An article in the SMH argues that increasing the pension age to 70 is the fair thing to do, but gives short shrift to the question everyone asks - "what about manual workers who really can't be expected to cope with their line of work to that age?" (The writer mentions that in Greece there used to be a large number of job categories allowing for very early retirement - down to 50! But that approach seems bound to be open to all sorts of rorting.)
And I thought - isn't it possible to craft some sort of solution that involves an elective part pension (one half the normal rate, perhaps?) if you want to take it at 65, or perhaps 67 now that the decision to go to that age has already been made? Maybe the argument against that is that it would encourage people to blow all their savings and superannuation early, and then maximise their government pension later. But surely there would be some ways of giving incentives not to do that? Maybe get a permanently lower pension if you take it earlier rather than later? Get greater concessions in other ways if you hold off starting the pension until 70? Maybe a free travel voucher for a $5000 holiday at 70 would be enough for some, and it could save the Commonwealth $60,000 between 67 and 70. (Voucher only redeemable using Qantas would help that company too.) Don't say I'm not giving this some deep and meaningful thought...
Yes, it may be extremely hard to live on half (or 3/4?) the current pension, but if it is limited to a few years before you go on the full rate, savings and family help (and a very short reverse mortgage?) may be able to help.
Someone's probably already thought about this, but if not, I claim credit.
1 comment:
Steve,
It is only hard to live on the pension (assuming husband and wife) if you do NOT own your own home. If you do then there is no problem at all. The Retirement income unit with in Treasury have shown this for at least a decade
Post a Comment