ACT raising pension age

[Lilith7]

How very surprising of them, whoever would have thought.


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politic...ension-age


"ACT leader David Seymour says New Zealand must start raising the pension age, raising it three months every year until it reaches 67 years old.

"We have to be honest and say we're in a hole... countries are raising their ages of retirement to at or above 67," Seymour said.

The ACT leader dismissed concerns about the fairness of a blanket increase to the age of superannuation, rather than means testing.

Asked about the inequitable impact raising the pension age would have on Māori, Seymour said raising the superannuation age was "a good reason to look after yourself".





[b]A Māori pēpi born today is currently expected to die 7.5 years earlier than a non-Māori peer. Public health researchers have identified barriers dotted across the health sector that are preventing Māori from accessing the same standard of healthcare as the rest of the population.

The National Party has also said the superannuation age should be lifted.

Labour Party welfare spokesperson Carmel Sepuloni has promised to keep the retirement age at 65 years old."[/b]




And there we have it - the entire view of ACT boils down to 'look after yourself & if you can't , well tough. We do not give a toss; its every man for himself & devil take the hindmost."
If you're wealthy we'll look after your interests - & if not, too bad.

[Olive]

Libertarianism in a local nutshell:  "Asked about the inequitable impact raising the pension age would have on Māori, Seymour said raising the superannuation age was "a good reason to look after yourself". "



  

In the

[R2x1]

Let them raise the pension age 3 months twice a year if they wish, I'm raising my age a whole lot faster than that, I've been doing that for quite a while and I expect to be doing it quite a while longer ~ though hopefully not lingering until Seymour reaches the stage of conscious thought. Ten score and Ten is a bit much.

[dken31]

Superannuation is a massive pyramid scheme as most people pay less in tax over their working life than they receive in Superannuation payments in their retirement. So the only way that it is "sustainable" is to continue to exponentially increase the working population via mass immigration.
Increasing the age of eligibility is hardly new; its been done many times before. When it was increased to 65, NZ life expectancy was 4 years less than what it is now, so changing eligibility to 67 still gives the average person 2 more years in super than was intended back when it was set at 65.

[king1]

Superannuation is a massive pyramid scheme as most people pay less in tax over their working life than they receive in Superannuation payments in their retirement. So the only way that it is "sustainable" is to continue to exponentially increase the  working population via mass immigration.

the mass immigration then creates its own set of problems though, house price inflation in an understocked housing market... 

Do you feel that is the reason successive governments look to immigration, as a means to fund super for the masses?  As well as the superfund I guess.  I take your point about the pyramid scheme, at some point in 20-40 years we will have to fund super for the immigrants that are/will fund ours now? never ending cycle...

[Kenj]

Superannuation is a massive pyramid scheme as most people pay less in tax over their working life than they receive in Superannuation payments in their retirement. So the only way that it is "sustainable" is to continue to exponentially increase the  working population via mass immigration.

the mass immigration then creates its own set of problems though, house price inflation in an understocked housing market... 

Do you feel that is the reason successive governments look to immigration, as a means to fund super for the masses?  As well as the superfund I guess.  I take your point about the pyramid scheme, at some point in 20-40 years we will have to fund super for the immigrants that are/will fund ours now? never ending cycle...

Thankfully I might Maybe Could be   probably wont be here to see that happen

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Hopefully me too kenj. I do wonder though how old dken is...

---

There is a common misapprehension about taxes and their future benefit. National Superanniation is not a pension scheme, it isn't kiwisaver, or like any other retirement savings scheme. The taxes we pay on a daily basis are not dedicated to any one purpose, but many, so the oft repeated complaint that ' taxes don't match super' fails to take into account the large numbers of working adults who never get to receive superannuation. They die too young to benefit. And large numbers of those were and are the hardest working of the lot in a physical sense, and potentially the most in need of a decent retirement income. Raising the age simply means fewer will live long enough to receive it.

Instead we need to focus on improving health and education, which will have measurable positive impacts on the economy, in both savings and productivity. That, and a fairer tax system would go a long way towards making this country an even better place for everyone, especially those whose daily working lives contribute and cost them more than others.

[Lilith7]

Let them raise the pension age 3 months twice a year if they wish, I'm raising my age a whole lot faster than that, I've been doing that for quite a while and I expect to be doing it quite a while longer ~ though hopefully not lingering until Seymour reaches the stage of conscious thought. Ten score and Ten is a bit much.

Not a lot of fun for the poor sods coming after us though. You'd think that successive past govts might have given considerably more thought to superannuation in the future.

