Xenon4017 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Another area of concern is the aged pension. That's an issue that most countries have to grapple with. People are working less, and living longer. How can you make their contributions whilst working last longer after they're retired? People of my fathers' generation worked for about 50 years and dies within 10 years of retiring. Now, people work for 40 years and live for 20. The equation is being squeezed from both ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 That's an issue that most countries have to grapple with. People are working less, and living longer. How can you make their contributions whilst working last longer after they're retired? People of my fathers' generation worked for about 50 years and dies within 10 years of retiring. Now, people work for 40 years and live for 20. The equation is being squeezed from both ends. Sure accept that BUT many retired or coming up to retirement do not have enough in savings or super to give them even the basics in life. If this change were to take place in say 10 - 15 years as is the case with changing retirement age then that would be "fair" as they will have time to plan for retirement knowing there will be little in the way of government funds to help them but not starting it in July that is not "fair" and i think people would have far less issues with this budget if it were "fair" which it is a long way off being. current retirees have worked and payed taxes all there life on the understanding they could get the pension at the end of there working life. If this is coming in for the population then it must come in for pollys as well. No benifits no pension until they turn 70 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon4017 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Sure accept that BUT many retired or coming up to retirement do not have enough in savings or super to give them even the basics in life. If this change were to take place in say 10 - 15 years as is the case with changing retirement age then that would be "fair" as they will have time to plan for retirement knowing there will be little in the way of government funds to help them but not starting it in July that is not "fair" and i think people would have far less issues with this budget if it were "fair" which it is a long way off being. current retirees have worked and payed taxes all there life on the understanding they could get the pension at the end of there working life. If this is coming in for the population then it must come in for pollys as well. No benifits no pension until they turn 70 One of the issues here is that the trends in working age vs lifespan are long-term We're talking about changes over 20 or 30 years. But the budget is only really in place for the term of government, which is about 4 years. So, the current government can't implement measures that will come into effect in 2029. Just as they won't be held to budgetary promises made by governments in 1999. (There are mechanisms to ensure legislation outlasts a parliamentary term, but the budget is a short-term lever). Any yet the writing was on the wall from a long time ago, it's just that the message isn't one that people want to hear. >>current retirees have worked and payed taxes all there life on the understanding they could get the pension at the end of there working life They _are_ getting a pension, but it might not cover what they expect. The reality is that when you pay tax, it doesn't go into a shoebox with your name on it, to be opened up and dished back to you when you retire. The taxes paid by current retirees went to pay for the pensioners of decades gone by. The taxes we pay now go to the current retired population. When we come to retire (and join an even bigger retired population) the taxes paid by the future working population (who begin working later) will be divied up amongst us. A lot of people talk about this "understanding", but it's just an excuse from those who didn't take the time to consider how they would finance their future. Either they couldn't be bothered think that far ahead, or they were being incredibly naive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 School chaplains in public schools are there in a non religious capacity and do a HUGE amount of good. I see it every single day. I agree with that...based on the observations of friends and family who are teachers. However, what concerns me is that the $245 million goes only to religious pastoral care....not to secular, qualified youth workers who do an equally good job. I don't know the situation in other states but certainly in this one there are several such youth workers losing their jobs because they will not be funded under the new program. Which points to one conclusion...it's not so much about supporting youth as about supporting a particular religious (Christian) philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.