[MeverikcNils]

I see this regularly. People over 65 still working. That was the legal retriement age here. The age at which they paid the social security pension. They quietly pushed back that age to 70. Almost no one knows this. In reality, they told us all to fund our own retirements which is called superanuation. Like a 41K. They were still going to take the money in tax but not pay back in pensions. That was 20+ years ago.

So as with everything the Government gets it self into, the opposite of what they promise is the outcome. Intended or otherwise. It bothers me to see 70 year old people still working because they have to. It makes me sad. It also bothers me because I'm seriously worried I'm going to end up there as well. Working right until the end when I drop dead. I don't think I know anyone who is at retirement age who can afford to retire and a couple of them are 70. I always felt the super (sic) system was liable for a substantial lose like the pension ended up being. If you are on wages it's compulsory to have a "super fund" and to pay a minimum % of wages into the fund. I never liked it because it's at the mercy of Govt legislation which slowly over time takes away any benefit of saving a large chunk of change. The other side is cost to business. As employers they have to contribute to the fund, a cost which recently increased by 3%.

There are income levels where you can get a tax advantage by stuffing your super fund. Not many have the right income and can afford the money. I don't think many funds have made growth in the past 5 years. Most have lost, some as much as 25% while the remainder held their ground, managing to cover fees and costs. As a young person, I wouldn't like to be some one looking at contributing to one of these for the next 50 years.