11th Sep 2018
Report reveals Baby Boomers are less reliant on the pension
Author: Ben Hocking
Boomers less reliant on pension

An annual snapshot of older Australians has found that fewer people are relying on the government-funded Age Pension than they were 20 years ago.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) released its annual snapshot of Older Australia on Monday, outlining the key characteristics of the 3.8 million people over the age of 65 living in Australia.

The AIHW research showed that nearly three quarters of Australians aged 65 and over owned their own home, but perhaps the most surprising figures related to the Age Pension.

In 1997, around 75 per cent of those aged 65 and over received at least a partial Age Pension payment. As of June last year, that proportion of over 65s relying on a government funded pension had dropped to just 66 per cent, or 2.5 million people.

According to the report, one in seven Australians were aged 65 years and over last year.

Australians are increasingly working to older ages. In January 2018, Australians aged 65 and over had a workforce participation rate of 13 per cent (17 per cent for men and 10 per cent for women), compared with eight per cent in 2006 (12 per cent for men and four per cent for women).

The rate is likely to continue to increase as the retirement intentions of Australians change. In 2004–05, just eight per cent of Australians aged 45 and over intended to work until age 70, compared with 20 per cent in 2016–17.

In 2016–17, the average intended retirement age was 65 (66 for men and 64 for women), with 22 per cent of men aged 45 and over intending to work beyond age 70.

Access to superannuation to supplement the Age Pension has become increasingly important.

In 1997, 12 per cent of retired Australians aged 45 and over stated that superannuation was their main source of income, compared with 25 per cent in 2016–17. However, as compulsory superannuation only began in the 1980s, older people have not yet fully benefited from the scheme: the proportion of people aged 70 and over in 2007 who had never had superannuation coverage was 41 per cent for males and 75 per cent for females.

What do you think of the AIHW findings? Do you feel they adequately reflect your retirement situation?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    TREBOR
    12th Sep 2018
    10:09am
    Well - after a twenty five year super for all scheme, you would expect that few are TOTALLY reliant on the OAP... methinks the trick here is in the wording.
    Mad as hell
    12th Sep 2018
    6:23pm
    Agree Trebor. There seems to be some logic missing in this article.
    Not a Bludger
    12th Sep 2018
    10:25am
    Yes, they do - and now watch all the moaners and groaners go feral about how they cannot work beyond 65 - particularly the civil servants amongst us.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    12:50pm
    What other country has a 67 years of age retirement age Bludger? Name one. Of course Australia is different......
    Jim
    12th Sep 2018
    2:24pm
    There are other countries that have a retirement age above 65, but that obviously isn’t really the question, there are many different aspects of retirement and pensions, some countries that get a much higher pension than we do, contribute a much higher amount than we do, I think Germany contribute something around the 18% mark towards their pension and some of the Nordic countries pay similar amounts, most of the oecd countries are increasing their pension ages to 67 and above, retirement age is something completely different, one particularly contributor on this forum claims to have retired in his 50’s and has never claimed the pension, even stating he was sick of working for slave wages so retired, I wouln’t have minded working for slave wages if I was able to retire early and with enough money that I didn’t need to claim the pension. I am sure the less well off on this site would love to know the secret to that miracle.
    Richied
    12th Sep 2018
    6:02pm
    Mick. Suggest you do your homework.
    A lot of countries (including US) have retirement age of 67.

    And some have retirement age higher.

    Wikipedia is your friend here - search retirement age
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    8:43pm
    Name them Richied.

    You have simplified the facts.Americans can retire at age 62 but not on full benefits. Also the same deal as here is at play with the government pushing up the retirement age to rob its people of a life beyond work.
    Old Geezer
    13th Sep 2018
    8:55am
    In the US you also get back what you have paid into their pension fund no matter how wealthy you are too.
    Greg
    14th Sep 2018
    11:46pm
    MICK - Finland (68), France (67), Greece (67), Iceland (67), Israel (67), Libya (70), Norway (67), Portugal (66), Taiwan (68), USA (67).

    All these countries have the age quoted now OR are increasing the retirement age to that quoted over the next few years.
    Ted
    12th Sep 2018
    10:26am
    Government policy is moving people off the pension. New tets etc. all limit access, hence the drop.
    Grateful
    12th Sep 2018
    11:31am
    Very true Ted. Those recent changes to eligibility were certainly effective, albeit not the only reason. Those who were in the public service in the '80s and benefited by years of super contributions would have retired on a MUCH better state of affairs than those who had retired 10 years ago.

    I know that I'm stirring the pot a bit here, but, I am absolutely certain that this survey would have exposed another factor that doesn't seem to have been addressed, do you NEED a welfare payment to help you survive?
    The HONEST answer to that question, I have no doubt, would result in a massive reduction to those who are currently receiving welfare payments through the age pension which is most certainly not NEEDED.
    The government, by backing away from increasing the retirement age to 70, have created a (another) black hole in their budget which needs to be filled. Hmmm!!
    Old Geezer
    12th Sep 2018
    11:47am
    That's why people should have to pay back any pension they receive from their estates.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    12:54pm
    I find the above interesting given that many people who have self funded their retirement who earn less than the pension are regarded as not worthy. I again ask people to look at other countries.
    I've told the story of a mate in the US before who is reaching an age where he HAS to take social security (a pension). He's kicking and screaming because he has no need of it but take it he must. Meanwhile here in Australia we can hand out welfare to the rich via tax cuts they do not need but demonise retirees who have tried to avoid the pension. There's something wrong in that way of thinking.
    Rae
    12th Sep 2018
    2:10pm
    The Government could stop giving subsidies and sponsorships to mates and corporations too. That would certainly help. Most of them don't need welfare either. They are supposed to be private for profit concerns.
    TREBOR
    12th Sep 2018
    5:57pm
    As long as everyone else pays back all concessions towards their retirement along the way, Ebergeezer... any neg gearing or super concessions of deductions...... can't discriminate.

    What darkened pit of the soul do you dig these ideas up from?
    Old Geezer
    12th Sep 2018
    6:50pm
    Trebor I didn't get any concessions so it's all clear for me.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    8:45pm
    Rae: what did you think about tax cuts for the wealthy whilst as well as more (proposed) tax cuts for companies? At the same time retirees have been ongoing targets. So what's fair and justifiable?
    TREBOR
    13th Sep 2018
    12:57am
    Yes, OG - it was alllyour own doing with no tax concessions, barn door wide opportunities, or loop-holes to exploit....
    Rae
    13th Sep 2018
    6:52am
    MICK the tax cuts are inflationary which is bad for those of us on fixed incomes. It may help markets for a while maintain their high values and help debtors cope with that $4 trillion they owe. For companies I believe it's a fair deal. It will encourage investment and hiring hopefully. We do have to remain competitive in International Markets.

    It certainly increases inequality and poverty for the bottom 40% who rely on Government services that must be cut.

    The tax rebates for Superannuation and Health Insurance does nothing except prop up the financial sector.

    I rightly angry that I paid high taxes throughout my work life but received very little return for it. I'm not a charity nor can I afford to be.

    I also see the wealthy living wildly beyond their means in many cases. Spending on high living and upsetting those who would like to do so but can't.

    Tax cuts and cuts to spending was a main contributor to the severity of the Great Depression. It wasn't until Hoover raised income taxes for the wealthy and started building infrastructure that economic activity was resumed.

    It's a balancing act and it's a bit out of kilter. The talk of boomers with any assets needing to use them for aged care is a worry. Not only didn't we get home grants, childcare rebates, baby bonuses or any of that largess but look like having anything we saved and bought snavelled up for the first time in Australia to pay for aged care which is rightly a tax funded responsibility of younger workers looking after older workers who had done their share already.
    Caring for the Elderly has always been a tribal, then religious responsibility.

    Of course those who spend everything each fortnight won't have to pay will they?
    They can rightly claim poverty and dependence.

    The main reason for this has been the sales of the assets we built with taxes that returned great profits before privatisation and the continual tax cut after tax cut. You can't do that and not end up with huge holes in the revenue base. It's like the spendthrifts. Spend it all today and to Hell with the future.

    Everything has consequences.
    anonysubscribe
    12th Sep 2018
    11:25am
    fewer people are relying on the government-funded Age Pension than they were 20 years ago.
    1 maybe it was robbed from us, fully or partially because the government kept changing the goalposts without telling us 30 years before when they created pensions to favour their fat cat cronies?


    The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) annual snapshot of Older Australia , outlining characteristics of 3.8 million people over age 65 living in Australia.

    2 Do they exclude those who become econmic migrants and flle this high cost lucky country?

    nearly three quarters of Australians aged 65 and over owned their own home, but perhaps the most surprising figures related to the Age Pension.

    3 lost my house through divorce.
    it seems many retired folk have no homes?

    In 1997, 75 per cent of those aged 65 and over received at least a partial Age Pension payment. As of June last year, that proportion of over 65s relying on a government funded pension dropped to 66 per cent, or 2.5 million people.

    4 Did we drop out willingly or were we pushed off by governments which cut pensions and removed qualifications over years of attrition?


    one in seven Australians were aged 65 years and over last year.

    Australians are increasingly working to older ages. In January 2018, Australians aged 65 and over had a workforce participation rate of 13 per cent (17 per cent for men and 10 per cent for women), compared with eight per cent in 2006 (12 per cent for men and four per cent for women).

    5 Many others cannot get jobs.

    The rate is likely to continue to increase as the retirement intentions of Australians change. In 2004–05, just eight per cent of Australians aged 45 and over intended to work until age 70, compared with 20 per cent in 2016–17.

    6 Maybe they are forced to? to make ends meet?

    In 2016–17, the average intended retirement age was 65 (66 for men and 64 for women), with 22 per cent of men aged 45 and over intending to work beyond age 70.

    Access to superannuation to supplement the Age Pension has become increasingly important.

    In 1997, 12 per cent of retired Australians aged 45 and over stated that superannuation was their main source of income, compared with 25 per cent in 2016–17. However, as compulsory superannuation only began in the 1980s, older people have not yet fully benefited from the scheme: the proportion of people aged 70 and over in 2007 who had never had superannuation coverage was 41 per cent for males and 75 per cent for females.

    7 and yet the government mercilessly cuts even the small super some saved under assets tests which rob more each day.

    What do you think of the AIHW findings? Do you feel they adequately reflect your retirement situation?

    8 politically correct euphimism.
    Old Geezer
    12th Sep 2018
    11:29am
    Just excuses for not doing what it took to be self funded in old age.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    12:57pm
    Eventually all Australians should have enough super and the pension can be scaled down. Our generation only started in super in their 30's so most will simply not have enough put away. The maths is basic.
    The solution from this coalition bunch of misfits is to attack retirees and then hand out massive tax cuts to the top end. Tell me about unaffordability!
    roy
    12th Sep 2018
    1:12pm
    MICK, let's get Shifty Shorten into power and all our troubles will be over.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    1:31pm
    roy - typical coalition sponsored comment.
    ANYTHING has to be better than Abbott and Costello (oops...Turnbull). I don't know how Shorten will go but it has to be 100 times better than the current coal owned government who has run the nation debt from $147 billion to $600 billion in under 6 years.

    Have you BS snipe if you wish but address the facts. Black and white even to a troll.....which is why they are never discussed by you.
    The reality is WE CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER 6 YEARS OF COALITION CORRUPTION.
    roy
    12th Sep 2018
    1:46pm
    MICK, you really are a cracked record, you go on and on and on and on ad infinitum and now you resort to CAPITAL LETTERS TO TRY TO PROVE YOUR POINT,sheesh.
    You really are a sad little man, go and ski somewhere please.
    Google Bill Shorten AKA Shifty and read of his history of union bullying and let us all have your comments and please tell us all why you are not an MP.
    Grateful
    12th Sep 2018
    1:56pm
    Mick, that wasn't a Freudian slip when you mentioned Costello. If people looked back and fully analysed HIS budgets, they will find that the vast majority of what are causing the greatest pains in our community can be traced directly back to him.
    Huge, unsustainable and grossly inequitable tax lurks are still haunting all of us and have caused massive sociological and economic disasters in today's communities.
    Howard and Costello have very, very much to answer for, yet, they are still being rewarded very handsomely from the public purse!!
    TREBOR
    12th Sep 2018
    6:03pm
    Costello oversaw the theft of the $130Bn Future Fund and its offshoring so as to protect it from Downfall in Australia - and ONLY for the benefit of a few such as himself and his overlord, King John Howard I and Last.

    What should have been done was that the portion of consolidated revenue that was made up from the Pension contribution of taxpayers for working life, should have been put there and the fund manage for ALL Australians.

    Mick suggested the FF was offshored to keep the filthy hands of politicians and financial institutions off it... same applies to the REAL Future Fund For All - perhaps it could be offshored to protect it (once it is includes the current self-serving Future Fund), and would do the right thing and voluntarily pay ta here to benefit the economy and budget.

    I'm warming to that idea - you truly are a genius at times, Mick.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    8:48pm
    The bigger picture over time is horrifying TREBOR. If the voting brain dead only knew.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th Sep 2018
    6:41am
    Sure is, Mick. And as bad as the LNP is - and they are BAD, and I want them gone as much as you do - Labor will make things far, far worse. They will rip off the SFRs and push all of us onto pensions, and then the debt will really skyrocket. Idiot Short-on-brains is proposing a policy that will save maybe $350,000 per SFR in franking credits over the course of retirement and cost over $1 million in extra pension payments. STUPID!
    Alan
    12th Sep 2018
    12:22pm
    I am now in my early 70's and always had expectations of retiring at age 55 (combination of limitations caused by an accident in my late 20's and the desire not to work until I dropped.
    Expectations about what is needed for retirement have changed. I always expected that I would not be eligible for the age pension unless I behaved in a way to make me asset rich but cash flow poor. This for ethical reasons I was not prepared to do so I enjoy a fully self funded retirement which enables me to do the things I want to do and enjoy a very comfortable retirement. I chose to retire at age 54 and until age 65 have done some short term casual work when it suited my plans.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th Sep 2018
    6:32am
    You are very lucky to have been able to do that, Alan. Millions simply had no hope no matter how hard they tried. Without education, skills training, and opportunity, and facing family breakdown, crippling accidents, serious illness, natural disasters, etc. many just struggle to get by through life and can't put much aside for later.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    12:49pm
    Come on Ben, what planet are you living on?
    The reason why only 66% of over 65s get a pension is that the current rich man's government has changed the assets test to unreasonably kick a whole pile of people off the queue.
    That's the thanks self funded retirees get for funding most of their own retirement and not burdening taxpayers. Now a big target and labelled as wealthy when this is not the case. Fairness has disappeared!
    Old Geezer
    12th Sep 2018
    1:05pm
    Only those who had more than they needed were kicked off welfare and they should have been too. Thank goodness the government had the guts to do so.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    1:33pm
    More than they needed? So people living off the rent from a couple of properties and earning less than the pension are well off? Plenty of them out there doing that. You omitted to say 'let them eat cake'!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    12th Sep 2018
    4:48pm
    Nobody who was ''kicked off'' the OAP by the changed assets test had ''more than they needed''. Only the cheats and manipulators who are still getting part pensions and enjoying high incomes have more than they need. Those victimised by the stinking government are now struggling to avoid draining away all their savings for zero personal benefit and having far too little later in life to meet the needs they saved so hard for.
    TREBOR
    12th Sep 2018
    5:42pm
    Did some digging last night - 75% of the benefit from dividend imputation (as an example) goes to 10% of recipients - none of whom pay tax.

    This clearly shows that the entire retirement packaging system is fatally flawed to permit massive gouging.
    Old Geezer
    12th Sep 2018
    6:54pm
    Just shows that those 10% are on very low incomes and should get their imputation credits refunded.

    More like you have been conned in that it is just a lie Labor is spinning about it. Absolute rubbish.
    Old Geezer
    12th Sep 2018
    7:12pm
    Trebor here is some reading for you on the effects on the non refund of franking credits.

    https://cuffelinks.com.au/cuffelinks-articles-labors-franking-policy/

    Unfortunately it is not a tax on the rich at all.

    https://cuffelinks.com.au/tax-super-rich-prove-costly/
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    8:18pm
    TREBOR - correct. That's the problem with franking credits and Shorten would do well to set a realistic threshhold so that average mums and dads are not mercilessly pursued for providing a basic level of income for themselves rather than drawing a pension.

    OGR - when the assets test was reduced to its current level that did push people off the pension. These supposedly 'wealthy' Australians earn a basic income and income earning assets are liable to CGT when they pass on. You need to be fair and understand the difference between wealth & rorting and helping taxpayers by not sucking on the pension.
    George
    12th Sep 2018
    8:20pm
    Yes, Mick, a survey in June 2017 is quoted to show less people were getting Age Pension, after the nasty changes to Assets Test in Jan 2017 caused that decline! Shows how statistics can be misused to suit any narrative!
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    8:51pm
    The old adage "lies, damned lied and statistics" is a well worn one. Politicians distort the truth all the time to mislead and confuse people with little or no knowledge.
    TREBOR
    13th Sep 2018
    1:01am
    'very low incomes' - only 75% of the proceeds spread over 10% - 25% left for the other 90%. who are you kidding, OG?

    This shows clearly that there are too many rorts and too many loop-holes.

    I have to agree that the small shareholder should not be penalised - they ARE, after all, the ones with the low income, and a threshold must be in place.

    On top of that all these lovely tax avoidance structures need to be fully reviewed and set right.
    Old Geezer
    13th Sep 2018
    8:51am
    Garbage Trebor. Stop reading Labor lies and get your facts right instead. Nothing changes for the wealthy as they still get the benefit of their franking credits.

    Labor is getting away with this bullshit simply because many people have no idea what franking credits are. If Labor said they were not refunding tax over paid by the employers their would be an outcry. The non refund of franking credits is exactly the same thing.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    14th Sep 2018
    7:00am
    Trebor, you have no idea what CRAP you are peddling here. THE WEALTHY KEEP THEIR FRANKING CREDITS. The high income earners KEEP THEIR FRANKING CREDITS. The well-off pensioners with healthy savings or extra income KEEP THEIR FRANKING CREDITS.

    The ONLY people who lose under SHORT-ON-BRAIN'S CRAP are the battlers with very low incomes who happen to have invested in shares. Since few low-wage earners invest in shares, not many of them will be hit. But the SFRs who are not much over the assets threshold will have their income demolished - and why? Because they committed the apparently terrible sin of saving to try to avoid being a burden on the taxpayer in old age!

    Stop peddling Labor lies and start standing up for those who are being threatened with a grossly unfair FURTHER blow, after already losing $10K or more through a hideously unfair assets test change.

    A couple with over $60,000 a year in steady income can get a part pension - and KEEP THEIR FRANKING CREDITS. Why should someone who saved from after-tax income be deprived of income in old age?

    For once, OG is right. Franking credits are merely a refund of tax taken from income that the recipient should not have had to pay because they don't earn enough. If Labor said ''no PAYE tax refund if you don't earn enough to pay tax'' the screams would be heard in at the North Pole, but those whinging about handouts not being enough are quite content to see people who saved have their lifestyle totally demolished and their savings milked unfairly.
    Not a Bludger
    12th Sep 2018
    1:05pm
    I told you so - here is Mick moaning and groaning again - took no time at all!
    roy
    12th Sep 2018
    1:15pm
    MICK is one very sad little man with nothing to do but whinge and ski.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    1:34pm
    To use your boss's usual lament: "envy". You're green with it.
    I'll stick up for the truth and the facts. You never do. Trolls can't as the truth kills there spiel.
    roy
    12th Sep 2018
    1:39pm
    How much have the ALP paid you lately Chief Troll?

    And I think you mean their spiel Troll MICK.
    Circum
    12th Sep 2018
    1:41pm
    Micks comments are correct.Basic maths tells you if you change the assets test you get a different result.So yes there are more people being forced to live off their own resources.What is not known is how many of those people will be forced to go back on the pension when their resources go down eventually.
    Rae
    12th Sep 2018
    2:19pm
    Don't worry MICK the way both the LNP and ALP are going within no time we'll be cutting pensions, and have higher GST and land taxes and we'll see who whines then.

    Look up what happened to Greece when they started not paying any tax and paying too much welfare and ramping up their debt levels.

    The latest increase is purely a vote buying policy. They know they can't keep paying out all the billions to everyone except the few of us not dependent on the taxpayer.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    12th Sep 2018
    4:46pm
    Correct Circum. We also have to question how many yet-to-retire will retire on pensions rather than save the extra to achieve SFR status because the punishment for saving is so harsh and there's no benefit to going without to accumulate more.

    The current system is pushing people to divest their savings if they don't have $1.5 million plus or a method of getting very high returns. Some will divest slowly for the exclusive benefit of taxpayers, tolerating the unfairness and abuse of the government, but many will opt to take advice from financial planners who are telling everyone if you can't have $1.5 mil you might as well limit yourself to $500K or less and enjoy a healthy income on a part pension with all the benefits.
    TREBOR
    12th Sep 2018
    5:45pm
    First we have to be very clear what welfare is and what is covered by that term, Rae. Tax hand-outs and excessive super donations from government for some with enough already are welfare... unwarranted business tax cuts are welfare... I would consider childcare to someone who has already avoided tax massively is welfare but not so to a single parent... we also need to look at PPL - especially at the top end.

    As Rainey says - many will wind down their assets etc and the claim pension. The entire system is flawed and in need of drastic surgery.
    Old Geezer
    12th Sep 2018
    7:20pm
    OGR those couples with a $1m will also divest so they get a small pension.

    Here is an example of why they will do so.

    As an example, consider a couple with $1,000,000 invested in Australian shares outside super and no other income. Assume they earn 4.2% dividends. Their dividends are $42,000 and their franking credits are $18,000. Their taxable income together is $60,000, and the franking credit represents 30% of the total which is the company tax portion of the profit attributed to the shareholder. So their taxable income is $30,000 each and they are each entitled to a franking (tax) credit of $9,000. The tax on $30,000 is $1,797 after the Low Income Tax Offset but their tax credit is $9,000 so they are each entitled to a tax refund of $7,203 or $14,406 together. Their after-tax income as a couple is $56,406.

    According to Chris Bowen, they do not pay any tax so they shouldn’t get a refund. Under the proposed policy, this couple’s after-tax income is $42,000 from the dividends alone or a reduction of about 25%. They each have taxable incomes of $30,000 but they only receive $21,000 each after tax. For these individuals, having their tax refund of $7,203 withheld is effectively a new tax.

    If this couple were of pension age, they would not be eligible for the age pension because of the assets test. If instead, this couple had less assets, say, $800,000, they would be eligible for a small part age pension of about $100 per fortnight but, because they now qualify for the exemption, they also keep their franking credits. For this couple, their dividends are $33,600 (4.2%) and their franking credits are $14,400. Their taxable income together is $48,000. Their taxable income is $24,000 each and they are each entitled to a franking (tax) credit of $7,200. The tax on $24,000 is $657 after the Low Income Tax Offset but their tax credit is $7,200 so they are each entitled to a tax refund of $6,543 or $13,086 together. Their after-tax income is $46,686 plus the age pension of $2,852. They are better off for income than the couple who have $1 million.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    8:27pm
    I apologise for people who have managed to accumulate a few basic assets to provide a pension in retirement but the same people would be hopping mad if Australians who modestly provided for themselves all landed on the pension and the pension had to be reduced as a result.
    We should ALL be happy that some of us have worked hard to achieve a degree of self sufficiency without demonising people who did this. What those fold will not acknowledge is that most self funded retirees are not wealthy but just slightly ahead of the pack. Would not think that should be treated as a crime. Unlike some of our countrymen we're not crooks.
    Rae
    13th Sep 2018
    7:07am
    Yes OG. I don't believe Hockey and Morrison were clever enough to see the consequences of "that" budget. Morrison is trying to undo some of the damage now in a vote buying frenzy.

    They pretty much managed to stuff the whole concept of superannuation. In fact by taxing going in and in the fund instead of at the end the whole idea of compounding is wrecked.

    It's a dog's breakfast of one stupid policy after another with no regard to consequences nor human nature.

    Like you I'm pleased to invest right out of it where all I have to be concerned with is the ATO and the Markets.
    TREBOR
    13th Sep 2018
    8:03am
    Very handy if you can, Rae - not all can..... in fact,the majority do not have that opportunity.
    Old Geezer
    13th Sep 2018
    8:53am
    Why can't everyone do what Rae has done Trebor? Everyone has that opportunity but most fail to take it.
    Rae
    13th Sep 2018
    3:37pm
    Why not TREBOR. All I did was save a little bit every pay first before I did anything else. It's called paying yourself first and is surprisingly easy.
    Noodles
    14th Sep 2018
    9:58am
    I agree with you Rae....if some people had planned ahead some people would be quite ok in their retirement....I fully realise not all would have had the opportunity to do this but there are many who could have but chose to live a different lifestyle. You do not have to go without everything in life...but you can moderate things to make sure you build up something for your later life so you can enjoy your retirement instead of just existing.
    KSS
    12th Sep 2018
    1:11pm
    Predictable outcomes given that compulsory super was only 5 years old in 1997. Twenty years later it is having the desired effect.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    1:35pm
    Getting there but most boomers are short by at least 15 years.
    TREBOR
    12th Sep 2018
    6:06pm
    Yes - short by 25 years if the working life on average (was) is 50 years....

    Now a light musical interlude... Gold Watch Blues by Donovan...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHg__kkXKY4
    floss
    12th Sep 2018
    1:24pm
    Mick always enjoy your well thought out comments they must be very close to the mark as you always get a loud response from the look at me greedy group.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    1:36pm
    Thanks. The trolls hate it and are unable to hold a debate because the facts are damning.
    Old Geezer
    12th Sep 2018
    2:26pm
    Floss you really need a change of glasses if you are reading Mick's comments and come to that conclusion. Get yourself a new pair quick before you embarrass yourself further.
    Jim
    12th Sep 2018
    3:29pm
    No Floss it’s not the look at me greedy group that respond to Mick’s comments, it’s the ones that have read his comments over time, the one thing that has never changed is his hatred of the LNP and his love of the Labor party, but his old original claims were always to vote independent because you couldn’t trust either of the major parties, we know people can change their minds especially as we age, but if you carefully analyse some of his comments you will see that they come straight from the Labor party manifesto, he often quotes sources but doesn’t say that they come from the Gaurdian or the Huffington post which are notorious left wing media sources, or from the in conversation group who he recently quoted regarding the cost of power in SA and used their information to state that the whole thing about energy costs in SA was a lie being spread by the mainstream media, unfortuanateley the in conversation group are a bunch of journo’s that analyse a set of facts and try to make them say something different, if you had read the article that was quoted you would have seen that in fact the SA energy prices were the most costly in Australia. This is the reason that contributors on this site give a loud response to some of the comments, we wouldn’t have it any other way, that’s what free speech is all about, it doesn’t mean that it’s the truth or a lie it’s just one man’s perspective.
    Old Geezer
    12th Sep 2018
    3:38pm
    No mention is ever made in such publications of the cost of having and running those big diesel generators in SA either.
    roy
    12th Sep 2018
    5:43pm
    Jim. MICK has a screw loose, that's for sure. Furthermore he is just a paid labor troll. One day we will read that he has been sanctioned and the sooner the better. I hope he's declaring his fees from the ALP for tax purposes, are you MICK?
    roy
    12th Sep 2018
    5:44pm
    floss, go to specsavers fro goodness sake.
    TREBOR
    12th Sep 2018
    5:47pm
    roy - that is unwarranted nastiness... argue the points and not the man or cop ten minutes in the sin bin..... even in Thuggery League you cop a binning for that kind of thing....
    roy
    12th Sep 2018
    6:59pm
    So TREBOR, I mustn't call MICK a troll, is that what you are saying, pot kettle black springs to mind, I rest my case.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    8:33pm
    Thanks TREBOR. Always interesting to see the government funded trolls at work. As usual NO FACTS. Just their vile spew.
    I'll try to stick to facts. Oh yes Jim I have to admit I have developed a hatred of the current government. Whilst I am not a hateful type person I hate dictatorships for what they do to citizens around the planet. The current government is wanting to join the club. The ministers in it are dishonest, vile and for the most part despicable human beings.
    Thank you for reminding me of my failing. I'll relent when this lot are gone and hope that Labor does not succumb to self destruction and does the job it says it will. We'll see.
    TREBOR
    13th Sep 2018
    1:04am
    But... but... but.... roy! You don't actually contribute to the discussion - you slag others, especially Mick.

