Labour raising age lowering eligibility to super

Has Phil Goff been channelling Roger Douglas and Don Brash?

What other explanation can there be for Labour’s plan to raise the age of superannuation and introduce asset and means testing?

They call it a transition payment and say it’s only for workers from 65-67, but who would trust them to stop at that?

In a few decades when they find people have their own sizable nest eggs from KiwiSaver to provide for their own retirements, would you trust them not to say they have to wait longer before receiving national superannuation or don’t need it at all?

There is a case for both raising the age of eligibility and means and asset testing national superannuation.

But that needs to be discussed openly, as Act does, not disguised as a “transition payment” as it is in Labour’s not so super superannuation policy.

7 Responses to Labour raising age lowering eligibility to super

  1. Roger Barton says:

    Goff and his freinds leave me a little confused. I believe that it is correct to increase the age of eligibility but I haven’t read the detail.
    The confusion arises around why last time they handed out a bundle of bribes to try and gain traction while this time they have gone in the other direction. Many of those bribes, some enacted in their latter days of Govt, will cost us dearly unless changed (interest free student loans) Anyone offer an explanation?


  2. homepaddock says:

    Roger, they were desperate to stay in government at the last election; they know they have very little chance of getting back there at this one.

    If they do it will be in coalition with Winston Peters who wouldn’t countenance any change to superannuation.


  3. bulaman says:

    Isn’t part of the rationale for having a retirement benefit that retiring workers open job opportunities for the young, the ultimate trickle down! Those that choose to continue in paid employment should loose the retirement benefit at least at 50 cents and probably dollar for dollar. Only counts for PAYE type work as investment and other income was paid for when the investor made the decision not to spend earlier.


  4. homepaddock says:

    Bulaman – demographics suggest we need more people in work in total which requires more people to work longer. Docking super might persuade some who could work to retire earlier.

    It might be better to pay less for people who retire earlier and higher rates to those who forgo super for longer and retire later.


  5. bulaman says:

    We certainly do need more in work. Regulating the export of unprocessed log could potentially add 11,000 jobs at a stroke. Reducing the pay of public servants will also stimulate the drive to real jobs!
    I had thought that unemployment at the lower end was 25 percent?


  6. pdm says:

    Labour should have bitten the bullet a bit more and extended the retirement age to 70 over a further 5 years – by only going to 67 means a further extension will be needed down the track.

    Bulaman – it looks like National is taking a step in the right direction re unemployment by reinstating new format of youth wages. n excellen move if it goes far enough. In respect of the logging thing we would probably have to import workers as a large number of New Zealanders have lost the work ethic and would not want to do that work.


  7. bulaman says:

    Processing round log to squres for export is pretty much a push button exercise. Would suit our X-Box generation!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: