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