Australian Aged Pension

[sceadugenga]

Anyway, can we get back onto the Age Pension?

[Nemises]

Ok no problems. Although I did honestly think that discussion on ways to improve the ‘2 year home detention’ Age Pension portability requirement was on-topic and useful for those us soon to go back to serve out “those 2 years”.

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, David Walden said:

Rubbish

David
 
You keep offering advice based on your own experiences with the AAP.

 

This is no longer relevant!

 

Legislation for the AAP is dynamic and if you offer any advice you need to keep up to date.

 

You missed the boat on the 01 January 2015 major change where the pension was tested by both income and assets and now with the asset limit for single non homeowners.

 

It is $465,500 not $456,750.

 

Take a break!

[David Walden]

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

David
 
You keep offering advice based on your own experiences with the AAP.

 

This is no longer relevant!

 

Legislation for the AAP is dynamic and if you offer any advice you need to keep up to date.

 

You missed the boat on the 01 January 2015 major change where the pension was tested by both income and assets and now with the asset limit for single non homeowners.

 

It is $465,500 not $456,750.

 

Take a break!

I do believe you are correct...7 days ago 30/06/2018 the asset limit for the aged pension was $456,750, it was changed to $465,500 one day later ...do you really think that has much to do with the discussion here.  The man in question suggests he has been given $100,000 and has no other assets, yes he is now $365,500 below the threshold.........God give me strength

[Nemises]

 

The man in question suggests he has been given $100,000 and has no other assets, yes he is now $365,500 below the threshold.......

 

 

David, thanks for your answer. However, as the person who asked the question about a pensioner receiving $100k, I have chosen the answers given at post #’s 2866 & 2873 as being more helpful because they mentioned the income that would be deemed from the 100k lump sum.

 

There was also a link given which confirmed that post #’s 2866 & 2873 were true and accurate.

 

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/lump-sums-while-income-support/28961

 

[David Walden]

2 hours ago, Gregster said:

 

David, thanks for your answer. However, as the person who asked the question about a pensioner receiving $100k, I have chosen the answers given at post #’s 2866 & 2873 as being more helpful because they mentioned the income that would be deemed from the 100k lump sum.

 

There was also a link given which confirmed that post #’s 2866 & 2873 were true and accurate.

 

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/lump-sums-while-income-support/28961

 

I'm sorry Mr Gregster but your enquiry seems to not much to do with AAP.  Deeming does apply with many other aspects of income support through Centrelink but if you just keep the discussion to the AAP all will be apparent.  Govt allocated CPI adjusted pensions are deemed by Centrelink if you apply for the AAP, these pensions have no surrender value and they stop (full stop ) when you die if you don't have a wife, they are linked to the CPI.  There is a complicated formula Centrelink uses to asses Govt pensions to see if you can also claim some or all of the AAP or when it does stop.  Having a job whilst your being paid the AAP your wages are deemed, you can earn about $469 per fortnight and get the full pension plus rent assistants. Next year under the current budget you will be able to earn $550p/f including the work bonus and still get the full pension plus rent assistants.  My uncle has a NSW allocated Govt pension of $2800 p/f he gets no AAP and is happy.

I found when I was driving the school bus I was above the thresholds and married and paid no tax by using the TAX offset threshold,  That is using my wife's unused tax threshold.  Complicated I know married couples over 65 only get this benefit .  I was paid $1100 p/f by the bus company.  I lost about $250 of my pension and using the tax offset threshold paid no tax nor did my wife.  Sort of got it back using my wife's threshold (all above board).  The tax offset allows over 65y/o to earn up to about $ 54,000 combined and pay no tax

  Lots of complicated matters with the AAP both tax matters and Centrelink matters are quite different when you are granted the AAP or if you are over 65y/o (still the retirement age for self funded people.)

  My calculations show that is you had a job that paid you $15000 a years you would need about $465,500 of assets to generate this $15,000 at 3.5% p/a interest at Centrelink deeming rates.  If you earned $20,000 p/a  at 3.5% would put you over the asset level.  I believe your assets are assesed using a similar formula.  The soon to be introduced increased wages threshold and the work bonus which will allow you to earn $550 p/f and still get the full pension seems good to me.  It means you as a single person can get the full pension near $24,000 plus rent assistance of about $3484 p/a and have a job earning $14500 +$3484 rent ass  and the pension $24,000 all adds up to about $41,984 and you only pay about $1500 tax.  Living in Thailand if you need to work it's not  so good but if you have a modest amount of super say $200,000 or sell your house put the change after mortgage clearing into super and life can be quite comfortable in Thailand.  If you have super and own a house you assets threshold is much lower

 

As I've said before I only put posts on this site based on my own personal experiences.  Some people don't like my post because it upsets their dreams. 

                                              It's better the devil you know then the devil you don't know.

PS...For the 23 time now you will not lose any of your AAP if you only have $100,000 of assets... not a cracker not a penny nothing nothing nothing.

[Nemises]

For the 24th time now I prefer to accept the advice of post #’s 2866 & 2873 than yours. Thanks anyway [emoji106]

[ELVIS123456]

13 hours ago, David Walden said:

If you base your Centrelink on the advice of  # 286 &2873 who ever they are then they are wrong.period.

David you are wrong period.  You are very wrong 99% of the time and are extremely argumentative when corrected.

 

The posts Gregster refers too are 100% accurate and we have provided links and references.

 

 

Anyone reading this thread please ignore any comments or advice by David Walden.

 

 

[LosLobo]

On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 9:06 PM, ELVIS123456 said:

 However, unless you spend the $100K on approved things (approved by CLink), then CLink can determine that a percentage of the $100K is deemable (for a long time) - and you spending it on a world cruise will not change that deeming. 

If you spend the inherited cash on gifting, purchase of financial or non financial assets or do nothing your pension will be down-sized accordingly.

 

But if you actually spend the money on gambling, world cruise or partying etc with no residue I believe your pension will not be affected.
 

[sceadugenga]

We're arguing about complex legislation here and anyone thinking that Centrelink always gets it right should take note of the large number of debts they have given people recently only to have them overturned in the appeals tribunals.

 

I suspect that even personal experiences can be unreliable in this field and my advice to anyone worrying about assets or income to contact Centrelink's financial services section and get a ruling in writing.

 

 

[LosLobo]

8 minutes ago, sceadugenga said:

We're arguing about complex legislation here and anyone thinking that Centrelink always gets it right should take note of the large number of debts they have given people recently only to have them overturned in the appeals tribunals.

 

I suspect that even personal experiences can be unreliable in this field and my advice to anyone worrying about assets or income to contact Centrelink's financial services section and get a ruling in writing.

 

 

I agree!

But will Centrelink deal with hypotheticals, I thought they only responded to real cases.

[sceadugenga]

No, you will need to have a personal case to put before them.

 

[David Walden]

10 hours ago, LosLobo said:

If you spend the inherited cash on gifting, purchase of financial or non financial assets or do nothing your pension will be down-sized accordingly.

 

But if you actually spend the money on gambling, world cruise or partying etc with no residue I believe your pension will not be affected.
 

Only if you exceed the AAP threshold of$465,500, as a single person who does not own a house...if you own a house the asset threshold will be about $258,000.  This issue is all to do about AAP asset threshold...nothing else.

[ELVIS123456]

16 hours ago, LosLobo said:

If you spend the inherited cash on gifting, purchase of financial or non financial assets or do nothing your pension will be down-sized accordingly.

But if you actually spend the money on gambling, world cruise or partying etc with no residue I believe your pension will not be affected.
 

As Sceadugenga has pointed out, DHS/CLink tend to take the hard line in interpreting the ACT's Rules/Regs, and are sometimes overturned on appeal to AAT.  But in this situation, they tend to not be over-ruled, unless serious evidence is provided to warrant that.

 

My understanding is that if you cannot account for the money (often by by showing receipts/etc) and what you have purchased (say a car or new houshold items or new kitched etc.), then they will determine that you have either invested it or gifted it or spent it on 'non-approved' items, and thus they will apply deeming to most/all of that amount (depending on your other financial circumstances). 

 

I am very certain of this. The Govt some years ago introduced this rule/change to stop people having a world cruise/gambling etc. and then going on the pension once they had reduced their assets and income.  As part of the process of 'assessing' a Pension application, they go back several years and look at your financial transactions - the legislation allows them to go back 5 years (in the UK they can go back 7 years). The reality is that they tend to go back 2-3 years as those records are easier to obtain (Banks, ATO, Super etc.), but they may go back the full 5 years if they have any suspicions/concerns.

 

Once you are on the pension and receive some money/inheritence, they go even harder about it.  Unless you show them that you didnt gift or invest or 'waste' the money, they will deem it all/part for income, and add all/part to your assets.  The thing to do in this situation (eg an inheritence) is to contact DHS/CLink and advise them you are expecting some inheritence money soon and ask them what the rules are regarding spending the money on some personal things and on some non-personal things (house/car etc.).  Do not provide definitive answers to any questions - say maybe this amount and maybe will get about then and not sure jhow much and when and just checking first etc etc.  If you are lucky and get a 'good one' he/she will tell you the details of what they will count and what they will not and other good advice and only put a little information on your record/file. If you get a feminazi (and there are a lot who seem nice) they will drag as much info out of you as possible and put it all on your record for later.  All calls are recorded and information is added to your record/file during and after every call. The information is short and brief for the next 'delegate' to use when making a decision. They tend to only access the call records and listen when the matter goes to appeal with AAT and they may be going to lose - unless the operator has made a note regarding things like 'admission at 3.45' on the record. 

 

CLink does provide financial advisers and they tend to be a little more 'friendly'. But they will not answer hypotehticals like 'what if I did this or that' 'can I do this or that' etc etc. Prepare and think before you call - have everything ready and all your questions prepared in advance.

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/financial-information-service

 

I know DHS and CLink well - one of my many Fed Govt customers for many years (25+). And I spent almost 2 years learning the 'ropes' before retiring, and try to stay informed as much as possible.  That is why I keep across this thread - there is always something new to learn and someone often has a question/situation I had not thought of.

 

[sceadugenga]

I'll just remind members of forum rules here

 

Posting Content & General Conduct

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

8.) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

 

The rules are quite clear about continuing to try to make your point and becoming abusive after people have disagreed with it.

We all have different ideas and opinions, make yours and move on, repetition will not make people believe you are right.

Even if you say it 23 times.

 

 

[Nemises]

As Sceadugenga has pointed out, DHS/CLink tend to take the hard line in interpreting the ACT's Rules/Regs, and are sometimes overturned on appeal to AAT.  But in this situation, they tend to not be over-ruled, unless serious evidence is provided to warrant that.   My understanding is that if you cannot account for the money (often by by showing receipts/etc) and what you have purchased (say a car or new houshold items or new kitched etc.), then they will determine that you have either invested it or gifted it or spent it on 'non-approved' items, and thus they will apply deeming to most/all of that amount (depending on your other financial circumstances).   

I am very certain of this. The Govt some years ago introduced this rule/change to stop people having a world cruise/gambling etc. and then going on the pension once they had reduced their assets and income.  As part of the process of 'assessing' a Pension application, they go back several years and look at your financial transactions - the legislation allows them to go back 5 years (in the UK they can go back 7 years). The reality is that they tend to go back 2-3 years as those records are easier to obtain (Banks, ATO, Super etc.), but they may go back the full 5 years if they have any suspicions/concerns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Elvis. Appears Centrelink will deem the $100k inheritance @ 3.25% 

 

 

Therefore 100k @ 3.25% = $3,250 deemed income per year

 

$3,250 per year = $125 deemed income per fortnight

 

If a single pensioner is allowed to earn $164 income per fortnight (see pic below) before benefits decrease, then my sums say that he might not lose any of his benefit, especially if he has no other income nor assets.

 

 

 

http://assets.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_2018_07/IMG_2869.PNG.e4bbcc422b6d22c14f4d5a4d65b796d7.PNG]

 

 

 

[4MyEgo]

2 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

I know DHS and CLink well - one of my many Fed Govt customers for many years (25+). And I spent almost 2 years learning the 'ropes' before retiring, and try to stay informed as much as possible.  That is why I keep across this thread - there is always something new to learn and someone often has a question/situation I had not thought of.

 

Can we run a scenario here Elvis123456 or anyone else that can back it up please, with either personal experiences, or links.

 

Let's say I return to Australia at least 2 years prior to applying for the AAP and have money in the ASX, i.e. the new sum, up to $465,500 as at 1 July 2018 for a single person without a property, as advices by LosLobo #2883. I mean does the AAP when I receive it 2 years later remain untouched, i.e. CentreLink would be deducting any amount from the AAP as long as the total value of the asset remains under $465,500 when I apply for it, that said, what about the income from it, would affect the pension ?

 

I know once I re-establish residency I would have to pay tax above the Australian Taxation threshold, which is currently $18,200.

 

With these funds in the ASX doubt very much one could obtain the Newstart allowance for the 2 years ? Just asking, because if it's all above board, ah, hello, why not, have paid my doe's.

 

Anybody have any suggestions, this is coming from someone who has paid 40 years worth of taxes to date, including last years as a non resident as I did some work for some existing clients and will be lodging another tax return soon for 2017-2018 financial year as a non resident, tax was only about $5,000 and will probably be the same for 2017, but prior to those years we are talking about tens of thousands of $'s paid in taxes every single year, plus tens of thousands of $'s in capital gains tax over at different years whenever I sold off an investment.

 

I want to make this clear, I am not looking at ripping the system off, but would like to know as a married man, would I be better off claiming the married asset threshold which I am assuming is higher, although I know the AAP will be reduced to probably the single AP because my wife is 21 years my junior, although hasn't worked a day in her life since she met me in 2007, a Princes she is not, she is a Queen, well so she tells me ?

 

Be interesting to see what the usual blokes come up with, I am not rich by far, sure, might be better off than a few after selling my principal place of residence as opposed to paying all the associated taxes to keep it, in a downturning market, and I have to make at least 60,000 baht per month of that to live a normal lifestyle here whilst raising and putting 4 kids through school, the amount isn't that much considering, but the stock market can be up and down, red and greens on the board, and so far, so good, but he AAP if I reach that age, will supplement any reds on the board in the future, so to speak.

 

In the end, when the time comes, it may not be feasible to return to Australia for the 2 year jail term, but one has to weigh all future options up, and keep planning, because without a plan, "you have no plan" ?

 

 

[4MyEgo]

44 minutes ago, Gregster said:

Thanks Elvis. Appears Centrelink will deem the $100k inheritance @ 3.25% 

 

 

Therefore 100k @ 3.25% = $3,250 deemed income per year

 

$3,250 per year = $125 deemed income per fortnight

 

If a single pensioner is allowed to earn $164 income per fortnight (see pic below) before benefits decrease, then my sums say that he might not lose any of his benefit, especially if he has no other income nor assets.

 

 

 

http://assets.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_2018_07/IMG_2869.PNG.e4bbcc422b6d22c14f4d5a4d65b796d7.PNG]

 

 

 

Hey Gregster, do you know if this is on amount over the $465,500 threshold, or is the threshold also reduced as it earns an income ?

 

[Nemises]

Hey Gregster, do you know if this is on amount over the $465,500 threshold, or is the threshold also reduced as it earns an income ?
 

Will check out and advise mate. Will
also PM you about something else.

[LosLobo]

I suggest using the :

Centrelink Age Pension Calculator

http://www.yourpension.com.au/APCalc/

 

for any scenarios, as it models the current AAP legislation.

 

It also has links to all the relevant legislation.

 

[Ban Phe Dezza]

On 7/2/2018 at 9:37 PM, sceadugenga said:

Anyway, can we get back onto the Age Pension?

yep  i agree stay of the Rich pensioners,  how about us poor Buggers trying to survive just on the Pension and suffering from the very Poor Exchange rates. I belief this was the original intent.

If not I wish the Moderators would just consider this subject done to death 

[ELVIS123456]

On 7/8/2018 at 4:15 PM, LosLobo said:

I suggest using the :

Centrelink Age Pension Calculator

http://www.yourpension.com.au/APCalc/

 

for any scenarios, as it models the current AAP legislation.

 

It also has links to all the relevant legislation.

 

Great tool - calculates everything for you.  But it is not guranteed - always double check things.

 

Although it states what is a deemed financial asset or a non-deemed asset is clear is most situations, for some things it still requires clarification/interpretation

 

In answer to 4myego's hypothetical situation and Newstart - it all depends on how CLink views your financial assets. The issue is whether they would be seen as 'liquid' (like a bank account), and CLink would therefore decide you can use some/all of that money to support yourself - and therefore they could delay or even deny Newstart, and/or maybe reduce it if you do get it.  I can say that when you are on Newstart they dont deem financial assets like Super, but they may deem ASX investments - not sure - dont have that so didnt study up on it.  

 

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

In answer to 4myego's hypothetical situation and Newstart - it all depends on how CLink views your financial assets. The issue is whether they would be seen as 'liquid' (like a bank account), and CLink would therefore decide you can use some/all of that money to support yourself - and therefore they could delay or even deny Newstart, and/or maybe reduce it if you do get it.  I can say that when you are on Newstart they dont deem financial assets like Super, but they may deem ASX investments - not sure - dont have that so didnt study up on it.   

 

My understanding for Newstart is that superannuation is not assessed.

 

ASX shares are deemed and are liquid assets.

 

With good superannuation schemes currently returning 15% and being tax free at retirement there might be a case here against early commutation.

 

As of 20 September 2018 liquid assets in excess of $36k (couple with dependents) will attract a 26 week wait for benefits.

 

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/organisations/about-us/budget/budget-2017-18/jobseekers/liquid-assets-waiting-period-increasing-self-reliance

[4MyEgo]

4 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Great tool - calculates everything for you.  But it is not guranteed - always double check things.

 

Although it states what is a deemed financial asset or a non-deemed asset is clear is most situations, for some things it still requires clarification/interpretation

 

In answer to 4myego's hypothetical situation and Newstart - it all depends on how CLink views your financial assets. The issue is whether they would be seen as 'liquid' (like a bank account), and CLink would therefore decide you can use some/all of that money to support yourself - and therefore they could delay or even deny Newstart, and/or maybe reduce it if you do get it.  I can say that when you are on Newstart they dont deem financial assets like Super, but they may deem ASX investments - not sure - dont have that so didnt study up on it.  

 

Then its back to plan B, if I ever do return for the AAP, i.e. get rid of the shares at least 5 years beforehand, but I cannot see that happening, especially when you weigh up the cost to return, stay for 2 years and then return to Thailand, based on my figures as mentioned beforehand, it would take me 4 years to re-coupe that money, that said, I would be returning with the family, and wouldn't be sitting it out in a one bedda, no farken chance in the world, with kids and all, oy ! ....lol

[moojar]

Possible changes to the ATO (not Centrelink) residency definition in the wind.  May be of interest to some, particularly those with Australian income / investments. 

 

Quote

The Turnbull government has been urged by its own tax advisory board to take a new approach to determining residency by throwing out most other complicated tests and instead basing it on a more simple “days count” test where a person is present in Australia for 183 days or more in a 12-month period.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/jet-setting-execs-may-face-major-changes-to-residency-tax-laws-20180709-p4zqh1.html

 

The article goes on to discuss different potential rules for different types of residents, all goes a bit over my head - 'outbound individuals', 'former residents', 'never been resident'.  

[moojar]

There are some calculators on Noel Whittaker's website - deeming, retirement drawdown, aged pension etc.  

https://www.noelwhittaker.com.au/resources/calculators/

 

Noel writes one of the financial advice columns for Fairfax (Sydney Morning Herald etc.).   https://www.smh.com.au/topic/ask-an-expert-1qi     From there you can drill down to specific areas of interest, like pension: https://www.smh.com.au/topic/pension-60f

 

Was Noel mentioned in this thread recently and people had not much good to say about him?  I have a vague recollection, but could not be bothered scanning back thru the thread.   

[4MyEgo]

13 hours ago, moojar said:

Possible changes to the ATO (not Centrelink) residency definition in the wind.  May be of interest to some, particularly those with Australian income / investments. 

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/jet-setting-execs-may-face-major-changes-to-residency-tax-laws-20180709-p4zqh1.html

 

The article goes on to discuss different potential rules for different types of residents, all goes a bit over my head - 'outbound individuals', 'former residents', 'never been resident'.  

"For outbound individuals, the board recommended individuals be considered non-resident if they work overseas and spend less than 31 days working, or 61 days total in Australia".

 

"Former residents would become non-resident if they spend less than 16 days in Australia, and someone who has never been resident of Australia would remain a non-resident if they spend less than 46 days in Australia".

 

Personally to simplify things, I think there should be a simple ruling for all, i.e. if you are out of the country, for whatever reason, for longer than 12 months, then you should be considered a non resident for tax purposes, meaning if you work overseas for more than 12 months, then you pay a higher tax rate, which can be off-set against investments back in Australia, from my understanding, and those that return, having been away under a year, pay the normal tax rate.

 

As for those (me) who are self retired and live here as a non resident, I am sure we are happy to pay no tax by investing our money in Australian companies, we do not receive the pension, so its a win/win.

 

I did say it should be a simple ruling for all, didn't I.....?

[ELVIS123456]

18 hours ago, moojar said:

Possible changes to the ATO (not Centrelink) residency definition in the wind.  May be of interest to some, particularly those with Australian income / investments. 

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/jet-setting-execs-may-face-major-changes-to-residency-tax-laws-20180709-p4zqh1.html

 

The article goes on to discuss different potential rules for different types of residents, all goes a bit over my head - 'outbound individuals', 'former residents', 'never been resident'.  

This proposalis very unlikely to ever get implemented.  This quote from the article hints at how complicated any changes would be:    Tax Institute senior tax counsel Bob Deutsch said a more simple test was needed but that using the UK rules would be a backward step. “The UK solution is an absolute disaster,” he said. “They have pages and pages of law [about] what hours count. I really wouldn’t want to see us go down that path. It would create so much litigation and so much complexity.”

 

When it comes to status quo or complicated changes to Tax Legislation, for very little if any financial benefit to the Govt, I always bet on the status quo.   I doubt this will get far at all - unless an enquiry and report can show that it will save/earn the Fed Govt a lot of money - and then only if politically expedient as well. Democracy - gotta love it.

 

[Nemises]

There are some calculators on Noel Whittaker's website - deeming, retirement drawdown, aged pension etc.  
https://www.noelwhittaker.com.au/resources/calculators/
 
Noel writes one of the financial advice columns for Fairfax (Sydney Morning Herald etc.).   https://www.smh.com.au/topic/ask-an-expert-1qi     From there you can drill down to specific areas of interest, like pension: https://www.smh.com.au/topic/pension-60f
 
Was Noel mentioned in this thread recently and people had not much good to say about him?  I have a vague recollection, but could not be bothered scanning back thru the thread.   

Great links, thanks for sharing.
Yeah, I posted a link a few months back to a radio program in which Noel spoke about gifting/loaning assets in order to qualify for the AAP.
From memory I think there was only one person who never had much good to say about Noel. And that particular person admitted to not being able to play the audio clip, instead he just bagged Noel anyway.

[moojar]

15 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

This proposalis very unlikely to ever get implemented.  This quote from the article hints at how complicated any changes would be:    Tax Institute senior tax counsel Bob Deutsch said a more simple test was needed but that using the UK rules would be a backward step. “The UK solution is an absolute disaster,” he said. “They have pages and pages of law [about] what hours count. I really wouldn’t want to see us go down that path. It would create so much litigation and so much complexity.”

 

When it comes to status quo or complicated changes to Tax Legislation, for very little if any financial benefit to the Govt, I always bet on the status quo.   I doubt this will get far at all - unless an enquiry and report can show that it will save/earn the Fed Govt a lot of money - and then only if politically expedient as well. Democracy - gotta love it.

 

I have to agree - if they cannot save money AND gain a political advantage (or at least cop no political disadvantage) then it likely will not happen.  They - either party - don't so much govern the country as use their time in office to boost their chances of winning the next election.   Witness last week's GST "changes".  Liberal party totally ignored their own 'productivity commission' coz implementing the recommendations would have hurt them politically.  They went with a typical band-aid political fix instead.    

 

Anyway, to make this post relevant to AAP ? , here is a link:  http://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/retirement-income/2018/06/frustrating-pension-process-deterring-seniors-from-applying-to-centrelink/   The article is about how tough it is to fill in the application forms - cry me a river.  But I thought some of the comments at the bottom of the article re how long the approval process takes might be of interest to some on here.  

 

The website itself has quite "shallow" articles but I sometimes pick up useful information.  And if you adore the British Royal family you will enjoy the site - never noticed them refer to "the black duchess" like my wife does though. ?