Why Are Australians Not Kicking up a Fuss Like The French Do?

Lkaoz on 29/03/2023 - 19:25
Last edited 31/03/2023 - 23:28 by 1 other user

As of 1st July 2023 the age pension eligibility in Australia will be raised yet again to 67 years, for people born after 1st January 1957.

Our social system is declining with more and more social services being privatised and becoming unaffordable to low-income families and individuals.

Why are we not on the streets demanding better living condition and a more equal distribution of wealth, while letting big corporations get away with not paying their fair share of taxes and spending billions of dollars on nuclear submarines.

Has Australia gotten too soft?

Edit: what would it take for Aussies to get up and protest for their rights?
Edit2: definition of aged pension

Education & Work

Comments

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 30/03/2023 - 19:19
        -2

        200k pa

        is around 143k after tax

        500k on 6 percent interest with principle and LMI- 50k pa

        thats 93k left

        lets say a family of 5 2 adults 3 kids - average living expenses for an adult is around 19k and a child is 12.5k

        now you are left with 17.5k

        add in 2 cars rego insurance, servicing - 5k and housing and contents insurance 3k

        12.5k left

        that is 12.5k - assuming no private school fees, no incidents/accidents, no pets, no holidays and no entertainment

        excuse me if im not 'out of touch' with modern day expenses like you but if you think 12.5k is a 'big buffer' when almost a 3rd of you money goes to tax and gives you nothing back becuz you are means tested out of any support its a bit moronic ….

        • SBOB on 30/03/2023 - 20:21
          -2

          lets say a family of 5 2 adults 3 kids - average living expenses for an adult is around 19k and a child is 12.5k

          "lets say"

          so you think the living expenses, excluding accommodation, for an "average" family in of 5 in Australia is $75.5k?

          Your example would mean than a family of 5, with a 500k mortgage, and earning household income of ~180k/year is effectively bankrupt.

          But sure, you're completely in touch :)

          modern day expenses like you

          do I not have expenses? News to me.

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 30/03/2023 - 21:30
            -1

            @SBOB: you're welcome to take 5mins and put a 'quick' budget together

            if you think 75k is a lot of money for 5 people [not including accommodation] you're welcome to run the numbers and get back to me

            keep in mind i used a 'standard' 500k loan which a lot of people owe a hell of a lot more then that - that is their fault but it is very much the reality for a lot of Australians [not myself]

            happy to be 'proven' wrong but 10-20k for a house hold left over is not a lot of room to wiggle

            • SBOB on 30/03/2023 - 21:47

              @Trying2SaveABuck:

              happy to be 'proven' wrong but 10-20k for a house hold left over is not a lot of room to wiggle

              Well, you could generally just take a look at general society and realise your numbers are wrong. Average household incomes of struggling family mortgage holders would show that it's clearly not 200-300k as you initially set the earning range at.

              Also, as someone with a 'household' and 'children' and 'earnings' , I'm pretty confident you're wrong if you think a family on 200k, with a 500k mortgage is only scraping by and living on struggle street.

              Not sure which end of lifespan reality you're at, but it's clearly not the 'middle' but where people have households, children, earnings, mortgages, and budgets, as you're not applying any real world experience to your assumptions

              • Trying2SaveABuck on 30/03/2023 - 22:00
                -1

                @SBOB: i think the point - perhaps i didnt articulate well - is that it isnt just the bottom 5 percent of the population struggling you would probably find a large number of people in the middle class are struggling i know a number young[ish] people really feeling the 'rate hikes'

                sure the flogs will say you shouldn't of borrowed so much, you should of travelled less etc but the fact is a lot of people who are on 'good' income are actually caught in a hard place right costing of living and interest rate hikes are hurting a lot of people.

                fact is the mentality needs to change a household income of say 100k in most cases would be living on the bread line…

        • p1 ama on 30/03/2023 - 20:53

          lets say a family of 5 2 adults 3 kids - average living expenses for an adult is around 19k and a child is 12.5k

          Total of $6.2k per month, and not including rent. That's overall believable, though a tad bit high.

          add in 2 cars rego insurance, servicing - 5k and housing and contents insurance 3k

          Car expenses are included in the average living expenses, so you're double counting.

          If you're paying $3K for home insurance, you're getting ripped off, or you live in a mansion. FWIW, this is also already included in the average living expenses.

