Age Pension: qualifying age increase still on the cards

Plans are still afoot to increase the Age Pension qualifying age.

Tired older worker at desk

As YourLifeChoices reported from the Budget Media Lock Up almost three weeks ago, there is one measure of zombie legislation that the Government has chosen not to dump – and it’s one that concerns all of us.

Discussion on raising the Age Pension qualifying age to 70 had gone relatively quiet. But this measure survived the dump of zombie legislation announced as part of Budget 2017. This is largely due to the fact that the Government still believes it can pass this measure and because, as it is not due to commence until 2025, it is not included in the four-year Budget forward estimates. However, Parliamentary Budget Officer Phil Bowen confirmed in Thursday’s Senate estimates hearing that the legislation is indeed still on the table.

Announcing the measure prior to his largely unpopular Budget in 2014, then treasurer Joe Hockey said, "What we are going to do is to deliver a fairer system for the aged pension that is going to focus on the sustainability of the system with a reasonable quality of life. The aged pension expenditure today is currently more than we spend on defence.

"It's rising to $72 billion rapidly, that's over six per cent growth. One of the reasons why is because we're ageing … but the pension kicks in currently at 65. When Labor increased it to 67 by 2023 we gave them bipartisan support. When we introduce legislation to increase it to 70 by July 2035,  ... we expect that there will be bipartisan support.

"The aged pension needs to be a safety net by 2035, not a cargo net."

As you can imagine, bipartisan support was not forthcoming and Labor has continually pushed to have the measure scrapped. In February this year when it was apparent that certain zombie measures would be dropped, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services Jenny Macklin stated, “Labor has strongly opposed the planned increase to the pension age to 70 since it was first proposed in the horror 2014 budget,” she said. “How does Mr Turnbull expect construction workers, nurses and farmers to work until they’re 70? He’s completely out of touch. “The changes unfairly hurt Australians living in regional and remote Australia, where life expectancy is lower.”

However, deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce defended the Government’s stance when asked on ABC’s AM program, also in February if the measure would be dropped. “We have our policy but we are negotiating with the Senate as we always do,” Mr Joyce responded.

Opinion: Working to 70 only half the Age Pension problem

Labor has once again stepped up its push to stop the increase of the Age Pension qualifying age to 70, with an online petition doing the rounds.

The policy, if passed, would mean that all Australians born after 1 January 1966 will have to wait until 70 to claim an Age Pension. Labor claims that this will result in Australia having the oldest pension age in the developed world. While this may be true based on current worldwide pension qualifying ages, it doesn't account for other countries making a similar move. The USA and Denmark have plans in place to increase the pension qualifying age to 67 and Iceland has had a pension qualifying age of 67 since 1958.

Working to 70 may well be the way of the future, as trends would suggest, however, if the Government expects people to work until 70 before they can claim an Age Pension, then surely they must give those who are physically unable to do so an alternative? Perhaps decent superannuation savings as defined by the Superannuation Guarantee Bill of 1992.

The unions push for a portable superannuation scheme, similar to that which was already afforded to civil servants and the professional classes, actually began in the late 1960s. However, it wasn’t until 1992 that the then Keating government brokered a deal with the unions to forgo annual wage or salary increases to allow for the first employer superannuation guarantee contributions (SGC) to be paid at a rate of 2.5 per cent. The plan was that the SGC would rise to nine per cent and then 15 per cent, ultimately reducing the reliance on the Age Pension as a form of income in retirement.

Keating Government, Treasurer, John Dawkins stated: “The increased self-provision for retirement will permit a higher standard of living in retirement than if we continued to rely on the Age Pension alone. The increased self-provision will also enable future Commonwealth governments to improve the retirement conditions for those Australians who were unable to fund adequately their own retirement incomes.” (Superannuation Guarantee Bill 1992).

Sadly, this hasn't eventuated as planned. Some 25 years after the Bill was introduced, we are stuck with an SGC of 9.5 per cent. The then Labor Government had planned to increase the SGC from nine per cent in 2013 to 12 per cent by 2019. The increase was subsequently frozen by the Coalition Government in 2014 at 9.5 per cent, where it will stay until June 2021. It will, if not frozen further, increase to 12 per cent by 2025 – still some three per cent short of where it should be.

It is time for the Government to decide whether it really is committed to reducing the reliance on the Age Pension as a form of income in retirement. Simply taking it off those who need, without a Plan B, isn't good enough.

What do you think? Would you support an increase in the Age Pension qualifying age for those born after 1 January 1966 if the SGC was increased to a sufficient level? Or is it simply ridiculous to ask anyone to work until 70?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    JAID
    29th May 2017
    9:36am
    Well, I am a bit long in the tooth to be caught by this change but...that has never stopped me commenting before.

    Why not?

    It is true that some are worn out by that age though at seventy, most are still fresh and useful. Most having reached that age will live a good 15 years longer, many 20 or 30 years longer.

    There are plenty of useful things you can do other than working but an aim to enjoy your work and to be able to do those other things throughout your life would have to be preferable.

    If your wealth puts you into a position where you do not have to work to live as you otherwise choose fine. For the rest of us, where do we get off thinking that our children either directly or through taxes should be supporting us in years when we can usefully contribute?

    Some will say that they have been paying taxes all their lives and deserve it. Rubbish, as a community we seek to ensure that those who cannot reasonably work do not starve on the streets, go cold or wet or are without access to information. For the rest of us our taxes go to support the infrastructure that we, as a community put in place. That I may think that a terribly wastefully assembled even poorly directed infrastructure does not relieve me of the responsibility that as voters we all hold.

    For now, moving to 70 is sensible. We do need to keep an eye on our physical and metal health and lifespan which has been improving gradually since 1788. As that increases we should expect to move beyond 70.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    11:00am
    Sad response JAID.
    Firstly we all paid for the retirement of our parents. Now it is our turn!
    Secondly you clearly were never a bricklayer, roofer, concretor manual worker, teacher, policeman, etc. These are jobs of high physical demands and people in their 60s cannot sustain this work for an 8 hour day, if indeed at all. Jobs involving high levels of stress are in the same basket.
    All I can say is you must have had a light office job or not worked at all to make such a comment. Sure retirees can still contribute but 'working' past a certain age misses the point of being incapable and having a few years of retirement before we all kick the bucket. In case you are unaware human beings are not machines and our wealthy masters should not expect to drain every drop of blood before we pass on.
    marls
    29th May 2017
    11:24am
    mick
    totally agree, i had a reasonably comfortable job however, it was in a extremely high stress volitile environment dealing with the worst of society, it wasnt my job that was the issue it was that two years ago it was taking me close of 2hrs driving each way, i hate to think how long it would take now and spending most of my day in pain from child birth related injuries. i retired early and lived of my super, until i reached pension age. it got to the stage where i was suicidal, dealing with inmates who were on a disability or carers pension that were so much fitter and healthier than most of the staff.
    JAID
    29th May 2017
    11:35am
    I do agree that some are worn out before 70 Mick (as noted above) and provision must be made for those but the trend is for longer active lives and I see no reason why retirement time should not keep step.

    BTW, you are correct, despite a lifetime working at least half as many hours again as anybody I know, those of my family who had truly demanding jobs do need to finish earlier. Professionals may carry significant responsibility but if you maintain optimism and happiness this does not wear down the body as heavy manual labour does. These days those wearing jobs are few however. Some farmers and as you say bricklayers and concretors but teachers? working less than 2/3rds the hours of anybody else with immaculate pay, conditions and lavish holidays? You have been heeding too much of their overpaid whinging.
    SuziJ
    29th May 2017
    12:08pm
    What about those working in the manual trades - carpet layer, chippie, brickie, truck driver, just to name a few? How on earth are these supposed to work until they're 70?

    Take carpet layer's knees, for example. They aren't going to last until they're 70!

    Chippies - having to hold your arms above your head with heavy plaster board gets very tiring no matter what age they are - they need to have a break.

    Don't get me started on the implications for a truck driver. They're only going to be 5 years off having mandatory eye tests every year just to keep their licence.

    Would you expect these people who have intense manual work to keep on working? I think not.
    ex PS
    29th May 2017
    12:26pm
    What people who advocate working till 70 seem to ignore is the fact that there don't seem to be enough jobs to go around. If we had the jobs I would feel it quite reasonable to have an expectation for those in less physically demanding jobs to stay in the workforce longer.
    But if we are going to keep older workers in the system longer at the expense of those who want to buy homes and bring up families I really don't see the sense of it.
    What we will end up with is more people on the DOLE. Unfortunately it has been found that if young people are forced onto welfare straight from school, it is very difficult to break the cycle.
    john
    29th May 2017
    12:27pm
    Sorry JAID you are of target mate. It is just not that simple. And we do pay taxes for infrastructure , we also pay council rates for same. And we pay heavily through the nose while a few get wealthy, and thats fine its the way of the world. But no mate, when you work hard for up to 50 years of your life , or more, and you are tired and finished, you need a guaranteed pension on top of what you've saved and time to enjoy your last few years of life. 65 is fine.
    Gee even talking like this gives me the creeps , I feel about 25 in my head. But I am looking at the last 10 to 20 years of my life now!

    Some people work on and its good, but whether they do or not, everyone , every genuine long term contributor to the Australian economy and to our way of life deserve a safe and secure retirement.
    We were set up once with a retirement pension saving fund which both major parties agreed to plunder and squander, so they have done nothing really smart, but the situation remains that prosperous long retirement is every ones RIGHT, its not something you go hat in hand to get, ever!
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    12:28pm
    We could make 'work' voluntary. Parks need to be weeded and kept nice rather than like nobody owns them. There are a whole number of other areas retirees could help out if they wanted to as well and many of us are prepared to help the needy. Sadly some of us will refuse to lift a finger unless paid and charities only want your money and not your help, which is refused when offered.
    We recently returned from an extended stay on France. The parks were immaculate, the roads were all as new and public places were clearly being looked after with only minimal graffiti. Some towns had zero.
    Why is Australia 'different'?
    For the record we have travelled to Colorado for many years as well. There people, many of them very well to do in their own rights, give of their time for free and work a part week to make the system work. Once again why not Australia?
    ex PS
    29th May 2017
    12:50pm
    MICK, the problem with voluntary work is once it becomes available wages staff are replaced with volunteers. My wife works in aged care and has seen this happen over the years. A staff member leaves and their duties are taken up by several volunteers, which places more stress on the professionals left in the workplace because their are some things a volunteer just can't do.
    Imagine how many Council workers would be put out of work if we had volunteers looking after our parks and public gardens?
    I would like to see a scheme created whereby healthy retirees or unemployed could be used to provide services for elderly citizens who are not capable of looking after their own yards or houses and can't afford to pay anyone to do it. But it is important that whatever we do it does not lead to the loss of payed employment.
    tia-maria
    29th May 2017
    1:16pm
    Hey Mick I fully agree with your comment..........
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    1:18pm
    I can see your point ex PS. As far as council workers are concerned I have seen these guys and what they do. That is why most are unemployable if they seek other work.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    1:45pm
    Agreed exPS etc - I hit 68 next month and am still prepared to work - even got an ad in the local Gumtree... but no takers.

    No way many in the trades etc would be fit and healthy to work until 70 - and there are NO admin jobs for them or floor sweeping there, even if anyone would accept them.

    NOBODY takes on employees with established disabling conditions unless there are very special circumstances.

    On top of that, people may on average be living longer, but many still don't hit 70 - look at the list of celebrities who vanished from the mortal coil last year etc...

    Total nonsense raising the pension age, and Labor started it.

    Now it's time for the Trebor Party to return it to its former glory, and force the same pension age on all politicians etc.
    Retired Knowall
    31st May 2017
    7:03am
    Will be 70 this July, still working and loving it.
    Anonymous
    31st May 2017
    1:12pm
    The problem - the one that politicians and the privileged fail to comprehend - is that those most likely to be unable to work until they are 70, due to being in stressful or physically taxing jobs, are generally the lower paid and less likely to be able to finance early retirement. The lower paid are also the most likely to be disenfranchised by reduced employment opportunities.

    It's great that SOME people can work on, but changing the retirement age further disenfranchises those who are already struggling, and that's not something we, as a society, should accept. If we need to raise the retirement age, then we should do so in a graduated manner that ensures a decent income (NOT subsistence!) and social respect for those whose employment history, health, psychological condition, personal circumstances, or employment opportunities make working on impractical.

    Selfishness and self-serving attitudes have gone WAY TOO FAR. We need to restore a social conscience and empathy. Show some respect for those who worked hard to build this society, were paid far too little during their working lives, and suffered conditions that shortened their effective working life.
    JAID
    31st May 2017
    2:38pm
    Rainey,

    I can't see that there is much differnce between the attitudes here. Those who cannot work or can only do certain forms of work would access appropriate levels of medical/psychologically related support at least until they reach 70. Another current subject here on YLC suggests that the income each scheme provides is comparatively similar.

    Raising the retirement age reflects changing life spans and fitness levels and should suggest to the community at large that a usefully working life is not necessarily spent by age 60 or 65. An attitudinal change which will benefit those able and interested in working longer than currently society seems to think they are capable of.

    I suspect that a lot of concern is consequent to a lot of scare-mongering while in fact, no hardhip need be involved and while there are advantages.
    Retired Knowall
    1st Jun 2017
    10:59am
    Had my back drive concreted some months back. The labourer that did the barrow and spade work had his 80th birthday the day of the pour.
    He was proud of the fact that he was supporting himself and enjoyed the work.
    maelcolium
    29th May 2017
    10:10am
    If politicians want to make it 70 then they should be responsible for guaranteeing you can get a job at 70. Anyone tried to get a new job at 55???
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    11:02am
    That is a very valid point. Add to that a job which aging people are capable of doing for 8 hours a day as well.
    The current government cannot ensure either of the above. Don't want to. Just want to throw people on the scrapheap and then call them 'leaners'.
    JAID
    29th May 2017
    11:39am
    Developing a mechanism so that all who can and wish to contribute are able to, is one of the greatest challenges of our age. It will get much greater very quickly.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    1:20pm
    Called a Living Wage JAID. This is already being trialled because once robotics comes in there will be even less jobs than even now.
    tia-maria
    29th May 2017
    1:21pm
    JAID, you also must be a pretty fit person with no health issues......their are many like myself who worked and paid our taxes plus we have health issue to suffer with..........still we went marching on............ITS time we get the dole bludgers off their backside and contribute to the infrastructure of our country
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    1:47pm
    You mean the politicians and their mates, tia?

    No dole bludgers out there in Havelessland - they're all starving for a job that is meaningful and will give them hope in life and in future retirement.
    JAID
    30th May 2017
    9:10am
    :-) I have a health issue or two Tia. I just like my work much more than bothering about those. If I can do what I do until I drop then I will have had a happy life, under-exploited perhaps but it feels fulfilled expecting little.

    Still, a recent knee twist that kept me painfully light on one leg for months gave a clue to what feeling old may be like.
    Retired Knowall
    1st Jun 2017
    11:00am
    I have, I'm 70 this year and I'm never out of work.
    pedro the swift
    29th May 2017
    10:13am
    Work till 70?. Another ploy by gov. to keep from paying a pension to people. Note that they will get a huge pension and super for only a few terms in office.
    I have continued to work till I was 72 to ensure i could pay off my loans. I am damn glad to have finished work. I don't know who will employ anyone up to 70 years of age since it has been a problem for anyone over 40 to find a job anyway. Why would you employ someone oledr if you can get a younger person to do the job?
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    11:03am
    Spot on. All of what you have written is totally true.
    maxchugg
    29th May 2017
    12:24pm
    If they push an older person into a job and save on pension payments, they then pay unemployment benefits to the younger person who would otherwise have taken that job.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    12:29pm
    Plenty of work which is never done maxchugg and not as though governments are unable to create jobs.
    Sceptic
    29th May 2017
    3:31pm
    The only jobs that the Government can create are public service jobs. The Government can only create an economy that is conducive to private industry to create jobs.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:11pm
    Yes and no. Better to have the unemployed earn a wage rather than get a handout.
    Governments can indeed create businesses. Think Commonwealth Bank and GIO, etc. which should never have been flogged off. One is now attacking its customer base whilst the other is now a small player, all due to the private sector. Then look at what the highly bloated CEOs think they are worth.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    7:49pm
    Work for the dole is a net cost since to even establish it costs money, then the government has to pay for supervision, organisation, and equipment.

    Never seen such a pack of lies in my life.

    A job creation for a few more 'public servants' employed on part-time casual to run the show.

    Stoopid is as stoopid does, as they all say down in Green Bow.

    REAL jobs with a future are needed - not just compulsory labour on the collective farm....
    Triss
    29th May 2017
    7:49pm
    Government needs to steal OAPs pension money to pay the mandatory pensions of public servants. OAPs should not be forced to forego their pensions in order to pay for the huge public service pensions.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    8:42pm
    Not necessarily TREBOR. Give a team a job and give them a reasonable time limit. A bit like employing a subcontractor.
    If the job is done they get paid. If the job is not done or substandard they do not get paid. Bludgers looking for an easy ride will work it out really quickly!
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    9:41pm
    I agree Mick - if Work For the dole was actually being paid for the work and not just forced to it... fine.

    The Yanks did it with the Hoover Dam - set the unemployed to building that thing... and paid the going rate for it.
    ex PS
    30th May 2017
    9:33am
    Triss, the government does not pay for Public Service Pensions, they are paid for by the employer and employee contributions, just like everyone else.
    TREBOR
    30th May 2017
    10:09am
    Yes - but PS pensions are a better deal, and I believe the issue in reality is the salary levels for work performance etc, especially for the higher ranks who are primarily not much more than simple administrators. A vastly overpaid and over-rated occupation these days.
    Triss
    30th May 2017
    11:01am
    Not true, ex PS. According to reports state and federal public service pension schemes were unfunded and liabilities are now over $200 billion and rising. The taxpayer will forking out for that.
    ex PS
    30th May 2017
    1:21pm
    Triss, the simple fact is that current PS Super is no different from the private sector, the money is paid into an investment fund and the performance of the fund determines the payout. At no stage does the government pay a super payout from Treasury funds.

    You may be confused by the old system whereby the recipient was paid out a multiple of their last average salary, this system has been dropped in most states for many years. In my state even with the old system the funds were able to pay out the retirees and there was money left over to be invested in infrastructure by the government.
    floss
    29th May 2017
    10:20am
    It all depends on your past profession.Forced population growth eg. immigration has to come into the equation.
    Denny
    29th May 2017
    10:35am
    I had no difficulty getting part time work - job share when I was just over 40 and worked as a word processor for a small family owned assessing company in Perth. However, when I was just over 50 I was made to feel unwanted - told the younger female I job shared with should have more days and then the business was sold and the new owners decided that I was no longer required and was made redundant. How are you expected to work until 70 - unlike my grandfather in the UK who was self employed and retired at 91.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    11:05am
    The system is biased against older workers and the current lying government talks BS to con us all. Whilst they talk about working until 70 they know a good part of older Australians are going to be pushed out of the workforce and never get another job.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    10:53am
    "The age pension is more than we spend on defence"? As it should be! Does this corrupt government really believe that Australians think it should spend more on following its American friends into the next war than on retirement benefits or more on a whole fleet of dodgy new submarines than on the aged?
    You can hear a dead government by the way it loses the plot and where it sends taxpayer money to. Starving retirees is perverse. Especially given that retirees built this country. What this government is doing is essentially 'putting older Australians out in front of the igloo' to die of cold. Miserable heartless group of bastards owned by the big end of town where retirement benefits are now going to be sent.
    JAID
    29th May 2017
    11:48am
    Mick, no matter what is said by government, we as a people spend a massive amount on social security. Nobody doubts that we should be spending heavily in the area at all. That would include the most diehard Liberal politicians. At the same time the pool is limited by how much of the future we can dig out of the ground and flog off and by how much of peoples time we can demand be put into any government expenditure. Good governance and responsibility to our democracy demands that close attention be paid to costs. A dollar used wontonly is a dollar stolen from the community or its future. The wide range of demands upon government and that responsiblity mean that all is debatable. All will have different views.

    On military spending. Apart from following others into wars views may change when we front insufficient deterrent or have insufficient resources to meet civil emergencies. Dove or hawk everybody will have different expectation and the debate will arrive at something which will not be either of those.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    1:26pm
    You miss the point JAID that the current bunch of despots are refusing to collect taxes from multinationals, refusing to close offshore tax shelters where the rich launder their money and giving the top end tax cuts when it has absolutely no need of it.
    Your suggestion of resources flies in the face of what is currently happening: redistribution of wealth from poor to rich.
    As far as digging holes in the country this country is a basket case of monumental proportions presided of imbeciles who the electorate keeps putting in to keep digging more holes, closing down industries and throwing more and more Australians out of work, exporting jobs, importing workers and buying much of what sustains us from anybody other than other countries. And people call that 'politics'. It is actually betrayal. And still we keep putting the same imbeciles in......
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    1:55pm
    As for hole-digging as a national enterprise - done that to death for yez before - most of the 'investment' comes from offshore or from those with the ability to offshore their profits ... these 'ventures' receive massive subsidy from the taxpayer (that's all of us BTW - even the lowliest unemployed person pays tax every day), they creatively account and send all their profit offshore so as to avoid paying tax here, those ONshore who profit through shareholding, the big boys that is, do it via the offshore laundering as Mick described above, and now all the business involved are set to cop a tax reduction on what they do eventually declare.

    After departure time - these hole-diggers leave huge problems for Australia in cleanup and future environmental impacts.

    The end result is that the majority of tax recouped from these projects is via the income tax of those working there, and the limited flow-on to other areas such as transportation of goods to site etc.... not much else. On top of that, in remote locations, many workers buy exorbitantly over-priced 'homes' nearby only to find they are worthless once the site closes down, and they are left in the lurch.

    What kind of 'investment' in AUSTRALIA is that?
    Sceptic
    29th May 2017
    3:35pm
    Redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. That sounds like an oxymoron Mick. If the poor had wealth, then surely by definition they just aint poor?
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    4:00pm
    From each according to his/her level of need (more from the bottom on up) - to those without a need... a little bit from 10 million peasants equals one bit from one fat cat.

    That's how it works.... take a little bit from the many, then distribute it as you wish... that's how our tax system works - no matter what tax rate the fattest in the land pay, they will always have far more than the rest.

    Simple, really.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:14pm
    You miss the point Sceptic. Billions is being sucked out of services for average Australians and we are getting new taxes with different titles. That money is going to tax cuts for the rich who have been getting paid more every year whilst wage and salary earners are standing still.
    What do you call that Sceptic?
    disillusioned
    29th May 2017
    11:17am
    I worked until 2 months before I turned 70, then I just ran out of puff. I was working in very intense people-focused industries for over 30 years, as well as studying at night to better my job prospects, and think that if I had taken 6 months off and rested up, etc. (and had enough money to live on during that time) I could have gone back to working part-time. As it was, I started doing some voluntary work and a bit of travel when finances from my super fund would allow, and have a reasonable life-style. I don't smoke or drink alcohol, so that is a big saving, and I don't splash money around. But I do miss the discipline of having to get up and dress up for work, although I don't miss the peak-hour traffic chaos that I'd often get stuck in. I think that the pollies, who get humungous pensions and perks to retire on, should have to live on OUR pension entitlements once they leave public office. That they've had their snouts in the public money trough long enough. Perhaps then we wouldn't have such a big national debt to cope with.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    11:24am
    You sound like a teacher?
    Gammer
    29th May 2017
    11:47am
    Yes, Disillusioned, politicians should have to abide by the same retirement rules as the rest of us (I'm convinced they're only in it for the money and benefits, certainly not the good of our country and ALL it's people) and I'd like to know where all the volunteers will come from to help in many agencies such as aged care, Good Sammy's, St Vincent de Paul, etc. We volunteers save the government heaps one way or another.
    john
    29th May 2017
    12:37pm
    I think big national debt excuses are bulldust. I also believe that the retirement set up for Politicians is absolutely obscene, and I also believe that the big companies who hire accountants to dodge tax for them should be investigated and clobbered hard in the pocket where it can be found that they have avoided and dodgesd tax, whether illegally or not, the fact is a moral one, where they should feel obliged to pay their share. They don't. AND GLOBALISATION HAS DRIVEN THIS HORRID STYLE OF TRADE AND LIFE WHERE ONLY A FEW ARE WEALTHY.
    With tax dodging, self centred politicians , and all the corruption involved in globalised economies is it any wonder we in our "WEALTHY" country are worrying about money and pensions and retirement age. It is absolute proof that in the last 20 years we in the main stream have gone backwards, while the wealthy in tiny numbers tell us lies, and we still vote them in!
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    1:27pm
    Read my response on previous post john. Pretty well summarises the demise of a great nation.
    libsareliars
    29th May 2017
    1:54pm
    Totally agree with all the comments under your post disillusioned. The pollies make me sick with their greed and pork barrelling, then they have the hide to go after the most vulnerable in our community. They are disgusting creatures.
    Oars
    29th May 2017
    5:39pm
    Hi John. While I agree with much of your comments, you must realise that The Lucky Country is no longer sitting on the sheep's back. in fact the minerals boom is almost over- unless we have coal-fired vehicvles. The facts are simple. Ozzies have not spent their money in Ozz, The result is that the big companies are ownbede by ( indirectly through overseas investors) by outsiders. Even the heads of these companies are foreigners- yanks, Sth Africans, Kiwis -yeo, even wee kiwis are "thinking BUG" now. So while the fat was on the fire and the ockers were guzzling around the "barbie" the outsiders were taking us over.The "outsiders' " income may be made in Oz but they pay their tax in THEIR regions not ours. To change that trick, would close off the only major income stream from overseas investors, then we would be pushing "gum up hill" to put it mildly. We need to get smart, not just talk smart, and get into action to save this great nation from the preditors.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    8:40pm
    Start with INCOME TAX if you earn income here. No blind eye and no deals!
    The put royalties up to the marginal rate of tax.
    End of story. Sure offshore investors and their governments will jump up and down, claim they'll be ruined and look for reprisals but Australia will again start to function fairly.
    If all of the above fails bring back tarifs. Yeah that will be a trade off (pardon the pun) of pawns.
    What have we got to lose? Beats being bled dry for our valuable jewels whilst those getting filthy rich leave little here for us.
    marto
    29th May 2017
    11:19am
    Well its high time retirees took an interest in politics and vented their anger at the ballot box but from my experience most of us only complain but rarely do any thing about it if we want change we need to band together and fight for our cause but as I suspect from the past this will fall on deaf ears if we want to change things we need to take the bastards head on remember nothing ventured nothing gained
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    11:28am
    YES YES YES!
    Sadly retirees whinge over the back fence and would not support a Retiree Party because 'they have voted for the XYZ party (Labor or Liberal) for 50 years'. That is the problem!
    No wonder nothing ever changes and retirees are done over so easily. If they united against the common enemy and refused to cop it sweet political parties would leave them alone. Because they are easily manipulated we get what we as a group deserve.
    You are correct marto. As a cohort we need to become politically active and to change who we vote for. If you want a football team then get one but do not apply the same behaviour to any political party. Once you do you are done for.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    2:00pm
    Hmm - kinda reminds you of the difference between Australia and New Zealand - NZ had the Maori Wars - Australia had the displacement of Aborigines with little fuss - NZ has the Treaty of Waitangi - Australia has Aboriginal gulags.....

    Damn - no wonder the Wallabies can't make a dent in the All Blacks.... too many Indigenous New Zealanders in the ABs...

    This is Trebor, and that's my six penneth worth... (round the world for sixpence again with Trebor)...
    JAID
    29th May 2017
    4:51pm
    Interesting thought there Trebor.

    My knowledge is a bit limited to the idea that there was a range of blood mixing in pre-1788 aboriginal populations of the far North. I have never come across any reference to the same in the South.

    If it is true that Southern populations remained (largely) purely descendant from those who walked or island hopped here around 50K years ago then: what did they do to keep the great wandering Polynesians at bay?

    Why didn't the Maoris with their different tribal structures invade and rule? It wasn't because they were not partial to other people's territories as evidenced by warfare in pre-British NZ rule.

    I hesitate at the obvious answer...this place wasn't lush enough.

    More likely the locals were vigilant and while perhaps happy enough to assimilate ocean-going canoes full of incomers tough enough to ensure they didn't rule.

    Perhaps that makes a mockery of Gov. Bourke's "Terra Nullius" though "Right of Conquest" in the then absence of 3314 would have been the practical sense in which the crown chose to rule.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    5:56pm
    Interesting thoughts there, Jaid.... gives me something to think about. I know the Maoris were not the original inhabitants of NZ - the Moriori were (I think that's right), and the Maoris extinguished their rule and many of their number (you can bet, like all tribes, they kept the women).

    Actually if you think about it - that's a lot like Ireland - my lot (the ancient Gaelic High Kings and Queens) invaded in two lots and reduced the original inhabitants to near-mythology as The Little People, though some survived to assimilate into the Gaels.

    Don't start me on the Normans, the Saxons, the Norse, the Vikings, the English and all the rest that ended up contributing to the Irish mixture. Like Scotland, there is no contiguous group in the joint, though the West Coast and the Heeghlant are pretty much Gaelic and often criticised by the Lowlanders as 'backward'...
    Nan Norma
    29th May 2017
    11:30am
    It depends on the individual. A friend of mine worked until she was 70 and could have still continued. She is in good health. Whereas, because of my health I could not, but I have done volunteer work for many years. Where will all the volunteers come from if everyone is still working. People don't realize how much volunteer work is done in the community. believe me,without these people the country would be in real trouble.
    Don't forget the number of grandparents babysitting for working mothers. The government just wants the put older aged people on dole money: $526 a fortnight. Another way of cutting pensions.
    libsareliars
    29th May 2017
    1:56pm
    Agreed, volunteers contribute so much to our society. There will be none left soon as they/we will all be working or dead.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    2:01pm
    Nan - I've been on Disability since age 48, and went down with severe heart troubles at 51 - I've still worked and I still want to work....

    What the Hell - thirteen or fourteen disabilities never hurt nobody.... but I can walk now.... pretty good if you ask me...
    musicveg
    29th May 2017
    7:44pm
    Yes I think that in reality all what will happen is instead of paying pensions it will have a different name with less money. Newstart will become 'Oldstart' or 'Oldstop'. There are already not enough jobs for those seriously looking for work especially if over 50 so how are people going to keep working unless self-employed.
    Triss
    29th May 2017
    8:23pm
    Yes, Nan Norma, the University of Adelaide did a survey and calculated that older Australians contributed $200 billion in unpaid voluntary hours. That should pay a big chunk off the pension payouts for OAPs.
    Jim
    29th May 2017
    11:35am
    The only sensible thing to do to guarantee a good outcome in retirement is to increase the super guarantee to an ammount that is able to sustain people when they retire, and that can be at any age that a person wants or needs to retire, currently you don't get the pension once your assets reach a certain ammount, so if the super guarantee is sufficient the majority of people won't need to rely on the age pension, then the government would only have to support those people less fortunate, I was born in the forties and super for me didn't come in until the eighties and then it was only 2.5% I was able to contribute the same ammount, I believe if I had been getting super earlier I may have been able to be self sufficient in retirement, so I suspect that anyone born after 1966 and been employed for most of the time will be able to retire at a time of their choosing, most people nowadays have dual income and dual super accounts, so I suspect that with the maximum assets allowed not many people will be eligible for the pension anyway.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    2:11pm
    Yes - for the future - and then leave the super situation alone without running scared all the time and not allowing it a full 'run' of fifty years before panicking, which is what Fat Joe and Duh Cormannator did.

    If they'd held off their panic-stricken flight to chopping and cutting for another twenty-five or so years - most of the 'issues' would have been settled re super.

    Stoopid is as stoopid does, as they all say down in Green Bow.

    As for those blasts from the past, such as us - we didn't HAVE much super, unless in fine jobs, and what we did have has been eroded by inflation caused by stratospheric cost of living rises, and also the 'official' inflation - which chops away at every dollar every day.

