Letter to the Editor

Royal Commission required for age pension funds

Aged Pension Deception

Are you an aged person aged 65 or more and applied for an aged pension, when you have been industrious for many years and accumulated capital losses as contained in a family trust?

Have you then been told the following; Under the social security act, you are not able to receive a age care pension because you have been honest and declared the accumulated losses in the family trust which are now deemed to earn at an interest (usually 4%) a certain income (of money that does not exist and can not be spent). A typical scenario is an accumulated capital losses of say $750,000 then at 4% interest there is deemed to exist a mythical income of $30,000 per annum. Therefore this income prevents you from receiving an aged pension. Have you then been told that if you write out these accumulated capital losses, these losses are deemed to still earn this mythical income for 5 years. Maybe if you do this and re-apply after a further 5 years, you may be eligible for the Aged Pension.

Have you then been told that should you make any further objections, the social security officer would report this undeclared income to the taxation department and they would pursue the unpaid taxation, send you bankrupt, take your house from you and give you an imprisonment sentence for conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth of Tax Revenue. This scenario was established by the Hawk – Keating Government as a typical piece of Marxist legislation to cheat citizens out aged care pensions.

Comment… the aged pension was instituted in 1948 via a levy of 7.5% of personal income tax paid so at the age of 65 years, the aged pension was already paid for and actually owned by the Pensioner. These funds were kept sacred by all Federal Governments until Hawke and Keating 1980s and it is believed that this Government declassified these funds and transferred them to general social security and spent it all, subsequently inventing worker based superannuation to compensate. Should this be Correct, then it is not correct to assume that aged pensions are paid for by the Tax Payers as these pensions have already been paid for by the recipients. This scenario is worthy of a Royal Commission Surely?

From a WA pensioner