Its not a fluid asset so should not be counted.

It certainly isn’t a fluid asset… if you needed money for food/bills etc. you could hardly sell it to get some spare cash in the same way you could sell a car, or piece of furniture, shares or jewellery etc…. so in most cases it isn’t very fair to count it when testing to see if someone is eligible for some support to continue living. If people don’t have a roof over their heads, but sell it to survive, they only make themselves more needy in the long term; and give society more of a problem in how they are cared for… people will keep downgrading and downgrading until they are living in a cardboard box and have no home assets left. Then what? you have to find places for them to live all over again (as well as give them the pension you probably should have given them in the first place). Or maybe old people will have to move to country ghettos (those places where a mansion can’t sell for $1) and then they can carry on living independently and get the pension they need for food because their beautiful large home is deemed to be worth next to nothing, although the same home next to a hospital in town might mean they have “too much” to get their money for food. As I think about it the more non-sense it seems.

Yes it is an asset – no it is not easily accessible in terms of income. Elderly people shouldn’t have to sell it to be eligible for a pension. Cheaper to provide services in the home. On the other hand there should be limits – if it is worth millions it should be counted.

I think it’s disgusting how the government is taking money from society’s most needy to supplement shortfalls. Children’s money is being reduced, disability is being re rated making it harder, pensioners are faring penalised for buying a home. Why is it, whenever the government needs money, they take from the poor first? How about they start with themselves? Cut their pays, their pensions and their perks.

My parents have to live on their land for 20 years for it not to be considered an asset as its on acres before they are entittled to the full aged pension.. Lucky for them they only have a year or so left before they are entilled to the full amount.. While this has caused them hardship they just manage to scrape through living a basic lifestyle.. No luxuries.. They have worked hard over 50 years to get this house .. and never relied on pensions before they recently retired..

Complicated – even modest homes can rise dramatically in value depending on where they are, and it doesn’t seem fair to force people out of homes with a lifetime of memories.

A family home is most definitely an asset. The amount should be taken into effect though but on other hands we don’t know if people have worked hard to pay off or its a result of inheritance etc.

I wish there was more information and articles on this area of concern.

While the family home is an asset, I think whether a mortgage is still payable on it should come into effect.

My concern is that the wealthy will still benefit and the poor will suffer.

I would set a limit on the value though. Eg if it’s over a certain amount, then yes it should be included in the assets

In my idea it is quite logic to consider the family home as an asset. It will probably be considered when it’s beyond a certain value anyway, so I guess that most people who apply for a pension will still be inside the limits. Giving a pension to people owning a one million or two million dollar family home, would be quite unfair.