Do you think it's fair to raise the age from 65 years to 70 years before one can recieve the pension or access superannuation funds?
Posted by on 22 Nov 2013
trerrrtefddhgdgh iuggyuf
No, they shouldn't raise it. Some people may be too ill to keep working at that age. They should leave it as it is. They will only end up having more people on disability pensions anyway.
no, just leave things the way they are, they will be to old to enjoy life, thegovernment dont care so long as there pockets are full, meanwhile they are helping the boat people big time, clothes, smokes education, housing, money, while there own people just rot.
NO! People won't be able to enjoy their retirement, they'll be too old and buggered by then, ready for the retirement home already.
I don't think that is fair on the people who are already struggling and waiting for the time to get some help from the government at the age of 65.My husband of 58 yrs old died unexpectedly in 2005 ,leaving me with a big mortgage , as we just bought the house 5 yrs before. One year later same month that my dearest hubby passed, I had been made redundant with not a big pay out, as I was only a clerk in the company. Now at 56 I could not find a job because I don't have a car and I didn't drive. Centrelink hassled me ,treated me like a dog ,even I had never been on the dole neither were my children...just because I was jobless...have been sent to a psychologist for assessment ,and since then she recommended that I get a widow's allowance ,which is also the same amount as the dole. One of my children had to move in with me ,with her family to help me financially, because I could not live with the money I was getting from Centrelink. Do the politicians know that it has been a lot of pain, tears, a low self esteem ,close to depression because I still can't make ends meet, every dollar counts for me ....and I am on medications for the rest of my life. Being a diabetic ,having cholesterol problems, osteo arthritis , life as for everyone else is not easy. Beginning of next I am awaiting my 65th birthday and a bit more money... I can't wait. Do the politicians want to know what people are going through; and I'm convinced that I "m not the only one to struggle on earth. They should be put in our shoes ,even for a month ,with limited means to live on ,so they feel powerless as some people feel, when they can't buy food to put on the table, after paying their bills. The politicians are just worried about how much money they will get when they retire ,and they want to make sure that they leave with their pockets full ,and they don't care if yours are empty and full of holes Dany
Its all very well for Politicians to legislate for the aged Pension age to change to 70 if it were that simple. Yet what about them the Politicians will they alter their pensionable age. I very much doubt they will succumb and then they would have a fat lump sum to look forward to unlike most of us who receive a miserly pension received through Centrelink.
If one's state of health is sound, age 70 is not an unjust proposition. Otherwise, it should probably stay at 65. It might not be an unreasonable proposition to require all intending retirees to undergo a full medical. I am trying not to consider this in a selfish manner. I shall be 85 in two months. Robert B
I find it insulting , they have worked long and hard I don't see the ex politics still working
What a charming Avatar name! I think it will be very tough I have retired and believe me 70 would be too hard to keep working so I am not sure how it is going to work. Here visiting in the US there are so many "older" people working in retail BUT there are so many on food stamps. If you are able to work good on you! "Receive"
WHY, it is good to work, but the mature age workers are being called back because the young do not or are to lazy to work. we are only able to die slowly but why mot look after thw ageing workforce instead of taking from them.
The retirement age is already in the process of being raised to 67. That is what compulsory superannuation is all about encouraging people to save for their own retirement. I can't see too many manual workers being able to last until that age. Great if you work in an office.
I think most labourers in many occupations would find this impossible as the work they do is very hard physically resulting in extreme wear on their joints etc. I feel that the sort of work one does needs to be taken into consideration therefore it should not be an across the board change. It is not reasonable to assume everyone will be up to working until they are 70 and the individuals fitness to do so should be accessed medically. I feel the Government hopes many workers will die before they ever get to enjoy any retirement which seems callous when they get to enjoy so many perks.