---

Hopefully me too kenj. I do wonder though how old dken is...

---

There is a common misapprehension about taxes and their future benefit. National Superanniation is not a pension scheme, it isn't kiwisaver, or like any other retirement savings scheme. The taxes we pay on a daily basis are not dedicated to any one purpose, but many, so the oft repeated complaint that ' taxes don't match super' fails to take into account the large numbers of working adults who never get to receive superannuation. They die too young to benefit. And large numbers of those were and are the hardest working of the lot in a physical sense, and potentially the most in need of a decent retirement income. Raising the age simply means fewer will live long enough to receive it.

Instead we need to focus on improving health and education, which will have measurable positive impacts on the economy, in both savings and productivity. That, and a fairer tax system would go a long way towards making this country an even better place for everyone, especially those whose daily working lives contribute and cost them more than others.

Indeed - imo, health & education should be funded by raising our taxes (not to a punitive level) & by removing the possibility of avoiding paying tax in order to fund both as far as possible.

It seems utterly unfair to simply continue to raise the age when its considered that there will now be large numbers of people who must continue working unti they die, because they're unable to afford anything else. And that is the main reason since if they were wealthy enough the situation would not apply.

Fairness however, isn't something with which ACT concerns itself.

[king1]

New Zealand Super Fund was supposed to be the vehicle for covering the costs of Superannuation for the baby boomers...

[Praktica]

Superannuation is a massive pyramid scheme as most people pay less in tax over their working life than they receive in Superannuation payments in their retirement. So the only way that it is "sustainable" is to continue to exponentially increase the  working population via mass immigration.
Increasing the age of eligibility is hardly new; its been done many times before. When it was increased to 65, NZ life expectancy was 4 years less than what it is now, so changing eligibility to 67 still gives the average person 2 more years in super than was intended back when it was set at 65.

What a pity that Muldoon scrapped Labour's contributory scheme - the same sort of stupidity being pushed now by ACT.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

New Zealand Super Fund was supposed to be the vehicle for covering the costs of Superannuation for the baby boomers...

Exactly. Dedicated funding for a dedicated purpose. Sadly, open to political interference.

Predominantly by those with private schemes.

---

One thing a lot of folk are intent on ignoring - receiving National Superannuation , like the Winter Energy payment, is not complusory. Those who oppose it in its present form could do us all a favour and opt out by simply not applying for it. If those who do not need it did that, those who do could receive more.

But no, they won't.

[Lilith7]

New Zealand Super Fund was supposed to be the vehicle for covering the costs of Superannuation for the baby boomers...

Exactly. Dedicated funding for a dedicated purpose. Sadly, open to political interference.

Predominantly by those with private schemes.

---

One thing a lot of folk are intent on ignoring - receiving National Superannuation , like the Winter Energy payment, is not complusory. Those who oppose it in its present form could do us all a favour and opt out by simply not applying for it. If those who do not need it did that, those who do could receive more.

But no, they won't.

True, there are some who although they're well off & don't need it continue to receive it anyway. While I don't begrudge those who have are doing OK but continue to receive it for good reasons i.e. helping family on a  regular basis  or similar, when they'd be unable to if not for superannuation I do feel that those who are extremely well off & really don't need it should not be accepting it.

And superannuation should be well funded & ring fenced to keep it out of reach of meddling politicians & their 'improvements.'

[Oh_hunnihunni]

For me, it's like paying taxes. It is a privilege. It means you have earned or outlaid money and benefited from it. Debt is the same thing, you borrowed, benefited, now you pay back. Unless of course like some you don't, and go bankrupt, or insolvent, and convince yourself that's okay because 'everyone does it'. Victimless crimes... Same level of self delusion. Ditto tax evasion, or avoidance. Personally I don't see the difference, but then I'm not making money being a financial consultant. And taking welfare money because it's there not because it is needed is just a bit sus. Especially if you then turn round and look down on the poor sods who do need it...

I have been arguing the point on farcebbok with a guy who genuinely thinks wealth comes from hard work and sacrifice and anyone who wants to can do it. I really really hope he isn't one of those people he's talking about because he may well be heading for a rude awakening. With luck though, he has family money...

[Lilith7]

For me, it's like paying taxes. It is a privilege. It means you have earned or outlaid money and benefited from it. Debt is the same thing, you borrowed, benefited, now you pay back. Unless of course like some you don't, and go bankrupt, or insolvent, and convince yourself that's okay because 'everyone does it'. Victimless crimes... Same level of self delusion. Ditto tax evasion, or avoidance. Personally I don't see the difference, but then I'm not making money being a financial consultant. And taking welfare money because it's there not because it is needed is just a bit sus. Especially if you then turn round and look down on the poor sods who do need it...

I have been arguing the point on farcebbok with a guy who genuinely thinks wealth comes from hard work and sacrifice and anyone who wants to can do it. I really really hope he isn't one of those people he's talking about because he may well be heading for a rude awakening. With luck though, he has family money...

But those kind of crimes aren't always 'victimless' regardless of how much those committing them like to claim they are. And if someone has oodles of money, then they should be paying their fair share of taxes as specified by their govt. rather than finding ways to avoid it.

If wealth invariably came from hard work & sacrifice then surely almost everyone would be wealthy.

I think dogs are right. Humans are nuts.

[R2x1]

For me, it's like paying taxes. It is a privilege. It means you have earned or outlaid money and benefited from it. Debt is the same thing, you borrowed, benefited, now you pay back. Unless of course like some you don't, and go bankrupt, or insolvent, and convince yourself that's okay because 'everyone does it'. Victimless crimes... Same level of self delusion. Ditto tax evasion, or avoidance. Personally I don't see the difference, but then I'm not making money being a financial consultant. And taking welfare money because it's there not because it is needed is just a bit sus. Especially if you then turn round and look down on the poor sods who do need it...

I have been arguing the point on farcebbok with a guy who genuinely thinks wealth comes from hard work and sacrifice and anyone who wants to can do it. I really really hope he isn't one of those people he's talking about because he may well be heading for a rude awakening. With luck though, he has family money...

I reckon wealth definitely comes from hard work. Mostly work done by many others to the benefit of the one saying "HardWork .  ." who mostly counts it and uses it as a sort of score card showing how much the peasants gave him.  Some of it is invested in "Campaign Contributions", a sort of paying forward of gratuities to the referees of the game of life as played after the election.

[dken31]

Wealth mostly comes from intelligence (IQ but with sufficient EQ). Plenty of people work hard but aren't smart enough for their hard work to pay off.

If you feel exploited as an employee, find a different job or start your own business. If you can't and have to instead rely on someone else to take those risks and accept those responsibilities, you can't reasonably complain when they also get to keep the profits

[Wainuiguy]

The age will need to go up. Until 2014 this was also Labour's policy.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Yes, until they realised how silly it was.

Wealth comes from wealth. Intelligence exists as a quality in many forms but can be developed and built upon with education. Education unfortunately comes at a price and barriered access that limits intelligent people.

Very few people become zillionaires from intelligence, hard work, and sacrifice alone. To claim that everyone could do it is to ignore reality, and remain in that comfortable state of delusion.

You really think someone chooses to spend their days cleaning toilets instead of sitting in a nice clean boardroom? Maaaaaate! Yer dreamin'...

The recent Newshub poll suggested 61% want the wealthy to pay more tax, 4% want them to pay less. Kind of reflects this forum too, don't you think?

And we live in a democracy...

[Lilith7]

Yes, until they realised how silly it was.

Wealth comes from wealth. Intelligence exists as a quality in many forms but can be developed and built upon with education. Education unfortunately comes at a price and barriered access that limits intelligent people.

Very few people become zillionaires from intelligence, hard work, and sacrifice alone. To claim that everyone could do it is to ignore reality, and remain in that comfortable state of delusion.

You really think someone chooses to spend their days cleaning toilets instead of sitting in a nice clean boardroom? Maaaaaate! Yer dreamin'...

The recent Newshub poll suggested 61% want the wealthy to pay more tax, 4% want them to pay less. Kind of reflects this forum too, don't you think?

And we live in a democracy...

For some it matters not a bit how hard they work & for how long; they'll never be wealthy. Or even well off enough to have a proper holiday, own a house or even a reasonably reliable car.

Because that is the way the system is set up now. It wasn't always this way. It doesn't have to be this way.
We need to change it.

And the desire to move to a fairer system is a threat to those holding most of the wealth, or many of them. Although to their credit, a group of wealthy people recently asked govt to tax them more because they feel the system is unfair & know they can afford to pay more withiout a problem, so clearly some still have a social conscience.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

It is also seen as a threat to those conditioned since birth to think they can achieve the top of the pole with that hard work and sacrifice. Despite the fact it is an illusion. The vast majority of people get to the end of their lives with a few regrets, very few involve not putting in enough hours for the boss.