New research suggests that Australian workers may have to stay in the workforce until 70 due to shifting demographics and a growing ageing population. We know that retirement is a well-deserved milestone that many Aussies are eagerly anticipating, so this news might hit particularly hard.

Low birth rates and an ageing population are the core reasons for the recent proposal from Macquarie University's Business School, which suggests Australia should increase the pension age to 70 years by 2050.

Already, senior Australians are grappling with rising eligibility ages for the age pension based on their birthdate. For example, people born between July 1, 1952, and December 31, 1953, can currently receive a pension at the age of 65 years and six months.

However, the age gradually increases for those born later, with people born after January 1, 1957, expected to work until they're 67 before accessing the pension.

Australians could face another decade in the workforce after new research found a pension age increase is required. Credit: Unsplash/Philinit.

Professor Hanlin Shang and his co-authors argue that based on their analysis, the pension age should increase three more times in the next 27 years. They propose it should rise to 68 by 2030, to 69 in 2036 and finally to 70 by 2050.

This might sound quite bleak for hardworking Australians, but it's crucial to consider the reasons behind the proposal. The report states that with more people retiring and fewer working-age people to support them, the old age dependency ratio (OADR) will increase, placing an additional burden on the federal budget.

This burden might grow even more, with the number of Australians aged 100 or over predicted to reach 50,000 by 2050. Professor Shang sums it up well, saying, 'As people live longer, there is a longevity risk, and they'll consume more pension from the government.'

But it isn't all doom and gloom! There are alternative solutions to help protect Australians' retirements. According to Professor Shang, our leaders should look overseas for successful examples of government policies. For instance, Canada, Singapore, and South Korea all have policies aimed at increasing birth rates, which could relieve some of the pressure on the ageing population.

The Canadian Government provides affordable childcare at $10 a day, while the South Korean Government offers new parents $10,500 cash grants. Singapore, on the other hand, will be boosting their baby bonus program, paid paternity leave, and tax relief for working mothers in the coming years.

Such policies could provide working Australian parents with opportunities to balance their careers and family life while contributing to more sustainable population growth.

​

But the pension age increase proposal hasn't been well-received by Australia's younger generations.

To quote a frustrated dad of three: 'I'm turning 40 this year. If I can work until 70, it'll be a miracle.'

These frustrations ring particularly true for workers in physically demanding industries, who may find it increasingly challenging to extend their careers beyond their 60s. Another Gen X employee lamented, 'Try and be a tradie at 70.'

Meanwhile, a retired nurse commented on the issue, saying: 'People in their 60s are exhausted, I've got back pain from nursing. I cannot work anymore. People should not have to work in old age.'

Several SDC members have expressed their thoughts on this matter. One member, debjoel21, stated, 'Imagine being a bricklayer until you're 70...no way...'

Meanwhile, another member named Kayer02 shared their personal situation, saying, 'I am 62. Have many medical problems and am unable to drive due to medications and disabilities. However, I can not get any type of pension, I have to go out and find a job. Do you realise how hard it is to get a job at my age, no matter at 70?'

Member Rex Jones also raised an interesting point by suggesting, 'I think that the retirement age should be fitted to the individual. If you are capable of working until you are 70 years of age, then fine, keep working; lots of people want to anyway.'

They further elaborated, saying, 'Some people, however, are not going to be able to work from a much younger age and should not be penalised for that by not being able to receive a pension. Like driving a car, have a doctor decide what capability you have with regards to work and have a payment to compensate those who need it.'

Expert modelling suggests that the Australian pension age should be increased to 70 by 2050. Credit: Unsplash/HarlynKingm.

While it's certainly a shock for Australians who have their retirement plans in sight, these ideas and future policies could lead to a more balanced and sustainable Australian society.

Professor Shang's predictions about the future of working Australians might be a bit gloomy, but they are more accurate than the predictions made by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's treasury.

In 2014, the Liberal party proposed increasing the retirement age much earlier, with plans to raise it by six months every two years starting from July 2025. This would have meant that the age to qualify for a pension would have reached 70 years by July 2035, which is 15 years earlier than what Professor Shang predicted.

Fortunately, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison abandoned this proposed policy in September 2018. Instead, his government, along with the Rudd Labor government, passed laws to increase the pension age to 67 by July this year.

This decision was supported by Eva Scheerlinck, the Chief Executive of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees.

'Retirement income policies need to recognise that many individuals will have a different work pattern and may not necessarily be in a position to choose their own retirement age,' she said.

Key Takeaways

• New modelling suggests that Australia's pension age should increase to 70 years by 2050 due to low birth rates and an ageing population.
• Many working Australians, particularly those in physically demanding jobs, have expressed concerns over the proposal to increase the pension age.
• According to the research, three more pension age increases should occur over the next 27 years to help sustain the livelihoods of elderly unemployed Australians.
• Professor Hanlin Shang suggests that the government could look to policies from Canada, Singapore, and South Korea to increase birth rates and the future workforce, as well as increase the number of migrants welcomed to Australia.

We hope this article has provided some insight into the reasons for this proposal and the potential alternative solutions. Rest assured, we'll keep you updated on any developments that concern your well-deserved retirement plans.

What do you think about this, members? Should the age at which people become eligible for a pension be increased? Or should it stay the same? If it should be increased, what age do you believe would be the most suitable? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and let's have a meaningful discussion!

 

[DrivingGirl]

I only stopped working last year at age 74 and a half. I have osteoporosis and osteoarthritis and asthma, but I would still work if I could find someone to employ me.

 

[Gaena]

NO. If a person chooses to go on working it should be up to them. There are also some jobs that would be considered too physically difficult for a person of 65 plus.

Defining anyone by their age is wrong, being physically able should be the only way. We have become accepting of the opinion that if you have reached the age where you can claim the pension then that must be the retirement age. My husband and myself are examples of this, he is turning 70 this year and is still employed full time in the physical demanding job that he has been doing for the last 30 years, he has no intention of retiring yet, he loves his job and wants to continue doing it while he is still able, he admits to getting more tired now than he used too but he still wants to carry on. I on the other hand am completely different, I have been in ill health for the last 6 years with numerous medical conditions and would be unable to hold down a job even if at my age(68) I could actually get one. The rules around partner/spouse income prevent me from getting any form of pension income, not even the health card. So it is obvious that the entire system needs to be overhauled and stop treating us all as a number defined by our age.

 

[Shane/#]

New research suggests that Australian workers may have to stay in the workforce until 70 due to shifting demographics and a growing ageing population. We know that retirement is a well-deserved milestone that many Aussies are eagerly anticipating, so this news might hit particularly hard.

Low birth rates and an ageing population are the core reasons for the recent proposal from Macquarie University's Business School, which suggests Australia should increase the pension age to 70 years by 2050.

Already, senior Australians are grappling with rising eligibility ages for the age pension based on their birthdate. For example, people born between July 1, 1952, and December 31, 1953, can currently receive a pension at the age of 65 years and six months.

However, the age gradually increases for those born later, with people born after January 1, 1957, expected to work until they're 67 before accessing the pension.

View attachment 21191

Australians could face another decade in the workforce after new research found a pension age increase is required. Credit: Unsplash/Philinit.

Professor Hanlin Shang and his co-authors argue that based on their analysis, the pension age should increase three more times in the next 27 years. They propose it should rise to 68 by 2030, to 69 in 2036 and finally to 70 by 2050.

This might sound quite bleak for hardworking Australians, but it's crucial to consider the reasons behind the proposal. The report states that with more people retiring and fewer working-age people to support them, the old age dependency ratio (OADR) will increase, placing an additional burden on the federal budget.

This burden might grow even more, with the number of Australians aged 100 or over predicted to reach 50,000 by 2050. Professor Shang sums it up well, saying, 'As people live longer, there is a longevity risk, and they'll consume more pension from the government.'

But it isn't all doom and gloom! There are alternative solutions to help protect Australians' retirements. According to Professor Shang, our leaders should look overseas for successful examples of government policies. For instance, Canada, Singapore, and South Korea all have policies aimed at increasing birth rates, which could relieve some of the pressure on the ageing population.

The Canadian Government provides affordable childcare at $10 a day, while the South Korean Government offers new parents $10,500 cash grants. Singapore, on the other hand, will be boosting their baby bonus program, paid paternity leave, and tax relief for working mothers in the coming years.

Such policies could provide working Australian parents with opportunities to balance their careers and family life while contributing to more sustainable population growth.

​

But the pension age increase proposal hasn't been well-received by Australia's younger generations.

To quote a frustrated dad of three: 'I'm turning 40 this year. If I can work until 70, it'll be a miracle.'

These frustrations ring particularly true for workers in physically demanding industries, who may find it increasingly challenging to extend their careers beyond their 60s. Another Gen X employee lamented, 'Try and be a tradie at 70.'

Meanwhile, a retired nurse commented on the issue, saying: 'People in their 60s are exhausted, I've got back pain from nursing. I cannot work anymore. People should not have to work in old age.'

Several SDC members have expressed their thoughts on this matter. One member, debjoel21, stated, 'Imagine being a bricklayer until you're 70...no way...'

Meanwhile, another member named Kayer02 shared their personal situation, saying, 'I am 62. Have many medical problems and am unable to drive due to medications and disabilities. However, I can not get any type of pension, I have to go out and find a job. Do you realise how hard it is to get a job at my age, no matter at 70?'

Member Rex Jones also raised an interesting point by suggesting, 'I think that the retirement age should be fitted to the individual. If you are capable of working until you are 70 years of age, then fine, keep working; lots of people want to anyway.'

They further elaborated, saying, 'Some people, however, are not going to be able to work from a much younger age and should not be penalised for that by not being able to receive a pension. Like driving a car, have a doctor decide what capability you have with regards to work and have a payment to compensate those who need it.'

View attachment 21192

Expert modelling suggests that the Australian pension age should be increased to 70 by 2050. Credit: Unsplash/HarlynKingm.

While it's certainly a shock for Australians who have their retirement plans in sight, these ideas and future policies could lead to a more balanced and sustainable Australian society.

Professor Shang's predictions about the future of working Australians might be a bit gloomy, but they are more accurate than the predictions made by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's treasury.

In 2014, the Liberal party proposed increasing the retirement age much earlier, with plans to raise it by six months every two years starting from July 2025. This would have meant that the age to qualify for a pension would have reached 70 years by July 2035, which is 15 years earlier than what Professor Shang predicted.

Fortunately, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison abandoned this proposed policy in September 2018. Instead, his government, along with the Rudd Labor government, passed laws to increase the pension age to 67 by July this year.

This decision was supported by Eva Scheerlinck, the Chief Executive of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees.

'Retirement income policies need to recognise that many individuals will have a different work pattern and may not necessarily be in a position to choose their own retirement age,' she said.

Key Takeaways

• New modelling suggests that Australia's pension age should increase to 70 years by 2050 due to low birth rates and an ageing population.
• Many working Australians, particularly those in physically demanding jobs, have expressed concerns over the proposal to increase the pension age.
• According to the research, three more pension age increases should occur over the next 27 years to help sustain the livelihoods of elderly unemployed Australians.
• Professor Hanlin Shang suggests that the government could look to policies from Canada, Singapore, and South Korea to increase birth rates and the future workforce, as well as increase the number of migrants welcomed to Australia.

We hope this article has provided some insight into the reasons for this proposal and the potential alternative solutions. Rest assured, we'll keep you updated on any developments that concern your well-deserved retirement plans.

What do you think about this, members? Should the age at which people become eligible for a pension be increased? Or should it stay the same? If it should be increased, what age do you believe would be the most suitable? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and let's have a meaningful discussion!

66 that's about it trade's people will be burnt out any longer and teacher's and their aids will be mentally burnt out probably earlier police ,firemen and women, ambulance people you can lift only so much until your done etc Politicians well they should retire with a bare minimum as physical labour an't in their vocabulary and retirement should be 70 years and no taxpayer benefit have a look at the past and present Politicians that are alive they have still got their noses in the gravy train trough it needs to STOP FULL STOP

 

[Sunshine45]

If you're working manual labour, nursing, builder or any jobs which require hands on hard work your body is worn out long before 70 but if you work in non manual labour where you're not required to stand long hours you could probably work until you're 80 perhaps politicians or government admin workers should try working until 80 oh but they don't have to because they get such a big wage when they do work that they can retire when they're 60 and enjoy life. Get real people manual labour wears the body out.

I worked as a nurse (full time) until I was 69 a few years ago and retired to care for my husband who also worked until he was 68.

 

[Sunshine45]

I still "work" volunteer 3 days a week, mind dogs and have a mini small distribution business to suppliment my super.

 

[Ashbeare]

New research suggests that Australian workers may have to stay in the workforce until 70 due to shifting demographics and a growing ageing population. We know that retirement is a well-deserved milestone that many Aussies are eagerly anticipating, so this news might hit particularly hard.

Low birth rates and an ageing population are the core reasons for the recent proposal from Macquarie University's Business School, which suggests Australia should increase the pension age to 70 years by 2050.

Already, senior Australians are grappling with rising eligibility ages for the age pension based on their birthdate. For example, people born between July 1, 1952, and December 31, 1953, can currently receive a pension at the age of 65 years and six months.

However, the age gradually increases for those born later, with people born after January 1, 1957, expected to work until they're 67 before accessing the pension.

View attachment 21191

Australians could face another decade in the workforce after new research found a pension age increase is required. Credit: Unsplash/Philinit.

Professor Hanlin Shang and his co-authors argue that based on their analysis, the pension age should increase three more times in the next 27 years. They propose it should rise to 68 by 2030, to 69 in 2036 and finally to 70 by 2050.

This might sound quite bleak for hardworking Australians, but it's crucial to consider the reasons behind the proposal. The report states that with more people retiring and fewer working-age people to support them, the old age dependency ratio (OADR) will increase, placing an additional burden on the federal budget.

This burden might grow even more, with the number of Australians aged 100 or over predicted to reach 50,000 by 2050. Professor Shang sums it up well, saying, 'As people live longer, there is a longevity risk, and they'll consume more pension from the government.'

