News

NewsWhat the Budget means for FiftyUps
What the Budget means for FiftyUps

What the Budget means for FiftyUps

What the Budget means for FiftyUps

Everyone else is giving their verdict on the Budget today, so it’s important us older Australians get a word in edgeways – especially since issues around retirement planning have been, and will remain, a key battleground.

We’ve created a succinct survey on Joe Hockey’s plans for you to rate their fairness, impact, ability to change your vote and to meet our long-term challenges.

Please click here to rate the Budget

So… what was there in it for you? It largely depends on your age, income and assets but there are key changes to pension eligibility and incentives to keep older Aussies in w

ork.

Much of this we knew before Tuesday night, due to planned ‘leaks’, but now the political horse-trading begins meaning it’s even more important to know where your interests lie.

Cost of Living

The Treasurer seemed to take credit for the cost of living falling, due to somewhat cheaper electricity post the carbon tax and lower mortgage rates thanks to the Reserve Bank. He also told the ABC “petrol is cheaper than it has been”.

I’m sure a few self-funded retirees, suffering from still-very high energy and petrol bills and hit by ever lower interest rates on bank deposits, might beg to differ.

Pensions.

Joe Hockey sought to inspire some confidence on retirement incomes.

“I want to reassure all Australian workers that they can have confidence in their retirement plans under this government. There will be no new taxes on superannuation under this government, and their age pension will continue to increase twice a year this year and every year at the highest available index rate,” he said last night.

 “These measures are all intended to provide security and and certainty for older australians in the years ahead.”

The key ‘benefit’ to all pensioners is the dropping of plans to reduce the rate at which they were indexed. It never happened but generated plenty of fear and anger.

Despite fears of cuts to the Pensioner Concession Card, which delivers much-appreciated discounts on public transport, utilities, medicines and GPs, it has also been quarantined from changes.

So those who might lose access to the pension with the new assets test and still have the card will keep it.

But the real meat of the changes for older Australians involved tightening the pensions assets test, to keep the pension – more than 10% of government spending – sustainable and affordable.

The new thresholds to the pension-asset test and changes to the taper rate will see 50,000 more of us get the full pension. In addition, 122,000 part-pensioners will get another $30 a fortnight.

But the $44 billion annual bill for the Age Pension bill has been cut by $2.4 billion and there are some losers who, while they may be portrayed as relatively well-off, will have complaints.

By the government’s own figures they include 91,000 who will lose the pension altogether and 235,000 who will find their pension reduced.

The changes have been largely greeted by seniors’ group but analysts have pointed out it brings uncertainty into the incentives to save for your retirement. Under the changes some people who’ve saved more will end up worse off than those who’ve saved less.

In simple terms, as outlined by Andrew Main in Tuesday’s The Australian a home-owning couple, with assets outside the house worth less than $600,000, get a higher income than an otherwise similar couple with assets worth between $650,000- $1.1million.

He says the changes to the taper rate would leave a couple with $800,000 of assets about $12,000 a year worse off.

The argument around who gets what in the pension will continue, and that means over-50s will continue to feel insecure.

Work

The incentives for employers to engage older workers are to be overhauled with faster access to a $10,000 subsidy for hiring new workers aged over 50.

The program called Restart is meant to make it easier for older workers to get jobs. The Treasurer said the changes were designed to make the subsidies more available when and where they were needed.

You have to wonder whether the scheme is not working, given it’s only a year old.

There will also be a scheme to offer better training for older workers to find work instead of relying on benefits, which the FiftyUp Club has been calling for over a year. Read more about Seniors concerned about job competition here

HAVE YOUR SAY: 

Was the Budget fair on FiftyUps? How will it affect you? Is it the right Budget for Australia in 2015?

Take our 2-minute Post-Budget Snap Poll and rate the Government's fiscal efforts HERE

Originally posted on .

Join the conversation

FiftyUp Club
What the Budget means for FiftyUps

Share your views with other members. 

Want to leave a comment? or .
Read our moderation policy here.
Sheila
Sheila from QLD commented:

As always, the more you do for yourself the more you finish up losing. They need to stop giving money away overseas, They need to stop paying themselves after they have left or lost office and stop all the free travel and other benefits that are available to them. How many ex prime ministers can the taxpayer afford to support? They need to tax churches and religious organisations. There should be less levels of government. At present local councils, state governments and federal governments all argue and bicker over who does what. Two levels would be more than adequate. That is just a few ways that savings could be made. I am sure there are many more. 

John
John from VIC replied to Sheila:

You reckon you have all the answers. Try putting yourself up for election and see how you go ( might be an education for you ). 

Marilyn
Marilyn from VIC replied to John:

Thank you Alain and Fay for the info, I didn't think it would rise, why am I not surprised? but one can live in hope? 

