Australian Aged Pension

[ELVIS123456]

On 12/18/2017 at 1:30 PM, moojar said:

Then it's time for Plan B or Plan C.  Two years onshore post-OAP, or no OAP.  

 

Talk to Centrelink International.  They know more than people like me on an Internet forum do. 

 

The only downside to this excellent advice is that they are not an 'advice provider' so please never ring them asking for general advice on what to do and what not to do.  And in fact there are no CLink qualified  'advice providers'.  By Advice Providers I mean someone who you can give the details of your situation and your desired outcome/s, and they then give you the best advice to achieve those outcome/s, given your own circumstances and possibilities.  

 

There are ATO qualified Advice Providers who can and do provide those services (for a fee) - but there are no qualified or certified CLink Advice Providers.  Qualified Tax Advisers are usually up to date on the CLink rules and regs and implications, but they cannot definitively say 'yes' or 'no' to any question that has CLink involvement/decisions.  

 

ATO provides official advice and rulings which bind them to those decisions and outcomes and those rulings are applicable to all  taxpayers and businesses - until that rule/reg is officially changed through legislation - and which is then officially communicated to all registered Tax Advice Providers, Accountants, News Outlets, etc etc. and also made public on the ATO website and through Media Statements.

 

CLink provides informal answers to individuals which are not in anyway binding, and any decision/ruling they make is only binding on that individual and is not applicable to any other individual, and is not conveyed to any other individual or organisation.  

 

Whilst CLink does provide informal answers, they ONLY provide informal answers to exactly the question/s asked.  Most of their answers can be relied upon, but they are not binding on CLink, and they do not and cannot provide 'advice'.  It is like the old joke:

Q - "Does your dog bite?"

A - "No"

"Hey , your dog just tried to bite me"

"That is not my dog"

 

CLink will answer a question, but they will not also suggest anything additional that relates to that question or answer, unless they are specifically directed (by DHS Management) to do that in response to any specific issue/question.  It would be nice to have an Adviser you can ask "what do you recommended I do and dont do", but what anyone says in answer to that is not worth the paper it is written on. It may be correct (for them and on that day) but it is not guaranteed.

 

To get an official answer from CLink you have to officially lodge an application (for whatever).  Then you will get a decision and a ruling on your own individual circumstances, that is only valid for you and for as long as your circumstances dont change.

 

You have to do the research yourself (including but not only forums like this) and then prepare your question/s - so that you can clarify what may be the answer for your circumstances for your own planning.  There is no other way to get the best advice for what you should do and should not do in order to get what you want from CLink.

 

And you need to stay updated and across the changes that regularly happen - certainly ever year leading up to the Budget.

 

[4MyEgo]

18 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

The only downside to this excellent advice is that they are not an 'advice provider' so please never ring them asking for general advice on what to do and what not to do.  And in fact there are no CLink qualified  'advice providers'.  By Advice Providers I mean someone who you can give the details of your situation and your desired outcome/s, and they then give you the best advice to achieve those outcome/s, given your own circumstances and possibilities.  

 

There are ATO qualified Advice Providers who can and do provide those services (for a fee) - but there are no qualified or certified CLink Advice Providers.  Qualified Tax Advisers are usually up to date on the CLink rules and regs and implications, but they cannot definitively say 'yes' or 'no' to any question that has CLink involvement/decisions.  

 

ATO provides official advice and rulings which bind them to those decisions and outcomes and those rulings are applicable to all  taxpayers and businesses - until that rule/reg is officially changed through legislation - and which is then officially communicated to all registered Tax Advice Providers, Accountants, News Outlets, etc etc. and also made public on the ATO website and through Media Statements.

 

CLink provides informal answers to individuals which are not in anyway binding, and any decision/ruling they make is only binding on that individual and is not applicable to any other individual, and is not conveyed to any other individual or organisation.  

 

Whilst CLink does provide informal answers, they ONLY provide informal answers to exactly the question/s asked.  Most of their answers can be relied upon, but they are not binding on CLink, and they do not and cannot provide 'advice'.  It is like the old joke:

Q - "Does your dog bite?"

A - "No"

"Hey , your dog just tried to bite me"

"That is not my dog"

 

CLink will answer a question, but they will not also suggest anything additional that relates to that question or answer, unless they are specifically directed (by DHS Management) to do that in response to any specific issue/question.  It would be nice to have an Adviser you can ask "what do you recommended I do and dont do", but what anyone says in answer to that is not worth the paper it is written on. It may be correct (for them and on that day) but it is not guaranteed.

 

To get an official answer from CLink you have to officially lodge an application (for whatever).  Then you will get a decision and a ruling on your own individual circumstances, that is only valid for you and for as long as your circumstances dont change.

 

You have to do the research yourself (including but not only forums like this) and then prepare your question/s - so that you can clarify what may be the answer for your circumstances for your own planning.  There is no other way to get the best advice for what you should do and should not do in order to get what you want from CLink.

 

And you need to stay updated and across the changes that regularly happen - certainly ever year leading up to the Budget.

 

Add: Keep reading this forum to see what others experience and pass on 555

[Nemises]

Excerpt below from ASFA states how much super you need to retire “comfortably” in AU.


A “comfortable” retirement is defined as ....”retirees to be involved in leisure activities, have a good standard of living by being able to freely purchase household goods, private health insurance, drive a good car and take both domestic and international holidays.”

This is how much they say you need...

“To achieve a comfortable retirement, singles need $545,000 in superannuation and couples require $640,000 by age 67, while also owning their home outright and having good health.”

Thank God we have OAP portability and LoS.


ASFA report here:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/how-much-should-you-have-in-superannuation-now-in-order-to-have-a-comfortable-retirement/news-story/346d5fff2b6eb1f76d06a0d57c96e901

[Nemises]

Here is the report (dated Dec 2017) in case above link doesn’t work:

 

 

—————-

 

WORKERS who fear they will have insufficient funds once they retire can check for the first time if their superannuation is on track.

 

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) has released new figures to show people exactly where their retirement balance should be sitting at age 30, 40, 50 and 60.

 

 

To achieve a comfortable retirement, singles need $545,000 in superannuation and couples require $640,000 by age 67, while also owning their home outright and having good health.

 

These balances presume retirees are drawing down on their super and receiving a part age pension.

 

The data has revealed for singles earning $70,000 per year they should have $50,000 at age 30, while for Australians earning $100,000 they could reach these balances for a comfortable retirement by having no super savings at that age.

 

By age 60 a person earning $70,000 per annum should have $425,000 tucked away, while that late starter on $100,000 should have accumulated $410,000.

 

ASFA chief executive Dr Martin Fahy urged Australians to check to see if their balances are on track or “take action now”.

 

“You have got to start thinking about extra contributions but with more and more broken patterns of employment people should start to accumulate a bit quicker more than the default 9.5 per cent of compulsory super,’’ he said.

 

“There’s this sense that we might all be able to work as long as we want whenever we want, but we need to be careful that we are not overconfident in that assumption.”

 

A comfortable retirement will enable retirees to be involved in leisure activities, have a good standard of living by being able to freely purchase household goods, private health insurance, drive a good car and take both domestic and international holidays.

 

The superannuation guarantee — compulsory employer super contributions — has remained at 9.5 per cent but is planned to reach 12 per cent by 2025.

 

Intrust Super’s chief executive officer Brendan O’Farrell also urged Australians to review their super, consolidate multiple accounts and consider tipping more in if they had the cash to do so. The alternative was a retirement shortfall.

 

“You could be reliant fully on the age pension,’’ he said.

 

“You will only be able to afford a ‘moderate lifestyle’ in retirement and may not be able to afford important items such as, private health insurance and airconditioning and you may struggle to meet regular loan repayments.”

 

————

 

 

Ends//

 

[steven100]

1 minute ago, Gregster said:

To achieve a comfortable retirement, singles need $545,000 in superannuation and couples require $640,000 by age 67, while also owning their home outright and having good health.

   These guys are jokers .............   there is absolutely no way that young Australians will have anywhere near $545k while owning their own home outright.

He is dreaming.  Folks these days would be lucky to have $40-60k in superannuation at age 30-40yrs .

It's much harder now to get a job for a start, and forget about topping up supper as most cannot afford to add with the current cost of living.

As for owning their home outright .....  forget that,  most cannot even save enough for the deposit.  

 

[Peterw42]

37 minutes ago, steven100 said:

   These guys are jokers .............   there is absolutely no way that young Australians will have anywhere near $545k while owning their own home outright.

He is dreaming.  Folks these days would be lucky to have $40-60k in superannuation at age 30-40yrs .

It's much harder now to get a job for a start, and forget about topping up supper as most cannot afford to add with the current cost of living.

As for owning their home outright .....  forget that,  most cannot even save enough for the deposit.  

 

It sounds like a lot but you contribute 10% of gross income over 40-50 years, then compound interest of 5-10%.

Compound interest of 5% over just 20 year would more than double the original contribution amount.

An average wage of 50k would give you super of 2 million plus.

[steven100]

54 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

It sounds like a lot but you contribute 10% of gross income over 40-50 years, then compound interest of 5-10%.

Compound interest of 5% over just 20 year would more than double the original contribution amount.

An average wage of 50k would give you super of 2 million plus.

Hi Peter, I hear ya and I agree with that ...  it's just that anyone I know who hasn't had a permanent job for the past 10-15 yrs and has only had part time jobs here and there ... they don't have a huge supper that will get to $600k ....    It may be true for those from the old school ( 1960-1980) but not so after that .. IMO

geeeze .....   how many friends who are in their 60's do you know that have $600k saved and own their home ?   not too many I don't expect. just saying.

[Peterw42]

16 minutes ago, steven100 said:

Hi Peter, I hear ya and I agree with that ...  it's just that anyone I know who hasn't had a permanent job for the past 10-15 yrs and has only had part time jobs here and there ... they don't have a huge supper that will get to $600k ....    It may be true for those from the old school ( 1960-1980) but not so after that .. IMO

geeeze .....   how many friends who are in their 60's do you know that have $600k saved and own their home ?   not too many I don't expect. just saying.

Yes thats right, there are a lot of retiring people who missed the boat for compulsory super, and now get a pension based on having some super. A forgotten generation.

[4MyEgo]

10 hours ago, Gregster said:

Excerpt below from ASFA states how much super you need to retire “comfortably” in AU.


A “comfortable” retirement is defined as ....”retirees to be involved in leisure activities, have a good standard of living by being able to freely purchase household goods, private health insurance, drive a good car and take both domestic and international holidays.”

This is how much they say you need...

“To achieve a comfortable retirement, singles need $545,000 in superannuation and couples require $640,000 by age 67, while also owning their home outright and having good health.”

Thank God we have OAP portability and LoS.


ASFA report here:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/how-much-should-you-have-in-superannuation-now-in-order-to-have-a-comfortable-retirement/news-story/346d5fff2b6eb1f76d06a0d57c96e901

Thanks for that.

 

Could you imagine having the required couple amount, having your house paid off, car paid off, doing domestic travel twice a year and international travel at least once a year and living here permanently, you would be laughing all the way to the bank, just saying........while I laugh all the way to the bank 555

[4MyEgo]

9 hours ago, steven100 said:

   These guys are jokers .............   there is absolutely no way that young Australians will have anywhere near $545k while owning their own home outright.

He is dreaming.  Folks these days would be lucky to have $40-60k in superannuation at age 30-40yrs .

It's much harder now to get a job for a start, and forget about topping up supper as most cannot afford to add with the current cost of living.

As for owning their home outright .....  forget that,  most cannot even save enough for the deposit.  

 

The aim would be to downsize, once they do that, they can afford a comfortable lifestyle, super is one way, but property from my experience is the only way to go, it increases in value while you pay your mortgage, better than renting as rent goes down the drain.

 

Sydney property prices have jumped 50%, 60% and 110% depending on what decade you saw the rises, now if you purchased a place in February 1987 for example for $60,000 in an inner western suburb like Dulwich Hill, it would be worth something like $1.3 million in today's market, so downsizing to say a 2 bedroom unit from a two bedroom semi in the same area would leave you around $640,000 and a unit paid off.

 

Personally Thailand is more affordable and a better choice, but it might not be everybody's cup of tea.

[F4UCorsair]

On 1/11/2008 at 9:56 PM, VOICEOVER said:

Many thanks to Nignoy and everyone for their info. Much appreciated and I'll attempt to phone Centrelink in Australia on Monday. Fully expect to be "put on hold" and/or have to select from a dozen "options" while trying to get a Real Live Public Servant to talk with.

Will let you know the results as it looks as though there are many other Aussie Expats in a similar situation. My first posting on Thaivisa.com and I'm overwhelmed at the response.

heers,

Voiceover.

 

Voiceover, may I suggest that any advice you receive is confirmed in an email, a link to their website where the information is accessible, or an available brochure from centrelink?   

 

I've never had any dealings with them, but have with numerous government departments over the years, and verbal advice is worth little.

[sceadugenga]

On 1/3/2018 at 12:21 PM, sceadugenga said:

Something that I'd like to see is the reaction if someone went back before eligibility for the OAP and applied for Unemployment/NewStart.

Jump thorough their hoops, there wont be many... you are in your mid 60s after all.

 

Then when you're old enough for the OAP make application and ask for portability, then when they say there's a two year wait reply........................

 

But I must be a resident, you have me on a residency based payment.

 

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/newstart-allowance/residence-rules

How long you need to have been a resident

You must be an Australian resident and be in Australia for 104 weeks before you can get Newstart Allowance.

What may be different

You may be exempt from serving the 104 week period if you:

• are an Australian citizen

·         Waiting period for Newstart: A person who returns to Australia and applies for Newstart Allowance would not have to serve a two year Newly Arrived Resident's Waiting Period if they had previously resided in Australia for two years or more.

The two year (104 week) waiting period that applies to payments such as Newstart Allowance is the Newly Arrived Resident's Waiting Period (NARWP). Periods spent in Australia as an Australian resident, at any time in a person's life, can be counted towards the waiting period.

.................................................................................................................................................................................

  Access to social security benefits is generally restricted to people who are Australian permanent residents or citizens residing permanently in Australia.  While most income support payments have a two year waiting period, Age Pension and Disability Support Pension have a 10-year qualifying residence requirement.  This 10 year qualifying residence requirement aims to ensure that only those people who have established a long term connection with Australia are able to access Age Pension and Disability Support Pension.

[4MyEgo]

4 hours ago, sceadugenga said:

·         Waiting period for Newstart: A person who returns to Australia and applies for Newstart Allowance would not have to serve a two year Newly Arrived Resident's Waiting Period if they had previously resided in Australia for two years or more.

The two year (104 week) waiting period that applies to payments such as Newstart Allowance is the Newly Arrived Resident's Waiting Period (NARWP). Periods spent in Australia as an Australian resident, at any time in a person's life, can be counted towards the waiting period.

.................................................................................................................................................................................

  Access to social security benefits is generally restricted to people who are Australian permanent residents or citizens residing permanently in Australia.  While most income support payments have a two year waiting period, Age Pension and Disability Support Pension have a 10-year qualifying residence requirement.  This 10 year qualifying residence requirement aims to ensure that only those people who have established a long term connection with Australia are able to access Age Pension and Disability Support Pension.

Add to that, that they have to qualify under the assets test, or you just burst their bubble...555

[keithpa]

On 1/3/2018 at 12:21 PM, sceadugenga said:

Something that I'd like to see is the reaction if someone went back before eligibility for the OAP and applied for Unemployment/NewStart.

Jump thorough their hoops, there wont be many... you are in your mid 60s after all.

 

Then when you're old enough for the OAP make application and ask for portability, then when they say there's a two year wait reply........................

 

But I must be a resident, you have me on a residency based payment.

 

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/newstart-allowance/residence-rules

How long you need to have been a resident

You must be an Australian resident and be in Australia for 104 weeks before you can get Newstart Allowance.

What may be different

You may be exempt from serving the 104 week period if you:

• are an Australian citizen

As I think i have mentioned, I did that, except I applied for the disability pension, after spending 10 years in LOS and returning for about 1 month a year, two visits, got it and six months later, got the OAP. ( They wanted to retrain me for a job I could handle, i mentioned that in 6 months time i would be an OAP,so, no retraining) . They asked if I would be going back to live overseas for up to 6 months at a time, I said no, but, who knows what the future ;holds, got my OPA at 65, returned to LOS.

[tryasimight]

On 12/26/2017 at 2:19 AM, Gregster said:

 

Well done. Great research and...fantastic news!

My plan to return to AU exactly 2yrs BEFORE retirement age, buying a Winnebago, doing laps of AU (fishing, surfing, drinking) before rocking up to CL on birthday for OAP and then immediately heading back overseas...has just been confirmed :)

Life just got better!

 

Don't forget the means tested part.....you have to be pretty well broke to be eligible.

[4MyEgo]

53 minutes ago, keithpa said:

As I think i have mentioned, I did that, except I applied for the disability pension, after spending 10 years in LOS and returning for about 1 month a year, two visits, got it and six months later, got the OAP. ( They wanted to retrain me for a job I could handle, i mentioned that in 6 months time i would be an OAP,so, no retraining) . They asked if I would be going back to live overseas for up to 6 months at a time, I said no, but, who knows what the future ;holds, got my OPA at 65, returned to LOS.

I hope you advised them you are going overseas, otherwise you could have problems with them cutting you off, i.e. they have to approve your portability of the pension. 

[keithpa]

4 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

I hope you advised them you are going overseas, otherwise you could have problems with them cutting you off, i.e. they have to approve your portability of the pension. 

Never advise them, but they know, immigration tells them and they give me extra for living expenses when back in Oz, I return to LOS and alter 3  months the extra payments cease. Im not here permanently, just around 11 months of the year on holidays.

[4MyEgo]

19 minutes ago, keithpa said:

Never advise them, but they know, immigration tells them and they give me extra for living expenses when back in Oz, I return to LOS and alter 3  months the extra payments cease. Im not here permanently, just around 11 months of the year on holidays.

Sounds fair, however you must have advised them in the beginning that you were going abroad, or should I say I am assuming, because I have read in the legislation that they can stop payments if you don't advise them you are going abroad, or that could have been put in the legislation before all the technology got linked up, or it means if you haven't been back in the country for the 2 year period, if you were out of the country after you turned the OAP age, either way, you should know, as your getting it.

[Nemises]

Don't forget the means tested part.....you have to be pretty well broke to be eligible.

Thanks tryasimight. Yes...am fully aware about having to be broke. So I will make sure that I become “broke” in my final year before OAP eligibility. When CL ask where did all the money go? I tell them how “unlucky” I’ve been at all those terrible AU casinos during the previous 12 months.

After obtaining the OAP I might just somehow recover all of those “losses” (in cash of course) and I will try my best to remember to tell CL about the recoveries.

[keithpa]

4 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Sounds fair, however you must have advised them in the beginning that you were going abroad, or should I say I am assuming, because I have read in the legislation that they can stop payments if you don't advise them you are going abroad, or that could have been put in the legislation before all the technology got linked up, or it means if you haven't been back in the country for the 2 year period, if you were out of the country after you turned the OAP age, either way, you should know, as your getting it.

Never advised them. Go back 2 to 3 times a year, always have. Got the OAP 5 years ago.

[4MyEgo]

9 minutes ago, keithpa said:

Never advised them. Go back 2 to 3 times a year, always have. Got the OAP 5 years ago.

