Super. Reprise.

41 comments on “Super. Reprise. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tracey 1

   31 October 2013 at 6:02 pm

   Business confidence is highest in 14 years so we will see wages moving up now.

   buwahahahaga
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.1

     31 October 2013 at 6:14 pm

     They think things have sunk so low they can only get better, but National have twelve months to go yet.
     • aerobubble 1.1.1

       1 November 2013 at 4:05 pm

       I just question whose running the world economy, the US is printing money, its has to have an effect, there has to be a day of accounting, and clawing back that claim on future value.
2. phil 2

   31 October 2013 at 6:08 pm

   The elderly are too well off! They have to suffer just like other beneficiaries, the poor, the low paid, shed dwellers, and earthquake victims. Equal opportunity for government neglect!
3. Tat Loo 3

   31 October 2013 at 6:28 pm

   Labour Party Conference delegates. Vote down the super age increase. Tell Conference, “NO WAY: find real alternatives.”
   • Jenny Kirk 3.1

     31 October 2013 at 6:40 pm

     + 1 Tat Loo.

     There are definitely alternatives to the policy idea that Labour needs to increase the age of NZ Superannuation. A little bit of research starts unearthing these alternatives, and should not be beyond the skills of Labour MPs to find out. Already David Cunliffe has said he’s not opposed to increasing the top tax rates, and this is a basic starter to a fair superannuation scheme. Universal superannuation relies on a progressive tax system to work well. Labour needs to re-think this issue.
     • Tat Loo 3.1.1

       31 October 2013 at 6:46 pm

       Absolutely. The money needed can always be found or otherwise credited as required. The real question, and the main one which should be occupying our minds, is whether or not we are developing an economy which has the real resources to look after an older population: enough medical specialists, enough suitable housing, enough care facilities, enough young people, etc.
     • Jim Nald 3.1.2

       31 October 2013 at 7:02 pm

       Yup. Agree. Vote it down. Need more policy work.
4. Jerry Ross 4

   31 October 2013 at 6:42 pm

   a small tax increase in the top end would do a huge amount to the affordability of the scheme. The problem seems to be that the people that come up with these (raise the age ) ideas earn a lot more than the people that need to retire earlier because of hard physical work. Sure if you work in an office and earn a couple hundred thousand a year then raising the age seems like a great idea, hell you can retire anytime, not like someone that needs to retire with a broken body after busting their arse for years for next to nothing but has to work till the last as they have nothing in the bank but a little kiwisaver and some debt. I find it hard to believe that the party of the working people would raise the age rather than the tax on those that can easily afford it. Go on do something for the majority of the people that is good for a change and not just about your own financial position.
   • Tat Loo 4.1

     31 October 2013 at 6:48 pm

     Yep. And there should probably be a medical circumstances exemption available for those who are 63 or 64 who should start receiving their super 1 or 2 years earlier.

     These will often be people who will probably be dead by the time they are 70 or so.
   • Psycho Milt 4.2

     1 November 2013 at 6:16 am

     Er, these days the majority of the people in NZ don’t spend their working lives in constant hard physical labour. They also have increasing life expectancy. On that basis, it makes a lot more sense to provide for the “physical-wreck-by-60” people as exceptions rather than fund blanket retirement at 60 for everyone so that a small minority is covered.
     • Tat Loo (CV) 4.2.1

       1 November 2013 at 6:18 am

       Enough serving the man by 60 to let people do their own thing with their families and in communities.
     • miravox 4.2.2

       1 November 2013 at 6:45 am

       ” it makes a lot more sense to provide for the “physical-wreck-by-60″ people as exceptions”

       I agree with you on this point – my problem with increasing the age of retirement is that there is a big problem with young people out of work already and having more older people working on may exacerbate that. I don’t know anything about the trade-off between older and younger workers (or even if there is one), but it seems to me that having young people with bugger all hope is not a good plan for social cohesion or personal or financial growth.

       The UBI’s time has arrived, I reckon. The age thing is just tinkering.
       • Psycho Milt 4.2.2.1

         1 November 2013 at 11:25 am

         I don’t think youth unemployment is an issue for the retirement age. Employment isn’t a zero-sum game in which there’s a fixed number of jobs and if old people have them then young people can’t have them. High youth unemployment is pretty much a “feature” of capitalism the way NZ currently has it configured (ie, leaving it to private enterprise to provide jobs, but also legislating to make young workers a poor economic proposition for private enterprise – those two in combination are a recipe for high youth unemployment). The number of old people still in the workforce has little to do with it.
         • millsy 4.2.2.1.1

           1 November 2013 at 11:35 am

           So you think that young worker should have their wages slashed?

