News

NewsTime to give the over 50's a voice in budget debates on tax, retirement and work
Time to give the over 50's a voice in budget debates on tax, retirement and work

Time to give the over 50's a voice in budget debates on tax, retirement and work

Tags: Consumer Action Consumer Quickshot FiftyUp Club
Last updated by Chris Zinn on

As debate hots up before the Federal Budget, it’s time to gauge the views of those most affected by the hip-pocket issues being discussed – the over-50s.

The 120,000-member FiftyUp Club has today launched its second annual pre-Budget survey, asking the over-50s what they think about:

  • Pensions and superannuation
  • Negative gearing,
  • The GST and
  • Working to age 70

Consumers over 50 can now give their views HERE on big questions such as whether access to the pension should be more strict, the GST should be extended, or negative gearing should be ended.

They’ll also be asked about work experiences ahead of the inquiry into discrimination against older workers, announced this week (see Appendix).

Last year’s FiftyUp Club Budget Survey attracted more than 6,500 responses on pensions, Medicare and other issues and was presented to the federal government. The same will be done this year.

“Big decisions in these areas affect us not just now but well into the future and will impact on how we plan, save and prepare — so it’s vital we have a voice in these debates,” says FiftyUp Club guest commentator Christopher Zinn.

“As a group with age and experience, but not always money and influence, we need to let decision-makers know what we think before it’s too late.”

The FiftyUp Club has over 120,000 members and uses their buying power to negotiate special offers and lobby on their behalf. It’s free to join at FiftyUpClub.com

Click Here to take our 5-Minute Survey

 

 

APPENDIX

Recent Budget Related News

  1. ‘Stop rich from using negative gearing to offset wages, save $1b : ACOSS’, Sydney Morning Herald, 16 April 2015 by Nassim Khadem Read Here
  2. ‘How a 12 per cent GST could deliver a $100,000 earner an income-tax cut of $34 a week’, News.com.au, 1 April 2015 by John Rolfe Read Here
  3. 'Tony Abbott pledges to protect our superannuation: No changes during his term of government and beyond’, The Daily Telegraph, 16 April 2015 by Simon Benson Read Here
  4. ‘Age Discrimination: Federal Government inquiry to examine barriers older workers face in finding jobs’, ABC Online, 15 April 2015 by Nick Dole Read Here
  5. ‘Opinion: Politicians can’t be trusted to make decisions about superannuation’, Courier Mail, 15 April 2015 by Jeff Kennett Read Here
Originally posted on .

Join the conversation

FiftyUp Club
Time to give the over 50's a voice in budget debates on tax, retirement and work

Share your views with other members. 

Want to leave a comment? or .
Read our moderation policy here.
John
John from VIC commented:

With regard to negative gearing, only expenses relating to the property should be tax deductible But not the actual interest paid on the mortgage. 

Carmen
Carmen from QLD commented:

I'm tired of politicians picking on those that have a bit money instead of fixing the real issues with unemployment. Stop paying people to breed and stop paying people not to work. Those of us who are finally earning a decent income don't need half our salary going to support those who would prefer to sit on the dole. We don't need out retirement incomes stolen or taxed to death when we have worked hard our entire lives (and contributed more than our fair share in taxes). Restructure unemployment benefits to an employment insurance that needs to be built up by contributions, Have harsher and more realistic requirements for those on the dole. They should not be allowed to pick and chose and yes they should be required to move if there is no work in their area. 

Allan
Allan from NSW commented:

Some of the questions and available responses do not fit my opinions. I find this regularly with surveys that try to force a result that they want. This is so annoying. Please ensure that any future surveys allow for "Other please detail" in the allowed responses. I don't know is not always a valid alternative IMHO. I feel a little cheated at the moment. 

Tony
Tony from NSW commented:

The Assets test should include the portion of the value of the family home which is in excess of (e.g.) double the median value of homes in that area. For instance if the median value of a house in Liverpool is $700,000 and a pensioner has a house worth $2,000,000 then $600,000 should be added to that persons assets for calculation of the age pension. 

Brian
Brian from NSW commented:

Hi, My responses are based on the current government's idea of fixing budgets, I have no faith in their solutions. For example when they want to fix "Food Labeling" it has to be business friendly and the consumer get no more info about country of origin. Their whole approach is not "people friendly". 

Denise
Denise from NSW commented:

Some of the questions and proscribed answers do not fit my opinion and it won't allow a question to be left unanswered. Because I am not comfortable with the proscribed answers it is not therefore that the answer is necessarily "I don't know"! There should be other choices if you want a fair reply. 

Rob
Rob from NSW commented:

All the time WE are being told that WE should have a civic and moral sense to contribute. Fair enough, but, after a lifetime of working, paying taxes and contributing and having built this country into what it is today, the time comes when at the end of our working lives those moral and civic responsibilities change. This is when the rest of the nation should have that same civic and moral sense to show its gratitude and appreciation to those that have put the points on the board. Its a time for those who come after, to not just show their appreciation but to be proud to be able to ensure those who have toiled for a lifetime receive just recognition for their lifelong efforts. It is their moral responsibility to do this. If the country is in such a state that this cant be done, then THAT is because our elected representatives have failed to plan and manage as their responsibilities have dictated. If that's the case, then it incumbent on those same elected representatives to PRIORITIZE their management of this nation to accommodate those issues first. It is NOT acceptable for our elected representatives to be whinging and whining like a pack of spoiled brats that we cant do this or that and to be constantly moving the goal posts all the time, always reducing our hard earned entitlements. THAT is simply NOT good enough. Instead of micro-managing the lives of the people of this nation, their duty is to appropriately manage the Nation for the people. When this generation was very young the Politicians of the day planned for these times and put things in place, like specific tax savings for our futures, which we all paid, but then, subsequent Politicians stole those saving, promising they would be allowed for in the future. Well where is THAT commitment now, long forgotten? I think not,we do remember, and we EXPECT to collect NOW We paid for it, now it is time for us to be able to collect what is rightfully ours. FIND A WAY, and DO IT NOW. Anything else is unacceptable. 

Carmen
Carmen from QLD replied to Rob:

Rob your absolutely right. We have 4 levels of government - local, state, upper and lower house. All of them ineffectual and overpaid and so full of irrational bureaucracy and money wasting it is shameful. And NONE of them are willing to take the harsh decisions. Increase GST. Stop funding dole bludgers who don't want to work. Get rid of red tape and barriers to both small and large business. 

Rob
Rob from NSW replied to Carmen:

Carmen, You raise yet another aspect of our system of governance that has for years been screaming for rationalization. The duplication and inherent waste that goes into so many tiers of government is disgraceful. With just a GOOD Federal Government aimed at oversight of administrative functions and a GOOD AUDITED Local government focused on administrating matters that affect communities on a local level, we could eliminate State Governments and all the while be streamlining the focus to governance that accounts for the vastly varying needs that exist with different needs in different places. Modern virtually instantaneous communication has for a very long time made these changes not only possible but essential to the running of a modern, cost effective, efficient, effective and responsive model of government. It could remove all the unnecessary red tape and all the unnecessary regulation, interference and waste that we see being "invented" more to justify positions, rather than actually doing anything of primary importance and addressing genuine need. 

Allan
Allan from NSW replied to Rob:

Well said Rob. Unfortunately, the current generations have had it too easy benefiting from the toil of the baby boomer generations. And they therefore don't see any need to step up to the plate, and in fact resent our expectations that they do. Also unfortunately, all governments are self centred, and can only see as far as their next term of office. They are only too willing to sell of our future security for current day windfalls that they can use to look good. As the words of a current song go: "I can tell you're lying because your lips are moving". Heaven help us! 

Felicity
Felicity from NSW replied to Rob:

Fantastic, exactly what I think, I agree whole heartedly. 

