Can Australia afford its retirees?

Survey finds more Australians are retiring with inadequate funds.

retired couple

More Australians are intending to retire even though they have inadequate savings, according to a recent Roy Morgan survey.

At the same time, a Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) report released last week reveals how much retirees will cost the economy in the next 10 years. Which begs the question: can Australia afford its growing legion of retirees?

The Roy Morgan poll put the number of Australians intending to retire in the next 12 months at 439,000 – a six per cent increase on the 2018 level of 414,000 and 11 per cent higher than the 2017 figure of 395,000. The savings levels of the intended retirees were well below the recommended level to be self-funded, the survey says. The anticipated result is that this group is likely to be at least partly reliant on the Age Pension.

The Roy Morgan survey says the average gross wealth (total assets excluding owner-occupied homes) of intending retirees is $299,000, up two per cent on 2017 when it was $293,000. The average debt level for this group is $27,000, which reduces average net wealth to $272,000 – a figure “generally considered to be inadequate for self-funded retirement”, says Roy Morgan.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) estimates that an individual needs $545,000 and a couple $640,000 for a “comfortable retirement”.

Roy Morgan communications director Norman Morris says that total savings (including super) are still falling well short for many current retirees.

“A contributing factor to savings falling short of desirable levels has been a reduction in the average age of intending retirees, which has fallen from 62 years, 12 months ago to 58 years currently,” he says. “This obviously has the potential to reduce savings due to a shorter working life.

“Additional pressures on retirement decisions are the declining real estate market, share market volatility and superannuation conditions if there is a change of government. These factors have the potential to delay retirement decisions and encourage people to keep their jobs longer, particularly if the Government tightens up the qualifications for the Age Pension or other retirement benefits.”

The cost of the Age Pension to the economy in 2017-18, according to the PBO, was $45 billion.

In 10 years’ time, it says baby boomers will cost the budget $20 billion more in lost revenue, because most will not be paying income tax.

But is this a problem? The Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association (CPSA) is not so sure that it is.

“Baby boomers will cost $16 billion more in Age Pensions, aged care and health, but younger generations will also cost the 2028-29 Budget more – $104 billion to be precise,” the CPSA said in a statement. “So all up in 10 years’ time, expenditure will be up $120 billion while revenue will be up $187 billion.

“Australia can afford its baby boomers.”

If you are retired, do you think you retired too early? Are you concerned about the long-term funding of your retirement?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    tisme
    30th Apr 2019
    10:15am
    can asustralia afford to pay to unpaid carers that which workers take for granted?? unpaid carers generally care for family ( like I have 4 family members at the same time with various issues ) all by myself , the govt pays me 3.50 an hour to do it. if I cared for strangers I would get what workers get. plus I have no superannuation. So many carers whose caring days come to an end face homelessness What ever the government cant afford , they can always afford to pay themselves.
    MICK
    30th Apr 2019
    5:24pm
    Maybe the government should export retirees.

    I found the bit which claimed you could have a comfortable retirement on capital of $640,000. 3% of 640.000 = $19,200 pa. Not sure what degree of "comfortable" that is. Of course if you get 5% in a superannuation fund that's $32,000 pa.....which is LESS than a government pension.

    Maybe I'm dreamin?
    Sundays
    30th Apr 2019
    7:46pm
    Mick, with a capital of $640k, you can top up with a part pension.
    MICK
    30th Apr 2019
    9:03pm
    Fair enough. You are correct Sundays.
    OlderandWiser
    1st May 2019
    9:27am
    here we again O&W, changing the post to include a bitch rant about FC's & poor me
    Jannie
    30th Apr 2019
    10:39am
    CAN AUSTRALIA AFFORD MORE IMMIGRANTS? THAT IS THE BIG QUESTION AND OUR POLITICIANS ARE IGNORING THIS FACT.
    Blinky
    30th Apr 2019
    11:08am
    If pollies can afford THEIR own fat pensions guaranteed x life, they must guarantee pensions x all.
    What's good x the goose...
    Mondo
    30th Apr 2019
    12:11pm
    Sorry Jannie but the answer is yes, we can't afford not to have more immigrants. Australia's birth rate is below replacement level so if you want your pension paid in the future there needs to be sufficient people of working age to fund it. But maybe you are prepared to forego that?
    The solution is the right immigrants but from personal experience many will contribute much more to this country than they take back.
    My wife and I came here many years ago, with ittle money and no jobs. We both found jobs within 3 days, we have never been unemployed, we've paid a heap of tax and are totally self funded retirees, no healthcare card or any benefits at all. No one here paid for our education, my wife has educated thousands of children and I have helped create thousands of jobs in my line of work.
    So what's your problem?
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    12:27pm
    So why do we so desperately need a rising birth rate at a time of economic devastation wrought by unthinking and uncaring adherence to some myth of a 'global economy' that never was? It's not as if everyone these days is meaningfully employed in full-time permanent jobs with a genuine future, is it?

    Cosmo, with all due respect, times were vastly different then. We actually had infrastructure in the way of (wait for it) INDUSTRIES - where anyone could get a job and with perseverance prosper and one day own a home etc.

    You should thank your stars for a fortunate run free of the illnesses of modern society, a run BTW - that you would never have received in The Old Country. Those days have been destroyed by ineptitude, self-interest and sheer stupidity on the part of our 'political leaders', with their inability to actually grasp real issues for the many.

    Now, on the one hand we have a ceaseless demand for lower taxes etc on 'business' = subsidies to businesses (which simultaneously claims to be strong, independent and driven by market forces etc but employ few and often none in a genuinely productive capacity) - while removing direct subsidies to businesses that once employed thousands and very well.

    BTW - 'economic theory' in the 'social science of economics' is just like all the other social sciences - nobody really knows or can prove, so they try something out and see if it 'works' - if not, tough titties for those affected. Either that or they simply generate a false reality which nobody has the time or energy to dispute, and then claim expertise in it.

    Poor Fellow - My Country.
    Jannie
    30th Apr 2019
    1:01pm
    Cosmo when you came to Australia things were different. We had a shortage of working men as we lost a lot of great men fighting wars for other countries and keeping invading countries from our shores. There were no handouts for immigrants so they had to make a go of it, today it is too easy for them to go on to pensions, I know quite a few. Also we had an infra structure that was able to handle the population, today too many people and not enough ifra structure, eg hospitals, over crowded roads, you name it we are not prepared. Anyway things are a lot different now and we are at war due to terrorism. The future is not good for all of us. So my problem is that we should be looking after our own backyard and not over populate. There are so many people homeless, young and old, also beggars on our streets, go figure.
    jaycee1
    30th Apr 2019
    1:19pm
    Jannie, we arrived here in 1973. For the first 6 weeks we were provided with a room in a hostel - all meals were included for the first 2 weeks. During that 2 weeks we were expected to find full time work [we did]. You then had an additional 4 weeks to find somewhere to stay - if you hadn't you were still asked to leave.
    There was no pussy footing around. If you hadn't found work or somewhere else to stay you were out and while there was social security it was NOT available for people who had just arrived into the country.
    It is a great pity that this system was discontinued. Worked with Commonwealth Employment before they became Centrelink - we had one person get off a plane at 6am and he was on our doorstep waiting to register for unemployment at 8am. Didn't speak a word of english but had instructions of what he could get on a slip of paper.
    jackie
    30th Apr 2019
    1:35pm
    Jannie...can Australia continue to afford to pay politician pensions? They are not means tested and the amount is not the same as the rest of us.

    Australia has no industries. It relies on migration from developing countries. They are either rich or slave labour who come here for a better lifestyle and pay big money to stay.

    They buy into our inflated property market, new household and electricals, new cars and create small business here for the slave labor markets. Food places, nail salons and massage centres for our overseas student population doing dumbed down courses to stay in the country.
    jackie
    30th Apr 2019
    1:47pm
    Cosmo...Australian hospitals are full of children being born here. Their parents are migrants from developing countries that came here to have a better life.

    To escape the over population and pollution they grew up in. They continue to do what their parents did and ignore the fact that all the problems of the world are due to overpopulation in plague proportion by some races.

    This is the reason why immigration has gone hard globally and will get tougher. Governments should hand out free contraception to the rabbits.
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    1:52pm
    Population growth is a more nuanced conversation than simply anti-immigration posturing. Immigration is necessary to sustain our quality of life with declining birth rates and an ageing population in need of healthcare and pensions. The fertility rate has halved in the last 50 years and been below the replacement rate since 1976. Currently we are at around 15% over 65 and trending up.

    If you want to have a snapshot of the challenges faced by already ageing populations look no further than Japan which already has 20% of its population over 65 and tracking towards 40%. Germany is also a super-aged population and the UK will following in the next decade.
    jackie
    30th Apr 2019
    5:12pm
    Farside...All those countries are wealthy because they stopped breeding. Most Australians don't need a pension because they are well off. Look how much assets you can own, money in the bank you are allowed and income you can still earn whilst getting a pension. If most were cut off they wouldn't starve.
    MICK
    30th Apr 2019
    5:28pm
    That indeed IS THE QUESTION Jannie. We need more migrants like we need a hole in the head but its a populist hot topic where votes are bought whilst the country continues to be sold out. And that does not even touch as section of our community which hates us but is protected from mention in the media with (claimed) hate laws intended to shut down all discussion whilst we see these citizens involved in vicious and immoral criminal behaviour on the News every other night.
    I'm not sure Shorten has the spine to stare down the migrants who have shut down free speech under the claim of hate crimes or bring the media to start behaving honestly again.

    What a world we are leaving our children.
    Mondo
    30th Apr 2019
    5:43pm
    Jackie Germans are successful because they work hard and they work smart, I know because I have worked there. They design and make great products that the world wants and are prepared to pay for, It's work before sport not the other way around. They don't sell out their businesses to foreigners because they know how to run them and they keep their businesses within their families, planning for their next two generations, not a quck buck tomorrow. Indidentally the population of Germany is 80 million not the 25 million of Australia and its growing and they cant get enough workers to fuel their industrial growth.
    ozirules
    30th Apr 2019
    10:50am
    I retired in my mid 50's and it was not too early at all. If you plan to enjoy life after retirement be aware that there is a small window of opportunity to do this as the gap between being a wrinkly and a crumbly can be very short. As for Australia being able to afford pensions we are way behind other countries who can and do pay universal pensions. I f we cant do it it just shows what mismanagement our recent governments of both persuasions have engaged in.
    Flaneuse
    30th Apr 2019
    11:02am
    We are a wealthy country. It's a matter of government priorities - subsidise the wealthy who pay little or no tax, or meet the needs of ordinary citizens. And meet our humanitarian obligations to welcome refugees. Allowing people to live in poverty is a government policy choice.
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    12:32pm
    I posted yesterday that there is an urgent need to fully review where REAL tax is being drawn, and where it is being spent.

    Always plenty of money in the till for a party or politician personal wet dream - but none for the bills now falling due - such as retirement for the many.

    Let's throw more billions at childcare subsidies and maintain high un and under employment... let's throw billions at mining projects that will end up paying no tax other than the income tax paid by the few workers ... let's throw work offshore to foreign countries that will NEVER reciprocate with a contract to build underwater airships while our experienced workforce lies fallow and wonders where their super fund will be coming from, let alone their midday meal ...... stuff the pensioners and smaller SFRs...
    jaycee1
    30th Apr 2019
    1:24pm
    Trebor,
    As you say there always seems to be enough money to give tax breaks to the rich people/companies.
    Why is so much money sent overseas in aid to countries that are wealthier than Australia??
    If money is made in this country then people/companies SHOULD be paying their fair share of tax here. It should not matter what country their head office is in - that is NOT the country that they made the money in.
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    1:50pm
    Hence my reference to Trump's mooted 'minimum tax' - around 30% I think for offshore corporations.. otherwise all that happens is that all profits are sent offshore and no tax paid here. My example of Pear Computers holds - the only ones who pay tax here are their employees - who are employed for as long as Pear wants them.... mining companies from offshore do the same - virtually 'zero' profit on the books - so only their 150 odd 'permanent' workers (for the permanence of the project, mind) actually pay any tax.

    Such an approach is simply not sustainable in the short or long term, and explains why there is such massive borrowing by government... to make up the shortfall created by their own unwillingness to address offshoring of profits.

    Some nation in the world has to take a stand and refuse to allow this blatant international robbery to continue... Australian politicians love to 'lead the world by example' over our minute carbon footprint etc and our 'social' policies (more anti-social) to privilege small and vociferous special interest groups - this is a much more important initiative to implement and show by example.

    Lock The Gates on offshored tax.
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    1:54pm
    nicely put Flaneuse. Choices have consequences.
    Mondo
    30th Apr 2019
    7:37pm
    Well Ozirules you've got what apparently most Australians, certainly parliament the representatives of the people wanted, a pure Ozi parliament, no nasty dual nationals here to brng in dangerous foreign ideas; migrants asn't wanted but then you complain other countries do things better than us. What a conundrum!
    ozirules
    1st May 2019
    10:43am
    hey Cosmo, I sense your irony but I didnt complain about dual nationals. I think if you are a naturalized Aussie you should have the same rights as a native born Aussie else you are telling these people they are second best and not a true citizen. Good grief for the first umpteen years of our history every politician in the land was a British Subject. The whole dual nationality farce was a political ploy to gain the advantage of numbers in parliament which went horrendously wrong and cost us taxpayers heaps of money and the loss of duly elected members. I am faced with no conundrum, we have had under performing lying governments with their snouts in the trough for as long as I remember.
    Mondo
    1st May 2019
    12:55pm
    Fair comment Ozirules. I am not suggesting this applies to you at all but so many of the posts seem to Infer that these horrible 'aliens' are responsible for their pension woes. As a second class dual alien I've well and truly provided for our old age and through the tax system for many others. I agree however that there are better welfare and pension systems we could benefit from following.
    leek
    2nd May 2019
    6:51pm
    Ozirules- you had me laughing, with your description of the time between being a "wrinkly & a crumbly". I live in a retirement village and am the youngest here, and I know exactly what you mean. I still work(casually), and my neighbour(now moved to a home) used to think I had an "interesting" life. he was definitely a crumbly.
    I am sort of a wrinkly, and you are right, the window is small, although not that small.
    Making the best of it with 10 cruises this year, because I can see my future and am making best that window you are talking about.
    ardnher
    5th May 2019
    2:11pm
    for those who do not want more money going in overseas aid...get used to it when Bill gets in..it is going to go up every year!

    Labor will increase Australia's foreign aid spending every year if it wins the next federal election and is set to pursue official recognition of Palestine.

    Foreign policy votes held on the final day of Labor's national conference in Adelaide on Tuesday will see a Shorten government work to more than double spending on overseas development assistance from its lowest levels in recent Australian history.

    A series of backroom negotiations resulted in potentially contentious issues being resolved by party powerbrokers privately, part of efforts to finish the three-day meeting without a major fight on amendments to Labor's platform.
    ardnher
    5th May 2019
    2:13pm
    nosilver spoon here either..hard work from early teens, saving hard and now fully self funded and retired early 50's.
    Flaneuse
    30th Apr 2019
    10:58am
    Articles like this make me angry. The implication is that aged people are a burden on society and should just take the peaceful pill and get out of the way. We have worked hard and paid taxes all our lives, and contributed a great deal to our communuties. Some people - particularly women - have had life events that limited their capacity to accumulate superannuation or to save for retirement; they are entitled to the pension, and to respect for the contributions they have made to society.
    Blinky
    30th Apr 2019
    11:05am
    Yes, Flaneuse. Oz pensioner built this country n psid taxes. Treating pensioners like this is a shame. See my comments below.
    ray from Bondi
    30th Apr 2019
    11:33am
    her here, I did not expect this from here but it seems so so, this is how right-wing media convinces the population, an article here an article there, and before you know the oven door is open.
    Old Man
    30th Apr 2019
    12:59pm
    Thanks Flaneuse, well put and I think any reasonable person could not but agree with you.
    On the Ball
    30th Apr 2019
    1:51pm
    Thank you Flaneuse. Well said.
    And comments like this: ""declining real estate market, share market volatility and superannuation conditions if there is a change of government. "" Just prove it.

    In case no one has noticed (and before Scomo tries to blame Labor) the housing market was unsustainable, and now is in serious DECLINE. Yes, now.
    And as for superannuation changes, the LNP are far more likely to try to thwart Union ownership of Superannuation funds than Labor! Labor invented compulsory Super, without which most people would have no Super at all! Add to that the painful truth (for the Extreme right mob) that Australian Super (a union fund) is way ahead of most other super funds, and way way ahead of all Retail funds.
    Old Man
    30th Apr 2019
    3:08pm
    No, On the Ball, compulsory super was around long before Hawke and Keating were ever elected to parliament. Anyone who worked for the public service had compulsory super so all Keating did was to expand it to those who were not public servants. It was a great thing and well overdue but not invented by Hawke and Keating.
    MICK
    30th Apr 2019
    5:32pm
    We ARE a burden on millennials Flaneuse. If they had their way we'd likely be asset stripped and sent to the third world. Ok...I'm being too tough on the little blighters. I have however heard and seen enough to be concerned at what boomers are to the younger generation and what they expect from us. Ain't pretty.
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    8:12pm
    Mick, no doubt the millenials will have their day and take back the wealth accumulated by the silent and boomer generations ... inheritance taxes, land taxes, transaction taxes, environment levies and more. Greedy retirees and their heirs will be choking on their cornflakes about now and it matters little which side of politics they vote for. The rise of the SPECs has begun.
    MICK
    30th Apr 2019
    9:07pm
    I agree this is coming Farside.
    Don't agree with your sweeping statement though as not all people have a silver spoon or suck on the royal jelly to accumulate what is a small stash. As with most things in life there's a price we pay for achieving more than others and this never seems to be weighed up on the balance scales of life. The real issue is those who game the system and are wealthy because they fail to pay a fair contribution to society. That gets up my nose too and the higher up the tree you go the worse the arrogance and greed gets.
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    9:26pm
    Mick, I did not mean to include all retirees as having a silver spoon or line on royal jelly, apologies if it came across this way. But the % of national wealth held by the +75s and +55s will inevitably fall.
    Misty
    3rd May 2019
    10:51am
    Sorry Old Man but you are wrong, Google it and you will see that Paul Keating introduced the Compulsory Super ComntriBution Scheme in 1991 that came into full effect in 1992. Super was around before then but it was not compulsory.
    Franky
    30th Apr 2019
    10:59am
    Can we afford new submarines fighter jets, fighting other nation's wars? Where should the priority be?
    Jenny
    30th Apr 2019
    11:09am
    My sentiments exactly. Billions spent on defence - on whose behalf?
    KSS
    30th Apr 2019
    12:52pm
    Your's Jenny.
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    1:59pm
    Yes - there remains a basic need for defence capability - with modern equipment that works. Looking at the pre WW II preparedness of the(later) Allied nations, one must ponder what serious deficits are currently in play as regards real defence capability.

