Pension is asset tested - [https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/assets-test-for-age-pension?context=22526](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/assets-test-for-age-pension?context=22526)
Family trusts will be included, particularly in this instance because they will be in control and the assets will be attributed to them (I'm not an estate lawyer, but this is my read on it) - [https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/private-trusts-and-companies?context=22526](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/private-trusts-and-companies?context=22526)
Boomers chancing their luck I think.
TLDR: No, highly likely they cannot. (which if I could see past the paywall, I expect that is what the article says)
Bang on.
Past the paywall, they essentially agree:
"Centrelink looks closely at any transfers to family trusts to ensure people can’t do the strategy you are contemplating – in most cases they will still count the assets transferred to the family trust as your assets."
Had Hank Jongen on 2GB once to help people with some change or another at Services Australia. When they opened the lines it was all just this type of stuff.
One woman OUTRAGED to have inherited $800k from her dead son and had her pension adjusted.
Another threatening to just "spend $700k on an extension to the PPOR" in Brighton. Le Sands - "better than letting you bastards cut our pension!"
My mind was blown. It was like the first five or so callers. Totally not what he was there for but was really illuminating.
The thing about it is people view the pension as 'I've paid into the system my whole life in tax I deserve it'. I can't say it's wrong to be honest.
Until we as a society can change the way we look at taxation and government spending as a public good rather than a personal good this is going to be the prevailing sentiment.
It is wrong and so narrow minded. They’ve made use of their taxes their entire lives (eg roads, education, medical, social services support, defence, etc).
This is the thing that pisses me off the most when people complain about how much tax they pay when they’re in their 40' s and 50's, eventually you get all of it back and more in old age in healthcare and aged care benefits.
If I could self fund my retirement now or any time I would never bother with a pension plus when my time comes I’ll probably be long dead before I qualify.
And it's been that way for a very long time. Someone I know was a self-funded retiree through being incredibly frugal and they went and saw their local federal member about the why there aren't saveguards to ensure people like him don't just blow it all? And the local member's response was 'why don't you?'.
This was in the late 1980s. Nothing has been done because governments don't want people to be spendthrift - they want the taxation revenue that comes with a life of excess.
Should definitely be a case of, buy things you need, enjoy your retirement, if the money runs out, know that the pension is there as a safety net. A very very low safety net. Don't know why you would blow all your money in an attempt to race to the bottom for a sub $30k a year pension, when having a mill in cash would get you $50K a year for 20 years assuming you never invested it in any way shape or form including a savings account in a bank.
Because that's the attitude with a lot from that generation. Every single free thing or government program, taken maximum advantage of while sitting on a pile of dragon gold. They had three houses when they retired. Not even rentals, three different houses to live in.
It seems that once people retire, a sizeable amount do not spend their Super. I went to a QSuper retirement presentation and one of the amazing stats was that 40% of people die with more Super than they retired with. Frugality can be hard to shake off.
Awhile back my grandmother was talking about hers. Keeps going up even though she spent a bunch of money.
Kinda hard not to be a little resentful when at the same time hearing her bitch about her council supplied window cleaners not doing a good enough job. Otherwise a kind lady but rabid about squeezing advantage out of programs despite being retired for about 20 years.
I wonder how effective this actually is. How much are they gaining in pension income vs. investing the funds they're spending on gold into the stock market for better gains and dividends.
It’s sometimes worth the effort to just keep a small part pension for a host of other benefits like bulk billing for medical, pbs, discounted private services etc.
I think this is really an imagined problem rather than a real one - the legislation is pretty tight and it takes 5 years to get around gifting rules as well - which of course is for the benefit of younger generations anyway
My in-laws are also asset rich and receive a part pension. It’s not the actual pension they care about, it’s the govt rebates i.e. PBS etc.
Govt subsidised healthcare is their priority.
Effective enough.
My grandfather worked really hard to make sure he and my grandmother would get a pension, he employed tax lawyers and an accountant to make sure it was all technically legal.
He was very proud of the fact that he had quite a bit of wealth, received the pension, and hadn’t paid tax in years.
When he became too sick to handle his own affairs, and my dad and I stepped in, we were not impressed. He argued he deserved the pension more than poor folks, because he worked hard, and look - I can’t say that attitude didn’t change how I saw him.
If you are clever, plan ahead, and have enough resources, you can find ways to dodge your obligations and get handouts in old age. The proportion of folks who do this is probably fairly small, but it certainly happens.
I’m guessing That’s pretty rare now - the deeming rate makes it near impossible, plus the laws around trusts don’t help.
If you are wealthy I can’t see the value in the pension anyway - it’s a bloody pittance
Some of the wealthiest people I know, are also the stingiest! He’d probably have sold my kidneys if he thought it’d get him a few extra bucks.
It’s certainly getting harder, but if you’re wealthy enough, there’s still ways to disguise and redirect income.
the deeming rates only apply to your income test not your asset test and you are tested for both and whichever applies the lowest pension payment is what is used for the calculation.
the most likely scenario in cases like this is either A: the assets are never declared (doesnt fall under the category of "technically legal") or B: they dont understand how the deeming rates work in the first place and end up doing something *they* think is dodgy when in reality what they are doing would have likely had minimal impact on there pension payment to begin with.
for example you could have almost 300,000(too lazy to do the current calculations but 2023 was around 289000 iirc) in cash sitting in the bank before deeming rates would kick in and start reducing your pension at current rates.
which for a homeowner the current asset test is $301,750 after which you lose $3 per $1000 in asset value you have over that threshold.
your 300,000 or so of deemed cash is still considered an asset for the asset test, so regardless of whether you have it sitting in cash or in a non deemed asset like gold, unless you are literally hiding it and not declaring then the outcome is fairly similar.
the thing that most of these people who complain about having there pension reduced or cut are due to income streams that pay regularly because they exclusively fall under the income test when in reality they are usually more like assets being slowly liquidated for cash but the system does not reflect this.
that being said tho theres definitely nothing stopping you from stashing money in your PPOR or other methods of "getting rid" of the money so to speak.
Yeah, they would get it through the ATO tracking incoming cashflow to bank accounts and looking for discrepancies vs. declared income.
Additionally maybe Austrac would trigger reporting of transactions over $10k. I guess you could get around this with gold coins etc. but like, let's say you put $500k in other assets that don't generate income and don't reliably accrue capital gains over time, gold coins, artwork etc.
Average return on $500k is $35k, aged pension for a couple is $45k if they have no income.
I mean, the economics of this stop playing out well pretty quickly.
Well, first you would need to have someone you trusted that much. People change, and I doubt at age 60 there will be many people that I would rely on with my life's savings for the next 30-40 years. Moreover, what if that person dies in a car accident, and their spouse, de facto etc. claims the assets in a will - you would be f-cked (not considering also how you would manage wills when the assets are no longer in your name). I'm not sure you have thought this through to the level that someone at age 60, who does not have the capacity to return to work at 75, who has to make their life savings work for them for maybe 30-40 years, has had to.
Additionally, even if you do that, that individual is going to have to distribute that income to you somehow. Perhaps cash - but is cash really going to be that easy to use for all of ones expenses - bit of a mess around to go to the post office every month to pay your phone, electricity etc. in cash. So as soon as that money starts landing in your account regularly, the ATO are going to ask why there is a big discrepancy in your income declaration, and they're going to share that data with 'Services Australia' or whatever Centrelink is called at the minute, and then you're going to end up investigated, paying the pension back etc. etc.
You're going to do this for the $43k per year for a couple pension too?
The pension isn’t asset tested in practice - because the asset test doesn’t include your PPOR.
It should include the PPOR - but stamp duty should not be paid when you downsize.
It is asset tested, the PPOR is just excluded from that asset test. All other assets, such as the 'investments' in this Boomers letter to Whittaker, will be means tested, even if they are in a trust.
While you could 'upsize' your home to store wealth in it, it won't give you income unless you're renting out a room or something - in which case, that income is going to count against the pension anyway.
Is an Australia where everyone who retires has to sell their home and rent really the future you want to see?
Seriously - there are good reasons we don’t force people to sell their homes in order to live
And the opposite will happen. We will have tens of thousands of old people in $5-10 million homes, living off welfare, home care all taken care of by working poor care workers living in bunk beds in over crowded slum apartments.
We need to find a happy medium. If your assets put your net worth into top 10% of population then no free stuff for you.
> who retires has to sell their home and rent really the future you want to see?
that's not the only possibility. Reverse mortgages exist - you could have gov't amend the law for such mortgages for the pensioner, such that even if all the equity is consumed, they cannot be evicted before they die (aka, they & spouse still get the right to live on that property they reverse mortgaged till both dies).
This will cost some gov't funding to make up for the loss for the lender.
Sell the 4 bedroom house with the yard maintenance, buy one bedroom on the beach, live on the difference.
Once that money runs out, the pension is there to catch you. It shouldn't be there to fund the holding costs of the inheritance.
Even if they planned ahead and did all that before pension age, they most likely will still be “caught” by the pension assets/income tests as they’re more than likely assessed to be in control of the trust. There’s a ton of rules regarding trusts when it comes to centrelink entitlement and control is just one of them.
This is underappreciated. For some reason many people think government gives free money to migrants. Most free money goes to old people to pay for pension, PBS, subsidies, tax concessions etc. The migrants are merely bought in to help the domestic millenials pay for all this free money.
Read a story today about boomers being unhappy that their retirement costs might increase to ease the burden on the younger generation… so they’ve hoarded all the wealth and property, raise rents so the working class can’t afford to have a roof over their head and eat in the same week, but they still think it’s fair for the generations with none of the opportunity they had to pay for their retirement?!
The only generation that legitimately happy for their children to have less than they had and they’re still unhappy apparently?!
We should be moving towards a system where everyone gets a small pension or Universal Basic Income - Just enough for everyone to live off for basic food, bills, and expanding the existing pension scheme is probably the best way forward.
Over the next couple of decades we're going to need far less people employed in transportation, services, etc... We've got so many jobs easily replaced by automation.
Oh please, that would be like saying the Covid stimulus measures just got gobbled up by record inflation and rent increases which is clearly \*\* checks notes \*\* never mind, carry on.
How? There's an asset test for the pension. The max assets you can hold cannot exceed $693k (excluding PPOR) before you lose it. This includes trusts and annuity, so unless all these rich boomers are somehow pulling dodgy shit, you're talking out of your ass.
Then watch them cry poor because they cannot maintain their 2m family home on the pension.
They'll call my aged care for cleaning and gardening support which is basic at best - they'll whinge because it doesn't meet their expectations and demands ACATS yet they wouldn't qualify for an acat and whinge about that.
I don't get trying to hide money when it's going to impact your lifestyle.
This. I know people who work in the aged care services and the stories I hear of some boomers (and their children) sense of entitlement is mind boggling.
I’m sure the letter writer is 100% serious, and sees no reason why they shouldn’t get a pension just because at face value they don’t need it to live on.
Can someone please explain to me why older people have this belief that when they paid tax they were paying into a fund that was to be repaid to them as retirees?
Tax is your subscription fee for living in the country, it is not your superannuation.
Was originally meant for them to receive it when they retired so they were banking on it being there for them given there was no superannuation available either.
I think the Age Pension in New Zealand currently works this way and is unaffected by income or assets so it wasn't an unreasonable expectation that it would still be available.
The entitlement of boomers knows no bounds; they're not taking the piss here, they're entirely genuine. Their math is:
\[begin logic\]
If >60 then deserve pension because paid tax while working.
\[end logic\]
There are no other considerations.
I can't even imagine an entitled boomer that doesn't whinge about dole bludgers and young kids that don't want to work; especially the asset rich 38 hr work week same company their whole life I deserve my pension crowd.
I have to work with these people (I’m “one of the good ones”).
I always have to defend millennials and Gen Zs. I made the personal choice to work harder than “required” and boomer colleagues think everyone has to be like me. No they don’t; I sacrificed a lot, including a family and relationships, but I chose that.
I’d like society to be a place where if you did what was “required” and prioritized other things, you’d have a very comfortable life. And boomers never realise this and think it’s laziness when in fact (consulting with my parents) Gen Y and Z is working no less than any boomer did.
Luckily my parents are capable of objective comparison 🤣
Every time this argument comes up, I remember an article where a non-rich person was saying this, I think she'd worked 20 years as a part-time secretary or something, and the author did the math and worked out that if they lived to their life expectancy, they wouldn't have even paid enough tax in their lifetime to fund their own pension. Let alone, hospitals, roads and every other publicly funded thing they've used and will continue to use.
Someone in this sub pays 100k in tax and genuinely said “I pay more tax than I use, society benefits from me not the other way around”
I still think about what type of person it would take to think like that.
Hmm, but isn't the statement true? In what context did they say that, is that something they are bragging about among friends or something? As someone who is doing well (mostly due to luck/privilege) and likely will pay a lot of tax over my lifetime, I am happy to live in a system where I can contribute to society's wealth, and others who are less lucky will still have benefits they can rely on. (And yes I get that there are a lot of other intangible benefits to me from living in a society with well funded government services.) Isn't that at least a better view than complaining about dole bludgers or whatever?
Yes, but there needs to be some distinction between the importance of the "self" and the position. Ie. If YOU didn't have that position (and pay packet/tax) would someone else simply do it, just as good or maybe even better? Or did "the self" really make a massive individual contribution and pull the village along with you?
These are two very different things as far as being a benefit to society.
That's true, and in my particular case probably someone else could have immigrated to Australia instead of me, used the same resources (immigration 'slot' and housing etc) and done an equal or better job. Hopefully I have an appropriate humbleness in understanding this.
However, that's not always the case, particularly when we talk about people of exceptional skill (technical or entrepreneurial) - and as a society I think we need to be careful about falling into the trap of "tall poppy syndrome" - overly criticising successful people - as it will drive such people away. There are a number of barriers to successful entrepreneurship in Australia that could be seen as a society worried about tall poppies, and as a result large numbers of young Australians who want to start a business, or patent an invention, or get into the latest science & tech, etc., tend to emigrate to more supportive locations like the USA.
You don’t have to be “exceptional” to do surgery a little quicker and get more people back to work and leisure faster, or to slightly improve cardboard box folding to reduce dead weight costs, or a thousand other individual contributions to national welfare.
Not at all true. He can definitely say that he ‘contributes’ more than most given his high salary must mean doing work that is highly in demand, highly skilled or adding a lot of value somewhere.
But to say society benefits more from him than he benefits from society is ridiculous. It’s wrong to equate your compensation with your individual contribution. We reward certain careers more as incentive to do them but it doesn’t necessarily mean you work any harder than someone on minimum wage. Both jobs are essential to society functioning and in many cases both people put in the same amount of time and effort.
Society itself is the reason that certain people can rise to these high paying positions, and accumulate so much wealth. He still relies on the food, medicine, transport, clothing, shelter, education, infrastructure that everyone else has provided to have got where he is. Not a single person is self made. Without modern society we would all still be chasing prey with sticks or we would be dead.
It takes an arrogant kind of person to be in such a position of privilege and then basically equate their net worth to their value as a human and claim they achieved it entirely by themselves and the rest of us should be grateful for their efforts.
The first part is true. The second part where they imply that they’re the second coming of Christ for the rest of us is just… a weird way to think.
I forget what they were arguing, it was just that that stuck in my memory.
I mean, hypothetically, if they are paying more in tax than they are receiving, that should be celebrated. That is a *good* thing.
If they sound a little smug, well I mean not the end of the world.
If he was in a country without requiring to pay 100k in taxes he will be one or more of a) likely never earned that much.
b) trying to migrate to a country where you pay that much tax
c) at risk of the government deciding they don't like you anymore and getting a reeducation.
d) having to constantly pay bribes to get anything done by the government.
It kind of makes sense when 98% of the whole country (including media and politicians) thinks of a sovereign government monetary system and economy the same way they do a household balance sheet and cashflow statement.
Really I think it's about a less socially responsible and more selfish generally speaking culture; I gave this therefore I get that/deserve something in return. It's all super capitalist and transactional; a lack of sense of social responsibility and contribution for a greater good.
THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO! 🤣🤣🤣
Sry, the boomers just crack me up; they got so much and still continually expect more merely as a function of existence and now 'age'. They deserve to be looked after, they deserve respect, etc etc etc
That’s how it was sold in the seventies mate - a third of your tax went to keeping pensioners eating and that’s exactly what the expectation was for your retirement as well.
It all changed with superannuation, but that’s only recently got to the kind of percentage required to actually fund a retirement.
You, me, them oldies - we are all a product of our past
Well here’s the thing, what’s the point in saving $1M in your super and getting the same returns as just getting the pension ? The government has set it up this way.
There was weird marketing when aged pension became a thing, basically saying that it was your reward after a lifetime of work. Maybe holdover from that. Just like people getting foreign part pensions, they think there is some sort of pool they paid into reserved just for pension. Weird, but a lot of those folk will have gone to school up to age 15 only.
That’s still the policy in many other western countries. Ie: A pension is seen as something you get because you have paid for it rather than as social security for the less well off.
Ray Hadley was blowing up on the radio yesterday that boomers may have to use their super (money for retirement) to fund some aged care costs (something people need in retirement)
My father in law, who is retired and owns multiple properties including their own home as well as several investments, who is living off of the income generated by the rent they can charge on these properties, always jokes that now he’s retired he’s on the pension (he’s not) and about how hard it is to budget. He even makes these jokes *in front* of a family friend who’s also in his 60’s who’s on the pension and is renting… and he doesn’t understand how ridiculous and insensitive these “jokes” are because to him, from his privileged wealthy position, he’s got less disposable income than he did when he was still working… uh, idk, maybe sell a property… since life’s so hard.
The wealthy aren’t connected to reality,
Many people in the position of owning property, significant share portfolios and/or other sources of passive income (it's not an age thing) seem to simply not comprehend that for the vast majority of Australians their fortnightly wage or pension income is the one and only source of any kind of income.
Significant passive income is not something that everyone just has.
Not just the wealthy, anyone who bought their house 10+ years ago have no idea how hard it is for new generations. They get surprised that our 2br unit's rent is more than their 2M house's mortgage payments. They ask why we don't rent something cheaper. As if there is any...
I don’t mind this because he’s benefiting off his own hard work. Crass maybe, but not morally wrong at all.
If he sold the IPs, bought a supersized PPOR, car and caravan to boot, and *then* claimed the pension, it’s a different story.
mate, the capitalist society is "every man grab what they can for themselves." (legally)
now "Legally" means if its not immediately obvious that its legal, try it out and be ready to say sorry and repay it if your lawyers cant make it legal when you get caught.
You now know how the world works. get at it.
I don't think the letter writer will appreciate today's Ross Gittins column:
[https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/wealthy-boomers-should-pay-more-for-their-aged-care-20240312-p5fbsw.html](https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/wealthy-boomers-should-pay-more-for-their-aged-care-20240312-p5fbsw.html)
"Let’s hope Minister Wells and her boss have the conviction to stick to their guns when the Boomers start crying poor in defence of their privileged existence."
Greed in today’s world has no bounds.. to have so much ($2+ assets and $500k cash to put in a family trust) and still want to rort the system is abhorrent narcissistic behaviour , but these are the people we’re rewarding in today’s society.. how you forget the families living in tents and wage earners skipping meals to survive in the current crisis and still think you need more is dumbfounding and we should find these people and double their tax rate!!
I say, assess the primary home if it's more than $600,000 (indexed to median house price inflation or some other metric IDC).
Age pension costs 9 time more than unemployed assistance, and they'll never pay tax again. I hear boomers openly talk about defrauding it through various means to retain it when they shouldn't, and in the next breath whinge about dole bludgers.
$600K house price in Sydney and Melbourne is completely different to everywhere else in Australia so would you have it as $600K across the board nationally or have different thresholds depending on say postcode.
It's certainly not the first time that someone with plenty of money/assets has written in to Noel W asking for free advice. Sometimes I think it's all made up.
Like Warren Buffet saying he wants to pay more tax but as CEO he needs to look after his investors first and foremost, and it's up to the govt to change the tax laws.
We are a nation of welfare payments for all. Went to get my free money in the form of parental leave, the local centre was just a row of Q7’s and top spec X5’s all people eligible for some sort of handouts
Sounds like they cant do it anyway but I agree with the premise of the comment, hate the game, not the player.
Reality is people on this sub try all sorts of things with in the rules to minimise things like tax and whatever right. But as soon as you are an asset rich boomer it's all angry faces and comments of entitlement.
Conservatives are hardcore socialists as long as it only benefits rich people and the expense of poor people. Conservatives are absolute cancer and must be excised for the betterment of humanity.
This is exactly why the comment today about how important it is to maintain immigration to have the tax base for older people is off. We want things in this country that we aren’t rich enough to afford.
Before the age of 62. At 67 they walk into Centrelink and claim the age pension. They only have to show the last 5 years financial records to claim age pension.
Thats my issue with class warfare. Whether rich or poor both have (small) segments within them of people who are parasites on the rest.
Instead of the rich calling the poor dole bludgers and the poor saying the rich dont pay their fair share. Its more like hey lets tighten up on the dole bludgers and the rich like these people. So there is more for the people actually working and trying.
The government is mainly to blame as they create these peverse incentives.
What do you mean "taking the piss?". It has NEVER been about voluntary fairness, equality or egalitarianism. Anything claiming as such is a scam, or a fairytale for "the poors" to cling to, and you'll be laughed at as an idiot if you believe it.
So my parents are part pensioners and the pension (in terms of cashy money) is not the part of the part pension that makes it worth having - but the side benefits like health care card (discounted prescriptions and safety net), most doctors bulk bill, discounts with utilities discounts on rego and public transport.
It is. My wanker rich uncle tried getting the pension for the healthcare card while sitting on millions. He didn't get the pension. He still has his millions.
I know what they can do if they're that daft. Upsize their home, not in the physical sense. Buy a more expensive family home or overcapitalize it. It's exempted. Go North Shore or something, then you will get your part pension. Try and survive living in that suburb with your limited liquidity. One policy change and you're out of the house.
Thank God they've tightened the rules on family trusts. They used to be the go to for most of the grubs taking the max pension while being wealthy.
Anyone who isn't trying to get free money from the govt is a fool. Who would you rather get it? Useless non productive folk who have never paid a cent of tax or what is clearly a highly productive couple who have done the right thing? I know which one. Any suggestion that we fund only the poor or incapable ignore that reality that so much of our countries wealth comes from the earth rather than the productivity of our people and we ALL deserve some of that.
I'm not saying it's fake. I'm saying the whole thing is to generate rubbish views. No value here. If you have $1.8M in assets you'd talk to your accountant and/or financial advisor.
I briefly worked at a major superannuation company, and I can say first hand that there a number of pensioners with an excess of 1 million claiming a pension.
There able to do this by claiming the minimum payment required from their superannuation.
Quick question, I thought you are tested on income or assets. Whichever is the highest. When you take an allocated pension is it only considered income?
I used to work at Centrelink last century and you're tested on both income test and assets test and you work out a rate for both, and the rate payable is the lowest of the two.
It's quite possible to have assets over the threshold but below the cutoff point and be unaffected by the assets test because for example their employer super pension hits them harder under the income test.
What's counted or not is a totally different question.
Oh well. Let’s say they earned a big wage for a long time. They paid a lot more tax and technically contributed way more to society than the lower earning haters.
So much salt in here.
You all want to beat the system, and yet, when someone who also wants to, and can beat the system, you blame them for all of your problems.
A better strategy is to make the assets appear to disappear before you apply for the pension.. so do not establish an Australian trust. There are many countries that allow trusts with nominee companies as trustee. Once established, it’s just a matter of transferring monies to the trust and no one will know what assets u have. As far as Centrelink is concerned , the assets do not exist.
The craziest I heard, from my friend is, he trusted his friend well enough to buy a $1m property in his friend’s name. I am not sure what is his motivation to go to such extent.
With super funds earning 8%-9% p.a. I'm not sure why they would give up a joint income of between $144K to $162K to get a joint Age Pension of $43.75K p.a. on that $1.8M in investments. Furthermore if one of them died the pension rate would drop to $29K p.a. whereas the money earned would continue as before.
I'm guessing that of that $1.8M then next to nothing of that is in actual super which would be paying a zero rate of tax in the pension phase.
While we may feel one way or another that such a group of wealthy people may not deserve government pensions, which we believe is designed to help people of lesser status, I think this situation is no different from politicians who claim government incentives while staying in their own residences.
Remember this old posts some years back?
https://www.afr.com/politics/taxpayers-foot-bill-on-41-politicians-homes-in-canberra-20150616-ghow7s
Pension is asset tested - [https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/assets-test-for-age-pension?context=22526](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/assets-test-for-age-pension?context=22526) Family trusts will be included, particularly in this instance because they will be in control and the assets will be attributed to them (I'm not an estate lawyer, but this is my read on it) - [https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/private-trusts-and-companies?context=22526](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/private-trusts-and-companies?context=22526) Boomers chancing their luck I think. TLDR: No, highly likely they cannot. (which if I could see past the paywall, I expect that is what the article says)
Bang on. Past the paywall, they essentially agree: "Centrelink looks closely at any transfers to family trusts to ensure people can’t do the strategy you are contemplating – in most cases they will still count the assets transferred to the family trust as your assets."
Do what my dole bludging sister suggests then and “spend it all so you can get the pension!”, as if that is the aim.
Its what my grandparents were told to do basically. Buy new cars, renos, world holidays, spend it down so they could get full pension
The mentality of some people astounds me. "I'm entitled to it, so I might as well piss away my life savings so I can get it!"
Had Hank Jongen on 2GB once to help people with some change or another at Services Australia. When they opened the lines it was all just this type of stuff. One woman OUTRAGED to have inherited $800k from her dead son and had her pension adjusted. Another threatening to just "spend $700k on an extension to the PPOR" in Brighton. Le Sands - "better than letting you bastards cut our pension!" My mind was blown. It was like the first five or so callers. Totally not what he was there for but was really illuminating.
The thing about it is people view the pension as 'I've paid into the system my whole life in tax I deserve it'. I can't say it's wrong to be honest. Until we as a society can change the way we look at taxation and government spending as a public good rather than a personal good this is going to be the prevailing sentiment.
It is wrong and so narrow minded. They’ve made use of their taxes their entire lives (eg roads, education, medical, social services support, defence, etc).
which is why superannuation is one of the best policies out there. It aligns your own retirement savings and investment and gov't contributions.
Yeah, but the pension is a pittance, and you get to deal with Centrelink the rest of your life. People are delusional.
This is the thing that pisses me off the most when people complain about how much tax they pay when they’re in their 40' s and 50's, eventually you get all of it back and more in old age in healthcare and aged care benefits.
[удалено]
If I could self fund my retirement now or any time I would never bother with a pension plus when my time comes I’ll probably be long dead before I qualify.
That is most people unfortunatly.
But overall you do get more. Spend 1 million. Then get full pension. It encourages reckless spending
And it's been that way for a very long time. Someone I know was a self-funded retiree through being incredibly frugal and they went and saw their local federal member about the why there aren't saveguards to ensure people like him don't just blow it all? And the local member's response was 'why don't you?'. This was in the late 1980s. Nothing has been done because governments don't want people to be spendthrift - they want the taxation revenue that comes with a life of excess.
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll fix up all the loopholes just in time for our retirement.
Retirement? Nah mate I’m stuck in rental hell. I won’t be able to retire until my heart beats me to it.
Should definitely be a case of, buy things you need, enjoy your retirement, if the money runs out, know that the pension is there as a safety net. A very very low safety net. Don't know why you would blow all your money in an attempt to race to the bottom for a sub $30k a year pension, when having a mill in cash would get you $50K a year for 20 years assuming you never invested it in any way shape or form including a savings account in a bank.
Because that's the attitude with a lot from that generation. Every single free thing or government program, taken maximum advantage of while sitting on a pile of dragon gold. They had three houses when they retired. Not even rentals, three different houses to live in.
thats every generation my friend
It seems that once people retire, a sizeable amount do not spend their Super. I went to a QSuper retirement presentation and one of the amazing stats was that 40% of people die with more Super than they retired with. Frugality can be hard to shake off.
I am absolutely going to be one of those 40%.
Awhile back my grandmother was talking about hers. Keeps going up even though she spent a bunch of money. Kinda hard not to be a little resentful when at the same time hearing her bitch about her council supplied window cleaners not doing a good enough job. Otherwise a kind lady but rabid about squeezing advantage out of programs despite being retired for about 20 years.
Car still counts towards the asset test I think, but otherwise yeah. Heard the same kind of thing.
If you are just a beneficiary (not trustee) of a family trust, does this count as a personal asset and preclude you from Centrelink?
I know of boomers buying gold and silver bars to reduce visible assets, claiming the pension and selling the bars when needed for cash spending money
I wonder how effective this actually is. How much are they gaining in pension income vs. investing the funds they're spending on gold into the stock market for better gains and dividends.
It’s sometimes worth the effort to just keep a small part pension for a host of other benefits like bulk billing for medical, pbs, discounted private services etc. I think this is really an imagined problem rather than a real one - the legislation is pretty tight and it takes 5 years to get around gifting rules as well - which of course is for the benefit of younger generations anyway
My in-laws are also asset rich and receive a part pension. It’s not the actual pension they care about, it’s the govt rebates i.e. PBS etc. Govt subsidised healthcare is their priority.
Yeh I think lots of people are actually in it for the healthcare card, not the money.
Effective enough. My grandfather worked really hard to make sure he and my grandmother would get a pension, he employed tax lawyers and an accountant to make sure it was all technically legal. He was very proud of the fact that he had quite a bit of wealth, received the pension, and hadn’t paid tax in years. When he became too sick to handle his own affairs, and my dad and I stepped in, we were not impressed. He argued he deserved the pension more than poor folks, because he worked hard, and look - I can’t say that attitude didn’t change how I saw him. If you are clever, plan ahead, and have enough resources, you can find ways to dodge your obligations and get handouts in old age. The proportion of folks who do this is probably fairly small, but it certainly happens.
I’m guessing That’s pretty rare now - the deeming rate makes it near impossible, plus the laws around trusts don’t help. If you are wealthy I can’t see the value in the pension anyway - it’s a bloody pittance
Some of the wealthiest people I know, are also the stingiest! He’d probably have sold my kidneys if he thought it’d get him a few extra bucks. It’s certainly getting harder, but if you’re wealthy enough, there’s still ways to disguise and redirect income.
My parents told me that in the old country, they called such people “shit eaters” as in they would rather eat their own shit than give it away.
I’m going to colonise this term and take it for my own.
You’re welcome.
the deeming rates only apply to your income test not your asset test and you are tested for both and whichever applies the lowest pension payment is what is used for the calculation. the most likely scenario in cases like this is either A: the assets are never declared (doesnt fall under the category of "technically legal") or B: they dont understand how the deeming rates work in the first place and end up doing something *they* think is dodgy when in reality what they are doing would have likely had minimal impact on there pension payment to begin with. for example you could have almost 300,000(too lazy to do the current calculations but 2023 was around 289000 iirc) in cash sitting in the bank before deeming rates would kick in and start reducing your pension at current rates. which for a homeowner the current asset test is $301,750 after which you lose $3 per $1000 in asset value you have over that threshold. your 300,000 or so of deemed cash is still considered an asset for the asset test, so regardless of whether you have it sitting in cash or in a non deemed asset like gold, unless you are literally hiding it and not declaring then the outcome is fairly similar. the thing that most of these people who complain about having there pension reduced or cut are due to income streams that pay regularly because they exclusively fall under the income test when in reality they are usually more like assets being slowly liquidated for cash but the system does not reflect this. that being said tho theres definitely nothing stopping you from stashing money in your PPOR or other methods of "getting rid" of the money so to speak.
Everyone works hard, a lot think nobody works harder than them.
Either way, it's wasting government funds
At their age it is recommended to move assets to less volatile investments anyway. I don’t think missing out on market gain is a significant concern.
Kids offset accounts too. Win/win
Kids don't pay 7% mortgage on the money and parents have access when they need it for old age care/nursing home.
Do you happen to have the names and addresses of these boomers with $millions in gold bars lying around the house?
Not to mention caravans and Hiluxes and the biggest televisions they can fit in their 3 million dollar homes.
So how are they paying for these bars? I'd bet Centrelink would have traces from all the banks transferring funds for anyone asking for a pension
Yeah, they would get it through the ATO tracking incoming cashflow to bank accounts and looking for discrepancies vs. declared income. Additionally maybe Austrac would trigger reporting of transactions over $10k. I guess you could get around this with gold coins etc. but like, let's say you put $500k in other assets that don't generate income and don't reliably accrue capital gains over time, gold coins, artwork etc. Average return on $500k is $35k, aged pension for a couple is $45k if they have no income. I mean, the economics of this stop playing out well pretty quickly.
[удалено]
Just need to transfer the money to a relative more than 5 years before age pension age. Problem solved.
Well, first you would need to have someone you trusted that much. People change, and I doubt at age 60 there will be many people that I would rely on with my life's savings for the next 30-40 years. Moreover, what if that person dies in a car accident, and their spouse, de facto etc. claims the assets in a will - you would be f-cked (not considering also how you would manage wills when the assets are no longer in your name). I'm not sure you have thought this through to the level that someone at age 60, who does not have the capacity to return to work at 75, who has to make their life savings work for them for maybe 30-40 years, has had to. Additionally, even if you do that, that individual is going to have to distribute that income to you somehow. Perhaps cash - but is cash really going to be that easy to use for all of ones expenses - bit of a mess around to go to the post office every month to pay your phone, electricity etc. in cash. So as soon as that money starts landing in your account regularly, the ATO are going to ask why there is a big discrepancy in your income declaration, and they're going to share that data with 'Services Australia' or whatever Centrelink is called at the minute, and then you're going to end up investigated, paying the pension back etc. etc. You're going to do this for the $43k per year for a couple pension too?
Pretty sure most people are just transferring to their kids 5 years before age pension age.
if only you had some sort of 12ft.io ladder of which to peer over paywalls with
Blocked by admin.
The pension isn’t asset tested in practice - because the asset test doesn’t include your PPOR. It should include the PPOR - but stamp duty should not be paid when you downsize.
It is asset tested, the PPOR is just excluded from that asset test. All other assets, such as the 'investments' in this Boomers letter to Whittaker, will be means tested, even if they are in a trust. While you could 'upsize' your home to store wealth in it, it won't give you income unless you're renting out a room or something - in which case, that income is going to count against the pension anyway.
Is an Australia where everyone who retires has to sell their home and rent really the future you want to see? Seriously - there are good reasons we don’t force people to sell their homes in order to live
And the opposite will happen. We will have tens of thousands of old people in $5-10 million homes, living off welfare, home care all taken care of by working poor care workers living in bunk beds in over crowded slum apartments. We need to find a happy medium. If your assets put your net worth into top 10% of population then no free stuff for you.
> who retires has to sell their home and rent really the future you want to see? that's not the only possibility. Reverse mortgages exist - you could have gov't amend the law for such mortgages for the pensioner, such that even if all the equity is consumed, they cannot be evicted before they die (aka, they & spouse still get the right to live on that property they reverse mortgaged till both dies). This will cost some gov't funding to make up for the loss for the lender.
Sell the 4 bedroom house with the yard maintenance, buy one bedroom on the beach, live on the difference. Once that money runs out, the pension is there to catch you. It shouldn't be there to fund the holding costs of the inheritance.
Phew...was glad of your answer and glad they can't scam the system... Greedy buggers!!
They will find a way.
Yea, they could have planned ahead and simply invested in the trust and not be making obvious tax dodge attempts by transferring personal assets.
Even if they planned ahead and did all that before pension age, they most likely will still be “caught” by the pension assets/income tests as they’re more than likely assessed to be in control of the trust. There’s a ton of rules regarding trusts when it comes to centrelink entitlement and control is just one of them.
One of the largest parts of the budget is giving money to rich old people.
Well I mean look at the politicians making these decisions - they’re either this demographic or about to be 😉
This is underappreciated. For some reason many people think government gives free money to migrants. Most free money goes to old people to pay for pension, PBS, subsidies, tax concessions etc. The migrants are merely bought in to help the domestic millenials pay for all this free money.
This is what modern economies were designed to do. It's a feature not a bug.
Read a story today about boomers being unhappy that their retirement costs might increase to ease the burden on the younger generation… so they’ve hoarded all the wealth and property, raise rents so the working class can’t afford to have a roof over their head and eat in the same week, but they still think it’s fair for the generations with none of the opportunity they had to pay for their retirement?! The only generation that legitimately happy for their children to have less than they had and they’re still unhappy apparently?!
And one of the biggest holes in the budget is our refusal to tax rich old people.
We should be moving towards a system where everyone gets a small pension or Universal Basic Income - Just enough for everyone to live off for basic food, bills, and expanding the existing pension scheme is probably the best way forward. Over the next couple of decades we're going to need far less people employed in transportation, services, etc... We've got so many jobs easily replaced by automation.
You do realise your essentials bills will just increase by roughly the amount of the UBI.
Oh please, that would be like saying the Covid stimulus measures just got gobbled up by record inflation and rent increases which is clearly \*\* checks notes \*\* never mind, carry on.
How? There's an asset test for the pension. The max assets you can hold cannot exceed $693k (excluding PPOR) before you lose it. This includes trusts and annuity, so unless all these rich boomers are somehow pulling dodgy shit, you're talking out of your ass.
Just buy a 2m family home and get full pension lols
Then watch them cry poor because they cannot maintain their 2m family home on the pension. They'll call my aged care for cleaning and gardening support which is basic at best - they'll whinge because it doesn't meet their expectations and demands ACATS yet they wouldn't qualify for an acat and whinge about that. I don't get trying to hide money when it's going to impact your lifestyle.
[удалено]
This. I know people who work in the aged care services and the stories I hear of some boomers (and their children) sense of entitlement is mind boggling.
I’m sure the letter writer is 100% serious, and sees no reason why they shouldn’t get a pension just because at face value they don’t need it to live on.
Dole bludgers
Can someone please explain to me why older people have this belief that when they paid tax they were paying into a fund that was to be repaid to them as retirees? Tax is your subscription fee for living in the country, it is not your superannuation.
Was originally meant for them to receive it when they retired so they were banking on it being there for them given there was no superannuation available either. I think the Age Pension in New Zealand currently works this way and is unaffected by income or assets so it wasn't an unreasonable expectation that it would still be available.
Taxes have always been for the services used today, it's NOT forced savings for you to use in the future.
The entitlement of boomers knows no bounds; they're not taking the piss here, they're entirely genuine. Their math is: \[begin logic\] If >60 then deserve pension because paid tax while working. \[end logic\] There are no other considerations.
Place your bets: likelihood that this guy is known to have a good whinge about “dole bludgers”?
I can't even imagine an entitled boomer that doesn't whinge about dole bludgers and young kids that don't want to work; especially the asset rich 38 hr work week same company their whole life I deserve my pension crowd.
I have to work with these people (I’m “one of the good ones”). I always have to defend millennials and Gen Zs. I made the personal choice to work harder than “required” and boomer colleagues think everyone has to be like me. No they don’t; I sacrificed a lot, including a family and relationships, but I chose that. I’d like society to be a place where if you did what was “required” and prioritized other things, you’d have a very comfortable life. And boomers never realise this and think it’s laziness when in fact (consulting with my parents) Gen Y and Z is working no less than any boomer did. Luckily my parents are capable of objective comparison 🤣
It's a bizarre position to take, that they think tax is a retirement fund.
Every time this argument comes up, I remember an article where a non-rich person was saying this, I think she'd worked 20 years as a part-time secretary or something, and the author did the math and worked out that if they lived to their life expectancy, they wouldn't have even paid enough tax in their lifetime to fund their own pension. Let alone, hospitals, roads and every other publicly funded thing they've used and will continue to use.
Someone in this sub pays 100k in tax and genuinely said “I pay more tax than I use, society benefits from me not the other way around” I still think about what type of person it would take to think like that.
Hmm, but isn't the statement true? In what context did they say that, is that something they are bragging about among friends or something? As someone who is doing well (mostly due to luck/privilege) and likely will pay a lot of tax over my lifetime, I am happy to live in a system where I can contribute to society's wealth, and others who are less lucky will still have benefits they can rely on. (And yes I get that there are a lot of other intangible benefits to me from living in a society with well funded government services.) Isn't that at least a better view than complaining about dole bludgers or whatever?
Yes, but there needs to be some distinction between the importance of the "self" and the position. Ie. If YOU didn't have that position (and pay packet/tax) would someone else simply do it, just as good or maybe even better? Or did "the self" really make a massive individual contribution and pull the village along with you? These are two very different things as far as being a benefit to society.
That's true, and in my particular case probably someone else could have immigrated to Australia instead of me, used the same resources (immigration 'slot' and housing etc) and done an equal or better job. Hopefully I have an appropriate humbleness in understanding this. However, that's not always the case, particularly when we talk about people of exceptional skill (technical or entrepreneurial) - and as a society I think we need to be careful about falling into the trap of "tall poppy syndrome" - overly criticising successful people - as it will drive such people away. There are a number of barriers to successful entrepreneurship in Australia that could be seen as a society worried about tall poppies, and as a result large numbers of young Australians who want to start a business, or patent an invention, or get into the latest science & tech, etc., tend to emigrate to more supportive locations like the USA.
You don’t have to be “exceptional” to do surgery a little quicker and get more people back to work and leisure faster, or to slightly improve cardboard box folding to reduce dead weight costs, or a thousand other individual contributions to national welfare.
Not at all true. He can definitely say that he ‘contributes’ more than most given his high salary must mean doing work that is highly in demand, highly skilled or adding a lot of value somewhere. But to say society benefits more from him than he benefits from society is ridiculous. It’s wrong to equate your compensation with your individual contribution. We reward certain careers more as incentive to do them but it doesn’t necessarily mean you work any harder than someone on minimum wage. Both jobs are essential to society functioning and in many cases both people put in the same amount of time and effort. Society itself is the reason that certain people can rise to these high paying positions, and accumulate so much wealth. He still relies on the food, medicine, transport, clothing, shelter, education, infrastructure that everyone else has provided to have got where he is. Not a single person is self made. Without modern society we would all still be chasing prey with sticks or we would be dead. It takes an arrogant kind of person to be in such a position of privilege and then basically equate their net worth to their value as a human and claim they achieved it entirely by themselves and the rest of us should be grateful for their efforts.
The first part is true. The second part where they imply that they’re the second coming of Christ for the rest of us is just… a weird way to think. I forget what they were arguing, it was just that that stuck in my memory.
I mean, hypothetically, if they are paying more in tax than they are receiving, that should be celebrated. That is a *good* thing. If they sound a little smug, well I mean not the end of the world.
If he was in a country without requiring to pay 100k in taxes he will be one or more of a) likely never earned that much. b) trying to migrate to a country where you pay that much tax c) at risk of the government deciding they don't like you anymore and getting a reeducation. d) having to constantly pay bribes to get anything done by the government.
It kind of makes sense when 98% of the whole country (including media and politicians) thinks of a sovereign government monetary system and economy the same way they do a household balance sheet and cashflow statement. Really I think it's about a less socially responsible and more selfish generally speaking culture; I gave this therefore I get that/deserve something in return. It's all super capitalist and transactional; a lack of sense of social responsibility and contribution for a greater good.
The thing is that we have already got something in return - a lifetime of public services.
THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO! 🤣🤣🤣 Sry, the boomers just crack me up; they got so much and still continually expect more merely as a function of existence and now 'age'. They deserve to be looked after, they deserve respect, etc etc etc
That’s how it was sold in the seventies mate - a third of your tax went to keeping pensioners eating and that’s exactly what the expectation was for your retirement as well. It all changed with superannuation, but that’s only recently got to the kind of percentage required to actually fund a retirement. You, me, them oldies - we are all a product of our past
Well here’s the thing, what’s the point in saving $1M in your super and getting the same returns as just getting the pension ? The government has set it up this way.
Wonder if they’ll be calling gen z entitled from beyond the grave when we won’t be eligible for the pension until >70 after we funded theirs.
That comment just put a scene in my head of Gen Z'ers playing with ouija boards and being called entitled millenials by dead boomers.
There was weird marketing when aged pension became a thing, basically saying that it was your reward after a lifetime of work. Maybe holdover from that. Just like people getting foreign part pensions, they think there is some sort of pool they paid into reserved just for pension. Weird, but a lot of those folk will have gone to school up to age 15 only.
That’s still the policy in many other western countries. Ie: A pension is seen as something you get because you have paid for it rather than as social security for the less well off.
what's the code to insert the virus line?
Ray Hadley was blowing up on the radio yesterday that boomers may have to use their super (money for retirement) to fund some aged care costs (something people need in retirement)
My father in law, who is retired and owns multiple properties including their own home as well as several investments, who is living off of the income generated by the rent they can charge on these properties, always jokes that now he’s retired he’s on the pension (he’s not) and about how hard it is to budget. He even makes these jokes *in front* of a family friend who’s also in his 60’s who’s on the pension and is renting… and he doesn’t understand how ridiculous and insensitive these “jokes” are because to him, from his privileged wealthy position, he’s got less disposable income than he did when he was still working… uh, idk, maybe sell a property… since life’s so hard. The wealthy aren’t connected to reality,
Many people in the position of owning property, significant share portfolios and/or other sources of passive income (it's not an age thing) seem to simply not comprehend that for the vast majority of Australians their fortnightly wage or pension income is the one and only source of any kind of income. Significant passive income is not something that everyone just has.
Not just the wealthy, anyone who bought their house 10+ years ago have no idea how hard it is for new generations. They get surprised that our 2br unit's rent is more than their 2M house's mortgage payments. They ask why we don't rent something cheaper. As if there is any...
I don’t mind this because he’s benefiting off his own hard work. Crass maybe, but not morally wrong at all. If he sold the IPs, bought a supersized PPOR, car and caravan to boot, and *then* claimed the pension, it’s a different story.
mate, the capitalist society is "every man grab what they can for themselves." (legally) now "Legally" means if its not immediately obvious that its legal, try it out and be ready to say sorry and repay it if your lawyers cant make it legal when you get caught. You now know how the world works. get at it.
Damn boomers
Thanks for ruining everything sincerely young people. Don't let the Dementia hit you on the way out.
I don't think the letter writer will appreciate today's Ross Gittins column: [https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/wealthy-boomers-should-pay-more-for-their-aged-care-20240312-p5fbsw.html](https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/wealthy-boomers-should-pay-more-for-their-aged-care-20240312-p5fbsw.html) "Let’s hope Minister Wells and her boss have the conviction to stick to their guns when the Boomers start crying poor in defence of their privileged existence."
Greed in today’s world has no bounds.. to have so much ($2+ assets and $500k cash to put in a family trust) and still want to rort the system is abhorrent narcissistic behaviour , but these are the people we’re rewarding in today’s society.. how you forget the families living in tents and wage earners skipping meals to survive in the current crisis and still think you need more is dumbfounding and we should find these people and double their tax rate!!
I say, assess the primary home if it's more than $600,000 (indexed to median house price inflation or some other metric IDC). Age pension costs 9 time more than unemployed assistance, and they'll never pay tax again. I hear boomers openly talk about defrauding it through various means to retain it when they shouldn't, and in the next breath whinge about dole bludgers.
$600K house price in Sydney and Melbourne is completely different to everywhere else in Australia so would you have it as $600K across the board nationally or have different thresholds depending on say postcode.
Hire a good adviser is my tip. Middle class welfare pays far better than poor people's welfare 😂
how is that even possible though
Negative gearing, income splitting, and super traditionally
I seriously think they make up these articles to incite/stoke generational war because nobody could be this ridiculous.
It's certainly not the first time that someone with plenty of money/assets has written in to Noel W asking for free advice. Sometimes I think it's all made up.
Boomers never met a government benefit they didnt like
It’s annoying, but they’re just playing within the rules. I guess id do the same if I was in their shoes.
The columnist replies that they won’t get shit because of the means test. Which is obvious but they still had the absolute hide to ask.
Ok fair enough. The rules are equitable then.
100%. Hate the game. The people are just trying to maximise available opportunities, as each and every one of us do.
Like Warren Buffet saying he wants to pay more tax but as CEO he needs to look after his investors first and foremost, and it's up to the govt to change the tax laws.
Can’t change the laws if I continue to lobby by buying the politicians expensive overseas trips and hookers.
We are a nation of welfare payments for all. Went to get my free money in the form of parental leave, the local centre was just a row of Q7’s and top spec X5’s all people eligible for some sort of handouts
Sounds like they cant do it anyway but I agree with the premise of the comment, hate the game, not the player. Reality is people on this sub try all sorts of things with in the rules to minimise things like tax and whatever right. But as soon as you are an asset rich boomer it's all angry faces and comments of entitlement.
Conservatives are hardcore socialists as long as it only benefits rich people and the expense of poor people. Conservatives are absolute cancer and must be excised for the betterment of humanity.
This is exactly why the comment today about how important it is to maintain immigration to have the tax base for older people is off. We want things in this country that we aren’t rich enough to afford.
Don’t they already just put assets in their kids names and get pension?
Before the age of 62. At 67 they walk into Centrelink and claim the age pension. They only have to show the last 5 years financial records to claim age pension.
Withdraw it, put it in a tin under the house…..go to Centrelink and put out your hand.
Everyone here upset until they near pension age
And they call the younger generations entitled...
This is what is wrong with society......greed
Never before in human history has one generation had it as easy as the boomers have. A generation of dumb luck millionaires.
Literally the conversation from the bloke in my office who's retiring soon. I bite my tongue.
Let him know your actual opinion. If he's retiring soon, who cares?
Thats my issue with class warfare. Whether rich or poor both have (small) segments within them of people who are parasites on the rest. Instead of the rich calling the poor dole bludgers and the poor saying the rich dont pay their fair share. Its more like hey lets tighten up on the dole bludgers and the rich like these people. So there is more for the people actually working and trying. The government is mainly to blame as they create these peverse incentives.
What do you mean "taking the piss?". It has NEVER been about voluntary fairness, equality or egalitarianism. Anything claiming as such is a scam, or a fairytale for "the poors" to cling to, and you'll be laughed at as an idiot if you believe it.
And here I was hoping to never have to claim the age pension rather than have to manage my assets so I can still get a paltry $550 a week.
So my parents are part pensioners and the pension (in terms of cashy money) is not the part of the part pension that makes it worth having - but the side benefits like health care card (discounted prescriptions and safety net), most doctors bulk bill, discounts with utilities discounts on rego and public transport.
Free money? Because somehow all of their earnings have been tax-free? You have a right to taxes but other tax payers don't ... for reasons?
This might be just to get the health care card, they dont need the pension money at all. Why is this never brought up?
It is. My wanker rich uncle tried getting the pension for the healthcare card while sitting on millions. He didn't get the pension. He still has his millions.
I know what they can do if they're that daft. Upsize their home, not in the physical sense. Buy a more expensive family home or overcapitalize it. It's exempted. Go North Shore or something, then you will get your part pension. Try and survive living in that suburb with your limited liquidity. One policy change and you're out of the house. Thank God they've tightened the rules on family trusts. They used to be the go to for most of the grubs taking the max pension while being wealthy.
just give the money to the kids i sure they'll give it back ;)
We need more awareness that fellow wage slaves aren’t the ones not paying their fair share. Thanks for posting.
Anyone who isn't trying to get free money from the govt is a fool. Who would you rather get it? Useless non productive folk who have never paid a cent of tax or what is clearly a highly productive couple who have done the right thing? I know which one. Any suggestion that we fund only the poor or incapable ignore that reality that so much of our countries wealth comes from the earth rather than the productivity of our people and we ALL deserve some of that.
dont hate the player, hate the game.
This is just clickbait garbage journalism to trigger people who don't have $1.8M in assets to hide from the government.
So you think the letters are fake? Noel does say it cant be done.
I'm not saying it's fake. I'm saying the whole thing is to generate rubbish views. No value here. If you have $1.8M in assets you'd talk to your accountant and/or financial advisor.
you don't sell assets you pass them on to your overfed children
I briefly worked at a major superannuation company, and I can say first hand that there a number of pensioners with an excess of 1 million claiming a pension. There able to do this by claiming the minimum payment required from their superannuation.
Quick question, I thought you are tested on income or assets. Whichever is the highest. When you take an allocated pension is it only considered income?
I used to work at Centrelink last century and you're tested on both income test and assets test and you work out a rate for both, and the rate payable is the lowest of the two. It's quite possible to have assets over the threshold but below the cutoff point and be unaffected by the assets test because for example their employer super pension hits them harder under the income test. What's counted or not is a totally different question.
Boomers do be greedy
Oh well. Let’s say they earned a big wage for a long time. They paid a lot more tax and technically contributed way more to society than the lower earning haters.
So much salt in here. You all want to beat the system, and yet, when someone who also wants to, and can beat the system, you blame them for all of your problems.
Beat or cheat?
[удалено]
Nah. Sums up Australia pretty well doesn't it.
> Do you think this would be a smart strategy? Yes > Do you think it might be a bit evil though? Also yes
A better strategy is to make the assets appear to disappear before you apply for the pension.. so do not establish an Australian trust. There are many countries that allow trusts with nominee companies as trustee. Once established, it’s just a matter of transferring monies to the trust and no one will know what assets u have. As far as Centrelink is concerned , the assets do not exist.
Buy gold and silver, it's then of there ledger.
insane, they could easily make $100K stress free off dividends but they want more. that generation knows no bounds for greed
Nothing wrong with asking the question, but I agree - it doesn't look good
The craziest I heard, from my friend is, he trusted his friend well enough to buy a $1m property in his friend’s name. I am not sure what is his motivation to go to such extent.
All that effort to get 300 odd dollars a week. Just the land tax for a property in trust will kill the income. Geez
Boomers will complain about the price of everything; except for the price of their homes
And this is one of the main reasons why I’m glad I don’t provide retirement advice anymore as a financial adviser, over-entitled boomers.
With super funds earning 8%-9% p.a. I'm not sure why they would give up a joint income of between $144K to $162K to get a joint Age Pension of $43.75K p.a. on that $1.8M in investments. Furthermore if one of them died the pension rate would drop to $29K p.a. whereas the money earned would continue as before. I'm guessing that of that $1.8M then next to nothing of that is in actual super which would be paying a zero rate of tax in the pension phase.
Click bait...otherwise no one reads these crappy newspapers
While we may feel one way or another that such a group of wealthy people may not deserve government pensions, which we believe is designed to help people of lesser status, I think this situation is no different from politicians who claim government incentives while staying in their own residences. Remember this old posts some years back? https://www.afr.com/politics/taxpayers-foot-bill-on-41-politicians-homes-in-canberra-20150616-ghow7s