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 !

Indy you are being delusional once again,

"Society can not afford to be without an old age pension", of course it can in the future. As a long term recipient of generous taxpayer funded "la graisse" in the form of aged welfare, naturally you will try to justify this generous tax hand out.

"Superannuation has to be purely self-funded if we want to break the cycle of imbalance we're going through now." That is the case now with the 12% superannuation guarantee, forgone income by employees, contributed to superannuation by the employers.

forgone income by employees
Paul1405,
12% is way more than 7.5% & it puts manufacturing & service costs under unsustainable pressure by feeding inflation !

At the end of a working life there has to be an income equivalent close to the standard wage to ensure a reasonable standard of living & to keep the economy going. A pension must not be welfare, it must be contributed to by everyone for everyone. The present generation contributes to the previous generation & the next generation contributes for the present generation . Salaries must be brought back to moral levels. Private enterprise can pay more if its workforce is efficient enough to make the profits required. No public funding should be used to prop up private salaries. Public funding must only be provided to pay for projects & services. A Flat Tax & no negative gearing would see this work for the good of society !
No bureaucrat salary should be above the PM's ! There's simply no morally justified reason for the immoral salaries in the Public Service.

Indy,

For you its all about self justification, as you collect your aged welfare. You say; "income equivalent close to the standard wage", I assume you are referring to the minimum wage, which presently is about to increase to $1896 per fortnight, compared to the single pension at $1149 per fortnight which is $747 lower than the minimum wage. Allowing for the generous fringe benefit concessions pensioners receive, aged welfare is reasonably high in Australia. You go on to say; "A pension must not be welfare", well it is welfare, as it is a direct payment from taxation and borrowings, you can't get more "welfare" than that. "it must be contributed to by everyone for everyone" total socialism, something you claim to oppose, but not when the "la graisse" is directed YOUR way. You would be receiving far greater benefit over these many years, than anything you have likely contributed. "Salaries must be brought back to moral levels" what ever that means, you mean lower wagers for workers, and more unearned income for you. Your whole diatribe is based on self justification and benefiting YOU. Direct payments in the form of aged welfare is not sustainable long term, well not at the present very generous levels, whereas superannuation is. BTW compulsory superannuation payments are made from forgone wages, not some government handout like you are receiving.

As the population increases (Albo's migrants) there should be a greater ability to care for the previous generation.
Joke aside, why bother working in the first place if you're left to fend for yourself after bureaudroids have fleeced you of most of your savings ? Ah, I see, Paul1405 actually thinks that inflation will magically stop when it/her,them retires ! Perhaps it/her,them can tell us how people should prepare for increased taxes, inflation & general costs so people can ensure they have sufficient funds for their later years ? As I stated earlier, a Nation can not function without an old age pension because Superannuation will be even less affordable for the general workforce.
No, only the pension can be sustainable for all whilst Super is mainly for those in the Public Service & profitable private enterprise.

If Australia can support those who don't produce than it can also support those who did !

The whole show has a very simple solution, a Flat Tax, no negative gearing & put GST to 12% & an old age pension will be sustainable & satisfactory ! Anyone wanting Super can pay into one without say sacrifice & Govt contribution.
It's high time parasitism stops !

of course that should be 'salary' sacrifice.

Come to think of it, who is costing the taxpayer more; an old age pensioner on $40 grand/year who reverts their pension back into the economy or, an incompetent bureaucrat on $200 grand/year who spends his money on imported goods & overseas holidays ?

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19i2gxd7KN/

Can anyone see where Australia is heading under Labor ?

Silence speaks volumes alright !

Indy, I'm in NZ, short and sweet, I don't favour salary sacrifice, but I'm all in favour of old fart sacrifice. $40k a year you must be kidding!

Indyvidual,

If you took the silence as vindication of your claim that Labor is taking us down the same path as Latin American countries, I’m happy to end it.

Watching a Gloria Alvarez video and thinking it describes modern Australia is like reading Lord of the Flies and assuming that’s what happens at every scout camp.

The kind of “socialism” Alvarez critiques - authoritarian regimes with centralised economies, expropriation, and crushed freedoms - has nothing in common with Australia under Labor.

- Nobody is nationalising industries.
- Private property isn’t being seized.
- The private sector still dominates every major part of the economy.
- You’re free to criticise the government, vote them out, and keep your assets.

Labor’s policies - energy rebates, Medicare incentives, or a modest tax on super balances over $3 million - are not socialism. They’re centre-left, market-compatible reforms found in every modern capitalist democracy. The same kind you’ll see in Canada, Germany, or the UK - not Venezuela or Cuba.

If any redistribution is “socialism” in your book, then by that standard we’ve been a socialist country since the 1940s - under both Labor and the Coalition.

You’re welcome to oppose Labor’s policies. Just don’t pretend we’re halfway to Chavez. That’s not analysis - it’s theatre.

That’s not analysis - it’s theatre.
John Daysh,
It'd pay you to view it as training for what's developing rather than dismiss it as theatre !

Indyvidual,

Vague warnings about what’s “developing” aren’t an argument. If you think Australia is genuinely heading for Venezuelan-style collapse, then name the policies you think will get us there. Be specific.

Gloria Alvarez’s video critiques failed regimes that bear no resemblance to modern Australia - no industry nationalisation, no expropriations, no suppression of dissent. So unless “what’s developing” includes a functioning democracy with private healthcare, free press, and a stock market, you might need a more convincing prophecy.

Otherwise, yes - it’s still theatre.

John Daysh,
Your replies clearly show that you don't have the mentality to see even a minute ahead. You say you want to see the policies ? Are you totally oblivious to your surrounds ?
What moron would think a Government would actually admit their real agenda. Have a look at what's going on, stop watching the ABC !
At this moment I'm watching India News & it's frightening what goes on there. Australia is only one election away from letting it all happen here too. Stop, listen, look !

Indyvidual,

Thanks for confirming what I suspected - there are no actual policies you can name. Just vague warnings, foreign fear stories, and the usual “you wouldn’t understand” routine.

I asked a fair question: Which policies do you believe are taking Australia down a Venezuelan path? You replied with insults and told me to “just look around” - as though fear and vibes are a substitute for evidence.

You’re right about one thing, though: it’s not theatre anymore. Now it’s just projection.

//Australia is only one election away from letting it all happen here too.//

Yeah, this same claim was doing the rounds in right-wing echo chambers before the last election too. It’s always “just one election away” - and yet, year after year, there’s not a shred of evidence to suggest it’s true.

It just goes to show how little Labor under Albanese are giving the rightist commentariat to feed off, when they have to make this sort of stuff up.

no actual policies you can name
John daysh,
we only get 350 words here but since you're so oblivious to where Albo & Co are leading us, how about just observing what's going on in immigration for a start.
Education is another you could look at as is foreign investment & the Chinese interests in Torres Strait.

Indyvidual,

In fairness to myself, I’ve already asked twice - and your two responses didn’t even use half the 350-word allowance. But maybe the hesitation comes from a confusion between specific policies and entire fields of political science.

//…how about just observing what’s going on in immigration for a start.//

That’s an entire political issue - not a specific policy. Labor’s stance on immigration has evolved over the years, depending on the context, public sentiment, and economic or social needs of the time. Broadly pointing to “immigration” doesn’t clarify anything unless you can name a particular action or decision.

The same goes for the other issues you mentioned - education, foreign investment, and Chinese interests in the Torres Strait. These are complex areas with decades of bipartisan engagement. If you believe a specific Albanese-era decision in any of those areas is authoritarian or destabilising, then say so - name it.

And just to be clear, I asked for a specific policy under the current Albanese government - because it's the one you're referring to and it's the one we're being told is the worst government we’ve ever had.

Which is a huge claim, by the way!

Especially in a country that’s lived through serious governance failures: economic meltdowns, mass unemployment, policy collapses - events that reshaped lives, not just culture-war grievances.

So again - what has Labor actually done that earns them comparisons to authoritarian regimes? Because unless you can point to something concrete, we’re not having a political discussion - we’re just swapping superstitions.

point to something concrete,
John Daysh,
It's impossible to make people see if they aren't willing look ! If you need to have everyday goings-on explained you're in no position to ever comprehend.

That response was cartoonishly evasive, Indyvidual.

I haven't asked you to explain anything yet - just to name a single policy from the current Labor government that you believe is taking us down the path of Venezuelan-style socialism.

Apparently, there aren’t any. And that’s all I needed to show. Thanks.

