Greedy Baby Boomer Grey Nomads.....

Igo · Veteran Member

Greedy Baby Boomer Grey Nomads.....

johnq · Guru

Best not to identify a population growth through immigration that rivals Third World countries and is driving demand for property (and property prices).

Or the rather obvious fact that no self-respecting thirty-something would ever accept the small, humble but always expensive abode that any of us bought after years of doing without.

Or the discretionary spending particularly on technology, entertainment and recreation, that none of us would ever have dreamed of when we were saving for that deposit and for the personal loan and mortgage it took to get our first pad.

In the hope of being fair to all though, there are very sly people at the top who encouraged Aussies into credit cards and the like. Best not to mention any of that either.

(sarcasm alert)

-- Edited by johnq on Thursday 11th of December 2014 01:37:55 AM

Glenelg · Guru

Y not we have done the hard yards.

Dougwe · Chief one feather

Shut the front gate!!

Yet again some complain about the way we BB enjoy our life after many many years of hard work, scraping and saving so we can enjoy our later years as we wish, shame on us, NOT. I, like many of you fellow GN BB have done the "Hard Yards" and the others are just jealous I reckon. I get no handouts and pay myself out of my money (self funded retiree) and proud of it.

This topic has come up many times before and I'm sure it will again many times.

Blues Man · Guru

It really cheeses me off when people question the way we live .Back in the sixties i personally worked two jobs and done that for about

25 years,sacrificing a lot of family life ,and social life ,just to be where we are today.Both Mrs Blues woman and myself have never and i mean

never had any handouts from the government and now they want to try to take it away from us,the s***heads,how dare they.

If young people got off their fat a**** and thought about the future in stead of the present ,they too could have what we have today.

Having said that ,there are a lot of hard working people out there trying to make a go of it, and good luck to them i say.

I get really pissed (not drunk) when people criticise the baby boomers and say that we are greedy.We have what we got because we worked for it.

There are a lot of people out there who are trying to take away what we have away.

Blues man.

Roving-Dutchy · Guru

I suppose it is possible to never have had a Government hand out, but when I applied for the aged pension at 65, I was amazed to find I was already listed on Centrelink, it was right back to the time when we received child endowment payments 40 years before and it would be almost impossible to have not received Medibank and Medicare assistance, during our lifetime.
Cheers
David

Roving-Dutchy · Guru

I may be missing something, but who is trying to take away from us and what are they trying to take away?
Cheers
David

Gerty Dancer · Guru

I think that article is twisting statistics to suit their own agenda. The modern 30-something year-old is far wealthier than we were at that age, working to raise our family and very pleased to be able to afford a color tv at last. Its a matter of prioritising spending.
Mind you, there are a lot of BB's who still don't own much.

Johnq, I agree with your comment about the "Sly people at the top" who have grown very very wealthy through encouraging others endless spending.

Joga · Veteran Member

Once again we hear that the costs of aged pensions are too high to sustain!

Haven't heard any screams that the "general" welfare budget is unsustainable!

We earned our current lifestyle by NOT spending on non essentials for years, the younger generation wants everything NOW!

Bruce and Bev · Guru

theres another post which started all this off and has exactly the same subject title. Blues Man should have posted to that thread, but was obviously so annoyed, hes started off a 2nd post about the same topic:))

moamajohn · Guru

Go Doug .I have been a self employed since getting my plumbers licence and I employed a chap for 29 years too.It was not till I was 40 that I took on my own super fund and I did the best I could and I was on target to retire in 2010 at the standard of living that suited us .Well 2008/9 managed to see 45 % of my super go down the drain ,never to be seen again ! Clearly I am not alone in this scenario am I ? However ,one must move on and as a result here I am still doing 2-3 days a week working to try and replace some of my losses. I will never attain my goal but we will still enjoy life .We will be on a SMF till its gone then the Gov can weigh in as req,d. Cheers John

rockylizard · Guru

Joga wrote:
Once again we hear that the costs of aged pensions are too high to sustain!

Haven't heard any screams that the "general" welfare budget is unsustainable!

We earned our current lifestyle by NOT spending on non essentials for years, the younger generation wants everything NOW!

Gday...

Just for interest.....

Welfare 02.jpg

Cheers - John

The Phantom · Guru

I read this thread and wonder why I'm reminded of Sixto Rodriguez's song "like Janis"

And you measure for wealth by the things you can hold
And you measure for love by the sweet things you're told
And you live in the past of a dream that you're in
And your selfishness is your cardinal sin

And you want to be held with highest regard
If he likes you so much
If he's trying so hard
And you're trying to conceal your ordinary way
With a smile or a shrug
Or some stolen cliche

The Phantom

billeeeeeee · Guru

Igo · Veteran Member

Well apparently the "Age of Entitlement" is over......for some that is.... hmm (Got this in an email).

