Aged pensions in Australia: a background

Something I have thought throughout my life is that it is possible for governments to invest money for future purposes - this is, in fact, being demonstrated now by the future disasters  funds (which has wrongly not been accessed), and internationally by similar sovereign  wealth  funds. My view has always been that aged pensions should be paid by the return on the investment of a portion of the taxes I have paid - and that economists who claim that this results in money not being used are either incompetent or liars, as they are saying money invested from private or public sources into the same activities has a different outcome - despite being put to the same use!

The notion that aged pensions should be paid for by other taxpayers is utterly absurd.

I have now found that there was a historical basis for this - that our Second World War government actually used this as a fund raising measure (links below), and later governments stole the money (just as governments have irresponsibly - stupidly so - stolen money that was being accumulated for replacement of infrastructure in my home state, in the 70s/80s [there are smaller  programmes now] - I cannot find an online link, but it was discussed when I was studying for my Engineer of Water Supply). 

There are a few things we, as a society, need to come to terms with: 

• taxes are necessary for a reasonable life; 
• as we move to a no-growth economy, we are going to HAVE to live off balanced budgets (one of the reasons economists argue deficits don't matter is that they are a much smaller percentage of future economies - which will no longer happen once we have finished decarbonising our economy and stopped population growth);
• when you build or obtain something, it (a) needs maintenance, and (b) has a finite life, after which it needs replacement.
  One of my regrets is not keeping a personal allocation of funds for that purpose going after I bought a boat to live on and subsequently wound up ashore but with step-kids. I'd urge you, Dear Reader,  to, if you can without failing on other obligations to dependents, do what I failed to do.
  This concept for forward planning and prudence applies also to groups - up to and including nations. One of the reasons my home state wound up with railway signalling that was dangerous was decades of people finding excuses to put off spending money (at least that is now being fixed - particularly with the road and rail separation projects, which is a lifesaving project - and the signalling was improved in the 2000s, and is being further improved). A more extreme example of that problem can be found in the USA (see here, here, here, and here), which has had decades of people in political positions (whether elected or appointed) currying voter favour by cutting back spending - and that has killed quite a few people over decades, and hopefully whatever was left of Biden's infrastructure bill will address that.
  Planning ahead also includes planning for aged care pensions, and increased health needs as people age.
  The claims that such measures are "unaffordable" (i) ignore decades of failure to plan ahead (or even THINK ahead), and the reality that taxes CAN  BE  INCREASED - or at least recovered more equitably from large corporations and the ultra-wealthy. Such claims are, in my opinion, signs of ideological bias, incompetence, or mistruths made for political purposes.
  

The notion that people "need" private superannuation - especially given the appalling  performance of so many - is nonsense.

The alternative that was implemented during WW2 is outlined at: 

• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/berg-chifleys-political-time-bomb-70-years-in-the-making/5480154; 
• https://cairnsnews.org/2017/01/18/malcolm-fraser-stole-your-lifetime-pension-contributions/; and 
• https://morningmail.org/who-stole-the-pension-fund/.
  

What we need - especially in response to the climate crisis - are governments that: 

1. are not afraid to spend when and where it is needed (which includes on social needs - unless you want food, anti-tech or other riots, as have happened throughout history [see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here] );
   
2. will tax equitably (i.e., ensure corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a reasonable rate/amount); and 
3. are unafraid of persuading their electorates of the importance of raising taxes when it is necessary.