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