Nat/act/nzf 2023

[moka]

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:

1. This 3.6% figure covers the entire benefit system, not just retirement pensions.
2. The cost includes all administrative aspects, not just means testing.
3. 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).

[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?

[ynot]

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.

[Bjauck]

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.

[Balance]

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.

[Bjauck]

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?

[davflaws]

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.

[dobby41]

Solo mothers are having (or have at least had) sex. Anything to do with sex gets Balance all excited.

It seems that kissing arses gets him excited - he keeps asking for it.

[dobby41]

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.

Wow - such generalisations.

As I said, there are exceptions.

More than you think.
This is one reason given for raising the age. When the age was 60 it generally gave people a few years of relaxing before they dies.
Then they started living longer so the age changed to 67.
Now 70 is the new 50 so after retirement at 65 people are living another 17 years on average rather than more like 65 when super was first brought in.

[Bjauck]

Wow - such generalisations.


More than you think.
This is one reason given for raising the age. When the age was 60 it generally gave people a few years of relaxing before they dies.
Then they started living longer so the age changed to 67.
Now 70 is the new 50 so after retirement at 65 people are living another 17 years on average rather than more like 65 when super was first brought in.

Sure 70 may well be new 50 for some occupations and socio-economic groups. However some at 65 may also be struggling to maintain the old 65 and it may be worse for maintaining quality of life. Also what is the effect of reducing home ownership rates on some from both a physical and psychological effect?

So How do you know the exception rate is more than I think? Indeed any age restriction, whether upper or lower, is subject to generalisations. Just because people are living longer does not necessarily mean they live better. Illnesses and diseases have more treatment and management options. So a period of managed ill-health can be longer too.

Also with funding restrictions for public health and medications coupled with private health insurance tiers for those with various levels of wealth, there is considerable variation in longevity and quality of life options. So is a one-size fits all retirement age even still fit for purpose?