    The ONLY way forward for this current retirement program is to, firstly, leave super alone to allow it a 'life' run, shore up the existing retirees so they can live reasonably, and then walk away.... and THEN create a GENUINE Sovereign (Futures) Fund to benefit ALL Australians - by bringing the stolen $130Bn** home to these shores, adding to it super contributions and social security levies (as normally occur), and having the whole fund properly manged as far removed from political hands as possible, and under the control of a limited paid board which must include at least one pensioner and one SFR.

    ** How anyone cannot see that a government removing $130Bn from OUR economy and depositing it offshore so as to avoid paying tax, and using it to ensure their own retirement ONLY - is not outright theft as a servant - I have no idea...

    Then they had to borrow $130Bn to replace that money (bad debt if ever I saw it), and then continually borrow to compensate for the opportunity loss of that money not being here....

    Quite frankly - how DARE they!!
    Tom Tank
    29th May 2017
    11:37am
    We are already in a situation where work is hard to come by for the young. If older people are forced to stay in the workforce then the young will not get a job.
    I started work at 15 and worked until I was 67 so had 52 years in the workforce. I retired because I was simply burnt out despite the fact I enjoyed the work and the people I worked for.
    It is about time the criteria that applies to the population at large also applied to politicians. If they want the pension age to go to 70 that should also apply to them. No pension for them at all until they reach 70. The amount of double dipping our pollies induge in after they have left Parliament is a National disgrace.
    Gammer
    29th May 2017
    11:52am
    Yes, Tom Tank, so agree with you. Much cheaper to pay aged pension to a single or couple than unemployment benefits to young men and women with families to provide for.
    libsareliars
    29th May 2017
    2:07pm
    Agreed. I'm 61, I love the job I do, only work part time, and have to work until I reach 67 and a half but as each year passes, due to a couple of health issues I'm finding it much harder to maintain the momentum etc. Goodness knows what I'll be like in another 6 years time. I also try to look after my health with exercise and good eating but it's not so easy as you get older.
    Chris B T
    29th May 2017
    11:46am
    There is a huge differrence between choosing to retire and continuing working past retirement age by choosing too.( Your Choice no one is forcing you )
    You can retire much younger it is only the pension collection has a age to quailify for.
    If you have super you can cash it in and live of it if you choose before pension age or wait to pension age your choice.(55 before 1960 & 60 after 1960 birth dates).
    Your choice!!!!
    KSS
    29th May 2017
    1:03pm
    Correct; there is NO retirement age in Australia, only the age at which you become eligible to apply for (and be assessed for the) age pension or to access your super.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    1:30pm
    A total load of BS. Go to other countries before you start spouting this sort of nonsense. Other countries are not attacking their retirees and do pay a pension.
    What people choose to do after retirement is up to them and of THERE ARE NO (PAID) JOBS. Lets be truthful guys.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    2:53pm
    Please explain the justification for raising the age of eligibility??
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    5:59pm
    No takers? All right - let's just agree that the entire basis of it is to reduce the government's bottom line, and lest we forget - Labor started this downward rot, which should give you a good idea of the kinds of politicians we are dealing with on all sides but very few.

    Now - where's that Retirees Preservation Party - the Arpie - so we can 'arp on what ails us and assails us????
    sunnyOz
    29th May 2017
    9:15pm
    Chris BT - Not quite sure what you mean by - "55 before 1960 & 60 after 1960 birth dates".... I was born in 1952 - can't get pension until I am 65.5yo.
    Chris B T
    30th May 2017
    8:43am
    You are able to access your super at these age groups if you choose by saying I'm retired.
    Than live off this money until age pension age.
    If you choose not to contribute to super or didn't put enough in your choice.
    How or what you send your super on is still very much your choice.
    Buy a house, paydown debt, holiday buy scratches your choice.
    No matter how much it is and still collect the age pension when at quialifying age after you spent it.
    By rasing the age pension quailifying age Government might be encourging you to use your super to liveoff and spend down. Instead off spending on what takes your fancy.
    Retirement is your choice and state of mind, there has been along time to think about it again your choice.
    Eddy
    29th May 2017
    11:47am
    Okay, I am okay with the concept of raising the pension age to 70 by 2035 (2025 is too soon for current 50 year olds to adjust their retirement plans) but with specific provisos.
    1. retain the age at which one can collect their superannuation at under 60,
    2. immediately increase the compulsory superannuation guarantee to 15% going to 20% within a short span of time (to ensure people have adequate superannuation to at least sustain them until age 70 if they choose to retire earlier),
    3. superannuation can only be converted to a periodic pension or annuity (eg fortnightly) payment rather than taken as a lump sum (however provision to commute a percentage (say 10%) to a lump sum so mortgages etc can be paid off), this provision is to prevent people blowing their lump sum on frivolities (ie cruises and expensive cars, caravans or motorcycles) rather than using it to fund their retirement.
    3. assets test exemption on houses to be limited to a reasonable amount and assessed on a regional basis (say local government areas) rather than a nationwide one size fits all.
    4. exempt older workers (age 55 to 70) from the onerous Centrelink requirements about job seeking,
    5. and some other things which I haven't thought of yet but I will later.
    JAID
    29th May 2017
    11:53am
    Some good thinking there I think Eddy
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    12:34pm
    1. So people would collect their superannuation, spend them and then want a pension? Yeah right.
    2. Employer will cry in front of the cameras and claim they wil go broke like they do whenever there is a two bob pay increase for people who are on destitute wages already.
    3. Agree. Already coming.
    3. A no brainer but you miss the point that the current government is after retirees.
    4. Agree.
    5. dementia working its magic Eddy.

    Good post and some good points.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    2:56pm
    Please explain the justification for raising the age of eligibility to 70???

    Classes of retirees - politicians etc first class, public servants second class, superannuants third class, pensioners last class... pensioners travel steerage after a lifetime of toil and hardship under successive governments with no balls and no brains.
    Eddy
    29th May 2017
    3:01pm
    I'll throw in a couple more Mick to assist with your dementia diagnosis.
    6. super contributions (including SGC) below a specified indexed amount (say $15k as at todays value) be exempt from the 15% super tax.
    7. all income (including state and superannuation pensions) to be taxed at marginal rates,
    8. in the retirement phase Income splitting between spouses/partners is permitted.
    As for your comment on my point 1. that is exactly what is happening now. I had a work colleague who retired at 55, spent the next 10 years having a ball spending his super (ie overseas holidays, cruises, a couple of Lexus' , a Harley Davidson among other things) then lined up at 65 to collect a pension. He suggested I was a mug for not doing the same.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:19pm
    I do understand your point Eddy and actually agree with not giving people a lump sum. What you state is correct and it may be that the current despots want to include the family home to claw back a few bucks, but likely the change will not affect them because they have their own very generous superannuation deal.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:19pm
    I do understand your point Eddy and actually agree with not giving people a lump sum. What you state is correct and it may be that the current despots want to include the family home to claw back a few bucks, but likely the change will not affect them because they have their own very generous superannuation deal.
    Sweatshop Greed
    29th May 2017
    12:01pm
    I worked until I was 69, but not in Australia, as after being made redundant at 57, I was considered too old to employ. However, I changed from Finance to teaching, did a TEFL course, and then moved to Thailand where I taught until I was 69, when I was forced to return to Australia so I could receive my pension in Thailand.

    Now I get criticized for getting a pension while not living in Australia.

    Having said all this, I believe each case is different. Those who have done physical work all their life could find it very difficult working until they're 70. Others wouldn't have a problem.

    Should a physical test introduced to determine whether a person is able to retire at 65? I don't know.
    JAID
    29th May 2017
    12:18pm
    It is a problem SG. Somehow, I would hope it would be obvious enough so that it could basically be the individual's choice. If someone is prepared to say they are incapable chances are probably pretty high that they have gone about as far as they are likely to.

    Perhaps the most significant hurdle relates to the nature of the workplace. We have tried all sorts of ways of managing people, focus on pay and conditions various kinds of equity, pseudo democracies. Some have worked some have been abused some fit some, some don't. It may be true that those (like myself) who have been able to run their own show experience greater satisfaction from their workplace. This is often despite that the going may get particularly tough from time to time. If a fair general take, then, there is probably a long way to go before most workers can experience sufficient joy in their labour to overcome what could easily grow to feel like being an automaton in a 50 year trial.

    BTW I thought you could receive Aus pension overseas. It would be comparatively comfortable in beautiful Thailand.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    12:36pm
    Don't be surprised that the current government are after retirees sweatshop. Pretty clear and the fact that the MPs making the decisions are never personally going to be caught by their legislation means they do not care as they chase an easy target.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    2:58pm
    Aye - put lazy leaners in work house! Shiftless in life, make 'em shift work unto death!! Granny - pick up that shovel and stoke those boilers... faster now.... and no complaining about your bunk above the propellor shafts making too much noise when you get your six hours off a day!

    (bloody steerage passengers... always whining...)
    Supernan
    29th May 2017
    12:02pm
    We worked to 72 anyway. But last 2 years were a bit stressful & tiring. Guess depends on your health, your job, etc.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    12:37pm
    And whether or not you have enough or want to sustain a high lifestyle. Many reasons why people work on.
    Jannie
    29th May 2017
    12:09pm
    I cannot believe the mentality of our so called leaders. After the age of 50 it is hard to get a job, at 70 it is almost impossible, its not what you know but who you know. There are tradies who do hard physical work could not possibly continue working up until 70, some maybe but not too many. I am almost 70 and cannot get a job at present and I think it is due to ageism discrimation also the fact that the job market is drying out, and yet they still want more immigrants to come to Australia who go on social security and get all the perks, our government is full of numb nuts.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    12:38pm
    Keep voting Liberal Party and it will only get worse. Pretty obvious who did this to you, the intention and how the bastards are going to deliver tax cuts for the rich who have no real need of them. Your call Jannie.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    3:01pm
    Simple, Jannie - you remove the mental from mentality, replace it with criminal, and put it on its own when referring to our 'leaders'....

    Example - Mentality minus mental plus criminal = criminality.... mental now stands alone, as in 'our mental leaders in their criminality'.....
    john
    29th May 2017
    12:14pm
    Any government that brings in 70 as a new retirement age, will be voted out of office. Retirement legally at 65 should be just that, for both women and men. None of this 66 and 67 and 5 months rubbish, 65 legal age.
    If people wish to work on, which many do then, that is up to them.
    I'm retired I have done physical work , heavy physical work all my life.
    At 66 I take half an hour of warming up in the morning just to walk up right and straight, these days.
    In my mind I'm pretty alive and awake , that is not a worry , but my job killed my body, as jobs have done to many over the years.
    Desk sitting pencil pushers need to be aware of this sort of thing when they just blabber about numbers and ages willy nilly, I could not do what I did at work a couple of years ago now.
    I have known men and women 10 to 20 years younger than me that have been ruined physically by their jobs, it is not a subject that you can throw a net over just like that. It doesn't work.
    Jannie
    29th May 2017
    12:19pm
    Right on John sorry to hear you are not as agile these days but at least you have a brain so superior to those numb nuts in Canberra.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    12:40pm
    You are spot on John but sadly some of us are not too bright and are easily conned by slick advertising in the election propaganda campaign. Many will refuse to vote for anybody other than the 'football team' they have voted for for 50 years.
    So what is an alternative definition of dementia? Painful.
    Keith
    29th May 2017
    12:20pm
    Has anyone noticed the "flavour" of most of these articles regarding retirees financial positions. Fear mongering, doubt and getting the elderly to lose confidence in their own judgement is working well for the financial planning industry. Yep , that's it folks.

    Get them all to think "they're coming after us" what are we going to do now!!! Financial planners love this stuff. I work in that industry. You've got to make the customer think they have NO idea and dwell in self doubt and worry. Then you've got them & their money by balls.
    Because if people are confident , have an IQ above room temperature , do some basic research ,most of which is freely available on the Net, they'll more than likely do just as well as people that pay a financial planner to lose their money . And believe me , it does happen. I could write a book on the shitty investments F/Ps have steered people over the cliff in.
    Back on topic......we always here the "gubberment" wanking on about the welfare bill " it's more than we spend on guns & bombs BS". Well guess what. These old people are not digging holes and burying it. They are spending it on petrol, rent, utilities, food, services etc etc. A lot of it is spent within 24 hours of receiving it. Bank PDCs automatically deduct amounts to phone,gas,electricity, rent bills etc. It all goes back into the community, creates jobs. GST applies to a lot of it. Company tax , income tax etc is paid on it, etc etc , you'll probably find that eventually most of it will end up back where it started in Govt coffers.
    It ain't as bad as they think it is.
    ex PS
    29th May 2017
    12:35pm
    Quite right, most of the benefits paid to us with our own money that has been taken in taxes ends up being spent in the local community. It is recycled and used to create and support employment, the government gives us nothing, how can you give people something that was given to you by them in the first place.
    I would rather give a Pensioner their entitlement and have them spend it in the community than give big business billions to deposit in off shore accounts so they can avoid paying tax. Welfare for the rich, not for me thanks.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    12:42pm
    "Fear mongering"? Not at all Keith. People are being given the direction and the rest is up to them. Retirement at 70 is a goal of this government as it will never affect MPS and it will save a huge amount of money which will then be handed to the rich in tax cuts. Surely you can see the game?
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    4:05pm
    Yes - it's all bulldust - been telling yez fer a hundred years now that social security money virtually all goes streaight back into the tax cycle, and is thus no net loss to the government at all - spending $50Bn for offshore submarines is a dead loss of $50Bn... try to tell that to the dummies in Cambra or Macquarie Street with their $50Bn train carriages that don't fit the stations.... them carriages be designed fer offloading passengers in sidings... such as at Australwitz and Belsen Park.... final destinations for 'resettled' pensioners and such... once the State government finishes tossing them all out of 'prime property' it 'owns'....


    Alla buncha crap...
    leek
    29th May 2017
    5:16pm
    Yes Keith, you are right about the money coming back into the economy. My father reckons he has nothing against the so called dole bludgers, as he reckons they are spending what little money they get to pay their rent and bills, and it goes around in a big circle.
    But he has a big beef about these people that are living overseas getting the aged pension. So where is their aged pension going? Certainly not being spent in the Australian economy. Mind you it is gettng expensive to live here. Not sure what is the right thing to do.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:28pm
    Yes leek, money does go around. That's why 457 visas cost us all, why closing our industries and importing everything coasts us all, why sending pensions to Australians living offshore costs us all.
    In all fairness are we going to stop people from holidaying overseas as well? Not an easy problem and a balance needs to be found. That does not mean you attack average citizens whilst allowing the big end of town to ply its trade with exemptions.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    6:03pm
    Same applies to fat cats who spend their money on holidays offshore... non-contributors to the max.
    maxchugg
    29th May 2017
    12:21pm
    Depends who you are. If you are Joe Hockey you can retire at 50.
    Jannie
    29th May 2017
    12:23pm
    Right on mc he is a numb nut too
    maxchugg
    29th May 2017
    12:30pm
    But a wealthy numb nut. I understand that he is entitled to a fully indexed parliamentary pension of around $190,000, on top of that he is paid around $250,000 (I don't know the exact figures) for a job that would be taken up by some just for the prestige, lurks and perks.
    This from a bloke who retired at 50, told us to work to 70, and lectured us on how we have to be lifters, not leaners.
    maxchugg
    29th May 2017
    12:30pm
    But a wealthy numb nut. I understand that he is entitled to a fully indexed parliamentary pension of around $190,000, on top of that he is paid around $250,000 (I don't know the exact figures) for a job that would be taken up by some just for the prestige, lurks and perks.
    This from a bloke who retired at 50, told us to work to 70, and lectured us on how we have to be lifters, not leaners.
    maxchugg
    29th May 2017
    12:30pm
    But a wealthy numb nut. I understand that he is entitled to a fully indexed parliamentary pension of around $190,000, on top of that he is paid around $250,000 (I don't know the exact figures) for a job that would be taken up by some just for the prestige, lurks and perks.
    This from a bloke who retired at 50, told us to work to 70, and lectured us on how we have to be lifters, not leaners.
    Jannie
    29th May 2017
    12:32pm
    I did not mean you were a numb nut but Hockey certainly is
    Jannie
    29th May 2017
    12:36pm
    Cannot understand why politicians get so much, they should be put back into the work force when they are out of office not go on pensions. Australia is a corrupt country after all just like a third world country.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    12:44pm
    Spot on max. You forgot to mention that Joe can access his parliamentary superannuation and get another high paying job from his mates in Canberra and then get a second superannuation payout.
    Life is wonderful at the top isn't it.
    maxchugg
    29th May 2017
    5:22pm
    Jannie, I did'nt think you were having a go at me.
    Mick, I heard that Joe was under some pressure not to take his full entitlement, whether or not he did I don't know.
    I would expect that the $250,000 plus perks job in the USA would add to his superannuation entitlement which is already reported to be $190,000 indexed to the CPI.
    No doubt he will be able to access yet another plum position when the current one expires. If he plays his cards right, and I would bet he will, when he finally retires, Joe,"the lifter", will have an annual superannuation income conservatively estimated to be at least 10 times more than is paid to a" leaning" pensioner couple who own their own home.
    Perhaps we misunderstood Joe's meaning when he called on us to be lifters, a word which has a second, different meaning.
    But is Joe really a numb nut? He's laughing all the way to the bank, and will continue to do so for the rest of his life, maybe he's really smarter than most.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:30pm
    Max: you have described perfectly how corruption in high office and from rich citizens works. The rules these people have are completely different from those the rest of us are expected to obey, including criminal behaviour.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    6:06pm
    Don't forget all the board position where you don't get to work at all, and all the other nice little sinecures that belong exclusively to the Old Mates Network.
    maxchugg
    29th May 2017
    6:51pm
    Remember the song "The Self Preservation Society" from the original movie of "The Italian Job"?
    Sounds a lot like our politicians, methinks.
    Triss
    29th May 2017
    8:48pm
    In my opinion the politicians' pension is a Ponzi scheme. No money seemed to have ever been put aside or invested by the government to fund these pensions. Virtually all unfunded, therefore totally funded by taxpayers. The deficit stands at over $200 billion which the taxpayer will have to fork out for.
    There are ex politicians who have been on parliamentary pensions for decades and will be on it for many more years.
    sunnyOz
    29th May 2017
    9:23pm
    Plus the biggest rort of all - politicians pension is not income tested. They can still earn whatever they want, and still get their huge pension. They can earn $250,000 (eg - Joe Hockey) - and still get their pension. Aged pensioners earn $10,000 a year - and their pension is docked.
    KSS
    29th May 2017
    1:39pm
    You can add the UK to your list of countries raising the aged pension age.

    People really do need to catch up with living in the 21st century. Back in the day when pensions were first offered most people did not live to collect it. Those that did died soon after. Fast forward to today and people can expect to live 15 - 20 years plus after the age of 65 and in far better health than our forebearers. As a result I see no problem with raising the eligibility age for the aged pension to 70.

    The world changes, we move on and need to do things differently. Long gone are the days when children started work at 14 or younger. Most now don't start their working life until they reach their early to mid 20s (part time and holiday jobs aside). Add a 50 year working life (as so many of you claim to have done in your own) and the aged pension eligibility age becomes 70! So what's the difference?

    And what is to stop the individual worker making concessional contributions to their super to make up the so called 'lost' 3%. For a retail worker on say $40000 a year that comes to about $25 a week. Don't tell me they couldn't afford that when they would no doubt spend far more than that on a Friday or Saturday night out. Its all about priorities.

    And for those claiming its alright for those in a 'desk job' think again! Sitting for hours at a time is a health hazard similar to smoking as recent research shows. Its all about taking responsibility for yourself.

    The only argument that IS valid is that workers compensation and life insurance policies also need updating to allow for these to continue to 70 also. Currently workers compensation only covers people below 65 or for up to 12 months after if the injury was sustained before they turned 65 (up to 66). If the eligibility age for the aged pension goes up, so should eligibility for WC. Likewise for life insurance, the gradual increase of premiums and lowering of payout the older you get will also have to be changed so it remains affordable for those continuing to work beyond 65.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:34pm
    What you are describing KSS is the top of society manipulating a system it does not use. Keeping people working until they drop or are cognitively unable to work out how the game works is at the top of the agenda because if people do work it out they will become angry, rebel and eventually who knows what. Can't have the plebs spoil the game can we?
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    6:08pm
    So because the old bastards now live to collect it, they should no longer get their Entitlement?

    Brilliant... just brilliant.... take two hemlock pills.... call me in the morning...

    We're talking about retirees here - not workers and their maybe opportunity to add to super....
    KSS
    30th May 2017
    7:05am
    Get real Trebor. If you are already a retiree then this would not affect you. If you are not then take some responsibility and stop the whinging.

    And Mick the vast majority of people aged between 65 and 70 are perfectly fit and healthy and not the cognitively impaired or physically infirm invalids you would have them be.
    TREBOR
    30th May 2017
    10:17am
    Better to snipe the enemy with a long bow long before he gets close enough to knife you...

    As a fine upstanding member of the community I feel it is my duty to uphold the rights of those who come after me.... and to defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. No 'whinging' about it - just simple statements of reality.

    So you reckon fifty years of work is not enough and five more won't hurt them?

    You first..... and you evaded the issue I raised - so now the old bastards live longer, the pension age must be raised so they can continue to die at the same rate before collecting it? the 'government' feels it cannot afford its people? How then can the same people afford that 'government'?

    Now stop whinging and answer the question.....
    KSS
    31st May 2017
    8:18am
    What IS your question? Seems just a pontification of your point of view. Fair enough after all you ARE entitled to your opinion.
    AutumnOz
    31st May 2017
    9:09am
    The Question was
    "So because the old bastards now live to collect it, they should no longer get their Entitlement?"

    My answer is they should be entitled to an income, whether as a SFR or a gov't pensioner, after helping to build Australia into a once great country.
    It is not the fault of older people that our Australia has been sold off piece by piece and otherwise ruined by those in Parliament.
    JAID
    1st Jun 2017
    1:01pm
    Excellent, rational post KSS.

    Appreciate especially the reminder that sitting behind a desk for hours at a time comes with its own health issues.

    50 years work is a long time by the human scale. It was a lot longer when we lived to 60 on average and will be a lot shorter when we live to 150 (which may not be so far away.) Today we average about 20 years being cared for by others and the state (0 to 20) 45 years working wouldnt be an average, it is high but neat (20 to 65) and 20 years retired (65 to 85.) Working 45 years to provision an 85 year life doesn't seem too bad if there is meaning in enjoyable work.

    Many in farming would have phased into work from a very early age doing very solid labour well before the end of school, if their bodies have worn too uncomfortably for work at 65, well they have probably done much more than 50 years work anyway. Many will happily phase out their work over the next 20 or 30 years if they are able and live that long. It is a fulfilling life and sad that more cannot operate in a way that they can extend their working life essentially to their whole life but at a compatible intensity at any point in it.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    1:40pm
    Of course it remains on the table - it suits the twerps that some foolish enough to elect the major parties vote for in this once proud nation - now a den of thieves and liars and educated self-interested ideologues.

    Revert the pension age to 65 NOW!
    almost a grey hair
    29th May 2017
    2:29pm
    And pay the pension like a first world country i.e..not means or asset tested at age pension age. If you have been smart and saved you would be better off than those that haven't. Isn't that why we teach our children to save for a rainy day ?
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    3:18pm
    It used to be, grey - it used to be... now it's every man for himself - a deliberate policy to keep people off balance and against one another so they can never unite against despotism.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:34pm
    Good description TREBOR. Spot on.
    Older lady
    29th May 2017
    1:53pm
    Nurses won't last to 70. They have to be alert mentally. Fast thinking and able to work out your drug dozes. Physically it's demanding.they Walk about 12kms a day. And most manage to early 60's. Then retire.
    Seriously 70's is too old , I watch older workers complaining of bad backs and knees and taking painkillers to get through their shift.
    They deserve a nice comfortable few years of retirement. Some travelling and time with family. All work and little play is no life.
    I'm really looking forward to retirement. Some freedom and to be able to do the things I can't right now with work commitments and minimal allocated holidays.
    Let the young ones have our jobs. And prosper. And provide good quality care for the elderly. Not the elderly looking after the elderly.
    KSS
    29th May 2017
    1:56pm
    Senility does NOT kick in on your 70th birthday!
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    3:18pm
    Senility can kick in at any time..... I often meet people younger than I am who I automatically call 'old guy' etc...
    Janran
    29th May 2017
    3:33pm
    You have raised an interesting point, Scottishlass, with your "Let the young ones have our jobs. And prosper. And provide good quality care for the elderly. Not the elderly looking after the elderly."

    Nursing and Aged Care jobs are very physically and mentally demanding. The thought of a Night Matron dulled down because he/she had to take painkillers for bad back pain (a very common complaint among nurses), is quite frightening if that person is then responsible for calculating drug doses for patients.

    On the subject of OAP retirement age for men and for women, why was it always a younger age for women to access (60 not 65)? And was this because traditionally, she was expected to continue working (running the household) until the day she drops? Is this why women live longer, because they work longer, regardless of her "retirement" age?

    Then there are all those men and women who care for their aged, sick and/or demented spouses, even though their own capacity to do this demanding work is diminishing. I'm sure my own Mum's lifespan was cut short, because she cared for Dad way too long before Dad went into a dementia care home. I was hoping she would have been able to enjoy a long, deserved (self-funded) retirement after having worked so hard all her life.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:39pm
    You may have proven that it does KSS....sorry, could not help that one.
    Nurses? My wife took a call a week ago from a nurse representative wanting her to support nurses pay conditions, specifically shift work. Pretty offensive cold calling people when you earn more than police and teachers and are on a wonderful wicket and the quickest way to turn the public against you. Many people believe that nurses should not be able to bleed the system with shift loadings. A rotating roster is fair but they do not want that. Sorry....just my bleat about rorters trying it on.
    KSS
    31st May 2017
    8:19am
    As do you MICK - repeatedly!
    JAID
    31st May 2017
    10:23am
    Sure, bodies wear out and if that means the nation must step in I am for that. Stepping in should first mean seeking to make suitable 'work' available for all who can do it and desire it and to whatever age that remains the case. As noted before, I think that is the challenge of the age. It can also mean simply funding in the situation that the person is not able to make that contribution.

    There is an amount of work that can be valuably done and aside from those physically or emotionally unable, if, as you suggest, somebody can work for about 40 years (20 to 60) and be carried by the community about 50 years (0 to 20 then 60 to 90) while doing an average job well so be it. Lets get on with it.

    I suggest that life warrants more than that. We need to attempt to contribute and grow every day of our lives. Provisioning for that existence means that most of us need to work. That being the case, we need to focus as a community on making work fulfilling, something energising which drives us to greater understanding and things.

    There is no argument that many, perhaps, the bulk of current work positions do not do that or do it well and there is no argument that there are insufficient positions to go around but that does not make it a task not worth addressing.

    You are correct work occupies my thinking constantly but at the same time so does my family and young children just as does my interest in the way the world evolves. One of these need never preclude another. All are available co-instantaneously though it may take the right type of work or workplace to let that happen. Your nursing would have its physically demanding edge but it also has its noble ends which could be seen in a constant harmonic relationship with the rest of ones world if it is the right job.
    JAID
    31st May 2017
    10:55am
    That was an interesting thought Mick. Maybe things are different in different states.

    I have an extended family member who as headmaster in a two teacher country primary school and a handful of years out of training was said to be getting nearly $150k. His wife, the same age in another much larger primary school was taking $90k plus. Not at all bad for people with moderate skilling and lucky to work 2/3ds of what everybody else does. Even here where the cost of living is lower, no teacher earns less than $70k the day they leave training. If nurses do better than all that, then, I am staggered.

    This comes down to these being jobs where pay and conditions are moderated (ie. set) by the large proportion of the field's employees being paid, one way or another, by government. Goverment is an easy target. These rates of pay, superannuation and conditions are waaaay out of whack with what is available in the community that labours to pay for them.

    It is difficult and I have no idea how it should be done but the quality of input should govern the rate of pay not annonymous awards. Awards sorted out by people who have a vested interest and those who being on such lofty government pay rates think these types of incomes are reasonable.

    I would pay Eddie Woo $500k a year (even though he is worth more - look him up on youtube) and someone just out of training $40K until they proove themselves. You pay for return, not an income that is geared to be sufficient to buy cars, houses, eating out, OS holidays and have children. Those things come when people invest sufficient effort.
    Katie
    29th May 2017
    2:04pm
    Maybe the Govt should take advice from the AMA. Health statistics in Australia show increasing incidence in Alzeheimers, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, kidney disease, stress disorders for the over 65s etc. Raising the working age will mean increased long term absenteeism for serious disease, higher insurance for TPD, Income Protection, and Worker's Comp premiums for employers. Also possibly increased accidents on the job for blue collar, white collar mismanagement in middle to senior management roles due to diminished cognitive capabilities compared to previously, a need for stronger employment laws to prevent employers dismissing over 65's for impacted work performance (which won't be grounds for getting DSP with the current criteria). Govt and private enterprise could end up paying more in indirectly-impacted areas. Raising the working age has far more implications for the economy and the community. The volunteer community will be greatly diminished, which means less NFP support for essential community services, and a need for more paid employees, which means those organisations that rely on volunteers will cease to exist.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    3:19pm
    No problem!! If they die before reaching pension age at 70 - all the more savings!! And not even a government handout for funeral....
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:42pm
    If you want to live longer move to France. They eat much better than us and exercise. Given the air pollution it says a lot about the value of proper food and exercise. Of course Australians are eating themselves into a coffin. In 3 months I saw maybe 2 or 3 fat people in France whilst the other day at the shopping centre I saw perhaps 20 or 30 in one visit. Tells a story.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    6:10pm
    Escargot? My Territory does....
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    8:31pm
    I owned a Cooper S as a young lad and the neighbours always used to lament 'look at that S car go'.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    9:47pm
    Agggghhh - wounded by the pun....

    I had a Mini Deluxe and hotted it up with twin SUs and 3/4 race cam and a Cooper S Mk II gearbox, with 8" wheels.... that thing flew around corners. Only 998cc as well.
    KSS
    30th May 2017
    7:11am
    And almost all those conditions are not inevitable facts of ageing. They are mainly due to poor lifestyle choices over many years. Again stop with trying to claim that everyone who reached 65 is in someway health impaired. It quite simply isn't true. Grey nomads and MICK are a testament to that.

    And is not a reason to 'force' people to retire in favour of younger workers. If there is going to be a trigger for 'stress disorders and depression' in older people it is the feeling of not being of any use anymore and being 'thrown on the scrap heap'. Way to go Katie.
    TREBOR
    30th May 2017
    10:21am
    'lifestyle choices' - not that old saw again.

    Whether or not they are impaired - the issue is why there is some justification for raising the age of pension. Nobody has yet explained what that justification is..... and nobody is forced to retire when on a pension - I'm currently considering taking on a full-time job.... even with my fifteen or sixteen disabilities..... and if there was a genuine job choice available to me, I would still be currently working full-time.

    Now - what is the justification for raising the pension age from 65?
    TREBOR
    30th May 2017
    10:23am
    Christ, man - at 56 and five years after severe cardiac illness diagnosis, I was trying to get into Afghanistan one way or another ... don't slang off at me as a 'whinger'.
    KSS
    31st May 2017
    8:24am
    15 or 16 disabilities! That is just not typical of the over 65s. Most are far healthier than that.

    And sneer all you want at the 'lifestyle choices' but you cannot ignore the veracity of it and the effect on people's health - mental and/or physical.
    almost a grey hair
    29th May 2017
    2:26pm
    The reality of this idea is no different to what is in place now as far as welfare payments are concerned. If you were an underground coalminer for 40 yrs and made redundant at 60, you would realistically be unemployed until 70 instead of 66 and as such your superannuation if left in accumulation phase would not be classed as an asset until you reach age pension qualifying age. so if no further employment was available you would end up on Newstart for 10 whole yrs not 6, end result as far as balancing budget is concerned is the same.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:43pm
    And demonised by the current government bashing people who do not have jobs which do not exist.
    johnp
    29th May 2017
    3:29pm
    Why is it that many countries can afford to pay old aged pension to all aged persons whereas Australia only provides to those that come under the assets test
    Angelique
    29th May 2017
    3:45pm
    I fully support paying the old aged pension to all aged persons, however, even though many countries do it, they cannot afford it. Many of these countries have huge budget deficits with no way of repaying the debt.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:48pm
    Now THAT is the question which is never asked because they fear the answer.
    Australians are being conned by the current government talking the 'unaffordability' lie. The truth is that the bastards are spending money destined for retirement benefits in other areas and then blaming retirees for wanting their rightful pensions.
    Make no mistake, this is a game. Pension payments are destined for tax cuts for the rich who have absolutely no need of less taxes because they have powered ahead for the past 20 years. This is greed and income redistribution. As I keep saying 'Class Warfare' in progress. I for the life of me cannot understand how thinking Australians can vote for the current government. What more do the bastards have to do before wage and salary earners understand the game?
    Triss
    29th May 2017
    8:57pm
    You're dead right, Mick, and I didn't vote for the current government.
    Barbara Mathieson
    29th May 2017
    3:57pm
    Well, with all these intelligent answers here, let's just petition the Government everyone, for all MPs / Senators to also 'toe the line' in this respect- no excuses! i.e. Everyone in Australia ???????? Work until 70, or keep the status quo for pensioners at 65 whilst endorsing Parliamentarians to 'join us'!
    With our ' senior force' you would soon find more sensible / commonsense legislation forthcoming.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:49pm
    Politicians would lap it up. Not as though many of them work real hard....and then there are the lavish free lunchions and junkets they call 'work'. Pick me...........
    floss
    29th May 2017
    4:01pm
    Trebor please tell me its not true this bunch of b-----. have placed the 130 Billion in a overseas account.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:50pm
    ??? Please explain.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    6:20pm
    The Futures Fund, designed to sit in The Caymans and work under the direction of Peter Costello who cops a fine salary for doing so as well as his 'pension' out of it, operating on the world shares market etc to garner profits, and designed to fund exclusively and without any fear of any collapse here, the retirements of politicians and public servants and other selected personages. All the while paying ZERO tax here.

    It does offer a few nominal payments to cancer research etc.... not enough to make much of a difference and only for window dressing.

    If a Central American dictator did that, there's be an outcry across the globe about how corrupt he was...

    $130Bn removed from the Treasury and placed overseas for the direct benefit of the politicians and their mates....

    In order to make up that $130Bn - just add it to the borrowings list, then sit back and continue to borrow to cover what that $130Bn could have done here in terms of long term infrastructure etc.

    John Howard and Peter Costello (Don Juan Huarte and Don Pedro
    Castella), and it was done by one of their tame Liberal women who copped a nice little job as a reward.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Government_Future_Fund

    Makes for interesting reading.

    You may disagree, but I call it theft as a servant as per Scottish Law, and I want that money back HER and added to everyone's retirement funding, not just theirs.
    Triss
    29th May 2017
    9:08pm
    Yes, it's true, Floss. I believe that a lot of our debt is because the Future Fund was set up to take budget surplus. It was set up with the funds from the privatisation of Telstra (about $50 million) which rightfully belonged to the Australian people.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    9:50pm
    Yes - flogged off everything and then sent the cash offshore for their own everlasting benefit...
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    9:52pm
    Sorry - I meant to add - returning that fund here and making it subject to the vagaries in our economy that successive governments have created, just like everyone else, would sharpen their minds in an amazing way.

    Just the thought that crashing the economy for some nonsense political gain would give them pause when they know they'll lose too.

    I'll bet you'd see some different decisions being made then.
    *Imagine*
    29th May 2017
    5:19pm
    SEE THIS http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/tables/life-expectancy-birth-years-sex-qld/index.php. This Government table tells us that those now over 70 (male and female) are living on borrowed time. Male life expectancy for males born in 1947 is 66yrs. Only those who are now 36yrs old can expect to live to 70 in Australia. I imagine that the statistics have been worked out on these averages and the bottom line is pay more taxes but receive less support. End of.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2017
    9:42pm
    Gee I should have died years ago.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    9:53pm
    Me, too - but the Reaper hasn't won a hand yet.... was reported KIA once - it was another guy with the same name or nearly.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2017
    11:07pm
    Yes went close once but got sent back as it wasn't my turn.
    TREBOR
    30th May 2017
    10:25am
    Didn't see a bright light, either...
    Ella
    29th May 2017
    5:31pm
    Jaid it is a problem when noone wants to employ older people. My husband tried relentlessly to get work in his 50's in his fields of expertise to no avail. Employers wanted younger people . I worked all my life as a Registered nurse but by age 60 my body just wasn't up to 8+ hours work a day having a chronically sore and stiff back from numerous injuries over the course of my career. You sound like you live in lala land certainly not the real world.
    I also feel you're not in touch with the homeless problem in our society often caused by loss of employment. Sounds like you dont have a life mate other than working but many of the rest of us would like to enjoy some decent time of retirement while still physically capable.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    5:54pm
    Employment is normally the key to prosperity. We hear a lot from this government about getting a job but the lying bastards never tell the same audience that for every 10 people applying there is only 1 job. So the call is a sick excuse to label most of our unemployed as 'leaners' and bludgers. Whilst we have our share you cannot take a job which does not exist. The bastards are fully aware of this!
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    6:24pm
    Divisional Diary:-

    Missing In Action - Major Jobson Growthe - no sign despite extensive SAR and patrolling. Search will resume at first light.

    Hot Air resupply a fop - only small amounts of crow meat gathered in.
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    8:27pm
    Pretty well right TREBOR. The lying bastards have sold their lies with the aid of their co-conspirators, the (not) free Press.
    So who owns the country.............? Citizens?
    crazypete
    29th May 2017
    7:04pm
    This is a lot of rot because a person cannot get work anyhow and once you get to a certain age they do not want to know you anyhow so they need to wake up
    floss
    29th May 2017
    7:29pm
    Thanks Trebor so the rats a living a sinking ship what a great Australian attitude .God help Australia.
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    8:01pm
    Used to be the Australian way to give everyone a 'fair go' - though I think most knew all along there were 'special breeds' who preyed on the rest - they usually found their way onto local councils and into government etc - and then proceeded to ensure they retired with plenty, often from government initiatives into which they 'invested'.

    Just business - under the US RICO laws they'd all be in prison for twenty to life and all assets seized.

    Now that situation of 'getting into politics' has totally degenerated into - 'it's a business and you need to guarantee your own return from it'.

    What an utter disgrace.
    Watto
    29th May 2017
    7:54pm
    3. Agree. Already coming Please explain Mick

    And by the way I have worked since I was fifteen and I WILL SPEND MY BLOODY SUPERANUATION ANY WAY I SEE FIT OK THEN I WILL GO ON THE PENSION OK|||||||
    MICK
    29th May 2017
    8:24pm
    You miss what superannuation is Watto and you fail to understand that you got a taxpayer subsidised tax rate (15%) on money which was not taxed at your marginal rate. Earnings on your superannuation are also taxed at only 15%.
    Your post seems to imply that you have 'rights'. Respectfully, so do taxpayers....and you were not given the above to double dip mate! That is wrong.
    I fully support lump sums not being allowed and that applies especially to the very top end of town with millions of dollars and which will be pulled as soon as their inside information tells them a/the government is going to close the loophole.
    Sorry we'll disagree Watto but fair is fair!
    TREBOR
    29th May 2017
    9:38pm
    Don't bite Mick - he's on your side..
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2017
    9:44pm
    Good idea access your super at 60 and live on it for 10 years and then go on welfare.
    Eddy
    29th May 2017
    10:30pm
    You surprise me OG, I thought such a thing was against your principles. However, in my generous spirit, I will believe you were talking 'tongue-in-cheek'.
    Watto, I agree with Mick, your super was given favourable tax treatment on the understanding it was to be used to fund, or partially fund, your retirement, thereby reducing your dependence on a state pension. If you want to spend it anyway you want then you should have put it in an ordinary bank savings account and paid the appropriate tax on the interest (which ain't much nowadays).
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2017
    11:02pm
    Here is the formula many follow.

    Leave work before retirement age, access super as a lump sum, go on that extended overseas trip, come back, buy new car and caravan and give the kids anything leftover that will fail the assets test. After travelling around for the country for five years put everything they can into house and access welfare. I've lost count how many in my extended family have followed this formula.

    Isn't super wonderful?
    ex PS
    30th May 2017
    4:42pm
    Yes I have found it to be so O.G. But I retired at 55 as I did not want to do a job I did not like for any longer than I had to.
    I have a nice house, on a good plot of land and my wife and I enjoy a good holiday overseas whenever we fancy it.
    Not that hard to do, paid off our home 15 years ago and directed all of the money we would have paid on the mortgage into our Super Schemes, along with salary sacrificing we managed to rack up a tidy sum in Super.
    Will I deliberately spend all of my money so that I can get the Pension Entitlement, certainly not. But we won't do without anything in order to not access an entitlement that we have contributed to for over 40 years.
    Persistent calls to regulate Super Pensions in regard to lump sum withdrawals and passing on balances to our children give me no inducement to want to stretch my Super out.
    Isn't Super wonderful? Or it was until the pigs started to get dissatisfied with what was in their trough and thought a change of diet as in our Super was in order. If I can't control my own money without government interference, I will just spend it.
    Watto
    29th May 2017
    10:10pm
    Mick I agree with nearly all of your posts,but I get very angry when people tell me how my Superanuation should be distributed to me. I wont be able to buy a new car or build a new garage/shed to tinker in when I retire and for my wife and I to occasionaly do a bit of travelling [ as you apparently do ] if I didn't get my Super paid out this way. Your and taxpayers anger should be directed toward the foreigners namely Black Africans,Indians and Asians all strutting around the shopping centres and cities of Australia with 3,4 or5 kids in tow and pregnant with another all on welfare. My wife and I went to Melbourne for the first time in over thirty years and 60-70% of the CBD population was Asian or Indian all swanning around not working. Well I can hear all the left wing politically correct members of this forum shouting Racist well I don't give a sh.. I have worked all my life and I deserve my Pension and as for you Old Geezer with your " the persons home that they live in should be part of the assets test " you are an idiot , but then again most people here know that.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2017
    11:06pm
    Yes I'm an idiot as I was silly enough to fund my own retirement. Maybe I should buy a house worth many millions and go on welfare instead. That is why the house should be included in the assets test.

    To stop idiots like me drawing everything out of super and putting everything into a house and getting the kids to pay for the maintenance and expenses.