Interesting to know, just odd that you didn't stay for the 2 years prior before departing, because that is what the legislation states ?

[sceadugenga]

He claimed earlier he was already on a residency based pension, the DSP.

[keithpa]

3 minutes ago, sceadugenga said:

He claimed earlier he was already on a residency based pension, the DSP.

Dunno about "residency based," as far as anybody is concerned, Im a resident.

[Nemises]

Article below from last Friday’s Sydney Daily Telegraph talks about the young Liberals wanting the family home INCLUDED in the OAP asset test!

Could result in many more AU homeowners selling up (downsizing) and moving to LoS for a more comfortable retirement...


“Liberals shouldn’t attack a bedrock of society such as the family home by adding it to the pension assets test

There is something special, sacred even, about the places we call home. Even our language reflects this fact in expressions like, “Safe as houses”. Or, “A man’s home is his castle”. And even, for the sentimental, “home is where the heart is”.

Our homes are where we live, play, build families and form the networks that make a neighbourhood.

It’s part of the reason that the housing affordability crisis hits home even for people already on the property ladder: We are all concerned that coming generations won’t be able to build the same sort of lives, and communities, their forebears enjoyed.

Yet last week the NSW Young Liberal president, Harry Stutchbury, proposed a solution to Sydney’s housing affordability crisis: Remove the “primary dwelling pension asset test exemption” and force retirees to either sell up and “downsize” (often far away from the community where they have spent their working life and raised a family) or give up the pension and reverse-mortgage their home to cover living expenses.

While it may seem like a rational, if cold-hearted, solution it’s one that doesn’t stack up, economically, politically or morally.

Indeed it’s a solution that borders on the cruel as it coldly treats Australian pensioners’ dwellings not as homes, but merely assets.

It’s understandable that, in reaction to so many on the Left’s insincere emotive policymaking, some in the Liberals see it as a mark of credibility to appear coldly efficient or calculating in their solutions. But for Liberals to be truly conservative, they shouldn’t react with meanness to their fellow citizens.

Nor does the economic logic stack up. The housing market is not the share market. Shares are far more liquid than property, and unlike shares or cash, a home offers us a shelter from the vicissitudes of life. This is obvious to most.

Liberals looking to reinvigorate their base, which would surely include many people who would be caught out by such a change in policy, should also look to history.

Robert Menzies elevated the family home when he said it “is the foundation of sanity and sobriety; it is the indispensable condition of continuity; its health determines the health of society as a whole”.

And this speaks to something ancient in each of us: We all yearn for a place to call home. This is natural and good. This is why it is nonsense to speak of people’s homes simply as assets. Homes are not an impersonal security, they give security to families.

And in any case, acting as though driving pensioners out of their home will solve the housing problem doesn’t stack up because it treats the problem in terms of supply rather than demand. Stutchbury decries the fact that elderly Australians are refusing to downsize in retirement, thereby reducing “the volume of housing available in the market, pushing up prices”.

In other words, he is saying, we don’t have enough space for housing.

But this is ludicrous. Australia has the most land per person, both aggregate and arable, in the world.

Our problem is one of demand, caused primarily by high levels of immigration without matching infrastructure growth, as well as an unsustainably high rate of foreign acquisition of Australian property.

In addressing the UK’s own affordability crisis, the Bow Group uncovered that the number of Chinese citizens alone who could afford a property overseas was 63 million, a figure roughly three times our population. The demand issue has been exacerbated in Australia by policy insanity. In 2009, the Rudd government threw out rules on foreign home ownership. For instance, it allowed people on student visas to buy properties. On moving back overseas, they did not have to sell the property. The real estate market was, in effect, opened to the parents of hundreds of thousands of foreign students in Australia. Even if we were to rectify the excessive foreign demands on our housing market, we only have two options to meet domestic demand for more homes — building up or building out. Despite the fad around “urban consolidation”, the clearly preferable solution is to build out.

If we build up, returns simply go to current landholders. “Urban consolidation” unsurprisingly leads to the concentration of land ownership. This is not conducive to a propertyowning democracy.

Finally, welcoming reverse-mortgages as Stutchbury and some other do is an odd posture to take.

It seems silly to use debt to fix a problem substantially caused by debt. The increase in house prices is clearly linked to our easy access to debt. It is no coincidence we are near the very top of the table for house prices and house-purchase debt.

Because of this causal relationship, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s targeting of the debt market has been relatively effective.

Reverse mortgages are unprincipled in another sense: they mean that the family which survives a deceased pensioner will not inherit their familial home, but rather debt.

This makes a mockery of the hard work and frugality of past generations, and deprives the future generation of an opportunity to continue its local community ties.

Liberals will neither find solutions nor win votes by treating homes as assets to be manipulated and exploited. And Australians will not find answers in simplistic economics or by increasing the prevalence of debt in our society.

Australia must address the risk to our commonwealth posed by pervasive foreign “investment”. While some kowtow to ideology, Australians are getting locked out of the market.

Our shelters are becoming someone else’s assets. We should prefer to put citizens first, not because of some narrow-minded populism, but because we know what the true purpose of home is. As Menzies said, homes are not just material, but also human and spiritual.

William Dawes is a Young Liberal branch president. David Corbett, who has worked for an internallyfocused British think tank, contributed.”

[keithpa]

1 hour ago, Gregster said:

Article below from last Friday’s Sydney Daily Telegraph talks about the young Liberals wanting the family home INCLUDED in the OAP asset test!

Could result in many more AU homeowners selling up (downsizing) and moving to LoS for a more comfortable retirement...


“Liberals shouldn’t attack a bedrock of society such as the family home by adding it to the pension assets test

There is something special, sacred even, about the places we call home. Even our language reflects this fact in expressions like, “Safe as houses”. Or, “A man’s home is his castle”. And even, for the sentimental, “home is where the heart is”.

Our homes are where we live, play, build families and form the networks that make a neighbourhood.

It’s part of the reason that the housing affordability crisis hits home even for people already on the property ladder: We are all concerned that coming generations won’t be able to build the same sort of lives, and communities, their forebears enjoyed.

Yet last week the NSW Young Liberal president, Harry Stutchbury, proposed a solution to Sydney’s housing affordability crisis: Remove the “primary dwelling pension asset test exemption” and force retirees to either sell up and “downsize” (often far away from the community where they have spent their working life and raised a family) or give up the pension and reverse-mortgage their home to cover living expenses.

While it may seem like a rational, if cold-hearted, solution it’s one that doesn’t stack up, economically, politically or morally.

Indeed it’s a solution that borders on the cruel as it coldly treats Australian pensioners’ dwellings not as homes, but merely assets.

It’s understandable that, in reaction to so many on the Left’s insincere emotive policymaking, some in the Liberals see it as a mark of credibility to appear coldly efficient or calculating in their solutions. But for Liberals to be truly conservative, they shouldn’t react with meanness to their fellow citizens.

Nor does the economic logic stack up. The housing market is not the share market. Shares are far more liquid than property, and unlike shares or cash, a home offers us a shelter from the vicissitudes of life. This is obvious to most.

Liberals looking to reinvigorate their base, which would surely include many people who would be caught out by such a change in policy, should also look to history.

Robert Menzies elevated the family home when he said it “is the foundation of sanity and sobriety; it is the indispensable condition of continuity; its health determines the health of society as a whole”.

And this speaks to something ancient in each of us: We all yearn for a place to call home. This is natural and good. This is why it is nonsense to speak of people’s homes simply as assets. Homes are not an impersonal security, they give security to families.

And in any case, acting as though driving pensioners out of their home will solve the housing problem doesn’t stack up because it treats the problem in terms of supply rather than demand. Stutchbury decries the fact that elderly Australians are refusing to downsize in retirement, thereby reducing “the volume of housing available in the market, pushing up prices”.

In other words, he is saying, we don’t have enough space for housing.

But this is ludicrous. Australia has the most land per person, both aggregate and arable, in the world.

Our problem is one of demand, caused primarily by high levels of immigration without matching infrastructure growth, as well as an unsustainably high rate of foreign acquisition of Australian property.

In addressing the UK’s own affordability crisis, the Bow Group uncovered that the number of Chinese citizens alone who could afford a property overseas was 63 million, a figure roughly three times our population. The demand issue has been exacerbated in Australia by policy insanity. In 2009, the Rudd government threw out rules on foreign home ownership. For instance, it allowed people on student visas to buy properties. On moving back overseas, they did not have to sell the property. The real estate market was, in effect, opened to the parents of hundreds of thousands of foreign students in Australia. Even if we were to rectify the excessive foreign demands on our housing market, we only have two options to meet domestic demand for more homes — building up or building out. Despite the fad around “urban consolidation”, the clearly preferable solution is to build out.

If we build up, returns simply go to current landholders. “Urban consolidation” unsurprisingly leads to the concentration of land ownership. This is not conducive to a propertyowning democracy.

Finally, welcoming reverse-mortgages as Stutchbury and some other do is an odd posture to take.

It seems silly to use debt to fix a problem substantially caused by debt. The increase in house prices is clearly linked to our easy access to debt. It is no coincidence we are near the very top of the table for house prices and house-purchase debt.

Because of this causal relationship, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s targeting of the debt market has been relatively effective.

Reverse mortgages are unprincipled in another sense: they mean that the family which survives a deceased pensioner will not inherit their familial home, but rather debt.

This makes a mockery of the hard work and frugality of past generations, and deprives the future generation of an opportunity to continue its local community ties.

Liberals will neither find solutions nor win votes by treating homes as assets to be manipulated and exploited. And Australians will not find answers in simplistic economics or by increasing the prevalence of debt in our society.

Australia must address the risk to our commonwealth posed by pervasive foreign “investment”. While some kowtow to ideology, Australians are getting locked out of the market.

Our shelters are becoming someone else’s assets. We should prefer to put citizens first, not because of some narrow-minded populism, but because we know what the true purpose of home is. As Menzies said, homes are not just material, but also human and spiritual.

William Dawes is a Young Liberal branch president. David Corbett, who has worked for an internallyfocused British think tank, contributed.”

Why go to all the effort of putting that well written article on here, its like pxxxxxx (cant spell it out on here, too rude) in the wind. Send it to the ozzie media. Great article.

[sceadugenga]

Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2017/2749.html

[Will27]

57 minutes ago, sceadugenga said:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2017/2749.html

The applicant did himself no favours at all by not even turning up to the hearing.

[sceadugenga]

Family and home overseas pretty well trumps most Australian residency cards.

[Nemises]

The adjudicator kept mentioning no prior “10” years residency. I thought it was only 2 years?

[4MyEgo]

15 hours ago, Gregster said:

The adjudicator kept mentioning no prior “10” years residency. I thought it was only 2 years?

The 2 year rule is correct if you reside overseas and return to get the OAP, however you must also have a minimum continuous residency in Australia of 10 years, this is where you may be confused.

 

Let us assume with the un-Australian surname he is known by in the case, that he was not born in Australia, and he obtained Australian Citizenship some time after arriving, i.e.it took about 4 years for my wife to qualify to apply for Australian Citizenship if I am correct back in 2011 or thereabouts, but she didn't apply till 2014, i.e. temporary residency for about a two years, then she received permanent residency status and then applied for Australian Citizenship and was granted it, although now you have to wait 4 years to get permanent residency and then wait another 4 before you can get Australian Citizenship, I think, but did he actually stay in Australia for a continuous period of 10 years to be able to obtain a part pension or 35 years to get the full pension.

 

That is the question, some people think because they are granted Citizenship they can get the pension automatically, not so, 10 years minimum in the country as a permanent resident or citizen for a part pension, 35 years for a full pension, hope that clears it up for you.