Sign in or 
Location: Seniors
Discussion: Phase in a higher pension age
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this|
Posted Anonymously |
Phase in a higher pension age
Mar 5 2008, 12:50 AM EST
I know - none of us want to work forever, but with huge increases in life expectancy over the last 100 years, it's time to increase pension age for men from 65 to somewhere nearer 70. We have an aging population, and can't afford not to look at this.This could be phased in over 10 or 20 years to ease the pain. 14 out of 25 found this valuable. Do you? |
trgh |
1. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Mar 5 2008, 9:08 PM EST
We may have a higher life expectancy, but we also have a longer period of ill health at the end of life too.(It may be just taking us longer to die). The medical profession has done a good job of relieving our symptomatic discomfort but they have done little to cure sickness (like cutting out tumors without addressing the cause) I think that most people in their old age wouldn't mind the activity, but if they have to do it to make ends meet (or because we as a nation can't afford to look after our older folk) then the problem is not about being productive, but about the distribution of wealth - economics. 1 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
2. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Mar 7 2008, 10:11 PM EST
dont worry about that, pension will be slowly phased out eventually anyway, what do you think all this superannuation stuff is about
1
out of
4 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
dra_red |
3. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Mar 10 2008, 3:41 PM EDT
It is a hard one to call. Some people's bodies are giving out by the mid 50's and earlier. If their main occupation is manual labour, expecting them to continue to work into late 70's is just not realistic. But then, is it fair to ask some to work for so many years more than others based on their occupations. People need to be encouraged to work longer rather than forced. Reducing the tax burden on the working elderly would help. It would allow people to benefit from working part-time. cheers, Dale 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
dra_red |
4. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Mar 10 2008, 3:43 PM EDT
"dont worry about that, pension will be slowly phased out eventually anyway, what do you think all this superannuation stuff is about"We are still going to have the pension. Superannuation will just be a pension and anyone who does not have enough super to cover expenses will end up living on a pension. Cheers, Dale 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
Sympneology |
5. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Mar 18 2008, 7:20 AM EDT
"It is a hard one to call. Some people's bodies are giving out by the mid 50's and earlier. If their main occupation is manual labour, expecting them to continue to work into late 70's is just not realistic. But then, is it fair to ask some to work for so many years more than others based on their occupations. People need to be encouraged to work longer rather than forced. Reducing the tax burden on the working elderly would help. It would allow people to benefit from working part-time.There already exists a mechanism for people to defer retirement and continue to contribute to their superannuatio should they wish to do so. Raising the pension age is therefore unnecessary. On the other hand, in times of high youth unemployment, it should be possible for those who wish to take early retirement on a full pension to do so. This would create more jobs, and the more people who are off the dole and in paid employment the more tax income the government has to pay pensions. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
6. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Mar 19 2008, 3:54 AM EDT
Hi Sympneology, I will be surprised if we have high unemployment in the next decade. Considering we are approaching the bottle neck with the baby boomers reaching retirement age and a smaller population to support them, if we have unemployment during this period it will only be due to gross neglect of government policy. Cheers, Dale 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
7. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 18 2008, 7:31 PM EDT
To encourage people to work past 65 years and to encourage employers to employ older people the government should abolish income tax for over 65's. (From a generation xer.)
2
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
8. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 19 2008, 8:18 AM EDT
Re comment on abolition of income tax for the over 65s:They just about have for most people. A maximum rate of 15% for people over 60 is possible, and to some extent for those over 55 in the short term. For those not working it is zero. Note that the age pension means tests substitute for income tax for those people on a part age pension which is the biggest group going forward. A achange to policy settings for the age pension would be required as well. I think Centrelink has more customers than the ATO. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Sympneology |
9. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 20 2008, 4:30 AM EDT
For those living solely on a pension the income tax is nil, but they still have to pay GST. Anyway, who could live on just the pension these days? So if a pensioner does a bit of work to eke out that pittance, the pension is correspondingly reduced, which is, in effect, a form of taxation.Raising the pension age will only postpone the problem of a reduced cohort of taxable full-time workers providing for the increased cohort of baby-boomers reaching pension age and surviving longer. It is a problem that has already reached crisis point in the US where the outlay on pensions is exceeding the income to the superannuation funds. It looks as though the only solution is to have another world war to trigger off another baby boom! [Joke, Joyce] 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
10. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 20 2008, 7:38 AM EDT
The only solution that I have thought of to this problem is to invest now in areas that will help smooth over the transition through the baby boomer crisis. It is probably too late now but an example would be to invest in a country that needs infrastructure to prosper. Invest in a country like that and we would see the returns in the time frame required. Investing in our own country is not a solution unless it is aimed towards things that are not going to need labor in 10 years time. Cheers, Dale 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Sympneology |
11. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 20 2008, 10:28 AM EDT
"The only solution that I have thought of to this problem is to invest now in areas that will help smooth over the transition through the baby boomer crisis. It is probably too late now but an example would be to invest in a country that needs infrastructure to prosper. Invest in a country like that and we would see the returns in the time frame required.Let's think about your solution, Dale. When you say invest in a country that needs infrastructure to prosper, who is doing the investing? Bechtel invested in the water supply system in Cochabamba, Bolivia, and the price of water shot up until most of the population could not afford it. They could not use their own rainwater tanks because Bechtel was given by a compliant government monopoly rights to rainwater as well. The resulting riots caused Bechtel to flee the country and their suit for compensation failed. Other countries have not been so fortunate, nor so courageous, as Bolivia. The have been persuaded by the IMF and the World Bank to allow massive infrastructure investment by multinational corporations which has resulted in fortunes being made by the elite while poverty has increased and the nations have been saddled with massive debts which have to be paid in preference to providing health, education and environmental services. Then there is the return on investments. Corporations who invest capital expect to get a return as either profits or interest, but these returns do not go to pensioners, or even their labour force, they go to the shareholders. So how is investment in other countries' infrastructure going to solve the problem of superannuation for the baby boomers? 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
12. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 20 2008, 9:19 PM EDT
I agree with you on this one Sympneology (sorry Dale).They say that a problem correctly identified is half way to the solution. The real problem has not even been touched here. Why is leisure at the end of one's life, a problem? Only when you call it unemployment ! Only when you have reduced the worth of a soul to its economic function. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
13. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 21 2008, 8:59 AM EDT
trgh, as you have probably guessed, I have concluded you live in a dream world. In the end you can't get away from the fact that if people don't work then we don't get the things that allow for a good life. A life of leisure is fine as long as your not expecting other people to pay for it. Symneology, I don't think your examples detract from my point. Let me note a few things first... Our lifestyle is based on the products and services that are produced by the labor provided by others. Our economy is based on the trade of this labor, even if it is in the form of materials. When the baby boomers have retired, our work force will shrink considerably unless it is proped up by significant immigration (which has its own problems). It will not matter if we have a pile of money stacked away because the production of goods will decrease, the goods to be traded will decrease, inflation will skyrocket and our savings will not provide us with the lifestyle we want. Back to my point...to provide goods and services in the future that will be required to supplement the loss in production due to the baby boomers retiring then we need to invest in things now that will provide returns when we need them. Investing in our own infrastructure is only going to have mild benefits. We need to invest in things that will provide returns in 5+ years that will not depend on our own economies prosperity. Examples of people making money from a growing economy is not a bad thing. Teh money wouldn't be made unless the growing ecomony was successful. Cheers, Dale 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Sympneology |
14. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 21 2008, 2:57 PM EDT
