I just heard an interesting suggestion on Australia Talks http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/ that any increase in the aged pension should go towards rent assistance.

Seemed to me like a very sensible suggestion. I'm not sure how many pensioners are in the private rental market, but those that are must be suffering heavily, or have moved out to live with relatives. The caller was a pensioner who owned her own home, so it was an altruistic suggestion made from the point of view of someone who should know about the pressure of living on the pension.

I know that my rent has been rising at around 10% per annum for the last 4 or 5 years, which is well in advance of the rate of inflation. When I look around for somewhere else to rent I discover that what I pay is pretty much what everyone else in similar accommodation pays, no matter where they live.

But perhaps the number of pensioners in the private market is not that large, or other pensioners are suffering just as badly from other price rises. I'm interested in hearing about personal experiences as well as the stats.

Dear Graham,

My neighbour's mum gets rental assistance,
and it does help. However, she barely
survives on her current pension - so any
boost would greatly assist her day to day
living expenses.

I also believe that pensioners who are
renting are a minority. They need larger
pensions more than rental assistance.

Graham,just today I was speaking to a 64 yr old Bob Cat driver who has fallen on hard times in Sydney.He owns a house worth $800,000.00 in Sydney,yet his wife does not want to sell up because of the children who live not far away.There are many pensioners in Sydney who are asset rich but income poor,who don't want to relinquish family ties.

My solution is this.We need rapid transit train systems to regional areas so people like this can sell their most valuable asset and live in comfort in the country.Retirement farms in the country would give people like Arthur a whole new dimention to their lives.They could have a productive life in growing their own produce and still on weekends see their children/grandchildren via rapid train transport.

Arjay

How insensitive... Many elderly people rely on the family and friends to cope at home.

If they want to grow veggies I am sure they already are in their own gardens.
It seems to upset you the man owned his own house that no doubt he worked hard for all of his life.
I mean it’s not like the Government really look after these people that paid taxes on taxes all their lives.
People become very attached to their homes and neighbors. You can do them great harm by changing their environment, Drs

.Oh and of course we have so many good hospitals around and specialists in regional areas - or wherever you decided this special fast train might stop.
To increase rental assistance only helps the landlords when in fact home owners have far more bills to pay than renters.

What we could consider is to stop giving cash for others to abuse by run down the road and buy grog if they are alcoholics or drugs on their welfare day.

That would put a lot of money back in to be used elsewhere.

I can’t tell you how upsetting it was to read your comment. You clearly have a total disregard for senior’s rights and dignity.

Be at least a little realistic Arjay please.
$800.000 home? many pensioners live in on site caravans, and pay over half their income for the privilege.
Some single pensioners live under bridges, not by any means do all pensioners own a home.
I believe we should raise the pension, not maybe now the conservative push to turn their own policy's upside down is a ploy.
But rental assistance will just push rental prices up.
Town planning has a part to play we need much more single accommodation at affordable prices and less of the not in my back yard self interest.

The ANU in Canberra is experimenting with the idea of converting old shipping containers to house students on campus as Canberra has a fairly acute rental shortage. If the students do not have such accommodation provided, they either have to work a part-time job to get decent rental, thus detracting from their studies, or else live in a dive somehwere, which has a similar effect.

Why don't we think more laterally and provide lots more low-cost housing options for people? The days of the quarter-acre block are pretty much over. Make housing cheaper via a range of measures like reducing taxes and using cheaper, prefabricated materials, etc. Get rid of the unnecessary bells and whistles in constructing a home and cut out the unproductive hangers-on in the commercial world.

The problem with housing RobP is that we're not releasing enough land quickly enough at one end of the equation, and we're also jamming more people into the country than ever before at the other end of the equation. In the middle of the equation the number of people per household is falling. The combination of these factors is an excess of demand over supply. Until you fix those factors, fiddling around with taxes and cost of housing will simply get capitalised into what someone is prepared to pay for a house, so the price of land will rise more quickly, but the price of housing won't fall.

Be at least a little realistic Arjay please.
$800.000 home? many pensioners live in on site caravans, and pay over half their income for the privilege.

yes indeed, I live in a caravan park on the pension and rental is not the biggest problem, mainly because once one is paying over I think about $70 per week one gets 75% reduction for any increase, which seems fair

so $70 pw is about 25% of the pension so if paying double that ie 140 the reduced amount is about $88 pw, ie still one third of total

main issue is the lump sum expenses eg car rego and espec repair bills which come out of the blue

and yeah, internet and Telstra stuff in general is a big burden

GrahamY,

It seems like there are problems no matter whichever way we turn. If we mandate or force increases in the aged pension to go into rent assistance, we just get what happened when the Government recently provided a rebate for childcare: entrepreneurs like Eddy Groves (of ABC learning) just whack their prices up to absorb the extra cash they know people have just received. In the case of rental, landlords may do exactly the same thing as they know ordinary people have no option but to pay extra.

As Lindsay Tanner said recently, the Government has to be careful that its handouts are not just lining the pockets of the corporate sector. Naturally, the Government doesn't like such an outcome because it is just tipping a bucketload of money into a bottomless pit before they can receive any political dividend (as well as not actually helping the ordinary people they were hoping to).

It's a vexed problem. The only real solution is to kill the avarice and opportunism in the market as it is these drivers that exploit the situation whatever our system happens to be. That, of course, is pretty much impossible to do. Time for a financial cataclysm maybe. Perhaps a "Freddie Mac" or "Fannie Mae" situation is needed in Australia to kill off the dangerously greedy.

Bad idea Graham.

I think it is about time that the more prudent among us started to gain from our efforts.

I know many renters, nearing pension age, who still have $5000 holidays, every year. They say that the government can look after them, when the time comes.

That $5000 could have bought them my house, but they chose to spend the money differently. That is their right, but I can see no reason that they should now expect the same standard of living, as those who planned & went without, for their future.

Perhaps some state run caravan parks, for these imprudent types. An increased pension would be better spent on house repairs for the thrifty. It would be nice to have the money to paint my house, now I can no longer do it myself.

Get the "rewards" going to the right people mate.

GrahamY
I’m not stalking you but you do raise interesting topics.
I agree with the poster who said give the pensioners more money cash in hand rather than rent assistance. My mum sort of owns her own home but still has problems with transport hence drives public transport is not appropriate.

I think that your argument about not enough land is a smoke screen. In one council area I know of there are existing land for about 23,000 houses. Yet no building why? The developers are land banking.

They run a number of techniques to manipulate the market by increasing the land price,legal but….
i.e. The area is an aging salad bowl to a major city. The Developers go around to farmers who are who are thinking retirement and offering options for inflated prices conditional on the land being re zoned residential.

Prompting
• The word spreads puting up the price of all land in the Council boundaries.
• Increases farmers' pressure on councils to rezone more res land.
• Which increases council's infrastructure costs (higher rates). Interconnecting roads/services to the estates gates. This in one council has blown their deficit from $5 to $23 million in 6 years. State govt (all persuasions) favour developers.
• Many farmers use the options to mortgage the farm and take an early retirement. Hence produce needs to come from further away (costs more)
• The increased land cost squeezes out the smaller spec builder they can’t raise enough money.
• Puts up the ultimate price of the house and home.
Add to the above they pick strategic farms in strategic areas to open up a bigger area.

Why? 10% profit on $10 mil = $1 mil. 10% $20 mil= $2 mil. The figures are indicative but the principle is sound.
There are a myriad of other techniques use to manipulate the market.

Many of the same tactics are reported to in use in at least 3 states (30 council areas) I am aware of. I haven't gone into the illegal ones either.

Graham is right,in NSW they intentionally do slow land releases to maximise Govt profits.37% of a house/land package is made up of Govt taxes and charges.They are making young familes pay for future infrastructure and their excesses.This is socialist Labor servicing it's heartland.Tax something and you will get less of it.Hence we have a housing shortage.Is anyone surprised?

Belly,decentralistion via rapid transit systems is a good option since it brings wealth to rural areas and takes the pressure off urban house prices.

I also heard Australia Talks. Did even one caller phone in to support the program guest Jeremy Sammut from the Center for 'Independent' Studies?

His statistics that 'proved' that old age pensioner had increased in real terms were shown to be utter nonsense by the near tidal wave of callers with harrowing stories of financial hardship. A good start to helping them would be to remove the tax concessional status of bodies like the C.I.S and put the funds saved towards increasing the pension.

---

All that rental assistance will achieve, in the longer term, is to add to the unearned income of property speculators and landlords at taxpayers' expense.

It is time that we acknowledged that Australian governments' policies of winding back the publicly funded housing sector, beginning in Menzies's time, was a serious mistake.

the bottom line here is that if you heard it on "Australia Talks Crap" then it is cash for comment [even with Sandy McCrutch gone]

so plan is to flog the idea of increase "rental assistance" knowing that say 70% of pensioners actually OWN their house, hence no extra burden on public purse but votes to be had

This is a serious problem and it may take a number of measures, including rent assistance, to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens are cared for adequately.

