This writer makes some questionable assumptions.
I am 40 plus plus and would vote for a rise in the qualifying age (at the very least). The writer forgets that many of the group he assumes will vote with self-interest uppermost are also parents worried about the looming taxation burden on their children's (and grand children's) generation.
Also the "apathy" he refers to amongst the 18 to 30 year-olds would not be a 'given' if this debate took off.
And typically, ACT's proposal is misrepresented. The writer has framed the issue as one of retaining or losing Super when what Seymour proposed is a "referendum to determine the future structure of New Zealand Super."
2 comments:
Obviously, John Wilson is not a fan of the theory of expressive voting where people vote against their self-interest routinely.
I am 40 plus plus and would vote for a rise in the qualifying age...
Same here. Annoys the hell out of me that Labour dropped it as a policy. This guy seems to assume everyone bases their views on craven self-interest.
Post a Comment