20th Jul 2018
Key voices tell why we should work until 70 – or not
Author: Olga Galacho
Why we should work until 70 – or not

In Federal Budget 2014, the Government stated that it intended to push out the Age Pension eligibility age from 65 to 70 years. This so-called ‘zombie’ legislation is still on the books. YourLifeChoices asked some of the most influential voices in the public conversation to explain their positions on this proposed policy. This is what they said.

Dan Tehan, Minister for Social Services
The Age Pension has the most generous indexation arrangements and is paid at the highest fortnightly rate of income support payments in the Australian social security system.

Since the Coalition was elected, pensions have increased by around $100 per fortnight for singles and $150 per fortnight for couples. The Australian Government spends $45 billion each year on the Age Pension.

When the Age Pension was introduced over a century ago, the pension age was set 10 years above the average male life expectancy of 55 years. It is now more than 15 years below our more than 80 years’ life expectancy.

In 1975, seven working Australians supported each Australian retiree. This has fallen to five working Australians today. In 2055, this will drop to three working Australians.

The simple fact is, Australians are living longer and we need to ensure that Australia’s social security system remains sustainable for future generations.


Elayne Grace, chief executive, Actuaries Institute, Australia
As average life expectancies continue to increase, it is inevitable that the eligibility ages for government-funded pensions will come under pressure. To keep the cost of these taxpayer-funded pensions relatively constant as a percentage of gross domestic product, and affordable over time, the future eligibility age should be linked to life expectancies.

As an example, for every year increase in life expectancy, there should be a proportional increase in pension age. This link is already happening in some European countries. It occurs automatically, with appropriate transition arrangements and plenty of early warning.

An important aspect of gradually raising the pension age is that it changes the mindset and expectations of our community. But we need to do it in a sensible and compassionate way with no sudden increase.

We must also recognise the need for appropriate income support for those whose bodies are ‘worn out’ because not everyone will make the stipulated age in good health. However, this issue arises whatever the age, whether it is 65, 67 or 70. Will this simply push more retirees onto disability pensions for a year or two before they transition to the Age Pension? This could mean that higher disability pension costs will partially offset the reduced Age Pension costs.

There are some critical questions to consider. How willing are employers to employ a 66-year-old (for four years to age 70) either on a part or full-time basis and if they are, will it be at the expense of younger workers?

Emma Dawson, executive director, Per Capita
Obviously, lifting the pension age to 70 brings economic savings to the Government. At the same time, keeping experienced older workers in the labour force can increase productivity and support economic growth.

For citizens, however, retiring at 70 would bring significant problems.

It’s true that, for many people, continuing to work beyond the traditional retirement age of 65 brings real benefits. Many older people wish to stay engaged and active at work, although work for this group may need to look a little different, with part-time and flexible positions essential possibilities.

We must also recognise that working into an eighth decade is not possible for some people. Those employed in jobs requiring a high degree of manual or physical labour often find the demands of the job become too much as they get older. Working until 70 simply isn’t an option for them, and changing to a new occupation can be notoriously difficult for older people.

At the same time, older people face significant barriers to workforce participation, including ageism and health issues.

Through our research and social innovation work at the Centre for Applied Policy in Positive Ageing, we know that a worker made redundant in his or her 50s or 60s finds it much harder to re-enter the workforce.

Many such citizens are already struggling to survive on Newstart while they wait to reach the retirement age and access the Age Pension. Lifting the pension age to 70 will add five more years to the wait for such citizens and drastically increase the likelihood they will enter retirement in poverty.

Those able to do so will be forced to significantly deplete their superannuation savings while waiting to access a part-pension, meaning there will likely be more full-rate pensioners at 70 as a result.

While supporting older people to continue to work when they are willing and able to do so is an important policy goal, enforcing a mandatory pension age of 70 is neither fair nor reasonable for all Australians.

John Daley, chief executive, Grattan Institute
We estimate that increasing the pension age by three years to age 70, and lifting the preservation age to 70, would increase total workplace participation rates by an additional 1.4 per cent, increasing economic growth by around $25 billion.

Obviously, reforms would need to be designed to ensure that those over 55 who cannot work due to disability are able to access a pension equivalent to the Age Pension and have unfettered access to their superannuation.

Increasing the workforce participation rate of older people would mean that Australia’s GDP would be about $25 billion higher by 2022. The key policy change is to increase the ages at which people become eligible for the Age Pension and eligible to access their superannuation.

In 2017, the pension age increased to 65.5, and continues to increase by six months every two years until, in 2023, it reaches 67.

These changes are in the right direction, but they missed an opportunity for much more substantial reform, and by setting long-term timetables for change, may have made future change more difficult.

(Under) the current regime, people can retire at any age after 55 and live on their superannuation and savings until they qualify for the Age Pension. A later pension age would effectively encourage many to work for longer, even if they formally retire before the pension age.

Scott Connolly, assistant secretary, ACTU
Increasing the pension age is yet another example of the rules being broken for working people and the Turnbull Government being out of touch.

At a time when working people are struggling against near-record low wage growth and are already being forced to work longer hours for less pay, the Turnbull Government proposes to force people to work until they’re 70.

A dignified retirement is a goal that is slipping away from more working people as they face stolen wages and superannuation, and a persistent gender pay-gap which is compounded in retirement. Women on average retire with 47 per cent of the balance of men, and this causes huge numbers of women to retire into poverty.

The reality is that despite wages flat-lining, corporate profit growth is incredibly strong. We need to share the wealth that is being created by Australian workers, not force them to work longer to prop up the absurd salaries being handed out to the top end of town.

More money and power in the hands of working people would mean better pay and conditions, more money being spent in Australian businesses and a stronger economy. It would mean that Australian workers would be able to enjoy a dignified retirement, which was the promise of the superannuation system at its inception.

In America, people in their 70s work in hospitality and retail, rather than enjoy their retirement. We will not accept the further Americanisation of our industrial landscape, and we will not accept working people shouldering an unfair burden when the big banks and multinational corporations are being given an $80 billion tax cut.

What is your view on making 70 the official retirement age? Does it leave too little time to enjoy retirement in good health?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Concerned
    22nd Jul 2018
    9:22am
    It is not about raising a low and it is low pension to 70. It is about redistribution of wages, removing tax dodges from those wealthy enough already. It is about getting rid of ageism. This debate is another sideline of an incompetent economic management over the last five tears
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2018
    9:52am
    The comments from the usual rats are what they are and the government and Grattan Institute (government contributor) paint the lie well without acknowledging the reality that ordinary Australians are under attack by the top 10% of income earners who are helping themselves to the national wealth whilst retirees and ordinary Australians are being done over.
    This will be the legacy of the Turnbull and Abbott governments: the messengers from the top end of town sent to destitute citizens so that the top can pay next to no tax and live like kings. This is happening NOW.

    The politics I see in our country makes me feel ashamed with ordinary people being farmed and herded like sheep with little understanding that much of what they hear and read in the media is contrived to get them to vote in coalition governments.....which have one purpose in life: to transfer the national wealth to the top end. This they are now doing with their media outlets writing the script.
    If this government is returned to office then the real poison is yet to come. Food for thought.
    Cowboy Jim
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:26am
    A lot of what Mick says is absolutely true. I have a fear of the other lot only because I dread having to see the country swamped with overactive under-achievers like in Melbourne and Sydney. A fact is that most of the boat arrivals come from Muslim countries and Labor/Greens for some reason think that is a good thing for Australia, other than that the ALP would suit us oldies better. As I said before - I was all for Hawke, Keating and Co, just do not like the current mob. That does not mean I like the Govt.
    musicveg
    22nd Jul 2018
    6:42pm
    I would not worry about a few boat people Cowboy Jim, I am more concerned with the 200,000 LEGAL immigrants that buy their way into the country. Maybe time to look at any other parties than the 3 major ones.
    Suze
    24th Jul 2018
    10:26am
    musicveg
    I am concerned that the people who govern us do not have to be born in Australia and with the thousands of immigrants we have coming, how long is it going to be before we are governed by them ?
    Rae
    26th Jul 2018
    12:55pm
    Already happening Suze. That was why so many by elections have been happening. It appears the Parliament is full of foreign nationals and even when the Constitution kicks them out they don't go to goal as they should have.

    Look at the damage Hockey did to our retirements. Even he is a ring in. How can they care about Australians. This is why the Constitution has section 44 and the second part is about treason and it's time it was used.
    Triss
    26th Jul 2018
    1:25pm
    Yes, Rae, but Hockey didn’t damage his own pension which he accessed at 50 not 70, whilst, at the same time, drawing about $360,000 salary. You would think that was enough for anyone but the last 6 months of last year he charged the taxpayers $70,000 for parties and for child minders.
    Rae
    27th Jul 2018
    8:06am
    Pity we couldn't tell him we can't afford that but will see you right in retirement and then betray him.
    David
    22nd Jul 2018
    9:32am
    I'm glad I retired at 55.
    TREBOR
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:42am
    I retired at 51with disability - not retired well or rich and quite ill but needing to be hit with an axe to slow me down - still tried to get a gig in Afghanistan, but nobody wanted to hear..... I don't need to walk them hills to be of some use....

    I'm much better now..... be advised ye Sassenach out there...
    patti
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:42am
    David, how fortunate for you that this was possible. For so many it is not
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    1:28pm
    You gotta spare lobster around somewhere?
    David
    23rd Jul 2018
    4:08pm
    Haha Trebor. Plenty to share with you mate.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    7:45pm
    Thankee, squire... a fine lobster would be nice. When I get my next boat I'll get some traps..... then show me that horizon!!
    Suze
    24th Jul 2018
    10:29am
    Must be going blind ...always thought David was eating a watermelon LOL
    thanks for bringing it to my attention Trebor :)
    David
    25th Jul 2018
    3:06pm
    Haha Suze.
    Looks like I might have to invite you as well at Trebor to a lobster dinner with maybe watermelon for dessert. LOL
    Jen
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:26am
    Is this govt plan to push the pension age to 70 going to affect those of us who have already had the pension aged changed, or will it be for those younger than us only? At the moment I will not be able to access the age pension until I am 67 (for all those born between 1960 and 1962). It is difficult to plan unless I know that will stay the same for me, and that the proposed change only effects those born after 1962. Otherwise, it feels like I am chasing a constantly moving target, and that with future changes I will never actually be allowed to retire!
    Cowboy Jim
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:49am
    You better get used to changes, they will be with us forever. Things changed when super was introduced in the 80s. Those with well paid and secure jobs could amass quite a nest egg and could be reasonably assured of a comfortable life after 65. The ones like me in the hospitality industry looked forward to the age pension. Now, whenever you think you might be on top of things, the Government changes the rules. Too late now to put your money under the bed as Malcolm Fraser once suggested (same bloke who lost his pants in the USA).
    Star Trekker
    22nd Jul 2018
    11:01am
    If the govt. continues to rise the pension age at the same rate it will be 70 in 2035.
    I have had my retirement age changed twice. The first from 60 to 65 and the second from 65 to 67. If this new one comes in, it will be another change from 67 to 67.5.
    There is no way I'll be able to work even part-time until then due to my body breaking down. I have lost 3 discs in my neck, 1 in my lumber spine and recently a knee replacement. I am a full-time carer for my husband and 2 disabled adult children. I would love to be on the rates that they pay hospital staff as I would no longer be in poverty. I am saving the govt. a ton of money.
    Moo
    22nd Jul 2018
    11:26am
    @Jen - I was born in 1962 and if the increase in the pension age goes ahead I won't be eligible until I am 68 and a half - it increases by 6 months of age every two years. I'll try and post a table...

    Commencement date Age Pension age Affects people born

    From 1 July 2025 67.5 years From 1 July 1958 to 31 December 1959
    From 1 July 2027 68 years From 1 January 1960 to 30 June 1961
    From 1 July 2029 68.5 years From 1 July 1961 to 31 December 1962
    From 1 July 2031 69 years From 1 January 1963 to 30 June 1964
    From 1 July 2033 69.5 years From 1 July 1964 to 30 December 1965
    From 1 July 2035 70 years From 1 January 1966 onwards
    leek
    22nd Jul 2018
    6:39pm
    @moo- where did you get that table from for the aged pension? is that what the government wants to bring in?. I just turned 60 in this last week and according to current tables I am OAp at 67.
    But your table has me at 67.5
    sunnyOz
    22nd Jul 2018
    11:48pm
    leek - post from Moo is deceiving as this has NOT yet been passed by Parliament.
    have a look at this page.....

    https://www.humanservices.gov.au/organisations/about-us/budget/budget-2014-15/budget-measures/older-australians/increase-age-pension-qualifying-age-70-years

    If they DO pass this, then yes, bugger it, you will have to wait another 6 months, and all because you were born a few weeks too late. Thank GOD I have just reached my Aged Pension age!
    Rae
    27th Jul 2018
    8:09am
    Good luck getting it though as I believe they are taking up to 8 months to process the paperwork for the aged pension so don't spend your savings all at once.

    People are being forced to sell up because of it if they run out of money within the time period.
    tisme
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:30am
    does working till 70 include politicians who currently evidently can retire at 60
    Fliss
    22nd Jul 2018
    11:34am
    Haha!
    maxchugg
    22nd Jul 2018
    3:29pm
    What do you mean, politicians "currently evidently can retire at 60"?
    Have you forgotten Joe - you know, the Joe who told us that the age of entitlement was over, that we had to be lifters, not leaners, and pushed for the age of retirement to be lifted to 70"?
    This "honorable" gentleman retired at the age of 52 and took a plum job in the United States on a reported salary of $350,000 plus only half of his pension entitlement, giving him another $90,000 a year.
    There are a few perks in his job too, such as a rent free mansion, free transport, domestic staff and who knows what else? Obviously free grog also, he is reported to have spent $70,000 on food and alcohol in 6 months.
    No doubt it would be difficult to remove the outrageous perks that flow to ambassadors on equally outrageous salaries, but a good starting point would be to apply the same rules to politicians that apply to everyone else. Parliamentary pensions, for example, should not be available until the politicians reach the age of retirement, so if the rest of us wait until we are 70, the politicians also wait until the same age before their entitlement commences.
    In the case of Joe, assume he left parliament at age 52 and then joined the workforce and remained there until age 70, and assuming an inflation rate of 2.5% per annum, he would save the taxpayers over $4 million. Then we would respect his sincerity about us needing to be lifters, not leaners, that the age of entitlement was really over.
    Finally, conservatively value Joe's perks at $100,000 and his annual entitlement is approximately equal to what 15 couples on the age pension would receive.
    But let's be fair, Joe did have to work for 20 years to obtain these benefits!
    HS
    22nd Jul 2018
    4:00pm
    Well stated,maxchugg-

    The only "Emergency" that existed when he was the Treasurer was when he ran out of Cuban Cohiba Behike cigars! ($18,000 per box).
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:49pm
    A good start would be a total ban on appointing old party hacks as our ambassadors and such. Absolutely no reason for anyone whose already had the sweet ride in politics to be handed yet another nice little earner for life along with excellent extra 'super'.

    Short-term casual appointees have no entitlements to never-ending payouts for their work once it is finished - their remuneration already re3flects that, so to give them more and more as some 'entitlement' is totally anathema in this day and age of the part-time casual contractees they've created out of the workforce - of which they are part as our employees.

    Therefore it is germane that we decided if they are entitled to any extra sweetener for life.... not their mates.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:50pm
    dang - that's 'who's' as in who has.... I blame spell-check.... traitor...
    maxchugg
    26th Jul 2018
    11:02am
    Rort No. 1 has been raised. Politicians should not be able to draw their pensions until they reach the prescribed age for eligibility of a Centrelink age pension which applies to everyone else
    Rort No 2, politicians should be subjected to the same rules as everyone else.
    Having had a go at a fat cat from the Libs, equal treatment should be given to the other side, which is no better.
    A MP's husband goes to jail for nine years for drug dealing, is released after serving three years, and is now the head of a government department where all others employed under his control would be ineligible for appointment if they had any criminal record. I work part time as a volunteer in a charity but needed a police check before I could take up this position.
    How could this person have been the best applicant for a highly paid position which, when advertised - if it was - would have drawn a large number of applications from numerous people with high qualifications and no criminal record?
    musicveg
    26th Jul 2018
    1:27pm
    So right maxchugg, and that MP you are talking about, must have friends in the right places. I am sick of hearing how some people get away with so much especially when you have the money to pay lawyers. An ex-drug dealer in a high position, how can this happen?
    KSS
    26th Jul 2018
    1:39pm
    There is NO RETIREMENT age in Australia - except for Judges who must go at 70 and the clergy also at 70. A few professions may also have their own 'rules e.g. pilots. For the rest of us there is no retirement age. People can 'retire' when ever they want or indeed never work a day in their life - if they have the funds to do so.

    Don't confuse it with being old enough to be eligible to claim the age pension.

    And just for the record maxcgugg, politicians cannot draw their pensions until they reach the preservation age - just like the rest of us. This was changed courtesy of John Howard in 2001:

    "Senators and Members who joined Parliament on or after the 2001 election and become eligible for a retiring allowance have the benefit deferred until they reach 55 years of age, or until they reach their deferring day, commonly called 'preservation age'.

    https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/1011/superannuationbenefits
    maxchugg
    27th Jul 2018
    11:44pm
    KSS, I am confident that it was apparent when I was commenting about an age for retirement I was referring to the age an Australian must reach before becoming eligible for Centrelink benefits subject, of course, to a means test.

    I am aware of the preservation age which was adjusted by John Howard, but this does little to remedy the huge disparity between the pension entitlements of retiring MPs and those of others who still rely upon Centrelink benefits.

    Currently a pensioner couple receive around $32385 from Centrelink each year. Joe's pension entitlement is reported to be $180,000 which is not subjected to a means test, so it is up to him whether or not he continues to collect his full pension while he collects an additional annual income of $350,000 plus perks. An ordinary Australian would lose all pension entitlements if they were in receipt of around $50,000 p.a.

    For the sake of argument, assume that the worst case position has been reached for MPs and they now have to wait until age 60 before accessing their benefits, and both Joe and a pensioner both live until they are 75.

    Joe will collect his $180,000 a year for 15 years, giving him a gross income of $2,700,000 less tax for the 15 year period in which he collects his pension.

    A pensioner couple will collect $32,385 a year, giving them a gross income of $323,850 for the period in which they collect their pension.

    Finally much is being made of the fact that with the current low interest rates it I possible for a pensioner to have liquid assets of around $1,000,000 and still receive a pension, a situation that will change rapidly if interest rates rise. But a MP can have unlimited liquid assets without any impact upon his/her pension entitlements.
    musicveg
    28th Jul 2018
    12:09am
    And Maxchugg this is what is wrong with this country (and most likely many other countries) politicians are just plain greedy and paid way too much, and they are the ones always saying we have too bigger debt and have to take it from the most vulnerable people, we all cannot be rich and/or self funded retirees, it just does not work like that, but why is it that everyday workers who work their guts out are valued less than pen pushers? When you put the figures like that it really shows how greedy they are and how much they do not need a lifetime pension.
    maxchugg
    29th Jul 2018
    1:12pm
    Musicveg, I tend to agree with you, but I expect that you aren't going to be happy with what I wish to add to my previous comments.

    I do not agree that politicians are paid too much because comparison allow no other conclusion. A list of the top salaries paid to CEOs shows one at $25.7 million, then $21 million, $18 million and $14 million. The Prime Minister's salary is listed at $528,000.

    In reality we should increase the salaries of politicians but remove many of the numerous lurks and perks they enjoy. In particular there should be a strict limit on how many consultants employed at astronomical cost. On the other side of the ledger there should be some form of control over the salaries of the CEOs. A good first start would be for the ATO to disallow as expenses any salaries that exceed a specified sum, possibly $2 million.

    Finally, I would not claim that the figures I have presented previously are totally accurate, they are the best that I was able to discover by searching the internet, but I am confident that they are conservative.
    musicveg
    29th Jul 2018
    1:30pm
    Well like you said it is all the free stuff that get that is making it easy for them just to bank all their wages and I agree that the consultants are often paid too much.
    I have always thought CEO's are paid ridiculous amounts of money compared to the companies workers. One reason I choose not to use Amazon is because Jeff Bezo makes more money in less than 9 seconds that his median workers make in a year!! he keeps them underpaid and working to ridiculous time restrains, near slave labour, while he spends his money playing with big toys like rockets. Disgusting. The least they can do is pay their workers above the minimum wage when they make so much money. And he get's treated like royalty and everyone worships him because of his success.

    http://time.com/money/5262923/amazon-employee-median-salary-jeff-bezos/
    maxchugg
    30th Jul 2018
    10:35am
    Musicveg, I agree on principle, and it is in the interests of nobody that the current conduct of a large number of CEOs and the like is not brought under better control. The negative effects of doing nothing are now apparent, with the rise of left wing, socialist policies which may be appealing in theory, but in practice we have seen how they fared in Russia as well as other countries behind the "iron curtain."

    Entrepreneurs, with a small number of exceptions are generally a mixture of talent, ruthlessness and greed but they also behave like spoiled children and, like spoiled children, they need to be controlled by:

    1. Introduction of a new tax scale where perhaps incomes of more than $1 million attract a tax rate of 75% or more.

    2. Disallow claims of all amounts exceeding $1 million paid to individuals as business expenses, causing these to reduce gross profits and not affect taxable income.
    Hoohoo
    31st Jul 2018
    7:24pm
    maxchugg, you're drawing a very long bow when you conflate social justice with Russia & the Iron Curtain.

    Do you really think the present Govt would agree to charge anyone a 75% tax rate?

    As I said earlier, these people organise their affairs so they pay very little tax, if any. They use silent partners, Family Trusts, multiple corporations to transfer debt & tax, so that nothing's left for the ATO to collect.

    These people have meetings with the ATO where they negotiate what tax they are prepared to pay. Imagine it! The rest of us must pay our PAYG & BAS/GST on time or we are immediately fined. We live on a different planet entirely.

    And your second point, to "Disallow claims of all amounts exceeding $1 million paid to individuals as business expenses, causing these to reduce gross profits and not affect taxable income." is a farce, too. They'll just keep their expenses under $1million & spread any excess to a family member or other business associate who will also have a $1million limit. THEY ARE TAX DODGERS, so the % rate of tax they are supposed to pay means nothing.

    Some years ago, when I told such a person what amount of tax I was paying, he replied "You have the wrong Accountant."
    maxchugg
    1st Aug 2018
    11:40am
    Hoohoo, do you wish to argue that socialism did well in Russia, and was popular? Do you think the Russians would welcome, or even allow, its return?

    And do I think that any government would charge a 75% tax rate? Not a chance, which is why there is no end in sight to the problem.

    With my second point I was not quite clear. I simply meant that if any business paid an employee more than a fixed amount, say $1 million, the most that could be claimed by the company as a business expense, would be $1 million.

    As for your point about accountants, I would like to believe that the government would have the ability to persuade the IPA, CPA and ICAA organizations to apply pressure on their members to put an end to unethical tax minimization schemes if it chose to do so.

    One obvious starting point would be to prepare new tax legislation because that which exists is antiquated and simply riddled with loopholes which clever accountants are able to exploit with ease.
    Cowboy Jim
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:35am
    In my area we do have a lot of elderly people who could possibly work a lot longer and for some reason do not seem to be able to retire. They are running around volunteering virtually for everything going and are encouraged by community groups. On the flip side we have all these younger people no one wants to employ. So we pay the oldies a pension and the young ones the dole. Makes no sense to me. In most countries the oldies deserve the pension at 65 and the young should be encouraged to work. If you do not work for a while when young you might just never want to start.
    TREBOR
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:46am
    Yep - know that one - I always say that I'd still be working if I could just get a gig... at 69 I'm only a boy in adult clothing.... and I do not envy the young these days with the current 'low unemployment rate' BS doing the rounds...

    If a two hour job at Macca's is a job for the week - no wonder they are opting out whenever they can... but the social cost is astronomical... and will be more so in the future when this nation calls upon those young people to stand up for it....

    As for the oldies - think of all that accumulated wisdom going down the toilets...
    maxchugg
    23rd Jul 2018
    2:37pm
    There's a clear choice here - we either pay age pensions to those over 65 or we pay unemployment benefits to those who would have taken up the jobs left vacant by the retirees.
    Option 1 would appear to be the best choice. It encourages the young to develop a work ethic, hopefully it will open the way for them to purchase their own homes, thereby reducing the demand for public housing now, and will reduce the future welfare bill by superannuation benefits becoming available after the new workers reach retirement age..
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:51pm
    Too much sense there for the political mind, max - they'll suffer burn-out trying to get their heads around that sensible solution.
    TREBOR
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:36am
    There are influential voices on both sides of this fence?

    There is only one voice - those directly affected by this Fascist insanity.... and I can assure you it will never be any of those 'influential voices' who will be riding the magic carpet to retirement in luxury.

    Someone should force them to eat cake for a change.... see what it's really like...
    patti
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:41am
    I was willing and able to work until 70 if need be. But who would employ me? I was made redundant at the age of 57. and never had a proper job after that. I helped a hairdresser in a retirement village two days a week, and got $40 cash in hand a day. Also washed tea towels for a surf club. Peanuts, but I needed the extra. If we are to work until we are 70, the prevalence of ageism needs addressing. I have a Social Work degree, and was not able to access work in my field after redundancy, despite applying for many jobs.
    musicveg
    22nd Jul 2018
    6:50pm
    The Government must know it is near impossible for some people to get work after 50 but they are giving 'incentives' to businesses who employ this age group, I wonder how many will be sacked not long after. They also know they will save a lot of money by putting more age pensioners on Newstart instead and having to do 'voluntary' work to keep it. Win win for who?
    sunnyOz
    23rd Jul 2018
    12:09am
    Totally agree patti - ageism in employers is absolutely rampant. My contract job was finished at age 64.5 - couldn't claim Pension until 65.5. Try and get a job now? - utterly impossible. I have applied for over 245 jobs, had a few interviews, but the minute I walk in for an interview, you can tell by the look on their faces that it is a waste of time. I even had one interviewer say to me that I had deceived them because I had not told them my age! (when I legally do not have to).
    Nearly every job you apply for through an Agency, they want your DOB before they will even deal with you. Don't hear from them.
    I had to go on Newstart for some months, meaning I had to draw on my super to survive. So this decreased my super for later, so instead of getting a part pension, now get a full pension. I agree with Emma Dawson (above comment) - with more seniors forced on to Newstart, and having to use their super before being eligible for Aged Pension, this will only deplete their super, making them more in need of full Pension. Some saving for the govt!
    Rae
    23rd Jul 2018
    8:56am
    Yes I agree patti and if business won't employ those over 55 then the Government should if they bring in a 70 age pension.

    Newstart is designed to make people live in poverty. Older redundant workers deserve better than years of surviving on it while eating up their superannuation.

    Workers who have spent decades making money for businesses deserve at least a holiday or trip around Australia or some hobby they have look forward to and this will deny them even that.

    Why does the LNP hate ordinary workers so much? It's quite pathetic.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    1:40pm
    Indeed, summeroz - you point out a clear failing in the superannuation/pension system which our politicians seem to wish not to confront - the more superannuation (and assets) a person is forced to run down before receiving due pension, the less they will have in full retirement and thus the greater need for more pension.

    You really have to wonder what they and their economic advisors actually use for knowledge, understanding and common sense in their endless and mindless pursuit for a 'lower bottom line' at every turn.

    No wonder they are all rightly called bottom liners...

    Rae - you and I both know that goverment lies about its 'need' to reduce the public service, while effectively often doubling its outgoing on handing lucrative 'consultation' spots to its old mates in 'business'.

    That is the depth to which government and governance in this nation have fall over the past forty or fifty years in their pursuit of economic and social 'rationalism', and there is now zero integrity in it - nothing but the endless pursuit of some pie-in-the-sky ideology and some equally mythical 'bottom line', and some equally not-so-mythical opportunity for self-enrichment at the expense of the taxpayer..
    Rae
    24th Jul 2018
    8:34am
    TREBOR from what I've been able to research you are right. Credlin decimated the experienced public service and many young Liberal and IPA appointments were made. Contractors are costing a packet and the IPA has infiltrated all the departments and organisations where decisions are being made.

    It's a main reason many decisions are ideological instead of logical.

    We are a sovereign money creating country so paying welfare in Australia is not going to cause a Government default ever.
    Old grey
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:43am
    Left my last full time job when I was 62 (managed out), took a month holiday then started applying for work. When I went for interviews (few and far between though I made sure all positions I applied for I was qualified for and could demonstrate could do), it was made apparent to me that I was too old, didn't understand the "new" technologies (computer programs etc I'd used for years), and the looks I got that an "old" grey haired person thought they were capable. Getting a new job after the age of 55 can be very difficult, and after 60?????? This then means that unscrupulous employers can dictate terms and conditions to anyone over that age, and the government's feeble attempt, offering up to $10,000 for someone to employ a "senior citizen" simply means that when the grant is gone so is the job.

    Pity they can't do something more imaginative, rather than just help out their mates.
    musicveg
    22nd Jul 2018
    6:52pm
    I should have read your post before I replied to Patti above, yes I thought the same thing about the 'incentives'.
    sunnyOz
    23rd Jul 2018
    12:17am
    Old grey - totally agree. Been in your situations plenty of times (regarding interviews). Looks and age come well before experience, ability and reliability. Like you, the looks on interviwers faces is almost comical....
    As for the $10,000 grant? - has proved to be a monumental failure. I read recently it had been taken up by only 1700 employers in 4 years. And the criteria for the grant are far too strict - have to be on Centrelink payments for a minimum of 12 months, etc.
    And the ridiculous so called Work Bonus is most definitely NOT an incentive to stay working. Can earn $250 a fortnight before pension is reduced? That would be 5 hours a week! Any job - you get the pension reduced by the wage you earn, then your wage and pension is taxed. I recently did a casual job for a few weeks, and was effectively working for $12.65 an hour. Some incentive, even if you could find an employer to take you on.
    Rae
    23rd Jul 2018
    9:00am
    A major problem is the insurance hasn't been dealt with by the Government. You cannot get insurance for work injury etc after the age of 65. It's a huge risk for employers and employees.

    Another example of the latest incompetence from the Ministers responsible.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    7:49pm
    Bet the 'management was 32, Old grey - and then you need to look at their ages instead of their IQs....
    TREBOR
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:47am
    "John Daley, chief executive, Grattan Institute
    We estimate that increasing the pension age by three years to age 70, and lifting the preservation age to 70, would increase total workplace participation rates by an additional 1.4 per cent, increasing economic growth by around $25 billion."

    Nearly fell off my chair lau8ghing at this idiotic statement.... what world do this lot live in?
    Cowboy Jim
    22nd Jul 2018
    11:04am
    The Preservation Age lift is the real threat. So you have your super but cannot access it till 70. A REAL encouragement for the young to put in extra in super. Daley also never thinks about the people who never even make it to 70. My brother-in-law just died at 69 and Daley most probably would like to stand his coffin in the factory corner for another year just to do his 70 years. Grattan Institute utterings should be ignored in future.
    TREBOR
    22nd Jul 2018
    11:08am
    I did noticed that little kicker, Jim - it seems the powers-that-would-like to-be are including all retirees except themselves...

    Been saying for years it's time to put the lot into orbit without a capsule...
    Rae
    23rd Jul 2018
    9:08am
    I wouldn't mind John Daley's job. I'm sure I could come up with inane percentages that were meaningless and ideas that would ruin people's lives. Then again I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I were that much of a bastard. A preservation age of 70. Just gives them longer to rip our savings off. That would be the only 1.4% rise.

    For 40 years the only group contributing more to GDP has been ordinary PAYG workers.

    Maybe it's time for the rest to lift their game and take some of the weight.
    Old Geezer
    25th Jul 2018
    4:07pm
    Problem is if they lift the preservation age to the pension age is that they will have to pay many a disability pension instead. If they leave the preservation age at 60 then people can live on their super until age 70 instead of buying the expensive 4WD and top notch caravan.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    25th Jul 2018
    7:47pm
    Heaven forbid that the taxpayer might have to treat workers work themselves into disability with respect! Can't have that. Have to steal everything they worked for and grind them into poverty so the greedy OGs of this world can keep gloating and sneering.
    Rae
    26th Jul 2018
    1:02pm
    Yes OG buying a top notch car and caravan just isn't possible any longer for the retiree. It is sad to see a decent and prosperous country brought down by incompetent government and foreign carpetbaggers but we have so no more caravans or SUVs for retirees. They should have gone into debt and bought them young, drove all over and gone bankrupt. That's a far better away now. Just hand it back after that grand trip around haha.

    Alan Bond was the master of using bank and other people's money to live the high life. The trick is never to actually own anything in your own name.
    musicveg
    26th Jul 2018
    1:24pm
    The caravan and RV industry is one of the fastest growing in Australia, people are selling up their homes buying the caravan and living on a pension or super, leaving the kids nothing.
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Jul 2018
    5:17pm
    Old Geezer - what about taking the money at preservation age of 60, buy that 4WD you mentioned, live the life of Riley and then at 70 get the full pension, a better plan than just use the dough to struggle thru to 70 and hoping to have money left over and then get hit over the head by the Govt because you still got some savings?
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Jul 2018
    5:20pm
    @musicveg - leaving the kids the caravan is not nothing. Kids can make their own money like most of us had to. At least when you sell your place it cannot be asset tested in the future like some clowns on this forum are advocating. Leave enough for someone to bury you.
    Therese
    22nd Jul 2018
    10:57am
    Did you all notice. There is not one comment from the writers about all the money that is paid into Superfund during the work life. The goverment does not have to support for those people who paid during the work life. Some will be self funded retirees and others like me will be partial self funded retirees. The national obligatory superfund started in 1992. Now when a young person comes into worklife and works till 67 the government does not have to support that person on a full pension. This is never discussed and I am absolutely annoyed with this incorrect arguments we hear from those professionals who are right now in the work force and pay into a superfund. When are they take this money into their equation and also the government. The government should not borrow money overseas instead borrow from the superfund only and pay a certain interest rate. Onother way how to save those costly borrowing from overseas.
    Cowboy Jim
    22nd Jul 2018
    11:06am
    Would you lend your money to this Government and trust you'll get it back?
    Rae
    26th Jul 2018
    1:05pm
    These professionals earn in the top 10% and sit on their butts all day when not enjoying lunches, dinners and travels for work conferences. They have no idea of how the bottom 60% are going.
    Therese
    22nd Jul 2018
    11:54am
    Cowbow Jim. Would you trust the banks only? It has to be enshrined in the constitution to make sure the Government of the day has to pay back.
    jackie
    22nd Jul 2018
    12:00pm
    I am still working and struggling very hard to do so.....I am definitely retiring next year. Ordinary working humans that use public transport during peak hours to rush to work, cook and clean after themselves feel their age in their sixties as well as all the aches and pains too. It is very cruel to make people work till they are 70. I advise all younger Australians to stop paying taxes if this Government wants to turn Australia into a developing nation and invest their savings themselves like they do in developing nations. Most of our public assets have been sold of or privatised so this Government has nothing left to Govern other than spend good tax payer money on frivolity.
    robnlee
    22nd Jul 2018
    12:03pm
    It is a shame that, as usual, comments descend into a political argument right v left. This topic is way beyond petty party politics.
    The age pension was set at age 65 back in 1909. Life expectancies were shorter then. It is a no-brainer that people are healthier longer and can therefore work longer. But there has to be common sense. Factors such as health, finances, partners' wishes, types of jobs, individual choices, lifestyle choices - all of these and more should be considered.
    However, the BIGGEST problem is the cultural aspect of ageism, attitude to mature workers, and the concept among employers that the younger the employee, the better the result. Statistics, media reports, anecdotal evidence shows this concept is wrong.
    But employers are NOT following the evidence. They will still employ youth over experience
    There also needs to be a change in Government thinking to allow a better, more flexible and more equitable mix of pension/superannuation/paid work among mature workers. At present, anyone on the age pension, in spite of poor living standards, is penalised for, and generally too frightened, to chase paid work.
    sunnyOz
    23rd Jul 2018
    12:29am
    robnlee - totally agree with your last sentence.... I recently took on a casual job for a few weeks. My pension was reduced, plus I then had to pay tax on the combined Aged Pension and Wages. I was effectively working for $12.65 per hour. Not exactly an incentive to keep working... The so called Work Bonus is an insult - allows you to earn $125 a week only before you are penalised. As much as I would like a part time or casual job, I am not going to bust a gut out any more.
    musicveg
    23rd Jul 2018
    12:39am
    Easier to make the extra money by selling some unwanted items on ebay or gumtree, amazing what you can find around the house that people will pay money for. ie; books which you can borrow from the library if you need to read them again.
    Rae
    23rd Jul 2018
    9:26am
    I agree.

    Employers have some constraints in employing older workers though.

    The first is the issue of insurance which employers can't ignore.

    The second is the failing economic climate and the need to keep costs down. Younger workers are cheaper. Customers prefer young attractive service staff waiting on them.

    It is cultural. The Government might employ aged workers themselves in Centrelink offices and data imputation jobs etc.

    I worked casual relief and the phone stopped after I turned 65. The insurance was the killer but also the young worker was a lot cheaper and budgets were being cut and hard decisions needed to be made.

    The disincentives to work at low paying casual jobs ensuring benefits are lost doesn't encourage much effort to find work for the aged or the young either.

    We are no longer a wealthy country. It's all been sold so expecting life to continue as it did when we were wealthy, paid taxes and redistributed wisely is expecting too much.

    We have nobody to blame but ourselves either. We let this happen without a whimper.

    Pity the top few wealthy people don't spend enough to keep everything going. It's always been a problem once wealth is accumulated in too few hands.
    jackie
    26th Jul 2018
    11:39am
    robnlee.....Most older workers do not like to learn new things and deal with change. They become set in their ways and are not flexible like the young can be. This is why the young are employed over older workers.

    Despite what the experts are saying, poor vision, hearing and arthritis are handicaps in the workplace. They slow you down physically and mentally.

    60 is definitely not the new 40 otherwise there wouldn't be so many over 40 unemployed.
    musicveg
    26th Jul 2018
    1:29pm
    I would not say that older workers are not flexible, I would say younger people are more pliable by employers and they don't know better, so will do what they are told even if it is not safe or right just to keep their job.
    Cosmo
    22nd Jul 2018
    12:24pm
    Wouldn't it be far simpler and fairer to instead of setting the retirement age at 70 to base the pension age on how long people have worked and contributed to the country and tax system? Its unreasonable to expect a manual worker to continue to 70 but many non-manual workers are at Uni. until they are 25, so don't pay but consume tax and should be able and willing to work until they are 70. Why not set the retirement age on say 45 years of work. So if you start work at 16 and pay tax for 45 years you are entitled to a pension at 66; if you start work at 20 you are entitled to a pension at 71. Anyone could still retire earlier if they have saved for their own retirement which should be encouraged in any case!
    jackie
    22nd Jul 2018
    1:42pm
    Cosmo All University Educated people of now pay huge debts which are not Government subsidised. The debts are paid by the students because education is not for free. Why are politicians allowed to retire early and still get a pension while they work? The same rules should be applied for them as they are for the rest of Australians. This unfair costs Australians too much. That’s what we should be focusing on instead of being sheeple.
    Cowboy Jim
    22nd Jul 2018
    1:59pm
    Well Cosmo you might have been born in the same country like me. That is the way it works over there, albeit not as drastic. You get the pension for the years you put in, so a manual worker can retire at 62 and loses 3 years and a paper shuffler can work till 68 and gets 3 years more benefits. Normal pension set at 45 years of putting in. There is no asset or income test but everything has to be declared in your income tax. My Mum at 95 gets the full pension and that since she was 62 years of age but fully taxable (she has professional help with that). Of course she is still required to have health insurance which is deductable but there are no gap payments necessary. When people compare pension schemes overseas they often overlook all the freebies this country offers. Pension payments are higher but the cost of many things are not free or half price.
    Rae
    23rd Jul 2018
    9:34am
    jackie rich people can retire whenever they want. Not just politicians. Anyone. The thing is not being an employee obviously.

