Retirement options.

Alarm expressed by many at the proposal that the retirement age be lifted from the present sixty-five to sixty-seven.
It sounds draconian, but a little careful thought reveals that there are possible benefits to both the retiree - and the country.

When the present retirement age was set the life expectancy was much lower and many people only lived less than five years on the pension. Today those retiring at sixty-five can expect to still be drawing the pension twenty years later.

Australia is facing a shortage of people to fill jobs. The number of children per family has been steadily dropping and the shortfall is being made up by migration.
With greater life expectancy those approaching sixty-five have a great store of skill and knowledge that can be put to good use. Employers are starting to see the wisdom of hanging on to older workers whose dedication and punctuality is legendary. Many hate the thought of compulsory retirement - and would gladly extend their working life by several years.

The tax office needs to have a long, hard look at what is involved in a longer period of employment. Workers who remain on the job past sixty-five do not draw the pension - and that saves the government money.
At the same time, they remain taxpayers - and that contribution is massive as most are on senior salaries and many are in management positions. It would be fair if these contributions were rewarded.

A scheme is in place where those who do not retire - and do not draw the pension - get a solid cash bonus when they do finally retire. This is not taxable - but it was full of inequities. For instance, if a person died before reaching the nominated new retirement age this bonus was not passed on to the spouse or family - and was simply confiscated by the tax office.
The scheme needs a thorough review to attain the element of fairness - without which it will be rejected by retirees.

Most people would reject a plan to make the pension unattainable until sixty-seven. Many will not have sufficient health to keep working beyond sixty-five but with goodwill on both sides it is possible to craft a scheme that suits those who are happy to continue working, and at the same time save the government a mint of money.

If such a scheme is to work it must be rewarding to both sides. It will fail if from the government view it is all " take ". If a retiree continues to work and save the government pension money - and at the same time remain a taxpayer - there must be a guaranteed reward to make that worthwhile.
Anything less is doomed to failure !