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.