The election issue that will get the ‘older’ vote

The election issue that will get the ‘older’ vote.

The election issue that will get the ‘older’ vote

The jury is in. Older Australians have rated an increase to the Age Pension base rate as the most important election issue – the one that will get their vote.

In YourLifeChoices’ Friday Flash Poll: Which election issue matters most to you?, 21 per cent of the 1153 respondents said increasing the Age Pension, addressing pension poverty and increasing the base rate was the election issue that mattered most.

“While it may appear that our pensions are better than other developed countries, in reality it is not so. Our living expenses are significantly higher than the other developed countries making our pension look paltry,” wrote YourLifeChoices member Alfred.

Rather than increasing the Age Pension base rate, a number of members said a Universal Age Pension might be fairer.

“There should be a Universal Age Pension Scheme introduced in Australia. Australians who have paid taxes in Australia all throughout their working life should be automatically entitled to an Age Pension on reaching retirement age,” wrote YourLifeChoices member Chuck.

“Push for a Universal Age Pension, with no tests other than age (65 years) and residency (say 15 years). Well-off politicians and bureaucrats get their pensions without any of the tests which others have to face through Centrelink. This is the only clean solution to the broken Age Pension system which punishes savers and earners – to their detriment, and also to the detriment of the economy. In my opinion, this should be the No.1 issue for all retirees, at least for all who want this country to give a fair go to all retirees,” wrote GeorgeM.

However, many over-55s are looking beyond their own purse strings and seeing the election as a chance for better things for everyone, with 17 per cent saying that climate change – including intelligent energy policy – is the most important issue.

“I chose climate change because it affects everyone and the young ones who have no vote or voice and to whom we owe so much by way of leaving a better world. I think people need to look beyond their own wants and select policies that help the whole population, especially the children and the unborn future generations. Education is probably also high on my list as it helps more people and makes for a better world,” wrote YourLifeChoices member Paddington.

“We shouldn't ask ‘Which party will look after you?’ We should ask ‘Which party will be best for our country?’ Good climate change policy will not only look after this generation, but the generations that follow,” wrote Jess M.

Many are saying this will be the climate change election. Labor’s climate change policy includes a reimplementation of the national energy guarantee dumped by the Coalition, emissions targets for heavy industry, vehicle emissions standards, carbon credits and bold electric vehicle goals. Labor also continues to support a 45 per cent emissions target by 2030, and a 50 per cent renewable energy target.

The Coalition will implement a 10-year Climate Solutions Fund to help improve the efficiency of commercial and public lighting, boost tree planting and collect gas from landfills. The party has committed $1.4 billion to Snowy Hydro 2.0 and is pushing ‘big stick’ measures to stop energy companies fleecing consumers. It may also look at ‘clean coal’ projects and, potentially, more coal-fired power stations. The Coalition is sticking to its 26 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030.

Healthcare and Medicare, including cover for cancer treatments and age-related conditions; spending on disease prevention measures and research, better access to medicines and diagnostics, universal dental care and more information about rights and entitlements were the third most important issues for older Australians, with 14 per cent of the vote.

While increasing the Age Pension has been rated a top priority in this election, healthcare is a key concern among older Australians, with 44 per cent of respondents to YourLifeChoices’ 2019 Insights Survey saying their retirement was most influenced by health concerns. In the 2018 Retirement Matters Survey, healthcare was rated as the second biggest drain on savings (after energy costs).

Labor’s franking credits policy could swing a few votes, too, with 14 per cent of respondents claiming it is an important issue. It also seems that many are still confused about who the policy will affect.

“Shorten’s retiree tax grab is unacceptable and he is a liar when he says it will only affect the wealthy. The wealthy won’t be affected, but it will destroy the low-income retiree,” wrote Mike.

Rounding out the top five most important issues was border security and migration policy, with eight per cent of the vote. And just outside the top five was another Age Pension issue – changes to the assets and income test (seven per cent).

When asked who our respondents typically prefer, 37 per cent said the Liberal Party, 29 per cent said Labor, six per cent said Independent and four per cent (each) the Greens and One Nation. Thirteen per cent were swinging voters.

When asked who they would vote for (so far), 31 per cent said the Liberal Party, 28 per cent said Labor, seven per cent said Independent, five per cent the Greens and four per cent One Nation. Sixteen per cent were unsure.

While older Australians may have rated Age Pension increases as the most important issue, many noted the need for a federal Independent Commission Again Corruption (ICAC) into political corruption. Hip pocket issues are always going to be a big election issue, and this year’s federal election looks no different. However, it seems that recent behaviour displayed by our politicians has rubbed retirees the wrong way.

“A federal ICAC should come first. We need to clean up the favours and special deals for mates before our pollies will start acting for the majority and putting this country first,” wrote YourLifeChoices member Dave R.

“My response to the question is honesty and decent behaviour. The Government fails abysmally on both as it has no morals and shows all the signs of (protected) criminal behaviour,” wrote Mick.

“There must be more transparency with politicians. They represent us,” wrote KB.

Older Australians seem tired of the current two-party system, with many retirees calling on others to fill out below-the-line preferences on the ballot.

Baby boomers and retirees may be fed up with the democratic process, but one thing is for sure – they are still passionate.

Do you agree that increasing the Age Pension is the most important issue? Should the next Government implement an ICAC to help restore faith in our politicians?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    10:02am
    Stabilising out of control costs of living, and then stabilising income for the Untermenschen are the real priorities.... there are several ways to approach this.

    1) Lock the gates on mass immigration
    2) Lock the gates on revenue haemmhorhaging to Offshore via tax dodging and cash/profit transfer and sold out industries such as gas and petroleum
    3) Bring costs of living under control by abolishing forever 'privatisation' and all the other parasite 'industries' on essential services
    4) Commence a genuine infrastructure program that will provide future employment and future production of Australian goods apart from sheep and cattle (sold out for thirty pieces of silverside)...
    5) Withdraw from the 'global economy' and lock the gates in its face.....
    6) Overhaul the tax system to ensure that those profiting pay their taxes.... simple and easy - you earn it, you pay for it same as Joe and Jo Toiler.
    7) Refuse subsidies for non-profitable businesses such as serial house hoarding and other parasitic 'industries' that stash cash in deadstock that produces nothing.... if you can't support a business that pays the wages of thousands, you can't support a 'business' that pays the occasional tradie a few bucks ...
    8) Place a tax on any service that enters our cyberspace from Offshore, and which has removed jobs from Australia...
    9) Bring the current superannuation/retirement packaging debacle under control, placing all those trillions of super funding under a single roof, away from political hands and business hands and mate hands, and in the hands of an elected body that will loan and invest for the future of the country first.
    10) Intitiate The Grappler Schemes - the GAIAs, by planning and organising initial layouts and such, so as to enable future development of industries (Sinn Fein Australia Industries).
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    10:07am
    The GAIAs are Great Australian Infrastructure Advances... examples are iron ore processing/shipbuilding/ associated industries at the ore face - the Pilbara... another is the possibility of opening Lake Eyre to the sea and creating a different inland climate (and the Breakers to Bourke Barefoot Ski Contest annually) ....

    The argument in the past against such 'remote' locations as the Pilbara for such things was that it is open to attack from the sea - today any missile can hit anywhere at hypersonic speed so that argument is dead, buried and cremated. Nothing is truly 'remote' these days, and once developed, such an area would taken on an entire life of its own.

