Leyonhjelm - Pensions are charity

bordsilver

bordsilver

Well-Known Member
Silver Stacker
In the AFR:

David Leyonhjelm said:
To my fellow mature Australians, I'd like to explain something. We are not entitled to an age pension merely because we have paid taxes all our life. Pensions are not for everyone; fundamentally they are welfare, reserved for the poor.

Like many others, I have been in continuous employment since 1974 and paid my taxes each year, increasingly fairly considerable sums. But governments have not saved my taxes to pay for my retirement. Instead, those sums were spent each year. In fact, our taxes haven't even covered each year's government spending. Over the past forty years, budget deficits have been the norm, with the country now in debt to the tune of $245 billion. If anything, I and my fellow baby boomers should pay the rest of Australia a lump sum when we retire, to cover the debt we are leaving.

And it's not as though my taxes have been devoted to buying assets that will be in service for decades to come. Successive Commonwealth Governments have been selling off these assets for much of my taxpaying career. Rather, my taxes have been devoted to providing services to the voters of the day, including many from which I've benefitted, such as medical services, university studies and opera performances.

It is true my taxes have also funded the welfare state. But that doesn't represent a down payment on a pension. The welfare payments were primarily to parents, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed.

It is also true that my taxes funded age pensions, but this has been a small part of my tax bill. When I started in the workforce, there were more than seven working age Australians for every Australian aged 65 or over. There are still around five working age Australians for every older Australian now. But at some point during my retirement, this ratio will probably fall to less than three.

More to the point, my taxes have not helped every older Australian, because the age pension has never been a universal entitlement. Eligibility has been income tested since 1909, and asset tested from 1909 to 1976 and then since 1985. This is different from the UK and New Zealand, where pensions are not means tested and funded from special tax contributions.

Given the debt we will leave behind, baby boomers like me have a duty to make the asset test comprehensive. Those who own million dollar houses shouldn't rely on welfare when they can draw on their own wealth, especially knowing they can take out a reverse mortgage and avoid the need to move. A desire to leave the family home to dependents is no justification for receiving welfare funded by the taxes of people who don't even own a home.

We also need to increase the eligibility age for the age pension. Current law will lift this to 67 by 2023 and the Commission of Audit recommends a glacial increase to 70 by 2053. We actually need to get to 70 by 2027. This would mean fewer baby boomers escaping the burden of debt we've helped create. And it would also mean we don't defer fiscal responsibility forever.

Such a change would also belatedly reflect the reality of our lifespans. The eligibility age of 65 was introduced in 1909 when male life expectancy at birth was 55. Now a 65 year old is likely to live to 86. Many will remain active and healthy over this period, and those unable to work will be eligible for the disability support pension. Taxpayers should not be required to pay people of sound body and mind not to work.

Finally, before anyone complains about hypocrisy from a politician, I should point out that the scheme giving retired federal politicians a generous life pension was closed in 2004. New politicians like me contribute to a superannuation fund, the same as everyone else who has a job. And, like everyone else, whether we will need welfare in the form of a pension depends on how much super we manage to save, not how much or how long we have paid tax.

What Australians have an entitlement to is the assets we own; our houses, our superannuation, our savings. If we give in to the notion that everyone is entitled to government handouts when we are not poor, then our assets will surely suffer the death of a thousand taxes. Let's save for our retirement and keep pensions in the charity basket.

David Leyonhjelm is the Liberal Democrats Senator for NSW
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure David's long term goal along with his brethren is screening and means testing for a government program of compulsory euthanasia.

It has been spoken about many times no matter how unsavory that is to people.

Here's what has been happening in the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal...
nethchart.gif


In Australia Doctors are doing a much better job, our numbers of successful deaths without consent or knowledge is on a massive uptrend. The club is doing a bang up job.
 
Miloman said:
I'm sure David's long term goal along with his brethren is screening and means testing for a government program of compulsory euthanasia.

It's been spoken about many times not matter how unsavory that is to people.
Click to expand...
No. It is about limiting welfare payments to people who need welfare.

Well off people should not look upon the pension as an entitlement (particularly in light of the way it is "funded"). The pension should be for those that are unable to fund themselves.
 
Hilarious coming from someone who will be on a lucrative pension for life...

This bloke is an epic cock, Probs time to hassle him on Twitter again.
 
Golightly said:
Hilarious coming from someone who will be on a lucrative pension for life...
Click to expand...
David Leyonhjelm said:
:
:
Finally, before anyone complains about hypocrisy from a politician, I should point out that the scheme giving retired federal politicians a generous life pension was closed in 2004. New politicians like me contribute to a superannuation fund, the same as everyone else who has a job. And, like everyone else, whether we will need welfare in the form of a pension depends on how much super we manage to save, not how much or how long we have paid tax.
:
Click to expand...
 
bordsilver said:
Golightly said:
Taxpayers should not be required to pay people of sound body and mind not to work.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yeah there is the little bit about tax they have paid all their working lives. If they did not get robbed of hundreds of thousands of dollars they may well be able to look after themselves
 
thatguy said:
bordsilver said:
Golightly said:
Taxpayers should not be required to pay people of sound body and mind not to work.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yeah there is the little bit about tax they have paid all their working lives. If they did not get robbed of hundreds of thousands of dollars they may well be able to look after themselves
Click to expand...


