Thread: Pension Age may move to 70

If my current , and past few years , employment as either a casual or temp is anything to go on , another twenty years to look foreward to makes me think it is time to re think euthanasia. One way or another I can see more people toeing up on the job. Not much out there for older , manual workers. But it will save on some ever getting a pension.

Originally Posted by jx2mad

Bunnings. I am a retired telecom tech officer and I can't even crack an interview with Bunnings

Neither can I because I can only provide my previous bosses who work in govt. orgs. as referees. They are not permitted to give references.

No referees, no interview.

This move will have many workers on unemployment benefits for up to 25 years. Anybody who has been unemployed over age 45 knows full well that age discrimination is rampant out there in the private sector. If you drop your age/ date of birth from your cv you may get interviews but never get any further. Further, many occupations have a use by date. Brickies and carpenters are examples. Cumulative injuries, carpal tunnel, RSI, arthritis will preclude them from performing the normal duties of their calling, but not sufficient to qualify for the Disability Pension.

Originally Posted by p38arover

Neither can I because I can only provide my previous bosses who work in govt. orgs. as referees. They are not permitted to give references.

Why can't they give references?

Just a historical fact to put the age thing in context a bit. When the aged pension was first provided in the UK, they set retirement age to 65 because almost everyone was dead by 64! It was only meant to be a measure of last resort for those at the end of life who could no longer physically look after themselves, a bit like our disability pension is meant to be.

With much extended life spans, its a bit unrealistic to expect people to not work longer. And yes, I will be caught up in this, being a sprightly 41, I will now be working for another 30 years, while watching many of my work colleagues retiring now at 55. It would be nice to think I could retire in 15 years, but I'd rather see my taxes being spent on my kids' needs than on early retirement plans.

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Are the politician retirement entitlements also included in this?
Are they going to be able to get their retirement entitlements only after their 70 birthday ?
Is their payment or this entitlement affected by any other income like the normal age pension it is affected.
I guess that it also help the economy if they include their entitlements in this proposed policy.
I am dreaming?

Yep, you are dreaming. Pollies can access their "pension" as soon as they retire from politics (after only 9 years) and then continue working as "consultants", in business or whatever, regardless of age. Plus their pension entitlements and perks are higher than us "normal" people.

Originally Posted by p38arover

Neither can I because I can only provide my previous bosses who work in govt. orgs. as referees. They are not permitted to give references.

No referees, no interview.

Not in Tasmania, here references are permitted at least in state government departments.

This may have made some form of sense if howard had allowed Keatings plan to increase super to 12% to go through in the early 90's, instead they axed that and aren't they going to stall the rudd/Gillard proposal of a similar nature?
So now they make it harder for you to save to retire and not allow you to retire to a pension before 70


Here it is:
http://www.superguide.com.au/how-sup...berals-sg-lisc


Labor also swung the axe to far in the limit on contributions, as it should be higher so people who are ready/close to retire can boost their super in the last few years of work. This worked well in the past with many of the older blokes who retired from my dept. having no debt dropping a majority of their last 2-5 yrs pay into their super to both reduce tax and provide for themselves so most either don't get a pension or just squeeze into the lowest paid bracket to get medical etc. The govt might lose some $$$ today in tax but would save 3-5 times that in reduced pensions tomorrow.

The preamble to the legislation creating the Age Pension about 1909 read that it was to provide for those who through illness or misfortune were unable to fully provide for themselves in their old age. Note the word "fully". It was never the intention of parliament that the Age Pension would be a persons sole support, but a supplement to their own resources.

My last job was in Social Security and barely a day would go by without a claimant complaining that they "had worked and paid taxes for 50 years and should be entitled to a pension." The departments position was that your taxes go into consolidated revenue to run the country, not a piggy bank from which a pension is miraculously paid when you retire. Pensions are paid from this consolidated revenue, not your piggy bank.