          12.5k left

          Something wrong with your maths here, you forgot to take out the additional $3K, but anyway, I would say $17.5K left is a fair amount.

          assuming no private school fees

          Then don't send your kids to a private school.

          no incidents/accidents

          What "incidents and accidents" lead to costs of $17.5K? Isn't this why you have insurance?

          no pets

          You can definitely afford a pet with $17.5K.

          no holidays and no entertainment

          Holidays and entertainment are included in the average living expenses. However, $17.5K is way, way, way more than enough for you to have a big overseas holiday once every few years.

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 30/03/2023 - 21:24
            -3

            @p1 ama: once again you add your 2 cents when i couldnt care nor do you make sense no 'average' cost of living numbers take into account two cars

            keep in mind i was conservative and i assumed 'cars' were owned out right not on finance

            no credit card debt which the average Australian had between 3-6k

            private health insurance - or medi-levy were also not included….

            no other debt ie hecs which most ppl earning that level would probably have

            i could go on but it is amazing how you cherry picked a 'conversative' budget

            no average cost of living had 'cars' included in expense it has transport which i didnt include such as fuel or public transport

            you have always had dumb/misinformed comments imo but this one is one of your worst….

            if we wanted to add in holidays/pets etc you need to also add in other entrainment, travel, travel/pet insurance, vet cost etc etc etc

            clearly your 'economics' studies were made up

  • Brianqpr on 30/03/2023 - 15:13
    +3

    We fall for the capitalist trickle down economics con, they don't. The UK is no better, sitting idly by as the most incompetent government I've ever seen destroys the country's economy and morale. Just blame everything on immigration.

    Maybe Murdoch is less influential in France?

  • tcme on 30/03/2023 - 15:39
    +7

    You can retire at any age. The age to access the aged pension is 67.

  • ajr5k on 30/03/2023 - 15:51

    Because Australians are soft now. Look at how keen people were to get jabbed with nonsense and the attitudes people had towards dissent.

    Earn big early, retire early and enjoy the limited time life offers you.

  • Protractor on 30/03/2023 - 16:17
    +1

    enter the cooker arguments

  • drprox on 30/03/2023 - 16:49
    +3

    I'd like to know why we are calling this "retirement age" when really it is "pension age".
    Most people from gen X onwards will have received super their entire working careers. Super that, worst case, can be accessed at 60.

  • Protractor on 30/03/2023 - 16:52
    +3

    Why? Because Australia is a joke.>

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-30/clive-palmer-to-sue-a…

    Palmer built his empire using other countries money to directly benefit from us. Now he is trying to bankrupt the govt, via another foreign company.
    Like Murdoch,Trump,Rinehart,Twiggy, it's all about them abusing the power and privilege handed to them them.

    How is it NOT a conflict of interest to have Porter in the box seat after his inside knowledge on the workings of multiple govts (state and federal) ?
    They should remove Palmers citizenship. Find a reason.Cannot believe any sane human would ever deliberately vote for this slug.

    • GG57 on 31/03/2023 - 10:23
      +1

      Porter may be an obvious choice as one of Clive's lawyers; follow the money

      • Protractor on 31/03/2023 - 10:27
        +1

        It doesn't mean it doesn't stink of rotting fish. If the legal system thinks it's OK, it explains why he is in it.
        Hopefully it's another flop for Palmer and Porter and they ride off into the sunset together looking for windmills.
        Palmer seems to be the richest (profanity) in the western world. He can't hack any digs.

        • GG57 on 31/03/2023 - 10:31

          I'm not saying it is sound for Porter to be involved; I'm suggesting that the money in Porter's 'blind trust' to pay for his legal fees had to come from somewhere.

          • Protractor on 31/03/2023 - 10:41
            +2

            @GG57: Yes, that's a very relevant point. I'd pushed that tasty morsel to the back of my memory bank. Thanks for the reminder.
            What wonderfully ethical standards we have for our leaders and politicians.

  • Dorge on 30/03/2023 - 17:06
    +3

    I'd imagine a lot of people believe they will access there super in there 60's. Drain it down for a few years to at least gain a part pension or full pension.

    Myself I hope I have set myself up enough to never need pension.

  • Dreamcast on 30/03/2023 - 17:17
    +2

    Because most people are so focused on repaying their mortgage, they baguette about everything else.

  • cnrmlj on 30/03/2023 - 17:20
    +2

    I plan to have enough assets in super and outside super that i can retire anytime i want to after about 55 which is a few years away. Will see how things pan out over the next few years. Will probably work part time for a few years before stepping away from fully paid work. Set the pension age at whatever.

  • mrvaluepack on 30/03/2023 - 18:11
    +3

    Op is incorrect. You can retire at 60 (preservation age) and start drawing from super.

    • lostgoat on 30/03/2023 - 20:47
      +1

      What about retiring at 25 hehe .

      • Mad Max on 30/03/2023 - 23:03
        +1

        If you have enough money, why not!

  • echelon6 on 30/03/2023 - 19:57

    Because we aren't daft, who's going to pay for 2 extra years of age pension? I think Macron did the right thing.

  • sashatheman on 30/03/2023 - 21:19

    Its a sensible thing to increase the retirement age as the population ages.

  • DV0993 on 30/03/2023 - 21:49
    +1

    You are responsible for dictating when you retire and your wealth level through your day to day decisions. We should not be 'redistributing wealth' in an equitable economy. The tax system does "its best" to levy taxes based on income level. Acknowledge there could be some problems/holes with that system in particular when it comes to large multinationals.

    I remember sitting down once and subtracting the essentials (sleep, eating, exercise, commuting etc) from a 168 hr week to determine how much available time there was for study and work - long story short I slogged out 110hr effective work weeks for 2 years in order to get ahead. I couldn't give a stuff about the retirement age, or about super (i'm seeing it as a bonus if I can ever access it).

    We all have the ability to do better - don't rely on the government to help you in retirement!!

  • bobolo on 30/03/2023 - 22:13
    +2

    Wrong.

    Australians have always been soft. We are now being forced to adjust back to reality

    For too long we have been conditioned to accept that entitlement is a god given right. Irrespective of increasing living expenses, it really is quite difficult to starve and be homeless in Australia. Access to social security and free healthcare is on another level here.

    That is not to say that people aren't struggling at the moment - plenty are. But the absolute worst case scenario is sitting in a housing commission block/house in Mount Druitt sipping cordial and having a bit of toast for dinner. Anything worse/beyond that is brought on by drugs/alcohol/violence/abuse, or a "choice" to not work and become "homeless" (remember the fat white guy sitting outside Myer begging in Sydney who lives in a house on the central coast and makes $80k a year?)

    On the contrary, if you fail in most other countries, you are left to rot and die and nobody cares.

    • GG57 on 31/03/2023 - 10:25
      +1

      …if you fail in most other countries, you are left to rot and die and nobody cares

      In a lot of other countries, there is a better sense of community and support is provided to those that need it.

    • Protractor on 31/03/2023 - 21:40
      +1

      It's going to get worse, and soft or hard, it will still impact the whole world. The more the human population grows, the more pressure on everything.Food ,water,energy borders.
      There's probably a lot more "being left to rot and die" ahead,compared to rainbows and picnics.
      Infinite growth is coming home to roost on a finite planet. The stupidity of jobs and growth is the greatest scam going, and cost of living explosion, housing crisis,conflict are all predicted side effects. Denial is the common theme with most of the existential crises under our noses.

      • bobolo on 01/04/2023 - 11:15

        Yep, we are at the tail end of unprecedented growth….if we look at what happens historically, a global economic crisis ensues followed shortly by a massive global conflict (war). The world resets itself and we're back to the start of the cycle

        • Protractor on 02/04/2023 - 14:21

          That's a best case scenario

  • FlyingMiffy on 30/03/2023 - 22:31

    Maybe the French just feels more entitled than Aussies. Complaining because you have to wait a few more years for handouts is nothing but entitlement. If you dont like it, go the self funded retirement path.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 30/03/2023 - 23:23
    +1

    Heads in the sand, an attitude of "if you don't liked it go back to where you came from", "I'm alright Jack" and "best place in the world even though I've never been anywhere" as things go to sh1t

  • Punda on 31/03/2023 - 01:48
    +2

    The same reason we are letting McGowans police have stop and search powers at the border! We just sit and take it!

    • GG57 on 31/03/2023 - 10:26
      +1

      I suppose the WA voters could vote against McGowan at the next election, if they wanted to.

    • Protractor on 31/03/2023 - 21:28

      In the WA case,changing govts wont necessarily change the outcomes.
      Apparent policy hierarchy = police union>commissioner>minister>premier>citizens.
      Not sure QLD & NT are any different.

  • RefusdClassification on 31/03/2023 - 06:29
    +2

    Albo could increase the pension age to 100 and I doubt there would be any significant blowback. As long as people can continue to play with their cell phones, smoke pot, and watch brain rotting free to air television, they won't oppose anything the government decrees. Political apathy in this country saddens me.

  • Breno785au on 31/03/2023 - 06:58
    +1

    To answer the question.
    Apathy.

    • whyisave on 01/04/2023 - 22:23

      Exactly.

      I've wondered what the cure to apathy is?
      Lower personal debts?

      You could expect more from a country, with "forced participation" in voting ('democracy').

      The debt-driven economy creates an individualised society,
      where high personal debts cultivates the apathy:
      "i better keep my mouth shut, for fear of losing my job",
      "it's not worth my time…."

  • MagicOZ on 31/03/2023 - 07:17
    +1

    Not sure about the Australia or France, but few thoughts arise while thinking:
    Have the life span increase significantly for this to make sense?
    What's the rate of increase of the life span?
    How many young people will be born compared to the ration of the old people, by the time the new law applies?
    What will happen with people who work physically demanding work? Often people like police, firefighter, etc. are covered by some exception. How about the regular people? There is need for government assurance that there will be jobs for them after they stop being about to do their heavy work. Not only that, but to be able to have the same income or larger.

  • Ozykins on 31/03/2023 - 07:59

    The difference is probably because Australians are relatively civilised.

  • sund00bie on 31/03/2023 - 08:48
    +5

    Australians are too lazy to protest :(

  • DingoBilly on 31/03/2023 - 09:54
    +2

    I personally agree with it so don't really have an issue.

    As time goes on our life expectancy rises so I think it's fair retirement ages goes up. And it's not that significantly more.

    I also personally plan to retire earlier anyway so it doesn't make much difference to me to be fair.

    • GG57 on 31/03/2023 - 10:28
      +1

      It isn't a "retirement age"; we don't have such a thing.
      It is the age that people have to be before they can apply for the aged pension.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/03/2023 - 10:52
    +1

    Not caring is the Australian way. Self funded don't care because it doesn't affect them, and poors are too lazy to do anything about it.

  • CowFrogHorse on 31/03/2023 - 11:17

    Heres another question…

    Why are so many Australian's accepting a fate that involves wasting time in cars and commuting when there are better options ?

    Like pay employees for travel time. Force comapnies and gov to locate buildings closer to business as necessary etc.

    • CrowReally on 31/03/2023 - 13:21

      Like pay employees for travel time

      Alright, let's see if this is a good or bad idea.

      1. Companies are required to pay employees for travel time (let's pretend this isn't exploitable e.g. people can't choose to travel large distances or slowly to get extra pay). We'll say there's a standard cost to all businesses to make sure employees are paid to travel to work.

      2. The business has now got additional costs but not additional worker output (people aren't working when they drive to work, etc). So the business puts prices up to cover the new costs.

      3. Now everything costs more. Workers can probably afford some of this (they're getting some more wages.. but also paying more tax), but non-workers have to pay the higher prices too.

      4. Thanks for the inflation, I guess?

      So yeah, a terrible idea. Not as weird as "Force comapnies and gov to locate buildings closer to business as necessary" however (which is just incoherent).

      • CowFrogHorse on 31/03/2023 - 13:31

        crow: The business has now got additional costs but not additional worker output (people aren't working when they drive to work, etc). So they put the business puts prices up to cover the new costs.

        cow: Bad answer.

        Who says there are not other options ?

        Take the government, they have a lot of buildings in the CBD of Sydney and yet Paramatta is far closer to the geographic center. Making customers the public and employees travel to the CBD is DUMB.

        Move offices and other buildings closer to the action or eliminate them. Office workers for example can often work remotely.

        ~

        crow: Now everything costs more. Workers can probably afford some of this (they're getting some more wages.. but also paying more tax), but non-workers have to pay the higher prices too.

        cow: Where is your imagination ? Where is thinking a little harder to think of better solutions.

        Take banks, they have many branches. Are employees going to the closest branch as much as possible or do they often travel past many branches to far places ?

        I have seen this many times in the past, where neighbours travel across town and a local bank has workers from other end of town. Almost non of these employees are travelling to a far closer branch.

        Why because the bank doesnt care because they are not paying for their employees time.

        This problem exists in many other industries.

        I just gave an example of saving a few people hours a week of travel, and you presented nothing original. Who needs friends like that ? Boring and dumb.

        Try again.

        • CrowReally on 31/03/2023 - 13:43
          +1

          I don't need to 'try again', I provided a step by step explanation of how the economy is worse off when you force private businesses to pay people for non-productive work.

          Saying 'think harder, there's other options' while not proving your own work is just lazy thinking. Extra costs means higher prices. There's no "outside the box" on this one, that's economic theory.

          I'm not surprised you can't understand it but it's simple.

          Your response was otherwise 1. incoherent 2. weirdly formatted so no need for me (or anyone) to waste their time trying to scan it. Try to type shorter, clearer sentences (and less weird fairy-tale moments like 'what if all jobs were like working for a bank' or whatever that was meant to be).

          It was and is a bad idea. Try again.

        • CrowReally on 31/03/2023 - 13:49
          +1

          Move offices and other buildings closer to the action or eliminate them

          I think I understand your mindset now. You're imagining that everyone lives in Parramatta and we all travel in one long direction towards the CBD. Not that people live at all sorts of locations and maybe even non-Parramatta locations. It's not possible, for instance, that people live on the other side of the CBD to Parramatta.

          You've used a bad data set to have a bad idea. It doesn't match reality.

          "Move businesses to where people live" is just stupid. I'm a nurse, and I'm married to a marine biologist, I guess my family had better move to that suburb that's in the ocean and has a lot of sick people (because that's where the hospital would be, right?)

          You have a weird imagination, but it makes unpractical ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny.

          • CowFrogHorse on 31/03/2023 - 13:58

            @CrowReally: crow: I think I understand your mindset now. You're imagining that everyone lives in Parramatta and we all travel in one long direction towards the CBD.

            cow: I never said EVERYONE, i said SOME people in SOME businesses. Feel free to quote where I SAID EVERYONE.

            I gave an example of banks. Not everyone works in a bank, thats obvious, not everyone travels from those exact locations, but many do travel signiicant distances.

            ~

            crow: Not that people live at all sorts of locations and maybe even non-Parramatta locations. It's not possible, for instance, that people live on the other side of the CBD to Parramatta

            cow: You cant grasp, not all solutions are perfect, we must try for better not perfection. Having some gov office in the CBD means more travel for the average person than say having a location such as Parra. Its not perfect but Parra is an improvement.

            Can you grasp that ?

            • CrowReally on 31/03/2023 - 14:01
              +1

              @CowFrogHorse: I can grasp you need to come up with ridiculous highly-specific examples to explain how your ideas 'might' work. Seems desperate.

              It's just silly. Maybe you were embarrassed by how quickly "pay people to travel" fell apart, but it's not my fault you have bad ideas.

              The irony is most people are fine with this sort of thing (they read on the bus, listen to a podcast in the car etc).

              But YOU don't like it, and that's why we need to move all the buildings around 'for everyone else'.

              Good luck with your project. No one will take you seriously.

              • CowFrogHorse on 31/03/2023 - 14:05

                @CrowReally: crow: The irony is most people are fine with this sort of thing (they read on the bus, listen to a podcast in the car etc).

                cow: Most people are fine with wasting hours commuting ?

                Thats funny because i see a lot of articles in the media that say the opposite. People have been complaining about the failing transport infratructure constantly.

                Why because like i said before this is a game that no city on earth ever wins…

          • CowFrogHorse on 31/03/2023 - 14:03

            @CrowReally: crow: Move businesses to where people live" is just stupid.

            cow: Really ?

            By your logic then its perfectly sensible to put all schools in Broken Hill and all hsopitals in Dubbo, because who cares if they are far away from customers.

            ~

            crow: I'm a nurse, and I'm married to a marine biologist, I guess my family had better move to that suburb that's in the ocean and has a lot of sick people (because that's where the hospital would be, right?)

            cow: Well it would be dumb to be a marine biologist and to live in Broken Hill and constantly travel to the ocean wouldnt it ?

            It would also be dumb to work in Canterbury Hospital and live in Coffs wouldnt it ?

            • CrowReally on 31/03/2023 - 14:06

              @CowFrogHorse:

              By your logic then its perfectly sensible to put all schools in Broken Hill and all hsopitals in Dubbo, because who cares if they are far away from customers.

              You're 'this' close to getting it.

              If you understand that people live at all sorts of locations, how would it be possible for them all to live next to their work? How would families with mixed occupations work? What would happen if someone trained as a X-specialist but there were no houses for sale in the suburb of their preferred employer (X-Industries)?

              An unworkable mess. It's just a really bad idea.

            • CrowReally on 31/03/2023 - 14:08

              @CowFrogHorse:

              cow: Well it would be dumb to be a marine biologist and to live in Broken Hill and constantly travel to the ocean wouldnt it ?

              It would also be dumb to work in Canterbury Hospital and live in Coffs wouldnt it ?

