Where in the hell is Australia heading?

[disarray]

Umm where's my rights not to pay disarray Come on throw me a bone here. Gen x is always left out

get angry man. or generalise more. either way i don't give a stuff what generation someone is, but a man should always pay his own way. granted sometimes there is bad fortune, or things go wrong and people need a helping hand, but people should always pay their own way if they are able.

if you are old with a large house and can't afford to live your lifestyle then you should downsize. if you are young and able bodied then get a friggin job. everyone should work. to get all biblical "those who do not work, neither shall they eat"

I do have to admit to a bit of resentment that once again it's those of us who have been prudent, saved and generally taken responsibility for ourselves who receive the least.

i hear you

 

[sptrawler]

get angry man. or generalise more. i don't give a stuff what generation someone is, but a man should always pay his own way. granted sometimes there is bad fortune, or things go wrong and people need a helping hand, but people should always pay their own way if they are able.

if you are old with a large house and can't afford to live your lifestyle then you should downsize. if you are young and able bodied then get a friggin job. everyone should work. to get all biblical "those who do not work, neither shall they eat"

The problem is mate, what happens if you start from the bottom and do without, you live in a dump, drive a crap car, don't go out.
Instead you just save and invest so you don't have to rely on charity.
Your mates p!!!$$ it up, have a great time, drive monaros and gt falcons, take holidays, wine and dine the chicks and have nothing at retirement.
Then you end up with people like you saying, I have to pay more to support them in retirement.
I hope you end up there some day.LOL

 

[disarray]

sorry man but i don't know what you are talking about. what is your point? that the sensible and frugal should support those who spend their lives pissing their money up against the wall?

p.s. fix your quote tags

 

[sptrawler]

sorry man but i don't know what you are talking about. what is your point? that the sensible and frugal should support those who spend their lives pissing their money up against the wall?

p.s. fix your quote tags

Obviously that is the plan.LOL
By the way are you starcraftmazter?

 

[disarray]

actually it's more like the reality, but whatever.

and no i'm not. that's a stupid question.

 

[sptrawler]

actually it's more like the reality, but whatever.

and no i'm not. that's a stupid question.

Yes but your responses begged the question.

 

[Ruby]

In fact they are now talking about having seniors sell their houses, which is excellent. All retirees should be forced to sell all their property before they are eligible to receive any pension payments.

Downgrade to low-maintenance, low-cost retiree housing, free up housing supply for young families.

There is no reason the government should pay pensioners any money if they are capable of sustaining themselves through selling their assets. Indeed, this is impossible and unsustainable. It's all about what's best for society.

It sounds to me as though it is all about what is best for YOU, SCM! What an incredibly juvenile, selfish and narrow minded view you have! Younger generations have always looked after the older generation - throughout history. You will appreciate it when your turn comes.

There are a few things you don't seem to be aware of, living in your naive little cocoon. When the current crop of elderly people was young:-

• There was no Superannuation Guarantee (unless you were a public servant)
• There was no equal pay for equal work, so women occupied low paid positions.
• There was no childcare, enabling mothers to work
• There was a high level of work place discrimminaton, meaning that many jobs were not open to women, and if they were, they were not open to married women. (I remember when the public service did not employ married women.)
• There were no high salaries, which meant that people could not ever save enough for a comfortable retirement.
• The high standard of living that Australia currently enjoys was created by today's aging baby boomers

.

But then...........you still have a lot of growing up to do.

(My bolds.)

 

[moXJO]

get angry man. or generalise more. either way i don't give a stuff what generation someone is, but a man should always pay his own way. granted sometimes there is bad fortune, or things go wrong and people need a helping hand, but people should always pay their own way if they are able.

if you are old with a large house and can't afford to live your lifestyle then you should downsize. if you are young and able bodied then get a friggin job. everyone should work. to get all biblical "those who do not work, neither shall they eat"



i hear you

No I understand what you were saying.
Some people just seem to be brought up with or develop a welfare entitlement mentality that in reality don't / shouldn't need.

 

[disarray]

are you missing the irony here? don't you think a person with substantial assets claiming benefits is demonstrating this "welfare entitlement mentality"?

