24th May 2017
Does the Budget downsizing proposal mean loss of Age Pension?
Author: YourLifeChoices

As anticipated, the Government did indeed introduce a proposal in Budget 2017/18 to encourage retirees to downsize, thus freeing up housing stock. However, there may be a financial sting in the tail for those considering making a move.

Under the Budget 2017 proposal, retirees can, from 1 July 2018, make a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 ($600,000 for couples) into a super fund from the proceeds of the sale of their primary place of residence, if they have lived there for 10 years or more. Contributions can be made regardless of account balances and the earnings will be subject to preferential tax treatment.

The scheme was conceived as a means to ease the housing affordability crisis by making more stock available when seniors downsize.

At the same time, it will save the Federal Government millions of dollars in Age Pension payments to retirees with moderate amounts of super who take part in the scheme and subsequently have their Age Pensions reduced or lost altogether.

Fortunately, participating in the scheme is not compulsory and individuals should carefully consider their own specific long-term financial circumstances before making a decision.

Analysis by certified financial planner and director at AA Financial Planning Kane Jiang, shows that single retirees with a private income are especially vulnerable to being disqualified from receiving the Age Pension if they sell their homes. Mr Jiang puts it bluntly: “Do not sell until you get advice!”

Together with Mr Jiang, we reviewed three scenarios based on the YourLifeChoices retirement tribes, to understand how the scheme may affect retirees differently, assuming:

  • each single or member of a couple is 65 years old
  • in a couple, both husband and wife have an equal super balance
  • have proceeds of $1.2 and purchased a house worth $600,000
  • pay maximum non-concession contributions allowable into super
  • a conservative five percent portfolio return (interest) from super
  • no other assets
  • live to life expectancy
  • living expenses increase by three pre cent CPI per annum
  • no change of Centrelink Age Pension rules

Case study 1: Tom – the affluent single homeowner
Tom has private income and $550,000 in super, does not currently receive an Age Pension and has living expenses of $35,287 per annum.

If Tom sold his house, then puts $300,000 into super and invests a further $300,000 in cash at three per cent interest, he would remain ineligible for the Age Pension.

Assuming he reached a life expectancy of 85 years, his net financial assets would remain above $690,000 for 20 years, catapulting him above the threshold for the Age Pension entitlement.

The assumption, which includes yearly spending of $35,287 according to estimates in the latest YourLifeChoices Retirement Affordability Index, means he would be able to live off super and the interest of the cash investment.

However, if Tom retained his home, his assessable financial assets would fall below the threshold at age 66 and he would be entitled to a part Age Pension.

Over time as the assets diminished further, the amount of the Age Pension would increase and across the 20 years he would receive $433,000 in Age Pension payments while having retained his $1.2 million house (in today’s dollars) plus further assets of $225,000.

Case study 2: Rod and Diana – cash-strapped couple
Rod and Diana have $75,000 in super, income from a full Age Pension and have living expenses of $34,111 per annum.

Living on a limited income, if Rod and Diana were to sell their home, they would find that their Age Pension would reduce immediately by almost 80 per cent, as they drew down on payments from their new super balance of $675,000.

Assuming that Diana lives to 88, the combined net financial assets at the end of 23 years would be about $250,000 plus a $600,000 home.

In that period Rod and Diana would have been paid a total of $980,000 in Age Pension payments.

However, if Rod and Diana keep their $1.2 million home, their low super balance means they would be entitled to almost the full Age Pension from age 65. Across 23 years that would total $1.2 million and not only would their original house be worth more, they would also still have $27,000 of their nest egg left over.

Case study 3: Jeff and Liz – constrained couple
Jeff and Liz have $300,000 in super, receive a part Age Pension and have living expenses of $35,643 per annum.

Having managed to save $300,000 in super, Jeff and Liz could see their total balance boosted to $900,000 if they sold their house and deposited the maximum non-concessional contribution.

They would, however, lose their part Age Pension immediately and it would only begin to be paid again at a very low level when they turned 69.

It would take 23 years for the level of the Age Pension to equal the amount they drew from super. Even after having collected a combined $665,000 in Age Pension payments, they would still have net financial assets of $334,000 in today’s dollars plus their downsized home.

However, if they kept their original home, Jeff and Liz would be able to receive more than 70 per cent of a full Age Pension, equating to $1.2 million over 23 years.

Despite the more modest nest egg without the extra non-concessional payment of $600,000, there would still be a super balance of $110,000 when they turned 88.

Kane Jiang said the three scenarios took into account general data that could vary considerably between retirees.

“It is important to consult a financial planner who understands your individual circumstances before making the big decision to sell a home,” he said.

Kane Jiang (Dover Financial Advisers – AFSL no 307248) joined the financial planning industry in 2007 – just one year prior to the Global Financial Crisis! He has a Graduate Diploma of Financial Planning qualification and is also a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) Professional and a member of the Financial Planning Association (FPA) Australia.

The information contained in this document is general advice only and does not take into account your specific individual circumstances. Please contact AA Financial Planning if you are seeking personal financial advice suited to your particular situation.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Idontforget
    25th May 2017
    10:43am
    Beware of a Government bearing gifts.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:16pm
    Just another Government scam.
    Sceptic
    25th May 2017
    1:41pm
    I have searched, but can not find anywhere where it says that it is compulsory.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:44pm
    @Sceptic, you wont for now but you can bet your bottom dollar that down the track it will become compulsory. This is another attempt to get the family home into the assets test though the back door. It is a form of entrapment.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    3:17pm
    This offer is nothing more than a scam to deny people the old age pension and force them to entirely fund their own retirement. Nowhere else in the first world does a government blatantly cannibalises its population which has worked a lifetime on the promise of a pension when retirement arrives.

    The betrayal of this government and the lie of 'balancing the budget' are unbelievable in that some simple minded folk actually believe the spiel. The reality is that we are being attacked to pay for tax cuts for our wealthiest whose greed demands ever more. Enough is never enough!
    pedro the swift
    25th May 2017
    10:52am
    And where do they live after they sell their house?
    Idontforget
    25th May 2017
    10:56am
    The Government would be very happy if they lived in a tent.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:31pm
    @Idontforget ,or preferably just fade away.
    P$cript
    25th May 2017
    2:24pm
    Kane Jiang needs to recalculate the added costs if they now rent and take into costs of need to pay to enter a nursing home. Once these are taken into consideration, no one in their right mind would downsize and as they would still require somewhere to live how would this free up housing stocks.

    The young couple would end up competing with the pensioners for the cheaper house market.

    The only people who would be ?better of will be the Financial Advisers.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    3:22pm
    What does this government care pedro. Unless you are well of this government does not want anything to do with you. Of course some of our more simple minded folk will still give them their vote and one can only hope that they will not choke on this after they themselves become the next victims of betrayal.
    MJM
    26th May 2017
    7:27am
    You have to move into a smaller home or nursing home... you won't be able to gift any of it and you will pay taxes also... democracy is shifting to communism.... telling us what to do with all our assets .. best thing here is set yourself up before retirement do what you want go where you want and spend on anything you want because as soon as you become aged they have you!
    Kane Jiang Retirement Planner
    26th May 2017
    3:15pm
    Hi all, this is Kane your contributor to this article. Thank you for your comments.
    We did not include cost for renting as in the three scenarios we have assumed you sold a house worth $1.2 million and downsize to a new residence worth $600k, hence releasing $600k available for investment. Hope this helps explain.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    11:12am
    Already covered - downsizing for a pensioner has no value, since Colonel C'Link will reduce pension in accordance with this sudden 'cash windfall'... for a superannuant no such restriction applies, thus clearly delineating for us that there are two (at least) classes of retirees - pensioners and the better class(es).

    Not only that, but Trust has gone out of the equation between retirees and government, and so anyone accepting these freak borne grifts is a fool (beware of freaks bearing grift)... this is a Trojan Horse for the pensioner... downsize (before we force you to in the best interests of the country - rather like Stalin wanted the rich peasants of the Ukraine reduced to small plots and serfdom, for the good of the nation/revolution etc).. and a hidden bonus for the superannuant, who can put extra cash into EXISTING super without loss or tax, thus enhancing their retirement outlook, whereas the pensioner looks only to having pension reduced.

    I spoke to Blind Freddy about this, and he said he could see it clearly.....
    john
    25th May 2017
    11:37am
    So complicated, these gun is absolutely pointed at pensioners.
    And you have to ask why, senior citizens with proven work life and contribution to the nation should be a priority for governments of all colours.

    But they are not, in fact having got into my 67th year I am discovering asking for a part pension let alone a full one or even a health card for some discounts , is a nightmare, that I bet , lots of pensioners just give up on , and live in the "just get by " world. Until the are dead.

    Until aged people are regarded as the monuments to our society and allowed to live in total and financially safe comfort , no government in Australia in the future that ever exists will be trusted.
    Now this again begs the question , why do past present and future govs use the pension that WE ALL PAID FOR, like a tool for blackmail.
    And they bloody well do.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    11:49am
    Of course - this unequal treatment of retirees is a part of 'wedge politics' - driving a wedge between different social groups in order to isolate one and off them the choice of Night and Fog or the gulag...

    It's part of cementing in the public mind that pensioners are a different set from other retirees, and are less worthy, and are recipients of 'welfare' rather than social security and can be treated shabbily.

    Someone said here - it's used to dehumanise pensioners for orderly disposal.
    Triss
    25th May 2017
    12:53pm
    Yes, Trebor, it's worth repeating because it's getting seriously sinister. Dehumanisation is a process where one group accepts that another group is less than human. That being so, the first [superior] group does not have to use any kind of moral or ethical standards when dealing with the second [inferior] group.
    Somehow we have to stop it because it is actually getting worse.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    1:15pm
    I wish people on welfare would think of it as less than human instead of the welfare mentality we have in our country today. Our young kids think it is OK not to have a job as they get enough in welfare to be able to paly their computer games all day and night.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    1:17pm
    Dinks, slopes, nogs, sand nickers, rag-heads, Nips, Nickers sometimes, porch monkeys, musos, dole bludgers, Abos,.... history is full of 'less class beings' as defined by the (often) majority - I won't use the term dominant though both oft-times apply, but the term has taken on new meanings under the feminist sky - group in a society...

    Untermenschen.. Juden Raus, Nicker - get out of that car NOW or I shoot!.. You name it.... Night and Fog and the choice of gulag is still on the cards.. the difference here is we place our 'dissident' groups and Untermenschen into economic gulags.... and we don;t shoot them - we starve them and oppress them so they die quietly.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:42pm
    @OG the Aged pension is not welfare. End of.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    1:58pm
    Yes it is welfare so stop telling yourself it is not and you have paid for it. You only get it because you have no other means to support yourself in old age. Get used to it being called welfare because that is what it is.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    2:03pm
    @OG I am entitled to call it an entitlement, so get used to it.
    Triss
    25th May 2017
    2:35pm
    But OG many of the ex politicians, ex judges, ex bureaucrats, etc would have any means of supporting themselves if they didn't have a taxpayer-funded pension so are they welfare recipients?
    KSS
    25th May 2017
    2:44pm
    No Triss, they contribute to their pension funds as part of their employment contracts. It is a completely different 'pension'.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    3:26pm
    Quite clear TREBOR. That was always the intention.
    The BS about providing family homes is quite a joke and the only honest solutions to the housing problem is higher interest rates and more houses to provide for imported population.
    Triss
    25th May 2017
    7:15pm
    I don't completely agree, KS, until fairly recently judges' pensions were non-contributory and, until recenly MPs only had to work for eight years before they got a lifetime, indexed pension. When MPs in their 30s or 40s left parliament after eight years there is no way that they could have accrued enough super to provide them with their huge pensions and perks for 40 plus years. Therefore they haven't got any means of supporting themselves with their own wealth so the taxpayer has to take up the slack which means to me they're on welfare money.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th May 2017
    5:01am
    ALL workers contributed to their retirement, KSS - whether directly or indirectly. Tax levels have always been calculated to provide for paying pensions to aged citizens who can no longer earn. For many decades - until the introduction of the unconscionable assets test - they were paid to many who could support themselves. Actually, they are STILL paid to many who can support themselves - eg. couples earning $50,000 a year and more.

    WE PAID FOR OUR RETIREMENT BY CONTRIBUTING TO NATION-BUILDING. Most of us - INCLUDING the very low paid who paid little or nothing in tax - contributed far more than any stinking corrupt inept politician and also far more than thousands of inept, overpaid bureaucrats, judges, etc.

    The mere fact that reserves intended to fund pensions were wasted by the greedy, self-serving and corrupt pigs who now claim ENTITLEMENT to pensions does not justify the lie that the rest of us didn't contribute and therefore have no entitlement. Nor does the fact that, for whatever reason, younger generations are unwilling to support their elders as we supported ours justify the filthy lies being used to demonize and demoralize our senior citizens and deny them a decent standard of living and fair reward for their contribution to society.
    ex PS
    29th May 2017
    8:36am
    We are not talking about people on Welfare O.G, we are talking about people on the Pension Entitlement.
    Crowcrag
    25th May 2017
    11:18am
    I'm with Pedro. The financial advice forgets that you have to live - rent or buy- somewhere. I would assume that most cash strapped couples would sell to repurchase something smaller and cheaper. That would take a big hunk out of $600000. Wasn't that the point of the government initiative? Homes come on the market- retirees buy smaller dwellings- the real estate industry and builders benefit- more money is in circulation supporting Australian economy. The government would not lose out, because of all the taxes paid along the way.
    I may be an economic infant, but are we too hung up on the notion that govts are always trying to rip us off?

    ,
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    11:25am
    No.
    john
    25th May 2017
    11:45am
    Sorry Pedro , we are certainly not too hung up , the Governments and the political elite , have no idea of the average living situations of average Australians, perhaps Jacqui Lambie , might have a clue, the rest including greedy Pauline live in another world, and Mr Turnbull and Mr Shorten are way way beyond ever seeing how real Australians think.
    Mr Turnbull is a millionaire and Mr Shorten is a shonky union deal maker! Who hurt some of his so called own, they never were his own and he never was one of them, either!
    The working class man, Bill ????????????????????
    So far from it, its a joke!

    And the PM lives on another platform altogether, so out of touch , you'd laugh if these bastards didn't do such bad bad jobs.
    Eddy
    25th May 2017
    11:46am
    We will take our own financial advice thank you. Our 3 bedroom 2 bathroom home, which we own outright, is worth about $500,000. So if we downsized to an overpriced 2 bedroom unit in a retirement village, most of which seem to be built in regional areas, and a new car for the additional travelling to see family etc, we would have about $100,000 left. Not enough inducement in my eyes. We would rather leave our house, which will probably appreciate in value, to our kids rather than make a real estate agents or developers richer
    By the way, for us retaining any OAP is not a consideration as we fail the income test by a small margin.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    1:06pm
    Well said and done, Eddy.
    Triss
    25th May 2017
    1:21pm
    Surely you jest, Crowcrag.
    KSS
    25th May 2017
    2:49pm
    Crowcrag the assumptions were that the test cases owned a house worth $1.2 million and sold for that amount. They put $600,000 into super the other $600,000 is assumed to have been spent on the downsized property.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    3:35pm
    Sounds like another message from your sponsor KSS.
    There were 3 scenarios given. Of course these are indicative but the examples fit most people give or take a little. That was the point.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    3:36pm
    Eddy: and not to mention that you would probably move from where you friends live and also end up up in a place far inferior to your own home. Retirement villages are the pits.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    3:38pm
    @MICK and they are full of old people, waiting to die, not a good environment to be in.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    3:50pm
    No nursing home for me - I'll be of sailing my live aboard yacht and they can find me a la Marie Celeste...
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:25pm
    I get sea sick TREBOR.
    My wife has instructions: put me on the longest double black diamond on the mountain with a great cliff jump at the end. Then photograph the smile on my dial when they recover me and post it on Facebook with the 2 fingered salute to any rotten government of the day.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    8:35pm
    He died with a ski pole in his hand..... what a man!!
    Kane Jiang Retirement Planner
    26th May 2017
    3:16pm
    Hi all, this is Kane your contributor to this article. Thank you for your comments.
    We did not include cost for renting as in the three scenarios we have assumed you sold a house worth $1.2 million and downsize to a new residence worth $600k, hence releasing $600k available for investment. Hope this helps explains
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th May 2017
    5:08am
    You forgot to account for conveyancing costs, removal costs and the huge agent commissions and marketing costs incurred in selling a $1.2 million dollar home and relocating, Kane Jiang Retirement Planner. You could easily deduct $50K from the claimed $600K cash yield from downsizing. Possibly a lot more!
    john
    25th May 2017
    11:30am
    It appears the government downsize like everything suits the relatively well off , single individual with lots of super and a big expensive house. The next two are a very dodgy tossup as far as I'm concerned.
    They can bury me in my back yard, because they'd have to kill me to get me out!

    I don't like those figures, we'll stay thanks.
    Sundays
    25th May 2017
    12:02pm
    This proposal only helps the very rich who are also fully self funded retiree and will never qualify for the OAP. If you downsize from a $2million dollar house to a $1.4m unit and you and your spouse each put $300k in low tax environment super it's great! For everyone else it could be catastrophic
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:28pm
    And there is the con Sundays. The rich are reducing government spending and then lining up in numbers at the feeding trough for their tax cuts.
    What did I hear about a "fair" budget. Lying scum. Oh yes....I read today that Morrison is the first for many years NOT to include the effect of his budget on average Australians. I wonder why.......
    George
    25th May 2017
    11:17pm
    Exactly right, Sundays. The article should have noted this. Rest of the discussion is a sideshow.
    Gunner
    25th May 2017
    12:06pm
    Could they (gov.au) claim a huge mistake has been made? No? Should we then take it as a serious attempt to mislead? Either way their message is clear...and their intentions cruel.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:40pm
    Their intentions, if this proposal is ever passed, are to make it compulsory to downsize, plain to see.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    2:02pm
    Why shouldn't you downsize if you get welfare (OAP) as you have excess assets that could be used to fund your retirement instead? If people don't do it voluntarily then they will make it compulsory or reduce your welfare accordingly.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    2:04pm
    @OG take a breather old chap, you are getting yourself all worked up.
    P$cript
    25th May 2017
    3:06pm
    Watch OG get worked up if capital gains and negative Gearing is removed, so he can't live off the government welfare handouts anymore.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    3:53pm
    The removal of negative gearing and capital gains will have little impact on me personally but I would not want to rent accommodation anywhere after it happens.

    Since I don't get any welfare payments handouts and never have why would I get worked up?

    It is actually good for me to get stressed as it raises my blood pressure which makes me feel a lot better.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:29pm
    Geezer: the OAP is not tied to the value of your house. Never has been. Is not in other countries either. Only in Australia with this morally corrupt government!
    Old Geezer
    26th May 2017
    10:25am
    It should be though Mick as that is the most inequitable part of the OAP. Why can people who live in million dollar plus houses get the full OAP whereas those who live in tents get the same?
    Old Man
    25th May 2017
    12:17pm
    It seems that all of this is premised on the mistaken belief that an age pension is an entitlement. The age pension was originally designed as a safety net for those who are no longer capable of work after reaching a certain age. There has been no suggestion that it is compulsory to sell the family home but for those who choose to downsize, there is an ability to use a superannuation fund to the vendor's advantage. It would have been nice if some extras at state level were thrown in such as an exemption from stamp duty.

    The end result of downsizing is that there may be funds left over which will place the vendor(s) over the threshold as regards assets. On the upside of this, instead of trying to exist on the age pension alone, the vendor will have surplus funds to spend on things they want and were previously unable to afford. Maybe a campervan or an overseas trip. When the surplus funds have been depleted, there will still be the opportunity to re-apply for the age pension.
    Tinker
    25th May 2017
    1:04pm
    The age pension is an entitlement based on the tests that are applied. The notion that it is a safety net comes from rhetoric of politicians. Everybody's financial circumstances are different and it is impossible to take one size fits all attitude. Assets are assets whether held in cash, superannuation or property which need to be used for retirement not for estate planning. I do not propose that the family home be used in the asset test calculation because this would lead to unfairness and social isolation where people are forced to move but where a person chooses to use part of that asset to fund lifestyle it seems appropriate. This scheme gives us nothing, at the very least it should be except from the loss of benefits and possibly loss of pension.Because I do not want to live like a hermit at a point I will downsize to release capital but do so only when I can retain a part pension and benefits.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    1:06pm
    Exactly the age pension is welfare and is designed for those who have no other means of support. $600,000 extra is plenty of means of support and can be put in a tax free environment so it's seems like a good idea to me.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    1:09pm
    You said yesterday, OG, that the OAP and other pensions had nothing to do with welfare. It was a statement inherent in your choice of words.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    1:11pm
    Trebor you have the wrong person here as I have never thought of the OAP as anything but welfare. They are all welfare.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    1:24pm
    "When you are granted welfare there are certain conditions you must adhere to including working. Follow these and you will be OK. "

    Just yesterday - I read something new, it looked just like you.. and I thought it was you....

    Pensioners don't have to work, so your statement implies that you are not including OAP and other pensions in your title 'welfare'.

    On another tack - it is the current rules that WE, the People, are demanding need a closer look and some serious changes - to cut out the real rorters.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:31pm
    Old Man: have a look around the western world. Where, other than in Australia, are governments removing their average and poor citizens from the pension which has always been mandated at end of working life?
    Old Man
    25th May 2017
    5:59pm
    MICK, I suppose that the other end of the spectrum is that Twiggy Forrest, Malcolm Turnbull, Kevin Rudd, Peter Garrett and all the other millionaires should be entitled to draw the age pension. There has to be a limit, surely.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    7:43pm
    Agree, but kicking self funded retirees who are earning less than the pension off a pension because their return on capital has been destroyed in recent years is not fair. Nor does it reward a lifetime of struggle and sacrifice.
    My issue is that retirees who have modest retirement nest eggs have been made targets of misgovernance. Not allowing millionaires to draw a pension is obvious because they simply have no need of it. But then the same people also have no real need of tax cuts either. This is where any government of the day needs to draw a line in the sand, something which the current bunch have no intention of doing as they spruik about their 'fair' (not) budget.
    Old Man
    25th May 2017
    8:06pm
    My point, in a convoluted way, is that there should be limits to who is eligible for an age pension. Are you saying that people should get the age pension, have lots of assets and when they die leave it all to descendants? Why can't people use their cash assets to spend and enjoy life. If they choose to they are allowed to gift money or they may wish to give descendants an early present. They will also be eligible for a pension and have some investments when their assets fall below the maximum limits.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    8:26pm
    People already make that choice.
    We lived like anorexic church mice for decades. Then I retired and we let go of the purse strings just a little, but are still very careful with how we spend so as not to end up on the OAP.
    We want to leave the next generations something. That is what every generation before us had. Whilst our children are working hard like mum and dad did before them the grandchildren may never have a home if we have nothing to leave. Given that we, like most other Australians, received an inheritance why do some people feel that there is something wrong with doing this. What better gift.
    The issue about using cash assets is understandable but for us those assets are used in staying off the pension. We need to commended....and we work hard to maintain these investments as well as the risk whilst many of our fellow countrymen get paid their OAP without lifting a finger or any risk
    There needs to be fairness in policy. Not the fairness that the current dictatorship is talking but genuine fairness to all.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    10:06pm
    Is there an LNP politician abroad tonight who does NOT wish to leave the results of his/her years of 'work' for the benefit of their children and future generations?

    I THINK NOT!!!!!!!!

