Well you mentioned "hogging jobs".
Not everyone wants to retire.
The ScoMo Government
- Thread starter sptrawler
- Start date
-
- Tags
- government scott morrison
Not everyone wants to retire.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,055
- Reactions
- 12,627
True, but I think most do at some stage.
More thought should be given to part time work for seniors, mentoring the young ones coming through.
I think government having clear plans on Australia's direction and coordinating education would yield a better result.
Both sides of government can't seem to think past 3 years though.
Doubling the population is going to be interesting as well.
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,323
- Reactions
- 2,434
LOL - Thanks for giving me the opportunity to credit the Abbott Govt
/One of the good things about the 2014 Budget was a wage subsidy for hiring seniors over 50.
Employers received $3000 after six months of employment, $3000 after a year of employment, a further $2000 after 18 months and another $2000 after two years.
I was on board with it but dunno if it's still going of how effective it was.. https://www.news.com.au/finance/eco...u/news-story/a267d040ca65d4d8b357c91dafb252d7
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,299
- Reactions
- 17,535
The whole retirement issue needs seriously looking at in my view.
Anyone over 50 without a profession or trade is probably in their last job right now. That's the harsh reality of it, officially age discrimination is illegal but in practice it's extremely widespread. If that job goes, for whatever reason, then they end up joining the long term unemployed and jumping through Centrelink's pointless hoops until they eventually get the pension a decade later.
Sure there will be exceptions but I know quite a few who have found themselves in that situation. 50+ and out of work with the options being start their own business, stay on the dole or perhaps get some sort of job with government. The private sector won't go near them once they work out their age.
For those with a trade, well it depends not just on their physical ability to keep doing it but convincing potential employers they're still up to it. If they're out of work then realistically they'll probably end up as a one man contracting business doing small jobs in the suburbs unless they can find a potential employer who actually wants experience or who can't get anyone younger.
So the whole thing needs to be looked at really.
Anyone over 50 without a profession or trade is probably in their last job right now. That's the harsh reality of it, officially age discrimination is illegal but in practice it's extremely widespread. If that job goes, for whatever reason, then they end up joining the long term unemployed and jumping through Centrelink's pointless hoops until they eventually get the pension a decade later.
Sure there will be exceptions but I know quite a few who have found themselves in that situation. 50+ and out of work with the options being start their own business, stay on the dole or perhaps get some sort of job with government. The private sector won't go near them once they work out their age.
For those with a trade, well it depends not just on their physical ability to keep doing it but convincing potential employers they're still up to it. If they're out of work then realistically they'll probably end up as a one man contracting business doing small jobs in the suburbs unless they can find a potential employer who actually wants experience or who can't get anyone younger.
So the whole thing needs to be looked at really.
CanOz
Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!
- Joined
- 11 July 2006
- Posts
- 11,543
- Reactions
- 519
Maybe its just Tasmania Smurf but i think you're out of touch with reality, we can't get enough people to work our casual positions, we fill it with labour hire and they can't get enough people, 50+ or otherwise, to fill them.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,055
- Reactions
- 12,627
Casual positions suit some, but not people trying to raise a family.
This is where our economic system is going to collapse. Insecure work means people are too worried about where their next paycheck is coming from that they are frightened to spend money on anything but essentials. Then businesses moan about downturns in consumer spending, then recessions start.
CanOz
Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!
- Joined
- 11 July 2006
- Posts
- 11,543
- Reactions
- 519
Sir, he was talking about 50+....pretty sure that would be the minority in terms of raising a family...myself excluded
CanOz
Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!
- Joined
- 11 July 2006
- Posts
- 11,543
- Reactions
- 519
All you bears haven't changed since I joined ASF. Like a broken clock you lot will Eventually be correct ...
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,299
- Reactions
- 17,535
I’m only commenting based on what I’ve seen and there have been quite a few.
Clerical workers, blue collar non-trade, even an executive. They worked for either government or a large business for many years, were made redundant through no fault of their own and after that never actually managed to get another job comparable to the one they lost.
The smart ones end up as some sort of sole trader, consultant or working part time / casual but getting another full time ongoing job seems problematic.
Obviously there will be exceptions but the statistics do show the pattern I’m referring to.
I have thus long had the view that individuals who are employees should work and invest on the basis that the timing of their exit from full time paid employment may not be of their choosing.
I don’t see that as bullish or bearish, just a reflection of how it seems to be.
Clerical workers, blue collar non-trade, even an executive. They worked for either government or a large business for many years, were made redundant through no fault of their own and after that never actually managed to get another job comparable to the one they lost.
The smart ones end up as some sort of sole trader, consultant or working part time / casual but getting another full time ongoing job seems problematic.
Obviously there will be exceptions but the statistics do show the pattern I’m referring to.
I have thus long had the view that individuals who are employees should work and invest on the basis that the timing of their exit from full time paid employment may not be of their choosing.
I don’t see that as bullish or bearish, just a reflection of how it seems to be.
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,072
There should be some sort of tiered retirement age. At the moment the "professional" sitting in a nice office retires at the same age as the people labouring day in day out.
There is such a thing as wear and tear on thebody; the physically intensive work, rushed lunch, poor diet...
But then again it's by designed. As Costello couldn't help himself and brag about how his Treasury dept. ran the numbers and see that they cannot pay pension and other benefits for every retiree.
Can't because their projections had it that a big number of them (labourer) would croaked before they get to retire; or at the least don't live much past the retirement age to enjoy the pension (that they've worked their entire life contributing to).
So the prick raised it. Get to the sweet spot where guys like himself get to enjoy it more.
Doesn't that just pizzed you off?
The tax that I pay this year is not somehow 'saved' to be given back to me as a pension in 30 years time. In 30 years time some other person will go to work all day to pay the tax that will be given to me as a pension so I can sit at home ...... I never forget that is how the system works.
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,072
I didn't say save as in save the cash/tax.
An average young person work and pay taxes from which they do not currently receive much back in return from the gov't. Those taxes of theirs goes to education, health, defence, pensions, corporate subsidies. i.e. mainly goes to other people who need it most, they recon.
The understanding is that when they grow old, or injured, or lost their mind... their contribution to society back when they were young... that should be returned in kind.
But if you're a planner like Costello, and they pretty much all are... in you looking at the statistics and all that, then decide the likelihood of this group of workers in this group of earnings bracket, industry... they're most likely going to die soon after retirement at, not at 60 anymore, but around 65 to 67, say...
Then you set about raising the retirement age to where one group will benefit above the other. Aren't you purposely screwing the other (poor, labouring) group you know will most likely not live long to enjoy whatever it is the gov't is supposed to repay them for a lifetime of contribution to the national welfare?
I understand your point and agree (without a helpful response other than 'equality for all')...... but see the complications of choosing 58, 59, 60, 61, or 62 etc, and trying to justify that choice over the others when one has to be made.
On the broader point of spending tax money, when anybody talks about spending more tax money I always visualize the situation as follows:
Line up 10 taxpayers that you know and point at the one that you want to pay more tax from their pocket to pay for your idea. If you cannot ask that person for money from their pocket then do not ask for the tax money. Because that is where the money has to come from.
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,072
If there's a will, there's a way.
One could, in five minutes, look at the same statistics as Costello and his successors obviously do... and decide that since the average age for a blue collar worker to kick the bucket is, say, 65; for the white collar around 70 to 75.
So a fair-minded person, a 'leader' and public servant of the people and what not, would either have two tiered; or would reduce it to benefit both. They shouldn't shift it to benefit those who arguably have benefited a heck of a lot more in life.
-------
We have no problem with spending taxpayers money to subsidise corporations through gov't subsidies, pet projects; no problem with 'saving the renters' with the negative gearing, generous capital gains that most high income earners tend to enjoy the most... somehow it become "entitlements" when a few bucks are trickled on the poor.
You can argue that those who do well financially in life, they do not do it on their own. The state keep their assets safe for one. The training, the infrastructure; the workers the state funded etc. etc.
So if a person does well, it's only fair that they ought to pay, if not a "fair" rate, then a higher one.
That and what does a person do with crap loads of money anyway?
I'm not allergic to money or being rich, but after, say $100M... what difference does more zeroes behind that figure do anyway? Not get a mention in some glossy magazine?
Anyway...
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,649
- Reactions
- 24,553
Costello didn't raise the retirement age to 67 and he hasn't been around for over ten years, three terms of Government.
I wasn't a big fan of his, but i can't see that all the blame can be laid at his feet, I'm sure plenty of others have had the opportunity to make changes.
I was reading today, the top 20% of tax payers, pay 80% of the tax bill, while the middle income earners pay the rest.
Those on less than $60,000 pay net, no tax apparently, so i just wonder how far you want to push the envelope. lol
Last edited:
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,072
I don't know which Treasurer signed off on it. But I saw an interview where Costello was bragging about it.
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,323
- Reactions
- 2,434
It was Wayne Swan who raised the retirement age to 67 but at the same time increased the pension by around $30 a week.
Peter Costello raised the super preservation age to 60 for those born after June 1964 but at the same time removed tax for lump sum draw downs after you reach 60.
Peter Costello raised the super preservation age to 60 for those born after June 1964 but at the same time removed tax for lump sum draw downs after you reach 60.
The Morning after; preliminary results of a 29% fall in Liberal support. The State bi-election in the seat of Wagga should not in anyway be seen as a broader indication of the temper of the wider national voting public. (prayers in the pews anyone??? talking in touges?)
I was lucky enough to drive by a flag bearing white BMW on Burraneer Bay Rd last weekend, Number plate C-1 ... well; I've no argument with that.
Wentworth is on a 17% margin .... Mmmmmm'. Might make someone out to be a complete C-....
I was lucky enough to drive by a flag bearing white BMW on Burraneer Bay Rd last weekend, Number plate C-1 ... well; I've no argument with that.
Wentworth is on a 17% margin .... Mmmmmm'. Might make someone out to be a complete C-....
