Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Doing the right thing on retirement

242 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 10 Newer→ Last

  • Tom Semmens,

    The problem will be solved by cracking down on solo Mums, the wanton whores!

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1805 posts Report Reply

  • Gary Hutchings,

    In 1975 the people of New Zealand voted against a compulsory superannuation fund

    and did so again in 1997 by a fairly stonking margin
    http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/referendum/referendums.html

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 108 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I disagree with raising the retirement age. It's the only one of the Labour retirement policies I feel that way about. To me, it's false to frame it as unavoidable. We have many options to avoid it. Raising taxes, for instance. Means testing, particularly including asset testing, would be a particularly fair response that could be started immediately. CGT may help pay for it, as might compulsory savings.

    To me, some of it is about having "done your time". No one should be forced to retire, but people who have always worked doing stuff that is hard and unpleasant are simply having their sentence raised by a couple of years. People who love their work and want to keep doing it are most likely funding the pension for themselves in its entirety. That is the other side of rising life spans, that the tax take has lengthier reach too, and on people who have the highest incomes.

    The way this one is being done strikes me as stupidly generationally divisive too, which will hurt Labour at the polls. I don't like anything about it.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8500 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe,

    What retirement?

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2606 posts Report Reply

  • artig,

    Preventing people from drawing a pension while working would help even more.

    Introducing a 100% surtax probably wouldn't go down too well with voters. Neither those already receiving superannuation nor those due to retire within the next 10 years or so.

    BoP • Since Oct 2010 • 23 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    The problem will be solved by cracking down on solo Mums, the wanton whores!

    Yes. I find this in the herald conveys the thoughts of John Key. Can’t create jobs? Bash a beneficiary.
    The man is a Tosser.
    I remember an article (Listener I think) that was about Jk becoming PM. At home with sorta thing. Bronagh said she didn’t want him to go for PM job because he would become hated. Wonder how she feels now?

    Also, he is effectively hurting the one poster woman from McGehan close, who served him so well at the last election
    Grrrr

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6136 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Labour has done the right thing in starting this debate, and has put the change out a sensible distance to assuage the fear that people might feel about it.

    You know what, I see the politics of it (hey, Boomers vote. Younglings, not so much) but shall we stop trying to paint electoral calculus as either “sensible” or :ballsy”? IF raising the retirement age is a TINA moment surely the sooner the pain the quicker the gain?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11936 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Gary Hutchings,

    In 1975 the people of New Zealand voted against a compulsory superannuation fund

    and did so again in 1997 by a fairly stonking margin

    Unfortunately, that played out as a referendum on Winston Peters, rather than the concept.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18840 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    On Q&A, Steven Joyce argued that it was ridiculous to be debating this because any benefits are 40 years out
    Did he really? What a $^+# %€.
    I accept that thinking is at the heart of conservative politics but shit that's awful. Given my generation would plausibly go broke trying to pay for his generation's retirement (on current policy settings) I have no idea who/when/how my kids are going to pay for ours.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1721 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Unfortunately, that played out as a referendum on Winston Peters, rather than the concept.

    I wonder if the outcome had been different had it been Michael Cullen or Bill English promoting it?

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4270 posts Report Reply

  • Robyn Gallagher, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    The problem will be solved by cracking down on solo Mums, the wanton whores!

    That would have been so much more powerful without the insult. Even when intended as comedy, it's still awful :-(

    Raglan • Since Nov 2006 • 1857 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I would like to reiterate that I really dig the other things Labour has come up with, but this article was focused on retirement age, and I just have to dissent on that one. I'm not Maori, but from a short-lived line, both grandfathers copped it before 60. It brings home the disparity of this kind of benefit, yet another one skewed towards people who have the good fortune and treatment to actually live that long. No need to skew it even further. Nor should the accident of when I was born figure so highly in my right to a pension.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8500 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I have some sympathy for inter-generational arguments but really we all pay to support people in various ways, including superannuation. The current scheme's premises seem outdated and will need to be revisited but it's misleading to talk only about younger people paying to support older ones. There's more to it than that.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16627 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to BenWilson,

    Nor should the accident of when I was born figure so highly in my right to a pension.

    At the same time, there needs to be a solution, so it warrants the debate and if it comes before the House, eventually, due process should be respected, thus ironing out of details,via submissions etc. Labour are known to listen to the submissions and the Red Alert website is a great platform to enter discussions on age and eligibility so I don't see it as a reason to not go there now. However, National won't necessarily do that and Key doesn't want to retire so we will only see what the future may hold.
    It must be really hard to debate because it will affect everyone. Timing is going to be the one to nut out.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6136 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to BenWilson,

    I just have to dissent on that one. I'm not Maori, but from a short-lived line, both grandfathers copped it before 60. It brings home the disparity of this kind of benefit, yet another one skewed towards people who have the good fortune and treatment to actually live that long.

    Skewed toward people who may need it? When people get older and frail, they may be incapable of work and unable to look after themselves financially. I support helping such people. Were your grandfathers like this when they died? Should you die before 65/67, would you expect to be?

    We don't pay taxes to save for our retirement, we pay taxes in part to support those incapable of supporting themselves, whether it is because age or infirmity or disability. We do this not because we necessarily expect something in return, but because we would want the same done for us were our circumstances to change. People who do not become sick do not need a sickness benefit; those who are not severely disabled usually don't need a disability benefit, those who do not reach old age usually don't need an old-age pension. Would you oppose limiting disability support to those with disabilities if you had a family history of low rates of disability, and were unlikely to personally benefit?

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3000 posts Report Reply

  • David Cormack,

    Did he really? What a $^+# %€.

    The man is a Tosser.

    You know I'm really surprised at the level of invective towards National. Don't get me wrong, I tend to favour the left but crikey we're getting a bit personal aren't we?

    Suburbia, Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 216 posts Report Reply

  • JacksonP,

    Attachment

    Listening to Goff on bFM the other day he made a comment about a discussion with a 20 something about bothering with Kiwisaver when you're earning $27,000 per annum. Good point, I thought. Goff explained that if she started now, by the retirement age of 65 she would have $420,000. 'Yeah, right', I thought.

    But, checking on sorted.org.nz, he's correct, albeit in 'nominal dollars', and that is without taking into account an increase in employer contributions.

    Dropping a decent superannuation scheme was possibly the stupidest thing we have ever done as a country. The sooner we get it properly re-instated, the sooner we'll be out of the rather cavernous hole we're in.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2011 • 2135 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    David I'm not particularly a lefty nor partisan to any political tribe but I reserve the right to point out what I think are awful sentiments. And one that says "why should we care when it's not going to be our problem but our childrens'" is something I'll call out.
    It's not all tribal mate

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1721 posts Report Reply

  • Raymond A Francis, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    We don't pay taxes to save for our retirement

    I not sure that was how it super was sold to us, people my age feel we have been taxed as a form of compulsory saving for our old age and that we have an entitlement to that, don't forget we told/thought we would get it when we turned 60, so we have already given up 5 years

    I also feel we should have to put a disclaimer at the bottom of the comments on this subject as it is clear present age and expectations skew points of view

    Disclaimer: Aged 62,and have been retired (self-funded) for 5 years

    45' South • Since Nov 2006 • 540 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Raymond A Francis,

    I not sure that was how it super was sold to us, people my age feel we have been taxed as a form of compulsory saving for our old age and that we have an entitlement to that, don’t forget we told/thought we would get it when we turned 60

    It's not my fault someone has lied to you, but Super has never operated like that :-)
    Although the Cullen Fund was a start at part of it.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3000 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to David Cormack,

    You know I’m really surprised at the level of
    invective towards National.

    ...heat ...kitchen ...portal
    no more so than at a party when people behave badly
    or in sport when one team persists in 'gamesmanship'
    they get called on it
    it's politics not tiddlywinks
    so people get bagged...


    I wonder if National will tell us how they'll vote
    on Nov 11 at The UN on admitting Palestine ?
    will they (purportedly on our behalf) once again abstain
    as they gutlessly did on the recent UNESCO vote.

    The USA should be ashamed of itself too...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4888 posts Report Reply

  • JLM, in reply to Raymond A Francis,

    Disclaimer: Aged 62,and have been retired (self-funded) for 5 years

    Ditto, and I support a Universal Basic Income, partly to take all the special pleading, bureaucracy, perverse incentives and downright prejudice out of the whole debate (not from you, Raymond).

    It's been green policy for a long time. I suppose it was a bit divisive to highlight this election, but I hope it will become mainstream over the next few years. Now Gareth Morgan has come on board, it might

    Judy Martin's southern sl… • Since Apr 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • mattgeeknz,

    I'm not Maori, but from a short-lived line, both grandfathers copped it before 60. It brings home the disparity of this kind of benefit, yet another one skewed towards people who have the good fortune and treatment to actually live that long. No need to skew it even further.

    Any retirement age - 60, 65, 70 - is going to upset someone. Even a retirement age of 50 is unhelpful to someone in their 30s, say, who is given 10 years to live. However, I say moving the age doesn't make it less fair. It just makes some people less, as you say, fortunate, which is a different thing, and if the slow deterioration of mind and body can be described as good fortune. I don't think anyone can argue that they have a right to good fortune, as nice as that would be.

    I have some sympathy for inter-generational arguments but really we all pay to support people in various ways, including superannuation. The current scheme's premises seem outdated and will need to be revisited but it's misleading to talk only about younger people paying to support older ones. There's more to it than that.

    I disagree. When the government introduced superannuation, and the first to retire got welfare, which is what superannuation is, that was paid for out of the taxes collected from the workforce. They didn't save up for it first. There was no break-even point where the people working had paid off the superannuation bill for those retiring and started paying for themselves. So I don't accept the 'we paid for it' argument. Taxes collected were immediately spent to pay for our schools, hospitals and roads, our participation in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Vietnam, all of which NZers voted for or did not vote for, but which politicians nevertheless did, and the myth of 'having paid for it' lasted as long as the workforce was growing to cover the number retiring. For the first time the number of people in the workforce is shrinking relative to those retiring, and the Ponzi-like nature of the scheme is becoming apparent. We either make it affordable, or it will collapse.

    Wellington • Since Mar 2010 • 22 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to mattgeeknz,

    When the government introduced superannuation, and the first to retire got welfare, which is what superannuation is, that was paid for out of the taxes collected from the workforce. They didn't save up for it first.

    Government already had an asset base as well as revenue flows. Spending (including superannuation) is leveraged on that asset base as well. All working generations helped build those assets - which is a form of collective 'saving'.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16627 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.