Someone seeking the pension (or any other welfare) does not have to report the value of their PPOR.
An absolute stab in the dark. Not even a guestimate.
Zaph It would be a very simple data dive to get the people of a full pension and match up their VG amounts. Any data monkey in the ATO or Centrelink could do it, if it is not done already. Gratten, and others have made estimates and the point is that it is not just one bot, as Peter would have us believe. It would be tens of thousands who live in expensive homes and get the full pension.
Are you ok with a couple living in a $10 million home, getting the full pension if they have no other liquid assets? I know that is extreme, however the question must be answered.
This whole thread is because the Committee for Sustainable Retirement Incomes have raised the issue before the tax summit. Public policy experts, but not according to Peter I suppose?
"This is often perceived as unfair because somebody who lives in a very expensive home can receive the same pension payments as somebody who does not own any property. As such, the ​newly formed Committee for Sustainable Retirement Incomes (CSRI), made up of public policy experts, thinks it might be time to revisit the exemption. "The case for full exemption is becoming weaker as home assets and other assets are growing," the committee says in a discussion paper prepared ahead of the summit. "Some argue that, as the superannuation system matures, there is a strong case to include the value of the home above some threshold. "The impact on incomes and consumption could be ameliorated by allowing the age pension to continue to be paid and recovered later from the estate." Means testing the primary residence could be phased in over time, the CSRI paper says.
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.
I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself on this point before you understand it. I have told you that the VG's value is NOT the value of the house or dwelling and I gave you evidence to support that. You can't just waive a wand and make it right.
This proposal that you parrot endlessly is just hopeless and it will never never be adopted by any political party. You are wasting your time. If you are so desperate to buy a house then there are easier ways than trying to starve elderly people out of their homes., especially in your area where they are still cheap, but they won't stay cheap.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself on this point before you understand it. I have told you that the VG's value is NOT the value of the house or dwelling and I gave you evidence to support that. You can't just waive a wand and make it right.
This proposal that you parrot endlessly is just hopeless and it will never never be adopted by any political party. You are wasting your time. If you are so desperate to buy a house then there are easier ways than trying to starve elderly people out of their homes., especially in your area where they are still cheap, but they won't stay cheap.
I never said the VG was the market value. Not sure why you think that? Desperate to buy a house? Never said that either. Are you ok Peter?
Are you ok with a couple living in a $10 million home, getting the full pension if they have no other liquid assets? I know that is extreme, however the question must be answered.
Short answer; yes.
I'm not sure what the liquidity of assets has to do with pension accessibility. Perhaps you meant not much other assets.
Long answer... There are not enough people receiving a pension living in a $10m home to make changes cost effective under your manifesto. I'm pragmatic, you're vindictive. You've stated in the past that if even one person is receiving the pension and living in an expensive home they should have their pension cut off. The cost to train centrelink staff etc would far outway the cost savings of enforcing your manifesto.
I do have limited sympathy for your view that people in very very expensive PPORs should have pension payments reduced (or some sort of reverse mortgage thing). I also strongly believe that people who have seen their homes increase in value enormously through nothing they did should not have pensions reduced/affected.
So for example someone could have purchased a house in New Farm or West End in the 70's when those burbs were considered shitty, or they could have got a home in the much more attractive (for the time) Sunnybank. A home in Sunnybank is now probably worth a quarter of one in NF or WE.
They work all their life, save, build the country, fight the wars, invest into the country, go without, now that they are old and fucked they want a free ride.
No way, sell their houses and their body parts, then the younger generation can get a new Nintendo.
Barring a large increase in unemployment, the main social policy challenge we face in coming decades is the ageing of the population, which will put upward pressure on spending on age pensions, healthcare and long-term care. However, the intergenerational report (IGR) projects growing budget deficits and increased debt, mainly because it holds the level of taxation as a percentage of GDP constant.
Population ageing represents a fundamental change in the composition of the population. We need to ask ourselves whether it is sensible to think we can hold tax levels constant when the structure of the population has fundamentally changed and needs for social spending have risen.
The IGR also assumes that many payments to working-age people will continue to be indexed to prices and not rise at all in real terms, but the IGR also projects that on average Australians will be 75 per cent better off in real terms. That is, it effectively assumes an extremely large increase in relative poverty among the unemployed and lone parents, even though the report also assumes that the unemployment rate stays at around 5 per cent over most of the projection period. If we think this result will be socially unacceptable, then the pressures for increased spending will be greater, not smaller.
The policy challenge of achieving fair changes in social spending is heightened by the fact that Australia has the most targeted social security system in the developed world. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has calculated that as a result, an across-the-board cut in social security spending would increase inequality in Australia more than in any other OECD country.
In addition, because Australian social security spending is already so targeted, the fiscal gains from further targeting are increasingly limited unless governments are willing to consider changes that have a significant impact on households in the middle of the income distribution (where a single person household is in the middle of the income distribution at an income around $45,000 per year). Many age pensioners have modest incomes but substantial wealth in their family home, but including the family home in the assets test is not straightforward in practical or political terms.
I think we have a responsibility as failed old bears ThePauk, to point out to any young bears just where we might have gone wrong.
And lazily choosing to accept any "agequake" bullshit that was being spruiked in relation to Oz (at least in part because it probably suited us to), in the then or now or even anything moderately approaching the immediate future, is something I'm pretty damn sure should be highlighted.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer:"negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
I think we have a responsibility as failed old bears ThePauk, to point out to any young bears just where we might have gone wrong.
And lazily choosing to accept any "agequake" bullshit that was being spruiked in relation to Oz (at least in part because it probably suited us to), in the then or now or even anything moderately approaching the immediate future, is something I'm pretty damn sure should be highlighted.
Herbs If you do not believe in the ageing of our nations, and others, so be it. You would be in a very select few in denial and that may suit you I suppose.
To me, the most important issue that any young bear today should understand is the unprecedented ageing of the nations.
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.
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