    Have you heard that anyone who has nothing positive (one way or the other - you can argue the merits any way you choose) to add to the discussion has nothing to add?

    Aim for the goal posts, not your opponents's head....
    pedro the swift
    12th Sep 2018
    1:39pm
    OG, I don't know why you bother to post since its the same line all the time. I don''t even read your inane comments any more.
    Old Geezer
    12th Sep 2018
    2:23pm
    Well you must be reading them to comment that they are all the same.
    TREBOR
    12th Sep 2018
    5:48pm
    OG, suffering from early dementia, wanders between two vastly different personae, and often finds himself lost and unable to recognise things and people...
    Jim
    12th Sep 2018
    6:25pm
    Trebor, you can’t have it both ways, you comment on rudeness or nastiness in an earlier comment, them proceed to do the same, must be catching.
    Old Geezer
    12th Sep 2018
    7:00pm
    Trebor you are the one confused here in imaging that I have more than one personae.
    MICK
    12th Sep 2018
    8:36pm
    Pretty observant comment pedro. You are on the money as OG and a couple of other posters are simply muckrakers posting for payment. We all see through them as no discussion. Just vile spew and nonsense politically motivated comments intended to disrupt people from thinking about the facts and issues.
    Keep up the good work.
    TREBOR
    13th Sep 2018
    1:06am
    I'm just tickling Ebergeezer Scrooge's ribs.... when is a diagnosis a personal attack?

    Me? I'm totally consistent....
    TREBOR
    13th Sep 2018
    1:09am
    Ebergeezer, on the other hand, wanders between extreme hatred of pensioners and claimed warm, fuzzy, humanitarianism for people who he assists with Centrelink etc....

    The two are pretty irreconcilable without a diagnosis of a wandering mind... and given his age, his need for medications, and his extremes such as having left work and then developed a huge income from apparently nothing - one is pretty fairly disposed to diagnose him as suffering from dementia (not that there's anything wrong with that)...

    It's not a personal attack - I'm just trying to reach the poor old fella and help him resolve his contradictions... help him get in touch with his inner stable personality........
    Rae
    13th Sep 2018
    7:17am
    I often agree with OG's comments. Not about some things like using estates to repay welfare but it wouldn't surprise me if that comes. The 9 news last night made much of the need for the aged to use assets for care. The can't throw billions at the young and wealthy and still have anything left for us.

    I'm certainly glad Centrelink has no idea of what I own. Nothing is surer than Serco controlled welfare and privatisation of everyone's assets if they can get away with it and after the lack of protest while the Governments sold everything and half the country I'm assuming they'll rightly believe we are fair game.
    TREBOR
    13th Sep 2018
    8:06am
    "Not about some things like using estates to repay welfare but it wouldn't surprise me if that comes."

    Proof positive that the retirement system needs to be removed from the hands of government and placed in a fully independent body, with the same rules for all in a uinversl retirement packaging scheme.

    How dare anyone suggest that an individual should pay a lifetime of 7.5% plus levies from other strands of taxation towards an eventual pension - and then have to pay it back EVER?
    TREBOR
    13th Sep 2018
    8:08am
    In another vein, Rae - this is Fascism/Communism Extremism writ large - with the individual being an absolute vassal of the State and subject to it at every turn.

    No wonder revolutions take place constantly, with that kind of governance.
    Old Geezer
    13th Sep 2018
    8:48am
    Trebor it is no different asking someone to pay back their pension from their estate and not giving it to some people at all. All it does is even things up for everyone especially those sitting one very expensive real estate just so they get the pension.
    Rae
    13th Sep 2018
    3:42pm
    Yes TREBOR but the extreme far right is calling the shots now it seems. Why else would they sack Turnbull.

    I'm sure they will sort that putting all your eggs in the home basket to get a pension OG. It's a matter of time. There are too many of us and too few workers and a diminishing tax base as young people get rebates for all sorts of things we would never have dreamed of expecting taxpayers to pay for us.
    roy
    13th Sep 2018
    7:41pm
    C'mon MICK, you post for payment, own up please.
    Noodles
    14th Sep 2018
    10:02am
    Read the other day it is 1 person working now to support 14 on welfare.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th Sep 2018
    6:36am
    And you believed that idiotic propaganda, Noodles? Come on now! 14 people x even $20,000 a year (and welfare costs a lot more than that when you count administration costs and benefits) is $28u,000 a year. How many folk to you know who pay $280,000 a year in tax?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th Sep 2018
    6:38am
    The way to have fewer on welfare is to redesign the welfare system to encourage and reward hard work and frugal living, instead of punishing the lifters and rewarding cheats, manipulators and spendthrifts. But the idiot policy makers just don't get it. They are doing fine on the public purse, so they can't think past ''take it off anyone who has some and isn't in my privileged sector''.
    4b2
    12th Sep 2018
    3:42pm
    I think this a result of two things. 1/ The removal of compulsory retirement at age 65 and 2/ The introduction of the compulsory superannuation scheme.
    I don't believe many of the over 65 are working because they want to, but are uncertain of the returns of the superannuation scheme and the consistent changes by various governments.
    saintagnes
    12th Sep 2018
    3:45pm
    Ted - that is the truth. Less on a full pension due to changes in eligibility. As a past statistician - numbers can say anything you want them to.
    Jim
    12th Sep 2018
    4:55pm
    Couldn’t agree more, you can make any statistic mean something different, it all depends on what you are trying to achieve, and the way you use the numbers, for instance is it true that we have more people on welfare because of the influx of refugees both legal and iilegal, or can we make a case for the more people we have the more things people need to buy/use so therefore employment must increase to service those needs!
    Old Geezer
    13th Sep 2018
    9:01am
    If people's assets are not being used in retirement for those on welfare then they are simply getting too much welfare. If it is still happening then more changes need to be paid so that the next generations don't get lottery wins at the expense of the taxpayers.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th Sep 2018
    6:35am
    Crap, OG. People who save have a right to pass their savings on to their children. Why should the big spenders and wasters be rewarded for their self-indulgence while the savers are beaten up and have the benefits of their frugal lifestyle STOLEN to give to others? It's WRONG. Everyone who works and pays taxes for 4-5 decades should be properly rewarded in old age. And the right people should be paying their way through taxes instead of rorting to get rich at the expense of the rest of society. Start TAXING THE RICH FAIRLY. There's plenty of money to go around if taxes were applied sensibly and equitably.
    Noodles
    13th Sep 2018
    9:15am
    In Russia the average age men live to is 66. It is planned to raise the penion age to 63 for women and 65 for men. It is not going down well in Russia.
    Old Geezer
    13th Sep 2018
    9:37am
    Pension age here should be closer to the age people live to too. It is simply not on that people wish the taxpayers to look after them financially for 30 or more years.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th Sep 2018
    6:25am
    Wrong, OG. People live to varying ages depending on a huge number of factors - many that have nothing to do with their lifestyle choices - and they live to varying ages in varying states of health and well-being. There needs to be far more recognition of the struggles of those whose health fails, or who can't find suitable work and are thus excluded from the benefits that living longer should deliver. What we need to do is pay a universal age pension and make far better provision for the sick, disabled and long-term unemployed. Taxes are NOT high in Australia, and are applied wrongly. If we taxed sensibly, we could afford for everyone to have quality of life instead of making the disadvantaged slaves to line the pockets of the stinking rich and privileged.
    Charlie
    13th Sep 2018
    10:12am
    This implies that everyone "decides" at what age they will retire...There is just no perception of the degeneration that happens with age and how unpredictable it is.

    So what ever reasons the academics give for people working longer, they need to be careful how they analyse things....

    Some people have jobs that are less demanding and can work for longer, that's if their employer wants it that way.. Even in stable organizations like the public service there are managers who want to abolish permanent positions and replace them with contract positions. In NSW during the Greiner era there were redundancy packages thrown in all directions.

    Some people get hit with health problems that make it impossible for any full time employment.

    When it comes to compulsory super many people retiring now, didn't have it for the first 20 years of their employment, although there were some quite good non compulsory schemes operating at the time, where both the government and the employee made a contribution

    So its a little bit early to be assuming that its all been so stable, that people just retire when they want to.
    Old Geezer
    14th Sep 2018
    4:04pm
    This will change under a Labor government as self funded retirees income fall by 30% plus. They have already had a gut full so they will do what it takes just to get the pension to preserve their already low income.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th Sep 2018
    6:21am
    For once, you are right, OG. Pensioners should be more concerned with defending the rights of SFRs instead of screaming for bigger handouts, because when hundreds of thousands of SFRs throw up their hands and go on the pension, there will be a lot less to go around and then watch the pension and benefit rates fall.
    patti
    16th Sep 2018
    10:13am
    Even if I hadn't had to cash in my meagre super to fund a long and protracted divorce settlement, I would certainly not have had enough to fund me through my retirement years. All I have is my house, which is more of a money pit than a source of income!
    Cheezil61
    16th Sep 2018
    9:08pm
    Hhmmm serious?. Some articles make you wonder really!
    Probably less people relying on pensions because the rules are tighter, not because they chose/want to work longer surely!!


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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