I absolutely agree, if a pension isn't an entitlement, neither is theirs. They keep telling us that paying us an aged pension isn't sustainable.
Paying politicians all the perks they get is even less sustainable! The politicians themselves, in Canberra, brought it up, that the Age of Entitlements is over:

Proposals to make politicians shoulder their share of the weight now that the Age of Entitlement is over
1. Scrap political pensions.
Politicians can purchase their own retirement plan, just as most other working Australians are expected to do.
2. Retired politicians (past, present & future) participate in Centrelink.
A Politician collects a substantial salary while in office but should receive no salary when they're out of office.
Terminated politicians under 70 can go get a job or apply for Centrelink unemployment benefits like ordinary Australians.
Terminated politicians under 70 can negotiate with Centrelink like the rest of the Australian people.
3. Funds already allocated to the Politicians' retirement fund be returned immediately to Consolidated Revenue.
This money is to be used to pay down debt they created which they expect us and our grandchildren to repay for them.
4. Politicians will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Politicians pay will rise by the lower of, either the CPI or 3%.
5. Politicians lose their privileged health care system and participate in the same health care system as ordinary Australian people.
i.e. Politicians either pay for private cover from their own funds or accept ordinary Medicare.
6. Politicians must equally abide by all laws they impose on the Australian people.
7. All contracts with past and present Politicians men/women are void effective 31/12/14.
The Australian people did not agree to provide perks to Politicians, that burden was thrust upon them.
Politicians devised all these contracts to benefit themselves.
Serving in Parliament is an honour not a career.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so our politicians should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three or so days for most Australians to receive the message. Don't you think it's time?

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX Parliament and help bring fairness back into this country!
If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete
If your wonder why the above individuals are asking for your help look at the figures below.

REMUNERATION

SPECIFIED STATUTORY OFFICES

Date of Effect 1 July 2014

Specified Statutory Office

Base Salary (per annum)

Total Remuneration for office (per annum)

Chief of the Defence Force > $535,100 - $764,420

Commissioner of Taxation > $518,000 - $740,000

Chief Executive Officer, Australian Customs

and Border Protection Service > $483,840 - $691,200

Auditor-General for Australia > $469,150 - $670,210

Australian Statistician > $469,150 - $670,210

PAY FREEZE, NOT FAIR. SOB, SOB

Salaries of retired Prime Minister and Politicians

Office	Additional salary (%)	Salary as of 1 July
Prime Minister	160	$507,338
Deputy Prime Minister	105	$400,016
Treasurer	87.5	$365,868
Leader of the Opposition	85.0	$360,990
House of Reps Speaker	75.0	$341,477
Leader of the House	75.0	$341,477
Minister in Cabinet	72.5	$336,599
Parliamentary secretary	25.0	$243,912
Other ministers	57.5	$307,329
Shadow minister	25.0	$243,912

Source: Remuneration Tribunal.

So if I press all the right buttons, the TOTAL annual wages for the 150 seats in the Parliament are:

Prime Minister	$507,338
Deputy Prime Minister	$400,016
Treasurer	$365,868
Leader of the Opposition	$360,990
House of Reps Speaker	$341,477
Leader of the House	$341,477
Minister in Cabinet	$336,599
Parliamentary secretary	$243,912
Other ministers*	$307,329 x 71 = A$21,820,359
Shadow ministers*	$243,912 x 71 = A$17,317,752

The TOTAL ANNUAL SALARIES (for 150 seats) =

$41,694,311 - PER YEAR!

And thats just the Federal Politicians, no one else!

For the lifetime payment example (below) I used the scenario that:

1. They are paid lifetime salaries the same as their last working year and

2. After retiring, the average pollies life expectancy is an additional 20 years (which is not unreasonable).

Its worth remembering that this is EXCLUDING all their other perks!

SO, for a 20 years lifetime payment (excluding wages paid while a Parliamentarian)

Prime Minister @ $507,338 = A$10,146,760

Deputy Prime Minister @ $400,016 = A$8,000,320

Treasurer @ $365,868 = A$7,317,360

Leader of the Opposition @ $360,990 = A$7,219,800

House of Reps Speaker @ $341,477 = A$6,829,540

Leader of the House @ $341,477 = A$6,829,540

Minister in Cabinet @ $336,599 = A$6,731,980

Parliamentary secretary @ $243,912 = A$4,782,240

Other ministers** @ $307,329 = A$6,146,580 x 71 = A$436,407,180

Shadow ministers** @ $243,912 = A$4,878,240 x 71 = A$346,355,040

Conclusions:·

TOTAL life time (20 year) payments, (excluding wages paid while in parliament) = A$833,886,220 OVER $833 MILLION

·Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Paul Keating, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, et al, add nauseum, are receiving $10 MILLION + EXTRA at taxpayer expense.

Should an elected PM serve 4 years and then decide to retire, each year (of the 4 years) will have cost taxpayers an EXTRA Two and a half million bucks a year! A$2,536,690 to be precise.

A 2 year retirement payment cut-off will SAVE our Oz bottom lineA$792,201,909 *** NEARLY $800 MILLION.

There are 150 seats in House, minus the 8 above = 142 seats, divided equally for example = 71 each for both shadow and elected ministers.

This example excludes all wages paid while a parliamentarian AND all perks on top of that - travel, hotels, Secretarial staff, speech writers, restaurants, offices, chauffeured limos, security, etc. etc.

150 seats, 20-year payment of A$833,886,220 less annual salary x 2 years of A$83,388,622. [$41,694,311 x 2]

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.

Doug Larson (English middle-distance runner who won gold medals at the 1924 Olympic Games in Paris, 1902-1981)

Youre Right, you have found where the cuts should be made!

Action: Push for a MAX 2 year post retirement payment (give em time to get a real job)

Dr. Dale Kerwin

School of Education

MT Gravatt Campus

Grifffith University

ph. 07 3735 5884

fax. 07 3735 5991

email: d.kerwin@griffith.edu.au

-- Edited by Igo on Thursday 11th of December 2014 11:02:08 AM

-- Edited by Igo on Thursday 11th of December 2014 11:11:42 AM

Fastcoach · Senior Member

For the life of me, I can't imagine why some of the younger generation resent us.

rockylizard · Guru

Gday...

Let me first state that I believe that our politicians are remunerated at a fair level during their tenure.

However, I, like many, feel that the 'retired' parliamentarians - especially PMs - are too well provided for - not necessarily by their their superannuation scheme but in the other perks such as office space, staff, airfares and a range of other things - all paid for by taxpayer funds ad infinitum ... these should be examined and reduced or time-limited.

The following information is in regard to their actual superannuation scheme (not the additional perks of office) -

Parliament 04.JPG

Parliament 01.JPG

Parliament 02.JPG

Parliament 03.JPG

The above information is contained on this site -

http://www.finance.gov.au/superannuation/parliamentary-superannuation/parliamentary-leaflet.html#contributions

Cheers - John

-- Edited by rockylizard on Thursday 11th of December 2014 11:33:38 AM

elliemike · Guru

? Where do the younger generation resent us. Can you explain the Heading a bit ???

I remember when I was a Teenager (1958- 64) thinking all the older generation didn't understand us sixties teenagers "They Just Didn't Understand" I mean they resented our easy way of life, lucky not to have had Two World Wars to contend with. We dressed in tight trousers, our hair was too long, the girls had no morals wearing skirts that short. Our music was terrible. Elvis was lewd, The Rolling Stones were to be feared, we had too much money !

I mean "What did these Old's know, We were the sixties generation The Baby Boomers. We knew everything and those Old Age Pensioners were not going to stop us living. What would they know anyway. Ploddy Pensioners Uggghhhh.

Well I remember hearing that sort of stuff then as well. Personally I thought all the people I knew then (My mum and dads generation) were great, just older than me.

The younger people today are no different than we were. They have to get on with the process off living, and finding their way, in THIS world just like we did in ours.

Cant say I have a problem with that.

As long as they keep working and paying taxes.

Some one has to give the Government Money to keep Centrelink going.

Igo · Veteran Member

I can't see where the percentage amount they receive for their superannuation and the limited time they have to work (or other circumstances shown) to qualify to get a lifetime pension is fair compared to other superannuation pensions in the work force.

Santa · Guru

Why the need for duplicate threads with the same title?

Igo · Veteran Member

Getting back on topic (apologies for my part of OT), the media seem to be fuelling this perception by the way they write and title their articles.

I see this CEO, a Mr Daley from the Grattan Institute (view video) is suggesting they tighten the eligibility of those receiving the pension for those who are wealthier so that could be interesting. Here is the original link I posted which includes the video, worth a look; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-10/baby-boomers-get-richer-at-expense-of-young/5957468

-- Edited by Igo on Thursday 11th of December 2014 12:55:11 PM

Fastcoach · Senior Member

All forms of welfare were originally designed as a safety net for those who fell on hard times and were unable to help themselves.

Unfortunately over time that original intent has been forgotten and many people mistakenly think it's their God given rite to receive a Government handout.

Under the dire financial circumstances which we find ourselves and with the threat of much worse times ahead as the economy slows, there has to be a return to the past where only those in real need receive a government benefit.

