Thank heavens, because if I tried, the floor would have ended up covered in blood and broken tiles and swear words.

At 68, he's been a tradie for a long, long time, working for himself rain, hail or shine, without sick days or annual leave.

It's hard work. Work I've always admired but been rubbish at.

As a kid, I remember helping with a retaining wall: carrying the capped pavers that would finish the project, only to trip and break the brick. It was the one piece missing when the wall was finished.

Another time, helping my brother-in-law plaster, the fleshy part of my palm got pinched between the top and bottom join of a six metre sheet; stuck there like Harry's tongue to the ski lift in Dumb and Dumber.

Perhaps that's why I went into an industry where the worst thing that can happen is the air conditioner gets set a couple of degrees too low.

With a mortgage and baby on the way, retirement is a long, long way away for me, but even working in a job where fingers are the most exercised, the suggestion that my generation will have to work into their 70s, seems like a big ask.

Treasurer Joe Hockey has been busy dropping not so subtle hints that the federal budget, due in May, is going to be a tough one.

It is the modus operandi of incoming governments to blame the previous mob for a parlous budgetary position and hack into spending early in their first term. Tasmanians will see it in the state budget due in August, too.

But the Abbott government risks losing part of its core support base by flagging changes to the age pension - particularly if the message of delivery remains as abrupt as Mr Hockey's.

Just as Attorney-General George Brandis failed terribly in arguing that people had "a right to be bigots" when trying to explain proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, Mr Hockey's statement that his generation might have to work until they're 70, came across as dismissive.

The image of people whose job involves hard, physical labour, toiling into their 70s, was immediately juxtaposed with the lot of our federal politicians who are awarded generous pensions from the taxpayer.

For example, Mr Hockey, if he maintains his $365,000 a year job for the next four years, will retire with an annual pension of $274,000 a year. And don't forget the travel and office perks paid out of the public purse.

There is an emerging disparity between the age people want to retire (57) and the age the government says they might have to (70).

Retirement age - the age eligible people can draw an age care pension - is currently 65. The previous Labor administration introduced changes in 2009 that will see the pension age rise from 65 to 67 between 2017 and 2023. This compares with the UK where retirement age will rise to 67 in 2028 and Canada where it rises to 67 in 2029.

Mr Abbott moved to quell the retirement age speculation, stating there would be no changes to the age pension in this budget, but that still leaves the door open for future administrations to address the issue.

Of course, Australia does need to have a conversation about entitlements and whether all those payments are affordable or necessary.

The number of workers supporting people over the age of 65 is expected to almost halve between 2010 and 2050. In the same period the number of Australians aged 65 to 84 will double, while the number of people aged over 85 will quadruple.

Mr Hockey is right to raise the issue of Australia's ageing population and what might be needed to support it, but being lectured by a politician about needing to work longer will rightly annoy a lot of people.