Most retirees are self-funded by superannuation. At present, the statistics are distorted by the large number of unsuperannuated retirees who started work before 1989, when Keating's compulsory superannuation contribution scheme was introduced.

By 2029, the superannuation pay-off will have happened and the number of aged-pension retirees will have drastically reduced. The current 'grey tsunami' scare campaign will disipate. What we will be left with (and what we are already starting to face) is the large number of workers who didn't fit snugly into Keating's vision - the self-employed, the long-term unemployed (who often turn to the extremely insecure and unsuperannuated option of freelancing to make a living), the long-term carers (of children, the disabled and the aged - most of whom are women), and those who are catastrophically disabled financially by bankruptcy.

At present, the 'grey tsunami' narrative focuses only on the arbitrary numbers of all workers who will be retiring over the next 15 years (regardless of their capacity to fund their own retirement through superannuation), to portray a catastrophic scenario that assumes all those workers will be relying on the aged pension.

This is not the case. Only those workers who fall through the superannuation cracks will be reliant on the aged pension.

Unfortunately, it is those workers who will be disadvantaged and destroyed by further efforts to curtail access to the aged pension. It is those workers who will be forced to work till they drop, while the lucky superannuated will be living the life of Riley.

Killarney: There's much in what you say, and I was one of those who worked till they dropped! I had income protection insurance and super!

I was also a victim of the legal profession in a claim for compensation that was strung out for 8+ years, as my modest resources were exhausted. Had my lawyer been working for me, my claim could have been settled out of court far sooner for a significantly higher amount than what the courts awarded me, leaving both of us seriously better off?

As a highly paid professional, I was in the top tax bracket that at one times exceeded 60 cents in the dollar, nor were there any tax breaks for contributing to my super back then.

And given the delays and drain on my modest resources, followed by the cost of the subsequent divorce! I was one of those who fell through the cracks! And through no fault of my own given I was one of the most industrious employees!

Now I live hand to mouth and tremble in financial trepidation with everything that breaks down needing repair.

The medication is not free yet, and I'm still making mortgage payments, even when you stop earning, none of the costs of living do! Even so, I stand by my statement that an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cures, or in the case of old folk extremely profitable till death do us part, "management"!

JKJ doesn't know how long he'll be healthy and able to work, given fate has a way of bringing us all down to size; motor car accidents, a impossible collision between trains or planes dropping from the skies, and unfortunately surviving.

And as usual, these I'm alright Jack types completely miss the point, that the cost to the long suffering taxpayer could be vastly reduced with a more sane approach to prevention and indeed keeping old useless folks out of nursing home and $70,000.00+ a year beds! As well as shaving billions from our medicine bill!

We start work later, don't work near as hard, live longer, yet won't accept that the retirement age must be increased in order to fund not only our retirement, but that of those who don't contribute, either intentionally, or unintentionally.

Hi Butch,

Yes, when the old age pension was introduced early last century, the average pensioner lived only two years past retirement age.

So of course - given that we are far, far less likely to be working in heavy, physical jobs than back then, the retirement age should be put up. As I approach 75, and expect many years of active life after that, I wouldn't mind if the retirement age, the pension age, was pushed up to seventy five by 2030. Maybe up to eighty by 2040. Eighty five by 2050.

Gen Y: throw a tizzy !

Joe.

Killarney, Rhostry

Your assumption that you were charged by God to tell common mortals what their values should be, has no basis in reality.

Take away your assumptions that you know what everyone else's values should be, and that government magically creates net benefits for society by forced confiscations, and all you have is a confused circularity.

Your argument would only make sense if people had no other values than providing for retirement, or if you automatically and intrinsically knew which values should prevail in case of a conflict. They do, and you don't.

If your assumptions are true, why not make the guaranteed superannuation 100% of salary? Why not 200%?. According to your theory, that would make everyone else even better off in retirement, wouldn't it?

You need to compare apples with apples - i.e. the constraints on the voluntary sector with the constraints on the coercive sector, in units of a lowest common denominator. All you're doing is pretending to pull rabbits out of hats, while not accounting for costs on one side of the equation.

JKJ

Rhrosty can speak for himself. MY point is that retirement has become a two-tiered structure - those who fall into the superannuation net, i.e. those able-bodied persons who are in permanent, secure jobs that make a regular contribution to superannuation over their working lives (with the added government contribution), can face old age as independent retirees. Whatever changes are made to the aged pension does not affect them.

Those who fall outside of that net - because of prolonged time outside the permanent workforce (through long-term unemployment, freelance self-employment, prolonged disability, bankruptcy or carer duties) must rely on the aged pension.

The welfare haters among us are determined to destroy the aged pension, because they see it as a vile burden on the public purse. They distort any reliance on the aged pension as a universal burden, as if the entire population over a particular age are lining up for it. This is not the case. Most people do not want to rely on the aged pension, as it is barely enough for anyone to live on. It really only affects a certain percentage of the aged population, who have no other means of support in their old age.

What I find interesting is that those who most fiercely attack the aged pension as being a burden on the public purse - and cite all kinds of statistics about increasing longevity - see absolutely NOTHING wrong with the fact that 40% of the government superannuation contribution (about $30 billion annually) goes to the top 6% of salary earners.

This comes down to the perennial right-wing disdain for the poor and vulnerable needing a social welfare net, while defending - indeed promoting - the right of the rich to reap the benefits of the public purse.

On that basis, don't preach to me about values, mate.