With the average man turning 67 living to the age of 86, and the average woman to 89, that means the Aged Pension is paid out on average for about 20 years. On todays values, without indexation and inflation, that represents a staggering million dollar plus payout by the Australian taxpayer over the period of retirement to each pensioner. Add the additional subsidising costs borne by the taxpayer in the area of health etc, that figure is more like $2 million. With around 2.6 million pensioners, and the annual growth rate at 6%, is this situation unsustainable long term? According to Treasury it's not, and adjustments will need to be made. With the eligibility age increased from 65 to 67 that gave some short term relief to the age welfare bill, which totals around $60 billion annually overall. What should be done?

Dear Paul,

«With the average man turning 67 living to the age of 86, and the average woman to 89, that means the Aged Pension is paid out on average for about 20 years.»

No, the age pension is only paid to those who apply for it.
(and only for the period they apply for it and only if they are eligible during that period, and even then not always in full)

«the age welfare bill, which totals around $60 billion annually overall. What should be done?»

Very simple - don't apply!
(and decent people should feel ashamed to do so)

"What should be done?"

Well first, those who winge about this should learn some simple maths. The age pension for a single is around $1000/fortnight and $860/fortnight per person for married couples.

$1000 x 26 fortnights per year x 20 years of retirement = $520,000.

A far cry from "a staggering million dollar plus payout by the Australian taxpayer over the period of retirement to each pensioner." But its cute when the clueless try to do these calculations.

Also the pension increases by the inflation rate which isn't within cooee of the 6% figure Paul asserts. Perhaps he's just assuming that Albo will stay in power and total screw up the economy.

The cost of social security is a serious one for all western democracies. But Australia is better placed than most because of the Superannuation system introduced by proper politicians like Hawke and Howard. The people who most benefited from it are nearing retirement and will have a much lesser call on the public purse; that is if dills like Chalmers can stop trying to tax their savings into oblivion.

If you want something to fret about in terms of future budgets, look at the national debt and the ballooning interest costs. The only way to fix that is to run budget surpluses but this government has already said that's off the table for the next decade.

We're in the best of hands </sarc>

Dear Mhaze,

«But Australia is better placed than most because of the Superannuation system introduced by proper politicians like Hawke and Howard.»

That was most improper - it denies people the freedom to invest their savings themselves as they see fit, and instead hands their money to unscrupulous managers and into investments that are often unethical.

Yes, there are also SMSFs but for the average person the regulations surrounding them are a barrier too high and also the markets, because they know the superannuation limitations, provide more competitive income/interest outside superannuation.

… “ we face three years of creeping socialism not only from Albanese’s overt support for governmental intervention and pro-union industrial relations laws, but more significantly, by stealth through universal benefits (Yes, Albanese includes a miner on $200,000 a year ‘because they deserve to be represented and they work hard and have a family that they need to look after’). Michael Baume, ‘Business Robbery, etc’ Spectator, 31/5/25.

Also from Baume:

“ (Albanese's)universality credo sees his energy bill relief go to everyone, no matter their income, is behind his moves to strengthen the universality of Medicare, justifies childcare support for people earning up to $530,000 because ‘universality as a principle is important in garnering broad support for needed reform”. …. “it is really about underpinning voter support for Labor further up the income scale and locking in the backing of tertiary-educated women”.