Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Pensioner policy - as bad as each other

The NZ Herald rightly describes Labour's bribe to pensioners:

It is too easy for political parties to promise handouts in election year. No rival is going to say senior citizens do not need it. The election becomes an auction in which all parties put up their bids at public expense. If the party wins power it is obliged to carry out the promise no matter how cheaply it was made. And once enacted, the benefit becomes almost impossible to remove. Taxpayers bear the waste and the economy loses the investment. It is one way that nations get poor.
But didn't their major rival, National, say "senior citizens do not need it"?

Not really. Their line is to highlight the hypocrisy of Labour saying 65-67 year-olds don't need Super but do need 'free' health care. This is just an opportunity for National to keep promoting their own stubborn  largess with taxpayer money.


Anonymous said...

There's only one practical, affordable, moral policy with super: admit Rob Muldoon's bribe is indefensible and stop all super payments.

Just like anyone else, 65+ year olds who haven't made provision from themselves can go on the dole or the sickness - while we still have those benefits. Ideally of course we'd get rid of the lot.

And please, no pathetic whinging about how "you paid taxes all your life". Even if you did, so what? Government spent all your taxes and far far more, borrowing 60 Billion more than all your taxes in just the last 6 years.

S Beast said...

The aging population creates one hell of a forward liability when combined with this policy.