"Pensions should be increased" (1 Viewer)

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Who said you can't live on a single aged pension?

You can live on bread and water as well.

You can live on rocks, too!

 

[sthcross.dude]

Go on then. Live on $13,000 a year - unsupported by anybody else.CPI the pension rate ur self and then compare yourself to starving Africans for a bit of solice.

Sure champ. I'll go do that now just to prove a point to you.

Edit: and i shouldn't forget to mention that the starving Africans we will be comparing you to will be starving because they choose to be starving (in the same illogical way that pensioners choose to be financially restricted).

You don't even have to compare yourself to "starving africans" to see how much better off the average Australian is.

The pension is enough to get adequate nutrition and housing and health care is provided by the state to a large extent. We have come to expect certain items that are really luxuries and I'm saying taxpayer shouldn't have to provide those items to old people who were too stupid to ensure their own financial security.

 

[Graney]

Could you live the rest of you life on $13,000 a year?

$13'000 is seriously about twice what I live on now. Wish I got $13'000 a year for free.

Nonetheless, I live pretty comfortably.

 

[Graney]

I didn't say "collect it off the government". Go and tell every future employer of yours that you will do what ever job for $13,000 - you don't need any more money.

But pensioners don't work for the money...

 

[Graney]

So that makes them less deserving?

^ your comment is based on the premise that they make a rational and fully-able choice between a pension or an 'earned' income.

There is no reason now, and into the future, a normal able-bodied person should not self-fund their retirement. In 40+ years of employment you should be able to plan and save enough for retirement.

but as explained, the people who contribute the most to the economy don't wander around worrying about a measley $13,000 pension. It's only when someone is so insignificant in the scope of the economy that they try to over-inflate their own importance by complaining about someone who has a lesser position in the economy than them - those people who are on pensions.

No, that analogy is retarded. Like everyone in this thread, my opposition to the pension is part of a broader ideology of economic liberalism. I can hold conceptual and ideological ideas without them being based directly on my own situation, or what necessarily benefits me. I'm not just predjudiced and ignorant. Such poor people as Malcolm Turnbull and the greater liberal party and it's supporters ideologically support reduced pensions.

I'm pretty sure both sides of politics have come out and said in future people must self-fund retirement, and not rely on the government as was the case in the past.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Relevance as to why a pensioner shouldn't get a $30 a week increase

.

Well if we're going to give money charitably to people, it should go to those who need it most. The greatest need is in the third world.

Edit: Also, the politicians thing is a non sequitur. There are plenty of expenditures (eg pay rises for politicians) that are a worse use of funds than giving pensioners more money. You don't prove the expenditure is a good use by showing that it is better than some alternatives. If we are able to curtail bad uses of funds, then those funds are available for pretty much anything. So you still have to prove that it is the best use of limited funds to spend it on pensioners.

Compared to education, health care, policing and as I mention, helping those who are genuinely destitute, it is actually a very poor use of funds.

 

[Enteebee]

How do they get to the shops?

Public transport? A small, economical 2nd hand car? I support an increase on the pension because I think it's good to be charitable to those most in need and I think the government runs charity best. But it's about giving them greater luxury, not giving them essential 'basics', which they already have.

 

[Graney]

Oh yes, the waining away of more financial responsibility from the government. Perhaps the federal government can privatise something to pay for an advertising campaign to encourage this plan of yours. Smaller government, yes, yesss.. yesss.

That's the biggest load of crap ever.

Why would someone belong to a certain ideology but for their own situation or what benefits them?

Ideological belonging is determined by personal "feelings".
Personal feelings are determined by Situation.

Why are you in favor of increased pensions? It doesn't benefit yourself directly.

How do people with near identitical circumstances and upbringing come to hold opposite ideologies?

Some people use "logic" and "reason" to decide their politics.

Seeing as most of their voter-base are on and old-aged pension, or who would "feel" for those who *are* on one, I doubt it

They haven't decreased the pension because as you acknowledge it's politically unpalatable. You also obviously can't implement such a policy quickly, you have to give the population time to adjust and enforce the mentality that you must save for your retirement.

However, I am 100% certain I recall government ministers (specifically abbott + others iirc) saying that future generations, within a decade or two, will not be able to rely on the government to support them with a living wage- it's just not financially viable.

 

[Graney]

2) You're showing that you yourself are poor, because millionaires don't wander around worrying about a measley $13,000 pension that an old aged pensioner gets. Only an economically marginalised reject would care how many of their tax dollars go towards pensioners.

You're saying that rich people don't believe in economic liberalism. lol.

 

[sthcross.dude]

2) You're showing that you yourself are poor, because millionaires don't wander around worrying about a measley $13,000 pension that an old aged pensioner gets. Only an economically marginalised reject would care how many of their tax dollars go towards pensioners.

Rich people pay the highest marginal tax rate and are effected most by the cost of transfer payments. Sure $13000 sounds like a small amount, but multiplied by the amount of recipients its actually a huge expense.

A "marginalised reject," by which you seem to mean someone with a low income, would effectively pay little or no tax and thus not car anyway.

 

[chicky_pie]

Pension should be increased while dole bludger allowance should be cut the longer they stayed unemployed and leeching our tax money.

 

[sthcross.dude]

You haven't address what I said though. You're just repeating what you said initially in different words.

Still, it's irrelevant to the topic anyway.

It only came up because you decided to go for the ad hominem.

 

[chicky_pie]

Hmmm I guess $250 a week sounds reasonable. At our house we spend about $150 per week for grocery and thats covers my whole family. Also I didn't know pensions get free housing. Are you sure? Does that include electricity bills, telephone bills etc?

No they don't free housing, unless you're a elderly aboriginal. Overall, when it comes to paying rent, electrical bill, medicine and etc. They probably would be left less than $50 to spend a fortnight (on grocery) at least.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Yeah I agree with this notion

Congratulations. You agree with most obvious troll on this forum.

 

[chicky_pie]

I see. Then I agree, pensions should increase.

Yes someone finally agrees with me.

I know about this whole pension thing myself through experience, I'm actually a 67 years old on pension.

 

[Graney]

(Unless you're suggesting that ideology is biologically determined and that people can in fact be grouped into ideologies (neat and confined ideologies like you find on Wikipedia, anyway)).

I'd assume educated people make ideological choices based on the politics they've been most often exposed to, and which side offered the most persuasive reasoning.

Rather than reactionary and short sighted predjudice, which I what you seem to be suggesting.

Or because the government has enough money to not only spend on pensioners, but to be able to afford a $30 increase as well.
So those who lived before the "mentality" has been forced onto people, deserve to live on a restrictive pension?

Yeah, I agree it would be far too cruel to remove the pension suddenly now, people would die. Ideally the pension program should be scaled down over the next few decades.

I thought anything was financially viable under the Liberals? (we had nothing to worry about economically under them.. Everything was and always would be "peachy" under the grand economic managers.)

I'm not a party hack. I have never voted liberal in my life!

 

[Graney]

And how do they determine who is persuasive?

Their own situation perhaps?

So if your own politics admittedly have no objective truth or value, and you think that in a different situation, you might hold different politics, how do you believe anything? What do you mean by situation anyway? If convictions are determined by circumstances largely out of your control, how are you sure your politics are correct?

You're the dean of Sydney University. You have a course with 1 position left. Two applicants have 100.00 UAI. One went to Kings. The other went to Blacktown high. Who would you choose?

They will both easily be able to save a living wage to self-fund their retirement.

Every able bodied person born in Australia has ample opportunity to save enough to self-fund their retirement.

 

[Enteebee]

No they don't free housing, unless you're a elderly aboriginal. Overall, when it comes to paying rent, electrical bill, medicine and etc. They probably would be left less than $50 to spend a fortnight (on grocery) at least.

There's the utilities allowance. They have plenty enough money to live etc... what they don't have is a comfortable standard of living. I support making the lives of pensioners easier.

 

[Graney]

There's the utilities allowance. They have plenty enough money to live etc... what they don't have is a comfortable standard of living. I support making the lives of pensioners easier.

Is it not reasonable to expect future generations to take responsibility for providing this comfortable standard of living for themselves?

 

[Enteebee]

Is it not reasonable to expect future generations to take responsibility for providing this comfortable standard of living for themselves?

No, I think we should have a minimum standard whereby even if you're a total screwup piece of shit that hasn't looked after yourself we'll still look after you. Even if you're personally responsible for your situation, I think society is better off looking after you than not.