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.

It is the way of nature to abandon the sick and the old. Simply because it
Is a burden that threatens the young and fit.

Our own species displays the same instinct. It is called ageism.

If society should ever become unable to offer medical support for all, then it is the young
that will be chosen to be given the treatment that is available. This is only
commonsense if things ever get to this kind of economic crisis situation.

Like everyone I would like to age well, with enough money to support my old age.
And hopefully a couple of good friends and contact with family when they have time away from their very busy lives.
I think superannuation is great but I don't have a lot of faith in governments not
using that money if ever there is a major war or desperate economic crash.

Nothing in life can be taken as a certainty.

CHERFUL

I'm not sure it IS the way of nature to abandon the old and sick. Anthropological evidence indicates that this was not common practice in tribal societies, although those that lived within very harsh environments often did abandon them.

Advanced civilisation has imposed its own 'harsh environment', by creating a fake survivalist scenario despite supposedly providing a fairly comfortable existence for most people. This harsh environment is based on dog-eat-dog competition and profit before people.

'I think superannuation is great but I don't have a lot of faith in governments not using that money if ever there is a major war or desperate economic crash.'

Compulsory superannuation has nothing to do with providing for the aged. It's about privatising aged care by creating a giant investment pool. The previous aged-pension system, based on direct government funding, was much, much cheaper (according to an Australia Institute study a few years years ago - up to two-thirds cheaper), but private corporate interests were unable to get their hands on the funds. Now they have open slather and will rob the till if and when their interests dictate.

diver dan

'... if super discrepancies were the end of the problem, the age could find a way around it.'

Don't understand what you mean by this.

However, re rents. Those who make the decisions about aged pensions have absolutely no idea or experience as to why people over 60 may still have to rent. This is because they almost entirely comprise the landlord class.

In my previous comment, I didn't include two of the most common reasons why people over 60 often find themselves without a paid-off home - divorce and bankruptcy. The latter is extremely common among self-employed people in the wake of the GFC. The former tends to negatively affect women far more than men.

Killarney..

**.. if super discrepancies were the end of the problem, the age could find a way around it.'*

The above was a statement describing the vast range of useful benefits achieved by the individual.
The exclusion of its usefulness to the majority of superannuants, is its failure to currently support the aged with any degree of independence from Government pensions.

For example, only those in the workforce with disposable income are capable of reducing their taxable income by stacking their wealth into super funds.

The poor are the problem aged. The wealthy are capable of self support. The way forward is to brutally reduce tax avoidance among the wealthy. The whole system is groaning under the weight of unnecessary assistance given to the wealthy. The same problem appears from the same cause in home ownership, which is in serious decline.

The end result of poverty in old age in our community, is homelessness, which leads to further health impacts and is simply ignoring the problem. That's the debate which should occur.
Should the Government simply abandon any responsibility towards the aged in our communities and allow them to simply die prematurely in appalling circumstances.

The march seems to be in that direction. The Government appears to exist for the total benefits of the wealthy. Sounds like a recipe for revolt, which is what we see at the moment in politics!

diver dan

Agree on all counts. The current discourse on the supposed 'grey tsunami' completely overlooks the fact that most people CAN fund their own retirement and medical costs in old age. Yet this same discourse is used to cut back on the pensions paid to that much smaller number of people who CAN'T fund their own retirement or medical costs.

Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 2 March 2017 3:55:07 PM' Well said, Just a couple of things to add.

Govt must start creating money for itself out of thin air just like banks do by using the same method banks use. This would enable them to provide all retired people with a healthy and comfortable living standard.

This in turn would mean the economic stimulas package spent into the local economy would proportinaltely rise as well.

In 1937 the Aus govt had a royal commission into banking industry and the head of the enquiry said there is no reason the Commonweth Bank could lend the govt on terms that included the non repayment of principle and interest.

Diver Dan

I agree with your observation that the privatising of aged care will allow private enterprise, to grab the superannuation of the elderly to make profits.
It will also mean those who can pay the most will get the best care and resources.
once again favouring those with money.

Killarney,
Yes, what you say is right, the system is now geared to protect the ruling elites.
It is obvious that it is the wealthy 10% that need to take an income cut in the form of taxes, They are the only ones who have the money to do it. But they are avoiding
that and trying every way they can to put the burden on the middle classes and low income workers and pensioners.

Nothing in life ever changes, be it communist ruling classes, democratic ruling classes, dictators, they all set them selves up handsomely when they get the keys to the nation's money. Looks like the pitchforks will have to be bought out again for the overthrow when it gets to them only allowing us barely enough to eat and survive.

Funny how those in power, seem to have grown pig snouts.

I watched an interesting utube by a European politician, in which he said,
we no longer have democracy in Europe and the West, because the power has shifted
to the money, not the politicians. When the money has the power, there is no democracy.

The government is creeping silently towards a pension scheme such as the Chilean.

Every worker carries a work record book through life. At the end of working life, pensions are paid in accordance with work record: IE, limited work equals limited pension.
This is all very right wing think. What the supporters of this guaranteed inequality overlook or choose to ignore, is sooner (mostly) rather than later, they themselves are impacted by the same repressive rule of law.

Diver Dan,
Yes, the people who support the siphoning of money off the aged are
no doubt shooting themselves in the foot,
because---Here come the robots and they too may find
themselves without many work opportunities.

Driverless cars and trucks and buses. Lot of jobs gone there, when they get that up and running.
Plus some of those Japanese robots look like they might soon
Man the McDonald's counters, go down the mines and dig up the gold, take the soldiers jobs.

The trouble is when people get to thinking, I'm alright Jack, and let the ruling classes
Water down the rights of all the lower peasants, They then find themselves one day
In the same position. Too old,too sick, no job and no income except,maybe they
will be allowed to buy rations on a limited, issued card.
Think of the little blood vessels in your brain, one of those has just got to go POP!
and it's a rations card for you. Happens to young people too.