Oh dear, here we go again. Recycling Hitler's policies to get rid of the oldies so the youngsters can have all of it!
>Other advantages accruing to older Australians include free public transport and rate concessions.< It seems to me that these same benefits are available to the young, eg students. And oldies didn't drive up house prices as you seem to be implying - the younger generation did in its excessive demands for top-line accommodation. Your argument has a number of other flaws but I am sure others will respond to them. I for one am too sick and tired of the younger generations excessive demands and whinging to bother much now.

Wow,why don't we just give people the needle once they reach retirement age.Older people have paid their taxes,have bought houses(most of them older style)to live in for the rest of their lives.Most of us don't have significant amounts of super as super has only been compulsory for a relatively few years when you take into consideration the number of years a lot of older people have worked.We did not get any of the lurks and perks the younger generation have today.If the wages are as high as is made out let them save as we did.I bet a lot of the younger people drive nice cars and have plasma tvs etc.Not many of the older folk i know have all the fancy mod cons or can afford them.We raised our children on $2 a month endowment,what do they get now?Virtually free child care so both can work and all sorts of tax concessions which were never heard of in our day.This article is the biggest load of hogwash i have ever read.

A few things:
Well done to the writer....the largesse is getting out of control, it isn't even going where its most needed.
Students don't get free public transport, unemployed persons in Sydney pay much more for a day out on public transport than pensioners.
We spend billions of dollars on health care for oldies who have neglected their health through tobacco use, poor diet, obesity and excessive alcohol consumption.........to give them often only an extra couple of years before they go.
The grey set are conservative voters. Its pure pork barrelling. Those on disability pensions or unemployed vote the wrong way, so we get nothing.

It seems this set of our elders are ready to sell us down the river, spend up all the reserves frivolously, I suppose as long as someone else is paying for it they reckon its alright.

The Institute of Public Affairs is a right wing think tank that doesn't want taxpayers money spent on pensioners. Hell no, the money should be spent on tax deductions to high income earners and for tax concessions on coal fired power stations, compulsory ethanol in fuel, banning north west Sydney railway lines and allowing Gerry Harvey to import workers whom he can pay half the Australian wages.

Howard knows that the Aussie battler in receipt of sickness benefit or aged pension returned his government at the 2004 election. Both parties are shamelessly pork barrelling, while not addressing the real problems of global warming, peak oil, reduction in food supplies and the imminent global recession that is being heralded by the US subprime meltdown.

This is a bit like typical comments made by a writer who is a Labour Party publicity writer with the same Surname as the writer of this article

arcticdog, I'm afraid your post was utter rot.

An article comes along pointing out that policies that benefit one group inevitably detract from other groups, and you liken it to 'hitler' and 'getting rid of oldies'?!

What? so just because it doesn't support 'oldies' it's being likened to hitler?
Like I said, extremist rot.
You say you're sick of the younger generations demanding things, well I say I'm sick of the boomer generation that has used its large voting power to shape society to suit them personally. Notice how they got free education and are now being targeted for pensioner bonuses?
Gimme a break. If you want to make criticisms, fine, but please, try to keep them grounded in reality and remotely relevant to the article.

All that being said, I wouldn't want to scale back assistance given to pensioners, and of course there needs to be an appropriate level of assistance. I suspect the IPA would love nothing more than to promote small government to the level where they have almost no responsibility at all for its citizens, be they senior or otherwise, though this would evidently be going too far.

I just tend to think it's disappointing that in this election, the only groups that rate a mention are Rudd's 'working families' or the elderly. I guess the rest of us just don't matter.

It's a rare day when I agree with anything that's come out of the Institute for Public Affairs, but this article has some merit, though sadly I fear it's really just one aspect of a general desire to remove responsibility and services from government in general.

From the article “The Coalition’s targeting of the pensioner vote is forcing one set of taxpayers to give support to others.”

All taxes do this.

Certainly the “baby bonus” and subsidised (by tax deductibility) separates the young from the older employed as well as pensioners, who are beyond “child-bearing” age.

It would also be said that employment subsidies or unemployment benefits no longer benefit those who are no longer in the work force.

I think the thrust of the article is negative and would observe

The fairness of giving benefits to the elderly is this

Those who now receive a lower pension (as % of average earnings) than was paid to previous generations have effectively subsidised prior generations without receiving similar benefit, somewhat unfairly.

From a fairness perspective, the “leveller” is that the vast majority of us will be pensioners one day and hopefully entitled to some benefits which the taxes, we paid historically thoughout our working life, entitle us to.

Oh Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family,

I do so enjoy your posts. The classic “It seems this set of our elders are ready to sell us down the river, spend up all the reserves frivolously, I suppose as long as someone else is paying for it they reckon its alright.”

I guess your old folks are busy spending your dis-inheritance?

Or is it sour grapes that you cannot get fitted with a “purse” and a pair of joybags on medicare?

Having joined the ranks of the infirm several years ago and of the over-65s recently, I fully endorse the stance taken by Alan Moran (who is around 66-67). Alan says: "concentrating subsidies on a large segment of the population is likely to have adverse effects. It will encourage people to change their expenditure patterns to take advantage of the windfalls offered and to position themselves better to do so. And it will encourage those being obligated to pay the subsidies to move or to rearrange their affairs in ways that are disadvantageous for the nation as a whole so that they avoid the imposts."

Such vested interest policies are unfortunately widespread. They are economically and administratively inefficient (particularly when, as with us oldies, the largesse is spread across many separate benefits rather than consolidated into a single measure such as the Age Pension), and divert people from entrepreneurial and self-sufficient approaches which will do far more to enhance our individual and communal well-being.

To take advantage of the windfalls offered.Does that include the many young girls having babies to receive the $4,ooo and claim parenting benefits.Of course their are people that will take advantage of what they can get.The doctors that over treat and over medicate,the people who are on the dole because they want to be.The people who buy hundreds of houses and get the tax breaks,the rich and famous who write off nearly all their tax.The poor old retiree who has probably worked for 50 years, paid taxes and contributed to the keep of all of the above now should receive nothing, whilst money is handed on a platter to all and sundry,half of whom do not deserve a cent.If the retirees are so wealthy why have reverse mortgages become so prevalent?Most oldies leave their possessions to their kids and then it's the kids turn.Most of us have paid our houses off over 30 years.Contrary to public opinion,most of don't own multiple dwellings,just the house we occupy.Their is an income test for retirees and if you don't fit the criteria,you don't get the pension.Speaking of pensions,why isn't something done about the massive windfalls politicians get when they retire or lose office?

Most of today's oldies went through some very rough patches with very little help from any government. Some really struggled with the odds stacked against them, some just frittered opportunities.I know both kinds.
Perhaps it would be fairer on all including the tax payer, if a means test was applied so that those who genuinely need extra help get it while the well off do not.Generally those who are financially good ,have tax rebates that are not available to the poorer people.
I believe the "great" windfall amounts to about $8 per person, not so great after all.

trtl, the purpose of parliament is to divvy up the nation's wealth among the supporters of the winning party. pollies hand out bribes in return for votes.

the only group that never gets a break is "most of us".

if you want a better result, you need a better system. start by finding out what democracy is.

The article seems to be confusing self-funded retires with those on the basic pension.

For 45 years I worked, paid taxes, built a business, and paid millions in taxes and provided employment for over 60 people.
In that time we went from having two universities in NSW to ? many?
My taxes and those of others of my "Baby Boomer" generation built the infrastructure of this Country.

It does annoy me that the money and gifts given by my forebears to museums etc now is a "user pay" system.
I could afford to take my kids to the Power-House Museum every day of the week (until I got too bored). I gave them music lessons and a private education. Try doing any of that on a pension.

Then my health and business failed.
I am now on a disabled pension.
Now My "big night out" is a$6 bottle of port or the pensioner's night at the cinema.

My kids are trying to pay off their HECKs debt and save for a 1/2 million $ house
Thanks Australia!

I remind Mr Moran that many pensioners have private medical insurance though they struggle to meet the costs.

I remind him that many pensioners have been in a health fund for fifty years or more where they have rarely used it. Where is the incentive for those who have paid all their lives for nothing by remaining healthy?

He need not allude to the generous 30% discount afforded to pensioners by Mr Howard some years back. In a very short time after that announcement, the private medical fees increased by 30%.

I have affluent friends who refuse to pay for private medical insurance. The privately insured pensioners are included in those who must "prop" up these wealthy spongers.

Since the author made his way to this country only in 1974, he would hardly be an expert on the way these hard-working pensioners once lived their lives to raise their families.

I suggest he does some research on the bludging young folk who choose not to work.

These are the ones who continue to have babies with many different partners and receive huge payouts from Centrelink. Others manage to obtain a medical certificate declaring they are bi-polar, have a bad back or are drug induced schizophrenics.

Then you have the charming young men who go on the dole to avoid paying child maintenance or the young estranged mothers who just shack up and provide their children with yet another "daddy."

Do some research on the "single parent syndrome" Mr Moran and let us know how many aged pensioners received handouts when they were young men and women.

My mother was deaf and profoundly blind and raised two children alone without the benefit of government handouts. No Homeswest for us - no siree!

She truly deserved her pension in her senior years!

Do not attack the aged. Go after the cheats and crooks Mr Moran and the cartels with whom you associate. Back off from those who have worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes and are entitled to a pension and the trivial subsidies that accompany that pension.

Alan ,
Why should you and your government spend money on your parents and grand parents?

Answer : Because they are old ,that's why .

"The elderly are benefiting because they are growing in voting power but why should they be any more eligible than the young, the newlyweds, the middle aged and so on?" The sad fact of economics is opportunity cost. We CANT do everything at once that we want to. So, if the oldies get a bigger slice this time, then that's fine with me. I'm due to get tax cuts apparently, so that's my slice this time around.

As for the Transition to Retirement Pension, the author had better read up on the tax rates. Currently the marginal rate at $100,000 is 40% (or 41.5% including medicare levey), not the 46.5% the author states. Secondly the TRAP is available from ages 55-65. Those under 60 are still taxed on their pension from super (although at lower than normal rates), whilst those aged 60-65 get the pension tax-free (BTW this is their own money, not the Age Pension, that we are talking about). On top of all that, how many pension-age people do you know that earn $100,000 a year? I know a few, but certainly no-where near the majority. What does this mean? It means that while the concessions are available, its not a high percentage of people that can take advantage of them, so the overall cost to the tax pool is not nearly as high as some would have you think. Look back at the aim of the policy too (very easily forgotten) - its designed to help people cut down their work hours, and pump up their OWN superfunds, keeping off the age pension for longer (and thus costing the taxpaying worker less in the long-run).

Hitler?

Well yes in away.
The title of this thread is socially divisive.
The beginning of the 'slippery slope'.
Each generation contributes in different ways to society.

How many institutions, charities, community services, child care, kid's monitoring/help progammes, fund raising, service organisations etc., run by the Smith family,View, Meals on Weels, BoSL, SVDP. etc would simply collapse without volunteers from the 'retired' workforce.

I find it offensive that it has to be even justified in terms of cost or "usefulness."
and as the previous posted said: "How much is it really costing you anyway"?

Who built the infrastructure of this country after WW2?

It is not the oldies fault that Howard wants a 50 BILLION $ fund for his pension, 10 billion in Spanish boats, an illegal Iraq war,USA 'paper' planes that don't fly; navy helicopters that won't fly over water;$60M tea money for Chevron/Mobile,government advertising propaganda, millions in empty 'detention centres' (sic) etc., etc., etc.,
In the end it is all about what you think is valuable and worthwhile. A matter of priorities.

There will soon be two types of Age Pensioners, those born before
1946, and those born after, the teeming Baby Boomers. we old
oldies are being penalised because of the innumerable BB,s.
an insignificant number are now penalised by the Income means test
having such a low cut off,then equivalent to 40% tax at $100 a week
income! Oldies with sufficient initiative and energy to do creative
work should not be penalised for trying to improve their living
standard. We paid taxes for 40+ years. The pension was considered
a right, not a privilege until the Economic Rationalists took over,
after 1982
we need a genuine Social Democratic party without the environmental
baggage or the LLR baggage of the CEC.

I thought that every tax dollar I have been paying over the years has been put into a little shoe-box in Canberra with my name on it - and when I retire, the Government will pay it all back to me in fortnightly installments called a "Pension".

TurnRightThenLeft,

Don't yet have a heart attack, it has troll written all over it.
fluff4

What an unbelievably selfish article. Many people who work in charities and frontline government services will tell you how tough it is for pensioners under the Coalition Government. The standard of living for pensioners (not only the Aged but Disabled etc) has declined in real terms given the unfair indexation of pensions.

Retired pensioners have in the main made a lifetime of contriubtions to public infrastructure and maintained another set of pensioners during their working life.

This sort of article is just wedge politics and only seeks to divide rather than ask what sort of society is it we wish to aspire to where no person should be expected to live in borderline poverty regardless of age or circumstances.

"Youngies windfall at the expense of oldies"

I see your point fluff, though when I see see posts like that, be they trolling or otherwise, I feel the need to point out their glaring exaggeration and dodgy arguments.

The ole 'You're just Hitler!' chestnut is rolled out frequently, and generally comes when people can't put together a decent argument.

There's actually a name for this: 'Reductio ad Hitlerum.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

But yeah, like I said, it's a weak argument and should be exposed as such.