I will resign before raising Super beyond 65

33 comments on “I will resign before raising Super beyond 65 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Zeroque 1

   5 September 2017 at 4:27 pm

   I guess her statement still leaves the door open to means testing it perhaps?
   • tracey 1.1

     5 September 2017 at 5:02 pm

     Maybe. But it is a step away from the Labour party stance in recent times and toward John Key’s, which is interesting to me. A lot of what is happening reminds me of Key but only insofar as image is triumphing. The big distinction, for me is that Ardern’s image is actually who she is, Key’s had to be, at least in part, manufactured and money spent directly and indirectly to perpetuate it. Ardern seems real to me but I have no more idea of where she lies on the political spectrum than I did before she was leader. If she leads the next government i will know soon enough I guess.
     • garibaldi 1.1.1

       5 September 2017 at 6:23 pm

       Yes tracey, image is triumphing. I find this fawning all over Jacinda as hollow as fawning all over Key. Shallow and undeserved because Labour is still hostage to their caucus.
     • Carolyn_nth 1.1.2

       5 September 2017 at 6:30 pm

       Ardern seems real to me but I have no more idea of where she lies on the political spectrum than I did before she was leader.

       I agree with that. People say she speaks “passionately”. To me it’s not so much passion as energetic, sharp, outgoing and quite expressive. I have yet to get the sense she actually is passionate about ending poverty.

       She clearly is smart and has a very good grasp of Labour’s policies.
       • mikesh 1.1.2.1

         5 September 2017 at 10:27 pm

         She is articulate, but seems to lack charisma, if by ´charisma´ we mean the ability to convince the electorate that her truth is the real thing, particularly if her truth is at odds with the conventional wisdom. Jeremy Corbyn, I think had it, but she seems wedded to Labour´s conventional wisdom.
   • Matthew Whitehead 1.2

     5 September 2017 at 5:31 pm

     She could also potentially use CGT revenue to kickstart the super fund. It’s essentially the same thing, but without the extra administrative costs.
     • Tricledrown 1.2.1

       6 September 2017 at 11:48 am

       If we put capital gains tax into a ring fund build only houses in areas of need with that money it would keep supply easier to keep up.
       • Matthew Whitehead 1.2.1.1

         8 September 2017 at 8:12 pm

         That’s true.
   • Dv 1.3

     5 September 2017 at 7:32 pm

     In effect, if the tax rate is charged for the higher brackets, that is a de facto means test.
     • Barfly 1.3.1

       5 September 2017 at 7:56 pm

       I think there’s $400 million spare is some dubious irrigation fund which is unallocated – sounds like a great place to find some dosh for worthy projects
2. Carolyn_nth 2

   5 September 2017 at 5:23 pm

   In recent weeks I have become convinced that leaving the retirement age at 65 yrs is the right thing to do. And not just for those in manual jobs. I know a few middle class people in early to mid 60s who are starting to have health problems: cardiac and in need of stents; spinal, in need of major surgery; cancer, etc.

   While more people are living longer, and many do continue to have good health, many are starting to slow down and have health problems in early 60s – certainly by late 60s.
   • D'Esterre 2.1

     5 September 2017 at 9:32 pm

     Carolyn_nth: “While more people are living longer, and many do continue to have good health, many are starting to slow down and have health problems in early 60s – certainly by late 60s.”

     That’s exactly right. Many people shouting for the age of super eligibility to be raised are in their 50s or younger. My impression is that they fondly imagine that when they hit 80, they’ll be like they are now, but with grey hair and more wrinkles. Boy, have I got news for them!

     Some will reach that age still relatively healthy, but they won’t have the energy or stamina – or strength – that they have now, no matter how often they get on their bikes, or go swimming or running.

     For the rest of us, health problems begin to plague us from the early 60s, and unless we’re lucky, they’ll rocket away as we get older.

     In my view, the well-meaning middle-aged in the business of making policy affecting older people need to get realistic about walking, biking and using public transport. The often rapid onset of arthritis and the effects of osteoporosis, along with other health conditions such as heart problems, can put these activities out of reach. We live very close to public transport, but reaching it involves a walk, which is becoming increasingly problematic for one of us. Then there’s the walk at the other end: also increasingly a mission.

     We need to keep a car and have somewhere to park it when we get to where we need to go. And that situation will prevail until – and if – technological developments bring cheap transport to our door.

     The age of eligibility for national superannuation needs to remain at 65. Moreover, access needs to remain universal. Means-testing was tried in the 90s; it was a disaster and thankfully the incoming Clark administration at the end of 1999 abandoned it.

     There is no earthly reason why younger people today can’t have universal access to a super scheme when they reach 65. It is a question of government priorities; advocate for it with successive governments, and vote so that they are forced to provide the scheme.
     • mikesh 2.1.1

       5 September 2017 at 10:36 pm

       [Means-testing was tried in the 90s; it was a disaster and thankfully the incoming Clark administration at the end of 1999 abandoned it.]

       It wasn´t a disaster, but it was unpopular. And, from memory, I think it was Jim Bolger who abandoned it, though under pressure. He had made an election promise to can it, but appeared to go back on his word after being elected. There was such an uproar over the broken promise that he decided to abandon it after all.
       • D'Esterre 2.1.1.1

         6 September 2017 at 9:58 am

         Mikesh: you’re right, it was Bolger – if he was still PM at that stage – who abandoned means-testing.

         This is what I’d conflated with the abandonment of means-testing: “the incoming Labour-Alliance government after the 1999 election reversed the pension-wage ratio decision of the previous government. It announced the restoration of a 65 percent floor for the ratio of the married couple rate…”

         However, that means-testing regime was certainly a disaster for those adversely affected by it. There was a great deal of publicity at the time, about the unfairness for those at the margins – which is always the problem with means-tested schemes. It differentially affected National voters, many of whom weren’t particularly wealthy, after the 1987 crash had munted their portfolios.

         And it came right alongside a very speedy raising of the age of entitlement. That change seriously affected friends and work colleagues. Nobody had had time to structure their affairs so as to cope with both changes together. They were brutal times for the recently-retired.

         Surefire way to lose an election: piss off your voter catchment unnecessarily!
         • mikesh 2.1.1.1.1

           6 September 2017 at 10:27 am

           You may be right. I was not a superannuitant at the time but my parents and in-laws were all up in arms about it, but I´m pretty sure they had no great need of it.

           TOPs propsosal of guaranteeing the first $10,400 but means testing the rest might be a good compromise.
3. Matthew Whitehead 3

   5 September 2017 at 5:29 pm

   I don’t mind an inconsistency when someone admits their earlier position is wrong. Ardern has done so. If Parker et. all join her, then they’re off the hook in my view.

   Now, if they change their minds back later, that’s when they’re in trouble and can be accused of flip-flopping.
   • tracey 3.1

     5 September 2017 at 6:52 pm

     We wont know unless they form a government
     • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.1

       5 September 2017 at 7:12 pm

       I’d say we’re at 70-80% probability of that at this stage. It’s still open for Labour to lose, but National would need to do very well to win on their own merits.

       And it’s entirely possible for an opposition to reverse itself twice. I’m sure one of the two biggest parties has done it on record at some point, but it’d take some digging to confirm.
   • mikesh 3.2

     6 September 2017 at 10:20 am

     I don´t think they can change their minds now. Assuming Jacinda is the ´goose that laid the golden eggs´ they would not want to put her in a position in which she was forced to resign. Perhaps her offer to resign was a cunning move on her part.
     • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.1

       8 September 2017 at 8:14 pm

       I’m not talking about Jacinda Ardern changing her mind, I’m talking about the Labour MPs who supported the 2014 tax policy potentially changing their mind if advice doesn’t return a CGT recommendation.
4. Glenn 4

   5 September 2017 at 5:30 pm

   At least the Superannuation fund will start to be funded again if Labour get inwhich will help in the future. JK stopped funding it despite the fund going from strength to strength. The lost 9 years would have made a big difference.
   • Pat 4.1

     8 September 2017 at 8:16 pm

     it would….if the market doesn’t crash (fat chance)
5. One Anonymous Bloke 5

   5 September 2017 at 7:19 pm

   In the end it comes down to numbers. Revenue, government spending, etc. Allegedly, robots are going to be doing most of this work anyway.

   Unless you think there’s some pressing ethical reason to raise the retirement age, that is.
   • tracey 5.1

     5 September 2017 at 7:29 pm

     So, John Key was right? Fair enough, I know there were mixed views on the standard at that time.

     I personally feel many still deserve 65 for a few years yet. There needs to be some crossover that ties up with kiwisaver having been in place for a a while longer.
     Of course it depends on revenue etc.

     Do you know if Laboyr is restoring the 1040 a year from govt for kiwisaver?
     • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1

       5 September 2017 at 7:36 pm

       No, I haven’t looked at their policy. If Dr. Sir Key’s conclusion was correct, I’m putting that down to serendipity.

       The issue may be rendered moot by a UBI, for example.

       I’d prefer to hear Ardern’s reasoning before jumping to any conclusions, that’s f’sure.
       • tracey 5.1.1.1

         5 September 2017 at 7:40 pm

         Cool. I lean toward UBI and not the Morgan $200 a week UBI either
     • Stuart Munro 5.1.2

       5 September 2017 at 7:48 pm

       I think Key’s position was cynical – he knew raising the retirement age was unpopular – and it gave him a free shot at Labour. Now the boot’s on the other foot – where it belongs.
6. Barfly 6

   5 September 2017 at 8:02 pm

   Well I ‘m a fan of retaining 65

   My father died at 58
   My oldest brother died at 58
   My older brother got a whole 8 months super before cancer killed him

   I have a few years to go before I am 65 and I have health problems out the wazoo

   I hope I manage to enjoy super for at least a few years before I shuffle off this mortal coil
   • ianmac 6.1

     5 September 2017 at 8:30 pm

     There are a lot of jobs which leave workers exhausted before 65. Some teaching, doctoring , writing and others as well as manual jobs.
7. Barfly 7

   5 September 2017 at 9:34 pm

   One thing I’d to mention to mention is that the suicide rate for 65-69 is about half that of 55-59 ..I believe the financial certainty of super is a large factor in the reduction.
8. Keepcalmcarryon 8

   5 September 2017 at 11:23 pm

   I flinched when gower forced her into that corner.
   Neither did gower point out the hypocrisy of bill English poo pooing the pledge but backing key for the same thing.
   Shittest bit of the debate.
9. Antoine 9

   6 September 2017 at 1:35 am

   I suspect this, like the Labour immigration policy, is pre-positioning for an alliance with NZ First.

   There would have been little point in announcing an increase in super age to 67 now, only to have to backtrack later at Winston’s insistence.

   A.
   • Antoine 9.1

     6 September 2017 at 1:41 am

     On reflection, these policies should also help to win over NZ 1st voters, perhaps making the alliance with NZ 1st unnecessary

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS