If you were PM.

[alicudi]

Hi

Whilst a touchy subject I would like to see aged pensioners who have nothing else but their $1million home be forced to sell these houses and buy something at half the price or even cheaper and live off the remainder during retirement.

If an aged pensioner is self-sustainable financially well they should be advised to live in a home that is more in-tune with their life taking into consideration living costs. Whilst it is drastic to advise or make aged people shift to areas further out and further away from everyone, it is better to do this and let them develop an aged community which will then let the younger people who need to live closer to larger employment areas such as cbd's to be able to live and work in those areas inner areas which also saved a lot of travelling time and the environment.

As Australia's demographic changes to an older aged population in the next 20 to 30 years I would like the government to introduce further sustainable measures that reduce the burden and costs on the government coffers/tax payers that aged pensioners currently place on us all.

I would also like some other smart measures to be slowly implemented to reduce the aged pension with it eventually been phased out.

The aged pension is holding Australia back and I hope I don't have to rely on it. But one thing is for certain, if I can sell my ppor and live off 50% to 60% of its value and buy a cheaper home elsewhere I will do it instead of placing a burden on our economy.

Regards,

alicudi

 

[hobo-jo]

So how is that different if I want to upgrade my farm or business?

Intent.

Type of use.

You can claim the costs of your farm or business against the income.

How come you can buy a vehicle for your farm and claim it as a cost, but I can't do the same with my personal use motorbike against my income?

 

[topcropper]

Intent.

Type of use.

You can claim the costs of your farm or business against the income.

How come you can buy a vehicle for your farm and claim it as a cost, but I can't do the same with my personal use motorbike against my income?

Yep, you might have me there.


See ya's.

 

[devank]

1. Amalgamate councils and then remove states.
2. Change the term of the national government to 6 years.
3. Bring tougher laws on crime
4. Increase the military capacity but use them more domestically to support police.
5. Instead of importing, increase skill immigration in those areas.
6. Remove stamp duty - This stops people from relocating.
7. Give the budget/gov spending to an independent body consists of specialists in this area.
8. Lower income tax rates & abolish all other taxes. Increase GST & remove exemptions and concessions.

 

[alicudi]

6. Remove stamp duty - This stops people from relocating.

Hi

How does removing stamp duty stop people from relocating??

Regards,

alicudi

 

[Perp]

How does removing stamp duty stop people from relocating??

The existence of stamp duty discourages people from relocating.

Removing it allows people to be more mobile, and is a good thing.

 

[D.T.]

Hi

How does removing stamp duty stop people from relocating??

Regards,

alicudi

Because it adds to the transaction cost of buying in another area?

 

[hugh72]

Abolish state governments totally, they a unnecessary duplication of the Federal government. Local services could be supplemented by councils, currently no one is accountable for anything and there are huge inefficiencies in government.
The savings would return the budget to surplus immediately.

 

[BayView]

I vehemently disagree. Why should somebody with $2M investments and no PPOR miss out on a pension, and somebody with a $2M PPOR and no investments qualify? That encourages people to over-invest in their PPORs rather than other asset classes.

possible, but does anyone know of anyone with no PPoR and $2m in investments at retirement.

It could encourage folks to over-invest in their PPoR, but why would they? There is no incentive to do that, other than to sell it on retirement to access the equity.

If so, then good luck to them, and they wouldn't need a full pension and can be assessed accordingly. But I'm talking about the vast majority of folks who have merely bought a house as a young couple, and have lived in it forever, and wish to continue doing that while they are still upright...I don't think that is an unreasonable request.

If they want to stay put, they can reverse mortgage it.

yes, they can - but I believe that should be a choice; not forced upon them. Theses folks - like you and I - have worked all their lives and contributed, and deserve a bit of a reward...incidentally; they are no doubt copping it up the blurter through their Council rates, so even more reason to ease up on them.

Or I'd even support the government paying them on a pension on the proviso that it's to be repaid from the proceeds of sale of the home once they pass. [Edit: ha ha, hadn't refreshed and seen hobo-jo's post. Clearly we're both brilliant.]

Yes; I reckon this is a decent idea.

But being able to keep a $2M asset to pass on to their children, whilst the people with $2M in investments have to erode their equity to live on, strikes me as profoundly unfair.

As above; it would be rare that someone with $2mill in investments at retirement would not have a similar level PPoR or perhaps a $mill or so PPoR.

An investment is a different thing; it is something of value that can be sold to provide income, or may have income attached to it, whilst the PPoR is their roof over their head. It is not their fault they paid $100 pounds for it back in 1957 and now it would feed a third world Country for a year.

What about the pensioner who lives in car-wreck-front-yardville in a PPoR worth $400k? Do they get the full monty while the pensioner with the expensive house gets penalised because their house got lucky?

For example; two x single income families; both Dads are linesman for their respective Councils. Both couples are married in 1957, and have been living with Mum and Dad up to this point, saving like crazy for their own home

After getting married one couple decides to buy in that brand new you-beaut estate out at Noble Park, the other decides to buy a more rundown house that needed work, in Box Hill.

Similar cost to buy at the time, but one couple thought the new house in the newer more exciting suburb to be was more attractive an option.

After 50 years, they are both still in the same houses, and plan to stay near their all their kids and grand kids live around them, and they don't want to move away.

They have both been hopeless with money, and will retire broke (as per many pensioners).

Today, Noble Park has gone to hell (it has in actual fact) - it literally is a disgrace.

Meanwhile, Box Hill has gone on leaps and bounds around couple no.2, and even the push-overs are worth more than a house in Noble Park.

 

[MIW]

Absolutely.

And on a similar note, why the hell are PPOR exempt from capital gains tax? It's a massive rort. I'd be in on it too I suppose if I lived in Sydney or Melbourne and was well off. Won't change though.

Can someone give a logical reason why a PPOR would be capital gains tax free, when just about anything else isn't? A huge home just sits there doing nothing. A business employs people and creates wealth. A farm grows food. On and on.


See ya's.

Yes, but businesses can offset capital gains against losses, right?

 

[MIW]

My answer is dramatic yet simple!
Stop or cut out ALL businesses expenses/deductions, eliminate all taxes but one and reduce that tax for ALL to 10%.Bureaucracy would be eliminated and all unnecessary or fraudulent taxes, foreign business attracted, and ALL pay equally, just 10%. Couldn't be any fairer on ALL, could it?
Do we have any actuaries here, can we do a calculation on that?

 

[BayView]

Can someone give a logical reason why a PPOR would be capital gains tax free, when just about anything else isn't? A huge home just sits there doing nothing. A business employs people and creates wealth. A farm grows food. On and on.
See ya's.

The PPoR is a dwelling to live in without any income generated.

The others are for business purposes for and contribute to generating income.

The Gubb also want folks to provide their own housing so (one of) the incentives is to not tax it.

They already make plenty out of everyone through Council rates.

 

[Ed Barton]

1. reduce super tax concessions for the wealthy. 40% of concessions go to the top 10%.
2. tax super on a sliding scale like income tax.
3. tighten means testing for hand outs to families
4. allow gay marriage.

oh and increase politicians pay and perks of course.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

I'd focus on developing proposals for some seriously large infrastructure projects that would actually help the country. I'd take submissions from a range of research groups and thinktanks for things like new rail networks, new ports, new dams, new renewable power sources, new large scale irrigation schemes, etc, and then I'd borrow about half a trillion bucks at less than 3% and kick off development of the biggest nation building program this place has ever seen.