Kevin Rudd isn't all bad. I stumbled across this today, I'm hoping Tony doesn't decide to change it. This is an excerpt from the article:



[i]After years of neglect, the Government has overhauled the pension system to make it adequate and sustainable for the millions of age and disability pensioners, carers and veterans who depend on it.



Last March pension indexation increase was driven by wages growth in the six months to December 2009.



Pensions are indexed twice a year to the highest increase of three measures: the consumer price index (CPI), the pensioner living cost index, and growth in male total average weekly earnings (MTAWE).

The Government's Pension Reforms increased the effective benchmark for singles from 25 per cent to 27.7 per cent of MTAWE.[/i]

http://www.alp.org.au/news/pensions-increase-20-march

Toot, once again the govt distorts the truth. The current system described above was introduced by the Howard govt. You'll notice they say the increase was [b]driven by wages growth[/b], ....the system was already in place.

Would also remind those still thanking Rudd for the cash bonus, that it was in the previopus gov't 's plan...Rudd was not going to allow it to go through, until pressured by Brendan Nelson.

I think it was Big Val who mentioned something about lowering the pension but I can't be bothered looking for the post.



[b]Summary of recommendations [color=red]rejected[/color] by the Government[/b]

The Prime Minister and the Treasurer has stated that, in the interests of business and community certainty, the Government will [b]NOT[/b] implement the following recommendations contained in the Henry Tax Report at any stage:



• including the family home in means tests (Recommendation 88(c));

• introducing land tax on the family home (Recommendations 52 and 53);

• requiring parents to work when their youngest child turns 4 (Recommendation 85);

• hitting single income families (Recommendation 92 and 93);

• restricting eligibility to rent assistance for families (Recommendation 103);

• making any changes to the tax system that harm the not-for-profit sector, including removing the benefit of tax concessions; raising the gift deductibility threshold or changing income tax arrangements for clubs (Recommendations 9(e), 13, 41, 43 and 44);

• reducing overall remuneration to members of the Defence Forces (Recommendations 6d, 8c and 9e);

• reducing the CGT discount, applying a discount to negative gearing deductions or changing grandfathering arrangements for GST (Recommendations 14 and 17(c));

• removing the Medicare levy (part of Recommendation 5);

[b] • reducing indexation of the age pension (Recommendation 84); [/b]

• removing the benefits of dividend imputation (Recommendation 37);

• hitting pensioner and low income concessions for utilities, transport and other essential services (Recommen dation 107);

• introducing a bequests tax (Recommendation 25);

• aligning the preservation age with the pension age (Recommendation in Australia’s Future Tax System Retirement Income Strategic issues paper);

• offering a Government annuity product (Recommendation 22);

• asking the States to charge market rents to public housing recipients (Recommendation 106);

• indexing the fuel tax to the consumer price index (CPI) (Recommendation 65); and

• changing alcohol tax, that is, all alcoholic beverages should be taxed on a volumetric basis (Recommendation 71).



The Prime Minister and the Treasurer also reaffirm that the Government will never increase the rate or broaden the base of the GST, or remove tax-free superannuation payments for those over 60 years of age.

[url=http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/files/documents/Henry%20Tax%20Review.pdf]Source[/url]

Thank God that Howard promised that we would never get

a GST.

Yes Howard did promise that but ended up giving us a gst so I think it would be fair to presume that Tony will be the one to increase it if he gets in as the liberals are doing in NZ.

so I think it would be fair to presume that Tony will be the one to increase it if he gets in as the liberals are doing in NZ.



Or on the other hand fwed if we are unfortunate enough to get Rudd back for another term (and quite frankly I would rather have cancer) he would be the one to hike up the GST to cover his mammoth debt IF the miners tell him to bugger off. I think Gerry Harvey hit the nail on the head when he said this lot are "a bunch of amateurs".

Requested Page Not Found Print this Article

Email this Article











The page you requested is either not yet available, no longer available or is now located elsewhere in the website.



The charteredaccountants.com.au website has recently been upgraded to a friendlier and more informative method of dealing with page links, as a result of this change many links from the previous icaa.org.au website may no longer work.



The best way to find the content you are looking for is to either use the extensive menus available on the new site or use the Search feature located in the top right corner of the page.



We apologise for any inconvenience caused during the transition to the new website's features.



If you require any further assistance please contact Chartered Accountants website support at website support or use the feedback form

[color=blue]• hitting pensioner and low income concessions for utilities, transport and other essential services (Recommendation 107);



on top of • reducing indexation of the age pension (Recommendation 84);



Means to me a lot less of a pension and thankfully the email campaign has done some good.



Did you bother Fwed.



No? I didn't think so. [/color]

I don't know whether you read that article Val but it says those items were rejected.

You seem confused.



PlanB, I just tried that link again and it opens with a pdf reader

Thanks Fwed for getting that info, it's a huge relief. Do you think there's any chance of Tony Abbott going down that road?



the government rejected Recommendation 84



• reducing indexation of the age pension

I read this in About Seniors Today





About Seniors subscriber, Patricia, has clarified the rules for Age Pension increases.



As Chairperson of the National Fair Go For Pensioners Coalition I would like to make two point points about your Q&A;about whether pension rises are likely:



1. People who support an increase can work towards that by becoming active in the lead-up to the Federal election. Fair Go For Pensioners (a coalition of organisations/clubs) is working towards a pension of 35% of male average weekly earnings (following the May 2009 budget it is currently 27.7%).



2. Your answer regarding couple pensions is incorrect. You state that only single pensions are tied to wage rates and that couple rates only rise by CPI.



The correct answer is that the couple rate is tied to

I note these partial quotes which are not supplied by Government.

There must be some doubts as to the basis of indexation. The married

pension is definately tied to the CPI & adjusted every 6 months. But,

whilst the single pension has a similar link, it is now set at a minimum

of 27% of the average male earnings, so it is not based on the CPI !!!!!

However, I believe that the average male earnings actually includes all

male pensioners earnings, so therefore is adversly affected by every

adjustment, because nearly 20% of the figure base is aged pensioners

who are only receiving 27% of the previous rise.

As BigVal has oftened noted & been ignored, on here, if the cost of living

rises by 10% & you get an increase of 2 1/2%; you have gone backwards

by 7 1/2% !!! To express it in simpler terms; if you are having trouble buying

bread for $4 a loaf & the cost goes up to $4.40, of which you get a rise of

10 cents, (25%) you are now 30 cents worse off.

BTW, if Rudd is stupid & arrogant enough to try & introduce a mining super

tax, without consultation, which will never pass the existing Upper House,

& rejected the pension reduction to the rate of the dole; do you seriously

think that Abbott would want to try it? You are joking.