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!