Why Are Australians Not Kicking up a Fuss Like The French Do?

Lkaoz on 29/03/2023 - 19:25
Last edited 31/03/2023 - 23:28 by 1 other user

As of 1st July 2023 the age pension eligibility in Australia will be raised yet again to 67 years, for people born after 1st January 1957.

Our social system is declining with more and more social services being privatised and becoming unaffordable to low-income families and individuals.

Why are we not on the streets demanding better living condition and a more equal distribution of wealth, while letting big corporations get away with not paying their fair share of taxes and spending billions of dollars on nuclear submarines.

Has Australia gotten too soft?

Edit: what would it take for Aussies to get up and protest for their rights?
Edit2: definition of aged pension

Education & Work

Comments

        • reactor-au on 01/04/2023 - 09:18

          But not everyone just got here, some have been here for generations already.

        • LanceVance on 05/04/2023 - 21:48

          Someone's gonna get laid at uni..

  • LanceVance on 29/03/2023 - 20:08
    +124

    Australian's, despite our reputation as the larrikins of the world are an obedient, manipulable and compliant bunch. We make a bit of noise when we don't like something, but ultimately bend over and take it. France however where protesting is almost the national sport hold their governments to account much more than we do. Australian's by and large love rules and love being told what to do.

    • djsweet on 29/03/2023 - 20:16
      -1

      Yea order rather than chaos… not so bad some would say

      • LanceVance on 29/03/2023 - 20:23
        +34

        “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

        • mbck on 29/03/2023 - 21:42

          The definition of essential (oh sheez flashback to COVID lockdown), is going to be difficult to hash out.

          On the one hand, reducing retirement age would increase burden on tax payers (ie, middle income). On the other, increasing retirement means working longer and possibly dying before being able to enjoy the twilight of your life.

          • kaoz on 29/03/2023 - 21:55
            +7

            @mbck: Not if everyone (read: corporations) paid their fair share. ;)

            • mbck on 29/03/2023 - 22:26
              +3

              @kaoz: Hence why there's more talk (action) about world tax for corporations. Hopefully that would reduce profit shifting to other countries. The sooner the better.

              But at the moment, it's the middle class that'd be paying it either way (longer work or more tax)

            • tryagain on 30/03/2023 - 20:35
              +1

              @kaoz: Define "fair share"

              • [Deactivated] on 31/03/2023 - 13:17
                +2

                @tryagain: Fair share means other people's money.

                There's any number of ways we could make money. Sovereign wealth funds, and creating jobs for people that want them seems like a good idea to me. Instead of taxing tiny portions of things like mining and gambling, we could run them ourselves.

                Instead of doing any of that though, governments around the world have mostly resorted to printing money, running up the national debt, and hoping that growth, inflation, and previously low interest rates mean they never have to pay any of it back.

          • Chandler on 30/03/2023 - 09:50

            @mbck:

            possibly dying before being able to enjoy the twilight of your life

            Judging by the experience of some relatives, I'm not sure I'd call it enjoy…

    • ddilrat on 29/03/2023 - 23:14
      +1

      I thought the French were known to give up easily

      • LanceVance on 29/03/2023 - 23:49
        +2

        When it comes to invading forces yes :D

        • djsweet on 30/03/2023 - 11:42

          But when it comes to infighting and squabbling, not so much

      • 900dollaridoos on 30/03/2023 - 07:40
        +3

        They actually have a very proud military history. I actually feel bad for the reputation WW2 gave them despite this, well at least I would if they weren't French.

        • juki on 30/03/2023 - 13:38
          +2

          i was only because of military leaders with divergent opinions for various reasons mostly because of WW1 that killed a large portion of the population.

          french have an ongoing fantasy about revolutions (yes its not knowing their own history that it was really lead by rich parisians), they also have had decades of working like idiots (they had the highest productivity rate per head in europe if not in the world a few years back)and being paid peanuts (my biggest waste of time was working in france).

        • LanceVance on 30/03/2023 - 20:19

          Really good point, they bore the brunt of the WW1 losses which is often forgotten.

      • surg3on on 30/03/2023 - 10:09
        +7

        Any country would have fallen to Germany in the initial blitzkrieg. England saved by water

      • us3rnam3tak3n on 30/03/2023 - 16:21
        +1

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_involving_Fr…

        212 victories, 66 defeats in battle since the start of the twentieth century.

        • heal on 30/03/2023 - 20:37

          The list doesn't include Operation Torch, WW2 invasion of North Africa by the Americans. The Vichy French fought against the allies, but switched sides wihen defeat was inevitable. The Vichy officials got to keep their positions and the commander of the French was made High Conmissioner in the deal.

      • Stromae on 30/03/2023 - 17:10

        Why arent the Italians known for swapping sides when they are losing? They did it in both world wars but nobody talks about it.

    • payless69 on 02/04/2023 - 09:05
      -1

      Joh to Penny: You look so good. Can I place some hot poppers into your backyard?
      Penny: You are welcome!!

    • gfjh567gh3 on 26/04/2023 - 16:17

      To be fair, protesting doesn't actually really achieve much. The powers that be will do whatever they like
      France has worse immigration levels than us and a declining quality of life.
      Look at Occupy Wall Street - the largest protests ever, achieved nothing. It was easily broken up and replaced with Social Justice (because people were getting very close to the target with their 1%/ Wall Street focus)

      • LanceVance on 26/04/2023 - 20:06
        +1

        I half agree with you. Another good reminder is the opposition to the Iraq War, wasn't it around 90% against here Down Under? Didn't change anything. That being said I think it certainly keeps the powers that be on their toes. Since Australian's tend to be so apathetic on most things the fact that we got slammed with the most intense restrictions and mandates during Covid I think gives credibility to my theory.

        • gfjh567gh3 on 26/04/2023 - 22:34
          +1

          I should rephrase - protesting doesn't influence the Government.
          However, it may scare them as a bellwether of not just the sentiment of the populace, but of their willingness to organise.
          If they're worried about re-election, they'll back off. If they are working to a higher power, they'll forge on.

          That said, you used to be able to rouse the Lord with pitchforks. We are now unarmed. I saw footage of well drilled paramilitary police abducting key protesters, while other police had agent provocateurs making protesters look bad/running interreference with the protest strategy.
          In QLD, with mass cop resignations, the premier hatched a plan to import 500 'international' cops a year for 5 years, meaning Indonesian etc cops who would be fully armed and instructing Australian citizens. They're borderline mercenaries.

          • LanceVance on 27/04/2023 - 23:49

            @gfjh567gh3: Dark times my friend, dark times.
            What else is there to say?

            • gfjh567gh3 on 28/04/2023 - 10:51
              +1

              @LanceVance: Well, life isn't meant to be easy. There's always been evil and tyranny, that's just how it is.
              Look at the animal kingdom - every second is a fight for survival and dominance.

              I'm disappointed that my fellow Westerners are unable to learn from history and fall into the same old traps, even though we're more legible and wealthy than any society in the last 4,000 years. They allowed themselves to be propagandised and think we've transcended the human condition, all we need to do is pay a little bit of tax, vote once every 3-4 years, and the Government will handle it all. It's pathetic

              • LanceVance on 03/05/2023 - 18:45

                @gfjh567gh3: Yeah it really is. For me it just makes the below quote even more and more true. Btw I think we're currently between line 3 & 4.

                Hard times create strong men
                Strong men create good times
                Good times create weak men
                Weak men create hard times

  • SF3 on 29/03/2023 - 20:20
    +5

    Not Kicking up a Fuzz Like The French Do?

    Because they are French.

  • payless69 on 29/03/2023 - 20:25
    +9

    France has actually much more to offer to live wonderfully as they say: Savoir vivre. (knowing how to live) If it wasn't for their language I would live there.
    From all of Europe they have the least emigrants. Yet Germany has more immigrants leaving much more open space to enjoy life in France.
    France: More scenery, more culture. more reasonable diversion. More technology, cheaper travel.
    But if LePen wins the next election, things may change: Men have to learn to use toilets instead of walls and she might tighten up social spendings.
    Anybody in for a meal of snails?

    • AdosHouse on 29/03/2023 - 21:11
      +7

      I've eaten snails before, not bad actually.

  • justgooddeals on 29/03/2023 - 20:29
    +2

    French are the biggest whingers moaners and complainers.

    Everybody loves free money.

    But it’s not free. Watch them complain when their highest income tax rate goes to 60% like the Scandinavian countries

    Then they will have something to really complain about

    • Chandler on 30/03/2023 - 09:51
      +2

      Watch them complain when their highest income tax rate goes to 60% like the Scandinavian countries

      Except what proportion of the population actually pays that tax rate?

      And if they're like Australia, that'll be a marginal tax rate, so earnings over the threshold are taxed at the 60%, not your whole income.

      • surg3on on 30/03/2023 - 10:11
        +4

        You really think he has a clue what marginal taxation is?

        • mavis30551 on 31/03/2023 - 13:32

          I bet he doesn't know how to spell it.

    • UnemployedDeveloper on 30/03/2023 - 10:58
      -1

      Because you think the protesters on the street will ever get taxed at this rate like the higher end of the spectrum? 60% only applies to the ones that earn the most and only on a fraction of their income you dummy

    • smartazz104 on 30/03/2023 - 11:30
      +1

      French are the biggest whingers moaners and complainers.

      Bigger than the Poms?

  • cashless on 29/03/2023 - 20:29
    +11

    It’s not just the Australian people. UK have pension age set at 67, soon to be 68. Germany, Scandinavian countries, many other nations in Europe have retirement age put further back.
    French people, bless ‘em, might have to work until they are 64. Horrors! After a lifetime of mandated 35 hour weeks, extended welfare support and state aid all along the way, it’s hard to feel sorry for them

    • kaoz on 29/03/2023 - 20:48
      +1

      But it’s only because they dare to protest and hold their government accountable that they get to enjoy those perks. No government ever voluntarily gave their population those kind of benefits, apart from perhaps Cuba or the Soviet Union.
      I know a lot of Aussies feel sore because they never fought for these things and thus never got to enjoy a true welfare state. Imagine, tho, the possibilities for the Australian working class if we actually demanded that our government cared for its citizens rather then just for mining companies and foreign investors….
      If we stopped tax avoidance by corporations, lobbying and funding of a unnecessary submarine fleet(among many other things), we could actually afford to house the roughly 120.000 homeless people, pay healthcare and aged care workers a proper wage, make childcare free for all parents, provide free education and aged care for everyone and , just on the side, stick to our promised goals - or even better, go beyond - the targets of the Paris climate accord. We could automate jobs to free up time, not to ratchet up production and work more…

      • p1 ama on 29/03/2023 - 20:56
        +9

        No government ever voluntarily gave their population those kind of benefits, apart from perhaps Cuba or the Soviet Union.

        I actually legitimately agree with the rest of your points around a welfare state, but come on now - Cuba and the Soviet Union? Like come on, you could have at least picked Denmark or something.

        • kaoz on 29/03/2023 - 21:43
          -7

          Cuba and the Soviet union massively improved the welfare systems for the average citizen after dictators and tsars have hoarded the wealth and exploited the working people for decades. These were revolutions from the ground up.
          Denmark hat a lot of struggles in the 60s and 70s for more social benefits and now the retirement age is 67 in Denmark as well :/

          • p1 ama on 29/03/2023 - 21:46

            @kaoz:

            Cuba and the Soviet union massively improved the welfare systems for the average citizen after dictators and tsars have hoarded the wealth and exploited the working people for decades. These were revolutions from the ground up.

            You would think that "revolution", and "government voluntarily giving their population…" are diametrically opposite…

            • kaoz on 29/03/2023 - 21:53
              +2

              @p1 ama: Well it was the newly established governments that afforded the people these rights and benefits. ;)

          • CruelTwist on 30/03/2023 - 08:52
            +11

            @kaoz: Spoken like someone who never lived in Soviet Union. I was born in Soviet Union and it is obvious to me you have no idea what you are talking about. There was no "benefits" for population, we all lived equally bad, unable to buy everyday necessities simply because the shelves at the stores were empty.

            • kaoz on 31/03/2023 - 09:46

              @CruelTwist: May I ask what year you were born?
              I was specifically talking about the rights that the SU granted to its citizens in the 20s. I’m not an apologist for the SU, I know many things went wrong, especially in the latter years under Gorbachev.
              But early on I believe they tried hard to build a new and just system.

            • the wiz on 01/04/2023 - 16:32
              +1

              @CruelTwist:

              we all lived equally bad

              Sadly, that's precisely the objective for many. Far better than rewarding effort, sacrifice, risk and innovation.

              Because envy equality.