    11) Ban 'private ownership' of resources prior to and during extraction... (bloody Socialist)...
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    10:09am
    I've got it! The Breakers to Bourke Barefoot Boogey Board Bash... (average student - all Bs).... (invite Schapelle Corby as judge)...
    Mandy
    15th Apr 2019
    10:38pm
    Australia has a point system for immigrants which means that for anyone to qualify they need to possess skills that are needed here. Those skills are acquired in the country of origin and Australia gains them for free. Immigrants can also gain citizenship if they can bring in enough wealth to develop or purchase a business and employ some Australians. Another free-bee for Australia. Most of the immigrants that are a financial burden to the country is due to we not allowing them to work rather than they not wanting to work.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    10:59pm
    The list of eligible occupations is patently absurd. Do we really need pilots and water engineers and such? I know a lot of pilots who would be happy to take on an airline job... more steady than being the trainer at an aero club...
    Mandy
    16th Apr 2019
    2:00pm
    Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. These immigrants bring their skills, experience and qualifications to the country for free. Surely you are not suggesting that born and bred Australians who have a reputation for punching above their weight are not able to compete with these immigrants if there was a scarcity of jobs?
    Lucky Lady
    15th Apr 2019
    10:21am
    all tax paying australians have paid 7% of there tax extra there whole working life this was for your pension brought in in the 1940s the goverment in the late 50s freaked there was so much money collected ( over 100 million pounds) they put it all into consolidated revenue so the pension is a right to any australian over 65












    0
    older&wiser
    15th Apr 2019
    6:46pm
    Totally agree Lucky Lady - I remember being told this at my very first job! Remember it very clearly - and then 20 years later they brought in SGC. In my ignorance, when the SGC did start, my naivity thought I would have a nice pool already. No such luck! All taken away. Then I took some time off to look after kids, care for older parents then care for terminal partner - then back to work in casual low paid jobs, so practically zilch super.
    Justifiably feel robbed.
    GeorgeM
    15th Apr 2019
    8:59pm
    Exactly. All Australians, especially 3 Million+ Retirees who are well across this issue, need to write to their MPs to demand Universal Age Pension without any tests (other than Age and Residency, with the latter ensuring taxes were paid by all), and vote OUT all current MPs who don't listen. With the election campaign already under way now, you may not get a response as most parties are already stuck with their policies, so there seems no way out right now other than to vote them OUT by putting them LAST (or above the crazies) - but give them the courtesy of letting them know you are going to do this so they understand what hit them.
    The Care Bear.
    18th Apr 2019
    4:54pm
    Show me the sums that show that the 7% of tax paid by those employed was sufficient to fund their pension and the pensions of those that have never worked.
    BTW, I'm over 65, paid tax all my life and don't get the pension. i might add that I probably paid more tax than you earned.
    Farside
    18th Apr 2019
    6:29pm
    Care Bear, the 7% myth is rubbish and is regularly perpetuated on this site. The first decade of the National Welfare Fund was playing catch up on how to raise revenue as the 7% levy was insufficient to fund social security payments.

    Menzies government realised fund income was unrelated to payments so folded the levy money into general revenue, from where the payments were made. Eventually the Fraser government moved the fund's $470m balance into general revenue and a decade later the fund wound up.
    Paddington
    15th Apr 2019
    10:29am
    https://votecompass.abc.net.au/
    Complete this to discover what policies are important to you. You may be surprised.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    10:55am
    As I expected, about smack in the middle with no preference for any party or leader.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    11:47am
    #MeToo Bob. As we are asked for a postcode, I wonder if the results will be made available to all parties contesting in that particular seat? If not, why were we asked to tell the pollsters which seat we are in? Should our ABC be involved in such a poll? Lots of questions about the questions.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    11:59am
    My seat will vote Nationals -they always do .... even though the roads are a disaster apart from the Pacific Highway running past... we've had two major fatal prangs recently on the Highway, one yesterday in the rain (will they never stop tail-gaiting) involving four cars ... on each occasion the only way around a closed highway is to travel third world goat tracks through the hills to get past the blockage... worse than the old Pacific Highway in some places ... absolute murder in the rain and with people who don't know the roads...

    Those goat tracks could do with repairing as a start, and then real work to improve them as alternate routes, and not just torn up logging truck routes...

    Also had two fatals recently on The Lakes Way.... a goat track in itself in parts.... and carries a huge amount of holiday traffic with caravans and boats and such...

    Fatals are occurring in spots I've been ranting about for years with no result.... sudden rough bends that catch unwary motor cycle tourists and fling them into the path of an oncoming car..... stuff like that - without even a sign to say 'rough surface'.... bad junctions onto the freeway Pacific.... right turns from stop signs with no speed up to manouever..
    PlanB
    15th Apr 2019
    12:33pm
    I was just slightly to the left of center
    I want TRUTH and FAIRNESS -- I am sick to death of lies and corruption
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    1:10pm
    Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
    Here I am.. stuck in the middle with you..... (chuckles)
    Mondo
    15th Apr 2019
    4:07pm
    Trebor, according to a Liberal Nationals Party full page ad in our local rag on Wednesday paid for by all tax payers, the Pacific Highway will be fully duplicated from Sydney to the Qld. border by next year. So no excuses for accidents!! Only problem is the route of the section bypassing one of the largest towns has not even been agreed yet nor the manner in which it will be built (eg tunnels or cuttings) nor has funding been finalised and they will not be starting it until the earliest next year when the ad says it will be finished. So yet another tax payer funded and tax payer suffered lie by the LNP and they just keep coming!!
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    6:45pm
    Well -yes - but that road has been in construction since 1997 - I was doing security at the Olympic site and the guys with the big machines went straight on to the PacHy, saying they were made and their machine was paid for now!!

    No one party can claim its finish as being their work entirely.... and it is disingenuous for the LNP to do so.

    Coffs Harbour? I can see where it should go right now... straight ahead at the big roundabout and through that mountain... tunnel and out the other side without touching the town... 2 minutes driving...

    LNP should not be laying claim to such things... lies, lies, lies...
    GeorgeM
    15th Apr 2019
    9:02pm
    Unfortunately, it is a typical ABC type poll, which insists that you belong to one of the major parties (or One Nation), hence it is difficult to avoid being put into one bucket or another. For example, you cannot be Independent or Centrist in your views, and the questions are grouped together for weighting to ensure they try to put you into one of the buckets. Not a good survey at all, but it does have the option at the end to tell one single policy if you could name one - which may be lost in the crowd of ideas!
    Shifta
    15th Apr 2019
    10:45am
    All self funded retirees should be at least entitled to the same benefits that those on a pension get. Eg rates rebate, health, utilities rebate etc. We have all paid our taxes all our working life and save the government money by funding our own retirement.
    Rae
    15th Apr 2019
    10:49am
    Yes it's blatantly unfair that self funded retirees living on around 50% to 60% o average incomes have to pay the same as working families for all these items while aged pensioners receive discounts as well as social security incomes.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    10:58am
    Is there a cutoff point in income = income test, beyond which an SFR cannot get those things? Solve one problem and sow the seeds for another....

    I've long advocated that all retirees get the same thing - it is unconscionable that a lower-end SFR should pay full price for medications and treatments... but what about the really fat cats on million dollar retirement incomes?

    As usual - not as easy an issue as it sounds, especially when some of us have been advocating a no assets/no income test for universal pension for ages now... but then taxation on all income over and above, including gifts and freebies at deemed value. (Harry Fudger the retire chocolate billionaire getting a free ride any time on the Fudger Factory helicopter as part of his 'retirement package .. such a move would KILL politicians who enjoy largesse for life).....
    Sundays
    15th Apr 2019
    1:36pm
    There is a cut off point of $87,844 annual income for a couple and no Asset test to receive the Seniors Health Care Card which also provides rates, electricity rebates etc. I think this is very generous giving concessions that ordinary workers would love to have.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    2:09pm
    Yes - $87 or so is not bad....
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    2:38pm
    The Seniors Health Care Card is nowhere near as valuable as a pensioner concession card. It DOES NOT extend to rates discounts in many council areas. There are many other discounts and benefits that are exclusive to the Pensioner Concession Card and denied to SFRs no matter how low their income.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    2:46pm
    Seriously, Trebor, how many retirees have incomes of $1 million or more? I doubt there are enough to be even worth the effort of factoring clauses into pension policies to cover their situation. But the solution is really simple if EITHER political party had integrity. It's been suggested a thousand times.

    Simply tax ALL superannuation (in both accumulation and retirement phase) fairly. 15% discount on the member's top marginal rate for super contributions and income in accumulation phase - with any negative amount being a cash govt contribution. Pay the OAP tax free to all over a qualifying age with qualifying residency, and extend the same benefits to all, but tax all retirement income over and above the pension (including superannuation income that is not paid out in pensions). Of course there would have to be some careful thought given to how to deal with folk who get full military or government retirement pensions. That may well present the only real challenge. The rest is simple, and a universal OAP with a sensible tax system would be economically sensible, equitable, and greatly improve social harmony.
    Mondo
    15th Apr 2019
    4:13pm
    The cut off point and benefits for self funded retirees should be whatever applies to retired politicians. I don't know of any other group that rewards its servants more than the master is paid. After all they claim that they are there only to serve the people, not fill their pockets.
    Rae
    15th Apr 2019
    4:20pm
    Even those receiving income streams from military or public service could easily be solved. Simply deem the non concessional portion of the income as it really is. It's usually about 50% and the other portion is already taxed. That's right. These income streams do pay tax above the non concessional amount which had already been fully taxed before contribution. So around 50% of these incomes are taxed. They are not actually pensions but purchased income streams.

    If the current rules had applied in the past many would have taken the lump sum and then received the aged pension. The lump sum amounts were pretty dismal. Most were under the cut off for a full pension if just an ward nurse, constable or classroom teacher.

    Retired public servants were shafted by the LNP and Greens and had absolutely no way to change anything.

    At the very least an offer to convert back to lump sum and make a choice again should have been organised. I would have definitely taken the deemed lump sum option. I could have left the money to my kids that way just like the home upgraders are allowed to do.

    I've also learned to invest and actually do very well. Far better than my Superannuation fund ever achieved. I could have happily turned that lump sum into greater wealth if I hadn't been lied to, betrayed and refused any kind of out option.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    5:39pm
    There you go, Rae. Perhaps you and I should form an advisory group and tell the idiots in politics how to restore common sense and economic prosperity. It isn't hard. It's just that neither LNP nor Labor WANTS to.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    6:48pm
    Anyway, my point is that if you have a universal health card etc for retirees, should all get it and at what point should it cut out? Some retirees are more equal than others.. so those extras in isolation need to be looked at in context of overall retirement packaging.... hence The Trebor Plan for universal pension etc...
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    6:49pm
    Indeed, Rae - and the current thing about any compensation for non-active service injury etc being a 'loan' from future superannuation is a rort, pure and simple...

    Our service people should be treated better than that.. even Cuba treats theirs better...
    GeorgeM
    15th Apr 2019
    9:07pm
    Shifta, if all are given the Universal Age Pension, I would expect all who qualify (based on Age and Residency only, and no other tests), then I would expect that all of them should also automatically qualify for the pensioner card. Not all, e.g. the rich, may even want to show their pensioner card or apply for discounts. But, t would become the simplest and fairest approach with minimum administration costs - can be issued out by the ATO, with no need for Centrelink with massive cost savings.
    Blinky
    15th Apr 2019
    11:06am
    While we all know the Oz pension is inadequate and it needs improvement, I am yet to hear any comments from any politicians about it. I think they just dont give a damn about pensioners.
    By "pensioners' I mean those who rely in a govt pension, i.e. Centrelink.
    The big question is: is anyone listening??? Does any party really care about pensioners?
    Shorten is worried about electric cars n throwing money here n there, the Libs talk about job creation n balancing the budget, but nobody cares about pension reform...
    I agree with Trebor, if we dont have money x Oz pensioners, lock the gates on mass migration n foreign aid. Charity starts at home!!!
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    2:47pm
    So only recipients of Centrelink pension count, Blinky? Those on inadequate military or govt service pensions and those funding their own retirement are not important.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    2:48pm
    Maybe it's this selfish attitude that is responsible for the fact that nobody is standing up for pensioners, Blinky? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps including other disadvantaged retirees in your gripes might motivate them to support your complaints?
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    9:41pm
    I always try to, OaW - I try to include 'retirees' under one umbrella - both SFRs and pensioners are being drawn slowly over the coals at the moment to suit 'budget emergencies' and 'social science priorities' - for all of which there is always plenty of money.

    Elsewhere a minority movement funded for a legal service by your taxes is taking people to a tribunal (who wouldn't expect the Spanish Inquisition?) over alleged slurs and insults during the recent 'gay marriage' proposal. Plenty of money there for the 'aggrieved and afflicted of society'.

    Nowadays if you happen to disagree with a minority demand, and are prepared to publicly state why, you can be accused of 'hate speech' and dragged before a tribunal that does not strictly apply the rule of law (neither do courts, but that's a different matter).

    Thus you can be punished for not agreeing with a loud-voiced minority and its demands, and more sinisterly, a reign of terror based on fear of one-sided hearing and certain punishment for dissent will enforce silence from any others who may have an objection or a different view.

    Stalin would have been proud ..... and expect worse from Bro Shorten and the Labor (Labour after they removed U from it) party... that kind simply cannot see the forest for the trees they are intent on chopping apart....
    Karl Marx
    15th Apr 2019
    11:19am
    Sack every sitting politican & ban them from contesting any seat, that way we get a totally fresh parliment that may work for the people.
    Won't happen but a fresh change would be a start.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    11:22am
    Ban career politicians and ban any with a net worth over a certain amount from standing due to conflicts of interest and lack of understanding of real issues.
    Mondo
    15th Apr 2019
    4:17pm
    Yes Trebor lets put the uneducated and workshy in to run the country, sounds like a recipe for a race to the bottom to me!
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    6:52pm
    Some of them have some very good idea of how to do things properly.. but why go to such an extreme and claim that everyone but career politicians are uneducated and workshy?

    Seriously now... many people here are not career politicians but have some very good ideas on effective running of the show....

    People of high net worth simply do not understand the realities of working FOR the interests of all.... it's been proven over and over again.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    6:52pm
    What makes you imagine that those of high net worth are actually educated and not workshy?
    GeorgeM
    15th Apr 2019
    9:08pm
    Absolutely correct, SFR. This seems the only sensible option right now.
    Mondo
    16th Apr 2019
    2:55pm
    Trebor, if you limit eligibility to those without accumulated income you also screen out some of the more enterprising candidates. Something the country desperately needs to create worthwhile jobs; even you bang on about that regularly enough. We are already screening out some of the brightest minds by forbidding dual nationals from sitting in parliament, how far do you want to go to ensure we have nothing better than the current crop? I would also argue that those with some accumulated resources on average probably worked harder and smarter than those with none.
    The Care Bear.
    16th Apr 2019
    5:14pm
    It's interesting that those that could not plan their own retirement and funds for same leaving them on welfare are now putting forward theories on how to run the country.
    Farside
    17th Apr 2019
    1:44am
    The Care Bear makes a careful observation ...