As other posters have already stated most pensioners own their own home. By the time many pensioners take out essential medical expenses there is not much left to live on.

I listened in disbelief when on QandA the other night a couple of younger people made a comment about pensioners being a burden and "slugging our hard earned tax dollars". I could not believe the lack of compassion and understanding and hope that the comments made do not reflect the majority of the younger generation.

Many young people forget that compulsory superannuation and the idea of being self-sustaining in old age are relatively new concepts. Many of us in my age bracket did not receive Super until later in working life and if you take time out of the workforce to raise children you put yourself further behind.

Does this younger person realise that the infrastructure and education he now enjoys was paid for by those much older workers. Even HECS does not cover the real cost of a university degree.

My husband is older than me and is in the same position. I now work part-time and he earns a good income so we are trying to make up for lost time but many people (in our age-group) on lower incomes won't have the same opportunity.

(Great cartoon in today's Canberra Times but cannot find it online.)

Examinator, I'm glad you find the topics I'm throwing-up interesting. It's part of my job to keep the conversation going on the forum when it lags.

I think you need to look harder at the mechanics of the development industry. I don't know of one developer that "land banks". A few did in the 60s which led to the crash of Cambridge Credit, amongst others, as well as the near collapse of 3 Adelaide financial houses. That lesson has been learnt. Land is not income earning and so can't sustain a debt longterm.

What you are most probably seeing is broadacres that for one reason or another can't be developed immediately. Sometimes developers tie-up land on conditions, which actually leads to cheaper, not more expensive end-product. The reason for purchasing land conditionally is to decrease risk and put some of the effective financing cost onto the vendor. So the vendor gets more money than they would otherwise, but the developer has less exposure over a shorter period of time.

With conditions at the moment the way they are, most developers are going to be very keen to sell whatever they have, because the banks have dried-up with their lending. When developers risk going bankrupt, the last thing they would want to do is land bank!

Another reason land is often vacant is because it is at the end of the line for services. You can' sell land without water, power and sewerage as well as access to roads. There is a development queue as parcels of land wait for services to get to them. Councils won't just put in an arterial because someone has a parcel of land that might produce 10 blocks, or even 100.

GY,

Apparently the ABS does not collect data that outlines a CPI index for privately renting Age Pensioners who are on the full rate (rather than part-rate) Pension.

Well you won't like me for this but the fact is that a senior that does not own their own home today really only has them selves to blame.

Now I accept that there are some sad cases where they have been forced into poverty through little or no fault of their own but the reality is that they have worked in an environment whereby they had little or no restrictions impossed on them by way of unfair taxes such as capital gains tax until the arly 80's. So for someone in their 70's today, they have had ample opportunity to secure their financial nest egg in their time. Poor financial management is not societies fault you know.

My mother is a sole pensioner, owns her own house and car and has a reasonable saving account, but still does it tough from day to day however she does not drink, smoke or play the pokies.

I have always said that the pension for seniors it to low but I would be relucent to give more to those who are not capable of managing their money otherwise the goverment will just collect it back in the form of pokie, tobaco and grog taxes.

I am approaching 50 and knew for the past 20 years that I would not get a pension so I have invested in my future and in time when it is hard to invest due to taxation restrictions.

I realy think it's about time we stopped handing out cash to people and gave them provisions instead.

Try jamming a ginger nut into a pokie slot.

*When developers risk going bankrupt, the last thing they would want to do is land bank!*

Some who are not broke prefer to hold back to control price.
The very last thing these people need is the Government doing deals with extra money going direct to landlords

These darling deals have created a lot more hardship for those who need it in the first place.

Also the people I saw on TV were eating dog food or not eating at all
Its all very well to say dont give them a extra thirty dollars a week but the single ones would need it.

Be fair and consider when you have two elderly people living together they get double.
The poor old man or lady next door is living alone and only getting half of their income.
He or she would still have the same rates and running repairs as the couple next door.

No wonder these people cant manage.
I hate welfare blugers but this is different. Give the single elderly and those who are disadvantaged the extra money to live.

I think most landlords can afford to lower their rent by twenty dollars TBO in these hard times.

So (live exports) why should landlords lower their rents, they already pay additional costs such as ambulance levies in many cases, excess water usage, green levies etc.
Did you except your recent tax decrease or did you forgo that for the sake of the battlers.

Did you forgo your recent pay increase or give it up for someone more needy?

These is no simple answer as if you increase the single pension you will encourage cheating of the system much in the way that two single welfare recipients live together illegally.

