You should probably watch the Keating interview on Lateline, last week. It will be on the ABC website.
I did watch that and didn't find it a criticism of the current compulsory Super as much as advice that we need to adjust savings programs according to the ever changing demographics of people living longer and longer.
As I understood what he was saying, he was recommending that a further 'insurance scheme' should be put in place to cover the possibility that people might live into their 90's and beyond.
He made complete sense to me, but I imagine politically it would be a hard sell.
At the moment, the focus is on super being a pension replacement.
When in fact the super system was introduced to be a supplement to the pension, to give working people a better retirement and enhance their old age as the pension was always a struggle.
Really? I wasn't living here when compulsory super was introduced so I've always assumed it was introduced with the aim that - over time - it would provide an alternative to the age pension. Even at that time demographers would have foreseen the blow out which inevitably would occur as more retirees came into the system with fewer workers supporting them.
How do you define "a struggle"?
eg A pensioner couple receives nearly twice as much as a single pensioner, but the single pensioner has the same council rates, insurance, phone, electricity etc. Who is struggling? Both kinds of households? Just the single pensioner?
It doesn't seem reasonable to me that compulsory super would have been introduced just to make life 'better' in retirement. Surely that should be up to individuals?
eg if they want to go for extended overseas holidays, update their car every year etc, surely it shouldn't be at the expense of the taxpayer and they should be prepared to save separately for that sort of lifestyle.
Where do you expect the money to come from to fund full age pensions, if not from compulsory Super, eventually?
From the same taxpayer who funds Newstart, Youth Allowance, Disability Support Pension, Carer Pension, Sickness Allowance, Family Tax Benefits etc etc etc?
There will simply not be enough of them to balance the numbers of retirees with the baby boomers living as long as they probably will.
Surely politicians should be able to take into account changing demographics and other circumstances, such as diminished income from the once great mining boom etc, without being hung out to dry over the need to adjust community expectations?
I've just watched most of Joe Hockey on Q & A from last Monday and commend his patience.
Only one question I heard was not antagonistic and demonstrating a reluctance to accept reality.
Further, he was presented with outraged examples of questions that had no basis in fact, eg presumably people taking as gospel what they had read in the SMH or heard from Labor et al.
Mr Hockey managed to, without losing his calm, and in the face of overt antagonism from the host, disabuse most of these people from their erroneous assumptions.
Good on him for being prepared to face what he would have known would be a largely hostile audience and host. He is a far better communicator than Mr Abbott.
Do you really think so? One extract from this typical SMH approach:
But the industry is plagued by high fees and a narrow range of products for retirees to invest their savings in. Coupled with poor spending decisions by retirees - who often cash in their super and splash out on holidays and cars - it has meant more Australians are outliving their investments.
Well, duh! Perhaps don't spend up quite so prolifically on expensive holidays and new cars.
We all make choices throughout our lives. No reason retirement should be any different imo.
And if you don't like the fees in the public super funds, get financially literate and run your own fund.
Just for god's sake, stop whining!