Why is rural home and property treated so differently to city/urban one?
I am still trying to work out why retiring to a modest rural home on more than 2 hectares disadvantages you.
More than 2 hectares counted as asset for pension [and deemed to make money - haha] when my previous home worth a large amount more in the city was not counted as an asset at all.
Our property is conservation zoned, CANNOT be subdivided, is mostly bush and the only property available in the area. No small 5 acre blocks here. Pity we didn't move beforehand and meet the 20 year rule.
People are being encouraged to come to regional Victoria etc!!
Why are we targetted for this?
Cathy McGowan asked for equity for rural pensioners last year - to take time down from 20 to 10 years but guess the Policy Costing she got put a stop to it.
I still don't understand. I heard on radio this week of 2 people who lost pension/newstart because their rural property was revalued and larger percentage now asset. You only find out when you chase down the info. Anyone know more about this please?