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 NSW commented:

PENSIONS..for every Government..Stop moving the goal posts !!!!! when I retired I set in motion steps to carry thru to well the inevitable ... over 10 years , thru various changes ,(some financial, world and local) ..we are getting LESS not more... and any gains in Super , we will not regain enough for the losses.... but everyone should remember , even though it was a long time ago...it wasnt the average joe who changed the rules , see below .............,in 1942/3 a fund was set up where a portion if tax was invested to fund the pension.It amassed a Huge amount of money,only to put back to public revenue by Menzies in the 50s with no opposition from Cauldwell.The government spent Millions of pounds of tax payer money.This info is available for all to read on Google search.Act of 1942 re:pensions. .....................The Future Fund was set up in recent years to cover the Politicians and Public Servants Super... good on them , but dont blame or penalise the other poor sods (average Joe pensioners for living longer !!!!) STOP MOVING THE GOAL POSTS !!!! 

Peter
Peter from QLD commented:

Will carer's of the permanently disabled i.e. Cerebral Palsy, lose there carer payments if assets are over $823,000? Cost are increased due to permanently disabled family member and a carer is unable to work to help household income. Home carer's also save the Gov't by keeping the disabled person at home. A couple with about $750,000 plus car, emergency cash and household assets taking them over the $823,000 will no longer get a part pension Some calcs to consider as follows: 1. Return on $750,000 @ 6% = $45,000 2. Full pensioner couple with say $345,000 plus other assets of $30,000. Possible return -$345,000 @ 6% = $20,700 plus full pension about $32,000 = $52,700. Doing better than to so called wealthy. 

allan
allan from NSW commented:

Sir why are we SOO broke, is it because our country is supporting so many ileagles persons and supplying them with some of our hard earned tax saving! 

Lesleigh
Lesleigh from QLD replied to allan:

Allan I wonder if Mr Hockey has heard the saying charity begins at home I am sure that it is not much of a comfort to Australians living in poverty that we are giving so much to people who knowingly enter this country illegally. 

Maureen
Maureen from QLD commented:

Increase the tax rate for people who earn more than $1M pa and increase the pension pa REDUCE or STOP elevated pensions to retired politicians. 

Russell
Russell from VIC commented:

Obviously we could continue this discussion infinitium , as I see it to have worked for years to pay off a mortgage and gain free title to ones property is a proud achievement and fullfills one of life's ambitions. This achievement may mean little to others. Obtaining a reverse mortgage on our property is not a proposition I would entertain . I think a lot of people would have similar feelings to myself. What inheritance we wish to leave our children is a personal matter and should have nothing to do weather they worked for it or not. Russell 

Ralph
Ralph from NSW commented:

I don't mind, if my pension has to be reduced, if this will enable the government to maintain the stability of pensions in the long term. All governments have been generous to us pensioners, but the money has to come from somewhere. All of us should pay something, if our grandchildren are to receive pensions. 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

CONSERVATIVES & LIBERALS & NDP, say "We're "broke" and can't help our own… Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless, Etc.,??? In the last few years we have provided direct cash aid to: Hamas - 351 M, Pakistan - 2 B, Libya - 1.45 B, Egypt - 397 M, Mexico - 622 M, Russia - 380 M, Haiti - 1.4 B, Jordan - 463 M, Kenya - 816 M, Sudan - 870 M, Nigeria - 456 M, Uganda - 451 M, Congo - 359 M, Ethiopia - 981 M, South Africa - 566 M, Senegal - 698 M, Mozambique - 404 M, Zambia - 331 M, Kazakhstan - 304 M, Iraq - 1.08 B, Tanzania - 554 M, Now we hear Abbott is sending $600mil to Indonesia. How about $600thousand. We are an easy touch. Labour made the last black hole, don't do it again. Where does all this money come from? Our retired seniors are living on a 'fixed income'. Do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour hundreds of billions and tons of food to foreign countries!. AUSTRALIA, UK, THE USA & CANADA - countries where we have homeless persons, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without needed medication and mentally ill without treatment... Etc. YET- We still allow illegals & other free loaders on our shores, while we are lining up with food, clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies for them. Imagine if the "GOVERNMENT" gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn't it? 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Change the Entitlements I absolutely agree, if a pension isn't an entitlement, neither is theirs. They keep telling us that paying us an aged pension isn't sustainable. Paying politicians all the perks they get is even less sustainable! The politicians themselves, in Canberra, brought it up, that the Age of Entitlements is over: Salaries of retired Prime Minister and Politicians Office Additional salary (%) Salary as of 1 July Prime Minister 160 $507,338 Deputy Prime Minister 105 $400,016 Treasurer 87.5 $365,868 Leader of the Opposition 85.0 $360,990 House of Reps Speaker 75.0 $341,477 Leader of the House 75.0 $341,477 Minister in Cabinet 72.5 $336,599 Parliamentary secretary 25.0 $243,912 The TOTAL ANNUAL SALARIES (for 150 seats) = $41,694,311 - PER YEAR! SO, for a 20 years ‘lifetime’ payment (excluding wages paid while a Parliamentarian) Prime Minister @ $507,338 = A$10,146,760 Deputy Prime Minister @ $400,016 = A$8,000,320 Treasurer @ $365,868 = A$7,317,360 Leader of the Opposition @ $360,990 = A$7,219,800 House of Reps Speaker @ $341,477 = A$6,829,540 Leader of the House @ $341,477 = A$6,829,540 Minister in Cabinet @ $336,599 = A$6,731,980 Parliamentary Secretary @ $243,912 = A$4,782,240 Other ministers** @ $307,329 = A$6,146,580 x 71 = A$436,407,180 Shadow ministers** @ $243,912 = A$4,878,240 x 71 = A$346,355,040 Conclusions: TOTAL ‘life time’ (20 year) payments, (excluding wages paid while in parliament) = A$833,886,220 –OVER $833 MILLION Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Paul Keating, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, et al, ad nauseum, are receiving $10 MILLION + EXTRA at taxpayer expense. 

terry
terry from NSW commented:

I feel that high income earners are not paying enough tax.A CEO of a bank or business earning more than 5 million should pay 80% tax. If you cannot live on 1 million p/a then you are not trying very hard. Ask a pensioner earning $26 thousand p/a how they cope 

Dianne
Dianne from TAS commented:

May I ask "What are the changes to those who rely on their Super?" Di 

Comment Guidelines