Thread: Pension Age may move to 70

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

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.

Hmm.......I'm slightly insulted by this remark. In my case I have now worked for almost 54 years and paid taxes for most of that time. Except for a couple of short periods when I was unemployed.

When you are my age, still working, paying taxes and I look at some of the young bludgers who are on some sort of Disability Benefit, I get quite frustrated, not that I am against genuine cases.Some people seem to think of being on the dole as a life choice.
I work as a permanent bus driver doing route work and the other day I had this young bloke get on the bus (he wouldn't be more than 20) and he showed me a Pension Excursion Ticket. I said to him, "Do you have a Pension Card" and he did indeed have one and he said to me "Yes, I am a pensioner.....man", now he may have been genuine, I don't know but he was dishevelled and looked like he hadn't had a change of clothes in days. I see lost causes get on the bus everyday.

I hope to retire when I am 70 to 72 and I tell you what .....my hand won't be trembling when I put it out for a pension.

Probably the best thing for the budget is for us old blokes to die off when we turn 70, then there would not be a problem. Except if you are a politician with your snout in the trough, they can live a bit longer.

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

Pensions are paid from this consolidated revenue, not your piggy bank.

And, we should never forget when the government of the day took from the piggy banks of veterans a large part of their super contributions and put it into consolidated revenue. And never paid it back. Bob

Originally Posted by Chucaro

IMO one of the things that will happen in the near future regarding pensions and also cost of real estate will be that in a house (large if they have the money) will live 2 or 3 generations.
Most probably the house will be own by the old ones, and the young will live there as well because they will be unable to have their own home.
Therefore generations will help each other.
That it is what happens in many countries in the world.

Or the only way the young ones will get a house is if the older ones are able to help them financially.There is no way the majority of them will be able to afford a house,particularly if the current trend continues.

It is amazing how things have changed,when i was in my early twenties,we bought a house in downtown Kingston,interest rates were 18%,with no financial help from anyone....
Had it payed off in 5yrs,then bought a rental,and things snowballed from then.

Just glad I'm one of those in a defined benefit. I have added to it since I started work and should be sitting pretty. It is one of the things i have pointed out to my kids. We may not have the $$ now but when I retire we will be self sufficient.

Pensions will not be around soon and yes you have to plan for your future. Also if they raise the retirement age it will be like last time a staged thing based on when you were born so it is the younger workers staring down the barrel of 70.

Originally Posted by bob10

And, we should never forget when the government of the day took from the piggy banks of veterans a large part of their super contributions and put it into consolidated revenue. And never paid it back. Bob

Bob, it was a Menzies government. They also took the government contributions from the public service super. scheme saying in future the governments obligation would be funded from consolidated revenue each year. Those old enough will remember when our annual tax return was called income tax and social services contributions. The contributions were to establish an accumulation fund to pay future pensions. What a good idea you say. Well, these disappeared into treasury the same time leaving the welfare bill to be paid from consolidated revenue which Hockey and Abbott are telling us can no longer be afforded.

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

Bob, it was a Menzies government. They also took the government contributions from the public service super. scheme saying in future the governments obligation would be funded from consolidated revenue each year. Those old enough will remember when our annual tax return was called income tax and social services contributions. The contributions were to establish an accumulation fund to pay future pensions. What a good idea you say. Well, these disappeared into treasury the same time leaving the welfare bill to be paid from consolidated revenue which Hockey and Abbott are telling us can no longer be afforded.

Thanks, Brian. You would certainly know more about the subject than I, what I was referring to was this extract from information on the Standto web site. I had no idea this happened until I read the info, Bob


"Circa 1973. $126 million in accumulated DFRDB /DFRB superannuation funds reallocated into consolidated revenue. Funds declared untaxed. (The DFRB fund had approximately $160M as at 30 June 1972 but adjustments were required) The final balance of $126M was actually transferred into Consolidated Revenue in 1975 by the Whitlam Government.1976. New Government in 1976 did not rescind the move into consolidated revenue. "

Originally Posted by bob10

Thanks, Brian. You would certainly know more about the subject than I, what I was referring to was this extract from information on the Standto web site. I had no idea this happened until I read the info, Bob


"Circa 1973. $126 million in accumulated DFRDB /DFRB superannuation funds reallocated into consolidated revenue. Funds declared untaxed. (The DFRB fund had approximately $160M as at 30 June 1972 but adjustments were required) The final balance of $126M was actually transferred into Consolidated Revenue in 1975 by the Whitlam Government.1976. New Government in 1976 did not rescind the move into consolidated revenue. "

Bob, I was sure it was Menzies who did the job on the public service super. but I could be wrong. A consequence is that the super. pensions are taxable income as they are paid from revenue by Treasury not from a super. fund. The indexation is a disgrace, a pittance.

Originally Posted by Ausfree

Hmm.......I'm slightly insulted by this remark. In my case I have now worked for almost 54 years and paid taxes for most of that time. Except for a couple of short periods when I was unemployed.

When you are my age, still working, paying taxes and I look at some of the young bludgers who are on some sort of Disability Benefit, I get quite frustrated, not that I am against genuine cases.Some people seem to think of being on the dole as a life choice.
I work as a permanent bus driver doing route work and the other day I had this young bloke get on the bus (he wouldn't be more than 20) and he showed me a Pension Excursion Ticket. I said to him, "Do you have a Pension Card" and he did indeed have one and he said to me "Yes, I am a pensioner.....man", now he may have been genuine, I don't know but he was dishevelled and looked like he hadn't had a change of clothes in days. I see lost causes get on the bus everyday.

I hope to retire when I am 70 to 72 and I tell you what .....my hand won't be trembling when I put it out for a pension.

Probably the best thing for the budget is for us old blokes to die off when we turn 70, then there would not be a problem. Except if you are a politician with your snout in the trough, they can live a bit longer.

There would not have been a day go by that a staff member was not abused by a pension claimant when refused a pension under the income/assets test, usually accompanied by the traditional tirade "I have paid taxes for *** years". The fact is that the income/assets test is extraordinarily generous. One can be quite wealthy and still receive a part pension. Anyone refused on these grounds either has so much money they can't qualify or have not prepared properly or have been badly advised.

Pensions are paid from age 16 if eligible. No surprise that there are young people on a DSP if they qualify. The DSP has become much harder to get today than in the past. Nowadays the claimant has to have at least 20 points on one scale to be considered. Multiple disabilities on other scales are disregarded if under 20 points. In the past a percentage system was used and multiple disabilities were added in to give a total percentage disability. Not so now.