How the increase in minimum wages may affect pensions

The boost to the minimum wage should flow to Age Pensions.

Will wage ruling boost pensions?

On Friday, the Fair Work Commission increased the national minimum wage by 3.5 per cent, from $18.29 per hour, or $694.90 per week, to a new rate of $18.93 per hour or $719.20 per week.

Those working a 38-hour week will take home an extra $24.30. The increase, which takes effect on 1 July, is about double that argued by the Australian Industry Group, and about half the amount that the Australian Council of Trade Unions wanted. It will result in a pay increase for about two million Australian workers.

So what does this increase mean for those on the Age Pension, given that the twice-yearly indexation of the pension is benchmarked to wages?

At first glance, an increase in wages looks like a good thing for Australian pensioners. Currently the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension, Service Pension and Carer Payment are indexed twice a year, in March and September.

Indexation is based on two factors: price increases and male weekly earnings. Payment rates are indexed to the rise in Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI), whichever is greater.

The CPI measures changes in the prices of a fixed ‘basket’ of goods and services and is used to preserve the real value of pensions. The PBLCI measures the effect of price changes to out-of-pocket living expenses where the main source of income is a government payment. This index is intended to check whether disposable incomes have kept pace with price changes.

After indexation is applied, the payment rate is then benchmarked against a percentage of the Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE). The single rate of pension equals 27.7 per cent of the MTAWE and the couple combined rate is equal to 41.76 per cent.

If, once initial indexation is applied the rate is less than the benchmark of the MTAWE, the payment rate will be lifted to equal the agreed percentage. The benchmarking of pensions to the MTAWE is to ensure pensioners maintain a certain standard of living, relative to the rest of the population.

So a rise in wages will automatically flow through to pensions?

Well only marginally, it seems. Firstly, the increase only applies to those on a minimum wage – less than 20 per cent of the workforce.

And according to economist Matt Grudnoff from The Australia Institute, this increase is only slightly more than last year’s increase of 3.3 per cent, and this had little impact on wages across the board, which only rose 1.9 per cent over the year.

So the indexation of the Age Pension in September is unlikely to be positively affected by a hike in wages any time soon.

The most recent indexation on March 20 this year lead to a fortnightly increase in the base rate of $12.20 for singles and $9.20 for couples. With fuel, power and medical expenses rising at much higher rates, a dignified life on a full Age Pension remains a challenge.

What do you think? Are you still working and if so, will this mean an increase in your take-home pay? Or are you on the Age Pension and hoping there will be a higher increase in September?  

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    10:03am
    You need to look at what has been done to pensioners by the current government during the past 5 years Kaye. Unlikely that anything other than new ways to attack retirees will be coming if this government gets back in. It won't.
    Expect the family home to be put into the assets test and expect this government to keep trying to push more and more Australians off the pension. The track record is clear.
    Grateful
    4th Jun 2018
    10:22am
    Didn't Tony Abbott's first budget remove the benchmark to MTAWE and left it just to the CPI??
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    10:30am
    Mick,

    Too early to tell who will win election. Latest polls show libs ahead in Braddon in Tassie, Longman in QLD and Georgina Downer is ahead in Mayo. No government has won a by-election since 1911 so if libs win any of these Shorten is done. I have no time for Turnbull but even less for Shorten.
    I believe we should have a discussion about the family home - should anyone living in a home valued at say $3m or more be getting the OAP.
    Emps
    4th Jun 2018
    12:05pm
    I absolutely disagree that this government will include the family home in the assets test. It will be the labor govt who would do that. They have conceded that it will happen under them.
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    12:10pm
    Agree with your sentiments bob. The family home should not be used to nobble older Australians and anybody with a home CURRENTLY worth $3 million plus should be funding their own pension unless there are (genuine) extenuating circumstances as to why they cannot....like they inherited the property and have nothing apart from it.
    Be careful about polls. Donald Trump was way behind in the so called polls and won by a large margin. Not even the establishment media could turn that one around.
    The issue Labor has is that Shorten has as much personality as a house brick. Hopefully voters will realise that it may have to buy the brand rather than the man because the current batch are not going to stop until they seize total control of the media and turn average Australians into dirt poor peasants like America. Their model is clear and I for one am not going to accept slavery. Not too sure about my fellow countrymen though.
    Kaye Fallick
    4th Jun 2018
    12:35pm
    Hi Grateful - you are correct that this intention was in the hockey Budget 2014 - but did not make it to legislation, so the existing indexation system remained in place. kind rgds
    Kaye
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    12:39pm
    Ha, ha, ha. Your crack me up Emps. You do the classic LNP thing: claim the other side is guilty when they get caught out. Never changes.
    The truth is that this government has been after the family home for a number of years. The Treasurer has dropped repeated hints and then you get the pseudo government agencies like the Gratten Institute coming out with their self calls for the same thing.
    Most readers on this website know the facts.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jun 2018
    12:50pm
    Mick Labor wont win the next election so the house will not be put in the assets test.
    Rae
    4th Jun 2018
    1:20pm
    Yes bob memories they most certainly should. Especially if they were PAYG taxpayers who have paid 7.5% tax extra for an entire working lifetime. The aged pension should be universal without discrimination.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    3:33pm
    Mick, same old BS! Funny that - BS also stands for Bill Short-on integrity! Yes Mick BS is the one who is pushing for the removal of imputation credits from SFR's. I note you have gone quiet about that of late, Mick - why is that?
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    3:48pm
    MICK, I disagree with your statement that the family home will be put into the assets test as there is no proof to support this statement. The only time that this is discussed is when it is put forward by bureaucrats as a possible solution to expenditure and no government or opposition has ever agreed with the bureaucrats. As you are aware from my previous posts, I dislike any post that makes a statement which is based on no facts and/or is made without proof.
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    4:04pm
    It's been repeatedly leaked and I recall the Treasurer did talk about it. Don't expect this government to push this unless it gets back in and has the numbers in both houses. Then it is a deal done. Until then it is keeping its powder dry and letting their offshoots talk about it lest voters smell the big rate and vote accordingly.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    2:20pm
    More likely that if we vote this lot of vultures back in, the family home will become part of the assets test. Shorten we can threaten with the Gillardotine... .. Plibersek him... that's the game plan anyway....
    grahami2006
    4th Jun 2018
    10:19am
    I retired 12 years ago due to ill health. My wife retired 4 years ago and we are both now on the full age pension.
    However, we have found that the pension does not give us the lifestyle, which is not grand, that I believed we worked all our lives for.
    I now pick up occasional casual work to help supplement the pension.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jun 2018
    12:51pm
    You can't expect silver service on welfare.
    Sundays
    4th Jun 2018
    1:02pm
    Better than the person on minimum wage supporting a family on $37,398 per year.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jun 2018
    1:18pm
    Agree Sundays it is much easier for 2 to live on the OAP plus benefits than a family trying to live on $37,398 per year.
    Rae
    4th Jun 2018
    1:26pm
    Yes Sunday and that family pays full costs without the concessions pensioners get.

    As graham has stated it's the expectation of lifestyle that causes the problem. Seeing all those ads for the magic retirement is supposed to be. People think that is reality and will just appear without any effort to save on their part.

    There are also those on not much more than the OAP who scrimped and saved expecting a bit of ease too and now not getting it.

    The CPI is not a "fixed" basket when the mix keeps altering to achieve the lowest index possible and housing isn't included at all.
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    2:17pm
    The CPI should be investigated by an independent (not chosen bt government) agency.
    it is not worth the paper it is printed on.
    Food - this goes up like a rocket and is a big driver of inflation
    Rent - tell me rents in Sydney and Melbourne have not doubled in 5 years
    Fuel - back to where it was pre GFC
    Rates & government charges - incredible growth in these
    Tradesmen - rates doubled since GFC
    Clothing - unaffordable now

    As I said the CPI is being falsified. In the meantime the reason for this deceit is clear: average Australians are earning not much more than what they did during the GFC. How does that work? Exactly.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    3:02pm
    Sundays, not many people are supporting a family on minimum wage today. Firstly, most households have two incomes. Secondly, there's are benefits for low income families raising children. I lived far better on a minimum wage, with children and a mortgage, than I could live on a couple's age pension today. But having saved for my retirement, I'm actually worse off than a couple on a pension, and I don't ever have any way of securing an increase in my income.
    Sundays
    4th Jun 2018
    3:55pm
    How would you really know how many are supporting a family on minimum wage. Even with two incomes, rent/ mortgage take a big chunk. I’m glad they got an increase. In relation to the OAP, We’ve been through this before. If you are worse off than a couple on a pension it is because you don’t qualify either Assets or Income too high. Even if OAPs spent all their money while you saved so what? They qualify. You can spend yours now. It’s a choice. Railing against the system is pointless.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    4:02pm
    MICK, the CPI is not being falsified but there are many items that are left off that impact on the average working person's pay packet. A total overhaul of the "basket" is required but I can't see either side buying into that discussion. A part of the reason, and certainly not all of the reason, that people are not earning more is because of EBA's that are spread over a number of years and are not tied to wage decisions. They give above award payments but increases in most cases are left until a new EBA is struck.

    To say that average Australians are not earning much more than what they did during the GFC is not correct. No EBA lasts that long and wage increases for low income workers have increased $162.00 since 2007. Sure, that figure may not have kept up with the fictitious CPI, but to say that there has been no increase is wrong.
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    7:58pm
    If the CPI does not reflect the cost of living and is being regularly published at a much lower figure then IT IS BEING FALSIFIED.
    It should come as no surprise that this suppresses calls for wage increases because 'the CPI is no t increasing is it????? Please tell me this is accidental!!!!
    And guess who it benefits? The rich???? How strange. I think you can do better than that OM. Seriously.

    You are correct that there have been wage increases but the point I was trying to make is they are zip. To my way of thinking that is not a wage increase.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    10:33am
    Answer simple, OG and cohorts - we pay everyone the same for going to work or lazing around - no arguments at all then.... no disputes over who pays more tax, no disputes over home owners and non home-owners, no trouble for SFRs...

    That's how silly your arguments are...

    If you have no solution to add to your endless carping about how good pensioners have got it - you are not a part of the solution....
    Anonymous
    5th Jun 2018
    12:33pm
    Sundays, of course I could spend all my money now and claim the OAP - and have 50%+ more income than now. But there is a major problem with that. The government then has to shell out more OAP funds to prop up people who could have been largely self-supporting if ALLOWED to be. I rail against the system because IT'S BAD FOR THE NATION. My choices are not relevant. Whatever I choose isn't going to change the fact that the government is STUFFING THE COUNTRY with its mismanagement.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jun 2018
    3:47pm
    OGR if you don't spend your money to get the OAP then you are a fool to yourself or you have more than $2 million I assets.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    6:11pm
    Pensioners aren't on welfare..... they're being paid their retirement insurance.
    Kathleen
    5th Jun 2018
    10:11pm
    We were worse off with a big family on one income than we are now on the pension. There were more bills and the child endowment never even covered the milk bill. We have fewer needs now except for the health ones.
    Wages have not been keeping up again recently. This present government has slowed the income at the lower end. Petrol prices are too high. Workers are paying too much tax on the petrol compared to the US. This also affects the cost of goods and services. Jobs are counted even when they are part time. Some workers are underpaid as well.
    floss
    4th Jun 2018
    10:21am
    Right again Mick was it not the Libs under Phoney Tony promise there will be no changes to pensions and the rules that go with it .
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    10:35am
    Abbott should not have made the statement about cuts BUT the country is better off due to his strong stance on border security. He got rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax and more was done in his short time to remove unnecessary red tape than anyone previously. His current views on immigration would be better for Australia - his views on energy would result in lower costs for business and householders. On the other hand Turnbull and Shorten are clueless
    HarrysOpinion
    4th Jun 2018
    10:37am
    Hey floss ! " Phoney Tony promise there will be no changes to pensions...in the first year of government!!!" But he changed it in the first year anyway by changing the indexation of OAP.
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    12:37pm
    Abbott? Border Security - 2 ticks. Electricity prices - 3 crosses. Not changing Gonski - cross. Fixing the deficit - 4 crosses. Health - cross.
    Don't get me started bob. Liars of the magnitude of this man should not be tolerated by any of us.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    3:50pm
    This re-writing of history - a favourite tactic of the Left, when examining Tony Abbott's time as PM, always gets me. The bloke had a red hot crack at repairing the mess left by his predecessors - Dullard and Dudd - remember pink batts, remember unnecessary school halls, remember outrageously expensive solar programs (and I have a mea culpa here - I took advantage of that one); remember the cheques in the mail which most took to the local RSL or Bowling Club and 'invested' in machine 146? And then a recalcitrant Senate - unrepresentative swill according to a mate of Mick's, who thwarted so much legislation (of the economic variety) that Abbott and Hockey tried to get through. And still today, the unrepresentative swill is doing its best to thwart the government's taxation agenda - it is just outrageous. I say they should be allowed to implement their policies, once elected, and if the majority don't like it, they get turfed in 3 years. I never voted to have Hanson or the Greens determine what legislation they would 'allow' - and neither did at least 88% of the electorate. Yet these loopy lunatics can thwart the will of the majority of the electorate - it is just not right!
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    4:00pm
    "Repairing the mess"? Ha, ha, ha. This has to be the BS of the century and Liberal Party HQ must be getting pretty desperate for you to come up with this one Big Al.
    Thanks for bring up "school halls'. A favourite of government paid trolls who have nothing real to say.

    FYI the Rudd/Gillard era was DURING THE GFC and the money borrowed was used to keep the like of you employed.
    During its last 2 years the debt was going down. Look it up. Since Abbott came to office the debt has MORE THAN DOUBLED....with not one thing to show for it other than politically motivated Royal Commissions to cause harm to the opposition. NOTHING ever came out of these. Surprise, surprise!

    We both know Abbott lied his way in, broke almost every promise he made and wasted our money. Now the next leader is giving away money we do not have to those who do not need it.

    You can write any crap you like but the above are the facts. Your BS is just that and if the best you can do is name call without anything concrete then do this forum a favour and go post on Murdoch media forums where comments other than your sort of comment are shredded lest Labor be elected and run the country for the country. Can't have that can we.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jun 2018
    4:42pm
    Mick we are still paying for the Rudd/Gillard stuff during the GFC where they tried to spend their way out of it but made things in fact worse. Just ask yourself why we haven't recovered like the rest of the world? The only answer is we failed to flush the system during the GFC and now are paying the price for not doing so.
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    8:05pm
    OG - we are ALL paying for the current government. Why do you think the rich are doing well, getting tax cuts and the rest of the nation is finding life impossible?
    Rudd/Gillard? Tell me: did YOU lose your job when the GFC hit? Did your children lose their jobs when the GFC hit? And now you come back with this knife in the back.
    Why haven't we recovered? SImple, the current lot have gone on a spending binge which was unnecessary and wasteful. If you bother to lok you will notice that the last Gillard term saw the debt going down. Enter Tony Abbott.....

    The reason Australia is not recovering is this government continues to sell off anything of value in the country to foreigners and then we buy back anything we need to survive. They're even selling freehold farming land to foreign governments. Last straw is suppressing Australian who spend everything they earn and giving the wealthy the money which should be being recycled through the economy.

    You are doing a great job for the LNP. Clearly you are a retired MP.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    8:39pm
    Mick,
    Very hard to argue with you on Abbott and fixing budget - fail.
    Gonski - I'm in 2 minds - my concern is that Gonski is partly about more money yet Education has been given more money over past 15 years then ever before yet our standards are failing - I am not convinced Gonski is the answer.
    You gave a cross for Health - Abbott was no worse nor any better than Howard, Rudd, Gillard or Turnbull on this area. More money is not always the answer.
    Energy - yes abbott basically carried on Howard, Rudd and Gillard so I agree fail. My answer to solve energy problem is 1. Walk away fromParis Agreement. 2. Eliminate all subsidies on Wind and Solar. 3. Shut Clean Energy Commission and remove funding. 4 build two HELE power stations (can be done in under 3 years) 5. Ensure 15% of gas remains for domestic use. 6. find more CSG opportunities.
    When this is done we can go back to 2006 when we had the lowest energy costs in world
    MICK
    5th Jun 2018
    9:49am
    bob - you need to stand back a little on energy. Killing the renewables industry is one sure way to reach extinction fast and the problem with people who believe coal is the answer is that they never address the two pronged question of the huge numbers of people industrialising in the third world (more coal!) and population increase. You need to think past 'now' and transitioning to renewable energy is the only way I can see to get to this end.
    I'd like to think I am not a dinosaur but I read posts from those who are clearly in this camp. It WILL end life as we know it. Sorry.
    If it is truly subsidies which concern you I suggest there will come a time when they can safely be removed. Maybe not too far away. What we should never do is allow a developing industry we all have need of to die. That is betrayal of future generations.

    Abbott? He is what he is: a coal representative through and through.
    This government? It is what it is: the tool whereby the rich transfer wealth from wage and salary earners to the top end. Now in progress and blatantly obvious to see.

    Good luck if you vote Liberal. If you don't have a vested interest then you will indeed deserve what happens to you.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    10:38am
    Dear bob,

    All Abbott and Co(stello) managed with 'border security' was to offshore processing of refugee applicants and dictate to them in contravention of all humanity, reason, and international treaties and conventions that if they arrived (or didn;t arrive) by boat, even if they ticked all the boxes (buzz phrase inserted) they would never settle in Australia.

    Meanwhile the vast majority of illegal immigrants, who arrive 'legally' by plane etc, are still here.

    As for the 'carbon tax' that never was, and the 'resources tax on super-profits' - neither ever raised a cent, and apart from that, this self-same government is now crying over not having sufficient revenue to meet its cast-iron obligations - which contrary to their ideological nonsense - includes bought and paid for social security.

    OG - 'we' are not playing for the spending of the Rudd years - we are paying through the nose for globalism as preached by the 'right' in Canberra and propagated by them.
    MICK
    5th Jun 2018
    11:42am
    Great post OG. The party trolls will hate it but it is factual. And then add on a bit about wealth transfer to the top of society and you have nailed it.
    Rosret
    4th Jun 2018
    10:47am
    No increase to wages is good for retirees unless interest rates go up and the inflationary pyramid cycle continues.
    However I do understand the plight of the person on minimum wages. Unfortunately wages can't come anywhere near home price loan repayments in our major Capital cities so as all pyramid schemes - the housing boom collapse still precariously balances on its pointy end.

    It should be also noted that Councils are pushing for huge Rate increases so anyone who is lucky enough to benefit from this wage increase and lives in a home will find its very quickly taken back.
    Medical and Home insurance has increased disproportionately to inflation as has energy prices - far in excess of that $25 per week.

    Which ever Government department is in charge of the cost of living formula needs to reassess and take a good hard look at the corporate end of town because the two are linked.
    Rae
    4th Jun 2018
    1:31pm
    The CPI needs to be realistic and include essential items including rates and housing costs. If we had a truer CPI pensions would be rising to keep up with inflation.
    Sundays
    4th Jun 2018
    4:29pm
    The Australian Bureau Of Statistics prepares the CPI. What is included is influenced and dictated by Government and the Reserve Bank. The reasons for not including land costs seem purely political.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    10:42am
    As a million times before - control costs of living first - i.e. cancel 'privatisation' that has caused astronomical rises in COL, force government back to its core duties of providing services to the general public and not to its chosen few, and control the rapacious behaviour of banks, fuel companies, and all the others who seek profits before people, and which in reality only benefit the majority shareholders - who are NOT 'mums and pops'.

    THEN look at controlling incomes.

    Ever since the annual reviews came in, wage/income rises have been virtually automatic - for one reason - costs of living have always run out of control ahead of wages.

    In order to control this 'inflation' - the COL needs to be looked at first.
    Chris B T
    4th Jun 2018
    10:57am
    "After indexation is applied, the payment rate is then benchmarked against a percentage of the Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE). The single rate of pension equals 27.7 per cent of the MTAWE and the couple combined rate is equal to 41.76 per cent."
    This Rate for Singles should at least be 50% and Couples 75%.
    Can't afford it than collect the correct Tax From Business. Block The Tax Avoidance that's bleeding this country of the wealth and services we deserve.
    That's Any Government That Is Formed.
    Rae
    4th Jun 2018
    1:33pm
    If you paid that much there would be absolutely no incentive to save into Superannuation. Even now unless you can save $2 million is appears to be a bad idea to save. This current government has done this.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    2:59pm
    There's no incentive now, Rae. I would be better off with half what I saved. What a STUPID system we have that punishes people for being responsible and saving for expenses they will incur in later life.
    Chris B T
    4th Jun 2018
    4:35pm
    Rae it is affordable and the Incentive Is A Better Life Style and Spending. No Money No Spending, affordability of Health Insurance.
    Please Re Read " Can't afford it than collect the correct Tax From Business. Block The Tax Avoidance that's bleeding this country of the wealth and services we deserve.
    That's Any Government That Is Formed."
    So The Cost Would Be Covered from Tax Avoidance,The Collection would More Than Cover this and others like Education, Hospitals etc.
    (Any Political Party)
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    10:48am
    Thanks, Rainey - I was going to say that and you beat me to it.

    The current retirement packaging structure is fatally flawed and is being bled white for many by over-charging and over-priced funds that are nothing more than a money pool for those who run them.

    Salaries, bonuses, credit cards, company cars, accommodation - you name it - the same malaise runs through the superannuation industry as in government, unions and business.... everyone involved feels that they, and they alone, because of their massive 'service' to the Volk, deserves that all costs of their living be paid for outside their salary.

    Jo and Joe Bloggs don't get that privilege - they pay their own costs of living - and that is one clear reason why wages/ordinary incomes (includes pensions and such including unemployment benefits) simply cannot keep up... too many freeloaders in 'business' - which includes government which feels as entitled to a free ride.
    GeorgeM
    5th Jun 2018
    9:32pm
    Spot on, Chris. Agree, OGR.
    patti
    4th Jun 2018
    11:01am
    I am happy that the lowest paid workers will get a rise.....it still means that my pension is equal to much less than half of this......At least I don't have to work in a sweat shop but it would be nice to afford some more of the life basics
    justme
    4th Jun 2018
    11:30am
    I think the problems outlined here are supported by both major political parties in some form. Neither major party understand or care.

    I do not believe for one second that things will improve for pensioners/retirees by a change of government. Unfortunately, I think that is delusional.

    The independents are our only hope of slowing down the attack.
    Which shows the poor standard of politicians we have.
    Joy Anne
    4th Jun 2018
    11:42am
    I am a pensioner and yes hope a decent increase will apply in September. This Government has screwed pensioners enough. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH on the pensioners.
    AND THE HOME SHOULD NOT BE CLASSED AS AN ASSET. Pensioners today have worked and saved hard all their lives to have a home. MAYBE THE POLITIANS HOMES SHOULD BE CLASSED AS AN ASSET. ALSO TAKE AWAY THEIR PENSIONS AND WHEN THEY RETIRE THEY CAN GET THE SAME AS US PENSIONERS IF ENTITLED.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jun 2018
    12:56pm
    So it is OK to have a house worth $10 million and get the full OAP?
    Rae
    4th Jun 2018
    1:38pm
    Yes OG it should be if we are to eliminate discrimination and ensure the taxes we pay provide universal benefits to all as other OECD countries manage to do.

    That $10 million dollar home would have very hefty rates and insurance and maintenance and I very much doubt an OAP could afford it anyway.

    Discrimination on the grounds of saving or investment or sheer luck is still discrimination.
    Cowboy Jim
    4th Jun 2018
    1:41pm
    Give anyone the pension and should your house be worth more than $2 million deduct a death duty of about 20% before the asset is passed on to the rellies. Quite simple really - no one would lose but the greedy offspring who did not contribute to the house anyway.
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    2:25pm
    Rae: if you own a $20 million house you do not need a pension of any sort. I would suggest a more realistic figure of $3 million might be a starting point cutting out altogether at $5 million.....as long as this was indexed. This lot would not want that to happen.

    Not a bad call Jim. Merit in that but $2 million is a low base in 2018 Australia so would need to be upped a million I suggest.
    Whilst I would not want to see Death Duties make a comeback there may be merit in this but be assured the wealthy would find a way around this and you and I would be paying, which defeats the purpose of it.
    Any fair and decent government could find a solution but the current one is conflicted and lies consistently so nothing it had to say is worth a pinch of sh*t. Sorry.....
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    3:44pm
    Good old Bill - if he ever gets the house included in the asset test, next step will be to keep reducing the threshold
    Thats how he plays /preys on class warfare

    Franking credits - GONE
    Family home - GONE
    Asset threshold - REDUCED

    That's Bill's and labors politics of envy. In the end Australia's pension system and economy will be a basket case
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    3:51pm
    New tactic Raphael? You take what your employer is presently doing and say the opposition is doing this. You crack me up.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    5:11pm
    poor old labor micky-boy, must be running out of plaster of paris fixing all those cracks, just don't plaster the one all your b.s comes from, both ends, we would miss the laughs you give us
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    8:08pm
    The next LNP troll arrives. The last laugh is on you as the only posters who do not recognise what you are is your fellow cash for comment posters. They are well known.
    I suspect Barnaby got it right this evening when he used the word SCUM for you and your party. Been saying that for some time. Maybe I was a bit tough on Barnaby as he has walked away from the filth currently in government.
    rina1213
    5th Jun 2018
    9:53am
    NO the family home should NOT be in the asset pile !!!!!
    and there should be a ceiling value of the home if it were to come in as an asset so the little people like me with a low value home would not be penalized. If I lost the pension because of the family home then WHAT ? I would be made to sell the home and live off the money and PAY rent ( which I guess a lot of our law makers would own ) so then if I have to go to a Nursing Home where would the huge bond $ come from ? Really they are trying to skin us over and over again. Do they not understand that some people have been on below average wages most of their lives with no perks or benefits that they enjoy. The lower class have worked hard for their money and home SO LEAVE IT ALONE AND SHOW YOU DO WANT TO SERVE THE PEOPLE and not just yourself
    MICK
    5th Jun 2018
    10:21am
    The only posters who would disagree with you rina1213 are the government sponsored trolls working this website.
    Good post and you are on the money.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    2:26pm
    Well said, rina...
    GeorgeM
    5th Jun 2018
    9:37pm
    Absolutely, Joy Anne.
    Part of ANY solution must be to remove all Special Pensions for Politicians - how come they can have $10 Million homes, and many more Assets and any amount of Income, and still get their undeserved, untested, unfunded, massive pensions earlier than anyone else!
    They MUST ONLY get pensions under the same rules as anyone else - that's why we as a Retirees Group need to THROW THEM ALL OUT and not let any more leeches reach their minimum 8 years on the seat to get their minimum 50% Base Salary as pension.
    GrayComputing
    4th Jun 2018
    11:56am
    It is time for all of us to rant at our MPs and Senators to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

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

    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

    Even poorer New Zealand has a NO ASSET pension so it is cheaper and user friendly.

