News

NewsSome winners and some losers, but vast majority of pensioners might ask ‘What happened?’
Some winners and some losers, but vast majority of pensioners might ask ‘What happened?’

Some winners and some losers, but vast majority of pensioners might ask ‘What happened?’

Us over 50s may feel overlooked on occasions but pensioners are at the very heart and soul of next week’s Budget. 

Controversial plans for changes to pensions including indexing, taper rates, assets tests and proposals to raid healthy superannuation balances have dominated the run-up to Tuesday night.

On Thursday the government unveiled its changes to the eligibility criteria for the pension which saw the better-off lose access to the part pension, and an increase in the pension for others.

In our pre-Budget survey, answered by a record 13,000 of you, an overwhelming majority or 74% rejected proposed changes to tighten the assets tests for pensions agreeing ‘these people are not necessarily well-off’.

Contrast that to last year, when we asked if a couple with a family home and $1 million in other assets should get a part-pension, and 71% of you said “no”.

On the plus side under the new government plan some 50,000 on low to middle-incomes, who were on the part-pension, will now be eligible for the full pension.

And those who don’t own their home will be allowed more assets before they lose access to the pension.

You might have done the sums by now in the great pensions reshuffle to see if you fall into the winners or losers basket, although looking at the various tables be warned; it can be complex.

In general terms, and relying on the figures in Thursday’s Daily Telegraph, of the four million-strong pensioner population the ‘losers’ include:

  • 90,000 or two percent of pensioners with assets of more than $823,000, apart from their homes, will say goodbye to all of their part-pension .
  • 236,000 or six percent of the group, which have considerable assets, will have their part pensions reduced.

The ‘winners’, whose pensions will increase, are listed as 172,000 or 4%:

  • In all about 500,000 pensioners will find their incomes changed up and down, which is 12%
  • 88% or 3.5 million will not be affected by any of these changes

Yes, for all the hullabaloo the vast majority will see no difference up or down.

However the big news, which ironically produces the smallest difference in dollars to ALL pensioners in the short-term but the largest in the long-term, is the end to plans around the indexing of pensions.

It was a very unpopular Budget measure from last year to limit pension increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which would reduce payments in real terms over time. It’s now bitten the dust.

Now the detail is out and the Budget fact and fiction can be separated, the real debate will begin. And as ever we welcome your perceptive and provocative comments.

Originally posted on .

Join the conversation

FiftyUp Club
Some winners and some losers, but vast majority of pensioners might ask ‘What happened?’

Share your views with other members. 

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

I would have thought that the majority of pensioners would be happy to have $800,000 in assets and only get a part pension. Saving your money for all those years should be for YOUR retirement, not your childrens. Spend some of it and stop being greedy. 

Terence
Terence from QLD commented:

For many years we have been exhorted by Governments of all persuasions to save for our retirement. Having done that and worked until over 70 we find that our savings have become a 'cash-cow' for those in the top echelon of government who would not find employment in the 'private' sector. They are frightened to bite the bullet and chase up the high flying businesses with the ability to avoid tax. It is unfair to penalise retirees. The money to pay pensions to lower income areas should come from other sources, how about a levy on politicians salaries and 'after' parliament perks. A tax on pollies travel and office space etc would not be out-of-order. A curse on Canberra!!! 

allan
allan from QLD commented:

1,000'000 dollars is not a lot of money,when you consider that it has to last twenty years PLUS.So I believe that the threshold should stay as it is.alan 

Robyn
Robyn from NSW commented:

I feel that a lot of self funded retires and I am one, have lost the meaning of self funded. Compulsory super was only introduced in the 1980's but it was for a reason so that retires could pay for their retirement. A lot of us who get part pensions think it is great and try to conserve our assets so as to hand them to our children. This is not what super was designed for. I am quite happy to lose or get a reduced part pension as if I live long enough I will then receive a full pension from Centrelink but will no longer be travelling around Australia, cruising the oceans and enjoying retirement, but quite frankly I will be too old to do that. If the govt. does not introduce a death tax the kids will get the house, otherwise I could sell that too and continue to live the high life and not be a burden on society. Also remember that a couple who are retired today and worked all their life in a gov. job, i.e, teacher, police, nurses, some lawyers, accountants, clerks, some doctors and even secretary's and tradesmen who worked for the government are on a better retirement package than ordinary workers and have access to packages that ordinary retires do not. Eg. Define pensions and free financial services, so we should all pull together and use our super for what it was intended for. To look after ourselves and not fund our kids lifestyles. Dianne 

gail
gail from NSW commented:

Csn you explain why single pension asset level rose by 23.76% and couples level by 30.89%.? Seems to me that singles are being further disadvantaged. 

Deborah
Deborah from NSW commented:

I am just far, far too angry. Both sides of government are just plain short sighted. The change to the part pension assets test is encouraging people not to save. One of the first things the Labour government did when it came to power was reduce the amount of money workers could contribute to their superannuation (short sighted). I used to encourage my sons to save for their future lifestyle. My advice will now be: save to buy your home, pay off your mortgage, accumulate $550,000 in your super, then blow the rest and qualify for a full pension! $550,000 is not a lot of money for a single person to live on for goodness knows how many years ((even for those that own their own home). Quite honestly, I'm sick to death of short sighted governments. Not to worry, soon we'll all be on full pensions - I wonder what the government will do then! 

jeanette
jeanette from WA commented:

I'm 62 years old and need to retire but now have to work to 66.5 years. I structured my finances to be able to leave work around 60 as I have been working since I was 15. I could get the pension and top it up with my savings to have a reasonable rest of my life, but now have another 5 years to have to work. I have to look after my elderly mother on my weekends off and I m worn out. 

Karen
Karen from NSW replied to jeanette:

There is no 'official' retirement age. If you have enough savings you can retire whenever you want. Super funds have a preservation age that is somewhere between 50 and 65 depending on the individual fund. The 66.5 years is only the age to be able to claim the government aged pension - this is what has been proposed to increase to 70 years over time. So if you want to retire you can. But you will have to wait to 66.5 for the aged pension assuming you will qualify for it. 

Martin
Martin from VIC commented:

Hi it is unbelievable what rubbish these guys are coming up with? It is that someone who worked all life long and saved up is getting punished now. On the other hand other people worked hard as well and did spend the money on enjoyable things in life and now getting rewarded that they have done so. And there are others not working hard and getting full support from the pension. The question is why does the pension has to be asset tested at all. Can we not measure the pension on the money earned in your life time and have a minimum pension for people who could not work for any reason. -This is just a thought- Does these politician are getting asset tested for their pension - I do not think so? The people should be able to vote more for things which affects the nation. Why does retired politician getting so much freebies. If we as normal workers do not work anymore we do not get any freebies from the company we did work for. And if you are a self funded retired person you are not even getting the concession as a full time pensioner. We all worked our life long and contributed in the workforce. I strongly believe this pension system needs a big over hall including the politician. We could save millions of $ then. 

Peter
Peter from QLD commented:

I'm a self-funded retiree, and still paying taxes on some of my income. I get no pension, no concessions, no health card, no nothing from the gov. I worked hard and long all my life to get where I am without relying on any hand-outs. Are they intending to attack my asset base, or tax me more? Biggles 

Joe
Joe from NSW commented:

To make it fair for self funded retirees that have no superannuation pension to draw on tax free,that have a modest income from other investments, there should be a tax free threshold on interest earned on bank savings deposit s over and above the normal tax threshold. bank deposits are much safer than having the risk of losing capital within super investments, 

Comment Guidelines