• long running

NSW Low Income Households Gas Energy Rebate Introduced, $90 Per Year for Eligible Households

710
NSW Low Income Households Gas Energy Rebate Introduced, $90 Per Year for Eligible Households
Go to Deal
Hoju on 23/10/2015 - 19:41 service.nsw.gov.au (2239 clicks)
Last edited 20/06/2022 - 17:56 by 1 other user

I thought this was worth posting. OzBargain is where I first discovered the low income household energy rebate, and it has saved our family $250 / year since then.
Looking to change my power supplier I discovered that there is now a gas rebate!
Hope this helps some people. Not sure if it's a 'deal' but it's worth more than the usual 'save 50c on chips at woolies' deals so hoping it doesn't slip through the cracks.

On 1 July 2015 the NSW Government introduced a Gas Rebate to help eligible NSW households to pay their natural gas bills.

The NSW Gas Rebate provides:

$90 (excluding GST) a year to eligible customers who hold a natural gas account with a natural gas retailer of their choice.

Eligibility
To be eligible for the NSW Gas Rebate, you need to:

be resident in New South Wales; and
be a customer of the retailer, or a long term resident of an on-supplied residential community, or a resident of an on-supplied retirement village, or a resident of an on-supplied strata scheme; and whose name appears on the gas account for supply of natural gas to his or her principal place of residence; and
hold either a:
Pensioner Concession Card issued by the DHS/DVA; or
DHS Health Care Card; or
DVA Gold Card marked with either:
War Widow or War Widower Pension; or
Totally and Permanently Incapacitated (TPI); or
Disability Pension (EDA).

Financial Gas Supply Rebate

Related Stores

NSW Government
NSW Government

closed Comments

  • jm48 on 23/10/2015 - 20:07

    Good deal but the title is a bit misleading.
    The true low income households are ones who no longer qualify for a pension because of the new asset limit.
    If you have $540,000 in assets you no longer qualify for a pension under the new liberal asset limit rule.
    And this $540K earns just $16,000 invested in fixed interest deposit, compared to $23,000 full single pension.
    Not to mention a large range of discounts and rebates for pensioners worth many thousands a year.

    • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 20:48
      +28

      Why should my tax dollars support somebody with hundreds of thousands more assets than me?
      Those people can withdraw $23,000 a year and still have hundreds of thousands left when they die. The point of retirement savings is not to build up a nest egg for descendants, but to provide for oneself in their old age.
      That is why our society gives such absurdly generous concessional tax treatment to super.
      To be clear, I find it very, very greedy that people who have hundreds of thousands of dollars would wish to take more tax payer's money. Money that could be better spent on the needy.

      • plmko on 23/10/2015 - 20:59

        That's a pretty shallow way to think about it, houses aren't ready liquid cash to spend on everyday expenses and in most cases (especially as of recent) house prices have exploded and once was a poor family living on a poor piece of land is now worth over the asset limits. But what would you expect them to do, sell their house and downgrade/remortgage/rent, no, that would be dumb and cruel society.

        • Diji1 on 23/10/2015 - 21:05
          +22

          AFAIK a person's principle place of residence isn't counted as an asset when calculating their pension eligibility.

        • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 21:22
          +4

          @Diji1:
          Correct. You can own a $10m home AND have $500k in cash and still get a part pension.
          http://www.superguide.com.au/accessing-superannuation/age-pe…

        • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 21:29
          +12

          @mskeggs:
          And yes, for the record, I would expect any person who cannot afford to support themselves, yet has substantial assets to liquidate some assets rather than rely on tax payers.
          Why on earth would we collect taxes from people with less wealth to support rich people?
          How is selling your house and moving into a smaller one dumb and cruel?
          Are you being dumb and cruel to me by not buying me a house with tax payer's money?
          I am a strong believer in welfare and would very much like it to offer more support to the less well off - but not hand outs to the comparatively rich.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 22:04

          @mskeggs: in some ways I agree, but what about a granny who is retired on the pension and then her house sky rockets because of the area she has lived in for 50 years. Do you then expect her to move out of her home and find somewhere else? Her pension would then go towards her increased rates too. Also it's expected of a granny to have a spare room or two for visiting family that look after her or just want to see her so it's not unreasonable for her to have a 2-3 bedroom home.

        • twocsies on 23/10/2015 - 22:15
          +7

          @clarky: Actually, there is a strong case for her to do exactly that. If the house price has really skyrocketed, she should downsize and use the extra money to live a more comfortable life.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 22:16
          +1

          @twocsies: and how do you downsize a two bedroom city apartment that you have lived in your whole life, ie your home, not a house?

        • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 22:17
          +12

          @clarky:
          Yeah, I really do. The government has a program already for elderly people in exactly this situation (low income but asset rich) which allows them to borrow against the value of their home to top up their pensions.

          And note we are talking about people who have a house plus more than $500k in the bank. If they have less than $500k they get a part pension.

          Are you really saying an elderly person with more than half a million dollars in the bank living in a million dollar property deserves money from the government when there are elderly people with no money in the bank who rent and have to cover all their living costs from the pension?

        • twocsies on 23/10/2015 - 22:19

          @clarky: You are being quite literal about this. Downsize does not necessarily imply getting a physically smaller home. It means to consider the options. If you can get close to a million dollars for your house, it may be advantageous to relocate.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 22:20

          @mskeggs: not with those specs (500k and million dollar house), you said someone with hundreds of thousands in assets, that's not really much given house prices. A tiny studio in Hobart costs over $200,000 alone, and has no room for visitors to stay. That place in 10 years could be worth 400-500k.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 22:23
          +2

          @twocsies: yes im a literal guy. I'm flexible, prob live in a place for a few years and move on, but if you establish a home, see your children grow up, move out, husband or wife die by your side in that home, It's your home, sad to think you have to move because of the 'value' of your home. The real problem we face in Australia is property prices

        • twocsies on 23/10/2015 - 22:24

          @clarky: I said nothing about having assets. If a granny lives in a house, and the price of that house is high, there is a strong case for selling the house and downsizing. Obviously, if the price of that house is not high enough, then there is not a strong case to do that.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 22:32

          @twocsies: if it's her home, she won't be moving. If perhaps she isn't attached to it and willing to move, and there are affordable places nearby that can still accomodate family gatherings and spare rooms and no strata fees then yes there is a strong case

        • twocsies on 23/10/2015 - 22:36

          @clarky: A financial advisor should be able to guide this type of decision, especially with regards to things like taxes or changes to the pension. I'm suggesting that there are too many pensioners who are scraping by on the pension, even though they live in homes that have become very valuable. They are in a very vulnerable position, and it can be difficult to help them make wise decisions. The wind does not break a tree that can bend.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 22:43

          @twocsies: true, except for the wind saying, the tree would break in a storm :)

        • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 22:54
          +5

          @clarky:
          Please be aware an elderly person with a $5m home gets the same pension as a one with a $200k studio in Hobart.
          Jm48 started this thread with the comment that such people who also have more than $500k in the bank should get some pension.

          In other words, multimillionaires deserve the support of taxpayers earning minimum wage. Come on!

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 22:58
          +1

          @mskeggs: yeah I understand that, but in some cases house prices are stupidly overpriced. Maybe they can review the house inflation specs over the years. There are beach properties in south coast nsw that 30 years ago were worth peanuts, now they are over million dollars. People have had to sell their homes that their family have lived in their whole life because they can't afford to live there.

        • arcticmonkey on 24/10/2015 - 09:06
          +2

          @mskeggs:

          That is disgusting. It's like people on over $1m per year investing in super to limit tax. It's not uncommon to see someone on $80k a year paying a higher proportion of tax than someone on $1m plus. Yet guess who gets hit in the Liberal budgets? Usually the poorer or average working families.

        • serpserpserp on 24/10/2015 - 19:03

          @clarky:

          What do you mean they can't afford to live there? If they paid peanuts for a house 30 years ago they should be well ahead in the game now. Perhaps they should have managed their money better.

          Plus those poor people who can't afford to live there would now have 1mil in their bank account.

      • jm48 on 23/10/2015 - 21:02

        This new lower asset limit will mean extra cost for taxpayers.
        Some pensioners were scrimping and saving to reduce their dependence on tax payers by relying mostly on their asset investments and just drawing a small part pension to make a livable income.
        Now they will have to divest themselves of assets to avoid extreme financial hardship, and so go back to a higher taxpayer funded component.
        To be clear, this will discourage pensioners saving and greatly increase the taxpayer cost of pensions, as the level of part pensions decreases.

        • Diji1 on 23/10/2015 - 21:08
          +1

          If we're being clear why are you expecting taxpayers to support aged pensioner's saving activity? We ought to be encouraging those people to start spending their savings and assets as they approach the inevitable meeting with death.

        • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 21:25
          +1

          You suggest people will spend their half million dollars worth of assets in addition to their home so they can get a pension rather than support themselves? If I told you some 25 yro single mum did that to qualify for the single parent's pension you would be disgusted.
          You are simply talking about greed.

        • jm48 on 23/10/2015 - 21:46

          @mskeggs: You cannot live on $16K a year, its below the poverty line.
          The advice from several financial advisors is to divest yourself of assets to requalify for the pension.
          There is no doubt this policy will cost taxpayers billions in the future.

        • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 22:03
          +5

          @jm48:
          Nonsense.
          What nearly everyone will do is draw down their capital to make up the difference. So you get the $16k in earnings, and you add $10k of principle to get a $26k p.a income.
          And it will be enough for them to keep living comfortably because should they live long enough to make a serious dent in their capital, they will come under the asset limit and begin receiving a part pension.

          Anybody advising people with adequate assets to support themselves to spend them or give them away to get extra government welfare is advocating greed and self interest at the expense of the community. Very selfish.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 22:15

          @mskeggs: where are they living that can live comfortably on 26k a year? Certainly not in any capital city. Minimum utilities for this day of a home owner: phone, Internet, water, rates, mortgage repayments, maintenance, hobbies (ie a life), fuel, car ownership, rego, heating/cooling, electricity, food, medical, vitamins, travel expenses, clothing, supporting family members, emergency money, money for appliances

        • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 22:19
          +3

          @clarky:

          Then you are condemning every single pensioner to poverty. You cannot argue that it is reasonable to have the non-home owning pensioners with no money in the bank living off $25000 a year so we can afford to pay extra to those who own their home and have more than $500k in the bank.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 22:25

          @mskeggs: I didn't say anything about 500k in the bank. But it's an interesting thought about the pensioners who don't own homes. There are lots of people who fell on hard times through their lives. Then there are people who I know who are lazy and will never save money to own a house and have been living off government payments their whole life cause they can.

        • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 22:56

          @clarky:
          Please understand that the value of your home has no impact on qualifying for the pension. The question is whether those additionally have more than $500k in the bank should get some pension too.
          I say no, we should only give welfare to people who need it. But the law currently gives them some, but is reducing the limit from over $700k to a little over $500k.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 22:59

          @mskeggs: yeah I agree the liquid assets should be looked at. At least those with over 500k should give some to their kids to reduce their liquid assets

        • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 23:01
          +3

          @clarky:
          Why not live off their money instead of trying to get money from the tax payers? Can you send me some income support if I put my money in my kids name?

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 23:12

          @mskeggs: I'm sure a parent can't be persecuted for giving money to their kids. Better they see them enjoy it while they are alive. The kids will spend the money or pay tax on interest earnings, it all comes full circle. It's a capitalist society and that's why it works well.

        • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 23:43
          +3

          @clarky:
          Sure. I didn't say persecute, but do you support other people who seek to get welfare when they don't need it? Wouldn't you say that was selfish? Do you disagree that welfare should be for the needy?
          Currently, if you give an asset away it is counted as if you still had if for 5 or 6 years. A reasonable compromise,
          And remember that much wealth is the result of reduced tax rates on retirement investments. We do that as a community so that more people will support themselves in retirement. Not so they can give their kids a gift and go on the pension.

          I find it incredible that many people who begrudge the unemployed or disabled welfare are in favour of welfare to people so well off they can afford to give large cash gift to their family. I don't understand it at all.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 23:50

          @mskeggs: it's probably because, if you are like me, you have lived with or seen people abuse the welfare system their whole lives cause they are lazy and don't want to work, like a socialist society. On the other hand, people with savings have an idea about the value of money and generally how to handle it.

          No matter what limit or level you put on the middle class or wealthy person on welfare, they will live just below that thresh hold and get the payments because they feel they are entitled to it, it's the new Australian way, entitlement.

        • argonbay on 24/10/2015 - 02:07

          @mskeggs: Some incentive needs to be provided for the average person to make provisions for their retirement. If someone cannot see any benefit in retirement after contributing an extra portion of their income each year they are not going to do it. The money will be spent on holidays or whatever. We are talking about average people that are going to be penalised for making sacrifice during their working life so that they could afford a nice holiday each year and a few dinners out at a nice restaurant when they retire.

          If everyone gets into the mindset of "lets just spend everything we earn, we are going to be provided for by the pension in our retirement" that will place a much larger burden on the system than giving people who do want to plan for retirement a few tax breaks and other incentive. I don't think it is wrong for those prepared to make the sacrifice to have a little extra and be less of a burden on the system in their retirement. This enables more money to be directed towards those that need it, not less.

        • quaddie on 24/10/2015 - 09:24
          +1

          @clarky: you missed eneloops, flashlights and power banks

        • [Deactivated] on 24/10/2015 - 09:51
          +1

          @quaddie: and chromecasts!

      • Grok on 23/10/2015 - 22:31
        +2

        The problem with the new asset limit is not the limit itself.

        It is that the Liberals attacked a small group of 300,000 part pensioners and removed their part pension completely BUT let off everyone else.

        The rich still get crazy generous super benefits and can arrange their tax affairs to pay little tax.

        Why just pick on part pensioners?

        • mskeggs on 23/10/2015 - 22:59
          +2

          Its a start.
          I strongly support reform of super to make contributions taxed at 15% below your marginal rate, so everyone gets a similar benefit. And limiting contributions to a reasonable limit. We shouldn't give tax breaks to billionaires to save in super. The don't need it, and we aren't saving on pension costs by giving them a discount.

        • argonbay on 24/10/2015 - 02:19

          @mskeggs: Australia has about 40 billionaires:-
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australians_by_net_wor…

          Definitely agree that they do not need tax breaks in super or otherwise!

          Not sure how many of the 23+ million Australian fall into the very wealthy category.

        • uder on 24/10/2015 - 12:02

          @mskeggs:

          Having contributions taxed at a 15% discount to marginal rate has been recommended for years. So many self-interested parties prevent the reform.

      • RefusdClassification on 24/10/2015 - 02:18
        +1

        Australians in general have a different outlook on welfare and pensions than a lot of other Western countries do, such as Germany. In those countries very few people have superannuation, and everyone is entitled to a pension. It is a sort of right, regardless of one's accumulated wealth. And the oddest thing is, wealthier people get a higher pension, higher unemployment benefits, and higher disability payments. The mindset seems to be, that the more a person has payed into the system, the more a person deserves to receive back.

        As an old school socialist (like you seem to be as well), I disagree with their mindset, but it is healthy to be exposed to different viewpoints, especially as diversity of ideas is being replaced in the modern world by politically correctness and group-think.

  • Bargainaholic on 23/10/2015 - 20:28
    +1

    Am I eligible having high expenses in our household from always buying stuff from here?

  • Scrooge McDuck on 23/10/2015 - 22:00

    Relevant Homer "Woohoo!" avatar is relevant.

  • Serapis on 23/10/2015 - 22:52

    Thanks OP! I'll link my parents to it

  • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2015 - 23:52

    sends to dad.

  • Kcsmiley on 24/10/2015 - 10:25

    This is a great tip for those people who live in NSW who currently hold a concession card. Ensure these new concessions are applied to your NSW gas accounts. If not contact your current retailer. I think we have certainly missed the point of this post. With all this debate around pensions. I for one with my husband will not be getting a pension as we have both worked hard and paid out a fortune in taxes. I received family allowance for ten years until this was cut due to our income. The best thing for us to do is both retire at sixty. Spend quite a bit of our money to ensure we reduce our assets. This will ensure we stop paying taxes at sixty and receive a full pension at sixty seven. Alternatively we can continue to work pay our combined 35000 in taxes for another seven years and lose any chance of reaping some of our tax paid back in the form of a pension. Seems like a no brainer to me.

  • ndagudbargain on 24/10/2015 - 11:58

    Thank you. This seems to have been a well kept industry secret. Now my parents bills are being reissued

  • Hoju on 24/10/2015 - 12:04
    +1

    All the talk is of pensioners but worth pointing out that it applies to health care card holders too which are significant low income households. Not sure what the asset limit is on the card but I'm fairly sure it's much less than even $100k.

    We are lucky, and incredibly appreciative as a low income household looking to retrain to get back into the workforce to get these kinds of benefits and know that we will pay them back many times over once we return to the tax paying pool.

  • swiggity swag on 24/10/2015 - 14:09

    By this logic are we saying the pension is a deal?

  • 1bug on 26/10/2015 - 13:30
    +1

    FYI, info on the other Low Income Household Rebate mentioned in the OP is below:

    Low Income Household Rebate ($235 to $258.50 a year to eligible NSW residents)
    http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/energy-consumers/fi…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join