Retired, Equity a plenty, Living off the pension.

Really? You want to argue the definition of vast majority. You really think vast majority only starts at 90%? So 89% is not a vast majority. Not only are you wrong but WHO CARES.

You are the one asking for the numbers you provide them. It's not my job to research for you.

Really- before you said you don't get much for $1M in Sydney, now it's $2M? And you really think you don't get much for $2M? Again clueless

I don't need to know the financials of 100 people to know your claim that only 100 people in all of Australia own a $2m PPOR with little other assets is a clueless statement. So you don't personally know anyone in that situation so such people must not exist? Not sure if trolling or just stupid with that comment.

You want figures? ok here: australia welfare spending - Google Search

$146 Billion in total welfare of which the largest % in Pensions at 29%, ie. $42 BILLION give or take and rising. $42 Billion and you go and make a fool of yourself by suggesting only $5 million would be saved by asset testing 10's of 1000's of asset rich pensioners? Fail.

For such a "pointless" discussion you sure have a lot to say. So people arn't allowed to discuss topics here unless we campaign to our local members or run for parliament? Facepalm.

 

Hey now, you must have forgotten the first rule of PropertyChat: you can disregard any and all statistics or arguments as long as you've got a personal anecdote to the contrary.

Yes. And if you discuss anything or have an opinion that is against the PropertyChat status quo you are a 'complainer' who will get nowhere with your life.

 

You said at least 80% of people agree, again provide the numbers but how did you go from at least 80 to 89%. At 89%, I would call that nearly 90%... Facepalm

So you don't need to know the financials of people you are looking to change their plan? Jeez help us if you ever got PM.

2M gets you something pretty decent but again which rate are you using is it 1M+, 2M+ or something else...

Well aware what we spend on the pension, however out of the people on the pension how many people are of age where super should of been sufficient but further how many of them have a PPOR more than 2M and please don't come back with sufficient, I want an actual number,

Sorry that I have concerns about making a blanket change without any information except we spend xB on pensions. FYI the people I know who are collecting the pension only have their house and are not in the 2M houses, one person house is worth 500k and that is probably be about it the other house is worth maybe 350k and again no other assets.

I think you will be hard pressed to find information that people are 'rorting' it... Again provide facts to support your argument.

I find there is no sufficient savings to be found here from your posts.

 

Conversation between @Big Will and @Plucka

 

So you know the grand total of 2 people to support your claim but then lament me for not providing numbers. Sigh.

Just look at Sydney, with a median of over $1m you honestly don't think there are many pensioners in prime positions sitting on $2m or more of equity? No I don't have figure but common sense will tell you there are plenty, certainly a lot more than your laughable claim of only 100 nationwide.

 

I didn't claim 100 people I asked how many people and used 100 as an example... I don't have stats on how many people there are, still waiting on this from you... Sigh

 

Question.

Why would anyone want to go through the whole rigmarole of having to go and stand in line and report all their financial details to Centrelink and have to tell the government everything about their lives?

I would think that is incentive enough to save for your own retirement and stay outside the welfare net.

 

To eat.

At the end of the day when you've retired and gone through your Super and cashed in ALL other assets to survive OUTSIDE of your PPOR and have nothing left but your home and contents, what are you going to eat with? You can't eat a house. So you go and shamefully display your NEED for a handout and plead your case to Centrelink. As would anyone with no means left to earn from.

Here come the reverse mortgage brigade. Again.

 

Well obviously... but I'm talking about those who have means or assets... it's seems to me that for many people claiming a part pension is not a necessity but a badge of honour or an entitlement to claw as much as you can from the taxpayer.

 

I can add some more:

• Kerry Packer is god and his opinion on taxes the latest testament.
• Parramatta is the center of universe.
• Given the growth mindset 'Pigs/Penguins can fly'. Archangel Carol Dweck said so.
• The only education that counts is the self help books, preferably on property investment.
  
• Pimping relatives for tax avoidance (distributions) is business savvy. 'Family reunion' visa is being replaced by 'income-distribution' visa
  
• Perth is just treading water.
• Property in Australia is one way street without speed limits or red lights.
• Rental yields are for sissies.
• LVR is the yardstick for success.
• Tax avoidance is a National sport.
• Sunday church is held in bunnings and unclaimed tax invoices are handed out at the end of service.
  
• Landlords and PMs provide social service (probably the best). Currently there is a petition to extend the tax relief for charities to Landlords.

 

Agreed.

Pension should be for those who aside from their PPOR, have no other assets to liquidate into cash. A safety net to prevent having to sell the family home to be able to eat.
At the end of the day if they've sold off every single thing they own but the clothes on their back just to live, we the tax payer will have to pay for their housing, food and health care. So let them keep their homes, it's cheaper in the long run.

 

It's amazing how many folks put so much effort into activities and pursuits to dodge living a better lifestyle, yet won't put the same energy and time into doing things that will provide them with a better lifestyle.

I guess though; if you can get free money to live a basic life on - and not have to go to work and have to sort out having kids looked after while you do it; there is not much incentive.

 

Sadly; that is not human nature.

 

Including the family home in the assets test for the pension is politically very difficult. If it was an outright all PPORs were included it wouldn't get through parliament and if it did that party would lose the next election.

If there was a cap it would need to be linked to the average house price. City median, state median, national median, or whatever. That cap would have to be set pretty high to not upset voters. So high that it would affect few people and cost more to administer than it saved.

I can just imagine the ACA and opposing party's scare campaign. It's political suicide.

 

Sadly you are right, politics is all about pandering to voters not what's actually best for the country long term. Having said that with the changing demographics and worsening budget position there will come a point where governments will simply have no choice but to reign in welfare.

 

Exactly what I was alluding to, the cost benefit will end up costing us more. If you make it 500k limit then people in capital cities will not vote for them. If you make it 3x median price for the town it will cost to much to administer and if you make it 5M+ nation wide, there will not be enough people to recoup the savings as people with 5M+ properties will most likely have more than the PPOR as an asset.

 

And what about something sensible like $1.5M or say double the national median? Would be more than enough not to affect those truly doing it tough and low enough to catch the rorting.

 

Does someone in the country really need a house worth 1.5M - saw a home in Ballarat sell for this price and it didn't have a large land component, surely they should invest their money better rather than over capitalizing so they can collect a pension.

Remember people will always find loop holes or creative ways of doing things.

 

A $1.5m cap would not be high enough for Syd and Mel. You'd have to go for at least 2m, or twice the median.

 

Maybe it would encourage people to move out of the capital cities in retirement...?