    Isn't super wonderful?
    KSS
    30th May 2017
    7:15am
    So the New Zealanders, British, Americans, Canadians, Irish, South Africans, Europeans, South Americans and others all "strutting around the shopping centres" are OK then Watto? Its just the Black Africans,Indians and Asians you object to?
    TREBOR
    30th May 2017
    10:27am
    Blacks just stand out more, I think, and some of them get bad press for the activities of the young ones around Malbun.
    Watto
    29th May 2017
    11:19pm
    No OG you really don't get my drift. I am referring to your ordinary person living in a normal average suburban house. According to you they would lose all or most of their pension. How are they supposed to live? Not everyone could afford to contribute lots of money to Super during their working life.

    Mick can you please tell me where you saw the info on the removal of lump sums in the future.

    30th May 2017
    5:36am
    Some will say that they have been paying taxes all their lives and deserve it. Rubbish, as a community we seek to ensure that those who cannot reasonably work do not starve on the streets, go cold or wet or are without access to information. wwwabc.com
    Triss
    30th May 2017
    9:22am
    We're not doing a great job there, are we?
    TREBOR
    30th May 2017
    10:31am
    You're way behind the argument, Wily - the argument that paying taxes all your life does not justify pension is flawed...

    Sick of producing this over and over:-

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de00296978!OpenDocument
    Charlie
    30th May 2017
    8:15am
    I think this is based on the theory that everyone will be adequately covered by their super. Not likely.

    Also that those who cant work because of health problems, will be covered by the disability Insurance Scheme. Another unproven scheme.

    When you have a population where many people are falling over before they reach the finish line, why put the finish line further away.
    Do they think that human health will have improved so much in one generation, that they can raise the pension age. More likely it will have declined due to obesity.

    I spent time on disability pension a decade before reaching age pension and it was in no way, a pre-retirement payment.
    My super was eroded by 1.The earnings from the interest on my savings, were penalized more heavily than an age pensioner. 2. My payments were reduced for having more than $70,000 in the bank, as an additional penalty.

    Why clutter up the system by messing with the pension age, there will be enough things that can go wrong. Leave the pension age alone and hope that people will not need the age pension because they are already adequately covered.

    If they are going to raise the pension age to 70 there has to be enough work to employ people to that age. That part of the system doesn't even look like getting off the ground.
    dingo1
    30th May 2017
    9:53am
    How the government can do this is beyond me as they can retire anytime with very good lifetime pensions. Yes 70 is the new 60 but a lot of people are both tired physically & mentally at 65 depending on the kind of work/life they have had. Arthritis is the worst that creeps up on you & working an extra 5 years would be very debilitating. If the pollies stopped lining their own pockets so much the country would be a lot healthier.
    dingo1
    30th May 2017
    9:53am
    How the government can do this is beyond me as they can retire anytime with very good lifetime pensions. Yes 70 is the new 60 but a lot of people are both tired physically & mentally at 65 depending on the kind of work/life they have had. Arthritis is the worst that creeps up on you & working an extra 5 years would be very debilitating. If the pollies stopped lining their own pockets so much the country would be a lot healthier.
    Triss
    30th May 2017
    11:14am
    Actually, Dingo1, it's way past time for the government to accept that the original government that made the rules about pollies' pensions and perks were on the same level as third world corruption.
    What separates a first world country from a third world country is the integrity of their institutions. Pollies' pensions and perks cannot be considered part of a first world country.
    Mimi
    30th May 2017
    11:41am
    In NSW workers over 65 are not fully covered by Workers' Compensation. Their benefits may be cased 12 months after a claim is made, and medical expenses are limited. If we have to work till 70 this needs to be urgently addressed, yet few people know about it. Also most people who have income-protection insurance will find that their policy expires at age 65. It is almost impossible to get a new policy, especially if you have any sort of medical condition.
    KB
    30th May 2017
    11:50am
    If you are fit and healthy and able to able to work in a job that you can do that is fine. There are many who will not be able to such as tradies and nurses. It is not feasible for all people to be able to work depending on health and family circumstances
    Mum
    30th May 2017
    11:53am
    I turned 70 last week. I had a renal transplant 17 months ago. Recently I began to do some casual teaching days, and was soon offered a regular part-time position. I really wanted to do it, but found it was too much healthwise. I'm still doing casual days, though. I'm pretty lucky that someone thinks I'm still useful.
    Mimi
    30th May 2017
    12:06pm
    Good on you! I doubt I'd want to go to work if I'd been through a renal transplant. I have renal disease and may be in your shoes one day. I hope all goes well for you.
    Rosret
    30th May 2017
    2:10pm
    You must be a very good teacher. Most schools shut the books on the older casuals.
    Rosret
    30th May 2017
    2:06pm
    Working til 70 keeps our young fit work force out of a job and denies them self reliance, responsibility and the opportunity to have all the wonderful things in life we have had.
    I am tired.
    Not all jobs are equally strenuous. Its easy to be a GP, an accountant, a lawyer etc. Try being a nurse, a teacher, a policeman, a builder etc.
    Try driving a car when the joints are failing and the eye sight is dimming. I really think the idea of working until 70 is a reflection on our poor attitude towards the elderly. If people want to work that long - great. But don't force it.
    Mimi
    30th May 2017
    2:26pm
    It's not that easy to be a GP. That is what I do. It's a very stressful job that gets worse as you get older and have any physical impairment. I have an injury that causes my arm to become painful and weak when typing or doing procedures, or driving, and I am struggling to do my job. I am in a lot of pain most days despite having a lot of treatment.You can't do this job without typing/using a computer. Also the amount of government interference in General Practice makes us feel it is hardly worthwhile continuing. I have to keep working for income, and I don't want to leave patients I have been treating for >35 years.
    Old Geezer
    30th May 2017
    3:14pm
    You don't have to work until 70 you can retire whenever you like. If you want the OAP you will have to wait until 70.
    Rosret
    30th May 2017
    7:00pm
    I hear you Mimi. There is a limit to our working age.
    Watto
    30th May 2017
    6:25pm
    What a smart arse patronising answer OG I thought my last answer would have penetrated between your ears.

    Mick Still waiting for your info re- Super Lump Sums being terminated

    KSS You cant see the woods for the trees can you ? We are being invaded without a shot being fired. I came out to Aust as a boy with my parents . My Dad was a tradesman and had a job to go to and was sponsored to come here. Now they are just coming over here legally or illegally and straight on to welfare. Yes WELFARE OG that's welfare the pension is NOT welfare and they are outbreeding the white people 5 to 1. in 50 years 90% of Australia's population will be coffee coloured.
    KSS
    31st May 2017
    8:32am
    So it is just the 'coloured people' you object to since you claim they are 'outbreeding the white people'. You must be an old white man!
    ex PS
    31st May 2017
    9:32am
    The sooner the average Australian is one shade of brown or another the better.
    I am white all of my ancestors are white, and I don't consider that this makes us any better than anyone else. Looking forward to the first coffee colored member of my family, if it happens I will be grateful to have a grandchild to spoil.
    Nan Norma
    31st May 2017
    11:15am
    ex PS Then there be less sun cancers to worry about. LOL
    ex PS
    31st May 2017
    3:31pm
    Yep, another + I did not think of.
    Watto
    31st May 2017
    6:24pm
    KSS Yes I am an old white man and proud of it. I treat everybody as I would wish to be treated and I don't care if they are black white or brindle. My point was that with all this whinging about paying the pension to citizens you conveniently ignore billions of taxpayers money being spent on these illegal immigrants and foreign aid on countries who don't even like us. Most of them are getting paid welfare that amounts to more than an Australian pensioner gets. But this is typical of you and your ilk you love multiculturism and would love to see Australia with open borders. The Chinese are buying realestate off the plans and I have heard that some sleezy estate agents even conduct auctions in Mandarin

    Hey ex PS you might get lucky and one of your kids might marry an Aborigine who has converted to Islam then the world will be your oyster think of all the taxpayers money they will get.
    Nan Norma
    31st May 2017
    7:12pm
    Please leave the aborigines out of it. Remember we were their invaders.
    ex PS
    1st Jun 2017
    11:16am
    I am guessing that your last comment was meant to be a negative one. All it did was to display your ignorance and inability to argue your own point in a sensible and reasonable manner.
    You stand convicted by your own comment.
    You may find that most immigrants don't like you, you probably also find that most Australian citizens that go back generations don't like you either. That would seem to be your problem, not theirs. Maybe you should consider changing your monica to what the FU$#@@@%%%?
    inextratime
    2nd Jun 2017
    11:57pm
    I wanted to work until 70 but my employer had other ideas. Could have taken them to court but it would have cost me more than I would have been awarded. Made it to 68 tho'.
    Jingles
    5th Jun 2017
    10:09am
    Worked until I was 74 and would have gone on for longer but had to give up to look after my unwell husband. I really enjoyed my job and felt that I was still able to keep up with the younger ones, some of who do not seem to have the same work ethics that the older generation have. I was sad to leave and did not benefit money wise after declaring my earnings to Centrelink.
    PlanB
    21st Jan 2019
    7:55am
    NO! you need some time to enjoy life and work in your home and garden and doing full-time work and looking after a home is too much at the age of 70 BUT if those that do want to work they should be able to.
    Anistasia
    24th Jan 2019
    2:49pm
    I retired in 2011, I was 70 years, but I was a Government employee and with the restructuring of the department, I was offered a retirement plan. I would be still be working as I loved what I did. To fill in my time I decided to do volunteer work which is great and very rewarding. If you can work until then why not. Those in the building, bricklaying and other high stress areas, I feel they should have the right to retire earlier because of the type of work they do. Sitting in an office (as I was) is so much easier than manual labour. Everyone should have a choice to either stay or retire, there is so much knowledge lost and if you choose to stay then you should be able to have a pension and your salary as well, as they do in NZ, Canada and other European countries. You will be paying taxes, so you will be contributing to the tax system.
    nan
    24th Jan 2019
    6:46pm
    It is not about working till you are 70. Many people can't get a job at 50. Its about not giving you an age pension. Put you one un-employment pay instead. Much cheaper.
    Blinky
    27th Jan 2019
    5:39pm
    Jaid. Working beyond the current age pension should be optional, not not mandatory. So, if you are old, sick and tired and have decided to pull the plug come pension age and you now want to enjoy your golden years DO IT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. If you want to keep on working till you drop dead, go x it, good luck to you!
    Eaglet
    27th Jan 2019
    6:24pm
    NO,NO definitely not. For those who still feel they are capable and want to work, do so by all means but for many, many others it's a no brainer. Especially those who had physically demanding work, that in younger years was no big deal, but they are the minority. Part time work should be made more readily available and then we have volunteer work, that can be performed to one's ability. The latter is a godsend to the community. We may be living longer but we are not stronger, healthier, more mentally alert at 70, most of us. So NO,NO definitely no extension.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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