Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 12
About time the PPOR was included into the pension asset test
Topic Started: 18 Aug 2015, 11:38 AM (6,409 Views)
zaph
Default APF Avatar


ThePauk
23 Aug 2015, 06:02 PM
Zaph, you asked and I answered. If you do not have time to read the response and associated articles, why ask?
I glanced at them. Absolutely not evidence. It does not exist. There is no data on the value of pensioners PPORs.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
zaph
23 Aug 2015, 11:26 PM
I glanced at them. Absolutely not evidence. It does not exist. There is no data on the value of pensioners PPORs.
Zaph
How could there be exact numbers, apart from the VG amounts. I am not sure, but I do not think that a pensioner has to report the market value of their property when claiming the pension. I will check on that.
A VG of $1m would only mean that $250K would be added to the assessable assets and only slightly reduce the pension amount. It is not as though the cap would mean that anyone with a PPOR over $750K VG would lose all of their pension.

I do note that one of the articles stated that "Including expensive family homes in the pension assets test (worth more than $1 million) would save the budget $1.1 billion a year."

It would be my intention to use that $1.1 billion to actually increase the pension to those that need it and make it a zero sum savings exercise.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


ThePauk
23 Aug 2015, 11:32 PM
It would be my intention to use that $1.1 billion to actually increase the pension to those that need it and make it a zero sum savings exercise.
No-one starving in the street here.

So they don't 'need' it.

Ever crossed your mind to give any to those who 'deserve' it?
Edited by herbie, 23 Aug 2015, 11:58 PM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
William
Unregistered

goneaway
23 Aug 2015, 11:56 PM
No-one starving in the street here.

So they don't 'need' it.

Ever crossed your mind to give some to those who 'deserve' it?
Deserve, you mean those who feel entitled to welfare?
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


ThePauk
23 Aug 2015, 11:32 PM
Zaph
How could there be exact numbers, apart from the VG amounts. I am not sure, but I do not think that a pensioner has to report the market value of their property when claiming the pension. I will check on that.
A VG of $1m would only mean that $250K would be added to the assessable assets and only slightly reduce the pension amount. It is not as though the cap would mean that anyone with a PPOR over $750K VG would lose all of their pension.

I do note that one of the articles stated that "Including expensive family homes in the pension assets test (worth more than $1 million) would save the budget $1.1 billion a year."

It would be my intention to use that $1.1 billion to actually increase the pension to those that need it and make it a zero sum savings exercise.
VG valuations don't reflect the value of a home, they reflect the unimproved value of the land content. Methods may vary from state to state.

Here is the NSW VG methodology.

If every pensioner has to engage a professional valuer, you will become the patron saint of valuers.

Give up Paul, your idea will never be adopted by anyone except a couple of lunatic fringe politicians and disaffected people such as yourself. You really have no idea about what you propose.

Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
goneaway
23 Aug 2015, 11:56 PM
No-one starving in the street here.

So they don't 'need' it.

Ever crossed your mind to give any to those who 'deserve' it?
1.6 million people receive the full pension. My issue is how many of these are lining in expensive homes and how many are not.
Nope, I would decrease the welfare to those that do not need it and increase it to those that do as I stated before.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
peter fraser
24 Aug 2015, 12:02 AM
VG valuations don't reflect the value of a home, they reflect the unimproved value of the land content. Methods may vary from state to state.

Here is the NSW VG methodology.

If every pensioner has to engage a professional valuer, you will become the patron saint of valuers.

Give up Paul, your idea will never be adopted by anyone except a couple of lunatic fringe politicians and disaffected people such as yourself. You really have no idea about what you propose.
Point is, no 'valuers' would be needed as the VG amount is already known and any state differences could be easily adjusted if need be.

Not ''my' idea Peter as stated before but happy for you to attribute it to me if you so wish.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


William
23 Aug 2015, 11:58 PM
Deserve, you mean those who feel entitled to welfare?
Feeling one is entitled to welfare is a thought that is bred from being on welfare.

With being 'deserving' being related to having 'contributed' - Leastways that's the way I was brought up to think.

With the perversity of that whole arrangement being that those who are most 'deserving' quite rarely if ever even having the thought occur to them that they are 'entitled' - Nowadays anyway - With the way that we've been brainwashed.

Rejecting it outright even. Given that we've seen how the brains of the 'entitled' function 'n say fuck that, I'll not become like them or fall prey to their pollies and policies so long as it remains within my power to keep attempting to avoid doing so.
Edited by herbie, 24 Aug 2015, 12:18 AM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
goneaway
24 Aug 2015, 12:10 AM
Feeling one is entitled to welfare is a thought that is bred from being on welfare.

With being 'deserving' being related to having 'contributed' - Leastways that's the way I was brought up to think.

With the perversity of that whole arrangement being that those who are most 'deserving' quite rarely if ever even having the thought occur to them that they are 'entitled' - Nowadays anyway - With the way that we've been brainwashed.
Oh I see, you feel entitled to welfare because you contributed via your tax. Dear me....
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
zaph
Default APF Avatar


ThePauk
23 Aug 2015, 11:32 PM
Zaph
A VG of $1m would only mean that $250K would be added to the assessable assets and only slightly reduce the pension amount. It is not as though the cap would mean that anyone with a PPOR over $750K VG would lose all of their pension.


It would be my intention to use that $1.1 billion to actually increase the pension to those that need it and make it a zero sum savings exercise.
Quote:
 
How could there be exact numbers, apart from the VG amounts. I am not sure, but I do not think that a pensioner has to report the market value of their property when claiming the pension. I will check on that.


Someone seeking the pension (or any other welfare) does not have to report the value of their PPOR.

Quote:
 
I do note that one of the articles stated that "Including expensive family homes in the pension assets test (worth more than $1 million) would save the budget $1.1 billion a year."


An absolute stab in the dark. Not even a guestimate.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 12



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy