A well-considered article on the topic of retirement incomes. As a baby-boomer, I have benefited from education and health services and am happy paying income tax for as long as I earn. Providing for income streams beyond the age of retirement is the responsibility for all of us with the means and ability. Raising the retirement age to 70 is inevitable. The only objection to the increased age is in consideration of those who rely on a fit, strong body to earn a living. The article's note on disability support pension addresses that question.

Well I am proud to say that I did not vote for Kevin 07, nor Julia, nor Kevin again, so I DO NOT take responsibility for the blow out in the debt.

I was very happy with our position before big Kev came to town.

There is no point in buying a home if you can't leave it to your children. People can hardly be blamed for the housing boom which turned modest family homes into million dollar assets.
Most couples worked extremely hard to buy these homes whilst raising children without the help from government that parents receive from government these days.
The costs of buying and maintaining a home far outway the expense of renting privately or depending on government housing.
If family homes are to be counted as an asset fewer people will buy them, rather spending their money on holidays and entertainment, leaving them dependant on public housing after their superannuation has run out.
So, on top of providing an aged pension, the government will have to provide more housing for the elderly as well.

So the only reason for buying a home is so you can leave it to your children?

rehctub, the debt's continued to blow out under Abbott, so your protestations of innocence are meaningless! The debt's mainly due to the economic cycle rather than government policy.

>So the only reason for buying a home is so you can leave it to your kids< What rubbish! One buys a house to live in it, pay it off and leave it to the kids.

After all that's the only chance many of them will have to own a home and or get out from under the greedy price gouging landlord.

If welfare is just for the needy, why is so much being given to the greedy! i.e., negative gearing, millionaires tax concessions on their super, and family trusts, which by the way, also go to the kids, allegedly!

I paid tax at the top rate and in part helped to pay for Telstra, Qantas, T.A.A, Dozens of power companies and insurance companies and banks, with the CBA still remaining the biggest and most profitable.

Had government not sold these things, that we oldies paid for; the combined return would have paid all of the old age pensions.

And there were only sold because successive government gave away the mining boom, and far too much middle class welfare as pork barreling/vote buying.

And now pensioners/home owners who worked hard all their lives for their humble abodes, are expected to pay for what?

What about those who are so called pensioners, able to play the pokies live in veritable mansions,take an overseas trip every year and still collect a full or in part pension.

Someone on David's income and with his generous pension entitlements should have to pay fr his own retirement.

But particularly if he get a federal parliamentary pension/super; and a state one as well?

On one thing we can agree welfare is for the needy, not the greedy!
Rhrosty.