Poll delivers resounding verdict: Hands off family home

Flash Poll delivers resounding verdict – on family home, assets test and pollies.

garden

The Friday Flash Poll, Should the family home be part of the assets test?, drew a strong response from 2481 YourLifeChoices members – on that and a series of related issues, including politicians’ allowances, the assets test for the Age Pension and deeming rates.

Many members went after the politicians and the two per cent pay rise for federal MPs that takes effect from July. This comment from YourLifeChoices member NY19 was typical: “[Prime Minister] Scott Morrison got a rise this week of $11,000 pa, which brings his salary to $549,000 pa. All pollies got a rise apparently. They have crippled unions, removed penalty rates and have done nothing to help low earners or the unemployed on Newstart. But, hey, they’re OK getting their regular increases.”

Chris B T added: “I believe politicians need to bring their rorts under control before chasing after OAP home ownership. Receiving a living away from home allowance and staying in ‘partner’s’ property or friend’s property when parliament is sitting.”

Triss called for “an in-depth investigation into the sly way early politicians decided to line their own pockets with pensions and perks by robbing taxpayers of theirs”.

An overwhelming 85 per cent of respondents said the family home should not be part of the assets test for the Age Pension – unsurprising given 96 per cent of respondents either owned their home outright or with a mortgage.

But the question whether the home should be part of the assets test in future drew a very difference response, with 45 per cent unsure, 26 per cent saying yes and 29 per cent no.

To the question “If yes, when do you think this might occur?”, 37 per cent said “not in my lifetime”, 18 per cent between five and 10 years, 16 per cent within five years, and 11 per cent within three years.

Most responses were highly critical of the concept of including the family home in the assets test for an Age Pension – and many were critical of the assets test generally.

Trebor wrote: “In order to keep the government honest, given their proven history of moving goal posts – no home included in assets test! Furthermore, the assets test needs to be revised and countless items excluded, and only income-bearing assets included.”

Thommo took a different view on the family home, but also sought changes to the assets test. “Any government that includes the family home in the assets test will be removed from office pronto. However, any family home worth more than say $3 million should be included in the assets test … But for the assets test otherwise, only the income factor should be included in the assets test, not sundry other items like your car (unless it is worth a million), essential living items for the home (e.g. clothes, kitchenware etc) and house contents. At the moment, your toothbrush and toiletries even count in the assets test. What a joke.”

Gerry also believed the family home may be fair game, writing: “A house is money, same as the bit I have in term deposit. I have to use mine, a house owner doesn't. They get to leave their house to their kids. I will have nothing to leave mine.”

Nanday was on the fence: “It's a complicated issue, not as simple as yes or no. Some people have lived frugally and paid off their home, and due to property increases in some parts of the country (e.g. Sydney) end up owning a home worth over a million. However, there are other people who undoubtedly consider it a smart strategy to invest solely into their primary residence, trading up until they have acquired a home as an sole asset worth a lot of money instead of divesting into other assets which would be included in an assets test (such as a stock portfolio for instance).

Deeming rates came in for their fair share of criticism – the fact that they are unchanged since 2015, while official interest rates have continuously fallen.

“We are being robbed already with 3.25% deeming rate!” wrote Tricky.

Old Man Roo added: “… there is no move on reviewing the deeming rate to a realistic level. So now they are fishing for what they can still take from us. Soon they will tell us we are living in utter luxury, if we live in houses and only caves or mud huts will be exempt from pension cuts.”

But the dominant view on including the family home in the assets test was – no, no, no.

“Sure, use the hard-earned home as an asset; we all enjoy bricks and mortar for dinner as it’s all we have to eat if we don't get a pension!” wrote Bella.

“No definitely, definitely NO. This government needs to get its act together and do the job it should be doing. Fix the taxation department so that it, for once in its miserable existence, becomes efficient in making sure that tax from money earned in this country is paid and not disappears in foreign banks,” wrote Travelman.

“No, no, no. Just had to cancel my appointment at the dentist because I can't afford the work. A family home should go on the debt side of the ledger, given all I spend on maintenance. I would be better off renting!” wrote La Verne.

Would you like to see a review of the Age Pension assets test in the Government’s review of retirement income? What are the key features that concern you?

If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Buggsie
    11th Jun 2019
    10:32am
    Whether we want it or not, a review of all aspects of access to the OAP will happen in this term of government. Economics will dictate this, specifically government's need for money as the economy worsens (yes, Morrison lied to us re the true state of the economy during the election campaign- surprise!!). Personally I cannot see the rationale behind allowing a OAP to live in a $3million home in Sydney or Melbourne and draw a full pension, thus leaving a huge untaxed asset to their beneficiaries when they die, while another aged person is denied an OAP because they have more than $830,000 in so called income producing assets. Hardly seems fair to me. As for the July salary increases for pollies, ho hum, stuff the electorate - do as we say, not as we do. Uncaring bastards, the lot of them.
    Cowboy Jim
    11th Jun 2019
    10:51am
    So an inheritance tax for super homes might be fairer than forcing the oldies from their suburb just because their place has become fashionable (example: the house we sold in 1983 for $62'000 has been sold a year ago for $1.16 mio) all the places in same suburb are similar today, so downsizing in the same locality is not possible. I could support an inheritance tax rather than the cancellation of pension. The people having bought their home can stay in it but the kids will have to do with a bit less. Anyone seeing something negative in this?
    Aussie
    11th Jun 2019
    10:58am
    Buggse .... "Morrison lied to us" ....what is new ??? they all lie to us and we know they do but still vote for them he he he he no comments .... the home will be part of the asset test for sure and as you say within this term ..... very possible

    But the question is if the politicians homes will be part of their asset test same as ours ??? ... remains to be seen .....
    Buggsie
    11th Jun 2019
    11:07am
    I agree with you Cowboy Jim re downsizing - its not really the answer for most. Inheritance taxes? Well, they were abolished for many reasons, mostly being quite unfair to those less well off. I recall when my father died and his machinery was valued for probate. When it was sold we actually recovered about 10% of that probate value. Abuses like this happened all the time when death duties were in play and would undoubtedly occur again should they be reinstated. There's no real answer to the problems of aging and no system for the granting of an OAP will ever be perfect. One thing that you can be sure of - the government of the day will build a system that benefits it, and not us. Sad, but predictable.
    Buggsie
    11th Jun 2019
    11:12am
    Aussie, again I agree. The assets test will never apply to Pollies pensions as they are not means tested at all. They are end benefit schemes based on years of service and finishing salaries, indexed for life as well. You know, the same type of schemes that used to be offered to teachers, nurses and local government employees, but which were abolished by State governments many years ago because they were too expensive.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    11:22am
    Forced downsizing is the same an an inheritance tax. EVERYONE has the right to pass on the fruits of their efforts to their future generations - not just the well-heeled, who can live in a nice home and enjoy a heap of cash without tax already.

    How many sweet rides do some expect out of life?

    Maybe all homes over a certain level should be taxed - not just those of pensioners.... and then we should be looking at net worth as the basis for a tax - same thing as slugging pensioners. If you've got a portfolio of houses in a super fund (the mind truly boggles) you should be taxed on it....

    One rule for all sucks, neh?

    I've told you all millions of times by now that pensions and unemployment are only one part of government expenditure - and government needs to look at its current 'discretionary spending' first, and not at those who are already owed a bought and paid for pension. Too many 'commissions' and 'boards' for old party mates, to go with the free jobs doing buggar-all from their mates in business, while they still pull their 'parliamentary superannuation'.

