Wait longer get less with Labour

Labour is attacking National for not following Australia’s lead of raising the age of superannuation eligibility.

Australia will be raising the age to 70, Labour plans to raise it to 67.

What Labour is showing is that their plans will either mean less income and/or other priorities for spending.

. . . Finance Minister Bill English said New Zealand can afford to keep the retirement age at 65, despite Australia’s plan to raise it to 70 by 2035.

He said the Australian government, which is dealing with huge deficits, is in a different position to New Zealand, which will return to surplus in the Budget this month.

Mr English said the Government settling the question of the retirement age has allowed the Government to focus on reducing other costs, such as long-term welfare dependency.

Superannuation can be affordable at the current age of eligibility providing the economy keeps growing and money isn’t wasted elsewhere.

Most people would regard superannuitants as a higher priority than younger people who could work and support themselves but don’t.

Increasing the age isn’t Labour’s only policy which will negatively affect older people, their tax increases will too.

National’s tax cuts boosted superannuation rates because they’re based on after-tax income.

Tax rates will increase under Labour, reducing after-tax income and so reducing increases to superannuation.

People will not only have to wait longer to get a pension, they’ll get less when they reach that age than they would under a National-led government.

What will Winston Peters and his followers, who Labour is trying to woo, think of that?

One Response to Wait longer get less with Labour

  1. JC says:

    One of the unresolved issue wrt raising the age of entitlement and indeed forcing people to save more to achieve some monetary goals in the position of Maori.

    Lindsay Mitchell quotes a stat that one in four Maori boys wont live to age 65, and I have met a good many Maori who were non smoking and non drinking who still die earlier than Pakeha., that is, they had a healthy liestyle equal to or better than the average Pakeha but other factors consigned them to an earlier death.

    A major factor is the relatively sudden transition from a paleo type diet to one involving processed foods etc. and it will be perhaps many decades before Maori fully adjust.

    Whatever, whilst Maori work they would have to pay into a compulsory Super under Labour but enjoy only a fraction of a funded retirement at 67 or 70 due to early death. That does not seem like natural justice or indeed equal treatment under the TOW.

    I think we can justify (just) a super scheme that cuts in at 65 but have my doubts about creating an age of 67-70 *plus* more money being taken off people who will in essence be unable to enjoy a long retirement.

    JC

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: