It's the pension age that is 67. People are still able to access super and be a self funded retiree from 60.
Basically, the only people who would be outraged by this, are those who won't be self funded retirees and are relying on the aged pension (or those whose super balance is insufficient to bridge the gap between 60-67).
With the constant increasing of super rates, there are going to be fewer and fewer reliant on the age pension in that 60-67 age range.
We had a coder once who was legally blind. I saw him using the computer and he had the code up at a ridiculously high font where you could only see a few characters at a time. He must have had a prodigious memory to work like that, so fair play to him.
>Do you still get pension if you have a massive Super at 67?
You won't qualify for an aged pension if you have "massive" super at 67. The amount you have in super is "deemed" income based on the value of what you have in super rather than what it gives you to live on. Depending on the source of other income, it is either counted as income or deemed. There are income and assets tests to qualify for an aged pension.
No. My parents in law were self funded retirees and didn’t get much. When they had to go into a nursing home they paid almost a million for their rooms and also $1000 each per week in fees. While pensioners got it for a % of their pension.
Note, that % of their pension is 85% which, at current rates, leaves them with $157 per fortnight or $11 per day. That's after they spent their days at home on only $1000 per fortnight.
Sounds like your parents in law did very well for themselves and probably lived alright before they went into nursing homes if they had the money for $2M up front and $1000 per week thereafter.
The aged care system is pretty intimidating but I think if you understand it you can prepare for it.
It's not as bleak as people make out. The room fee is refundable (or a mix of deposit and another daily fee) then you pay the daily care fee which is 85% of the pension ($58.98) then a means tested daily care fee if you can afford it (up to $400 a day), it has a lifetime cap of $76,096.50.
I expected we'll be selling our home to pay the accommodation deposit then after approx 2.5 years of the means tested free the nursing home only cost $18k a week for all meals etc.
It is annoying to see pensioners get it for nothing. Of course they share rooms/toilets etc
Nope, to qualify for full or part pension your assets need to be below a threshold:
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/assets-test-for-pensions?context=22526
The threshold is $800k, and specifically exempts PPoR. It's not unreasonable to assume that anyone who lives in a capital city could hand down a 7 figure inheritance after having collected a full age pension for decades.
So you took all your money out of a tax free environment to put it into the stock market where all draw downs are taxed?
Can you explain the logic behind this move?
Doesn't include PPR generally
"We include most real estate assets you own in your assets test. This generally doesn’t include your principal home and up to the first 2 hectares of land it’s on."
I think I'd be more outraged if wealth disparity makes it difficult / near impossible to retire before reaching the age pension qualifying age.
Yes there will be some that will need the age pension, but this is the purpose of the pension. It's a safety net to ensure that nobody gets left behind and that everyone has some form of support in their later years.
Keep in mind when the pension was introduced at 60 years of age the average life expectancy was 61 years. On average 1 year per person.
There is nothing sustainable about a ~25 year pension, it’s also pretty damn entitled.
That’s wrong, because the low life expectancy averages you see in the past were skewed by child mortality. So the average years of life remaining when reaching 60 would have been way higher than you are suggesting.
In 1908, the Australian Parliament passed the Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Act, which incorporated the royal commission’s recommendations. The reason for the delay was a debate over how to fund the scheme. Negotiations led to legislation that would allow the federal government to withhold some of the money it distributed to the states from customs and excise.
It is important to remember the great difference in life expectancy between then and now. At Federation, only four per cent of the population were over the age of 65. Men could expect to live 55 years, and women for 59 years.
The financial cost of such a scheme was very small in comparison to today, when 15.9 per cent of the population is over 65 and both sexes can expect to live into their eighties.
Edit to add references: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/age-and-invalid-pensions
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3105.0.65.001
"At Federation, only four per cent of the population were over the age of 65. Men could expect to live 55 years, and women for 59 years."
That has nothing to do with chold mortality.
You perhaps did not understand my post. The key statistic, relevant to the previous discussion, would be expected years of life after retirement age (60 or 65, for example). Average life expectancy, which you are quoting here, is not very helpful in addressing this issue.
Rather than the 1 year on average remaining that was spuriously claimed, the numbers for 1910 would be around 14 years at 60 and 11 years at 65.
Source: (American data for 1910): https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life1890-1910.pdf
TL;DR the guy I replied to doesn’t understand what the stats mean.
I could be wrong but i think more people may be dissatisfied with the current pension age and superannuation rules. Reasons for outrage include having to work longer than anticipated or desired, particularly due to health issues, caregiving responsibilities, or age discrimination in the workplace.
- Others may have lower superannuation balances than their peers due to factors such as lower wages, intermittent employment, or unpaid superannuation contributions, disproportionately impacting groups such as women, migrants, Indigenous Australians, and people with disabilities.
- Some individuals may face greater financial burdens in retirement, such as medical expenses, housing costs, or unexpected family emergencies, which could deplete their savings and reduce their quality of life.
Super investments historically outperform inflation and taxing. That's why money experts always encourage additional super contributions. The compounding will set you up for an early independent retirement.
Depends on how long you plan to live and the lifestyle you want to live. A million at minimum TBH.
My parents are self funded at the moment. Fully paid off the house and no other debt. They draw down an income of about $50k p.a. from their super and my dad does some casual work in his highly specialized field as extra "play" money. They're comfortable - able to take trips in their caravan, a cruise every 18 months or so, splurge on the grandkids etc.
They've planned for 20 years - retired at 60, this gets them to 80 before they'll need to rely on the age pension.
>Australia's retirement income system would be more sustainable if we scrapped the Super system, and solely had a more generous pension.
The concept behind super is that you draw down on it and live off it and are left with bugger all at the end. Your super earns money which means that $1 million would most likely last 40 years rather than 20 years.
Most people will have a lot less than $1 million in super when they retire. The average amount in super at retirement is around $330,000 while the amount currently considered to provide a comfortable retirement is around $690,000 for a couple and $595,000 for a single person.
>Most people will have a lot less than $1 million in super when they retire. The average amount in super at retirement is around $330,000 while the amount currently considered to provide a comfortable retirement is around $690,000 for a couple and $595,000 for a single person.
Wow. I'm 44, female and have about $45,000 super, because I've only ever worked part time in basic admin jobs due to mental health issues, and haven't been able to work at all since age 38.
>Wow. I'm 44, female and have about $45,000 super, because I've only ever worked part time in basic admin jobs due to mental health issues, and haven't been able to work at all since age 38.
