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.