I have had personal reasons for missing the bar-B-Q mob recently, but here is the latest worry, particularly for some older widows.

The feeling is that Ruddy's getting worried about money. No worry for you, if your a boat person, but watch out if you are an older, recently bereaved, rural resideantial type Ozie.

It has always been the case that any part of your property, over 2 hectares, is considered an asset, for pension purposes. It has also been the case that a home on 2 hectares has been virtually the same value, as the same home on 5 or even 10 hectares, in most areas. This is still the case, but with suitable valuations, Ruddy may save a bit of pension money.

Centrelink have accepted the pensioner's valuation of their extra land. The values have not been high enough to cause any asset limit worry, even for single pensioners, with their lower limit. Not any more. Centrelink are now requesting, [demanding on threat stopping payment of pensions], that these people sign an approval for a valuer to enter the premises. These things are going out to both the recently bereaved, & some hwo have been alone for years.

Now we have a number of really frightened old dears, [it's mostly widows] frightened they will loose their pension, or their home, community, & friends.

Most of our people are here because their kids wanted horses. Now the kids are gone, they would be glad to downsize their block, provided they kept their home. But no, Beattie changed the laws. No one is allowed to subdivide. The developers have that exclusively now, in chosen areas.

So they are stuck. Can't downsize, can't live on less pension, dont want the disruption of selling up, & moving.

So ladies, keep your old man alive, you have to loose about 80 grand of assets, if he dies.,

Of course, if they lived in the city, they could own a home of 2 or 3 times the value of their present property, & still get the full pension.

Wouldn't some equity be nice

Hasbeen, many people are unaware of the '2 hectare rule', esspecially the fact that they are up for 'capital gains tax' when they sell, calculated on the portion exceeding the 2Hc. Many believe that as it is 'their residence' that they are 'exempt' and, they get a rude shock when they sell to a developer and receive a tax bill.

Considering they will get that tax bill when they sell, I doubt they should be taxed twice, which is what the centerlink proposal is doing.

The facts remain that both Anna and Krudd are running on empty and are in panic mode.

Hasbeen, I found this on google search.

"The value of an asset may be excluded under the "hardship provisions", if the pensioner cannot sell or realise the asset or use it as security for borrowing (or if it would be unreasonable to expect the pensioner to sell, realise or use the asset as security) and if the pensioner would suffer severe financial hardship. For the hardship provisions to apply, a person must make a specific claim to Centrelink, consideration is not automatic"
http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch07s01s01.php#

So if a property cannot be sub-divided then I think this should apply. I do think they can force people to move. It would not make sense. If you sold a lower value property because of it's size then you would need to pay more for a smaller home, no logic.

The irony is that if the government removed all the special tax concessions for super it could afford to pay the pension to everyone of pensionable age. Apart from reducing the stress on the ladies mentioned in this post it would remove the strong disincentive on part pensioners to add to their income by doing a bit of work. (I saw an article recently saying that old men are less likely to work as Santa Clauses now because the rules have been changed to prevent this income spike being averaged over the whole yr.) It is not just the loss of income that is a disincentive, it is the incredible complexity of the Centerlink system.

This Ruddy Government is also annoying me.
Retired, with a still working wife, I lose 50 cents in the dollar every time she works extra.
Last fortnight, she earned $101 extra. Tax went up by $34. My pension went down by $50.50 so she earned a net $16.50 for five hours work.
Please may we have a double dissolution?

Thanks for that Missus, I hope your right, although it does seem strange it has just started. They should know none of us can now subdivide to downsize.

One of our little old ladies, who might be better described as a little old battleaxe, had demanded an interview with centrelimk about this. Watch out centrelink. Hopefully we will have a better idea, soon.

Unfortunately, many of our LOLs are not that tough. I have had to censer my 98 year old mothers mail for some years. She could always find something in form mail from centrelink to frighten her.

Many are frightened unnecessarily, due to lack of knowledge. One, when doing the asset list, was really worried that the old tractor, her husband used to slash the pony paddock was worth 10s of thousands, rather than a couple of thousand or less. She was so worried, she had thought of burning it.

Another is worried about her kids 2 old retired horses. The kids profess much love for them, but rarely go near them. Our LOL has been looking after them for years. She is frightened she may have to have them put down, if forced to move. These damn fool rules, carelessly applied, can cause so much pain.

The worst part is the inequity. The homes most of these people sold, to bring their kids out to the country are now, in most instances, worth much more than the acerage homes they now own. These are not the Mc Mansions you see on one acre plots, in the richer part of town.

They would have none of this aggravation if they had stayed in the city, & been richer as well. The things we do for kids.