(Left-click to enlarge)
Sean Plunket ran a show attacking Super receipt today; those taking it while continuing to work, and any taking it when they don't need it. He personalised his attack using morning host Peter Williams, newly qualified.
He justified his argument through concern about inter-generational inequity. The baby boomers are stealing from the following generations.
I rang to make the point that in the 1990s some were making the same accusations about the generation born in the 1920s through 40s. David Thomson wrote a book called the Selfish Generations to this effect. These inter-generational inequities are probably swings and roundabouts.
Regarding Super, my view is that the qualifying age needs to go up to 67-68 with those physically incapable going on a Supported Living Payment. Anyone who is receiving Super and working is effectively paying for it themselves through their own tax. It's like WFF for the over 65s.
Some means-testing sounds good but it opens a can of worms just not worth opening.
6 comments:
The younger people have a bone of contention regarding having to fund the baby boomers superannuation. I wonder what the baby boomers did from the time they left school, and many left at 15 years old, to 65 years old .? I know , they worked and contributed to the building of this country and it is much more developed now than it was post war. They also paid taxes and raised families. There is also world wide growth in the numbers of baby boomer as grandparents raising their grand children as their own children are too busy having a good time , they don't want the responsibility as they seem to be afflicted with entitleitus.
I understand the argument, but I don't see the need to single out Peter Williams as a negative element to bolster Sean Plunket's argument.
There are many thousands of individuals who fit the pension dynamic. No need to point the finger at Peter Williams,who by the way,hasn't done anything wrong in claiming that which is his right by law.
Is Sean Plunket pursuing some sort of personal vendetta here, or, is he simply playing people for suckers to bolster his shows ratings?
I suspect the argument has little attraction without the element of a media personality people can relate to..
I listen to Radio Woodville myself, where the only contentious issues raised are about the quality of the old time country music played by those volunteers spinning the discs.
I listened to the discussion Peter had during the morning. He seemed quite at a loss about much of the Super scheme and obviously didn't know about a qualifying person electing to include their spouse if the spouse was under qualifying and dependent of the recipient. He did not need to involve his spouse at all if he was not going to include her (which he hasn't).
There is one aspect to the debate around the qualifying age that I've not heard adequately addressed. I was made redundant at age 66 from a public service specialty job and there was no way I could have found work in the same - or any related - sphere. So if a person looses their job before their Super starts - lets say at 70 - and the market doesn't want them, how do they fend for themselves? Presumable by going onto 'unemployment' benefits - which isn't much different to Super...
Anon, The primary applicant must have his partner fill in his or her details. Peter was quite correct in that.
Sorry. Rewrite. Must have his or her partner fill in their details.
Peter Dunne was reported to have suggested a scheme whereby you become eligible at 60 (or maybe even lower) but could chose to 'leave it in' to a later date at which time the rate would be higher - based on actuarial principals. This was an option under the old government superannuation scheme, and it sounded very sensible to me. Covers the people who have to retire early due to ill health etc etc. As it happens, I am still working and I give my super monies away, but i don't think that should be a requirement.
Post a Comment