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?