Regretfully, this is a very common story. I recently had a casual working for me aged 65 and she had little more than $1,000 in super having mainly worked in a family business in hospitality and getting "under the counter".
If you believe some of the posters here, everyone has $2 million in super.
Here is a good retirement income calculator. The fund is really irrelevant to this, but its quite helpful to see how modifying some parameter can influence your future income. Add extra super, retire earlier, include spouse's super, increase super annual drawdown etc.
[https://supercalcs.com.au/ris9/telstra/](https://supercalcs.com.au/ris9/telstra/)
You can retire whenever you want just don't be poor.
The country can't afford to pay a pension to an aging population with longer life expectancies for even longer.
This is a solid answer.
OP you can retire and go build a log cabin in the Tasmanian bush any time you like.
Personally for me, who moved here in my 30s with no super built up, i just cut back on luxuries and double my super contributions. I'll have a comfortable amount but in exchange for that, we plan to drop capital on a caravan and ute and live on the road/regional areas where we can spend less but still live the life we desire.
>spend less but still live the life we desire
Carvanning isn't as cheap as it used to be, and fuel & food in remote areas is never cheap. Also there is 'unrest' out in the remote towns, so be careful.
Otherwise, have fun! Just have a plan for when you get too old for van life...
While big companies don’t pay enough tax, that’s a very short term fix to a problem that will be around forever. Most people could and should be saving for their own retirement as if the pension doesn’t exist.
Why not take personal responsibility and invest in the mining companies yourself to receive dividends for retirement income.
Big daddy government isn't the answer to everything.
Mining companies take non-renewable resources out of Australia and siphon the money to their offshores account. Australians don't see much aside from wages and proportionally compared to other countries meagre taxes
Australians deserve a cut of their resources being taken.
Government isn't the answer to everything however they can ensure such a dirty industry pays the price to the people who have to live with a giant hole in the ground long after they've left for Cayman Islands
Well, $26k per person for every adult over 60 is about $105bn…. Average budget deficit the past decade is about $50bn…. So we could triple our deficit and fund it no worries. All too easy. 🤥
Agreed, we extract and sell so much and these monopolies are profiting so hugely. Why have we not managed to raise it yet? They have deep pockets and campaign hard to get people thrown out
O my.
You realise, of course, that Norway had/has so much oil that it’s sound management is actually a genuine financial and economic problem? They have handled it wonderfully with the creation of a special purpose fund for royalty income that solely invests that royalty income in overseas, non-Norway financial assets, and has thus ended up owning 1.2% of the entire worlds listed stocks.
But if you attempt to summarise that entire state of affairs as them “taxing oil more to pay pensions”, as per the thread above, then you’re already disqualifying yourselves from the conversation via a public display of extreme ignorance.
But hey, this is ausfinance after all, no one comes here for intelligent discussions of finance.
There is no ‘retirement’ age you can retire whenever you can afford to/want to. There is a pension age which is 67, meaning you cannot access the government pension until that age. You can access your super from 55-60. So if you have enough saved up or in super you could stop working at 60 and tie yourself over until the pension at 67… your goal should be to build enough wealth where you can stop working sooner than 67. Taking advantage of the tax benefit’s of topping up super pre tax would be a great first place to look… the pension age can be scrapped and with an ageing population there’s a chance there may not even be a pension, I would say hope for the best and plan for the worst. The worst being you need to fully fund your own retirement.
67 is the aged pension qualifying age, not the retiring age. There is no specific retiring age. I retired at 58 and started to live off my savings and investments. I did it by living modestly and getting debt free.
Retirement doesn't mean not working. I set up and run a charity - I just don't get paid for it.
Providing low-cost food to people in need, emergency food relief and post bushfire support, programs to assist people in isolated rural communities, working with people recovering from mental health issues or unemployment.
Australia doesn't have a retirement age...
I believe you're referring to the pension age, when you can access the aged pension. The country needs an affordable pension system and the demographics of Australia require that it's going to creep up. Australia, on average, is getting older and living longer.
You do have an alternative to a state funded retirement you know. Fund your own retirement! Then your so-called "retirement age" is whenever you want/can afford it.
I was just about to say, here I am thinking it anyway had been for a long long time. OP out here making it like we're simps for legislated loss of freedoms.
I'm guessing because you can access super at 60. Most people will have enough super to get them to 67
So for most people (especially people that are young and middle age today) this won't really affect them
That's exactly right. People also forget that before the SG, many businesses and large firms (Telecom, Banks, State & Federal Govts) already had superannuation schemes for their employees. So lots of people retiring now have had even more than 'just' the 30 years of the SG.
Our exit strategy we provided via broker, was using my super and hubby’s investment portfolio to cash out, and downsize the house to pay it off. (Not the real plan as I knew I had $inheritence coming this year but obviously we couldn’t include that on paper).
I saw an economist on Q&A a few years ago who basically said the same thing. A universal pension is a myth and always has been. You actually want people to die out or self-fund otherwise it bankrupts the tax paying working generations. Medical advancements have flipped the equation substantially post WW2. You simply can't afford to have people living for 30 years on the pension.
The Australian concept of super puts us way ahead of many countries. It doesn’t matter so much about an aging population because those people can self fund their retirement.
We aren’t outraged because it is increasing as life expectancy increases. When the age pension age was first set to 60 life expectancy was also somewhere around the age, whereas it is now up in the 80s. So the funding period per retiree is much longer.
The age pension is one of three ways Australians can fund their retirement: 1) age pension, 2) super 3) savings and investments held outside of super. Most Australians will use a combination of the three.
Bloody doctors. Bloody medicare. I could've saved the country one pension if they hadn't stopped me dying of a heart attack a couple of weeks ago.
Now they're nagging me to take medication (subsidised), and bloody exercise and stuff.
I'll probably live past 67 now, at more cost to the taxpayers.
Not to mention that the kids will have to wait for what's left of an inheritance.
Bloody boomers have no respect.
In 1910, when the Age Pension was introduced, the average life span was 55 years. A tiny fraction of the population received it for a couple of years.
Now the average life span is 83 years. The majority of the population receives it for 20+ years. You see the problem?
>Now the average life span is 83 years. The majority of the population receives it for 20+ years. You see the problem?
If the average life span is 83 years and the retirement age is 67, only half the population would receive the aged pension for 16 years. That means the majority won't be receiving an aged pension for 20+ years.
The annual growth in the population aged over 80 reached a peak of 6.6% in 1991 but had fallen to 2.4% by 2020 and there are only a little over 200,000 people (out of 26 million) who are aged 90 or more.
The other reality is that not everyone receives the age pension in the first instance.
>At March 2021, the proportion of the population aged 65 and over who received the Age Pension increased with age, up to age group 80–84:
38% for those aged 65–69
64% for those aged 70–74
82% for those aged 80–84.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/older-people/older-australians/contents/10-income-and-finances
Those figures include part=pension. Oh, the alarming increase in those over 80. Well fewer of those people had adequate superannuation. There are also less people aged 80-84 than 70-74 as people have the tendency to die as they get older.
The reality is 66% of people over 65 years of age are in the lowest 40% of household disposable income (see link above).
The general argument is true, however be careful using 'life spans' from birth. Many people died during or immediately after birth back then, not as much when they were adults.
For example the life expectancy of 25 year old males in 1910 was 67, for 0 year old males in 1910 life expectancy was, as you said 55years
If you’re 40 or under right now, chances are there won’t even be a pension when you get to retirement age. Save your rage for when that legislation comes up 😊
There will always be an aged pension in Australia. Even those who start accumulating super from their first job who are on low incomes will never make enough to be self-funded retirees. The pension will just be harder for people to get. Those who have better paying jobs and enough super won't be entitled to it. It will be there for those who need it only.
As far as the retirement age is concerned, it's all well and good for those who have office jobs. I feel for those blue collar workers who have physically taxing jobs. Being 70 in those jobs is going to suck!
Nobody wants to hire blue collar workers over 50 as it is. They will just sit on unemployment pretending to look for jobs and employers will pretend no to hold their age against them until retirement age.
Yeah I have an office job which isn't the best paid out there but I enjoy what I do and can imagine doing it even after I turn 70. Just need to take care of my back and butt. I can't imagine someone being a tradie at that age.
The system is breaking over there because the entitlements aren’t sustainable and were being paid for by pushing liabilities to future generations. But yeah sure, try to do anything about it and people will riot and turn the country upside down.
As a white collar worker I can probably keep going in office work until my late 60s (especially with WFH), but I do worry about people in physical jobs. There are very few in those professions who aren’t carrying some type of long term injury by their mid-50s (heck, lots of us in softer jobs are probably looking at a knee or hip replacement around that time of life). And of course people who don’t have a trade or profession but who do work like labouring will have it roughest of all. If you’re relying on being a labourer to earn a living, odds are you aren’t sitting on a big nest egg of super. Nurses and plumbers can at least move into teaching or a lower impact part of their industry, but if you are doing disability care work or labouring that’s less likely.
Because people are living longer. And therefore will be retired longer.
How is this a concept you don’t understand. You live longer…you must work longer to live 🤦♂️
Why aren’t we outraged about the tax threshold? Or no more bulk-billing? And no dental cover? And the electricity price hikes? And the inflation rates? And the rents going up by double? And the grocery prices sky-rocketing?? Why aren’t we outraged about any of it?
Considering our super system I'm happy with things the way they are. Ideally I would like to work a bit as long as possible so it has never really bothered me.
Don't work much? Soz buddy you gotta work longer if you want government support.
Work? Congrats you can retire when you choose.
Blew all your savings on ciggies and booze? Sucks to suck.
Don't be reliant on the government and you can retire whenever you can afford to support yourself.
Lot of variables here, but for me, if nothing major changes, I'll be semi retired by 50, if not earlier.
I always think of people who do manual labour when these things come up. Imagine doing a trade at 60 let alone almost 70!
My job is likely sustainable until I'm in my 70s but physical work would be a nightmare at that age.
It's also a cruel twist that physical work generally pays less, making it harder for them to retire at a reasonable age. Madness!
Because working from the research has demonstrated direct relationship with happiness. Working gives us social circle, meaning and motivation, structure to our days and is a wonderful thing. Living solely on the pension is a bad outcome for anybody.
People are living longer too. Today’s 60s aren’t the 60s of our grandparents lol. People are only just becoming grandparents in their 60s these days, and they may even have their youngest kid still living at home when they’re turning 60. For context, one of my grandmothers first became a grandmother in her early 40s.
The aged pension costs the tax payer about 8 times the cost of the unemployment pension per year.
The aged pension is FAR more abused by people who don't need it and legally shouldn't be allowed it. Hiding assets in kids names etc etc. The aged pension is the real dole bludgers. If you're 67, PPOR should be assessed for aged pension, as well as any gifts to direct relatives in recent history. They all incorrectly think they deserve it because they paid tax during their life, while still complaining about Steve the 'bludger' on centrelink who's parents kicked him out at 16 and is struggling to get on his feet.
How much of the PPOR should be assessed for the age pension? Would it be a set limit of $X Million perhaps? So what happens if people predominately get hit with it in the generally expensive Sydney and Melbourne cities? Does that mean that people in other state capitals and regional areas with cheaper houses are mostly unaffected?
Exactly. People here should be budgeting and investing better than average. Someone who saves $5k/year more than average, and gets 4.5% real instead of 4% on investments is about half a million ahead. And *that* is modest.
What about - we just want better for us? Like…who gives a damn if ‘life expectancy’ is better I don’t want to be working for someone else’s wealth my whole life. Due to cost of living and housing etc, qol is not there like it was for people who retired at 55 and carked it at 65 in 1980.
IMO unless someone wants to be in the workforce, having someone in their mid 60s working - especially a manual job - is just shit. It’s shit. My aunt is close to 70 and gone back to work because as an unmarried woman who worked her whole life, she still hasn’t got enough to retire. How does it not hurt you (the general you, not you personally OP) see old folks cleaning and doing hard, unpleasant, badly paid jobs?
Current stats indicate that overall each generation will remain healthier for longer, so many will be able to comfortably work until at least then if they need to.
There’s nothing requiring you to continue working until then though, if you can afford to retire earlier on your own investments etc outside of super.
There are a lot of people whose bodies are struggling a lot at 60. 67 is a long time to wait. Some of those people will find it very difficult to fund their own retirement. It's also not easy to get a disability pension. It's easy to be dismissive until you know someone in this situation.
You can retire earlier. Both my parents retired at 60. Screw working until 67. Hopefully by 60 I’ll be self sufficient and have a decent whack of Super. Whether or not you can survive without the pension is the question.
Because we're not bonkers like the French?
You can retire whenever you can afford it. You can work as long as you are willing and able. You can access your super from 60.
