Skip to content Skip to main navigation

ACT Ratepayers Bill Shock (Ratepayers Assn. Media Release)

By Canfan 15 July 2014 62

One third of ACT ratepayers will receive their rates bills in the mail today and tomorrow, many will suffer bill shock with this year’s increases averaging 10% with the total increases of the past 3 years averaging 33%. Some ratepayers paying as much as 65% more since the general new rates system was introduced just over 2 years ago.

Similar increases are forecast to apply every year for the next 17 years under the Governments radical plan to replace stamp duties with higher rates.

Ratepayers will eventually have to pay on average three times more in real terms and 6 times more in actual dollar terms.

These increases are exactly in line with the Ratepayers’ Association original projections of 2012 which were ridiculed by the ACT Labor Government & the Greens. Openness & transparency in Government is advocated in the policies of both the ACT Labor Government and the ACT Greens. However, this has not been practised, especially when it comes to general rates. ACT Ratepayers will continue to suffer bill shock every year.

The new rates system means that stamp duties will eventually be replaced by massive increases in general rates. Those who have already paid stamp duty will effectively pay twice and more, ratepayers will eventually have to pay three times more in real terms and 6 times more in actual terms on average than they would have under the previous rates system.

The ACT Government including the ACT Greens should come clean & table their rates increases projections, openness & transparency should be more than just words”, Christopher Dorman said.

(Media Release Ratepayers Association ACT)


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
62 Responses to
ACT Ratepayers Bill Shock (Ratepayers Assn. Media Release)
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
HiddenDragon 10:39 am 21 Jul 14

milkman said :

HiddenDragon said :

It’s getting off-topic, but I thought the primary purpose of compulsory superannuation was to reduce the demands on the pension system from an ageing population – a forward-thinking policy which has been eroded somewhat by chipping away the originally tight rules about “double dipping” etc.

I thought the idea was to have people save for their own retirement, and to have this money parked in profitable businesses. This helps the economy as well as reducing future welfare liabilities.

At least this was the idea until previous and current governments frigged around with the rules. This has had a couple of flow on effects. The first is to skew the benefits (probably unreasonably) towards a very specific demographic. The second is to materially damage peoples’ confidence in the scheme, with people (like me) worried about future rule changes.

Personally I don’t think super will be a useful retirement investment because the rules will keep changing, so I invest in property instead.

And, of course, increasing numbers of people are doing that – directly, and increasingly now through the vehicle of an SMSF – which is doubtless one of the reasons why over-committed sub-national governments are looking hungrily at the honeypot of inflated land values and property prices for revenue.

dungfungus 6:33 pm 20 Jul 14

milkman said :

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

It’s getting off-topic, but I thought the primary purpose of compulsory superannuation was to reduce the demands on the pension system from an ageing population – a forward-thinking policy which has been eroded somewhat by chipping away the originally tight rules about “double dipping” etc.

Given the ballistic reaction to the proposed changes to pension indexation arrangements and, eventually, the access age, in the federal Budget, I doubt whether much, if anything, will be done to reduce the generosity of the pension means test – absent, perhaps, a collapse in our terms of trade, a massive run on the Australian dollar, and IMF intervention or something approaching that.

What you have alluded to in your second paragraph can happen. The current government and the RBA recognize this and that is why we need to rein the problem in now.
It may be too late to turn the ship around though as the number of takers is already than the number of givers.

The following is from anAFP News article yesterday:
“Serbia approved laws reducing job protection and raising the retirement age for women on Friday in the first steps of deep reforms to revive the seriously flawed economy, and fight high unemployment.

Parliament is also set to debate privatisation and bankruptcy law by the end of the month as part of the wide-ranging reforms.

Serbia, which is heading for a public debt of 70 percent of gross domestic product this year, began negotiations in January to join the European Union.

The labour and pension reforms are intended to increase flexibility in the labour market.

They are also intended to lower the costs of shedding staff by reducing statutory redundancy payments, while opening the way to reducing a huge public-sector labour force.

A total of 190 lawmakers in the 250-seat strong parliament supported the long-awaited laws, despite hostility from the opposition and unions arguing that the measures will hit workers too hard.

Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic has argued that the laws are vital since Serbia has “more pensioners than those employed, and of those, more than 50 percent work in the public sector.”

The Balkan state is expected to post a record budget deficit of 8.0 percent of output this year, with growth forecast to fall to 1.0 percent, down from 2.5 percent last year.

But output could fall further by 0.2 percentage points owing to devastating floods that struck in May.”

Sound familiar?
This is the path we are following.

Socialism is a wonderful thing until whoever is paying goes broke. Then everyone is ****ed.

Time for an Australian Taxed Enough Party I think.

milkman 5:41 pm 20 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

It’s getting off-topic, but I thought the primary purpose of compulsory superannuation was to reduce the demands on the pension system from an ageing population – a forward-thinking policy which has been eroded somewhat by chipping away the originally tight rules about “double dipping” etc.

Given the ballistic reaction to the proposed changes to pension indexation arrangements and, eventually, the access age, in the federal Budget, I doubt whether much, if anything, will be done to reduce the generosity of the pension means test – absent, perhaps, a collapse in our terms of trade, a massive run on the Australian dollar, and IMF intervention or something approaching that.

What you have alluded to in your second paragraph can happen. The current government and the RBA recognize this and that is why we need to rein the problem in now.
It may be too late to turn the ship around though as the number of takers is already than the number of givers.

The following is from anAFP News article yesterday:
“Serbia approved laws reducing job protection and raising the retirement age for women on Friday in the first steps of deep reforms to revive the seriously flawed economy, and fight high unemployment.

Parliament is also set to debate privatisation and bankruptcy law by the end of the month as part of the wide-ranging reforms.

Serbia, which is heading for a public debt of 70 percent of gross domestic product this year, began negotiations in January to join the European Union.

The labour and pension reforms are intended to increase flexibility in the labour market.

They are also intended to lower the costs of shedding staff by reducing statutory redundancy payments, while opening the way to reducing a huge public-sector labour force.

A total of 190 lawmakers in the 250-seat strong parliament supported the long-awaited laws, despite hostility from the opposition and unions arguing that the measures will hit workers too hard.

Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic has argued that the laws are vital since Serbia has “more pensioners than those employed, and of those, more than 50 percent work in the public sector.”

The Balkan state is expected to post a record budget deficit of 8.0 percent of output this year, with growth forecast to fall to 1.0 percent, down from 2.5 percent last year.

But output could fall further by 0.2 percentage points owing to devastating floods that struck in May.”

Sound familiar?
This is the path we are following.

Socialism is a wonderful thing until whoever is paying goes broke. Then everyone is ****ed.

dungfungus 11:58 am 20 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

It’s getting off-topic, but I thought the primary purpose of compulsory superannuation was to reduce the demands on the pension system from an ageing population – a forward-thinking policy which has been eroded somewhat by chipping away the originally tight rules about “double dipping” etc.

Given the ballistic reaction to the proposed changes to pension indexation arrangements and, eventually, the access age, in the federal Budget, I doubt whether much, if anything, will be done to reduce the generosity of the pension means test – absent, perhaps, a collapse in our terms of trade, a massive run on the Australian dollar, and IMF intervention or something approaching that.

What you have alluded to in your second paragraph can happen. The current government and the RBA recognize this and that is why we need to rein the problem in now.
It may be too late to turn the ship around though as the number of takers is already than the number of givers.

The following is from anAFP News article yesterday:
“Serbia approved laws reducing job protection and raising the retirement age for women on Friday in the first steps of deep reforms to revive the seriously flawed economy, and fight high unemployment.

Parliament is also set to debate privatisation and bankruptcy law by the end of the month as part of the wide-ranging reforms.

Serbia, which is heading for a public debt of 70 percent of gross domestic product this year, began negotiations in January to join the European Union.

The labour and pension reforms are intended to increase flexibility in the labour market.

They are also intended to lower the costs of shedding staff by reducing statutory redundancy payments, while opening the way to reducing a huge public-sector labour force.

A total of 190 lawmakers in the 250-seat strong parliament supported the long-awaited laws, despite hostility from the opposition and unions arguing that the measures will hit workers too hard.

Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic has argued that the laws are vital since Serbia has “more pensioners than those employed, and of those, more than 50 percent work in the public sector.”

The Balkan state is expected to post a record budget deficit of 8.0 percent of output this year, with growth forecast to fall to 1.0 percent, down from 2.5 percent last year.

But output could fall further by 0.2 percentage points owing to devastating floods that struck in May.”

Sound familiar?
This is the path we are following.

Already, over one third of Tasmania’s workforce is employed in some sort of a public service job and the same state has the highest unemployment rate in our country.

dungfungus 9:19 am 19 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

It’s getting off-topic, but I thought the primary purpose of compulsory superannuation was to reduce the demands on the pension system from an ageing population – a forward-thinking policy which has been eroded somewhat by chipping away the originally tight rules about “double dipping” etc.

Given the ballistic reaction to the proposed changes to pension indexation arrangements and, eventually, the access age, in the federal Budget, I doubt whether much, if anything, will be done to reduce the generosity of the pension means test – absent, perhaps, a collapse in our terms of trade, a massive run on the Australian dollar, and IMF intervention or something approaching that.

What you have alluded to in your second paragraph can happen. The current government and the RBA recognize this and that is why we need to rein the problem in now.
It may be too late to turn the ship around though as the number of takers is already than the number of givers.

The following is from anAFP News article yesterday:
“Serbia approved laws reducing job protection and raising the retirement age for women on Friday in the first steps of deep reforms to revive the seriously flawed economy, and fight high unemployment.

Parliament is also set to debate privatisation and bankruptcy law by the end of the month as part of the wide-ranging reforms.

Serbia, which is heading for a public debt of 70 percent of gross domestic product this year, began negotiations in January to join the European Union.

The labour and pension reforms are intended to increase flexibility in the labour market.

They are also intended to lower the costs of shedding staff by reducing statutory redundancy payments, while opening the way to reducing a huge public-sector labour force.

A total of 190 lawmakers in the 250-seat strong parliament supported the long-awaited laws, despite hostility from the opposition and unions arguing that the measures will hit workers too hard.

Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic has argued that the laws are vital since Serbia has “more pensioners than those employed, and of those, more than 50 percent work in the public sector.”

The Balkan state is expected to post a record budget deficit of 8.0 percent of output this year, with growth forecast to fall to 1.0 percent, down from 2.5 percent last year.

But output could fall further by 0.2 percentage points owing to devastating floods that struck in May.”

Sound familiar?
This is the path we are following.

milkman 8:28 pm 18 Jul 14

HiddenDragon said :

It’s getting off-topic, but I thought the primary purpose of compulsory superannuation was to reduce the demands on the pension system from an ageing population – a forward-thinking policy which has been eroded somewhat by chipping away the originally tight rules about “double dipping” etc.

I thought the idea was to have people save for their own retirement, and to have this money parked in profitable businesses. This helps the economy as well as reducing future welfare liabilities.

At least this was the idea until previous and current governments frigged around with the rules. This has had a couple of flow on effects. The first is to skew the benefits (probably unreasonably) towards a very specific demographic. The second is to materially damage peoples’ confidence in the scheme, with people (like me) worried about future rule changes.

Personally I don’t think super will be a useful retirement investment because the rules will keep changing, so I invest in property instead.

rommeldog56 8:18 pm 18 Jul 14

Grrrr said :

Also, what is this association’s full and correct name? Is it “Ratepayers Association ACT, or “ACT Ratepayers and Property Owners Association”, or something else?

It’s the latter I think. Used to be the former, but they merged, or something like that.

dungfungus 7:26 pm 18 Jul 14

HiddenDragon said :

It’s getting off-topic, but I thought the primary purpose of compulsory superannuation was to reduce the demands on the pension system from an ageing population – a forward-thinking policy which has been eroded somewhat by chipping away the originally tight rules about “double dipping” etc.

Given the ballistic reaction to the proposed changes to pension indexation arrangements and, eventually, the access age, in the federal Budget, I doubt whether much, if anything, will be done to reduce the generosity of the pension means test – absent, perhaps, a collapse in our terms of trade, a massive run on the Australian dollar, and IMF intervention or something approaching that.

What you have alluded to in your second paragraph can happen. The current government and the RBA recognize this and that is why we need to rein the problem in now.
It may be too late to turn the ship around though as the number of takers is already than the number of givers.

dungfungus 7:22 pm 18 Jul 14

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

See above, around 80% of seniors receive a government welfare payment.
Pension, part pension, health care card etc. And for those who have Super, tax free earnings for over 60’s is a nice kicker too.

You have been reading too many socialist doctrines from The Australia Institute.
Having a CSHC Card is a choice and it is now being more stringently income tested for new applicants (income from SMSF pensions is no longer non-assessable). Ironically, retired public servants with huge defined benefit taxpayer funded pensions (which are taxable) will also miss out on the CSHC Card (I am crying?).
And when you complain about “tax free pensions” remember that in accumulation phase, contributions and earnings were taxed at 15% which means that any self-funded retiree who paid contributions of $1 million through the accumlation phase would have had $100K of that taken at contributions tax. Additionally, taxes were paid on the income the fund would have generated.
I don’t know any self-funded retirees who have manipulated their affairs to get a pension. That story, like the The Australia Insitute’s (who want to tax SF retirees twice) claim that self-funded retirees’ concessions cost the taxpayer $30 billion a year is a total myth.
Remember, people on taxpayer funded defined benefits pensions paid nothing at all during accumulation so it is only fair that they are taxed now according to their pension income.
I know plenty of people in this category who manipulate their affairs to get part pensions and anything else that is going.
Providing for one’s retirement is a choice made many years before it happens. That is an alien concept for socialists.

Yes, when down is up and up is down. I’m the one specifically arguing against socialist policies, you are the one supporting them.
And I will preface this comment by saying that I’ve got nothing against people who structure their finances to lower taxation or receive available government concessions. I do it myself and anyone that doesn’t is kidding themselves.

The health care card is welfare, plain and simple. The fact that they are limiting access to it now is a good thing.

We need to limit people’s access to the pension in coming years, those that can afford to look after themselves, should do so. See my previous comment.

Taxing earnings on superannuation funds is not double taxation, the earnings have never been taxed previously. And Superannuation has always had various levels of concessional contributions to allow people to receive taxation concessions for their input as well as non-concessional contributions that receive taxation concessions on earnings in future years. There is legitimate debate about what level of taxation concession should be given to Superannuation.
The aim of the policy is to get people to save for their retirement, if it’s not achieving those aims or is costing the government more in revenue than the policy is worth, then we need to look at adjusting it.

How is any of that “socialist” policy?

And if you don’t know any self-funded retirees who structure their finances to receive government assistance, I would say:
a) you don’t actually know any self funded retirees or
b) your self funded retiree friends are getting some bad financial advice.

I think the complexities of superannuation are defeating both of us on this thread but let me just say this.
The “double taxation” I was referring to is what The Australia Institute want and that is the taxing of mandatory not income assessable pension payments from SMSFs in pension mode.
Remember, this was what Labor were advocating just before the last Federal election – I think they were saying a 5% tax should apply on earnings above $100K. That is socialism in the extreme.
I am a self funded retiree myself and I know a few others. We are not seeking or receiving any outside financial advice because we want to preserve our capital above the attraction of better yields currently available from term deposits.
It is a contradiction in terms to receive outside financial advice for a SMSF.
If anyone has been reading the papers about how certain Industry Funds are spending their members’ money and what the CBA Wealth Mangemnet advisors are doing, who in their right mind would trust anyone but yourself to make investment decisions?
I urge everyone to do your future retirement sums on capital required and not yield from a lesser amount of capital.
In your words “save for your retirement” is the same thing.
See, we agree on most things.

HiddenDragon 6:52 pm 18 Jul 14

It’s getting off-topic, but I thought the primary purpose of compulsory superannuation was to reduce the demands on the pension system from an ageing population – a forward-thinking policy which has been eroded somewhat by chipping away the originally tight rules about “double dipping” etc.

Given the ballistic reaction to the proposed changes to pension indexation arrangements and, eventually, the access age, in the federal Budget, I doubt whether much, if anything, will be done to reduce the generosity of the pension means test – absent, perhaps, a collapse in our terms of trade, a massive run on the Australian dollar, and IMF intervention or something approaching that.

Grrrr 4:10 pm 18 Jul 14

Also, what is this association’s full and correct name? Is it “Ratepayers Association ACT, or “ACT Ratepayers and Property Owners Association”, or something else?

watto23 11:38 am 18 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

Oh, add negative gearing to that list.

We don’t talk about negative gearing in Canberra.

And yet to change this would cause an uproar similar to replacing stamp duty with rates. Thus neither the Libs or Labor have the guts to make changes to it. Its actually got to the point where people are advised to sell their profit making rental property to invest in more negative geared properties…. To me that is just wrong. I don’t have an issue with negative gearing per se, but when the system favours it over positive geared property then I feel its out of balance.

Go see a financial advisor and wealth creation is all about reducing your tax because that is easy rather than increasing your income, which is harder to do. So some tightening up on tax reduction would help thus country a lot, but be politically dangerous to do.

chewy14 11:00 am 18 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

See above, around 80% of seniors receive a government welfare payment.
Pension, part pension, health care card etc. And for those who have Super, tax free earnings for over 60’s is a nice kicker too.

You have been reading too many socialist doctrines from The Australia Institute.
Having a CSHC Card is a choice and it is now being more stringently income tested for new applicants (income from SMSF pensions is no longer non-assessable). Ironically, retired public servants with huge defined benefit taxpayer funded pensions (which are taxable) will also miss out on the CSHC Card (I am crying?).
And when you complain about “tax free pensions” remember that in accumulation phase, contributions and earnings were taxed at 15% which means that any self-funded retiree who paid contributions of $1 million through the accumlation phase would have had $100K of that taken at contributions tax. Additionally, taxes were paid on the income the fund would have generated.
I don’t know any self-funded retirees who have manipulated their affairs to get a pension. That story, like the The Australia Insitute’s (who want to tax SF retirees twice) claim that self-funded retirees’ concessions cost the taxpayer $30 billion a year is a total myth.
Remember, people on taxpayer funded defined benefits pensions paid nothing at all during accumulation so it is only fair that they are taxed now according to their pension income.
I know plenty of people in this category who manipulate their affairs to get part pensions and anything else that is going.
Providing for one’s retirement is a choice made many years before it happens. That is an alien concept for socialists.

Yes, when down is up and up is down. I’m the one specifically arguing against socialist policies, you are the one supporting them.
And I will preface this comment by saying that I’ve got nothing against people who structure their finances to lower taxation or receive available government concessions. I do it myself and anyone that doesn’t is kidding themselves.

The health care card is welfare, plain and simple. The fact that they are limiting access to it now is a good thing.

We need to limit people’s access to the pension in coming years, those that can afford to look after themselves, should do so. See my previous comment.

Taxing earnings on superannuation funds is not double taxation, the earnings have never been taxed previously. And Superannuation has always had various levels of concessional contributions to allow people to receive taxation concessions for their input as well as non-concessional contributions that receive taxation concessions on earnings in future years. There is legitimate debate about what level of taxation concession should be given to Superannuation.
The aim of the policy is to get people to save for their retirement, if it’s not achieving those aims or is costing the government more in revenue than the policy is worth, then we need to look at adjusting it.

How is any of that “socialist” policy?

And if you don’t know any self-funded retirees who structure their finances to receive government assistance, I would say:
a) you don’t actually know any self funded retirees or
b) your self funded retiree friends are getting some bad financial advice.

dungfungus 9:37 am 18 Jul 14

rommeldog56 said :

Oh, add negative gearing to that list.

We don’t talk about negative gearing in Canberra.

rommeldog56 8:24 am 18 Jul 14

Oh, add negative gearing to that list.

dungfungus 8:14 am 18 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

The problem is that the true self funded retiree is as rare as hen’s teeth. Due to the extremely lax assets and income tests as well as various types of concessions, the majority of retirees are taking a welfare handout whether they’ve saved into superannuation or not.

So, what is the differenece between a true self funded retiree and an “ordinary” one and what are the “welfare handouts” they are taking?

See above, around 80% of seniors receive a government welfare payment.
Pension, part pension, health care card etc. And for those who have Super, tax free earnings for over 60’s is a nice kicker too.

You have been reading too many socialist doctrines from The Australia Institute.
Having a CSHC Card is a choice and it is now being more stringently income tested for new applicants (income from SMSF pensions is no longer non-assessable). Ironically, retired public servants with huge defined benefit taxpayer funded pensions (which are taxable) will also miss out on the CSHC Card (I am crying?).
And when you complain about “tax free pensions” remember that in accumulation phase, contributions and earnings were taxed at 15% which means that any self-funded retiree who paid contributions of $1 million through the accumlation phase would have had $100K of that taken at contributions tax. Additionally, taxes were paid on the income the fund would have generated.
I don’t know any self-funded retirees who have manipulated their affairs to get a pension. That story, like the The Australia Insitute’s (who want to tax SF retirees twice) claim that self-funded retirees’ concessions cost the taxpayer $30 billion a year is a total myth.
Remember, people on taxpayer funded defined benefits pensions paid nothing at all during accumulation so it is only fair that they are taxed now according to their pension income.
I know plenty of people in this category who manipulate their affairs to get part pensions and anything else that is going.
Providing for one’s retirement is a choice made many years before it happens. That is an alien concept for socialists.

Correction: Contributions tax would have been $150K.

dungfungus 8:12 am 18 Jul 14

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

The problem is that the true self funded retiree is as rare as hen’s teeth. Due to the extremely lax assets and income tests as well as various types of concessions, the majority of retirees are taking a welfare handout whether they’ve saved into superannuation or not.

So, what is the differenece between a true self funded retiree and an “ordinary” one and what are the “welfare handouts” they are taking?

See above, around 80% of seniors receive a government welfare payment.
Pension, part pension, health care card etc. And for those who have Super, tax free earnings for over 60’s is a nice kicker too.

You have been reading too many socialist doctrines from The Australia Institute.
Having a CSHC Card is a choice and it is now being more stringently income tested for new applicants (income from SMSF pensions is no longer non-assessable). Ironically, retired public servants with huge defined benefit taxpayer funded pensions (which are taxable) will also miss out on the CSHC Card (I am crying?).
And when you complain about “tax free pensions” remember that in accumulation phase, contributions and earnings were taxed at 15% which means that any self-funded retiree who paid contributions of $1 million through the accumlation phase would have had $100K of that taken at contributions tax. Additionally, taxes were paid on the income the fund would have generated.
I don’t know any self-funded retirees who have manipulated their affairs to get a pension. That story, like the The Australia Insitute’s (who want to tax SF retirees twice) claim that self-funded retirees’ concessions cost the taxpayer $30 billion a year is a total myth.
Remember, people on taxpayer funded defined benefits pensions paid nothing at all during accumulation so it is only fair that they are taxed now according to their pension income.
I know plenty of people in this category who manipulate their affairs to get part pensions and anything else that is going.
Providing for one’s retirement is a choice made many years before it happens. That is an alien concept for socialists.

rommeldog56 6:49 am 18 Jul 14

milkman said :

chewy14 said :

I think it’s reasonable then to start looking at slowly limiting welfare payments to these groups through the rise in retirement age and stricter means testing. It’s ridiculously generous that a couple can have a million dollar plus home as well as $1.1 million dollars in other assets and still be receiving a part pension and the benefits that go with it. With the ageing population and shrinking ratio of workers to rerirees, we simply can’t afford this sort of largesse for people who really should be looking after themselves.

I agree. At the moment we have financial advisors helping retirees structure affairs so as to still get welfare even when they have 7 figures in investable assets.

It needs to be a gradual change, but it does need to happen.

I couldn’t agree more. There is also much other Gov’t largesse going on too that also needs to be addressed. eg. Family Tax Benefits, baby bonus, the Fed’s new parental payment scheme, school kids bonus, overhaul of the Centrelink Newstart system and other payment types, etc, and agreed about easing back on part aged pensions too as more self funded or part self funded retirees move into the 65+ age bracket. There are far, far too many people in Oz with their snouts in the Gov’t trough.

chewy14 9:33 pm 17 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

rosscoact said :

What about self funded retirees – you know, those who planned not to rely on taxpayers in their retirement, via a Centrelink pension.

If you’re earning above what the average family does, no matter what the source, then pay up and stop bludging off the system.

Please tell me this is not seriously suggesting that those who have saved into superannuation during their working lives instead of taking a welfare handout during retirement are ‘bludging’.

The problem is that the true self funded retiree is as rare as hen’s teeth. Due to the extremely lax assets and income tests as well as various types of concessions, the majority of retirees are taking a welfare handout whether they’ve saved into superannuation or not.

So, what is the differenece between a true self funded retiree and an “ordinary” one and what are the “welfare handouts” they are taking?

See above, around 80% of seniors receive a government welfare payment.
Pension, part pension, health care card etc. And for those who have Super, tax free earnings for over 60’s is a nice kicker too.

milkman 8:49 pm 17 Jul 14

chewy14 said :

I think it’s reasonable then to start looking at slowly limiting welfare payments to these groups through the rise in retirement age and stricter means testing. It’s ridiculously generous that a couple can have a million dollar plus home as well as $1.1 million dollars in other assets and still be receiving a part pension and the benefits that go with it. With the ageing population and shrinking ratio of workers to rerirees, we simply can’t afford this sort of largesse for people who really should be looking after themselves.

I agree. At the moment we have financial advisors helping retirees structure affairs so as to still get welfare even when they have 7 figures in investable assets.

It needs to be a gradual change, but it does need to happen.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site