    15th Apr 2019
    11:39am
    I asked that Alfred mentioned above to name the 'developed' countries being better for retirement, but he has not answered. The only concern I have with our system is no universal pension. It should be guaranteed but taxed with your other income like in other countries. So one could plan ahead of pension age and not be punished by ever changing rules. As I said before I have been to a lot of European countries and I could not find one which would be better for pensioners' living costs
    ozirules
    15th Apr 2019
    5:19pm
    I beleive the UK and New Zealand dont have an assets test so they would be better for all those here that fall outside the cut off point
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    5:36pm
    My research suggests Australia is probably the ONLY developed nation that does not have a universal, non-means-tested age pension. Other nations RESPECT their aged.
    GeorgeM
    15th Apr 2019
    9:15pm
    CJ, Aged Pension is already included in taxable income - it is just a question of how much your taxable income is (including the Senior Australian Tax Offset) before you pay taxes. So, Universal Age Pension is very, very easy to implement. Some basic tinkering / adjustment is needed for those with already existing defined benefit schemes. I have heard before from SFR (I haven't checked myself) that the NZ system is excellent, we don't need to look further away to Europe (that will be more expensive taxpayer-funded trips for MPs to check the systems there).

    I agree, OAW, politicians here seriously need to respect the aged - let's (all 3 Million+ of us) make that happen by voting them out as they are not listening.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    9:30pm
    If you have lived and worked in NZ and UK you would possibly be better off but you cannot live over in those countries and ask for the Aussie pension. Australia will still impose an asset and income test for any payments out of Australia. Happened to a friend of mine, she worked here for 12 years and under the social security agreement she should have been given the 12 years contribution from here. Was denied and now for the rest of her life she is missing $300 a month off her pension. I am staying here and accept the part pension from over there (no means test).
    4b2
    15th Apr 2019
    11:48am
    Ill be voting for tax reforms proposed by Bil Shorten. The excessive financial returns given to the wealthy by the Libs are unsustainable. The negative gearing has outlived its time. What other investment can I borrow $2 million to buy shares and claim a tax refund if the shares reduce in value? If Im not paying tax I should not expect a cash refund. Then if I receive large amounts in share dividends I should be paying tax on that income?

    Bring back death duties and introduce the super profits tax.
    PlanB
    15th Apr 2019
    12:24pm
    Why death duties those that have something to leave have worked long and HARD and paid the taxes and stamp duty we do not need to have to pay again!
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    2:41pm
    Why stop there, 4b2? Anybody who does not pay tax does not have a vote? How does that grab you? I have lived in places where that does apply, called limited franchise; you put in and you have a vote, you stop paying in you'll have to take what they will give you. A regime like that I could take but can you? You sound like a bloke or sheila without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
    Sorry - but keep your death duties for yourself. Seems to me all the people with nothing to give want extra taxes for others.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    2:54pm
    Pity you are so ignorant of the facts and will be supporting a major transfer of tax TO THE WEALTHY, 4b2. Tell me why, precisely, someone who is saving the government $30 - $50K a year by not claiming a pension shouldn't get a small tax refund to enable them to achieve an income adequate to live on?

    Go read Labor's FC policy carefully, and then study the TBC legislation and see that Labor isn't taking one cent from the wealthy - only from struggling SFRs with lower assets and income.

    So you want pensioners to get TRIPLE handouts and people who saved to be TRIPLE taxed into poverty? And then when all the SFRs throw up their hands and go on the pension, who will fund the extra cost of that?

    Frankly, you greedy Labor stooges can have my $5K franking credit refund. I'll upgrade my house and claim a $34K pension instead and cost the government well over $50K counting concessions and admin costs - and I'll have double the income. When you are done robbing everyone who works and lives responsibly, then who will fund all the handouts?
    Rae
    15th Apr 2019
    3:00pm
    Yes why not take everything from everyone and share it out equally. I'm sure that will work. We'd all do nothing and get a nice pay off.

    There is absolutely no point saving or investing now and you want to make it even less viable.

    When the economy collapses because nobody is saving, investing or bothering too much about working remember you asked for it. That's when pensions and benefits will need to be cut back. We'll be like Greece or the UK.

    I like the idea of taxpayers only getting the vote. It would soon end up with some favours for those working and paying instead of those taking and trying to figure out how to rob even more from the doers and savers.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    3:16pm
    Well said, Rae. The 'gimme gimme' brigade never think about the future.

    Why can't the envious take their blinkers off and realize that allowing battlers to invest profitably in blue chip shares was one of the best things ever done for the less well off. It's an extraordinarily easy-to-access and relatively low risk investment opportunity that, thanks to cash franking credit refunds, is now open to all Australians at all levels of income. And for many retirees, it's the ONLY option for achieving a satisfactory retirement income without taking some crash course to try to become an investment guru. Labor says there are ways around it - change your investment strategy. So if you self-fund retirement, you have to overnight become a financial wizard, never mind that you might have dementia or be going blind!

    I agree with pulling back on tax benefits to the wealthy - but that's NOT what Labor is doing. The LNP already addressed franking credit cash refunds with the TBC legislation. I think it could be tightened further. There are other ways to restrict absurdly generous tax refunds and tax concessions to the genuinely well off. But Labor is crushing the lower middle and upper working class, and that's a recipe for disaster.
    fred
    15th Apr 2019
    3:44pm
    4B2 So how do you go out and borrow $2 million dollars to invest ?/ and how do you get a tax refund when the value of your shares go down ? I think you must live at the bottom of the fairy garden or have been hit on the head by a 6B6 then most socialists would agree with you and your death taxes
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    6:56pm
    No evidence to prove that those who have plenty to pass on have worked long and hard..... often they inherit well for a start..

    As for the rich being educated and competent to stand for elected office - even Kerry Packer, one of their very own, said governments weren't doing much of a job with tax money.

    Many of those well-heeled would not know what a day's real work was....
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    6:58pm
    Rae - everyone pays tax with every transaction - that idea will not work...
    Rae
    16th Apr 2019
    6:36am
    Yes I realise that TREBOR. I was being as silly as 42B suggesting people save and work hard to give everything to those who can't or won't.
    The Care Bear.
    17th Apr 2019
    4:51pm
    All things being equal, think I would rather listen to advice from someone that is well off than someone who is on welfare. Having said that, to assert that people who are well off must have inherited or got where they are by crooked means makes as much sense as saying All welfare recipients are Drones and as thick as bricks.
    Anonymous
    18th Apr 2019
    2:52pm
    Does it scare anyone else that someone who is ignorant enough to think people can borrow $2 million to buy shares and get a tax refund when share values fall actually gets to vote? No wonder the nation is stuffed. 42b, do us all a favour and hand in a blank ballot. You clearly are NOT qualified to have any say in how this country is governed.
    The Care Bear.
    18th Apr 2019
    5:00pm
    Yes, I'm terrified OAW, the real scary thing is that 4B2 is not alone. The old saying "One Born Every Minute" must be true.
    Perhaps we need to have an IQ and general knowledge test BEFORE you get the privilege to vote. that will cut the line down at the Polling Booths.
    BERRYUPSET
    15th Apr 2019
    11:55am
    If we don`t sort out `CLIMATE CHANGE`problems we won`t have to worry about all the OTHER STUFF!Look what happened to the DINOSAURS...No pensions for any of them!!!!!!:-)))))
    Mondo
    15th Apr 2019
    4:26pm
    Agreed Berryupset and lets hope some of the political dinosaurs die out this time before they take the whole country with them. Morrison, Abbott, Dutton, Abetz and Joyce would do for a start. Its hard to believe that many of them with young children would condemn them and the nation to the future that they are driving us towards. Lets have a true Liberal party for a change not a bunch of arch conservatives masquerading as Liberals to get votes.
    Rae
    15th Apr 2019
    4:34pm
    Absolutely true.

    The sixth extinction event is well under way. We can only do our little bit to cut emissions and green our world.

    I'm not at all confident Governments will sort it in time and business won't. All they care about is more consumers, cheaper labour and profit levels.
    Dave R
    15th Apr 2019
    11:58am
    As I was quoted in the article I stand by what I said in my original post. A federal commission against corruption is badly needed and it should look carefully at large donors and their relationship with the government of the day.
    Aside from that I get the full age pension but I do support the idea of a universal age pension and from age 65 not the 67 we are moving to. Income above the pension rate plus a small threshold should be taxed as with any other income so Super should not be tax free.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    1:08pm
    The Chinese Connection keeps growing and growing...
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    2:54pm
    Right you are Dave R. Unfortunately it was Labor that gave us the 67 year-old pension age. Always thought Labor was the worker's friend but what could one expect from that egotistical Kevin Rudd. Have still a sour taste for Labor from that time on . . . but I hope it will wear off. Taking the franking off the oldies is not the way though.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    2:55pm
    I agree with that Dave. It's common sense.
    GeorgeM
    15th Apr 2019
    9:17pm
    Quite right, Dave R. So simple, but seems beyond our selfish politicians, because they don't benefit.
    floss
    15th Apr 2019
    12:03pm
    Trebor as to your first comment to make Australia a better place, if they were to adopt your suggestions they would solve most of our problems, to bloody easy.Both parties have lost their way it is not so hard to make Australia a great country again all you need is honesty and guts some thing they all lack.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    9:46pm
    *blushes* I'm actually quite shy by nature... don't even remember names well but think in pictures.... my ex calls me Rain Man at times... I sit and do figures in my head and give bank managers the figure they calculate on their computer...

    Maybe I should try countin' cards in Vegas....

    15th Apr 2019
    12:09pm
    To answer the two questions; No, I don't believe that the age pension is the most important issue and I don't want to see a federal ICAC.

    To me the most important issue in the upcoming election is the economy. Labor left a mess and a projected unemployment rate of 6.7% without ever bringing down a surplus budget. The last budget projected a surplus and unemployment is under 5%. Electricity costs are not being dealt with and this is also affecting the economy with businesses going overseas because of rising costs. Labor is promising to spend more and the only way they claim that they will pay for the added spending is to "make multinationals and the rich pay their fair share". Shorten and Bowen are large on rhetoric and small on the method of how they will make this happen.

    If the NSW ICAC is a benchmark the a federal ICAC will be useless. The NSW ICAC has destroyed a few reputations with smart questions yet a lot of those people whose reputation has been destroyed have never been charged with any crimes. Sure, some were charged and found guilty but they are the exception rather than the rule. The current laws are adequate if they are followed correctly.
    Tom Tank
    15th Apr 2019
    12:23pm
    The value of properly established ICAC would be that so many things that never see the light of day would be exposed. Our political system soaks up donations and benefits to political parties and individual politicians. The old saying that "he who pays the piper calls the tune" is as true today as it ever was.
    I suspect we would be horrified if we knew what was actually going on and who was the beneficiary. It certainly is not the taxpayer.
    Dyed in the wool political party supporters tend to be like footy club supporters - my team right or wrong - and so it goes and only those who keep an open mind, i.e. essentially the swinging voter, may just think before they vote.
    Tom Tank
    15th Apr 2019
    12:23pm
    The value of properly established ICAC would be that so many things that never see the light of day would be exposed. Our political system soaks up donations and benefits to political parties and individual politicians. The old saying that "he who pays the piper calls the tune" is as true today as it ever was.
    I suspect we would be horrified if we knew what was actually going on and who was the beneficiary. It certainly is not the taxpayer.
    Dyed in the wool political party supporters tend to be like footy club supporters - my team right or wrong - and so it goes and only those who keep an open mind, i.e. essentially the swinging voter, may just think before they vote.
    rtrish
    15th Apr 2019
    12:19pm
    Yes, the Age Pension should be fairer and simpler. However all pensions need to be addressed. Students and the unemployed are scraping by and their so-called living allowance is pretty thin! Apart from that - climate, energy, health, especially dental. Climate wins out as the major issue. If we don't address that, there will be no clean air, clean water, or planet to live on.
    Jolly
    15th Apr 2019
    1:00pm
    The only country that has pension scheme worth anything is in the UK. You don't need to bow and scrape and try and find the right person to help. When you turn 65 your UK pension is ready and waiting. I get a small UK pension, because I only paid in for about 6 years. I came to Australia when I was turning 21. They are not interested in causing you problems. Not like here they want to know every cent you earn. I have a SMSF and every Christmas the idiots at Centrelink send an email via MyGov on 23 Dec wanting to know the details of the SMSF. Have you tried to contact anybody on Xmas Eve, yes so have I. It is like they don't care about their "Customers" as they say.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    2:45pm
    Not only the UK Jolly - I am from one of those countries as well, still getting a small pension from them for the years I put in.
    KSS
    15th Apr 2019
    1:00pm
    Are we going to keep rehashing this for the next 34 days?
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    1:12pm
    Yes - next question???
    Mikko
    15th Apr 2019
    1:39pm
    Labor's crazy policies will wreck the economy, price motor vehicles out of reach of many, slug retirees, (including those receiving a pension after March last year if they receive dividend imputation credits), hit declining house values, raise rentals, make towing a caravan, launching a big boat or exploring off-road a thing of the past, increase power prices for an unreliable intermittent supply which won't meet demand from thousands of more electric vehicles to get to 50% of new sales by 2030 and 50 % renewable power generation... all for zero effect on climate. As Australia's chief scientist Alan Finkel has admitted, cutting our CO2 emissions to zero would have negligible effect on world climate!
    Rae
    15th Apr 2019
    4:07pm
    The backtrack on aged pensioners was stupid. Either franking credits are wrong or not.All non taxpayers miss out or all receive it. Blatantly unfair to savers and independents. Many could receive social security but feel responsible enough to support themselves.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    7:00pm
    If the alternative to losing franking credits is to go on part social security - where is the difference?

    Just asking.... one form of welfare for another..... innit?
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    7:01pm
    100% correct, Rae - if one lot lose it, all should lose it - but remember it is only those with zero tax already who lose it...

    Frankly the whole thing is a total falc-up...
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    9:48pm
    PS I have no shares other than in my children and grand-children.... their future development is a primary concern for this investor....
    Anonymous
    16th Apr 2019
    4:29pm
    Trebor, you ask "If the alternative to losing franking credits is to go on part social security - where is the difference?"

    The difference for the government is that part social security clearly costs more. It comes with massive administration costs whereas a small tax refund is very easy to administer as the tax return must be submitted and processed anyway and the ATO already has details of dividends paid and tax credits attaching.

    From the retiree's point of view (and low income earners), the difference is (a) the tests to qualify for social security are very different from the qualifications for the small tax refund. Many who NEED the franking credit refund won't qualify for social security or would qualify for very much less benefit. And (b) the hoops to go through and the ongoing compliance issues are onerous compared to a simple tax refund request; and (c) many people feel uncomfortable about asking for social support and take pride in being independent.

    The bottom line is that franking credit refunds are FAIR AND EQUITABLE refunds of tax taken from income before it is distributed - just like PAYE and PAYG tax. The cost of refunds was slashed by the LNP's Transfer Balance Cap legislation, and Labor has ignored the huge impact of that legislation completely, which makes everything they say on the issue totally misleading.

    If there is a need to tighten the screws more to stop rorting, reduce the TBC threshold or cap cash refunds. Or tax superannuation income in retirement over a given level. It's really simple for anyone with integrity and a brain. but Labor has neither.
    Anonymous
    16th Apr 2019
    4:31pm
    PS I am also heavily invested in my grandchildren, which is why I want a fair tax deal so I can save the government money by remaining independent in retirement - and why I want to retain enough of my hard-won personal savings to help my disabled grandson rather than him being a burden on taxpayers.
    Rod63
    15th Apr 2019
    2:18pm
    "Older Australians seem tired of the current two-party system, with many retirees calling on others to fill out below-the-line preferences on the ballot."

    This misleading - it only applies to Senate voting and the Senate does not determine the government, of course.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    2:59pm
    First Past The Post system would solve that problem - goodbye Greens and PM and Clive Palmer. Now we could go back to fix the problems like we used to.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    2:59pm
    Meant PH of course!!
    Rod63
    15th Apr 2019
    3:30pm
    Are you advocating FPtP for both houses?

    I don't agree with it for either. I think our preferential voting systems are much fairer.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    5:01pm
    Fairer maybe - but we will end up with fairies with one sided issues, unpalatable policies and really, they will never agree with anything. If you do not want Annings, Hansons, Palmers, Muirs, di Natales, the FPtP is the only way to go.
    Rod63
    15th Apr 2019
    6:45pm
    So for the Senate then.

    So are you saying that in the Senate, the six candidates with the highest totals of first preferences are elected?

    So no above the line voting as above the line wouldn't exist.
    Baby Huey
    15th Apr 2019
    3:07pm
    Be care careful how you vote this election. The lying socialist pigs, some with lipstick, may end up taking over farmer Jones house and farm.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    3:23pm
    I can imagine the ones you mean Baby Huey and I cannot help having a laugh. Thanks!
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    9:50pm
    We need a return of Friday News Review with Mike Carlton.... Kermit (Nick Greiner) and Miss Piggy etc.... we could use Shorten for Kermit...... Miss Piggy could be anyone these days .... I'll be Stadtler and Waldorf the two old hecklers...
    Alan
    15th Apr 2019
    4:35pm
    Introduction of a Universal Age Pension is a disastrous idea. For those on the Old Age Pension it will probably result in pressures to push pensions down over time. Those countries that I have experience with the Old Age Pension is not enough to live on at any level let alone with some dignity. My mother was a good financial manager and for her the Pension was enough for her modest means.

    I am retired and also self funded in retirement. I am required to take five percent of the value of my fund each year retireree. I have paid my taxes but do not believe that people like me should also have non means tested pension on top of what I receive from my own pension fund (this has come from savings during my working career).

    The main loop hole I want to see closed is the possibility of people being asset rich but cash flow poor because they have deliberately upsized their real estate so as to be eligible for the pension in the expection that when they die the asset can form part of their children's inheritance.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    5:07pm
    Most Aussies with children do exactly that, Alan. That is why a pension scheme like in Europe is far better - only good as long as you are alive. When you are gone, so are the funds, available for the ones going to be 100 or thereabouts. That is the only reason why they are sustainable in the long run. As long as you can live in a million dollar house and have little invested elsewhere you will get the pension in this country. People will do that and the kids waiting for you to drop off will hopefully pay your outgoings for you. Not much mathematics required to work that one out.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    5:31pm
    Alan, the Universal Age Pension is essential to STOP this rorting. If it isn't buying a big house, it will be gifting to the kids, hiding cash, spending up big on luxuries, etc. because it just isn't worth having savings now unless you are very well off. You can NEVER stop this kind of behaviour with a stick!

    The Universal Pension is NOT a disastrous idea and need not result in pressure to reduce the OAP (though reduction is inevitable if we continue down the current course). It actually would be much more likely to lead to increases since there would be a much larger lobby group and less envy and complaint from younger Aussies (who would finally see a light at the end of the tunnel by way of a guaranteed retirement income - and every incentive to save to add to it). If retirement savings were fairly taxed, the universal pension would be more affordable than the current system and it would certainly be much healthier socially and a gain to the health system.

    I don't think anybody is suggesting you should have a pension on top of your own pension fund without paying back (via taxes), but why should you be deprived just because you saved to pay your own way? Do you think society should reward people who don't' save and punish those who do? I am also self-funded and I would be better off financially if I had saved less. That's an idiotic situation for any government or society to create. If Shorten has his way, $500,000 in savings will be better for a couple than $1 million! That's insane!
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    5:31pm
    Alan, the Universal Age Pension is essential to STOP this rorting. If it isn't buying a big house, it will be gifting to the kids, hiding cash, spending up big on luxuries, etc. because it just isn't worth having savings now unless you are very well off. You can NEVER stop this kind of behaviour with a stick!

    The Universal Pension is NOT a disastrous idea and need not result in pressure to reduce the OAP (though reduction is inevitable if we continue down the current course). It actually would be much more likely to lead to increases since there would be a much larger lobby group and less envy and complaint from younger Aussies (who would finally see a light at the end of the tunnel by way of a guaranteed retirement income - and every incentive to save to add to it). If retirement savings were fairly taxed, the universal pension would be more affordable than the current system and it would certainly be much healthier socially and a gain to the health system.

    I don't think anybody is suggesting you should have a pension on top of your own pension fund without paying back (via taxes), but why should you be deprived just because you saved to pay your own way? Do you think society should reward people who don't' save and punish those who do? I am also self-funded and I would be better off financially if I had saved less. That's an idiotic situation for any government or society to create. If Shorten has his way, $500,000 in savings will be better for a couple than $1 million! That's insane!
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    7:04pm
    Indeed, Cowboy Jim - the essence of The Trebor Scheme is that you can salt away upt to a specified limit with concessions against your future retirement, and can add to it if you wish to bring it up.. but you pay tax on the proceeds of the bring-up money.

    Only a thought bubble at this time - needs thorough review by a learned group who know all the ins and outs...
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    7:07pm
    The current system is a mess - you either tax super pre-contribution or you tax it when it is received... you can't just have an endless mish-mash and perpetual changes...

    If it is taxed in advance it is your money exclusively.. the next question is whether or not the income derived from it should be taxed etc...

    Rae's comment on the purchased income stream is pertinent... CPS was a generous super scheme when I was there, but it seems it's been changed.... like the State ones that a nurse friend of mine was on - though he was given the option of a payout and restart under the new scheme or keep the old one - he's happy with the old one.
    GeorgeM
    15th Apr 2019
    9:26pm
    Sorry, Alan, you are completely wrong in your analysis and possibly looking at it from a very narrow perspective. I fully agree with OAW's comments above in response, so no need for me to go over the same reasons again. Also, the current system is a complete mess and badly needs to be replaced because it has become too messy, unfair, complex, expensive to administer, detrimental to the health of the aged hounded by Centrelink, and is beyond repair.

    If you don't need it, don't take it! I would support a simple Application Form (Online / paper) with a listing of all Assets (anywhere in the world) as a one-off to apply for it - many of the rich will opt out.
    Adrianus
    15th Apr 2019
    5:22pm
    "21 per cent of the 1153 respondents said increasing the Age Pension, addressing pension poverty and increasing the base rate was the election issue that mattered most."

    I don't doubt that's the case. What confuses me though, is that when the Budget announcement included a cash bonus, so many posters indicated that it was buying votes and they would gladly accept the money but it wouldn't change their vote.
    I think its about time us voters became a little smarter and started managing our politicians better.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    7:08pm
    Well - $75 across one years isn't much $1.40 or so a week.... doesn't really do much and at this election time is blatant vote buying...
    Adrianus
    15th Apr 2019
    5:22pm
    "21 per cent of the 1153 respondents said increasing the Age Pension, addressing pension poverty and increasing the base rate was the election issue that mattered most."