But it isn't all doom and gloom! There are alternative solutions to help protect Australians' retirements. According to Professor Shang, our leaders should look overseas for successful examples of government policies. For instance, Canada, Singapore, and South Korea all have policies aimed at increasing birth rates, which could relieve some of the pressure on the ageing population.

The Canadian Government provides affordable childcare at $10 a day, while the South Korean Government offers new parents $10,500 cash grants. Singapore, on the other hand, will be boosting their baby bonus program, paid paternity leave, and tax relief for working mothers in the coming years.

Such policies could provide working Australian parents with opportunities to balance their careers and family life while contributing to more sustainable population growth.

​

But the pension age increase proposal hasn't been well-received by Australia's younger generations.

To quote a frustrated dad of three: 'I'm turning 40 this year. If I can work until 70, it'll be a miracle.'

These frustrations ring particularly true for workers in physically demanding industries, who may find it increasingly challenging to extend their careers beyond their 60s. Another Gen X employee lamented, 'Try and be a tradie at 70.'

Meanwhile, a retired nurse commented on the issue, saying: 'People in their 60s are exhausted, I've got back pain from nursing. I cannot work anymore. People should not have to work in old age.'

Several SDC members have expressed their thoughts on this matter. One member, debjoel21, stated, 'Imagine being a bricklayer until you're 70...no way...'

Meanwhile, another member named Kayer02 shared their personal situation, saying, 'I am 62. Have many medical problems and am unable to drive due to medications and disabilities. However, I can not get any type of pension, I have to go out and find a job. Do you realise how hard it is to get a job at my age, no matter at 70?'

Member Rex Jones also raised an interesting point by suggesting, 'I think that the retirement age should be fitted to the individual. If you are capable of working until you are 70 years of age, then fine, keep working; lots of people want to anyway.'

They further elaborated, saying, 'Some people, however, are not going to be able to work from a much younger age and should not be penalised for that by not being able to receive a pension. Like driving a car, have a doctor decide what capability you have with regards to work and have a payment to compensate those who need it.'

View attachment 21192

Expert modelling suggests that the Australian pension age should be increased to 70 by 2050. Credit: Unsplash/HarlynKingm.

While it's certainly a shock for Australians who have their retirement plans in sight, these ideas and future policies could lead to a more balanced and sustainable Australian society.

Professor Shang's predictions about the future of working Australians might be a bit gloomy, but they are more accurate than the predictions made by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's treasury.

In 2014, the Liberal party proposed increasing the retirement age much earlier, with plans to raise it by six months every two years starting from July 2025. This would have meant that the age to qualify for a pension would have reached 70 years by July 2035, which is 15 years earlier than what Professor Shang predicted.

Fortunately, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison abandoned this proposed policy in September 2018. Instead, his government, along with the Rudd Labor government, passed laws to increase the pension age to 67 by July this year.

This decision was supported by Eva Scheerlinck, the Chief Executive of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees.

'Retirement income policies need to recognise that many individuals will have a different work pattern and may not necessarily be in a position to choose their own retirement age,' she said.

Key Takeaways

• New modelling suggests that Australia's pension age should increase to 70 years by 2050 due to low birth rates and an ageing population.
• Many working Australians, particularly those in physically demanding jobs, have expressed concerns over the proposal to increase the pension age.
• According to the research, three more pension age increases should occur over the next 27 years to help sustain the livelihoods of elderly unemployed Australians.
• Professor Hanlin Shang suggests that the government could look to policies from Canada, Singapore, and South Korea to increase birth rates and the future workforce, as well as increase the number of migrants welcomed to Australia.

We hope this article has provided some insight into the reasons for this proposal and the potential alternative solutions. Rest assured, we'll keep you updated on any developments that concern your well-deserved retirement plans.

What do you think about this, members? Should the age at which people become eligible for a pension be increased? Or should it stay the same? If it should be increased, what age do you believe would be the most suitable? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and let's have a meaningful discussion!

The problem is simply job opportunities. I was retrenched at 67 (my retirement age was 65) I wanted to continue to work. Could I get fulltime employment? (ignoring the wage difference) not a chance!. They kept on a youngster who moved on 12 months later. He was paid twice I was. I would have stayed at my old wage.

 

[cmattschoss]

New research suggests that Australian workers may have to stay in the workforce until 70 due to shifting demographics and a growing ageing population. We know that retirement is a well-deserved milestone that many Aussies are eagerly anticipating, so this news might hit particularly hard.

Low birth rates and an ageing population are the core reasons for the recent proposal from Macquarie University's Business School, which suggests Australia should increase the pension age to 70 years by 2050.

