The back pocket nerve, unseen but it exists, believe me it exists
I am a pensioner, not one supported by investments shares or super
But I know pensions are not sustainable
Not forever, in fact from the left of center it is my view a future Labor government, must and will, reform welfare
Do not give me the *I paid my tax* thing, it was spent, on you, long ago
Yes pay for pensions AGAIN, take half of all super to fund a future living wage pension
Even pay an extra say one percent, to help fund it
Welfare was never a reward on top of investment income, it was to fund our old age
Without true reform we will be asked to work till we die, the economics will demand it

the economics will demand it
Belly,
If you let greed govern economics, yes ! It doesn't matter if we call it Pension or Super, we need to contribute but not let dodgy lawyers & corrupt bureaucrats anywhere near the system.
One of main factors of Super shortfalls now is that some Super funds do appear not to be toeing the line. Govt bureaucrats are letting them get away with it. Storm Financial was the first I believe & many of their victims are now a massive burden on the whole system as is the whole of the public service.
If everyone paid towards a compulsory pension then I can't see why an Old Age Pension wouldn't work. People who travel & are absent from work for extended periods should be made to cover their contributions before they travel. If people can afford & chose to contribute extra then they should have a voluntary Super but not mostly covered by employer contribution.
Employers should not be burdened with that & should therefore pay more tax than they do presently. Simple economics really ! No artificial complexity required at all !
In simple terms this is called managing & governing.A pension scheme should be independent of share markets, it should be purely Govt coffers & there's no reason why that couldn't be so !

I'm starting to think that Millenials are onto something: that pensions are perhaps not sustainable while the pensionable age is so low. I admire the Millenials' determination to bring justice to this issue, and wish them well in what will be a long struggle to bring down pensions and push up the pensionable age. It may take thirty or forty years, but they may bring it all about successfully if they keep at it.

So by 2060, given that jobs are bound to be much less physical and when life expectancy is nearing one hundred, the pension age could be pushed up to eighty, and the pension slashed to half of its current value. Today's Millenials may thus have another ten or twenty years of work beyond today's pension age, and retire with a fraction of the value of today's fortnightly pension. I hope they can achieve their objectives by that time and spend their retirement years, eighty to one hundred or even one hundred and ten, in relative poverty, but satisfied that a job worth doing is worth doing well.

Keep up the struggle, comrades !

Joe

Loudmouth,
I don't disagree with you but something tells me that by 2060 there'll be fewer rather than more oldies gobbling up the Pension.
I think Mother nature will respond accordingly to the mistreatment we dish out.

How many Forum commentators would survive on less than $470 per week?
and yes the concessions help such a $30 or $50 off a large water or energy bill.

Comments such as the aged pension is unsustainable defy logic.

What is unsustainable is an aged pension being given to people with large superannuation or sitting on properties worth in excess of $1 million dollars.
If a person lives in a property worth more than one million dollars.
The Federal Government should be able to secure any aged pension paid to the owner during their life when the eventual sale of the property or gifting of the property is made.This will ensure that the Aged pension will only go to deserving pensioners.
The federal government is spending billions of dollars on people who are on various pensions before they get to the aged pension.

NDIS is spending on wages for people working one on one with "clients".This is unsustainable not the Aged pension.

//What is unsustainable is an aged pension being given to people with large superannuation or sitting on properties worth in excess of $1 million dollars.//

Hi Brock, the property angle is a bit unfair on those living in Sydney and Melbourne, as their property values are higher than say a similar property in Brisbane or Adelaide.

It might be time to phase in a pension reduction based on the 9% compulsory supa contribution. BTW I think 9% is too low and should be pushed to 15% over time.
The savings and supa penality is a philosophical argument, a full pension for someone who piss it up against the wall all his life, but no pension for the careful saver.

The problem in NZ with a non means tested government supa payment (not called an Aged Pension) is, for a millionaire its pin money, for the battler at $NZ304/week its not enough. With low wages its unreasonable to ask many Kiwi's to contribute to a compulsory supa scheme.

// something tells me that by 2060 there'll be fewer rather than more oldies// Only the voices could tell you that Indy, there's no evidence to support it. Unless you support the euthanasia government birthday gift for everyone on their 72nd birthday. 'Soylent Green' and a bowl of strawberries as well.