Alain
Alain from NSW commented:

The new system would come into effect from January 2017 (!!): $30 a FORTNIGHT, Marilyn... The Government has announced it will adjust the thresholds for asset tests on the pension, meaning 172,000 pensioners at the lower end of the pension will be better off, while 81,000 pensioners who currently claim the part pension will no longer be eligible. Previously singles over the age of 65 with assets (excluding the family home) of less than $775,000 were able to claim the part pension, however the new limit will now be $550,000. The Government confirmed these changes would replace efforts to change the way the pension was indexed, which would have negatively impacted pensioners more over the long term. 

Marilyn
Marilyn from VIC commented:

It seems a lot of talk for aged pensioners, I am on the disability pension, does that mean it goes up $30 a fortnight? can anyone tell me please, not an old age pensioner as yet, but not far away 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Marilyn:

Please, read above, Marilyn (sorry for any inconveniences) 

Fay
Fay from QLD replied to Marilyn:

No Marilyn unfortunately there is no rise for Disability pensioner, there are very few pensioners who will get that rise it applies to those who for one reason or another where not getting a full pension. 

david
david from NSW commented:

Why was the Labour government allowed to spend the surplus that the Liberals left. Why isn't that money which is soooooo difficult to achieve LOCKED AWAY and only the interest is allowed to be spent if it's showen that it's needed........such a downfall by Labour and now we are paying for it 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to david:

Why did Costello sell our Gold Reserve when Gold was worth $400/Ounce (it's now worth US$1200)? Why did the $ you mention were the by product of SALES of OUR ASSETS, as repeated by Baird? Why is credit GOOD if well managed? 

Jenny
Jenny from QLD commented:

with all these people saying that it was the fault of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government, my blind disability pension increased under them it has now decreased thanks to the Liberal Nazi Party who rob from the poor to pay the rich..........I think the pension should not be given to anyone who has over $300,000 in assets including the family home, and also get rid of the money sucking parasitic Monarchy that will also save Australia money. 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Jenny:

I like your comment being a fierce Republican (unlike Abbott and the rest of pommies, or Nigerian, or Belgian, or ?... around him...)... Now "over 300000 in assets" is a bit short of what would allow anyone to survive in the now unlucky country... You won't get a decent dwelling for less than $800000 in Sydney for example and with interest rates that low, you will need to millions to survive on them (just) unless, like the rest of us in our country (unlucky) of gamblers, you place a "bet" on Super or the share market... And remember dear Jenny, another GFC (global financial crisis) is around the corner, the markets are waiting for two things: increase of interest rate in the USA and Greece going its own way leaving in the process trillions of $ in unpaid debts... 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Alain:

*two millions 

Helen
Helen from QLD replied to Jenny:

If they included the family home in assets and over $300000 meant no pension. Those people would have no way of living other then selling their home and renting. That money will be gone within a few years and they would have to get the pension. Also there would be no insentive for anyone to put away for their retirement and the government would have to provide for everyone. People will spend everything they make before reaching the pension age. I do agree that people on disability pensions are not able to provide for themselves and hope we all are willing to support them but we do have to encourage people to put away for themselves to retire with little or no help from the government. 

Barbara
Barbara from NSW replied to Jenny:

I am at that stage to retire and even though I have worked since 15 I will have to apply for the pension. Your statement of assets over $300.000 people should not be allowed the pension is quite unfair. When I bought my house it was for $29000, it is now worth quite a lot more but you feel I should be penalised because my home is an asset. It is not an asset it is something that I have worked very hard to buy and maintain. Never have I been eligible for first home buyer schemes or such. I paid for my home through working. so you idea of using the family home it ludicrous. also the r/g/r govt didn't help matters for the situation we are in today. 

John
John from VIC replied to Jenny:

This comment is pathetic. 

Gail
Gail from ACT commented:

This is a responsible Budget and hopefully the beginning of taking back the welfare state. One would hope that the opposition parties would be more cooperative in passing it through the Senate. It is about time that the voting public lost the attitude of "keeping the bastards honest" when it comes to Senate elections, all this does is hamper the Governmental process. 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Gail:

Very little will go thru, trust me... When a Penny Wong writes [and I quote]: "Filthy low-life scum. Australians have never been treated with such pure contempt. This government should be marched out of parliament under military guard and put in prison." [end of quote] 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Alain:

For Gail: Another comment by a Jenny MacKlin Labor Party MP: ""For a family on around $65,000 a year with two children at school, this Government is going to take $6,000 a year from their family budget and Labor will not support that." [end of quote] 

Gail
Gail from ACT replied to Alain:

Instead of just quoting what others say in isolation I think you should look at the whole picture. 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Gail:

That IS the whole picrure, please, Gail, read MY OWN comments herein, thanks. 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Alain:

*picture 

Gail
Gail from ACT replied to Alain:

With comments like that I think we would be far better off if we got rid of Penny Wong. 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Gail:

If you are a Lib, must be annoying, so is what this government doing, objectively: taking from the poorest among us to give to the richer among us, cannot be denied.. 

