Someone Please Explain Age Pension

Aerith-Waifu on 19/02/2025 - 08:19

From 20 September 2024, the full pension is available, under the assets test, for homeowner singles whose assessable assets are under $314,000 – for homeowner couples the number is $470,000. The numbers for non-homeowners are $566,000 and $722,000 respectively.

Once assessable assets exceed the lower threshold, the pension reduces by $3 fortnight for each $1000 by which assessable assets exceed the lower threshold.

A single homeowner can have up to $695,500 of assessable assets and receive a part pension – for a single non-homeowner the higher threshold is $947,500. For a couple, the higher threshold to $1,045,500 for a homeowner and $1,297,500 for a non-homeowner.

Please note: Calculated answers include all supplements and if calculated for a couple is the joint pension. It is also assumed that both parties are of pensionable age.

So what is assessable assets? Is a PPOR an assessable assets?

For example 1: A is single and retiring he has PPOR worth $750k, small super of $150k with no other income or savings, $150k is all he has. Does that mean he is not eligible for the pension or even part pension until his $150k is gone?

What about example 2: B is single retiring with PPOR worth $500k, no SUPER, saving of $100k. Then he is able to get part pension?

Education & Work

Comments

    • HeWhoKnows on 20/02/2025 - 08:58
      -7

      Let me explain in simple terms…

      You have to be practically broke to get the aged pension

      And if you qualify you will be broke for the rest of your life anyway

      • SupeNintendoChalmers on 20/02/2025 - 20:25
        +5

        The family home is not means tested. If you have assets of 314,000, then frankly you're doing pretty darn well.

        I reckon most people would struggle to identify $100,000 in assets, let alone $314,000.

        • sumyungguy on 20/02/2025 - 20:30
          +3

          Assets includes super…

          • samyall on 21/02/2025 - 13:47
            +13

            @boomramada: You generally draw down your investment in retirement, not just live off the interest.

            $1M in assets can generate an income of $80k for 25 years. That is a pretty comfortable life with no mortgage.

            • ely on 21/02/2025 - 16:50
              +2

              @samyall: Also you can spend the principal, you don't need to come out the other end with $1M intact.

            • boomramada on 21/02/2025 - 19:56

              @samyall: Your maths doesn't add up, when you retire, you want to spend money, not invest in bitcoins, houses or shares, and you need easy access to your money.
              The best method would be on a high-interest bank account,

              Currently, $1m gets you around ~ 50K ie 5.25% .. (minus TAX around 10k)

              How are you going to get $80k per year (let's say 1.5K per week) out of $1m?, Which bank paying you that much interest? LOL

              Also you can spend the principal, you don't need to come out the other end with $1M intact.

              The end game is getting a steady stream of weekly income, to have that, you need at least $1m in the bank, and you have no idea how long you going to live.

              • gromit on 22/02/2025 - 02:01

                @boomramada: 80k includes partial consumption of the principal, no point dieing with $1m in cash in the bank.

      • Purp on 21/02/2025 - 07:47
        +2

        It's called the pension because people don't like the term welfare. People treat the pension as some kind of thing they earned, yeah they earned welfare payments by managing their money poorly their entire life.

        • MessyG on 21/02/2025 - 14:02

          But do you understand why? You say this like it's just a conscious choice they made to waste all their money. The current group of pensioners are pensioners because superannuation was not a thing, and neither was financial literacy. They were wholly ripped off by many banks across time (see: banking royal commission), and if you were a first wave greek/italian migrant, there's a high chance you were illiterate too. That's why the pension exists.

          The aged pension isn't a moral judgment you get to make on people. It exists to stop en-masse homelessness in older age which would cost this country far more.

          And don't worry, when they land in a nursing home, the value of their primary property is stripped from them so capitalism wins regardless.

          • Purp on 21/02/2025 - 15:15
            +2

            @MessyG: Oh no, superannuation hasn't been invented yet how will we ever save for the future without being forced to… It's their fault for not being financially responsible not the government's for forcing them to save too late.

        • BigTriangle on 21/02/2025 - 14:18
          -1

          Libertarian / RW ideology where the wealthy are pure and jesus loves them.

        • tenpercent on 21/02/2025 - 15:09
          -2

          Yeah, you didn't earn nothin. You paid close to (or more than) 50% of your income (when you include GST, medicare levy, fuel, and all the other taxes and levies) to the tax man for 40+ years of your life. You think you deserve anything in return for that except for some overpriced school halls, discount pink batts and any publicly funded infrastructure of value that yours and your parents tax dollars contributed paid for being sold off for cheap to private investors? Entitled boomers…. pfft.

          /s

          • Purp on 21/02/2025 - 15:16
            +1

            @tenpercent: You thinking people pay 50% tax is one reason no one should ever listen to anything you say ever.

            • ely on 21/02/2025 - 16:51

              @Purp: people that don't understand how progressive taxes work are kinda funny though

              • tenpercent on 21/02/2025 - 20:23

                @ely: People who think income tax is all the taxes they pay are kinda funny too.

                How about that progressive GST and fuel excise? Considering you pay for petrol with after tax income, and you're charged a rate that is after the fuel excise is added to it, and then you pay GST on that amount you're getting triple taxed for transaction.

          • StalkingIbis on 21/02/2025 - 18:35

            @tenpercent: you dont pay it and get it back again….

          • gromit on 22/02/2025 - 02:04

            @tenpercent: The majority of tax payers are net takers not givers. They cost the governmnt far more than the taxes they pay.

  • ESEMCE on 19/02/2025 - 08:57
    -4

    A single homeowner can have up to $695,500 of assessable assets and receive a part pension – for a single non-homeowner the higher threshold is $947,500

    There is your answer.
    No, the PPOR is not assessable (it arguably is, in that there are lower limits for assessable income for homeowners, but that's factored for in that stream)

    In your example, 150k is less than the maximum $695,500 of assessable assets that a homeowner can have and so, your example person will be eligible for a part pension.
    Same in your second example.

    • sumyungguy on 19/02/2025 - 09:44

      Some extra info for OP: assessable assets includes financial investments, home contents ($5K), personal effects and vehicles. Also any gifts made in the past 5 years may be included in income and assets tests.

    • Ponsonby on 19/02/2025 - 10:31
      +6

      No, in this example, under the assets test, the single person with $150k in assets (other than the home) would get the full pension,. This is because $150k is less than the lower asset threshold of $314000 for a single person - if you have more than this, the pension starts reducing. As mentioned, money or other assets you have given away in the last 5 years is counted too - the first $10k a year of gifts is not counted.
      (There is also an income test that can affect the pension - while for the OP it sounds like income is not an issue, the OP needs to look into it using the calculators available or by asking Centrelink. Income above $2500 per year starts to affect pension level for a single person. One thing to note is that there is a system of 'deeming' income from assets like bank balances and super - this is where using generously low rates, a rate of income is assumed from relevant assets rather than the actual interest or rate of return you achieve (relevant assets include bank balance, super, market value of furniture and car ) .

      The system is designed to work out your pension based on either the income test or the assets test, whichever gives the lower result.

      • sumyungguy on 19/02/2025 - 10:47
        +1

        Yes, this is a good correction. Full pension, not part.

      • Aerith-Waifu on 19/02/2025 - 17:06
        +1

        Thanks for the reply. So it means regardless of how much the house is worth, even if the house is worth say2 million dollars, as long as the total assessable assets are under the $314k. Full pension is given?

        • sumyungguy on 19/02/2025 - 17:09
          +2

          I gather some retirees living in valuable properties dump all their savings into PPOR renovations and maintenance to shimmy under the pension asset limits. Others spend big on cruises and international travel to achieve the same end.

          • Aerith-Waifu on 19/02/2025 - 21:03
            +1

            @sumyungguy: But if they do, how are they going to live a comfortable live with just pension? As pension is at $1000 per fortnight which isnt much with bills and etc

            • sumyungguy on 19/02/2025 - 21:10
              +4

              @Aerith-Waifu: Part pension gives retirees access to a bunch of concessions which many are keen to access.

            • Elppa8 on 20/02/2025 - 00:54

              @Aerith-Waifu: With the money stuffed down the back of the lounge or under the mattress.

            • tenpercent on 20/02/2025 - 07:06

              @Aerith-Waifu: Pre-pay expenses including any granny guci gear. Put some of the reno money into a top of the range solar system.

            • happydude on 20/02/2025 - 19:21
              +2

              @Aerith-Waifu: You would be amazed at the number of people that want the pension because they have paid taxes all their life.

              It is often a sense of entitlement to the pension, rather than the safety net it is now intended to be post the introduction of superannuation.

            • Zonty on 21/02/2025 - 00:13
              +1

              @Aerith-Waifu: I read some blog, some people divorced to get 2 individual pension by buying 2 sperate home individually. And give 1 home to kid lol.
              But I know government is trying to change it but Most politicians do not want because they are on same boat and politician pension way higher then any other citizen

        • TilacVIP on 20/02/2025 - 17:08

          There is likely a granny out there in Coogee (Sydney), near the beach sitting in a home worth about 5 million and is most likely on Full age pension payment.

  • SYLTB on 19/02/2025 - 09:15
    +1

    PPOR stands for principal place of residence. OP assumes everyone knows this. Gees!
    I am not explaining whether it is acronym or abbreviation. Hint: First letters of the words!

    • boomramada on 19/02/2025 - 10:03
      +2

      I didn't know till I googled it :P

    • AustriaBargain on 19/02/2025 - 15:10
      +2

      Sounds like something only rich people need to know. Us poor are going to be renting forever now that a million is the new floor for cities. It'll be two million soon enough, this housing investment bubble is going nowhere. Eventually us poor will start our own towns with rent controls and there will only be Indians to rent to in the cities, working 150 hours a week doing Uber Eats just to pay for the rent.

      • tenpercent on 20/02/2025 - 07:08
        +9

        If you don't want it, vote the bastards out. Both sides have been screwing over middle and lower Australia for decades. It's time for both of them to go. Neither represent the interests of ordinary Australians or even Australia at all.

        • hazzad on 20/02/2025 - 19:02
          +3

          You seriously think that any party will fix affordable housing? Don't be silly. Property values are going to magically fall through the floor and stock isn't going to some how appear out of thin air. Demand outstrips supply and will be the case forever more. No matter how much any party promises a better life(yes I'm looking at you Clive palmer), they are full of it. It's for the most part a free economy and governments have little to no control over what anything will cost you.

          • tenpercent on 20/02/2025 - 19:18
            +3

            @hazzad: Vote for candidates who support Net Zero Migration.

            • Bystander on 20/02/2025 - 20:38
              +2

              @tenpercent: This is the correct answer.
              Voting for the same two parties ensures that we all get screwed over and over again.

      • afah0447 on 20/02/2025 - 09:06
        +6

        The answer is simple. Never vote for the Liberials. A vote for them is always a vote against your own self-interest if renting/poor/not a multimillionaire.

        • marshmall0w2 on 21/02/2025 - 21:49

          Nah, Labour is just as bad. They're all the same now.

  • Jolakot on 19/02/2025 - 09:34
    -6

    PPOR isn't assessable, it should be instead of the convoluted system we currently have with different allowable amounts for homeowners, but it isn't.

    • Protractor on 19/02/2025 - 09:46
      +14

      and we should also only have negative gearing on one property, if at all.
      Religions should pay full tax
      And we should add a huge tariff on any energy and mining product mined here by US companies and double it if it's going to the USA. And we should get our share of gas as a part of that tariff.

    • brad1-8tsi on 19/02/2025 - 12:17
      +1

      PPOR does make up part of the assessment as it does affect the amount paid. They just don't attempt to quantify the value.

      How would you do that in a fair and reasonable manner that doesn't involve mountains of red tape and snouts in the trough from service providers?

      • Jolakot on 19/02/2025 - 13:49
        -5

        It's actually really simple, you get rid of the existing red tape, by removing the PPoR exemption and all the weird caveats and service providers built around it.

        Treat it the same as any other asset, assessed at net market value (market value minus debts). To make it fair, increase the homeowner thresholds to the non-homeowner thresholds.

        Anyone who has $250k or less in their home's net market value will be better off, anyone with more than that will be worse off.

        Immediately you think of Nona living in her $1 million dollar house that she bought 50 years ago and raised her kids in, won't she have her pension cut-off or be forced to move? No, because she can use the already existing Home Equity Access Scheme and get up to 150% of the maximum pension amount: https://www.dss.gov.au/home-equity-access-scheme

        A family friend is retired, and lives alone in a modest apartment that he bought after a divorce. He would be financially better off each fortnight by selling that apartment to an investor, putting the proceeds in the bank and renting from the new owners, because his equity in the apartment is a fraction of the threshold gap but the government still treats it the same as a $4m Toorak mansion. He's penalised for being responsible with his money, how does that make sense?

        Someone with over $1 million in net assets should not be getting welfare. The taxpayer should not be subsidising anyone's inheritance. Could raise pensions a considerable amount if we closed that rort.

        • brad1-8tsi on 19/02/2025 - 16:17

          Everything you say makes sense but where will the one true source of truth of Market Value come from?

          When I was getting divorced we both had independent valuations on our house and they were $200k apart (10-15% of the value). Both valuations had quite obvious errors in them despite being done by "professionals". You'd be starting a whole new industry in house valuations and disputing the results would totally block up the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

          NB: I'm retired, have no intention of getting the Aged Pension and something like this will never affect me.

          • Jolakot on 19/02/2025 - 16:35

            @brad1-8tsi: Why would you need a new industry? You already have to do this each year for investment properties, nothing new.

            Your council already does an annual valuation to calculate your rates, most state governments do as well.

            Just hand Centrelink the council valuation, and if they don't like it then they'll do their own.

            • brad1-8tsi on 19/02/2025 - 21:52
              +1

              @Jolakot: Property valuation for council rates is based on unimproved value of the land. The house on the land doesn't come into it.

              I have never owned an IP so am unaware of the tax treatment of an IP.

              • Jolakot on 19/02/2025 - 23:47

                @brad1-8tsi: That's not true, at least in Victoria and NSW.

                Site value is just the land, while capital improved value is both the land and the buildings.

                I look at my rates notice and it has both values next to each other, do you not have capital improved value on yours?

                Councils use the capital improved value for rates calculation, for example Darebin: "Your property's rates are based on your Capital Improved Value (CIV)." https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-council/Rates-and-respo…

                • brad1-8tsi on 20/02/2025 - 06:51

                  @Jolakot: NSW is based on the land value without structural improvements. I've been receiving Valuer General notices and it's quite obvious when you live in a $600k house and the Valuer General's 3 yearly notice says $200k.

                  https://www.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-construction/land-values-…

                  Given that the aged pension is a Federal benefit you would have to standardise the method of housing valuation across Australia.

                  The "dumbness" of the current assets test is that if your assets land between (approximately) $450k-$800k you are worse off which unfortunately encourages people to reduce their assessible assets to <$450k.

                  I'm all for "wealthy people" not receiving government benefits but it has to be done in a way that isn't costing more than what the benefit is or that penalises those that are asset rich but cash poor. eg: Oldies that bought a cheap house 40 years ago in an area that was cheap and undesirable and now it is gentrified and the house is worth millions. These oldies are part of a community and shouldn't be forced to move on because their asset makes them ineligible for the aged pension

                  • Jolakot on 20/02/2025 - 08:54

                    @brad1-8tsi: Still, people with investment properties in all states already have them valued annually through standardized means, would be the same system, nothing new required.

                    Nona living in her $1 million dollar house that she bought 50 years ago and raised her kids in, won't she have her pension cut-off or be forced to move? No, because she can use the already existing Home Equity Access Scheme and get up to 150% of the maximum pension amount: https://www.dss.gov.au/home-equity-access-scheme

                    The current system forces taxpayers to subsidise private inheritances, should be paid back by the estate

                    • brad1-8tsi on 20/02/2025 - 09:31

                      @Jolakot: Would that be the taxpayers that have already paid tax on the money they used to buy the house they bought to live in?

                      How many ways are we supposed to be taxed?
                      As a PAYG worker for the 30 years prior to retirement I averaged a 30% pay back in income tax to the government with minimal deductions available. Then came GST plus all the other nibbles the government takes.

                      • Jolakot on 20/02/2025 - 09:37

                        @brad1-8tsi: Would you consider HECs to be a tax? This is strictly a loan, you borrow money from the government when you need it, and then pay it off when you can. I can't think of a more fair system.

                        Do you think it is fair that your tax money went to someone with $2 million in net assets, just so their kids can inherit that money?

                        • brad1-8tsi on 20/02/2025 - 13:59

                          @Jolakot: I didn't go to University and paid my TAFE fees as I went so never has an education debt.

                          I paid for my kids higher education so they wouldn't have a debt.

                          Yes, I do think it's fair that $5560 of my tax money goes to the aged pension under current guidelines for both owners and renters and that $4443 goes to disability welfare and the rest of welfare for a total bucket of $15585.
                          I'm fine with $7886 on health; $3069 on Education and a similar amount on defence.

                          You appear to have a bee in your bonnet about $1m & $2m properties but that really is SFA in the scheme of things and maybe you should concern yourself with those that live in far more salubrious circumstances.

                          I don't know your age but maybe work for 30+ years and then see how you feel about the issue.

  • JimmyF on 19/02/2025 - 09:37
    +3

    Is a PPOR an assessable assets?

    If you have a PPOR that would make you drum roll please a homeowner.

    If you don't own a PPOR that would make you drum roll please a non-homeowner.

    For example 1: A is single and retiring he has PPOR worth $750k, small super of $150k with no other income or savings, $150k is all he has. Does that mean he is not eligible for the pension or even part pension until his $150k is gone?

    Basically the PPOR isn't counted, everything else is counted, house contents, cars, bank balanced, holiday homes, super etc

    • bargaino on 19/02/2025 - 16:03

      What if you rent, but own an investment property?

      • sumyungguy on 19/02/2025 - 16:22

        For the assets test, Centrelink includes real estate you: rent out; leave vacant for any amount of time, such as a holiday home; let someone else live in for free.

      • JimmyF on 19/02/2025 - 17:14

        What if you rent, but own an investment property?

        As the IP isn't your PPOR, the IP is the same as owning a holiday house, so is classed as a asset.

    • Aerith-Waifu on 19/02/2025 - 21:02

      I find hard to understand if someone who has a PPOR worth 5million with car bank balance of less than $100k is still eligible for pension.

      Its defy logic imho

      • sumyungguy on 19/02/2025 - 21:06
        +4

        Yes, but in reality they'd struggle to maintain a luxury home on $29,754 per annum; a miserable existence.

      • JimmyF on 19/02/2025 - 21:08
        +1

        Asset rich, cash poor.

        While you example is extreme, you can't live off your $5m house as such unless you reverse mortgage it.

        • sumyungguy on 19/02/2025 - 22:03

          Under HEAS your combined loan and pension payment each fortnight can’t be more than 150% (1.5 times) your maximum pension rate. So the only reason to retain a high value property may be to make an inter-generational transfer?

      • afah0447 on 20/02/2025 - 09:09
        +2

        Politics. Plenty of old biddies in Sydney living in $5m-$10m houses getting the pension. There are options to stop this but they are politically impossible. So the rest of us keep on funding the lives of these multimillionaires.

        • MessyG on 21/02/2025 - 14:04

          One day I'd like to know how many politicians sit on the boards or have some kind of financial interest in aged care franchises. The bond to enter strangely usually costs the same as a older persons PPOR….

      • happydude on 20/02/2025 - 19:24
        +3

        If you think you can be the politician that kicks granny out of the home she has lived in for 68 years all the power to you. She bought it for button and 6 raspberries. It's not her fault the value went up.

        No other politician wants a bar of it.

  • brendanm on 19/02/2025 - 10:43

    JFC

  • Duckie2hh on 19/02/2025 - 10:45
    +4

    Age pension is a privilege and not a right. It is a safety net and not something people should be aiming for.

    • coffeeinmyveins on 19/02/2025 - 11:36

      Have you spoken to many people who are looking to make use of it?

      Hint: the ones with MORE money are the ones that want to get the most out of it. Greedy bastards that just want as much money as possible and sit on their mound of money like a dragon.

      • brad1-8tsi on 19/02/2025 - 12:19
        +2

        If they have a mound of money they can't get the aged pension

        • coffeeinmyveins on 19/02/2025 - 12:40

          Oh you're right, there's absolutely no way the system can be abused for personal gain. I forgot.

        • Protractor on 19/02/2025 - 12:42
          +2

          Nah, they use all sorts of ways to dodge responsibility. When you have trust funds etc,and run a pity me narrative via the worlds bet financial advisers , you can max out the depth of the trough you suck on. The same principle is used by massive corporations to pay SFA in tax every year.The same scam is used by politicians and councillors to milk the plebs dry. The system is set up to make the rich richer and the poor feel guilty. Guess who lives longer and gets more pro-rata from the system?
          Only in Straya is negative gearing framed as a right of passage and entitlement. The real battlers just keep on keeping on, while the ALP wets itself over NG because they are too weak to stand up to the parasitic bullies across the house.

          • Cheapskate Paul on 19/02/2025 - 20:05
            +4

            @Protractor:

            while the ALP wets itself over NG because they are too weak to stand up to the parasitic bullies across the house.

            The ALP wets itself because it lost two elections when proposing changes to NG & CGT.

            • Protractor on 19/02/2025 - 20:26

              @Cheapskate Paul: Oh I see, Silly me.

              And the fact Shorten was the front runner would have made them a shoe in?
              In THIS climate most ppl would support a reset on NG. But you're right ALP gutless to lead. They just jump at Dutton's shadows. Albo has NEVER stood up to the spud, and it's too late now, because the spud has his balls in a jar on his mantelpiece

          • Aerith-Waifu on 20/02/2025 - 04:28

            @Protractor: How does trust fund works when you have pension? Say a trust fund with 4 family member?

            • May4th on 21/02/2025 - 08:36

              @Aerith-Waifu: it's not straight forward, if you have a controlling interest in the trust it becomes assessable - so you'd have to give control of assets to a family member or have a corporate trustee

        • based on 20/02/2025 - 20:50

          Just need to make the mound their PPOR

          • brad1-8tsi on 21/02/2025 - 14:32

            @based:

            Just need to make the mound their PPOR

            Sure but why would you want to take income producing assets, bury them in a PPOR and live on the aged pension?

            I'm retired and income producing assets give me huge lifestyle choices that I wouldn't get on the aged pension.

    • brad1-8tsi on 19/02/2025 - 12:19
      +2

      Age pension is a privilege and not a right. It is a safety net and not something people should be aiming for

      Agree. One of the reasons I chose to self-fund my retirement is that I didn't wish to share my financial details with Centrelink.

  • brad1-8tsi on 19/02/2025 - 12:13
    +1

    I'd suggest you read Noel Whitakers "Retirement Made Simple". Your local library should have it.

    Centrelink has people that will explain all the requirements to you.

    Or try this calculator
    https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/who-can-get-age-pension…

    Or
    https://www.dss.gov.au/older-australians

    Or
    https://moneysmart.gov.au/retirement-income/age-pension-and-…

    Google "do I qualify for the aged pension in Australia" and AI gives a good summary

  • Drakesy on 19/02/2025 - 13:58
    +5

    Thank god i can sit in my $3 million mansion and still receive the pension.
    here I was thinking I'd have to raid my kid's inheritance fund.

    Although I did have to sell the second Ferrari, that pushed me over.

    "I PaiD Ma TaXeS So I DeSErVE It."

    Millenials paying tax to fund this: "I would've saved up enough for a house that's 10x my annual wage but instead i got to fund some millionaires pension and medical costs whilst paying down my excessive HECS debt, but i guess thats what i get for being entitled".

    • boomramada on 19/02/2025 - 14:58
      -1

      Do you think pension payment will support to maintain your $3 million mansion? Rates will push you to the gutter lol
      Unless your $3m mansion comes with 10 bedrooms to rent it out lol

      • AustriaBargain on 19/02/2025 - 15:13
        +1

        These people will rent rooms to their kids in their mansions, so their kids can afford to pay the meagre upkeep costs while also paying off their investment properties. I've a mate who owns investment properties and he decided he had enough of living with his parents, cramping his style, and actually decided to live in one of his properties before he dies.

        • boomramada on 19/02/2025 - 15:19
          +1

          I would just down size to $1m property and live off $2m than the pension lol

      • jackofspade on 19/02/2025 - 16:18
        +1

        You can get a reverse mortgage to drawdown on the equity and still get the pension

        • boomramada on 19/02/2025 - 21:54

          Better if you don't have kids or they will disown you :P

    • Protractor on 19/02/2025 - 20:33
      +2

      Should always have been means tested with an upper limit on the PPOR cutoff at a limited value, IMHO. Fancy being able to live in a veritable castle and milk the system.

      • Aerith-Waifu on 20/02/2025 - 04:29

        but one can argue they cant make income with the PPOR

        • tenpercent on 20/02/2025 - 07:12
          +2

          Reverse mortgage can give you a cash flow stream if you really really really don't want to downsize.

        • Protractor on 20/02/2025 - 09:56
          -1

          Who's the one you keep talking about? Are you peerage or something?

  • kmwa on 19/02/2025 - 15:12
    +1

    Even if you are uber-rich, and have assets which exclude you from getting a pension, it is worth applying to Centrelink.
    You won't get a pension, but you will get an Age Pensioner Concession Card, which will get you cheap scripts and bulk-billing and many other benefits.

    • sumyungguy on 19/02/2025 - 15:22
      +1

      I thought one needs to be receiving a pension or other eligible payment to get a pensioner concession card?

      • barbarella on 19/02/2025 - 18:46

        no

        • sumyungguy on 19/02/2025 - 18:48

          Does someone sell fakes?

          • May4th on 21/02/2025 - 08:55

            @sumyungguy: a lot of people confuse the seniors card with pensioners concession

      • Protractor on 19/02/2025 - 20:30
        +1

        Now you can see why one would choose Straya as a migrant destination.
        If a person is an abled person, the aged pension & concession should be based on the number of years of employment here.
        Starting at a minimum of 10 years residency & employment

        • tenpercent on 20/02/2025 - 07:17

          Do elderly parents of new arrivals (reunification visa) need to wait at the moment?

          Centrelink's Payment finder tell me that a 69 year old permanent resident and their 69 year old partner who both recently arrived in Australia are eligible for age pension.

          Don't forget to pay your taxes. There's more elderly arrivals to pay for who haven't contributed anything to Australia's economy, tax base, or society.

    • miwahni on 19/02/2025 - 23:03
      +3

      The Commonwealth Seniors Health card is available to 67+ singles earning up to $99k and couples $158k, and gives you a discount of 75% on prescription medicines and a lower Medicare safety net threshold. And if you live in WA, SA or NSW there are extra perks that come with it in the form of various govt discounts. Even if you don't need to fall back on an aged pension to survive, you may still qualify for this card.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join