Treasurer has his eye on older Australians

I'm still working full time at 70 years of age because of workplace skills and an accommodating boss, but will need full pension assistance when I retire. This will only be for ill health reasons or retrenchment.as I have limited savings and have drawn down superannuation when necessary to keep my head afloat. There is still a place for me in the workforce and I continue to work because I love my job and I am good at it. My continuing achievements outperform those of participants in my industry much younger and this spurs me on. However I am not fooled for a moment into thinking that I am not easily replaceable but I try not to dwell on such negative thoughts. My healthy philosophy is that every day you wake up and the birds are singing, and the sun is shining, you are going to have a good day. I have paid a lot of tax which has supported many less fortunate than me and perhaps the occasional infrastructure improvements over my working period of about 50 years, and now it's Government pay back time for my long and loyal service and financial Government support.. Would anyone out there disagree?. 

With TTT (Turnbull The Terrible) in the hot seat and being filthy rich, we olds have little in the way of hope for a deal from the fed government. Perhaps worse if ALP is in charge. Rhonda 

The main reason we have for not downsizing is the enormous cost of "bond" in the aged care system. In our area, places that you might like to spend your last days cost $500,000 or more per person. If both of us are still here at 85 years, the only way we can afford the entry will be to sell our existing home or one of similar market value. If we downsized now and put money in the bank, our part pension would reduce and when the time comes, we will not be able to raise the funds for the bond. The government needs to address the AGED CARE BOND before asking retirees to make further sacrifices. 

Read an interesting article the other day about the European welfare state. The statement most interesting was, 'Unfortunately, it is often overlooked that government can bribe the people only with their own money. In the words of the great French economist Frederic Bastiast: "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else." (from, Europe on the road to nowhere - The Australian Aug 28-29, 2015). The problem is, we all know that changes have to be made, but no-one wants to be the source/subject of those changes. In these times, when many more are living at the expense of fewer taxpayers, when taxes are increasing, and I mean the taxes from the toil of others, those people who do have a capacity to pay something toward their own support should pay rather than continuing to rely on taxpayers. Freeing up funds from the sale of the family home is a possible answer. Whereas superannuation is the forcible transfer of forgone wages for years/decades into the funding of the individual's retirement. Superannuation should not, therefore, be used by government to "top-up" the support of others in the name of equity through making changes to policies, taxes, levies etc. If it is to be used in this way, then its another con that spendthrift politicians and governments turn to, to satisfy today's welfare recipients. I also recently read that to fund the equivalent of the full age pension would require a superannuation balance of $1 million. Most taxpayers will never accumulate anywhere near that level of personal funding yet public debate among policy wonks continues to bang on about slugging superannuation members. So those people receiving a pension should remember that if personal/superannuation taxes continue to rise a disincentive not to work any extra also rises. And for those receiving the taxes of others, you should feel somewhat privileged that others are out there working for your benefit. Di 

I would suggest a value limit of about one million dollars on the family home. This would discourage people from pouring their savings into bigger houses in order to claim maximum pension. 

GET THE TREASURER TO LOOK AT THE BANKS HOW THEY ARE STEALING PENSIONERS SAVINGS BY GIVING VERY LOW INTEREST RATES LIKE STEPED INTERSET RATES,FROM .02% TO 1.5% AND THEN BRAGING,THE PROFITS THEY MAKE UP TO $9 BILLION PER ANUM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALSO THE BANKS ALL HAVE THE SAME RATES AND CONDITIONS THER IS NO DIFFERENC BETWEEN BANKS. I THINK THEY ARE RUNNING LIKE A CARTELL. 

We are retired after a full working life, raised and educated 6 children, never bludged on the system but now seem to be a target from politicians who show few or no loyalties. I think a person should not have the pension or dole unless they have worked and contributed for a prescribed number of years 

I have no idea what should be or what shouldn't be done 

we should not have tro sell our homes for the sake of having taxe lowered, I dint know what impact it would have, So I don't know the answer to the ? 

Bill Shorten on Q&A this week suggested that retirees with $2-3M in super earning $135000 or $150000 should be taxed. What might he get when he retires, and how much tax will he pay? Taxing assets and the derivative income of retirees who have already paid tax to achieve those assets is not the answer. Less expenditure and no more handouts to undeserving recipients are two solutions. But will this government or any other have the courage? Nup.