As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.
This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.
and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598
Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says
The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.
Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.
"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.
A C&P with which I take issue D9275, well some of Tingle's figures anyway , but not the underlying theme which is "lost" with the "detail'.
What exactly do you think of the figures?
Excerpts
Financial planners argue that the proposed tightening of the pension assets test mean a retiree with $750,000 of assets - excluding the family home - would receive around half the total income of a person with $325,000 of assets but who qualifies for the age pension.
The retiree on $757,267 will not be eligible for any pension payment, and will receive $43,467 income based on a 3 per cent return. By comparison a retiree with $325,000 of assets will be eligible for $33,717 in age pension payments, earn just $9,750 from investment income for a total return of $43,467. The figures assume retirees have $50,000 of assets, such as furniture, that don't generate income.
The retiree on $757,267 ??? That actually is the CURRENT cut off for a single homeowner, the PROPOSED (2017) is $547,000
"The retiree on $757,267 will not be eligible for any pension payment, and will receive $43,467 income based on a 3 per cent return" ??????.
Actually 3% on $757,267 is $22,718. However the proposed cut off (single homeowner) is to be $547,000 ( 3% = $16,410)
" a retiree with $325,000 of assets will be eligible for $33,717 in age pension payments" ???? Wrong again, a single pensioner receives $ 22,365 (max) NOT $33,717, which is for couples (max) .
To add to the confusion the figures above are "Maximum pension rates as at 20 March 2015" whereas the article would appear to be attempting (badly) to refer to the proposed 2017 asset tests changes.
I will dig up a simple graph if I can, but I know that some have problems interpreting them.
I am sure some were holding their breath for this very simple but informative graph which encapsulates all the changes in the asset test that will be applied in 2017.
I do wonder (again), why when pursuing the daily cathartic exercise that is this thread, what is the academic point of just trolling the media and then doing a C&P of what is deemed politically acceptable without checking/reading others thoughts, and then not even adding some original extra information/thoughts/comments?
Yesterday's C&P from Tingle caught my eye because I had recently been explaining the ramifications of the proposed 2017 asset test to a couple of friends who have part pensions and manage their own SMSF. The article was a mis-match of economic details (nonsense?) and Tingle is better than that, so why? , and more so, why reproduce/link it here without a little analysis or comment?
Today we have another C&P where economics are included (NATSEM) is it as reliable as yesterday's C&P?
It would seem that the report has a "non liability (reliability?) clause" e.g, :
The 13-page report cautions the analysis only measures the impact of the budget's major "hip-pocket" measures and does not evaluate the "totality of the budget reforms". Measures analysed include reductions to Family Tax Benefit B and an increased petrol tax.
"does not evaluate the "totality of the budget reforms" really?, would not the TOTAL effect be important , or the fact that the opposition have stated that they will not allow the Family Tax Benefit B reductions to pass, or that the "petrol tax" is only unfreezing" of annual fuel indexation (not a tax), and equates to $20 per average household annually ?
C&Ps, read em and peep. Even as is to be expected the peeps will be partisan, at least make them, or one might be tempted to believe they are not understood, read, and are just political jetsam.
