A tale of three retirements
With just on two thirds of retirees receiving an Age Pension from age 67 onwards, this benefit remains the main form of income for older Australians. As the super system matures, the amount of ‘top-up’ provided by super is increasing, but the core funding of retirement remains the Australian Government Age Pension.
Today we question how fair the pension actually is. It seems that the somewhat complex income and assets test which was designed to promote equity may be working against certain retirees.
Let’s start with the detail of what different groups receive, using the full Age Pension for these comparisons.
Here is the way singles and couples are treated. The full single amount is $29,754 per annum and couples will receive $44,855 combined.
Adult Pension Rates
| Single* | 20 Sep 2024 |
| Base | $1,047.10 pf |
| Supplement | $83.20 pf |
| Energy Supplement | $14.10 pf |
| Total | $1,144.40 pf |
| Partnered (each) | |
| Base | $789.30 pf |
| Supplement | $62.70 pf |
| Energy Supplement | $10.60 pf |
| Total | $862.60 pf |
The combined couples full payment including supplements is $1725.20, which means that a single full Age Pension is 2/3 or 66% of the couples amount. This percentage is intended to be a recognition that, in certain ways (rates, heating, maintenance), two can live as cheaply as one, but in other ways (transport, health costs, food) they cannot.
Homeowners and non-homeowners are different in the eyes of Centrelink
As you probably know, the Age Pension is calculated on the basis of a means test which considers your income and your assets. Whilst your primary residence is exempt from the assets test, if you own a home, your asset thresholds vary from those who don’t. The following table shows the latest (September 2024) thresholds for financial assets for a part-Age Pension.
Pension Disqualifying Assets Limits
| Family Situation – Resident | 20 Sep 2024 |
| Single, homeowner | $695,500 |
| Single, non-homeowner | $947,500 |
| Couple (combined), homeowner | $1,045,500 |
| Couple (combined), non-homeowner | $1,297,500 |
These are the thresholds for the full Age Pension showing the higher amounts for those who rent compared to homeowners:
Assets free areas for maximum payment
| Homeowners | |
| Single | $314,000 |
| Couple (combined) | $470,000 |
| Illness separated (couple combined) | $470,000 |
| Non-homeowners | |
| Single | $566,000 |
| Couple (combined) | $722,000 |
| Illness separated (couple combined) | $722,000 |
For both a full and part-Age Pension, non-homeowners are allowed to have a higher level of assets before they lose an entitlement, than do homeowners. Theoretically this is an attempt to support those with higher housing costs because they rent, compared with the relatively lower costs of home maintenance. But are these thresholds achieving this aim?
As we wrote in April, there seems to be an anomaly.
The key issue is that some assets are treated differently under the different tests as follows:
- Your home is exempt from the assets test and no deeming applies
- Personal assets and non-financial investments: These are assessed under the assets test but no deeming applies
- Financial assets such as bank accounts, shares and super are included in both the assets test and income test – due to income being deemed, which could be viewed as an exercise in double dipping.
This double dipping on financial assets could also inadvertently discourage people from investing in income producing assets.
Are all Australians equal in retirement?
Other perspectives on equity and retirement were offered in the final report released by the government-sanctioned Retirement Income Review in 2020. This review found three major aspects of our retirement income system which prevent an entirely level playing field. Here’s what the authors of the report had to say:
‘The Age Pension, combined with other support provided to retirees, is effective in ensuring most Australians achieve a minimum standard of living in retirement in line with community standards. But some groups do not achieve this goal.
A significant number of older Australians who are renting in the private market need additional assistance. Increasing the rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance will only have a small impact. A new approach is required.’
‘The home is the most important component of voluntary savings and is an important factor influencing retirement outcomes and how people feel about retirement. Home owners have lower housing costs and an asset that can be drawn on in retirement. If the decline in home ownership among younger people is sustained into retirement, there will be an increasing number of retirees who rent. The system favours home owners, such as through the exemption of the principal residence from the Age Pension assets test.’
And finally it found that life-course disadvantage means that certain individuals (women, people with a disability, Torres Strait Islanders and others) continue to miss out:
‘The Age Pension helps to reduce income inequality for these groups in retirement compared with working life. But an individual’s superannuation balance, and retirement income, largely reflects the extent of their engagement in the workforce, both income and years worked. Those on higher incomes make more superannuation contributions and have larger superannuation balances. For example, the gap in superannuation balances at retirement between men and women is the accumulation of economic disadvantages faced by women in working life, particularly the gap in earnings and time spent in the workforce.’