 

[disarray]

Younger generations have always looked after the older generation - throughout history.

yes they often did, but leftist social engineering, the dismantling of the family unit and the rise of the welfare / nanny state have thrown traditional social dynamics out of whack.

There are a few things you don't seem to be aware of, living in your naive little cocoon. When the current crop of elderly people was young:-

[*]There was no Superannuation Guarantee (unless you were a public servant)

given the current state of superannuation funds due to market volatility and fees, taxes, government regulation and (tinfoil hat on) the likelihood super will be compulsorarily acquired by the government at some stage in the future to pay for whatever crisis our leaders have managed to blunder their way into, i don't really see super being that good of a long term bet. but time will tell.

[*]There was no equal pay for equal work, so women occupied low paid positions.
[*]There was no childcare, enabling mothers to work
[*]There was a high level of work place discrimminaton, meaning that many jobs were not open to women, and if they were, they were not open to married women. (I remember when the public service did not employ married women.)

and due to a much lower cost of living and higher real value of dollars (before fiat was badly debased), this meant purchasing power was much higher and families could survive and even build assets on a single income. zero chance of that now.

[*]There were no high salaries, which meant that people could not ever save enough for a comfortable retirement.

just as well house prices have increased so much then! pretty sure downsizing assets could help many people enjoy "a comfortable retirement"

[*]The high standard of living that Australia currently enjoys was created by today's aging baby boomers

this is crap and typical of the self-important attitude many boomers like to throw around. it was our grandparents generation, who grew up in the depression and fought in WW2 that created our countries standard of living. it was the boomers milked the benefits while overseeing its debasement though.

now tell us about how boomers invented computers and went to the moon etc. etc. (hint: they didn't, it was the WW2 generation again)

But then...........you still have a lot of growing up to do.

age does not necessarily equate to wisdom

anyway generalisation doesn't help resolve any issues. generational conflict is part and parcel of our society. starcraftmazter raises valid points about personal responsibility and the duty of an individual to pay their own way if they possess the means to do so. getting all indignant and saying "we had it so hard so we deserve to live the lifestyle we are accustomed to even if it needs to be subsidised by others" is bullsh!t and should rightly be challenged by those who are expected to pay for it.

 

[Ruby]

yes they often did, but leftist social engineering, the dismantling of the family unit and the rise of the welfare / nanny state have thrown traditional social dynamics out of whack.



given the current state of superannuation funds due to market volatility and fees, taxes, government regulation and (tinfoil hat on) the likelihood super will be compulsorarily acquired by the government at some stage in the future to pay for whatever crisis our leaders have managed to blunder their way into, i don't really see super being that good of a long term bet. but time will tell.



and due to a much lower cost of living and higher real value of dollars (before fiat was badly debased), this meant purchasing power was much higher and families could survive and even build assets on a single income. zero chance of that now.



just as well house prices have increased so much then! pretty sure downsizing assets could help many people enjoy "a comfortable retirement"



this is crap and typical of the self-important attitude many boomers like to throw around. it was our grandparents generation, who grew up in the depression and fought in WW2 that created our countries standard of living. it was the boomers milked the benefits while overseeing its debasement though.

now tell us about how boomers invented computers and went to the moon etc. etc. (hint: they didn't, it was the WW2 generation again)



age does not necessarily equate to wisdom

anyway generalisation doesn't help resolve any issues. generational conflict is part and parcel of our society. starcraftmazter raises valid points about personal responsibility and the duty of an individual to pay their own way if they possess the means to do so. getting all indignant and saying "we had it so hard so we deserve to live the lifestyle we are accustomed to even if it needs to be subsidised by others" is bullsh!t and should rightly be challenged by those who are expected to pay for it.

Disarray, you are talking nonsense. You clearly didn't live in that time, and have only an idealised concept of what society was like then. You are looking back through a 2011 lens!!

Yes, there were some who could save and build assets - and they are the ones who live in reasonable houses and are self-funded. Those peope have every right to stay where they are. There are others who had absolutely no chance of doing that, and they are the ones who need to rely on a pension, because the only asset they own is their home (if indeed they own that much), and that is usually quite small and unpretentious anyway. Why should they give up that home? They have a right to live somewhere. Old people are part of society too, and are just as important as young people. They are not commodities to be tossed to one side when they can no longer work.

Oh, and I said nothing about age and wisdom. I said SCM needs to grow up. Different thing! Being a grown up has nothing to do with age either!!

 

[Julia]

given the current state of superannuation funds due to market volatility and fees, taxes, government regulation and (tinfoil hat on) the likelihood super will be compulsorarily acquired by the government at some stage in the future to pay for whatever crisis our leaders have managed to blunder their way into, i don't really see super being that good of a long term bet. but time will tell.

Yep, agree that it's entirely possible government will e.g. take contributed Super from individuals and issue those individuals with some sort of annuity.

and due to a much lower cost of living and higher real value of dollars (before fiat was badly debased), this meant purchasing power was much higher and families could survive and even build assets on a single income. zero chance of that now.

For someone who decries generalisation, you're doing a fair bit of it yourself.
Plenty of people live on a single income these days. It simply depends on that level of income.
And a couple of generations ago, people were more content to start with a very modest house, second hand furniture, and have both partners work at least two jobs. They also were more disposed to accept a pretty old car.

There were simply different expectations.

this is crap and typical of the self-important attitude many boomers like to throw around. it was our grandparents generation, who grew up in the depression and fought in WW2 that created our countries standard of living. it was the boomers milked the benefits while overseeing its debasement though.

Wow! Not just a huge generalisation but simply rude as well.

 

[disarray]

yes you are both touching upon the point i am highlighting.

what is the standard of lifestyle one should reasonably expect? what level of assets are required to support this lifestyle? if one has assets in excess of "reasonable lifestyle" requirements then why should they expect to be subsidised by others?

should those who were spendthrifts throughout their life have the right to demand benefits from others in their retirement?

this is especially pertinent now when the population of "non-productive" aged is bulging, life expectancies are increasing, asset allocation is skewed heavily towards the elder generations while debt load is heavily skewed towards the younger generations, and the value of currency has been seriously debased causing a huge spike in asset prices but with no corresponding increase in wages.

you both mention the person who worked hard, lived modestly, played the game and thus should have the right to enjoy what they have. i don't think anyone is disputing this right. however in the case where there are people with assets but excessive lifestyle expectations, or people who wasted their money throughout their lives but expect to be subsidised in retirement, i think it is reasonable to challenge assumptions that they should be financed by the increasingly burdened taxpayer.

it is a challenging time as far as generational shift goes. acknowledging generational perceptions and differences are the first step to a civil discussion on how best to manage the next 30 odd years because it should be obvious to all that the system is failing NOW due to excess debt, and you can't mortgage the future off forever.

also julia, you agree with the assertion that "the high standard of living that Australia currently enjoys was created by today's aging baby boomers" and not the WW2 generation?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Jeez, you guys are pessimists.

This is THE land of opportunity.

As an active boomer I look forward to engaging in it with my descendants.

gg

 

[Ruby]

yes you are both touching upon the point i am highlighting.

what is the standard of lifestyle one should reasonably expect? what level of assets are required to support this lifestyle? if one has assets in excess of "reasonable lifestyle" requirements then why should they expect to be subsidised by others?

should those who were spendthrifts throughout their life have the right to demand benefits from others in their retirement?

this is especially pertinent now when the population of "non-productive" aged is bulging, life expectancies are increasing, asset allocation is skewed heavily towards the elder generations while debt load is heavily skewed towards the younger generations, and the value of currency has been seriously debased causing a huge spike in asset prices but with no corresponding increase in wages.

you both mention the person who worked hard, lived modestly, played the game and thus should have the right to enjoy what they have. i don't think anyone is disputing this right. however in the case where there are people with assets but excessive lifestyle expectations, or people who wasted their money throughout their lives but expect to be subsidised in retirement, i think it is reasonable to challenge assumptions that they should be financed by the increasingly burdened taxpayer.

