Gday .I am aware that we do not get political on this forum so I will be brief and to the point regarding a dispute that has arisen between me [ Westy] and another victorian herein known as Uesless Andrews.In the last week I was officially informed by our Govt that I was no longer a pensioner as of next year.Fair enough sez me , not happy but what the hell !I figure that in 4 yrs time I will be back on board again .Now ...as of today I read that this local fella whom I truly detest since the tunnel bull****e has put his 2 bobs worth in. So now I will lose my rego rebate,my council rebate and whatever else this reprobate in power chooses .Big deal you say .... well try being me and my wife ..its about $300 pr wk and in pension lingo thats a ****eload in total. Before the 2008 crash I would not have given a rats frankly .However since I managed to lose 50% of my super it is now clearly very relevant ! I am not looking for sympathy as clearly. I am not alone ..It just saddens me that what else do they want from us ??Is the matrimoninial home next ? Sadly Yours Westy
brickies said
08:14 PM Dec 21, 2016
Its bad news for you but I am sure plenty on the forum wish they were in your shoes .
aussie_paul said
09:40 PM Dec 21, 2016
IMHO, many of the people who lost heaps of money in stock market were playing the high risk for high return!!! Good if it works for you BUT don't growl when it doesn't.
Aussie Paul.
Bill B said
11:46 PM Dec 21, 2016
I doubt that your pensioner concessions equates to $300 per week ($15,600 per annum)
Aussie said
01:28 AM Dec 22, 2016
moamajohn, you think you have got it tough, stop and think about our Politicians, they stop work and their pension goes till they die, now that is tough.
Desert Dweller said
05:21 AM Dec 22, 2016
The pension is a federal matter, what's it got to do with the Victorian premier? Yes if you lose your commonwealth pension you automatically lose you state concessions.
Where I worked there were two blokes my age going around for years bragging about their high returns in the high risk part of our super scheme. They lost a heap of money in the GFC.
I had mine in the conservative part of the super scheme & a few years later waved goodbye to everyone including the two smart arses. It tasted sweet!
Hewy54 said
07:26 AM Dec 22, 2016
Interesting about the GFC.
Not sure what other funds are like, but in 2008/2009, my balanced fund lost 25%, while the high growth lost 35%.
In the previous 2 years the balanced gained 36% and the high growth gained 45%.
The return averaged over the last 10 years has been 5.2%
Do not see how anyone would have lost 50% unless they were playing with some very high risk stocks.
I feel for people who have had something then have it taken away.
As long as the returns can stay at 5.2% I will miss out on all pensions, but am not upset about it all.
The Belmont Bear said
08:10 AM Dec 22, 2016
Like a lot of other people I probably lost 25% of my super during the GFC but then over the next couple of years was fortunate enough to be at work so I could make up the lost ground. I feel sorry for those retired at the time who lost money but people are normally aware in this stage of their life investing in higher risk areas comes with an element of danger. Keep in mind that the share market is cyclic you don't lose anything (unless a company goes under) until you actually sell your shares. If you can wait long enough for them to regain and even increase in their value - all you really lost over that time was sleep worrying about it. Just my opinion but as I'm not a financial advisor it's probably not worth a great deal.
-- Edited by The Belmont Bear on Thursday 22nd of December 2016 08:12:14 AM
TheHeaths said
08:25 AM Dec 22, 2016
MJ
a game man bringing this type of thing up on the forum. You are on a hiding to nothing and will get very little empathy in this place. As you can see, some even know more about your financial position than you do.
It is unfortunate that this or similar discussions bring out the sort of comment it does, where some get a perverse pleasure from the ill fortune of others. As Hewy said, you didn't have to be in high risk options during the GFC to lose a significant chunk of change. The dollars may have been different for each individual, but the relative %ages would have been very similar, and would have affected people equally in that regard.
What we should ALL be against is the way that a Government of any persuasion is able to change the rules after people have retired, and set in motion plans to fund that retirement. No rules should be retrospective in this regard. Thus, ancillary benefits that are provided when you retire, such as those the Victorian parliament is removing, should stay in force, as they do for the politicians themselves (hence the continued Gold Card, and large superannuation pensions, until we get the parliament populated by "new" system politicians).
I also believe that some benefits, such as Travel Cards, Health Cards and the like should be available and given to ALL. I am of the firm belief that all have contributed to this country, and while the pension should be a safety net, the self funded deserve assistance with the items covered by these benefits. In fact I suggest doing this would not be as expensive as expected, as I am certain there are many who now divest themselves of super to allow them to qualify for the pension to mainly get the benefit of the ancillary items.
Anyway MJ, the short version is I agree with your comment, and I also agree that without major governmental fiscal change, we will reach the position where all assets including the family home are included in the calculations, and then watch the comments fly.
At the current time, I do not expect us to qualify for any pension or benefits when we reach our notional retirement age of 67 in a few years time, and by then I expect the rules to have been updated to further reduce the availability of pensions etc. I can say we are nowhere near millionaires either.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Thursday 22nd of December 2016 08:28:53 AM
Hewy54 said
08:29 AM Dec 22, 2016
TheHeaths wrote:
MJ
a game man bringing this type of thing up on the forum. You are on a hiding to nothing and will get very little empathy in this place. As you can see, some even know more about your financial position than you do.
It is unfortunate that this or similar discussions bring out the sort of comment it does, where some get a perverse pleasure from the ill fortune of others. As Hewy said, you didn't have to be in high risk options during the GFC to lose a significant chunk of change. The dollars may have been different for each individual, but the relative %ages would have been very similar, and would have affected people equally in that regard.
What we should ALL be against is the way that a Government of any persuasion is able to change the rules after people have retired, and set in motion plans to fund that retirement. No rules should be retrospective in this regard. Thus, ancillary benefits that are provided when you retire, such as those the Victorian parliament is removing, should stay in force, as they do for the politicians themselves (hence the continued Gold Card, and large superannuation pensions, until we get the parliament populated by "new" system politicians).
I also believe that some benefits, such as Travel Cards, Health Cards and the like should be available and given to ALL. I am of the firm belief that all have contributed to this country, and while the pension should be a safety net, the self funded deserve assistance with the items covered by these benefits. In fact I suggest doing this would not be as expensive as expected, as I am certain there are many who now divest themselves of super to allow them to qualify for the pension to mainly get the benefit of the ancillary items.
Anyway MJ, the short version is I agree with your comment, and I also agree that without major fiscal change, we will reach the position where all assets are included in the calculations, and then watch the comments fly.
Agree 100%.
It is the retrospective nature of the new changes that are my main gripe.
Mutley said
09:45 AM Dec 22, 2016
TheHeaths wrote:
MJ
a game man bringing this type of thing up on the forum. You are on a hiding to nothing and will get very little empathy in this place. As you can see, some even know more about your financial position than you do.
It is unfortunate that this or similar discussions bring out the sort of comment it does, where some get a perverse pleasure from the ill fortune of others. As Hewy said, you didn't have to be in high risk options during the GFC to lose a significant chunk of change. The dollars may have been different for each individual, but the relative %ages would have been very similar, and would have affected people equally in that regard.
What we should ALL be against is the way that a Government of any persuasion is able to change the rules after people have retired, and set in motion plans to fund that retirement. No rules should be retrospective in this regard. Thus, ancillary benefits that are provided when you retire, such as those the Victorian parliament is removing, should stay in force, as they do for the politicians themselves (hence the continued Gold Card, and large superannuation pensions, until we get the parliament populated by "new" system politicians).
I also believe that some benefits, such as Travel Cards, Health Cards and the like should be available and given to ALL. I am of the firm belief that all have contributed to this country, and while the pension should be a safety net, the self funded deserve assistance with the items covered by these benefits. In fact I suggest doing this would not be as expensive as expected, as I am certain there are many who now divest themselves of super to allow them to qualify for the pension to mainly get the benefit of the ancillary items.
Anyway MJ, the short version is I agree with your comment, and I also agree that without major governmental fiscal change, we will reach the position where all assets including the family home are included in the calculations, and then watch the comments fly.
At the current time, I do not expect us to qualify for any pension or benefits when we reach our notional retirement age of 67 in a few years time, and by then I expect the rules to have been updated to further reduce the availability of pensions etc. I can say we are nowhere near millionaires either.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Thursday 22nd of December 2016 08:28:53 AM
I often read similar comments on forums, but from my viewpoint, the tax we've paid wasn't voluntary, we had no choice in paying it. We earned, so we paid.
I agree that previous generations have contributed, where I disagree is with the "all" comment. The current generation are NOT all paying their way, but through no fault of their own! The young ones with kids are having their tax handed back to them as Family Tax Benefit (I have children in this circumstance) - in what is purely a vote grab from both sides of politics! It is not sustainable. Add paid maternity leave to the mix & you don't have to look far to see why your entitlements have been axed. We (collectively) can't afford both!
Someone has to pay tax for the country to flourish. Our generation & those before us have. The current generation aren't pulling their weight in that regard.
The Belmont Bear said
10:23 AM Dec 22, 2016
I agree with both MJ and Hewy on the fact that it is extremely unfair to continually move the goalposts for retirees and then to make it even worse by making new rules retrospective. Everyone is well aware that the current welfare system is unsustainable and ways have to be found to weigh it in unfortunately at the moment no one wants any of the savings or extra costs to affect them. Your suggestion that everyone should be given welfare cards with the cost being offset by those people who would not divest their savings in order to gain benefits may sound OK but -
It is 100% certain that this would add $$$ to the welfare bill for the government , the suggestion that people would hang onto their savings because they got the benefits is an assumption at best.
With the GFC the reason that members super accounts went down was because the assets including shares that the funds were holding at the time lost value - the higher the risk category that you chose to be in at the time the more that you lost. As asset values recover so does the total funds worth which members then see in their share of the pie. Unless you were already retired or retired straight after the crash you should have been largely able to recover your losses in superannuation. That is why it is important to consider the level of risk that you are exposed to the closer that you are to your retirement age - there may not be enough time left for you to recover your losses if things go pear shape.
I like you Huey retired in July last year at age 59, I am self funded and will not qualify for any government benefits until I'm at least 67 - with sensible living and things going well maybe I never will. I consider my self to be very fortunate to be in this position, I don't want or need government help but I definitely don't begrudge anyone that does. One of the smartest things that I did in my last 5 years of work was to engage a financial advisor who put me on the right track.
bill12 said
10:58 AM Dec 22, 2016
I had a similar experience. I went to pay the rego, and was told by RTA that my concession card had benn cancelled.It would have been nice if centrelink had told me. So round to the local office foe 3 hrs. Seems that I was over the assets limit by $10k. So I had the house revalued , but now I only get a heath card. It would be nice if the govt told me instead of the RTA......
-- Edited by bill12 on Thursday 22nd of December 2016 10:59:00 AM
newhorizons said
10:59 AM Dec 22, 2016
The Heaths said:
"What we should ALL be against is the way that a Government of any persuasion is able to change the rules after people have retired"
Being one of those affected by the changes, this is what upsets me the most. Would I have put away that extra super if I knew I'd be no better off than someone else with a much smaller amount? The answer is no. I would've spent it on a better house and that will be the solution to this injustice for many of us. I could've assisted one of my kids to get into the housing market...now I'm not allowed to. What is also so frustrating is the fact that nobody cares except those 300,000 who were affected. (and nobody will until the rules are changed again and it does affect them)
I understand the need to cut welfare back and would be willing to accept a small cut, but this was not small. Has any other group of Australians been asked to contribute so much to the budget? We have been targeted because we are a small group and not "poverty stricken" and therefore not attracting any attention especially from the press.
As Mutley mentioned (above) the family tax benefit needs to be culled but this will be too politically risky. That is why we have been targeted and that is pretty low down in my books.
Thanks to those above who did show some understanding to someone else who is frustrated.
Diane
aussie_paul said
11:16 AM Dec 22, 2016
Desert Dweller wrote:
The pension is a federal matter, what's it got to do with the Victorian premier? Yes if you lose your commonwealth pension you automatically lose you state concessions.
Where I worked there were two blokes my age going around for years bragging about their high returns in the high risk part of our super scheme. They lost a heap of money in the GFC.
I had mine in the conservative part of the super scheme & a few years later waved goodbye to everyone including the two smart arses. It tasted sweet!
Good for you DD.
Aussie Paul.
PeterD said
02:01 PM Dec 22, 2016
Aussie wrote:
moamajohn, you think you have got it tough, stop and think about our Politicians, they stop work and their pension goes till they die, now that is tough.
Not many of them get a pension. They end up with too much in the way of income and assets after their stint in parliament to get a pension.
They get a superannuation annuity just like anyone else that has paid for one (like public servants and workers in large firms.) When are forum members going to learn the difference?
brickies said
02:36 PM Dec 22, 2016
Lot of people post a lot of miss truths on the forum , Car rego rule has nothing to do with centrelink and the value of your home doesn't count has a assett , Just having a whinge and wanting someone to feel sorry for them .
-- Edited by brickies on Friday 23rd of December 2016 08:13:47 AM
TheHeaths said
07:03 AM Dec 23, 2016
Correct me if I am wrong Brickies, but the family home is excluded from the assets test for the OAP, which is what we are talking about here.
Home owners have an asset limit, excluding the family home, in their calculation, and a non home owner has a higher (although not extra generously higher) figure used for their calculation. I am not aware but it may be taken as an asset for other calculations, but not for the OAP.
As for rego, it has not been claimed by anyone that it is controlled by Centrelink, it has been mentioned by Moamajohn as one of a group of State concessions that are available to OAPer's and that the Victorian Government has taken away from those who are losing their pension under the new changes.
They are not mistruths being posted, and I think you will find neither Moamajohn or any others who have commented on the same side of the argument as he on this post have asked for anyone to feel sorry for them. They are however, entitled to feel aggrieved about the rules they retired on being changed after the event. Moving goalposts makes the game most difficult.
As I said in my first post, unfortunately this topic always brings out a lot of "greedy" "don't deserve it" and "well off" comments and snide remarks directed at anyone who dares to express disappointment or concern at the changing of their benefits in a retrospective sense. And I can only see this becoming worse in the coming years, as cuts are continually made to benefits of others.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Friday 23rd of December 2016 07:07:58 AM
brickies said
08:17 AM Dec 23, 2016
Thanks Ian I have fix my spelling mistake you are right that was the point I was making but stuff up on a spelling mistake
blissonwheels said
09:32 AM Dec 23, 2016
Gooday,
Like many others we do not qualify for any Pension or benefits associated with it, have our own Self Managed Super Fund, fortunately for us we were not attracted by all the Hype prior to the 2008 GFC and survived without the huge losses many suffered.
Sadly, as much as some of them may be very reliable, I have always had an aversion to the so Called Financial Advisors, I can well recall in 2003, I think it was that Occupational Superanutaion was introduced, and overnight arrived this wonderful industry of 'Financial Advisors' emerged, mostly then, from Insurance Sales People morphing into this wonderful name. Hence an amazing opportunity for them to take large amounts from your savings, and your efforts ,with little or risk, this has now become an art form
As for the Politicians rewards, until they are required to accept the same conditions as the normal employee, IE: Super Scheme, same rules as us, 9% of their pay or whatever it currently is provided by the Employer as an excuse for a wage increase originally, I have always felt the employee should have been made to contribute some as well at the time, no Government inflated contributions, when they leave the job no matter long how they have been there, 4 weeks annual leave, no Golden Airline passes and go on the job market like the rest etc, etc.
Let's face it, we as Voters have let all this happen, and it is only People Power, enough of us sticking together before elections to make this change, not just talking about it to your friend or neighbour but cooperate to make change.
Cheers,
moamajohn said
01:05 PM Dec 23, 2016
Hi again .Some folks are suprised that I lost 50% of my super.Well very easy ! my advisor suggested Timbercorp for a long term investment with a 8% return and also lets be conservative and go for a merchant bank for a 6 month trial [Bab**** and Brown ] also 8% .Now in 2008 that was around the bench mark so why not ? Sadly both are now in liquidation.See ! real easy ...hindsight would be wonderful wouldn,t it .Cheers
-- Edited by moamajohn on Friday 23rd of December 2016 01:06:18 PM
montie said
03:30 PM Dec 23, 2016
moamajohn wrote:
Hi again .Some folks are suprised that I lost 50% of my super.Well very easy ! my advisor suggested Timbercorp for a long term investment with a 8% return and also lets be conservative and go for a merchant bank for a 6 month trial [Bab**** and Brown ] also 8% .Now in 2008 that was around the bench mark so why not ? Sadly both are now in liquidation.See ! real easy ...hindsight would be wonderful wouldn,t it .Cheers
-- Edited by moamajohn on Friday 23rd of December 2016 01:06:18 PM
I agree.
Most of the money lost in the GFC was through financial advisors who were "advising" people where to invest their money or were actually doing it for them.
I have a simple plan, if I'm going to lose my money I want to do it myself.
Montie
hako said
07:13 AM Dec 24, 2016
moamajohn wrote:
Hi again .Some folks are suprised that I lost 50% of my super.Well very easy ! my advisor suggested Timbercorp for a long term investment with a 8% return and also lets be conservative and go for a merchant bank for a 6 month trial [Bab**** and Brown ] also 8% .Now in 2008 that was around the bench mark so why not ? Sadly both are now in liquidation.See ! real easy ...hindsight would be wonderful wouldn,t it .Cheers
-- Edited by moamajohn on Friday 23rd of December 2016 01:06:18 PM
Virtually the same as with us and it cost us $70K. We trusted a financial advisor who had as customers most retirees from NORQEB so must be good. He retired shortly after the GFC.
Even with hindsight I really do not think we could have avoided losing $$$ as we were forced by the government to get advice from a financial provider to gain tax advantages.
Good Luck.
The Belmont Bear said
09:47 AM Dec 24, 2016
As I understand it most of the money lost in the GFC was by financial institutions such as Lehman Brothers when the US sub prime mortgage bubble burst. This caused stock markets around the world to lose value and to become very volatile.
Countless millions of people lost money in the fallout even the most cautious and probably best researched investors i.e. the superannuation funds. It's a bit hard on the financial advisors to blame them entirely for the losses associated with the GFC. You could point the finger at them if they had never warned you of the risks involved when investing in the stock market or if they had been using your money without advising you where they had been putting it. I don't doubt that there are some unscrupulous financial advisors around but that doesn't mean that everyone in the industry can't be trusted. At the end of the day these people are only advisors you still need to make the final call on whether to follow that advice or to do something differently - it's your money.
Tony Bev said
11:12 AM Dec 24, 2016
To the original poster
No disrespect intended
As a way of EXplaining, and not COMplaining, may I just say, welcome to the Baby Boomers club, where we never expect very much from governments, so we were never really disappointed
The government of the United Kingdom Were not ready for us when we were born (no room in the hospital, so I was born at home) Were not ready for us when we started school (crammed into the classroom) Were not ready for us, when we were ready to go into the employment playground, (not enough jobs)
The government of Australia Were not ready for us when we retired, (running out of money for us, and now the dreaded letter)
I always try to look on the bright side If the government is not ready for us, when it is our time to die, they may just do the right thing, and not allow us to die
I have never received a pension, as I received a lump sum payout at 65 (due to an accident 4 years earlier) The government claimed that I had enough to last me until 2022, so I still have to budget for another 5 years
My wife received $23 and a few cents each fortnight; she has received the dreaded letter, and will lose this entitlement on January 1 Once again I look on the bright side, we are both still alive, reasonably healthy, and we will manage
Tongue in cheek I became use to being a kept man, (living off the wife's earnings)
brickies said
11:29 AM Dec 24, 2016
Well we are very lucky people , We din't get a letter we are on a full pension and have money in a super fund just under the limit and receive an allocated pension and have an combind income of $50000 a year and can afford to stay in caravan park when ever we want , We live well and are very happy with life come and join us and you may find life is great and money is not God .
Lancelot Link said
12:37 AM Dec 25, 2016
Gee, I could get into a lot of trouble here if I voiced my opinion. Not here for a long time but here for a good time, the will has been made, but they aren't going to get a lot because I don't expect there will be much left. I have no intent to stand for Parliament, but sounds like there are a lot of good ideas out there. Oh for the old days when you could buy fresh crayfish of a boat and cook it the way you wanted instead of buying frozen seconds imported from interstate already cooked while the prime stuff goes overseas. I guess the Global Economy says it all! Go of the grid and barter!
Gday .I am aware that we do not get political on this forum so I will be brief and to the point regarding a dispute that has arisen between me [ Westy] and another victorian herein known as Uesless Andrews.In the last week I was officially informed by our Govt that I was no longer a pensioner as of next year.Fair enough sez me , not happy but what the hell !I figure that in 4 yrs time I will be back on board again .Now ...as of today I read that this local fella whom I truly detest since the tunnel bull****e has put his 2 bobs worth in. So now I will lose my rego rebate,my council rebate and whatever else this reprobate in power chooses .Big deal you say .... well try being me and my wife ..its about $300 pr wk and in pension lingo thats a ****eload in total. Before the 2008 crash I would not have given a rats frankly .However since I managed to lose 50% of my super it is now clearly very relevant ! I am not looking for sympathy as clearly. I am not alone ..It just saddens me that what else do they want from us ??Is the matrimoninial home next ? Sadly Yours Westy
IMHO, many of the people who lost heaps of money in stock market were playing the high risk for high return!!! Good if it works for you BUT don't growl when it doesn't.
Aussie Paul.
moamajohn, you think you have got it tough, stop and think about our Politicians, they stop work and their pension goes till they die, now that is tough.
The pension is a federal matter, what's it got to do with the Victorian premier? Yes if you lose your commonwealth pension you automatically lose you state concessions.
Where I worked there were two blokes my age going around for years bragging about their high returns in the high risk part of our super scheme. They lost a heap of money in the GFC.
I had mine in the conservative part of the super scheme & a few years later waved goodbye to everyone including the two smart arses. It tasted sweet!
Not sure what other funds are like, but in 2008/2009, my balanced fund lost 25%, while the high growth lost 35%.
In the previous 2 years the balanced gained 36% and the high growth gained 45%.
The return averaged over the last 10 years has been 5.2%
Do not see how anyone would have lost 50% unless they were playing with some very high risk stocks.
I feel for people who have had something then have it taken away.
As long as the returns can stay at 5.2% I will miss out on all pensions, but am not upset about it all.
Like a lot of other people I probably lost 25% of my super during the GFC but then over the next couple of years was fortunate enough to be at work so I could make up the lost ground. I feel sorry for those retired at the time who lost money but people are normally aware in this stage of their life investing in higher risk areas comes with an element of danger. Keep in mind that the share market is cyclic you don't lose anything (unless a company goes under) until you actually sell your shares. If you can wait long enough for them to regain and even increase in their value - all you really lost over that time was sleep worrying about it. Just my opinion but as I'm not a financial advisor it's probably not worth a great deal.
-- Edited by The Belmont Bear on Thursday 22nd of December 2016 08:12:14 AM
MJ
a game man bringing this type of thing up on the forum. You are on a hiding to nothing and will get very little empathy in this place. As you can see, some even know more about your financial position than you do.
It is unfortunate that this or similar discussions bring out the sort of comment it does, where some get a perverse pleasure from the ill fortune of others. As Hewy said, you didn't have to be in high risk options during the GFC to lose a significant chunk of change. The dollars may have been different for each individual, but the relative %ages would have been very similar, and would have affected people equally in that regard.
What we should ALL be against is the way that a Government of any persuasion is able to change the rules after people have retired, and set in motion plans to fund that retirement. No rules should be retrospective in this regard. Thus, ancillary benefits that are provided when you retire, such as those the Victorian parliament is removing, should stay in force, as they do for the politicians themselves (hence the continued Gold Card, and large superannuation pensions, until we get the parliament populated by "new" system politicians).
I also believe that some benefits, such as Travel Cards, Health Cards and the like should be available and given to ALL. I am of the firm belief that all have contributed to this country, and while the pension should be a safety net, the self funded deserve assistance with the items covered by these benefits. In fact I suggest doing this would not be as expensive as expected, as I am certain there are many who now divest themselves of super to allow them to qualify for the pension to mainly get the benefit of the ancillary items.
Anyway MJ, the short version is I agree with your comment, and I also agree that without major governmental fiscal change, we will reach the position where all assets including the family home are included in the calculations, and then watch the comments fly.
At the current time, I do not expect us to qualify for any pension or benefits when we reach our notional retirement age of 67 in a few years time, and by then I expect the rules to have been updated to further reduce the availability of pensions etc. I can say we are nowhere near millionaires either.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Thursday 22nd of December 2016 08:28:53 AM
Agree 100%.
It is the retrospective nature of the new changes that are my main gripe.
I often read similar comments on forums, but from my viewpoint, the tax we've paid wasn't voluntary, we had no choice in paying it. We earned, so we paid.
I agree that previous generations have contributed, where I disagree is with the "all" comment. The current generation are NOT all paying their way, but through no fault of their own! The young ones with kids are having their tax handed back to them as Family Tax Benefit (I have children in this circumstance) - in what is purely a vote grab from both sides of politics! It is not sustainable. Add paid maternity leave to the mix & you don't have to look far to see why your entitlements have been axed. We (collectively) can't afford both!
Someone has to pay tax for the country to flourish. Our generation & those before us have. The current generation aren't pulling their weight in that regard.
It is 100% certain that this would add $$$ to the welfare bill for the government , the suggestion that people would hang onto their savings because they got the benefits is an assumption at best.
With the GFC the reason that members super accounts went down was because the assets including shares that the funds were holding at the time lost value - the higher the risk category that you chose to be in at the time the more that you lost. As asset values recover so does the total funds worth which members then see in their share of the pie. Unless you were already retired or retired straight after the crash you should have been largely able to recover your losses in superannuation. That is why it is important to consider the level of risk that you are exposed to the closer that you are to your retirement age - there may not be enough time left for you to recover your losses if things go pear shape.
I like you Huey retired in July last year at age 59, I am self funded and will not qualify for any government benefits until I'm at least 67 - with sensible living and things going well maybe I never will. I consider my self to be very fortunate to be in this position, I don't want or need government help but I definitely don't begrudge anyone that does. One of the smartest things that I did in my last 5 years of work was to engage a financial advisor who put me on the right track.
I had a similar experience. I went to pay the rego, and was told by RTA that my concession card had benn cancelled.It would have been nice if centrelink had told me. So round to the local office foe 3 hrs. Seems that I was over the assets limit by $10k. So I had the house revalued , but now I only get a heath card. It would be nice if the govt told me instead of the RTA......
-- Edited by bill12 on Thursday 22nd of December 2016 10:59:00 AM
"What we should ALL be against is the way that a Government of any persuasion is able to change the rules after people have retired"
Being one of those affected by the changes, this is what upsets me the most. Would I have put away that extra super if I knew I'd be no better off than someone else with a much smaller amount? The answer is no. I would've spent it on a better house and that will be the solution to this injustice for many of us. I could've assisted one of my kids to get into the housing market...now I'm not allowed to. What is also so frustrating is the fact that nobody cares except those 300,000 who were affected. (and nobody will until the rules are changed again and it does affect them)
I understand the need to cut welfare back and would be willing to accept a small cut, but this was not small. Has any other group of Australians been asked to contribute so much to the budget? We have been targeted because we are a small group and not "poverty stricken" and therefore not attracting any attention especially from the press.
As Mutley mentioned (above) the family tax benefit needs to be culled but this will be too politically risky. That is why we have been targeted and that is pretty low down in my books.
Thanks to those above who did show some understanding to someone else who is frustrated.
Diane
Good for you DD.
Aussie Paul.
Not many of them get a pension. They end up with too much in the way of income and assets after their stint in parliament to get a pension.
They get a superannuation annuity just like anyone else that has paid for one (like public servants and workers in large firms.) When are forum members going to learn the difference?
Lot of people post a lot of miss truths on the forum , Car rego rule has nothing to do with centrelink and the value of your home doesn't count has a assett , Just having a whinge and wanting someone to feel sorry for them .
-- Edited by brickies on Friday 23rd of December 2016 08:13:47 AM
Correct me if I am wrong Brickies, but the family home is excluded from the assets test for the OAP, which is what we are talking about here.
Home owners have an asset limit, excluding the family home, in their calculation, and a non home owner has a higher (although not extra generously higher) figure used for their calculation. I am not aware but it may be taken as an asset for other calculations, but not for the OAP.
As for rego, it has not been claimed by anyone that it is controlled by Centrelink, it has been mentioned by Moamajohn as one of a group of State concessions that are available to OAPer's and that the Victorian Government has taken away from those who are losing their pension under the new changes.
They are not mistruths being posted, and I think you will find neither Moamajohn or any others who have commented on the same side of the argument as he on this post have asked for anyone to feel sorry for them. They are however, entitled to feel aggrieved about the rules they retired on being changed after the event. Moving goalposts makes the game most difficult.
As I said in my first post, unfortunately this topic always brings out a lot of "greedy" "don't deserve it" and "well off" comments and snide remarks directed at anyone who dares to express disappointment or concern at the changing of their benefits in a retrospective sense. And I can only see this becoming worse in the coming years, as cuts are continually made to benefits of others.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Friday 23rd of December 2016 07:07:58 AM
Gooday,
Like many others we do not qualify for any Pension or benefits associated with it, have our own Self Managed Super Fund, fortunately for us we were not attracted by all the Hype prior to the 2008 GFC and survived without the huge losses many suffered.
Sadly, as much as some of them may be very reliable, I have always had an aversion to the so Called Financial Advisors, I can well recall in 2003, I think it was that Occupational Superanutaion was introduced, and overnight arrived this wonderful industry of 'Financial Advisors' emerged, mostly then, from Insurance Sales People morphing into this wonderful name. Hence an amazing opportunity for them to take large amounts from your savings, and your efforts ,with little or risk, this has now become an art form
As for the Politicians rewards, until they are required to accept the same conditions as the normal employee, IE: Super Scheme, same rules as us, 9% of their pay or whatever it currently is provided by the Employer as an excuse for a wage increase originally, I have always felt the employee should have been made to contribute some as well at the time, no Government inflated contributions, when they leave the job no matter long how they have been there, 4 weeks annual leave, no Golden Airline passes and go on the job market like the rest etc, etc.
Let's face it, we as Voters have let all this happen, and it is only People Power, enough of us sticking together before elections to make this change, not just talking about it to your friend or neighbour but cooperate to make change.
Cheers,
Hi again .Some folks are suprised that I lost 50% of my super.Well very easy ! my advisor suggested Timbercorp for a long term investment with a 8% return and also lets be conservative and go for a merchant bank for a 6 month trial [Bab**** and Brown ] also 8% .Now in 2008 that was around the bench mark so why not ? Sadly both are now in liquidation.See ! real easy ...hindsight would be wonderful wouldn,t it .Cheers
-- Edited by moamajohn on Friday 23rd of December 2016 01:06:18 PM
I agree.
Most of the money lost in the GFC was through financial advisors who were "advising" people where to invest their money or were actually doing it for them.
I have a simple plan, if I'm going to lose my money I want to do it myself.
Montie
Virtually the same as with us and it cost us $70K. We trusted a financial advisor who had as customers most retirees from NORQEB so must be good. He retired shortly after the GFC.
Even with hindsight I really do not think we could have avoided losing $$$ as we were forced by the government to get advice from a financial provider to gain tax advantages.
Good Luck.
As I understand it most of the money lost in the GFC was by financial institutions such as Lehman Brothers when the US sub prime mortgage bubble burst. This caused stock markets around the world to lose value and to become very volatile.
Countless millions of people lost money in the fallout even the most cautious and probably best researched investors i.e. the superannuation funds. It's a bit hard on the financial advisors to blame them entirely for the losses associated with the GFC. You could point the finger at them if they had never warned you of the risks involved when investing in the stock market or if they had been using your money without advising you where they had been putting it. I don't doubt that there are some unscrupulous financial advisors around but that doesn't mean that everyone in the industry can't be trusted. At the end of the day these people are only advisors you still need to make the final call on whether to follow that advice or to do something differently - it's your money.
To the original poster
No disrespect intended
As a way of EXplaining, and not COMplaining, may I just say, welcome to the Baby Boomers club, where we never expect very much from governments, so we were never really disappointed
The government of the United Kingdom
Were not ready for us when we were born (no room in the hospital, so I was born at home)
Were not ready for us when we started school (crammed into the classroom)
Were not ready for us, when we were ready to go into the employment playground, (not enough jobs)
The government of Australia
Were not ready for us when we retired, (running out of money for us, and now the dreaded letter)
I always try to look on the bright side
If the government is not ready for us, when it is our time to die, they may just do the right thing, and not allow us to die
I have never received a pension, as I received a lump sum payout at 65 (due to an accident 4 years earlier)
The government claimed that I had enough to last me until 2022, so I still have to budget for another 5 years
My wife received $23 and a few cents each fortnight; she has received the dreaded letter, and will lose this entitlement on January 1
Once again I look on the bright side, we are both still alive, reasonably healthy, and we will manage
Tongue in cheek
I became use to being a kept man, (living off the wife's earnings)
Merry Christmas.
My heartfelt agreement.