Effect on business of raising the pension age to 70

The huge amount of Australian workers who take to the roads in their camper vans and caravans for a trip around Australia, puts a huge amount of dollars into the tourism operators businesses.
They buy food, fuel, fees and spend large amounts of tourism dollars around the country.
Taking them out of the system would impact on business far more than the amount it costs to pay their pensions.
As is usual this government has made policy on the run and not thought through the consequences of their panic reaction to the budget blow-out.

The tourism industry employs 908,434 persons or 7.9% of total Australian employment (Direct – 531,900 persons, Indirect – 376,534 persons).

Mining, by comparison, employs 2.4% of the workforce

Erm, people who work still take holidays. If you're working until 70, it means you can't afford to retire, and take that holiday around the country. With people living longer...an extra 20 years compared to 50 years ago, the pension bill has risen exponentially. I suggest YOU think things through.

Erm, it would be very hard to get around Australia in a few weeks holiday aaaaannnnddd, a lot of people these days do not work full time and do not get an annual holiday.
A few days off now and then is all they take because they are frightened of losing the job they have if they are away too long.
It would probably surprise you how many there are that are on a pension and are also grey nomads.

...The tourism industry employs 908,434 persons or 7.9% of total Australian employment (Direct – 531,900 persons, Indirect – 376,534 persons).

Mining, by comparison, employs 2.4% of the workforce

Robert, in order to respond, I need to know where the indirect jobs for tourism come from.

As for pensioners spending more on travel than it costs, how can this be as they certainly won't spend every cent on travel.

While I understand your point about lost tourism dollars from nomads, may I suggest raising the pension age from 67 to 70, remembering labor had already said 67, would have far less an impact on tourism than FWA IR Axe that saw many nomads who once relied on fruit picking while traveling, loose that source of income, which by the way found it's way to many a tourist operator.

Finally, when the pension was introduced, the average life expectancy for males was about 55. Now it's about 85, almost a 55% increase. Furthermore, when introduced the ratio of payee to payer was about 27 to 1, that's now more lime 2 to 1.

We now also have the single mothers, the middle class welfare recipients, the illegals, all I can say is, what's the alternative but to raise the pension age. In fact, if raising it by the percentage that life expectancy has increased, the pension should not kick in until a male hits 101.

One thing that is for certain is that the money is going to run out., so As I say Robert, what's the alternative?

Back when old-age pensions (are we still allowed to use that term?) were introduced in industrialised countries (most countries still don't have it in 2014), the average male worker lasted another two years. Nowadays, a person of sixty can expect to last until he is ninety or she is ninety five, and in twenty years, it will be another five years or so again, ninety five for men and one hundred for women - i.e., IF you last to sixty.

So even if governments kick up the pensionable age to seventy, and by some remote time like 2029, pensioners then can expect to last, not two years, but perhaps thirty years or more.

A hundred years ago, most workers were in manual labour, ploughing, hay-lumping, or in noisy and dirty and dangerous factories, or lumping 150-lb bags of wheat, 200-lb bags of cement, and for the wimps, 70-lb bags of sugar. Nowadays, far more people, men and perhaps relatively fewer women, have little heavier to lump than a mouse. Or a Soy Latte. Their joints will still be okay when they are pensioners; the walking stick industry will be extinct by then.

So do the maths: will you have just two years of pensionable leisure, or thirty ?

So stop whinging.

Joe

PS. Disclosure: Why should I care, I'm already 71.

The alternative can be more elderly on the dole. it's just another way of creating an underclass which this type of govt; is all in favor of.
Sixty seven is far enough, seventy is just ridiculous.

Hi 579,

So what's wrong, from ANY government's point of view, with pegging the old age pension to life expectancy ? Seriously, it is possible that in forty years' time, most people will live well into their nineties. And we forget that - at the other end of the working-life-span - a hundred years ago, people started work at twelve and fourteen, while nowadays, it is more likely to be ten years later or more.

So a hundred years ago, those poor buggers who lasted until they were sixty five, had already put in fifty or more years of hard, physical slog - and they had an average of two years of blissful leisure, if in chronic sickness, to look forward to. How does that compare with the bulk of workers now ?

Of course, the superannuation system will take up some of the burden. But for how long should the taxpayer fund retirement ?

[Disinterested observer]

I think the talk of raising the age to 70 is a scare tactic.

They put out a strong message that they will raise it to 70 but instead they introduce a less less drastic proposal (I don't know what).
Most people will accept the introduced proposal and thank Government for not raising the age to 70.
He thus gets what he wants with much less public objection.

Dear Robert LePage,

Raising the pension age will increase
unemployed. Putting more people into the work
force does not solve the problem especially
when industries are shutting down, forcing younger
people into unemployment.

Older people are not
trained to deal with new technology and are not
able to do physical labour such as construction-work,
mining, road-building, or standing for long
periods of time, et cetera.

Our family has
many friends who wanted to stay in the workforce
but many in their fifties were simply retrenched
and were not able to find other employment. Nobody
it seems, hires people in their fifties .

In areas where some people may find employment -
the current government is talking of budget cuts.
Which means that those already employed will be losing
jobs.

Of course we can fight climate-change and get every
"oldie" out in the bush on their knees planting trees.
I'm sure the government would be happy with that.
But I'm not sure whether the pay for this activity
would be enough for the "oldies" to live on.

Raising the pension age would not improve productivity. Instead, it will:

1. Force even older people to pretend they are looking for work.
2. Force even older people into unethical jobs that either contribute nothing real, or in fact contribute negatively to the general well-being.
3. Force even older people to remain scared of tyrannical bosses and following orders which they find unconscionable.
4. Impact badly on voluntary, not-for-consideration, occupations.
5. Increase the pressure on younger workers to work harder, comply with orders and receive less salary, because there would be more older people in the queue to take their place if they don't comply.

PS. Disclosure: Why should I care, I wouldn't pass the means-test anyway.

(my advice to those who are hurt by this policy, is to take their superannuation money around the age of 65 and retire in another, 3rd-world country, where this sum, small as it may be in Australian terms, will allow them to live there like kings and queens for the rest of their lives).

Foxy if women in their twenties can do construction and mining work these days then men (and women) in their sixties can too,we're long past the days 12 hour shifts of back breaking labour with pick and shovel.
For example the last time I plastered a whole house, with the aid of a mechanical sheet lifter and modern tools it took myself and the owner (who'd never even used a cordless drill before) about the same time as it took in the old days when we handled all the sheets manually and drove in every nail by hand.
Who digs trenches by hand these days if they can get a machine on site?
Most brickies have mechanical conveyors to lift the brick and mortar up to the scaffold so there's no more chucking bricks up and climbing ladders with a bucket on our shoulder.
It's still hard work but it a lot easier than it was when I started and I can see myself still in the game in my 60's, it's not like I have a choice but 15-20 hours a week at $70-90 an hour should still be possible.

All thiose against the raising of pension age need to consider one VERY IMPORTANT fact. WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM.

Come up with a solution to that looming problem and you may well allow peop,e to retire any time after 55.

The only answer is tax reform, which doesn't involve taxing the working man more.

Rehctub , I think this Government could find some of the money by cutting down the number of wealthy parents eligible for the overly generous paid parental leave scheme for a start!

Cutting out many of the politicians 'perks', like having drivers for the ministerial cars, flying in first class, paying for spouses expenses, etc.
I have no doubt we could add millions to the coffers after a pruning of those little extras.

Why do some of the most money-poor people in our society (pensioners) have to bear the brunt of Australia's debt problems?
Why not tax the high income earners more?

As is so often the case no one is thinking of the demand side of the equation. That is; all the stuff that we need to spend money on.

The key to a financially secure future is to CAP the demand!!

Rehctub, you ask:

< All thiose against the raising of pension age need to consider one VERY IMPORTANT fact. WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM. >

Sorry, it’s the wrong question. We need to ask: how do we stop or reduce or slow down the rate of increase in all the stuff that the money needs to be spent on!

And guess what… the answer is very straightforward.

Reduce immigration to net zero. Then we’ll have something in the order of an extra 80b$ per year, that won’t need to be spent on duplicating infrastructure and services for our current huge rate of population increase.

Hey, this business about increasing the retirement age is a DIVERSION!

The REAL issue is to strive to balance supply and demand. And to do it NOT by striving to constantly increase supply, and the money that is needed to for it, but rather; by stopping the demand from ever-rapidly-increasing!

We need to spend that ~80b$ pa on pensions, infrastructural improvements and other quality-of-life things for the CURRENT population instead of on new residents!

If we could do that, or even a fairly small fraction of it, we wouldn’t need to increase the retirement age to 70.

Crikey, Rudd has pushed it up to 67. That’s enough! No further increase….PLEASE!

Suseonline - Quote "Why not tax the high income earners more?"

Simple answer if they already are not rich the politicians aspire to being rich in the future, therefore they would be stupid to enact a tax that will get them in the future.

Hi Ludwig,

You pose a very exciting situation, in which the number of relatively young people is to be cut back, at the same time as the number of older people increases.

There are a number of ways around this problem:

* increase the superannuation contributions to much higher levels (and slow down any wage rises accordingly);

* massively increase the tax rates for workers;

* print much, much more money;

* not soon but eventually, say, in thirty years, encourage older people to bring their years to a peaceful conclusion.

OR - as work become more automated, less physical, even more pleasant - even for women and all those ethnics doing the crummy jobs for us - and as our life expectancy keeps rising each year by three months, i.e. a year of extra life every FOUR years, kick the pensionable age up by one year every FIVE years.

Just trying to help :)

Joe

Robert LePage said:
"It would probably surprise you how many there are that are on a pension and are also grey nomads."

No, but it must surprise you as to how much our pension bill has escalated. From 1980-85, the pension bill for the government doubled in just those 5 years. In the mid 1980's, the average life expectancy for a female was 73, and a male 70. Today those life expectancies have increased by 10 years each, respectively. Don't forget to add the cost of free health care for those people too, and/or subsidized medications. All from the tax-payers. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge it one little bit, but I'm trying to point out that there are some stupendous costs involved in people just living longer.

