With talk of cashless welfare payments being the go for some welfare recipients as a way to control waste and misuse, there has been little effort to control the huge amount paid out in Aged Pensions and related welfare.
The estimate for welfare expenditure in 2019/20 is $192 billion of which $51 billion will be go towards Aged Pension payments, this is expected to mushroom to $72 billion by 2025/26. Such levels of growth in Aged Pensions is unsustainable in the long term. With Australians living longer and being healthier than in the past some steps need to be taken to curb the Aged Pension outlay. At present it is proposed that the eligibility age be increased from 65 to 67 for those born after 31st December 1956. This will be achieved by indexing the eligibility age by six months every two years, with no plan to extend it beyond 67. To fast track the age increase an index of six months per year would be ideal with no set end age, eventually seeing the eligibility age go beyond 70 and even 75. The second economy I see is the progressive removal of most cash payments, being replaced with food stamps and vouchers. With so many healthy old people on the pension a 'Seniors National Service' scheme is in order, where there is a requirement of a minimum of 20 hours work per week for those that can do a little, just a bit of weeding here, a dab of painting there, nothing too strenuous. A payment of $2/hr for work performed as a bonus on top of the $20 pension payment on the cashless debit card would be ideal (no alcohol, no gambling, no drugs of any kind). The PBS and other subsidies given need to be reduced or removed. As many aged pensioners are cash poor, but asset rich (home ownership) that also needs to be looked into as a method of cost saving. This should all be voluntary, and those who wish to opt out and support themselves should be able to do so.

Big Green Man, sour grapes because he can't get the pension. Greens just hate old people. Raising the eligibility age to 67 is not 'proposed' it is fact - already applying. If the public hadn't kicked up, it would have been 70. The Green Handbook, from which this screed was copied, is out of date: and as nasty and anti-social as the Green authors of it.

ttbn, with your conservative politics I thought you would be the first to embrace anything that would reduce the nanny state, save government expenditure for the taxpayer, and make people more self reliant. I bet like many of the Usual Suspects on the Forum you are an aged pensioner.

BTW how's it going with your 'Great White Hope', Corny Banana and the much touted Australian Conservative Party, my stuff should be right, far right out of their handbook, don't you think. Did they give you a refund on your membership?

Paul,

When you hit seventy, let us know how you're going on your $ 2/hour compulsory work scheme. Nothing huge, only twenty hours a week. Rain or shine.

Oh, I forgot, you'll be on a generous superannuation scheme. Yeah, bugger all those other old bastards. Let them weed the environmentally-friendly gardens of their betters in the inner-city.

Joe

Dear Paul,

Quite the opposite: the age-pension age ought to be reduced to 18 and be unconditional - this is called UBI (Universal Basic Income).

This should be funded by taxing income from the first dollar, cutting drastically on "public servants", their salaries and entitlements, and removing all other forms of state-welfare.

I am saying this, Paul, despite the fact that I would personally be severely disadvantaged, as I am unwilling to accept even one cent of government's tax-payer money under any circumstance.

Older people are already volunteering quite a bit and so it should be. With their extended experience they know better which activities actually help real others and which are in fact useless and even harmful. One who does not need income to survive, would never take up a job that is useless or harmful, but only do things that are good, that actually contribute. We should try to lessen as much as possible this unhealthy knot that connects between meeting one's basic necessities and work/slavery.

I am also terribly concerned about such suggestions to remove cash and replace it by electronic surveillance. We should rather get our life simplified and less dependent on electronic devices. Electronic payments also support big corporations and inhibit human-to-human live transactions in outdoor markets and the like.

A much easier way of reducing the huge costs of pensions would be to put the hundreds of thousands of ex bureaucrats, commonwealth, state & local government on the age pension, & cut the cost of them being on many times the age pension. After all since the ratbag Whitlam, they have been on ridiculously high wages, so there is no reason to over pay them after they retire.

Dear Paul,

Isn't it heart-warming that no matter what the discussion
or the issues involved - some people can only contribute
with personal insults and attacks?

It really encourages further dialogue and conversation
doesn't it? (smile).

Foxy,

As I understand his suggestions, Paul is all for coming down hard on old-age pensioners. Sooner or later, I hope he will be one, and for a very long time, in good health. I hope that his pension-income will always be adequate for his needs.

And I hope the same for all other pensioners, including, in many decades yet, yourself. Maybe I'm from another planet (my wife used to hint at that) but I can't see any insults there. Perhaps honest criticism, yes, but personal insults ? Sorry, I can't see them.

All the best,

Joe

The Age Pension and other legitimate pensions are irrelevant to cashless cards for dunks and drug addicts, living on the dole. Age Pensioners have done their bit, and there are many of them who spent most of their working lives when there was no compulsory superannuation - me for one - and superannuation wasn't heard of.

Greenboy has always held older people and pensioners in contempt: it's a Green thing. It's a wonder that they haven't called for us to be gassed.

Reduce the nanny state? Come of it Greeny. Your lot are pushing for the nanny state all the time - rob the rich, and when they are skint, rob the poor as well, leaving your sort with all the loot, just like all totalitarian regimes.

And, you are just one of their stooges, baa baaing straight from the extreme Green manifesto. It must get very uncomfortable for you to have de Nasty's hand using you as a sock-puppet

Instead of putting the boot into Australians, as the Greens want to do - we are all too white and privileged for them - stop giving welfare, provided by Australians, including pensioners before they retired, to immigrants. If immigrants do not have a guaranteed job to come to in Australia, then they should not come here; and, not a single jobless immigrant, not naturalised, should still be in this country

Leave the old age Pension in place with the same amount for everyone ! Simply make Superannuation a voluntary contribution, not backed up from Govt coffers !

Joe,

Go back to page one and continue reading ttbn's
contributions. "Big Green Man, sour grapes,
because he isn't getting the pension. Greens hate
old people ..."and it continues.

You obviously have not had a good look, or you
agree.

In either case - I certainly don't agree with your
take that Paul's dumping on pensioners and the
Old Age Pension. He's merely making suggestions
as to how things could be improved and made
more sustainable in the future.

But hey, each to their own perspectives.

It's OK if you disagree with me.
I can't force you to be right.
(smile).

Another way to save lots of money for government would be to get rid of the thousands of people employed to "save the Great Barrier Reef". Billions of dollars are being spent where they are simply not needed. All because our dumb media and dumber politicians confuse 'consensus' with 'science'.

The media has altered beyond recognition : they have become purveyors of sensation, diversion, vituperation, manipulation, and untruth. "A tool of tyrannical mischief in the hands of activists masquerading as journalists" according to Irish writer, John Waters. The modern “newspaper” is no longer an instrument of democracy, "but something close to the opposite" . Its news and comment sections have been rendered indistinguishable. Newspapers have become "battering rams" for the latest neo-Marxis fads. "It has become impossible to know if something published by the media is true or not".

Another reason the country is bleeding money, is the government's ridiculous climate change policy, where no policy is needed.

Even though Labor was blocked from taking 'further action' on RET and energy policy by the May 18 'election on climate change', the Coalition's energy policy is still the main reason why small business is suffering, why manufacturing is going overseas and why we will soon be net importers of food. Australian politicians always fall for the latest fad.

OMG!

Hi Foxy,

Take what I said in the opening post as what might be the reality in the future. Not what I would like to see, cuts in all directions, food stamps, the working elderly etc. Such a retirement for Australians who have in reality, mostly contributed and deserve a reasonable standard of living in their final years.

What is a fact is with the pressure created by numbers seeking a pension, and superannuation as it is structured not being adequate to meet the needs of most, there will be the inevitable cuts to government benefits as they now stand. If nothing is done sooner rather than later, what will come to pass is forestalment of benefits by age increases, 67 is not the end of that. Stricter government means testing of assets, will be followed by government intervention into the big asset of many pensioners, the family home. Those that take a head in the sand approach and believe community pressure on government will prevent this from occurring are kidding themselves.

Those over 65 and on a pension now are going to be okay. Those who are 40 and younger now, and hoping for government assistance with their retirement, I believe are going to be somewhat disappointed.

Related to this, and also a problem, is the aspiration of many young people, particularly those with children, of owning their own home. With so many locked out of the housing market is it unreasonable to deny them access to superannuation funds and future contributions as a means of meeting this aspiration.

If people were able to access supa as a way into their own home, then how is that home to be treated when it comes to retirement? As an asset to be means tested, probably.

Sorry, Foxy, I was only trying to cover my own backside :)

Thanks. Paul, for clearing all that up. I guess most younger people these days are going to have healthy super balances when they retire, and retire from relatively soft jobs, there's not too many flat-out pick-and-shovel jobs these days. Anyway, we get backpackers to pick fruit, etc. So I'm not too fussed about people who are now under 40, having to wait until they're 75 for the pension. They'll still have thirty years.

Joe

The Federal aged pension was introduced in 1909, for 65 year old men and 60 year old women. There was a provision that you had to be living here for 25 years before you could claim the pension.
The average life expectancy for a male at that time was around 57!!
So, most men never lived long enough to receive the pension.
With this in mind, I don’t think asking people to work until 67 is such an imposition, considering that life expectancy is now around 80 for a male, and work is now generally less physical than in 1909.
Also, going onto a Debit Card is totally different to food stamps. The debit card is not much different to a normal bank card, you just can’t use it to buy alcohol or gamble.

Such a retirement for Australians who have in reality, mostly contributed and deserve a reasonable standard of living in their final years.
Paul1405,
So, they're not the Welfare recipients now you previously accused them to be ?

No, only you Indy. The rest are just fine. I was only referring to you.

Oh. He didn't really mean it now.

Oh. He didn't really mean it now.
ttbn,
Well, isn't that perfect git behaviour, makes a maggot look like an amateur !

At last we agree on something Paul. It is ridiculous to be taking large amounts of young families income for super at the very time they need to be buying a house to secure their comfortable retirement.

We don't need too many to pick fruit either Joe. I eat fruit rather than vegetables. This week I have had grapes from both the US & China. I'm a bit doubtful of Chinese produce, with their fertilizer systems, & citrus also from the US.

Pinching water from farmers for so called environmental flows, [what a joke], is a sure way to make us a major food importer. Importing our food is not something in the future, it is right now.

Hey Paul1405,
"talk of cashless welfare payments being the go"

The person 'who didn't get the job' is already a loser under capitalism.
I won't support further dehumanision with food stamps.
I support skills, training and a system with better opportunities;
And learning to make good decisions in the first place.

"At present it is proposed that the eligibility age be increased"

Maybe, yes;
But only in concert with longer average lifespan;
And not done unfairly for budget tightening.

"With so many healthy old people on the pension a 'Seniors National Service' scheme is in order, where there is a requirement of a minimum of 20 hours work per week for those that can do a little"

Not on a compulsory basis.
Yes, on a Voluntary basis.

"A payment of $2/hr for work performed as a bonus on top of the $20 pension payment"

No, that's an insult to people who may given their lives working for this country, but only ever lived on a week to week budget.
A fairer amount would be $10hr.

"on the cashless debit card would be ideal (no alcohol, no gambling, no drugs of any kind)."

No cashless card, treat them with dignity, pay them into their bank for their work, to be withdrawn in cash if they choose like anyone else and if they want to spend it on drink, drugs or gambling that's up to them, because they earned it.

You don't pay them $2 hr and then nanny them on how they can and cant spend it.
(You might as well just spit in their faces and legislate that too.)

But - you give them the option where they can choose to have help managing their finances with limits on withdrawals, money moved to sub accounts and automatic payments of regular expenses.

"The PBS and other subsidies given need to be reduced or removed."
Some maybe, but you must look on a case by case basis.
There's a many areas of waste by government to look at before we should consider taking away essential medicines on the PBS for elderly pensioners.

Hi AC,

Thanks for the contribution. The problem with access to supa and home purchase is not the here and now, but down the track at retirement when Government assess a person for a pension. With the one and only real asset being the home purchased through supa, how's it to be treated/assessed, Government is more than likely to means test it and reduce any pension payment. BTW many of the young folk in my family would jump at the chance to use their supa in that way.

The PBS is also a growing financial burden, one the growing number of people who are heavily subsidised, and the ever expanding number of drugs covered by the system.

On the score of voluntary work, I would like to see older Australians given the opportunity to participate where they can. Many do participate now through private organisations, but with the growing numbers of retired more opportunity is warranted.

With many on the Forum in the older age bracket, and many I dare say on the Aged pension, to me they are the lucky ones, its down hill from here on in as far as benefits are concerned if nothing is done to make the system sustainable in the long term.

All this tosh about people living longer doesn't hold water, either. What sort of 'living'? Sustained by medical science - drugs and medical procedures; failing eyesight and hearing; joints screaming with arthritis.

Ageism is rife. Even if you want to work, employers don't want you. Western society doesn't respect age or experience - something very evident on this site. There's a current commercial on TV, with a voiceover announcing that 'age is just a number', pretty much summing up the ignorance of the young and beautiful when it comes to age.

Hey Paul;
I don't really have an opinion on the home issues you raised.

Ethically I think if someone worked all their lives to pay for their home with their own money they earned after a tax component was already taken out, then I don't think anyone has a right to take it from them, they did their bit for the country and deserve their pension as well.

Too many charlatans are using 'exploiting the elderly under capitalism' to scrape back what they've as it is, I think.

Even their super is essentially their money, but if it's tied up in a house then there's no money for the super funding of their retirement.
I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I think it's good people can access their super to buy a house in the first instance;

- But I'm all grey area after that for the people that did -

If you look ook at it another way, people who access their super under hardship won't have nothing for their retirement and they'll still want a pension, right?

On that basis, one could ALMOST make the argument that for those who made slightly better choices and accessed super for a house are being punished as compared to those who did not make better decisions and accessed super for hardship and just spent it on existing debts.

Like I said, 'grey area', I don't know.

Paul & AC,

What if there was a sort of superannuation 'cushion' in relation to paying off a house - that, say, ten years' super has to be left alone to accrue interest/dividends, as a safeguard for one's old age- while the rest (or part of it, up to a certain house-price limit) could go exclusively to paying off a house ?

Just wondering.

As well, in relation to pensionable age, perhaps those who have worked physically all their lives, on their feet, bending their backs - like factory workers, teachers, nurses, etc. - could be able to retire early, say at sixty, while those who have spent, let's say, 80 % of their daily work-time sitting, should be expected to to go until they're seventy five ?

Sounds fair.

Joe

TTBN, you are wrong. Many many older people are working, some well into their 70s. I myself worked as a nurse until 65 and had I not grandchildren in my care, could have easily worked until I was 70. And I know many nurses who worked well into their 60s, some up to 70. And of course, plenty of older doctors.
Most farmers work until they are absolutely incapable, and that’s usually into their 70s.
Small business owners, administration staff, teachers etc. many of whom work well into their 60s.
And look at the age of politicians.
I agree that finding a new job when you are older is not so easy but this is why workers need to keep abreast of modern technology and change jobs as they get older so they aren’t doing heavy physical work, although, as I said, farmers keep up with heavy work.
If it requires going back to TAFE at night to gain new skills, then that’s what it takes.

Hey Loudmouth,
I think your argument does hold merit.

Makes me think about this whole equality agenda stuff.

There's no such thing as equality of outcome when our society REQUIRES some people working in factories, sewers and mineshafts;
Whilst others work in offices and shopping centres with lunchtime gyms and the local cafes with fancy coffees and healthy food.

'Capitalism' allows a person to choose their own path and future,
But 'Society' requires that people do different jobs.

We can't all be movie stars.
Society won't allow us to all be one thing.

The person who did not get the job (the loser under capitalism) will still have to find employment somewhere and they won't necessarily get to choose, they still have to take whatever jobs society has on offer.

Big Nana,

You say, "TTBN, you are wrong. Many many older people are working, some well into their 70s."

I'm used to people telling me that I'm wrong about all sorts of things. I might be , course; but it could just be down to your experiences being different from mine.

I accept what you say about yourself. But, when you say 'many older people are working', can you actually say HOW many? Are they in your locality, your state, the country, the world? It's okay to tell people they are wrong just because you don't agree with them; quite another to prove them wrong with facts.

We can't all be movie stars...
Likewise we can't all own businesses, unless every business consisted of one employee, the business owner.
Capitalism and Society both require that some people be employees.

'Society' then, does put constraints on Capitalism's ability to allow everyone the ability to do whatever they want.

Had a strange and kind of scary thought...
What if everyone's lifetime tax contributions was information freely available to everyone else;
As well as the amount they'd claimed in tax deductions and benefits (loopholes of the rich);
As well as how much people had received in welfare.

Then we could all see where we sit in 'contribution' pecking order.
- Wouldn't it all get nasty then...

I almost feel devilishly guilty thinking about such an idea.

I have simply assumed that super accessed to assist in home purchase was as a loan, & had to be repaid, with interest, to the super account. This being the case, the super should still be accumulating at a similar rate to that in the account invested by the account manager.

If you want to muck with welfare it is not the aged that should be first, but the NDIS. This is proving to be a huge rip off of the taxpayer, just at Gillard intended it to be. This should be totally scrapped first, & then looked at to see if any of the system was worth while, & suitable for some reintroduction.

The NDIS is certainly a drain on the public purse, and something we managed without until the neo-Marxists hit on the idea to spend some more of other people's money.

One thing for sure that the pensioner voter base will only increase especially as we kill our unborn. Ther pollies will have no choice but favour the increased aged population. Not saying its a good thing but has to be better than favouring brainwashed young people who support paying billions to the gw faith where charlatons and thieves are cashing in at the rate of knots. At least by the time they are in their sixties they have seen enough of the lies and lunacy of leftist marxist. There are however a few oldies that never grow up.

Many many older people are working, some well into their 70s.
Big Nana,
In my book they shouldn't be allowed to because they're denying a younger, possibly a family to earn an income. 65-67 year olds should retire to make room for the younger who need the work. The older has a Pension.

Hey individual,
What do you think of McDonalds, they do the opposite.
I mean they give younger people jobs and that's good.

- But they're profiteering of child exploitation, and I'll tell you how.

McDonalds seems to be a tricky sort of a business where if you thought about it, the child wage should probably be more than the adult wage.

Making burgers.
Now I don't know if others will agree, but I think 15 - 16 year old boys at Maccas (you never see and girls cooking, always serving - so they're sexist too, I digress) can probably make burgers faster that 21 year-olds and above.

I'm not saying they can make them better, because I don't think they can;
But I think they can make them faster, and that's all that matters.

Think about it.
They get workers more productive than adult workers;
At half the cost, and probably a government subsidy as well.

Some of these work subsides might be a waste of money too...
There's only one job, and only one amount of tax that can be paid from that job.
Let the person who doesn't need a subsidy have it, otherwise it's just a wealth transfer, and another Cloward and Piven example.

individual,

I agree. People of pensionable age shouldn't be taking jobs off young people. Self-employed oldies can do as they please - they might even be employing young people - but older workers should know when to get out of the way and for the young.

Armchair Critic,
That sounds like a job for old mate Belly ! He's in with the Unions who always claim to support the workers, for a fee of course.

Hi AC,

That efficiency thing might work as long as you don't digress from the set menu. My wife likes likes the ice cream at Macca's in a cup, but with no flavouring. Just the other day;

Paul; "One large 'Sundae', but just the ice cream only."
Girl; "What flavour do you want?"
Paul; "Ah! make that strawberry, but without the strawberry, sorry changed my mind, make it chocolate without the chocolate, they are so much nicer."
Girl; "Okay, one large chocolate sundae, with no chocolate."
Paul; "Yes that is correct."

The same girl made the cup of ice cream, as she was dispensing the stuff into the cup, she turned to me and said something like "That's a chocolate sundae with no chocolate you want?" I replied "That's correct." Now there's efficiency!

Old people can be just as dottie;

The son the bus driver telling me a story;

He picks up old lady on a run to La Parouse late Sunday night. She's the only passenger still on the bus when it arrives at Larpa at about 11pm. Son calls "last stop". The OL comes up and asks "What time do you go back into town? I'm going to Kensington." Sorry I'm finished for the night, going back to the depot. Last bus in left about 5 minutes ago, we passed it on the way." The OL explained she had been waiting for that bus so long, she decided to cross the road and catch the outbound bus to Larpa and then stay on and return to where she wanted to go. Bad logic, she missed her bus, got on the wrong bus and was then isolated late at night. The son feeling sorry, said "Stay on and I'll take you back to civilisation, and you can catch a cab."

Hey Paul1405,

Maybe the old lady felt safer on the bus late at night rather than sitting for a long period of time at the bus stop late at night.

I think McDonalds soft serve tastes better than Hungry Jacks;
But I know a menu hack for soft serve ice cream; haven't tried this at Maccas though.

Hungry Jacks:
Ask for an 'ice cream cone in a cup with a squirt of chocolate', and you'll get a mini chocolate sundae for 60 cents.

"That efficiency thing might work as long as you don't digress from the set menu."
I wasn't advocating any position on the issue of Macca's workers, just pointing it out.
I tend to sometimes see flaws or inconsistencies in things, I don't know why.

I don't want their prices to go up any more, but the app-based offers are pretty good.

Now I know why I don't like these new proposed changes;
I think it officially makes us all cattle, our entire lives managed for someone else's benefit, that is - the productivity we can achieve for the world from the time were born till were dead.

Hi AC "I think it officially makes us all cattle" I think that is okay providing we are given a free choice as to what breed of cow we want to be. I will be well satisfied if I can be a Jersey cow, but should they force me to be say, a Guernsey, I'll be sending the strongest of protests, in the form of a cow pat posted to the PM! What do you think of that?

Me thinks Adam was the first cow.

"I think it officially makes us all cattle" I
Paul1405,
But what about those who weren't indoctrinated ?

Indy, that was a quote from AC, BTW, how ya go'n on the welfare system, do'n okay I assume. I'm actually rather sympathetic towards the old folks in general, being one myself.

When I said "Such a retirement for Australians who have in reality, mostly contributed and deserve a reasonable standard of living in their final years."

That is not to say aged pensioners are not welfare recipients, anyone who receives a government payment as a source of income is a welfare recipients. There is no special cash resource from previous times held by government to pay pensions, it simply comes out of today's taxation, or borrowings. Governments of the day when you were a taxpayer, chose to pay pensions, which was politically acceptable, and still is. There is no obligation for today's government to do the same as previous, certainly not based on the fact previous governments did paid out. All sorts of changes to the welfare system are inevitable, if changes are not made to keep welfare sustainable, in my opinion.

Would you be happy for government to run balanced budgets, if revenue falls then things like pensions also fall accordingly.

anyone who receives a government payment as a source of income is a welfare recipients.
Paul1405,
Welfare is is Welfare, Old age pension has been paid for through your contributions via taxation !
What you're saying amounts to investors not actually owning anything, they merely paid for things ?
I find your analysis puzzling !
We HAVE ALREADY paid for our Pension & when we spend it we pay tax on it again, much of which is wasted on drug abusers et al ! The Tax we paid over 50+ years helped the elderly of our time & now we're the new elderly living of the new taxpayers. It's not Welfare, it's a well-designed system beneficial to all, paid for by all. Welfare is when people receive something for nothing, we have invested what we receive now.
I just hope people come to their senses & invest in a healthier mentality for the present young. A National Service is that investment. Nothing makes people more stupid than the lack of discipline !

Well Indy, that would be so if not for,say means testing the aged pension. Why pay it to those that never paid tax.
New Zealand pays national superannuation to all, which is not means tested, therefore its not welfare. Australia pay a supportive aged pension, which is means tested, so its welfare.

In our case my wife receives NZ government superannuation. As a married couple neither of us are entitled to claim a welfare pension from the Australian government.

I'm not opposed to paying tax again this year, at aged 66, to pay welfare to you and all the others. For some reason you feel you are a cut above all those doleies and diso's on a government handout, you're not, you're in the same boat. No need to feel ashamed, we should help the less fortunate whenever we can.

What about all that middle class welfare?

What about all that middle class welfare?
Paul1405,
I have stated many times to stop Commercial (Neg. Gear.) Welfare !

Why pay it to those that never paid tax.
Paul1405,
Everyone paid tax ! To never have paid Tax means to have never existed ! Some have to pay more than others, yes and, that's what needs to be addressed asap !

Paul,

Can you see the difference between someone who has worked all her life, paid tax, and retires with a crook back at 65 (soon to be 67) - and someone who has never worked a day in his life, paid GST like everyone else on his purchases, but barely ever any income tax, and 'retires' at 65 or 67 ?

Yes, the person employed for life has been able to have compulsory superannuation put aside out of her wages for the past twenty seven years or so - but that isn't some sort of gift, it's a (Keating-inspired) putting-aside of part of her wages, in lieu of a pay rise from back then. It's hers by right, not by some governmental generosity: it's back-pay. She's entitled to it, just as she has worked for, and is entitled to her pension. She's earned it.

Sure, pay the drop-kick his pension when it is due, but let's not pretend he's earned it.

Joe

not by some governmental generosity:
Loudmouth,
This has been brought up here not long ago. Public Servants do receive additional subsidy to beef up their Super.

Hi Joe,

Compulsory superannuation is one thing, the aged pension is entirely a different matter. Those with a philosophical mind set that opposes welfare as a matter of principle, and then partake of welfare through the aged pension are being hypocritical. There are plenty of people who paid taxes in the past, yet through a means test system do not receive an aged pension. It is an invalided justification to claim "I paid taxes in the past, so therefore I'm entitled to an aged pension." If that was the case then everyone who paid tax in the past would qualify for the aged pension upon reaching pensionable age. Agree?

Agree?
Paul1405,
Yes and, as you stated earlier NZ has that. Why can't we ? Are the people of NZ smarter ? One could certainly be excused for thinking that !

Those privileged to have a good Super are not blue collar wage earners, they're mainly Public Servants who never had to stress out about their jobs based on performance ! All they have to do is do nothing so they can't do anything wrong.
It's so easy for them to ridicule those who actually had to work & save !

Hi Indy,

Again I say I'm not opposed to the aged pension, or any welfare as such, I'm a socialists and I see welfare as a reasonable ideal for a caring society. However I am opposed to waste, and like with so many things in our society today there is greed, waste and extravagance among us. I am very much a believer in suitability, providing for the future. The big problem with the aged pension, and it is the biggest single budget cost of the Australian government, the problem is sustainability. Regardless of the fact you and I have paid taxes in the past, the reality is the government has to find this financial year $51 billion to pay the age pension. This figure is growing at an alarming rate, $72 billion projected in five years, nearly 50% increase and no end in sight. With no sustainability to the system there is going to be the inevitable cuts to the pension.

My eldest son has at least 30 years of work ahead of him before retirement, he is paying the tax now that is paying the pension now. In 30 years as things presently stand there is no possibility of him receiving an aged pension at the 2019 level, if a pension exists at all then. He is going to have to rely on the money he is putting away in superannuation. Indy, you and others like you may well be some of the last real beneficiaries of the aged pension.

BTW Indy, you will be pleased with this news. I may well be joining you on the aged pension shortly. I went down to Sydney last week and we saw our accountant. The good news is if one person in a couple is a foreign citizen, like the wife, then if you are prepared to set up a family trust in that country in her name, and transfer appropriate Australian assets into the foreign trust, paying tax in that country, not Australia, keep up to $390k in assets and cash in Australia, plus the family home. Providing the trust only pays a small annual dividend then it does not affect her entitlement to NZ supa, and with little income then Australia pays the aged pension top up to both. The down side is I have to trust the wife with most of our assets. Thank god for Capitalism! Maybe. Accountant tells me about $5k or $6k to set up.

Hi Paul,

A small forest of straw men there :) .

Of course, everybody who reaches pensionable age should receive the pension, some out of necessity, some out of right as a consequence of their tax contributions.

But it's means tested, so some people who have worked - I don't mean in the public service, Individual, but actually worked - all their lives, can't receive the pension, for which they've paid taxes - while people who have never worked (or saved) in their lives, get it automatically. Capitalism is so unjust.

I certainly support the NZ model, even if it means that, out of the hypothetically-fixed budget for pensions, everybody receives a bit less.

And perhaps some funds allocated to unemployment benefits could be slid across in the budget to keep pensions topped up ?

i.e. to each according to his labour: the old socialist principle. I wouldn't go so far as to say, "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." But reward for effort surely should be roughly commensurate ?

Cheers,

Joe

reward for effort surely should be roughly commensurate
Loudmouth,
Precisely !

Loudmouth,
Odd, no Flak from the snowflakes as yet ?

Hi there me old sods, me sees you are still locked into the virtues of 19th century Protestantism. "A fair days work, for a fair days pay" and all that idealistic guff. I don't think the 19th century Protestant Establishment actually practised what they preached, but who are we to condemn. Here's another one;

"reward for effort surely should be roughly commensurate"

In an ideal world that should well be the case, but who determines the degree of effort, and the appropriate reward? In the real world however things are somewhat different. The reality is, reward for exploration, is what counts. If you have it, and others want it, then they have to pay. Something as simple as supply and demand.

Paul1405,
Sounds suspiciously like you're one who'd lose if integrity & effort were to indeed be a criteria for a fair pay !

Hi paul,

" .... The reality is, reward for exploration, is what counts. If you have it, and others want it, then they have to pay. Something as simple as supply and demand."

So you've turned pure-capitalist now ?

Joe

No, no, Joe,

I still have to think about Indy, supporting him in his twilight years with his nil integrity, and zero effort. With a scale of 0 to 100 on the Into/effo meter, and the formula of;

I x E = $P, then in me old sods case its 0 x 0 = $0 or a very hungry Indy.

I on the other hand, its 100 x 100 = $10, 000. That will allow me to be a good 19th century Protestant, and spend 50c giving Indy a week old meat pie! That will sustain me old mate for another seven days, and I'll feel all the better for my act of human kindness. Of course nothings free, Indy will have to spend 12 hours a day down the coal pit. Can't be fairer than that!

100 x 100 = $10, 000.
Paul1405,
I wonder if you could come up with that sort of money if your income were to be value for effort based ?