Both my wife and myself worked from the age of 15, (transition from old NSW intermediate cert to school cert), she began Nursing training I started a metal trade apprenticeship. We both worked/paid/contributed taxes until we were 65. Raised two kids, owned a modest house and because we lived fairly frugal lifestyle saved a goodly amount of money for retirement. Because we were able to do that we retired at 65, now we're in our 70's and the government will not give us a pension, part or otherwise because we fail on the "assets test". We really don't mind not having to deal with Centrelink but what "burns" us is the "stay at home money" the government happily pay to sections of our population that, in many cases have never worked, paid taxes, nor ever want to work, (and I don't mean those with physical/mental impairment). It's a bugger of a way to reward those who do the right thing over a 50 year working life, and it'll only get worse under the administration of a Labor government. If they want to up the general populations pension age, then they should accept the same terms for their retirement.
In France it moved from 60 to 62 and they had riots and burning of buildings. Maybe the GOVT. should stop sending cash to other countries and look after Aussies.
You are correct. The Australian Government by continuing to raise the age eligibility of the pension are tying their best to worm their way out of paying out pensions as best they can.They are masters at overtaxing the Aussie people to Kingdom come, but are terrible when it comes to paying out back to the public. Age 67 as it stands is an International disgrace, as well as the small amount of payments the public are currently receiving with their pensions.Time for the Governments to go and a new system of running the country be introduced.
@@austinvert8626 What system would you suggest to run the country.. put you in charge? Like most western countries, Australia allows far too many immigrants in, especially refugees, who are a net burden on taxpayer funded services, like healthcare and pensions.
Foreign aid helps to stop wars. It is not just about "charity". Helping neighbours resist communism is vital for our national interests. Governments around the world try to influence smaller nations. Russia for example, uses Wagner and other mercenaries in Africa to strip it of resources, and to stop western investments there. China [the PRC] is spending BIG time in the Pacific area, already turning smaller nations against Australia, the USA etc. The foreign policy failure [by both sides of politics] is not making the different policies consistent. Politically, and strategically, Australia is tied into alliances with the USA and other partners. But who is our BIGGEST trading partner? Communist China. THAT is what does not make sense. Helping Fiji, or Papua New Guinea, etc, is what DOES make sense. Trading with China is 'fool's gold". Very short-term benefits, but long term dependency. We KNOW this because China has put the economic levers on us more than once, with sanctions against our exports to them, raised tariffs, etc. So basically, we can't tell them to "shove it", but they can tell us to "shove it" when we side with the international community over Chinese expansionism in the south China Sea. The main drain on the government aged pension is the lack of means testing on the family home. It is not means tested if it is worth $100,000 or ten million! Th aged pension is meant as a backstop, for those who need it. But if you have no other assets, or those asset are under the limit for a single or couple who own their own home, then the people with a 10 million dollar property will still get the pension, it is absurd. Our house is only worth $500,000, we have modest super [under the limit], but I have already lost most of my pension!
@@roberthunter6927 There should be a limit to family home exemption but bringing in a fair limit is contentious, given the differing home values around Australia; my ancient house on a small block in outer Melbourne is still valued at nearly 1 million, whereas the same house on the same size land in a country town would be valued at much less; that said, no-one living in a multi-million property should be getting an exemption from an age pension means test.
@@petesmitt I agree that where the property is matters, because obviously location has a huge impact on value, even if the houses are exactly the same in age, features, block size etc. I also get that people often would like to say where they have always lived, near friends and grandkids, and clubs etc. But the fact remains that some people, if they plan ahead, can virtually hide nearly ALL their assets in their main place of residence, if they obey the time rule, and it will be exempt as far as the aged pension is concerned. So apart from rich farmers, etc ordinary country people are penalised compared to city dwellers. A lot of the time, they will have to move to the city for health reasons, to get easier access to specialists and so on. So while the rich [in house asset] can downsize, the country person has to "upsize" to get even a modest property on the train line [for example], for an easy trip to that specialist or hospital in the city. It can be quite difficult to get your ducks in a row to do this. Be over the preservation age, and yet have the private [as opposed to an investment property] long enough [I think 10 years is the general standard] for the "New" family home to be "invisible" to the pension. To make the move, they would have to dive into their Super to make the change in most circumstances. As no one can live comfortably [or in reality, even just "exist" on the bare pension, they would need to have enough remaining super to make this practical, and in many cases, they would not. Having assets [like Super in accumulation mode], but completely ignoring the family home is just not equitable, if that house value is very high [controlled for location etc, of course]. The whole point of super being a legitimate tax dodge in accumulation mode is to encourage self-funded retirement [in part or in whole]. A whole lot of people get pension or part-pension that don't really need it, and this prevents a more liveable pension allocation, AND puts pressure onto increasing the pension age. And working in pension years is Ok for those with good health, but just not possible for others, as Katherine pointed out. The basic strategy of governments is to go after the "low hanging fruit" as far as tax and pensions go. The reality is, the richer you are, the more you can manipulate the system. That is why huge corporations with battalions of tax lawyers and accountants can get away with paying little tax, and the wage earner or small business person often struggles in retirement.
My plan is not to rely on Govt hand outs. Interesting the Govt has just given themselves a pay rise with our taxes. Aussies just stand by without a blink of the eye.
These pollies recommending age 66 and above have never done a hard day's work in their lives, let alone work like that 5-6 days a week for 8 or more hours each day. Those pollies of utmost stupidity are the cause of most of our problems. Retirement age was set at 65 because people rapidly decline from stamina, memory, and ability to cope with new changes and technologies in the work place. To raise the age when people's physical fitness is at an all time low is murder. The govs are trying to hasten our deaths to prevent paying out on pensions for the workers, while voting themselves extraordinary pay rises and benefits each year.
I’ve worked full time since 17.5 yrs old I’ve paid taxes for years and GST when it was introduced when ever I shopped or used services, also rates and stamp duties etc. why is there not enough money now when we’ve already been paying taxes etc surely the govt should have invested some and made plans better to look after it’s older retired people. I served in the military protected our country also and it’s just not right to expect people to keep working to 70 it’s physically exhausting. And impossible to help care for elderly parents and grandchildren if people all have to go to work. Families will collapse. I will riot for fairness like in France if need be.
Why not treat people as human beings, not commodities? Why not allow anyone who has worked 40 years be allowed to get the pension, or at least a part-pension at 60 or 62? We all pay into our pensions via our taxes. I’m in my 50s who began working with earning ZERO superannuation. It wasn’t until in the early 90s I received 4% yet I also paid a tax-rate of 47% of my earnings above $48k pa. I paid my way! Yet my superannuation isn’t great (I’m adding to it now) compared to those who began earning 10% from the very beginning. I say put the pension age back to 65. Worked 40 years? You can still get it. Same is in Denmark and other good nations. France is 62. Even the USA you can access at 62 at a reduced rate or wait until 67 for the full-rate. In the USA, if you wait until 70 you get a bonus pension for waiting until later. Yet here they want to punish us? Get rid of the stage 3 tax cuts and those silly tax imputation tax refunds for those with very high stock balances. This nation can afford to pay pensions but chooses to put money elsewhere instead. There are many migrants coming as well. They’re tax payers. Also, this nation should get more from our natural recourses such as gas and coal yet we have multinationals ripping us off! Disgraceful. Final point. Many people lose their jobs in their 50s and 60s and cannot find work again. Ageism is real in this country. Do we expect these people to live on the dole? They want to work but cannot get the pension. It’s another disgrace.
If we’re such a burden why do they make it so difficult to retire overseas? Living overseas would take some pressure off the health system! We’ve worked all our lives to earn this pension, they keep changes the rules. So annoying!
At the time of federation the state pension schemes were taken over by the New Federal Government and they were to be funded by a 6.8 % increase in the New Income tax. So people pay for their own pension over a life time therefore the Pension is not Social Security or paid for by the next generation.
I hope the government will let Aussie enjoy age pension at the age of 60 for those who’ve worked and contributed to the country’s economy a total of 35-30 years
Hi your vids are very good thankyou. If you can imagine a steam kettle boiling thats me when i hear this, i look around and see people ( i know who are on the dole hardly ever worked in there life , yet are capable to work .) Iam 67 April 2024 the government needs to get some of these lazy people to contribute get them off there butts . I am lucky i have a job i can do 2 to 3 days a week if need be and happy to keep active . But at the same time i want my time now and a part pension . Thanks heaps all the best Steve.😊
I know a lot of people come to aus as a migrant , after 2 year they apply for citizen and put all the money to buy house, as they don’t have money they apply for unemployment benefit ;after 20 years never working they reach retirement age and Centrelink transfer it to old age pension.
I know a lot of people who came to Australia as migrants, selected as healthy and decent individuals usually with a qualifications required in Australia, who worked hard and honestly, raised well educated and sound citizen professional kids, paid taxes, saved money, bought a house or two and built a good super saving who are now living without being a burden to society. There are all types of people in every group. But most migrants, did pass a test to get here. And people who for generations had been here did not pass any test. So chances are the bad apples are more plentiful in the not selected lot.
We have the worst age pension system. Pampering lazy and slaving people who saved money for the future. Income and asset test should be removed to stop hiding of asset and income. Superannuation should keep on increasing 15% or more to support housing and age care for everyone. Single and couple calculation should be the same, to stop people divorcing on paper but living together in one roof. Limit on earning of pensioner should be removed to encourage everyone to work to have a better condition, not a ground hog everyday. They should make things simple to understand, easy follow and minimise irregularities, because you don’t need too… All politicians know these things, but none dare to loose votes if they corrected it. We should initiate this to happen or it will never happened!
We’ve been self funded since we turned 60. We are in our early 70s now and looking back we have enjoyed the time between 60 and 70 to do lots of activities. We are finding maintaining living standards increasingly difficult financially. Medical insurance and a huge increase in cost of living are becoming concerning. Personally a universal pension for all would be cost effective because the tax system would recoup the over flow from earnings. The Centrelink system is massive and unworkable in providing assistance. It could be trimmed and the massive impost of form filling would be eliminated. Compulsory Super needs to be both employer paid and worker paid as well. This way it could be funding retirement adequately over time. Super should not be accessible until retirement. A note on being able to work as we get older- I found my energy levels were depleted at around 60 after running a business and raising 4 children as well as working in the teaching profession. Working gill 70? Please- no way.
Thank you so much for providing your input and the voice of experience since you have already gone through some retirement time. I really appreciate all the information provided and I do hope others are also reading your notes. Wishing you all the best 🙂
Age pension is should be a universal right for every old citizen, they have worked so hard all their life to build this nation, they deserve to have a decent retirement life! its the respect the nation owe to them, its a gratitude to show appreciation! every young ad will go through the same path...government should encourage them to earn extra income if at least do not punish them! current age pension payment system is to put burden on retiree to forbidden them to live a comfortable life. Retiree have been forced to make a choice either take age pension which is around $30k /couple from government and give up their extra income earning potential or by keep their extra earns to give up age pension.
I think one needs to seperate “Retirement Age” and “Pension Eligibility Age”. One can “retire” at any age, what concerns most people is the Pension Eligibility Age because they are planing their retirement round that age. As I understand it, many retirement tax strategies kick in prior to Pension Eligibility Age and one requires a good financial adviser and tax accountant to maximise their outcome because it’s not a one size fits all solution.
Something I think would have been worth mentioning is that currently age pension eligibility age depends on when one was born. If after 1 July 1952 and before the end of 1953 it is 65 and a half years, if between start of 1954 and end of June 1955 it is 66 years, between 1 July 1955 and end of 1956 it is 66 and a half and 67 for anyone born after the end of 1956. This is from Services Australia.
Ok, I'm confused. I was born early December 1956. The information on the Services Australia web site indicates I am eligible to apply for age pension now, but you seem to be saying I will have to wait until I turn 67 in December. Is the information on the Services Australia web site incorrect, perhaps not been updated?
I think that the age pension payment shoud starting pay when we are 67. 40 years ago the retire age was lady 50 and 55 for men than 60 and 65 and 67. What do they thinking 70 75 or work until you never recieve the tax that you paid. The best way if the gov wanted citizen to work above the 67, that should be people choice and they pay tax but it doesn't matter how much they earn and we should still get full payment as stadard. Like in France 60 and Gov change to 62.The people protest and they don't wanted work to dead. Would anyone wanted working to you D. I don't so people who healthy and wanted to work that should be their choice.
Diminishing taxes and increasing costs means that there must be cuts and raising pension age is a no-brainer; essentially, people are going to have to save for their retirement via superannuation, not rely on a pension.
Woooow ... I must be the ignorant and stupid migrant. I came here in mid Feb 1989 at the age of 28 as a skilled migrant. 3 weeks later I good a job as a software engineer and has been working since then until now. I love my career and enjoy working in my field. I intend work for as long as I could.
Many people have the attitude that social security is there to live on indefinitely. It's their "wages". They don't want to work. Why work for a living when you can get more from social security? That's why they have so many kids. For example if you have 6 kids you get more on the role and benefits than many people get working! Others that have worked all their lives get penalized for working and saving then the government push out retirement more years. People who work wear out. Working people don't get the same pension plan that politicians get nor can they get a full pension after 10 years and be able to work and earn what those politicians can without loosing part or all of their pensions. Why?
@angelsandocean2853 there is more incentive to go out and get work then? You are allowed to work and earn a certain amount before you start loosing it. it's there to tide you over untill you get a job to support yourself and your family. It's NOT there to support you and 6 kids for 18 years. Just take some responsibility if you can't and don't have 6 kids! Might sound harsh but the world doesn't owe you a living!
While the globalized economy provides many advantages and benefits, no one talks about the some quite severe problems as well. there are about 730 global corporations, and they own about 85% of the world's wealth. That leave 15% for everybody else. That "everybody else" is eight BILLION people, smaller corporation, businesses and government ownership of buildings, etc. Of course, where does a huge economic powerhouse like The People's Republic of China come in? Well, it comes 2nd after the USA, followed by Japan, Germany and India. The PRC is a command economy. In other words, it is a STATE capitalist country. in theory all Chinese citizens own all that capital collectively, but it is fair to say that most of that money is in state corporations , although the last couple of decades has seen a rise in the middle class and some private billionaires. despite criticism of its methods, which have been historically brutal, the lower classes have received a big jump in personal wealth, also, both in relative and absolute terms. This is not politics, but economics, but the economic background is crucial to understanding how things like taxes, pensions, and governments operate. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, capitalist and communist states are remarkably similar in their behavior, as the world economy became globalized. Capitalist countries became more mixed economies, with increases in social safety nets such as public housing, free or low cost health care, and government pensions. Traditionally Communist countries usual provided lots of government support for individuals, and the cost of far less opportunity for personal wealth. But as in the China [PRC] example, it is more a mixed economy now, with more and more private enterprise being allowed. So why is this relevant? No matter what the ideology of a country is: hard right wing, democratic/centrist to hard left wing, all have seen the dominance of corporate and government power at the expense of the individual. But even that is not quite accurate, because more of the real policy decisions get made in corporate board rooms than cabinet rooms. Short version, the real governance of the planet is exercised by those 700+ mega-corporations. So what does this actually mean, even in a place like Australia with free elections? In terms of economic policy, no power for the voter all all. Sorry, it does not matter who you vote for, it does not make all that much of a difference. There is a band of behavior which corporations will allow governments to play with, but if you cross them, watch out. Take the USA for example. On paper it is a progressive nation full of rights and freedoms, in practice it has never had what could be called a moderate left wing government, never mind a social democrat one. [And never a communist one]. The problem is that Americans are terrified of communism. And sure, Stalinist regimes and the like are totalitarian states, not socialist states. [There is actually a difference]. But the real kicker is that the USA imagines it has a communist infestation. The absurd idea that any moment a DOMESTIC communist government will take over. So, America has always leaned to the right-even the most progressive Democrat administrations have been more center-right than left-leaning. if you don't believe me, look at the rabid anti-communist nonsense of McCarthyism appearing just after World War Two, or the Trump Administration, Jan 2017 to Jan 2021. Say you are a blue collar worker, why would you vote for Trump? Sure the Dems have their well-heeled elite too, but seriously, he never did anything for the working class ever. So what does all this have to do with government pensions and taxes? Short version, the larger the corporation, the less tax you pay. Particularly those of global reach. The tax burden of running core government services and responsibilities comes mainly from smaller corporations, businesses and workers. That is why the rhetoric is about the "aging population". Because nearly All the revenue for government pensions and other social services comes from those small corporations, businesses, self-employed and PAYE folks. This is a huge imbalance of economic, and hence political power. Now, say you are a national or sub-national corporation /business. What is your most serious existential threat? Your workers and unions? No, international unionism is dead, and with a few exceptions, unions are not that strong. Your business peers? Not really. Competition, sure. But if you work hard and perform well, and innovative, you will probably do well. So what is your real threat? Those 730+ super corporations. And sure, you may sell out to them, and make a tidy profit. But in fact, if you give your own workers share in the company, it gives you a better chance of survival. Mostly though, takeovers are hostile, and almost everyone in the company, from CEO to janitor, gets hurt. They will gut your business, remove the most profitable bits, and sack the workers and you! So what's the point? Governments are not intrinsically evil, but are corruptible, and guess who does the corruption? Second, privatization, deregulation, etc,, does not make corporations [or governments] more efficient. It just makes them less accountable. And most capitalists are not capitalists. If they were, they would be preaching workers having shares in the company, 24/7. In summary, how should the vast majority of people align if they want to vote in their own interests? And by people I mean all PAYE, sub-contractors, wage-earners, small corporations and businesses? Not for the interests of those 730 global corporations. They don't need your help-EVER. In fact the last time a huge corporation [with quasi-government powers] got reined in for extreme and toxic behaviors was back in the late 19th century, was the British East India Company. [For: Deliberately and directly causing several mass famines in India]. And the BEIC was tiny compared to those 730 trans-global corporations. They are not a cabal, but they do have common interests, and it is NOT you. Anyhoo, it's just a thought.......
We are not living longer. My grand parents and great-grand parents lived until 80, 90s. I now have relatives dying at similar ages or younger. I know 3 people aged over 90. To add, most of us after age 80 aren’t in great health. What’s the point of only enjoying 10 years? Cruel. We do contribute to the age pension with our taxes. Another point: trades/physical work. My parents were forced to retire at age 63 and 65 due to their bodies cannot go on. These people making these decisions are pen pushers on very high salaries. Time to stop the stage 3 tax cuts which only helps the rich.
@@josephj6521 Many people don't contribute to the age pension or any other government service via taxes, as many take more in government services over their life than they pay taxes; the reality is, that any taxes we pay go to the services we use during our life and if we survive to age pension age and are poor enough to qualify for an age pension, then we can access that service.
We want your opinion here ruclips.net/user/postUgkxh1kg1JgRjGPYuHBePxcKdJ-AwrfWx1uA
Both my wife and myself worked from the age of 15, (transition from old NSW intermediate cert to school cert), she began Nursing training I started a metal trade apprenticeship. We both worked/paid/contributed taxes until we were 65. Raised two kids, owned a modest house and because we lived fairly frugal lifestyle saved a goodly amount of money for retirement. Because we were able to do that we retired at 65, now we're in our 70's and the government will not give us a pension, part or otherwise because we fail on the "assets test". We really don't mind not having to deal with Centrelink but what "burns" us is the "stay at home money" the government happily pay to sections of our population that, in many cases have never worked, paid taxes, nor ever want to work, (and I don't mean those with physical/mental impairment). It's a bugger of a way to reward those who do the right thing over a 50 year working life, and it'll only get worse under the administration of a Labor government.
If they want to up the general populations pension age, then they should accept the same terms for their retirement.
It’s not just The Pension, it’s all the other benefits that those who qualify for the pension receive but those who don’t don’t
... they want to eventually wait till we drop... but the Politicians will of course receive their pension
In France it moved from 60 to 62 and they had riots and burning of buildings. Maybe the GOVT. should stop sending cash to other countries and look after Aussies.
You are correct. The Australian Government by continuing to raise the age eligibility of the pension are tying their best to worm their way out of paying out pensions as best they can.They are masters at overtaxing the Aussie people to Kingdom come, but are terrible when it comes to paying out back to the public. Age 67 as it stands is an International disgrace, as well as the small amount of payments the public are currently receiving with their pensions.Time for the Governments to go and a new system of running the country be introduced.
@@austinvert8626
What system would you suggest to run the country.. put you in charge?
Like most western countries, Australia allows far too many immigrants in, especially refugees, who are a net burden on taxpayer funded services, like healthcare and pensions.
Foreign aid helps to stop wars. It is not just about "charity". Helping neighbours resist communism is vital for our national interests. Governments around the world try to influence smaller nations. Russia for example, uses Wagner and other mercenaries in Africa to strip it of resources, and to stop western investments there. China [the PRC] is spending BIG time in the Pacific area, already turning smaller nations against Australia, the USA etc.
The foreign policy failure [by both sides of politics] is not making the different policies consistent. Politically, and strategically, Australia is tied into alliances with the USA and other partners. But who is our BIGGEST trading partner? Communist China. THAT is what does not make sense. Helping Fiji, or Papua New Guinea, etc, is what DOES make sense.
Trading with China is 'fool's gold". Very short-term benefits, but long term dependency. We KNOW this because China has put the economic levers on us more than once, with sanctions against our exports to them, raised tariffs, etc. So basically, we can't tell them to "shove it", but they can tell us to "shove it" when we side with the international community over Chinese expansionism in the south China Sea.
The main drain on the government aged pension is the lack of means testing on the family home. It is not means tested if it is worth $100,000 or ten million! Th aged pension is meant as a backstop, for those who need it. But if you have no other assets, or those asset are under the limit for a single or couple who own their own home, then the people with a 10 million dollar property will still get the pension, it is absurd.
Our house is only worth $500,000, we have modest super [under the limit], but I have already lost most of my pension!
@@roberthunter6927 There should be a limit to family home exemption but bringing in a fair limit is contentious, given the differing home values around Australia; my ancient house on a small block in outer Melbourne is still valued at nearly 1 million, whereas the same house on the same size land in a country town would be valued at much less; that said, no-one living in a multi-million property should be getting an exemption from an age pension means test.
@@petesmitt I agree that where the property is matters, because obviously location has a huge impact on value, even if the houses are exactly the same in age, features, block size etc. I also get that people often would like to say where they have always lived, near friends and grandkids, and clubs etc. But the fact remains that some people, if they plan ahead, can virtually hide nearly ALL their assets in their main place of residence, if they obey the time rule, and it will be exempt as far as the aged pension is concerned.
So apart from rich farmers, etc ordinary country people are penalised compared to city dwellers. A lot of the time, they will have to move to the city for health reasons, to get easier access to specialists and so on.
So while the rich [in house asset] can downsize, the country person has to "upsize" to get even a modest property on the train line [for example], for an easy trip to that specialist or hospital in the city. It can be quite difficult to get your ducks in a row to do this. Be over the preservation age, and yet have the private [as opposed to an investment property] long enough [I think 10 years is the general standard] for the "New" family home to be "invisible" to the pension. To make the move, they would have to dive into their Super to make the change in most circumstances. As no one can live comfortably [or in reality, even just "exist" on the bare pension, they would need to have enough remaining super to make this practical, and in many cases, they would not.
Having assets [like Super in accumulation mode], but completely ignoring the family home is just not equitable, if that house value is very high [controlled for location etc, of course].
The whole point of super being a legitimate tax dodge in accumulation mode is to encourage self-funded retirement [in part or in whole].
A whole lot of people get pension or part-pension that don't really need it, and this prevents a more liveable pension allocation, AND puts pressure onto increasing the pension age. And working in pension years is Ok for those with good health, but just not possible for others, as Katherine pointed out.
The basic strategy of governments is to go after the "low hanging fruit" as far as tax and pensions go. The reality is, the richer you are, the more you can manipulate the system. That is why huge corporations with battalions of tax lawyers and accountants can get away with paying little tax, and the wage earner or small business person often struggles in retirement.
Politicians and bare the biggest burden to Australia.
My plan is not to rely on Govt hand outs. Interesting the Govt has just given themselves a pay rise with our taxes. Aussies just stand by without a blink of the eye.
These pollies recommending age 66 and above have never done a hard day's work in their lives, let alone work like that 5-6 days a week for 8 or more hours each day. Those pollies of utmost stupidity are the cause of most of our problems. Retirement age was set at 65 because people rapidly decline from stamina, memory, and ability to cope with new changes and technologies in the work place. To raise the age when people's physical fitness is at an all time low is murder. The govs are trying to hasten our deaths to prevent paying out on pensions for the workers, while voting themselves extraordinary pay rises and benefits each year.
I don’t see a problem with this so long as politicians cant access their superannuation until they’re 70 as well
I’ve worked full time since 17.5 yrs old I’ve paid taxes for years and GST when it was introduced when ever I shopped or used services, also rates and stamp duties etc. why is there not enough money now when we’ve already been paying taxes etc surely the govt should have invested some and made plans better to look after it’s older retired people. I served in the military protected our country also and it’s just not right to expect people to keep working to 70 it’s physically exhausting. And impossible to help care for elderly parents and grandchildren if people all have to go to work. Families will collapse. I will riot for fairness like in France if need be.
Why not treat people as human beings, not commodities?
Why not allow anyone who has worked 40 years be allowed to get the pension, or at least a part-pension at 60 or 62?
We all pay into our pensions via our taxes. I’m in my 50s who began working with earning ZERO superannuation. It wasn’t until in the early 90s I received 4% yet I also paid a tax-rate of 47% of my earnings above $48k pa.
I paid my way! Yet my superannuation isn’t great (I’m adding to it now) compared to those who began earning 10% from the very beginning.
I say put the pension age back to 65. Worked 40 years? You can still get it. Same is in Denmark and other good nations. France is 62. Even the USA you can access at 62 at a reduced rate or wait until 67 for the full-rate.
In the USA, if you wait until 70 you get a bonus pension for waiting until later. Yet here they want to punish us?
Get rid of the stage 3 tax cuts and those silly tax imputation tax refunds for those with very high stock balances. This nation can afford to pay pensions but chooses to put money elsewhere instead.
There are many migrants coming as well. They’re tax payers.
Also, this nation should get more from our natural recourses such as gas and coal yet we have multinationals ripping us off! Disgraceful.
Final point. Many people lose their jobs in their 50s and 60s and cannot find work again. Ageism is real in this country. Do we expect these people to live on the dole? They want to work but cannot get the pension. It’s another disgrace.
If we’re such a burden why do they make it so difficult to retire overseas? Living overseas would take some pressure off the health system! We’ve worked all our lives to earn this pension, they keep changes the rules. So annoying!
Because they want the small amount of money the give to stay in Australia …..
At the time of federation the state pension schemes were taken over by the New Federal Government and they were to be funded by a 6.8 % increase in the New Income tax. So people pay for their own pension over a life time therefore the Pension is not Social Security or paid for by the next generation.
It should have been 60 years old so we can still enjoy like
I hope the government will let Aussie enjoy age pension at the age of 60 for those who’ve worked and contributed to the country’s economy a total of 35-30 years
@@chollypaderanga307 your dreaming 😴
Hi your vids are very good thankyou.
If you can imagine a steam kettle boiling thats me when i hear this, i look around and see people ( i know who are on the dole hardly ever worked in there life , yet are capable to work .) Iam 67 April 2024 the government needs to get some of these lazy people to contribute get them off there butts .
I am lucky i have a job i can do 2 to 3 days a week if need be and happy to keep active .
But at the same time i want my time now and a part pension .
Thanks heaps all the best
Steve.😊
I know a lot of people come to aus as a migrant , after 2 year they apply for citizen and put all the money to buy house, as they don’t have money they apply for unemployment benefit ;after 20 years never working they reach retirement age and Centrelink transfer it to old age pension.
I know a lot of people who came to Australia as migrants, selected as healthy and decent individuals usually with a qualifications required in Australia, who worked hard and honestly, raised well educated and sound citizen professional kids, paid taxes, saved money, bought a house or two and built a good super saving who are now living without being a burden to society. There are all types of people in every group. But most migrants, did pass a test to get here. And people who for generations had been here did not pass any test. So chances are the bad apples are more plentiful in the not selected lot.
We have the worst age pension system. Pampering lazy and slaving people who saved money for the future.
Income and asset test should be removed to stop hiding of asset and income.
Superannuation should keep on increasing 15% or more to support housing and age care for everyone.
Single and couple calculation should be the same, to stop people divorcing on paper but living together in one roof.
Limit on earning of pensioner should be removed to encourage everyone to work to have a better condition, not a ground hog everyday.
They should make things simple to understand, easy follow and minimise irregularities, because you don’t need too…
All politicians know these things, but none dare to loose votes if they corrected it.
We should initiate this to happen or it will never happened!
Hi, and thanks for this video.
Is there a need to increase super?
We’ve been self funded since we turned 60. We are in our early 70s now and looking back we have enjoyed the time between 60 and 70 to do lots of activities. We are finding maintaining living standards increasingly difficult financially. Medical insurance and a huge increase in cost of living are becoming concerning. Personally a universal pension for all would be cost effective because the tax system would recoup the over flow from earnings. The Centrelink system is massive and unworkable in providing assistance. It could be trimmed and the massive impost of form filling would be eliminated. Compulsory Super needs to be both employer paid and worker paid as well. This way it could be funding retirement adequately over time. Super should not be accessible until retirement. A note on being able to work as we get older- I found my energy levels were depleted at around 60 after running a business and raising 4 children as well as working in the teaching profession. Working gill 70? Please- no way.
Thank you so much for providing your input and the voice of experience since you have already gone through some retirement time. I really appreciate all the information provided and I do hope others are also reading your notes. Wishing you all the best 🙂
Age pension is should be a universal right for every old citizen, they have worked so hard all their life to build this nation, they deserve to have a decent retirement life! its the respect the nation owe to them, its a gratitude to show appreciation! every young ad will go through the same path...government should encourage them to earn extra income if at least do not punish them! current age pension payment system is to put burden on retiree to forbidden them to live a comfortable life. Retiree have been forced to make a choice either take age pension which is around $30k /couple from government and give up their extra income earning potential or by keep their extra earns to give up age pension.
I think one needs to seperate “Retirement Age” and “Pension Eligibility Age”. One can “retire” at any age, what concerns most people is the Pension Eligibility Age because they are planing their retirement round that age. As I understand it, many retirement tax strategies kick in prior to Pension Eligibility Age and one requires a good financial adviser and tax accountant to maximise their outcome because it’s not a one size fits all solution.
Thank you Stuart and you are 100% correct.
Something I think would have been worth mentioning is that currently age pension eligibility age depends on when one was born. If after 1 July 1952 and before the end of 1953 it is 65 and a half years, if between start of 1954 and end of June 1955 it is 66 years, between 1 July 1955 and end of 1956 it is 66 and a half and 67 for anyone born after the end of 1956. This is from Services Australia.
This is correct John, but as I mentioned in the video, from 1st July it all evens out and now the Age Pension age is 67 for new applicants
Ok, I'm confused. I was born early December 1956. The information on the Services Australia web site indicates I am eligible to apply for age pension now, but you seem to be saying I will have to wait until I turn 67 in December. Is the information on the Services Australia web site incorrect, perhaps not been updated?
I think that the age pension payment shoud starting pay when we are 67. 40 years ago the retire age was lady 50 and 55 for men than 60 and 65 and 67. What do they thinking 70 75 or work until you never recieve the tax that you paid. The best way if the gov wanted citizen to work above the 67, that should be people choice and they pay tax but it doesn't matter how much they earn and we should still get full payment as stadard. Like in France 60 and Gov change to 62.The people protest and they don't wanted work to dead. Would anyone wanted working to you D. I don't so people who healthy and wanted to work that should be their choice.
no obvious link to the questionnaire on your website? Can you please add one here?
ruclips.net/channel/UCDk9dWm09u0WwiMoJtYhXsgcommunity?lb=Ugkxh1kg1JgRjGPYuHBePxcKdJ-AwrfWx1uA
Diminishing taxes and increasing costs means that there must be cuts and raising pension age is a no-brainer; essentially, people are going to have to save for their retirement via superannuation, not rely on a pension.
Woooow ... I must be the ignorant and stupid migrant.
I came here in mid Feb 1989 at the age of 28 as a skilled migrant.
3 weeks later I good a job as a software engineer and has been working since then until now.
I love my career and enjoy working in my field.
I intend work for as long as I could.
What age should be the Age Pension age?
50
60
Many people have the attitude that social security is there to live on indefinitely. It's their "wages". They don't want to work. Why work for a living when you can get more from social security? That's why they have so many kids. For example if you have 6 kids you get more on the role and benefits than many people get working! Others that have worked all their lives get penalized for working and saving then the government push out retirement more years. People who work wear out.
Working people don't get the same pension plan that politicians get nor can they get a full pension after 10 years and be able to work and earn what those politicians can without loosing part or all of their pensions. Why?
Try to fee 6 kids😂😂😂
@angelsandocean2853 there is more incentive to go out and get work then? You are allowed to work and earn a certain amount before you start loosing it. it's there to tide you over untill you get a job to support yourself and your family. It's NOT there to support you and 6 kids for 18 years.
Just take some responsibility if you can't and don't have 6 kids!
Might sound harsh but the world doesn't owe you a living!
Work untill you drop
Sounds like a plan 👍
Wait until death taxes come in soon, 67 years old is terrible should be 65 .
While the globalized economy provides many advantages and benefits, no one talks about the some quite severe problems as well. there are about 730 global corporations, and they own about 85% of the world's wealth. That leave 15% for everybody else. That "everybody else" is eight BILLION people, smaller corporation, businesses and government ownership of buildings, etc.
Of course, where does a huge economic powerhouse like The People's Republic of China come in? Well, it comes 2nd after the USA, followed by Japan, Germany and India. The PRC is a command economy. In other words, it is a STATE capitalist country. in theory all Chinese citizens own all that capital collectively, but it is fair to say that most of that money is in state corporations , although the last couple of decades has seen a rise in the middle class and some private billionaires. despite criticism of its methods, which have been historically brutal, the lower classes have received a big jump in personal wealth, also, both in relative and absolute terms.
