Very well said (I tried to give kudos but need to spread it more first). The entitlement mentality is very pervasive, and like the 'reduce your tax by spending on anything' crowd, it doesn't make a lot of sense to pursue entitlements at the expense of overall income.
Unretired
- Thread starter redwing
- Start date
Very well said (I tried to give kudos but need to spread it more first). The entitlement mentality is very pervasive, and like the 'reduce your tax by spending on anything' crowd, it doesn't make a lot of sense to pursue entitlements at the expense of overall income.
I didn't realize they were still hassling pensioners like that. My in laws had trouble in the last yrs of Howard but I thought that stuff went out with him,
My father in law worked hard all his life but at 64 1/2 got layed off . You'd assume they'd just put him on the pension considering , with only 6 mths to go at the time but there wasn't a hope in hell. They hassled him and my mother in law none stop. It was really hard on them actually and really stressed them out. They even wanted him to do some bloody course .
Then he turned 65 and got his pension but he also mowed a few lawns for other pensioners just to keep busy , he didn't even charge for most of it but wound up being seriously hassled again. I thought the whole scenario was cruel, petty and bloody pathetic to be honest.
They'd never been near Centrelink before yet all of a sudden they were copping this at that age.
He was over a few weeks back and reckons he can't do anything now as it's just not worth the hassle with Centrelink , how bloody ridiculous !
My father in law worked hard all his life but at 64 1/2 got layed off . You'd assume they'd just put him on the pension considering , with only 6 mths to go at the time but there wasn't a hope in hell. They hassled him and my mother in law none stop. It was really hard on them actually and really stressed them out. They even wanted him to do some bloody course .
Then he turned 65 and got his pension but he also mowed a few lawns for other pensioners just to keep busy , he didn't even charge for most of it but wound up being seriously hassled again. I thought the whole scenario was cruel, petty and bloody pathetic to be honest.
They'd never been near Centrelink before yet all of a sudden they were copping this at that age.
He was over a few weeks back and reckons he can't do anything now as it's just not worth the hassle with Centrelink , how bloody ridiculous !
I get frustrated reading posts like that random.
The Govt isn't to blame for elderly folk not taking sufficient responsibility for their own financial futures. They've had decades and decades to get their act together, such that they are independent. They chose not to. The "do nothing" option if you will....we'll leave it to the Govt to take care of us, and she'll be right attitude.
Working hard all of your life does NOT entitle you to have cruise along effortlessly during your retirement, with someone else picking up your tab, whatever that tab may be, no questions asked.
That false assumption gets many many Aussie folk into hot water all the time.
The Govt isn't to blame for elderly folk not taking sufficient responsibility for their own financial futures. They've had decades and decades to get their act together, such that they are independent. They chose not to. The "do nothing" option if you will....we'll leave it to the Govt to take care of us, and she'll be right attitude.
Working hard all of your life does NOT entitle you to have cruise along effortlessly during your retirement, with someone else picking up your tab, whatever that tab may be, no questions asked.
That false assumption gets many many Aussie folk into hot water all the time.
a share portfolio? you would need to check with centrelink but i imagine if the value goes up then the increase would be counted as an asset and only dividends would be income.
i wonder how often you have to value the portfolio?
But there's nothing lay back about this guy though , the last thing he'd want is a free ride . Extremely hard worker , nice house and some small investments , always went way beyond in looking after his family and payed the Australian tax bracket for 47 yrs , why shouldn't he have his pension , ps - we're taxed into oblivion here anyway !
Mate investors take every cent they can get and then some just read through SS, why , because they can . Packer was responsible but he only paid 30k in taxes during his last year on I can't remember what the earn was , 900m or something .
Ahwell !
Mate investors take every cent they can get and then some just read through SS, why , because they can . Packer was responsible but he only paid 30k in taxes during his last year on I can't remember what the earn was , 900m or something .
Ahwell !
Last edited:
It is my understanding that if you are entitled to anything from a trust or are involved in the running of a trust then it is taken into consideration.
I view the old age pension as something to feed and house me. If I want to be entertained then I should have saved up for it or get a very casual job and earn within the limits.
It is worth having a read of the rules if you are over 50 as it can be reassuring or worrying depending on your life style.
If you live in an affordable area and live a simple life you can survive quite easily on the pension. If you want to keep spending and travelling then it is not what the pension is about.
My parents owned their house and car and used to bank money each year when on the old age pension. Their social life was quite busy attending free groups and entertainment aimed at their age demographic.
We should also consider that when the retirement age was set at 65 it was above the average life span. Now that we are living longer we should be measuring it against new criteria IMO.
When I look at the employment opportunities that people now 65 have had, it is a very rare person who has not had the chance to accumulate a house to live in and a bit of investment money to supplement their pension.
Where on earth are their brains! That is a weekly food bill of $420 for 2 people.
Ok so inflation will happen but 2 people do not need that much food. They can get buy on a third of that easily and not need to eat dog food.
It's over 20 years...so it's not that unreasonable.
It's a bit of a silly calculation, though, because it's quite misleading. That $438,000 generating a 5% yield could pay for the food (even with the assumptions given in place) and the principle wouldd still be here.
The thing is, when you are on a pension you still have a job. Your job as a pensioner is to do a mini tax return every fortnight.
More than likely this constitutes more paperwork then most of these pensioners have ever done in their whole ordinary lives. (the do nothing option)
The other comment that really get up my nose is the ' I deserve a pension because I have worked hard all my live'. Well sorry but most people have worked 'hard' all their lives. They start working upon leaving school and continue on the merry go round until they fall of. Those voicing that quote are no different then every other 'do nothing option' person wanting a government funded free ride.
Cheers
Cheers
You must be thinking about the various health care cards where you're disqualified if your income goes above a certain amount.
Governments are stuck with these. If they get rid of income tests then everyone gets one and taxes needs to rise. But if you have income tests you distort people's thinking - along the lines of 'how do we get most out of the government' rather than 'how can we maximise income/wealth'. Agree it's a completely different mentality and not a good one for people to have.
There is however a card that gives enormous benefits and requires almost no hoops to jump through.
This is the Seniors Card available to 60+ people in most if not all states. It has no income or asset tests. Qualification is on the basis of critiera other than need. I think they're also a lifetime card (the idea of a seniors card expiring before you do appears hillarious).
Seniors cards offer extremely generous benefits on things like transport (eg more generous than even non-Senior welfare recipients). There are also numerous other concessions.
The only requirement (for residents in Victoria) is (a) you must be 60+ and (b) you must work under 35 hours per week.
So if you're in an ordinary full-time job you don't qualify whereas if you're either retired or a high-paid consultant working 34 hours per week then you do. You can't get younger and I don't think there's any auditing of working hours or many instances of them being withdrawn.
The Seniors Card is a political rort whose introduction was one of the most irresponsible measures governments have taken. It imposes a steeply rising liability due to population ageing. Unlike need-based or targeted benefits there is not even a social equity or justice case for it. However governments are scared of the whining that will occur if it's taken away so it will never be scrapped.
To say that the health card is not worth it really only applies while the retirees are fit and healthy. My dad is 96 and at present has to have 3 needles per week for kidney failure that would cost hime about $200 EACH if he wasn't DVA. He currently only pays about $5 for the box. There are many medical conditions that would rapidly go untreated if the elderly did not have the health care card.
Peter
The only thing I get is the Seniors Card.
The only benefit I get from it is cheap public transport.
I get no concession on my tax return, which other elders get. My income is classified as "passive" which I strongly object to...when I am up a 6 foot ladder or on my knees scrubbing walls, floors etc., it certainly does not feel like "passive" income. If I "earnt" the income then I would get the seniors rebate.
I pay a fortune for prescriptions because as you get older so your health problems increase. Friends who were going out and spending their money when Alan and I were spending our weekends building and renovating, now get their scripts for a pittance.
To be honest I don't care...I far prefer my life with the ability to buy what I want when I want and to go to a private hospital when something needs attention than wait for months on end!!! But to say that the Seniors card is a rort is a slap in the face.
Chris
The only thing I get is the Seniors Card.
The only benefit I get from it is cheap public transport.
I get no concession on my tax return, which other elders get. My income is classified as "passive" which I strongly object to...when I am up a 6 foot ladder or on my knees scrubbing walls, floors etc., it certainly does not feel like "passive" income. If I "earnt" the income then I would get the seniors rebate.
I pay a fortune for prescriptions because as you get older so your health problems increase. Friends who were going out and spending their money when Alan and I were spending our weekends building and renovating, now get their scripts for a pittance.
To be honest I don't care...I far prefer my life with the ability to buy what I want when I want and to go to a private hospital when something needs attention than wait for months on end!!! But to say that the Seniors card is a rort is a slap in the face.
Chris
here's a current (Sept 2012) breakdown of retirees living costs from news.com.au
The Federal Government has flagged that the Age Pension age is set to increase from age 65 to age 67, effective from year 2023. If you were born before 1 July 1952, then your Age Pension age remains at 65 (or 64, 64.5 or 65 years, if you’re a woman).
If you were born on or after 1 January 1957, then you don’t have access to the Age Pension until the age of 67. For those born after June 1952 and before January 1957, Age Pension age is either 65.5, 66 or 66.5 years
The Federal Government has flagged that the Age Pension age is set to increase from age 65 to age 67, effective from year 2023. If you were born before 1 July 1952, then your Age Pension age remains at 65 (or 64, 64.5 or 65 years, if you’re a woman).
If you were born on or after 1 January 1957, then you don’t have access to the Age Pension until the age of 67. For those born after June 1952 and before January 1957, Age Pension age is either 65.5, 66 or 66.5 years
I am certain that I need more than 55300 for comfortable lifestyle even as a single. In today's dollars, I need 100k pre-tax and a Senior's Card for peace of mind. With a partner, probably 150k. I think this table has underestimated costs of living in Sydney. With the above estimations, I would have to see bulk billing doctors and be treated in a public hospital. I wouldn't be able to eat out regularly. I would not be able to travel overseas.
joan - you can justify anything because of one particular case. Of course the elderly people on a pension/health care/senior card would be better off because of it - that's the entire point....so just because your father (and others similar to him) get subsidised medical care does not mean that the subsidy is justified.
Chris, agreed. 'Rort' was too strong a word. It implies some sort of wrongdoing on the part of the holder, which was not my intention. 'Perk', 'lurk' or 'benefit' is fairer.
Still I do find the concept of age-based entitlements (such as implied in the Seniors Card) odd when there are better means of determining need and therefore justification for government help.
Age by itself is not a need, though many circumstances or conditions which tend to increase in prevalence with age definitely are and warrant consideration.
Eg income (various income support payments), number of kids (family assistance), ill health or chronic conditions (various safety net schemes for pharmaceuticals), disability (invalid pensions, concessions for the blind etc), isolation (free school buses) and others.
If a purpose of government is to take from those able to pay and give to those who can't then universal benefits such as Seniors cards cost the community more and aren't as generous to those most in need as tighter needs-based benefits.
Compared to other developed countries we're relatively lightly taxed but our social safety net is considerably better than say the US. A large reason for this achievement is (often) targeted benefits based on need.
The Seniors Card is an exception and I remain to be convinced it's the best use of limited public funds. Although to be fair at least the Seniors Card is a relatively broadly based benefit and some other subsidies, concessions, breaks or rebates, distributed to a select few, probably have even less justification.
To be honest Peter I think the Seniors card really does not cost the public purse very much. Not that many Seniors travel frequently and if they travel by train rather drive then I, for one, think its a good idea to have most of them off the road!!!!! Remember too that those that only get the Seniors card are paying tax.
There are many other benefits that cost the taxpayer far more, particular the pharmaceuticals subsidy.
For example I pay $154 for my medication compared to someone standing next to me paying $5.50 who also gets the taxpayer pension and various other taxpayer funded benefits. No matter the age they also get reduced travel benefits. To qualify they are, in the main, not paying tax.
The housing benefit is the one that I get annoyed about, particularly where pensioners are stilling living in the large government owned house and go to the newspapers, tv etc., when they are offered smaller houses to release the big house to a family in need.
Chris
There are many other benefits that cost the taxpayer far more, particular the pharmaceuticals subsidy.
For example I pay $154 for my medication compared to someone standing next to me paying $5.50 who also gets the taxpayer pension and various other taxpayer funded benefits. No matter the age they also get reduced travel benefits. To qualify they are, in the main, not paying tax.
The housing benefit is the one that I get annoyed about, particularly where pensioners are stilling living in the large government owned house and go to the newspapers, tv etc., when they are offered smaller houses to release the big house to a family in need.
Chris
We pay a lot less for many drugs that are very expensive, because the government subsidises them. You don't need to have a Health Care Card, Low Income Health Care Card or be DVA to purchase them at the discounted rate.
We have all benefitted from this but most don't reaslise; automatically get charged the discounted rate.
At a guess I'd say it's highly unlikely that these injections would cost your father $200 each, and if they were that much the government would probably have an alternative injection that is covered by the scheme (or special authority).
