Changes to DFRB and DFRDB Pensions

**Bigbjorn** · 26th May 2011, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Brian

Tell me if I'm wrong, but private sector employers were not required to provide any form of superannuation until 1992 when Keating brought in the Superannuation Guarantee with compulsory employer contributions. Prior to that only commonwealth and state public servants and employees under a small number of industrial awards had any form of superannuation.

I know that in the mid 1980's nurses in NSW public hospitals did not have any form of superannuation unless like myself they took on a private commercial scheme. In the late 1980's but prior to 1992 NSW introduced HASS where there was a employee/employer contribution matching scheme similar to the public service schemes but anyone who changed jobs after 1992 was automatically moved to First State Super, a regular industry super scheme with employer contributions limited to that required under the Super Guarantee.

Diana

Diana, many private sector employers had superannuation schemes before the guarantee levy. Some were voluntary, some compulsory, some highly discriminatory. Banks, insurance companies, major industrial firms, merchants, local govt. were among these. i worked at Australian Gas Light and GM-H whose schemes were compulsory after two years service. Both of these had employer and employee contributions. AGL's was through a life assurance company which included a life policy and it was estimated that 14 years membership was necessary to break even if one resigned from the company and did not retire at 65 or from ill health. This was because an annual premium was deducted from one's contributions and only the balance went into the accumulation fund. At GM-H, if one resigned rather than retired, one's contributions were returned without interest. Another Gas Coy. had a scheme that was for monthly paid salaried staff and entry was "by invitation". Not all were invited. Some fortnightly and weekly paid workers were invited (few). This scheme was highly discriminatory in that religion and other attachments seemed to be a large part of the selection criteria. Generally speaking, private sector unskilled and manual workers did not have access to an employer super scheme.

**Lotz-A-Landies** · 26th May 2011, 04:42 PM

I have to agree with you Brian, it was wrong, very wrong, however at the time you were working at Pagewood it was also the understanding that everyone would be eligible for the old age pension if they didn't have superannuation cover. Many of us, and you are likely in that boat too didn't invest in any form of super for a decade or decades after we started in our working lives. This now means that unless we sacrifice a significant amount of our current salary into super we will be significantly worse off those on the aged or disability pensions when we retire.

**101RRS** · 26th May 2011, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

This now means that unless we sacrifice a significant amount of our current salary into super we will be significantly worse off those on the aged or disability pensions when we retire.

Not so - as you will be able to top up your small super payout with a CentreLink part pension of some sort. You will not ever be worse off than someone on the pension.

Or you can do what a lot of people do who have lump sums - blow it all on something you want to do or buy that Landie and then apply for the pension - all legal.

Garry

**Lotz-A-Landies** · 26th May 2011, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by garrycol

Not so - as you will be able to top up your small super payout with a CentreLink part pension of some sort. You will not ever be worse off than someone on the pension.

Or you can do what a lot of people do who have lump sums - blow it all on something you want to do or buy that Landie and then apply for the pension - all legal.

Garry

Ah no that's not necessarily so either, by the time I retire it's highly likely that my parents will need significant care or have died themselves and then their asset rich, cash poor status will be divided and passed on, making me less asset rich but still not entitled to supplemental income from Centrepoint*

We can't even subdivide and sell some housing blocks, as much of the property is flood plain below the 100 year flood level (Youse Qld'ers wont understand that term - in NSW it's where you can't build in known flood prone areas).

Diana

(* it may as well be Centrepoint - Centrelink will never help out)

**Bigbjorn** · 26th May 2011, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Ah no that's not necessarily so either, by the time I retire it's highly likely that my parents will need significant care or have died themselves and then their asset rich, cash poor status will be divided and passed on, making me less asset rich but still not entitled to supplemental income from Centrepoint*

We can't even subdivide and sell some housing blocks, as much of the property is flood plain below the 100 year flood level (Youse Qld'ers wont understand that term - in NSW it's where you can't build in known flood prone areas).