The "welfare entitlement" mentality exists in all age groups. Certainly there is a small proportion of people who "double dip" - spend all their money and then expect to be supported via a pension in their old age. I certainly don't support this. There are also plenty of people of working age who refuse to work and expect to be supported on a pension (dole). This has nothing to do with an age group.

 

[moXJO]

are you missing the irony here? don't you think a person with substantial assets claiming benefits is demonstrating this "welfare entitlement mentality"?

where did I lead you to think that I would think otherwise?

I'm not big on govt handouts.

 

[chrisalex]

Everyone is missing the big picture. The elderly would sell the home as a last resort, if they had no one to help. And of their volition.
Bob Brown woul like to make this a LAW. Gillard is no different. I have watched her over more than 20 years work her way up from the Socialist quagmire of our universities, and happily send us down the same rd. as every leftist government.
chrisalex

 

[Julia]

what is the standard of lifestyle one should reasonably expect? what level of assets are required to support this lifestyle? if one has assets in excess of "reasonable lifestyle" requirements then why should they expect to be subsidised by others?

Disarray, I'm not sure where you get the notion that any significant group of people is expecting the taxpayer to fund some sort of really extravagant lifestyle which seems to be what you're suggesting. I might be misunderstanding what you're saying.

I actually think the current system is probably as close to being fair as is possible. i.e. there is a taxpayer funded very basic pension available for those who are unable to generate an income from their own funds. People do exist on this, and I don't actually think it's all that difficult for a couple getting the married rate of around $1100 per week which if they own their own home seems more than reasonable to me.

Not so easy, however, if you are single and get only a bit over half that but still have the same rates, water, insurance, electricity etc.

The age pension is means tested and reduces on a sliding scale depending on level of assets and income. These limits are, again, reasonably generous imo, allowing a significant number of people to qualify for even a small amount of govt pension and especially the prized Pension Card which gives access to many very worthwhile discounts on rates, insurance, rego, pretty much everything.

So you could say in purely amoral and pragmatic terms, it's possibly even worth a self funded retiree spending some of their carefully saved money in order to get just $1 of pension and all the attached benefits.

But, to go to your point, is this fair or reasonable?
I'd say most self funded retirees will approach this on the same basis that has guided them so far, viz pride in taking responsibility for themselves.

should those who were spendthrifts throughout their life have the right to demand benefits from others in their retirement?

Imo, no, but in fact this is exactly what happens.
We should always be looking after those who have not been able to properly care for themselves to a far better level than we do at present, but I get very fed up with the notion that those for whom the welfare mentality has been their guiding principle throughout their lives will carry this through to their final days.

I'm therefore all for user pays aged care where those who are able to pay for a good level of care get superior treatment.
Those who can't pay still get looked after but only on a basic level.

I'm not sure how this would go down across the electorate but it seems fair to me.
If someone wants to do without an overseas trip every year in order to have more comfort when they're old, then that's what they should be able to do.

it is a challenging time as far as generational shift goes. acknowledging generational perceptions and differences are the first step to a civil discussion on how best to manage the next 30 odd years because it should be obvious to all that the system is failing NOW due to excess debt, and you can't mortgage the future off forever.

True. I also think we need to engage in a candid discussion about the prolongation of life in old age. Huge amounts of medical resources are given over to slightly extending the life of someone who is going to die within a year anyway. I would like to see this stopped and the resources devoted to younger people.

I think we're more or less on the same page, disarray. Probably just have somewhat different ways of expressing it.
e.g. I am excessively long-winded!

also julia, you agree with the assertion that "the high standard of living that Australia currently enjoys was created by today's aging baby boomers" and not the WW2 generation?

To be honest, I really wouldn't want to attribute the present standard of living to any particular generation. I think it's way more individual than that, and that one's standard of living usually reflects the effort one has made during a lifetime.

Not everyone enjoys a high standard of living in Australia. We have a woeful level of homelessness which is often attributable to mental illness/addictions/low IQ/personal inadequacy, rather than simply slackness.

 

[Ruby]

.........think it's all that difficult for a couple getting the married rate of around $1100 per week which if they own their own home seems more than reasonable to me...........

Julia, small correction. That is the fortnightly rate.

 

[Julia]

Oops! Of course it is. Thanks, Ruby.