You cannot spend a house, and single front shacks can cost a million dollars in many places today. And, paying the pension to a mere quarter of a million people who live in houses worth a million or more is chicken feed compared to what governments spend on climate change and renewable energy fraud, not to mention corporate welfare.

The current government, hardly a great manager of the economy, has decided to go after pensioners again. After all, they haven't put the boot into pensioners since the multi millionaire Malcolm Turnbull was Prime Minister, and the current secretive, big bucks, PM was treasurer.

"... creating an incentive to generate additional cash … ". Well, that ignorance could come only from someone relatively fit and young who has fallen for the crap that age is only a number.

Young people hate old people Politicians hate old people. I watched two demented, screeching thirty-something-females last night, carrying on about the burden old pensioners are to them. One of the harpies complained that she couldn't afford it: she was behind in her mortgage payments. She and her whining generation need to learn how to organise their own finances, not blame a generation or two who could do so, and well before superannuation existed.

Risible rubbish. This man had his fortune handed to him! From a hard-nosed and indifferent media mogul who like all of his ilk, relied absolutely on the endeavour and enterprise of others and able to use and throw away humans who were past an arbitrary use by date!

The pension is not and never ever was an entitlement! It was conceived to support the most impoverished in the twilight of life And when first envisaged and kicking ina t 65, the average life span of the Australian male was 63.

Rather than support people who throw millions away, the family mansion needs to be included in the assets test. Given it is and folks living in homes worth more than a million, may need to downsize!

That someone as diabolically disingenuous could even conceive of a millionaire so arranging his financial affairs so as to claim support designed for folk in poverty through no fault of their own, speaks volumes about a demented deranged mindset?

And in good company in almost any Australian privileges personified Parliament! And possibly explains why we went from the third wealthiest nation and a creditor one at that, to one hopelessly mired in record and exponentially expanding foreign debt, as well as, record domestic debt coupled to hopelessly unaffordable housing as the real parasites, drones and leaners have wrecked what was once a fair and equitable society, that gave everyone a fair dinkum, fair go!

David, if you see an ugly demented face glaring back at you from the mirror? Don't blame the mirror!
Alan B.

A politicians refrain: "where the votes are, someone waits for me".

Means testing pensions will not win the votes of the influential.

What this situation highlights re the article, is the compromised position politicians operate from.
It's the exact same problem applicable to the Chinese influence over politicians and their decision making.
It's the exact same problem applicable to a social disaster of a housing market geared for profit alone, which removes the societal necessity from the equation, of housing the population as a priority, replaced by capitalising on people's need of a roof over their head to achieve it.
The compromised personal positions of politicians is actually the extreme pain of the general population.

The game a pension is to the wealthy, is actually a critical necessity to those without the means of self support, drawn increasingly from the numbers unable to enter the property market under its current structure, (notably the younger generations, re post above ttbn), forced to pay huge slabs of their pension in rent.

There is absolutly no sign on the horizon, any political compromising will change under the current status quo.

Dan

Alan B.

I'm amused how often I find myself on the same page as yourself.

An easily achieved research into the Dublin inner city tenement slums, which existed from the late eighteenth century and right through to the late twentieth cenruary, was entirely due to decision making of compromised politicians who like our modern day Australian equivalents, as it turned out, actually owned the vast majority of them, and used the proceeds of the plunder of desperate in their community, to support their own pensions.
Nothing changed under those conditions of ownership, until the ramshackle buildings began to spontaneously collapse from neglect, killing many of the poor residents.
We are always ruled by arseholes!

Dan

"The thought of the government taxing the family home after it has already messed endlessly with your super, and is now trying to make you work into your seventies, is beyond galling ….. " (Paul Collits, Quadrant Online 21/11/19).

Collits points out that people over sixty, perhaps even over fifty, can’t get jobs.

He also indicates that if the government short of money for pensions, it should take a hard look at the money they are wasting on 'such hare-brained schemes as “climate action”, renewable energy, make-work universities, subsidised child care and endlessly upgraded infrastructure to support the hordes of migrants that we never consented to receive.'

Made some good points David however I would be very interested in how much you get from the public purse as an ex pollie? What is the value of your house? Or are you just like the warmist who expect everyone else to sacrifice while being a 'parasite' on the system. Or do pollie pensions fall from trees.

Good one,runner.

So why did Dave Leyonhjelm write this article?

Dave doesn't tell us why. Dave doesn't provide links or citations to verify any evidence.

Did the Packers put him up to it?

If its to restore Dave's political career then shouldn't we know if the Packers share Dave's Party's continuing post-Christchurch views on guns http://www.ldp.org.au/firearms ?

"It is simply immoral for taxpayers who don't even own a house to be funding the pensions of those who could be living in a $60 million house."

No, there is nothing immoral about funding others' pensions - it is only immoral to accept a pension that was, fully or partially, taken from others against their will.

Let everyone be eligible, unconditionally, but let those who have a minimal sense of morality refuse to take that pension to which they are "eligible".

Perhaps the way forward is to require those in receipt of a pension to wear a recognisable article of dress, a particular hood or something, then anyone who has no shame ought to be able to take a pension, two hoods if s/he want it double.

We can't seriously call those who limit their taxes to the absolute limit as Pension entitled !

"As a nation, we need to effectively leverage the three P's - population, participation and productivity - to meet this challenge,
Says Josh Frydenberg,
What about the fourth P (Politicians) ?

Yuyutsu,it is no less immoral to expect those who skimped & saved for most of their working life to pay for a house that gives them their security in old age, to now have to pay to house those who spent like drunken sailors all their working lives, only to complain of hardship after retirement.

There is plenty of cheap rent available in country towns. It may not be the preferred location for many old renters, but as the old saying goes, beggars can't be choosers.

If they wanted to live in a capital city in retirement they should have made provision for that in their working lives.

Dear Hasbeen,

I understand your sentiment, but we need to be very precise when dealing with moral issues:

It is immoral to:

1. Steal.
2. Rob others, using force or threat of force.
Therefore:
3. Tax others compulsorily (regardless of what is done with the proceeds or whom they are given to).
4. Support a state/government that taxes others compulsorily.
5. Be in receipt of proceeds from compulsory taxation.

There is however nothing particularly immoral about:

1. Having your hard-earned money stolen.
2. Having your hard-earned money robbed away.
3. Being subject to taxation.
4. Taxation itself, so long as it is not compulsory.

I do actually consider taxation (within reason and for good causes such as helping those that are financially less fortunate) to be a positive thing, so long as it is not compulsory.

helping those that are financially less fortunate) to be a positive thing, so long as it is not compulsory.
Yuyutsu,
There are some big gaps with plenty of room for serious questions between your words. One of the most serious is, why are some people less financially fortunate than others ?
I have neighbours who literally never worked yet they receive $300 more in pension than those who worked for 50 + years. Then, I know people who exploited negative gearing to the fullest & still get a pension. I know people who have very little because of Authorities meddling in their affairs & people who are victims of crime.
Unless we can bring some, even just half an ounce of integrity to the Public Service, the situation simply cannot improve.
We certainly need to help everyone in need but their situation for being in the situation to need help needs looking into rather than just that insidious one size fits all mentality.
Those who simply pi$$ed their wages up against the wall should not receive the same amount than those who had the discipline to work towards retirement & the Govt needs to stop persecuting the latter for it.

Yeah well If the state can't keep you in old age or illness the it has no place telling you how to live and earn the rest of the time.

jamo,
Well, many voters will agree with you but won't do anything about it at election time !

Dear Individual,

«I have neighbours who literally never worked yet they receive $300 more in pension than those who worked for 50 + years.»

... So many assumptions ...

That giving away money is a bad thing.
That receiving money in pension is a good thing.
That work (in the sense of employment) is contributing to others.

What a culture!

Half of those who currently "work", would do us all a favour if they stayed put at home and do no harm. Giving them an unconditional survival-pension is therefore a great investment: would you rather have them steal to survive?

«Unless we can bring some, even just half an ounce of integrity to the Public Service»

They are included in the above. Why, they currently get a big salary to oppress us and strangulate us with their regulations, of which they ever need more in order to justify their job - give them a liveable pension instead to stay home and do us no harm!

«We certainly need to help everyone in need but their situation for being in the situation to need help needs looking into»

Of course, but it is for them to look into it, not for us, because it is their integrity which is at stake, not ours! There is no way anyone can help to uplift the moral integrity of others - this is one thing that everyone can only do for themselves.

«Those who simply pi$$ed their wages up against the wall should not receive the same amount than those who had the discipline to work towards retirement»

Correct. But it is for them to become ashamed and refuse to receive the pension, it is not for us to judge.

«the Govt needs to stop persecuting the latter for it.»

If we feel persecuted, then the best for us is to look within and ask ourselves what we did to deserve so. There is nothing we can do about government: predators have always been part of nature, but there is much we can do in order to be at peace despite them all.

Yuyutsu,
Are you for real ??

Perhaps those people with shelters worth more than a million should be assessed as paying rent of say 2.5 percent per annum to be recouped from their estate when they die. Assuming they live for 20 years after retirement at age 70, that would still leave their airs 50 percent of the value of the property.
David

VK3AUU, why should those who have bought & paid for their homes with after tax money, [after paying to support the then current pensioners, & the increasing host of bludgers of today], have to pay "rent" to live in that house.

They are already paying ridiculously high rates to local government, & maintenance on private homes is not cheap. I would say it costs me at least 50% of what I could rent my home out for, to live in it.

We all make our bed during our lives. Those who chose not to accumulate wealth when they could, have have no right to claim others should make up for their own lack of wealth building in their later life.

When wealth is accumulated by way of negative gearing then no pension should be paid until that wealth is used up.

Judging by the number of replies to this topic is a clear indicator of the opportunist & entitlement mentality here !

What is this bee in your bonnet about negative gearing individual? All business can legitimately deduct the cost of borrowing from their net income, before paying tax on the remainder which is profit.

Paying interest on borrowings is a legitimate cost of business. With out this, there would be no mining in this country, where interest on borrowings to build the mine is a major cost of that business.

If you think seriously, negative gearing is actually a subsidy of renters. With out it there would be many less houses available to rent, & the rents required would be greatly increased.

hasbeen,
Negative gearing is nothing but welfare for business people ! The rorts that this system is open to is nothing short of criminal ! Businesses are deliberately run at a loss to avoid paying tax. Businesses can go bankrupt yet the managers can still enjoy the money they didn't have to pay in tax. Managers can actually plan for a business to go bankrupt & still enjoy the money they didn't pay the people they owed. Writing of luxury car leases, writing off fuel for pleasure craft, writing off literally everything not business related the normal wage earner is not allowed to do. It's costing jobs, it's causing unaffordable rentals. That's my beef with NG !

did not rent increase quickly last time Labour cut out negative gearing?Personally I brought a unit about 20 years ago. I get 250 a week for it. By the time I pay an agent, water rates and repayments I wonder if it was ever worth. Twice it has been trashed by tenants needing to be repainted, new carpets etc. Probably would of been much better putting money in the bank with much less stress and hassle.

runner,
When such changes are made you can not realistically expect instant overall improvement.
Had they continued to cut back NG over time so the market can adjust, all would by now be way better. To make such changes requires a transition period for everything else to fall into place.
Flat tax is the only fair way to go. By all means have a flat tax rate for business & one for wage earners but get rid of NG. A flat rate can't be manipulated !

Our Vision !
To reduce gun-related incidents, injuries and deaths, so that Australians can live without fear of gun violence.
Paul1405,
You should really ask your dope smoking Drug abusing mates to curb their drug related violence so that Australians can live without fear of gun & other violence !
They're the ones making up 95% of crime !

'A generation of parasites'

reminds me of some other news I read today

http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-bolivia-lithium-deal-no-more/5695530

"A day after Evo Morales left Bolivia, the opposition, led by the self-proclaimed neofascist, racist President, Jeanine Añez, ransacked and looted the Central Bank of its gold and large amounts of cash reserves. The loot was seen to be transported to the airport to be flown out of the country, presumably to the US. Madame Añez said she needed the money to buy weapons, of course, from America to keep oppressing and killing the indigenous protesters."

How dare these 'indigenous protesters' not roll over and accept the US puppet government as their rightful rulers?

Tell me a nation that the US brought democracy to and the people were better off and happy and the US left.
Name just one.

Packer has paid significant taxes in Australia all his life, as have his companies. If entitlement to a pension is a reflection of the gratitude of a nation towards those who have contributed, he is more than entitled.
David Leyonhjelm has a wharped sense of entitlement, too many years living off the Public's Purse I'd imagine. A
Packer himself said in an interview that "he'd have to mad not to minimise his Tax". He's definitely part of a massive crowd there.
No-one is expected to pay more than the exorbitant rate we pay but to become super wealthy by not paying the same rate as everyone else is well, a parasite !

Individual

I am no expert on negative gearing and I never been on what is considered a large salary (always under 75k). What I do know is that ng is one way that the average working man or woman has an opportunity to reduce tax, give someone a place at a reasonable price to rent and hopefully later in life not have to be on the public purse. I think you will find many tradies and average workers see ng as a way of freeing themselves of a future reliance on Govt. Again after my experience with people trashing the places they rent I wonder whether I am just providing charity.

runner,
That's how it's supposed to work !
Either we all pay the same rate or we just keep on going down the tube with the present Wild West system !
If we want people to 'get ahead" then we need a better tax system. The renters who thrash have nothing to do with Tax, that's a result of our Law & legal system which also needs changing.

runner,
come to think of it, the thrashers are a direct result from the mentality of the Anti-National Service crowd ! I hope they experience the end result of their thinking !

Dear Mr Leghorne,

I assume you already have plans for how you will spend your parliamentary pension.

See Parliamentary Pension scheme here: https://www.treasury.wa.gov.au/uploadedFiles/Site-content/Superannuation/Overview/Parliamentary_Pension_Scheme_Explanatory_Booklet.pdf

Sarah Hanson-Young has already announced how she will spend your generous donation of 120 K to 3 community organisations focused on helping women experiencing abuse and hardship.

Kind Regards

Sarah Hanson-Young has already announced how she will spend your generous donation
Rainier,
1; she can afford financially
2; she couldn't afford not to do so politically
3; Not a bit of integrity involved in it whatsover !