The report into 'Retirement Income Review' by former Treasury official Mike Callaghan found broadly that Australia's retirement income system "is sound, is sustainable and is effective and it's well placed to deal with economic volatility as well as the aging in our society", according to Treasure Josh Frydenberg. The sustainability of retirement incomes very much depends on growth in superannuation and private retirement savings and investments, whilst at the same time seeing a decline in government pensions as a proportion of GDP. With pressure to withhold super guarantee increases, government sanctioned drawing down of super entitlements during the pandemic, and loss of savings, plus the ever aging population all contributing to unsuitability of payments in the form of government pensions at the present levels. With the single aged pension @ $944.30/fortnight, the elephant in the room is, is this level of payment sustainable into the future? Should steps be taken now to lift the burden of aged pension payments off the taxpayer through other mechanisms for providing retirement income incentives?

Yes Paul.

The answer is simple. If Governments step in and guarantee the security of home loans for young families, giving them a foothold into the housing market at an early age; by retirement age those families would own their properties outright and have no need for pensions at current high levels.

Reason that won’t happen, is the innovation will be an unpopular wealth distribution, and have the effect of reducing capital gains by cooling housing market, by removing the opportunities for property investors to gain from rental properties.

A more immediate short term innovation, would be to reduce current pensions by half, to pensioners who own their properties outright, and have no need of the current high pension rate.

Dan

Do people know that the Chinese in Australia who are not Australians can get the aged pension as long as they have held a permanent residency visa for 10 years?

PS

And it seems that Chinese who are not Australians might account for about 15% of the population i.e., about 3.5 million non-Australian permanent residents who will qualify for the aged pension after 10 years of residency.

And Soot and Dazza's gal Gladys want to open up the international border asap in order to bring in more millions of them.

Wow, Mr Opinion has finally said something that is factually true and not just personal anecdotal confirmation-biased opinion. This hasn't happened in a long time...

However, he has omitted an important detail (probably due to his pathological fixation on the Chinese). Namely that it is not just the Chinese who can get the pension, but permanent residents from any country with just a measly 10 years of residency.

But worse yet, it is even possible for some of them to return back to the the country that they are citizens of and still collect the Australian Age Pension. This applies to those who are citizens of particular countries that have such a social security agreement in place with Australia.

In my opinion the 10 years criteria is woefully weak and makes it far too easy for non-citizens to get the age pension. Personally I would make it such that ONLY citizens may be eligible as well as having either a longer minimum qualifying time period or for those who have contributed significantly to the economy a minimum of tax paid requirement. (There should be a special exmeption to these requirements for those who have made outstanding non-financial contributions, such as for example people who've put their lives on the line for us for security/defence reasons or other heroic/praise-worthy community benefiting non-selfserving acts/achievements. But unfortunately such an exemption would be open to abuse and corruption.)

As a start, Australia could invest the current $300 million given in aid to Indonesia in a scheme to back up pensions.

Look after our own people first.

PS. Just to be clear: when I said that Mr Opinion has finally posted something factual that only applies to his first comment. I didn't see his second comment before I post my first.

thinkabit,

The reason I have a fixation on the Chinese is simply because there seems to be more of them in Sydney (where I reside) than any other ethnic group. I reckon 1 in 2 is Chinese in Sydney.

"but permanent residents from any country with just a measly 10 years of residency." One detail missing, if their country of citizenship pays a pension of some sorts, the person must first apply for that pension before obtaining a part Australian pension (top up) possibly. Surprisingly my wife a NZ citizen receives a non means tested NZ national super payment, but that payment prevents both of us, myself an Australian citizen from birth from receiving even a part Australian pension, as all of our income including the $900/Mth from NZ is taken into consideration.

Swamp donkey,

Have you tried using google. The Chinese population in Aus is about 5.6%, not 15%.

0 for 3

shadyminister,

Wrong ........ AGAIN ......... As usual.

