# The baby boomers are going to kill us... Budget Deficit is temporary??



## glads262 (6 May 2009)

Considering Wayne Swann, the rabbit in the spotlight, is talking about projected "temporary deficits" until 2015...

What does he think is going to happen from 2015? Um, the baby boomers - because they have been undertaxed over the past 20 years - are going to start sucking down the pension, and expensive health care because they didn't save for their retirement.

Is anyone else out there frightened that those of us aged 0-40 are going to have much higher taxes to pay for the current projected deficit of $200 billion, which comes with a 5-8 billion dollar interest bill each year - as well as the 20-50 billion dollar deficits predicted by the intergenerational report come 2015 onwards???

Perhaps we should introduce an estate tax to take back the tax the baby boomers should have been paying for the past 20 years?

Especially seeing as they are all now salary sacrificing into super, paying no tax for the last 10 years of their working life - and can withdraw it all in retirement tax free?


----------



## prawn_86 (6 May 2009)

I find the 'temporary' comment heaps funny. Define temporary. To me 5years is not temporary, one year maybe.

I would be surprised if Aus ever did return to a surplus, it would take a pretty dramatic shift in the management and future of the country.

My plan is to move overseas, where the taxes may be slightly higher, but you get more benefits from it. As i have said before, Aus seems to be standing still these days, not making any major changes or improvements to our way of life, and while that may be fine for the moment, the standard of living will begin to decline at some stage.


----------



## Gerkin (6 May 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> I find the 'temporary' comment heaps funny. Define temporary. To me 5years is not temporary, one year maybe.
> 
> I would be surprised if Aus ever did return to a surplus, it would take a pretty dramatic shift in the management and future of the country.
> 
> My plan is to move overseas, where the taxes may be slightly higher, but you get more benefits from it. As i have said before, Aus seems to be standing still these days, not making any major changes or improvements to our way of life, and while that may be fine for the moment, the standard of living will begin to decline at some stage.




What country are you talking about? We are that highly taxed at the moment. Try HK or Singapore, great finance hubs, pay very minimal tax.


----------



## prawn_86 (6 May 2009)

Gerkin said:


> What country are you talking about? We are that highly taxed at the moment. Try HK or Singapore, great finance hubs, pay very minimal tax.




More left leaning European countries. Higher taxes but much more available free to the public


----------



## glads262 (6 May 2009)

Gerkin said:


> What country are you talking about? We are that highly taxed at the moment. Try HK or Singapore, great finance hubs, pay very minimal tax.



Have a look at HK and Singapore deficits this year. They will be HUGE.

I don't think these are the types of countries Prawn was referring to. HK & Singapore - social welfare = next to nil. So lower taxes, but lower govt spending.

Go to somewhere like France - 60% top tax rate kicks in fairly low income - but you get a massive pension at age 60 I think. High tax, high government spending.

Prawn, if you are 22/23 as the "86" refers, I wouldn't be preferring to live in these high taxing countries.


----------



## Gerkin (6 May 2009)

glads262 said:


> Have a look at HK and Singapore deficits this year. They will be HUGE.
> 
> I don't think these are the types of countries Prawn was referring to. HK & Singapore - social welfare = next to nil. So lower taxes, but lower govt spending.
> 
> ...




Well you wouldnt go to HK and Singapore to get the pension would you? You would go for the finance sector/ accelerate wealth/ multi national investing.

Job markets are poor at present in these countries but guess what, so is Australia.


----------



## Mr J (6 May 2009)

Many countries face this problem. 



> because they have been undertaxed




Really? I just thought government spending was just growing more and more inefficient.


----------



## gooner (6 May 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> More left leaning European countries. Higher taxes but much more available free to the public




I think it is hard to get on the dole over there unless you have a British or EEC passport. If you have one, I think you are entitled to the dole anywhere within the EEC.

Don't think you get that much more free in most of the countries though. Still have to work if you want a decent living.


----------



## Soft Dough (6 May 2009)

glads262 said:


> Considering Wayne Swann, the rabbit in the spotlight, is talking about projected "temporary deficits" until 2015...
> 
> What does he think is going to happen from 2015? Um, the baby boomers - because they have been undertaxed over the past 20 years - are going to start sucking down the pension, and expensive health care because they didn't save for their retirement.
> 
> ...




I'm not scared of the Baby boomers stopping work, I am not scared of baby boomers drawing pensions, I am not scared of them drawing all their money out of super and killing the stockmarket.

I am scared that they will control the vote.

I am scared that there will be no investment in the future of this country, as it will be channeled into the interests of the baby boomers.


They were taxed stuff all, they had a country of opportunity ( as their previous generation were poor ) and they will control the vote.... what a shame.


----------



## tech/a (6 May 2009)

I love it.

First they vote in a Labor Government who historically have no idea how to manage a country let alone in a financial crisis.
Billions are Thrown away on handouts to "Stimulate" the economy (For a month) Bugger all is spent YET on infrastructure so they aren't in deficit YET as they haven't released it! Bureaucratic stupidity has everyone fighting for the pie but no strategic plan for HOW its going to be WISLEY invested to "stimulate" employment and build a better Australia.People in portfolios who clearly have no idea how to manage them let alone improve them.

So we will blame the baby boomers.
I'm a baby boomer.
I'm an employer.
I employ those 18-40 yr olds who "think" we are under taxed.
My company tax bill last year was 6 figures.
Let alone my personal bill.
My Payroll tax massive.
All those passive taxes on Fuel etc would pay for a few more employees.

There are many like me who have been lambasted for owning more than one house---greedy---forcing up rents.
Now there is a fear we didnt save.
What a complete and utter JOKE.

*Give me a break.*

More of us will actually be able to retire and be NO burden on the Government or YOU.
Infact many of you will only be able to retire because YOUR baby boomer Parents actually DID something rather than complain and debate about it.

*Take control of your life.
NO ONE ELSE WILL!*

Youd be suprised how many of us HAVE.
I despise having to pay massive taxes which are thrown willy nilly at People who DONT WANT TO WORK!
Handouts to people WHO THROW IT DOWN A POKIE.
Or drink it to oblivion.

This thread deserves to be in the LOSERS section.


----------



## robots (6 May 2009)

hello,

you tell them Tech, i agree

thankyou
robots


----------



## Flip (6 May 2009)

I feel ashamed for my generation.
You tell them Tech/A!!!


----------



## nunthewiser (6 May 2009)

* makes mental note to send tech/a a thankyou card once ive transferred all assets , gone on dole and gone bankrupt for anything else i can borrow in the meantime *


----------



## Soft Dough (6 May 2009)

Tech, you are the exception, remember that.

It is common knowledge that there will be massive challenges ahead regarding provisioning of resources regarding the baby boomers.

I agree that this is not your fault, nor the fault of your generation. But the problem is caused by the fact that the baby boomers are unique in their numbers.

It is real, and does need to be addressed realistically.

Some of the problems around regarding the labor government are because of the voter base, and what needs to be done to satisfy them.  That dynamic will change rapidly as baby boomers begin to retire, and remember that it will be me and my generation that will support your generation for many years of retirement.  Yes we may have had a helping hand up in some respects, but BB did not have the opposing forces pushing them back down to the same level that Gen X and Gen Y have.

in all I'll stand by my statement that the worry I have is that the baby boomers will control the vote and stifle investment in areas that are not important to their immediate needs.

SD

PS - it would all have been made much easier if the retirement age was a bit more realistic, and it is time we left old bismarck behind and adopted more appropriate retirement ages ( women - 75, men 70 )


----------



## moXJO (6 May 2009)

Our immigration rate has been fairly high the last few years. So supposedly the impact of boomers will not be as great. Source was either Dent or Schiff. I'll see if I can find it through old emails


----------



## Calliope (6 May 2009)

tech/a said:


> There are many like me who have been lambasted for owning more than one house---greedy---forcing up rents.
> Now there is a fear we didnt save.
> What a complete and utter JOKE.
> 
> ...




You are dead right. However the biggest mistake the Baby Boomers made was to spoil their children rotten. Now the chickens have come home to roost. Friends of mine who were on the verge of retirement suddenly have to put up with their two adult sons coming home to live. One of them has even brought his female partner with him. They expect to be waited on.

The problem is that they have never been able to say no to their selfish GenY children.The reason they come home is to save money for overseas trips. It's happening everywhere.

These are the same wet behind the ears losers who are  now putting down the Baby Boomers


----------



## Mr J (6 May 2009)

> The problem is that they have never been able to say no to their selfish GenY children.




We've grown up under our greedy, materialistic baby boomer parents, and us becoming selfish brats is the result. We weren't born magically differently, we are just a product of our society. We don't have it _that_ great, as we will have to pay for the mistakes of the generations above us.



> Youd be suprised how many of us HAVE.




I think most of us would be surprised at how many of you no longer have. Your lot took a big hit over the last year :.


----------



## charttv (6 May 2009)

moXJO said:


> Our immigration rate has been fairly high the last few years. So supposedly the impact of boomers will not be as great. Source was either Dent or Schiff.




I second that. They could just increase immigration. hundreds of millions of eager young workers throughout the world eager to take their place and tax burden as they leave the workforce. Over time the government will slowly ramp up the spin so we won't even notice it's happening.  

The standard of living here is exceptional. A lot of people would give anything to live here. I don't see that changing anytime soon.


----------



## Temjin (6 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> We've grown up under our greedy, materialistic baby boomer parents, and us becoming selfish brats is the result. We weren't born magically differently, we are just a product of our society. We don't have it _that_ great, as we will have to pay for the mistakes of the generations above us.
> 
> I think most of us would be surprised at how many of you no longer have. Your lot took a big hit over the last year :.




And because of that, you can bet that when the current generation of politicans retire (i.e. Baby boomers), our generation (X & Y) will exhibit the same level of greed and introduce majority friendly policies at the expenses of the dieing baby boomer generation. 

Nothing to complain about anyway. It's not like I will be living in this country forever to pay taxes for the undeserved people.  I will simply move my investment to a more tax-friendly country.


----------



## tech/a (6 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> We've grown up under our greedy, materialistic baby boomer parents, and us becoming selfish brats is the result. We weren't born magically differently, we are just a product of our society. We don't have it _that_ great, as we will have to pay for the mistakes of the generations above us.




Greedy Materialistic Baby Boomers
Or 
sucking down the pension, and expensive health care because they didn't save for their retirement.

Indecision from you lot seems to be the norm.



> I think most of us would be surprised at how many of you no longer have. Your lot took a big hit over the last year :.




Yep no doubt there.
Evidently YOU think you think and the GOVERNMENT think far differently.

Which is an oxymoron the GOVERNMENT clearly has no capacity to think.


----------



## Mr J (6 May 2009)

tech/a said:


> Indecision from you lot seems to be the norm.




Part of it is that we've lived a good home live and aren't as motivated to make something of ourselves. Part of it is that we look at our parents, their grind of a lifestyle and don't want that for ourselves (at least not the "grind" aspect).

I'm not sure it actually changes though. Every generation complains that those younger than them are useless and spoilt, so it may just be a matter of perspective. We'll become you over the next 30 years .


----------



## Julia (6 May 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> Tech, you are the exception, remember that.



What utter bloody rubbish!  I'm also a baby boomer.  All my friends are baby boomers.  We are all self funded long before official retirement age and make no demands on you or the rest of your generation.

We all give many hours every week in volunteer roles to the community.
This is something I've done even when I was still working the sort of hours I expect Tech works now.

You have an extreme cheek to suggest that we are all self indulgent and myopic.  I would suggest to you that we worked hard to get what we have and didn't expect endless credit to fund our existence.

Moreover, along the way we learned a few manners and didn't feel it necessary to compensate for our own difficulties by tossing all the blame onto the preceding generation.

Why don't you just get on with making your own life successful and stop attempting to make a whole generation feel inappropriately guilty.

I just hate these gross generalisations about any given group of people.


----------



## Julia (6 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> I'm not sure it actually changes though. Every generation complains that those younger than them are useless and spoilt, so it may just be a matter of perspective. We'll become you over the next 30 years .



No you won't, unless you start to focus on what you can yourselves contribute to your community and your families, and stop looking for someone to blame for your difficulties.

(Sorry, Mr J.  This is absolutely not directed at you.  Your remarks are entirely reasonable, and I thank you for them.)


----------



## moXJO (6 May 2009)

This was part of it fom a HS Dent report they sent me



> However, the strongest Spending Wave of all the Western countries is in Australia (Chart 15). Spending flattens in the coming decade, and then Australia could see the only Echo Boom that is larger than the Baby Boom generation before it. Again, immigration here is likely overstated as well, but Australia has what we consider to be the model for immigration policies. They actively encourage immigration but target desirable immigrants that add to the needed skills. In other words, you have to qualify to get in! Chart 16 shows immigration in Australia since 1989. Levels remain high compared to population and have increased nicely into 2008. Australia is likely to see the smallest drop in immigration, as its economy will hold up the best demographically and as it is an attractive place to live both for Westerners and Easterners.




There was more but it was in either an article or a book. Just google spending wave for an explanation. But the jist of it is we are better protected due to immigration and our location.


----------



## alwaysLearning (6 May 2009)

There are a few things that bug me at the moment. The inflation scenario is a big concern. IF, and when the US economy pulls out of this mess, there is probably going to be an issue with the USD currency. Also the EURO probably given that they too have/will be printing more money. This could have the effect of making our AUD very strong against some of the other majors. When this happens, the cost for oher countries buying our exports will become less attractive. This in turn would reduce our earning capacity as a nation which means less tax rolling into the governments budgets etc.

So with all of this spending taking place now on stimulas plans and the like, this is most likely in my opinion be a very large cause for concern.

On balance I would say that taxes would rise further. And that sux because we get taxed too much already 

Now on to the issue of the baby boomers. A few questions. Yes, there are many baby boomers who are in great financial shape and will be able to comfortably take care of themselves. But is there a majority of baby boomers who will be in trouble when it comes to their retirement? What is the percentage proportion of those baby boomers who will be ok during retirement vs those that will be in strife?

It is pointless to beat up a 'generation' of people because we are all people. If the baby boomers in general will have difficultly, well, generation y on balance would be a lot worse off in general. You don't have too look far to see that generation y is more inclined to spend as opposed to save.

I think that when you write out the calculations for what amount of money you require at retirement, most people would probably freak out. 

But anyway, the question is, what to do about it? That's what each of us has to work out and act on. I suspect that things will get ugly for baby boomers, like it or not. Our public health system is severely stressed as it is in QLD. I shudder to think what it will be like a decade from now 

It is so bad, my mum was sick and had to go to the hospital late last year. The ambulance came out and told us the PA hospital emergency dept was full and that I should take her to Greenslopes (private). This was at like 3am too. Luckily in the end my mum was ok but still, they had better do something about the health system here or it is going to be even more of an abomination.

The medical expertise is great but not enough beds and doctors/staff.



glads262 said:


> Considering Wayne Swann, the rabbit in the spotlight, is talking about projected "temporary deficits" until 2015...
> 
> What does he think is going to happen from 2015? Um, the baby boomers - because they have been undertaxed over the past 20 years - are going to start sucking down the pension, and expensive health care because they didn't save for their retirement.
> 
> ...


----------



## ROE (6 May 2009)

tech/a said:


> I love it.
> 
> First they vote in a Labor Government who historically have no idea how to manage a country let alone in a financial crisis.
> Billions are Thrown away on handouts to "Stimulate" the economy (For a month) Bugger all is spent YET on infrastructure so they aren't in deficit YET as they haven't released it! Bureaucratic stupidity has everyone fighting for the pie but no strategic plan for HOW its going to be WISLEY invested to "stimulate" employment and build a better Australia.People in portfolios who clearly have no idea how to manage them let alone improve them.
> ...




I got nothing against baby boomers or any type of people, just work hard and money come your way

but I disagree with baby bombers retire without government support, a fraction of baby bloomers are in your position, the average super for baby boomers now is around 90K and half of them under $40K, most will own their own home but without money outside the home, you cant generate a decent income.

most of them will be dependent on pension to maintain the life style and I have no problem paying tax to support them....


----------



## Mr J (6 May 2009)

Julia said:


> No you won't, unless you start to focus on what you can yourselves contribute to your community and your families, and stop looking for someone to blame for your difficulties.




We probably will. For many, perhaps the majority, responsibility and maturity comes with being placed in situations that require it. This will come when we buy homes and raise families of our own. We won't be perfect, but neither is any generation before us. As alwayslearning says, we're all people, and my generation will largely be a reflection of the values of the generation before us. Time will tell how well you raised us (personally, I think we're underestimated, even if we are currently lazy).


----------



## Calliope (6 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> We probably will. For many, perhaps the majority, responsibility and maturity comes with being placed in situations that require it. This will come when we buy homes and raise families of our own. We won't be perfect, but neither is any generation before us. As alwayslearning says, we're all people, and my generation will largely be a reflection of the values of the generation before us. Time will tell how well you raised us (personally, I think we're underestimated, even if we are currently lazy).




Apparently your biggest grouch is that your parents never taught you how to stand on your own two feet.


----------



## Mr J (6 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Apparently your biggest grouch is that your parents never taught you how to stand on your own two feet.




I have no feelings about it whatsoever, I'm just stating fact. We're a product of the world we grow up in, so if our parents don't like the result, perhaps they should have done things differently. Many will say that is a cop out, but they would be doing what Julia suggests my generation does - place the blame elsewhere. Now that isn't a generational characteristic, but a human one. I believe Aristotle made similar comments about the younger generation of his time, which suggests that generations don't really change, just their perspective as they age.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 May 2009)

glads262 said:


> Considering Wayne Swann, the rabbit in the spotlight, is talking about projected "temporary deficits" until 2015...
> 
> What does he think is going to happen from 2015? Um, the baby boomers - because they have been undertaxed over the past 20 years - are going to start sucking down the pension, and expensive health care because they didn't save for their retirement.
> 
> ...




I don't think it's as clear-cut as your post gladys. 
I can see where tech/a is coming from and understand why he seems annoyed.

You should remember that Payroll Tax which of course most businesses that employ 10 or more people must pay, was originally setup as an endowment for the purpose of helping children who lost their enlisted fathers during WW2. 

Of course, JH and Co promised that the GST would remove indirect taxes such as payroll tax. Well this is not so, and neither will KR's government.

To blame baby-boomers for the impending economic burden of retiring without savings is actually unAustralian in my opinion. Many people did it tough during and after the war. Some were widowed and some had to work really hard to establish businesses. 

It seems a tad simplistic to assume that the people born in that generation are a bunch of welfare addicts asking for handouts.


----------



## aleckara (7 May 2009)

As a generation Y member Im finding issues with a lot of the statements above. I work hard, never received help from my parents, and generally everything was gotten the hard way. Not all of us have parents to help, nor should we have to rely on it.

Don't blame one generation. All Australians if a problem happens are to blame. If we were living in their time we wouldn't have done it differently. I would say it is our political culture that has gotten us into this mess. We believe we have more than we have due to the fact that we can borrow money.

The problem isn't really what each generation is doing, just how long the formula works for that governments have been using for awhile. I concede that the baby boomers really came towards the start of the property price boom (where price % exceed inflation). They did what was appropriate in that environment which was to buy as many properties as they could get their hands on. I would of done the same. If you saved you would of been left behind as inflation ate at your wealth. Governments encourage house prices to rise even if they dont use public debt they try to encourage private debt.

I believe that the reason the lower generations are so much bitter is really got to do with housing and the costs of breaking into the market. It is the same cost as it was with really high interest rates, but with much less scope for capital gain. A lot of us probably missed out on the greatest boom ever - and have to pay boom prices to get in.

We are spoiled compared to the rest of the world. The problem is that our debt level is running up because of this, and eventually we will need to take a paycut. It's like getting a credit card from someone else that has been maxed out - it's useless and more of a liability than an asset.

I see Government policy to blame for most of this mess. We are left with large debt (private + public), less jobs, and soon a lower standard of living. So much for globalisation.

EDIT: Out fo every group of Australians there is a large amount of people who don't contribute to the system. This isn't one generation specific - most people out there don't want to work. That's nature and it won't change if you give them the resources so they dont have to.


----------



## tech/a (7 May 2009)

aleckara said:


> As a generation Y member Im finding issues with a lot of the statements above. I work hard, never received help from my parents, and generally everything was gotten the hard way. Not all of us have parents to help, nor should we have to rely on it.
> 
> Don't blame one generation. All Australians if a problem happens are to blame. If we were living in their time we wouldn't have done it differently. I would say it is our political culture that has gotten us into this mess. We believe we have more than we have due to the fact that we can borrow money.
> 
> ...





See there is hope!!
Gen "Y" are capable of "Getting it"
Mr J is also a very bright guy who (from what Ive read) has very good trading savvy.

Governments/Parents/Economies/Life itself continually alter the gaol posts.

*WE DO *live in the *"LUCKY"* country.
Its not a dictatorship or a communist regime.

*We were ALL born Naked,Penniless and without an opinion.*
We can ALL make choices which upon reflection will be judged (By us and our peers) as Stupid or Wise.

The hardest road isnt the easiest road 95% take.
Yet speak to the 95% and they all think its by far the hardest way to live.

My view Is we are here as a human organism *ONCE*.
How lucky we are to be HERE on this planet,and in particular in Australia.
I want to reflect when Ive a few minutes to go,on how great a trip and adventure it was--No Regrets

Be proud of who you are and how you conduct your life.
If we all accept every challenge and strive to better our own lives--all those around us will benifit,learn and join it.

*TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!*

_"Authorised by tech/a on behalf of all humans on this planet who live life to its fullest."_


----------



## glads262 (7 May 2009)

Some good discussion generated here. 
I do agree that there are a lot of baby boomer generation out there who have worked hard, self funded their retirement, worked hard to raise kids etc etc. But the facts would show that they are in the minority. The majority of baby boomers worked hard, but maybe yes, they spoiled their kids too much and didn't save for their retirement. I certainly don't agree with kids living at home until they are 28, going on holidays etc etc, all funded by themselves of course (plus credit card) BUT - at the same time mooching their food/housing from their baby boomer parents who should be using that $200 bucks a week to put towards their super.
the sad reality is that in the future there will be too few taxpayers, and too many 80+ year olds. Its gonna cost a fortune, and looking at the system at the moment, the quality of care is going to be crap unless you can afford to pay out of your nest egg for it.
Yes, Gen X & Y are going to have to work hard, and pay higher taxes than what the baby boomer generation have - out of necessity. I doubt we will reduce the government spend further on health/aged care as it is low enough already.
I do think though, that looking ahead, quite a few baby boomers will have to work until age 70 (if they can.) They will have a low standard of living in retirement. Unfortunately, the time for the government saving for the future is over. We are going to have terminal deficits until about 2050, when the baby boomer generation begin dying out.


----------



## Temjin (7 May 2009)

glads262 said:


> Some good discussion generated here.
> I do agree that there are a lot of baby boomer generation out there who have worked hard, self funded their retirement, worked hard to raise kids etc etc. But the facts would show that they are in the minority.
> 
> The majority of baby boomers worked hard, but maybe yes, they spoiled their kids too much and didn't save for their retirement.




Yep, it's a sad statistic fact. 

But what can be done anyway? 

If it's in China, you can bet that little welfare would be provided for them. It's survival of the fittest and everyone is responsible for themselves.



			
				glads262 said:
			
		

> I certainly don't agree with kids living at home until they are 28, going on holidays etc etc, all funded by themselves of course (plus credit card) BUT - at the same time mooching their food/housing from their baby boomer parents who should be using that $200 bucks a week to put towards their super.




lol I'm one of them because it's part of our culture to live with your parents until married. (I certainly understand the Aussie culture on their criticism for home bludging) However, I pay my fair share of board (@ market rent value), share the bills including occasion groceries shopping and cooking. Of course I will not claim that my living at home is completely unsubsidised. 



