Too many savings to get Centerlink (extra on top of my apprenticeship)

ty2050 on 27/07/2014 - 12:10
Last edited 02/08/2014 - 09:41 by 1 other user

Hey everyone wondering if I could get a hand. I've worked very hard to get my savings where there currently at. I have almost no assets, 20 years old and just started a very good dual trade apprenticeship.

Problem is what I'll be earning is poor 360 a week. On an average week I spend 340 on the bare essentials
The only cut I can make is mobile which I will be doing in Nov. 340 is without insurance and rego when it comes up and other kinds things. Can't buy new clothes gadgets car serviced/fixed

If I could get center link I think its an extra 80-120 a fortnight it should cover everything I need at least until I hit second year.

I know its a little greedy and I should just spend my savings to get by. Anyways I was wondering what I could do with my money as so I can have center link. The only thing I can think of is buying gold. Or something like that. That won't lose me money only for a year cause when I hit second year I won't need it.

Any help would be amazing. Sorry for the horrible layout, and somethings might not make sense let me know I'll do the best to correct them

Edit:
After consideration, decided to suck it up. Use my savings as I need it and try to budget better. It'll only be for a year.

Financial

Comments

- - c0balt on 30/07/2014 - 15:33
    
    For a reason - Pensioners.
    
    A lot will have a paid for house and they will still need benefits as they may have retired without properly planning for their retirement.
    
    It doesn't apply to youth, as they will not have a paid for house, car and other assets during the time they actually need benefits.
    
    Pensioners are allowed to have a house, car and investments up for $350k before they start losing their payments. Young people without anything don't have the assets, and they are not allowed to save up for anything substantial without losing their payments.
    
    So an apprentice isn't really allowed to save up for a vehicle that costs more than 10k without losing their benefits, while the pensioner can sit on their ass all day in their $300k apartment with a $20k car and 30k of other assets without losing their benefits.
    
    I know where I would prefer my tax dollars going, to the future and not the grave.
    
    The game is rigged against the youth.
    - rekabkram on 30/07/2014 - 16:01
      
      -4
      
      Did you ever think that the pensioners that have likely retired after many, many tax paying years have more of a claim to their pension over youth that have little expenses and will more than likely end up spending the majority of the money between KFC and the pub?
    - c0balt on 30/07/2014 - 16:05
      
      +3
      
      @rekabkram:
      
      KFC and the pub? Get real. How about shelter, food, clothing, education, transport ect. Very few centerlink recipients are the ACA/Today Tonight Corey Delaney types, although I bet you would like to think most are to justify your position.
      
      Also if those pensioners had a whole life time of paying taxes, surely they would have a healthy super and other investments, right? Why should they get assistance if they had a whole lifetime of being able to plan for their retirement? Even if they had, but they put their retirement into $350k of assets, they would still be allowed pension payments, and then be allowed to pass on their assets to their inheritors/trust for 0 tax back!
      
      Or maybe the pensioners spent their whole life going to the KFC and the pub and that's why they need assistance now, and the youth have to pay for it out of lost benefits that the elderly had when they were going through finding their place in the world.
      
      Those are all hyperbole, but you started with the KFC and pub example.
    - rekabkram on 30/07/2014 - 16:14
      
      -2
      
      @c0balt:
      
      I've been an apprentice and worked my ass off and didn't get centrelink handouts, I got by just fine including when I wasn't living at home and had bills to deal with.
      
      Excess money generally went on take away and the pub, the pubs were filled with uni students and apprentices.
      Budget properly and it really isn't that hard to have $450 get you through the week with money to spare especially if you did some overtime.
      
      What you're proposing is that we should get hand outs when were young (because youth are always sensible with money) and then when it comes time to retire we should have 30 years worth of savings so that we can live out the rest of our lives without assistance…. Because everyone over 50 owns a house and has $500,000+ in savings according to what your saying.
    - c0balt on 30/07/2014 - 16:25
      
      +2
      
      @rekabkram:
      
      That's great you did. It's great that you were able to find an apprenticeship that paid well enough to do so.
      
      If you didn't, say because competition was a lot harder (as it is nowdays) and you found yourself on $300 a week with today's set of expenses, your view might be different.
      
      Also where did you pull that I was talking about people 50+ with 500k? I wrote specifically about pensioners (65+) with over $350k in liquid assets, and having access to their super in a few years if not already.
      
      "What you're proposing is"
      I think you need to re read what I wrote. And then the whole hyperbole thing after it.
      
      I'm saying it isn't fair to give handouts to pensioners with $350k of assets and deny it to dole/austudy/youth allowance recipients because their savings account had $10k in it. Especially in the current market.
    - tonka on 31/07/2014 - 02:16
      
      @c0balt: I don't think you really know what you are talking about. How old are you. Most pensioners at the moment don't have super. There is still a couple of generations before persons with a lifetime of super are retiring.
      
      In the meantime the old age pension is the superannuation, paid for with a lifetime of taxes.
      And many people will have worked hard for a lifetime without becoming wealthy.
      
      The assets pensioners have put aside need to last them perhaps another 30 years , what would you suggest when they need to replace white goods, car, home repairs.
      
      The two groups should not even be compared.
      
      And this is just ridiculous' I know where I would prefer my tax dollars going, to the future and not the grave.
      The game is rigged against the youth.'
    - meumax on 01/08/2014 - 11:32
      
      +1
      
      Spot on. It's called inter-generational theft. Politics is controlled by boomers so its no surprise that most of the financial benefits and entitlements acrue to older people.
    - tonka on 01/08/2014 - 12:01
      
      -1
      
      @meumax:
      Without what you call inter-generational theft you would have been left to die as a baby.
      
      Really wish I hadn't seen your and Cobalt's posts. They make me sad.
      
      Why in the world would your parents and grandparents bother to conceive and sustain you to adulthood if they knew you would flush them in the trash at your first opportunity.
      
      Throughout history the elderly have been supported by younger generations. In Australia it's done through a welfare model (or socialist model).
      
      It is not theft , they have already paid for your healthcare, education, and public services ie police roads, child support for 15-20 years waiting for you to become useful, you then in return support them in old age.
    - alittlelewd on 02/08/2014 - 14:57
      
      @tonka:
      
      Flushing the parents down the trash?
      
      My parents have done well enough for themselves that they won't ever need to be on the pension.
      
      Both pensioners (old age pensioners, I'm not referring to disability) and disadvantaged youth should have benefits provided for them, pensioners are not more worthy. Unless the pensioner lost everything in the crash between 88-92 then there's no excuse for them not to have made a very decent living given the job market, opportunities and affordability index that there was in the past, that just isn't there today. Even if they did, the period 1992-2008 was very fruitful and if they weren't able to make a nice honeypot then, well, one could argue that they must not have been very productive, they were a spendthrift or other derogatory terms usually reserved for what you call the unemployed youth.
      
      30% of university graduates in Australia are unemployed, the highest it's been in 20 years.
      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/graduate-jo…
      
      Why should any Australian think that providing benefits to pensioners is a better use of funds than to young people? It won't make their future better to have the elderly better cared for than the youth.
      
      But you have your mind made up, nothing can change that. You don't think the youth deserve the money, but the pensioners do even if they have $350k of liquid assets. Hell for $350k they could sell up, buy a condo in Bangkok and have the best quality medical care and meals the rest of their lives!
    - tonka on 02/08/2014 - 17:23
      
      @alittlelewd:
      You are making presumptions.
      Never said youth don't deserve the money.
      
      Flushing the parents down the trash is a in reference to the previous posters calling them a/theives and b/ referring to pensioners as sitting on their asses all day as I consider it unacceptable to wholesale disparage the elderly.
      
      I don't understand where you are getting your facts. An awful lot of people have worked on minimal wages their whole lives. Have you only been exposed to persons with higher incomes.
      
      I don't know any pensioners with 350K liquid assets. I know one who had $70K from an inheritance I was told it reduced their pension.
      
      As for losing everything in crash etc. Growing up working class, my parents and my friends parents, could never fully afford their bills losing in a stock crash isn't something they would understand.
      
      As far as applying your derogatory terms to them (my parents and friends parents) for working hard their whole lives and never affording anything new, you really need to step outside of your cushy little bubble.
    - Damagecontrol on 02/08/2014 - 23:23
      
      @c0balt:
      I agree but if they spend their whole life at the pub and KFC they would probably be dead before retirement
- c0balt on 30/07/2014 - 15:32
  
  Apples and oranges. O.P. isn't applying for a pension here, he's going for Newstart. It's ~$10k savings and above where he will lose benefits, not $350k of assets.
dbadcock on 30/07/2014 - 05:57

I can understand your situation, but to be fair and honest, the only thing to do is to spend part of your savings to help yourself, not expect other taxpayers to support you.
Meowcat on 30/07/2014 - 08:36

Hey mate if you've had to relocate away from the family home in order to take up the apprenticeship you may be able to claim this,
http://www.australianapprenticeships.gov.au/program/living-a…,

Pity the federal government replaced tools for trade with a hecs style loan, but you may wish to look at that too to top up your income ( though I wouldn't recommend it unless it was completely necessary)

Best of luck
johnno07 on 30/07/2014 - 09:07

Go live in Switzerland!
Turd on 30/07/2014 - 12:02

+2

You can give me your savings and when you need it Ill give it to you slowly.

Then you can get centerlink.

I'll park the money in a offset account.
[Deactivated] on 30/07/2014 - 12:44

You got some savings and are an apprentice well don't but look at putting your savings into a savings account that is accessible so you can use the interest made.. …..

When i was doing it there was no assistance at all and I was on 180 a week before tax and half that went to fuel, i think it'stime to realise you are better off and ddon't need Centre link assistance.
- c0balt on 30/07/2014 - 15:04
  
  When were you doing the apprenticeship?
  
  It's unreasonable to think that within the last few decades that 180 a week (90 left after petrol) is a liveable wage through an apprenticeship, and it's unreasonable for you to tell others that it is acceptable.
  
  I don't know the exact payments, but I believe the dole/Newstart/Austudy/youth allowance all start around $250 a week. So it's further unreasonable for you to tell the O.P. that because he has it better off than you did (in fairy tale land), that he shouldn't apply for assistance.
  
  It's people like the O.P. who deserve assistance. The people that are willing to work and make themselves into something where they can pay taxes.
  
  I don't imagine you owned many, if any tools from a payment of 90 per week. That, or you didn't eat, have a place to rent, drank water, owned clothes ect. Unless maybe you lived at home the whole time and had your parents pay everything else for you. Which a lot of people don't have the luxury of.
  - infinite on 31/07/2014 - 12:13
    
    What are you talking about?
    
    OP already indicated he lives at home cost-free with Mum and Dad. His $350 a week "bare essentials" are 100% disposable income purchases.
  - [Deactivated] on 31/07/2014 - 20:30
    
    Apprentice from 2002 to 2006.
    
    Wages
    
    1st year = 180
    2nd year = 240
    3rd year = 360
    4th year = 420
    
    I had a stint in my 2nd year where I was doing 12 hour days 6 days and making 1200 a week after tax (apprentice tax is very low) it went for roughly 8 weeks.
    
    I did a lot of traveling which chewed through my wages and also my tools cost a fair bit, around 2800 from memory.
    
    if the op managed to make so much savings then good on him but I find it funny to be crying poor me with one hand clutching a bag of money in the other.
    
    Could never rent due to wages and yeh had to live at home with parents but I supported them and do a fair bit around the house to pay my dues which my parents realised that if I was working hard I must want that I was pursuing.
    In the end im a licened electrician, with plc, instrumentation, industrial electronics certs, high votage qualified and have an open registration, I have a few more qualifications but thats thebig bunch and yeh I wouldnt have been able to with out parents help but I never could save a sizable chunk of coin where Centre link would knock me back.
sharemonger on 30/07/2014 - 17:27

+1

I think the best thing to do is to ask your parents can you use a savings account (or even a new savings account using one the banks interest rate promos eg ME Bank) in their name and to deposit your savings there. Since interest rates are so low, the tax effect from the interest income makes very little difference.
- Kenb0 on 30/07/2014 - 22:06
  
  there's still a paper trail leading from your account to their account. if investigated, it'll show up pretty quick. Of course, it likely won't get investigated but the risk is there.
  - alittlelewd on 30/07/2014 - 22:19
    
    It's perfectly legal, though. It could be considered a once off gift to the person (tax free), of course you need to trust that person to give it back to you, as they are under no legal obligation to do so. Now if you gave them the money as a 'loan' to be repaid, well then it's going to need proper paperwork from a solicitor (see: loan agreement) and it would still be considered your money (that you would need to declare or risk a fine/repayments to Centrelink).
    
    The 'in the know' people do this all the time with trust accounts moving money to beneficiaries (to which they also have access to the funds), to bring down the tax brackets and save thousands.
    
    It's a good idea to set up a trust when you have children, not just for the money saved, but for asset protection.
    
    *Everything I just wrote has been my own personal experiences being part of a Family Trust. See an accountant and solicitor for proper financial/legal advice and if it would be appropriate for you to get one (as it may not provide tax incentives or asset protection in your case).
    - Kenb0 on 31/07/2014 - 11:40
      
      I know its legal, and yes it can be considered a gift, but also depends how much they are "gifting", Centrelink may not like it as it may be considered moving the money away from OP just to get the benefits. I don't know how much OP's savings are and how it works with NewStart or whatever the OP is trying to get from Centrelink, my only experiences are with the old age pension, the assets test there, and rules around gifting. If its the same, then the OP can only gift $10k a year, or $30k over 5 years, otherwise the money over that amount will be assessed to the OP as a deprived asset for 5 years from the date of the gift.
      
      Seeing as someone mentioned that in this case, the asset test was 10k instead of the OAP asset test which has a much higher limit, the amount that is allowed to be gifted away and not be assessed to the OP may also be much lower.
nomoneynoproblems on 30/07/2014 - 18:04

+3

So….what you saying is you have too much money in the bank to be eligible for a government hand out. Instead of using your own money you want to find a way where you can rort the system.

Urge to kill rising.
- alittlelewd on 30/07/2014 - 18:45
  
  -1
  
  Too much money = 5k and above for a single income earner.
  
  5k in the bank is nothing, even more so if you getting an income of 300 a week for a full time apprenticeship.
  
  A much bigger rort of the system is providing tax cuts and monetary and real estate incentives to companies like Apple, who then declare 0 income in this country.
  
  Yeah we get a few 40k jobs for 'geniuses' in the lowest pay packet, and a few trucking companies get a few more contracts.. but we lose millions and millions of tax payer dollars that should go back into the country.
  
  Keep that urge to kill though, you might find yourself almost destitute one day (except 5k in the bank) and you won't be allowed any benefits and may have to fight for scraps.
  - StewBalls on 30/07/2014 - 21:32
    
    Keep that urge to kill though, you might find yourself in the midst of a zombie apocalypse.
    
    Fixed.
  - infinite on 31/07/2014 - 12:15
    
    How do you become "destitute" living at home cost free and amassing over $10K in savings on an apprentices wage, like what the OP currently does?
    - c0balt on 31/07/2014 - 13:53
      
      If a person find themselves abruptly not live at home / unable to live at home.
- Dan_ on 30/07/2014 - 21:21
  
  Let's say there were two uni students, Fred and George. Both worked at Maccas during their time in uni and saved $10,000. Fred realises he may not have a proper a job for a while upon finishing uni but his living expenses will not change and he keeps that $10k in the bank while he searches for job in his field of study. Carefree George on the other hand decides to go clubbing every weekend and decides to go on a tour of Europe to celebrate his graduation. Neither Fred or George have a job yet, but after thoroughly enjoying his trip to Europe, George finally realises that he needs money to live on.
  
  You're telling me that George should receive benefits while Fred get's nothing for being financially responsible? You have the urge to kill Fred?
  
  I'm sorry but that's disgusting.
  - infinite on 31/07/2014 - 12:16
    
    -3
    
    You forgot to add the important part of the story there where both Fred and George live cost-free at home with Mum and Dad, like what OP currently does.
    - Dan_ on 31/07/2014 - 12:58
      
      But it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether their living expenses are nil or hundreds per week. The point is their expenses are the same but Fred simply had the foresight to not spunk all his savings on luxuries. If George gets centrelink benefits then so should Fred as they are both job seekers.
      
      To suggest that the govt should support George and exclude Fred from the same benefits is disgraceful.
    - Dan_ on 31/07/2014 - 14:01
      
      There's no question that George needs it more than Fred, but that is the result of his own decisions. An asset test doesn't really distinguish between people like George and people who've been dealt a bad hand in life.
      
      If OP doesn't claim what he is entitled to, he is putting himself at a disadvantage to his peers who've enjoyed the benefits of spending their savings and are now being supported by the govt while finding a job.
    - ty2050 on 31/07/2014 - 17:08
      
      +1
      
      I like how you assume I live at home cost Free. I do in fact live at home not cost free I pay rent I buy my own food, I pay half of the internet my phone petroleum car fixes services. The only thing I don't pay is electricity. Which is quiet low because of solar panels. Did I forget to add that some jobs sites I could be paying 100$ just on fuel.
    - alittlelewd on 31/07/2014 - 19:41
      
      +1
      
      @ty2050:
      
      It justifies their position to view you as a sponge that would just stay on Centrelink for life, sadly.
PresidentClinton on 30/07/2014 - 18:48

If you're morally concerned about committing fraud against the government, don't be. The reserve bank regularly bribes and fraudulently deals with other nations for a profit. They then try to cover it up through the impartial courts.
https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/
- lplau on 31/07/2014 - 08:49
  
  If you are thinking of commiting fraud against the government, make sure you don't get caught, or else they will lynch you with their impartial courts…..
dragon7 on 30/07/2014 - 19:58

Go for it. The rich has army of lawyers and accountants to rort the system in billions, as well as using thier money to influence policies to their favours.
I think the gag order is about bribes / corruption for switching money printing to plastic technology. This has been suppressed in Vietnam also, but the public should know. Name and shame those corrupted officials and dirty corporates
- lplau on 31/07/2014 - 08:48
  
  You know he is technically robbing you of money since you actually pay for his centrelink payments via Taxes.
  
  Its interesting how people on here are encouraging him to rip off Centrelink when you are actually telling him to rip off you.
Lucky13 on 31/07/2014 - 04:17

No dont use your savings. Give it to your parents so you dont have it anymore and then reapply for Centrelink
tonka on 31/07/2014 - 10:31

Used to earn crap money I was a kid, I worked two jobs maybe 10 years so I could spend more and get ahead.
Choc83 on 31/07/2014 - 15:55

I can totally relate to the Fred and George example.

My advice to the OP - you're in Australia, the government will look after you unless you give them an excuse not to. So go travel, see the world, enjoy some new experiences, buy things you've always wanted.

And when you run out of money, you've got the experience and things to show for it, and a government who will look after you. The way I see it, it's your own tax dollars coming back at you anyway.
- lplau on 31/07/2014 - 15:59
  
  If i remember correctly Centrelink doesn't take into consideration a house which is your primary residence.
  
  You can go spend that money as a deposit into a house which will be more beneficial in the long run than blowing it on assets which depreciate (e.g. just go buy something from the shops).
  
  The laws may have changed in regards to what Centrelink takes into consideration, so please go check with them before you go do what ever you are thinking of doing.
frinik on 31/07/2014 - 17:41

I'm not here to judge the morality of doing this and CBF reading the rest of the thread but converting your savings into gold would likely do the job.
Withdrawl the savings as cash.
In general if you keep your transactions to less than $5000 and purchase infrequently then you should be able to build a position in Gold and Silver without an accompanying paper trail.
And store it in a secure location. Dont tell anybody about it. You'll need to pay capital gains tax on it when you sell it back.
Otherwise depending on your appetite for risk you could give bitcoin a go. Its sort of in a legal grey area atm.
tehoriginal on 31/07/2014 - 18:39

-5

you're such a shit cu*t - people like you are roughting the system and making it tougher for the existing disadvantaged.
Dan_ on 31/07/2014 - 19:10

+1

Tell me, @tehoriginal, how does an asset test distinguish between someone who has been dealt a bad hand at life and someone who was not careful with their savings?

That's right. It doesn't. They both have no assets. So you think that instead of providing the same support, we should penalise those who are financially responsible and put themselves in a position where they in able to support themselves while on a reduced income?

Take your personal attacks somewhere else. They only describe yourself. As long as he provides honest and accurate information to Centrelink. Centrelink will decide what he is entitled and he has every right to claim it.
- tehoriginal on 16/08/2014 - 13:41
  
  If you have the capacity to save as this person does then you do not need to be supported by centrelink in addition to your parents.
  
  Make sense?
  
  Im not disputing the fact he is good at saving - congratulations- however this is deviating from the point.
IdLikeToBeATree on 31/07/2014 - 19:17

I don't think it's greedy at all. Why should you be penalized for being smart with your money. You have sacrificed in order to save.

The government rewards people who waste all their money on drugs/alcohol
- alittlelewd on 31/07/2014 - 19:46
  
  +2
  
  Alcohol is highly taxed in this country. Effectively that money is going straight back into the system (taxable amount) and the rest generally stays within the borders as wealth transfer from boss to employee, brewery company to trucking company to move it to the bottle-o. The money pretty much all stays within the borders. Illicit drugs are also usually paid in cash to a dealer who would have to launder it one way or another (money back into the system) or spend it within the borders. Unless that dealer just piles it up in a room, then it's being spent and the wealth transfer continues.
  
  For those reasons a lot of the money you think is wasted just goes straight back into the pockets of Australians.
  
  Companies that dodge tax by moving their operations offshore, yet still receive huge financial incentives to operate within Australia are the real sucker of funds out of Australian tax payers pockets. We are effectively paying money to have it shipped offshore never to be seen again.
  
  See the recent debacle with Apple declaring no taxable income in Australia yet they receive huge incentives (real estate, tax and money straight into their pockets) to operate here. They would make a profit any which way, yet for some reason we still pay them to do so.
p1 ama on 31/07/2014 - 21:20

+6

I find so many comments here just plain wrong and vindictive of other people.

Firstly, everyone who is saying to just withdraw the money in cash and keep it in a safe. Firstly, that's fraud. I don't care what your view on "robbing the government" is, but even if you're okay with it morally, it's still a crime and you'll go to court if they catch you. Also, they will have access to your withdrawal amounts and dates, so good luck explaining why you've been withdrawing all your savings.

Secondly, I don't understand why everyone has the view that the people who don't have any savings must be druggies or alcoholics. Life in Australia is very expensive. I have friends who have just graduated from uni and have had to move interstate for work. I know someone who earns $45k per year (after-tax) and has had to move from Melbourne to Sydney for work. This is around $800 per week or so. You know what? Once the rent has been paid, bills have been paid, petrol has been paid for, groceries been bought…etc, there's actually not that much left.

And that's just the essential, what about clothes, equipment needed for work such as a computer. This is why it's a difficult task to buy a house in Australia, that's why it's the Australian dream, because it's so hard to save up.

Maybe if you're living with your parents and they pay the bills for you then, okay, you're getting a bit of a free ride, but many people out there, whilst living comfortably, still have to budget their spending and end up with very little savings. If these people were to lose their jobs, they will need government help, not because they wasted all their money on alcohol, gambling and drugs, but because they simply could not afford to save much.

The third issue is the attitude given to saving.

You think blowing all your savings is a good idea so that when you lose your job you can get government handouts? Well guess what, without savings, you're never going to be able to buy yourself a house, a nice car or have enough to go on a nice holiday. If you just blow it all on stupid things in order to get government handouts, your financial sense is not very high.

On top of all that, we shouldn't be tactically adjusting our financial positions to get government support. It should be there as a last resort, as a safety net for people who cannot survive without it.

You have savings? Guess what, you can live off that, you don't need government support, if you don't get it, you'll still survive. Long story short…you don't need it. So don't complain when you don't get it.

You don't have savings and don't have a job? Well you're in big trouble aren't you? Without the support, you'll be living on the streets without much food to eat, obviously you need the government support.

The support should be viewed as help for those who have exhausted everything else they have. If you have a large amount of savings, you don't need it. You're just ripping off your fellow taxpayers.

On top of all this, the asset cap is very generous anyway.

Lastly, a lot of the comments just don't appreciate the system that we have here. In many parts of the world, if you're out of work, guess what, you get nothing. In fact, it's not just in many parts of the world, it's in most parts of the world.

Go to the US, go to other "rich" countries and see what you get when you're out of a job. See how much your loans are when you graduate from uni. See what your healthcare bills will be. Then take a look at Australia, where healthcare is almost free, where you can go to uni without a single dollar upfront, where you can be completely broke and have someone look after you.

That's not a broken system. It's a system which works and which looks after the people who need it most, not people who are living on a financial cushion of large liquid assets and are sitting around screaming about wanting social support payments.

Some of the comments are actually extremely bitter.
gccmelb on 01/08/2014 - 00:40

Quite a few people attacking the OP for trying to get some well needed help from the Government.
Yet we let big mining companies and multi-nationals get away with not paying tens of billions of dollars.
Daedalus on 01/08/2014 - 00:43

+5

To the Op: best to ignore all the political arguments and focus on what is best for you

this is not financial advice (best to pay a little to see a professional)

if it was me, if the:

net present value of the centrelink payments over the period i am earning very little

is less than

(my savings + intangible value I get from spending all my savings) then spend I would spend all my savings
- lplau on 01/08/2014 - 16:59
  
  Interesting that people keep saying "Spend all my savings".
  
  You should read up on what the government considers when they say "assets", there maybe better ways to invest that money without it being considered as an asset.
  
  I believe a primary residence isn't considered an asset, so if you buy a place you can claim centrelink and not blow away your savings.
  
  That's what a financially responsible person would do.
  
  From the looks of this website, it may just work if you buy a cheap house / apartment instead of blowing it all away on other stuff which has no resell value.
  
  http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/assets/
  Section about Real Estate:
  Real estate assets
  The value of any real estate apart from your principal home is included in your assets test. Your real estate assets can include any property owned wholly or jointly by you and your partner, privately or within a business structure.
  
  So basically buy a place, route all your letters there, you can still eat and stuff at your parent's place, then go home to sleep. Rent out all the other rooms, so you get more money…. which might actually be more money than your centrelink payment! If it is under the table cash, you can even do both!
  
  Obviously there is risks in doing so, just make sure you do your research and buy in a good area, you may even get a good return!
Kevan2 on 01/08/2014 - 01:31

+1

What an interesting thread. It has shown all aspects of views, - careing, social, small government, current affairment jealously belief, greed, why not me issm, left wing,right wing, and all other blah blah blahs.

It was pleasing to see that some said that sometimes sh*t happens [money, health, death, crime victims and if our short lives how many people we know who have suffered at least one of the aforementioned] , and no matter what planning, wealth or social position there may no other LIFE solution other than have pension support. We are soon to forget that these people are someones Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Friend.

In reality there are very few who cheat the system by being bludgers, lazy, do not what to work.

There are guideline for benefits that are there so that those who need OUR support get it and if you qualify that is good for it may just be the leg up you need to get there, or eventually do some good ie the author of Harry Potter. Or should we have the R.W. view that she should have paid back all benefits she received whilst writing?
Lucky13 on 01/08/2014 - 02:22

If you buy gold with the money itll still be an asset youll have to declare. Just give the money to your parents and reapply for Centrelink. I think theyll only be interested in how much money your parents earn depending on your age not your parents assets so much. Otherwise fav uncle/auntie would do the trick.
- Lucky13 on 01/08/2014 - 03:15
  
  and thats not to keep just fyi, yknow just to look after atleast until the application goes through
cmaff15 on 01/08/2014 - 15:54

+1

take the cash out of the bank and bury it in the yard…. problem solved.
- tonyjzx on 01/08/2014 - 16:53
  
  +1
  
  this ^^^
  
  take money out
  
  if they ask where the money is say you gambled the lot away due to stress and emotional problems
  
  ride the dole train to loser town
  
  choo choo!
Damagecontrol on 02/08/2014 - 23:18

I would just like to say that it's great to see a young person putting in the hard yards, I did an electrical apprenticeship, and all my friends were earning more than me, some twice as much but it paid off in the end!
People like him should be admired and encouraged, I know you have decided to 'suck it up' but in 5 years time you will be sitting pretty.
Many people are disparaging of this thread but the problem is that many other young people will find this situation too much and quit, then what happens is we all pay even more for tradespeople.
Paying too much for tradespeople makes us ozbargainers very unhappy!

Too many savings to get Centerlink (extra on top of my apprenticeship)

Comments

New Forum Topics