10th May 2016
Age Pension: Should deeming rates be re-adjusted?
Older woman concerned about deeming rates

Like many retirees, Betty believes that deeming rates are simply too high, given the returns on term deposits and savings.

Q. Betty
I think that the deeming rate is unfair owing to term deposit rates available.

The rates of 1.75 per cent for balances up to $48.000 and 3.25 per cent for balance over that amount are nowhere near what is being offered by the banks.

For retirees with savings of $100,000, which is quite modest, the different in rates is about one per cent and this can mean a reduction of $20 per week on the Age Pension. An amount that many retirees on a fixed income simply can’t afford to lose.

I wonder how many of your readers think this? Scott Morrison apparently thinks not. Surely the deeming rate should be adjusted.

A. The deeming rate on savings for retirees receiving an Age Pension is indeed unfair. The lowering of the cash rate by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) last week and the continued speculation that it will soon be cut again is a growing concern for those who rely on interest from savings to fund their retirement. The banks are quick enough to cut their rates on term deposits, whereas the Government is less likely to react with a reduction in deeming rates.

The Government will use the argument that deeming rates are not only applied to income from term deposits and savings, but also from shares and other investments, many of which have returns higher than the deeming rates.

However, if this is the case, there could be an argument to have different deeming rates applied to different types of investment income.

Do you agree? Are deeming rates too high? Or is this the best way to average returns on investment income?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Woody
    10th May 2016
    10:11am
    I agree. There should be different rates of deeming for those with only Bank savings and term deposits to those with shares.
    Try and get more than 3% on 5 years for term deposits, it impossible and they are likely to come down again now the reserve has cut rates.
    Surely now that everything is computerised it would not be hard to apply different deeming rates!

    10th May 2016
    10:22am
    Deeming rates are that high so the government can save money from having to increase pension payments for having to pay for the VERY small TRUE return on savings accounts and term deposits due to the pathetically small and CONTINUALLY falling interest rates. THERE IS NO OTHER REASON WHATSOEVER!
    Bonny
    10th May 2016
    10:45am
    I disagree deeming rates should be the same for all investments.

    The government want you to invest in better performing investments than lazy bank interest ones. That's why they are higher than the interest in bank ones.
    Sen.Cit.89
    10th May 2016
    11:50am
    This tax was introduced by the ALP Paul Keating for the reasons you state. I followed this investment advice and went to a 'Financial Adviser' end result, I lost most of my life savings just as I was about to retire, (economic downturn); (Keating's banana republic). I have never and never will vote ALP again.
    Fliss
    10th May 2016
    12:50pm
    Spot on Sen.Cit.84! In today's economic climate term deposits are much safer. People looking for greater returns easily risk losing principal.mDeeming rates should definitely be adjusted.
    Rae
    10th May 2016
    2:20pm
    I don't believe there should be made up rates at all. Your income from investments should be the income so the declaration to Centrelink should be based on income the same as it is for everyone else.

    It would be a simple exercise to declare income at the end of June when the bank and funds send out end of year statements. Maybe an October cut off the same as the ATO.

    That way it would be real instead of make believe.

    Too much making things up is not helping most people at all.
    Bonny
    10th May 2016
    2:35pm
    Rae that's how they used to calculate income but they did in it advance just in case they gave you a cent too much. They decided then that deeming was a better way and everyone agreed because the deeming rate was way below their actual earnings. Now the tables have turned in their favour.
    ex PS
    11th May 2016
    1:02pm
    Bonny, yes you can get better rates than term deposits, but to get those rates you have to take the risk of a negative return. The simple rule is the higher the rate of return the higher the risk of a loss.
    If the government is so keen for us to invest in other than bank cash deposits, why does it only indemnify those products?
    It is not lazy to invest in bank products, if you have limited funds that you depend on for income it is prudent not to put them at risk.
    I saw a lot of people in the 90's lose substantial amounts of money through chasing easy money.
    What it comes down to is investing in a way that you are comfortable with and expecting and getting fair treatment from those who are elected and paid to look after the best interests of those they serve.
    How hard can it be to set a fair deeming rate?
    Bonny
    11th May 2016
    2:38pm
    I actually spoke to one of the Centrelink department heads about deeming rates recently and asked why they were higher than deposit rates. His answer was that the government wants people to get their money out of lazy assets into better performing assets. They are his words not mine.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    3:34pm
    He is a tunnel-vision idiot then, Bonny. You don't improve people's returns by punishing those who aren't able to secure better returns. EVERYONE wants more money to live on. If people are getting lower returns than they could achieve it's because they don't have the financial literacy or help resources to do better. For a Centrelink department head to say that punitive measures are deliberate to hurt the disadvantaged is just appalling.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    3:35pm
    Actually, Bonny, that's the sort of arrogant contemptuous response I'd expect from you. Are you sure you heard it from someone at Centrelink. Those I've come in contact at Centrelink are much more empathetic and respectful.
    Golden Oldie
    27th Jun 2016
    11:30am
    The deeming rates were initially introduced to stop people from leaving large amounts of cash on accounts paying no interest, so that they could get higher pensions. The deeming rates were initially set at 5% which was less than the inrerest available on cash management accounts and term deposits. Now you are lucky to get 1.75%, so this is just the government trying to decrease the amount of pension payable.
    kentucky
    27th Jun 2016
    2:41pm
    Good one Bonny have you ever invested directly in the stock market? it is a very volatile and risky area to be investing what modest savings most retirees have.
    MICK
    10th May 2016
    11:37am
    Best rate I can find is around 3%. Deeming rates need to be a bit conservative given that there is normally only one institution which offers the top rate and this may not be a suitable place to invest depending of the conditions attached to the product. Some get you with zero interest for the month if you withdraw anything and that is not a suitable place to park money. At least not for retirees.
    Bonny
    10th May 2016
    12:32pm
    Been listening to some interest rate forecasts and one forecast has us at 1.5% by August. So that another rate cut before then.

    What does concern me is that we are out of kilter with normal rate cuts and economic cycles. We are lowering rates when at this phase in a normal economic cycle we should be raising them.

    No we also have very low inflation forecast into 2017-2018 which includes rate could stay at 1.5% into 2017-2018.

    Taking this further the US due to economic cycles could go into a recession in 2017-2018 so if we follow our interest rates could be cut to zero.