    Engaging in small 'brushfire' wars 'bloods' the troops - but has serious drawbacks in their way of viewing things.... e.g. the US 173rd Airborne cut a swathe through the guerrillas on the plains prior to commitment to the Central Highlands - where they had two companies over-run and 76 men killed, primarily due to the bad decisions of their (later relieved) commander, who did not listen to sound advice.

    Patrolling and shooting at 'Taliban' in Afghanistan is not really preparation for a tactical war against a large enemy force, and I remain deeply concerned over the real state of preparedness of our armed forces. Current policies are very much on a peacetime footing...
    Arvo
    30th Apr 2019
    2:11pm
    Franky, when it comes to establishing strong defense against any foreign invasion, whenever, the answer is, we must afford all the latest and the most effective defense resources and update them regularly. Ask yourself, " how many countries have already drawn up plans to invade Australia when the time is right for them to do so"? It will never happen some may say, "Don't bet your life on it professor!!!"
    Defense is number (1)priority and this includes National Border Security against insurgents. Followed by (2) the infrastructure to create and maintain a strong economy that props up (3) Healthcare and (4) Welfare of its community.

    Other nation's wars? That's an obligation of a treaty and loyalty to an alliance.

    On whose behalf? On behalf of the majority of voters who voted for the government in power.
    MICK
    30th Apr 2019
    5:34pm
    Of course Franky. And we can also afford to give the top end of society huge tax cuts whilst we have 50,000 homeless people, with more joining every day, living on the streets. You have to get your priorities right old son. Ask Malcolm and Scott.
    OlderandWiser
    1st May 2019
    9:24am
    See what I mean O&W. A post about defence but you've go to twist it so you can bitch & whinge, & complain about your FC's.
    Shame on you. Medication time for anger management one thinks
    Blinky
    30th Apr 2019
    11:03am
    If Australia can afford spending money on thousands of immigrants every year, can affor FAT pensions x politicians, and can afford to provide foreign aid to other countries, then surely Aus can afford to provide a comfortable retirement x the very people that have built thid country. NO EXCUSES!!!
    MICK
    30th Apr 2019
    5:36pm
    Same deal as for returned soldiers Blinky: 'we've got what we want. Now bugger off and die in the gutter boys. Sound familiar?
    That's one of many reasons why the current government has to go.
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    8:16pm
    It's not a matter of excuses Blinky, but rather priorities and choices.
    OlderandWiser
    1st May 2019
    9:20am
    O&W, still twisting posts around so you can harp on about your FC's. By the way, you are the only one that's ranting & raving like a looney,
    We'll see what pans out over the next 12 months or so.
    Lucky Lady
    30th Apr 2019
    11:18am
    considering Australian tax payer have been paying an extra 7% tax since 1946 ( which was for your pension but the goverment Menzies decided the 100 million pounds in the late 50s would be better in consolidated revenue) we are being ripped of by all goverments the aged pension should be about $500 a week
    Pass the Ductape
    30th Apr 2019
    12:45pm
    Yes - successive governments since that time would love us to forget about this little ploy and have hoped we'd simply fade away!
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    1:59pm
    the 7% levy disappeared long ago but good luck with justifying $500 a week.
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    2:00pm
    Maintain the rage.....
    Blinky
    30th Apr 2019
    11:18am
    Morris is wrong. You cant retire at 50 something or before age 65 if u t getting the Oz pension.Baby boomers built this country n Morrison lives in a wealthy country cause of them. Baby boomers r now in their 70s n 80's. They r not the problem.
    The problem is an increasing population due 2 large numbers of migrants, many of whom r already in or nesr retirement age, they dont have a profession or trade n msy not even speak English. Well, it's time to reduce those numbers, to make it harder to come to Oz, to reduce foreign aid, to make it easier x the younger generations 2 retire on their own superannuation so they dont have 2 depend on a govt pension. Stop blaming older Ausdie, gimme a break!
    Lookfar
    30th Apr 2019
    12:18pm
    Blinky, that is a divide and conquer argument, to keep the population from criticising the Govt. and it's total ineptness.
    Actually the immigration programme is specifically targeted at people with the education and skills to fill in the shortcomings of the Australian Workforce because the Govt has so skimped on education and training that not enough Australians have the skills to carry our country forward.
    It takes somewhere about a million dollars to turn a baby into a valuable member of the Australian workforce, generally the Parents are conned into paying the first half of that, - give or take - and the Govt has spent the scond half on something else, so Immigrants, - who have already been trained at overseas expense, are the cheap way to overcome that Govt stupidity/betrayal of ordinary Australians.
    That these higher skilled immigrants want wives, children, etc to accompany them costs very little, they, or the company needing those skills generally pay for their costs to Australia, - yes, there are a host of Bureaucratic parasites feeding off that but that helps no-one except those parasites, - who, generally speaking, should not be fed, but torn out of their little illusory coccoons and set to real work.
    Immigrants would thereby be even more cost effective, and non skilled immigrants often work very hard till they die, - something that can rarely be said about Australian born folk.
    Not that I am saying we should all work ourselves to death but that usually immigrants work much harder than we do so should not be characterised as a drain on the economy, as they are not.
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    12:37pm
    Spot on Lookfar .. our 'government' of two parties cut the throat of training and now throws the doors wide open for 'skilled shortage' workers.

    If you look at the list of occupations included, it is frankly bizarre ... we've got countless people under-employed and with qualifications - yet the global market apparently demands that we import mining engineers, aircraft pilots, nurses (??), doctors ... you name it...

    One could be forgiven for thinking the 'fix' was in with mega cash handouts etc.... certainly something is affecting the way those who are vested with the duty of managing OUR nation are thinking and doing....
    KSS
    30th Apr 2019
    1:01pm
    Blinky you can 'retire' at any age you want. Australia does not have a retirement age as such. There are a very few professions that have mandatory retirement ages (judges, pilots and cleric come to mind here). The rest of us can retire whenever we want. The only codicil is that you have to be self funding. If you want to access a Government aged pension then you will have to wait until you are 65+.

    And one more thing, baby boomers can be as young as 55 given the 'official' birth dates for us Boomers is between 1946 and 1964.
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    2:02pm
    Blinky, the boomers are 55-73 years old.
    Sundays
    30th Apr 2019
    11:19am
    Now what is the purpose of this Site? Is it to assist and inform retirees or is it to pit one group against the other. Is it to perhaps frighten those living week to week. Scare the elderly into thinking pensions might be cut! Maybe it’s so the posters who shout doom and gloom while championing self interest can get yet more airplay? You couldn’t have written this better with your final statement that Australia can afford it’s baby boomers made the leading statement?
    Fisherman
    30th Apr 2019
    11:29am
    This article is treading on dangerous ground! Baby boomers who are due to retire did not have the benefit of employer subsidized superannuation during their careers. They did not have the benefit of transfer of superannuation if they changed jobs. After I retired I found 5 superannuation funds of mine in Unclaimed Money. The latest find was in March this year,! Do we decide to get rid of the aged population at 85 or 55? This sound like Nazi Germany in the 1930's! Australia has shipped millions of tonnes of iron ore, coal and bauxite and earned royalties on every tonne! What happened to our sovereign wealth fund? Is it time to sharpen the pitchforks? I had to hand in my firearms! Grrrrr
    Alexii
    30th Apr 2019
    8:09pm
    You are absolutely right, Fisherman. They, governments, have virtually given away Australia's sea;th, our wealth, and then they demonise the elderly and the old. We're a scourge upon society, or so it seems. It's easy to pick who the real scourges are - the politicians, the extreme wealthier who have benefited so much from our resources (and why should the ownership of these be in just a family's hands?) and the big exploitive businesses who suck us dry. Bastards, all.
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    8:25pm
    Fisherman, some boomers may not have had employer superannuation but many have, and those that have not will still have had 20+ years plus the concessions courtesy of Howard and Costello plus the once-in-a-generation housing boom to accumulate a nest egg.

    Australians opted to have tax cuts instead of a sovereign wealth fund. Choices have consequences and we are paying the piper now.
    Crowcrag
    30th Apr 2019
    11:36am
    This question is becoming tiresome. How long have all the baby boomers being paying taxes, including the extra 7.5% for their pension? How long have so called responsible governments had to prepare, and bank accordingly, for these times? If the money was used for other things, like the millions recently spent so Morrison could visit an island to open and then close a facility for a photo op, then some thing will need to be sacrificed accordingly. Com cars? MP pensions? Overnight expenses? Travel rorts? Reasonable starting points.
    OlderandWiser
    30th Apr 2019
    11:44am
    In one word YES. our parents and grandparents had pensions without asset testing & at a younger age of 60 & 65
    jackie
    30th Apr 2019
    5:14pm
    SRF ....Pensions have always been asset tested. They are more generous now than what they have ever been.
    OlderandWiser
    30th Apr 2019
    7:32pm
    no they weren't,
    OlderandWiser
    30th Apr 2019
    8:06pm
    I stand corrected, partly
    extract from https://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/642D7E285982BA7FCA257AFA0010540F/$File/13010_1988_chapter8.pdf

    Means tests
    The pension means test has undergone several significant changes since 1970. It was
    abolished for pensioners aged 75 and over in 1973 and for pensioners aged 70 and over in
    1975. The means test was replaced by an income test in 1976. In 1978 the rate of the free of-income-test age pension for those aged 70 years and over was frozen. In 1983 this frozen
    rate became subject to a special income test which will eventually be overtaken by the
    normal income test.
    An assets test on pensions was introduced in 1985. It operates alongside the income test.
    Assets test limits are increased in line with price movements.
    The income test for unemployment and sickness benefits was liberalised several times
    between 1980 and 1986.
    Lookfar
    30th Apr 2019
    11:55am
    In, I think, it was the 1930's Australian Govt. set up a pension scheme to be funded by all workers contributing 8% of their earnings, which were put in a special fund, called something like the "Retirement Fund", at the time.
    Well, that fund got to have a large amount of money in it, so Menzies, of the LNP, who was in Govt at that time decided to spend that money on whatever, - and the Labour party allowed it also, so that money was spent, but the 8% continued to be taken out, and is still to this day, (when did a Govt ever reduce taxes, except recently in the age of Neo-Liberalism for the super rich).
    So everybody earning a taxable income, younger than 80 something, has been paying that 8% - and it was to be paid into a special account, - the which it was originally, so as to earn interest.
    So the first loss was that the money was slipped into General Revenue, no provision was made for the retirement of older Australians as they retired, despite that they had paid the money so to do, and the second was the loss of the Interest, which by now, all by itself, would have easily paid for all retirees till the year dot.
    It could be argued that it was the single most unconsciable theft from the Australian people, by the Govt of the day and the special interest groups that influenced It.
    It is not normally accepted, if one owes money, to say to the lender f/off, I wanted to spend it on something else, and certainly not accepted in a court of law, so why should a political party be exempt? - yes I can understand extraordinary issues of National Security, ONCE OFF ONLY, if then the money was directed as originally specified.
    But No, it was not put where the people of Australia, who were paying that money, had been promised it would be.
    Now that owed money should be removed from the Govt's greedy claws, and spent where originally intended, and tough titties to the sucession of greedy politicians that spent it otherwise, - usually on their own welfare/prestige, and pet projects to get re-elected.
    Then, after the money has been used, to fund the retirement of all Australians, no one could say, "How can we afford the Old?"
    Unfortunately for Australia, the most ruthless, shortsighted and greedy foxes have been put in charge of the hen house, with predictable results, and has led to a national distrust of politicians, - particularly politicians amenable to bribery, corruption and ideological fanaticism.
    Jolly
    30th Apr 2019
    1:07pm
    Lookfar, you people on here are so polite it makes me cringe. All politicians are theives. They cut pension benefits, overtime payments to workers, steal our money to fund trips and holidays O/S, then have the nerve to vote themselves massive pay rises and greater Superannuation benefits. Time in jail is not good enough for these people. Remember Eddy Obeid and his band of Labour brothers in NSW. Disgraceful. We need a Federal ICAC Now to sort these theiving B's out.
    Pisces
    30th Apr 2019
    12:00pm
    If the government put back our pension fund money specifically built from our taxes that they stole and called the futures fund - taking care of them retirees would be back in the black
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    8:33pm
    Costello's Future Fund was only intended to fund annual government superannuation payments from the budget. Surely you are not referring to the National Welfare Fund, because it was a dead duck from the day it came into existence? The Government can easily fund welfare if it chooses to prioritise that ahead of other choices.
    gerry
    30th Apr 2019
    12:03pm
    The majority of old dodgers I see in the bars ,clubs and shopping centres did pay taxes as they point out every 5 minutes of the day,but that didn't even cover schools and welfare for their 10 kids ,make up of roads and establishments ,no one had paid into their future until Bob and Paul set super payments going and even them were paid by the bosses
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    12:40pm
    How do you know this? Do you steal their mail?
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    12:45pm
    An aunt of mine ceased work when she married my uncle - they raised six kids, my uncle worked in industry and was an international Rugby League referee - their kids are all doing well....

    Are you suggesting that those women who were forced to quit work on marriage, the disabled for life etc, should not be paid pension? Do you even understand the days of the itinerant swaggies looking for another shearing shed for part of the year so they could make a pound or two on part-time casual temporary? Or the Great Depression through which those before us went?

    My grandmother saw the Boer War, WW I, WWI in which she lost a son, and so forth - without ever working for a living... should she have received no pension?

    What part of 'a communal pot' as described by Menzies in establishing pension way back, do you not understand?

    You need to be very careful about how you generalise.
    Tom Tank
    30th Apr 2019
    12:53pm
    Actually the original super payments were a trade off against wage increases.
    Tom Tank
    30th Apr 2019
    12:53pm
    Actually the original super payments were a trade off against wage increases.
    KSS
    30th Apr 2019
    1:10pm
    TREBOR you can't just cherry pick from the past. Married women who gave up work were supported by their husbands who were also paid a higher wage than their single counterparts. Then there was tax relief for the wife and kids too. Just because society has changed and women can now have their own careers (and pensions) does not mean the women in the past were not taken care of even through their husband's pensions long after the man died. My Grandmother was just such a person - delicate little flower that she was, never worked a day and raised two boys (lost one) and lived on my Grandfather's pension long after he was gone. The other Grandmother worked full time in both mills and bars well into her 80s as the independent feisty woman she was!
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    1:15pm
    An example is now 'cherry picking'? In this case, of course, the fact that the 'cherry picked' example covered MILLIONS of women in the past?

    No, sorry - cherry picking comes onboard with the assumption that old codgers sitting in a bar were always ne'er-do-wells and too lazy etc to look after their own retirement.

    How many times must I say - those who utter such inanities have NO idea what those people have done in life... NONE!
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    2:19pm
    Trebor, I suspect Gerry's point is the taxpaying codgers would have received more in benefits than they contributed in taxes.
    Sundays
    30th Apr 2019
    3:21pm
    Who tells massive lies O&W? I’ve done my own research, and on this issue Labor is definitely on the right track.
    Sundays
    30th Apr 2019
    6:41pm
    Just because you say I am wrong doesn’t make it true. Let’s wait and see what happens after the election.
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    8:36pm
    The only thief who stole any of my superannuation was AMP and it was my own fault for not monitoring more closely. Fortunately the loss was less than $10k and more of an embarrassing reminder to take nothing for granted.
    gerry
    30th Apr 2019
    12:03pm
    The majority of old dodgers I see in the bars ,clubs and shopping centres did pay taxes as they point out every 5 minutes of the day,but that didn't even cover schools and welfare for their 10 kids ,make up of roads and establishments ,no one had paid into their future until Bob and Paul set super payments going and even them were paid by the bosses
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    12:15pm
    Short answer:- Yes - for as long as those retirees have afforded this nation.

    Somebody oughta go down to this treasury twerp and tear him a new one, and public servants should be commanded to shut their mouths until asked.
    Jolly
    30th Apr 2019
    12:57pm
    I have read all the comments below. Some make sense and some don't. My comment is how can we(voters) in all conscience vote in as Prime Minister one of the smirking idiots on the Ch7 debate last night!!! Talk about a pair of school kids trying to out do each other with the smirks. They are the two biggest morons(except for BAAAAArnaby) we have in politics. They are making decisions for 24 million people - give me a break. And don't tell me Corman did not get caught perving on Chloe Shorten. I am a man - I was perving and so was he. We are a mob of idiots. But not as bad as the Greens hopeful in Queensland. Cmon grow up Australians, get some cojoles and understand political parties are poison and deserve our wrath at the ballot box. Vote Greens LNP and Labour - LAST. And any other candidates 1 2 and 3.
    KSS
    30th Apr 2019
    1:12pm
    They can't all be last!
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    1:39pm
    What a shame - I keep hoping for the devastation of the majors at every election... the best thing that could happen to this country is to have both LNP and Labor thrown out... along with their henchpersons.

    I WANT them to be last.... they need a shakeup and a wakeup.
    Cowboy Jim
    30th Apr 2019
    1:41pm
    The word is 'cojones' and balls to all of them!
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    2:01pm
    Testicular Two-Up - balls up!!
    Digby
    30th Apr 2019
    2:24pm
    Hear Hear Jolly, well said. I
    floss
    30th Apr 2019
    1:29pm
    This was always going to happen you can't force population growth with immigration as the balance will be upset and bad policy will come back to bight you.The LNP.new policy on immigration is a joke and does not take climate change into consideration at all.I have been lucky enough to travel a lot of farming country in my job and I can tell you Australia just can't take any more people.
    Eddy
    30th Apr 2019
    1:31pm
    I learned long ago that so called 'modelling' by Treasury can be manipulated to produce any result they, or their political masters, want. I am sure the PBO and AFSA are no different, they select the result they want and then manipulate data and assumptions to prove their case. The current Government is forever sprouting that they are a 'low tax' party vis a vis the opposition party. The reality is that taxation in all its forms is what provides the lifeblood (ie the money) for all government services, the more tax they collect the more they can do. The only difference is what they choose to spend the tax revenue on and/or whom they wish to excuse from the obligation to pay tax. If the government of the day collects enough tax they can afford to pay pensions, healthcare, education, housing etc etc, if they choose not to collect enough tax then they cannot. It is a simple mathematical equation. How much each element costs is besides the point, as is this article.
    OlderandWiser
    30th Apr 2019
    1:37pm
    It also comes down to good management & that hasn't been the case for quite a while.
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    1:42pm
    Exactly, Eddy - there is a need to look at the entire gamut of government spending and revenue capture - and not just perpetually harp on the alleged 'cost' of retirement packaging.

    EVERY aspect of government spending costs.... and none are exempt.

    A clear reason to remove retirement packaging from the hands of politicians and their mates.
    Sundays
    30th Apr 2019
    6:43pm
    Well, we’re not in the Black until 20-21 supposedly. That doesn’t mean that the debt which has more than doubled will be paid for though. This Government is all smoke and mirrors
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    8:45pm
    Being in the black i.e. running a budget surplus, is not all it's cracked up to be. It's all a matter of choices. Financing a government is nothing like running a household bank account.
    Lookfar
    5th May 2019
    2:47pm
    Wouldn't it be good if the Govt acknowledged that
    Farside
    5th May 2019
    5:28pm
    Lookfar, cannot be confident the Government knows enough to acknowledge it when you hear the Treasurer believes companies pay tax on behalf of shareholders rather than paying company tax on taxable income.
    bullfright
    30th Apr 2019
    1:54pm
    It's no good expecting the pollie's to look after you. They're too busy looking after themselves. It's a good thing that they don't do much as they are not very good at what they do anyway.
    TREBOR
    30th Apr 2019
    2:02pm
    Why collect taxes at all? It's not as if they're doing a good job with it - as Kerry Packer famously said...
    Mad as Hell
    30th Apr 2019
    2:30pm
    The 2017 changes to the Pensioner Assets Test was outright theft of pensioners assets.
    One doesn’t leave planning for their retirement the day before they stop work. To have their entitlements cut (stolen) after retirement to fund trickledown economics and pork barrel marginal electorates is lunacy from our great economic managers.
    Sundays
    30th Apr 2019
    3:16pm
    The Age Pension is not a hand out. I repeat, not a hand out. It is an entitlement paid for by taxpayers past, present and future to those who qualify.

    Refund of Franking credits to those who pay no tax is a rort. You don’t steal a rort, but a responsible Government should close these loopholes and use the money for the good of all, not just a priveledged few.

    Unlike the Liberals who changed the Asset test with no notice, Labor has given well over 12 months notice of their intention
    Sundays
    30th Apr 2019
    6:51pm
    I notice that most of your posts from yesterday where you shout and scream have been deleted. This one should go too. Calling pensioners greedy, selfish bludgers and suggesting you worked harder is just wrong. You’ve had the benefit of Franking credits despite paying no tax. Time to move on.
    GeorgeM
    30th Apr 2019
    9:36pm
    Quite right, Mad as Hell. Also, did you note that Morrison showed great concern in yesterday's debate that around 50,000 SMSF holding pensioners will be affected by Labor's Franking Credits policy "as they had already planned their retirement", whereas he has conveniently forgotten that he (as Treasurer) destroyed the retirement plans of 421,000 part-pensioners (including 91,000 who lost pensions altogether) with the 2017 Asset Test changes (up to $14,000 annual losses) without Grandfathering, people who also had already planned their retirement. Hypocrite!
    Of course, Shorten didn't pick him up on that - they are both in the same Tag Team.
    Sundays
    1st May 2019
    7:56am
    You post so much venom, that you haven’t noticed the worst have been deleted? They have and a good thing too
    OlderandWiser
    1st May 2019
    9:13am
    so O&W I listened to Mr Bowens comments on FC's & he is correct in stopping this tax refund when you haven't paid any tax. I believe all that will happen is companies who do this will have to readjust on how they will pay via dividends which then will become an income & you'll have to pay any applicable taxes via the ATO instead of getting a refund via FC's.
    Have you seen your doctor for referral to an anger management clinic, should be one close to you
    OlderandWiser
    1st May 2019
    6:23pm
    Pause, deep breath, count to ten, that's a good boy or girl, feel better now, time for your meds O&W, finish your hot chocolate, electronic devices off, lights out, nighty night.
    Captain
    1st May 2019
    7:00pm
    SFR, nevertheless, Older&Wiser is correct.

    Your smarmy comments do not help.
    OlderandWiser
    1st May 2019
    7:16pm
    And what about the constant overly aggressive name calling & bulling attacks not just against me but many other posters on here who have had to put up with his or her constant barrage for 6 months or more.
    Maybe he or she is right but I personally don't think so & neither do a lot of others.
    If you or O&W don't like my comments then report me & have them removed or better still insist I'm banned from posting.
    Best of luck
    Misty
    3rd May 2019
    11:02am
    Yes Captain, how can you condone all the name calling and insults from O & W?, you can comment and get your concerns across without calling people vile insulting names.
    Mad as Hell
    5th May 2019
    10:41am
    Yes GeorgeM I did note Scott Morrison’s comments during the debate re franking credits. Not surprised Bill Shorten didn’t pull him up with the changes to the Pensioner Assets Test, that’s because Bill Shorten has no intention of reversing changes to the Asset Test.
    Labor pretend to stand up the battlers but LNP, Greens and ALP are hypocrites who see pensioners assets theirs. I wouldn’t vote for any of the major party in the next election if there was a half decent independent.
    Meg
    30th Apr 2019
    2:36pm
    Well, if the answer is no, then what are we supposed to do, line up a jump off a cliff? If we can't afford to help our own retirees, then let's not bring in migrants and support them and their enormous families, and their extended relatives. Let's not pay for free childcare; free kindergarten....somehow, our parents managed to raise us without such luxuries. Australia already is a bit rotten towards it's older residents...if you have saved and been thrifty all your life, you get nothing. Call me a sourpuss if you wish...but I bet there are lots of us around.
    Farside
    30th Apr 2019
    8:52pm
    don't be so quick to be churlish towards benefits for migrants, working families etc. You say "our parents managed to raise us without such luxuries" but you conveniently overlook caring for the elderly was a family responsibility. If you think Australia if a bit rotten towards its older residents then maybe the solution lies a little closer to home.
    Rae
    1st May 2019
    1:13pm
    I'd like the backpay rebates from all my childcare costs when taxes were actually higher and super contributions were not tax concessions.

    Meg is right about benefits for migrants and families. How come we didn't deserve that help.

    Rubbish comment about caring for elderly as the aged pension was available to nearly everyone before all this nonsense about savers suddenly being entitled started.

    No wonder the young can afford huge McMansions with all the money governments are tossing at them fortnightly.
    nannyalone
    30th Apr 2019
    2:42pm
    SO, the age old question. ....retirees are draining the purse again...well, sorry for still being alive at retirement age. Why doesn't the govt. just stick us all on an island somewhere out of sight. If the powers that be didn't keep changing the goal line we might be able to plan our retirement better instead of being made to feel like a burden. What do those in govt care anyway...they have their big fat handouts, perks and bonuses for life and would have no idea what the ordinary folk contend with. I think those in Parliament are the ones draining the economy not those that have worked hard all their lives
    Lookfar
    30th Apr 2019
    2:52pm
    Right on, Nanny.
    Alexii
    30th Apr 2019
    2:54pm
    I think the question is: Can we afford to continue to subsidise the extremely wealthy and very big businesses by allowing them so many loopholes to enable them to pay little or no tax on their huge earnings?
    Look at the lists of big businesses paying no tax that have been published in recent years. Why do our governments allow theist continue year after year. Howe much tax do our extremely wealthy actually pay each year?
    How much do big mining companies actually pay in royalties on the vast quantities of minerals (our resources) they extract and export each year?
    it seems to me that Australia gets the crumbs off the table - and perhaps not even the crumbs.
    Alexii
    1st May 2019
    8:28am
    On the Today Show this morning, the finance chappie was going crook about Google and others not paying tax and putting their revenues into off-shore subsidiaries. I jut loved his suggestion: that the executive should front up (to the show) to explain, to justify their actions; why they should not pay tax while the rest of us do. Of course he doesn't;t expect them to front up - and why not? Because, as he said, they know they can't justify what they are doing.

    There is something small that we NSW Life Choices contributors and readers can do: Vote for SUPA (Seniors United Party Australia) on the senate ballot paper. Put a 1 there on Column U and number other columns that you want. It won't change the government but it might at least get someone in to the Senate who will work towards protecting the interests of seniors in Australia.
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    10:42am
    Alexii, royalties are responsibility of state and territory governments so don't for a moment think they have the national interest at heart. Following the Henry Review of the tax system, Labor proposed a Resource Super Profit Tax (RSPT) so the nation could share in the unprecedented boom in ore and coal prices and got a punch in the nose for its trouble from the LNP and vested interests.

    A watered down version, the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT), was eventually introduced and then repealed as soon after the LNP took government. Fyi the MRRT only applied to profits declared in Australia related to specific activities and did not prevent the multinationals from moving profits offshore through transfer pricing and management fees.

    These are similar mechanisms to what Google and others have been doing for the past 40 years. The ATO has been hamstrung to fight tax evasion and minimisation throughout this time while the LNP has actively resisted and white anted attempts to change.
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    4:35pm
    your meds are wearing off O&W, I favour a progressive tax system rather than a punitive system as you describe. Fundamentally you do not understand the principles behind double taxation and franking credits and this leads you to conclude distorted views based upon your own reality. Only in your fog could you think taxing lowest income earners and giving handouts to the wealthy has merit. You may be in a crap place financially as a result of getting rid of this largesse but you claim to be a smart person so get over it and make alternative arrangements. As it turns out my remaining share investments are in companies giving franked divs but I will deal with it, as I have had to throughout my working life when I was on the rough end of the pineapple with most tax changes.
    Riverview
    30th Apr 2019
    4:02pm
    This is a very divisive article that makes retires seem like a burden on society or a problem to be solved. Not all older people’s circumstances are the same and we have no right to judge why some-one might have retired earlier than others. I haven’t retired yet but it does make me very angry when politicians or articles talk about older Australians in this way. I wonder if some of the talk I hear is actually discrimination against ‘older people’. I am sure politicians would not talk about other groups in society (eg, those with a disability) as burdens on society or problems to be solved. Older people are being silenced and made to feel ashamed of themselves simply because of their age, which is something they have no control over.
    Alexii
    30th Apr 2019
    4:40pm
    That's right, Riverview. They have set out to demonise retirees and especially self-funded or partly self-funded retirees. They make out that all of such people are wealthy nd sludge off society, The change to the assets trust was a great example of that. Now, if Labor gets in, there will be such people again discriminated against with the franking credits. This applies also to people on low incomes, such as my wife, too young to get a pension, has her savings in some shares and we'll lose the franking credits as her income is below the tax threshold. The sum result will be that our already joint low income will be lower still. Wonderful!
    OlderandWiser
    1st May 2019
    9:02am
    No, we see the unfairness of getting a tax refund when you pay no tax. FC's must go. same a negative gearing.
    Mr Bowen & the ALP have stated time & time again that low income SFR will not be affected.
    Rae
    1st May 2019
    1:24pm
    They lie a lot. Of course low income retirees who self fund will be affected if they haven't gone off to Centrelink yet.

    Also low income workers paying into superannuation will lose credits to higher income earners.

    This will effect far more people than Labor realise.

    Pity we have incompetents running the public service as someone should be Yes Ministering the nonsense. I blame Credlin for destroying a lot of experience and competence to replace them with young ideology driven IPA hacks.

    Shorten and Bowen are assuming Independent retirees entitled to part aged pensions have all applied for them. They haven't.
    Rae
    2nd May 2019
    9:18am
    O&W Very few Australians bother to be financially literate. It does do your head in.

    Then there is the tall poppy syndrome and it's huge here for some reason.

    Not much you can do except get out of the way if you can. Beginning Centrelink claims has been said to be a good idea. That way you may just get into the group that gets the credits still even though it's such a dreadful thing.

    Besides I doubt either the Senate or the Constitution will allow this anyway. Too many people earn less than the OAP who don't claim their entitlements as they value freedom and independence.

    Already much of the legislation in the past few years is being challenged by the separate legal system. Thank goodness for the Constitution.
    Farside
    2nd May 2019
    6:16pm
    Rae, what is the Section of the Constitution that will prevent repeal of the applicable legislation?
    Mondo
    30th Apr 2019
    5:14pm
    Some Interesting responses, it reminds me somewhat of Brexit. Still no one has said where the workers will be to pay the taxes to provide your pensions into the future? There simply won't be enough money without some immigration of the right type. Equally importantly, who will provide the medical and aged care? I visited a close friend in hospital last week, most of the doctors were English. I was in hospital last year, the fantastic neuro surgeon was Iranian, other options were Chinese or English, the nurses were almost all Asian. My wife had a life saving operation some years ago, the surgeon was Sri Lankan,, my life was prologued a few years back by an Anglo Indian surgeon. If you looked at the many brilliant Australian medical breakthroughs, many of the scientists are immigrants. Who were the great Austraiian miners and industrialists of recent past? Arvi Parbo, Estonian, Hugh Morgan, Welsh, Peter Ables, Hungarian, Ron Pratt, Hungarian, who were the grafters on the Snowy project? Whose breathed new life into the defunct Wyalla South Australian steel works, an Anglo Indian. It really depends on whether you want the industrial decline to continue or to be reinvigorated by new brains and new high tech industries to provide the jobs, services and tax revenue into the future? The government's have reduced the role and funding of TAFEs that would provide skills into the future and decided they don't want the benefit of dual national brains in parliament to help run the country so it seems the future driving force is to be complacency!
    Dollars over Respect?
    30th Apr 2019
    8:04pm
    What Australia can't afford is our politicians, who have dealt for themselves, agreed by all parties), a retirement package of 75% of their salary for the rest of their lives, plus (dependent upon the position held) free air travel for them and their families (also for life for some of them) or several times a year for most of the rest. I know of no business or industry that can afford to pay ex-employees 75% of their salaries for the rest of their life after retirement. Why do we accept this for a pollie who only has to be employed for 8 years to qualify?

    Boomers have worked and contributed to society by payment of taxes and the actual building our country for most of their working lives. Never before has any one generation claimed the comfortable retirement pension for the generation before them is unaffordable. No one should qualify for the Australian pension unless they can substantiate that they have personally worked and contributed for at least 40 years. Politicians should have to contribute to their own super at the same standard rate as is legislated for the rest of us, from their own salaries. No 'ands' or 'buts'! Perhaps then we shall see some real improvements in retirement conditions.
    lasaboy
    30th Apr 2019
    8:07pm
    in 1999/2000 I got sick, before I could get any government help I had to use any monies I had, so my super, my savings EVERYTHING went out the door to pay for everything that was needed, then they gave me a disablement pension, the government has created most of their own problems across the board, in the early years they told us if we paid tax to help the country we would get a pension, we all did that, then they put all these other controls in place forcing many of us to use everything we had saved, before they would help us, so the government is now stuck with us, in my mind politicians are criminals, thieves and liars
    GeorgeM
    30th Apr 2019
    9:25pm
    Roy Morgan analysis seems to be dumb - firstly, based on "average gross wealth" - don't they know averages are skewed by people like Turnbull, Bronnie Bishop, Ruddock, Packer, etc, etc? Too many other foolish statements to go into here.

    The solution is really simple - Universal Age Pension with NO tests for all who qualify simply based on Age (65 years) and Residency (say 15 years). We will not have people retiring early then as the article has observed is happening now. With Universal Age Pension, the economy will grow with more people incentivised to earn and save more - all paying more taxes. Centrelink costs will be reduced massively, with ATO able to send out the payments easily after one simple application Form. All qualified should get concession cards as well. Removing Centrelink harassment will also improve the health of retirees.

    We just need a political party to adopt this strategy, with 3 Million+ Retirees likely to vote for it (most of them anyway). Time to vote OUT all who don't want to help retirees - we are a strong voting bloc, if we get together and put current Major parties (including Greens) MPs LAST (or just above the crazies).
    Note that 44 seats (out of 151) in the Lower House are on Margins of less than 5% and we have a serious opportunity here to shake up the 2-party system which is not working for us.
    Kealley McGregor
    1st May 2019
    1:26am
    Yes but who do we vote for... they all have problematic policies. How about voting for all the independents? What happened to the Grey Power Party that were around some years ago?
    Sundays
    1st May 2019
    8:09am
    Yes vote for Clive Palmer who won’t even pay his former workers their entitlements yet is happy to spend millions on his campaign. Clive Palmer who decimated the Hyatt Coolum and threw hundreds out of work. Clive Palmer who cares nothing for the environment.

    Clive can promise the world, but he will never have the majority Government so nothing he promises has any possibility of being implemented. Then again, if you are totally self absorbed, maybe he is the candidate for you!
    Sundays
    1st May 2019
    2:50pm
    You’re too funny. The person who just repeats nonsense. Clive has supposedly put $7 million in a trust account but no payments have been made. None of the workers have even been advised how they can access it.

    Young people and tax payers couldn’t care less about Franking credits. Much more important issues. It’s just not a deal breaker.
    GeorgeM
    2nd May 2019
    8:42pm
    K. McGregor - I can't tell you who to vote for as in each electorate there may be a different choice, however I agree with OAW that UAP is looking like the party with a range of policies which most of us retirees would support, including Universal Age Pension which I hope they will confirm as their policy. They do have candidates in all seats. The more seats others win, other than the Major parties and the Greens, the better - this county deserves far better and change will not occur until we shake up the 2-party system.

    Sundays, you are just repeating the usual Labor line on Clive Palmer. He is far safer than the Greens whom Labor will team up with, in fact Labor have borrowed many of their policies already! Whatever the status of his $7 Mil payment (I believe the administrator is managing disbursal), it is a FACT that Labor and Liberals have designed the system which allows companies to collapse and avoid payments to workers (after owners siphon their funds away) - thousands, maybe tens of thousands of companies have done this. So, blame Labor & Liberals for the system. Another reason to get rid of these do-nothing (for the people) parties.
    You should know Labor & Liberals have also left in the massive loopholes for the Rich and Large companies many of whom pay Nil or negligible taxes, while BOTH parties attack Retirees at every opportunity (after the election). Time to get rid of BOTH - in fact already well overdue!
    Misty
    3rd May 2019
    11:21am
    George M, Clive may have set aside $7 million for the workers but who is going to pay back the $70 million taxpayers stumped up to pay the Qlnd Nickel workers?, Clive has supposedly spent up to $50 million on political ads, this money should have been spent paying back that taxpayer debt don't you think?.
    ardnher
    5th May 2019
    3:20pm
    Clive Palmer lost a lot of weight..he has put it all back on AND MORE and he would be best spending his money on Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers and getting himself healthy and fit otherwise he may not be around to even take his seat in Parliament.
    Misty
    5th May 2019
    4:33pm
    Spot on ardnher.
    OlderandWiser
    5th May 2019
    6:43pm
    Clive Palmer's first day in parliament. Double seat, double seat got ta have a double seat lol
    GeorgeM
    5th May 2019
    8:54pm
    I believe Clive is basically a good person interested in Australia, and more importantly his policies are correct for Australia - go check them for yourselves, as I am not his mouthpiece. Of course, I don't expect him to become the PM, but his party can alter the stupid policies being pursued by Libs and Labor (with Greens attached) which have destroyed and will continue to destroy Australia and it's people.

