Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.
-
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.
-
Congratulations! How is baby's Mum?
Pics for the peeps any time soon?
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Damian Christie,
And grand coalition? Never. Entrenched hatred - even I'm surprised talking to MP friends from both sides how much they loathe the opposition.
They also loathe being the opposition. I think it probably wouldn't work, but not because of hate. It's because of pride, that both major parties' senior people believe that when you're in government you call the shots, not the other guys. The idea of forging consensus with those other guys goes against the grain.
However, if times are dire enough, that pride can sometimes be sacrificed. These are pretty dire times, especially for NZ.
It's not what I'd want, ideally, of course. I'd prefer a left coalition.
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Danielle,
Sorry Ben.
No need. I am curious, though, what your ideal retirement would be, if you had only modest savings. What sort of things would you do?
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Damian Christie,
Arguably Maori/Mana/United/Greens could go with Labour, whatever that would mean.
It would mean a first in NZ history, that the party with the most seats was not in government. I don't know what the outcome of that would be. It could be seen as just a happy part of how MMP works, that a majority was actually formed out of the minorities, and the real majority thus actually happy. Or it could do huge damage to minor party support, and polarize people towards National. Much would depend on what that coalition actually did.
I also don't know what it could mean if the Greens supported National in a coalition. It could pull them apart. But they could also wrest very big concessions, and thus have their greatest win of all time, swelling their own support amongst right wingers, who have often cited their only reason not to vote Green being the leftist economics.
A further possibility, not to be discounted, is a Grand Coalition. That would be the most stable and natural alliance I can actually see working. Labour could concede partial asset sales to get compulsory savings and CGT (neither of which are particularly opposed by the conservative base), and some more asset development.
If that happened, it could be the beginning of a new era of consensus politics. Or it could be the catastrophe that destroys one or other main party.
If the Nats refuse this outright, it could paint them into the neoliberal corner that I believe their leadership really infest. They might have to negotiate new leadership. B'linglish?
I can't understand why people don't find this election exciting. To me it has the potential to be the dawn of a new era for NZ politics.
As Bomber and his panel pointed out last night, this is a lot closer than people realize. A 5% swing could change the entire makeup of government.
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Danielle,
There's a big difference between being socially valued (which older people could do with more of, no question) and being 'encouraged' to stay in the paid workforce.
Indeed. With a universal benefit they could "retire" at any time they liked.
(I come at this from a diametrically opposed place to you, Ben: I have almost no desire to continue working into my seventies. Fuck that. I'll be old. I could be doing something fun instead.)
I don't think you're diametrically opposed at all, you're about a hair's breadth from my position. I think even that gap comes down to taking my reference to responsibilities as meaning "paid employment". It surely does not mean that to me at all. I mean things like "spending time with your grandchildren" and "getting involved in many things you never had time for before". The more old people are encouraged to do these things, and the more younger people value them, and are seen by the old to value them, the happier society will be, right across life spans.
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Damian Christie,
I'm not sure if bulbul is a parody, but there are some substantive points raised there, amidst the hostility. I think that making some kind of enemy of the generation is foolish. I don't see the baby boomers as a lost cause, whose deaths we can only anticipate. I want reason to be seen well before then, and they are perfectly capable of it. Like National Party voters, I don't think all of them are just about class/financial strata interest. Many genuinely believe National will make things better for the country. I just happen to think they're mistaken, at the moment.
Also, purely in terms of self interest alone, there is a big case for the "what to do about pensions?" debate happening now. Because if it's left too much longer, and their numbers begin to drop off, they could seriously end up chewing on some pretty drastic measures by a totally bankrupt nation.
To that end I'm very, very stoked that Labour has made this a central plank with some quite important and radical (by the standards of the last 30 years) policy suggestions. I hope this continues beyond the election, if they lose.
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Damian Christie,
I would like to see a means-tested superannuation, just like every other benefit. I don't think that's unreasonable, even if everyone else does.
I'm for it. The only question is about how generous the means test is. There's some fucking rich people getting pensions. It could be that, say, the median house value is not counted, but any assets beyond that are counted in some way that adds up to them working like income.
It would, IMHO, very rapidly help solve our property inflation problems, because pensioners with all their money in property would actually have to seriously consider cashing it up.
It's not my favourite thing to do with benefits, but that is so radical that I don't see it happening for at least 20 years. I think we should have a universal benefit. The very concept of retiring is something I find creepy, it's like the financial death preceding the physical one (which is often preceded also by a social and mental death). The process of getting old and becoming useless is a horrible industrial offshoot, totally at odds with human nature. Instead, the old should be slowly changing their responsibilities, dialing down the more intense ones, and falling back to roles that are less about power and technical ability and more about helping the next generations through, and preserving the history of their times. They should feel valued until the day they die. Which in many cases, is well before 65.
-
Zum Wohl. Quite literally "To Health". The winner will be the healthiest drunk in town!
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 492 493 494 495 496 … 1066 Older→ First