    I don't doubt that's the case. What confuses me though, is that when the Budget announcement included a cash bonus, so many posters indicated that it was buying votes and they would gladly accept the money but it wouldn't change their vote.
    I think its about time us voters became a little smarter and started managing our politicians better.
    JOHN T
    15th Apr 2019
    5:56pm
    A universal pension was proposed by pm Chiffley after the second world war 7.5% tax was imposed on every tax payer in Australia to pay for it the idea being everybody would get a pension at retirement age regards of assets the money was to be kept out of general revenue up until 1952 this was done and $100millon was put aside the the pm Menzies decided to include it with all welfare payments where it was lost and the tax payers of australia were robbed J TOG
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    7:11pm
    ... and if the current super system was rolled over into The Trebor Scheme under one roof and far from the madding hands of politicians and their cronies, it would be effectively the same thing again, but offering a higher income strand in retirement due to the higher percentage.

    Currently three trillion dollars in super funding, and that doesn't include certain super funds, the preferential ones... that kind of money has to be kept out of the hands of politicians, or they will spread it like chaff in a high wind like they did with the pension fund...

    They need to be told there is NO absolute mandate to do anything they choose without so much as a 'by your leave'....

    15th Apr 2019
    6:05pm
    Whatever you do, vote out the incompetent, self-entitled Lieberal-Nazionals.
    Anonymous
    15th Apr 2019
    6:43pm
    Do vote - but do not complain when your wish comes true. Knows-a-lot: all pollies are self-entitled, even your preferred lot whatever they are.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    7:12pm
    I go further and say send in Jesus with the flail and clean out the lot of money changers.... start with a fresh deck since this one is so loaded and stacked and the cards marked....
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    9:52pm
    .. or is it Mah Jong tiles these days instead of marked cards? (oooooh!)
    dontwantwun
    15th Apr 2019
    6:45pm
    The most important thing will be a party which has a sustainable population plan.
    Unless our out of control population ponzi scheme is stopped then there is no point in trying to improve anything else.
    It is people who pollute, destroy, consume and generally stuff things up. Control people numbers and all else will fall into place and be achievable.
    POPULATION IS OUR ONLY PROBLEM.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    7:18pm
    I don't believe there is an actual 'population plan' given the current approach of flooding the nation with hundreds of thousands amounting to millions in a short time...

    What the hell do our Great Leaders think they are doing? Open House? THERE are your 'open borders'... do we NEED vast number of Indians, Asian and Middle Easterners?

    What is the reasoning behind this massive influx of entirely different peoples from impoverished nations? We can't save them all... we can't even properly take care of our own...

    What is their justification for this massive - 20% or so to date - influx of people from The Third World? Clearly these are 'economic refugees' who can make more money here, yet genuine refugees in terror of death can't get a gig here....if they have the temerity to seek to arrive by boat....

    Jesus - so did my great-great-grandparents.... Irish, German and Scottish ... no Koori put them on Manus..... (snuckles under armpit) ...
    Chuck
    15th Apr 2019
    9:05pm
    I see a lot of ylc members agree that we have been cheated by both major political parties by not having a Universal Age Pension Scheme. I encourage you all to go on line Abc votecompass and make your feeings known, I 'm not sure if politicians know of YLC but I'm sure they take note as to what is being reported on the Abc.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    9:54pm
    I reckon they have flunkies - oops, sorry - staff who monitor the public discussion sites like this.....

    I've actually seen a politician use the same words I've seen on here.
    Paddington
    17th Apr 2019
    11:40am
    They are def monitoring these sites and also instilling spies hoping to persuade people to vote especially far right ones. They are also active on Facebook.
    We obviously care for the environment which is the top concern with 29%, and the economy 23%, health care and super and pensions at 8%, employment 6%.
    The economy has dropped from 2016.
    The environment has gone from 9% to 29% from 2016 so people are very much aware and informed. I suspect the young ones are influencing this.
    No, I am not a spy but I have definite ideals and follow what is happening.
    Farside
    17th Apr 2019
    2:17pm
    Paddington, saw on Q&A there is even an acronym for such folk - SPECs - socially progressive economic conservatives.

    The ABC Vote Compass concludes there is not a major party that fits so best fit independent it is. The only definite was the PHON was a very poor fit for me.
    Mandy
    15th Apr 2019
    10:36pm
    Australia has a point system for immigrants which means that for anyone to qualify they need to possess skills that are needed here. Those skills are acquired in the country of origin and Australia gains them for free. Immigrants can also gain citizenship if they can bring in enough wealth to develop or purchase a business and employ some Australians. Another free-bee for Australia. Most of the immigrants that are a financial burden to the country is due to we not allowing them to work rather than they not wanting to work.
    TREBOR
    15th Apr 2019
    11:07pm
    Shortage of jobs? Sounds like a pretty serious issue for those we have here now.....

    Jobson Growthe will fix it!
    Mandy
    16th Apr 2019
    10:54am
    Trebor, unlike you I was one of those immigrants that arrived here in the last 25 years. My son, my daughter in law and I all have tertiary qualifications acquired in Africa. Don’t worry the Australian authorities made us jump through quite a few hoops before allowing us to settle here. I also have many friends from Africa who came here under similar conditions. I know that virtually all are gainfully employed or have set up their own businesses. Some of these businesses have quite large staff. This country is a land of unlimited opportunities and although our government can act a little crazy at times it is still one of the best governed countries in the world.
    JoJozep
    16th Apr 2019
    1:17pm
    The fair way to go for all is: pension to be 10% per annum plus cost of living increments of all combined taxes paid and irrespective of built up assets.

    1. So the more tax you paid, the higher the pension.
    2. The longer you worked, the better the pension
    3. As tax is universal, job changes won't affect your pension as super funds do.
    4. No fees and no management costs.
    5. if you're a migrant, the longer you worked in Australia the better the pension.
    6. Simpler system means bureaucracy will be halved or better
    7. Less tax wasted on administering the scheme
    8 People will know what their pension will be by how much tax they paid in the past
    9. People who didn't pay taxes (excluding disabled, sick or deserving cases) get nothing. This will make people think twice about bludging on the system
    10. New arrivals will need to pay tax for a minimum of 10 years before they get a pension.
    11. Assets won't come into the equation.
    12. Those who scrimped and saved all their life can have their pension undocked because of built up assets. Those who spend their assets on overseas trips, expensive cars stc., won't gain a full pension, they just get a proportion of how hard they worked in paying taxes, like everybody else.
    13. The government will neither lose nor gain from the pension fund and won't have to find future funding for pensions.
    14. The pension age can be flexible. If through health or other serious reasons one wants to retire early, they can do so but the pension is at a lower rate as they have paid less tax.
    15. People will endeavour to retire on the best pension they can get. The more you worked in the past the better the pension will be.
    16. Tax rebates for children, married spouses not working etc, will reduce the available tax nest egg, and get a lower pension
    17. The system is simple and totally fair

    Hope that will fuel debate and kill the political manipulation of so many gullible pensioners, that vote on the amount of pension they get.
    Anonymous
    16th Apr 2019
    4:18pm
    JoJozep, so people who chose to be unpaid carers or full-time mothers, volunteer workers, etc, get to starve in old age. huh?

    People who were disadvantaged educationally and forced into crappy, low paid jobs get screwed over as further punishment for suffering a lifetime of low income and poor job satisfaction, huh?

    People who suffered illness and/or disability get screwed over and left to suffer poverty in old age.

