The WEAL railroad

[Lemon]

Eventually, yes, all assets will come into consideration. It seems to me to be inequitable to pay the same benefit to someone who has to pay 30%+ on housing out of it and to some one who, largely, does not.
However, it is political suicide to significantly interfere with benefits the largest(?) and fastest growing voting demographic believe are rightfully theirs.
So it will take a long time and perhaps some significant dissonance to spark the will and support to change it.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Agree but I think the 'Change is gonna come' sooner rather than later, unless we keep in surplus then these things will be filed in the too hard basket.

 

[goomboogo]

Agree but I think the 'Change is gonna come' sooner rather than later, unless we keep in surplus then these things will be filed in the too hard basket.

But the surplus is irrelevant to a discussion about whether a person's residence should or shouldn't be included in an asset test for the aged pension. Politicians talking about fiscal surplus in these terms indicates they have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

May seem irrelevant but both parties know that there are holes that need plugging, while there is some brighter news on the horizon then a tighter fiscal policy gets under the radar, labor wants the homes added to the means test and so will the coalition if they want to rein in the debt by cutting government spending.

 

[goomboogo]

The government could stop issuing bonds if they are concerned about misconceptions regarding so-called government debt. That would be one way to address the issue of corporate welfare which is out of control.

 

[Bridges]

So someone that has lived in their house since 19dickety2 is forced to sell it, then move to a crap suburb away from friends and family because the market dictated their house they paid 3000 pounds for back in the day is now worth a squillion? Political suicide. One private residence shouldn't be counted in any means test for the pension. Why is it always pensioners and welfare recipients of any sort that are the first to get the finger pointed at them when belts need tightening? Why not our pollies. Like Joe "the age of entitlement is over" Hockey. I bet he feels entitled to all the perks he's currently enjoying. The prick double dipped for years whilst telling us how we have to do our bit. Why not the Rhineharts and Packers. I ******* hate that it's always the people at the bottom that are expected to suffer for those at the top.

 

[manticle]

Cos it's easy to pick on those with no power.

Again and again and again.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

So someone that has lived in their house since 19dickety2 is forced to sell it, then move to a crap suburb away from friends and family because the market dictated their house they paid 3000 pounds for back in the day is now worth a squillion? Political suicide. One private residence shouldn't be counted in any means test for the pension. Why is it always pensioners and welfare recipients of any sort that are the first to get the finger pointed at them when belts need tightening? Why not our pollies. Like Joe "the age of entitlement is over" Hockey. I bet he feels entitled to all the perks he's currently enjoying. The prick double dipped for years whilst telling us how we have to do our bit. Why not the Rhineharts and Packers. I ******* hate that it's always the people at the bottom that are expected to suffer for those at the top.

Not a very socialist attitude Bridges, somebody living in a 2-3 million dollar house drawing a pension? What about the rest of the deserving recipients of welfare, it isn't a bottomless money pit, houses included in the means test will and has to come into effect, what about the pensioners who don't even own a house and are having to pay rent as Lemon mentioned above.

 

[Airgead]

Trouble is of course, is that these days everyone lives in a million dollar house. It does you nogood at all unless you sell it but then you still have to live somewhere.

Retirement villages cost as much to buy into as a free standing house.

Doesn't matter how much your house costs in absolute terms... It's relative value is still one house.

That's why the primary residence has historically been exempt from asset tests. The only way you can realise the value of that asset is to become homeless...

Yes you can point to someone living in a 20 room Pt Piper mansion as an example of inequity but where do you set the threshold? At 1M? That would catch most home owners in capital cities. 5m? 10m? By the time I retire, my little weatherboard place in Hornsby may well be worth 10m.

Do you set a threshold then index it? But at what rate? Inflation? Property values have been outstripping inflation for decades. One rate for the whole country or diferent indexation for diferent cities? That gets complex and looks unfair. Why is a Sydney's idea allowed 5M when someone from Taree is only allowed 1m?

What about primary producers? Their principle residence is usually their farm which could well be worth a mint for land value. They tend to be very asset rich but cash poor. Should they not get the pension? Or have to sell the farm? But then, where would they live?

Its a tricky topic this one...

 

[wide eyed and legless]

By the time I retire I would think age pensions will be designated to history, so the means test will not apply, as for the government saying that home ownership does not come into the equation well it has already come into play. A home owner, can have assets of $250,000, a none home owner can have assets of $450,000. So $200,000 less if you own your own home.

 

[WarmerBeer]

...A home owner, can have assets of $250,000, a none home owner can have assets of $450,000. So $200,000 less if you own your own home.

Yup, all those $200,000 homes out there on the market.

 

[manticle]

Plenty down here........I mean yeah

 

[Lemon]

The primary issue I see is that all these systems and processes are devised by politicians and bureaucrats who are so far removed and insulated from reality that they are barking up the wrong tree.

Eg. So I don't own my residence but I have $200k in investments more than someone who does? Does that ring true?

I doubt that a means test on the value of the residence is workable. More like a light switch, own a residence? Don't own one?

The only palatable way that a difference between" the haves and have nots" could be worked I would think is by the application of an additional housing allowance.
But, this is spending more money, not less.
Unless you use the bureaucrats favourite, "give with one hand and take away with the other".

I could go on and on. There is no political will to make any decision that could impact electability. In anyone in politics.

Sadly
Lemon

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Another issue to consider is the one put forward by Smoking Joe, how on earth are we going to evaluate the property value of each pensioner, but it will be done.

 

[goomboogo]

By the time I retire I would think age pensions will be designated to history,

I am willing to wager my house that you are wrong about this. And I have no idea how long it is before you retire. The reality of how our financial system operates and the government's role in that system would hit home long before any politician could get anywhere near suggesting the abolition of the aged pension.

 

[LAGERFRENZY]

Ease off the likes of my 94 year old mum and asset-test these fuckers then you might get to surplus bit sooner:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/retiring-federal-politicians-will-get-sixfigure-pensions-for-life-20160303-gna6c1.html

Quicker still if you make companies such as Google pay any tax at all.

 

[GalBrew]

Yeah, so my 92 year old grandparents should sell their house they bought new nearly 50 years ago (in the middle of nowhere at the time) and move away from their entire lives and support networks to keep the pension because the value of their house shot up due to Chinese interest in a particular local high school?? Yeah, that's real fair.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

I doubt very much it would come to having to sell the family home, Scott Morrison has said that there is a broader based asset test on the governments agenda, I think that homeowners who own a home at whatever the bench mark value will be or above would be encouraged to take out a reverse mortgage on that substantial equity, not pull up stumps and move. That way it would see a significant rise in pensions for the more needy.
The only other option would be to increase taxes to keep wealthy recipients drawing a pension, and the ones not so well off living hand to mouth, I applaud those who have done well and made a few dollars but at the end of the day we can't take it with us.

 

[LAGERFRENZY]

Interesting article for those who don't mind a few facts getting in the way of an argument:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-arrogant-politicians-should-be-ready-for-a-pensioners-revolt/news-story/4d1511dbf579d8e58261d1fa4d328be5

 

[LAGERFRENZY]

The above link does not appear to be working so I have typed out the article on the grossly mismanaged history of our aged pension scheme should anyone be interested.

View attachment Arrogant Politicians.pdf