    Why worry that few million$ earners get it too. That is peanuts to them not enough for a good vintage champagne.

    Do retired and retiring people really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    Does your MP really 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 MPs normally compassionate persons let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    Some opposition and independent MPs stand to lose their chance at being part of the needed government changes

    We all need to tell our MP that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    Batara
    4th Jun 2018
    12:10pm
    I am working at age 73 and no intention of stopping any time soon. The increase is unlikely to have any effect on my pay since I am on SCHADS award. Maybe something might flow through. Pretty lean picking in my sector and NDIS is making it hard to earn a living. Might be OK for the participants - which is good - but makes it hard for workers in the sector to get a fair deal.
    Rae
    4th Jun 2018
    1:41pm
    I've heard that workers in the sector are being abused by the providers and expected to spend a lot of their own time travelling between jobs and completing paperwork even though on hourly contracts and not salary.

    Is it true a 5 hour pay shift can actually take 8 or 9 hours of your time to complete?

    Helping the disabled at the expense of carer workforce seems an odd thing to do in my opinion.
    Batara
    4th Jun 2018
    6:43pm
    Hi Rae,

    No, claiming that a 5 hour shift could take 8 or 9 hours would be an exaggeration. More like 8 hours in a day (4x2hr sessions) would take about 9 hours. There is half an hour for lunch in there, but if you need to travel you spend that half hour travelling so might go without lunch. It is true that we are paid only for face to face time and get nothing for preparation before or reporting after a shift.
    SuziJ
    4th Jun 2018
    12:49pm
    The percentage shouldn't be just 27.7%, it should be 50%!
    Old Geezer
    4th Jun 2018
    12:54pm
    27.7% is more than enough for people on welfare.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    2:53pm
    How would you know, OG? Rich and privileged have no idea what life is like for people on the other side of the tracks. But they are mean and nasty enough to CLAIM to know, because they can't stand the idea that their taxes might be used to support people who they exploited all their lives and left to retire poor.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jun 2018
    3:06pm
    Something is very wrong when a person has to work 38 hours a week and gets less than the OAP and supports his family. However OAPs whinge more and expect to get a lot more.
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    3:50pm
    The nonsense in your post OG is that everybody eventually reaches pension age. Your comparison, for what it is worth, is comparing apples with oranges and ignores the fact that pensioners have for the most part paid into the pension system for a lifetime and deserve to draw this back. Otherwise it will be given to the top end of town....oh yes, it is.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jun 2018
    4:37pm
    No Mick pensioners have not paid for their pension at all. They only get it if they have no other means of support. If they had paid for it everyone over pension age would get the OAP but this is not the case at all. Therefore the OAP is welfare and nothing more.
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    8:11pm
    Actually NO. All other first world countries have a pension system. They paid for theirs and retired Australians paid for theirs.
    Tell the narrative as you like but pensions have been STOLEN from workers by the current filth masquerading as a government but which is owned by the big end of town.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    2:27pm
    And two separate pensions for carer pensioners.... $127.10 a fortnight.... doesn't touch the sides...
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    6:14pm
    How does anyone work 38 hours a week to get less than the pension when 38 hour weeks on minimum pays more than pension and perks?
    Old Geezer
    4th Jun 2018
    12:53pm
    It was good to see low paid workers get a rise in pay however I don't think it is necessary to increase the OAP at all as they have more than enough now to live very well on.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    1:35pm
    OAP is already indexed to CPI - pensioners get a pay rise every year
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    1:38pm
    OAP plus benefits is much better than the minimum wage .
    Plus pensioners don’t have kids to feed or work expenses or need 2 cars . Huge list of expenses slashed
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    2:57pm
    The blue-tie Trojans are at it again - wishing for a feudal economy of nobles and slave so they can strut about gloating about their wealth.
    Rae
    4th Jun 2018
    3:19pm
    Raphael it is better when you subtract the costs of going to work and the taxes from the minimum wage. I honestly think people watch too much TV and believe the world is like that. It's not. Australians are doing quite well and just a roof over your head and a couple of meals a day makes us rich by world standards.

    The concessions alone are worth upwards of $4000 a year.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    4:12pm
    Agree Rae
    The pension covers our basic needs very well as it is intended to do
    Food shelter clothing and decent medical expenses
    Everything’s by else is a luxury
    OAP is not for luxuries
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    2:27pm
    I'll drink fine whiskey to that!

    4th Jun 2018
    12:58pm
    The economy will suffer as a result of this decision
    Unemployment will rise and the tax take fall .
    How the hell can the government contemplate pension rises when you have idiots in the fair work commission making bad decisions for Australians
    The commission should be abolished - wages should be set by the market
    Sundays
    4th Jun 2018
    1:06pm
    Yes, just like the U.S.A where car parks are full of the working poor on minimum wage who can’t afford to rent, but live in tents and caravans.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    1:34pm
    Houses are very affordable in the US
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    2:29pm
    The typical government response Raphael. Who wrote your spiel? Was it Morrison?
    What you and your government want is slavery where the bottom gets a cup of rice and lives in a lean to. You forgot to mention that your rich mates have been increasing their wealth at around 20% pa (starters), and are pushing for tax cuts because this is not enough.
    Call it 'Trickle Down Economics Mal, that'll fool 'em".

    You are one sick puppy Raphael.....oh yeah, time for a jolly rendition of 'pinks batts and school halls' methinks. Or is that 'we'll be ruined'?
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    2:37pm
    Mick - you have no credibility - your lies are there for all to see on the superannuation thread
    Typical Mick - when his lies are exposed , he runs with his tail between his legs
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    3:02pm
    Your normal response. Call anybody you provides facts a liar whilst you provide nothing other than vile spew.
    YOU can run but you can't hide and no amount of trivia responses will change the fact that your employer is leaving office shortly.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    4:02pm
    You lied about industry funds always providing better returns and charging less fees - FACT

    Retail funds have provided almost double the returns over industry funds in several asset classes - FACT

    majority of the top 10 lowest cost funds are retail funds - FACT
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    8:14pm
    Good try. I find it laughable when a government troll accuses anybody of lying. Guess who invented the word.