Most people also had the idea of putting money into superannuation, but to suppliment their pension, NOT to live independently. We Aussies have a strange mentality, whereby we believe it's our right to receive a pension for all the taxes we paid during our working life. Well, that attitude is about to bite the bullet...rather hard. And I know this for a fact, as in the 1980's I worked in the industry, and I was continously astounded at the responses I got from people about ensuring that they didn't fund too much, as they didn't want to miss out on the pension.

In the short term, there's no way around it. Our future generations need to understand that they need to fund their own retirement FULLY, and to start from day one of their first job. They won't be ale to rely upon a pension when they're old enough to retire.

Free health will likely go, in the not too distant future, or at least reduce funding dramtically. With the loss of infrastructure for revenue, tax-payers are about all that's left for the government to fund things with, besides fuel, and it's not enough for all the pensioners and their medical costs added. Once we use what's left of fossil fuel, that's billions per year the government will be short.

@ Robert LePage, Tuesday, 22 April 2014 1:25:47 PM

You should try again, this time substituting any of the politically correct victim groups instead of the aged and you might be surprised by the results.

Just as a thought you could mention illegal migrants. That is a thought, have those grey wrinklies so despised and blamed in Oz tried claiming asylum? Asylum from the Lefties for starters? The aged seem to spook the Left, maybe because there are so many rule-breakers on the Left, or is it because the Left-sanctioned politically correct victim groups are playing dog-in-the-manger and do not want to share those guvvy teats with old buggers?

Heh, heh, maybe suggest that the aged who pioneered before and have raised, educated and supported all the generations that follow, should be honoured with the status of eternal victim and identified in a new Constitution and 'Rights' Charter as such.

Hold on, in some quarters it is anything but respect the aged. The aged just can't be 'Progressive(s)'. Honestly now, just how many of those greys vote Labor (Julia Gillard criticised them for that to deny any pension increase) or for the lunar Greens? Now can you see why the 'Greys' are yuck factor and are disliked and disrespected?

Does that help you to understand why the Greys make such perfect whipping boys? Or should I say whipping girls since many surviving are women?

Just another ridiculous proposal from a ridiculous govt; Everything they have come up with is over the top and not thought about. Abbott and his mob of corruption experts, will find their end

My wife and I will never qualify for it, so in keeping with the spirit of the times I should be agreeing with the rise and to 95 at that I suppose.

It is a lot of scaremongering though. My main concern is the encouragement of intergenerational jealousy. As if there isn't enough of that already put about by people who should know better.

The previous Labor/Greens government was actively considering a capital gains tax on the private home (place of residence). That has not gone away.

Both sides of government are eyeing the assets of the old specifically the family home and figuring ways of getting their hands on same. That could be why Labor and the Greens are restricting their stirring to the later eligibility for the pension, which would not affect anyone for years anyway.

Divide and conquer is the tactic and politicians believe that older people would not change their voting in appreciable numbers.

I reckon we should get rid of the pension all together. I would go further and suggest getting rid of all other benefits.

The Swiss experiments of an “unconditional basic income” and “linking executive pay to company’s lowest paid staff member” is evidence that the issue is not restricted to Australia.

I consider the Swiss experiment of “unconditional basic income” is basically flawed as there is no requirement to do anything meaningful relevant to their ability for it nor is it linked to means of raising or reducing such an income to address increase or decrease of national income.

If all working Australians had an “unconditional basic income” linked to Australia’s GDP we would have no requirement for any pensions or the bureaucratic system and red tape on which it feeds. It would be critical that to receive this income everyone must do some meaningful work for a specific time to receive it. No sit down money! Personal annual income from all sources would have to be restricted and scaled to a proportion of annual GDP also. This has nothing to do with how much wealth an individual has, only personal annual income.

The pension under such a system would be an age that an individual would no longer have a compulsion do something meaningful for a specific time to receive it. This is not to say that the aged should not continue to work if they choose as many do now for no reward to prop up the existing system.

Linking “unconditional basic income” to GDP would mean that the level would rise and fall with productivity and therefore would remain affordable. It would also ensure that we do not descend into a country of entitled bludger’s living outside their means.

Clearly this is a simplistic presentation and there are a lot of nuances that would have to be considered. Linking executive pay to company’s lowest paid staff member, overall social responsibility and giving greater reward to the producers of GDP are just a few.

Another “when pigs fly” concept!

Raising the retirement age might make sense if there really was a labour shortage. In the real world, though, there is no labour shortage. The government's official unemployment rate uses a ridiculously restrictive definition of unemployment, but according to Roy Morgan Research, the real unemployment rate as of last month is 11.6%, on top of an underemployment rate of 7.5%. This is among the current working age population. Where are those extra jobs for the oldies going to come from? The mass migration referred to by Ludwig is creating enormous demand for jobs, a demand that isn't being met.

According to Tim Colebatch, the Economics Editor of the Melbourne Age, we have been acquiring 5 new people for every new full-time job.

“People born overseas have taken almost three-quarters of the net growth in full-time jobs in Australia in the past two years, even though they make up just 31 per cent of the adult population. Analysis of the Bureau of Statistics jobs data reveals that, comparing the six months to April with the same months two years earlier, Australia gained just 131,000 more full-time jobs - one new full-time job for every five new people.

"But in net terms, people born overseas gained 97,000 more full-time jobs, while Australian-born people gained only 34,000. The economy created only one new full-time job for every 10 more Australian-born people aged 15 and over. The figures raise doubts about employers' claims that they must hire workers from overseas because Australians are not available to do the jobs.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/skilled-newcomers-flood-fulltime-jobs-market-20130614-2o9vm.html#ixzz2YLJos5JE

The truth is that superannuation tax concessions cost the government almost as much as the pension and are due to cost more than the pension by 2016, according to the Australia Institute. 37% of the tax concessions go to the top 5% of income earners, people who would save anyway. If the government were serious about saving money, more than from raising the retirement age, it would bring back a reasonable benefit limit to the total amount in superannuation that is eligible for tax concessions.

But Suze, high income earners do pay higher taxes, as their disposable income is higher, which leaves them more to spend on non food items which all attract GST. So stop whining and be grateful for what they go without, so low income earners can enjoy the likes of FREE MANY THINGS subsidized by high income earners.

579....Just another ridiculous proposal from a ridiculous gov

So what do we do when life expectancy reaches say 95? Still retire at 67!

In fact, if applying the same retirement to life expectancy ratios, retirement should be at age 101.

The truth is that nowadays most 70 year olds still play golf, still walk and exercise, are even sexually active, albeit thanks to modern medicine. It stands to reason they can still work.

From any government's point of view, the question is not how much to increase the old-age pension, but how many years will the average person be supported on an old-age pension ?

A hundred years ago, it was around two years for men, but now is ten times that, twenty years for men (and twenty five for women). By 2030 or so, even if the pensionable age is pushed up to seventy, there will still be twenty five years for men and thirty years for women for any government to fund - after all, those hitting seventy in 2030 are most likely going to crack on until they are ninety five for men and a hundred for women (i.e. from 2055 onwards). And in much greater numbers, too.

Public expenditure out must be paid for by revenue in. Or is that impossibly naïve ?

Joe

Putting an age limit to when a worker can retire is simply academic nonsense. Age should have nothing to do with retirement. I say, as soon as someone has worked for say, 45-47 years then they are entitled to exit the workforce & receive a pension or whatever some ignorant mutts in the public service want to call it.
Physical work is shortening peoples' lives so they deserve better than work themselves into a split-second retirement before dropping off the perch.
I'm in my early 60's & have worked since the age of 14, I don't think I could survive being in my work until 70. That's not what I'm paying taxes & Super for.
The whole show is just such a pardox of idiocy & incompetence & corruption. Bludge in the early years of your life & you'll find you'll have to work longer till you get to 45 or 47 years of working years. What could be simplier than that ? Or we could have a system of so much pension for so many years worked.
I like to think I'm saving for my retirement & not for others".

The federal public service has made a virtue out of 'boning' older workers.

It isn't as though the 'Boomer' bulge, which covers a span of 18 years(!), wasn't known about when the the federal public service started its sledging and massive retrenchments of older workers.

Actually Ludwig and Rehctub have pointed out what will happen.
It is just that they didn't really dig deeper into the effect.
Immigration will reduce because the government will be forced to
acknowledge that more people cannot be afforded and as Rehctub pointed
out we will not have spare money.Our GDP will sag into negative value
and like most European countries will have high unemployment.
Government will experiment with money printing because Hockey's
austerity will have failed and his successor will spend more borrowed
money.

Just like these two policies failed in Europe and the US they will
fail here also and the situation will be desperate.

This situation will completely redraw the political scene.
If any political party tries to keep the politically correct policies
intact they will suffer the political never never land.

People will be forced onto their own resources and everything will become local.

Dear Bazz,

<<People will be forced onto their own resources and everything will become local.>>

I say Amen to that.

It will give the younger generations a healthier future, but what about us who are too old to become farmers and the like?

Meanwhile, we can't keep our savings in bags of rice - because the rats will get them; but otherwise it is inflation which eats our savings. If as you say, the day of reckoning will not happen all at once and massive money-printing will occur in between, then we will lose all the fruits we accumulated over years upon years of slavery and disciplined frugality, planning to live on our own resources, as should.

Have you any solutions, or is it just "tough luck"?

Well Yuyutsu,
I think it will depend on the type of community in which you live.
Some communities will help their elderly if those elderly make some
effort to help others, eg they could look after children while the
mothers are working in the community garden or in some local business.
Child care centres will be defunct as unaffordable.
Some elderly with technical abilities could repair appliances in a
local repair shop.
A retired carpenter could work in a local furniture shop.
The Men's Shed movement could become a centre for problem solving in
return for vegies etc.

In situations like this local currencies like Totnes Pounds, would probably take off.
We have seen situations where communities which did not seem to exist
previously suddenly come into being when an emergency occurs.
That is the concern for your fellow man that surfaces when needed.

Now that is an optimistic view I agree, but look at the membership
of the bush fire brigades and the SES and many other voluntary groups.

Not everybody ages the same, If you are going to have coronary problems it will begin after 40 and before 70. And mostly between the hours of 6 to 8.30 am.
Some come to dementia of varying degrees after 65.
Most will be on some kind of medication by the time they become 65.
Some drivers lose their quick thinking skills before others.
I don,t think a longer longevity has anything to do with a persons ability to work. If you are going to work longer it would best not to change the type of work you are accustomed to. And there you may not have that choice.
Viagra is handy but not for people with heart problems, it may even bring on a heart problem.
Sixty seven is the upper limit but then it will be limited.
Seventy is stupid, and irresponsible for both the person and employer.
It takes a dingbat like Abbott to come up with these initiatives.

It was the Productivity Promotion Council.

<Government dismisses Productivity Commission recommendation to lift pension age to 70

Updated Fri 22 Nov 2013, 8:34pm AEDT

The Productivity Commission has suggested raising taxes, lifting the retirement age, and taking a slice of a pensioner's home to pay for Australia's ageing population.

The key Federal Government advisory body's latest research report warns of the rising financial strains of health and aged-care costs.

It says lifting the pension age to 70 would provide savings of around $150 billion over 50 years.

However, the Government has moved quickly to dismiss the idea, with a spokeswoman for Treasurer Joe Hockey stating the Government is not considering the proposals.>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-22/productivity-commission-recommends-raising-pension-age-to-70/5109630

Hi there...

I'm not sure about raising the retirement age to seventy. But I would think there would be quite a few occupations where an employee couldn't perform his normal duties in an accomplished manner. For an additional five years until he reached his mandatory retirement age of seventy ?

If the government were to insist on this preposterous, increased retirement age, then many potential retiree's would probably need to be retrained, or join the long lines of the unemployed ?

Some skilled trades within the building industry for example. Where a seventy year old fellow probably wouldn't be adjudged fit enough to perform certain tasks up to the age of seventy ? Surely there would be issues of OH&S to be considered also ?

Therefore, what is the employer to do ? Literally 'carry' him until he reached seventy years ? Or fabricate an 'ersatz' role, that prima facie, appears less demanding ? Hiding this old bloke somewhere deep within the industry ? Either way, it places an unfair (additional) burden upon the poor old employer too I reckon ?

And how would the trade unions react to all this ? With many of their already burgeoning suite of unreasonable demands, inexorably eating away the Company's profit base ? I believe it's a dog's breakfast all around, as it is purported now ?

Perhaps a scheme of allowing an employee to continue working until age seventy, purely on a voluntary basis, might well pay dividends ? Conditional, the terms are amenable, to both employer and employee ?

re-posted, some Government rhetoric suggest it may be right.

I think the talk of raising the age to 70 is a scare tactic.

They put out a strong message that they will raise it to 70 but instead they introduce a less less drastic proposal (I don't know what).
Most people will accept the introduced proposal and thank Government for not raising the age to 70.
He thus gets what he wants with much less public objection.

....Public expenditure out must be paid for by revenue in. Or is that impossibly naïve ?

You're right Joe, except you have not factored in super, because by 2030 on would assume super will be at least 15% from the employer and a further COMPULSORY 5% from employees. That's assuming the likes of our new land owners, the Chinese are kind enough to give us jobs.

This brings me to another issue, super it's self.

Super should never have been made available for the money Ridleys to get their hands on, as it should have been used to fund public infrastructure, as if it had, we would now have trillions at work for us and the less desirable parts of the country could have been hubs for factories and the like which could have provided jobs for GENUINE refugees as we would have had the funds.

In fact, we could have been lending money instead of borrowing it.

The other major issue is that of the ration of Payee per payer, which has gone from 27 to 1, to about 2 to 1.

Indi, I have always said that ones pension should be gushed on ones contributions throughout their working life, the more tax you pay, the higher your pension. It is the EXACT opp.

It is also my understanding you can retire at age 55, but you must be self funded.

But seriously, do you honestly think that pension age should not be linked to life expectancy?

Continued

Baz, another thing we must address is the selling off of our resources, many at fire sale prices.

Unfortunately we now HAVE TO DO THIS just to keep the wheels turning. Mainly because of all the hanger oners we have had to support over the past thirty odd years.

The repercussions of our hand out society mentality are now surfacing.

....Have you any solutions, or is it just "tough luck"?

I do Yuyutsu, stop allowing the punters to gamble with our super and get our super funding infrastructure that will ONE DAY pay dividends. Maybe not my generation, but perhaps the next.

....Not everybody ages the same, If you are going to have coronary problems it will begin after 40 and before 70. And mostly between the hours of 6 to 8.30 am.
Some come to dementia of varying degrees after 65.
Most will be on some kind of medication by the time they become 65.

Yes 579, and when the pension was introduced, most died before becoming eligible.

Whether we like it or not, we have a few major choices. One is about how we generate taxes, the other is about how we use our super and the other is about how we curb or deal with the hand out brigade.

I say this because one thing we can all agree on is life expectancy is going to increase, not decrease, and the current system of funding is headed for a train wreck.

Either we reduce demand, or increase supply, as increasing demand, while reducing supply is precisely what has got us into this mess in the first place.

the worst thing..is..this 'increase...of age..allows those exploiting the top-up/..read free govt cash grab..for those too rich to ever qualify for any other govt bailout/PENSIONS.. any other way.

FOR GOVT TO DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR
THOSE WHO NEVER COULD HAVE GOT A CENT/THATS JUST ELITES p[ayinbg each others rent...middle class welfare shouldnt go to giving cash upfront to the rich/who other wise couldnt get at one cent

yet they tax avoid..and now get paid to grow kids
according to your station/pay scale..its time for a one size peNSION FITS ALL.

FURTHER..RE FOLLOW THE MONey
see how the bailout..of the fed..[9 billion]
then the bying [hidden slush fund..of 12 billion..of over engeneered yanki hanger ornaments]..that are suffocating our pilots/please see only 4 could be flown for the fly past for our future king

think of all that f111/fly overs of times gone past
paid in full by the same burdens..its time to cut the cost of war

what..really is us working to death to buy yanki war junk
that is that debt..we can drop..instantly..figure it out with what you got/then inquire why every defense ;procurement'..minester'ss globally is a billionaires..inquire re that onE.

THEN SEE ALL MEDIBANK IS GETTING SOLD/NOT JUST THE PRIVATE ONE
THUS THE FEE UPFRONT..TO MAKE IT MORE COMMERCIAL...ENRON-SCUM

further/the govt is frontloading in a huge burden/blowout
it can then blame on alp..then claim to have fixed[/by working us/taxing us to death
http://rss.infowars.com/20140423_Wed_Alex.mp3

Again, it was a Productivity Promotion Council report, see here,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-22/productivity-commission-recommends-raising-pension-age-to-70/5109630

It is to be expected, demanded even, in a democracy that the government presents the report to parliament and to the public. That is the beginning not the end of consultation and even if government were to 'fly a kite' as some suggest, it is a kite in full view and up for discussion. Not taking sides but such public transparency and open consultation were never features of the previous Labor/Greens government, where deals were done behind closed doors.

There is scare mongering going on. It is normal and reasonable in a democracy to publish reports and consult, and it is only those with a (political) secondary agenda who would suggest otherwise.

Why is it for instance that the aged themselves have become the target of some quite nasty sledging in the media and it is yet again descending into inter-generational jealousy? Or that the several other quite ground-breaking tax 'initiatives', such as requiring the elderly to sell or reverse mortgage their own family home of a lifetime are not being surfaced for discussion? All of the cards on the table please and those of the previous Labor/Greens government as well, because those 'initiatives' have not just gone away, but are secreted in bottom drawers to emerge again.

What is also missing from the political debate and quite deliberately so on all sides, is any frank, detailed comparison with other welfare and social programs.

REhctub, I am just about at a loss to know what to do about pensions.
Ultimately the pension must decline as we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY !

As the cost of energy increases relative to our production of all goods
there will be less surplus to support those unable to work.
It will become necessary for the pension to be paid only to those
unable to work. If they cannot work at their previous trade because of
its nature then they must find other employment.

I don't see any alternative.
What worries me is the above is based on our existing economic state.
The politicians are unable to face up to the reports that have been
put into their hands by various government bodies and outside bodies
like CSIRO, NRMA and ASPO, on the very great risk to our liquid fuel supplies.
Everyone, or nearly everyone poo poos that when I say it, but they
like the politicians just cannot bring themselves to see the risk.

All it needs is someone to put a rocket into the Singapore refineries
or into major refineries elsewhere and three weeks later we will be
left with 10% or possibly no liquid fuels.
It could be any number of other causes such as Israel and Iran war
or other tension closing the Strait of Hormuz or a technical fault that causes an explosion.

In a week the last oil tanker would arrive at an Australian port and
the storage terminals have a week or two, the service stations would
empty very quickly once the public realised what was happening and
would cut our car use back to an absolute minimum.
Just as happened in the UK the supermarkets would not be restocked
and the women would be fighting inthe aisles for the last tins.

Don't believe that other countries will sacrifice some of their fuel
to help us out.
This risk is very real and yet the governments have not undertaken
their commitment to the OECD to install three months storage.

Hockey and Abbott have resided over 70 billion of debt since coming to power. Unless they turn that around with this budget they will prove their use worthless. Buying planes worth billions, with old money of course, is not a good look and will further degrade Abbott.
With all the foot in mouth statements from Abbott to get elected the people of AU were conned. All promises are off, all have been revealed as lies. Abbott followers will do and say anything to defend their chosen heir. The reaction to pensioners was just an exercise to gage support for such impacts. Political suicide lies in the budget, but they must be very tough to save any any shred of face they have left.

So 579, am I rightin assuming you wold have preferred more of what we had for the previous six years. More waste, more workplace welfare, more missmanaged policies, mismanagement that resulted in us going from + $20 billion to -$600 odd billion.

Now I'm not having a shot at you, as I'm quoious as to whether that's what you are implying.

Now if you are suggesting that by RSI staing labor, we wouldn't have gone down that road, just how were they intending to change. They support the carbon tax, they also support the massive handouts to the car industry.

So just how would labor have turned their ship around?

Baz, another major contributor has been the growth in welfare recipient sectors, from single mothers to dads deciding staying home is only marginally less attractive than going to work. Marinally being the optiman word.

Finally, just on the pension, anyone in my age bracket, the wrong side of 50 need not worry as we won't be effected, although I realized twenty five years ago that I wouldn't get any of my taxes back.