    Forecasting further out after the 2017-2018 recession we could have a 1950s type boom.

    So with no relief in interest rates beyond 2017-2018 deeming rates need to be cut sooner rather than later.
    George
    10th May 2016
    12:15pm
    Basic financial fact - more risk more return.
    Are we seriously being asked to put our slim savings into a riskier asset class? Shares go down as well as up and should not be classed as the basic investment avenue for lower income earners. The deeming rate must be adjustable and adjustable in a timely manner.
    Fliss
    10th May 2016
    12:54pm
    Yep! Agree! When you have worked your entire life to accumulate funds for your retirement, the last thing you should do is risk losing them. High risk investments are for the very young. Retirees need very conservative investment such as term deposits - so deeming rates (which are applied only to retirees) must be adjusted.
    Rae
    10th May 2016
    2:26pm
    You could buy an annuity which is exactly what the defined benefit people do. They hand over the money for a set amount each month.

    You don't get your capital back but everyone says these are the best schemes so I find it strange more people don't actually buy annuities.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    8:13am
    I looked at annuities, Rae, but they seem to pay very little unless you invest an enormous amount. The purchase price is very high and the value seems poor.

    10th May 2016
    12:19pm
    The very largest majority of retirees need the conservative security of cash and interest on cash deposits.
    Investing in shares is a gamble and very few financial advisers would advise retirees with a need to ensure the security of their retirement investment/s, to invest in shares.

    The Govt needs to ensure that deeming rates are fair and follow the official interest rate.

    What is of great concern is that a economic expert with good credentials and an accurate forecasting history has advised in recent days, that Australia is following the world trend and he forecast that offical interest rates in Australia will be at zero percent within 5 years.

    If this is true, and I believe he is correct, this has huge ramifications for retirees with cash, and will make their retirement poorer and more risky as they seek better returns.

    Investing in property then becomes attractive when interest rates are rock bottom - but by doing so, retirees expose themselves to bad property decisions, property price falls, and heavy costs associated with owning investment property.
    Bonny
    10th May 2016
    12:36pm
    I tend to agree it could be 2020 and beyond before we see interest rates rise. Read my post above.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    12th May 2016
    9:04am
    You are contradicting yourself, Bronny. You think deeming rates should be cut but those with minimal assets suffering a cruel and unfair change to the taper rate should be further hurt. A different version of tall poppy syndrome, I think. Maybe just vile snobbery! Pretend to be kind to those at the bottom of the food chain, but don't let ANYONE benefit from trying to elevate their status a little.
    David
    10th May 2016
    12:45pm
    You can get better than 3% and you don't have to lock your money away!
    I get 3.12% at call from UBank on balances from $1-$200,000 and it's government guaranteed.
    Bonny
    10th May 2016
    1:35pm
    Make sure you compare apples with apples as some banks calculate their interests rates differently to others.
    David
    10th May 2016
    4:31pm
    I did Bonny. That's why I chose to invest in UBank.
    Many banks only give their best rate (which is normally under 3%) once you reach a certain threshold (eg $20,000, $50,000). UBank's threshold is $1.
    UBank doesn't charge fees either like many banks do.
    Bonny
    10th May 2016
    5:00pm
    A lot of those accounts one has to add a certain amount each month and take nothing out to get the bonus interest.
    David
    11th May 2016
    12:22pm
    That's true Bonny, a lot of banks only give you bonus interest if you don't make any withdrawals.
    However I chose UBank because they are not like a lot of banks.
    Howard
    10th May 2016
    1:02pm
    Why is anyone worrying about deeming rates when the govt.is cutting your part pension by 50%. I reckon that should take a higher priority & we really should be having a go at them getting at the pensioner at all. They don't seem to be getting affected in any way!!! A lot of pensioners would be only too happy to receive their 2% pay rise which they got on their very good salaries?
    Alexii
    10th May 2016
    3:47pm
    Very true, Howard. That cut is of the most concern to me.
    NGE
    10th May 2016
    5:09pm
    I agree Howard and Alexii. Cannot understand why we haven't heard more pensioners up in arms about the huge cut to the part pension
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    8:22am
    I've been writing to politicians posing a question about the changes to the taper rate, and so far not one sensible answer from any of them. Either they are too dumb to figure it out or too embarrassed by the obvious stupidity of the decision to know how to respond.

    The change was cruel and unfair in the extreme to existing retirees - who now have to choose between upgrading the family home, cruising the world, gambling their savings away, or separating from their spouse to preserve their income. (Note that if they take a $100,000 cruise, the generous taxpayer will, over 10 years, refund the cost and give them a huge $80,000 bonus on top!)

    But for the yet to retire, there's now a wonderful investment opportunity available. The generous taxpayer - thanks to stupid government decisions - is now offering any retired couple a whopping 7.8% return for stashing any funds over about $300,000 under the mattress, or in a fireproof safe. Better still, the return is indexed to inflation (not going down like bank interests) and there are none of the risks attached to stock market or real estate investment.

    As I said, not one of our stupid, overpaid fat-cat politicians has yet been able to respond to my question as to how this constitutes ''fair and sustainable pension reform''. Clearly, it will drive pension costs through the roof as more and more retirees realize what the government has done and respond.

    A financial adviser told me of 98 retired clients who are impacted by the taper rate change, 96 have already booked expensive cruises and will spend a few hundred thousand abroad and come back to claim higher pensions.

    If I were still a taxpayer, I'd be SCREAMING. Astonishing how few have picked up on the facts. Too wrapped up in the government's blatant lies about ''millionaires getting pensions'' to notice, I guess!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    3:32pm
    Good news on this from Chris Bowen. He mentioned in his budget reply that Labor had budgeted to reverse the changes to the pension asset test. I'm eagerly awaiting a personal response now, from my local member. I believe she is following up with him on this issue.
    Bonny
    11th May 2016
    3:39pm
    Didn't the Greens support the LNP in bringing it in? The only way Labor is likely to govern is with the support of the Greens and I can't see the Greens reversing their decision on this.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    5:09pm
    Keep hoping people are hurt and the system remains unfair, Bonny. That's all that matters to you. You get immense joy out of seeing others damaged, and boasting about your own claimed good fortune. People like you eventually get what they deserve. I hope it comes soon.
    Bonny
    13th May 2016
    2:48pm
    There was no mention in Chris Bowen's speech about the pensions at all let alone reversing the taper rate. I don't think it is on their agenda at all.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    15th May 2016
    5:39pm
    Chris Bowen discounted any savings from the pension change in his budget calculations, which means either that they intend reversing it, or that they know there will be no savings from it and therefore they will certainly review it because no sane politician would leave a stupid policy in place that is dreadfully unpopular, and of no benefit to the country (in fact, detrimental).
    ray from Bondi
    10th May 2016
    1:36pm
    of course they are, let's hope that the labor party picks up on this, and make it a promise, but then it would be politicians promise.
    Gaby
    10th May 2016
    3:38pm
    It is very obvious that the deeming rate is excessively High. Given that there have been numerous interest rate reductions, the earnings for seniors on their bank deposits is become irrelevant. There should be a push to have the rate adjusted and be fairer.
    Rodent
    10th May 2016
    5:31pm
    David, Bonny and others

    Credit Union Australia CUA has very good Term Deposit rates for All members, especially for members over 55 years

    3.15% pa for 12 months
    3.50%pa for 24 Months
    3.55%pa for 36 Months -Max period
    As well for slightly lower rates ie less -0.15% than above you can get the TD interest paid Monthly
    Bonny
    10th May 2016
    6:26pm
    Credit unions are not for me.
    David
    11th May 2016
    2:18pm
    Rodent, it is not a fair comparison to compare at call rates with term deposits. Obviously term deposit rates will be higher because you are locking your money away for 365/730/1095 days compared to one day.
    Also, it's not a fair comparison to compare bank rates v credit union rates. Obviously credit union rates will be higher because of the higher risk involved.
    My previous posts were in reference to at call rates at a bank. You need to compare apples with apples as Bonny said in an earlier post.
    Bonny
    11th May 2016
    3:22pm
    Reading the fine print those CUA rates you stated above are only current as at 26/4/2016. RBA cut rates on 3/5/2016 by 0.25% so those rates may change due to that rate cut.
    Rodent
    10th May 2016
    5:38pm
    I doubt that the Govt will want to LOWER the deeming rates any time soon, as this would result in some existing Pensioners receiving a greater Pension payment. Also especially given the upcoming Jan 2017 changes were there are already both reducing some existing Pensions and cancelling other Pensions altogether
    Bubbles
    10th May 2016
    6:00pm
    Yes of course they are way too high when it comes to bank interest rates. Even dividends are down so the deeming rates should reflect these lower rates too.
    in2sunset
    10th May 2016
    6:17pm
    It's just a sneaky way for the Govt to rip more of struggling pensioners. Good grief - to have only around $150,000 - $200,000 in the bank is NOT a ticket to a luxurious living! I can guarantee that if politicians were told their expenses/pension was to be reduced by $20/$30/$40 a week, there would an absolute mutiny!!
    Lower the deeming rates - I get so sick of politicians, and financial people saying that you can find higher rates elsewhere. Firstly - where? - thre are too many people out there already trying to suck pensioners dry. And many older people feel safer keeping their money in the bank. Also, many investment options are only available 'on line' - no good as many older pensioners do not have nor do they want to have a computer.
    Current rates are too high - lower them.
    in2sunset
    10th May 2016
    6:21pm
    Bonny you always seem to have some trite comment about how good pensioners are getting it, and how well you are doing. get off your high horse!!
    I can guarantee that if politicians were told their expenses/pension was to be reduced by $20/$30/$40 a week, there would an absolute mutiny!!
    Lower the deeming rates - I get so sick of politicians, and people like you Bonny - saying that you can find higher rates elsewhere. Firstly - there are far too many people out there already trying to rip pensioners off with some high-in-the-sky investment scheme. And many older people feel safer keeping their money in the bank. Also, many investment options are only available 'on line' - no good as many older pensioners do not have nor do they want to have a computer.
    Current rates are too high - lower them. I get so sick and tired of reading your condescending 'I'm too wealthy to be on the pension' comments.
    Bonny
    10th May 2016
    6:33pm
    If you read my post above I give my reasons why I think deeming rates should be lowered ASAP. Please read my comment properly before criticizing me.
    in2sunset
    10th May 2016
    8:03pm
    I did - my opinion remains the same.
    Bonny
    10th May 2016
    9:32pm
    Sounds like you just want to cut down tall poppies to me. Good thing that my stems are very tough.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    8:06am
    You keep claiming NOT to be a tall poppy, Bonny. In one post you claimed to be living in poverty. In another you claimed not to own a house - yet you then claimed to have bought your children houses.

    I don't think you are a tall poppy. I think you are a very dishonest and malicious person who likes seeing others hurt and who enjoys causing upset here with your bigoted remarks.
    Anonymous
    11th May 2016
    10:43am
    Rainey, I think you are right. Those who rant about having a lot usually have very little. This person has an inferiority complex or wouldn't be carrying on like they do in every article they may comment in. This Bonny character is a complaining windbag without a pot to pee in nor a window to throw it out of.
    Bonny
    11th May 2016
    12:42pm
    With those remarks then I guess I have hit the nail on the head.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    1:31pm
    How sad that someone goes through life with the objective of upsetting other people, Bonny. What a miserable human being you must be!
    Bonny
    11th May 2016
    3:25pm
    Toyboy laughed when I told him that and said that I was anything but miserable.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    5:11pm
    If he's your toyboy, he's a pathetic, useless idiot and nobody would put one ounce of store by anything he said, Bonny.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    5:11pm
    If he's your toyboy, he's a pathetic, useless idiot and nobody would put one ounce of store by anything he said, Bonny.
    Golden Oldie
    10th May 2016
    6:34pm
    Deeming rates were initially brought in to stop pensioners holding their cash in accounts which did not pay any interest, to enourage them to change their accounts to get some interest, and the rate was set at a level below the rate readily available from the banks. In the current situation, with interest rates well below the deeming rates, it will hurt pensioners with a minor amount of savings who are still able to get a part pension and those being judged under the income test. Unfortunately, those part pensioners having slightly higher assets, assets which earn less than the pension in income, will not be affected by the deeming rate as the will lose their pension completely, and will have to draw down on their capital to make ends meet. While this may seem fair to a lot of people, remember these modest savings were designed to supplement the age pension, to lasrtfor 20 to 30 years, and hopefully used for aged care if and when necessary. With the downturn in the stock market, and a recession looming if the LNP win the next election, superannuation accounts will also take a big hit.
    Chrissy L
    10th May 2016
    9:00pm
    I really have to wonder about these deeming rates. I am currently in the position where I may have to loan my 86 year old Mum who has Vascular Dementia to stay in a Retirement Village in the UK, which she currently rents until her home is sold ,so she can buy the same Apartment. My brother and I have had to liquidate our retirement savings so we can keep Mum in place to save her anymore stress of moving again. I have had to withdraw money from my Superannuation to fund same. Even though this is an interest free loan to my Mum, It will still be deemed as earnings on the current deeming rates and my part pension will be adjusted accordingly. I am 66 years old. I think this is pretty tough, when we only want to help our Mum have some dignified retirement accommodation, when Multi Nationals pay little or no tax. Where is the justice I ask you? Once Mum's house is sold and she repays us, I can't put my money back into Superannuation as I am no longer working. What has happened to the 'Fair Go' Australian way? When Children want to help their parents be safe and happy and all we get is red tape and a loss of income for our own retirement? Peed Off with all of them!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    1:11pm
    The ''fair go'' Australian way is dead, Chrissy L. Too much greed and selfishness in today's society and no respect or empathy. Sad. This used to be such a great nation.