    You must be some sort of mental moron Raphael. Either that or your boss is getting nervous.

    To repeat: INDUSTRY SUPER FUNDS occupy the top 10 positions. They have half the fees of retail funds and earn 50% more. End of story.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    2:28pm
    No change to unemployment....
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    6:18pm
    I could buy a house in Ohio for $7k - that's because far too many people are living on the edge due to their pay structures.

    A nation that uses 60% of the world's resources to cater to less than 5% of the world's population, while engineering into itself massive poverty, lack of healthcare, and countless other social ills - is hardly what you would call a good example of a progressive upward-moving nation. More like a failed one.

    On the other hand - it is a fine example of what happens when you allow a few to control far too much.
    floss
    4th Jun 2018
    2:55pm
    The greed is good gang is in full cry and are barking crap as they always do.The whole system is broken and I very much doubt either side has the will or the brains to fix it, if we don't we will end up like America a place I would not like to be.
    Old Geezer
    4th Jun 2018
    3:08pm
    Floss OAPs do very nicely compared to those on the basic wage who are expected to not only work for their money but support a family as well. OAPs do very nicely on what they get.
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    3:45pm
    Quite so floss. Never underestimate this government to come after the most vulnerable whilst passing on money to its rich sponsors and telling victims how well off they are.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    5:59pm
    Only greed I see here is the greed of those on welfare for more handouts aided and abetted by labor stooges out to win votes

    never mind the economy or care a damn for the poor taxpayer - labor will sell your grandkids future out from under you
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    8:15pm
    The next sick sick comment from you Raphael.
    Please take your rich man squarkin' BS and shove it. You need mental care.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    11:24am
    People who go to the Salvos and Lifeline and San Vancant are greedy? That's what welfare is - how many times must I explain it to you people....

    You can lead a horse to water.....
    Anonymous
    5th Jun 2018
    12:26pm
    OG should stop ranting and talk to volunteers at Lifeline and St Vinnies. I know one who has worked at St Vinnies for 27 years and now goes out to counselling and does budget advice. She lived on a widow's pension most of her life and now manages well on the OAP, but has never run a car, has only a tiny home unit with low body corp fees, and buys just about everything at Vinnies - getting the best of everything available by working in the sorting room. The other volunteers keep her fed so she buys virtually no food. Her power bill is minimal because she's out at Vinnies all day. Other volunteers drive her wherever she wants to go.

    But even she tells me what she is seeing when visiting OAPs makes her cry. There are vast numbers who ARE living at a level of poverty that distresses her terribly. She doesn't know what luxury is, so she certainly wouldn't be disturbed at people complaining of not having enough if they wanted anything more than basic essentials.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    2:29pm
    I recall that old cartoon of Malcolm Fraser saying:-

    "You never had it so good!"

    Switch to a pair of workers, one saying:-

    "We never had it!".
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    2:32pm
    What about the widows of Servicemen past (before super and stuff)? Copped a service pension and a small amount for each child. One such (family of six kids) family's dad was killed at Tobruk, and one of his sons grew to be a Light Colonel in the Army himself - but they had to struggle.

    That fair? Should their pension meet the basics?
    Anonymous
    5th Jun 2018
    7:07pm
    been waiting for the johny's come lately, tremor(the voice behind labor micky) and Ogre Geriatric Rainy comments, as sure as labor micky's comments are duds, the norm, the above labor hero's come to the rescue of labor micky the next day only after being instructed to do so by their labor masters.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    10:27pm
    I'm sorry - I forgot you were still here - you may go now....

    4th Jun 2018
    4:18pm
    Those asking for OAP increase over and above CPI don’t realize (or perhaps they do) that this will only make sense with a corresponding decrease in the asset threshold

    The extra income in the hands of pensioners will only go towards spending on luxuries or directly to their families
    Sundays
    4th Jun 2018
    4:39pm
    What luxuries would that be? For some it might mean dental care, heating, good food, warm clothing. Yes, some part pensioners are doing OK, but remember they are also spending their own money.
    Kaye Fallick
    4th Jun 2018
    4:54pm
    That's a bit harsh Raphael - I doubt most would consider medical care a luxury? cheers Kaye
    Old Geezer
    4th Jun 2018
    5:00pm
    Any medical care not covered by Medicare is considered a luxury. That's why it is not covered by Medicare.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    5:06pm
    Kaye - as OG mentions, Medicare covers all basic and emergency medical treatment . Its free.
    Electives and non urgent treatment , you have to queue or pay through insurance which most OAP pensioners can afford.

    What I'm saying is an increase in OAP without decreasing the threshold means a handout for all part pensioners who are living very comfortably already.
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    8:20pm
    Kaye: you would be aware Raphael is not the real deal and that there are others. This is not a difference of opinion. It is paid comment.

    Of course we all know the OAP pension is not keeping pace with the TRUE cost of living. I took that issue up with OG above as it is clear that the CPI is being manipulated. You go shopping. You run a car. Somebody you know rents and others buy a house. And then there are council rates, government charges and tradies if you need them.
    I think you might agree with e when I say the CPI and the real cost of living are far removed. This is not accidental.
    Rae
    5th Jun 2018
    8:58am
    That's part of the problem Kaye. Medicare isn't what it used to be.

    Medicines cost aged pensioners too much.

    I thought the changes to disallow a cut off point whereby after that you got medication and treatment free or it was tax deductible if still working was a terrific safety net. When they changed that it made medical needs something that could result in poverty.

    The situation needs sorting as something that wasn't broken now is and I suspect that is causing unnecessary poverty levels.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    11:26am
    That's why everything needs to be indexed - income tax rates, assets test, pension bought and paid for....

    And while we're at it - no fees on accounts of any kind below a certain level... super, bank etc....
    Anonymous
    5th Jun 2018
    12:19pm
    It's hard to believe anyone could be so callous as to suggest that medical treatments not covered by Medicare are ''a luxury''. Clearly, these are people who have had it way too good for way too long and are incapable of empathy - or even of just being realistic.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    2:33pm
    Amazing what is included as 'electives' though.... to open the gates for the private funds who line the doctor's pockets more. No problem there.... we've been through that one with a fine tooth comb already.
    Old Geezer
    5th Jun 2018
    3:46pm
    If it's not under Medicare it is not an approved treatment so if you want it then you pay for it. Nothing complicated about that.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    6:20pm
    So only those outside the envelope of getting by have any (gasps - wait for it) ENTITLEMENT to those things, Rafe?

    You and OG would do well on the board of The Spanish Inquisition... auto de fe..... rack 'em until they yield up their homes and money ....

    (Jesus)....
    knowall
    4th Jun 2018
    6:10pm
    I can not understand why there is no planning for retirement,This my first time to make comment, my wife and myself worked hard to get to where we are today,I know that some people do the same and have ups and downs but plan ahead re money and super,we gave up a lot of our time by helping out my inlaws. but i took out a carers allowance to help to look after the inlaws .upon the death of my father in law my mother was lost so we contacted a invester adviser and he put us on the right track by advising us to get mother in law to go halves in a house with us ,this was so she could keep her pension and pay half of all the bills,the rest of her money was invested in shares and did not affect her pension, we are living a great live and we get on really well. my wife and myself only get a part pension but we draw down on our sms,we are all so happy on the out come so plan ahead and love your inlaws
    Rae
    5th Jun 2018
    9:02am
    The old extended family living together and getting on worked and it seems it still can. Good on you for giving it a go and actively helping one another in real ways.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    11:29am
    We all worked hard to get to where we are today..... no exceptions .. even those struggling to survive on $40 a day without any extras are working hard to stay alive and viable in a highly competitive and often cruel world.

    Define 'worked hard' - does that include injury, illness, divorce, being robbed, company you kept alive crashed by its management leaving you out of pocket and out of work....?

    What exactly is this 'worked hard'?
    Elizzy
    4th Jun 2018
    6:31pm
    Only Genuine Rainey - I agree with what you say about savings. The bulk of the older working population are now trying hard to make sure they arrive at pension age under the Income and Assets bar so that they get a part pension and concessions. This means that in the long run Treasury will have to find even more money as people on part pensions and little savings spend those savings and move to full pensions. But I guess someone will realise what's happening and change the rules again to trap those who only did as the rules forced them to do...
    Anonymous
    5th Jun 2018
    12:10pm
    Yep Elizzy. I'm not risking it, but I'm damned angry that the Government is ripping off retirees who saved in this way and being so hideously irresponsible as to give the savings to (a) people who saved a little less but are still relatively well off in retirement; and (b) companies and wealthy folk that are dodging tax every which way anyhow.
    Chooky
    4th Jun 2018
    6:54pm
    Bob is talking through his liberal loving bottom. It was Tony Abbott who pushed for the family home to be included in age pension assets test. There was quite a backlash but he kept the policy in the table. It was the LIBERAL party who changed pension indexation measures leaving pensioners worse off. It was the LIBERALS who froze the GP Medicare rebate making it more expensive to see your GP. It was the LIBERALS who have removed the pensioner energy supplement. It was the LIBERALS who slashed billions from the health budget. It was the LIBERALS who cried budget crisis and manufactured yet their biggest lie then pushed the country to the largest debt EVER in history. So Bob needs to chat with his LIBERAL mates and get the facts. Pensioners, surely you know by now you cannot trust the LIBERALS in your latter years. And all of this while pushing to give business including the banks $80,000,000,000 in tax cuts. Retirees are an easy target for the ‘born to rule’ LIBERALS. And you can easily fact check everything stated here. You will everything is absolutely correct.
    Anonymous
    4th Jun 2018
    7:23pm
    Goon one :)

    Find and replace Liberal with Labor and you've got all your facts right

    $80 billion - is that the new number labor are making up now? Too funny
    MICK
    4th Jun 2018
    8:24pm
    Good post Chooky. LNP troll Raphael may not like your post but then that is what government trolls do.
    The latest figure I saw for mischievous Malcolm's tax cuts to the rich was $155 billion. Who knows what the actual figure will be but the stench of this is going all the way to the election and the government can hand tax cuts of $5 a week to middle income earners but they will compare and see through the latest lie.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    2:36pm
    I'm with what's-'is-name above - I doubt that any government from either 'side' of The Tag Team will pursue any different line... both will be looking at 'their' bottom line and ripping off those with the least and most likely with the least throughout life to retirement.... while lining their own pockets outstandingly.
    Chris B T
    5th Jun 2018
    11:17am
    Since there not really interested Paying a Real Life Payment for OAP and for those who complain about Assets not including Homes.
    The Proportion of Tax Paid and Number of years contributing should be Considered.
    That of Tax Paid/ Number of Years Paid, Is The Amount OAP that One could Receive.How is that for a Fairness Test. Didn't Pay Tax or enough Tax or Years of Paying is how the OAP is Paid Out.
    No one wants a Person To Live Below Poverty Level, at the same time why is someone Excluded because they have assets and Paid Tax and can't claim OAP or Ridicule for doing that.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    11:35am
    Right - so the pensioner cops 7.5% indexed, a full return on income tax, full return on sales taxes, full return on GST.. you name it... that means a pensioner should be receiving an annual return, after all is said and done of very close to every cent paid in over the years... you can't claim for offshore holidays and such and deadstock on which you gained a tax concession... only on your live tax.....

    Of course, in the current environment of globalisation, we could simply go global and give every pensioner in every nation the same.......

    My point here is that continuing down the same worn-out path that we are - of globalisation ripping the guts out of nations and companies paying no tax and slamming those with the least to keep the ship stable - inevitably leads us to extreme measures - those extreme measures could end up as a despotic world government.

    Such a beast would be same-same - a few at the top reaping all the benefit in return for their massive service to Humankind...... Hitler drew no salary..... just had everything he wanted.... kinda reminds you of a few people, don' it?
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    11:37am
    I rather like the idea:- 'fitting the steerage (lower deck) passengers with lock-on lead weights to retain stability on a sinking ship' .....
    Chris B T
    5th Jun 2018
    12:20pm
    What Has This Comment Have Anything Remotely To Do With What I've Stated.
    You Receive OAP Proportionally To What You Paid In Taxes and Years Paid. Excluding A Group For Paying Taxes and Having Assets, like all others. Now Some want to Ridicule others for having there Own Home. This Group Ridiculing The Home Owner want them Excluded from the OAP and Pay For Their Own Way Without OAP.
    So why are you opposed to this, didn't you pay Taxes or enough Tax or Years of Paying Tax. Just a spender and want all Tax Payers To Pay For Your Spending Lifestyle.
    I don't Really Care about Others Spending, I do care about Excluding Groups for Preparing Themselves for a better Future and Owning Their own Home Regardless of Value.
    Rae
    5th Jun 2018
    12:38pm
    The ATO cannot tell you how much income tax you paid. I asked once.

    You'd have to have kept all your income tax returns for your whole life.

    The fact that PAYG workers actually pay the highest proportion of tax is always dismissed.

    I have family members living luxury lifestyles who run businesses and have rarely ever paid income taxes.

    The UN recommend a small transaction tax of 0.05% as the only way globalisation can be taxed fairly but those living on cashflow and capital are horrified because they'd have to finally pay
    something.

    Any Government that goes after the family home and the future inheritance of Gen X will be crucified so I doubt they will do it.

    I can see land taxes and a higher GST coming though. So start saving if you own land or homes.
    Chris B T
    5th Jun 2018
    2:30pm
    The ATO have at Least Your Last 5 ATO Statements as you are required to Keep Yours for 5 years if they decide to Audit You. If you decide to review/adjustment to your ATO paperwork as well.
    What is your Point Anyway other than Trolling.
    A Group see it as Their Right To Claim OAP and Rental Assistance as well as $200,000 extra in Assets.
    Then Ridicule The Home Owning Group without these Additional Allowances. Not satisfied with that, Wanting the Home Owners to Pay for Their Pension without OAP.
    What I Stated was it would be "Good" To Make Comparison to Amount Each Group Paid in Tax and Years of Paying. Then Pay OAP proportionally to Taxes Paid and Years Of Paying.
    Just because someone owns a Home is no reason why they can't Claim OAP and Receive it.
    Don't forget The Home is Purchased with After Taxed Income, then Interest on Mortgages all paid for with After Tax Income & Rates, Maintenance, Insurance after Tax Income.
    There are some very Lucky Ones who Inherited a Home, Good Luck to them, If they decide to Claim OAP it is there Choice.
    Why Ridicule one Just For Owning a Home, not all are that well off and struggled to pay off home sometimes with Super Payouts.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    2:39pm
    It's got everything to do with the OVERALL tax system - not just the ideologue's addiction to INCOME Tax as the be-all and end-all of tax.

    If you wish to posit INCOME paid as the basis for calculation - do so.... otherwise accept that there are countless other taxes out there....

    How many times, O Lord?

    I oppose the inclusion of the family home in assets - by any means - including the mirage of 'down-sizing' in another strand here today.

    https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/retirement/living-in-retirement/downsizing-the-good-bad-and-ugly?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=volume%2018%20issue%20112%20daily%20enews%20tuesday%205%20june&utm_content=volume%2018%20issue%20112%20daily%20enews%20tuesday%205%20june+version+a+cid_adf82b0ad555a36a68a6f81636b148bd&utm_source=campaign%20monitor&utm_term=warning%20for%20age%20pensioners#comment-608290#comment-608292#comment-608295#comment-608369#comment-608371

    Many others here oppose it, too, and I have yet to hear anyone attacking those who've saved for their retirement - but the roar is deafening from a few here who reckon all pensioners are bludgers etc.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    2:44pm
    What you are suggesting, Chris - is very similar to The Trebor Scheme - where your retirement package is derived from a minimum contribution (topped up in times of sickness or unemployment**) plus regulated additional contributions.

    You get no tax concessions for this or anything else.... and if you have income strands or gifting or fringe benefits outside of that, you are liable for tax on those.

    ** I'll beat you to it - so you reckon the kid born with Spina Bifida and only able to work a tiny amount throughout life should not receive full pension/basic retirement package at retirement? So you reckon that all those ladies who did not work for many years due to putting family first (once near-mandatory) should receive no basic retirement package in retirement? Some young tradesman who suffered a brain haemmorhage and could only work part-time through life should not receive a full basic retirement package?

    I think my scheme is fair to all... except to the fat cats who will pay their taxes in retirement - tough, innit?
    GeorgeM
    5th Jun 2018
    9:31pm
    Ridiculous posts from OG and Raphael which should be disregarded as they do not get OAP and have no business to comment on it's adequacy or otherwise. Simply paid Liberal party trolls trying to muddy the pitch for everyone else. Good posts from many others.

    The OAP should be at least 50% of MTAWE for Singles and 75% for Couples. We are a very Resource rich country which can easily afford it. This YLC article is good and highlights the poor deal for OAPs with ever increasing costs, and most here clearly support it (if you delete the above named trolls' comments).
    No need to raise taxes either - simply enforce payment of Minimum Taxes - say 20% for Large Companies and 30% for Wealthy Individuals without any Deductions.
    It is a serious concern for most that Liberals are trying to give massive Tax Cuts for Large Companies and the wealthy without first addressing the problem of these entities NOT paying their fair share of taxes. Also, without reversing the nasty Asset Test changes of 2017 implemented after breaking promises by Abbott based on a lie of a "budget emergency" - in spite of the budget now having revenue "rivers of gold".
    Also, Labor have also completely failed to ensure Companies and Wealthy pay their fair share of taxes by failing to implement Minimum Taxes or plugging the many massive loopholes, including overseas tax-haven investments (e.g. Cayman Islands), Trusts, Negative Gearing, Capital Gains, and Superannuation breaks - all welfare for the Rich.
    So, NEITHER party deserves your vote - and ALL must vote OUT all existing seat-warmers by putting them last in preferences (all should write to their MPs first and DEMAND action to resolve the huge OAP mess, and threaten, then act, to carry out this threat).

    The best solution is to have Universal Pension with NO tests other than Age (65 yrs) and Residence (say 15 years), with all income above that (barring an allowance for a capped concessionally taxed income from Super say up to $600K) taxed at normal marginal rates.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2018
    11:07pm
    None of the current parties get my vote, George - and they certainly will not get it this time around.

    Yup - Universal Pensions and no more preferential 'super' schemes such as politicians cop.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    10th Jun 2018
    10:51am
    I cam very happy with amount of the OAP as it is more than adequate for my needs. If people needed more they are either very wasteful o r they should have saved more for their retirement. It more than covers the basics o f life and one has to only look at the coffee shops full of people of OAP age to prove this is the case. If you can afford expensive coffee and cake with your friends then it is more than adequate.
    GeorgeM
    10th Jun 2018
    2:48pm
    You don't speak for the majority, maybe only for the crooked few.
    I recall you mentioned you transferred your assets to your children, to qualify for the full age pension, and your children therefore meet your expenses. Naturally, you don't complain about the OAP amount when someone else meets your expenses. You have gamed the system - they should change the rules to look at ALL transfers of assets in history to stop people like you getting around the system.

    Anyway, my main point was to promote the simpler Universal Pension, by which no one needs to game the system and they don't need to have excessive tests and checks - in fact, no need for Centrelink to administer it - besides resulting in a major reduction in Budget costs, it would be a huge relief for all affected by Centrelink harassment.
    Also, only fraudsters evading taxes will object if Minimum Taxes are imposed to ensure funding.
    gumtree
    10th Jun 2018
    8:39pm
    If you want to live with any dignity or put simply not have to struggle week to week to survive then live overseas in poorer countries where your pension will go further. Australia is lost to supporting those from so called war torn countries who have multiple children born after they arrive and get generous benefits from us.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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