flag of convenience Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Come 2017, if one has $1m in additional assets(exempting family home) they wouldn't be eligible for a pension. Thank god for that. I would be very hesitant with not expecting further les favourable outcomes with regards to pension and super payments. The onus appears to be on tax cuts, especially corporate meaning there will be ever les money in the pot. Super contributions are too tempting in thinking future governments will not change what is in place now. It favours the better off so while there will be resistance, especially from the conservative side of politics, I can't see it as an on going concern that many can fully rely on as stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Well as you concur the artificially created housing casino for that is what it has become, offer few guarantees. Government forced reverse mortgage would only be enforceable over a certain amount. No body would lose their house in their lifetime. I pension should in my view partly supplement the reverse income under a sensible amount. Hardly difficult to work out a reasonable amount which of course should be adjusted come further falls, or rises for that matter. And what May I ask are sensible/reasonable amounts? Simple question for you, there are 3 close to retirement people each has a house valued at $1m, do they each have to get a reverse mortgage to part pay their pension? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 And what May I ask are sensible/reasonable amounts?Simple question for you, there are 3 close to retirement people each has a house valued at $1m, do they each have to get a reverse mortgage to part pay their pension? Depending on circumstances as I said. Probably unlikely someone close to retirement would purchase a one million dollar house, but perfectly feasible. Especially if it was a form a asset or monetary avoidance. Then yes of course. If on the other hand the house was purchased during the time of over heated markets and prices substantially dropped to below price paid then there is a strong case for exclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 $1M is not an expensive home for goodness sake. The median in Sydney is well over that. And load of suburbs in Melbourne where you struggle to get a home for $1M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I think one can, the current limit seems to be around $1.2m for home owners. EDIT: Just goes to show how overly generous the govt is when coming to aged pensions. For a home owning couple, the asset and income test it is between $291,500 and $1,156,500, (non home owners it is $149,000 greater) so if you have $291,499 you get a full pension, if you have $1,156,500 you get no pension. I think that is reasonable and no need for any changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Depending on circumstances as I said. Probably unlikely someone close to retirement would purchase a one million dollar house, but perfectly feasible. Especially if it was a form a asset or monetary avoidance. Then yes of course. If on the other hand the house was purchased during the time of over heated markets and prices substantially dropped to below price paid then there is a strong case for exclusion. My point exactly the value of the home has vary varied tangible cash availability, and any scheme to try and use it would be full of so many holes the gov would end up crawling up their own ass trying to block them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 My point exactly the value of the home has vary varied tangible cash availability, and any scheme to try and use it would be full of so many holes the gov would end up crawling up their own ass trying to block them. I don't see it being so difficult to manage personally. But this being where it is ,I can imagine there will always be obstacles to which the government will be hard put to resolve. Tender it out then. Something will need to be done at some stage that is becoming increasingly clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toOZ2012 Posted September 9, 2015 Author Share Posted September 9, 2015 For a home owning couple, the asset and income test it is between $291,500 and $1,156,500, (non home owners it is $149,000 greater) so if you have $291,499 you get a full pension, if you have $1,156,500 you get no pension. I think that is reasonable and no need for any changes. Someone with say half of the limit at $600k in additional assets(excluding the potentially $1m+ family home) is eligible for $21.5k in aged pension compared to the full aged pension of $33k. The person with $600k in additional assets gets to safely keep/hide his million dollar house plus $600k in additional assets and still puts a hand out. For someone one with little to nothing, a person on full aged pension has to pay rent and try to lead a dignified lifestyle with what little is left. The pension rates aren't going up at the same rate as expenses while more and more people who can afford to self-fund their retirement refuse to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Someone with say half of the limit at $600k in additional assets(excluding the potentially $1m+ family home) is eligible for $21.5k in aged pension compared to the full aged pension of $33k. The person with $600k in additional assets gets to safely keep/hide his million dollar house plus $600k in additional assets and still puts a hand out. For someone one with little to nothing, a person on full aged pension has to pay rent and try to lead a dignified lifestyle with what little is left. The pension rates aren't going up at the same rate as expenses while more and more people who can afford to self-fund their retirement refuse to. I still cannot accept the home ($4, $6, $10m excepted maybe) being taken into consideration, most folks have already done the hard yard with paying all the costs and sufferings associated with buying and owning a home in the early years. Regarding your last paragraph that is exactly the reason why some folks will prudently save and invest (investments are a risk too) as they can foresee that the pension will not be enough to cover cost of living increases, so they hopefully try and build in there own safety buffer, and then you want to take part of that off them and in some instances all of it! OK I accept that rules and taxes change but on this one it is something which should not be done overnight, it needs to be done on say a 5-10 year notice so those whom are near to retirement and planned on the system as is now, are safeguarded, and then others have more/sufficient time to adjust their plans accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I don't see it being so difficult to manage personally. But this being where it is ,I can imagine there will always be obstacles to which the government will be hard put to resolve. Tender it out then. Something will need to be done at some stage that is becoming increasingly clear. If tax is not difficult then the unemployment rate will go up when all the tax agents, accountants and lawyers get made redundant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toOZ2012 Posted September 10, 2015 Author Share Posted September 10, 2015 I still cannot accept the home ($4, $6, $10m excepted maybe) being taken into consideration, most folks have already done the hard yard with paying all the costs and sufferings associated with buying and owning a home in the early years.Regarding your last paragraph that is exactly the reason why some folks will prudently save and invest (investments are a risk too) as they can foresee that the pension will not be enough to cover cost of living increases, so they hopefully try and build in there own safety buffer, and then you want to take part of that off them and in some instances all of it! OK I accept that rules and taxes change but on this one it is something which should not be done overnight, it needs to be done on say a 5-10 year notice so those whom are near to retirement and planned on the system as is now, are safeguarded, and then others have more/sufficient time to adjust their plans accordingly. That I agree with as current changes to pension are already being phased in slowly, which is only fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 If tax is not difficult then the unemployment rate will go up when all the tax agents, accountants and lawyers get made redundant! Yes add to that migration agents. Even though most those things we can do for ourselves. Odd how over the recent decade and a half there is this alleged need to have people doing what we once done ourselves. Saying that it was far easier to approach Departments like taxation and migration in times past to clarify and get info when stuck or needing clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.