Mack
Mack from NSW commented:

There is no magic pile of money to correct the absurd financial stupidity exercised by the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government. All Australians must now tighten belts to return our country to an even keel. Otherwise, the longer we pretend that everything is okay, the greater the financial shock will be for all of us, in particular, our children. I rely solely on the old age pension and will gladly forfeit say 10% to do my bit. 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Mack:

BIG money is there, available if Abbott and Hockey decided to tax the BIG END OF TOWN: they have chosen to hit the poorest to "pay" their friends the better-offs in our society and this is not on! 

Mack
Mack from NSW replied to Alain:

The big end of town has already been taxed beyond our own good. This is why our manufacturing industry has all but disappeared - high wages and taxes have caused them to seek better returns elsewhere. This of course increases unemployment and hurts all of us. 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Mack:

I do not think so... Concessions for that big end of town on everything (negative gearing, family trusts, Super, etc...) does not help! 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Alain:

10% of our top income earners earn 30% of the total income... Take a good look at our harbours: what do you see? 

Barry
Barry from NSW replied to Alain:

Do I detect a whiff of class warfare? 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Barry:

Of course, there is an emergency, mate! 

John
John from VIC replied to Alain:

Baloney. 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to John:

prove it! I can tell you something (source BBC): The wealthiest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population, according to a study by anti-poverty charity Oxfam. The charity's research shows that the share of the world's wealth owned by the richest 1% increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% last year. On current trends, Oxfam says it expects the wealthiest 1% to own more than 50% of the world's wealth by 2016. The research coincides with the start of the World Economic Forum in Davos. 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to John:

Want to share? 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

WILL SOMEONE please explain the benefits for a retired 63 drawing down on super,plus cash in bank,owning his own unit thank u 

Alain
Alain from NSW commented:

Since we all live to age 100, now (and soon will retire at age 70...) you must have enough in your super to last you for another 37 years... Your question can only be answered if one knows how much you possess, if more than 823000 in super, you are not eligible for the pension, now, depending on how much is in that Self Managed Super Fund (I guess) you may be eligible for a part pension, or even full pension once you are left with very little, unless you would be cashed up, of course... 

Karen
Karen from NSW replied to Alain:

Alain just a point of order; There is NO mandated retirement age. We will NOT be retiring at 70. People can retire at any age if they wish. They simply can't apply for the Government funded age pension until they reach the prescribed age. Current legislation from the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments allow for that to increase from 65 now to 67.5 by 2023. The current government proposal last year to raise this to 70 has NOT been passed. 

Alain
Alain from NSW commented:

Can I please ask you: how many of us (members of the fifty club) would have voted Abbotts and his obnoxious team IN ??? To those who voted them in: "Happy, now?" 

Carol
Carol from NSW replied to Alain:

Yes Alain. I would Better than that other mob who wouldn't know how to run a chook raffle 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Carol:

We will talk about it in 2019/2010 when the budget will be in a surplus... 

Barry
Barry from NSW replied to Alain:

Or rather voted the other mob out. 

Alain
Alain from NSW replied to Barry:

The Greens are the clever ones, but we are too conservative & brainwashed... 

Someone
Someone from SA commented:

Very simple the government has decided to change the playing fields - the very thing they promised they never do. 172,000 pensioners will get a little bit more but a whopping 326,000 will get less and overall the government will cut the cost of pensions. Pensioners are less likely to find a party that will act for them as both the major parties have to get voters and only when the cycle is complete will pensioners really be in the majority. So right now they are an easy target. Read between the lines they are telling you that you must start dipping into your savings until you are on the full pension and all your savings gone. Its shocking that you will be better off with less savings than by having savings - its that thick middle that always pays the price. Its shocking that you have saved $800,000 outside of your house but under this government you will be worse off. The taper rate is way above what you can get as a return on those funds. Let Joe Hockey try and get you those returns - I cannot. I am not in that bracket and dont expect or hope to have to rely on this or any government in retirement so this is not self motivated. Its aesy for pollies who will never have to live off what the middle class have to. 

Karen
Karen from NSW commented:

Anonymous from SA, I only half agree with you. Surely the whole point of saving for your retirement (or superannuation since 1993 anyway) was to fund your later years without relying on the pension. What these new rules will do is make people spend their savings on exactly what they saved for without expecting a hand out from the Government. I have no issue with that policy per se. However, I do think the thresholds have been set too low. Singles have lost 30% of their previously allowable savings of $750,000 for example. The previous thresholds should have remained and those with higher valued assets perhaps should pay tax on income generated over say $75,000 (the average wage). The way is may stand, those with assets just at or below the allowable amounts will be worse off than a person on the full pension, they will need to draw down on their capital to make up the difference and thus be on a government pension faster than previously planned. 

Comment Guidelines