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.
Rudolf
Rudolf from NSW commented:

Some people were unable to access superannuation until late in their working lives. To assume some are good savers and others not so good is hurtful and unfair, however fairness in any form is always going to be a matter of perception by the individual. We all need to realise that "us" being the various levels of Government included should be as responsible for ourselves as possible. 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

After listening to Joe Hocky the self-funded retires are the forgotten generation. 

Alan
Alan from QLD commented:

Politicians might do well to realise that a retired couple, owning their home with avalue a lot less than $1,000,000 and around $850,000 in assets, are not rich. It would be a lucky investor, under current circumstances, the could guarantee a return of 4% to 5% per annum. The part pension gave just a little bit of comfort to those of us that have never been recipients of government welfare in the past, with most of us bringing up our children without benefits, childcare fees etc. We pay for our medical insurance and try hard not to be a burden on anyone, but to take away the small payment of a part pension in our declining years, will help to reduce our living standards and, dignity. 

Janette
Janette from NSW replied to Alan:

Couldn't agree more! Janette NSW 

linda
linda from QLD commented:

what is classed as low to middle income, I currently get a part pension and a super pension, but I do not know the amount you can receive before the pension reduces 

Judith
Judith from NSW commented:

I tried to find unsuccessfully what the budget means for self-funded retirees.Do we still be able to keep our health care card if our income is less than $50.000 for a single without income from super? 

Rob
Rob from VIC commented:

I did what successive Govt's have asked me to do and worked until I was 67.25 y.o and always as a single income earner. My wife, of some 30 yrs , was a stay at home Mum and I put 3 kids thru private school, so none of us have been a burden on the tax system I paid taxes all my life without ever receiving 1c of welfare ; in fact, at a period of my life I paid 61.5c on my top $$$ earnings without complaining. I planned my retirement over the last 4-5 years ,scaling down in days and using a TTR structure and all the time knowing that I would get a very small part pension ($2500 p.a which pays for a round of golf each week) but I would at least get the age pension card and I was Ok with that; but the goal posts have been moved for me without any capacity to recover lost earnings !!!! They should have simply grandfathered existing part pensioners and made all new retirees go on the new scales.....fairer for all concerned. Like many of our age group the GFC hit us all very hard and we don't have the years left to catch up; I also lost 60% of my assets in a "late in life " divorce. If anyone thinks that, as a single person with an apartment worth $500K and $650K in supn,and no other assets ,I am rich;think again 'cos with cash interest rates the lowest they have been in our lifetime, I have to seek higher dividends to earn sufficient to live on and that means being in the share market with all it's uncertainties, as all things being equal, I have a long time left to live. I have been a Liberal voter all my life but will note vote for them at the next election;nor will I vote Labor as they were going to tax supn for retirees and I am definitely not a "greenie" Not much left;is there ??? 

graham and lyn
graham and lyn from NSW commented:

even a small increase in the pension results in an increase in dept housing rent-so no increase! 

Rhyl
Rhyl from QLD commented:

This is really a smoke and mirrors budget. Hockey says no changes to the health care card,but the concessions attached to it via state governments were defunded last year and not funded this year. So what will happen to concessions for energy costs, rates, transport costs, registration etc. With the federal government transferring more and more costs to the states, it seems very likely that pensioner concessions are likely to take a hit, eroding the pension further. Plus,no increase in the pensioner rental assistance - bad luck for those pensioners trying to rent in the private market. 

Christine
Christine from NSW commented:

Wondering if anyone can clarify for me the eligibility for the Commonwealth Seniors Card, for the 'losers' in the budget.. ( being self funded retirees who WERE eligible for the part pension pre-budget. ) I interpreted from Joe Hockey last night that if you have a pension card at present you would automatically be able to get the Commonwealth Seniors Card. Does anyone have any info?? 

arnold
arnold from VIC commented:

Whilst the change back of pension index is welcome, the proposed changes to part pension taper rates just don't make sense in these times of low cash interest rates. Assets of $375,000 will get a full pension of $33,000 per year per couple. Cash interest of 3% gives an extra $11,250, so total income of $44,250. Assets of $850,000 now get no pension and interest at cash rate gives $25,500. So after one year of topping up this $25,500 these retirees drop back into the part pension. It takes interest rates of 7% before the $850,000 retirees get more income than the full pensioner. How the *@*@* does Morrison think this makes sense. These are not wealthy retirees. They are likely to have accumulation super from low to middle incomes, maybe with broken employment. "Asset millionaires". Easy target more likely. So next year those approaching 65 and with limited super will be told by their financial advisors to spend money on their residence so that they get $45,000 from the government and have a better asset (home) up their sleeve. Which idiots in the treasury checked the detail of this flawed proposal? 

Greg
Greg from VIC replied to arnold:

Spot on. You don't have to be a genius to work it out. How these clowns ever get a job has got me whacked. I am taking two actions. First just as you say. Spend like crazy on the house. Second. Never voting again. 

Comment Guidelines