The pensioners retiring overseas because they can't afford Australia

[SplitInfinitive]

The pensioners retiring overseas because they can't afford Australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-16/pensioners-retiring-overseas-because-they-cant-afford-australia/9762418?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%3a8935&user_id=14dc221ad6587b3d176e29d9e1fe5b9355e862ac5bec5395d01121add0f174a5&WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Email||8935&utm_content=ABCNewsmail_topstories_articlelink

[observer90210]

Why only Australia ? I think it's the case of many retirees from different countries ?

[ezzra]

And yet, the Australian government doesn't give a toss to what their pensioners doing outside of its' borders, it's like saying we don't need these old and frail geezers any longer and definitely as far as paying them their well earned and deserved pension, while giving hundreds of millions every year in donations to bodies and countries Australia has nothing to do with, in this regard, the Australian government has dropped the ball big time...

[Peterw42]

8 minutes ago, ezzra said:

And yet, the Australian government doesn't give a toss to what their pensioners doing outside of its' borders, it's like saying we don't need these old and frail geezers any longer and definitely as far as paying them their well earned and deserved pension, while giving hundreds of millions every year in donations to bodies and countries Australia has nothing to do with, in this regard, the Australian government has dropped the ball big time...

Yes, they just dont get it. Less pensioners living in Australia means less hospital/aged care beds, less public transport, more housing available. If somebody did the calculations the Government could save billions every year.

[poanoi]

59 minutes ago, ezzra said:

And yet, the Australian government doesn't give a toss to what their pensioners doing outside of its' borders, it's like saying we don't need these old and frail geezers any longer and definitely as far as paying them their well earned and deserved pension, while giving hundreds of millions every year in donations to bodies and countries Australia has nothing to do with, in this regard, the Australian government has dropped the ball big time...

if its like the rest of the world, the pensioners neither earned nor deserved

more than a fraction of the expected cost before they finally die

[ELVIS123456]

According to Numbeo, a well respected 'cost of living' web site, the cost of living in Australia is 8.07% higher than in United States (aggregate data for all cities, rent is not taken into account). Rent in Australia is 0.47% higher than in United States (average data for all cities). I have been to the US a few times, and can say that it is probably on average more than that - probably well over 10%.  Australia was rated recently as the second highest country to retire in - I think Japan was the highest.  Cant find the link.  But taken that it is VERY expensive to live as a retiree in Australia, the criticisms of people who retirre overseas using the 'portability' provisons of the pension system, are totally unfounded.

 

A report was written in 2001, after an extensive sudy, made the conclusion was that portability was benefitial to Australian society.

 

Having considered both the social benefit value expressed in monetary terms and the total savings produced by portability policy, the paper concludes that portability policy is of great benefit to Australian society. Not only are savings made, but the average social benefit is also nearly five times higher than savings produced by the policy. Even if we consider some of the shortcomings of the cost-benefit method, overall portability produces a very high net social benefit. If it is considered that the sampling variation is between +/- 3 per cent, the magnitude of the overwhelming benefit would barely change.

The paper also recommends that, because short-term portability produces the highest social benefit, only policy related to long-term portability may be adjusted further. Some consideration may be given to technical adjustments designed to increase the positive financial impact of long-term portability. Also, in the context of the criticism of portability policy sometimes seen in the mass media, raising the level of awareness in the community of the social and financial benefits of portability policy may be a worthwhile investment.

 

https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/publications-articles/research-publications/social-policy-research-paper-series/number-16-cost-benefit-analysis-of-portability-policy?HTML#exec

 

This was not the expected outcome for the Government at the time, who was looking to make savings by cancelling portability.  The report was basically buried and nothiong further was taken in its recommendations (to increase portability).  I was working in Canberra at that time and am aware of the facts.  There has been no study since then that showed this report was wrong in its conclusions.  

 

 

[simple1]

22 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

According to Numbeo, a well respected 'cost of living' web site, the cost of living in Australia is 8.07% higher than in United States (aggregate data for all cities, rent is not taken into account). Rent in Australia is 0.47% higher than in United States (average data for all cities). I have been to the US a few times, and can say that it is probably on average more than that - probably well over 10%.  Australia was rated recently as the second highest country to retire in - I think Japan was the highest.  Cant find the link.  But taken that it is VERY expensive to live as a retiree in Australia, the criticisms of people who retirre overseas using the 'portability' provisons of the pension system, are totally unfounded.

 

A report was written in 2001, after an extensive sudy, made the conclusion was that portability was benefitial to Australian society.

 

Having considered both the social benefit value expressed in monetary terms and the total savings produced by portability policy, the paper concludes that portability policy is of great benefit to Australian society. Not only are savings made, but the average social benefit is also nearly five times higher than savings produced by the policy. Even if we consider some of the shortcomings of the cost-benefit method, overall portability produces a very high net social benefit. If it is considered that the sampling variation is between +/- 3 per cent, the magnitude of the overwhelming benefit would barely change.

The paper also recommends that, because short-term portability produces the highest social benefit, only policy related to long-term portability may be adjusted further. Some consideration may be given to technical adjustments designed to increase the positive financial impact of long-term portability. Also, in the context of the criticism of portability policy sometimes seen in the mass media, raising the level of awareness in the community of the social and financial benefits of portability policy may be a worthwhile investment.

 

https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/publications-articles/research-publications/social-policy-research-paper-series/number-16-cost-benefit-analysis-of-portability-policy?HTML#exec

 

This was not the expected outcome for the Government at the time, who was looking to make savings by cancelling portability.  The report was basically buried and nothiong further was taken in its recommendations (to increase portability).  I was working in Canberra at that time and am aware of the facts.  There has been no study since then that showed this report was wrong in its conclusions.  

No action due to anticipated political backlash of resentment. Especially encouraged by populist right wing politicians such as Hanson & Co.

[ELVIS123456]

18 minutes ago, simple1 said:

No action due to anticipated political backlash of resentment. Especially encouraged by populist right wing politicians such as Hanson & Co.

You saying little 'aussie battler' Johhny was scared of Pauline??

[simple1]

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

You saying little 'aussie battler' Johhny was scared of Pauline??

No, in anycase Howard long gone. Portability was last reviewed in 2016, but changes to legislation were blocked by Labor. Hanson and other right wing populists are currently trying to cut welfare payments.

Edited May 17, 2018 by simple1

[ELVIS123456]

On 5/17/2018 at 7:09 PM, simple1 said:

No, in anycase Howard long gone. Portability was last reviewed in 2016, but changes to legislation were blocked by Labor. Hanson and other right wing populists are currently trying to cut welfare payments.

The report that I wrote about was done in 2001 - when Howard was in power - and Hanson was there at that time too.

 

At this time, Hanson is not trying to cut welfare as far as I can see - she wants to cut payments to illegal immigrants (refugees) and she claims a lot of people on DSP are frauds. 

I dont agree with many things she says - but on those points I agree with her.

 

I understand that the Coalition has been making proposals that would reduce/cut a lot of payments - they are wrong IMO on that.

In fact, as I have said elsewhere, they risk losing the next election if they continue to push their policy of cutting pension payments and making negative changes Super.

 

 

 

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

The report that I wrote about was done in 2001 - when Howard was in power - and Hanson was there at that time too.

 

At this time, Hanson is not trying to cut welfare as far as I can see - she wants to cut payments to illegal immigrants (refugees) and she claims a lot of people on DSP are frauds. 

I dont agree with many things she says - but on those points I agree with her.

 

I understand that the Coalition has been making proposals that would reduce/cut a lot of payments - they are wrong IMO on that.

In fact, as I have said elsewhere, they risk losing the next election if they continue to push their policy of cutting pension payments and making negative changes Super.

Off Topic, but may be of interest...

 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/welfare-cuts-sail-through-senate-as-key-crossbenchers-side-with-coalition

 

IMHO Hanson is a snake in the grass.

[ELVIS123456]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Off Topic, but may be of interest...

 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/welfare-cuts-sail-through-senate-as-key-crossbenchers-side-with-coalition

 

IMHO Hanson is a snake in the grass.

Guarantee she has done a deal.  You vote Yes on this one and we will support your ......................

 

Given that only Lambie (who is an absolute nutter) supported Labor, I gotta think Labor was wrong.

 

[Odysseus123]

There is a very strange atmosphere in Australia.

 

Basically it is shutting down.Expect no particular good will if you wish to be an expat anywhere-but especially in Asia.The Public Service has been "privatized" to a large extent and some of it is very sluggish-to be charitable.

 

By the way,having relatively recently returned (9 months ago) I calculate that it is 4-6 times more expensive to live in Australia than Thailand.

 

I am willing to argue the toss but that is what I see and experience.

 

Pauline Hanson hated Asians before she got around to hating Muslims-and I have very grave doubts as to whether she could cook decent fish and chips in any location that you may choose to nominate.