In Australia eligibility for the Age Pension is means tested. The rationale for this is two-fold. Firstly it helps ensure that Government entitlements go to those who need them most and secondly by putting a limit on the number of people that are eligible the Age Pension becomes more affordable for the Government.
Not all countries around the world apply a means test to their Age Pensions. New Zealand and The Netherlands for instance pay an Age Pension to everyone that meets their residency requirements, regardless of their financial position. This is often referred to as a universal Age Pension.
Why pay an Age Pension to everyone?
Paying an Age Pension to everyone might not at first seem very equitable. After all, shouldn’t those that need it most be prioritised? Isn’t the pension there to help people that can’t fund their own retirement? And wouldn’t offering an Age Pension to everyone mean a ballooning cost to government (taxpayers) or would it be funded by reducing the overall level of pensions?
There are some alternative arguments in favour of a universal Age Pension though. Here are just a few:
- The current system is complicated and costly to administer so the Government could save a lot of money. Ian Henske from National Seniors Australia said in the Sydney Morning Herald “If everyone of pension age received a pension, retirees could just add this to their other income and pay tax. Means testing is costly to administer.”
- David Knox from the actuarial firm Mercer argues that it would create more incentive for people to save for their own retirement. At present some people are reluctant to save as they fear it will reduce their pension entitlements
- Knox also argues that it would provide stronger incentives for people to downsize the family home if they were able to do so without impacting their Age Pension
What do you think?
It’s an issue with strong arguments on both sides and there will be lots of opinions. We’d love to hear yours.
ps We conducted a survey to find out what people thought about the issue. You’ll find the results here
I agree with a universal aged pension. I have struggled to save either by superannuation contributions or general savings over my entire working life and I know how much I have gone without to do this and have some security for my retirement. Because I have done this it seems that I am always penalised.
Currently I am 76y/o and on my 4th year of working /paying income tax. What is the minimum number of working years in order to avail or apply for retirement ?
Would appreciate your kind comments.
Thanks
I fail to see the fairness in the current system. Over a working life you can have two people with identical income but the one who saves for retirement is penalised.
my comment was to be that the retirees that are not eligible are the ones that have paid the most taxes! as they have earnt the most!
I totally agree Tony we saved and have a small nest egg which doesn’t allow us to get a pension – we paid taxes all our working life and now we get nothing the people who work and save are penalised all the time – would love to see a universal aged pension – would be much fairer
“At present some people are reluctant to save as they fear it will reduce their pension entitlements.” .
I agree totally. It is not fair that after working all your life and saving as hard as possible, you get penalised.
I agree, the current system penalises those who save for retirement, a universal system would be much fairer
The whole system would be better off with no taxes on income.User pays.GST etc.
Yes. I agree. But I would not then want to start paying tax on the money I draw down. I have already paid tax on most of superannuation money I saved over many years with salary sacrifice only coming in for the last few years.
Well my overall thoughts are for the universal pension to be paid to everyone over 67. Obviously there would be a cost to the nations books but there are huge savings as well via administration of our current system . The benefits would surely outweigh the negatives. Piece of mind to all aussies would be high on the list . All workers pay taxes during their lives and should not be disbarred because they earned more or less during their productive working lives. Minimum equality in our senior years without means testing is right that this country could well do with and achieve fairly . Seniors spend freely in general that supports younger employment in many fields . I encourage strongly those that support a voice for universal pensions in Australia .