"It will not matter if we have a pile of money stacked away because the production of goods will decrease, the goods to be traded will decrease, inflation will skyrocket and our savings will not provide us with the lifestyle we want.Dale, I get your point about the need to improve the income base of this country to provide for the retiring baby boomers, I just do not agree that private investment in infrastructure either here or overseas is necessarily the answer to that problem. You only have to look at the effects that privatisation of infrastructure has had on this country to see that. Since entities like Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank, Telstra, airports, roads, CSL, etc. have been transformed from service providers to profit makers, the service has gone down and the cost has gone up. Pensioners, like the rest of the community, have to wear these increased costs but the profits made are no help to them because they go to the, mostly overseas, shareholders. Now Morris Iemma is proposing to exacerbate the situation by privatising NSW electricity and Sydney ferries. There is a difference between making money from privatising infrastructure and making money from providing goods and services. If investment in new start-up businesses and new inventions was encouraged that would provide the necessary boost to the national income base needed to meet the increases in social services. Selling off already established public assets for short term capital gains will not. Nor will the purchase of public assets of other countries help, as I have already shown, this can be profitable but often at the expense of their economies, since the money comes from the country's increased indebtedness. The way ahead, as I see it, is to invest in our most valuable resource - our young people. By providing free primary, secondary and tertiary education to all who want it, by eliminating the high cost of patenting new inventions, by providing grants to enable the development and production of new technologies, by setting up a micro-credit system to encourage the growth of small businesses, and by other similar initiatives we can increase to income base even with a decreased working population. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
15. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 21 2008, 7:16 PM EDT
And yet, if the only reason why we need to increase production is to increase the income base (to support the retiring boomers or whatever) then again, we have put the cart before the horse - enthroning finance as the means and the end of all things. The need to expand is another inevitable symptom of the current debt-based, interest charged monetary system. In irony, we can produce 100+ fold per worker what we could do 100 years ago, and yet we still desire full-employment? Why? ... to feed the hungry machine ! (aka. "expand or die", or "rationalize", or "get bigger or get out", or "aquire & merger", or cartelize, monopolize, publicise, privatize, etc. ad nauseum)Most of the advantages that great advances in industry & technology have provided us over the past century have been eaten up by the finance barons - busily transferring real wealth from the citizen to the elite corporations & collectivists. This, and this alone, is why we need to work any more than 1 day per week on commercial ventures. By the way - for the greenie in all of us - this also elevates the rape of the natural resources of the earth. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
16. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 21 2008, 7:38 PM EDT
You say Dale, that I live in a dream world. You may just be right.The difference between modernity & reality may be too great a gulf to bridge (just maybe), but this does not make reality or common sense any the less real, or desireable. It may just SEEM too great a gulf. But even if it is too great, then we suffer but a temporary set-back. Hence, I eagerly await the advancement in bridge building. When the current world system has run its course, I will be prepared to start again on a better footing, however many will ignore history (again) and run headlong down the same road to despair. In the course of our current demise, opportunities do arise to clear some of the haze, and I will take advantage of those opportunities - promoting a better philosophy - attempting to expose fraud, and reveal reality. If this is dreaming - then I am guilty of that. If I do nothing about it, if I say nothing about it, then I am guilty of a profound social crime. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Sympneology |
17. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 22 2008, 1:10 AM EDT
"And yet, if the only reason why we need to increase production is to increase the income base (to support the retiring boomers or whatever) then again, we have put the cart before the horse - enthroning finance as the means and the end of all things. "I refer back to the subject of this thread which is a suggested solution to the 'retiring baby boomers' problem. By no means am I suggesting that the solution to this problem is the only reason for increased production. In fact, I am not advocating increased production per se, but rather increased human participation in production. This is contrary to the current mania for productivity that is so distorting the world economy, resulting in obscene wealth for a few and for the majority: unemployment, poverty, pollution and destruction of the environment. And you are right to point the finger at the finance system. The banks sustain and control the corporatocracy. They create money by creating debt, and by debt they control the lives of the debtors. They control the national economy by manipulating interest rates through their central banks, and they control the world economy by their agents, the World Bank, the WTO and the IMF. The government, whatever party is in office, does not run the country, the banks do. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
18. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 22 2008, 7:09 AM EDT
Sympneology, I agree with your support of investing in our young people, new research projects and small start ups. I am not as pessimistic as you are about privitisation as I think it has it place, but that discussion probably belongs on a different thread. One problem with relying on innovation is the fact that in many areas it can be reproduced by others. Obviously that is the purpose of patents but their application can be limited in many areas. Another difficulty is that predicting which way technology will go can be a hazardous affair. I do think we should invest in innovation but I don't have your faith that it can relied upon to solve the looming labor crisis. However, investing in innovation is one good option that is available to us and is worth using imo. I still think that investing in poorer countries could be an attractive option as there is significant production gains to be made in some countries. It reminds me of a trip to Vietnam, the people there were as keen as mustard to find some sort of work but because the infrastructure was not in place there efforts were not effectively utilized. Investing in countries at this stage provide win win situations. Cheers, Dale 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
19. RE: Phase in a higher pension age
Apr 22 2008, 7:18 AM EDT
trgh, I am on your side when it comes to rearranging our priorities. I do not think we should be focused on an never ending bid to increase our gdp at the expense of our environment. I also think we need to understand the mechanics of capitalism better so we can effectively use it or restrain it when required. There is a never ending push to work harder, faster and longer in Australia when we are rich enough to allow a better standard of living than this if we just got our priorities right. However, I do think full employment is something society should aim for and is more likely to provide the optimum lifestyle for all Australians. The better we can balance the workload and associated rewards of Australia's economy the better everyone will be. Cheers, Dale 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