Anyone on the good side of fifty has had super since 1990. Now if they have handed that to the profit makers, and lost it, that's their doing and thier problem.

But the reality is, if life expectance increases, so too must the retirement (on support) increase, otherwise you're burning the candel from both ends.

Butch has now resorted to the past. The year is 2014 and we have had a noalition govt; for 7+ months, and to what advantage. All they have done is back-peddle and tell lies, when are they going to do something. Before the election they had everything under control, as we were told.
It is no good assuming what labor would have done, they are not the Govt; The carbon tax as i told you will not bring down electricity prices. The miners are said to have paid nothing so what is the problem or is someone telling lies.
If there is any decrease from power at all it will come from the distributers, which is a carbon free zone. The generators are looking at ways of taking electricity away from the market, to a set price for wholesale power. Which means they are needing more money.
All of a sudden we have a problem with aging people, It's in Hockey's hands, lets see how good he is. The noalition is in control of the books, so lets not see any forward projections just get on with balancing the books. If they are good enough.
They have their big chance to make a nome for themselves, if they are good enough.

dear tubbers..see..PLEASE..we are all..in the same boat
globally..the other cuntries are boke..dead broken/many times WORSE THAN WE

NOW MATE..YOUR CLEVER...please think..if all your mates..are dead beats..?[who is paying the bills]..we are

/think about it

the world govts are broken..they have created odious debt
joes best bet..is to chase those who created this unlawful/CRIMINAL/TREASONOUS..ODIOUS* debt

usa..for example has declared debts..of trillions
but undeclared debt obligations worth two quadrillion

between dead beat education loan scams..to the dead beat fanny may
the list is endless/but the debt grows BIGGER EVERY DAY..IT CAN NEVER EVER..GET PAID OFF

THink
once every bit of stuff..[VALUE].has been sold off[to the sAME/SELF..SERVING/UNDESERVING-moneyed elite..WORLDS/govts bailed out?

anyhow ol mate..at the case in law..its odious debt/
begotten by ongoing acts of treason..ya cant..stop nuthing till ya stop all..these..INTEREST ACCRUING/bleeding cuts

the leeches...must be cut off..like with iceland
bailing out these criminals..by taxING US EVEN MORE..THATS NO CURE

<<>.So just how would labor/have turned their ship around?>>

THE SAME WAY I TOLD RUDD..GROW THE DAMM Debt
cause no one else is going to ever repay an signle penny of it
cause its criminal debt/joe hasnt grasped that yet.but his mates will have..STILL..HE ISSUES/us..ever/deeper..into it

<<. major contributor has been the growth in welfare recipient sectors, from single mothers to dads deciding staying home>>

see how you play at treason..tubbers?
govt exists only to help out the poor and regulate fair trade/and the tools on commerce[ie money supply]
not bailout bankers insurers underwriters too dumb to see the ship is sinking..the rotted privatized corps is stinking/what were yous masters thinking?

<<>.is only marginally less attractive than going to work.>>

mate..any day now..the bankers will do whats called bailin
essentially they will take away your hard earned cash[without even paying govt a transaction fee]..and you will be given shares..in a mortgaged building..empty vault but for a photocopy money printing machine

better you accumulate asset and the future never to be repaid debt

but joe freaking hoc*
ley works for the bankers

ditto that new nsw premier..ditto in ukrane..ditto italy/greece..seeing a pattern>,,GOVT/BANKERS..SCREWING US AGAIN.
http://rss.infowars.com/20140423_Wed_Alex.mp3 .

Out of the mouths of babes.

A neighbors high teens son wants to know why we don't reclock the economy, & the country

He reckons that is what fixed his computer when some of his data became contaminated. He simply reclocked the thing to 6 months ago, & all was restored.

He reckons we should reclock the country to mid 2007, when we still had Howard, the budget was in surplus, & the economy going gangbusters, & all was be well.

Sure we might have to sack thousands of bureaucrats, & close many new Labor NGOs, & wipe 6 years of stuff ups from the history books.

God the place would be so much better if we not only wiped the policies of the Rudd/Gillard catastrophe, but all memory of their existence, & our stupidity in ever electing them.

Perhaps some of these kids aren't so dumb after all.

there is a lot of drift in the topic
but then i guess it is about why cut pensions/not offense spending on the de-fence

thing is govt own papers state//there will be onn ly dRones flying around in 6 years/automated DRONES..not pLANES..JUST THINK AGAIN WHY WE ARE CUTTING PENSIONS..TO BUY BUGGY WHIPS?..TO BUY PLANES OBSOLETE BEFORE DELIVERY DAY?

EXPENSIVE TOYS THAT CANT FLY
CANT DELIVER
THAT SIT FROM DAY ONE IN THE HANGER..hanger ornimentation
WHY?..WHO CARES..

govt isnt cost affective..we need no leaders..
we lead leadership SRERVICE NOT THIS ONGOING BULL shhh it.

** Treasurer Joe Hockey says Australians need to 'work as long as they can' **

UNLESS you are a blood sucking politician.

579, balance the books you say. Do you mean lime Howard did back when Keating left such a mess.

Of only we hadnt had that Rudd experiment, who knows where we might be today.

We will see if we have a pack of bumbling idiots or not running this country. Maybe it's all to politically sensitive to abide by the crap we have been fed.
This budget could end up like the red tape cutting exercise. All talk and no action.
Keating set the stage for Howard, remember his opinion of Costello.
The states have been ordered to sell everything they have but no money is to go for debt reduction. That won't go down to well in QLD, they are running at 85 billion behind go.
Hockey is pulling all sorts of faces but Abbott is cautious.
Ten billion per month going on the national debt an all-time record, can anyone see it.

579, dear, sweet boy,

Previous government commitments, like the BER, the NBN, the NDIS, have expenditure flows into the distant future, which any incoming government has to either honour or cut back or ditch, which may not be easy, or even possible. Meanwhile, other expenditure commitments keep growing, like those for servicing the old-age pension.

Meanwhile, fewer and fewer people are working in physical jobs - well, of course, except many women. On average, we all live longer by about one year in every four years that go by. So average life expectancy can be expected to increase by five years in the next twenty.

And more and more people are working in relatively comfortable conditions, even with air-conditioning (who would have thought ?). People at sixty and seventy are, on average, much healthier now than their parents were at the same age, and live five or six years longer. And twelve to fifteen years longer than their grandparents.

So they reach later years in better health, and with much better prospects of cure and treatment, and so can expect to live far longer in retirement than their parents did (or are), and certainly much longer than their grandparents. Yes, yes, poor sweet boy, many grandparents that you hear of live into their nineties. And so, certainly, will you, if you are an average person. And there will be many, many more of you too.

So how does any government- neoliberal, wishy-washy Labor, or a deep Green/Red proper one - fund all of that necessary expenditure ? Compulsory euthanasia of the post-60s may seem attractive to many young people for whom 60 is some time off towards eternity. But voters won't go for it. Solent Green, likewise.

So why not peg the retirement age to expected life-spans, as someone suggested ? Yes, gradually extend the number of years on publicly-funded retirement, but also why not, in step - slightly more gradually - increase the retirement age ?

Good luck in your adult life :)

Joe

The way to solve part of the pension problem is to index pensions to the total Parliamentary package, that way politicians of the party in power could limit or even (God forbid!!) reduce the pension any time that they felt the need to do so.

579 - Don't forget Liberals made certain promises before they got elected to go back on so many it is no wonder people class politicians the lowest of the low.

Dear Rehctub,

<<I do Yuyutsu, stop allowing the punters to gamble with our super and get our super funding infrastructure that will ONE DAY pay dividends. Maybe not my generation, but perhaps the next.>>

Sorry, but I can't see how this helps: I already never allow punters to gamble with my super as I keep all my super-funds in cash.

Now you suggest that I should allow the government to use my savings for infrastructure that may yield something for future generations - I would better believe the advice of the fox and the cat to Pinocchio, to plant a money-tree...

Yuyutsu, what I am saying is that employer contribution super, not your own accumulated super, should have been kept from the likes of industry funds, and now fund managers of the employees choice, who then gamble with the money.

The point is, that prior to the introduction of super, nobody had any in this form, so therefore they would not have missed it.

So, at some point the trillions that are now accumulated, and will keep accumulating must be channelled into beneficial assets for the community at large, then, these assets will generated dividends, which will then fund pensions. However, if we do go down this road, some pain will be felt at some point.

On the other hand if we put a stop to the gamblers holding oir money, this trillions will come back, but may break many large companies.

Let's face it, if our employer contributed supers can fund high rise buildings for the likes of the AMP 's of the world, they can fund infrastructure and of cause, jobs.

Affordable housing would be a good place to start, because super like this doesn't have to make a huge return, as it's ongoing for ever and is forever being cashed up.

So please don't be confused by the word super, as your personal super is yours, and you can do with it as you wish, at least until some desperate government decides they want it more than you. But that's another story.

The fact is that if we continue down the same path, same tax system, same pension age, same eligibility criteria, same welfare system, the only sector that will have any money will be super and governments will want it at some point.

Which every way you look at it, we are headed for a train wreck, like it or not. Tax reform is a must.

My tip with super is they will allow us to draw the equivalent of the pension, tax free, then tax us for any further annual withdrawals. I hope I'm wrong.

we know the trillions..sitting in super
will be a temptation...just like all them govt owned stuff was
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2612079/Brits-suffered-biggest-wages-drop-G7-French-Germans-enjoy-pay-rises-despite-working-fewer-hours-do.html

we know greed knows no bounds.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/video-ivy-league-study-says-general-public-virtually-influence-policy/

they dont care about anything but their god..[money]
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/deadworld.jpg

but..dont take a chill pill...open your Eyes to SSRIs
http://theinternetpost.net/2014/04/24/open-your-eyes-to-ssris/

Researchers found that antidepressants hinder serotonin regulation and can cause digestive problems, atypical sperm development, abnormal bleeding, stroke and premature death. Antidepressant manufacturers warn of side effects on drug labels though patients do not always consider how the side effects will affect their lives, according to the study authors...[just prozac alone has killed 25,000]

Twenty-five years before Prozac, 1 in 10,000 of us per year was admitted for severe depressive disorder — melancholia. Today at any one point in time 1 in 10 of us are supposedly depressed and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 5 of us will be depressed over a lifetime. Around 1 in 10 pregnant women are on an antidepressant.

The number of prescriptions for antidepressants is increasing by 5-10% each year, while the figure for people starting each year remains the same. This means that there is an increase of 5% to 10% in the number of people hooked to antidepressants each year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux-GYo21wSw

What puzzles me is why there is such a concept of "retirement age" in the first place.

Is it simply a matter of when you are permitted to rely upon the state for a pension? In which case, it is just another form of Welfare payment linked to unemployment. Why not simply call it that? So long as you don't make the level of payment an attractive alternative to employment itself, people can choose whether to work, or not, at an age of their choosing.

Is it tied to the arcane provisions of "superannuation", which is after all nothing more nor less than a glorified compulsory savings scheme? If so, would it not be simpler to make an individual's access to that pot of money simpler, so that - if they chose - they could stop and start work as they, individually, see fit? If they have enough money stashed away - why not?

What's wrong with a bit of personal choice in all this?

It is very dangerous to allow your super to be invested in infrastructure
such as airports, roads etc as none of the feasibility studies take
into account the effects on traffic, passenger or vehicle, of large
increases in fuel prices.
They simply do not give it any consideration at all.
With four motorways going bankrupt already in Australia it is a risk too far.

.....Is it simply a matter of when you are permitted to rely upon the state for a pension? In which case, it is just another form of Welfare payment linked to unemployment. Why not simply call it that

Pericles, not even close, as most aged pensioners have worked all their lives and paid taxes. To deny them of their right to put the feet up is plain wrong. It's at what age is the issue and as our life expectancy increases, so must the retitprement age.

As far as cashing in ones super at will you say, it's money paid by your employer, by force of governments, in order to at least try to fund your retirement and, relive the dwindling public purse. If you want more, co contribution is available, but it may mean a holiday or two less. But that's a personal choice.

Bazz, while I agree motorways are risky, you have to remember our super would not require huge profits, so tolls could be much less and there would be no debt.

In any case, the horse has bolted on that one, so any move that way will be painful.

I still say it's time to tax money, not the money earners.

Rehctub,
There was an announcement just two days ago about a motorway project
I think in Queensland, the proposer is borrowing, from memory $4 billion
and Australian Super Fund is putting in 25% of the project.

It was on The Business on ABC just about two days ago. I will look on
the ABC web site and if I find it I will put it up.

Rehctub, here it is.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-24/queensland-motorways-sells-for-7-billion-to-private-consortium/5408322

The new owner does not have the power to increase charges.
So if traffic drops off they just have to wear the loss.
Glad it is not my son's super fund, he changed from Australian Super to
an industry fund.

You would have to be mad to put money into motorways.
Still, like one city in the US, you can plan to use one side as a high
speed light rail.

Abbott's big mouth is going to stymie any real changes. Hockey is projecting a budget for the next 10 years. With Abbott putting so many blocks in the way, it is going to take another election before the path can be cleared.
No cuts to abc or sbs. Gonski and NDIS abbott is bi partisan. No increase in GST. Lower taxes. He has stuffed any meaningful reforms what so ever. At 10 billion / month increase in debt there will not be any reform at all.

Dear Rehctub,

<<Yuyutsu, what I am saying is that employer contribution super, not your own accumulated super, should have been kept from the likes of industry funds, and now fund managers of the employees choice, who then gamble with the money.>>

But there's no difference, there's no such thing as "employer contribution": it's your own money which your employer is legally obliged to take from you and place in your superannuation. Then too, everyone is already allowed to choose how those funds are invested.

Sure, the whole superannuation thing shouldn't have existed to begin with, it's another immoral act of vandalism by government, but then isn't this what government is all about to begin with - a predator, existing for its own sake by sucking our blood?

<<So, at some point the trillions that are now accumulated, and will keep accumulating must be channelled into beneficial assets for the community at large>>

Well, I doubt the latter just as I doubt I'd have any cream left if I appointed a cat to guard it.

What I originally asked Bazz is how can I keep my savings safe, so I can grow old reasonably and independently. Ideally I should just be able to keep my savings in a safe, but then the government creates deliberate inflation to eat its value away and force me to invest it with interest (barely maintaining its value after tax).

That's because over the long term I couldn't keep what I worked for in bags of rice as the rats would get it, or in clothes/shoes because my size can change, in petrol because it's a fire-hazard, etc.

<<if we put a stop to the gamblers holding oir money, this trillions will come back, but may break many large companies.>>

Good riddance!

<<Which every way you look at it, we are headed for a train wreck, like it or not.>>

Of course civilisation-as-we-know-it is headed for a train-wreck. Bazz believes that it will be soon, in our times, while I'm not that optimistic, thinking that this blessed cleansing might even be delayed for another 300 years.

Yuyutsu,
Actually I do not think there is any safe place for money.
My asset are three shares Telstra, Origin and Aus Pipeline.
Note two of them are energy related.
The majority is just sitting in three banks as deposits.
Now there is a risk, since Wayne Swan signed Australia up to the
IMF/G20 Financial Stability Board at the G20 St Petersburg meeting last year.
That board now has the power to seize bank depositors funds if a bank
gets into trouble and use the funds to pay off the banks debtors.

They gave it a trial run in Cyprus in 2012 and it was such a success
that they made it apply to all G20 countries.

So the upshot is that the only safe place is to buy some arable land.

I reckon the only safe place is back in the ground, where it came from. That is of course after you have converted it into the solid heavy yellow stuff.

Gold is useful as well as sort after, & so far has always maintained it's value. It does so even better in times of turmoil.

Diamonds are also just as useful, & would probably be as good long term, but may be hard to realise on at times.

Money is a dead loss. My father had a 1000 pound life insurance policy, in the days when a house cost less than that. When he died. it was not enough to bury him.

....Gold is useful as well as sort after, & so far has always maintained it's value. It does so even better in times of turmoil.

Not really Hasbeen, if you recall, gold was $190 an once at the time 911 happened. Several years earlier, it peaked at about $750.

In recent years it topped just below $2000. I would suggest not too many investments fluctuate quite as much as gold.

I hold shares, property and cash, as I have always gone by the old, don't have all your eggs in one basket.

Who sez, rehctub?

>>Pericles, not even close, as most aged pensioners have worked all their lives and paid taxes. To deny them of their right to put the feet up is plain wrong is plain wrong<<

A "right to put the feet up"? Really?

Is there any significant difference between being unable to work because you are sick, being unable to work because the manufacturing industry is now offshore, being unable to work because you need to look after a handicapped child, or being unable to work because you are old?

The "retirement age" is just an artificial device to manage when another form of welfare clicks in. To keep it separate from unemployment payments is just another way to keep a few thousand public servants "busy".

rehctub - Gold price is being manipulated, just like Libor.

The amount of paper gold owners is very high, unless you hold it in your hand you have nothing if everyone wants to exchange there paper gold for real gold.

When like now the price is artificially low but if there is a major conflict somewhere or they stop the manipulation the cost will rapidly rise.

You are right with "don't have all your eggs in one basket"

Perhaps build up a stock of Tim Tams !
Even land is a problem, the government can resume it for its own purposes.
Or in a real breakdown, just the nasties can get you.
Actually Hasbeen, I think you might have the right idea, Get a boat !

Pericles, from what you are saying, if there are not many jobs to be had, then perhaps it's unwise to continue populating the country, with the expectation that someone else will provide the funding.

As for comparing a sick, unemployed, or even a carer to a worker who has paid tax, sorry, we will have to agree to disagree, as I see a huge difference.

Now back to retirement age. It has been suggested that if a worker, on a basic wage, works their whole life, then receives the pension from age 65 to 85, the amount drawn from that pension will be more than the total income taxes paid throughout their working life. That's food for thoiught hey!

Only if you look at it superficially rehctub. It is the sort of thing some say in order to put down the contribution of the oldies.

A fair comparison would be in what would their contribution have paid for in the day.

In other words, how many miles of highway would the taxes of the pensioner have funded during their working life, & how many miles, [or perhaps inches] would their pensions be able to fund.

Hasbeen & Rehctub;
The problem with gold is that if things got really tough no one would
have any money that could be trusted to exchange for your bar of gold.
So it implies that you expect a recovery to a business as usual regime.
You cannot eat your gold and no one else has enough of what you want
and they do not want gold anyway.

It is all a bit of a bind isn't it ?

That is why I want to read The Collapse of Complex Societies as I think
it is going to tell me that a complex society like ours is so reliant
on so many different things that it would collapse very fast.

Read the last sentence in the following article music to my ears, if they were still here the budget would be much worse of.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/hard-line-on-boats-paying-off-morrison/story-fni0xqi3-1226896710647

NO people-smuggling venture had succeeded in landing asylum seekers on Australia for more than four months, the government says.

In the latest update on Operation Sovereign Borders, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said on Saturday that vigorous border protection activities was deterring illegal boat arrivals, even into the post-monsoon period when weather conditions usually improve.

Mr Morrison said the practice of turning back unauthorised boats remained in effect.

"Anyone seeking to enter Australia illegally by boat will be faced with the same policies those who previously attempted illegal entry met," he said in a statement.

Mr Morrison said no one had reached Australia since December 19 and that continued this month. But 3351 on 47 boats arrived in April 2013 under the former Labor government.

The latest Operation Sovereign Borders operational update says there are now 1281 in the processing centre on Manus Island and 1177 on Nauru, making a total of 2458.

Another 1405 remain on Christmas Island. During the last week, eight asylum seekers were transferred to Nauru.

Seven unauthorised maritime arrival transferees were voluntarily returned to Iran.

Since Operation Sovereign Borders started on September 18, 220 asylum seekers have voluntarily returned to their home countries.

Yes Phillip, makes you wonder if someone from the Rudd Gillard
Team was on the take, because although I thought Tony and his team could stop the boats, I didn't expect such a quick turnaround.

Perhaps it had some connection with their (labor's) obsession with the UN .

