A message to the pensioners of Australia: get stuffed

Tim says:

04:40pm | 29/07/10

pffft,
It’s the most sensible article on the issue i’ve seen in a long time.
I would even go further and say that pensioners assets should be means tested including their family home. What does a 75 year old need with a four bedroom, $1million dollar house, while still receiving the aged pension?

And I loved old Beryl Gillard in the Tele this morning. Dear god, I know you get a bit crazy when you go old but that is ridiculous.

Reg says:

04:55pm | 29/07/10

A big cruel there as well as illogical Tim. I’m old, not a pensioner, just old, but I see more evidence of crazy 20 somethings than of oldies. Well except for those crazy scooter drivers, now those bastards are dangerous.

All I get is every 10th cup of coffee free at Gloria Jean’s if she’s in a good mood.  Planning, that’s what it’s all about.

Phil says:

05:00pm | 29/07/10

Tim are you the potential first bloke, snag and general good guy. Or just one of lifes ticked off under achievers who is a bit pissed with life.

If a pensioner has a $1,000,000 home, and they own it its a fair chance they worked hard and paid some taxes during their lifetime. Why should they have to sell it and downsize, pay probably $50,000 plus in fees, 2% commission plus 6% stamp duty on the new place at $600,000 in order to live. Let me tell you the old age pension is hardly enough for any reasonable lifestyle. My in laws are on it and I still give them money for needs as does their two sons help pay for the electricity bill and phone. They live ok, but if it were not for the $10,000 we all give them a year they would be screwed.

Could it just be that you have not bought your own $1,000,000 home and want what you cant afford by default. I dont want my old man and old lady to have to sell their multi million dollar unit if and when they need the pension which based on their other assets would be when he is close to 80 maybe older. He turns 70 in a few weeks. Let the old bugger and my mum live in dignity in their own home till they need a nursing home. I know how much tax he paid in his life, sure he got services for those taxes but I recon they did pretty well given his personal taxxes were well over $100,000 a year for at least the last 15 years of work. He still does some work to keep the mind active, they always had top private health insurance, and bought plenty of nice cars brand new as well, so the government coffers does ok. I dont begrudge them or anyone else getting some money when they retire.

Moby says:

06:04pm | 29/07/10

@ Phil…..Just because your inlaws cant do it doesn’t mean that everyone cant.  My parents, both now on the old age pension, having spent the last 14 years with one on a DSP, and the other caring and working part time, are doing it with massive success.  Not only have they just refurbished their house, due to need more than want, but they have bought a secondhand motorhome, and do more travel than I do, and I am earning at least 4 times what they do!!!!  Its not what you do with your money, but how you do it.

All that said, I wouldn’t be against the pension being indexed to CPI or some other similar measure

Phil says:

06:21pm | 29/07/10

Moby

I am not against the old age pension. I simply stated or meant it to be taken that I dont know how pensioners live on the old age pension. My in laws have two adult children both with mild disabilities at home. They both work and help to contribute towards living expenses as do my wife and I so that they may have a slightly better standard of living.

They eat well, and are warm but having the extra two mouths to feed plus loving to give gifts to my two children who adore them is tough. I think that to take from the old just because they no longer contribute to the tax system the way they did when they worked is wrong. No parent should be made to sell their home to live.

I helped my parents out massively and I do what ever I can for my in laws whom I am blessed to have such great one who assist rather than interfere in my families life..

Economist says:

06:52pm | 29/07/10

Oh phil, did you bother actually reading the article? Sure your parents own a multi-million dollar unit and they worked for it. but it wasn’t worth a million when they bought it. Was it twice their income? No one’s denying that they didn’t work hard, but I doubt they would have worked as long hours.

My parents on the other hand bought four units (took on a mortgage of 4 times their income at the time) when they first got married they also saved their money, rolled it into their super to give them a combined indexed pension of $21,000.  Sold three of the units, cash in term deposits for $350,000 and use the interest to supplement their pension. See they downgraded. They receive nothing from the government until they hit 65 when they get a pension card. They currently pay the same price for life saving meds as we do to the value of $150.00 a fortnight and still pay tax, private health inusrance etc. . By all means they’re not hero’s. But they could have blown all their cash, sold the units and upgraded to a McMansion and gone on a pension.  They too have kept the cash in case they need to go into a retirement home.

I see no problem in encouraging people to downgrade and to use their asset wealth to supplement their retirement, but you see many of them don’t want to do it because their want to pass on their inheritance to their kids. Could it be the kids are encouraging them so they can get the inheritance or am I being too cynical.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

08:22pm | 29/07/10

@Penbo:  Here is an article I found on today’s UK Daily Mail Online.  This is what Australia should be considering.

http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298508/Now-right-work-past-65-Firms-banned-forcing-employees-retire.html

Phil says:

10:08pm | 29/07/10

Economist

You picked the wrong horse. I respect the decisions your parents made, and good luck to them in their retirement.

I did read the article thank you. Yes some could downsize, but I stand by the comments that those that have paid their taxes deserve something in retirement be that a seniors card, pension etc. I will never get a pension, neither will you nor should we. We should work hard and save.

Many eat, drink smoke and gamble their lives and then wonder where all the money has gone. I drink occassionally and a lot less since my daughter pulled me up and told me to cut down, which I did not because she told me but I wanted her to know that she was more important to me than drinking beer whenever I wanted. I will still drink but it is very occassionally not every second day.

My parents worked bloody hard, starting a small business (dad when into a partnership in 1973) It was hard, no real money for years, he used up some of his super to start it and we struggled for a long time. I can remember by mother sewing table cloths to make dresses. She made some of the most embarrassing clothes for me and my brothers as well. Slowly things got better, business picked up. But in tough times it was the boss who went without pay, never the employees. Yes in good times they made plenty but that didnt always happen.

They bought a nice home in 1978 for $80,000 which was a bit of coin in those days. They later renovated it and sold it for a lot more to buy their first harbourfront unit. It didnt change that much in value, but they later sold it and bought their current place of residence. Total of 4 properties from 1964 till 2010 hardly buying and selling constantly. They were not into buying units etc, rather invest in your own business which in the end gave them a farely good lifestyle.

Dad worked hard, maybe not smart but long hours. I left school and did some work for him. My wages were less than the dole at the time. He was a tough boss and tought me a few things about hard work. He never failed for 40 odd years to put back into the community either through Rotary or other charities. He didnt earn that much till the mid 90’s when the work that family members did in the business started to bring in serious monies. We expanded but took calculated risks. The value of the business also increased massively.

They were able to travel and continue to do so overseas every two years.

Eventually a buyout offer was made and he received a large sum of money, which helped fund his last unit, boat, cars and investments plus he was given a reasonable income off the business $78,000 after tax indexed till he gets to at least 80 regardless of how many hours he works. Is he worth the money he is now paid, of course not, but thats life. He and my mother do charity work with little if any reward but they are incredibly happy so thats all that matters. The family helps out paying for things when they need it.

I have said I dont want his money, that if he can leave enough for the funeral and the box/plot in the ground then good stuff. I have asked for his will to be amended so my share goes to my daughters trust which I will invest with the other trust assets currently held, till they are at least 25 and any assets of this trust will be protected from any future claims by husbands etc. I have long said if I need their money I have failed in life or not worked hard enough. Yes we can all do with more coin, but more often than not I am doing ok thank you very much.

My in laws being wogs wont downsize, but thats their decision. I respect it but dont agree. I would rather them use their money for a better lifestyle whilst they are alive. They live on the pension but also support two mindly disabled adult children who both work but live at home.

I appreciate that to a lot of people my parents are doing very well, but by the time they pay the strata fees, run two cars, eat, live and help others not much is left. We all pay for the boat, its maintenance and fuel as he loves it and we all use it from time to time. He will not be a burden on the taxpayer for many years and I for one dont want to see them sell until they either need to for health reasons or their lives take them elsewhere.

Ziggy says:

07:03am | 30/07/10

Sad article - her real motivation was because the pensioners did not vote for Labour but he bases his whole article on her spin of careful scrutiny. Rubbish! A leader needs moral authority. Where is hers on this issue?
A nation that cannot take care of its aged,kids or otherwise underprivileged is not worth a bucketful of warm spit.

Michael Madigan says:

09:29am | 30/07/10

Pembo, you are a typical Sturt supporter. Belting pensioners from behind is not that courageous. Are you trying to impress the boys on The Chaser to get a gig on their show.
The Magpies will belt the double blues tomorrow - Karma

Tim says:

10:01am | 30/07/10

Phil,
no I don’t own a million dollar home.
I’m still under thirty and work long hours and get paid well. I am saving like mad to be able to buy a house, put more money into super and invest for my future.
I am planning on the fact that there won’t be a pension or aged benefits by the time I get old.
Why do you think I should subsidise your parents who are extremely asset rich but maybe cash poor?
You may not be expecting an inheiratance but a lot of people in your position are.
They expect that the government (taxpayers) will subsidise their parents in their declining years so they can get a windfall gain when they sadly die.
The Taxpayer should not be subsidising already asset rich people.
You talk about reward for hard work, well expecting me to work harder to fund already rich oldies is the exact opposite of it.

Phil says:

11:14am | 30/07/10

Timmy keep your pants on.

My parents have never claimed one cent of social security all their lives. They will have donated more to charities in cash than they could ever claim in a pension after they are 80-85. If they do at the age of 80 plus and who knows how long they will last, it will be only a part pension or probably minimal payments as assets would exclude them from claiming much.

My parents would have paid well in excess of $2,000,000 in personal tax during their lifetime, so a small reward or payment is not much to ask if and when its needed.

Unlike many older Australians they have top private health insurance, always have, always will. They are therefore not a drain on the public purse.

If you are 30 and not bought your own yet, perhaps some of your choices thus far have not been the same as others, but its hardly like saying stuff you I dont want to pay for you. You may get a first home owners grant. I didnt but thats life. I built a bridge and got over that long ago.

I didnt get one cent from baby bonuses, but I dont begrudge others who can get that money or a Paid Parental Payment, as having more tax payers is long term good for the country. I also thought I earned too much so never applied for any part A or B payments for the first 6 years of my kids lives. But that is my tough luck. I didnt get a Kevin present the other year, but would rather earn enough to not qualify than be entitled to the payment.

I personally would love the dole to be stopped after 12 months of unemployment, but a much more generous payment for that twelve month period, so someone can genuinely get a job rather than be worrying about going backwards. No one can tell me they cant find some sort of job in 12 months.

I dont like seeing wastage by governments of all persuasions. This current lot have wasted at least 10 billion dollars mainly through incompetance, or $7,500,000 every week they have been in power.

So by the sounds of it you would begrudge your parents a pension payment even though they have paid taxes all their lives. My parents worked very hard and with the help of family smart so they could have a standard of living in retirement and not put their hand out. They could have smoked and drank to excess, gamlbed away etc and taken it easy for a free ride but chose otherwise.

Why dont you have a swipe at the lazy bludgers who did not. It should not matter how much cash/assets you have. If you have something then good luck to you. Do we not want to leave a better life for our children than we had, I know I do thats why I have started a trust for them and a little each year goes into it. My the time they are 21 it should have enough each to buy 50% of a home in Sydney.

This may not be popular, but one of the biggest reason for lack of wealth is divorce. I am not saying those that get divorced are bad or dont have genuine reasons for doing so, but each time it occurs money is divided up often unevenly and massive legal costs over bitter argument rids lifes savings.

Fail says:

12:16pm | 30/07/10

Tim - why would we want to punish those that worked really hard during the last 40 years or so of their life by NOT giving them the pension because their hard work paid off. If anything, these people have paid MORE tax than those that have less at an older age and deserve a larger pension as a result. It’s enough we tax people an arm and a leg because they earn over 80k… Let’s not take away their pension because they saved well and put their money to good use.

It’s ideas like these that promote the whole freeloader attitude becoming a lot more apparent in society (not suggesting you’re a freeloader, just criticizing the idea).

Rae says:

12:19pm | 30/07/10

Tim how dare you vent your spleen on OLDER AUSTRALIANS, both yourself and David are a disgrace…... 

MY Mum raised my brother and myself from 11 up as my Dad passed away when I was 13!  My mother worked 25 years in a Can Factory on a Process Line something you obviously would NOT understand!!!!

MY Husbands Mother did the same with 4 boys raising them on her own she is now 89 and her house is worth a million dollars!!!!!  You never had to eat bread and dripping! 

WE all had nothing, sometimes NOT EVEN MONEY FOR GAS OR ELECTRICTY BUT we were very happy you ungrateful bastard if it wasn’t for people like our parents and many others like them built this country TIM, David you should know better!!!!!

My husband and I are now also reaching time for the AGE Pension yes, we both have worked 45 years paid taxes what are you going to say about us?
Guess where our Super Funds have gone?  Down the toilet with every one else’s so WE HAVE NO CHOICE but to go onto the Age Pension and YOU CAN BET…...................
I will be first in line to collect it on the day!  So suck that up!

Your arrogance goes along with this of today’s society, ignorance,
I hope when you age and do not have any choice you will feel like us.

Rgds

Rae

Tim says:

12:36pm | 30/07/10

Phil,
I feel pretty much the same way about unemployment benefits and the majority of social welfare. I am all for helping people who want to help themselves but people who can look after themselves, should look after themselves. There are far too many people suckling on the government teat. Give me more more more.
There should be no baby bonus.
There should be no first home owners grant.
Middle class welfare is crippling this country.

Unemployment benefits should be much higher initially and reduce the longer you are unemployed. Job training should be provided for anyone who wants it.

This article is talking about pensioners which is why my comments are about pensioners.
The family home should be an included asset in any means test. It is stupid to claim otherwise.
Why should someone with multi-million dollar assets receive government benefits?
There is no right to get any tax back. Once you’ve paid tax, any rights you had to it is gone. It’s not like a future savings scheme.
The pension should be reserved for people who are in genuine need, not oldies who want to give their children a large inheiratance.

Heath Karl says:

01:10pm | 30/07/10

None of the above commentators raised a point I think is worth raising. If the world economy could support the world population through childhood, and throughout their entire lives the size of the economy has grown, why is it unable to support them in retirement? The proposition is conradictory. Either the above statement is true and the conclusion wrong, and we CAN support them in retirement, or one of two assumptions of the argument is wrong. Which is it, the world economy did not support the rearing of human children, or the world economy has not grown?

Note: No-one who must work until they are 70 believes in the virtue of it. It is exclusively the argument of the economically secure.

Lorraine says:

05:51pm | 30/07/10

Julia made a big speech about costs but the allegation was about statements regarding “who would vote for Labor”, she made no mention of that at all. This is not unusual. Politicians NEVER answer questions they just spin what they want to spin and leave us all spinning in a cloud of untruths and B…....t

Aussie Bob says:

08:11pm | 03/08/10

Mate, hope you don’t expect to be on with Chris Smith on 2GB again after that insult to their listeners. I’m sure many of them will be calling in to demand you’re removed next time you appear.

Marg says:

04:59pm | 24/08/10

I trust that you have never, or will ever, apply for Auststudy, Baby Bonus, First Home Buyers Grant, Child Care Subsidy, Dole or a Pension etc. etc. etc.  I feel that if you work for fifty years paying tax to the Australian Government, without any assistance from the Australian Government at any time then maybe you are ENTITLED to receive a Pension at retirement age.

John says:

03:50pm | 29/07/10

Clause 1.1 in the right wing politics handbook: When in doubt deflect attention onto the boat people.

Great article David.

James1 says:

03:52pm | 29/07/10

Maybe the boat people are coming here because of all the money we throw at pensioners.  They are, after all, able to access far more money per person than any other Australian not in paid work.