    So they can STFU right now and get on with their job of salvaging this nation and its economy for ALL future generations - or get out of the kitchen!!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    28th May 2017
    3:25am
    The problem I see is that under the current system one can live it up and take taxpayer benefits later, gift early and take taxpayer benefits later, or buy a lavish home and take taxpayer benefits - but one CANNOT struggle to save a modest amount (way too little to be self-sufficient through old age), accept modest accommodation, responsibly delay gifting until certain they won't need the money themselves (and assured the recipient has established a responsible and enterprising attitude and won't be spoiled by the gift), and still receive fair treatment under the tax/pension system.

    Thus, the incentive is to do what is BAD for the nation and detrimental to the economy.

    The assets test should be abolished in favour of an income test only that considers deemed income at a rate commensurate to the current average rate of return, assessing the higher of deemed or actual income. There should be generous concessions for those in special circumstances - facing significant health, family or psychological challenges that impact either on their living costs or on their ability to achieve average returns on investments. The family home should be included in assets, but a very generous threshold allowed to ensure people can either own a decent home, car, furnishings, etc. OR can rent and accrue other assets without penalty if that is their preference.
    valanne
    25th May 2017
    12:51pm
    How about all the government boys and girls in Parliament DOWNSIZING their PLACES OF RESIDENCE and SALAIRIES and PENSIONS........then perhaps retirees and pensioners could consider the loaded gun aimed at them.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:35pm
    I'm happy to see them retain their self delegated benefits but I would like to see 'corruption' and 'traitor' clauses inserted into their contracts of employment so that entitlements are lost instantly when they betray the country. That'll see the rats change overnight.
    Kathleen
    25th May 2017
    12:52pm
    We do not fit into any of the examples. We have a nice home not in the middle of a city but that is all we have apart from the pension. My husband also gets a carer payment of $124 per fortnight to look after me which is a big help. When any of our children need somewhere to live between homes we can provide that as we have two spare bedrooms for guests. We paid $340,000 11 years ago for our home and we are not going anywhere. People have a right to choose where they live and governments have no right to judge or choose our living arrangements.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    1:11pm
    Exactly our situation, Grandma - just putting in a new front door, frame and all else as part of the renos, that are ongoing.

    Not going to sell down.. couldn't buy the same size etc in the current market anyway from the 'profits'.
    KSS
    25th May 2017
    1:23pm
    The Government is NOT "judge(ing) or choose(ing) (y)our living arrangements" at all. It has just put forward incentives for those who wish to downsize. If you don't want to avail yourself of the incentives, then don't.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    1:27pm
    .. and the next step to resolve THEIR 'housing crisis' is?........

    (down in Ye Olde smoke and fine whiskey fumes-filled Party Room backstage)....

    "Well - we couldn't get the old bludgers to bite on the carrot we offered them - time for the stick?"

    "Hear, hear..... only question is do we boil them slowly or chop 'em off at the knees fast? Shove their family home bought and paid for into their assets test, and then we can demand they down-size or starve.. easy as falling off a log!"
    Kathleen
    25th May 2017
    1:28pm
    KSS if that is so why are there so many comments here that reflect that feeling of judging and choosing?! People have a right to feel what they feel.
    KSS
    25th May 2017
    2:08pm
    GrandmaKathleen22, I am not saying people shouldn't feel the way they feel at all. But the fact is downsizing is NOT compulsory and there is no suggestion that it be so. Yet again people are drawing very long bows and then getting up on their high horses and complaining about it. (In the same breath I might add, those same people are whinging that their kids or grandkids can't afford housing - the very thing that this policy is attempting to help resolve).

    As I said, if you don't want to take advantage of the incentives to downsize, then don't! But don't stop those that might.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    3:52pm
    Sometimes in dealing with a sneaky enemy, the long bow is the best weapon...
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:36pm
    People do have a right to not be forced out Grandma....but the current bunch are working on changing that.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    10:12pm
    Nobody's saying you can't choose - it's just that if you don't choose OUR way - the rules will be changed until you do!!

    That, Poppets, is called despotism or tyranny and is always the reason for massive revolt eventually.

    It's no secret that generations of politicians in this country have brought in servile and down-trodden people, with no idea of standing together and being a force to be reckoned with, and who are grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table....

    Up until the 1970's or so - this nation welcomed strong and committed immigrants, who were from proud and successful nations - even this nation's past enemies - but who know, even if their national heritage was failure and invasion - that you put your bit in to make a nation better, and you didn't put up with garbage from self-appointed and self-opinionated fools who imagine themselves to be a 'superior race'.

    Then the government saw a way out of that dilemna..... bring in servile masses with no intellect and no history of group bargaining.... only of pure survival and rip-off.
    ceejay
    25th May 2017
    12:59pm
    Scenario - a couple with one on an aged pension and the other on a disability support pension (reduced because of a non-productive rural property over 5 acres). They have had to withdraw all their superannuation due to both having life-threatening illness/accident. The costs of maintaining the property and general costs of living have eaten away that money too. Consequently, they no longer have superannuation funds to put excess monies if they were able to sell the property in the current depressed market.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    1:11pm
    Yes - many a trap involved.
    KSS
    25th May 2017
    1:27pm
    I bet calling in the developers for that landholding would show it is less of a depressed market!
    ceejay
    25th May 2017
    2:49pm
    Sorry KSS but that landholding is in the back of beyond. There are certainly no developers knocking on our door or that of our neighbours either. In this part of the world, one is lucky to sell a property within 2 to 5 years and usually, for much less than its worth. Don't use the urban mentality in all situations. There are many of us in rural and regional Australia who have struggled for years to try and make a living off the land, combating drought, floods, bushfires, ticks, bad Councils and Government for little or no return. As soon as we start to get up, someone or somebody kicks us down again. Most of our rural/regional cohorts have to work at day jobs away from the land, usually travelling up to 100km each way to work. Then the farm work starts - after hours, early mornings and weekends with little time for socialisation or even a 'breather'. That's the price we pay for your juicy steak!
    KSS
    25th May 2017
    2:54pm
    Try the foreign investors who are buying up great tracts of rural Australia.

    And in any case, these proposed incentives to downsize are not compulsory and if there is nothing to downsize from then nothing would change for you would it? In my case I already live in a small unit so nowhere to downsize to. No need to get all worked up over something that probably wouldn't affect you anyway.

    And by the way, I don't eat steak, juicy or otherwise.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    2:58pm
    @KSS you don't have a broom cupboard? If you do you can still downsize, no probs. Government can install their guests in the other rooms. Vegetarian yes?
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:38pm
    Give this government time KSS. You are obviously not interested in the behaviour and the way they are headed.
    KSS
    25th May 2017
    8:27pm
    Actually niemakawa I really don't have a broom cupboard. Nor do I have a bath to sleep in in case you were wondering. And yes I am vegetarian. What's your point?
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    8:36pm
    @KSS. MICK has made a very important point. What the Government is now proposing is the thin end of the wedge. Do you honestly believe they will stop there. Hence you may have to down size in your own home eventually, to accommodate others as the Government of the day will dictate. That is where we are heading. Eat meat to keep up your strength.
    ceejay
    25th May 2017
    1:03pm
    Anyone remember the movie 'Soylent Green'?
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    1:12pm
    Yes - it's been mentioned here a few times over the time I've been here.
    ex PS
    25th May 2017
    3:48pm
    Seems like a viable solution to me, at least you are given the opportunity to die with dignity.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:39pm
    Was it Sorben Green? It's been a while though.
    Die with dignity? Worry about if governments like the current on ever get to make that choice for you ex PS.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    8:37pm
    Sorbent Green? that's what they use in Parliament House to clean the floors after question time and debates....
    ex PS
    26th May 2017
    8:54am
    It was Soylent Green Mick, and the whole idea of it was that an individual could make the decision on their own to end there life in a comfortable environment with no pain involved. The only involvement by government was to make life so miserable for the poor that they chose that option.
    Hey wait a minute, is this government now so desperate for ideas that they are using a movie script as a plan????
    TREBOR
    26th May 2017
    12:12pm
    Probably the best plan base they've had for a while, then... don't forget that Soylent Green came from the dissolution of all those dead bodies and its recycling as wafers of Soy Lentil Green...

    At least the Khmer Rouge only used dead people as fertiliser....
    Chrissy L
    25th May 2017
    1:07pm
    Right on Valanne, the boys and girls of Canberra are too busy buying investment properties, second homes, holiday homes and negative gearing. Especially, beware of Scomo bearing gifts, he wouldn't know how to give Pensioners anything.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:15pm
    Stay put. I will take my aged pension entitlement, live on that, and my house and other assets will go to my family.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    1:19pm
    Is that really fair? I don't think so at all. If you have assets when you die you should pay back any OAP you received before your family gets anything.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:28pm
    @OG you can if you want, leave a bequest in your will to Centrelink. I have paid for my pension rights so I will take them.
    KSS
    25th May 2017
    1:31pm
    A case of "what's mine is mine and what's your's is mine" eh niemakawa? You keep what's yours and expect me as a tax payer to pay your living costs so your kids can inherit those assets.

    Hmm... doesn't seem that fair to me.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:35pm
    @KSS. it is my pension already paid for. Whatever I have accumulated over time is of course mine and I am at liberty to dispose of it as I see fit. You are not paying me anything.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    1:52pm
    Nope niemakawa you haven't paid for your OAP at all as there is no pot of money accumulated sitting there just for you. People like me pay for it. That's right I give Centrelink a bequest every year and they will want their share when I die too. Where as you take and expect people like me to pay for it. That's the bit that is not fair.

    OAP is welfare and not an entitlement at all.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:54pm
    @OG we will have to agree to disagree on that one. Just to say that OAP is not welfare.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    1:56pm
    Well it's certainly not an entitlement because only those who are poor get it. So it is welfare.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    2:01pm
    @OG well I am not on the breadline nor am I am wealthy, still consider it as an entitlement, which of course it is. I am an advocate for aged pensions for all, regardless of income or assets.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    2:04pm
    So why are your getting welfare?
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    2:12pm
    @OG now read this carefully. I am getting an entitlement for which I have paid. End of. Now go and have a nice cup of tea and relax a little.
    KSS
    25th May 2017
    2:12pm
    You would be happy then for the likes of Mr Forrest - he of the $5.5b to also receive the aged pension then?
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    2:14pm
    @KSS, yes, if he has paid his dues.
    Triss
    25th May 2017
    2:25pm
    You may not consider it fair, Old Geezer, but it's democratic. All the time I've worked part of my taxes have gone towards paying for the pensions of older people. I accepted that, and I didn't have a dog-in-the-manger attitude that they weren't worthy of it and should be put into a pauper's grave with their corpses raked over to see what I could claw back. Now it's my turn and, in a few years' time, it will the the turn of the people whose taxes pay for this round of OAPs.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    3:27pm
    Triss what about those of us who miss a turn? Nope it's nothing to do with paying your dues to others either as I will pay them all my life and it will never be my turn.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    3:53pm
    He pays tax every day, KSS - been explained to you before... there are no leaners in the retiree community.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:43pm
    I agree with you niemakawa.
    What the big end of town here is trying on is that if average citizens take a pension they somehow 'owe' the state. Really? Show me where else in the western world that happens? Only in Oz with a big business controlled government giving to the rich and taking from everyone else.
    You are on the money niemakawa and you have EVERY RIGHT to take a pension. Unlikely we will ever get one unless life turns badly against us but I acknowledge your right to. The other posters can bugger off back to their masters.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    8:12pm
    Pay everyone the pension, then amend the rules to ensure that all income, gifts, fringe benefits and potentially income bearing assets are taxed to the current PAYE scale....

    Country will never again have a 'budget emergency'.....
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    8:13pm
    No more Harry Fudger flying about on a Fudger Research Ltd aircraft for free... deemed gift of fare at private aircraft rate......
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    8:29pm
    You may have a point there TREBOR but the rich won't ever have a bar of that. Hear that Malcolm. Not happening. Got it?
    I'd be happy to live with that if the structures of the rich were dismantled and that ain't a gonna happen any time soon. Maybe after a revolution. Even rich folk understand another French Revolution is not in their interests. Dream on. Yeah.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    8:43pm
    Damn - I was waiting for someone to walk into the trap and mention 'net tax' so I could suggest an easy answer is to pay all those on the lowest incomes who now are 'net tax recipients' sufficient that they can become 'net tax payers' instead.

    Everybody loses sight of a simple reality - a society needs disparity in incomes to generate economic movement - those with more are supposed to put more in and there is always a baseline of what those with the least put in just to survive....

    What goes wrong is that this system gets so out of balance that those at the bottom have nothing to spend, while those at the other end (not the top, BTW) hoard it like the miserable examples of human beings they are, and economic activity dies.

    All that is keeping this falsely structured system alive is the desperate scramble for more and more money - which is self-defeating, since it is driving the costs of gaining that money higher and higher all the time in a never-ending cycle, from which only a few come out with more in the end while the rest..... die.
    shirboy
    25th May 2017
    1:17pm
    Real estate agents should be paid ONLY when a property is SOLD The government should alleviate STAMP DUTY for pensioners downsizing.
    KSS
    25th May 2017
    1:33pm
    That would be the Sate Government shirboy NOT Canberra.
    Rosret
    25th May 2017
    1:35pm
    Why just pensioners? Self funded retirees are in a similar predicament.
    My fear is they will include the principal residence in the asset test which will cause untold hardship.
    Why bother saving for anything - spend spend spend!
    If you don't have anything they can't take it.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:38pm
    @Rosret. Your home which you paid for, nothing to do with your right and entitlement to a pension. Stay put.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    1:53pm
    You have no right or entitlement to the OAP. It is welfare given to you because you have not provided for your own retirement.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:56pm
    @OG and I have to take your word for it. Don't think so old chap. Paid my dues that's good enough for me. Just getting a return on my investment.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    1:59pm
    Ha ha but there is no investment so stop feeling warm and fuzzy and realise that you only get it because you can't support yourself.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    2:30pm
    @OG time to get of your soap box , getting yourself upset is not healthy.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    3:31pm
    @OG vessels not burst yet. OWAS
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    3:33pm
    That's where you have got it wrong niemakawa it is actually good for me to get upset as it raises my blood pressure.

    However I'll have to admit this is not making me upset at all.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    3:35pm
    @OG want you healthy to fight for your cause. I am waiting for the next increase in my entitlement, any news on that!!
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    3:45pm
    Ha ha everything will go up 10 times faster than your welfare payment.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:46pm
    Geezer: you are a poor excuse for a human being mate.
    Show me where else on the planet you have to "earn" your pension? That has been a right in this country since we were born. Now you and this wicked government want to rewrite the rules whilst giving any money saved to the rich as tax cuts. Come on..........
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    7:26pm
    Mick you have no right to the OAP or any other welfare. You only get it because you can't support yourself in any other way. So you don't earn your welfare at all. No one is rewriting the rules they are just changing the rules because too many people are using the loop holes in the welfare system which need to be closed.

    Company tax rates should be cut to 15% ASAP otherwise we will be in big trouble financially with not enough money to pay for all the welfare. The government will actually collect a lot more tax with this lower rate then what it is collecting now. Have a look back in history where every cut in company tax has resulted in more tax being paid.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    7:51pm
    You are talking through your hat again Geezer. Wearing the Liberal Party colours are we?

    Please show me how other first world nations work on your principle? They don't and a pension is what you get at the end of your working life. Has Australia been otherwise? And now the Liberal Party stooges seek to strip many Australians of this with the silver plated pole stuck up the rear end putting on the upper class English voice to steamroll any opposition.
    Given that many CEOs earn 5 to 15 million dollars A YEAR plus free shares and bonus shares tell me about the 'poor' businesses in Australia. BSS. Plain unabated greed! And please do not tell me corporate tax evaders will pay more tax because they get a small rate.
    After that tell me that it is fair for for individuals to be on as high a marginal rate as 48%.
    Last thing tell me about the deficit if the corporate tax rate were to go to 15%.

    You are obviously involved in the top end of town Geezer pretending to be an average struggling Australian. Give us a break mate. We have enough lies from the current government without posts like your adding another one.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    8:06pm
    Don't mind Old Goebbels - he just keeps repeating the same lie over and over until somebody actually thinks they believe it...
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    8:31pm
    OG seems too intelligent to actually believe what he often posts which means it is intentional. The next question is why and whose bidding is being done TREBOR. As I often say follow the money trail and you understand all. I have a suspicion that Geezer might wind up at Liberal Party HQ.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    10:19pm
    I have oft-times entertained that thought. He/she simply cannot be for real. From the vernacular and use of language - probably a she.

    (surprise - I used to monitor radio stuff - one of my many talents and some say dark history - and you get a 'feel' for the person *posting* - who, as I've said before - really has no idea what they give away when posting - they reveal so many characteristics that you can 'profile' them very quickly..... but always remember - in the dark all cats are grey)..........
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    11:56pm
    Heeey! Sombody said OG wasn't fit to lie down with the pigs!!!! I beg to differ!

    He is DEFINITELY THE definitive person to lie down with the pigs!!!
    Old Geezer
    26th May 2017
    4:14pm
    Pigs are lovely animals Trebor. Even have cleaner habits than most humans. Obviously you have had nothing to do with pigs to make those sorts of comments.
    TREBOR
    26th May 2017
    6:21pm
    Had pigs when I was young - they are sweet animals and clean as you say - they don't really like walking through shit and mud... people do that to them.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    1:33pm
    Should the proposal ever see the light of day, then expect tampering with it to start from day 1. Eventually it will be compulsory to downsize, that is the real intention of the Government.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:48pm
    Is that before or after the superannuation system is nationalised? There are many bad things coming and superannuation and pensions are just the beginning. Wait until we have a financial meltdown in Australia. God help you if you have significant funds in the big 4 banks, and more.......
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    8:17pm
    That's why the Sovereign Fund of the current offshored one ($130Bn - a good start and a theft made up by borrowing money offshore - BAD debt) returned to home, plus super contributions, plus social security levies deposited for the future - be kept under one roof and out of the hands of government and their cronies, and be governed by a board of directors which must include a retiree and a pensioner and an unemployed person, three out of five.

    Might be a bit drastic, but at least then we'd see money going to where it is NEEDED - and not eternally to those without need.
    floss
    25th May 2017
    1:33pm
    The attack on our old people just goes on and on give them a break MT you and your thugs.Good comment Trebor always fun to read not like that other old person.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    1:55pm
    The attack will continue because there are simply too many old people now relying on the taxpayers for their living expenses. It will get a lot worse as the public purse tightens with not enough taxpayers to pay even those on the OAP today.
    Jannie
    25th May 2017
    2:13pm
    Everyone is talking about the large number of retirees baby boomers they call us getting an age pension, well think of the consequences for future generations as there will be a far larger amount of people getting the age pension as our population grows. Why do I think this is the case? because there are currently millions on some form of pension who will never work, so they will be the ones getting the age pension and the more that are let into our country under refugee status the worse it will be for future generations. Lets face facts, why can't our leaders see this??
    KSS
    25th May 2017
    2:42pm
    They can Jannine and that is exactly why they are trying to tighten up on the eligibility for welfare. It is quite simply unsustainable at the current (and forward) levels. People have to be responsible for their own upkeep and only those in real need will be supported. That would not include those who are asset rich but cash poor.
    Jannie
    25th May 2017
    2:57pm
    People do try to be responsible for their own upkeep but unforeseen issues arise during our lives, eg bad health, loss of jobs, not everyone has a high income, marriage breakdowns, the list goes on. Not everyone is fortunate to own their own home (is worse now due to the high prices of housing) the young ones will be paying off their mortgages till the day they die.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    3:47pm
    Agree our government can see that the current welfare including the OAP is not sustainable into the future and have been trying to do something about it with only limited success as yet. Both sides of government will soon realise that the time has come otherwise everyone will suffer as there is not enough to go around.
    Triss
    25th May 2017
    3:52pm
    Be careful what you're saying, OG, it might start with OAPs but, like every other genocidal era in history, it will expand and become all oldies. You might find yourself hanging on the same lamppost as me.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    4:08pm
    Never as I have nought to do with Centrelink.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    4:12pm
    @OG. If you have nought to do with Centrelink, why concern yourself with others who do and draw their entitlement from this service.??
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    4:25pm
    No one draws their entitlement from Centrelink as Centrelink only pays out welfare. I am concerned because I am paying for it.
    Kathleen
    25th May 2017
    4:26pm
    OG
    There are many paying no tax like companies and individuals. Loopholes need to be closed and make sure tax is collected from Australian companies, multinationals and even individual millionIres who know how to rort the system. One example is: up to one million million dollars to manage tax affairs? Running a government is not the same as running a household. The former is extremely complex.
    It is not simply about tax.
    Also, much mismanagement happens by the government.
    You are rather contradictory. Sometimes you sound like a capitalist other times you come across more like a communist.
    Taking people's homes after death to recoup pensions that were paid. Really?
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    4:39pm
    Yes really. Why should your heirs get to go first class to Disneyland at the taxpayers expense.

    So you agree with a OAP couple owning a $20 million home should not have to pay back their OAP from their estate? That is why the government should recoup any OAPs paid from one's estate. All these handouts have to stop where people have more than enough to fund their own retirement.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    4:41pm
    @OG, well line up and claim your entitlement, stop complaining about those that do.
    Tinker
    25th May 2017
    4:41pm
    OG it seems to me that you can type so I will draw the long straw and suspect that you can read. Before submitting more trash please look up the definition of "welfare" and "pension" and point out what the differences may be. If you declare that any transfer of funds by a government is welfare then not only the pension but all such transfers should stop, like tax subsidies given for those putting money into superannuation.
    Kathleen
    25th May 2017
    5:09pm
    OG
    20 million dollar house?
    Bad example!
    How many people on here are millionaires and getting a pension.
    I am guessing none!
    My house is not worth a fraction of 20 million!
    Anyone on here own a $20 m home?
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:52pm
    Absolute garbage Geezer.
    The attacks on the aged has nothing to do with the increasing numbers of retirees. It has everything to do with a conflicted government not collecting taxes from multinationals or the rich and with a PM who is a part of the problem with his tax haven assets.
    And then look at the tax handouts to the top end of town who are paying their taxes and ask yourself WHERE this money is coming from.
    It is Class Warfare. Call it by its correct name. The problem only marginally caused by increasing numbers of retirees.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    6:36pm
    Well I personally know at least 10 millionaires collecting the OAP. I also know of OAP couples living in houses worth many millions. I myself could buy a house worth millions and get the OAP which is how unfair the system really is.

    The attacks have everything to do with the increasing numbers wanting to be on welfare. It has nothing to do with the rich people not paying their taxes as that a drop in the ocean to what is required in future for welfare. Hopefully voluntary euthanasia will cut the numbers a bit and give the government a bit of breathing space. But what happens after that? I'm already seeing old people not getting the medical treatment that they need as it is simply not worthwhile spending our health care on them.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    7:13pm
    @OG that is their right and entitlement, paid their dues that's their reward. I do agree with voluntary euthanasia, would want that for myself rather than be a vegetable in some old peoples home.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    8:00pm
    Geezer: I do not accept your account and I ask you to name the "at least 10 millionaires" who are on the OAP. They do not exist!

    My own home is worth well over $1 million but the median price for a house in Blacktown is almost that so maybe we need to redefine what a millionaire is. Not a real lot of people would be considered well off because their home is the only really valuable asset they own and not much else...and would drop like a rock if a stampede out of real estate or global downturn arrived on our doorstep.

    I agree with niemakawa to a certain extent although there does need to be a FAIR line in the sand where a pension starts to drop and then cut out altogether. The current threshholds see people earning less than the pension on their funds. That is not real fair but don't expect the current government running a Class Warfare agenda to own up to that. Better to keep lying, something the current lot are experts at.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    10:21pm
    So you're happy to accept it's an attack now, OG? Thanks for your input and positive affirmation...

    People, old and retired - you are hereby (through OG) officially under attack.
    Old Geezer
    26th May 2017
    10:29am
    Yes the are attacks and good ones at that. Bring them on.
    Old Geezer
    26th May 2017
    10:31am
    Mick I have at least half a dozen millionaires in my own extended family on the full OAP. Some their houses would amaze you.
    TREBOR
    26th May 2017
    12:15pm
    Ah - so rorting and manipulation runs in the family, eh?
    Triss
    26th May 2017
    12:35pm
    Oh, Trebor, you crack me up.
    ex PS
    29th May 2017
    10:27am
    O.G, as most of the people on the Pension Entitlement have paid taxes most of their lives, yes their Pension Entitlement is being paid for by the Taxpayer, namely themselves. Glad to see that you have finally seen the light and agree that we pay for our own Pension Entitlement through our taxes, it took a while but you are finally getting it. And as we pay for it ourselves it then follows that it is not welfare.
    floss
    25th May 2017
    3:42pm
    Ceejay is correct as a bushie I know the good times are not shared in the bush a place city folk don't know or care.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:54pm
    Especially Woolies and Coles.
    I know you guys are being done over. We couldn't believe how much prices have again risen when we returned from a stint in France, not to mention the high prices here and the crap they sell us called food.
    Farmers need to set up their own stores in the cities and beat the bastards at their own game. Pass it on floss.
    Supernan
    25th May 2017
    4:03pm
    There is never a mention of where people would move to or how much it costs to move. Or how much it would cost to live where you move to.

    Since we moved here over 40 years ago the area has developed so much that everything we need is about 20 minutes away. And a son close by. Why would we want to move ?

    Also how many over 70s have super funds to put money into. if the money goes in our bank we lose our part pension.Its terryfying enough that we are now giving up our very small part time work, which supplemented our part pension. But its too much to cope with now because my husband is my carer a lot of the time.

    I think its just something the Gov dreamed up to stress us out & kill us off sooner !
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    4:09pm
    Death by stealth. Every Governments' intention.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    5:58pm
    The issue is another coalition lie Supernan. The real problem is that the bastards let interest rates drop to zilch, imported people with no thought of infrastructure demands or housing and now it is the fault of retirees. It is not and where the media not owned and controlled by wealthy interests you would not be hearing the lies.
    Solution: stop importing people we have absolutely no need of and build more houses. That would too hard though. Easier to blame pensioners who do not form a political party to kick the bastards out.
    Cheezil61
    25th May 2017
    4:49pm
    Some excellent comments made in this discussion! Future looks bleek for me (55) but even more so for those a few years younger when they turn 55-60. So sad how we are treated for working our butts off all our life whilst some chose easy street & never work but seem to do & have everything & more than us without all the stress! Disgraceful!
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    6:00pm
    My wife and I also lament that we worked ridiculous hours, did without everything, paid off our debts and invested the few dollars we had left over. Like you we are now being targeted as being fair game. Pretty disgraceful but welcome to this rotten coalition government. They need to go.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    8:28pm
    We all have that story - I was - as many times before - on call 24/7/365, and have worked three days straight without a break. My children's mother, in the film industry, would often work from 4am to midnight as well... neither of us had all the benefits of family life etc, and now are fairly in the sights of these vultures who've never missed a square meal at home with the family, and now even get paid to bring family along to work to as they don't miss out.

    what an absolute joke.

    One of my most laughable memories was when a cousin, another never missed a square meal at home type, and her husband were both racing along in the public service - and she said "Oh - it can be so hard when you have two parents in promotional positions."

    I cracked up.... what did she imagine my missus and I were in?
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    8:34pm
    People have that effect on one TREBOR. Welcome to the people business and life. Never much changes does it.
    Time to hit the sack and give others a go. Shot enough ferals and trolls for one day......where are the emotions YLC?
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    10:24pm
    emoticons desperately needed....
    Rodent
    25th May 2017
    5:06pm
    Wow what a sweeping statement from the OG

    Well it's certainly not an entitlement because only those who are poor get it. So it is welfare.

    Clearly OG has forgotten that Non Home Owner couples with $850,000 in Assets are still Receiving $13,000 in Age Pension and at that figure NO other Person with those assets get ANYTHING, ZERO ,ZILCH-- So they are NOT POOR!!!
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    6:48pm
    Rodent they are poor as they will need every penny of that $13000 just to pay their rent.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    10:25pm
    Why would they be paying rent if they have that much in assets NOT including the family home?

    I know nobody in that category.
    Old Geezer
    26th May 2017
    10:27am
    You don't get out much then Trebor.
    TREBOR
    26th May 2017
    12:16pm
    All the oldies around here own their homes... spoilt rotten...
    Rodent
    25th May 2017
    5:09pm
    As a SFR I would have expected OG to be delighted with this offer by his Govt that directly advantages SFR and clearly would disadvantage any Pensioner who was silly enough to even consider this.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    6:53pm
    It is of no advantage to me as I don't own a house. At my age it is not a good idea to own one at all. I have seen too many people forced to sell their house to go into a nursing home so I'm not about to have that happen to me.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    10:26pm
    OG owns nothing but benefits from it mightily....... just ask him....
    TREBOR
    26th May 2017
    12:17pm
    Ah - so you're one of the 'millionaires in your family' who doesn't own anything but benefits all ways?

    25th May 2017
    6:21pm
    the usual comments of all those objectors , just listen to their bleating, strange it is always the same mob who can't see the black of the white, the feature or the past, what is good for the country or bad, to live in peace or not, to give the kids a leg up or not, no, after all just keep on thinking about your own ME, ME, hope you all are able to sleep peacefully!!!!!!
    I am because I live for the future, not just for me but most important the future of my kids, grand kids and the future of this great country, AUSTRALIA,
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    7:09pm
    SO you should be looking out for YOUR family. That's the reason you should be able to leave all your accumulated assets to them and still receive a pension to which you are entitled. I certainly do not want my hard earned stolen from me just so the Government can give it to those that claim to be poor. Only my family are entitled to the, nobody else.I have paid my taxes that's all I am willing and prepared to do. The Government trying to double dip, well that is just not on.
    Old Geezer
    25th May 2017
    7:17pm
    No niemakawa you are double dipping by claiming welfare.
    niemakawa
    25th May 2017
    7:28pm
    @OG Entitlement paid for with exorbitant taxes. I will not be paying again for something that I have already paid for. All my assets will be going to my family, where there is a will there is a way. Show me an official Government document which states emphatically that the pension is welfare, I must have missed that one.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    8:32pm
    OG - you reckon you have all these great and cunning things going for you, pay no tax and never have etc -and yet you are not double dipping and freeloading?

    Fantasyland must be a wonderful place to live.

    Repeating the same lies over and over won't make them truth, you know. You simply do not wish to learn.
    Old Geezer
    26th May 2017
    10:23am
    Trebor I not only pay my own living expenses but pay enough tax for someone else's as well.

    Yes I do things differently to other SFRs because it suits my circumstances.

    Never lived in Fantasyland and never want to as it sounds like a boring place to live to me.

    What lies? They are only lies as your mind does not extend enough to understand my ideas and what I do.
    TREBOR
    26th May 2017
    12:19pm
    That may be so - I don't have a cunning or manipulative bone in my body, and am not over-burdened by self-interest, either.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th May 2017
    5:31am
    How is it ''double-dipping'' for someone to claim a pension after working, paying taxes and saving responsibly their whole life but not ''double-dipping'' to spend hundreds of thousands on living a luxury life style and then claim a pension on the basis that you have very little left? This is just BS! CRAP. GARBAGE. FILTHY COMMUNIST LIES.

