Mind your own business,sport,and leave old folks alone.Your photograph indicates that you are no chicken yourself, so it's very unlikely that the 'young and beautiful' will take much notice of you. You apparently have not noticed that they don't take much notice of us oldies: we are virtually invisible.

There is a lot of complete and utter rubbish mused on about the elderly - mostly by people who have no idea what it is like to be old.

My mother lived to see her 99Th birthday. Not for me thanks.

Once I lose my drivers licence, & my independence & mobility with it, hand me my wings, I'm out of here thanks.

Yes, and absolutely underlines the need for very broad based tax reform, with as its first mission the eradication of all tax avoidance. Moreover, in this brave new world there will be far more old folk and far fewer young taxpayers, trying to shoulder an impossible burden!

Genuine tax reform will spread the load across the entire economy and make avoidance more costly as practise, than simply copping it sweet as a fair share of a common burden, or just the essential price of doing business.

For mine that very broad based system ought to be a single stand alone unavoidable expenditure tax, collected as money exists accounts. With very real total tax savings in the offing for those who currently shoulder the burden. And with that burden more fairly carried by all and sundry. All enterprise located here will save money/increase gross profits no longer having 7% average ripped from the bottom line by compliance costs! And able to pocket the GST, given the new unavoidable impost would replace all other tax measures including fuel excise. And with all that done and household disposables improved by as much as 25% Make a non contributory but compulsory super of not less than 15% equally unavoidable.

Moreover in the not too distant future, we will need to ensure all citizens are allocated a social wage, and doable if we downsize and streamline government, reduced to the essentials, rather than a money churn money wasting machine.

And in that context, government owned enterprise, energy, essential (cash cow) service, and some capital, new peoples bank, low cost rental housing, ought be tasked with paying citizens a social wage and dependant on population reduction; as opposed to mindless expansion, when the house full sign is already up!
Alan B.

This is an interesting subject. In the end, the aged are neglected on the whole, so these ideas are noble.
But the real problem seldom addressed, is who is responsible for their welfare. Pensions are the crux of the solution to survival. But health care, as it is, is as unaffordable for the aged as is for many other segments of society. So tax payer funding has a limit, and is not sufficient on its own.

Survival in old age comes down to luck, as it always has. I don't think it is entirely dependent on resources! Nor do I think it necessary to contribute skills and talents to society after retirement, unless there's a desire to do that. All skills should be directed towards supporting the individual in old age.

Government is best positioned to assist people in retirement, by facilitating a universally useful superannuation scheme, allowing people the independence desirable.

diver dan

'Government is best positioned to assist people in retirement, by facilitating a universally useful superannuation scheme, allowing people the independence desirable.'

The current superannuation system - as it exists - is not at all universally useful. The current superannuation system is bleeding the country dry through government contributions linked to what a person in permanent paid employment earns. Because government contributions have been disastrously linked to a percentage of permanent employed income, 40% of government expenditure on superannuation contributions goes to the top 6% of salary earners.

A huge percentage of the adult population DO NOT have permanent paid employment - long-term unemployed, part-timers and casuals, carers, freelance and contract workers, the self-employed, disabled people and so on. Also, low-paid permanent workers get a much smaller government superannuation contribution. Most contract and freelance workers get nothing.

At the very least, the government contribution should be capped at a certain income level. This would free up billions that could be diverted to providing decent pensions for people whose life circumstances fall outside the current superannuation system.

Killarney...
True: But if super discrepancies were the end of the problem, the age could find a way around it.
Another significant point I didn't mention, is the reliance on the private rental market for accommodation.
Rents can take around sixty percent of a fixed income. This situation is actually a threat to very existence.
I can't see any UN charter fixing this type of cemented-in reality.