Tracee
Tracee from NSW commented:

At some point Governments have to stop penalising those of us who chose to delay our gratifications in life so that we can have a secure retirement. My husband and I have worked the best part of 100 years between us. We have made financial and personal sacrifices; worked tirelessly for all that we have, and made informed and conservative choices in our lifelong spending habits. When we bought our first home the interest rate was 17.5%. I had 12 weeks off my full time employment to have a child. There was no child care rebate for working parents, so a large part of my wage went to early childcare. Everything we earnt went into mortgages and saving for the future. Only now , a few years off retirement are we able to relax a little and take real holidays. Today's culture seems to suggest that the wealthy should share what they have worked all their lives for with the perpetually unemployed, or at least those who have choosen to 'live for the day'. We are only middle class workers yet we will be self funded retirees when the time comes. Our cumulative 100 years of paid income tax have already supported the chosen lifestyles of more than I care to imagine. If governments want to save money, they should cut spending on social securities handed out to the younger generations who live in the age of handouts and entitlements, or at least expect to later on in life. The baby boomers have already done their share of building up this nation! 

Carmen
Carmen from QLD replied to Tracee:

Tracee Like you I have worked hard my entire life. Budgeting, saving and scrapping to make ends meet. Now when I am finally close to retirement and finally earning a decent salary I find my tax is equivalent to supporting 4 dole bludgers. Its criminal. Take take take from the hard workers. Its incredibly unfair and unsusstainable 

Gertraud
Gertraud from ACT replied to Carmen:

Really? The dole for singles is currently $519.20 per fortnight, so 4 "dole bludgers" receive $2076.80 per fortnight - $53,996.80. Base on this you would be earning close to $180,000 per annum. 

Heather
Heather from QLD replied to Carmen:

Carmen, while I agree generally with your thoughts, I am pretty tired of hearing (from many others as well) about "dole bludgers". Of course there are people who are just lazy takers - there always have been people of this ilk and always will be. But I believe the percentage would be pretty low. Many people have not had the advantage of a good education and are unable to get unskilled work on a permanent basis; others are unable to work through circumstances beyond their control; and let's not forget the thousands of people thrown out of work both by businesses going off-shore and, especially in the past couple of years, being tossed out of work by governments, both state and federal. For all the blather about being plenty of jobs for older people, the truth is they are not plentiful and age discrimination is well entrenched despite all the rhetoric from politicians. If one happens to be close to retirement age when "retrenched", it is the equivalent of being just tossed on the scrap heap. And as for "retaining" programmes, I know from personal experience what a good money spinner they are for the agencies which run them, but not much good for anything else - this is the story I have also heard from many others who have been given such "assistance" to rejoin the workforce. Everyone has their own story and such generalisation is not helpful to anyone; many of the so-called dole bludgers would be overjoyed to have your particular gripe. 

Carmen
Carmen from QLD replied to Heather:

Heather I totally understand where your coming from and certainly over 50s can have a rough time of it. However I truly believe that our unemployment system is broken. My ex husband chose not to work. Centrelink never asked him for his previous 25 years of experience nor did they query why he was not applying for jobs in that field or similar. His answer was that he did not want to do that work any more. Yet they paid for a training course in Aged Care which he has never had any experience. How does this make sense. If you are accepting government and tax payer dollars then you work in what ever job will give you an income until you find something better. I see too many people who prefer to be paid by the government and our tax dollars rather than clean toilets or stack shelves. I agree living on the dole is difficult but our system generates generations of career unemployed without offering any solutions or fixing the problem. Rather they let people fall into this unemployment loop that smashes self esteeem rather that giving people real hope 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Responsible citizens at some stage make an effort to save and invest so that they will hopefully not be limited to a government pension. If the rules change to the point that the benefits of planning retirement fall away then the sacrifices made in the past are wasted. Anyone paying normal taxes should be illegible for a full pension without a means test. It is unfair to change the goalposts when taxpayers have planned for decades not to be totally dependent upon govt. or other pensions. Bear in mind that the wealthy spend more and therefore create employment and pay more in GST and other consumption taxes such as so called luxury taxes. If I were capable of being fully self supportive i would not bother with claiming a pension. 

Tim
Tim from NSW commented:

presently ,pensioners can only work 15 per week before losing part of there meager pension.I would like to see this changed to 30hours per week so there is incentive to work without being financially penalized.People in need should be able to access there super at anytime,especially those like me on DSP as i wont reach the age to collect. 

Comment Guidelines