    Of course the privileged lay the blame on those they accuse of cheating or bludging. But they don't live in the real world. And if there are cheats and bludgers, it's because the rules favour them and cause grave hurt to the honest and decent - like you.

    I've been where you are. It's cruel and unfair in the extreme.
    Johnno11
    11th May 2016
    12:45am
    The deeming rates are great on the proviso you are in fact receiving a return of some description. I have two issues on this matter.
    1) Why should those who receive 2/5 of nothing be grouped in with those who are receiving a decent return.
    2) At my age of 66 my wife and I are still raising two school kids. Gasp yes I really am. The only income I receive is half a married couples pension. My wife will never be entitled to the other half. I understand this and concur with the fact that she shouldn't. She is a Thai citizen. So when I draw money out of my Super account to feed, cloth them, medical, schooling etc to supplement my half of a married couples pension apparently under the deeming rules of absurdity those basic necessities actually multiply (interest) so they are deemed. Apparently Centrelink believe I have access to a perpetual supply of basic necessities which has to be deemed.
    Dickb
    11th May 2016
    6:16am
    My credit union offer a special Pensioner Account that pays 1.75% for balances under $48,000 and 3.25% if over $48,000. There are also other benefits offered with this account that don't attract fees. Of course I would think that anyone with high savings would deposit their funds in a term deposit or other investment option that would pay higher interest that this anyhow.
    Ausdigga
    11th May 2016
    7:59am
    The deeming rate was actually invented to discourage the well off from placing large sums into zero interest deposit's , this enabled them to access a tiny Gov. part pension and the health care benefits that go with it. The banks pushed these accounts and grew fat on the results.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    8:12am
    And why was the taper rate invented, Ausdigga.

    The recent adjustment to it was a windfall for savvy yet-to-retire (unfair timing locks many currently retired out of the benefit, sadly).

    The government is now offering a huge 7.8% return on every dollar you hide under the mattress before applying to Centrelink. Taxpayers are being very generous indeed to those under 65. Better yet, it's indexed to inflation, and if you have less than about $823,000 declared assets, it comes with a whole host of nice extra benefits that will save you heaps.

    I can't imagine why anyone who can't accumulate more than about $1.3 million would bother to put money in banks, or even in shares or real estate. Much better to hide it away and take the taxpayer-funded dividend!

    I wonder when the dumb populace will wake up to the government's stupidity and betrayal? ''Sustainable'' pension reforms. What a sick joke!
    Bonny
    11th May 2016
    12:48pm
    Rainey I don't think people are listening as they are too busy whinging about it.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    1:20pm
    Sorry to disappoint, Bonny. The politicians aren't listening -YET. They will be forced to. Plenty of people are listening, and making a lot of protest noise. Fortunately, most are much smarter than you, and far less egocentric and self-serving.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    2:36pm
    And Labor is listening Bonny. Chris Bowen's budget reply speech confirmed they oppose the assets test change and will be reversing the taper rate change. Nice to see SOME politicians with brains!
    Bonny
    11th May 2016
    2:59pm
    Didn't the Greens help the government bring this in? Now the only way I see Labor in government is with the support of the Greens and I don't think the Greens will now support reversing it.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    5:08pm
    What you mean, Bonny, is that you HOPE they won't be reversed because Bonny can never admit she was mistaken, even when there is overwhelming evidence.

    The changes are unfair and unsustainable and are imposing unreasonably on taxpayers, and I suspect the Greens have already realized their error. If not, they will be compelled to when the time is right'- IF their support is needed.

    The bottom line is that the changes were patently unfair and will drive costs up, and no matter how many times you stubbornly insist on your BS, you can't supply one single ounce of evidence to support your argument in favour of the changes. All you have done is rant with irrelevant opinion and completely incorrect claims that you can't even begin to justify, and make it abundantly clear that you love seeing others hurt. Your argument is pure malice, and nothing more.

    Unlike you, I have put forward FACTS to PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that the change was wrong on every level and will exacerbate budget problems. It might surprise you to learn that I have regularly influenced political decisions. I know how to lobby. And I'll influence decisions again. I don't waste my time. But unlike you, I don't operate on unsubstantiated opinion or malicious desire to see others disadvantaged. I don't gloat about my own claimed wealth or well-being. I focus on what is FACTUAL and RIGHT.

    It's just a shame the LNP don't give a damn for fairness, decency, or the economy. If they did, they wouldn't waste taxpayer's money destroying the retirement of 560,000 people who acted responsibly and are saving the nation money. (And would save a lot more if allowed to, instead of being unfairly persecuted and lied about!)
    Bonny
    11th May 2016
    5:26pm
    Rainey for someone that is not affected by this taper change in assets you are spending an awful lot of energy on it.

    As a taxpayers it's is fair and just that pensioners spend their capital as well as the income on that capital rather than keep their capital as an inheritance. I also would like to see that any pensions are deducted from one's estate after their death. I have written lots of pollies about this and other things I would like to see happen.

    Yes I have given them the facts and why it is only fair.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    12th May 2016
    3:16pm
    You wouldn't know fair if it bit you, Bonny. Everything you write suggests you are a narcissistic elitist snob who wants the battling lifters to support the filthy greedy leaners of this country.

    The tax dodges the rich enjoy cost the nation far more than pensions do, and the rich exploit labour to achieve their income in the first place. There is NOTHING fair about making the working class pay for everything while the bludging fat self-serving well-to-do bleed the nation of its resources and pay NOTHING.

    What is FAIR is for EVERYONE who worked for 4 or 5 decades to be given a generous pension in retirement - no strings attached.

    As for saving the taxpayer, you are rather pathetically dumb if you can't see that the taper rate change COST the taxpayer. It does NOT help reduce taxes. It merely plunges HONEST hard working retirees into unnecessary poverty while giving the dishonest and the irresponsible MASSIVE rewards - funded by the taxpayer - to spend up big or cheat the system. NOBODY benefits who deserves to benefit. It's a STUPID move that will ensure far more pensioners are drawing far bigger pensions. But obviously you not only can't do math, you can't read either.

    God help us if anyone in politics pays attention to your illogical and incorrect rantings.

    Only a very sick and selfish narcissist would want to take people's houses after they die. What a disgusting and vile suggestion. And to think men gave their lives to defend a society in which monsters like you can prosper. It makes me ill.
    *Imagine*
    11th May 2016
    11:11am
    Deeming rates, asset tests, taper rates, income tests, senior tax offsets, Centrelink incompetence etc etc. We have a whole industry costing millions of dollars that has sprung up around the stupid dysfunctional Australian pension (I won't call it a system it is a farce).
    Solution? Imagine paying all retirees a basic pension, then tax their income in the same way as any other taxpayer. Income from assets would be taxed at the normal rates so pensioners would not need to "hide" assets. Honesty would (might) come back to rule, as those who spent a life time of frugality to pursue hobbies such as eco blocks, vintage car restoration etc are no longer forced to turn their back on lifelong interests. These pensioners are now essentially fined for pursuing their hobbies and have to sell their now valuable (non income producing) assets, take a world cruise or buy a more expensive home in order to get an income. The whole deal reminds me of an imaginary country where there is mandatory euthanasia for those over seventy and the discussion blogs centre on the method of death, what we should be allowed to wear, who should be present and should we be forced to pay for our own demise. Whereas the real discussion should be "Do we really want to go down this path?" Copy the Finnish Pension model it is working, the Australian one isn't.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    1:19pm
    Imagine, you are 1000% on the money. Your suggested approach would be fairer, more sustainable, require less administration, invite less cheating, and promote a better deal for everyone. Just plain common sense (pity that powers that be have none!)

    Problem is some IDIOTS think ''fairer and more sustainable'' means rip off anyone who saved a few bob for later and look after spendthrifts, cheats, people who sink bucket loads of money into the family home, generous gift-givers (who gift 5 years before retirement), and anyone else who can find a way to manipulate the system.

    The DIM WITS who approved the taper rate change have created a situation where taxpayers are now obliged to pay a 7.8% dividend, indexed to inflation, to people who hide money under the mattress or in a household safe. Taxpayers are giving a whopping $180,000 bonus pension (over 10 years) to anyone who spends $100,000 on a luxury cruise or feeds it into one-armed bandits. And taxpayers are supporting people who give millions to their kids before turning 60, or buy multi-million dollar mansions and hang on to just enough to not exceed the extraordinary low thresholds.

    It's MINDBOGGLING how STUPID those being paid a king's ransom are. We are told if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. It think we should pay peanuts!
    Rae
    11th May 2016
    1:44pm
    Absolutely brilliant post.

    Yes I agree and we could just about eliminate Centrelink completely.
    It would most probably save billions of dollars. All that money hidden in safes could be gainfully employed.

    Best of all it would stop the total unfairness of some ex workers being paid to retire and having regos, medicines etc supplied while other ex workers get absolutely nothing and also get charged the same as still working families.

    None of it makes sense but your plan does.

    It would require the figures to be worked out but surely Treasury could do that without too much trouble.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    2:35pm
    So let's start a campaign to make the powers-that-be hear the message.

    I note that Chris Bowen confirmed in his budget reply speech that Labor will be reversing the cruel and unfair pension assets test changes.
    Bonny
    11th May 2016
    2:56pm
    I really can't see even Labor reversing those changes to the pensioner assets test. In fact I can see changes that will make it even worse for pensioners from Labor.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    11th May 2016
    4:59pm
    Bonny, they have said they will reverse them, and they did oppose them. I believe they will introduce alternate measures, and yes they may be worse for SOME, but I believe they will be both fairer and more sustainable, and that's MY concern. It's not about who wins or who loses. It's about doing what is fair and equitable and what will be most affordable for taxpayers on a long-term basis.
    Rodent
    11th May 2016
    3:15pm
    Dear David

    Re your comments, and my Post about CUA , You may be confused, I didn't make any comparison between Credit Unions and Bank Rates, I just offered as information that CUA had very good Term Deposit Rates, in case some posters were not aware.
    Bonny
    11th May 2016
    3:21pm
    Reading the fine print those rates you stated above are only current as at 26/4/2016. RBA cut rates on 3/5/2016 by 0.25% so those rates may change due to that rate cut.
    David
    11th May 2016
    4:26pm
    Sorry if I misunderstood you Rodent. Yes, it's good to provide people with info on good interest rates for readers to consider.
    UBank credit their interest monthly, so to compare apples with apples, after the 0.15% reduction with CUA, their TD rates are:
    3.00% pa for 12 months
    3.35%pa for 24 Months
    3.40%pa for 36 Months -Max period
    So UBank's at call rate is 0.12% better than CUA's 365 day rate when paid monthly. Of course, if you don't need your money for 24/36 months, CUA offers a better rate.
    Cheers mate :-)
    Rodent
    11th May 2016
    3:35pm
    Bonny

    If your comments are directed to me Rodent ie "-Reading the fine print those rates you stated above are only current as at 26/4/2016. RBA cut rates on 3/5/2016 by 0.25% so those rates may change due to that rate cut".
    were in reply to my post, Yes you are correct, But they are correct as at TODAY and all I tried to do is to inform those who may interested.
    Bonny
    11th May 2016
    3:42pm
    That's what is still says at the bottom of this page.

    https://www.cua.com.au/everyday-banking/savings-and-term-deposits/term-deposit
    *Imagine*
    11th May 2016
    5:22pm
    The federal government and the Greens plus Nick Xenophon, struck a deal that will see the proposed changes to the pensions asset test passed by Parliament in 2017. These changes are expected to deliver a forecast budget saving of $2.4 billion over four years. These savings are taken from retired workers who, in the main, planned for their future by denying themselves extravagance and put money aside to make their retirement more comfortable.
    This same federal government has just budgeted for tax savings to small business that treasury forecast is going to cost $48 billion over ten years. These two policies, in tandem, illustrate a philosophical approach that is not going to develop Australia into a country that I want to call home! By all means cut company tax for those who pay it, but wouldn’t it be best to finance that cut by ensuring that all businesses pay their fair share so that the burden is not carried by the honest business owners alone. And who would have thought that the pensioners who saved a few bob would be targeted to make up the budget shortfall.
    My brother and sister in Britain cannot believe that the Australian Government can get away with it. “Didn’t think the Aussies would stand for it.” they said.
    As for deeming, they are gobsmacked that the citizens aren’t on the streets at election time and making their objections heard.

    Bring on the election, bye bye Malcolm, bye bye Scott.
    Rodent
    11th May 2016
    5:44pm
    Imagine

    Just a small correction to your excellent post
    The Pension changes bill passed both Houses of Parliament in May last year, it is now legislated as law to take effect on 1 Jan 2017
    I agree that the Govt claimed there would be a combined Saving of $2.4 Bil over the previous 4 years ending in 2018/19
    The 2016/17 Budget papers show the Age Pension rising from $43.2 Bil in 2015/16 to a projected $51.8 Bil in 2019/20
    This item is called Income Support for Seniors. There are of course many other subcategories for instance, Disabilities - DSP, Carer payment, and that's only a few categories.

    My Point - cant see where the actual savings are, but we know they exist because clearly the Govt is reducing some Pensions by significant amounts, and eliminating Pension altogether!!!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    12th May 2016
    3:36pm
    Rodent, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the taper rate change cannot save money. I think it's a simple case of fools at work who can't figure out that it's not as simple as ''take money from X and you save money for the nation''. X will CHANGE HIS BEHAVIOR in response. I can't believe any politician is STUPID enough to suggest that this illogical and idiotic change to the taper rate can save money. But if they genuinely believe their nonsense, they are in for a shock. Sadly, as always, it's the poor old taxpayer who will suffer.
    Rodent
    11th May 2016
    5:26pm
    Rainey, Bonny and all

    From What I remember from Bill Shorten's Budget Reply speech he used the Pension word only once- nothing about Policy- I have not yet seen the Text of Bowens address to Press Club yesterday, where he may have said something, cant find it if exists in full anywhere?
    For all interested I recently sent this Email to Jenny Macklins office about the Labor Policy on Pensions- because they have NONE

    Email Text as follows

    Last week I attended a lunch with many others to say good bye to our local sitting ALP member, Alan Griffin, and to meet Julian Hill.

    I spoke to Alan about the lack of an alternative Pension policy, he thought that Jenny Macklin would be working on it?

    So is the ALP going to have an alternative Pension policy to take to the election, Yes or No , and if NO why not? With up to 4 Million people to be affected by the Libs Pension policy to take effect on 1 Jan 2017 I would have thought and alternative policy would be worth considering. In Jenny’s own electorate there are at least 1880 persons who will have their Pension significantly Reduced, and there are 830 persons who will have their existing Pension Cancelled completely.

    In my electorate of Bruce the numbers are similar at 1900 and 860
    Anonymous
    12th May 2016
    12:47pm
    Rodent, the current pensioner concern, is on the low assets levels allowed, before pensions start to reduce sharply.

    The assets limit is currently $286,500 for house-owning couples - after which, pension payments begin to be reduced at $1.50 per $1000 increase in assets.

    On Jan1, 2017, the reduction in pension is going to become $3 per $1000 increase over the asset threshold.

    Now, it doesn't take much to make $286,500 in additional assets once you have a bit of super, a reasonable car and caravan, and perhaps a fishing dinghy.

    The increase in taper to $3 from $1.50 is a pretty savage increase - and I believe the assets limit is also too low.

    I would prefer to see the assets limit raised if the proposed taper isn't going to be changed - or the assets limit stays and the taper stays the same.

    I look forward to seeing exactly what Labor propose to do if they get elected in their own right - because this current Govt is one of the meanest Govts in recent times, when it comes to looking after pensioners.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    12th May 2016
    3:32pm
    Aaron, you are right, but it's worse than that. Think about it logically (obviously those in politics can't or won't!!!) If someone has $100,000 over the threshold, they have a choice of putting it in the bank and getting $2500 maybe per annum in interest, but losing $7,800 in pension benefits - and being $5300 worse off. Or they can risk it on the stock or real estate market. The government says the average return there is 5%, so they might get $5000, and be $2800 worse off. But wait, there's more. The $7800 increases every six moths. The $2500 to $5000 doesn't. So if they SPEND the $100,000, or put it under the mattress, the government will give them approx. $180,000 over the next 10 years. Is that luxury cruise looking attractive? In other words, this STUPID change has forced taxpayers to pay for luxury cruises for retirees (or home improvements, wild parties, or a new wardrobe or whatever suits their fancy) PLUS give them an $80,000 bonus over the next 10 years.

    The change isn't just too harsh on retirees, it's too harsh on the poor taxpayer who has to carry the burden of cost when retirees say ''bugger saving - it doesn't pay''. And what happens when younger Aussies work out that putting money into super just means you lose out in retirement? Less dollars saved for later means huge imposition on taxpayers.