    Means and assets test on parliamentary etc pensions NOW! If you're copping a fistful from an old mate for sitting on a 'board' of a QANGO - you don't pull your pension from us!!
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    11:28am
    BTW, Buggsie - an old school friend of mine, a nurse of many years, was offered the buyout from the State government years ago - and smelled a rat and said no. Now gets one of those old schemes... at the time the offer was $25k and go on the new scheme (more treasury-friendly as you say) - gets $1000 a week for sitting at home plus owns the house etc...
    Triss
    11th Jun 2019
    11:33am
    Not only a means test for pollies, Trebor, but an in depth investigation into corruption because the way a few ‘good ‘ole boys’ went into a huddle and gave themselves millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money was sub human.
    Wstaton
    11th Jun 2019
    12:33pm
    I agree Cowboy Jim a inheritance tax (our a death tax as it was called during the last election) would be a better way of taxing rather than hitting the pensioners just because the house they live in has increased enormously in value) maybe YLC should have a poll on this.

    Surely there will be a massive outcry especially those millionaires who would be caught who would not have qualified for a AOP anyway.

    Certainly the LNP would appose it they wouldn't want this happening to their mates.
    Lobar would also hesitate because of the possibility of losing votes But heck the political area insn't fair anyway.

    Once again this is an anomaly with the rest of the world like negative gearing which has lost it's original usefulness on the reason it was originally introduced.

    Thats the problem will politicians they say things without working out how it will affect them in the future. An inheritance tax is a prime example. It may be the right thing to do but both parties have backed themselves into a corner. One saying they will not do it the other saying the other will do it. Now both in a corner that they have put themselves in. Even if the prosal is the right thing to do.

    Neg gearing is another one was brave enough to change it and presumably lost votes. The other using it to decry the other. There is now no way that the LNP can do the right thing and get rid of it. Mind you they have a history of saying they are not going to do something and then done it once they are in power. (AKA Tony Abbots reversals.
    Kaz
    11th Jun 2019
    1:18pm
    If someone has a home and someone else has income producing assets, I would say that is a choice each made. Sell your assets if you want a home
    Rae
    11th Jun 2019
    2:10pm
    Buggsie. Politicians will never get an aged pension as their income stream is too high. It is also deemed. Those old schemes were paid after tax and that non concessional is deemed at only 10% now. This prevents many getting a part pension even though they got no 9% tax concessions. The untaxed portion is still taxed when received as the employer paid it untaxed.

    You really have no idea about how superannuation seems to work.

    As to being too expensive they certainly were for the suffering worker who ended up paying in excess of 35% of after tax income to super towards the end of their working lives.
    Misty
    12th Jun 2019
    1:33am
    The State Super originally paid members 2 pounds for every pound they put in, it was later changed to First State Super, I don't know what they put in now but it is not as generous as the first one.
    Rae
    12th Jun 2019
    7:12am
    They put in 9% now Misty and it is tax concessioned It is also tax free after retirement unlike the old schemes where the portion the employer put in is taxed coming out.
    Most ordinary public servants don't pay that tax as the income stream is not high enough.

    And it was more around $1 for each member $1 contributed after full taxation.

    For some reason unexplained there were few returns from investment like todays superannuation generate.

    No doubt it is more than the aged pension but not more than the aged pensioner who saved the same amount of after tax saving for decades.

    Having a home, the maximum in superannuation and receiving the aged pension is a very nice option these days.
    travelman
    11th Jun 2019
    10:52am
    I am so glad to see so many say no about the assets test, I also said no, no, no and again No. However, if we do not stand our 'ground' the government will do it and it will be in our lifetime, believe it. Sadly, I have to say, we got the government we deserve - when are we going to learn that our voting this government into power is not a mandate for them to do as they please. The government works for us, for our benefit as a nation not us subservient to what they decide for us. With what is going on this country beggars belief - I want democracy and we are getting very little of that from the Coalition. We have to stand up against this or any government who behaves in the manner this one is behaving.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    11:25am
    I'm considering floating the Old Bastards Party... good name to start with... bring me your poor, your downtrodden, your huddled masses yearning to be free of the assets test and other slugs on the poorest in the land... and I will give you Nottingham's head on a silver platter!

    Actually one of my short stories, Robin de la Houde, is about Robin and the Sheriff being brothers..... sibling rivalry goes a long way towards disputing over a little money... though as Margie said in Fargo - there's more to life than a little money - don't you (not you - "they") know that
    Farside
    11th Jun 2019
    11:40am
    How good is Margie?
    Triss
    11th Jun 2019
    11:52am
    Sounds like a good story, Trebor.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    2:31pm
    One of my favourite films, along with Jeff Bridges in True Grit....

    "I've grown old!"
    Arvo
    11th Jun 2019
    8:04pm
    travelman- Move to Switzerland, it's the only country in the world that I am aware of that has Direct Democracy, we have a Representative Democracy....once a government is elected by the voters, the government representatives tell us what to do, how to do it and when to do it....
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    4:46pm
    Good comments, travelman, here as well as the bit about the taxation issue quoted from you in the article above.
    BOTH Liberal and Labor have colluded and allowed the rich and large companies to escape from paying reasonable taxes. A Minimum Tax system is essential to ensure ALL pay reasonable taxes based only on Gross Income and clearly proven Local expenses. The people MUST push their elected representatives much harder and write to them to DEMAND what is fair to the people. I pushed hard for this regarding Universal Pensions (as a solution to fixing the Broken Age Pension) system before the election, however I believe not many people heard or listened. Hence, we have got a disgustingly self-centred Govt again who DOES NOT work for the people.

    Another thing to push for are Citizen Initiated Referenda as a means to change policies - I believe one small party had that policy but most haven't considered it.
    travelman
    11th Jun 2019
    10:52am
    I am so glad to see so many say no about the assets test, I also said no, no, no and again No. However, if we do not stand our 'ground' the government will do it and it will be in our lifetime, believe it. Sadly, I have to say, we got the government we deserve - when are we going to learn that our voting this government into power is not a mandate for them to do as they please. The government works for us, for our benefit as a nation not us subservient to what they decide for us. With what is going on this country beggars belief - I want democracy and we are getting very little of that from the Coalition. We have to stand up against this or any government who behaves in the manner this one is behaving.
    Annick
    11th Jun 2019
    11:36am
    As an OAP who wasn't able to have a generous super behind me I would love for us pensioners to instigate a class action against the government for the way they have rorted the 7% pension scheme set up to cover the aged pensions this was instigated by Ben Chiffley at the 'National Welfare Fund'. Over the years governments of the time have 'borrowed' from this fund to shore up their spending until the time the fund account was cleaned out and closed down. The 7% of tax paid is still supposed to be set aside to cover the pensions payable, but it isn't. Is there any law firm out there who would help us take a class action against the government for the rorting of our pension payments?
    Triss
    11th Jun 2019
    12:04pm
    There are quite a few law firms on the internet that will take class actions, Annick. Wlkihow.com also has a step by step on how to organise a class action.
    Cowboy Jim
    11th Jun 2019
    1:00pm
    A class action about something that was done 40 years ago by the Govt and no administration since then has addressed is a hard thing to do. Remember the Govt is always right! - if not the law will be changed. But I DO agree we have been dudded and Ben Chiffley might rotate in his grave with anger. Give us all a universal pension and tax us accordingly so we won't have 2 classes of retirees (I am better than you because I can afford to be!)
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    2:39pm
    'National Welfare Fund' aka Social Security.. not just pensions.

    Look at the trillions salted away in super funds now - at 9-9.5%, then imagine how that 7% over a much longer period, properly invested, would have grown and be an unassailable mass for retirement and social security funding.

    Discretionary spending by politicians needs to be abolished - until they can meet the bills due,they have no right to offer young mamas more money for staying at home and dropping the kid, or special dispensations to shape-shifters (aka gender reassignees), or anything else, including the oft mentioned QANGOs they put their mates in charge of as a sweetener for being booted by their electorate or 'resigning to spend more time with their family' - oh - what I'd give for one minute of THAT spit in the face!

    **QANGO Quasi-Autonomous Non-Government Body such as 'Australian Submarines' etc.... a total nonsense and duplication and triplication of effort,and nothing but a nice little earner for a few old mates in 'retirement'..... maybe 'retirement' should take on the meaning given in Blade Runner for that sort.... the Replicant Politician... a manufactured human being with a set expiry date, and 'retired' by having the blade run through the ribs...

    "Deck - I need ya! I need the old Blade Runner!"
    Eddy
    11th Jun 2019
    5:14pm
    Sorry Annick, suing the Government for changing legislation is a non-goer. The High Court ruled only a few years ago that the Parliament can change legislation any time it sees fit without those adversely affected having recourse to the courts. For instance, theoretically, the Parliament could change the social security legislation to completely wipe out all payments, including the OAP, and/or remove all taxation concessions from superannuation and there would be nothing you could do about it (except vote them out at the next election). Of course these are extreme measures which I do not think any political party would support, from the far left to the extreme right. But, hypothetically, it could be done.
    Farside
    12th Jun 2019
    10:16am
    enough already of the mythical 7%. Most living retirees have had several decades or more to adjust to legislation changing since the 1950s and its eventual repeal long after it no longer mattered.
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    4:50pm
    Not mythical, and it was 7.5%, not 7%. While the separate Fund was shut down, the 7.5% is still included in the personal income tax rate, hence it is a Real and Ongoing tax, and should be reminded often, especially if anyone writes to their elected reps. Stolen money.
    Farside
    12th Jun 2019
    8:28pm
    no evidence of the levy being included in the tax tables after its collection was combined with PAYE. It could be argued it stopped being collected.
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    8:41pm
    You are contradicting yourself as you have admitted "..after its collection was combined with PAYE", while claiming "no evidence". Why don't you stop such rubbish arguments and accept the facts - the bottom line being the 7.5% was never removed from the total tax rate.
    Farside
    13th Jun 2019
    11:11am
    well George you can stomp your feet and keep throwing the tanty over your misgivings but the 7.5% was removed and it is not coming back before you exit god's waiting room regardless of your protestations and confected rage. Notwithstanding your selective reading of my comment, I will put it to you the levy was reduced to 0% and ceased to be collected for the NWF ... prove otherwise. Let it go and move on.
    GeorgeM
    13th Jun 2019
    9:55pm
    Only you are stomping around, Farside, because you were proved wrong and can't handle the truth. Bottom line remains - the Govt is STILL collecting the 7.5% merged within the tax rates (irrelevant whether it is shown separately or not) and the main issue is that they are not using it for the intended purpose. Yeah, you move on and stop commenting about this to confuse people in repeated posts against many here.
    Triss
    11th Jun 2019
    11:51am
    Batten down, people, Morrison says he has a mandate to cut taxes for the high end of town by $150 billion. Somewhere he will have to cut spending to pay that back so say goodbye to elderly care and disabled upgrades. He and the rest of his merry gang have just given themselves a 2% raise, that is $11,000 for Scott. I have a theory that every time pollies get a raise they take it out of the pension. Stay tuned.
    Wstaton
    11th Jun 2019
    12:42pm
    That's the trouble with so called mandates. The LNP only polled 360,000 more votes than Labor. They see having 51% of the votes gives them a mandate to screw the other 49% who did not vote for them. I do not see this as a democracy.
    Eddy
    11th Jun 2019
    5:30pm
    As Otto von Bismarck stated, "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of next best." which has been interpreted as meaning 'it is not about what is right or what is best, it is about what you can actually get done.". This is Realpolitik. There is no mandate only the reality of an elected Parliament deciding what the Government can or cannot achieve.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    6:44pm
    True, Eddy - and couple that with the reality that nobody can effectively challenge them unless some opposition party does... short of a popular uprising....

    Politics is above the law and above everything that might reduce the privilege of swanning along on cloud nine. Power and privilege without responsibility.
    Farside
    12th Jun 2019
    10:22am
    the government does have mandate to prosecute its platform, and good luck to it if we want the best outcome for the nation, equally the opposition has a mandate to pursue its own agenda and blunt the worst excesses of the government. Such is a Westminster style democracy.

    It is either a retiring or courageous MP in a marginal seat that does not act with the prospect of the next election in mind.
    ex PS
    13th Jun 2019
    6:55am
    Maybe we deserve to be screwed, the majority of the people made a choice, some probably made their choice thinking that the cross bench and the ALP would save them from the worst Slomoo had to offer. I hope they don't, I would like to see the voters get exactly what they voted for.
    MICK
    11th Jun 2019
    11:56am
    If you think the government we had to have will not attack retirees again then you deserve what you voted for. Have you not yet noticed that we have liars as a government and that you need to follow the form rather than listen to what is said.
    I'm willing to bet the attack on self funded retirees Will recommence as soon as they bastards need money to finance their rich man's tax cuts.
    If you also think your home is not going to be included in the assets test then I feel sorry for you. It will. Despite outraged denials give it time. This lot has already signalled what is coming.
    Rae
    11th Jun 2019
    2:14pm
    GST up I expect and mumbling about land taxes.

    I'm saving all I can getting ready. The pensioners down the cafes and clubs today when I went past will be screaming about how they can't afford it.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    2:43pm
    In the new home it was a pleasure to have the solar panel boys fitting on Saturday (long weekend, too!) and the electrician today to wire it up and switch it on... lovely to see that meter turning backwards....

    Setting up for full retirement - after I get another job... RMO at local district hospie or locum at Harrington including travel from home ... no number to provide service - so solly... not qualified.
    Rae
    11th Jun 2019
    4:31pm
    Harrington is a great spot TREBOR. You have chosen well. I almost bought a little old house on an acreage there but couldn't afford it at the time. Enjoy!
    MICK
    11th Jun 2019
    5:57pm
    Congratulations. Heard positive news about Harrington so should be a good place to grow old.
    Retirement's not all beer and skittles but it beats working in a job which is not user friendly.

    What size system did you end up putting in and what components did you get?
    Yeah we're not getting bills either. I've set up the hot water booster through a timer to come on 2 hours a day but I have to switch it off if no sun. Cumbersome but it works. Likely I'll get a small bill to pay for July but the rebates just keep a comin'. Love it. Should be paid off in another 4 years.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    6:56pm
    6.6 Kw - and wait for it - paid $3099 country price for it. 24 panels, 5 Kw inverter and all fittings to the meter... power supplier needs to change the meter, but that's free of charge, and then the bills should go down. Hot water solar down the line... no room left on one side of the house now! We get near full day sun here and that ups the power output, but that tree out the front needs a good bonsai-ing at the top - might be able to get the power supplier to cut it back due to risk to lines.....

    In the right job I'd work forever... just me... a bit past the heavy lifting stage though, and I can't run or swim much due to chest pain, and I certainly won't be climbing that tree ... I self-diagnose pulmonary stenosis but the doc specialists won't come at it - they keep saying it's not heart - I'm saying it's a hiccup in the artery to the right lung, not the heart, and is relieved by using nitrates same as cardiac artery stenosis (sorry - sounding a bit uppity there - if you want a translation just ask)... also serious doses of anti-inflamm work a bit.... pain killers do nothing.
    Misty
    12th Jun 2019
    1:40am
    Well Mick I heard yesterday that the Govt is holding a review into retirees income, Franking Credits maybe?, seems lots of people like the idea after all the publicity about them before the election.
    Rae
    12th Jun 2019
    7:16am
    Lots of people who spent all their income and are jealous of the few who bought shares instead would like the idea. That's the worst thing about Australia now.

    Still when they finally come for the last group there can be no complaints.

    Lots of people like the idea of the home in the asset test or land taxes as well.
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    7:22pm
    That's what YLC does often, same as Labor, incite jealousies and put one group against another. Helps only the politicians who get away with not doing anything for anyone thanks to this divided bunch of people.

    Yes, the way attacks on retirees have been attacked by both Liberal and Labor in turn, expect more attacks this time on pensioners too.
    KSS
    11th Jun 2019
    12:20pm
    If you don't like the downsize idea, what about preventing upsizing after the age of say 50? The vast majority of people would have long completed their families, the offspring already (or about to) flown the nest so what reason would there be to upsize? Unless of course it was to hide assetts against future pension application assessments.

    That would still leave the conumdrum of what to do about those selling the 3 bed 'family home' for say $500000 and buying a 3 bed apartment for $1.5m. Not an upsize exactly but certainly an up-value which amounts to the same thing!
    Wstaton
    11th Jun 2019
    1:33pm
    Hmm.. Yes I can see this somewhat. if they stashed the million dollars in a $1.5m home then by the calculation of just 3.5% average return on the $1m they would earn $35,000 Just about what they would get as a OAP if they didn't

    What needs to be take into account is that a couple is allowed to ear $300 per fortnight (7,800 year) and over $77,000 a year before pension is eliminated. Then the above is not feasible without reducing the amount of money coming into them.

    In the example above it would mean them ending up getting the full age pension only.

    If they left the $1m earning money as the above example. They would get $36,000 pension.
    they $35,000 earnings would be reduced to ($35,000 - $7,800 = $27,200)

    The pension is reduced 50 cent for every dollar earned. This means the pension would be reduced by $13,600 to $22,701. Add back the $35,000 then total income becomes.

    $57,020

    So so basically all up-sizing will do is reduce your living standards (less money). But do this and certainly your inheritors will get a home completely tax free. Depends whether you you would prefer this and give up your living standards. If you live for another 20 years you are giving up $420,000 to do this.

    So be careful and make sure you get the correct advice before doing so.
    Sundays
    11th Jun 2019
    2:40pm
    Wstation, I get what you’re saying and why reduce your living standards, so your kids can have a big spend up.However, in your example that $1m would be treated as an asset and is well over the current asset limit. No pension for these people. They would have to reduce it to qualify.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    2:47pm
    Hmm - we - the ex and I - down-sized but up-priced. No choice really to be near the facilities she needs. Does that put us in that category? Been here a month and the property value has gone up by $50k or so already..... amazing but what you get for a property with a 'Piper' as part of the name ...... does that make us cash in house hoarders?
    sunnyOz
    11th Jun 2019
    3:14pm
    Watson, you are forgetting one important thing. Your figures are not correct, as Yes, you can earn $300 p/f before pension is reduced. But then you pay tax on both the income and pension, which reduces disposable income further.
    Oldman Roo
    11th Jun 2019
    5:31pm
    KSS , you have all the answers that would please the LNP Government Your up to 50 years on purchasing a more expensive property can not be applied to many advanced age people who like to stay in a home of their own , but need the help of a son or daughter , which sometimes happen to live in a more expensive suburb . So are you going to see them rot unable to cope or make the obvious humane decision to still enjoy life with the help of their family ?
    I have said this before , Pension cuts on family homes , which are subject to so many variables are best left alone . Only Politicians without conscience , and we have seen them in the LNP , would contemplate skinning us to the bones .
    Farside
    12th Jun 2019
    10:32am
    the whole debate over upsizing or downsizing can be avoided by simply including the house in the assets test and raising the thresholds to reflect the inclusion of the house. This enables retirees to choose the housing arrangements that suit them best, whether that be upsizing, downsizing, intergenerational homes, sea changing, separating, renting, reverse mortgaging or any other choice that takes their fancy.
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    4:57pm
    That's right, Wstation. I have never heard of anyone upsizing and reducing their income and lifestyle just to get on the pension! It is just a Fake Story!

    Also, the whole debate of upsizing or downsizing can be solved by making Age Pension Universal, then people can make their own choices what houses they want to live in and where, besides a whole lot of other benefits, and not worry about Govt rules changing for pensions.
    ex PS
    13th Jun 2019
    7:02am
    How about we let people decide what they want to do with their own money ad property. Used to be a time when if someone asked too many questions or gave too much advice about anothers personal finances they would be invited out to the car park for a lesson in manners.
    Best to keep your beak out of others finances and your hands out of their pockets.
    Gaz
    11th Jun 2019
    12:30pm
    If there was ever a scheme devised to encourage people to act financially irresponsibly throughout their working career, it would be the Australian means test.
    If you make the effort to own a home, you are penalised with a lower pension, If you marry and remain so, you are penalised with a lower pension, if you have scrimped and saved for a comfortable retirement you are penalised with a lower pension, if you are still able to do the odd job of work, you are penalised, SO spend it all, don't buy a house, separate before you retire etc. and the Government rewards you with money taken from those who are working hard and paying taxes. HOW IS THIS FAIR OR MOTIVATING
    Cowboy Jim
    11th Jun 2019
    1:05pm
    Gaz - you've got it in a nutshell. The younger generations all are looking at that and quite a few are no longer to take on the hard slog getting into their houses and they might well be right.
    KSS
    11th Jun 2019
    1:41pm
    Actually there was a survey released over the weekend that showed 86% of young people still want to own their own home!
    Sundays
    11th Jun 2019
    2:44pm
    No one seriously wants to aim to be a single private renter in retirement. Life would be very tough indeed
    sunnyOz
    11th Jun 2019
    3:20pm
    Totally agree with you Gaz.....Being single, I have worked bloody hard to own my own home outright, minimal super, but see my bludger sister in govt house, never worked, on DSP (due to her smoking), having it far better than me. I didn't take holidays, go out drinking. She goes off on a cruise every year, gets free dental. I now feel I've done it all wrong, being punished for working hard.
    Oldman Roo
    11th Jun 2019
    5:45pm
    KSS , I hate to say this and do not really like picking on you .
    But let me tell you my thoughts on many of todays young " They all want their own homes and a 1000 other things " .
    I guess their is nothing wrong with wishful thinking but the effort required is mostly sadly lacking .
    KSS
    11th Jun 2019
    6:21pm
    I agree with you Oldman Roo. Effort and commitment to the cause is often lacking these days. I guess in days gone by people did not expect it to be easy to buy a home and were prepared to do what was necessary to get it. These days the young think it is an entitlement along with overseas travel, bought lunches, new everything and the latest technology.
    Farside
    12th Jun 2019
    10:37am
    not all retirees aspire to become homeowners. I know of several that have chosen to sell up to rent or travel while investing their capital.
    Ted Wards
    11th Jun 2019
    1:03pm
    I mean to have no meanz.....
    thommo
    11th Jun 2019
    1:06pm
    Agree with you Buggsie...A universal age pension will solve all of the problems, but they idea of that scares our governments, but I do not see why.. They just can't see past their noses.
    But they must improve the age pension, not reduce any benefits, because if they do, they will cop the wrath of the voters, young and old, because eventually, everyone will probably be getting some sort of a pension at retirement age..
    Voters should have sent this message to Morrison and the LNP at the recent federal election, but they didn't, so we get what we deserve...
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    2:50pm
    Trebor Scheme - all pay super into the same fund by the same rules, all get a pension, all income, gifts and fringe benefits over and above are taxed.

    Now, lemme see....... why wouldn't politicians come at that one? Ummm... (practicing to be Tony Abbott's speech writer).. aaah ...
    Triss
    11th Jun 2019
    6:48pm
    A universal pension will remove their power over us, thommo, which will never be allowed. Good job they don’t need a psychological test before they can be a politician...I think we have a few sociopaths in government.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    7:04pm
    Quite a few sociopaths, Triss..... so deeply immersed in that lifestyle that they don;t even know the difference... to them it's just business as usual, this ripping the poor to the bone and treating them with absolute contempt.

    No wonder the people are restive, but that's the problem with having all these second generation people from desperately poor countries in politics and business....

    A news thing last night said that emergency services were attending almost one industrial accident a day, mainly in the construction industries, and mostly due to management not ensuring that safety etc rules were carried out. Many of that 'management' are offspring of desperately impoverished nation parents, and think that the grab for money is the only thing to follow.

    Some of out imported ethnic brethren and sisthren are fine - some are not.... you can remove the boy/girl from the mud hut ..... but you can't remove the mud hut from the boy/girl, and their grasping peasant genes prevent their actually doing the right thing by our standards, and instead pushes them toward greed and avarice (like a certain past NSW 'premier' with his user pays and daylight robbery of our roads etc).

    Sorry 'bout that.
    Farside
    12th Jun 2019
    11:24am
    the Trebor one-scheme-to-rule-them-all will come about in time. The argument for separate schemes for MPs has long since disappeared with the rise of the gig economy and demise of cradle to grave employment.

    I would not be so quick to lay the blame for construction workplace injuries upon the offspring of economic refugees, there are plenty of foolhardy oz tradies out there ignoring safe work procedures and protocols. Only the other day I was watching one of Howard's battlers on the outside of the scaffolding, in the wet and balanced on one leg, no hard hat using a nail gun. At least the hipster had a high vis jacket. Remember it was small business owners that were responsible for the pink batt deaths despite this not being the way it was portrayed to the public.
    thommo
    11th Jun 2019
    1:06pm
    Agree with you Buggsie...A universal age pension will solve all of the problems, but they idea of that scares our governments, but I do not see why.. They just can't see past their noses.
    But they must improve the age pension, not reduce any benefits, because if they do, they will cop the wrath of the voters, young and old, because eventually, everyone will probably be getting some sort of a pension at retirement age..
    Voters should have sent this message to Morrison and the LNP at the recent federal election, but they didn't, so we get what we deserve...
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    9:09pm
    Trouble is that Labor won't get its head out of its social science proverbial.... nobody is buying their version of 'feminism' or their version of 'Aboriginism' or their version of 'gayism' or their version of ethnicism' - and people are heartily sick and tired of the often abusive policies of exclusion and division in public arenas such as public service and universities etc...

    Told Bill Shorten to wake up and listen to the Trebor - but he didn't... they're there to represent all the people - not just the minorities - in which I include 'feminists', since women are a majority while 'feminists' are the minority, and that majority did not vote for Labor and its policies.
    thommo
    11th Jun 2019
    1:06pm
    Agree with you Buggsie...A universal age pension will solve all of the problems, but they idea of that scares our governments, but I do not see why.. They just can't see past their noses.
    But they must improve the age pension, not reduce any benefits, because if they do, they will cop the wrath of the voters, young and old, because eventually, everyone will probably be getting some sort of a pension at retirement age..
    Voters should have sent this message to Morrison and the LNP at the recent federal election, but they didn't, so we get what we deserve...
    thommo
    11th Jun 2019
    1:06pm
    Agree with you Buggsie...A universal age pension will solve all of the problems, but they idea of that scares our governments, but I do not see why.. They just can't see past their noses.
    But they must improve the age pension, not reduce any benefits, because if they do, they will cop the wrath of the voters, young and old, because eventually, everyone will probably be getting some sort of a pension at retirement age..
    Voters should have sent this message to Morrison and the LNP at the recent federal election, but they didn't, so we get what we deserve...
    KSS
    11th Jun 2019
    1:44pm
    People won't be happy with a universal pension either because it will mean that people with millions in the bank will also get the same pension as those with nothing even though they clearly won't need it.

    Some people will never be happy as long as they perceive others as having more than them.
    thommo
    11th Jun 2019
    2:11pm
    To KSS....A universal age pension provides a pension to all, regardless of their financial circumstances...Obviously, measures need to be in place so that it is equitable, and the best way to do that is to have it subject to the taxation system, so that those earning more above a mandated threshold will be subject to tax, so that the wealthy pay their fair share.
    But importantly, those on the lower rungs of the ladder get a decent respectable age pension (not like the measly pittance they get now), and without the micro management of Centrelink, which is demeaning to pensioners..
    Also, the costly expense of administering the current pension system will be made redundant, so everyone, and the economy, benefits.
    But as Trebor suggests above, older voters should get together and start up the Old Bastards party, and be a real force in politics to ensure fairer representation and voice for pensioners.
    Rae
    11th Jun 2019
    2:21pm
    I agree thommo it would end a lot of the distortions in the system.

    There would be no need for negative gearing or tax concessions for super savings. That would more than pay for it. The ATO could sort out those with tax to pay and a simple pension office to direct aged pension payments to all citizens over 67.

    No need to notify about anything other than your executor after you pass on.

    Taxing the wealthy once again instead of the nonsense we have now.
    KSS
    11th Jun 2019
    3:26pm
    So actually you are not in fact advocating a universal pension at all then if:

    "Obviously, measures need to be in place so that it is equitable, and the best way to do that is to have it subject to the taxation system, so that those earning more above a mandated threshold will be subject to tax, so that the wealthy pay their fair share."

    Its just the asset test under a different banner!
    Paddington
    11th Jun 2019
    3:44pm
    KSS, people are not equal. So you are saying hand a top up to a millionaire. Of course people should put in a tax return if they have above the pension amount.
    There was nothing wrong with that statement. When I worked I put in a tax return even if it was part time or casual. Same thing applies to anyone above the threshold.
    That is probably why it is always rejected as it would just be money paid out to millionaires and cost more. People have to be prepared to do a tax return if there was a universal pension.
    KSS
    11th Jun 2019
    6:27pm
    People are not equal now so that's ok then so why change?

    A universal pension means everyone gets the same pension no matter what. Anything less than that and it is NOT a universal pension.

    As soon as you put conditions on it, you will end up in a new version of what we have now - basically an asset test that some will ' pass' and others will not. Hardly a change for the better and certainly NOT a universal pension.
    Misty
    12th Jun 2019
    1:46am
    And a lot more work for the ATO.
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    5:05pm
    That's right, KSS, "universal pension means everyone gets the same pension no matter what". Say only based on Ae (say 565) and Residency (say 15 years, and NO otter tests. It should be such so that there is no more tampering with the pension rules.
    It can be easily paid out by the ATO through simple computer-generated payouts to the pensioner bank accounts - practically no cost, and HUGE cuts in Centrelink costs.
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    7:25pm
    Typos got through, should have typed "Say only based on Age (say 65) and Residency (say 15 years, and NO other tests."
    moama jock
    11th Jun 2019
    1:26pm
    Leave things much the same as they are BUT on the first of July 2019 give us age pensioners the same percentage increase as the pollies AND have the same boffins who provided the pollies salary review complete a fairness review of our pensions by first of september 2019.All other forms of pension should be also reviewed But not unemployment these benefits to cease after twelve of benefits.

