Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 28
th, 2016 at 5:47pm:
I'm totally against what she's saying.
67 ought to be the qualifying age NOT 65.
Both Labor AND Liberal are right on this.
Why?
It is unsustainable thanks to the Baby Boomer phenomenon.
Lisa; is this sustainable?
The meanest means-test of the age pension.The Australian government provides every retired person with the safety net of the age pension, subject to the means test.
According to the means test of income, a single pensioner loses 50 % of the age pension after his/her income exceeds $162 a fortnight or $4212 per annum; a couple loses after an income of $4288.00 per fortnight or $7488.00 per annum.
If a single self funded retirees income falls below $1896.00 per fortnight or $49296.00 a year, or a couples income falls below $2902.00 per fortnight or $75452.00 per annum they can claim a part age pension.
The government is using the means test of the age pension, that the pensioner on a modest extra income above the allowable income, before his/her pension is reduced by 50%, to subsidise the generous tax concessions for the self funded retirees; the cost of the tax concessions is now almost as much as the total cost of the age pension.
When the Howard-Costello introduced the obscenely generous tax concessions in 2007,it was hardly mentioned by the media.
As it is now becoming obvious, that cost of the tax concessions are becoming unsustainable, the government should scrap the means test of the age pension and scrap all tax concessions for super.
What complaints would the self funded retirees have, if they were paid the full age pension, for losing the tax concessions for super?
A government in any civilised society should provide a basic living income for its retired citizens, but the government should not use a devious means test, so that citizens on modest incomes should not have to subsidise a luxurious lifestyle for the very rich.
The huge tax concessions for super do, and will in the future greatly contribute to Australia’s government debt problem.
hawil