              If your argument is daily commutes for work are that long, you're wrong.

              It's either a bad faith argument or a stupid one.

              Stop telling me your bad ideas, I'm not interested. You're saying unintelligent things.

              • CowFrogHorse on 31/03/2023 - 14:27

                @CrowReally: crow: If your argument is daily commutes for work are that long, you're wrong.

                cow: Whats wrong with trying to reduce commutes for as many people as possible ?

                Nobody wins by commuting any effort that can reduce them is better in multiple ways.

                ~

                crow: It's either a bad faith argument or a stupid one.

                cow: Says who ?

                Whats your reason ?

                How does longer commutes improve anyones life ?

                ~

                crow: Stop telling me your bad ideas, I'm not interested. You're saying unintelligent things.

                cow: For being intelligent, its amazing how so many of your replies dont actually have a reason for your point of view. You just demand that you are right - you dont even give a reason.

                But hey hardly a shock we all know the level of your proof in your other replies…

                crow: If your argument is daily commutes for work are that long, you're wrong.

                It's either a bad faith argument or a stupid one.

                • CrowReally on 31/03/2023 - 14:33

                  @CowFrogHorse:

                  How does longer commutes improve anyones life ?

                  I never said it did. Show your EVIDENCE. You just MADE THAT UP.

                  Stop MAKING UP QUOTES.

                  SHOW me where I said THAT.

                  Stop MAKING THINGS UP.

                  (and so on)

                • CrowReally on 31/03/2023 - 14:42

                  @CowFrogHorse: Making up things I never said just to refute them is a strawman's argument and bad faith trolling. It's outright stupid.

                  I'm not going to waste my time on your shortcomings any more. Grow up, and think before you type.

                  You had some bad ideas and you expressed them poorly.

                  If being upset about that means you make giant walls of text with bizarre formatting and even more bizarre sentence structure, I'm out. As is everyone with a working brain.

    • nephilim on 31/03/2023 - 13:54
      +1

      In AUS, LGA and state workers have too much power,
      SA gov tried to most a lot of offices to Port Adelaide from CBD, as they have dozens of empty businesses and 15 story office worker (still empty for 10 years). Employees got upset and started mass quiting.

  • darkchoc on 31/03/2023 - 11:57

    And who pays the cost of a 67 year old having 30 years of retirement?

  • R4 on 31/03/2023 - 14:57

    The French are living in denial about their economic and fiscal situation - decades of socialism will do that to a population. Never underestimate the desire of people to want free stuff.

    Australia is doing well. Sure we could do more but we're not doing nothing - look how much is spent on the NDIS, welfare, Medicare, pensions etc. The vast majority of people are doing well, or at least okay. We have some of the highest levels of disposable income in the World and we are right up there in life expectancy.

    Overall, I'm happy with the direction that our country is going. We need to cut taxation, red tape, government bureaucracy, immigration levels for us to really fly but in the meantime, we're doing okay.

    • Falkner on 31/03/2023 - 18:52

      I wouldn't say cutting taxes is something that needs to be done, it needs to be re-worked so companies pay their fare share as well as all these people with so many assets stretched across so many different investments being taxed appropriately (also that will make inflation worse, so we shouldn't be doing that in the near future anyway). The lower and middle class will get more and more disadvantaged as time goes on.

      • R4 on 31/03/2023 - 19:45

        Taxes for higher income earners need to be cut - which is happening anyway with the upcoming stage 3 cuts - unless our wealth-hating government reneges on yet another election promise. I'm talking people earning $200k here, not $2m.

        Governments, fed and state, need to cut their costs. They employ far too many people and there is plenty to be saved.

        • TSH on 03/04/2023 - 11:50
          +2

          Mate, best of luck with tax cuts. Gov wont bleed money so you can have a bit more in your wallet. These pr!cks will give you a dollar and take 2.

  • hawkshead on 31/03/2023 - 15:22
    -3

    Plenty of us are. In parts of australia its illegal and punishable by imprisonment to kick up a stink about things.

  • Cluster on 31/03/2023 - 16:26
    +2

    The French are rioting because their pension age is being lifted from 62 to 64. Sorry, but the rioters are a bunch of entitled children throwing a tantrum.

    Here's an idea: you want to retire with a good 20+ years of life left, you save and invest to pay for it. Don't expect tax payers in decades time to foot the bill of your lifestyle. Pension systems worldwide are unsustainable and cannot possibly pay for the growing number of old people.

