Danielle

“elderly woman may never have had a job “

The important words are “may never have”

Those words allude to the speculative nature of the condition you seek to raise.

Again we are all responsible for our own domestic budgeting and living within the limits of our incomes. I have to forego things I want to fund the things I need, like superannuation.

I am only prepared to apply the same constraints to everyone else.

“One really has to know the factors of individual cases before we can make fair assessment.”

That is Why I asked

“what consideration did she give to her old age when younger?”

Thanks for your agreement

“Some receive obscene payment and pay-outs.”

I make a distinction between the public and private purse.

The salary of the CEO of a private company is a matter between the CEO and the shareholders and no one else.

The salary of every civil servant merits the attention of every tax payer.

Individual “For instance; How can anyone expect people to pay into a pension fund that doesn't exist.”

Opportunities to save for old age have existed for a long ling time, although payments to them might not have received tax office blessing as “tax deductibility”.

Some individuals saw opportunity in foregoing immediate consumption to buy investment property.

“Many workers had to go from job to job,”

I have done that all my working life. I have been paying into an AMP super fund since 1987 as well as another fund which I set up when I stopped having to pay child maintenance to my ex-wife.

In 1970 “Those on casual wages” were a rarity, compared to today (I include myself among those who are “casually employed” )

“how come we look after drug addicts & other people who don't contribute one iota towards their pension.”

I agree, why should we look after the well being of junky parasites ?

actually the junky “lifestyle” helps eliminate pension costs

I have planned for my retirement since age 18, when I decided to study for professional qualifications.

I myself contribute more than $1,000 a month to super, and then have other sporadic government and miscellaneous contributions which get tossed in to the pot.
Col Rouge,
You are very fortunate to have that much income to afford more than a $1000 a month to contribute. That's more than a pension. The government contributions are normally more than the personal contribution. So, you are in actual fact still not contributing enough yourself to claim that you are giving sufficient consideration to your old age while still young. Please everyone, I am not attacking Col Rouge here as I in fact have employer contribution too that is higher than my sacrifice. None of us can claim we're more responsible because, we're still reliant on taxpayer funding to top up our super.
My argument is that for every dollar we earn, we should contribute a set %age for our future needs. We must consider that some people get ill & require treatment etc. Those who are fortunate enough to earn good money & are free of illness should not quarrel about "not using" their contribution. Unless we can fully fund our own future we should refrain from blaming those less fortunate for not contributing. There are too many who make no effort at all despite being able to work & they must be made to pay. If Government expects people to be less of a burden when they get old then it must provide people with the opportunity & responsibility in their younger days. I believe that the present minimum wage of $13.80 hr is simply not enough. How much of each Dollar we earn actually goes into the pension fund. Would be interesting to know & compare it with how much goes into frivolous funding. The Qld Govt funded $115,000 to some artist about two years ago for his art of regurgitating food onto a concrete slab. That's 479 weekly pensions.

Col

It is always possible to cite examples of how people might have made things better for themselves. Personally, I equate the ability of a society to look after its citizens as a measure of its humanity. But what happens when you dont have the resources? Are Indians morally degraded because they allow widows to die in conditions that we would not allow our pets to die in?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5263462.stm

I'm sure that if Australia followed the Indian overpopulation example we could be discussing whether or not some poor bugger rotting in a cardboard box was deserving of his lot.

Yes indeed Col, he should have put a bit more thought into how he might like to be living when he was younger. At least it is good that some of us know how to plan for everything.

Individual “The government contributions are normally more than the personal contribution”

As a “self-employed” person and not a civil servant, I appreciate the government co-payment contributions to my superfund but they are a small fraction of my own contributions. Likewise, I own 100% of the company which make the company contributions too, how the mix is made up, I leave to my tax accountant.

As for “So, you are in actual fact still not contributing enough yourself to claim that you are giving sufficient consideration to your old age while still young”

I have not yet stopped contributing. Your statement might be appropriate if I had retired but, I am still running in the race toward that destination.

“The Qld Govt funded $115,000 to some artist”

Read some of my other posts. I recently debated against government involvement with the “Arts” and suggested such subjective and discretionary pursuits be left to those disposed to private philanthropy, rather than being made a drain on tax payers funds.

Fester “It is always possible to cite examples of how people might have made things better for themselves.”

Yes and I do not expect to be penalized for taking the risks required to make things better for myself.

As for Australia versus India, I decided to migrate to Australia. I discounted India for the reasons you use in illustration. Likewise, I knocked back job offers in some African countries.

Maybe we should re-colonise India and force them to comply with your standards of humane treatment for widows.

“Yes indeed Col, he should have put a bit more thought into how he might like to be living when he was younger.”

Like I said in my original post

“I am only prepared to apply the same constraints to everyone else.”

We all have the same opportunity to make the best of our opportunities.

I spent my early years studying

I forewent the opportunity to go out, get drunk and get the first woman I met stuck up the duff then spending the next 50 years getting drunk, trying to escape my miserable existence..

Fester “Personally, I equate the ability of a society to look after its citizens as a measure of its humanity.”

I believe a society is only as strong and able as the individuals who comprise it.

The expression of “humanity” is an individual one.

Governments cannot prescribe legislation to enforce “humanity”.

Governments cannot be humane or compassionate.

What you seek is only ever expressed and thus is only ever measurable in the attitude and actions of one individual to an other.

One of the great lies of socialism is that it is the humane philosophy, compared to private enterprise and the self-sufficiency which attends capitalism.

No political philosophy can pretend to reflect the compassion or humanity which individuals can express.

No political philosophy can treat people as the individuals they are and give to everyone that which they need,

The best any regulated political system can do is

dispense to all, equally, regardless of merit or effort

but the better alternative is

To foster the political environment where everyone understands they can aspire to be what they want and are free to achieve the best they can for themselves by their own effort.

As Margaret Thatcher said “We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

she also said "Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul. "

substitute "attitude" for "soul" and it is more understandable.

That is what she was after, a change in individual "attitudes" from dependence on government to self-reliance.

A woman who retires today only earned a third of what a man earned until they gained parity with a family wage. Women expected to retire at the age of sixty and the male was going to follow suit. But then the establishment changed the goalpost and on a gradual basis a woman now has to wait until 65. She never had a chance to take out Superannuation today there is no privision for those women that were victims of circumstances.