    Cosmo I always thought the amount of tax you paid should come into the equation. I know business people who don't pay much tax at all and will receive an aged pension as they structure their assets cleverly to do so. They are not forced into compulsory superannuation either.

    There seems to be rules for employees different from those for employers. Not being an employee is making sense.

    Capital pays very little tax compared to workers.

    Nothing is free or half price here either for those who saved for themselves.

    You can pay high taxes for decades and get no benefit at all in retirement and that sucks.
    jackie
    26th Jul 2018
    11:36am
    Rae...Yes rich people can retire whenever they want but politicians should have the same pensions as the rest of us and it should be means tested too.
    Hoohoo
    26th Jul 2018
    5:07pm
    Cosmo that seems very unfair. Are you really saying that the generational poor who have grown up on welfare shouldn't get a pension? That won't end well for any of us!

    What if you become unemployed through no fault of your own? For example, what if your boss declares bankruptcy or your industry becomes obsolete (like Australian car manufacturing)? What if you had to re-educate in a new field to find new employment? What if you have to leave your home town, friends, family & supports to re-locate to an area where there are jobs?

    How about if you are self-employed & it takes a while to build up your income to the point where you start paying tax? Your employees will be paying tax, too, due to your efforts while you had a very low income & relied on personal savings to initially build the business up.

    People on the lower rungs need a pension more than those more well off, especially if they have no Super.

    If we go the American model, you know what happens then? People simply steal if there is no welfare. (After all, they DO need to eat). Violence & guns rule their lives. Others turn it into a business & they become organised criminals. I'd prefer a decent society where there is a safety net for the poor.
    musicveg
    26th Jul 2018
    6:05pm
    Crime, drugs and homelessness has already risen a lot in the last 10 years because people are getting more desperate because welfare cannot pay for housing, utilities and decent nutritious food.
    Rae
    27th Jul 2018
    8:31am
    Well self service didn't work in America. Too easy to steal from a machine with just one young girl keeping guard so they may have to return to checkouts if it gets worse here too.

    America also has millions working for that $1 tip doing all sorts of little jobs. A much bigger gig economy than just delivering food, packages and driving uber.
    geordie
    27th Jul 2018
    9:28am
    Welfare was never meant to pay for housing utilities and decent food. (Musicveg) It was meant as a safety net so people didn't have to beg and starve when they had no work. Families and communities also helped. The lifestyles of late have become based on a me, myself and I thought process. There needs to be a total re think on pensions and welfare. There are too many people sucking on the test of welfare and contributing nothing. ( whole families for generations.) while working cash in hand and paying no tax. We spend billions on the homeless without any outcomes, just keep pumping money in. If the public knew just how much goes toward the homeless community. Newstart and/or a disibility pension payment are just their money in pocket. I suppose it's esker for Government to keep sticking band aids over the problems than to actually fix them.
    Government want your money, and eventually they'll get it through any underhanded way they can. They didn't realise at inception, just how much money would be tied up in super schemes, just sitting there........for the taking.
    musicveg
    27th Jul 2018
    8:23pm
    So Geordie if welfare is not for living expenses you must think they all have to die, you cannot get welfare unless you have an address, you can't live without electricity in this day and age and why not decent food, then they would not get sick and be a burden on the health care system. People are starving for nutrients, they can get crap food from charities who get all the throw outs or scrounge around in a dumpster but this is not going to help them feel confident or clear headed enough to perform in a job even if they can get one. As for people sucking the system, that is only a small minority, try looking at our Government sucking the system for all their first class travel, luncheons, art work in the offices etc.
    Mad as hell
    22nd Jul 2018
    1:57pm
    Governments want to increase the age pension age to 70 because they’ve squandered our pension assets.
    Rae
    26th Jul 2018
    1:08pm
    They've squandered everything we owned haven't they. That's what carpetbaggers do. They come, take control, flog off everything and take the money for themselves.
    Cosmo
    22nd Jul 2018
    3:38pm
    Jackie, Education is not free but it is still highly subsidised by tax payers and the money has to come from somewhere. The fact is that manual workers cannot physically work for as many years as a non-manual worker, a 70 year old builder or similar has put in his time, paid taxes and helped build the country so the 'brains' can go to Uni. You say apply the same rule to all; that's exactly my proposal, the same pension for all who have worked the same number of years with a credit for those who have brought up children!
    Rae
    23rd Jul 2018
    9:55am
    I agree Cosmo. Privatisation of tertiary training and education in Australia has been a failure for our young people. Sure it makes a lot of money for the countries GDP but our own end up with huge debts and often struggle to find employment here.

    Private vocational training and job placement agencies just cost taxpayers billions while not really being successful.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    1:56pm
    Just another hidden tax imposed by blind adherence to 'user pays' nonsense, something else I've always opposed.

    All of these things, privatised roads and so forth and education even, are now a direct imposition on the general public - those who can least afford it.

    Even my own children, who had a private college education, refused to cost themselves by getting a degree, and each is doing very well, thank you.
    jackie
    26th Jul 2018
    11:44am
    Cosmo...All young Australians enter the workforce with a debt which they start paying off...many pay that debt off whilst they work and study....Interest is charged on their debt..Their taxes pay for their debt and go toward pensions. Education is not subsidised that is why it has becoming such a booming industry.
    MaxG
    22nd Jul 2018
    3:40pm
    @Dan Tehan, Minister for Social Services, LNP
    The pension rose by .8% from 15 to 16, 1.63% from 16 to 17 and .68% from 17 to 18... all up 3.01, which is less then the CPI increase over these year of 7%. So pensions have effectively been going backwards.
    But then, fake numbers are expected from the masters of neoliberalism, the LNP, the one who increased the onesion age, how want to remove the energy supplement, and tell you that you do not need superannuations as you likely die before you get it.

    @Elayne Grace: all very valid points. However, we also know that 15% of businesses do not employ workers over 50! Then there is the hidden number not publicly admitting to work on the same internal rules... we know as age discrimination.

    @Emma Dawson: valid points here too... also highlighting the difficulty for older workers (and this starts past the age of 50) to get a job with a probability of close to zero. I am helping (quite highly qualified and capable) people to apply for jobs. Most did not get a job after 1.5 years and 300 directed applications.

    @John Daley: don't you love the economists who told us how great privatisation would be for us. Most people I know beyond the age of 60 are keeping their money together in light of ever reducing pensions and cost increases. Those who have a job cling to it, and those who lost their will hardly ever enter the workforce in a meaningful way. Sorry, your projected growth of 25b$ is a pipe dream.

    @Scott Connolly: a typical union response, but right on the money. Wage growths post GFC resulted in a net decrease when taking CPI increases into account. Which is something a sensible person would add to the discussion.

    Now to the real issue, this generation and all future generations will face: as long as you do not care about participating in democracy, including politics, you will find yourself at the short end of the stick. E.g. you'll pay taxes to the brim, while the big guys pay none; you'll loose public assets seeing them turned into near monopolies for profit taking; your number of holidays reduced, your wages and pensions decline, and the list goes on.
    I blame the baby boomers, including myself for not taking more action, and voting for the established parties (I used to be red), the proponents of neoliberalism, yes, the ALP started privatisation in this country, and still votes with the LNP on neoliberal initiatives.
    Democracy is slowly dying... why nobody is noticing.
    Happy retirement! (sarcasm)
    Rae
    23rd Jul 2018
    10:01am
    A great comment Max. I've only realised lately how wonderful our social democracy was before both ALP and LNP flogged it off and legislated it away.

    I wonder how genuinely well off we would all be if Whitlam had nationalised the resources and if our wealth would be built on those instead of the $4 trillion of debt it has been built on.

    A genuine social democracy with a fair share for everyone. I would have liked to have seen that.
    jackie
    26th Jul 2018
    11:58am
    Rae...Australia would have been like Scandinavia...but the people that run this country didn't want that...they profit more when its like a developing country.
    Rae
    26th Jul 2018
    1:16pm
    I think they might have been quite frightened of a successful social democracy in a first world country with heaps of nationalised resources and assets.

    Not only couldn't they get their hands on the money but it would have shown neoliberalism for the failure it is proving to be decades ago.

    A light shining into the world saying there is a fair way for all.

    That scared them witless.

    So now we can't even afford to look after our elderly workers properly and dipsticks are coming up with more ideas that won't work.

    Capital paid 3.3% of GDP in 1970 and 3.2% of GDP in 2015 in taxes. Maybe these professionals can figure out how to get all those with money to pay a fair share and we won't need to further abuse the workforce.
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Jul 2018
    3:38pm
    jackie - you are free to go to Scandinavia. Wonder whether you were ever there and worked there. I think even you would balk at paying 80% of your income in tax. Lovely place for layabouts, draft dodgers and the likes. There is very cheap pornography but very expensive beer. IKEA boss lived in Switzerland and even ABBA went abroad. Just been to Norway again last year. Health care is better there but it has been paid for by the oil production the red/greens here would not like.
    Cheezil61
    22nd Jul 2018
    3:49pm
    Well they better make Euthanasia more accessable because I'm not gonna be able to keep working this job (shiftwork, maual labour-12hr shifts) til I'm 70 & even gonna struggle to reach 60 without it killing me, i would like a couple of years to enjoy my life a tiny bit before i actually tip up (we're told shiftworkers will die 10yrs younger than 'normal' people so i hold little to be positive about).
    Struggle every day to keep healthy enough to work & struggle financially to make ends meet due to putting my heart & soul into having the mortgage paid by time i am 60 (in 3yrs time) so i can quit this shitty lifestyle & live on buggar-all but fresh air & tiny bit of super I've managed to put aside; then it'll be the Newstart/dole payment -yeehar, but at least ill be free from the shackles that pin me down at present!..
    Government want to squeeze us harder & tighter & well they can get f*d!
    I'd like to swap places with any one of these pollies just to see them struggling/grappling with crow bars & sledgehammers,etc at 3 & 4 o'clock in the damn morning at 57yo & beyond! Not much of a life i tell you, but there is no option unless i go live in a tent!
    And I'm just one of many in similar situations & plenty worse off than myself as well!
    MaxG
    22nd Jul 2018
    3:53pm
    Yes, I hear ya... and agree on euthanasia too... I certainly will kill myself then the time comes rather than suffering an undignified life.
    jackie
    26th Jul 2018
    11:55am
    Cheezil61....Selling up and moving overseas may be an option....A friend mine retired in their 50s to Thailand and love the lifestyle..cheap and no stress...
    Rae
    26th Jul 2018
    1:20pm
    It is a pity those older farmers and unemployed workers who are committing suicide don't do it on the lawn of the Parliament. They couldn't hide the figures then. It's appalling what is happening to hard working Australians over 60.
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Jul 2018
    4:54pm
    jackie - have a look at the conditions for a retirement visa on the Thai Govt website. You might find it is not that cheap when you take the health insurance into consideration as well as the stipulated transfer of funds into the country.
    Had a look at the Bali equivalent and they want $US18'000 per annum per person, also you have to live in an approved location and possess health and possible medical evacuation insurance. I pay $2400 a year in this country, not compulsory here but over there it is.
    All this information is readily available for would be escapees to the so called paradise in Asia. Living there is different from a short holiday.
    Cosmo
    22nd Jul 2018
    4:10pm
    Yes I hear you too and agree, only somebody who has never worked in their lives would think a 70 yrs. retirement age was reasonable or even human for manual workers.
    They won't allow euthanasia however, they need your vote so they get in power and do the business of the lobbyists and those who pay into party coffers.
    Its one thing to suggest that Pollies should work until they are 70 too but they do little enough when they're younger, would you really want them there till they drop?
    musicveg
    22nd Jul 2018
    6:41pm
    Does the $45 billion spent on aged pension include politicians pensions? Are they asset tested? Do they need the pension? People may be living longer but not necessarily healthier. Will they next attack the disability pension because so many will end up on that if the retirement age is lifted. And don't pensioners spend more money if they are retired on an age pension which keeps many businesses going?
    Cheezil61
    22nd Jul 2018
    7:25pm
    I believe they've already cut back on disability & it's now close to impossible to get if you are genuine in need & can't work. Have heard/read some saf stories
    Rae
    26th Jul 2018
    1:23pm
    I read it's been privatised and the crime are getting the money now decent public servants aren't administering it. Just another way to rip off taxpayers and Australian citizens.
    leek
    22nd Jul 2018
    6:52pm
    Just waiting for the day that somebody suggests raising the preservation age. It will happen!
    What about people working in the government(State & Federal). Friends of mine retired at just over 55 and are getting a really good pension from the government pension. I haven't heard any talk of raising that retirement age? if they raise the Presearvation age, they should also raise the Government workers retiring age.
    TREBOR
    22nd Jul 2018
    7:03pm
    Surely you wouldn't want to degrade out long-established class structure, leek, and put everyone in the same basket?

    (tongue in cheek) ... we've already got at least two classes of pensioner - OAP and the 'bludgers' on DSP... different rules in some ways... but notwithstanding, all pensioners are viewed as vassals of the state and its chattels to do with as it sees fit..
    Cowboy Jim
    22nd Jul 2018
    7:08pm
    Do not wait any longer, leek. John Daley mentioned in the article above that lifting the preservation age to 70 would increase the participation rates by 1.4% and bringing in an extra economic growth of $25 billion. At last your waiting is over.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:10pm
    John Daley obviously mistakes the clouds in his mind for thought processes...
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Jul 2018
    8:40pm
    It's time the greedy elite were forced to clean toilets, shovel concrete, and carry bricks - and keep it up for at least a decade after turning 60!

    This nation spends HALF what other developed nations spend on the aged, and the cost will soon begin falling in Australia while rising everywhere else. That's due to superannuation. But they are destroying superannuation and killing savers with idiotic selfish policies that make it futile to save.

    What is needed in this nation is recognition that technology is reducing the demand for labour and the ONLY sensible response is higher taxes on the businesses that are gaining from that to fund REDUCED working hours and REDUCED working years. If we allow the stinking greedy elite to continue on their current path, we will return to a feudal society!

    Abolish the assets test to make saving worthwhile - or, better still, make the aged pension universal and tax retirement income. Tax increasing business profits where they come at the expense of jobs and use the extra revenue to fund earlier retirement and shorter working hours so there are more jobs for those who need them. This could be a prosperous and happy society if we could abolish the appalling GREED of the elite.
    MaxG
    22nd Jul 2018
    8:52pm
    We won't return to a feudal system; we are living it.
    ... and we'll be both dead before it will change.
    musicveg
    22nd Jul 2018
    11:56pm
    I do not believe the Government is really thinking that people will work until 70 because they must know the jobs will not be there, they are just using it as another one of their excuses to cutting costs so they can use it for their own business ventures and helping the elite get richer.We all know where they should be cutting costs instead. The gap widens and with it crime rises. If they wanted a happy and prosperous society then maybe they should look at the countries where people are the happiest, with a much fairer and sensible governing system in place.
    ex PS
    23rd Jul 2018
    11:14am
    The government is just rearranging the deck chairs for their benefit, not ours. It is doing what governments do, playing with figures in order to make it look like they are being effective.
    What they are actually doing is replacing Pensioners with young unemployed, here they have proven themselves to be short-sighted as is in the fact that the average person on a Pension may have 15 years left in them whereas a person who spends a couple of years on welfare will adapt and learn to exist on that payment and may spend the rest of their lives on it. In the long run this strategy will leave the country worse off.
    How is keeping older people in the workplace longer at the expense of the young job starters any way economically responsible.
    Most politicians will not do an honest days work in their lives, they can probably go on until they are 80, how the hell is a brickie or a labourer going to last in the workforce until they are 70?
    Anonymous
    23rd Jul 2018
    2:56pm
    esPS - you say that a person on couple of years welfare will adapt to it.
    I agree
    also a person who doesnt want to work beyond 65 can go on Newstart and get used to it until eligible for pension. Good training for living comfortably on the OAP
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:12pm
    You go first olbie, and we'll see how you go.... if it works just fine for you, we'll consider it...

    (ahhhhhhhhhhh - ha-ha-ha-ha-ha)....
    Anonymous
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:20pm
    Trebor - I have trained myself to live well off less than the OAP.

    The only years I spend more than the OAP is when I travel overseas, but as I am self funded and dont rely on welfare, to me its an acceptable luxury
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:54pm
    Well done - now consider the shoes of the others.. most sizes don't fit, and one size fits all doesn't work either.

    I prefer the Trebor Scheme - works for everyone.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    24th Jul 2018
    7:48am
    Olbaid, I lived on way less than the OAP for a long time, but when health fails suddenly everything changes. When family circumstances become extremely challenging, everything changes. One size doesn't fit all, and sadly those most likely to experience big challenges later in life are those who had disadvantaged earlier lives and therefore will not have the resources you obviously have to fall back on.

    It's far too easy to make assumptions based on your own life experiences, but walk in other people's shoes and you see things very differently. Being forced to live on Newstart in the autumn of life, after contributing to this nation for decades, is just plain unacceptable. NOBODY should be prepared to tolerate a situation where the aging are not properly supported.
    inextratime
    23rd Jul 2018
    2:09pm
    I worked for a company for 18 years until I was 67 when I was 'asked' to leave being considered to be too old despite having advised my employer that I intended to leave when I was 70. After a legal stoush I left but found it impossible to gain ongoing full time employment due to my age. So will the government intervene on behalf of employees who are considered too old by their employers but not old enough to receive the OAP ? Pigs may fly one day.
    Anonymous
    23rd Jul 2018
    2:53pm
    in this instance , you would be eligible for Newstart
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    2:58pm
    Yes - they tell me the noodles diet works wonders....
    Anonymous
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:04pm
    Trebor - the Japanese Koreans and Taiwanese eat plenty of noodles and rice with lots of fresh vegetables and only little meat
    They live long healthy lives.

    The food we eat is unhealthy . We pay too much for useless food and die younger as a result
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:12pm
    Not our kind of noodle diet, they don't. They include healthy stuff like vegetables, meat and seafood.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:15pm
    Unfortunately, those who 'adjust' to a 'lifestyle' on Newstart and its equivalents usually trend towards the crime side of society - another serious social coast and an escalating issue for the future.

    When people on Starvation Row see politicians and their mates living the high life out of the public pocket, they see no reason why they should abandon any sense of entitlement to do the same themselves....

    Some said it above - the focus of spending in this nation is all backwards - deliberately as a matter of policy.
    Anonymous
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:30pm
    One can procure lovely fresh rice or egg noodles form ones local asian grocers. They also stock freash vegetables and a host of cheap noodle condiments and sauces.
    A healthy noodle meal can be conhjured up in 15 minutes and would cost no more than $5 for a scrumptious delight on the palate
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:55pm
    Yes - even banana flower is a food source.... never knew that....
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    24th Jul 2018
    7:53am
    Olbaid, read my comment above. You are displaying arrogance and contempt for the rights of people who contributed substantially to this nation for decades and have EARNED the right to live as the rest of the population live - NOT like paupers in Asia. This is Australia. We don't eat noodles here - and no aging person, after decades of raising the next generation and paying tax and working to make other people more comfortable should be condemned to poverty - ESPECIALLY by self-serving folk who are doing just fine thank you, thanks to enjoying a much more generous share of the resources of this nation.


    Learn to have some empathy and compassion - or just plain human decency!
    Old Geezer
    25th Jul 2018
    4:10pm
    OGR I eat lots of noodles and rice myself and just love those noodle meals. They are awesome as they are so cheap. quick and easy. Great caravanning food.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    25th Jul 2018
    7:49pm
    Good for you, OG. Pity it doesn't choke you!

    I would eat noodles and rice if I didn't have food sensitivities. But that's got nothing to do with the issue. It's about people having the RIGHT to a decent lifestyle after working their guts out for 4+ decades - not about who eats what.
    Triss
    26th Jul 2018
    2:03pm
    Olbaid, I’ve read the ingredient list on noodle and sauce packets and, like most people who insist on eating real food, I put them back on the shelves.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jul 2018
    2:50pm
    I have no problem with the retirement age being 70 or even higher. If you want to retire before then simple just earn the money to provide for yourself instead of budging off the taxpayers.
    Anonymous
    23rd Jul 2018
    2:54pm
    Yes - one can live on one's savings until one reaches retirement age, and then go on the pension if need be.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    2:58pm
    **snores**
    Cheezil61
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:31pm
    OG this is great in theory but doesn't work well if you've had a couple of divorces & kids going to uni or if your income/wages have only barely been sufficient to cover the basic bills/living expenses (& thus driving older affordable cars-instead of newer- that need constant maintenance or break down often- same deal with the older house you live in).
    If only we could all be able to have savings in the bank.

    I earn pretty good money working at the moment (& have for last 17yrs) & don't drink alcohol,smoke & don't live an extravagant life at all but cannot get ahead & never have savings, far less enough to support me (I'm 57) until I'm 67! I do have some super but not enough to quit working for quite a few years yet! You apparently have not had corcumstances that stuff up your happy easy life!
    Cheezil61
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:35pm
    olbad you are also funny saying one can live on ones savings until retirement age! If only this were possible for everyone! Circumstances as mentioned above/having to pay out exes in property settlements etc make it bloody hard! Good for you if you haven't experienced life in its reality/harshness!
    Anonymous
    23rd Jul 2018
    3:38pm
    Cheesil61 - I meant that is an option if one didnt want to wait till 70 to retire.
    If one did not save or have the means to save, then but of course, one should continue to work till one can avail oneself of the pension or alternative means of support such as Newstart
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    4:01pm
    Yeee-usssh - but the argument is over when one becomes entitled to Pension and whether or not Newstart is actually a viable alternative without either skinny-dipping into one's accumulated assets or alternatively going the 'black market' in one way or another, including crime. All of those are an eventual cost to the economy, so all these short-term plugs at retirees are really going nowhere but still down the same slow path to hell at the bottom.

    It just ain't gonna work.... too many factors that the numbah crunchahs on big dollars seem incapable of taking into account, often due to paid comment from a party or just plain lack of genuine sense and knowledge in their 'field of expertise'.

    I once say an 'economist' in the pay of a Liberal state government seeking to argue that a rise in club taxation on pokies for instance, was intensely viable due to the massive takings of clubs... and one club manager brought her (it's always a her and a furruner with no real idea of the real world these days - ho hum) down to earth by pointing out the difference between gross income and net income..... OOPS....

    When I studied economics you had to study accountancy at the same time.
    Anonymous
    23rd Jul 2018
    4:46pm
    Trebor old boy, - pardon me saying so, but that's a very negative perspective
    I have a few close acquaintances who are in the accounting profession, and by far most of them have very conservative spending habits and can manage any budget life throws at them. A sign of their good training obvioulsy.
    So when a "number crucnher" as you refer to them, highlight possible wastage and ways to save our hard fought taxpayer dollars, one should respect their superior knowledge and expertise on the subject matter at hand
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    5:11pm
    I rather thought it was a pretty factual representation of the issues.... but perhaps the fact that the current (lack of) system is no negative for too many makes it appear to be negative....

    If I'm negative about 'numbah crunchahs' - let's just say they are hoist on their own petard daily with each successive economic disaster that they never find a solution for.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2018
    5:12pm
    .. and for their blatant paid comment for 'their' paying party.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    24th Jul 2018
    8:04am
    The contempt and arrogance of privileged folk like OG and olbaid is sickening. This is precisely the vile attitude that is destroying what used to be the best country on earth. The real ''bludgers'' have fat bank accounts. They have fat bank accounts because they exploit the lifters, they take far more than their share of the nation's resources, they pay far too little tax, and they continually scream for the government to give them more and the needy less. Clearly OG and olbaid are among these vile, arrogant bludgers.

    WORKERS understand that work isn't all there is in life, and that some will be able to work to 70 and others won't be able to make it to 55, but after decades of contributing to the nation, everyone should be ENTITLED to a dignified and modestly comfortable retirement, and NOBODY should be condemned to live in poverty on Newstart merely because they wore out their body (or their mind) working - often in unhealthy conditions, sometimes in dangerous conditions, and very often in conditions that simply wear out parts of the body or mind prematurely.


    If I had dictator powers, I would rule that everybody was required to work for a decade cleaning toilets, shovelling concrete, carrying bricks, and climbing electrical poles - and those who had easier jobs early in life must do it from age 60 to 70. See how many then supported forcing folk to work until age 70.


    I'm still working, well past retirement age, and I could probably afford to quit if I chose, but I'm among the fortunate few. Friends were forced to retire at 55 because the work they did wrecked their bodies completely, but the work they did was paid at miserable rates so you privileged arrogant a---holes could have cheap electricity and phone services and affordable comfortable housing.

    Stop being so selfish and start showing some respect for the people whose sacrifices made your lives so much easier than theirs!
    Rae
    24th Jul 2018
    8:50am
    olbaid we can all live more frugally and save like crazy all through our lives. That is the third world way of living.

    Why we would want to change a generous first world nation where money isn't hoarded into a third world dog eat dog and only the rich are able to spend type of place is the question.

    Why would we do that? Maybe some of those foreigners entering our parliament and public service don't understand the reason thousand year old civilisations never get past poverty and third world is due to the fact they aren't social democracies and the need to save and live like paupers actually produces paupers.

    The wealthy and successful nations provide universal education, health and aged pensions and that is why they are so successful.
    Old Geezer
    24th Jul 2018
    11:58am
    I retired with less than 10% of the wealth I have today so it is not what you retire with but how you manage what you have that counts. I just wish I had retired years earlier knowing what I now know.
    Cheezil61
    24th Jul 2018
    1:31pm
    OGR a shame others aren't more like you &;not selfish!
    Cheezil61
    24th Jul 2018
    1:31pm
    OGR a shame others aren't more like you &;not selfish!
    inextratime
    24th Jul 2018
    1:50pm
    Common sense required here. The older one gets the more fragile the human construct becomes. Some people are able to work until their 90 but many because of the nature of their work are exhausted at various stages of their lives from 55 onwards. So to set an arbitrary retirement age is ambitious to say the least. Personally despite having had cancer three times I could work at least until I am 80 because most of my working life was not physical. However I knew a bricklayer who could hardly breathe at 54. So lets get real and start realising that while we may live longer we may not necessarily be able to 'work' longer so why mess around. Make the pension applicable to everyone at 65, eliminate that vast expensive army of Centrelink soldiers, allow the people who want to work till whenever and tax them at the appropriate income tax rate.
    inextratime
    24th Jul 2018
    1:50pm
    Common sense required here. The older one gets the more fragile the human construct becomes. Some people are able to work until their 90 but many because of the nature of their work are exhausted at various stages of their lives from 55 onwards. So to set an arbitrary retirement age is ambitious to say the least. Personally despite having had cancer three times I could work at least until I am 80 because most of my working life was not physical. However I knew a bricklayer who could hardly breathe at 54. So lets get real and start realising that while we may live longer we may not necessarily be able to 'work' longer so why mess around. Make the pension applicable to everyone at 65, eliminate that vast expensive army of Centrelink soldiers, allow the people who want to work till whenever and tax them at the appropriate income tax rate.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    25th Jul 2018
    7:45pm
    Ah, but such common sense solutions just don't suit the greedy, self-serving, arrogant privileged who WANT to be superior and condemn strugglers to misery, inextratime. The like of OG just can't stand the idea that people might be able to live a quality life despite being disadvantaged in some way. In his world, only the stinking rich and privileged are entitled to a decent lifestyle.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    24th Jul 2018
    8:11am
    Australia spends less than HALF (as a percentage of GDP) what other nations spend on their aging, and our spend is predicted to fall rapidly due to superannuation, while other nations' spend increases. So WHY are we talking about forcing people to work to 70?

    Answer: PURE UNADULTERATED GREED AND SELFISHNESS on the part of the privileged.

    We have absolutely NO NEED to make people work to 70, and doing so will only take jobs from younger Australians and drive an increase in aged poverty and further decline of the quality of Australian society. No decent person would even consider supporting this move. It's disgusting.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    24th Jul 2018
    8:14am
    And BTW. I will probably work well past 70, but on my own terms. I'm one of the lucky ones - the lucky ones who SHOULD have respect and compassion for those who aren't as fortunate. But unlike the arrogant selfish, I understand the plight of those who have worn out their bodies or minds and have never had the opportunity to accrue substantial savings.

    Anyway, it's an economically STUPID proposition to take jobs from the young or make older folk drain their savings prematurely and be more dependant on the taxpayer later on. As patently IDIOTIC as the change in assets test and some of the other moronic policies of this mean ''government for the elite''.
    Anonymous
    24th Jul 2018
    2:14pm
    OnlyGenuineRainey - you say you are financially well off to not need pension yet still work.
    Am happy for you - you are more well off than me and still choose to accumulate more wealth, so please don't include me in your "greedy" category.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    25th Jul 2018
    2:37pm
    I have never said I didn't NEED a pension, olbaid. And you have no idea what I do with my money or why I live as I do. But I WILL include you in the ''greedy'' category based on your obvious lack of empathy for those who are struggling.
    Old Geezer
    25th Jul 2018
    4:03pm
    OGR I certainly wouldn't put you on struggle street but I'll say you seem to enjoy being there anyway.
    Anonymous
    25th Jul 2018
    5:04pm
    A person who has enough and still wants to work to make more money AND WANT a pension as well - now that is greedy
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    25th Jul 2018
    5:24pm
    Goodness, I'm glad I'm not a miserable bitter nasty judgemental prick like you, olbaid!

    I never said I WANTED a pension. I did say the current system is unfair and damaging to our economy - and it is. I said it is wrong that I don't qualify for a pension when others who are far, far richer than I receive one. I said I think it's wrong that people who had ten times my income in their working life get pensions because they lived the high life, and I get nothing because I saved to try to be self-supporting. That's not saying I WANT a pension. It's saying the system is wrong and economically destructive, paying manipulators generously and depriving people for being honest and ethical.

    But only SCUM would presume to accuse me of greed without knowing ANYTHING about my circumstances or expenses - Nasty, vile, judgemental SCUM.

    And you are 1000% wrong in your judgement, olbaid!

    I am fortunate to have work that I love, because without it I would not be able to support a disabled spouse with extensive health needs AND children and grandchildren in very challenging situations. I spend very little on myself. What I earn saves the taxpayer countless thousands and paves the way for children who otherwise might have a serious struggle to enjoy a good life and good opportunities.

    You know NOTHING about my circumstances, olbaid, but you presume to judge anyway. That's thoroughly disgusting and contemptible.
    Triss
    26th Jul 2018
    2:15pm
    OGR, according to economists there is no reason for delaying the pension as, with everyone being forced to pay into a pension fund, our overall pension amount is going to stay more or less the same. But of course we know what happened to the last working people’s pension pot.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Jul 2018
    3:16pm
    Triss, according to economists there is no reason to cut the OAP - which is highly affordable - but EVERY reason to cut the obscene waste on superannuation benefits for the wealthy. If that were done, fewer would need pensions in the future and nobody would have to even hint at persecuting folk whose bodies give out on them before they reach retirement age. But while we gift $65 billion a year to the wealthiest 20% in superannuation benefits, how the hell can we expect not to have a budget problem! Bashing the poor aged won't solve it, and nor will delaying retirement age.
    Triss
    26th Jul 2018
    4:12pm
    Yes, you're right, OGR, it wouldn't hurt to cut the Foreign Aid spending either.
    Rae
    24th Jul 2018
    8:22am
    Notice that all these people work in 9 to 5 office jobs with the ability to come and go as they like, attend time wasting meetings and long lunches. Travel business class all over the place and stay at fine hotels. We could all work to 70 with those conditions and the salary these people are paid.
    ex PS
    25th Jul 2018
    11:20am
    Hel, I would probably do that job for free.
    Rae
    26th Jul 2018
    1:46pm
    Yes ex PS maybe we should apply as volunteers to replace these professionals. I've a list of qualifications after my name and I bet you have too haha.
    Triss
    26th Jul 2018
    2:28pm
    Actually, Rae, that is a good idea. Over 60’s should be given jobs in Centrelink, dealing with the pension for example. OAPs could easily replace the pen pushers in Parliament and insurance companies should be forced to insure folk in their 70s.
    Rae
    27th Jul 2018
    9:05am
    Yes TRiss something like affirmative action for the over 50s. Quotas on employers to hire a certain percentage of over 50s and so on if the OAP raises to 70 that sort of action will be needed.

    An OAP march down Oxford Street for the Elders perhaps with banners and flags and dancing perhaps.

    I'd be very happy to return to work on these peoples salaries and I could certainly write those reports and read the data proficiently enough to make the same sort of mutterings to suit the insiders.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    24th Jul 2018
    10:36am
    Two ways to make working to 70 a workable proposition for everyone:

    1. Triple the wages of all those in the kinds of jobs that wear out body or mind prematurely but don't pay at least 1.5x the average wage. Transfer all the extra pay into a ''fund early retirement'' investment scheme, so these people CAN afford to retire early on savings, without compromising their retirement fund.

    2. All those working in jobs that might wear out the body or mind before age 70 quit their job now and apply to become politicians. If we don't have any toilet cleaners, concrete-shovellers, bricklayers, electric or telephone pole climbers, miners, nurses lifting heavy patients, etc. etc. etc., no problem with delaying retirement. Pollies can retire at any age, so let's just let everyone be a politician and then there's no issue!

    (Actually, I think it would be a great idea for most of the working population to quit and apply to be politicians. Might finally communicate the message to the greedy elite and power-mad that their social re-engineering isn't going to work and force them to consider the real value of the people they are abusing!)
    Old Geezer
    25th Jul 2018
    1:56pm
    No need just put retirement age up to 70 and people can live off their savings instead of hoarding them.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    25th Jul 2018
    2:35pm
    Only an overly privileged inept selfish narcissist would think that was acceptable.
    Old Geezer
    25th Jul 2018
    4:02pm
    Many of us think it is acceptable. It is certainly more acceptable than having a $10 million house on the full OAP.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    25th Jul 2018
    4:39pm
    Oh, so because a STUPID government makes laws that encourage a few greedy rich people to have a $10 million house and get the OAP, that makes it okay to persecute people who wrecked their bodies in underpaid hard work, suffered serious illness or disability, or were retrenched and now suffer age discrimination in job searches?

    I repeat, only overly privileged inept selfish narcissists would think it acceptable. Sadly, there might be a few of you, OG. I doubt there are many. The majority are quite clear, here, in their condemnation of a cruel and unfair government policy proposal.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jul 2018
    2:31pm
    You may not like the idea of people working or living on their own resources to 70 OGR but I do. It is really good idea in that people can spend their super and other savings before they put their hand out to the taxpayer for a pension. It will stop the big inheritances paid for by the taxpayer and wasted by those who receive them.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Jul 2018
    3:12pm
    It's only a ''good idea'' for those who want to restore the feudal society, OG. Decent people would NEVER endorse such an idea. The well off are taking $20 billion a year more in superannuation subsidies than is being spent to support all of our aged. That's PURE GREED. And they are doing it so their offspring can be rich. What vile and disgusting individuals they are to suggest that workers should be allowed to pass on an inheritance to offspring!

    And BTW. Nobody is stopping the rich kids from wasting - so why should anyone be worried if a few of the poorer folk do. Most won't, because unlike the spoiled rich, they know how hard it is to come by.

    You are just displaying disgusting greed and selfishness, OG.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jul 2018
    3:30pm
    Big difference OGR the rich actually earned the money whereas those collecting the pension stole it from the taxpayer.
    Rae
    27th Jul 2018
    9:11am
    Not a bad idea Rainey. It is quite a smallish fee and number of signatures for the Senate.

    We should all send applications to work in our local political offices perhaps.

    Seems becoming a politician is the number one job idea with immigrants so why not join them.
    ex PS
    27th Jul 2018
    9:24am
    A lot of those people earned nothing, they inherited from rich daddy and mummy, who in some cases ripped it off people who worked for them.
    See how easy it is to vilify whole groups of people by use of simplistic over the top generalisations.
    Those who partake of the entitlement that is a Pension, are the taxpayer.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Jul 2018
    10:21am
    Wrong again, OG. The majority of the rich don't EARN their money. They rip-off, avoid tax, exploit workers, inherit, claim possession of tons more than their fair share of natural resources, and steal. The workers work for what little they have, actually earning far more than they are paid. And they pay tax to fund pensions. Pensions are NOT stolen from the taxpayer at all.

    Anyone who claims the rich ''earned' their money is a blind fool, OG. Only a handful of well-off know what it means to work, and very few earned even 1% of what they have.
    Kaz
    26th Jul 2018
    12:45pm
    Emma Dawson from Per Capita says it well. The union also has a point about poor wages leading to a poor retirement and particularly for those who work in manual labour. We all can’t work to 70 simply because of the ‘average’ life expectancy. There does not seem to be relative equity between general individuals and politician wages/retirement. We must all be more socially conscious.
    Rae
    27th Jul 2018
    9:19am
    Not sure about social consciousness Kaz. I never got one pay rise without a fight and striking.
    We were told we deserved more but society couldn't pay what we were worth.
    We'd be looked after in retirement though. Just keep going Society values you.

    Load of crap. We were shafted in Hockey's budget and Society didn't give a rat's razoo.

    Bring back the strikes. Society can't be trusted and workers should demand proper pay now. Bugger Society as Thatcher said...it's dead. It's the economy now.

    The Economy has no heart and workers will have to rise up and fight and wreck a few things before equity returns.
    GrayComputing
    26th Jul 2018
    12:47pm
    It is time for all of us (that means you) to rant at our MPs and Senators daily to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules.

    Hiring more Centrelink staff will only increase taxpayer’s costs for processing the creeping insane red tape monster system politicians and well paid bureaucrats have created.

    Help scrap it now. Become a hero.

    Even poorer New Zealand has a NO ASSET pension so it is cheaper and user friendly.

    Why worry that few million$ earners get it too. That is peanuts to them, not enough for a good vintage champagne.

    Do retired and retiring people really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    Does your MP really like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

    This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

    Why do MPs normally compassionate persons let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    Some opposition and independent MPs stand to lose their chance at being part of the needed government changes

    We all need to tell our MP and senators every day that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.

    Also contact opposition and independent MPs (today) who could help us to get a fair deal on pensions

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    East of Toowoomba
    26th Jul 2018
    1:50pm
    Wondered when you'd come along with your daily rant.
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Jul 2018
    1:58pm
    These reminders are a necessity for people new here and for people who tend to forget, also for those who refuse to believe it.
    Triss
    26th Jul 2018
    2:32pm
    Very true, Cowboy Jim.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Jul 2018
    3:05pm
    Keep it up, Gray Computing. Cowboy Jim and Triss are absolutely right. Constant reminders are necessary - until people WAKE UP AND TAKE ACTION. Our economy is being destroyed by irresponsible policies that people either support out of meanness and jealousy or couldn't be bothered to oppose because they aren't directly hurt by them.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jul 2018
    3:42pm
    Bring it on then as I could do with a few extra dollars to invest and make some more money.
    Triss
    26th Jul 2018
    4:14pm
    Oh, put a sock in it, OG.
    Rae
    27th Jul 2018
    9:31am
    OG it isn't worth pointing out that living within your means and saving a bit and investing wisely actually works. It takes a lot of time and efforts to do it.
    People want a sugar hit right now and they want someone else to grow and process the sugar.

    I must agree that austerity towards pensioners, retirees, retail and hospitality and other wage stagnation is slowly destroying the economy. It never works.

    Perhaps our banks were in big strife because the same things happened in Greece and that was the German and French banks and the IMF there. I know the IMF has been here for meetings before each of these austerity measures were suddenly passed by all the parties. The press aren't exactly forthcoming with information. Not even the bail in has been explained or publicised.

    OG don't fall into the trap of thinking this 20 year boom will keep going forever. All Markets correct sooner or later. Later is historically much worse.

