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.