jad n rich

Looks like its on the agenda again.

The age pension has an assets and income test, your own home being about the only thing not included.

I dont think it should be included, if you worked hard enough to have your own home, it should be hands off. There has to be some incentive for working hard.

northernbird

I agree.

GarryP

It's in Tone's Tame Tax Team report for aged care support - along with lots of other nasty sh*t.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-0...rnment/5423556

My reading is if the government tries to implement half of this, they won't have a hope of a second term. The question would rather be, will they get lynched.

Its slash and burn stuff.

john in oz

The Government has already stated today they would not implement this as indicated this would be political suicide!! What is clear is that the budget is going to have a lot of pain in it for higher earners!!!

Alfresco

Phew!

jad n rich

Not in THIS budget maybe.

But its ts been on the agenda long before the current report recommended it, I would think its only a matter of time. Another suggestion was to cap how much you could have in your own home, $500,000 was mentioned, that figure in sydney or melb would only buy the mailbox in many areas.

carolinephillips

The really well off won't suffer. As usual it will hit those earning a decent wage, but with high bills because of where they live- like Sydney - and those who have complex medical problems. Most of My OH's salary seems to be going on medical bills, once he has paid tax, insurance, levies, medicare, and a large mortgage.

BASHO

Or will we just have death duty's , or both , oh joy decisions, decisions.

Craig Vaughan

My initial reaction was that it shouldn't be touched, like most here. Thinking about how it would affect my grandparents etc. But thinking about it more from a public policy perspective why should you be able to rely on the public purse to fund retirement (or anything) when you have assets/funds to support yourself. And then be able to hand to your kids a windfall untaxed on death.

That doesn't really make sense either.

Welfare/pensions etc should be for those that need it.

Options as I see it are:
1) death tax
2) cap on own home to avoid mansion type homes being exempt but that's difficult given property prices vary and in Sydney a cap of 500k wouldn't mean an extravagant home.
3) must access 40% of equity via reverse mortgage first before relying on pension.
4) not sure what else.

I'm not saying it's an easy question, but as a matter of policy if you can support yourself you should, regardless of age.

Some might say its a disincentive to working hard but I've never bought that argument. People generally want to support themselves and want to work well to provide a good life. Obviously there are exceptions but if we based public policy on those that rort the system we wouldn't have many public services.

My 2 cents. Overall I think welfare takes up way too much of our taxes.

Gibbo

Well, I own my own home, didn't retire until I was 73, was widowed when I was 47, with 4 children, got nothing from the Government, managed to pay for some super, and now get less than 50% of the aged pension. To say that I would be shitty if my home was included in the assets test would be a gross understatement especially when people who have made little or no contribution via the tax system are getting $400 a week pension and I think rent assistance as well.

BASHO

There were only two things I needed to know regarding government assistance before I came to Australia , was there a public health system and was there a government funded pension scheme.

There was, so I came, fully trained , experienced and labour market ready, own steam , not assisted passage.

That was 1n 1974 I've just retired after just short of 40 years hard labour,-(you get considerably less for murder).

I've seldom been ill to the point of needing a doctor and payed tax on everything, like most, on the way through.

I own my own home, purchased without 1st home buyers grant , it isn't worth a great deal and it's in Hervey Bay , but I own it outright.

Such super as I managed to accumulate was wiped out for any practical purposes , twice , so I will , unfortunately, be dependant on the government pension.

I don't like it but I'm out of time and in the wrong place to do much about it.

And now I'm faced with this pension fiddling bullcrap and the suplimentary medical surcharge for good measure.

What was the deal in the first place ??? ---Ahhhhh , I remember, Government funded health care , must have missed the bit about 'until you may actually need it' - and a government funded pension , it aint much , but you can manage on it , must have missed the 'reducing till you can't' (manage) bit.

As for including the 1st home in assets inclusion could the government perhaps consider making lethal doses of Nembutal available under the PBS to pensioners at the same time as goodwill gesture, it'd make everything sooo much neater for everyone.

I'm goin' to have to start voting

spottydog

I think it probably should be, but only if it is a family home. A modest home suitable for just the retires should be exempt (encouraging downsizing and release of capital).

The problem is quantifying the $ value for setting it at. In my area you need nearly $1m for the smallest house and I don't think the government should be forcing people to move away from their local area.

This article on news yesterday sums up the disparities across the country with the same description house valued at $250k to $5m depending on location.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-...-1226903199137

The Bloke

I'll believe it when it happens, or rather doesn't happen.
Abbott stated that they wouldn't introduce a fee for going to the doctor....but by all expert opinions, it is likely after the "Independent" Commission of Audit report, that it will be. He also promised that there would be no new taxes....didn't think of the Debt Tax then did he......
Therefore, I'm not believing a word.

Petals

This is easy for me to answer no, it should not, why should I have to get a reverse mortgage just to stay in my own home that I have lived in for 28 years.

Of course if one is a person who moves around a lot this may seem ok but for those of us who like to stay put in our pond, our home is sacred to us and we are spending money just keeping the home going especially if its a larger one.

If mums can have a year's pay for having a baby why cannot our homes be exempt from the asset test.

People have some great idea that everyone gets a pension well we do not all get a pension despite the fact we have paid PAYE all our working life. Because we have the good luck to have saved and managed to get other assets to help us with our retirement we are not entitled to one. I only have a medical card which entitles me to cheap prescriptions.

I am not moaning about it I just think there is such a lot of misinformation being put about by the press and I have to think the gov itself that there are all these people taking money which should not be.

To live on the pension is an achievement as well as a right as its not a lot of money. Keeping one's own home if just on the pension can be a challenge.

Its funny at each stage of our lives we think that we know it all and changes are a long way off, but they are not and they creep up and bite us in the b................

Beoz

In Germany, where home ownership is minimal then your home could be considered an asset quite easily, as investments are mixed and varied and renting is considered normal. It would be unfair to consider those who decided to invest in a portfolio of shares which pay the rent, any different to someone who invested in property to achieve the same purpose.