          • TexasVujicic on 30/03/2023 - 10:27
            +3

            @kaoz: dare you to go ask someone whos just escaped Cuba.. or those who escaped the USSR, what they think of their welfare systems, or just the lifestyle in general.

            • kaoz on 31/03/2023 - 09:48
              +2

              @TexasVujicic: The fact that Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems in the world and that there’s no homeless people or starving children, despite 60+ years of intense sanctions, has me favouring Cuba to be honest. If they were left to do their own thing, on a level playing field without sanctions, I believe they could achieve even greater things. Don’t fall for the US propaganda.

      • cashless on 29/03/2023 - 21:37
        +9

        Another thing to consider is that French State Pensions are not means tested. The Age Pension in Australia is. We are largely left alone to sort our retirement out with Age Pension only kicking in when we are on the skids (or at least living close to poverty).
        In France, due to the welfare system you are entitled to lifelong state funding regardless of your status/income/assets.
        Is that a fair system?

      • mbck on 29/03/2023 - 22:31
        +3

        The defence part is a tough one. Others in the region are pouring money into their "defence" (and potentially offence). If history has taught us about empires, it's weak military will result in some sort of loss of sovereignty. Countries with power will bully you.

        Obviously I'd hope not, but it'd be too naive to think a certain country is spending to eventually do nothing.

        The issue with the submarines was, why the heck did we choose a french one in the first place? That showed the short-sightedness of government bureaucracy.

        Essentially, I don't think it's as easy as, let's spend less on defence. I think it's more that corporations should be paying their fair share of tax. And governments should be less wasteful.

        • Chandler on 30/03/2023 - 13:30

          why the heck did we choose a french one in the first place?

          Likely (being government) that if you follow the money, you may find your answer.

    • Windows7forever on 31/03/2023 - 20:20

      It certainly reinforces the French reputation for laziness.

  • AngoraFish on 29/03/2023 - 20:37
    +35

    Dragging welfare recipients through the mud is an Australian political sport.

    Welfare recipients self-evidentially prove their unworthiness and inability to understand the value of hard work due to their failure to land a high paying job, to have rich parents or to participate in multimillion dollar superannuation tax minimization schemes.

    It's a sport that's consistently played by all significant parts of the Australian mainstream media, which competes with each other every day to be the one to tell us how extremely important it is that we all understand how completely impossible welfare is to afford.

    So impossible is it to afford welfare, in fact, that any widening of the recipient base threatens our ability to reward wealthy property investors with tax breaks, a reward that proves how hard working and astute investors they are while continuing to jack up rents again this year by another 10%.

    And welfare is definitely not affordable if we're going to have to find $368 billion in taxpayer dollars to fund nuclear subs 30 years from now to protect us from hordes of Chinese on boats streaming through the Timor Sea.

    And demonizing welfare recipients also offers two political parties, let's call one Bad Cop and the other Good Cop, and therefore by definition the Australian community as a whole, the advantage of knowing that all our political leaders share the common goal of protecting us from the hoards of lobbyists paid by rent seeking rich people should anyone float silly ideas about increasing or even maintaining our existing tax base, such as by not offering individuals earning $120k or more massive tax breaks in addition to the multiple incentive programs they also have access to, which by the way are definitely NOT middle class welfare, not even a little bit.

    • kaoz on 29/03/2023 - 20:50
      +6

      Amen to that!

  • p1 ama on 29/03/2023 - 20:53
    +24

    As of 1st July 2023 the retirement age in Australia will be 67, for people born after 1st January 1957.

    Some food for thought:

    The retirement age was set at 65 in 1909, when the average life expectancy was around 60 years old, and the average school leaving age was 14. Today, the average life expectancy is around 80 years old, the average school leaving age is now around 20 years, as most individuals now complete some form of post-secondary education.

    Basically, people today live 20 years longer, and begin working 6 years later than when the retirement age was set in 1909. The population is rapidly ageing and the number of people we will have to support on the aged pension will continue to increase over time unless we adjust accordingly.

    The reality is that as we begin working later, and end up living longer, we will simply need to retire later. Most people understand this.

    Why are we not on the streets demanding better living condition and a more equal distribution of wealth, while letting big corporations get away with not paying their fair share of taxes and spending billions of dollars on nuclear submarines.

    This is a complete non-sequitur from the last point.

    Obviously we should not be allowing tax evasion and spending money on nuclear submarines. This has nothing to do with the retirement age.

    • AustriaBargain on 29/03/2023 - 20:55
      +1

      What is the expected life expectancy of males born in 1958? I'm sure it's not 80 years old.

      • p1 ama on 29/03/2023 - 21:00
        +6

        This reminds me of my actuarial subjects back in uni!

        Based on the latest life tables (which are 2017-19, but current enough): https://aga.gov.au/publications/life-tables/australian-life-…

        For a male who is 65 years old (i.e. born in 1958), their expected "life left" is around 25.7 years, i.e. just above 80 years old. It's on cell G60 if you wanted to verify.

        • SpainKing on 30/03/2023 - 12:46

          What sort of microplastics were they slurping back in the 60s?

        • kingsville on 30/03/2023 - 13:16

          Isn't 25.7 (in G60) the expected life left of a 58 year old male?

          For Age=65, the e is 19.9, therefore live to about 85.

          Not my field, just curious.

          • Chandler on 30/03/2023 - 13:52

            @kingsville: You're right. On that table, age 65 = 84.86 years, age 58 = 83.73.

            But note that this data is from the three years 2015-17 (not 2017-19). So your age 65 person on that table would have been born between 1950 and 1952.

            For a person of age 65 this year, they would be in the 57-59yo bracket on that table, and would thus have a life expectancy of between 83.60 and 83.87 at that point in time (it will likely differ on the next round of data).

      • GordonD on 29/03/2023 - 21:10
        +4

        The average age of death in Australia is 81 for men, and 85 for women. The life expectancy of a man born 81 years ago in 1942 is 81, and a woman born 85 years agoin 1938 is 85. And both are steadily trending upwards, barring only the temporary effects of pandemics. The rate of increase is 0.18% per year. So the median age of death of a man born in 1958 is expected to be about 84.

    • kaoz on 29/03/2023 - 21:13
      +7

      I beg to differ, with all due respect. The French protests are not merely about the raising of the retirement age. People are also protesting the involvement of the French government in the Ukraine conflict, the right-shift of political parties and the slow erasure of the welfare system, among other issues. That Macron forced through this law without going through parliament was just the last straw for the French people.
      What I’m trying to get at is that because of such things as tax avoidance and those stupid subs, there’s no money for welfare projects like pensions or housing for the homeless. At least that’s what the government would have you believe.
      I think it’s also important to point out that average life expectancy can be misleading. People back then used to get just as old as people today, but there was a higher infant mortality rate and a lot of people died young because of dangerous working conditions. This tended to skew the average down.
      In the same breath, though, my partner works in an aged care facility and over the last ten years more and more people in their early sixties are being admitted. Those people never got even close to enjoying their pension, and the trend seems to continue. Now they’re stuck in a facility that eats up all their life savings, with loads of them having to sell their houses to afford care for the coming years. Meanwhile the next generation - who’s already got a tough time getting ahead in life - will have to start completely from scratch.

      • payless69 on 29/03/2023 - 21:31
        +4

        French drivers MUST carry 2 alcohol testers because the maker of them was related to government. Each occupant must at any time have access to a yellow his vis vest and upon a breakdown can not leave the car without wearing one. Again the maker was related to govt members. Road toll fees are huge to benefit multinational cooperation's. Govt workers enjoy 32h weeks while private workers are expected to work 38h a week. Plenty for the French to be angry against the govt.

      • p1 ama on 29/03/2023 - 21:39
        +8

        I beg to differ, with all due respect.

        Differ with what, exactly?

        People are also protesting the involvement of the French government in the Ukraine conflict, the right-shift of political parties and the slow erasure of the welfare system, among other issues.

        Sure, but your first sentence is literally "As of 1st July 2023 the retirement age in Australia will be 67, for people born after 1st January 1957." - I'm with you on the other points, but they have nothing to do with the retirement age.

        What I’m trying to get at is that because of such things as tax avoidance and those stupid subs, there’s no money for welfare projects like pensions or housing for the homeless. At least that’s what the government would have you believe.

        I agree - we should be spending money on more valuable things - e.g. education, healthcare, welfare…etc., as opposed to nuclear submarines. Again, this has nothing to do with the retirement age.

        I think it’s also important to point out that average life expectancy can be misleading. People back then used to get just as old as people today, but there was a higher infant mortality rate and a lot of people died young because of dangerous working conditions. This tended to skew the average down.

        These are all irrelevant points - why people are older on average is irrelevant, the reality is that they are older on average. The percentage of people above 65 today is higher than in 1909 and increasing.

        The reason why people are older could well be that they are not dying as infants (hence increasing the number of older people), or not dying in workplace accidents (hence increasing the number of older people), or not dying in car accidents, have better access to healthcare…etc.

        In the same breath, though, my partner works in an aged care facility and over the last ten years more and more people in their early sixties are being admitted. Those people never got even close to enjoying their pension, and the trend seems to continue.

        This is completely anecdotal, however, even if what you're saying is true, it is an argument for making the years where one works better - i.e. a four day work week, or mandated employer support for longer periods of leave…etc.

        Now they’re stuck in a facility that eats up all their life savings, with loads of them having to sell their houses to afford care for the coming years.

        Again, this is a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the retirement age.

        Meanwhile the next generation - who’s already got a tough time getting ahead in life - will have to start completely from scratch.

        And also support an increasingly ageing population.

        • Superjia on 31/03/2023 - 02:46

          You destroyed him/ her with your logic.

    • xtremehell on 29/03/2023 - 21:56
      +1

      The welfare state didn't really exist in 1909, though, so having a high pension age would have been intentional. WWI nor the great depression (in which many went hungry with no social safety net) had even happened then, let alone WWII after which the welfare state really began to develop.

      Since the GDP and productivity have going up massively thanks to technology etc, the retirement age could stay the same as it was.

  • Ocker on 29/03/2023 - 20:56
    -4

    Another first world problem

    • deme on 29/03/2023 - 21:00
      -1

      China's Pension is: pension age is 60 years for men, 50 years for blue collar women and 55 years for white collar women.

      • p1 ama on 29/03/2023 - 21:04
        +5

        Don't be a misleading shill, the sentence you are quoting is:

        Normal pension age is 60 years for men, 50 years for blue collar women and 55 years for white collar women. The basic pension pays 1% of the average of the indexed individual wage

        Have fun on your 1% of average indexed individual wage.

      • oO0Dam0Oo on 30/03/2023 - 19:25
        +1

        We are more than happy to export our slave labour to countries like China and India for the benefit of having access to cheap products as long as its not in our back yard. Out of sight out of mind.

        Manufacturing meanwhile is too expensive in Australia.

    • franco cozzo on 30/03/2023 - 04:41

      lol….not even close

  • GordonD on 29/03/2023 - 20:59
    +14

    Increased retirement age.
    Low speed limits and strict enforcement of them in a big empty country along with huge penalties by world standards for not just that offence but so many others.
    The longest strictest COVID shutdowns in the world, with huge penalties for breaking them.
    A foreign policy that is whatever Washington says, including pointlessly heading off to war periodically and wasting way more than similar countries on the military.
    Way higher level of immigration than most Australians want producing horrific house prices that our kids can't afford.

    And I could cite so many more. You might agree with them, or disagree with them, but the acceptance of them says that whatever we Australians think our national characteristics are, the fact is we do what we're told by the people who think they're our betters. The British used to be the ones that told us what to do, and we still accept our status as subjects of British royalty. Now its America that tells our government what to do, and the media that tells us individually. And we do it. The last thing an Australian would do is stand up, straighten their spine, raise their head, and say "no". And as an Australian I say that with great sadness.

    • kaoz on 29/03/2023 - 21:21
      -3

      While I agree with most of your points, I disagree that immigration drives up housing prices. Greedy property investors and real estate agents drive up prices, and we need the government to step in to regulate rental prices and enforce higher taxes on people with multiple properties.
      If you asked me, I would even limit the number of residential housing units any one person or company can own to 5. This would drive down prices and free up short term accomodation for renters and home buyers.
      But yeah, I agree on all your other points

      • drprox on 30/03/2023 - 16:48
        +1

        This is literally demand vs supply economics 101. So whilst you're right capitalism and tax breaks and greed all make a difference so too does the demand side which MUST increase as our population increases thus driving up prices.

      • p1 ama on 30/03/2023 - 20:47

        I disagree that immigration drives up housing prices.

        It does, the question is whether higher housing prices are actually necessarily a bad thing.