Anyway, I thought communists were all about increasing pensions and such.

Super D says:

04:07pm | 29/07/10

@James1 - spot on mate.  I’m not sure that the Afghani pension syystem is quite so generous.

Also its not just pensions, its taxpayer funded healthcare that will really smash the budget.  Perhaps we can develop a community consensus that you stop getting all but the most basic taxpayer funded healthcare when you crack 85 - or whenever you took the pension +20 years.  I know this is cold, but taxpayer resources are much better spent on the health of the young than the demented and frail.

James1 says:

04:17pm | 29/07/10

Super D,

If the Intergenerational Report is right, we need to make those tough choices soon.  Thing is, those kind of choices lead to governments being voted out, and no one would have the political guts to risk that - until it is already too late.  Given that when the crunch comes, almost a majority of Australians will be aged over 50, it seems even more unlikely.  I often wonder about what kind of fiscal future we are setting up for our children.  If Gen Yers like me are finding it tough now, imagine when my seven year old grows up…

biff says:

06:18pm | 29/07/10

It is interesting isn’t mickijo that the government can put a cost on pensioners but when it comes to asylum shoppers the government just keeps writing cheques.

Joan says:

06:48pm | 29/07/10

Exactly Mickijo…. and how about all those unemployed under 40 year olds,,,, how about education revolution for them. Through my work I see plenty of them on government handouts. I have no problem with pension age being raised to 70 years but hey!  lets not kick the pensioners in the head when they are old and down. And how about withholding pensions and early payout to pollies make them wait like the rest of us. Why should pollies travel gold card at taxpayer expense on the backs of 60+ year olds. As for Gillard - it took her 12 hours to cook up figures as answer in reply to leaks .... this woman decided there were more votes in batts and school halls than pensioners and mums -  that is how Labor spent the money. And didn’t Gillard knife Rudd because it`s all about extra votes ..... nothing to do about what`s best for the country or that Rudd was peoples PM.  Gillard excels in art of manipulation of language to excuse, justify, any action, say anything dgo anything as long as there is a vote in it.

Shifter says:

05:00pm | 29/07/10

Agreed, the middle class welfare has got to be much more limited than it is. Pensions, baby bonuses, rent assistance and home buying grants are being rorted left right and centre, and it all serves to make life continually more expensive.

The Australian culture of entitlement needs to stop and let the government spend money on the country rather than lining it’s citizens pockets.

Evan Findlay says:

05:44pm | 29/07/10

It’s not so much about tightening up on the pensions but more about ensuring that compulsory superannuation contributions at today’s levels will be sufficient in retirement. I would suggest that we are about 6 to 8% off the mark.

Phil says:

06:26pm | 29/07/10

Evan

At least. I would like to see 20% but the financial pain to get there would be massive. I would however like 6% more from employers and 5% from employees.

James1 says:

03:56pm | 29/07/10

Despite the truth of what David says (as a member of Gen Y, I harbour similar resentments), I do not envy him for the hammering he is about to receive.  But like they say, sometimes the truth hurts.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

04:56pm | 29/07/10

Actually Steven, the olds do read the internet.  Ever heard of UA3, it stands for University of the Third Age and a lot of olds go there to learn computing courses amongs many other things.  Just letting you know.

Marg247 says:

05:12pm | 29/07/10

Guess what? This oldie DOES read the internet and she’s” not happy Jan”  I just wish I could be a fly on the wall when you young know-it-alls get old…. What would you do with us? Kill us? huh?

Nicole says:

05:30pm | 29/07/10

@Marg247, what, kill you???? Not a chance in hell. I need you to babysit on Saturday night mummy.

James1 says:

05:32pm | 29/07/10

They’re onto us!  Who told them about the internet?  Quick, pretend to be working…

Tim says:

05:34pm | 29/07/10

Know you don’t want to see it when we get old Marg247, because when it happens there won’t be a pension or old age benefits and we will be expected to work to 75. Jealous?

Marg247 says:

06:51pm | 29/07/10

Guess what Tim, I am nearly 75 and I AM still working.  I look after my invalid husbane and no, I don’t claim a carers allowance. I do babysit my grandchildren. I do help my neighbours who are not computer literate. Today I helped another neighbour connect her set top box and I also copied some songs from some cd’s and put them on a disc for another who is getting married and wants the music for the service. Maybe I should charge for my services, then I would be just like you.

Ray says:

09:17am | 30/07/10

Oh! don’t theySteve?
Here’s one that does just that. Whipper Snapper.

rosy@kempsey says:

01:44pm | 01/08/10

This old bag reads the internet, would like to say to the author, same to you, with knobs on….

Shifter says:

04:54pm | 29/07/10

Redundant? I believe the word you’re looking for is superceded. But the $43 billion is being spend on an upgrade to our already superceded and near obsolete end-user telecommunications network.

Sirro says:

11:56pm | 29/07/10

And what a complete waste of money that is.

At least that is consistant with all the other rubbish that this bunch of bozos have blown our dough on.

Northern Steve says:

12:12am | 30/07/10

Hardly Shifter.  Our existing infrastructure is quite reasonable by world standards.  There are two factors that people fail to take into account when comapring our network to others in the developed world

1. Size.  Holland, with approx the same population, is half the size of Tasmania.
2. Destination.  A significant proportion of our internet content is sourced from overseas.  100MBps won’t make that faster without upgraded international links.  Most other developed countries (in Europe and North America) source mainly domestic content on the internet.

NBN is a fraud

Roja says:

01:36am | 30/07/10

@Jay - Do you mean that $43 Billion that will help deliver improved health & education outcomes, increase the Gross Domestic Product of the country, help connect better connect rural areas that need everything they can get to retain young people (as well as several thousand doctors) and provide the interweb to all the masses that currently marvel at the wonders of dial up speed. 

That would be the same one that has been given the thumbs up by people who actually know what they are talking about.  The one that vast regions of Australia are begging to included on.

That being the NBN run by Simon Quigley, a leukemia survivor that donated his first year salary to cancer research to highlight the two greatest passions he has - telecommunications and medical research, both of which he believes will benefit immensely from this investment in Australia’s infrastructure. 

Clearly you must of meant to say BER or insulation scheme, I mean honestly.  Didn’t they teach you anything at liberal cheerleading college? Keep quiet on telecommunications, Abbott certainly has - it might lead to comparisons of Quigley to Trujillo and that would be horribly embarassing…

Northern Steve says:

10:19am | 30/07/10

Roja,
The NBN isn’t going to a lot of smaller towns, and will not benefit rural people.  I can’t get ADSL, and I certainly won’t be getting NBN at my place, and I’m not really tha far from a small town.

Fine, you say that there will be health benefits from the NBN.  Perhaps.  Is this the best use of $43B?  Was there a case study?  A study of opportunity cost?  $43B buys a lot of hospitals and doctors.  And the NBN won’t even be going where health improvement is needed the most - rural areas.

Labor had $150million odd for connecting schools to broadband.  They scuttled that.

On top of that, the $43B isn’t even included in the budget bottom line.  How’s our surplus in 2013 looking when you take that into account?

I’ll say it again.  NBN is a fraud

Shifter says:

10:39am | 30/07/10

Steve, I’ve beaten those points to death when referring to the fact that the NBN is hardly likely to reduce the cost of the internet and the speed at which the latest ‘linux distros’ can be downloaded. What the NBN will promote is local content and applications. The two points you mentioned are why it will cost $43 billion, and why it must be done by the government, because no private operator will be willing to outlay that amount for such a small perceived return.

Consider the use of quality voice and video content allowing workers to telecommute as opposed to living as close to the office as possible. Every businessman could live in their quaint country houses down south and still not lose precious face time with co-workers.

Consider medical consultations to country areas where doctors are in short supply. The minimal local GPs are freed for the more pressing hands on issues.

Consider the school of the air. How about we ditch the two-way and move to a clear teleconference system.

There are many other beneficial applications yet to be implemented and even thought of because the end-user is generally restricted to a paltry 1Mbps upload speed, under good conditions. The can benefit areas such as transport, mining, agriculture, health and education all with locally generated content.

Shifter says:

10:40am | 30/07/10

Another argument (in the spirit of Penbo’s article) could be that the $43 billion is better spent on the country’s future rather than propping up the country’s past.

Northern Steve says:

11:04am | 30/07/10

Shifter, you still miss the point that the NBN will not get to the places you are talking about.

People that can’t get to hospitals and schools won’t get the NBN.

And you have managed to still avoid the question of cost-benefit.  What else could have been done with the $43B?  As far as I can see, that has never been considered.

Check out the Iridium satellite phone system if you want another example of a wonderful piece of technology that was built without any consideration of the cost-benefit equation.  $6B investment went bankrupt, sold on the open market for $25million.

The commercial networks will catch up and exceed the NBN before it is finished.

Shifter says:

11:25am | 30/07/10

You’re thinking too narrow in the application of those points there Steve. Mining towns in WA’s north west are already struggling to obtain and retain doctors and teachers among other things, mainly because the costs and quality of life is better for these people in the city.

A place like Tom Price is not going to fall outside the NBN coverage and would be an absolute beneficiary to teleconference city based expertise whenever required.

I’m also not sure you can expect non-government funded network builders (think iiNet, PIPE, Agile et al) to provide a better service than the NBN whereas so far they are reluctant to provide a reliable service with greater than 256kb/s upstream thus far. A

t a guess I think you’ll find most of the commercial players are waiting for the completion of the NBN so they can piggy back onto it.

Roja says:

04:20pm | 30/07/10

I realise 93% doesn’t cover everyone.  The NBN will however provide the backhaul connection to the wireless towers that will be providing the additional coverage to the areas it doesn’t. 

“On top of that, the $43B isn’t even included in the budget bottom line.  How’s our surplus in 2013 looking when you take that into account?”

Australia will get that money back over time, both directly and indirectly (through increased GDP & productivity as well as reduced costs) - it’s an investment not an expenditure.  You fail to realise that.

“I’ll say it again.  NBN is a fraud “

My parrot can repeat things too, doesn’t make him clever.

Northern Steve says:

10:12pm | 30/07/10

Roja, Shifter,
There are still two unanswered questions there:

Was there a case study to see if this was the BEST use of $43B?

What does this do to the budget bottom line?  Whether it is an ‘investment’ or not, it is still expenditure.  Hell, why not take out the BER, DER and Pink Batts programs as well?  We’d be so far in surplus it’s not funny! 

Roja, get off the computer and put your parrot on.  It’s got to be smarter than you.

Northern Steve says:

07:25pm | 31/07/10

No answers Roja, Shifter?

Guess Roja is teaching his parrot to say ‘Moving Forward’ so it can be the next Labor leader.

Shifter says:

12:15pm | 02/08/10

Steve, I really doubt any government in recent would pop in a study to see if this was the best possible use of funds allocated to a particular project. In fact I’m sure $43 Billion could be better spent in foreign aid but your average taxpayer probably wouldn’t be too keen on that.

What does it do the the bottom line on the budget? Well it puts $43B in the expenditure column. Why personally I believe is good action for the country rather than the recent reactive expenditure (also by the same Govt) in relation to the ‘Global Financial Crisis’.

Northern Steve says:

02:33pm | 04/08/10

So Shifter, your answer is no, there was no check to see if this was the best use of funds.  Glad you recognise this.
There are plenty of mechanisms that governments use to determine best use of funds.  Infrastructure Australia is one of them.  It is the group tasked by the government to decide which infrastructure projects will give the best return on spending for najor infrastructure tasks around the.  Half the projects given money by Rudd and Gillard over the last few months were deemed unsuitable by the Infrastructure task force - NOT WORTH SPENDING MONEY ON THEM.  Yet money was spent.  Many of them in marginal electorates.  Hmmm.  Maybe they had a great big whiteboard.
You did not read what I said about $43B and the budget.  It has not been placed into the budget yet - hasn’t been through official policy channels, so the government has committed to spending $43B, but has not shown that in the budget.  Where does that money come from?  And hence the question, what does it do to the bottom line?  It blow the surplus by 2012-13 way out the water.

No economics credibility on the Labor side at the moment.

Chris L says:

05:49pm | 29/07/10

Streuth! I would have been dead eight years ago and I’m not even forty yet! Maybe a slightly modified Logan’s Run where you get to live about ten years after retirement so you can enjoy yourself a little first.

BobM says:

08:11pm | 29/07/10

Renew! Renew! Renew!  ZZAPP, BOOOMMM!!! Oh well, maybe next time.  Don’t laugh, they will probably be doing this to 70 year olds in the future…  :-(

Julie Coker-Godson says:

06:11pm | 29/07/10

....and I suggest mandatory euthanasia for The Gruen Transfer.

Evan Findlay says:

05:45pm | 29/07/10

Macca,
I could not agree more.

Macca says:

04:03pm | 29/07/10

@Nicole, thats not fair, I don’t know how old Penbo is, but looking at his photo, he’s only middle aged if you think he’s going to die before he reaches 120.

Nicole says:

04:24pm | 29/07/10

@Macca, Penbo is a year older than me and the thought of living to 120, being all wrinkly, deaf, dribbling(although I’m sometimes good at that), falling asleep halfway through my dinner that looks like it’s been regurgitated 20 times, wearing nappies and smelling like stale talcum powder and Taft hairspray, is not at all appealing. Yep, we’re middle aged.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

04:49pm | 29/07/10

@James:  The problem with articles like this is that they encourage resentment of people who do not deserve to be resented.  They have lived through more primitive times than today’s young (as I have said in another post here) and some had to deal with two wars as well as a great depression, but lets forget about that shall we?  Lets also forget that today’s young want to have all the luxuries of life *now* rather than build up their homes over 20+ years like their forebears.  They *must* have that $30,000 wedding; the house must have one bedroom for each proposed child plus two toilets and walk in robes and a guest room.  Don’t forget they must have the furniture and the fancy televisions (one in each room).  Not for them the thrift of those gone before.  Don’t winge to me about the baby boomers when today’s younger ones want to spend *above* their earning capacity.  Pensioners should not be resented because today’s earners are spendthrifts!  (I know, I was a spendthrift until I *fell*).  BTW you might also want to harp on about the employers of the 90s who thought it would be best to get rid of everyone 40+ in age and replace them with those no more than 35.  They have a lot to answer for I believe.

Andrew says:

05:12pm | 29/07/10

Indeed, communists would be all for welfare and pensions.  In fact, in a truly communist state every member of society would receive the SAME allowance, regardless of what job they perform, or how well they do it.  Good idea?  I’d say not.  The other thing that constantly annoys me is the STUPID way that people associate communism with a dictatorship - they are NOT the same, and represent completely different things.  It is quite possible to have a communist democracy, just as it is equally possible to have a capitalist dictatorship - Hitler did it for quite some time.

On the issue of aged pensions, I think the author, for all his political grandstanding, is spot on - in this age of compulsory superannuation the aged pension should, and must, be completely discarded at some point.  My own father worked a government job (not a very highly paid one, either) for his entire life, and still managed to save enough for retirement without any government assistance just a few years ago.  Perhaps it’s time to draw a line in the sand and say “if you are 40 years of age or younger, you will NEVER get an aged pension - start saving NOW”.  25 years is ample time to make allowances for your retirement, and then the country will no longer have the specter of bankruptcy hanging over it in 30 years time.