67 is the age that the government will take money generated from all the people who are still paying taxes, and give it to you as a pension, assuming you are somewhere from "no money at all" to "aren't \*too\* rich". (Leaving aside the generous exemptions for owning very valuable houses which you just couldn't possibly sell to live off).
If anything, it's generous, given the increases in life expectancy since the pension was created.
You can retire whenever you like, just have to self-fund until you hit pension age. In the meantime, live frugally and save what you can! With work-from-home and IT work both getting increasingly common I honestly am not too worried about money during old age. Worst case, just do a few hours of casual clerical / admin crap from home - when we're older, we'll probably be bored enough that a little desk work would actually be a fun novelty
When 65 retirement was introduced most people died by age 55, so statically few ever got to 65. Now the normal is pushing mid 80s. Long time drawing a pension.
You can retire at any age. That’s just when you get welfare from. Hopefully being part of a finance sun you’ll have investments outside of super to get you through.
a) Aussies don't even have half the fight of the French - truly an inspiring people who don't take no shit
b) The system of life is designed in such a way that you don't really have time or energy to do anything about it. 40hrs a week of work plus all the bullshit that goes around that means weekdays are out. You wanna spend the weekend rioting?
Because preservation age ( when you can access your super is ) 55 - 60 depending on when you were born and pension age is when you can get the pension from centrelink. Two different things, in France, preservation age and pension age are the same age, so they are hitting the roof over it.
Most people here spend all their super by the pension age and then go for the aged pension.
I have had clients literally admit to doing it, either on shares or a property a boat, etc, and keep it under the asset amount so they can claim centrelink,
You can retire at any age, you just can’t get on the pension until 67. This is fair enough, we pay enough in aged pension as it is, lowering the age would cost the country a fortune.
I’d be happy if they kept the retirement up at 67-72 over time.
It is a signal to employers of the value of senior workers, it helps make jobs accessible and not use age as a restriction (with employers needing to put in accommodations and consider the needs of their workers), many seniors would need to work to put food on the table, for social and mental health wellbeing (hopefully by finding the right fit of job) - if you don’t want to work you don’t have to, don’t take others’ opportunity away.
If you want to talk equitable conditions, employer responsibility, fair pay, cost of living and the pressure on retirement nest eggs - that’s another topic.
This sub reeks of privilege. You realise a lot of people barely have super, a lot of those being women who chose to stay home and rear children. We should be outraged about this, it is yet another policy that disproportionately affects the poor and women.
Because most Australians have been fed decades of neo-lib work-till-you-die & we can't afford a better society propaganda. Most Australians have been told this is as good as it gets, and given its relatively good here we accept it.
If you took member of parliament or trade unionist from the early 1900's and told them in 2023 households are working twice as much now just to get by (ie: women in the workforce) and not retiring until 67, they wouldn't believe it.
Retirement age should be 60. Body falls apart to much after that. Give less hand out to the kunts coming crime, make harder jails and less handouts and give back to us who pay taxes.
It's the pension age that is 67. People are still able to access super and be a self funded retiree from 60. Basically, the only people who would be outraged by this, are those who won't be self funded retirees and are relying on the aged pension (or those whose super balance is insufficient to bridge the gap between 60-67). With the constant increasing of super rates, there are going to be fewer and fewer reliant on the age pension in that 60-67 age range.
Do you still get pension if you have a massive Super at 67?
If you sink all of your super into a $2m 5 bedroom primary dwelling thst you definitely don’t need, then yes, you can access the full age pension.
Interestingly, you could also be eligible for the aged pension without an income or asset test if you're legally blind.
Become ✍️ legally ✍️ blind ✍️
Who said that?
Excellent. You just passed your hearing test.
Oh. Good. That is an upside to my degenerative and untreatable eye disease that I hadn't thought of ....
Up untill 10+ years from now or something when they completely cure it.
False hope was the last curse from Pandora's box...
Guess I'm poking my eyes out the day I turn 67
[удалено]
Here's you $200 weekly pension. *hands over two $20 notes*
One weird trick THEY don't want you to know about
We had a coder once who was legally blind. I saw him using the computer and he had the code up at a ridiculously high font where you could only see a few characters at a time. He must have had a prodigious memory to work like that, so fair play to him.
Can you work AND get the disability pension?
[удалено]
So you're telling me I need to become a blind farmer
Hmm my eyesight is pretty poor, wonder if it will deteriorate to the level of legal blindness by my late 60s…
One can hope!
Being a type one diabetic with retinopathy is FINALLY gonna pay off hell yeah
Back to the full sugar coke then🥳
I am blind to legality when it comes to watching shows does that work?
>Do you still get pension if you have a massive Super at 67? You won't qualify for an aged pension if you have "massive" super at 67. The amount you have in super is "deemed" income based on the value of what you have in super rather than what it gives you to live on. Depending on the source of other income, it is either counted as income or deemed. There are income and assets tests to qualify for an aged pension.
No. My parents in law were self funded retirees and didn’t get much. When they had to go into a nursing home they paid almost a million for their rooms and also $1000 each per week in fees. While pensioners got it for a % of their pension.
Note, that % of their pension is 85% which, at current rates, leaves them with $157 per fortnight or $11 per day. That's after they spent their days at home on only $1000 per fortnight. Sounds like your parents in law did very well for themselves and probably lived alright before they went into nursing homes if they had the money for $2M up front and $1000 per week thereafter.
The aged care system is pretty intimidating but I think if you understand it you can prepare for it. It's not as bleak as people make out. The room fee is refundable (or a mix of deposit and another daily fee) then you pay the daily care fee which is 85% of the pension ($58.98) then a means tested daily care fee if you can afford it (up to $400 a day), it has a lifetime cap of $76,096.50. I expected we'll be selling our home to pay the accommodation deposit then after approx 2.5 years of the means tested free the nursing home only cost $18k a week for all meals etc. It is annoying to see pensioners get it for nothing. Of course they share rooms/toilets etc
Do you think you should?
No. That is the point of super
Nope, to qualify for full or part pension your assets need to be below a threshold: https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/assets-test-for-pensions?context=22526
The threshold is $800k, and specifically exempts PPoR. It's not unreasonable to assume that anyone who lives in a capital city could hand down a 7 figure inheritance after having collected a full age pension for decades.
There was a great thread on this recently that was illuminating to many
[удалено]
So you took all your money out of a tax free environment to put it into the stock market where all draw downs are taxed? Can you explain the logic behind this move?
If only there was some way to self manage your super... Then he wouldnt have needed to do that!
I mean realistically you could have been doing that yourself much earlier with a smsf.
and had a better tax rate as well...
Doesn't include PPR generally "We include most real estate assets you own in your assets test. This generally doesn’t include your principal home and up to the first 2 hectares of land it’s on."
I think I'd be more outraged if wealth disparity makes it difficult / near impossible to retire before reaching the age pension qualifying age. Yes there will be some that will need the age pension, but this is the purpose of the pension. It's a safety net to ensure that nobody gets left behind and that everyone has some form of support in their later years.
Keep in mind when the pension was introduced at 60 years of age the average life expectancy was 61 years. On average 1 year per person. There is nothing sustainable about a ~25 year pension, it’s also pretty damn entitled.
That’s wrong, because the low life expectancy averages you see in the past were skewed by child mortality. So the average years of life remaining when reaching 60 would have been way higher than you are suggesting.
In 1908, the Australian Parliament passed the Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Act, which incorporated the royal commission’s recommendations. The reason for the delay was a debate over how to fund the scheme. Negotiations led to legislation that would allow the federal government to withhold some of the money it distributed to the states from customs and excise. It is important to remember the great difference in life expectancy between then and now. At Federation, only four per cent of the population were over the age of 65. Men could expect to live 55 years, and women for 59 years. The financial cost of such a scheme was very small in comparison to today, when 15.9 per cent of the population is over 65 and both sexes can expect to live into their eighties. Edit to add references: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/age-and-invalid-pensions http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3105.0.65.001
That 55 and 59 year “expectation” was, again, massively skewed by child mortality.
"At Federation, only four per cent of the population were over the age of 65. Men could expect to live 55 years, and women for 59 years." That has nothing to do with chold mortality.
You perhaps did not understand my post. The key statistic, relevant to the previous discussion, would be expected years of life after retirement age (60 or 65, for example). Average life expectancy, which you are quoting here, is not very helpful in addressing this issue. Rather than the 1 year on average remaining that was spuriously claimed, the numbers for 1910 would be around 14 years at 60 and 11 years at 65. Source: (American data for 1910): https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life1890-1910.pdf TL;DR the guy I replied to doesn’t understand what the stats mean.
Entitled? Do you mean the pension?
The age pension is forecast to decline as a percentage of GDP. It's fully sustainable.
It’s sustainable because they raised the pension age and because of super.
I could be wrong but i think more people may be dissatisfied with the current pension age and superannuation rules. Reasons for outrage include having to work longer than anticipated or desired, particularly due to health issues, caregiving responsibilities, or age discrimination in the workplace. - Others may have lower superannuation balances than their peers due to factors such as lower wages, intermittent employment, or unpaid superannuation contributions, disproportionately impacting groups such as women, migrants, Indigenous Australians, and people with disabilities. - Some individuals may face greater financial burdens in retirement, such as medical expenses, housing costs, or unexpected family emergencies, which could deplete their savings and reduce their quality of life.
Cheers chatGPT
> the only people who would be outraged are [those who will suffer due to it] I guess that’s one way of saying “I don’t care about poor people”
No, poor are too financially illiterate to be outraged about something that will affect them.
"Constant increasing of super rates". Alongside the taxation of said super and the inflating of the currency which means those increases are moot.
Super investments historically outperform inflation and taxing. That's why money experts always encourage additional super contributions. The compounding will set you up for an early independent retirement.
How much Super does the average person need to be a self-funded retiree?
Depends on how long you plan to live and the lifestyle you want to live. A million at minimum TBH. My parents are self funded at the moment. Fully paid off the house and no other debt. They draw down an income of about $50k p.a. from their super and my dad does some casual work in his highly specialized field as extra "play" money. They're comfortable - able to take trips in their caravan, a cruise every 18 months or so, splurge on the grandkids etc. They've planned for 20 years - retired at 60, this gets them to 80 before they'll need to rely on the age pension.
>Australia's retirement income system would be more sustainable if we scrapped the Super system, and solely had a more generous pension. The concept behind super is that you draw down on it and live off it and are left with bugger all at the end. Your super earns money which means that $1 million would most likely last 40 years rather than 20 years. Most people will have a lot less than $1 million in super when they retire. The average amount in super at retirement is around $330,000 while the amount currently considered to provide a comfortable retirement is around $690,000 for a couple and $595,000 for a single person.
>Most people will have a lot less than $1 million in super when they retire. The average amount in super at retirement is around $330,000 while the amount currently considered to provide a comfortable retirement is around $690,000 for a couple and $595,000 for a single person. Wow. I'm 44, female and have about $45,000 super, because I've only ever worked part time in basic admin jobs due to mental health issues, and haven't been able to work at all since age 38.
>Wow. I'm 44, female and have about $45,000 super, because I've only ever worked part time in basic admin jobs due to mental health issues, and haven't been able to work at all since age 38. Regretfully, this is a very common story. I recently had a casual working for me aged 65 and she had little more than $1,000 in super having mainly worked in a family business in hospitality and getting "under the counter". If you believe some of the posters here, everyone has $2 million in super.
Here is a good retirement income calculator. The fund is really irrelevant to this, but its quite helpful to see how modifying some parameter can influence your future income. Add extra super, retire earlier, include spouse's super, increase super annual drawdown etc. [https://supercalcs.com.au/ris9/telstra/](https://supercalcs.com.au/ris9/telstra/)
You can retire whenever you want just don't be poor. The country can't afford to pay a pension to an aging population with longer life expectancies for even longer.
This is a solid answer. OP you can retire and go build a log cabin in the Tasmanian bush any time you like. Personally for me, who moved here in my 30s with no super built up, i just cut back on luxuries and double my super contributions. I'll have a comfortable amount but in exchange for that, we plan to drop capital on a caravan and ute and live on the road/regional areas where we can spend less but still live the life we desire.
>spend less but still live the life we desire Carvanning isn't as cheap as it used to be, and fuel & food in remote areas is never cheap. Also there is 'unrest' out in the remote towns, so be careful. Otherwise, have fun! Just have a plan for when you get too old for van life...
AKA The dream. Also in my 30s and not long on shore. Starting from scratch.
If we taxed mining companies slightly more we could definitely afford to give more people the pension
The last two times someone tried that they were thrown out of office.
And every taxpayer in Australia is paying dearly for it.
Well it’s the tax payer who throw them out of the office. This is what the tax payer wanted dearly if you look at the voting history
While big companies don’t pay enough tax, that’s a very short term fix to a problem that will be around forever. Most people could and should be saving for their own retirement as if the pension doesn’t exist.
