Saturday, January 18, 2014

But what about Super numbers?

Kiwiblog has a post up about the declining benefit numbers. He's analysed the drop in numbers since December 2010. I've left this comment:

Over the period you have chosen to analyse there were 31,000 fewer working age beneficiaries and I agree. that can only be good news (albeit the decrease may mainly involve short-term dependants and reflect economic conditions rather than welfare reforms. Hard to know now the longevity reporting has changed.) But there were 79,000 more superannuitants. When is National going to address this problem?

I don't see Super in the same light as a benefit for a number of reasons. However it's still a debit on government revenue which is growing every year, faster than any decrease in the working age welfare bill.

Eligibility for the very first Old Age pension was set at 65. It's madness to ignore how different 65 year-olds of today are.

Key's obstinence over this matter is one of his few electoral vulnerabilities.


thor42 said...

I agree.

The Super numbers have got to be addressed (and sooner rather than later). Key is *foolish* to ignore this problem.

Most people in their 40s and 50s (I'm 52) are very realistic and are doing what they can to save for their retirement (which is a completely predictable event, of course).
Almost everyone of that age (or younger) realises that Super isn't a bottomless pit and there have got to be changes to it (especially raising the eligibility age).

Anonymous said...

Just another example that shows that Key is actually to the left of Helen Clark, and certainly to the left of Labour's policy on this issue!

I don't see Super in the same light as a benefit for a number of reasons.

What reasons? There are no reasons.

But it's called National™ Superannuation for a reason.