    moama jock
    KSS
    11th Jun 2019
    1:45pm
    So you want a 2% increase?
    Paddington
    11th Jun 2019
    3:36pm
    Why cancel the money for people who are out of work? Can you guarantee them a job?
    If people are in need, they are in need!
    Some people are out of work for years before they can find employment.
    Triss
    11th Jun 2019
    6:51pm
    Not the percentage, Moana jock, give us the same amount of dollars.
    Farside
    12th Jun 2019
    11:44am
    increases in welfare for pensioners are a much lower priority than raising dole for the unemployed. Cutting welfare after 12 months is stupidity, what do you want people with no income do to get by ... embark on a crime spree?
    ex PS
    13th Jun 2019
    7:12am
    That's right cancel payments for people out of work, take even more money out of the economy, then when the retailers close down, we can put them on welfare for twelve months and the cut them off, taking even more money out of the economy. We will not be generating enough taxes in to pay for services so we can cut the Pension off.
    Taking money away from poor people can not help an economy, it will drive the general living conditions for most downwards.
    Sometimes, by helping others we are actually helping ourselves, even if you don't want to help because it is the right thing to do, consider doing it for your own selfish reasons.
    mogo51
    11th Jun 2019
    1:28pm
    Agree Buggsie,
    There needs to be a figure on home property value for pension, getting it right is the trick. As you say if someone is sitting in a 2-3ml home and getting a full pension as against another who has chosen a different direction, why should he be penalised. Little difference.
    mogo51
    11th Jun 2019
    1:28pm
    Agree Buggsie,
    There needs to be a figure on home property value for pension, getting it right is the trick. As you say if someone is sitting in a 2-3ml home and getting a full pension as against another who has chosen a different direction, why should he be penalised. Little difference.
    Wstaton
    11th Jun 2019
    1:58pm
    We should remember just sitting on a $3m home does not give the owner any advantage money wise. The main thing is that it was the family home and they may have lived their all their lives. It is also in the area that they know. It should also be remembered that may have been just a $45,00 home when they bought it. It is not the home that has value except for themselves personally. It is the land that has the value now. It would be heartbreaking for some to sell their house only see it demolished to build Mcmansions.

    True if they have a house worth $3m some would may be prepared to downsize to a nice apartment or unit if they could in the same area which would cost them far less than the $3m. But hey! some will still say why are you living in a $1m unit and on the pension. I guess we could say you cannot win.
    cupoftea
    11th Jun 2019
    2:57pm
    They were voted in they can do what ever with a 10 seat in the house and a soft senate you that put them there cop it for me roll on july the 1st
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    7:06pm
    I think it is more like 1.7 seat majority...... not 10.....
    cupoftea
    11th Jun 2019
    2:57pm
    They were voted in they can do what ever with a 10 seat in the house and a soft senate you that put them there cop it for me roll on july the 1st
    Paddington
    12th Jun 2019
    8:39pm
    I think they will have opposition from the senate. It will sail through the lower house but be carefully analysed in the senate.

    11th Jun 2019
    3:41pm
    Insider speaks to people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YyrTtOl3dA&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR16-2z2sI9imOfJPx1irPJT8PWNGljODIMUOuh0nu26O3Uojri88idTg8w

    Governments are puppets of the global Bilderberg elite. They no longer serve us !!
    And I truly hate to say this, but it's going to get worse if We The People won't do something about it.
    Total enslavement is on the way...
    Don't smirk ... Sooner or later you will mark my words.
    Anonymous
    11th Jun 2019
    3:45pm
    https://cecaust.com.au/sites/default/files/hands-off-deposits.pdf

    https://cecaust.com.au/stop-bail-in-petition

    http://elijahschallenge.net/index.php/the-constitution

    Courts and Legal Practices Act 2003
    Original Australian Constitution with Seal.pdf
    Section-73-WA-Constitution.pdf
    Chuck
    11th Jun 2019
    3:58pm
    Hey guys stop fighting amongst ourselves. We are not the enemy the bloody politicians are the enemy. They stole our pension from us. We need to speak as one. We need to tell the politicians in all major parties Return our Universal Pension Scheme or else; come election time you'll be looking for a new job. So stop voting for the same old political party if that party is not going to restore the Universal Pension Scheme with no bloody asset or income tests for all retirees.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    7:07pm
    Old Bastards Party - we even accept the supercilious self fundeds who think the sun shines out their Rs.....
    Farside
    12th Jun 2019
    11:47am
    someone else is drinking the red cordial ... cue the tears for the National Welfare Fund and social security levy.
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    5:11pm
    Been saying it for a while, Chuck, for all to write to their MPs for Universal Age Pension with NO tests, other than Age (65 years) and Residency (say 15 years). I am not sure why people (Retirees) did not act sensibly, and voted back in a party which cut pensions in Jan 2017.

    Right now, an opportunity will be there soon for all to write to the Retirement Incomes Review which the Treasurer has announced will happen soon.
    Paul
    11th Jun 2019
    4:54pm
    Some comments on the survey results:

    1. Some people think they have already paid for their pension because they paid tax for many years. Unfortunately, that doesn't make sense. The government is about to clock up its 11th straight deficit, and the Commonwealth government’s debt is about $326 billion. That means the money you paid in taxes was spent long ago and the government has been borrowing money to fund the pension and other programs. The pension is funded by current and future taxes, not taxes paid in the past.

    2. Have all those people who are so against including the house in the asset test (I think values over $600k should be assessed) considered that maybe if fewer people who could live without it were on the pension, those who really do need it could be paid a bit more and perhaps those on Newstart could get a much-needed increase?
    3. Some people are in favour of a non-means-tested, universal pension for everyone over 65. Why should the government pay people who are relatively well off and receiving a tax-free pension from their super a government pension which is not means tested? I’ve seen some claims that the savings in administering the means test would more than offset the additional pension payments. That sounds fanciful to me; does anyone have data from a credible source which supports that claim?
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    7:13pm
    "The government is about to clock up its 11th straight deficit," - that's their fault - they forked it, they can fix it. they were handed that money in trust and found endless ways to spend it on discretionary issues - they can work out how to pay it back - start with canceling their fat pensions and returning that to the fund. Follow with the stolen future Fund sitting in the Bahamas for their benefit - all $130BILLION of it.

    As for 2.
    $600k? You're kidding, right? A single mother who raised three kids ans scrimped and saved to own her home on a tiny block in Sydney should cop it in the neck (past girl-friend of mine, BTW - a fine Maltese lady)?

    The extra amount would not amount to enough once spread out over the available numbers.

    As for 3.
    Under the Trebor Scheme super would be taxed since pension is paid under universal pension. I truly lip my chops thinking about the politicians having to pay tax on their 'super'..... that would kill them, and explains why they'd never come at it.
    Mary
    11th Jun 2019
    8:17pm
    Paul, good call, I see your views are like mine! Like you I agree, any person in Sydney or Melbourne, that owns a house is rich. Why should they have a million dollar plus asset when I don't. I would take it further and say the threshold should be zero for every homeowner. Once you reach pension age the home ownership would be resumed to the government. the owner can live in it and get the pension till death. Then the government has a property that they can use for more public housing. We should also bring in a flat land tax indexed per year of around $2000 per property for everyone. That way these grubs can start giving back money to the poor like me as part of rent supplement. The 3rd point. ALL super accounts should be taken and nationalised now. Pensions would then be able to be increased by around 20000 per annum for all of us that deserve it. If you are rich and have assets you must live and draw on them until you spend it all (if you can). Only then will you be able to access a national super pension. I am tired of the rich living well while I struggle... Paul for Pm
    Oldman Roo
    11th Jun 2019
    9:43pm
    Paul and Mary, Your comments sound more like the philosophy of jealousy to me . The Person prepared to force people out of their family home must be heartless in the first place and to suggest to disown them is not much better . The $ 600 000 limit is totally unrealistic and squeezing just about everyone into complete poverty is absolute nonsense .
    Why have successive LNP Governments not tackled the wealthy with their Tax Avoidance schemes and the signs that their wealth is rapidly on the rise are there to be seen by everyone .
    But , No , they need further Tax Breaks , tells us our Government , and the extra income ends up in Offshore accounts and family trusts . Not to forget that Politicians used to be Gentleman to look up to as true and compassionate leaders and I have not heard of one of those for ages . They certainly belong to and govern for the wealthy in these days and he small man gets fed bullshit . Any shifting of Goal Posts and retrospective legislation on people who had to plan their retirement after a life time of hard work and saving is nothing more than a despicable act and I do not know how they can look at themselves in the mirror .
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    7:42pm
    Paul, all your 3 points are rubbish. Trebor has indicated some reasons, and so has Oldman Roo, so I won't bother as I believe you are fixed in your views anyway. Been through it before with you.
    Misty has shown her jealous and selfish, as well as Communist, thinking again. Not worth responding to any more. Her favourite Labor lost, thank heavens! Will continue to be in opposition as long as they don't work for everyone and encourage jealousies.