Already, senior Australians are grappling with rising eligibility ages for the age pension based on their birthdate. For example, people born between July 1, 1952, and December 31, 1953, can currently receive a pension at the age of 65 years and six months.

However, the age gradually increases for those born later, with people born after January 1, 1957, expected to work until they're 67 before accessing the pension.

View attachment 21191

Australians could face another decade in the workforce after new research found a pension age increase is required. Credit: Unsplash/Philinit.

Professor Hanlin Shang and his co-authors argue that based on their analysis, the pension age should increase three more times in the next 27 years. They propose it should rise to 68 by 2030, to 69 in 2036 and finally to 70 by 2050.

This might sound quite bleak for hardworking Australians, but it's crucial to consider the reasons behind the proposal. The report states that with more people retiring and fewer working-age people to support them, the old age dependency ratio (OADR) will increase, placing an additional burden on the federal budget.

This burden might grow even more, with the number of Australians aged 100 or over predicted to reach 50,000 by 2050. Professor Shang sums it up well, saying, 'As people live longer, there is a longevity risk, and they'll consume more pension from the government.'

But it isn't all doom and gloom! There are alternative solutions to help protect Australians' retirements. According to Professor Shang, our leaders should look overseas for successful examples of government policies. For instance, Canada, Singapore, and South Korea all have policies aimed at increasing birth rates, which could relieve some of the pressure on the ageing population.

The Canadian Government provides affordable childcare at $10 a day, while the South Korean Government offers new parents $10,500 cash grants. Singapore, on the other hand, will be boosting their baby bonus program, paid paternity leave, and tax relief for working mothers in the coming years.

Such policies could provide working Australian parents with opportunities to balance their careers and family life while contributing to more sustainable population growth.

​

But the pension age increase proposal hasn't been well-received by Australia's younger generations.

To quote a frustrated dad of three: 'I'm turning 40 this year. If I can work until 70, it'll be a miracle.'

These frustrations ring particularly true for workers in physically demanding industries, who may find it increasingly challenging to extend their careers beyond their 60s. Another Gen X employee lamented, 'Try and be a tradie at 70.'

Meanwhile, a retired nurse commented on the issue, saying: 'People in their 60s are exhausted, I've got back pain from nursing. I cannot work anymore. People should not have to work in old age.'

Several SDC members have expressed their thoughts on this matter. One member, debjoel21, stated, 'Imagine being a bricklayer until you're 70...no way...'

Meanwhile, another member named Kayer02 shared their personal situation, saying, 'I am 62. Have many medical problems and am unable to drive due to medications and disabilities. However, I can not get any type of pension, I have to go out and find a job. Do you realise how hard it is to get a job at my age, no matter at 70?'

Member Rex Jones also raised an interesting point by suggesting, 'I think that the retirement age should be fitted to the individual. If you are capable of working until you are 70 years of age, then fine, keep working; lots of people want to anyway.'

They further elaborated, saying, 'Some people, however, are not going to be able to work from a much younger age and should not be penalised for that by not being able to receive a pension. Like driving a car, have a doctor decide what capability you have with regards to work and have a payment to compensate those who need it.'

View attachment 21192

Expert modelling suggests that the Australian pension age should be increased to 70 by 2050. Credit: Unsplash/HarlynKingm.

While it's certainly a shock for Australians who have their retirement plans in sight, these ideas and future policies could lead to a more balanced and sustainable Australian society.

Professor Shang's predictions about the future of working Australians might be a bit gloomy, but they are more accurate than the predictions made by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's treasury.

In 2014, the Liberal party proposed increasing the retirement age much earlier, with plans to raise it by six months every two years starting from July 2025. This would have meant that the age to qualify for a pension would have reached 70 years by July 2035, which is 15 years earlier than what Professor Shang predicted.

Fortunately, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison abandoned this proposed policy in September 2018. Instead, his government, along with the Rudd Labor government, passed laws to increase the pension age to 67 by July this year.

This decision was supported by Eva Scheerlinck, the Chief Executive of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees.

'Retirement income policies need to recognise that many individuals will have a different work pattern and may not necessarily be in a position to choose their own retirement age,' she said.

Key Takeaways

• New modelling suggests that Australia's pension age should increase to 70 years by 2050 due to low birth rates and an ageing population.
• Many working Australians, particularly those in physically demanding jobs, have expressed concerns over the proposal to increase the pension age.
• According to the research, three more pension age increases should occur over the next 27 years to help sustain the livelihoods of elderly unemployed Australians.
• Professor Hanlin Shang suggests that the government could look to policies from Canada, Singapore, and South Korea to increase birth rates and the future workforce, as well as increase the number of migrants welcomed to Australia.

We hope this article has provided some insight into the reasons for this proposal and the potential alternative solutions. Rest assured, we'll keep you updated on any developments that concern your well-deserved retirement plans.

What do you think about this, members? Should the age at which people become eligible for a pension be increased? Or should it stay the same? If it should be increased, what age do you believe would be the most suitable? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and let's have a meaningful discussion!

 

[cmattschoss]

And the French people they think they are hard done by! Not all Australians are lucky enough to be able to work till they are 70. Generally when you hit 60 you start to have health issues, possibly even earlier. How's the government going to cope with that? Will they offer sickness benefit payments?

 

[debjoel21]

Howeve

I don't know where you get your information from, but you are WRONG!

However, politicians DO get a lifetime pension once they retire. Let them try on current pensions . They're quite well funded

 

[mylittletibbies]

There is not really a "retirement age", what is being increased is the age at which people may qualify to receive an age pension.

I have said it before and I say it again, we have had superannuation in this country since 1991, that's 42 years! The whole idea of super was to have people saving towards their retirement tand to wean them off the age pension!

Where Australia made a mistake was that the employer super contribution is not matched with an equal amount of employee contribution - as it is in in a number of European countries. However, this does not prevent people from voluntarily contributing to their super fund, either from pre-tax earnings or post tax.
During the final ten years of my working life, when I still had a teenage son living at home, I was contributing 20% of my gross income to super!

You are so right. For 12 years I had my own business
People have no idea how hard it is to run a small business in Australia.
It's not just the weekly wages, but holiday pay ( when you need to pay a temporary employee to fill the gap), plus loading on the holiday pay, don't know if that is still done, but I could never understand why an employer should pay an employee 17.1/2%more to be on holidays than they were paid to work.
Sick pay, which all but one of my 15 employees made sure they used up, as if it was additional holiday pay that they were entitled to whether they were sick or not
Then they bought in super, which was another burden on the employer while the worker contributed nothing, compulsory, to their own retirement.
There is only so much a small business can cop, and the end result was I closed down my business, as I couldn't pass on any further price rises to my customers and 15 people lost their jobs, along with my agents that I had in every state
It is still my belief, after having been both an employee as well as an employer that a worker should have to contribute the same amount as the boss to their own retirement
Who pays the boss's super???

 

[mylittletibbies]

QUOTE="Trudi, post: 211428, member: 52116"]
I applied for the last job I had back in 2005, when I was 59 years of age. I did NOT put my date of birth on my application!

Furthermore, it is now prohibited for employers to ask for your date of birth on your resume!
[/QUOTE]
No they aren't allowed to ask your age but they're not blind and if you manage to get an interview you can pretty much be assured you won't get the job no matter how qualified you might be.

 

[Gaena]

NO. If a person chooses to go on working it should be up to them. There are also some jobs that would be considered too physically difficult for a person of 65 plus.

Bitching about what politicians do or do not get makes no difference, we are the ones that vote them in, our whole society is based upon age and what you should or should not be doing with your life at that certain age. Being able to service a mortgage or personal loan, be insured for anything, including life, still be employed and many other things that revolve around age. We are not all the same and do not all fit into the same catagory, we do not all have children, making us eligible for government handouts or tax breaks and not all of us have paid off a home that will enable us to move away from the rental cycle, we are all different and if the government is expected to have a system in place that will help us to care for ourselves when we do reach the age that we can no longer work, then that system should be based upon the individual and their personal circumstances not according to a government departments blanket rules.

 

[mylittletibbies]

Bitching about what politicians do or do not get makes no difference, we are the ones that vote them in, our whole society is based upon age and what you should or should not be doing with your life at that certain age. Being able to service a mortgage or personal loan, be insured for anything, including life, still be employed and many other things that revolve around age. We are not all the same and do not all fit into the same catagory, we do not all have children, making us eligible for government handouts or tax breaks and not all of us have paid off a home that will enable us to move away from the rental cycle, we are all different and if the government is expected to have a system in place that will help us to care for ourselves when we do reach the age that we can no longer work, then that system should be based upon the individual and their personal circumstances not according to a government departments blanket rules.

I can see where you are coming from, but we then would have people bitching about having to work longer than Joe Blogs down the road.
I think some sort of system where there is a set age, but also where you can retire earlier with medical proof that you are no longer fit for work
Better still why don't the pollies return all the funds stolen from the pension fund over the years then we wouldn't have this problem.
Anybody who has spent their life bludging off the welfare system and therefore not paying tax or contributing to the pension should be paid the lower jobseeker payment without pension concessions.
Before I get howled down, I obviously don't mean the people who genuinely needed welfare assistance during their life, I mean the ones who just can't be bothered to get of their lazy a***s and work, and there's a lot of them around.
Why are these young ones not working cut off welfare, when we are constantly being told employers can't find workers to fill jobs.