I agree with everyone when you get to your early 60s it means that most of us have been working for about 40 years and deserve a well earned break from work why not let some of the younger generation step up and do their bit for the country and maybe politicians should be paid less like on a low income as with most other people.
no and the presnt age is 67 not 65 this takes jobs away from the young and many people die befor they will get to retire.Women should not have to populate the country with thier bodys and then be expected to work as long as men ,even though we don not like to think this, we are the weaker sex we are.
no
I believe this is an individual choice and should be exactly that. Not a requirement. I'm 59 and have breen retired for the past 5 years due to an injury I sustained at work, this was not my choice (either the i9njury or the retirement). I would love to still be working but am unable to find an employer who will 'take a chance' with me. Trust me it's a very lonely existance as my husband works full time, even though I volonteer 2 days a week. Perhaps the answer would be for those older worker who choose to continue working to ease their way into retirement by either working part time or job shairing with another worker of the same or similar age. Also the older workers could act as mentors to those yonger workers starting out in their working life. Age should not be the barrier, rather the ability and the deaire to work should be the only barrier. However having said my piece I realise that this would happen in a perfect world, and like everything else in life nothing is always perfect and someone be they the employer or the tax pay er would have to fund this idea. So I believe that we are back where we started lots of pros and cons for both sides of the argument.
Typical of politicians. They have an outrageous taxpayer funded superannuation plan and can access is after spending only two terms in parliament. Some of these leeches have collected their super under the age of 40. But they expect the people who pay them these unbelievable amounts to work until seventy. There's a revolt coming in this country over the perks of politicians and its not too far off..
I think the change to 67 is enough. It's all to do with money. Whichever way you look at it Australia is the land of milk and honey. Unfortunately we are pricing ourselves out of the market and have become spoilt. We have got to the stage with Government hand outs that we now consider a cut off point for welfare at $150,000 per year! We blame everybody else for badly spent money eg, people on the dole,single parents etc but the real welfare is given to the middle class. Have a baby get $6,000,family tax A, family tab B,childcare rebates,private health insurance rebates and on it goes. Money for computers,money for going to school and more. We also have the PBS,pensions,dole,disability,special needs payments and more. A payment for everybody but guess what?? No one wants to pay tax. All of this with just 23 million people...a fantastic place to live but something will have to give. The elastic band must break at somewtime. Raising the pension age to 70 is just a way for the politicians not to have to think. Sort sighted,unimaginative,non visionary. That's the sort of people in both parties that are running this country. Scared of the opinion polls and therefore can't make tough decisions for the betterment of the country and us how live here.
No at least give them one or another I am 64 now I want access to either, my super fund told me i could have $111 per fortnight, that would do me just fine as my income is well below the poverty line but being self employed I can at least claim my utility expenses. Also it would be a good idea to let them have a health care card, I spend at least $100 per month on medical expenses so can never save. I dont think this has been very well thought out some people are destined to retire at 65, but you also have to look at the drain on the government purse when a lot of baby boomers are just about to retire. I dont want to retire yet, but the cost of utilities is almost killing me
BPIA is a group fighting for the right for the FULL PENSION TO BE PAID TO RESIDENTS IN AUSTRALIA, BORN IN UK. Australia is a Country which gives Residency to UK born emigrants, very happy in Australia, the BRITISH GOVERNMENT NOW STEALS LARGE PART OF PENSION OWED TO RESIDENTS AND AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT IS REQUIRED TO CHANGE THIS…THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT DO THIS, EVEN AFTER HIGH COURT CASE - WHY? IRENE
No I don't think it's fair to raise the pension age from. 65 years to. 70 years . I think 65 is a good age to retire
I agree with Boydie.
It is a disgrace, more people die in the 70+ age bracket than most, so it comes across that the government is being absolutely sneaky, just hoping that the majority of ageing people will die before they have to be put on pensions. These people, the majority of "baby boomers," have worked hard and paid their way through life, (and their taxes) with the expectancy of being "looked after" when they retire, as they looked after their predecessors. This governemnt makes Scrooge look like a saint
I along with most people have worked all their lives when are they going give us a rest. I have worked 3 jobs and more per week to put food on the table and put a house over our heads. I am 63 and I am still working but not for long. I am burnt out and I just can't do it any more. Where are they going to stop 70 75 or even 80. Give it break. I think the time is at 63 which allows people to relax and enjoy the rest of their lives.
Dispen I believe it should be more a matter of having a choice of retiring or working on. I worked in Local Government as a Health/Building Surveyor when I was rendered unable to work at age 59, by a near fatal fall on a building site. I very much enjoyed the job and it paid well. I would have happily worked to 70. The decision to retire or carry on would obviously be heavily influenced by the state of one's health and the income being earned. At least such a major decision would then be subject to the needs/wishes of the individual. Why must the alternative be 70? Why not 67 or 68? it's only a number!
yes its alrite for them to sit on there asses in welly and say change the age for the pensioners. It's been a long hall getting to 65 and then hear they want you to wait a bit longer, no thank you.
It's a bit rude how many really healthy 70 yos are there running around, most have worked all there life, I started working when I was 15 am now in my 30's, the thought of being made to keep working until I am 70 is quite daunting, and when you finally get to have the aged pension it is almost living in povety so not really much to look forward to. I find that super funds are a big rip off as unless you work full time at a really high paying job, when you reach retirement age there is not much there to live on, most of mine seems to go in fees, charges and taxes. It's allright for pollies to sit there and dictate these laws but when they retire they get a better pension, super and heaps of perks the ordinary hardworking person doesn't. Yes it's all a bit unfair but what can you do.
I agree with most of what has been said on this topic,and many lie shannonahoe have said "what can you do?" or words to the same effect. There IS an answer to this.......Write to your M.P. and every politician in parliament of every persuasion! Secondly, REFUSE to vote at any and all elections until changes are made. You have to be pro-active IF you want change,otherwise stop whingeing.You have a voice, make it heard! The pollies are getting another 3%+ raise around Christmas or just after, THAT is 4 pay increases in 3 years totalling over 37.5%,giving Mr.Abbot just about $500,000pa + perks. A backbencher will get around $180,000 + perks,and the cost to the taxpayer for the living ex PMs will cost in excess of $1,000,000pa. If you think that lot should be cut back ....THEN SAY SOMETHING or it will just continue. I've sent my emails,it took me 2 hours to word it and 2.5 hours to get and copy the email addresses of every MHR and senator in the federal parliament. The main problem is that I am only one voice, and I deliberately vote for the Donkey! Why? Because the parties change but the government remains the same. They all give with one hand and take it back wit interest with the other.....then they pat themselves on the back and give themselves a pay rise .......through a government appointed independent tribunal of course.
I started work when I was 16, did over 13 years in the RAAF and saw active service, then worked in factories and building sites until I retired at 67 because of physical disabilities. Really wnted to stay at work but couldn't handle it. Now we are enjoying life and still travellingAustralia and overseas for enjoyment. Now at 78 I thnk retiring at 70 is a good idea as long as you are fit enough.
Totally unfair. The government wants us to work until we drop dead so they won't have to pay out a cent to older people. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I'm 58yo have arthritis , high blood pressure, diabetes, bad liver & three operation each knee. I cant get the invalid pension because they say I can work ! If I can get a job from an employer which is near impossible then I have to work till I'm 70 . Just to get ten years of superannuation ? At that stage Centrelink will determine my financial state & tell me that I must live on the super till it runs out , or six months have expired to get the pension. They have this all wrapped up in a neat little bow for them but for me I got ten years of pain then six months of worry if I live to collect my pension ?
No I think we should be lowering it so that people retire early enough to enjoy it that way they spend money travelling around, looking after the grand kids ect. and it open up the job market to train people in those skills.
TRY WORKING IN THE BUILDING TRADE AT 70 ESPECIALLY OUT IN THE HOT SUN , MAY BE FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK IN GLASS OFFICES ALL THEIR LIVES .
no the penison age should not be put up to 70 years should be up to indival chioice want to work or not
definately not it is most unfair
No not at all,they should make it 60yrs old,but optional if you wish to keep working,politicians have far too many financial perks.
No I dont think its fair, at that age, your body is aging and it isnt so easy to get around and do things eg sightseeing when you do retire.
No ..... bodies can only physically and mentally work well for so long.Let it be a choice.
I dont agree, their are those who work as heavy labourerers they, in most cases by 65 are unable to work anymore, if they even survive until then
i AGREE WITH THE RAISING OF THE PENSION AGE, BUT NOT THE ABILITY TO ACCESS THEIR SUPER. A lot of aged people are still products of the group of people who paid heavily with taxes and were encouraged to believe they would be able to access the aged pension.
no i dont think it is fair
No it is not fair.
No,after 65 years employees had already slowed their performance rate by 10% .
my mum is about too turn 65 next year every time she goes to retire she cant cause the government keeps putting up the age of retirement. and i have noticed work taking a heavy toll on her health in the last 10 years come on let people be able to have some fun before they are crippled and can not function
I don't think it is fair at all if they rise it to 70 years old they work hard long all these years and they don't have much time to enjoy with their families and also it is hard enough to find a job for people at that year, that si the reason I say it is unfair, may God bless these aged people who build our empire before us. Thank you Vaine Russell
come on people,think about it, it all depends on what job you have done in the last 30 years,for example how many people have had knee replacements,hip replacements before they are 65.all because of the job they did,and enjoyed.70 no.
No I don't think it is fair. I have worked all my life in an office, I have not taken time off to raise a family, I have paid taxes all my lfe and have never received any financial assistance from the state. I am tired now, my body aches all the time and I still have another few years before I hit 65.
no it is not fair
No way it's hard now for our young folk to find work what will it be like if we raise the age pension age yet again leave well enough alone and give Australia's youth a go
no
l think abbott should get e real job for 12 months and actually work like a real Australian not sitting on his rear end. standing up all day or digging a ditch and then tell us why we cant retire at 65 when he proberly hasn't worked a a real day in his life!
I think it stinks, the goverment should butt out of peoples lives,we are not children & they are taking our freedom away from us
People of my parent's generation started work at 15 and would work until 65, 50 years. Now, everyone stays at school longer, often going onto uni and further education so it may they are 25 before starting work. That would mena 75 is a suitable age to receive the age pension. When the pension was introduce the average a person would receive it was 13 years, we are living much longer and the country can no longer afford to be supporting people for 20 to 30 years. For some people they would receive more in pension payments than they ever paid in taxes. All in all the age increase is justified.
My husband is a concretor and there is no way he could work until he is 70. He isn't even 30 and he already has back, knee, wrist and shoulder problems. He is a hard worker and always has been. He even works when he is sick and he broke his hand in 3 places and he still worked. A lot of People in extremely physical jobs wouldn't make it that long working. But people need to do those jobs. His dad also works in the building ondustry and he has been site supervisor for the past 10 years and he is pretty much crippled. He has had 3 back surgeries and is an agonisisng pain every day and he only not long turned 60. So I don't know th increase is justified.
no because the government would get all the money people would be dead before they retired
No my job is manditory retirement at 60 - what do I do for money for 10 years.....and just a thought surely if more young people are employed in full time positions replacing the older people then they will pay tax and reduce unemployment and therefor more cash available to assist retired folks.
No
no, being the age l am (60) it is not fair ,there are people who can't work for that long, like myself, there are some people who have health issues which prevents them from staying in the work force, l am now enemployed and cant get work because l am tooo old
No Ithink it is dreadful, we have worked all our lives a full time and finally get rent being close to retirement and they up the age! It is harder more competitive, more stressful. They really risk the population bombing out. What they should do is offer part time, some people work to live and some people work for material things they need to look at this situation more.... Greed is bad ... Some of us work not greedy and just want to retire to enjoy our hard work!
Definitely not! Super is a fund we pay into all our working life, why should we be forced to work till 70 to gain our own funds back??
There are probably a few more issues than just raising the age. Much depends on the persons health and circumstances. It is my opinion that most people have worked all their lives, paid taxes and some have never worked a day in their lives, had lots of kids and live off our contributions. Get the bludgers off their backsides and put them to work instead of penalizing hard workers that just want to have time to go travelling or just sit peacefully watching the world go by. 65 is a fair age and employers CANNOT REFUSE if someone is fit enough to continue. Their option. Put the Pollies into the real workforce and see what happens.
No - we work all our lives to attain pension age and relax and enjoy life. I retired at 64. I am now 66 and although active I would not have the health or stamina to work full time now. Because of cahnges in Centrelink rules may partner now has to work until age 67. This is an outrage. So a definite no to making people work until they are 70. The people who propose this are clearly not in our age group or they would not being doing so !!!
no
asi read the comments on pollies pensions i can't help but think we should have a retirement home for all politicians, make them retire by 60 and give them the comforts of long bay . they appear so keen to imprison the aged of this country until they are 70. perhaps they might then realise retirement should be the right of the individual and not the right of politicians who will never have to worry about their lifestyle changing on their pension.
No. working for the man till 70, are you kidding. I am no man's slave,
i think its right,that is the right time to chill out and relax after the long years of working and burning yourself
65 to 70 is a big jump. My 69 yr old father, fit as a fiddle, planned on retiring at 70 and is now retiring a year early. Although he has a part time, non-laborer, indoor job, he started getting really tired. I think the age definitely needs to be raised, but to 68, not 70.
Instead of raising the retirement age, the government should stop payments to ex-prime ministers. Also, with the Baby Boomers, some of us haven't had time to accumulate a huge amount of Super, and the little bit we have won't last till we exit this earth. Making us work until we are 70, just to fund the lifestyle of those on the unemployment benefit, single parents benefit, overseas immigrants/boat people permanently on welfare, and also ex-prime ministers is Un-Australian and discriminatory to those who have worked hard as parents in a one income household and now have little saved for their retirement. So instead of makking retirement age 70, the government should accept retirement at 60 years of age, and implement a scheme where people who have been on the dole for over 1 year are trained in the job of someone who is due to retire in 2 -3 months so there can be a seamless transition for the welfare recipient, the retiree and the employer. Refusal by a long term welfare recipient to be trained to re-enter the workforce will see them lose benefits on a sliding scale, ie., the more the refuse the longer they lose their welfare.
Great idea Desley Jean - BUT who is going to care for and feed their children. The onus - as always - falls back on us the grandparents as childcare is way too expensive. Thus a viscious cycle that keeps us beholding to a government that has broken every election promise it has made.
Well said, Desley Jean, this is the best answer I have read on this page
No I definitely do not think the retirement age should be raised
no way,with this government getting rid of people in thre workforce now,why would you make older australians work after 65.we the baby boomers have paid our TAXES to governments,now we deserve the pension.BUT THIS GOV CANT BE TRUSTED.
I have notice the comments on this page in regards to change and also the fact that they are saying the agree. As a financial person the one thing everybody needs to know, that is what the government is doing is forcing people into the privately funded super, that is if you will have a enough to live on as the the government increase the age to 70 which is what they intented to do and then finally stop the pension entirely. The big thing about this is most Australians do not have enough super to carry them through and the other thing is that the Government taxes your super and then when you get your lump sum they tax it again. So is it a good thing that you may not have enough money to retire and that the Goverment will save money by getting out of paying Super and that you get tax on a complusory Super contribution to only be tax again when you get it at the end of your working life. Why is it that a lot of people can not afford to live when their Super runs out. So anyway this is just something to really think about specially while we are young, when super really doesnt mine alot and we change jobs every couple of years. Just think of this before really making your decision about whether this is good or not
No! It's ridiculous
No I don't think it's fair to make access to Super a mandatory age requirement for 70 years of age. It should be left to those who are well prepared to deem when they should retire. There will be NO pension in the future and the government is currently searching out ways to put extra complusory measures in place to garner your super for the next generation and beyond elderly health care I do think it is a good idea to assess how we will pay for the aging population and to think about how the aging can continue to provide for their retirement and health care without being a financial drain on the upcoming primary income generators of the economy. Its defintely a difficult thing to balance socially and morally as most baby boomers preparing to retire have already gifted their succession to their children in the form of education opportunities and living at home so there is often little left over for the generation that kicked in to Super midstream on their careeers while raising a family and prioritising their childrens futures. Defintely a conundrum of values.
no
Pension age really doesn't matter.. people on centrelink just get transferred from un-employment to age pension.. so not much difference there... Most people don't have much money in Super anyway, so i'd like to see it stay at 65 as it's just that slight bonus to help get you ready for living on a pension.. it can be invested in term despoits etc to earn that little bit more.. but leave that choice upto the individual person to decide what they do with it.
im actually angry about this, as a woman, im a grandmother and sometimes i look after my grandchild so my daughter can go and work. if all grandparents have to work and wait for a pension then the younger adults wont be able to work as childcare does cost to much. also some families will end up on the poverty line. because they cant get a job and one parent is working. also im a carer and i dont get payments my son has autism. and no one wants to help you with this at all. so not much money coming into the household makes unhappy.
70 for some people is to old, I thing 65 is a good age to stop work, you are still well to do the thing's you dreamed off.
No. I agree with the majority of writers on this page,put the pollies on a standard pension & share their money around to the hard workers that have made Australia a better place to live in. If you are able to work over the age of 65 that's up to the few that can. There arn't enough jobs to share around for a younger generation as it is.
This should be an option only,maybe some extra benefit to continue working past 65 if ones health allows it. Type of work and health varies greatly between people and their occupations.
it should be the individual's right to decide when they retire , not an act of parliament
no i dont think it is right i turn 65 in two years
No it's not fair! Why do they keep moving the goalposts?? I want to enjoy my life not working till I drop dead. The tradies will be well and truly worn out before 70. Where do they find the idiots who come up with these ideas!!! Political advisers must be over the age of 45 and have some life experience not 25, fresh out of nappies and University cause they are the ones coming up with the ideas......
no I dont agree with the goverment on this,and also I have worked more than 20 years in the uk paid superanuation and I think I should be allowed my pension from there as well has nz because ive worked here for nearly 20 yrs
no I don't think so people should be able to enjoy life at a sertian age at retirement and make the politians get off there back sides and wake up yo them selves
They might as well call it Life Insurance because some don't make it to that age unfortunately! Put away Superannuation only for it to cover your funeral?? ... Just leave the elderly alone I say!
I don't think it's fair. If you want to keep working that's fine. But by that age I'd like to think I would be able to retire and just enjoy the years I have left. If anything, look at doing something constructive for the time being instead of meddling with what will happen when we're elderly.
No changes should be made. In the past too much instability has occurred due to Government changes in Super and in the age to attain a pension. We should be encouraged to put as much into Super so we can look after ourselves. However, employers are removing experienced staff in their 40's let alone in their 50's so how do people look after yorself and your family ? We have seen with the out going government ow much money they have wasted let alone given away. So how does the little man or should I say person (to be politically correct) look after themselves. Heaven help us
No way ! I have worked hard all my life looking forward to retiring and it is getting further away I don't know if I will make it to 70. I definately don"t want my last years being stuck at work !
no way how many manual workers can perform in the work place at 70
At turning 65 - I believe, It should be an option whether people are in a healthy or mind set state to work - Happiness to enjoy life is the key - Age is priceless!
My husband is 67 and still working. He is very happy to do so. He works 4 days a week now. His income is supplement by centerlink
NO! My poor father worked hard all his life from the young age of 15 and was in the airforce until he was 25 or so then he worked labouring & asbestos removal until he was 65 and was unable to work due to ill health, he passed away at the young age of 67. He never really got to enjoy his retirement as he was too ill!!!
I don't know ANY person over the age of 65 who is able to work. And it frustrates me that the government think that way when they can retire whenever they want and get a very nice pension package. What is the point of being born if all we do is have 4 years of play after we are born which we don;t remember much of, then we are straight off to school for 13 years and then tafe, uni, apprenticeship or straight into work. Retire at an age were you are at the point of not being as nimble as you used to be and not being able to do all the things you wanted to do in life. All we are, are the drones for the government. Wow what a life we have.
I think it should be done for people currently on a disabilty pension. Because once they reach the age they are forced onto the aged pension which is a lot less. People with disabilities have extremely high medical expenses and can barely make ends meet now, as it is. To drop further would be disasterous for them, so an increae to age 70 for them would be much better but still not ideal. They should be able to stay on the same rate as the disability pension for a lot longer, if not the rest of their lives as most wouldnt live much longer anyway. Also the government politicians are paid far to much in wages and perks and they should stop giving themselves payrises all the time to take more of the burden off the public.
We have no choice -- there are too many Shades of Gray and not enough young ones to pay pensions. Baby boomers are caught in the middle, Kids staying home too long and parents living longer than anticipated, due to better quality of life and modern medicine
I think it's only fair to leave it as it is and make it a personal choice whether one accesses their super fund at 70 or not.
I am 66 and am on the Aged pension, but also work 6 hrs a week which is declared & my pension is ajusted accordingly. However, I must admit to becoming much more tired & also have osteo arthritis in my knee & lower back. To be required to work till 70 may be OK for some, but I feel that he majority of people would find it difficult. I am fortunate that I am a nurse & am able to a variety of lighter duties than shift work or ward work. Also a lot of industries do not want to employ older citizens & would prefer younger, cheaper employees. I also find it reprehensible that they could even consider preventing us from accessing our own Superannuation savings until we turn 70. It will only result in forcing people onto the dole.
It is going up to 67 at present, my husband will still get his at 65 as he is nearly 62 now and it starts going up to 67 in 2015, I am 60 now and will be 65 1/2 when I can get mine as it is starting to go up slowly, it is just not fair when we are the ones who have worked and paid tax all our lives not the ones who come here illegally or have been on CentreLink payments for ever, the pension age will make no difference to them as they get paid anyway. We are not the burden on the tax and health system, we have worked and paid into private health cover and earned our retirement, so leave us alone some people are just tired and worn out by our age, my husband is recovering from a heart attack, people with manual jobs just can't keep working.
No it isnt fair people work all their life and age 65 is sufficient, working past that age should be a personal choice
No way. Retirees would not have the priviledge of enjoying the money and lifestyle they set aside for retirement.
No I think its terrible that they are even thinking of raising the pension age, 'Australian' people are hard workers and deserve to enjoy their retirement whilst they can, and the government should not give their hard earnings to people who dont deserve them, its a crying shame what they are doing to this country.
No I say stay at 65
No, it's ridiculous! A lot of people are ready to enjoy the rest of their life and spend time with family at 65. Others may like to work until 70, but it should be their choice. Not retire at 70 and be in ill health, so they spend the rest of their days sick, and unable to travel or do what they like to do, or persue their hobbies. Let people retire with a good quality of life, if they wish to retire at 70, then it should be up to the individual.
No, between my husband and myself we have worked for 75 years and paid tax, never had any CentreLink payments and now we are coming up to retirement age we are entitled to our pension, the people who don't work or who have manged to get away with never working will still get their payments, yes that's right take it off the people who have worked for it all their lives, some people are just tired and worn out by 65 or 67 as it going up to now. Leave us alone, I am sick of hearing we are going to be a burden, we have worked and earned our entitlement, take it off the bludgers who don't work or come here illegally and leave us alone.
No I do not agree to the change to70 years of age. Look most people work very hard most of their lives to get where they are. They strive to have a good working enviroment, to get a home and build a good safe enviroment for their children. So why extend the age before you can recieve the pension or access their superannuation. This is not acceptable at all. People work hard to acheive these things and now they are expected to work longer, no way. These are the Golden Years, where one should be able to sit back and reap the benefits of all the hours of hard work. Go and have that hard earned holiday, or buy that new car, or even travel around Australia in a campervan. If people want to work longer so be it they should be able to if they want, but if not then that should be just fine to. Cheers Mishiee.
Well said Mishiee,I agree totally.
i think we should leave our super alone and stick to retirement age as is and the poliys should be made to go on an aged pension like us normal people and then see how they like it
As long as the Politicians also abide by this too, only getting thier super when they reach retirment age and not getting a pension as soon as they retire from parliement
Lower the age to 60. Allow the pension/superannuation to come in on a sliding scale so that those who need to (injured/unwell) can receive it earlier and receive less over a longer timespan. Those who want to and are able can work on for longer and receive larger payments when they are ready. The choice is with the people.
No do you think its fair that we pay our politicians as much as we do and we are all still paying for our ex politicians yet they still axpect us to pay even more for pay rises lets see them giving up some salary to help our economy.
no. i believe it should be optional. everyone is different.
I think it should be optional, if you want ot work until 70 by all means do so, but i don't think we should have too.
not fair at all, the ones in need should receive pension despiite their age
No....paid taxes for 35 years, and struggle to find employment now in my 50's.
No I don't. if people wish to work until 70 then that is fine but to disallow access to their own super until then is morally wrong. If we have to pay for slack pollies we can at least pay for the real workers in this country!
Yes
No I don't think that it would be a great idea, most people are worn out and trying to rejuvinate by 60 that is what I believe and it is time to relax and age gracefully. I hope not anyway each individual differs in health wealth and age so whatever suits the individual.
True. Everyones circumstances differ.
People who have worked in physical positions are usually far more unable to continue than those who have had office, indoor jobs. .Some people's bodies break down a lot earlier than others. Many of the current older workforce began working at 14 or 15 and have worked continuously since.
TOTALLY AGREE , I for one have worked since i was 14yrs ,Full time . Part time from 10 yrs old Back then our grand parent were on pension that was totally in antiquate , So we lived together to afford living
no I don't think it's fair at all at that age is when yu need it so yu can do things like travel homer improvements etc
Not quite, but mostly.
How right you are wens58, I worked for Australia Post for several years, started out as parcel post, until I wiped a brand new Ford Econa Van, through a drunkin idiot, who decided to run a red light. My back was badly done in, so to keep me going I was put in the post office as a manager, untill some bright spark found the time to hold us up, just on pension week, then after the forth holdup, and several trips to see phisio for my back, and councling for the trouma, my doctor decided to sign me out, with a payout, now I am at the age that would love to travel, my husband was told " sorry if you want to quit before your alloted time you have to give up your intitments" 65 in too old to injoy life 70 is for walking ades, and piles of pills in the morning, and besides, the cops will find some thing to keep you from driving any how, so , and as everone says Why do polies work well into their 80's and when are they going to share their high unnecerary pay rises with us who need it ?
i wonder if these these overpaid offices workers,or should i say chair warmers who come up with these great ideas have ever done any manual work in their life.ask a brick layer or capenter or other trade and labourer workers want to work till 70 before they get an age pension.it might be great for office workers in their air condition office to work till 70.as for superannuation how many will live till 70 to use of this saving.this is a total idiotic idea,keep people in work till 70 and increase the unemployment numbers for young people.
I agree with you totaly yes most of us would love to work in air conditions and heaters who ever thought of this is a chair wamer
The data used to justify this change is solid. I would agree as long as all people have access to other funds through Centrelink eg. Unemployment, Disability, Rent assistance etc. (Provided of course that these payments provide adequately for the basic living expenses). Nobody says we have to like it but, adaptation is the definition of survival and nothing remains constant, ever.
Not until Politicians give up some of their perks, eg. Travel and offices once they have retired!
RIGHT ON ! AGREE TOTALLY...... BY THE TIME MOST HARD WORKING MEN GET TO 70 THEY WILL find it very difficult to hold a fulltime job HEALTHWISE! Most people by 60 65 are having to get many joints replaced which have limitations! The POLLYS NEVER give up anything ! None of their Benefits which they should not get after leaving their positions! They have a huge big fat super to live on and use for their Expenses! They do not need the GOLD CARD or the travel concession.
I agree, Politicians need to give up or tighten some of their luxury perks. Why should we have to tighten our budgets and they still get to live in luxury.
I TOTALLY Agree with you.
this true,but how many politicans the likes of of the ones that want the age pension to be 70 would give up their own perks that are a bigger burden on ordinary tax payers.
And polys tend to get a wage increase around xmas. I wonder why ?
here is the word for that NONE
Thousands of Aussies and Kiwis have already discovered the benefits of their FREE LiveTribe membership. Join and start earning online today!
Sign UpComment on brands, products and services and be rewarded for your opinions! Join in and discover LiveTribe’s extensive range of rewards.
View More