The poverty trap
And then there is the question of whether the different Age Pension allowances prevent older Australians from slipping into poverty. Again, it is the renters who are clearly disadvantaged. According to joint research by the Australian National University (ANU) and Grattan Institute, about half of all people renting in retirement are living in poverty.
This comes back to the disproportionately high portion of income that is required to rent in modern day Australia.
How does this work in practice?
Sometimes following the detail of research into income and assets test implications can be heavy going. So today we share the tale of three retirements to enable you to see how the rules work and judge for yourself how fair the Age Pension is.
| Michelle | Albert and Simone | Eddie | |
| Age and marital status | Single, aged 67 | Couple, both 67 | Single, aged 67 |
| Employment status | Previously a nurse, no longer working | Neither working | No longer working |
| Homeowner status | Non-homeowner | Homeowners, no mortgage | Homeowner, mortgage |
| Value of home | $0 | $5,000,000 | $1,500,000 |
| Non-deemed assets (car, home contents) | $45,000 | $45,000 | $45,000 |
| Mortgage | $0 | -$250,000 | |
| Total super | $180,000 | $300,000 | $290,000 |
| Other financial assets | $20,000 | $10,000 | $40,000 |
| Total assets | $245,000 | $5,355,000 | $1,625,000 |
| Age Pension entitlement | Full – $29,754 | Full – $44,855 | Part – $24,996 |
This comparison is quite simplistic in some ways, as it shows the same age and non-deemed asset levels. But this allows us to illustrate the following:
- it is possible for Albert and Simone to have nearly $5.5 million in assets and still receive a full Age Pension,
- while Eddie, with less than a third of those total assets does not qualify for a full amount, receiving a part-Age Pension instead.
- This contrasts markedly with Michelle, who is likely to need up to 40% of her annual income of $29,754 to cover rental expenses, leaving her with about $18,000 per annum, plus a small pension top-up from super, to cover all other outgoings.
While Eddie may struggle to cover mortgage repayments without using some of his super, both he and Albert and Simone have an asset from which they can access retirement funding should it be necessary. Both households can also downsize and use funds from the proceeds to further top up their super. Put simply, they have many more options.
What can be done to ensure the Age Pension serves all Australians well?
Here are some ideas:
- Exempt all assets under the lower asset threshold from both the asset test and also from being deemed for the income test.
- Commonwealth Rent Assistance may need to be reviewed in line with actual rental costs as opposed to regular modest increases to a low base amount
- As the home becomes an ever more important part of retirement funding, the blanket exemption from the Age Pension means test may need to be reconsidered for homes above a certain amount.
- A Universal Age Pension might pay for itself by removing the massive level of bureaucracy involved in assessing and delivering it to more than 2.6 million Australians.
What say you?
Do you think all Age Pensioners get a fair go?
If not how would you change the system to make it better for more retirees?
Are you entitled to an Age Pension? If so, how much are you likely to get? You can check by using the free Retirement Essentials Age Pension Eligibility Calculator.
And if you are already receiving this benefit, could you be eligible for even more? That’s when a ‘Maximising your entitlements’ consultation can assist.
It would be nice if self funded retirees received the benefits of the aged pension, but not the actual payment. I understand that retired persons in NZ receive the aged pension, regardless of their wealth
Australia’s old age pensions are means tested because, although “The National Welfare Fund”, was started 1/1/1946 by PM Ben Chifley to FULLY FUND the Old Age Pension, the money was grabbed and spent by Gough Whitlam 1972- 1975. Australia became the ONLY nation of the WW2 Allies who instituted a fully funded pension system at the end of WW2 to END UP WITH AN UNFUNDED ONE. (This is why Governor General Kerr SACKED Whitlam). ” The National Welfare Fund” had by then been in operation for ’30 YEARS’ until 1975, and the tax contributions from EVERY TAXPAYER was 7.5% since 1946, so the FUND AMOUNT was VERY LARGE. Comparatively similar in relativity to times and money values as today’s compulsory superannuation 1 July 1992 – NOW i.e.’32 YEARS’. USA, GREAT BRITAIN, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND, and even SOUTH AFRICA up until a few years ago, ALL had a FULLY FUNDED old age pension, and that is WHY????? – everybody gets a pension BUT WE DO NOT!!!!!! Hawke and Keating MEANS TESTED IT IN 1986 as there was NO MONEY THERE TO BE ABLE TO PAY IT TO ALL CONTRIBUTORS — Very unfair indeed!!!!!
The Uk pension is roughly equal to the Australian pension but only if you have been contributing to the National Insurance scheme your whole working life.
So it’s similar to our Superannuation. You are also taxed on the payments.
That is not true. Tax paid is used for current projects there is not an aspect of ‘saving’ for the pension, that’s what superannuation is for.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/Research_Papers/2021-22/NationalWelfareFund
UK Pension was set up before WW2 . It has different options and is regarded as fair.
I totally agree with the NZ unconditional pension system. Self funded retirees in Oz are being ripped off. After working my whole adult life and paying taxes, some of which, I would assume, was meant to go towards my age pension. But no, after saving and sacrificing for years, and contributing to my super account, I will be penalized .
Yes Alex I agree, it’s so unfair. Even bigger unfairness is the value of home owners homes. I have a modest house in need of repairs where some others live in million dollar mansions and still receive the full pension. I am on a part age pension due to mostly my super balance. Most of it will be spent on house repairs and only then will I qualify for a full pension. My house repairs still don’t make my house a million dollar home so I still think it is unfair how a full age pension can be paid to million dollar home owners.
Also agree with Alex. As Nz has retired egfective people still working providing to the tax system and the huge knowledge base they contribute too, Australia is treating its people on pensiond unfairly.
With the workers shortsge surely this will have to change.
As a 76 year old with little or no super am single still working renting, with a medical condition that means I have to work from home.
I have reduced my hours to 24 hours a week and get a part payment from Centrelink.
I feel that for single renters the pension should be a flat rate of $50000 per annum. with that yearly benefit going up as per CPI increase. I am concerned about how I will be able to afford to live without any work.
it is a frightening thought. you talk about people with millions in the bank owning their own home and forget what a frightening thought it is to completely retire. I guess I am one of the lucky few who work for a company that is compassionate, but that could all change in the near future.
I think each person who has paid taxes and reaches retirement age should be treated individually and paid independently of their relationship.
I think that the aged pension payment as a couple should be scrapped.
If an aged pensioner was renting, then that rental supplement would need to be increased, and that supplement should be paid directly to the rental agent not received into the aged pensioners account.
Yes i am 67 and receiving only a half of a couples pension when my wife who is only 60 is ineligible for the aged pension . Why should i only receive this and not the single aged pension ? I think it penalizes me because i am in a relationship.
This is one of the most unfair parts of our system, it clearly discriminates against couples with an age gap. If that age gap is significant it can discriminate over a long period.
Does your comment that ‘They *CAN* downsize” …take into account the fact that A) there are almost no suitable residences available to downsize to, in the first place , plus B) the massive cost of actually moving house – particularly if you are older / unable to lift and move things yourself and have ZERO relatives to help you – meaning $$$$$ to pay someone to move everything, C) the *massive* amount in Stamp Duty plus real estate agent fees plus the cost of doing any repairs required then the cost of modifying the residence you are moving to? It is simply NOT WORTH the cost of moving – that is why older people stay where they are!! You end up losing a lot of money moving, then you have an asset worth less – so your options for reverse mortgaging have decreased dramatically. Yet there are some people who want to force older people to move out of their homes into Dogboxes.
Amen! I “downsized” to purchasing land and building a smaller house with two bedrooms plus a smaller sewing/single bedroom. The cost has been astonishing, as delay after delay has stretched out to 19 months and still not completed. Storage fees, accommodation and other associated costs has made the “downsizing” an expensive nightmare. I cannot apply for a part pension until final costs are calculated because of daily changes. The simplistic view that downsizing is an easy option is just good copy to sell the idea to the unsuspecting.
I am in a similar position. I am stuck with an unfinished house (down sizing), am paying two lots of rates, electricity and water, and living off my savings (fortunately I have some), draw down my super, but can not get any pension because the house I am building is deemed “an investment”. This build has been going for four years and the builder appears to have no appetite to complete it and there is no redress to this.
