Does the Budget downsizing proposal mean loss of Age Pension?

Font Size:

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.

Join YourLifeChoices today
and get this free eBook!

Join
By joining YourLifeChoices you consent that you have read and agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

RELATED LINKS

Scheme to encourage older Australians to downsize

Scott Morrison's housing affordability plan offers incentives for retirees to downsize.

Downsizing: how house sale proceeds are assessed

May is unsure how selling her home will affect her Age Pension.

211 Comments

Total Comments: 211
  1. 0
    0

    Beware of a Government bearing gifts.

    • 0
      0

      Just another Government scam.

    • 0
      0

      I have searched, but can not find anywhere where it says that it is compulsory.

    • 0
      0

      @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.

    • 0
      0

      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!

  2. 0
    0

    And where do they live after they sell their house?

    • 0
      0

      The Government would be very happy if they lived in a tent.

    • 0
      0

      @Idontforget ,or preferably just fade away.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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!

    • 0
      0

      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.

  3. 0
    0

    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…..

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      @OG the Aged pension is not welfare. End of.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      @OG I am entitled to call it an entitlement, so get used to it.

    • 0
      0

      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?

    • 0
      0

      No Triss, they contribute to their pension funds as part of their employment contracts. It is a completely different ‘pension’.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      We are not talking about people on Welfare O.G, we are talking about people on the Pension Entitlement.

  4. 0
    0

    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?

    ,

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      Well said and done, Eddy.

    • 0
      0

      Surely you jest, Crowcrag.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      @MICK and they are full of old people, waiting to die, not a good environment to be in.

    • 0
      0

      No nursing home for me – I’ll be of sailing my live aboard yacht and they can find me a la Marie Celeste…

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      He died with a ski pole in his hand….. what a man!!

    • 0
      0

      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

    • 0
      0

      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!

  5. 0
    0

    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.

  6. 0
    0

    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

    • 0
      0

      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…….

    • 0
      0

      Exactly right, Sundays. The article should have noted this. Rest of the discussion is a sideshow.

  7. 0
    0

    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.

    • 0
      0

      Their intentions, if this proposal is ever passed, are to make it compulsory to downsize, plain to see.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      @OG take a breather old chap, you are getting yourself all worked up.

    • 0
      0

      Watch OG get worked up if capital gains and negative Gearing is removed, so he can’t live off the government welfare handouts anymore.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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!

    • 0
      0

      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?

  8. 0
    0

    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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      Trebor you have the wrong person here as I have never thought of the OAP as anything but welfare. They are all welfare.

    • 0
      0

      “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.

    • 0
      0

      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?

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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!!

    • 0
      0

      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.

  9. 0
    0

    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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

  10. 0
    0

    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.

    • 0
      0

      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’.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      .. 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!”

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      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.

    • 0
      0

      Sometimes in dealing with a sneaky enemy, the long bow is the best weapon…

    • 0
      0

      People do have a right to not be forced out Grandma….but the current bunch are working on changing that.

    • 0
      0

      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.

Load More Comments

FACEBOOK COMMENTS



SPONSORED LINKS

continue reading

Fitness

Exercise proven to aid cancer patients

At Sydney's iconic Bondi Icebergs pool, on a crisp spring morning, Siobhan O'Toole and Donna Moclair look like seasoned swimmers...

Health

How to … safely remove embarrassing stains

Tips and tricks on removing red wine or pasta sauce stains from clothing are readily exchanged between family and friends,...

Podcast

Podcast: Why you need Five Good Friends in your life

Simon Lockyer from Five Good Friends joins John Deeks to discuss how Five Good Friends has revolutionised home care, how...

Living in retirement

I wrote my autobiography. You can too – and you should

Peter Harris is 73 and has finished a project that has absorbed and excited him for more than two decades....

Lifestyle

Dog behaviours and what they mean

Dogs will be dogs. They eat, lick, fetch and give unlimited love. They'll also chew, bite, dig and bark, and...

Community

A prostate catch 22

Columnist Peter Leith takes the time to talk, lobby and observe. In this addition to his Aspects of Ageing true...

Destinations

Max Williams experiences the magic of Lake Mungo

I gaze in wonder at the small bone fragments I am holding. Most likely they are part of a Murray...

Travel News

WA opens borders – but not to everyone

After hard lockdowns, travellers from New South Wales and Victoria have been granted quarantine free access to Western Australia. As...

LOADING MORE ARTICLE...