Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 179

When age pensions were not welfare

When the financial planning industry was in its infancy, I often heard older people talk about the way the pension system used to be. According to their recollections, a portion of all income tax was hived off and credited to a separate fund, out of which a pension would be paid for life.

Because it was all so vague, and because there was nothing on any of my old tax returns that mentioned the alleged fund, I never took it seriously.

Digging a bit deeper

Then just before the last election, I was bombarded with emails readers had received from the Mature Australia Party. The title was certainly a barbeque stopper: "The big lie – the age pension is not welfare!"

The email claimed, "Older people spent their lifetimes paying for their pensions with an early version of the compulsory superannuation scheme. In 1945, the Commonwealth split personal income tax into two components. One of them, the social services contribution, was to be used exclusively to finance Social Security cash payments. The revenue from the contributions was paid into a National Welfare Fund.”

It said that by 1950, the balance in the fund was £100 million, which would be several trillion dollars in today's money. According to the email, in 1977, Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser transferred the balance to Consolidated Revenue but to this day, the contribution is still coming out of everybody's pay packet.

These ‘revelations’ started me on a journey to find out the truth, which culminated with my finding the seminal book on the subject, The Foundations of the National Welfare State, written by Rob Watts in 1987 and published by Allen and Unwin.

Watts claims that the idea for a National Welfare Fund started in February 1943, when Treasurer Ben Chifley was finding ways to fund Australia's contribution to the Second World War. The Curtin Government had publicly vowed never to tax low income earners, but they faced a major problem – a shortage of money.

At that stage, the states were raising their own income taxes, but the Curtin Government decided it could boost its own coffers claiming taxing rights. The states objected strongly, but on 23 July 1942, the High Court upheld the right of the Commonwealth to take over taxation.

The need to raise money

By the end of 1942, the Curtin Government had to find an additional £40 million, but what kind of spin could they put on it so it could not be described as a tax increase? They talked about introducing a separate Social Security tax, but decided that such a move would create administrative difficulties and confusion. In the end, it was simpler to raise taxes across the board.

And so the National Welfare Fund was born. True, a part of all taxes received were paid into it, and certain pensions were paid out of it. But no taxpayer had a separate balance in their own name, so there was no possibility that monies paid in would be allocated to a particular contributor.

The years passed, governments changed, and eventually they ended the charade of a separate welfare fund. Any money left was transferred to Consolidated Revenue, from where the money for social security benefits now comes.

Now, some minor political parties are agitating for the money that was originally in the National Welfare Fund to be paid to older people, on the grounds that it was their money all the time. The sad reality is that there is nothing there to pay out. It's all gone down the vast black hole called ‘government’.

 

Noel Whittaker is the author of Making Money Made Simple and numerous other books on personal finance. His advice is general in nature and readers should seek their own professional advice before making any financial decisions. Email: noel@noelwhittaker.com.au

 

29 Comments
Geronimo
February 05, 2024

The government cleaned out the pension fund Contribution paid by public Texas.
next on the list will be will be raiding the superannuation fund.
The future generations will end up with a lot more locals living in tents and sleeping in cars.

Stephen Roberts.
March 09, 2023

No matter how the government says it, they stole our money and stole our futures, raised the pension age and what would have been trillions of dollars today has just "disappeared". Don't worry, the politicians still get their pensions even when they leave the job in disgrace. Referendum to abolish politicians pensions if they are working when they leave politics or leave in disgrace.

Gordon
March 30, 2022

Means tested age pensions have a very negative effect on both individuals and the country's economy.
1. They lower an individuals desire to seek part time or full time work.
2. Many older people have work skills in short supply.
3. Tax on any income would improve the overall economy.
4. All income, pensions and work income combined can be taxed at the current rate.
5. A good platform to remove Franking Credits on share income.
Think this wouldn't work, or we can't afford it? It is exactly what NZ has been doing for years. And in a country with few natural resources. Win/Win

Chook Fowler
December 18, 2021

What is needed in Australia to destigmatise all welfare is Universal Basic Income. This would remove the "welfare mentality" and through the tax system a simple and fair process for ALL Australians.

Julie Daniell
March 27, 2022

Here here! Exactly! One universal basic income payment for all who are eligible, from a stipulated age! This would do away with the myriad of bureaucratic mumble jumbo requirements and administrative nightmare currently inflicted on Australians! Any income earned on top of this universal payment is then taxed but doesn’t affect the basic income payment. Common sense! Would require a committed federal government process to set it up initially then that should be it in perpetuity! It will happen one day I believe but maybe not in my lifetime!

Richard Milne
May 10, 2022

Agree totally with you Julie Daniell. This simplification would also be a great saving to the government in staffing Centrelink etc. administering the current complex reporting, adjusting individual payment levels etc. This would also encourage those able and wanting to continue working and contributing to the economy. Again, like you, because of my age, I would be surprised if this change was adopted in my lifetime - but one could be surprised!

Mervyn howearth
March 16, 2024

We need to get an honest government in first and good luck with that as they are all professional politicians now and know nothing about running a country that’s why they become politicians for the free ride and to be looked after forever

Angela
September 04, 2022

If only governments has this sort of common sense. Countries that have introduced this show it works and works well.

JAZ
October 03, 2023

Yeah right. Universal Basic Income. Sounds great doesn’t it. We want to be just like how Russia was. A mess. There is no such thing as a universal basic income.

SJ Ant
September 14, 2021

Aged pension should be available and paid in full, at pension age for all those that worked and paid tax through their working life. Not to those that have lived off black money, cheated, never worked. It's a disgrace that we have income and assets test. Particularly an income test, as some have no choice in taking this income. Time to change its so unfair..

john
September 16, 2021

Agree 100%

Katsoura T
November 02, 2021

Pity the English system wasn't applied! Australians were conned then as now! I guess ones vote does count ......... For nothing much!

Bob
September 22, 2021

Disagree 100%. It should provide a basic standard of living for those in need. And that is regardless of what was contributed in the form of taxes paid during their working life.

Phil
September 24, 2021

Agree with Bob, Social Security or Welfare is about supporting those that (for whatever reasons) are not able to keep out of poverty on their own means. Superannuation is the vehicle that generally rewards those who earned reasonable money (& paid tax) through consistent employment.

Anne
November 04, 2021

Bob, Aged Pensions is not a gift, is not a right, is not a priviledge and is not welfare. The Old Age Pension is an Asset, owned and accrued by each Australian Citizen who has funded this asset from their very own purse. And let me remind you that You are not paying for the welfare of Baby Boomers, you are paying for yourself, new immigrants, the disabled, the needy in society requiring social services and welfare, dole recipients and the bludgers....BUT YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE AGED PENSION OF ELDERLY AUSTRALIANS WHO HAVE WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES IN THIS COUNTRY AND PAID THEIR DUE FAIR SHARE OF TAXES.

Ross Beale
February 06, 2022

Yep - Why would you give a pension to the rich? what is rich though?

Dudley
February 07, 2022

"Why would you give a pension to the rich?":

1. To ensure that a pension otherwise only for poor is not an inducement to poverty.
2. To ensure that self funded retirement is more rewarding than pension.
3. To avoid penalising those who paid for the pensions of the poor.

Dudley.
September 25, 2021

"for all those that worked and paid tax through their working life. Not to those that have lived off black money, cheated, never worked":

Failure to provide welfare to impecunious old former scoundrels will likely result in old recommitted scoundrels.

"provide a basic standard of living for those in need":

Which it does - generously. No Age Pensioners demanding "MORE" recently.

"Social Security or Welfare is about supporting those that (for whatever reasons) are not able to keep out of poverty on their own means. Superannuation is the vehicle that generally rewards those who earned reasonable money (& paid tax) through consistent employment.":

This misses the implications of the Asset Test taper rate. Those with assessable assets of $885,000 have lower incomes than those with $405,000. The result is that government pays a guaranteed, risk free, tax fee 8% rate of return on every $1 converted from assessable to non-asessable (in home).

