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