David Leyonhjelm guest post. A generation of parasites

If James Packer was down to his last $60 million, with no more than the apartment he recently purchased in the Crown Sydney Residences in Sydney plus less than $263,250 in the bank, or $394,500 if he was to remarry, he would be eligible for an age pension when he turns 67.

Packer has paid significant taxes in Australia all his life, as have his companies.  If entitlement to a pension is a reflection of the gratitude of a nation towards those who have contributed, he is more than entitled.

He has 15 years before he reaches pension age, allowing time to rearrange his finances to meet the eligibility criteria.  Options include giving money away, although not in the five years prior to reaching pension age, spending it on expensive holidays (right up until the date of assessment), and investing in upgrades to the apartment (on which there are no limits).

He would not be unusual if he did any of these. Every year, tens of thousands of Australians give money to their children, buy funeral bonds, take overseas trips and upgrade their home, simply to qualify for the pension. There is no shortage of specialist financial advisers helping them do it.

Most people would agree that someone with a $60 million apartment should not be eligible for a pension. And yet, with the family home excluded from the pension assets test, that is the reality.

Obviously, Packer is highly unlikely to be interested in qualifying for the pension. But there are a lot of people with homes worth $10 million, $5 million or $1 million who are very keen. According to an analysis by the Australian National University, more than 255,000 live on taxpayer-funded pensions while owning homes worth more than $1 million. Almost 30,000 of them live in homes worth more than $2 million.

The cost of paying pensions to people in houses worth at least $1 million is more than $6.3 billion a year, of a total cost to taxpayers of about $50 billion for all age pensions. This enormous cost of pensions is a major reason it is so difficult to return the budget to surplus. Moreover, quite a lot of those taxpayers are actually a lot less wealthy than those receiving a pension, particularly the ones with multi-million-dollar houses.

I am a firm believer in the effect of incentives on behaviour. Fairly obviously, the incentive to qualify for the age pension, including both the income, health benefits and various discounts, is enormously strong. The baby boomer generation, of which I am a member, has responded to this by learning how to take advantage of it, at massive cost to other generations. They have become, quite literally, a parasitic generation.

Clearly, the incentives need to change so the age pension returns to its original purpose. This should occur gradually and reassuringly, so that those affected have time to adjust to the fact that they are not poor and can look after themselves, but it absolutely must occur. The country cannot afford to be generous to those in need if it is being generous to those who are not in need.

The baby boomers will of course trot out their objections: I’ve paid taxes all my life; the government promised everyone a pension in 1945; you are forcing me out of my house; it’s not my fault my house is worth so much; why should my profligate neighbour get a pension and not me; and, this is stealing my kids’ inheritance. The assistance of younger generations may be needed to point out why they are wrong.

As to what pension eligibility ought to be, there are several options. One is to include an imputed return on house values in the income test. That would require the government to place a value on dwellings, but the median value of houses, units and townhouses by town or suburb is easy enough to work out.

Another might be to relax the eligibility criteria but treat pensions as taxable income, creating an incentive to generate additional cash including through the release of equity in the family home.

There are other options too but, irrespective of how it is achieved, something must be done. It is simply immoral for taxpayers who don’t even own a house to be funding the pensions of those who could be living in a $60 million house.  Incentives that promote parasitism cannot be defended.

David Leyonhjelm is a former senator for the Liberal Democrats

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

254 Responses to David Leyonhjelm guest post. A generation of parasites

  1. Overburdened

    It is the deplorable sense that the country should give them money what they don’t need it to live day to day that gives me the shits.

    When did entitlement trump self sufficiency?

  2. JC

    David, I’m not overwhelmed you consider a $1 or $2 million home in Syd or Melb out of the ordinary. It most certainly isn’t. No, I’ll never receive a pension so I’m not conflicted in saying this..

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    Bollocks on stilts.
    The vast majority of people receiving pensions would also qualify for DSP. Work preventing infirmity at age 67 is pretty common, especially for people who have had arduous lives. Who are also the sort of people who will not’ve been able to put together a suitable SMSF tally.

    The energy used in complaining about pensioners with houses would be better applied to unemployed people with surfboards. Why not send them to the Riverina to pick fruit? They’re capable of that, unlike 67 year olds.

    And no I am not 67 and I intend never to take a pension, God willing.

  4. Rohan

    I knew it, this clown only offers a big government solution to someone who through no fault of their own, has had the value of their home skyrocket through big government endorsed population ponzy scheme.

    Leyonhjelm is a socialist.

  5. Big_Nambas

    Leyonhjelm is a socialist.
    That’s a lot nicer than what I would call him.
    I am a self funded retiree, no pension for me now or ever. I’m 70.
    The rules are fair and it’s not a crime to have a nice home and a few bob in the bank.

  6. Howard Hill

    How about we get rid of pensions for the political class first, after all, a few years working for the state and they would have stolen received more than enough Aldi bags to see out their parasitic days.
    What a freaking clown. I’m with Rohan.

  7. stackja

    Not everyone had Kerry for a father.
    House valuations have turned 1920s humble houses into multi-million homes. In the past death duties paid by the ‘middle class’ used to cut down what children inherited. The ‘upper class’ I believed used trusts. The ‘poor’, of course, didn’t have property. Will this new order of ‘egalitarianism’ be legislated by ‘poor’ politicians’? And be administrated by ‘poor’ bureaucrats’? Would it not be better to reduce the costs imposed on all by government?

  8. Rohan

    Big_Nambas
    #3216860, posted on November 20, 2019 at 7:53 pm
    Leyonhjelm is a socialist.
    That’s a lot nicer than what I would call him.
    I am a self funded retiree, no pension for me now or ever. I’m 70.
    The rules are fair and it’s not a crime to have a nice home and a few bob in the bank.

    Wait till Socialist Dave decides to introduce death duty breaks to your family when you decide to “volunteer” for euthanasia by the age of 75.

    Meanwhile this parasite has his parliamentary pension indexed above inflation for life, irrespective of what his personal net worth might be.

  9. JC

    Here’s the problem with thinking $1 or $2 million homes means it’s a lot of money. Ordinarily it is a lot of money if it’s is used to fund everyday consumption. That’s because in real terms or at least in the way prices for goods etc have fallen materially against the upward move of an Australian home in the big cities, you can fund decent consumption in later years with that amount of money. However, selling that home, where are going to live? You still need to buy a house of flat.

  10. C.L.

    So you got married and bought a shit-box in 1958 somewhere in Sydney and – hey presto – it’s now worth $1.75 million. Big deal. What are they supposed to do, go shopping with the title deed?

    I agree there should be a cut-off point where real estate is so hugely valuable that it’s not unreasonable for the state to say, ‘hey – sell your $7 million house, buy a really good apartment and live on the change.’ But even in those scenarios, I don’t trust the government to make the rules. Governments want to steal people’s assets before they’re passed on to children – we all know this.

  11. FelixKruell

    The rules are fair and it’s not a crime to have a nice home and a few bob in the bank.

    No, it’s not a crime. But it should preclude you from claiming welfare.

  12. Roger

    It is simply immoral for taxpayers who don’t even own a house to be funding the pensions of those who could be living in a $60 million house.

    No doubt.

    And any in such a situation – few, I would imagine – should be ashamed.

    And, equally shamefully, it’s not even the most egregious instance of the poor subsidising the well off in modern Australia. In terms of the impact upon the household budgets of the less well off, that would be renters subsidising roof top solar for those who own their domestic property.

    Thanks, Labor & Liberal parties! (Not forgetting the Greens, who wield an influence on the major parties entirely unjustified by their level of electoral support.)

  13. FelixKruell

    JC:

    However, selling that home, where are going to live? You still need to buy a house of flat.

    Plenty of flats available for $500k. That frees up $500k-$1.5m. Plenty to fund your retirement.

  14. RobK

    Plenty of tax is still generated from the 15% margin in superfund earnings.
    A residence is a solid and utilitarian asset. Often a back stop for a family.

  15. JC

    Plenty of flats available for $500k. That frees up $500k-$1.5m. Plenty to fund your retirement.

    Are these flats available in the same area where a person sells their $2 million home? I’m not talking about selling a home and then moving to shit creek.

  16. Tel

    Packer has paid significant taxes in Australia all his life, as have his companies. If entitlement to a pension is a reflection of the gratitude of a nation towards those who have contributed, he is more than entitled.

    He has done a rather excellent job of turning a large fortune into a somewhat smaller fortune, but if he wants to qualify for the pension he should try getting married again.

    I am a firm believer in the effect of incentives on behaviour. Fairly obviously, the incentive to qualify for the age pension, including both the income, health benefits and various discounts, is enormously strong. The baby boomer generation, of which I am a member, has responded to this by learning how to take advantage of it, at massive cost to other generations. They have become, quite literally, a parasitic generation.

    If you believe in incentives, then you should understand that every government program always creates a perverse incentive at some place or another. You can move the means test to a different place, and then people adjust to that and it will have some other cost to other generations. Also, the adjustment has a huge cost partly because of all the pointless rearrangement but mostly because it betrays long term trust … and that in itself changes behaviour. The system is shitty but stable, and after you have tinkered with it we will have something also shitty but now unstable. Leave well enough alone, there’s much more important things to be done.

    Clearly, the incentives need to change so the age pension returns to its original purpose. This should occur gradually and reassuringly, so that those affected have time to adjust to the fact that they are not poor and can look after themselves, but it absolutely must occur. The country cannot afford to be generous to those in need if it is being generous to those who are not in need.

    Did it ever have a purpose? Government numpties want to insert themselves as an intermediary into everything that goes on in society because it makes them feel important, and the idea of saving for retirement is difficult for some people so government decided to become everyone’s savings vehicle (and is doing it badly). The only purpose of the pension I can think of, is thus to keep government involved in everything … for which it is doing just fine right now. Your plan won’t change this.

    The new Super system was supposed to gradually displace the pension, but now we have both government AND unions with their noses in everyone’s life savings. Possibly an improvement, maybe not.

    As for generosity … a country cannot be “generous” because only individual people have the capacity to decide whether they want to give away what they worked for. Politicians taking from the people who did save for retirement and giving to the people who did not save for retirement is not ever generosity.

    Personally I always push for simplicity. Everyone over a certain age should get the same pension, without means testing, and it should not be particularly generous but enough to survive on. Food is really not expensive in Australia, but housing costs are ridiculous so if you want to keep people off the streets then housing is the real issue, and we pretty much all understand the factors that are causing that. Energy is also the other main cost of living and well we have the coal but we can’t use it. There’s your problem.

  17. Helen

    You want to save the budget? Get rid of green and UN boondoggles, cut the public service in half, get people off the dole. Stop giving money to local government that is not roads and rates and rubbish. Kill the federal Depatment of Health and also Education.

    Cut out funding CAGW rubbish, qwerty rubbish, woke rubbish full stop.

    You could save so much you could probs give pensioners a rise and still be in the black.

  18. Rohan

    But even in those scenarios, I don’t trust the government to make the rules. Governments want to steal people’s assets before they’re passed on to children – we all know this.

    Not to mention the stamp duty they’d make on the sale. It’s simply a wealth redistribution scheme via taxation. Socialist Dave has most likely done the full costings.

  19. Tel

    Are these flats available in the same area where a person sells their $2 million home?

    No of course not … they will be forced into aged care homes where they don’t know anyone, don’t know the area, are unfamiliar with their surroundings, and get stacked around the place like the inside of an Amazon warehouse. The gardens they have cared for their whole life long will be gone. The goodwill and community spirit of the neighbourhood will be thrown out the window.

  20. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Are these flats available in the same area where a person sells their $2 million home? I’m not talking about selling a home and then moving to shit creek.

    Sure. But either way, you don’t deserve welfare just so you can stay in your favourite suburb.

  21. RobK

    There are downsizing incentives, perhaps they could be tweeked.

  22. FelixKruell

    Helen:

    You want to save the budget? Get rid of green and UN boondoggles, cut the public service in half, get people off the dole. Stop giving money to local government that is not roads and rates and rubbish. Kill the federal Depatment of Health and also Education.

    Great. You want smaller government. Except when it comes to the pension?

  23. 2dogs

    Our politicians will never do anything that would adversely affect the value of homes.

    The reason is the conflict of interest rules.

    The conflict of interest rules mean our politicians can’t invest their money in any business of significance. Real estate becomes their only option.

    And since they are all so exposed to real estate, they aren’t going to do anything that hurts the value of their investments.

  24. Billy

    Leyonhjelm
    Get off my lawn!

  25. C.L.

    The other day Josh Frydenberg was lecturing people to work till they’re 70 – you know, get a TAFE certificate or something to start a new career at 66 (LOL). As for Josh personally, he could retire tomorrow and we’d be paying him sex figures for life. Our rulers hate us and they laugh at us. It’s their banquet table. They really believe that.

  26. Tel

    Governments want to steal people’s assets before they’re passed on to children – we all know this.

    If the want that then they should have the stones to stand up and put forward an inheritance tax.