I still think the answer may be in providing basic rather than money. Lets face it the harsh fact is that many of these battlers are in this predicament due to their lack of forward planning. Now we can't all be clever or have/create breaks but why continue to feed this trend with disposable dollars?

rehctub
We lowered the rent when our long term tennants wife died by thirty twenty five dollars. If we can afford to do that so can others.

Gee I guess it was bad planning that this mans wife passed away. They will have to plan it better next time.
I do think however tennants need to be made reasonsible for their own water.
My comments were directed only at aged singles not your average welfare blugers that should not be getting one cent of the taxes paid by our aged people all their lives.
Also look at the RTA. Now how interesting. You and I provide houses for the rental market to save he Government. They take and hold the bond and deposits for years. Look at all that interest.
Nice little lurk. So perhaps the Government already have the thirty dollars for aged singles
Sure they do its all tucked away in their unaccounted for bank accounts that they would have without us- The land lords.

If we were talking about unemployment dole blugers I would post a diferent view.
However ths is for he people who made Australia what it is today. Give the oldies another $50.00 I say and cut the blugers off at the kneews.

Now I accept that there are some sad cases where they have been forced into poverty through little or no fault of their own

yes indeed and stats show the figure is 50% of of marraiges "go bust" but the "system" says it is bloke who loses the lot, incl any super

so it is a gender thing as well, ie old single men, most of whom worked their guts out for 40 years, possibly served their country in military [even if not by choice] without one cent of compensation for saving you from "the Yellow Peril" as Menzies called it so you could "save your pennies" as you say [or slop in the Future Fund more like it] and now feel all warm & cuddly that these old buggers have to grovel to you to be reasonable with rent

I dont think its a gendor thing at all. Be it single man or single woman.
I am only refering to aged people not the whole welfare system.
Of course its the Governments job to care for the elderly well before the landlord.
Its not rocket science. If you have two payments going into one house and only 'one into next door-
Then you know the one next door is doing it harder to feed themselves and pay their rates etc.

Remember these people paid the highest taxes possible all their lives.

When our long term tennant passed away we were very aware of the struggle it would be for the one left on a single payment.
We didnt make out we we doing him a favour either.

We just said as he house was getting older we felt we were over charging. We also said we needed some place to grow veggies and as the soil was better there would he mind watering them and picking them.
He takes great pride and it gives him another interest.

He meets us at the gate every couple of weeks or so to show off his new this or that. He always has the billy on for a cuppa. Sure at times we get busy but it hurt to stop and think what these old people did for us.
My sister also took him around a couple of chooks that follow him around as he potters about the garden and of course they provide fresh eggs. He chats away to them and they are good company.

I dont think it would hurt many landlords to help out our elderly.
In fact I know many who have done so already.
The thirty dollars a week to these people means the difference between people being able to put meat on their table or not.
Now dont you go dobbing on me to the libbers will you:)

The thirty dollars a week to these people means the difference between people being able to put meat on their table or not.

so where does $30 come in?

is Kevin '07 floating this, and in what form?

and yes, I do have some meat but $30 would get me some "nice spleen, some fava beans and a Chianti Classico" every Sunday as a treat

Gee I guess it was bad planning that this mans wife passed away. They will have to plan it better next time

Well you are the last one I expected this type of 'cheap shot' from. You know danmed well this is not the type of person I was reffering to!

Wake up to yourself and come to terms that countless amounts of pension money ends up being wasted on pokies, grog or ciggaretes.

Hard to help anyone, regardless of gender or age, if they can't help them selves!

rehctub,
That wasnt a shot at you. Although now I read back I can see how you may have took it that way.
Sorry- that WASNT my ntention rehctub.
I was aiming square at the Government and Kevin Rudd. Like I said I dont think you know how bad it is for the very elderly single people.
Now if you wish to talk about many other welfare blugers go right ahead because thats a pet hate of mine.

We even give cah to junkies on welfare for God sake and aloholics.
Dont start me.

Cheers

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, That's fine, I have always respected your views.

Now on that matter of welfare wasters.

Many companies now, and most mining companies have a drug free and zero aclcohol policy if you wish to keep your job.

Why can't we see a system whereby all eligible working age walfare recipients have to provide a sample each week,month whatever to ensure they are in fact drug free. After all, they can't get a job if they are on drugs and arn't these people supposed to be looking for work.

or conscript them again, just to keep the knife in

we could have GerriBoot Camps with wheelchair access and free colestomy bags

we could even spit on them again, like when they returned from Vietnam

The suggestion has merit.But it could be improved on if instead of rent assistance increase, the Government could establish an Authority to rent houses owned by investors on 5 to 10 year rentals, like the Defence Housing Authority does and then sub-let to appropriate families.For example a family of 5 children of school age could be allocated a priority of a rental near schools. while a single person could be happily housed in a unit.The Government would incur a cost but the investor pays capital gains tax when he sells , so the Government recoups some eventually.The boost to single pensioners in lots of instances would go to the pokies or more alcohol, as there is no way of controlling what happens after the money is paid.There are pensioners in places like Noosa who would be happy in a tent and get $30 a week to spend as they like.Poor old Nelson can try to make himself more popular but pork-barreling only goes well if you can deliver.How much do Australians value their free society and climate in the package of social security benefits?

I'm with Belly on this.

>>But rental assistance will just push rental prices up<<

One of the more tacky sidebars of the ABC Learning fiasco was the revelation that the minute the government increased the childcare subsidy, the childcare centres whacked up their prices by the same amount. Net result for the consumer - no change. Net result for the middle-man - bonanza.

It is a much discredited strategy on a number of fronts, and a government subsidy on wrinkly-rental will not make their homes more affordable.

If we don't trust them enough to use an increased pension on the fundamentals of living rather than fritter it away on the pokies, then don't give it to them. At least when they play the pokies they are only affecting themselves. If you throw money on the demand side of the housing market, we all suffer.

Except the banks, of course.

Why can't we see a system whereby all eligible working age welfare recipients have to provide a sample each week,month whatever to ensure they are in fact drug free. After all, they can't get a job if they are on drugs and aren't these people supposed to be looking for work.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 15 September 2008 7:28:20 AM


or conscript them again, just to keep the knife in

we could have GerriBoot Camps with wheelchair access and free colestomy bags

we could even spit on them again, like when they returned from Vietnam
Posted by Divorce Doctor, Monday, 15 September 2008 2:06:10 PM

You're kidding! Why don't you read what I put imfron of you before shooting off. ELIGIBLE WORKERS mate!

Pericles
You are right in what you say. If you recall when the $7,000 1st home buyer grant was introduced, most houses increased by guess how much? $7,000, then it went to $14,000 and they increased again.

There is no easy fix.

The solution is real infrastructure and long term planning.The average speed of a car on military Rd Mosman in Sydney at peak hr is about 15 km per hr.It takes me longer to travel from Manly to the city than from Penrith to the city.

Trains can travel at 300 km per hr,thus people can live 20 times the distance that Manly is from City of Sydney and still have a well paid job.

Subsidising rent even more,will only inflate the cost of renting.What is needed is more supply to drive down demand,but our Govts want to tax the life out of property investment,hence we have a shortage of accommodation.Is there a disconnect here with Govt logic and reality?

or conscript them again, just to keep the knife in

we could have GerriBoot Camps with wheelchair access and free colestomy bags

we could even spit on them again, like when they returned from Vietnam
Posted by Divorce Doctor, Monday, 15 September 2008 2:06:10 PM

You're kidding! Why don't you read what I put imfron of you before shooting off. ELIGIBLE WORKERS mate!

that's the point my little turdy friend

I HAVE been through all of the above to save your sorry little ar** from the Yellow Peril and at 63.5 there is no way I could stagger to a job in my wheelchair

but YOU [via our lousy Government] STILL says I am an eligible worker

.... but if I was female [and never been subject to Nashos] I would already be on pension

so mate, take your false concern elsewhere

Well mate, now you're generalising and assuming that I consider you as an eligible worker. I have nothing but the highest respect for those who have fought for and defended our country. My grand dad was an anzac. As to whether or not you are an eligible worker, well I'll leave that up to you to decide.

I will choose to ignore your pothetic dig but will say that after seeing a guy on 60 minutes recently with no arms or legs, having the time of his life, he's not complaining.

Now there are some terrible situations out there however, it is up to you how you deal with what you have been burdoned with, don't take it out on me. I don't hate you, nor did I cause you any harm.

rehctub
Hi there once again
I agree with much of what your saying .
I say give them the extra money. Its for food on the table.
Anything else could be looked at later. Singles certainly should be considered. They get a raw deal while couples get double but they all have the same rates phone home maintance. I think all oldies should get a bonus at Christmass . That should have been introduced years ago.

Instead some of these people starve just to buy the grand kids a present.
Shameful way to treat the people who made this country much easier for the young ones today.
Then again I think thats a big part of the problem these days.
The young ones get things far too easy.
Goodnight- might see you on another thread.

