Lack of retirement funds forcing later retirement

Australians will retire later with insufficient superannuation balances.

Lack of retirement funds forcing later retirement

Australians are planning to retire later with superannuation balances insufficient to live a comfortable retirement, says a new report from research group Roy Morgan.

Results of the Single Source survey of over 50,000 people show that the uncertainty surrounding the changes to super, coming into effect on 1 July, may be responsible for a significant shift in planned retirement age.

The average age of retirement has moved from 58 in 2014 to 61 in 2016, making it the highest on record – even surpassing the rise which followed the global financial crisis when the market was last hit hard.

Just eight years ago, the expected retirement age was 57.5.

Roy Morgan’s Industry Communications Director, Norman Morris, believes that the tightening of the Age Pension assets test, low returns on investments and uncertainty surrounding the new superannuation system may be the reasons behind the change.

“As we have seen, recent changes to superannuation rules and pension eligibility appear to be impacting on retirement age, with the result that people will retire later. This is a positive for Government retirement funding but could have negative ramifications for unemployment levels (as people work longer),” said Mr Morris.

The report also shows that while retirement balances have increased in the past few years, people planning to retire at 61 will still not have enough to see out their remaining years.

Key points from the survey include:

  • The average retirement balance for those looking to finish working at 61 is $286,000, up from $276,000 since 2014.
  • Average debt held by Australians planning to retire is $18,000, bringing the average retirement balance back to $268,000.
  • The average holding of non-superannuation assets fell to $106,000 compared to $117,000 in 2014.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) states that to live a comfortable retirement, a couple requires an income of $59,619 a year. Industry Super Australia recommends that a couple needs a joint balance of $775,628 to live comfortably.

Based on these figures, people retiring at 61 with a balance of $268,000 would exhaust their super by the age of 67.

Another misconception raised in the report is the amount in assets Australians own outside of super. While official figures show that, on average, Australians own $85,000 worth of property investment aside of their own home, only one in five actually have residential property investments. Same goes for share investments – official averages claim that Australians own $37,000 outside of super, but only one in three actually own any equities, and business assets per household are between $30,000 to $45,000, but only one in eight households own business assets.

This underlines the importance for the Government not to trust ‘averages’ and to consider such inequalities when creating retirement income and pension policy.

Read more at roymorgan.com.au

Opinion: Figures paint a grim picture

While Australians looking to retire later in life may seem like good news for the Government’s budget, the figures presented in this report paint a grim picture of retirement for most Australians.

In theory, an increase in retirement age means the Government doesn’t have to fund so much of people’s income in this life stage. But when Australians have inadequate retirement funding and need to work longer, the repercussions on the economy and general wellbeing of older Australians still run deep.

As we all know, staying gainfully employed at a later age is not an easy task. And the jobs being held by older Australians mean that younger generations may struggle to find work.

What we need is improved financial literacy. Although superannuation was designed to supplement the Age Pension, many people don’t fully understand the rules, tax breaks and options that could help them make the most of the system.

When designing policy, the Government seems to rely heavily on averages, which is a flawed means of calculation. We need information that provides a realistic picture of retirement, not based on averages.

Our most recent survey, YourLifeChoices Insights Survey 2017, which has, to date, over 4200 responses, shows that over 27 per cent (of those who responded to the question) said they have less than $100,000 in super and other assets (excluding the family home). While just over 19 per cent of respondents actually have the recommended balance for a comfortable retirement.

Our survey also revealed that over 20 per cent of those who are retired did so between the ages of 55 and 59. Just over 17 per cent retired at the official retirement age of 65. Almost 30 per cent of respondents who have not yet retired plan to do so at the age of 70 or older.

Perhaps surprisingly, the reason for retirement is slightly skewed towards health and not savings.

If the Government does indeed plan to increase the official retirement age to 70 by 2035 as stated by former treasurer Joe Hockey, it needs to do more to improve education about the retirement income system. We’ll do our part, but our leaders who, in their ‘wisdom’ seem to be ready at every turn to strip retirees and pensioners of their right to live a decent retirement, need to take a long, hard look at how the system affects real Australians – and to cease this unrealistic basing of policy on skewed averages.

Do you think enough is being done to educate Australians about retirement income? Are you tired of policy being based on averages? Would you like to respond to our survey and help us create content that helps Australians better understand the retirement income system?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    10:31am
    Forget about a "comfortable retirement. Many people will not be able to pay the bills let alone have that.
    The Abbott changes about increasing the retirement age to 70 was targeted at the bottom end which this government wants to work on until they drop dead. Then there will be no pension payable. How convenient!
    We are witnessing class warfare on a number of fronts. The top end is being looked after and will live in the lap of luxury having milked the system out in place for it for years. This system enabled the well to do to squirrel away money for them and avoid taxes. And (some) people still vote for this bunch of crooks???? Please explain.
    I don't understand when the public en masse is going to wake up to the game and boot this bad bad lot of thugs and crooks out of the parliament. The ballot box is there for a specific purpose but as long as people are easily led by media owned by the rich then we are going to see more blood in the streets. Sad that people are so stupid and unable to see the system for what it is.
    Boomah52
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:13am
    Well said and also Australia ranks from memory 23rd, just above South Korea on money spent on pensions/welfare. Shame for the wealthy country our politicians boast about on the world stage...
    Oldman Roo
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:46am
    Mick , I could not agree with you more . You are stating the obvious and I only wish Australians would be prepared to judge our present Government on it,s merits or obvious lack of them . I also like to see more fighting spirit from organisations representing Seniors or Pensioners - what do they think they will achieve with their present " go softly " approach to a Government of Wolves .
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:36pm
    Thanks Roo. I wasn't aware that any seniors organisation had much to say with the exception of Miss Goldie from ACOS. But of course the media cherry picks and pretty well shoulders out retired Australians, other than when they turn 100 and then you get the feel good BS.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:43pm
    People will just have to take more responsibility for their own retirement. If you want to retire before the retirement age where you can get the OAP you will have to plan and save for it.

    People have become too dependent upon welfare and now it's not there when they thought it would be then they are blaming the government when they should be blaming themselves.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:58pm
    Comment straight from our current government supporting its behaviour Geezer.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:06pm
    OG it would really be good if ACOSS stopped slamming those who try to be self sufficient. I swear Goldie thinks we're all as rich as she is.

    Welfare is unsustainable but ACOSS are not doing any favours with their current policies.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:36pm
    I agree ACOSS is actually hurting itself more by slamming the self sufficient. I could never understand why Goldie carries on the way she does other than for personal gain.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:24pm
    I'm interested to know what you believe Goldie gets out of doing her job? I'm sure the pay would be mediocre.
    Oldman Roo
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:26pm
    OG , You can not justify a Government action to shift the goal posts on elderly retirees who suddenly find investment strategy is beyond them and safe money returns are not worth the mention .
    Why don,t you go back to your LNP paymasters and stop trying to insult our intelligence .
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:34pm
    Looks like they were looking for an offsider for Goldie in November.

    https://www.ncoss.org.au/jobs/2400

    It wold not surprise me if Goldie getting paid over $300,000 a year.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:00pm
    She would take home at least 5 times what I did and yet she still managed to stuff up my income in retirement by going after self funded savers. I've no time for ACOSS at all. Self servers all of them.
    Anonymous
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:33pm
    MICK, nobody says that a person has to work to a certain age. What has been said is that if a person wants the age pension, they must work until a certain age. According to the above figures, the age for people who retire averages out at 61 although this figure is rising. I read into this that a lot of people have saved enough to retire earlier than those who want an age pension. The ways they have done this are many and varied but a lot of it must come down to hard work.

    I note that you are always on the side of the oppressed underdog type and I say, well done MICK. There is, and always will be, a group of people who will forever be in need of government assistance and the reasons will be different for each person. Some will have had a divorce which has split assets and made some lawyers a bit richer, some will have suffered ill health and the costs of treatment will have taken a toll on assets. There will be some who gambled and drank their way through their pay packets all of their adult life. My point is that a government cannot legislate for every eventuality and must make laws to advantage the majority. Pensions are a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times, regardless of the reasons.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    5:44pm
    It is not right that people can retire early live the life of riley so that by the time they get to pension age they have little left. However that is what a lot of people now do.

    So by upping the age you can get the OAP to 70 will cause people to stay at work longer or make their money last longer if they retire early.

    Good idea,
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    6:28pm
    Become a politician and live the life of Riley from the get go on the taxpayer teat. Gees if I could spend $292 a night and all that money for meals I'd live like a Queen. Not very good at managing money are they to need that much?

    I can get a resort king bed room with a pool on the verandah and breakfast for under $220.
    roy
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:06pm
    MICK. you are such a wonderful astute man, why are you not our PM, I just don't understand it?
    roy
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:07pm
    Geezer speaks the truth and MICK gets on his high horse, what a surprise, MICK for PM yeah.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:10pm
    Just become a highly paid public servant and then you get what the pollies get plus some.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:23pm
    Some of the government posters above have me wrong. I am not a do gooder. I am not a welfare recipient. I am not a white knight in tarnished armour.
    What I do stand for is honesty in government, the very thing the current bunch of big business owned thugs do not have in their DNA. Whilst at least one comment above is wanting to see average folk work on forever as modern day slaves to the well to do I suggest that workers in our nation need to put in a fair working life and not be asset stripped and hounded during the last 20 years of their lives. Only bastards and this government seek to do that.
    Call me a spotted dog, but realise that I am the real M'Coy and that I give a damn. Despite the fact that the Abbott and Turnbull governments have played havoc with my retirement planning I would not be so upset had these bastards not sought to hand huge sums of taxpayer dollars to the rich and not tax them at the same time. Something kind of hits my Irish spot when that happens. It should for ALL of the commenters above as well. Government employees excepted!
    Oldman Roo
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:49pm
    Mick , do not take too much notice of those phony LNP blood suckers . They would walk over dead bodies for an extra Dollar profit and are the cause why so many of us have not made it big time . Our problem is that we earned our few Dollars the honest way .
    Rae
    24th Jan 2017
    7:19am
    Maintain the rage MICK. We'd still be slaves in the mines if we were as accepting and compliant as the freds of this world.

    There are always rusted ons and sycophants who believe they might get a lap of the cream if they are good.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    10:38am
    As many jobs have been transported overseas in order to benefit the "Bottom Line" of the FATCATs, there are not enough jobs available to service the young as well as the old.
    As long as the Older people have jobs they will probably retain (to the detriment of the young) them until the new retirement age is reached.
    However, IF they (Older Aust) are retrenched or loose their job, it is unlikely that they will find Employment again.

    Either way, the Treasury wins as, in each instance, (Young or Old) will end up being paid Jobstart rather than the Aged Pension !!!

    The net gain being $100.00 per individual per week and also Jobstart does not pay a Supplement which is another gain for the government.

    The equation is quite simple: "Just follow the MONEY" & "STUFF the people". Don't CURB the FATCATs in any way!!!!!!!
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:00am
    The 'Fat Cats' are a symptom of the problem Patriot. The rich installing their governments to milk the system for them is the problem. The money trail always leads back to the same place and the rest is just noise meant to distract voters and put them off the scent.
    KB
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:00am
    No . I believe that young people in the senior years of school should be taught about superannuation and good planning for the future.They are entering the work force and too many live for the moment.Young people should be taught about saving The current government is making it hard for people on lower incomes to save any money for retirement.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:16am
    Many are. Those without understanding of the (public) education system think that teachers just teach the traditional subject when in fact expectations on teachers these days are ridiculous.
    The issue is that nearly all kids are given a background of managing finances, including superannuation, but few think that this information is useful for them and do not listen.
    Fliss
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:21pm
    I agree KB. Superannuation, etc should be taught in senior years at school & also should be explained & taught at home.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:30pm
    How can anyone on the median or below of $43 000 then pay tax and save more than the 9% which is then eaten away by insurance premiums and fund fees and taxes.

    No wonder the financial services and insurance industry are showing very high incomes, bonuses and profits.

    Superannuation is fine for high income earners but at the expense of lower wage earners. It will never generate enough after fees and charges for a comfortable retirement income.

    In 1992 when compulsory super for PAYG earners cut in it was unseen that wages and incomes would stagnate and fall or that the Unions would be deserted leaving worker's unable to negotiate rises.

    Times change and the winners have been those contractors and self employed who could buy real estate etc using negative gearing. Certainly not superannuation savers even with the tax concessions.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:34pm
    You have perfectly highlighted one of the rich man's lies. The rich can avoid most of their taxes and put money into superannuation and other structures. Those on low wages cannot afford to buy pay off a home let alone live and have extra for superannuation. It's a con from the top end deflecting the argument so that they can keep on keeping on.
    dougie
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:05pm
    As a 13 year old in class one day, Economics, in about 1950 our teacher came to the class and declared that he was going to spend the lesson talking about " our one and only true friend in life".
    His name was Bill McDonald, and as he reached into his shirt pocket and withdrew his Commonwealth Bank Book and said, "this is your one and only true friend". Make friends with it and feed it and guard it all your life because believe me when the chips are down this is your friend.

    These words have stuck with me for over 60 years and I can still picture him standing there with his bank book.

    Do you know what - he was right. He was also one of the three or four teachers that I have respected all my life. God rest his soul.

    Isn't this what we are talking about today, maybe in not such a direct way, but with the same message.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:14pm
    Mick most of the rich people today were once poor. That's right anyone can become rich and it is nothing more than an excuse why you can't.

    I was bought up dirt poor myself. Luckily my father was a good hunter and fisherman so we always managed to eat something even if it was only stinging nettle tea.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:31pm
    I am not poor Geezer but not rich either.
    I have no issues with anybody becoming rich if they pay the going rate of tax on their income and do not thieve taxation money from wage and salary taxpayers who do not have creative accountants and lawyers or complex, dodgy tax structures to avoid what the rest of us pay.
    It's quite simple: I DO NOT LIKE CROOKS! That's where it starts and ends mate.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:39pm
    Well I'm certainly no crook and do everything well within the law. It is simply very stupid not to.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:58pm
    Ahhh.... Definitions! Those who rob banks get thrown in jail. White collar criminals and the wealthy who steal legally get OAs. There is an irony in your use of the word "crook" Geezer and methinks that the real crooks are for the most part the pillars of our society, drooled over by the media and god worshippers alike. The reality is a painful awakening.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:00pm
    Well you are certainly not describing nay of my traits.
    Retired Knowall
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:33pm
    Some people get rich studying artificial intelligence. Me, I make money studying natural stupidity.
    ~ Carl Icahn
    roy
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:10pm
    MICK and his rich men's lies as quoted above, how many European and USA skiing holidays have you taken in the last few years "rich man'.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:26pm
    Sounds like jealousy fred.
    Unlike you I am NOT on the public purse, do not draw a pension and defend those who are unable to help themselves but know when they are being done over. Can't have any of that can we!
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2017
    8:29am
    I find it sickening that arrogant a----holes seek to claim that just because they may have been successful in getting rich, anyone can. LIES LIES LIES AND MORE LIES from the file self-opinionated who are totally lacking in both empathy and understanding of the real world. OG, elsewhere you claim to be an accountant. There, for a start, is proof positive that ANYONE CAN'T, because not everyone can access higher education to qualify as a professional - let alone as a finance professional.
    Next, we have to consider life risks: illness, disability, natural disasters, work accidents, sick and disabled children, sick and disabled spouses... the list of possibilities goes on and on and on. There are those with mental illnesses who can't cope with the stress of work or perhaps can't manage their money because of addictions, lack of self-esteem, etc. Lack of self-esteem can hold even talented people back in their work life and can lead to them feeling a sense of hopelessness that restricts their ability to strive or to save. Lack of trust in the system due to early trauma or gross injustice stops people investing because they can't cope with risk or they feel oppressed and certain they can never win or succeed at anything.
    ANYONE CAN'T GET RICH. And it's time the arrogant self-opinionated ''I'm okay stuff you'' pigs in this world stopped judging, condemning, and wishing misery on the less advantaged and started paying attention to real solutions.
    STEP 1: Stop bashing those who strive and are moderately successful but don't make it to well-to-do status. No, it's not Goldie or ACOSS. It's a stinking vile government and all who support it. The revised assets test condemns people who saved to be less well off than many who saved half as much, and meanwhile lets those with high incomes draw pensions and benefits that savers with incomes of half the aged pension are denied. This is WRONG. And by condemning savers unfairly, the government and all its supporters are stuffing retirement for all because the cost of supporting retirees will rise, the number of self-sufficient retirees will fall, and people will give up trying to do what is good for the nation because IT JUST DOESN'T PAY.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jan 2017
    6:36pm
    Rainey none of those people you mention would have anywhere near enough to be affected by the change in assets test so what you are saying makes no sense at all. These people are the ones that welfare benefits as they have no other means of support.

    So these people are supported by government welfare and they should be too. The majority would have nil or next to nothing in savings because as you say they don't have the capacity to save at all.

    So I like lots of other people can't see what your argument is at all.
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2017
    8:14pm
    OG, you are a narrow-minded bigoted fool trading on wild and unsubstantiated assumptions typical of idiot academics and privileged professionals who have no clue about the real world.

    Lots of disadvantaged battlers who struggled to meet horrendous challenges WERE affected by the changed assets test. These are responsible, hard-working savers who would have been self-sufficient but for a crisis in their life or starting ''behind the eight ball'' and having a long hard climb to get to moderately comfortable in their later working years.

    You are WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. The vast majority supported by welfare are irresponsible spendthrifts who SHOULD have as much or more than those hurt by the changed assets test but wasted their money. They have nil because they didn't BOTHER to save - not because they had no capacity. And our welfare system rewards them and incentivizes others to do the same, because it penalizes the responsible and hard working.

    Sad that you, as an accountant (you claim) are too thick and brainless to understand reality. I'd hate you to have anything to do with my accounts. You are obviously as inept and lacking in comprehension as the dim-witted moron politicians who implemented the change.
    Old Geezer
    27th Jan 2017
    9:19pm
    Well Rainey I am yet to see anyone that fits your category of those affected because they simply do not exist.

    I would not like to do your accounts anyway as you would want me to perform miracles from them. Unfortunately I can't make any of those people's affairs fit your category of being affected by the asset changes. Most of these people have trouble paying their accounting bill let alone have hundreds of thousands in assets.

    Please stop trying to pull rabbits out of hats as it just aint happening.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:40am
    Shows how narrow minded and bigoted you are, OG. If you opened your eyes and ears, you'd find the people I refer to everywhere. There are probably at least 250,000 of them, actually. And I don't want anyone's help to not be affected by the assets test change because I am still working and I hope to be properly self-sufficient in retirement, if I ever retire! But I pay EVERY genuine bill within 14 days. The only ones I don't pay are the overcharges and frauds.

    It's not me trying to pull rabbits out of hats. It's you LYING about the state of the nation and the economy, LNP TROLL.
    LiveItUp
    28th Jan 2017
    1:19pm
    Those 200,000 people that had their OAP reduced or cancelled were not genuine battlers Rainey but simpky people who should not have been given it in the first place. Genuine battlers woukd be lucky to have a razoo and certainly not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    All my bills are automatically paid on the day they fall due so I don't worry about paying them at all. It makes life so much easier for me.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:21pm
    Rubbish, Bonny. Those 200,000 WERE battlers, or they'd have never qualified for any pension in the first place. They were people who struggled to be as self-sufficient as possible but were beaten by a cruel system and inept government.

    Most who haven't ''a razoo'' are bludgers or spendthrifts, or both. A small number are genuine victims of circumstance, but not many. Most could have saved $800,000 if they had tried a little harder. They just focused on the here and now and having what they wanted in the moment. Luckily for them, the government looks after the irresponsible and bashes the responsible battlers who make this country great. Which is why it isn't now!

    Today I did a comparison of incomes for retirees at different levels. Very revealing. It really highlights how futile saving is and how beneficial it is to ''play'' the ridiculously flawed system and take handouts from taxpayers. A non-homeowner with $574,000 in the bank at 3% interest can have a total income of about $52,000 a year, whereas a homeowner can never get better than $46000 (with $375000 in the bank), and a self-funded retiree might earn as little as $22230 per annum with no pensioner benefits so paying more for everything.

    What is really stupid is that a homeowner couple with $574,000 should spend $199,000 and the government will give them nearly $12800 a year as a reward. Over 22 years in retirement (working strictly on today's figures), they would reap a $281600 reward for reducing their savings by $200,000. What an IDIOTIC proposition. And some dim-witted morons support this notion? Sorry Bonny, but there's no other word to describe you and your ilk.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    12:01pm
    Rainey you really have no idea from your comments what a real battler is. People with hundreds of thousands of dollars are not battlers at all. A real battler is someone that lives from day to day and any minor problem is a major disaster to them. eg fridge breaks down and they don't have the money to fix it. To your 200,000 this is a minor inconvenience nothing more because they have the funds to fix it or most likely replace it.

    So you compare all those incomes but compare the incomes of those just outside the old asset levels and you will get a similar story on your low returns. Yes we are at the bottom on an interest rate cycle but other investments are doing a lot better. That is today tomorrow may be a different story. If you take long term averages you would get different results and a different conclusion. No I'm not about to do it as it simply does not interest me at all.

    Quite frankly Rainey I have never heard so much rubbish from anyone like I have from you.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    7:34am
    And I've never heard so much narrow-minded bigoted anecdotal CRAP from anyone OG! You have no idea what you are on about. NOBODY in Australia should live day to day, and very few have to. Most who do are merely grossly irresponsible - or smart enough to manipulate our IDIOTIC PENSION SYSTEM.

    The minority who have no option but to live day to day are in that situation because the economy is stuffed as a result of poor management - management that increases the load on taxpayers by punishing people for working their way out of hardship.

    Plenty of real battlers have achieved reasonably high retirement savings merely by being responsible and careful. (I'm one, actually - though not yet retired and maybe never will. But I challenge anyone to evidence that they had it harder than I did. Very few will meet that challenge, OG. I worked my way up from REAL poverty. No education. No chance to acquire trade training, much less professional. Yes, it was a major disaster if something broke down - but I taught myself to fix things. I taught myself to build or make or grow what I couldn't afford to buy. I didn't have holidays or restaurant dinners. I didn't drink or gamble or smoke. I can tell you about REAL battling, but I achieved healthy savings - earning far, far less than 98% of Australians and coping with health issues and family problems that few could even believe let alone experience. The vast majority of those who do not have more than the new assets limits have either wasted hundreds of thousands or have simply lived it up and not bothered to save. Good on them! Smart people! Obviously recognized the TOTAL STUPIDITY of policy-makers who want to drive welfare costs sky high and bugger the economy!

    The problem the government has created is that those battlers who did save will now have to drain their savings prematurely and fear being returned to hardship.

    Yes, some of those just outside the old assets levels may have struggled as well, but they were some $200,000 better off (for a couple), so could attain at least another $6000 a year and have at least an extra 3 -4 years in reserve. That said, I didn't agree with the old assets limits either. I don't agree at all with the principle of punishing people for saving, planning and being responsible, because that CREATES A WELFARE MENTALITY.

    When you reward irresponsible conduct and punish responsible people, you generate more irresponsible conduct and have more people on welfare. And that's what's happening. People are structuring their retirement to get at least a part pension, because they are better off doing so. That's STUPID and anyone who supports a policy that results in that sort of behaviour is STUPID.
    Sorry, OG, but that includes you.

    The long term may never happen. Return rates may never rise again. But if they do, that's all the more reason why bashing savers now is STUPID, because people who would have been self-sufficient in an improved return environment will not be because they were forced to drain their savings.

    Wake up! It's not about giving more money to people who don't need it. It's about STRUCTURING the pension system to be affordable and sustainable by encouraging more responsible behaviour and removing the incentives to reduce saving and ask for handouts.

    And just to enlighten you (if you are not too pig-headed to consider that you MIGHT be mistaken about some things) - I could name (but for respect for privacy) at least 20 people who were real battlers struggling to live day to day but were recently awarded a long overdue compensation payment for injury sustained at work or in an accident that was someone else's fault. Those people were awarded compensation based on an assessment of their genuine NEED for health care, personal care, home help, disability aids, etc. They now have to use their compensation payments to live day to day and they cannot afford the benefits the payment was intended to provide. It's not enough that their incomes have been slashed by more than $10,000. They have lost, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars in pensioner concessions that they desperately needed to cope with their disability and illness.

    These people ARE battlers. They had very little before they were compensated. Now they are suffering gross unfairness, because if their compensation claim was considered AFTER the assets test change, they would have been awarded more based on greater need.

    I fully support targeted welfare - CORRECTLY TARGETED. Our current system is INCORRECTLY TARGETED and as a result is hurting people unfairly and incentivising welfare reliance in old age.
    Old Geezer
    31st Jan 2017
    9:40am
    I'll say it again Rainey real battlers would not have anywhere enough assets to be affected by the asset changes. If they do then they are no longer real battlers. I know people who are in real trouble if their car breaks down as they simply don't have the money to fix it. These are the real battlers not those who have hundreds of thousands available to fix that car.

    The people affected have more than enough money to tide them over until they spend it down under the asset limit to get the OAP. Most now also have homes worth half a million or much more.

    These people are no longer battlers and that includes you too Rainey.
    Anonymous
    1st Feb 2017
    9:39am
    And I'll say it again - DUNCE! It's not about who has what. It's about the nation's benefit. If people have been battlers and saved, then taking their savings off them is BAD FOR THE COUNTRY, because it reduces saving and makes more people dependant on welfare. It creates a welfare mentality.

    Pension costs are skyrocketing because corrupt politicians and their dumb supporters insist on driving a welfare mentality and making it more and more appealing to have less and put your hand out.

    It's not about who is a battler and who isn't - though you DO NOT stop being a battler just because you save a few dollars. And no, MOST do NOT have homes worth $1 million or more. That's a privileged arsehole's lie to justify nastiness and cruelty. Those with homes worth $1 million or more are drawing full pensions because they manipulated to ensure they ripped of the taxpayer to the max!

    The people affected will spend and then claim the pension - because they have no choice. And that's IDIOTIC. Because a sensibly structured pension system would encourage and support people to be self-funded. It would recognize endeavour and responsible living and reward it appropriately so that there was benefit in striving and more people were helped to lift themselves up.

    Our welfare system is deliberately designed to grind people down, and that's why it's expensive.
    Old Geezer
    1st Feb 2017
    11:12am
    Rainey as it hasn't yet sunk in I'll say it again. No real battler has be affected by the change in the pension asset test. People with hundreds of thousands of dollars are not real battlers. The ones that battled hard to save a few quid have actually benefited by the change in the asset test as they can have more assets before it kicks in.

    The nation benefits form a lower welfare bill. It is as simple as that. Pay less money for something and there is more money for something else.

    I am no dunce but I starting to think I might know someone who is.
    Anonymous
    1st Feb 2017
    4:42pm
    Right, OG, it hasn't sunk in to your addled brain that you can't lower a welfare bill by making it harder for people to save to be independent and rewarding the irresponsible.

    The welfare bill is RISING and anyone who thinks it will reduce by hurting people who do the right thing and rewarding people who do wrong is A BLITHERING IDIOT.

    You ARE a dunce. The nation is going to suffer hideously from imposing a system that incentivizes and rewards cheating and manipulation and irresponsible spending. It cannot EVER reduce welfare costs by bashing the people who work hard to try to avoid being welfare dependant and rewarding people who work hard to manipulate the system to get fat handouts. It will NEVER work.
    Chris B T
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:01am
    At the present time you can not plan 1 year ahead. How on earth with all the changes and fiddling of rules, asset tests, age changes, etc. can anyone make an informed decision.
    Make changes but are effective form that date, absolutely no retrospective changes.
    {;-(
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    5:45pm
    Agree I might not be alive in one year.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2017
    8:31am
    You are right, Chris BT. We need stability and security. Changes should not be permitted to impact unfairly on people who planned under an older set of rules.

    OG, let's hope you are not. We could well do without your destructive input here and elsewhere.
    mogo51
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:04am
    I am one of the many who are underfunded for retirement, mainly due to late divorce.
    I feel that with this new push to lengthen the retirement age, the Government needs to be more liberal with the income that people can earn when on the pension.
    I do not mean extravagent levels but for the lower/middle income level. So that we can live a reasonable and comfortable retirement.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:19am
    Wishful thinking I'd be thinking. This lot only give away money to one side of society. The rest get higher taxes.
    roy
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:11pm
    You tell them MICK, you are one very astute man and should be our PM no doubt.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:27pm
    Back from LNP holidays fred. Gave you a booster injection by the sound of you. Yeah...more propaganda posts for your Party. Got to make a living somehow.
    gumtree
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:18am
    You can retire with enough funds to live with dignity (I mean wealth) if you are a pollie. If not a pollie you can live with dignity (enough to live on simply) in one of the poorer Asian countries. We must make way in Oz for the refugees, those sponsored from war torn countries and muslims with multiple wives.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:21am
    And that is just the start gumtree. Then there is the refusal to collect tax from their mates (multinationals and rich Australians with offshore tax shelters). Doesn't it already feel like a dictatorship? And readers wonder why I call for this bunch of misfits to be thrown out of office and into the street where they belong.
    Chris_58
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:23am
    Well stated Mick!
    flowerpot
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:27am
    We could not have retired unless we had gone abroad to work for 14 years. Our expat salaries allowed us to save enough to do so. We just couldn't see how we were going to do it on what we were earning in Australia as we never had any spare at the end of the month after mortgage repayments etc etc. This is not possible for everyone but if you can do it then do it. Our only regrets is that we didn't do it earlier.
    Retired Knowall
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:36pm
    You can do it by working smarter in Australia. I followed the boom in WA for over 5 years just before the GFC. Still plenty of opportunity if you have the skills and are prepared to have a go.
    Retired Knowall
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:40pm
    The interesting thing is that it is of little consequence how much you earn, I saw first hand how those on big money blew it as quick as they could get it, mostly on big boys toys.
    Unless you have the basic principals of financial management you will always struggle.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    5:47pm
    It doesn't matter how much you earn it is what you do with what you earn that makes your wealthy or not.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2017
    8:37am
    It's a combination of what you earn and what you do with it, the latter often being determined by fate rather than will. But no matter who smart, prudent and responsible you are, you have to be able to earn adequate income to be able to manage money effectively. If there's not enough coming in to pay for food and shelter, no amount of careful management will achieve financial security.
    Old Geezer
    27th Jan 2017
    1:05pm
    Rainey I used to save money as a student on a student allowance so one can do that anyone can save money no matter what they earn.
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2017
    8:18pm
    A student can live well and save, OG. Try saving from a basic wage when you have a disabled child costing the earth in medical bills, a debt from a car accident, a chronic illness that imposes heavy costs for medicines, and a partner who can't work because your disabled child needs full time care - and no home, so you have to rent at high cost in a town where rentals are at a premium and demand is astronomical.

    And a student can look forward to higher income. The basic wage battler has no future. Their low wage persists permanently.

    You again ASSUME ASSUME ASSUME based on irrelevant anecdotal ''evidence'' and your own irrelevant experiences. You are WRONG again! Always.
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2017
    8:21pm
    And that said, OG, I agree that most Australians CAN save at various points in their lives if they genuinely try. But NOT to be self-sufficient in retirement, especially given cruel pension rules and minimal investment returns. It's time a--- holes recognized that the real victims of today's economic woes are the battlers who worked hard, saved well, were responsible and careful with their earnings, but had no hope of accruing enough to get through retirement with government help.
    Old Geezer
    27th Jan 2017
    9:22pm
    Rainey none of those affected by the asset changes are real battlers at all. Real battlers would simply not have that sort of assets. If they did then they would not be real battlers at all.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:53am
    WRONG OG. That's the opinion of an IDIOTIC ILL-INFORMED ACCOUNTANT who has no comprehension whatever of what life is like for battlers.

    Plenty of battlers work hard and save well. It's actually the more privileged who spend more freely - assuming they will always have good incomes - and end up with less.

