7th Jul 2015
Super access age increase proposed
Super access age increase proposed

The Productivity Commission has found that by increasing to 65 the age at which Australians can access their super, the Commonwealth budget could be better off by $7 billion a year. Detailed in the commission’s newest report, Superannuation Policy for Post-Retirement, the commission estimates that the change would encourage Australians to work an additional two years on average, reducing pressure on the Age Pension and Federal Budget.

The superannuation access age is already legislated to increase from 55 to 60 by 2025, but the Productivity Commission modelling is based on estimates if that age was raised from 60 to 65 between 2035 and 2043.

Budget savings of $7 billion a year would be expected from 2055 onwards with the Age Pension system saving $3 billion a year. Increased income tax receipts may rise by $5 billion, with welfare payments potentially increasing by $1 billion.

The commission’s report notes an “absence of clear and prioritised objectives” coming from Canberra and suggests that it is difficult to know how to design good policy without direction.

Read more from www.abc.net.au
Read more from www.theage.com.au

Opinion: Clearer direction required

The implementation of compulsory superannuation in Australia may very well be the most important cornerstone of the Australian budget for years to come, but the future superannuation remains uncertain.

The current Abbott Government has continued to suggest that no changes will be made to the superannuation system in its first term, which makes one wonder, what is planned if the party is re-elected for a second term? As the Productivity Commission has suggested in its report, it’s very hard to design policy around the future of superannuation when direction isn’t currently being provided.

As detailed in the latest Intergenerational Report, by 2055 there is expected to be a massive spike in the average life expectancy of every Australian. The only way that Australians who are expected to live longer will be able to fund their later years is through the implementation of a successful superannuation system. We need a retirement income review.

What do you think? As the life expectancy age continues to rise, is it necessary to increase the age at which Australians can access their super? Should more government focus be put on the superannuation system considering its impact on future budgets?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login

    7th Jul 2015
    10:36am
    We should encourage people to fund their own retirement at any age they wish .
    We should stop taxing super savings this would increase the available money by 40 to Fifty per cent .
    People should compulsory add to their own savings for old age that say 5 per cent of salary to add to the ten per cent paid by employer .
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    4:10pm
    But the Abbott Government is actively DISCOURAGING saving by their grossly unfair changes to the assets test for the aged pension. It makes no sense to, on the one hand, say people should save for their retirement, and on the other hand penalize them heavily for doing so. The means test for pensions should be income-based, or at least recognize the level of assets genuinely needed to be self-funded, and factor in age and health/disability/care needs so that people don't suffer harsh penalties for saving for retirement, people have security to plan for retirement and are not subjected to sudden changes, but there is still a healthy balance that ensures pensions are sensibly targeted and costs to the taxpayer are contained.
    Theo1943
    7th Jul 2015
    4:43pm
    Rainey, If you have too many assets to receive any pension you must have $832,000. If you put that under the mattress you can take out the full pension every fortnight for 10 years, at which time you will still have $375,000 and be receiving the full pension. If you put it in the bank on a term deposit at 2.5% you will get an extra $20,000 in interest to top up your income.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    5:06pm
    To top up WHAT income, Theo? There is NO income for someone with more than $835,000 in assets other than the interest or investment returns it generates, so there's clearly nothing the interest can ''top up''. And nobody can put all of it in the bank because that sum INCLUDES furniture, personal assets, car, etc. Your figures also totally ignore inflation and the six-monthly increases to the pension and the huge value of pension benefits. As the capital depletes, investment returns fall, so every withdrawal of cash to live on reduces not just the savings balance, but future income as well. While living costs are rising, income is falling. If an affected retiree expects to live another 40 years, they have nowhere near enough to fund a lifestyle equal to that of a pensioner, let alone to meet the anticipated additional needs they saved for. So what you are saying is that those who save should be stripped of the benefit of their saving and those who frittered money away should be richly rewarded by the taxpayer. Not a very sensible way to manage a growing deficit problem!

    A friend who will lose the pension under the new rules has been quoted $50,000 for essential surgery that would be free if a pensioner, but will be charged fully to anyone with a health care concession card and no pension card. Another who suffers a disability will pay an extra $30 a fortnight for physiotherapy on losing the pension, in addition to a raft of other excess medical costs for specialists who don't acknowledge the health care card. Then there are the rates, power, water, transport and car registration concessions to consider, plus all the discounts offered by private businesses to aged pensioners only.

    As I pointed out in other posts, only green-eyed simpletons take the simplistic view that because someone has savings they should be forced to live on them while those who didn't save get generous handouts. Such denial of benefit for responsible planning and saving is ultimately bad for the nation and is the cause of our current debt. We need a sensible balance to keep the cost of retirement manageable, but we need to preserve incentive and to encourage saving.
    marls
    7th Jul 2015
    5:25pm
    Pete what about the people who have never worked a day in their life they hve no problems being given the pension with any effort.
    Radish
    8th Jul 2015
    1:24pm
    In its simplest terms (as far as I can see) everyone (apart from a few) wants the pension because they feel it is their right because they have worked and paid taxes all their lives and they want to keep their nest egg as well.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    6:45pm
    I don't think that's true or fair, Radish, but those who CANNOT be self-sufficient because despite a great deal of effort and sacrifice they could not accrue the amount needed in this low-investment-return environment ARE entitled to expect to have their income topped up with a part pension and benefits. They SHOULD NOT have to sacrifice their savings while higher income earners who spent freely and those who cold but didn't work hard are given fatter handouts.

    I would have no problem at all with an assets test that excluded anyone who had enough to be self-sufficient from pension entitlement, but EVERY non-pensioner is entitled to be better off than those their children's taxes support.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    8:04pm
    Radish, perhaps I should rephrase my response to acknowledge that the selfish rich feel entitled, the irresponsible spendthrifts and the lazy feel entitled, the disabled and sick and educationally disadvantaged ARE entitled, and some in the middle feel entitled because they ARE morally and ethically entitled based on their past life choices and circumstances.

    We all paid taxes under a system that declared us all entitled and that set aside a percentage of taxes to fund aged pensions for all. It's not our fault corrupt politicians stole that money. But more to the point, most of us didn't have employer-funded superannuation. There is a major difference between retirement money accrued from employer contributions and tax concessions and retirement savings accrued through sacrificing lifestyle during one's working life. Where savings were accrued through earlier lifestyle sacrifice, people ARE morally entitled to benefit from their earlier spending and saving choices. It is morally and ethically wrong to suggest that big spenders and the irresponsible have an entitlement to be supported by the taxpayer in old age while the responsible and frugal are deprived of all that they worked and sacrificed for. Yes, savers ARE entitled to keep their nest egg. If it's large enough that it can generate a comfortable living wage - well above the level of pensions + benefits - then I see no issue with taxing it and/or denying pension benefits. If it isn't enough to generate such as wage, then it SHOULD be topped up with pension benefits. The change to the assets test was morally, ethically and legally wrong and independent global assessors have determined that it made our aged pension system significantly more unfair - though it was already only rated at 3.3 out of 10 for fairness, so the gross unfairness of it is well recognized by intelligent assessors outside the Australian government.

    A person who accrues a savings nest egg through earlier lifestyle sacrifice should certainly be allowed the choice of when and how to use it, and should not suffer loss of benefits because of their earlier diligence. But of course the green-eyed irresponsible will never see it that way, and the idiot bleeding hearts will continue to want to play Robin Hood, with no regard for fairness or for the realities of life.
    Bonny
    7th Jul 2015
    10:45am
    I keep telling my kids that they should only put the bare minimum into super and invest any surplus money elsewhere. Too many rules already without even thinking about the potential ones to come.
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    1:33pm
    Spot on. It concerns many people in the know that this government is wanting to nationalise superannuation so that governments can get their hands on some of the money.
    As far as not being able to access until 65 that will keep people in the workforce, although I don't know what this brain dead group which calls itself a government think that people with broken bodies at 50 ear supposed to do. Maybe sit on a street corner holding a cup and begging until they turn 65.
    marls
    7th Jul 2015
    5:31pm
    bonny and mick i agree total waste of time telling people to save for super, when the govt keeps changing the rules and on top of that the govt is after the super money for its coffers. i see the writing on the wall.
    i retired aged 63 on my super not because my job was difficult but i could no longer deal with 4hrs travelling daily. with absolutely no life
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    8:23pm
    ''...I don't know what this brain dead group which calls itself a government think that people with broken bodies at 50 ear supposed to do. Maybe sit on a street corner holding a cup and begging until they turn 65''

    Mick, I think you got it in one, but I suspect their real goal is to force most of us to sit on street corners holding cups until we die - hopefully very soon after we quit working and paying taxes.

    7th Jul 2015
    10:49am
    Drew for a man who has only ever voted Labor once in his life . You seem to be caught up in the left idea that applying more tax is a saving .
    Forcing Self Funded retirees to work u til they are sixty five so they pay more income tax is Orwellian ...
    Bonny
    7th Jul 2015
    10:57am
    Extending the age at which people are access super will make it less not more attractive to them. I'm already hearing of financial planners giving the under 40s advice that they should have the bare minimum in super and invest elsewhere.
    Jansview
    7th Jul 2015
    11:31am
    If the politicians concentrated on their own superannuation and post-parliament perks and worked out ways to find reductions there they'd save more than changing the access age for other pensioners. They're already making it hard enough for them and to suggest pensioners can't access their OWN money is ludicrous. If they keep changing the goal posts on super it will drive people away and the 'nest egg' it should be.
    KSS
    7th Jul 2015
    12:50pm
    Bonny that advice is hardly earth shattering. We have been told for years that relying on the minimum employer super contribution (or the equivalent for self employed) is not going to be enough to fund a reasonable standard of living in retirement. Spreading investments or diversifying investments is also the same advice that's been given for years. Those wanting (and being able) to retire early have actioned this for years too. No news or surprises there.
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    1:37pm
    KSS: you r statement would apply to an ideal situation....start work at 20 and finish at 70, as well as low inflation and good returns. Remember that the superannuation salesmen 25 years ago were promising nest eggs of $1 million. So how far does that go these days. Better to have punted on real estate.
    The problem with the future and forecasting is that it makes a whole pile of assumptions.
    Drew
    7th Jul 2015
    2:25pm
    Hey Pete,

    Still yet to vote for Labor at the Federal level as well.. so yes, i voted for this mob!

    I'm actually not for or against the proposal until we know where the retirement system is heading. Agree that everyone at sixty/sixty five are at different ages and stages and it's hard to judge as a catch-all. If we are thinking towards 2055, I certainly would prefer to see an increase in compulsory super rates to allow for an earlier retirement, but we need a retirement income review to determine if anything like this is even feasible!
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    2:42pm
    Why not make the extra 5 per cent in compulsory super come from the employee. Why not remove tax on super savings .
    I understand the review is to move the system to one self funding as much as possible which will need a change in mind set to one where pension is not a right but a safety net..
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    2:46pm
    Maybe vote for a government whose elected representatives are not puppets and for a Party where the members all have a say Drew. INDEPENDENTS are the only MPs who are not stooges in our current system of government and the belief that the 2 sides of politics are not highly controlled by vested interests is a myth. They are. We effectively have government by big business with middlemen pretending that they are representing you. They're not.
    As I keep saying Australians get the governments they deserve. It saddens me that the electorate is not smart enough to realise that if something doesn't work then stop doing it. My view.
    As I also keep saying 'follow the money trail' and you will see who is running the show. Cheers.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    4:23pm
    It seems to me that in an age of decreasing employment opportunity due to technology and increased automation, people should be retiring EARLIER, not later. What we really need is greater equity and fairer distribution of profits (via modified taxation and pension systems if necessary) to enable people to work LESS, not more, and to concentrate on improving lifestyles by reducing materialism and addressing greed. Preserve jobs for the young, fit and healthy, and let older people enjoy the rewards of their decades of labor before their bodies wear out.

    As for the question of what age people should be able to access super, we surely need to consider personal circumstances. If a person's body gives out at 55 and they can no longer work and earn, how is it reasonable to deny them access to their own superannuation money for a decade, unless you are prepared to extend them adequate state benefits to enable a moderately comfortable lifestyle and decent health care?

    As I see it, the problem is that those in poorly paid jobs can't accrue enough superannuation and they are the most likely to be unable to continue working into their later years. It's all very well to theorize about how much changing laws can save, but a humane government needs to recognize the reality that doing so further disenfranchises the most disadvantaged in the community. (Of course most of us have come to understand that this current Government is anything but humane and will never recognize reality, but will continue to insist that the most disadvantaged should sacrifice more to further line the pockets of the well-to-do.)
    BrianP
    7th Jul 2015
    11:14am
    The very suggestion that we cannot access super until 65 goes against earlier sensible proposals to allow people to take some of their super to pay off the home mortgage.

    If people are forced to keep the home mortgage until the are 65, they will pay much more interest, have less savings for retirement and the only winner will be the banks. We need to stop this suggestion in its tracks.
    KSS
    7th Jul 2015
    12:56pm
    BrianP NO ONE is forced to keep anything. They can always get rid of the mortgage if they so choose. And if they are working until they are 65 why would they need to access the very savings they are collecting to fund their retirement but up to 10 years earlier? And don't ignore the fact that their asset i.e. that for which they are paying a mortgage, will also likely increase in value over the additional period adding to their overall wealth. And it would prevent people buying a more expensive property in order to reduce their assets so they can make a claim on the age pension.
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    1:47pm
    So how does your suggestion help pay off the mortgage sooner Brian? No difference whether people access their super or not.
    The real game appears to be to keep people working so that they do not access the pension system and denying them their retirement benefits is just a part of the strategy.
    Adrianus
    7th Jul 2015
    3:16pm
    BrianP you are assuming a lot when you call changes to the sole purpose test a sensible proposal. Realistically, why would a homeowner save in a super fund for 30 plus years to clear a mortgage debt?
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    5:13pm
    If someone earns too little to be able to accrue a deposit on a home and pay it off, then it is rather futile suggesting they should build assets in superannuation that will be locked away until they are 65. It's been repeatedly acknowledged that the biggest hurdle to funding a modestly comfortable retirement is acquiring home ownership. So it surely makes sense to empower people to acquire and pay off their home as quickly as possible, and defer accruing money for retirement until after the house is paid for. The problem, of course, is ensuring that people don't take advantage of having early access to super to fund a more lavish home than is needed, to buy expensive cars, jewelry, etc. or to take lavish holidays. There needs to be some control to ensure that early access is allowed only to fund acquisition of a modest home, to meet essential health care needs that can't be reasonably met in other ways, or to survive crisis, trauma or extreme hardship.
    Chris B T
    7th Jul 2015
    11:29am
    The Government are not the only ones Benefiting from increasing the access age.
    This will allow superannuation funds to earn more of your funds.
    Anyone wishing to retire early using their funds for what ever reason has to wait.
    The no changes to super or pensions is still ringing in my ears.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    11:44am
    Don't give your savings to funds , particularly those run by union thugs , your money t
    Tom Tank
    7th Jul 2015
    11:56am
    Don't look now Pete but your right wing ignorance is showing. Industry Super Funds out perform Commercial funds and although set up by unions are not union dominated.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    12:05pm
    Don't look now but I said all funds . If you are too lazy to look after your own money you get everything you deserve...
    If you consider Right Wing standing up for individual rights over large government interference in our lives then yes I will wear your label ...
    Theo1943
    7th Jul 2015
    12:57pm
    Pete you did say "particularly those run by union thugs". Tom was merely pointing out that those are by far the best.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    1:45pm
    That discussion theo is too long to have here and would divert the conversation away from Drews intent . But happy to have it on meeting place if you wish ...
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    1:49pm
    Yes Chris.....and the answer is in WHOSE INTERESTS is this government working. I would have thought that ending the rorting of wealthy Australians would be a no brainer. Apparently not.
    Chris B T
    7th Jul 2015
    3:08pm
    PS
    I Do Not Have Any Funds In Any Super or Annunities.
    I Do Not Trust Them, I removed my funds just after the GFC.
    Previous reasons stated on other Commentry/Posts.
    The Super Funds/All are worried about a run on withdrawals, This Is What The Funds Are Desperately Trying To Avoid.
    The Government Want People To Work Till They Drop.(WORK NO CHOCIES)
    marls
    7th Jul 2015
    5:40pm
    Chris i totally agree the govt wants us to work until we drop. they then reap the benefits. We are the only country in the World that means test the old age pension elsewhere if you work and pay tax you get a pension. my mother in europe is on an australian pension, italian pension, my fathers pension as he is deceased and a small pension from belgium as my father went to war. in europe when one partner dies, the other partners receives the deceased pension.

    7th Jul 2015
    11:32am
    Taxing savings for retirement so that more People go on a state pension and calling it a concession is Orwellian speak .
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    1:53pm
    You fail to understand the concept Pete. The pension system is built into the taxation system. Always was.
    What has happened is that this arrangement from the past has now resulted in governments spending/wasting funds on other pursuits and then turning around and saying that the nation cannot afford to pay pensions. Really? Well how about taxpayers get a refund for the component of our taxes taken out for the pension system.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    2:01pm
    I agree that govt waste money . I also agree that the current pension is not high enough .
    But we should consider the state pension to be a temporary measure for most . Those on a state pension through having come up in a system before Keating brought in forced savings for old age need to be catered for to the best of our ability . But don't let us repeat the mistakes of the past let's encourage as many as we can to become self funding and not a burden on our children.
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    2:52pm
    A few assumptions there mate. I am of the opinion that current pensions are indeed enough....unless you don't own a home, have high debt or incur huge health care costs.
    Seriously, my wife and I get no pension and earn not too much more than we would if we were on the pension. From that we pay all of our bills and take an extended overseas trip every year. Of course we spend little in between and that is the secret. It can be done!
    You are correct about retirees between the start of super and retirement. The response to this from this government I believe was to add insult to injury by wanting to include the family home in the assets test. Charming.
    marls
    7th Jul 2015
    5:44pm
    mick you are so right, also many years ago only one parent worked but both received the age pension and it was affordable back then with less people working and paying taxes the problem today is we have to many coming to this country for welfare and have never worked a day in their life. and never will. cause our govt is to busy giving all our money away
    dougie
    7th Jul 2015
    11:33am
    Whatever happens as a result of this white paper and any changes made should be enshrined for a period no less than 10 years and by legislation be unable to be altered within that time. This would do two things 1. Give certainty of legislation and activity for a set period of time. Many people will use this period to set up for their ultimate retirement.
    2. Keep the Governments hands off the money invested and ensure that whatever is legislated for will be law for the period proscribed. The Government of the day would then have certainty of their planning and the super savings can go forward with certainty.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    11:59am
    We should increase legislation , as is being done , for those going on State pensions . and reduce legislation on those funding themselves ..
    Hawkeye
    7th Jul 2015
    9:30pm
    Dougie, what rock did you crawl out from?

    Pretty well everything this corrupt excuse for a government does needs to be reversed immediately by the next one.
    Especially the huge increases in "tax welfare" handed out to the rich.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    9:32pm
    Like what?
    dougie
    8th Jul 2015
    8:08am
    Hawkeye,
    What a disgusting name calling post. I am entitled to a point of view as are you. My point of view is that the current government has had so much to fix up from the government that could not even settle on a leader for a term of government without backstabbing changes. They now have a leader who is a political liability and no one in line to replace him.
    Adrianus
    8th Jul 2015
    9:33am
    I agree with dougie. We were left in such a mess by the previous government. There was never anyone in charge. The factions were pulling every which way. The current Labor leader was mainly responsible for the calamity. He continues to show a lack of leadership because he is controlled by the AWU and CFMEU. In the past he could simply say "I don't know what she said but I agree...." , however now he cannot take a policy position until he clarifies the position with his backers. God help us if Labor get back in, especially if they are also beholding to those who preferenced Labor. Independents, Greens, Unions plus the various Labor factions, all playing politics with each other and forgetting about Australia's future. I can still hear Wayne Swan saying we're doing really well compared to Greece.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    1:19pm
    What ill-informed garbage you spew, Frank! The major cause of our current ''mess'' was the Howard Government's excessive tax cuts, 80% of which benefited only the well-to-do. Labor made plenty of mistakes, for sure, but they are in no way responsible for the deficit that Hockey is now blowing out by billions - helped by his gifting billions to the Reserve Bank AFTER they declared they didn't want it!

    God help us if this Government gets back in! We are definitely destined to go the way of Greece if idiots like Morrison, Abbott and Hockey are allowed to continue to destroy incentive, persecute the real ''lifters'' in the society, and increase the transfer of wealth from the real ''lifters'' (the battling workers) to the obscenely self-serving leaning rich and privileged.

    Greece's problems result from the rich not paying tax and the poor being trampled down and expected to carry the entire load for the nation, plus the banks being allowed to dictate and overrule democracy. Privatization of govt assets, demanded by the greedy lenders, forced the costs of essentials through the roof (as is happening here), and growing poverty obstructed the circulation of money that is essential to create employment. You just can't keep taking from the struggling majority to feed a greedy fat minority and not eventually face the consequences.
    But idiots like those currently in power are determined to somehow keep destroying society and the environment to further fatten the vile fat-cats! What boggles the mind is that anyone can actually be blinkered enough to support such harmful policies, let alone foolish enough not to see where they will lead.

    The fix is simple enough. Tax those who can genuinely afford to pay. Restore social justice and equity with full accountability and a balanced system that cares adequately for the genuinely disadvantaged while maintaining sensible incentive and reward. Trouble is, the snout-in-the-trough power-mongers are too greedy to care a damn for valid solutions. They just keep making the taxpayer pay rent for properties they own and deliver them to mega-millionaire status after a few short years of sitting on their useless backside and shouting rude abuse at their opposition (and that criticism extends to almost ALL politicians - with virtually no exceptions and definitely none based on party affiliation!)
    dougie
    8th Jul 2015
    1:54pm
    Rainey,
    If what you say is true what happened in those years that Labor held power. There was lots - Free Roof insulation and the consequences arising - Free halls for schools even if they did not need them - Free gifts to the populace of approx $1000-00, some people received this multiple times ie. students working etc. If they contributed so much why was the country solvent when they took government and in surplus and when they left they did not even know if they had left a surplus or a massive deficit. The latter as it turned out. So name call or whatever but get your facts right and understand a little about economic management and the building of personal wealth.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    2:22pm
    Dougie, I'm not disputing that Labor made lots of mistakes and wasted money, but the deficit grew primarily because of the GFC. Yes, we had a surplus when they took power, but financial commitments had been made by previous governments that couldn't be easily cancelled, and when the boom ended and the GFC hit, there was no longer revenue to meet those commitments.

    I understand very well about economic management and the building of personal wealth, which is why - unlike many here - I see how stupid and destructive this government's attack on part-pensioner retirees was and how such an unfair and cruel change not only destroys personal savings, but destroys the incentive that is required to build national wealth and generates potential minor short-term gain, but for substantial long-term pain.

    Funny how some blinkered LNP supporters seem able to claim the burgeoning debt now is a result of commitments Labor made, but can't see that Labor also inherited commitments that weren't affordable when the boom ended and the GFC took hold.

    Ultimately, there are very few politicians - if any - who have any real grasp of the principles of sound financial management. My grandmother used to say we needed a PM and Treasurer who had kept a family going through the Great Depression with both partners unemployed from the start of the hardship to the end. She would have been brilliantly qualified! She kept six children fed, housed and clothed with a husband permanently out of work and managed to buy the house she was renting just as the Depression was ending. She was desperately poor all her life, but she fed half the community during the bad times and boasted that she was well off on the aged pension and it was more than generous. I learned from her, and overcame disadvantage most Australians wouldn't even believe, let alone conceive, to be quite secure and moderately comfortable until my husband suffered disability and the Government screwed us (more than once!). So don't tell me I don't understand economic management and wealth building. But nobody can get it right when the Government is constantly changing the rules to strip the lifters of their fair rewards and give more to the fat-cat greedy leaners who abuse their power to avoid paying their fair share. And no Government can get it right while the greedy bankers and global rich are overruling democratic process. But Abbott and Hockey are clearly in the pockets of the rich and deliberately catering to their whims. At least Labor TRIED to suggest fair and economically sustainable reform, and opposed proposals that were clearly unfair and damaging.
    dougie
    8th Jul 2015
    4:36pm
    Rainey,

    For your information I was for many years a union member and delegate for the area for which I was responsible in my employment position. I was spokesman on behalf of the staff and negotiated with the union on their behalf. The union was less than useless with the Organiser a waste of time and money. For many years I was a committed Labor supporter in both State and Federal spheres. However because of the low life people who are now running the party behind the scenes and the type of people that we have envisaged as leaders of the nation, I am now a swinging voter and not loyal to any party or individual member. When and if the Labor party. can again become the champion of the worker instead of the champion of the rorters of the system I shall remain this way. When you cannot even get the Labor HQ to respond to an email or inquiry what hope does the party have. They are too busy protecting their own little castles to worry about the people whom they should be representing. A curse on them all.
    Adrianus
    8th Jul 2015
    6:20pm
    Well said dougie. It's so gratifying to see people who can think for themselves. I am a swinger as well. I have voted Labor in the past. As I get older though, I become less tolerable of the spin and vote for whatever party will do the best for the whole country. Labor pretend to be on the side of the battler and disadvantaged but I see through their BS. The way I look at it, if the country continues to be the best place on the planet to live then I will die a happy man.
    dougie
    9th Jul 2015
    8:09am
    Frank,
    Thank you for your words of support. Maybe now some of those who name call and criticise will understand that we do have a broad experience in the world and can see what is going on. Just listen to Shorten at the Commission of Inquiry and make up your own mind as to whether he used his position to coerce large organisations into funding his entry into Federal Politics.
    Anonymous
    9th Jul 2015
    8:27am
    Dougie and Frank, I don't dispute for a second that the Labor Party is full of deceptive incompetents, and don't get me started on unions! What I dispute is the BS claim that they are responsible for the deficit. Read the article at https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/july/1435672800/richard-denniss/clowns-and-treasurers. It's one of many that reveal how the public has been deceived into believing the LNP are better economic managers and Labor's waste caused the current debt.

    The fact is that our current debt problem is a result of the Howard Government wasting the profits of the mining boom and giving permanent (and unsustainable) tax cuts to the rich on the back of a temporary boom, while at the same time claiming inability to boost benefits for the poor. The current LNP Government is continuing the dishonest ''econospeak'', falsely claiming a budget surplus is proof of good economic management and falsely blaming the poor, welfare, the Senate, Labor, and anyone but their own incompetent and corrupt Ministers for budget problems. They spent $2.5 million on a report that was 100% wrong on critical facts and having framed a budget on the basis of the self-serving misinformation contained in it, did a 180 degree about-face when they realized the populace wasn't quite as gullible as they thought. Now they are attacking the slightly more affluent battlers who worked their guts out to save a little for old age, and destroying all incentive for anyone but the privileged to strive. They are offering massive bonuses to retirees who are NOT millionaires are are never likely to be - who don't, in fact, have nearly enough money to be self-sufficient - to go on wild spending sprees so that they get the benefits they are ALREADY morally and ethically entitled to after decades of planning in compliance with Government advice and recommendations and after a Government was elected on the promise NOT to change the existing rules.

    Sadly, there are no solutions given our current UNDEMOCRATIC and UNWORKABLE system of government. Voting Independent is unlikely to help the situation because not enough people do, so results are decided on minor party preferences and the votes of a minority who remain loyal to one or the other primary parties. We have morons in parliament who don't understand basic financial management, let alone economics, and we have a largely gullible and ill-informed public who have no comprehension of reality and cannot decipher ''econospeak'', but are willing to swallow the BS peddled by the media that is controlled by self-serving privileged individuals who, indirectly, dictate more of government policy than any government ever did.