    Hope your moving gradually overseas into Markets because Australia is going down thanks to our incompetent past few Treasurers and Political Parties selling off the farm.
    Old Geezer
    27th Jul 2018
    10:16am
    I'm all cashed up and only doing short term trades now as I don't even trust overseas markets long term. I did notice that the US market have broken out of their channel trading and heading for their highs once again.
    Rae
    28th Jul 2018
    11:34am
    Yes OG I've my eye on the US indexes now too. I took profits a while back for that river cruise in Europe I've been promising my daughter.

    And no it isn't selfish to trade markets and make money and enjoy the fruits of it at all. Or to try to tell others that it can be done. The past 8 year boom has been amazing. In fact most of the past 30 years for investing.

    Those super funds have a lot of explaining to do about why they fail to make the most of these market conditions in my opinion.
    Rae
    26th Jul 2018
    12:47pm
    There is a need for very heavy penalties for employers who force older workers out including redundancies. Anyone made redundant after 60 needs a payout enough to keep them until 70. You hear of older workers being replaced by cheaper younger workers all the time now. It happened where I worked a couple of years ago. The decision was to only employ cheap young casuals to save money.

    If you insist people work til 70 you have to ensure they are allowed to and employers are forced to accept the legislation changes.
    Anne
    26th Jul 2018
    1:06pm
    I was made redundant at 53. I've been able to pick some some freelance work since, but not enough to cover living costs. I apply for many jobs; I either don't hear back or am told I'm "too experienced". Two recruiters have told me they won't hire me because my CV is better than theirs.

    I'm now 56. I can't imagine working until I'm 70 when even KFC won't hire me.

    I am studying. I'll probably just keep on doing that...
    musicveg
    26th Jul 2018
    1:35pm
    Yes Anne it is very hard, it is good you are studying, keeps you motivated and learning,and hopefully you can then be self employed.
    Anne
    26th Jul 2018
    1:41pm
    That's the plan, musicveg. I have an idea in mind...
    Rae
    26th Jul 2018
    1:55pm
    Those young recruiters are sure scared of experience.

    Maybe legislation that specifies all recruiters need to be over 65 might solve the problem.

    There is my suggestion. Only over 65s are allowed to do certain tasks like recruiting or advising. Elders with experience.

    Legislate it and get those pesky young and fit hauling, lifting and shovelling.
    Triss
    26th Jul 2018
    2:34pm
    Agree, Rae.
    Triss
    26th Jul 2018
    1:35pm
    What gets me riled is the government is always bleating on about our “ageing population” being a burden on the health service and at the same time insisting we can all work until 70. How can you be sick enough to burden the health system and well enough to work full-time?
    musicveg
    26th Jul 2018
    1:38pm
    They just change their tune to suit the speech at the time. All lies. If we make people work until 70 they will be more injuries, disabilities and stress related sickness, so they will be more using the health system, that is why they what to privatize health care too, they do not want to be responsible for anyone anymore, we are on our own. All it is about is putting more people on Newstart for longer and putting more money in their own pockets.
    Anne
    26th Jul 2018
    1:42pm
    My uncle was a labourer since his teens. He had to retire at 58 after a heart attack.

    They don't take into account that certain jobs just can't be sustained until 70.
    Rae
    26th Jul 2018
    1:58pm
    Exactly why the Constitution forbids them being representatives. And there are still some in there ineligible it seems. No idea when they come from foreign cultures of how Australia worked and managed to be a wealthy country.
    Hoohoo
    26th Jul 2018
    2:55pm
    Ah yes, Fascism marches on to its logical conclusion.
    Rae
    27th Jul 2018
    9:33am
    What a depressing thought.
    Hoohoo
    28th Jul 2018
    12:09am
    Yeah sorry about that Rae.
    But as long as corporations call all the shots, a decent society doesn't stand a chance. Where will it all end? When all the resources are dug up & burnt? When all the fresh water aquifers have been drained to make dirty coal clean? When all the people are begging for breadcrumbs on the street?
    Who's going to stop corporations from their raping & pillaging? Definitely not democracy cos it's for sale, too.
    musicveg
    28th Jul 2018
    12:18am
    Not just corporations, Governments and those mega rich people who can buy anything. I try to be more positive and look for the positive changes that we do not hear about much, the younger generation are on to it, and with social media they are banding together to fight injustice.
    Hoohoo
    28th Jul 2018
    5:12pm
    You're right, musicveg. It is important to stay positive, even if we are only kidding ourselves.
    But it is a fact that all our governments are corporations: Federal, State & local Councils. And the mega rich depend on their corporate structures to remain on top. The only exception is a Family Trust, a pseudonym by most measures - it's a private corporation designed to avoid tax & ensure your descendants inherit everything sans tax. Farms should be the only structures allowed to have Family Trusts, as these people actually do useful work.
    I've decided to go bush when I retire. At least I can keep the corporate beasts out of my face. Best not to be too close to sea level, tho I'll probably cark it before the oceans rise (with their plastic cargo).
    musicveg
    28th Jul 2018
    5:23pm
    Make sure you do your research before you buy in the bush, could be destined for a highway or a mine nearby. Did you see the story on Current affair about the family who decided to move to a quiet location and then a highway was built and trucks go by 24/7, they are slowly going mad, the Government offered to build a 1.8 meter fence which would not have done anything and/or plant trees that would take 30 years before it was an effective screen.
    Hoohoo
    29th Jul 2018
    5:21pm
    I have friends who had a 10 acre bush block, complete with a running stream & rainforest. They built a shack from the timbers on the block & started their family there & then a huge power line cut through their property, between their house & the creek. So they sold up quick smart. Now the Pacific Motorway cuts through at the top of the nearest mountain. They moved to a farm further inland, the kids grown & sent to Uni. They are now professional musos & make Bluegrass instruments from the timber on the property. It's SO QUIET & peaceful - like a sanctuary.
    musicveg
    29th Jul 2018
    6:00pm
    Great they finally got their sanctuary, getting harder to find, love Bluegrass music, their life sounds ideal to me. Thanks for sharing the story.
    Ted Wards
    26th Jul 2018
    3:20pm
    Most people actually do work well beyond 70 but it may not be full time. I listened to a great talk on this, the issue is that older workers need different conditions such as job sharing, or working part time or 4 or 5 hours a day instead of the usual 7 or more, better breaks and so on. This is as much a comment on the ageing problem and whilst it continues to be viewed as a problem we will always have these insane ideas instead of sensible ones. The age of entitlement is over and the pension will gradually be phased out. Why? People a little younger than me have had access to super their whole working life and will be forced to use this rather than the pension. Whilst people are around who have not had access to super, for whatever reasons, most of their working years the gov will still need to support them. I am a realist and i am betting that the retirement age will disappear altogether.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jul 2018
    3:39pm
    Had a lady try to pull the age card on me today. I put here trolley out of the way so others could get past. She immediately pushed it back in the way of others and said she was 81 and could do what she liked. I told her he was only a youngster then and that she was a very stupid at that as she was blocking others with her trolley. Her assistant then decided to but in and have a go at me. So I said they were both being childish etc and they took off in a huff. Got my own back when the 81 year old younger couldn't get her dollar out of the trolley in the trolley. I asked if she needed any help and all I got was oh no not you again. So I just let her struggle on trying to remove her dollar and put my trolley in another bay. She was still struggling as I drove out of the car park. What is this with old people thinking they can do what they like simply because they are old. A lot of old workers try this on too and I for one have none of it.
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Jul 2018
    4:33pm
    Ted what makes you think that younger people will be forced to use superannuation rather than the pension? They can still access super at 55 years of age and use that up till pension age. If you forced me to work to 70 I would do exactly that. So unless the preservation age was changed in the future all this talk about working till coffin time is futile.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jul 2018
    9:00pm
    I believe the preservation age has been changed to 60 now too.
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Jul 2018
    9:24pm
    After 60 the withdrawals are tax free, at 55 there is some tax payable so I have been told. Does not worry me, I do not see 65 again.
    sunnyOz
    26th Jul 2018
    10:22pm
    Old Geezer - Regarding Preservation Age - your definition of 'now' needs clarifying. Anyone born on or after 1 July 1964, has a preservation age of 60 years. This group of Australians start turning 60 from 1 July 2024 onwards.
    Old Geezer
    27th Jul 2018
    10:06am
    That right I knew the preservation age had been lifted but I was too busy to look it up.
    jackie
    26th Jul 2018
    3:23pm
    I am more concerned with our politicians not having to work till they are 70. They can retire any time it suits them and still receive a pension whether they continue to work elsewhere and are free to live overseas. Who thinks it’s fair that Bronwyn Bishop gets $696 a day for her pension? I sure don’t especially when she scammed the system enough.
    musicveg
    26th Jul 2018
    3:30pm
    I agree Jackie, and most of them if asset tested like all pensioners would not be eligible, it is a crook system set up by the elite and it needs to be stopped. Then we could pay off the national debt they keep on about.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jul 2018
    3:31pm
    Those rules were changed so they don't get their pension until preservation age. Also their pension is part of a salary package and not welfare.
    Hoohoo
    26th Jul 2018
    3:57pm
    None of it is welfare, Old Geezer.

    I agree with you, musicveg. It IS a crook system.
    But NO-ONE in the present Govt is talking about reducing the national debt. How can they? They're proposing $80billion worth of tax cuts instead! Meaning there'll be even LESS money coming in to pay down debt.

    National debt was called an emergency crisis when it suited these robbers! They'd rather give wealthy people a big tax break than pay down debt, boost pensions or welfare like Newstart. That tells us everything - they are feathering their own nests & to hell with the poor! It is a bloody disgrace!

    Malcolm Turnbull thinks he deserves a medal for donating his salary to charity. (I admit it seems like a lovely gesture). But he's so rich he can afford to give away this chicken-feed pocket money. His tax cuts & leg-ups to big business more than compensate him for his so-called charitable works. Publicly he's giving away very large sums to charity, but with his other hand he's privately raking in the $$$millions, due to his own government's policies.
    Triss
    26th Jul 2018
    4:26pm
    By your rules, OG, many ex pollies' pensions are welfare. Ex pollies that left parliament in their 30's ran out of their own input many years ago, they would have to with their huge pension, multi business class travel every year and all the other perks. They are existing solely on taxpayer funded money and so are, in your explanation, welfare recipients. Check them out.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jul 2018
    4:49pm
    Triss no they are not on welfare but part of their entitlement for being a pollie.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jul 2018
    4:52pm
    Hoohoo the old age pension is welfare there is no doubt about it.

    Those tax cuts are good for our economy and in fact if the company tax rate was cut to 15% we would have more than enough revenue to pay everyone over 65 a pension. We could even give those on Newstart more too.
    Hoohoo
    26th Jul 2018
    5:23pm
    Trickle down bulldust, OG! I don't believe the lie about your 15% tax either. You should know, these people DON"T PAY ANY TAX! It doesn't make any difference about what % it is.

    What will the rich do with that extra $7,000 p.a.? Oh, I think I can afford another investment property, Jeeves (negatively geared, of course). And, my tax will be further reduced AND the Capital Gains Tax will be reduced by 50% when or if I have sell it. Marvelous!

    Give that $7K to the poor & they'll spend every bit of it in their local communities, actually creating demand in the economy & therefore new jobs.

    The investment property creates ZILCH! Except for the Real Estate Agent & Conveyancer, who will probably re-invest in property of overseas holiday.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jul 2018
    6:11pm
    Hoohoo you really have no idea of how tax works at all. Problem is they do pay tax but not here because our company tax rate is way too high.

    I agree the poor will spend the $7000 in our community on the black market buying drugs or going on cruises etc but how will that help our economy? Not one razzo will be fed into our economy.
    musicveg
    26th Jul 2018
    10:47pm
    So now you say all poor people spend their money on drugs and cruises OG, that does not make sense, of course their money goes back into the community buy paying GST on everything from food, utilities,and rent.
    ex PS
    27th Jul 2018
    9:34am
    O.G, under your own definition, a pension paid for by the taxpayer is welfare. Therefore, politicians pensions are welfare. You can't change the rules to suit your own argument especially when you made the rules.
    I do not agree that the Old Age Pension is welfare, it has been worked for and paid for by the recipients.
    Rae
    27th Jul 2018
    10:00am
    OG the data doesn't lie. Capital paid 3.3% of GDP in taxes in 1970 and they paid 3.2% of GDP in taxes in 2015. Workers paid slightly over 8% go GDP in 1970 and 12.6% of GDP in 2015 in income taxes.

    The GST take did not alter much from the old sales taxes and excises. It's almost exactly the same from 1970 til now.

    It seems the only losers from 40 years of neoliberal antics have been the workers if you look at the actual data.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Jul 2018
    10:25am
    OG, the company tax rate is Australia BEFORE any reduction was among the lowest in the world. The comparison tax rate (which is what counts) was about 10%. You are showing gross ignorance with your bigoted rants against the working class.
    Old Geezer
    27th Jul 2018
    2:31pm
    Rubbish OGR. Why do companies pay tax in places like Singapore and Ireland? They pay much less tax that's why. Our company tax rate is therefore still way too high.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Jul 2018
    5:40pm
    You are wrong again, OG. I repeat -our company tax was among the lowest rates in the world - at around 10% BEFORE any reduction. Our taxes are WAY TOO LOW because they are not delivering enough revenue to avoid escalating debt. The problem is GREED by the wealthy, who seem to think they have a divine right to pay nothing just because they were born rich.
    Hoohoo
    28th Jul 2018
    5:30pm
    OG I understand tax alright. I know the global system is CROOK & a crazy joke, all at the same time. There should be rules in place that stop corporations from syphoning profit to low-taxing countries. If they earn it here they should have to pay it here.