    Universal Age Pension for ALL, with NO tests, otter than Age (65 years) and Residency (say 15 years) is possibly the only solution now to fix the completely Broken Age Pension system which punishers the hard-workers and savers, and favours spendthrifts and lazy people (although there are manny deserving, hard-done-by people as well). Govt needs to be fair to all, not only the ones who failed to / refused to look after themselves.

    Serious action is also needed to ensure reasonable taxes are collected from all, especially the rich and large companies, as Trebor & Oldman Roo have highlighted. A Minimum Tax system with tax based on Gross Income and only Local verifiable Expenses can be the quickest solution, as the Tax system is also full of holes and not easy to fix. That should be the taxation priority instead of large Tax Cuts.
    ex PS
    13th Jun 2019
    7:20am
    Wrong Paul, the government is in the BLACK, remember they told us so just before that thing we had last month, you remember that election thingy. All is good we have nothing to worry about, in fact things are so good, we are locking in tax breaks for the upper middle class that this government may not have to even find the money for.
    Things are going so well I am expecting a large pay rise for Pensioners and the abolition of the Assets Test.
    I will now mount my winged Unicorn and fly into the sunset spraying champagne and ejecting gold nuggets from its rear quarters as I go.
    Paul
    11th Jun 2019
    4:54pm
    Some comments on the survey results:

    1. Some people think they have already paid for their pension because they paid tax for many years. Unfortunately, that doesn't make sense. The government is about to clock up its 11th straight deficit, and the Commonwealth government’s debt is about $326 billion. That means the money you paid in taxes was spent long ago and the government has been borrowing money to fund the pension and other programs. The pension is funded by current and future taxes, not taxes paid in the past.

    2. Have all those people who are so against including the house in the asset test (I think values over $600k should be assessed) considered that maybe if fewer people who could live without it were on the pension, those who really do need it could be paid a bit more and perhaps those on Newstart could get a much-needed increase?
    3. Some people are in favour of a non-means-tested, universal pension for everyone over 65. Why should the government pay people who are relatively well off and receiving a tax-free pension from their super a government pension which is not means tested? I’ve seen some claims that the savings in administering the means test would more than offset the additional pension payments. That sounds fanciful to me; does anyone have data from a credible source which supports that claim?
    Trevine
    11th Jun 2019
    4:59pm
    This government does what they want, not what the expel want. They get pay rises while the poor are left behind. Now they are coming after our only home. If they take the house in the asset test and we won’t be entitled to a pension then we will have to starting eating brick by brick for food because we won’t have money. Cannot stand this government. Everybody voted for this
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    7:47pm
    Not everyone, Liberal votes dropped to 41% from 42%, but not enough to give them a slap.
    I think people can't get their head around the Preference voting system, and did not want a crazy version of Labor in power. I did suggest a method in YLC posts about how to act around the Preferential voting system to vote such people OUT, but not enough people have understood that or taken it seriously.
    GrayComputing
    11th Jun 2019
    6:06pm
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    Now is the season for discontent, so do something about it!
    It is time to kill off this insane hugely expensive pensioner whacking bureaucracy.

    It is time for all of us (yes that means you) to rant at our MPs and Senators daily to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

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

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules.

    Hiring more Centrelink staff will only increase taxpayer’s costs for processing the creeping insane red tape monster system politicians and well paid bureaucrats have created.

    Help scrap it now. Become a hero.

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

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

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

    We all (that means you) need to tell our MP and senators every day that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    7:49pm
    Correct "NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!" That wasn't a response option in this badly designed poll!
    Blinky
    11th Jun 2019
    8:13pm
    If pollies's homes (and most of them have more than one) are not included in their elligibilty x a pension, leave pensioners alone.
    If there is money x pollies' pensions and fat salaries, then there should be money x Aussie pensioners.
    STOP PICKING ON PENSIONERS!!!
    Blinky
    11th Jun 2019
    8:13pm
    If pollies's homes (and most of them have more than one) are not included in their elligibilty x a pension, leave pensioners alone.
    If there is money x pollies' pensions and fat salaries, then there should be money x Aussie pensioners.
    STOP PICKING ON PENSIONERS!!!
    Blinky
    11th Jun 2019
    8:13pm
    If pollies's homes (and most of them have more than one) are not included in their elligibilty x a pension, leave pensioners alone.
    If there is money x pollies' pensions and fat salaries, then there should be money x Aussie pensioners.
    STOP PICKING ON PENSIONERS!!!
    Paul
    11th Jun 2019
    8:14pm
    Hi Trebor

    Your logic seems flawed; you have lots of complaints, but no serious answers.

    You say Australia’s debt is the “government’s” fault, but the debt has been built up over many years, with both parties contributing to the problem. Australians elected these governments, so what do you actually want? If, the people we elect aren’t good enough, how do you suggest we should pick our leaders? Lottery? Dartboard? Military coup?

    Anyway, the real point is that people who paid taxes in the past have not paid for their pension; the money has already been spent on other programs, whether you think they were “discretionary” is beside the point.

    If someone has a house worth $1 million, what’s wrong with $400k of they being assessed for the pension? If someone has $1 million in the bank, it all gets assessed.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    8:44pm
    It's hardly the people's fault that those handed the privilege of handling the economy and social structure of the nation have stuffed it up. I mentioned 'discretionary spending' on countless issues - that kind of thing, along with PPL, childcare subsidy, and a few other things needs to go - and that includes all the QANGOs set up to hand an old mate a nice earner etc.

    Nothing flawed about my logic at all.... if a nation can afford to hand out billions to 'new' ideas such as childcare subsidies - it can afford to pay its bills due first - and social is a bill due and paid for in advance.

    I'm afraid the luxury items will just have to take second place until the fools who set them in place get the economy worked out for a change.

    Hence my call for a totally separate and independent body to handle social security and retirement packaging for all - under the same rules.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    8:59pm
    ' social SECURITY is a bill due and paid for in advance.'
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    9:01pm
    If you'd been around long enough - you'd have seen I have many excellent answers.... all expounded long ago, and thus those who know know already.
    Farside
    12th Jun 2019
    11:58am
    "people who paid taxes in the past have not paid for their pension" ... so true Paul. Don't take Trebor rant's to heart, they sometime contain a pearl if you look for it and are even occasionally amusing but never harmful; nobody with any influence heeds his advice; it's a bit like the sound of one hand clapping in the forest.

    Payment of taxes is simply to avoid prosecution by the ATO for non-payment of taxes.
    Paul
    11th Jun 2019
    8:14pm
    Hi Trebor

    Your logic seems flawed; you have lots of complaints, but no serious answers.

    You say Australia’s debt is the “government’s” fault, but the debt has been built up over many years, with both parties contributing to the problem. Australians elected these governments, so what do you actually want? If, the people we elect aren’t good enough, how do you suggest we should pick our leaders? Lottery? Dartboard? Military coup?

    Anyway, the real point is that people who paid taxes in the past have not paid for their pension; the money has already been spent on other programs, whether you think they were “discretionary” is beside the point.

    If someone has a house worth $1 million, what’s wrong with $400k of they being assessed for the pension? If someone has $1 million in the bank, it all gets assessed.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    8:53pm
    $1m in the bank earns a measly $10,000 now in interest...

    Again - it is zero responsibility of those whom paid that their money has been squandered on totally separate and unnecessary issues to suit a few whiners... a government or organisation that does that is obliged to repay what it spent... in the case of government, since this is not a business and cannot go broke - it is incumbent on that government to set right what it has done wrong.

