Good one,runner.

So why did Dave Leyonhjelm write this article?

Dave doesn't tell us why. Dave doesn't provide links or citations to verify any evidence.

Did the Packers put him up to it?

If its to restore Dave's political career then shouldn't we know if the Packers share Dave's Party's continuing post-Christchurch views on guns http://www.ldp.org.au/firearms ?

"It is simply immoral for taxpayers who don't even own a house to be funding the pensions of those who could be living in a $60 million house."

No, there is nothing immoral about funding others' pensions - it is only immoral to accept a pension that was, fully or partially, taken from others against their will.

Let everyone be eligible, unconditionally, but let those who have a minimal sense of morality refuse to take that pension to which they are "eligible".

Perhaps the way forward is to require those in receipt of a pension to wear a recognisable article of dress, a particular hood or something, then anyone who has no shame ought to be able to take a pension, two hoods if s/he want it double.

We can't seriously call those who limit their taxes to the absolute limit as Pension entitled !

"As a nation, we need to effectively leverage the three P's - population, participation and productivity - to meet this challenge,
Says Josh Frydenberg,
What about the fourth P (Politicians) ?

Yuyutsu,it is no less immoral to expect those who skimped & saved for most of their working life to pay for a house that gives them their security in old age, to now have to pay to house those who spent like drunken sailors all their working lives, only to complain of hardship after retirement.

There is plenty of cheap rent available in country towns. It may not be the preferred location for many old renters, but as the old saying goes, beggars can't be choosers.

If they wanted to live in a capital city in retirement they should have made provision for that in their working lives.