5th Jun 2017
FONT SIZE: A+ A-
Politicians’ pension rules are unfair for the rest of us
Politicians’ pension rules are unfair for the rest of us

The Department of Human Services (DHS) last week revealed that, by increasing the pension age from 67 years to 70 in 2025, the Government could bank $3.6 billion between 2025 and 2029. This legislation is one of the few measures still planned from the 2014 Budget.

It seems that older Australians will again be carrying the Government’s economic burden to help balance the books. However, one may question why politicians will still have access to generous taxpayer-funded pensions once they turn 60-years-old.

Is it fair for the average Australian to be expected to work until 70, when politicians can sit back and relax on more than generous taxpayer funded pensions?

Does this pass the pub test?

If I walked into 20 pubs today and asked the question “Is it fair that the pension age for politicians is currently 60 with no increase expected, while the Government plans to increase the pension age to 70 from 2025 for other Australians?”, I have no doubt that this proposed legislation would not pass the test.

The politicians of this country need to be held to the same standards as the rest of us and the only way this can happen is if you voice your opinion directly to your local member. If you feel the current rules don’t pass the pub test, why not write your local member and, as Don Chipp would say, keep the bastards honest.

Read more at dailytelegraph.com.au

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Rae
    5th Jun 2017
    10:02am
    This is nonsense. You are trying to compare a superannuation product with social security.

    Anyone who saves diligently, with luck, can retire whenever they have enough income to do so. At 55 or 60 they can access their savings held within superannuation. Some of the savings are paid by the employer as part of the salary agreement. Yes Politicians have a good deal. They have strong bargaining organisations apparently as do other public servants with strong associations.

    Most rely on the flow on from union negotiation which is failing now. Just hope the boss is a decent person these days.

    If your retirement plan is to spend all your money every pay and rely on the taxpayer to fund your income then 70 may be sustainable.

    The forward estimates suggest the numbers of those counting on an old aged pension will bankrupt the country. Too many older people and not enough worker's to cover their incomes.

    There is always a 'but' to explain why you can't do something that makes sense but requires discipline and delaying gratification.

    The problems associated with the current demographics have not been a secret these past few decades either.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    10:36am
    Create fair jobs and fair costs of living for all and give super a full fifty years to actually function properly - problem solved.
    Waiting to retire at 70
    5th Jun 2017
    11:08am
    " Politicians ... have strong bargaining organisations apparently"

    Got to be this year's classic comment. Their "bargaining organisation" is themselves. They essentially set their conditions and contributions via accepting or rejecting recommendations from their own appointees of the Remuneration Tribunal.

    Rae, you sure you're not Smokin' Joe Hockey? Get a "strong bargaining organisation" sounds a lot like "Get a good job"!
    Come on, it's really you Joe, isn't it.

    Oh Joe, by the way, whilst your there:
    - how come you and your colleagues receive a superannuation guarantee of 18% of salary, whilst ours was 'frozen' at 9.5% in your failed 2013 budget and will remain frozen until 2023/2024?
    - how come you, at the age of 51, whilst working full time on a salary of in excess of $330,000 (not including 'baby sitting fees') are ENTITLED to receive half of your parliamentary pension (around $151,000 a year).

    What was that you said about 'lifters and leaners'?
    Jezemeg8
    5th Jun 2017
    11:16am
    Rae, unfortunately there are many people like me, who was forced to "retire" in their late 40's because Work Cover doctors deemed me "too disabled to be safely employed". I was forced to retire in the same year that universal superannuation began in the sector that I worked in. My "golden handshake" was a huge $1000 after devoting 18 years of 7 days a week, 18 hour days to my profession. In those days it was deemed that women didn't need superannuation cover!!!

    I fail to see how any politician should qualify after a mere 4 years of service for their lucrative pensions PLUS they're able to receive that pension (from the public purse) at the same time as receiving income from lucrative jobs/postings. Just look at Joe Hockey now!!!