    Every person I've met affected by the assets test was a lower income earner who worked unbelievably hard and saved aggressively.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    12:14pm
    Most of those I know including lots of my family have rearranged their assets so that they qualified for the OAP. They are certainly not battlers at all.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    7:53am
    You just proved my point, OG. Don't you get how STUPID your argument is? Of course people rearrange their assets where possible, because our IDIOTICALLY FLAWED UNSUSTAINABLE UNAFFORDABLE PENSION SYSTEM THAT PUNISHES SAVING incentivizes doing just that. So there are more pensioners and a bigger government deficit.

    THAT'S BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG. Thanks for finally agreeing that I'm right.

    Now the BATTLERS are the ones who were hit by the assets test change but DIDN'T have the capacity to restructure or were too honest and responsible to manipulate the system. They are hurting - badly and unfairly.

    The policy change is WRONG. It hurts good, responsible battlers who struggled to be as self-sufficient as possible or who have high needs, and it incentivizes manipulation by large numbers of people who see that saving doesn't pay and will structure their affairs to draw bigger pensions than they otherwise would have.
    Old Geezer
    1st Feb 2017
    11:15am
    Rainey I don't really think you know what a real battler is. No real battlers have been adversely affected by the asset changes if anything they have benefited by the rising of the lower asset thresholds.
    Anonymous
    3rd Feb 2017
    5:30pm
    So because someone went without holidays and restaurant dinners for 25 years and drove old cars and made their own clothes, while someone else partied and danced and bough a million dollar mansion, the former isn't a battler but the latter is? You are an IDIOT OG. That makes no sense at all.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:31am
    Found this interesting Anecdote the other day.
    Me thinks that this is very applicable to Australia and many other countries in the world currently

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38197.htm
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:43am
    What we need is wages to stop stagnating. For 40 years now wages have been declining in real terms unless you are one of the very few to have has 600X increases in income.

    The median wage is around $43 000 before taxes. This means these workers can work a full 40 years and still only have an income of $6000 a year. They would need to draw down capital and after 10 years be fully OAP dependent.

    Superannuation is good for those able to save the full 25 000 but for the half the workforce they will never secure a future. It is cruel and simply feeds an over inflated financial and insurance industry that is feeding on the forced savings of the poor.

    Surprisingly business people and contractors don't have to contribute now do they?

    It would be far better to ensure wages kept up with inflation by a truthful CPI and teaching lower income earners about budgets, saving and investing options.

    And offer not for profit, government sponsored advisors.

    The government can happily pay tax dollars to business opportunists. How about some decent services and advice for the ordinary labourer.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:06pm
    They need to maintain the slave workforce somehow Rae. Just like America the game is to drive down wages, drive down taxes for the rich whilst bring in new ones for everybody else and now moving up the retirement age so that the bottom end can never retire and die on the job.
    Welcome to rich man's government. Nothing is going to change unless the electorate says enough, turns off the News (for want of any name) and sticks with their resolve.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:08pm
    MICK,
    You really mean: "Turn of the Propaganda & Lies" !?!?!?
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:27pm
    Yeah Patriot. I am assuming that those who regularly visit this website are not taken in by the lies and election propaganda run for the right by the big media outlets.
    The reason Abbott and then Turnbull were outraged by the ABC was not that it was biased but rather that it did not run with the propaganda from the other outlets. This is the mode of operation of the big players during an election campaign and is not open for questioning. It never is but should be.
    roy
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:08pm
    MICK for PM yeah, you have my vote MICK.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:28pm
    Didn't you used to post under the name of heemsjerk fred? Or is he working in the next room?
    thommo
    23rd Jan 2017
    11:46am
    I retired late 2014 aged 67, expecting to have a "comfortable" retirement with the help of a part-age pension from Centrelink (and which was supposed to be "grandfathered").
    At the 2013 Federal election, Abbott even promised on his mother's grave that there would be no changes to pensions if he was elected.
    But he betrayed us in the 2015 Budget by changing the assets test which commenced on 1.1.17, and now I've lost 90% of my part age pension, which has effectively stuffed up my retirement which I planned in good faith on the rules and criteria at the time.
    How can anyone plan a retirement strategy when they just move the goal posts at whim. You simply can't.
    Now this LNP government will reap what they sow, and they can expect the wrath of a million pensioners at the next election for this gross act of injustice and betrayal.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:09pm
    Abbott was ALWAYS going to betray those who voted for his government. His whole election campaign was one big lie, starting with the Carbon Tax (for his coal funding contributor mates) and ending with his statement that he did not want to engage in class warfare as he was doing just that.
    You know the old saying: make the mistake once, silly me. Make the (same) mistake twice, poor poor pitiful me. Some people will...and then complain about what happens to them.
    Fliss
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:24pm
    Thommo, only way to safely plan for retirement is to plan to be self funded. Yes, the rules will change along the way (haven't we seen that lately!!!), but keep informed & you can work around/wityh he rule changes.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:39pm
    That is fine Fliss if you earn enough to pay super and then save more or are self employed and can suit yourself about saving and get negative gearing working or better yet positively geared investments.

    Maybe try saving and starting a small business to be self funded but I doubt the funds will do it for low income earners.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:50pm
    Thommo you have heaps of capital that you can draw down and live on until you qualify for the OAP. Stop whinging as you are well off compared to many others who didn't get the OAP because it was nice to have.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:19pm
    Stating the truth is not whinging OG. The three major parties did betray self funded retirees no doubt about that. They lied. Now it might have changed because the government stuffed up with dumb policy and be unaffordable but don't blame the saver. We used to be able to trust the government reps but not any longer.

    Not a word they say can be believed.

    I wouldn't count on any OAP either going forward as I think the neoliberal policy is about to blow all that debt and stuff up the global economy. I'll be surprised if we get out of it okay.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:32pm
    Even cash in the bank will be useless then Rae.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:39pm
    Some of the stuff I am reading is horrifying Rae. What is more horrifying is that logic dictates the future and some of what is predicted has already been trialled to verify that it works. Whilst nobody knows the future the world is in poor shape and the balloon cannot continue to inflate without bursting. The only question how this impacts on ordinary citizens. Not pretty I might suggest but who knows until the music stops.
    What worries me is that the pieces have been put into place all around the planet and it looks like the game is not going to play out too much longer. When the elites have their affairs sorted it'll be game on I am thinking.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:40pm
    Google 'Ice nine' for a starter.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:28pm
    Yes Mick I was in Athens when the 2007/8 blow up happened. That was an experiment to see how ATMs, bank branches, pensions etc could all be shut or cut. Of course the Greeks just went home if they could where foraging is possible and there are plenty of goats. Similar in Cyprus except the bail in laws robbed all accounts by around 10% to prop up the bank.

    I've heard cases of scotch keep indefinitely and can be traded well in cashless times. Tobacco too if stored correctly.

    I'd treat ice nine with caution as a lot of those scaring with it are in there for the fear sales value though.

    Greece came on a lot slower than we thought but eventually even credit transactions failed. Scary stuff indeed.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:41pm
    It was enough for me to see Port Philip Publishing promoting it.

    Years ago a certain big noted radio announcer caused a run on one of the big banks which nearly sent it broke.

    Everyone knows there is not enough cash around even to satisfy everyone's needs if they all want their money quickly. That is a given.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:32pm
    Whilst I hear what you are saying Rae one has to look around the world and see the condition it is in and what has been trialled. Bail in laws (ala Cyprus) are already in pace in all first world economies and waiting to go. Likewise there are laws enabling the state to confiscate it should they 'deem' it necessary. And now we have the G20 countries all signed up to Ice Nine.
    Given that Cyprus was a dry run and that many billionaires in the US have around $50 million is cash stashed out of the banking system as well as the above I'd have to be climate denier to believe that crashing the world economy was not going to be on at some time. I would suggest it is a matter of when not if....but who knows. The banks are still working so maybe we have a ways to go.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:38pm
    Mick what benefit to the rich would crashing the world economy have?
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:08pm
    The last time was unexpected MICK. French banks got into strife trading short term on long dated bonds. It was foolish but could happen again. There are trillions of dollars and euros debt out there and paying all that back at maturity is going to be fancy including the negative yield stuff which I consider to be pure junk.

    The whole planet is not worth the bond bubble the twits have blown. Money is literally worth nothing.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:50pm
    Mick,

    Austria recently ALSO had a "Bail In" which was not well published!!!
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:34pm
    Geezer: your question actually has merit as crashing the economy is a double edged sword. As I said billionaires in the US have stashed $50 million EACH from reports I have read. If the system were crushed then these people would be buying up assets for cents in the dollar. Not sure how the less rich folk would benefit though. The jury's still out on that one, but the elites (the real rich) already have their plans in place including boltholes in countries where they will be safe from the mobs.
    If you thought 2008 was bad I might suggest that things are slowly grinding to a much worse time as debt is multiples of what it was in 2008. Not there yet perhaps but the train wreck is probably not more than a year away. But who am I to say.....a lowly blogger giving his 2 cents worth......after years of reading the tea leaves and checking out the players.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:36pm
    Rae and Patriot: the signs of the end is when banks refuse to honour deposits which customers have placed with them. So far so good.
    I was unaware that Austria had a bail in. Any links for that one?
    Rae
    24th Jan 2017
    7:26am
    The neoliberal have forgotten that great quote from their heroine Ayn Rand. She said you can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequences of reality.

    Central Banks are imposing these rules to protect the banks because they have failed dismally at managing world economies.
    MICK
    24th Jan 2017
    8:36pm
    Like it.
    John
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:01pm
    If we are going to live to be a hundred then it is not unreasonable to expect people to keep earning until they are well into their seventies. I am 71, work full time in a physical job
    and hope to keep going until I am 75. 25 years will be plenty of time to sit around whinging like most of the people who post on this blog. When the pension was introduced the average man did not make it to 65, so it cost the taxpayer nothing.
    The real scandal is the obscene amount of money our public servants retire with. Cut their pensions back to reasonable limits.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:31pm
    You are clearly not a bricklayer, concreter, plumber or a teacher or copper. Some of the small list above have physical use by dates and others are psychologically damaging jobs.
    You making a few assumptions about living on to 100 as well. Quality of life is not all that good once you hit hit from what I have seen and who wants to retire when one is inept and cannot do much more than exist. That is not living.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:39pm
    Mick,
    Indeed, Those are the issues that make "Pushing up daisies" quite attractive (lack of quality & dignity that is).

    But - we have an ally in this attitude - the government agrees and (I assume) they are working on the options for implementation when THEY feel our "Use-by-Date" should occur!
    At the moment, as a "First In" solution & Step, they seem to extend the "Use-by-Date".
    But I Think: "There's MORE . . . . . . . further down the line".
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:48pm
    I agree the retirement age should be raised to 70. If you wan t to retire earlier then you have to plan and save for it

    I still paint houses, mow lawns and dig holes etc and I'm well over 70. I have done these most of my life with no ill effects.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:59pm
    Comment straight from our current government supporting its behaviour Geezer.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:05pm
    OG,
    You "Kicked In" a bit late but now you're starting to "earn your Pay" again.
    Big Mal will reward you adequately!
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:09pm
    Who is big Mal?
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:34pm
    TurnBS..........a wholly owned subsidiary of the rich and their multinational companies contributing money to LNP re-election campaigns.
    Have I got that one right????
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:37pm
    Don't know him myself.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:41pm
    I thought you were an employee..............
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2017
    3:33pm
    OG, you claimed to be an accountant. Are you a liar? Accountants DO NOT bust their guts in heavy physical work that prevents them working into old age. Try bricklaying or tiling or concreting or maybe climbing electricity poles and working 65 feet in the air on live electrical wires and see if you keep going to age 70! Try nursing - lifting heavy patients. Or fire fighting. What an arrogant creep you are!
    Old Geezer
    26th Jan 2017
    6:52pm
    Mmm... arrogant creep that's a new one. Yes I am a trained accountant but never worked professionally as one. I hate the sedentary nature of it and law. I much prefer to do manual work. Lately I have been painting a house and helping a fellow mow lawns and do gardens. I grow a lot of my own food and even catch the odd rabbit and fish.
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2017
    8:32pm
    Proof positive that you didn't work in a soul-destroying and physically taxing job that wrecks you well before retirement age. Vast numbers did - and still do.
    Old Geezer
    27th Jan 2017
    9:29pm
    Rainey my Dad was a labourer all his life and worked well into his seventies. He was playing bowls and mowing his lawn and growing vegies up until a few months before he died. He was just a few months short of 100.

    Physical work is what our bodies are made to do. It's when you don't use them that you get into trouble and wear out. Yes just like an unused machine that ceases up due to lack of use.

    So Rainey it is not physical works that wrecks your but lack of it that does.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:47am
    Physical work is good when conditions are right - which they seldom are our workplaces. It's NOT healthy to be on your knees all day crawling around tiling. It's NOT healthy to be 65 ft in the air strapped to a rotten electricity pole. It's NOT healthy to be lifting heavy, awkard weights all day every day. Sure, some folk retain their health despite working hard. My grandmother did. She was lucky. The hard work she did wasn't dangerous or stressful, and she was blessed with physical strength and no genetic health issues. She was also blessed to NOT be the victim of an incompetent doctor or surgeon.

    You are the classic ''anecdotal evidence'' arguer. Yet you claim education. You didn't learn much, did you? Intelligent people understand that just because they or their father or their neighbour did something, doesn't make it a universal truth. Go and learn how the rest of the world works and SHUT UP with your anecdotal evidence and nastiness. You are really sickening! Develop some empathy for those who have genuine problems as a result of this vile society we live in and the policies of the Neoliberal bastards in power.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    12:16pm
    Check out the old folk in countries that rely upon lots of hard work and they are super fit people. Not fat overfed people on walking frames.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    6:57am
    And the less privileged die young, OG. It depends entirely on the type of hard work and the conditions, as I said before. One of the reasons many want to retire young in Australia is because stress is intolerable. I know school teachers who have no issue with the physical exertion at all, and who love teaching, but the stress of stupid bureaucratic regulations makes them want to exit their job as early as possible. The same applies in many other areas of work. But physical strain IS an issue for many because of poor work conditions or genetic health issues etc.
    Old Geezer
    1st Feb 2017
    11:20am
    But Rainey stress is actually good for you not bad for you at all. It is part of the flight to safety of being human and keeps us alive not kills us. However big pharma wants us to think otherwise so they are sell lots of poison pills and make lots of money.

    So lots of physical activity and stress are what keeps us living well and aging well.
    Anonymous
    3rd Feb 2017
    5:34pm
    That's very true if we CAN live as nature intended, and not as the capitalist masters force their working class slaves to live - enduring totally unnatural and unhealthy stress.

    When retirement age is 70, wait for the massive worker's comp claims. They will be huge. People will be dying and become disabled on the job all over the place.
    Jacqui
    23rd Jan 2017
    12:54pm
    I'am shocked to read that our Government gave 88 million to the Clinton Foundation!
    A rogue self enriching enterprise for the Clintons!
    Perhaps a further 15 million from the Commonwealth Bank…Why and what for?
    Money taken directly from the hard working tax payers of our country ,a forced redistribution
    of our citizens money given to this dishonest Clinton Machine!
    We should be demanding answers.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:02pm
    The 'Clinton Foundation' from all accounts is simply a front for the Clintons to have a wonderful wonderful lifestyle.
    Australia could have done a lot with $15 million if used wisely but just like many other policies our taxpayer money is thrown around like confetti. This government came to power on the promise of reducing the deficit but it has added tens of billions of dollars of new debt. All we got from this bunch is lies, betrayal and more debt.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:35pm
    Not to mention billions of dollars squandered on micky mouse private education suppliers and more billions for private medical insurance companies and more billions for childcare companies, prison security etc, etc,

    Billions and billions of government sponsorship of the wealthy corporations.

    There should be an explanation of why tax funds are being given to US election campaigns.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:37pm
    Rae,
    I thought that it was the Russians who "perverted the cause of justice" in American elections?
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:59pm
    No it was Trump himself. He misspelt a word in a tweet and deleted it. He broke the law doing so.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:03pm
    OG
    LOVE the proof you're providing !!
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:32pm
    No good bagging the Russians to me Patriot. I'd sooner deal with them than not. If you keep your wits about you by the time you are slamming down straight alcohol it is a done deal and I've always found them truthful.

    The Australian government parties are the one's who can't tell the truth.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:40pm
    Rae
    I personally think that Russians have currently more "Personal Freedom" than many other citizens living in "So-Called" democracies.
    Just that their people have not become addicted to a our lifestyle like hours but are more realistic.

    I agree, Putin had NO MOTIVE to influence the USofA elections
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:34pm
    We do have something in common with Russia. Both our countries have a troll army pumping out propaganda. Putin's trolls have bee uncovered by the media but ours are still protected by our media.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    6:35pm
    I tried really hard to get the government to buy up the wool when we had that oversupply and give it to Russia for payment later. Russia was in trouble too and that would have been a friend and trading partner well made. Instead they crashed the wool market and destroyed half the farms in Oz. Such a wasted opportunity all over ideology and nutty beliefs.

    They would have paid when able to. The Russians honour deals and friendship and have been our allies in major wars.
    Old Geezer
    24th Jan 2017
    4:18pm
    Rae don't start me on the wool industry.
    MICK
    24th Jan 2017
    8:38pm
    Better to pull the wool over the eyes of the public Geezer.
    plodder
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:31pm
    So how much does a politician have to pay pensioners to get elected?

    What level of income would make them happy with the likes of Shorten lurking around and promising more of what we don’t have.

    And what vote, or chance to squeal, do the unborn who will be handed this debt get to vote on this?


    How many of our neighbouring countries that we love to visit and love the people, pay anyone any pension of any kind??????

    Yet we demand their cheap prices for stuff, cheap holidays that exploit their pathetic wages, and cheap medical procedures. All based on us exploiting the fact their country doesn’t pay them any benefit in any way so costs are way down on ours.

    Water finds its own level. Eventually we will end up with their standard of living with the exception they can manage life under such circumstances.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:34pm
    Agree most people are living way beyond their means and the day of reckoning will come. I'll survive if I live long enough to see it but how many others will?
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:42pm
    Stay off the drugs Geezer. My suggestion above was to google 'Ice Nine', not to take the damn stuff.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:45pm
    No poisons for me Mick not even legal ones. It's all in the mind so why suffer the side effects of those poisons as well.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:14pm
    OG I do believe you are correct. Living on borrowed money has been terrific while it lasted. Pity incomes haven't kept up with expectations.
    gecko50
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:39pm
    With enough retirees/pensioners in our population who are not adequately supported in our parliament, it is time to have a real party that represents these people. One Nation (and l am not a supporter or follower of One Nation) have captured a significant portion of the population to hold a number of seats in the senate. We need a "Pensioners Party."
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:42pm
    Less than 10% of OAP have had their nice to have OAP reduced or cancelled. The rest are quite happy with their lot. Self funded retirees love the changes. So it is only those who upsized etc to hide their assets so they could get the OAP that might be interested but me thinks the dust will settle and it will all be forgotten by the next election.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:44pm
    And in a couple of years time comes the next round.....
    ANybody who thinks they are right have not been watching the Abbott and Turnbull governments in action. These are Class Warfare armies set up to attack and rout average citizens.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:48pm
    Mick your imagination is certainly running hot today.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:51pm
    OG,
    No need for a "Vivid Imagination".
    The proof is "All Around us for those who have the Courage to See".

    We also need somebody with the "Guts to DRAIN the SWAMP(s)".
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    1:58pm
    Ha ha most people wouldn't even be looking.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:01pm
    OG,
    That is what "Your Government Bosses" know & Understand from examining past history.
    "Bread & Plays" and just keep "Brainwashing The masses".
    Sad for the One Worlders, the masses are "Starting to Look".
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:01pm
    Imagination Geezer? No. I watch and observe. My strengths. Not difficult to see what is going on and only the mentally challenged who are easily led to the slaughter will think that the current lot are anything other than what they are.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:37pm
    OG I'm beginning to believe the LNP work for the IPA that work for the neoliberal 0.1%. Certainly not the Australian people.

    Nothing else makes any sense. Look at NSW and the sale of everything in the last couple of years. Outrageous squandering of taxpayer assets that returned profits to treasury.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:36pm
    Did you mean the IRA Rae.....?
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:17pm
    No Mick the IPA that neoliberal think tank with a wish list of changes suited to winner takes all and losers just have to cop it sweet because they should have done better.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    5:58pm
    The rich rely on each other having money to spend so if the winner takes all the flow of money stops and the value of everything becomes worthless. The rich also need the engine room of society (the middle class) to keep their wealth in tact as well as increasing in good times.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    6:37pm
    We know that OG but do they or have they become totally isolated by private schools, first class living and strange beliefs about the laziness of the common folk.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:13pm
    I do know they are realising that to sell something unique they need to find someone silly enough to pay more than they did. If the engine room isn't running well then they are hard pressed to find that someone.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:41pm
    Geezer: you have just understood WHY the rich should never try to turn average citizens into dirt poor church mice. The flow of money indeed is what makes the game a healthy one and owning everything as well as telling the bottom end they should earn nothing is the way to poverty even for rich folk. And that is after the revolution where the wealthy lose their heads. Don't expect the poor to cop it sweet forever.....
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2017
    3:50pm
    OG says: ''So it is only those who upsized etc to hide their assets so they could get the OAP that might be interested''

    What a disgusting creep this OLD GOAT is. And ignorant. Those hurt by the changed assets test are people who lived responsibly and saved as well as they were able, trying to be close to self-sufficient, but were screwed over by a stinking inept government and left worse off than people who were far less responsible - forced to gift their hard-won savings to the less frugal and responsible. Only the most hideous and vile monsters would speak of these poor victims as you do OG.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    12:17pm
    Rainey reality shows that most people affected by the change in asset test only got he OAP as they rearranged their affairs so they could.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    7:58am
    Thanks for finally agreeing with me, OG, that the policy change was IDIOTIC and it will drive pension costs up up up.

    What have I been saying all along? That it will lead to people reducing their savings or hiding their wealth to access the pension because NOT doing so imposes unfair hardship by comparison with pensioners.

    If you structure the system to reward responsible and honest conduct, recognizing people's RIGHT to enjoy the rewards of their efforts, you reduce the drain on the taxpayer. But short-term selfishness and misplaced envy has driven a STUPID policy change that will drive pension costs through the roof as more and more people rearrange their affairs to protect themselves from unfair loss.

    I'm not supporting paying pensions to people who don't need them. I'm supporting structuring a system that CORRECTLY addresses need and who DESERVES a little help and incentivizes the behaviour that's good for the nation. The current system FAILS, and the assets test change made it 1000 times WORSE.
    Old Geezer
    1st Feb 2017
    11:21am
    OAP should only be paid to those who need it and then paid back out of their estate.
    Anonymous
    4th Feb 2017
    5:18pm
    NO. It should be paid to everyone, or else sensibly means tested such that anyone who struggled to saved doesn't have to gift their savings to others to survive in old age. It should NOT be used as an expensive tool for social engineering, which is what it currently is OG.
    KSS
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:00pm
    With very few exceptions, (Judges, pilots and clergy come to mind) there is NO mandated retirement age in Australia. However, to be eligible to apply for the Government paid age pension, you MUST meet a range of criteria one of which currently is be aged 65 or older.

    Anyone retiring before the age of 65 must therefore, be self-funded in some way (savings, inherited wealth, won lotto, savvy investments or robbed a bank for example). So why the hand-wringing and chest-beating that people are now retiring at age 61 and not 58 (or any other age for that matter)? It is still significantly below the so called 'retirement age'.

    It is a fact that people are living longer and living healthier than at any other time. Another poster pointed out that at the inception of the age pension few (if any) made it to 65 and those that did didn't last very long. We can now expect to live at least 20 years or more after the age of 65. Even with pension eligibility being extended to an eventual 70 years, we are still likely to have at least 15 years ahead of us in relatively good health. We have an ageing population who are not about to die conveniently on their 65th birthday. Quite simply people have to be responsible for their retirement finances and we have been told this for the last almost 25 years. People who are now in their 50s and early 60s have had most of their working life to do something about it. If they chose not to listen then so be it, but why should those that did be expected to pay for those that didn't?

    As for outsourcing financial education to schools, why? The school timetable is already overcrowded. Every time a new issue bubbles up there is a call for the schools to be the solver of all ills. (Think about the calls for swimming to be compulsory taught in schools because a number of ADULTS chose to swim in dangerous areas and paid the price.) I learnt about saving and the value of money as a very small child with pocket money. I used to get sixpence a week and every penny was accounted for i.e. a penny for church, a penny for Brownies/Guides, a penny to save - it went into the post office savings account, a penny for sweets (you could get a big bag full in those days), a penny to buy birthday/Christmas presents for family/friends and a penny to do whatever I wanted. It should not be up to schools to teach this. It is a parental obligation to make sure their child is ready for the world and that means not bailing them out all the time. Time to shut the Bank of Mum and Dad and take responsibility for teaching their child about money.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:07pm
    Come on KSS....you mean teachers should not be whipping posts for politicians and the public any more?
    You are correct though. Teachers are routinely given a 'new' task to teach because parents who do not want to teach their children anything these days. And you wonder why our international standings keep falling.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:10pm
    The majority of Mums and Dads today have very little knowledge of money and investments so how can they teach their kids.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:29pm
    Living in a political vacuum Geezer. Teachers all the way along the schooling system teach children about the financial system. It's not as though the little darlings had no help. A lot different to when we went to school and it was 99% curriculum. These days more like 80/20.
    My perception is that genYs are pretty well versed in finances and that only the buffoons who wreck learning environments in schools come out with no knowledge.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:45pm
    Of course schools are a vacuum when you have teachers that have never been outside the academic world trying to teach kids the real world. Someone once said schools were there to keep teachers employed and if they actually taught the kids something it was a bonus. I agree with them. All schools do is take imaginative little kids and turn them into factory workers. Yes they get taught how to write a resume but not a business plan.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:50pm
    Your perception of schools is the precise reason they do not function well: the public with its 'views' who know nothing about the education system other than what they hear in the media.
    Your comment about teachers coming from schools to schools may be reasonable but many these days also come from an industry background.
    You fail to understand what goes on in schools Geezer. Having been there done that for a few years at the end of a business life I have a much better perception and I'll tell you what you may not want to hear:

    1. schools and the teaching staff are frequently hamstrung by do gooders who know all about the profession because they went to school when they were young.
    2. politicians meddle and in their (lack of) wisdom bring in the next new piece of BS to waste the time of teachers.
    3. some parents and their often feral offspring decide they are running the school and make outlandish demands on the system to accommodate their sometimes whacky beliefs.
    4. kids rule schools in the public system and are for the most part untouchable. Even serious issues like stealing a Trial HSC Paper gets only a day's suspension. ANd there is worse!

    The problem with your view of schools Geezer is that you have never been there and you fail to understand that many teachers are bailing out because they have been made scapegoats and are fair game for kids, their parents, the media and politicians. And then they get branded as bad teachers because we have falling standards......which are entirely due to the system having broken down and a previously well functioning system lying in ruin. And you wonder why teachers retire early and/or some get out and find another career???? So what you have left are teachers with sometimes no ability and few skills. Well done!

    Do go on about teachers Geezer but be prepared to teach your grandchildren yourself. There is a God.

    Sorry for the rant. I see our education system as paramount to a healthy society but am seeing the destruction of this once great Australian institution.
    Retired Knowall
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:51pm
    How is that a student can FAIL the HSC yet still accepted into a UNI teaching degree, come out with a degree and fail basic Maths and English?
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    5:53pm
    Agree.

    Also why is our school system failing and falling behind the rest of the world?

    Too much junk being taught and not enough of the basics.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:47pm
    The short answer Retired Knowall is DESPERATION.
    Having chased the highly skilled older staff out (they are retiring early!) and brought in very substandard replacements (those you mention Knowall) society reaps the grapes of wrath and then complains about inadequate teachers.
    You can't have it both ways. Had teachers been paid a better, not had their hands tied behind their backs, and not been made the scapegoats of every disaffected parent and kid in the system they would have not left.
    Blame those who created the problem, not teachers who left because they had had enough of the attacks. high workload and mediocre pay.
    Retired Knowall
    24th Jan 2017
    4:07pm
    I'm not blaming teachers, just stating the facts.
    MICK
    24th Jan 2017
    8:40pm
    Have had a lot to do with the education industry Knowall. Believe what I have written. 100% true. Facts! And now the the results are coming back to haunt all of us but closing the gate now is too late.
    Society always gets what is deserves: "as you sow so will you reap"...or something like that methinks.
    Rosret
    25th Jan 2017
    8:53am
    Financial education is taught in schools. I am not sure why it would need to be outsourced.
    Besides the biggest let down in learning about compound interest was finding out it only applied to bank loans and not bank accounts. Have you noticed you can't apply compound interest to your term deposits. The interest is choofed off to another ancillary account. Then if you don't touch the account thinking it will accrue interest. - Oh no - the bank will eat into it with fees and the government will "acquire" the entire cache as a dead account.
    Then can we look at the younger generation. In 2014 a unit was bought for $220K (Allhomes ref) my son looked at it this month and the seller wants $365K.
    It doesn't matter how hard he saves he cannot keep up with this sort of increase in the real estate market.
    It is so important for the government to address this issue for our young ones because they won't have any incentive to save if there is no point. Their maths is very good - and so is the banks - they just won't loan them money anymore.
    ...and Mick ...teachers give their all no matter what the pay and the ones I know are very intelligent. Its not the pay - its the crap they keep getting asked to do that has nothing to do with student learning just to keep the bureaucratic wheel turning. ... but that's an aside.

    23rd Jan 2017
    2:09pm
    Have a shorter life span.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:29pm
    With the pace of modern life and the stress in work places I am surprised that people are not living shorter lives. Go figure.
    Rosret
    25th Jan 2017
    8:54am
    Yes - I was wondering why the doctors keep on wanting me to have tests!
    jonty
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:20pm
    Agree with you Mick.
    For those who hide their heads in the sand and believe in the stupid 'Work Ethic/Dole Bludger' syndrome despite all the jobs being taken offshore or automated without proper government transition policies; There needs to be some simple message to help them understand where they stand on the 'Hit List'.

    My simple way of putting it is that since the early 1980's with Thatcher and Reagan, taxes have been steadily reduced for the Big Corporations and the rich.
    Howard, Reith and their heirs have systematically bashed the unions/workers to drive down real wages to pay for it.
    The taxes the rich don't pay are syphoned off to offshore tax havens ala Malcolm Turnbull leaving most western nations with massive deficits. So having created the huge deficits the conservative/liberal/republicans ( Right Wing Governments ) say 'AT THE MOMENT' it is the fault of the disabled and retirees. Whose fault will it be when they have been reduced to abject poverty.

    I know what I prefer; which is proper wages,jobs and safety nets when required, which leaves the money in the country;
    - rather than no taxes and generous subsidies for the rich which takes the money out of the country.

    And I know this much Bill Shorten may not have the so called 'media polish' of Malcolm Turnbull, but he certainly ticks all the policy boxes to ensure Australia is all inclusive and gives everyone a decent chance in life, whereas Turnbull and his team make a mess of everything they touch !!
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:23pm
    Crystal ball gazing!
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:24pm
    Jonty,
    They only "Make a Mess" for "Us - Mere Mortals".
    They - & their FATCAT Mates" are doing Extremely well.

    Bout time WE - the people - took this Country back!!!
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:27pm
    OG,
    Whilst I would NOT call it ball Gazing.
    IF you are suggesting that Shorten is just "Supporting ANOTHER tinsel town: I agree.

    Notwithstanding that, Jonty makes some very valid points for "Serious Consideration" of being "Awfully Close-to-the TRUTH".
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    2:39pm
    I continue to plug away for decent Independents so that we get a mix of MPs who are not owned by either big business or unions. Then you get real horse trading and a solution to problems because you have no vested interests to satisfy and all MPs having a say. That is NOT happening now.
    As far as Shorten is concerned Patriot better a PM who is not owned by the big end of town as there will be money allocated to projects which benefit the country rather than the wealthy and the multinational companies in which they hold stakes. Had Gillard not been shafted by the Murdoch Press and other LNO media outlets we would have had a real NBN at the same cost as the pathetic model Herr Turnbull gave us and the Carbon Tax which was working so well would have reduced electricity prices from the current coal monopoly model we have. Alas...this crew have decimated the nation and their media keeps playing the 'how well they have done tune' with never a mention of the huge amount of new debt, the much higher joblessness and the class warfare which is being waged.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:01pm
    Mick,
    I agree with some of your sentiments!

