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.