News

NewsTreasurer has his eye on older Australians
Treasurer has his eye on older Australians

Treasurer has his eye on older Australians

Last updated by Chris Zinn on
Older Australians are wary of the new Federal Treasurer’s talk of tax reform, research by the 130,000-member FiftyUp Club reveals.

Treasurer, Scott Morrison MP, has set himself the task of convincing ordinary Australians that we need tax reform. 

The Treasurer is particularly focused on older Australians and unlocking their capital to increase retirement incomes.

Take part in the poll and tell us if you think retirees have the option to sell the family home and downsize without affecting their pension?

A recent survey of almost 18,000 older Australians provides insight into the very demographic the Treasurer is appealing to. The study of the over 50s has found;

  • almost half (45%) think tax concessions for people with large super balances should be wound back, however 34% disagree with this and another 1 in 5 don’t know;
  • the low interest environment has been a disaster for half of older Australians getting lower interest on their savings;
  • they are not convinced that a change to the GST is necessary (46% do not support any change, while 46% would support an increase in rate/and or broadening of the base).

The FiftyUp Club nation-wide study into cost of living pressures highlights why the budget needs to be carefully balanced with a particular focus on the ageing population.

One of the billion-dollar questions for the government is how Australia is going to support the growing numbers of retirees. The survey found;

  • 2 out of 3 Australians have or will retire on $300,000 or less because superannuation was not compulsory in their day.
  • 75% of older Australians, are, or will be, dependant on the full or part-time pension

“The challenge for government is about getting the balance right between supporting the older Australians and ensuring retirement incomes policies are sustainable,” FiftyUp Club spokesperson Christopher Zinn said.

It’s important politicians start to understand the pressure older Australians face. The study found 85% said these issues were either important or very important to their vote at the next election, and that could be any time soon.

We'd love to read your comments about how you feel about proposed changes.

Originally posted on .

Join the conversation

FiftyUp Club
Treasurer has his eye on older Australians

Share your views with other members. 

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

Leave us alone start at the top ie the politicians, the public service the waste incurred by them and all start to fly economy class and stop chartering planes and helicopters 

Tony
Tony from NSW commented:

Most politicians are not smart and educated people. They may have diploma, which is a certificate of attendance, not a certificate of competence. How many have real life experience. If they had companies and wasted money they way they waste ours, They would be in gaol. I can not understand why the retired people, which all got there because of the number of years they have been on the planet, why are their living standards is worse that those in gaol. If you are in gaol, you are there because you have committed crime, you have free medical, dental, optical, sex change if you want it, place to sleep, three square meals a day, television, schooling, art, exercise, Gym, no electricity or water bills, all paid by the taxpayer, but the retired people having worked their entire life are deprived of basic necessities. This is a perfect example that criminals are better looked after than pensioners, the people that have built this country, through their blood sweat a tears. Pensioners and retired people are betrayed by the politicians, the people that supposed to be our servants but behaving like our masters. When they give the pledge to serve our country, they never say that they will masters. Most politicians are the same, just like football teams, just different jerseys. Shame on them. Why aren't they looking at present, fix the debt THEY put the country in, and live within their means without sucking every dollar they legally can from the taxpayers. Where is the justice? Most of them would not know meaning of Justice, Marriage, Equality, Majority Work, Luck. The only place that Luck comes before Working hard is in the dictionary. 

Lyn
Lyn from NSW commented:

Spent last 5 hrs catching up on thread as been busy for a few days. Must float fact that a pension or a part - pension was a 'silent contract' with the Govt of day thro' our working lives as we paid tax on wages expecting the agreement to be honoured. We also had only between $5400 - $6000 tax-free threshold on earnings for donkey's years and yet today tax- free threshold is $18,200 for everyone so we have actually paid more tax than those today on sum between $6001 and $18,200 as it is now. It is time the Govt reinstated the lower tax-free threshold for all employees (roughly 11 mill according to A.B.Stats) to gouge back what needed to reduce the deficit instead of crucifying those with the least resistance. THERE MUST BE A PETITION TO GOVT FOR THIS Tax-free threshold to be reduced so that the young of today are subjected to same conditions that we were, instead of hitting retirees when they have no option to increase income because of low interest rates or inability to return to work to replace what will be taken away on 1/1/17. The 2015 Budget legislation was passed by stealth in Upper House too fast for any consultative action with retirement groups. ALL HOME OWERS NEED TO ENSURE THAT MINISTER MORRISON"S WISH FOR US TO SELL HOMES AND THUS REDUCE WHAT WE EXPECTED TO RECEIVE AS A PART PENSION IS THWARTED. Don't forget that homes were acquired from AFTER-TAX income and we made the choice on same level playing field as others who got same wages in hand after-tax but chose to spend it in some other way. Not fair play in retirees with homes being penalised to pay an increased pension at 1/1/17 to those who chose not to save/pay for a home from after-tax income. In the same way they made a choice to not to do that, then we also had the choice to spend after-tax income how we wished. What we did with our after-tax income is not relevant to the debate. THESE MEASURES CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. HOMEOWNERS ARE PROBABLY IN THE MAJORITY & majorities win. 

Frances
Frances from VIC commented:

I am 65 and still working, I have not got a lot of super as I only started working the last 15 years after my husband died and he did not have superannuation. My house is only 12 squares and is the same house my husband and I bought together. It is already like a flat. The government is penalising the over 50's for working hard all our lives and saving just because they have been wasteful with our money. They always seem to find money when they need something. They should get rid of the baby bonus as some women I know are having babies to get the bonus and then they go on centrelink benefits. A few have never worked. 

Lyn
Lyn from NSW replied to Frances:

Thank goodness for people like you Frances. Women have been forgotten in this issue. I too am alone & had little Super as it didn't come in til 1991 & from my comments you will realize I made plans on the rules of the day. How dare they suggest we leave our homes of many years & it is time that we women spoke up. I did downsize when I was 52 in readiness for a manageable retirement based on rules at the time & now I am retired they think they can throw the kitchen sink at me. I am determined that they won't get away it & I refuse to let them interfere my declining years. Stay tuned. 

Paul
Paul from NSW commented:

Older Australians have saved all their lifetime to procure a debt free family home. When their children leave home most no longer need a residence as large as the one they raised their family in. By downsizing they are able to live in a home more suited to their lifestyle, however after purchasing the new residence they are more than likely to have surplus funds available to them. These funds they have saved during their lifetime and should not be means tested, particularly when these people have come to rely on the pension for their lifestyle. If a person in these circumstances has super in excess of $750000 ,this should not be looked at in reducing a pension entitlement since they are relying on these funds saved during their lifetime and not solely on the government, asking for a handout. 

Philip
Philip from NSW commented:

Leave our Supa and eligability for part or full pension alone 

Kerrie
Kerrie from NSW replied to Philip:

Leave the super along but the pension scheme is still way too generous. 

ROLF
ROLF from QLD commented:

infesting in shares is very good when your still working becouce you can make up loses, when you are retierd this is high risk. as a retierie i have to plan my finances 12 month in advanc and can not take the risk. with term deposits i know what i will get at the end off my term. i want to sleep at night. ROLF 

neil
neil from NSW commented:

I would like to see politicians giving up some of their lurks and perks before they attack us pensioners who have worked and saved all our lives. They tell us they could earn more working outside parliament but the truth is most of them would not cut it in private industry for such high wages, I find it incredible that the PM here gets more than the leader of the free world with less than 1/10 of the population and far less responsibility. A lot of them are would be lawyers and half baked union officials and that is not counting some of the independents who you would not feed. 

Lyn
Lyn from NSW replied to neil:

Neil. Super comment. Many of them ARE lawyers (not ' would-be ' lawyers) & resultingly can return to a high income profession for the rest of their working lives if they are not re-elected to Parliament for a further term of Government. Don't know what happens to the ' half-baked ' union officials who may/may not achieve Parliamentary seats, perhaps when they can't cut the mustard in Parliament they are then ' fully- baked ' & retire with all the parliamentary privileges despite the fact that they are not of the legal retirement age as the rest of us have to be to retire. 

Jeanette
Jeanette from NSW commented:

Would love Mr Morrison to try living on the pension for a month then he will experience our lifestyle. This goes for all politicians now including Malcolm Turnbull who is mega rich living at Point Piper and expects the taxpayer to pick up the bill for security for his home as he wants to stay there instead of Kirribilli House like previous P.M's. 

Lyn
Lyn from NSW replied to Jeanette:

Jeanette. Hear, hear to you. Mr Morrison in his previous position as Minister for Human Services or whatever his title was, was the minister responsible for gouging back $2.4 billion from retirees in the 2015 Budget Measures affecting current retirees which were hastily passed through the Upper House to become law, effective 1/1/17 when all the changes to the asset tests etc will be effected & part-pension recipients will see large reductions to their part-pensions and those who have not saved for retirement will receive an increased full pension amount as result of Mr Morrison's figures to the then Treasurer, Mr Hockey. FOLLOWING CAPITALS ARE FOR MR MORRISON TO READ IF HE DEIGNS TO ACCESS THIS WEBSITE FOR FREE. THERE IS A TABLE ON TRISH POWER'S ' SUPERANNUATION NEWSLETTER ' WEB SITE WHICH SETS OUT FIGURES OF HOW RETIREES WILL BE AFFECTED ON 1/1/17. IN THAT TABLE IT SHOWS THE NUMBER OF RETIREES AFFECTED IN THE VARIOUS BANDWIDTHS OF ASSETS AND IT STATES THAT THERE ARE 3, YES, ONLY 3 IN AUSTRALIA, SINGLE HOMEOWNER RETIREES WITH ASSETS OF $800,000 and above. I DOUBT THE VERACITY OF THAT FIGURE OF 3 AS YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT THERE ARE ONLY 3 SINGLE HOMEOWNERS IN AUSTRALIA WITH ASSETS OVER $800,000. I QUESTIONED THE FIGURES & TRISH REPLIED THAT THE FIGURES WERE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM FIGURES ISSUED FROM MR MORRISON'S THEN - OFFICE. 3 RETIREES IN THAT BAND CANNOT BE CORRECT. I CHALLENGE THOSE FIGURES AND IF I AM RIGHT THAT MR MORRISON'S FIGURE IS WRONG THEN HOW CAN WE TRUST THE REST OF HIS FIGURES IN THOSE TABLES ISSUED? I WOULD LAY A $ 100 BET THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN 3 MEMBERS OF FIFTYUP CLUB WHO ARE SINGLE HOME-OWNERS WITH $800,000 ASSETS....... AND THIS MAN HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS TREASURER ??????? 

Gertraud
Gertraud from ACT replied to Lyn:

Are you quite sure that the table indicated that there were 3 individual single people with assets over $800k and not 3%???? Perhaps you could provide a link to the table. 

Lyn
Lyn from NSW replied to Gertraud:

Quite sure. Tables on Trish Power's Superannuation website, newsletter back in May or June after Budget. I questioned that figure on her website & she said the tables were reproduced in the newsletter as were supplied by Mr Morrison's office. 

Gertraud
Gertraud from ACT replied to Lyn:

After much searching, I have found the table you refer to - http://www.superguide.com.au/how-super-works/300000-retired-australians-to-lose-some-or-all-age-pension-entitlements. Contrary to your assertion that it suggests that there are "only 3 single homeowners in Australia with assets over $800,000", it merely states that, based on 2017 PROJECTED pension and asset test values, 3 single homeowners with assets of $800k would receive a pension of $176 pa but will receive none due to the changes to the asset test. Considering that the table is dealing with projected data, it is quite clear that it is a guesstimate rather that actual figures. 

Lyn
Lyn from NSW replied to Gertraud:

Gertraud. Contrary to your comment, an asterisk is below tables stating ' based on projected pension rates at 1/1/17' and asterisk is applied to 2nd & 3rd columns and not applied to the whole table. There is no asterisk (for projected figures) applied to the column where it shows there are only 3 single home-owing retirees in the $800,000 - 899,999 bandwidth and that is the fact which I dispute and therefore the veracity of Mr Morrison's figures when Minister for Human Services at 2015 Budget. If there are only 3 retirees/seniors in this band then I and the rest of Australia have to seriously doubt his numeric competence as this could not be possible. He was Minister responsible for issuing those figures upon which we have to presume that the then Treasurer based Budget Measures affecting senior Australians to affect Budget savings. If there has been an error then we are entitled to know. I may not agree with the new Measures but they are now law so I am entitled to expect that the figures presented by Mr Morrison's previous ministry are correct as the figures supplied were used to achieve 2015 Budgetary savings and is now entrenched in law so we have a right to know the figures supplied to MP's and Senators were correct before they voted. The resultant figures are now law so why shouldn't I question the doubtful veracity of the figures that swayed the vote? There is no possibility that there are only 3 retiree single homeowners with assets in that band in al of Australia. If that is so then we may as well shut up the shop now. I still stand by my bet that the figure of 3 can't possibly right. This is not a projected figure as you assert since the Govt has access to figures of all existing retirees, thus that table should have been accurate in the all-important column. The point I made was that if there was an error in his figures then how could we trust the numeric accuracy of Mr Morrison if he is to be our Treasurer and I still stand by that. 

Gertraud
Gertraud from ACT replied to Lyn:

You still don't get it! Columns 2 and 3 demonstrate how the two different taper rates (current and proposed) will affect the amount of pension people will receive in 2017. The asterisk indicates that the 2017 projected pension rates - ie $23,166 instead of the current $22,542 were used. Using the existing taper rates for the increased pension, would see 3 people with assets valued at $800k receive an annual pension of $176, but with the changed taper rates, there is no pension entitlement when assets reach $547k. As I said before, these are PROJECTED figures of pension entitlements. With regards to your comment about the government having "access to figures of all existing retirees" - no they don't! The government only knows the assets owned by retirees currently in receipt of the PENSION and not retirees that are wholly self funded, nor does it know the exact number of people becoming eligible for the age pension between the date these tables were compiled and 2017, or how many currently entitled pensioners will fall off the perch before then! Furthermore, the ONLY figures that are now "law" are the taper rates, even the projected pension rates are subject to wage movements and CPI, whichever is the higher, and may fall short of the projected amount in the light of low wages growth and inflation. Economic modelling is used by business and government on an ongoing basis as it forms the foundation on which budgets are prepared. The figures used are drawn from existing information and historical data, and projected into the future, allowing certain contingencies. Obviously, nobody has a crystal ball and events such as the GFC can not be anticipated. 

Lyn
Lyn from NSW replied to Gertraud:

I get it alright. I think you are missing my point so let's leave it there. 

Gertraud
Gertraud from ACT replied to Lyn:

No, it's you that is missing the point. But I guess in your little world it does not matter. 

Lyn
Lyn from NSW replied to Gertraud:

At least I don't use rudeness 

Gabrielle
Gabrielle from NSW replied to Jeanette:

Thank you Jeanette that's exactly right our tax to pay for his security. If he should move into Kirribilli he could rent his house in Point Piper then move back when his time as PM is up -sooner that than later- that rent can be part of his retirement income and downsize like everyone has to do to survive. Makes you wonder how he will run the country. 

grisha
grisha from NSW commented:

And now the issue of health insurance Mr Morrison. platitudes excepted. At the lowest and modest hospital only cover, I discovered that my monthly premiums for private hospital insurance did not cover cataract surgery, heart surgery or knee replacement. Except for heart surgery which is an emergency, what was the point in continuing to fill Medibank Private Insurance coffers for up and coming services I wasn't going to receive. As the saying goes 'read the small print' which isn't easy if you have the onset of handicapped vision. Say no more. The case rests.. 

Comment Guidelines