The Injustice of the Portability of the Australian Age Pension.

The Injustice of the Portability of the Australian Age Pension.

With the decision by many Australians to take early retirement or being affected by redundancy we find people moving overseas and living off savings or investments for their final working life years.

Most are not aware that this can cause problems when they reach the Age Pension age qualification and return home to claim this.
People who may have spent over 40 years in Australia working and paying taxes can find themselves in a position where although  they are entitled to the pension, or part  of if they have investments, it is not portable for 2 years.

Another person who stays in the country until he is 65, or whatever age he now needs for the Age Pension, can cheerfully leave the country the day he qualifies and be paid while overseas.

This is not a situation where people who have worked overseas for years can claim a full pension outside of Australia, the Australian Working Life Residency law makes sure of this, you must have spent 35 years in Australia at working age to take a full pension offshore for any length of time.

I can see no rhyme or reason to the 2 year portability  law, a person who returns to Australia for a few years before he applies for the Age pension will qualify for portability while someone who does not wont, even though they may have worked longer in Australia in total.

To make it even more unfair, the decision whether the time spent overseas is too long to qualify for the pension portability is not in any legislation, it is made by Centrelink.
Someone who spends the final 12 months of his working life period can possibly be at the same risk of portability loss as someone who may have been away for 10 years.

Most people I know who have been forced into this situation have accepted it and returned to Australia for 2 years, often undergoing considerable hardship with partners or family left behind and finding themselves placed in a position of having to make a new home for a 2 year period while trying to spend as little as possible.

I think everyone effected should appeal and complain to the highest level, become a serial pest, write, ring and email the relevant ministers, camp on your MP's doorstep and in particular ask WHY????

It is a law that benefits no one, self funded retirees are not restricted and the taxpayer support their pensions through tax breaks to the same extent as the Age Pension.

dspoverseas.proboards.com/

sceadugenga wrote:

I think everyone effected should appeal and complain... become a serial pest... camp on your MP's doorstep and in particular ask WHY????

Dear Sceadugenga,

Sounds like a recipe to get the police authorities after you for harassment.  As you may know, word(s) in all caps signify shouting.

cccmedia in Ecuador

I would have to live in Oz for 2 years on the pension before I can be considered for payment of the pension overseas.
The key word is CONSIDERED as the govt is trying to eventually cut all overseas pension or allowance payments.   

The labor govt were looking to cut it all by 2020.

sceadugenga wrote:

I think everyone effected should appeal and complain to the highest level, become a serial pest, write, ring and email the relevant ministers, camp on your MP's doorstep and in particular ask WHY????

It is a law that benefits no one, self funded retirees are not restricted and the taxpayer support their pensions through tax breaks to the same extent as the Age Pension.

You say that "self funded retirees are not restricted"  but actually most "self funded retirees" get nothing from the Aged Pension system.

You say that "It is a law that benefits no one", but it benefits the taxpayer by restricting welfare payments to only those who NEED it.  This leaves taxpayer funds allocated for welfare to be available to those in need of support.

Paying Taxes does NOT automatically qualify you for an Aged Pension.
Paying Superannuation payments DOES qualify you for your personal portable, superannuation pension.

The Australian Aged Pension is a welfare payment for those who have insufficient funds of their own to live on.
It is not designed for Australians who have funds and assets.

If you have income or Assets over the threshold you get ZERO Aged Pension anyway.
If you have enough, as you said, to "living off savings or investments for their final working life years." then you probably are not entitled to the Aged Pension anyway, so it is a mute point.

Most Australians are now getting the private Superannuation, paid from the Compulsory Super payments that come with wages, and so, fewer people will be eligible for the Aged Pension welfare payment in the future.

Some people say that those of us who can afford to travel do not need Australian taxpayers to fund them in this.

Personally I wish it hadn't changed as I would love some extra taxpayers funds to enable me to live a life of luxury overseas ;)

I never said they got anything from the Age Pension, i said that the TAXPAYER supports their system.
Take a google search and see how much the government put into Self Managed super funds last year.
Where does that come from?

My point is that people retiring now and in the past paid for their pensions with high income taxes back in the 60s and 70s, this was what it was supposed to be all about.
Where's that money gone now?
Bullshit wars, politicians perks and breaks for businesses that stopped creating jobs years ago.

sceadugenga wrote:

My point is that people retiring now and in the past paid for their pensions with high income taxes back in the 60s and 70s, this was what it was supposed to be all about.
Where's that money gone now?

It is still there being used for aged pensions for those that NEED it.

Anyone resident, and fitting the residency rules in Australia, and that is in need of the aged pension welfare payment will get it, the same as always.

The taxes in the 60s and 70s, as you say, covered this welfare payment. It is still being paid to those who need it.

I don't see much difference.  All I see is people who can afford to travel, and want to live overseas, also want the Australian taxpayer to pay for it. As they DEEM themselves in need of this welfare payment.

People with high incomes in the past, as you say, should have used that to set up for the future, as is being done now. Instead of relying on the taxpayer to subsidise them later, after spending it all.

ABCD, a moot point is one that is already decided or is no longer relevant.

A mute point...  is that one where nothing has to be said?

cccmedia wrote:

ABCD, a moot point is one that is already decided or is no longer relevant.

A mute point...  is that one where nothing has to be said?

I never was that good at English, so I had to look that up..

I spelt it wrong, should be moot ;)

English
“moot” is an adjective that means an arguable or debatable point,

American
“moot” is the meaning of something that doesn't matter

The website went on to say:
whether you mean that something is arguable or pointless, the spelling is m-o-o-t.   ;)

Mute
adjective
- silent; refraining from speech or utterance.
noun
- Law. a person who stands mute when arraigned.
verb
- to deaden or muffle the sound of.

I am very disappointed in the way Centrelink looks like not paying me a pension when i do get to retiring age. My story  is at 62 years old and paid very  large portion of my wages in taxes in heavy construction (scaffolding) for forty years. I now have a heart condition that has had surgery and a lower back problem that am awaiting surgery for more than one year. It was my  plan to retire self funded for the next five years to a home in the province using my small amount of superannuation. But i now don't know how i can get a pension that as far as i am concerned i have paid for with out returning to Australia and leave my family for two years so as to be classed as a resident when i am allready a citizen

New topic