Over 60s warned about major changes to the pension coming soon

A new warning has been issued to pensioners and anyone nearing retirement ahead of drastic changes to the pension, which

A new warning has been issued to pensioners and anyone nearing retirement ahead of drastic changes to the pension, which are set to takeover in less than six months.

Financial experts say the changes will affect nearly 500,000 people, but they’re worried many seniors don’t understand just how much they will be affected.

It’s estimated the new pension rules will see 170,000 people receive a higher pension, while about 300,000 will receive less — some of them losing their pension completely.

It’s a devastating blow to thousands of Aussie seniors who rely on their pension payments to get by and who are already struggling to make ends meet.

AMP financial adviser Darren James told News Corp many pensioners are’t even aware of the changes heading their way.

“But it is happening. A lot of people, I suspect, aren’t aware that it’s happening and don’t know how they’re impacted,” he says.

From January 2017 the threshold at which a homeowner couple stops receiving a part pension will drop from $1.18 million to $823,000, and for a single it drops from $792,000 to $547,000.

However, the lower threshold — below which a full pension gets paid — rises from $296,500 to $375,000 for couples and from $209,000 to $250,000 for singles, reports News Corp.

This is a huge margin that will see many pensioners worse off and begs the question – what was the government thinking?

It was difficult to get either party to commit to properly supporting seniors during the recent election campaign, so is this just another sign that our pensioners are being left behind?

James says anyone eligible for the pension should try to make the most of it before the changes come in.

If you’re planning on any renovations or changes to your house, he says it’s best to do it sooner rather than later.

“If that’s going to be happening in the next couple of years, think about bringing it forward and doing it before January,” he said.

In what could be the cruelest blow of them all, Planning for Prosperity senior adviser Bob Budreika says the biggest hit will be on couples when one partner dies and the survivor loses their pension.

“The numbers are quite staggering what they will lose — be aware of what the implications are in a relationship,” he told News Corp.

He also said the changes will hurt some people more than they realise. “Homeowner couples with $823,000 of assessable assets could see their incomes reduce by $13,523.90 per year.”

“Single homeowners could see theirs reduce by $9,402.90 per year. People who have been relying on this income will need to find an additional source.”

People are being asked to share the message with anyone they think might be affected by the changes.

Where you aware of these changes to the pension? Will you be affected? Does more need to be done to protect our seniors?

  1. Marg Graham  

    How about similar thresholds for politician pensions. In their own words “the age of entitlement is over”

    • Linda Parry  

      Yep sounds fair, however, I doubt they would be eligible for a pension they already have enough money.

    • Joy Anne Bourke  

      Yes that is what Turnbull said. What about there pensions and perks? I hope that applies to them as well.

  2. helen coyne  

    Are politicians’ pensions affected likewise?

    • Joy Anne Bourke  

      I wonder! Bet not but should be the same as everyone.

      • Andrea Willis  

        What gives politicians the right to give themselves a pension worth 5 times the average wage anyway? They should be made to simply go and get another job like anyone else has to, after all they didn’t run the country buy themselves.

      • Margaret Lee  

        That’s a very good question are they raking a reduction I. Their pensions and super ?

    • Christine Daffy  

      Of course not. Pensioners have worked all their lives and are entitled to the pension the same cannot be said for greedy greedy politicians. They hit the most vunerable because they cant fight back. The truth is they simply DO NOT CARE. bastards.

  3. Dennis Watson  

    As usual it is the hard workers who have paid their due that will be punished by this incompetent government. A government that seem more intent on looking after illegal immigrants with all their freebies than their own constituents. Lets see what happens with their obscene pensions and lurks and perks. NOTHING! Disgusting!!

    • Joy Anne Bourke  

      Well said my sentiment exactly. Turnbull it better apply to u also.

    • John Barker  

      Yes Turnbull and his cronnies are taking care of chinese and other lowlife interests. Eventually faze out the pension and leave us to rot. Make no mistake who our govt is taking care of…besides themselves.

    • Conor  

      Their are no illegal immigrants apart from overstayers coming in on tourist visas,it is not illegal to seek asylum and Australia has signed up to refugee conventions.
      I was feelin a bit sorry for you lot but I bet you voted for Howard and his lies,so enjoy LNP policies,I hope you lose the lot.
      I cannot stan racist,oh yeah we spend $1000 million a day on war creating refugees.

  4. Glynis Saunders  

    ‘People will need to find an additional source’? What the hell! They are on the pension, what makes anyone think that an additional source is even an option!? By god we have a lot to learn from eastern societies about looking after our elderly. I am ashamed of the government in this country and the way they look after the disadvantaged, and yet by all means throw money at the disadvantaged of other countries! It’s an absolute disgrace.

    • An additional source may be necessary for many if these changes go through, but as for eastern societies, most of those countries cannot afford pensions, except for the rich who have private super. That is why most elderly people in eastern societies are cared for by their adult children.

    • Grietje Young  

      Other source of income? Tell me where a 73 year old can get a job when people at ant other age has difficulty getting employment.

  5. neil  

    Does this mean the Gov are taking the part pensions off the rich self funded and giving more to the poor that are on struggle street ,if so I agree as we didn’t get Super till 1996 so don’t have as much as the later boomers.

    • Grietje Young  

      The ” rich, self-funded”, by definition, do not get any pension. Self-funded means exactly that. The part pensioners have not been able to save enough under the old rules to be self-funded, and with interest rates so low, and a stagnant share market, will have extreme dofficulty in raising any extra income.

      • Glen  

        Well, we’d be very happy if we had $1.18 million, or even $823 000 to invest and live off. However, I do hope pollies’ pensions are similarly affected. It is so wrong that they attack the pensioners yet happily accept obscene pensions and perks themselves.

  6. Rob  

    Why would anyone worth a million dollars require government assistance in the first place

    • Cheryl  

      Exactly! A lot of people think they should live off the interest from their superannuation and be able to leave the capital to their children. I always understood superannuation was to support you during your own lifetime

      • Mila  

        Cheryl, why are you even here? We didn’t get real superannuation until 1996 and most current pensioners don’t have any. How are they supposed to live off what they don’t have? Their *assets* are often their homes, which are now currently sitting at well over-inflated prices. If they sell, they can’t buy anything for much less – leaving them what to live on?

        • Anne Huggins  

          I thought super became law for everyone in 1990 – that’s when I started back at work after having children (we didn’t have maternity leave back then). As I understand it we do not meet the threshold even with assessable assets so we are entitled to a full pension plus we can draw on what’s left in our super which isn’t a lot unfortunately. Wish we had put more into our super over the years but as we all know it’s that easy when raising a family.

        • David  

          Mila, their “home” is exempt from the asset test.
          The assets included are things like cars, household contents and personal effects, collections, money in bank deposits and term deposits, shares, property (other than the family home) etc.

        • Willem  

          This is the asset amount they can have, not including the home, before the pension reduces to zero.

    • Maureen Kirkwood  

      If you live in Sydney a very modest family home costs more than this. This means people would need to sell their home, possibly move away from family and friends find another home in a much cheaper neighborhood. I think that is sad.

      • Glen  

        I understand the changes to be for homeowners, not people buying a house, so the assets are over and above the house.

  7. Valerie  

    At last someone with something constructive to say. Pensions should be for those who need it. It is not an entitlement.

    • i and my husband worked very hard for our measly part pension and paid a lot of tax to the govment which helped pay yours and a lot of other peoples pension so is it an entilment yes it bloody is any one with a million dollars dosnt get a pension anyway unless you are a politician who makes the rules to suit themselfs matter of fact l no i dont own a home i live in a dept housing and pay full rent and always have pension dont even cover the rent i was not lucky enough to get a home left too me like so many others so i never got a leg up i raised my kids to work hard and they all do so not everyone has the same opinion

    • Barbara  

      Hello Valerie,

      In answer to your email:

      I feel after ones working life one has paid into their Retirement fund, so this money is an entitlement, as long as the Government of the day do not touch it… so I feel they are not getting a hand out…it’s an entitlement… what one has worked hard for..

      Also people who have made a lot of money in their working life are also entitled to this money as they would have paid very hefty taxes in their working time.. I feel the Government are worried because we are living much longer now…

    • Well Valerie there are a lot of people like us that our in titled to the old age pension.we worked in the 60s paid our taxes unfortunately there was no superannuation for the everyday worker. As in factory, retail ext. so our super was not a great deal I worked a 12hour shift and my husband worked at to jobs. So as for your what we are in titled to and who needs it we do like hundreds of other people. I can only assume that you must be over the million dollar mark as you don’t seem to no much about everyday pensioners.the more you earn the less tax you pay sorry it should be the other way around less pay less tax more you earn the more tax you pay.

    • Catherine  

      So maybe all the responsible people out there who have saved their hard earned money, rather than spending it on holidays or gambling, should spend it too! Then they can get the pension!! What a joke! It shouldn’t matter how much you have when you retire, everyone should get it. If the government can hand it out, hand over fist, to the so-called refugees, then they can give it to the people that have paid taxes all their lives!!

    • E Hunt  

      They worked all their life and contributed to Australia ..
      And now live on the poverty line
      The wankers in office don’t get this threshold do they !!
      Unless your an immigrant you get 5xs more the amount !

    • Well written, to many pigs with their snouts in the trough in this country i reckon, people need to learn how to save for their old age, and become less dependent on Goverment handouts.

    • Lynne Chinnery  

      If you have worked and paid taxes from 16 to65 or older and contributed to society as well, I think you do justify a part pension at least. Not all people have a smooth sailing through life. Politicians are in a league of their own with “entitlements” , and whether some of these are “earned” is debatable.

  8. Karen  

    Wouldn’t someone worth a million or close to it be a self funded retiree??? Not everyone can be, Politicians sure would be..but they get massive pensions that we the normal person can only dream about, so not fair. I personally do not have anything close to a decent super to retire on so I will have to be on a pension, not looking forward to that as I want to travel, can’t on a pension

    • Mila  

      No, because of the inflation of house prices people who own a fairly average home can have been pushed over that threshold easily. It doesn’t mean they can sell their homes and find somewhere cheaper to live because often there is nowhere cheaper; and more to the point, why should they have to? They’ve worked all their lives to establish a reasonable life for themselves, trusting that their taxes would be put, in part, toward their retirement. This is a major betrayal.

      • Sandy Shore  

        Absolute major betrayal I agree! Started out our married lives with nothing, worked hard, did what the govt asked put a little extra money into super ( which we could have used as paying 15% interest in a home loan was killing us) we went without lots of things. No overseas holidays for us until the last 3 years. Last 5 years we have spent working away from our family, kids, grand kids elderly parents etc to ensure we have enough to survive on and not gave to rely on a pension, now this change what an absolute joke our government is, think maybe it’s time to spend up big and enjoy the little bit we have before they take it all away. Enough is enough!

      • Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I am of the belief that the principal place of residence will continue to be counted as a non asset and is not taken into account when being assessed for the pension. Therefore, for someone to be worth $1 million, they would need to have $1 million dollars of assets over and above their principal residence for the assets test.

        • Grietje Young  

          You are correct, Leonie, but some people seem to think that living in the right area where house prices have sky rocketted, that this money can be used to supplement income. Rather hard to sell a room, one at a time, and reverse mortgages have been very dangerous in the past despite the rhetoric of not having to pay it back until you die or sell. The danger was that if your reverse mortgage was higher than the property value, then it could be sold to recover the costs. A downturn in the property market could make this happen again, leaving the elderly without their homes which they have bought by going without luxuries, holidays, etc while bringing up kids at a time when child endowment was minimal. No Tax A and B payments back in those days.

    • Joy Anne Bourke  

      Yes I agree partially. Politians should not get any pensions as they are well above the entitlement. 1 million not so rich anymore if in property, own home. When is something going to be done about Pollies pensions????

  9. berniegirl  

    Our PM Turnbull your a dam disgrace to say the least that typical of the Liberal Party trying to hurt the Retired Australian, who worked hard all their lives to be treated with such disrespect……….PM Turnbull your true colours are shining more and more…………….Unfortunately you need to practice what you preach?…………..All Politicians when finish and retire should have the same pensions and benefits you choose to give us with no more massive perks………..and to all the seniors out their who voted for Liberal Party hope your happy.



      • berniegirl  

        I fully agree with your comment………I am just sorry that the Labor Party never not in

    • Glenda james  

      Well we all had the chance to get rid of this government but we didnt soooo whos fault is that i stand to lose some of my pension and i am really pissed off my husband and i worked 7 days a week so we could retire comfortable now he is dead an i am left to work all this bull out not happy but nothing i can do i can tell u i didnt vote them in so i can winge…

    • Dexter  

      I agree, but neither parties will agree. Politicians now and past should have their perks taken away. People should stand up and say enough is enough. They get too much.

  10. Jennie  

    it’s always those struggling the most that are hit the hardest in this country. Where are we meant to find extra income when it’s already impossible to find work. They seem intent on increasing the already high suicide rate. It’s ok for them not having to worry about what they will be earning in retirement

  11. facebook_robin.harris.3367  

    I have to agree with most comments, they must work really hard sitting in Parliament all day and then retire on full benefits. Let them show their constituents how really serious they are by relinquishing their cushy pensions and taking the age pension like the rest of us. Bet things would change then. I also wonder how many of them go into politics just for the pension and perks benefits. What do they do to deserve all this.

    • Chris  

      Seriously. You really think someone would enter a political career just for the perks and pension!! Would you?

  12. Phyl  

    Let’s hope we don’t become a third world country with Seniors living under bridges. When I left school and became a wages clerk for a builder, we told workers that the government was putting part of their tax towards their pension. This was, of course, prior to superannuation. It isn’t our fault that subsequent governments spent it. If anyone did that in private enterprise they’d go to jail. I’m 73 and I’m not going to apologise for living too long.

    • i agree with you its hard being on a pension i am not coplaining i have a little super but the gov its happy till its all spent

    • Patrick  

      Sorry, Phyl,
      The gov’t wasn’t putting part of their tax towards their pension, it was putting their tax towards expenditure of that year, including welfare payments at that time. In effect you were misleading your employees. No wonder so many of today’s pensioners are annoyed.
      To clarify, today’s pensions depend on tax collections from today’s workers. If noone pays tax, no pensions for todays pensioners, no matter how long or hard they worled in the past

    • Rob  

      I worked full time until I was 68 then worked part time util I was 78. I couldn’t go on any longer. I was worn out. I am 79 now. The pension is barely enough to live on. If I sell an asset or two I have to notify center link and they adjust my pension. Never in my favour I might add. Fortunately I have enough clothing so that I don’t have to look down at heel or visit the op shop to buy some one elses cast offs.- I don’t know how it’s all going to end but like many old people I am glad it wont be too far away

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *