Assuming that the indexation figures are right, the $5 is the average increase on the cost of goods and services equal to the maximum pension. Because individual pensioners do not all spend this on the same things, they may perhaps be a little better or a little worse off due to this. Part pensioners also get the full $5 but this is more than the average increase on the amount of pension they were using to buy goods and services.

NO $8.40 a fortnight is not enough, that is -- $218.40 A YEAR -- the politicians get about $275 A DAY up and ABOVE their wages to be away from home PLUS the money allowed for food etc. --

Also, let us also talk about sickness benefit those on that get much less than the pension

(and is now under the job SEEKER label --I ask why the name has changed? )

-- as if a person is on sickness they have a lot of bills to pay and medications to get

if the $5.00 is correct this will not cover this years town rates or water increases, let alone the shopping etc increase

Like everything else this scurrilous government does, it's a complete crock of animal manure ! This sort of mongrel behaviour will just continue until these leeches are voted out of office !

We are now entering a dangerous era for elderly citizens. For some time I have been considering the Age Pension

assets test, and now am firmly of the opinion that it should not be applied. During my life, I have skimped and saved

to own the assets that I have chosen to be appropriate for me. I have always paid my taxes honestly. I really believe

that the Age Pension should be universal and unconditional, in that when a citizen reaches 65, he or she should be

immediately granted the full Age Pension. There should be no assets or income test for eligibility. However, there

should be scrutiny by the Australian Tax Office, to enable them to tax individuals in the usual way, which would

result in taxing back the benefits from those who are wealthy enough not to need the Age Pension benefit.

This system would obviate the need for an army of bureaucrats in Centrelink, presently wading through people's

financial affairs, scrutinising and verifying every private detail in a cruel and sometimes rather arbitrary manner.

It would liberate those bureacrats for other work of a more productive nature, and the cost of administering the

Age Pension would be slashed. That would enable pension rates to be sustained, even increased.

The Government says that people should be able to keep more of what they earn. I agree. This principle should

apply to the Age Pension,  in that people should be encouraged to save and acquire assets during their working

lives. When in receipt of the universal pension, people should continue to have an incentive to work and save

and buy whatever assets they choose, including the sanctity of their own home. As I stated before, the very

wealthy would have the value of the universal pension taxed back off them by the ATO.

The efficiency of a universal pension is self-evident. The stress and anxiety experienced by retirees who go

through the present application procedure would be eliminated, because everyone would know they are

secure.

Thankyou for patiently reading this. I do feel strongly about it. The direction we are heading is so wrong.

Hi Leonie. Thankyou for your thoughtful reply.  I, too, have pondered the question of funding a universal

age pension scheme. Firstly, the savings resulting from a drastic downsizing of the Federal Public Service

and all the hidden costs that go with it could be surprising. For example, stationery, postage, printing, salaries,

superannuation, telecommunications, information technology, legal expenses, transport, travel and accommodation

of employees, and infrastructure such as office space and equipment. Of course, some employees may be redeployed

to the Australian Tax Office, but there still would be a significant saving of public money.

Secondly, the hidden costs associated with our present system would also diminish: money wasted by citizens

who are now required to jump through the hoops during the application phase ( trips to Centrelink offices,

photocopying, computer printer ink, etc.) ; strains put on the mental health system by people who are put through

the wringer by this present messy, judgemental, mean-spirited and repressive legislative framework ; the hoarding of

money (usually in a mattress, or a garden shed), to avoid the assets test, takes money out of circulation and even

results in some crime, eg. theft, assault, murder of a pensioner( fact).

Factoring in all the savings involved, the question of funding really fades into the way the taxation system deals

with the beneficiaries of the age pension. No one can escape having to pay back their entire entitlement, if their

wealth precludes the receipt of the age pension. The ATO would be advised by Centrelink that a citizen has now

been granted a pension, purely based on their age, and the ATO would then make the required adjustments to

the person's taxation obligations. So, all those wealthy people, and all the other people who may be perceived

as receiving a pension when they don't need it, will have the benefit taken back from them. This would occur

in the most efficient manner as part of the existing taxation system, which already holds information about

people's financial situations ( no need for Centrelink to do it all over again).

So, the funding of a universal pension scheme is not really very different from the present system. It may even

cost less.

Leonie, I agree with you that the taxation system should be tightened to target the evasion that is happening.

This, however, should be done whether or not a universal age pension is in operation. Tax evasion should not

be used as an argument against the universal age pension. But, yes, you are right to mention the need for

taxation sophistication.

Thankyou for replying, and I appreciate your comments.

That's why we need a universal, unconditional pension system. Because all sides of government are fixated

on penny-pinching bean counting, and not on the realities of what is happening to real people.

Thanks for that, johnboy. You know that in Silicon Valley, the property prices/rentals have escalated to such

an extent that there are now seventy year olds living in cars, a new homeless underclass unable to find a roof

and unable to move to another town. That is a spectre lurking just around the corner for us, because there is

a bunch of accountants working for the government who are advocating that the pensioner home should be

included in the assets test! Imagine an elderly lady who has lived in a house for fifty years, which through no

fault of her own, has appreciated to over a million dollars. She has no investments to earn any income.

Such an asset test will require her to sell her home, with perhaps only ten years left to live. Forced to move to

an unfamiliar suburb, remote from family and friends and the familiar surroundings. Also, she will receive only

a part pension (if any at all), because she will now have liquid assessable assets. How will she live?

But you are right. There are people who have no idea about the hardships of some pensioners. They don't

know the full circumstances of others, they only know how to pass judgement based on their own narrow

experiences. Soon we enter the era of serious geriatric homelessness.

Someone said the government will never do anything to stop the house price rise.  because if house prices go down that means the economy is going bad and it looks bad for government.  I agree with you.  bad times ahead.  but luckily not for me . but i do feel bad for the young ones.  

Speaking of young ones, johnboy, those who are presently unemployed between 50 & 67, are in a

pickle too. Living (existing, sort of) on jobseeker for 17 years. The pension age should be 60, it's going

in the wrong direction. Universal pension idea fixes that problem too. Instead of applying for jobseeker,

citizen is already receiving universal pension, which is there as a backup for hardtimes. Replaces jobseeker,

sickness benefit, jobkeeper(for the next pandemic), disablilty pension( with a supplement maybe). No

application procedures, waiting periods( when people fall into serious debt while dealing with heartless

bureaucracy).  Time for government to consider priorities, too. How many pensions could be funded by

one submarine? Talk about "bottom of the harbour schemes"

On the Universal Basic Income idea, an excerpt from Investopedia:

     "Supporters of universal basic income believe a guaranteed payment from the government can help ensure

that those who are left behind by this economic transformation ( automation, computerisation, etc.) avoid poverty.

Even if government-sourced income isn't enough to live on, it could theoretically supplement the income from the

lower-wage or part-time jobs they are still able to obtain."

With a UBI, there is no need to apply for assistance, because every individual is already receiving this "retainer".

No bureacratic nonsense and no bureacratic expense. We may have a reasonable age pension system according

to McDaddy, but it could be a lot better, fairer, and far more efficient. Our age pension scheme should be subsumed

under a UBI, involving no asset and income test. Regardless of rich or poor, it should be applied so that there is

an incentive for people to work as long and as hard as they choose. It will lift us all out of poverty. Our present

welfare arrangements are woeful, inefficient and humiliating.

New Zealand doesn't have a pension asset test.

Early,   I too worked hard and saved hard and also chose to look after Mother and my Husband when they were ill and dying -- so, of course, had to stop working to do that -- AND WOULD NOT HAVE HAD IT ANY OTHER WAY -- so that also saved the government a heap of money.

I agree that the aged pension should be from the age of 60 and NEVER should include the home you have saved darn hard for & paid stamp duty on and paid out heaps for upkeep/

Blasted politicians can get their pension when they leave  NO MATTER THEIR AGE --- AND then get another well-paid job as well and still keep their pension

Yes, PlanB, the political rorts are well known, and regularly exposed in the media, sometimes resulting in a 'resignation'.

However, the rort involving bureaucrat superannuation deserves some attention. Public money put into their super

scheme is rarely mentioned when estimating the cost of running an organisation like Centrelink. When they retire, it is

usually on a pension roughly equivalent to their salary at that time. The super schemes are largely market linked, that is

they depend on investments in shares, property development, and other mechanisms which involve the corporate

sector. That means an elite club of CEOs are creaming off public money ( with their system of bonuses). That money

would have been better spent directly on pensioners, instead of being wasted on bureaucrats and corporate parasites.

With a simpler universal basic income system, the middle men ( or muddle men), would be removed and employed

more productively. The carers ( which is about the hardest job there is) would be already receiving their basic income

without having to apply for a carers allowance. No waiting period, no paperwork or nosey bureaucrats.