Personal circumstances can be very nuanced…and, governments are not very good at accommodating that. In 2018 we moved back to a city and downsized in prep for this next stage of our life – because we have a child with a disability… in doing so we massively upped our mortgage and now the property has also appreciated… This value change was not our motivation – but when we do retire it would be unfair to hold that against us… further downsizing is not an option due to our cicumstances – and agree the cost to do so would be insane.
I worked hard in a good job to allow me to be a self funded retiree. My wife stopped work after our first child. I own my own home and 2 rental properties. I have an allocated pension, a SMSF and shares held outside of super. I achieved this position by being somewhat frugal. I don’t want the money but object to not getting any of the benefits offered to those on the pension. As I said I worked hard, saved, was frugal and as I was employed, paid a huge amount of tax over my working life. It is not fair that those who gamble, drink and smoke there money away are supported, whilst those who plan for a retirement, get nothing and it seems the current government want to even take more from me. I think it is time people like myself have some reward and not abused by the government.
Here, Here !
Can’t even get the frickin Cweath Seniors Health Care Card !
I agree. There should be a base pension for everyone, and then additions according to their need and/or situation
We come from a generation where our “worth” was valued by the mount of money we had in the bank as well as the assets we managed to accumulate. We were taught if you can’t afford it, you can’t have it. So we scimped, we scraped and we went without.
We sacrificed in order to arrive at the place where we needed to be.
I took my first holiday at age 43 years because prior to that, there was no money. So it was camp out in the back yard or a few nights visit to stay with Grand parents.
Today’s generation seem to value their worth on how much money they can spend. It doesn’t seem to matter whether it’s credit cards, or toys in the garage as long as they can show everyone that they have “things.
I believe in welfare for those who truly are Jess fortunate
And I’m smart enough to realise that life doesn’t serve everyone equal chances but I resent paying into a system where I’m penalized later in life simply because I chose to go without, earlier in my life.
Yes, I totally agree with you John.
I was just your average kid.
Didn’t do very well at school but took a few risks in life.
Bought and sold some houses while raising a couple of kids.
We lived frugally at times, but our family had what we needed to get by.
Now retired, my wife and I get nothing from the government.
Yes, we should be rewarded for not taking handouts from the government along the way.
The age pension should be universal as in Britain and New Zealand and subject to the recipients income tax
Totally agree with Simon. A universal pension and all income subject to income tax. It works. And as stated in the article the savings made from the reduction in the level of bureaucracy needed to assess and then monitor compliance means that there is not a big change to the cost to Government and potentially a small saving.
The single pension vs couples pension I feel is unbalanced. A single person still has the same household expenses whether its one or two people in the home. The utilities bills are still the same, the lights/heating are on in the house whether its 1 or 2 people etc, council rates, car maintenance, insurances, internet, home maintenance are all the same. The only difference is food. Couples are sharing all these costs but a single is paying the lot on a much lower pension payment. I feel the single pension is too low. Im in a single household and my neighbours , a couple, pay the same bills as me.
A universal aged pension is a no brainer. Get rid of the cost of bureaucracy and the complexity of a system that is expensive and isn’t working. The constant changes are mind boggling,especially for a part pensioner having to report to Centrelink each time assets reduce to get a lousy $3 extra for a $1000 loss.
Look at overseas pension systems that work. They do a yearly tax return and if necessary you pay tax over a certain threshold, plain and simple.
Bring back common sense, fairness and simplicity.
The age pension does not cover a level playing field. It severely penalises those who have worked hard and saved compared to those that have not.
Australia is a great country that provides opportunities for all to advance in life and those that have saved pay very high taxes surely at the end of the working life of those that have paid very high taxes should be able to get the same benefits as people who have chosen to spend travel and waste money on a lifestyle that has not allowed saving
We need to get in line with other countries. Everyone over say, 70 should get a full pension, tax exempt. the value of assets should be irrelevant.
Then we all need to pay the relevant tax rate on all income above the pension.
this allows people with income generating assets to continue investing and making those assets work. it would free up properties for rental, and also leave money in other small enterprises. And in a lot of cases, the pension would go back within the taxable earnings from the relevant assets.
As the rules stand, it stops the entrepreneurs in the community from remaining business active. It takes away incentive from people who have been, and still can be, the backbone of free enterprise.
I don’t understand. Why is Eddie’s Home (assuming it’s his Principal place of Residence) included as an Asset ?.
Hi Greg, apologies if it is not clear but Eddie’s home is not being assessed by Centrelink as an asset in the example. If it were it’s value plus his other assets would put him over the threshold and be ineligible. We list the value of the property to show the potential for it to generate income via a reverse mortgage if he chose to do so.
Let’s dismantle Centrelink for pensions…..the workers in the system seem pretty unhappy with their job anyway.
Basic pension for all retirees, over retirement age, as in New Zealand.
Hi,
My husband and I are not eligible for any pension as we have a small rural acreage, which is not income producing and have our own home. My husband and I live on just my super! I know a couple who have their own home and each have very healthy Supers. Double than my own.
They receive part pensions! Therefore, they have double Super incomes and eligible for some pension.
My husband and I have only my Super to live on without any other income but not eligible for any pension. I can see a lack of fairness here!
Self funded Retirees cop it in the neck all of the time…work hard ,save and pay a house off and you receive no help or monetary assistance from the Govt..what a joke!!!
Just like negative gearing, the pension also has its perks. Unfortunately, Albert and Simone are approx $110 off their max cash asset $410K.If they invested $410 at say 8% continually rolling it over and say took approx $50K out annually would give a nice income of $44,855 + $50,000 = $94855 pa. Almost $8000 per month. This could continue for the next 15 years at which time they are both 82 YO hopefully still alive and not in an age care facility.They would also still have around $100,000 still left in Super.You could also assume their property to be now worth $10,000,000. They have positioned themselves almost perfectly to take advantage of their pension entitlement. I don’t know why more people don’t position themselves like this.I suppose it depends on your lifestyle in retirement and how much travelling and spending u want to par take in.!!!
I would like to know which legitimate company offers 8% these days?
Hi , I believe that a universal age pension is the way to go, the tax system can very easy be adjusted to archive a fairer outcome for every one,
It cut out the problems dealing with the so call rules that decide the outcome for everyone, we are all treated as equal under the tax laws, the pension is granted to everyone at the pension age !!!automate
The base rate of tax payable can very easy be adjusted for ages etc,
say at 67 years , $35,000 and no tax payable etc.
75years $ 70,000 and no tax payable etc.
the complexes of apply for Age pension are vast and many,
just makes it more simple
hi , I think the pension is fair .some poeple just don’t have luck or hard work planning or bad decisions in their lives. there are so avenues in this country as I see it.those retirees with expensive homes and receiving the full pension is an anomaly that should be looked into to.
Life is not equal during working life so why should the government insist that there should be equality in retirement years for everyone. As stated by many above, everyone has the choice how they live their life and how they spend their money. So why should those who are either lucky or wise with their spending be punished in their retirement years. Universal pension for everyone is fair.
John, the ‘expensive homes as you call them are only valued on paper and no doubt have increased since they were purchased by the owner. People have to live somewhere don’t they? Have you heard the expression assets rich and cash poor? That is often the case for many homeowners living in supposedly expensive homes.
My wife works full time and i am on an age pension, because my wife works i am penalised and receive a reduced pension, i have worked until the age of 76, however my wife is below pension age. I believe i should receive a full pension, having paid taxes over the passed 40 years. we own our own home valued at around $800,000.00 we own everything we have with assets value around $50,000.00.
No one should be penalised after working all those years, if you paid your taxes you should be entitled to a full pension no matter what.
Donal
Age pension for all and get rid of a lot of bureaucrats
WHY CAN’T MY HUSBAND EARN THE EQUIVALENT OF A PENSION WITHOUT MY PENSION BEING REDUCED?
I am on a pension and my husband is retired at 60. All of 2024 we have had to survive on my pension and my husband has been drawing down on his payout to pay the household
expenses, his payout is almost depleted. I am told he can only earn $300 per fortnight, add that to my $840 pension, that will add up to less than the couples pension per fortnight. WHY?
Sylvia, if your husband retired at 60 he is not eligible for the Aged Pension. He only becomes eligible at 67. The amount per fortnight of $300 would be the job seeker payment not the pension. You can’t get the couples pension yet is the answer.
Of course it’s not fair or equitable. There are so many anomalies and Grandfathered rules. Plus people on generous defined benefit pensions who are income tested but can still get part pensions and all the perks. People living in lifestyle villages worth over $1m who qualify for rent assistance because they own the house and not the land. Versus people who are homeless or in abject poverty because rents are so high. Our system needs a major overhaul. I make no judgements but a universal pension would be a good start
I am 77 years old and retired. I have all my assets in superannuation and do not own property. This makes me ineligible for any pension. If I move my money from super into purchasing a house, I will become eligible for a full pension.
If you have a million plus dollars mate at 77 you wont need any pension.
I have the same amount of assets as the average retiree. You are saying if the average retiree sold their house they won’t need a pension. And I agree.
My husband is 92 years old with dementia and I had to retire from work to be his full time carer.He had a full pension and I received to he carer of payment. Soon I will be 67 and my superannuation will be assessed as our combined asset which is approximately $6,000 over the threshold for the aged pension. Hubby will lose his Age Pension, etc and we will be living on my ABP. Will I be best to gift the $6,000 to our son and be able to qualify for the Age Pension?
Hi Susana, you could look at gifting some money however there may be other, better strategies for you to explore. I’d recommend speaking with one of our specialists planners who can go over the pros/cons of each of your options so you can make the best decision specific to your scenario. To make a booking CLICK HERE.
There’s a hidden social cost too. One that’s never talked about.
For example there’s 2 older people who meet later in life and collectively they don’t meet the assets test.
However separately one one is self funded and not eligible for a pension due to assets which generate a modest income sufficient for one person. The another separately is on a pension but no appreciable assets.
They can’t get together because the pensioner would lose their pension. The self funded income isn’t enough for 2 people to live on.
If Centrelink decides they’re a couple then they’re in all kinds of trouble. The result is a heavy handed intrusion into how people live their lives with all the accompanying anxiety.
Yes many of the consequences are financial but there’s also social, emotional and psychological costs as well, due to the current complicated cumbersome system.
Many pensioners with limited savings need to work. We should be exempt from the income test and not be penalised. In NZ, pensioners are not penalised for earning additional income. A greater percentage of pensioners in NZ are in the workforce compared to Australia. Let us work without penalty. Fairness in retirement!!
For those asking for a universal pension, it is easy to forget that our superannuation system is one of best in the world. Unlike, say NZ, which has a universal pension scheme, most super here is not taxed and the tax regime for those 67 and above are very generous indeed. (All NZ income incurs tax). It is not surprising that our joint super and pension system consistently ranks I. The worlds too 5.
Any reference for the ranking?
Or is this the “lucky country” syndrome?
The age pension should be sufficient for people to retire comfortably and enjoy the remainder of their late years. However, what I see, are people struggling to pay bills and eat healthily due to the limited funds made available to them via their aged pension. The pension needs to be fair and equitable, however, due to the Government funding the day to day lives of families, there can be never enough money (taxes) to sufficiently fund pensioners and/or aged care. Those of us who scrapped, saved, sacrificed, and planned for our later lives are not entitled to any pension, nor any discounts or compensations. Because I did not purchase any motor vehicles, go on overseas holidays, eat out at expensive restaurants etc, but saved, paid off my apartment, and placed money into Super, I am looked upon as a ‘privileged’ baby boomer, who is looked upon with contempt by our younger generations is offensive. I worked shift work all my working life until the end, I worked overtime, and on my days off to get what I have today. Yet, I am not entitled to any rewards for my efforts in retirement. I feel there are many of us out there who fall into this example. I have no investments, savings, or investment properties. I have a modest superannuation pension paid fortnightly, and in retirement, I remain paying full price for everything due to my hard work, and careful planning. How is that fair? Of course I am grateful for what I achieved, and I am not governed by Centrelink 🙂
total agree ,the only thing PM McMahon done ,and got total wrong .may he rest in peace most of the time.
in your article, would Michelle not be eligible for Rent Assistance??and would not Eddie pays his mortgage of ,thereby reducing his total assets, giving him a full pension. both Eddie and Albert/Simone will have higher house costs,eg insurance etc.
I believe that the universal pension is the way to, far more simple !!
I agree with universal age pension and continued tax return.
Having witnessed a friends treatment by Centrelink – the mistakes, the rules not followed, the waste of time outstripped the paltry pension amount they will receive.
Total waste of taxpayers contribution.
Far easier to ‘assess’ income, including the aged pension through the tax system.
How does it work for a single income couple where one is incapable of work. I’m looking at retirement planning now (59) and my wife (55) has not been able to work since being diagnosed with a brain tumour about 4 years ago. All good now but it stops her from going to work. So far my income has been sufficient but I don’t believe a single pension will be.
Hi Mark, I’m sorry to hear of your wife’s diagnosis. We can help you with planning for the future with one of our specialist consultations that you can book HERE.
pensions are out of touch and inadequate i retired in 2015 not much super to talk about my wife is 17yrs younger than me and now i am 81yrs old, i have to report her earnings every fortnight and the most i would get from each fortnight would be nothing to 175 dollars,she pays the bills now of course and the mortgage on her rate of pay very hard to pay for good food , here is a lack of overdue revues ,but i belive u should get your pension when u retire .only those who have big assetts should b assed, in country i come from you get your full pension when u retire you should get it here as well, we must have change because people like myself are falling through the holes . shame on this govt.
I am a tad confused about your three way comparison. I thought house values were exempt from calculating total asset value. You also show Eddie’s mortgage subtracted from his asset calculation. This was not my experience when I applied for the pension (18 months ago now). I had $300,000 in superannuation and a $200,000 mortgage. My mortgage was ignored and I was deemed to have almost $400,00 in assets. I therefore paid out my mortgage and re-applied, now having somewhat less than $200,000 in assets. My house value, ~$500,000, was not taken into the calculation. Why have you included the house values in your comparison, are they investment properties?
Hi Steven, my apologies for the confusion caused. The house and mortgage values were not included because they are assessable assets, they were included to show the value if the owner wished to sell or look at other options such as reverse mortgages.
The aged pension should be universal with each person in a relationship treated as a single entity and not as a couple. I am 72 and retired. My wife is 58 and employed in low paying child care. I receive a part pension based on my wife’s income WHY. Me wife’s income is reported as a Gross figure not Nett figure that we receive. Also whenever she receives a wage rise my pension is adjusted down which means we do not receive the full benefit of the wage increase. So much inequity.
I think it is biased & unfair when people comment of the value of peoples home if you desire to live in a a non flood area & low fire danger you pay a higher price for your land even though it has increased in unimproved value jumped from $630,000 to $950,000 in the last six months ??? who’s fault is that the lands department not the home owner , when the Lands department say unimproved value thats nothing on your land now add your own water tanks ,plumbing your own sewage plant the house the electricity the gardens retaining walls etc…so it goes on put a price on that & your unimproved value well over a million dollars the cost of repairs replacement of guttering roofing iron ,removal of tree’s to safe guard your home & power lines who pays for this we do ,now we have solar ,batteries to save on our power when sun is shining if sell back to the grid your lucky if you get 4cents kilowatt & what do you pay when its raining? Now what about the fact that we don’t have curb & guttering but we pay our rates that keep going up & our house insurance that keeps going up even though we have paid to make our property more secure which means guttering & drainage etc….
We have been married for 50 years worked hard are self funded retiree’s
We have done our days living in tents & caravan’s to get what we have not gambled ,only have a meal out occasionally do all our own cooking ,cleaning ,gardening done the hard yards raised three children to Adulthood & are grandparents ,helped with being there for them also ,I think that we have paid our dews & should have entitlements eventually ,regardless of what the value of our house is worth .
Rob
6 feel that Keatings means tested aged pension is not what most Australians want. they don’t want to be deemed either. makes it pointless to have interest earning bank accounts which is ridiculous. people of Australia have a right to keep their Tax Paid already savings wherever they like without further penalty, deeming is just another form of tax really on your hard earned income.
everyone, whether a couple or individuals, should receive the same amount and couples should not be penalised with less PENSION. Both of us worked all our life.
also they should take the age back to 65. I am quite sick already and can’t keep working. but not sick enough to pass for disability. feeling flogged.
Housing Commission residents in all Australia are very bad suffer. They do not get Rental Allowance on top of their pensions. That’s old rules of law. They pay 25-30% to housing commission from their pension. But do not include rent allowances. Need support them to add up allowance to pay housing commissions to build up their extra cash on pockets for their livings.