    Don’t have the courage to do that? Too bad then.

    http://theopenbudget.org/

    Here’s some excellent savings:

    * Federal payments to the states … get rid of the lot, tell the states to figure it out for themselves, they spend too much anyhow. Phase it out at 5% per year so they have time to make alternative arrangements. Competitive federalism will quickly determine who has their shit together and who does not.

    * Federal healthcare … completely unconstitutional, the states are supposed to be handling healthcare and anyway you should pay for the doctor when you go to the doctor. The quality of healthcare has only gone downhill in this country since government took over the hospitals. I propose a government tender to come up with a system of combined whole-life insurance and health insurance that families can join with a standardized account that works in any hospital. Then allow private companies to provide the service in a competitive market manner.

    * Federal education … completely unconstitutional and delivers a poor quality result … phase it out. Remove any and all political curriculum, erase the records, lock the doors, salt the Earth.

  27. Tel

    Our politicians will never do anything that would adversely affect the value of homes.

    The entire banking system sits on mortgage debt, so if you yank that carpet there will be a lot worse that politician’s savings come tumbling down.

    Not saying that’s a good arrangement … but it’s our arrangement 🙂

  28. Tel

    Stop giving money to local government that is not roads and rates and rubbish.

    Does the Federal budget include payments to local government? Sheesh … I hope not!

    Kill the federal Depatment of Health and also Education.

    Correct … you beat me to it. This would also remove Federal government payments to certain religious schools (or any schools) and that’s going to annoy a few people. Don’t be concerned … God will provide!

  29. Billy

    The cherry picked example here is $6.3 billion
    What is that as a percentage of the welfare bill?
    I would guess a poofteenth of the amount spent on exploiters of the system that has become the norm since St Gough.
    FMD, dickhead Dan in Victoria paid a billion not to build a tunnel because his masters didn’t get the gig.

  30. Publius

    Sh!teater has a new handle.

  31. Fred

    I’m doing the tax return of a doctor at the moment.

    He’s paid by the NSW government.

    How much did het get paid last year? Just a cool $4 million. No wonder taxes are so high.

  32. Billy

    Fred, what was his tax bill?
    What are you trying to say?

  33. Publius

    AusAID budget is $14bn or so per annum.
    Start there Dave. Then find all the other low hanging shit like this before you turf out ppl from their own homes to pay for worthless dole bludgers and their pensions. Cause they earned it mate. For sure.
    God you’re a tool.

  34. Helen

    Local Government? yes, our local gov receives about 40 mil for a few houses and cow places, most goes on administration, the money comes from the Federal Governemnt.

  35. max

    Just look at the state of govt finances in Victoria, SA, Tas, Qld, NT. Kerry Packer was right.

  36. struth

    These bloody libertarian types are dangerous.
    “The Government should” says socialist Lyinghelm.

    What an age-ist, envy ridden arse wipe.

    The governments and the governments alone caused the value of houses to rise and to rise artificially through regulation and taxation.
    Boomers buy a house for eighty grand that is now worth 6oo grand.
    Except so is every other once 80 grand house and because it’s artificial and it’s going to bust even with the Ponzi scheme, a self proclaimed Libertarian would rather not concentrate on the excessive waste of big government and it’s complete sabotage of this nation, but kick the old people out of their 80 grand homes they paid off (and very likely be 80 grand soon enough again) and get them orf the pension.
    How’s your parliamentary pension going David.
    Collecting and still working are you.
    Come on, let’s look at your situation , seeing your so keen to look at everyone elses.

    You are a piece of shit, and as I told dot many times, a libertarian is just a lefty who read a book on freedom but never really understood it.

  37. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    What an age-ist, envy ridden arse wipe.

    Just matching the kind of means testing that applies to other welfare recipients. It’s the opposite of ageist.

  38. Mater

    So James lives in a $60m house and collects the pension?
    Just using the rates in my rural area, that equates to around $185,000 a year. Does the pension cover this?
    Do you think he might need other assessable income to keep the place (put maintenance on top of the rates)?
    No, whilst rates are based on capital improved value and biennial valuations, plenty of incentive already exists to downsize. More than likely that you’ll be forced in that direction using the current system.

  39. struth

    Don’t worry guys, the Liberal government are taking money out of the economy to put back into the economy, (minus administration costs) because left wing government believes in trickle down economics.
    Some of it may trickle back down your way if you sell anything to consultants and public servants.

  40. Candy

    A good and interesting post. At a time when wages are stagnating and paying rent for a decent home can be the only goal, let alone ever being able to buy, out of the question.

  41. struth

    Just matching the kind of means testing that applies to other welfare recipients. It’s the opposite of ageist.

    It’s not welfare when it was introduced.
    I seem to be teaching you a lot today.
    That’s two slabs.
    People worked and paid taxes all their lives after being told by the government all will get a pension, so naively many believed the government, and the governments of those days would have honoured their commitment.
    Taxation was basically started to fund pensions.
    If government had not made that commitment and people hadn’t worked and paid taxes all their life to basically get that money back via a pension, fair enough, you may have a point.
    As it is you don’t have any, and again show your youth in not understanding the deal made between the people of Australia and previous governments.

    You don’t pull out of deals that people had expected to be honoured and financially planned and paid for.

  42. Infidel Tiger

    Leyonhjelm is right, but you’ll never be able to change the current boondoggle.

    Only way to change this absurd situation is to set a cut off date. Then one part y would campaign against it and the other party would be slaughtered.

    I do find it ridiculous that people collecting the pension are derisive of people collecting the dole though.

  43. struth

    And these bloody young people grumbling, about house prices ,well, who mostly votes left wing?
    How many old people are stuffing the country gluing themselves to roads and fighting cheap electricity?
    Who therefore has empowered the government departments to artificially inflate house prices?
    I’ll give you the tip, it’s not the older voters.
    You made your bed, so fucking sleep in it……..outside.
    And thanks to you, it’s only going to get worse.
    For you.

  44. Mark A

    struth
    #3216998, posted on November 20, 2019 at 9:45 pm

    It’s not welfare when it was introduced.
    I seem to be teaching you a lot today.
    That’s two slabs.
    People worked and paid taxes all their lives after being told by the government all will get a pension, so naively many believed the government, and the governments of those days would have honoured their commitment.
    Taxation was basically started to fund pensions.
    If government had not made that commitment and people hadn’t worked and paid taxes all their life to basically get that money back via a pension, fair enough, you may have a point.
    As it is you don’t have any, and again show your youth in not understanding the deal made between the people of Australia and previous governments.

    You don’t pull out of deals that people had expected to be honoured and financially planned and paid

    Early on it was handled as a separate pension fund by the gov. later on, can’t remember when, it became part of the general revenue.

  45. Helen

    The people on the pension, IT, are genrally old and worn out and unable to work, OTPH, those on the dole are generally younger and capable of work. If not, they are on the disability pension.

  46. Neil

    The way things are set up encourages a person to rely on the govt.

    Say a older person has 2 properties worth $600K, one of which he rents out. Good for the country since the rental property generates income which flows through the system. BUT his $600K rental property means he will not get the pension.

    So he sells both and lives in a $1.2M home and collects the pension.

    Better for the country if the older person has 2 properties, rents one out and still get the pension

  47. RobK

    So James lives in a $60m house and collects the pension?
    Yes, this example is crazy shit you’d expect from a green voter. You’d need more than pension asset limit to pay the rates.
    Tinkering.

  48. struth

    Plenty of affordable houses if you don’t want to live in urban shit.
    So come on young’ns, get out here and live like kings.

    Unfortunately the type of work available out here is private sector, so you actually have to be useful and have a skill or two.
    Woops, that fucks it, doesn’t it.
    Time to go back to school and smack your teachers in the snout.
    They’ve stolen your usefulness.
    How dare they.

  49. Infidel Tiger

    If the old biddies can pay the rates, why do they need a pension?

  50. Harpo of Wolli Creek

    Maybe if these aged people with limited income have homes valued at more than a couple of million dollars, then the pension they receive could be considered a loan to be repaid on their death. Reckon the heirs would squeal like crazy but it seems fair to me.

  51. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    As it is you don’t have any, and again show your youth in not understanding the deal made between the people of Australia and previous governments.

    You trusted a deal made by a single government some 70 years ago?

    Whatever it was when it was introduced, it’s now welfare. Has been for decades. Its details and conditions have changed many times over those decades. It’s not contingent on you having contributed or paid taxes.

    In short – it’s welfare.

  52. Infidel Tiger

    The pension should be the for the destitute, not people sitting on a fat pile they will bequeath to their useless kids or the cat haven.

    Anyone alive today under 50 planning on taking the pension should be shit out of cannon into a brick wall.

  53. Say a older person has 2 properties worth $600K, one of which he rents out.

    He should get nothing.

    He’d be getting 600 AUD per week tax free and pay no rent.

  54. struth

    If the old biddies can pay the rates, why do they need a pension?

    Because they planned on getting it because they were told they were getting it.

    Right or wrong, it is , and was sold to every Australian as on old age pension and we’d all get one.
    People went to work and paid into it.
    It might be the silliest idea under the sun to many of you, but that is the deal that was struck.
    If you want it to change, start with the generations still in school so they know what to expect.

    Because even if you call it socialism, if the socialist in control don’t deliver on the deal, those socialists are stealing your money.

  55. Tel

    Maybe if these aged people with limited income have homes valued at more than a couple of million dollars, then the pension they receive could be considered a loan to be repaid on their death. Reckon the heirs would squeal like crazy but it seems fair to me.

    Why should that be for some pensions but not others? What makes some people deserving of free money but others have to work for it?

    Do the same with all dole, disability payments, and all pensions, plus interest at whatever the government bond rate is for the year. They should all become liens against the assets you have when you die. I’m good with that.

    I also quite like the idea of making that quarantine thing with the EBT cards universal for pensions and dole as well.

  56. Mater

    Yes, this example is crazy shit you’d expect from a green voter. You’d need more than pension asset limit to pay the rates.

    Yep.
    Even a couple with a $2m home would get about $32,500 from the pension but then pay over $6k of that in rates alone. Then insurance of about $3-4K. Then add in food, maintenance, electricity, gas, vehicle, fuel, registration, medical, etc.

    Even using the current system, it looks distinctly tight! Yes, some concessions might assist, but I doubt that much.

  57. RobK

    I m presently juggling in this area. My wife is of retiring age. I have 6 years to go but for family reasons i need to sell the farm. It’s a bloody mine field. An industry that feeds of regulatory complexity. There are a lot of shiny bums hanging off punters nest eggs. I don’t think you can avoid unintended consequences at this level of regulation.

  58. Infidel Tiger

    Imagine if you told the same pensioners who slag off at Abos they could no longer buy booze, smokes or junk food with their pension.

    They die of shame if they had any.

  59. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Do the same with all dole, disability payments, and all pensions, plus interest at whatever the government bond rate is for the year. They should all become liens against the assets you have when you die. I’m good with that.

    I’d add HECS to that list.

  60. Mater

    If the old biddies can pay the rates, why do they need a pension?

    My point is, if they can pay this magnitude of rates, they are probably not eligible for the pension.
    The whole scenario seems I’ll considered or otherwise Victoria’s system of calculating rates is not universal.
    Tiger, I can’t remember if WA rates are based on Capital Improved Value, but I vaguely remember that they are not. These variations across the country would need to be considered.

  61. Helen

    We will be here in a couple of years, too. We will not be on the pension, but I dont want the grubbermint to get it either. They did not work for it.

  62. Neil

    Say a older person has 2 properties worth $600K, one of which he rents out.

    He should get nothing.
    He’d be getting 600 AUD per week tax free and pay no rent.

    But you miss my point. Humans will work the system. The rules will alter his behaviour. The guy will then sell both his $600K properties buy a home worth $1.2M and get the full pension. Why not?

    Better for the country if he has 2 properties worth $600K and rents one out and still get a full pension. Rental property generates income for the govt

  63. struth

    You trusted a deal made by a single government some 70 years ago?

    Not even that long ago, and yes the world was a different place and no one could have guessed that the country would be run by such scum.
    It was a very different world.

    Whatever it was when it was introduced, it’s now welfare.

    Just saying it makes it so?
    People that have paid taxes for fifty years would have to live until they’re 200 to get back what they paid into the pension, at least, remember we are taxed a lot more than just pay as you go, with the pittance that is paid fortnightly.
    People can’t live on the pension by itself anyway.

    They paid into a socialist system therefore it ain’t welfare, and now the socialists don’t wanna keep to the deal because they spent it on the NBN, submarines that will be out dated if they are ever built, the ABC, SBS, Growing the public service to give fat useless turd women jobs holding folders and destroying the private sector, billions to abo corruption and overseas aid, or even just to the Clintons to get re elected.
    But a few old white proles, very few have had the prices of their houses artificially inflated by the very same socialists who now use that as an excuse not to pay them back the money they promised to.
    I note dot the libertarian without thinking through just wants equality of outcome here, all old people should be in little flats………………..not taking in the bigger picture at all.

    Has been for decades. Its details and conditions have changed many times over those decades. It’s not contingent on you having contributed or paid taxes.

    In short – it’s welfare.

  64. You’re not wrong Neil.

    It is a matter of ought and is.

  65. Tel

    I’d add HECS to that list.

    Yeah, why not!

    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2018/May/HELP-debt-statistics

    Claims that 25% of the debt is not expected to ever get repaid … I would guess that some of those people die with assets in hand. Simplicity and consistency are good, use the HECS scheme for the all of the payments so if you are on the dole for a few years then score a good job you end up paying back the dole money.

  66. struth

    Even a couple with a $2m home would get about $32,500

    Who is getting $32, 500 a year in old age pension?

  67. Snoopy

    Claims that 25% of the debt is not expected to ever get repaid … I would guess that some of those people die with assets in hand.

    I thought outstanding HECS debt already had dibs on a deceased estate?

  68. RobK

    He should get nothing.
    He wouldn’t get anything. (Unless he upsized and had just the right amount of assets/ income to scrape in with a tiny payment but he would feel pretty exposed running an expensive home with limits on assets/income)

  69. struth

    For a couple it’s 300 bucks a week.

  70. Even a small amount of welfare payment would allow them to gain access to various benefits though, no?

  71. Tel

    I thought outstanding HECS debt already had dibs on a deceased estate?

    Brilliant! All the more reason to move dole and pensions over onto the same system. The accounts are already operational and no new machinery is required. Set them all to the same rate, abandon all means testing entirely and you have something a tiny bit like UBI but anyone who achieves some degree of success ends up paying it back sooner or later.

    Job’s done! Thank you all … you have been wonderful.

  72. Godfrey

    Who are you and what have you done with the old David Leyonhjelm – supposedly a libertarian? What happened to personal responsibility? You are responsible for your, and your loved ones’ health, morals, education and at the end of the road retirement and funeral.

    The correct answer to all of this is that taxpayers shouldn’t have to support other people’s retirement at all. Save your damn money during your life. If there were no Government pension then people would sell their $2m ‘mansions’ and live accordingly.

    If you can’t plan for the future then starve to death in the street. Don’t ask me to fund it.

  73. Neil

    You’re not wrong Neil.
    It is a matter of ought and is.

    Why? people will work the system. Lots of people are cashing in their Superannuation and selling their homes and then buying homes they normally could not afford. Then getting the full pension.

    I do not think you should be allowed to cash in your Super but that is what people are doing. The current system encourages people to rely on the govt

  74. max

    age pensions should not exist in the first place.

  75. Who are you and what have you done with the old David Leyonhjelm – supposedly a libertarian?

    Wow. Angry and airs and graces of authority.

    There are other options too but, irrespective of how it is achieved, something must be done. It is simply immoral for taxpayers who don’t even own a house to be funding the pensions of those who could be living in a $60 million house. Incentives that promote parasitism cannot be defended.

    Seems legit to me.

  76. Entropy

    Neil
    #3217008, posted on November 20, 2019 at 9:53 pm
    The way things are set up encourages a person to rely on the govt.

    Say a older person has 2 properties worth $600K, one of which he rents out. Good for the country since the rental property generates income which flows through the system. BUT his $600K rental property means he will not get the pension.

    So he sells both and lives in a $1.2M home and collects the pension.

    Better for the country if the older person has 2 properties, rents one out and still get the pension

    Frank Walker from National Tiles
    #3217056, posted on November 20, 2019 at 10:29 pm
    Even a small amount of welfare payment would allow them to gain access to various benefits though, no?

    A part pension means you get health and other benefits, but this is the important bit everyone is missing: if you are on the pension the government won’t take extra from you. Eg when you have to go into nursing home.

  77. Tel

    Making all the Centerlink payments into a loan against your estate ALSO happens to solve that nasty thing where you get just a few months of Centerlink and then you get a job and they do some stupid averaging where you get letters to pay it back immediately.

    It all sorts itself out very cleanly … you get your payments, it adds to the total … then if you happen to earn more than the $55k threshold (or whatever it has become) then you pay a few percent of extra tax that year.

    Then people won’t be afraid to get jobs here and there if they can’t achieve stable employment.

  78. struth

    That’s 7,800 per person per year.

    My rates even in this county area with water is over 3 grand.

    Let’s talk electrickery prices!
    etc etc.

    I should be able to self fund, but the generation before me that expected a liveable pension are dying of the heat and cold.
    In 600 thousand dollar homes that are really only worth 80 grand, but thank god they paid them off.
    Kick ’em out …how’s even the stamp duty paid on the next property.
    So they pay for an ovepriced smaller home and the government wins again in the tansaction fees and that’s even less money they have.
    I’m sure you realise I could go on.
    My point about the Pension is that it is not a great cost to a government spending like drunken sailors, and until a generation before working age knows never to expect one, we should at least keep giving it to the ones that paid into it and need it to buy their evening meal of Pal, sitting in their paid off homes.
    Leave the buggers alone you filthy pricks.
    Asset testing the home while the government has artificially raised the value…….yeah right

  79. Mater

    Who is getting $32, 500 a year in old age pension?
    For a couple it’s 300 bucks a week.

    Ok Struth,
    Just using your rough figure.

    300*2*52=$31,200.

    But maximum basic rate for a couple is $1282 a fortnight which equals $33,332 a year.

    It doesn’t change the basic premise that rates and household costs can (and probably do) preclude this situation to a large extent – here in Victoria anyway!

  80. Entropy

    I reckon the age pension should be universal, everyone from 75, poor people earlier. And kill off compulsory superannuation. It’s only a gravy train for union hacks anyway.

  81. Tel

    It is simply immoral for taxpayers who don’t even own a house to be funding the pensions of those who could be living in a $60 million house. Incentives that promote parasitism cannot be defended.

    It’s immoral for any politician to be buying votes with stolen money, but why specifically punish the people who could at least provision for their own housing? What incentive are you trying to create here? Perhaps you think it’s better to encourage people NOT to ever own a home.

  82. RobK

    . Eg when you have to go into nursing home.
    This is addressed with new assisted dying laws.

  83. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    Not even that long ago, and yes the world was a different place and no one could have guessed that the country would be run by such scum.

    So where was this promise? Was it for a certain amount? Without asset tests?

    People that have paid taxes for fifty years would have to live until they’re 200 to get back what they paid into the pension, at least, remember we are taxed a lot more than just pay as you go, with the pittance that is paid fortnightly.

    I must have missed where the government saved all that tax money. Oh yeah, they didn’t. They spent it on services that those people enjoyed over the last 50 years. The pension is worth a couple of million dollars on a NPV basis. Most pensioners haven’t paid anywhere near that amount of tax in their lives.

    But a few old white proles, very few have had the prices of their houses artificially inflated by the very same socialists who now use that as an excuse not to pay them back the money they promised to.

    If they’re inflated they should sell them, and spend the proceeds. Their houses will be worth only $80k again shortly, isn’t that right? They can buy them back!

  84. RobK

    The 60mill house example is wank.

  85. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    My point about the Pension is that it is not a great cost to a government spending like drunken sailors

    It’s around $50bn a year…not a great cost??

  86. struth

    The correct answer to all of this is that taxpayers shouldn’t have to support other people’s retirement at all. Save your damn money during your life. If there were no Government pension then people would sell their $2m ‘mansions’ and live accordingly.

    If you can’t plan for the future then starve to death in the street. Don’t ask me to fund it.

    Hey, I agree with this, but unfortunately that wasn’t the deal done.

    A deal no matter how bad must be honoured.
    But you aren’t funding their retirement.
    Don’t you think they paid taxes all their lives?
    If you are paying for them then blame the government who took THEIR taxes and blew it. Ask the government why that is, they misspent the taxes the elderly put in over their lives to get a pension and to give one to those that couldn’t fund themselves.

    Start a new once the generation that paid into it are gone.
    You don’t change the game plan on the elderly who cannot adjust to the new situation.

  87. Entropy

    RobK
    #3217074, posted on November 20, 2019 at 10:43 pm
    . Eg when you have to go into nursing home.
    This is addressed with new assisted dying laws

    Touché

  88. Entropy

    Tel
    #3217072, posted on November 20, 2019 at 10:42 pm
    It is simply immoral for taxpayers who don’t even own a house to be funding the pensions of those who could be living in a $60 million house. Incentives that promote parasitism cannot be defended.

    It’s immoral for any politician to be buying votes with stolen money, but why specifically punish the people who could at least provision for their own housing? What incentive are you trying to create here? Perhaps you think it’s better to encourage people NOT to ever own a home

    The political class intend to end up with all the assets, either direct, superfund trusts and corporations, or govt ownership, and the plebs rent.

  89. struth

    But maximum basic rate for a couple is $1282 a fortnight which equals $33,332 a year.

    Basic rate is just over 600 bucks a fortnight for a couple.
    What is this, the old age pension for Public servants?

  90. RobK

    Struth,
    The 33k figure is right for a couple with less than the means tested thresholds for assets or income.

  91. RobK

    We sold Telstra to pay for the APS defined benefits super scheme Struth . They try to provide where they can.
    It’s ok for some . The term “pull up the ladder jack”. Comes to mind.

  92. struth

    I know an old couple in a government flat they rent.
    One car in the driveway worth 2 grand.
    Not registered as it’s too expensive.
    They live on 300 bucks a week and pay rent and power and water out of that.
    They live in the dark and don’t turn the heater on when they should though fear of electricity costs.
    Dirt poor.
    Spotlessly clean, proud people who have had terrible luck in their lives and worked their arses off in their own businesses and for other people.
    Always in hard industries in the private sector.
    They definitely have less than means tested.
    They are on 300 a week.
    They have paid much more in tax than they will ever get back from government.

  93. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    I know an old couple in a government flat they rent.

    Lovely as they sound, they’re getting discounted rent, free money, and free or discounted health and travel services. And eventually free aged care services. Over the average 20 year retirement period that adds up, quickly. Plus all the benefits they got during their working lives. It’s doubtful (but not impossible) that they have contributed more than they’re getting back.

    None of which means they shouldn’t get a pension. But if they happened to have $2m to their names (be it cash or in property), I’d want them to spend that first before claiming welfare.

  94. struth

    It’s around $50bn a year…not a great cost??

    Ove 30% of GDP goes to just over 2 per cent of the population, our royal race.

    Priorities, sunshine, priorities.

    Look I’m all for self funded retirement, and when the generations are gone that funded a pension, I’m all for it.

  95. RobK

    They are on 300 a week.
    There must be a reason for that assessment. They my have assets such as unused super or something.

  96. struth

    Lovely as they sound, they’re getting discounted rent, free money, and free or discounted health and travel services. And eventually free aged care services. Over the average 20 year retirement period that adds up, quickly. Plus all the benefits they got during their working lives. It’s doubtful (but not impossible) that they have contributed more than they’re getting back.

    And none of it would have been needed if the government didn’t take their wealth at gunpoint every week.

    Via pay as you go and back door taxing and prices on goods we all pay, if in the private sector about half of our income in tax.
    Then the inbuilt price on top of that due to taxation on your supplier means it’s compounding.
    Felix. if you work a lifetime in this country you pay way more in tax than you use, although lefties never quite see all the tax paid when they look at this, being mostly tax consumes and not wealth creators.
    The use of roads was well paid for with fuel and rego taxes and in fact the government made so much out of me they used my money to buy many a dole bludger or abo a drink on top of that.
    I have paid for an unnecessary television station.
    So if the taxpayers weren’t paying enough for services over their life, why the lavish expenditure by governments on bullshit?

    It’s quite simple.
    For most pensioners, they expected and planned for a pension and they paid for it.
    Once they are gone , yep, get rid of it.

  97. Jeremy

    It is simply immoral for taxpayers who don’t even own a house to be funding the pensions of those who could be living in a $60 million house. Incentives that promote parasitism cannot be defended.
    People who have been able to buy property are not parasites.

  98. struth

    No they do not have unused super.
    They are entitled to 600 a fortnight for both of them.
    What has your super scheme got to do with the pension?

  99. struth

    Plus all the hugely overpriced expensive benefits they got during their working lives

    Like what?
    A road?
    They went to a catholic school.
    Television wasn’t a big thing so I don’t reckon they sat around watching play school.

    Government was not everywhere and all intrusive as it is now.
    There were fuck all services.
    That’s why the country was going so well.
    That generation put much more in than they got out.
    Let them have their 150 bucks a week they were expecting of their money returned to them, and soon they will be gone and you and I can fund ourselves.

  100. struth

    Lets look at what the younger generation are costing us in Maternity, paternity leave, stress leave, domestic violence leave Hex debts, dole etc, etc etc, before they’ve even paid their way in the world.

  101. RobK

    What has your super scheme got to do with the pension?
    If you have super and you are of retiring age, then as I understand it, your super is counted as a asset and any income is assessed so the pension may only be a part pension (or none at all at around 800k fora couple, i think)

  102. Damian

    Rohan, DL does not have an indexed pension from his time in the Senate. John Howard changed the rules so any parliamentarian elected from the 2004 election onwards did not have access to the old obscene defined benefit scheme.

    They get about a 15% contribution to their nominated super fund. That is still a pretty handy super contribution, considering a backbencher starts at about $200k these days.

  103. No incentive

    You heard it hear kids. Spend every penny you earn like it 1999. Whats the point buying a house, work ur arse to pay it off, retire, Gov forces u to sell ur house. But the junkee next door didn’t work a day in thier life gets free everything.

  104. struth

    What has your super scheme got to do with the pension?
    If you have super and you are of retiring age, then as I understand it, your super is counted as a asset and any income is assessed so the pension may only be a part pension (or none at all at around 800k fora couple, i think)

    Exactly, so you should be entitled to less.
    I don’t know, maybe you have some disability or carers payments that make it up to that but the flat pension for a couple is just over 600 a fortnight.

  105. struth

    They get about a 15% contribution to their nominated super fund. That is still a pretty handy super contribution, considering a backbencher starts at about $200k these days.

    No but it’s ongoing once he leaves parliament, isn’t it.

  106. RobK

    just over 600 a fortnight
    Each for a couple.

  107. jupes

    If you can’t plan for the future then starve to death in the street.

    Fuck off Godfrey. We have enough deros as it is.

  108. struth

    just over 600 a fortnight
    Each for a couple.

    300 each.

  109. struth

    I’ll be seeing them soon, I’ll check it out.
    I’m sure they told me 600 a fortnight for both.

  110. Neil

    Also all this welfare older people get means their children do not need to look after their parents anymore. I know people who have nice homes with $250K in the bank and so get a full pension. Plus they have a health package which pays for house cleaning, lawn mowing.

    So children do not need to support their elderly parents

  111. miltonf

    A generation of parasites

    sounds like retired politicians

  112. Mother Lode

    There is something terribly desolate and cold in thinking that a home is just an asset. The psychological and emotional value of a home as a retreat and a refuge, as a space where you have control and expression, and as a connection to your past, family, good times enjoyed and bad times fought through is not something to be so glibly dismissed.

    You talk of Packers, but the ones who will be hit are the elderly couple next door who raised a family (of whom images spanning decades festoon the walls), took holidays, went through a period of unemployment, mourned the loss of a child, held BBQs, drove people to the doctor when they were sick, and so on.

    Your assessment is not heroic, but a pathology.

  113. tgs

    Leyonhjelm is right.

    Plent of people here that are all about small government for some but not others. Small government where it suits their preferences and not when it doesn’t.

    Pretty classic cat really.

  114. There is something terribly desolate and cold in thinking that a home is just an asset.

    Have you ever had a job?

    Your boss doesn’t keep you around for your company, or that you’re a good person and a great father.

    You talk of Packers, but the ones who will be hit are the elderly couple next door who raised a family (of whom images spanning decades festoon the walls), took holidays, went through a period of unemployment, mourned the loss of a child, held BBQs, drove people to the doctor when they were sick, and so on.

    How much money do they need to sit on before you stop feeling sorry for them?

    The age pensioned needs to be grandfathered out of existence, possibly paid out from asset sales and compulsory superannuation (a financial racket for unions) needs to end.

    What matters more is that promises were made to them and they were taxed as a quid pro quo, not if they are good or likable people or not.

    Promises certainly were made; cradle to grave welfare robbed them of a choice. Likewise now, crippling income and property taxes now starve us for choices regarding feasible policies.

  115. Mak Siccar

    Fairly obviously, the incentive to qualify for the age pension, including both the income, health benefits and various discounts, is enormously strong. The baby boomer generation, of which I am a member, has responded to this by learning how to take advantage of it, at massive cost to other generations.

    Not all of use retirees behave in such an unethical manner. And property valuations in capital cities are very different to those in rural cities and towns. Go back to the drawing board.

  116. Perplexicon

    These are excellent arguments for abolishing the generous indexed superannuation of our many ex-politicians!

  117. I keep on saying the boomers here are anomalous, and rather than take it as the compliment as it is, they decide to be offended on behalf of their less worthy contemporaries.

  118. Chris M

    Pensions are only for Boomers, it will end when they do – no money left by then. Their grandchildren can pick up the tab.

  119. Nob

    The numbers for pensions haven’t added up since it became obvious that people could be retired for at least 2/3 as long as they actually worked.

    Never mind what governments promised.

    I’m gonna keep working till I drop to fund your lifestyles.

  120. Mother Lode

    Plent of people here that are all about small government for some but not others. Small government where it suits their preferences and not when it doesn’t.

    Pretty classic cat really.

    You misrepresent people here, tgs.

    Do you think people here would applaud a decision to abolish the Defence Forces but leave the Department of More Wymminses intact? It would ensmallen the government.

    The smaller government people here want is one where the apparatus of getting in the way, hampering everything we do, and only permitting us freedom if it advances the government agenda.

    Elderly people with profound attachment to their homes that have skyrocketed in value because of what is happening everywhere other than on their property are not sponging. In fact, it is the size of government and the burden it has been throughout their entire lives that has left them less of their own money to live on.

    While someone is living in their home whether it is worth $1 million or $100 makes no difference at all.

    And demanding that they move to shitty dog boxes with their whole world compacted between prison-like concrete walls is not only callous, but dickheadery of the most bottom-burping order.

    We want smaller government. One which is less choked on its own processes and less able to create its own political momentum in the way a bushfire creates its own weather. We have entire government departments brimming with public servants, with access to politicians no one else has access to (except the Chinese) each advancing their interests at the expense (financial and every other way they can think of) of the productive.

  121. Mother Lode

    The pension is pretty meagre – unless you are a one legged indigenous lesbian traumatised by a white person saying “Boo” to your great great great grandma.

    Not sure anyone sees it as an incentive for anything. A relief perhaps. A life line. But an incentive?

  122. Mother Lode

    If we must talk incentives, the remuneration for politicians grows unchecked and so does the amount of law they pass, which inevitably makes it harder to produce the wealth which they then harvest with sublime lack of interest.

    How about we slash their remuneration, and thus the amount of legislation they heap on us like a pack mule while expecting the same work?

    I look forward to the day when a minister says they won’t be available to vote on the bill making it illegal to watch TV after 10:00 (lengthy schedule of fines attached) because they can’t find someone to cover their shift cooking fries at Maccas.

    Or better still, the bill banning fries (lengthy schedule of fines attached) because, as a fry chef, it is excessive, meddlesome, would destroy livelihoods, and none of the government’s goddam business.

    And spare us the ‘Pay peanuts and you get monkeys’. You could halve their salaries and it would not be peanuts. They would still be getting more than a lot of people who actually do stuff.

    What we have now is more a case of ‘Lay out a spread in the open, don’t be surprised by all the flies’.

    If we cut back on the perks there will be less incentive for those who are attracted to the perks. Who would that leave?

  123. notafan

    The million dollar house is a triple fronted weatherboard on 600 square metres.

    And it is a million dollars only because of the immigration Ponzi.

    Everything that comes on the market around here seems to be snapped up by Chinese investors, rented out for a couple of years then demolished for a pair of townhouses.

  124. Deplorable

    In short – it’s welfare

    So then is all payments made by all levels of government in the way of grants to sporting bodies, to religious bodies that also pay no tax. Councils and water boards are supporting things like reconciliation, white ribbon, art communities and a whole host of other giveaways by raising the rates on pensioners and self funded retirees. $230,000 for each sporting ground for AS lighting to practice 2 nights for 2 hours over winter skate board ramps no aged persons will use ,new stadiums not needed , replacement of perfectly OK sporting facilities the list goes on and “in short it is all welfare”. First home buyers grants, child welfare, child minding grants, grants to unions for “education”. Just look at the very long list of grants and who gets them then come back and say aged pensioners and self funded retirees are a drain on the taxpayer. What bullshit.

  125. The only bullshit is conflating self funded retirees with pensioners.

    All of the above is some form of redistribution. They ARE forms of welfare. No amount of emotional appeal can change that.

    End it all now and society is better off.

    Take university funding for example. What happens when they get more funding via OPM? Look at what John Stossel found. Universities were building million dollar indoor rock climbing nonsense instead of cutting fees, building more dormitories or spending money on teaching or research facilities or resources.

  126. Just look at the very long list of grants and who gets them

    Sure. Now let’s say they didn’t exist and we didn’t fund them with taxes.

    What would your tax bill be like now? How much lower would your indirect taxes be?

    come back and say aged pensioners and self funded retirees are a drain on the taxpayer.

    Fifty billion per year for pensioners. They were lied to though and the system is unsustainable because they did not have enough children.

  127. notafan

    Lots of waste at every level.

    Still true that pensions are a massive part of the tax burden and increasing at an alarming rate.

  128. Not sure anyone sees it as an incentive for anything. A relief perhaps. A life line. But an incentive?

    You’re too high brow to understand.

    You’re probably too honest to conceive how much one can extract from “their boss, Scott Morrison” each week.

  129. Deplorable

    Neil
    #3217127, posted on November 21, 2019 at 12:26 am
    Also all this welfare older people get means their children do not need to look after their parents anymore. I know people who have nice homes with $250K in the bank and so get a full pension. Plus they have a health package which pays for house cleaning, lawn mowing.

    So children do not need to support their elderly parents


    Neil those people paid for their nice homes with after tax dollars, they pay nearly full rates on those homes, and after a lifetime of work and contributing taxes managed to save $250k to provide a little more that the pension which they paid for does not cover.
    If they are on the base level of at home aged care I think you will find that $65/week is taken from their pension income for fees. $3000 a year for package, $2000 a year in council rates, $1000 a year in Water Board rates. Then there may be car rego and insurance,house insurance, compulsory fire levy by government, electricity and gas bills out of control plus gst and some stamp duty.
    Myself being just self funded I do not qualify for all these so called benefits you speak of and I think if you really looked into it you will find most of them are smoke and mirrors.

  130. notafan

    Pensioners get discounted rates.

    Seems to me me there wouldn’t be an army of financial advisors out there helping people to get at least a part pension unless people saw a significant financial advantage in doing so.

  131. iggie

    To add to Deplorable’s great comment.
    And in the day, any super that was deducted from your wage was counted as income and taxed accordingly at the same rate.
    Plus record high interest rates when buying a house, especially in the 80s.
    And tax rates were higher than today.

  132. nota

    Most of the financial planning elective I chose not to do ages ago at uni was basically…how to get more welfare payments.

    Not much about actual finance, investment analysis, etc.

  133. Plus record high interest rates when buying a house, especially in the 80s.

    After negative real interest rates.

    Housing affordability/mortgage stress under Gillard was at one time, higher than in the 1980s or 1990s.

  134. notafan

    I don’t believe that any of the comments about tax rates were higher are correct.

    And yes for a very short period interest rates were higher.

    But on my $30,000 mortgage it wasn’t that bad.

    And super that was taxed comes back to you as tax free income now.

    Which has nothing to do with age pensions bte

    Much more bearable than a $500,000 mortgage

  135. notafan

    Besides which welfare is charity, not an entitlement because you paid tax.

    I’m sick of that argument.

    You didn’t pay one million in tax to take out one million in pension.

    You didn’t pay one million in tax, for starters.

  136. Helen

    The thing about pensioners is they (largely) spend their meagre money locally thus supporting local business, they should be viewed as an asset, not a liability.

    Both my grand parents were on the pension, one poorer that the other due mainly (I think) to a larger family and lesser money management skills, the poorer one lived in the country all her life and then retired to Adelaide. A son was nearby who looked in on her. Then she lived with my parents but when she became too much went to the Old Timers Home, where she passed later. There was nothing in her estate, my father had been subsiding her all his working life.

    The other stayed in her own home until the day she died, she was a pensioner too, also in Adelaide and had some small investments, but she had been wise with her money all her life. She had her house and some savings to pass on.

    Neither of these ladies were rich. They both worked hard all their lives. Both their husbands were in Africa in the war, both of them helped with relief work back here. Both of them helped other people where they could and did charity work.

    To call these ladies parasites is one of the most ignorant, foul and malicious acts I can imagine. Shame on you.

  137. Tel

    Besides which welfare is charity, not an entitlement because you paid tax.

    Governments transferring money from one person who worked for it, to another person who didn’t work for it, by dint of force of arms and threats of violence is certainly not charity. Nothing even remotely resembling charity.

  138. Mother Lode

    Have you ever had a job?

    Since second year at uni.

    How much money do they need to sit on before you stop feeling sorry for them?

    People in a house they have been in for years and to which they have a genuine attachment to is more than just an asset. I have a lot of sympathy with the ideas of reducing regulation and letting society regulate itself, forming its own norms organically. I can see the virtue of opening borders if you manage welfare better. But I feel that there must be considerations underpinning it all. It is not sufficient to have a smooth operating machine – the machine must serve people.

    As to the ‘how much money’, I don’t see it as a matter of just the market value (which is an external assessment: ‘from the outside’).

    There is also an internal value – the value assigned by the individual themselves. In fact, this is the one that drives market values. It is the individual’s desire for something according to the value they put on it that drives them to an economic activity.

    I buy music because I like it. I choose a particular car because it best fits my preferences of comfort, economy, performance etc. Eventually the aggregate of people’s preferences should become the car market and car makers would be looking to connect better to individuals’ preferences to get an edge – but it relies on the preferences of the individual.

    Having said that I don’t think a person’s internal valuation is some sort of irreducible and impervious atom. They have to make compromises.

    The dollar value on a house is to my mind too simplistic. Someone who has lived in a house for half their life will have a different connection than someone who has lived there for five years. To demand the former to bugger off to a dog box would be to destroy something which humanly matters. How much space too. How many people really need eight bedrooms, five bathrooms, a pool room, a tennis court, full scale pool etc? This is different to people with three bedrooms, a front yard and a backyard. Compelling people to move from a safe suburb to a shit hole with rampant crime would be setting them up to be victims. Moving into some ghetto where they don’t speak the language and can’t understand the people would also be undesirable.

    The above (not exhaustive) list is meant to be considerations, not rules. Nor are they set in stone. People and their priorities will change. Right now security is a bigger consideration in some areas than proximity to transport, for example. As society changes the balances will change. Ideally people will eventually not need to worry of they will be slaughtered in their beds. Conceivably more streamlined services might make the idea of tree changing more worthwhile.

    But that will 1) take time and 2) when that time comes the circumstances and solutions might actually be different than we predict now. But sudden tectonic changes are fraught with unintended consequences and when the various unpredictable forces collide it is people that get crushed.

    Pensioners are easy targets. Hey, they will be dead in a few years anyway.

  139. You didn’t pay one million in tax, for starters.

    I think we understate how much people pay in taxes when we sum up direct and indirect taxation, but moreso as to how much tax is levied against their labour cost/output.

    However, if the national insurance scheme was levied at 7.5% of income, after 40 years of working, you’d need to be on 330k roughly to have 1 million of funds accumulated, short of investment returns.

  140. Mother Lode
    #3217314, posted on November 21, 2019 at 9:11 am

    Have you ever had a job?

    Since second year at uni.

    You. Are. Missing. The. Point.

    I am not calling you are bum. I am saying ordinary, necessary economic transactions are not considerate of your feelings. You’re not a machine but your bosses paid you to be one. A good boss looks after their employees welfare, but you’re not going to be paid more just because.

    People in a house they have been in for years and to which they have a genuine attachment to is more than just an asset.

    But my genuine attachment to taxes paid for pensions and welfare trumps everything else. Good lord you better believe I am spiritually linked to each cent I earn.

    In fact, each cent I have ever possessed (and coveted) is loved the way Jesus Christ loves his wayward sheep.

  141. Big Moose

    We currently have a sub group of Australians who have never contributed, nor made provision to save and pay for their own home. Why the attack on those who have contributed and provided for their family by managing to own a home in a reasonable suburb. Instead David seems he’ll bent on providing for those who have always been provided for through welfare. How about this How about this as an alternative – anyone convicted of an offense for 12 months or longer can never receive welfare or DVA payments. Would certainly take a load off the system.

  142. Diana

    Don’t take financial advice from David! He’s forgotten to explain how a person on a pension would pay for the Body Corporate fees at the Crown!!

  143. Big Moose
    #3217319, posted on November 21, 2019 at 9:17 am

    We currently have a sub group of Australians who have never contributed, nor made provision to save and pay for their own home.

    Who cares? If they rent and pay for it themselves, missing out on capital gains is their loss.

    Why the attack on those who have contributed and provided for their family by managing to own a home in a reasonable suburb.

    Because like Neil said, the system is set up to be gamed.

    Most of us are attacking the rules we live under and are avoiding invidious comments.

  144. Tel

    struth #3216998, posted on November 20, 2019 at 9:45 pm

    Taxation was basically started to fund pensions.
    If government had not made that commitment and people hadn’t worked and paid taxes all their life to basically get that money back via a pension, fair enough, you may have a point.
    As it is you don’t have any, and again show your youth in not understanding the deal made between the people of Australia and previous governments.

    Most of this is wrong.

    Taxation as a general concept is far older than any pension scheme. The oldest taxation was the fund the King, which effectively means to pay for the military. For a long while military offense and military defense were considered equivalent and the King made war at his own pleasure, usually spending heaps in the process. It worked because no one wanted to argue with the King. Eventually we got Parliament, and voting and the “Just War Theory” that allowed national defense but put some curbs on the power to arbitrarily go to war.

    If you are talking about only the Australian Commonwealth, both tax powers and the plan to make pensions were part of the original Federation agreement so they all came into existence together … but despite that Prime Minister Alfred Deakin admitted on a number of occasions that the Commonwealth didn’t have sound funding for pensions, but he shrugged and went ahead with it anyhow. I’ve done some searching and cannot find any reference to a “commitment” or a “deal” or anything like that, not even a general purpose for the scheme that was presented at the time. Deakin simply presumed that pensions were a good idea and no justification was required.

    I will keep searching on that one, it’s hard to believe that no overall vision existed to motivate these people. Possibly it could be as simple as they felt the need to copy other countries that had pensions. There was a Royal Commission into pension schemes soon after Federation, and I have not read their report so I’ll try to get around to that. Hopefully those were the days of short reports that got to the point. If anyone can dig up links that would be useful.

    If you are talking about Income Tax in Australia, that was original justified as necessary to pay for WWI and then WWII, but the money was diverted to many things, including socialist programs. Difficult to say whether diversion of that money was always the plan but then they would hardly say that openly, would they?

  145. iggie

    Notafan
    ‘I don’t believe that any of the comments about tax rates were higher are correct.’

    Tax rates in the late 70s/early 80s. Tax free threshold was $4041. Average wage 1980 around $8,000pa.
    1978
    $14,200.00+ 29%
    $16,200.00+ 31%
    $18,200.00+ 34%
    $20,200.00+ 36%
    1980
    $42,800.00+ 59%
    $54,700.00+ 64%
    $81,200.00+ 68%
    $107,700.00+ 70%

  146. Deplorable

    Maximum basic rate $850.40 single $641.00ea per couple

  147. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    Still waiting on details of that promise of a pension in return for paying tax…

  148. FelixKruell

    Mother:

    And demanding that they move to shitty dog boxes with their whole world compacted between prison-like concrete walls is not only callous, but dickheadery of the most bottom-burping order.

    But that’s exactly what you’re asking the youngsters to do that are funding these pensions.

    No pensioner need move out of their house if they don’t want to – that’s where reverse mortgages (or ideally, better designed government schemes to recover your pension from your estate) come into it.

    You want smaller government, then be consistent about it. We can’t have smaller government whilst paying billions in welfare to multi-millionaire pensioners.

  149. Mother Lode

    My point is that it is not something we can do overnight. And pensioners should not be the first (or second) target because they they are least able to adapt.

    I actually don’t mind the idea of economic transactions being unfettered since they reflect the will of people. People make their exchanges and part both of them better off than before because both now have something they value more than they had before. It is a beautiful system.

    Hell, I reckon a lot of problems for which we are currently taxed merely to hold at bay would disappear outright under such a regime.

    But I do not think you can dismiss concerns for others outright under the rubric of pure economics. Being human is more than an economic state. We should help ameliorate real hardship. Some will always be with us. Some people will be prey to the unpredictable. Things like old age are not unpredictable (although what is expected has proven more changeable. Many people worked a large part of their working life expecting to get a pension. Indeed their taxes underwrote other people’s pensions.

    I am later and have no intention of drawing a pension. I would rather live above the pension thresholds than below. Of course, I knew it was coming.

    Ideally a reduction of government interference and imposts will mean people will be able to easily fund their retirements. But we are nowhere near that yet, and acting as if we are and dumping the burden on the elderly is just inhumane. There are a lot of more economically strategic targets out there.

    Humanity as a group has an inertia. It is merely a factor that needs to be taken into account.

  150. Deplorable

    Pensioners get discounted rates.

    So big deal I believe in Victoria aged pensioners receive around $250 in rebate for council rates and around $240 in water/sewerage rates. This still leaves a big hole even in the cheap suburbs where rates still total $3000 per year after rebates.
    Aged pensioners paid for their pensions and those that went before them including the reffos and the drug damaged bludgers including all the pensions of all levels of government and large firms. Then compulsory super came in and retired people are still contributing by way of higher prices and taxes to pay for the future retirees.
    Seriously I think some of you younger or more privileged types here should use your keyboard skills to look at FACTS regarding age pensions ,superannuation, and so called benefits.
    Charity begins at home.

  151. Helen

    In Ancient Rome, according to the book I am reading (the Falco sereis) 70% of tax revenues went to defence (and, I guess, offence).

  152. Mother Lode

    But that’s exactly what you’re asking the youngsters to do that are funding these pensions.

    The youngsters have their future earnings. They have their future choices to future proof themselves.

    And, more to the point, the current pensioners will also have started out at the lower end of the market working their way up to what they later got.

    I would not be so defensive of the old dears if the requirement to fund your own retirement was set out to them when they started out. But instead they were told they would receive an income.

    Then, part way through their careers, the government changed the game from draughts to chess.

  153. Alex Davidson

    Apropos some of the comments above, the belief that the age pension is part of some utopian‘social contract’ between government and citizens of the future is still very much alive and well today. Take for example this from the SMH’s youthful ‘economics writer’ recently, where she was talking about becoming a home owner at last:

    My plan now is to live there for decades, use my super to pay off any outstanding debt in retirement and live on the age pension.

  154. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    People in a house they have been in for years and to which they have a genuine attachment to is more than just an asset.

    That is true. But realities sometimes must intrude. Selling up and downsizing is what many conclude is the best option.

    We own a multi-million dollar property outright, and will never receive any pension benefits, nor do we loo for them.

    For older people who don’t want to sell and move, then a better means of accessing the value of the property should be available. From what I’ve heard (which isn’t much as we’ve never investigated it) reverse mortgages are a bad deal. Making those much better via subsidizing them in some way and then putting a monetary value cap on the family home before pensions are payable would seem to be the way to go. Other assets are taken into consideration so why the family home should be exempt is a mystery.

    Sentiment can be addressed with a reverse mortgage of some sort. If holding ‘the pension’ makes it possible to access better government care in a nursing home, then stopping this rort wouldn’t be a bad idea either. All income and all assets including the family home should be considered for all takers of government subsidy into nursing. That seems fair, although tough on the workers of this world vs the drones. Ever twas so.

    Helen’s general point above, about better spending of government money by removing the hideous boondoggles that they currently spend on, and thus leaving more to distribute to older people to live decently, as well as for other state welfare when genuinely needed, is also worth noting. This is especially the case when considering that many people on Newstart should really be on the DSP (many are train wrecks) but the DSP numbers are being deliberately kept low. There are rorts aplenty there too; some ethnic groups have better systems of getting their members on the DSP than many a poor white Ozzie bloke who is a drug-addled train wreck, eeking out life on $250 a week n poor health with no real hope of a job and being told public housing is too full with refugees to be available to them. I’ve seen plenty of those sad cases. Sad left-overs of the ‘hey, man’ drug culture.

    While the state rorts the taxation system for its own prideful reasons, then obviously people think they should claw back whatever they can.

  155. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    ahrrggg – put a k on it. … look for them

  156. Judith Sloan

    I have had a look at the ANU study – not to be trusted. They don’t actually know the value of age pensioners’ homes but take a guess from postcode data.

    The truth is that there is a strong correlation between age pension takeup and value of homes. No one in a very expensive home can afford to live off the age pension, given rates are a form of wealth tax.

    This is a very strange issue for Leyonhjelm to be championing.

  157. notafan

    However, if the national insurance scheme was levied at 7.5% of income, after 40 years of working, you’d need to be on 330k roughly to have 1 million of funds accumulated, short of investment returns.

    if it existed

    which it doesn’t

    and it was a social security levy, not a age pension scheme, to cover unemployment sickness disability etc and every years take in the couple of years it existed was fully expended in the same year

    because back then they did the math and realized it was going to be completely unsustainable

    ps there is barely a person alive today who was paying taxes in 1945

  158. notafan

    My plan now is to live there for decades, use my super to pay off any outstanding debt in retirement and live on the age pension.

    exactly

    there should be age pension exclusion periods for those who used tax concessioned super for ‘other things’

  159. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Lots of very well off older people living in the Eastern Suburbs in multi-million dollar properties, which they happily flip to trade up, collect the pension because they have arranged their other assets and, especially, their income. Income is the decider for the pension and part-pension, while the asset level in cash permitted is quite high. That cash can also be turned into renovations and then the property flipped again, with similar cash levels retained and the pension still received.

    The rorts are there and sentiment is often an excuse.

  160. notafan

    Aged pensioners paid for their pensions

    no they didn’t

    and it really is that simple

  161. notafan

    I would not be so defensive of the old dears if the requirement to fund your own retirement was set out to them when they started out. But instead they were told they would receive an income.

    this isn’t true either

    Compulsory super started in 1983-that has given people 36 years years to accumulated retirement savings with a clear message that they should not be relying on an age pension

    the salesmenship comes from an industry that fuels the entitlement generation

    age pension as an absolute entitlement is a myth that many cling too

    as for reverse mortgages -an expensive trap

    I appreciate that some people cling to homes but on the other hand thousands do downsize, seek tree changers etc
    Usually in their late sixties early seventies -but I suspect those are mostly self funded retirees who don’t see the pension as the Golden Ticket and would rather live comfortably without the responsibilities that go with house and big garden obligations

    I still say that the magic one million dollar house should be ignored though -that’s a triple fronted weatherboard 20ks from the cbd these days

  162. notafan

    Also most pensioners are not doddering old dears in their 80s

  163. Alessio

    Someone help me out please, where is Shit Creek? I’m assuming it must be in Victoristan but precisely where?

  164. struth

    Struth:

    Still waiting on details of that promise of a pension in return for paying tax…

    Taxation was basically started to fund pensions.
    If government had not made that commitment and people hadn’t worked and paid taxes all their life to basically get that money back via a pension, fair enough, you may have a point.

    Most of this is wrong.

    Yet……………

    If you are talking about only the Australian Commonwealth, both tax powers and the plan to make pensions were part of the original Federation agreement so they all came into existence together … but despite that Prime Minister Alfred Deakin admitted on a number of occasions that the Commonwealth didn’t have sound funding for pensions,………………….he taxed people to get it.
    The socialist state, the welfare state has it’s start here.

    I’ve done some searching and cannot find any reference to a “commitment” or a “deal” or anything like that, not even a general purpose for the scheme that was presented at the time. Deakin simply presumed that pensions were a good idea and no justification was required.

    Are you looking for the contract paperwork like Felix?

    Seriously.

    A politician is voted in or out on his promises in a democracy, there’s your contract with the people, and like promises made today they should be honoured, however bad they are.
    Dot gets it when he says it should be “grandfathered out:
    I’m not in favour of Pensions at all, but in a right wing ” family and Christian charity utopia” they would not be necessary.
    Take the Christian out of the society, or at least Christian values and destroy the family and many oldies would just stave and die, had working Austalians who maybe had bad luck, and it does happen.
    I bloke saves all his life for retirement but the ex wife, the government taxes, and maybe buying a house at the wrong time, etc etc etc means today, whatever happens now this socialist welfae is going to emain.

    I’m not for it, but those who were told there would be one, paid taxes on the understanding there would be one.
    I’ll be self funded,……………….I hope.
    I’m not arguing this for me, but you have to “grandfather this, is all I am saying.
    Now again, let’s look at the cost of welfare for the young.
    Let’s look at the combinations of maternity, paternity leave, the child care rort, the subsidies to this and that and when we do,………………we are doing precisely what they want us to do.
    Fight between the different generations based on envy.
    Fight between the different sexes based on envy.
    Fight between the races based on envy.
    Cultural Marxism and Old lefty Dave above is playing right into the hands of the left.

    You know why the right used to always lose elections?
    Because people believed they were going to slash and bun welfare and public service Jobs.
    And they used to.

    Instead of truly believing in free markets, low taxation, minimal regulation to grow the Private sector, they instead acted like envious lefties and just took the funding away.
    A smarter move could have only occurred if they truly believed in right wing economics and “grandfathered” and softly weened people off of socialism, once there was plenty of work in the private sector.
    They truly would have shown themselves to have half a friggin’ brain.
    We succumb to envy, we become the left.

    What we are seeing here, the left would be loving.

  165. notafan

    Bob Hawke iirc wanted to include the family home in the assets test with low income high assets- no problem get your pension and have the amount (with interest) recovered from your estate

  166. Helen

    Shit Creek is next to the Black Stump.

    You should avoid being up Shit Creek in a barbed wire canoe.

  167. C.L.

    There are a lot of delusional people who think they’re going to retire at 65 and have 30+ years of cash to live on. Sorry to have to tell you this, folks, but you just won’t. A lot of people criticising pensioners will be filling out the forms themselves at some point in their future.

  168. In Viktoristan, people pay money for an abode that is near reasonable medical services, which keeps them alive in their retirement years.
    Forced into the real estate swap and moving further away from medical services, for many, is a death sentence.
    Medical/hospital services in Viktoristan outside the 15-20km radius of the Dannograd CBD are a joke.

  169. notafan

    You are so wrong struth

    ridiculously wrong

    if you did even the most basic research you would know that the Commonwealth relied most heavily on indirect taxes up until world war two

    it was only with the introduced of paye that most people stated paying income taxes, before that it was administratively impossible to collect them from most people

    the changes introduced during and immediately after world war two were not primarily intended to benefit age pensions, an age pension had been available subject to many tests in most states since before Federation

    no the focus during the war was unsurprisingly returning servicemen, people who had lost jobs as the result of war industry closing down and war widows

    at the end of ww1 returning servicemen, sick injured or well were treated appallingly and the ministers who sat though out the war on the social security subcommittees remembered that very well and did not want a repeat

    Menzies had been keen pre war for a universal age pension and a bill had progressed through parliament but never got royal assent

    the notorious 7.5 levy for a national welfare fund only lasted five or six years but demands on the public purse for welfare payments always outstripped funds and money from consoliated revenue had to be tipped in

    Menzies completely withdrew support for a universal age pension scheme after the war because it was completely unaffordable, and becoming more and more so with the significant increases in live expectancy

    don’t forget that the age pension in the 1910s was for people who rarely lived pasted 65 -in 2010 in Australia it is now 82.5 -80.4 for men and 84.6 for women

    that is a long long time on a pension

  170. don’t forget that the age pension in the 1910s was for people who rarely lived pasted 65 -in 2010 in Australia it is now 82.5 -80.4 for men and 84.6 for women

    Are you suggesting we cull the over 70s?

  171. notafan

    There are a lot of delusional people who think they’re going to retire at 65 and have 30+ years of cash to live on. Sorry to have to tell you this, folks, but you just won’t. A lot of people criticising pensioners will be filling out the forms themselves at some point in their future.

    This is true but that is okay -I don’t have a problem with someone living on their super for 15 years then seeking a pension when that money is exhausteed

  172. Eyrie

    Zero pensions for pollies and nominal pay, say $100,000 p.a. for all with NO super contribution while in office. Being PM gets you kudos but no extra pay. Get rid of the career pollies
    After retirement from politics your and your family’s financial affairs may be forensically examined at any time. Any sweetheart jobs, deals etc linked to your past political service or voting in Parliament banned. Penalty, confiscation of assets of you and family and jail time.

  173. struth

    OOOhhh the bloody pensioners……really.
    Let’s look at the true cost to the nation.
    Remember, I am ideologically opposed to pensions in a fair world.

    Our aboriginal population.
    Both may be worth having a discussion about but if it’s not about the blackfella expense first, one might come to the conclusion that you are falling for a left wing narrative.
    A cultural marxist Narrative, where the minimal cost of the elderly in comparison to aboriginal Australia which sees a third of our entire GDP go to those in the aboriginal parasite industry, who’s race including the white ones has shot recently fom 2% of the population to about 5% , and soon to be 5o% is never mentioned.

  174. notafan

    Are you suggesting we cull the over 70s?

    No

    but we need to be see that the age pension as it stands is unsustainable

    I don’t know how much our current high levels of adult immigration is going to affect age pension liabilities in the future

    I am assuming it will make things even worse though

    pushing it out to 70 to force people to live off their super for a least a few years was met by so many howls the government left the new age limit -still a future number-at 67

  175. C.L.

    that is a long long time on a pension

    And it’s a long long time to superannuate yourself for in an economy where lifetime employment no longer exists.

    This is truly a stupid post. Start with an extreme example – pensioners worth $60,000,000 (of which there are about five, probably none, in the country) – throw in James Packer and the word “babyboomers” and dismiss elderly people as “parasites” because they don’t want to sell their home and live in body corporate-controlled sixpacks with a bunch of deadbeats and not be able to make any alterations for disability, safety and frailty.

  176. notafan

    As for pollies

    it is a red herring

    pollie pensions are a drop in the ocean in comparison

  177. I have spent several fortunes on booze, tobacco, fast cars, and women.
    The rest of it I just squandered*.

    Given that I have worked towards shortening my life (at my own expense), the state should incentivize others to do the same, hence saving billions in pension payments.

    *who said that?

  178. notafan

    And it’s a long long time to superannuate yourself for in an economy where lifetime employment no longer exists.

    and I don’t expect everyone to do so

    I do expect that people not blow their super on renovations a Winnebago and twenty cruises

    which is why it makes some sense to push out the age pension age to 70

    those that are transitioning from netstart and dsp would obviously stay on their existing benefits

    and yes DL’s post regarding the millionaires was rabble rousing

    end the immigration ponzi and see that million dollar orange brick veneers turn back into $500,00 three bedroom one bath and a carport mansions

  179. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    *who said that?

    George Best, the English football player.

  180. stackja

    Notafan – I believe, until recently, few had super, except public servants.

  181. bespoke

    libertarian riding on the envy train This why I don’t identify as libertarian or conservative both are led by hucksters.

  182. Youngster

    Lots of posters here banging on about politicians’ cushy pensions. They are all but extinct. Any federal pollie elected from 2004 onwards gets super contributions like any other public servant. There are a handful of MPs still grandfathered onto the old scheme, but they are almost all out of the Parliament.

  183. struth

    Notafan, can you please point to where I said the taxation introduced way PAYG income tax?

    If you don’t think Australians one and all, right or wrong, didn’t expect a Pension in socialist Australia right up until about Gen X (I hate using those titles) you are being completely disingenuous , dishonest and Ahistoric.
    And seeing government has none of it’s own money, it paid for it from the taxes of those previous generations (non and PAYG) taxation who are now receiving it.
    All I am saying is that if you are envious because they have a home they paid off and are getting the money they expected from the government, and entitled (via political promise and democracy), I can’t help you, but maybe on one of your many visits to church you can find it in your soul to look at what envy is doing to you, instead of whether Mrs Perrywinkle has arranged the flowers correctly. MEEEEEEOOOOOOWW!

    Basic Struth Points.
    Homes are not worth what they are valued at, and the bubble is going to burst.
    They are just prolonging it with the population Ponzi scheme, desperate for it not to happen to their artificially way overpriced housing thanks to land restriction, government red and green tape and taxation.

    Most of those pensioners sitting in 80 ooo dollar homes may be told that the home they paid off is now worth 600, ooo but it isn’t, and won’t be soon again.

    They didn’t buy into artificially high real estate and it isn’t their fault it is artificially high.
    That generation would not have been that fucking stupid.

    Let’s grandfather the pension away and not start getting oldies moving from their local doctor and hospital, from their lifelong memories, of rooms their children grew up in, into a dog box flat so the entitled younger generation can take over what they left behind like Nazis and Jooooish homes.
    The younger generations are supporting the socialism they find now hurting them in the housing market.

    Boo fucking hoo.
    It’s easier for the young to move out to regional centres, where there is limited medical attention, (than the elderly), buy a cheap home, maybe do it up and sell it to try to get into the city market but out here we require people with skills and a work ethic.
    So that fucks that then, as I said last night.
    How fucking entitled are the attitudes toward the people who are actually entitled to a pension?

    It’s the unchristian attitude, Notafan, that is part of the reason they need to stay right where they are.
    Once they are gone, we’ll rid ourselves of the pension.

    But guess what………by then, those screaming about it now will be the ones demanding it.

  184. FelixKruell

    Mother load:

    I would not be so defensive of the old dears if the requirement to fund your own retirement was set out to them when they started out. But instead they were told they would receive an income.

    They still can receive an income. After they’ve used some of their own resources first. I’m fairly sure no one was promised an un-means tested pension.

    And, more to the point, the current pensioners will also have started out at the lower end of the market working their way up to what they later got.

    Yep, and now they can work their way back down to fund their retirement. What’s good the goose and all…

  185. struth

    Although I don’t agree with pensions in a just world, of course they’re affordable.
    Take out the wealth of this nation going to just the aboriginal industry and cull half the bloody public service and of course they are affordable.
    I still don’t agree with pensions however, demanding they of all people in this country, previous wealth creators who put in to a socialist scheme instead of looking at other expenses……no one in the aboriginal parasitic industry has put one cent toward what they receive,…. shows how easy those fall for cultural Marxism narratives when they don’t keep envy in check.

  186. struth

    There is a generation still alive that had half or more of their working life done before the introduction of super and do not have enough super to see them out.
    Some doing it tough in their own small businesses could not afford to fund their own super using every cent to keep themselves afloat.
    There are many different scenarios and to collectively judge is another left wing trait.
    I Believe we should just grandfather it out.
    All I’m saying, and in the meantime save a billion just by closing the ABC.
    Save a third of all GDP by stopping the aboriginal national rorting, and halve the public service before showing your envy at the bullshit price of a home claimed by bull shitters eager to get their hands on the property their votes made too expensive for them.

