English proposes raising age of super to 67 (eventually)

123 comments on “English proposes raising age of super to 67 (eventually) ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Enough is Enough 1

   6 March 2017 at 4:12 pm

   Bill just lost the election.

   He cannot do this!!!

   Typical Tory cuts
2. Brutus Iscariot 2

   6 March 2017 at 4:13 pm

   Right, so only the Young Gen X and below end up copping the hit.

   FUNNY THAT!!
   • AB 2.1

     6 March 2017 at 5:56 pm

     Yep – student loans, unaffordable houses, exorbitant rents, immigrant competition for jobs, stagnant wage growth, increased automation and offshoring removing middle-class jobs and now delayed superannuation.
     Basically a lifetime of debt serfdom for most of the under 40’s except for those that will have access to inherited wealth or the few that will get very high-paying jobs.
     We are heading back to the 19th century folks – levels of inequality will reach and then exceed those that were see seen before WW1.
     Oh – and highly likely a f*cked planet to go with all that.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

       6 March 2017 at 6:59 pm

       +1111

       Except that it’s probably more likely to be the 15th century. Give the Tories enough time and they will bring back serfdom and/or slavery. They’ll just call it something else so it doesn’t technically go against current laws.
       • Craig H 2.1.1.1

         6 March 2017 at 8:38 pm

         Serfdom wasn’t as bad as often thought – this stuff is worse than Serfdom.
     • Shane Le Brun 2.1.2

       6 March 2017 at 9:23 pm

       I would be super stoked if it kicked in in say 2025, increasing more slowly though, My parents, and my wifes parents can both afford to push back the pension….. could also means test it to age 70 before it becomes an entitlement.
   • Dan 2.2

     6 March 2017 at 8:04 pm

     Raise taxes on any wealthy boomers, and dilute the impact of housing speculators would help redress the inequities of this change of tack by the Nats.
3. Ovid 3

   6 March 2017 at 4:13 pm

   The intergenerational war continues.
   • Brendon 3.1

     6 March 2017 at 4:51 pm

     Yep by 2037 all the baby boomers will already be over 65 years old so this doesn’t solve the problem of how to fund baby boomers retirement.

     Bill English tax cuts which he funded by stopping the contributions to the Cullen Fund means the baby boomers will not contribute as much as they should for the burden they will put on NZ society.

     But as they as they are such a big demographic -they are untouchable…… cynical political move by Bill.
     • greg 3.1.1

       6 March 2017 at 7:22 pm

       the fucken boomer’s refused to help fund there retirements there greedy fuckers. they stole our future all those greedy fucks leave is debt for the rest of us.
4. Carolyn_nth 4

   6 March 2017 at 4:13 pm

   I hope this becomes a dead weight that causes the Nats to sink below swimmable level in this election.

   Do they seriously think 20-40 year olds will be happy with this? Or solve the issue of the large boomer generation currently entering retirement age?
   • tangled_up 4.1

     6 March 2017 at 4:24 pm

     I guess they’re hoping that because it won’t affect anyone even close to retirement now, then there won’t be a big fuss, now.
   • fisiani 4.2

     6 March 2017 at 4:47 pm

     Show me a 20-40 year old who reckons this is a surprise. You cannot.
     • AB 4.2.1

       6 March 2017 at 6:19 pm

       Show me a 20-40 year old who is happy about it
       • Fisiani 4.2.1.1

         6 March 2017 at 7:15 pm

         Unhappiness causes vote change Happiness is not relevant
     • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2

       6 March 2017 at 7:01 pm

       No, I’m pretty sure that all the 20 to 40 year olds are quite used to getting screwed over by the older generations.
   • weka 4.3

     6 March 2017 at 7:01 pm

     This election will be won or lost on perceptions of the competency of the left. What say ye Labour and the Greens?
     • Fisiani 4.3.1

       6 March 2017 at 10:08 pm

       The Left keep getting blindsided by National. Watch for the next poll and another rise for National.
       • weka 4.3.1.1

         6 March 2017 at 10:53 pm

         You know who were Baby Boomers?
5. Ad 5

   6 March 2017 at 4:16 pm

   Can’t understand why he would deploy the worst of all combination: increase age but not for anyone born before 1974.

   Plenty of softer options available.

   Also no acceleration of NZ SUPER payments.

   Also no tinkering with length of time resident in NZ to qualify.

   Also no compulsory Kiwisaver.

   Also no NZ SUPER Kiwisaver fund option.

   Also Retirement Commissioner AWOL so not coming out in support. Nor anyone else.

   This is an exceptionally cack-handed policy release. I almost miss Key.
   • dukeofurl 5.1

     6 March 2017 at 4:41 pm

     You will only find that out after the election that the soft changes will cut in sooner.
   • james 5.2

     6 March 2017 at 4:42 pm

     “Also no tinkering with length of time resident in NZ to qualify.”

     I thought it went from 10 to 20 years.
     • fisiani 5.2.1

       6 March 2017 at 4:48 pm

       It does from next year when the legislation passes.
6. Muttonbird 6

   6 March 2017 at 4:17 pm

   Asset-testing, or GTFO!
7. esoteric pineapples 7

   6 March 2017 at 4:24 pm

   A huge number of New Zealanders are spending their entire working lives living in Australia and contributing to its retirement pensions, only to return home to live and collect the benefit in New Zealand.

   Australia doesn’t have the same problem.
   • indiana 7.1

     6 March 2017 at 4:30 pm

     I don’t think you understand how super works in Australia…
   • Carolyn_nth 7.2

     6 March 2017 at 4:31 pm

     Well, if they only return to NZ at retirement age, I think they will not be eligible for an NZ state pension.

     If they didn’t earn enough in Aussie to be above the Aussie state pension, means tested level, then they will get the Aussie pension deducted from any NZ state pension they are entitled to.

     If they cash in an Aussie property, plus have some occupational pension and some savings, any NZ pension they’d get would probably be lost in taxes. So why would they bother coming back here?

     Seems like a red herring to me.
     • Jenny Kirk 7.2.1

       6 March 2017 at 6:30 pm

       To esoteric pineapples – When NZers apply for superannuation (when they reach 65), they’re asked if they ever worked elsewhere – such as Aust, Canada, UK – and the details of that, so the NZ Govt collaborates with whichever country it was and have some sort of arrangement that the amount of super the person would have received in that country, comes across to the NZ Govt.
       • Carolyn_nth 7.2.1.1

         7 March 2017 at 8:54 am

         Almost how it happens. Yes its a collaboration with some countries. But the other country pays the pension to an NZer who is eligible and applies for it. These days WINZ pretty much forces people who are eligible for an overseas pension to apply for it – ie if they have lived more than a year in a non-NZ country.

         Then the receiver of the pension declares it to WINZ when they apply for NZ super. WINZ deducts the amount of the overseas pension from their NZ super entitlement.
8. Bill 8

   6 March 2017 at 4:27 pm

   If successive governments hadn’t enabled the (mostly off-shore) financial sector to hoover up productivity gains while slashing and burning the tax base, and had instead governed in a way that ensured gains from productivity were invested back into society for the sake of general well being, then there would be absolutely no need for this bullshit. (Has Labour back-tracked on raising the age of retirement btw?)

   Anyway, what proportion of the population worked in the 50s or 60s? Children and non-workers and retired people were easily provided for back then when one taxable income sufficed for a family.
   • Xanthe 8.1

     6 March 2017 at 5:01 pm

     I agree, sort out the movement of money offshore and erosion of the tax base and there is no need, this is fighting fire by burning down the shed. And i am saddened that Labour has also bought into this crap
   • weka 8.2

     6 March 2017 at 7:12 pm

     Please write a post about this, even a short one.

     (And yes afaik Labour have taken raising the age off their agenda).
9. Sorrwerdna 9

   6 March 2017 at 4:27 pm

   Crikey people it is only 2 years extra -were you whinging when Labour proposed this in 2014????????????
   • Bill 9.1

     6 March 2017 at 4:28 pm

     I was dead set against it then and I’m dead set against it now.
   • McFlock 9.2

     6 March 2017 at 4:31 pm

     lol yes the policy passed completely without controversy when Labour proposed it /sarc
   • Enough is Enough 9.3

     6 March 2017 at 4:37 pm

     Fuck Yes I was
   • Ovid 9.4

     6 March 2017 at 4:37 pm

     If you look at the superannuation tag you’ll see there have been a range of opinions expressed on this site about raising the superannuation age.

     If it has to happen, I appreciate the lengthy lead-in time, but I’d rather it didn’t. I’m much more in favour of reinstating government contributions to the Cullen Fund.
   • Anne 9.5

     6 March 2017 at 6:36 pm

     When Labour proposed a policy that was remarkably similar the whole country had a collective nervous breakdown – especially the Nats. Looking forward to hearing from our rwnjs who will, no doubt, suddenly have a 180 degree change of heart on the subject.
     • Ski 9.5.1

       6 March 2017 at 7:30 pm

       Anne, I am your classic RWNJ, I applauded Labour when they proposed it and I applaud National now.
       The data is irrefutable on this issue
       • weka 9.5.1.1

         6 March 2017 at 7:32 pm

         “The data is irrefutable on this issue”

         True. Our retirement policies are racist and classist.
         • Dale 9.5.1.1.1

           6 March 2017 at 9:04 pm

           Racist? Really? How?
           • weka 9.5.1.1.1.1

             6 March 2017 at 10:03 pm

             Māori and Pacifica die earlier. Raising the age means they get even less time in retirement.

             “Mihingarangi Forbes‏ @Mihi_Forbes

             Average bloke has pension 13.3 years unless you’re Māori that’ll be just 6 years. #RNZ #LifeExpectancyWoes”

             https://twitter.com/Mihi_Forbes/status/838596769822826497
             • weka …

               6 March 2017 at 10:05 pm

               “Ppl w intellectual disability have life expectancy of 60 years & not always bc of their conditions. Not all of us are living longer. #nzpol”

               https://twitter.com/ezbear/status/838630446116134913

               Lots of inequities in Superannuation.
             • Ross …

               6 March 2017 at 10:10 pm

               Men die younger than women, so you could argue the policy is biased against men! And married people live longer than single people. So single people are disadvantaged.
               • weka …

                 6 March 2017 at 10:50 pm

                 Yes.
                 • Ross …

                   7 March 2017 at 7:08 am

                   But that’s just a fact of iife. Those who are under 18 can’t drink or vote – I wouldn’t call that racist or sexist despite the fact that Maori will have fewer opportunities to vote than non-Maori. The pension has to kick in at a certain age. It’s inevitable the age of eligibility will rise, unless of course there are cuts to social services.
                   • weka …

                     7 March 2017 at 7:23 am

                     It’s only inevitable if we make the growth economy more important than people. TINA is a lie.

                     Why would Māori have fewer opportunities to vote due the 18 age restriction?
                   • Ross …

                     7 March 2017 at 5:57 pm

                     Why would Māori have fewer opportunities to vote due the 18 age restriction?

                     For the simple reason that they don’t live as long as non-Maori. I’ve never heard the argument that the voting age of 18 is racist. But I guess it is…but the voting age is set at a specific age without taking into account the mortality rate of Maori, non-Maori, men, women, or the morbidly obese. The same should apply to NZ Super.

                     It’s only inevitable if we make the growth economy more important than people.

                     Of course it’s not inevitable that Super will change if we make cuts to social services. Which social services should we trim?
             • bwaghorn …

               7 March 2017 at 7:28 am

               i have worked with maori chaps for half the last 20 years , and 90% of them eat the worst sort of shit they can most of the time , so it’s not really us honkies fault they don’t live as long .
               • BM …

                 7 March 2017 at 8:04 am

                 Fuck yeah, it’s all fatty boilups, greasy fish and chips, fry bread etc.

                 As well as the smoking and the drinking.

                 No wonder Maori die earlier, poisoning your body like that.
         • Dale 9.5.1.1.2

           6 March 2017 at 9:18 pm

           Racist,really.how?
           • Macro 9.5.1.1.2.1

             6 March 2017 at 10:25 pm

             http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/populations/maori-health/tatau-kahukura-maori-health-statistics/nga-mana-hauora-tutohu-health-status-indicators/life-expectancy
         • Antoine 9.5.1.1.3

           7 March 2017 at 3:42 am

           Is the super scheme racist, classist and sexist because Māori, Pacifica, non-rich and male people receive less (on average) over their lifetime?

           A.
           • weka 9.5.1.1.3.1

             7 March 2017 at 6:04 am

             The problem is if you die before you get to make use of it or much use of it.
       • Anne 9.5.1.2

         6 March 2017 at 8:15 pm

         I applauded Labour when they proposed it and I applaud National now.

         Well then you are someone who has a firm political stance on issues and I applaud you for that even if I might rarely agree with you. It means however that you are NOT a typical rwnj. 😉

         Btw, my stance on this issue has not changed in 40 plus years. I believe the first superannuation scheme set in place by the 72/75 Labour govt. was the right one. It is a tragedy that Muldoon repealed it in 1975/76 because NZ would be in a far better economic and social place today if that scheme had continued. I accept that over time adjustments would have been needed taking into account the changing circumstances of many people but it was still basically the right way to go.
         • Jenny Kirk 9.5.1.2.1

           6 March 2017 at 8:24 pm

           Yes – Anne – and in having that particular scheme repealed, we, NZers, have lost billions of dollars in superannuation investment. The Nats are so short-sighted when it comes to thinking long-term for the good of the people …… but in saying that, I don’t think they really give a stuff about ordinary people. So long as the wealthy are looked after, that’s their main focus.
         • Anne 9.5.1.2.2

           6 March 2017 at 8:37 pm

           Correction: Muldoon repealed scheme in 1976.
         • Enough is Enough 9.5.1.2.3

           6 March 2017 at 8:44 pm

           Anne to be fair David Farrar and co have always been in favour of this stupid policy for years.
         • gsays 9.5.1.2.4

           7 March 2017 at 8:17 am

           hi anne,
           re muldoon and scrapping scheme, it seems like the same old story:
           tory rule for a while, mess up the finances, left gets voted in.
           they sort things out (cullen fund).
           only for the tories to screw it up again.

           tories, good financial managers. there is a mangatainoka river story right there.
       • Antoine 9.5.1.3

         6 March 2017 at 11:26 pm

         > Anne, I am your classic RWNJ, I applauded Labour when they proposed it and I applaud National now.

         +1

         I probably fit the definition of a RWNJ here, I will be affected by the change, I approved when Little proposed it and I approve now.

         It’s a shame Key locked himself into not doing this earlier but here we are (finally)

         A.
10. fisiani 10

    6 March 2017 at 4:30 pm

    Announce it in March and legislate for next year after winning. Come September it’s not even an issue. Not even Winston will die in a ditch over such a gradualist approach and the doubling of residency time for foreigners will be music to his ears (above his emphasematory coughs) .
    Andrew Little will be fuming again as he thought he could milk this for weeks and months. The idea that this is a panic move is risable. This work has been ready to go for months.
    • Carolyn_nth 10.1

      6 March 2017 at 4:33 pm

      You missed the bit where it says it will be legislated for next year.
      • Sam C 10.1.1

        6 March 2017 at 4:37 pm

        No he didn’t. It is in the first sentence of his comment.
        • Carolyn_nth 10.1.1.1

          6 March 2017 at 4:43 pm

          OK. In which case, it won’t be a dead issue come the election.
          • fisiani 10.1.1.1.1

            6 March 2017 at 4:46 pm

            It will be a dead issue by next week.
            • Carolyn_nth 10.1.1.1.1.1

              6 March 2017 at 4:49 pm

              Not for NZ First or the Māori Party.

              And then, post election, where will the Natz look for potential partners in government?
              • Sam C …

                6 March 2017 at 4:56 pm

                You and your crystal ball, Carolyn.

                Except every one of your predictions turns out to be hopelessly wrong.
                • Carolyn_nth …

                  6 March 2017 at 5:05 pm

                  What predictions are you talking about? I rarely make them.
              • fisiani …

                6 March 2017 at 6:12 pm

                Are you being serious? When put to a vote Labour would vote for it. National does not need NZF or MP to pass the legislation. Both parties want the foreigner rule raised from 10 to 20 years. Another masterstroke by National -get everyone worried for 24 hours then placate them. There is huge support for this idea,
                • Craig H …

                  6 March 2017 at 8:41 pm

                  Maybe, but Labour got absolutely roasted on the campaign trail last election over this.
                  • BM …

                    6 March 2017 at 8:49 pm

                    Because Labour was trying to win power not retain it.

                    Everyone just couldn’t believe how stupid they were.
                    ,
11. The decrypter 11

    6 March 2017 at 4:41 pm

    See pensions sorted ,water sorted, housing sorted. All sorted in hours, not days. Leave to the party ,and their new leader, who get, results, Vote National.
12. Have Nots 12

    6 March 2017 at 4:41 pm

    GANG$TA In-CHIEF Bill English shaking hands with his mate convicted labour trafficker Johnny Ake:

    http://imgur.com/w13s3LN

    Background:

    https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/marlborough-express/20100819/281646776444009

    How long can Billy boy play dumb for us on the issue? Isolated incidents… That he had prior knowledge of, it may seem.

    The truth is that English and Co. are close to traffickers and well understand how (temporary) migrant labourers are being treated. They think it is OK. Good for the economy.

    They are a government willing to trade off human rights for economic gain (at the top).

    What else are they willing to trade off?
13. Psycho Milt 13

    6 March 2017 at 4:44 pm

    Smart weaselry there – put the age up, but schedule it so far out that the people affected are ones for whom retirement is a vague, distant concept they don’t really care about.
14. Steve Wrathall 14

    6 March 2017 at 4:45 pm

    So the ball’s in Labour’s court. Do you want to die with Winston in a ditch over this? Labour has spent 2 elections arguing (to their credit), that this is the right thing to do. Personally I support doing it even earlier, even though I would qualify for Super at 65 in 2032.
15. Michael 15

    6 March 2017 at 6:03 pm

    What’s Labour going to do about this? Anything apart from wring its hands and cry crocodile tears?
    • Anne 15.1

      6 March 2017 at 6:40 pm

      Here we go again. Michael is on his anti Labour rant. Labour under Andrew Little have discarded the policy altogether. Don’t you bother to keep up with the play Michael.
      • Michael 15.1.1

        6 March 2017 at 8:06 pm

        I’ve learned through bitter experience not to believe Labour’s promises unless they are in black and white and without weasel words. I do recall Little saying Labour’s 2014 policies were all null and void – my question, however, is whether anything has been announced to fill that void?
        • Jenny Kirk 15.1.1.1

          6 March 2017 at 8:20 pm

          Yep – Michael, on superannuation – Labour is going to re-boot the funds going into the Cullen fund, and also review the time limit on qualification for super for immigrants, among other things.
16. ian 16

    6 March 2017 at 6:05 pm

    The point of this move isn’t to make super more sustainable, it’s to make people like me work harder for longer to pay for it.

    If they were serious about making it sustainable, in light of the baby boom cohort, they wouldn’t have let all but the last four years of that group through with the full entitlement.
    • AB 16.1

      6 March 2017 at 6:32 pm

      Well yes – the objective is to create a permanent reduction in the state’s support for its citizens. And purely for ideological reasons.
      The temporary stresses created by the large boomer cohort are just an excuse. A government that was not so ideologically driven would have planned for that period of higher costs – perhaps by not giving silly income tax cuts early in its first term, by continuing payments into the super scheme, by cracking down on tax evasion/avoidance, by looking at CGT and FTT, etc.
      • Jenny Kirk 16.1.1

        6 March 2017 at 8:22 pm

        Yep AB and Ian – that’s what I think too. Much less support for ordinary people – survival of the fittest probably (or the wealthiest) is possibly their mantra. Stinks, eh!
17. Keith 17

    6 March 2017 at 6:09 pm

    What the fuck is it with National and their 2040-2050 aspirations?

    We are upgrading the navy and buying 5 battleships and 15 aircraft carriers in 2080! And a replica Starship Enterprise by 2155!

    And paying off debt run up by the Key/English government by 2090 to 2120ish maybe about the time our polluted, I mean redefined non polluted rivers solidify!
    • fisiani 17.1

      6 March 2017 at 6:14 pm

      That’s because there is no prospect of a Labour government in the rest of the 21st century.
      • Keith 17.1.1

        6 March 2017 at 7:15 pm

        Oh dear, that was as outrageous as poking out your tongue! Try harder.
    • weka 17.2

      6 March 2017 at 11:17 pm

      I wouldn’t mind a seventh generation policy, if they gave an actual fuck about the seventh generation and based policy on that.
18. bwaghorn 18

    6 March 2017 at 6:13 pm

    labour lost two elections softening the masses up for this , i dont like national but they more cunning than a shit house rat.
    and as a 71 baby a little naughty part of me went woo hoo i dodged that bullet.

    i also suggest labour thinks very carefully before it makes a statement on this
19. Ross 19

    6 March 2017 at 6:20 pm

    I don’t see what the fuss is about.

    The Retirement Commissioner has been stating for ages that this policy needs to be brought in. I’m not sure she’s a raging Tory. Other commentators have agreed with her. Labout went to the electorate last time with essentially the same policy (albeit with a shorter lead-in time). It’s a shame that John Key didn’t have the will or the courage to do it.
    • Michael 19.1

      6 March 2017 at 8:11 pm

      Then you should lookat what Labour’s apologists (such as Anne, above) are posting here. According to them, Labour has completely repudiated its policy of raising the qualifying age for NZ Super to 67. If that is true (and I suspect it is not), Labour’s leadership must come out and say so clearly. Alternatively, if Labour accepts the new status quo (or even wants to make greater cuts to the current entitlement), it should again say so, clearly, so the people can decide for themselves which team they want at the top of the political food chain.
      • Carolyn_nth 19.1.1

        6 March 2017 at 8:16 pm

        Little has come out and said that on Checkpoint tonight. Here is how RNZ is reporting it:

        Labour does not support any proposed change, New Zealand First said it was so far in the future it was meaningless and ACT – a support partner of National – said the government was engaging in “intergenerational theft”.

        The Greens, Māori Party and United Future have also been critical.
        …
        Labour leader Andrew Little said the government’s proposal to increase the age of entitlement for superannuation was purely political.

        He said if National really believed change should happen then it should act now, not after the September election.

        “If the difference is 0.6 percent of GDP, that is a barely negligible saving, so clearly affordability isn’t the issue. This is totally political as they’ve pushed out even legislating for it until next year and nothing takes effect until 2041.

        “This is about giving the appearance of doing something and actually doing nothing.”

        Labour campaigned to increase the age of entitlement to 67 before the 2011 and 2014 elections, but Mr Little did not support that.

        “They haven’t since I campaigned for the leadership on the basis that I don’t support lifting the age of eligibility by two years and we won’t be lifting the age of eligibility by two years.”

        But had that divided his Labour caucus?
        “No, our caucus isn’t divided,” he said.

        “People who are doing physical work for most of their working life are struggling to get to 65 years now.”

        Mr Little said the government should resume payments to the New Zealand Super Fund.
        • Ross 19.1.1.1

          6 March 2017 at 9:45 pm

          Andrew Little can be as principled as he likes. But in the end, there will be pressure to cut social services if Super remains untouched. The most likely area to be cut will be health expenditure.

          If there are no changes to superannuation, the Treasury has estimated that growth in healthcare spending would need to be limited to 7 billion dollars by 2031 if government spending is to remain about 45% of GDP. The health budget would need to grow at half the pace it has in the past. This obviously has implications for access to healthcare services. We must ask ourselves if this is a trade-off we are willing to make. Relying on finding savings from healthcare is a risky strategy. International experience shows that making lasting changes to the growth in spending on healthcare is extremely difficult. The changes would need to be radical.

          A far easier and more certain way would be to control the cost of superannuation. One approach would be to target eligibility, based on some form of means testing. While New Zealand is lauded for the simplicity of its universal system, it may need to be looked at. But if that is too radical or complex a change, there are two other, even simpler, options that ought to be considered. One of these options is to increase the age of eligibility to New Zealand Superannuation from 65 to, say, 67. Other countries have gone down this track, recognising ever-increasing healthy life expectancy.

          …New Zealand Superannuation cannot be treated as a holy cow. If we choose not to touch it, we are choosing to touch healthcare, education and other areas of government spending that are possibly more important for our long term wellbeing and prosperity. There is no free lunch.

          http://nzier.org.nz/publication/superannuation-dilemma
          • Nic the NZer 19.1.1.1.1

            6 March 2017 at 10:34 pm

            Cutting social services will always be a voluntary deciaion of the government of the day. They may well decide (as National has) to put a surplus ahead of social services but this in no way makes it any less voluntary. The NZ govt does not face a budget constraint, they face an inflation constraint and the present government and governments in the forseeable future are at no risk of generating inflation (actually the govt has been trying and failing to generate higher inflation rates).
      • Anne 19.1.2

        6 March 2017 at 8:26 pm

        Michael @19.1
        you should lookat what Labour’s apologists (such as Anne, above) are posting here. According to them, Labour has completely repudiated its policy of raising the qualifying age for NZ Super to 67. If that is true (and I suspect it is not),…

        http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/289093/labour-ditches-old-campaign-policies

        Labour Party leader Andrew Little said both the capital gains tax and superannuation policies proved unpopular with voters, and would not be part of the 2017 manifesto.
        • PMC 19.1.2.1

          6 March 2017 at 11:07 pm

          He also said the capital gains tax was too complex to convey to people, implying it’s still on the table and that all Labour needs to do is convey it more simply. I don’t know if the same went for NZS but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. Either way Labour needs to clear about NZS, which at the moment it’s not. From your link Little says:

          “So we have a major issue, we’ve got to think about the cost of superannuation but we don’t want to penalise people; that’s why we’ve got to have a full reconsideration of it.”

          Note reconsideration, not abandonment.
          • Anne 19.1.2.1.1

            7 March 2017 at 8:35 am

            Note the latest RNZ statement by Andrew Little @ Caroline nth -19.1.1

            Labour campaigned to increase the age of entitlement to 67 before the 2011 and 2014 elections, but Mr Little did not support that.