    And you reckon that's 'totally fair'

    I hope you never influence political policy. You sound like a very UNFAIR, MEAN, AND SELFISH PERSON who has absolutely ZERO EMPATHY and no human decency whatever.
    JoJozep
    16th Apr 2019
    7:07pm
    In reply to older and wiser: Please refer to item 9 which excludes most disadvantaged people. I didn't have three volumes of space to list them all.
    As for carers, they would have worked and paid taxes for most of their working lives, so they would get a decent pension.
    As for mothers, they would have got allowances for children, so they come under the disadvantaged category. Australia can't support more than three or so kids per family, at least not to a high standard of living. I know mothers who had 9-11 kids and guess what, the kids were all decent, supported their mother and the older kids had good jobs and supported the family. They are all now well established, paid their taxes and should look forward to a good retirement.

    All it takes is for some responsibility on life and lazy people get off their arses and do something.

    All those with crappy jobs need a reason for getting crappy jobs, if they are disadvantaged, they will be taken care of. Don't tell me an intellectually backward person can't find a decent job. Okay, it may mean cleaning a sewer, but they will be paid. Do you remember that 60's comedy with Jackie Gleeson and his mate, the sewer employee?

    You must realize, The scheme is in its infancy, and of course, there will be exceptions. What you have to admit, is that people who worked their guts out, get nothing and dole bludgers who wasted their income if any, and drunk and smoked themselves silly get a full pension. So you think that's fair? Think before you post rubbish. This is an intellectual debate.
    JoJozep
    17th Apr 2019
    5:07pm
    The more I think of it, The better the scheme sounds, that is if you paid taxes in the past, you must be entitled to a return on your own money as a pensioner. Here's how it would work. Note the example quotes assumptions and will need refinements. Say you paid $10,000 per annum taxes over 45 years working life. You have paid the government $450,000 in taxes over your working life. If you consider the government as a bank (It's your money remember,) the government should also pay you at least 5% return on the money they are withholding from you. So $450,000 x 5% = $22,500, total = $472,500. Your pension would be 10% ie $47,250 / annum.

    The problems I see are this: The government needs to fund politicians and running parliament. Cost 1.
    The government needs to support disadvantaged and disabled people. Cost2. By the way who pays for the NDIS? is it not an insurance scheme?
    The government needs (or so they say politically to pick up marginal seats) to build a four-lane freeway to some outback farm in never-never land. Cost 3.
    The government needs to meet energy cost targets. Investment at present almost zero. Cost 4.
    The government needs to protect our borders. From what? Our 11 -($50 Billion waste are already obsolete) and won't' be ready for another 20 years. Airforce not much different Big Cost 5
    The government needs to upgrade our schools and hospitals. (absolute disgrace present). Cost 6
    The government needs to protect their seats (arses) in marginal seats by splashing on local infrastructure, maintenance, 7
    and upkeep - a standard maintenance schedule of any asset. Cost 7
    The government needs to protect their private interests and keep their seats at elections. Massive taxpayer-funded advertising before declaring elections. Cost 8.

    I can probably come up with many more expenditure items, but as the budget is not fully disclosed to the public, I won't waste time here. Every major interest group badgers the government for more funds and increasing every year.

    These final deductions come out of my living expenses, so deduct 50% of my tax earnings. That leaves a pension of some $23,625 / annum. If a couple, that should be doubled if both worked and earned roughly the same income.

    Now why isn't that fair Mr. OlderandWiser? Please don't make me refer to you as Olderand Dumber as the crap you posted previously wasn't worth the time to read it. Have you a better solution? Like someone who I think genuinely showed her genuine feelings, "Please explain"
    Anonymous
    18th Apr 2019
    2:46pm
    So we pay millionaires who worked as CEOs of large companies and earned hundreds of thousands in salaries per year, PLUS huge bonuses and share and option gifts, hundreds of thousand in pension income in retirement, and the guy who cleaned the sewer gets a subsistence income and lives in worse hardship in old age than during his working life. Great plan! NOT.
    JoJozep
    18th Apr 2019
    6:24pm
    O&W. Yes as you say, the very rich will get better pensions than the sewer worker, and of which, I too, am very envious. Assuming they earned their salaries and paid their taxes ACCORDING TO LAW, It's after all their money they are retiring on, keeping in mind they possibly paid 50% of their income in taxes over the years. We all hate others doing better than ourselves, but if it's because of their hard work, they deserve a good return on their pension.

    What I'm saying is that the more tax you paid, the more pension you deserve. You seem to indicate a pension is a universal right ( A pension is paid by the Government of the day but there must be a safety net for unfortunates unable to work and I have said this many times ). A pension cannot be a universal right if it has to be sourced from taxpayers in general and in the age group where the economy is going downhill, there are fewer taxpayers and the aging population ("Baby Boomers")are all retiring at once demanding their pension.

    This is the prime reason I propose we get back (from our own money) a guaranteed 10% per annum each year of your retiring salary till death.

    Here are some scenarios. Mr. Lucky earns $500,000 average per annum for 30 years. Total tax paid @ 50% is $7,500,000.
    Pension = $500,000 (retiring salary) x 10% = $50,000.

    Mr. average earns $100,000 average per annum for 30 years. Total tax paid say 25%, = $750,000.
    Pension = $100,000 (retiring salary) x 10% =$10,000.

    Mr Lucky gets five times the pension of Mr Average but has paid 10 times as much tax as Mr Average. Is that fair? In fact Mr Lucky is funding the pensions of five other Mr. Averages or unfortunates. Now, remember, Mr Lucky could have been a professor of brain surgery, he would have worked his guts out till he was thirty, studying night and day and putting in long hours per week. The higher salary is his reward. DON'T FORGET, HIS PAST SALARY, AND TAXES HE PAID ARE PAYING FOR HIS PENSION, NOT YOUR SALARY OR YOUR TAXES. If you never worked for some reason or other, Mr. lucky could be funding your pension.

    I still say it's totally fair overall. No doubt some refinements need to be made. The main point is the money paid in tax must be consolidated and untouchable and must be paid as a minimum pension to every worker, rich or poor, plus the deserving. Remember too, the government is earning good money on the taxes paid in interest, so the pension must be indexed for inflation.

    Hope you can follow this reasoning.
    Farside
    19th Apr 2019
    6:08pm
    In other words ... The YourLifeChoices’ Friday Flash Poll: "Which election issue matters most to you?" found that almost 80% of respondents said increasing the Age Pension, addressing pension poverty and increasing the base rate was not the most important election issue.
    *Loloften*
    3rd May 2019
    11:24pm
    Don't think so Farside.....LNP trolls with lots more time on their hands affecting the results. Most single OAPs are just surviving, well below the minimum wage (almost $200/wk below it) most often due to not receiving Super 'til in late 30s/early 40s (none back then for casual or p/time workers...mostly women working during school hrs/paying taxes) & whe finally received was only 2%. Very many, especially women, couldn't work in their mid 50s/early to mid 60s whilst looking after their so & most sadly cancer riddled & finally deceased husbands + thereafter minding any remaining very elderly parents/parental in-laws. Also, when recovered from the traumas, saved the govn'mt heaps of $$$$$$s by also helping their kids by minding their grandkids (I have 6 of 'em & love every second of minding 'em, has done/still does keep me fit & healthy...also a saving for the Govn'mt). I did all of above (still doing a couple), as did 7 of my 10 closest GFs. Increasing the single Age Pension (especially) is essential for widows.....most Super spent on our hubby's treatments/ops/health care+++, bug*er all left to fix our now neglected old homes/appliances etc. Compassion is rare amongst our Pollies + a few posters on this website. However Farside, I own our 50yo home for which I am enormously grateful, able to do the Homesafe thingie when need to as will soon....a couple of my above GFs are renters, really struggling/stressed/living in enormous poverty.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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