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.

Killarney, to understand the pension, you must look at it from it's inception, where I believe it kicked in at age 65.

As most men back in the 40's commenced work as young as 12 or 13, and those who lived to pension age contributed to the system for 50 plus years.

Nowadays, people usually start work around 18 to 20, and draw welfare along the way by way of Medicare and subsidized medicines, family assistance etc, yet, despite commencing work latter, and drawing along the way (not all), have super yet still want a pension at 65. It just can't be sustained and, sustainability is the key to all forms of welfare, not personal fellings.

Wim Trevor, if you look at the pension on introduction the average life expectancy was 55, meaning one had to live for 18% longer than life expectancy to qualify, therefore, given life expectancy is now 85 and, applying the same % indexation, the pension age should be 101.

I just can't understand why the Killarney's of the world just can't understand this, especially given most today have super to fall back on.

Now of cause if they have wasted that, then that was a personal choice as well in most cases.

Of cause the underlying issue is that if we still had money in the bank, the illegals debacle did nit happen and we didn't have the huge debt problem, who knows where we could be. But, that's not the case and, like any expense, whether it be home, business of welfare, it must be sustainable.

Welfare in it's current state is unsustainable.

Another very important issue is personal super which most born post 66 have.

Now if a retiree thinks that their super is just 'spending money' and they can spend it then go on to the pension, then it appears they are badly mistaken because the Abbott government is on to that as well.

What workers reasly need to understand is that if they truly wish to enjoy their retirement years, THEY MUST CONTRIBUTE AS WELL.

So many today are guilty of assuming their employer contributions alone will be their finacial cash cow, however, co contributions of just one latte per day would make a huge difference to the bottom line, but they simply prefer to rely on the hand out.

Sorry, but those days are gone!

Well, y'know Killarney, the world changes.

>>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.<<

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, the aged and vulnerable were part of a thing called a family. Granny (it was almost always granny; grandad died years before) occupied a room in the house of one of her children. The wages of the husband (it was almost always a single-income household) paid for her upkeep, and ultimately for her funeral.

If your basic concern is how that concept has fractured in the past sixty years or so, and how the family landscape is totally different to what it was back then, it would not be difficult to find a whole lot of people agreeing with you. But you must also accept that the same changes in society have succeeded in inculcating a far higher level of dependence on government largesse than ever before.

Is the cure - continuing to featherbed citizens at every possible opportunity, whether it is paying them for being unemployed, sick, pregnant or simply old - possibly even worse than the disease?

However much I dislike the terms in which it is currently being articulated by our politicians, a mature discussion on where this culture of infinite dependency is leading us, is well overdue.

I shake my head in despair when I read some of these posts.

Where do many people expect the money to come from when they want all this social security, education, health, pensions etc. ad infinitum ? They grumble when they have to pay for it themselves, so presumably they expect others to pay for it instead. Apparently, something like 2% of the high earners already pay about 10% of all personal income tax and something like 50% of tax payers get all their contributions back, if not in supplements and pensions, then in kind.

I shall lose around $1500 - including the supplement I get for having a low income, but I was given $900 during the GFC with a whole lot of other people. It just amazes me that so many have this entitlement attitude.

As for the triple A rating that is bandied about when comparing our deficit with so many other countries. Banks like Bear Stearns had similar ratings before they went broke plus many others during the sub prime crisis. Fitch, S&P and Moodys are always reluctant to down grade any organisation particularly countries, as they know a bad rating will only make them worse. They are not worth the proverbial. Australia is also in a different category as we are an importer of capital whereas most other large economies are exporters. That is one big difference and why a deficit in our economy is critical

I think our government is doing exactly the right thing.

I am disgusted at Killarney's attitude. If you chose to have kids, that does not entitle you to chose to have workers pay your way.

If you chose to mind your grandkids, do so, but expect your reward to come from the kids you mind, or the parents of those kids, not the checkout chick, or the truck driver next door in the form of welfare. They are having enough trouble funding their own child care.

I'm well past 70, & could not do anything much physical, but could still handle a heap of paperwork. I could manage a team of unemployed kids cleaning up the disgusting mess we call national parks.

Not only would it be interesting, I would probably live longer, if I was busy.

Killarney when we make our choices in this life, we are making long term changes to our future. Chose to spend years playing with your grandkids if you like, but don't expect someone else to pay you to do so. You are making the choice to be poorer in your old age, if you chose not to earn, when you can.

Great, most of us make sacrifices to help our kids, but when you do, it is your choice & your cost

Pericles

Could not think of a better way of putting it.

Time for all to man up and break away from the public tit I say.

People have to remember one VERY IMPORTANT lesson of the past two labor governments, that being that money can only be spent ONCE and, if that spending is mainly in the form of WASTE, as it was, then at some point that money has to be paid back, from funds that would have, and in fact should have, been used for the enjoyment of those who provided it in the first place, the tax payers.

So to the Killarney's of the world, if you are looking fir someone to lay blame at, your first bullet should be aimed at those who voted that twit Rudd in in the first place, and your second should be pointed at those who aided the waste and mismanagement with their unconditional support for what was the worst government in our history.

Caring for the aged is one of those traditional concerns of those much maligned elderly 'whites' anyhow. But aren't they being diversified out of existence? The Greens have helpfully proposed euthanasia for the aged. Aged care and palliative care are too expensive, and the Greens are looking forward to divvying up those estates through death duties.

It has become tres 'Progressive' and good for Greens and Labor electoral votes to divert increasing amounts of taxpayers' $$ to the identified victim groups including multiculturalism of course, and to the horde of lawyers and other professional hangers-on of those 'victim' industries.

All of my Asian friends are staunchly opposed to being taxed to support other people's relatives. They say that is the role of extended families: they support their own family and you should support yours. The policy changes that diversity is bringing are obvious and in some cases probably overdue.

BTW, the OP didn't complain about persons over 65 being taxed. The concern was only about getting a handout from those who work and provide for themselves and their families for all of their lives.

Hi Killarney,

You might want to check your facts before feigning your shame and indignation.

Normal retirement age currently in Australia is 65.

Other countries that have retirement at 67 already include;

Germany 67, Italy 67, Norway 67, Netherlands 67, UK 68 and USA 67.

The previous ALP government announced a change in the pension age to 67 in 2023. so we are already 10 years behind the leading industrialized nations.

Our current LNP government is proposing retirement pension eligibility at age 70 by 2035, by which time we will once again be behind other industrialized nations.

You have ample time to fund your own retirement and can then retire anytime you wish. But if you insist on a safety net provided by other taxpayers you might have to wait until we have earned enough to pay for you.

spindoc, "You have ample time to fund your own retirement and can then retire anytime you wish. But if you insist on a safety net provided by other taxpayers you might have to wait until we have earned enough to pay for you"

Many retire before they even start work. There are cycles of dependence and entitlement that must be broken and for the good of the unfortunate children being constantly modelled unthinking dependence on the State. There are those who are demanding perpetual victimhood too and even want the Constitution changed to insert reinforcing rods for the continuation of their dependence and entitlement.

Not something that many migrants for example from Asia would favour. They could ride the victim bandwagon but they have too much self-respect. They are willing to work and provide for their families, so what about others?

Well folks we're being sold a budget not based on
facts. The Commission of Audit Report released
recently paints a very dismal picture about
the future of Australia. The Report wants to rip up
most of this country's welfare safety net - and its
recommendations as we've seen are breathtaking.
And all that in order to fix an imaginary problem
in the form of a "budget emergency" that does not
exist. The Budget makes it quite clear now that
those currently in need will have to do with less,
much less.

The Liberal MP, Kevin Andrews expressed these sort of
concerns a few years ago (no surprises there) - and
these were found to be totally unfounded. Here's
the link (particularly relevant today):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/kevin-andrews-makes-unfounded-welfare-claim/5215798

Interesting observation Foxy.

>>The Commission of Audit Report released recently paints a very dismal picture about the future of Australia. The Report wants to rip up most of this country's welfare safety net - and its recommendations as we've seen are breathtaking.<<

I have read the report, both Phase One and Phase Two, and all three appendices.

Although I have to confess my eyelids did droop from time to time, I couldn't see evidence of the intention to "rip up most of this country's welfare safety net". And - far from "breathtaking" - I found most of the recommendations quite bland.

Nothing really sprang off the page as being particularly exciting.

Conservative, yes. Dry, yes. But that is because it was about financial stuff.

They may have considered paying lip-service to the zeitgeist, livening it up with a few pictures of kittens and balls of wool, but on the whole probably felt it better they should stick to their brief.

Which parts did I miss?

Foxy, how can you support our going from money in the bank, to hundreds of billions in debt, and not think we have a problem.

You see, that is the problem, as we could have continued borrowing like drunken sailors (labor style), or, we can be pro active and start to balance the books, which by the way will still take a decade or so, provided there are no surprises.

To simplify the situation, just imagine if you owned your own home worth five million and had $200K in the bank. Then, in the space of just six years, and many failed ventures, your home was worth no more, yet you had borrowed $600,000 against it, plus, you spent your $$200K and had little or nothing to show for it. Not only that, but you also have commitments that you can not fund without borrowing even more money.

The question is, would you keep borrowing, or, would you take measures to reduce your spending.

Now if you chose to keep spending, then at what point would you suggest you start to repay that debt, because what ever way you look at it, debt is still debt and, if you continue to borrow yet your income is not sufficient to repay the interest, let alone the debt, what do you think is likely to happen. Or, do you simply leave it for futurebgenerations to deal with.

People have to understand that workplace super was introduced to relieve our system from the unaffordable burden of welfare and, it was not introduced as a means to pay one over the top moragte off, buy an expensive RV, or go on otherwise unaffordable holidays, it was aimed to provide for them in retirement, full stop.

You must remember, any amoumt of debt, that can not be funded with your present income is a problem, no matter how large your asset base.

Hi onthebeach,

A point well made about attitudes of some to other peoples money. I think Killarney’s comments are based on reflective angst rather than thinking anything through.

For all the other posters squawking about this budget, may I offer my observations.

I think the squalkertariat is playing right into the hands of Abbott. Mostly because they have convinced themselves that Abbott is an evil idiot. As Sun Tzu says in The Art of War, “know your enemy”.

Abbott has known for a very long time that he will never be popular. So whilst the progressives and their media are busy reinforcing his “unpopularity” that he doesn’t care a rats about, there are burning resources for nothing. He doesn’t want or need to be popular but he does want to earn the right to be respected because that is so much more powerful and it is also immune to progressive rhetoric.

The Abbott administration has just placed on the table, the biggest pair of political gonads ever seen in Australia. Now he can sit back and watch the rest of the political forces destroy themselves.

This is a Clint Eastwood call, “make my day punk”. If Abbott cannot get the majority of what he wants through the Senate, I think he will pull the DD trigger and so do the opposition. There are many progressives who stupidly think they can win a DD, they are wrong and so are the new senators taking their seats in July. I don’t think any of them have the gonads to call Abbotts bluff.

If faced with a choice of a do nothing scenario of another ALP/Greens government, the electorates will ditch them both. Likewise, the new senators know the electorates are tired of minor party interests and new senators will never walk away from their six year tenure as highly paid and pampered senators or their pensions. Sure they will work round the edges as best they can however, if Abbott plays hardball, and he will, they will fold like a pack of cards out of self interest.

spindoc,

The electorate respects and will vote for a strong leader. Popularity as 'measured' by polls is irrelevant to all but the twits who exist in the superficial world of social media who really should get out more and preferably get a job.

If honesty were to prevail, all on here would admit what is obvious to everyone else as well, that there are thousands who have been have been making hay out of the government and the taxpayer for many, many years.

No doubt you gentlemen are all enjoying a very comfortable and privileged retirement. Only the wealthy have the time, energy and insularity to keep believing the fairytale that poverty is purely a matter of choice.

And as for all those U-beaut facts and figures used to lecture us dumbclucks and bleeding hearts that a safety net for the aged and vulnerable is no longer ‘sustainable’, then please explain ...

Why is it fine and dandy that 40% of the annual super contribution budget ($30 billion) goes straight into the retirement funds of the top 6% of earners?

Explain to me why the top one per cent of income earners get three times as much benefit annually in superannuation tax concessions alone than is spent on an individual age pension.

Explain to me what is so ‘sustainable’ about the fact that for every $1 billion we spend on tax concessions for super saves less than $200 million off the age pension budget.

Explain to me how people over 55 are going to be able to ‘sustain’ (that wretched word again) themselves when they are laid off, considering their long-term jobless rate (i.e. out of work for more than a year) is over 40%.

How do they survive until they are 70? You got it … make the ‘choice’ to use up their savings and draw down their super.

Silly them! No wonder they’re poor!

So, all you comfortably retired gentlemen, so deserving of all your lovely free time because you made so many splendidly good choices in life … what’s on the agenda today?

Golf or sailing?

well we saw the union industry's corrupt practices supported by the taxpayers for decades in the form of the car industry. Eventually all the cards tumbled. A lot more pain could of been avoided had the subsidies wound back much quicker. It is hard to see the pain of those who are genuinely reliant on welfare to suffer however everyone knows something must change. At least Mr Abbott/Hockey has shown some guts (with no votes to win)which could help us slightly through the next GFC. With Labour we would end up like Greece in no time. How quickly they sqaundered a healthy surplus and left us in deep trouble. The Labour/Greens supporters will be dumb enough to ask why when the cards tumble. Its those evil companies that employ people and pay most the taxes the will tell us.

During Rudd and Gillard we had over 50,000 welfare for lifers arrive WHY?

Because all refugees came from countries with NO welfare system or pensions.
In those countries your kids are your pension.

So come to Australia those idiots will pay you for nothing.

I am all in favour of a double dissolution, then the electorate can decide if they really want what the liberals are offering, rather than the pack of lies they promised.

We I for one Killarney am not a retired old gentleman, I have some 17 years before I turn 70 and, as a butcher, although not at the moment, I will return one day as my skills won't be my knife anymore, they will be my will to succeed, my personal touch and my love of the trade. I will leave the hard yards to the young ones so although I don't have to, working till 70 won't bother me.

You say...Why is it fine and dandy that 40% of the annual super contribution budget ($30 billion) goes straight into the retirement funds of the top 6% of earners?

I'm guessing because they earn more and super is a percentage of their income, is that a problem, because just remember, they receive NOTHING yet support almost 70% of the population. If only people would appreciate that.

...Explain to me what is so ‘sustainable’ about the fact that for every $1 billion we spend on tax concessions for super saves less than $200 million off the age pension budget.

Again, I'm guessing, but perhaps it's the fact that people haven't clicked to the fact that super is there to replace the pension, or at least the lion share of it. Trouble is, people see it as spending money, spend it, then expect the pension. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.

...Explain to me how people over 55 are going to be able to ‘sustain’ (that wretched word again) themselves when they are laid off, considering their long-term jobless rate (i.e. out of work for more than a year) is over 40%.

I know this one, it's called skills. They are available but it may cut in to ones recreational time.

Finally, to your final rant, everyone is provided with an equal opportunity to fail. Some of us just choose not to.

Hi Killarney,

I like your 1000 reasons for not getting off your arse. Some of the wealthiest Australians came from poor backgrounds.

They did not accept your excuses and just got on with bettering themselves and their employees as they grew their businesses.

You can take great comfort from the fact that you have so many reasons why you are a failure.

You can also lean heavily on those who do what you cannot, and generate the wealth created by others upon which you depend.

Having a parasitic relationship with others is fine when we have progressive governments who support your greed. In the end the government and public sentiment changes and you get left where you deserve to be, on the expense side of economics

rechtub

'I'm guessing because they earn more and super is a percentage of their income, is that a problem, because just remember, they receive NOTHING'

They receive 40% of the $30 billion super contribution! The other 94% receive the other 60%. And those who are on casual and temp labour or are unemployed/underemployed or homemakers and carers get nothing or next to nothing at all.

The whole superannuation scheme is grotesquely unfair and wasteful - but it's provided a nice cosy little investment rort for the government and finance industries.

'perhaps it's the fact that people haven't clicked to the fact that super is there to replace the pension'

No. That's the propaganda piece, which has nothing to do with the facts. The government and taxpayers would have been much better off using the hundreds of billions wasted in taxpayer-funded super contributions to build a sovereign wealth fund to finance a government superannuation/pension scheme. It would have cost us far less and covered EVERYONE, instead of letting so many people fall through the cracks while overcompensating the permanently employed and those who already earn so much they don't even NEED super.

But of course, in the neoliberal-mad 80s, such a 'socialist' option was out of the question and would have made us a pariah in the global financial community. It was never about 'replacing the pension'; it was about PRIVATISING the pension.

spindoc

'Some of the wealthiest Australians came from poor backgrounds.'

But MOST of the poorest Australians came from poor backgrounds.

And MOST of the richest Australians came from rich backgrounds

I started full time employment at 14 & I still have two years to go before retement age. I don't think my body would let me keep on working beyond that age.
I am tired & I have given enough both volutary & involuntary, mostly the latter by way of being robbed, conned & simply discriminated against.
Anyone asking me to forfeit the last few years of some sort of quality life had better think again.
The young bloke I spoke with the other day simply cannot understand when I said to him that people should retire after so many years of working , not at some predetermined age. He reckons he should not have to make up for the years if he happened to choose to go travelling for a few years & he should be entitled to a pension when he reaches retirement age not by the number os years worked. That's the attitude & it must not be allowed to snowball.

Coming up. The elderly eating catfood, living in slums, dying from the cold, ending up in hospital because they didnt have the $7+ to see the doctor, depression, suicide, homelessness and fear.

What sort of scum is this LIEberal party that they could do this to people?

Well, Bill Shorten just blew the crap right out of ToneLIAR and Joe Cocky, with his budget reply speech.

The pre election LIES, LIES and more LIES from ToneLIAR and Cocky were exposed for all to clearly see.

The fake budget "emergency" (ha ha ha ha ha ha) was exposed for all to clearly see, and how impoverished aged pensioners will have their pension supplement totally scrapped and future pension increases decreased, how kids will be dumped on the scrapheap with zero $$$ unemployment support for 6 months straight, and how they ripped 80 BILLION $$$$$ out of hospitals and schools.

bill Shorten's speech was a cheap as crap, full of crap, exploitative waffle of crawling to the non-thinkers. He callously denounced every one of the Coalition's policies without actually offering a single policy himself.
What I'd like to ask Shorten is why they didn't implement all those policies in past six years they had every opportunity to. Why is they couldn't then but they could now ? why did Australia kick them out in the first place ? Not because of those brilliant policies of today but because they only ever had two policies. Send Australia broke & support the silent invaders by offering an expensive water taxi service from Indonesia.
Bill Shorten's speech could only appeal to educated morons.

Some people who work in professions like dentistry, accounting etc etc may be able to work into their later life without too much hassle, but a bricklayer a welder, boilermaker tradesman may find it a bit more difficult! it depends on the individuals themselves and how hard the horse has been worked throughout its life, but the majority and I do mean majority can not for physical reasons to do with aging and a need to take things a bit easier for a while for their overall health and well-being! You cant flog a dead horse ! let it go out to pasture for a while !You cant flog a dead horse Where not all studs !

What a moronic and idiotic last post we had from individual.

Individual is 100% brainwashed, and wrote a while ago on another thread "what promises has Abbott broken?". Disciple Individual believes every lie his God, ToneLIAR, tells him. He's utterly brainwashed.

Nhoj,
Ok then why not tell us why the ALP Government didn't do all these things Shorten said he could ?

Mikk, come on now, be faur about this, you forgot one thing there,that is that many also line up at the pokies and just can't seem to waste their pension fast enough.

Even at $30 a pop for a pack of fags is something they could think twice about.

My elderly mum, lives on her own, on the single pension AND SAVES FIOR HOLIDAYS. Admittedly she doesn't drink, doesn't smoke and her idea of gambling is a one dollar ticket in the Melbourne cup sweep at the bowls club.

Living is oit about how much money one gets, it's about how much they spend wisely.

Nhoj as usual you show your true colors.

How typical of a labor government in opposition to rubbish the budget without providing one single alternative. It is also typical of your type to conveniently ignore the fact that the debt we owe is due to your governments incompetence and mismanagement.

He spoke about reforms like Gonski and NDIS as if they were policies labor introduced and Abbott is taking away., yet, as you are fully aware, when labor left office they were, and still to this day, remain unfunded labor dreams.

trapdiocan, as well all know that people live longer today, do you still think they should still retire at 65?

Now remembering that today, people on average commence paid work latter, yet live well beyond the age of 55, which was the life expectancy when the pension was introduced.

He's a simple sum for all to consider, and in fact, it's even worse than I thought.

Life expectancy was 55,retirement age was 65, and is now 85. This means today we live 54.5% longer than back then.

So, if you take today's LE age of 85 and apply a 54.5% increase, 131 is the age we should be entitled to the pension.

Now consider that many of today's workers draw welfare along the way and this amplifies the situation.

And you lot are complaining about 70! Get a grip!

The word of today is SUSTANINABILLITY.

If I could have my way I would say after 50 years of working you're entitled to the pension. If you happened to miss a few years from being away from the country i.e. not earning a living in/from Australia then your pension will be a percentage of the years worked.
If you're past retirment age but can still be of value to an employer then you should be allowed to work longer but only get the pension when you retire.
You should not be allowed to work past retirement age in the public service.

Indi, parts of that don't make sense, like choosing to work more than 50 years, yet not getting the pension.

I started full time work, aged 16, in 1977 and, apart from a self funded year off, through choice, I have worked since, so I have 3 Yeats left to qualify if that were the case. Nothing harsh about that.

In a perfect world, one should retire and have a pension based on the amount of tax dollars paid, subtracted by the amount already drawn (welfare).

This way, you would receive a portion of what you contributed back.

The reallity is, if a person were to commence work at 20, earn a basic wage and pay applicable taxes, retire at 65, then draw the pension till 85, they would in fact draw more in retirement than they contributed throughout their working life and, this does not allow for welfare drawn along the way.

So the only way we can continue is to tax the rich to provide for the poor (as is the case now) and deny the rich from any form of handouts when they retire.

So, the other alternative is to introduce a more efficient tax system, but for some reason they just won't go there.

rehctub,
Do you mean if someone is able to work past retirement age they should be able to double dip ? i.e. wage AND pension ?

Yes Indi, that's exactly what I'm saying, otherwise, where's the incentive. But remember, that's a hypothetical as it can't happen.

I had an argument with a gas company who said they would compensate me for my lost timber, as timber was my business.

But, they said if I cut the timber first, they would not compensate me. They were clearing land I did not want cleared.

In the end, I cut the timber, and they paid me because as I said, what's the point in me cutting it for nothing.

As for retirement age, perhaps we can get these older trades workers into teaching roles, because after all, if we have all these learners, who are not earners, we will need people to teach them.

rechtub,
there has to be a point where we say ok retirement means what it means. Too old too work or make room for a younger worker. It's not all about the one individual who wants more, it's also about society & that means move over old fart.
If you don't want to stop work than you're not retiring & not eligible for the pension. Grab your super & run off to work yes but only expect the pension when you retire.
Of course I'm talking about full time employment when working past retirement age. If some pensioner can do something that someone is quite happy to pay for then just let him/her make a few extra dollars but not displace another position.
A little cash economy is actually good for the economy. Older tradies should get preference in hardware store positions.

So what do you call retirement age Indi, is it 65, 70 or, is it 130 as it should be if we use the same formula as was used to determine it in the beginning.

As for super, this is whats causing a new line of problems.

Many retire at 55/57 drawn down their super, while they are still quite young, then draw the pension at 65 when the super money runs out.

Now while I accept they may be entitled to do that, it is not sustainable, and sustainability is the most important issue we face here today.

I also see why people do that, because if they work an extra ten years, accumulating super, along with compounding savings on their existing super, chances are they won't qualify for the pension ten years latter.

So perhaps ones super when taken should be counted as Pre drawings on ones pension entitlements, because after all, that was the intended purpose of super in the first place, was it not.

Tax reform is our only answer in my view and I know you favor a flat tax, so do I, only my choice is a very small flat tax, on money, not earners.

Individual, in answer to your question on the previous page ..... because they are almost as incompetent, lying, deceitful as the God you worship (your Lord ...Tax'Em Tony/ToneLIAR/Joe Cocky ...the "Trinity").

Nhoj,
Wrong again, not as bad ? Not even your pet hate target could be so incompetent & deceiving at the same time.

rehctub,
Retirement age 65, get your Super at 65. No more super contribution after that. Also, bank interest should no longer be taxed either after retirement. Government should learn to understand that the money they get out of pensioners is trivial in comparison to what it costs in administration. The more pensioners are able to look after themselves the better for all. The one thing a pensioner doesn't need is to feed hangers on.

For those of us born before after 1966 and before 1985 working into old age will be easy enough because we have actual skills, I will still be able to sit in a wheelchair and teach apprentices the arcane lore of heritage plastering at 90, if necessary.
Woe betide the Millennials though, if your main career paths have been nightclub DJ, Barista or web designer you're going to be on the scrapheap at 35 and living in poverty or off the earnings of a woman for the rest of your days.

Individual... ok *JUST* as bad. Now you have no ideological leg to stand on. Nhoj + 10 Individual = -1. Next ..........

*ALL* political parties are full of lying scumbags ... including *YOUR* religion (the Coalition) and *YOUR* God ...ToneLIAR.

Killarney,

Yes thanks, I AM enjoying a comfortable retirement thanks very much.

Privileged ? No

I was brought up during the second world war and I know all about austerity when my mother had only potato to put on the table for at least one meal I remember well.

I have retired from the building industry as a chippy so I also know about hard manual work on roofs in 40 degree heat. I don't waste my money on alcohol, gambling, smoking, eating out, or buying take-away. My annual clothing bill is never more than $50 because it is all second hand. I run a very comfortable 17 year old Holden car and have never spent my money on trivia such as tattoos or piercing. I have been saving all my life and investing when I can instead of consuming fashionable items, so I am now a self funded retiree with little burden on other tax payers. I have a modest income and could probably apply for a part government pension, but I prefer to be independent and self sufficient. I was brought up when accepting the dole was an embarrassment. If I need extra money (and I'm approaching 80) I go out and get a job. Last time it was delivering pamphlets.

I live on a small acreage property and grow a percentage of my own food and have a great life, because I also swim in my solar heated swimming pool every day of the year.

Continued

It's all about priorities. I am just amazed at the way people buy new cars, fashionable clothes and trinkets they don't need. When I came to this country in the mid 60s, my wife and I made do with a single bedroom flat in a house with a tin roof and no hot water. We kept cool in the Summer by sitting with out feet in bowls of cold water. Very slowly we made headway and our first house was a two bedroom weatherboard place and we worked up from there.

I object to all the entitlements that so many expect nowadays when the majority have never been through really hards times..... and I'm not talking about the needy through no fault of their own require a hand up, but I do ask myself how much of the health problems now are self inflicted by drugs and over eating and lack of exercise. If I was a healthy 20 year old again, I am sure it would not take me long to get a job. I've cleaned windows, chopped wood, folded newspapers and even been an artist's model and worked as an extra in movies

So Yes Killarney, maybe I will go sailing tomorrow. Any questions ?

Snake,
You go and enjoy your retirement in your heated swimming pool, on your acreage, You earned it.

I do not envy you, I applaud you. We need more migrants like you.

Ah, but if Banjo thought Snake was "black", his above reply would have been TOTALLY different. He'll lie and deny this ... he's learnt how to deny and lie from his hero Tax'Em Tony.

Hey, guys and gals,

Am I missing something here?

If retirement age is (eventually) 70, and a person will have little chance of finding (or holding) a job when they're 55 or over, then won't they become entitled to unemployment benefits if they lose their job?

And, how about if they resign their job at age 55 - how long will they have to wait before becoming entitled to unemployment benefit - which could then last all the way till they become entitled to the old age pension at 70?

Where's the error (or perhaps 'deficiency') in either of these scenarios (lose job or chuck job, at or post age 55)?

snake

‘We kept cool in the Summer by sitting with out feet in bowls of cold water.’

Feet in bowls of cold water, huh? That’s luxury, mate!

Why … when I was growing up, we never even had FEET. We kids had to crawl on our stomachs ten miles through crocodile infested swamps to go to school and then crawl all the way back again, only to be whipped by our dad for no reason at all. And then we each had to go and plough ten paddocks and build a barn before dinner. And we never got to eat dinner because our mum never had time to cook it … what with working seven jobs and all.

And you and you wife actually had one bowl EACH? Why we only had ONE bowl to share between us ten kids, and only on Mondays, because six other families had to use the bowl too.

I know your type, mate! You think you’re entitled to have your own bowl every day of the week AND your own feet AND your own cold water! Well, it’s people like you and your lazy sense of entitlement that blew out the budget deficit AND caused the GFC AND 911.

Go and get a job!

...Ah, but if Banjo thought Snake was "black", his above reply would have been TOTALLY different. He'll lie and deny this ... he's learnt how to deny and lie from his hero Tax'Em Tony.
Posted by Nhoj, Friday, 16 May 2014 8:47:11 PM

And you have the hide to call whites racist.

What a hypocrite you are you #whit!

No one in the public service should be allowed to work after 65 & that includes all Judges, Lawyers, Uni professors etc.

Individual, I didn't realise you were such a socialist. At least we now know you believe in forced retirement. Have you considered moving to Russia? You'd obviously love it there.

I see all Rehctub has left is swearing. That's what happens when ya thoroughly lose the debate.

Foxy

What Kevin Andrews said on the link you published was....

"Talking on ABC radio, Mr Andrews said: "With the population ageing at the rate that it is, we've got to ensure in the future that we're able to sustain the welfare system, otherwise we'll find ourselves in 10 or 15 years' time in the situation that some of the countries in Europe are in".

As you can see, it's what lies in the future that his remark refers to and I think that it is perfectly logical to agree with him and what Joe Hockey is at pains to point out. The countries referred to are in a parlous state and are all heavily in debt with little chance of paying it back without debasing their currency

Nhoj,
stop wasting quality OLO time & space with your idiotic quips. Finish school, get a real job then start commenting. Do your parents know how silly a thing they bred ?

Ok, Hockey said the "The Age Of Entitlement Is Over" and many seem to agree for some reason I just cannot fathom, So what do you think the Government should do with all your hard earned tax dollars ? And try to remember you believe your not entitled to anything ! Is it OK then that the Government feels it is Entitled to part of your income and then part of every transaction you make ? Is this the start of Governments failing to supply more and more services ? is this going to be the new word that controls your life ENTITLEMENT ? Do not be so blind they give you nothing for free you pay for it and you are entitled to receive it !

The problem is trapdiocan governments have been giving too much to too many for years and as Hockey says, the age of entitlement is over.

You do know that if a person hangs about in a hospital waiting room, watching TV, perhaps even getting a free headache pill or two, they can't be actively seeking work.

Now of clause not everyone in that room is guilty of that, and as usually is the case, the genuine ones get shafted because something has to be done about the professional layabouts.

Now just on that $7 doctors bill. I went to the doctor the other day, cost me $103.

I pay $1200 odd per year to Medicare as well. So what's the problem with paying $7, because mine will now cost $110.

You just can't have six years of waste and not address it. Why can't people see that!

rehctub,
decent & thinking people can see it. it's the morons who are totally lost within themselves & they only come out to vote Labor when there's an election.

KIllarney

I have briefly mentioned on these pages before that some of the discussion seems to deteriorate into name calling and sarcasm that shouldn't be necessary on opinions freely expressed.

Why am I not surprised that when I make a credible argument in favour of a personal opinion or experience, it is met by your sarcastic and meaningless response ? All I can say is that you use this form of ridicule because you don't have the intellect to use more persuasive reasoning in the debate.

I shall probably restrict my views here on OLO which will probably be music to your ears and your wisdom and reasoning may not be stretched too far

Dear snake,

You need to go back and read the entire link that
I cited earlier. Liberal Senator's Kevin Andrews
claims were unfounded according to the given
article for several reasons:

Andrew Podger, Professor of public policy from the
Australian National University wrote in The Australian
Financial REview, "The claim that Australia's welfare
system is "unsustainable" would surprise observers in
most OECD nations which spend a much higher percentage
of GDP on social security payments."

"Our emphasis on flat-rate, means-tested payments rather
than earnings-related social insurance has limited the
burden on Australian taxpayers."

"Because we income test payments more than any other
country we have the most progressive distribution of
benefits in the OECD, and we also spend less than the
OECD average."

"It could be noted that the only element of the social
security system that will resemble the European approach
when it is introduced is the Government's Paid Parental
Leave Scheme."

"We have challenges to face, but we are not heading the
same way as Europe!"

"There is nothing to indicate that as the population ages
Australia is heading toward the high welfare spending of
some European countries. Treasury projections to 2050
show welfare spending as a proportion of GDP will remain
steady over the next 3 decades."

And those are the facts.

Not government rhetoric!

Dear Foxy,

It's not the facts as presented there that I dispute. They are are probably very accurate for the present day. What I do dispute is the suggestion that Treasury can possibly make any kind of projection 36 years hence when they can't even get it right in a lot of cases two or three years ahead. We are governed by world events and demographics which can also vastly change over that many years.

I am very pessimistic about the world financial situation and while "green shoots" have been constantly forecast over the last 4 or 5 years I see none. In fact debt world wide is higher now that it was when it helped create the GFC. The Americans have a 17 trillion dollar deficit ( and still rising) with unfunded liabilities going forward of over $70 trillion and over 50 million people presently on food stamps. It is these sorts of statistics that worry me, particularly when they have the world reserve currency with all the ramifications that are involved. We are not immune, but I will listen to anyone giving me evidence that I'm wrong.

A very good book to read is the best seller by James Rickard called the End of Money. Very recently published. The author is an advisor on International economics and financial threats to the Dep. of Defence and US intelligence community. The book got rave reviews from Bloomberg & The Financial Times among others. Well worth a look if you have the time and inclination.

Dear snake,

Thanks for the book reference.
I do have both the time and the inclination. ;-)

I suspect you are right to be, snake.

>>I am very pessimistic about the world financial situation<<

What we are seeing is a re-balancing of supply and demand that will take the next couple of generations to work through.

The developed world has exploited weaker countries for a number of centuries, in order to create the standard of living that we now enjoy. Think of the East India Company, or Cecil Rhodes, or a whole host of empire-builders from Europe who enriched their own countries at the expense of their colonies.

The twentieth century changed all that. A whole raft of countries turned from being exploited to becoming exploiters themselves... not to the same degree, of course, because the differentials weren't quite so great. At the same time, advances in transport made it easy for people to migrate across borders. Communication improvements enabled the population of the richer countries to understand more clearly the differences between the haves an the have-nots. Technology also changed the ability of a weaker country to force itself up the ladder of enrichment.

All of which has created a vacuum of sorts.

The developed countries have filled their "expectation gap" - that is, the difference between what they actually earn, and what they feel entitled to - with debt. The end result, as everyone is slowly coming to realize, is that these differentials are not sustainable, and that the relativity between the haves and have-nots will gradually close.

In short, we are destined to become slightly poorer, overall, as the rest of the world catches up.

Adjusting is going to be difficult for us, of course. But if we don't, and try to resist the inevitable, we will make ourselves very unhappy indeed.

Snake, Foxy, Pericles ....... it's a thing called "capitalism". The world has mostly embraced it, and as it's a system based on 100% self interest it will therefore forever be the cause of fights, squabbles, disagreements, envy, hate, wars and strife.

Any other "ism" is no different; socialism, Catholicism, even the much lauded Buddhism (in Myanmar, since mid last century, Buddhism has tortured, expelled and murdered thousands of people from the many varied and diverse minority groups there like homosexuals, Christians, unwed mothers, Muslims, the mentally ill, some impoverished homeless groups and many others. I'm not talking about the junta violence, I'm referring to Buddhists there making violent efforts to make sure Buddhism DOMINATES there). Also, the evil violence in the history of Catholicism and socialism is well known.

Organised, large scale capitalism is relatively new. It will eventually be replaced by a new "ism" of some type ..... and the squabbles and strife will merely continue on.

Pericles.

An interesting comment of yours and I tend to agree with you. There is certainly a rebalancing of supply and demand and as the developing countries begin to get richer they are starting to wield more political clout. It can be seen in so many places. How Russia and China have changed in the last 20 years. Each has it's own oligarchs and of course the USA is finding it doesn't have the influence it once had. There have been a great many empires throughout history and recent events point to the fact that their days are numbered..........Ten, twenty, thirty years ? Who knows, but the Chinese will not be stopped and it will become their turn.

It's a little off topic, but The US dollar's days of being the world's reserve currency are dwindling fast and even Australia has signed an agreement with China to deal in their own currencies in certain commodities as of course Russia and Brazil have. Iran sells oil for gold too.

It is interesting to note that both Russia and China have banned the export of gold for a number of years yet are importing as much as they can get hold of. China is also the largest producer in the world after Australia, but keep their total reserve a tight secret. I find the whole subject of bullion an interesting subject and have been following the vicissitudes of the political and financial market in this commodity fascinating as I feel it will once again form an important part in future world currencies eventually.

Continued...

Unfortunately there seems to growing tendency for the gap between the very rich and the poor to be growing. While I have always endorsed a policy of individual achievement, I feel hand-outs are not the way to go. It's sort of redolent of a "cargo cult" If we could only just help the people that really need it, I would be more than happy and that goes for individuals and countries alike. At the moment I feel we are mortgaging our future by the previous policies of both Howard, to an extent, but of course the previous two prime ministers. As you say, adjusting to becoming slightly poorer will make us unhappy indeed.

Foxy

The book I referred to is a little "heavy" in parts as it also deals in historical facts that you might want to skip, but it's a sequel to James Rickards previous tome "Currency Wars" which is proving quite prescient.

Just listened to the ABC, yeah I know it's a poor thing to do but where I am it's the only radio we can get. Anyhow, some Professor waffled on about the retirement age & he couldn't answer properly to questions from everyday people. It wasn't his expertise. His expertise was in telling us that many other countries already have age 70 retirement & Australia will follow suit in 21 years. That falls in line with Australia's being behind the rest of the world by 20 years. In this case & probably the first time ever it's a good thing.
What is so difficult in working for 48-50 years & then you can & should retire ? It certainly would make a lot more people think into entering the work force at an earlier age thus costing the rest of us less to keep. This nonsense of people bludging under the excuse of studying & again at great expense to us would certainly come to a stop. Of course two years of non military national service has to count as working time. Of course it would refining the system but it would definitely be better for all if we discarded the present system. The benefit of having more thinking people would be overwhelming to say the least.

Anyone who thinks the pension qualification age will stop at 70 is living in Cloud Fairy Cuckoo Land.

When Tax'Em Tony's daughter becomes the 2nd female PM in 15 years, she'll raise it to 80, citing "unsustainable economic conditions" (whist of course at the same time giving billions of $$$$$ in government welfare to Gina Rinehart's son to run the mines he inherited).

Then 5 years later the pension age will be increased to 90.

Individual

Why is listening to the ABC a poor things to do ? I think the ABC is the ONLY organisation to listen to or view. In spite of their Left Wing bias, it is sometime good to get alternative views even if you don't necessarily agree with them. Besides I have no wish to have any advertising thrust at me.

any advertising thrust at me.
snake,
straying from the threat a bit but the incessant ABC promos are as bad, if not worse.
Re retirement at 70, if we can reduce the number of hangers on then retirement age can be kept down also. Those bureaucrats who are on 150 grand a year plus costing us just as much again in travel allowances & other benefits are the ones we should be targetting because they're the ones using up our funding resources & they mostly vote ALP.
So, to keep retirement down we need to keep Labor down. It can't get any more simple than that. Anyone who can't see that is partly responsible for the age increase.
Of course the pollies' salaries need to be cut as well. I'd say the politician who promotes that will win the next election.

Individual

I have no argument with that !

Wow, the font of all economic knowledge .... an unemployed, elderly ex butcher. Ha ha ha.

Nhoj,
I suppose you were trying to refer to a fountain of knowledge, which is much preferable to a fountain of your dribble.

Anyhow, nonsense aside, there's an apparent shortage of jobs so I'd imagine if people retired at 67 it would be a boost to employment. But first things first, we must take the unemployable & make it clear to them that no matter what they are required to lift at some of their weight. By serving a two year national service , young adults will have a more pragmatic & responsible outlook which in turn is better for all.
Just because lefties believe the country owes them a living does not mean the rest of us thinks that way. Don't expect the system which fosters morons to last much longer.

My clock radio is still set to the ABC, as it is the strongest station out here.

The morning I had some reason to be up early, & set the thing. They were having a talk back session on the budget. It was quite a surprising that about half of the callers were in favor of the budget.

With most call back on the ABC being far left it was reassuring that so many of their listeners felt it was necessary to wind in spending, & make some reduction in entitlements.

Individual, so you're willing to pay the extra tax required to fund all this compulsory 2 years of national service?

Nhoj,
Yes I would if it were necessary but fortunately it isn't. To pay for it we can use the money that is presently wasted.
There are no big costs involved.

I am absolutely loving this discussion and all
the various points of view. It's great to have
different opinions. Especially when they're
presented without personal insults.

Something is wrong with the way our Social Security system works.

Who has the greatest need for 'cash' support (ie daily living support) - as distinct from healthcare, aged-care or education support?
The elderly, who have retired and have had a lifetime to acquire, hopefully including their own home?
Or the young, starting out with very little (and certainly no home of their own) and having to incur expense looking for a job and/or pursuing additional education in their own time?

Newstart: $520.35pf = $13,666pa, but,
Aged Pension (single): $843.37pf = $21,988pa, or,
Aged Pension (couple): $1104pf ($635 + $469) = $28,783pa.

(Sickness: $562.37pf = $14,662pa)
(Disability: $843pf = $21,978pa)
(Carer (single, 2 dependent children under 8): $843.37pf = $21,988pa)

These figures are off the Centrelink site, and don't take account of all the vagaries of individual circumstance - like a lifelong-disabled retiree with no home, or a young person living with their parents - but there should be a system which does not relegate a one-size-fits-all, and does take proper account of individual circumstance.

Newstart and Sickness benefits appear substantially insufficient to enable a young person, or any working-aged person, to actually navigate their way towards a better, working and constructive 'life'.
(But, are any of these 'benefits' really sufficient?)

So, a retired couple in a $1 million home, 2 cars, 2 plasma TVs, and kids out on their own in good careers, but who have gifted most of their cash assets, will get the same 'pension' deal as a retired couple renting a shack in the middle of nowhere?
And this privileged couple gets more than two job-seekers on Newstart?

A retired couple with a mansion should not have to sell the mansion, but neither should the taxpayer support them to stay in it.
Want to give the kids a house each, and then go on the aged pension? Think again!
Or set up a Trust for the kids, and then go on the aged pension? Think again!
TBC>

Continued:

I don't want to be 'down' on the elderly, but one size does not fit all, and we really do need for young people to be given a real chance, with appropriate staging points to be effectively negotiated (education, effort, determination), to get and keep a decent job, and get on with their lives.

But, I am also not proposing to make 'unemployment' benefits so attractive as to induce permanent bludging.
Not sure what form of enforced employment would be most appropriate for any who simply refuse to get a job, but I think there should be some, and preferably of a kind which will develop skills or even a trade, and maybe, as a last resort, a one-year home-based National Service scheme.

On related issues:
Superannuation concessions (%15 tax on net earnings/profit and tax-free drawings on retirement) are a positive inducement to save for retirement, and really need to be retained, or we will be going backwards.

Negative Gearing could probably be looked at, with a view to limiting its application in respect of the purchase of established rental or investment property (as distinct from new construction), and perhaps also subject to a sliding scale of deductible allowances for second and subsequent investment property purchases.

Private Health Insurance Rebate: I think a reasonable rebate is appropriate, as evidence demonstrates that private insurance does relieve some significant pressure from the public health system - which is already over stretched.

Maybe not much can be done about top executive salaries, but the tax rates on top incomes should be increased, similarly with company tax (on a sliding scale), and all 'loop holes' closed.

One way or another, more local industry and jobs need to be generated, as far as possible by the use of local investment, including by our superannuation funds.

Reform, or revolution?

You have the answer to your question, Saltpetre...

"If retirement age is (eventually) 70, and a person will have little chance of finding (or holding) a job when they're 55 or over, then won't they become entitled to unemployment benefits if they lose their job?"

There is a $7,000 a year per person incentive for the government to avoid an aged pension in lieu of an unemployment benefit.

You ask, "Reform, or revolution?"

I suspect it will be reform... which is what all governments seem to do in the pretence of solving problems. Like the 'Yes, Minister' concept of 'being seen to do something."

Sadly, this avoids a revolution where there is at least the satisfaction of being able to shoot someone who richly deserves it.

Saltpetre

I was interested in your well thought out contribution and while I agree with a lot of what you say, there are some things I disagree with. Unfortunately I often get sucked into these debates against my better judgement and then find I don't have the time to continue !

As you say, the problem is a difficult one as "one size fits all" is never appropriate and it is quite impossible to cover all situations. An inevitable compromise results that is designed to cover the majority and there are constant examples which are then broadcast continually depending on one's bias and experience.

I shall have to leave it there. No more time or space, but like democracy which is often criticised for its faults, it is still better than the alternative and decisions have to be made even though the effects are not quite what is required.

Saltpetre I have a big problem with your scenario. It is not only the long term wealthy that have some assets.

In my district there are many who have always been battlers all their lives, & have little or no money, but a quite reasonable asset. None of us asked the city to come out to get us. There is absolutely no advantage that our properties have increased in money value, particularly when they have actually reduced in income producing ability, thanks to increasing council restrictions.

That the 15 acre riverfront property house & irrigation system my neighbor spent $55,000 on, 30 years ago is now worth $750,000 is totally meaningless to him. About all the high valuation means to him, is ridiculously high rates. He is paying over 5% [$3,000 PA] of his investment each year to a council for 3 hours of mobile library 46 weeks a year, & pretty much stuff all else.

My $165,000 investment in 20 acres, house & irrigation system 22 years ago is probably worth more than that, but could not earn the pension today.

Crazy greenies & councils between them deny me the right to sell off a bit of it, or even give a daughter an acre to build a house on. An asset it is not, but while I have some of my kids old horses to look after, it has to remain my home.

I can see no reason that I or my neighbor, should be denied the pension, when it is available to the yobos who have bludged all their lives. I think you need to go back to the think tank for a bit more sorting of your ideas. Lets see a bit of equity on both sides of the argument

I have to agree with you, Hassie, there have to be some notable exceptions to my too broad-brush scenario.
Agricultural or semi-agricultural land (and related production assets) ought to be one such exclusion.
Otherwise the 'system' becomes very similar to death duties (which I abhor).

So, if the farm is our sole asset, when we do become too old to work the land fully, we should still be able to qualify for the aged pension if our overall income falls within the qualifying limits.

However, I understand from a neighbour that, for asset-test purposes - for aged pension qualification - only the house block, including maybe one acre, qualifies as the 'residence', and any extra acres may be counted as an accountable 'asset'. I am most certainly not keen on that figuring, for any productive or semi-productive agricultural land, which in my view should be wholly exempt from the assets test.

But, I'm sure some others would not agree with my asset-test exemption for agricultural land.
I guess I'll probably just have to wear it as best I can - or else maybe deem the bulk of my small holding for a 'nature reserve'?
(With resultant loss of food production. Catch 22.)

Although, there was a scheme whereby one could pass the land on, probably to a relative, and thus legally relieve oneself of the 'asset'. I don't know if this is still available.

In the end result, whether right or wrong, I don't put the family farm in the same category as a harbour-side multi-million-dollar mansion in Vaucluse.

I'd like to see the elderly being properly cared and catered for, whatever their circumstances, but I draw the line at any blatant 'working' of the system.

Hasbeen,
I wonder what the Council would say if your neighbor told them to give him $750,000.- for his property right now ?

Currently Salty it is 2.5 acres including the home which is free of the asset test for the pension.

There is also a good provision. After 20 years of ownership & occupation, the entire property becomes free of the asset test for pension purposes.

It is lucky for me I have been here that long, as I would otherwise be in court.

My council has declared my area a "NO DEVELOPMENT" area. No subdivision permitted at all. One has to wonder how much money changed hands, when a dozen of us are virtually surrounded by 1.25 acre blocks of a 600 acre development, & a 50,000 people satellite city development is less than a dozen kilometers away.

These blocks are still valued as if they could be subdivided, thus generating huge rates bills, cause a large reduction in the pension for those with under 20 year residency, but can not have a bit sold off to fund the owners retirement. A typical example of politicians buying a few greenie votes at no cost to the greenies, but at huge cost to the individual effected.

Some locals beat a plan to declare some areas private open space, freezing owners in perpetuity.

Some are still fighting large chunks of their properties being declared wild life corridors. One bloke has 8 acres of his 10 so declared. I recall him telling us his kids were not supposed to even ride on it, but he was still supposed to pay huge rates on it.

They are definitely not supposed to fence or even indulge in fire hazard reduction, although it is amazing the local bush fire brigade is so often visiting when these areas "spontaneously" combust.

I would have been happy to work to 70, if we could get a bit of equity into other areas of out lives

Hasbeen

Exactly the sort of thing I was referring to. "One size does not fit all" and I sympathise. It is becoming a regulatory nightmare trying to keep a level playing field in a growing society. Just look at the taxation laws the ATO has to deal with now and the number of people that have to administer it.

It is why I have always suggested a stabilising of population although that is not the entire answer either. The whole world is growing at an unsustainable rate. We also live in a society of envy and the finger is always pointed at someone who has more than they have and expects them to give them a proportion of what they have accumulated.

snake, "We also live in a society of envy and the finger is always pointed at someone who has more than they have and expects them to give them a proportion of what they have accumulated"

Forever the Achilles' Hell of the Left.

However after the class politics of the Gillard/Greens government and now L'il Willie Shorten's opposition, envy has become a defining trait of the 'modern' Australian. Australia has become a nation of busy-bodies who mind their neighbour's backyard and have likely enacted laws to regulate what their neighbour does as well.

The class and genders wars of the Gillard/Greens government and the carping on both by 'Progressives' were among the compelling reasons why the rubbish was finally put out in Canberra.

While speech remains relatively free except where the defined PC victim groups are concerned, I can still say that.

Achilles' Hell was a typo and it should have been 'heel', but the self-limiting envy of the Left is their hell, true enough.

Mind you it is different where a $2million bungalow for one occupant on a gold handshake from taxpayers is concerned. That is different.

Thanks for that, Hassie, most informative.

I've also been here for over 20 years, and have quite a significant natural wildlife corridor on my place - but it's not 'declared' as such. Actually I was looking into having it declared, on a 15 year tenure, under a 'heritage' scheme through Landcare here in NSW, which would have provided a little additional income, and some assistance to preserve it and improve it, by removing weeds, like lantana. But that scheme seems to have been mothballed.
I was also alternatively hoping for some 'carbon credits', but that now appears 'pie in the sky'.
My rates are reasonable, because the UV is quite low because of all the 'bush', so I get by, and there's no chance of any residential development in my location.
In any event, I won't qualify for the pension, although I'm pushing 70, as I have some income, some savings and some 'super'.
In all respects I guess I'm pretty lucky, running a small herd and enjoying the nature all around me.

I've worked for over 50 years, mostly smarter rather than harder, but I'm not sure how the younger generation is going to be faring in 50 years time, even if they are fortunate enough to work for all that time.
One thing appears certain, no job, no chance.
Oz has to look closely at future prospects, at 'home grown' entrepreneurship to provide the needed jobs - and some current pain is inevitable in the quest to convert 'entitlement' to 'reward'.

The whole world is on a collision course with reality, and Oz has to take charge of its destiny, now.

salty/note..<<..I've worked..for over 50 years,..mostly smarter rather than harder,..>>

so/you..began..with/uni=peers
i havnt..any/peer..but i been working 50 years too
[i just began working at..age/ten]..[prepared/trirement/1986..tetired..1991]

<<but I'm..not sure how..the younger generation..is going to be faring..in 50 years time,..even if..they are fortunate/enough to work for all\that time.>>

most work..is make busy/work[or work done on credit-card]
and that sceme..is going bust[see they need high intrest/to play the normal game/that hyperinflates..the debt...seemingly..away.

but the thing..is/the future..'paid-work'..let alone holiday pay[thats all going away..if govt dont pick/that up/we got people working..all their lives

[as it..should be/we each play..our role in making society more intresting[i would send the kids out/backpacking..in herds..to spy on all the good ideas in the world/and establish peer networks globally

its like nasho\service.except your spying for the commonwealth/and making plans/finding ways and means.

<<One thing appears..certain,..no job,..no chance.>

asio can baby set them/for work-for the dole/living allowance.

<<Oz has to look closely..at future prospects, at 'home grown' entrepreneurship..to provide the needed jobs>>

what better than youthfull eyes seeking future oppertuinity
[we send them out there/to buy stuff[assets]..get educated -

<<..and some current pain is inevitable in the quest to convert 'entitlement' to 'reward'.>>

send/them overseas with a director/a filmcrew/and a raeme officer.

<<..The whole world is on a collision course..with reality, and Oz has to take charge of its destiny, now...>>

yes..we must rebuild/the best..of mankinds part/to honour our roots
we need the kids to see the best of the ruins..is restored/there and back home.

the future is alomg a thing called the raibow rail
that is walked over at least 3 times perday/thats a safe place.
the safe house leads to the safe pathway/home..[travel towards home..is free.

my home..lies in nedrland/so i could for example plan a world tour/of duty\spying here and there for govt wisdom[its all stored online]..available to all[on the up and up/with a buyion button/to help seed any basic idea/so we investers can life out our dreams..on the kids oppertuinities

they simply live blog/every thought/'happening'
like a scollarship/and we can invest or make happen//whay they blog about.

our ambassi-doors..our man/on the spot
or rather..where we are freedom/peace..is realised.

Some interesting thoughts, Johan.

The future is indeed in the hands of youth, and they deserve to be provided with the best tools, to be able to realize the best future possible.

The provision of those tools is the current adult generation's responsibility.
But I'm not certain that we are doing enough to properly prepare youth for their future challenges and responsibilities.

The adult generation, like a good parent, must be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to equip our youth with the best of all possible opportunities to realize all of our dreams for a sustainable, conflict-free and meaningful existence for all of the world's future generations.

The current epidemic of 'future eating', and the heavy reliance on as-yet undiscovered technological advancement to 'make everything right', strikes me as foolhardy at best, and singularly lacking in vision.
It may unfortunately take many generations of riding the economic bandwagon before the folly of this lack of vision may be fully comprehended.
Hopefully there will still be something worth saving when humanity finally wakes up.
17 or 70, you're never to old to learn.