            “They haven’t since I campaigned for the leadership on the basis that I don’t support lifting the age of eligibility by two years and we won’t be lifting the age of eligibility by two years.”
20. peterlepaysan 20

    6 March 2017 at 6:35 pm

    Typical national. Promises, promises, promises.. yeah in aabout 20 to 30 tears time. Swimmable wters, super reform? Yeah we will get around to it, maybe, some time in the future.

    For the present we have’nt a clue what we are doing apart from enriching the already wealthy and creating a large group of wage slaves. Apparently most of the wage slaves are drug addicts and unemployable which is why we keep importing immigrants to work fo diddley squat.

    English is apparently an intellectual giant (he once worked for Treasury, you know).

    English could not understand the rules governinig accomodation allowances. The same or similar rules that govern every govt employee in the country.

    English, like Key is apuppet of the mega rich and rules for them and them alone.

    The neo lb capitalist model has created plutocracies.

    No wonder Trump and Putin nod and wink at each other.
    • Draco T Bastard 20.1

      6 March 2017 at 7:09 pm

      The neo lb capitalist model has created plutocracies.

      Exactly as designed.
21. Jenny Kirk 21

    6 March 2017 at 6:37 pm

    I think this is a clever move on Blinglish’s part. And I don’t like it. Too, too smarmy and smart.

    He isn’t touching the current “baby boomers”, and he can point that out at the time he is in negotiation with Winston for a coalition govt end of 2017. He’s not touching his current constituency who are presumably wealthy enough to look after the future interests of their own younger people.

    He’s only getting at the younger generation now – and will they bother to vote?

    And the move on raising limit of qualification for immigrants will have universal appeal.
    Andrew Little has said that needs to be looked at, and reviewed – so no arguments there, and its a fave with Winston.

    Of course Blinglish is ignoring the Maori vote on this one ….. but those Maori who would be most affected wouldn’t bother voting Nats anyway.

    This has Crosby Textor written all over it.
    • Keith 21.1

      6 March 2017 at 7:22 pm

      I agree with in so much as National really have it in for any poor bugger born in the last 30 years. Them and their BNZ Nat symp, Tony Alexander!
    • BM 21.2

      6 March 2017 at 7:33 pm

      National/NZ first looks locked in for 2017.

      Peters can relate to English they’re both pretty much career politicians, he didn’t have that with Key.
    • Michael 21.3

      6 March 2017 at 8:17 pm

      It’s got Labour completely fucked, that’s for sure. Does it continue to defend current eligibility and annoy the money markets, or does it return to its 2014 policy and try to fudge around the edges (ie earlier entitlement for people disabled from work, while knowing that the medical assessors will report everyone fit for work)? If future entitlements are cut, how long before younger voters start demanding cuts to current entitlements?
22. Fisiani 22

    6 March 2017 at 7:21 pm

    The Left made the mistake of thinking John Key was a lightweight. They were so wrong. They are making the same mistake again about Bill English. Did you hear the impotence of Chicken bleating about it being political. Of course it is. Politics 101.
    • greg 22.1

      6 March 2017 at 7:33 pm

      coming crash will stuff up all forecasts and policy the indebted and savers are screwed
      • Nic the NZer 22.1.1

        6 March 2017 at 10:41 pm

        Anything will stuff up those forecasts. They are a linear projection based on fictional (equilibrium state) estimates. It’s far less likely than you winning powerball that that forecst is useful.
23. Glenn 23

    6 March 2017 at 7:30 pm

    Life expectancy at birth is 77.1 years for Māori females and 73.0 years for Māori males, compared with 83.9 years for non-Māori females and 80.3 years for non-Māori males.
    Life expectancy at birth is 78.7 years for Pacific females and 74.5 years for Pacific males.

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/health/life_expectancy/NZLifeTables_MR10-12.aspx

    Super age increase will be harsh on our Maori and Pacific folk.
24. Carolyn_nth 24

    6 March 2017 at 7:53 pm

    TV1 News tonight had headlines and most of the report saying after Bill English’s announcement today, NZ super WILL be changing. began with the news reader making that bold statement, then switched to Corin Dann taking same line for most of the report.

    They only add a little caveat at the end saying the Nats need to win the election first.

    Very bad reportage.

    I am disgusted by such biased and news coverage that misrepresents the facts. Basically it states that this change is a done deal, and as though it is something the government is going to legislate for immediately!
25. Kat 25

    6 March 2017 at 8:07 pm

    Now that the fake PM and master of smoke and mirrors is gone Its very obvious National are toast this coming election and Labour will get to implement any super age change, or not.

    Not.

    Get used to the idea eh, and move on.
26. Glenn 26

    6 March 2017 at 8:13 pm

    Comment from Chris Trotter.
    He thinks National has given the election away.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/90092989/chris-trotter-abandoning-keys-pledge-on-superannuation-an-act-of-astonishing-political-folly
27. Glenn 27

    6 March 2017 at 8:13 pm

    Comment from Chris Trotter.
    He thinks National has given the election away.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/90092989/chris-trotter-abandoning-keys-pledge-on-superannuation-an-act-of-astonishing-political-folly
    • BM 27.1

      6 March 2017 at 8:16 pm

      Trotter writes a lot of wank.
      • weka 27.1.1

        6 March 2017 at 11:56 pm

        true, except when he’s on the mark.
    • Jenny Kirk 27.2

      6 March 2017 at 8:30 pm

      I don’t think Chris Trotter is correct on this assumption. I think this is a very clever and cynical move on Bill English’s part – it doesn’t affect current baby boomers (who are said to be the problem with super). It only affects the younger generation, and English doesn’t care much about them – witness his comments about younger people who are unemployed. And he’s not going to be around to have to deal with them.
      • Glenn 27.2.1

        6 March 2017 at 8:33 pm

        Mike Hosking. Never thought I would agree with the man.
        https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/mike-hosking-wait-polls-bill-english-has-read-completely-wrong-over-raising-super-age?auto=5348879159001
    • Ross 27.3

      6 March 2017 at 9:40 pm

      Trotter talks about the need to reassure the elderly. He clearly hasn’t thought this issue through. The change to Super doesn’t affect the elderly. It affects those who are currently in their mid 40s or younger.
      • Craig H 27.3.1

        7 March 2017 at 12:03 am

        I think the concern of the elderly is that any meddling with NZ Super is the thin end of the wedge. Sure, this policy has no impact on them, but changing the indexing and/or means or asset testing might be next.
28. mauī 28

    6 March 2017 at 8:15 pm

    FFS get the printing press running so we can avoid these vindictive economic games. Peter explains below,
    
    • Nic the NZer 28.1

      6 March 2017 at 10:16 pm

      What Peter suggests is viable. Even without this, changing the super age and contributing to the Cullen fund is about one (meaningless) economic variable (the govt deficit). So treasury forecasts and analyses 45% of gdp being govt spending (based on a forecasting horizon over which they could not hit a barn door) who cares? Why is this even remotely a problem, its not. We remain faced with a fictional retirement savings crisis with demands to act on it coming from politicians and financial advisers.
29. tangled_up 29

    6 March 2017 at 8:39 pm

    Superannuation payments are about $592 each per fortnight for a couple. So if a couple are born after 1972 then a vote for National it will cost them over $61,000.

    And that’s not adjusted for 20 years of inflation.
    • Muttonbird 29.1

      7 March 2017 at 7:01 am

      Great line to run there because it speaks directly to people, for better or worse. A great line for Winston to run, as this is his area. Labour and Greens should let Winston attack English on this.
30. Tamati Tautuhi 30

    6 March 2017 at 9:10 pm

    Got to cover the cost of those tax cuts for the wealthy and service our increasing overseas debt with the USA Bankers some how?
31. Cinny 31

    6 March 2017 at 11:23 pm

    Where is the employment stability and job security for those in their sixties?

    Where is the Minister for Seniors?

    Where has all the money gone?
32. millsy 32

    6 March 2017 at 11:41 pm

    Those born in 1972 entered the workforce just as the ECA was about to come into effect, apprenticeships were chopped and large parts of the welfare state was hacked away. They also dont have the luxury of having gold plated pensions like those before them had (another dirty little secret).

    The thought of spending most of your working life in insecure low paid jobs, and then having to wait an extra two years to be in a position to retire wiil break some people.
33. Siobhan 33

    7 March 2017 at 10:52 am

    I was waiting for MICKEYSAVAGE to come into this conversation, but seeing as he hasn’t may I quote him from 2014… “National is showing how irresponsible it is by refusing to consider changing the eligibility age”

    https://thestandard.org.nz/the-retirement-age-debate/

    Little may not want a rise in age, but its hard to believe Labour are a unified and trustworthy bunch on this issue.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS