Our aim is to be your guide to living life to the full. The keys to staying vital and active for longer are within our grasp! Read more...
Become a GrownUp and join our Community. Stay up to date with our weekly newsletter, discuss topics with other members, grab some great member-only offers and so much more.
Select the radio station you would like to listen to live.
Member since 08 Sep 2006
Member from Kamo
Superannuation: what are the facts about this as opposed to what people might think?
Member since 23 Nov 2009
Member from Stratford
As in what?
Member since 18 Jul 2008
Member from Porirua
I see the police are now on a pay freeze.
Superannuation re raising the age of eligibility or not.
I have been reading conflicting ideas but there never seems to be any substantial info. Is the position Key is taking of not necessary to raise the age of eligibility or Labours who are planning to raise this?
What will happen if it isn't changed and what will the gain be if it is????
If we don't raise the age of eligibility then either the workers will have to pay more taxes to pay the same level of superannuation OR the level of superannuation will have to be reduced.Given the people on superannuation will form the biggest voting block it will be unlikely the government of the day will offend them but equally they won't want to increase taxes so amybe the reduction services has to come elsewhere. Health is unlikely as an aging population means higher health costs. education is unlikly as we have seen what happens when a government tinkers with that.Basically John is pushing the hard decision onto a future government.Cheers
If we do raise the age of eligibility then the government pays out less superannuation as fewer people are eligble to recieve it. If this happens the government of the day doesn't have to raise taxes or cut services.
An alternative to raising the age of eligibility is to introduce means testing so that the rich don't get as much superannuation and that saves the government money too.
Member since 03 May 2006
Member from Point Chevalier
Hero 42, in order not to offend anyone, it might be best to discuss superannuation on the new Superannuation thread, where the question is posed for comments:
If the NZSF helps to get us over the Baby Boomer Bulge, why not use it to help keeping NZ Super sustainable for the longer living retirees after the Baby Boomer Bulge, and keeping the entitlement age 65?
By amending the NZSF into a permanent institution for achieving that, it will credibly extend John Keys commitment not to raise the entitlemnt age into the future beyond his terms of office.
With all the increased national (and personal) wealth created that way, how can there not be a cross party accord on that eventually?
Member since 31 Jan 2007
Member from Mosgiel
I presume these Labour branch members are so happy to see that raising the age to 67 68 69 is great as it will keep our young School leavers out of work for a bit longer as the workers on the 67years etc will stay in the job longer . I feel sorry for those such as Carpenters ,Plumbers and etc who have outworked their bodies with hard manual work will have to carry on so that eventually instead of having a retirement to enjoy will probably have an early demise. I suppose this is what the Labour Group want so as not to have to pay out so much superannuation. But then "This is the Labour Way " of reimbursing their workers . I can remember in my Labour days singing at Labour booze ups " The Labour Class can kiss my a---e" the whole song I have forgotten only this chorus springs to mind.
Member since 13 Jan 2010
Member from Alicetown
BennyOnce again you have completely missed the point.It is not people retiring but people reaching the age of eligibility. Once people hit 65 they start getting paid superannuation even if they are still in work. Winston Peters is a prime example of that. And more and more people are staying in work after age 65 because they cannot afford to retire so adjusting the age of eligibility doesn't effect the job market at all.The country cannot afford to pay people superannuation at the age of 65 unless they raise taxes or cut pensions. Which of those options would you prefer?
Or we increase the numbers of people working and paying taxes.
Or we income test the pension.
Or we re-prioritise the tax spend.
Or we stop subsidizing employers.
Or we stop bailing private businesses out of trouble.
Or we raise the rates and make saving for retirement compulsory for employees and employers.
It's not TINA yet.
Member since 02 Apr 2008
Member from Orewa
missed one arandar,
Or we stop gifting the maori gravy locomotives
Oh true, that's another possibility. Add it to the list.
I'm sure there's a constituency for it, comprising a small number of human dinosaurs and a smaller gang of neo-nasties, I wish you well of each other.
To post a comment on this discussion please log in or register