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.