So for the life of me I cannot understand the political football it has developed into.
NZ First are backing no change. Winston plays to the entitlement brigade. Key says, according to the NZ Herald:
"This is my challenge to Winston Peters - I dare him to go out there and say he will not under any conditions form a government with Labour even if Labour's policy is to raise the super age from 2020, not in the 3 year period from 2014 to 2017. I dare him to say that. He will not. He will not because he's tricky. He'll find a way around all of that stuff."
It's all so risible, really.
5 comments:
Shows exactly how tiny the minds of the political elite and the chattering classes are.
The age of entitlement for super is not the issue - we are facing a catastrophe not because of increasing costs of superannuation which are only a small part of the burden an aging population puts upon us.
There are all the health costs, hip replacements, bypass surgery, colostomies and so forth.
Not forgetting Alzheimer's and high need units in nursing homes for four or more years, after the hip replacements and heart bypasses fifteen years earlier.
At the other end of the life cycle, the young, who are fewer then the elderly already start work in the early to mid twenties or later with tons of debt who then have to spend the first decade of their working life paying back the debt as well as supporting the elderly thru taxes and don't actually get around to raising their own children if they ever do until it is just about too late.
The exception to this being the deadbeats of course who produce multiple children who add an addition burden on the working not so young anymore .
My kids who worked to pay for their degrees rather than take out loans then buggered off leaving this sinking ship to the underclasses and the empty vessel chattering classes to witter on about raising the age of superannuation in the face of a grey tsunami to be supported by I'm not quite sure who?
Still nothing that introducing homosexual marriage wont fix that being the other obsession of the chattering classes in these days of self indulgent wonder.
At the other end of the life cycle, the young, who are fewer then the elderly already start work in the early to mid twenties or later with tons of debt.
And that is one of the core problems.
We have few starting work at age 16 anymore so apart from the fact that they are disadvantaged by discrimination against them the State also has to fund them for 2 or 3 more years than used to be the case.
Bring back youth rates and allow youngsters to get work as they want and or need,sack a bunch of teachers and give the money to industry for training to create wealth. No school ever creates wealth. On production for sale does that.
More young people in the work place would also mean that older members would retire to live off their super instead of collecting both.
Another 4 years and there will be a calamity starting. 70 yrolds retiring and no young people trained to tke their place. No generation knopwledge of traders and skills passed down.
Imagine what you are going to pay for a plumber. It's outrageous now but will get worse.
"It's all so risible, really."
No it isn't. What's risible is that a simplistic notion of one size fits all eligibility age of 67 will solve even 50% of the problem.
Maori die 8-10 years earlier than Pakeha whilst having the same lifestyle as Pakeha.. thats genetics and following a Pakeha culture rather than excess drinking and smoking.. it hardly seems fair they enjoy only a third of the national super of the Pakeha.
Then too, the attitude of ACC is that many injuries are the result of age related degeneration.. and we are asking people to work an extra two years with effectively no ACC cover?
Do we really think that a late sixties person with on average half the literacy and numeracy of the 40 year old is the way to increased productivity and innovation.
We say that older people are healthier, fitter and more work able than a generation ago.. really? so why have their health insurance policies doubled, tripled and quadrupled and the public health system buckling under the costs of old age care?.. all we've really done is find (expensive) remedies for age.
I suggest we need a much more flexible approach to national Super.. including whether the Govt should always be involved in it at all.. as well as ACC and health support for the elderly; and that means we need to offer incentives to encourage private insurance.
JC
JC, My use of the word 'risible' pertained to the political posturing. Not the arguments.
"I suggest we need a much more flexible approach to national Super.. including whether the Govt should always be involved in it at all.. "
Amen to that but the popular discussion is about entitlement age under the current system.
Maori die 8-10 years earlier than Pakeha...
They don't. There's an 8-10 year difference in average life expectancy at birth, but that's largely due to higher Maori infant/child mortality. The difference in life expectancy at retirement is more like 2-4 years, and even that's probably due to lifestyle factors like smoking and diet.
If anyone's getting ripped off by universal superannuation, it's smokers and people with chronic illnesses, not Maori. The whole idea of who deserves what for a pension is such a can of worms it's better not opened.
Post a Comment