Well by the latest news on the telly it looks good for us old farts !Because I can,t see me going on till 70 ! Now I,m going to be 64 in 3 weeks .Like many of us I still have to work part time cause of what I lost in the crash.In the last week I was on a 2 storey roof fixing a big leak in the rain for 2hrs.2 days later I was under a house for 3hrs replacing the water pipes [the max clearance was 400ml thats 16 inches in our old stuff ] Then theirs the pick and shovel dig outs .Now I still enjoy my craft and it keeps me fit But! frankly I am tired and no longer up to 5 days a week on hard manual labour ,as no doubt many of you out their are the same.Like many of you I don,t expect a full pension but it would be nice to get that card to offset my $ 150 per month heart tablets not to mention wifeys arthritis tabs etc. Lots of our era left super too late to start ,but thats in the past now isn,t it so we must take what we have and at least we are over the 60 barrier .However I fully realize that after 100 yrs we must move on .Sadly for tradies and those that work with hands on so to speak I don.t know if they will be up to it. I just hope that the next gen will begin super early and stop using those bloody credit cards so loosely . Now as a selfish Self funded semi retiree I look forward to an interest hike of say 6-7 % wouldn,t that be nice!.Cheers John
__________________
Westy. Some people I know are like slinkies. They look really funny when you push them downstairs !
I'll bet although they make 70 the new retirement age for those born after 1965, I'll bet there will be a lot that just won't be up to it and will have to be on a disability pension for health reasons come that time.
Some are still very capable at 70 some aren't with health, mobility or mental capacity. I hope they will be saving for a spike in those needing the disability pension before reaching that age.
-- Edited by Vic41 on Sunday 4th of May 2014 08:22:44 AM
Its never too late to lobby your local member, remind them that we are a growing problem and soon will be a majority. If anyone gets a chance speak up for your rights and beliefs. We all have a lot in common , myself included of taking broken promises from both parties without a wimper. Let them know your displeasure any way we can.
vic
-- Edited by clarence on Sunday 4th of May 2014 10:52:52 AM
Agree with your comments John, I only wish the would put some sort of guarantee on all super that it cannot be lost in another crash like the GFC
The only one that do not lose are the fund managers as they still get their commissions
Maybe all the super has to be invested in govt infrustructer,and paid a reasonable interest instead of high risk ventures
Ken
There is already a higher unemployment rate for people over 55, many people find themselves "redundant" at a mature age and have to endure the embarrassment of finding themselves virtually unemployable after so many years of hard work and experience.
As a society we have to change our attitudes to older workers before this will change. I feel sorry for somebody who finds themselves on unemployment benefits for the last 10 years of their "working" life.
If you have a job you enjoy past the age of 65, whether its your own business or wages, you're lucky!
Its been said before, if the politicians had the same future as "us" they would make some changes....
We agree with your comment about interest rates Moamajohn!
Hi Guys , I guess by all the guff going on with this so called ripoff government that i was rather lucky when you look at it. I was disposed off you might say by a crappy company after 25 years of service when i turned 65years and it was almost to the day of my birthday, it seems they don`t have insurance after 65 . Luckily my wife had the fore thought to make me contribute some of my wages to bump up the super and pay the mortgage which we did but i do not know for the life of me HOW do single pensioners survive on the money that this louse lot give us/them. We , i hope will be on the road in a month or so (doctors finished i hope) and will leave the house temporarily to the kids to look after. You cant tell me that Jo Mocking and the rest of this crowd arn`t feathering their own nest at our expense.
According to Wikipedia, Joe Jockey was born in 1965. Anyone else think that this is why the new retirement age applies only to those born AFTER 1965?
IMHO nomadic 1, I don't think Joe will be reliant on receiving an aged pension. People born after 1965 will have had ample opportunity to aquire enough super to retire as a self funded retiree when ever they feel like it. I would reckon as it is now that super will be available to people who cannot work due special circumstances.
I am A political so this is not a crack at any party. What I am thinking is that the average age of the human race has increased by 10 years from when the retirement age was set at 65, also our health is now so much better, even without medicare, Those lucky enough to have a job will be paying super and those that don't are on the dole so they aren't effected. So taking all things into consideration increasing the age maybe a good thing. I can safely say that as I am not affected
hi all.just my thoughts. The pollys have a super scheme the cops have a super scheme. Maybe the fire brigade.
the rest of us I reckon just have one big Ponzi scheme.
how can u have a so called super account then one day the bosses of said company walk of with the cash and people are left with nort.
People born after 1965 will have had ample opportunity to acquire enough super to retire as a self funded retiree when ever they feel like it.
Aussie Paul.
Sorry, Paul but I think this statement is absolutely incorrect.
People born in 1965 are now 49. Super became mandatory in 1992. So that is 22 years of super deposits at 9%?
So if an average wage is 50k per year, then they should have 100K in super now. Add another 21 years = 95K. My estimates are conservative, but say they are never unemployed, they may finish at age 70 with 250K allowing for interest.
(copy and paste below, from super website)
According to a widely accepted benchmark, most Australians will need approximately 65% of their pre-retirement income to maintain their current lifestyle in retirement. (If you have a large expense, such as an overseas trip planned for your retirement, you may need more.)
Based on the 65% estimate, if you're currently earning $70,000 a year, it's estimated that you'll need approximately $45,500 a year to maintain your current lifestyle in retirement.
The table below provides an indication of how much money would be required to fund an income of 65% of your pre-retirement income.
Pre-retirement income
65% of pre-retirement income
Lump sum required1
$30,000 pa
$19,500 pa
$254,571
$50,000 pa
$32,500 pa
$423,721
$80,000 pa
$52,000 pa
$676,701
If you're planning to retire at age 65, research suggests you're likely to live for another 20 years. The average Australian woman at age 65 has a life expectancy of about 87 years and the figure for Australian men is about 84 years. And there's a 50% chance you'll live longer.
-- Edited by arthur on Monday 5th of May 2014 05:19:14 PM
I wouldn't worry about the younger ones having to wait until 70 for the pension, with the garbage they eat they won't live long enough to claim the pension !
We were always told at super meetings to add more to super etc as your last chance on average to retire and have enough health left in you was 60 to 70 years of age , after that on average ( if you live that long ) you probably won't have good enough health to fully enjoy things like long trips etc
We chose to put our 3 kids through good schools ( the youngest , my son , is only half way through senior school ) and try and have a decent ( not extravagant lol ) holiday once very 2 or 3 years and in general have a fairly " normal" life and not live like hermits l guess
We would still like to at least , semi retire , by 60 , I'm a rotating shift worker and can't see myself doing this any longer than that as it's very taxing on your health ( supposed to take around 10 years off your life ! Lol ) I'm pretty handy so I'll do some other stuff if I need extra money , my wife's job is pretty steady ( office work ) , and she has lots of options in regards to hours etc later on if she still has to work
Like most people the gfc has put our super back a few years so that's something we'll have to wear , we've decided to extend the morgage ang get a van now and do some weekend / small holidays over the next few years rather than wait until we retire and live a bit while we're working and see how it all goes
Like most parents we'd have preferred to have been able to leave something to the kids later on , but it's looking harder and harder to be able to even do that ! We will eventually sell our house and downsize to a regular place l guess ( something we're not really looking forward to as we live on a nice semi bush 5 acre block close town and very private ) , anyway in the end we should be ok , it's just a shame a lot of people will be struggling due to stuff that happens that's totally out of their control ( gfc , constant tax changes and general costs of living )
I better stop ranting , just thought I'd finish my night shift off with some of my thoughts,
I have to agree with Arthur...I too am not sure the younger generation will have enough super to retire on before 70 either.
We have two 30 something kids, plus partners. They all live in the city for work reasons, work very hard and are trying to improve their future work opportunities by returning to study.
This is all before they have a huge mortgage so they can live a reasonable distance to work and then maybe have kids. If they have any spare money to put in to super, I see them ending up much the same as us who haven't had compulsory super forever.
Yes they have travelled and worked overseas but I am glad they have because by the time they get to 70 they wont have much time to enjoy what good health they may have left.
Where the public expects government to do more, and requires separate, special treatment for identified 'victim' groups (including every migrant and his extended family it appears), it is only to be expected that there would be pressure on the bucket of taxpayers' $$ the government dips into to provide to for 'traditional' needs/recipients such as the aged.
It is not possible for government to trim back the guvvy bureaucracies, NGOs and professionals that depend on the 'victim' industries (you all know who they are!) without a heck of a lot of hissing to embarrass government in the social media and in the mainstream media. The victim industries that spawned from Gough Whitlam's social policy initiatives are the tail that wags the government dog. Many receive direct funding to lobby government on their sectional interest and on top of that they are given special access to ministers. Take a look around.
Accordingly it is to be expected that the aged are softer targets to trim because they are not organised and never will be. The aged vote by habit and there are splits from the jealousy between aged pensioners and anyone who can claim to be self-supporting in some way or other.
Australia has changed and we now have large sections of the population who are claiming victim status from birth and perpetual victim status at that.
Seniors are even being short-changed by the very commissioner who was created to protect their interests. Have you heard from her or sought her help? Why not on both questions? This one,
