Nick Bruining Q+A: Centrelink's work bonus scheme allows you to work AND keep collecting a pension
Centrelink has indicated to my wife and I that we can each receive up to $11,800 from paid employment, which represents a combined total of $23,600.
As it stands, I'm likely to exceed that amount, while my wife will not receive any employment income.
If I exceed the $11,800 and as my wife does not earn any employment income, could I be paid up to $23,600 from employment without our pensions being reduced?
The work bonus scheme is a program specifically targeted at aged pensioners. Under the scheme, a person can earn $300 gross a fortnight from employment income, before the additional employment income is added to their Centrelink-assessable income.
That income is used for means-testing purposes. If the $300 work bonus is not used in any particular fortnight, it accumulates in a work bonus 'bank' up to a maximum of $11,800.
People who apply and qualify for a pension receive an instant credit of $4000 to their working bonus account.
This might allow them to assist in a 'handover' program with their employer at retirement.
Any employment income would be applied against the bonus bank credit before it carries over to the normal income-free area of $212 a fortnight for singles and a combined $372 a fortnight for couples.
For example, let's say as a member of a couple you had the maximum $11,800 in your individual working bonus bank account. You had a one-off contract for a few weeks and at the end, received a payment of $12,500.
The $11,800 would be fully used up, the $372 income free amount in the fortnight the payment is received is also used, leaving you with $328 of Centrelink assessable income above the income free area.
This amount will reduce your pension by 50¢ per $1 so your combined household pension will be reduced by $164 for the next fortnight.
Centrelink will use your combined fortnightly income for the income test, no matter which member of the couple generates that income.
Significantly however, the unused work bonus credits cannot be transferred. That means your wife's $11,800 bank credit cannot be used by you.
I have a self-managed superannuation fund which was set up many years ago with myself as the director of the corporate trustee of my now pension fund.
I intend to transfer all of my SMSF into a public offer, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority-regulated fund.
Would corporate trustee arrangement prevent me from joining an APRA-regulated fund?
The simple answer is no, there are no issues in rolling over your entire account balance into an APRA-regulated fund.
All public offer superannuation schemes are APRA regulated. Your situation is common for those who have been operating an SMSF for some time.
For reasons including total operating costs, complexity and the fact we just want to simplify things as we age, many SMSF users are keen to shut down the fund as they get older.
The most effective and simple way would be to sell down the assets and convert all holdings to cash. Because the fund is in retirement phase, no tax is payable on the sale of the assets.
You then need to select the receiving fund and prepare the rollover benefit statement, or RBS, which provides the receiving fund with specific tax and date based information.
An electronic transfer of funds will need to be done by you as trustee, essentially via a superannuation clearing or messaging facility.
It's important to leave an adequate amount of money in the SMSF to meet the wind-up expenses which should be similar to the annual expenses you are currently paying.
By making this transition now, all of the transactions should be complete by June 30, meaning that year's accounts can incorporate the shut-down documentation and costs.
Any amount left over can simply be paid out to you as a final withdrawal from the account.
Nick Bruining is an independent financial adviser and a member of the
Certified Independent Financial Advisers Association
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
2 days ago
- Sky News AU
Labor left with ‘no choice' but to force super tax after weak GDP figures in March, shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien declares
Labor has been left with 'no choice' but to go after citizens' earnings with its proposed super tax as slow growth plagues the nation and hurts tax revenue, shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien has declared. Join to watch the full interview with Ted O'Brien on Business Weekend at 11am (AEST). The Albanese government's proposal to double the tax rate on funds in super balances above $3m and target unrealised gains could soon be legislated as the Greens' approval is all the bill needs to go through the Senate. It comes as recent GDP figures showed Australia was headed back towards per capita recession territory with growth slumping to just 0.2 per cent in the March quarter. The super tax proposal has faced fierce backlash from the Opposition, economists and leaders in the business community. Mr O'Brien is among those and tore into the Albanese government's fiscal management on Sky News' Business Weekend. 'The only reason they're doing it is they've lost all discipline on fiscal responsibility,' the shadow treasurer said. 'Debt (and) deficits (are) going out of control and they've got no ambition for the Australian economy.' He criticised Treasurer Jim Chalmers who lauded the 0.2 per cent growth, arguing the uncertainty from Donald Trump's trade war meant any growth was a decent outcome. 'We heard it last week from the Treasurer after the national accounts came out. What, 0.2 per cent growth in the quarter? Seriously? Lower than last time!' Mr O'Brien said. 'At a yearly basis it's running at less than half of the long-run average of growth and the Treasurer is happy about that. '(There is) no ambition for growth of the Australian economy and when you have no ambition and you overspend, you have no choice but to go after the earnings, the money of your own citizens. 'That's what this super tax does.' Labor's plan to tax unrealised capital gains has drawn backlash from Aussies concerned about small businesses, farmers and startups as many put assets in their self-managed super funds or use it as a low tax investment vehicle. Wilson Asset Management founder Geoff Wilson said by forcing Aussies to pay taxes on paper gains it will hinder investment in Australia. 'Both Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers - and probably most of the government - are gaslighting the Australian people by saying: 'Look, this will only impact a very small percentage of people that pay the additional tax',' Mr Wilson told Sky News. 'That's correct, but what it'll do is actually impact about how $4.2 trillion in superannuation is invested. 'We anticipate that the money will come out of self-managed super funds (SMSF), which is about $1.1 trillion, and billions of that will go into the housing market and push house prices up . ' He cautioned Aussies who use their SMSF as a low tax investment vehicle will be discouraged from funding projects and businesses in the Australian market. 'People won't want to take risk on their superannuation in the self-managed super funds,' Mr Wilson said. 'The angel investors and the startups and the small companies in Australia that find it hard to raise capital, particularly at this point in time - that tap's going to be turned off.'
Sky News AU
4 days ago
- Sky News AU
Labor is 'gaslighting the Australian people' on unrealised capital gains tax proposal, Geoff Wilson warns
Labor is 'gaslighting the Australian people' by claiming its proposed super tax will impact a small sliver of the population, a leading fund manager has warned as the government and the Greens close in on a deal. The Albanese government's controversial plan to double the tax rate on funds in super accounts above $3m and hit unrealised gains could soon be legislated. Labor has claimed the tax will hit just 80,000 super accounts, however, Wilson Asset Management founder Geoff Wilson, who has launched a petition opposing the plan, said by forcing Aussies to pay taxes on paper gains it will hinder investment in Australia. 'Both Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers - and probably most of the government - are gaslighting the Australian people by saying: 'Look, this will only impact a very small percentage of people that pay the additional tax',' Mr Wilson told Sky News. 'That's correct, but what it'll do is actually impact about how $4.2 trillion in superannuation is invested. 'We anticipate that the money will come out of self-managed super funds (SMSF), which is about $1.1 trillion, and billions of that will go into the housing market and push house prices up . ' He cautioned Aussies who use their SMSF as a low tax investment vehicle will be discouraged from funding projects and businesses in the Australian market. 'People won't want to take risk on their superannuation in in the self-managed super funds,' Mr Wilson said. 'The angel investors and the startups and the small companies in Australia that find it hard to raise capital, particularly at this point in time - that tap's going to be turned off.' He pointed to the taxing of unrealised gains in Norway that drove investment out of the country despite initial expectations it would bring in millions. 'It was only for the ultra-wealthy, they thought they were going to raise $150 million,' Mr Wilson said. 'Instead of raising that, they were minus half a billion.' He also noted the capital gains tax hike in the United Kingdom which resulted in the government taking in 10 per cent less capital gains tax revenue. 'People change their behaviour,' Mr Wilson said. 'We've done economic models, we think it'll be negative to the tune of $94.5 billion on the Australian economy.' Alongside taxing unrealised gains, Labor's super tax has drawn criticism for its failure to index the $3m threshold over time. The Greens want Labor to lower the threshold to $2m and index it to the rate of inflation. New analysis from the Financial Services Council shows that under Labor's plan more than half a million Aussies currently in the workforce will be captured by the tax. Of those impacted, more than 200,000 are currently under 30, while 135,000 are between 30 and 34 and 65,000 are between 35 and 39. The number of impacted taxpayers greatly drops off for Australians 40 and over. The Greens' proposal would hit more than 200,000 Aussies currently in the workforce and is more evenly spread across the age ranges. Financial Services Council CEO Blake Briggs urged Labor to listen to feedback from consumers, industries and economists on how the tax will impact future generations. 'The superannuation industry recognises the government has the capacity to force the new tax through the Parliament with the support of the Greens, but encourages the two parties to take a more constructive and consultative approach,' Mr Briggs said. 'The Financial Services Council encourages the Government to consult on options that would not unfairly target future generations of Australian superannuation consumers and undermine confidence in our retirement system by introducing a new, contentious tax on unrealised capital gains.'