    Niemakawa is right. It is our right and our obligation to use the assets we accrued through OUR OWN hard work to benefit our children and grandchildren, NOT the offspring of the greedy and irresponsible who spent their earnings on living the good life. As for future generations, they are far better off than my generation ever was, and if they stopped wasting their money on $4 coffees, overseas holidays and restaurant dinners they could easily buy one of the very affordable houses for sale in outer suburbs and country towns - ESPECIALLY given the ridiculously low interest rates. Houses have never been more affordable! Compare with the humble abodes we bought at between 7.5% and 22% interest, and then factor in the very cheap cars, appliances, furniture, linen, household necessities, clothing, etc. that cost our generation far, far more relative to income and it's clear that all this BS about house prices relates only to inner city dwellings that were NEVER an option for working class and even most middle class workers.

    And in addition to all the other arguments validating claims of ENTITLEMENT to an aged pension is the obvious (to anyone with a brain) argument that it's BAD FOR THE ECONOMY to punish people for working hard and living responsibly. We need to stop handing out to spendthrifts and reward and encourage responsible living if we are ever to restore the economy to health. And responsible living doesn't mean hoarding (like OG apparently does). Paying FAIR pensions to those who deserve them enables the healthy levels of consumption that drive demand and economic growth.
    Zulu
    25th May 2017
    6:29pm
    What I love about this is the assumption that there are a whole swag of people who have homes that they can sell to downsize, buy a smaller house and still have $600K (Couples) left over to put into super.
    The reality is that the vast majority of Australians, if they are in the fortunate position of being able to downsize, will end up with a tenth of that if they are lucky and in some cases, after stamp duty and agent commisions, considerably less if anything.
    If you are one of those people who have a house worth over a million dollars the odds are your financial situation is such that you are not getting the pension or part thereof anyway so it all becomes a moot issue whether you should bother.
    If the Govt really want to help seniors & the accommodation issue, which by their actions is questionable, they should do away with stamp duties (Qld & others) and bin negative gearing.
    MICK
    25th May 2017
    8:06pm
    It sounds to me like this government is wanting to push retirees out of well to do suburbs where they have probably lived for decades and go to places like Campbelltown. So people lose their circle of friends and end up in socioeconomic battlefield. And let's not forget what comes next from our wonderful (not) current government: 'NO PENSION....SPEND YOUR EXCESS FUNDS GUYS! Don't call us, we'll call you'.
    TREBOR
    25th May 2017
    10:27pm
    Jayzuz - who would want to live in Campbelltown?
    MJM
    26th May 2017
    7:24am
    i just hope this idea does not become a law. Once again they are trying to ease their own burden. If your going to change anything change Aged Pension to Senior Entitlement. One sounds like a begrudging handout the other a sign of Australian respect for the generations who are still entitled after all their effort.
    Old Geezer
    26th May 2017
    10:19am
    OAP should be called Senior Welfare Payment as that is what it really is. Respect has nothing to do with it at all.
    TREBOR
    26th May 2017
    12:19pm
    Show a little respect..... changing the name of a river doesn't alter the river....
    Kathleen
    26th May 2017
    1:32pm
    OG
    I think you like attention. How have you made this wealth of yours?
    What are your qualifications? How old are you?
    Are you genuine?
    You have said some outlandish things so you need to demonstrate your credibility.
    Poor people spend all their money. If the wealthy hoard theirs then they create problems for the country.
    I hope you spend a lot so you are among the wealthy who are making positive contributions to the nation and not one of those who does not understand how a country's finances work as taxes are not the whole financial story.
    niemakawa
    26th May 2017
    1:45pm
    @OG put in your claim for the Senior Entitlement. An entitlement for all who have paid for it.
    Old Geezer
    26th May 2017
    3:49pm
    Niemakawa there is simply no point in me putting in a claim for any Senior Welfare Payment. Besides why tell anyone what I have if I don't have to. I haven't just paid for it but am still paying for it and will to the day I die.

    I didn't study economics for many years at uni and not understand how the economy works. I will admit that if everyone followed my example the economy would not be in good shape at all. I only buy what I need and rarely anything that I want. I did however buy something that I wanted but didn't need today.
    billy
    26th May 2017
    11:10am
    My question is "Both my wife and I receive a part pension from the Government. We also receive a pension from my super investment. We own our own house. i down size, Selkl my house for $40000. Invest that money back into my su0per savings for 12 months. eg $400000 plus $200000 alread invested = $600000. During the ensuring 12 months I rent a dwelling for $400 a week. A. Are we entitlted to rent assistance for that 12 month period and will it have any bearing on our pensiion, {couple).
    TREBOR
    26th May 2017
    12:20pm
    Without doing the figures, you'll most likely find that you have too much assets to get rental assistance.
    Kane Jiang Retirement Planner
    26th May 2017
    3:08pm
    Hi all, this is Kane your contributor to this article. Thank you for your comments.
    We did not include cost for renting as in the three scenarios we have assumed you sold a house worth $1.2 million and downsize to a new residence worth $600k, hence releasing $600k available for investment. Hope this helps explains.
    Old Geezer
    26th May 2017
    3:52pm
    Question for you Kane. Can one put in $300,000 or $600,000 per couple even if they don't get this much change out of downsizing? he devil will be in the detail I think.
    Kane Jiang Retirement Planner
    26th May 2017
    4:36pm
    Hi Old Geezer. Yes, you may be able to depending on your circumstances under different contribution rule scenarios. I suggest you seek personal advice if you are thinking about doing so as rules in this area can be quite complex.
    Old Geezer
    27th May 2017
    12:11pm
    Thanks I'll wait until the detail is available and then read it for myself. Unfortunately I no longer trust any experts just on their word. I don't own a house in my own name so it will not be applicable to me but maybe to others I advise.
    ex PS
    27th May 2017
    3:33pm
    The way I see it Super is an individuals asset, so it would only be fair for the individual to put $300,000.00 into their own account, for example a property sold for $600,000.00 in joint names should allow each owner to put $300,000.00 into their accounts.
    The government can't expect to have it all their own way.
    This would provide extra income for the individual and allow them to access rental allowance if they choose to rent instead of buy.
    It will not in fact be a value for money solution in some cases for the government, but then again it is not about best practice it is more about political expediency.
    CarterD
    12th Oct 2017
    6:23am
    TO GET LOAN @ 2% INTEREST RATE with victoriafinancier@outlook.com

    IF you are looking for a loan amount, contact Victoria Financier Trust Company ( victoriafinancier@outlook.com ). She help me with funds urgently when i was desperate in need of money to payoff my debt, medical expenses and more funds assistance to pay our mortgage and refinance my business. I read about Victoria Financier on how she helped people. When i contacted and explain my situation to her, she respond within a short time and help my family. She is great. her good work is visible. We should all appreciate her. Contact her now with VIA EMAIL: victoriafinancier@outlook.com

    *Full Name:_________

    *Address:_________

    *Tell:_________

    *loan amount:_________

    *Loan duration:_________

    *Country:_________

    *Purpose of loan:_________

    *Monthly Income:__________

    *Occupation__________

    *Next of kin:_________

    *Email :_________
    CarterD
    12th Oct 2017
    6:25am
    TO GET LOAN @ 2% INTEREST RATE with victoriafinancier@outlook.com

    IF you are looking for a loan amount, contact Victoria Financier Trust Company ( victoriafinancier@outlook.com ). She help me with funds urgently when i was desperate in need of money to payoff my debt, medical expenses and more funds assistance to pay our mortgage and refinance my business. I read about Victoria Financier on how she helped people. When i contacted and explain my situation to her, she respond within a short time and help my family. She is great. her good work is visible. We should all appreciate her. Contact her now with VIA EMAIL: victoriafinancier@outlook.com
    unhappy
    16th Apr 2018
    11:33am
    So, can I put into my super other money I received from my brother's estate? I thought I could not put any money into super, as I am over 65


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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