I find it obscene that 85 people own almost half of the worlds wealth.

[margomeoz]

No wonder I like the idea of socialism that is disgusting, especially when Abbott is now going to see what he can pry from aged pensioners.

The other 50% of people deserve a share in this wealth they helped earn it for the 85 people.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@margomeoz wrote:

I am one of that group and I never received a halfpenny, maybe they forgot to tell me I could.

---

no child endowment?

---

I thing you need to find out how much that was, from my memory if you saved several months you could buy a cheap pair of shoes at the time.

---

it was about $30 per fortnight in the early to mid 80's.

[donnashuggy]

It may be obscene Margo but I could live with being one, I would be careful with my donations though, the liberal party wouldn't get any 

[monman12]

Now  perhaps you can understand why the politicians hand feed the sheep/goats milling about in the paddocks  bleating (especially pre election) ,  because the flocks  can not be bothered to climb the hill to get at the "greener grass"

Gimme  Gimme

[tall_bearded]

Oh and while  the debate is focused on the family home as an assessable asset , under the means test, people without a home are entitled to accumulate more assets before the they impact on their aged pension.  That is a couple who own their own home are permitted to cumulative assets of assets of $279,000 whereas if you are a couple who don’t own you own home you’re entitlement to cumulative assets of $421,000.

Now consider the following. I own my own home, and if I was an aged pensioner I would be required to pay rates and all costs associated with the upkeep of the property, which can be quite significant because the older you get the less you can do.  For instance I just spent a day building a new pantry.  I did it now because if my arthritis continues to get worse, I would not be able to do it in 5 years’ time.  DYI it cost $800.  If I got a tradey to do it, well the lowest quote of $2500.

Therefore the non-home owner is disadvantaged in two ways.  Not only are they allowed to accumulate significantly less assets before their pension is affected, and not only are their cost of living expenses greater, but their pension is actually less because the couple who don’t own their own home not only don’t have to pay rates and upkeep costs, but would also be entitled to rent relief.  

[polksaladallie]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

The only payments we ever received was a small amount for Child endowment.

Furthermore to put the issue into perspective, my wife was a single mother in the 1970.  Was married but the husband did a runner.  Her options were, support the kids or we’ll take them away.  To support her children she held down two jobs, with child care being provided by her mother, who also made and mended most of the children’s cloths.  That is no single mum benefits.  Instead to keep them she had to provide for them or lose them, and at the same time pay income tax  on what she earnt. 

Then when we married in the late 80, we bought our first home and then had a child but were not entitled to any benefits.  Then when interest rates went to 17%+ our only hope of keeping the family home was for her to go back to work 6 weeks after the birth.  As for her salary after tax and child care payments, we were made $50 which was enough (just) to keep a roof over our head.

---

If you wife was in Australia, she was entitled to a widow's pension. This was available (for women who had been married and divorced or deserted or widowed) from the late 1950s.  It was not available for single (never married) mothers, there weren't many of them around then anyway.  It was more or less equivalent to the pension that single parents get now.

There have been family payments for ever.

[spotweldersfriend]

🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13JK5kChbRw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

The only payments we ever received was a small amount for Child endowment.

Furthermore to put the issue into perspective, my wife was a single mother in the 1970.  Was married but the husband did a runner.  Her options were, support the kids or we’ll take them away.  To support her children she held down two jobs, with child care being provided by her mother, who also made and mended most of the children’s cloths.  That is no single mum benefits.  Instead to keep them she had to provide for them or lose them, and at the same time pay income tax  on what she earnt. 

Then when we married in the late 80, we bought our first home and then had a child but were not entitled to any benefits.  Then when interest rates went to 17%+ our only hope of keeping the family home was for her to go back to work 6 weeks after the birth.  As for her salary after tax and child care payments, we were made $50 which was enough (just) to keep a roof over our head.

---

I did the sums back then and they just didnt work well after paying all the associated costs, what we opted for was my OH looked after the neighbors kids after school and holidays and then worked Sundays, we were better of money wise but stuffed our weekends up big time, but it was what had to be done to get ahead

---

We did that too, but I did work from home to replace my income, but until earlier this year, my husband has always worked at least 2 jobs. 1 full time, the other part time (approx 25 hours a week) and for 8 years, he worked 3 jobs, helping me in my business when I needed more staff (about 10 hours a week). Until this year, we never saw him on weekends, and Christmas 2013 was the first Christmas day he had off anc could spend with his family. He always had one whole day off a week from both jobs, though, which my father was appalled by LOL, cos in his day, that was the day you were supposed to get another job and be out mowing lawns or something....

Even when he took holidays from his main job, he would still work his night job and never ever took a weekend off (only took holidays mon, tue, fri, with RDO's wed, thur.) because of the penalty rates on weekends which even affected his wages when he was on salary..

(But you will be pleased to know that after all those years of hard work, he's pretty much retired (still works on a consultancy basis) now so has lots of time to fish and chill out these days LOL.)

Before I stayed home, I was on good salary, but as childcare hours didn't suit our employment, we had no choice but to hire nannies, and paid between $450 to $600 per week in nanny wages, and then they bought in super etc on top...

But as you say, that's what you do to get ahead.

[the_hawk*]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@margomeoz wrote:

I am one of that group and I never received a halfpenny, maybe they forgot to tell me I could.

---

no child endowment?

---

I thing you need to find out how much that was, from my memory if you saved several months you could buy a cheap pair of shoes at the time.

---

it was about $30 per fortnight in the early to mid 80's.

---

your memory has faded  79 per month were, first child $15.20;

1979

From January FA ceased to be payable for children receiving student allowances under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and other related scholarship schemes. Appropriate adjustments were made to these allowances to ensure that all families of tertiary students received broadly the same base payments.

From May FA was paid on a monthly basis. Adjusted equivalent rates per month were, first child $15.20; second child $21.70; each of the third and fourth children $26.00; fifth and each additional child $30.35; child in an institution $21.70.

 increased to a whopping $9.80 for the first child a fortnight in 1988

1988

From December FA became payable on a fortnightly, rather than a monthly basis, in combination with payments of Family Allowance Supplement (FAS) (see below). The new fortnightly rates of FA to apply for the period to 30 June 1989 were: $9.80 for the first child, $13.95 for the second, $16.70 for each of the third and fourth and $19.55 for each of the fifth and any additional children.

.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/0809/...

[the_hawk*]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

Oh and while  the debate is focused on the family home as an assessable asset , under the means test, people without a home are entitled to accumulate more assets before the they impact on their aged pension.  That is a couple who own their own home are permitted to cumulative assets of assets of $279,000 whereas if you are a couple who don’t own you own home you’re entitlement to cumulative assets of $421,000.

Now consider the following. I own my own home, and if I was an aged pensioner I would be required to pay rates and all costs associated with the upkeep of the property, which can be quite significant because the older you get the less you can do.  For instance I just spent a day building a new pantry.  I did it now because if my arthritis continues to get worse, I would not be able to do it in 5 years’ time.  DYI it cost $800.  If I got a tradey to do it, well the lowest quote of $2500.

Therefore the non-home owner is disadvantaged in two ways.  Not only are they allowed to accumulate significantly less assets before their pension is affected, and not only are their cost of living expenses greater, but their pension is actually less because the couple who don’t own their own home not only don’t have to pay rates and upkeep costs, but would also be entitled to rent relief.  

---

and if you are a non home owner you get extra for rent assistance, it would seem they are trying to discourage home ownership by disadvantaging home owners 

[tall_bearded]

Yes, she may have been entitled to a widow’s pension but to equate that to a single mum now beggars belief.

Widow pension vs what they get now.  No lets see, no childcare subsidy, no rental assistance plus, baby  no baby bonus etc  You do the math.

At the time her option were a widow’s pension or go out and earn.

 If on a widow’s pension you were well below the poverty line.  So you were always reliant on charities, family and friends to get by particularly when you consider that essentials (food, clothing, shelter etc.) cost a lot more than they do today. That is way Legacy was created.  That is at the time war orphans were considered more entitled than those who were orphaned because dad was still living but decide to leave. Now add into the equation, if they decided to work wage equality; females got paid less than men and you may and you get some understanding from where I am coming from.  Oh and just for the record I have nothing but absolute and unequivocal respect and admiration for the work that Legacy have and continue to do.  I only used it to highlight community attitudes of the day. 

Also there was no family court to which to they could go to get hubby to pay his fair share.  That is the amount paid as a pension took into account what dad was supposed to pay support, and the fact that there was no way that the mum could force them to do so was considered irrelevant.

Therefore by any measure, what you get now is far in excess to what was available in the past, which brings me back to the intension of my original post, why should these people who have contributed so much, now be expected to accept less, so those who have yet to contribute can take more.