John Daysh,
Looks you'd be the only one who'd make unfair & incompetent policies official. That’s all I needed to show. Thanks.

Nuh-uh!

John, Indy is very concerned about that socialist Labor policy of paying aged welfare to non-productives such as himself. It's aged handouts today, rampent communism tomorrow!

Paul,

You said it, mate. I for one am sick to bloody death of the socialist swill we call "pensioners" bleedin' the country dry. Prattlin’ on about “fairness” and “entitlements” - as if they built the flippin' country by themselves.

Back in my day, old people used to contribute. You didn't retire. You worked the bloody fields until your arms fell off. Now? Chattering classes with nothin' to do but complain on flamin' forums. Pack of ratbags, I reckon. Carryin' on like the world owes 'em somethin'.

But, mate, what else can you expect? The buggers dropped out of school in year nine and were able to pick up a job on the way home from quittin' school. Hell, they'd stagnate in that same job for 20 odd years, too, most of 'em.

And who'd blame 'em?

They bought their first home for a sack or two of flippin' potatoes. Potatoes, for cryin' out bloody loud! What's any of that gonna teach a bloke? That bloody life just falls into your lap, mate. That's what.

It's no wonder this pack of coffee-sippers want it all handed to 'em now! I mean, struth - they were warned for years about socialism and those flippin' commie bastards. So, what'd they do? Bloody aged into the rubbish anyway.

And all while bitin' the hand that should never have been bloody feedin' them in the first place!

Lol, what would you two bureaudroids know about work ? You think applying for funding is work ? You think having your Super topped up via salary sacrifice & negative gearing is ethical ?
You are part of the real welfare army, not old age pensioners.
Don't ever try to become comedians !

Indyvidual,

I was doing a lot in that satirical post of mine - not least of which was voicing support for the pension. In missing all of it, you’ve ironically reinforced the very points I was making.

Thanks for playing.

John Daysh,
Your point hasn't got a point.

https://youtu.be/4iepV0pLtjs?si=VZnMv3QCxiacDZVZ
John Daysh,
Read the comments in the above link. These people comprehend what you pretend you don't !

And, yes it has to do with Old Age pension in the long run !

Indyvidual,

I watched the video and read many of the comments for it, as you suggested. What I found was a lot of cultural anxiety - about immigration, multiculturalism, and identity politics.

What I didn’t find was any mention of specific policies that will steer us towards a Venezuelan-style socialism - let alone in the space of one or two political terms.

Basically, your evidence is a mood.

If you’re going to claim the government is leading us into socialist collapse, you’ll need something stronger than Tony Abbott's vibe.

Just so you know, comment threads like the one you linked to aren't new to me. I see them everyday. In fact, I follow The Australian, Sky News, The Daily Mail and news.com.au on Facebook purely FOR the comments.

They make for entertaining reading - and it's always fun to poke the hornets' nest from time to time by lobbing an inconvenient fact into the echo chamber, then watching them all lose their minds.

Good times…

Basically, your evidence is a mood.
John Daysh,
Tell that to people living in cars & low wage workers & people who forfeit food to pay vehicle registration ! Tell that to people losing homes due to immoral rates from Banks & local Councils.
Things are not as rosey for many as they are for incompetent & corrupt bureaudroids !

Indyvidual,

Struggling Australians deserve proper analysis of the problems they face - not slogans and vibes.

Yes, people are doing it tough. But the claim of yours that I took issue with wasn't just that hardship exists - it was that Australia is on a fast-track to Venezuelan-style socialism under Labor.

I asked for policy-based evidence of that. You’ve offered real pain, but still no link to any actual economic program, law, or structural shift that supports your claim.

You’re waving at suffering, hoping we won’t notice you’ve skipped the reasoning part.

You’re waving at suffering, hoping we won’t notice you’ve skipped the reasoning part.
John Daysh,
No, you're desperately trying to deflect from the atrocious managing by this Labor-heavy federal Government administration even when under Conservative Government.
Policies are not followed that is the problem ! We can all claim how decent & good & kind we are yet what we're actually doing is something else. Just like Government policies.
Did Albo's administration follow through with the $275 power savings ? Is Law & Order operating according to policies ? Is immigration run according to official policy guidelines ? Is education implemented according to policies ? No, none of the policies are followed & that';s what makes them so flawed & if Australians keep being so apathetic they'll go the way of Venezuela or heaven forbid as bad as England !
Woke, wake up !

Thanks for clarifying, Indyvidual.

So, the current Labor government is managing things “atrociously” by breaking some of their promises, drifting on policy, and are weak on their follow-through?

Fair enough - those are legitimate governance criticisms, and I’m not here to defend every decision this government has made. But let’s be clear:

That’s not socialism. That’s mismanagement.

And ironically, you’re now saying Labor isn’t even implementing its policies - which directly contradicts your original claim that they’re enacting a socialist agenda that’s taking us to Venezuela.

So which is it? Is the danger in what they’re doing - or in what they’re NOT doing?

Because right now, you’ve walked back your original claim and replaced it with a mood of frustration. And while I understand the frustration, it’s still not evidence.

So which is it? Is the danger in what they’re doing - or in what they’re NOT doing?
John Daysh,
An un-indoctrinated mind will know that it is both !

Have a look at this video as an example. Don't try so hard to make yourself feel more knowledgeable or wise, look around to see what's going on ! Once you open your mind you'll be a person of substance rather than a parrot for the useless intellectual outfits !

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=4213572425531555

Indyvidual,

Thanks for the link. The video of someone diving through a raft of seaweed was indeed interesting.

If it's meant to be a metaphor for your argument - murky, directionless, and full of kelp - then it might be the most accurate thing you’ve posted yet.

I’m still open to seeing real evidence, but unless your next link contains something more substantial than aquatic vegetation, I’ll assume we’re done here.

Ooops, cut & paste gone wrong :-)
John Daysh,
Try again. I hope that finally sinks in regarding policies & Labor policies in particular.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJUIqsDeMdE

Indyvidual,

Thanks for the corrected link. I’ve watched the video and, as I had expected with Malcolm Roberts, it’s more of a broad populist tirade than a coherent policy critique.

There are some valid concerns buried in Roberts' speech, like multinational tax avoidance and bracket creep, but these issues predate this government and often involve both major parties.

More to the point, it still doesn’t support your original claim that Labor is steering Australia toward Venezuelan-style socialism. What it does offer is a long list of vague frustrations about tax - many of which are inflated, contradictory, or just outdated.

For example, Roberts:

- quotes decades-old data and unnamed newspaper articles as evidence

- claims people are taxed 68% of their income, and later says that bread has a 100% tax rate, and that petrol is taxed at 230% - none of which he defines clearly

- adds UN conspiracies, state-federal finger-pointing, and a grab bag of every grievance since the Howard years

- and then somehow blames it all on the current government, even though these structural issues have persisted under both sides.

If the claim now is that Australia’s tax system is inefficient or poorly designed, that’s a conversation worth having. But it’s not evidence of socialism, collapse, or any unique failure of the Albanese government.

I’m happy to keep discussing real issues, but this is still just mood presented as prophecy.

And Malcolm Roberts blaming the current Labor government for things that either aren't happening or pre-date them certainly isn't evidence - even if he did say it all in front of the Senate.

John Daysh,
You're so predictable that it takes all the fun out of it. You're asking for unwritten policies from an organisation that has cemented-in incompetence Are you really so thick as to believe they'd make official what they're actually doing ?
Just look at the unrealised capital gain plan. Watch the Albo interview with Peter Stefanovic but then again, there's no way your blinkered observation tactics would allow you admit to it anyway.
Did Albo promise before the elections that he was planning to flood Australia with Muslim migrants whose only focus is to make Australia an islamic Nation ? Or, did you hear him promise that he'd run the economy as bad as it is now ? Did you hear him promise Bowen's billions wastage ?
Start thinking would be a valid advise however, you sound more like being part of the problem than willing to find solutions !

Indyvidual,

You’ve gone from “we’re headed for socialism” to “Labor’s not following its policies” to now claiming the government is secretly implementing an Islamist takeover.

And I’m the one being predictable?

You’re asking me to take seriously a list that includes:

- A misrepresented tax proposal
(the unrealised capital gains idea isn’t Labor policy - it was floated in a consultation paper by Treasury, and publicly ruled out)

- An interview clip you haven't even summarised
(Peter Stefanovic asked hard questions to which Albanese gave political answers - welcome to democracy)

- And a string of loaded hypotheticals about Muslim migrants, economic sabotage, and secret agendas that were “never promised” - as though that’s evidence.