RMN says:

09:18am | 30/07/10

@ Julie the problem woth comments like yours is that they encourage resentment of people who do not deserve to be resented. I am Gen Y and can easily say that I do not want it all now. My first car was second had as is my second, both paid in cash with no loans necessary, I have cheap furniture in my unit as though I may want the nice plush expensive sofa, it is not realistic at the moment based on my salary and expenses. Add that to the fact I live in an area with an extremely tight rental market and being in a remote area it’s not like I can go to the next suburb for cheaper prices, the next suburb being a 500km drive. One bedroom units in my area rent for a minimum of $300 a week not inc power etc and property prices are around $300,000 for a two bedroom townhouse. In Fact the majority of Gen Y work hard for what they get. and will have to continue to work hard for a lot longer of their lives than you. The ones who got themselves into massive debt in the GFC were not Gen Y’s more the Gen X’s in their 30’s with the kids and mortgages and car loans. My Gen Y friends who were married two years ago did not have a $30,000 wedding with two kids and a mortgage they saved after a two year engagement (btw the were together for 2 1/2 years b4 the kids) and would have been lucky to spend $7000 including their honeymoon. Stop trying to tar all Gen Y with the same brush or else I can get started on the Baby Boomers and Gen X

James1 says:

09:45am | 30/07/10

Likewise, RMN, I am Gen Y, and yet I live entirely within my means.  My family has a net debt of $0, and in fact we even have savings.  Furthermore, my partner and I look after our child entirely on our own, while I study and work and my partner studies.  Both our parents live more than 1000kms away.  How does that fit your stereotype, Julie?

Andrew says:

10:27am | 30/07/10

Julie, I don’t want any of those things. A 1 bedroom flat would suffice for me, which I cannot afford. On another note…. The great joke of the whole “I paid taxes all my life” argument is that the vast majority of income tax collected is from high income earners, who would 99% of the time end up being self funded retirees. So in effect OAPs usually are not net taxpayers over the course of their lives. Nowhere near in fact!

Shifter says:

05:03pm | 29/07/10

And haven’t you just taken it for all it’s worth and royally screwed the place up?

Steven says:

05:37pm | 29/07/10

But you old farts didn’t have to have us stupid little upstarts.

David says:

06:16pm | 29/07/10

Shifter and Steve please call the members in your family and tell them they are bludgers and to go and get stuffed before the other half of your brain starts to work and by the way turn off your computer and phone as as old farts invented them

Steven says:

07:08pm | 29/07/10

David, i would prefer to call my parents and explain to them how a large number of older Australians are going to cripple their own generation because of their ‘me-first’ attitude to existence. So while you harbour resentment at the generation who has to work harder and longer (statistics will prove that for you, more reliable than stereotyping) just to keep a public system going that can protect you and your assets, we will keep persisting to find solutions.
May i also point out that we will be doing this while solving ridiculous environmental disasters set up by your generation, caring for those who are close to us and attempting to bring up children responsibly despite the fact we, as responsible parents, still have to both work in order to pay for basics because funds are sucked into a pensioner vaccuum.
Please David can you give me the address of this magical place where we get million dollar houses and t.v.‘s in each room. If i move there i would not have to listen to this ancient false echo bellowing from your jaded existence.
I will be doing my best to ensure a quality of life for older members of my family, but i will celebrating on jan 1st 2035 when the most destructive generation in the history of humans will finally be gone.

Front Bar says:

08:25pm | 29/07/10

David.
Did you serve?
If not, then shut up.

David says:

08:55pm | 29/07/10

Steve first of all I will still be around in 2035 I work 252 hours per month and pay in tax each week what you gross in a week.So I will not need the pension but there are others that have not had the opportunities that I have.Secondly you talk about the environmental disaster I take it you ride a horse to work and do not use electricity and do not buy imported good that come to this country on carbon produceing transport.Steve what about the baby bonus and all the follow ons why should I pay to bring up someone else’s kid no one gave me a tax payer handout so you can not have your cake and eat it to.I hope your kids have the same view on this subject as you.

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:07pm | 29/07/10

1st January 2035- That’s assuming that the average age of death for a baby boomer is 90. Otherwise with medical advances you may have to wait until the 1st January 2045. Either way there will a lot of people partying hard when the baby boomer generation passes away…..

Sirro says:

12:11am | 30/07/10

Spot on David ..what a bunch of tossers this lot are.

The majority of those that you idealogues are attacking are self-funded retirees who wont need (and aren’t eligible for thanks to the Hawke/Keating assets tests) government pensions.

Let the oldies have some benefit back given the amount they have put into the country over their lives.

How about you lefty toss-pots tell us what you think about cutting back on dole payments for those gen Y and Xers who wont get off their lazy arses and try to get a job. How about we take away some of the cash that un-married mothers on benefits draw from the system to look after their brats aswell .... oh right ..doesnt fit with your good old fairness and social justice view of the world?

Give the oldies a break ... they are not the reason the welfare state is destroying this country.

Shifter says:

10:56am | 30/07/10

@Sirro: I agree with your thoughts on the dole, baby bonus, first homebuyer’s grant et al. Middle class welfare needs to go, and people should not expect handouts for living life.

I’m pretty sure the ‘oldies’ are the ones who put the welfare state in place in the first instance. Why do they deserve a break?

@David: You start with an insult and what do you expect in return? As a fair discussion I don’t expect current old age pensioners to be penalised by current and future governments. What I would like to happen is the old age pension scheme be reviewed with a view that it not create an steadily increasing burden on the country.

Australians yet to retire should be thinking about what will happen when the do just that and be taking steps throughout their lives to ensure they can look after themselves when they want to stop working. Look, you all know you’re going to get old and you all know you want to not work one day, plan for it. Start early.

With reference to the screwed it cup comments, I make note of the the increasing median house value to average wage ratio, the stagnant mining royalties scheme, and the continued reliance on fossil fuels for power generation. These are all present issues which have been sat on for years (like the pension) when the knowledge and opportunity for reform has also been present for years.

Immigrant says:

12:04am | 27/08/10

David, stop being a damn sook. My family and I came to this country when I was 2 years old. I am now 24. AND YES, we came LEGALLY. I have the passport and license to prove it. We never got a handout. We had nothing. Dad worked at the Ford car company and got mum a job there. The only hand out we got was a little pot plant when we became citizens. Stop being a damn sook. You have no idea of the shit people have to go through you old twat.

Shifter says:

05:19pm | 29/07/10

They also tend to be in better health and live longer, and owing to the stagnant retirement age and continually increasing pension, per person they are placing a larger overall burden on taxpayers than those that came before them.

The ledger needs to be squared somehow, either by retirees paying their own way, not having a pension increase, or receiving the pension later on in life.

DaisyDuke says:

05:29pm | 29/07/10

And you had to walk 20 miles in the snow in bare feet to work. and then home.

Spare me will you.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

06:05pm | 29/07/10

@DaisyDuke:  Why should I spare you?  Because you don’t want to be reminded about how selfish the young ones are today?  Does it make you feel uncomfortable eh Daisy?  Too Bad.  But don’t go thinking I’m going to “put myself down” just so the GenX-ers and GenY-ers can have the money that is paid to myself.  I’ve damn well paid my dues, over and above and the younger generation have no right to suggest that we should live in abject poverty in our old age.  What a compassionate lot GensX & Y are - NOT!
@Shifter:  Yes, they do live longer but that is because over time we have advanced in medical technology and drugs to alleviate or cure conditions we could not do in years gone by.  Also people are taking more interest and personal responsibility for their health - they want to enjoy their retirement years - not sit indoors day after day for 10+ years because they can’t afford to go out their front door because they are in pecunious circumstances due to a perilously low pension.  Incidentally, the pension was originally introduced following the war years and, I suspect, it was never meant to go on as long as it has.  But, it has, and those are the facts.  What has really upset me about some of the posts on here is the suggestion that we should adopt tje “Logans Run”
policy (from the film) which policy was if I recall that once a person turned 30 they had to “die”.  Now I wonder how tpday’s youngsters would feel about that!  Not much, you can be sure, but they sure as hell would like those over 50 to bugger off from the land of the living.  Sorry, am not going to oblige.

Economist says:

07:03pm | 29/07/10

I think the author was quite clear that he support people receiving the old age pension where they are asset poor etc. The problem is that Boomers are now going on the pension and it’s not enough. As for today’s luxuries, well aren’t you benefiting from them as much as we are?

No one’s asking for the old age pension to be stopped, but if your asset rich downgrade. Forget about holding onto your assets to give to your kids as inheritance, to help them out etc. All you’re doing there is driving up prices for what will be their largest purchase, a home. Your basically creating a generation that’s permanently on your teat and then you have the gall to throw it back in their faces, by calling them a pack of bludgers. Make up your mind.

DaisyDuke says:

09:38am | 30/07/10

“if left unchecked, and in the absence of new measures encouraging Australians to be more self-reliant in their autumn years, the pension will send the country bankrupt in about two decades’ time”

And you are calling me selfish while demanding the aged pension?

The fact is that taxpayers are supporting more pensioners on larger pensions for longer while not growing proportionally, something has to give. No matter how much you are “due” it, if the money isnt there then it can’t be given.

Oh and you damn kids get off my lawn!

Kevin says:

09:55am | 30/07/10

Would have saved them a bundle in gym fees.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

06:28pm | 29/07/10

@Lizzie:  I am a pensioner too.  Where do you propose the elderly live once they’ve sold their house?......huh?.....The Government does do a means test for the pension.  The primary residence of a pensioner is not included in the means test but if they have any other assets or homes, those are included and their payment or pension is adjusted accordingly.  The more assets they have over a set limit, the less they get as a pension. It is interesting to note that this fact is not being made very clear in this rather distasteful article. BTW:  I am:  58 , single,  on a DSP and live in a relocateable home in a caravan park.  I can never again have a mortgage to own my own home.

Lizzie says:

11:38pm | 29/07/10

Sorry about that Julie! I meant to say that pensioners with million dollar houses should downsize & live off the rest of the money they get from selling their family homes. This would have the added benefit of freeing up housing for families. I’m a pensioner & lost my home when Hawke/keating sent the country broke. At present I cope by having overseas students but god only knows what will happen to me when I am unable to do this anymore. The stress I am under all the time has wrecked my health. Mum & Dad left everything to my brothers because in their day it was considered the done thing. My brothers are too rich & too selfish to be bothered with me.

Jay Santos says:

05:39pm | 29/07/10

Cat,

Use of such logic is frowned upon on Punch.

I know many grandparents are expected to babysit their grandchildren every weekend so Gen XYZ Mum & Dad can ‘reclaim’ their latte lives.

Todays kidults are weak.  Just look how much they piss and moan about doing little more than shuffle paper.

‘Work’ is surfing the net 4 hours a day.

What’s hilarious though is they seem to have plenty of time to play Guitar Hero, do spin classes on their Wii’s, tweet every mofo sheep “following” them on Twitter, provide hourly updates on their Facebook ‘status’ and go for dinner with friends to the latest Fair Trade 100 mile vegan boutique brauhaus.

It’s about responsibility, priorities and sacrifice; things most people under forty know jack about.

Shane From Melbourne says:

06:08pm | 29/07/10

@Jay Santos “It’s about responsibility, priorities and sacrifice; things most people under forty know jack about. “
Probably because that is what the baby boomers taught them. Thank you for playing…...

bec says:

07:29pm | 29/07/10

Actually, the comparative value of teacher salaries has diminished significantly over the last thirty years. So please don’t throw that out.

Cat says:

08:20am | 30/07/10

not sure where you get that from Bec but I can assure you that you are mistaken

Steven says:

05:56pm | 29/07/10

Sorry, I’m wrong.  That’s just me getting senile.

Dave Sag says:

06:58pm | 29/07/10

I was at that Nirvana gig at the Thebbe theatre. I got flung into the air and hit the ground hard during the song Negative Creep. Loved every minute of it. Ahh the good old days.

Gen X FTW

Horthy says:

08:25pm | 29/07/10

I was at the last cerveza gig at the Producers. Remember getting a crappy guitar smashed over my head. Good times. What’s this article about again?

Dave says:

04:12pm | 30/07/10

Couldn’t get a ticket to Thebbie, rub it in goddammit. also, was Pembo a member of cerveza y putas?

Northern Steve says:

12:19am | 30/07/10

Pension rises were smaller under Howard.  But then again, so were cost-of-living rises.  What Howard did do was supplements for energy and telephone bills etc.

What I want to know is where did the 10 years costing come from?  Most programs are costed over four years.  All i can think is they needed to make the total amount bigger than any other program, so we can all be impressed with how careful Gillard was with our money.

Front Bar says:

07:53pm | 29/07/10

Dave P,
This is the most cogent, courageous thing I have read on the subject.
We cannot afford to subsidise everyone at 65 unless they are in real need. That means transport, medical, cheap tickets, cut price electricity, whatever.
I am 45 and fully expect to work without a pension until I am at least 75.  That’s just the way it goes and part of the legacy of a good public health system.
Would I rather be dead, perhaps?
People who lived through, or were born during, World War II deserve to have gold treatment for the rest of their lives. Pump it up.  Same goes for war veterans and their families from later wars including Malaysia, Korea, Iraq,  Afghanistan and any others I’ve missed in my hurry.
Same goes for volunteers in emergency services with more than 20 years.
The rest of us should stop bludging off future generations and shut up.
We have had the benefit of “free” or massively subsidised education, “free” or massively subsidised health, along with the cosy life in Australia.
When are we going to actually grow up and stop giving up our dignity for a half a suck at the state’s shrivelled tit?
If you are not contributing to the economy, what else would you expect?
It’s not as if people are born to an entitlement anymore. That went out for everyone but royalty a long time ago.
If Julia Gillard can argue this common sense Australians in the campaign, she will win in her own right.
And this rusted-on conservative male will be very, extremely, proud to say I voted for her.
Don’t back off, boss lady.

Campbell says:

02:56pm | 30/07/10

So, you would rather vote for a misogynistic man who believes that money and profits are more important that saving our country so that future generations can enjoy it? Just because you won’t be here to deal with it does not mean you can just ignore it.
Also, this looks a lot like whinging.
Reforming our pension is one of the vital things that our government needs to do the next one to two terms. I agree with front bar that everyone relies way too much on government hand outs.

Stephen says:

04:32pm | 30/07/10

David P what a load of unmitigated crock and @Cambell you should get a life mate.  We dont have to retire, can’t in most cases the way things are.  I’ll be a grumpy old man working well into my 80’s and paying taxes to support those who dont wont to work.  One thing for sure though, until the day that I die I’ll resent having to pay the debt that slippery misandrist excuse for an unelected prime minister, and her pack animals have landed this country with.  The Old timer has got it dead right David, you should pull it out and take a look at the real world.

Markus says:

08:45pm | 29/07/10

I don’t think you understand what period the Baby Boomers are.
They were born from the late 40’s to the 60s.
They did not survive the depression, they did not fight in WW2, only a small minority may have been drafted to Vietnam.
Their houses were bought when the average house was 3-4 times a single income, not 8-9 times.
Your praise of the next generation of pensioners as battlers deserving a free run to the finish line is misplaced. I am not saying they had a cushy life, but they faced nothing any more difficult than Gen X have and now Gen Y do.

Ish says:

02:46pm | 30/07/10

Ditto to what Markus said.

Also, directing all money to older Australian’s as you suggest will do nothing to encourage people to have kids, and then we will really be up shit creek without a paddle.

I don’t begrudge pensioners from getting a pension, but there definitely needs to be a cut off. I know that I will never get a pension and am hoping that my super plus whatever I can scrape together will provide for me in retirement. But at the same time I don’t begrudge parents from getting parental leave (I believe the Labor scheme is much more fiscally sensible) we need to maintain a population which will be able to fund pension payments as well as other tax payer funded infrastructure and if you don’t make it attractive for working/middle/upper class families to have kids then we will end up with a generation of welfare kids because no one else will be able to afford to have them.

I am part of the “Australian Families” of which you speak and we definitely do NOT receive more benefits than we pay in taxes!

Julie Coker-Godson says:

11:52pm | 29/07/10

@Disappointed:  You’ve taken the words right out of my mouth, except I was so angry when I read some of the posts on here I didn’t think of them.  I was 40+ when the super guarantee levee was introduced and was made redundant because of it (although they said it was due to hard times).  This was the period when employers were thinking it was time to make redundant anyone over the age of 40 and it was particularly felt in Sydney).  Anyone trying to get a job who was outside the age range of 25 - 35 just wasn’t considered.  I provided palliative care to both my parents when they became ill with cancer, dying 6 years apart.  I saved the government and GenX and GenY their hospital and nursing costs and numerous other costs as well.  At the time all I received was $48 per fortnight for nursing care.  What was left of my Father’s Naval pension was denied me after Dad’s death because I was his daughter and not his wife.
I got cancer myself last year and I’m only 58 years young.  Luckily, I survived.  I haven’t worked since age 50 because I was repeatedly rejected despite my experience and references.  I lost my house as a result.  It is no fun being on the pension and it is not the luxurious payment some ill informed generalising commentators think it is.  I have no super to fall back on.  It was used to pay off the accumulated debt from unemployment periods which were lengthy on some occasions.  I’m still trying to pay off one large debt and have another 5 and a half years to go!  I never cease to be amazed at all these tales of supposed pensioners travelling around the countryside using their pensions to support them -  that is if you can believe some of the tripe on this subject that has been posted.  I can only imagine you are referring to *self-funded retirees* and there is a hell of a difference between them and government funded pensioners.  My God I could spit this makes me so cross. I cannot stand by quietly while the seniors of our society are marginalised by younger persons who should, by rights, be blaming the successive governments since WWII (especially when the baby boom died down) for the problems we now face in this regard.  I would also point out that it was the generation after the baby boomers who decided to restrict the number of children they were having from an average of 4 per couple (if memory serves) down to 2.
That’s my last say on this subject, I’m off for a hot chocolate.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:52am | 30/07/10

Whinging and whining from a generation that had cheap housing, free education and a boom period where you could virtually walk into most jobs? Who would have expected it? God, the Baby Boomers are a bunch of tossers…...

comeoffthegrass says:

11:05am | 30/07/10

Julie - nobody wants to deny you your pension. You are in an unfortunate position and deserve assistance. In fact I (and most people on here) would agree that you deserve more than current. It is the “supposed pensioners travelling around the countryside using their pensions to support them” who I have an issue with. And say what you wish, there are a lot of them. And you will find it is they who are doing all the whinging about the pension not being high enough. There is also no motivation to get people off welfare in their earlier years and transitional dependency is rediculous. You mention the battler who has been in public housing their entire life Penbo… Well, I always thought Public Housing was a temp measure to get you over the line when times are tough and I find it unfair that people are allowed to “battle” their way through life and be in there forever. They live for decades in publicly funded housing (many of which show no respect for the property) and then still cash grab at any opportunity. This mindset amongst the ENTIRE POPULATION has to stop. We need to stop reflecting on how hard they had it in the past and concentrate on how hard WE ALL have it at the moment and how we can positively influence things in the future.

Tom says:

08:12am | 30/07/10

PMG, what you saying that it’s unfair to have to use your own money if you need someone to look after you ie, aged care facilities.
You apparently think that others should be paying for that but not you.

Markus says:

09:34am | 30/07/10

If they are spending the remainder of their life in a nursing home, what do they need a house for?

James1 says:

09:53am | 30/07/10

Actually, no they don’t.  Illegal immigrants have no access to welfare, government housing, or anything else that Australians have access to.  The only government largesse that an illegal immigrant can access is a plane ticket home, usually after a short spell in detention.

Zaf says:

02:49pm | 30/07/10

[This is what your gready children can do to you.]

I guess it depends on how you bring them up.

Kate says:

09:17pm | 30/07/10

Your mum’s situation does suck and I feel bad for her. My grandmother is reaching retirement home age, and although she is trying to resist it, it’s pretty clear that she can no longer care for herself, and we’re all scared she’ll have an accident one day and nobody will know until it’s too late.

But what do illegal immigrants have to do with your family members being arseholes? Your mum’s lawyer must be pretty crap too, I’m sure people aren’t allowed to just amend the wills of others unless they’ve been appointed as their guardian or executor?

Marilyn Shepherd says:

01:43pm | 31/07/10

My mother is just as bad by the way.

1941 Vintage Bowman Swinging Voter says:

09:21am | 30/07/10

Spot on silly old bugger!  We had 5 kids, raised by my wife staying home, saved our own house deposit with one wage earner by working in two jobs, eventually owning my own business.  I am not on a pension but I do support the genuine need of disadvanteged people in the society we live in being funded by a government safety net.  But not middle class blood suckers stealing our taxes for lifestyle purposes.  Shame on you Howard for wasting those economic boom years and spending our money to buy votes for re-election we are now saddled with this drain on funds that nobody wants to stop.

Shifter says:

11:11am | 30/07/10

@Silly old bugger: substantially free university education? You mean HECS/HELP as opposed to… well what used to amount to an actual free education.

Agree on the rest of your points, however.

Disappointed says:

04:03pm | 30/07/10

@Silly Old Bugger..Well said…I am a “younger” Baby Boomer (51) and I would be happy to do a deal - swap my future age pension which annoys Gen X & Y so much, for retrospective parental leave, child care assistance, first home owners grant, help with school uniforms etc oh & a refund on the 19% home loan interest we paid in the late 80s after saving up for a 25% deposit on our house.  Yes the house only cost $50k but a good annual salary was $10k.  Also worth mentioning, a large part of the capital gains made on our homes was due to expensive (and highly stressful!) renovations.

Shifter says:

12:27pm | 02/08/10

@Disappointed: I’ll make that trade as long as you throw in the ratio of median house price vs average wage. Yeah, I’ll still take that deal given the ratio has tripled in 30 years.

Personally I’d like to see all of those welfare payments completely gone or much more restricted to low income earners.

Sirro says:

10:57am | 30/07/10

What a load of one-eye slop.

Lets blame that bad man Howard.

It wasnt John Howard who gave every ingrate $900 of taxpayers money for absolutely nothing 18 months ago. What was that if not WASTE.
Not everyone got it of course ... but those who did pretty much spunked it away on flat screens or paid off credit cards.

But dont worry about that when its far easier to blame pensioners and a parental leave scheme.

John T says:

11:16am | 30/07/10

“And remember the longer us old grey heads have to work the longer it will take you young ones to reach the top”.
But many of the oldies will be made redundant while they’re still keen to work. They’ll then either go on DSP or have to look for and, if lucky, accept less well paid jobs.

Oh my back says:

12:34pm | 30/07/10

I hope you are not a farmer or a bricklayer.  Politicians sit around desks and offices and think this can be done to 70.  But real workers such as the two mentioned are pretty well worn out by 70 and deserve some quite in the twilight years.

Cecil says:

12:57pm | 30/07/10

I agree with you Oh my back, Boilermakers, Fitter and turners and Painters can be added to that list and I am sure there are many other back breaking trades that could be added. Its easy for these pencil pushers to tell us to work till we drop but they could not do it themselves. Most cannot not even mow their own lawn or fix their car.

shell says:

09:44am | 30/07/10

LOL at your opening comment - that was my first thought

Elphaba says:

10:48am | 30/07/10

Yeah, I couldn’t help it.  I read the whole article but that line jumped out at me!

Michael M says:

09:47am | 30/07/10

Pembo, its sad when journo’s who still think they are back at Uni Bar try to vent their everyday frustrations onto the older members of the community. Have a look at what is going on in your life Pembo - mmm -

hwka says:

01:09pm | 30/07/10

Nice try.
But you are confusing needs with wants.
We want.
We have the numbers.
Pollies suck up to us.
Pollies NEVER suck up unless you have the numbers.
Shouldn’t you be at work , sonny?
OMG..is it really 11am?...have to run…got the back 9 to do yet.

Elphaba says:

11:18am | 30/07/10

Love it.

Jay Santos says:

11:41am | 30/07/10

@Perleeeease

I’m sure Mr X sits down every night to eat one of his house bricks for dinner. Yum.

And I guess it’s his fault that his neighbourhood is now seen as trendy by the basket-weaving DINK chai-latte set?

In Mr X’s day there were small businesses everywhere that employed real people.  Now people like you buy your coffee from a franchise and bitch about gentrification.

At least Mr X’s generation had the foresight to plan for future generations.

Yourself and people “20 years younger than him” have driven this country into the ground through years of neglected investment in infrastructure whilst pushing a hysterical green agenda that has all but destroyed a way of life that Mr X and his generation enjoyed.

You could’ve enjoyed it too if you and your parents generation weren’t so stupid and selfish.

perleeeease says:

01:44pm | 30/07/10

@Jay Santos
Aside from the various assumptions you make about me (all of which are wrong), I take if from your reference to the “way of life that Mr X and his generation enjoyed” that you are agreeing with the thrust of my post.  Thank you.

Christine Sandoval says:

12:10pm | 30/07/10

I am totally shocked by the content of the leaks. They have revealed Julia Gillard as a heartless and self-serving woman who could not give a flying shit about the difficulties many people face at certain periods of their life. To see out your remaining days on the breadline is not an appealing thought.  As much as I cannot stand Tony Abbott, I can see no alternative for myself and probably will have to vote Liberal for the first time in my life. (I am in my mid fifties)

Cynic says:

03:20pm | 30/07/10

I doubt she said that.  Any pollie worth their salt knows that you don’t pork barrel to people who already vote for you.  You direct your pork barrelling to those who wouldn’t otherwise vote for you in the hope that the pork barrelling changes their mind.  Therefore, the fact (if it were true) that old people don’t vote for Labor is a good reason for sending money their way to try to change their vote.

Kate says:

09:25pm | 30/07/10

Oh yes. Because if you don’t have an old person right on your doorstep, reminding you (loudly) about how hard it is to be old, you can’t empathise with them? Just like Julia can’t understand parents because she isn’t one? Abbott can’t understand women because he isn’t one, etc?

I refuse to believe that people are this stupid. Gillard never said she didn’t respect the elderly or the disabled (haven’t the ALP just announced a huge disability support package?). She wanted to discuss the terms of a multi billion dollar financial promise before it was implemented. Abbott would have done the same thing. Personally I’d be pretty annoyed if I had a Prime Minister who was free and easy with spending rather than reviewing each plan before giving it the OK.

Pensioners, like religious and green groups, seem to have an unfair amount of influence over both Government and Opposition policy and yet all of these groups are still whining about why more can’t be done for them. Honestly, get over yourselves.

Horthy says:

03:52pm | 30/07/10

Best troll ever. Claps of golf-like nature in appreciation.

Macca says:

03:29pm | 30/07/10

@peter, thats all well and good, but where do you intend them to live? Asking them to all live in homes takes away their independence and identity. We also lack the supply of adequate retirement villages to meet the demand which you are advocating.

I understand this would do wonders for availability of housing and provide many retirees with a much needed income, but its just not going to happen

John Williams says:

03:31pm | 30/07/10

Let me guess…just entering the workforce eh?
PR?

hwka says:

03:33pm | 30/07/10

3:05pm?
Aren’t you supposed to be at work sonny?

Christian White says:

03:34pm | 30/07/10

You nasty little beast!  Not leaving you anything in my will sonny!!

Why should we sell our homes.?
You just work harder and keep paying tax so my pension isn’t interupted. I need my pension so I can live the high life. It is around $250 per week, and boy do we live it up.

Macca says:

03:35pm | 30/07/10

@Peter, as for not being able to afford a house before 35. I understand, it is tough to save for a property that is more than 10 times your wage before tax, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices inorder to finance your property. Yep, its going to take me 2 and a half years to save for my deposit, but I’ve got my budget and its all acheivable, just got to be patient.

What many Gen-Ys don’t get (and I’m one of them) is that many families have a breadwinner who works nights or weekends in order to bring in that extra money for the homeloan. You never know, you could even work a bit harder and get that promotion which pays a bit more.

I could go on, but the msg is that buying property is hard work, get used to it

Kordez says:

04:07pm | 30/07/10

@Peter, voting for the party which does the least for pensioners will do you no good mate. The majority of the country will eventually be pensioners, therefore you’ll loose every time.

I’m with the pensioners on this one, we all get screwed by hidden costs at every corner throughout life on top of a huge tax bill hitting retirement. The least we can do it allow the previous tax payers of our country to enjoy some peace and quiet at our expense for a couple of decades.

Disappointed says:

04:09pm | 30/07/10

Hey Peter - I think all the old people should be forced to sell their houses & move in with their kids…or in your case, grandkids.

Cricketor says:

05:48pm | 30/07/10

Poor little you Peter!! You will never won what the Boomers and the elderly own. They had to work hard and yes pay taxes and fight wars to get where they are. And they never had any welfare from the Government like you and others get today.

WEJ Craig says:

06:02pm | 30/07/10

Peter, just where do you think all those pensioners, which you would have us force them to sell their homes, would go to live? Or once you’ve forced them out do you then ship them off to Bergen-Belsen or Auschwitz-style camps & exterminate them? Get real, Peter, most Old Age Pensioners have contributed to Australia in a way you will probably never, ever do& you should be thankful for what they have done. It is the dole bludgers (they’re the ones who don’t want or won’t work but expect us to support them) who need to have their Centrelink Payments reduced or, better still, cnacelled. Then we should turn our sights on the obscene Pensions we are forced to pay our politicians - most of whom are nothing more than nodding/shaking heads doing nothing except toeing the Party Line. Given the massive salaries & perks they receieve they should be able to put enough away so they don’t need us to supply them with pensions ranging from $150,000-$600,000 per annum. If they can’t then they should go on the same Old Age Pension as others. It amounts to, I think, about $350 per week. I am slightly older than you but not so much that I won’t be here when you are 70-plus. I wonder how you will fare & if you will still think the same as you do now. I very much doubt it.

Lisa says:

08:45pm | 01/08/10

I know this is meant to be funny, but it is not. I’m not sure why this comment was even published. My grandmother, who is ninety, is fitter and happier now than she was ten years ago. From the outside, to your biased and judgemental eyes (the young are SO judgemental!!!) you might see a wrinkled and ugly old, old, lady - with - the shock! - a hump upon her back. I see a beautiful and gracious woman who has lived her whole live with fun, passion, loyalty and plenty of guts - and did I mention FUN?!
I could take the low road, and say ‘why don’t you visit Dr Phil’... but instead I will say, ‘Take a good, hard look at yourself, Fool.’

Michael says:

04:58pm | 30/07/10

You mean the life experience of the Baby Boomers, who despite having neither a World War or a Great Depression to contend with, and with the love generation echoing in their ears, still managed to sell out to the urban dream, become Grey Nomads, Spend The Kids’ Inheritance, and then whinge about how the pension won’t be enough to live on?

Who needs the life experience of such a group?

Lisa says:

08:54pm | 01/08/10

...And there’s another one!!!
I wonder why rank and violent agism is tolerated in a society where every other kind of ‘ism’ is at least a behind-closed doors kind of bigotry?

stephen says:

12:29pm | 31/07/10

You insolent pup. What about ‘only if’ as a reason.

Eva says:

03:21pm | 02/08/10

To Jane Agatha,

Your story, to me, emphasises just why a great many of the Gen Xers have become so demanding, greedy and want it all NOW!  By you doing what you have to ‘help’? your daughter & son-in-law, to my mind has been simply to ENABLE their behaviour.  I do believe you are aware of this since you then say just how they are frittering away their money on totally unnecessary luxuries, whilst you have gone into a large debt to help them live this way. :(