 

[ElizaKaye]

It is not many people who can work to that age. Maybe the
Queen and the pope who don't have to do house work gardening etc.

 

[NotNats]

New research suggests that Australian workers may have to stay in the workforce until 70 due to shifting demographics and a growing ageing population. We know that retirement is a well-deserved milestone that many Aussies are eagerly anticipating, so this news might hit particularly hard.

Low birth rates and an ageing population are the core reasons for the recent proposal from Macquarie University's Business School, which suggests Australia should increase the pension age to 70 years by 2050.

Already, senior Australians are grappling with rising eligibility ages for the age pension based on their birthdate. For example, people born between July 1, 1952, and December 31, 1953, can currently receive a pension at the age of 65 years and six months.

However, the age gradually increases for those born later, with people born after January 1, 1957, expected to work until they're 67 before accessing the pension.

View attachment 21191

Australians could face another decade in the workforce after new research found a pension age increase is required. Credit: Unsplash/Philinit.

Professor Hanlin Shang and his co-authors argue that based on their analysis, the pension age should increase three more times in the next 27 years. They propose it should rise to 68 by 2030, to 69 in 2036 and finally to 70 by 2050.

This might sound quite bleak for hardworking Australians, but it's crucial to consider the reasons behind the proposal. The report states that with more people retiring and fewer working-age people to support them, the old age dependency ratio (OADR) will increase, placing an additional burden on the federal budget.

This burden might grow even more, with the number of Australians aged 100 or over predicted to reach 50,000 by 2050. Professor Shang sums it up well, saying, 'As people live longer, there is a longevity risk, and they'll consume more pension from the government.'

But it isn't all doom and gloom! There are alternative solutions to help protect Australians' retirements. According to Professor Shang, our leaders should look overseas for successful examples of government policies. For instance, Canada, Singapore, and South Korea all have policies aimed at increasing birth rates, which could relieve some of the pressure on the ageing population.

The Canadian Government provides affordable childcare at $10 a day, while the South Korean Government offers new parents $10,500 cash grants. Singapore, on the other hand, will be boosting their baby bonus program, paid paternity leave, and tax relief for working mothers in the coming years.

Such policies could provide working Australian parents with opportunities to balance their careers and family life while contributing to more sustainable population growth.

​

But the pension age increase proposal hasn't been well-received by Australia's younger generations.

To quote a frustrated dad of three: 'I'm turning 40 this year. If I can work until 70, it'll be a miracle.'

These frustrations ring particularly true for workers in physically demanding industries, who may find it increasingly challenging to extend their careers beyond their 60s. Another Gen X employee lamented, 'Try and be a tradie at 70.'

Meanwhile, a retired nurse commented on the issue, saying: 'People in their 60s are exhausted, I've got back pain from nursing. I cannot work anymore. People should not have to work in old age.'

Several SDC members have expressed their thoughts on this matter. One member, debjoel21, stated, 'Imagine being a bricklayer until you're 70...no way...'

Meanwhile, another member named Kayer02 shared their personal situation, saying, 'I am 62. Have many medical problems and am unable to drive due to medications and disabilities. However, I can not get any type of pension, I have to go out and find a job. Do you realise how hard it is to get a job at my age, no matter at 70?'

Member Rex Jones also raised an interesting point by suggesting, 'I think that the retirement age should be fitted to the individual. If you are capable of working until you are 70 years of age, then fine, keep working; lots of people want to anyway.'

They further elaborated, saying, 'Some people, however, are not going to be able to work from a much younger age and should not be penalised for that by not being able to receive a pension. Like driving a car, have a doctor decide what capability you have with regards to work and have a payment to compensate those who need it.'

View attachment 21192

Expert modelling suggests that the Australian pension age should be increased to 70 by 2050. Credit: Unsplash/HarlynKingm.

While it's certainly a shock for Australians who have their retirement plans in sight, these ideas and future policies could lead to a more balanced and sustainable Australian society.

Professor Shang's predictions about the future of working Australians might be a bit gloomy, but they are more accurate than the predictions made by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's treasury.

In 2014, the Liberal party proposed increasing the retirement age much earlier, with plans to raise it by six months every two years starting from July 2025. This would have meant that the age to qualify for a pension would have reached 70 years by July 2035, which is 15 years earlier than what Professor Shang predicted.

Fortunately, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison abandoned this proposed policy in September 2018. Instead, his government, along with the Rudd Labor government, passed laws to increase the pension age to 67 by July this year.

This decision was supported by Eva Scheerlinck, the Chief Executive of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees.

'Retirement income policies need to recognise that many individuals will have a different work pattern and may not necessarily be in a position to choose their own retirement age,' she said.

