Saltpetre I have a big problem with your scenario. It is not only the long term wealthy that have some assets.

In my district there are many who have always been battlers all their lives, & have little or no money, but a quite reasonable asset. None of us asked the city to come out to get us. There is absolutely no advantage that our properties have increased in money value, particularly when they have actually reduced in income producing ability, thanks to increasing council restrictions.

That the 15 acre riverfront property house & irrigation system my neighbor spent $55,000 on, 30 years ago is now worth $750,000 is totally meaningless to him. About all the high valuation means to him, is ridiculously high rates. He is paying over 5% [$3,000 PA] of his investment each year to a council for 3 hours of mobile library 46 weeks a year, & pretty much stuff all else.

My $165,000 investment in 20 acres, house & irrigation system 22 years ago is probably worth more than that, but could not earn the pension today.

Crazy greenies & councils between them deny me the right to sell off a bit of it, or even give a daughter an acre to build a house on. An asset it is not, but while I have some of my kids old horses to look after, it has to remain my home.

I can see no reason that I or my neighbor, should be denied the pension, when it is available to the yobos who have bludged all their lives. I think you need to go back to the think tank for a bit more sorting of your ideas. Lets see a bit of equity on both sides of the argument

I have to agree with you, Hassie, there have to be some notable exceptions to my too broad-brush scenario.
Agricultural or semi-agricultural land (and related production assets) ought to be one such exclusion.
Otherwise the 'system' becomes very similar to death duties (which I abhor).

So, if the farm is our sole asset, when we do become too old to work the land fully, we should still be able to qualify for the aged pension if our overall income falls within the qualifying limits.

However, I understand from a neighbour that, for asset-test purposes - for aged pension qualification - only the house block, including maybe one acre, qualifies as the 'residence', and any extra acres may be counted as an accountable 'asset'. I am most certainly not keen on that figuring, for any productive or semi-productive agricultural land, which in my view should be wholly exempt from the assets test.

But, I'm sure some others would not agree with my asset-test exemption for agricultural land.
I guess I'll probably just have to wear it as best I can - or else maybe deem the bulk of my small holding for a 'nature reserve'?
(With resultant loss of food production. Catch 22.)

Although, there was a scheme whereby one could pass the land on, probably to a relative, and thus legally relieve oneself of the 'asset'. I don't know if this is still available.

In the end result, whether right or wrong, I don't put the family farm in the same category as a harbour-side multi-million-dollar mansion in Vaucluse.

I'd like to see the elderly being properly cared and catered for, whatever their circumstances, but I draw the line at any blatant 'working' of the system.

Hasbeen,
I wonder what the Council would say if your neighbor told them to give him $750,000.- for his property right now ?

Currently Salty it is 2.5 acres including the home which is free of the asset test for the pension.

There is also a good provision. After 20 years of ownership & occupation, the entire property becomes free of the asset test for pension purposes.

It is lucky for me I have been here that long, as I would otherwise be in court.

My council has declared my area a "NO DEVELOPMENT" area. No subdivision permitted at all. One has to wonder how much money changed hands, when a dozen of us are virtually surrounded by 1.25 acre blocks of a 600 acre development, & a 50,000 people satellite city development is less than a dozen kilometers away.

These blocks are still valued as if they could be subdivided, thus generating huge rates bills, cause a large reduction in the pension for those with under 20 year residency, but can not have a bit sold off to fund the owners retirement. A typical example of politicians buying a few greenie votes at no cost to the greenies, but at huge cost to the individual effected.

Some locals beat a plan to declare some areas private open space, freezing owners in perpetuity.

Some are still fighting large chunks of their properties being declared wild life corridors. One bloke has 8 acres of his 10 so declared. I recall him telling us his kids were not supposed to even ride on it, but he was still supposed to pay huge rates on it.

They are definitely not supposed to fence or even indulge in fire hazard reduction, although it is amazing the local bush fire brigade is so often visiting when these areas "spontaneously" combust.

I would have been happy to work to 70, if we could get a bit of equity into other areas of out lives

Hasbeen

Exactly the sort of thing I was referring to. "One size does not fit all" and I sympathise. It is becoming a regulatory nightmare trying to keep a level playing field in a growing society. Just look at the taxation laws the ATO has to deal with now and the number of people that have to administer it.

It is why I have always suggested a stabilising of population although that is not the entire answer either. The whole world is growing at an unsustainable rate. We also live in a society of envy and the finger is always pointed at someone who has more than they have and expects them to give them a proportion of what they have accumulated.

snake, "We also live in a society of envy and the finger is always pointed at someone who has more than they have and expects them to give them a proportion of what they have accumulated"

Forever the Achilles' Hell of the Left.

However after the class politics of the Gillard/Greens government and now L'il Willie Shorten's opposition, envy has become a defining trait of the 'modern' Australian. Australia has become a nation of busy-bodies who mind their neighbour's backyard and have likely enacted laws to regulate what their neighbour does as well.

The class and genders wars of the Gillard/Greens government and the carping on both by 'Progressives' were among the compelling reasons why the rubbish was finally put out in Canberra.

While speech remains relatively free except where the defined PC victim groups are concerned, I can still say that.