Posted by Cossomby, Wednesday, 14 September 2016 5:58:40 PM

" ... If we take 10 years as an average, then the per annum cost will be $33-41,000, the equivalent of the pension plus some medical expenses. ... "

If they're partnered that sounds like a fair few more medical expenses than pension. And that's an issue as, I do not know the truth of it, but one Dr said to me that the majority of the medicare budget is spent trying to keep old people alive.

Same problem with the welfare system (which arguably is inadequate in many ways,) too many old people.

Guvment, same problem. Too many pathetic, twisted up, old people.

So, why not put an expiry date on some of these fogies? And, to follow my manner of practice, multitasking is key. So for example, we also have a problem with hungry sharks in some parts, so, to effect a program of mitigating disposal costs, burly up way out and tip em all over board. Just ensure to keep up a plentiful supply of fogies to ensure the sharks have no need to wander.

If that's a bit harsh for some, then why not the Balinese approach, which is as soon as they reach a certain age the kids just automatically aquire their share of the assets and the fogies are sent out to the village to live subsistence.

So, we have a problem where in this country in that there are not enough worker tax payers relative to the retirees. Of course the problem is worse in that there is not enough jobs for the existing people. Which is because too many people get paid too much to do do too little. So, if we don't seriously shave the top end, and we don't import workers then we are looking towards a recession for sure as private investors remain unwilling to invest as the environment is not conducive to guaranteeing them a profit.

And whilst I think of it, you trolls better see to it that the Guvna fully pulls the pin on medical research. There's really no need to maintain any pretense.

The last thing we ...'ing need, is someone coming up with another way to keep people alive longer. It's simply not sustainable.

Look at this place. If ever there was a wretched hive of whinging old bludgers, this place has gotta be up there on the top shelf.

Few Australians are opposed to immigration per se.

What they do want is for government to set a realistic target for population. That doesn't mean filling every nook and cranny as a matter of urgency.

There is outright opposition to Rudd's 'Big Australia'.

It is stupid to import thousands who will be dependent on Centrelink and overload the health system by bringing in mobs of dependent rellies. That idiot Whitlam did that, with the immediate result that Greeks and Italians especially brought in their unemployed and aged rellies and 'um'-relatives, who qualified for Centrelink forever and abruptly moved back to Italy and Greece to live the good life, courtesy of the Aussie taxpayer.

There should be skilled migrants, real needed hard skills, who should make up a minimum of 85% of the intake. Where immigration policy is based on hard skills that are proved to be in short supply, the concerns about overall numbers should not arise.

With the proviso though that it is a buyers market and it is stupid and irresponsible to allow the 'diversity' tail to wag the immigration policy dog. 'Diversity' should never be the goal.

To add a correction,

There are about 8700 people migrating to Aus on parental visas. The $3bn is based on the services that they will consume over the rest of their lives.