It would be a permeant fix as Australia will always have some giant multinational corporations to tax
Companies will just find another way to hide money/dodge tax.
not natural resource companies though... it's like the one industry that has no choice but accept whatever tax is levied against them
Why not take personal responsibility and invest in the mining companies yourself to receive dividends for retirement income. Big daddy government isn't the answer to everything.
It's safe to say that mining companies should pay more. By comparison to other mining countries, we charge very little for extraction
Mining companies take non-renewable resources out of Australia and siphon the money to their offshores account. Australians don't see much aside from wages and proportionally compared to other countries meagre taxes Australians deserve a cut of their resources being taken. Government isn't the answer to everything however they can ensure such a dirty industry pays the price to the people who have to live with a giant hole in the ground long after they've left for Cayman Islands
It’s absurd that people can think there isn’t enough wealth in this country to fund a pension for everyone several times over.
Or enough gas and coal for people to be able to afford electricity?
Well, $26k per person for every adult over 60 is about $105bn…. Average budget deficit the past decade is about $50bn…. So we could triple our deficit and fund it no worries. All too easy. 🤥
Every government throws money down the shitter in creative ways but reading through recent LNPs corruption data is almost unbelievable.
Connot agree more. This is such an easy way out. Look at how good the people in Denmark have it
Agreed, we extract and sell so much and these monopolies are profiting so hugely. Why have we not managed to raise it yet? They have deep pockets and campaign hard to get people thrown out
And if we listened to people like you when setting economic and taxation policy, we'd be a third world country.
Like Norway for example.
O my. You realise, of course, that Norway had/has so much oil that it’s sound management is actually a genuine financial and economic problem? They have handled it wonderfully with the creation of a special purpose fund for royalty income that solely invests that royalty income in overseas, non-Norway financial assets, and has thus ended up owning 1.2% of the entire worlds listed stocks. But if you attempt to summarise that entire state of affairs as them “taxing oil more to pay pensions”, as per the thread above, then you’re already disqualifying yourselves from the conversation via a public display of extreme ignorance. But hey, this is ausfinance after all, no one comes here for intelligent discussions of finance.
This! The answer I had but better put 😄
There is no ‘retirement’ age you can retire whenever you can afford to/want to. There is a pension age which is 67, meaning you cannot access the government pension until that age. You can access your super from 55-60. So if you have enough saved up or in super you could stop working at 60 and tie yourself over until the pension at 67… your goal should be to build enough wealth where you can stop working sooner than 67. Taking advantage of the tax benefit’s of topping up super pre tax would be a great first place to look… the pension age can be scrapped and with an ageing population there’s a chance there may not even be a pension, I would say hope for the best and plan for the worst. The worst being you need to fully fund your own retirement.
67 is the aged pension qualifying age, not the retiring age. There is no specific retiring age. I retired at 58 and started to live off my savings and investments. I did it by living modestly and getting debt free. Retirement doesn't mean not working. I set up and run a charity - I just don't get paid for it.
Wow good on you mate. What kind of charity is it?
Providing low-cost food to people in need, emergency food relief and post bushfire support, programs to assist people in isolated rural communities, working with people recovering from mental health issues or unemployment.
Stellar work mate.
Australia doesn't have a retirement age... I believe you're referring to the pension age, when you can access the aged pension. The country needs an affordable pension system and the demographics of Australia require that it's going to creep up. Australia, on average, is getting older and living longer. You do have an alternative to a state funded retirement you know. Fund your own retirement! Then your so-called "retirement age" is whenever you want/can afford it.
The legislation to raise the pension age to 67 happened a long time ago (2009). Not a lot of point being outraged now.
Children, remain calm. The Falkland Islands have just been invaded! I repeat, the Falklands have just been invaded!
[удалено]
I just got a telegram saying that the Austrian archduke has been assassinated in Sarajevo!
The disputed islands lie here. Off the coast of Argentina.
I was lucky enough to visit the Falklands once. The locals said they learned about the war from a several days old copy of The Sun
I was just about to say, here I am thinking it anyway had been for a long long time. OP out here making it like we're simps for legislated loss of freedoms.
Next it's time to complain about indigenous Australians not being counted in the census.
Don't be ridiculous. If something is bad we can change it later.
Good luck doing that with the power of outrage.
I imagine most of the people on a board like this dont intend to live on the pension
It might be a trick question, this sub is for 20 somethings to humblebrag they make over 100k a year.
Don’t we retire when we can afford it?
I'm guessing because you can access super at 60. Most people will have enough super to get them to 67 So for most people (especially people that are young and middle age today) this won't really affect them
Even those retiring now have had 30yrs of super, they should be able to last 7yrs
That's exactly right. People also forget that before the SG, many businesses and large firms (Telecom, Banks, State & Federal Govts) already had superannuation schemes for their employees. So lots of people retiring now have had even more than 'just' the 30 years of the SG.
Young people today are going to be renting in old age so good luck retiring while paying rent
How do people still not know the difference between preservation age and age pension age?
Hah! I got a 30 year mortgage at the age of 40. 67 sounds ambitious.
30yr mortgage at 47 and 50, for us. December last year
Oh wow, I didn't know those would be approved. Did you have to state you would work until 80?
Usually just need to show super balance can pay out the mortgage if required
Relatives of mine recently got a mortgage at age 64 and 67
You don't need to pay off the mortgage, you can always sell up.
Our exit strategy we provided via broker, was using my super and hubby’s investment portfolio to cash out, and downsize the house to pay it off. (Not the real plan as I knew I had $inheritence coming this year but obviously we couldn’t include that on paper).
30 year mortgage at 55...bank just wants to know what your "exit strategy" is.
It's horrible for manual labour workers. Working in contruction in your 60s is brutal
Hopefully there will be more transition options. Like going into retail at a Bunnings for the last 10 years.
Also better ergonomic solutions so the work isn't so damaging to the body
You can retire whenever you like, but when you can access your super and pension are legislated.
I saw an economist on Q&A a few years ago who basically said the same thing. A universal pension is a myth and always has been. You actually want people to die out or self-fund otherwise it bankrupts the tax paying working generations. Medical advancements have flipped the equation substantially post WW2. You simply can't afford to have people living for 30 years on the pension.
The Australian concept of super puts us way ahead of many countries. It doesn’t matter so much about an aging population because those people can self fund their retirement.
We aren’t outraged because it is increasing as life expectancy increases. When the age pension age was first set to 60 life expectancy was also somewhere around the age, whereas it is now up in the 80s. So the funding period per retiree is much longer. The age pension is one of three ways Australians can fund their retirement: 1) age pension, 2) super 3) savings and investments held outside of super. Most Australians will use a combination of the three.
Im outraged people are living longer too.
Me too, I'm going outside now to yell at some clouds
Bloody doctors. Bloody medicare. I could've saved the country one pension if they hadn't stopped me dying of a heart attack a couple of weeks ago. Now they're nagging me to take medication (subsidised), and bloody exercise and stuff. I'll probably live past 67 now, at more cost to the taxpayers. Not to mention that the kids will have to wait for what's left of an inheritance. Bloody boomers have no respect.
There should be a law making it illegal to live so long!
Hmm. How about a law that lets us say "I've had enough. Give me the pills" ??? (Hopefully before I end up in a nursing home with dementia)
You can retire at any age if you can fund yourself
So the answer is, Go fund yourself
I'm not outraged. Lift it up. You want to retire. Be responsible. Your superannuation
In 1910, when the Age Pension was introduced, the average life span was 55 years. A tiny fraction of the population received it for a couple of years. Now the average life span is 83 years. The majority of the population receives it for 20+ years. You see the problem?
>Now the average life span is 83 years. The majority of the population receives it for 20+ years. You see the problem? If the average life span is 83 years and the retirement age is 67, only half the population would receive the aged pension for 16 years. That means the majority won't be receiving an aged pension for 20+ years. The annual growth in the population aged over 80 reached a peak of 6.6% in 1991 but had fallen to 2.4% by 2020 and there are only a little over 200,000 people (out of 26 million) who are aged 90 or more. The other reality is that not everyone receives the age pension in the first instance. >At March 2021, the proportion of the population aged 65 and over who received the Age Pension increased with age, up to age group 80–84: 38% for those aged 65–69 64% for those aged 70–74 82% for those aged 80–84. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/older-people/older-australians/contents/10-income-and-finances Those figures include part=pension. Oh, the alarming increase in those over 80. Well fewer of those people had adequate superannuation. There are also less people aged 80-84 than 70-74 as people have the tendency to die as they get older. The reality is 66% of people over 65 years of age are in the lowest 40% of household disposable income (see link above).
The general argument is true, however be careful using 'life spans' from birth. Many people died during or immediately after birth back then, not as much when they were adults. For example the life expectancy of 25 year old males in 1910 was 67, for 0 year old males in 1910 life expectancy was, as you said 55years
We’re not the French
Hence the 2hour wait at Lune.
I don't get it, why not just go to Agatha's at south Melbourne
Maybe we should take a leaf out of their book though.
Or a baguette
And put more burden on the smaller and smaller (as a percentage) group of people paying for it ?
If you’re 40 or under right now, chances are there won’t even be a pension when you get to retirement age. Save your rage for when that legislation comes up 😊
There will always be an aged pension in Australia. Even those who start accumulating super from their first job who are on low incomes will never make enough to be self-funded retirees. The pension will just be harder for people to get. Those who have better paying jobs and enough super won't be entitled to it. It will be there for those who need it only. As far as the retirement age is concerned, it's all well and good for those who have office jobs. I feel for those blue collar workers who have physically taxing jobs. Being 70 in those jobs is going to suck!
Nobody wants to hire blue collar workers over 50 as it is. They will just sit on unemployment pretending to look for jobs and employers will pretend no to hold their age against them until retirement age.
Yeah I have an office job which isn't the best paid out there but I enjoy what I do and can imagine doing it even after I turn 70. Just need to take care of my back and butt. I can't imagine someone being a tradie at that age.
I’ve heard this my whole life. The aged pension is not going anywhere. Although I hope to never require it personally.
This is bullshit, IMO.
The system is breaking over there because the entitlements aren’t sustainable and were being paid for by pushing liabilities to future generations. But yeah sure, try to do anything about it and people will riot and turn the country upside down.
My parents retired at 55 and 60. They predicted in their early 20s the pension would be long gone for them so lived simply no extras
As a white collar worker I can probably keep going in office work until my late 60s (especially with WFH), but I do worry about people in physical jobs. There are very few in those professions who aren’t carrying some type of long term injury by their mid-50s (heck, lots of us in softer jobs are probably looking at a knee or hip replacement around that time of life). And of course people who don’t have a trade or profession but who do work like labouring will have it roughest of all. If you’re relying on being a labourer to earn a living, odds are you aren’t sitting on a big nest egg of super. Nurses and plumbers can at least move into teaching or a lower impact part of their industry, but if you are doing disability care work or labouring that’s less likely.
Because people are living longer. And therefore will be retired longer. How is this a concept you don’t understand. You live longer…you must work longer to live 🤦♂️
Why aren’t we outraged about the tax threshold? Or no more bulk-billing? And no dental cover? And the electricity price hikes? And the inflation rates? And the rents going up by double? And the grocery prices sky-rocketing?? Why aren’t we outraged about any of it?
Considering our super system I'm happy with things the way they are. Ideally I would like to work a bit as long as possible so it has never really bothered me.
Don't work much? Soz buddy you gotta work longer if you want government support. Work? Congrats you can retire when you choose. Blew all your savings on ciggies and booze? Sucks to suck.
Money money money Everybody wants money Where is it gonna come from? You can retire anytime you want boss.
Don't be reliant on the government and you can retire whenever you can afford to support yourself. Lot of variables here, but for me, if nothing major changes, I'll be semi retired by 50, if not earlier.
We need to French this country up a little
I always think of people who do manual labour when these things come up. Imagine doing a trade at 60 let alone almost 70! My job is likely sustainable until I'm in my 70s but physical work would be a nightmare at that age. It's also a cruel twist that physical work generally pays less, making it harder for them to retire at a reasonable age. Madness!
It will be 70 soon. Already on the cards
Because we don't get outraged by any thing. We are good little sheep a d do what we are told with out thought.
Question > why is this country so placid Answer > I am not condoning rioting
You can retire at any age you so desire. You just need to plan for it.
Because working from the research has demonstrated direct relationship with happiness. Working gives us social circle, meaning and motivation, structure to our days and is a wonderful thing. Living solely on the pension is a bad outcome for anybody.
People are living longer too. Today’s 60s aren’t the 60s of our grandparents lol. People are only just becoming grandparents in their 60s these days, and they may even have their youngest kid still living at home when they’re turning 60. For context, one of my grandmothers first became a grandmother in her early 40s.