           First slash pensions, then wages. What it is with right wing fuckwits like you who want to make people broke?
           • Psycho Milt 4.2.2.1.1.1

             1 November 2013 at 12:43 pm

             You’ve never met a false dichotomy you didn’t like, have you millsy?
         • miravox 4.2.2.1.2

           1 November 2013 at 10:47 pm

           “legislating to make young workers a poor economic proposition for private enterprise “
           I don’t know about that. I think Europe and the UK show that there are structural problems rather than youth rates being the major problem. In the UK they’ve been making young people work for nothing and it’s not helping (unpaid internships and forcing them to work in private enterprise for the dole).

           I do see a problem with leaving private enterprise to provide jobs and suspect there is little incentive to train up new workers when you can continue to have the older workers doing the job. Private enterprise is not known for long term planning.

           Older workers, when they do lose their jobs, have an awful time trying to get new ones as well. There simply aren’t enough jobs there and some for of job blocking going on with ‘types’ of preferred workers, I guess.
     • Mary 4.2.3

       1 November 2013 at 8:53 am

       So you’re arguing against an exemption applying to a minority because that minority is not a majority? Clever.
     • Foreign Waka 4.2.4

       2 November 2013 at 12:37 pm

       This is not so. A lot of people are working 2 jobs, most likely one is very physical – i.e. cleaners, handy men work etc to earn more money. Have you done such a job lately on a regular basis due to need not want? There is also the consequence of low income and health issues generally. In fact I would say that the generation that is retired or about to now had more of a chance of having a longer live due to less stress and better food options. This would include most politicians, government employees today and give me a guess who is saying that this can be changed? I am looking at men in particular at the age of around 60-62 and I can for the life of it no see that they have to go working as they do for another 7-8 years. Anyone who proposes this is actually saying that there is no pension at all, its just lip service to hoodwink large sections of the community. Proof me different without parading lifelong government sector employees for that purpose.
5. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5

   31 October 2013 at 6:52 pm

   The meme of “we cannot afford super, welfare” seems to be powerful.

   I’ve noticed that.

   I’ve also noticed that the meme that the earth is spherical seems to be powerful.
   • Macro 5.1

     31 October 2013 at 9:37 pm

     “I’ve also noticed that the meme that the earth is spherical seems to be powerful.”

     So you’re a flat earther as well as a Gormless Fool!
   • Draco T Bastard 5.2

     31 October 2013 at 11:11 pm

     And the Gormless One proves that RWNJs can’t tell the difference between fact and fiction.
   • Murray Olsen 5.3

     1 November 2013 at 7:08 pm

     Funnily enough, the Earth is not spherical.
6. Macro 6

   31 October 2013 at 9:33 pm

   “A scheme that has been so successful in eliminating poverty amongst New Zealand’s elderly, at a reasonable cost, it should be extended to all ages.”

   QFT
7. Psycho Milt 7

   1 November 2013 at 6:10 am

   The meme of “we cannot afford super, welfare seems to be very powerful. So powerful, that even those who know better have been taken in.

   Or, to put it another way, your personal view of this is not shared by the people who have some expertise in the area, so your conclusion is the experts must all be deluded. That is of course possible, but a simpler alernative explanation – that your view isn’t shared by the experts because it’s wrong – strikes me as a somewhat more likely one.
   • Tat Loo (CV) 7.1

     1 November 2013 at 6:19 am

     The global economic experts have led us to this wonderful global economic place; why shouldn’t we continue to trust their judgements?
   • framu 7.2

     1 November 2013 at 7:29 am

     then how did we afford the boomer buldge when they were kids?

     im guessing we had a depleted work force after WW2 and we certainly provided a hell of a lot of “freebies” to kids then – just where did all the money go?

     Thats not to say the issue today is the same – but just saying “The experts say this” without looking at other points in history and comparing, or examining the motives and background of those same experts is rather simplistic
     • Psycho Milt 7.2.1

       1 November 2013 at 11:28 am

       then how did we afford the boomer buldge when they were kids?

       No national superannuation to pay for, far fewer people on social welfare benefits, far fewer people at university, much less expensive health care – no doubt there are other factors.
       • framu 7.2.1.1

         1 November 2013 at 12:48 pm

         less of a wealth gap, less people thinking they are separate to society, workers having a greater share of gdp, the abscence of voodoo neoliberal economics etc etc

         i not going to claim any expertise in the area, and your points sound about right

         I just think questions such as this are sorely missing from the debate – and i think it serves a certain sector of the economy and society to trick us into ignoring historical context (much like most political analysis these day)
     • Foreign Waka 7.2.2

       2 November 2013 at 12:45 pm

       Most “experts” are like well fed fat cats and have something to loose if they don’t produce something “new” to get some living out of it by making the theory work for their end. This is the fallacy within academia and in my opinion why things go so pear shape. To progress independent minds are needed. The notion that the only way funding can be obtained is by supplying a research paper for publication of a popular issue will make any such undertaking financially dependable from supporters of that particular research. It stands to reason that these supporters have their own agenda. Would this not make any research at least questionable? Going back to the research about affordability of pensions….
   • millsy 7.3

     1 November 2013 at 8:59 am

     So you think that Super should be scrapped and old people have to live on the street then?
     • KJT 7.3.1

       3 November 2013 at 2:50 pm

       Yes. That is exactly what Milt thinks.
       He is happy to have people living in dire poverty just so he can pay a few dollars less tax, that is, if he actually pays any taxes.

       He is just too gutless to say it out loud. Like most RWNJ’s.
   • KJT 7.4

     3 November 2013 at 2:36 pm

     The experts that gave us the GFC, tax payer bailouts of the finance industry, increasing child poverty, the “trickle down theory” sic, unsustainable resource use, decreasing real wages, made us fall behind Australia despite a similar boom in commodity exports, increasing inequality, increasing social dysfunction, etc, etc.

     Those “experts”.

     “Yeah Right”.
8. millsy 8

   1 November 2013 at 11:47 am

   Psycho Milt — does he want to get rid of the pension? Yes

   Is he proud that this country has the lowest level of senior poverty? No.

   Does he want old people living on the street? Yes

   Does he want to force down wages and reduce the purchasing power of the poor. Absolutely.
   • KJT 8.1

     3 November 2013 at 2:47 pm

     The Psycho Milt’s will not be happy until we have people living in cardboard boxes on the streets like their ideal country.

     They do not realise that in those countries, without New Zealand’s social support, someone as thick as they are would be one of them.
9. tricledrown 9

   1 November 2013 at 12:47 pm

   To say costs of caring for an older population aren’t going to rise is burying our heads in the sand.
   Key is playing another Muldoom
   trick.
   Bribe enough voters to get past the next election and leave it to Labour to look like the bad guys.
   Less work in the future.How many jobs can be done by new technology.
   Less workers.Rapidly aging population aren’t going to be working or paying as much tax.
   The Cullen fund and Kiwisaver were a good start but need to be
   Expanded.
   Now and not later Labour are loosing votes for taking the higher moral ground National are letting labour take the hit on this.
   A smart move by Labour Greens would be to phase in a fully funded super scheme combing the Cullen fund to make sure that any body who wanted to retire at 65 could choose to.
   As Universal Super would be phased out as the selffunded super takes over win win.
   Just as is happening in Australia you can retire at 60 on their contrbutary super scheme.
   With the back up of a universal benefit for those who are unable
   To save!
   • KJT 9.1

     3 November 2013 at 2:42 pm

     Havn’t you been reading.

     A “self funded” super invested in the finance industry will either
     1, disappear in the next financial meltdown or,
     2, lose its value as all the boomers try to spend their savings at once, in a country which has not bothered to develop the resources to provide for the future.

     There is no guarantee that Australia’s “savings” will, maintain their value. Even less likely that New Zealand’s will if we belatedly enter the ponzi scheme.
     Ask the Cypriots. Or the many US state servants whose retirement funds, they took pay cuts to maintain, or paid into for decades, have mysteriously disappeared.
   • KJT 9.2

     3 November 2013 at 2:45 pm

     Funny we managed to pay for so much in the days when we had much fewer workers.

     In the days when women with families, the old, and ill people, did not have to work.
     • Tat Loo (CV) 9.2.1

       3 November 2013 at 3:15 pm

       That’s what decades of neoliberal structural change has done.
10. captain hook 10

    1 November 2013 at 12:52 pm

    its just more kiwi thug stuff beating up on people who cant fight back.
    There is plenty of money and always will be.
    just put a 5c tax on gasoline and the problem is solved.
    listen to the rugged individualists scream then.
    10c would fix the national debt as well but no the government uses all the tricks to keep the population stirred up about nothing much.
    storm in a d-cup.
    • Tat Loo (CV) 10.1

      3 November 2013 at 3:17 pm

      Why would you chose such regressive forms of taxes.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS