The Forum > General Discussion > Watch out ladies, Ruddies after your pension.
Watch out ladies, Ruddies after your pension.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 15 November 2009 8:24:57 PM
| |
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. Posted by rehctub, Monday, 16 November 2009 6:34:17 AM
| |
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. Posted by TheMissus, Monday, 16 November 2009 8:17:37 AM
| |
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.
Posted by John D, Monday, 16 November 2009 8:49:45 AM
| |
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? Posted by phoenix94, Monday, 16 November 2009 11:06:34 AM
| |
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. Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 16 November 2009 11:33:46 AM
| |
Are you saying that it's suddenly Rudd's fault but also stating that "it's always been the case"?
I am helping pay for all these pensions but won't be getting one myself when the time comes. Sometimes people make bad calls. Selling up and moving was a personal choice and apparently a good idea at the time so it's a bit late to ask for special treatment now. Posted by wobbles, Monday, 16 November 2009 12:51:50 PM
| |
Dear *HasBeen* & others effected by allegedly ill conceived SS Legislation, and further to the considerate post from *TheMissus*
At the following link: http://www.facsia.gov.au/guides_acts/homeint.html you will find access to the SS guide. It is a "lay" interpretation of the legislation, and whilst it does not purport to be ( and isn't) 100% accurate, it is another good place to start. It is also what the guvment, the dept, the waste of time and money review processes of the "O.riginal D.ecision M.aker," the "A.uthorised R.eview O.fficer" and the "S.ocial S.security A.ppeals T.ribunal" also use. It is not until the "A.dministrative A.ppeals T.ribunal" that a serious consideration of the legislation really begins. Perhaps you'all would like to keep this one running hot over the next month or so. I'd luv to have a dig into the Act and put up my 2bob worth but I'm under the pump for the next few weeks and have to fly literally. Part of the trick to successful political lobbying is knowing precisely what it is that you seek to give legislative change to in simple succinct terms. Perhaps we here can over time narrow down the nub of the issue to the relevant section of the law and then thrash out a new bill if appropriate. Oh, please note that Human Rights (cough) in Australia only exist to the extent that they do not conflict with SS and Immigration legislation. Best of Luck. Posted by DreamOn, Monday, 16 November 2009 1:13:05 PM
| |
Refugees are indeed covered by Internationally agreed Human Rights and Refugee conventions and our Government - as a signatory- is legally and morally bound to uphold them.
Social Security payments aren't covered by any specific "Rights" because we don't have any that apply. Good luck taking this all the way to The Hague. We are already better off than most comparable countries but it seems that we always need just a little bit more. Your efforts would be better spent chasing those wealthy individuals and Corporations that avoid paying taxes and thus shifting the burden onto those that are already paying too much. Posted by rache, Tuesday, 17 November 2009 12:39:24 AM
| |
There would be plenty of money for all in this country if we were able to create our own credit like the USA prior 1913.Currently we have a private debt well in excess of $600 billion or $60,000.00 for every working person.Kevin will have us in public debt of $300 billion or $30,000.00 per working person.Add the interest to this and we are in the poor house.
Study the World Reserve Banks.Our currency along with the US currency has lost 96% of it's value since 1913.Our $ will only buy 4 cents worth of goods in 1913.If you counterfeit $22 million, the equal of our pop,then this is like stealing $1.00 from every person in Aust. The banks have counterfeited 25 times the value of our currencies to create such a depreciation through their fractional reserve banking system.It is nothing more than legalised theft.That is the main reason why we are so poor even in the era of enormous technological change. Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 17 November 2009 8:55:52 PM
| |
You have made some extraordinary claims on this forum, Arjay, but this one has to be one of the most mysterious..
>>There would be plenty of money for all in this country if we were able to create our own credit like the USA prior 1913<< 1. There is "plenty of money" already, Arjay. In fact, I thought one of your key concerns is that there is too much of it sloshing about. 2. We do create our own credit. Quite a lot of it. In fact, I thought one of your key concerns is that there is too much of it sloshing about. 3. Many things have happened in the years between 1913 and now. Two world wars. 1929. Eurobonds. Computers etc. etc. What exactly is it about pre-1913 USA that attracts you to its financial architecture, and convinces you that it is possible to turn back the clock? Or is this just another run-through of your favourite slogans? Like this one: >>Our currency along with the US currency has lost 96% of it's value since 1913.Our $ will only buy 4 cents worth of goods in 1913.<< We have covered this on numerous occasions. Another way to look at the same statistic is that if you took this week's wages back to 1913, you'd live like a king. >>The banks have counterfeited 25 times the value of our currencies to create such a depreciation through their fractional reserve banking system.It is nothing more than legalised theft<< Another Arjay favourite. And the way to show how it does not meet the simplest reality check is to read your very next remark. >>That is the main reason why we are so poor even in the era of enormous technological change.<< Poor, Arjay? I think you will find that by any measure you care to dream up, we as a nation enjoy a better standard of living than we did in 1913. Give it a shot. Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 1:19:37 PM
| |
what a coincidence
this thread in the very week I released my LOPS [Little Ozzie Pensioner System] at http://www.lopsystem.com as you can see it works out everything a LOP needs to PLAN their retirement as for extra work since 20 Sept 2009 the Work Bonus scheme allows a person to do that Santa Clause type job, and the LOPS even works out the EXACT amount you can earn before hitting the Income Test Threshold Posted by Divorce Doctor, Wednesday, 18 November 2009 2:33:22 PM
|
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