I cannot think of a time when I have felt so ashamed to be an Australian.

This is the third - yes, the THIRD - pension age rise in less than 10 years! Don't think this will be the last. By the time those unfortunate enough to have been born after 1966 have reached 70, our hyper-superannuated politicians will have raised it several more times. 80 will be the new 55!

This is our TRUE national shame!

And don't hand me all those hard-luck stories about Labour spending and blowout deficits and grey tsunamis. Our hyper-superannuated politicians and their loyal think-tankers have no trouble at all finding the funds to finance their own set of infinitely more expensive wish-lists.

A country that forces people to keep working after the age of 65, when they don't want to, is a morally and spiritually failed state.

Your 2nd paragraph is VERY true. I can guarantee it won't stop at just 70.

What?

>>A country that forces people to keep working after the age of 65, when they don't want to, is a morally and spiritually failed state.<<

You don't have to work if you don't want to. No-one is forcing you to.

It just means that you cannot sponge of the state.

If you want to stop work at 40/50/60/65 or whatever, you should have saved up during the time when you were actually working.

Why is the assumption always that the taxpayer has to pay for your leisure?

Dear Killarney,

<<A country that forces people to keep working after the age of 65, when they don't want to, is a morally and spiritually failed state.>>

You are very right.

So is Pericles.

I see no contradiction.

Regarding the "pension age", there should not be any because everyone should receive the same basic welfare in the form of a negative income-tax, whatever their age and regardless whether they work or not, etc.

So long as there is still such a thing as a "pension age", the lower it is the better, because it's closer to the model I'm suggesting.

Dear Pericles,

<<Why is the assumption always that the taxpayer has to pay for your leisure?>>

Definitely not "always" - only for everyone's bare necessities. Those who desire further comforts and luxuries should work for them.

Now you will be asking what justifies it? Is it not theft?

Answer: The tax-payer earns money which the government prints, hence the government may legitimately place conditions on the use of that money, including taxation.
Don't like it --> Don't use money (or use your own).

'If you want to stop work at 40/50/60/65 or whatever, you should have saved up during the time when you were actually working.'

It's attitudes like this that really disgust me. REALLY, REALLY disgust me. How dare you! And unfortunately it's an attitude that has taken hold, not just in Australia, but right across the Western world - a world that once prided itself on protecting and caring for the aged and vulnerable. Now it's all about greed and selfishness and screw the poor.

You couldn't care less, Pericles, that not everyone is ABLE to save up when they're working, because they work their entire working lives on a minimum wage or don't even get enough opportunity to work. Tell that to a 60-year-old woman with a career path interrupted by child-rearing and grandchild-minding, or a long-term casual labourer, or a self-employed business person who pumped all their profit back into the business, or someone whose financial wealth has been decimated by divorce or disaster.

Tell that to people who have lost all their savings through bad luck or, yes, bad choices (or aren't we allowed to ever make a mistake?) Tell that to people who can't save because they are paying an arm and a leg every month in mortgage payments in one of the world's most overinflated housing markets.

I really despair for the young people of today who are facing a world of dwindling permanent jobs, zero work contracts, casual freelancing and almost certainly the abandonment of the minimum wage - and still are expected to save for a retirement that they will probably never have.

Give us some guidance here, Killarney...

"I cannot think of a time when I have felt so ashamed to be an Australian."

Select a time when you were not feeling ashamed and we can see the effect of reverting to some equivalence of the aged pension for that year. All the statistics are easily available.

For example, were it 1909 then today's pension rate could be reduced to around 21% of average weekly earnings. Or, the pension could be restricted to the oldest 4% of the population (which these days would be those over 85). Or, the pension could 'kick-in' some nine years later than the average life expectancy which would raise the eligibility these days to around 88 years of age!

And as a bonus, all politicians wages and entitlements would similarly revert to the applicable year's level (just to keep things egalitarian). So, not a total loss!

This concept is straight forward but achieving it will not be. The bickering will be over what aspects should change back and what things should not.