on โ22-02-2015 09:48 AM
โ22-02-2015 10:05 AM - edited โ22-02-2015 10:05 AM
where are all the ministers who normally defend abbott? I've only seen Hockey and Cormann so far, and treasury has nothing to do with the defence story that was leaked yesterday.
โ22-02-2015 10:12 AM - edited โ22-02-2015 10:13 AM
on โ22-02-2015 10:20 AM
I can only say for the 5 that I made applications for, 2 in NSW, 3 in Qld.
If a resident has no assetts they are not denied care, they are charged a basic fee, 85% of their pension. If they have assetts they are charged another fee as well, called an accommodation charge.
There are other ways of lowering this fee, some charge an entry fee which can be from about $250,000 up.
The government pays an extra fee for those who have no assetts.
It may also mean there is not a lot of choice in places.
on โ22-02-2015 11:00 AM
"Tony Abbott dumped a plan to tighten the assets test of pensioners outside of the family home which would have seen wealthy pensioners loss their pension to one where all pensioners are penalized. He doesn't seem to like anyone"
Rudd and Gillard dumped 136 of the 138 recommendations from their own Henry Tax Review, this would have gone some way to address the problem of the incessant gimme gimme gimme of 80% of the electorate,
Sans,. of course, any contribute contribute contribute!
Anyway as C&P of articles without comment are in vogue:
How would anyone here suggest any of the above change, and possibly modify the taper test?
on โ22-02-2015 11:02 AM
@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
Murdoch's really gunning for Abbott isn't he? Maybe he sees Turnbull as more 'user friendly'.
I think it's just that Murdoch now see's Abbott as a loud mouth boof. I think Abbott should change his name to Hipshot.
on โ22-02-2015 11:33 AM
" Business has lost confidence in the PM" Really A3?. I think business is far more concerned with the economic climate, as opposed to whoever is PM now or in the past (sorry), and their "contentment" would be well represented by the AllOrds:
Here is the "odoriferous" XAO covering the stinking "Govt's" current tenure:
Or and of course our largest bank: the CBA
CBA has just announced a FF interim dividend $1.98. This is an increase of 8 per cent on the 2014 interim dividend paid 3 April 2014.
Confidence is in the eye of the economic observer, not a politically biased devotee e.g. :
on โ22-02-2015 11:38 AM
on โ22-02-2015 11:44 AM
@azureline** wrote:Something he should consider is the way some families of the elderly in nursing homes are allowed to keep the family home and live there rent free, thereby allowing the elderly resident to be only paying the basic fee, 85% of the pension.
The home is not considered in the assetts test. So, the taxpayer is paying for half of their care fees. It's greedy because the family then inherits it.
Edit :(not talking about spouses)
I dont know how many would get away with that, the rules here in Vic are that anyone living in the house has to be a dependant and has to have lived there for a while, maybe 2 years I think? Maybe other states have different rules?
on โ22-02-2015 12:18 PM
@azureline** wrote:Something he should consider is the way some families of the elderly in nursing homes are allowed to keep the family home and live there rent free, thereby allowing the elderly resident to be only paying the basic fee, 85% of the pension.
The home is not considered in the assetts test. So, the taxpayer is paying for half of their care fees. It's greedy because the family then inherits it.
Edit :(not talking about spouses)
I didn't know about that. I always wondered why whenever the prospect of selling the family house comes up, everyone jumps up and down, saying "why should Mum have to sell the home she has had for 60 years?"
My view is that they are never going to move back there, so it should be sold to pay for her care.
Now I understand, they have someone in mind who is going to live in it.
My view is that every benefit should be strictly means tested. There are too many people of all ages who do not need benefits, but are getting them.
on โ22-02-2015 01:17 PM
@punch*drunk wrote:
@azureline** wrote:Something he should consider is the way some families of the elderly in nursing homes are allowed to keep the family home and live there rent free, thereby allowing the elderly resident to be only paying the basic fee, 85% of the pension.
The home is not considered in the assetts test. So, the taxpayer is paying for half of their care fees. It's greedy because the family then inherits it.
Edit :(not talking about spouses)
I dont know how many would get away with that, the rules here in Vic are that anyone living in the house has to be a dependant and has to have lived there for a while, maybe 2 years I think? Maybe other states have different rules?
I am sure the rules are the same in every state but some people are good at fraud, apparently.
I spoke to a lady yesterday who has moved into her mother's home, with her spouse... and is 60yo, so it's not likely she is her mum's dependant, so they don't have to sell the home. Her reasoning was that she can take mum home occasionally and see all her stuff..... I don't think mum goes out much though.
I was gobsmacked she told me...............