- July 8, 2007 at 5:52 pm #103549
oldkiwikidMemberMember since: November 26, 2006
I saw a disquietening thing on the news the other day. Bill English was talking about super and said he thought that 66% of the average wage was too high for super. John Key was very non-committal when he was asked for his views. While I don’t like a lot of Auntie Helen’s policies, at least she never cut the super, in fact she raised it (at the insistence of Winnie). All the cuts that have been made to benefits as well as super, have been made by the National Party. I would like to see a change of Government but at this stage I don’t like the alternative. What do you all think?July 9, 2007 at 2:36 pm #103550
Muldoon cut our super , Macully put our rent up to market rates , they took away our first super plan because todays oldies were yesterdays greedy and were just that GREEDY .You may want a change but please , give serious thought to those of us who went through it before . Sooner the wine I know than poison I knew.July 9, 2007 at 3:15 pm #103551
trogan – don’t you remember that Muldoon did not cut, but raised our super to a level nearly bankrupting the country? (He reduced the eligibility age to 60, and raised its rate to 80% of the average wage, but had to start cutting it all at the next election. And we were all misled by some professional economists that it was “all right”)!
At least he gave us back all the money we started accumulating under the Norman Kirk Fund, whose author was, I believe, the then Labour’s Finance Minister youngish Roger Douglas.
Well, old kiwi kid – since Winnie is the only politician to support all Cullen/Helen’s super- and KiwiSaving efforts, and courageous enough to insist that this is not only the way to better sustainable retirement prosperity, but also the key to accelerate our economic growth rate to catch up with Australia and make everything else we desire more affordable – like higher wages, tax cuts, health and welfare services – why not encourage and support Winnie to carry on for the benefit of New Zealand, not foreign financiers?
He only needs say 10% of the vote to be an influential coalition partner, and look what he has achieved at present with only 5% support. Cheer up, old kiwi kid – Jens.July 9, 2007 at 3:18 pm #103552
bobbityMemberMember since: September 14, 2006
No government can satisfy all of the people all of the time I reckon. National will not only cut Super if they can, but they will definitely try to bring back asset and income testing and reduce us to povefty levels again. History repeating itself.! At least the way it is now, we can have an extra income without beind penalised.
I do know there are other considerations when electing a government, but every one votes for the one that is going to help themselves and their families the most don’t they? (There are probably exceptions to that)
Leave well enough alone if things are ok.?July 9, 2007 at 3:53 pm #103553
bobbity – if we leave things as they are without efforts to meet increasing demands, we will begin sliding backwards again. Please consider to support the future through increasingly widening saving, investment and ownership of what we need and want. – Jens.July 9, 2007 at 7:07 pm #103554
Please Jens ,don’t put RGs name on this comment , Just the thought of him and Prebble is enough to bring me out in hives .July 9, 2007 at 8:39 pm #103555
Sorry, trogan, I thought we are relaxed and happy enough to let bygones be bygones, and be thrilled by trying to improve the future instead.
I better be more careful what I say about the past,if mentioning names in association with ideas, the names might evoke stronger emotions about the idea, than the idea by itself. – Jens.July 10, 2007 at 1:54 am #103556
bobbityMemberMember since: September 14, 2006
Yes Jens..I was meaning that a new government would be just as faulty as the last one anyway, but in different ways iof course. But implementing CHANGES for the better is always good.July 10, 2007 at 9:54 am #103557
bobbity – your realistic optimism is the kind of fresh breeze that will do us good now and for the elections in 2008. – Jens.July 10, 2007 at 11:38 am #103558
I can honestly say I have no idea who I will support in future. At present there is only one man in Parliament that I can say I trust and he is on his first term. It seems to me that they all go in with ideas to change things then get sucked into system of good living and the power struggle. I’m sorry Jens at one stage I thought Winston was about to make a stand, now I find him arrogant and self opinionated. It seems to me that he is only interested in keeping himself in a job rather than helping anyone else.
At Home, At Peace and Causing Trouble In South TaranakiJuly 10, 2007 at 2:10 pm #103559
EmelleMemberMember since: December 5, 2006
Trogan,we’ve been racking our brains as to whom you refer as (whisper)RG in the above comment in conjunction with (whisper)prebble.Do you really mean RD?I hope you don’t break out in hives.
I have often wondered what prebble was up to and how much power he had at the time to completely,singlehandedly ,cover up the sinking of the MikhailLermontov in a place it should never have been anyway.50 crew on board disappeared into NZ,no divers were allowed to have a look,and the reports have been sealed up till some future date.Why?At the time,Winston asked about it but was scoffed at.
Emelle.July 10, 2007 at 3:42 pm #103560
Sorry about that Emelle , RD it was and don’t worry when I heard your whisper I dashed over and grabbed the brandy bottle , very medicinal . By the way did you know that one of the lifeboats from the Mikhail was used as a place for eating in Picton .July 10, 2007 at 3:47 pm #103561
There are a lot of unanswered questions after the whitewash on the Mikhail.
At Home, At Peace and Causing Trouble In South TaranakiJuly 10, 2007 at 5:05 pm #103562
I don’t think there is anything mysterious left about the sinking of the Mikhail L. to allow for the emergence of conspiracy theories (or am I too dumb to notice some bull for a joke?), but I have no complaints about Winston.
He was not acting like a sulky child nor inflexible ideological fanatic when taking the opportunity to serve the country as Foreign Minister and govt. stabiliser, and he is doing a good job, isn’t he?
He also managed to increase NZ Super despite both main parties not having offered to do it, and introducing the Gold Card will take us a step closer to what the highly saving Australian economy can afford for their retirees.
Increasing the police force – and more law and order eventually – is also NZ First’s initiative under Winston despite only the barely 5% support he got in 2005. Let’s give him at least 10% support in 2008, and he could become the saviour of theLabour govt., if the polls continue as at present. – Jens.July 10, 2007 at 5:28 pm #103563
I believe in MMP, but I would never vote NZ First or Green. Sorry you will never convince me about Winston after watching some of his antics on TV
At Home, At Peace and Causing Trouble In South TaranakiJuly 10, 2007 at 6:34 pm #103564
leminMemberMember since: June 2, 2007
I am what all politicians hate, a swinging voter, as we all know some are totally loyal to one party. I will vote for whoever I think is best for the country, which in turn is good for you and me. I do not think any of them will reduce Super, a lot of Grey votes.July 10, 2007 at 6:55 pm #103565
Jens , please , your vocabulary is way past my interlectual ability .Such as conspiracy , ideological and such like .If W has done that to you I really must brush up on my profound nescience of the english diction or stick to my usual run of the mill vocabulary.
Having said that I really enjoy your posts but sometimes find them a bit hard goingJuly 11, 2007 at 7:52 pm #103566
If there was an election next wek, who would you be voting for, if you don’t know what National stands for, apart from tax reductions?
If you are happy with Helen and Michael to carry on, their most likely saviour at present would be NZ First, when it will answer the question: What are you standing for? Clearly with: THE OWNERSHIP SOCIETY!
Will National and Labour then compete for being better leaders to that, or oppose it as undesirable or impossible?
Why not make up your minds on that, Bryan, trogan, and let us know? – Jens.July 11, 2007 at 8:07 pm #103567
EmelleMemberMember since: December 5, 2006
What,actually,was the question?
EmelleJuly 11, 2007 at 9:01 pm #103568
Indeed, Emelle, we seem to have lost the focus!
The original question – as you can check up with Old Kiwi Kid at the beginning of this site – was concern about the future and better sustainable security of our universal superannuation entitlement from age 65.
I have been arguing, that the best political option on this is NZ First and Winston. What do you think? – Jens.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.