single pensioners.
The Honorable Wayne Swan admitted he could not live on a pension in an interview sunday 7-9-08 ,then went on to say they will not do anything until a report is finalised next February, well by February Mr. Swan your party will have lost so many votes for your next election you may loose your job and then you might have to be on a pension, I daresay your pension will be a lot larger than the man in the street.The pensioners of Australia are heartily sick and tired of living on a pittance after paying taxes all their lives we expect a better deal, as the bible says, if a hungry man asks for a slice give him the whole loaf, do Politicians have time to read their bibles?or when they get into office do their beliefs go out the window? smiley.
I heard the comment, but what Wayne Swan actually said was that he would not be able to live on the SINGLE pension. It would appear that they are getting in early to make a case for maybe increasing the single pension only. We need to put them right on that very clearly. We should not let them divide us on this issue. As a single pensioner, I believe we can only pressurise the government if we stick together. Very few retirees, married or single, self funded or pensioners, are doing it easy. We need to stand up as a group, then we will have the numbers to make a difference, hopefully.
I have recently been checking some lifestyle surveys sent out to seniors in the A.C.T. and some of the responses were really distressing. I am hoping that when the surveys have been analysed (approximately 3500+ of them), that the results can be used for a media campaign as well as the submission to the Government Review Committee on Taxes and Pensions.
I agree with you Jade,when the "adopt a Pensioner scheme" began,it was all about single Pensioners. I am full of sympathy for the struggle a single pensioner must have, especially if renting, but, the reality is that couples have a lot of struggles too. We have double Doctors & Specialist fees, Prescriptions,not to mention food. Lets hope we can let the Government know that we are All in the same boat, wether single,married ,disability or self funded.Dont get me started, I am too old to climb on the soapbox !!!
Yes it is OK for pollies--as even when they retire--they retire on a large amount plus all the perks--even the Gov General--I wish they would walk a mile in our shoes for even a month
I must admit I am a happy renter.
When I had my own house I could not afford to keep up with expenses.
From Council rates, repairs, maintenance, plus looking after your car, medical, family etc.
With renting I get some rent concession and the Housing Co-Op I am with looks after all the maintenance etc. I just a new oven which I could not afford if I had to pay for it.
But having your own back yard would be nice... very nice.
Mara, I have never rented--and I am pleased that you are happy doing that--I would worry that maybe the landlord would maybe want to sell the house--as has happened to some young friends of mine--and I would have to move--and as I do like to get my roots down so to speak--I guess I like the security of having my own place.
PlanB, if you are a boy, you are propably good at fixing things for which you do not have to call a tradersman.
Us girls do a lot of maintenance etc. but there are many things we just do not know how or have no physical strenght to do it. Calling someone to fix a leaking roof,
or blocked drains will cost as much as month's mortgage payment or more.
At the time of selling I needed a new roof tiles, and new plumbing as the old pipes were giving up. Meanwhile I renedered the red bricks outside, and then painted it.
I found it all too hard. I miss my old home especially when children come; a lot of their memories went with the house. But that's life. Perhaps I'd do it differently now.
Hi Mara--I am a female also--I understand what you are saying yes it does take a LOT of money to have such things as those fixed--I just hope that mine holds out--ie roof/plumbing/big jobs like that--many others I do myself--and I would sure miss my home if I had to rent
jade said I heard the comment, but what Wayne Swan actually said was that he would not be able to live on the SINGLE pension. It would appear that they are getting in early to make a case for maybe increasing the single pension only. We need to put them right on that very clearly. We should not let them divide us on this issue. As a single pensioner, I believe we can only pressurise the government if we stick together. Very few retirees, married or single, self funded or pensioners, are doing it easy. We need to stand up as a group, then we will have the numbers to make a difference, hopefully.
I have recently been checking some lifestyle surveys sent out to seniors in the A.C.T. and some of the responses were really distressing. I am hoping that when the surveys have been analysed (approximately 3500+ of them), that the results can be used for a media campaign as well as the submission to the Government Review Committee on Taxes and Pensions.
I totally agree. 100% already said so. But if they do and I am beginning to think they will - single out the singles only - then I will march and do whatever I can to thwart the sons of unmentionables!! Hope we can get together. I dont know who started this divide and rule thing on pensioners but it has been going a while. I went to join the Pensioners Union here and got the secretary who was scathing re double incomes of married couples - a misconception seeing as a married couple get between them $90 a week or $180 a fortnight for being married. Whereas a couple of age pensioner who decide to share expenses on a house get the full single pension. when I pointed that out - I got back a letter saying oh but they would make separate decisions and have separate bank accounts. Sheer lunacy.
Married couples are being discriminated against by everyone over this issue and is that not against the act?
Other groups get more than Age Pensioners - but they seem to be determined to make us divided.
PS to my last post - forgot this.
.>
>
We gt paid as individuals and have done since I am told 1995 same as for other welfare.
>
>
so why this 'combined" business or is it just a ploy to keep the cost of keeping us down when we paid in for our pensions with our income taxes for years and I for one paid single tax all my working life most of my years.
They never did repeal the levy of 7.5% of your income tax to pensions - they did repeal the ACt but by that time - the Fund has already been closed down and the 7.5% was going direct into consolidated revenue from 1950.
So it is a right for those of us today as most of us are Aussies who have worked for all our years to pay in.
They can address the rent allowances and help in other ways for singles without causing a rift. Higher rates allowances too for home owners who have to find maintenance.
Saw Brendan Nelson on the ABC News tonight saying he will bring in a bill next week for a raise of $30 for single pensioners only.
>
>
so I have emailed him with a copy to ACA as this may ensure it gets past the gatekeepers who seem to not pass on emails or letters these days making decisions for themselves but may do so if they think it will bring down the might of a Current Affair.
>
>
If he does this will make us married ones $75 a week less for our marital status. others do not get penalised for being married by Centrelink. Only Age pensioners and dole married people or defactos.
>
>
Do email too both if single or married as this will divide us and that will lessen the impact by leaving out million or so Age Pensioners.
[email protected]
cc [email protected]
Dear Dr Nelson,
I saw you tonight on the ABC news and I am very disappointed that you are ignoring the married age pensioners.
Do you know that I get $228 a week as a married age pensioner.
That is $45 a week less purely on my marital status and I did think that there was a Discrimination Act that prohibited that.
Or does it not apply to the Government?
You being a doctor must know that two people actually eat twice as much as one does so we buy double the food. We also have to provide ourselves with two sets of clothing and maintain those with washing and replacement. We use twice the amount of toilet articles, flush the toilet as we do not share this either, nor the shower. Our medicines cost us more because we have to buy for two.
Married couples are suffering the same high food prices as a single and the only thing the singles suffer more from is having to pay for the roof over their heads and that is taken care of in extra rent allowances which should be looked at in light of the sudden increases brought on by high immigration lifting the demand for housing.
If your bill goes through and you give a single age person an extra $30 a week it would mean that we are behind by a whopping $75 a week.
That is just not good enough.
Hereunder is the way the married rate of age pension has been going down against the single rate since 2000 - not I think by design rather by using percentages to raise the pension rate twice a year. Lower amount grows slower and widens the gap.
AGE PENSION 2000-2008 March - ratio of single to married per person.
Mth/Yr Single Married Difference
Mar 00 193 161 32
Sep 00 197 164 33
Mar 01 201 168 33
Sep 01 205 171 34
Mar 02 211 176 35
Sep 02 215 179 36
Mar 03 220 184 36
Sep 03 226 189 37
Mar 04 232 194 38
Sep 04 236 197 39
Mar 05 238 199 39
Sep 05 245 204 41
Mar 06 249 208 41
Sep 06 256 212 42
Mar 07 262 219 43
Sep 07 268 224 44
Mar 08 273 228 45
I have tried to point this out before but never get past the gatekeepers.
Regards,
Gives you a bit of an idea what to say.
For some reason it wont allow the columns on the pension so if you cut and paste bits - have to just space it over under the headings - nuisance as it is.
For those who are not into cut and past - you only need to highlight the bits you want then copy on your browser and then go to where you want to copy to - either an email or wordpad and paste. Done !!
Also Disability pensioners can work whereas we are not able if we want too - tried to get a job lately at 70? Hard to get one at 45 or 50 until recently or so I am told - maybe a bit different but dont see ads to up to 65 or 70 now do we?
Good on you Big Val,you have said exactly what I wanted to say if I could have only got on to my soap box. As marrieds we are put together as one unit,thats what the Gov. says. Well, I love my husband dearly but, I like to think I am an individual ,& think for myself ,& have a life as myself,not as just as Half a couple. If we are to be paid as seperate people that does not represent a combined income to me. I agree give the single pensioners assistance in other ways as you suggested,not discriminate against couples for being married.Send the e-mail to ACA,also todaytonight,the papers,anywhere we can try to get it noticed,the more who do it, then someone somewhere must take notice.
Elsie I am no longer a fan of Labor - but they did in 1995 stop the silliness of married women being an appendage and paid women in their own right. So why they still do this combined thing - gets my goat.
$30 a week is not enough - it would help but I am already myself $45 behind a non married person or window/er. Just because I am married. About time the gays got married because they would not tolerate this discrimination.
Originally the pension ACT 1909 had every single person on the same rate and that is not by marital status but singe as in one unit. then they gave a bonus payment of 15 pounds fortnight to unmarried, widows, widowers to offset the higher cost of a home.
>
>
today you get rent allowance or in State/Fed owned public housing you pay 20% of your income to the house in rent for adults only. So the two adults sharing pay 20% of their combined income - I think unmarried adults think that coiuples pay same rate as themselves maybe?
Kids dont count except for getting extra Centrelink rent allowances for having them and it increase by number of kids for renting privately. Why ? who knows as the rent on a 3 bed house in private sector is same for no kids or 2 or 3 etc.
>
>
So they do recognise that kids cost more to keep but when it comes to adults - again seem to think that the myth that two can live cheaper than one is fact and not fiction.
>
>
Often think should write to Slater and Gordon the solicitors who I think are in Melbourne as they do class actions and I cant for the life of me see why we cant get a class action going over this. Get mad enough and I will I guess.
Anyone know the figures for married and non married age pensioners? They quote figures but lately are including the disabled pensioners and unmarried mums in it I'm told. All of those can go get a job and many do but still get welfare as do middle income earners in the form of tax benefits but they still sneer at us saying should have saved for your own retirement. annoying isn't it.
>
>
Super didn't come in until 1990 and then 5% and paid by employer. Even if 20 today the amount is what 9% (?) by time they get to 65 wont have enough to live on so kidding themselves if gov thinks wont need the pension - that is why I reckon they have never taken off the 7.5% levy on income tax that was originally put on to pay for pensions and is still there today.
>
>
Anyway we all paid for ours and I worked most of my working years - has very few off - but still paid single rate of tax so have paid for my pension and no one told me I would be penalised for getting married and then they rave on about family values.............I ask you!
>
>
Governments have put in quite a lot of money into schemes for younger ones to save - dollar for so many of your own dollars etc. Why then are they so mean to us? Bend over backwards for well paid on super too.
>
>
Guess I am still really gobsmacked at the way this has come about. Singles are not helping as they are upset seemingly of you still having a spouse. Maybe they never did marry or are widowed but it will happen to each of the married couples - one poor sod will be left alone. Then you have the problem of what to do if you have no other support. Some have good friends or make friends and both sell up and buy together with suitable arrangements of life tenancy if one dies and this happens so relllies cant swoop in and demand the place be sold up etc. thus sharing the cost. Youngsters do it all the time, packed to the rafters on 7 is an example - next door to Mum and Dad - son shares a house with 2 others. Share costs. An option open to all.
>
>
Oh well Labor woman said Nelson was caught out forgetting the married ones so Labor cant do it now can they. I hope>
I assume your point is that our wonderful politicians don't deserve their generous tax payer funded salaries, pensions and perks, whereas people existing below the poverty line such as disabled pensioners etc. should have to rely on charities and bin scavenging to keep on living in this paradise.
.
Shame on you for thinking such thoughts.