The Chinese Australian population is 5.6%.

The Chinese non-Australian population is 15%.

Capisce il mio ingegnere piccolo chi dovere lavorare ogni giorno? E molto triste!

Yep I agree with most of the above.

The word is “means test”.

Billions could be saved immediately if politicians not only had the stomach to do it, but were not conflicted with their own personal circumstances.

If ever a. time was right to impose some sense to the payment of unnecessary pensions, it’s now! There is ample evidence why they should act now. It’s an opportune time which would offer the least resistance from the community.

Dan

Swamp Donkey (AKA MR0)

0 for 4

From the ABS "The 2016 Census found Australia is home to more than 1.2 million people of Chinese ancestry. Of these, two in five (41 per cent) were born in China, with Australia the second most common country of birth (25 per cent) ahead of Malaysia (8.0 per cent) and Hong Kong (6.5 per cent). Four out of five people of Chinese ancestry (82 per cent) did not state another ancestry."

Do you pull your information out of your arse?

shadyminister,

I reckon you did your vocational degrees at Wattsamatta U.

I'm not talking about Chinese Australians. I will accept the 5.6% figure.

I'm talking about is the 15% figure covering Chinese non-Australians.

In other words, there are about 1.3 million Chinese who are Australian citizens and about 3.5 million Chinese in Australia who are not citizens.

Travel around Sydney and you will see that Chinese is the principal ethnic group in Sydney.

We now have over a million public servants. All these are entitled to ridiculously inflated pensions, funded by the tax payer.

These pensions & all future pensions should be reduced to that of the normal superannuation pension. The money thus saved would pay much of the current pension bill. After all, most current & future pensioners have contributed much more to the wellbeing of the nations citizens than a huge majority of public servants.

Currently defense force people are on a simple pension system, much less generous than public servants. If anyone should be entitled to a higher pension, it is those who risk their lives for the country.

Defense pensions scheme is actually very mean. The funds are not paid into any super scheme, but held [& used by] treasury. These defense force pensions are not acrewing any interest on these funds as occurs with normal super schemes.

You have to wonder why anyone serves.

Swamp donkey,

If you look at the ABS figures, the 1.3m Chinese include Aus citizens and residents (a disproportionate number in Sydney), so the 3.5m that you need would have to be illegally residing here?

However, as you have a useless arts degrees, you probably can't count.

shadyminister,

I told my wife you reckon 1 in 20 people in Sydney are Chinese (both Chinese Australian and Chinese non-Australian).

She wants to know what planet you're from.

The ABS statistics on "Chinese ancestry" aren't accurate because they're based on voluntary contributions that are based on what the person "identifies with". It doesn't identify children born to Chinese born as Chinese. I suspect that the numbers of ethnic Chinese are higher than the ABS statistics. To me if the numbers of non-British Australian's are greater than 1% it is a threat to the stability of Australia. But instability is probably what certain interest groups want. Given that certain interest groups in Australia are removing British Australian's how can British Australian's act to reverse this act of war and genocide.

Multi-culturalists are traitors, warmongers, genociders. There should be a black-list that ranks organisations by their multi-culturalism. So that they can be identified. Government should be banned from giving work to organisations high on the multi-culturalism list

With the single aged pension @ $944.30/fortnight, the elephant in the room is, is this level of payment sustainable into the future?
Paul1405,
I fail to see why it couldn't if everyone pays 10% towards an old age pension & Govt Superannuation isn't subsidised by taxpayers. Superannuation could be contributed to by 15% or more. Voila !

$500 a week plus other benefits / rebates is not a bad deal as long as one doesn't need to pay rent.

Everyone should own their home on retirement and live in it for as long as possible.

And keep working as long as possible. Unfortunately most people see work as something to be avoided (no wonder we have to bring in millions of Chinese.)

Only a dork would want to sell their house (to the Chinese) and live in a retirement village with a lot of other dorks, all sitting around waiting to die.