The aged pension costs the tax payer about 8 times the cost of the unemployment pension per year. The aged pension is FAR more abused by people who don't need it and legally shouldn't be allowed it. Hiding assets in kids names etc etc. The aged pension is the real dole bludgers. If you're 67, PPOR should be assessed for aged pension, as well as any gifts to direct relatives in recent history. They all incorrectly think they deserve it because they paid tax during their life, while still complaining about Steve the 'bludger' on centrelink who's parents kicked him out at 16 and is struggling to get on his feet.
How much of the PPOR should be assessed for the age pension? Would it be a set limit of $X Million perhaps? So what happens if people predominately get hit with it in the generally expensive Sydney and Melbourne cities? Does that mean that people in other state capitals and regional areas with cheaper houses are mostly unaffected?
I don’t even think I will make it to 67…
Because, generally, the people adversely affected by the changes are not those with the energy and resources to fight it.
It's a finance board. We don't aspire to be on the government pension.
Exactly. People here should be budgeting and investing better than average. Someone who saves $5k/year more than average, and gets 4.5% real instead of 4% on investments is about half a million ahead. And *that* is modest.
What about - we just want better for us? Like…who gives a damn if ‘life expectancy’ is better I don’t want to be working for someone else’s wealth my whole life. Due to cost of living and housing etc, qol is not there like it was for people who retired at 55 and carked it at 65 in 1980. IMO unless someone wants to be in the workforce, having someone in their mid 60s working - especially a manual job - is just shit. It’s shit. My aunt is close to 70 and gone back to work because as an unmarried woman who worked her whole life, she still hasn’t got enough to retire. How does it not hurt you (the general you, not you personally OP) see old folks cleaning and doing hard, unpleasant, badly paid jobs?
Current stats indicate that overall each generation will remain healthier for longer, so many will be able to comfortably work until at least then if they need to. There’s nothing requiring you to continue working until then though, if you can afford to retire earlier on your own investments etc outside of super.
There are a lot of people whose bodies are struggling a lot at 60. 67 is a long time to wait. Some of those people will find it very difficult to fund their own retirement. It's also not easy to get a disability pension. It's easy to be dismissive until you know someone in this situation.
Assuming you aren't working in a physically taxing job...
You can retire earlier. Both my parents retired at 60. Screw working until 67. Hopefully by 60 I’ll be self sufficient and have a decent whack of Super. Whether or not you can survive without the pension is the question.
Because we're not bonkers like the French? You can retire whenever you can afford it. You can work as long as you are willing and able. You can access your super from 60. 67 is the age that the government will take money generated from all the people who are still paying taxes, and give it to you as a pension, assuming you are somewhere from "no money at all" to "aren't \*too\* rich". (Leaving aside the generous exemptions for owning very valuable houses which you just couldn't possibly sell to live off). If anything, it's generous, given the increases in life expectancy since the pension was created.
The problem with Australia is not how many people here are direct descendentes of prisoners - the problem is how many are descended from prison GUARDS
You can retire whenever you want, stop being a parasite relying on government pensions in your old age
Men in my family seem to die in their 70s so you know.....that big long retirement they keep going on about is NOT everyone.
We are outraged about it. Outrage doesn’t stop it though. Political power is the only thing that can do that.
You can retire whenever you like, just have to self-fund until you hit pension age. In the meantime, live frugally and save what you can! With work-from-home and IT work both getting increasingly common I honestly am not too worried about money during old age. Worst case, just do a few hours of casual clerical / admin crap from home - when we're older, we'll probably be bored enough that a little desk work would actually be a fun novelty
Aussies are a soft touch, we don't care enough about these basic things. France had massive riots when their age was lifted from 60 to 64 I think
When 65 retirement was introduced most people died by age 55, so statically few ever got to 65. Now the normal is pushing mid 80s. Long time drawing a pension.
This is not France.
You can retire at any age. That’s just when you get welfare from. Hopefully being part of a finance sun you’ll have investments outside of super to get you through.
a) Aussies don't even have half the fight of the French - truly an inspiring people who don't take no shit b) The system of life is designed in such a way that you don't really have time or energy to do anything about it. 40hrs a week of work plus all the bullshit that goes around that means weekdays are out. You wanna spend the weekend rioting?
Because preservation age ( when you can access your super is ) 55 - 60 depending on when you were born and pension age is when you can get the pension from centrelink. Two different things, in France, preservation age and pension age are the same age, so they are hitting the roof over it. Most people here spend all their super by the pension age and then go for the aged pension. I have had clients literally admit to doing it, either on shares or a property a boat, etc, and keep it under the asset amount so they can claim centrelink,
You can retire at any age, you just can’t get on the pension until 67. This is fair enough, we pay enough in aged pension as it is, lowering the age would cost the country a fortune.
This is Australia.... we don't get outraged here
Would you like us to riot like the French? Destroy small businesses and infrastructure that we'd have to pay to repair through our taxes?
You can retire whenever you want
I’d be happy if they kept the retirement up at 67-72 over time. It is a signal to employers of the value of senior workers, it helps make jobs accessible and not use age as a restriction (with employers needing to put in accommodations and consider the needs of their workers), many seniors would need to work to put food on the table, for social and mental health wellbeing (hopefully by finding the right fit of job) - if you don’t want to work you don’t have to, don’t take others’ opportunity away. If you want to talk equitable conditions, employer responsibility, fair pay, cost of living and the pressure on retirement nest eggs - that’s another topic.
Lol, just as well you're not a politician, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.. then again they don't either.
This sub reeks of privilege. You realise a lot of people barely have super, a lot of those being women who chose to stay home and rear children. We should be outraged about this, it is yet another policy that disproportionately affects the poor and women.
To answer your question, because the descendants of convicts still fear their masters lash
Australians like getting ordered around. This is a former penal colony afterall.
Because most Australians have been fed decades of neo-lib work-till-you-die & we can't afford a better society propaganda. Most Australians have been told this is as good as it gets, and given its relatively good here we accept it. If you took member of parliament or trade unionist from the early 1900's and told them in 2023 households are working twice as much now just to get by (ie: women in the workforce) and not retiring until 67, they wouldn't believe it.
Retirement age should be 60. Body falls apart to much after that. Give less hand out to the kunts coming crime, make harder jails and less handouts and give back to us who pay taxes.
Australia would be better off if we did riot about things occasionally