    They're pension should be in line with what the rest of us who have worked hard all their lives and now find themselves struggling to live on the "hand out" we are given. They shouldn't be "double dipping" just as we can't. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that I qualified for the DSP, because my income when I was working was below poverty line, hence the reason I worked 18 hour days/7 days a week, just to keep a roof over my children's heads and food on the table.
    Rae
    5th Jun 2017
    12:15pm
    I agree politician's pensions are too generous.

    We are a corrupted Nation on borrowed time in my opinion.

    How you sort out all these government sponsored tribunals and commissions is anyone's guess.

    It's all Newspeak now and the best solution is to fend for yourself if possible. Illness and disability is an entirely different situation.

    The bottom line remains that we just can't support the current demographics and population numbers with inadequate taxation, government sponsored private, for profit, businesses and nothing left paying the ATO any dividends.

    Our banks almost fell down early in 2009 and I suspect they have borrowed huge amounts of foreign currencies to blow all those Market bubbles.

    Worrying about a few polls getting a bit more is not going to fix the unsustainable welfare bill.

    Yes the disabled and ill and very aged need support. A lot of retirees don't. A lot of companies certainly don't need the generosity awarded them over the past 30 years, that includes private for profit education businesses and health providers.

    The $50 billion tax break and the wage cuts from next month will collapse the economy I believe.

    It appears history and human nature hasn't been considered by the fine economists championing the neoliberal ideologies.

    What I feel should happen and reality just don't mesh anymore.
    KSS
    5th Jun 2017
    12:30pm
    Jezemeg8

    You might like to check this:

    http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/1011/superannuationbenefits

    They do not get to claim their pensions after 4 years at all. They have to do at least 8 years.
    jackie
    5th Jun 2017
    12:32pm
    Rae... Politicians' pensions should be a means tested and be the same amount at the same age as the rest of the common people. Then let's talk.
    Rae
    5th Jun 2017
    12:42pm
    Politicians don't get an aged pension jackie. It is a superannuation pension. Yes they should have the same rules as any other superannuant. That is currently still 55. Tax free at 60.

    All superannuation payments are different amounts depending on investment amounts and returns.

    We are comparing apples with oranges which is why I consider the article to be spurious.
    Rae
    5th Jun 2017
    12:44pm
    Thanks waiting. I had hoped someone would pick that up. Yes they do create all the organisations that assist their enterprises and control ours. And in my opinion doing a lousy job at it all.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    1:39pm
    Pauline Hanson, in her last gig, 'served' thirteen months and go a $70k cash handout no tax.... I worked thirteen years of many hour days at an easily comparable income rate to that of a politician, and my super was $7k.....

    Now - no more discussion of the merits of politician retirement packaging - there are NO merits to discuss.
    Eddy
    5th Jun 2017
    10:32pm
    Waiting to Retire, I wish to correct a misconception you have. Politicians contribute 18% of their salary to their pension scheme plus they receive the 9.5% (same as everyone else) employer contribution. Not that I am pro-politician but we need to get the fact right when we bag them.
    TREBOR
    6th Jun 2017
    12:07am
    They can afford to contribute an extra 18% of their gross, and they still get a far higher guaranteed addition and return than the market out there.

    Let them put it on the open market with everyone else if they dare.
    gravy
    6th Jun 2017
    2:45pm
    Eddy

    On reading your post:

    "I wish to correct a misconception you have. Politicians contribute 18% of their salary to their pension scheme plus they receive the 9.5% "

    I read the current guidelines on the Politicians Superannuation and I failed to see 18% of their salary in the document. I however did see

    "Contributions

    Membership of the scheme is compulsory for all Senators and Members. Contribution rates are given as a fixed percentage of the Annual Allowance, or basic parliamentary salary, and of any additional salary payable to Ministers and Parliamentary Office-holders. Contributions are paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

    Current Contribution Rates for Senators and Members:

    11 1/2 per cent of Annual Allowance until completion of 18 years service;
    5 3/4 per cent of Annual Allowance after completion of 18 years service

    Current Contribution Rates for Office-holders receiving additional salary:

    11½ per cent of the monthly amount of additional salary received is contributed by those Office-holders who have not attained their maximum additional pension entitlement;

    For Office-holders who have attained their maximum additional pension entitlement, the contribution rate reduces to 5 3/4 per cent while that maximum applies.
    Contributions are only paid while any additional salary is received.

    Parliamentarians currently receive an Annual Allowance of $185 000 per annum. Information about the Annual Allowance can be found in The annual allowance for senators and members and Parliamentary allowances, salaries of office and entitlements."

    When I was in the public service we were required to pay a personal contribution, as a percentage of our salary, on top of the employer contribution. The contribution was started at 5% but could vary between 2 1/2% and 10%, if you asked which was allowed once every 12 months.

    My daughter works in local government and they are also required to pay at least 5% personal contributions on a much decreased salary compared to a politician.

    The percentage they pay is not that high and yet their benefits at cessation of their political position is so much more generous than others who do often pay similar percentages of their salaries into super.
    gravy
    6th Jun 2017
    2:49pm
    My last sentence was not quite clear when I wrote "The percentage they pay is not that high". I was referring to current politicians not local government employees.

    Sorry for any confusion it created.
    Eddy
    8th Jun 2017
    12:58am
    Gravy, there is obviously confusion on which politicians pension scheme we are discussing. I assumed you were referring to the 'old' scheme which was closed in 2004 (I think). Members of pre 2004 scheme paid 18% and had a defined benefit pension for life after serving for 3 terms of the lower house. Members elected post 2004 were in a different scheme with different contributions and benefits which you have quoted above.
    Long term members, like Mr Abbott, are still on the old pre 2004 scheme.
    Worth noting that some politicians elected in 1972 and who lost their seats in 1975 had served 3 terms and had a pension for life after only 3 years in parliament. Not a bad return for their service.
    Attila
    5th Jun 2017
    10:25am
    Rae are you thinking like a professional that had a higher income than the average Australia that cannot make ends meet bringing up a family?
    Rae
    5th Jun 2017
    12:37pm
    Yes but there was only one of me and three kids. We juggled money for years and lived frugally. I made extra cashflow through various businesses.

    What I did has no relevance to the problem of paying for an increasing number of government sponsored people and businesses.

    The politicians are getting too much but that isn't what is creating a budget blackhole.

    This shouldn't be about envy but solutions.

    Can you see any?
    KSS
    5th Jun 2017
    1:00pm
    Only ever envy on this site Attila.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    1:42pm
    "government sponsored people and businesses." That's the nub of it.... you simply need to make your position more clear when you lay out your argument, Rae... many, on reading your first post, would view it as saying that the 'leaner community' are worthless, unless it is for whinging or envy....
    Rae
    5th Jun 2017
    3:01pm
    Only the one's that know they have over spent or borrowed TREBOR. That's their lesson. I learnt it a while ago.

    It is perfectly true that you can retire at will as long as you have income to support you. There is no magic age for that.

    Also comparing superannuation packages, even one's diabolically extravagant with the old age pension is ridiculous. One is a work entitlement and the other taxpayer funded support.

    The fact that worker's have not shared in the profits of productivity ensures that many will never have enough super to live on but they may be able to use that super to retire earlier, living on an annuity perhaps until pension age.

    The time to stop the inequality was wasted celebrating tax cuts, privatisations, and asset inflation.Middle class give aways and rampant debt made everyone feel like a millionaire.

    It will come as a shock to some TREBOR as they have never economised. The realisation we are no longer the wealthy, lucky country will be hard to take. Especially when the wealth is still being shipped out to fill foreign coffers.

    Also I rarely attack other's TREBOR. It's not worth the karmic consequences and everything has consequences.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    10:09pm
    I figured that, Rae, since you are mostly on the side of the angels.... it's just your choice of words sometimes.....

    It's hard for people to economise and realise a retirement scheme when they are ambushed by government policies, piss poor managers at all levels including government, downturns in industrial relations, the sellout to the 'global economy' in which it is clear that those doing the selling out have shares in it, social issues such as divorce and asset stripping in their late forties and early fifties, calculated government oppression of a near equal minority (a crime against humanity as laid down by the UN), and illness and unemployment that can come out of the blue.

    Things are never black and white, as came out in a discussion on Afghanistan last night elsewhere... it's always more like fifty thousand shades of grey.....
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    10:30am
    The government will not 'bank' anything - it will be funding extra programs and providing upkeep for those newly impoverished in many ways, and on top of that, the long term problem will grow larger, not smaller, since those people forced to live off their assets and savings of any kind will inevitably go onto full or greater proportion of pension at 70.

    This nonsense is just playing to the stupid prejudice of the well-heeled, that everyone else deserves nothing and is a burden on them and the State.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    10:34am
    Oh - and this is just another sneaky way of forcing people to expend all their assets before getting anything from Uncle Guv - how many people with little else will be forced to sell off their home and 'down-size, just to put food on the table?

    Never trust any freaks wearing government suits.... they are all liars.

    And you can add to that the current climate of un- and under-employment and job uncertainty in a market that is attempting to force real incomes down for the majority - when that happens many.. MANY.. more will be forced onto full pension inevitably, since they will not have the opportunity to generate retirement funding during working life.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    10:55am
    BTW - where's the hate team? Is it a school day again?
    jackyd
    5th Jun 2017
    11:00am
    Correct as well those newly improvised that our political establishments import to society's detriment but not theirs.
    Something to do with a self destructive compassion.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    10:10pm
    I feel your feeling, jacky - but I'm not sure of the content...
    pedro the swift
    5th Jun 2017
    11:06am
    Yes, politicians have an exceptionally good deal, since they can vote for it themselves regardless of the so called "independent tribunal". Nearly every day we hear of another "rort" by pollies and public servants higher ups spending taxpayers money on their trips and other perks. Its always has been and always will be that those at the top will feather their own nests at the expense of ordinary workers.
    George
    5th Jun 2017
    12:37pm
    "...always will be "? It is up to all sensible people to vote out these self-serving animals at every election - not sure why people insist on this self-punishment.
    George
    5th Jun 2017
    12:44pm
    The bottom line is - no. politicians DO NOT deserve any special rules as compared to ordinary citizens.
    Also, it's a STUPID idea to ask people to work beyond 65 when jobs do not continue and companies are allowed to compulsorily retrench people, age discrimination is widespread, and to cap it all there are hardly any jobs for experienced people.

    Much better to pay all the full Age Pension from age 65, at least those who paid taxes here for say 20 years without any Asset or Income tests, and tax all income above that. No problem with funding if these moron politicians ensure fair taxes are collected from large companies & rich who minimise taxes, by ensuring a MINIMUM TAX is paid on gross income by all. Once again, all should vote out current politicians who are not working for the people.
    KSS
    5th Jun 2017
    1:06pm
    "....when jobs do not continue and companies are allowed to compulsorily retrench people,....."

    There are very very few jobs that have a compulsory 'retirement age', - judges (70) and pilots (65 - up from 60 a few years ago) come to mind. Most people can choose when they retire.

    As for being 'allowed' to compulsory retrench that is a furphy. If someone is retrenched that job is no longer available. It cannot be refilled by someone else - no matter what their age.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    1:46pm
    'judges and pilots' - says it all.... where are Jo and Joe Bloggs in all this?

    If people are not compulsorily retrenched and then replaced by someone else who will accept a lower income for the same job - why have there been long-standing disputes at Carlton Breweries and a few other places over exactly that process being undertaken by management?

    Did the management not know they couldn't do that?

    **oh, look - there's a unicorn in the middle of that pig fly past**
    George
    5th Jun 2017
    1:51pm
    KSS, you either haven't worked in the real world or only worked for Govt roles. Contract jobs do not continue, and permanent jobs in the private sector also come to a sudden halt when CEOs decide they want more bonus / profits and order a round of Compulsory retrenchments - often getting rid of good performers. They then simply call it a restructure, and gradually hire as needed in newly labelled roles - applying Age / Racial / any discrimination they want. Can't believe you objected to what I wrote which is nothing new and is well known to any one who has worked in the private sector where the "retirement age" is irrelevant anyway.
    KSS
    5th Jun 2017
    2:00pm
    George if you are talking about contract jobs then none of this applies since you are employed for a defined period. You cannot be retrenched nor are you 'forced' to retire. The contract ends and that's it.

    And the scenario of 'sudden halts' are rarely that. First there are rounds of voluntary redundancies - I know of many many people who were hanging out for that only to be disappointed they were not offered it but kept on. Many flags are flown if a company is 'in trouble' and people are not stupid. Most know when things are not going so well and are not surprised when the wheels fall off.

    And you really need to polish up your crystal ball when trying to ascribe any particular sector to my working life. I have never been employed by Government in any role and have always - and still do - work in the private sector. And just for your information, I have been made redundant three times in my career.
    George
    5th Jun 2017
    2:13pm
    KSS, your first para is confused, as you didn't seem to have read my original post properly - as it was focused on jobs not being available and the things that lead up to why jobs need to be available.
    You are also talking from limited experience if you got warnings - I have never seen warnings, and even if you do see it coming you can't do much if the rest of your industry is also downsizing.
    And if you were made redundant 3 times - there you go, you are supporting my argument that jobs do not continue hence you may not be able to "choose to retire".

    Not sure what your agenda is - the bottom line for this discussion is that politicians do not deserve any special pension rules and should get exactly the same treatment as everyone else - to quote TREBOR below "all should receive the same treatment by the same rules for their contribution, while at the same time paying all the pension and taxing according to the income tax scales all income, gifting and fringe benefits over and above". Let's not divert this discussion.
    KSS
    5th Jun 2017
    3:03pm
    George, Politicians pensions are not the same as the aged pension as others have pointed out. They contribute to their pensions just like millions of others do to their private pension funds. All the whinging and whining and 'poor me' will not change that fact.
    If they were to apply for the aged pension they would indeed be treated just like any other applicant - complete with asset test!

    Yes the three times I have been made redundant there were 'flags': the first was during the Asian Financial crisis (deal with Asia and if they go down, you go down), the second was an overseas owner closing the Australian operations (as I said deal with foreigners, they go down, you go down) and the third was the organisation relocated part of the business to Melbourne from Sydney, reorganised it and my position no longer existed (recruit a CEO from another State to manage a department and expect that changes will be made). These are life's ups and downs. Long gone are the days of 45 years with the same company. And none of it has got anything to do with the parliamentarian's pension fund.
    George
    7th Jun 2017
    1:47pm
    KSS, you haven't clarified your agenda, as you clearly talk the Liberal party line, and your support of the massively favourable treatment of politicians via their pension system (current system allowing access at 55-60 years, with no Assets / Income test after a mere 8 years service), which is not available to everyone else, is a complete nonsense. I don't have the time to keep responding, however if you / anyone else wants, here are a couple of links to see the massive issues:
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/retiring-federal-politicians-will-get-sixfigure-pensions-for-life-20160303-gna6c1.html
    and, the current system,
    http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/1011/superannuationbenefits

    There is nothing stopping the "repeal & replace" of all their systems for current & past politicians (remember they hit all past pensioners also with changes from Jan 2017), by scrapping all their pensions and replacing them with what is available for everyone else.

    I understand whinging would not achieve this - all pensioners (including part / other self-funded on the margin, and also FUTURE such voters) have to come together and, initially, VOTE OUT THIS COMPLETE MOB of CROOKED POLITICIANS. Talk later of how.
    Farside
    5th Jun 2017
    1:14pm
    By "generous taxpayer-funded pensions" do you mean the superannuation contributions available to any public servant? YLC does itself no favours with inflammatory language to wind up its audience. Eligible politicians wanting the aged pension would need to wait until the qualifying age like the rest of us.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    1:49pm
    Politicians and public servants contribute to a massively preferential system of super - much better than anyone else's.. and on top of that many PS positions are vastly over-rated for their actual work and are vastly overpaid for what they are - essentially simple clerical functions.


    I worked for the Common Weal for a few years some time back - after one promotion I was just under AWE... and the super was on - from memory - a one for one basis calculated on super contribution that was a part of the employment package.

    Politicians have it even better in all those areas.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    1:51pm
    I generally prefer not to discuss disparate retirement packaging - other than to say that all retirement packaging should be brought under one roof and all should receive the same treatment by the same rules for their contribution, while at the same time paying all the pension and taxing according to the income tax scales all income, gifting and fringe benefits over and above.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    2:25pm
    The clear reason for limiting contributions to the ASS (Aus Super Scheme) is to ensure that those with extra either spend it into the community and thus generate some economic activity, and so as to preclude their hoarding it in super, and thus having to pay tax on it and on its earnings if saved elsewhere.
    Sundays
    5th Jun 2017
    3:01pm
    I don't understand this article. Anyone can retire at 60 and receive their superannuation tax free not just politicians. Another question you could ask in the pub is : should people who retire at 60 And spend all their super by age 65 now have to wait to 70 to qualify for the age pension. The parliamentary pension is too generous but they do make personal contributions towards it as well as pay taxes. It is not fully tax payer funded.
    ex PS
    5th Jun 2017
    3:48pm
    The simple answer is yes, if they could not make their Super last until the retirement age, they either did not have enough to retire on or they wasted what they had. I see no reason why they should have an entitlement to an early Pension. They should have to wait until they reach the established Pension Entitlement age. In the mean time they can go on Job Search Allowance like everyone else.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    10:15pm
    The idea is for the majority, the great unwashed, to spend down all their assets thus contributing to the enrichment process of their betters, and then spend down all their superannuation.. and all just to survive the late afternoon years which involves, at the moment, massive un- and under-employment for many.

    If you like - simple reasoning will tell you that the plan is to force people to fund their own retirement until they are seventy, regardless of infirmity or disability - and then, by the time they get to seventy - the pension will have been devalued to such an extent that it will not be livable, and many will die off or in other ways fall by the wayside... and all at a time when they will be past their ability to make up the shortfall.

    I've told you before... government has no right to impose ITS budget on you... ITS budget is supposed to be for this nation and its people, and not so suit itself.

    Government is NOT a body independent of the people, and must be made to realise that.

    Now - has Labor come in and said they'll lower the age of pension back to 65? NO? Then don't vote for the either.....
    floss
    5th Jun 2017
    3:53pm
    This problem was started by forced population growth.Like housing demand is outstripping supply.Modern immigration is just not working no matter what the modelling is telling the Government.Yes a third world country we will become.
    Old Man
    5th Jun 2017
    4:39pm
    I don't recall anybody screaming about unfairness when Swan increased the age to qualify for an age pension from 65 to 67. I wonder why.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    6:35pm
    I did - and I've repeatedly stated the Trebor Party Policy of returning the pension age to 65.. and I've blasted Labor for introducing their atrociously selfish measure (s) (there were others as well)... no real difference between the two sides of The Tag Team - but we are addressing the issue involved...
    Old Man
    5th Jun 2017
    7:59pm
    Thanks TREBOR and well done. I missed the outcry but I was angry, not for me, but for my children. Those making the recommendations are public servants on a 15% unfunded super scheme and those who bring the legislation to the Parliament are on a retirement package that surpasses all understanding. Wouldn't it be nice if we, the voters, were allowed to set the rules for those who stuff up our living standards?
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    10:18pm
    By the time my children and grand-children get to retirement age, they can thank their stars for their hard-working parents. As for the grand-kids - they are more numerous and that means that the property etc must continually be spread thinner.... unless they can make up the shortfall through career and good remunerative work....

    The prospect of that last is growing dimmer by the day... and a grandparent's job is to prepare a future for his grand-children....

    I suppose the grandson could inherit dad's live on boat... but the girls.. hmmmm.....
    MD
    5th Jun 2017
    8:52pm
    Thanks Rae, your comment(s) bring some traction to the slippery slope form of most these 'them & us" articles.
    Our country is grossly over-politicized, ie; too many politicians/pubic savants, too many tiers of government, too many govt departments (& the associated - " ), check the 'piechart' or financial statement in the newsletter of your local council to see totals of funds allocated for - "investments" or set aside for "contingencies" or "provision for staff super". This is just at a local level, before moving up the slope to state government and thence to the federal sphere. Is it any wonder politicians, bureaucrats and hangers-on need to retire at 60 or sooner - they've been worn to a frazzle well prior to that age from their long suffering the proletariat and catering to each and every client/ratepayer/voter & the respective whims and fancies, (read entitlements) right ?
    Then of course, they're equally entitled to their entitlements aren't they - our's is an egalitarian society after-all is said and done surely.
    If government is both serious and desirous of trimming the excess (pork) fat, then they need look no further than institutionalized 'state of the art' bacon makin enterprises.
    I'd imagine there must be a few, surely, that would find it difficult to suppress their glee with the resultant squealing were the boot on the other trotter.
    TREBOR
    5th Jun 2017
    10:21pm
    I feel your sentiment.. but I'm not sure which side of the pig you wish to feast on... not too many fat pigs out here in Realityworld..... and growing fewer by the day....

    Aye, many deem those sleek pensioners to be fat cats, with all their assets etc......
    Rae
    6th Jun 2017
    8:17am
    Yes MD. Where we had a public service we now have very opaque private contractors. Crony capitalism on steroids.

    The idea of superannuation appears admirable. As you say the unfunded liability is a nightmare.

    Such a simple idea ruined by greed and political interference.
    Shetso1
    6th Jun 2017
    8:06am
    This would be an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE if it came to pass...loathe 'snouts in trough, couldn't lie straight in bed, slimeball politicians' all mad on ruthless ambition, self absorption and full blown narcissim...just sayin'
    TREBOR
    6th Jun 2017
    11:46am
    Bit light on the criticism there, letso - tell us what you REALLY think about politicians and their ilk...
    Gee Whiz
    6th Jun 2017
    11:38am
    Don't tell me that that the Pollies haven't got a far superior Superannuation system than the private sector.

    I know of one politician who sat on four committees that earned him and extra $90000 a year. He put the whole lot of it into his Parliamentary super fund because he didn't need the money on top of his salary.

    Now the contribution wasn't subsided (as far as i know) but the tax breaks and the interest earned over his twenty years service was a Kings ransom. This is before the contribution rules were changed once again by the government.

    But who knows what the polliwogs are allowed to contribute these days. If you are earning over a $200k a year ( as they do) you could live quite comfortably on half of that and put the rest into super.

    Maybe its time for an investigative journalist to publish the facts on parliamentary superannuation.
    TREBOR
    6th Jun 2017
    11:47am
    Don;t forget all their costs of business and living away from home etc are covered handsomely, too - how much does that leave to put into investment properties and super so as to ensure a meg handout at the end of the day.

    Political office is all about self-enrichment, and not much else.
    George
    7th Jun 2017
    3:47pm
    Gee Whiz, see my post above, and the link copied below for your convenience, to see for yourself how much current (new MPs since 2004) pollies get:
    http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/1011/superannuationbenefits

    The current system allows them access at 55-60 years (latter limit being phased in by 2025), with no Assets / Income test after a mere 8 years service, and STARTING at $92,500 based on 50% of current salary of $185,000) FOR LIFE. Also, they can have additional pension if they are Ministers, etc. Repeat - NO ASSETS or INCOME TESTS EITHER!
    All of us have a duty to GET RID OF THESE PARASITES!


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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