Super failure by all parties

Parties are busy posturing over superannuation. The flop flippers are as bad as the intransigents. They are all as bad as each other.

The sustainable provision of superannuation to an ageing population is a big and an important issue for New Zealand.

What all parties should be doing is committing to working together towards coming up with a consensus long term plan that can then be put into place with a degree of certainty.

Otherwise it will never rise above being petty pension posturing.

It looks like election year is a bad time to be discussing the future for Super.

 

Leave a comment

24 Comments

  1. Noel

     /  March 8, 2017

    Up to 2007 Superannuation was a political football whilst the MP’s supped at the taxpayer trough. Time for them to reflect on the past and seek consensus in the decision process.

    Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  March 8, 2017

    National do not deal with big or important issues(especially if they are unpopular)…’in the now’.Labour after a string of losses are in danger of the same politics of expediency.

    Reply
  3. Expecting people to work beyond 65 is fine in a high-employment situation. But if jobs – real jobs – are scarce wouldn’t it make more sense to continue to provide super at 65 and encourage them to retire and make way for younger people? While some superannuitants may need to work, a moral obligation to retire if possible could be encouraged. Retirees could be then be used as a resource in time of high worker demand and removed from the workforce if times get worse.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  March 8, 2017

      this govt imports over 200,000 workers Chris,for jobs like retail,truck driving,and other vocations just to keep wages down for employers.

      Reply
      • Might be the first time I more-or-less agree with you KitSlater …

        I’d go further and institute Flexi-Super at 55 or 60, especially as Kiwisaver amounts increase over time to reach ‘supplemental benefit’ levels …

        There might even be an ‘access your Kiwisaver interest income’ after a certain level of KS capital has been achieved, thus maintaining the ‘nest-egg’ until 65 (or 60)?

        The possibilities for creative retirement policies in Aotearoa NZ are almost endless …

        Problem is this makes it a political football … although it could at least be a positive football … but no, “sticks, always sticks, never carrots” …

        @ Blazer – Yep! In a matter of a year-or-so the logging-truck drivers over my way are mostly Asians now AND there’s more of them due to increased harvest demand AND (I believe) since Feb 1st they are driving trucks up to 50% heavier laden on roads which were never good enough for the previous ladings …

        Its quality-of-life reduction [noise, dust, wear-and-tear, maintenance] AND accident-disaster … waiting to happen … nay, happening … as a result of all our increased prosperity and the trickle down effect …

        For those who believe trucks pay their way, apparently ONE pass of a [logging] truck and trailer is equivalent to approximately ONE THOUSAND light-vehicle passes … and them trucks sure don’t pay 1000 times the RUCs …

        Reply
    • I agree with Kit Slater’s approach. I finally retired at age 70 not because I wanted to or because I wasn’t capable of doing the job, but because I felt guilty that I was denying a younger qualified person a job opportunity. I was in a financially secure situation because both my wife and I were savers and paid as we went, so we had no debts. We started married life some 50 odd years ago with $260.00 in savings. I was a State House brat and my wife was the daughter of a Railways rigger.
      There was a provision that people could receive Superannuation after age 60 yrs if they were no longer fit for work, and a similar provision should be maintained as this will cover the physical hard workers and lower life expectancy people (that is following a medical assessment). I would however recommend that this privilege should be based on each individual’s circumstances (need) and not on ethnicity or gender.

      Reply
      • Current superannuation is surely based on demographic rather than individual life-expectancy? Thus the average person is entitled to 20-whatever years of Super …

        I favour freedom of choice, hence the universality of this entitlement being extended to when it is taken up, down to say 55 years of age …

        I don’t really see “fit for work” as a consideration, since the work people do is substantially and perhaps overwhelmingly a matter of personal choice, and a person who is unfit for work is therefore “disabled” regardless of age.

        Reply
        • Fitness for the work under consideration is a medical and social decision not a personal choice.

          Reply
        • 55 years? okay go ahead but you’ll have to wait a bit for Superannuation then. You still have that choice. But you have to be fair to the people who are adding to yur savings via tax. If it good enough for society to fund disabled benefits, then they should be able to allow Superannuation for disabled superannuants at year 60.

          Reply
  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  March 8, 2017

    Impossible to plan for 20 yrs ahead with no idea of what economics, immigration, healthcare, family dynamics and technology will turn up by then. Governments should deal as best they can with what is on the table now keeping as many future options open as possible and reasonable.

    The rest is b.s. from all kinds of axe-grinders.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  March 8, 2017

      You should think before you bother posting PDB…do you really think that in the future we will not need more infrastructure,roads,sewerage,etc,etc,?Mind you thats the way the Nats approach things…not exactly luminaries are they….’No idea’ should be the Natz…slogan…well done.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  March 8, 2017

        sorry…@AL.

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 8, 2017

        We need more infrastructure now, not in 20 years. We are in the crap precisely because we put planning in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats instead of the private sector.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  March 8, 2017

          you are catching on….so 30 years ago they should have been planning for today.Its like the Auckland Harbour bridge and Auckland/NZ roads and rail in general.Hopless live for the day,politicians.

          Reply
  5. What will we be kicking around this election year …?

    Lemme see … Beneficiaries ….

    Superannuation [elderly beneficiaries] … The unemployed … Sole parents …

    Reply

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s