A far greater means test should apply to all those who currently receive an aged pension for example. Why isn't the family home included when you are assessed? Many people live in absolute mansions and yet they still receive a pension. Why wouldn't they downsize to a more modest home and invest the difference into a SMF or the like?

The government needs to take a far more hard nosed approach to welfare distribution in general and close the many loopholes in the taxation system which allows many multi-national companies to avoid paying their fare share.

Without doubt the level of the GST will come under scrutiny in the near future. Perhaps negative gearing, which causes many young people to believe they will never get to own a home of their own, might finally be ended. Then there's death duties which should be reintroduced on estates over two million dollars. We may not like many of the changes which will be considered by this and future governments, but you can guarantee there will have to be some changes if we are to be able to offer an effective safety net for the poor.

Aus-Kiwi · Guru

I can't complain about negative gearing . It has helped me big time..
Well?? More the point of capital gains..
It gave me more reason to work weekends and at night in weather we are having in Sydney at present..
We old codgers have earns it..
The thing is young ones have credit cards , phones etc etc deducted from their wages..
Holidays on credit.. Then they say they have NO money to purchase a house ??
Another thing is young ones want a house in near CBD.. Yep another reason why they can't fford a house..
Your looking at close to $1m these days .. Poor things ..
Check their net income ??
Yes these schemes work ok for the family man but when large organisations do the same (or more ) it tends to blow things out

Roving-Dutchy · Guru

Journalists are the ones that produce all these media articles, just remember that every morning a journalist starts out their day with a sheet of blank paper that must be filled out and handed in to an editor who then publishes the article, it doesn't really matter what rubbish fills the blank page and as long as the page is not blank they will hang onto their job, so in many cases what we hear and read is just a load of codswollop.
Cheers
David

Fastcoach · Senior Member

Don't shoot the messenger, rather, focus on the message.

Igo · Veteran Member

Santa wrote:
Why the need for duplicate threads with the same title?

Looks like they have now been merged Santa into this original one.

It is probable the other poster just hit the wrong button in error instead of reply, that's my guess anyway.....

Papou · Senior Member

Fastcoach wrote:
All forms of welfare were originally designed as a safety net for those who fell on hard times and were unable to help themselves.

Unfortunately over time that original intent has been forgotten and many people mistakenly think it's their God given rite to receive a Government handout.

Under the dire financial circumstances which we find ourselves and with the threat of much worse times ahead as the economy slows, there has to be a return to the past where only those in real need receive a government benefit.

A far greater means test should apply to all those who currently receive an aged pension for example. Why isn't the family home included when you are assessed? Many people live in absolute mansions and yet they still receive a pension. Why wouldn't they downsize to a more modest home and invest the difference into a SMF or the like?

The government needs to take a far more hard nosed approach to welfare distribution in general and close the many loopholes in the taxation system which allows many multi-national companies to avoid paying their fare share.

Without doubt the level of the GST will come under scrutiny in the near future. Perhaps negative gearing, which causes many young people to believe they will never get to own a home of their own, might finally be ended. Then there's death duties which should be reintroduced on estates over two million dollars. We may not like many of the changes which will be considered by this and future governments, but you can guarantee there will have to be some changes if we are to be able to offer an effective safety net for the poor.

Go back a little and see that 2% of your tax paid went for your pension , never seen that bit of tax removed ..Good luck to the younger generation of today . Both working most times (TWO) paypackets which are unbelieveable compared to our generation wher e mostly the wife never worked but the breadwinner did all the overtime they could muster and sometimes worked two jobs,

To get a decent Super payout you had/have to salary sacrafice to get that wee bit better lifestyle to support yourself in older age mostly and save the taxpayer . The underpaid could not afford the extra input into their Super so why shouldnt they be entitled to a Pension??..

What??should we lower our standards to accomodate the whingers and donate out pension taxes to donate more to other Countries???...

The so called Babyboomers of today as most above have mentioned did the hardyards for what they are trying to enjoy today , "Leave Em Be " Younger generation of today want it mostly "Yesterday " And yes should be educated more of the benefits of Super but also the Government has a responsabillity to make Super Secure with only Non Risk Comapnies in the playing field..

Only way for the future of reducing pension and having only for the underprivalleged..

Our Country is better than that , lets not lower our Standards to please a FEW Whingers...

Cloak · Guru

To keep the BB's going they will be expanding the tax base as they keep saying. We don't reproduce fast enough so they import any old
dimwit who arrives by boat I think the term is welfare shopper.

Have a look at this movie to get a 101 lesson on how an economy works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

As far as I'm concerned they can all max out their credit cards and be tied down with mortgages because that will keep them too busy to turn up where I'm camping.

-- Edited by Cloak on Thursday 11th of December 2014 07:59:04 PM