Home > Pension > ACPSRO Correspondence

ACPSRO Correspondence

September 4th, 2009 Leave a comment Go to comments

This concerns mainly the members of ACPSRO affiliated Associations; SCOA, SA Superannuants and others.

To
ACPSRO
19 Drevermann ST
Farrer ACT 2607 

23’th.Nov.2008

Dear Sir/Madam.

In the Report ACPSRO held on the 22’nd.Oct.2008 in Paragraph 23.when R.Hickman raised the matter of a universal age pension, the response was as follow:

John Paule reminded the meeting that ACPSRO agreed several years ago that:
(a)    we would not pursue any matter outside the interests of our constitution members.
(b)   We would not pursue matters that do not have a reasonable chance of success.

As far as (a) is concerned the fact that the majority of the members of the Associations affiliated with ACPSRO on super of less than $30,000 per annum are very much affected by the means test of the age pension, a universal age pension is very much in the members interest.

As far as (b) is concerned, could John Paule inform me and all the members affiliated with ACPSRO what have the Associations  under the guidance of ACPSRO achieved in the last two decades?

Yours truly
Hawil
Membership officer

Response to the above letter from ACPSRO

Australian Council of Public Sector
Retiree Organinisation Inc.
Hawil
6.Dec.2008

Dear Hawil,

I refer to your letter of (22’nd Oct.2008), this should read (23.Nov.2008) and I think you may have made a mistake with that reference. Notwithstanding, I have never stated that ACPSRO “would not pursue any matter outside the interests of our constitution members”. The correct interpretation of my reminder to Council members is that ACPSRO agreed not ot pursue any matter that did not benefit the majority of our constituents.

Although a universal age pension might benefit a significant number of our constituents it has no, repeat no, chance of success. It is this latter constraint that decided ACSPRO not to pursue the matter and that’s where it rests. Australia did have (from my memory) a universal age pension many, many years ago but it was abolished by a subsequent Federal Government. There is no bar to having the matter raised again but it has no chance of success with either of the major political parties because of the costs and the current philosophy of user pays and asset/income tests.

For your information ACSPRO fought for and won twice-yearly pension indexation for public sector retirees in most states and the Commonwealth, and we are still fighting for the state holding out. In addition, ACSPRO has been fighting for other improvements for public sector retirees and just because we have had little success does not mean we cease as that plays into the hands of the ruling Government.

ACSPRO does not have an office as such and nothing in the way of assets except a limited bank account. We do not have the resources to conduct correspondence with individuals and, although this may sound harsh, but is not meant to be, ACSPRO prefers to conduct any correspondence with member organisations’ representatives.

Your truly
John Paule
Secretary. 

To
ACPSRO
19 Drevermann ST
Farrer ACT 2607 
14.Dec.2008

Dear Mr.Paule.

In my letter of the 23’rd.Nov.2008, what I referred to was a report from our two delegates who attended the ACSPRO meeting held on the 22’nd of Oct.2008.

In response to the first paragraph it must be emphasized that a Universal Age Pension would benefit the majority of ACSPRO constituents.

In response to the second paragraph, it can only be said that as long as the leadership has views like “UAP’ has no, repeat no, chance of success”, then it definitely has no  chance of success.

Third paragraph; ACSPRO has won “twice-yearly” indexation in some states; how much does that benefit the average members’ say $5.00 per year.

As far as playing into the hands of the ruling government, that is exactly what ACSPRO is doing.

In the last paragraph it is stated that ACSPRO does not have the resources to correspond with individual members; when I suggested to ACSPRO that the affiliation fees should be raised, and it was also suggested by delegate R.Hickman at the meeting, it was not supported, yet our Association wasted $1000.00 on sending two delegates to the meeting, which achieved absolutely nothing.

One proposal to be progressed and have a very good chance of success was to raise the threshold for the “Seniors Health Card” to $60,000 and $96,000, because this would also be supported by the “Poor Self Funded Retirees” through the Australian Independent Retirees Association”.

Now which members of ACSPRO would not benefit from a UAP; a retiree on a defined benefit pension who had sufficient funds to pay into a taxed super fund, a substantial amount who would lose more through loss of tax concessions, than gaining from the age pension.

Maybe ex-Governor Jeffrey would be a point in case in point.

The members of the Associations affiliated with ACPSRO, SCOA, SA Superannuants should ask their leaders whose interests are they representing, the majority on 20-30 thousand super income per annum, and depending on some Centrelink pension, or the members with incomes of $100,000.00 per annum?

No response to this letter so far.

This a submission from SA Superannuants to the Australian Future Tax Review board.

We want to emphasise that our submission is not about escaping the payment of tax and the Medicare levy, or about getting more age pension. It is about paying the same level of tax on the same forms of income, and having income assessed in the age pension income test on the same basis, as other Australians with comparable incomes. We know that receiving our superannuation income as tax-free income would not be fair to members of taxed funds and so we have no quarrel with the fact that our superannuation income is still taxable when that of taxed fund members is tax-free after age 60. It is the extra tax we pay on nonsuperannuation income, and the more severe assessment of our pensions under the Centrelink income test, that are the matters of concern to us.

Excerpt from the SCOA submission
Recommendation 8

a. Commonwealth superannuation pensions paid from an untaxed source be tax free for recipients on reaching age 60,  

b. That superannuation pensions paid from an untaxed source be paid as after tax non-assessable income so that they are not added to non-superannuation income to determine the marginal tax rate to be applied to that non-superannuation income.
c. Superannuation payments to Commonwealth superannuants who are married or partnered and who meet that definition as specified in their superannuation scheme’s legislation be able to split equally their superannuation pension with their wife/husband/partner.

 

 

Now who would benefit most if the Taxation review board should implement this submissions? Not the low income superannuants.

To
ACPSRO
19 Drevermann ST
Farrer ACT 2607 
26’th July 2009

Dear Sir.

In your last letter to me in response why ACPSRO will not pursue an introduction of a Universal Age Pension you stated that a UAP has no chance of success.

In response to the second paragraph, it can only be said that as long as the leadership has views like “UAP’ has no,repeat no,chance of success”, then it definitely has no  chance of success.

Here are two excerpts from submissions by SCOA and the SA Superannuants, which will probably have a good chance of success, because all the Politicians and the fat-cats on incomes often above $200,000.00 per annum with a subsequent pension of more than $100,000.00 per annum would greatly benefit from it; who cares about the majority of the ACPSRO affiliated Associations members who according to the SCOA President are in receipt of super pensions equal to a couples age pension.

Unfortunately the membership of the ACPSRO affiliated Associations is not aware of this facts and the leadership of this Associations is hell-bent to keep it that way.

It appears that ACPSRO and its affiliated Associations are the biggest obstacle of a UAP pension, which would the fairest system for the majority of members and also the people in general.

I wonder if the ACPSRO’s leadership will be kind enough to respond to this letter.

Yours truly
Hawil
Ex.Membership Officer
Of S.A. Superannuants

Excerpt from SA Superannuants submission.

We want to emphasize that our submission is not about escaping the payment of tax and the Medicare levy, or about getting more age pension. It is about paying the same level of tax on the same forms of income, and having income assessed in the age pension income test on the same basis, as other Australians with comparable incomes. We know that receiving our superannuation income as tax-free income would not be fair to members of taxed funds and so we have no quarrel with the fact that our superannuation income is still taxable when that of taxed fund members is tax-free after age 60. It is the extra tax we pay on nonsuperannuation income, and the more severe assessment of our pensions under the Centrelink income test, that are the matters of concern to us.

Excerpt from the SCOA submission
Recommendation 8
a. Commonwealth superannuation pensions paid from an untaxed source be tax free for recipients on reaching age 60,
b. That superannuation pensions paid from an untaxed source be paid as after tax non-assessable income so that they are not added to non-superannuation income to determine the marginal tax rate to be applied to that non-superannuation income.
c. Superannuation payments to Commonwealth superannuants who are married or partnered and who meet that definition as specified in their superannuation scheme’s legislation be able to split equally their superannuation pension with their wife/husband/partner.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share
  1. October 2nd, 2015 at 23:16 | #1

    I mean, there is plenty to crtisciie this (or any) government on, but the “Key will cut pension payments” one is just incoherent.Superannuation is not currently paid out of the Super Fund – currently the fund is just accumulating capital so that in the future, some part of the Superannuation budget line item can be drawn down from the income off the fund’s investment.As for the questions, “if the method of funding changes how can the same amount be paid out?” – it can be paid for in the future at the same rate the same way it is now, through taxes or borrowing.If we keep putting contributions into the Fund while running a deficit, we are already borrowing to pay for future Super payments anyway. Supporters of the Fund are betting that over time, the amount returned from the Fund (ie the profit from global financial markets) will more than pay for the extra debt incurred for a few (up to ten?) years. That’s not a statement on the level of super payments, it’s a bet on the performance of markets. It may be right, or wrong, but the argument is not connected with the actual amount of cash superannuitants get in the hand.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • September 3rd, 2017 at 17:31 | #2

      If the Australian government starts to cut down the pension payments, it will impoverish the people which are on the basic pension, with little super even more, while the self funded retirees will benefit even more from the tax concessions, because if their income is from a so-called taxed fund, they will not have to pay any tax at all.The question is, where will the government get the revenue to run the country, when there are very few taxpayers?

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  1. No trackbacks yet.

*