Agreed!

As he said...

...What Australians have an entitlement to is the assets we own; our houses, our superannuation, our savings. If we give in to the notion that everyone is entitled to government handouts when we are not poor, then our assets will surely suffer the death of a thousand taxes...
Click to expand...
 
systematic said:
What does a desk sitting, pencil pushing politician know about work ....
Click to expand...

Maybe I should become a politician because that is pretty much all I do for a living.
 
Jislizard said:
systematic said:
What does a desk sitting, pencil pushing politician know about work ....
Click to expand...

Maybe I should become a politician because that is pretty much all I do for a living.
Click to expand...


If we all did that we would have total societal collapse in a week ...
 
The problem is that a house is treated as some holy entity. If you have a 10 million dollar house, no matter what your circumstances you should not receive any welfare. You can sell the house, buy a smaller house/apartment and live your days comfortably on the remainder.
 
bordsilver said:
Golightly said:
Hilarious coming from someone who will be on a lucrative pension for life...
Click to expand...
David Leyonhjelm said:
:
:
Finally, before anyone complains about hypocrisy from a politician, I should point out that the scheme giving retired federal politicians a generous life pension was closed in 2004. New politicians like me contribute to a superannuation fund, the same as everyone else who has a job. And, like everyone else, whether we will need welfare in the form of a pension depends on how much super we manage to save, not how much or how long we have paid tax.
:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Can someone fact check the above claim? Most sources claim that federal politicians have very generous retirement benefits:

Tens of thousands of public servants, judges and politicians are members of defined benefit funds, in which the government guarantees to pay a pension at a set percentage of their salary.

Confident that their pensions will meet their needs, these members do not face the pressure to contribute more to their funds, for instance by salary-sacrificing, in order to make sure they have enough to live on in retirement.

...those in defined benefit schemes receive high "notional" contributions, worth about half their salaries at a conservative estimate, that escape the penalties for exceeding the cap.

Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia chief executive Pauline Vamos said: "The thing about the defined benefit funds is that the caps don't really apply."
Click to expand...
 
Source: The Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948

Parliamentarians elected for the first time at the 2004 election, however, will be eligible for benefits under the [url="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012C00740]Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004[/url]. Newly-elected parliamentarians will nominate a complying superannuation fund into which contributions of 15.4 per cent will be made by the government on their behalf. These arrangements have the stated aim of bringing superannuation arrangements for parliamentarians in line with current community standards of superannuation arrangements in the Commonwealth Public Sector.
Click to expand...


Inline with Commonwealth PS for those first elected after 2004 but not inline with the general public. So the claim that it is the same as everyone else is a bit rich.
 
Miloman said:
I'm sure David's long term goal along with his brethren is screening and means testing for a government program of compulsory euthanasia.
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous, no one would support "compulsory" euthanasia. They'll name it something more acceptable, like "involuntary euthanasia" or freedomnasia, or even post-natal abortion.

And there will be a special exemptions for politicians, oligarchs and members of security agencies. Eventually the age cutoff will be shifted or weakened so it can be applied to anyone viewed as unproductive or unpatriotic.

Service guarantees life, would you like to know more?

vAQ7CmE.gif


PccovIk.jpg


would-you-like-to-know-more-o.gif

Source: Atarship Troopers
 
SilverPete said:
Miloman said:
I'm sure David's long term goal along with his brethren is screening and means testing for a government program of compulsory euthanasia.
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous, no one would support "compulsory" euthanasia. They'll name it something more acceptable, like "involuntary euthanasia" or freedomnasia, or even post-natal abortion.
Click to expand...

I think post-natal abortion would be the one that the general public would find most acceptable.
 
Maybe he needs to draw a distinction between having a "job" and "working" ie making a tangible contribution through the expenditure of energy ...

The contribution of office work to sedentary behaviour associated risk
"Sedentary time accounted for 81.8% of work hours (light activity 15.3% and MVPA 2.9%), which was significantly greater than sedentary time during non-work time (68.9% p < 0.001"

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/296
 
systematic said:
Maybe he needs to draw a distinction between having a "job" and "working" ie making a tangible contribution through the expenditure of energy ...
Click to expand...
Wow. You're a bit of a job snob. It's only "work" if you break out in a sweat. :rolleyes:
 
Revils said:
The problem is that a house is treated as some holy entity. If you have a 10 million dollar house, no matter what your circumstances you should not receive any welfare. You can sell the house, buy a smaller house/apartment and live your days comfortably on the remainder.
Click to expand...
I disagree if you happen to be living in a "home " you grew old & brought up your family in why should you have to sell it because the gov says no matter what its worth .I agree that it should be a holy entity.

Sometimes its not all about money & personally i think thats one thing the powers got right for a change
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top