News

NewsFair Go for FiftyUp Campaign: Superannuation under attack at National Reform Summit
Fair Go for FiftyUp Campaign: Superannuation under attack at National Reform Summit

Fair Go for FiftyUp Campaign: Superannuation under attack at National Reform Summit

It appears from the first crop of Fair Go For Fifty Ups that many of you are on a collision course with some of the pundits at this week’s National Reform Summit.

Business leaders, politicians, union representatives and journalists were present at the summit this week and declared superannuation under attack.

There was one group missing from this important discussion – actual over 50’s who have retired or are retiring soon.

Your views are crucial. Go to #FairgoforFiftyUp campaign today.

The very things many of you who have joined the campaign said you didn’t want to see such as; including the family home in the age pension eligibility test, changes to tax breaks on super and raising the pension age were all discussed.

In the first 10,000 responses to the survey these were the top three concerns and please keep the responses coming. Your voice especially on these issues is critical.

When asked their most important financial consideration 41% said it was that the family house should remain exempt from the assets test.

But at the summit the Centre For Independent Studies said it should be included because the current system disadvantaged the poorest 25% of age pensioners who didn’t own their own home.

The next highest response was 15% who wanted no change to the taxes on super. But again at the summit David Whiteley the boss of Industry Super Australia  said there was ‘by and large’ agreement for reform in the area.

Third time unlucky came the issue of the right and fair age for pension eligibility. 11% of you wanted it to stay at 65 and not later.

John Brogden,  CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors said there should be consideration of pushing even above the proposed gradual increase to 67 as people are living longer.

Whether you like it not there’s likely to be a review of retirement incomes and a clear set of objectives resolved for the complex and costly system.

So again it makes sense to those who make the decisions know where you stand. Go to the website and fill in the survey. We will compile and take your voice to the politicians in Canberra who ultimately decide.

And here’s a sample of some of the comments you have left. Go and check out more for yourself at Fiftyupclub.com

‘We spend too much money policing a complex taxation system. Reform and simplify it and reduce the cost of management and enforcement.’ Phillip, QLD

 ‘Changing the rules regarding pensions AFTER a person has retired is not fair.’ Rob, VIC

 ‘Governments need to look for positive ways to help those who demonstrate that they want to provide for their retirement at a reasonable living standard, regardless of existing income or assets, rather than think of ways to screw back their entitlements to reduce expenditure.’ Terry QLD.

Originally posted on .

Join the conversation

FiftyUp Club
Fair Go for FiftyUp Campaign: Superannuation under attack at National Reform Summit

Share your views with other members. 

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

Politicians should have the same rules and regulations as the general public when it comes to superannuation and the likes. These people are being paid by the public so why should they have different rules to the public at large. Entitlements rules for politicians should also be scrapped completely, no more study trips, if invited to a function let the cost be paid by the organiser. Wake up Australia, all political parties are treating the public (us) like absolute idiots, Are we not interested to keep a tight control on expenditure. Let them control the expenses before they start attacking the public - "us" - with all the other issues. How about it "fair go - fiftyup campaign". Let's see if the politicians and the bureaucrats have the guts. Answer i simple: NO. Will fair go attack this issue earnestly and comprehensively? "NO" (I hope I am wrong). 

robert
robert from NSW replied to Robert:

i agree with robert completly. bob from nsw 

Jacqueline
Jacqueline from NSW replied to Robert:

Thank you Robert. As the producer for the FiftyUp Club and after reading all your comments would you be willing with some other FiftyUp Club members to speak to the media regarding this political entitlement issue? The FiftyUp Club is pulling together a campaign on this now as part of Fair Go as you all have suggested. 

Warren
Warren from NSW replied to Robert:

Whilst most will align with your emotive statement, an annual bill of $130 Million in expenses claims for politicians, this pales into insignificance with Australia’s current debt (thanks to Labor) – some $380,000,000,000 Million. Let’s focus on something that’s not 0.03% of the problem. 

Baarry
Baarry from VIC commented:

Politicians need to look in other areas for savings , perhaps their own backyards and leave and alone the people who have worked hard and provided for their retiring years. Barry 

Patricia (Trish)
Patricia (Trish) from ACT replied to Baarry:

I agree 100% with you Barry, I am just fed up with politicians who continually attack the people that have worked the hardest for this country. Lets agree that the over 55's at least grew up in the best years of this country, it is now going to the pits and Chinese. The politicians aren't interested in the ordinary person they will retire on big big money and over indulged with perks and travel. Trish 

Robert
Robert from NSW replied to Patricia (Trish):

I agree with Barry and yourself but who is going to fight these politicians with regards to the superannuation and the perks? The public? most don't care and are fed up with the system in place. Not one political party will ever discuss these issues and why? because nobody in the public sector including pensioners and the likes, "don't really care" and that is the saddest part as to what is going on in the political arena. The remuneration board, the ones that approve and recommend all the perks and the likes are the ones who approve this nonsense - why not pressure them through our representatives "fair go - fiftyup campaign"? the place has gone viral with expenditure and costs. 

Patricia (Trish)
Patricia (Trish) from ACT replied to Robert:

Thanks for your response Robert, Why don't we start up a petition and aim high for the responses to send to the Government and maybe for once they may take notice. Thank goodness for talk back radio or we would be lost completely. Trish 

Jacqueline
Jacqueline from NSW replied to Patricia (Trish):

Thank you for all your comments on political entitlements. The FiftyUp Club is listening to you and we will make this one of our campaigns as part of the Fair Go for FiftyUps campaign. 

Kerrie
Kerrie from NSW commented:

Leave superannuation alone as self funded retirees are not a burden on the welfare system. I agree with the new taper rate on pension assets coming in in 2017 as couples with over one million dollars in assets should not be getting the pension and the family home should be included in the assets test. Why should someone with a home worth over a million be getting the full age pension with their heirs getting a windfall on their death at the tax payers expense? This is where the inequity lies. 

Robert
Robert from NSW replied to Kerrie:

Kerrie, have you seen some of the homes that people are purchasing for $1M in Sydney? They are not all mansions. And pensioners living in a lot of these homes are simply not asset rich outside the home and therefore are living day to day on limited income. They are dependant upon getting a little help from government in their later years 

Kerrie
Kerrie from NSW replied to Robert:

Here is why there is a lot of inequity in the pension system regarding the home. If a couple have a house worth $500, and assets of $1.5 million they don't qualify for the pension. If another couple has a house worth $2 million and little other assets they qualify for a full pension. This is not fair. The second couple should have their estate reduced by the value of the pension they have received upon their death in order for this to be equitable. It has nothing to do with where a property is located. 

Warren
Warren from NSW replied to Kerrie:

Totally agree. Why should a government need to look after someone with a capital resources? Just plain ludicrous. 

Comment Guidelines