The present social security system (of which the age-pension is just one part of many), has now begun to be a very large ratio of the budget. Particularly the aged pension.
All other areas of welfare are dependent upon the circumstances of the recipient. To a degree so is the Aged Pension(AP) but it has been given a much larger degree of leeway due to a perception (and to a degree I also have the same inclination) that the aged should be given an extra amount of leeway to ensure they receive surety in the last stages of their life.

The increasing number of 'retired' people that have Superannuation (SA) or other assets that can be used to fund their retirement have increased almost exponentially. Most of these retirees can quite easily live off their SA if they chose to, but precious few do so as they wish to horde their savings for a rainy day. Or even just to pass on the wealth to their children. So they employ beancounters to minimize the drawdown from their super so they can receive all the benefits of being deemed a pensioner. They not only want their cake and to eat it - they want our cake and they have no conscious at all about wolfing down our share, to ensure they give their kids a big inheritance.

I don't believe it is any taxpayers responsibility to ensure that a wealthy person can bequeath a rich estate to their children. At least not while the State has a budget blowout and the future is bleak.


When or if you are retrenched Social Security (SS) demands you use a percentage of your savings before you can claim UE welfare. For FA, it is dependent upon your combined income and a sliding scale of payments are offered.

But with the AP isn't treated in the same and equal way as the other types of welfare. Which has now allowed paper and asset rich people to claim a type of welfare which was only ever meant to subsidize the cost of aged care living. It was never devised or planned as a way to allow wealthy old (almost always at the present time public service employees as they were the first benefactors of a superannuation/government pension scheme) healthy people who have no health impediments to stop working. In other words they are no different to other unemployed people - they are just older, and much richer.

Therefore if the State really wants to use a rule that is applied equally to all then it should consider how it measures all other applicants for social security benefits - IF it wants to treat all citizens equally that is.

ie if they truly believe there should be no disparity in the way they treat the disabled then either they should apply the current type of eligibility management to the candidate retirees applying for the aged pension.
For example, if you have a disability that might allow you to claim welfare then you make the application and you are assessed by a commonwealth appointed Dr to determine the extent which your disability prevents you from engaging in paid work. If the applicant retiree for the aged pension was to be treated in the same way it would mean they are also expected to be assessed medically by a commonwealth Dr as to their fitness and ability and determine whether or not they can still work for a living.
In my opinion if they are fit to perform work, and they have sufficient funds from super or other assets then like everyone else they should be expected to use their own savings or assets to pay for their own way - like everyone else.....

But how do you force a older person who has all there wealth in a house or other investments that are ignored by the State in determining an older persons eligibility for the pension? I suggest that a funding garuntee not unlike that used for university and TAFE education is used to give people a way to have their cake and it it too.

It might be rolled out like this.

A person who has a house or trust and retiring applies for the pension. The government requests the person to provide all the usual details they now provide to determine eligibility.
From this point on however change has been made to how you decide your pension is handled.
If in the instance a person not having currency+assets above a certain limit (set by State after consultation) then the pension is paid in full.
If in the instance has assets or funds that exceed that limit. Then the ORDINARY pension is withheld and an alternative loan is offered.
Unless of course your assets reach a set limit where the State has predetermined you are fully able to fund your own retirement. Then you use your own money.
The alternative arrangement is for the retiree to make application to the State for a loan to be paid to the retiree in the same way as HEC or HELP - annually. The maximum loan limit is the excess over the deemed assets that prevents the person from receiving the ORDINARY aged pension. Once the person has exhausted the deemed amount, THEN they can receive the ORDINARY aged pension.

The government is given a encumbrance/mortgage against the assets (the same way a bank holds the deeds for a house, so too would the State) and is called in when the person dies. To ensure the State is repaid the same relative amount CPI or interest is applied to the loan.

The result would deliver a few benefits.
Surety of funds for retirees to the end of their life.
Reduction in welfare.
A more equitable welfare system - aged are treated (largely) the same as other welfare recipients.
The poor and needy aged are cared for.

Comments and suggestions please  :

Why not just dig a big hole and bulldoze the retirees into it. Better still get the retirees to dig their own hole and drive the bulldozers.

Every piece of legislation is created with large holes for the friends and paymasters of the legislators to exploit. Legislation such as this would be another instance of transferring wealth from the poor to the wealthy.

I see your point.

Why not just get rid of all government and go back to the good old days where people like me can rule everything because I know how to use my strength and cunning to make people who aren't as strong as me my slaves.

Is that what you mean? Because apart from the generalizations you've just used I have no idea why you would think this can't work.

At least explain why it wouldn't work rather than figuratively just throw your hands in the air and declare it's all to hard......

Anthony123 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2015 at 2:17pm:

I see your point. Why not just get rid of all government and go back to the good old days where people like me can rule everything because I know how to use my strength and cunning to make people who aren't as strong as me my slaves. Is that what you mean? Because apart from the generalizations you've just used I have no idea why you would think this can't work. At least explain why it wouldn't work rather than figuratively just throw your hands in the air and declare it's all to hard......

It won't work because of corruption, greed, cunning, selfishness and human nature.

Every political initiative is eventually corrupted to steer the flow of money to the wealthy.

Every initiative to halve the deficit eventually doubles the deficit.

So essentially as far as you are concerned it is all just to hard......
My understanding of politics is to try and seek solutions in a programmatic fashion, and never giving up in that pursuit.

So now I'm wondering why you are a member of a political forum? Considering that your just declared position on laws and governance is all just not going to work?????