Wednesday, October 21, 2020

The longer we delay raising the Super age, the more painful it will be

 The country is facing  not only a cartload (polite descriptor) of debt to be repaid but burgeoning costs of supporting a rapidly expanding 65+ population.

An article from Stuff today compares NZ's system to others noting:

This year’s Global Pension Index from Mercer showed that New Zealand’s retirement income system had slipped down the rankings, from eighth to 10th.

Then the retirement commissioner points out:

...that might sound worrying but the country was still in the “B team”. Only Netherlands and Denmark scored an A. 

What is the retirement age in these two countries?

 In the Netherlands it is currently 66 years and 4 months and will reach 67 in 2024. Most interestingly, "For those born after 30 September 1957, the statutory retirement age is linked to life expectancy."

And in Denmark what was 65 is gradually rising to age 67 from 2019 to 2022 and to age 68 by 2030.

New Zealand is well out of step with most other nations notably those we most frequently align with - the UK, Australia and the US.

The longer we delay raising the Super age, the more rapid and painful the inevitable implementation will be.

2 comments:

oneblokesview said...

I well remember going to a Business forum in the 80s when some financial ""gurus"" were talking about the super scheme become unsustainable by the turn of the century if we did do something (cant remember what the something was that they were touting).

I do support the idea of life expectancy based super.
Seems to me that the whole super thing needs a rework. But I also understand that politically it is almost impossible to wind back a benefit once it has been created. Looking at WFF as I write that.


Mark Wahlberg said...

Lindsay, over 65's are seen as a liability when it comes to their demands on the health and welfare dollar. I suspect there might be rewards with cost savings via the unintended consequences of the End of Life alternativeif it should ever become law.

But if the qualifying age for National Super is raised to an arbitrary figure of 67, will not the savings made, only be used to prop up and fund increases in existing or new benefits?

I can't imagine the Labour Government reducing other benefits and penalizing its fan base!