What Changes to the Age Pension Assets Test Mean For the Property Market

saving for retirement
Reddit

The government’s proposed change to the age pension assets test may have unintended consequences. The plan to lower the asset threshold for age pension eligibility has the potential to unleash a wave of retirees investing in new homes. And it could lead to a selloff in income producing assets, like stocks, to fund new home investments. In order to explain why, we need to look at the assets test itself.

If you’re like me, you might find the assets test for age pension inherently flawed. That’s because it has its priorities wrong. It assesses pension eligibility based on the total value of assets you own — not how much income you receive from those assets.

Now, it’s important to remember that the family home isn’t included in any asset test. Everything else however is assessable. That includes investment properties, stocks, cash or bonds.

You can see what’s wrong with this straight away. The assets test should be looking at how much income you receive from your assets. If the issue here is how much pensioners need to live off in retirement, why isn’t income the main priority? Doesn’t it make more sense to assess eligibility based on what income you receive, and not the assets themselves? I think it does.

That’s why the proposed change has its priorities mixed. What it may just end up doing is sending retirees rushing back into the property market because the family home is exempt from the assets test.

In other words people are likelier to sell assets like stocks, and reinvest their money into a new home. That would achieve the aim of lowering total assets.

This could result in a glut of pensioners moving up from their existing homes in a bid to keep hold of their pension entitlements. That’s exactly what the property market (read bubble) doesn’t need now — retirees buying up $1 million homes.  In fact, the Department of Social Services estimates this could unleash 100,000 new buyers in on the market.

So why does the government want to change the asset test threshold for age pensions? It’s simple really. And it all relates to superannuation.

Why the government wants pensioners with larger super funds to spend their money

If you’re a retiree with any kind of superannuation savings, the government has a word of advice for you. Spend more, and save less. And one other thing: don’t worry about your children’s inheritance — they’ll be fine.

The government is arguing that people with substantial super should be spending more of it. They think far too many retirees are taking out pensions, and leaving their super as an inheritance. The AFR reported that the Treasury had findings showing that most retirees had roughly 50% of their superannuation left over when they died. That’s too much, the government says. In order to save money by cutting down on pensions, they want wealthier Australians to use more of the superannuation.

To give you a quick example of how this might affect you, let’s assume you had assets of at least $750,000. Remember this includes any asset — like stocks — other than your home. Under the new proposal, you would receive $43,467 based on a 3% return on your superannuation. But you would get no pension.



Yet someone with assets of $325,000 would be eligible for $33,717 in pension entitlements. Their superannuation would draw down $9750 for a total return of $43,467 in income. Altogether they would earn twice the amount of income as the person with assets over $750,000. You on the other hand would need to draw down more money from your super, without receiving a pension.

The government think you should be spending that money, not leaving it to secure your children’s future. That’s why they want to take your pension away. But if they really want pensioners to spend more of their super, they’re going about it the wrong way. All it may result in is a horde of new retirees pushing up property prices even further to protect their age pension.

That wouldn’t be the tonic for cutting expenditure on pension entitlements. And it wouldn’t help Australia’s out of control property market.

Mat Spasic,

Contributor, The Daily Reckoning

 

PS: Most Aussie retirees rely on their superannuation to live out their dream retirement. But with fees and taxes, many lose out on thousands of dollars to super funds every year.

In a special Daily Reckoning report, Editor Vern Gowdie shows you there’s another way. ASIC’s warning for SMSFs is timely. Vern knows that they aren’t for everyone…but an SMSF could be ideal for your portfolio.

Vern takes you through the A to Z of SMSFs to help you decide if it’s the right option for you. In the report Vern also shows you how SMSFs could benefit your super tax position.

To find out how to download his free report, ‘How To Know if a Self-Managed Super Fund is Right For You’, click here.

 

The Daily Reckoning
The Daily Reckoning offers an independent and critical perspective on the Australian and global investment markets. Slightly offbeat and far from institutional, The Daily Reckoning delivers you straight-forward, humorous, and useful investment insights from a world wide network of analysts, contrarians, and successful investors. Founded in 1999, The Daily Reckoning is published in 7 countries with a worldwide readership of almost 1 million people.
Reddit

Leave a Reply

4 Comments on "What Changes to the Age Pension Assets Test Mean For the Property Market"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Mark
Guest

Complete crap. What about there existing homes?

Chris Curtis
Guest

Can’t agree with you Mark. A single pensioner, own home $250K and $550K in assets would have an income of $16.5K/year. Net worth=$800K. By upgrading to a $550K home and $250K in assets, income would be $30K/year, net worth still $800K. I think many pensioners will choose the latter – nicer home + more income, without reducing their net worth.

Mark
Guest

Complete non-sense. What about there existing homes? It’s a zero sum gain. In fact they are more likely to move out of the cities, to nice, perhaps coastal places. If anything, it might do a bit to help burst the bubble.

Pepe
Guest

Government always creates unintended consequences, usually the opposite of the intent.

By the way, you have a typo in the example. Both income amounts are the same.

wpDiscuz
Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to letters@dailyreckoning.com.au