Share
11,120 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 2037
clock Created with Sketch.
19/11/19
15:38
Share
Originally posted by mark.boxsell
↑
Homeowners can still receive the age pension with an asset portfolio (in addition to their home) of $574,500 for a single person and $863,500 for a couple. A non home owner can have an asset portfolio of $785,000 for a single person and $1,074,000 for a couple.
A single homeowner can receive the full aged pension with a multimillion dollar home and $263,250 asset portfolio, or $394,500 for a couple.
I generally don't exaggerated.
The family home is an asset. I really don't care anymore if people feel that it is different somehow. It's really only something someone would claim if they actually owned a home (or had the slightest prospect of owning one in the future).
The reality is that there is an incentive to invest in your own property and neglect contributions to super or other retirement savings because it doesn't effect your welfare payments. Basically the taxpayer is underwriting the residential property investment and the individual gets to keep the profits when it's sold.
This warps supply of larger homes, pushes up prices and exacerbates the problems with entry to market for other people. It also warps the transfer system by disproportionately handing money to people with a capital advantage.
Look it isn't going to change anytime soon. No government can afford to annoy the boomers no matter how unfair a policy is in it's current form.
Expand
That's interesting, Mark. To be honest I wasn't aware of those generous pensioner investment entitlements. I had always assumed that to claim the pension if you had more than circa $25,000 in savings/investments, then your pension was severely cut down on a pro-rata basis. So I concede your point.
Even so, for a pensioner with no other assets than the roof over their head, I would not feel comfortable in forcing them to sell for a raft of reasons.