when i was younger 50 years ago and working. The govt then had a retirement PLAN WHERE THEY TOOK OUT A CERTAIN AMMOUNT OF YOUR PAY AND IT WENT INTO A FUND FOR RETIREES BUT WHEN COMPULSORY SUPER CAME OUT THE GOVT TOOK THAT FUND AND SPENT IT.I think the pension be based in the years you work and the less you worked the less you get/E.G.$20 per year you work so that if you worked for 50years you would be on $1000
I agree with a lot of your comments that working hard, paying your taxes and saving or investing for future in Australia is treated as a punishment upon retirement. To qualify for age pension and eventually get approval is a mammoth task full of complications. Moreover, on one hand a spouse can not demand or force opposite spouse(wife or husband) to do any thing for the other without being charged for some form of assault, yet when it comes to claiming for any assistance, be it health care card, age pension etc from the government, one is asked to provide evidence of earnings of the other for determination of qualification for any payment from the Government. The Government expects full financial support from the spouse who is earning, but it does not give them any tax relief for providing such support. In reality if the couple live separately or living on rental, their payment of benefits are higher. This does not make sense because firstly the home ownership has come from a hard labour, it also attracts council rates etc, which a tenant on rent does not have to pay, so where is the logic in determining the level of benefits/pensions. The current system encourages separation/divorce, not owning a property, being a social-welfare dependent to qualify for maximum handout from the Government. I feel a universal age pension for all tax payer retirees should be automatic and those who have paid taxes should be assessed for their contributions in the system (taxes, community services and other valid reasons before they get any assistance. If anything such people should be offered ration cards with a proviso for procuring absolute essentials, education, health care and not drugs, alcohol or consumables that add to burdens of health care, social problems or disturbances in public order.
Atleast SFR should get the same health, gov discounts people on welfare get .
She is right. Why not Australia adopt a super scheme where employee and employer contribute to to government fund and on attaining retirement everyone is paid super universally.
I, m on the age pension, but it was taken off me, but later reinstated. Centrelink said tat I worked for a co, twenty two years ago, but I didn’t, I’ve always been a sole trader or sub contractor. My pension was reasonably low, but I found out that centrelink, were thinking that I was still an employee of the co and therefore I must be receiving an income. But I wasn’t, but they stopped my payments. I got it back now, but twenty two yrs ago!!, I mean, I don’t even remem er what I looked like bac ten, let alone who I worked for. But the yfixed it. If it was a universal peynsion, I wouldn’t have had the stress
Me too – Ihave worked for 53years. Eventhough i have with out many pleasure of life such as travel, holidays and a big home but find that 40k does not give mcuh room for travel or a new car and now am supporting a diable prson as well.
At least the govt could conside universal pendion for the seniors starting at 70 or 75 to allow them to live comfortable life for their remaining years.
We have worked and paid taxes all of our lives and now as self funded retirees qualify for absolutely nothing.
Depends on what the age is?
I have worked since I was 16. I have gone without to save for my retirement. I have worked two jobs. My husband has worked two jobs and we have been taxed for all this hard work.
Now we are retired we get nothing from the government. Yet still any money we have saved is taxed yet again.
When do we get rewarded? A universal pension would be better.
I’m a bit open minded about whether everyone should get the pension but I’m leaning towards a YES response.
What I do think however, is that self -funded retirees should receive the fringe benefits health cards, travel etc. and that the the value of the home should be reduced by the value of any outstanding home loans in the means-test calculations
I fully agree with you. We don’t receive any benefits and are penalised for saving for our retirement.
I’m a widower so single worked till 67 own my house service in Aust Army and am entitled to nothing as I saved to have a comfortable retirement but can’t even get a rate power or rego discount cause they dropped the means testing before I retired.
The current system gives a lose/lose outcome. The cost of administering and policing the current system will outweigh any benefits as compared to a universal payment system as well as actively discouraging retirement savings. Means testing is notoriously ineffective, inefficient and diverts resources from seniors instead of assisting them.
Universal pension would be more fair to everyone and easier for the government to manage.Presently the rich can manipulate the system , middle class miss out after having worked hard all their life and contributed toward their retirement (as past governments have requested) leaving the poor to struggle
I think the government must be fair by giving pension to those who work hard all their lives regardless of whether they have investment properties etc. because they worked hard, thats why they have those investments. It will be unfair for them to miss out the benefits they are entitled to, just because they have investments. Age pension is a rightful entitlement for those who reach the age pension And it will be a incentive or consolation for them for working hard all their lives rather than depriving them of their rightful entitlement.
I believe that the age pension should be means tested, however I strongly feel that ALL persons of retirement age should get the financial benefits that the aged pension offers eg reduction of car registration , council rates etc
Regards
Lindsay Lyall
Hi Lindsay, could you please explain to me how means tests are fair, as pointed out above by someone else. Two people can earn identical incomes, and experience the same misfortunes in life, one lives the high life while the other squirrels away and then is penalised for doing so.
Interesting comments. I do think all should receive the age pension. I am for some reason, still astonished that most of those who managed to save their money through working believe that those who didn’t manage to save their money were just wasting it!
I worked and earned since I was seven years old & worked in the home of my parents too for nothing. Then I worked for such low wages that I barely survived all my life. There was no chance of saving anything. ‘Get a better paid job’ was the statement I so often heard – but that is not always possible. And it certainly was not for me. I am still working and receiving a part pension but have no home of my own and no savings. Did I just ‘live it up’? No. For too much of those decades I was actually going hungry. Rentals continued to rise, kids needs continued to rise and there was no financial relief, despite at times working 60 hour weeks – then getting taxed almost half of the second job, so it amounted to zilch by then! Oh and there was also the thing of sole parents – whether they were divorced, widowed or whatever, had a very low rate of possible tax return. If I had been a man with two children – or even if I had been a man, I would have earned way more and got a better tax deal too. Fact, not bitterness – just fact.
I see that still so many hold prejudices against those who didn’t make the ‘well off’ grade – but I want to add that there must also be a way to ensure that those who really need assistance receive sufficient to live reasonably well in senior years.
And, simultaneously, I am all for a universal seniors pension – but it must be sufficient.
Yes there should be a universal aged pension same as in the UK. Everyone who contributes during their working life should get a pension. There needs to be a safety net for some people though.
The current system is complex and expensive to administer, and is perceived to punish those who save to provide for their own retirement. In this sense it is inequitable and should be replaced by a universal scheme. This would require changes to the distribution of taxes, but this should not be beyond the wit of the relevant public servants. A forensic examination of where taxes are currently being wasted could be an eye-opener and provide a way forward.
I agree with many of the comments above regarding having contributed appropriately via taxes for in excess of 40 years (X2 as my wife also contributed over pretty much the same period). After doing the right thing for all that time, at the request of successive Federal Governments of both persuasions, they do not pass back anything despite the share market being in a downward spin and the bank interest rates being at historical lows. Income from both of these should be funding that very retirement. The only benefit received is discounted public transport rates – ironically supplied by the state government. It’s a funny old world when our “deemed” income is also far in excess of the general earnings we can safely achieve through conventional means. As a worst case, a previous responders comments regarding discounts on r3egistration and rates make sense, except they once again hit your state government and your local councils when the Fed’s collect the cash from Income tax.
I too feel that if you have worked hard and paid taxes one should at least get some relief from the bills. They have brought the amount in your super down to $840,000 and we can’t get anything at all. Migrants who have come here and not worked a day can get it after living here for ten years. Most of them have properties and money in the countries that they don’t declare. I have gone without and saved hard to put money into our super.
Hi I totally agree with you. We have worked here for 40+ years and paid tax more than average. At retirement we get nothing from government because we have saved and invested. I know of people that have been on unemployment most of the time and they get everything. Also some people have lots in their country of origin and they don’t declare and comfortably getting all entitlements. So our taxes are paying these people who are not entitled to. A lot of unemployed people chose not to work and they are looked after by the system. How can this be a fair system. Everyone who has paid tax should be entitled to it like New Zealand, USA, UK and others. The system now is unfair and unreasonable. If you’re a citizen here, paid tax all your life should be entitled to pension same as those that haven’t worked, paid no tax and benefitting from our hard work.
I have saved hard, paid my fair share of taxes and at the same time try and accumulate a nest egg for my future. However the future is unpredictable. Now that I have been forced to retire for medical reasons, I am forced to dip into my super and what I thought was a secure nest egg is now no longer secure.
I have paid my taxes, contributed to the community and economy, and my reward for all this in retirement is “zilch”. Instead I am penalized for trying to secure my future by investing in assets which in turn provide a return to the community, housing for the less fortunate and a source of revenue savings for the government.
If not for residential home investors; the relevant governments would be forced to provide state/federal housing for lower income people. This is now provided by investors who are continuously being penalised for investing in a win/win situation. That is, they are securing their future, and the federal government is able to subsidise such housing by providing tax incentives for investors. But these incentives are being eroded in the mistaken belief that investors are reaping profits. I can assure you the vast majority of mum and dad investors do not make a profit during the life of the investment.
It is only when they sell their investment, where they hope to realise a profit. Even then, the government takes their share while at the same time penalising investors for trying to secure their future.
If investors left the residential housing market, it would be far costlier for government to provide housing for those in need.
It would have been far more beneficial in hind sight for me to not work and save as hard and depend on the government on a handout, not pay taxes, and now be funded by the very people who are trying to save for their nest egg.
At the moment I don’t qualify for any of the relief packages that the government is handing out to those who do not work for one reason or another. All this whilst I see my super nest egg shrinking due to the current economic climate and me being forced to access my super.
It almost seems that the government rewards those who fail to take the opportunity to better themselves and choose not to save for their retirement and penalises those who work hard, pay taxes and save for their retirement.
why not arrange for the employer super contribution to be credited to a universal pension fund and have a standard pension for everyone this would mean less stress for the govt and a good out come for those who have worked all their life
perhaps it could be tiered and those who have been on welfare all their life be paid a separate pension when they reach retirement age.
I think that if you have paid taxes for 20 years you automatically qualify for the age pension.
After working for 40 years and paying taxes since day one of arrivals find now that I have retired I am not entitled to even a Health Care card for my medication.
I feel it is unfair as the super we get is just enough for us.
I have worked all my life from 15. Paid my taxes all these years.
I am now 68 and still working because i have no choice.
Paying rent and everyday bills you need 2 wages.
Pay the Age pension or a seniors card to those who are eligible for it.
Aged 74 with no income whatsoever as the Banks are now not paying dividends at the moment …yet I’m entitled to nothing from Centrelink because I have my all these so called valuable shares.
Centrelink say I must sell by bank shares (at half the price I paid for them) to feed myself….after 50 years of paying taxes
The aged pension is there to repay senior citizens for a life time of contributing to the wealthy and prosperity of Australia. Everyone should be entitled ….bar “politicians” as they have a pension which is the envy of every working person that is already generous beyond there worth.
Well I’m really annoyed with the pension system.
Way to complicated.
I have provided for myself through taxes, budgeting and investment but. I will never get a pension. I started my super when I was still an apprentice because of forward thinking and the vision of also providing for my wife and possible children. Silly me. I could have had possibly more by doing nothing.
It annoys me that those who do the right thing and invest if their future will be penalized for doing so while those who sit back and make NO effort get everything.
I know that some people do try hard but by circumstance, are unable to save.
I see much the poorer portions of society smoking, drinking and generally wasting what they have or what we the tax payer provide.
Yes I’m annoyed with that.
Also the pollies get a much better package but I bet that isn’t means tested……………… and again, the tax payer pays.
So just because I worked honestly and paid my taxes throughout my working life ,I am not eligible for any thing from the govt ,while those who possibly have spent their life bumming around are rewarded!
Why should aged parents of migrants be rewarded if when they have never worked let alone paid taxes be allowed to claim pension when we who gave paud taxes and helped build the country and left to fend for our selves.
It seems most people commenting have the same idea. If we work all our life, pay our taxes, and make sacrifices to save for retirement, we are penalised. To look at the other extreme, someone who spends their life on welfare, and does no saving for retirement, is given a cash handout when they retire from doing nothing.
Agree it is very unfair that self funded retirees receive absolutely nothing, no health card, no reduced rates, vehicle registration etc while those who saved nothing get all the handouts
I have worked all my life and struggled being a single mother due to divorce and what little super I had I withdrew it recently to pay some money of my mortgage as I’m no longer working I am living with my partner is lucky for him was left some money when his mother died. He owns his house and I’m renting my little house And living of the $400 a week rent and trying to pay the mortgage and bills and yet cannot get a pension because of my partners assets
I feel that people that are Self Funded retirees should be given a Centrelink concessions card as these people will save the Government at least $600,000 over an average life expectancy and are of no financial burden to the Government. Sadly in Australia many feel that the Age pension is a given right, it isn’t.
I retired after working and paying tax’s for 48 years then the feds changed the rules and now I don’t get a pension because I happen to live in Sydney. If I sold my home and investment property and moved to say Bathurst and bought a home and investment property there I would qualify for the DVA pension again purely because of property values…that’s really fair (sarcasm) so I think that if you have contributed via tax you should get something back after all that is how the aged pension was set up . Despite not receiving any pension the feds took away my discounts by removing the PCC then they re-instated it after 12 months because they worked out it only cost them the price of printing the card as concessions were state and local government “gifts”.
I agree with a universal pension provided the recipients have finished their working life and have no income from paid work and also the universal age pension should be brought back to 65 years – at the moment anyone over 50 are more or less employable and go on job start and have to volunteer so by reducing to 65 these people could still volunteer if they wish not compelled in order to survive – when I started work in the 60’s I was told then that if I continue to work and pay taxes a percentage of your tax will be invested by the government which will entitle me to an age pension now they call it wellfare how insulting,,,,,,,,,,,,
Excluding the family home from the means test for the age pension distorts the market place & discourages investment in things that would be more productive for the national economy. The NZ system is much better.
After a lifetime of working and employing people in a relevant small business I am now classified as self funded!! I even paid additional tax on profits
I truly believe that we should have the same rules for all
Just because I worked hard and long hours I shouldn’t be punished
I think we can learn a lot from little brother. Our tax system needs a complete review, well not so much another review but a complete overhaul and paying a universal pension should be one of the changes. The current (passed use by date ) age pension doesn’t fit with our current superannuation system. Pay everybody the same pension when they reach retirement age, no means testing and you will claw it back in taxes from those who don’t need it. What a huge saving in bureaucracy. Current system is flawed with too many having to be half dodgy to try and get some or all of the age pension.
Seems to me that if you waste your money during your working life on the likes of gambling, drinking etc, you get rewarded with the pension. If you’ve lived a sensible life and acquired some wealth, you’re penalised. However I don’t think the super wealthy should be eligible, especially those amongst us who haven’t actually worked or produced any goods or services. Silvertales in other words. Politicians, the ones who decide, give themselves a pension though. That is ridiculous. You only have to serve two terms and you are set for life. And there is a big trough while you’r serving.
Difficult ?!!! It is a night mare. Ours might have been made more difficult by being done at the time of all the covid problems, but we submitted more and more paper work and eventually went in person with still more. At that visit we were told they had all they needed, only to get a request for still more 2 months later, and when my husband missed seeing that on their ap, they had already decided we were too late submitting that extra stuff.
We just gave up for the time being.
So sorry that after a life time of work this had happened to you but please get some advice and don’t give up that is what they want.
A phone call to your local politician should help it helped me.
Congratulations on your retirement hopefully you can navigate through the pension mine field soon.
Means tested, but make the test simpler and easier to calculate. Also, not taxable. Why tax a pension?
Works well in New Zealand, where they have a universal pension. Reduced Bureacratic costs and means no costly witch-hunts.
I have worked for 55years Full Time and paid a fair share of tax, without taking one dollar from Centrelink over those years.
However it appears that if you work hard, save a few dollars to secure yourself a comfortable retirement. You are Penalised.
Don’t work, Don’t save, or have a good time through life and have nothing at the end, then guess what you are Rewarded.
Where is the fairness in that.
I am 68 years of age and have been receiving pension payments for the last 16 months. I am also still earning income, which varies substantially from month to month and year to year. At present I receive a relatively small amount of pension, calculated on the income I earned last financial year. I have almost no superannuation left and a large mortgage. My wife and I have raised our two children on a single income – and our society has little tolerance for families that have only one income earner.The current arrangement requires me to keep in regular contact with Centrelink (which is not always reciprocated), but also impacts on my willingness and ability to take on extra work as I fear that if I earn too much I will both forfeit pension entitlements and find myself having to pay back pension moneys to the Government. The argument that a means-tested pension is a disincentive to earning income is therefore one which resonates with me. As I have to pay tax on a proportion of the pension that I receive anyway, the administrative burden for me and the Government is ridiculous. I would strongly support the universal pension concept.
I don’t believe all retirees deserve a pension. However as a self funded retiree who paid taxes all my life from 16 yo to 60 yo, I believe the govt should give everyone the benefits. I believe even though those who have enough super to be fund their own pension should all be entitled to benefits that come with being on the pension.
I agree whole heartedly with Wendy. I retired at 63 with a generous super fund, but not able to receive benefits. Same for all
The current age pension system in Australia is disgusting and degrading. The people who devised this system should hang their heads in shame.
I cared for my 86 year old high care dad for 3 years till he passed during this time the stress caused by Centrelink was horrendous from insisting he had some funeral plot that hadn’t been included in his assets to insisting he present at a Centrelink office I don’t know how dad would have managed if he was on his own.
Australia should pull its head in on its attitude towards our ageing population. Love them respect them and look after them it’s not that bloody hard.
yes I support the idea of a universal age pension the cost in time and money for the applicant and or an advocate to apply and mantain currency of the details required by centrelink is high and the anguish it can place on the applicant is concerning. the cost for the goveernment in staffing centres both physical and call centres, secure websites mail and payment costs. to maintain a cap on who is or is not entitles could be better used to allow all pension age to be given an amount that would ultimaely add to the betterment of the economy as a whole
I have worked throughout my life and contributed to my superannuation. I could have chosen to pay off my mortgage sooner or gone on more expensive holidays etc. But no, I chose to pay into superannuation believing that I would be more secure and comfortable in retirement. A mistake. I am hit with a deeming rate that is unrealistic which reduces my pension to a pittance. My wife works on a casual basis and her GROSS amount is used to further reduce my part pension. Once again using the money she pays in tax, that we do not receive, to lower my entitlement. It is disgusting. I earned the right to an aged pension in retirement which should be paid regardless of my assets. Should my income exceed the tax threshold I am more than willing to pay the relevant tax owing.
Universal Aged Pension would eliminate the very unfair land in excess of 2ha being included in asset test. The value of the entire land can be far less than that of a suburban block of land in a capital city but is included whereas the city block isn’t.
The UAP can be paid for by simplifying superannuation. IE no offsets, no structures.
People who pay taxes during their working life should be rewarded by being able to receive a pension just like people who have received welfare for many years receive a pension. The people who pay taxes are the people who supply some of the funds for the pension so they are really getting back some of the money they have given.
SOME PEOPLE ARE BUILDING LARGE HOMES TO REDUCE THEIR ASSET’S ALLOWING THEM TO CLAIM THE FULL PENSION, THEY HAVE EVEN GOT MORE MONEY DURING THIS COVID PANDEMIC.
MY WIFE AND I DO NOT QUALIFY FOR THE PENSION DUE TO OUR SAVINGS BUT WOULD NEVER DREAM OF GETTING RID OF THE MONEY JUST TO GET A PENSION.
If a universal pension was in place, my husband and I would be slightly better off. We have a mortgage but only one income as husband is in ill-health. As it is now, I make slightly over the threshold so he qualifies for not one dollar of pension, at 69 years of age, and also does not qualify for the health card.
We have received not one dollar from the government over our entire working lives, with the exception of Kevin Rudd’s stimulus package during the GFC.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather have a reasonable salary for me, but I would appreciate the health card for husband. I know people who are far better off than we are who have access to the health card.
I would be arguing no, if the deeming rate was set at a realistic rate. i.e at current bank interest rates.
As it is so not, the inequity becomes stark.
If all are not eligible for the pension, at the very least, all should be eligible for Commonwealth health card.
when i started work at 15 i was informed 5% of the tax i paid was to be put aside for what is now called an Universal Pension. over time government has made it extinct, so much for promises
The government gets our taxes and has the responsibility to spend wisely not on climate change rubbish pink bats to save the world they should invest and be able to pay pensions to more people except the very rich
Like others above I have worked hard all my life, paid $000,000’s in taxes, and as a self funded retiree am entitled to NOTHING. How can anyone argue this is fair? I am happy to see people who are less well off receive more assistance, but I think it should be commensurate, at least to a degree, with what they have contributed. The very least the government could do would be to issue a certificate of appreciation to every self funded retiree recognising their contribution.
I don’t thionk there should be a universal age pension. However, I believe threr should be a fairer age pension that treats everyone the same. The residential home should be included and the upper limit of the age pension should be raised by the mean cost of housing across ALL of Australia. In addition the difference in the upper limit foir home owners ands non home owners should take into account the real value of a home . The difference should be the mean cost of housing across all of Australia. Currently people who own a home in the capital cities are treated more favourably tjhan those in regional areas wher the mean cost of housing is less than half that of capital cities
Yes I believe every individual should qualify for universal pension. It would be fair to pay tax on your overall income. Why work your whole life to accumulate wealth, pay taxes etc. but in your old age you are discriminated against because you have more than others? The government should budget for this as they have received revenue from every one who contributed to the governments tax coffers.
If everybody pays the percent for retirement, everybody should be paid a pension.
Why are politicians entitle for a fat pension after only 7 years or so of doing nothing or running the country down but everybody else must wait for after 67 ?
I think it’s unfair that a person working all his life paying tax all his life that he can’t get a pension because he owns 120 acres of land so he can live in the bush away from the hassles of living in town. When multi millionaire politicians can retire at a early age on a pension far greater than any working man ever earned. I have earned a pension and I’m very disappointed that I’m not entitled to a full pension
A universal Age Pension is the only fair way to support senior citizens.
We have all had the opportunity to work, and some of us have lived frugally and saved for our retirement while other live the high life and don’t worry about the future. When retirement arrives, those who have done the right thing and paid a lot of tax and also invested for the future, are then penalised and not given a thing. We pay full price for everything. This builds some resentment in the community, so the only fair way is a universal Age Pension. It is then up to the individual to choose if they continue to be frugal or live the high life in their working years.
After reading all the comments,i, myself being a qualified pensioner,age wise,may not apply for the pension.The thirty years that i have worked here,[twenty seven years in new zealand],i have seen the same old routine of taking from paul to pay mary,administered by every government that was in power.The real source of taxable income comes from the lower level bracket as we have the majority by far and if the government penalises us and continues to do so,guess what pile we’re headed for
David Knox has hit the nail on the head.
When you assess what our pension scheme is all about, it is mainly a disincentive. If you do as the Government suggests you do, and that is to pay extra to your pension scheme only to find out that what are doing is actually Disqualifying your self from qualifying for a pension
people need an incentive to do some thing NOT a disincentive.
It seems unfair that if someone works all their life an if they manage to save a bit of money or invest it for their future they are penalized while someone who has never worked or not save is rewarded by the government in the way of a pension. Seems very unfair to me
It appears I missed the first time this survey was asked. However why should someone who worked hard, saved during their working life be penalized when they retire by not being eligible to receive a pension. I understand that in New Zealand everyone over 65 gets a pension even if they continue to work and we should do the same, If that was to happen, then maybe those who are very comfortable and don’t need it could donate it to help out a charity. Meanwhile most self funded retirees have to be very careful what they spend. I knew a friend who in his employment saved and another in the same job spent frivolously in parties, pubs etc (same income) and guess who got the pension when they retired.
It appears I missed the first time this survey was asked. However why should someone who worked hard, saved during their working life be penalized when they retire by not being eligible to receive a pension. I understand that in New Zealand everyone over 65 gets a pension even if they continue to work and we should do the same, If that was to happen, then maybe those who are very comfortable and don’t need it could donate it to help out a charity. Meanwhile most self funded retirees have to be very careful what they spend. I knew a friend who in his employment saved and another in the same job spent frivolously in parties, pubs etc (same income) and guess who got the pension when they retired.
Another thing is GST.
If we have a pension card we shouldn’t have to pay GST.
I think that would help pensioners when buying essential things.
I agree with a Universal age pension. It is fair ! Everyone who has good skill or occupation and working hard then they earn more money . They earn more money then they pay more tax. All their lives working hard and saved money to buy more than one house .
As a result, they are not eligible for Age Pension support ! and then they must continue working and working until the end of their lives ! Is it right ?
Good if once retirement age is reached, all Australian citizens are entitled to pension but fear is money needs to found somewhere, where will government recoup?Suggest fairest is raise GST. User/purchaser pays. Let’s circulate money within Australia. Tax overseas purchases higher. Our children don’t need the burden. Inheritance tax is crippling (Look at UK). All our systems need an overhaul where saving/sacrificing into super is good thing for Australia and the individual who has been forward thinking in own financial management – not penalized.
YES. Most definitely a universal pension would be fair.
This must be strictly for Australians who have been Australian for a certain number of years, not just Australian.
I have heard numerous comments like, “your government gives me money, why shouldn’t I take it?”
This is extremely common and takes funds out of deserving pockets.
Another point is, why should somebody who, in a lifetime, has saved some money be penalised for doing so? That should be an added bonus for working hard to put aside what they can during their working life, to enjoy during retirement.
The present system encourages people to be broke at retirement to be eligible for a higher amount.
Whatever the amount it should cover the cost of private health insurance, amongst numerous other expenses which become more necessary as one gets older, this would relieve some of the load on public hospitals.
These are only some of so many reasons to make it a universal pension system so one can plan whether one can afford to retire.
No, I don’t agree with the concept. The pension was introduced to help those most needy to basically survive and it doesn’t even do that. The more people that want it who are not needy means the less to go around for those who do. There is a dearth of retired people in Australia who have aquired assets in property and investments through speculation and high capital gains/negative gearing in investments over the more golden years. The wealth divide is very wide here and getting wider because of this factor. We are into the worst economic situation as a country for decades and we have to reduce the debt to gdp ratio. Many many true poor pension entitled people are struggling & or homeless and require a higher pension one that is not just tied to indexation. The assets and income test is quite high for the full age pension so if you don’t qualify then sell down some of your assets.
Frederick, you must be a youngster as you apparently do not remember when tax included a percentage allocated to your future pension, this percentage was stolen and forgotten about by the federal government when it suited them, rebranding those expecting their pension parasites and absorbing the tax being paid into general revenue
As our super is a finite amount ,SFR should receive the same benefits as those on Government assistance, after all we have paid taxes on salary & superannuation .
My comment is via an example: Person A retires at age 65, he has a house worth 1M and Superannuation worth 1M, he receives no pension from Government. Person B retires at age 65, he has a house worth 2M and nil Superannuation, he receives a full pension from Government. That seems to be unfair and illogical to me.
I totally disagree with a universal pension. The government has tried to be fair as possible.Realising that not everyone has the same opportunity’s as others.
Hello All,
Many years ago when I was an apprentice I had two boss’s. One a Vietnam Vet. Long story short, the boss’s built a successful business so the vet still received a 50% pension. His income was to high, assets didn’t count.
Why would this not work!
David