  187. Alex Davidson

    C.L. #3217409

    This is a truly stupid post.

    Also somewhat bizarre coming from a writer and blog that both claim to be on the libertarian side of politics.

    The age pension, along with other forms of state ‘welfare’, is the result of using force to achieve ends. Not only does this violate the sanctity of property, it also creates perverse incentives and sends out completely the wrong message about what is acceptable behaviour. The result is a double standard: one where citizens are rightly restricted from obtaining wealth by force, but where government engages in exactly that behaviour with increasing rapaciousness.

    That is the fundamental issue we should be talking about on a libertarian blog. Are we aiming for a society where might makes right, or where exchanges are voluntary and we are free of oppression?

    Let’s be clear: pensions are funded through an activity that would be called stealing if you or I engaged in it. Calling it taxation does not make it right at all. Instead of debating who should and should not be eligible for a handout only made possible through theft, we should be united in calling for closing down the so-called ‘welfare’ state.

  188. bespoke

    Although I don’t agree with pensions in a just world

    That’s an Ideal world, struth but people aren’t created with the same abilitys. Plus sometimes shit happens.

    Alex Davidson
    👍

  189. struth

    They still can receive an income. After they’ve used some of their own resources first. I’m fairly sure no one was promised an un-means tested pension.

    No.
    They paid for an eighty thousand dollar home and paid it off.
    It’s still only worth that no matter what the greedy arseholes trying to get their homes by any means declare .

    If you ask my local council my house is worth a fortune and going up in value all the time so they can increase rates…………… and moving involves things like stamp duty.
    So there are plenty of pensioners living in artificially inflated homes that could not afford to move and shouldn’t have to.
    Physically moving in many cases would kill many of them.
    But we get this lack of respect and understanding from the left wing of Australia, who are consumed with gaining wealth and power.
    They just don’t think as superior beings they should work for it.
    Nowhere other than where there are no medical services would be cheap enough,
    Most live close to families who visit and in many cases help keep them out of hospital and taxpayer funded aged care longer.
    Besides the fact they aren’t part of this Australia of property charlatans.
    They bought a house at a reasonable price, paid their taxes and expected and paid for a Pension.
    That the government spent it on crap isn’t their fault.

    You speak with the ignorance of youth, and understand nothing of the physical disability of age.
    And you show no respect for the elderly.
    How very Hitler youth.
    Those generations, though democracy, set up a socialist pension that they paid into

    Of all the non taxed unions, massive corruption in our Massive public service , the aboriginal expense, the foreign aid, the money to the Clintons, the ABC and SBS and on and on it goes, down to taking helicopters to party fund raisers we do this to our pensioners?
    Really?
    Let’s stop being part of the envy of the left and refuse to join a cultural Marxist Narrative, and grandfather it.
    All I’m saying on it.

  190. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    It’s still only worth that no matter what the greedy arseholes trying to get their homes by any means declare

    They can sell it in a free market tomorrow for $1m. It’s worth that, not what they paid. That’s how things work in a market economy. They can sell it without paying a cent of tax and live like kings in their retirement. Or they can simply downsize and live a good life in retirement.

    They bought a house at a reasonable price, paid their taxes and expected and paid for a Pension.
    That the government spent it on crap isn’t their fault.

    They didn’t pay for a pension. If they did, their tax rates would have been waaay higher. Besides, we give the pension to people regardless of whether they’ve worked a day in their lives.

    You still haven’t produced evidence of this promise apparently given about getting a pension if you pay tax…

  191. struth

    The answers to all you statements Felix have already been answered and your points rebuffed already.
    That you repeat questions and repeat statements is not our fault, but the answers are above you.

  192. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    You don’t answer my points. I had assumed you simply hadn’t comprehended them, hence asking again.

    For example, where was this promise about the pension? Link? Legislation? Anything?

  193. notafan

    They didn’t pay for a pension. If they did, their tax rates would have been waaay higher. Besides, we give the pension to people regardless of whether they’ve worked a day in their lives.

    And we don’t give it to wealthy people, who presumably paid the most taxes during their working lives

    Australia has always had a mixture of income and assets tests for age pension entitlements -except very briefly for over 70s under Whitlam

    nothing says not an entitlement like income and assets tests

  194. notafan

    Notafan, can you please point to where I said the taxation introduced way PAYG income tax?

    no you talked about Deakin,
    which was bizarre

    at the time of Federation th at the time of federation taxes were low and (mostly) indirect and there was no welfare state, no child endowment no widows pension
    there was an age pension that was previously administrated by individual states but it was for the poorest of the poor and considered shameful to have to accept

    it was subject to income and assets tests included imputed rent from owner occupied property

  195. notafan

    The Commonwealth of Australia was formed on I January 1901 by federation of the six States under a written constitution which, among other things, authorised the new Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in respect of age and invalid pensions. In the event, the Commonwealth did not exercise this power until June 1908 when legislation providing for the introduction of means-tested ‘flat-rate’ age and invalid pensions was passed. The new pensions, which were financed from general revenue, came into operation in July 1909 and December 1910 respectively, superseding State age pension schemes which had been introduced in New South Wales (1900), Victoria (1900) and Queensland (1908) and an invalid pension scheme introduced in New South Wales (1908).

    The new pension was paid to men from age 65. It was paid to women at age 60, but not until December 1910. The age pension was also subject to a residence qualification of 25 years which was reduced to 20 years shortly after introduction. A residence qualification of five years applied to the invalid pension.

    A major change took place in the pension means test in 1961. The separate property and income tests, which previously had formed the means test, were combined into a composite whole called the merged means test under which means were calculated by adding personal earnings to 10 per cent of the value of property.

    No -one of adult age in 1961 could possibly have thought the age pension was a universal entitlement

    The pension means test has undergone several significant changes since 1970. It was abolished for pensioners aged 75 and over in 1973 and for pensioners aged 70 and over in 1975. The means test was replaced by an income test in 1976. In 1978 the rate of the free- of-income-test age pension for those aged 70 years and over was frozen. In 1983 this frozen rate became subject to a special income test which will eventually be overtaken by the normal income test.

    An assets test on pensions was introduced in 1985. It operates alongside the income test. Assets test limits are increased in line with price movements.

    I have no doubt the sense of entitlement stems from the Whitlam era abolish of the means test for over 70s

    was Hawke that brought back in the assets test because of people arranging their affairs to minimise income to obtain an age pension

    HISTORY OF PENSIONS AND OTHER BENEFITS IN AUSTRALIA

  196. struth

    Notafan, you’re getting like Felix.

    Those receiving a pension are obviously entitled to it.
    Are you suggesting the government is handing out Pensions to those who are over the threshold?

    Now in recent years, by artificial means, by government action, the prices of houses have exploded and will implode again.
    Why should people have their lives ruined in their twilight years the insanity of house prices caused by government.
    I’m sure you will see that will be the case, and once more an 80 k home will be that again or lower.
    If you were below the line and eligible for the pension but then I proclaimed your rosary beads were now worth a million dollars and cut you off, would you think that was ridiculous.
    Your only string of Rosary beads was your dead mothers…….
    Other than that, not having a cent to your name, should you sell your Rosary beads to support yourself, knowing they will soon be worth nothing again, and pay thousands in stamp duty to buy another string made in China?
    Or should you just be left alone?
    And by the way, those on the pension these days do come from the heavy socialist days of Whitlam.
    People who started work in 1985 have not retired yet, and should expect an assets test,………………….grandfathering is all I’m suggesting, you cruel , heartless, envious woman.
    Won’t you think of the old people?

  197. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    The evidence please, as you then base all other assumptions as if there is any.

  198. yarpos

    Can you get a sillier red herring than the $60 mill apartment? how about coming back to the real world David. Spending money like water to qualify for the princely pension seems gross stupidity unless you were already on the margin and the few thosuand a year would make a difference. The is probably a rational case for some adjustment/tuning buried in there but its not well supported by exaggeration and cherry picking.

  199. Deplorable

    ps there is barely a person alive today who was paying taxes in 1945

    That is because most able bodied men and women were involved ed in the defence of this country with many many thousands killed or maimed. The children of the damaged were pushed to lowest levels of education and were forced to leave school to support their family, not all but mostly. The government was happy for the canon fodder but not happy to support the broken families that resulted. Pay up now you selfish bastards whose freedoms and financial security were paid for in blood and dysfunction to generations .

  200. struth

    It’s been explained above, read it.
    I haven’t even received my first slab yet.
    I’m not doing your study for you, Felix.
    Now read above and be quiet, the adults are talking here.

  201. Mater

    I’m not doing your study for you, Felix.

    Struth,
    I’m hoping this might help.
    This thread is just a repeat of one in 2015, and MV put up some info around the legislation back then. As it will be today, the relevance of the legislation was hotly debated back then, also.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/02/21/grab-for-pension-is-not-helping/#comment-1610160

    Just for information.

  202. RobK

    push out the age pension age to 70
    I knew a bloke who shore his own sheep into his eighties. Why not make it 90 and save even more.
    How many 70yr old brickies or slaughter man, plumbers or electricians do you know?

  203. Rebel with cause

    Just leave it as it is. This is a distraction from the genuine economic reform Australia is in dire need of.

    However I can almost guarantee this change will be implemented by a future Government with a nice grandfathering clause to ensure boomers aren’t affected.

  204. notafan

    Do you read what people wrote struth?

    You moved the goalposts struth -we were talking about a sense of entitlement that drove people to rearrange their finances to access the pension

    twice on this thread I have stated that one million for a triple fronted three bedroom weatherboard on 600 square metres is an inflated value outside the control of the owner who should not be forced to sell

    though many of the sensible ones do when they are young enough to enjoy the proceeds

    what I have over and over is that the pension is not an ‘entitlement’ and that people claiming that it is so are wrong

    I also said that there is an industry out there dedicated to maximizing access to the pension, which is a burgeoning, unsustainable impost on existing and future taxpayers

    Also anyone already working in 1985 should expect an assets test and should have (at least) 26 years of super, many private employers had super schemes before they were compulsory

    Rosary beads?

    Is that some sort of stupid anti Catholic slur?

    the government doesn’t declare what houses are worth btw the market does

    That is why we know there are so many houses now worth over one million because every weekend they go for that and more at auction
    eg last weekend double fronted a few kms from me daggy late seventies on small block
    SOLD – $1,055,000

  205. Gilas

    Fred
    #3216970, posted on November 20, 2019 at 9:18 pm

    I’m doing the tax return of a doctor at the moment.
    He’s paid by the NSW government.
    How much did het get paid last year? Just a cool $4 million. No wonder taxes are so high.

    Solid diamond bollocks on stilts! Fred, learn your facts before confirming your ignorance.

    The most a Senior Staff Specialist in the NSW Health system (HS) is paid by the State is just over $300k p.a.
    There are 5 levels of employment, so-called Levels 1 (fully paid by the HS) to 5 (with large fractional private practice component).
    Non-procedural specialists will tend to be Lvl 1. Surgeons, radiologists and pathologist gravitate towards Lvl 5, because they could make a lot of money privately, and the HS needs them…. real.. bad.
    Depending on the doctor’s private practice arrangement within the HS. Anything above $300k p.a. comes from the doctor’s own private practice account – usually called Practice Account A (or some such), kept by the HS and plundered by the bureucrats within it.
    Apart from personal income, up to a total of $450k or so per annum at Lvl 5, doctors will use money from this A account for training/conference leave and similar award entitlements. The rest is used to fund Levels 1-3 doctors’ training entitlements etc.. A lot of unused funds then return to the HS.

    The docs Fred refers to are the specialist surgeons; neuro, ortho, uro etc.. who may work only part-time in the public system, making a motza privately ($10-20k daily).
    They do so through the MBS Medicare system, federally funded and established by that great capitalist St. Gough back in the 70s.
    Blame the moronic Ozzie sheeples for voting for this system for the last half-century, don’t blame the doctors.
    Democracy, good and hard!

  206. notafan

    How many 70yr old brickies or slaughter man, plumbers or electricians do you know?

    most people aren’ brickies slaughtermen plumbers or electricians
    but nevertheless
    Tradies make good money and should be able to self fund their retirement, until they get to 70

    the idea that raising the age pension age forced people to continue working is a red herring

    no, we just expect them to self fund their retirement, at least for a few years

    it is not as if they have had no warning about this for the last thirty odd years

  207. notafan

    MV’s contention then and now is a word of fiction

    Not supported by any credible source

  208. notafan

    Unfortunately, a lot of the people filling out tax returns in the 1960’s and early 70’s when they were titled “Income Tax and Compulsory Contributions Scheme Return Form for the Financial Year 19xx” haven’t yet “disappeared into the obscurity of history”.

    Like I said

    a work of fiction

  209. notafan

    Trove has dozens of articles on the ‘National Welfare Fund’ dating back to the 1940s and 1950s which kill this 1986 fantasy stone dead

    and as repeated so often

    the fact that the age pension (with the brief Whitlam exception) has always been ‘means’ tested makes it an obvious fiction

  210. notafan

    Appropriation for purposes of National Welfare Fund.

    “5. There is payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly, for the purposes of the National Welfare Fund, in each financial year, an amount equal to the amount of moneys paid out of the National Welfare Fund in that financial year.”.

    the 1952 bill

  211. notafan

    So when Chifley announced that they would increase income taxes on rich and poor alike, they also announced a “National Welfare Fund” alongside it.

    This National Welfare Fund would fund welfare measures like pensions, unemployment relief, child endowments, even health care. The fund is often seen as the launch of Australia’s welfare state.

    Unlike a contributory scheme, the fund would be financed by the new income tax increases. But there were two tricks.

    First, Chifley said the revenue from the tax increase was specially earmarked for the National Welfare Fund. Thus Labor wasn’t breaking its promise not to increase the burden on low income earners – they would be getting social security for their money. (Think of the fund like our Medicare Levy today.)

    And second, most of the great new social services weren’t to start until after the war. Cabinet agreed that only £5 million of the estimated £40 raised would be directed towards immediate social spending. Money is fungible. The rest could quietly be used for the war effort.

    The Menzies government folded the National Welfare Fund money into general revenue a few years later. (It is good budget practice not to hypothecate specific revenues to specific programs). But the fund remained in name until the 1980s.

    The social contract has always been a complex mish-mash of popular mythologies about what the state owes to the citizen. We are still living with the political consequences of Chifley’s clever little political ploy.

    His scheme made it seem like the Australian tax system was a quasi-contributory and fully-funded insurance program….

    One former Department of Social Security employee summed up this belief well in Green Left Weekly: “In the late ’60s and early ’70s, many applying for the pension would say, ‘I’m only getting back the money I paid into the National Welfare Fund’.”

    Chifley’s time bomb 70 years in the making

  212. struth

    I think I didn’t interfere there with good reason.
    You shot yourself in the foot there, Notafan, and I had to do nothing.
    Talk about contradictions!

  213. notafan

    What contradictions?

    Im not supported forcing people out of their homes

    I am suggesting that people be encouraged to live off their own super for longer

  214. struth

    the government doesn’t declare what houses are worth btw the market does

    How antagonistic are you , Notafan.

    Do you think I believe the government “declares” the price of houses, maybe via a town Cryer perhaps?

    If I sell you some Rosary Beads for a dollar but the government puts a grand sales tax on it, are they manipulating the market……………………………are they falsely inflating the cost?
    How will the market set the price then?

    Do I have to go through the step by step process for you to get that I’m using the word “declare” to get us to the obvious same point?
    Or are you being overtly tedious as usual.
    Yawn.

    Can we just leave the pensioners lucky, and who have worked to pay off, enough to have an 80 k house because that is what it really is worth.
    If you are an ordinary earner buying these massively overpriced homes, you need your arse kicked.

    If I saved up and lived in a two man tent and somebody came along and told me the tent is worth 600 k and so we’re taking the pension off you, it’s ludicrous.
    No different here.
    The house prices are insane and will not be sustained.
    This is not the cause of you average pensioner.
    The population Ponzi scheme isn’t doing a thing except growing government and welfare.

    Population of itself is not wealth creating.
    We know this.
    Freedom and risk takers and minimal government intervention can make Hong Kong rich while it’s once separated communist now “motherland” of billions starved prior to UN corruption.

    Can you see anyone fixing the heavy taxation, and oppressive regulatory environment in Australia while the government destroy power and industry?
    Slaves to the socialist UN.
    How about when the next lot of brainwashed come out of our re education system?

    Let the pensioners stay in their 80 k homes.
    They planned for a pension.
    Some had to take it and didn’t want to.
    Are all pensioners just lazy old bastards, Notafan?

    The idea of a pension for those under the threshold was taken for granted and successive Australian governments have made it hard for anyone to crack over it, and the few who did good luck to them, but that’s not everyone.
    Government has caused all of this.
    Not the pensioners themselves, and it needs to be withdawn slowly, Grand fathered.
    So Notafan, won’t you think of the Grandfathers and Nannas out there?
    Sniff…..

  215. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    The evidence please, as you then base all other assumptions as if there is any.

    Do try and hold yourself to your own standards…

  216. struth

    Struth:

    The evidence please, as you then base all other assumptions as if there is any.

    Do try and hold yourself to your own standards…

    I’m not being a smart arse young Felix.
    The answer is already posted.

    If you can’t find it soon I’ll give you a hint.

  217. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    The answer is already posted.

    Then it should be easy for you to answer the question I’ve now asked 3 times…

  218. Helen

    Australian Super’s Ian silk says ageing population is why super needs to increase to 12pc

    The head of the nation’s biggest superannuation fund has invoked Josh Frydenberg’s warning that the ageing population is an “economic time bomb” to press the case for lifting compulsory super to 12 per cent.

    Australian Super chief Ian Silk told the House economics committee on Thursday that the time bomb would explode if the superannuation system did not work in tandem with the pension system to provide Australians with a reasonable post-retirement income.

    Australia’s pension payments, he said, were equivalent to only 2.7 per cent of GDP, compared to an OECD average of 10 per cent.

    Industry Super chairman and former Labor minister Greg Combet said in August that higher super was a “promise of the Australian parliament to the Australian community”.

    Just like the pension was a promise?

  219. struth

    Are you looking for the contract paperwork like Felix?

    Seriously.

    A politician is voted in or out on his promises in a democracy, there’s your contract with the people, and like promises made today they should be honoured, however bad they are.

    There’s a start.

    I’m not doing more work for you, that’s 3 slabs.

    Why am I so good to you, you lazy fuck.

  220. JC

    Do try and hold yourself to your own standards…

    Lol. Felix Bobbsey, well I never…….

  221. Snoopy

    Australia’s pension payments, he said, were equivalent to only 2.7 per cent of GDP, compared to an OECD average of 10 per cent.

    Does the 2.7% include superannuation-sourced allocated pensions and annuities? I suspect not.

  222. Neil

    The head of the nation’s biggest superannuation fund has invoked Josh Frydenberg’s warning that the ageing population is an “economic time bomb” to press the case for lifting compulsory super to 12 per cent.

    Trouble is Super is not working because it does not take into account human nature. Lots of people are cashing in their Super, going on round the world trips, buying homes they could not normally afford and then going on the pension

    Under the current rules you can own your own home have $270K in the bank and still get a full pension.

    So if you have $500K in Super why not cash it in and buy a home $500K more expensive than you could normally afford and then get a full pension???

  223. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    A politician is voted in or out on his promises in a democracy, there’s your contract with the people, and like promises made today they should be honoured, however bad they are.

    Where’s the promise? It’s a simple question…

  224. Leigh Lowe

    Classic Alberscreechy-Koukonomics or Green scare campaign tactics.
    Pick on an extreme example (of which there are approximately zero in the real world) then blithely extrapolate that to capture a whole bunch of others who are in no way typical of the “Packer example”.
    Tell me this smartarse … how does Packer pay municipal rates and body corporate on a $60 meg property for more than a few years without g0ing bust?
    There are thousands of people (who often started out as penniless migrants) living in inner city properties that they can barely maintain or pay their rates on. Sure they could be worth $1.5 meg to $2 meg, but selling up and buying something that will satisfy Tim-Tam Dave would involve moving to outer suburbs or rural areas away from family, friends and at a time when they probably need big city medical care.
    Get back to me when you want to change the existing defined benefit pension rules for Commonwealth public servants.

  225. Tel

    Are you looking for the contract paperwork like Felix?

    Seriously.

    Something that looks a bit like a quid pro quo … or anything for that matter. You haven’t offered much.

    A politician is voted in or out on his promises in a democracy, there’s your contract with the people, and like promises made today they should be honoured, however bad they are.

    https://electionspeeches.moadoph.gov.au/speeches/1903-alfred-deakin

    As it happens those election campaign speeches are documented, and easily available for free … amazing huh? Here’s the bit about pensions:

    A Federal Old-age Pensions Bill will have to wait till the financial restraints of the constitution have been removed. The experience of the states will then have taught the Commonwealth what to provide, and what to avoid. Such a bill will impose no new expenditure on the people, but will simply transfer the state expenditure to one federal system. It will be undertaken as soon as our finances are free.

    He explains they can’t fund it, but he does not offer anything that might be a “deal” or even a “promise” other than the intention to enact a pension. It isn’t a major part of the speech.

  226. Leigh Lowe

    Under the current rules you can own your own home have $270K in the bank and still get a full pension.
    So if you have $500K in Super why not cash it in and buy a home $500K more expensive than you could normally afford and then get a full pension???

    Well, that would be simple.
    You could create “up-sizing” rules on the family home, but still exempt those who stay in the home they have been in for 10, 20 or 30 years, allowing them to swap into more suitable property for the same price.
    Your point about the $500k super being partially burnt to qualify for the full pension is valid. That is the high risk cohort for irrational behaviour (those with between $300 k and $500 k in super). Those with $2 meg to $3 meg aren’t going to behave that way – why burn $1.7 meg of a $2.0 meg super fund to get the OAP?
    However, it is usually these high value funds which are the target of this sort of rhetoric when the problem lies with the funds marginally above the OAP assets threshold.

  227. Snoopy

    What about Newstart? Found yourself unemployed after Super preservation age but before pension age? FFS do not convert your super accumulation to a pension account. Go on Newstart and take out a lump sum from your accumulation account whenever you feel the need to blow some serious dosh.

    No worries.

  228. Tel

    Go on Newstart and take out a lump sum from your accumulation account whenever you feel the need to blow some serious dosh.

    I was thinking along the lines that lump sums won’t be available. Dunno about what the others are suggesting.

  229. Snoopy

    Modest user pays charges on water instantly turned Brisbane from green to brown.

    User pays charges (ie income tax) levied on Super withdrawals will cut spending and cause super balances to last longer. Super contributions and earnings must be untaxed to compensate.

  230. RobK

    when the problem lies with the funds marginally above the OAP assets threshold.
    Correct. Especially when the other fringe benefits are considered, there’s a pull to come in even only just below the upper threshold.

  231. Tel

    struth #3217621,

    I’m aware of MV’s National Welfare Fund, which came in later than the original “old age pension” scheme, and which happened to be declared unconstitutional in Australia. They needed to do a dodgy end-run in order to push through Super fund legislation to get that past the constitutional part. If you ever write a constitution I suggest an additional clause like, “All end-runs are expressly illegal. If you can find a way to get the effect of subverting this document by alternative means, that’s also illegal.”

    Anyhow the National Welfare Fund was formally repealed (already discussed on the Cat).

    https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A03063

    The fund has always been dodgy, and never properly supported. It might have been bullshit from day one, but it sure as heck isn’t relevant today.

    Those pensions themselves were not repealed, merely the concept of a fund.

    Yes I understand that it’s been a creeping thing were more and more pensions were added over time. Vote buying of course, but hardly a “deal”.

  232. Tel

    It was actually called the “Social Service Contribution’ and the language seems to have remained on the tax return form until 1952 then disappeared

    It was unconstitutional … the Commonwealth may only keep one single fund which is “General Revenue” and no Parliament may bind the hands of a future Parliament in terms of allocating money to a particular purpose.

  233. Neil

    Your point about the $500k super being partially burnt to qualify for the full pension is valid. That is the high risk cohort for irrational behaviour (those with between $300 k and $500 k in super). Those with $2 meg to $3 meg aren’t going to behave that way – why burn $1.7 meg of a $2.0 meg super fund to get the OAP?

    I suspect a large % of people are cashing in their Super spending it and then go on the pension. Why have $600K in Super and then not get a pension? It should be made to be taken as an annuity or something like that.

    But I suspect most ALP policies fail because they do not take into account human nature. labor works on the assumption that people are basically good.

  234. BorisG

    Why would you spend your savings on expensive holidays and then live on small age pension? Unless you stashed your cash somewhere but it would be a crime, won’t it?

  235. Neil

    You mean why would you spend your Super on expensive holidays and perhaps a nicer house? Why not?

  236. struth

    And here when we see the grizzles of those who don’t like what they believe pension recipients are doing….blame the recipients.
    I’ll try again but it’s getting hard.

    Government brings in socialist welfare system.
    Taxes people extra to pay for it.
    People who have paid into socialist scheme want to be recipients of socialist scheme they paid into.
    Socialist government blows tax money on pixie dust and unicorn farts.
    Socialist government complains paying back money from socialist scheme too costly and blames those who paid into scheme for being greedy

  237. struth

    Socialist government artificially inflates house prices and then points finger at those it is supposed to pay from socialist scheme as being asset rich and should not get money back from socialist scheme.

  238. struth

    Commenters on Catalllaxy let socialist government off hook and join socialist government in denouncing those who want their return on investment in socialism.
    Yet Ignore socialist government waste elsewhere.
    Struth says yes it is a big mess but lets look at overall socialist government waste and grandfather the scheme out as people who have expected to be paid back from ssocialism and have made lifelong financial and entire budget and lifestyle decisions based on it are still alive.

Comments are closed.