hey
totally get all that (and how it is brushed aside)
as a society, we seem happy to say to a 64 year old (without a job and no money) that $250 a week is what they "deserve"as welfare - to cover living.
but the exact same person, one year later at 65, society says $450 a week is what they "deserve" as welfare - to cover living.
i would think that both those payments are meant to cover living expenses so i do not understand how come the figures are different. ..... i mean either $250 is too low, or $450 is too much, cos i do not see the living expenses as being materially different between 64 years of age and 65 years of age.
the difficult question is why is the pension more than the dole? (after 27 years of compulsory super saving)