Diana

(* it may as well be Centrepoint - Centrelink will never help out)

If you look at the Centrelink income and assets tests you will see that you can be quite rich by my standards and still get some age pension. Remember, you are only asset tested if your assets are over a certain $$ and the start point is quite generous. Your principal residence is not an asset for Centrelink purposes.

**Lotz-A-Landies** · 26th May 2011, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

If you look at the Centrelink income and assets tests you will see that you can be quite rich by my standards and still get some age pension. Remember, you are only asset tested if your assets are over a certain $$ and the start point is quite generous. Your principal residence is not an asset for Centrelink purposes.

The principle residence bit does not apply when the principle residence is a farm. It's been an argument of farmers for years. You also don't have to have a very big farm to get over the asset threshold.

If it weren't the case my neice who is a tax accountant would have got my parents the pension years ago.

**Bigbjorn** · 26th May 2011, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

The principle residence bit does not apply when the principle residence is a farm. It's been an argument of farmers for years. You also don't have to have a very big farm to get over the asset threshold.

If it weren't the case my neice who is a tax accountant would have got my parents the pension years ago.

The principal residence and its curtilage are not assets. Curtilage is defined as the land used for domestic purposes to a maximum of 2 hectares. All over this is an asset and rightly so. The idea is for people to use their assets to support themselves. The Commonwealth has always regarded itself as the payer of last resort. The law makers idea was that if you can't sub-divide then sell up and use the proceeds, or borrow against the asset, or rent the asset to someone, a share farmer perhaps.

**101RRS** · 26th May 2011, 08:05 PM

I find all this discussion on pensions really informative and interesting but can you keep in mind the original post and send in the petition.

Thanks

Garry

**Sth65pacific** · 26th May 2011, 08:19 PM

My pension doesn't pay my tax. So its a waste of time I get it. I have complained to the senators that our pension is not fairly indexed. (it)Falls on deaf ears.

Seems my services as a serviceman are not worth anything.

In that case I don't expect to be stepping up to the front line when the chips are down. Send a few politicians up there.

I will be happy enough to apply rule 303 to anyone who crosses my path in the unlikely event that the day the war began!!!

I bought a TV and a caravan from my retirement money. A retired serviceman is worth nothing to a government.

I'll leave my SIIA for the over running hordes. They can struggle with its idiosyncrasies.

All servicemen are classed as just a legacy to the past not insurance of the times or future.

I didn't do 21 years in uniform for nothing

GRRRRRRRR
Ian

**87County** · 26th May 2011, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by garrycol

I find all this discussion on pensions really informative and interesting but can you keep in mind the original post and send in the petition.

Thanks

Garry

Garry, Your petition request is supported

... it is certainly wrong in principal that when a lot (but not all, Brian) of other super is now non-taxable that DFRB (amongst a few other schemes) remains so.

... and maybe Lotsa'landie's initial quip (post #3) should not have been made in this thread but would have been better as a new thread

... what that post did expose was a commonly believed fallacy that needed a reponse in itself

... Brian-h's responses are right - and too many people, including existing pensioners in DFRB and private schemes, do not seem to be aware of the CL safety net and I guess that he & I were trying to tell them that it's there - in fact aged couples similar to those Lotsa'landie refers to are probably eligible for something, even if its just the medical card, unless they are spectacularly wealthy and it will cost nothing to enquire.

I'm beefing on about this because I know that private retirement/investment advisors often have given people wrong info and have cost them heaps and have made heaps out of them - a trustworthy accountant (that's not meant to be an oxymoron

) specialising in super schemes will be able to help them much better if they are capable of handling their own money.

I retired a fair while back and I was able to elect to transfer my (relatively small)DFRB money as a lump sum to my other super fund under what were then new rules - & I'm neither an investment advisor nor an accountant.

Thread: Changes to DFRB and DFRDB Pensions

Thread Tools

DFRDB

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions