[asathorny]

[Mike SX]

A point forgotten is that person probably started full time work (including Saturdays) at 15/16 years old, and made National Insurance Contributions for 49 years
Not 25/30 years old, pay NIC for 30 years - or not work at all.....
And then complain they may have to work until 69.
(Hampered by their useless degrees).
Concerning a manual worker, I would not want a 70 year old Roofer in all weathers on my roof 
Poor bugger.

[Phil №❶]

IMO it should be health based and then it should only be an option, if you choose to continue working till 70, then so be it.

It is a fact of life that some men will not even reach 70, so to work then drop is an absolute rip off.

The pension is nothing to get excited about, it is a sustenance payment for people who for whatever reason, have not got super, investments, rental properties or other forms of income. True pensioner's do not travel overseas and do exciting things, but they usually have nice gardens and a little car.

Due to the pyramid hierarchy of the conventional workforce, there are only ever a small number of workers at the top, who don't have to be concerned about pensions. The rest of us, have to work, stab and scramble to climb corporate ladders and achieve a satisfactory income, to create security for our families.

The future fund in Oz, was supposed to cater for this "future" expense and soften the blow, but that money has been spent, so now we are faced with a significant shortfall and likewise a 70 yr pension age looks likely here too.

Government mismanagement, where billions of $ are squandered propping up other government's economies eg 80 Billion $ worth of fighter planes that can't fly withing 60 miles of a lightning storm really dispels any confidence I have in any government, to get it right.

Let's not mention the $1,000,000.00 taxpayer funded meal subsidy that we pay for the meals at parliament house, which only our elected members can get access to.

Don't forget "The age of entitlement, is over."

  To them all.

Sorry to nick your topic ASA, I agree with you 

[Surferdude]

Whilst I tend to agree with the above, I think we should recognise a few points from the other side.
The retirement age of 65 came into effect in Australia a long time ago - certainly before I left school at the end of 1965.
The average life expectancy in Australia for males (females slightly higher) in 1962 was 68 years. It is now 80.
There are indications the increase is happening more quickly with about a 2½ year increase  in the last decade.
So if you retired at the age of 65 in 1962, you could only expect to live on average another 2-3 years. Let's leave the financial side of that alone for a minute and come back to it.
Now if you retire at 65, you have on average 15 years ahead of you.
Back in 1962 (ish) my Dad was a boilermaker-welder. He worked hard. There were few labour saving devices. Unionism was strong but 40 hours was 40 hours. No mobile phone breaks, no smoke breaks and if you had 15 minutes for smoko (morning tea) you got 15 minutes (some places were still 10 minutes). If you were late back you were in deep doodoo.
I know all this because I worked in his workplaces over my school holidays at the end of 1962 and 63, so I experienced it myself and saw him at work. In 1964 he started his own business and I helped out whenever I had spare time.
Now, today if you compare the working conditions of tradesmen to those days, there are innumerable labour saving devices, much better OH&S standards and hours are rarely as strictly enforced.
Am I saying the average tradie works less hard today than 50 years ago?
I guess I am. Incidentally a significant proportion of tradies these days don't work 40 hour weeks. They are often on contract type work and paid above the odds to compensate for periods between jobs (when they're NOT doing physical work). It might be interesting to try to map out the actual hours worked by someone 50 years ago, versus the same type of worker today.
So, less physical effort required (not suggesting it's not still hard yakka), and much improved safety devices AND general health.
So, maybe the idea that someone who has to work physically all his life can't handle another 5 years isn't quite so clear cut.

Financially, in those days, unless you saved some money whilst you were working, the only income you could expect was the government pension when you retired.
Nowadays, you can still qualify for your pension but thanks to intervention by various governments over the years, most will have some superannuation to help. It's not anywhere near enough yet for a lot of people but it IS happening.

I fully realise the above comments will have their detractors but they need to be said.

Now, with all the improvements in lifestyle I also agree it's fair that our expectations as far as retirement are concerned should be raised. What I'm saying is that perhaps there should be more consideration to these points.

Finally, increasing the retirement age to 70 does not mean you HAVE to work to 70. Merely that yo have to wait till then to qualify for government assistance.
As a retiree (from the age of 58 (full time) and 64 (part time) I have a surprising number of my friends and contemporaries who have done the same thing. By spending wisely, investing in super and not having over the top expectations of "the government should support me"

Over to you guys.

 

[Phil №❶]

You have based your comments on your personal experience of what you witnessed as a child, which is a good factual basis. However, you also make reference to business owners and contractors who, have more flexibility in negotiating profitable outcomes than a simple worker on a wage. I know both contractors and business owners who are laughing all the way to the bank and good on 'em, I say.

My father started with $0.00, was in sales, then management, got ill at 62, dead at 68, fortunately, he also voluntarily retired @ 60 with plenty of security, but hardly got to enjoy the fruits of his labour.

During my years I have also known people who worked for wages and as responsible parents providing for their children, never had any money left for significant savings, let alone investments.

As stated in my 1st line, retirement should be a choice, not a requirement.

I don't disagree with your comments Trev, as the workplace is a constantly changing environment. There is no doubt that we are all living longer (statistically).

[FatBoy]

Current data also suggests that one third of people born today will live to be 100!!  We are living longer, why shouldn't we work longer. 

Pigeons please welcome the cats to your house.

[Phil №❶]

Bit difficult to compare your well paid exciting job, to a factory job in a chicken slaughterhouse, who would want to look forward to more of that.

[FatBoy]

Bit difficult to compare your well paid exciting job, to a factory job in a chicken slaughterhouse, who would want to look forward to more of that.

I wasn't always doing this job, Phil.  I come from a "Working Class" family, valued my education, and up-skilled so I could do it.  Many of my colleagues here didn't even finish high school.

I had a simple philosophy, I didn't like the job I was doing, so I changed it.  I'll bet there are some people out in the world that now wish that they didn't spend their school days looking out the window.

Gee, those pigeons are getting restless.

[Surferdude]

You have based your comments on your personal experience of what you witnessed as a child, which is a good factual basis. However, you also make reference to business owners and contractors who, have more flexibility in negotiating profitable outcomes than a simple worker on a wage. I know both contractors and business owners who are laughing all the way to the bank and good on 'em, I say.

My father started with $0.00, was in sales, then management, got ill at 62, dead at 68, fortunately, he also voluntarily retired @ 60 with plenty of security, but hardly got to enjoy the fruits of his labour.

During my years I have also known people who worked for wages and as responsible parents providing for their children, never had any money left for significant savings, let alone investments.

As stated in my 1st line, retirement should be a choice, not a requirement.

I don't disagree with your comments Trev, as the workplace is a constantly changing environment. There is no doubt that we are all living longer (statistically).

Yeah. Sorry I did base my comments on personal experience, but what I used wasn't all of my experience. I used my Dad as an example to try to explain what I was saying.
I spent almost all my life either working as a labourer - in factories and with primary producers, then in sales and management roles but in daily contact with people like tyre fitters and mechanics.
I not only watched their conditions improve, I had a major hand in driving their better conditions.


As in your first line. "retirment should be a choice, not a requirement", as I understand it, it is a choice.
Don't manage your super well and work to 70 when the government will take care of you.
Or, manage your super well, don't spend ridiculous amounts on alcohol and cigarettes (ducks for cover  ) and retire when YOU want to.

Godd discussion, this.
I look forward to hearing others' comments.

Oh and I think Fatboy has earned this job.

[Phil №❶]

I don't begrudge Fatboy his job either, but unfortunately, not all of us are blessed with the academic skills to study their way into a better job. Rather than be a burden on the govt, even chicken processors work, pay tax and contribute financially, without the expectation of great rewards in the future.  to them, too.

[FatBoy]

I think we are on the same page here, Phil.  I am lucky that I have the job I do, which will allow me to support myself in my retirement (I will prefer to call myself a retiree, rather than a pensioner).  We should support those that are unable to support themselves, and I believe that is what the pension is for.  I think it was you that mentioned that the pension should be based on the person's ability to continue working (eg. medical issues) up until 70.  I couldn't agree more.  But as I have said in another post, compulsory superannuation has been around for my working career, and it is my generation (those that are 40 now) that will be the ones that won't be able to access the aged pension until 70.  These workers are the ones that have had compulsory superannuation for their working careers.

[Surferdude]

Fair point on the medical issues, Phil and Jamie.
We DO have disability pensions. I know they are under threat of some tightening of eligibility guidelines right now, but I would hope, over the next 30 years or so, some semblance of common sense would apply in the application of them.
It's probably not fair to consider just one aspect of social security support services. There is a whole raft of these, from the dole, retraining options, disabilty support, aged pensions, study allowances, carers' allowances and so on.
They were pretty abysmal back in the 60's where I based my comparisons and they've improved massively over the years but as with most things, sometimes they go too far and abuses occur.
Think unionism in particular.
So you get these highs and lows, but generally when you look back, the benefit trend is up.

[diablo]

The average life expectancy in Australia for males (females slightly higher) in 1962 was 68 years. It is now 80.
There are indications the increase is happening more quickly with about a 2½ year increase  in the last decade.
So if you retired at the age of 65 in 1962, you could only expect to live on average another 2-3 years. Let's leave the financial side of that alone for a minute and come back to it.

The trouble with comparing 'life expectancies' from different times is that you are comparing oranges with apples, they ain't the same.  Somebody born in the 1890s would have had a high chance of dying very young or being killed by something because we didn't yet have antibiotics.

If you actually reached 65 in 1960 then you would expect another 12 years of life on average.



There were plenty of ancient people around in the 60s I remember.

Though people are living longer now with improved health care.

I think that the 'normal' retirement ages of  60 for women and 65 for men (why was that when we blokes die earlier, eh?  ) were abolished in the UK a while back and the state pension age has been increasing.  But if you look at the ages that people give up work - it tends to be less than those ages. Some will have pensions but maybe some rely on social security until the pension comes in ?

I gave up working at 54 because I'd had enough and it was ruining my health, though I was lucky enough to have a fairly decent pension. Still got two years to wai until my state pension top-up comes in though.

[Surferdude]

The trouble with comparing 'life expectancies' from different times is that you are comparing oranges with apples, they ain't the same.  Somebody born in the 1890s would have had a high chance of dying very young or being killed by something because we didn't yet have antibiotics.

But that's my point exactly.
They are healthier, so they live longer.
And they are healthier, so working a few extra years to help prepare for an even longer retirement shouldn't be an issue.
Or, like you and me, stop in your own time and fund it yourself.

[rustynutz]

But are we gonna live longer?   

We're all gorging ourselves on junk food, we're becoming a nation of obese people as a result, we're ingesting more and more chemicals....cancer rates are on the up and up, you do have to wonder.... 

[rustynutz]

As for superannuation, more and more of the workforce are being pushed into casual work.

Unless things have changed in recent times you have to earn a certain amount before your employer has to contribute to your super. That's all well and good for those that work a lot of hours at the one job, but those that work at a number of different places could find they are getting bugger all.... 

[diablo]

As for superannuation, more and more of the workforce are being pushed into casual work.

Unless things have changed in recent times you have to earn a certain amount before your employer has to contribute to your super. That's all well and good for those that work a lot of hours at the one job, but those that work at a number of different places could find they are getting bugger all.... 

Occupational pensions in the UK have got worse over the years, in lots of sectors. The gov't have brought in some minimal requirements now but too little, too late.

The state pension is supposed to be increasing from 2016 but it will cut many other entitlements. So incomes may be less for many old people.

Somehow the rich always seem to get richer and the poor get poorer under our wonderful new neo-liberal economies. ??

[Mike SX]

We may be living longer, but it's more of a struggle each day.
Are Manual workers, that started work at 15, still able to safely carry out all their original contracted duties at 69 - considering that not all those jobs have labour saving devices, plus standing up all day, is particularly onerous.
I regularly do both office & manual work, and I know which one is far easier, working manually is hard graft, but working hard in the office just needs focus.
The Care Homes are full of folk who have "lived longer", with little quality of life.
I thought the original picture summed it up well 

[The Gonz]

... We're all gorging ourselves on junk food, we're becoming a nation of obese people as a result, we're ingesting more and more chemicals....

Not all of us, Rusty, but I take your point.

[Aussie Keith]

Given ageism in the community and frankly reality as well, who will be providing jobs for 70 year old labourers? If they can't get work will they go on the dole? If they are not well enough to perform labouring will they get a disability pension? And the same thing goes for many other professions as well.

Would you for example entrust your cataract operation to a 70 year old opthamologist?

So many questions.

[Mike SX]

Would you for example entrust your cataract operation to a 70 year old opthamologist?

With a greatly increased chance of undetected Dementia/Alzheimer's 

P.S. I'm off to work - BFNow 

[asathorny]

Smug self satisfaction and, I'm alright Jack springs to mind here.....

Well, I'm alright too, not because I was clever (like some here) or indeed because I was so well heeled as to buy investment property and/or stocks and shares.

I became a health worker (a registered nurse) on pretty bloody low money.   It was however superannuated and folks said, don't worry bout the small wages now Asa, you'll get a decent pension later.   Now the bastereds say, Oi, yer pensions too much you costing the country too much (bastards)...   

I didn't earn enough to save, nor buy investment property ner nothing of the kind.   

I was brought up in dire poverty in a single parent family.  Not a modern day single parent family where she just gets pregnant to get social housing and DSS money.   My single parent family setup came about when my father was shot dead by a f//king German.   So the day I turned 15 I had to turn out and get a labouring job to support a poor war widow mother.

I ain't crying in anyones beer, I have had a good life and by sheer will power I have gotten into a position of reasonable comfort in my old age.

I am however not smug and self satisfied because I know through bitter exprience that there are plenty of people out there who just could not climb up the greasy pole, there where too many smug boots on their heads.

There ya go Alan, is that good enough moan for ya 

[asathorny]

Before the air raid starts I will get my hat and coat on and get off to work now...   yes I am in my seventies and yes I still go to work     

[Surferdude]

I doubt anyone in our age group with kids and grandkids would be smug or think they're allright Jack.
Certainly I don't.
I do feel as I said above that the raft of support options available are satisfactory.

I also can't comment on the situation in the UK. I'm only referring to the 70 retirement age because next week our Federal Gov't will reveal its Budget which is reputed to be a horror story. It will include an increase to 70 by (I think) 2034.

A few posters on here have mentioned that if you organise your finances and invest in your retirement through super, then you will have the option of retiring early, but if not, and you want to just use a pension to retire on, then you'll have to wait until 70. 

Hate to tell you, but this is not the governments intention. The intent is to not allow you to access your super until you are 70.

[Doggie 1]

Current data also suggests that one third of people born today will live to be 100!!  We are living longer, why shouldn't we work longer. 

Pigeons please welcome the cats to your house.

Research also shows that 100% of people in the world who were born in 1958 and are still alive are either 55 or 56 years old.

[FatBoy]

A few posters on here have mentioned that if you organise your finances and invest in your retirement through super, then you will have the option of retiring early, but if not, and you want to just use a pension to retire on, then you'll have to wait until 70. 

Hate to tell you, but this is not the governments intention. The intent is to not allow you to access your super until you are 70.

Is this your opinion or is it written somewhere?  Proving intent of the government is like kneeing yourself in the bum (you can't do it).  All of the information that I have read is that it is for the aged pension only.  Why would the government restrict access to your own money?

A few posters on here have mentioned that if you organise your finances and invest in your retirement through super, then you will have the option of retiring early, but if not, and you want to just use a pension to retire on, then you'll have to wait until 70. 

Hate to tell you, but this is not the governments intention. The intent is to not allow you to access your super until you are 70.

Is this your opinion or is it written somewhere?  Proving intent of the government is like kneeing yourself in the bum (you can't do it).  All of the information that I have read is that it is for the aged pension only.  Why would the government restrict access to your own money?

It has been mentioned by Hockey in interviews.  The government does and can regulate about access to super funds.  This exists now.  The whole point of super funds that exist and were introduced by Keating was to take the pressure off pension drain on the economy.  To allow people to access super early would drain these funds and force elderly onto pensions when super funds are exhausted is senseless logic.  Wait and see what is in the pipeline.......

[Dazzler]

I am in a difficult position on this issue!

I can fully understand the Government's position on this due to the aging population. The previous Governments had already started the process of raising the age from 65, as have many other countries around the world.

On the flip side had I not had a helping hand from my late Mother, I would have had to keep working (and rely on a pension)  My super got depleted by a couple of failed relationships.

So I am one of the lucky ones! 

I've done some research on the preservation age for super access.  It currently sits at 60.  The Commission of Audit has recommended this be increased to 62 and eventually to 65.  This is in line with the 5 year gap that already exists between the pension entitlement age and the preservation age for super.

Most commentators seem to suggest this is a likely outcome.

I'm going to access my super early in 2015 at age 65.  It's a pension super fund that will be CPI indexed for life at 75% of my salary at retirement, so the chances of me getting any pension or assistance for healthcare is nil.  I'm not complaining and I'm not anxious about my own financial security, but I do have compassion for others who may not be fit to work approaching retirement at 70 and will either be forced to work or will end up on welfare anyway.

As a couple, the only issue we will have is that Sue is 12 years younger and will have to wait longer now to access her super.