> the sad reality is that in the future there will be too few taxpayers, and too many 80+ year olds. Its gonna cost a fortune, and looking at the system at the moment, the quality of care is going to be crap unless you can afford to pay out of your nest egg for it.




That is a sad legacy leftover from the WW2 era. The baby boomers certainly weren't at fault just because they were all born at around the same time in mass numbers. 

But you can bet that the standard of living for most of these soon to be retired baby boomers will suffer as a result of this demographic "imbalance?".



> Yes, Gen X & Y are going to have to work hard, and pay higher taxes than what the baby boomer generation have - out of necessity. I doubt we will reduce the government spend further on health/aged care as it is low enough already.




Is it fair to push on the responsibilities to the Gen X & Y who again, are innocent of this "imbalance"? That they will, in the future, be expected to carry a much heavier tax burden and reduced standard of living because the generation that brought them to this world had not saved enough to be fully independent from the government? 

I guess they will have to take responsibility for it (as long as the politicans insist), but it's going to be a tag of war between these generations to argue who deserve what in the future. 

Like I said, the biggest problem I see for the future of baby boomers would be that they will eventually lose their position of power (through wealth and politic influence) as they retire. The next generation of politicans may not be as forgiving as I am in thinking these baby boomers are innocent and be generously awarded (or compensated) with more pensions and welfares. 



> I do think though, that looking ahead, quite a few baby boomers will have to work until age 70 (if they can.) They will have a low standard of living in retirement. Unfortunately, the time for the government saving for the future is over. We are going to have terminal deficits until about 2050, when the baby boomer generation begin dying out.




Like tech/A said, be responsible for yourself and live life to the fullest I certainly can't help everyone, but at least I can help myself and my family.

Nice philosophical discussion going on here. hehe


----------



## REA (7 May 2009)

Unfortunately government policy over the past few years has began to create a have-have not jealousy.   I am a baby boomer and I stand in awe of my childrens baby bonuses, almost free child care (cheaper if you work  -government policy) family allowance and still the $900 dollar cheques keep rolling in.  

At 33 yo not many baby boomers who frequent this site had the capacity to own McMansions, new cars and plasma screens yet that is quite common place in this boost up the middle incomes policies being persued by the last 2 governments, yet people still whinge about BB who have worked hard all their life to help set this country up to its present standard.   I see it in my own family.

If you think life is going to be tougher in the next 30 years make the next 10 work for you and set yourselves up.


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 May 2009)

REA said:


> Unfortunately government policy over the past few years has began to create a have-have not jealousy.   I am a baby boomer and I stand in awe of my childrens baby bonuses, almost free child care (cheaper if you work  -government policy) family allowance and still the $900 dollar cheques keep rolling in.
> 
> At 33 yo *not many baby boomers who frequent this site had the capacity to own McMansions, new cars and plasma screens yet that is quite common place in this boost up the middle incomes policies being persued by the last 2 governments, yet people still whinge about BB who have worked hard all their life to help set this country up to its present standard. I see it in my own family*.
> 
> If you think life is going to be tougher in the next 30 years make the next 10 work for you and set yourselves up.




Absolutely couldn't agree more. 

Seems many gen X & Y'ers are obsessed with the age pension that BB's like me are eventually entitled to if we fall through the self-retirement cracks.

They might spend just a little time considering how the hell THEY will survive when THEIR turn to retire comes, given that THEY will not be eligible and will have NO age pension to fall back on if their compulsory super, self-funding, yada-yada... fails for whatever reason. 

Crikey, you would have to be Blind Freddie to not see how the financial assets of many self funded BB's have been destroyed with this financial crisis mess. Many have been forced to convert significant amounts of plunging shares to cash at rock bottom prices in order to survive the past few months, or sell down their RE. 

So, pray tell, what happens 30-40 years from now when Gen X'ers and beyond are hitting retirement age with _absolutely nothing but their life savings to keep them going until death do they part?_ We have seen how spend-thrift these new generations are... NOT!

Indeed, what happens if more massive financial tsunamis hit in the coming years and essentially wipe out whatever investments or savings these new gens have amassed for THEIR retirement - maybe back to _sub-sustinence levels_?

WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO SAVE THOSE MASSES FROM THE STREETS THEN?

Oh, don't worry... be happy! Keep spending! Maybe Old Man KRudd will still be in power in 2040 to hand out more Monthly $9,000 McHappy Cheques! Pigs might fly too. 

Start saving, investing, bigtime NOW and hope for just a little luck in your investment choices is all I can offer to X, Y, Z'ers.... and pray for a benevolent government to offer some level of financial backup or support whenever the $hite really hits the fan for those aging generations to come after us poor old maligned BB's are pushing up the weeds.

IMO in the Lucky Country we are all living high on the hog, beyond a _permanently sustainable_ standard of living, so enjoy it while it lasts. Future generations to come might not be so "lucky". If you think your lot is bad, it could of course be far, far worse. That's life & luck I guess.

Party on...




aj


----------



## glads262 (7 May 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Seems many gen X & Y'ers are obsessed with the age pension that BB's like me are eventually entitled to if we fall through the self-retirement cracks.
> 
> They might spend just a little time considering how the hell THEY will survive when THEIR turn to retire comes, given that THEY will not be eligible and will have NO age pension to fall back on if their compulsory super, self-funding, yada-yada... fails for whatever reason.
> 
> ...




- by the time gen x, gen y get to retirement, there will be a larger tax base with which to fund whatever type of age pension backup is left.
- we will have compulsory super, so will probably not need an age pension until age 75-80 when that begins to run out. (except for dole bludgers who have no super)
- Financial crisis?? Large drops in the sharemarket happen every 7 years or so. This is not unusual. A lot (not all) baby boomers who did have retirement funding - a heap of it came from the above average market returns of 2002-2008. Not from actually saving more money(due to bludging kids...)
- So you have not actually lost "your retirement savings" you have lost the abnormal returns you received over the last 5 years.
- Your portfolios will recover - if you have not panicked and turned to cash.

Perhaps a solution to all this would be to increase the age pension age. It used to be 60 - now it is 65.

Life expectancy has increased by about 20 years in the last 50-60 years.

Perhaps the real age pension age should be more like 75??

I know it sounds harsh, but those aged 65-75 could still work, if they have not saved sufficiently for their retirement. If they cannot work due to illness, they will get disability pension. This will probably be the only thing that can save us from non-temporary deficits.

But as commented before - Those aged 55plus are a hugely influential voting block and I am afraid that this is probably not going to happen...


----------



## Calliope (7 May 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> .
> 
> IMO in the Lucky Country we are all living high on the hog, beyond a _permanently sustainable_ standard of living, so enjoy it while it lasts. Future generations to come might not be so "lucky". If you think your lot is bad, it could of course be far, far worse. That's life & luck I guess.
> 
> Party on...




You got that right. As you probably know Donald Horne in his book used the words "Lucky Country" in the context that we have been lucky to get away with it.


> In a hot summer's night in December 1964 I was about to write the last chapter of a book on Australia. The opening sentence of this last chapter was: 'Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck.'




Nothing much has changed in 45 years.


----------



## Soft Dough (7 May 2009)

Julia said:


> What utter bloody rubbish!  I'm also a baby boomer.  All my friends are baby boomers.  We are all self funded long before official retirement age and make no demands on you or the rest of your generation.
> 
> We all give many hours every week in volunteer roles to the community.
> This is something I've done even when I was still working the sort of hours I expect Tech works now.
> ...




1. I am already successful.

2. Generalisations are exactly that.... generalisations, they can be made. There are exceptions, but a vast majority of baby boomers will not be self-funded retirees, I just stated a fact, it is a fact, learn to live with it.

3. I am not tossing blame, just stating exactly what has happened and what is likely to happen. 

4. I love the endless credit statement.... what has made a lot of BB wealthy over the past 15 years?  the endless credit has definitely contributed to this.

5. There will be a larger proportion of Gen X and Y who will be self funded due to the career long sacrifice of our money into superannuation ( which also helps buffer your investment as you remove your cash from our investments ).  You got to employ the equivalent as you saw fit during the majority of your career.

There will likely be no pensions for us, we will be paying off the country's debt, which will be used and accessed to fund pensions and healthcare for the first real generation where their lifespans greatly exceeded the retirement age.


----------



## enigmatic (7 May 2009)

I think alot of you are confusing BB, Gen X, Gen Y with the financially disabled.

I know Plenty of BB and Gen X who have spent far to much and not invested wisely and at the same time I have known many a BB and Gen X to have invested wisely.

Gen Y well most of us are bearly at the point of our lives were we would be normally saving for anything. however once again I know plenty of my generation who have saved and are savers and there are plenty of my generation who are absolute spenders and love to get in debt, suck from the system.

Just to get things in prospective no one should ever rely on there super for retirement..

Now my problem with the Budget Deficit is that who was it that paid for alot of the deficit those earning over 100k once again this has no generation restriction, who is going to have to pay back most of the Budget Deficit those earning more then 100k.

Some people seem to forget that people earning 100k or more also worked hard some are lucky and just got put into there jobs but most of them have been working hard at it for years.

So why is it that Pensioners need an increase due to the GFC is my main question and why do the wealthy need to pay for it we are all going to be pensioners one day shouldnt it be covered equally by society.
The reason i dont understand why pensioners need more the finiance crisis hasn't effected there job, they arent selling there house, and cost of living has actually decreased. I can understand the goverment putting more into super for the future but not giving more to the pension.


----------



## Mr J (7 May 2009)

glads262 said:


> I certainly don't agree with kids living at home until they are 28




Many of us will probably see our baby boomer parents move in with us.




> I certainly understand the Aussie culture on their criticism for home bludging




It's not an "aussie" culture thing, it's the perspective of generations that had more independence and responsibility earlier in life.



> yet people still whinge about BB who have worked hard all their life to help set this country up to *its present standard*




The present standard of debt levels that will be paid off by future generations? I think it's pretty understandable to whinge about that :.



			
				Aussiejeff said:
			
		

> Seems many gen X & Y'ers are obsessed with the age pension that BB's like me are eventually entitled to if we fall through the self-retirement cracks.




We're paying for it, so why shouldn't we be? It's going to significantly impact our lives. You're entitled to it? Why should you be entitled to it? You're just lucky it's there and that you may have it to fall back on. It's similar to a gen Y'er suggesting that they're entitled to sponge off their parents.



> They might spend just a little time considering how the hell THEY will survive when THEIR turn to retire comes, given that THEY will not be eligible and will have NO age pension to fall back on if their compulsory super, self-funding, yada-yada... fails for whatever reason.




We'll be responsible for ourselves, unlike the baby boomers. It's interesting that so many baby boomers are complaining about younger generations being irresponsible sponges when many baby boomers will become just that when they retire.



> you would have to be Blind Freddie to not see how the financial assets of many self funded BB's have been destroyed with this financial crisis mess.




Which they are responsible for. And then the amount of people on pensions will increase, becoming an even greater burden on my generation.



> Indeed, what happens if more massive financial tsunamis hit in the coming years and essentially wipe out whatever investments or savings these new gens have amassed for THEIR retirement




Why worry about my generation?



			
				glads262 said:
			
		

> I know it sounds harsh, but those aged 65-75 could still work




I don't think it's harsh. 65 isn't what it used to be.


----------



## Struzball (7 May 2009)

But what happens when the baby boomers (god forbid) kick the bucket?

Suddenly a whole generation of people who bought houses before the boom etc, giving their houses away to their children who did nothing for it.  Or maybe it will just be in a sense giving back to the generation who paid for their pension.

My parents own 4 houses, and me and my brother and sister to share with.  Considering I have no need for 4 houses, I'd probably end up selling my share and being cashed up. 

Suddenly there will be massive inheritances around the country and everybody will be rich (maybe ). Most likely whoever is in government at that time will jack up the inheritance taxes like in the USA.  I can only wonder what life will be like.

Should we be so petty about spending our tax dollars on pension for the baby boomers??


----------



## tech/a (7 May 2009)

Struzball said:


> But what happens when the baby boomers (god forbid) kick the bucket?
> 
> Suddenly a whole generation of people who bought houses before the boom etc, giving their houses away to their children who did nothing for it.  Or maybe it will just be in a sense giving back to the generation who paid for their pension.
> 
> ...




