welfare vs frugal
- Thread starter kathryn d
- Start date
We are discussing the role of welfare on this thread.
Should grandma with her 1.6 mil house and 800k in investments and the ability to take on boarders be entitled to welfare and government handouts known as the part aged pension?
I am not sure about this but believe it to be a topic of contention.
Since I am one of the worst offenders of getting sidetracked, I wasn't planning on objecting to it
But while everyone has been debating here, I started a similar thread on another blog, where welfare is discussed extensively.
http://www.circleofmoms.com/debatin...-work-could-it-work-728628?newly_created=true
The idea of losing any benefits and be required to work was quite evidentally not well received. The ones commenting were from Canada, USA and Australia.
It is certainly the attitude of "being entitled" is going to be the battle here.
I am certainly not liked on that thread...which is no surprise.
Many of us don't think people like this should get anything, but the reason people are arguing with you is because you post inaccurate facts and misinformation based on wild assumptions (and contradict what you say
).I think the chances of a single granny with 800K getting 'much' of a part pension would be small.
Centerlink takes into account not only the value of the investment but the income that the investment returns.
Just the fact that the cost of rates and service fees are astronomical compared to a pension tells you that the investment income has to be great, hence little if any pension.
Boarders or companion/carers who live there for free??
Since I am one of the worst offenders of getting sidetracked, I wasn't planning on objecting to it
But while everyone has been debating here, I started a similar thread on another blog, where welfare is discussed extensively.
http://www.circleofmoms.com/debatin...-work-could-it-work-728628?newly_created=true
The idea of losing any benefits and be required to work was quite evidentally not well received. The ones commenting were from Canada, USA and Australia.
It is certainly the attitude of "being entitled" is going to be the battle here.
I am certainly not liked on that thread...which is no surprise.
The circle of moms certainly make somersofters look very mild.
Many of us don't think people like this should get anything, but the reason people are arguing with you is because you post inaccurate facts and misinformation based on wild assumptions (and contradict what you say
I think the chances of a single granny with 800K getting 'much' of a part pension would be small.
Centerlink takes into account not only the value of the investment but the income that the investment returns.
Just the fact that the cost of rates and service fees are astronomical compared to a pension tells you that the investment income has to be great, hence little if any pension.
Boarders or companion/carers who live there for free??
All you need is a tiny bit of the part pension to access the full ancillary benefits, discounts on rates, transports, utilities, medications, nursing home care. It is these anciliary benefits which most people are after, even those living in 1.6mil home and having 800k investments.
Incorrect again. Many self funded retirees get many of things without getting any pension at all... by applying for a Seniors Card.
And even those that don't qualify (the very wealthy ones) can still get some government services for free or at a small charge as well, like home care, home nursing care and hospital and medical care.
Not all pensioners get free nursing home admission/care. That is dependent on all assets, which include the family home.
The subthread about doctors has been split off into Doctors and their Income
Here I thought I was having deja vue
when I started reading the new thread Doctors and their Income
Good one.
Sydney's north shore...
An identical scenario would be me (or anyone else here) continually harping on how Brighton represents the wider demographic in most things I use as an example in discussions on this site, because they happen to live there/aspire to live there and are obsessed with that location as the centre of the universe.
Your few suburbs that are your universe represent a very small section of Australia in every aspect, and yet you continue to pull out that locale as the example for mainstream/majority life.
I'll ask you a question, but I don't expect you'll answer it given you won't even answer a simple one such as what is your job - what areas of Australia have you actually visited and lived in/spent time in, other than Sydney?
If you reply with "I don't need to travel - I can get all my info from the computer" I'd have my answer.
I think very few people can claim to speak for the majority. Even our PM in parliament does not have majority backing. Therefore, we can only speak about our immediate experience from our life history, experiences and surroundings. The north shore is as good a place as any. On the north shore, the typical welfare recipient / age pensioner recipient does live in a 1 mil plus house and has 800k in investible assets. 800k is the upper limit of the assets allowed outside own home in order to qualify for a part pension by an elderly couple. Whilst this may differ from your perception of pensioners and welfare recipients in your immediate part of the world, it should open your perspectives on the whole subject of the Australian welfare system.
To overcome the inadequacies and misrepresentation of individual experience and biases on any topic, the computer is a good source of more representative statistics sourced by official and reputable organisations.
How do you know who is on the pension and who not? How do you know the typical pensioner has 800k in assets?
Yet you can't even use the computer. The upper limit of assets for a part pension is not 800k - you even provided a link to what it was. Try again China.
I will provide the link again for your satisfaction. The actual figure is actually higher than 800k which validates my point regarding the disparity amongst welfare recipients in australia.
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/assets
Is it?
They get cut off at 707,750.
A single pensioners pension is around 20K so if the assets bring in income (you can't pay those big rates on a part pension) of over 20K, which you would expect they would, do you really think they'd still get a part pension - in other words pay a wealthy person more than a poor one?
Can you tell me the monetary advantage of a part pensioner over a self funded retiree with a Seniors Card?
Personally I don't see any incentive in trying to not get a good income on my investments/assets for this benefit of a part pension you go on about.
1.05 mil of investible assets outside the family home is quite a big sum of money for welfare recipients. If we are to believe the stats, only 1% of Aussies have over a mil of investible assets outside the family home.
http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...for-millionaires/story-e6frfmd9-1226403744044
So this means that in Australia, a staggering 99% of Aussies will qualify for government welfare in the form of a part aged pension.
