Australian Pension System
Posted by: David
10th Mar 2010 03:03pm
Should the Pension system be under Centerlink or a separate dept dealing with Pensions only
The current system of Pension payment should be abolished
Superannuation and Pensions should be under a system backed by Australian Insurance Companies but run under the Govt Umbrella
Pension payments should be compulsory from salaries as it is in the UK.
Age 65 should be retained for retirement , not 67
You must be a member to reply to this chat topic. Click here to sign in.
Help Caféstudy members by responding to their questions, or ask your own in Café Chat, and you will get the chance of earning extra rewards. Caféstudy will match these and donate equally to our two chosen Australian charities.
Australian Marine Conservation Society are an independent charity, staffed by a committed group of scientists, educators and passionate advocates who have defended Australia’s oceans for over 50 years.
ReachOut is the most accessed online mental health service for young people and their parents in Australia. Their trusted self-help information, peer-support program and referral tools save lives by helping young people be well and stay well. The information they offer parents makes it easier for them to help their teenagers, too.
Comments 32
Anonymous
goverment pays through the nose for everything it does and contracts out from roads to rail to services etc.If they stopped the overcharging and rorting they''d have plenty of money for pensions.Pensions should be at 60 and that one should never have been compromised in the first place.
Redbear
I fell there needs to be a long hard look into the current system by a committee from a wide range of people with a diverse range of Life experences a time frame of three month that then put to Goverment. It is time for a change But there is no need to take another system when we as Australians can come up with some thing to suite us and has leading edge.
tassiegirl
In Europe, the amount of pension that you receive is linked to how much you have worked. Therefore if you work more, you receive a higher pension than somebody who works only occasionally. If you don't work there, you don't receive any pension or welfare at all. I don't think that it would be cost effective to set up a new department as Centrelink, Medicare and Department of Housing have now all merged into one department. Unfortunately in Australia, only 1 in 3 people (36%) are working full time and another 16% are working part time. This means that almost half the country (48%) are not working and therefore are receiving benefits from Centrelink and or family assistance. That is the real problem in Australia. That there is so few people working full time. I would like for pensioners to receive more money but because there is so many other people who are on welfare, there is limited money available unless tax is increased but that would be very unpopular as the cost of living here is very high. That is why the government is increasing age pension age to 67. I think by the time I retire, it will be 70.
Colin
65 is the correct retirement age .
However I believe that all retirees over 65 should receive the pension without means testing .
This is unfair on those that have saved and become self funded.
The amount of capital required to generate the equivalent of a pension payment is beyond most resources.
The pension can then betreated as normal income and taxed if needs be.
The choice is between a voracious organistion and one of total incompetence and corruption (goverment)
mysteron347
Not sure where these arbitrary ideal retirement-age figures are being plucked from. The fact is that society subsidises the young by providing medical and educational support, then when you are working you return that subsidy, pay for the government facilities and services and make provision for your retirement. Once you're retired, you again start making a call on the public purse. Since females have an average life-expectancy that is greater than males, their retirement age should also be greater than retirement age for males.
This is a classic case of the government changing the rules after the game has been played. Forty years ago, you were promised a pension once you reached 65 (or 60 for females) and paid the contributions to the treasury demanded by the government on that basis. Now it's time to pay the piper, so the contract can be abrogated by those who make the rules.
For decades, governments have been playing a giant Ponzi scheme - paying benefits using new contributions. They've added on endless new ways to put people on the welfare payroll for the purpose of getting themselves re-elected without making adequate provision for the financing of the extra payments. That means taxes, and that's not popular.
I'm a self-funded pensioner. Worked six months of the last ten years. Now nearly sixty, so way over the hill. Since I saved my money instead of squandering it on self-indulgence, I have to draw on my superannuation to pay full price for everything, including charges from every level of government. Yeah - I was stupid. Got an education which prevents me from getting menial jobs that school-leavers should be doing - employers won't hire me because they reckon I'll leave next week when a job suiting my qualifications appears, and they'll have to start recruiting again. Had I just spent my income at the pub or on smokes or on the horses, the government would be shovelling subsidies at me. As it is, no dole, no support finding a job, no discounts for rates and please don't call us - we can't (and don't want to) do anything about it.
By the time I'm 65 - no, 67 - I'll have spent all my super on rates and water rates and licences and permits and I'll be getting the pension. Except that by then, they'll have changed the rules again...
Time for a Royal Commission into what to do about the situation. I'd suggest getting rid of all of the ways governments have voted themselves into being involved to suit some noisy minority. Get rid of EEO and EEO reports, for instance. The market will take care of companies with invalid discriminatory policies. They'll be pushed out by the companies which employ the BEST person for the job on that basis alone. You know - the basic principle of fair treatment. Won't happen, of course - because those who make their living out of blindly enforcing regulations couldn't handle the anti-discrimination industry being exposed as the Eugenics of our age.
deano
age pensions should not go through centrelink but say a created department just for age or ex veterans pensions.
.unemployment and associated claims as sickness and invalid pensions should go throughcentrelink departments.
retirement age should be from 65 for men and 63 for woman if healthy, unless they are under a sickness benefit or invalid benefit .
.if still healthyat 65and63 respectavley cases should be looked at as separate individuals. and if still able to continue working get no extra help from the govenment for cotinuing to do so,
nizzy
I think retirement age should stay at 65 as being over 50 its much harder to stay employed. The mentality off the younger employer still discriminate over age versus experience. I don't agree an insurance company should run a pension system it is like to fail. We need secure backing of government. Maybe they make it simpler for pensioners though. We know pollys will always look out for themselves but that's our corruption in Australia.
Anonymous
Pensions should not be abolished as a retiree needs financial aid to maintain a sensible lifestyle. Centrelink has too much on their plate and a separate department should be set up to deal with pensions. The age limit to retire should be 65 and not be raised. Pensions should still be run under the Government umbrella and not looked upon as a business enterprise.
Graeme
what we don't need is more beauracats, all they do is fill in forms with usless information! lets make it simple, when your taxable income is less than the mean then top it up with tax refund so you only have one dept to worry about?
stop double dipping by some who like polititons who get the sack by the voters then get a pension and also go and get another job. Insurance companies cannot be trusted anyway.
frilly
I also feel retirement should be 65 unless you wish to remain working. Some people do they thrive on it. Especially people in high powered jobs, they work extremely hard put in long hours, earn very good money but enjoy being in that rat race. I agree it is not for all.
There is am inequality. Self-funded retirees do not receive the same benefits that pensioners do. This is not fair. They have put money aside every week, fortnight or month just like the people in the Gov. scheme in UK but here although they may not have a great deal of money they do not receive the same benefits. Cheaper rates etc etc. Why is this.
They have paid taxes all their lives, the are not rich, many have put the money away as it was their Company scheme. it has helped them with some relief as they grow older, there is no guarantee it will last all their old age and it is not tied in to the CPI.
Maybe we should be like UK everyone received the pension when they reach 65 and then same as UK we should be taxed on our income. That would be a much fairer scheme.??
Kat
Pensifrom of social welfare so should be kept with Centrelink. Do you want your tax dollars, tens of millions of them, paying to create and fund yet another department? it would be a huge waste of money. As for retirement age it should be up to the individual but the age pension should be given to those over the age of 65 and as our population lives longer and healthier lives it should start to increase to 67. When most people live until their 80's and are capable of contributing for alot of that time, why not take advantage of it? As for funding peoples retirement, compulsory superannuation was the best thing that could have happened. There will always be people who cannot work and the welfare system should be there to support them. Everyone else should be encouraged to make extra contributions to their super to ensure that they can afford to spend the 20-30 years after retiring, living as they would like to.
blondie72
Quote.."Everyone else should be encouraged to make extra contributions to their super to ensure that they can afford to spend the 20-30 years after retiring, living as they would like to." Unquote.....Retirement age is now 65, you would like to see it raised to 67...and you think most people will have another 30 years to 'enjoy' life after that??? Not everyone works sitting on bottoms in offices!! A person who has been laying bricks, concreteing, shoeing horses, shift work and other back breaking work the entire lives isn't likely to spend 10 years ENJOYING anything without pain and limited means of enjoyment due to those effects and much of their Super will fund just trying to make their end years comfortablly bearable.....let alone enjoyable. Get real!
blondie72
It depends, are you soley referring to the Age pension? There are other pensioners too, War Vets, Single Parents, Disability pensioners?
blondie72
It would be shameful david! I sincerely hope this does not happen.
david
blondie 72,veteran's affairs are seriously thinking or were thinging to transfer vet payments to centrelink.i think this would be shameful
ikara
I have to agree Pension & super should all be under the same umbrella, a one stop shop for pensioners, at that age a lot will have difficulty handling the complications, Financial advisors can be helpful, but many are not. Our pensionsers should be protrected, they can not recover from losses due to bad advice, We need a department devoted to Pensioners, help them to get the advice thay need, Make sure they are able to live like decent human beings at very least.
butterfly
To start with this is OZ not the UK, but centre link are hope less at anything they do; you can call Four times with the same enquiry, speak to Four differant people and get Four diff answers. As a pensioner myself (who paid into the UK system before coming here) I do get a small pension from the UK, which righty reduces my Ozzie one. But you try living on $250 a week and see how far it gets you.
butterfly
To start with this is OZ not the UK, but centre link are hope less at anything they do; you can call Four times with the same enquiry, speak to Four differant people and get Four diff answers. As a pensioner myself (who paid into the UK system before coming here) I do get a small pension from the UK, which righty reduces my Ozzie one. But you try living on $250 a week and see how far it gets you.