Here’s the problem:
You’re trying to paint Labor as both incompetent and dangerously strategic. You can’t have it both ways. Either they’re chaotic and floundering - or they’re Machiavellian geniuses playing 4D chess. Pick one.

You keep calling for “thinking,” but what you’re really asking for is agreement without evidence. I’ve already said I’m not here to defend every policy - just to push back when wild claims are made without facts to back them.

If you’ve got a genuine example of policy-driven harm, I’ll hear you out. But “they didn’t promise this” is not the smoking gun you think it is.

Albanese gave political answers - welcome to democracy)
John Daysh,
No, evasion & Dictatorship conduct !

Indyvidual,

If “giving political answers” is now “dictatorship conduct,” then I’m afraid you don’t understand either term.

- Evasion is annoying.
- Dictatorship is imprisonment for dissent, suppression of media, and violence against opposition.

Conflating the two doesn’t make your argument stronger. It makes it unserious.

Coming from a far right extremists perspective, as in the Australian context, Indy has a paranoid hatred of all things Labor, he will say that anything that can be construed as "socialist" is to loathed and rejected. Of course that hatred and rejection does not extend to any socialist benefits dear old Indy receives, aged welfare, free medical, and other lurks and perks, sounds very Venezuelan to me, he has been getting these benefits since the year dot when he arrived on a leaky boat as a refugee, Indy has been a teat sucker of social benefits ever since.

John Daysh & Paul1405,
I'm afraid you two really aren't as clever & enlightened as you convinced you are. So, stop having yourselves on.
There's sufficient funding for the old age pension in the mechanism put in place. The pension was set up to provide for the working class as the workers literally paid in advance. The reason why the middle class is now in panic mode is the fact that a huge part of the pension funds has gradually been used on those who never contributed or contributed only very little. This syphoning from the pension funds needs to be stopped so the scheme can continue.
Middle Class earns at the rate it is spending & this chasing of its own tail is its failure.
I just spoke with a friend in Europe & they're now in the midst of this failure that came about from funding the many non-contributors from the funds of the contributors & the contributors are now realising that they in fact didn't contribute enough. Pretty much the same that's happening in Australia now !
Of course, the "experts' are now panicking too & the only way out in their confused minds is to raise the pension age so the coffers are kept topped up. The problem there is that these same type of "experts" failed to foresee the life expectancy going up & still don't see that the numbers of non-producers are not just keeping pace, they're literally out-pacing the producers. As far as I can see, the only solution is to lower high income & tax it the same as low income ! Not a popular suggestion but it does guarantee a solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf0SoSoywQc
John Daysh & Paul1405,
How do you think the above will impact on Pension & Superannuation ?

Indy,

Any system is open to criminal abuse, and migration is no exception, the solution to that is prosecution, not victimisation. In the case of Indian immigrants the vast majority are law abiding, and over time, they and their offspring make a positive contribution to Australian society. Immigration always has to be managed for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Your video man is a racists, "I'm no racist he'll tell you" (a bit like YOU). He's trying to create an atmosphere of discontent by referring to a small number of specific incidents and hoping the watcher will be alarmed and believe that is the general situation.

Where did YOU migrate from? YOU always fail to acknowledge your ancestral heritage, having something to hide no doubt. Unlike YOU, I am proud of my ancestors, slaves, convicts and successful law abiding citizens, black and white!

I think you might have linked to the wrong video again, Indyvidual.

The one you posted just talks about visa scams, government neglect, pressure on housing and infrastructure, then calls for stronger planning and regulation.

These are examples of mismanagement, not ideological subversion.

In fact, the video goes out of its way to reject xenophobia and emphasises that many Indian Australians agree the system needs fixing.

It says nothing about Islam, socialism, or superannuation collapse. So once again, I’m seeing frustration - not evidence.

It says nothing about Islam, socialism, or superannuation collapse. So once again, I’m seeing frustration - not evidence.
John Daysh,
are your observation skills so poor that even such blatant evidence makes you reach for yet another distraction ? You are part of the problem that's why you dismiss the evidence.

Paul1405,
Same goes for you !
You're both so anti blatant evidence & your audacity beggars belief ! But hey, as they say blood is thicker than water.

As the man in the video says, this isn't about skin colour. This is about unsustainable change & particularly in regard to the old age pension. When so many who weren't contributing are then starting to demand then we're staring at a dilemma we can not afford.
Paul1405 in particular is always on about people on welfare. Well, listen o him now ! He's quite happy to accept those who hardly contributed to the coffers but condemns those who did.
Is that stupidity or hypocrisy of the worst kind ?
John Daysh is mainly concerned with maintaining of status quo re government funding for hare-brained, environment destroying schemes with no scope of any benefit.
Both exploit the age-old feeble excuse of racism/xenophobia in lieu of actually working on finding solutions for the benefit of all.
The money wasted on schemes & rorts that these two support could solve most social & economic problems & still leave plenty of change !

..the age pension is only paid to those who apply for it.
Yuyutsu,
And, those who need it because they never earned sufficient to create a so-called nest egg in the first place. Not everyone is enjoying cushy numbers like those on the Government payroll !

Indy, "those (like you) who need it (aged welfare) because they never earned sufficient" I understand that, years of beer and pokies has caught up with you. John indicated he favours pensions, I on the other hand favour national superannuation to proved a better and more sustainable outcome for retirees in the long term. New Zealand has gone part way by abolishing the aged pension and replacing it with a basic non means tested national superannuation scheme for all New Zealanders reaching 65 and not working full time.

John, I'm all for sustainability, and proving an adequate living standard for every Australian, and that certainly includes the elderly. As for aged pensions, I believe we are at the top of the mountain now as far as the benefits are concerned. Without forward thinking and proper planning its going to be down hill for the most vulnerable in the future as far as social welfare is concerned. Conservatives under pressure from other directions will cut welfare payments, that is certain, and Labor will be complicit in that cutting benefits to the most needy in society, they'll have no choice.

Dear Indyvidual,

«Yuyutsu,
And, those who need it because they never earned sufficient to create a so-called nest egg in the first place. Not everyone is enjoying cushy numbers like those on the Government payroll !»

Not unless they apply for the pension.
Nobody is forced to accept it, even if they starve to death or resort to begging and charities - the pension is not compulsory!

The old Age Pension is sustainable in the long term however, it must be managed much more efficiently than is the case presently.
The alternative Superannuation is unsustainable judging by the funds that fail.
Just because someone gets old doesn't mean they should automatically receive the Pension. The pension must be adjusted according to the personal wealth accumulated.
Many people use negative gearing & salary sacrifice to boost their income but reducing the amount of Tax paid must be reflected in the eventual Pension. The more they wrote off the less tax they contributed, the less the pension should be. Now, I can already hear the howls against this. Let me ask this; Those who paid into Superfunds that have gone bust, are they not applying for the Pension after the coffers are emptied ?
I have worked only in my teenage years in Europe & if I'd failed to claim for the $45 or so monthly Pension from there I would have been ineligible for the Australian Pension which I contributed 52 years of full Tax rate. The $45 or so are deducted from the Australian Pension.
An old age Pensioner has paid a higher Tax rate than anyone paying into a Superfund via a bureaucrat position or private business. I'm talking about rate not amount but at times amount is greater also.
A clever bureaucracy would realise that in a consumer based society more consumer spending equals a better economy ! People should not dismiss how much Pensioners actually contribute to local economy. Way more than those who pay little Tax & spend it overseas & guaranteed to fail schemes.

Federal Treasury has advised the government that it will have to RAISE TAXES to finance the massive blowout in such areas as AGED WELFARE. Any increase in taxes would be unpalatable with voters, and a reduction in the amount paid to older Australians is necessary. With tougher economic times, it will be necessary to "trim the fat" from the Aged Welfare budget, that is for certain.

With the single Age Pension payment at a very generous $1,149.00 per fortnight now, a little "trimming of the fat", should see that halved to a more than reasonable $574.50 per fortnight, which is more than enough to keep old people happy and contented, they don't eat much. There would be plenty left over from the fortnightly spend for old folks to have a treat, such as a yummy packet of Licorice Allsorts once a fortnight, Agree! I have done the budget and I believe with a little frugal planning an old person can exist on less than $50 per week.