“The Treasury Inter-Generational Report suggests that by 2040, there will be twice as many people older than 65, and four times as many over 85. Spiralling social security and health care bills will result in a budget deficit of $87 billion if policy settings don’t change.”

One of the services that could be cut – if it really can be regarded as a service to anyone, including aged people themselves – is keeping people alive artificially when they have well passed their ‘three score years and ten’ dates.

Some people live to a very old age without much illness and cost to the community. Fair enough. But keeping most people alive merely by the administration of costly drugs is little fun for the recipients of this taxpayer largesse, and is enormously costly. Most of the ageing population politicians are continually moaning about would have been dead and buried long ago if it were not for the obsessions of scientists wanting to interfere with the natural life cycle and keep people alive, as though living on, half gaga, with no real interest in anything any more is something good.

Keeping old people alive, when many if not most of them, would be happy to slip away peacefully is idiotic, as is the taboo on euthanasia

RACE BASED BABY BONUS
How would it be, if the government looked at the fertility rates of the various ethnic groups, and made policy on the basis of retaining the status quo, OR strengthening the position of certain segments of the racial mix ? :) (Welcome to Malaysia in principle.. they don't have a specific policy like this that I know of)

RACE BASED BANK
and then..how would it be, if your access to low cost finance, specially entrepreneurial loans was based on your race... (Welcome to Malaysia...Bank BumiPutera=Sons of the soil)

RACE BASED EDUCATION POLICY
And then.. we have quotas of the number of people allowed to enter university which basically exlude one particular race, and open the door to another, plus some small minority indigenous races. (Welcome to Malaysia the 'NEP' New education policy.

And why would you do all this ? what could have kicked it off ?

Hmm looking back to a plane trip in a C130 from Vung Tau(Vietnam) to Butterworth in Malaysia, I recall the pilot informing us of the outbreak of RACE RIOTS which pitted the economically disadvantaged Malays against the economically progressive Chinese. The riots were over that very situation. "You have... we don't.. we want"

THE RESULTS.. today there is racial harmony, a sense of national pride, very little conflict, an international Airport which shames the best of Australia (all of ours put together) a Fast train (which we don't even have) and a booming economy.....

Hmmm.. perhaps they can teach us something about the positive aspects of 'racist' social policy :)

In Australia, I sense a long standing and increasing sense of hopelessness and cultural disadvantage among those of Anglo background. Cronulla was just a tiny sign of that.

THE NEXT POLITICAL PHASE.
With the outsourcing overseas of low and hitech jobs. The loss of most of our manufacturing occupations and the privatization of the 'Peoples Bank-CBA' (Thanx ALP) into a "licence to print money" shareholder based organization; the FTA which is Neo Colonialism into the US empire.. the only phase which we can have is CHAOS.

Leigh - - why stop with the elderly, what about all the drugs given to people with lifestyle diseases. High cholesterol, some type of diabetes, (perhaps even depression ?), could perhaps be managed by diet, exercise and commonsense, but we're paying billions to subsidise drugs to "treat" these conditions.

We're NOT excessively taxed by international standards, and anyway you get what you pay for and we still have a lot better public services than many other countries - who would want the American health system ?

We may have to change things as the population ages - possibly moving the retirement age to 68 would be a start.

Add people who smoke. They burden the medical system with their high cost lifestyle choices.

I agree. People who smoke should not be allowed to do anything at all.

I just read a report where smokers were costing the health system $750 million a year.

But tobacco excise raises over $2.8 billion per year. If we all give up smoking who pays the $2 billion? If everyone smoked maybe we could pay for our inadequate health system. We would all die earlier making euthanasia irrelevant. We could have an IQ test at 5 years old if too low you get a packet of Winnies to have at play lunch.

Then we could ban all sports because sports injuries cost too much. But then the alcohol industry would have nowhere to advertise so we would loose the alcohol excise more billions.

We could make everyone walk everywhere this would keep them fit. But we loose petrol excise more billions to be found.

Oh I forgot, these excises were illegally collected for decades. The High Court ruled in favour of the Porn Industry in the ACT. Why weren't these illegal taxes returned?

No government will ban smoking, that would be killing the Golden Goose.
As an ex smoker, if I were to play God for a day, tobacco would be the first thing to go. Alcohol.......er....um.....horse betting would be the next.
The human chimney pays all along, first in tobacco profits then in revenue and finally in health.

Fair enough ^_^

We are probably drifting off topic but I cant let the misinformation about tobacco costs lie unchallenged. If you look at the total picture the costs of tobacco (and other drugs) is grim and there is no way they could be said to pay their way. The most recent detailed figures for 1999 can be found at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/other/ndsmono49.html

It is true that as far as the government is concerned smoking raises more money than it costs - in 1999 it raised $2.7B more than it spent. However the government only pays for about 11% of the total costs of smoking - businesses and individuals pay most of the rest. In 1999 the cost to society of tobacco was around $21B, of which smokers contributed about $5B. Whether non-smokers pay for smokers directly through taxes, or indirectly through insurance premiums and increased living costs matters little.

AndrewM

Thank you for the report on illicit drugs interspersed with tobacco and alcohol, which last time I looked were legal drugs. At least it backs up my figure of 2.8 billion in revenue. But what a lot of drivel the report was. Smokers are 1.2 times more likely to have sickies, has any research into people who eat a packet of Tim Tams a day been done?

The 21 Billion figure was for illicit drugs not tobaccco. My post was meant in jest. yours is factually wrong.

Steve

I was not equating tobacco with illegal drugs (which I believe cause more damage than is commonly recognised despite the relatively low economic damage attributed to them). I was merely challenging the incorrect and unsourced figures that you presented.

Have a look at page IX of the executive summary, but if you dont believe the government you probably wont believe me when I quote page 59 of the report which says " Of the total social cost of drug abuse in 1998-9 of $34.4 billion, tobacco accounted for approximately $21.1 billion, alcohol for $7.6 billion and illicit drugs $6.1 billion"

I think we have to take notice of the example of our Asian neighbours;strengthen the family unit and rely on Govt handouts a lot less.Govt handouts have just created huge numbers of unemployable people.People will have to learn to become more self reliant.Many young people who just finish school just use the dole as a means of extending their holidays.

Australia will soon have no manufacturing industry.Many other IT jobs are being outsourced overseas.

Are we to become a nation of pooch washers,lawn mowers,glue applicators[ie tradesmen] and social workers?

As Kerry has suggested,we have to look at the consequences futher down the track,especially time for families to interact and consolidate their future.

If 15% of smokers, die 15% years younger, it saves the tax payer 15% of the health care bill.
That pile of twaddle came streight out of my imagination, but I bet it is more accurare than all the "social costs" we see in these B grade, worthless reports. The "researcher" found nothing, so gingers up the report, with meaningless twaddle, to justify the grant, & assure the next one.
Give me a break.

What a wonderful range of comments about our future. One person wants to kill off old people and the rest highlight tobacco as our largest problem. And as Solomon says, why stop with the elderly? Surely starting that process at birth would save more money. Let's get rid of thin people, fat people, short people, tall people, smokers, drinkers, drivers, politicians and...oops, there's no one left to get rid off or pay for anything.

Come on people, you haven't even got close to the topic.

For Solomon, if we are not amongst the highest taxed people in the world, where do we rate? 2nd, 3rd, 4th? We currently have a Federal Government that cannot even get close to managing a budget as they continually underestimate the income. A surplus of how much? Is it $13 billion or $16 billion? Or more? State governments are the same, piling up GSt money and calling themselves good managers. Any of us could do the same if we charge more than we spend.

Our current Federal government has created more recipients of welfare than any previously, at salary levels up to $80,000 per annum. Where did they get the money? From overtaxing the population and companies? What do they do with those surpluses? Buy votes of course, not invest it in under maintained infrastructure or the health system. Buy votes.

And once they win an election by dishing out those new and increased benefits they then start the cry to cut back on welfare recipients, both in numbers and size of payments. The problem is not those needing support it is governments who are two faced, create a prtoblem and then attack those affected.

Logans Run

RobbyH,
You have hit the nail on the head. Our Governments collect tax and don't spend it where the need lies, and come up with a surplus. The public don't seem to realise that this is not good economic management, simply depriving them of the level of services they have paid to recieve.

What is a surplus, if not tax collected which has not been allocated to the purpose for which it was collected.

The gulible Australian public are told black is in fact white, and believe it, if I could convince my bank manager as easily, I would be a millionaire, and all of you would pay to keep me in a style I could easily become acustomed to.

Yeah, what robbyh and shonga said. And more.

Private schools and private health care are promoted in the interests of choice, which really gets up my nose. Our public money has been pulled out of our public health and education systems and fed into private systems. The result is that if you want a decent education for your kids or a halfway decent hospital you have reduced, not increased, choice.

I have great admiration for the health and educational people who stay with the public systems and continue to do more and more with less and less.

Kerry Corke is correct and certainly John Howard signalled "the end of the post-war social welfare era" ...

Education is fast becoming dependent on private funding.

Health care - ditto ... focus on what Abbott does not say.

Retirement - ditto ... super will overtake pension.

Aged care - ditto ... Vanstone ensured the last or our assets including the family home will be forfeit.

We shall all die pennyless after a lifetime of work ... Howard's legacy.

All on the back of 'studies' designed to terrify the public into believing these draconian measures are necessary.

I'm almost agree with Shonga on this one - the $13 billion surplus should automatically be given back as a tax refund.

Anyone who has ever dealt with Australia's worst bureaucracy - otherwise known as Centrelink - will know they don't take too kindly to people who underestimate their income, which is exactly what the Government has done.

Now it is time for them to pay it back.

t.u.s