    If only we could stop corporations doing as they please, we could solve a plethora of our economy's ills. But people blindly believe the lie that supply & demand are these magical tools that will sort out all things. There's a global movement towards "small government" which dictates dog eat dog behaviour is rewarded & bugger the under-privileged, who are the real glue who work to run & hold our economy together.

    Who can stop corporations? No-one & no govt, unless we do the opposite of privatisation. But Socialism has become a dirty word, equivalent to Communism for the mad Right, who always use fear to the masses to get their way. When corporations were allowed to become "legal entities", more important than a person's entity, this marked the beginning of the end. There is nothing that can curb their power bar Socialism or radical regimes.
    Old Man
    26th Jul 2018
    4:15pm
    Of course it was expected that the stances taken by those petitioned would be along party lines. Just reading the names and the organisations is enough to know what the answers will be. It's all right for those who agree with increasing the age to become eligible for an age pension to quote productivity and support economic growth but there is an elephant in that room.

    There is an assumption that older workers will remain active in the workforce until reaching 70 yet we are told that the average worker will no longer stay with the one employer all of their working life. There are many who frequent this forum, me included, who had difficulty getting employment when it became necessary at an older age. As has been shown time after time, mature workers find great difficulty even getting an interview let alone getting employment. Before any increase in the retirement age is allowed to become law, more needs to be done looking after mature workers. Perhaps a quota system could be introduced just as a quota system is in place in a lot of areas for indigenous workers, female workers, workers with a disability and the like.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jul 2018
    4:58pm
    The only thing wrong with mature workers is that they fail to get enough exercise, eat well and look after themselves. If people did that then they could all work way beyond 70 if they wished. However it is never going to happen as people today as way too fat and lazy and rely on big pharma to keep them alive instead of doing what it takes to live well naturally.
    Hoohoo
    26th Jul 2018
    5:44pm
    OG, once again, you can't imagine what it's like for others in different circumstances. Thank your lucky stars you are in good health due to your own efforts & possibly genes.

    I'm in constant pain due to work & sporting injuries in the past. I also have had gut issues for over 34 years. I haven't had a prescription filled for over 30 years, eat very healthy food (some home grown by me), enjoy exercise & take natural medicines, because I believe toxic drugs will only worsen my gut health & inflammation.

    So, well done for looking after yourself. But please, have a little sympathy for those not so lucky. I'm self-employed & can't wait to go on the OAP, so I don't have to continue doing tasks (like heavy lifting & operating machinery), tasks that niggle my injuries.
    Old Man
    26th Jul 2018
    5:51pm
    OG, please stop generalising, not all mature workers fail to get enough exercise, eat well and look after themselves. Not all people today are way too fat and lazy and rely on big pharma to keep them alive instead of doing what it takes to live well naturally.
    musicveg
    26th Jul 2018
    6:13pm
    Hoohoo, check out books by Anthony William, Medical medium, Life-changing foods and Thyroid healing, there is so much you can do to improve your health. 34 years is a long time to suffer gut issues. I have started on celery juice which is supposed to heal the gut. I had some today and it calmed my gut down.
    I agree some people are keeping healthy and fit but are still not able to get work because of age. Employers what good looking young and energetic, once you have the wrinkles and grey hair you are judged harshly and put in the 'too old' basket when they sort the interviews out, after all so many people are applying and there are only about 1 job for every 13 people, although that may have changed lately, or should I say a real full-time job, not counting casual and temporary like they do with the unemployment figures.
    Hoohoo
    28th Jul 2018
    12:24am
    Thanks, musicveg. I know how to look after my gut now & haven't suffered with any issues for ages. The wheat allergy still shows up in blood tests & I can get away with a bit of gluten. So I'm strictly GF at home & can be more relaxed when I'm out.
    But I did get terribly ill in my 20's. I was lucky to find a great naturopath who put me on a gluten-free diet which was unheard of in the day, with no GF foods readily available in shops. The upside of that was that I simply avoided processed foods, a good idea for anyone wanting to be healthy.
    My thyroid is fine. Old war wounds hurt tho!
    musicveg
    28th Jul 2018
    12:40am
    I mainly do GF free too, but I can tolerate my home made sourdough spelt bread, the fermentation does something to the gluten to make it easier for your digestion and spelt has lower gluten then normal wheat. Tumeric is really good for inflammation too.
    Hoohoo
    28th Jul 2018
    5:39pm
    Good on you for making your own bread, musicveg. I usually buy Abbott's GF bread (despite the name!), which most people don't even suspect is GF.

    I read recently that old-fashioned bread (made by fermenting it for 24 hours or so), actually gobbles up a lot of the gluten in the process, unlike most modern-made bread.

    I have a large patch of organic-grown tumeric growing in my garden, but it's spreading into nearby garden plots at a rate of knots! It goes in most things I cook & yep, my hands are orange.
    Jim
    26th Jul 2018
    4:31pm
    This move is certainly on the governments agenda, it’s quite ridiculous to create a one size fits all retirement age, retirement should be according to a persons ability not at a particular age, If Labor is genuine in its concern for older Australians let’s see it in their policies, to start with they can reverse the decision regarding assets which affected many pensioners, then reverse the decision to make retirement for men and women and put it back to 60 for women and 65 for men, then we need a cast iron policy from Shorten that he is not going to touch any franking dividends for self funded retirees or those pensioners that get a small return on their investments. Then and only then would I consider Labor as a viable alternative government, we would also need to see some real costing on how this will be achieved, if this can become a reality I would be the first to give them a go.
    Old Geezer
    26th Jul 2018
    4:54pm
    If I was a betting man my money would be on Labor bring in the retirement age to 70 in their first term of office.

    Also why give woman the OAP five years earlier than men when they live a lot longer than men?
    musicveg
    26th Jul 2018
    4:56pm
    Why not send some emails out to the Labour MPs and ask them Jim, what they are planning? Tell them, the more people do, the more likely they might listen.
    Jim
    26th Jul 2018
    5:33pm
    I have done exactly that with our local Labor member, still awaiting response, but I won’t be holding my breath to get a positive answer, her last monthly news letter still has Labor policy on franking credits as their intention is to remove them.
    Cowboy Jim
    26th Jul 2018
    9:19pm
    A bit strange Jim, to bring the pension age down for women to 60, as OG says, they live a lot longer. My mother, now 95, has been on the pension since she was 62, dad went long ago. Everyone should get the pension at 65 years of age and make way for younger people to fill the vacancies.
    Knows-a-lot
    26th Jul 2018
    5:02pm
    Where's the interview with Tehan's opposite number? The Lieberal bastards want us to work until we drop, so then they can keep pension money in their coffers.
    Jim
    26th Jul 2018
    6:11pm
    So has Short on ideas said he is going to reverse any of the things that have been taken off pensioners, he will continue to reap the benefits that he inherits.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Jul 2018
    10:12am
    They are a tag team - Libs and Labor. They agree on objectives and pretend disagreement to keep the populace happy. They have a prior agreement as to which will implement what and what objections will be raised, but in the end neither will reverse the things they pretended objection to because in truth they agreed all along.
    Anne
    26th Jul 2018
    5:23pm
    I noted the comment on super preservation age being lifted.

    I reach my pres age in December this year and will definitely be pulling the money out before the government or super agency decides to keep it.

    I've been planning this for some time, so it won't get wasted...
    Cheezil61
    27th Jul 2018
    6:53am
    I turned 57 yesterday (preservation age) & I tend to agree it wont be safe for much longer in super & don't trust those who all want a chunk of it, but where do you then put it that's safer etc? If we access it before we are 60 we pay 15% tax on it to raid it. If we put it under the bed we risk it being stolen & it doesn't grow/earn interest etc. Do we need to stop working/retire to access it in a lump sum or prove hardship to take it out in a lump sum or is it best to take it as an allocated pension? Lots to consider & may end up worse off/losing more taking it out?? Financial advisors will want a chunk for giving us info that may or may not be good advice?? Hhmmm Any answers anyone?
    Rae
    28th Jul 2018
    11:58am
    Cheezil see if your fund has a free advisory session and take your questions with you. Sometimes you can see one of the Administrators of your fund and they often offer sound advice.

    You do have to retire to access it but you can reenter the workforce after if you change your mind.
    Cheezil61
    28th Jul 2018
    1:29pm
    Thanks for the info Rae. I guess I'm better off to keep working & access it in 3yrs time when I'm 60 so will have a little bit of time (HOPEFULLY!) to plan/check out what you have suggested!
    MD
    26th Jul 2018
    8:15pm
    Raise retirement age to 70 and watch the medical profession overwhelmed by a tsunami of the mendicant motivated populace that perceive their 'entitlement' under threat.
    Those fortunate enough, enjoying reasonable health and capable of work, should be encouraged by society to participate for as long as they wish. Age is merely a number, mind ie, attitude to aging, should be neither a determinate for social benefit or restriction to continued employment.
    Self esteem is an individual quality and likewise the age pension a matter for the individual: pension qualification was never intended to be an imposition.
    Social benefits - an extension of social goodwill, are an expression of societal faith in our fellow man. Nobody is compelled to use it, it's purpose serves as a safety net.
    Triss
    26th Jul 2018
    10:26pm
    It seems to be six of one and half a dozen of the other. We damn youth for not having jobs but yet keep older workers in the work force doing jobs that perhaps the younger ones could do.
    The government tries to get older folk to move out of their homes and into smaller ones so young families can be housed but keeps those older folk working so the younger ones don't have jobs and can't buy homes anyway. Insanity.
    Charlie
    26th Jul 2018
    11:08pm
    The measure of life expectancy is not a measure of how long people will be fit for work.

    I have a life expectancy of over 80... I had to retire on health grounds at age 56 and was given less favorable benefits than a person of 65 years (disability pension) But when I did reach 65 I was deemed ineligible to use a disability pension work agency for casual work even though I was on (over 65 disability pension.)

    I was unfit for work 24 years below my life expectancy.

    This is because medical science is allowing people to (stay alive) longer, but its not allowing people to be fit to work longer, by proportion.

    Already there is a generation still in school who are over weight. How will they be fit to work at at 60, let alone 67-70?

    This is all about money. Trying change the truth so it supports a desirable financial outcome.
    musicveg
    27th Jul 2018
    12:05am
    You are so right Charlie, the Government needs to invest more money into prevention health including mental health, otherwise we will have very few people fit for work in years to come, maybe that is why they will want robots to do everything.
    Old Geezer
    27th Jul 2018
    10:10am
    I agree Charlie there are 20 years old now on the disability pension because they are unfit to work due to obesity.
    Rae
    27th Jul 2018
    10:19am
    Yes the % of disabled in Australia is astonishing and something is badly wrong. One in 5 disabled is terrible.

    Perhaps we need to look at why people are suffering disability and how to prevent it.

    I know in the US you have medical tests before having children to help prevent disability from birth through genetic incompatibility.

    I've wondered if our child sport programs are using the best coaches with injury prevention. Some friends now suffer from their choice of sports as children and poor training way back then.
    MD
    27th Jul 2018
    10:26am
    Correct Charlie, "This is all about money." It isn't about any one individual and their (perceived) qualification for entitlement. That the present state of our severely aged/aging population will further exacerbate the problem is - partly for reasons you've mentioned - the very reason that the powers that be should have addressed this issue years ago. Now, in the face of 'you can't do this to us' opposition we lack any pollies with enough mettle (or backbone) to make a stand for the good of the country...much less the self professed 'entitled'.

    As long as social goodwill exists, we'll continue to witness an endless conga line of (self justified) qualifiers, in most cases each worthier than their fellow countryman - also lined up - in front of them.
    Mez
    31st Jul 2018
    4:02pm
    Whatever the arguments are for or against increasing the age pension eligibility, the fact still remains that we are not meant to work after the age of 60 because insurance companies do not allow anyone who is 60 or over to have Income Protection Insurance!
    In fact, they begin to increase their premiums from the age of 50 or 55 years of age and do not bother with medical tests!
    musicveg
    31st Jul 2018
    4:06pm
    Exactly Mez, so how on earth does the Government expect employers to employ anyone over 60. I wonder where workcare stands with this.
    *Loloften*
    1st Aug 2018
    3:57am
    Sadly a waste of time debating retirement age/young & old job prospects as IT'S already happening ie: what used to be jobs for all are often now done by computers/technology/robots. Simple examples, less - check-out staff @ Supermkt registers (can do it yourself); manufacturing lines (done by robots); Accountancy staff (can do it on the Internet); no car manufacturing (too expensive, mostly robotic now); basic legal & health aid consultants - can check queries on Internet; newspaper printers - all on Internet to read @ leisure; small aircraft pilots - those nasty robotic peepers are almost everywhere already & in the next 10-15yrs, pilots/train drivers & signallers + tram & taxi drivers will all be obsolete, done by computers + self-driven cars....& the list goes on & on & on. Pls let me know if u can think of more jobs being lost to Internet/Robotics, can't think of 'em all. By the time most ppl now in their 40 & 50s (& even we seniors now) there WILL NOT be enough jobs to come close to accommodate all 'til 70yr olds. The Coalitions tax reforms won't come into full effect for 10yrs....& their stupid enough to not realise the above re jobs decrease over the yrs which is already affecting us but will affect our children much more. Increasing the retirement age to 70 is totally stupid & not researched. It won't be possible, except for Politicians & the ever increasing pools of Public Servants.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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