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.
John
John from VIC commented:

John from Victoria. Who is eligible for the Senior Health Care Card under the new changes? Do self funded retirees who are not on a govt pension get automatic access to the health card when they reach pension age at 65? 

Gertraud
Gertraud from ACT replied to John:

As far as I can gather, there is no change to the Senior Health Care Card as this is income tested rather than asset tested. 

Susan
Susan from QLD replied to John:

There was a change to senior health care card eligibility on 1st January 2015, the income received from the account based pensions set up after this date will be counted as income in the income test. Any changes to existing pensions will also render them assessable. 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

I am with you Betty my parents should have bludged on society not saved, not invested etc etc etc. They currently receive part pension and so they bloody should they have paid taxes they have worked hard. Now they are currently in a nursing home with full care, my dad had dementia. They are paying $5000.00 per month yes that is right and on top of that the pharmaceutical bill is around $165.00 per month. The little pension they do get is just a top up that's it. They don't go anywhere because they can't. Married for 60 years. We let others into this country they get free medical, free housing the list goes on and on and on. I am so over it. Why shouldn't my parents get part pension they have earned it many times over. MR ABOTT - SHAME, SHAME, SHAME. 

gregory
gregory from NSW commented:

Ok, But what's going to happen with the CSHC for those "very rich'' self funded pensioners who will lose their part-pensions soon?? ( just wish i was an "Ex-Politician") Greg, NSW. 

Robert
Robert from NSW commented:

No one should get money from the government if they have their own money If they have assets they should be applied against any money paid during their life before it goes to the estate. That is simply paying back what you owe. Come on Australia. The whole system is unfair. 

Someone
Someone from NSW replied to Robert:

Yes the system does stink, work hard, save your money, pay taxes, get sick have to go to a nursing home and not a top noch one just a basic one. then you pay $$$$ per month to live there give me a break. Maying back what they owe, they should have bludged on society so all the other tax payers can support them. And let's bring a whole lot of other people in, so we can give them free housing, medical the list goes on. I am furious. LIBERALS HERE WE GO AGAIN 

Robert
Robert from NSW commented:

When you pay taxes, you are not paying into your private pension fund so you can tKe it later. The pension was set up for th e destitute. It is now supposed to be basic income support. We, the taxpayer are paying part pensions to people wY past basic income. It is is a disgrace. The government needs to force people to save for their retirement instead of others paying. The government needs to unlock the value in the pensioners home so they can pay for themselves. This would account for possibly 80 per cent of the pension bill footed by the taxpayer every year. The pension is not your money. It is money taken from other people 

Someone
Someone from NSW replied to Robert:

My parents deserve the pension. It's not the $$ so much it is the benefits. And why shouldn't they have it. They have paid taxes they have worked, why not. So their taxes paying others. It is their money. Wait and see if you need full time care $5000.00 per month, good luck. They can bring outsiders in and they get benefits for absolutely nothing. haven't worked in Australia ever. Give me a break they deserve part pension they have earned it. 

Robert
Robert from NSW commented:

You don't earn the pension. You take it because you can't look after yourself. BUT most actually can they just take other people's money. For the truly destitute it is understandable. For everybody else that has money now or at death give back the money. No deficit, lower taxes, more public infrastructure. Taxes should be used for public benefit not individuals who should be responsible for themselves 

Someone
Someone from NSW replied to Robert:

Yes you do earn the pension by doing the right thing, paying taxes, working investing. You do earn it. Some bludger comes into this country and gets it all for nothing what have they contributed absolutely nothing, not a tax nothing. SO please don't say my parents haven't earned they bloody well have many times over. 

Robert
Robert from NSW commented:

The pension is public charity. Everyone should be responsible to pay for themselves and we would have no pension. A couple on full pension receives 33 thousand per year. Ithey will take over 500 thousand over 17 years (67 to 84). They didn't earn it. They don't deserve it. They should pay back from their estate every single cent. If the basic income rate is the full pension of 33 thousand why is the taxpayer supplementing pensioner who earn far more than that. No "bludger" should come into the country and get welfare. Absolutely agree. That is a separate issue and it is anothe example of inept government programs and management. 

betty
betty from NSW commented:

seems to me that what we have here is a reward for those that have not contributed to their future being rewarded. Whilst those of us with a modest retirement fund, certainly nowhwere near the $ 823,000 plus, will bear the brunt. We use our savings to top up our pensions and pay our way, we do not enjoy movies or dinner out, but do enjoy a weekly coffee.Seems to me that the government is targetting this group rathet than do something about the superranuation and negative gearing rorts! 

maria
maria from NSW commented:

I agree that retirees with considerable assets (and $823,000 for a couple IS considerable) should not receive a pension. I also believe that those whose family home has increased in value astronomically (usually in capital cities like Sydney) should be using some of the equity in their home as income, perhaps in the form of a reverse mortgage. Savings from these measures could then perhaps benefit those pensioners in the middle who are often overlooked. 

Russell
Russell from VIC replied to maria:

I agree with assets over $823000 pensions are not warranted. However the family home should be sacrosanct. Most people of pensioner age should not have to mortgage their property to subsidize their income. People have worked hard and made many sacrifices to pay off their homes, the fact that it has increased in value due to the passing of time should have no bearing on income ,most people are already paying higher rates and other extra charges because of the increased value of their property, yet their income has no where increased proportionally. Russell 

maria
maria from NSW replied to Russell:

You get no argument from me about the fact that they have worked hard for what they have, that's why I believe no one should be forced out of their family home. However, their children have NOT worked for it and they are the only ones who will benefit through inheritance. Whether we like it or not something has to give in order to fund our growing population of retirees. I don't propose that the full value of the family home be mortgaged, that wouldn't be fair I agree, but giving retirees access to use some of the value locked in their property in a manner whereby it doesn't have to be paid back till after their death seems a relatively painless solution. 

Margaret
Margaret from VIC commented:

Is there a clear definition of assets other than the primary residence? What about people who live in retirement village where they have no legal ownership but have life long lease of the residence. Margaret from Victoria 

Karen
Karen from NSW replied to Margaret:

Your home will not be taken into account as is the current situation. But other assets say your super fund, savings, investment property, gold bullion, artworks etc will be and rightly so. People can sell these things (and the are things) and live on the proceeds. If you own nothing and you have nothing then you are likely to be about $30 better off from 2017. Living in a retirement village is your home so not included in the asset test. 

Garry
Garry from NSW commented:

I have read the article by Christopher Zinn but find the information mostly generic while scant and ambiguous in detail. Like most pensioners I am concerned and want to know exactly how this budget change will affect all pensioners. In the article Mr Zinn infers a pensioner can have assets of $823,000 in addition to the family home. However, my understanding is that is for a pensioner 'couple' and that a 'single' pensioner may have their allowable assets reduced to around $550,000. It cannot be assumed that all pensioners are living as 'couples' as many have reached the age where a partner may pre-decease them. So, there are many 'single' pensioners out there. Can Mr Zinn clarify how 'single' pensioners will be affected by these changes and also what asset level pensioners who do not own their own homes are able to have in order to retain a part pension. These are the details many 'single' pensioners want to know. Garry NSW. 

martina
martina from NSW replied to Garry:

I have tried to make some sense out of the pension winners and losers at this latest Government whim. A single homeowner with $375.00 to 400,00 in the bank, making very low interest rates at the moment, will lose about $4,000 less in their fortnightly pension,if my husband was still alive, I would be getting a $2,000 increase, how does that work? My rates, electricity, and phone bills would be almost the same, whether there are one or two people in the house. How can 'caring' Governments do that to pensioners that have worked hard and payed their taxes all their lives on their earnings. Why do single pensioners get punished for losing their spouses? How cruel is that?? 

Karen
Karen from NSW replied to martina:

As I understand it you will still get a part pension. The cut off point for singles is (or will be) $550,000 in addition to your home. So if you have less than $550,000 in the bank or super or in a sock under the bed, probably nothing much will change for you. 

Karen
Karen from NSW replied to Garry:

Gary you are correct. The proposal is that singles will have an asset limit of $550,000 after which they will lose any part pension they may have had to now. The asset limit will not include the home you live in. My concern is that whilst I do not disagree with the policy per se, I believe the threshold to be set too low. If a single person only has the $550,000 in super or in the bank they will generate an income less than the full pension at the moment. If they then have to use the capital to make up the shortfall, they will have even less ability to generate more income. Thus people will end up on the pension anyway and probably faster than before. That's why I think the levels are way too low to get people off the part pension. 

martina
martina from NSW replied to Karen:

Hi Karen, I am aware that I will still get a part pension as before, but as I stated before, instead of an increase of $2,000 if I was still couple, I will be getting $4,000 less, because I am a single person, that to me does not sound fair, What can I do? Spend a $100,000 of my bank savings, on my house, or overseas trips, and then I will be eligible to receive the same increase pension. How does that save the Government $billions? It just doesn't seem fair, and a great extra worry for older single people! 

Karen
Karen from NSW replied to martina:

Actually if you own your home and have up to $550,000 (down from $750000) in the bank or super nothing will change. For couples its up to $830, 000 (down from $1.5m). But you are NOT a couple, you are a single person. For all of us singles throughout our life we have been treated differently, we pay the most tax and receive fewer 'benefits' (think no schools, childcare, family benefits, dual income for mortgage repayments etc etc) yet our outgoings on the non-negotiables are the same (water, utilities, heating, cooling, phone food etc etc etc.) Such is life. Being a pensioner makes no difference to that. 

Comment Guidelines