Julia wants you to keep working
And in France they protested/rioted over their government's push to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62?
Julia wants you to keep working
- Thread starter redwing
- Start date
Julia wants you to keep working
And in France they protested/rioted over their government's push to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62?
The very reason we invest.
And she'll be working until ?? what age? Maybe only for another 2 years! 
And she'll be working until ?? what age? Maybe only for another 2 years!
we mostly all have choices
ta
rolf
she needs tax tax tax to pay the debt debt debt.
wheres evand to support her? we need some kind of awesome positive spin on this, i for one never tire on how optimistic one labor voter can be.
wheres evand to support her? we need some kind of awesome positive spin on this, i for one never tire on how optimistic one labor voter can be.
What's not to be optimistic about? It's not like we're living in Angola or the Congo.
The debt is circa 2% of GDP. Due to the GFC stimulus spending. Are you losing touch with reality Aaron?
That's what I meant in a post last week about you guys reminding me of the princess and the pea story. You know, the princess who couldn't sleep all night because there was a pea under 10 mattresses that she slept on.
What exactly is so bad that it needs constant whining on a forum? ho w has the Labor govt so materially affected your lives that you need to complain and whine endlessly. You must be a barrel of positivity and fun Aaron.
The govt is encouraging workers to retire at 67. Being 60 now is like being 50 twenty years ago.The unthinking whingers can complain that they will have to be obedient and work to that age, whereas the thinking and optimistic have already retired/semi retired at a young age. As I did.
Your choice guys. Blind obedience and complaining about the pea under your matress won't get you there.
By the way, can you guys advise what reforms, policy and/or strategies the Libs have announced to try to improve this country? Anything beside just being negative and saying NO to everything.
Of all people, you'd think a forum full of so called successful property investors would understand that to be successful requires action and plenty of it. Often action that is not popular or gets you liked, but is the right thing to do.
I'm not sure that not coming up with strategies, action and just saying NO to everything while actually doing nothing gets you far. As the Liberal 'resident nutter' and NO man is finding out now with a reversal of the polls for both Gillard and Labor.
Pretty soon he's going to have to release (funded) policies instead of being Dr No and that's when the fun will start. And we can all be in for a decent laugh.
The debt is circa 2% of GDP. Due to the GFC stimulus spending. Are you losing touch with reality Aaron?
That's what I meant in a post last week about you guys reminding me of the princess and the pea story. You know, the princess who couldn't sleep all night because there was a pea under 10 mattresses that she slept on.
What exactly is so bad that it needs constant whining on a forum? ho w has the Labor govt so materially affected your lives that you need to complain and whine endlessly. You must be a barrel of positivity and fun Aaron.
The govt is encouraging workers to retire at 67. Being 60 now is like being 50 twenty years ago.The unthinking whingers can complain that they will have to be obedient and work to that age, whereas the thinking and optimistic have already retired/semi retired at a young age. As I did.
Your choice guys. Blind obedience and complaining about the pea under your matress won't get you there.
By the way, can you guys advise what reforms, policy and/or strategies the Libs have announced to try to improve this country? Anything beside just being negative and saying NO to everything.
Of all people, you'd think a forum full of so called successful property investors would understand that to be successful requires action and plenty of it. Often action that is not popular or gets you liked, but is the right thing to do.
I'm not sure that not coming up with strategies, action and just saying NO to everything while actually doing nothing gets you far. As the Liberal 'resident nutter' and NO man is finding out now with a reversal of the polls for both Gillard and Labor.
Pretty soon he's going to have to release (funded) policies instead of being Dr No and that's when the fun will start. And we can all be in for a decent laugh.
Last edited:
This is a topic I've been interested in for the last few years. I've seen written suggestions within govt of working towards a retirement age of 72, with superannuation preservation age legislated to the same.
The idea is that people work and save a bit during their lives so if they want to 'retire' before 72 they can slow down and work part time, or live off some savings. If they haven't saved, they keep working.
I also find it very interesting that the govt is so interested in getting people to contribute to super but then put what I think are quite low limits on what can be contributed each year.
When the age pension was introduced the average life expectancy of a working male was only a few years beyond 60, so the govt wasn't supporting people in old age for very long. There are now retirees who live for 30 or more years in retirement, and that's what part of this is about.
These discussions and changes are the main reason that I am profoundly sceptical of superannuation as being a useful investment for me. I simply do not trust either this or future govts (regardless of which political party) not to change superannuation rules so as to blow a super-based strategy out of the water at some point.
I don't care about paying a bit more tax now if it means I can have complete control of my assets, which should be sufficient to give me an affluent retirement by the time I'm 45.
The idea is that people work and save a bit during their lives so if they want to 'retire' before 72 they can slow down and work part time, or live off some savings. If they haven't saved, they keep working.
I also find it very interesting that the govt is so interested in getting people to contribute to super but then put what I think are quite low limits on what can be contributed each year.
When the age pension was introduced the average life expectancy of a working male was only a few years beyond 60, so the govt wasn't supporting people in old age for very long. There are now retirees who live for 30 or more years in retirement, and that's what part of this is about.
These discussions and changes are the main reason that I am profoundly sceptical of superannuation as being a useful investment for me. I simply do not trust either this or future govts (regardless of which political party) not to change superannuation rules so as to blow a super-based strategy out of the water at some point.
I don't care about paying a bit more tax now if it means I can have complete control of my assets, which should be sufficient to give me an affluent retirement by the time I'm 45.
Actually - I agree with increasing the working age, as long as there are jobs there to be had.
When the pension system was initally bought in, around 80 years ago, the average length of life after retirement was around 3yrs. So that was 3yrs of pension to support ... and there was also something like 40 workers for each pensioner.
Now, people live on average 20 years after retirement and there is 3 workers for every pensioner. Factor in the rise in healthcare and the whole systems is unsustainable.
Although, I do think it a little unfair to just hit the aged pensioners. There are so many other levels of government handouts that need to be tackled as well ... middle class welfare being my big bug bear. I guess it's that welfare that keeps them middle class instead of dropping off the bottom.
When the pension system was initally bought in, around 80 years ago, the average length of life after retirement was around 3yrs. So that was 3yrs of pension to support ... and there was also something like 40 workers for each pensioner.
Now, people live on average 20 years after retirement and there is 3 workers for every pensioner. Factor in the rise in healthcare and the whole systems is unsustainable.
Although, I do think it a little unfair to just hit the aged pensioners. There are so many other levels of government handouts that need to be tackled as well ... middle class welfare being my big bug bear. I guess it's that welfare that keeps them middle class instead of dropping off the bottom.
LOL... pity they can't afford it or much else now....a perfect display of what NOT to do.
I also couldn't care less about the retirement age as if you need to rely on government handouts for being too lazy to work, save, invest or plan during your life, too bad. Of course there are exceptions where people are unable to work etc... but that is not what we are talking about here...
62, 72 or 102.... only an issue for past generations where society norm was government dependency in old age. Phasing out age benefits is inevitable and by the time a lot of us even get close to that age, the goal posts would have moved several more times.... So, take action or be poor in the twilight years. Personal choice, IMHO.
I'm not an ALP supporter and personally dislike Gillard, but I generally think this is a smart thing to do. I'd like to see the retirement age pushed out even further to say 70. Increased workforce supply helps keep a lid on wages and hence prices of products too, and keeps productivity up.
Also, Australia doesn't want to end up like Greece. Those Greeks retired early and while it was all fun and games while it was going on, at some point musical chairs finish and someone foots the bill (turns out to be Germany and more or less Europe). If someone had to foot the bill for Australia, do we have an Asian Union or American Big Brother to bail us out? With public hostility towards Asia in general, I doubt any rich Asian country (ie India or China) would foot the bill. Would love to see how much more $$ America can find out of its coffers. As for UK, well this country probably wouldn't exist in this age but for America. Not that they have any $$ anyway, or pounds for that matter.
Also, Australia doesn't want to end up like Greece. Those Greeks retired early and while it was all fun and games while it was going on, at some point musical chairs finish and someone foots the bill (turns out to be Germany and more or less Europe). If someone had to foot the bill for Australia, do we have an Asian Union or American Big Brother to bail us out? With public hostility towards Asia in general, I doubt any rich Asian country (ie India or China) would foot the bill. Would love to see how much more $$ America can find out of its coffers. As for UK, well this country probably wouldn't exist in this age but for America. Not that they have any $$ anyway, or pounds for that matter.
As people's life expectancy increases, so should their working lifetime. IMO the age at which people become eligible to receive the old age pension should be about 70.
Retire sooner than that if you want, but you'll have to fund it yourself.
Retire sooner than that if you want, but you'll have to fund it yourself.
nothing wrong with people working for as long as they like.
many chose to do just that for all sorts of reasons, not just financial ones.
more needs to be done to get the nonworkers to work. not sure how or if that will ever happen.
will a sense of a work ethic ever be a reality for some people?
we all know about generations where no one has had employment.
we probably too know people who have disabilities, but are gainfully employed in some capacity.
get the nonworkers to work. it would be better for them and this country.
meanwhile the rest who do work will continue to work, nothing to do with gillard.
work/enterprise is how most get money to live, unless they inherit money.
welfare needs to be there to support but it seems to be a life choice for many forever.
can the economy support this forever?
many chose to do just that for all sorts of reasons, not just financial ones.
more needs to be done to get the nonworkers to work. not sure how or if that will ever happen.
will a sense of a work ethic ever be a reality for some people?
we all know about generations where no one has had employment.
we probably too know people who have disabilities, but are gainfully employed in some capacity.
get the nonworkers to work. it would be better for them and this country.
meanwhile the rest who do work will continue to work, nothing to do with gillard.
work/enterprise is how most get money to live, unless they inherit money.
welfare needs to be there to support but it seems to be a life choice for many forever.
can the economy support this forever?
This is most sensible and while we are at it, I would like Australia to discourage population growth unless the people who have the fun of producing population growth also funds it. No public policy should encourage degradation of the environment through population growth without fully offsetting the growth in carbon emission.
IMO, Bill Gates is right. He is using his money to try and provide the world's poor a vacine to help it avoid the cruelty of bringing a child into the world and not being able to feed it. That is being responsible and 'do no harm' to humanity and the world.
Like someone mentioned, 60 is the new 50. So 70 will be the new 60.
If we're living longer it makes sense.
The thing is most 60yo don't have the big expense of children, big mortgage, etc. so could probably work part time from 60 to 70...
or invest and retire earlier
I know a lot of 40 year olds with kids under 5. I fear that many of these people will be supporting their stay-at-home twenty something kids at 60.
I know a lot of 40 year olds with kids under 5. I fear that many of these people will be supporting their stay-at-home twenty something kids at 60.
On the upside, your potential replacement organs are close by.
