Retirement age rise to 70 by 2035

I don't see the point in making policy announcements for 20 years into the future. Whoever is in power then is not bound by this government's decisions.
 
Is it to only access the pension? Can you access your super earlier or will that be preserved until you are 70 too?
 
is this a direct affect or consequence of the cost of living in Australia?. you now have to work until your 70.
 
joanmc said:
Is it to only access the pension? Can you access your super earlier or will that be preserved until you are 70 too?
Click to expand...

You can access your super earlier (from glean) but this would most likely be in the 60-65 range rather than the 55-60 range it is now (depending on eligibility).
 
It reflects several issues:
  1. We ARE living longer than when the pension first came about - if we made it to 67 we were OLD
  2. It puts off govt expenditure (for a smaller number of people) for another 5 years
  3. If you become eligible for the pension five years later, then it cuts both ways, you will probably survive for a shorter time once you achieve that milestone
  4. Save (read invest) like crazy whilst you can so you can still retire young enough to enjoy it
  5. It is still 21 years away, plenty of time to save up
  6. Who knows what advances in medical science there'll be in the next 21 years, our average life expectancy may well increase into the 90's (then we'll need to treat other geriatric diseases - dimentia, osteoporosis, greater incidences of cancers etc (more of a burden on the health care system
  7. 80 will be the new 65
  8. The pension is moving to 68 in a few years anyway, why get upset about another 2 years?
  9. Just think of the extra returns you will get in super in those extra five years, the financial advisers keep harping on about this anyway
 
I can't see a problem with it ... people are now living longer than ever and, by 2035 are expected to live well into the nineties.

The pension was a welfare system designed to support people who were physically unable to work any longer ... and the lifespan after retirement back at the beginning of the 1900's was around 2-3 years.

The pension was NOT designed to give people a 30-40 year paid holiday after they've worked 30-40 years.

Personally I can't think of anything worse than "retiring" ... there is only so much travel, fishing, bowls, golf, tinkering one can do before going starkers.
 
cimbom said:
I don't see the point in making policy announcements for 20 years into the future. Whoever is in power then is not bound by this government's decisions.
Click to expand...

True, but -

1. For obvious reasons you need to give people (members of the public) a long lead time to plan for a change like this

and

2. Realistically no government will change the law back. Everyone (save for those who have lived under a rock for the past 20+ years) knows that the population pyramid is in the process of being turned on its head and that there is a far greater expectation of funding ones own retirement (dating back at least as far as when Keating made Super compulsory in 1992). Plus, we're all living longer now than in past generations (we used to retire at 65 and die at 70.... not now).

So now is the perfect time for a newly elected government that has inherited a bit of a financial pickle to now dish out some tough medicine and say "swallow this, it is good for you.... really".

Realistically, voters probably won't care too much. After all, it doesn't affect those born before 1966. And most of those born from 1966 onwards will be like "well, that's years away...".

So it will go through.

There will be some initial chatter on the subject, but before too long most of us will accept that it was "going to happen at some point" (I've been joking about a law change to this effect for years....) - and get on with life.

And that will be case closed.
 
This is exactly why, at the age of 30(ish) I dislike super so much, and wont bother with SMSF etc. It might be a tax advantage, but the annual rule changes, uncertainty of when and how to get YOUR money back and complicated rules around what you can and cant do with YOUR money - make it an unviable investments structure for me.

Ill take my money and invest it in another entity thanks...

Blacky
 
cimbom said:
I don't see the point in making policy announcements for 20 years into the future. Whoever is in power then is not bound by this government's decisions.
Click to expand...

Exactly...... Libs have seriously lost the plot, why on earth would they announce this, what are they thinking, shot themselves in the foot, makes no sense whatsoever.
 
It is a non issue for anyone than invests for their future as well as anyone that is over 49.

If you are under 49 and are currently in a manual intensive job that you believe will give you a problem if it changes from 67 to 70 then you simply have 20 odd years to get your life in order so that you won't be laying bricks or pushing wheelbarrows in 2035.

Even better if you can plan to have enough stashed away so you can pull the pin a little earlier even if you are not of pensionable age .........

Seriously who can honestly admit now that this will affect them?

Anyone that could answer today that this policy will affect them in 20 years time is admitting that they are a loser or have already given up on life.

NB: There will be individuals who will be affected by this policy in 20 years time who thru no fault of their own have landed in difficult circumstances. These individuals should be covered by a 'safety net', however, individuals should not be planning their life using the aged pension as a strategic planning mechanism as most Financial Advisors prescribe.
 
Joe D said:
Anyone that could answer today that this policy will affect them in 20 years time is admitting that they are a loser or have already given up on life.
Click to expand...

Pushing the retirement age out will affect anyone who is looking at the long term horizon- not just losers.

I may still be working at that age - by choice.
 
images

images

images
 
trey said:
is this a direct affect or consequence of the cost of living in Australia?. you now have to work until your 70.
Click to expand...


It's the direct consequence of people living longer and the financial burden of government pensions. Makes perfect sense I reckon.


See ya's.
 
cimbom said:
I don't see the point in making policy announcements for 20 years into the future. Whoever is in power then is not bound by this government's decisions.
Click to expand...


Every right thinking person knows it has to happen. Even intelligent lefties would understand why this was always going to happen even if they don't agree with it.

With the ever increasing lifespans of Australians, whoever is in power in 2035 will probably be talking about how to increase the pension age to 75.

Won't effect me whatever happens. I don't ever plan on getting the pension, I'll still be working, growing grain, just like my dad still is at 74.


See ya's.
 
topcropper said:
Every right thinking person knows it has to happen. Even intelligent lefties would understand why this was always going to happen even if they don't agree with it.

With the ever increasing lifespans of Australians, whoever is in power in 2035 will probably be talking about how to increase the pension age to 75.

Won't effect me whatever happens. I don't ever plan on getting the pension, I'll still be working, growing grain, just like my dad still is at 74.


See ya's.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It is inevitable, as are further changes.

Next big thing I think we'll see is super preservation age being increased as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
SS's under 30: What's your plan with super?
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
12K
Sean M
S
R
Tony Abbotts Sneaky Way to Increase the Retirement Age to 70+
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
SENIOR
S
I
Themes for next few decades in Australia?
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
Angel
A
B
Dream to be Comfortable not Rich. Start Now!
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
ChrisA1
C
I
20 year strategy (another one)
Replies
8
Views
3K
impermanence
I
Back
Top