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

[GumbyLearner]

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?

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

 

[Aussiejeff]

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

Who?

 

[Aussiejeff]

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

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]

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.

An excellent post.

 

[Calliope]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

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]

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

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]

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]

"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]

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]

- 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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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