Australian Aged Pension

[Old Croc]

Just my final little say.
This thread is entitled "Australian Aged Pension" and was started over six years ago.

It evolved over time to include discussions on many government matters of concern to expat Australians. It is too late to now insist it stays on the topic of the original name because it has become all encompassing.
To start new threads now for specifics would mean the loss of six years history. It's been a go-to place for a long time for Australians with all sorts of concerns about funds from the home country, and has always been one of those few threads where nastiness is put aside.

The biggest problem with it for me, is that it is, very inappropriately, buried in the Visas and migration to other countries forum and probably difficult for many to locate.

I think it should be moved to somewhere more appropriate and accessible for those in need, and either renamed or replaced with several more specific titles.

Any positive suggestions?

Edited: to fix some grammar problems.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Old Croc

[harrry]

http://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/international/policy/portability-of-australian-income-support-payments

Gives the history of the portability changes and indicates why there were previously more similarity between the pension payments. There is now little similarity.

[BookMan]

Here is the link to the portion of the budget papers concerning social services

http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-21.htm

[BookMan]

everyone on the DSP will now be only allowed one 4 week a year trip outside of OZ starting from 1/1/2015

one word BRUTAL !!

I think that is fair enough.

[BookMan]

Just my final little say.

This thread is entitled "Australian Aged Pension" and was started over six years ago.

It evolved over time to include discussions on many government matters of concern to expat Australians. It is too late to now insist it stays on the topic of the original name because it has become all encompassing.

To start new threads now for specifics would mean the loss of six years history. It's been a go-to place for a long time for Australians with all sorts of concerns about funds from the home country, and has always been one of those few threads where nastiness is put aside.

The biggest problem with it for me, is that it is, very inappropriately, buried in the Visas and migration to other countries forum and probably difficult for many to locate.

I think it should be moved to somewhere more appropriate and accessible for those in need, and either renamed or replaced with several more specific titles.

Any positive suggestions?

Edited: to fix some grammar problems.

There could be a sub forum under Visas created of 'Overseas Pension/Government payment issues.

The UK Pensions topic runs under the General Forum

[David48]

There could be a sub forum under Visas created of 'Overseas Pension/Government payment issues.

The UK Pensions topic runs under the General Forum

The Mod, TheOldGit did hint at some change a while back.

Does make sence to have the topics in a central place.

[Waterloo]

There could be a sub forum under Visas created of 'Overseas Pension/Government payment issues.

The UK Pensions topic runs under the General Forum

The Mod, TheOldGit did hint at some change a while back.

Does make sence to have the topics in a central place.

Found this thread completely by accident & then struggled to find it again a couple of hours latter!

I think a Sub Forum headed Tax and Pensions, grouping posts from various country's would be very useful.

[lungdavid]

I have just applied for the age pension[in Australia] and qualified in all aspects except one, because I have lived in Thailand for a few years, returning every year to Aust ,I was told I was declared a non resident and had to live in Aust for 2 full years to keep my pension, I have a wife of 7 years here and dont know if I can avoid leaving her for 2 years

[mickjn]

I have just applied for the age pension[in Australia] and qualified in all aspects except one, because I have lived in Thailand for a few years, returning every year to Aust ,I was told I was declared a non resident and had to live in Aust for 2 full years to keep my pension, I have a wife of 7 years here and dont know if I can avoid leaving her for 2 years

How long did you return to Australia for every year???.How long is a few yearsYou can appeal their decision but I think you have to be in Australia when you do.Come back to Australia for 2 years and get a visa for your wife to come ,she would like it.Main thing to remember is if you leave Australia when your 2 years start only for a short time your 2 years starts again.Can you live in Thailand without the pension it is very expensive in Australia to live now.Good luck

[Xangsamhua]

I have just applied for the age pension[in Australia] and qualified in all aspects except one, because I have lived in Thailand for a few years, returning every year to Aust ,I was told I was declared a non resident and had to live in Aust for 2 full years to keep my pension, I have a wife of 7 years here and dont know if I can avoid leaving her for 2 years

How long did you return to Australia for every year???.How long is a few yearsYou can appeal their decision but I think you have to be in Australia when you do.Come back to Australia for 2 years and get a visa for your wife to come ,she would like it.Main thing to remember is if you leave Australia when your 2 years start only for a short time your 2 years starts again.Can you live in Thailand without the pension it is very expensive in Australia to live now.Good luck

Short visits abroad don't count against your 2-year requirement. I have this in writing from the Department of Social Services who are the people responsible for interpreting the Act. They also said they have advised the Department of Human Services who administer the pensions. This followed incorrect advice I'd received from DHS.

However, if you leave Australia during the two years, payment of your pension will be suspended for the duration of your absence.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Xangsamhua

[mickjn]

I have just applied for the age pension[in Australia] and qualified in all aspects except one, because I have lived in Thailand for a few years, returning every year to Aust ,I was told I was declared a non resident and had to live in Aust for 2 full years to keep my pension, I have a wife of 7 years here and dont know if I can avoid leaving her for 2 years

How long did you return to Australia for every year???.How long is a few yearsYou can appeal their decision but I think you have to be in Australia when you do.Come back to Australia for 2 years and get a visa for your wife to come ,she would like it.Main thing to remember is if you leave Australia when your 2 years start only for a short time your 2 years starts again.Can you live in Thailand without the pension it is very expensive in Australia to live now.Good luck

Short visits abroad don't count against your 2-year requirement. I have this in writing from the Department of Social Services who are the people responsible for interpreting the Act. They also said they have advised the Department of Human Services who administer the pensions. This followed incorrect advice I'd received from DHS.

However, if you leave Australia during the two years, payment of your pension will be suspended for the duration of your absence.

OK Thank you a lot different from what they told me but I am ok receiving the OAP I am happy.Do you by any chance know how long a short visit would be.I guess it would be shorter than a holiday but how long is a holiday.Thank you

[Xangsamhua]

Short visits abroad don't count against your 2-year requirement. I have this in writing from the Department of Social Services who are the people responsible for interpreting the Act. They also said they have advised the Department of Human Services who administer the pensions. This followed incorrect advice I'd received from DHS.

However, if you leave Australia during the two years, payment of your pension will be suspended for the duration of your absence.

OK Thank you a lot different from what they told me but I am ok receiving the OAP I am happy.Do you by any chance know how long a short visit would be.I guess it would be shorter than a holiday but how long is a holiday.Thank you

I'm not sure. Maybe someone else knows. I think at present you can go abroad for up to six weeks without having to reapply for the pension. If you did it too often I suppose they'd be interested, as during the first two years you'd be foregoing income while away.

[culicine]

So does one need to have been living in Australia for 2 years prior to applying for pension. My colleague, nearing retirement, says he contacted them, and was told this is not a requirement. Is there an online document that states one need to be there 2 years prior. I had checked before but cannot find anything to that effect. This is just our of interest, as I wont qualify anyway, when I retire.

[lungdavid]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

So does one need to have been living in Australia for 2 years prior to applying for pension. My colleague, nearing retirement, says he contacted them, and was told this is not a requirement. Is there an online document that states one need to be there 2 years prior. I had checked before but cannot find anything to that effect. This is just our of interest, as I wont qualify anyway, when I retire.

if you have been living overseas for some time and then apply for the OAP then you are required to stay in Aust for 2 years while receiving the pension, so Alcatraz Australia keeps you imprisoned there until you are deemed fit to receive a pension you have worked 65 years for

[harrry]

I have just applied for the age pension[in Australia] and qualified in all aspects except one, because I have lived in Thailand for a few years, returning every year to Aust ,I was told I was declared a non resident and had to live in Aust for 2 full years to keep my pension, I have a wife of 7 years here and dont know if I can avoid leaving her for 2 years

How long did you return to Australia for every year???.How long is a few yearsYou can appeal their decision but I think you have to be in Australia when you do.Come back to Australia for 2 years and get a visa for your wife to come ,she would like it.Main thing to remember is if you leave Australia when your 2 years start only for a short time your 2 years starts again.Can you live in Thailand without the pension it is very expensive in Australia to live now.Good luck

Short visits abroad don't count against your 2-year requirement. I have this in writing from the Department of Social Services who are the people responsible for interpreting the Act. They also said they have advised the Department of Human Services who administer the pensions. This followed incorrect advice I'd received from DHS.

However, if you leave Australia during the two years, payment of your pension will be suspended for the duration of your absence.

OK Thank you a lot different from what they told me but I am ok receiving the OAP I am happy.Do you by any chance know how long a short visit would be.I guess it would be shorter than a holiday but how long is a holiday.Thank you

I think I read somewhere that they would allow 2 weeks in a year as that would allow urgent business like funerals. The six weeka does not apply regarding the waiting period. You can leave for 6 weeks and return and you will still get the pension but the clock of your waiting period resets to 0. Edited May 25, 2014 by harrry

[Chiang2000]

The laws regarding portability of pensions have always been unjust. Many posters have been trying various ways of circumnavigation, but basically that is impossible by using suggested methods.

'Talking' to politicians is also a waste of time. When could you ever believe anything that they say? And with us living offshore and therby not voting, could ny of them give a f?

What MAY be of interest is that these 'laws' fly in the face of Australia's commitment to human rights. She has ratified the Declaration, the ICESCR and the ICCPR covenants and, as such, appears to be in breach of all of them over this matter. And it is certainly not the first time that she has broken international law and received directives from the UN. Perhaps this is the way to go?

Anyone else got any thoughts?

[David48]

The laws regarding portability of pensions have always been unjust. Many posters have been trying various ways of circumnavigation, but basically that is impossible by using suggested methods.

'Talking' to politicians is also a waste of time. When could you ever believe anything that they say? And with us living offshore and therby not voting, could ny of them give a f?

What MAY be of interest is that these 'laws' fly in the face of Australia's commitment to human rights. She has ratified the Declaration, the ICESCR and the ICCPR covenants and, as such, appears to be in breach of all of them over this matter. And it is certainly not the first time that she has broken international law and received directives from the UN. Perhaps this is the way to go?

Anyone else got any thoughts?

Anyone else got any thoughts? ... I have a few ... I'll start with ...

I'll start with this one ... you said "What MAY be of interest is that these 'laws' fly in the face of Australia's commitment to human rights" ... please explain.

'She', 'She', 'She' ... ?

If 'She' means Julia Gillard, we have had 2 Prime Ministers since then ... and a change of government.

If 'She' means the Govenor General, then there has been a change there also to the ex Army General Peter Cosgrove

If 'She' means the Queen Libby ... she's still there.

[simple1]

Don’t understand the reference to ICCPR, but ICESCR does refer to rights for Social Security. Whereby the current government has the manta talking to the end of the ‘entitlements’ culture together with a great deal of weasel like statements ducking the reality of the proposed budget legislation for those at the lower strata of society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights#Right_to_social_security

Chiang2000 is correct that Oz government has put legislation in-place or trying to do so that is contradictory to a number of UN Conventions that have been signed and ratified by various Oz governments. Government is entitled to do so, but how about more transparency & less of the duck and weave BS propaganda that comes out of their mouths.

[Chao Lao Beach]

Sorry to be the bearer of Bad News, my wife and I are both australian old age pensioners, we were leaving australia on the 21st of september last year on a 6 month tour of asia and europe, we were informed by immigration at Brisbane if we stayed out of australia for more than 13 weeks we would both lose our age pension and have to wait a further 3 months before being eligable to apply again,so we cut short our trip and returned after 12 weeks,when we returned on the 3rd of december we contacted a solicitor to check up on this new regulation, uptil now all we are getting is conflicting informationas soon as we hear something definite in writing we will post it here Nignoy

Then you have to start form scratch and the huge paper trail.

[harrry]

I think immigration was wrong. You will get paid outside Australia for a short period but then the payments stop. You will be paid again starting from the day you return to Australia.

[Will27]

Sorry to be the bearer of Bad News, my wife and I are both australian old age pensioners, we were leaving australia on the 21st of september last year on a 6 month tour of asia and europe, we were informed by immigration at Brisbane if we stayed out of australia for more than 13 weeks we would both lose our age pension and have to wait a further 3 months before being eligable to apply again,so we cut short our trip and returned after 12 weeks,when we returned on the 3rd of december we contacted a solicitor to check up on this new regulation, uptil now all we are getting is conflicting informationas soon as we hear something definite in writing we will post it here Nignoy

Then you have to start form scratch and the huge paper trail.

The post you're referring to is 6 years old!

BTW, I'm pretty sure Immigration wouldn't be giving out Centrelink advice.

[Chiang2000]

To David48:

To clarify, “she” refers to Australia.

To Simple1:

ICCPR refers to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Am still researching this one but it appears, at face value, to include relevant information.

To all:

We all have somewhat different circumstances in relation to pensions, but we do, I feel, have a lot of common ground. Australia has been very vocal over human rights in other countries, yet she has, especially recently, been guilty of several breaches and has been admonished over them by the U.N.

We have paid for our pensions. The fact that Australia has chosen (at most times) to put the 7% of our taxes designated for pensions into the general account and then spent that money for other purposes is not our fault. It is simply bad management on the part of the governments. They (Oz governments) have had plenty of warning about the pension ‘problems’: we were not born yesterday!

Pensions are a human right.

Having retired a month ago I now have more time to research this matter. It is a big task as there are many thousands of pages of documents to sift through. But it appears to me that Oz has been guilty of breaching the conditions of the UN that she has ratified. In this case by discrimination.

Below are some abridged excerpts. Full texts are easily obtained on the net.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 25.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 29.

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Article 2 (2)

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 4

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society.

Article 5

Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized herein, or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

No restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any country in virtue of law, conventions, regulations or custom shall be admitted on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

Article 9

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.

International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights

Am currently researching the case studies in relation to this one. Could be a fortnight before I acquire the relevancies.

[BookMan]

To all:

We have paid for our pensions. The fact that Australia has chosen (at most times) to put the 7% of our taxes designated for pensions into the general account and then spent that money for other purposes is not our fault. It is simply bad management on the part of the governments. They (Oz governments) have had plenty of warning about the pension ‘problems’: we were not born yesterday!

What are you on about? There is no pre-paying of pensions through taxes. Where do you get this 7% figure from. Any taxes you paid in the past funded pension obligations at the time, they are not saved for the future

Pensions are a human right.

Having retired a month ago I now have more time to research this matter. It is a big task as there are many thousands of pages of documents to sift through. But it appears to me that Oz has been guilty of breaching the conditions of the UN that she has ratified. In this case by discrimination.

Pensions are not a human right.

You might be confusing social security with pensions. Social security does not have to involve any monetary payment ot an individual

[David48]

To David48:

To clarify, “she” refers to Australia.

AH ... the good ship Australia, now I understand that bit.

[Chiang2000]

To all:

We have paid for our pensions. The fact that Australia has chosen (at most times) to put the 7% of our taxes designated for pensions into the general account and then spent that money for other purposes is not our fault. It is simply bad management on the part of the governments. They (Oz governments) have had plenty of warning about the pension ‘problems’: we were not born yesterday!

What are you on about? There is no pre-paying of pensions through taxes. Where do you get this 7% figure from. Any taxes you paid in the past funded pension obligations at the time, they are not saved for the future

Pensions are a human right.

Having retired a month ago I now have more time to research this matter. It is a big task as there are many thousands of pages of documents to sift through. But it appears to me that Oz has been guilty of breaching the conditions of the UN that she has ratified. In this case by discrimination.

Pensions are not a human right.

You might be confusing social security with pensions. Social security does not have to involve any monetary payment ot an individual

Bookman, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, BUT

1)The figure of 7% IS a somewhat arbitrary. From 1944 to 1950 it was a separate 'levy' of 13.33333%. Menzies put the 'new' levy of 7.5% into Consolidated Revenue. In 1985 Hawke-Keating put the balance of monies left in the separate National Welfare Fund into Consolidated Revenue. The levy of 7.5% is still collected but is no longer shown as a separate item. Google "truth about pensions" then follow up with other similar wording. Some sites are hard to find!

2)Pensions ARE a human right. First read ICESCR, especially article 9. Then read Britannica - "social insurance".

3) I can only assume that none of this affects you personally - for many thousands of us, it does!

[BookMan]

Bookman, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, BUT

1)The figure of 7% IS a somewhat arbitrary. From 1944 to 1950 it was a separate 'levy' of 13.33333%. Menzies put the 'new' levy of 7.5% into Consolidated Revenue. In 1985 Hawke-Keating put the balance of monies left in the separate National Welfare Fund into Consolidated Revenue. The levy of 7.5% is still collected but is no longer shown as a separate item. Google "truth about pensions" then follow up with other similar wording. Some sites are hard to find!

2)Pensions ARE a human right. First read ICESCR, especially article 9. Then read Britannica - "social insurance".

3) I can only assume that none of this affects you personally - for many thousands of us, it does!

You are making facts up to suit yourself Chiang2000. Saying that pensions are a basic human right is nonsensical.

There is NO levy for Pensions and there has never been a specific tax levied in Australia to pay for social security benefits.

Paying of pensions does indeed affect me personally, as I am currently paying income tax and will be for many years to come. It is income tax that will go towards funding pensions and other benefits, which are not sustainable on current trends. So it affects me very much.

If you have sites that support your position link them for scrutiny.

[harrry]

Bookman, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, BUT

1)The figure of 7% IS a somewhat arbitrary. From 1944 to 1950 it was a separate 'levy' of 13.33333%. Menzies put the 'new' levy of 7.5% into Consolidated Revenue. In 1985 Hawke-Keating put the balance of monies left in the separate National Welfare Fund into Consolidated Revenue. The levy of 7.5% is still collected but is no longer shown as a separate item. Google "truth about pensions" then follow up with other similar wording. Some sites are hard to find!

2)Pensions ARE a human right. First read ICESCR, especially article 9. Then read Britannica - "social insurance".

3) I can only assume that none of this affects you personally - for many thousands of us, it does!

You are making facts up to suit yourself Chiang2000. Saying that pensions are a basic human right is nonsensical.

There is NO levy for Pensions and there has never been a specific tax levied in Australia to pay for social security benefits.

Paying of pensions does indeed affect me personally, as I am currently paying income tax and will be for many years to come. It is income tax that will go towards funding pensions and other benefits, which are not sustainable on current trends. So it affects me very much.

If you have sites that support your position link them for scrutiny.

Bookman I suggest you do not show your ignorance by demanding sources instead of doing your own research. Bookman's facts are completely true as regards the National Welfare Fund which was a key plank of Federation to replace similar State Based funds,. There is one caveat. This fund and the associated levies only applied to Age, Widows and Disability benefits and did not cover other forms of social security.

[BookMan]

Bookman I suggest you do not show your ignorance by demanding sources instead of doing your own research. Bookman's facts are completely true as regards the National Welfare Fund which was a key plank of Federation to replace similar State Based funds,. There is one caveat. This fund and the associated levies only applied to Age, Widows and Disability benefits and did not cover other forms of social security.

If you have some websites, disputing given facts, then why not link them? Why would I try and research against a fact?

I always give due skepticism when someone says 'difficult to find websites' or 'websites that tell the truth!'

Just to clarify; The National Welfare Fund was introduced in 1943-45. Federation was 1901. So hardly a key plank of federation eh harrry?

Still, it comes back to my point. There was no specific tax levied in Australia for Pensions. Very simple.

Harrry, if it makes yourself and chiang2000 happy, delude yourselves all you want that you have paid into a pension fund via your taxes and that there is a tax levied for pensions.

Here, let me google the actual facts for you:

THE BEGINNINGS

The Commonwealth of Australia was formed on I January 1901 by federation of the six States under a written constitution which, among other things, authorised the new Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in respect of age and invalid pensions. In the event, the Commonwealth did not exercise this power until June 1908 when legislation providing for the introduction of means-tested 'flat-rate' age and invalid pensions was passed. The new pensions, which were financed from general revenue, came into operation in July 1909 and December 1910 respectively, superseding State age pension schemes which had been introduced in New South Wales (1900), Victoria (1900) and Queensland (1908) and an invalid pension scheme introduced in New South Wales (1908).

The new pension was paid to men from age 65. It was paid to women at age 60, but not until December 1910. The age pension was also subject to a residence qualification of 25 years which was reduced to 20 years shortly after introduction. A residence qualification of five years applied to the invalid pension.

In 1912 the Commonwealth introduced a maternity allowance. This allowance was a lump sum cash grant payable to a mother on the birth of a child.

1914-1940

No new Commonwealth social security payments were introduced until World War II. There were, however, several notable developments in the States, including: in New South Wales, the introduction of widows' pensions in 1926 and child endowment in 1927; and in Queensland the introduction of an unemployment insurance scheme in 1923.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de00296978!OpenDocument

Edited June 3, 2014 by BookMan

[Chiang2000]

Bookman I suggest you do not show your ignorance by demanding sources instead of doing your own research. Bookman's facts are completely true as regards the National Welfare Fund which was a key plank of Federation to replace similar State Based funds,. There is one caveat. This fund and the associated levies only applied to Age, Widows and Disability benefits and did not cover other forms of social security.

If you have some websites, disputing given facts, then why not link them? Why would I try and research against a fact?

I always give due skepticism when someone says 'difficult to find websites' or 'websites that tell the truth!'

Just to clarify; The National Welfare Fund was introduced in 1943-45. Federation was 1901. So hardly a key plank of federation eh harrry?

Still, it comes back to my point. There was no specific tax levied in Australia for Pensions. Very simple.

Harrry, if it makes yourself and chiang2000 happy, delude yourselves all you want that you have paid into a pension fund via your taxes and that there is a tax levied for pensions.

Here, let me google the actual facts for you:

THE BEGINNINGS

The Commonwealth of Australia was formed on I January 1901 by federation of the six States under a written constitution which, among other things, authorised the new Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in respect of age and invalid pensions. In the event, the Commonwealth did not exercise this power until June 1908 when legislation providing for the introduction of means-tested 'flat-rate' age and invalid pensions was passed. The new pensions, which were financed from general revenue, came into operation in July 1909 and December 1910 respectively, superseding State age pension schemes which had been introduced in New South Wales (1900), Victoria (1900) and Queensland (1908) and an invalid pension scheme introduced in New South Wales (1908).

The new pension was paid to men from age 65. It was paid to women at age 60, but not until December 1910. The age pension was also subject to a residence qualification of 25 years which was reduced to 20 years shortly after introduction. A residence qualification of five years applied to the invalid pension.

In 1912 the Commonwealth introduced a maternity allowance. This allowance was a lump sum cash grant payable to a mother on the birth of a child.

1914-1940

No new Commonwealth social security payments were introduced until World War II. There were, however, several notable developments in the States, including: in New South Wales, the introduction of widows' pensions in 1926 and child endowment in 1927; and in Queensland the introduction of an unemployment insurance scheme in 1923.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de00296978!OpenDocument

Bookman, the quotes above are from HISTORY OF PENSIONS AND OTHER BENEFITS IN AUSTRALIA. This document was prepared by the Department of Social Security to give a precis of the history of pensions in Australia: it was not intended to show funding of such, only the benefits. However, had you continued your quoting you would have come to:

There was a further development of specific relevance to social security in 1945. The Commonwealth split the personal income tax into two components. One, the social services contribution, was to be used exclusively to finance social security cash payments. Revenue from the contribution was paid into the National Welfare Fund, from which all such cash payments were to be made, but there was no link between personal contributions and entitlements. The fund was supplemented by subventions from payroll tax and general revenue. In the event, the social services contribution was again merged into a single personal income tax in 1950. All cash payments are now made direct from general revenue.

which clearly shows that there HAVE been separate accounts for welfare which included a social service contribution. There was no specific tax levied in Australia for Pensions - read above!!!!! Yes, it was called a contribution. It was compulsory. Therefore it was a tax.

Why should you try and research against a fact? To be certain of ANY 'fact' you need to read all accounts, not just propaganda.

FULL details ARE available on the funding - if you have the nous to find them. I am spending a considerable amount of time doing research at the moment and simply posted to see if anyone on the forum had any CONSTRUCTIVE comments. I do not have the time to waste on teaching you how to research. The information in the last post SHOULD be enough to get you started in a quest to find the truth. Obviously you will not/ can not utilize the information. IF you have any constructive comments, please give them. If not . . .

When my research IS complete, and I know ALL the facts, I will post them here.

[David48]

When my research IS complete, and I know ALL the facts, I will post them here.

We look forward to reading that.

.

Edited June 3, 2014 by David48