Politics Pensions: the biggest rort in society

[Herne Hill Hammer]

the reason that is now happening is because the baby boomers own the majority of the assets and they make more money if they can sell to the highest bidder. It all comes back to the stage in life of the generation that is disproportionatly large. And that generation is currently asset owners with high incomes. They are soon to become pensioners scared of foreigners.

I would think a more likely reason for why this is happening is the both federal and state governments have sold off anything that made any income so they have to find money from somewhere.

People in general seem to expect the government to increasingly provided more and more services or fund more and more communities and politicians can't seem to say no because, heaven forbid, someone may not like them.

Governments seemed to have the uncanny knack of continually getting screwed over in all manner of contracts, whether that be in acquisitions or buildings costing the public billions.

I don't know how contracts are currently negotiated by government departments but is it left entirely to career bureaucrats that have been ******* them up for their whole careers or do the hire professionals as needed for assistance?

 

[twotooto]

Why would they fall? I'd have thought that if locals couldn't afford them then international buyers would snap them up like they do now.

They would fall if a huge amount of Baby Boomer's, aka BB's, aka Bad Bastards sold their properties - which, incidentally, future generations would inherit and thus benefit if they did not sell - at a similar time.

Because the market would be flooded with properties that no one can afford to buy, it would then, in theory, force the market value down.

Moot point anyway because it would never happen and is hence an unrealistic call from the BBB's, aka the Baby Boomer Bashers.

 

[MAGA]

GIVE ME FREE STUFF !!!!!!!

 

[Rear Admiral]

I agree with sherb time to get rid of the boomers in Parliament - point to the politicians not us.

 

[nicky]

Governments seemed to have the uncanny knack of continually getting screwed over in all manner of contracts, whether that be in acquisitions or buildings costing the public billions.

I don't know how contracts are currently negotiated by government departments but is it left entirely to career bureaucrats that have been ******* them up for their whole careers or do the hire professionals as needed for assistance?

I tend to think some of these contracts are golf club deals. I've worked in Government and some of the services that have been outsourced don't even have Service Level Agreements in their contract, therefore the service provider can provide a downgraded and minimal service. It is not possible, imo, that a proper contract negotiation could allow this.

Like if your internet service provider made the following claim about their service....., "no promises, we'll give it a go and see what happens" - you wouldn't sign up with them.

You'd expect more rigour from someone in government signing away sqillions of tax payer money.

 

[Maggie5]

Check out the register for Senators Interest. A high number of politician own at least three properties, including one which is a Canberra residence that they rip the public off.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Senators_Interests/CurrentRegister

Then of course there is the MP register as well.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Members/Register

 

[Ok Boomer]

The current pension system is completely unsustainable and is about to become the biggest theft of a generation from another generation now that the baby boomers have started taking pensions.

The pension system was designed to fund people in their last ten years of life when they could no longer work. However, dramatic increases in life expectancy means that it is now funding people in their last 20-30 years of life and the proportion of those in the population in the retirement age bracket is about to sky rocket thanks to the baby boomers.

What makes this worse is the means test for getting access to the pension. The house of residence is excluded from the asset test. So people living in 2 million dollar homes with a half million dollars in other assets are actually earning money from tax payers. This is nothing more then corruption. And whats worse this rort encourages the baby boomers to stay in their expensive 4-5 bedroom homes after all their kids have left to keep their pension coming in. This keeps housing prices high as well and who benefits from that more than anyone else: the baby boomers.

Watch as income taxes go up to fund this rort over the next decade. Hell both governments have already suggested a raise in taxes to fund this. It is just a matter of how much and how quickly.

Oh and guess when the retirement age is due to rise to mitigate this problem? Not until all the baby boomers are well and truly retired and thus wont be affected by it.

Stop complaining about welfare cheats, single mothers, gays getting married (or not getting married) or even money being wasted on out of date submarines. This is the real problem in society. It is time to get angry. The baby boomers are pigs hogging the barrel. They must be stopped.

Baby Boomers should be deported.

 

[Ok Boomer]

Average wage in 70's was about $6000 houses were about $35,000. Interest rates varied 12% to 18% during the life of loan (mid 70's to mid 90's)

Still a heck of a lot better than the current market. No boomer has a right to cry "poor me", when talking to anyone born after the early 80's when it comes to housing affordability, benefits from the government, education costs or employment opportunity, sans the early 90's recession we had to have period for the latter.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Check out the register for Senators Interest. A high number of politician own at least three properties, including one which is a Canberra residence that they rip the public off.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Senators_Interests/CurrentRegister

Then of course there is the MP register as well.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Members/Register

There are plenty of instances of politicians either going it alone or teaming up and pooling resources (living away from home allowance) to invest in the Canberra property market.

If It's in their own financial interests, It's not that uncommon for pollies of opposing sides to invest / buy together.

 

[Maggie5]

Still a heck of a lot better than the current market. No boomer has a right to cry "poor me", when talking to anyone born after the early 80's when it comes to housing affordability, benefits from the government, education costs or employment opportunity, sans the early 90's recession we had to have period for the latter.

Not sure that any BB are crying 'poor me' in this thread.
In fact most agree that times were much better and support any changes to make it better for this and next generations too.

There are plenty of instances of politicians either going it alone or teaming up and pooling resources (living away from home allowance) to invest in the Canberra property market.

If It's in their own financial interests, It's not that uncommon for pollies of opposing sides to invest / buy together.

I know, so?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Not sure that any BB are crying 'poor me' in this thread.
In fact most agree that times were much better and support any changes to make it better for this and next generations too.


I know, so?

Because you threw it out there like it was some great new discovery. They're probably the reason why the Canberra property market has always been pricey.

You just can never seem to grasp the fact that Labor pollies are in it up to their necks too.

 

[Maggie5]

Because you threw it out there like it was some great new discovery. They're probably the reason why the Canberra property market has always been pricey

No I 'threw' it out there because there will never be changes to things like negative gearing and the like whilst we have politicians going to the trough more than a couple of times.

I also think if you took the time to go through the list you will find more LNP pollies that have several properties and not all have purchased Canberra properties with other pollies.

Keep trying though, always look forward to your replies.

 

[Moshie The Mook]

The baby boomers are pigs hogging the barrel. They must be stopped.

Ahem. They are the ones who built the houses, worked in the factories, funded the prosperity we all enjoy.

We will just have to find a way to pay for it all. I propose we build great big apartment buildings, and sell the units to the Chinese.

 

[Benny78]

I don't think it should be raised. The retirement age should be 65. You could be dead the next day and have worked long enough at that age. Most won't be alive for another 20-30 years.

What disgusts me is the pension is a pension. It should be for battlers at that age instead it's funding living expenses for the wealthy. They're planning it to supplement a dream retirement with their existing assets/wealth. It's simple. Anyone who is quite well off or self sustainable shouldn't be allowed access to it.

 

[madmug]

I don't think it should be raised. The retirement age should be 65. You could be dead the next day and have worked long enough at that age. Most won't be alive for another 20-30 years.

What disgusts me is the pension is a pension. It should be for battlers at that age instead it's funding living expenses for the wealthy. They're planning it to supplement a dream retirement with their existing assets/wealth. It's simple. Anyone who is quite well off or self sustainable shouldn't be allowed access to it.

Remember that many people get a part pension, some are really quite minimal. If they have any entitlement then they get a health care care. This gives access to the PBS for subsidised medication, rates reductions, transport discounts. Not everyone on a pension is living the life of Riley. Living costs like water, power & the like have gone up exponentially in the last decade or so. Given the fact that interest rates are under 2%, money in bank is next to useless.

I do think family homes valued in excess of the mean cost in the area should be included. ie average in part of Sydney may be say 900k, so a house valued at $1.2mill gives a $300k assett penalty. Or in Canberra it could be $450k but a $600k house, thus a $150k penalty. Thats fairer I would've thought. You dont want to force people out of their area of friends & social networks. Like can be hard enough for some older people.

 

[Frank Grimes]

Include the home in the Net Assets test for the Age Pension, however exclude the first ~$600k (average price of housing in Australia)

I'm not sure if that's s good measurement to go by. $600k will get you different things in different cities. $600k would probably get you within 10k of Adelaide CBD, but it would only get you about 20-25k from the CBD in Melbourne. Even then suburbs in the city itself are different. Living in a $1.2 million house in Belgrave will effectively be a mansion. Living in a $1.2 million house in Richmond would be a run down old shack. It probably be better to base a measurement on the median of the suburb, rather than Australia.

 

[Frank Bunn]

There have been efforts to curtail such payments and the measures need to be implemented gradually. But my point was really about how many pensioners fall into this category - and what is the annual payments to them?

I could be having geriatric tendencies and missed the reply but what is the scale of the problem?

- how many pensioners fall into this category of not realising high value assets?
- what are the sum annual payments to them?

 

[skilts]

2. However it is not my fault I was born when I was

Just before she died, aged 89 years, I gave my mother a sound thrashing for not postponing my birth until 1990. To her credit she took it well, and didn't blame me for her premature demise.

 

[Seeds]

I'm not sure if that's s good measurement to go by. $600k will get you different things in different cities. $600k would probably get you within 10k of Adelaide CBD, but it would only get you about 20-25k from the CBD in Melbourne. Even then suburbs in the city itself are different. Living in a $1.2 million house in Belgrave will effectively be a mansion. Living in a $1.2 million house in Richmond would be a run down old shack. It probably be better to base a measurement on the median of the suburb, rather than Australia.

No you need a disincentive for pensioners to live in the inner cities. Workers need to live in the inner cities because that is where most of the skilled jobs are. They have no choice. Pensioners should not be living there and if they really want to they should have to pay for that fact. Thus you cant scale asset tests based on medium suburb prices.

 

[Seeds]

Ahem. They are the ones who built the houses, worked in the factories, funded the prosperity we all enjoy.

We will just have to find a way to pay for it all. I propose we build great big apartment buildings, and sell the units to the Chinese.

What? Every single generation does that. Are baby boomers that deluded to think they are a special case in the positive? Baby boomers just got given a lot more wealth for doing it given all their tax cuts and subsidies. Baby boomers are a special case in one way though. A large majority of baby boomers are all are retiring early and thus not contributing as much as other generations have or will.

 

[Hoops]

I'm not sure if that's s good measurement to go by. $600k will get you different things in different cities. $600k would probably get you within 10k of Adelaide CBD, but it would only get you about 20-25k from the CBD in Melbourne. Even then suburbs in the city itself are different. Living in a $1.2 million house in Belgrave will effectively be a mansion. Living in a $1.2 million house in Richmond would be a run down old shack. It probably be better to base a measurement on the median of the suburb, rather than Australia.

Disagree, if it's OK for the young to have to move out to the outer suburbs miles from work leaving their family and social network to afford a house, then it's OK for the elderly, so the rest of us do not have to fund their lifestyle. It also frees up houses, bringing down prices

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

On a side note with men having lower life expectency than women should they have a lower retirement age?

 

[Chief]

Please don't think that your munificence is unacknowledged.

Seriously though, you make a fair point about house of residence values. If this loophole were to be closed, the likelihood of money being available to those who actually deserve it would be hugely increased. Truth is, another characteristic should be attributed to my generation (above the ones you've mentioned) - given our numbers, if we/they were to choose to get off our arses, and free up their considerable wallets, governments which sought to alter this situation would be very short-lived indeed. That's why any effective changes in this area are unlikely, unfair as that may be.

One issue is these houses are often transferred to children well before the parents need to move to an old folks home. Then you don't need to put the house up as a bond and get the same care as someone who had to sign over a million dollar property to the aged care company.

 

[Big_Luch]

You still pay stamp duty on a property even if you hand it over for zero dollars to your children.

 

[twotooto]

Disagree, if it's OK for the young to have to move out to the outer suburbs miles from work leaving their family and social network to afford a house, then it's OK for the elderly, so the rest of us do not have to fund their lifestyle. It also frees up houses, bringing down prices

That's really a very simplistic solution that has no place in reality.

If Baby Boomers across the nation all simultaneously put their properties on the market you would have a massive over supply vs demand so yes, in theory, prices would go down.

However, at the moment, there are people from all generations that have property, not just BB's. What that means is if the market was flooded suddenly everyone's property value goes down - effectively, it shoots the generations that are supposedly going to benefit in the foot.

Also, not every Baby Boomer lived in the city. The simple fact is, in just about any city in the world, at any time, in any generation, if you want to live close to the city, you're going to pay more. And so many, many Baby Boomers actually had to buy some distance away from the city and/or their place of work. Contrary to popular belief, they weren't all living in mansions in the city, going to uni for free and sucking on the govt tit - there was this thing called reality.

But not just the Baby Boomers - the same applied to the generation before them and the one before that. There's always been a percentage of the population that have had to travel long distances to work and there always will be(the poor, poor things).

And really, how would you even coordinate something like getting BB's to sell their supposedly vast, inner city manor's all within a short period of time? Send it out in a memo? On x day you are all going to sell, sell, sell? Cmon, let's be realistic here.

-----

As for free university. Yes, it was free(before my time) but let's put it into context. Most people back then did not even complete year 12 - they were working full-time at 15 and 16. People were mostly married by their early 20's. They often had more than 1 or 2 kids and they only had one wage. University was not the done thing. Even though it was free, it simply was not an option for most people.

I would also argue that today - where people can go and get their education subsidised and not pay a fee until they cross a very generous threshold - it actually costs the govt more than it did then, since the ratio of people attending university today is much, much higher(incidentally, I personally feel uni should be free, still).

There were some very lean years employment wise - you had to take what you could get(options were very limited). Interest rates on a home loan were, I think, up to about 18% at one stage. It wasn't all shits and giggles. It's only now, with the passing of time, that some people appear to have done well and benefited from long term decisions they made.

The pointing the finger and blaming of the Baby Boomers for the ills of the country in this thread is a bit disappointing, tbh. Lots of sweeping generalisations being made and people seem to forget that there's still a *load of Baby Boomers that are nowhere near on easy street. Bit disrespectful to just dump them all in the one basket, imo. I'm sure Millennial's, etc don't appreciate being stereotyped either.

I think that, instead of looking back and playing the blame game, we should be looking at ways that ensure all generations benefit now and in the future. As I've already said, we can start by not selling the whole freakin' country off. I think there's a whole host of things we can do before nailing the BB's to the cross.