MICHAEL
Totally agree with the above comments. Pensions (including Disability) are totally unfair currently. Because I won a SMALL payout and a SMALL weekly retainer for a Workers Compensation Claim,from an Insurance Copmpany, I have had my disbility pension card taken off me. I now get nothing from CentreLink and have to live on my very small weekly retainer. I have saved the government/taxpayer from having to pay me and all I ask is to have a pension card that assists with benefits such as nedical and oth discounts applicable with the card. Very very unfair.
blondie72
Centrelink taking your Disability pension is just plain wrong! 'Compensation' should be EXEMPT from tax and from Centrelink who are always looking for a reason to take the pathetic little amount they pay pensioners back off them!!! They should've at the very least let you keep your pension card?...
jock
the system under centrelink, appears to be working. 65 is a good age, however in certain jobs i.e. office work, workers could retire later. compulsory super, should be the norm, from both employer and employee. we have to try to move away, from government pensions. it will be a continuing and increasing burden, on the national spending. better tax breaks and safeguards, would have to be put in place. possibly guaranteed by the government.
ellabella
Good idea !!! but I think pension age for women should be lowered.. we are the one that have the children... that alone is a heavy work load .. I am 63 and suffer from osteo athritis . the only way for me if the doc puts me on a dissability pension ..... "Have you seen those form you have to fill in you need a degree in government form filling!!!!!....
misstarnia
I agree that the retirement age should not increase to 67 and pensions should be controlled by anything other than Centrelink. Insurance companies fail, we saw that a while ago with AMP in the UK and even though we're on the other side of the world it affected AMP in Australia. Yeah that will take care of the administrative side but what about protecting it - the Government must protect the pensions and super, they do look after themselves the pollies, even when they've done wrong or have been in the job for a short period, still recieve a massive pension for life.
Hughie
The retirement age should be 65, unless a person is willing and able to stay on.Pensions should be the responsibility of both State and Federal Governments, and should be related (a) to the cost of living and (b) for those who do noy have super to fall back on, an amount equal to the minimm wage. Of course this is not likely to happen because the Politicians are always quick to grab a pay rise first. These people are well overpaid and get too many perks as it is.
Sherri
I trust Companies better than our current Government. Perhaps non-government assessors could treat us more as individuals and adjust our pensions according to our unique circumstances.
tabbycat
I think 60 is a more realistic age for retiring. I'm not even close yet. :)
A lot of places simply will not employ older people???
I wish they would, the service I receive from more mature salespeople is so great.
I'm not too sure what u mean about the pensions. Some old people only have a pension from centrelink and have no super. Things go wrong sometimes n life and some pople are left without money or a home etc.
Anonymous
I agree that the pension age should stay at 65 as I find that after 55 most of my contemparies are just burnt out and hanging out to retire. However I do not think that insurance companies should be in charge of pension payments. I do however think that the payments should be compulsory as we now find that superanuation is and that it should be run by the solely by the govt. The reason for this is that insurance companies are apt to go broke and then you lose all of your pension as happens in America.
Colliedog
Don't put Insurance companies in charge of anybody's money,governments should have the control and used competently it can also be used for the benefit of the country.
saltashlady
I have been working all my life. I don't know about you, but at 61 I feel old and the body is tied and wearing out. I have all sorts of aches and pains and are worse now then when I was 55, so I don't think it's going to get better by 65. The Pollies have talk about making it 70. That's fine for them, they will be able to afford someone to do it all for them on their great pensions. Not the ordenary person, on an ordenary wage. I can't see a 70 yr old man digging roads!!!
feral007
I'm 55 also maam. I have osteoprosis, osteoarthritis, depression, alcoholism, chronic pancreatitis, acute osophagitis etc etc. I have just received the Disalabilty Support Pension. I would love a part time job where I only had to turn up for a few hours a day. At least I'd be contributing to the community. But you will never find an employer who is willing to do that - no matter how good a tax accountant you are. I am now condemned to 10 years on the DS pension, before I get the age pension - if I live that long - go figure !!!!!!!
fragment
yer I agree with the comment you made keep 65 not 67 thats a load of govt crap they worked their buts of and deserve that pension at 65 here in good old NZ the govt are trying to raise it to 67 too because they havn't got the skilled people or the generation to be able too carry on .
Redbear
It's hard enough to get a job over 50 let alone over 65 people know a lot more as we get older BUT is seem one should know it all at 35-40. We are always learning!