I was just looking at the Budget changes to be made to Asset Testing of Age Pension but I would question why wait for 2 years?

It quite sensibly increases the retraction rate for people on a part pension ie the UPPER limit of the Asset Value at which the Pension cuts out totally.

This helps restore the Age Pension to its proper role as a safety net for those who for whatever reason have no other way to support themselves in retirement while discarding those who in reality HAVE adequate funds to live a very adequate retirement, ie maybe the Rhine Cruises will be cut from 4 to 3 per year.

LittleOzemailPensioner,

The taper rate has been very generous, but you have to question how much this measure will really save. The higher range of excluded part-pensioners would only be getting a few dollars a week anyway, and the ones closer to the cut-off can just go on that cruise or pay for that kitchen or bathroom renovation to put them back below the threshold. I have been trying to find an estimate of the average value of the pensioner concessions. It is hard information to find, but one study from 2010 estimated it at $2,000. The people who will be losing their part-pensions will all get Commonwealth Health Cards, so they will still keep a good deal of this benefit.

I think that the Abbott government wants to create the impression of fairness, so it is a good look to go after middle income people who have managed to save a few hundred thousand dollars. The rorts that benefit the genuinely rich, such as overly generous superannuation tax concessions, etc. have been left untouched.

Well I am a retired Professional Engineer so still need to maintain ETHICS - ie not as for the so called "Financial Advisors" which the Murray Report found to be "severely lacking".

But the budget SAYS some $2.5 Billion saving over 5 years, which is peanuts

I only deal in FACTS for the individual who uses my services, and today I spent some hours updating my software [gosh I can now call it an APP] to be able to give 2015 vs 2017 accurate Reports on such comparisons.

I have already done one such Report and the lady would be $105,852 WORSE off over 20 years. So to my thinking that says the new taper is fairly severe for cases such as hers. That is she would need to burn $200,000 on Rhine Cruises by your reckoning and that smells like about 20 cruises so I don't dig your "solution".

If you want an actual Report on your own case just ask.

Has anyone explained why most of the proposed changes in the budget don't come into effect until 2017? How does the income and incentives taking effect in 2017 improve anything in 2015? Talk about smoke and mirrors... I'm baffled there hasn't been more focus on the dates.

I don't think the 2 year wait is a good idea.

It took 4 years to cement Grandfathering into legislation and 25 years to get the female retirement age raised from 60 to 65

In terms of the delay, possibly Abbott et al. don't want to be seen to break his election promise not to interfere with pensions. Just think of all the criticism that they have received for lying and for making election promises that they never had any intention of keeping. From what I recall, the proposed indexation to pensions in Joe Hockey's first budget wouldn't have taken place until after the next election either, so that voters could reject it by voting against the Liberals and Nationals.

Had I just spent up when younger instead of saving up I'd duck the new threshold and receive plenty more money than I will as a self-fundee.

If you didn't bother to save like me, or never worked, or have just arrived, and never paid a cent in tax, you end up the same as me if I invest at the deeming rate (which is about as good as it gets right now).

GST will rise, so I'll be paying tax there (while pensioners will too, but they'll get topped-up and I won't), and, should I have the temerity to have a good year in super earnings, that'll get walloped when Labor gets back.

How about divorcing the wife and halving the super? Nup that, that's marginal, and she'll want the house!

Buggered! But wait, I'll buy us each a new Merc and we're back in the game! What a mess, Scotty!

Sorry Luciferase it doesn't work that way. Your new Mercs are still assets, well at least for the assets test if not as cars, so will not reduce your assets for a couple of years, until you can depreciate them sufficiently. Of course running them may send you broke, so you could receive the pension.

Better to liquefy some of your asset each year to top up your income to a satisfactory standard, then join the line at the needy counter, once you have used up enough of those assets.

Still with fairly moderate tastes, I can live quite happily on the pension level of income, with the hump, [as on the camel] of fully owned assets, & a medicare card supporting me. I have even managed to replace many of my white goods, & things like water tanks, from income, with only a draw on accumulated assets for a car.

Personally I am old enough to have paid a levy to future pension, & feel entitled to draw one. Having supported the so called needy almost all my life, I am disinclined to help pay for a pension for some, but not receive it myself. Time for the politics of envy to go take a hike.

Yes you are correct and as The Murray Report said 84% of people have no idea about planning their own retirement so make no effort to find out the "testing rules" for the Age Pension and therefore have no concept of how to maximize their share.

So they take the advice OF BigSuper and do a Minimum Drawdown of their Super [as Allocated/Account Based Pension] and wonder why any Age Pension they get goes down every year [while their Fund Fees go up].

Most of the cases I get at agepensionsolutions dot com [NOT dot com dot au] involve a PART Age Pension where invariably the elephant in the room that reduces the Age Pension IS the asset value OF the Super, so it does not take a brain surgeon to figure one needs to SPEND the Super, but in a planned way over 20 years.

The govt is not happy and the Fund is not happy but YOU are happy, after all YOU are the main "Stakeholder" in this circus even though Murray only talks to govt and fund managers as stakeholders.

Thanks for that head-up Hassy, We'll by something more consumable, like a trip of two lifetimes, or cosmetic surgery. The old Astra will have to do me.