Either way, few people will forget how the situation was when Howard departed, how bad things became through Rudds doing, and now how easily fixed the multi billion dollar tax drain was for Abbott and Co. Except of cause for the do gooder bleeding heart brigade. But who cares about them anyway.

18,220 returned that is amazing just think how bad the budget would be if they were still here.

It also goes to show that lots that labor assessed as legitimate were more than likely scamming economic invaders.

I can understand more now why it was kept so secret if not the blood sucking lawyers would be tripping over themselves to provide appeals up to the high court all at taxpayer expense of course to keep them here.

MY BAD above figure is incorrect it is since September 18th - 220 have gone home.
Sorry

No it has not stopped. In 1 year the refugee arrivals will be back more than ever. At this very moment, the past successful methods have been stopped by the smugglers themselves, and new methods are currently being planned, organised and financed (this planning stage will take at least another 6 months).

With organization, it won't be hard to get the refugees here. The entire world can't even find ONE lost plane. Done with proper planning and organization and better financing the refugees will be arriving in their droves in 1 years time....... but NOT via the past methods and past routes.

That means, yet ANOTHER broken election promise from the coalition.

Good evening to you NHOJ...

You speak with a great deal of wisdom as evidenced by your precise prognosis as to when the next wave of illegal refugee boats will once more embark upon their hazardous voyage to any part of our thousands of miles of a pristine coastline ?

Could you perhaps enlighten us, as to how you might personally recommend what processes need to be immediately introduced, in order to effectively interdict this apparent new contemporary assault upon our sovereign shores ?

I'm sure you'd agree NHOC, we need to take extraordinary measures to terminate these new illegals arriving in the first instance ? As you say if we don't do anything, we may well be swamped with thousands and thousands of these illegal refugees ?

And in conclusion, you further assert; if as you say, there's another influx of illegals making their way here, it's a clear indication that Abbott has broken another of his promise's. May I ask, how so ?

I want these refugees here.... via safe methods.

We have recently turned into a passive, far right wing country with fear and paranoia of the unknown. We heartlessly see refugees as the "enemy", while we sit back in our comfortable armchairs receiving our pensions and good salaries to finance our expensive houses, lovely cars and overseas holidays. We are a heartless, brutish people.

Both major political parties are equally brutish on this issue.

I am ashamed of Australia.

If you think that the people smugglers have given up, you're living in Cloud Fairy Cuckoo Land. The old smuggling industry took years to organize, but the new smuggling industry will be up and successfully running by this time next year. Little leaky boats are not the "only" way to land on Australian soil.

Abbott and Morrison, two of the most revolting individuals in this country, PROMISED at the election to stop people smuggling into Australia. In one years time, there will be tens of thousands of new smuggled refugee arrivals in Australia. When this happens it OBVIOUSLY will be a broken coalition promise, for obvious reasons.

Nhoj.......I am ashamed of Australia.

Then leave!

In fact, if you round up your bleeding heart mates, and all leave, this will make room for some refugees. Providing they are ligit of cause.

Nhoj - Quote "I want these refugees here"

Are you willing to pay higher taxes to support the ones who have been here over 5 years and are still on welfare?

I know of media reports of at least 20 underage girls who have been sexually assaulted by refugees who do not agree with you.

In Melbourne olone there are at least 30 people assaulted by gangs of Sudanese who would also not agree with you.

The list goes on.

Dear Nhoj,

You may be a saint, but Jesus taught us to turn OUR OWN other cheek, not that of others.

Yes, Abbott made a bad promise because it is wrong to forcibly prevent people from arriving at a continent.

Yet, unlike your exceptional generosity, others seem unwilling to sacrifice their standard of living and security - and indeed no one should be obliged to accept others into their society, for whatever reason, good or bad.

In conclusion, evil is being caused here due to the fusion and confusion between geography and society. The original sin in this case is not the rejection of refugees, but the forceful assertion of sovereignty over vast areas of land by powerful societies (or more commonly, by individuals and groups who claim to represent their society).

In practice, the solution is to neither encourage nor discourage refugees from reaching to continent of Australia, but not to feed them or accept them into Australian society and cities - unless adopted as pets (and kept on a leash) by warm-hearted people like yourself.

It is shameful when Australia treats people worse than animals.

The last 3 posts are a good example of how backward, radically right wing and pre 1950s Australia has become. In regards to refugee policy, Australia has regressed over the past decades. We are now a much lesser country, content with our fat bellies, expensive homes, overseas holidays, expensive cars, high paying jobs (by world standards) and guaranteed pensions and unemployment support.

And, we want to KEEP IT. And we have we been brainwashed into thinking that the way to keep it is to keep refugees OUT of Australia. It's a case of pamper ourselves and stuff the refugees. Over the past decades settlers, migrants and refugees from overseas have ADDED to our GDP over time, not subtracted from it. Duh!

We now see refugees as a threat and the enemy. Yes, our brainwashing was completed at the last Federal election, by "both" major parties.

We've become a nation consumed by far right wing political correctness and paranoia

Dear Nhoj,

You call me "radically right wing" just as others on this very topic call me "radically left wing" - I got used to it on this forum, though as far as I'm concerned I never think in such stupid terms.

Nevertheless, as an independent thinker I take offence at being called "politically correct".
- I beg you to show me where, if any, have I displayed such cowardice.

I am not afraid of refugees or see them as enemies - I am a refugee myself.

However, I fully respect the right of others not to admit me into their society - or anyone else they do not like.
I do not agree, however, that others have any entitlement to deny other people entry into the entirety of one of God's blessed continents.

Nhoj - The world has somewhere around 45 million refugees, Australia has tens of thousands of economic refugees give me 1 good reason why Australia should support them just because there country was so corrupt there is no social security programs.

WE should start to do what Ireland does which is as follows. That will soon weed out the rejects

What Ireland give refugees
Gives them group accommodation (like all in one housing commission building not separate house)meals and a bed nothing else they go to a different place and get 19 Euros per week spending money. They are not allowed to work. Some have waited more than 8 years to be assessed.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/04/ireland-under-fire-over-refugee-treatment-2014425175020526225.html

Well, unlike you, I realize there's more to taking in extras than just feelings.

First and foremost, there's the costs, for which you say we should just go without some of our ways in order to accommodate these illegals.

Then there's the food, as we are fast approaching the state of being a net food importer.

And of cause, there is our own means of helping ourselves, by not having kid after kid as we know that we can't provided for them, and let's face it, that is at the heart of the problem in he first place, controlled population growth, something that appears foriegn to these invaders.

It's very hard to help people who rescues to help themselves.

Now if that make me a person you despise, I think you hating me is the better option.

As I say, if you don't like our country, you are free to leave.

Yuyutsu, oops my mistake. Sorry. I should have proof read my post. I meant the last few posts on the "previous page" (excluding a post from me that's amongst them).

Rehctub, methinks the "hater" is in fact you. Settled refugees are an economic PLUS. Settlers, migrants and refugees over the past 60 years have IMPROVED our GDP. I know your right wing political correctness makes these facts hard for you to accept. So be it.

PhilipS, 1 good reason? Simple decency. But I bet you're happy to drive home in your nice car and then sit down on your comfy armchair, in your nice house, after cashing your lovely weekly earnings, then turn on Andrew Bolt and be shocked at the thought of these refugee criminals and thieves invading our sweet nation in order to live off our money, rape our daughters, impose Sharia Law and just be nasty, nasty "illegals". You've really been brainwashed by right wing ideology and political correctness haven't you.

Nohj,

There are more than forty million genuine refugees in the world. Perhaps hundreds of thousands have filled out all the right forms to come to Australia, which has a quota of twenty-odd thousand genuine refugees per year. So they do all the right things,wait their turn in ghastly camps, usually for many years. There's a queue, nohj.

The vast majority of those genuine refugees, in Jordan and in African countries, will never be able to afford to drive out by bus to their nearest airport, let alone fly to Indonesia and pay to get on a boat. Your 'line-of-sight' 'refugees' can, it seems.

Can you see what's wrong with this picture ?

Best of luck,

Joe

Nojh is expressing a business as usual rant.
Before long we are going to have a hard time support those here now
let alone hundreds of thousands like he would like to arrive here.
We need NOW a zero immigrant intake.
It is really an up the drawbridge scenario coming.

Let them fix up their own countries just like we did.

.....Rehctub, methinks the "hater" is in fact you. Settled refugees are an economic PLUS. Settlers, migrants and refugees over the past 60 years have IMPROVED our GDP. I know your right wing political correctness makes these facts hard for you to accept. So be it.

Nhoj, 100% agree with you, BUT, that's when we were a developing nation with plenty of opportunity and the IMIRANTS wanted to work and start a life for themselves.

Today we are a whole different country, with a dwindling tax revenue and fewr jobs on the horizon.

I don't hate anyone but the fact is that charity must start at home, and right now, with so much uncertainty, is not the time to be opening ourselves up in aid of illegals.

Even genuine refugees should not be up for consideration and 457 visas should be postponed until we get the country back on track. Illegals should simply be stopped, as is the case now that we have a government with balls.

Once we get the ship headed in the right direction, then, and only then, should we reconsider our position on immigration. BUT!, definitely not for illegals as they are breaking the law.

Nhoj - Quote "Simple decency." So let me get this straight if someone who is an illegally in this country scams you destroys your property and sexually assaults someone you know you will let them and say you are being decent, pull the other one it plays jingle bells.

Please explain why on most boats 95% were men?

Please explain why they bypassed a number of countries that they could have got refuge in, or countries that were closer than Australia?

Explain why a number of them have been living in safe countries for up to 20 years before coming here?

Quote you "Settled refugees are an economic PLUS. Settlers, migrants and refugees over the past 60 years have IMPROVED our GDP."

Years ago yes BUT these arriving now are scammers justify 85% being still on welfare when they have been here over 5 years.

Sorry to disappoint you I have not been brainwashed I just understand the reality better than you.

100% brainwashed. You do Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt proud.

Good afternoon to you NHOJ...

You say you're ashamed of Australia ? Well I for one, are very sorry to hear that ? May I ask what are your options ? You're obviously not erudite sufficiently enough, to correct that which annoys you, ostensibly those in the current federal government ? What other avenues do you have available to you ?

Perhaps you might seek to immigrate to another country, or at least 'try before you buy' so to speak. Spend say six to twelve months examining their culture, their social security benefits etc. But first, what you need to do, is to identify potential countries that might suit your peculiar needs ? A country with a political system similar to the 'Society of Friends' (the Quakers) NOT the breakfast cereal either, NHOJ ?

I understand the United States has probably the largest congregation of Quakers, but on second thoughts, that wouldn't do either would it ? They, the United States tend to become somewhat belligerent and militaristic every so often, which would diametrically conflict with your harmonious perspective, together with your peaceful ideology, I would've thought ?

I really don't know my frustrated friend. Perhaps the only thing you might consider trying, is to modify your thinking somewhat. And instead of being irritated with issues and individuals, try becoming a little more pliant and pragmatic instead ?

Always ready to lend a hand there NHOJ.

o sung wu,
You and others here are wasting your time with this Nhoj bloke/sheila.

It is beyond having any common sense at all. The illegals that come here are shonks, they get here by deceit and bribery and then lie to our officials. They pay far above the commercial travel costs to smugglers because they are not genuine.

Nhoj is either stupid or maybe related to some trying to get here.

Just for the record, I think this government is doing a wonderful job thus far and I hope they continue to stop the boats from coming. They have my full support and encouragement in this.

I want my kids and their kids to have a similar society that we now have and that will not occur if we open our borders. I am not fearful of foreigners, I just do not want Australia to end up like the countries the illegals come from.

We cannot save the world, and the best we can do is to look after our own first and foremost.

Nhoj,
Australia is one of the better countries in the world.

That has not simply happened by good fortune, It was the hard work and common sense of our forebears that has made it so.

Many countries have bountiful resources, including oil, but are a mess because of bad governments and disputes over religion. They need to sort out their problems to progress. Australian sons and daughters have fought and died trying to assist other countries. That is a very high price to pay in helping others.

Yes it was the blood , sweat and tears of our forebears that made this country and we would be just stupid and neglectful of their efforts to just give it all away to any that come along. The illegals are seeking to gain from our work.

Immigration is not just about the immigrants, Australia has to get benefit as well or not allow immigration.

"The last 3 posts are a good example of how backward, radically right wing and pre 1950s Australia has become. In regards to refugee policy," Says Nhoj.

Well what do you know. Buddy there is nothing like having your country filled with the most worthless disgusting garbage to trigger that response. It might have taken a while for the majority of Ozzies to realise what trash these boat people are, but it slowly sank in to most of us.

Anyone not wanting to stop this garbage washing up on our shore is a fool or a traitor. I don't think I have to wonder about you, it is quite obvious which category you fall into.

Hi there BANJO...

Like you my friend, I fully support what this LNP government is doing to stop these illegal boat people from entering our shores. I think it was LOUDMOUTH who said there are probably hundred's of thousands of genuine refugees who've completed all the necessary formalities in order to be given a chance to start a new life anywhere in the world where they'll receive the appropriate protection and assistance to begin a new life.

However, the queues continue to lengthen unabated, all because those selfish, opportunistic individuals with money, arbitrarily 'push in' ahead of the other poor buggers who have patiently languished in the many overcrowded refugee camps situated in the region.

Also, do you ever wonder why so many unattached, fit young men, from strong Islamic backgrounds manage to successfully undertake the dangerous journey by a 'leaky boat' to our shores ? To this ol' coppers very suspicious mind, something really stinks around all this highly dubious, criminal activity I believe ?

Nhoj - When asked questions all you can do is come back with the following comment "100% brainwashed. You do Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt proud."

Now more needs to be said I assume that is your surrender deceleration.

Corrected

Nhoj - When asked questions all you can do is come back with the following comment "100% brainwashed. You do Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt proud."

Now more needs to be said I assume that is your surrender decleration.

Let's call page 16 of this topic, "The far right wing political correctness page".

The Daily Telegraph has done its job well. The outraged, politically correct posters have taken the bait - hook, line and sinker. Maybe one day, they'll learn how to think for themselves.

.....Let's call page 16 of this topic, "The far right wing political correctness page".

We could also call page 16, welcome to the 'real world' the one that has been cast upon us.

Now let me ask you a few questions Nhoj.

If you own your own home, are you prepared to down size to a cheaper home and give the balance back to the government?

If you have kids at school, are you prepared to place them in a much lesser school and hand the savings back to the government?

Are you prepared to sell your car and buy a cheaper one, then give the savings back to the government?

Are you prepared to pay an additional 20 cents in the dollar tax, or, if you're a pensioner, are you provided to accept 20% less in your pension, or, if you're self funded, pay the government 20% additional tax on your savings and spendings!

If you're not, then you are a hypocrite.

Of cause the other solution is that we stop these illegals from entering our shores.

I prefer the latter.

o sung wu,
One does not need to be an old copper to see what the planning is, or has been for the last six years.

Firstly send out a 20yo as he can rough it for a bit. Then when he gets permanent residence, the rest can be brought over by the 'family reunion' facility. They come by 747 and then live off our welfare and public housing.

I also think that muslims see themselves as pioneers for Islam in coming to a land not of their culture. Their intention is to breed their numbers up and encourage more muslims to come until they gradually get some political clout. That is when they can begin to change our society to accept their culture.

I am sure our polys know all this but it seems most polys are only interested in their own hip pocket.

Here is an indicator. Yesterday I read that an MP in the UK was arrested for quoting a passage from a book written by Winston Churchill. Reminded me of the two here in Vic that were found guilty of some crime by quoting passages from the Koran. All madness!

Oh Rehcutb, you make it way too easy for me. Let's answer your questions one by one.

(1) No I'm not. But happily, our refugee intake over the past 60 years has greatly increased our GDP, with the benefits and profits flowing through to the population. As a result, I can upgrade my house.

(2)No I'm not. But happily, our refugee intake over the past 60 years has greatly increased our GDP, with the benefits and profits flowing through to the population. As a result, I can place the kids in better schools.

(3)No I'm not. But happily, our refugee intake over the past 60 years has greatly increased our GDP, with the benefits and profits flowing through to the population. This enables me to buy a more expensive car - vroom vroom.

(4)No I'm not. But happily, our refugee intake over the past 60 years has greatly increased our GDP, with the benefits and profit flowing through to the population. This extra national wealth means our taxes are amongst the lowest in the world. Aren't we lucky those refugees came here.

I suppose it is possible for Nhoj to actually believe that utter garbage in his last post, but I find it hard to believe anyone smart enough to actually type, could actually be that stupid.

In order,
[1] Our refugee intake has consumed a hugely greater part of our of our GDP that they have generated. Just try to get public housing, or a hospital bed.

[2] Any increase in GDP has only been taxpayer dollars spent catering for their kids & families, all bludging on us.

[3] Our refugee intake has cost so much in taxpayer funds that you now need a new car to replace the one destroyed by potholed roads the cost of the refugees has left us too poor to repair.

[4] Taxpayer funds wasted on all bludgers just makes everyone but the shonks poorer. Sounds like that cap must fit Nhoj, that or he is too stupid to see past his nose.

Have a nice day.

Ha ha ha. Hasbeen's brainwashing is now complete. Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and the Daily Telegraph have one more religious convert to the Cult of Political Correctness. I hear that Deaconess Pauline Hanson has arranged for Hasbeen's first holy communion (after a baptism is performed by fundamentalist Scott Morrison). Hasbeen will then be welcomed into the Cult of Political Correctness with a human sacrifice (that's one less refugee). God bless Fortress Australia, and the Cult of Political Correctness.

Hi nohj,

Do you have anything to actually say, besides derision ? Why are you fixated on assuming that anybody who disagrees with you is 'brainwashed' ?

As Bertrand Russell said, (something like): 'Idealists and Utopians inevitably lean towards authoritarianism.' i.e. they assume they are part of the class which, by virtue of its superior 'understanding', should rightfully rule over those other puppets who are too thick to resist wrongful ideas.

The essential corollary of 'freedom of expression' is the right to believe and say what in all likelihood is - on somebody else's view - wrong, the result of being fooled and, yes, brainwashed by some evil power, from whom you may wish to protect them, i.e. their right to be wrong.

As you may be :)

But like everybody else, you should have the right to an opinion which may be wrong in somebody else's view.

It would be nice if you could express your opinion in terms of evidence, reasoned discussion, rather than by simply slagging people off. Ah, the blissful joys of being an adolescent who knows it all already :)

Joe

Hi there BANJO...

You're right of course, it was just a figure of speech, you see my anger rises when I see the likes of our tedious, misguided friend NHOJ saying he's ashamed of Australia ? I see you BANJO, are far too measured and courteous, to tell him what his options are, if he is so ashamed, as he claims ? I don't know mate it beats me it really does !

Nhoj is weird, he has the meaning of "politically correct" inverted.
Maybe everything he says is also inverted, hmmm.

Hi Loudmouth,

Do I have anything to actually say?

I sure do. Just read my reply to Rehctub on the previous page.

I'm so glad to have had the opportunity to assist with your enquiry. No need to thank me.

Nhoj - Quote "I sure do. Just read my reply to Rehctub on the previous page."

Your replies do not amount to much substance, like take your reply to my questions on page 15 To quote you "100% brainwashed. You do Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt proud."

Nhoj - Need I say more than what I said above.

Philip S wrote, "Your replies do not amount to much substance". Translation = "Waa waa waa, how dare that horrible Nhoj bloke not agree with *ME*. He's got a nerve, waa waa waa, whinge whinge whinge".

Nhoj = A little child crying but he still failed to answer the questions.

I suspect trying to have a discussion with you is like talking to a brick wall.

No, I answered every question Rehctub asked.

Nhoj - You have just proved what I said talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

To quote you "No, I answered every question Rehctub asked." You failed to answer my questions.

nohJ,

It must be wonderful to be amongst the elite who are forever immune to brainwashing.

I would respectfully suggest that those most prone to brainwashing, as you go on about, are those who live under the illusion that they are somehow free of it.

Ah, if only I could be one of those enjoying the superiority of youth over experience :)

Joe

Philip S, you referenced "the" questions, not "your" questions. As pointed out to you, I recently answered all of Rehctub's questions and put him in his place. Now I'll do the same to you, even though your questions are insincere and are merely an immature attempt to "get" me.

You asked 3 questions. Here's the answers (not that you give a damn):

(1) Because women from these ravaged and war torn countries are child bearers and primary care givers (believe it or not Philip it's WOMEN who have babies). Thus, it's 99% easier for a man to escape, and this is often encouraged as men can then establish themselves elsewhere and then apply for refuge for their wives and children. But Philip, you don't give a damn.

(2) The VAST majority of them do exactly what you falsely say they don't do. DUH! Only a tiny percentage of them ever reach as far as Indonesia. Philip, you need to stop believing every word that Alan Jones tells you. Actually educate yourself about the "factual" reality.

(3) You believe Indonesia is a "safe" country for refugees? You are utterly ignorant of what happens there, the horrific conditions and imprisonments. Well over 1 million Syrian refugees are suffering in brutish camps in uncivilised conditions in horrid, brutish places like Iraq and Lebanon. Places you call "safe". Philip, your ignorance, lack of humanity and holier than thou political correctness is obvious. You just couldn't care less.

Don't worry Phillip, your fat belly, nice car, good salary, comfy house are safe from those horrid refugees who are only here to steal your money, rape your daughters, impose Sharia law and bomb your house. Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison aided by Bill Shorten will protect you from the invasion.

And remember Philip, keep listening to your heroes Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt. After all, we can't have you thinking for yourself.

Nhoj, - Like usual you do not comprehend what you read.

To quote you From page 16 me to you.
"When asked questions all you can do is come back with the following comment "100% brainwashed. You do Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt proud."

To quote you From page 18 me to you.
Your replies do not amount to much substance, like take your reply to my questions on page 15 To quote you "100% brainwashed. You do Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt proud."

If you can't see it is my questions something is wrong.

It boils my blood that a 60 something person that should be enjoying life after working and paying taxes their whole lives could be forced back to work, when a 20 something is sprawled on a couch somewhere working on yet another way to fleece some money out of us Tax payers.
Yes life expectancy has increased but will the quantity won't necessarily mean quality. My hubby and I worked out that he works 3 months of 38 hr weeks to pay off his taxes. And it all goes to the bum next door that is continually whingeing that centrelink is making him look for work or that he has nothing to do. I believe that people on disablilty pensions in alot of cases could be retrained, and people on the dole should have the amount reduced every 6 months. In that time they should be able to find work or start retraining to a different job.

Who ever turned over that rock that Nhoj lives under, please turn it back over.

It may be only a small rock, & you may not have notices, after all he is only a small minded bit of stuff, so all thinking people may have to turn back over a lot of pebbles.

Yes it might be a bit of a hassle, but remember, the world is a better place when the rubbish is buried, so worth the effort.

Bec,
Anyone who is now aged 60 will not have their retirement age lifted to 70 as it is my understanding that this will not kick in till at least 2023, 9 years from now. They will be retired by then.

. Anyone who commenced work post 1992 has been paid super. Super was always intended to be a replacement/supplement to the pension. Now if they have drawn on their super for hardship reasons, that's a choice they made, or in some cases was forced upon them, however that is why there will still be a pension of soughts.

Our birth survival rates have increased, our fertility rates have improved,we are living longer and we are commencing work latter in life. With these points in mind, how do you think we can go on without raising the pension age at some point.

As for the dole, I agree with much of what you said, however, there is too much waste in welfare and much of this waste could be illuminated if we stopped paying cash.

The truth is that many on the dole are there because they can't control or organize their own lives, same goes for their cash.

As for layabouts, national service would be a good place to start, nit just the armed forces, but groups getting out and doing odd jobs that council budgets just can't cater for.

As for long term unemployed, arrangements need to be made to take them to job interviews, with a no splash no cash approach because lazing about on the couch all day, or staying up till 2am watching TV is not actively seeking work.

It brings me back to a time when I was warned by the then CES because I refused to sign forms for scammers who had no intention of wanting to be a butcher.

The who system is a joke, always has been. Bring on work for the dole I say.

As for Nhoj, I will endeavor to debate with anyone, but, once I establish that the person is a prize #whit, I don't bother any. More.

rechtub, thanks for your reply.

My parents then will be some of the first to continue working until they are unable to. My father whose super fund is in the low 10,000's with heart and knee issues and my mother with poor eyesight and hardly a dollar to her name.

Super is great, but 9% of FA is FA. I myself have just been notified that because of lack of contributions and the cost of fees mine has closed. (Have been a stay at home mum funded by hubby for some years now)

The age we start work has increased mostly I think because learning on the job has become a thing of the past and people "learn" how to do a job from a book and have a useless piece of paper that says they know what they are doing. The other issue is there is no incentive whatsoever to start work early. My husband and I would be about $100 better off if we went onto parenting payment and a disability pension, something he could easily get for his crushed leg.

Everything else you have mentioned I agree wholeheartedly. And I will say that I am allowing my emotions to sway me in this discussion. If I was to look at it purely from a spreadsheet I am sure I would agree with what the Government is proposing. However, we must not allow this to happen as it is peoples lives that are going to be effected, not in a material way but in one potentially detrimental to their physical and mental health.

Bec_young mum of 2 - The problem with employee superannuation schemes is that the people administering them are taking far too big an administration fee or whatever they call it to manage the contributions.

There was an article a few days ago saying we were paying the near or the highest rates for that service.

Yes Bec, but we have to let it happen, we have little choice, unless of cause we get a fairer, more effective tax system, but I doubt that's going to happen soon, if ever.

Also, I think if one qualifies, as I'm sure your dad would, the disability pension is still available. Worth checking out because I doubt anyone expects those with SERIOUS disabilities to continue working to 70.

As for starting work latter, my dad started work at 12, which was common back in the early 40's. He died at 75, so in fact he lived for twenty more years than his life expectancy would have been when the pension was first introduced.

Kids today often leave school, then go to tafe for another four years, then they may get a job and start paying tax.

So starting work at age 20 and paying tax till age 65 would mean thatbifntheynthen lived till 85, had a low paid job, itmwould mean they would earn more the pension than they actually paidmin tax, and that's not counting the hand outs they may have collected along the way, because where we did have 27 tax payers to 1 pensioner, the number now is more like 2 to 1.

In fact, if you apply the same numbers to today's stats, we should not receive the pension until we reach 101. So even at 70 our funding model is going backwards.

This is why leaving the pension age as is is unsustainable, and compulsory super just strengthens the argument for raising the age.

Personally I would like to see all welfare spending examined so we can identify the waste, and remove it from the system, especially those welfare for lifers who don't respect the fact that their dole is a gift, not a given right.

....There was an article a few days ago saying we were paying the near or the highest rates for that service.

Yes Phillip, and each and every one of those companies work out of a big fat office, no doubt funded by our super. Or at the very least, propped up by it.

That's why that should nevervhave been allowed to happen, because even had the money stayed in the banks we woukd still have a health nest egg in 40 odd years.

Another option would have been to retain the likes of the Com bank and Telstra, but allowing gambler access to it was a dumb move.

Wow, Rehctub knows the precise cause of everything that's wrong with everything, and better still ... he even knows all the answers and solutions. What an intellect. It's utterly amazing what he has learnt from watching Bananas In Pajamas.

Yes, sorry about that Poirot, I just hate being tagged as an under achiever, as I have raised my two children without assistance from the tax payer, created hundreds of jobs and donated in excess of half a million dollars, much of which went to underprivileged kids.

Cheers.

Wow, now we've just learnt he's a MILLIONAIRE, has never ever used anything whatsoever that's been funded by any taxpayer anywhere, and employs hundreds of people. I believe him. He sounds just as honest as Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard.... yep carrying on the proud tradition.

nohJ,

Possibly rehcteB meant that he has 'donated' in excess of half a million dollars in income tax over his working lifetime, a concept you may trouble coming to grips with. It certainly may not mean that he is a millionaire.

Try to calculate how much a person about to retire may have earnt, and how much she has paid in income tax, over a working lifetime. Let's say forty years of work: at, say, an average of eighty thousand dollars per year, works out at more than three million dollars of wages or salary, minus, say, an average of fifteen thousand dollars each year in income tax, or six hundred thousand dollars, in today's dollars.

When you finally leave uni and go to work, you can calculate YOUR lifetime total income and tax too. Would those totals mean that you are, or will be, a millionaire ?

Try to stay in the real world :)

Joe

If the pension age is to be 70 then the first ones to voluntarily raise their own pension age to 70 ought to be the politicians, until they do that then all their rhetoric and posturing is but hypocrisy.

Lead by example.

Are you all aware they are talking about raising it in the year 2058, which means, of you were born prior to 1965 you won't be effected, although I'm not sure about labor's plan for 67.

Now I started work in 77, so anyone who was born in 1966 should have started work in 83, earned super from 93, so should have a super nest egg to supplement the pension. At this stage they can draw upon that at 60.

The plain simple fact is, that if we commence worker latter in life, live for 60 odd percent longer, and still expect the pension at aged 65, then that is plain greedy.

We must get away from the thought of, what's best for me, and think of what's best for my country. Tony Abbott is saying that, and I have said that for a decade.

What's TOTALLY forgotten in the debate is just because the pension age has been raised to eventually be 70, does *NOT* mean the pension age will be 70.

Why?

Well, in 10 years times a future government will say "we just can't afford to pay pensions at 70 years old, we'll need to increase it". But 10 years after that there will be a bit of a recession so a future government will say, "it must be at 80 years, otherwise we'll go broke" (and after fiddling the books they'll get re elected by a scared and gullible population). Then just 5 years after that the pollies will announce that the average life expectancy is now 95, and that those future pensioner bludgers will then have to to 94 years of age before getting the pension. But they'll be lucky, after all they get to enjoy their pension from 94 till they die at about 95 or 96 years old. How privileged they will be.

Anyone who thinks that the pension age will be stuck at just 70 is a VERY gullible person indeed. Increased age limits are guaranteed to happen.

and politicians to only get the ordinary pension upon reaching 70 (or whatever) and to be on the same super scheme as everyone else.

Personally, I would hold more concerns for ones 'super' as opposed to the old age pension, as for one, it will be multiple trillion by 2058, and two, it's not governments money, it's just a nest egg I doubt they will be able to resist.