3 (wrong) attitudes towards ageing
Our
population is ageing. This will bring profound economic and fiscal
challenges that will require significant changes in government spending.
But it will also require us to change our attitudes towards ageing and
the aged.
There are three specific attitudes that, if changed, would go far in combating the coming challenge.
Older workers are less valuable
A recent report found more than 50,000 people involuntarily retired in 2011 for job-related reasons. A 2015 survey
showed a quarter of Australians over 50 reported experiencing age
related discrimination, and one third of managers factored age into
their decision making.
The government has responded by introducing incentive payments
for hiring older Australians but government incentives aren't always
effective in changing people's attitudes, only their behaviour.
It
is in everyone's interest for older Australians to stay in the
workforce longer. Someone aged 50 today could work for 20 more years,
much longer than someone aged 25 is likely to stay in one job.
Retirees are poor, vulnerable and need protecting by government
The stereotypical image
of a pensioner is someone struggling to get by in public housing who
may occasionally have to eat pet food. However retirees are a very
diverse cohort. Some are indeed struggling to get by, marginalised by
high costs of living (especially rent) or health concerns.
But this is not all (or even most) pensioners. 75%-80% of pensioners own their home without a mortgage, while around 30% of single pensioners and 50% of couple pensioners have more than $900,000 in net worth.
It
is condescending to think of older Australians as helpless. Just
because someone has reached retirement age does not automatically mean
they need government funding. If retirees can support themselves they
should do so before asking for taxpayer help.
I've worked hard and saved, I deserve a pension
Perhaps
one of the more pernicious myths in retirement income policy is that
the pension is a reward for working hard and paying taxes or part of
some grand intergenerational bargain.
It's not. The pension is a safety net for those who can't support themselves.
If
taxpayers end up having to pay for your retirement anyway, they don't
care if you were careful with your money while others blew theirs. The
pension should not be a taxpayer-funded reward for looking after
yourself.
Changing attitudes is every bit as important as fiscal reform in combating the challenges of an ageing population
2 comments:
If retirees can support themselves they should do so before asking for taxpayer help.
I would not conflate "asking for taxpayer help" with "receiving a welfare entitlement". Sure, where individual circumstances allow, we all have the option to not apply for Super and save taxpayers the burden of paying for it but that would be a particularly noble and selfless individual that made such a choice.
Should I feel bad that I'm not such an individual?
This is a bit the the same as well off people who moan about others not paying "enough/fair share of" tax but fail to voluntarily do so themselves.
There is no guarantee the Government will spend this extra/excess/unspent money more wisely than the individuals they forcibly take it from so I can't see how not paying more tax or taking less of an entitlement is a bad thing.
You can disagree with point 2 and agree with point 3 but still take a pension simply because you're entitled to one under certain conditions. Declining to do so is (noble) idiocy.
Legally there is no entitlement to a pension. The Government could abolish the pension overnight with no recourse. Other than losing the next election.
But the reality is that a generation has grown up expecting a pension when they grow old. It becomes part of their retirement planning. They paid their taxes, they watched their old folk receive the pension as they hit 65.
Part of my pension planning involves the pension from the state.
Post a Comment