Are you prepared to work until you are 70?

[i-need-a-martini]

There is no way I will be. I am not planning to work beyond 55!

But it won't affect people like me will it? I have my own plans and they will be self funded.

So once again, it will be those less fortunate and less able to take care of themselves who will suffer.

[nero_bolt]

So how do you feel about having to work until 67 now because of your precious Labor party,,,,, 

[debra9275]

as I said further back in the thread, my view is it should've stayed @ 65

[nero_bolt]

---

@debra9275 wrote:

@as I said further back in the thread, my view is it should've stayed @ 65

---

 But you never said a word in protest when they said that they were putting it up now did you...

In fact how many true believers actually said anything about the age going up? 

[spotweldersfriend]

---

@nero_wulf wrote:

Tony Abbott has just stated on 2GB at 9.40am on the Ray Hadley show that raising the pension age to 70 is 100% FALSE and NOT happening.

Endo of scare campaign by the left

BUT just remember that you are now working to 67 because of Labor raising the pension age.

---

And John Howard said there'd be no GST or pension clawback.And Tiny Abbott says Workchoices is dead and buried and yada yada.

[debra9275]

you wouldn't have a clue what I've said to whom about what 

[boris1gary]

---

@spotweldersfriend wrote:

---

@nero_wulf wrote:

Tony Abbott has just stated on 2GB at 9.40am on the Ray Hadley show that raising the pension age to 70 is 100% FALSE and NOT happening.

Endo of scare campaign by the left

BUT just remember that you are now working to 67 because of Labor raising the pension age.

---

And John Howard said there'd be no GST or pension clawback.And Tiny Abbott says Workchoices is dead and buried and yada yada.

---

Tony Abbott has just stated on 2GB that it is %100 false and not happening - so is that like his other "promises".....i feel sooo much better now

[tall_bearded]

I well aware that the Labor Government had already done some of the heavy lifting when it came to targeting aged pension.  I was opposed to it then and still opposed to it.

However, what Labor did pails into insignificance when compared to what Messrs Abbott and Hockey intend to do, and to achieve the outcome they wanted they use words such as “age of entitlement” as if, to be entitled to something is cause for shame.  That is, they seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the words “entitlement” as distinct to “benefit”.  The first is something you earned and as such are entitled to.  The other is gifted. 

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@diamond-halo wrote:

Here is the reality. No one is forcing people to wait until they are 50, 60 or even 70 and beyond to retire. We can retire at any age we want to. But the last government told you that they're not going to pay for it until you're 67, this government is apparently shifting that payment to 70 and in the future it will probably raise to a higher age or be phased out completely.

But whatever age we retire at, it's worth nothing if you can't feed and house yourself on the money available to you.

so either hang out until the gov will pay you the pittance they deem acceptable, or take responsibility (where possible - I know there are those that can't) and provide for yourself.

The population is no longer aging, it has aged. And we simply don't have the money to pay sufficient money for those older people to live on.

so isn't it better that they remain in the workforce where they can maybe earn a bit more money than the measly sum our govts hand out to us?

---

Another thing to remember is that the younger generations have built in contributions into super funds and will not be so reliant on the government for pensions when they retire.  Does the policy idea include increasing the age people can access their preserved super funds? 

The percentage of people relying on pensions will decrease rather than increase so why is there a need to force people who are worn out to continue working?  

It just all seems to be just another means of brainwashing the people into thinking we're broke, we're going to hurt you, and it's all Labor's fault.

---

Hi freaky, I'm not arguing with any of this, and I'm not saying I like it or that it's a good thing, just that i can see why it is being considered.  I know there are bad things about it too.

Super only came in during my working life, I think? So anyone much older than me won;'t have had too long to save for their retirement via super iykwim. How much would a person who is currently 50 or older, who has relied solely on the compulsory super paid by their employer actually have saved up?

I don't know. But even with my own contributions (I am 43, My OH, 53), we don't have a great amount in Super, not when you think it has to last maybe 10 or 15 years or even longer(I know some people will not be alive into their late 70's, but on the whole, more people seem to be living longer,

even if you had $500,000 in super, but had never bought a permanent residence (there are a lot of people who rent), over 10 years, that's really only about $50,000 a year, and by the time they pay their rent, that would reduce the amount to live on a heap.

and from what I read here on CS (so it must be true), our older generations seem to have a lot more health concerns, and so that costs heaps as well, so eating into their money even more,.

I think super will really come into its own (as much as it can), for those born after 1980, but there is an entire demograophic now who I can't see how they can have any kind of decent super for long term sustainability

It's these people right now who are in danger of becioming neglected as they try to survive on what money they have after retirement.

we read stories now of pensioners not able to afford heating or good nutritious food

to be continued

[freakiness]

---

@nero_wulf wrote:

---

@debra9275 wrote:

@as I said further back in the thread, my view is it should've stayed @ 65

---

 But you never said a word in protest when they said that they were putting it up now did you...

In fact how many true believers actually said anything about the age going up? 

---

How do you know what other people said at the times various changes were implemented?

Just because you are ruled by 3 word slogans don't assume everyone else is too.

[polksaladallie]

I have a headache from reading this whole thread, having been without internet access for a week.  My answer to the question is, I did, at three jobs, and it stinks.

The problem is that the people who make these decisions are not 70 years old.  They do not understand that the ageing process is a lot faster as you get older.  Eg, the three years from 47 to 50 is nothing much, but the three years from 67 to 70 is huge in deteriorating health and wellbeing.  While I do not know the exact statistics, I would guess easily three times faster.  And younger people including politicians, do not understand this.  I think they should read some books on the ageing process.  No amount of good food, exercise etc. can stop this process.  And the people who work in other than sedentary jobs will simply not be able to function at the level expected of them.  I would love to do the work that I did ten years ago, but my body would not let me.