This is not politics, but economics, but the economic background is crucial to understanding how things like taxes, pensions, and governments operate. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, capitalist and communist states are remarkably similar in their behavior, as the world economy became globalized. Capitalist countries became more mixed economies, with increases in social safety nets such as public housing, free or low cost health care, and government pensions. Traditionally Communist countries usual provided lots of government support for individuals, and the cost of far less opportunity for personal wealth. But as in the China [PRC] example, it is more a mixed economy now, with more and more private enterprise being allowed.
So why is this relevant? No matter what the ideology of a country is: hard right wing, democratic/centrist to hard left wing, all have seen the dominance of corporate and government power at the expense of the individual. But even that is not quite accurate, because more of the real policy decisions get made in corporate board rooms than cabinet rooms.
Short version, the real governance of the planet is exercised by those 700+ mega-corporations.
So what does this actually mean, even in a place like Australia with free elections? In terms of economic policy, no power for the voter all all. Sorry, it does not matter who you vote for, it does not make all that much of a difference. There is a band of behavior which corporations will allow governments to play with, but if you cross them, watch out.
Take the USA for example. On paper it is a progressive nation full of rights and freedoms, in practice it has never had what could be called a moderate left wing government, never mind a social democrat one. [And never a communist one]. The problem is that Americans are terrified of communism. And sure, Stalinist regimes and the like are totalitarian states, not socialist states. [There is actually a difference]. But the real kicker is that the USA imagines it has a communist infestation. The absurd idea that any moment a DOMESTIC communist government will take over. So, America has always leaned to the right-even the most progressive Democrat administrations have been more center-right than left-leaning.
if you don't believe me, look at the rabid anti-communist nonsense of McCarthyism appearing just after World War Two, or the Trump Administration, Jan 2017 to Jan 2021.
Say you are a blue collar worker, why would you vote for Trump? Sure the Dems have their well-heeled elite too, but seriously, he never did anything for the working class ever.
So what does all this have to do with government pensions and taxes?
Short version, the larger the corporation, the less tax you pay. Particularly those of global reach. The tax burden of running core government services and responsibilities comes mainly from smaller corporations, businesses and workers.
That is why the rhetoric is about the "aging population". Because nearly All the revenue for government pensions and other social services comes from those small corporations, businesses, self-employed and PAYE folks.
This is a huge imbalance of economic, and hence political power.
Now, say you are a national or sub-national corporation /business. What is your most serious existential threat? Your workers and unions? No, international unionism is dead, and with a few exceptions, unions are not that strong. Your business peers? Not really. Competition, sure. But if you work hard and perform well, and innovative, you will probably do well.
So what is your real threat? Those 730+ super corporations. And sure, you may sell out to them, and make a tidy profit. But in fact, if you give your own workers share in the company, it gives you a better chance of survival. Mostly though, takeovers are hostile, and almost everyone in the company, from CEO to janitor, gets hurt. They will gut your business, remove the most profitable bits, and sack the workers and you!
So what's the point? Governments are not intrinsically evil, but are corruptible, and guess who does the corruption? Second, privatization, deregulation, etc,, does not make corporations [or governments] more efficient. It just makes them less accountable. And most capitalists are not capitalists. If they were, they would be preaching workers having shares in the company, 24/7.
In summary, how should the vast majority of people align if they want to vote in their own interests? And by people I mean all PAYE, sub-contractors, wage-earners, small corporations and businesses? Not for the interests of those 730 global corporations. They don't need your help-EVER.
In fact the last time a huge corporation [with quasi-government powers] got reined in for extreme and toxic behaviors was back in the late 19th century, was the British East India Company. [For: Deliberately and directly causing several mass famines in India]. And the BEIC was tiny compared to those 730 trans-global corporations. They are not a cabal, but they do have common interests, and it is NOT you.
Anyhoo, it's just a thought.......
As we are living longer, it makes sense that the age is raised to 70. Besides, it's inevitable. Many won't like it but it has to happen sometime.
We are not living longer. My grand parents and great-grand parents lived until 80, 90s. I now have relatives dying at similar ages or younger. I know 3 people aged over 90.
To add, most of us after age 80 aren’t in great health. What’s the point of only enjoying 10 years? Cruel. We do contribute to the age pension with our taxes.
Another point: trades/physical work. My parents were forced to retire at age 63 and 65 due to their bodies cannot go on. These people making these decisions are pen pushers on very high salaries.
Time to stop the stage 3 tax cuts which only helps the rich.
@@josephj6521 Many people don't contribute to the age pension or any other government service via taxes, as many take more in government services over their life than they pay taxes; the reality is, that any taxes we pay go to the services we use during our life and if we survive to age pension age and are poor enough to qualify for an age pension, then we can access that service.
My grandparents live into the nineties. My parents 79&81.