In fact I think Australia has been very well managed economically since Bob Hawke & Paul Keating came to power back in 83. Prior to that we were too fiscaly conservative and hamstrung by our unwillingness to join the real world of de-regulation.

As much as it pains me to say so, even Howard & Costello managed the economy very well, although they had the benefit of the boom created by Paul Keating and even an orangutan from the Adelaide Zoo could have run the country during that period.

The only howling we’re likely to see is from the Opposition benches but they are almost irrelevant.

Anyway, superannuation is a mess and a farce, always has been. I don’t believe in it myself and I think you should invest and manage your own money, not leave it in the hands of some dodgy super manager. Those with money in compulsory super funds should just regard anything they get as a bonus.

In addition to this, these people were gifted enormous amounts of money through foolishly generous superannuation policies and by the debasement of the capital gains tax system. As the baby boomers race towards retirement this mess needs to be unwound, it is unaffordable and unsustainable.

Expect to hear this group (ie Self funded retirees, not Baby Boomers) claim that unless they are heavily subsidised by the government they will spend every cent they have and live off the pension, thereby forcing the rest of us to pick up the tab

Compulsory super only came into existence in 1992, that being the case I don’t expect that many people who entered the workforce much before then will have sufficient savings to live off it (government employees aside). However, the Howard government policies which tried to ramp up the process of making people self reliant were a farce, people whose only major asset was their home and 16 years worth of compulsory super have never been in a position to take advantage of the big tax avoidance measures, and the people who were in a position to do so didn’t need the big tax break anyway.

I agree that we need to take better care of aged pensioners, I fully support the mooted increase in the pension, but I’d also like to see that applied to the single parent’s allowance, newstart and disability allowances too. My point is that a large number of superannuation policies are really only useful to people who are not genuinely in need, and they are the same people who have lobby groups to argue their case. That’s not right and it doesn’t help people who are truly in need of support.

I think you’re showing a lot of bias in that statement, Dave. A bias based perhaps on your own interests and misguided perception that babyboomers ‘had it all’. Believe me, we do not expect (or want) a pension. We have learnt that our kids (and their kids) are certainly not going to look after us. How? Because we taught them that they were more important than us.

Also, self-funded retirees and pensioners (my parents generation) are doing it hard (very hard) and should be looked after better. They’re the last generation brought up to believe you work in one place for 50 years, bring up your kids, don’t ask for much for yourself but then live out your older years on a half-reasonable pension or on your fixed interest investments, if you’re so lucky. It’s not their fault that the dream evapourated and we have an obligation to them as much as we do to the youngest generation. Unless, of course, you think they should eat bread, water and the occassional tin of baked beans for the rest of their days. Don’t worry though, they won’t complain – that’s how they were brought up.

As for the government’s hand in the market – I don’t have a problem with forcing people who can pay for something to pay for it. If they didn’t, then it is another form of a hand out. In a perfect world the government would provide first rate universal coverage for health care. They can’t. Therefore, if you can afford health care you should pay for it. The problem is that people who should be able to afford it don’t save for these eventualities. People in their 30′s don’t say ‘I’m going to need $40,000 for my heart by-pass when I’m 60′ and as such, the government must make them save, either through higher taxes or compulsory insurance. This is what is in place.

The government isn’t punishing you, they just don’t trust you to get it right.

Ultimately we elect a government to collect the resources of the country, some of which I create and others are dug from the ground, and redistribute them in such a way that best serves the very large majority without seeing anyone left behind. Obviously it is not possible to allow those who want to live outside the system do so, because in the end, we can’t leave them behind just because they were unfortunate or dumb. The government is whom our system has nominated to do the best to get this right, and if it means that someday you will have to have health insurance, then so be it.

Regarding governments hand in the market, the government should not be deciding what services my family needs and then punishing me if I disagree, while at the same time funnelling money to private enterprises. The way that the private health insurance rebate works does exactly this. It doesn’t directly affect me, but that doesn’t stop it being bad policy.

The system fails when people take the view that ‘I worked my whole life to save enough to give my kids a good inheritance – I don’t want to have to blow it on my own cost of living’.

Having known Dave for years, I can vouch that the first paragraph of his 11.03 comment would be what he intended – and I couldn’t agree more. My family paid its fair share of federal tax last year and probably a dozen other people’s as well (we also received $10,000 last September in the baby bonus, but that’s another issue), but that is fine if I know that I live in a country that tries to give everyone a decent education and relatively good health care. I don’t want to be the richest guy in a third world country.

People should see handouts as a debt – I received this so now I owe my community to pay it back, whether in cash or in kind.

What I do resent is when people accept a hand out but don’t take the opportunity to contribute back. If you are on the dole and there is an opportunity to work or study and you don’t, well then you lose my sympathy for breaching a social contract.

Part of this is the governments fault. Handouts should be better directed. An un-means tested handout is just daft. Ultimately people should be encouraged to pay their own way and only receive help when necessary to maintain a community’s standard.
The flip side to this is that a person should be rewarded for being diligent and responsible. It’s like having the foresight to maintain insurance against hail damage. Of course, the reward should not be that another person has to suffer, such as in the recent bushfires -whom can justify the argument that the government should not rebuild my neighbours house because he didn’t have insurance whilst I paid the premiums and now get nothing?

What I do disagree with (although this could be an interpretation issue) is the comments regarding business. The government should play a role in any industry whose services are required by the public due to legislation. If the government creates the demand, then they should ensure responsible supply.

The only mention of Baby Boomers in the post is mentioning that the present superannuation rules, which allow people of retirement age some ridiculously generous financial gains, need to be fixed before the boomers are eligible for them.