I see now that he is denying any interest in increasing the retirement age to 70 yet it was one of the things he was very proactive about before he became Opposition leader. Now that the election is coming close he is wiping his hands clean but now Joe Hockey has stepped up to the table to push it. Can I say how sneaky this is of Abbott and his team, is if we are that stupid to think we don't know that this is his little project....
Tony Abbotts Sneaky Way to Increase the Retirement Age to 70+
- Thread starter rachels
- Start date
Personally I'd rather be younger, than older, in being able to access my super...
Most 70 year olds I know enjoy working and wouldn't want it any other way. Mabye it's just the public service folk. I hear greece has a good pension scheme.
Ahh yes... this old chestnut.
Just another reason to shun Super and rely on yourself, not government mandated schemes that are only there to serve the "general" interest, not your personal interest.
I hope they raise the age to 100, that way my personal contribution to the sense of entitlement campaign will not be such a burden as more people will be helping with the tax burden for longer....
Just another reason to shun Super and rely on yourself, not government mandated schemes that are only there to serve the "general" interest, not your personal interest.
I hope they raise the age to 100, that way my personal contribution to the sense of entitlement campaign will not be such a burden as more people will be helping with the tax burden for longer....
who said that was super preservation age??? only age pension age...a misinformed comment
I hope they raise the age to 100, that way my personal contribution to the sense of entitlement campaign will not be such a burden as more people will be helping with the tax burden for longer....
it will be at least 90 by the time im due for it, it seems to go up every few years.....
hehe, maybe even 100 like Indifference hopes for
As younger generations are growing up in an environment where they are accumulating super their entire working lives, pensions will be increasingly redundant to a degree. The problem however is if the pension age is increasingly pushed higher, the risk is the divergence between preservation age and pension accessibility putting pressure on increasing the preservation age.
Otherwise there is an increasing encouragement to burn through your super in the gap between preserv. and pension.
Increasing pension age certainly doesn't signal the possibility of early access to superannuation, at the very least.
retiring is a modern concept. 100 years ago, you worked until you dropped.
Life expectancy was a lot lower............
Which is exactly why the old age pension is not ecomonically viable. When it was introduced, the pension kicked in 2 years after the average lifespan. Now it kicks in about 10 years prior to the average lifespan.
I'm all for increasing the pension to match the statistical lifespan for any given generation.
At the time it was introduced there was also a dozen or so people working for every person on the pension. That's now dropped to 2-3 people working for every pensioner.
The money has to come from somewhere, but the drain on those employed is becoming unsustainable.
As already pointed out - the life expectancy has also increased signficantly.
Add in subsidise for everything from expensive medical/medicines, care, utilities and transport, the cost is fast becoming unsustainable (if not already so).
Even more reason to get your "outside super" finances in order.
I'm not sure why people are associating super and the pension age. The two are totally different things and the article about Joe Hockey makes no mention of any proposed changes to superannuation.
Super is a structure, it's not an investment. Your super has performed just fine over the last few years - there's been substantial tax incentives for people to make contributions to their super and changes to rules to increase the flexibility of how people can contribute to and access money in super.
What people are complaining about is their investments which are held inside super haven't done so well. This has got nothing to do with the superannuation structure. You could have make those same investment decisions without the super structure and you'd have lost (or made) the same amount of money. Given that most people don't tend to think in these timeframes, mandatory super contributions should also be increased, as should the contribution threasholds.
If you don't like the investment choices in your super, then change it. You can choose to switch to a different fund manager, choose a different investment strategy, or you can set up a self managed super fund and do it yourself.
As for the pension, I say raise the entitlement age and narrow the entitlement parameters. People have 40-50 years to work towards their retirement and shouldn't have the expectation that the taxpayers will cover their retirement.
Super is a structure, it's not an investment. Your super has performed just fine over the last few years - there's been substantial tax incentives for people to make contributions to their super and changes to rules to increase the flexibility of how people can contribute to and access money in super.
What people are complaining about is their investments which are held inside super haven't done so well. This has got nothing to do with the superannuation structure. You could have make those same investment decisions without the super structure and you'd have lost (or made) the same amount of money. Given that most people don't tend to think in these timeframes, mandatory super contributions should also be increased, as should the contribution threasholds.
If you don't like the investment choices in your super, then change it. You can choose to switch to a different fund manager, choose a different investment strategy, or you can set up a self managed super fund and do it yourself.
As for the pension, I say raise the entitlement age and narrow the entitlement parameters. People have 40-50 years to work towards their retirement and shouldn't have the expectation that the taxpayers will cover their retirement.
If it was introduced, those affected would be the younger generations, who will have MANY more years of contributions paid to them, as well as having contributions paid at the higher rates, unlike most who are now over 45-50 who started off with no paid super, rising to 3% in the early 90's.
The younger generation, could retire at 65/67 or younger, with the super they recieve, and when that runs out they could commence the pension at age 70.
When there is more super paid, it makes sense to have less government pension, ie. raising the age.
It shouldn't be there to pay off mortgages, go on holidays, buy a new car, help the kids, like some do, and then complain the pension age is too high.
Those that have participated very little in the workforce would be used to the lower Newstart rate, so would not notice any difference in living standards if they remained on that longer.
The younger generation, could retire at 65/67 or younger, with the super they recieve, and when that runs out they could commence the pension at age 70.
When there is more super paid, it makes sense to have less government pension, ie. raising the age.
It shouldn't be there to pay off mortgages, go on holidays, buy a new car, help the kids, like some do, and then complain the pension age is too high.
Those that have participated very little in the workforce would be used to the lower Newstart rate, so would not notice any difference in living standards if they remained on that longer.
I read a bit about this, and indications are that super preservation age WILL be adjusted to match the age at which the age pension becoomes available. My understanding is that the age of 67 is currently being considered, with a view to increasing this to 72 at some later point.
Some of my peers are already starting to discuss how to 'fill the gap' between retiring at about 55 and accessing their super at 67, and are gearing their investments towards this goal. For couples, they contribute $50k combined per year into super, and so even with average returns are expecting to have a couple of million at least to live of from age 67.
I've never been a fan of super, as I'm almost certain that people with more wealth will get screwed through super when the govt needs more income.
Some of my peers are already starting to discuss how to 'fill the gap' between retiring at about 55 and accessing their super at 67, and are gearing their investments towards this goal. For couples, they contribute $50k combined per year into super, and so even with average returns are expecting to have a couple of million at least to live of from age 67.
I've never been a fan of super, as I'm almost certain that people with more wealth will get screwed through super when the govt needs more income.
This is true. When the retirement age of 65 was set, that was equal to the life expectancy at the time. On average, people worked till they died. If you were lucky and lived an extra 5-10 years, the government supported you.
To be the same today the retirement age would be 88 or so. I wouldn't suggest this, but to raise to 70 isn't too crazy in my mind.
But what sane person would want to work until they're 70? Or 67, 65 or whatever????
The government will surely tinker with the super rules over the next 20 to 25 years. So who knows what mess of a monster it will be then.
I for one want to be getting out of the work force ASAP and enjoy life to the fullest before I need hip replacements and my mobility limited to a shuffle.
To keep my brain active I can CHOOSE, WHEN and IF I want to work, not because I need the money.
The government will surely tinker with the super rules over the next 20 to 25 years. So who knows what mess of a monster it will be then.
I for one want to be getting out of the work force ASAP and enjoy life to the fullest before I need hip replacements and my mobility limited to a shuffle.
To keep my brain active I can CHOOSE, WHEN and IF I want to work, not because I need the money.
I reckon just about everything has changed....
The typical job was a real job, where a real man stood up for about 10 hours a day, usually in a factory or on a farm, doing heavy physical work. Hot steamy factories or baking hot open fields were the order of the day. Lotsa grease, lotsa flies, plenty of dangerous big equipment flying around at high speed. You had to actually concentrate on the job. No earphones, no texting, no "let's just nip down for a short black", no OH&S, no lawyers to bleat to.
Starting that type of activity at 15 and constantly working for the boss for 50 years, most people were lucky to retire at 65. Most had either dropped off the perch by them, a few had even been injured / killed by the activity. Pensions weren't really a big deal, and very much earnt if you made it through.
I remember reading that in the 50's or 60's, men's life expectancy was about 68, so the lucky ones who got thru only drew a pension on average for 3 years.
Contrast that with today, where "men" typically stay at Mummy and Daddy's hotel until they are at least 25 or 26.....usually after they've graduated with their 3rd degree.
They then get employed to sit in a female friendly, non-confrontational, completely sterile, ergonomically designed safety zone on level 42 where they sit in front of a "haunted fish tank" that is strategically positioned so that no-one can see what they are looking at, and surf the web, staring into the fish tank whenever their boss - Yvonne - doesn't slink by in her pencil skirt and high heels.
They read about all these miracle investors who retired at 32 and think to themselves "too right, I've been here 2 years, 4 more to go and I can retire as well."
Four more years roll by and they're adamant "damn straight, I've really put out staring into this thing and typing furiously....my fingers are frazzled.....it's time for me to retire". He's probably got 60 years in that zone to go.
I can't possibly see why anyone would think that our current mode isn't sustainable.
The typical job was a real job, where a real man stood up for about 10 hours a day, usually in a factory or on a farm, doing heavy physical work. Hot steamy factories or baking hot open fields were the order of the day. Lotsa grease, lotsa flies, plenty of dangerous big equipment flying around at high speed. You had to actually concentrate on the job. No earphones, no texting, no "let's just nip down for a short black", no OH&S, no lawyers to bleat to.
Starting that type of activity at 15 and constantly working for the boss for 50 years, most people were lucky to retire at 65. Most had either dropped off the perch by them, a few had even been injured / killed by the activity. Pensions weren't really a big deal, and very much earnt if you made it through.
I remember reading that in the 50's or 60's, men's life expectancy was about 68, so the lucky ones who got thru only drew a pension on average for 3 years.
Contrast that with today, where "men" typically stay at Mummy and Daddy's hotel until they are at least 25 or 26.....usually after they've graduated with their 3rd degree.
They then get employed to sit in a female friendly, non-confrontational, completely sterile, ergonomically designed safety zone on level 42 where they sit in front of a "haunted fish tank" that is strategically positioned so that no-one can see what they are looking at, and surf the web, staring into the fish tank whenever their boss - Yvonne - doesn't slink by in her pencil skirt and high heels.
They read about all these miracle investors who retired at 32 and think to themselves "too right, I've been here 2 years, 4 more to go and I can retire as well."
Four more years roll by and they're adamant "damn straight, I've really put out staring into this thing and typing furiously....my fingers are frazzled.....it's time for me to retire". He's probably got 60 years in that zone to go.
I can't possibly see why anyone would think that our current mode isn't sustainable.