        Greedy property investors and real estate agents drive up prices

        So one group of people purchasing property drives up prices, but another group of people purchasing property does not?

        How do real estate agents drive up property prices?

        we need the government to step in to regulate rental prices and enforce higher taxes on people with multiple properties

        How does that deal with the situation we have now? We have a rental supply issue where people are willing to pay above market rates for a rental. Imposing a ceiling on rentals will drive down supply and if you were homeless before, you're still homeless now.

        I would even limit the number of residential housing units any one person or company can own to 5.

        Sure, and what percentage of people will this actually impact?

        https://pearlfinancial.com.au/invest/how-many-australians-ow…

        0.5% have 3 investment properties or higher, 0.2% have 4 investment properties or higher, 0.07% have 5 investment properties or higher.

        Well done, your moronic policy has addressed 0.07% of the population and will have zero impact on housing prices more broadly.

        This would drive down prices and free up short term accomodation for renters and home buyers.

        Yes, when you address 0.07% of the population. Well done…

        You are the reason why we can't have nice things. I actually agree with you politically - if you listed 10 goals that you wanted, I would likely agree with you. It's just that everything else you say is completely non-sensical and you just play into the stereotype that left-wing policies are "pie in the sky nonsense" written by complete idiots.

        • kaoz on 31/03/2023 - 20:48

          Higher housing prices are a bad thing if that means people can’t afford to pay their mortgages or are excluded from entering the housing market. Likewise with renters, who in some cases have to pay around 30% more in rent, or they gave eviction. And where are they going to go when all prices in a given suburb are likely rising at similar levels? I don’t know what things are like where you live, but over here in WA people are having literal bidding wars to get into a rental. It’s ridiculous.
          I blame a lot of that on short term accomodation and the property investors that own large apartment complexes only to rent them out on Airbnb, thus reducing the amount of available rental units for the growing populous. You should know this.
          As convenient as they are for holiday makers, in the long run, as we’re seeing now, they become unsustainable for long-term rental seekers who need a place to stay and can’t afford to purchase their own place.
          The reason why I believe real estate agents are also to blame for the increasing property prices is because it’s in their best interest to sell properties at the highest prices possible - it’s their job after all inflate prices to get better outcomes for their clients and themselves. Again this is basic stuff and shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.
          People aren’t willing to pay above market rate - they’re not paying their landlords a tip because they live their rental so much - they are forced to pay more in a highly competitive rental market or risk becoming homeless. Anyone with children would do anything to avoid losing the roof over their heads.
          I don’t understand why you’re feeling so defensive of the current system that clearly isn’t working for the masses, but only for the property owning class.
          My argument about limiting the amount of properties people can own, also included companies, which are arguably not in your mentioned statistics and many of whom are owning entire apartment complexes that are bent on increased profits and in some cases, again, are being used for short term accomodation, again reducing the amount of available long-term rentals. It’s a snake eating it’s own a$&.
          To drive the point home, those 0.7% - roughly 20.000 people, own at least 100.000 homes (because they own “at least 5 homes”)
          Hell yeah, by all means go further, if that doesn’t address the issue enough and limit the number to 2 per person.
          In the situation we find ourself in at the moment, we need to take drastic action to alleviate the burden the poor and low income families are dealing with. This might reduce the income of the wealthy a bit, but we’re a social democratic society, not a feudal autocracy.
          And my “moronic policy” (btw I’m not a politician, and not even very eloquent at that, as English is my second language) clearly called for the government to control rental prices, thus having a direct impact on rental prices overall. Please read this stuff properly before going on a long-winded rant.
          One final note; I know we have been living in this system for such a long time now that it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible for a lot of people to even try to envision a different economic, social and political structure. But I firmly believe that we should at least try to make our world a better place. Yes, we will make mistakes along the way and we’ll never be able to please everyone, but we should do everything we can to try and improve the material conditions of the people and strive for a truly sustainable way of living for everyone.
          It may be pie-in-the-sky for some, but so was the 35-hour work week and paid vacation a mere hundred years ago, and look what the protesting French have achieved since then. They’re not just nitpicking online posts all day, they’re out on the streets under the banner of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, fighting to improve the conditions of ALL their fellow countrymen.

          Best of luck to you, my friend.

  • deme on 29/03/2023 - 21:01
    +1

    For context: https://www.oecd.org/els/public-pensions/PAG2021-country-pro…

    Life expectancy at birth 76.7
    Normal pension age is 60 years for men, 50 years for blue collar women and 55 years for white collar
    women.

    Australia is the Country with the oldest retirement age at 67
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_age

    Japan's is 64

    • kaoz on 29/03/2023 - 21:27
      +2

      Thank you for providing the links!

    • mbck on 29/03/2023 - 22:37
      +2

      Uruguay is 70 huh

      • Guybrush57 on 31/03/2023 - 06:21
        +1

        What did you call me?

  • brendanm on 29/03/2023 - 21:06
    +4

    Isn't this just for the age pension? Age to access super is lower. Super has been mandatory for about 30 years or so.

    • p1 ama on 29/03/2023 - 21:07
      +1

      Yes, you can access your super from 60 (or even lower).

      • brendanm on 29/03/2023 - 21:33
        +2

        Yes, so my point was that this isn't going to matter for most people.

  • gakko on 29/03/2023 - 21:13
    +2

    Higher pension age makes sense given higher life expectancy. *shrug.
    I'd rather more funding for health care and education than for pensions.

    • kaoz on 29/03/2023 - 21:23

      We could afford all these things if we had a progressive government that actually worked in the interests of the population instead of their corporate friends.

      • p1 ama on 29/03/2023 - 21:45
        +6

        We could afford all these things

        That's patently and empirically false though - the most progressive countries in the world all have high retirement ages.

        The five most progressive countries (based on the Social Progress Index) are Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland. (FWIW, Australia is 11th on the list). They all have very high retirement ages - Norway at 67, Finland at 65, Demark increasing to 69 (for those born after 1967), Iceland at 67, and Switzerland at 65.

      • brendanm on 29/03/2023 - 21:58
        +3

        government that actually worked in the interests of the population instead of their corporate friends.

        Pigs will fly before this happens.

  • Ghost47 on 29/03/2023 - 22:07
    +2

    "She'll be right mate."

    • Protractor on 30/03/2023 - 13:26

      Not any more.
      It's "up you Jack, I'm alright"
      and it has been since Howard rubber stamped it.

  • plmko on 29/03/2023 - 22:26
    +5

    The riots aren't about the retirement age. The pension issue was just the final straw.

  • saltypete on 29/03/2023 - 22:56
    +3

    We are living much longer, so working more is fair enough in most people’s view I guess.
    BUT. If we live longer, why aren’t other things keeping up with this?
    For example - jail time for murder/manslaughter? If we live longer, more of victims likely lifespan taken - so why haven’t the the punitive portion of sentences also gone up? Given that the guilty party will also live more years after prison.
    Death by dangerous driving? Same.
    Probably others…..

    Im not convinced penalties are fair and wonder if they should be higher in consideration of the number of years stolen from crime…
    Interested in what folk think - and alternative views on this too.

    • Jolakot on 29/03/2023 - 23:36
      +4

      If it was based on increased lifespan, then men would retire years earlier than women

    • p1 ama on 30/03/2023 - 00:18

      For example - jail time for murder/manslaughter? If we live longer, more of victims likely lifespan taken - so why haven’t the the punitive portion of sentences also gone up? Given that the guilty party will also live more years after prison.

      I'm curious what the data on this actually shows - there's a lot of evidence which shows that prison sentences, in general, have actually increased over time. However, I'm not sure whether that's because punishment for specific crimes have gone up, or if people are (on average) being charged with more serious crimes.

      • Protractor on 30/03/2023 - 13:40
        +3

        Not sure about longer sentences.Litigation has made a mockery of justice. These days every man and his dog play the PTSD,autism,mental health card to avoid anything from serial arson to serial murder.
        As a defence strategy it works well, as a protector of the community it's a joke at our expense.
        eg you can light a bushfire that wipes out a thousand houses, razes 100K hectares of ecology,does millions of dollars damage and not spend a day in jail or pay a cent. Isn't life grand that you had no illness before the event, but found one lurking in the back room when the judgement day approached.And with bushfire arson, look at what the max sentence is, then look at the longest sentence ever given, and how long served.
        It's ridiculous that in some states you can serve 6 months mandatory sentences for a driving offence that doesn't harm anyone anything, and yet some drivers kill people and play the mental health card and escape justice.It is just demeaning to those with mental health conditions, to watch the lawyers game the system.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join