Everyone should own their home on retirement
Mr Opinion,
Great but what about those who're not in the Public Service ?

"Only a dork would want to sell their house (to the Chinese) and live in a retirement village with a lot of other dorks, all sitting around waiting to die."

Mr O , you are being a little unkind to the Forums band of octogenarians, aka, 'Usual Suspects'. The guys all live at 'The Shady Pines Retirement Home', everyday Nursey allows the lads a turn each on the homes communal computer, the good old Commodore 64. Just last week one of the lads said; "Nursey my floppy drive's not working?" She said; "Have you tried to re-boot"..."Nah, but I am wearing my incontinence pads and a pair of slippers." ...."Don't worry, the parcheesi game is starting shortly, you can dry out then".

Paul1405,
Do you & Mr Opinion have the same father ?

pseudo-individual,

Looks like we touched a sore point.

Which nursing home are you locked up in?

Mr Opinion,
I'm not locked in at all, I'm cruising the Cape York Coast at this time. What are you up to ?

I'm in a hot spa surrounded by naked women and sipping on 100 year old Scotch.

I bet you don't get that in your nursing home!

Mr Opinion,
And, what are you holding with your other hand ?

She didn't tell me her name.

Mr Opinion,
Now that is a major having yourself on delusional !

Best start thinking about a change of cruising ground individual. The cyclone season will be there soon, & with La Nina conditions it could be a busy one.

I spent quite a bit of time hiding boats up mangrove creeks, & am not the least bit sorry I don't have to do it any more.

Hasbeen,
yeah, but the most frustrating part is the lack of Telstra's coverage. Anyhow, re old age pension, why is it that they worry about the pension being too costly whereas Superannuation costs three times more AND is massively subsidised for high salary earners ?

pseudo-individual & Hasbeen,

Just keep bringing in millions of cashed up Chinese. You'll be right.

The Great Reset is coming. Pensioners will starve as the immensely rich gobble up their meagre payments and 're-distribute' them among themselves. The fortunes of the politicians and the rich will be more 'sustainable' without old people, small and medium sized businesses, and private ownership of property confine to the few.

ttbn,

Soot and Dazza's gal plan to replace them with cashed up Chinese.

One of the reasons I now refer to Soot & Dazza's gal as the epitome of evil.

Individual: "Superannuation costs three times more AND is massively subsidised for high salary earners", how the hell did you come up with this rubbish?

The reality is that high income people may get taxed EXTREMELY heavily for their super contributions. The government has limiting caps on how a much person may contribute before they get taxed for making contributions. But don't take my word for it, here is an ATO web page that explicitly states this in the very first paragraph: http://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Super/In-detail/Growing-your-super/Super-contributions---too-much-can-mean-extra-tax. Did you see the rate that excess contributions can be taxed at- a whooping 94% .
So when is comes to superannuation, the government makes money off the wealthy, it doesn't cost them money.

Also DEFINITELY NONE of the contributions of the wealthy are subsidised by the government. Only below average income earners may get government money paid into their super. This is the co-contribution scheme but the maximum amount someone can receive is not much, I think it's $500.

However what you may be getting confused about it that people may, under certain conditions, to some extent, reduce the overall tax they pay by making personal contributions to their super. But reducing your tax is completely different conceptually than having the government pay you money, even though at the end of the day you and the government under both actions may end of with the same amount of money.

Come on thinkabit, you've got to be kidding.

A mate of mine was a public servant, a sales tax investigator. No boot licker, he stayed at the same lower middle level most of his life. Then as always happens those above him started to retire. With each retirement he & his co workers started getting promotions to fill the gaps.

He received 11 promotions in his last 3 years, ending up very senior.

Now when he retired his government pension, as are all of them paid by us, was set at a percentage of his last 3 years average salary. With all those promotions, this meant his pension was well above his salary just 3 years before he retired.

The most overpaid people on Oz are retired public servants, & don't forget there are over a million of them.

Hasbeen: What is the relevance of your response to my post?

I'm talking superannuation that people pay with their own earnings either directly themselves via voluntary contributions or they pay indirectly by government mandated employer contributions which make up part of their wages/salary deal. While your talking about the government's public servants and their pensions.

thinkabit,
Are you seriously trying to convince us that Public servants & bureaucrats are contributing enough from their pays to end up with a Million + Super ?
They'd have to be on much higher salaries than they're trying to tell us if they can afford that much out of their pay !
The average blue collar jockey is hard up paying for Super as well after all the taxes. They don't have the luxury of just having to be there for 40 years & have enough to retire in comfort.
The ordinary wages earner does not have the luxury of not having to worry about an income if they stuff up in their job.
I have worked alongside Public servants for most of my working life, I KNOW what's going in their World. Forget trying to pull the wool over my eyes ! It might not be so obvious in the cities but up here in the remote communities it's in your face, impossible not to witness !

individual: In answer to "Are you seriously trying to convince us that Public servants & bureaucrats are contributing enough from their pays to end up with a Million + Super ?"

Well in most cases the answer would be, Yes! Exactly so!
The only instances where this would not be the case is if they had some other source of money that was not paid wages/salary that they voluntarily contributed to their super. Eg: from investments (such as shares in a company), inheritance, gifts, lottery winnings, they have a their own business*, etc.

And in response to "The average blue collar jockey is hard up paying for Super as well after all the taxes. They don't have the luxury of just having to be there for 40 years & have enough to retire in comfort."

Well what do you mean by "average blue collar jockey"? Does it include those with trades? Office workers such as secretaries and paralegals? Most of these would be earning more than $35/hr (and some, like electricians/plumbers/mine site truck drives/etc. multiple times that). However, even if someone earned a low wage of say $22/hr+super they can easily save enough to retire on after 40 years of work if they're smart with their money and live within their means.

[*: public servants have to be very careful here because there are very strict rules that limit/prevent public servants running their own business particularly if the business is in the same field that they are employed in.]

Whoops, in my last post I read the amount mentioned in individual's question as a million in super. But I think he means million in assets generally plus their super. Anyway it doesn't change what I'm saying by much- it is still the fact the public servants who retire with this much did it by earning the money. They don't get secret handouts from the government that is only available to them and not us.

Also, I said that money-smart people on low pay can self fund their retirement after 40 years of work. It should have been 45years (from 20 years old to 65 years old).

Come off it thinkabit.

Paying a public servant &70,000 a year when working at 62 years of age, then paying him $78,000 a year in retirement pension at 65 is not equitable in anyone elses mind, other than those getting it.

Bringing all public servants including politicians, judges, professors & the rest to the standard pension would free up billions a year, which would make the pension for all quite equitable & sustainable. Time to drain the swamp, & rip up the gravy train tracks.

Hasbeen: Once again you have made a response to a post of mine that is in no way relevant to it!

TO BE CLEAR: I'm talking about superannuation NOT pensions!! Also, I've never said that public servants are worthy of the amount that they are paid.

If you follow the thread of posts between individual and me all I've been doing is correcting/calling-out his completely ludicrous claims. Basically he seems to think that the rich and/or public servants* have access to special handouts/schemes that are not available to lower paid people. He also seems to think that superannuation costs the government more than pensions, which is truly bizarre since superannuation is basically people saving/investing their own money for their retirement whereas pensions are paid for by the government. I've no idea how he forms these off-the-planet ideas. One would think that anyone who has worked since 1983, when super was made compulsory, should know how superannuation works.

As well, as I've already pointed out, in the case of his claims regarding wealthy people getting government handouts added to their super, it is the exact opposite. Lower paid people can get some government largess whereas the wealthy may end up having some of their super contributions very heavily taxed.

--continued below--

--continued from above--

And lastly, regarding public servants: their super is basically the same as ours- with the exception that they get 14.5% (I think) where as ours is a mandatory minimum of 9%. But note the word MINIMUM, there is absolutely nothing stopping you, when are about the start a new job and are negotiating your employment contract (or when in an existing job and reviewing/renewing your contract), from making it a condition of employment that you will get 14.5% paid into your super. For example, the boss may offer you $30/hr + 9% super and you counter-offer $28.56/hr + 14.5% to which the boss will most likely agree since it is the same amount of money they pay as far as they're concerned. Employer paid superannuation is just part of a wage/salary package but with the legal requirement that at least 9% is mandatory. (Plenty of other things are also mandatory- like overtime/holiday pay for wage earners).

[*: In general this is true, but there are special tax rebates/goverment assistance packages/whatever for very particular occupations- eg. when members of the defence forces serve overseas.]

thinkabit,
Because we get more Public Servants by the day literally, retirement funding will become a big problem. Vote buying by way of basically non-wealth producing positions is what is unsustainable. Wealth producing jobs will continue to do just that !

the boss may offer you $30/hr + 9% super and you counter-offer $28.56/hr + 14.5%
thinkabit,
That sounds good in theory, have you tried it whilst you're out looking for work ?

//indidual: "That sounds good in theory, have you tried it whilst you're out looking for work ?"

Well I'm retired and have been so since 40, so I don't go out looking for work anymore. But regardless, personally I DEFINITELY WOULD NOT have wanted to do that, it used to piss me off that even 9% was compulsory.

I was just pointing out to you that if someone wanted to then they could ask for 14.5% and most employers will pay that, provided that it didn't affect the employer's pocket (ie: the effective cash rate pay is reduced so that the total the of the employee's package is the same*). Bosses do this sort of stuff all the time for their employees and not just to pay extra super. It's called "salary sacrifice" and has potential tax advantages for teh employee. But in addition, it may also reduce the total of tax that the employers pay**- so in this case they will very willing enter such an arrangement.

[*: PS- in my last post I screwed up that calculation, the $28.56/hr should have been $26.20/hr]

[**: this can happen for instance if the employer is a large enough business that it pays the state payroll taxes.
As-an-aside: These taxes are some of the dumbest taxes ever- the state governments are taxing businesses specifically because the they are providing paid employment for people. But that's not really relevant to this thread's topic]

The conservative side of politics, just as they oppose 'Medicare', have always opposed compulsory superannuation, hence the present opposition to increasing the statutory supa contribution from 9.5% to 10%. The Tories admit, compulsory supa payments are made up from forgone pay increases, but they also oppose all wage increases. The nonsense from some within the Morrison government is, if the increase in supa payment is foregone, then through some magic wages will increase by an additional half percent. There is no evidence to support this ridiculous claim.

The Tories also oppose the payment of Aged Pensions, but the political feeling in Australia strongly favours government support of an unsustainable pension to the ever increasing number of old folks. The Tories favour private charities with their soup kitchens, to look after those who wont look after themselves.

To obtain an Aged Pension in Australia, you have to apply for it. Pensions are pure Socialism! All those on an Aged Pension are Socialists, worse still many may well be Communists!

Paul1405,
Unfortunately, Medicare has been hijacked & exploited by the "Professionals" from Day 1.
The Pension is paid for in advance & is continued paid for by omni-taxes.
The old age pension is not free nor should anyone ever claim it to be so. Superannuation on the other hand should be a voluntary contribution investment based system for the higher salary earners.
I suppose once the scales start dipping too far towards Unsustainabilty, the whole show will be remodelled.

Many of those on the Aged Pension contributed to super funds but those funds died if they left the job or the firm went kaput.
Compulsory super is relatively new.

The ageing population will see aged care expenditure grow from 0.9 per cent to 1.1 per cent of GDP. Expenditure on the Age Pension is expected to grow in nominal terms to $72 billion in 2025–26 but not as a percentage of GDP. Expenditure on carer payments is also expected to rise, partly as a result of population ageing, from 0.5 to 0.6 per cent of GDP (from $7 billion in 2014–15 to $18 billion in 2025–26)." 2020 Budget.

Indy you said; "The Pension is paid for in advance & is continued paid for by omni-taxes. The old age pension is not free nor should anyone ever claim it to be so."

There is no evidence to support your claim that the aged pension is paid for in advance. Its paid from this years revenue and/or borrowings. The worry is the exponential cost blowout. If real action is not taken to reform superannuation, then the aged pension will inevitably decline in real terms. With 60% of Australians over the age of 65 on a full government pension this is not sustainable. Too many Australians treat the Aged Pension as a entitlement, when it should be nothing more than support for the most needy.

Paul1405,

Will we still get a pension when China takes over or will we have to wait until we vote them out of office?

//individual:"The old age pension is not free nor should anyone ever claim it to be so."

Yep, at last you've got some right. The old age pension is not free, especially for people like me who are wealthy. The wealthy don't get a cent of it, indeed we're the ones who pay for the majority of it.

// "The Pension is paid for in advance..."

So you're back on this old trope again. As has already been told to you often before (in fact paul1405's last post did it again)- this is not true!

The is no special back-account where the government stores a portion of tax the tax-payer future old-age pension. Today's tax payers plus new government debt pays for today's pensioners as other's and I have previously told you.

I've give you an analogy why it is wrong for the older generation to demand that the younger generation pays the older generation's pension:
Imagine a suburban street with nice houses and lawns. Now house numbers 2 and 1 get together and out of the generosity of 2's heart, 2 mows 1's lawn because number 1 has a crook leg. That's fine and dandy and nothing wrong with it, a nice bit of neighbourly spirit. However, now 2 rock's up at 3's door and DEMANDS that 3 mow his (his=no. 2 lawn) simply because he (he=no. 2) has mowed 1's. That to me is wrong- 3 has no right to demand such a thing. And I suspect that most people would agree with me.
But that's not all, the situation is even worse. Because on this street each house has a lawn is larger than the previous one and not only that 3 demands that 2 mow his lawn twice (and not once like he did) as well as fertilize it. The analogy here being that the country's population is growing + people live longer + pensioner's keep asking for more perks.

Mr O,

The normal Chinese pension age is 60 years for men, 50 years for blue collar women and 55 years for white collar women. The basic pension pays 1% of the average of the indexed individual wage and the province-wide average earnings for each year of coverage, subject to a minimum of 15 years of contributions. The Chinese have a national superannuation scheme.

Better than the Indian aged pension. Retirement age DEATH, payment ZILCH.

whoops: in last post made some mistakes in the arguments logic, but I'll assume readers are smart enough to know that I meant.

"3 has no right to demand such a thing" should be
"2 has no right to demand such a thing"

"and not only that 3 demands that 2 mow his lawn twice"
should be
"and not only that 2 demands that 3 mow his lawn twice"

There's also spelling/grammar mistakes. I've a bit of brain fog this morning sorry.

"Yep, at last you've got some right." -> "Yep, at last you've got something right."

"The is no special back-account where the government stores a portion of tax the tax-payer future old-age pension." -> "The is no special bank account where the government stores a portion of a tax-payer's tax for their future old-age pension."

"pensioner's keep asking for more perks" -> "pensioners keep asking for more perks"

And surely other mistakes...

Hi thinkabit,

"I'll assume readers are smart enough" Never assume that of us Forumites. Down at the 'Shady Pines Retirment Village' note I misspelt retirement but couldn't be bothered correcting it. Well the lads down at Shady Pines, yes they're all lads, as the joint has a "no chicks allowed" policy which suits the lads just fine. The fellas are not all that good on the up-take when it comes to book learn'n and such stuff.

"Imagine a suburban street with nice houses and lawns" I tried, but I can't imagine it, how about a suburban street of slums and drug dens, crack houses and brothels. I can imagine my street, now I've got it! Yes all well my neighbour fertilizes my jungle every time he comes home pissed from the pub.

Seriously the point is true, universal superannuation was talked about in Australia by politicians as early as 1915. It was the long running Menzies government that had no desire to introduce universal supa, now we are paying the price. A pensioner couple owning their own home, with up to $385,000 cash in bank are entitled to a full pension of around $1400 fortnight and full benefits. As many have health issues the PBS with a script @ $5.60 and a safety net is a god send, as is reduced rates and some other fringe benefits. The recent 2 off $750, another two $250 cash payments to aged pensioners were intended to stimulate spending in the economy. The fact is, in most cases, the first $1500 payment just sits in bank accounts, as will the next $500. What does that tell you?

Pensions are pure Socialism!
Paul1405,
How to you come to that conclusion ? The greater majority of pensioners have bought their pension over 50+ years.
It's only socialism when it's paid to people like yourself !

Indy, how many times do we have to say, todays pension is paid with todays money. There was no provision made in your working life by you or the government of the day to pay you a future pension. For you to receive a pension, workers and business have to be taxed today. It might make you feel better to think you pension was paid for in the distant past, NOT TRUE! BTW if what you say is true, when does it run out? Never!

you pension was paid for in the distant past,
Paul1405,
I can't believe how thick you pretend to be. Of course it's present-day money that's used just as it was present-day money when I was young & contributed to the pensions of old people then.
It's rollover money, as simple as that. This way people who pay for others today get paid for by others tomorrow. It's an investment scheme ! Ordinary working people pay for the pension that someone who is older receives just as they will receive it from younger contributors of their day.
This is simply a scheme of a civilised society which is jeopardised by people with your mentality !

You seem to have some cognitive dissonance going on here. You admit that that Paul and I are factually right but still try to justify denying it. Curious that is. But getting away from facts and into opinions. You and I definitely have different opinions on what makes a civilized society.

For me:
A civilized society in one where the government respects the rights and property of its citizens and doesn't make any demands* on them unless necessary for the sake of security, wealth, health, etc. But whenever it does make demands, as far as reasonable, it treats all its citizens the same. Also the government needs to be capable of beign held accountable to its people- so, its needs to be able to be sued by citizens (ie: an independent judiciary) and be removed by citizens (ie: it needs to have some sort of democracy).
In a civilized society its able bodied and mentally fit adult citizens acknowledge that it is their responsibility to take care for themselves and their children. Its citizens agree not to infringe on the rights and enjoyments of others. Although for those who can't provide for themselves (for example due to health issues) the government should assist them and its citizens may in addition voluntarily contribute over and above the government's actions. Such charity from its citizens should generally be regarded as a "good thing" and actively acknowledged/encouraged but while it can be anticipated it should not expected and relied on.

Under this working definition the old age pension fails on multiple fronts.

-- continued below --

-- from above --

[*: To be clear when I say "demand" here I mean an obligatory action that the government mandates that someone must take. This is different from requiring that a person do something appropriately related in exchange for the government doing something for them.
Eg: 1) a law stating that we should drive on the left is a demand. It is also justifiable since it makes the roads safer and without such a law chaos would reign and the economy would die.
Eg: 2) an obligatory national service scheme for youth (a hobby-horse of yours) is a demand. Is not justifiable because it achieves basically nothing while costing both the participants in terms of time, lost opportunity/potential income and the government in terms of money. In addition because it runs counter to the notion that the government treat people equally in its demands.
EG: 3) Requiring that someone on unemployment benefits make themselves more employable (such as by undertaking an employment focused skills course) isn't a demand since it is not obligatory. All that happens if the person doesn't comply is that the government doesn't pay them. ]

Paul1405: Another ripper post from you above, the 'Shady Pines Retirment Village' one. A good laugh! While you and I have differing opinions on many matters I really do like your posts. Keep up the great work!

From figures I have seen recently, the single age pension is about a quarter of the average wage, & somewhat less foe one of a couple.

This does not appear to be excessive for folk who have paid taxes use to develop the countries infrastructure our younger generations depend on today.

Perhaps it would be more equatable if the pension was paid pro-rota to years of tax paid. Thus those who arrived late in life, those who spent years overseas, or dropped out of the workforce for any reason, would be paid a percentage of the pension, depending on years of tax paid.

Bleeding hearts & horticulturalists may now attack.

Hasbeen,

If the Chinese invade and take us over the only aged pension we will be getting is a bullet to head.

Indy, if what you say is true, why isn't the Aged Pension universal? You have your head in the sand for good reason. The fact is aged pensioners are not a homogeneous group, at one end of the scale are the well-to-do pensioners, living in their owned, often oversized home worth $2 million or more, these folks having large cash reserves and assets up to $385k for a couple. Then at the other end are the battlers, renting, no cash or assets to speak of, doing it tough!

You once whinged on the Forum, that the recent pension rise was an insult, it wasn't enough to buy you an extra schooner down at gods waiting room! I assume you are in the well-to-do aged pensioner category. Down at the GWR Club one can see rows of pensioners feeding the one arm bandits everyday of the week. That's after they have enjoyed a discount lunch and a half dozen schooners, complements of the taxpayer.

If I was a young taxpayer today I wouldn't be holding my breath expecting an aged pension in 50 years from now at the same level of la grasse that YOU enjoy today, if they do receive a pension at all then, which is highly unlikely.

Paul1405,
It'll be Superannuation that will decline !

Well now we know why so much bile for pensioners from Paul. Some oldy, assumed pensioner by our know it all, was using his favorite poky down at the GWR Club. Spend a lot of time down there do you Paul? Always assume those playing the pokeys are pensioners do we?

Wrong again, those cashed up oldies are ex public servants living it up on the taxpayer, way beyond what any pensioner can. Perhaps if you asked before leaping to your greenie conclusions, you would not make such a fool of your self, quite so often.

Hassy, don't play pokies, in fact don't gamble what so ever, not even a raffle ticket. A second rate non productive public servant yourself, were you not? Hit a nerve with the "pensioner pokies" I see.

Paul1405,

Hasbeen is a veteran so he will be on an ex-serviceman's pension. He was a fighter pilot on an aircraft carrier at the Battle of Coral Sea.

He has been tied up with poker machines because he is an engineer and he would probably have had a job 'fixing' them.

Paul1405 & mr Opinion,
It should come easier to lead a sensible debate than to have to desperately grasp at straws of ridicule.
Try it, you might surprise yourselves ! I'd certainly be better than your constant Thread-derailing attempts.

Indy, I tell you aged pensions are unsustainable in the long term. They are inequitable, with some elite pensioners living a better than average standard of living, with material possessions worth literally millions, while other pensioners are living on the bread line. A third group are excluded altogether, due to being ineligible under the means test.

The government has already taken steps to cut the pension by increasing the age threshold to 67, and that can only increase. You say; "It'll be Superannuation that will decline", if that be the case then with the exponential growth in expenditure required to maintain aged pensions at present levels something will have to give. What I suspect is the assets and incomes tests will be tightened to reduce the cost of pensions to government.

... elite pensioners ...
Paul1405,
Well, the Taxpayer subsidised Public Service bureaucrats, University staff etc get to join these elite groups. The basic blue collar Pensioner is on the basic old age pension which is sustainable & adequate in general.
Many are living at undeserved low standard & quite a number are at low standard due their past lifestyle & carelessness. There's no 'one size fits all'.
The old age pension IS AFFORDABLE , Superannuation IS NOT !