That's the vision of retirement favoured by economists, bureaucrats, and policy wonks in some leading think tanks who see it as an easy way to lift the budget bottom line and boost the economy.
Some, such as the renowned economist Saul Eslake, have even suggested that retirement age be linked to average life
expectancy so that — not to put too fine a point on it — on average we'd only get the aged pension for 10 years before we die.
To keep us in the workforce longer, the economic hard-heads want to increase the age at which we can access superannuation, too.
Unsurprisingly, these policies are not popular — hence the new Prime Minister Scott Morrison's decision to dump a plan, announced by former treasurer Joe Hockey in the 2014 budget, to increase the retirement age to 70 from 2035.
"If you're a tradie or a brickie or a shearer in rural and regional Australia, you don't want some suit in Canberra telling you you've got to work until you're 70," Deputy Prime Minister and National Party leader, Michael McCormack, said.
No doubt.
Instead, people will be allowed to access the aged pension at 67 — an age requirement introduced by the Gillard Labor government, and a two-year delay from the 65 years at which people have traditionally qualified for the aged pension.
For people working in a tough, physically demanding job, 67 certainly isn't young.
Pension budget impact
But don't imagine that the pressure to delay the age at which people can access the aged pension to 70, or older, will go away.
The aged pension accounts for almost 10 per cent of the entire Commonwealth budget and it's growing. Without changes to restrict access to it, proponents argue, the costs of an ageing population will cause a fiscal crisis.
"Raising the pension and superannuation eligibility ages to 70 would yield $12 billion a year for the budget, mostly in the form of increased income tax revenue, while producing a lift in economic activity of up to 2 per cent of GDP," John Daley of the Grattan Institute, a centrist policy think tank, said.
"Given increasing life expectancy, it's not unreasonable that those who are able to, should work a little longer."
Dr Rafferty characterises the policy as punishing people for living longer.
"Why, in a world of abundance, would you cut back on security in retirement for older citizens? The idea that one of the wealthiest societies in the world can't afford to support people in retirement and has to force people to work longer is abhorrent and wrong," Dr Rafferty said.
Superannuation benefits uneven
Behind this debate are questions about where the balance should fall between collective provision and individual responsibility — and about the design of our retirement savings system.
The aged pension is one pillar of retirement savings.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Australia in effect partially privatised the retirement savings system through the introduction of compulsory superannuation.
Posts
0 comments: