The trouble with oldies is they think for themselves

If you believe the presenters at the retirement policy session at The Australian/Melbourne Institute Outlook conference — a commissioner of the Productivity Commission, a professor of finance and a representative of the Australian Council of Social Service — old people are self-serving, silly old duffers who bizarrely want to leave something to their children.

Old people are sitting on valuable houses and refuse to release any of the capital to fund their living expenses. They don’t like the idea of debt, evidently.

The trouble with old people is they don’t see their family homes as an investment asset, as well as a consumption asset, according to presenters.

And the Age Pension provides an income below what should be regarded as a comfortable retirement income — according to the self-serving estimates of the Australian Superannuation Funds Association. Yet couple pensioners maintain their wealth for years, even those with the smallest amount of assets, while they are on the full Age Pension.

Of course, the data suggest that if one of the couple dies or has to enter assisted accommodation, the financial position of the partner left at home deteriorates dramatically and wealth falls significantly. It looks as though older people are actually pretty rational, aware that life-changing events have to be anticipated and prepared for.

And how dare people die with assets intact, including some of their superannuation? Evidently we should ask ourselves whether we want tax-preferred super to become bequests.

The thing is, people don’t actually know when they will die. The fact many people still have some superannuation assets at their ­expected age of death is surely a good thing, not a bad thing, as people attempt to manage longevity risk.

The ACOSS representative in particular has it in for old people. He thinks the preservation age to access superannuation should be the same as the age of entitlement for the Age Pension. This is notwithstanding Productivity Commission data that tell us that half of males and one-third of females aged between 60 and 65 retire involuntarily. He also thinks all retired superannuants should pay a minimum 15 per cent tax on the income streams, even though they have paid 15 per cent tax on contributions and earnings.

He also wants current workers to pay much more in superannuation taxes.

If ACOSS is really interested in the welfare of the disadvantaged, it should campaign for the abolition of compulsory superannuation for people on low incomes. Not only do they pay more tax on super than they would on income, there are plenty of things they could spend the money on now — like a reliable and fuel-­efficient car, a new fridge, childcare. These people will rely on the full Age Pension one way or another.

And it might worry more about single pensioners in rental ­accommodation, the group that does badly out of current arrangements.

The interesting thing is that all the presenters baulked at the idea of compulsory annuities derived from super balances or the establishment of a government-backed reverse mortgage scheme.

I guess it’s more fun just paying out silly old duffers.