3:05pm
    OG if people have a million+ and are only earning $18,200.00 a year then they need to sack their accountant and financial adviser.
    Misty
    4th Apr 2018
    3:05pm
    OG if people have a million+ and are only earning $18,200.00 a year then they need to sack their accountant and financial adviser.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    3:18pm
    Can you read, Misty? OG said $18,200 EACH for a couple with $1 million. Given that about $50,000 needs to be held in liquid cash for daily expenses, and quite likely there are other assets that don't return, let's say they have $900,000 achieving the government-stated average return rate. That's $45,000, less about $4000 for administration costs and operating expenses, and that's only $20,500 for each - which is barely more than the aged pension when concessions are counted. Now consider that Shorten wants to kill off their franking credit refund, which IS currently counted in that 5%, and they are far worse off than a pensioner. Their income could well fall to $16,000 a year each or less.
    PLUS have to live with the risk of investments failing and the fact that they DO NOT get guaranteed increases every 6 months.
    And by the way, Misty - accountants DO NOT advise on investment. Financial advisers purport to, but it's very difficult to find a good one in my experience.

    You also seem to miss the critical point that this couple would be far better off, as OG suggests, buying a house each and claiming single pensions. Or buying a much more expensive house and claiming the pension. Or gifting to their kids now, instead of being honest and watching their savings erode for the benefit of other people's brats.

    Then there's the worry about where share investment is directed when it ceases to be attractive. Let's all push property prices higher, shall we. Or maybe send the money off shore to boost growth of foreign companies. When that happens, Shorten's mythical savings are gone, pension costs have skyrocketed, and the economy is in dire straights. Hopefully the result will be an end of the OAP to the selfish folk who wanted to see others unfairly hurt, and they will experience the pain they are wishing on others.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    3:27pm
    OGR I have a vague memory that the law was changed so that franking credits would be refunded to low income earners because people were not investing in shares because they thought they were taxed unfairly to other investments. If I am correct then history tells me that the same thing will happen again.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    3:31pm
    Misty tell me where you can get an accountant or financial advisor that will tell you how to make more than $18,200 in the current investment market as a passive investment with minimal risk?

    Sure you can earn a lot more but unless you do it yourself it just aint going to happen.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    3:37pm
    You are correct, OG. And an ALP politician argued that we are the only country that refunds franking credits, but we also survived the GFC better than any other nation, so maybe we got the policy right and they are wrong - in which case changing it would be very dumb indeed.

    Misty, consider another situation. A worker buys some shares to secure a little extra income. Now he loses his job. His taxable income for the year is very low because he has no job for most of the year. He loses the benefit of his credits. The dividend income he receives is taxed before he gets it, and he gets no credit for that tax because his income is low. But his counterpart, who is earning $150,000 a year, keeps the benefit as a nice tax deduction. And you and the ''champions of battlers'' in the ALP think that's fair?
    Misty
    4th Apr 2018
    4:23pm
    So OG you know better then a Financial Adviser and Accountant how to invest your money but maybe that was your profession?.
    Misty
    4th Apr 2018
    4:36pm
    OG and OGR if that couple lived the lifestyle you both advocate there is no way they would need $50,000. liquid cash for daily expenses.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    4:41pm
    Yes Misty I do. Think about it for one moment why are they working as accountants or financial advisors if they are good at investing money and making good returns? It would simply make more sense to use their time to concentrate on their own investing instead. If you could make more in an hour than a day why work a whole day for same return?
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    5:46pm
    Misty Unfortunately these people like me don't have money lob in their account each fortnight like you do. I actually have 3 or 4 times more than $50,000 in cash sometimes even more because I don't want to have to sell anything at any price because I need cash.

    Could you live for six months, a year or more sometimes without your fortnightly contribution to your bank account? These people do.

    You words tell me you really have no idea what it is like to live as a self funded retiree.
    P$cript
    4th Apr 2018
    10:09pm
    OG you appear to only seem to have enough plasticine to make frank, but you don't get credit for just a frank.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    5th Apr 2018
    9:15am
    Unlike you I don't blindly read such articles and just accept the rubbish in them. That article tells me one thing above all others. The author simply has no idea of who will lose if unused cranked credits are not refunded.

    If you are wealthy you are smart so you will just adjust your assets so it doesn't. You don't stay wealthy for long if you are not smart. Have a look at what happens to most of those who win lotto etc.

    Also if it only hurts the wealthy why the back flip to exempt pensioners? Logic tells me anyone on welfare is thus wealthy. We all know that is not the case. So Shorten has feed us all a whole lot of bullshit on this stupid thought bubble of his.
    Anonymous
    7th Apr 2018
    6:32am
    BigBear, what I want to know is where the unconscious ALP supporters THINK all the savings are coming from if it's only going to hurt the wealthy. Do they seriously think there are that many wealthy people who can't/won't rearrange their affairs to avoid losing income?

    And wait just a minute here! Shorten has said those who earn enough to pay tax won't lose anything. He also said people investing in superannuation won't lose. So he's not stealing from super funds. He's not stealing from pensioners. He's not stealing from people who earn taxable income. I'm quite sure he wouldn't steal from the genuinely poor - would he? So how the hell is he achieving those savings? Only a complete fool would believe he can find that much in the coffers of the wealthy and claim it without them finding an escape route. But it seems a lot of complete fools think an SFR struggling to survive on less than the pension is ''wealthy''. All I can say to that is ''no wonder they have no savings if they are that dumb!''

    And then there's the impact of the theft - pushing more people onto pensions, reducing spending and therefore jobs and tax revenue and growth, and pushing investment out of Australian companies - restricting their growth and therefore reducing jobs.

    It boggles the mind that people are actually so unconscious or so self- obsessed that they can't think through these issues and see that those claimed billions in savings JUST DONT EXIST.

    And has anyone noticed that every time the government steals more from a certain sector of the community THE NATIONAL DEBT GROWS?
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    2:47pm
    I had this scenario put to me earlier today about super.

    What would happen if you reached retirement age and the rules changed so much so you could only draw out 5% of your super balance each year but your super earnt 10%? Obviously your super would grow faster than you could take it out.

    They then said what would happen if what was then left in your super when you died was taken by the government to be used for other people in retirement?

    What the government has here is a money making machine that would be making enough at some point in time so their welfare budget was completely covered.

    I was left thinking now I know why the government is so keen for everyone to have super.
    Sundays
    4th Apr 2018
    3:29pm
    OG that is exactly what is happening with the Futures Fund. Set aside to meet the federal government superannuation obligations to retired public servants and military. These people all contributed 2 to 10% after tax into their defined benefit schemes. They get back a pension based on a formula of final salary, contribution rate and years of service. Now if they live for 30 years, the govt pays out big time, but if they die early and have no spouse the govt makes a big saving. Tre spouse is entitled to 67% on death of the fund member for their life but there is no residual capital to the Estate. Approximately 180,000 pensioners at any one time. Yes, there are ongoing obligations but they don’t all live forever, yet provision is being made for them. Huge fund, $138.9 billion last count.
    Kathleen
    4th Apr 2018
    8:21pm
    I think that the n7mber of comments per person should be limited as some are monopolising the conversation and bullying others who have something to say that does not fit in with their agenda!
    Misty
    4th Apr 2018
    8:45pm
    Kathleen I think the moderators are asleep at the wheel don't you?., they don't seem to be checking the comments here.
    Old Geezer
    4th Apr 2018
    9:17pm
    Maybe we should be able to a give thumbs down for stupid comments as well.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    7:59am
    I think Kathleen and Misty are both peeved at having their error pointed out and evidence presented to prove their wild assumptions wrong and their desire to see others unfairly hurt exposed.

    Maybe if they both stopped and focused on FACT instead of being driven by envy, there might not be a need for others to respond so often.

    Sorry, I won't stay silent while someone who has no clue what they are on about and is broadcasting untruths tries to persuade others to support policy that will hurt the nation, and that is blatantly unfair to honest, responsible people who worked hard for what they have and SHOULD be allowed to enjoy a comfortable retirement without worrying about green-eyed monsters making their life a misery.
    Misty
    5th Apr 2018
    12:41pm
    Kathleen I don't think the moderators are even checking this site, some comments have even been derogatory about the way this article was written and not one of the moderators have commented on that either, makes you wonder doesn't it.
    Misty
    5th Apr 2018
    3:02pm
    I can put up with being called names such as greedy, jealous, selfish and inferring I am stupid as she says I cannot add up, once or twice by a certain person commenting on here, but when it is repeated I consider it BULLYING, just because I do not agree with everything this person posts. THERE LAWS AGAINST CYBER BULLYING THESE DAYS so the moderators should be stepping in to stop this.
    Misty
    5th Apr 2018
    3:06pm
    There should be some rules about how people behave on this site, if a person cannot have a difference of opinion without being abused what is the point of it all?, no one will bother to post anything will they.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    3:45pm
    Misty, you and Kathleen can't complain. You have been equally nasty, and it's you supporting depriving me of my livelihood, but instead of considering respectfully that my complaints might be valid, you dismiss them arrogantly and contemptuously.

    It's NOT a difference of opinion when it is totally UNSUBSTANTIATED in any way, you can't respond to sensible questions, and you just want to see others hurt for your own selfish satisfaction.

    Not to worry though. I've made a decision. I'll put my money through the pokies and claim the beautiful 7.8%+ all the pensioners are enjoying for NOT saving. When the nation goes to the dogs... well, I won't be around to see it, but hopefully those who wanted to see my lifestyle demolished for their own selfish satisfaction will.
    Misty
    5th Apr 2018
    5:12pm
    So you are calling me stupid now OGR I have had enough of your abuse against me on this on site, Katheleen can speak for herself.
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    7:31pm
    No Misty you are not stupid you are just envious of those who have more than you and very greedy in that you take from the taxpayer and businesses so much more but deny those who take nothing for the taxpayer or businesses a little bit extra income so they can live a bit better. My goodness those on welfare have no gratitude at all.
    Misty
    5th Apr 2018
    7:38pm
    OG your comment does not deserve a reply.
    Misty
    5th Apr 2018
    7:42pm
    OG and OGR I am now convinced you are one and the same person as you both speak the same language.
    Misty
    5th Apr 2018
    7:48pm
    OG i don't know why you and OGR keep calling me greedy and envious as I could not care less what you both have or don't have, I have more important things to worry about in my life then the vitriolic comments from you 2.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    8:57pm
    Then why, Misty, are you promoting a policy that will see us stripped of up to 30% of our income? You've been told over and over and over why Shorten's policy is unfair and detrimental to EVERYONE, yet without one single logical reason for supporting it you continue to attack us and demand we suffer, merely because you assume we have what you consider to be too much. You have not stated any other reason at all. Or are you perhaps just a sadist who enjoys hurting others?

    And if you think I am the same person as OG you have rocks in your head. Sorry! Most everyone here knows I fought an ongoing battle with him - DEFENDING the disadvantaged, actually - and expressed intense dislike of him. But we are entitled to agree on the fact that a policy is clearly harmful to the nation and grossly unfair. And if you can't see that, stop and think for a minute how great it will be if another 300,000+++ retirees (plus thousands more new retirees every year) put their hands out for pensions because they have been robbed of their livelihood and can no longer survive on the pittance they get on their investments. The mattress bank is looking better every day - or give it to the kids, and collect 7.8%+++, with 6 monthly rises, instead of the pathetic FROZEN $12,000 a year Shorten wants to leave us with.

    We ARE paying through the nose now. Around $40,000 a year. And greedy people who are collecting that $40K a year are screaming for us to be robbed of a meagre $10 - $12,000 a year that we desperately need to STAY OFF THE PENSION and LET GOVERNMENT MONEY FLOW TO OTHERS IN NEED.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    9:01pm
    And I didn't call you ''stupid''. Misty. I said you don't offer any substantiation for your claimed ''opinions'', and I don't think it reasonable or decent for any human being to wish hurt on another without offering sound justification. I called your conduct ''nasty'', and it is. You know nothing about me or my circumstances, but you presume to argue - without even a hint of reason other than your wild and invalid assumption that I am ''wealthy'' and shouldn't be - that I should have 30% of my income stolen while you sit back and collect handouts from the taxpayer purse.
    Misty
    5th Apr 2018
    10:10pm
    I know as much about you as you have written here OGR and you know as much about me for the same reason, also you are insinuating that I am stupid by saying I cannot add up, telling me to use a calculator and also saying I cannot read.
    Misty
    6th Apr 2018
    11:00am
    Not worthy of a reply OGR.
    Anonymous
    6th Apr 2018
    11:54am
    So you can't answer? You don't have an intelligent response to a reasonable question pointing out how unfair the policy is and asking how you justify supporting it? Yet you will continue to support it? Is that what you are saying? You will continue to support the notion that a single mother should lose her house while a $350,000 a year income couple gets a massive tax deduction, and people who save for retirement should live on $25K a year or less and give $40K benefit a year to the tax man while people who don't get up to $2 million, or maybe ore, in handouts for retirement?

    No wonder the country is stuffed if people with your attitude are allowed to vote!
    Anonymous
    6th Apr 2018
    12:13pm
    Sad, Misty. I was really hoping you would restore my faith in human nature. But I despair! Our society really is stuffed. How can we EVER hope to fix economic problems if people can't engage in intelligent debate and reconsider their position when evidence is presented that merits changing their mind?

    Personally, I love learning and I welcome argument that enables me to reconsider or reassess, or maybe do more research. To me, it's a sign of intelligence that you are willing to back down from a position if evidence is presented to show your thinking was misguided.

    So far, nobody has presented a shred of credible evidence to support the suggestion that Shorten's policy has any merit. And I've read and read and read and read and read about it. I've seen argument based on clearly fake data, or minimal selected data that common sense says can't be right - but not one single shred of credible evidence to support Shorten.

    The clincher, for me, is the claimed $11 billion a year or so savings. From where? Not from wealthy people - who will just rearrange their affairs, or who earn too much taxable income to b e affected.
    Triss
    4th Apr 2018
    9:07pm
    Divide and rule is still going strong I see. Whilst everyone is slagging each other off over $34,000 a year, the pollies and ex pollies can sit back comfortably in their seats knowing that no-one is going to be mean to them over their $100,000 a year plus half a dozen taxpayer funded, business class holidays, non means tested pensions. They’ll clock up a million taxpayer funded dollars in a fraction of the time it takes an OAP. However, like Shorten et al, folk seem to think that that’s their right.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    8:02am
    Yes Triss. Division works brilliantly for those who want to perpetrate evil. But sadly too many can't see past ME ME ME ME ME and ''if he has more take it off him''. Little do they realize their selfishness will come back to bite.

    We should ALL be united and speaking with ONE voice demanding a better deal and more respect for ALL retirees. I spoke up for pensioners, even though I may never be one. I'm disgusted that they are now so eager to see my income demolished and in response to me pointing out the errors in Shorten's policy, they accuse me of being ''not genuine''.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    9:12am
    A local choir has been practising for a performance of a song called ''One Song''. The words say, in part, ''Imagine what tomorrow could bring, if we all sing one song''.

    Misty and Kathleen, and others who are bashing SFRs, is it at all possible that you could stop making baseless assumptions about the circumstances of others, show some respect for their very valid concerns, and join with ONE VOICE in a campaign to make politicians realize the harm they are doing to ALL of us by these short-sighted, unthinking and unfair grabs.

    If we sing ONE SONG, we might actually be heard. It's NOT RELEVANT who you think has what or whether they deserve to have it. It's NOT a competition. It's about what's good for the nation. And bashing SFRs is NOT good for the nation. They ARE paying tax, by saving the government up to $2 million over the course of their retirement. Many desperately NEED their franking credits to sustain a decent lifestyle without relying on pensions.

    Yes, maybe some seem wealthy to you, but what do you know about their personal circumstances? What do you know about why they saved and what they need their savings for? Why should they be deprived while others get handouts, for no better reason than that they DID NOT save - or like BigBear, they gave their wealth away to get a pension?

    I can identify 40 in my small neighbourhood who will be reduced to incomes LESS than the pension. Yes, they can use their savings to top up. Would you go without restaurant dinners every month for 20 years to give 100% of the savings to the tax man? I don't think so! They EARNED their little extra income, and taking it from them will hurt the nation - not help it. And you HAVE NO IDEA what they need those savings for or why they chose to go without other things to accrue them.

    Refunding franking credits only against tax payments means allowing ONLY THE WELL OFF to benefit, and discriminating against the less wealthy. Yes, SOME tax dodgers will benefit. But they can be taxed in much fairer ways than attacking small investors who can't afford to lose up to 30% of they income - just because they CHOSE to invest in shares rather than in other investments.

    Most here support calls for fairness in other areas. I certainly support calls for a better deal for battling pensioners.

    Singing ONE SONG is the ONLY way we can win against the current trends of lashing out constantly at retirees. Selfishness and division hands the politicians a win on a silver platter.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    5th Apr 2018
    9:19am
    OGR one thing is certain the tax dodgers are already 3 steps in front of Labor already. One has even been boasting that he will save even more tax as the proposed policy has alerted him to better possibilities of employing his wealth.
    GrayComputing
    5th Apr 2018
    11:16am
    Dear PM
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVERV AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    For the retired and retiring people in your electorate do you think they really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules

    Do you or other MP like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

    This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

    Why do you as a compassionate person let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    You even stand to lose your chance at directing the government unless all these criminal asset tests for a pension are dropped now.

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    GeorgeM
    5th Apr 2018
    11:37pm
    Agree, it is the most abominable test as it targets savers!
    Also, use of Centrelink to hound elderly Australians is disgusting!
    GeorgeM
    5th Apr 2018
    4:18pm
    What a pair of nasty parties we have - a Liberal party who stuffed up part-pensioners and pre-retirees with their nasty asset test changes from Jan 2017 after promising "No Change to Pensions" in Sep 2013, and a stupid Labor party who decided not to reverse that, previously increased pension age to 67, and is proposing moronic changes recently without any real policy alternatives on either pensions or tax reform.

    All Retirees - Get RID OF BOTH PARTIES (by voting the current seat-warmers last in preferences) and vote for anyone who agrees to get Universal Pension for all without any tests (except Residence of 15 or 20 years).
    Old Geezer
    5th Apr 2018
    7:25pm
    Who?
    GeorgeM
    5th Apr 2018
    11:34pm
    Obviously each has to choose the appropriate person in their own electorate as there is no single party supporting this.

    Maybe, retirees also have to go out into Clubs, etc and spread the message (need for Universal Pension and the need to get rid of the current clowns of both parties) as many DON'T THINK and continue voting blindly and then wonder what happened to the country.

    Start by putting the worst person (say the current seat-warmer who doesn't do any good except for himself / herself and is looking forward to their fat undeserved pension) last in preferences, and then go up the list using the same logic!
    ex PS
    6th Apr 2018
    10:20am
    I would agree with George, you can not continually vote along party lines and expect improvement. It is time to look at individual performance and character in order to select those who we wish to represent US.
    Most elected politicians on both sides put themselves first, the Party second and the voters somewhere after that.
    If I employ someone to look after my interests, I expect them to put me first, otherwise I will look for someone else to do the job.
    I don't want to tell anyone who to vote for, I just wish people would put some thought into the quality of the individual who they do end up voting for.
    Jannie
    6th Apr 2018
    10:26am
    Exactly OG bloody WHO??
    Old Geezer
    6th Apr 2018
    10:49am
    Agree I can never find anyone worth voting so it's a blank ballot paper from me into the box.
    GeorgeM
    7th Apr 2018
    12:11am
    Can't make people without brains think, but be sure the status quo (which OG and Jannie want to keep) WILL CHANGE in the next election and Shorten will be coming after you - unless all act as I have suggested - no guarantee, but a fair attempt at change fir the better.
    Old Geezer
    9th Apr 2018
    10:58am
    Shorten will get nothing out of me even if he catches me.
    Banjo
    7th Apr 2018
    10:09am
    Quote Rainey: "I'm sorry if it irks you, but I like to take the opportunity to use these forums to encourage people to THINK and use their votes and their influence for the good of our society. And I am rather intolerant of people who refuse to THINK but promote policies that are going to hurt our society"

    You are not succeeding in doing that and as for "thinking" Rainey, I think you are not doing much of that. Many of your points don't make sense and comes across as being very self serving. I don't mean to offend, but many of your arguments verge on the ridiculous.
    Misty
    7th Apr 2018
    10:36am
    Better be careful what you reply to OGR, if you don't agree with what she says you will cop a lot of abuse and no one is monitering this site so she can get away with it.
    Banjo
    7th Apr 2018
    11:04am
    That's all right and thanks for the advice. But I do lecture on the subject and it annoys me when I see people making statements which have no substance.

    Let's see how strong a character Rainey is by her reply, if she is abusive then nothing she says is worth my time.
    Misty
    9th Apr 2018
    8:28am
    OGR is at again Banjo.
    Misty
    9th Apr 2018
    8:29am
    I thought we were having a break from her tirade but here she goes again.
    Anonymous
    9th Apr 2018
    5:08pm
    I would just like to see some LOGICAL and FACTUAL comment instead of political mumbo-jumbo and sweeping generalizations. It's easy to speak in support of a politician or party. It's much harder to evaluate a policy and comment on its broader implications and risks.

    I'm sorry if you think some of my arguments ''verge on the ridiculous'', Banjo, but until you specifically refute one or more with facts, I'll conclude that your response is just rude and meaningless.

    As for Misty. I'm sick to death of people who take from the public purse and then want to cause unfair hurt to those whose hard work is helping the budget, and can't give a single reasonable justification for wanting to see others hurt.
    P$cript
    9th Apr 2018
    5:53pm
    Oh! Banjo and Misty you have been chastised by OGR. LOL
    Couldn't have set up OGR any better for the perfect response of the tantrum.

    I have wondered about the sanity of OGR for awhile.

    Just sitting back and watch for fireworks.
    Misty
    9th Apr 2018
    6:23pm
    Don't worry PScript OGR'S commmets are like water off a duck's back with me, hope they are with Banjo and Kathleen also.
    P$cript
    9th Apr 2018
    7:12pm
    OGR's non response so far might be that her mum has sent her to time out.
    ABE
    9th Apr 2018
    8:23pm
    Only genuine Rainy.

    I wouldn't argue with Banjo if I were you. He knows his onions, believe me.

    I've read some of your posts and please don't take this the wrong way. You need a holiday. May I suggest a cruise? I never did like cruises, but my wife took me on one and I came back feeling very refreshed.

    Have a drop and relax:)
    Banjo
    9th Apr 2018
    8:54pm
    Rainey

    I don’t have as much time as you it seems, so only one post from me. I believe in keeping it simple. Due to my financial circumstances, there is no chance of my ever qualifying for an age pension. Like you, my wife and I worked diligently to make ourselves as self sufficient as possible. We have succeeded. This success does not preclude me from feeling empathy for people who have to depend on the pension for their existence.

    Yes, it is true to say, some did not scrimp and save like others to amass a certain amount of wealth. That does not mean they have failed. It means, sometimes life circumstances may have prevented them from saving for their retirement. I don’t see any reason to chastise people for this. I agree, some may have lived the good life while you and I economized to the max. That percentage however is quite small. Should we tar everyone with the same brush? Of course not, any business owner will tell you they make provision for both “good and bad debts.” Same principle applies when speaking of those who saved and those who didn’t.

    Regardless of circumstances, as a supposedly caring nation, we need to look after everyone. Some to a greater degree than others. My personal opinion is, from all the reports and research I’ve undertaken to read and study, pensioners who own their own homes outright can manage reasonably well on the present pension, but I have not walked in their shoes. I am more concerned about those pensioners who have to pay sometimes exorbitant rents and possibly fork out for medications. There is no question in my mind these people should be assisted.

    Just because you followed a certain path, does not mean everyone should have been like you. Unfortunately, all types make up the world and what’s good for some of us, may have been disastrous for others. I did not use your full name “Only Genuine Rainey” because I don’t think you’re at all "genuine."

    Maybe you should take Micha's advice about that holiday?
    Anonymous
    10th Apr 2018
    8:32am
    Banjo. I don't know where you get the idea that I have no empathy for pensioners. I was one for a long time. I was raised on a pension. I got a pension for a long time when I was very sick. I love that we have a welfare system that looks after people, and I am very well aware that circumstances make some dependant on it. Some of the folk I love and admire most in the world had nothing and relied on a pension - often after many years of very hard work.

    I am just heartily sick of the nasty and vicious attack on SFRs. And I'm disgusted that pensioners support taking away the savings of a lifetime and grinding people who worked hard and were able to save into hardship with unfair tax policies.

    And I'm furious that both the government and the ALP is LYING, saying persecuting SFRs can help the budget, because all it will do is force many more onto pensions.

    I don't suggest everyone should have been like me. I DO suggest that I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE MY LIFESTYLE AND NOT HAVE MY REWARD STOLEN.

    I am thoroughly sick of this BS that pensioners are entitled and SFRs should be deprived of everything they worked for.
    Anonymous
    10th Apr 2018
    8:59am
    Micha, with Bill Shorten proposing to demolish my lifestyle and tax me into poverty - very unfairly, I can't afford a holiday. If I appear to need one, it's because I'm deeply offended that some people think it's okay to demolish the lifestyle of SFRs, and then they falsely accuse those same SFRs (and me - I'm not an SFR yet despite my age!) of being derogatory of pensioners.

    The bullying and abuse of SFRs here - by pensioners - is sick and disgusting. SFRs are helping the budget and contributing to funding pensions. They deserve respect. And they deserve support to defend their right to fair taxation.
    greatgolly
    7th Apr 2018
    10:34am
    I do wish people and politicians would stop talking about self funded retirees as if they are the typical pensioner! Typical pensioner would be someone who has little or no savings, and the pension would be all they have to either pay a mortgage, and or pay rates, water and sewerage, pay for a phone as this is necessary as they are aging and need to keep in contact if something happens; I do not know the ration of self funded retirees against pension dependants, as we are.

    Government after government has pandered to the wealthy, the last prime minister who considered sole dependant pensioners was Mr Whitlam, ordinary pensioners have had their pensions cut and cut, and cut, while self funded retirees have been pandered to; you know who they are, they have a boat, probably a very expensive 4x4 or Merc or BMW, they travel the world, and then moan the most for being badly done to! Oh, I forgot those whom have money in accounts off-shore, there's plenty of them, too.

    For normal pensioners, what increase we get a year, taking off government increases in medicine and food, last fiscal year, my wife and I went into the negative, so that was a decrease; whatever the basic pensioners get in one hand, the government takes that and more from the other hand! As for those who hide their money and both DSS and the government turn a blind eye, because if ever there were rogues, politicians would top the list in taking from the taxpayer as much as they can, grab their filthy pensions, get another lucrative job, curtesy of the business' they've pandered to while in office, get a 6 figure income in their new job, and a 6 figure government pension as well, something no ordinary worker can do, well, the path to hell is wide and many politicians will walk on it!!

    It's time to give the ordinary pensioner a break, and a great deal of them are widows, but give thought for crying out loud, most ordinary pensioners, they worked nearly all their lives, some have served this great country in the armed forces as well, and the idiotic governments take them for a ride, give me a break!

    When I was young, and I'm talking WWII time and after in the UK, I wasn't in Australia then, but politicians gave of their time freely and willingly with only an allowance to cover basic expenses, but now, after 50 years here, politicians are and live by need for greed and greed is good, so give me the money! It's time to get rid of all of them, abolish state governments, federally they get a base salary, any pension accrued they cannot have until retirement age, make all laws the same Australia wide, bring back corporal and capital punishment, this argy bargy of spare the rod has failed and that's why the prisons are full, last but not least, stop pandering to the Aboriginal people, anyone white or black born in Australia, is by all definition, an Aboriginal of this great land, made great by all people; there, I've said it now, so chew on the above, I'm too old to worry about some wanting to shoot or hang me, so go ahead, make my day!
    VeryCaringBigBear
    7th Apr 2018
    1:29pm
    If pensioners have it so easy why am I now a pensioner instead of a self funded retiree. I did some planning years before I retired and the travelled the world, bought a more expensive house and bought the grank d's a house each. Today I sit just under the asset limit to get the full pension but benefits. My family pays all my living expenses and I use my pension to travel and enjoy myself. Life is wonderfun living on the pension considering I would be struggling if I was a self funded retiree.
    greatgolly
    7th Apr 2018
    5:06pm
    VeryCaringBigBear, I know there are some self funded retirees who sit on the border, but when we first started looking for a home in a village that we could afford and rid ourselves of the mortgage around our necks, we went through more than I can count. Really, when we looked at those which looked very nice nicely, we spoke with one couple and their village home had 3 garages, 3 bedrooms, all ensuite, we were shown his boat and Mercedes his wife had and his big 4x4 he had, then I was quaking to ask any more! We found that an eye opener to say the least, and they called it downsizing; the village was quite large with their own village doctor and nurse, this left us in doubt if we could afford even the basic village home in Queensland!

    That was but one of many village like that, some were high rise apartments, more suited for the film start we felt, but we were informed that what we had seen is about the average for self funded retirees, shock horror! Thought the move from South Australia was going to be such a mistake; eventually, we found a relocatable in a village near Brisbane, but whatever money we had spare was taken up to renovate the place, so from then on, we were living solely on the pension, then cancer and many other things came a calling; so, on the basic pension we have been on since! Not complaining really, we're not on the street as many are and all we pay for is ground rent, as they call it, the house is ours, and we do have each other, so we count ourselves lucky with many blessings.

    All the other things I have said, I mean, especially about our greedy politicians who don't give a rats about the poor, down and outs, and strugglers. It is after all, a rich man's world where over 100 millionaires are created in Australia every month, and they seem to be either politically linked or high society linked.

    7th Apr 2018
    5:22pm
    GG - agree. We do need to bring back DP - as life has become so cheap - 2 years in jail and out to do it again. Left did this in order to break down L&O and its worked.
    I'm ex squaddie and UK born now Aussie citizen not dual gave up UK one as felt leaving my bones here etc.
    AS for Shorten and the Greens, Plus Turnbull, we have little choice of how to get Oz back on track do we? Left has managed to infiltrate politicians to point that communism is rife - punish the majority for a minority is the game plan. Legislate whilst building P Service and their own futures and all on plastic.

    Tax loop holes have to be shut down. TRusts and off shore accounts etc - hard when most Pollies have these. Demand is what we have to bring out by people who want their kids to have it better than will if we carry on. West is about broke all in debt-due to socialist governments which poorest all too often vote in. Hand out mentality but in reality today - most on age pension and SFR didnt get these. Now hitting those who saved and planned retirement when lets face it most of us are scared of shares etc no idea. Get a good accountant - greed affects them too sadly bad advice I've found and a big fee for it too.

    Why anyone votes Labor beats e they left behind working folk when Hawke took that first donation from big business for The Accord. CAnt serve 2 masters and sadly Unions like Politicians today in it for salaries etc and not for betterment of the worker because should have stopped paying Labor and lobbied independently paying good lobbyists. Labor also took off tariffs when other countries said Yes we will but DID NOT. This lost us our manufacturing. Fed Gov should have stopped this via tax base surely could have done. AS most owners of these live here still. We need t bring back so tariffs back on. FTA dont do it. 'Just as bad as tariff original again we slow learners as we do as agreed - they don't. Plus get out of Refugee Convention and even UN - like EU left wing and we see how that is going with BREXIT. UK has wrong PM anyway she voted to stay! Boris would
    dhave been better IMHO -like many here he is outspoken and gets punished for it by media. Jaqui, Pauline, Cory Bernardi here suffer similar fate.
    BTW check out Cory's Aussie Conservative Party policies. Immigration is very balanced and does correct a lot of mistakes. All they say are from discussion for last few years to get it right. Mos tof the majors today are so out of touch and people are dissatisfied which leads to the sort of silly arguments fm Misty. SFR need that income for sure and why not - not drawing on an Age Pension they all paid for by paying income taxes. 7% levy for your age pension is still there. Never got abolished even though funnily enough all parties agree to the lie,that it did.
    https://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-b&dcr=0&q=stolen+pension+funds&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiotKWu0KfaAhXCxbwKHVxbA7QQ1QIImQEoAA&biw=1152&bih=532
    Misty
    8th Apr 2018
    8:28am
    Sorry if you do not agree with my comments BV but surely we are allowed to have a difference of opinion on some things, I consider some of your comments silly too BV.
    greatgolly
    8th Apr 2018
    10:30am
    Discussion is the greatest tool to get things in the open and sorted, but it seems nobody is looking retrograde; when I came to Australia, I couldn't wait to ditch my connection with the UK, hated the influx of immigrants even back in the early 50's, and by the way, as here, there were laws for them and laws for Aboriginal English! I remember council when they sent the measuring man around to make sure each child had 6 cubic yards of bedroom space, but that never applied to the immigrants as they lived by a different law, their religious laws, accepted by English courts, anger and hate was everywhere.

    I remember only the one homeless man, of his choice, yet, he was so polite and a very sincere and caring man; this man never wanted or asked for anything, but everyone fed him and clothed him, and funny enough, he was always hygienically clean; never new his age, but he won medals in the Boar War, both WWI and WWII; I'll get to the point, he was a neglected Vet, and now, we have thousands of them! Government after Government neglects all those Vets, all the poor, all the homeless, yet, 99% were born and bred here!

    I have joined many aged groups who wanted to bring about reformation in Australia, but all failed from lack of support; everybody moans and groans and yet they do not put their hands up for change, while fat-cats and politicians suckle billions from the taxpayer; few pollies get in to honestly change the system, and then they are gone or joined the sucklers. I honour those of the French revolution and the downing of the Tsars, but Australians want change, but they also want someone else to make it happen!

    Just remember what Turnbull said about Kirribilli House, " I'd prefer my mansion to this derelict place.", then millions was spent to bring Kirribilli up to his standard! Does anyone think any of them are worth what we pay for them, I think they must, because nobody does anything to stop the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer! Sorry, but it does get my back up over this; I spent 31 year volunteering and trying to make change in SA, then old age caught up and after cancers, strokes and heart failure, I'm now old and broken, so this is the only way I can say something.
    Anonymous
    9th Apr 2018
    7:53am
    Misty, a difference of opinion means you THINK AND COMMENT RATIONALLY with backup facts and arguments. You are NOT entitled to just waffle with BS that is offensive to others, supports hurting others, and has no foundation - without even attempting to support your claimed ''opinion''.

    I love debate, and I'm happy to be wrong if someone can show me how. But it disgusts me when people support proposals that will hurt others with no justification for their claimed ''opinion'' and no care whatever for the hurt they are wishing on others.

    You've made it very clear that you support demolishing the lifestyles of SFRs by grossly over-taxing them, but you've not presented a single reasonable argument as to why you support causing hurt in this way. Then you endorse Kathleen claiming others are judgmental about pensioners. The hatred and nastiness toward SFRs reflected in yours and Kathleen's comments is the problem here - not your 'opinion' (which seems to be nothing more than political allegiance).

    Pensioners should, at very least, show appreciation of the fact that SFRs are reducing the drain on the budget substantially. Show some respect and courtesy and you can have all the opinions you desire. But STOP supporting unfair attacks on others. The ONLY way we can make things better in this country is to unite in a demand for policies that are fair and socially and economically beneficial. You've been given extensive reasons why Shorten's proposal is NOT fair or beneficial. If you can't respond with logical argument in support of the policy, then have the manners to keep quiet and avoid offending those the policy will hurt. Honestly, you are turning me against pensioners - and that's something I never thought anyone could achieve!
    Anonymous
    9th Apr 2018
    8:34am
    BV, I agree, and I've done my best through life to stand up for positive change, but it's getting very difficult. Self-interest has now infected the whole of society. We have people supporting destroying the lifestyles of anyone who worked and saved for no reason I can see other than envy (not one valid reason has been presented in all the discussions I've engage in here and elsewhere), and we have people supporting destroying the lifestyles of the less well-off for no reason other than they resent paying tax to fund what they see as ''handouts''.

    This is a forum for older Australians. If we can't even unite here to support each other in demands for social and economic improvement and a better lifestyle for all retirees (and their children), what hope is there for the nation?

    ''Divide and conquer'' is the game the pollies are playing, and they are doing it SO VERY WELL. Until the populace wakes up to the fact that our only defence is to unite - and that often means putting your own opinion aside if you can't successfully argue why it's more valid than someone else's - we will never win against the powers of evil. We will certainly NEVER win while a group who are benefiting from a policy, or not affected, selfishly defend it despite it threatening great hurt to those who are excluded from the benefit or who will suffer hurt.

    The key to social and economic improvement is to stop ''boxing'' people and attacking this box to give that one favours, then that box to give this one favours.

    We need to encourage and reward endeavour so that we create general prosperity that makes social services affordable. And we need to STOP this nonsense of creating a competition to determine who is allegedly the most ''needy''. All that does is drive people to be seen as ''needy'' so they get favours.

    Many have argued here why the assets test is harmful and in favour of a universal aged pension with no means test. Recognizing that might be a bridge too far for society right now, I suggested going part-way by testing income only but including assessment of deemed income on non-returning or artificially low-returning assets, INCLUDING the family home - but over a generous threshold. That way, people are not punished for saving if they cant generate a healthy income. Ultimately, the universal pension, and perhaps eventually the universal income should be the goal.

    If we STOP carrying on about rent assistance (that is unfair to home owners) and pension increases (that are unfair to SFRs) and supporting policies that will hurt savers who invest, and start speaking in one voice on behalf of EVERYONE, we might make a difference.

    I think the reason minor parties fail is because they all devise policies that benefit X and hurt Y. I look at minor parties and say ''yes, that's a good idea'', but... oh dear! There's a policy I can't support. And when I write to politicians and present argument, I get STUPID PROPAGANDA in reply. (And sadly, the ALP response to argument about franking credit policies was the biggest load of irrelevant propaganda I've ever seen - they did not even attempt to answer even ONE of my questions.)

    We need prosperity to fund social services, and the only way to prosper is to support those who work and earn and save and invest responsibly. We need to STOP attacking the upper working class and middle class and find ways to stop the REALLY WEALTHY ripping off the nation. That's a tough call when it's the REALLY WEALTHY AND REALLY GREEDY who are making the policies! And it's an even tougher call when selfish or unconscious voters support anything that benefits them or hurts someone else, or that was proposed by their preferred party, rather than standing up for what's good for EVERYONE.
    Kathleen
    8th Apr 2018
    5:38pm
    OGR and a few others are very judgmental of pensioners. Some pensioners even do part time work and report their income and lose some of their pension which they are happy to do. I did so until I was nearly 70. Women, in particular, did not have the opportunity to amass a huge super. We spent a lot of years having children and looking after them. Some men retire early due to ill health and they never managed to build up super. Not all people have consistent work either. Being divisive between pensioners and self funded retirees is very nasty to say the least. We are all living in a wonderful country with freedoms that millions can’t imagine. There are other people in this country besides older Australians and they need jobs and futures too.
    Misty
    8th Apr 2018
    6:29pm
    Well said Kathleen.
    Anonymous
    9th Apr 2018
    7:38am
    Kathleen and Misty, I'd dumbfounded by the gross hypocrisy of this comment. After you and Misty have been so unbelievably divisive in your support for demolishing the lifestyles of SFRs... And so offensive in your claims that I am ''not genuine''.

    YOU TWO ARE THE ONES CREATING THE DIVISION.

    Your nastiness to SFRs and refusal to even consider the reasons why your support of demolishing their income was unfair and cruel was then compounded by an accusation that I was ''not genuine''. Why? Because the facts I revealed didn't suit your fantasy about the state of the world?

    Don't tell me about hardship. I've had more than 90% of Australians. I would NEVER be judgmental of pensioners. I grew up in the homes of poor pensioners who were the best people in the world. I've been reliant on benefits at times.

    But I am heartily sick of the entitled mentality of SOME of those who rely on the taxpayer for support, yet want the lifestyles of those who don't rely on the taxpayer demolished - and can't even engage in a respectful debate and present sensible reasons for supporting a cruel and destructive policy.

    All we get from you, Kathleen, is pro Labor BS. As if anything has anything to do with who proposed it! I want to debate the POLICY, not the morons who conceived it vs the other lot of morons who conceive equally harmful BS. And Misty simply claims a rational presentation of FACTS is not worth responding to. No, just keep on being vicious and cruel without ANY reason, and then accuse others of being ''divisive''' because YOUR BEHAVIOUR alienates them against selfish pensioners who are content to take handouts, but want those who fund them destroyed.

    I am not, and never have been, judgmental of pensioners. I AM, and make no apology for being, judgmental of the self-entitled and selfish brigade who take pensions and then attack those whose hard work is benefiting pensioners.

    10th Apr 2018
    8:38am
    I think I know a way to fix our country's budget. Let's introduce a tax on pensions. Take 30% before the pension is paid and give it to the tax man. Then if the pensioner lodges a tax return and has tax payable on other income, they can get it back as an offset against their tax payable. But if they have no other income, then they don't get it back as that would be a ''rort''.

    This is what Shorten is proposing to do to SFRs. Maybe by suggesting we treat pensioners that way, they will get it and stop supporting this unfairness. No, probably not! Too many of them can't think past ''they have more than me so take it away''.

    No, I am NOT denigrating pensioners - ONLY those who are too selfish or ignorant to support a demand that SFRs also be respected and be treated fairly under the tax system.