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.