    It beggars belief how few get this very simple and obvious fact, and keep on with idiotic rantings about forcing people to spend their capital to save taxpayers. It's forcing them to spend alright, AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. And vast numbers of them will spend it overseas - not in Australia. A financial adviser told me 96 out of 98 affected clients on his list have already booked overseas trips so they can come back and claim MUCH HIGHER PENSIONS than they otherwise would ever have contemplated applying for.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    12th May 2016
    3:41pm
    Everyone here - affected personally or not - should be writing to their local member pointing out how stupid and unfair and seriously damaging the taper rate change was, and stressing the fact that it rewards retirees for becoming far more dependant on the taxpayer.
    PlanB
    12th May 2016
    6:50am
    These deeming rates should be automatic like they USED to be -- ie if you had a oensioner account then you got the deemin raated -- or more and if you were lucky enough to get a little more that was your good luck, these days the deeming rate is set much higher than you are able to get at ANY bank and it is MOST unfair.
    I have also been and asked the bank -- they say -- "see the Centrelink" I also did that -- they said "see your bank" the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing! I even had a Centrelink financial adviser ring me and they told me to go to my local member -- which I might add -- at the moment we do not have one as he has "retired"and did not even stay till the election -- he is off and enjoying his lurks and perks -- so we have NO ONE representing us at all. I would have thought that it was Centrelink that was in charge of this through the smirking maggot Scott Morrison but neither the bank OR Centrelink know ANYTHING about this .

    YES THE DEEMING RATES ARE TOO HIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Rodent
    12th May 2016
    8:29am
    All - although these comments are not strictly they are of value to some
    The Closing Para of Terry McCrann's article in the Melb Herald Sun said this ,(when commenting/ comparing the Lib and Labor Policy proposed changes to Super
    "The dumbest feature of what Morrison proposes is that it would kill off super over the long term. We'd hand out tens of Millions in tax incentives and direct millions to investment managers in fees-- and for most people the sensible thing on retirement would be to cash it all in, spend it, or hide it and go on the old age pension"

    McCrann was comparing both policies, does not like either policy , and was also referring to not fixing Negative gearing
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    12th May 2016
    3:24pm
    Yes, well, what do you expect from Moron Morrison? The taper rate change he engineered was designed to force people onto the age pension - ensuring there is no benefit to saving and everything to be gained from spending. Why wouldn't he continue with dumb policies that drive us further to that destructive goal?
    Rodent
    12th May 2016
    3:09pm
    Rainey and others

    I have just watched Chris Bowen's Speech to National Press Club- No Mention of a Policy position , or reversal of the Govts proposed Pension changes. Therefore given Bill Shorten only used the word Pension once and nothing in Bowens speech I believe as at NOW the Labor Party has no alternative Pension Policy for this Election. Also refer my other posting on this subject, ie Email to Jenny Macklin
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    12th May 2016
    3:21pm
    Rodent, Bowen discounted the claimed savings of the taper rate change from his budget. Either they are reversing it, or they are very confident it won't save a cent (which would be the correct assumption to make, given that the policy is so stupid and destructive). I am still waiting for replies to my letters of inquiry, but I believe they are committed to reversing it.

    Retirees and taxpayers alike should be DEMANDING it be reversed, because it's seriously detrimental to the nation overall. The lies told to justify it were unconscionable, and the claimed savings never existed. It will send costs soaring, as anyone with half a brain can see by simply looking at the numbers. If you reward someone with 7.8% (rising every six months) of taxpayers money for opting not to accept 3 to 5% (risky and definitely not rising - more likely falling), of course many are going to take the better option! I can't imagine how anyone could be stupid enough not to see what is staring them in the face.
    Bonny
    14th May 2016
    3:20pm
    I watch it too and no mention of pension policy. It seems to be on the back burner of all parties because the country cannot afford to keep paying wealthy pensioners the pension.

    Just been reading interest rates could go as low as 1% so it would not surprise me to see the deeming rate reduced after the election.

    Personally I am over the ekection already so not taking much notice of all the crap going on. Ads are wasted on me as I never seem to see them.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    14th May 2016
    6:06pm
    Bonny, only a total fool would be dumb enough to suggest that someone with $300000 or a couple with $400,000 to last them maybe 30 years in retirement with no income and rising care costs was ''wealthy''.

    The taper rate change DID NOT target wealthy pensioners. It threatens to plunge tens of thousands into old age poverty by stripping them of their savings prematurely, and it discourages saving by younger Australians and encourages extravagant spending by existing retirees and the soon-to-retire. What this country can't afford is the moronic policies of dimwits who can't think through an issue logically and who implement dumb policies that are both grossly UNFAIR and TOTALLY ECONOMICALLY UNSUSTAINABLE.

    Anyone concerned for the taxpayers of this nation should be screaming that Morrison should be put in stocks and the policy reversed instantly. It's going to prove hideously expensive.

    As to Bowen's speech, he discounted any savings from the taper rate change, so either they are planning to change it, or they have CORRECTLY calculated that it won't achieve savings - in which case common sense says they would address it with a much more sensible reform.
    *Imagine*
    14th May 2016
    6:55pm
    Rainey, I agree that the upcoming taper rate and consequent reduction in asset limit is reflective of idiocy and inability to think through policy changes. However, what is more insidious than the push to make pensioners spend their fluid assets (was that the underlying policy to pump the economy and make us spend) the major concern is that the Government are forcing pensioners to cash in non-fluid assets and spend the proceeds. They are destroying life choices such as those who have toiled for years to rehabilitate marginal land that has now increased in value or have an interest in antiques, vintage cars and/or boats. They are forcing them to sell these, now valuable, assets and maybe retire from active club membership by telling pensioners to sell their assets in order to get money to "live". It is sick, the sooner these idiots are despatched at the ballot box the better - that includes the Greens.
    Bonny
    15th May 2016
    12:37pm
    Rainey I think you are reading something in Bowen's speech that was not there. From my discussions with a couple of Labor candidates they were not interested in discussing pensions. One said that people should just live off their capital until it gets down to a level where they qualify for the pension again. They said why not shout themselves to expensive travel and enjoy themselves.

    However they were interested in my concern that their negative gearing policy favoured the high income earners over low income earners in that new dwelling high depreciation and capital cost write offs.

    I have also spoken to a couple of Liberal MPs about the new super rules in that like a lot of other bean counters I think it is going to be a difficult to administer and will need an army of public servants to police.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    15th May 2016
    5:45pm
    Bonny, I don't believe a word you write. You are bull of it -BS that is!

    Labor aggressively opposed the pension changes and have said they will review them. If you didn't not that Chris Bowen discounted any savings from the taper rate change form his budget, you weren't listening. (But you do have a comprehension problem. That's patently obvious from the garbage and self-serving and vindictive posts you keep making).

