Pension changes proposed.

[kengillard]

The Productivity Commission has suggested that the pension age be lifted to 70.

Also that those pensioners who own their own home have an "equity release" applied (basically a reverse mortgage)  and paid to the govt.   Hope it doesn't happen!!

[freshwater-2]

Paid in advance? Why not put that extra money in a bank account for their retirement?? Instead of clogging up the welfare system and moaning about how they are so hard done by - it's pathetic. You knew you were you going to get old - should've made a plan for it

You just don't seem to get it, Georgia.  A percentage of the income tax paid was factored in as a future pension on retirement.

This tax was paid during a lifetime of working, which you have yet to do.

The only difference is that instead of paying the percentage in taxes that it is now compulsory super payments.

Back in the days when current pensioners were young, banks demanded 25% deposit on the cost of a home and the monthly repayments not to be more than 20% of a man's gross salary.   Women's salary was not considered in rhe equation.

How many young people could purchase a home today under this criteria.

As for pensioners  feeling guilty bludging off the government (your words).....they paid their dues.

At 37 you have never had to struggle the way some of today's pensioners have had to during what should have been the most productive financial years of their working life..  And I suspect that your parents at 60 miss out on this too.  You assume that you know so much and you still have to live your life.

I have a feeling that your arrogant attitude will one day come back bite you on the b.m.

[lyndal1838]

Well said freshwater.

At 60, Georgia's parents missed out on the post war struggles and shortages.  Their working lives would have started in the 1960s when there were plenty of opportunities for those prepared to work hard and get ahead in life.

But if you were already locked in to a menial job with low pay there was not much opportunity to get out of the rat race....and back then there was no need to.  The government was forever saying that if you worked hard and paid your (ever increasing) taxes then you would receive your pension at age 60 (for women) or 65.  Superannuation did not exist for the masses and by the time you saved for your home and finally bought it, the main aim for most was to have it paid off by the time you retired.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@georgiajake2010 wrote:
My parents both worked their butts off - bought a few homes and are able to live guilt free from bludging off the government. My mother was a homemaker until I turned 14 (I'm 37) and they had a plan so she got a uni degree. I have the same situation - super was not compulsory but they knew not to bludge of the government. Just sayin

---

Instigate Soylent Green that's what I say ...... whoops, I forgot you're 37 ... so you'd be biscuits by now.

Please come back on here when you are 65 and let us know how you went will you. 

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Or are you expecting to inherit when the oldies pop their clogs?

[i-once-was-bump]

And one important fact you forgot to mention Lyndal, that pension was supposed to be non means tested.

It was a pension for all workers.

There is also one thing no one can factor into their future planning and that is being forced to give up work in their early 50s when they had thought they would work until they were 65 and then collect their promised pension.

Ill health and its devestating after affects can really upset the best laid plans.

[spotweldersfriend]

I'm self employed and I pay my own super.

[lyndal1838]

---

@spotweldersfriend wrote:
I'm self employed and I pay my own super.

---

Yes, of course you do...as do all of us who are self employed.

But look at the difference.  Ignoring income tax obligations.... a self employed person earns $1000 and pays the compulsory 9.25% into super, leaving them with $907.50 in their pocket.

An person who is employed by someone else also earns $1000 but the difference is that their kindly employer pays the 9.25% into their super, leaving the employee with the full $1000.  In effect, the employee is $92.50  a week better off and has that extra money to add to their super or any other money making schemes that they may fancy.

Bump, I agree with you too.

[freshwater-2]

Instigate Soylent Green that's what I say

ha ha ha.  Good One!!  The poster wouldn't even know the meaning of this.

[polksaladallie]

---

@georgiajake2010 wrote:
They knew the government would give them bugger all so they made a life for themselves without relying on anyone else. That's the difference from the "old" people - what did you people expect?? That after working your entire lives that you would live on the same wage when retired from the government?? You should've made a plan

---

My superannuation provides me with $20 per week.   I've tried and tried to live on that, and failed.  

They should've saved for the future

My small income (working 7 days per week) went towards the education of my children, their food and shelter.  Nothin' left after that.   

[spotweldersfriend]

Soylent Green? Or Logans Run?