    However, let's look at the Labour Party Platform of "OBJECTIVES in their ALP Constitution"

    Until the Perth Conference in 1963, Citizens Initiated Referendum was the Number ONE item on the Labour party Platform.

    At the above referred to event, CIR was deleted from their Policy Platform as: "The people were just too stupid about things like this as they seldom seem to approve of the issues" as put before them by the Political Powers as per our Section 128 of the Australian Constitution.
    THANK YOU DON DUNSTAN and other members who supported this !!!

    So - as far as I'm concerned - the labour Party ceased to be the "Party for the People" as they no longer were keen/willing to "Hand the Power Back to the People".

    Close examination of the issues voted on reveals exactly that we - in reality - were just "Too Smart" as there was only ONE referendum that "Sneaked through" improving the Power of the Pollies". The rest of them was defeated as people realised the attempted "Power Grab" inherent in the issues.

    Wonder WHY they don't want a bar of this mechanism?

    SO - Until they return & Actively Persue - this item (CIR) as the MAJOR item on their Policy Platform, I will put the ALP in the same bag as the LNP & GREENs.
    "Put a Brick in the bag & Sink if into the "Deep Sea trench between us & Kiwiland".
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:52pm
    It's either Labor or Independents Patriot. Surely you would not advocate putting the current crew back in?
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:45pm
    Mick,
    Agreed, the current lot is even more "Criminally Inclined" that the ALP who I will not vote for until the put CIR "Back on the List".

    Independents or Pauline seems to "Be the Go".

    Let's FRIGHTEN the BASTARDS !!!!!
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:49pm
    "Criminally inclined" is the correct description. If these guys were in private industry they would likely be before the courts awaiting judgement rather than acting like thugs and criminals because they are absolved from prosecution due to being politicians.
    Rosret
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:15pm
    Its not just a serious issue for the baby boomers. The 20-30 yr old generation are in a really prickly position. When a 3 bedroom house in my neighbourhood sold for $950K I didn't think wow that's great. I felt incredible sad for the next generation. I felt sorry for the rest of us who will see rates push us out as well. I wish the government would fix the inflationary housing market and hopefully it may go a long way to keeping our super portfolio in line with the astonishing increases in the real estate market.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:56pm
    If the predicted worldwide financial industry crash happens then watch the price of house drop through the floor.
    The issue these days is that, with the exception of the top end of town, wages have not increased with inflation and the big boys then also cut full time jobs and try to push wages even lower.
    GenYs are already not voting LNP because they understand what this bunch is and who it serves. All I know is that the future is going to bring a bad crash which will make 2008 look like a kids teal party. The thing I don't know is the 'when'. That one will be up to the masters of the universe to call or some disaster which brings it on.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    5:51pm
    Mick only those few that need to will sell their houses the rest will just hang onto them until the market recovers. If you are lucky you might buy one of these houses like I did in the early 90s but most will be snapped up quickly.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:52pm
    Anybody with a mortgage and significant debt will have to bail out. Homes, shares, cars. holiday houses. overseas holidays (sigh) and toys will all have to go. Don't think you will lose 10% as it is going to be the greatest fire sale the world has seen since the 1930s.
    Think about how long it took markets to recover in the 1930s and WHO made some real money during the years after the great collapse.
    Old Geezer
    24th Jan 2017
    11:50am
    I bought a house in the early nineties in Sydney for nearly 30% less than the asking price before the boom busted. 10% is only a small property market correction.
    MICK
    24th Jan 2017
    8:42pm
    Correct. What goes up like a rocket comes down the same way. The times are approaching.
    Old Geezer
    24th Jan 2017
    10:12pm
    I've already sold that one for a nice profit.
    Vee
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:24pm
    I have always been a firm believer of education. In fact, we should have ongoing education no matter what our age is. I find that no matter what our ages, we all need information at various stages of our life depending on what is going on. That can applies as much to young, middle or elderly stages of our lives. The young just starting out in life are generally unware of some the pitfall of renting, loans, credit cards and contract, to the elderly trying to navigate and manage their retirement funding.

    You are right in saying that the government needs to stop making policies based around averages. We don't have a any political parties that have any idea on 'forward thinking" except to hit the weakest in our society. The policies they try to implement is always the "easiest targets" which is generally the weakest and most depended. All the whinging and whining at the so called bludgers, frauds and rippers of the "welfare"system is nothing compared to what the corporations, businesses and industries do to us Australians through tax evasion. We need industry for growth, but we need fairness and that is something that is not in this current governments vocabulary, and probably not in their DNA.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:45pm
    What do you want a policy for everyone of the 25 million people in Australia?

    That's why you have to use averages and ranges.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    3:59pm
    Both parties are scared to do anything which upsets voters and are gutless Vee. And then you have the LNP waging class warfare on those who do not have abundant wealth. You get what we get. Meanwhile voters keep watching the media outlets owned/run by the top end of town and are taken in. So the sick game continues, as does the class warfare.
    MICK
    24th Jan 2017
    8:43pm
    $10 years ago is worth $2 now. You NEED capital gain as well as a return!
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2017
    8:35pm
    And younger retirees NEED to preserve their capital, and hopefully grow it, because it will be worth very little 10 years from now. That is the point the idiots who rant on that retirees should be forced to spend their capital ignore. That, and the fact that living costs often increase with age as health deteriorates.
    Old Geezer
    27th Jan 2017
    9:32pm
    Younger retirees will be 10 years older by then and the OAP would have also increased so they don't need their capital. So enjoy it while you can as the older you get the harder that bucket list is to do.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:36am
    What a STUPID remark from someone who claims to want the government to save money! The best thing for the government would be to allow people to benefit from saving so more people save, and if they die and leave it to their children, the next generation is better off and doesn't need a pension. Short term gain is ALWAYS long term pain. And this STUPID government has condemned Australia to long term pain, just as the Howard Government did with its handouts to the rich that the following Labor Government struggled with. But fools who can't read history and don't understand economics blame the Labor Government for a deficit the Liberals guaranteed would arise after they gave away all the profits of the boom cutting taxes for the wealthy.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    1:14pm
    From my experience anyone that keeps putting off their bucket list eventually realises that they have left it too late. So the government has done everyone a favour with the new asset test in that it will force them to do something sooner rather than later. So spend your money while you are a young retiree because you certainly won't need it later in life. Nursing homes only charge people who can afford it so no money needed there. Expensive medical bills are covered in 99% of cases by private health insurance and Medicare. So what do you need money for later in life?
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    8:01am
    Changed your argument now that you've been proved wrong, OG? Now it's about benefiting people by making them enjoy life? And the end result is more pensioners costing the nation more - which is exactly what you initially claimed to oppose.

    All you've done is prove me correct. It was a policy change that was NOT ABOUT SAVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS. Either it was STUPID, or the public was lied to about the objective and the real objective was a social restructure.
    Old Geezer
    1st Feb 2017
    2:12pm
    No I haven't changed anything yo just read everything I write and change it in your mind to suit yourself.

    Of cause it is going to save money and any fool can see that.
    Anonymous
    1st Feb 2017
    4:43pm
    How can you save money by making people spend more, have less, and get more pension. You, yourself, have changed your argument to support people spending more and admitted that the result will be that they will go on the OAP. So the country CANNOT SAVE and only a dim-witted fool would suggest it can.

    23rd Jan 2017
    3:56pm
    "The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) states that to live a comfortable retirement, a couple requires an income of $59,619 a year. Industry Super Australia recommends that a couple needs a joint balance of $775,628 to live comfortably."

    I am having a problem with this paragraph. Firstly, I don't believe that every couple needs that amount but let's take it as a given and move on. The full pension for a couple, with the add-ons, is $34,382.40pa. The government insists that the minimum draw from super is 5% and if we take 5% of $775,628, that's $38,781.40. Add them together we get $73,163.80.

    I have always believed that if you find a lie in a discussion, it puts all other comments or statistics within that discussion under suspicion. Perhaps before we rush to condemn whoever the bloggers chooses today, I believe that we should at least start with a truthful subject.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:03pm
    Clarification: which superannuation fund lets you draw a living which then adds to the OAP? You must be in a protected super scheme to get the OAP as earning $34,000 would mean you failed the assets test. Is that right?
    Personally an income of $50,000 would mean a retiree could have quite a lavish retirement so the industry appears to be gilding the lily methinks.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:24pm
    Don't know about adding them together but I sure don't think it worth saving close to $800 000 just for a $4000 increase in funds. Probably better to have a good time, travel and enjoy life rather than all that saving for not much return.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    5:40pm
    Years ago I put aside $400.000 to live on so that I wouldn't have to sell down my other investments. We have lived comfortably on the return on that $400,000 for many years now. So I really can't see you would need anywhere near $775,000.

    I also have to take out about the same amount from my SMSF every year but have just used it to fund my other investments.

    If you had assets of $775,628 you would be now getting very little if any OAP so you would have much to add to your $38781.
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2017
    8:30pm
    The point is that having $800,000 is useless. It gives you no higher income than having $375,000 and getting a pension. So why bother to save. As Rae says, spend it and have a good time, then put your hand out. Stuff the economy. It's stuffed anyway with idiots like our current politicians running it and fools like OG supporting their stupidity.
    Old Geezer
    27th Jan 2017
    9:41pm
    Well spend it then and help the economy either here or overseas. Go on a cruise and make the mega rich richer and send a few pennies to poor countries.

    Rainey I reckon I could live very well on the return I could get on $800,000 and save at least half of it. That's much better than what the OAP would pay me.

    Economy is stuffed because no one wants to work and collect welfare instead. Today I had to help a fellow clean up a garden because he could not get anyone to help him. No one wants to do that sort of work any more.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:31am
    The point, OG, is that people didn't save it to spend in a hurry because a stinking government changed policy. Common sense dictates that the asset test - if one exists - should be based on current return rates, so that people don't suffer loss by saving.

    There will always be a minority of people who don't want to work, but life on welfare is NOT appealing and few would choose it if they had a choice. Horrid creatures constantly blame the victims of bad government because it's more convenient than admitting your precious LNP buddies got it wrong. Well, actually, it suits your purpose to lie about the cause of problems because you want to continue to over-indulge the rich and bash the battlers.

    You claim you can get 15% return on investment, but the national average is 5% and even the leading super funds don't claim much more than 10% - fluctuating - so what you can do is NOT RELEVANT. What counts is what is happening in the real world of real people, and what is happening there is that people are worse off for having saved, and that's WRONG.

    There are sensible solutions, but this government is either too inept or too focused on a disgusting social re-engineering exercise to bother to even TRY to find them. And creeps like you who keep on justifying the government's incompetence just show how vile some of the LNP supporters in this nation are and how dangerous it is allowing them to vote, let alone to possibly influence others. Luckily, your arrogance and nastiness shows a mile away and everyone here is onto you, OG. They all know what you are.
    LiveItUp
    28th Jan 2017
    3:23pm
    If super funds can return 10% then they must be making at least 15% before fees. Yes most super funds have fees of 5% and many have a lot more. There are lots of hidden fees in super. That's why I have my own SMSF as i get to keep that 5% or more.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:48pm
    Very few people get above 10% return Bonny. The average is 5%. Stop your vile chest-beating and recognize facts and realities for the majority of the population. Only a vile creep wants policy made for the benefit of the privileged and to hurt the average Australian.
    LiveItUp
    29th Jan 2017
    3:52pm
    Most people I know know get more than 5% as they have thier money invested not parked in the bank for the bank to make lots of money using. If super funds pay 10% after fees then the returns available must be much higher. I'm not chest beating just stating facts.
    Anonymous
    30th Jan 2017
    7:11am
    There you go again, Bonny, with the ''me and people I know'' crap - anecdotal evidence that is totally irrelevant in the big picture. A few super funds EARN 10% (don't necessarily pay it!). Of course SOME investors can achieve higher returns - especially those with more to invest. The less you have to invest, the less risk you can tolerate and the less advice and knowledge you can invest in acquiring. Smaller investors earn less. That's a given. Also, more recent investors struggle. Those who invested many years ago made gains already. That $300,000 house bought 20 years ago might earn the same rent as a $700,000 house today.

    The plain fact is that returns today AVERAGE 5%. That's STATISTICAL FACT. And that means the less well off get much less than 5%. So policy needs to be framed on the basis of FACT as it relates to the MAJORITY. And YOU and PEOPLE YOU KNOW don't matter a jot, Bonny. Sorry. You and your comments are not relevant.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    12:18pm
    Rainey your returns are way out of date.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    8:03am
    My returns have nothing to do with it, OG. Unlike you, I rely on PROPER DATA - not personal experience.

    The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT declares the AVERAGE return 5%. Most Australians are getting less than that. Those are the statistical FACTS - not some assumed BS by a privileged narrow-minded person who thinks they are the only person in existence and their personal experience is all that matters.

    Returns are averaging 5%.
    phantom
    23rd Jan 2017
    4:24pm
    I tell my kids to start preparing for retirement now. They will at least be able to start their super now but us old farts it never came into being till the 70s and for most of us later. $1 million will be closer to have a good retirement but everyone wants to retire early. Big house, huge tele and live the life of riley but they also want the pension. So lets cry wolf and blame the government. Do you think Shorten will make it any better, No, we still have dept to pay. If you want to whinge about the pollies perks. Then bloody become one. We will see if you will pass up the perks when they are yours.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    5:41pm
    The big expensive house is about to become a thing of the past if you want the OAP.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    6:48pm
    The big expensive house is a big expensive liability. It might make people feel successful but it is hard to live on feelings.

    I don't even think i'd want to clean all that sized home neither. I'm still in my little cabin I built in 1973 and glad I put all my savings into income producers not a great whopping expensive pile of bricks.

    Much less pay rates based on land value and insurance. I don't understand how OAPs actually afford to hold those expensive properties.

    I saw a great three bedroom home in Stanthorpe for $228 000 and another in Glen Innes for $155000 both nice towns for retirees with good services and really friendly locals. Tenderfield was cheaper again.

    If ever I thought I couldn't afford to stay here I'd move to Stanthorpe in a flash. A couple of cold months but basically beautiful in a Leura like way and a couple of hours drive to Brisbane.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    6:56pm
    Yes I was in Tenterfield. Glen Innes, Armidale etc last week. Guyra was too cold and windy for me even in the middle of summer so not too sure where you get your couple of cold months from. More like just a couple of warm months. Yes I have lived in Leura too and too cold for me.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    6:59pm
    I don't own a home myself as I'd rather have my money invested in income producing assets.
    MICK
    24th Jan 2017
    8:43pm
    Like Woolworths.....?
    Old Geezer
    24th Jan 2017
    10:09pm
    Yes Woolworths it is trading nicely at present. Bought some at $23 and now up nearly $2. Not a bad return for only just over a month.
    Cruzisuzi
    23rd Jan 2017
    6:26pm
    Moving the goal posts on assets for pensioners not privy to a lifetime of super saving is an incredibly harsh line of policy. These pensioners fully expected to receive the age pension as an entitlement and funds were set aside for this reason until parliament decided to transfer these funds into general revenue and spent it! We are now being told that it is welfare ?? Where is the incentive for everyday Australians to work and pay taxes over a full lifetime? Ok for those who will retire on a lifetime of super savings, but not for those of us working under the previous system where the pension was a rite of passage and no such thing as superannuation was available. Politicians need to look more closely at the inevitable poverty and hardship they have created for these worthwhile Australians.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    6:52pm
    The OA is welfare and certainly not a right of passage for anyone.
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    6:57pm
    There was nothing stopping savings during that time. Most super was not tax deductible before 1992 anyway. The truth is people failed to save because of an entitlement mentality that has failed to eventuate because of economic changes.

    Four young tax payers for every ten OAPs is not going to cut it no matter how you look at it.

    I fully expected what I'd been promised but it failed to eventuate and that failure was called 'fair and sustainable'.

    These superannuation funds might just get up if they can keep fees down and if you keep a handle on insurance and if you earn enough.

    Unfortunately the time to save and sock away is also the time of youth, parties, searches for partners and the last thing thought of is savings. There will be those who put away a few thousand in the markets while young and add to it and be self sufficient but most won't. They'll do the pay bills and spend all the rest thing like they always have.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:03pm
    OG,
    OAP is a right as - when introduced - the fund raised from "Surcharge" on wages was preserved in a "Special Fund" (set aside for when the time came) and the OAP deduction appeared on PaySlips Stating such.
    This 10% Surcharge levy HAS REMAINED forever (was never stopped) and never been reversed. After all, if it was reversed, and the OAP was - after that moment in time - becoming welfare, the Pollies would Legally have to refund the moneys already collected for the purpose of "Rightful OA-Pensions".
    Otherwise, that would be PLAIN THEFT and OUR Dutiful pollies would never do that would they.

    OOPS, just thought about the Bishop Girls, Suzie Ley, Koremann and others. Your bosses ARE THIEVES!!!!!
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:04pm
    Agree if you can save and invest while young you will be streets ahead in later life. My kids were encouraged to do this and they are so glad they did.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:07pm
    Patriot all that is now history and the OAP is now welfare and certainly no longer a right. The only thieves are those who fail to do the right thing and tell the Centrelink porkies to get welfare. However their bad deeds are currently coming home to roost.
    Patriot
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:09pm
    OG,
    At least you seem to recognise that I have relayed The Truth!!!
    And No, Taking money "under false Pretenses" would not & should not be wiped under tha carpet.
    Not even when the Government does it!!
    THEFT IF THEFT!!!!
    Rae
    23rd Jan 2017
    8:30pm
    That might have applied Patriot. Under the old rules I would now have an OAP income of $200 a fortnight and that Card. However I don't. So after a moan and realisation that the government is totally untrustworthy I sacked the lawnmower man,window cleaner, cut back the hairdresser etc and started saving and investing again to make up the shortfall. If everyone did that the government would probably renege but people don't they just keep spending and so the government thinks stupid consumers will cop the fall over and over.

    Government betrayed me so I'll vote Independent from now on. Not a one of the three majors will ever get my vote again.
    Retired Knowall
    24th Jan 2017
    4:12pm
    If you meet the qualifying rules (and yes they continually change) then you are entitled to the OAP.
    Old Geezer
    24th Jan 2017
    4:16pm
    Agree you are entitled to welfare called the OAP.
    inextratime
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:20pm
    Old Geezer. Just Shut Up!! Everyone's circumstances are different. Just because you are sitting pretty does not mean that everyone else is. I, unlike you I suspect, have seen and talked to many people whose circumstances are vastly different, from people who have had cancer and disabilities to people with large families and have supported them through thick and thin. Your sanctimonious and ongoing smug comments contribute nothing to the debate and I suspect are designed to stir the pot while you beat your chest to bolster your own ego.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jan 2017
    7:36pm
    No I won't shut up. I'm just like everyone else and no I'm not sitting pretty at all. I do however know that there are a lot of whingers who have done nothing to advance themselves. They would much prefer to whinge and do nothing.

    I too have had cancer not once but twice so I am no different to anyone else. Yes I do know what it takes to go through all that debilitating treatment and today suffer more from the bad effects of the treatment than the cancer itself.

    I don't have an ego but I do know that our society has been taken over by whingers and small fringe groups at the disadvantage of the majority.
    MICK
    23rd Jan 2017
    9:57pm
    Spot on inextratime. No two sets of circumstances are precisely the same.
    Geezer: of course some people do whinge about their hard lot but some have a right to whilst others have wasted their opportunities in life and now unhappy. A mixed bag. I have noticed from you over a period of time thought that you seem to lack empathy for those less fortunate than yourself. That I find sad. It's one thing being better off than others and another thing altogether if you don't give a damn. Very unchristian of you. Sort of sad and don't know what made you like this.
    Rae
    24th Jan 2017
    7:53am
    OG I understand your viewpoint and accept that the money has run out. It is a bummer but I wonder what people thought was going to happen once all was privatised and tax cuts applied. Not to mention tax concessions for almost everything.

    We can be as empathetic as we like MICK but it still doesn't pay that enormous welfare bill which is growing by 20% a year and is all borrowed because we no longer seem to make anything or supply services.
    roy
    24th Jan 2017
    9:16am
    So so true Old Geezer.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2017
    3:45pm
    OG, you have the HUGEST EGO of anyone I've ever known. It's GINORMOUS. And it's UGLY.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jan 2017
    6:28pm
    Ha ha Rainey.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:46pm
    Nothing funny about it, Old Goat. Egomaniacs are horrid people, and they never get that they are afflicted with a disease that makes them the vilest creatures on earth. Their ego won't let them recognize their affliction.
    Al
    24th Jan 2017
    12:14am
    I'm a newbie to your site, and I have read most of your comments. You must stay informed, the earlier the better. For my wife and I. it will be 8 years, 3 months till we reach 67. Most of us will not know when our health will fail or when we are going to die. Our aim right now, by the time we are 67, is not to be mean on ourselves, but at the same time live within your means. Also, by that time we will own our modest home and have at least $375K in super. So in today's terms, 4% super annual draw $15K/year plus OAP $34K/year approx., totals $49K/year. There is a disincentive to have $816K in super as 4% equates to $32K approx. and no OAP, a shortfall of about $17K. Obviously this will have to be adjusted as we approach 67, as the Gov. will no doubt move the goal posts.
    Rosret
    24th Jan 2017
    7:54am
    Some averages - You probably have another 30 years to live. In 2017 you need $34K just to pay the recurring bills and essentials. If super can get you 10% p.a. you can live of the interest and hopefully the principal will take care of itself.
    Averaging my life's super contributions it came out at 5%p.a. compound. A crystal ball would have been nice and I would have gone into real estate instead.
    If you turn back the clock to 1987 the land under my feet was $27K and is now 20 fold that price. Our salaries are about 3 times what they were in 1987.
    So when I figure that in my nineties rates will be $50K a year not to mention the cost of home insurance then its pretty clear that our goose is cooked. So depressing that I try not to think about it.
    Old Geezer
    24th Jan 2017
    11:46am
    If you had invested in bank shares back in late 80s early 90s you would have made even more money.
    MICK
    24th Jan 2017
    8:44pm
    'Past returns are not an indication of future returns'. Seen that one before?
    Old Geezer
    24th Jan 2017
    10:06pm
    No Mick you just have to choose the next bank share and it may not be a bank. Got some ideas myself.
    Rosret
    25th Jan 2017
    9:12am
    Ah yes, OG those Commonwealth shares were an amazing choice. So everyone thought - buy blue ribbon shares like Qantas, Telstra etc ....mmmm.
    Mind you the Vic Electricity shares paid 17% in the 80s - amazing, though only very briefly.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2017
    3:42pm
    Al, it amazes me how many arrogant, jealous or just plain STUPID posters (along with IDIOT politicians and bureaucrats) just don't get how ridiculously unfair and economically damaging the assets test change is. Who would want to have $816,000 in the bank when it means you have way LESS income than if your had $375,000? Oh, sure, you can spend the savings until you are down to $375,000. That amounts to GIFTING all those holidays and restaurant dinners you went without to people who lived better. Great idea. NOT!

    Only a blithering idiot would support such a stupid concept and claim it will help a struggling nation. Obviously people will reduce their savings and be more dependant - which is exactly what the government wanted to avoid. Or was it?
    Old Geezer
    26th Jan 2017
    6:27pm
    No Rainey the government wants people to spend their money and not hoard it for the next generation to waste. The days of collecting welfare and keeping your assets are now over.
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2017
    8:26pm
    Who said anything about collecting welfare and keeping assets, dim wit? But those who save SHOULD BE BETTER OFF THAN THOSE WHO DON'T. And those who save SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE WHAT THEY SAVED FOR

    Only a half-wit would support destroying incentive. Well done, half-wit!
    Old Geezer
    27th Jan 2017
    9:12pm
    Yes Rainey that is why the government changed the asset test. To stop people collecting the OAP while saying their assets to for the next generation. Centrelink statistics would have told them that they were not spending down their assets. I know of people in nursing homes that save money from their pension because they simply don't have anything to spend it on. This is ridiculous.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:23am
    The Government stuffed it up! I have a letter from the ""Means Policy Department'' that confirms that they are IDIOTS.

    Centrelink statistics told them that if they could somehow shaft 300,000 people they could save money at the expense of those who work and save and are responsible and gift it to the irresponsible instead, and then tell lies to justify their Neoliberal policy that is really designed as social re-engineering to destroy the working and middle class and make the rich much wealthier.

    It has nothing to do with saving to give to heirs. And it has nothing to do with nursing homes. It's about the fact that having $820,000 (for a homeowner couple) is useless. You are better of with only $375,000, and that means its IDIOTIC TO SAVE and therefore the system is unsustainable. And only IDIOTS endorse it. That's what's ''ridiculous''. Only a moron suggests that someone who saved should be worse off than someone who didn't or that destroying the benefits of responsible saving is good for an economy.
    LiveItUp
    28th Jan 2017
    1:07pm
    Give me $820,000 and no pension any day to $375,000 plus pension. I'd be heaps better off with what I could earn on $820,000 then the OAP.

    So Rainey you make no sense at all.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:51pm
    With your RARE 15% return, Bonny, you may be. But 90% of Australians will NOT. It's time for the privileged ARSEHOLES to stop being so vile and selfish and recognize the situation for the MAJORITY of Australians. Your self-serving attitude is disgusting.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    12:19pm
    Rainey your need to get some up to date statistics.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    7:44am
    I just did. From the Federal Treasury. YOU ARE WRONG, OG. The national average return rate is 5%. The MAJORITY of Australians are suffering very poor returns.
    Old Geezer
    31st Jan 2017
    9:34am
    Federal Treasury figures are at least 2 to 3 years out of date.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    11:33pm
    Rubbish, OG. That's just crap and you know it. Find me an advertisement for a rental property that returns more than 4%. They are out there, sure, but most are at around 4%. Now if the average were well above 5%, nobody would buy those properties. Private mortgages are being offered at 6% and 7%. If the average return was a lot higher, money wouldn't be on offer at those rates.

    You are WRONG OG.
    Anonymous
    1st Feb 2017
    9:48am
    BTW. OG, you are not very observant, since you obviously haven't notices investment returns have gone DOWN, not UP over the past few years!
    Old Geezer
    1st Feb 2017
    11:09am
    Rainey my investment returns have gone up over the last few years and are currently doing very nicely.

    So Rainey it is you that is not very observant here not me.
    Anonymous
    3rd Feb 2017
    5:32pm
    Oh, here we go again. ME ME ME ME ME. Nothing is real unless it happens to OG.

    Sorry, selfish man, I go on AVERAGE RETURNS secured by the MAJORITY, as does any OBSERVANT PERSON.

    Sad to burst your bubble, but YOUR returns are totally irrelevant. YOU are not average.
    LiveItUp
    4th Feb 2017
    10:06pm
    Not too sure where you get those averages from Rainey but the lady who does my super told me last week that my super was doing a lot better than 5%. She said that I was earning about average of all the accounts she manages. All she does is super accounts as she is a specialist super accountant.
    floss
    24th Jan 2017
    8:57am
    Great post Jonty .I wish Ogs computer would suffer a melt down.
    Old Geezer
    24th Jan 2017
    11:43am
    No problem I have at least six computers at my disposal.
    Farside
    24th Jan 2017
    6:27pm
    OG, and those six likely exclude the free computers available at the public library, internet cafes etc. There will be no silencing of the Geezer to the chagrin of those whose wants exceed their means.
    Old Geezer
    24th Jan 2017
    7:16pm
    No I'll just use the free computers at Centrelink instead.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2017
    4:17pm
    Yep, just bludge on taxpayers, LEANER. And then whinge about others getting pensions.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    12:20pm
    Rainey don't you think that I'd want something a little better?
    Virginia
    24th Jan 2017
    3:46pm
    the others are no different... Why don't you think about it.
    Mez
    25th Jan 2017
    10:38am
    So many comments as I had expected there to be with this topic!
    Great comments from all especially those from Mick and Old Geezer although differing in parts!
    Survey figures certainly revealed that the majority of retirees are NOT well off and that owning your own home is NOT such a good idea after all.
    The value of the dollar is not good and therefore it is better to rent and invest money in the share market otherwise you are actually LOSING money IN REAL TERMS!
    FORGET the old fashioned belief that bricks and mortar is a safe investment!
    It is NOT!
    The major 3 parties are obviously USELESS AND UNTRUSTWORTHY but then, are there any?
    Labour always promises great welfare but then it will always end up BANKRUPT LIKE GREECE as no Socialist form of government has ever profited economically in the long run but then the Liberals will always pad the pockets of the already wealthy.
    Since I was at school, I could see that we need another party that has the best of both these parties.
    I have been a secondary school teacher and a nurse nearly all my life and now am still doing 1 nursing shift with the Work Bonus to extend my means but also to keep active physically and mentally for longevity and prevent boredom.
    I cannot work fulltime as my lower back becomes painful through the arthritis, a legacy of most nurses' and bricklayers' jobs! I will continue with this as long as I am able and still enjoy it although I do not need to.
    Rent Allowance MUST BE INCREASED IN LINE WITH PROPERTY PRICES as well in order to be realistic and valid AS WELL AS PENSIONS!
    RENTING has been the main form of accommodation for most people overseas for many decades!
    Owning real estate is not a valid option any longer as you would be losing money whichever way you look at it so people need to totally RETHINK THEIR FUTURE!
    Mez
    25th Jan 2017
    10:43am
    Meant to be "1 nursing shift per fortnight on casual rates (occasionally 2)"
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2017
    3:38pm
    My neighbours calculated it costs them $450 a week to live in their OWN home. Better off renting and enjoying a higher asset threshold and rent assistance. What a debacle! And some IDIOTS think flogging folk who lived responsibly, paid off a mortgage, and saved well is the way to reduce government debt!
    Old Geezer
    26th Jan 2017
    6:19pm
    Rainey your neighbours must have got their sums wrong because none of the properties I manage cost more than $100 a week for expenses.

    If it cost $450 a week then that would be nearly as much as the rent or even less in some cases so it would not be worth owing properties.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:18am
    Not much of an accountant, are you, Old Goat? Add up the loss of pension due to the assets test difference for homeowners and non-homeowners, the loss of rent assistance, and then add rates ($3600 a year in this case, water ($150 a year), plus maintenance. It mounts up very quickly when you add EVERYTHING and don't try to fudge figures to make an illogical argument.
    LiveItUp
    29th Jan 2017
    3:42pm
    What qbout the cost of rent Rainey? Around here $500 a week is cheap rent.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2017
    4:15pm
    Plenty of good places to rent for less than $300 a week. And many renters are in public housing at very cheap rates.
    Anonymous
    30th Jan 2017
    7:00am
    And Bonny, at $500 per week rent, with rent assistance, the renter is still way better off than the homeowner incurring costs of $450 a week.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    3:53pm
    Yes Rainey tents are fairly cheap and you can pitch them most places for nothing.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    7:42am
    Nothing to do with tents OG. There are thousands of vacant houses in the cities - due partly to negative gearing. I know landlords who can't find tenants for perfectly good houses in major regional cities at $300 a week. A relative recently had to slash the rent for a lovely 4-bed/2-bath home with rumpus room in the centre of Townsville for $380 to $300 to find a tenant.

    That said, if I didn't have a home, I'd buy a cheap caravan and make it into a very comfortable abode. I'd search out a farmer needing an occasional caretaker and willing to let me camp on his property and access power and water in return for light duties. There are thousands who would be happy to accommodate me.

    Most non-home-owners chose to be non-home-owners because they preferred to spend up big on other things. So stop demanding the strugglers who went without for 25+ years to pay off mortgages be hurt to favour irresponsible spendthrifts. No wonder the economy is stuffed when old fools like you support idiotic policy based on BS.

    We could far better support the genuinely disadvantaged if we stopped punishing responsible living and rewarding the lazy and irresponsible. But we are CREATING ''pseudo-disadvantage'' by making it profitable.
    LiveItUp
    4th Feb 2017
    9:59pm
    I've currently got a couple of people living in their caravans on my estate. One fellow has taken to helping out in the veggie gardens and the other one does some mowing for me. I supply them with power and water as I have plenty of solar and my own water supply. They will stay awhile and then move on and someone else will contact me asking yo stay awhile. I think I do my fair share of supporting others and give away a lot of produce to the needy.

    Rents around here are over $500 per week for just a rundown house of you can find one. I heard caravan parks were charging $100 a night for a site in January. I was down near one today and i
    I noticed it was still full.
    Mez
    25th Jan 2017
    12:50pm
    Get Up or getup.org.au is an organisation now that is contesting the fraudulent government or Centrlink debt claims.
    It is on Facebook as a web page and worthwhile having a look at.
    They have published a letter from a Centrelink whistleblower who is acknowledging how false these debt claims are and is willing to lose his job there as a result because it is hurting so many people and is fraudulent by the Turnbull government.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2017
    3:36pm
    90 year old couple billed $45000 and threatened with loss of lifesaving cancer medications if they didn't pay in 28 days. Borrowed from their son to pay. C/Link realized they'd erred and advised they would refund, but took over 3 months to pay the money back. If someone dies of shock getting a bill, can their relatives ask that the Minister for IN human Services be charged with murder or manslaughter?
    Old Geezer
    26th Jan 2017
    6:24pm
    Yes I read that story too Rainey and knowing what I do about those cancer medications then it would only cost them approx. $30 more per drug at the most if they lost their pension. If they were classified as chronically ill then the drug would still be free. With cancer you are in most cases classified as chronically ill. I am.

    It was nothing but a media beat up. So if they sue anyone it is the media not the government.
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2017
    8:24pm
    What a callous pig you are, OG. They could have died of fright receiving a letter like that. Many would have. You excuse every wrong by this stinking NeoLiberal government. You are as disgusting as the politicians who are beating up on innocent battlers with false accusations and cruel demands.

    It's no ''media beat up''. The government is in the wrong and SHOULD BE SUED, before they actually do kill someone with their false accusations.
    Old Geezer
    27th Jan 2017
    9:08pm
    Yes Rainey it was a media beat up especially the bit about the cancer medications. You do not need to be on the OAP to get them for free.

    Please get your facts right before you comment Rainey.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:09am
    You get your facts right, OG, you callous creep! It doesn't matter a jot what medication they can or can't get. The fact is that a demand to a 90-year-old for $45,000 repayment IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN DEATH FROM SHOCK. End of. It's no media beat-up. It's a genuine story that reflects the hideous harm this cruel NeoLiberal government is doing to our society and the horrifying consequences of their incompetence in managing Centrelink.
    LiveItUp
    28th Jan 2017
    1:12pm
    Rainey anyone getting a demand for $45,000 would die of laughter not shock as they would not believe it. I once got a electricity bill for $81,000 and nearly died of laughter myself.

    OG is right it is nothing but a media beat up.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:23pm
    Bonny, 90-year-olds seldom see any humour in a demand for $45000 when they are pensioners. Many WOULD die of shock. Fear is a powerful enemy to health. OG is WRONG, and so are you.
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2017
    7:44pm
    And the proof that you are WRONG, Bonny, is in the reaction of the couple. People who run to their son for a loan to pay C/Link and then appeal to Wayne Swan for help to correct the error are not LAUGHING. They are PANICKED.
    LiveItUp
    29th Jan 2017
    3:40pm
    Well Riney what did you exoect with such a media beatup. Well coached I'd say.

    29th Jan 2017
    10:01am
    Read this from Scott Pape ...a young man who has his head screwed on right and talks a lot of sense.

    According to him you do not need a million dollars to retire comfortably.

    YOU need $1 million in retirement”, is what you hear most financial planners say. These figures can be scary as you approach retirement age. The Retiree recently spoke with Scott Pape, aka The Barefoot Investor, who lost everything he owned to a bush fire; years of memories, wedding photos and his son’s toys — all left in ashes. Over the next two years, he rebuilt everything he lost through a series of smart, strategic financial moves, and in his book (details at the end of the extract) provides the framework for readers to ‘fireproof’ their own financial future.

    His strategy below, know as “The Donald Bradman Strategy” details why you don’t need $1 million to retire.

    ________________________________________________________

    I’m going to lay out for you what I call the ‘Donald Bradman Retirement Strategy’. It’s called this because it’s built on the expectation that you’ll still be confidently at the crease when you’re 100—not out! Strap your pads on. Grab your bat. It’s time to take a swing at the biggest fear people have.

    ‘You need $1 million in retirement,’ say most financial planners. ‘$2 million might not even be enough,’ wrote a financial planner in the newspaper recently. If you’re in your 50s these retirement figures will likely scare the bejeezus out of you. After all, the average Aussie couple retires with $200,000 in super. Let me be clear: you do not need a million dollars in super to retire. A million dollars is way above what you actually need. At a minimum, you need a paid-off home, plus:

    Couples: $250000 in super

    Singles: $170000 in super.

    Make this your ‘retirement number’. To be clear, this is the number you need to nail before you even think about retiring—and that’s in addition to owning your own home outright. So how much dough does a comfortable retirement cost? According to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA):

    $59000 a year for couples and $43000 a year for singles. At this point you’re thinking, ‘Does this plan of yours involve me holding up convenience stores with cricket bats? Because I can’t see how my $250000 will afford me a $59000 per year lifestyle’. Let’s head to the crease.

    Rule 1: You must have the banker off your back

    This strategy only works if you retire debt free…as in no mortgage. Even better, the Age Pension doesn’t take into account the value of your family home. (Which means that, theoretically, James Packer could cash in his chips when he’s older, buy a $7 billion home and collect the Age Pension.) You need to own your own home—debt free—before you retire.

    Rule 2: Nail your number

    You can’t retire until you’ve nailed your retirement number as a minimum (more money is better): $250000 in super for couples and $170000 for singles. Hang on, what’s so special about these numbers?

    This is the maximum dollar amount of assets (excluding your family home) that you can have and still get close to the maximum rate of Age Pension. At the time of writing, the maximum rate of Age Pension is $34252.40 per year for couples and $22721.40 for singles. And it will get you 60 per cent of the way towards your comfortable retirement number on its own.Think of this as your safety net: it’s guaranteed by the government, it’s indexed twice a year to keep up with inflation and it will be paid until the day you die.

    Rule 3: Never, ever retire

    It’s said that the two most dangerous years of your life are the year you’re born and the year you retire.

    Well, it looks like you made it through the first one, so let’s talk about the second. The golden rule of retirement is…keep working. That doesn’t mean you have to keep your existing job (especially if you’re a tiler with dodgy knees). You can do something less labour intensive—just a day or so a week, and it doesn’t need to be every week. Work is good for you: retirees who continue doing some kind of part-time work are found to be the happiest and the least likely to suffer depression.Why not use the skills you’ve honed over your career to do some useful work? I meet so many Uber drivers who are well-to-do retirees who don’t need the money—they just like chatting to people and earning their keep at the same time.

    And better yet, if you do work, the government will bend over backwards to help you.

    Once you reach pension age, you’ll not only be able to draw a tax- free pension from your super, but in addition a couple can earn up to $28974 each without paying a cent of income tax (singles can earn $32279 per year). Yet what if your advisor says, ‘You’re a winner, you don’t have to work another day in your life’.Barefoot says, ‘Work anyway, even if it’s a day a week’. The biggest mistake you’ll make with your retirement is to give up working. Let’s take a final look at the retirement scoreboard, after you’ve applied all three rules:

    You’ve paid off your home.
    You’re getting the Age Pension of $34252.40 (per couple) a year, indexed for life. And you’ve got $250000 in super. (This will pay you a tax-free income of $12500 a year.)
    You and your partner each work just one day a week to bring in a combined $20000 a year, completely tax free.
    Total: $66 752. That’s almost $8000 more than you need for your comfortable retirement! Ker-ching!

    Edited extract from Scott Pape’s new book, The Barefoot Investor: The only money guide you’ll ever need (Wiley $29.95), now available at all good bookstores and online at Wiley
    Anonymous
    30th Jan 2017
    7:51am
    All well and good, Radish. But this strategy assumes everyone should plan to be eligible for a full pension. That would be a disaster for the budget if the government and doomsayers here are to be believed!

    I think the ''you need $1 million to retire'' advice is based on the presumption that you WON'T qualify for a pension, and indeed that you should aim to avoid reliance on a pension. And in fact many will find $1 million isn't sufficient to be as well off as many full pensioners!

    The system is seriously flawed, because it rewards the bludgers and the irresponsible, under the pretext of prioritizing help for the disadvantaged, and penalizes those who strive to be independent but can't attain high wealth.

    What is needed is a restructure such that there is no benefit from qualifying for a pension if you can be self-supporting, and no penalty for being self-supporting if you are struggling.

    Step 1 would be to eliminate pensioner concessions in favour of a pension increase OR extend ALL pensioner concessions to people with a low income health care card. Create one universal card for concession entitlement for retirees, intead of having a split system that unfairly disadvantages low income earners who saved.

    Step 2 would be to eliminate the nonsense notion that people who saved but can't earn high returns should have to drain their savings to live while people who didn't save should be funded by the taxpayer and people who saved and are privileged to earn high returns can retain their savings - despite having accrued them and possibly continuing to grow them, at taxpayer expense with concessions, negative gearing, etc.

    The arguments I see here just don't make sense. Welfare for the needy only is a nice concept, but it is ridiculous when most are NOT NEEDY, but rather irresponsible or lazy. I fully support welfare for the genuinely needy, but the lazy and irresponsible should not be rewarded while the responsible suffer.

    Assets tests should be abolished. Nobody should be punished for having saved for retirement and YES, we should be able to leave assets to children. If X can choose to gamble and drink and have lavish holidays supported by taxpayers, Y should be able to look after his kids, supported by taxpayers. Why should irresponsible spending choices be rewarded and responsible choices - choices that make the next generation less dependant on welfare - punished. It makes no sense.

    Instead of the current assets test, add up ALL assets (including the family home), then deduct a hefty sum for non-returning assets (say $750,000 per person, maybe). Over that amount, apply a sensible deeming rate (relative to current interest rate returns) and then means test the HIGHER of deemed or actual income. If a person with $1 million in assets earns $10,000 a year from work, receives $5,000 a year from investments, they are assessed as earning $7,500 from investments (3% of $250,000), earnings added to assess income at $17500 for means test purposes. Nothing else counts. If their investment returns $10,000 a year, they are assessed at $20,000 a year income.

    Make the single and couple tests and pensions the same but implement a ''living alone'' supplement for those who genuinely do live along. (Currently many claim to be single but live de facto or share accommodation - and that creates gross unfairness)

    Eliminate rent assistance completely, because it rewards irresponsible choices, but add a poverty supplement for people who can demonstrate genuine hardship because of accommodation costs that are not able to be addressed reasonably by sensible choices. (ie. people would have to prove that there was a legitimate reason they can't move to a cheaper area - and yes, proximity to long-time friends and family IS a legitimate reason)

    Implement a supplement for those who can evidence high health costs, costs imposed by genuine disability, costs imposed by tragic family circumstances, etc. and for carers.

    Continue to allow a work bonus to compensate those who incur the costs of holding a job or sacrifice leisure time, but extend it to the self-employed. Why should those who create their own job in retirement be punished for doing so?

    Admin costs would fall with a simpler system and incentives would be created that would gradually reduce pension costs as people learned that working and saving was rewarding and not disadvantageous. The needy would still be well supported, because those without income would receive pensions, but by not disadvantaging the responsible, we would motivate people to be responsible and position the responsible to help their offspring be more independent.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    12:03pm
    Rainey if everyone got the OAP then people like me would benefit the most as we have low incomes and lots of assets that are invested for growth rather than income.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    8:13am
    Good, OG. I didn't say everyone should get the OAP. I said it should be means tested in a different manner. But people with low incomes SHOULD benefit. I'm sure there are ways to improve on my suggested approach such that those who deliberately invest for growth don't gain unfairly - but what's wrong with investing for growth? You will die and pass it on to heirs who will be better off and less reliant on the taxpayer, or paying more tax, and living standards overall will elevate. The idea that you can help the poor by bashing the middle class is absurd. It simply doesn't work. Trickle-down is a myth, but a prosperous working and middle class is the secret to a healthy economy because it's the middle and working class who pay the bulk of taxes and make the most beneficial work contribution.

    Just look back through history. When the working man could aspire to a better life and work his way up without being bashed down, we had a healthy economy and society.

    If some of us choose to sacrifice to benefit our heirs, why should we be less entitled to taxpayer benefits than those who choose, instead, to drink, gamble, party or holiday?
    Old Geezer
    31st Jan 2017
    9:45am
    Rainey people should only be allowed to access welfare in the form of the OAP if it is paid back after they die. That would make it fair for everyone.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    11:31pm
    So let's make all those who receive superannuation tax concessions and negative gearing benefits and all other handouts to the wealthy pay back also, OG. Then maybe there would be some fairness in it. There is NOTHING fair about making people who slogged for minimal pay all their lives pay back the token benefit they are afforded in old age as pathetic compensation for years of suffering exploitation and injustice so the rich can prosper.

    That said, I think SOME OAPs should pay back. Those who lived it up through younger life and manipulated to claim a pension should certainly give it back.

    No, OG! There's NOTHING fair about ripping off and persecuting the less well off so the wealthy can party - and THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW. Take the handouts off the well to do. Leave the battlers alone.
    Old Geezer
    1st Feb 2017
    11:29am
    As I benefited by very little super tax concessions, no negative gearing benefits or any other handout it would not bother me if they had to be all paid back too. However you have just taken away the real incentives to save and provide housing for others and super for your retirement. These are why people save for their retirement not to get the OAP. They give people decent retirement not just the basics.

    Anyone who arranges their affairs just to get the OAP certainly doesn't do it for the money but maybe the prestige of being an OAP instead. Certainly fits the welfare mentality of this country.
    Anonymous
    3rd Feb 2017
    5:28pm
    What rubbish, OG. There's no prestige attached to being a pensioner. People arrange their affairs to get the pension for one reason only: MONEY. It gives them better income and benefits than being self-funded in a world that crucifies people who try to be independent but can't save well over $1 million or earn high returns.

    Negative gearing and super tax concessions benefit the well off, only. They do NOT provide incentive. They provide UNFAIR BENEFIT, while those who need incentives are bashed down and insulted for wanting a small pension to top up a grossly inadequate income so that a lifetime of working and saving doesn't prove totally futile.

    29th Jan 2017
    10:01am
    Read this from Scott Pape ...a young man who has his head screwed on right and talks a lot of sense.

    According to him you do not need a million dollars to retire comfortably.

    YOU need $1 million in retirement”, is what you hear most financial planners say. These figures can be scary as you approach retirement age. The Retiree recently spoke with Scott Pape, aka The Barefoot Investor, who lost everything he owned to a bush fire; years of memories, wedding photos and his son’s toys — all left in ashes. Over the next two years, he rebuilt everything he lost through a series of smart, strategic financial moves, and in his book (details at the end of the extract) provides the framework for readers to ‘fireproof’ their own financial future.

    His strategy below, know as “The Donald Bradman Strategy” details why you don’t need $1 million to retire.

    ________________________________________________________

    I’m going to lay out for you what I call the ‘Donald Bradman Retirement Strategy’. It’s called this because it’s built on the expectation that you’ll still be confidently at the crease when you’re 100—not out! Strap your pads on. Grab your bat. It’s time to take a swing at the biggest fear people have.

    ‘You need $1 million in retirement,’ say most financial planners. ‘$2 million might not even be enough,’ wrote a financial planner in the newspaper recently. If you’re in your 50s these retirement figures will likely scare the bejeezus out of you. After all, the average Aussie couple retires with $200,000 in super. Let me be clear: you do not need a million dollars in super to retire. A million dollars is way above what you actually need. At a minimum, you need a paid-off home, plus:

    Couples: $250000 in super

    Singles: $170000 in super.

    Make this your ‘retirement number’. To be clear, this is the number you need to nail before you even think about retiring—and that’s in addition to owning your own home outright. So how much dough does a comfortable retirement cost? According to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA):

    $59000 a year for couples and $43000 a year for singles. At this point you’re thinking, ‘Does this plan of yours involve me holding up convenience stores with cricket bats? Because I can’t see how my $250000 will afford me a $59000 per year lifestyle’. Let’s head to the crease.

    Rule 1: You must have the banker off your back

    This strategy only works if you retire debt free…as in no mortgage. Even better, the Age Pension doesn’t take into account the value of your family home. (Which means that, theoretically, James Packer could cash in his chips when he’s older, buy a $7 billion home and collect the Age Pension.) You need to own your own home—debt free—before you retire.

    Rule 2: Nail your number

    You can’t retire until you’ve nailed your retirement number as a minimum (more money is better): $250000 in super for couples and $170000 for singles. Hang on, what’s so special about these numbers?

    This is the maximum dollar amount of assets (excluding your family home) that you can have and still get close to the maximum rate of Age Pension. At the time of writing, the maximum rate of Age Pension is $34252.40 per year for couples and $22721.40 for singles. And it will get you 60 per cent of the way towards your comfortable retirement number on its own.Think of this as your safety net: it’s guaranteed by the government, it’s indexed twice a year to keep up with inflation and it will be paid until the day you die.

    Rule 3: Never, ever retire

    It’s said that the two most dangerous years of your life are the year you’re born and the year you retire.

    Well, it looks like you made it through the first one, so let’s talk about the second. The golden rule of retirement is…keep working. That doesn’t mean you have to keep your existing job (especially if you’re a tiler with dodgy knees). You can do something less labour intensive—just a day or so a week, and it doesn’t need to be every week. Work is good for you: retirees who continue doing some kind of part-time work are found to be the happiest and the least likely to suffer depression.Why not use the skills you’ve honed over your career to do some useful work? I meet so many Uber drivers who are well-to-do retirees who don’t need the money—they just like chatting to people and earning their keep at the same time.

    And better yet, if you do work, the government will bend over backwards to help you.

    Once you reach pension age, you’ll not only be able to draw a tax- free pension from your super, but in addition a couple can earn up to $28974 each without paying a cent of income tax (singles can earn $32279 per year). Yet what if your advisor says, ‘You’re a winner, you don’t have to work another day in your life’.Barefoot says, ‘Work anyway, even if it’s a day a week’. The biggest mistake you’ll make with your retirement is to give up working. Let’s take a final look at the retirement scoreboard, after you’ve applied all three rules:

    You’ve paid off your home.
    You’re getting the Age Pension of $34252.40 (per couple) a year, indexed for life. And you’ve got $250000 in super. (This will pay you a tax-free income of $12500 a year.)
    You and your partner each work just one day a week to bring in a combined $20000 a year, completely tax free.
    Total: $66 752. That’s almost $8000 more than you need for your comfortable retirement! Ker-ching!

    Edited extract from Scott Pape’s new book, The Barefoot Investor: The only money guide you’ll ever need (Wiley $29.95), now available at all good bookstores and online at Wiley

    29th Jan 2017
    2:24pm
    We keep reading posts from LNP trolls and arrogant privileged pigs whining about the cost of aged pensions. Maybe these trolls should study some facts:

    1. Senior Australians contribute 1.4 times the total 2013 budget deficit to the economy each year. Therefore, far from being a ''burden'', they are a major asset and EARN (collectively) far more than the total cost of paying aged pensions.

    2. Old Australians contribute 65.7 billion dollars annually to the economy through work, volunteering and caring.

    It's time the government and it's ill-informed supporters stopped bashing older Australians and started acknowledging the contribution they make and their ENTITLEMENT to be rewarded for that contribution through GUARANTEED GENEROUS PENSIONS IN RETIREMENT - regardless of assets. Income testing may be fair, but punishing people for saving is NOT.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2017
    2:25pm
    Let's finally end the MASSIVE LIES being told about the cost of supporting retired Australians.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2017
    2:29pm
    BTW. The total cost of the aged pension in 2014 - BEFORE recent changes reduced costs - was only $40 billion.

    Therefore, older Australians contribute $25.7 billion MORE THAN THE PENSION COSTS.

    Methinks many here have been sucked in by LIES LIES LIES.
    LiveItUp
    29th Jan 2017
    3:32pm
    Yes Rainey I am one of those senior australian who still contribute but get no welfare. Is it fair? Yes as I have the means to support myself. I agree that welfare including OAP should only be given to those who have no other means of support. It is a waste of taxpayers money to give welfare tothose who don't need it.

    Not too sure how anyone calculate figures for volunteering or caring as they have no monetiry value just feel good value. I also don't see the significance of comparing who older australians contribute to the budget deficit.

    All your figures tell me is that people like me are valued members of society as we contribute not take from society. Pity there wasn't more of us so that we could get rid of the budget deficit not add to it like the majority of senior australians do.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2017
    4:13pm
    You are full of SH.....T, Bonny. Self-opinionated egomaniac with no respect for others and no appreciation of reality.

    I also work and don't receive a pension, but I'm not arrogant or self-opinionated enough to think that makes me better than the tens of thousands of pensioners who make major contributions to the nation during their working lives and continue to contribute through community and charity work or caring. (I am also a carer, and I know how much carers contribute!)

    I know pensioners who work tirelessly for charity and the community. Community work saves taxpayers and ratepayers huge costs in cleaning public areas and maintaining infrastructure. Charity workers save the nation loads of money by reducing health care needs and the imposition of costs by homeless people camping on the streets or begging for food and clothing. Carers are not just ''feel good'' value. They save the country a fortune in medical and nursing care costs.

    People like you are more likely to impose COSTS on society. Exploitation and vile insults do nothing to improve the quality of society and the quality of society is a key factor in reducing the deficit. And your tax minimization means you consume far more taxpayer funds than you contribute.

    Pensioners contribute far more to slashing the budget deficit than any egomaniacal greedy self-serving tax-minimizing leaners.

    It's interesting that when taxes were much higher and the aged were treated with far greater respect, we had much smaller deficits! Makes LIARS out of all the LNP trolls who are constantly denigrating senior Australians. So stop beating your chest, Bonny, and start showing some basic human decency and telling the truth. YOU ARE CERTAINLY NOT A VALUED MEMBER OF SOCIETY. YOU CONTRIBUTE ONLY TO YOU - nothing to the nation or its people.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    11:52am
    Most people doing charity work do it because they want to do something and crave the company of others. In other words they are bored in retirement. Some others do it to be recognised and big note themselves. I donate lots to charity in both goods and money but my time is mine not someone else's and I have no idea how much of it I have left.

    Years ago many parents helped out at schools but today most have full time jobs and don't spend enough time with their kids. One parent should stay at home and look after their kids as why have then for someone else to raise.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    8:06am
    Why people do charity work has nothing to do with it, OG. The topic was how much VALUE retirees create, proving they are NOT A BURDEN. Do try to keep up!
    Old Geezer
    31st Jan 2017
    9:43am
    Rainey most charity work is just nice to have stuff so has no real value. All those charity workers in public hospitals are more of a burden than anything else.
    Anonymous
    1st Feb 2017
    9:32am
    Once again, the horrid privileged overpaid creeps denigrate the real lifters who make society better! Charity workers save the country billions, and do a fabulous job of improving the quality of life for everyone. But I wouldn't expect a self-serving narcissist to recognize that fact, much less to respect those who give so generously of themselves to make the world a better place.

    THANK YOU VOLUNTEERS, CHARITY WORKERS AND CARERS. You are doing the nation a great service, and thanks to you, senior Australians are NOT a financial burden on the nation. They add far more value to society than they cost for pensions, medical care etc.

    Put politicians' selfish lies to bed. Read the true facts at http://nationalseniors.com.au/be-informed/research/publications/appreciating-value-measuring-economic-and-social-contributions.
    Old Geezer
    1st Feb 2017
    11:24am
    Gee not another national seniors article blowing their trumpet again. No I'll pass on reading it.
    Anonymous
    3rd Feb 2017
    5:24pm
    Yep. Stay blissfully ignorant and keep on with rants based on irrelevant and unreliable anecdotal evidence and claimed personal experience. Pay no attention to facts. They disprove your dumb notions.
    JAID
    30th Jan 2017
    7:45am
    This may be a little off topic. Why is it that people think retirement somewhere under 60 is either good or necessary?

    First, I appreciate that it can be difficult for some to get work at any 'senior' age but for those who can find it, when we live nearly 80 years on average why is it that you think about half that should be sufficient to fund your existence? For that matter why think that there is not more value which can be given to your area of expertise?

    Some appear less able as they near 80 others could go on longer. Why not use capability as the judge?

    If your work is not an integral part of your value to humanity then you have wrongly chosen it. If you are young now and that is the case then it is time to find better ways of committing to society while provisioning your existence. If you do something right for yourself, enjoyment, return and broader value go hand in hand; could there then be any reason why you should not do it until you drop?

    It is not for everybody perhaps and people 'wear out' at different times but there must be plenty of people out there (like myself, well over those average ages) who will be very happy if their chosen line of work can occupy them until they drop. Certainly, write books, make movies, travel but you can do that in parallel, no reason to give up what you remain good at, enjoy and have taken up as a means to extend the human experience.

    (PS that may sound a touch ...high falutin but committment, value and enjoyment can come in divers ways; just as accessible whether to the cleaner, mechanic, plumber, gardener, manager, teacher, farmer, photographer, designer, law maker, whatever.)
    Anonymous
    30th Jan 2017
    8:17am
    Jaid, there's some validity in what you say, but it seems to me that more than half the population either can't access a job opportunity that gives them satisfaction - and therefore regard work as onerous and to be avoided if possible - OR due to health or lack of opportunity simply can't continue working past a given age.

    For my generation, education and skills training was a luxury many families had no hope of affording - and many parents didn't value anyway. Adult education was difficult if not impossible for many to access, especially if they were supporting a family and paying off a mortgage. The need to put bread on the table eliminated any chance to focus on improving your capacity to work and earn in the future.

    The structure of society makes earning from non-career endeavours like writing, teaching, photography, etc. etc. difficult, if not impossible. Everything you do today requires either or both a piece of paper declaring you spent years learning and practicing, or connections that can open doors. I know dozens of very talented photographers, artists, writers, etc. who can't make a dollar from their work, simply because they don't have the connections, business experience, or paper qualifications.

    You say ''If your work is not an integral part of your value to humanity then you have wrongly chosen it.'' True, but how many of us, realistically, ever got to CHOOSE our work? Every day I read posts saying the unemployed should be forced to take whatever work is available, no matter how unsuitable. Once employed, it's unbelievably hard to move. It's NOT true to say you can take unsatisfactory work temporarily. Workers get locked in by circumstances. It's hard to travel to investigate other opportunities when you have a job. It's hard to get time off to attend interviews or knock on doors. It's tiring and emotionally draining to spend days doing unsatisfying and often physically exhausting work, and people want rest after hours - not more work searching for alternatives that never seem to present. Employers judge you by what you are doing now in many cases. I've seen skilled people who took a labouring job rejected again and again for a job they are qualified for because the employer assumes he is labouring because he can't do better. Some employers are loathe to employ someone who already has a job. Can't take him away from his current boss. That boss might need him! How would you like someone to poach your worker and offer him a better deal?

    I was refused job opportunities because I was assessed as ''too intelligent'' to work behind a shop counter or as a cleaner. Never mind that I couldn't access better opportunities for lack of paper qualifications! My choices were heavily restricted by an unfortunate combination of intelligence and obvious ability and lack of opportunity for formal training. You would think ability would be an asset, but it proved otherwise!

    I think part of the problem in our society is that those making the rules have never suffered real and ongoing disadvantage. They just don't get what life is like for the down-trodden. The theories all sound great, but they don't work in the real world.

    We have people desperate to retire at 55 because they spent 40 years hating every minute of their working day, struggling to force themselves to go to work and coming home frustrated, exhausted, and drained. Many suffer illness or injury as a result of workplace conditions. Sure, they'd love to keep working if they could switch to something they enjoy, but it's hard enough to get a start at what you want to do at age 20 or 30. At 50, it's well nigh an impossibility.

    I am delighted that I can keep working and I hope never to stop, but it took me 12 years of zero earnings to translate a passion into a relatively small income. How many can afford that luxury? And I could lose my income tomorrow and take another 12 years - or more - to replace it. Opportunities like the one I stumbled on just don't present often.

    The problem in our society is that those who have enjoyed opportunity are best placed to continue working later, but are also the most likely to be able to afford to retire younger. Those who NEED to retire young are least likely to have the means. And sadly society doesn't recognize this fact and offer support systems that are GENUINELY ADEQUATE for those who NEED to retire younger.
    JAID
    30th Jan 2017
    10:50am
    Hello Rainey,

    You said:

    "...those who have enjoyed opportunity are best placed to continue working later, but are also the most likely to be able to afford to retire younger. Those who NEED to retire young are least likely to have the means..."

    And, I think that undeniably true. We need to work to ensure that opportunity can be found by the vast majority; that opportunity is about being able to achieve in the area you wish and are skilled to achieve with any financial advantage of the secondary importance it deserves.

    We objectify wealth as an end in itself and as a matter of comparative deserving while the differentials spiral out of control and are even unmanageable due primarily to our ignorance or easily led nature as buyers. If we ever settle down we will appreciate that a great life can be led with a wide variety of income and resources. We will appreciate something of the minimums that exist and will work to provide the knowledge that make even they recede. When we ease off, our rush will not be a mad flutter around artificial lighting but to a universally available challenge for the furtherment of life and the human experience.
    Old Geezer
    30th Jan 2017
    11:45am
    If you can afford to stop work and smell the roses then you can retire at any age. I retired from a job (just over broke) decades ago but still work today for myself on lots of projects and helping others out.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    7:00am
    You are losing it, OG! Nobody ever said you can't stop work if you can afford to. The issue is affordability. Those who most genuinely NEED to stop work - or are forced to by circumstances - CAN'T AFFORD TO.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2017
    7:02am
    Again, OG, in true narcissist fashion, you make everything about YOU.
    Are you even capable of considering the wider population and the issues that impact on society as a whole? I think not.
    Old Geezer
    31st Jan 2017
    10:01am
    Rainey far too many people stay at work when they have more than enough money and then when they do retire their health prevents them from doing all those things on their bucket list.
    Anonymous
    1st Feb 2017
    9:26am
    OG, people stay at work for many reasons - often because they would die of boredom if they quit. I can't count the people I know who died months after giving up work.

    But in true narcissist fashion, you and politicians presume to play GOD (or actually believe you are!) and tell everyone else how they should live their lives. The funny thing is that you change your argument constantly just to be disagreeable. But then, that's a narcissist trait also.

    I'm working to pay for the things on my bucket list and I couldn't do earlier in life because we were so poverty-stricken for so long. Work doesn't stop me doing anything. It enables me to achieve my dreams. I consider myself very, very lucky to be in that position. Yes, I worked very hard to get there. But unlike you, I do not presume superiority, and I do have empathy and respect for others.

    We SHOULD all be allowed to choose our lifestyle, but sadly a vile and stinking capitalist society demands that there be masters and slaves, and that the slaves suffer not just unfair financial hardship and exploitation, but also vile insults and denigration from nasty people like you who want everything - people to work for low pay for decades so the rich can party, and then forfeit what little they manage to save to repay a miserable little pension they are grudgingly given in old age. What sort of horrid creep makes such hideously cruel and unfair proposals?
    Old Geezer
    1st Feb 2017
    11:23am
    I certainly wouldn't have time to go to work myself as I'm way too busy enjoying my life.
    Anonymous
    3rd Feb 2017
    5:23pm
    And evidencing that you are totally self-centered and self-serving and care nothing for anyone but yourself, as your ''I, I, I'' and ME, ME, ME'' posts evidence.
    simo
    24th Jun 2018
    11:34am
    All you poeple need to be pollies . What a bunch o?????????