-
Yesterday, 07:33 PM
#4271
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by dobby41
Neither do I but I wonder what the cost will be of means testing.
It has often been said that the cost would outweigh the benefit but I have never seen actual figures.
From what I have seen of Australia's system it is complicated and probably costly.
Based on the information provided in the search results, the administrative costs of means testing in Australia's retirement pension system can be estimated as follows: The overall operational costs of the benefit system in Australia, including means testing, are approximately 3.6% of total benefit outlays. This figure includes depreciation of assets and assumes equal administrative effort across all benefits. To put this in perspective, the search results compare Australia's administrative costs to those of the United States Social Security Administration, which are estimated at around 1.4% of total benefit outlays in 2013. It's important to note that:
- This 3.6% figure covers the entire benefit system, not just retirement pensions.
- The cost includes all administrative aspects, not just means testing.
- Comparing costs across countries with different administrative arrangements may not provide a perfect like-for-like comparison.
While the search results don't provide a specific figure for the cost of means testing alone, they suggest that Australia's targeted approach, which includes means testing, is relatively cost-effective. The country manages to achieve low public pension outlays as a proportion of GDP while maintaining low poverty rates among the elderly. The search results also indicate that the potential economic efficiency gains from a well-designed means-tested system may outweigh the administrative costs and potential disincentives to work and save. However, more research is needed to fully understand how to best capture the efficiency-improving potential of means testing.
I haven't read this document. https://mrdrc.isr.umich.edu/publicat...df/Piggott.pdf
MEANS TESTING PENSIONS: THE CASE OF AUSTRALIA
This policy brief was likely written sometime between 2014 (when the age 70 proposal was announced) and 2018 (before the age 70 proposal was abandoned).
-
Yesterday, 08:07 PM
#4272
Yikes the conservative govt did want to raise retirement to 70 in AUS didn't they. A figure of 67 was settled on as a compromise.
What employment do they think a 68 year old is suitable for?
Last edited by Panda-NZ-; Yesterday at 08:11 PM.
-
Yesterday, 08:31 PM
#4273
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by Panda-NZ-
Yikes the conservative govt did want to raise retirement to 70 in AUS didn't they. A figure of 67 was settled on as a compromise.
What employment do they think a 68 year old is suitable for?
Almost anything.
-
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by ynot
Almost anything.
At 68 more people would start to need afternoon naps, reaction times would be slowing, and technological changes could be more if an issue. Obviously there are exceptions. Those who have had more physical jobs, will have bodies that are wearing out more than those who have had more office-type jobs. More sick days will be needed, and for those who are self-employed or in the “gig economy” it would be extra tough for them.
-
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by Bjauck
At 68 more people would start to need afternoon naps, reaction times would be slowing, and technological changes could be more if an issue. Obviously there are exceptions. Those who have had more physical jobs, will have bodies that are wearing out more than those who have had more office-type jobs. More sick days will be needed, and for those who are self-employed or in the “gig economy” it would be extra tough for them.
Speak for yourself. I know several 70+ years old actively in work, mostly self-employed to be fair, and living highly productive working lives and putting the 20 to 30 years old on the unemployment benefit to shame. How many on the jobseeker benefits - 100,000+.
Case in point, Alex (real name) is 71 years old and works as a scaffolder. He recently went through a hip replacement operation (funded by medical insurance) and was up & walking in 3 days. Will be returning back to work in 2 months.
Compare abc contrast with solo mums producing ever more babies from multiple partners so they can receive the benefits and not work.
-
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by Balance
Speak for yourself. I know several 70+ years old actively in work, mostly self-employed to be fair, and living highly productive working lives and putting the 20 to 30 years old on the unemployment benefit to shame. How many on the jobseeker benefits - 100,000+.
Case in point, Alex (real name) is 71 years old and works as a scaffolder. He recently went through a hip replacement operation (funded by medical insurance) and was up & walking in 3 days. Will be returning back to work in 2 months.
Compare abc contrast with solo mums producing ever more babies from multiple partners so they can receive the benefits and not work.
As I said, there are exceptions. Gee, I know a lady in her 80’s who still cleans out the guttering on her house and her younger neighbour’s. Also a fellow in his 70’s who works as an oddjobber (although he selects his jobs and when he works). I guess we should push retirement age for everybody out to 80 plus then.
What has your trope of a polyamorous solo mother got to do with it?
Is your scaffolder getting sick pay during his convalescence? Or, Has he got private income insurance?
Last edited by Bjauck; Today at 10:16 AM.
-
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by Bjauck
What has your trope of a polyamorous solo mother got to do with it?
Solo mothers are having (or have at least had) sex. Anything to do with sex gets Balance all excited.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks