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.