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.
Tom
Tom from WA commented:

Lorene that is what they do in UK, and Sweden too I believe, never trust pollies, they can't lie straight in bed..... 

Arthur
Arthur from QLD commented:

Just worried about the impact on those without pensions who survive on interest on Term Deposits and the cut in interest rates Arthur 

Norma
Norma from QLD replied to Arthur:

My sister will recieve a full pension because she smoked her money away. I have a part pension because I didn't smoke. It is never easy to be fair to everyone. 

Lorene
Lorene from QLD commented:

I've long advocated that the whole unemployment and pension system in Australia is nothing more than welfare that in and of itself has no accountability. The system needs to change. If you want to ensure you get a pension then it needs to be set up as a pension fund that every working Australian pays into and is entitled to at the end of their working life regardless of their wealth status. Unemployment should be the same an insurance you pay into that entitles to you to 12 months of decent unemployment, or sickness payments , this could also be set up to be accessed as maternity leave, again you pay into it so you are entitled to it regardless of your wealth status. Welfare should be there to support those who fall through the cracks ie handicap support, and those who for what ever reason are unable to financially look after their selves. We already pay this in taxes so there would be no increase just transparency, accountability and fairness under this system everyone is entitled if they have worked. If a man becomes unemployed he is entitled to his "Unemployment Insurance" regardless of wether or not his wife has an income. Everyday families are thrown into poverty because their is no income support when one parent of a 2 parent working family becomes unemployed. Under the current system every government every budget the pension system is used to kick goals or fill up the coffers . It is time we had a system set in stone that could not be used as a political tool. And this would not be a Super fund that is run by private enterprise it needs to be a Secured GOV Pension fund. 

Gertraud
Gertraud from ACT replied to Lorene:

This is the system that has been in place in most European countries for as long as I can remember. When I started working in my native Austria, a social security deduction was made from my monthly salary with my employer being required to contribute an equal amount, income tax was then levied on the balance. The social security deduction covered sick leave, maternity leave, medical, unemployment and pension. 

Lorene
Lorene from QLD replied to Gertraud:

You right it is in place in many countries I just wish Australia would get with the program and stop treating us like mugs ! 

Peter
Peter from QLD replied to Lorene:

Like your idea Lorene. 

Lorene
Lorene from QLD replied to Peter:

Thank you Peter, I bet you like the 1% debit tax system as well .. but that is for another day. Wish I could take credit but this system is working in Canada, and as Gertraud pointed out is working in many European countries. 

frank
frank from QLD replied to Lorene:

If you read my post we used to have that system but Menzies stole it. research the act of 1942 reference pensions Google it. you may be surprised. 

Linda
Linda from QLD commented:

According to Page 12 of the Courier Mail, 'wealthy' retirees would be ensured access to the Commonwealth Health Seniors card. Considering the staggering cost of medication, this would be the right thing to do. I also don't like the inference that 8 out of 10 taxpayers are keeping pensioners and retirees in the lap of luxury. Maybe Mr Morrison should be impressing 3.7 million voters, because by the time the budget is passed there maybe another election. 

Karen
Karen from NSW commented:

I agree that those with significant assets should not need or get a pension. I also agree that people should be funding their own retirement and that the aged pension should be a safety net not some sort of right. However, setting the cut off level at these predicted levels I think is too low. A single person with $550,000 in super will generate less income than the full pension today yet they will effectively be paying more for things because they will not be able to claim things like the health card or other concessions that come with a part pension. This will effective put them at an income level below the aged pension. And if they use the capital to live off, they will be on the full pension far quicker in the future because their capacity to continue to generate income will be diminished. No, the cut off point should be higher than those being publicised now. 

Pam
Pam from QLD commented:

I'd like to know how I will be affected. I don't own any property, and don't have any superannuation. No savings either. If the new legislation doesn't come in until 2017, how am I supposed to manage to live until then? And I still don't know how much I'll get then. 

Karen
Karen from NSW replied to Pam:

Between now and 2017 nothing will change for you. And after 2017 you are likely to get the extra $30 they are talking about. People in your situation will not be adversely affected. 

Pam
Pam from QLD replied to Karen:

I thought so, but how am I supposed to survive until then? Income stays the same but out goings are increasing every week, and that's 18 months away still. 

Karen
Karen from NSW replied to Pam:

Yes well nothing different there. Everyone is in the same boat. You would get the usual six monthly pension increase though such as it is. 

Judith
Judith from NSW commented:

We will fall under the new assets figure and can assure you that any cut to our pension will hurt. A couple with $1 million in term deposit would earn less than a pensioner couple on the full pension. So much for trying to help yourself. 

Jean
Jean from NSW commented:

Why are pensioners being singled out? We saved hard bought a house, paid taxes, contributed to super where it was locked away until we retired, did not have overseas trips and other luxuries and now we are being penalised for doing the right thing! We have few options to make up the money we will lose, interest rates are extremely low and there is even talk of removing franked dividends which would further disadvantage retirees. Why are pensioners expected to bare the brunt for the current budget problems when couples earning up to $250k per annum will receive child care benefits, high wage earners receive favourable tax treatment for super contributions and many individuals and companies evade/avoid payment of taxes? Is it because the government does not see any value in retirees now that our working lives are over? 

Terence
Terence from QLD commented:

The losers will be those with $800K-$1,000k who will be worse off than all those retiree couples who did not manage to save that much of a nest egg. Under current interest rates someone living off interst from $800k would receive $26k per year. Someone on the pension would receive $33K plus health care card. 

Terry
Terry from NSW commented:

Once again the sloths who have p it up against the wall, pokies, Keno & meals at the club instead of being frugal, going without to buy a home & contribute to savings & Super for their future are the bleeding heart squeaky wheels who will get everything thrown at them. We wouldn't be in this pickle if the government of the day was not continually wasting OUR money by actions such as giving vast sums of money to Pakistan or providing white limousines at the airport for the transport of the families of convicted criminals. What possible precedent could be used to justify supplying limousine transport to the families of convicted criminals. What's the point of the present Government raising further taxes to balance the budget when we all know that as soon as they get an extra quid they will simply find some other lost cause to blow it on? signed SELF FUNDED RETIREE WHO OWNS A HOUSE AND HAS WORKED HARD FOR AND GONE WITHOUT ALL HIS LIFE TO HOPEFULLY??? ENSURE A COMFORTABLE RETIREMENT 

Comment Guidelines