Pension Or Privilege? 90-Year-Old Wealthy Couple's Concerns About Losing Benefits Spark Social Media Debate

What began as a simple financial query about retirement benefits has sparked a wider debate on wealth, entitlement, and the fairness of pension distribution in Australia.

At the center of the debate is a retired couple in their 90s, who are concerned about losing their part-age pension due to their AU$895,000 share portfolio, fearing that their growing wealth could jeopardize their pension payments, News.com reported.

It started when the couple's child sought advice from The Sydney Morning Herald money columnist Noel Whittaker: "With the market going up as it has, they are worried that they will lose their pension and the benefits. Is there anything that they can do so they don't lose the pension?"

Whittaker gave several suggestions, including valuing their furniture at "garage sale prices" instead of replacement costs, which will help the couple stay below the asset limit. His other recommendations were reducing assets by prepaying for their funerals, renovating their home, and even gifting AU$10,000 to family members. He added that if they gave a larger sum to their children now, it would be considered a deprived asset for five years, meaning it would not increase in value or reduce their pension amount.

The article quickly went viral after a Sydney local shared it on X (formerly Twitter), asking, "Why are 90yo millionaires worried about losing a welfare payment?"

Some criticized the couple, calling them "greedy," with a user commenting "AU$900,000 is more than enough for anyone to live off during their retirement years."

"Firstly, stop being so greedy. Secondly, live off your money," one commenter said.

One user suspected that it was the child who sounded more concerned, rather than the parents. "It sounds like it's the kids worrying they might have to spend their inheritance," one said.

Meanwhile, another user speculated that the real concern might not be the pension, but the medical benefits that pensioners receive.

Others sympathized with the couple's mindset, pointing out that many older Australians view the age pension as a "long-term saving scheme for retirement."

"They worked and paid tax all their life to earn their pension. Anything that retracts from that is seen as a loss," they pointed out.

Under Australia's pension rules, you must be 67 years or older to qualify for the age pension. While the maximum fortnightly payment for a single pensioner is AU$1,144.40, a couple receives AU$1,725.20. However, for every dollar earned over AU$212 in income per fortnight, the pension was reduced by 50 cents.

A couple, who owns a house, and is on a full pension can have up to AU$470,000 in combined assets before their payments were affected. If they are on a part-pension, that threshold rises to AU$1,045,500, before their payments are cancelled.

The question also ignited a fiery debate on Reddit, with the discussion centered around the question: "Why does an 18-year-old in their first job, earning a modest income, pay high taxes to support government benefits for a wealthy boomer with a $900k share portfolio?"

Another user mocked, "I currently work FIFO and earn $180k a year, how can I reduce my income so I get unemployment benefits?" while others argued, "Why should they have to quit? They've paid taxes their whole adult life. They should be rewarded with unemployment benefits that are designed to protect the most vulnerable in our society."

One commenter suggested, "Personally, I think we should replace the entire welfare system with a universal basic income paid to all Australians, funded by either a resource tax hike or partial nationalisation of the resource sector."