Means Test

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Late last year a Productivity Commission report found including the family home in the means test for the age pension could deliver the government A$6 billion in much-needed revenue.
Despite this, in the lead-up to the federal election, both major parties shied away from reform. Neither was willing to consider rolling back preferential treatment of the family home. This includes capital gains tax exemptions, first home owner grants and the family home’s exemption from the pension means test.
Home ownership is an important source of emotional security, which offers a strong rationale for exempting the family home from the pension means test. But as the population ages and the government’s fiscal problems grow, there’s increasing policy interest in tapping into older people’s accumulated housing wealth to support retirement.
<h2>The case for means-testing the family home</h2>
Exempting owner-occupied housing from capital gains tax can have adverse equity and efficiency impacts. The family home exemption results in the payment of income support to those with substantial wealth tied up in their principal residence. Public funds are not therefore targeted at those in most need.
The exemption of housing assets in means tests advantages pensioners with most of their wealth stored in the family home relative to those with the same wealth holdings, but spread across a more diversified portfolio. Policymakers describe this as being “horizontally inequitable” – where people of similar origin and intelligence do not have equal access to wealth.
The current system also causes inefficiencies in housing markets. It encourages “empty nester” older households to live in houses that are large relative to their household size. For income-poor older Australians, this can have perverse consequences. Equity released from downsizing could generate income to help meet acute spending needs in old age.
At the same time, wealth portfolios dominated by housing leave owners over-exposed to house price risks that they cannot hedge. Means-testing the family home would cause future homebuyers to scale back their housing investments. As a result, they would be more likely to hold more balanced wealth portfolios.
<h2>The case against means-testing the family home</h2>
The problem is, older Australians choosing to downsize or access some sort of equity-release product face tax penalties under the current system.
The net proceeds on downsizing are an assessible asset that can reduce income-support payments, while stamp duty eats into the proceeds. And a lack of suitable housing options frustrates many would-be down-sizers who want to stay living in their local communities. Equity-release products also expose owners to investment and credit risks because interest rates are variable and house prices can fall.
Encouraging people to tap the value in their home instead of accessing welfare payments requires stable housing asset values and continuing high rates of home ownership. However, there is already clear evidence of declining rates of home ownership and increasing indebtedness. These trends are not restricted to young Australians; they are also evident among those approaching retirement.
And if in future we witness the sharp declines in house prices that many countries suffered during the global financial crisis, housing equity will prove to be an unreliable asset base for welfare needs.
<h2>Is there a pathway to reform?</h2>
The challenges facing older Australians who downsize or access home-equity products can be mitigated by the introduction of financial instruments or government-backed schemes that allow owners to hedge house price risks. Stamp-duty exemptions could reduce the financial costs of downsizing.
It also needs to be recognised that current pensioners made their home purchase and investment decisions on the basis of tax-transfer rules that were expected to remain in place. In light of this, grandfathering provisions would need to be part of any reform package. This would enable transitional arrangements, preventing major disruption in housing markets and the lives of current pensioners.
It is important to note if budget savings are the main motivation, the government should look at reforming housing tax concessions. These concessions are largely received by higher-income older home owners. Curbing these concessions would be a more equitable way of achieving budget savings while also improving the resilience and efficiency of housing markets.
Rachel Ong is deputy director, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rachel-ong-113482" target="_blank">here.</a>
Gavin Wood is professor of Housing, RMIT University, and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gavin-wood-113723" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

The family home - and its exemption from the pension means test

<html><body>
The 2015 budget confirms pre-budget announcements that the government is committed to reducing the cost of the age pension, but will now do so more fairly than it had intended in last year’s budget.
<h2>Indexation plans dumped</h2>
The government had previously wanted to link the annual increase of the age pension to CPI instead of wages. Since prices grow more slowly than wages, this would have affected negatively anyone expecting to receive the pension in future.
Crucially, that policy would have lowered the safety net for those with the lowest incomes, halving its value relative to wages in the next forty years. Of the different options to reduce pension costs, this was the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-intergenerational-report-and-reforming-the-age-pension-38056">most inequitable</a>. Thanks to Senate opposition it has now been abandoned. The freeze on eligibility thresholds relating to the pension will also be abandoned.
<h2>Changes to means-testing</h2>
The <a href="https://scottmorrison.dss.gov.au/media-releases/fairer-access-to-a-more-sustainable-pension">new proposal</a>, to start in 2017, is to make the pension more targeted by tightening the asset test, particularly for home-owners.
As with any means-tested benefit, there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-intergenerational-report-and-reforming-the-age-pension-38056">three parts</a>: maximum benefit (i.e. the full pension), the amount of assets you can have before the pension is reduced (i.e. the asset “free area”), and the rate at which the pension is reduced as you have more assets (i.e. the taper). Income is tested separately.
The previous policy would have cut the maximum. The new proposal is to extend the free area, but to make the taper on extra assets more aggressive (see illustration) – a measure originally <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/media/release/drop_unfair_plan_to_lower_pension_indexation_reform_super_and_pension_asset">proposed</a> by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS).
The family home is still not counted as an asset. But as this graphic shows, people who own their own home will be affected differently to those who do not because the free area increases much more for non-home-owners than for home-owners.
 
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/81342/area14mp/image-20150512-19524-1rgvrrx.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/81342/width668/image-20150512-19524-1rgvrrx.png" alt=""></a>Asset test changes for pensioners <a class="source" href="https://scottmorrison.dss.gov.au/media-releases/fairer-access-to-a-more-sustainable-pension">Data from DSS</a>, Author provided
<div class="enlarge_hint">Click to enlarge</div>
<h2>Who will be affected by the new means test?</h2>
You will be affected if your (non-home) assets are within the green or red asset ranges, which differ depending on relationship status and housing tenure. One consolation: the Treasurer has <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/speech/html/speech.htm">promised</a> that “anyone who currently has a Pensioner Concession Card will continue to receive a concession card that provides the same benefits.”
The vast majority of older people will see no change. Those gaining and losing are part-pensioners. The Government <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4231137.htm">estimates</a> that 170,000 with modest savings are expected to gain some age pension and about 330,000 part-pensioners with more assets will lose at least some of their entitlement.
For example, older couples who own their home and have other assets between about A$800,000 and A$1.2 million are expected to lose their part-pension altogether.
Of the $2.4 billion savings to the budget created by these changes, almost the entirety is borne by changes affecting better-off home owners.
So the measure takes a step toward redressing the inequality of excluding the family home from the asset test, where someone who used their savings to buy a house is favoured over someone who uses theirs to pay rent.
The ideal policy would include the family home beyond a certain level and make better use of the <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/pension-loans-scheme">Pension Loans Scheme</a>, under which pensioners can get the age pension and eventually pay it back from the equity of their home.
While not saving as much as the previous indexation policy, the effect of a tougher asset test will build over time as Australians accumulate more superannuation savings. In future, more Australians will have assets that will reduce their age pension.
Either way, Australia would be expected to continue to spend very little on public pensions <a href="https://www.oecd.org/els/public-pensions/pensionsataglance.htm">compared</a> to most OECD countries.
<h2>Fragility of retirement incomes</h2>
The proposed policy is a fairer alternative to the indexation changes proposed in last year’s budget. That such indexation changes had any currency at all points to the fragility of the retirement income system when policy-makers focus only on sustainability. Issues remain, but at last both sustainability and adequacy are being considered.
<h3 class="fn"><a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-brief-will-i-lose-my-age-pension-41447?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+12+May+2015+-+2805&amp;utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+12+May+2015+-+2805+CID_67c2eed5a2983e7197bcdbadd5314e11&amp;utm_source=campaign_monitor&amp;utm_term=Budget%20brief%20will%20I%20lose%20my%20age%20pension" target="_blank">Rafal Chomik</a> </h3>
<h3 class="fn">Senior Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research, UNSW at UNSW Australia Business School.</h3>
</body></html>

Means Test

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Means Test

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News