    When I retire I expect that either the pension will be so low that you cannot possibly live off it, or it won't exist at all. I'm planning accordingly.

    • kaoz on 31/03/2023 - 18:49
      +2

      Good for you that you’re in a position to save up and put some money aside for your later years, but not everyone is as fortunate as you.
      By the way, you can actually thank those “entitled, tantrum-throwing French” for the fact that we have paid annual leave in the western world. If it wasn’t for them protesting for better working conditions, we might still be slaving away with no paid time off. Just some food for thought…

  • SpicyStew on 31/03/2023 - 16:27
    +2

    Why leave their comfort zone to protest on the streets?
    They prefer to just post their disagreements on social media and discuss behind closed doors.

    Softies.

  • dj69 on 31/03/2023 - 16:54
    +1

    67 is the age you can request the age pension
    you can retire at any age

  • idonotknowwhy on 31/03/2023 - 17:44
    +1

    I hope the age pension dies in the ass completely in 20 years, because isn't that why we have Super?

    • Bluto Mindpretzel on 31/03/2023 - 19:20
      +3

      By then the property faithful will no doubt have enabled people to pay further over the odds by using their super as a deposit. Heck a "parting gift" from the howard era was allowing leverage in super via SMSF into property. It's madness. There literally is no long term plan beyond a lazy people ponzi system called our immigration system.

      • R4 on 31/03/2023 - 19:49
        +2

        Yep, immigration is a vast ponzi scheme but government will never cut it as it continually boosts GDP.

        I wouldn't mind so much if it was genuinely for skilled migration, but it's not. It's vast numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled drone workers, family reunion scams and international students who only study here because they effectively get PR at the end of their studies.

        It's a clown car system.

  • Blargman2001 on 31/03/2023 - 19:48
    +3

    I don't get this 1950's mindset of "I paid taxes my whole life, now the state has to give me a comfortable life for my retirement". That world died at least 30-40 years ago when it became apparent that populations were ageing and there weren't going to be enough people to support the welfare systems of yore. Now some people are talking about 100% taxes on income over $1,000,000 pa or some other arbitrary number in order to fund wealth redistribution. I'm all for social justice but this isn't the way. The system is complicated and manipulating it will have unintended consequences. Look at the crazy world we have now after central banks manipulated the monetary system during Covid.

  • kiwiyonip on 31/03/2023 - 21:13
    +6

    OP, that's because Aussies are pus***s. They will not stand up for their rights, but will be happy to ridicule other nation's rights.

    • TSH on 31/03/2023 - 22:58
      +4

      True that,
      The French invaded germany in world war II. Most australians would have trouble carrying out a home invasion next door.

  • ihbh on 31/03/2023 - 21:21
    -1

    more equal distribution of wealth

    Go and live in China.

    while letting big corporations get away with not paying their fair share of taxes

    Such as?

  • p3nf0ld on 31/03/2023 - 22:22
    +1

    Cmon OP atleast you good make your first sentence correct

    "As of 1st July 2023 the retirement age in Australia will be 67". INCORRECT
    "From 1 July 2023, Age Pension age will be 67 years". CORRECT

    Yes due to an ageing population the age to access the pension will move to 67 years. However, due to the introduction of compulsory superannuation & tax benefits this is not really a problem. The majority of Australians will have worked sufficiently long over their life-time (some 50 odd years) for their superannuation to have accumulated sufficiently to enable them to retire much earlier (between 55 & 60). To be honest if you haven't I would be questioning what exactly you were even retiring from.

  • ceroau on 31/03/2023 - 22:35
    +1

    It's Apathy not softness. The battle was lost before I even hit puberty. What would you realistically have us do? To bring the change you speak of, does not happen with some banners and yelling into to a megaphone, it doesn't happen by following the " democratic process" by voting. The only way it happen is revolution, real revolution, rebellion, the kind revolution that starts with revolt and quickly escalates to blood and tears and ends with heads of the losing side rolling in the streets. We as the masses couldn't even agree to wear some cloth masks for the benefit of our most vulnerable. You have no chance of uniting the masses on any topic, let alone seeding the idea of revolution in their hearts and minds.

    Even if you did, those who control this country would sooner see us and all of it burn than to share their resources and allow the redistribution of wealth.

    Even if you somehow stopped them. A huge powerful nation built on corrupt capitalism and who also relies on it smaller but resource rich allied nations to keep you aging body propped up on your crumbling legs like the US can't allow a nation like Australia to undergo a socialist revolution. They would not think twice about using excessive military force to ensure Australia remains a "democratic and free" nation

    If I was you, i would do your best to play their stupid corrupt game as well as you can and leverage what skills and resources you do have to carve out as small as piece of the pie as you can for you and yours and just sit back and watch the show as humanity implodes in on itself and takes out this planet with it. That's what I'm trying to do

    • Protractor on 02/04/2023 - 14:33

      Wreck the joint seems to be the the theme.
      Too many ppl having too little to do with the real world outside?. No nature, no diverse alternative dialogue cohort and no science
      or reality etc. Just replaced with a screen and poisonous mindless content and cerebral vacuous social media.

      In less than a decade perhaps the same cohort may be conscripted?

  • TSH on 31/03/2023 - 22:48
    +1

    I have a dead end gov job.
    Ive already become part of the furniture and id have to rape or kill someone at this point to get sacked.
    Im 43 so this is going to be one long effing quiet quitting journey ahead of me.

    • drfuzzy on 02/04/2023 - 22:53

      Your mindset makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
      The only way out is to outperform mediocrity.
      And you have committed yourself to that.

      • TSH on 03/04/2023 - 11:45

        Just a quick update, I might not actually die at my desk!!!
        Im starting a new job on the 8th of May in private sector. I'm hoping i can cope with the 12 month contract and hopefully not get sacked in this time.

        There is no mindset issue though. Some people have to take the time to admit there is a problem. Realise and accept the turd situation they're in before breaking out. Planned prison break.

        I definitely won't be taking a bite of the shit sandwich the government has handed my age group :)

  • macca22 on 01/04/2023 - 07:20

    abbot tried yo increase to 70

  • dmcneice on 01/04/2023 - 11:11

    It's a tricky one for which I don't have an answer for. However, how do we pay it.

    I already think its unfair that the working class has to overwhelmingly subsidise the rest of the population. We rely far too heavily on income tax to fund everything.

    I come from a poor family, but have worked my way up where I'm approaching 40 on 250k per year. I can only just pay my mortgage. I would be in the lowest quintile of net worth, yet i contribute easily in the top quintile to tax takings. Get rid of negative gearing and all the tax breaks/loopholes to the top ends of town.

  • whatgift on 01/04/2023 - 15:25

    Because in the scheme of things it's not that important!

  • falcine on 01/04/2023 - 21:27
    +4

    What is with all these posts lately, from people complaining about how their lives are crap for one reason or another and blaming others - usually either politicians or government - for it? Take some responsibility for your own happiness for god's sake. It's not all about the government owes me this, government owes me that.

    • Protractor on 02/04/2023 - 14:28

      Vested interests priming recruits via a faux narrative of oppression?
      The world is lurching right?

      • falcine on 02/04/2023 - 18:21

        Whatever it is, it's stinkin' up the place. Nobody goes on bargain hunting sites to listen to fringe political agendas.

        • Protractor on 02/04/2023 - 18:25
          -2

          Whatever Latham has, is contagious?

    • drfuzzy on 02/04/2023 - 22:54

      We live in the victim age.
      Nobody wants to take responsibility for something they can blame upon others.
      Especially if it is the government.

  • FittyFitty on 02/04/2023 - 06:15
    +1

    Catch 22; damned if you do, damned if you don't - zombienation… ta na na Na na na, ta na na na na na na na, na na , Na na.

  • ajr5k on 02/04/2023 - 08:12
    +6

    Australians also willingly accepted brutal COVID lockdowns, forced medical procedures and voted lying authoritarians behind it all back into office.
    Australians are soft and have no problems with the social contract being torn up in front of them.

  • Senatekill on 02/04/2023 - 14:16

    the same reason aussies did not keep up a fuss while their businesses were closed and they were locked in their houses and had to wear masks. They comply….

  • Protractor on 02/04/2023 - 18:24
    +1

    Given there's another 900K migrants arriving in Straya over the next 2 years, I'm pretty sure we will see more protests here, over every issue since the pandemic, and a hundred more on top.
    I'd say house and property auctions will need to become virtual to avoid obvious conflict.
    Health issues and EDs will be horrendous. Many new migrants automatically choose EDs over paying a Dr.
    Transport and road challenges won't keep up. If/when there's a US war to join, it may free up a few seats.

  • Duckie2hh on 02/04/2023 - 19:05

    Eat less avocados.

    Social security is not something everyone should aim for. Its a safety net.

    • mattyman on 02/04/2023 - 19:06
      +4

      Boomer located.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join