Key Takeaways

• New modelling suggests that Australia's pension age should increase to 70 years by 2050 due to low birth rates and an ageing population.
• Many working Australians, particularly those in physically demanding jobs, have expressed concerns over the proposal to increase the pension age.
• According to the research, three more pension age increases should occur over the next 27 years to help sustain the livelihoods of elderly unemployed Australians.
• Professor Hanlin Shang suggests that the government could look to policies from Canada, Singapore, and South Korea to increase birth rates and the future workforce, as well as increase the number of migrants welcomed to Australia.

We hope this article has provided some insight into the reasons for this proposal and the potential alternative solutions. Rest assured, we'll keep you updated on any developments that concern your well-deserved retirement plans.

What do you think about this, members? Should the age at which people become eligible for a pension be increased? Or should it stay the same? If it should be increased, what age do you believe would be the most suitable? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and let's have a meaningful discussion!

ONE WORD - BULLSH*T

 

[Rob44]

Private superannuation schemes? The Old Aged Pension (plus health-care and "dole") was basically a government guaranteed superannuation scheme guaranteed by government into which at one time we paid into a fund, separate from consolidated revenue, via stamps paid for from our wages with a compulsory contribution from our employer.

That is how is was set up in the UK between 1945-1979 and I believe how it originated in Australia.

Then some politician decided it would all be paid into and hence from consolidated revenue and then we got bribed with tax-cuts for the top-end of town and then Keating in Australia realised government couldn't dole out tax cuts to the wealthy and maintain what had been a good system. So Keating brought in the means-tested old aged pension and Howard and followers did the rest. And of course government continued to bribe us with tax cuts and no doubt employed highly paid consultants to tell them that we oldies are an increasing burden on society etbloodycetera and like that loyal donkey in Orwell's Animal Farm have to be flogged to work until we die and get carried off to the knacker's yard whilst the pigs in the governing farmhouse make merry with the results of our work.

So we can afford a new AFL stadium for $750 million of taxpayer's money; we can afford hundreds of billions buying second-hand nuclear-powered submarines; we can afford politicians and Prime Ministers who see politics to a means to their private ambitions? And we can't look after our elderly in Australia? Keep the pension age to 65 for both men and women and bring in once again a Universal LIVEABLE government-guaranteed Old Aged Pension. And if the OAP is to come from consolidated revenue, make the top tax rate at 65cents in the dollar and re-graduate the income tax system accordingly.

And whilst on about private superannuation; that is the feeding trough for assorted "financial managers" who simply play the stock-market on our behalf and when the next Great Fiancial Scam comes along, as it did in 2007-2008, can lose us a great deal of money, such as many of us lost, without a blink of their wretched conscience.
.

 

[Gaena]

I can see where you are coming from, but we then would have people bitching about having to work longer than Joe Blogs down the road.
I think some sort of system where there is a set age, but also where you can retire earlier with medical proof that you are no longer fit for work
Better still why don't the pollies return all the funds stolen from the pension fund over the years then we wouldn't have this problem.
Anybody who has spent their life bludging off the welfare system and therefore not paying tax or contributing to the pension should be paid the lower jobseeker payment without pension concessions.
Before I get howled down, I obviously don't mean the people who genuinely needed welfare assistance during their life, I mean the ones who just can't be bothered to get of their lazy a***s and work, and there's a lot of them around.
Why are these young ones not working cut off welfare, when we are constantly being told employers can't find workers to fill jobs.

There will always be people who think that they are entitled and do not need to contribute because the government some how is obligated to support them. We see this in the younger generations who do not want to work in certain types of employment because it does not fit into what they want to do, the classic example is the severe shortage of trades people, working as an electrician or as a plumber or builder, because these occupations involve physical work, not hours spent staring at computer or TV screens. Society has encouraged this by telling them that they can do and achieve anything that they wish. We could rabbit on for hours about how wrong this is but what do we do about it. I am sure that we can all remember the school subjects that were part of the cirriculem (sorry about the spelling of that word) woodwork, metalwork and other trades that formed an introduction to some form of manual work that could be part of the future for the students, instead of subjects like Surfing and the art of tie dying. We have spent so long trying to make school interesting for these kids that the basics have been forgotten, had we continued with the type of schooling that our generation had, we would what not need to import people from overseas to do the jobs that our kids never trained for. Importing people leeds to shortage of housing and the list goes on. We all remember a better time when we were younger, when we were assured of a comfortable life if we only worked for it. I guess to some people that very need to generate as much wealth for themelves as they possibly can therefore completely forgetting about the needs of their fellow human beings is part of that problem, there will always be those extremely ambitious people including our politicians who fit into that catagory, the lies that they tell to get into a position of power is gobsmacking, especially when we realise that we have been lied to and it is now to late, makes me very sad, I do not see the point in being angry, that emotion only hurts me and has absolutely no consequence to whomever the subject of any anger may be.