Thread: Age Pension

Originally Posted by Bigbjorn

If your principal residence is greater than 2 hectares then the area not used for domestic purposes is an asset. Any other real estate is wholly an asset. Perhaps this is the cause of the delay. An assessor is waiting for a valuer's report.

Our place/residence is 222 Sqr Mtrs over the 2 hectares and was discounted as being an asset by Centrelink as we cant sub divide . .

Originally Posted by Pedro_The_Swift

Just to get some perspective,,

How long since you worked in that arena Bigbjorn ?

I'm on Bigbjorn's side here.
When we approached them, the frontline staff were more than helpful and offered advice on some things that we were unaware of.

The Centrelink assets and financial advisor, who we had a long meeting with, went through each and every scenario possible. Exactly the same routine as my independent advisor had done. No sleight of hand, misinformation or skulduggery involved and really, why would she have any reason to? It's not as though the monies are coming out of her pocket!

Basically, our issue is that Helen is several years younger than I and still working. Also, our assets, accumulated over the years, play a large part in the matter.

Anyway, life goes on, hey!

With the 222m² excess over the 5 acres, they may have a ± factor in there, as our place is not subdividable either.

Originally Posted by Saitch

I'm on Bigbjorn's side here.
When we approached them, the frontline staff were more than helpful and offered advice on some things that we were unaware of.

The Centrelink assets and financial advisor, who we had a long meeting with, went through each and every scenario possible. Exactly the same routine as my independent advisor had done. No sleight of hand, misinformation or skulduggery involved and really, why would she have any reason to? It's not as though the monies are coming out of her pocket!

Basically, our issue is that Helen is several years younger than I and still working. Also, our assets, accumulated over the years, play a large part in the matter.

Anyway, life goes on, hey!


With the 222m² excess over the 5 acres, they may have a ± factor in there, as our place is not subdividable either.

Hah! Exposed! Are you a cradle snatcher with a child bride or an old codger with a young trophy wife?

The concept of "Duty of Care" was introduced when I had been working there a few months. Prior to that if a person claimed Benefit XXX and were not eligible then the assessor simply told them "No". If they asked were they eligible for any payment then the procedure was to hand them a list of payments made by the Dept. and invite them to select one and apply. With Duty of Care the assessor is supposed to question the client and suggest you may be eligible for XYZ and help them to apply.

Land assets may be disregarded if the land is or has been your principal residence. There are conditions attached to this concept, ifs, buts, and maybes. Never your principal residence? Then it is an asset.

People tend to forget, if they ever knew, that the principle of Federal welfare payments is that the Commonwealth is the payer of last resort and the citizen should use their own resources before sticking their hand out for a welfare payment. The preamble to the original Age Pension legislation makes this abundantly clear. It stated that the payment is for those by reason of misfortune or disability are unable to fully provide for themselves in their old age. Not the deliberate use of the words "fully provide". The pension was only meant to be a helping hand to the unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Bigbjorn

Hah! Exposed! Are you a cradle snatcher with a child bride or an old codger with a young trophy wife?

The concept of "Duty of Care" was introduced when I had been working there a few months. Prior to that if a person claimed Benefit XXX and were not eligible then the assessor simply told them "No". If they asked were they eligible for any payment then the procedure was to hand them a list of payments made by the Dept. and invite them to select one and apply. With Duty of Care the assessor is supposed to question the client and suggest you may be eligible for XYZ and help them to apply.

Land assets may be disregarded if the land is or has been your principal residence. There are conditions attached to this concept, ifs, buts, and maybes. Never your principal residence? Then it is an asset.

People tend to forget, if they ever knew, that the principle of Federal welfare payments is that the Commonwealth is the payer of last resort and the citizen should use their own resources before sticking their hand out for a welfare payment. The preamble to the original Age Pension legislation makes this abundantly clear. It stated that the payment is for those by reason of misfortune or disability are unable to fully provide for themselves in their old age. Not the deliberate use of the words "fully provide". The pension was only meant to be a helping hand to the unfortunate.

As far as i understand the pension was ok,d by the new fed Gov in 1901and exacted in 1908 , and was revamped in 1946 by Chifley/Curtin Gov.s as a national pension Scheme funded by a 7.5% tax levy called the social services contribution, paid into the National Welfare Fund to align with other European Countries systems of Aged Pension,s . Since then which anyone can Google a succession of Gov,s ****ed with the system until the current sad state of affaires is arrived at , don't forget the 7.5% is still in the TAX system disguised as general revenue .

Originally Posted by Bigbjorn

Hah! Exposed! Are you a cradle snatcher with a child bride or an old codger with a young trophy wife?

My Dear Sir, I'll have you know that my dear wife preferred a sensible, mature, erudite gentleman as a spouse rather than any of the riff raff of her own age.

Then I stand corrected....
My understanding was with the 7 percentage points extra tax, each and every tax-payer was contributing for their age-pension, and as such, were entitled to said monies - should they live so long.
This fund was supposed to be quarantined from the rapaciousness of future politicians, and it enjoyed some untouced / hidden decades while it grew fat and healthy....
But alas, it was discovered, snouts went in and the squandering began. The rest is expected history.

The last few governments have realized the problem...... hence the lack of Pension $ increases, "Means Tests" and now shifting the goal-posts (pension ages) for eligibility. .

Basically, the money is gone, wasted, and "they" don't want to pay any pensioner, better if we all expired.

Silly thing is, allowing us to earn - and KEEP - a bit extra, money is inevitably injected back into the Economy. Likewise a rise [never happen !] would allow us to do things like.... get our gutters fixed, cars repaired, lawns & gardens maintained, etc etc, all of which would flow back to Canberra's Coffers via Small Business. As in, 'Small, local, employing a small staff perhaps, and paying their way in Tax & GST, and not the big international corporations for whom 'tax' is optional.

And, for comparison how generous are State and Federal Parliamentary Pensions ?- NO means test.... tax free, plus perks.

Originally Posted by Fatso

As far as i understand the pension was ok,d by the new fed Gov in 1901and exacted in 1908 , and was revamped in 1946 by Chifley/Curtin Gov.s as a national pension Scheme funded by a 7.5% tax levy called the social services contribution, paid into the National Welfare Fund to align with other European Countries systems of Aged Pension,s . Since then which anyone can Google a succession of Gov,s ****ed with the system until the current sad state of affaires is arrived at , don't forget the 7.5% is still in the TAX system disguised as general revenue .

Those old enough will remember that your annual tax return was called Return of Income Tax and Social Services Contributions. The contributions were supposed to accumulate in a fund to help pay future pension liabilities. A Govt. (I can't remember which one) decided they could snavel these and use them right now for other purposes (probably to get re-elected) and pay pensions from annual revenues. A bit later on another govt. thought "that worked well" and did the same with the govt. contributions to the public service superannuation funds. Took it, spent it, and never paid any more in but are paying super. from annual revenues. Govt. doesn't pay anything into public service super only a "nominal" sum which "entitlement" is used to calculate a super. pension. Public servants do not get anything out of their super. funds other than the annual pension. The only lump sum they get is the return of their own contributions + interest.

Originally Posted by superquag

Then I stand corrected....
My understanding was with the 7 percentage points extra tax, each and every tax-payer was contributing for their age-pension, and as such, were entitled to said monies - should they live so long.
This fund was supposed to be quarantined from the rapaciousness of future politicians, and it enjoyed some untouced / hidden decades while it grew fat and healthy....
But alas, it was discovered, snouts went in and the squandering began. The rest is expected history.

The last few governments have realized the problem...... hence the lack of Pension $ increases, "Means Tests" and now shifting the goal-posts (pension ages) for eligibility. .

Basically, the money is gone, wasted, and "they" don't want to pay any pensioner, better if we all expired.

Silly thing is, allowing us to earn - and KEEP - a bit extra, money is inevitably injected back into the Economy. Likewise a rise [never happen !] would allow us to do things like.... get our gutters fixed, cars repaired, lawns & gardens maintained, etc etc, all of which would flow back to Canberra's Coffers via Small Business. As in, 'Small, local, employing a small staff perhaps, and paying their way in Tax & GST, and not the big international corporations for whom 'tax' is optional.

And, for comparison how generous are State and Federal Parliamentary Pensions ?- NO means test.... tax free, plus perks.

People were entitled to the pension from the national welfare fund , it was not tax payer funded . But............ , i could name names but would get the att of the Mods Ha , but sufice to say as Bigjohn said , they were later Pollies prob around the 60/70/80s who decided to improve things shall we say .