At last someone has done the maths and it is affordable.
I'm caught in the middle with Superannuation. By the time I reach retirement I won't have anywhere enough to live on and this was before the GFC. What am I supposed to do, work til I drop or starve in old age?
Again, thanks to the GFC I'm unemployed. (And no, there are no jobs out there) For a family of 4 unemployment benefits go no where. It JUST allows you to live. I can't make my car payments with only 5 to go out of 60. If it wasn't for my daughter's school reducing the fees I would have to pull her out in year 11 leaving all her friends and a school system that has educated her perfectly.

Someone once said "That with taxes you buy civilisation"

Couldn't be more true.

I don't disagree with much of the article but I have some concerns.
Compassion is one thing but justice is another.
It might be compassionate to lift pensions across the board, pay different categories of pensioners equally and realign payments to 30% MATWE but is it just?
That depends on what the pension means and what it is for.
In discussions with co-workers the age pension is explained as payment or reward for a life of work and sacrifice.
Unemployment benefits are not generally seen in the same way - they instead appear to be something of a safety net... 'we can't let them starve and live on the streets' type of approach. There also appears to be a bit of a growing insurance type approach... 'it could just as easily be you or me'.
Disability payments are characterised as a compassion/cost of civilisation payment. That is, we cannot call ourselves a civilised society unless we care for the most vulnerable.
Each of these different types of approach leads to a different rationale for funding and possibly different payment levels. It also produces the legitimacy of payments.
However, each of these payment categories must have some built-in disincentive.
Obviously government and taxpayers want to encourage pensioners to support themselves to the fullest extent possible. This is not only beneficial from a financial standpoint but a social one - being entirely dependent on hand-outs is demoralising and dehumanising.
This means that pensions of any stripe cannot be set at too high a level.
And before anyone says 'you try living on it', I have. I had two lots of six months on the dole back in the nineties between Uni studies. I'd never had so much money in my life before!
I agree that it is difficult to claim to be a rich and civilised country when our most vulnerable are unable to get the necessities of life but we must also be careful that we do not discourage people from looking after themselves or punish those who do.

As a rough approximation, if all the cost of superannuation tax concessions was diverted to old age pensions we could afford to pay everyone over 65 the old age pension without requiring any increase in taxes. If we went one step further and made pensions taxable we could afford to boost pensions to the point where those depending on pensions would be much better off. The downside of course is that simplifying the system is well...

The real winners would be those on part pensions. A friend of mine in this situation is reluctant to work because Centerlink stuffs her around so much if she has the hide to do a bit of casual work and takes most of what she earns away. It gets even worse when she earns money from a very small business with erratic cash flows.

Alternatively, we could be really sinful and convert part or all of pensions into loans to be paid off from estates. I can hear the screams but this is one way of increasing the effective size of pensions without having to increase taxes. Sure, some children would receive less than they expected but I dont really believe we should be scrimping on pensions so that heirs can be a little bit richer.

We need to think about radical alternatives for helping those in need and simplifying the system.

I really urge people to read this article again - and email Wayne Swan before it is too late.

We need a pension system that does not relegate the most vulnerable to poverty. The measures promoted in this article are achievable and affordable... I'm surprised GetUp! hasn't addressed these issues...

If anyone from the Greens is reading this - or anyone with influence over the independent Senators - use all the bargaining power you have to win a just result for pensioners... Don't accept less than an extra $35/week for full pensioners - in the context of an automatically adjusting formula...

If any media figures are also read - I urge you too to run with this issue before it is too late...

sincerely,

Tristan

Interesting the paucity of comment on this thread.
First principle at law - put yourself in the other person's shoes.
What happens when a 'professional' is found wanting in performance or in default of perceived duty?
Face it. Most in authority are bloody useless.

What happens when an overpaid mineworker ruptures his gut?
Face it. Such a person has a limited time of engagement before he does meet such detriment.
Face it. Where and how has our failing wealth been earned?

What happens when the economic crisis sends both types into unemployment - or they both spit their respective dummies under the strain??

If they are reasonably young - either they'll both be renting or enduring mortgage.
And face it - if either sort had family money they wouldn't be in either situation.

There is a reason for a social network. There is a reason for social security payments.

There is a reason for comprehensive taxation that involves and draws upon income, luxuries, staples,transactions - ad infinitum.

Then that entrenched system that has historically caused so much detriment to those who don't actually make all that much income needs to be adjusted.
The time is now.
The time is right.
The reason for that is simply because so many of the overpaid bludgers in our society are coming close to a situation that for the first time in many years - they will be directly affected.

Will those of the 'bastard boomers' generation let their, now, adult progeny sleep under a bridge?
Without any doubt and without a concerned glance.

That is where we're heading and that is precisely why Kevin must make way for better allowances for the unemployed/disadvantaged.

He knows that for good reason.
If the youngsters spawned of the age of greed get it into their heads to cause affray - then she'll be on for young and old.
Best he avoid that outcome.

Why the one last plea Tristan?
Is there something going to happen where the humanities collapses into a heap – or the fact that all the collective wealth has been disposed of already – and there is a mad rush now to pick the bones of a spent civilization.

Why do elder Tax payers have to plea for anything at all? Government Parasites ought to be providing everything for them – That is what Socialism is about is it not?
Then what happened? – Why the last plea? - Or is it Political envy and linguistic mastication caused some indigestion, now mixed with the Dom Pereion belching socialist bureaucrats needs have to be met first ; and stuff the pessants.

That is very expensive Champaign indeed.

<“And before anyone says 'you try living on it', I have. I had two lots of six months on the dole back in the nineties between Uni studies. I'd never had so much money in my life before!”>

Bet you didn't have to pay off a house, keep a car on the road, probably buy food, pay power, rates, taxes, house and commodity repairs, all things many pensioners have to do. Many fought in wars so the young of today wouldn't be under dictatorships. But I suppose you think they haven't done enough to deserve being looked after properly and comfortably. Why contribute to society at all, when the outcome is a retirement of impoverishment, neglect and disdain. In the past young people respected the elderly, today they look down on them as a waste of space, unless they are leaving them something in their will and even then, they ignore their existence on most occasions.

This country should have a pensions system allowing the elderly to live with respect, in reasonable comfort and able to pay their way with confidence and dignity. The fools running the country don't realise, is if they gave more money to pensioners, it will stimulate the economy much more than any other method. Aged pensioners spend and travel, the more they have the more they put back into the community, so it goes round and everyone gets a share. Other forms of welfare never get out of the immediate area and stay in the hands of multinationals and junk food poisoners.

We have to many bludgers on disability pensions and too much money being given to women to have babies, they raise welfare dependent children who never see their mothers work, or know a father. So they have no example to follow, just a stupid merry go round the political system plays on, which gets nowhere but fills the elites pockets.

Right on Stormbay. In addition, pensioners who have the cheek to try and earn a little extra shouldn't have to put up with the confusing crap handed out by Centerlink and have most of this taken away. I know of cases where a friend lost her health card for a while because a terms part time teaching was paid as a lump sum. I had another very honest friend who was silly enough to tell Centerlink that she was planning to make some money by selling her water colours. They demanded a business plan so they could reduce her pension before she earned the money. I am sure anyone who knows pensioners who are trying to do a little work could come up with similar tales.

I believe the true measure of a society is the quality of life of people near the bottom of the pile, not the wealth of the rich or even average quality of life. Our treatment of pensioners doesn't make this society look very good at all

Taxation was never a measure to fund the Idiot spherical Notion and propaganda as it is now; between every conceivable stupid psychopaths Ideology and dogma- funded by Taxation – along with the Politicized Parasite Gravy Train- Funded by Taxation- The politicized Cartels – Useless Idiot elite - Agitprop- affirmative action – the Humanities- Immigration ; ( Legal and Illegal)- boat people- Criminals- Afghanistan Bureaucrats- Palestinian Bureaucrats- African- Indonesian- and every other international basket case on the face of the planet – It is an endless list. Tax payer funded of course- well it is Tax payer debt card now- and debt with no return.

And now wonder why Pensioners – and the ever increasing Unemployment ranks , now have to starve and or live in near shanty towns.
You only got what you asked for; or did some actually expect miracles to occur.

The bad news is- Well - sadly - it is only going to get worse- and as bad as it is now- just a thought of what will exist ten years from now

Any person on what Centrelink euphemistically calls Income Support to do anything more that survive is impossible.

Add food, rent/mortgage, electricity/gas/telephone bills,transport costs (to look for a job/attend interviews etc) together and there is nothing left, nothing left at all.

J S Mill - Excellent post if I say so myself.

Just a thought... Would it not stimulate (that horrible word) the economy as well as anything if we used a decent portion of those massive funds thrown at individuals and infrastructure (another horrible word) to help those in particular need because of the GFC. Granted it would need to be a longer term rather than a one-off commitment which our governments seem to avoid at all costs and there may come a time when these obligations may end up being in excess of a fair distribution or of what we can afford. If that situation arises we can always fall back on increased taxes and inflation to get back to a fair or affordable position.

Thank you Kulu
Stormbay - I assume you were responding to me? I admit while I was on unemployment benefits I didn't have to pay off a house, but I did while I was on Austudy so I know something about it.
I don't recall suggesting age pensioners do not deserve being looked after properly or comfortably. I do, however, think it mildly patronising to assume that the aged need 'looking after' at all. I suspect that most are capable of looking after themselves - perhaps with assistance and support.
You seem to subscribe to the pension as 'repayment for a life of hard work' philosophy. I assume then you support doing away with means testing for the pension? Many who have contributed managed to put something aside. Surely they deserve something? You also sound like you support a higher level of support based on your contribution - serve in the war = 150% of pension. Never do much for society = 50% of pension?
I don't have the information on the relative merits of government spending on different parts of society but imagine if the data supports your position the Govt will soon fork out (BTW - 'multinationals and junk food poisoners' are major employers. Yeah - let's penalise them, no downside to that)
Finally it seems that you are more than happy to strip benefits from other groups if it assists your preferred group - the aged. I'm sure you appreciate that this is the mantra of every interest group - we are more needy/more deserving/more whatever than X. I find it a little chilling that you would be so willing to strip money from disability pensioners, many of whom have never had an ability to live a normal life or prepare for their future, to give money to those who have had an entire life to prepare for their infirmity.
I have nothing against anyone in need receiving a basic level of support but there must be some level of disincentive built-in so we do not penalise the ants and reward the grasshoppers.

The UK pays all its citizens who worked an aged pension. By all accounts their aged pension is more generous than Australia's and there is no talk about whether recipients are deserving or whether the country can afford it because your aged pension contribution is deducted from your pay with your tax and has been saved for your old age. By contrast Australian pension and superannuation system is by and large employer based and unscrupulous employers and enough fund managers have not made the payments or stolen contributors funds so that the government has to fund aged pensions for those whose super contributions end up being insufficient to support them in old age.

Like JSMill I have spent 3 month stretches in the late 1990s living on less than the dole but I didn't make mortgage or car payments, visit a dentist and had no health problems that required prescription drugs. However these days prescriptions cost $33 to fill without a health care card and Newstart recipients don't get a HealthCare card. I don't know how the cost of living index is calculated but my domestic cost of living index is way higher than the CPI calculated by the ABS so I guess I better eat less and buy more electrical goods.

Anecdotally the administration of Newstart penalises recipients for taking up seasonal work or supplementing their income because they are financially penalised when Newstart [inevitably] stuffs up their payment, penalised if the individual doesn't notify Newstart correctly - easy to do if those intrusive micromanagers fall behind in opening their mail or clearing their in tray.

Newstart would be cheaper to run if the administration was streamlined and the agency didn't operate from the premise that it was being ripped off and that its recipients were low life scum

I wondered why there was a fall in the unemployment rate in the [spurious] statistics released on Thursday 'til I realised that the budget is published tomorrow.

It may be long past time that people stop talking about how matters immediately affect them.

I'm 55 YO and for the majority of that time have been stuck in what, geographically/societally amounts to the armpit of the universe.
I was born in Bundaberg and have to endure living here.
What a Klutz of a name of a town!
God - how I'd like to become an important person and decree the name change to something sexy like "Boilyerbillie' or 'San Bundero'. Anything'd be better than the name of your home town that sticks in one's throat like undercooked dough - as does Bunder - bloody-Blunder - burggggggg - yeck!

Despite that I care about what others, around here, tell me of their circumstances and their problems in this nonentity of a town.
I am not particularly greedy, nor introverted, nor overmuch concerned about self-interest.
In that regard, I suppose I am a very stupid person.

It is about time some out there began playing the rules of altruism themselves.
Let's just say that enough is really enough.
I add a little more to what I said above.
All those speaking afterwards, my last, keep griping about immediacy and greed.
No big-picture issues occupy their minds except how their immediate situation is either okay or somehow impinged upon.
No-one seems overly concerned about their neighbour.
In short - what I'm aware of and report as happening here is but a reflection of the big picture.

To J. S. Mill. As a rough approx. the cost to revenue of all the super tax concessions is about the same as the extra it would cost to pay the full pension to everyone older than 65. It is a lot simpler and provides more encouragement for oldies who are willing and able to keep working longer.

If this pension income was taxable it would reduce the cost of the pension to those still earning serious money thus providing the money required to give a boost to the after tax income of those who are totally dependant on the pension.

The only losers will be high income earners who have been using the super tax concessions to rort the system.