Australian Centrelink payment changes for Expats

**draco888** · 24-11-2012, 02:05 PM

^^ exactly necron99, If more people actually understood this point they may be more inclined to provide for themselves and not listen to the politicians who promise them the world.

**Mr Lick** · 24-11-2012, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Necron99

The problem is in the prior socialist packaging,and pervading belief that the pension is a funded pension and a centerpiece of your old age welfare. People believe that part of their tax goes towards funding this pension for when they retire, thus they are entitled.
This of course is bollox, the old age pension is, like the dole, a safety net for those too poor or shortsighted to provide for themselves. The pension is funded out of current accounts, not a single cent of tax your pay goes towards your future pension, the tax you pay goes towards paying other people their pension.
Forcing private super was the first step in weening the country of this untenable system. I seriously doubt there will be a pension at all when I reach the age in 20 years.
They myth spouted by many an expat that they are less of a burden residing offshore and so should still get to suck at the state tit is just that. Offshore, 100% of your pension gets lost to the Australian economy, if resident, yes cost are higher,but 100% of those costs are retained in the economy.

Saying you should be able to get the pension offshore is like saying it's ok to pay dole bludgers living on a beach in Bali.
The exception to the above is anyone too old at the time of compulsory super of course. And commies.

I agree that taxpayers contribute to the treasury in order that the elderly are financially cared for in retirement. This however, is irrelevent to the fact that government rules have always permitted contributors to the pension system, an aged related state pension themselves. In the UK it's 30 years of contributions in order to receive the full basic state pension.

Pension rules in Australia seem to be constantly changing in order to financially penalise expats despite their contributions over a period of decades to assist same. Little is said also by the government of those who have contributed to the system and fail to reach retirement age.

Freedom to reside wherever and not be discriminated against i feel is an important issue.

Again, retirement pensions are very different from unemployment payments and i would agree that if you are making yourself unavailable for work by residing abroad then those benefits should not be forthcoming.

It is a fact that many retired expats opt for private medical care when residing overseas and therefore those that do are no longer a burden on the state medical system in their country. Other benefits that those citizens may have been entitled to are also usually unavailable when residing abroad.

I pay income tax on my pension in the UK, am not entitled to NHS care or to receive certain benefits which i may have qualified for if residing in the UK. My initial state pension will be frozen upon receipt. These rules have been in effect for a while and I was aware of them when i came to Thailand to live some 8 years ago so no complaints from myself, however, i would mention that if the rules were tightened further then like many others i would resist such a change.

In my view, governments do not have the will to alter the age related state pension system. Huge sums are being paid into the treasury which of course they can and will tinker with. The shortfall caused by government spending/incompetence being the very reason why the current changes to pensions and other benefits are coming into effect. The 67 retirement age again is testimony to the incompetency of politicians. There are of course, ways to fight this ridiculous policy by those who wish to do so but then further government legislation will need to be implemented in order to bring everyone back into line.

Quite shocking news recently was a suggestion by a peer in the UK who urged the government to debate the possiblity of those in receipt of a state pension to carry out voluntary work in order to quailfy for payment. Complete lunacy!!

A better suggestion would be to means test the state pension so that blithering idiots like the peer received bugger all! Not surprisingly he wants to crap on the poor and elderly rather than himself.

**draco888** · 24-11-2012, 03:28 PM

To be fair wrt raising the retirement age, people are living far longer then before placing greater strain on the public finances. Along with ever more and increasingly expensive medical treatments means it's a brave man who relies on the state for his income in retirement.

**superman** · 24-11-2012, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

if you are making yourself unavailable for work by residing abroad then those benefits should not be forthcoming.

But if you are told by the government that you're unfit for work and you then decide to go live in a country that benefits your medical condition you are penalised. By moving abroad I no longer become a burden to my country's heath service. I am in fact helping the government as they don't pay me any social benefits also. In return they freeze my pension as and when I left the UK. Loads of expats here doing 6 month stays and then returning to sign on long term sick.

**Mr Lick** · 24-11-2012, 04:01 PM

^^ I agree that people are living longer but then contributions could have been raised in line to cover this anomaly. Indeed it would appear that such increases have occurred in recent years.

Other options to implement should imo have been considered by the government rather than raising the qualification age to 67.

In effect, will current policy mean that industrial workers will be required to work on, much the same as office workers, with the possibility of suffering injury as a consequence or has/will government address the issue?

**Necron99** · 24-11-2012, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

I agree that taxpayers contribute to the treasury in order that the elderly are financially cared for in retirement. This however, is irrelevent to the fact that government rules have always permitted contributors to the pension system, an aged related state pension themselves. In the UK it's 30 years of contributions in order to receive the full basic state pension.

UK is different than Oz, in Oz there are no contributions and there is no scheme. It is just money straight out of revenue. You can be on the dole your entire life and retire to the full pension at 65. Immigrants can come to the country 2 years prior to retirement and get the full pension. Many immigrants do just that, bring their parents out, get them a passport then they fuck of back home until it's time to retire. Then, they go back to whatever 3rd world shithole they come from and live the high life paid for by the Oz taxpayer. You can also retire wealthy and get the pension.
It would be fairer, and the Expats would have something to whinge about if there was a contribution scheme but there is not.

**draco888** · 24-11-2012, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by superman

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

if you are making yourself unavailable for work by residing abroad then those benefits should not be forthcoming.

But if you are told by the government that you're unfit for work and you then decide to go live in a country that benefits your medical condition you are penalised. By moving abroad I no longer become a burden to my country's heath service. I am in fact helping the government as they don't pay me any social benefits also. In return they freeze my pension as and when I left the UK. Loads of expats here doing 6 month stays and then returning to sign on long term sick.

I think it's usually the claimant who tries to get on the sick list!

**draco888** · 24-11-2012, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

^^ I agree that people are living longer but then contributions could have been raised in line to cover this anomaly. Indeed it would appear that such increases have occurred in recent years.

Other options to implement should imo have been considered by the government rather than raising the qualification age to 67.

In effect, will current policy mean that industrial workers will be required to work on, much the same as office workers, with the possibility of suffering injury as a consequence or has/will government address the issue?

Whenever raised contributions are on the menu all the govt employees are immediately out marching in the street protesting why they should not contribute more for their retirement while at the same time moaning about the level of benefits they will receive.

**nigelandjan** · 24-11-2012, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Necron99

The problem is in the prior socialist packaging,and pervading belief that the pension is a funded pension and a centerpiece of your old age welfare. People believe that part of their tax goes towards funding this pension for when they retire, thus they are entitled.
This of course is bollox, the old age pension is, like the dole, a safety net for those too poor or shortsighted to provide for themselves. The pension is funded out of current accounts, not a single cent of tax your pay goes towards your future pension, the tax you pay goes towards paying other people their pension.

[QUOTE="Necron99"]

Yeah thanks for the info ,, next time I stop in the Pimarn hotel in Nakhon Seweran I will order the Daily Mail instead of the BKK Post as it is so freely awailable there

**superman** · 25-11-2012, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by draco888

I think it's usually the claimant who tries to get on the sick list!

I don't understand.

**draco888** · 25-11-2012, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by superman

Originally Posted by draco888

I think it's usually the claimant who tries to get on the sick list!

I don't understand.

Work shy

**superman** · 25-11-2012, 07:23 PM

I can accept that but why penalise those that are too sick to work and are accepted as so by their governments. By emigrating, the sick are aiding the government, surely?

**Necron99** · 25-11-2012, 07:28 PM

^ That's a popular myth espoused by those that want a government to fund their offshore life.
Direct costs may be lower, but every dollar spent on an expat is lost to the economy, until his inevitable return to the home hospital system when they are too sick to look after themselves.
If at home, every dollar spent goes to supporting the local economy.
All these benefit schemes are tagged with the word "social", not "citizen". They are social benefits for the society, once you go offshore you are no longer part of that society, though you may still be a citizen.

**superman** · 25-11-2012, 07:44 PM

^ That's not quite true in that I still pay UK taxes even though live here. I gave up my social benefits to get out of the shit-hole. I don't want the UK government to fund my life offshore. I live here without their help and will continue to do so. But I still think I'm entitled to my full state pension, as I paid the maximum required under the rules of being resident.

**Necron99** · 25-11-2012, 07:52 PM

The thread is about Australia and unfunded pensions.

**superman** · 25-11-2012, 07:57 PM

Well why are you commenting on matters that deviate ?

**Necron99** · 25-11-2012, 08:08 PM

I would posit that it still holds true in any event.
Are your contributions to the Uk pension fund sequestered and invested until you retire? Or is it paid out of general revenue?

**Mr Lick** · 25-11-2012, 08:33 PM

Superannuation in Australia refers to the arrangements which people make in Australia to have funds available for them inretirement. In Australia, superannuation arrangements are government-supported and encouraged, and minimum provisions are compulsory for employees.

For example, employers are required to pay a proportion of an employee's salaries and wages (currently 9%) into a superannuation fund, but people are encouraged to put aside additional funds into superannuation. The minimum obligation required by employers is set to increase to 12% gradually stepping annually from 2013 to 2020.
A person can withdraw funds out of a superannuation fund when the person meets one of the conditions of release contained inSchedule 1 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994.

Current figures relating to fund assets at 2006. A that time they stood at a very healthy total of 912 A$ BILLION

From those figures can it be deduced that savings of under A$200 million over a 4 year period are unwarranted merely because of a shortfall in funds? If so, can the proposed new government rules be judged only as a means of reducing the pension of elderly expats who have helped to expand their country's economy during their employment years? Well it appears to be the latter.

**Necron99** · 25-11-2012, 08:45 PM

The aged pension and Super are two different things. Super is your money, compulsorily sequestered, though you can choose where. The changes to Centrelink payments are related to the aged pension (dole) and disability payments.
You can do with your private Super whatever you like, the govt is not involved.
Super was brought in to avoid the problems of an aging population and to ween the country off state payments.

**TizMe** · 25-11-2012, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Necron99

and to ween the country off state payments.

starting with expats..

**peaches** · 26-11-2012, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by TizMe

Originally Posted by Necron99

and to ween the country off state payments.

starting with expats..

Easy target.

**petercallen** · 26-11-2012, 07:54 AM

The politician's wont lose out with there pensions/ superannuation you can be sure of that, the rules will not apply to them

**OhOh** · 26-11-2012, 08:05 AM

As it appears that it is the fault of the government workers and the unemployed that caused the current worldwide recession it's only right that they are killed off first. This sudden increase in the numbers of retired people was impossible to forecast.

The country cannot afford social programmes as they need to invest in new submarines, aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons to "defend" the citizens who would want the social programmes. If you don't agree or refuse to join us we have ways of turning your country into glass/starving your citizens of food, water, medicines/blocking you from OUR financial systems........

Here's me thinking it was the capitalist bankers and their in pocket political leaders. Who have yet to cut their own profits and pensions. But hey we're all in this together chaps and we can start by picking off the defenceless first, then the religious groups we dislike, then those with sexually deviant tendencies, then those ............ does it sound familiar?

**nigelandjan** · 26-11-2012, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by draco888

To be fair wrt raising the retirement age, people are living far longer then before placing greater strain on the public finances. Along with ever more and increasingly expensive medical treatments means it's a brave man who relies on the state for his income in retirement.

That statement is wrong in the Uk , if you have a life of living in rented accommodation and smoke and piss your money away , you have no assets ,, so the state will provide for you.

If you save and provide for yourself , the state will take all that ( including sale of your home ) and leave you with about £16k , then if your still alive they will cough up.

**superman** · 26-11-2012, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Necron99

The thread is about Australia and unfunded pensions.

Be careful Necron99 could be a mod.

Thread: Australian Centrelink payment changes for Expats

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions