Is this Age Pension rule too unfair on couples?

I was getting a pension of $357.57 a fortnight because my wife works.

This year we got a pension increase and my wife received a CPI wage increase.

I now will receive 354.65 a fortnight.

They have taken $3 a fortnight off me.

Any future increase means my pension will get less and less even though the cost of living keeps going up.

My wife wants to give up work but will not be eligible for the age pension.

How do we live off ONE couples pension of $700 odd a fortnight?

7 comments

Questions

How old are you

How old is your wife

Do you own your home

Do you have any super

Yet another reason why there should be a non means tested universal old age pension available for all BUT all incomes are assessed for tax in the usual manner.

been saying this for years but politicians of both parties aren't interested to even crunch the numbers so pensioners just stay shafted and reamed.

 

and yet the majority of pensioners still vote same and are surprised when they get more of the same from their representatives.

Bletch, in theory it probably is fair but you have my sympathy. My wife and I lived on one pension plus $60000 from my super over about 4 years. We chose this because the only alternative was for my wife to do 15 hours of voluntary work per week so that she could qualify for a benefit until old enough to receive the pension. She had not worked for many years and wished to continue an interest in her artwork.

Now, you could argue that we did the responsible thing with our country's interests at heart and because we could afford to by drawing down on my super. However, in recent years from our current federal government, we have had an almost daily dose of snake-oil including lying, corrupt practices (including moral), rorts, incompetence and blatant avoidance of responsibility. While I still believe it was the proper thing for us to do, it sticks in my craw that the government that is supposed to be representing me does not live by the same code.

I am currently waiting impatiently for my chance to vote at the next federal election. My hope is that the majority of other voters in this country will not be persuaded by the lies, scaremongering and snake-oil that some of them were influenced by at the last election, and boot this mob out.

sadly, hope doth butter no parsnips –– unless about 80,000 voters in marginal seats change their votes a Morrison/Joyce government has more than a reasonable prospect of being returned.

"How do we live off ONE couples pension of $700 odd a fortnight?" You just said you receive $354.65 a fortnight.

You are living on your part pension plus your wife's income which you haven't disclosed not on 1 couples pension for a start. What's your combined fortnightly household income?

How does the $1.46 per week reduction in pension compare to the weekly increase your wife got. Again you didn't say what that is. So if your wife is earning $60k a year and CPI is say 2.5% that's approx $36 plus a fortnight after tax and levies so you're way in front. I used $60k as the average annual wage is around $99k

I'd be seeking some financial advice about rolling super into one account and other finances etc etc to maximize your pension. 

Agree with "Karl Marx" ..there may be a number of options available, however you ( or the editor) have not supplied sufficient info for a desktop opinion ( not financial advise only personal observations)

Get some professional advise could be best bet.. Also no matter which party is in power history shows that pensioners will never get a proper deal unless the whole system is overhauled ,particularly issues surrounding the assets test but there is no political will from either party to tackle that, so changing the Gov. will ,unfortunately not fix things....... If only it was that simple.

PS: to the earlier poster who did the right thing by using their super to part fund.. it is so wrong that in this age of "grab what you can no matter how you do it and bugger the rules " these days doing the right think is a relic of the past.

I agree with you here Karl. There is just not enough information to make any kind of assessment or give any kind of advice (not that many here would be qualified to do either). 

It just comes across as a whinge fest when there is probably more than we are being told.

Sadly, any arguments around the age pension will always be there, there will always be some who will be badly affected regardless of the size of the pension. This area promotes a number of different theories, some worthwhile, some not. I don't agree that all those of pension age should automatically get the pension because the extreme of that is the likes of Gina Rinehart, Sir Frank Lowy, Paul Keating and Twiggy Forrest will all get it and surely this isn't fair for taxpayers to subsidise multi-millionaires. There has to be a cut-off point.

I also don't agree with including the family home as an asset because creating legislation that covers every property in every suburb, city, state or territory would be nigh impossible. As I have posted here on a number of occasions, our family home won't preclude us from our little bit of pension but if the same house was a couple of suburbs over we could be in a bit of bother. The best legislation is the one that disadvantages the least number of people.

Agree with most here and esp. re a universal aged pension. If I had my time over again I would not become a self funded retiree and just have a more expensive house, like a $2 million one.  A couple needs about $2 million in super just to generate the equivalent of the aged pension, Safely !

7 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment