The study on health deterioration quoting Whitehall and going down the seniority ladder is good toad. Still reading it. Don’t know if it mentions status, the public school toff and same school fag would react differently to each stimulus. Also the stress on a middle or under-manager is apparently much higher than that on the head supervising. The other is a ‘gofer’ interacting above and below and responsible for the outcomes to the boss. That would be mostly men but both genders would have the same reaction I think. Would people in unsatisfying jobs at older ages die earlier than otherwise? It’s grim if you have to work in a hated job for a hated boss at survival wages and anti-social hours with no extra available for fun or pleasure, because of a late retirement age. (Women have less stress at some ages and social status and can manage better on small incomes, helping their longevity.)

Unfortunately voters vote generally with only themselves in mind and the grey block of voters is a hefty one to try and placate. I know I have never been able to have a rational debate over super with a superannuitant. “I’ve paid taxes all my life” blah blah, they say. Yes, I say, but what did your govts do with your taxes? Why did you vote in Muldoon? Why didn’t your generation do something about this problem before? etc and on it goes.

Maybe Gareth Morgan has got it right and we just give every single person a basic living allowance …

A surgeon recently referred to 80 year olds having heart surgery and that would be affected by money. Would this be state funded I wonder or privately, through having insurance, as this would be most expensive? Perhaps there should be special health insurances set up and all those over 75 could draw on it when they wanted life-extending operations. The state would just assist mobility with joint surgery, vision with eye surgery and pain relief.

(At present there is not enough money to treat child ailments and the continuing failure of early treatment for ear problems leading to disability resulting in a poorer grasp of education and loss of opportunities in future life.)

Disagree.

As of this October, you will be able to elect 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% or 10% of your income to go towards Kiwisaver, whereas Labour only allowed 4% and 8%. I think National’s numbers make a hell of a lot more sense, and make Kiwisaver a lot more feasible for many NZers. I myself am on the 2% rate, and if it weren’t for that I wouldn’t be saving at all (although my whole portfolio is down 3% thanks to the recession, but of the total money in my account I’ve only contributed about 30% of it myself).

The view that the funding of future retirement income is a real problem is not just that of the Treasury – even economists like Ganesh Nana and Susan St John, neither of whom espouse the sort of neo-liberal crap that comes from Brash and often from Treasury, agree there is a problem.

Disturbingly, no MPs were there and of the political parties only the Greens bothered to send a staffer.

I think one of the silliest things we ever did re retirement policy was abolish the surcharge that Gosman refers to at 9:49 above. Reinstating something like that (ie maintaining universal entitlement, but taxing other income of people who receive NZ Super at a higher rate) would address a large part of the problem. Brash’s “solution” won’t – it will just further redistribute from the poor to the wealthy (because the wealthy tend to live longer).

Love your opening line BTW, r0b.

The other option would be to reestablish the Super surcharge for wealthier retirerees from age 65 through to maybe 75.