6th Jul 2016
The future of super in doubt – again

All the pre-election debate on superannuation reform may be for nought and the close Election 2016 result could be indicative of voter dismay at the major parties’ super proposals.

The Coalition’s changes to super could be in doubt even if it were to return to government, with many of its right-wing members now challenging the party to rethink its reforms.

Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz believes that the Coalition’s super policy may have discouraged its core voter base and, consequently, cost it votes. On election night, the Senator told the media that he would now advocate for the party to reconsider aspects of the plan.

"The issue of superannuation is very dear to the core base of the Liberal Party," Senator Abetz said.

Mr Turnbull’s own party is putting pressure on him to rethink the Coalition’s super policy. However, industry super spokespeople believe the proposed cuts to super concessions are too important for the country’s bottom line to be abandoned.

"One of the certainties is we need to get on with budget repair and this is part of it," said Industry Super Australia Chairman Peter Collins. "For those that would seek to wind back the decisions that Treasurer Scott Morrison made, there is a very clear warning: that you can't defer every aspect of budget repair, you can't please every single minor grievance out there in the electorate."

The Coalition’s plan for super is based around limiting tax-free super on balances up to $1.6 million. As of 1 July 2017, any money over that amount would need to be put into an accumulation account where earnings would be taxed at 15 per cent.

Under Labor, the annual earnings from super above $75,000 would be taxed at 15 per cent.

In a rare show of bipartisanship, both sides have agreed to reduce the annual income threshold from $300,000 to $250,000. Any contributions made over this amount would be taxed at 30 per cent instead of the 15 per cent currently paid.

Perhaps the most controversial measure that dissuaded voters is the Coalition’s plan for a lifetime cap of $500,000 on non-concessional super contributions. These are contributions that have already had tax paid on them. Should the Coalition return to government, the caps would be effective from 3 May and anyone who had made contributions totalling $500,000 between 1 July 2007 would be deemed to have used up their cap.

The lifetime cap has disrupted the future savings plans for those heading towards retirement.

The Coalition was also planning to limit the annual caps on concessional contributions to $25,000, instead of $30,000 for those under 50 and $35,000 for those aged 50 and over. Labor plans to leave the caps as they are.

Should The Greens play kingmaker, it may come with a stipulation that the government’s super policy does not adversely affect low- to middle-income earners.

Regardless of who comes into government, and even though the Coalition’s super proposals are part of Budget 2016/17, a lot would need to happen for super changes to take place on 1 July 2017. Legislation would need to be drafted, bills would then need to be introduced and then comes the arduous task of getting the changes through the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Although there is a strong sign of bipartisan support for top-end cuts, a minority government would make any further changes to super less likely.

Read more at The Age
Read more at The Australian Financial Review

Opinion: Messing with retirees’ future

One thing that’s clear in this situation is that there is a lot of talk about super but very little action.

Many older Australians confused and dissuaded by the uncertain future of super took to the polls with their response to the two major parties’ seeming lack of care for issues that affect retirees. That response? A vote for independents and minor parties.

There was a lot of talk about super prior to and immediately after Budget 2016/17. But when the major parties realised it was an unpopular topic of conversation – coupled with the resulting confusion about the proposed policies – the super discussion seemed to be left by the wayside during the election campaign.

The Liberal party may have lost some votes over its unpopular super plans, but so too did Labor. According to an Australian Financial Review reader survey, many superannuants chose to vote independent because they felt there was no alternative.

Our current superannuation saga makes one point clear: don’t plan your future around supposition and hypothetical changes. And that lesson becomes even more pertinent with the prospect of a minority government.

The Coalition feels it can still run the country with a minority government, only it will do so attempting to pass one policy at a time. The Election 2016 result, which means more independent and minor party input in the Senate, may be a blessing in disguise, as the interests of the individual may come more into play than the interests of the top end and unions. There is a faint hope that all the big boys and girls in Parliament could play nice and come up with proposals and plans that genuinely reflect the needs of the people. Although, based on history, that may be a pie in the sky notion.

Either way, it’s clear that super needs a rethink. Maybe the Coalition can again take a cue from Labor and take a cautious approach to accepting and reviewing superannuation changes, and actually consult super industry specialists for advice on how best to manage the future of super.

First things first, if the Coalition wants to unify all parties – should it return to government – it needs to focus on dealing with itself. A party that cannot govern itself cannot be expected to govern the country.

Did the major parties’ super policies influence your vote? Do you worry about the future of super? Do you think there’s a possibility of a cooperative approach to super, or any other policy for that matter?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    adbob
    6th Jul 2016
    10:24am
    "Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz believes that the Coalition’s super policy may have discouraged its core voter base and, consequently, cost it votes."

    That's been extensively propagated in the media, but it's complete nonsense. In a compulsory voting scenario, such as we have here, who did they vote for instead?

    "The issue of superannuation is very dear to the core base of the Liberal Party," Senator Abetz said."

    I'll just re-phrase that:

    "Tax avoidance is very dear to the core base of the Liberal Party," Senator Abetz said.

    Still - at least we can be thankful that we live in a democracy. As far as super goes we all had two clear choices to make: one a party in the pockets of the super rich and the "financial services" industry: the other one a party in the pockets of the super rich and the "financial services" industry.

    Both determined to steal the (long-time promised and paid for) age pensions from ordinary folk and force them to live at the same level on their own savings - or rather what's left of their own savings after the super industry has gouged its fees out of them.
    Alexii
    6th Jul 2016
    12:09pm
    Well said, Adbob.
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    4:28pm
    The Liberal Party is a master of blame and deceit. It gave me particular pleasure to see Jacqui Lambie put Julie Bishop in her place as Bishop tried on the 'poor victim me' bit in front of the election coverage broadcast on Saturday night.
    Migrant
    6th Jul 2016
    10:35am
    The constant changes to super require action.
    The time has come to define the framework for the three tiers of super, and the rules,and regulations by which super is governed, so that a Social Contract is established among the stakeholders: Government, Industry, unions and Members, both employed, self employed, and unemployed, and all genders.
    I suggest an Act defining the objectives is passed, followed by an Act setting out the broad framework, and a set of regulations defining the detail. Provision would be necessary to prevent these being altered unless approved by a majority of each House.(Should this be a simple majority, or a two thirds majority ?)
    The new framework should apply to all in future, with no exceptions for MPs, not for profit, and other groups which currently enjoy special privileges.
    Migrant
    Migrant.
    adbob
    6th Jul 2016
    10:48am
    The changes described in the article only apply to the extremely well-off.

    Recent changes (which cut in on 1 Jan 2017) stole part-pensions from ordinary folk who either believed the lies of the financial advice industry or had nowhere else to put their money. Without further changes the very well off (eg super balances of $2,000,000 or more) were untouched and continued to pay zero tax of any sort - zero on the earnings from their investments - zero on what they draw down.

    The current proposed changes (a promise extracted by the Greens and also ALP policy) go a small way - only a very small way - to making that ludicrous situation slightly fairer.

    The people Abetz refers to as the "core" of the Liberal party are actually himself and his rich mates on the extreme right of the party. If Abetz and his mates controlled their own party it would be polling similar figures to Family First - in fact they'd probably amalgamate.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    12:38pm
    These changes will effect everyone. Simply because your accounting fees will increase due to the added complexity that comes with either parties super proposals. So to say they only effect the well of is not true. The well off will find another way but if you have super how are you going to save your fee increase?
    KSS
    6th Jul 2016
    12:45pm
    adbob your assertion that the super changes in the article only apply to the extremely well off is totally untrue. That is unless you have redefined what 'extremely well off' means.

    They affect me and in no way can I be described as 'extremely well-off'. I am over 60, single and work for a NFP NGO on a salary well under the national average. I have a mortgage on a very modest unit and bills to pay just like everyone else and I am solely responsible for them. Currently I am able to take advantage of the transition to retirement arrangements and salary sacrifice up to the full amount of $36000 (including employer contributions) into super and make up the difference with a small amount as a pension and the lower tax rate paid on the salary sacrifice. Should these changes go ahead, I will only be able to sacrifice up to $25000 some $11000 LESS than now Add to that the lost compound interest and it will make a significant difference to the total available when I eventually retire.

    As far as the concessional $500000 lifetime cap goes, this is going to affect everyone of fairly modest means who inherit property/financial bequests/or the sale of say a small business that was earmarked for super. You do not have to be 'extremely well-off' to reach that cap. Particularly if someone started making extra payments when they start work as we have all been encouraged to do given the recognition that employer contributions alone will not be enough. This cap is too low even for people with modest incomes.

    So adbob, tell me again how these changes only affect the 'extremely well-off'.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    1:16pm
    Check with your financial advisor as I am hearing they may have worked a way around the transition to retirement pension.
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    4:33pm
    KSS: who do you think brought the changes you complain about in? Not the pope you know.
    Before you crow Liberal Party blue you need to work out what is fair (?) and what is an attack on those who are only treading water.
    The attacks on retirees and the closing of the pension to many who are not all that well off is the second tier. Same government! Same ends!
    Rae
    6th Jul 2016
    4:54pm
    Actually MICK I believe the money stripped from part pensioners is the 2.3 billion Morrison was crowing about. That is money gone now from Main Street and into the hands of contract corporates and developers.

    Not any way to increase business for ordinary people.

    Funny how these pensioners were the only Australians to end up paying the price for the incompetence of government revenue raisers.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    5:16pm
    The transition to retirement changes came about because it was being used to minimise tax and that was not it's intention.

    Yes the pensioners had to pay because it just goes to show that the pension is way too generous to what the rest of Australia gets.
    KSS
    6th Jul 2016
    5:21pm
    Mick get over yourself. For a start I was not complaining simply stating what is a fact and contrary to adbob's assertion that the changes affected the 'extremely well-off'.

    As usual you fire off without actually reading the contribution you whine about.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    10:57am
    It'll always be totally confused and uncertain as long as there is a mish-mash of treatment of retirees policies, oft-times based on personal prejudices and set in place at any given time to suit some thought bubble inflated by some think-tank of self-interested, navel-gazing insiders with no real idea.

    You can super all you want - but you don't get to cop tax dodges at both ends, same as negative gearing and then capital gains concessions, and all should be treated the same in retirement, without one rule for some and another for others.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    10:58am
    Oh - just collected my super - looking at a 30ft powered yacht in which to cruise the world.... hard life on a pension..
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2016
    12:01pm
    Congrats TREBOR I did the same I decide to travel the world I got small Jet and travel around Asian countries yes yes hard times as pensioner for sure I am suffering ......
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    12:40pm
    How did you go getting your pilots licence?
    jeffr
    6th Jul 2016
    12:57pm
    Wonder if I could buy Bronwyn's Helicoptor, Hire Barnaby Joyces Helicoptor and also Julia Bishops Plane...Nah...not enough super.
    Rae
    6th Jul 2016
    1:40pm
    Good call TREBOR. You may as well enjoy the world while you still can.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    2:16pm
    My pilot's licence has the red stamp of inner ear problem and can't hear the tower..... no renewal - hence the boat. Might still build that *(coughs)* 'ultra-light' in the shed....
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    7:46pm
    The (um) Trebor special has about 230 hp, a cruising speed of around 200 knots.... yes, sir, Mr Inspector - that IS an ultralight right there!
    Biddy
    6th Jul 2016
    11:19am
    Perhaps Labor is right about the Liberals once they get the smell of winning a majority vote they start changing everything they said they wouldn't ,how can they change the superannuation system but this is typical ,One wonders if they have changed theirs also,or a they the lucky ones and still get all the perks that poloticans are use to,so Medicare also will be the next ,they can't leave things alone Eric Abetz says that superannuation is the core base of the Liberals what a joke,or did he really mean tax avoidance is the core base of the Liberals
    Golden Oldie
    6th Jul 2016
    3:20pm
    Tax avoidance is their main objective, then send their illgotten gains offshore to avoid more tax.
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    4:36pm
    Only ever expect a coalition government to grease the palm of the hand which feeds it. Of course pollies of all persuasion look after number 1 first. Nothing new about that as this is the arrogance of absolute power.
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2016
    11:53am
    Well if the Liberal party stay on there own without the help of Liberal National, The Nationals and Country Liberals probably the party will disappear (70 seats with help from others).
    Comparing with Labour on their own right with 71 seats and the Coalition (4 parties together) 70

    Everybody looks at them as the Liberals ????? is the Coalition not just the Liberals

    On my book the Labour party is the winner on their own rights.

    Am I correct or I am not seen the picture ??? please let me know
    Tom Tank
    6th Jul 2016
    12:05pm
    The ALP is the only party that has had a majority in the Lower House in it's own right for many years.
    The Conservative Governments have always been at least two parties together.
    Even in this election the ALP will win more seats than any other single party.
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2016
    12:24pm
    Thanks Tom Tank that is what I am looking on the voting history on an individual parties (Non Coalitions) so realy Australia has a Labour ideology for sure.
    Thanks
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    12:36pm
    Rubbish Labor has relied upon the greens for years to get them over the line. Without the green vote they would be in the wilderness for years.
    Rae
    6th Jul 2016
    1:45pm
    Let's hope the LNP coalition gets their act together this next few years or they may be in the wilderness for a very long time.

    They have one chance to use all that money made from selling our assets to create this growth and jobs they are forever on about.

    They need to get control of their contractors and see the work is carried out. Right now we are paying private contractors and providers far too much for very poor service and results.
    Tom Tank
    6th Jul 2016
    2:02pm
    I Think Old Geezer that you are not reading what I wrote.
    I wrote that only the ALP has ruled the Lower House in it's own right.
    The Libs have always gone into a Coalition with the Nats and often need the Nats to give them the numbers in the house. The ALP has won more seats, certainly at this stage, than the Libs have on their own in this election.
    Perhaps reading this again might help you understand what has been written.
    It has absolutely nothing to do with preferences. Don't forget the Coalition was elected for year because of DLP preferences.
    I know sometimes the truth hurts.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    2:28pm
    Yes I am reading what you say correctly but I don't believe it. I know that Labor has to depends on the greens to get into power and thus the greens must have a big influence in the way Labor governs the country. The fact that the LNP has 42% of the primary vote and Labor has under 35% tells a story in itself.
    Sundays
    6th Jul 2016
    3:19pm
    I think you'll find old geezer that the Greens have supported the Liberal lately. E.g changes to the asset test for pensioners, and support of the double dissolution
    Tom Tank
    6th Jul 2016
    3:25pm
    You are doing again Old Geezer you are adding the number of votes for two parties together when you quote LNP.
    The ALP and Greens have fought each other in this election for seats in the Lower House and in the Senate so how can you possibly assert that the Greens have a big influence on the way the ALP would govern the country? It would only be if the ALP entered into an arrangement as some sort of coalition that the Greens would have any influence on the ALP.
    The LIbs and Nats don't oppose each other do they?
    It looks more likely that the Libs and Nats will come together to form a government with the possibility of needing Bob Katter should they fall short of the necessary numbers.
    In that case Katter WILL have an influence on how the LNP govern. We may even see a Royal Commission into the Banks as Katter has been wanting that for a long time.
    Don't forget that there have been 5 occasions when the party with the most votes nationwide failed to get the seats in Parliament to form a Government. Only once was that the LNP and the rest of the time it was the ALP.
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    4:39pm
    Spot on Aussie. The coalition trolls are dressing it up but it is what it is. If they believe otherwise then amalgamate their splinter parties into one LIBERAL PARTY. Won't be happening any time soon.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    7:48pm
    Anyway - the latest is:- http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-20499.htm

    Liberals 45... (-13)

    Liberal Nationals 19 ... (-3)

    Nationals 10... (+1)

    Country Liberals 0.... (-1)

    LNP total = 74 (-16) and not a majority in the house.

    Labor 71.... (+ 16)

    Greens 1

    Katter 1

    Xenophon 1

    Independents 2

    Should be some serious horse trading going on about now... and I'd say that puts to bed any discussion of Labor/Greens v Liberal on their own, Nationals on their own etc.... Labor have 16 more seats than the Liberals do..... and the Greens one.
    Scrivener
    6th Jul 2016
    11:58am
    I listened to Turnbull lat night and to Morrison this morning and they STILL don't get it.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    1:03pm
    I still don't get it either other than some social media folks decided to change their voting habits and see what happened without thinking of the consequences.
    OlderandWiser
    6th Jul 2016
    1:37pm
    You make wild assumptions, Old Geezer. I certainly thought about the consequences and so did everyone I know who voted for Labor, Independents or minor parties. They wanted to send a strong message to the LNP that we are FED UP with their social engineering and economic mismanagement and we are FED UP with their destruction of the health, education and welfare systems. We want ORDINARY Australians looked after, and we want an end to obscenely indulging the excessive greed of the rich and privileged at our expense.

    Plenty of thought went into voting. It's sad that an arrogant and contemptuous LNP positioned us with so few good choices and forced this result on the nation, but blame the LNP, not the voters.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    1:56pm
    I don't blame the LNP I blame the voters and that blatant lie that labor pushed way beyond what it should have done. That text I got from Medicare was against the law.

    I know what went on on social media as I too read it like lots of other forums to find out what is going on. That is also what convinced me to back a hung parliament. I'm just so amazed at what people without thinking these days. They just seem to follow others without a second thought. Now if I could work out that from social media then that's all there is to it.

    What rubbish about most people voting responsibility. Voting to many Australia is just another hassle in their lives they could do without. I hearing reports of people queuing for hours and then just having their names marked off because they were over it by the time they go to the end of the queue. I am also hearing that some booths run out of voting papers so just crossed off people's names. No wonder people have no interest in voting or worse still use pre poll voting.

    If we had online voting it would all be over by now. Wrestling with those Senate papers in those small voting booths was enough for most people to give up. Fancy counting votes by hand in this electronic age. Electronic voting could be done at about a quarter of the cost and stop all this time wasting that is currently going on.

    That is what is really wrong with our government no matter who is in power.
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    4:44pm
    Geezer: you are a rusted on ex pollie liberal. As with all of your cohort you behave corruptly and blame everybody other than your miserable selves for being spat out for the bad taste your party has left in the mouths of the electorate. Were it not for another blatant propaganda campaign from the media Turnbull would have had a swing of 40% not 4%.
    Many of us know when we are being lied to and we do not like being spoken down to and told what to do by deceitful low life rats who conspire to mislead rather than convince voters with logic and facts.
    The coalition makes me feel sick in the stomach. The current lot are a virus and need to be sent into retirement.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    5:21pm
    Looking like the Liberals will get back in now so sense will prevail at last. They deserve it with 42% of the primary vote to Labor's lousy 35%.
    ex PS
    6th Jul 2016
    5:49pm
    Old Geezer, for the sake of your own credibility you need to acknowledge the thoughtful and well presented arguments against voting for the major so calleds. The fact is your arguments for staying with the flock and voting for traditional political entities did not prevail, just because the majority did not agree with you does not make them wrong. Have you considered it may be the other way round?
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    8:59pm
    And one might wonder if they have doctored postal votes or not.
    Bonny
    6th Jul 2016
    10:28pm
    Fortunately Mick postal votes is something that the LNP seems to be able to organise a lot better than Labor. So why wouldn't the postal votes flow in favour of the LNP? Afterall they are assisting these people who otherwise may not be able to vote.
    Kato
    6th Jul 2016
    12:01pm
    The LNP have been sickly sweet in there interviews thinking they may have created a hung parliament or even a loss now that it is swinging back there way the swagger and arrogance is returning. Even if they do get a majority what a hollow victory still have to horse trade with the senate and the LNP vote without the help of the Nationals will not give them confidence.
    I reckon Barnanbuy might be pushing for the top job after saving them.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    2:40pm
    You mean Bananaboy Joyce?
    pete@nakedhydroponics
    6th Jul 2016
    12:07pm
    Superannuation is a tax to cover the pension, always has been. Keating knew damn well no political party would have a frog's chance in hell of being elected if they just put up income tax on all wage and salary earners, so he made it mandatory for all workers to give 9% (now) of their wages to a bunch of suits, to play silly buggers on the stock casino with other peoples money, and walk away with egregious salaries and bonuses, win or lose. Sadly for the Gubbament, people can't see -directly- how their taxes are being used, but they can see what happens to their super.
    We're being ripped off, as usual. A lot of people are getting obscenely rich on our money, while we take all the risks.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    12:34pm
    If you use your super as a tax shelter and not merely as a vehicle to accumulate funds for your retirement it is a very effective way of saving money and tax. Best thing I did with my super was set up my SMSF where I control it and not pay the suits heaps so that I get any the scraps left over.
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    4:47pm
    And here you are Geezer telling people to use superannuation as a Tax Shelter. That has been the argument against the unfairness of the current system: IT WAS SET UP TO ALLOW THE RICH TO LAUNDER THEIR MONEY AND AVOID THE REAL TAX SYSTEM. That is the fraud and here you are telling people to use it as such.
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2016
    4:54pm
    Hey MICK Old Geezer gets very silence when challenge he he he
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    5:05pm
    No it's not fraud it is just the only useful thing about our super system. It can be used as a tax shelter and that is why that lifetime amount of $500,000 you can put into super was introduced.
    ex PS
    6th Jul 2016
    6:26pm
    Old Geezer, I don't exactly know how you derived your particular views on Superannuation, they seem quirky to me and that is me trying to put it politely.
    I am a self funded retiree, my main income is derived through Super. I started my fund in my mid 20's, I made regular payments along with my employers and the only thing I did differently from my co-workers was to pay attention to the investment mix and make changes to suit the economy. Though I was aware of the tax incentives it did not form a great part of my decision to participate in a super scheme.
    I like many others were sold private schemes that were designed to allow working people the opportunity to put some of their earnings away so that they could leave work at a predetermined age and live comfortably while they waited to qualify for a pension, it was never represented as a substitute for a pension and at no stage was it even hinted at that the government would have a say in how you collected, managed or spent the money that you and your fund earned.
    The only time I have seen super funds lose long term is when people have been convinced that the way their super was invested was a lazy use of assets and they changed their investment mix in order to chase better rates.
    To me, your assertion that Super is only good as a tax dodge is misleading and harmful to those who have no other avenue in which to improve their retirement.
    Having said all of this I need to say that under the current unclear circumstances around super, I would not advise young people to invest extra into super. We need to see if government has got the message that super is not their own private cash machine.
    Bonny
    6th Jul 2016
    10:09pm
    Way back in the 1980s I had a small amount of super put into a fund by my employer at the time. I was making a great return on my other money and this super was going nowhere year after year. So I thought I can do better than that myself. So I set up my own SMSF and today it is many times it's original value. I take out the minimum so it is tax free but it continues to grow in value each year.

    Back not long after I started work I was told that there would not be a pension available due to too many people retiring so I have never expected to be paid any form of welfare state after I retired. I really can't understand why people still think they are entitled to it because they worked and paid taxes etc.

    To me super is just a small part of my retirement income that is nice to have.
    ex PS
    7th Jul 2016
    11:57pm
    And I left mine in a Defined Benefit account for twenty years, and retired at 55 with no debt a new house and a very healthy Super Pension and more to look forward to when my wife retires after forty years. And of course we have just sold the first house that we had together.
    I think this demonstrates the worth of making a plan and sticking with it. Neither my wife or myself had high paying jobs for many years, I was fortunate enough to do well for the last 5-6 years of my working life, and managed to salary sacrifice a good part of my wages but Super worked for me and a good deal of my friends both in government and Private Enterprise.
    I state now that I have never been wealthy and do not consider myself that now, I believe that it could have worked out differently and I could be looking at drawing a pension. This is why I will always advocate that those who are drawing their entitlement that is a pension should be treated with the dignity that they deserve.
    Aussie
    8th Jul 2016
    1:05am
    Thank you ex PS

    I agree with you to be treated with dignity but unfortunately there are a lot of people like OG, KSS, Bonny (The 3 Amigos) and many others in this forum that consider that the pension is welfare and that we should only be allowed to received if we are in real need also if any of us is overseas we should not be allowed to receive any pension ...... All this comments made by this retrograded people are very insulting and totally disrespectful to us very hard workers for over 45 years collaborating with big taxes to the gov. account.

    Unfortunately we have to many very very jealous people and dangerous to our day living with very sweeping statements without learning about the reality.

    If you are Overseas you get the minimum pension and in fact you will save over $4,000 dollars a year to the gov plus no Medicare no free travel ($2.00 x day in NSW) or any other health concessions.
    But they just make all this derogative comments to all of us.

    I work until 2014 very hard change my profession from IT Engineer to Teacher to continue working (Now 73) so yes this are bad people on my book and I will hammer them every time they make this type of comments ...makes me happy to kick their arrogance and ignorance
    Alexii
    6th Jul 2016
    12:13pm
    I notice there is no mention in the article about the changes to the assets test for self-funded retirees - the changes that will make us considerably poorer from the 1st January, 2017. They obviously don;t give a stuff about us.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    12:31pm
    If you are effected by the asset test you are not a self funded retiree. You are a welfare recipient. You need to realise that you can spend down your capital until you get it lower enough again to qualify for welfare.
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2016
    12:39pm
    Old Geezer Please learn read and then make a comment for god say there is a lot of documentation about the Pension it is obvious that you have a big super, Rentals and other incomes because your comments about and I quote ..."You are a welfare recipient." are very ignorant and insulting comment please learn and read
    Do not put yourself in the lowest category of ignorance please be part of this forum with some base intelligent knowledge.

    PENSION IS NOT A WELFARE .....get it in your small head
    Alexii is not on welfare are you on the pension ?????
    If you are not on the pension what in hell you doing in this forum ?????
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    12:51pm
    Pension is welfare because it is not an entitlement so get used to it as being called welfare. Even the pollies are now calling it welfare. Not I am not ignorant I am telling it how it is. If it is insulting then you have a problem because that is what it is.

    I am on this forum because I am retired and there is another side to retirement that welfare people seem to have no idea about. We support ourselves, still pay tax and ask nothing for the taxpayers. Note we have also paid tax and support this country over our working years but unlike welfare recipients do not expect to be paid just because we have retired.
    KSS
    6th Jul 2016
    1:00pm
    Alexii, this forum is for anyone over the age of 45+ not just those on some sort of government payment (welfare). See here for the about us page of this forum:https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/about/about-us

    So Old Geezer has every right to be on this forum - assuming he is in fact over 45 - as do you; pension or no pension.

    And I agree with Old Geezer that the age pension is just another form of welfare. It is not an entitlement otherwise everyone would have it and no asset test would be necessary to determine who is qualified to receive it. Until such time as there is a universal pension for all payable from the day one retires from paid employment, it will remain welfare for which you need to qualify.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    1:06pm
    Thanks KSS. It irks me that people try to cover up their welfare status by saying they are self funded retirees.
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2016
    1:38pm
    Of Course KSS will support you he he he he all the same no worries call it welfare I do not care I have my jet and travel around Asia Thanks to all of you paying for my travel he he he

    Thanks a lot for my welfare you are correct .....I agree totally call it welfare Yeahhh welcome to the Aussie welfare

    I can not waist my time with people like you 2

    Bye
    adbob
    6th Jul 2016
    1:44pm
    What really irks Old Geezer is that he's doing all right - Jack - and he's happy to see the majority of middle earners - who did exactly what the "financial advisers" and others (such as this e-zine) told them to do - put something by to *top up* their age pension - buy (up to 2007) a complying income stream (super industry coming in for some fees again) with 50% assets test exemption - all geared for that. then out of the blue Hockey shafts them - one group paying the price for the whole nation.

    What beats me is how people bang on about the old sadly worn-out national tropes - mateship - lucky country. It was really only good fot the short postwar period when the country was so lucky that Joe Average didn't notice the Double Bay diddlers ripping him off.

    Go back a bit further - Once a Jolly Swagman ... - nothing jolly about swagmen - they were beggars - forced to take to the road to get by - th enation could perfectly well have afforded welfare for them - but the rich and the comfortably off were too mean.

    This is a harsh country with backward attitudes - and getting worse. Even the US is moving in the opposite direction. Even Greece, in all its travails, isn't robbing retirees of their pensions.

    Only Australia - where the supposedly left-wing party (the ALP) was h-jacked by two neocons - Keating and Hawke dares to do that.

    Look at the shenanigans in the UK - their Tory party is way to the left of our supposedly centrist Liberal Party - and adapt one of the buzz phrases they had atr aprevious election, for those silly enough to vote for them: Go to bed with Malcom Turnbull - wake up with George Brandis and Eric Abetz.

    Take a look at the rest of the world now and again before you start calling basic age pensions "welfare". Nobody else does that - it's a rebranding that's unique to this country.
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2016
    1:51pm
    Do not worry adbob this people have no idea other than themselves and because they are well off we all pensioners are welfare recipients he he he he what a bunch great Australians that never read the instruction book he he he he maybe I taken them for a trip on my welfare paid Jet so they can see the world how about that .....Great idea.

    No worries mate I have to ignore them have no choice I do not get down to their lower level of knowledge we know better he he he

    Take care adbob
    OlderandWiser
    6th Jul 2016
    1:55pm
    Old Geezer and KSS, I don't expect to be paid just because I've retired. What I do expect is for the governments to be HONEST, EITHICAL, DECENT and FAIR. That means:

    (1) honouring the obligations it created with past programs and promises, INCLUDING recognizing that those who had no superannuation PAID for their retirement through an early version of the current superannuation system, managed by the ATO, and they have a right to claim THEIR MONEY, just as superannuants insist on claiming the right of ownership of their contributions. The difference, of course, is that superannuants also claim the profits of investing and the massive tax deductions that those who saved for retirement through the ATO can't hope to gain.

    (2) honouring ELECTION promises, made to win votes, including the promise NOT to tamper with aged pensions

    (3) respecting the elderly and acknowledging that past leaders rightly and justly declared that it was disrespectful and blatantly WRONG to brand any retiree who contributed to this nation for decades a ''welfare recipient'' and to treat them as second class citizens. Only the worst SCUM are that disrespectful to the people who built this nation.

    (4) Withdrawing from the blatant lies about the cost of supporting senior Australians, while paying more into the pockets of the wealthy (as grossly unfair superannuation tax concessions), proposing absurd tax cuts to multi-billion-dollar corporations (much of the benefit of which will flow to the US IRS) and ignoring the tax avoidance of highly profitable multi-nationals that don't pay their way.

    (5) implementing FAIRNESS, instead of the grossly unfair system that leaves too many in poverty and vast numbers denied fair reward for hard work and frugal living and specific grave disadvantage ignored, while loading up the coffers of the select few who happen to fall into an arbitrary classification that the government favours.

    (6) stopping the blatant lies about being fair, and prioritizing the poor, when in fact the assets test change gave NOT ONE CENT to the genuinely hard up, but indulged those with a few hundred thousand in saving while grinding those who saved a little more aggressively into hardship and handing the rewards for their extra effort to others.

    Who is or isn't entitled to an aged pension under a dishonest, corrupt and morally wrongful system that denies people the benefit of funds that were SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATED TO PROVIDE THAT BENEFIT, but were STOLEN by politicians, is NOT RELEVANT. What is relevant is what is TRUE and MORALLY RIGHT.

    There is NO SUCH THING as a SELF-FUNDED RETIREE. The self-opinionated egotists who defame pensioners actually accrued their wealth through UNFAIR tax concessions and employer-provided benefits that were ONLY available to the PRIVILEGED. And now they look down their noses at the UNDERPRIVILEGED who didn't have access to those GIFTS, but worked their guts out honestly and EARNED respect in retirement. That's DISGUSTING!
    OlderandWiser
    6th Jul 2016
    1:58pm
    BTW. I am NOT a pensioner and possibly never will be, but I would never be so arrogant and disrespectful as to use the term ''welfare recipient' for someone who worked and paid taxes for 4 or 5 decades but didn't earn enough to be self-sufficient in today's hideously challenging economic environment.
    Rae
    6th Jul 2016
    2:03pm
    Even less said about the defined benefit pensioners who had to pay full tax and got no tax concessions who have already lost their part pensions and health cards. They are also the Greens lower and middle income earners.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    2:23pm
    Where have you been Rainey as all thus stuff is history and so last century?

    Since I got no employer super or tax concessions for super I can thus wear my self funded retiree badge with pride.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    2:43pm
    OG and KSS - don't make me post the link that totally destroys your position again - accept that you are totally wrong and MOVE ON!

    Pensions and Unemployment Benefits etc are NOT welfare - they are social security bought and paid for over generations now.
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2016
    3:06pm
    Because of people like OG and KSS and many others our beautiful country has been going backwards in comparison with the rest of the world our politicians thinkings are back on the 50's and still dreaming with the lucky country ???? What lucky Country in 2016 ????? Australia ...what a joke

    We are at least 10 behind the rest of the world just look at the Internet we have just a total disgrace in comparison with any country in the Asian world.

    We need new leaders that work for us and not for warm their seats in parliament ..... Where are our young future leaders ??????
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    3:15pm
    Yes we still we live in the luckiest country in the world even though far too many people now have a welfare mentality. This is what is degrading our country the most. People not wanting or willing to work. No one what to help old people live in their own homes. Have you tried getting a live in helper these days? There are plenty of these jobs available. People are now importing workers to do these jobs because no one in Australia is available to do them. One old lady I know has had a live in worker from other country that she absolutely adores and now wants to bring the rest of her family over to help with her gardens and help others like her. Best part it that her application has been approved.

    Why can't Australians do these jobs?
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2016
    3:33pm
    Simple answer dear Old Geezer no Aussie is prepare to clean up any poo left by older people or pee on the floor or be abused by an older grouch because they do not do what they want them to do.

    There are many many examples of mistreatment of workers in this area.

    Also they pay is not to the Australian personal standards that is why you see so many Asian people that are very happy to come and work in this area for a lot less money that any Aussie will do and they are happy they have a job.
    As far as voluntary work you need to consider the cost of insurance for each individual employ as volunteer and the legal implications our country has put to execute all work duties including union restrictions.

    I strongly believe that they are many Aussies willing to help but they are restricted by union and insurance rules, this days you must be registered and have clearance to do any type of work of this kind specially if you deal with Kids have a look at the different policies and requirements to execute any of this jobs this days.

    Is not longer like use to be ... Just go and help ...sorry no more today are regulations and clearance to go over before you start work.
    I have been getting clear certification every year to be able to continue to teach IT project management in TAFE without clearing no jos

    So is not as easy as use to be
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    3:45pm
    Something needs to be done so that people can get jobs without all those restrictions and insurance issues. We have become over governed by way too much regulations which hinder people getting jobs. No wonder we have so many foreign workers in Australia today.
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    4:51pm
    Here we go again. The same posters maintaining that the Pension is Welfare.....when historically money was deducted from the pay of workers to fund their future pension. Now this has been amalgamated with general revenue and you get the rusted on party hacks like Geezer (ala Frank) running the same old game.
    Let's move on boys.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    5:05pm
    As long as you agree Mick that the age pension is welfare.
    Retired Knowall
    6th Jul 2016
    5:51pm
    Can someone educate me on the Pension?
    1) how much of an average persons tax went into this Pension Bucket?
    2) what Bucket pays the pension of those that have never worked?
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    6:41pm
    Way back - it was 7% and was shown on pay packets as pension tax. The overall pool, which was stipulated to view no difference between eventual recipients based on input - was drawn from a portion of income tax and amounts taken from other taxes.... all taxes and thus all paid for.

    The Great Pension Robbery took place when the government decided, off its own bat, to include that sovereign fund in 'consolidated revenue' - and successive governments and particularly those of the wrong stamp for this country - have set about determinedly ensuring that this funding never sees the light of day (unless it is to fund their lifestyle for life, that is).

    Once again - for the unknowing, the deliberate unknowing and those who genuinely wish to know - from the horse's mouth:-

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de00296978!OpenDocument

    It seems that every time this issue is discussed - I need to re-teach the class the basics, since some are intent on never learning truth and reality.
    Bonny
    6th Jul 2016
    10:18pm
    If anything ever went into the pension bucket it was emptied out decades ago. Today it is empty so no one gets anything out of it. Welfare comes out of tax revenue each year and is unfunded.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    11:17pm
    Totally incorrect, Bonny - the amounts still went in - they were just included in consolidated revenue - that in no way removes the obligation on government to pay the agreed bill.

    The pension till was never empty since it was always filled up at the current rate for the day, and still has cash set aside for the future.....

    You are too used to accepting lies as truth. Try reading the link sometime, and show me where any government returned to the PAYE person a proportion of tax that was previously set aside for social security.

    Can't be done... it would be a change for some of you to actually read links that show the truth, instead of my constantly having to re-post it for you. Are you so dependent you need spoon-feeding?
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    11:18pm
    .. and it's not welfare - you've had that explained to you a thousand times.

    Slow learner it seems.
    Bonny
    7th Jul 2016
    8:15am
    Welfare should only be for those that need it not those who believe they should get it. Yes the pension is welfare as not everyone is entitled to get it.

    I know whonthe slow learner is.
    Retired Knowall
    7th Jul 2016
    2:50pm
    I'm still confused. If 7% of a persons pay went into the pension bucket then invested at say an average of 5% pa and the person worked for 45 years, how long would the bucket last until empty.
    Also who funds the people who have never worked? Are they the ones on Welfare?
    Aussie
    7th Jul 2016
    11:19pm
    Definitely the 3 Amigos Old Geezer, KSS and yes Bonny with their strong liberal old fashion from the 1800's believes and yes yes yes hey

    "THE PENSION IS A WELFARE".

    You really need to be educated in what the pension is

    Read MICK comments ..... with lots of links

    I Quote MICK ...."Here we go again. The same posters maintaining that the Pension is Welfare.....when historically money was deducted from the pay of workers to fund their future pension. Now this has been amalgamated with general revenue and you get the rusted on party hacks like Geezer (ala Frank) running the same old game.".

    Education is important to be able to make comments that really offend people so you are offending lots of Australian pensioners ...shame of you 3 amigos
    ex PS
    8th Jul 2016
    12:03am
    Old Geezer, you can put makeup on a pig and call it a beauty queen, but it is still a pig. It does not matter how many times you call an entitlement welfare, it will still be an entitlement.
    I hope your LNP mates don't realise this, because I want to see them slapped again in the next election.
    Retired Knowall
    8th Jul 2016
    10:01am
    can someone correct me if my calculations are wrong:
    calculating the amount quoted as going into a mythical Pension Bucket as 7% of the tax from the Average Wage from 1970 to 2016 with a growth rate of 5% would be $52700.
    At the current rate of Pension, that would fund most Pensioners for 2 years.
    After that it's Welfare. Those that have never worked it's total Welfare.
    ex PS
    9th Jul 2016
    5:05pm
    Old Geezer, I find your comment in regard to live in help most humorous.
    I don't think most people have a difficult time finding home help. But someone who is selfish, self centred, ignorant of other peoples feelings and basically a bullying want to be, would find it difficult to get even the most desperate human being to work for them.
    Maybe you need to use a recruiting agent?
    I am not amused though with your stupid comment about not having restrictions like insurances and regulations in the workforce, I take it that you were not one of the camp followers lining up to take a pot shot at the LNP over the lack of training provided by companies when people were killed installing pink bats?
    If you were we can discount your statement as being hypocritical and blatantly political. If not you are just ignorant and thoughtless. Who will pay the expenses for all of those maimed or killed if we take these basic rights of protection away from workers? Or are they not really rights but some form of welfare, as you are so fond of using that term inappropriately and out of context?
    ex PS
    9th Jul 2016
    5:10pm
    Apologies, that political reference should have read ALP. I visited the Jamieson factory earlier today and hit the Caskmate pretty heavily.
    Lookfar
    6th Jul 2016
    12:14pm
    I reckon its time the fiscal conservatives left the room altogether, at least that might save our democracy, - here is an interesting article on why, - derivedfrom the following link.
    http://itsthepeoplesmoney.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/confessions-of-former-fiscal.html

    Confessions of a former fiscal conservative

    Yes, I used to be so proud of the elevated moral ground I stood on when proclaiming my fiscal conservatism. I mean what can be more right than making "hard decisions" to "get our house in order", right?

    Yeah, I knew that meant the most vulnerable will probably feel the pinch the worst, but I had worked hard and it paid off for me - why couldn't they just do the same? Ugh!


    So why do I say "former" fiscal conservative?

    It's quite simple, really. The fatally flawed premise of fiscal conservatism is that the federal government is like a business (or household if you prefer). That is, it earns revenues and has expenses, and like all of us, it has to balance it's check book or it will get in trouble. Yep - I did say fatally flawed. It's complete nonsense - and we all know it if we just sit and think for a moment about what it means to have a legal money printing press.

    A currency-issuing sovereign nation is nothing like a business. It operates on a completely different fiscal paradigm. It has been granted monopoly control of a national monetary system that provides the ability to create spending power out of thin air whenever directed to do so for the common good. What business or household has this power? None!

    How did we come to forget this? It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

    What we think of as fiscal conservatism is, in reality, nothing less than the reckless waste of valuable resources. We fail to maintain and enhance critical infrastructure that powers our economy and serves our peoples needs; we abandon large portions of our population to live on welfare, refusing to employ and educate them so that they could enhance their own lives and those of others in the community; we let capital and businesses sit idle when they could be put to productive use; we lay off scientists and close labs that could be inventing the next medical or technological breakthrough.

    This is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. There's no moral high ground here - only a web of misinformation and folly that has entrapped western civilization in a cycle of impoverishment and inequality.

    Real fiscal conservatism in a nutshell is this: utilize fiscal policy to whatever measure is necessary to ensure that the private sector is fully employed.

    Period. No irrelevant squabbles over debt-to-GDP ratios and arbitrary debt ceilings. No meaningless metaphors of deficit black holes, drunken sailors, or per-capita debt burdens on our descendants. No hysteria over imaginary fears of hyperinflation. It's all irrelevant.

    We can and we should debate all the other government investments, programs & benefits on their merits, but never on the question of affordability or with arbitrary limits based on annual tax receipts.

    So take it from a former fiscal conservative: if you want to balance taxes and government spending with zero regard for the impact that has on the economy, employment, and the lives of citizens, you are neither conservative nor fiscally responsible. Rather, you are harming the economy, people's lives, and contributing to the destruction of capitalism.

    Let's redefine REAL fiscal conservatism, and return our economy to full capacity. And any time you see someone talking about balancing the federal budget, please kindly educate them about how a sovereign currency works!
    Posted by Geoff Coventry at 4:33 PM
    Rae
    6th Jul 2016
    12:37pm
    Thank you Lookfar this is a very nice explanation of why LNP far right ideology makes absolutely no sense.
    MD
    6th Jul 2016
    1:13pm
    Ditto, thanks Lookfar, a very erudite insight of your slant on the extremely complex issue that keeps countless 'servants' & otherwise know-alls employed. Methinks your take on this matter might suggest that the more personnel involved the bigger the mess perhaps. However we do not, have not and are never likely to live in a utopia. Instead we will have to grind on relentlessly under the misguided notion that we're heading in the right direction. Maybe you've kicked off on the right foot but then I may be crazy ! Whatever the case, it can't get much worse than the present fiasco. Can it ?
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    4:54pm
    Good post Lookfar. Well done.
    ex PS
    9th Jul 2016
    5:15pm
    Finally, someone who looks further than three word slogans. And can articulate these thoughts into words. Wish I had the knack.
    Ted Wards
    6th Jul 2016
    2:08pm
    I didn't listen to any promises nor did I look at any propaganda. Why? Because its all lies and you cannot rely on any politician to keep any of their promises. The party is already calling for Malcolm's resignation, here we go again, more of the same BS and they are not even in power. The political system of this country is going from bad to worse as they all struggle against each other to be someone, not actually run the country and make changes, ones that are desperately needed. The old system of putting your money under the mattress or other alternatives is not looking to bad at the moment. Ive been working for 30 years and at 51 probably have another 30 years ahead of me if I'm lucky. Where oh where are their genuine people who are more interested in making positive changes for the better rather than quickly making a name for themselves so they can set themselves up on all the perks and bonuses they get for doing nothing.
    mike
    6th Jul 2016
    2:26pm
    One reason voters voted for smaller parties was as a backlash against forced council mergers. For example the Oberon council is financially viable and stable council, and a beautiful country town, however if failed something called scale and capacity, which has been found to be a meaningless made up nonsense to force councils that are otherwise viable to be forced to merge. Where it was believed Liberal canditates may lose votes , eg , a marginal seat. those councils were taken off the forced mergers. EG Barnaby Jones seat. Oberon asked the Nationals candidate, Andrew Gee, the safe Liberal seat of Calare, to intervene on Oberon's behalf. He declined as he felt he didn't need Oberon's vote. Andrew Gee has won the seat of Calare, and although he didn't need Oberon's vote, there was an 8% swing against him. Many of those voters voted small parties such as Nick Xenophone and Pauline Hanson, and Andrew Gee's arrogance, although it didn't affect his own selection, certainly affected the senate elections. There were more than a million former Liberal voters who turned to small parties, and many of those came from forced council amalgamation areas. Good one Andrew Gee and Merger Mick Baird. Your stupidity is overwhelming
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    4:58pm
    Oberon. One of my favourite places. Did not know the council was done over as never had a problem with it.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    5:18pm
    That's why the roads are so bad around Oberon...the council is too small.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    6:44pm
    No - they just don't want outsiders in... can't say I blame them....
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    8:57pm
    Actually the roads are pretty good, or at least were last itme I was there.
    teuchter
    6th Jul 2016
    3:14pm
    Having read all the comments,the one conclusion I come to is united we stand but unfortunately its a divided we fall syndrome.
    yawn.
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    5:01pm
    Which is why I advocated for 2 years that we should all vote for Independents. Next step is to see if they live up to expectations and if so what the majors are going to do to unseat them. And please Lord make Pauline ask Nick before she opens her mouth........chuckle
    KSS
    6th Jul 2016
    5:27pm
    But Mick, Ms Hanson is an independent and thousands voted for her just as you asked!
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    8:56pm
    As if all political parties do not have their share of dunderheads. Yours has plenty KSS.
    The difference is that your lot have sold their souls to the devil.
    ex PS
    9th Jul 2016
    5:21pm
    Hansen acts out of ignorance, the LNP out of greed, most people know which is worse. Pauline did something no one else had been able to do. She united the LNP and LNP when they tried to destroy her because she was taking votes away from them, she was one of the first to show that you did not have to waste your vote on one of the two so calleds.
    For that I will always have a certain fondness for her.
    Aussie
    9th Jul 2016
    5:42pm
    Well Ms Hanson has interesting points away from all the racist stuff but she always talk about united Australia ???? I just hope she means all together to work for the future of the country or maybe she means get rid of all the foreign people and just leave the nice clean white people in the country ????? Not sure what she means with I want ONE NATION ?????? of What .... white people only ???

    She is racist end of the history and she will destroy the country and Muslim people will fight for their rights of been Australians same as the Chinese they fight and now integrated into the Australian society even if they live in a suburb full of the same race ..... so what ???? Look at the north side of Sydney the famous White people peninsula with nice beaches and lots of white rich people .... so what ???

    People tend to get together and share common beliefs and live in peace ..... that will be totally destroy now

    Multicultural Australia correct ????? What a joke

    Feel sorry for us in the very near future
    teuchter
    6th Jul 2016
    3:14pm
    Having read all the comments,the one conclusion I come to is united we stand but unfortunately its a divided we fall syndrome.
    yawn.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    3:17pm
    Yes most are whingers that want someone but themselves to blame.
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    5:02pm
    Sounds a lot like the Fuhrer on election night.
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    4:26pm
    Leon: start to get some grey hair real quick as both sides have been looking at the huge superannuation nest egg with avarice. Sooner or later (when the debt is unbearable) they will pounce and nationalise super. Just like deductions for pensions superannuation will become THE PENSION SYSTEM. Effectively many will either lose their money or get back only a small amount.
    I feel sorry for future Australians as their future is completely insecure. Jobs are going to disappear to technology at an accelerating pace and what they own is going to be stripped away from them whilst the Masters of the Universe will be blaming citizens for not having a job rather than working out ways of creating jobs which pay enough to survive. I sure am glad my use by date is only around 20-30 years off.
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    4:43pm
    I agree Mick that is why I only have a small percentage of my wealth in super. I have told my kids and grandkids not to put any more than they have to into super. There have already been calls to nationalise super. That royal commission into banking cold be the catalyst that makes this happen. It would not take too much for a outcome that the banks and financial institutions cannot be trusted and out super would be better put into a national fund. If you have some left when you die it goes to the government to pay for other retirees. That is why I oppose it and anyone with super should be doing the same.
    Aussie
    6th Jul 2016
    5:00pm
    Well I am lucky I collect my super and invested in a dual engine Jet and travel around Asia with my reduced welfare ....great stuff I love my welfare
    Old Geezer
    6th Jul 2016
    5:12pm
    There are some good deals going in British pounds now too. So why not widen your horizons? Some awesome value European cruises with the ones expressed in British pounds. Might be the time to cruise the Aegean sea and Mediterranean.

    6th Jul 2016
    4:59pm
    God help us, please not another 20 years reading labor mick's biased union bullsh..t,
    MICK
    6th Jul 2016
    8:54pm
    I though the Liberal Party had fired you Mussolini.
    Aussie
    9th Jul 2016
    5:24pm
    The only reason the liberals are in power is because of the Coalition support and other negotiations they do with independents ....anybody is seeing the picture or you lot are totally bind .....'

    The ALp got the seats on their own right Liberals only got 45 seats wowowo don't you see the picture without the coalition they would not get anywhere

    Liberal 45
    Liberal National Party 21
    The Nationals 10
    Country Liberals (NT) 0

    TOTAL COALITION 76

    Australian Labor Party 69
    Aussie
    9th Jul 2016
    5:27pm
    Latest counts from AEC

    http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-20499.htm
    ex PS
    6th Jul 2016
    6:40pm
    It was more than the governments tampering with Super that made me decide to give the so called major parties the flick. It was their stupid decision to not only ignore the opinions and rights of retirees but to treat them as docile cattle that could be milked of all their assets without complaint.
    One party identified big business as their most important client the other sided with the unions. Both underestimated the power of Baby Boomers when provoked and insulted.
    Bonny
    7th Jul 2016
    7:57am
    Super needed to be reigned in as it was just stupid that some people were able to earn hundreds od thousands of dollars a year tax free from their super funds. I do however disagree with that lifetime cap on contributions. It doesn't allow people who have missed out to catch up.

    It has not effected me personally as I am a self funded retiree that doesn't even have a health care card. However I do agree with the 2017 changes to the asset test for welfare for pensioners. It was too big a burden on us taxpayers to continue to pay the pension to these wealthy welfare people.

    It would not surprise me that these independents will want the pension tightened up further.
    Rae
    7th Jul 2016
    8:48am
    I agree Bonny that too many were using super as a tax minimisation vehicle even if it was set up to be exactly that. Keatings never envisaged a scheme for wealthy people to put their millions in fairly risk free.

    Now if we could also introduce a very teeny tax on overseas transfers and financial transactions we could get a little bit of tax out of the really wealthy hiding money in SIVs in the Cayman Is and other tax havens.

    A little tax when money heads offshore and at least every dollar going overseas would be paying a little bit for the benefit it is creating for other Nations and our really wealthy multimillionaires.
    Old Geezer
    7th Jul 2016
    11:46am
    A debit tax is not a good idea as it hinders the flow of money. How would you feel to be levied it each time your term deposit was rolled over, when you withdrew your pension etc?
    ex PS
    7th Jul 2016
    5:43pm
    Old Geezer, I think that Rae is actually advocating restricting the flow of untaxed or undertaxed profits out of the country. I think it is a very good idea, if you make money out of a countries population, you should have an obligation to pay tax in the country where you make the profit.
    It seems to be a double standard in your eyes that you shouldn't be able to use tax loopholes in super to maximise your income, but the Internationals can take untaxed profit out of the country?
    Or have I got it wrong?
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    7:44pm
    LNP down 16 seats - Labor up 16.... LNP 74 - Labor 71 and the rest all over the shop...

    Anyone claiming a mandate will be shot.....

    Now ... about my super....
    Bonny
    6th Jul 2016
    10:14pm
    Antony Green has LNP 72 Labor 66 Independants 5 and 7 in doubt.

    LNP only needs 4 of those in doubt to get over the line.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    11:09pm
    Final count already in on the AEC link:-

    http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-20499.htm

    Who are these dreamers with their fanciful figures? Longie in disguise?

    LNP are NOT over the line with 74 and arguing... they needed 76 and they missed out.

    Try to keep up..... Mal can only form 'government' with the agreement of minors and Independents.... any of whom would have rocks in their head to support his policy platform.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    11:11pm
    Kinda reminds one of Gillard, neh? **(rofl emoticon implied)**....

    Now for the Senate... a veritable hotbed of non-Mal supporters.... *(rofl emoticon implied)*
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    11:19pm
    You and a few others here really need to learn how to follow links or (heaven forbid) check for yourselves.
    TREBOR
    6th Jul 2016
    11:20pm
    Durh - http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-20499.htm

    FINAL COUNT - no seats in doubt - Mal failed to reach the finishing post.
    Bonny
    7th Jul 2016
    7:48am
    That count is only of who is in front.

    You missed one vital bit of information.

    0 out of 150 seats have been declared.
    Aussie
    7th Jul 2016
    10:31pm
    And here we go again the Liberal party never win any election on their own right they always need the support of other parties and now in 2016 the same humiliation begging for support to make government.
    Now they manage to get support from Independent Bob Katter I wonder what he promise him ???? to get his support how embarrassing

    The ALP with 71 seats on their own right as usual I know in the past they got some support from the Greens but no support from anybody in this election so for those Liberal supporters I will feel very embarrassed because without the coalition they will not exist

    Again I say .......In my book ALP is the winner party in 2016 election

    Liberal = 45
    Liberal National Party = 19
    The Nationals = 10
    Country Liberals (NT) = 0

    Total Coalition = 72

    Australian Labor Party = 71 on their own right
    PIXAPD
    7th Jul 2016
    9:04am
    The full aged pension, supplements and rent assistance is plenty, even after rent, an astute person can save $400 a fortnight, from the $1004 payment.
    Retired Knowall
    7th Jul 2016
    2:55pm
    And two can live as cheaply as one......but for only half as long.
    There endeth the sermon.
    Aussie
    7th Jul 2016
    5:55pm
    PIXAPD You again with really silly statements $400 dollars he he he he he he really silly you are.

    You have no idea because you are well off .... sorry we are not and there are many of us with only 1,004 dollars income to pay the rest of the rent (Average 250/300 for only a room) + Food + Electricity ++++++
    And still saving $400 .... YOU ARE A JOKE ....Stop making this comments you have no idea about the real world

    Go back to sleep and dream on your wealth while we count our little money to see how are we going to make the day.

    My god and you call yourself a christian what a joke
    Lookfar
    8th Jul 2016
    12:51pm
    Please correct me PIXAPD, thought you claimed you were not on any pension?
    How could you know what a pensioner requires if you are not?
    Theorize? Sermonize? Just plain Lize?
    Aussie
    8th Jul 2016
    5:55pm
    Lookfar
    Correct ???? how he knows so much details ...he lie ....he is another pensioner like us he just want to show himself as powerful and be able to disrespect us with all his religious notation in the Bible
    Ridiculous he he he he
    Aussie
    7th Jul 2016
    6:02pm
    for those that think that 0 out of 150 seats that have been declared is the end .......not really still senate votes and other postal still to come and count in and the seats count can change dramatically maybe for the LNP (supported by other parties - Otherwise they will disappear) and ALP count on there own right
    So still going for another few days .....
    in2sunset
    7th Jul 2016
    6:02pm
    Can someone please help me with this question about Super? I am trying to help a friend who is very distraught and upset. She is 63, and has just lost her job. She still has a pretty hefty mortgage (due to a late in life divorce) and has minimal super. Her small payout of accrued annual leave - she has put towards her mortgage. She is too young for the pension, so headed off to Centrelink knowing she would only be entitled to Newstart. BUT - she was told at the local Centrelink office - that they 'average out' her annual leave payout, and she can't get Newstart payment for 11 weeks.
    BUT - here is the clanger - and I cannot find any clarity anywhere. She was told that because she can now access her super, she has to use THAT before she can claim any benefit. Surely this cannot be right!! In other words, superannuation is nothing more than a safety barrier so that the government gets away with not offering support. She has minimal super, and was hoping this would be used when she does 'retire'. I thought super was to assist you in retirement, NOT to replace any government benefits before you get to aged pension age.
    I seriously worry about my friends' mental state - she is so upset, depressed, and faces losing her home. Can SOMEONE throw some light on to this?
    Aussie
    7th Jul 2016
    6:19pm
    insunset please be careful with the comments you get here too many people do not know what they are talking about and probably will make things more complex.

    My advice is take any comments here and think and research the outcome before you tell your friend.

    I have been in her position many years ago this is what I did.

    1.- Sold my home (quickly)
    2.- Move to a single room (Sharing or move with a friend or family) I did for a few weeks free to a friend home then to my Daughter then to my own room after I found small job.
    3.- Find small job (cleaning houses) - (I am an IT engineer) big drop
    4.- Put all my my money from the sale into super and keep a little bit to restart up.
    5 . I use all charities for assistance in Food and clothing
    6. Enroll in the Centrelink Work Bonus program (This will help her in the future - Read about it)
    6 - Was hard but I did it ....

    I am not suggesting she do this but is a possibility because Centrelink will not do anything for her at all they did nothing for me.
    Tell her to take it one step at the time do not rush and worry to much no good for her health, go out with her to a park make jokes anything that change her feelings try to make it easy.

    Forget about Centrelink ......

    Anything I can help send me a private if you want also talk to another member call HELLO she is a great person and may help to
    Aussie
    7th Jul 2016
    6:24pm
    in2Sunset
    Another thing will be to register for Housing in her state maybe this way she will justify an emergency housing if required in the future or a permanent if available.
    She need to fill up a form and submitted to one of the charities or directly to the government.
    At least she is on the list of course after she sell the home because if she can not pay the mortgage she will lose the home and get small pennies.
    ex PS
    9th Jul 2016
    5:51pm
    Aussie is right you need to be very careful about the advice given in good faith on this site.
    My first thought was if she has not accessed her super already and changed it into a Pension Account they should not be able to touch it. If she has converted it and it is only small, she should be eligible for a part centrelink payment.
    It sometimes helps to make an appointment with your mortgage holder as soon as possible and explain the situation, she may be able to negotiate an interest only payment scheme as short term relief using her super fund as collateral.
    I have found that staff working at government centres of this type are normally well trained and it Is unusual for them to get it wrong, as your friend is under a lot of stress maybe it would be a good idea to make another appointment that she can attend with a companion so that nothing can be misunderstood.
    Aussie
    7th Jul 2016
    6:52pm
    Ok The future of Super may have a problem but there are so many other things that we need to worry about and look after the tax payers money rather than ripping super and the pension and pensioners apart.

    Look at this video from Channel 7 INCREDIBLE AND TOTALLY OUT OF GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
    We pensioners have a very hard time but other people manage to get thouthands of government dollars with pretending and misusing the system and the Government IS DOING NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT BUT ..... THEY HIT AND HIT US PENSIONERS THAT BEEN PAYING OUR TAXES FOR SO MANY YEARS TO SUPPORT THERE SEAT WARMING TIME

    LOOK AT THIS AND MAKE UP YOUR MIND

    http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/stories/farah-4-kidz

    Terrible stuff
    Aussie
    7th Jul 2016
    7:04pm
    And more ... This company receives about $300,000 dollars a fortnight from Centrelink ....... Listen almost at the end of the video

    I really do not believe this Maybe I need to become racist because this things are boiling my blood
    This is why Pauline hanson get all support and I will support her to when she start looking at all of this rots

    Incredible 300,000 x fortnight will provide income of full pension including rental assistance to 298.8 pensioners of Australia ....... 298 PENSIONERS ......
    Old Geezer
    9th Jul 2016
    9:25pm
    To my knowledge this has been going on in many communities for over 20 years. The less you earn the less you pay for childcare. Why not have someone else look after your kids for a few dollars a day so you can go shopping, get your hair done or have a natter with your friends? Last I heard there were even free TAFE courses for people to attend so they could get a break from their kids. From memory there was also some requirement that once your youngest child turned a certain age you had to attend TAFE or look for work to get welfare. I better stop there.

    Only yesterday a pensioner I know told me that they were going back to University for further study. I ask why and they said they needed something to keep their mind active and it would not cost them anything because they would never earn enough to pay back their HECS debt. Have many times do we see RTOs signing up older people to courses for free laptops so that these RTOs can make collect HECs that will never be repaid?

    Just more examples where welfare is being exploited due to loopholes in the law.
    Aussie
    10th Jul 2016
    12:25am
    Old Geezer all this is crazy I do not believe all this and we pensioners have lots of problems just to survive the day crazy in our beautiful country.

    Well there is only one thing I can say to the politicians in our country
    have a look this video because that is the way they all are ....talk talk talk and no action

    https://ci-6262569b97-ab04f773.http.atlas.cdn.yimg.com/jokeroo/2/6/686a8339-dd42-4485-9a43-9cddf6eb37e4_u-4c1FUuXpA4ltP8aMDla9IyUtsyaJa2YoWlQI-9_kgyQqB6nrgvcP3ybFJO5kMJWj7oMLBiSrY-_4_0.mp4?a=jokeroo&b=5640&ib=sapi&m=video%2fmp4&mr=0&ns=c+i+ci+cii+ps&ps=9pbjm7lbo21tk&vid=b3035a1c-ce0c-314b-b17e-99ce2eb853f4&x=1468678708&s=56909e12cfdd1fbd326dfbd76b022128

    Well now new and more very serious problems will come our way wait for Pauline to start her show and you will see all the dongos following her .....Big Big problems on the way also from ALP

    Any way nothing we can do


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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