News.com.au
4 days ago
- News.com.au
‘My claim had been denied': Centrelink mistake that almost cost a young mum $15,000
A simple paperwork error on a Centrelink form turned into a 'nightmare' and almost cost an Aussie mum $15,000. Lexi, 26, explained that when she was filling out her Centrelink paperwork in 2022 for her maternity leave, she made one mistake that almost cost her the entire payment. 'It was an absolute nightmare. I had filled it all out before my son arrived, after my son got here, I sent through all the documentation I needed to,' she said in a video shared on TikTok. 'Three weeks later, I was sent an email from Centrelink saying that my claim had been denied because my husband earned too much money.' Lexi told that it was 'devastating' to receive the letter that said she was denied the payment. 'We had been counting on that money and we knew it'd be a struggle without it,' she said. The young mum was applying for parental leave pay, a government benefit for primary carers of newborns. You can be entitled to receive up to $915.80 weekly for up to 22 weeks, but this is dependent on your taxable income. As of 2023, couples can earn a combined income of up to $364,350 a year and still be entitled. You must have also worked for 10 of the 13 months before your child's birth and be either a permanent visa holder or an Australian citizen. The 26-year-old had done her research and thought she and her partner qualified for the benefit and the couple were then 'gutted' to be denied the payments. 'We were counting on that money. We knew it was coming and, honestly, to be denied it, we were just in a spiral,' she said. At that point, Lexi didn't know she'd made a mistake. She just assumed they couldn't qualify and they'd have to deal with the $15,000 loss. It wasn't until she spoke to a mate, who was also about to go on maternity leave, that she learned about a standard error people make. On the form there's a box you can tick that means you're applying for both paid parental leave and the family tax benefit. If you tick the box for both, your entire claim will be denied if you're ineligible for just one of the benefits. Lexi had also applied for the family tax benefit but wasn't eligible for it, so her entire claim was denied. 'This wrong box gets ticked all the time. I can't imagine the amount of people going around thinking they're not eligible for this money when they actually were,' she said. Lexi argued that there are likely so many people who have no idea they just ticked the wrong box because people get denied with 'no explanations' and don't realise their mistakes. 'If they'd turned around and said 'yes you're eligible for this part' but 'not this part', I would have been fine,' she said. 'They said a blanket 'no', so I thought I wasn't entitled.' General Manager of Services Australia, Hank Jongen, told that it is important to remember different payments have different criteria. 'You don't need to submit a separate claim for Parental Leave Pay and Family Tax Benefit if you want to claim both,' he said. 'The payments have separate eligibility criteria, in particular, different income tests, so what you are eligible for depends on your circumstances. You may be eligible for one, both or neither. 'Our' having a baby' website page is a great place to start researching your eligibility, but it's important to not self-assess. When you are completing your claim online, you can select what payments you want us to assess you for, and we'll check your eligibility.' Mr Jongen said that you'll be notified about the outcome of your claim by sending you a letter or to your MyGov inbox. 'If you don't agree with the outcome of your claim, you can ask us for an explanation or to review our decision,' he said. Parental Leave Pay has changed over the years and is increasing. For children born from 1 July 2025, it will be up to 24 weeks and 26 weeks for children born after 1 July 2026. From 1 July 2025, it will also include superannuation. You need to meet an income test, a work test and the residence rules to be eligible. Family Tax Benefit (FTB) is a 2-part payment available to low and middle income families to help with the day-to-day cost of raising children. How much you get depends on your situation, including how many kids you have and the level of care. Your payment is worked out based on the FTB rate and income test for the current financial year. You may be eligible for one part and not another, it depends on your circumstances. You cannot get Family Tax Benefit Part B while you are getting Parental Leave Pay. Lexi has previously gone viral for sharing that she's a stay-at-home mum and has always wanted to be financially dependent on her husband. The young mum previously told that she's frustrated people assume she's somehow not financially savvy purely because she's not the one making money. 'Some people think there's an 'issue' with what I've chosen to do or that it must not be a choice or it isn't the right choice or it isn't a smart one,' she said. 'Just because I'm financially dependent on my husband doesn't mean I'm financially unaware.' Lexi stressed that she and her husband make financial decisions together and are very open about money. 'My husband and I have complete transparency. Just because I'm not earning the income doesn't mean I don't get to have a 50/50 say in how we spend it,' she said.