    Let's hear it for:-

    "Sorry, girls - no money in the till for PPL and childcare - you'll have to do what your parents did and make ends meet on your own income." ... and

    "Sorry lads and lassies - no money in the till to continue with Australian Airships Corporation and the Social Upheaval Commission - you'll all have to leave and make ends meet on your miserable parliamentary pension and all the other income you're copping on the side. We can't afford the duplication and triplication of effort that is caused by having a Department of Hot Air, another of Hot Air Procurement and then Airships as well.... and Social Upheaval has become passe` in an increasingly desperate world filled with an endless and growing demographic of whiners who want something for nothing."

    "Them's the breaks - we have to pay for Pensions and social security first - those are more important and past money paid in was meant for those - not all the rest. the old bastards and the unemployed and sick are calling in their bill and that's creating a run on the Budget... sorry - you'll all have to go! Last In - First Off!"
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    8:58pm
    "Sorry, all you hisses and herses or whatever - no money in the till for your special commission, your special legal service, your special operation to change nature..."

    "Sorry, Ngunnawullya, me old mate - country can't afford any more handouts of good land - we're desperate and times are tough ..."

    "Sorry, and deepest apologies, salaam aleikum to you, too, good and worthy Pusslim Hierarchy - no money left in the till for any special consideration.... can't afford it any more... got bills to pay first.... get back to us in fifty years... you'll all have to make ends meet driving cabs and drug dealing and scamming ... childcare won;t be around though - you'll find something else..."
    Blinky
    11th Jun 2019
    8:17pm
    Bugsie, how come politicians can have, not one, but many luxury homes and still get a much, much fatter pension, for life?
    Why does it bother u 2 see some pensioners have a house which, as they do, appreciate over time?
    Blinky
    11th Jun 2019
    8:17pm
    Bugsie, how come politicians can have, not one, but many luxury homes and still get a much, much fatter pension, for life?
    Why does it bother u 2 see some pensioners have a house which, as they do, appreciate over time?
    Paul
    11th Jun 2019
    8:58pm
    Trebor, I think you are sadly out of touch. When you and I were kids, men went to work and women stayed at home.


    Today, 47% of the Australain workforce are women; unlike the 1950's most families have both partner working. The Australian economy would collapse without women in the workforce; women also pay a big chuck of the taxes which fund pensions.

    Get rid of childcare and parental leave and the governmnet would be making a lot more cuts than the ones you are already complaining about.
    Paul
    11th Jun 2019
    8:58pm
    Trebor, I think you are sadly out of touch. When you and I were kids, men went to work and women stayed at home.


    Today, 47% of the Australain workforce are women; unlike the 1950's most families have both partner working. The Australian economy would collapse without women in the workforce; women also pay a big chuck of the taxes which fund pensions.

    Get rid of childcare and parental leave and the governmnet would be making a lot more cuts than the ones you are already complaining about.
    Paddington
    12th Jun 2019
    8:58pm
    Also, interestingly, 57% are women who are graduating Uni.
    A few men even the good ones like Trebor have a woman problem not like the LNP but because they have obviously been hurt.
    Feminists can also be men. Feminism is not a negative thing.
    Many men are proud of what women have accomplished and support that.
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    9:11pm
    A fine argument - 'Family Home' now added to Official List Of Trigger Terms.....
    TREBOR
    11th Jun 2019
    9:11pm
    Hush - we the people might have lost the election - but we won the fight!!
    wendan31
    12th Jun 2019
    12:18am
    This really irks me, you spend your life working to keep the Government going while they spend your tax money willy-nilly, you work hard to establish a lifestyle, to pay off your home with money YOU & your SPOUSE have earned and then the Government takes over your life and tells you what you can do with something YOU OWN.
    wendan31
    12th Jun 2019
    12:18am
    This really irks me, you spend your life working to keep the Government going while they spend your tax money willy-nilly, you work hard to establish a lifestyle, to pay off your home with money YOU & your SPOUSE have earned and then the Government takes over your life and tells you what you can do with something YOU OWN.
    Willfish
    12th Jun 2019
    8:59am
    Yes, I agree. I should be able to live in my $5mil home on a full pension paid by taxpayers, then hand all my assets to my kids when i die. Why should the government or taxpayers get any of their money back when I die? Welfare for all and welfare forever!, Signed Harold Airhead
    Paddington
    12th Jun 2019
    8:54pm
    How many people have $5m homes? Very few is my guess. Most are well under the million unless in one of the big cities then maybe a m or so!
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    7:57pm
    Completely stupid poll, seeking to divide Retirees against each other - the home haves versus the home have-nots! YLC needs to fix it's attitudes and adopt a non-Labor approach, instead promoting solutions good for ALL Retirees.

    With the Broken Age Pension system full of holes and rules, and a massive Centrelink bureaucracy administering it (badly), the only sensible option now is for ALL Retirees and pre-Retirees to use this opportunity of a Retirement Incomes Review planned soon to write to their MPs, or the PM and Treasurer, to scrap the Broken Age Pension system and implement an Universal Age Pension system (for ALL with NO tests, based only on Age 65 yrs and Residency say 15 years), and join the ranks of all civilised advanced countries.

    There is NO problem to afford it if we consider:
    a) the massive Centrelink cost savings (with payments directly from ATO following a simple application),
    b) more taxes from additional income from older people (working longer with no disincentives),
    c) less health issues & costs (with less Centrelink dealings), and
    d) by implementing a Minimum Tax system to ensure the rich and large companies (especially multinationals) pay their fair share of tax (not Nil or Negligible taxes as at present).
    The 7.5% income taxes collected for paying pensions (now part of consolidated revenue) could also be gradually separated out into a Future Fund managed independently of Govt interference (say under RBA supervision), to further guarantee funding.
    Paddington
    12th Jun 2019
    8:52pm
    You would still have poor retirees and wealthy retirees. How can you help the poorest?
    A single pensioner/universal age pension still a single with no home and no money would still be poor.
    Are the better off ones going to spend more, putting it back into the economy?
    Is this for everyone or just the oldies? Why not include everyone?
    Is this because the better off have pension envy?
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    8:54pm
    With the above Universal Age Pension scheme, all can decide to
    * own or not own a home,
    * have savings or not have savings (without being penalised)
    * continue working and earning after pension age or not (without being penalised)
    * live wherever they want to subject to their means and preferences.

    While not mentioned above, people on Govt-supported Defined Benefit schemes could decide to either stay in and not receive the Universal AP, or opt out and get the Universal Age Pension. No whinging, choice is yours. (An exception is - all pre-2004 Politicians in Federal Parliament re-elected since 2004 must have their massively generous Defined Benefits scrapped e.g. Abbott (over $300K pa), Bronnie Bishop & Ruddock (over $250K), Macklin and Swan (also in the $200K- $250K range), etc, etc, etc.)

    In other words, have the Govt OFF our backs! You are then responsible for yourself in retirement without worrying about Govt rule changes, or fighting with each other about who gets more! Doesn't that sound like a more civilised society?
    GeorgeM
    12th Jun 2019
    9:07pm
    Once again you get into the envy politics with your last comment, Paddington. Poor Retirees would not be any worse off - note my comment about implementing Minimum Taxes, from which I would expect the Revenue increase would be such as to even enable the Age Pension to be increased for all - once again good for ALL.
    Of course, everyone will earn more, spend more, and even provide more taxes as a result (even more of the 7.5% included in taxes).

    The alternative is to continue bickering, which the politicians will use to their advantage and will surely find new ways to attack the dumb divided retirees to ultimately cut back pensions even further - writing is on the wall, their priority is Tax Cuts for the wealthy expected to be $11,600+ from 2024 which includes ALL Politicians as they have Base Salary above $200K ($207,100 at present for backbenchers who do NOTHING for us).


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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