    I have also spoken with Labor leaders, and they certainly DO NOT want people to live off their capital until they qualify for the pension again. They are VERY concerned with the massive flaws in this disgracefully damaging LNP policy.
    Rodent
    12th May 2016
    4:37pm
    Rainey

    It will be good to compare our replies from Labor, if and when they reply, or announce a Pension Policy.
    You and I, and several others on these forums are in general agreement about the destructive and outright stupidity of the Pension changes
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    14th May 2016
    6:08pm
    All the intelligent thinkers agree, Rodent.
    KIS
    28th May 2016
    10:12pm
    After receiving bad financial advise since 2005 from 3 financial planers my super value is too small to take high risk on all of it, so to retain any chance of supporting my retirement I have to rely on low risk bank deposits. My bank deposits earn more money than my share market managed funds after their management fees but the deeming rate is much too high. Enforced super is so wrong. My home has gained more value than my super. If I'd bought 2 houses I would be much better off than gambling on the stockmarket. It's my money I should be allowed to buy real property with it, without the super penalty rules that stop me.
    PlanB
    29th May 2016
    9:35am
    I never had super but if I had the opportunity I would have preferred to make up my own mind what I did with my own money -- so many seemed to have lost so much over the years with their super.
    I always am happy with being sure of half a loaf than UNSURE of a full loaf -- if you get my drift.
    Golden Oldie
    27th Jun 2016
    11:23am
    Checked out an offer from a different nank than the ones I'm with. Offer was for 3.05% on a new account, for 5 months, checked it out as I'd like to get a higher return than I'm currently getting. The deal was the higher amount dropped to 1.25% after the 5 months. As Centrelink now raise their eyebrows when they see the number of my account (including 4 for grandchildren) I decided to give it a miss. I was getting more than 1.25% anyway. Beware of these limited offers unless you are prepared to go to different banks every few months to take up these offers.
    %
    Oldman Roo
    27th Jun 2016
    2:23pm
    I am in total disagreement with the deeming rates in the past and even more disgusted with any kind of rise of them . I am not altogether blaming Centrelink but have gained the impression from correspondence with them that they are pushing the present Liberal Governments barrow very much to their philosophy that only wants to take more from the poor and give to the rich .
    Let us also be realistic and critical of the old deeming rates as they are not taking into account their rates are well above what the best rate for any Bank Deposit with fortnightly interest payment is . Now even increasing deeming is even rubbing salt into the wound when you consider after the end of this year many of us will need fortnightly interest payments to at least make up in part for the large slice in lost Pension .
    Expecting us to invest our money in shares is cruel and heartless for people advanced age who may not be around long enough to ride out the high and lows and their anxiety about what is happening to their hard saved money may even contribute to an earlier departure from this earth .
    So , please think hard before the election, vote Independent, at the same time also considering their opinion on just what their thoughts on assisting the aged are .
    Not Senile Yet!
    27th Jun 2016
    2:48pm
    The point you all miss is that Deeming is just a Very Sneeky way of Not paying a Full Pension!
    If you worked and your Boss found out you were Saving your money.....he would then be able to Deem your Savings and reduce your Wage Accordingly!
    Now does that seem fair???
    Then why is it OK for the Government???
    DEEMING is a Penalty for being prudent!
    It contravention the Age Discrimination Acts by targeting ONLY Pensioners.......but guess WHO has granted themselves an exemption from such Legalised Discrimination???
    Yep! We cannot do it....but THEY CAN!
    WHO ARE THEY????
    Your Party Puppets!
    Only way to change it....Stop Voting for the Puppet MP's
    PlanB
    27th Jun 2016
    3:23pm
    They are robbing us in lots of ways --the Deeming / the change to the price of medications / taking OFF medications from scripts / making you have to have more scripts B4 you are able to get FREE medications and IF your script is over the amount --NO FAULT OF YOURS -- you still only get allowed the $6.80 even if the meds were say $8.60 -- we used to pay $6.10 or $6.20 for Meds but they have gone up and also the pension was cut in a sneaky way by not giving the CPI twice a year -- even though Abbott said NO CUTS TO THE PENSION so they have cut the pension by disallowing so many things -- and taking things OFF us -- Susan Ley is just pecking away in a very sneaky way
    GraceCurran
    13th Jan 2018
    3:20pm
    PLEASE READ: My name is Grace Curran, I would like to talk about an experience that has been of great help to my business and my family in general, after I lost my husband. Just last month suffered a great loss in my business that got me in so much debt, I couldn't help it. I was at the verge of being homeless and loosing my business due to bad credit and debts. I became so desperate that I didn't know where to get help, I couldn't get a loan from banks and other financial institution I contacted due to my bad credit. Then I set out to seek other alternative, where I got scammed of $3,100. Until I read about Juan Limited. where I got a loan without stress. I now have a decent credit, my debt paid and my business running more than ever and my credit fully settled. You can as well reach them at: juanfinanceltd @gmail.com or call/ text: (802) 242-0036, for more Information. All thanks to God almighty and the management of Juan Limited for making this come through. I am sharing this so that everyone who are in need can be a part of it.
    Ron
    31st Oct 2018
    12:33pm
    I don’t think it is difficult to earn more than the deeming rate. We get 2.4% on a Bonus Saver account with Qudos Bank provided we don’t make any withdrawals in a month and have our “working cash” in a Qantas Saver account at 1.75%. Both are at call. Our pension funds investments easily earn more than 4%pa.
    PlanB
    31st Oct 2018
    2:04pm
    Ron, those Bonus savers are a rip off as you have to have your money in them and leave it in not draw on it at all -- AND also put an allotted amount IN to it every month too so it is for the bank really -- its is not an account that you would be really able to work from -- only to save -- then say you saved a heap -- and then wanted to draw some out -- you may have saved a good amount -- BUT as soon as you draw out you lose that months interest that could very well be quite a bit
    say you had $500 @ say 3% per month -- that about $180 per year so = $680 so that would be about $20+ you would give to the bank because you drew out in that month

    Hope I have made it clear but I know 3 friends that were trapped by these accounts and it is great FOR THE BANK -- not for the clients
    David
    31st Oct 2018
    2:37pm
    Ron
    I get better than 2.4% without the drawback that PlanB refers to!!!
    I have a Usaver & Ultra account with UBank and my interest rate is 2.87%. To get this bonus rate, all you have to do is deposit $200 or more into the account each month, regardless of what you withdraw that month!!!


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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