    The fact is that we need a total overhaul of our system of government to allow people to elect people who will faithfully REPRESENT the people in their electorate and will reject any urging to comply to party demands. We need HONEST and DILIGENT representatives who will accept a modest salary, minimal benefits (in line with those granted to the majority of workers) and only GENUINE expense reimbursement and will respect the constraints imposed by the current state of the economy and the rights of the people who create national wealth.

    Most of all, we need a Government that respects the rights of the people and ceases the overindulgence of the privileged, the persecution of the real ''lifters'', and the false blaming and abuse of the underprivileged, and manages the economy for fair and equitable benefit, recognizing that it's a SOCIETY, NOT A BUSINESS.

    The Labor Party has no answers, and I fear Shorten will cause them to lose the unlosable, but right now I think we'd be far better off under Labor than with this bunch of dishonest, corrupt, serf-serving Sheriff-of-Nottingham-mentality morons who are destroying the Australian way of life by promoting greed and social division.

    I've traditionally been an LNP voter, but this LNP has succeeded in persuading me to aggressively oppose everything they stand for. They are disgustingly dishonest, sick with greed and selfishness, and vile in their hatred of the aged, the sick, the disabled, the educationally disadvantaged, carers, and battling working-class families. They are driving an anti-social and anti-family mentality and a belief that life is about nothing more than working until you drop, earning as much as possible, and paying huge taxes if you are poor and honest but avoiding taxes completely if you are rich and privileged. They are not just disgustingly incompetent, but disgracefully self-serving and lacking in any moral fiber, and they are destroying everything this country has traditionally stood for.

    Australia is still probably the best place on the planet to live, but this Government will ensure it doesn't remain that way for much longer. And anyone who believes their lies about Labor causing the deficit is helping drive nails into the coffin of the ''lucky country'' and ensuring that we go the way of Greece, because Greece's problems are a direct result of doing precisely what the LNP is doing here: forcing the working class to carry the entire load while the rich cheat, exploit and party.
    Adrianus
    9th Jul 2015
    8:43am
    dougie, I know we are getting a little off topic here, BUT. :)
    I watched a couple of hours yesterday and made some interesting observations. The TURC has reinforced what many of us have known, which is big business and Labor are strange bedfellows. They both benefit from the deals and I wonder how significant the benefit is to big business at the expense to small business? It would appear that the ALP through their subsidiary organisation act as a gatekeeper between big business and local authorities, particularly when shutdowns occur.
    Another noticeable feature is the presence of Greg Combet Automotive Transformation Co-ordinator of Greg Combet Pty Ltd. Now in itself not necessarily significant, but his body language is not helping Labor. Bill Shorten is much cooler under pressure and he is the one in the seat.

    7th Jul 2015
    12:00pm
    Now is the time for those of you who are Aged Pensioners and asset-tested to think about what to do prior to 1/1/2017 because there is a big slug to pensions on it's way for those who are "liquidity comfy".
    Bonny
    7th Jul 2015
    12:19pm
    Not much one can do except spend the money on non assets like cruises and holidays. I don't think even a change of government will change this legislation.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    12:34pm
    What the govt has done is restrict access to the State pension to those who do not need it and increased the pension to those that do ...
    What you are suggesting to spend your money so that you qualify for he state pension s cheating the tax payer ...
    Bonny
    7th Jul 2015
    12:45pm
    Playing by the rules is not cheating. Cheating is not playing by the rules.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    1:10pm
    Pete, you are either a politician or so short-sighted you can't see the glasses on your own nose. If you had any sense at all, or glasses, which you do seem to need, you could read (I hope!) that there is nothing about cheating ANYONE. But, having read your other comments above (Orwellian, right wing, union thugs, etc.) you wouldn't have a clue nor know which end is up. Have a read (if you can) through Centrelink superannuation policies and get off the high horse you are pictured on. Perhaps your helmet is too tight - ?
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    1:40pm
    Bonny spending your money so as to qualify for a tax payers funded pension may not be illegal but is certInly cheating the taxpayer ...
    KSS
    7th Jul 2015
    1:53pm
    "Playing by the rules is not cheating." so says Bonny. Why then are people so down on the politicians when they 'play by the rules" or the so called "rich" who also "play by the tax, investment and super rules"?
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    1:54pm
    Fast Eddie I normally do not reply to those who engage in personal attacks . But for your information I am not a politician but one of the few who belong to a political party to support those closest to my views..
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    1:55pm
    I'll agree with that Bonny. But what happens when it is gone and the next government changes the rules again? You already know this government is hanging out to include the family home in the assets test.
    gilstamp
    7th Jul 2015
    2:03pm
    KSS, This is because pensioners would do it for survival. The rich are doing it for plain greed or because they can.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    4:45pm
    Pete, you either believe politicians' propaganda or swallow ill-informed claims by ignoramuses! The change to the assets test has actually imposed serious hardship in many and significantly INCREASED the existing UNFAIRNESS of a pension system that harshly punishes people who plan and save for retirement and rewards the spendthrifts.

    The change didn't give one single extra cent to anyone who is genuinely disadvantaged. It enhanced the comfort of those with assets less than $400,000 (for a couple) substantially by forcing those with greater savings to drain their savings meeting basic living expenses instead of using them for the increased level of comfort for which they were intended. Now to the green-eyed simpletons who did not plan and save for retirement, it seems fair to claim that those with a little more wealth should give up their comforts for those with less. But to a fair-thinking person, it is clearly grossly unreasonable to suggest that someone who went without luxuries in earlier life to accrue a little nest-egg should now be stripped of benefits to give more to those who enjoyed greater pleasures in their younger years. For my part, I strongly resent seeing gamblers and those who traveled the world on fat salaries or big inheritances collecting generous pensions while battlers who saved by working multiple jobs and going without things others consider necessities are now denied a fair benefit.

    Furthermore, nobody seems to be acknowledging that many who planned for retirement have their assets locked away in long-term investments - as recommended by financial advisers AND successive governments, and now have to cash them in (potentially at a time when capital values are very low), which reduces the overall capacity of retirees to sustain themselves through old age, when high care and health costs are faced. Ultimately, the change cannot be good for the country. It is short-term gain for long term pain.

    Meanwhile, the income test remains obscenely generous and those with both income and modest assets can achieve very high incomes and still receive pension benefits. The disadvantaged who saved in anticipation of high health care needs in later life or who received modest compensation payouts after an injury and now face heavy costs due to disability or illness are ground steadily into poverty and denied the fair benefit of either their earlier sacrifice or the medical treatment and care the compensation payout was intended to provide.

    As Bonny pointed out, the change leaves many with no valid options now other than to blow large sums on cruises etc. or buy a much bigger house, rendering all their careful planning - in response to the urging and advice or successive governments - futile. They have the choice of jeopardizing their future through a big spend-up now, living on an income of as little as half the pension (in many cases), or allowing their savings to be slowly frittered away on necessities while those who didn't plan and save enjoy a far better lifestyle funded by the taxpayer. And some blind fools call that FAIR!
    KSS
    7th Jul 2015
    5:54pm
    gilstamp, motivation is irrelevant. They are playing by the rules and who are you (or anyone for that matter) to dictate their motivation? I doubt you are their confidante.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    6:52am
    KSS, the proposed changes were based on ASSUMPTIONS about motivation -made by politicians, their stupid advisers, and the dumb bleeding-hearts who have a vested interest in destroying the middle class in the pretense of helping the disadvantaged. I was advised by an independent Senator that the Minister stated that the changes were designed to address the problem of ''rich'' superannuants who deliberately reduced their assets to qualify for a part pension, and the changes ONLY hurt people in that category, and nobody else. Yet more evidence of the incompetence and dishonesty of this Government - as if we needed any more!
    Adrianus
    8th Jul 2015
    7:09am
    Rainey, do you really believe that all people plan to be on welfare? If that is the case then I'm pleased we have a person like Morrison taking control of this undesirable situation. Costello is right about the big fat Greek tragedy. There are lessons in it for Australia. Sooner or later someone needs to pay the piper and your opinion is the same as the Greeks. "Not me now, my kids can pay it later."
    I say "if not now , when? And by whom?
    Just be grateful with what we have. Faster internet, pink batts in our roof, an extra 200,000 people on welfare etc. I'm sure there is something useful we can do with all those empty refugee detention centres. Let's look at the positives. Some of us didn't ask for this situation but collectively we did, so we all should accept responsibility.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    7:34am
    Frank, I'm questioning your comprehension mate! You are either not very intelligent or simply don't read comments before you spew out rubbish responses.

    I didn't say people plan to be on welfare. I said the idiot Minister and his stupid advisers made that assumption, and the fact that they made it is evidence of their incompetence. That says - just so it's totally clear - I BELIEVE PEOPLE DO NOT PLAN TO BE ON ''WELFARE'' (though the aged pension ISN'T WELFARE!)

    As for the Greek tragedy, the lesson - if anyone is paying attention - is that we should stop allowing the bankers and the wealthy to dictate that the battlers most pay for their greed and over-indulgence. The people saying ''not me now, my kids can pay later'' are the rich. I am merely saying that battling hard-workers who plan and save need to be allowed to enjoy a fair reward, otherwise people will stop working and saving and then we will have the Greek crisis in spades. Only a dim wit would suggest that it's okay to keep indulging the rich and hurt the struggling workers who saved to part-fund their own retirement (and would have happily full-funded if economic conditions hadn't deteriorated so badly).

    As for faster internet - who has it? Ours hardly works at all and won't be upgraded for many years yet, if ever. My daughter lives in the middle of one of our biggest cities and CAN'T GET INTERNET AT ALL! Pink batts? Many people benefited from that scheme, but it's sad that it wasn't better managed. 200,000 more people on welfare? This government promised more jobs, but merely drove up unemployment and is continuing to do so. The changes to the pension mean that people who should have had more to spend will have less and people who waste money will have much more to squander. Remains to be seen how that will impact on employment opportunity, but what is clear is that there's now reduced incentive to strive, so many more will likely throw up their hands and say ''stuff knocking myself out in a low-paid unsatisfactory job. Might as well just claim welfare''.

    The deficit, for those who study history, is a result of the Howard Government's excessive generosity to the rich, NOT anything the Labor Government did (though they might have reversed Howard's concessions if they didn't fear being turfed out by the super-powerful who dictate policy).

    There IS a solution to our problems if politicians weren't so corrupt and we had the guts to penalize greed and unfair self-serving conduct. What we need to do is apply fair taxes, strengthen consumer protection law, demand that manufacturers stop building in obsolescence and break-down features, and restore accountability in the workplace, sacking those who don't do their job properly and removing the absurd protections for the lazy, inefficient and incompetent. The aged pension should be maintained as an entitlement until the benefits of compulsory superannuation kick in fully, but all other welfare needs to be tightened so that only the genuinely needy receive benefits, but victims of wrong-doing receive compensation directly from the wrong-doers wherever possible. In two words, ACCOUNTABILITY and FAIRNESS must be restored in the community.

    I do agree with your last sentence, but the issue for me is that WE ALL SHOULD ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY. That doesn't mean one minority group should be hurt while the majority either suffer nothing or benefit - which is the situation you seem to be endorsing.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    7:56am
    By the way, Frank, if you paid any attention to fact instead of regurgitating political propaganda and lauding Morrison's stupidity, you would understand that what this government is doing is making our kids pay later.

    By denying people the right to enjoy the benefit of responsible planning and saving, they are removing their capacity to pass on both accrued assets and an understanding of the value of responsible planning to their offspring. We are cultivating a society that believes the middle class should fund the excesses of the irresponsible and there should be a continuing transfer of wealth to the rich, while incentive and reward is totally destroyed for anyone who wasn't born privileged and only those born privileged or somehow able to accrue huge wealth should be permitted to enjoy the fruits of their endeavors.
    Tom Tank
    7th Jul 2015
    12:01pm
    The super system is seriously skewed in favour of the wealthy, courtesy Howard and Costello and the current government do not want, it would appear, to upset that apple cart.
    If the system was made so that a reasonable super benefit was possible to accrue, with the emphasis on reasonable, for all then the problem would be solved and a large part of the budget difficulty overcome.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    12:25pm
    Who sets the figure of reasonable ?
    Theo1943
    7th Jul 2015
    12:54pm
    I'll give it a try. The male average full time wage is currently about $75K. 20 times that is $1,500,000. If you have this amount then you can withdraw the Male Average wage for 25 years plus, the interest will more than cover inflation and give you another $50K per year for the first 5 or 10 years of your retirement. I think that is way more than reasonable. Any more than that and you pay tax at your marginal rate.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    12:56pm
    I don't want to live on the male average wage ..
    Theo1943
    7th Jul 2015
    12:59pm
    I didn't say you were reasonable Pete.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    1:32pm
    We do not have a levelling of incomes whilst employed why should we in retirement . As the wealthy ? Are not interested in super but are forced to set up their own companies to avoid loosing half their income in tax We are talking about those who should be encouraged to save for their own retirement . At the moment we tax super savings for current expenditure so giving our children a burden of paying for state pensions . As Drew says with an ageing population this is not sustainable . So we should be doing everything possible to encourage self funded retirees..
    If you must have a ReSinable amount for retirees to draw down I would suggest to allow for different standard of livings attained in working life a figure of 80 per cent of last salary to be reasonable. ...
    gilstamp
    7th Jul 2015
    2:06pm
    Pete, if you can earn more than the average wage, you deserve to be taxed on the remainder like any other earner, regardless of whether you think you have any responsibility to the rest of the country.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    2:36pm
    I am not a believer in levelling of incomes ..
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    2:56pm
    Theo: sorry if I am out of touch on this one. Did not know the average male wage was $75 000.
    Your assumptions on inflation look good on paper but remember that we have had periods in time where inflation went rampant. Given price increases in the past 3 years it looks to me like it is on again. There goes the model.
    Theo1943
    7th Jul 2015
    3:48pm
    Pete, I did not say there should be a limit on how much people save for their retirement, only on how much the Gov't should subsidise their savings. Once their subsidised savings reach the reasonable limit any further contributions should not be Gov't subsidised, i.e. taxed at the marginal rate. 80% of last salary eh? So you think Gail whatsername who retired from Westpac should get $7M a year in retirement? I totally agree, as long as the Gov't doesn't subsidise it.
    Theo1943
    7th Jul 2015
    3:59pm
    Mick, the current combined age pension for a couple is $33540 or 44% of the average Male full time wage. Single pensioners get $22360, 30% of the AMW. Pete appears to think the Gov't should subsidise people who have a Super income of more than $75,000 because it is not enough for him. At the same time he wants to cut pensions as his Party leader does. At what income level do you think it's fair to start taxing super income? Pensioners start getting reductions when they earn more than $250 a fortnight, that's 7 hours at the minimum wage per week. If they earn more than that their pension is reduced by 50 cents for every extra dollar they earn. That's a higher rate than anyone's marginal rate.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    4:49pm
    Seems to me that Pete is a hypocrite. On the one hand he objects to leveling incomes in retirement, because they aren't leveled during working years, but on the other hand he supports forcing people with modest savings to go without benefits so that those with less savings - but still much more than any genuinely disadvantaged retiree - can enjoy more!
    Adrianus
    7th Jul 2015
    5:02pm
    Rainey, I think if I understand you correctly, you're against those with modest or very little savings getting more pension, while those with an increased level of savings getting less or cut off? Don't you think that your view is somewhat selfish? Can you not find it in your heart to share a couple of dollars for someone less fortunate? You are just being mean spirited.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    5:32pm
    No, Frank. What I'm against is rewarding the frivolous and irresponsible while punishing those who sacrificed to save. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If X chooses to go without a great deal and work overtime because he wants to take an expensive cruise after retirement and leave a few hundred thousand to his children, but Y (who earns MORE than X) chooses to dine out, take expensive annual holidays, replace his car every two years, etc., I don't see why Y should get a generous pension and X should have to drain his savings to live on and have nothing to leave to his offspring.

    I will happily share a little with the genuinely needy and disadvantaged. That's NOT what this government is doing. It's giving to those who are NOT disadvantaged (ie. those who plunged money into costly houses, gave to their offspring before age 60, went on spending sprees, and spirited a few hundred grand away for later) while taking the often hard-won savings from people who anticipated a future expense and went without or worked extra time in younger years to accommodate a particular lifestyle choice.

    It's the gamblers and drinkers and holiday-makers and investors in costly housing who are selfish - NOT those who feel entitled to gain a little benefit from earlier planning, extra work, and sacrifice that, under the rules applicable at the time decisions were made, should have supported future spending choices.
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    8:35pm
    Theo: agree with you. There is a level of income where pensions need to phase out or not exist at all. I would have thought that $75 000 pa was sufficient income so that governments had no need to chip in. After all have generous taxpayer funded concessions funded the ability to achieve this income in the first place.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    7:02am
    Mick and Theo. But there IS a level of income where state pensions phase out. It's the tax concessions and the way the assets and income test work jointly that is the problem. The well-to-do are overindulged with tax concessions, while people without income are being unfairly dealt with if they have savings. It's unfair to hit out at those who saved but are in disadvantaged circumstances, assuming them ''privileged'' and not in need just because they struggled earlier to make provision for later challenges. What is now happening is that those who sacrificed or worked very hard to put a little aside to ensure they could cope with ill-health or high needs in old age are being told they have no right to enjoy the benefit of that effort. And people who made sacrifices in earlier life so that they could be a little better off than pensioners later are being told that they must now be worse off than pensioners or drain all their savings and ultimately have only the pension to live on through the years when their needs might be highest. That cannot be deemed fair by any reasonable thinking person, especially given that this group has already suffered more than any other group of Australians due to economic downturn. People with more than $500,000 (or $823,000 for a couple) SHOULD have been able to be comfortably self-sufficient if there hadn't been a global financial crash leading to huge falls in interest rates. But given the impact of economic conditions on savers, the assets test should have been made more lenient, not tightened. A much fairer and more sensible approach would have been to tighten the income test and apply taxes to retirement income, using the highest of either a deeming rate on investments or the actual return the retiree is achieving. That would have raised more tax without hurting the disadvantaged and without unfairly advantaging the well-off.
    Adrianus
    8th Jul 2015
    7:17am
    Tom Tank, if you're looking to lay blame, you left out the person who most contributed to disadvantaging the low paid worker. Bob Hawke. By increasing taxes on Super Hawke erroneously made a major contribution to skewing. Your view is also stupidly skewed in that you think the solution is to penalise success. Why not raise the standard of those on the bottom rung?
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    7:36am
    Careful, Frank. You are contradicting yourself! Now you want to avoid penalizing success, but you were telling me it was fine to penalize responsible planning and saving for old age because those who were responsible and frugal should be ''charitable'' to those who weren't!
    Adrianus
    8th Jul 2015
    8:12am
    Rainey, a good government uses taxes to modify citizen behaviour. A bad, irresponsible government uses welfare.
    Theo1943
    8th Jul 2015
    12:52pm
    Rainey, I did not say pensions shouldn't have a cut off point. In fact I suggested one, 20 times the AMW. I also said that when a person's Super reached that level there should be no more tax concessions on further contributions. I think you overestimate the value of non-liquid assets people have. I asked Centrelink about how to value the house contents, they said at what you can sell them for at a garage sale tomorrow and that most people would have a contents value of $5K or less on that basis. This has nothing to do with contents insurance where they are valued at their replacement cost. For most people the replacement cost of the $5K would be $40-50K.
    I think set a reasonable limit of 20 x AMW and no tax concessions after that as well set the pension cut-off point at that same level. That would currently be $1.5M.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    2:04pm
    Thank you, Frank, for finally agreeing that we currently have a BAD, IRRESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.

    Theo, I am not disagreeing with your ideas about a cut-off point - but the revised assets test leaves people who have ZERO income forced to eat up savings that may be hard-won and vitally needed in the future, while rewarding those who have made no effort to provide for their own future needs. It leaves many who have been hard-working and responsible facing hardship unfairly, while it does nothing to address the generosity of the income test. I am not overestimating the value of non-liquid assets, but cars, caravans, boats etc. are valued by the Red Book, so it would be common for a couple to have $80-100K in non-liquid assets. Taking the lower figure, a couple with less than $750,000 to invest gets no pension or benefits, and may have as little as $22,500 per annum to live on. Contrast this with a couple with a substantial income and $300,000 in invested assets (invested at any level of return without significant impact on their pension). The theoretical couple who planned and saved to be better off than a pensioner, but due to disadvantage can no longer earn - SHOULD BE allowed to enjoy a better lifestyle than pensioners, given their past responsible endeavors. But while pensions increase twice annually, their income continually depletes, and if they face major health costs or costs for special care, they may find themselves slugged with massive bills just because they were frugal and responsible in earlier life, while the spendthrifts prosper.

    I agree absolutely with your suggestion of no tax concessions after 20 x the AMW, and the pension cut-off SHOULD be currently $1.5 m because at that level a person can be comfortably self-sufficient. A couple CANNOT be self-sufficient, let alone comfortable, with only half that amount in invested assets.

    My objection is to the fact that the Government has attacked the responsible battler, leaving the rich and privileged well alone, boosting the income of the irresponsible spendthrifts, and doing NOTHING at all for the truly disadvantaged. And those they attacked have already suffered far greater loss than any other Australian due to falling interest rates, so a small group is being forced to carry the load for an entire nation.
    Theo1943
    8th Jul 2015
    4:00pm
    Rainey, I'm not disagreeing with you except in regards to keeping their savings intact for the future. The future is tomorrow. I personally don't expect to leave my children anything other than good memories and don't see any point in living frugally to leave money to others. My children all have better incomes and more assets than I ever had. If I only knew the day of my death I could plan to spend my last $5 on a coffee that morning. Unfortunately I have to plan on having to eke out my money over a long time as my granddad got to 96 and my dad is still around at 101.:-)
    Anonymous
    9th Jul 2015
    8:39am
    My point, Theo, is that people ought to be entitled to make choices. My children are way better off than I have ever been also, but if a person CHOOSES to go without luxuries so that they can leave money to their children, that choice should be respected. Why should they be denied the right to make that choice while the taxpayer is forced to subsidize the choices of drinkers, gamblers, world travelers, and those who dines in expensive restaurants during their working life? Who are you or I, or anyone, to say ''X should get a pension after making his spending choices, but Y shouldn't because although more disadvantaged than X, he made different lifestyle choices and wanted to keep some savings intact for later life, or to leave to his kids''? I struggle to be polite to people who presume to dictate how others should live their lives, and to support hurting people who made certain responsible choices while rewarding people who made different choices.

    I also have to plan to eke out my money over a long time, as longevity runs in my family. That's why I see it as vile, disgustingly unfair, and heavily against the country's longer-term economic interests to force younger retirees to prematurely drain their savings while unfairly rewarding those who didn't bother to save. I wholly support giving more to the genuinely disadvantaged (but the Morrison-''reforms'' DIDN'T DO THAT!). I wholly support ensuring ALL people can retire whenever their health or mental capacity makes it necessary and enjoy a dignified and secure retirement and comfort in old age. But I DO NOT support a misguided ''Robin Hood'' mentality of taking from one sector to give to another with no fair or sensible regard for moral or ethical entitlement and no respect for people's rights to make lifestyle choices. And I DO NOT support the removal of sensible incentives to save responsibly for the expenses we are all likely to incur in our advanced years or fair rewards for those who, in accordance with decades of government advice and recommendations, and in perfectly reasonable expectation of being allowed to enjoy the benefits of their saving, did just that.
    KSS
    7th Jul 2015
    12:47pm
    There is currently no legislated retirement age. There is a legislated age for when you can make a claim for the age pension, and there is a preservation age before which you cannot access your superannuation - for most funds now that would be at least 55yrs.

    People can and do retire before they are say 40. This being the case, they already have to be self-funding outside super.

    However, given most people would usually retire at or around the age they can claim an age pension, I don't see exactly what the issue would be if drawing on super was in line with drawing an age pension. The whole premise of super is to fund retirement so raising the preservation age (and therefore access) to 65 doesn't seem much of a big deal.

    If people want to retire before 65 (or 67 or 70), well they can but they would have to fund it from other sources and frankly, most who want to retire early probably have more than enough funds to do so regardless of the preservation age or eligibility for the age pension just as they do now.
    Theo1943
    7th Jul 2015
    1:03pm
    Many people retire involuntarily between 55 and 65. This puts them in a position of finding it quite difficult to get other employment, forcing them onto Newstart with no way of accessing their Super to pay their mortgage or other financial commitments..
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    1:17pm
    If I am not a burden on the taxpayers and can afford to retire from my super savings at 55 why should I be forced to keep working ..
    We should be making it easier to become self funded not harder by taxing savings for old age ..
    The restrictions should be on receiving the taxpayers funded pension .
    KSS
    7th Jul 2015
    1:47pm
    Theo if they have voluntarily 'retired' no-one is "forcing them onto Newstart with no way of accessing their Super to pay their mortgage or other financial commitments". They decided they no longer wanted to work so they would need to have sufficient funds other than super to do so.

    As Pete says, we should be making it easier to become self funded but that means having enough funds for up to at least 20 years retiring at 65 and 30 years retiring at 55. If you have that then go for your life. But don't expect the taxpayer to keep funding you when you voluntarily give up a job then whine about how little Newstart is and how you can't pay your mortgage from it.
    Theo1943
    7th Jul 2015
    4:09pm
    KSS I did say involuntary, e.g. fired, made redundant, put on the scrapheap, etc.
    I was made redundant at 51 but was able to get new employment, at a lower wage, within a few weeks. Not everyone can do that. Who will employ a 60 yo brickie with crook knees? What would you retrain that brickie to do? Become an accountant? Shop assistant? Teacher? Any desk jobs you can think of?
    Theo1943
    7th Jul 2015
    4:11pm
    Pete, you also appear to have missed the in in involuntary. You couldn't miss this one, there's three in a row.
    Lyn
    7th Jul 2015
    2:09pm
    I retired st 63 and accessed my super at that time. I was ready for retirement by then and don't think I could have worked until 65 as I had been working full time since I was 14 years old.
    If people are expected to work and not have access to their super until at least 65 there will be many sick and damaged bodies unable to contribute much more to their workplace and just waiting to retire. We can't continually expect people to work longer and longer they are not robots. We wait long enough to enjoy our life and the fruits of our labour. I pity those having to live under these new rules.
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    3:08pm
    That is the nature of this government Lyn: uncaring. Waiting for the current dictator to tell Australians on struggle street to "eat cake". Oh for the guillotine again.......
    marls
    7th Jul 2015
    5:57pm
    lyn - spot on.
    mangomick
    7th Jul 2015
    2:23pm
    Bottom line of a thriving economy is people spending to create employment and getting those dollars going round.If you allow older citizens to access their super at 60 not only do they start to spend that money that they have squirreled away but the younger generation will be filling that employment void and spending the extra cash they would be receiving by being employed and getting a salary.No good having Gen XYZ sitting on the dole not spending and baby boomers still at work and still not spending because they want their hard earned bucks to spend in retirement. The economy will have had a massive amount of money injected into the economy and even if the retiree ends up on the pension , big deal, the pension being paid to retirees is about the same as the dole money that the government would have been spending on those XYZs on the dole.Looking longer term with the Super guarantee now in place if you get the younger generation working earlier rather than sitting on the dole for many years compounding will come to play and the Government won't have to worry about pensions down the track when XYZs retire because they will have a significant nest egg to retire on.
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    3:15pm
    You are right about money going around the loop mango. The only place I hold a few reservations is in how money is spent. From my perspective the poor spend everything they ever earn to survive. The middle class do much of the same but have some extra money to invest for their future/retirement. The rich have a lot of spare cash and their options are to invest that as well. Where I have issues is that this sector uses tax avoidance (call it minimisation if you wish) strategies, including loopholes to pay a small percentage of their earnings in tax. With the money left they then mostly invest. Whilst investing in ventures which create jobs and prosperity for the nation is good that is rarely where their money goes as they put more than a bit into fine art, precious metals, cash in the bank and of course a lavish lifestyle. It is this group where governments need to focus their attention but sadly it is this group which 'owns' governments. And so the game goes on.
    mangomick
    7th Jul 2015
    8:39pm
    Generally Mick it isn't the really wealthy that want or need to access their super before 65. It's usually just the ordinary run of the mill older worker who is worn out by working most his life . The really wealthy have their tax and superannuation structured in family trusts etc so regardless of any changes Abbott and Co make they will be financially independent when they choose to retire.
    THE FORGOTTEN
    7th Jul 2015
    2:57pm
    I am turning 65 next year and have saved for an enjoyable life after 48 years working. Now Abbott and Hockey have taken that away from me,and I never heard a whimper from Superannuants to stop them. My response to the local National party went unanswered. If these requirements were to apply to politicians we would see a saving of $10 Billion a year starting from today. Why are politicians allowed to swill at the trough at any age, while the surfs have more and more restrictions. In my last tax return I received a line chart indicating where my taxes were spent and the majority went to dole bludgers and the boguns of the nation who are born and bred to be non workers,or single mothers with 8 kids and 8 fathers. The second largest percentage of my tax went to aged pensions, which I shall now not be able to access after paying tax and saving for 48 years.
    WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS IN THIS situation. I had to pay into a pension fund from the date of starting work and not allowed to touch it until 65 in those days,which Abbott and Hockey are wanting to bring back. I haven't seen Fat Joe making any financial sacrifices, other than sueing newspapers and reporters who reported the truth, and he only got $200,000 after he was after at least $1 million. This is only cigar money for that fat cat and his Belgian mate. Makes me sick the corrupt politicians and the fat cat hangers on who bleed the system dry,and the wealthy 1% ers like Gina Rinehard and Alan 'trust me' Bond (GOOD RIDANCE). Time for another Depression and I feel it coming very soon,thanks to the lazy Greeks who think the world owe them a living. I met some of them when in Greece in 1979,sitting at cafes supping coffee on disability pensions from Australia, while the women were working out in the farms.They had the cheek to laugh at me when I told them I came from Australia,and now they all want and are coming back;wonder why.?
    Because of politicians like GREENS Hanson Young and the bleeding hearts club who wants the flood gates to open up and allow all the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS into Australia by boat, to also bleed us dry.If they have enough money to pay the smugglers $10,000+ why don't they buy a plane ticket. (Maybe if they came by plane they would be classed as ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and sent back to where they came). Strange how coming here by boat is different than a plane.? These scum have entitlements that the 150,000 homeless Australians don't have. Shall we ever wake up; I doubt it while Abbott is waving the fear flag like his Master Howard.
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    3:23pm
    Welcome to the club mate. I share many of your sentiments.
    Your comment about Greeks still holds true today. My wife and I were there 6 weeks ago for a month: coffee shops always full and peak hour on the subway at lunchtime. Poor Greeks? More like poor creditors who are going to be stung.
    Don't even get me going about our own twisted face Sarah Hanson-Young and her 'build a bridge and let them come' policy...whilst we all pay sums of money most of us cannot even imagine.
    Don't worry about the recession Forgotten. Its coming. I have discussed this before and we are probably closer than most people think. When nobody is buying iron ore or coal for 5 years that will be the end of Australia and the population will throw up its arms crying 'how could this happen'. Fairly basic really: all in the numbers!
    Adrianus
    7th Jul 2015
    3:59pm
    THE, what is it that Abbott and Hockey are wanting to bring back? Where did you get the figure of 150,000 homeless?
    To some extent I empathise with you on the Greek business, but Greece will not concern Australia. I notice the Victorian Government has sent a message to Greeks they will offer financial assistance over the next 4 years.
    But our real worry now is China's retraction. I must say I thought it was interesting that the Chinese Government had been building gold reserves over the last 12 months. China is our biggest customer.
    marls
    7th Jul 2015
    6:03pm
    i agree with you all the way. i got sick and tired travelling 4hrs daily to work and seeing the amount of criminals on benefits and pensions with dept housing living a live of leisure. i worked my butts off to be laughed at by many of these people yes i was the fool.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    7:22pm
    The Forgotten, well said. I couldn't agree with you more on every issue.
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    8:38pm
    The prime minister informs you well Frank. Tell us if you are an ex Liberal MP please. Come on Frank, show a bit of honesty for once in your life mate. Simple request yes?
    mangomick
    7th Jul 2015
    8:45pm
    China has only had a retraction if you look short term. Over the last 12 months you can hardly call their market retracted. China will be o.k. Their markets are very much controlled by the State and without sounding like Mario Draghi, "they will do whatever it takes", to ensure their market is corrected to eventually come back to trend growth.
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    8:50pm
    China is in unknown territory at present. Share market down 25%. The government has tried to intervene but not as easy to control this monster as they thought. Time will tell but it will end badly for Australia if China falls in a hole.
    Adrianus
    8th Jul 2015
    5:58pm
    mick I doubt that China will fall in a hole as you put it. However, while the Central Bank is providing the cash flow for the market it is hard for anyone to have too much confidence in a market which is so volatile. I think the Chinese investors are also a little green so they may be easily spooked. Hence the big fall after a year of massive growth. The problem I see for OZ is how does the Central Bank of china whistle and dance at the same time? How do they continue to encourage their novice investors while at the same time withdraw their involvement?
    By the way Brazil is massively increasing output and undercutting us. It is starting to hurt. Particularly people like Twiggy. Abbott is right to focus on agri business.
    Bassman
    7th Jul 2015
    3:04pm
    I'm heartily sick of politicians messing with superannuation and pensions. I agree with the comments of many who are saying that you are better off investing elsewhere in the future rather than super because the goal posts continually change. We were conned years ago into putting more money into super and now we find that those who have done so will need to spend a fair chunk of their own money before getting a part pension. Why didn't I buy a merc and go on overseas trips or even bother paying off the mortgage? If I'd known the rules were going to be constantly changed I would have opted for other investments and I'm now encouraging my adult kids to do just that. By the time they retire the Government would almost certainly have nationalized or stolen their super savings to the extent where they won't have any control over it. Super is the now the biggest con perpetrated on the Australian people. And now they want to push out the age further to access super! It is quite apparent that super in the future will only be of use if you have very little so you can access the pension or have so much that you would never qualify. Those stuck in the middle are the suckers (like me). I also believe that a pension is an entitlement like in many other countries regardless of your circumstances. In Australia the harder you work, the more you save, the less you get. Think I should have been a bum all my life, not worked and then I would have had access to full pension, rent allowance, health card etc.
    This is the first time I've posted so I have raved a bit. I enjoy reading comments from others and the diverse opinions and accept that my views will come in for some stick. I'm neither Liberal, Labor or any other party by the way
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    3:28pm
    Good all round view mate.
    Good political view as well given the dishonesty and vested interests in both sides of politics.
    If people VOTE INDEPENDENT (not with a Liberal preference though!) then representation by stooges and puppets will end. Until that time we all need to enjoy the ride and not be too surprised that nothing ever changes other than the faces.
    Adrianus
    7th Jul 2015
    3:08pm
    It does seem strange that Super is costing taxpayers $Billions as we've been hearing ad nauseam, but even more super will save taxpayers $Billions? Lot's of conflicting messages.
    Increasing the preservation age to 65 means reducing the attractiveness of Super as a long term savings vehicle. Particularly if increased taxes, as suggested by the Labor party, are applied.
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    3:25pm
    Again Frank the government troll: its the fault of Labor again??? Please tell your boss to keep his greedy hands off the super system. It is not his to nationalise. But try telling that to any dictator around the globe.
    Adrianus
    7th Jul 2015
    4:06pm
    mick please explain how you think it is the fault of Labor again???
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    8:40pm
    I might have to let you off the hook on this one Frank. I do notice you cannot help but make everything a political issue when (occasionally) it is not. Occasionally stick to the topic and avoid politics.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    2:29pm
    Frank, it's the super of the richest that is costing billions, and it's the poorest who draw their super early, so your argument makes no sense. Preserving super until age 65 will impose poverty on disadvantaged battlers for minimal gain to the government, and the rich won't care a hoot because they don't want to draw it anyway.

    Nobody has mentioned, here, a little-known loophole that allows the rich older partner to transfer most of his/her super to a younger partner and collect an aged pension despite being quite wealthy. Many very wealthy people are able to collect a full or part aged pension for many years because their younger partner's superannuation isn't counted in the assets test and the income on it isn't counted in the income test. I wonder how the currently contemplated changes will impact on those taking advantage of this loophole? No doubt the Government will ensure the rich still have access to these avenues to take more than their fair share, while the battlers are cheated out of everything they worked for.
    Adrianus
    8th Jul 2015
    6:01pm
    Rainey, you make it sound so simple. So you're saying that a simple change in the trust deed of the fund is required?
    Anonymous
    9th Jul 2015
    11:20am
    What are you on about, Frank? I didn't say anything about Trust Deeds or solutions being simple. You seem to have a problem understanding what you read!
    Adrianus
    9th Jul 2015
    12:28pm
    "Nobody has mentioned, here, a little-known loophole that allows the rich older partner to transfer most of his/her super to a younger partner and collect an aged pension despite being quite wealthy."
    Just what is the process which facilitates this loophole?
    How do you transfer a members account balance to another member?
    Anonymous
    10th Jul 2015
    8:26am
    Nothing to do with Trust Deeds, Frank. One party simply makes a lump sum withdrawal and gives it to the other and the other party drops it into their superannuation fund. There is an upper limit on the amount, but it's very generous and if you plan ahead you can transfer a large amount every year for several years leading up to the 65th birthday.
    geomac
    7th Jul 2015
    3:44pm
    The low tax on super is being used as a tax rort by the well off. The idea of taxing super profit over 100,000 was good at 15% but this govt blocked it. Now if they want Joe Bloe to have to wait till 65 to access super then make it applicable to MPs as well. The idea will sink without a trace quick smart.
    marls
    7th Jul 2015
    6:09pm
    yes i agree if tax payers are expected to wait until 65 the same rules have to apply to politicians and means tested for them to. they are employed my us. not us by them
    niemakawa
    7th Jul 2015
    6:17pm
    Maris, the same rules have not applied and never will apply to politicians. That is pure wishful thinking.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    7:58pm
    In 2004 Howard put all new politicians on the same scheme as everybody else.

    Two years later an Independent members Bill proposed raising the Employers contribution to 15 per cent which was adopted ..
    vincent
    7th Jul 2015
    4:37pm
    The only taxconcession on super should be on compulsory imputs only, take of the silly 15% input tax on compulsory super contributions. The other contrbutions should be after tax monies only. Tax on super savings should be at a reduced rate till a set treshold and after that treated as any other investment, that cuts out the tax loophole there and then and put more savings towards the average punter. Yes I retired at 51 yrs of age lived of my own savings and only got around applying for a concession card and part pension at age 66. That of course looks to vanish with the new rules, but I will work around that one as well. No use bitching do something about it if it bothers you and take action while you have the time. Lots of more developed countries use a system where employees and employers pay both into pensionfund, healthfund and other social welfare funds. It is a shared responsibility. It will never happen here unfortunately, politics is never on the agenda of the average person here only at election time and the they are all screaming what is in it for me instead of taking a long term view. Try and bring the subject up around the barbie for a laugh and you will straight away be accused of being a diehard liberal or a diehard communist depending what crowd you are in. No rational debate possible a bit like in this site. Time to stop the namecalling and try to find a solution out of this mess.
    niemakawa
    7th Jul 2015
    5:08pm
    The intention of any Australian Government is to dilute the superannuation savings to a level whereby retirees will be forced to take an income stream in retirement, which will be highly taxed. No lump sums whatsoever. In effect retirees who have been diligent in providing for their retirement will receive marginally more than those who have "wasted" their money during their working life. Superannuation in Australia is a complete farce and is nothing but a cash cow for Governments.
    marls
    7th Jul 2015
    6:11pm
    amen
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    8:45pm
    Yeah niemakawa. They hate lump sums. Easy to kill these off after age 60. Just change the rules.
    You are wrong about governments using super as a cash cow. The reality is that super costs the government many $billions a year in forgone tax. More like it is way of having you rcake and eating it too if set up well and things go your way.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    7:42am
    Correct, Mick. It's not a cash cow for the Government. It's yet another way of transferring wealth from the ''lifters'' (the REAL lifters, I mean) to the heavily-leaning rich and privileged.
    Swinging voter
    7th Jul 2015
    5:23pm
    I thought that over time, super was constructed in such a way that it would replace the age pension altogether ultimately creating a self-funded retirement. That's why I don't understand how people can collect a lump sum to spend on whatever they choose, aside from retirement income. What's the difference in people who spend up big before they retire and are not therefore pension-penalised, than people who go without in early-middle years, preferring to save their funds for a more comfy retirement? It's as if choosing comfort in older age over spendthrift in younger age deserves a penalty.
    niemakawa
    7th Jul 2015
    5:32pm
    Governments should legislate that all welfare recipients under retirement age should also contribute to a superannuation fund and the SGC deducted from their benefit and paid into a fund of their choice. These people need to also save for their own retirement.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    5:35pm
    Yes Swinging voter, it seems many support the view that saving for old age should be harshly punished, and the Government has certainly adopted that view. Perhaps the idea is to stimulate more spending to create economic growth, but it is cruelly unfair to those who made sacrifices in earlier life in the hope of funding greater comfort in old age.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    6:46pm
    Swinging voter and Rainey, you are both right in regards to older, smarter, and wiser people being penalised for their forethought, frugality, conservative life style, or whatever you want to call their approach to saving for retirement years. The real crunch has been passed in Senate will have arrived in 18 months and there is very little stopping it, bar another election (maybe). Damage control can still be performed to lessen effects, but most who have sensibly planned for retirement will be hurt financially. We have been playing the "game of life" by the rules and the government has changed them in our last quarter, so change your tactics, spend, enjoy, and win the game. And, good luck!
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    8:53pm
    niemakawa: how do welfare recipients have a razoo to put into super? They complain about "not enough money" as it is.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    7:15am
    Fast Eddie, the worst aspect of the change is that there is very little anyone over 60 can do to combat the impact. Under 60s have some options, but those already retired or close to retirement have virtually no choice but to spend up big now, invest in a much more costly home (and hope the means test isn't further changed to include the family home), or suffer unfair loss. After decades of careful planning in accordance with Government recommendations, that seems grossly unfair. More to the point, I question the legality. I have idly wondered what the outcome might be of a class law suit against the government for deceptive and misleading conduct causing loss. Consider, please, that for 30+ years the Government has told us ''these are the rules. Plan for retirement accordingly.'' The Government was elected on a promise of no change to those rules. And the affected parties paid taxes all their lives under a scheme that promised a portion of those taxes would provide pensions for them in retirement, given that many of them had no superannuation. Final consideration: those hurt have already suffered more than any other group of Australians due to economic downturn, and the better off have given up nothing, the truly disadvantaged have gained nothing, while the reasonably affluent slightly less comfortable and the cheats have been richly rewarded, so there can be no valid claim of justification of what was done. Also, there were valid alternatives put forward that would have been much fairer.

    Seems to me that not only has the Government acted deceptively and, dare I say, fraudulently (since politicians gained the benefit of winning office through lies that caused others financial loss), but this might be a matter for the Human Rights Commission given that there has been huge discrimination against a particular sector of the community by legislation that hurts only one group of people without justification or consideration of fairness.
    Adrianus
    8th Jul 2015
    8:16am
    mick you are out of touch with how out of control our welfare system has become. Many on above average incomes receive plenty of welfare.
    Theo1943
    8th Jul 2015
    4:10pm
    Niemekawa, It is the employer's responsibility to pay the SGC so Centrelink should contribute an additional 9.5% of all Welfare payments to the recipients Super Fund.
    Ruben
    7th Jul 2015
    6:28pm
    To my kids- don't pay into super- you won't get access to your money until the government says so, don't pay in to super- your tax thresholds will keep changing, don't pay in to super-you cannot financial plan for retirement- the government keeps changing the rules, don't pay in to super- the government keeps raiding it!!!!!
    niemakawa
    7th Jul 2015
    6:30pm
    I would agree, only contribute the mandatory amount.
    Anonymous
    7th Jul 2015
    7:20pm
    There have been no changes to super and none are proposed .
    There are submissions to A revue but if any recommendations are accepted by this government they will be in favour of making it easier to accumulate your own funds and be independent .
    MICK
    7th Jul 2015
    8:54pm
    Apparently that is what is currently happening according to Peter Costello tonight.
    Abby
    9th Jul 2015
    2:16pm
    Yes both Labs and Libs have been tinkering with the Super
    And I cannot see anybody putting money into Super that is NOT compulsory.
    Rightly said Ruben

    8th Jul 2015
    1:16am
    NSW Labor leader Luke Foley has urged the party to abolish its historic commitment to socialism and its attachment to state ownership and embrace competitive markets alongside individual freedom and opportunity, and will move this formally at the party’s national conference.

    Mr Foley, from Labor’s Left faction, will unite with the NSW Right to replace the objective and throw down the gauntlet to Bill Shorten to put his weight behind a rewrite of the party’s philosophy for the 21st century.
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    1:18am
    YLC editorial staff thrown into confusion .. Along with the ABC and Fairfax
    Anonymous
    8th Jul 2015
    1:19am
    Breaking News Drew to take control of ABC
    geomac
    8th Jul 2015
    11:32am
    Whats that got to do with super at 65 ?
    Not Senile Yet!
    12th Jul 2015
    2:54pm
    Vote as many Independants into both houses just to stop the Big Two from legislating their OWN Ideals rather than the people's!!!
    Stop Voting for Puppets who gang together and refuse to stop either party from attacking the Working Class and the Pensioners every time THEY can't Balance the Budget!!!!!
    Vote the Two faced lying Party Puppets OUT!!!!
    As for the above ...increasing the Access Age to your Own Money....what a bunch of two faced Mongrels all MP's have become!!!
    They grant themselves early access and then delay access to everyone else!!!! ...For whatever reason!!!!
    Vote ALL of the Party Puppets out next election!!!!!
    Even the Communists would give you a better deal than this Neo=Facist Dictatorship of Wankers!!!!
    And remember ....the other Mob are not any better.......they are guilty of going too far the other Way as well!!!!
    Don't give any of them YOUR Vote...next time!!
    Pick an Independent.....then take your preferred Party Donkey Vote Card and REVERSE all the NUMBER order...so they cannot even get preferences.....then put who you want as Your MP as NO.1.
    #No Party Puppet can be an unbiased or Fair MP if he/she has sold your Vote to an Invisible Party Machine Caucus that sits behind closed doors inventing Policy to suit themselves!!!!
    Wise Up....STOP Voting for THEM!!!!


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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