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”.

Albanese had better watch how he spends our money on bribes, which are not earned like the Age Pension.

In the same article, Baume reminds us - and hopefully Albanese - that, of the 94 Labor MPs elected, only 8 were voters' first choice (despite the bribes and big spending).

Yes. Not a single one of the 28 Liberal MPs left standing were first choices for voters. But there is no chance of them governing in the foreseeable future; they are still expressing self-love/self interest: many of them bemoaning either their lack of inclusion in the shadow cabinet, or if they got a job with the extra bucks, it isn't important enough for them.

There is absolutely nothing to like about our politicians, nor our bizarre voting system.

Now that Elon Musk is finished with DOGE in America, he could be hired to run a rule over the Australian bureaucracy.

In the US, it was found that over 15 million people over the age of 120 years were on the security rolls - when the oldest person in America is 114.

Over $300 million in small business loans had been given out to people under the age of 11, with the youngest recipient a nine-month-old baby.

2.4 million federal employees had 4.6 million government credit cards.

Social Security numbers issued to non-citizens surged from 270,000 in 2021 to 2.1 million in 2024.

We all knew about USAID.

Dutton was going to have Jacinta Price checking up on spending and graft. We can only wonder what she would have found. We will probably never find out now, with no hope of a replacement for Labor anytime soon.

Wasn't superannuation meant to be a saving to financially assist us in retirement? Isn't the idea that you are supposed to draw down on that to live more comfortably? It was never intended to become a tax dodge to enable wealthy people to leave an even bigger inheritance to their kids?

Que the braying chorus now of money hungry, selfish capitalists.

Quite simple really ! Put the Govt top-up on Super into the pension fund. Super should only be for those who are on good pay in the first place & who want more money at hand in retirement.
As it is now, the Govt Super contributions are higher than the pension. The balance is out the window. There should also be a Govt lottery in which a wage for life can be won & a lottery for standard homes to be won. That would put a massive dent into inflation at no extra cost.

It is now clear that the compulsory super scheme (there is no compulsion in other countries) is just another pot of gold for the Socialists to tax. While all ex-politicians should be ignored, it's interesting to note that Paul Keating - whose baby it was under the Hawke government - is white hot with rage at the Albanese outrage.

However, the adage that people get the government they vote for (and serve them right) has never been truer. And there is nothing to be done. The Albanese gangsters can't be stopped now that idiots have given them full control of both Houses.

Don't be fooled by the usual assurances that it's only the rich - those with $3 million or more put away - who will be affected. Everyone will eventually be ripped off.

There is no longer a credible opposition, and even if there is one in the future, governments never give up on easy money.

The idea is to give a reasonable standard of living to all Australians in their retirement. Under the present system, some are doing very well and others are not. The first group are those owning their own home, therefore not paying rent, this group have reasonable assets including cars etc and a generous amount of money in the bank, they can in many circumstances draw a full means tested Aged Pension. The second group who struggle, are those for whatever reason retired with basically nothing, no savings, paying rent, living fortnight to foresight.

By all accounts superannuation has to be 15% of average weekly earnings, over ones whole working life to provide a reasonable standard of living in retirement, anything less is substandard. With the average life expectancy for aged pensioners now in the high 80's, and increasing, with the numbers claiming a pension due to ageing population also increasing at around 6% pa, its not unreasonable to increase the pensionable age to 70, and index it at 6 months per year, at least to the age of 75. A tightening of the means test for the well off pensioner is also in order.

I agree with a means test for those who were on top Income for most of their life & had no trouble procuring whatever they needed for a good retirement.
i also agree with the retirement aged raised to 70 for those who are in a physically demanding job however, those working outside in physically demanding work should be able to retire at 65.
Superannuation should be a voluntary contribution, not Taxpayer funded. The Old Age pension contribution is still 7.5% or so I was led to believe but it is no longer indexed, most likely to cover the fact that it is still being deducted. A slight lowering of bureaucrat salaries would free up billions also particularly if they're made merit based. There's enough for all, just simplify the distribution also on merit. Politicians included !

Headline: “Ted O’Brien prepared to bargain with Chalmers on super”.

How jolly nice of him. But why? The rich people who will be initially subjected to the Socialists robbing them don't vote for the Liberals anymore.

The “deal” would be: “In return for this immense generosity regarding other people’s money, O’Brien wants Treasurer Jim Chalmers to drop his unrealised capital gains tax”.

Most of the people affected by capital gains tax no longer support the Liberals either.

Probably, the best solution for rich Australians is to follow their counterparts in the UK, leave the country.

Onya Ted. Ignore the valid objections to compulsory superannuation, and support the Socialist concept. No wonder the Liberals have only 28 seats, all thanks to preferences, not because voters wanted them.

Helping the Socialists to rip more revenue off super makes the Liberals as greedy as said Socialists, the reason why Hell will freeze over before Teddy and his little band will be back in government.

There is no problem in giving - only in taking.

Grabbing the tax-payer's money who pay their taxes involuntarily, is shameful, and while anyone of any age should be legally allowed to draw a pension, this should be socially frowned upon and those who accept a pension ought to be named and shamed with people thinking twice before befriending them. Accordingly also, clubs and discretionary/luxurious businesses should put a sign on their doors: "No Pensioners".

Actually, public "servants" take even more of the tax-payer's money, so the above should apply to them as well!

If you don't have enough money to cover your basic needs, nor the ability to earn, then it is morally so much better to appeal to charities, where (unlike tax-payers) the donors receive divine merits for their charity.

I had cause to visit the doctor yesterday, I should have known better. There were 14 people in the waiting room when I arrived, I'd say a dozen were 70 plus, Zimmer frames and walking sticks everywhere. Its a bulk billing (for pensioners) surgery. I should have known the place would be swamped, when I saw the cut down golf cart parked at the front door. A paying customer like me had to wait an hour while the doctors dispensed all the freebees to the pensioners, there's $1200 of taxpayer money gone in an hour. Can't we have some sort of "bone factory" setup to deal exclusively with the medical problems of these non-paying older folk? I should include that in my Seniors National Service Plan. Agree?

Indy, you still prattle on about the non-existent 7.5%, it disappeared with spats and straw hats. Pensions are paid for from todays taxation and borrowings.

the non-existent 7.5%, it disappeared with spats and straw hats
Paul1405,
Really ! Why not provide a link to where it says it has been discontinued. btw. you're not a "paying" client, you're merely handing over money given to you from the taxpayers !

Indy you are a crack up!

In 1946, a 7.5% tax levy was introduced in Australia to fund the Age Pension, known as the "National Welfare Fund". This levy was specifically designed to fund age pensions. However, National Welfare Fund legislation was repealed in 1985. HERE WE ARE 40 YEARS AFTER REPEAL, and good old Indy is still living off the five bob he might have contributed in 1946. Indy, I'd be on your side if you agreed with Socialism, you claim you don't, but you are happy to put your handout for taxpayer la graisse, every fortnight. that's Socialism, can't have it both ways.

Indyvidual,

It doesn't pay to tease mad dogs.

National Welfare Fund legislation was repealed in 1985.
Paul1405,
Yes, we all know but the 7.5% deductions weren't stopped. Socialism is to eventually run out of other peoples' money or as in your case, other peoples' money propping up your Superannuation in return for absolutely nothing !

Indy,

The 7.5% tax levy imposed between 1946 and 1985 in the form of a "National Welfare Fund", was not an investment by taxpayers in their future retirement. The levy was immediate taxation to make direct payments to those on an aged pensions then, not in the future. You try to present it as a form of superannuation, which it was not. The aged welfare you receive today, is not derived from some imaginary income generated by your past contributions (if you ever made any contribution at all, I very much doubt you did) to a so called "National Welfare Fund".

//other peoples' money propping up your Superannuation// Making things up again, to try an justify your la graisse! People like YOU, believe Socialism is bad, unless its benefitting YOU.

The old age pension is what set some Western countries apart from Monarchies & benign Dictatorships. Superannuation is an attempt to to put us back to Landlord & Dictator times !

One just has to look at the character of people promoting Socialism & Superannuation !
They don't give a damn about those who provide for them !

In the 70's several European countries had Pensions equivalent to 75% of the wage/salary of their last job. It worked well until Socialist Governments started literally uncontrolled handouts for so-called refugees. These same "refugees" are now demanding their relatives & long-term unemployed receive the same.
Does this sound familiar to Australians ?

Indy,

"These same "refugees" are now demanding their relatives & long-term unemployed receive the same. Does this sound familiar to Australians ?"

YES indeed it does! As we know you are a "blow in", who was given a cash handout on arrival, housing, free public transport, taxi fares, beer money, a well paid cushy job in the ps, you gotta have loved that ps job, 30 mins "work" then off to smoke-O' until knock off time at 4 o'clock. That all changed in 72 when Gough sus'd you fellas out, and the gravy train came to an abrupt halt, unfortunately for us taxpayers, it pulled up outside the Centrelink office, where you have been a permanent fixture ever since. Did I get anything wrong?

Paul1405,
If being silly were to cause pain you'd be screaming day & night !

Society can not afford to be without an old age pension. Superannuation is a very good idea however, it must be self-funded not Government contributed. Negative gearing must not be allowed to subsidise Superannuation. It is happening but can not be sustained & we're seeing that already ! Superannuation has to be purely self-funded if we want to break the cycle of imbalance we're going through now. A Flat Tax must also be introduced before long if we don't want the Nation to continue go down the third world road !