Also was not the pension paid into the pocket of the male half of the marriage whereas Muldoon made the husband and wife equal with separate pensions. My dad had to go on the sickness benefit at 58 years. This is in another century.

My mother claimed that when his first sickness payment arrived by cheque he nearly fainted and in shock handed it to mum and told her to do the best she could. He used to spend more than that every week on his necessary comforts whereas mum had had years of of trying to make ends meet. Bless her heart.

crikey yer right , the penchun is less than me bar tab WAS in the old days , an SMOKES ! Crikey at the price they are at now would be $280 a week

"it should be quite legal

TO PUNCH A POLITICIAN !!!!!

in fact it should be compulsory !!!"


I'm not a violent person Ocker - but that's ever so tempting!

Do we get extra points for members of govt,then?!

"Do we get extra points for members of govt,then?!"

Double points and triple for Ministers!

an fer Bureaucrats , ya get a little achievement certificate, collect five fer monetary award an a wee medal of honour

Folks -
Back again to discussing superannuation, and referring to posting # 72:

YES, we must fund the increasing retirement & health etc costs - and what better (more effective) way can there be, than to start funding increasing jobs and wealth creative investments NOW - the sooner the better?

Hair splitting and niggling about marginal costs relief at fellow citizens' expense is counter productive (anti social?), and slows down or even kills the funding action needed to meet the increasing demands.

YES - we were conned by the Muldoonist election campaign in 1975 into believing the raised universal NZ Super rate entitlement at the reduced age at 60 was sustainable.
That lesson should convince us to stick firmly with the NZ Super Fund as the most reliable guarantee of better NZ Super sustainability, when invested the correct way in tangible assets as it is now.

YES - times change and policies must change, and our straightforward and popular tax funded Pay-As-You-Go NZ Super can be up-dated and still remain most simple, transaparent and tax funded by introducing a universal NZ Super Fund contributions rate into our taxation system.

This achieves steady and continuous participation by all of us, including through GST even those without taxable income, which is not achievable by even compulsory KiwiSaving.

YES - hardly anyone thought about the ageing population factor 60 years ago - which perhaps is part of the reaon why even professional economists seemed not to be concerned about the 1/6 in the pound of income "invested" in pure taxpayer - not assets - backed public debt.

BUT - how can people have more choice about when to retire than what we have now, with the freedom to work as long as we like after the NZ Super entitlement age after 6 5 without being penalized for it, and KiwiSavings being available at any chosen time after that and a 5 year membership?
Not to speak of the wealthy person choosing to retire at say 50 at no cost to anyone else at all, not even for his/her eventual NZ Super entitlement at 65, when after a number of years higher income earners' NZ Super will be totally covered for the rest of their lives by their Personal Accounts with the Permanent NZ Super Fund having reached the equivalent of $400 000.- at todays values.

Raising the NZ Super entitlement age is a defeatist surrender in favor of stretching reliance on our increasngly burdensome PAYGO from Peter to Paul for just a few years longer - and it is a cop out of wealth and jobs creative pre-funding for increasing retirement needs.

Another national advantage of the NZ Super Fund over KiwiSaver Funds is in that up to a point, the NZSF can afford to finance public works at lower interest rates than anyone else, because unlike the "bigger Nest Egg" purpose of KiwiSavings, the NZSF only helps to keep sustainable an equal rate of NZ Super for all, regardless how big a Personal NZSF Account, or how much the NZSF has earned.

On statistical evidence, Rob O'Neill of the Sunday Star Times (15th of July) suggests the beginning of this year (2012) might one day be seen as an economy turning point for New Zealand, "in which our newfound collective will to save and to decrease debt really began to pay off".

And - "Looking back, we can see the proponents of national retirement savings schemes, often shouted down in the hurly burly of populist politics, were right. But now at last, the magic of compound interest (=100% continuing re-investment) is starting to work for us".

In view of this, I appeal to all grownups concerned about the future of New Zealand, to come up with comments one way or the other, especially in relation to the already well publicised amendment of gthe NZ Super Fund into a permanent institution so that our longer living children and grandchildren under the age of 42 can also expect the same help from the NZ Super Fund, as they have helped to build up the NZ Super Fund to help financing NZ Super for our "baby boomers".

Headline news NZ Herald 26.07.12:

CHIEF EXECUTIVES (CEOs) TO KEY: GET REAL ON SUPER AGE...

They - who have no need for NZ Super, and prefer more personal control of their money through freely consumable income tax reductions rather than some of it out of their direct reach in the "Cullen" NZ Super Fund - urge raising the NZ Super entitlement age to 67 as early as possible.

Where do our Grown Ups and GreyPower stand on that?

The freely consumable tax reductions of 2009 have achieved nothing for the national economy apart from making the wealthy more wealthy, and possibly even harming our trading balance by more being consumed on overseas travel etc.

So - do we seniors and workers on modest incomes support the CEOs call for raising the NS Super entitlement age to 67 - contributing nothing (or what?) to jobs creation - or should we have more confidence in our own initiative by demanding reversal of the tax reductions of 2009, and using the extra 2.5% of GST for resuming NZ Super Fund contributions under the condition of their immediate investment at low interest rates in needed infrastructure construction, maintenance etc. as a priority at least until excessive unemployment is overcome?

So - what do you think is better - i.e. more effective economically in delivering quicker results with more widespread participation in contributions and benefits, and for better NZ Super sustainability from age 65 - compulsory KiwiSaving - or universal contributions to the "Cullen" NZ Super Fund through the taxation system?

The sooner that is clarified, the better.

New Zealand is a prosperous country primarily through the savings and investments of our farmers

At this time of crippling indebtedness the rational majority of us agrees(?) on the need to raise our national savings rate, preferably "across the board" for a more even (egalitarian?) spread of effort and earned (not donated) rewards.

But are compulsory taxpayer contributions to KiwiSaver incentives fair and make more sense economically, than direct, automatic and universal NZ Super Fund Personal Account savings built into our taxation system?

In other words - why prefer compulsory saving for KiwiSaver incentives mostly for the better off already, rather than compulsory saving directly to your own account?

What makes more common sense?

Well - are there no comments on whether a universal unsubsidised retirement welfare savings rate is more fair, egalitarian and economically effective than taxpayer subsidised KiwiSavings for mostly the better off already (by those who for whatever reason do not participte in KiwiSaving)?

With the financially educationg "Money Week" ahead of us, it is time to boost the confidence of those to whom financial health of the country as a whole is a priority over individually achievable financial success by a limited number of individuals.

The crucial financial problem unresolved so far, is in raising New Zealand's economic performance to the level of at least catching or keeping up with Australia, and poverty elimination - to be rewarded by the universal NZ Super entitlement at age 65, while still reasonably fit.

Just like the simplicity in having accumulated the NZ Super Fund to help financing NZ Super for the Baby Boomer Bulge, the same is possible also for our increased ratio per worker of longer living children and grandchildren - by resuming contributions into the NZSF (i.e. the NZ Super Fund) amended into a permanent institution of PAs - Personal Accounts.

With the savings collected through the taxation system under the condition of their immediate investment at low interest in needed infrastructure construction etc as a priority at least until excessive unemployment has been overcome, a financially self-nourishing and self-perpetuating virtuous prosperity growth circle would be established.

Then - with the NZSF financing well over 50 % of NZ Super before long, the country will be better off with NZ Super at 65, financed by the PAs of the NZSF, than with NZ Super at 67 without the NZSF.

Furthermore, the $3.3 million cost of "free meals" at decile 1 - 4 schools - (with the additional benefits of improving school attendance and confidence in the future in co-operation with govt. policies rather than with gang brotherhoods or welfare dependency) - is easily financed from the $300 million a year of taxation revenue which is not needed for financing NZ Super from the moment it is done by PAs.