5th Sep 2017

New figures show folly of lifting the pension age: Opposition

Labor slams change to pension age
Ben Hocking

New figures show the Government’s plan to increase the pension eligibility age to 70 will affect 375,000 Australians.

The Department of Social Service has released new data on the pension change, showing more than 375,000 Australians now in their late 50s and looking forward to retirement will have to work longer in the first four years of the change between 2025-29.

The unpopular budget repair measure to put the pension age up to 70 was announced in 2014 and remains on the federal Government’s books, despite its failure to pass parliament.

The Government is still clinging to the hope it can negotiate the bill’s passage through the parliament to save $3.6 billion in Age Pension payments.



Labor’s social services spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said the Government’s attempts to increase the pension eligibility age was grossly unfair.

“Malcolm Turnbull just doesn’t get it. He’s completely out of touch with ordinary Australians,” Ms Macklin said.

“He’s got no idea how hard it is for ordinary people to work until they’re 70.

“Mr Turnbull wants to give Australia the oldest pension age in the world. No other advanced country plans to increase their pension age to 70,” Ms Macklin said.

“Increasing the pension age to 70 is not only unfair, it will worsen inequality.

“In Australia, we know that this change to the pension age unfairly hurts Australians living in regional and remote Australia where life expectancy is lower. The median age at death for people living in remote Australia is 73.8 compared to 82.3 for Australians living in major cities.”

Research conducted by the Australian Centre for Financial Studies and the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees found that up to 40 per cent of older Australians do not choose when they retire.

What do you think? Should the Government abandon its plans to lift the eligibility age for the pension?

 

Related articles:
Are you old enough for a pension?
Concerns over pension age push
Age Pension eligibility age





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
tisme
6th Sep 2017
9:58am
what about burnt out carers?? often after their caring days are over they are too damaged to continue working. that long. it wont help their retirement because they dont have superannuation or anything else
jackie
6th Sep 2017
10:20am
I think it's blatant hypocrisy when our politicians can retire at age 60 to qualify for their inflated, non-means tested pensions while the rest of the workforce have to slave on till 70. This Government always punishes battlers and rewards elitists. Australians will wake up to the corruption in the end.
Jen50
6th Sep 2017
11:35am
I totally agree tisme. Also, there are a lot of people in their 60's who mind grandchildren or elderly parents or both. If they are forced to work until 70 the childcare and elderly care crisis will be much worse and the quality of life for the elderly significantly reduced. My dear mother had Parkinson's & even though her last years were spent in high care in a nursing home & was well looked after there, my sister was free to help even more and care for her as much as possible. The overworked staff were very grateful when family were able to go in and feed residents, tidy their rooms, shop for them, take them for walks in their wheelchairs, etc. and it made my Mother's life so much more bearable because she was completely dependent on others. I have been minding my little granddaughter for 2 days a week to help out and I couldn't do that if I was still working.
Rosret
6th Sep 2017
7:48pm
Yes Tisme. It is totally unfair. One would imagine all your job currency would have fallen by the way side too and when we get older retraining is not that easy.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:16pm
I'm 68, and am carer for my ex... I am frazzled after a lifetime of very long hours etc.... I even have to put on her socks...

Anyone on pension doing carer work should be paid double pension... imagine the cost if all the things done were funded by NDIS.... of course - once you're over 65 they don;t want to know you.

I've had that argument for years with DVA - how is it that a Digger (etc) can be totally and permanently disabled up to age 65 and receive TPI for life, but after 65 and perhaps battling to keep going, is not eligible for that extra, even when suffering from service issues?

If you are disabled for whatever reason - that reason applies for a lifetime.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:17pm
jackie - don't forget Gillard Labor started this rot.... and a few others. No party is guilt-free here.
Jannie
6th Sep 2017
10:03am
The government is totally out of touch with ordinary workers. How on earth can people work at 70 if they are tradies and a lot of employers will not keep people on once they reach a certain age, they can always find a way to terminate their services? Also there is not enough work for older workers. I am 69 and cannot get work, I am sure employers discriminate against older workers. Politicians should only be paid pensions in line with other pensioners and also get the same pension amount.
Rae
6th Sep 2017
12:25pm
Politicians do not get the Aged Care Pension Jannie. They pay into a superannuation account and are therefore self funded retirees.

Why should someone who pays hundreds of dollars each fortnight into their super account have to live on the same pension as someone who didn't bother to save anything themselves and planned to live on taxpayer funded income?

They won't have to work until 70 if they save and invest to create their own income. They will be free from government rules, deeming and every annoyance. Certainly worth saving for in my opinion.
Mojobomber
6th Sep 2017
1:07pm
Actually Rae, they way the Federal Government Politicians' pension is structured they are not self funded retirees. They can pay from 0% to at least 20% into their superannuation fund, the Government pays into their fund and when they retire, they can access it at age 60. They may choose to take a lump sump of the whole lot, half and have half as a pension, or the whole lot as a pension. This pension is for the rest of their lives so they potentially can receive more money than they actually put it. When they die, their spouse or partner then gets a percentage of that pension for the rest of their life. My financial adviser who worked in Canberra told me that the rules and terms of politicians' superannuation is very secretive and shrouded in mystery
Knight Templar
6th Sep 2017
2:02pm
Rae ... Politicians earn four times the average wage and potentially five times that if you include expenses and benefits. They can well afford to pay hundreds of dollars each fortnight into their super accounts. Its value is virtually doubled each fortnight with the taxpayer contribution. In the circumstances, it quickly becomes a very healthy amount and gives politicians the flexibility to retire early.

Unfortunately, there are many whose wages are insufficient to allow this generous accumulation of wealth. As a self-funded retiree who was fortunate to have sufficient funds for retirement, I do sympathise with those who might have to work until 70 because of inadequate super.
Rae
6th Sep 2017
2:24pm
Yes Knight I sympathise also for those who earn today's low wages and expensive costs.

It doesn't alter the fact that politicians do not get the OAP overseen by Centrelink.

As a self funded retiree you can also see how your contributions over a working lifetime allowed for freedom that not saving denies these people.

Many have bought the upgrading dream as well that now leaves them with expensive homes and no savings having worked a lifetime for banks, real estate and retailers of fancy goods.

The whole neoliberal nightmare really can't end well.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:20pm
Rae - why should anyone have the privilege of paying hundreds of dollars into their super account at a subsidised rate and a preferential rate of return (when I worked for CPS I think it was dollar for dollar), when everyone else has a cap on their super contributions?

Sorry - politician super won't wash..... it's a rort pure and simple.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:21pm
Hence the argument of paying everyone OAP and then taxing all income, income-bearing assets, and fringe benefits at the going personal income tax rate.

No politician will come at that one!! Guaranteed!!
Ted Wards
6th Sep 2017
10:10am
I think in many industries, office based jobs particularly, many already work, even part time, past their 70th year. In fact I know this to be the case. However, in some industries where there are very physical jobs, it may not be possible for them to continue past a certain age. It not simply a matter of changing the pension age, there has to be a heap of reforms to support this to become a reality.

For instance, it may not be a full time position, so they could look at job sharing, getting rid of the 9 - 5 mentality or 6 - 4 etc. The industry awards will need to be changed to reflect that people in this age group need more sick leave, need more support than what is available.

I think rather than a blanket rule, that this be looked at more realistically. For instance, many accountants do work for themselves well beyond 70, however a construction worker may have to look at go into training rather than physical work, so they will need support to transition into a training role and so on.

Its entirely doable if a realistic outlook is developed and we look at how this can be supported so that people can work until their 70, comfortably. It doesn't have to be full time, or make people work beyond their physical capacities. It could take the form of training up and coming generations, or enhancing roles and so forth.

Age is only a problem if we view it as one. I myself work with people in their 60's to 90s and am amazed at their knowledge and their skills and what an asset they are that we do not utilise. Rater than people viewing this as the worst thing that could happen, they could view it as great I have a few more years to earn more money to spend when I can retire. It doesn't have to be arduous or burdensome. It doesnt mean pushing oneself to the limit in a job you can no longer physically do. It means changing the way you look at the situation and seeing the positives and trying to find the means to fulfill that outlook. And before you all jump up and down, I am one of those that this will effect and I am already making plans to ensure that no only can I work until 70, that I can work as long as I need to, in a way that suits me. This has been coming for a long time, we need to change our views and thoughts and make this work to our advantage. Lets turn this around and make it work for out advantage. Lets make the government reform awards to ensure that we can work until 70!
MICK
6th Sep 2017
10:18am
Most people work beyond retirement age because they cannot afford to retire and I agree with you on having different rules but try to enforce that one and good luck to you. Perhaps instead of compensation there needs to be an early retirement clause for those GENUINELY broken by their choice of careers.
The other issue worth talking about is if workers have a right to a few years of retirement or should be forced to die at work. That is a bigger social issue and in times of apparent 'no jobs' you would think this would be a driver for not changing the retirement age. But then young people do not want the hard jobs any more and that is where governments need to stop stumping up lifestyle (job) choices. Unemployment means there is not a job, not there is not a job that I want to do.
Welcome to society.
Triss
6th Sep 2017
12:35pm
Yes, Mick, if ex politicians have the right to a few years of retirement, some of whom have been on their pensions for 20 + years and have 20 or 30 years still to go, then the rest of us have the right to a few years of retirement.
I still believe that the government has raised the age when the age pension can be accessed so they can divert the money it will save to politicians' pensions.
Ella
6th Sep 2017
4:35pm
Ted you talk about job sharing and part time work but how is this enough to pay bills, rent and the increased medical costs of getting older ? Also dont forget the increasing costs of health insurance and energy. Your ideas are not very realistic for many older people. Also job positions are decreasing not increasing as work goes overseas or becomes automated.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:23pm
Oddly, Mick - Cuba has a system of pension that gives a percentage of the maximum of the last five years working life or the average of working life, whichever is greater.. so if you earn more in that last five years or work hard for life, you do better.
HKW
7th Sep 2017
1:24pm
My friend has lost his job as soon as he turned 60. He worked for this company many years, but the executive is now an Indian national and employs only Indians and SriLankans. John was replaced by one of those. Certain people that are still there claim that no one can replace John's professionalism, experience and excellent manners.

Because of his age John is unable to get another job ....
Rainey
8th Sep 2017
6:30am
There are currently over 200,000 unemployed over 50 in Australia. That figure should be proof of the stupidity of raising the retirement age. All that will happen is that there will be 400,000 or 500,000 unemployed over 50, all struggling to survive on Newstart or applying for disability and all eating up their retirement savings and needing more help in old age. It's dumb policy and cruel in the extreme.
MICK
6th Sep 2017
10:13am
I had to smile when I saw the picture of a rather healthy looking older man. The picture needed to have been a 'real' worker rather than a model and the reality is that a real worker who had been doing hard physical work for almost 50 years would have looked totally different and likely been forced to retire well before even reaching 65 let alone 70.

The decree to force people to work until they drop dead on the job is the perverse sort of thinking which goes through the heads of coalition governments made up of lawyers, business people and white collar workers who have never have done a hard day's work in their lives and who care zip about people as they government for the top end of society....which apparently deserves every handout and financial benefit under the sun.
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
11:19am
Those doing hard physical work unfortunately have bad diets, smoke and drink too much which is the real reason their bodies wear out. Our bodies were made for physical work but one needs to look after them as well.
Old Man
6th Sep 2017
11:49am
What an arrogant statement Old Geezer. No qualification given, just a statement that encompasses all those who do physical work.
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
12:11pm
No it is not stupid as everyone I know who is still doing physical work when they reach retirement age and beyond has looked after their bodies. Those who are burnt out before then have abused their bodies. It is as simple as that.
*Imagine*
6th Sep 2017
12:34pm
Unbelievable that you would dare to put your name to such a viewpoint Old Geezer, you are way off on a tangent here.
Why do you think that there are revised OHS laws now?
I can remember when workplace hazardous substances were handled with no respiratory protection or knowledge provided as to how hazardous they were - asbestos, solvents and other carcinogens. I remember having to hump 1cwt (over 50kg) bags of cement over muddy building sites and up ladders. Now with manual handling legislation we have 20kg bags and fewer musculoskeletal injuries. How about noise? There were no limits to exposure and no hearing protection provided. The list goes on and on.
Please do not insult injured and worn out, abused workers with your unfounded and ignorant victim blaming views. It doesn't become you.
KSS
6th Sep 2017
12:50pm
Actually Imagine and Old Man, Old Geyser has a point. If you look up 'Blue Zones' you will find these 5 population groups all have things in common that have lead them to having very long lives (many more centenarians for example). The reasons for this are of course a good healthy diet, high in fruit & veg, lower in meat etc but also continued hard physical work. The people never actually 'retire' at all nor do they have the same 'lifestyle diseases' the rest of the world gets.
Triss
6th Sep 2017
12:58pm
Old Geezer, you need to think before you type. There are jobs that wear out bodies whether those bodies were well and healthily fed or not. It's only recently that health and safety in the workplace has put workers before profits. Throw in high stress as well:
Miners, firefighters, soldiers, police, factory workers, farm workers, and the list goes on.
*Imagine*
6th Sep 2017
1:40pm
KSS you need to read OG's statement again. We are not comparing cultures and diets across the world here, we are discussing Australian workers. I could give you several international comparisons too, but that is not the issue. OG states "Those doing hard physical work unfortunately have bad diets, smoke and drink too much" that is the sort of socio-economic class drivel that you would read in pre-war England. We are talking here about Australian workers, many of whom have been rendered unwell by the work that they have been engaged in. If you want to be guided to supporting epidemiological evidence then Google "hard work kills" or similar. e.g. "Chapter 7 of the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012
Every year over 2000 Australian workers die as a result of occupational exposure to hazardous substances. Only 30 – 40 of these are due to poisoning, many of the other deaths result from long latency e.g. Cancer." Apart from the 2000 deaths there are many times that number made sick. So please read the stats.
Tib
6th Sep 2017
1:50pm
Well said Mick I agree. I see you have stirred up the usual right wing " basket of deplorables".
MICK
6th Sep 2017
3:43pm
OM: I have to agree with Geezer on this one. Having had a lot to do with construction workers over the decades he has a fair handle on the way these workers often fail to look after their health. Having said that the new breed seems to take better care of itself so maybe a bet each way at best.
Old Man
6th Sep 2017
4:07pm
MICK, please read my post again. I took issue with OG saying that every manual worker "had bad diets, smoke and drink too much". I'm sure that in your travels you may have met one or two construction workers who was a non-smoking teetotaller who ate good food. I know quite a few.
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
4:23pm
I know of many manual workers who have looked after themselves that are still working well into their seventies and some even into their eighties. These manual workers have had good diets, never smoked and rarely touched alcohol. The manual workers worn out have had bad diets, smoked too much and drank alcohol like water.

It is case of use it or lose it as well and that's why office workers get in bad physical shape too.
Ella
6th Sep 2017
4:48pm
As a Registered nurse all my life i followed a healthy diet and never smoked but unfortunately pre WPHS rules i ended up injuring my back and joints on several occasions OLD GEEZER so take offense to your ignorant theories about physical workers. My spine just reached the point of not allowing me to do my job safely any more. In my 60's the options to retrain and compete with young techno savvy workers is limited......and unaffordable.
grounded
6th Sep 2017
5:29pm
Who are these people who "work hard" Mick? The last time I saw a 'blue collar' worker...working hard, was about 45years ago....enough of your bleeding heart Marxist waffle Mick.

Well said OG.....you have your finger right on the pulse
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:25pm
What an absolute nonsense, OG - restrict yourself to discussion of the issues and stop grand-standing for your own personal ego enhancement.
Janran
8th Sep 2017
1:53pm
All this talk about hard, physical "blue collar" jobs being the only ones who can't work to 70 ignores a whole plethora of other physically demanding jobs that wear and tear bodies. And yes, wake up to yourself, grounded.

How about people injured at work, exercise or play? Often they don't start suffering the consequences of such injuries until they get older (and then we start looking forward to retirement, when we can rest our weary bones).

I suffered a major injury when I was 12 doing sport at school, the legacy of which haunts me to this day, and the pain is getting worse. I continued to play competitive sport into my early 50's. Over my long athletic life I broke many bones, tore ligaments and suffered concussions. No amount of good eating (and I'm right onto it) will stop arthritis aching those joints now.

I worked hard physically during my life (on a farm growing up and also farm jobs and cleaning for pay as an adult). I still enjoy the garden work, but it's getting harder and harder. I have worked as a professional cleaner but now I must may someone to vacuum clean because I can no longer do that action without having 1-2 days of recovery afterwards.

And let me say how physically demanding it is to look after small children (not just your own). Lots of bending forward and downwards, lots of cleaning and running around playing and to catch toddlers before they harm themselves. Many caring parents have spine and pelvis problems from carrying babies on one hip while trying to attend other in your face chores running the house. These carers (for children and the elderly) may not raise a sweat, but it's still hard, physically demanding work.

I know someone in her 80's who is the carer for her younger partner. She recently had a hernia operation (from lifting the partner to his wheelchair, bed and toilet), just had a hip replacement and now needs knee replacements. She's strong and wiry but I believe she is worn out from being a carer. She wants to stay in her own home which she is perfectly capable of running, but can't afford to if she's not paid the extra carer's allowance. She worked hard all her adult life, sometimes three jobs at a time, ran her own successful businesses and was a single mother with domestic help from her live-in mother, now long-deceased. She paid taxes ALL HER ADULT LIFE in jobs that didn't offer superannuation.

Work till you're 70 if you can and want to, but it's just torture to expect everyone can do it. The real reason our bastard Govt wants to introduce this is to save money by forcing older people who paid taxes all their lives, who can't find work anyway (because there are no jobs available to them), to be FORCED ONTO THE DOLE which pays a lot less. Heartless, entitled BASTARDS!
Rainey
9th Sep 2017
1:11am
You are right, Janran. There are all sorts of reasons why people can't work to 70 and most of them have nothing at all to do with whether or not they tried to look after their health.

A friend worked on electricity lines and had a bad accident in what was a VERY dangerous and strenuous job. He did not sue for compensation because two others who were injured and did sue ended up with about $120,000 after doctors and lawyers were paid and could never work again. He chose to persevere and try to find work he could do, but the injury caught up with him at 56 and he was forced to retire. He could not have continued on the electricity lines to 70 because the job was incredibly strenuous (lifting heavy weights and climbing constantly) and very dangerous.

My neighbour is a tiler and at 55 his knees have given out and he just can't crouch and kneel anymore. He is a fitness freak and very healthy, but he can't keep working as a tiler. He tried to retrain in clerical work but couldn't cope with it. He's now unemployed and trying desperately to find something he can do, but having laid tiles since age 15, he's finding it a huge challenge to transition to any other work. And with unemployment rates high and age discrimination a real problem, he's now struggling with acute depression.

What's really cruel is that the people who will not be able to work to 70 are the same people, generally, who won't be able to afford early retirement because the unhealthy, dangerous, strenuous, or mentally depressing jobs are also typically the low paid jobs. So this is disgusting oppression of the less advantaged in our society who contribute most to society.
Magnolia
6th Sep 2017
10:19am
So has the government actually looked at the trend of late of there not being adequate work for over 50's?????? it is diminishing as you have 30 and 40 YO in management that will not contemplate hiring someone that brings to the table years of experience and knowledge - and then there is women - we didn't really get superannuation until the 90's!! - after being a stay at home mum, no subsidy for childcare , not maternity bonus - then to re enter the workforce for possibly 20 - 25 years to get to their mid 60's and be made redundant to make way for "younger " generations to do your job! I am happy to work until 70 but there are NO JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!! this will put people in positions of extreme depression. There will be no pensions in another 20 - 30 years! not enough people in the workforce paying taxes, and the way the government spends the money there will definately be a BIG problem. And then get me onto ministers pensions for life - CUT THEM OUT!! they inevitably secure other positions and are still getting paid by US!!!!!!!! They do not need it! I agree with Ted Wards...
Not Senile Yet!
6th Sep 2017
10:55am
They are just serving themselves!
There are no jobs at that age..they know that too!
This is about keeping ur taxes via No Pension...just the Dole.
They know it..We know it!
Question is...Will you Vote for Party Puppets who serve themselves or More Independants and put the Puppets last when u Vote?
It is the Independants that are blocking it...so vote more in!
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:27pm
Who's left to vote for? Gillard's lot started this..... have you ever seen one party dump a piss-poor and deceitful and heartless and damaging policy once it is in power?

What's Bill Shorten's stance on this? (dead silence)....
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
11:12am
Good idea so people can spend their super before getting the OAP.
East of Toowoomba
6th Sep 2017
5:32pm
Yes, that's the plan. Retire at 50 and live on your super until you turn 70 and then claim the OAP. Works well for those who have sufficient super, but there are many younger people who are not able to get jobs, and they won't be able to contribute to super from their unemployment benefit.
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
8:16pm
Those people wouldn't save the government money anyway so why worry about them. Most of them couldn't care less if they got a job or not.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:27pm
Why? their OAP is already moderated by the amount they receive in super....

You need to get out more, OG, and stop trolling.
Rainey
7th Sep 2017
5:12am
The greedy rich will never save the government money with their demands to line their superannuation coffers with huge tax concessions while the poor get NOTHING, OG. You are a hypocrite pretending concern for the government. The way to save the government money is to stop handouts to those who DON'T need them - like the millionaires claiming 30c in the dollar to hoard money for a luxury retirement, while pensioners live in poverty.
Old Geezer
7th Sep 2017
10:48am
Rainey I thought they paid 30c in the dollar instead of their marginal rate which is not that high they claim 30c in the dollar.

Take away the concessions and the wealthy wont put money in super. Most are self employed so no benefit of putting money in super so no money into super. They can then spend it or hoard it where it is not visible and claim the OAP. Sounds like a good more to me.
Rainey
8th Sep 2017
6:39am
Who cares if the wealthy don't contribute to super? It doesn't matter. They will always be wealthy and never need a pension, so stop handing out to people who don't need it and instead help people who DO need help to save for retirement. That's just common sense. But greed and selfishness wins over common sense every time!
Rainey
8th Sep 2017
9:51am
And no, OG. You are showing your gross ignorance again. The concessional tax rate on super income and contributions is 15c in the dollar, not 30.
ex PS
12th Sep 2017
10:40am
Good luck getting your hands on your Super before you are 55 East of Toowoomba. I used to have an aspiration to be Self Funded for the rest of my days but I feel that the government is working against us.
I will now have a good time travel, buy a Camper van and imbibe in the best of everything, when our money runs out we will go on an O.A.P, it seems to be what this government wants. Couldn't get my Super until 55.
Not a Bludger
6th Sep 2017
11:14am
Most people work beyond current pension age because they want to and are fit enough.

Older people today are far more healthy than at any time in the past and, as with every other western country, people are retiring later and the pension age should follow.

Remember the joke when the unions (as usual out of step) tried to force the retirement age down to 55 years for men and 50 for women!
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
11:23am
The retirement age was set when people retired and most only lived a few years after that. Now it is not uncommon for people to live 30 or more years after they retire. So it is only reasonable that the age to access the OAP should rise accordingly.
Old Man
6th Sep 2017
11:39am
Just to clarify, Old Geezer, when the age pension was introduced into Australia in 1908, the life expectancy of males was 57. Eligibility for the age pension was at 65.
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
11:42am
The life expectancy of the whole male population is not the life expectancy of a 65 year man. So what was the life expectancy of a man when he got to 65 in 1908? It certainly wasn't 57.
Old Man
6th Sep 2017
11:53am
Again, you need clarification Old Geezer and, again, I'm happy to provide it. The definition of life expectancy is the average period that a person may expect to live. Do you need to have explained how an average is arrived at?
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
12:00pm
No I don't need to know how the average is arrived at as it is irrelevant in this case. It is basic logic than when a man gets to 65 he can't have a life expectancy of 57.

To make any sense you need to work out what is his age expectancy now he has reached 65. There are tables that do this for you.
KSS
6th Sep 2017
12:53pm
The point being Old Geyser is that most people didn't live to collect the pension in the first place, and those that did, died soon after retirement. That is not the case today when many have another 20 - 30 years after retirement.
Tib
6th Sep 2017
2:48pm
Oh dear I'm glad old Geezer's on your side KSS.
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
4:14pm
KSS I know that people didn't live long after they got the OAP as that was the idea behind it. Do you think for one moment that they would have been so generous if people had lived 30 years after retirement?

That's why the OAP age needs to be raised in line with how long people live. 65 is now way too young and even 70 is not old enough as most people live way beyond 70 today. Kids born today may have to wait until 100 to get the OAP.
Tib
6th Sep 2017
4:45pm
Seriously OG why do they have to keep increasing the retirement age. So no one ever gets old enough to get it.
Richie
6th Sep 2017
4:56pm
Humm old Geez Has a Valid Point Because Kids in the Future are going to have 2 of themselves, yeah(CLONES) So they'll well & truly get to enjoy the OAP Than aye :)
Theo1943
6th Sep 2017
8:47pm
Most people are confused by life expectancy qoutes. I read this last year and, from memory, life expectancy in 1908 was indeed 57 but a person aged 60 in 1908 had an expectancy of 12 more years. A 60 yo today has an expectancy of 17 more years. The biggest factor influencing this is infant death. If 25% of the population dies before adulthood it reduces the population expectancy by around 30%. Also, life expectancy normally refers to a person born at that time, not adults or pensioners. KSS appears to think that everyons alive in 1908 died at age 57. This is the first, and probably the last, time I agree with OG ????
Tib
6th Sep 2017
10:49pm
Interesting point Theo. But it depends on what point you are making using this information. If a population has a low life expectancy such as in 1908 then that would still give a fair indication of what percentage of the population reached a retirement age of 65. For those that reach 60 the 12years for groups in 1908 and 17 years today there is only a five year different but the size of those groups as percentage of population could be very different. One group may be 10% and the other 5% which could make an enormous diffence to the government for OAP. Of course for every year the age requirement for OAP is increased those able to claim becomes less after all not all get 17 years. Also while many children died I would be interested to see what effect WW1 WW2 or Spanish flu had on average life expectancy. I'm sure the government has a very good idea how much money is saved every time they bump up the age requirement for OAP.
Jen50
6th Sep 2017
11:18am
I expected to work past 65 but my office job was stressful with strict targets and KPIs to be reached on a daily basis, then I'd go home & cook meals, look after pets and do general work around the house & garden. By the time I was 61 I was suffering from stress induced gastro problems and one attack was so severe I ended up in emergency on morphine for the pain. They told me I had to rearrange my life, reduce stress & retire if possible. I gradually reduced my hours by one day a fortnight and then 2 days. The gastro had become chronic by that stage and the reduced hours didn't help so when voluntary redundancies were offered I grabbed at the chance and retired. I put 100% into my job because that's what's expected but I was burnt out and there was no way I could have made it to 65 let alone 70. I fear for builders and other people in physically demanding jobs whose bodies are not going to hold out that long. As for the argument that people are living longer, that may be so, but that doesn't mean they can keep working. I just went for a brisk 30 minute walk & will do some more exercises in a minute but if you sat me down in my old office right now I'd probably collapse & curl up into the fetal position by the end of the day and fade away.
Mojobomber
6th Sep 2017
1:16pm
I agree Jen50. I worked in a Federal Government agency office and the stress incurred from trying to meet KPI's was dreadful. I was in a vicious circle, not being able to sleep, getting into work after 10, working till 8 or 9 at work to meet the KPI's had detrimental effect on my mental state and family life. I went part time, having one day off a fortnight but did not really reduce my hours so much. I would spend my day in my pyjamas and dressing gown and not achieving anything. At age 59 they offered voluntary redundancy packages which I took up as I didn't think I could work much longer. That was almost 4 years ago. People think because you work in an office its easy and comfortable. Sitting for 8-10 hours a day, worrying you are going to lose your job and not getting out of the office till dark is not good for your health.
Charlie
6th Sep 2017
11:19am
Its a dumb move to be working this out on, life expectancy. They are looking at the wrong numbers. They should be looking at the number of people pulling out of the workforce on disability pension before 65 and the number of people entering the workforce who are less fit than the previous generation.
But they don't care about getting that right. This is about phasing out age pension all together and making sure that all the super is gone before any government support is offered.
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
11:24am
Why are they less fit? Bad lifestyle nothing more.
Jezemeg8
6th Sep 2017
12:21pm
Old Geezer, I do wish you'd stop insisting that everyone has a bad lifestyle and that's why they're less fit. Yes, there are SOME who do drink/smoke etc to excess, in all professions (INCLUDING POLITICIANS), but there are far more who live a healthy lifestyle yet still succumb to illness.
I neither smoke, nor do I drink, I buy fresh produce and mostly make my own meals from scratch, as well, I worked 18 hour days 7 days a week just to keep a roof over the heads of my children and myself and food on the table. We couldn't afford "junk" food!! In my late 40's it was decided I was "too disabled to continue in employment", and my "golden handshake" was a mere $1000, universal super became applicable to the industry in which I worked in the year I was forced into retirement.
I now am VERY aware of the lifestyles of others, both in my family and outside of it and VERY FEW can afford a "bad lifestyle" as you seem to intimate in your many remarks. To continue in employment they have to keep themselves as fit as possible, otherwise there's more than enough to replace them, the competition for employment is stiff.
So, while there are SOME who do have bad lifestyles, including our politicians who are more than happy to abuse their "entitlements" there are many more just trying to make ends meet. Get out of your ivory tower and see what's around you, and stop assuming that just because SOME have unhealthy lifestyles therefore ALL do...
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
12:45pm
So by your late 40's you realised that welfare was a better bet than working. That's is why our country is in such a mess. Way too many prefer welfare over working.
Tib
6th Sep 2017
2:25pm
Well said jezemeg8. Old Geezer probably never worked a day in his life and is 40kgs overweight.
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
8:13pm
Ha ha I just wish I could add a few pounds but too active for that.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:29pm
How's your job induced cancer going, OG? Or is that yesterday's story? Lifestyle choices ... (cluck, cluck, cluck)....
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
11:14pm
Just had 3 days of visiting specialists and tests and got the thumbs up so I must be doing something right. Only cost was $2 for parking.
ex PS
12th Sep 2017
10:45am
O.G, until we have full employment your theories about people just not wanting to work are just that, ill informed, unproven and unjustified theories. In other words just malicious piffle. I find it difficult that with your view of the world you could be half as successful as you claim.
Old Man
6th Sep 2017
11:29am
Macklin is a hypocrite. It was alright for raising the retirement age to 67 when she was in government but somehow lifting it another 3 years to 70 is not alright. It would be nice to know how many people are affected by that decision and if the 375,000 Australians includes those who will need to work until age 67 which is legislated to start 1 July 2023. Again, we have an article which is biased by not giving all of the facts.
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
11:33am
I agree. Can you really see Labor changing the age when it gets lifted to 70? I certainly can't.
KSS
6th Sep 2017
1:03pm
And don't forget that those now in their 50s have had compulsory superannuation for almost all their working life (those in their 40s now have had it ALL their working life). Working three more years just adds to the payout at the end.

Having said that I do think that there are other bits of law that need to be changed at the same time. Workcover for example stops at 65. This then becomes a disincentive for an employer to keep on someone who they perceive as a greater risk. Not borne out in truth of course since older workers are consistently found to be more reliable and less 'sick' than younger workers.
Old Man
6th Sep 2017
2:00pm
I agree KSS about the need to change a lot of existing laws about what cuts out at a certain age. Some public servants are allowed to retire on full superannuation benefits at age 60 and those who work after that age are not allowed to continue contributing to superannuation. A lot of public service jobs preclude working after 65 and therein lies a problem. I have a good friend who loved too well but also too unwisely. He has been married three times and divorced three times and nearly all of his super and real estate has gone. He was a public servant and under current laws was allowed to retire at 65 and draw an age pension. What happens to someone in the same position when 67 kicks in and then 70 as the retirement age?
David
6th Sep 2017
4:11pm
I agree with you Old Geezer that Labor won't change the age limit of the OAP if they get in. Oppositions are often against changes brought in by the party in power, but when they get back into power, they would have to increase other taxes or cut expenditure to make up for the revenue shortfall of reversing OAP age limit. A perfect example of this is CGT and GST.
David
6th Sep 2017
4:20pm
Old Man, anyone can retire between 55-60 (depending on your preservation age) and access their super if you have saved enough during your working life. I did this at the age of 55 and my wife will be doing the same at 57. These rules apply regardless of whether you are a public servant or not.
If you work beyond 60, you can still contribute to super.
It is not correct to say that after 65 you can't work in the public service. That was the case up until 1999, but the law was changed back then as it was discriminatory.
Theo1943
7th Sep 2017
12:16am
KSS, several states have extended workcover in the last 10 years. In WA there is now no age limit. Good for me as I'm going back to work this summer at 74.
ex PS
12th Sep 2017
10:51am
Again O.G. displays his lack of knowledge about Super and the Public Service. "Some Public Servants can retire at 60" "Some Public Servants are precluded from working after 65", if you don't know the facts don't try and make them up, you only come across as a fool.
O.G you need to mend your ways, you are becoming more and more irrelevant, and I believe you will not be able to survive if you can't find a way of being the center of attention.
HKW
6th Sep 2017
11:44am
Another way to avoid paying well deserved pensions.
This is elderly genocide !
Raphael
6th Sep 2017
2:23pm
Don't be so melodramatic
Triss
6th Sep 2017
3:15pm
I don't think it's melodramatic, Raphael, I think HKW is pretty much spot on.
David
6th Sep 2017
6:53pm
I agree with Raphael.
Genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
I'd bet my house that no sensible person (or country) would instigate such charges in a court or tribunal.
If the OAP was increased to 70 and a person under that age couldn't work for medical reasons (certified by a doctor), they would still be entitled to Centrelink benefits under other provisions.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:30pm
It's genocide.......
David
7th Sep 2017
12:59pm
It's insane, without foundation and a gross insult to compare the lifting of the pension age by 3 years to the genocide of tens of millions of Jews, Cambodians, Russians etc committed by Hitler, Pol Pot and other regimes.
Rainey
9th Sep 2017
1:16am
I agree with your last comment, David, but raising the retirement age to 70 is cruel and indecent in a prosperous society where we can afford (apparently!) to overindulge the rich with huge tax concessions to boost their retirement funds but we give the battlers no help.

Disability?? Ever tried to qualify? If you had, you would not make such an ill-informed comment. And try to live on the miserable amount they pay, with medicine, disability aids and care to pay for. Worse still, try to survive on New Start.

No, David. It's not genocide. But it is cruel and inhuman persecution of the less fortunate in our society - and vast numbers of those who can't work to 70 are the same folk whose acceptance of low paid, dangerous, unhealthy, mentally stressful jobs enabled the rich to continue their obscenely greedy partying and enjoy lifelong comfort.
Not Amused
6th Sep 2017
11:57am
No wonder politicians are so hated in this country. Oh, the "hate" word. Since white people are finding their free speech curtailed under the force-fed multi-culti doctrine, I suppose these political leeches will legislate so that we can't say they are hated. Perhaps loathed, detested, despised, disgusting, revolting, reviled, intolerable. They've never done a day's hard work and the only thing overworked is their lying untrustworthy mouths. As if people in service and manual trade industries will be fully active until 70 when most of them are physically "finished" by fifty.
thommo
6th Sep 2017
11:59am
This LNP government will rue the day they lift the pension age to 70..They're in enough poo as it is now without that added to it..
Just wait till the next election, when they will get routed. and good riddance.
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
12:27pm
Ha ha do you really think that the alternative is any better?
Tib
6th Sep 2017
2:28pm
Yes thommo they're done. No chance of another term. It's about time we got rid of these losers.
George
6th Sep 2017
4:56pm
Agree, thommo, but also get rid of Labor & Greens who also vote for / support such measures, while collecting over-generous pensions themselves. We need new faces in parliament to get different results!
Jannie
6th Sep 2017
5:20pm
Gutless overpaid pollies what future do we have? We need a government with better insight as to where Australia is going say 20 years down the track. Lack of jobs - taxes will decrease less revenue for government, too many overseas $ handouts, more on social welfare due to lack of work and refugees having access to social welfare, too many people being let into the country, infra structure breaking down. I say bring on WW111 as the world is over populated we need to cull or else the human race is stuffed.
ex PS
12th Sep 2017
11:00am
No retiree or prospective retiree in their right mind will vote for this mob again, if they do they deserve what they get, or in this case what they will not get.

I have racked my brains and can't see how the alternative, any alternative could possibly be any worse for retirees.

Jannie, have you considered that WWIII will cull the young and healthy, this will make matters worse for retirees, in fact retirees will no longer be retirees. Also the refugees will not be able to fight on our side therefore they will be the new working Australians.

George, as soon as you vote someone into office you make them into politicians, so the problem begins all over again. We don't need new faces, we need to hold the ones who are there to account.
George
12th Sep 2017
4:52pm
How much success have you had to hold the current Liberal or Labor (without "U") to account, ex PS (or Greens for that matter)?

No, the only way is to shake up the system by making sure the current seat-warmers are removed, and for voters to do the same in every election - until they understand they have to actually serve the electors, not themselves.
See my other detailed post below - they need to be seat-warmers for minimum 8 years to get their undeserved minimum 50% salary pensions for life. Let's make it hard for them to get that obscene perk. Life is too good for them currently to bother about the rest of us.
Gammer
6th Sep 2017
12:43pm
With unemployment figures set to increase further it is sensible for older singles and couples to retire thus freeing up work opportunities for younger people with families to support. Much cheaper to offer pensions to an aged single or couple than unemployment benefit to someone with children... Stupid politicians need to do some sums. Let's not also forget how many of us retirees are actively volunteering in many organisations thus saving the government even more (not too many younger people have time, energy or inclination to volunteer)...
Raphael
6th Sep 2017
2:19pm
How many ages over 60 have dependent children or are you suggesting they have kids at that age to avail themselves of extra taxpayer funds ?

Duh !
Tib
6th Sep 2017
2:42pm
Oh dear Raphael , read it again.
Triss
6th Sep 2017
3:17pm
Put your specs on, Raphael.
Raphael
6th Sep 2017
3:39pm
a young person on unemployment with kids are on it for a reason. they dont want a job

duh !
Rainey
7th Sep 2017
5:16am
Or because there aren't enough jobs that match their skill set, Raphael, and they can't afford or don't have the innate ability to retrain. Obviously you have been too fortunate in life and have neither understanding of nor compassion for those in genuine hardship.
Rae
7th Sep 2017
8:59am
They would have jobs if the LNP governments stopped bringing hundreds of thousands of high skilled workers in each year.

The LNP deliberately destroyed TAFE and other government training facilities that took on apprentices as well.

Unemployment of our youth is deliberate LNP policy.

It is one thing to increase skilled immigration for future planning. It should not have been done at the expense of the current population.

Not at all sure why though. They do have some crazy ideas about other people though. I blame the rich private schools they all seem to attend.

Howard cutting taxes like he did and then Gillard doing the same was extremely foolish indeed when they knew that 86% of the mining profits were going overseas.

A small international transfer tax would have been a very good idea.
Raphael
7th Sep 2017
5:02pm
Rainey - I have been unemployed and also been employed in low paying jobs living paycheck to paycheck

Worked my butt off to get off the poverty wheel

So please don't assume you know me and certainly dont lecture me on morals and empathy
Rainey
8th Sep 2017
6:35am
Well you didn't learn much from the experience, Raphael. Your comments evidence a total lack of empathy and even human decency, and certainly an absence of understanding of the real world and the challenges many disadvantaged face. I also worked my butt off to get off the poverty wheel, but I know hundreds who have tried just as hard and not succeeded - through no fault of their own.
ex PS
12th Sep 2017
11:07am
Raphael, glad to see you putting "duh" after your comments, it truly emphasizes their worth. Self appraisal of your comments will help you in the future, in the meantime you do give us a laugh. But I suppose it is not nice to laugh at those who are not quite as bright as others.

I don't know many people in our age group who have not had to work their buts off to get ahead at times, for most of us it has provided us with the ability to show tolerance and empathy, it obviously made others envious and bitter. I suppose it comes down to an individuals inner strength.
Young Simmo
6th Sep 2017
12:53pm
What's all the BELLYACHEING about? When we went onto the pension, we bought a new house, a new car and went on a 3 months world cruise, so I reckon the pension is a piece of cake. Winning Lotto had nothing to do with it either.
OK, what's that expression?
"On a lighter note", sorry.
Mojobomber
6th Sep 2017
1:22pm
You haven't explained anything here. You did not purchase a new house, new car and world cruise on the pension. You obviously had money to do so, so stop skyting and tell the truth. The pension is good if you have everything but if you do not it is very difficult to live on.
Raphael
6th Sep 2017
2:21pm
Grrat idea Simmo
Buy a new house and car as soon as you reach pension age then one can continue to rip off the system with assets tied up in their house
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:31pm
Young Simmo was being facetious......
Young Simmo
6th Sep 2017
10:44pm
That's a big word TREBOR, tell me what it means and I might be able to use it some time latter on, Hic, Hic.
ex PS
12th Sep 2017
11:10am
Good, Raphael, you are finally getting it, you have finally sussed out what the government wants you to do, congratulations. You win a life on the Pension, enjoy.
JennyO
6th Sep 2017
1:02pm
I do not think much thought has gone into this as some 70 year olds did not have super paid into their accounts at 9.5%. I am a little unfortunate as I married and he owned a business and I needed to help out so resigned from my job to help. The business could not afford to pay heaps into a super fund and he now has Dementia so at 71 am still running the business, looking after grandchildren, looking after a dementia husband and paying much money to My Aged Care He is still not retirement age. Not fair. Have never had a good holiday and now cannot because of the business and he could not cope with change.
KSS
6th Sep 2017
1:13pm
Why 'a little unfortunate"? You married a life partner, ran a business, had children, now have grandchildren are still working and obviously are healthy at 71. So you never had a 'good holiday' well sorry, we all make sacrifices for what we want.

What is not fair? You made your choices. You have an asset you could sell if you were so inclined. Doing that just might afford you a holiday, help will looking after your husband (something you promised to do when you married) and free you up more time with the grandchildren if that's what you want. As it is you continue to work, and I surmise its because you like it and want to continue. Good on you. But that doesn't make anything unfair or you unfortunate.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:35pm
Until the superannuation system has the chance to run a full 'lifespan' of fifty years working life for ALL - it will not kick in - so changing anything until it does is just short-sighted and selfish money-grubbing by government in panic, panic caused by its own incompetence. When I refer to government, I mean GOVERNMENT - not parties....

Jayzuz - even Old Geezer agrees that Labor are no better - and they started this rot.... and have made no definitive statement that they will change it once they control the Parliament (note - the 'government' control nothing else - ONLY the Parliament - and their power stops at the village gate, and their right to a point of view stops at the point of my chin/nose)....
Rainey
9th Sep 2017
12:59am
Fix the disgustingly unfair superannuation system that gives huge tax concessions to high income earners and nothing to strugglers and maybe people could afford to fund the first few years of their retirement if their health or work type makes working to 70 impractical or impossible - not that anyone should have to after slogging away in dangerous or unhealthy occupations for 40+ years.

What kind of society do we live in when some people think it's okay for the real workers, who put their lives and health on the line to keep society functioning, to end their lives in poverty?
Raphael
6th Sep 2017
1:30pm
70 is fair since we are now living well past that age
Raphael
6th Sep 2017
1:31pm
PS - and if for some reason a person can't work before reaching OAP there is always disability or newstart
Tib
6th Sep 2017
1:59pm
Newstart? That's for people looking for work, there is no use looking for work you can't do. That's wasting money on support and services for people who can't do the work. I wish you had some respect for our tax dollars.
Raphael
6th Sep 2017
2:16pm
So rather than newstart - you'd prefer they be on the OAP at 50?
Think man !!!
Tib
6th Sep 2017
2:37pm
No you think ....Newstart requires more Centrelink involvement more job services support more subsidised courses and other benefits, which in the end is a lot more expensive than OAP. Why 50 the present system and age works fine, I never said 50 so why make things up ...your present argument not strong enough?
Sundays
6th Sep 2017
3:12pm
It's the Governments way of making sure people use up all their super before claiming the age pension. Newstart is too low, and Disability pension rules so tight, you have to be dying.
Raphael
6th Sep 2017
3:25pm
so work till 70 then

or here's a novel idea, contribute to your super for 30 years

then if you're unemployed for whatever reason in your 60's , the sky wont fall
Old Geezer
6th Sep 2017
4:27pm
I agree it's a good idea in that people will use up their super and savings before being able to access the OAP. After all the OAPP is welfare and should be used as a last resort when all others means of support have been exhausted.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:35pm
So what? Paid taxes whole life - pension earned at 65.
Theo1943
7th Sep 2017
12:22am
If there was no means test the Government could dispose of all of Centrelink staff. That would save a fortune.
Rainey
7th Sep 2017
5:08am
Oh yes, OG, let's have all elderly living in poverty - EXCEPT the greedy elite who claim 30c in the dollar subsidy from the taxpayer to boost their huge superannuation funds so they can retire in luxury. And let's ensure anyone who works in dangerous or unhealthy conditions, for low pay, suffers hideously for their contribution to society, while the stinking useless privileged seat warmers party and gloat.

You show yourself as disgustingly greedy, selfish and nasty.
kika
6th Sep 2017
2:12pm
jenny is looking more and more like angela merkel. sorry ... off topic.
Tib
6th Sep 2017
2:14pm
Ha ha you're right.
Dave R
6th Sep 2017
2:34pm
The age pension should have remained at 65 which is when I started receiving it.
67 is too old and 70 is absurd.
What are our 20% of youth unemployed supposed to do if older people are still in jobs that the youth should be getting?
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:36pm
Both youth and older people are unemployed. That's the game plan... no money - no power.
Richie
6th Sep 2017
2:58pm
yeah Well i come from the ole School like many here, and it's good to Hear some very
intelligent Comments being made on this Certain important Subject, Very Entertaining as well :) but yes I'll put in my 2bobs worth & say no way 70years old for a Pension ya talking out of School there. Hooroo!
casey
6th Sep 2017
3:06pm
Ever been into Bunnings? I think in my local store 60% are well over 65, one chap I spoke to told me he is 85!!! He is working not because he needs to, but because he wants to. I say well done Bunnings, wish others would follow suit.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:37pm
I'm 68 and would be doing the same - haven't had an offer yet though.

Good on ya, Bunnings.
Couldabeen
6th Sep 2017
3:15pm
Macklin is walking around the fact that it was the ALP that started the phased shifting of age for eligibility for the Old Age Pensions from the 60 and 65 years. In no way shape or form is this shift going to force anyone to work until that age. Everyone who will be affected by the change in the age of eligibility will have had in excess of 20 years of compulsory contributions to a superannuation scheme. Anyone can retire at the age that they want to with that behind them. They are more likely to have the income and assets criteria postpone there eligibility for the Age Pension than purely age.
Comparing it to the Superannuation Pensions that the politicians receive is incorrect as they are not receiving a Social Security Pension but their own contributions coming back to them. They are not unique in having a Superannuation Scheme that can be accessed before the nominal retirement age.
Triss
6th Sep 2017
3:29pm
Not many of them, Couldabeen, quite a few retired from politics before 2000 whilst still in their 30's. No way could they still be accessing their own contributions after receiving around $100,000 a year plus numerous business class airfares for themselves and their families, they must now be solely dependant on the taxpayers.
coff
6th Sep 2017
3:45pm
it is funny how labour forget that rudd / gillard have already raised the age.

not good reporting on this sites behalf.

The first shift upwards in Age Pension age will occur in July 2017 when the Age Pension eligibility age increases to 65.5 years, and then in six-month increments every 2 years, until it reaches the age of 67 years from 1 July 2023. See Table 1 below to discover your Age Pension age.

Table 1: What is your Age Pension age?
Commencement date Age Pension age Affects people born
65 Born before July 1952
From 1 July 2017 65.5 From 1 July 1952 to 31 December 1953
From 1 July 2019 66 From 1 January 1954 to 30 June 1955
From 1 July 2021 66.5 From 1 July 1955 to 31 December 1956
From 1 July 2023 67 On or after 1 January 1957
George
6th Sep 2017
4:50pm
Of course, the Government should abandon its moronic plans to lift the eligibility age for the pension. But, Labor are hypocrites as they increased it to 67, and now are lecturing LNP?

Besides people's health not keeping up with working beyond 65, the first step should be to stop Age discrimination and fix the problems created / allowed by Govt by throwing people out of work - forced redundancies (for CEOs to increase their bonus & profits, often hand-in-hand with Outsourcing), Outsourcing to low-wage countries such as India / Philippines, 457 visas (or it's recently proposed substitute) preventing roles at all levels being available to locals, shutdown of most manufacturing (sent off to China).

The whole idea of increasing Pension age to 70 absolutely stinks when people cannot have jobs, even if they are healthy & able. Besides that, how dare these politicians try to stuff everyone else, while they have nicely feathered their own nests for retirement See below:

Link to see what current (new MPs since 2004) pollies get:
http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/1011/superannuationbenefits

The current system allows them access to GREAT pensions at 55-60 years (latter age limit being phased in by 2025), with NO ASSETS or INCOME TESTS EITHER, after a mere 8 years service, and STARTING at $92,500 based on 50% of salary of $185,000 (now increased further - not sure to what), and increasing with years of service) - FOR LIFE. Also, they can have additional pensions if they are Ministers, etc. No justification whatsoever for their special pensions!

All of us have a duty to GET RID OF THESE LEECHES - Liberal, Labor & Greens! Vote them last in preferences depending on who holds the seat. That should also reduce some getting their fancy pensions.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:40pm
Hear, hear.....
Rae
7th Sep 2017
9:13am
Yes George and the number of Independents being elected at Saturdays local government elections in NSW will be informative.

Everyone I talk too wants new independent people in to fix up the messes created by the Administrators appointed by Baird.
inextratime
6th Sep 2017
5:21pm
Have stopped posting on here as some of the comments are complete tosh that contribute nothing but give the commentators a boost to their own ego's. You all know who I mean.
Raphael
6th Sep 2017
5:38pm
Please explain
heemskerk99
6th Sep 2017
6:05pm
inextratime, congratulations, great comment, I call them losers !!!
Rosret
6th Sep 2017
7:36pm
I think what is missing from this is the compulsory superannuation deductions. I was under the impression the government wanted us to be self sufficient in retirement - not necessarily working until 70 years of age.
Having said that there are quite a few exceptions where 70 is just too old. It really is a cruel blow for those who have probably had the toughest life.
I would also like to point out that where I worked they just didn't interview anyone older than the interviewer.
Rainey
7th Sep 2017
5:04am
But the taxpayer is giving 30c in the dollar to the well off to accumulate superannuation, and NOTHING to lower wage earners who desperately need help to save for retirement. So how do you justify handouts to those who don't need it and forcing the needy to work longer and suffer poverty in old age?
Rosret
6th Sep 2017
7:43pm
Just an append um - Artificial Intelligence is going to be common place in this next decade. It really is time to start think about a universal salary for everyone and start reducing the number of hours people work so everyone has a opportunity to contribute to society
Triss
6th Sep 2017
8:18pm
Yes, that's a real probability, Rosett, as usual the government is not forward projecting so will be shouting poverty.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:45pm
Been discussed elsewhere, Rosret - the issue becomes raising the revenue to fund the universal salary for all.... and the only way in this future world is to tax those using machines etc and actually turn those machines into the servants of humanity, rather than shareholders.

THAT would require a quantum shift in ideological reasoning - from 'only shareholders may benefit' to 'all of society MUST benefit'. The only way government could achieve that latter is to tax those benefiting from IA etc and disperse that money to all.... where is there a government with the balls to do that?

Footnote:- The current company system we have was organised in the 17th and 18th Centuries to cater to those with excess liquidity AND the vote, so as to enable them to create opportunities to gain more income.

Such an approach is massively past its use by date....... and everyone now has the vote in civilised countries and should have the avenues to put that vote to meaningful change - not just the Tag Team approach of the equally outdated parties with their total inability to look forward - LNP and Labor.
TREBOR
6th Sep 2017
9:12pm
Only 375,000? Not a big deal as long as politicians who make these idiotic decision can retire early on pension and then earn as much as they like....

No wonder the natives are restless these days....
Rainey
7th Sep 2017
5:02am
More hypocrisy and greedy indulgence of the wealthy. The cost of the OAP is LESS than the cost of subsidizing superannuation contributions by the well off. So this move gives more to the wealthy who DO NOT NEED IT and less to the struggling low paid who can't afford to save for old age and whose jobs force earlier retirement as a result of unhealthy, dangerous, strenuous and/or stressful work.

If the aim was to save money, the LNP would STOP the obscene indulgence of the wealthy with 30c in the dollar contributions to their superannuation funds. Why should the taxpayer fund the retirement of the well-off and NOT the retirement of the poor? It's IMMORAL AND INDECENT,
Rae
7th Sep 2017
9:18am
Yes agree Rainey. There was no need for any tax concessions to people to save for their own retirement. The no tax at all over 60 should have been quite enough incentive.
Old Geezer
7th Sep 2017
10:44am
If there are no benefits of putting money in super they why would anyone do it? Too much paperwork and extra cost to manage a super fund for no gain. That's just stupidity. Better to pay tax and spend the money and then get the OAP. That would be much more costly than any tax concessions given to put money into super.

I only a small amount of my wealth in super as it is simply not worth it to me any more.
Rainey
8th Sep 2017
6:26am
There is plenty of benefit in saving for retirement without getting obscenely generous tax concessions that are not needed. People will save for retirement if they can, simply because the pension isn't enough to live on comfortably. No more incentive is needed for the well off. The battlers need all the help they can get to save for retirement and that is where tax dollars should be focused, NOT handing out to the greedy well-to-do.
Rainey
8th Sep 2017
6:28am
And it doesn't matter whether savings are in super or not, OG. Retirement savings are of equal value regardless of whether they are in superannuation or held personally or in trusts etc. The rich will always have their wealth. They don't need handouts.
PlainLogic
7th Sep 2017
9:13am
Anyone with any amount of logical thinking and a realistic approach to the age pension problem for any government should do some sums on just what they the government and that means government of any flavour could save almost overnight .. by just one simple change ... make the age pension a flat rate across the board no married couple pension ... just one single rate for everyone married or single .. I'd like to see the figures for the savings especially in the area of Centrelink savings .. no "nazi squad" constantly checking to see if anyone is "rorting" the system .. simplified administration procedures for sure ...

But of course (sic) ..... that would be "logical" and "realistic" :)
Old Geezer
7th Sep 2017
10:45am
Just give everyone the married rate instead and save money.
Rainey
8th Sep 2017
6:23am
OG, we understand that you would like to see everyone less fortunate than you starve to death so welfare costs end, but there is no need to display your nasty, vile nature here. Couldn't you at least try to pretend some level of human decency?
Rainey
8th Sep 2017
6:24am
The single rate pension is not sufficient. To pay the married rate pension to singles would result in starvation and death from exposure.
inextratime
7th Sep 2017
12:28pm
http://www.mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/australias-household-income-and-wealth-distribution

Says it all.
Old Geezer
7th Sep 2017
5:19pm
That's been the case for centuries.
Rainey
9th Sep 2017
12:40am
That makes it okay then? One would hope if it's been that way for centuries our society would have the brains and foresight to make changes for the better. But some folk (like OG, for example) will hang on to any excuse to keep feeding greed and selfishness - as long as it isn't hurting them.
Eyesopen
8th Sep 2017
7:55am
Putting the aged pension age up is not the answer. If this stupid government stopped giving away billions of loaned money to overseas countries just to look good on the world stage they may be able to budget better. They should put Australians first but they don't. Politicians should not be able to collect their pension until they reach retirement age either.
Jannie
8th Sep 2017
9:48am
Agree 100% eyesopen.............................
Annick
12th Sep 2017
2:55pm
I am 73 and still working in a caring role 12-18 hours a fortnight and one an Aged Pension. I get angry at the people who say I should have super. Paying into a super was beyond my means. My husband drove taxis for over 25 years average hourly rate on a good week was $5.00 out of that we paid his tax and GST which didn't leave anything to pay into a super fund. People born in the 1940's to 50's didn't get a super which didn't become compulsory until 1992. I also gave up a part time job to care for my mother in the final years of her life. After she died I was considered to old at 56 to be employed until I started as a carer for a disabled lady in my mid 60's


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

  • Receive our daily enewsletter
  • Enter competitions
  • Comment on articles

you might also be interested in...

Is Centrelink checking your bank account?

Does Centrelink have the power to check your bank account?

Centrelink assessment of gifts

How will a monetary gift of $10,000 affect the recipient’s Age Pension?

Your retirement and the Age Pension

Simplified and concise information on retirement and the Age Pension.

How will I be assessed?

How will I be assesseRichard is seeking clarification on how his assets and income will be assessed.d?

Pension advance payments

A pension advance payment could help Tracy deal with a couple of unexpected bills.