It is likely that this will be the ONLY way most will ever own a home.
With 3 of you you will have around a house each if Freehold.

In the UK most never own a decient home until they inherit one if they are that lucky.
Your "Needs" and attitudes towards your needs will change dramatically every 10 yrs.


----------



## Mr J (7 May 2009)

Struzball said:


> But what happens when the baby boomers (god forbid) kick the bucket?
> 
> Suddenly a whole generation of people who bought houses before the boom etc, giving their houses away to their children who did nothing for it.  Or maybe it will just be in a sense giving back to the generation who paid for their pension.




They may have spent a lot of the inheritence to pay for their retirement. I wouldn't say we do nothing for it, as we're paying much of their mortages by renting their properties. It could be considered just the we inherit them.


----------



## bunyip (7 May 2009)

glads262 said:


> Considering Wayne Swann, the rabbit in the spotlight, is talking about projected "temporary deficits" until 2015...
> 
> What does he think is going to happen from 2015? Um, the baby boomers - because they have been undertaxed over the past 20 years - are going to start sucking down the pension, and expensive health care because they didn't save for their retirement.
> 
> ...




The post above must surely rate as one of the dumbest posts ever to appear on this forum.
It contains so much mis-information that it's clear the person who wrote it doesn't have a bloody clue.


----------



## bunyip (7 May 2009)

When I see people talking of leaving this great country and moving overseas, it makes me wonder what they want out of life. 
Australia offers lots of space, freedom of choice and abundant opportunities to get ahead. 
Our living standards are pretty damned good and our climate and lifestyle are second to none.
It looks like we'll weather this recession better than most countries.

I have friends and/or relatives in a number of different countries. All of them have visited Australia and all of them would like to move here.

Anyone who can't see opportunities in this country, isn't looking in the right places.
Anyone who can't make a decent life for themselves here, isn't trying hard enough.

The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence.
I'll make an educated guess that most Australians who move overseas for a 'better' life will end up returning sooner or later to the land down under.


----------



## Mr J (8 May 2009)

> When I see people talking of leaving this great country




It's great for some, but for many of those people it would be great anywhere.



> Australia offers freedom of choice and abundant opportunities to get ahead.




Freedom of choice to an extent, and opportunities for those that are able to take advantage of them. I will concede that the majority that are confined to "average" have it better here than most other places.



> Our climate and lifestyle are second to none.




Tell that to the people who are stuck in a hot, sweaty, cramped train that is running 10 minutes late, going to a job that requires 50 hours a week. They're a slave for most of the week. It can be argued that this is their choice, but these are roles that need to be filled.



> Anyone who can't make a decent life for themselves here, isn't trying hard enough.




Most people will not get ahead in life. There are opportunities out there, but only for a minority of people. Most people are not able to get a job they would enjoy, or one that would bring them success to live quite comfortably, assuming they want to live a typical lifestyle (i.e. not move somewhere remote and live on the cheap).


----------



## nunthewiser (8 May 2009)

please excuse the following 

i saw this on a tshirt regarding those that didnt embrace this bewtiful nation for what it is

"if you dont like it pizzorf"

no offence intended


----------



## Temjin (8 May 2009)

When is anyone going to realise that the world is not fair and will never be.

It's much better to look out for yourself and create opportunities that would otherwise give you far more options than you would if you were to stuck at a ever-grinding 8to5, 5of7 jobs.

As one of the 7 Habits of Effective People book say, stop worrying about things you cannot control, and start worrying about things you can!

Having said that, some people may say I am not grateful of the contributions the baby boomers have made to this planet. And that they are fully deserved of the pensions they will receive when they retire at the full expenses of the future generations. 

But here is that I have to say. I don't care what contributions they have made. I only care about myself and my immediate family. If I could find any legal means to get myself out of the system (i.e. paying tax and staying in the rat race), then I will do so by any means necessary. If the world is playing this game of being unfair, then I will take things in my own hands to "hoard" even more wealth either through creating value (starting a business) or at the expense of others. (i.e. zero sum trading!) At least I will make sure my family and my parents would not suffer from the lack of "options" that the average person is facing.


----------



## Awesomandy (8 May 2009)

Temjin said:


> It's much better to look out for yourself and create opportunities that would otherwise give you far more options than you would if you were to stuck at a ever-grinding 8to5, 5of7 jobs.




In that sense, it would actually be better if they receive as much pension as possible - they more money they spend, the more opportunities there are for the younger generation (who are in-tune to world happenings) to exploit this cash flow and make money.


----------



## bunyip (8 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> It's great for some, but for many of those people it would be great anywhere.
> 
> *Wrong. Competely wrong. I could name you many countries where you'd be down-trodden no matter who you were. *
> 
> ...




....


----------



## Calliope (8 May 2009)

Temjin said:


> If the world is playing this game of being unfair, then I will take things in my own hands to "hoard" even more wealth either through creating value (starting a business) or at the expense of others.
> 
> .




You sound a bit paranoid but at least you are on the right track. Self-interest is the best motivator. The best way for you to amass "more wealth" as I think you have already worked out is to take advantage of the the cupidity of others. Thern are many suckers who want to ge rich quick and will pay good money for hare-brained get rich schemes.

Just remember the two adages; 

*There's a fool born every day.* and

*A fool and his money are soon parted*


----------



## Mr J (8 May 2009)

> Wrong. Competely wrong. I could name you many countries where you'd be down-trodden no matter who you were.




I can name them myself. The point was that being in a great position is not unique to Australia.



> Yes, those roles need to be filled. But anyone who is dissatisfied with their situation has the ability to work towards changing it if they choose to.




My points about roles needing to be filled is that not everyone can have their dream job or a job they enjoy. There just aren't enough of those kind of jobs out there. There's choice at an individual level, but not at a communal level.



> It bemuses me when people say they can't afford to get into real estate, yet they can afford to waste an equivelent amount of money on expenditure that's completely unnecessary.




Perhaps for quality of life.



> Opportunites are available to everyone, not just the minority. Only a minority ever use their opportunites to full advantage by planning and setting goals.
> The majority fail to do so, then complain that they have no decent opportunities.




This is just not true. There just aren't enough opportunities to go around, so they're snapped up by the most motivated, the sharpest, and the luckiest. Again, there's opportunity at an individual level, but look at a much larger picture and the opportunities are limited.


----------



## Temjin (8 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> You sound a bit paranoid but at least you are on the right track. Self-interest is the best motivator. The best way for you to amass "more wealth" as I think you have already worked out is to take advantage of the the cupidity of others. Thern are many suckers who want to ge rich quick and will pay good money for hare-brained get rich schemes.
> 
> Just remember the two adages;
> 
> ...




Haha, but no, I don't intent to hoard wealth by scamming other people into get rich schemes like Aussie Robbery...I mean Rob's Lifestyle Trader. It's against my moral values. 

I'm motivated not just for personal self-interest, but in the interest of my immediate family. That is far more motivating than anything at this point of time. It's all about protecting our property rights at the end of the day. 



			
				awesomandy said:
			
		

> In that sense, it would actually be better if they receive as much pension as possible - they more money they spend, the more opportunities there are for the younger generation (who are in-tune to world happenings) to exploit this cash flow and make money.




That is only true if this "younger generation" person is exploiting this cash flow at the expense of his peers who are paying heavy tax to keep the pension going.  

A simple transfer of wealth. 



			
				Mr J said:
			
		

> This is just not true. There just aren't enough opportunities to go around, so they're snapped up by the most motivated, the sharpest, and the luckiest. Again, there's opportunity at an individual level, but look at a much larger picture and the opportunities are limited.




This may be true from a statistical sense in that not everybody will be as successful as the self-made-highly-motivated-millionare next door. (if u actually consider being wealthy as successful in the first place!)

But I would not instill this type of mindset to anyone because it would simply reinforce their behaviour toward being lazy and not taking advantage of any opportunities that they be given. 

So no, I think there are opportunities for everyone. As long as you think there are always ENOUGH out there for everyone to grab, then you will be in a better position from a mindset perspective. 

This is one of the Dr Van Tharp's psychological mindset teachings. (and I think his teaching applies outside of trading alone)


----------



## insider (8 May 2009)

$200.000,000,000.00 That's not much... We'll put it on our Credit Card...


----------



## insider (8 May 2009)

Temjin said:


> When is anyone going to realise that the world is not fair and will never be.




Isn't that a good thing! I think it is


----------



## Mr J (8 May 2009)

> if u actually consider being wealthy as successful in the first place!




I don't, but when most talk of "success" it generally refers to financial status. I also think that almost everyone consideres financial status as part of success. Not necessarily being rich, but being _comfortable_, something I don't think the majority could achieve.



> But I would not instill this type of mindset to anyone because it would simply reinforce their behaviour toward being lazy and not taking advantage of any opportunities that they be given.
> 
> So no, I think there are opportunities for everyone. As long as you think there are always ENOUGH out there for everyone to grab, then you will be in a better position from a mindset perspective.




I partially agree with you. My view was personal, and one that I applied to the majority and not myself. I can see how it may be harmful for many to believe that they have little to no opportunity. I wasn't contesting the importance of believing in one's self.

However, I think believing there are opportunities for everyone is harmful. We should recognise the world for what it is, and balance dictates that most won't get ahead. This does not necessarily reflect their quality of life though.

There are opportunities for many at an individual level, but when one takes advantage of an opportunity, that is one less opportunity for many others. There are a limited number of occupations, ideas, businesses, roles etc, so most cannot have what they want, whether it's a person, a job, a house or a lifestyle. For most, life is full of compromise, and many are lost because of this.


----------



## Julia (8 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> However, I think believing there are opportunities for everyone is harmful. We should recognise the world for what it is, and balance dictates that most won't get ahead. This does not necessarily reflect their quality of life though.



That's right.   Many people have no ambition to be other than ordinary and "quality of life" is very subjective.





> . For most, life is full of compromise,


----------



## bunyip (8 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> I can name them myself. The point was that being in a great position is not unique to Australia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






I take your point that being in a great position is not unique to Australia. Just as you should take my point that going overseas in search of a better life is unlikely to offer any improvement on the lifestyle here in this country.
If you disagree with me then by all means go overseas and see if you can improve on what's available to you right here. I'll stick with my view that most of you who try it will end up returning to Australia.

It's clear that you and I think very differently on the subject of opportunity.  You think in terms of the opportunities available in the workforce. I think in terms of the opportunities to get ahead financially irrespective of your job or your level of income.
I suggest you broaden your thinking to include the concept of making money work for you, as opposed to you working for money.
What you do with the money you earn is far more important than the amount you earn.
Most people would say that an apprentice on $10 an hour has no chance of saving any money for investment. Yet I know an apprentice who saved $100 a week from the time he first joined the workforce. Now he earns $14 and hour as a fourth year apprentice and he saves well over $100 every week.
How does he do it? By taking a cut lunch to work with him, rather than wasting money on three purchases of fast food every day like most people do.

I have no doubt that he'll achieve his aim of saving enough money for a deposit on an investment unit by the time he finishes his apprenticeship.
He's grasped a concept that most people never grasp....the concept of making money work for him, rather than just him working for money.
Granted, this young feller is an exception, but only because of his thinking. We can all think the same way if we choose to. The opportunities he's taking advantage of are available to anyone who takes the trouble to save and plan.

You seem to make an association between wasting money and having quality of life. 
I believe you need to renovate your thinking.
Since when is quality of life improved by wasting $80 to $100 a week on junk food? This stupid practice lessens your quality of life by destroying your health while it chews up money that could be better spent on something worthwhile.
I'm all for spending enough money to give yourself a balanced lifestyle. But I'm dead against the kind of reckless spending that keeps you poor, all in the name of some foolish notion that says irresponsible spending is the only way to achieve quality of life.

My 18 year old daughter has quality of life, while at the same time being careful with money and saving for investment in her future. She goes out with friends, she flew from Brisbane to Melbourne recently to visit her sister for a week and see the sights of Melbourne. She does pretty much all the things that normal 18 year olds do. But the big difference between her and most young people is that she saves money while she's enjoying her social life.

I get heartily sick of people moaning about lack of opportunities in Australia, just as I get heartily sick of the tunnel vision that convinces people that a particular generation is responsible for the woes of the world.


----------



## dalek (8 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> I get heartily sick of people moaning about lack of opportunities in Australia, just as I get heartily sick of the tunnel vision that convinces people that a particular generation is responsible for the woes of the world.




There is probably not much more to add to this, other than if you are unhappy with your lot, DO something about it, and I cannot think of any country that offers the avenues to do that than OZ.
I for one am heartily sick of this divisive Gen X,Y, B/B, bulls-it.


----------



## Soft Dough (8 May 2009)

dalek said:


> There is probably not much more to add to this, other than if you are unhappy with your lot, DO something about it, and I cannot think of any country that offers the avenues to do that than OZ.
> I for one am heartily sick of this divisive Gen X,Y, B/B, bulls-it.




Sure, I can vote against ridiculous healthcare spending and pension increases and services directed at BB in the years to come.

Is it going to make any difference?   nope... they will control the vote.

In fact, due to WW2, their generation has controlled the vote for most of their existence, funny isn't it.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 May 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> Sure, I can vote against ridiculous healthcare spending and pension increases and services directed at BB in the years to come.
> 
> Is it going to make any difference?   nope... they will control the vote.
> 
> In fact, due to WW2, their generation has controlled the vote for most of their existence, funny isn't it.




Your right SD. The grey brigade have tonnes of clout at the ballot box every election. But remember they also paid more than their fair share of taxes throughout the years that followed. I don't think anyone can blame them for the imbalance in the population demographic. What would be funny would involve blaming them for today's family planning practices and modern contraceptive methods too!


----------



## Mr J (8 May 2009)

bunyip said:
			
		

> Just as you should take my point that going overseas in search of a better life is unlikely to offer any improvement on the lifestyle here in this country.




I never said overseas would necessarily allow for a better lifestyle. I don't know, but I allow for the possibility that a reasonable number of people may be able to live as a good a life in many other places. This is competely subjective, as opinions on what is a good lifestyle varies significantly. You don't seem to allow for this possibility.



> It's clear that you and I think very differently on the subject of opportunity. You think in terms of the opportunities available in the workforce. I think in terms of the opportunities to get ahead financially irrespective of your job or your level of income.
> I suggest you broaden your thinking to include the concept of making money work for you, as opposed to you working for money.




I don't think that way at all. I work at making money by making my money work for me. By opportunities, I'm including anything from occupations, lifestyle, partners, etc. The fact is that all of these come in a limited supply, and the majority of people are going to have to compomise. 

Opportunities are certainly limited, as when one takes advantage of an opportunity, that is one less opportunity for someone else. Perhaps it's the dream house, the job you would love, the woman you love etc. For most, life often comes down to having to settle for what you can have, rather than what you want.



> You seem to make an association between wasting money and having quality of life.
> I believe you need to renovate your thinking.




Not at all. I've actually stated in this thread that financial success does not necessarily mean quality of life, as it is completely subjective. What makes one happy may not make another happy.



> I get heartily sick of people moaning about lack of opportunities in Australia, just as I get heartily sick of the tunnel vision that convinces people that a particular generation is responsible for the woes of the world




No-one here is moaning, and particular generations are responsible for the woes for the world. Each generation in power has a major influences on all events that happen during their time, so they're often responsible. Blaming a generation doesn't mean blaming all individuals within that group, but the group as a whole, even if it's only the powerful minority of that group. It certainly does not mean that all baby boomers are to blame and that they're alone to blame.


----------



## Soft Dough (8 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> But remember they also paid more than their fair share of taxes throughout the years that followed. I don't think anyone can blame them for the imbalance in the population demographic. What would be funny would involve blaming them for today's family planning practices and modern contraceptive methods too!




And we will have to pay more taxes. We will have to support a greater proportion of pensioners, and pay for the debt that has been left to us due to the over-consumption over the past 10-15 years.

Reasons for family planning / contraception!! thankyou feminist movement. Thankyou for disregarding THE most important job in the world ( being a mother ) in favour of stupid materialistic pursuits. YES my wife will never work as long as our children are still at home. It is THE most important job that there is, and it is a darn shame that our families today put housing and TVs ahead of their children, and believe that daycare is an acceptable alternative to real parenting.

I find it highly amusing, the shock and horror that my wife encounters when she tells people that she will not be going back to work. She often laughs that women are the biggest problem that women have.  I tend to agree.


----------



## bunyip (8 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> I never said overseas would necessarily allow for a better lifestyle. I don't know, but I allow for the possibility that a reasonable number of people may be able to live as a good a life in many other places. This is competely subjective, as opinions on what is a good lifestyle varies significantly. You don't seem to allow for this possibility.
> 
> _*I'm well aware that different people have different opinions about what constitutes a decent lifestyle.
> I simply say that people are kidding themselves if they think they need to move out of Australia if they want a decent lifestyle. Anyone with the power to think and observe will recognise that Australia offers us the opportunity to live whatever lifestyle we choose. The same can't be said for every country.*_
> ...




.......


----------



## robandcoll (8 May 2009)

Well this little baby boomer wont be getting a pension because I have been prudent with my investments for the day I retire. Sell funded and will spend the lot, unless ofcourse Labor continues with its policies of taking from those who have and giving to those that havent. I am sure they will spend some of it for me.


----------



## Soft Dough (8 May 2009)

robandcoll said:


> Well this little baby boomer wont be getting a pension because I have been prudent with my investments for the day I retire. Sell funded and will spend the lot, unless ofcourse Labor continues with its policies of taking from those who have and giving to those that havent. I am sure they will spend some of it for me.




And we respect that, and it is what we all aim for, but you are the minority.

( and btw I am going to die broke too, I'll educate my children, but it will be up to them to earn their lot )


----------



## Julia (8 May 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> And we will have to pay more taxes. We will have to support a greater proportion of pensioners, and pay for the debt that has been left to us due to the over-consumption over the past 10-15 years.



I suppose it's just the dreadful baby boomers who have over-consumed during this period.  Fine.  Whatever you say.





> Reasons for family planning / contraception!! thankyou feminist movement. Thankyou for disregarding THE most important job in the world ( being a mother ) in favour of stupid materialistic pursuits. YES my wife will never work as long as our children are still at home. It is THE most important job that there is, and it is a darn shame that our families today put housing and TVs ahead of their children, and believe that daycare is an acceptable alternative to real parenting.



I do agree about children doing much better when their mother isn't pursuing a career.

But it sounds as though you'd prefer women not to have a choice about pregnancy which was frequently the case before there was reliable contraception.  Yep, those were the good old days, back street abortions and all.  Great stuff, soft dough.


----------



## Soft Dough (8 May 2009)

Julia said:


> I suppose it's just the dreadful baby boomers who have over-consumed during this period.  Fine.  Whatever you say.




Of course not the only ones, but the ones with the means to do so more aggressively.





Julia said:


> But it sounds as though you'd prefer women not to have a choice about pregnancy which was frequently the case before there was reliable contraception.  Yep, those were the good old days, back street abortions and all.  Great stuff, soft dough.




not wrt pregnancy, I never said that, and in fact I provide a lot of advice to women about their choices regarding contraception etc.

I said that they should choose to stay at home more often, and sacrifice some materialistic items for the sake of their children ( personally I blame feminists.... and madonna )


----------



## Mr J (9 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> I simply say that people are kidding themselves if they think they need to move out of Australia if they want a decent lifestyle. Anyone with the power to think and observe will recognise that Australia offers us the opportunity to live whatever lifestyle we choose. The same can't be said for every country.




I don't think Australia does offer every lifestyle at all. A lot of lifestyle are culture-based, and we can only cover a slice of the cultures represented around the world. Australia offers a good variety, but there is a lot that you can't do here. Examples are a great nightlife, travelling, fashion, many sciences etc. There are also a lot of climate/evironment-based lifestyles that Australia can't provide.



> When it comes to getting ahead through investment, this country offers virtually limitless possibilities. What's to stop you from owning 15 houses, or 20 or 30? I know people who own more than that.
> If you did in fact own dozens of houses, would that limit my opportunity of doing the same? Not at all.
> If you built up a half million dollar share portfolio, would that limit my opportunity of doing similar? Not at all.
> *This country is a land of opportunities for anyone who chooses to grasp them.*




Yes, but most aren't able to and for many reasons. These opportunities are available to the right individuals, but not to the majority. Perhaps they're not knowledgable, intelligent, wise or innovative enough to take advantage of a financial opportunity. Perhaps they're not self-aware or strong-willed enough to take advantage of a lifestyle opportunity. Perhaps they're just not smart enough to compete for that occupation they want. Perhaps they're not good-looking enough to capture that woman's affections. Perhaps they can't afford the education etc. I could go on, the point is that many can't take advantage of many opportunities for many reasons. Some their fault, some are just out of their reach. That's life.



> Nobody here is moaning? Like hell they're not. Read the first post in this thread that moans about baby boomers not paying enough taxes and what they've done to the economy and what they'll do to it in future, and how they should be subjected to estate tax etc - and various other ill-considered comments.




I don't recall much ranting and moaning, but I would probably subconsciously skip those anyway.



> No one generation is responsible for anything. How can they be.....is society made up entirely of baby boomers, or any other generation for that matter? No. Society is made up a lots of people from all generations, all of whom get to vote and have a bearing on the decisions that are made, and the consequences that result.




I did say that not all baby boomers were to blame, and that they alone can't be blamed. Ultimately, everything affects everything, so it can't be denied that baby boomers, as a generation, are to blame. That does not mean there aren't others to blame!



> I do agree about children doing much better when their mother isn't pursuing a career.




I assume it's more important to just have someone there. I think it's less important who, just as long as they are close to the child and can properly fill a parenting role.



> I said that they should choose to stay at home more often, and sacrifice some materialistic items for the sake of their children




The same could be said of fathers. Our childhood male and female role models significantly affect our future relationships.


----------



## gfresh (9 May 2009)

dalek said:


> There is probably not much more to add to this, other than if you are unhappy with your lot, DO something about it, and I cannot think of any country that offers the avenues to do that than OZ.
> I for one am heartily sick of this divisive Gen X,Y, B/B, bulls-it.



:iamwithst

When did this crap start anyhow? It seems to be a recent phenomena (within the last 5 years unless I am off track), to blame the previous generation, or the next, for the problems of today.


----------



## Julia (9 May 2009)

gfresh said:


> :iamwithst
> 
> When did this crap start anyhow? It seems to be a recent phenomena (within the last 5 years unless I am off track), to blame the previous generation, or the next, for the problems of today.



Yes, of course it's nonsense.  You simply can't categorise a whole generation.
Perhaps it's a phenomenon peculiar to this generation in response to their reluctance to take responsibility for their own outcomes.

(already I can hear the howls of protest at the above.)


----------



## Calliope (9 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> I did say that not all baby boomers were to blame, and that they alone can't be blamed. Ultimately, everything affects everything, so it can't be denied that baby boomers, as a generation, are to blame. That does not mean there aren't others to blame!




You keep harping about blame. Blame for what?:dunno:


----------



## bunyip (10 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> I don't think Australia does offer every lifestyle at all. A lot of lifestyle are culture-based, and we can only cover a slice of the cultures represented around the world. Australia offers a good variety, but there is a lot that you can't do here. Examples are a great nightlife, travelling, fashion, many sciences etc. There are also a lot of climate/evironment-based lifestyles that Australia can't provide.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you think travel, a great nightlife, fashion etc are not available in this country then you must be living under a rock out in the central Australian desert somewhere.
Maybe you have one of those half dead personalities that prevent you from ever utilising what's on offer anyway.
But since you seem to think that Australia falls short in so many areas, I suggest you take yourself over to some other country that you think will be an improvement.
I'll stick with my view that you and most other people who try it will return to Australia.

It's pretty darned silly to suggest that opportunities are not available to the majority.
We have free education and a generally high employment rate, even now in this economic recession. 
The majority of people can work and save money if they set their minds to it. They can invest their savings in growth assets if they wish to. In so doing, they have the potential to improve their lives and even become financially wealthy, with the improved lifestyle and higher living standards that usually accompany an improved financial situation. 
Sure there are people who, for whatever reason, are not going to take advantage of their opportunities. 
But that doesn't alter the fact that good opportunities are available to the majority of us in this country.

It's pretty feeble the way you're dodging and weaving and twisting on the subject of baby boomers and generations as you try to lay blame. 
Get over your obsession with blame, forget about categorising generations, open your eyes and start realising that rather than blaming anyone, you ought to be commending society for the tremendous advances we've made, the country we've all helped to shape, and the free and wonderful lifestyle we've created in the best country on Earth.

And if you disagree that Australia is the best country on Earth, then as I said earlier, see if you can find a better place by taking yourself off to some other country. Perhaps you'd be doing Australia a favour.


----------



## bunyip (10 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> You keep harping about blame. Blame for what?:dunno:




Calliope

It's difficult for us normal people to undertand how some of these characters think.

Maybe he wants to blame us for...... 

Creating all the opportunities we have.
The freedom we enjoy.
The laid back Australian lifestyle we cherish.
The fact that we're weathering this recession better than most countries.
The freedom of speech we enjoy.
The Australian spirit that's responsible for so many of our men and women answering the call to defend our country whenever our freedom is threatened by war.
The development of technology that's made our lives easier. 
The shorter working hours that gave us more leisure time with friends and families.
Our free education and health systems.
Our social welfare system that looks after those who can't look after themselves.
Or for a hundred other benefits we take for granted in this country.....benefits that are absent in many other countries.

I get heartily sick of these people who moan and whinge and try to lay blame. I wish they'd piss off and go somewhere else to live.


----------



## enigmatic (10 May 2009)

When you think about it though it is a scary thought.

In the year 2010 
2010-1945 -65years of age 
so in a very short period of time we are going to have a larger number of people starting to retire thus the money which the BB will be placing into our future fund will be minimal..

However I guess you could always be an optimist which i prefer and look at the benifits.. There are going to be alot of highly qualified personal leaving many industries soon providing opportunities for those willing to grab it to move up in the ranks and earn more money. Our youth will have job opportunities.. atleast they can look after the pensioners.
Pensioners will still spend there money, unfortunetly we will have to put up with 10-25years of slow driving while there is still a large portion of oldies on the road.. Possiblity better then the crazy teens although atleast there going the speedlimit or faster.

I think in the long run you will find many pensioners will return to work or stay part time as they won't be able to afford to live the expensive lifestyle that we younger Generations have to pay for day in day out.

So i dont see why there is to much stress Were all going to be old one day and we will want to get as much cash of our hard working youth as possible and be able to complain about how reckless they are.

Oh and about the Generation complaining about each other, I dont think it has always happened it seemed to start with the BB parents complaining about there kids and the BB complaining about there kids and there kids complaining about there Parents and so on..

It all goes back to the 60's


----------



## kincella (10 May 2009)

bit off topic..I just like some of the smilies..wish I could re arrange my choice in the list...instead of having to scroll through everytime

oh and yes I am a boomer....I believe it can be construed as racism...this blame game going on...

:iamwithst:bowser::horse::thankyou:


----------



## Mr J (10 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> If you think travel, a great nightlife, fashion etc are not available in this country then you must be living under a rock out in the central Australian desert somewhere.




It's relative, as what you or we may consider great may be relatively weak compared to other nations. You must be taking this personally if you're trying to defend Australia on these points. Travel, all I will say is that we're one continent, country and culture, and that there is an entire world out there. Nightlife, it pales in comparison to many other countries if you're looking for a long night, party, clubbing etc atmospheres. We do pubs well. Fashion? If you really want to travel the fashion circuts, you wouldn't spend much time in Australia.



> It's pretty darned silly to suggest that opportunities are not available to the majority.




You still don't get it. I'm not going to get into it in depth, as I'm sure I made sense earlier. All opportunities are limited, whether it is by intelligence, willpower, supply and demand, socio-economic status, or many, many other reasons. Not everyone can own your 15 houses, I'm not going to say why as it should be obvious. Not everyone can save $100 per week or even wants to save $100 per week. Hoarding cash isn't necessarily an opportunity, as it may out-weigh any change in standard of living.



> The majority of people can work and save money if they set their minds to it. They can invest their savings in growth assets if they wish to. In so doing, they have the potential to improve their lives and even become financially wealthy, with the improved lifestyle and higher living standards that usually accompany an improved financial situation.




You're concentrating on the individual rather than the big picture. An individual has the opportunity to do as you say, but people as a whole do not, whether it's due to personal limits, human nature, compromise etc.



> *Sure there are people who, for whatever reason, are not going to take advantage of their opportunities. *
> But that doesn't alter the fact that good opportunities are available to the majority of us in this country.




This is most people. Opportunities also come in all shapes and sizes, so the opportunities available to one person may be completely different to those available to another. You seem to be quite dismissive or out of touch with human nature and our thought-process at this time.



> It's pretty feeble the way you're dodging and weaving and twisting on the subject of baby boomers and generations as you try to lay blame.
> Get over your obsession with blame, forget about categorising generations, open your eyes and start realising that rather than blaming anyone, you ought to be commending society for the tremendous advances we've made, the country we've all helped to shape, and the free and wonderful lifestyle we've created in the best country on Earth.




Again, you're completely misinterpreting what I have said. I'm not blaming the baby boomers in the way that you think I am. I don't have an obsession with blame. I'm not categorising generations. 

Commending society? The country we've all helped shape?  Free and wonderful lifestyle? The best country? That's all subjective, but if you don't understand that then you're not going to understand most of what I say.



> And if you disagree that Australia is the best country on Earth




I haven't, and I never suggested it wasn't. You have just been hearing what you want to hear so you can argue with it.



> Calliope
> 
> It's difficult for us normal people to undertand how some of these characters think.




It's difficult only because you can't see beyond your own perspective.



> I get heartily sick of these people who moan and whinge and try to lay blame. I wish they'd piss off and go somewhere else to live




I haven't been moaning or blaming anyone, at least blame in the way you think of blame.


----------



## robots (10 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Calliope
> 
> It's difficult for us normal people to undertand how some of these characters think.
> 
> ...




hello,

top post man,

yes we living the life here in this country alright

sure are different to the rest of the places around the world

thankyou
associate professor robots


----------



## Glen48 (10 May 2009)

Would the banks give me a temporary loan for 7 yrs?


----------



## robots (10 May 2009)

hello,

try them out Glen48

give them the bleeding heart routine that all the handout crew use

thankyou
robots


----------



## bunyip (10 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> It's relative, as what you or we may consider great may be relatively weak compared to other nations. You must be taking this personally if you're trying to defend Australia on these points. Travel, all I will say is that we're one continent, country and culture, and that there is an entire world out there. Nightlife, it pales in comparison to many other countries if you're looking for a long night, party, clubbing etc atmospheres. We do pubs well. Fashion? If you really want to travel the fashion circuts, you wouldn't spend much time in Australia.
> 
> 
> *If you think travel isn't available to us, it just shows how out of touch with reality you really are. Forget about the isolation of Australia....that doesn't stop us from travelling.
> ...


----------



## Calliope (10 May 2009)

Bunyip,

I am afraid you are only giving encouragement to Mr J's boring, uninformed and unresearched lectures by taking him seriously. You only have to look at this guy's flood of posts to see that he has the answer to everything.


----------



## Julia (10 May 2009)

Glen48 said:


> Would the banks give me a temporary loan for 7 yrs?



Certainly.  As long as you are happy to sign up for the same level of interest that the Australian tax payer will be paying for the government's borrowings.


----------



## Julia (10 May 2009)

Re the argument between Mr J on one side and Bunyip and Calliope on the other:
(and I will probably regret not staying out of this!)

I suspect what's happening here is a misinterpretation of expressed views on both sides.

When Mr J asserts that not everyone in Australian society is able to 'make the most of opportunities available",    and  then Bunyip and Calliope in response assert that (paraphrasing)" then that's their own fault, they are therefore unwilling to work" etc etc,   I read into Mr J's comments that there will always be in any society some people who lack the capacity to see and utilise opportunity.  Now whether this incapacity is genetically determined, or culturally inculcated I don't know.   

But I do know that not everyone has that intrinsic ability to make the most of their lives to the extent most of us here on ASF can.

There will always be people who will need to be 'carried' by their more capable fellow citizens.

Against this suggestion is the thought that by continuing to offer welfare and support to this group, they will never be motivated to change their potential.

And, Mr J., those people who genuinely fail to see and accept their opportunities are in fact supported by the rest of us, along with the sick, disabled, etc.

So doesn't that make Australia a pretty fantastic country?


----------



## hw&h (10 May 2009)

charttv said:


> I second that. They could just increase immigration. hundreds of millions of eager young workers throughout the world eager to take their place and tax burden as they leave the workforce. Over time the government will slowly ramp up the spin so we won't even notice it's happening.
> 
> The standard of living here is exceptional. A lot of people would give anything to live here. I don't see that changing anytime soon.




I was listening to the ABC radio recently explaining that the "stimulus" package was meant to save Australian jobs. While K. Rudd hands out pay checks with one hand, he is also allowing massive immigration with the other. Don't get me wrong i am not against immigration, however in a time of financial crisis when we are meant to be spending billions of taxpayers money on "saving Australian jobs" we are immigrating people who will have little skills, require government support and almost no desire to work. Have a look at the statistics yourself. Studies by universities show that the workers we have been integrating (on average) have very little skills and require government support -check it out yourself. 

The same scenario has been played out in Europe before, and they are seeing the ramifications of it now. Germany, holland and France have been allowing massive amounts of unskilled migrants into the country and they are now leeching off the government and increasing the rate of crime. At a time of financial crisis we need to pull our head out of the sand and look at our own country for the solution. We need to focus on fixing ourselves first so we can then help others. if you can't fend for yourself, how do you expect to support someone else as well? 

I think Australians need to stop squabbling over which side of the government is better than the other -they're both bad! we need to realise that the government is made to serve the public, not the public made to serve the government. Countries like United Arab Emirates have NO income tax. Some people may say "yeah sure that's because they have oil" however only 5% of their GDP is due to oil, the reason the country has no income tax is because it is better managed financially.

We need to stop blaming others for this mess and start looking at ourselves. How many of you can truly say that you support yourself financially as well as your fellow countrymen? Most Australians are not financially independent -most of us are worried about whether we have enough jam on our sandwiches. A country's financial situation is based on the individuals within that country, so take some responsibility and educate yourself about YOUR OWN finances.


----------



## Mr J (10 May 2009)

Calliope, he's not encouraging me at all. My "flood of posts" is due to me having time for discussion. This is apparently a trader/investor forum, and I'm a novice trading full-time. It's reasonable that I will post a lot in order to get feedback and improve my trading. 

I certainly don't have the answer to everything. There's far, far more that I don't know than that which I do know. My knowledge isn't even a grain of sand on Seven Mile Beach. I discuss in order to learn more, not to give myself an ego boost.

If you read my posts, you should see that I don't post rubbish, and simply offer a point of view. It's unfortunate you have to make it personal.



> If you think travel isn't available to us, it just shows how out of touch with reality you really are. Forget about the isolation of Australia....that doesn't stop us from travelling.




I'm talking about travelling for a living. I never stated travel wasn't available to Australians.



> As for nightlife, if you can't have yourself one hell of a good night out by clubbing in Australia then I can only suspect that you have one of those personalities that's about as exciting as watching paint dry.




I suppose you haven't clubbed overseas. Australia's clubbing scene is limited by comparison. I know what Australia has to offer, I've clubbed plenty and worked in a club.



> No mate, it's you who doesn't get it. And no, you didn't make sense earlier and you're still not making sense now.
> You're saying that opportunities are not available to the majority. I'm saying that opportunities are available to all of us.




I've already stated that your view is correct from a certain perspective. The problem is that you can't look at it from another perspective, and conclude that it must not make any sense. You're turning this personal, so I won't address any of that any longer.



> The big picture is that society is made up of a collection of individuals




And that collection becomes an entity in itself.



> To say that people as a whole do not have opportunities to better themselves in this country is simply incorrect.




I didn't say that.



> It's not subjective, it's fact. We do have lots of freedom and a good lifestyle in this country, and it is one of the best countries in the world with a high standard of living.
> So yes, rather than talking about blame you should be commending society for our collective efforts in creating the country we live in and the lifestyle we enjoy. And if you don't enjoy your lifestyle my friend, then get off your back side and do something about it. And don't moan to me that you don't have the opportunity to do so. Open your eyes and you'll see opportunities all around you, many of which are available to you.




It is certainly subjective. We may be relatively free in many ways, but standard of living and what makes a country better than others are subjective. It's just your opinion.

I'm not talking about blame, you are. You keep complaining about other people complaining. What's more is that you're addressing me, despite the fact that I'm not complaining. That suggests you have no idea what I'm saying, or that you're just looking for an argument.

I don't moan about my lack of opportunities. I know what they are and am taking advantage of them. For that issue you are preaching to the choir. I quite enjoy my lifestyle, but being Australian has nothing to do with it.



> Your perspective, old son, seems to be limited by your misguided thinking that people without ambition, planning or willpower don't have opportunities available to hem.




It is correct from a perspective. If they are not able to recognise or take advantage of the opportunity, does the opportunity exist? You would say yes, but it's not incorrect to say no. It's like asking if a tree falls and no-one hears it, did it really fall? Yes and no are both correct.



> Yes actually, you have been moaning and blaming all through your posts. I won't bother going into detail.....anyone who reads back through your posts will see it.
> I refer you to post No. 73 where Calliope said to you........"You keep harping about blame - blame for what?"
> Perhaps you'd care to answer his question




I haven't been moaning. I have given my thoughts on blame, but you seemed to have missed the point. In short, my point was that if everyone was to blame, it logically means the baby boomers are to blame, as they are part of everyone. I did play around with a little more, but I was certainly not stating that baby boomers as a generation - and baby boomers alone - are responsible for the mess. There are always too many exceptions to make such an absolute statement.



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> Re the argument between Mr J on one side and Bunyip and Calliope on the other:
> (and I will probably regret not staying out of this!)
> 
> I suspect what's happening here is a misinterpretation of expressed views on both sides.




You're right, because I don't disagree with what they're saying. I understand what they're saying, and agree with it from a certain perspective. I'm offering another perspective, which they don't understand. Maybe I'm expressing myself poorly or maybe they just can't see things from this viewpoint.



> So doesn't that make Australia a pretty fantastic country?




Yes, but it's also a subjective statement. Those that don't understand that will often not understand what I say, as I express heavily with various perspectives, no absolutes, imagery, I don't spell things out and often require people to connect dots, play with thought etc. As a result, it might seem like I'm swinging back and forth or not making a point, or the point isn't understood. It's just the way I write, and probably requires people to think more like I do. My points are clear to myself, and while I can understand that they may not be clear to others, I can't express myself in a clearer manner, as I'm already clear in my eyes. See, even this paragraph may be confusing.


----------



## bunyip (11 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Bunyip,
> 
> I am afraid you are only giving encouragement to Mr J's boring, uninformed and unresearched lectures by taking him seriously. You only have to look at this guy's flood of posts to see that he has the answer to everything.




You're right there Calliope. This character isn't worthy of any more of my time or your's.


----------



## bunyip (11 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Re the argument between Mr J on one side and Bunyip and Calliope on the other:
> (and I will probably regret not staying out of this!)
> 
> I suspect what's happening here is a misinterpretation of expressed views on both sides.
> ...




Julia

I fully understand the view that not every opportunity is available to every person. Different people, different opportunities. I may have opportunities that are not available to other people, and they may have opportunities that are not available to me. 
I can also understand that some people have more ability than others to fully exploit any given opportunity.
Do I have the opportunity to become the CEO of a big multi-national company? In theory yes, in practice no, because I don't have the training or qualifications that would enable me to climb the corporate ladder.

Where I mainly disagree with Mr J is in his contention that opportunity is not available to people as a whole. That is simply not correct. We all have opportunities, each and every one of us. Each individual has varying degrees of ability to exploit these opportunities, but opportunities still exist nevertheless.
The one opportunity available to all of us is to get an education, get a job, save some of our income, and invest that money in a way that will better us.
For that reason, I'll argue with anyone who makes a blanket statement that opportunity is not available to people as a whole. _*It most certainly is.*_ Some will use the opportunity better than others, and some won't use it at all. But the opportunity is definitely available.
I believe this opportunity to work, save, and invest is the greatest opportunity of all, particularly when combined with the fact that we live in a free country that encourages people to use this opportunity, and even gives them tax incentives to do so.


----------



## Mr J (11 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> You're right there Calliope. This character isn't worthy of any more of my time or your's.




Apparently I am a waste of time for presenting a different opinion other than your own. It is interesting that you're critisising my character, when it is Calliope and yourself that have made personal remarks.



> For that reason, I'll argue with anyone who makes a blanket statement that opportunity is not available to people as a whole




The problem is not my statement, but your interpretation of my statement. This stems from believing that there is one correct answer. You're arguing black and white in a grey world. I haven't said you were wrong, just that your view isn't the only way to look at the situation.



> Do I have the opportunity to become the CEO of a big multi-national company? In theory yes, in practice no, because I don't have the training or qualifications that would enable me to climb the corporate ladder.




And this is what I'm talking about. Either you can't do what is required due to economic (can't afford education etc), social (don't have the connections etc) or personal limits (not driven etc), or you simply don't want to do it. If the opportunity can't be taken advantage of, then it can be argued that it is not an opportunity at all. 

Again, I'll bring back a common example "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it really fall?". There is more than one correct answer to that question, just as there is more than one way to look at our discussion of opportunity. If you state that the only correct answer is that the tree does fall, then you won't be able to see our discussion from my perspective. If you state that it can be argued that the tree doesn't fall, then I'm just doing a poor job of explaining my perspective.


----------



## moXJO (11 May 2009)

What are we all arguing about on this thread again?? 
It seems to have branched off


----------



## Calliope (11 May 2009)

moXJO said:


> What are we all arguing about on this thread again??
> It seems to have branched off




It got bogged down with Mr J's boring lectures explaining his philosophy of life.
If anyone is interested they they could PM him.


----------



## nulla nulla (11 May 2009)

If you measure time in "Ice Ages" the Earth is very young and the time it takes to repay the current deficit will pass so fast you won't even notice it.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 May 2009)

I'm a boomer and proud of it.

I've been left, and right and anarchist.

I've had a ball.

But at least we did something.

The present generations and the godbotherers of our generation have spoiled it all.

Nobody is willing to be different now.

Boomers are best, they cared and care, they bludged and worked, and still work.

They made some of the greatest music since Bach and invented some glorious substances and then kicked them.

We've never whinged.

Many of us (not me btw) went to unfashionable wars and were demonised for it.

Many started revolutions, liberated women and produced great literature.

Most of us will plan to stop working after this budget, a product of godbothering economics.

And if that stuffs the financial system, ...tough.

You guys have elected a preaching godbotherer, so live with it. Its your problem now.

gg


----------



## moXJO (11 May 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> If you measure time in "Ice Ages" the Earth is very young and the time it takes to repay the current deficit will pass so fast you won't even notice it.




Perhaps this can replace Kevin07 on a t-shirt
I noticed labor was offloading the blame onto the Libs about the deficit. So much for the end to the blame game we were originally promised.


----------



## bunyip (11 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> It got bogged down with Mr J's boring lectures explaining his philosophy of life.
> If anyone is interested they they could PM him.





Can't see anyone doing that, Calliope....who'd want more of his boring lectures!

On a different subject.....there's a little town in Central Queensland by the name of Calliope.....did you name yourself after it?


----------



## Calliope (11 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'm a boomer and proud of it.
> 
> I've had a ball.
> 
> ...




You got that right.  My favourite impressions of the young boomers was that the couldn't wait to get out of the parental home. To throw off the shackles and become free spirits. They made no secret for their disdain for everything the "wrinklies" held dear. And they asked for no handouts.

These days you can't  separate young people from their mothers with a tyre 
lever.


----------



## Julia (11 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> Again, I'll bring back a common example "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it really fall?". There is more than one correct answer to that question, just as there is more than one way to look at our discussion of opportunity. If you state that the only correct answer is that the tree does fall, then you won't be able to see our discussion from my perspective. If you state that it can be argued that the tree doesn't fall, then I'm just doing a poor job of explaining my perspective.







moXJO said:


> What are we all arguing about on this thread again??
> It seems to have branched off







Calliope said:


> It got bogged down with Mr J's boring lectures explaining his philosophy of life.
> If anyone is interested they they could PM him.



Well, Calliope, I for one don't find Mr J's philosophical thoughts boring, and neither do I find your comments boring.  It would be a pity to have either of your opinions hidden away in PM's.

Mr J has a different way of expressing what I'd say are suggestions for thought rather than definite conclusions.  Isn't that actually quite stimulating and provocative?

Over the time you've been a member of ASF I've found much of what you've offered to be interesting, informed, and often very black and white.  Clearly a result of your age and life experience.

Mr J hasn't been around for so long so we don't know him too well yet, but his view of the world in shades of grey is something many would agree with.

Perhaps don't dismiss a different approach too quickly.  Difference of thought  prevents us from holding opinions which have become entrenched rather than thoughtful.





Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'm a boomer and proud of it.
> 
> I've been left, and right and anarchist.
> 
> ...



Hey gg, you've just reminded me of why I'm glad to be a baby boomer.
Fantastic post!


----------



## aleckara (11 May 2009)

The problem is not that there isn't opportunity - I think the argument here is that really Australia has less opportunity per capita than it once did. The argument that not everyone can have 10 houses is a valid one - the pie isn't getting too much bigger but there are more mouths to feed. To be honest I do see signs of this. The private sector has record debt levels to income, and the government is the only people able to take it on right now (other than the new generation via the FHB).

I don't think this is just going to affect one generation though, although younger generations will live through it much longer. A world with less oil, more debt, and a deteriorated planet to live in. We've done so much in the last 100 years.


----------



## Calliope (11 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Mr J has a different way of expressing what I'd say are suggestions for thought rather than definite conclusions.  Isn't that actually quite stimulating and provocative?




No. I find his pretentious posturings to be anything but stimulating and provocative. However I have nothing more to say on this matter. I don't want to discourage a budding philosopher.


----------



## GumbyLearner (12 May 2009)

glads262 said:


> Considering Wayne Swann, the rabbit in the spotlight, is talking about projected "temporary deficits" until 2015...
> 
> What does he think is going to happen from 2015? Um, the baby boomers - because they have been undertaxed over the past 20 years - are going to start sucking down the pension, and expensive health care because they didn't save for their retirement.
> 
> ...




I wonder what Wayne Swan's opinion is with regard to average people?


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> I wonder what Wayne Swan's opinion is *with regard to average people*?




Who?


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'm a boomer and proud of it.
> 
> I've been left, and right and anarchist.
> 
> ...




I could add...

Without the hordes of much-maligned Boomers feeding the pokies, pubs, RSL's & sport clubs (which are not an un-substantial part of our social economy) with substantial hard-earned, many of those institutions would be totally stuffed. Junior sports would be stuffed. 

Without the hordes of much-maligned self-funded retiree Boomers spending up bigtime and hitting the grey nomad trails, travel agencies etc, the whole tourism industry (which is not an un-substantial part of the Oz economy) would be stuffed. Oz airlines would be stuffed.

Without the hordes of much-maligned unemployed or self-funded VOLUNTEER Boomers now caring for and assisting the disabled, the elderly, the infirm, the growing tsunami of dementia sufferers, the insane, the charities, our whole economy and allied health system (which are not un-substantial!) would be totally stuffed. Hmmm. How many NowGener's are planning on becoming UNPAID VOLUNTEERS after all the Boomers are gone??? I suppose slaves waving banana fronds could be imported from Indonesia for that? 