    As I noted before, "it is a FACT that Labor and Liberals have designed the system which allows companies to collapse and avoid payments to workers (after owners siphon their funds away) - thousands, maybe tens of thousands of companies have done this. So, blame Labor & Liberals for the system. Another reason to get rid of these do-nothing (for the people) parties."
    cupoftea
    30th Apr 2019
    10:48pm
    I have read through the lot and I thought I was dumb how can we be in the black when whe are 1/2 trillion in debt, it was labour
    ,it was labour they cant evan get that right the only thing they are all scared is when labour get in and start investigating corruption and can I borrow a cup of water or two and the unions do not run the super they are there to protect members against being ripped of by employers and they are all honest ask the RC and as for hawke and keating only having to expand the civil servents super don't forget the white collers where the only people who got it don't forget a blue collar worker who had dirt under his finger nails and new what a hard days work was,was a menial worker who was nothing well we got the super and they are still crying over it well keep crying torries the IPA ,you wont beat us
    cupoftea
    30th Apr 2019
    10:48pm
    I have read through the lot and I thought I was dumb how can we be in the black when whe are 1/2 trillion in debt, it was labour
    ,it was labour they cant evan get that right the only thing they are all scared is when labour get in and start investigating corruption and can I borrow a cup of water or two and the unions do not run the super they are there to protect members against being ripped of by employers and they are all honest ask the RC and as for hawke and keating only having to expand the civil servents super don't forget the white collers where the only people who got it don't forget a blue collar worker who had dirt under his finger nails and new what a hard days work was,was a menial worker who was nothing well we got the super and they are still crying over it well keep crying torries the IPA ,you wont beat us
    Sundays
    1st May 2019
    8:14am
    One way the Liberals will save money is to self off Assets to companies based in the Cayman Islands as is happening with public hospitals in NSW. Then when we have balanced the books, but own nothing but are owned by offshore foreign companies you can say what a great job the Liberals have done with the economy.
    OlderandWiser
    1st May 2019
    12:13pm
    And don't forget Sundays that most likely those companies will not pay 1 cent in tax & the hospitals will become a profit making industry to keep their rich shareholders rich & give them more money they'll get free handouts from the current government every year called FC's
    Sundays
    1st May 2019
    2:51pm
    You’re not a battler!
    OlderandWiser
    1st May 2019
    6:12pm
    Rubbish rubbish rubbish O&W. I still have some shares in an Australian company who haven't paid 1 cent in tax in at least the last 5 years but I still get a dividend & still got FC's from last years tax return.
    Just waiting for the 1st July for a new tax year so I can sell the rest of my shares & not pay any capital tax lol.
    Play Fairly
    30th Apr 2019
    11:16pm
    Sorry, but Australia HAS to afford its retirees. It's a bit late to be debating this subject. The government can't expect people to work until they literally drop. That is why the retirement age should never have been raised.
    Retirement is a worker's reward after spending a lifetime earning a living and paying taxes.
    OlderandWiser
    30th Apr 2019
    11:35pm
    Not only working for over 50 years or more & paying taxes Play Fairly but supporting & spending in the local community that also helped to create jobs for other families & on it goes.
    About time the government of this country introduced a universal pension. Can be worked out & implemented by July 2020. Simple system that will save billions in admin costs so will basically pay for its self.
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    8:20pm
    Australia has no issue with affording retirees, we could easily spend more if that was our choice. We choose to prioritise other spending areas ahead of retiree welfare. Choices have consequences.
    Kealley McGregor
    30th Apr 2019
    11:46pm
    Centrelink can get it better
    I have been back from living in Denmark for around 2 years now and was there for around 5 years as a resident.
    They have a population of around 5.5 million many of whom are young or aged, so for those in the work force
    the taxes are quite high by our standards however the benefits to all are huge. Great conditions for the aged,
    free medical for all, subsidised dental, free schooling and the list just goes on. How do they do it? What are the basics?
    1) The aged pension or disability pension is a set ‘livable’ amount, Everyone gets it when due by age or infirm, no deductions for income or assets etc.
    They consider this a minimum and it is not reduced in any form. The wealthy can refuse to receive it as their choice, to go back in the coffers.
    It is seen as a minimum so those who have not worked can exist and those who have worked and paid taxes, invested, have super or other income
    are not penalised for doing the right thing. The difference is that your total annual income is taxable once over the allowable non taxable base rate.
    (Wouldn’t that save a lot of Centrelink Accounting staff!)
    I know of friends who have much younger spouses and therefore do NOT receive their pension when due. We are all individuals who should be treated with this respect.
    One friend must continue to work until he reaches the age of 87! Why because his younger wife’s pension age is so high. Ridiculous!
    Why was mine reduced because of a “Deemed” income, from a debt which I will never get back from losses concerning an ex-partner! And over 4%!! (See Centrelink Deeming)
    While others who have not made an effort in their lives enjoy the benefits of a full rate and extras plus?
    The aged in Australia live in poverty in a valuable home because if they sell up to free up capital they then have a reduced pension
    because they have too much money in the bank. So it could be said, what’s the problem? They have money.
    It is often not the money that is the issue, but the loss of the pension card with health issues scaring the aged into panic at the thought of its loss. (Travel & Medical Bills)
    1
    2) I cannot afford to travel, so rather than many paying to visit Australia costing 10’s of thousands of dollars, I was shouted and a trip to visit and catch up with good friends and those so close I consider them family back in Denmark.
    It used to be 3 months. Imagine my horror when I am told I cannot leave the country for more than 28 days without my disability pension being stopped.
    (6 Weeks for Aged Pensioners) It is hardly worth the cost to travel such a distance for so short a time, especially when I must have stop-overs
    as I am unable to sit up in a plane for the duration of flights to Europe thus shortening my time yet again!
    I understand that before these latest changes, it was calculated that a person’s working life in AUSTRALIA was considered. This I could understand..
    i.e. a European who has come to Aust. and worked for 10 years, reaches retirement age, collects the Aust. Pension,
    then returns or has extended visits to a country with a low cost of living, resides free of charge with family, would be “quite well off” therefore reduced time allowed..
    however,
    I tried to look up the legislation that would allow them to take this unfair and megalomaniac stance and wonder if in fact it would be legal under legislation for human rights!!
    I tried to look up the legislation that would allow them to take this unfair and meglomaniac stance and wonder if in fact it would be legal under legislation for human rights!!
    1) The aged pension or disability pension is a set ‘liveable’ amount, Everyone gets it when due by age or infirm, no deductions for income or assets etc.
    I know one exists but have googled myself out trying to find them.
    There are too many issues I would like to comment on, so hope I can get some feedback on the above, and just let me know if this is interesting enough to comment on or take further..
    OlderandWiser
    1st May 2019
    12:20am
    Well put & totally agree with a liveable pension for All.
    Also Demarks is the least corrupt country way ahead of Australia at 13th. Mzybe that says a lot for keeping over 25% of our pensioners well below the poverty line.
    GeorgeM
    2nd May 2019
    8:53pm
    You are quite correct, K. McGregor. You have been back for 2 years, and guess what, I have been pushing the barrel here for 2 years or so for ALL to join in and DEMAND Universal Page Pension (yes, at a liveable level) without any tests other than Age (65 years) and Residency (I suggested 15 years, I believe some consider 10 years is enough) with reduced payments if less than that.
    Besides removing massive Centrelink costs, it would benefit the economy with higher taxes from people being encouraged to earn and save more. ALL need to write to their MPs and DMAND this, else vote them OUT by putting them LAST in preferences.
    ozirules
    3rd May 2019
    9:47am
    correct GeorgeM, I totally agree but living in a safe seat means that pollies ignore us. They put their energies into seats they can win and entice constituents to vote for them by telling lies, untruths and gross exaggerations with the sole aim of winning/retaining power. I gag when I hear a pollie say I am proud to serve the nation when all they serve is themselves. The reason us oldies cant win is that the governent divide and conquer by giving the majority of pensioners a minute increase making them feel like winners and hitting the minority with huge cuts. The majority wont join forces with the minority to flex their muscles as they are led to believe that 'those rich pensioners' got what they deserve. It's a bit like the nimby situation where as long as I'm alright you can fight your own battles.
    GeorgeM
    5th May 2019
    9:02pm
    ozirules, 100% correct, divide and rule continues...

    There are 3 Million+ Retirees (20% of the electorate), with 44 seats (out of 151) with Margins less than 5% (maybe not yours). I also noted 32% of the YLC people polled said they were Swinging Voters. With continuous encouragement, there may be hope for a slow but steady turnaround of the mindless 2-party tag team voting.
    Alexii
    1st May 2019
    8:28am
    There is something small that we NSW Life Choices contributors and readers can do: Vote for SUPA (Seniors United Party Australia) on the senate ballot paper. Put a 1 there on Column U and number other columns that you want. It won't change the government but it might at least get someone in to the Senate who will work towards protecting the interests of seniors in Australia.
    Geminiwoman
    1st May 2019
    10:27am
    Here we go again. Constantly trying to make aged pensioners feel guilty because they are such a burden on the public purse. What about the millions of dollars spent on illegal immigrants and the billions of dollars that go into "foreign aid"? If our politicians would only put Australians first, there'd be no problem at all.
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    10:59am
    reality check Geminiwoman, Australia spends about $190B on social security and welfare, of which a bit over $50B goes to oldies. The amount given in foreign aid is about $4B, which is about 0.21% of national income and well below that given by most developed nations. Problem?
    Mondo
    1st May 2019
    12:39pm
    Farside./Geminiwoman Thanks for setting the record straight. Too many of the posts whether about immigration or any 'aliens,' foreign aid or what the government has available to pay pensions seems to be based on misplaced xyophobia or false perceptions. To me foreign aid is no different to local welfare. I dont want the crime associated with destitute neighbours whether its in my locality or near overseas neighbours. By and large Australia gives aid for its own benefit, to cultivate good neighbours. We all benefit from that.
    Geminiwoman
    1st May 2019
    10:28am
    Here we go again. Constantly trying to make aged pensioners feel guilty because they are such a burden on the public purse. What about the millions of dollars spent on illegal immigrants and the billions of dollars that go into "foreign aid"? If our politicians would only put Australians first, there'd be no problem at all.
    Kee
    1st May 2019
    11:54am
    How insulting asking whether Australia can afford its retirees. I was fortunate enough to pick when I retired, nowadays more people are forced into early retirement due to the lack of jobs and the governments answer is to pay a pittance called Newsrart. If people are lucky enough to have superannuation its usually not enough to be of any great value. If we all understood super more people might save more toward their retirement.Today a lot of live from week to week and will continue to do so until they can claim their pension. Maybe the politicians should wait until they hit the magic age of retirement, after all most of them are highly educated so there is nothing stopping them from getting a job after retiring from parliament.
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    2:08pm
    I suspect most politicians get jobs after retiring from parliament, not because of their high education but rather who they know and their experience as a politician. There are plenty of unemployed and underemployed highly educated "consultants" out there eking out a living and trying to support their families.
    sunnyOz
    1st May 2019
    3:48pm
    Answer to the Question? - if the govt would leave savers alone, and encourage them to save for their retirement instead of punishing them - then yes, Aust could afford it's retirees. But at the moment - no.
    cat
    2nd May 2019
    11:58am
    Of course Australia can afford its retirees what we can't afford is our politicians
    Misty
    3rd May 2019
    11:22am
    Totally agree Cat.
    Oldman Roo
    4th May 2019
    4:45pm
    In would like to bring up a matter of great concern to me that should likewise be of concern to most of you on Centrelink benefits .
    In South Australia one part in the north with a substantial number of welfare recipients was placed on a new system of Centrelink benefits with 80 % in Food Vouchers and 20 % in accessible Cash . While this cut the purchase of Alcohol , there were also reports of Food being sold on the Black Market .
    While Morrison was on a visit to South Australia recently , he announced this would now be trialled in other areas of South Australia too and the alarm bells immediately started ringing with me , reminiscent of the Tony Abbott strategy on part Pensioners and it,s disastrous effect on so many of us after the elections .
    While it may be ok in less affluent areas , but people who own their own house and car have high expenses in Rates an Taxes , Insurance and Maintenance , not to forget the high costs of adequate Heath care at an advanced age . These expenses are the bulk of the expenses in our household and are only going to increase . So the 80 / 20 ratio would drive us out of our home and in the long run possibly many of you .
    We should demand Scott Morrison to spell out all details of the new system before the election as this could turn into the worst disaster ever for Pensioners .
    Oldman Roo
    4th May 2019
    4:53pm
    Apologies for my mistake in the start rof my comment . It should start with I and not In .
    Cowboy Jim
    5th May 2019
    10:38am
    That scheme was in operation in inner Melbourne where I lived in the early 70s. Food hampers given to people and the whole basket was promptly hocked in the pub for cash or drinks. Very similar failure like the scheme when I was working in Cairns. Certain tribal people were allowed to hunt the Green Turtle and if a Whitey wanted a turtle it was a carton of VB or a bottle of Bundaberg. So much for reef creature protection!!
    Lookfar
    4th May 2019
    5:11pm
    Old man Roo, I agree, if the govt can get control of 80% of your expenditure you can bet they will cook up some deal with their rich donors so you have to buy cheap crap at high prices from said rich 'mate' - it will probably turn out to be cancer causing and not fit for pigs.
    Trust a polly to spend my money for me? not bloody likely, pigs will fly first.
    OlderandWiser
    5th May 2019
    11:13am
    And what if you are an expat in another country. And before anyone suggests that you must live in Australia to qualify for a pension or part pension, done bother as you can all get stuffed.
    Scheme has worked for some who have volunteered to bring their spending & bill paying under control but should be that, voluntary.
    The government can't even run the country efficiently so they are last people I want controlling even 10% of any pension.
    Black market will flourish & how is the government going to control that.
    Just another control to keep the poor poorer & the rich richer.
    Lookfar
    5th May 2019
    1:52pm
    Cowboy Jim, whitey does not understand that our black folk have an inherent understanding of relationships, so they will immediately copy, without judgement, the whitey corruption they perceive, - they try to fit in with us but we then criticise them for fitting in with us, - perhaps best to cleanse ourselves of our own corruption so they can fit in with something we all agree on.
    Cheers,
    Geoff.
    FEDUP
    5th May 2019
    2:13pm
    I noted that the % of GDP that the Welfare Bill takes up is 35% or 188 Billion. With the promise by one party to increase the pension by $150 per week or $300 per pay period, this would make the welfare bill approx 251 billion or 47% GDP. With the Labor party taking away the Franking Credits, more self funded retirees will be eligible for the aged pension so further persons will increase the Welfare payments burden upon Government. The Liberals promise responsible Governance, but little else, as words do not help with pensions and increasing payments of food, electricity, travel etc.
    May as well vote for the Marijuana Party and be a complete dope.
    ardnher
    5th May 2019
    6:23pm
    looking forward to Bill eShorten running the country as it appears he will. let us se.e him fulfill all the promises he has made . it will be an interesting 4 years
    Farside
    5th May 2019
    6:52pm
    Fedup, you likely already know the UAP ambit $150 raise in the pension has no chance of getting through.

    You also probably suspect ALP has reached the view the savings on the FC refunds will exceed the number of former SFRs joining the pension crowd.

    LNP is awkwardly wedded to laissez faire ideology (except when it comes to looking after the mates) rather than managing an economy to improve living standards (all countries with higher living standards than Australia have much higher tax to GDP ratios). Personally, I would not express confidence in Liberal "responsible Governance" if their opposition to a federal ICAC, obfuscating before Senate estimates oversight and misleading the public with lies and mistruths is any indication.

    For what it's worth I suspect it would be little different under Labor, it's just they are not as good at deception and hiding their intentions. I bet pulling back on a doobie is sounding pretty good about now?
    OlderandWiser
    5th May 2019
    6:55pm
    I suspect a lot of SFR won't be on the pension after FC's are gone as most would still not qualify if they retain their shares as they may not qualify under the assets testing.
    My shares are both part of my assets & also centrelink look at dividends & FC's for income testing.
    OlderandWiser
    5th May 2019
    6:44pm
    Anyone notice that O&W's posts are all gone?
    Farside
    5th May 2019
    7:09pm
    Had not noticed but a quick Google search confirmed posts by O&W (OGR/Rainey) have indeed been deleted or blocked. I guess the Admins had enough.
    Misty
    5th May 2019
    8:08pm
    Well there should be certain standards surely when posting on here, no one should have to put up with being called names and bullying, enough is enough. Surely one can comment here to get their concerns across without using those tactics.
    Blinky
    5th May 2019
    8:07pm
    If we cant afford retirees, then we cant afford asylun seekers, foreign aid and pollies' pensions.
    STOP PICKING ON PENSIONERS, they worked and paid taxes and now they need to be looked after in their old age.
    Aussie focussed
    6th May 2019
    6:58pm
    Immigration is NOT needed. We used to have a value added manufacturing industry which is now imported from china. We no longer value add or run machines operated by one person or a computer to export product. Instead our pollies (from both parties) somehow agreed to import all this from china, sell and hike up our power prices so we could NOT compete. Funny they both get chinese sponsorship. However if we can import refugees and pay them welfare why is it so hard to pay australian pensioners and pension compliant retirees a pension that is ABOVE the poverty line. If you have been in this great country for 60 plus years and worked you deserve and have earned a pension. If you are a dual citizen your loyalties are divided and you are a citizen of convenience. Stop importing welfare and pay your citizens what they are due, yes due. They have put in and if they have been on welfare more than 10 in their 50/60 review their rights, be fair and pay them back what they have put in.
    Lookfar
    13th May 2019
    7:17pm
    Dear Aussie focussed, I strongly sympathise with your position, I certainly agree that Immigration should not be needed, but it seems that it is, at least that is what some employers and some politicians argue.
    Why is this? - well it does seem that the education system has become somewhat run down, perhaps a not noticeable but gradual running down of funding and standards, - doesn't help that the Liberals like expensive Private Schools and Labour likes only Public Schools, whereas each child needs to go to the right school for them. - Gonski attempted to address that by just giving each child an equal share of the education budget that would be allocated to the school that child /parents chose, but seems to have been sabotaged at every turn, so now many of our children have not been given the flexibility of education that allows them to adapt to modern requirements, so employers say they have to look overseas, as very few Ozzie kids can do the jobs.
    This should have been seriously addressed decades ago, but wasn't, and rather than address it, money was spent elsewhere for as we know, immigrants have been educated elsewhere at another country's expense, and no cheaper education system can be found than that, dreadfully shortsighted though it is.
    The whole education system has to be totally re-built, as neither turning out spoilt snobs nor making everybody equal in skills is effective.
    My personal feeling is that every child has a special destiny, so the principle of freedom, out of Liberty Equality and Fraternity, has to put freedom first in terms of each individual has to find their own destiny so a schooling should give them the means to find it and the means/tools to actualise it, but materialism doesn't like that concept.
    I suppose the best example is that despite that the world's climate is changing, - mainly towards far worse, children are not being taught how to rebuild shattered economies, ecologies, or equalibriums, they are not being taught how to analyse what is going wrong and how to fix it, as we have not been taught also, but now it is getting serious.!
    We all need to ask ourselves why is this the case?, cliches and platitudes will not help, doing nothing will only make the situation worse, and I haven't even got past your first four words..
    jzb
    13th May 2019
    4:08pm
    Make euthanasia legal and it'll solve the problem!
    ozirules
    13th May 2019
    6:04pm
    you'd have to make it compulsory jzb :)