People gotta look after themselves...

A practice that is completely discriminatory, illegal and sexist.

 

Pension has its place for people who have been retired for a while like my parents. They didn't accumulate much super and only started investing in property later in life. They were living on rent of $400 per week gross plus a little bit from a part pension. However, because of the changes to the asset rules, their part pension is being cancelled. They can't live on less than $400 per week so have put their last IP on the market. They will reinvest in Adelaide. After commissions, stamp duty and transfer fees eat up some of their capital, they will be back under the asset cap and back on the part pension, with a much higher income than before (provided tenants pay their rent!). It all seems a bit silly really. Why not take income into consideration when deciding to kick people off the pension?

 

Totally agree and it happens as @Marg4000 suggests. I believe it happens more often that people know/realise.

I used to own a small business of 15 to 20 people. For key roles (consultants, trainers, team leaders), we always sought experienced people, preferably with 20+ experience. For the other roles, less experience was acceptable.

Gender and age were never a selection criteria but experience is a perfectly non-discriminatory, legal and acceptable one

 

I am not advocating the practice.
I am simply saying that it exists.
There is a lot of hidden discrimination in life.
Marg

 

Totally agree. One reason it is so hard for those over fifty to get a new job if made redundant, despite proven ability.

 

Similar to a post I saw the other day about how politicians should get the same pension as everyone else (they do since 2004). Anyway, this critical literacy is becoming even more important as we enter a post factual world. Before entering teaching I assumed everyone could pick this stuff up. Now I have realised that many of my students don't have this skill and may not grow into adults who will. I'm also noticing all the adults around who can't pick it up, of which there seems to be many. Scary stuff really.

 

Considering that life expectancy is now 80+ it's hard to fathom why employers are apprehensive to take on 50 year olds. I know it happens, but logically it just doesn't make much sense.

 

At places where I have worked the 50 to 65 year old train the less experienced staff. When I was starting out I found them invaluable. They always had time share their knowledge and experience. As a junior, it made my job do much easier. What will the next generations do without that support?

 

You can always "unfriend" those you don't want on FB.

 

Just unfollow them.
You stay connected but don't have to see them turn up on your feed.

 

Only when they no longer see your posts. But that's internet.

 

It's on my Facebook feed AGAIN... this time with a different image. No the pension should not be considered as a right and a reward.... going forward with Gen X and beyond, we've all had the understanding that we have super to save for our retirements (I think most people's supers are inadequate.... ~sigh~.... and secondly I think most people don't really try to build other wealth).
Happy to be wrong though.

 

Well, my parents have put their last IP on the market because their part pension is being cancelled from 1st of Jan next year. By the time they reinvest in Adelaide, after selling fees, conveyancing, stamp duty and transfer fees, they could almost double their current income but be below the new asset cap. They may even qualify for the part pension again. That would be ironic.

PS the selling agent's marketing campaign for the house they are selling looks terrific!

 

...and both major political parties aren't doing anything to encourage people to address super inadequacies. Always wanting to plunder the super system to raise more tax to fill their budget short falls--idiots. I mean to say, just look at the liberals recent changes to super concessional contributions....not exactly a move designed to encourage people to contribute more to their super. The only current discussions that the political parties are having at the moment about super is how they can screw more tax out of it. When was the last time you heard a politician talking about ways to encourage people to put more into super?

 

This group have experience, aren't flippity, won't run off to get prenant, usually have less sickies, more willing to act as mentors and don't have ginormous career expectations for climbing the corporate ladder.

 

But sadly they are usually more expensive than the group of people you just described, most businesses are too short sighted to recognize their values.

 

I think it is fair for the government to ask people to spend their down their capital as well as the earnings from their capital in their retirement.

Instead of reinvesting in more property, can your parents buy a lifetime annuity with the capital realised from the sale of the investment property?

 

So you were right. Saying it was false information or satire was just wishful thinking on my part. Politics is really weird these days. What a mish-mash of rubbish it's become.