Bruce Gregor
October 30, 2016

Paul Keating introduced what should have been a Social Security contribution in 1988. It's the Contributions Tax of 15%. It currently runs at about $10 billion p.a. It was argued as necessary by Keating, to offset income tax on the retirement income generated from taxed contributions when the "taxed" superannuants eventually retired. If this were the real reason (for the Contributions Tax) then it should have been invested in a future fund from 1988 and retirement income rebates accounted for as thus. It's a pity this didn't happen as most of Keating's other innovations on super were supportive of sustainable retirement financing - key ones being preservation, lifetime annuity incentives and imputation. Thanks to Costello's "love me please" largesse in 2006 of tax free super after 60 for all (including billionaires) we have no incentives for converting Lotto lump sums into taxed retirement incomeand no tax revenue from superannuants other than a very skinny GST.

Peter C
March 15, 2017

Actually the 15% contributions tax was refunded to you in the form of a tax rebate (offset) once you started receiving your super pension. It still is for people between 56 and 60 who are receiving a super pension.

People over 60 would also have still received it, except Peter Costello completely stuffed the systems viability by deciding that all super pensioners over 60 years pay no tax.

Even I could have told you the taxes received from the mining boom were only temporary have should have been banked rather than splurged on 60 year old super-annuants. .

What should have happened is to leave it the way Paul Keating designed it, pay tax at ordinary rates on the super pension minus the 15% tax offset on any tax payable.

Warren Bird
October 27, 2016

My late father-in-law, who died in his 90's nearly 10 years ago, was a depression lad who had been told all his working life that you paid your taxes and then when you turned 65 the government would look after you.
So I think all this pre-dates Chifley and the post WW2 period by a long period of time. I don't know that he thought there was a separate fund - he just believed the government would look after him.

The fact is that they could think that way 100 years ago when average life expectancy was less than the retirement age and even if you made it to 65 you only had a few years to go.

There was also the reality of a young population and post-war immigration that meant that the current tax pool was always growing so it could cover the cost of the pension. So no one had to think too much about it until the last 30 years or so when the demographics started shifting and medical technology leapt ahead to extend life expectancy.

Reality is that we have to think of it now. And now there is a fund - it's your own super fund - which has been funded by the 'tax' that is the Super Guarantee Contribution, which originally came in during the Keating era as an alternative to a pay rise. So it is, in its economic impact, the same as a tax, but it doesn't go into consolidated revenue.

Kevin
October 29, 2016

I am at an age when the entitlement issue was strong,you are correct we do need to change to think of now.Keating told us this and I acted on it.My fellow blue collar workers did not.I think it was Menzies that stopped social security taxes in Australia but I am not sure.

During my youth travelling around the world to work in my trade other countries had social security taxes.from memory in the UK my NICS ( national insurance contributions) were around 11% of wages and employer contributions were around 13 or 14%.This covered pensions,unemployment,national health etc.Holland and Germany had higher SS taxes.

The demographic thing is a huge change,people of my age paid for their parents age pension and were then hit with now you pay for your own.Then the 10 workers to support each pensioner was not a problem.Now with a wide variety of figures given (anywhere from 2 to 4 workers per pensioner)it is a huge problem,probably made a lot worse with longer lives and far higher health care costs.

The super funds interest me.With $2 trillion at say an MER of 1.5% would the $30 billion costs alleviate the problem of pensions if we had started social security taxes again rather than super.

Or would we still be in the position of too few workers,and have the problems that Germany,China and Japan would seem to running into rapidly.

Peter C
March 15, 2017

Italy also had the same system, where money was paid to a separate pool. The problem is that "pool" is effectively bankrupt, caused by several issues including demographics. Nobody expected so many Italians to live beyond 60 years of age.

As well many small businesses and "cash" employees and contractors have avoided contributing to the fund, however once they reach pension age they are still entitled to the "minimum."

There is also the large amount of "foreign" pensioners living in places such as Australia, Belgium, Brazil,, Canada, Germany, Sweden and the U.S.A, all receiving some amount of pension.

No wonder the fund is struggling.

Simon Sheminant
February 27, 2023

Back a lot of years ago a certain portion of your tax was to go to your old age pension. I don’t know exactly how it happened but somehow all the money that was for the pension ended up in the black hole called consolidated revenue and I am betting the same thing is going to happen to the superannuation money.

Rob
October 27, 2016

Aha, so this is where some people get the idea that paying taxes today ensures you an aged pension when you retire (and if you qualify of course). People seem to forget that taxes paid today go toward meeting the cost of government services today, not some mythical aged pension entitlement 30 or 40 years down the track.

Colin Nunn
August 04, 2020

"Mythical"? Yes Rob, taxes paid today do go toward meeting the (extraordinarily costly and expanded) expenses of todays government. But in fact there WAS an EXTRA taxation added in the 1940's that was intended to pay for pensions. Rather than being invested, it was lumped into a do-nothing account and eventually was placed by Malcolm Fraser into general revenue. So much for looking after the pensioners who had paid into a pension fund. Your cynicism is unnecessary.

Graham King
May 17, 2021

When I first started work in 1960 my pay slip in deductions had one shilling and sixpence social welfare when I enquired what is was the pay office said it was my pension contribution paid to the government for my retirement benefit

Robert
June 08, 2021

So your myth is that tax's today go towards (only) meeting Government Service , if only that were true we would not be in as great of Debt.
They go towards much more that had nothing to do with Government Services !
Open your eyes .. Compulsory Super has only been around since 1996.. millions of workers could not afford Super prior to this.
Yes we Earn't our Pension by the Fact it was what we were told By all Government !

Richard
October 27, 2016

In fact when I first studied taxation (Back in 1958) the act was called "IIncome Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act" but it was clear that there was no "Social Services Fund" (Unlike USA )

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Do you plan to be a ‘have’ or a ‘have not’?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Vale Graham Hand

It’s with heavy hearts that we announce Firstlinks’ co-founder and former Managing Editor, Graham Hand, has died aged 66. Graham was a legendary figure in the finance industry and here are three tributes to him.

Australian stocks will crush housing over the next decade, one year on

Last year, I wrote an article suggesting returns from ASX stocks would trample those from housing over the next decade. One year later, this is an update on how that forecast is going and what's changed since.

Taxpayers betrayed by Future Fund debacle

The Future Fund's original purpose was to meet the unfunded liabilities of Commonwealth defined benefit schemes. These liabilities have ballooned to an estimated $290 billion and taxpayers continue to be treated like fools.

Australia’s shameful super gap

ASFA provides a key guide for how much you will need to live on in retirement. Unfortunately it has many deficiencies, and the averages don't tell the full story of the growing gender superannuation gap.

Looking beyond banks for dividend income

The Big Four banks have had an extraordinary run and it’s left income investors with a conundrum: to stick with them even though they now offer relatively low dividend yields and limited growth prospects or to look elsewhere.

AFIC on its record discount, passive investing and pricey stocks

A triple headwind has seen Australia's biggest LIC swing to a 10% discount and scuppered its relative performance. Management was bullish in an interview with Firstlinks, but is the discount ever likely to close?

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

9 lessons from 2024

Key lessons include expensive stocks can always get more expensive, Bitcoin is our tulip mania, follow the smart money, the young are coming with pitchforks on housing, and the importance of staying invested.

Investment strategies

Time to announce the X-factor for 2024

What is the X-factor - the largely unexpected influence that wasn’t thought about when the year began but came from left field to have powerful effects on investment returns - for 2024? It's time to select the winner.

Shares

Australian shares struggle as 2020s reach halfway point

It’s halfway through the 2020s decade and time to get a scorecheck on the Australian stock market. The picture isn't pretty as Aussie shares are having a below-average decade so far, though history shows that all is not lost.

Shares

Is FOMO overruling investment basics?

Four years ago, we introduced our 'bubbles' chart to show how the market had become concentrated in one type of stock and one view of the future. This looks at what, if anything, has changed, and what it means for investors.

Shares

Is Medibank Private a bargain?

Regulatory tensions have weighed on Medibank's share price though it's unlikely that the government will step in and prop up private hospitals. This creates an opportunity to invest in Australia’s largest health insurer.

Shares

Negative correlations, positive allocations

A nascent theme today is that the inverse correlation between bonds and stocks has returned as inflation and economic growth moderate. This broadens the potential for risk-adjusted returns in multi-asset portfolios.

Retirement

The secret to a good retirement

An Australian anthropologist studying Japanese seniors has come to a counter-intuitive conclusion to what makes for a great retirement: she suggests the seeds may be found in how we approach our working years.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.