Contents
- Table 1: What is your Age Pension age?
- How does your Age Pension age affect your retirement plans?
- Why is the Age Pension age increasing to 67 years?
- What happened to the proposal to increase Age Pension age to 70 years?
- Table 2: What is your Age Pension age under the unsuccessful Liberal government proposals?
- Background: Proposed further increase to Age Pension age
- Simplistic solutions distract from ageing population issues
- Under the current Age Pension age rules
- Under the changes proposed by the Liberals
Note: This article explains the current Age Pension age. If you are seeking information on the retirement age for accessing superannuation benefits see SuperGuide article Accessing super: What is my preservation age?
Your Age Pension age, that is the age at which you are eligible to apply for the Age Pension, depends on your date of birth.
If you were born before July 1952, your Age Pension age is 65 years (and younger for women born before 1949).
If you were born on or after 1 July 1952, then your Age Pension age will be 65.5 years, 66 years, 66.5 years or 67 years, depending on your specific date of birth.
The first shift upwards in Age Pension age took place in July 2017 when the Age Pension eligibility age increased to 65.5 years, and then in six-month increments every 2 years, until it reaches the age of 67 years from 1 July 2023.
Table 1: What is your Age Pension age?
| Age Pension age | Affects people born | |
|---|---|---|
| 65 years | Born before July 1952 | |
| From 1 July 2017 | 65.5 years | From 1 July 1952 to 31 December 1953 |
| From 1 July 2019 | 66 years | From 1 January 1954 to 30 June 1955 |
| From 1 July 2021 | 66.5 years | From 1 July 1955 to 31 December 1956 |
| From 1 July 2023 | 67 years | On or after 1 January 1957 |
Source: Adapted from information on Centrelink section of DHS website.
How does your Age Pension age affect your retirement plans?
For the majority of Australians, the Age Pension will remain an important component of any retirement plan, even when an individual has substantial superannuation and non-superannuation savings.
Roughly 75% of Australians who have reached Age Pension age currently receive a full or part Age Pension.
Australians retiring today can access the Age Pension at age 65.5 years for men and women since July 2017 (see Table 1 above). The Age Pension age for women used to be 60 years but has steadily increased to 65 years, in line with the Age Pension age for men (see Table 2 below).
Note: The Age Pension age will remain at 65 years for anyone born before July 1952, and will then steadily increase by six months every two years, until it reaches 67 in 2023. The first group of Australians affected by the Age Pension age increase are those turning 65.5 years on or after 1 July 2017 (Australian residents born on or after 1 July 1952 and before January 1954, have an Age Pension age of 65.5 years).
Background: Until 31 December 2016, some couples who held more than a $1 million in assets (in addition to the family home) were eligible for a part Age Pension. Since 1 January 2017, the Age Pension assets test is much stricter, which means a couple can own just over $800,000 in assets (in addition to the family home) before losing the Age Pension entitlement (for more information on this change to the Age Pension assets test see SuperGuide article Age Pension: 300,000 Australians lost entitlements on 1 January 2017 and for the latest assets test thresholds see SuperGuide article Age Pension: Assets test thresholds applicable since March 2018).
Important: The January 2017 Age Pension changes mainly affect middle Australia. For disturbing analysis of the impact of these changes, see SuperGuide’s special Retirementgate series (Retirementgate: Government’s Age Pension debacle hits middle Australia).
Why is the Age Pension age increasing to 67 years?
The increase in the Age Pension age was debated several years ago by the former Liberal Howard Government but shelved due to its political sensitivity. When the former ALP government increased the Age Pension age to 67 years, the arguments that it used to justify the increase in eligibility age for the Age Pension to 67 years were:
- Age Pension age had not increased above 65 years since its inception in 1909.
- When the Age Pension was introduced, a male retiring at age 65 spent, on average, 11 years in retirement. At that time, around half of the male population reached retirement age.
- Today over 85 per cent of the male population reaches retirement age and then can expect to spend, on average, more than 19 years in retirement.
- The increase in Age Pension age is consistent with international trends: The United States, Germany, Iceland, Norway and Denmark currently have, or are moving towards, retirement ages of 67. The United Kingdom is increasing the Age Pension age to 68.
I explain the context for this fundamental shift in retirement incomes policy in more detail in the SuperGuide article Australia not ready for Age Pension age of 70 years.
What happened to the proposal to increase Age Pension age to 70 years?
The Liberal government wants to increase the Age Pension age to 70 years but has gone quiet on this plan due to electoral backlash, and receiving no support for this further increase from the ALP opposition or the minority parties. Unless the Liberals withdraw this Age Pension age policy from their election platform, my understanding is that the Liberals still plan to increase the Age Pension age to 70, if they can secure a clear majority in the parliament in a future election (next federal election is due in 2019).
Based on Liberal documents, the Age Pension age increase from 67 years to 70 years would happen in six-month increments (and over 2-year periods) starting from July 2025 (for those born after June 1958), until it reaches the age of 70 years from 1 July 2035. If the Liberals were to be successful in the 2019 election, then it can be expected that those born after December 1965 will have an Age Pension age of 70 years, subject to legislation. See Table 2 below for how the proposed changes would work.
Note one – proposed changes: The key difference between the current laws and the proposed changes suggested by the Liberals is the maximum Age Pension age. Under the current laws the maximum Age Pension age is 67 years, while the Liberals want to increase the maximum Age Pension age to 70 years. Under the current laws (and under the changes proposed by the Liberals), the Age Pension age remains at 65 years for those born before July 1952, and progressively increases to 67 years by 2023. Under the current laws, the Age Pension remains at 67 years into the future while under the proposed changes, the Age Pension age would continue to increase for those born after June 1958. In other words, the proposed Liberal changes (not law) affect those born on or after 1 July 1958. Under the unsuccessful proposal by the Liberals, the Age Pension age would increase until it reached 70 years for those born on or after 1 January 1966. See Table 2 below.
Note two – current law: For anyone born after June 1952, your Age Pension age will be older than 65 years, and a maximum of 67 years, under the current laws. See Table 1 earlier to work out your Age Pension age.
Just for the record, in my view, suggesting raising the Age Pension age beyond age 67, while ignoring that mature age employees struggle to obtain work, and many Australians are not physically able to work full-time until age 70 or, in some cases, even until late-60s, is a simplistic solution to a more complex social issue. I provide a more detailed opinion on this issue at the end of this article, and in the SuperGuide article Australia not ready for Age Pension age of 70 years.
Table 2: What is your Age Pension age under the unsuccessful Liberal government proposals?
| Commencement date | Age Pension age | Affects people born |
|---|---|---|
| 65 years | Born before July 1952 | |
| From 1 July 2017 | 65.5 years | From 1 July 1952 to 31 December 1953 |
| From 1 July 2019 | 66 years | From 1 January 1954 to 30 June 1955 |
| From 1 July 2021 | 66.5 years | From 1 July 1955 to 31 December 1956 |
| From 1 July 2023 | 67 years | From 1 January 1957 to 30 June 1958 |
| From 1 July 2025 | 67.5 years | From 1 July 1958 to 31 December 1959 |
| From 1 July 2027 | 68 years | From 1 January 1960 to 30 June 1961 |
| From 1 July 2029 | 68.5 years | From 1 July 1961 to 31 December 1962 |
| From 1 July 2031 | 69 years | From 1 January 1963 to 30 June 1964 |
| From 1 July 2033 | 69.5 years | From 1 July 1964 to 30 December 1965 |
| From 1 July 2035 | 70 years | From 1 January 1966 onwards |
Source: Table is the copyright of Trish Power and cannot be reproduced without express permission of SuperGuide and Trish Power. Table created from media transcripts, 2014 Federal Budget and some information published on Centrelink website (www.centrelink.gov.au).
Background: Proposed further increase to Age Pension age
If Liberals win the 2019 federal election and have a clear majority in both houses of parliament, then expect the Age Pension age to increase to 70 years, unless the Liberals withdraw the policy.
In May 2014, the former federal treasurer Joe Hockey announced that the Age Pension age will increase to age 70 by year 2035, and confirmed this fact in the 2014 Federal Budget. The Age Pension age is the age at which you can claim the Age Pension. The Liberals were not successful in getting this policy through with the composition of the current parliament.
What this would mean in practical terms is, if the Liberals did further increase the Age Pension age, then those born after 1965 can only claim the Age Pension from the age of 70. Anyone born before July 1952 would continue to have an Age Pension age of 65 (or if a woman, younger than 65 in some circumstances). Anyone born after June 1952 but before January 1966 would have an Age Pension age somewhere between age 65 and age 70. See Table 2, earlier in the article, to find out your Age Pension age under the proposed laws supported by the Liberals (note that these changes have no chance of becoming law with the current parliament).
The proposed legislation (that is the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No 2) Bill 2014), was knocked back in the Senate by the Palmer United Party.
Note that the federal government’s proposed changes are more aggressive than the recommendation made by the National Commission of Audit (click on SuperGuide link for retirement-related recommendations of NCOA). The NCOA recommended that the Age Pension age increase to age 70 by 2053, while Hockey proposed that the Age Pension age increases to age 70 by 2035. (At the time of the NCOA report release, I mused if 2053 was a typo in the NCOA report).
Another broken promise by the federal government: Note that prior to the September 2013 Federal Election, the Liberals publicly stated that they had no intention of pushing the Age Pension age to 70 years. It seems that pre-election promises count for nothing. The government then announced that the Age Pension age will increase to 70, and confirmed this fact in the 2014 Federal Budget. The Liberals however, were unsuccessful in getting these changes through parliament. The Government’s backtracking on election promises was also partly triggered by a Productivity Commission report, as well as Australia’s longevity demographics. In late November 2013, the Productivity Commission released a report about the ageing population of Australia and recommended that the Age Pension age increase to 70 years. A word of warning: this same report from the Productivity Commissions also recommended that retired home-owners should be forced to access the equity in their home to pay for health costs!
Simplistic solutions distract from ageing population issues
Lifting the Age Pension age further, beyond age 67, causes unnecessary anxiety for our older workers, while ignoring the fact that mature age employees struggle to obtain work, and many Australians are not physically able to work full-time until age 70. The recent suggestions contained in the Productivity Commission report, are simplistic solutions to a more complex social issue.
Further, increasing the Age Pension age won’t resolve the issue of rising health costs, which is a greater budgetary cost, and a greater problem than Age Pension costs. Making such announcements without offering supporting policies to transition older workers into a new world of working longer in meaningful employment is close to reckless by the federal government, and irresponsible policy by the organisations making these suggestions. It also causes unnecessary anxiety for a generation (particularly for women) who have not had access to superannuation for much of their working lives. In the case of older women, many have not had access to an income (or if worked, were employed when women were paid only half of what mean earned). Many more women have had limited work experience for much of their lives, due to raising families.
In a related matter, an Australian think tank, the Grattan Institute, has come up with another simplistic suggestion that the government should raise the preservation age (age at which you can access your super), and the Age Pension age to 70 years, to balance the budget. The same think tank reckons your family home should not be exempt from the Age Pension assets test – not sure where they think Australia’s retirees are supposed to live. Why do economists (I confess to also holding such a qualification) so often treat the family home solely as an economic asset, notwithstanding there may be a minority of Age Pensioners who live in multi-million-dollar homes while accessing the Age Pension.
Note that the National Commission of Audit has recommended increasing preservation age (age that you can access your super) to 62 years rather than 60 years, and eventually increasing it to 65 years, so it follows the increase in the Age Pension age, but 5 years’ earlier.
Talk about picking the low-hanging fruit. Although I believe raising the preservation age is inevitable, what about offering some insights into flexible workplaces for parents and older workers, and carers? Purely economic solutions are pointless without providing the infrastructure and social support necessary for fundamental economic and social change. Yes, we are living longer. If those longer lives are healthier, then, in most cases those healthier lives are due to life-saving heart and blood medication, joint replacements, transplants, and cancer treatments and other procedures. Perhaps we need to work out ways to tackle the rising costs of health care, and budget for them, while ensuring that we develop solutions that are acceptable for the Australian population – both young and old. I want our older generation to be able to afford quality healthcare, as well as to be able to live comfortably.
Under the current Age Pension age rules
In summary, your Age Pension age is:
- 65 years if you were born before July 1952
- 67 years if you were born after December 1956
- Between 65 years and 67 years if you were born after June 1952 and before January 1957.
Under the changes proposed by the Liberals
Under the Liberals’ proposal to increase Age Pension age to 70 years, your Age Pension age would be:
- 65 years if you were born before July 1952
- 70 years if you were born after 1965 (subject to legislation)
- Between 65 years and 70 years if you were born after June 1952 and before January (subject to legislation). For birth dates and Age Pension ages between these two key dates (subject to legislation, and a federal election), see Table 2 above for your Age Pension age under the Liberal government proposals.
For more information on the current Age Pension rules, see SuperGuide article Age Pension age now 65.5 years (since July 2017).
Related articles
January 17, 2018- January 16, 2018
- February 28, 2017
Print or email article
just read these comments,and agree that this is how working Australians feel about government politicians who are siting on there comfy super handout and laughing all the way to the bank while we suffer in silence, they don,t, care there is no pressure put on them to change anything, So how do we, and what would we be prepared to do to correct the situation legally and peacefully, so we a representative with enough power to put forward a proposal to legislate changes on government policies ?
We Australians may be living longer (the key argument behind increasing the pension age), however this does not translate to better job prospects at age 60 to 70. If anything, job prospects within that age bracket are at an historical low, due not only to increasing ageism in the workplace, but the fact that automation and other improved efficiencies make the commercial world a far different place than it was even 30 years ago.
I believe that a serious side-effect on increasing the pension age to 70 will be many people being forced into taking their superannuation well before they reach pension age and / or needing to apply for Newstart allowances at an age where they have absolutely no prospect whatsoever of securing employment. They will then be variously forced to run down their pensions for several years longer, which in turn will mean they will require a higher aged pension. And if they are not taking their pensions early, we will just have 68 to 70 year olds on Newstart allowances anyway – another cost to the Government that is nothing more than a de facto aged pension on the cheap.
I therefore wonder – even just speaking on the basis of pure mathematics –
whether the higher pensions the Government would have to pay as well as additional Newstart allowances for those aged 68 to 70 would actually more than offset any savings to be had from increasing the pension age in the first place. It seems to me that increasing the aged pension to 70 will actually cost more than leaving it at 65 to 67, let alone the hardships and anxieties it will cause to many people effected.
I started work at 15 years of age and have put many years in paying taxes, most kids nowdays dont start employment until at least 18 years and over. I just start to get close to thinking about my retirement and they move the post further away from me. I have had a very physical job all my working life and now my body is just plain and simply worn out, my knees are gone, my back is gone, i have no skills or trade and find the only work for me is cleaning because people just dont seem to be able to get cleaners, so its ok to employ the old people for the jobs, I struggle everyday and by the time I get home I can barely walk but I am expected to keep going until I am 67 and by the time I get to 67 they wll probably extend it to 70 years of age. I just thiink life has become so unfair and your last few years should be enjoyment not worrying about how on earth I can go another day with my body falling to pieces and in absolute agony.
I have read this article n all the comnents. Agreed, not fair at all. It’s hypocrisy by politicians, one rule for us another for them. We are not sheep hearded into thier boxes, we are real and exist in our own worthy way n are deserved n expect the respect we are owed, not disrespected thru numerical indifference and not forced to work for who, for what…if we earn more we pay for it, this is socialist communism masked as a democracy. All this stinks of sordid self obsessed narcissistic belligerence. We are here on a pale blue dot in who knows where, dealing with small minded self appointed masters of of this universe, ah no, who we are is what matters and trying to live as best we can, without being controlled by clearly evident, idiots. Answer as I see it, humm I feel an injury coming on at about 60 and can no longer work, same compo as pollies use every day. I refuse to be forced to be consumed by money, greed, power games and chained to the cost of living in societies prison of glass walls. This is a wonderful country and I for one will savour living life and nature, free of this nonsense, while working the system to benefit me. Needless yet necessary. We have options and once seen, we don’t need that much to live off. We are an entity, a free spirit, in this life on earth and this must prevail over all else. My two bobs worth.
If the government has not got enough money to pay over 65’s a full pension of $887 per P/F fortnight after 1st July 2023 which the full pension of course will be much more than $887 P/F in 2023 it could be $1350 P/F, then they should pay every pension after 65 after 1st January 2018 who owns their fully paid off house $653.84 per fortnight this = $17,000 per year and I know they can live of this amount and so this will lift the burden of the current Governments pension coffers and give every pensioner who retires over 65 in the future a all equal platform chance of receiving a pension without lifting the pension age limit. Who ever owes $40,000 on their home with a long term home loan can get the full pension of $887.00 P/fortnight in 2023.
I am a 60 years old self employed tradesman having trouble with my Knees. How am I going to climb ladders at 67? #pension65not67
I in the same boat I’m a carpet layer and my body is gone I have had a stoke and yet I still expected to keep going . I have been laying carpet for 45 years , I will not last to 67
So disgusted with the path our politicians have led us down over recent years. Compulsory super was pushed relentlessly down our throats for a decade or so and workers were encouraged the make their own contributions. The crash of 2008 saw how hopelessly exposed to risk most of these funds really were and like many other I lost around 30% of my savings. Wind the clock forward almost 10 years and you certainly don’t see superannuation being pushed like it was, but you constantly hear about the how we have to work longer and can’t get the pension until 67 with the push to make it 70. So these 2 events are a double whammy against the working man. Throw into the mix the out of control cost of housing in Sydney and Melbourne, and it paints a pretty gloomy picture for the future lifestyle of most workers. So this once very proud 50 year old Aussie is now planning a retirement in a foreign country, perhaps one that respects older people for their lifetime of service – not to mention taxes – that they have given to their country. To the politicians you are absolute scum, rorting and colluding with each other to ensure you drain every last cent of your so called entitlements. Shame on every last one of you for playing your part in turning the lucky country into one of the most expensive countries in the world.
A bit confusing..if the extended retirement age proposal is 70, why has the Dept of Human Service’s website already stating? Is it now a given? : ” The current qualification age for the Age Pension is 65 years, increasing to 67 years by 1 July 2023. This measure increases the qualifying age from 67 to 70 years. On 1 July 2025 the qualifying age will increase from 67 years by six months every two years until 1 July 2035 when the Age Pension qualifying age will reach 70.”
There are other paradoxes:
1. Extend the retirement age as a way to reduce access to aged pension, but decrease the assets one can accrue for self-funded retirement;
2. Extend the working age of those already 50+ (many of whom with ‘non technological’ careers) but expect them to remain in an ever changing techno- workplace;
3. Universities progressively churn out more graduates yet increasingly younger people show higher unemployment rates (check the stats), whilst older workers (fortunate to be employed) are forced to remain in the workplace;
4. Increasingly employers are reluctant to employer older workers – (see the labour stats to verify this);
3. Increase older workers stress levels by ‘forcing’ them to remain in the workplace, whilst decreasing the healthcare budget;
4. Refusal to differentiate housing as a social/public good versus investment/capital goods;
5. Australia has no known federal age discrimination cases, yet anecdotes show that workplaces continue to practice age discrimination whilst the burden for an aged employee is too hard to prove;
This is not rocket science…just disregard for people
Hi AD
Thanks for your comments. The Age Pension age is currently legislated to only increase to 67 years.
The Centrelink page you refer to must be out of date (and reflect proposed policy rather than law). You can see the latest Centrelink information on Age Pension age at this link: https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/age-pension
Cheers
The SuperGuide team
Same here Tom Peet, agree completely.
I don’t recognize this country I grew up in, and align more with the values of some of our Asian neighbours.
I am 62, my wife 43, and we have a 2year old. I have always saved for my retirement and have planned on a self funded retirement, seeing value in not being independent of government financial support. My wife is very keen to work, but will only ever earn minimum wages. Our retirement plan, though adequate, was modest relative to the 1.6 million goalposts that the government has now introduced. Our daughter was brought into the world on the basis that she could be cared for and funded from our own resources. Now for the government to be taxing retrospectively my transition to retirement (TRIP), and from the above article, intent on increasing the pension age, is a clear manifestation of what politics has become,- a cess-pit of self serving individuals there to promote their own financial (and other) interests at the taxpayers expense without conscience or priciple.
BiBi.
Why don’t the wise Politicians not keep working till they reach the age of 100 or till they drop of Dead that way we can all save a bundle on not having to pay them so much money when they pull out of politics earlier & get a huge benefits + be allowed to get another Job without effecting their Pension from us poor tax payers they seem to make one set of rules for themselves & another for the working class Australians, Life is a Bitch this used to be the Lucky Country once upon a time it is sad to see it change so much for the worse with all the Incompetent Idiots that have the power to rule this Great country of ours.
BiBi.
I totally agree, not everyone is JOE HOCKEY !!! He has a lot to answer for, This is disgusting for Australians and I am now 60 and have to work until I am 67, if I am around to have a life, I worry sick about ur children having to work to 70, its not on. !! Hockey go and get a real job along with the Colin Barnetts and likes, sitting in their pretty offices, not going without food , good health and a decent life after working hard all your life, FOR WHAT !!!!Hypocritical Clowns, and pigs of the Government. (Yes I am a Female writing this message), BUT YOU KNOW HOW TO BUGGER UP AUSTRALIA , DON’T KNOW HOW YOU LOT CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT, MAYBE SOME KARMA WILL COME YOUR WAY, JUST HOW YOU HAVE GIVEN IT ALL TO US, CREEPS.
Took the words right out of my mouth, great minds think alike and I feel our minds ( mothers and wives) would be put to good use if they rid the present politicians of their positions.
Where has logic and commonsense gone? They need the ordinary wife/ mother to resolve their problems we are used to budgeting, making ends meet and getting priorities right.
Great, just what we all need, a world full of 70 year old road train drivers. I would seriously like to see the risk assessment on that!
What amazes me is that it is our money, our taxes that pat politicians wages, yet they decide what to do with it…Democracy ?…We work 40-50 ears to get a lousy $800 app a fortnight…yet politicians work a minimal amount of years and get huge pensions and super…Look how much ex PMs, leaders of opposition parties and Speakers of the house, etc get…Yes politics, the greatest wrought ever invented…Corruption with a capital C… Yet you don’t see journalists, or TV affairs shows, or newspapers or magazines harp on about it like other smaller issues, and this is a huge issue, as it affects every single working Australian.
Very one sided, to make it fair, our retired politicians should not receive any pension (and including their parliamentary pension) entitlement until they turn 67. They should be made to get a “real job” for a change.
Silly move, who is going to employ an unemployed 65 year old, I can see them saving money on the pension side but paying it out on the other in Special or unemployment benefits.
.
If it isn’t currently so, politicians like Turnbull, Hockey, Shorten and I’m sure there’s more, should not receive any government money – ever! They’re privately wealthy individuals. They should also be means tested like the rest of us.
The bottom line is that all the People who make these Decisions, work behind a desk and have no idea of hard physical work, Politicians futures are financially sound and the old and the young are portrayed as Parasites, when the real Parasites are the Ultra-Rich who do their best to contribute nothing but still live off the Fruits of our Labour.
Congratulations!
WELL SAID.
I am a July 1959 baby. I have worked hard physically all my life. I don’t want to work past 65. Why should I?? THIS IS SO WRONG. I feel robbed.
With the shrinking workforce that is happening nowadays what chance does a young person have of entering the workforce if the older generation keep hanging around in jobs awaiting the pension. It seems that the government is trying to save money by not having to pay the people. In reality the problem then shifts to the other end where young people are having to go on Centrelink because us oldies are hanging on and not delivering jobs back to the workforce.
So just as we start reaching retirement they move the finish line. For those of us that have been in the workforce for almost 50 years now and looking forward to some free time to spend with our Adult children and grandchildren have to work longer.
If the Government cant afford the old age pension perhaps they should stop giving handouts to other countries. Stop their own overly lucrative pensions and entitlements. Stop signing/cancelling contracts that lead to $1.1b in cancellation fees.
Its a disgrace that they move to move the goalposts when people are planning their retirements after working almost all their lives to enjoy.
This Federal government tells us that the Age Pension eligibility should be raised to 70 to help future budgetary constraints, yet doing such would almost undoubtedly have a negative effect on youth unemployment rates, as older workers have no choice but to remain in their current positions.
Meanwhile, a different portfolio of this Federal Government advocates removing penalty rates for weekend shifts, with one of the selling points for such a move being that it will have a positive effect on youth unemployment rates.
I find it totally incredible that the same argument is being used to support two completely opposite policy strategies.
If this matter was not so serious it would be comical.
I am self employed and have no political affiliation, so my views are not from either a union or business perspective, but rather just as a normal working Australian.
I was not convinced that raising the pension age to 67 by the Rudd Government was fully justified whilst extremely high youth unemployment rates were evident, however raising it again to 70 is not acceptable under any circumstances.
I just hope some politician has the intelligence to run with this issue at the next Federal election, as it is a sleeping giant in respect to determining which party will form the next Federal Government of Australia.
Well said Ron, I agree completely
Both my husband and I work hard and both our jobs are low income and are physically demanding. We are now both into our late 50s and the signs are beginning to show. We don’t know how our bodies will hold out until we retire. People who have physically demanding jobs will not be able ti enjoy the last few years of their retirement at such a late age in life. My husband will have to work until he is 66.5 and I have to work until I am 67.5. If either of us had an office job we might be able to last the distance but I can’t see someone who has been a brick layer, construction worker, council worker, gardener, nurse, cleaner etc who have worked all their lives at this profession keep it up into their late 60s! We don’t have nearly enough to retire on yet we have worked hard for the little we have. Our future does not look good for our golden years ahead.
I can relate to this post, im dumfounded that the people making these decisions have not done a hard days work in there life, u cannot compare a person who has done repeatedly hard work for 40 years to a person who sits on there ass at a desk its a joke
No matter how much political correctness is thrown around the outcome is still the same for anyone over 50. It’s really difficult to show how much experience you have on a resume when you have to leave off a good portion of your working life to appear as a much younger person. To dare to be brave and actually show your entire work history is madness as the 20 or 30 year old looking at your resume would instantly bin it. Anyone 60 and older is expected to drop off the perch and give up their job anyway so it all seems ridiculous.
Being over 50 it’s difficult to get an interview. One time I was lucky and got an interview and the job but was treated like dirt. The owner would come in and ask me if my heart was ok because he didnt want me having a heart attack at work. When the pornography started appearing on my computer and I complained to the manager the treatment got worse and I actually put up with it because I didnt want to get into trouble from Centrelink for leaving a job. Eventually I was fired and I can honestly say after first being upset for not having a job I was elated because I no longer had to work somewhere I was not respected.
I agree with Sam. I have worked very hard for 40 years paid my taxes and have to wait till 66 to receive some pension. why is that people who came in the 70’s from overseas returned to their country after they received their australian passport. Worked for 25 years in their own country and have returned to Australia age 65 to receive Australia pension and public hospital services. Never contribute to paying taxes. How is this fair? What is the government going to do?
I agree Emy and let’s not also forget there are some who were citizens of Australia for several years and who then returned to their country of birth with no intention of ever returning, and to this day continue to receive an Australian pension. Go figure!
My dad is always on my back about my income. He is so adamant that I must always take the right steps to prepare for retirement. I am only 24! Retirement is a long way away for me. But with the state of the government, and the new policies being outlined within the Intergenerational Report (IGR) I can understand why he would be feeling this way. I imagine the effects of the increased retirement age have touched the lives of millions of Australian families. The IGR fails to take into account the fact that many Australian families are multigenerational families, with each generation working to support each other financially; any policy that affects one generation within a household affects everyone in that family (Bainbridge, 2015).
The content within the 2015 Intergenerational Report and the media surrounding it, are such a misrepresentation of the financial hardships of working Australian families (Kelly, 2015). The current government has continued to stubbornly push their unpopular political agenda; in their sad effort to pull the wool over the eyes of working Australians. A large part of the IGR talks about the aging population and the implication it will have on the age that workers go into retirement. A proposal in the IGR explains that pension eligibility is set to move from 65 to 70 by 2035 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015, p. 18). Much of the reasoning is based in the notion that the life expectancy of the average Australian is increasing, with the male life span increasing from 91.5 to 95.1 and the female lifespan increasing from 93.6 to 96.6 in 2055 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015, p. 5).
But does this relatively small increase in life expectancy really justify the retirement age pushed to 70? Coming to the end of their life, the proposed policy does not provide many options for those who, for no fault of their own, cannot physically continue working. Regardless of the increase in life span, the quality of life, and function of those in their twilight years are much more limited towards the end of life (Glenday, 2015).
The IGR outlines that technology will drastically affect our way of living and the way that we perform work. In a presentation given by the treasurer about the IGR, Joe Hockey stated “I urge people to go and do an internet search of driverless cars. There is credible evidence that suggests that by 2040 three-quarters of the cars on the road will be driverless” (Martin & Massola, 2015). He went on to explain how automation and the advent of technology would work to drastically affect our production. However, with the aging population, there is danger that this mentality will only create a situation where older, less physically able workers are marginalised in favour of much more efficient automated practices – creating a situation where, like in my own family, older generations are fearful to change their vocation to go into a job market where their skills are obsolete (Glenday, 2015; Martin & Massola, 2015).
Every fortnight the government takes a percentage Super Guarantee from my pay check in order to prepare for my retirement. Meanwhile, almost at the age of retirement themselves, my parents struggle to physically hold on as they are not able to receive the pension and yet, cannot afford to quit. This creates a compound problem as the younger generation works to support their parents by living at home and caring for the elderly, thus draining funds that would otherwise go towards building the next generation. All of this together creates a very difficult situation where one generation in the house will have to suffer in order to support the other (Bainbridge, 2015; Kelly, 2015).
The 2015 Intergenerational Report fails to consider this compound problem raised when the proposed policies are applied to multigenerational families. If there is an answer to our money problems within the family, it does not lie with the traditional forms of investment.
Word count: 523
References
Bainbridge, A. (2015, March 14). Intergenerational Report a dishonest weapon of the 1%. Retrieved March 17, 2015 from https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/58518
Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). Intergenerational Report 2015: Australia in 2055, The Treasury: Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2015/2015%20Intergenerational%20Report/Downloads/PDF/04_Chapter_1.ashx
Glenday, J. (2015, March 5). Intergenerational Report: Older Australians and women need to be encouraged to work more. Retrieved March 20, 2015 from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-05/intergenerational-report-to-be-released/6281598
Kelly, E. (2015, March 5). Intergenerational Report predicts long, hardworking life for Canberra baby Edgar. Retrieved March 20, 2015 from http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/intergenerational-report-predicts-long-hardworking-life-for-canberra-baby-edgar-20150305-13w53c.html
Martin, P. & Massola, J. (2015, March 7). Intergenerational report: Grey army marches to our rescue. Retrieved March 24, 2015 from http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/intergenerational-report-grey-army-marches-to-our-rescue-20150306-13wn0y.html
Quite possibly the best formulated comment on the internet, ever.
Here , here .
I have worked most of my life. I am a female 60 years of age. I have paid my taxes. Why do I have to work til I’m 66 before I receive any pension. There are so many young people looking for work but can’t find any. They are being paid the dole. Why cant we, who have worked so hard all our lives give these young ones our jobs so that we can retire and enjoy the rest of our lives and our grandchildren before we die.
Yes the government is looking at the wrong end of the pole, I agreed with you once these young people start late to find a job they end up lazy for not having early training to work and they need more money than the older ones do such as buying stuff for a home and holidays, new family’s etc. The older ones is health and get very tired and worn out needed holidays and time in their life due to slowness only about one percent probably lucky to able to race around like a twenty yr old geez I am not impressed with these government are cutting right across the board to have less staff work underpaid and overwork with out butt on fire not funny these days so un real I wished these pollies would cut their priveleges of their gold cards and free plane trips 5 in a year its discusting
Sam I agree with your comment entirely. My theory is that the government is making us work longer before we are entitled to the pension in the hope that we work ourselves to death and then that saves them from paying us a pension at all. It all comes down to the almighty dollar! There are plenty of unemployed people out there whom we as taxpayers are supporting and working late in life to prevent them from getting the jobs we have no choice but to hold on to. Therefore I don’t agree with our government when they are talking about us baby boomers and not being able to afford our pensions because there wouldn’t be enough people in the work force to pay enough taxes to cover it. I’ll bet my last dollar that there will still be high unemployment when I finally retire but there could be less unemployment if the older Australians in the work face handed their jobs over to the younger ones. This would not only give the next generation employment, but a chance to build up a healthy super fund for when they retire as well and it would be less of a drain on tax payer’s money having to fund unemployment benefits.
Well I am 50 years old and have been doing the Centrelink hokey pokey for 3 years and guess what ?? I can’t get employment. I have all the training and experience to do Office Admin work but they all say no thanks we want younger worker. Thanks Mr Abbot you have made the next 20 years for me look like hell.
Older workers are not wanted in this country … unless you have a dirty rag and spray bottle to wash car windows.