Australian Demographics - study by UNSW

[2020hindsight]

Here's an article (from NSWorld - published by UNSW) on
"Can we afford to grow old." (Sorry you have to read the attached pdf file.)

Some interesting stats on where the demographics are heading :-
In last 50 years :-

1. Aus life expectancy up 10 years to 79(m) and 82(f)
and China and korea up 30 years (to?),
i.e. more oldies

2. children per woman down from 3.7 to 1.5 (aus)
korea down from 5.4 to 1.5
china down from 6.2 to 1.8.,
i.e. fewer youngsters

3. earlier retirement age etc.
younger definition of "oldies"

4. More interesting stat is the "age dependency rate", the proportion in retirement compared to those working. -
In aust this is expected to double from 20% today to 40% by 2045.

5. More interesting still the ratio of "workers" per "aged dependent". ( I suspect this is the same as retiree - not clear if self funded or not).

number of WORKERS per aged dependent has fallen from 8 to just 5 today.
In 50 years time it will be about 3.

Actually there are some notes about various govt policies on taxing of super funds etc , and Aus comes out better than most (my reading) - probably better than NZ although that's not spelled out clearly.

moral of the story..? put some money away somewhere (family home? bank? shares? gold bars in the back yard? who nose).

lol "GREY POWER" will sound a bit hollow if all oldies want is a bigger pension ? -
- then again - with 40% of the polulation, there'll be a block vote no doubt.

Start a new single-issue party "KIDS SHOULD WORK HARDER PARTY!!",

 

[Happy]

Re: Australian Demographics- study by UNSW

Lets not forget that at least people, who care for their body and are lucky to have not too much genetic imperfections, live healthier life and are active and able to work and fend for themselves longer.

 

[2020hindsight]

forgot to mention the lead (in case people want to ask UNSW for more info):-

http://72.14.253.104/u/theuniversit...mall.pdf+unsworld&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&ie=UTF-8

go to page 8.

This in turn is a submenu of :-

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.c...ld&domains=unsw.edu.au&sitesearch=unsw.edu.au

Incidentally there are articles on "water research" and "laws on terror" etc - also worth a read.

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1821913.htm kids encouraged to get into super early

The Federal Government is considering changes to superannuation to try to encourage young Australians to save more for their retirement.

The last Federal Budget included an overhaul of superannuation taxation which will come into effect this year.

The Assistant Treasurer, Peter Dutton, says the Government is consulting the superannuation industry about ways to target younger Australians.

"We need to be thinking about ways in which we can do that, how we can capture those people, particularly young people who might have capital gains out of property sales or share sales, or people who might be involved in the resource sector, who are earning bigger money than they'd ever imagined before," he said... etc

perhaps set the kids up with superfunds earlier rather than later as well as yourself? - then there are the grandkids lol (as applicable) - sheesh where will it end.

 

[Smurf1976]

I won't be putting a single cent extra into superannuation until the government shows at least some sign of reducing the incredibly high legislative risk.

That the rules have been changed in the past 10 years isn't good, that they have changed practically every single year makes the whole concept a joke. A long term investment on the basis of constantly shifting rules - absolutely higher risk than the underlying investment itself.

Let's have a policy of no more superannuation changes, not even one, for at least the next decade. The need for constant change in an area like this is, after all, nothing more than an admission of having stuffed it up in the first place.

With all the rule changes so far, I just don't trust the government to not increase the preservation age at some point in the future.

On the broader issue, I do see potential for increased generational conflict. That is especially so if the older generation maintains its obsession with real estate values. The young are priced out of the region or even the whole city whilst watching all manner of businesses, particularly music venues, close so as to continue the gentrification of the neighbourhood to the financial benefit of the oldies. Meanwhile, the younger ones get to work harder in return - not a situation which promotes harmony and it's already starting to appear on the agenda of council meetings etc.

 

[2020hindsight]

I won't be putting a single cent extra into superannuation until the government shows at least some sign of reducing the incredibly high legislative risk.

That the rules have been changed in the past 10 years isn't good, that they have changed practically every single year makes the whole concept a joke. A long term investment on the basis of constantly shifting rules - absolutely higher risk than the underlying investment itself.

Let's have a policy of no more superannuation changes, not even one, for at least the next decade. ...............

On the broader issue, I do see potential for increased generational conflict. That is especially so if the older generation maintains its obsession with real estate values.

Smurf, as usual you are miles ahead of me.
However, most changes to super have been a relaxation, but I concede that a change against the current super laws would be really nasty. But I agree that no more changes would be nice - UNLESS they make super more advantageous. Ten years "cover" would not be adequate for the proposals on the books at the moment.

Oldies and real estate...?
As for kids getting the rough end of the generational pineapple, let's not forget also they dont get jobs because unions etc back the "last in first out" principle. And half the time, kids only get jobs when oldies die on the job.

 

[Julia]

Smurf

I think governments are gradually coming to realise that they just can't continue to stuff about with the super rules because of the risk of just the attitude you've described.

A couple of decades ago, there was only a very small proportion of the population which made a genuine effort to provide for their own retirement.
Now, most people have at least some sort of awareness that it's up to them to look after themselves financially, and that government pensions just won't come close to being enough to live on.

There will always have to be some sort of "safety net" even if this is little more than a nominal amount. Hopefully we will never have a society which so morally bankrupt that it won't provide something for those who simply cannot care for themselves.

But yet, in New Zealand, they have an old age pension, available from age 65, for everyone, completely without any means testing. I have no idea how they fund this! They have no capital gains tax.

We have some NZ members on the forum. Do any of you know where they money comes from for such a generous pension scheme?

Julia

 

[ghotib]

An interesting question is where volunteer workers fit, seeing as younger retirees are likely to provide a significant number of them.

If you think about supporting society in terms of work that needs to be done, it's obvious that a huge amount is done either outside the paid workforce or alongside it. It's also obvious that there's no way our present economic systems could pay for that work. There's already attempts to make volunteer work fit paid work models, but so far the main effect seems to be driving people away from volunteering where they're really needed. I like helping a refugee cope with reading English, but not if it means being called "an unpaid human resource" (I kid you not).

It's messy though. If the same work is sometimes done by volunteers and sometimes by paid employees, are the volunteers stealing jobs? Are they propping up a service so that someone - government or users - gets away with paying less than the service "really" costs?

What's really going to happen about essential jobs where the pay is pathetic but there's no money, for whatever reason, to increase it - nursing and teaching leap to mind, but a lot of work in the black economy simply wouldn't happen if taxes had to be built into prices. Volunteers already pick up some of those loads, but they won't carry them all.

Big questions with culture-changing answers, I think. Interesting times ahead.

Ghoti

 

[Happy]

Unfortunately slow process, but can be done.
One way would be to form new party with specific agenda.
If successful and getting few seats here and there, might start campaign to channel more money toward the issue.

Question is what would happen if we did not spend so much on other peoples problems.
Like Iraq, all South East Asia.

Last year I came past report of $300 million being spent on aide to China, if true, why?
Aren’t they superpower by now?
Why we support corrupt and unable to manage money failed states?

Before it was fear of leaving room for those behind iron curtain, now probably fear of possibly increased influence of other religions.

Very difficult subject, but why also we take so many new passengers to our bus if existing passengers are not looked properly after.