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.
Ana
Ana from NSW commented:

Banks offering 3 months of introductory rates, will need to consider maintaining those rates for longer periods for people aged 50, they can "qualify" their savings to offer a special qualification for 50 and over. Be tough with whom you invest with and go to those who listen to your point of view and the bank manager who is willing to go the extra mile for you rather then to say No! Banks are still making a nice Mint! check out their announcements! Ask for more from your bank and you might just get it!…If we all do it…it might just work... 

Ana
Ana from NSW commented:

It is obvious that with the increase in longevity, government is getting concerned with having to pay pensions for longer periods of time and are probably only trying to find a way to budget for a longer period of time and avoiding an empty egg nest with nothing left for any body?! In saying that a good way to fight this is for us over fifty is to remain healthy maintain a job for as long as possible and consider other avenues such as a part time position re qualification, etc…I have moved out of my home and living with family, my home rents out for extra income…Try to smile and find a way…being angry enough to call for changes is good but don't get so angry that it will affect your ability to think clearly and then end up unwell, just remember and focus on the fact that when we live this world none of us will be taking anything with us…What is important is to have friendship, family, Love and feel happy within despite current circumstances and most believe that you and you only can change your current situation, so focus on what can I do to improve my lifestyle? You will be surprise d by changing your thinking paton, how you will find a nice a way to uplift and smile again!…In the mean time thumbs up for great positive pressure for changes. 

John
John from VIC commented:

I am one of the 90,000(2%) I worked 7 days a week for 43 years before I retired and spent 9 years at night school to get an Engineering Diploma so I could earn a better income. We saved hard to pay off our home and didn't go overseas until very late in our working life. When we retired we didn't buy a new car or holiday home and do overseas trips so we could be self funded retirees. Some do the complete opposite and then make them selves eligible for the pension when they could have a least been part funded. This is unfair, Eligibility for the pension or part pension should be assessed at retirement and if you blow it on extravagancies then you shouldn't expect the tax payer to fund your retirement. 

Marie
Marie from NSW replied to John:

John, we too are like you and saved throughout our working lives so that we could live independently as SF retirees. Many of our friends have new cars, travel overseas annually and can afford all sorts of luxuries and still collect a part pension. Our assets outside of our home are less than 500,000 but we don't get any pension. The system is not well regulated and I don't think these latest measures will alter that. 

Cate
Cate from NSW commented:

Maybe if the Labor Govt. hadn't @&$?ed up so spectacularly, there would be money in the coffers for all. 

Emily
Emily from QLD commented:

Thanks but we all remain cautious with this government, indeed they are NOT THE HONEST Federal Government we have ever had - quite the contrary! 

Lesleigh
Lesleigh from QLD replied to Emily:

I have concerns as to whether Mr Hockey could lie straight in bed. 

trevor
trevor from NSW commented:

Seems fair , but of course it's not a story for the media unless you focus on the 2%. No doubt the opposition parties will not even mention the 88% unchanged. 

David
David from QLD commented:

I'm sorry but these people we put there to govern for the masses over the years have done nothing for us and everything for themselves and their interest groups.It's about time we as a voting group told these morons that if they dare to attack us negativly without firstly drastically overhauling their own benefits scheme and all their perks ,like paying them and their families to the grave,then we can have a huge effect on the next election regarding both parties.Especially when we tell friensd and relatives what and why we are taking that course of action and that thgey'll benefit in the end as well. The time for being passive has gone and we need to be pro-active because they won't listen to anything else. 

Jennifer
Jennifer from VIC replied to David:

By changing your vote, won't affect their benefits....they have already won on a personal basis, set up for life! 

David
David from QLD replied to Jennifer:

Suppose they held an election and nobody came? 

Emily
Emily from QLD replied to David:

Good idea David 

Barry
Barry from QLD commented:

All very good but what happens if Shorten is elected Prime Minister at the next election? He has some ridiculous future policy in this regard with overall Superannuation taxes that will virtually affect all Superannuation. The Liberal proposed changes are fairer and it is great to see that they have caught up with Public Servants who double dip with a Pension from their employment and age pension as well. Federal Government members on losing their seats or retiring should not be eligible to draw on a pension before attaining the age of 65 like the rest of the population. 

Gavin
Gavin from NSW replied to Barry:

You just hit the nail on the head Barry, Labour wants to get their hands on our super, they see it as their pot of gold at the end of our hard working rainbow. If any body has the ability to draw their super out do it or run the risk of loosing it, and then you will be on "their" pension. Gavin - NSW Farmer 

Kathleen
Kathleen from QLD commented:

Why doesn't the government take away the charity status from religions and tax the tax put on many foods that carry the halal tax which funds what? We also need a tax overhaul that would simplify the tax system but no government seems to have the confidence to do this. Perhaps if the media and opposition parties were not constantly in overdrive and unpleasantness positive improvements could be achieved. 

Emily
Emily from QLD replied to Kathleen:

No government has the brains! 

Fred
Fred from NSW commented:

Being a self funded retiree I am pleased with the plans of the budget , the only weakness is the ability to take lump sums without penalty and spend to become entitle to the pension The concept of super was and is to provide for 1 self in later life.... Fred 

Comment Guidelines