 IMO




aj
Proud Boomer


----------



## bunyip (12 May 2009)

hw&h said:


> I was listening to the ABC radio recently explaining that the "stimulus" package was meant to save Australian jobs. While K. Rudd hands out pay checks with one hand, he is also allowing massive immigration with the other. Don't get me wrong i am not against immigration, however in a time of financial crisis when we are meant to be spending billions of taxpayers money on "saving Australian jobs" we are immigrating people who will have little skills, require government support and almost no desire to work. Have a look at the statistics yourself. Studies by universities show that the workers we have been integrating (on average) have very little skills and require government support -check it out yourself.
> 
> The same scenario has been played out in Europe before, and they are seeing the ramifications of it now. Germany, holland and France have been allowing massive amounts of unskilled migrants into the country and they are now leeching off the government and increasing the rate of crime. At a time of financial crisis we need to pull our head out of the sand and look at our own country for the solution. We need to focus on fixing ourselves first so we can then help others. if you can't fend for yourself, how do you expect to support someone else as well?
> 
> ...




An excellent post.


----------



## Calliope (12 May 2009)

I don't think we can blame Swan for getting us so deep into this mess.

I have been watching him carefully and I am fairly sure that the figure we are seeing is actually a puppet operated by invisible strings. The main clue is the way his body and head jerk when he is speaking.

But who is pulling the strings? I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I suspect Gillard and her union mates.

And how can we be sure that Rudd is not a ventriloquist's dummy. Have you noticed how his little chin wags up and down when he talks.. The rest of his face is very immobile. He also seems programmed to say the same things over and over.


----------



## brty (12 May 2009)

I'm of the opinion that most (or a large part) of the BB's retirement savings will have disappeared by the time they really need it. 

The BB's have saved more for their retirements (via superannuation, even if compulsory) than any other prior generation. At some point, the super funds will have to start paying out more money than comes in from contributions. The net effect will be less growth in the stockmarket (or longer term decline). The only major source of income for them will be the pension.

The more investing in super becomes unattractive, probably starting tonight, then the quicker the retiring BB's become a problem.

We do live in the lucky country, as we have been lucky for the last 25 years with increased immigration. The effect being to reduce the retirement of the BB's problem compared to other western countries.

For perspective, think of the types of problems that will occur in China in 20-30 years with a huge older population and a one child policy for over 40 years.

I am a BB.

brty


----------



## Julia (12 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I don't think we can blame Swan for getting us so deep into this mess.
> 
> I have been watching him carefully and I am fairly sure that the figure we are seeing is actually a puppet operated by invisible strings. The main clue is the way his body and head jerk when he is speaking.
> 
> ...



Very insightful comments, Calliope.  I hadn't considered this, but it makes absolute sense.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 May 2009)

Swan is a dill promoted beyond his capabilities.

Rudd is a dangerous obsessive, a secretive man, a godbotherer.

The real power in Ozpolitics rests with Gillard.

She is behoven to some quite dysfunctional male unionists.

A picture of Rudd and Gillard with apologies to Grant Wood.

The boomers will rise up at the appropriate time an consign them to history

gg


----------



## Soft Dough (13 May 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> I could add...
> 
> Without the hordes of much-maligned Boomers feeding the pokies, pubs, RSL's & sport clubs (which are not an un-substantial part of our social economy) with substantial hard-earned, many of those institutions would be totally stuffed. Junior sports would be stuffed.
> 
> ...




And out of that entire post I fail to see anything in the actions described that shows great benefit to Australia. In fact the argument of spending up and removing what money might be contributing to the prosperity of the country ( ie in super investments ) is of massive detriment to the wealth of the nation.

As for the volunteer work, I'd much prefer to pay someone minimum wage for this service than pay them a pension and have them volunteer. imo they should have been much more aggressive in increasing the retirement age.


----------



## dalek (14 May 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> As for the volunteer work, I'd much prefer to pay someone minimum wage for this service than pay them a pension and have them volunteer. imo they should have been much more aggressive in increasing the retirement age.




I think the point made by Aussiejeff might be about the volunteers sense of community and the fact they will happily do something for nothing which is probably not a common  attribute displayed by some other social groups.

"Aggressive" increase in retirement age sounds like an idea, but the commercial realities are that most workers are hard pressed to get employment at 55 years let alone 65. 
Not every job has a comfy desk and pleasant outlook and it would be a pretty grim world for 65-70 year olds in manual occupations.


----------



## johenmo (14 May 2009)

dalek said:


> "Aggressive" increase in retirement age sounds like an idea, but the commercial realities are that most workers are hard pressed to get employment at 55 years let alone 65.
> Not every job has a comfy desk and pleasant outlook and it would be a pretty grim world for 65-70 year olds in manual occupations.




Good point here.  Having worked in manufacturing for a couple of decades in ANZ at a few places in each country (I'm a BB or Gen X, depends on which set of years you use) I've noted a few consistent "themes":
- the older ones doing manual work are breaking down as injuries become more common;
- they live from pay to pay, and are usually paid weekly.
- from talking with them it's rare to find any saving money.  Even though some of them are making 70 - 90K due to shift allowances and overtime.
- most of them don't contribute any extra to Super.  Actually have been told "why would we do that?" when I've mentioned it.
- most are relying on the old-age pension. 
- yet again yesterday, someone was so happy .  Building their "first new home" but getting a huge mortgage and need two incomes to support it. Glad for them but they are on a financial tightrope.

One of the keys to financial freedom is to live within your means.  This concept is foreign to a lot of younger people (I twigged to it mid 20's when we had one income and first child and mortgage).

Our social structure won't allow us to remove pensions.  So we have to reduce spending or pay more to support these things.  I suspect our Health system will be more like the US - no health insurance means limited options.

Greed will kill us not any specific generation.


----------



## Julia (14 May 2009)

dalek said:


> I think the point made by Aussiejeff might be about the volunteers sense of community and the fact they will happily do something for nothing which is probably not a common  attribute displayed by some other social groups.



I agree.   It doesn't have to do with money.  I've done a heap of volunteer work starting in my 20's.   Never wanted to be paid for it.  If a price were to be put on the volunteer work done in the community, mostly by older people, I'd guess it would be much higher than many would imagine.


]


----------



## Julia (14 May 2009)

johenmo said:


> - from talking with them it's rare to find any saving money.  Even though some of them are making 70 - 90K due to shift allowances and overtime.
> - most of them don't contribute any extra to Super.  Actually have been told "why would we do that?" when I've mentioned it.
> - most are relying on the old-age pension.



Yep, I've noticed a lot of this too.   I don't think they stop to figure out that the pension is hardly enough to live on as a couple, let alone the single rate.

A couple I knew both worked all their lives up until retirement age.  Had no children so no outlay there.   They had cash of around $30,000 and owned a home worth about $250K.  Nothing else.  They didn't even have private health cover, despite both having extensive medical problems.

When I asked them why, the answer was that they'd simply never considered there would be a need for anything more than the pension.  They had inherited that attitude from their parents.
And so it goes.  Until attitudes change (which they are, gradually) there will still be a dependence on the government pension by a majority.


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 May 2009)

dalek said:


> I think the point made by Aussiejeff might be about the volunteers sense of community and the fact they will happily do something for nothing which is probably not a common  attribute displayed by some other social groups.
> 
> *"Aggressive" increase in retirement age sounds like an idea, but the commercial realities are that most workers are hard pressed to get employment at 55 years let alone 65.
> Not every job has a comfy desk and pleasant outlook and it would be a pretty grim world for 65-70 year olds in manual occupations.*




Spot on IMO.

It hasn't taken long for some rational thinking social services commentators to question how 65-67 year olds down the track are going to get a job! 

Since these New Old Timers will be ineligible for the age pension in that bracket, if they aren't totally self-supporting through super or other investments or savings they will have to either (a) get the dole aka the gummint's fabulous Newstart Allowance - not much more than a poverty payment, or (b) apply for a Disability Pension - but only accessible as long as they have a credible medical condition & the gummint is no doubt going to tighten the guidelines for that as well.

On the other hand, some other less rational commentators think raising the age for the pension eligibility is a great thing and should be extended "even further". What? To 70? 75? God help future gens then if they get their way.

Sure, medical advances over the coming decades _might_ "prolong life" - but what "quality of life" will this offer? What about dementia and alzheimers? They would have to come up with a magic bullet for BOTH conditions, since there is a growing EPIDEMIC of those conditions as people "live longer".

Let's say gummints raise the age limit over the next decade to 70+? Imagine all the poor, demented, alzheimer stricken, once rich futureGeners aged in their 70's - all still expected to work like dogs till they drop? They'll all be trying to claim Disability Pensions or Newstart before they completely lose their faculties. Even worse, there will be NO BBoomers left to volunteer their unpaid time to help? 

What a lovely society that will be. 

In a way I'm glad I only have "on male average" to look forward to another 20 years left.... 

If I'm "lucky", I might get to 85  


aj


----------



## Soft Dough (14 May 2009)

dalek said:


> "Aggressive" increase in retirement age sounds like an idea, but the commercial realities are that most workers are hard pressed to get employment at 55 years let alone 65.
> Not every job has a comfy desk and pleasant outlook and it would be a pretty grim world for 65-70 year olds in manual occupations.




Along with the change in mentality of the "older workers" will come a change in mentality of the employers.

I personally know of 3 diesel mechanics, over 60 who continue to work, AND can still do some of the more difficult jobs like Hendrickson suspension.

There are some, eg painters who I have more of a concern about, but I guess that there would need to be a change in attitude by the people who choose this trade to help themselves in skilling-up towards the end of their workable life.

A bit of self-motivation, planning and responsibility will go a long way.


----------



## glads262 (14 May 2009)

Lets look back a few dozen years.
Retirement age of 65 for males. life expectancy - 70yo.
Would be on age pension for average 5 years.
A lot of those age 55-65 would have been unable to work due to illness/injury

Now?

Retirement age 65, life expectancy around 90 (for a 65 year old)
time on pension? 25 years.
People aged 55-65 way healthier than they were 50 years ago.

I remember my Nanna at age 65. She was pretty old.
Now my parents are 65, they are a lot more mobile & healthier.

So realistically if we were to "index" the retirement age, it would be more like 75 now.
I agree that this may be a bit much.
But working until age 70? Well, if you are like some of the people in the above examples in this thread, why should you be "entitled" to retire at age 65.
You may have worked all your life, but you have spent everything on yourself & your kids. You made that decision.
So "expecting" these people to work until age 70 is not unreasonable. They made their choices over their lifetime.
Their ability to do so is another arguement.
If they are unable due to illness/injury = disability pension.
If they do not have the right skills = dole.
Yes, these would involve a lower payment - but again why are people "expecting" to be "entitled" to government help when they have made no effort to help themselves.
(rough calcs)Also, those aged 65 SHOULD have around $100000 in super
19yearsx40000incomex.09% = $70000 plus earnings = $100000.
So if they MUST retire at age 65, then they can live off their limited savings for a couple of years plus their meagre dole/pension payment.

I'm sorry to all that disagree, but I don't think this is too harsh. Pensioners are getting a better deal by 1000% compared to 50 years ago.

This entitlement mentality is exactly the reason that the US will be $24trillion dollars in debt in 2019. Their retirement age to get social security is too low and their medicare system is too expensive.

People do not want reduced benefits, but they also do not want to pay for it through higher taxes = DEBT. No-one is willing to fix it. 
You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## highonoctane (14 May 2009)

aleckara said:


> As a generation Y member Im finding issues with a lot of the statements above. I work hard, never received help from my parents, and generally everything was gotten the hard way. Not all of us have parents to help, nor should we have to rely on it.
> 
> Don't blame one generation. All Australians if a problem happens are to blame. If we were living in their time we wouldn't have done it differently. I would say it is our political culture that has gotten us into this mess. We believe we have more than we have due to the fact that we can borrow money.
> 
> ...




:iagree:
Nailed it...! My thoughts exactly!


----------

