Mjpb what a small minded post you made.

“should be responsible for planning for their retirement”

Yes we are.

Societies which expect government to do all the planning for them and cater to everyone’s needs have been proven to fail miserably, not only in developing the aspirations and potential of their populations but also in delivering basic subsistence pensions on which anyone can survive.

“I'm guessing someone in a job that doesn't pay super”

someone self employed, like me, you mean?

“who hadn't paid any GST”

that reminds me, December payment is due within the next 3 days. That means my bank account will be lightened. I pay my taxes first.

To your taxi driver, he was either

cheating on his responsibilities or

if he was grossing less than $50k, has been badly advised to his responsibilities.

The picture you paint of his performance in later life is not the sort of story which many would seek, he should have thought more about the consequences of his actions.

“There has been a weakening of families over the years that is part of the problem.”

That only has relevance if one views ones children as some form of “pension plan”.

For myself, I have 2 daughters. They love me very much but I never fathered them to support me in my old age.

Again “attitude”, those who are relying on their children and extended family to support them are inherently selfish in their attitude and values.

It is not what I can get from them, it is what can I do for them, which matters.

For my daughters, they have both chosen to adopt my values, which is ensuring they think before they act and are working on their own life plans.

I have no doubt they will remain valued and contributing individuals, complete with the self-reliance to prevail over any difficulties which they might face.

The best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray.

It is vary easy to judge from a position of financial security the real or imagined failings of others.

The inability of some to walk in another’s shoes leads to some of the greatest inequities. Perhaps if a CEO tried to live for 6 months on the income of their lowliest employee, they would understand a little more what life on the edge is really like.

There are as many reasons as there are people why, at retirement age they should find themselves in poor circumstances; illness, mental illness and other catastrophes can beset the most rigid of plans.

In particular we need a safety net for those people who stay at home to care for others: children, the elderly, disabled or people otherwise dependent on others. These volunteers save the government many dollars and certainly contribute more to our community than do many of our so called ‘captains of industry’.

For these and many others we will still need to provide a safety net and Australia is a wealthy nation in a position to care for all its citizens, rather than just a select few who consider themselves better than others.

“These volunteers save the government many dollars and certainly contribute more to our community than do many of our so called ‘captains of industry’.”

Maybe you can provide some research to justify that statement.

I do not doubt volunteering is a significant contributor to the greater community, as I have said often “philanthropy” is a uniquely individual thing, volunteering is a classic example of the spirit of philanthropy.

The bit which needs research is the comparison to “captains of industry”. Now if you are game to produce the research which justifies your statement to the lack of worth of a captain of industry, I will be happy to destroy it before your eyes.

“The inability of some to walk in another’s shoes leads to some of the greatest inequities.”

Oh very true.

I wonder where all the burly piss-pots were when I was studying?

Probably getting their girlfriends banged up and now I am expected to subsidise their old age because they frittered away the opportunities of their youth?

Another mans shoes works both ways.

Let us consider how disastrous it would be if the low paid unskilled worker had to deal with the complexities and decisions which a CEO makes on behalf of a company which employs thousands of people and is responsible for the prudent stewardship of millions of dollars of superannuation invested funds.

“to care for all its citizens, rather than just a select few who consider themselves better than others.”

The situation where the state is a universal care provider sounds wonderful, except to provide that care requires separating the individual from self-responsibility and choice.

When that happens, the state becomes a paternalistic charicature (or worse) and the elector is disqualified from making his own decisions.

We only grow to our full potential and experience the best quality of life by exercising choice and being responsible for the consequences of our actions. A government which takes away those decisions and choices opportunities, negates that.

JR there is a lot of “emotionalism” in your post. Not the stuff which objective government is equipped to deal with.

...and then there are those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing...

Col

"Governments cannot be humane or compassionate."

Many would disagree with you Col. Governments are run by humans and I dont think it unreasonable that they should be measurable by human qualities. Thus I dont think it unreasonable to describe the Khmer Rouge or Nazi Party as being inhumane. But, of course, humanity is a subjective measure, so I am sure that many in these regimes would have thought themselves very humane and compassionate.

Now Col, what about someone born severely retarded, without the concept of a life, let alone an understanding of the need to plan for one? How could such an individual be held accountable for anything? How should they be treated, and how might the wealth of society affect the lot of such a person?

It might also interest you to know that most people underestimate the value of an education. As educated societies are wealthier societies, it makes economic sense to subsidise education. Isn't nice to know that at least one of the Whitlam's Government's decisions was economically sound?

Col Rouge,

There are many, many people who have gained university degrees and indeed further qualifications, who regard the amassing of money very low down on their list of priorities ... some contribution to society, as a whole, being at the top of their list. Many post-grads spend their lives in research for very little reward - for some, not greatly more than unemployent benefits. Ironically, the benefits they produce, create millions for businesses who adopt these.

I have no respect for CEO's who rationalise "retrenchments" for the $ profit. Indeed, some share-holders may be comfortable by this, but I for one am not. Ironically, the
"retrenchments" leads to the government having to pay unemployment benefits. The rationale that people should make provision for themselves fails horribly here - when those being retrenched have families to support, and the government has to pick up the tab. You must admit that some CEO's are most incompetent. You, obviously have heard the expression of a person "being promoted to their level of incompetence" - a frequent expression heard at the top end of business.

Some CEO's are worthy of respect - those who are intelligent and competent enough to create businesses, expand them, and provide jobs. They are to be applauded and a worth every million they have. Indeed these people are those most likely to be philanthropists. If one looks at the list of philanthropic bodies, these people are most often amongst them - not the former who bend the knee to $ signs; and who strangely enough end up with fortunes themselves, whilst those depending upon their expertise "hit the wall".

Regarding retirees, mostly pensioners, who volunteer their services: if the hours spent
in donating time and other skills in helping the less fortunate were awarded $ value, I would guarantee they save the government millions. I would state that they contribute more in monetary worth than the pension they receive.

cont ...