I don't think I will retire I like the little work I do now to bother retiring, I have a profitable little business and I will probably work well into my senior years adding to the joys of a working life as I go along...
Printable View
I don't think I will retire I like the little work I do now to bother retiring, I have a profitable little business and I will probably work well into my senior years adding to the joys of a working life as I go along...
How would they apply income and asset testing? The wealthy have often settled many of their assets in well-established family trusts, of which they remain discretionary beneficiaries. To be fair, you would need to include the assets in family trusts in any means test, otherwise the people affected most by means testing would not necessarily be the very wealthy but the more moderately wealthy without family trusts.
Likewise how would you differentiate between pensioners who have multi=million dollar homes but few financial assets versus a renter with a multi-million dollar portfolio of productive assets.
Nothing to do with scummy bludgers (sic). Just operating withing the current legislative framework. My parents were on the benefit for a year (a long time ago) and did not have to eat their house. Used the benefit as intended, to help during tough times but have since worked and subsequently operated their own business and employed people. So the stop gap at that time was handy.
The benefit is however "income tested" so if you have large dividend producing portfolio it may eat into your benefit. But if you have a $5 million house that you live in... then there is not problem getting a Job Seeker (new terminology) benefit.
Unemployment benefit is income tested. So if you have a multi-million dollar unencumbered house and not much other income, I guess you could may still be eligible. It is the same with other benefits I think. In-built bias toward home owners as opposed to those owning financial assets and income-producing assets instead?
How about an equity tax like the one proposed by the TOP party. Sounds like a good idea.
While we are at it the "Aaron" party would propose doing away with the discretionery family trust as I can see no real benefit for the country by having this legal concept "trust" "I don't own the asset but I control it". What a load of legal bull****. Limited Liability Companies and Incorporated Societies can fill the function of the Trust. Matrimonial property agreements can also get round issues of outsiders marrying into the family. You could do away with a lot of unnecessary complication by doing away with Trusts in my opinion.
Don't worry Aaron with those policies you won't get elected.
I would sign up for the Aaron Party! Traditional Trusts without retained benefit (the settlor cannot be a beneficiary and maybe not even a trustee) serve a purpose.
As it is now, for those who can claim benefits whilst owning a considerable asset in the equity of their own homes, maybe the government could lay a charge against the property for the value of the benfits received, which could be discharged on disposal of the property.
Your parents case is probably a good example when social welfare has helped a couple down on their luck. I don't have a problem with social welfare in these situations.
I just don't like bludgers who are too lazy to get off welfare and contribute to society instead of living off everyone else. I also don't like bludgers who use a family trust or "the rules" to receive taxpayer money they don't deserve. For example;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...f-housing-hook
Typical entitled boomer bludger.