PALE, do try to get your facts straight if you're going to comment.

Married (or de facto) pensioner couples do NOT get double. Look it up.

The reality is that the massive increases in cost of living generally mean that everyone on income support of any kind is really struggling. Nor is it a fact that everyone on Newstart Allowance is able to work or that there is a job for everyone. There should be an "across the board" increase now.

Nicky

It is interesting to read the various responses. Some indicate a lack of understanding or comprehension why people do not own their own homes or are living in poverty.
One claimed to lack sympathy for anyone owning their own home. Memory is a selective thing. I would remind readers that many people reached a midway stage working towards independence on retirement, only to lose it through a downturn in the economy, companies closing or moving off shore creating high unemployment, increasing high interests resulting in them losing all of their savings, etc.
As an advocate I have seen all of this and more and would ask those more fortunate not to make hasty judgements against those less fortunate than they. Especially when they do not have information to be so judgmental.
Another point. Many businesses increase their goods and services by the amount of pension increases and I would include some government departments who justify a grab of the pension increase. I would predict the $30 proposal would rapidly disappear into the hands of the greedy.
Try this exercise. A pension increase of 3%. This increase is supposed to cover every expense.
Now comes the increase grab by agencies e.g. Rates, Housing rental, food, water, power sewerage, etc, all increasing by the amounts of the increases or near to the increase; some times even higher justifying it as a result of a multiplier effect as each the pension increase adds to their costs. The purchasing power of aged pensions and other pensions have decreased rapidly in the past three or four years.
These are government department increases. Factor into that the private businesses.
Pensioners are becoming housebound because they cannot afford to go out. Council are using a “user pay” attitude for community resources and assets.
Many pensioners no longer seeking medical/hospital treatment because they cannot afford to pay the bridging gap.
Some I have spoken to, have a budget plan results in them eating a decent meal approximately every second day unless they can go to a charity to get extra food, etc. Clothing is a low priority.

Nicky
Very funny. 'You' telling me to get my facts straight.+ All this from someone who posts AWB were not and are not live Animal exporters on another thread.
Hilarious.
*Yes it is relavant Nicky. Its an example of your lack of knowledge.*

So here we are again coming into yet another thread to single out pale.
Two people do get more than one Nicky. If two people are aged payments its double- less thirty dollars to be exact.

Nobody not even the Government are denying that.

So one person gets around $270.00 per week. Two people get $510.00
If three people are living together- all on agd pensions then its $780.00.
So very clearly the single aged man or woman is doing to really hard to pay bills and live.

Well I would consider that I do know what the seniors are going through as I serve them every day. I also give them a 10% discount on all non special purchases.

I see them some days holding a few coins in their hand wondering what they can buy for dinner. Sadly, in many cases this is all that is left after comming from the nearby pub where they have been chasing that elusive dream.

I'm sorry, but extra cash is not the solution.

On another note, where are all these struggling seniors families. The one who where cared for, given a home in most cases. Why arn't they supporting their senior parents. My mother has not paid for meat for 20 years and nerver goes without. Perhaps therein lies some of the answer. Maybe sell the boat or the plasma, or forgoe the holiday so you can help support you strugling parents in what is their time of need.

PALE, single pension equates to $268/week, combined partnered pension equates to $449 week (increase of $181/week) - this isnt double. The reason it isnt double is to reflect that some costs dont increase or dont increase much when there is more than one person living in a dwelling (rent/rates, power etc). Most of the pension is assumed to be taken up by food and other variable requirements, where the cost is directly proportional to the number of people.

To the pensioner with the $800k house though, while there shouldnt be a requirement to move, there is the potential to downsize from a house to a unit, thereby realising some equity and improving living conditions. To be fair though, there is no incentive apart from survival as whilst the money is tiedup in the house, it doesnt count as a asset to reduce your pension - if you cash it, it does. There needs to be an exemption to encourage more of it.

rehctub,
Not all 'elderly drink' in fact very few indeed by average. Most are on some sort of medication and just potter about the houses waiting on a visit perhaps from their kids.
I have already said many other people on drugs grog should not be given cash.
How silly to give cash to a druggie or alcoholic.

Country Gal, I assume the rate changes given each persons circumstances. The fact remains its easier to share the bills if there are two.
Our elderly deserve special consideration. I am not going to get into all other payments because I honestly think many on them should not be getting one cent
However if we cant look after our elderly single people we are not much of a nation.
Who on earth would begrudge them enough food to eat.
Thats is what it comes down to for single aged persons on a pension.

professor-au, you are perfectly correct. Add to that the fact that women generally did not have access to superannuation until the late 1980s, so there is and will be a couple of generations of women who will be living below the poverty line. There are also countless women who have, for whatever reason, have never had the opportunity to have a "career".

Add to that mix the students trying to live on Austudy/Abstudy, who will have a HECS debt worth a small house for years to come, people on Disability Support Pensions and their carers, and yes, that "great unwashed", those on unemployment benefits, many through no fault of their own. It is not only aged pensioners who struggle to get through every day. And we should not be judging any of them for no good reason.

Recent newspaper stories where I live tell of an elderly lady who has been co-ordinating a petition for Mr Rudd et al. She speaks of people she has had to refer to suicide prevention organizations and the depression group Beyond Blue.

All of you people who want to determine what form such assistance should take need to get a grip. Just how much control do you want the government to have over the daily lives of these people? Do try to be less paternalistic. It is easy to distinguish here people who have had the advantage of security. There is a vast population out there who have had no advantages in life and are struggling through the best way they can. And you want to deprive them of anything that might give them pleasure because YOU decide that it is not prudent for them to have control over their own lives.

Any (minimal) increase received will be swallowed up by the councils, the utilities, and the ever-increasing cost of living.

Did the Stolen Generation teach you nothing?

Nicky

PS Country Gal, thanks for clearing up the pensions differential, Now PALE can't say that I argued the point for no better reason than to "attack" it.

seems this whole thread is re hearsay

IF people are concerned WHY have they not gone to ABS etc to get correct evidence

like start point [which Costello avoided] is how MANY pensioners are there, of what sex and how many single/couples etc

anyone??

Its not rocket science to figure our two people living on pensions in the one house "is far easier than one"

Lets remember even the Government on both sides have acknowledged this.
This isnt about uni kids or Hecks. To put them on the same page is an insult to our elderly.

How insensitive to debate a few lousey dollars when we are talking about these single elderly people.


These old darlings worked two or three jobs and paid tripple taxes and attended night school after working all day to better themselves.



If it comes down between our elderly and- giving Hecks then I say get a job and pay for your education (after hours) like most elderly people did. Stop expecting handouts.

This world is changing and not far down the track 'many' handouts including hecks will have to cease.

The ones that should stay are our elderly and 'especially single elderly people '

Well pale if they can't see your point that two are better off than one then forget it. Remember, some people like an argument, even if they are wrong.

Now it is no coincidence that there is a link between poverty and poker machines. Get rid of the pokies and you may see some healthy changes.

Make a pack of fags $45 with $40 of this being tax. Then, if you waste you money on fags then at least the rest of the seniors will benefit from the extra taxes you pay.

What about increasing the medicare levy by a flat $10 per week and put this towards seniors pensions. We did it with the gun buy back, only this time make it a flat rate as I reject having to pay a % of wage when others pay nil.

All of these taxes raised can then be credited to either their rent if they rent, or their mortage or rates if they own. Everyone should get the same amount.

There is no easy answers but if the bus loads of seniors arriving at the pokie venues is any indication, then more money in thier poackets won't help

yes indeed PALE, but let ME join in with hearsay and do some maths

Costello said same dogma, we can't afford to keep our olden cheeze, no figures, no pack drill

BUT then he made it worse by TAKING 65 billion FROM them [and I am guessing at 2 million old cheeze like me, so he took 32 grand from each], and my reading of the Constitution clearly says all revenue must be consolidated into ONE fund

so ponder on that folks and in the next episode I will explain who GOT that money

gosh, no replies - well let's get factual hey dudes

as the PC pedants in this thread extol buses full of wrinklies departing the Rissole Club having spent all their pension on pokies, I can VERIFY that as I type this I am totally surrounded by Grey Nomads with HUGE rigs, some worth $1 million [and I can supply photos if you need proof]

but these old farts have spent $1,000 in petrol just to get here from Toorak/St Ives, and they settle in to do SFA but watch TV, ie they have so MUCH money they can't possibly spend it

but where did they GET it?

next episode will reveal all

but please have your say folks

DD Go on, the suspense is killing me.
What relevence does this have to this thread, or did I miss something. I thought this was about how to solve the problems with the battlers, not the well off. Hope they didn't sell their homes and put their millions into super.

well not INTO super, but you are missing the point re Future Fund

and they still HAVE their homes

these are the FF recipients, ie what Paddy McGuiness forecast 14 years ago as the huge drain on our kids in the future ie the millions of public servants on UNFUNDED SUPER, all wanting to cash in

if you don't know, unfunded means they simply put a few dollars a week in but they retire on a DEFINED BENEFIT of 5/8 of retirement salary

but Costello eased burden on kids starting out working by ROBBING it from the putative pensioner [especially the "selling off the farm" of Telstra], while advocating raising the pension age to 67 [men only]

see how crooked it is?

so can we get back to reality and stop the red herrings re pokies

other thing is the maths, even IF you rate Costello's theft as ethical and Constitutional

he robbed each pensioner of 30 grand and the sky did NOT fall in

in fact he still had a budget surplus - OK he ran down education, health etc but still got by

so clear the slate for next year and now Kevin '07 is saying we cant afford say $1,500 extra to each pensioner

HUH?, that sounds like Bush-nomics to me

also Kev 07 as Leader of the Inspiration said he would take a lousy 5 billion from FF to give us a proper broadband and Costello was crying out about starving policemen etc

so now he is in power he could give us back the WHOLE 65 billion if he wanted

... if he wanted

golly gosh, seems silence says my argument won again

so is there a lousy $30 to be found for pensioners?

but seeing as I am male, and was conscripted for Vietnam, would it be possible to arrange for my pension at 60 as is the case for wimmen, and those OFFICIALLY called veterans

why can't I be a veteran too?

I don't ask to be treated as "equally" as wimmin [no man would dare], but surely you people I saved from the Yellow Peril could grant me just 2 years earlier for pension, ie at 63

that would cancel out the 2 years I was forced to serve

anyone at all with compassion out there for an old "putative digger"?

the $30 can wait

We here you 'rambo' but we're just the contributors, not the policy makers mate.

I do however think the answer has been found and made loud and clear.

On the frount page of the australian today it is reveled that 42.2% of ALL families effectively pay zero tax.

Another revelation this week was that the former QLD boss, mr goss, admited that his worst descision was to introduce poker machines into our state.

$5,500,000 is lost in poker machines EVERY DAY!

I hate to say I told you so, but!

you say

"I do however think the *answer has been found* and made loud and clear."

and then you quote taxes and pokies [and not just via the assumed wrinklies and their assumed pokie habits]

but you did not quote anything re how pubic servants screwed the HONEST worker of 65 billion

so please tell me how that helps pensioners or how it explains the Dash for OUR Cash via those of you sucking on the Future Fund

nor does it explain why Vietnam conscripts are treated like shi*, and not even ON the lowest perch in the chook pen

ie if pensioners DO get the rediculous $30 pw, I DON'T

and what has happened to all the other bleeding heart contibutors?

cat got your tongue?

Minders told you to stop your mantra as game is up?

Sorry about that had a footy party planned. F-K-W.

Well I don't know who screwed you over mate but they shore did a good job because you appear to be bitter to the core. Did you receive you injuries while at service?

I did not say that the $5.5 million per day was all seniors dollars, but you can be in denial as long as you wish if you think that a large portion of pensions does not end up in these machines. As goss says "the ones who play the most are the ones who can least afford to loose".He said it, not just me!

Imagine a system that rewards the contributor while the non-contributor struggles. Whereby the more taxes you pay throughout your working life the higher the pension you retire on.

Now this would encourage small and big business to pay ALL their taxes. As it stands now the harder you work the less the rewards. This is a major reason why so many business won't pay tax. They see the bludgers receiving everything while they themselves continue to work.

Remember, 42.2% of families receive more in welfare than they pay in tax.(Almost half) So there is only 57.8% left to top up these one's share and pay all the bills

Now I know that I am going to wake up some of the 42.2% but that's just tough. Let's see if they can respond without the personal insults. Now there's a challenge!

As long as there are to many hands in the cookie jar there will never be enough to go around.

How can it be that one can leave school, choose to have a large family and get paid to stay at home. Don't forget, they now get paid to have the family as well, all thanks to us 57.8 per-centers.

This is where the real answer lies.

1. curb the hand outs so we can look after our seniors.
2. Reward the contributors not the non-contributors.
3. Remove the pokies

Now this may not solve the problems, but it's a start.

The question is very simple.

Why in a country -continent, with so low resident density, the residential land is so expensive?
Why the city councils, state and federal governments, do not create more, bigger residential areas with less restrictions?
It is seemed that land developers, real estate agents and mainly high taxes and restrictions on land or buildings play the main role.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

The question is very simple.

Why in a country -continent, with so low resident density, the residential land is so expensive?

Not sure buy I'll have a go.

The more they allow expansion of urban communities the more infrastructure they need to provide. Car hours are also increased. They want re-development not new development I think!