• Full Story

Key takes the heat over national super

Email
Print

Key takes the heat over national super

3News NZ

Nearly two-thirds of people think the age should be raised to 66 or 67

Nearly two-thirds of people think the age should be raised to 66 or 67

Labour is warning the Government it faces hard choices over national super.

Backed by a poll showing most people think the pension age should be raised, leader David Shearer says Prime Minister John Key can't maintain an attitude that "somehow the future will look after itself".

A sharp focus has been put on the issue by a new report saying the cost of national super will double to 12 percent of gross domestic product by the end of the century and tax rates would have to increase by 28 percent to pay for it.

Labour says the Government must decide whether to raise the age, raise taxes, or cut entitlements.

Mr Key says there's no need to do anything until at least 2020 and he isn't backing of his 2008 pledge to resign from Parliament if anything changes under his watch.

Mr Shearer says the problem has to be addressed now.

"At the moment there are 5.6 workers for every retired person but in less than 30 years that will be reduced to 2.5," he said.

"We must be fair to young New Zealanders by making sure there will be a pension scheme in place for them when they retire."

The TV3 Reid Research poll, released on Monday night, showed 63 percent of 1000 voters questioned thought the age - currently 65 - should be raised to 66 or 67 from 2020 or even earlier, while 37 percent didn't.

The Council of Trade Unions is concerned there will not be enough jobs to go round if the pension age rises by a couple of years.

Peter Conway says the debate is worrying its members.

"To have the qualifying age for national super pushed out at the same time as we've got discrimination against older people in the workforce, it's clearly going to have a damaging impact."

NZN / RadioLIVE

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

29/06/2012 4:57:24 a.m.

Summer wrote:

General Motors has announced their plan to reduce their pension liability by an anticipated 26 billion dollars. The plan, announced on June 1, will offer select U.S. retirees a continued monthly payment and other salaried retirees a lump-sum payment. This decision is a complex one, and obtaining the advice of a qualified financial advisor is recommended. A free white paper and additional information on the GM (NYSE:GM) Pension Buyout plan is available at http://www.gmpensionbuyout.info. The deadline for the pension buyout plan is July 20, 2012.

12/06/2012 6:46:41 p.m.

Jon wrote:

I was one of the people polled by Reid Research last week on this issue and have to say the question on raising the age of super was a most rhetorical device. Reid Research asked me; "Do you support raising the age of super, or reducing spending on education? " I told them it was incredibly leading and refused to answer.

12/06/2012 5:13:32 p.m.

tom wrote:

I reckon we should go back to the system Bill Rowlings put in place and Muldoon stuffed up. We would be billions in pocket now. Forget about raising again, do what is suggested above.

12/06/2012 12:58:52 p.m.

local kiwi wrote:

i think the first thing to do is means test the pension. It means that if your earning an income from investments or choosing to work longer you dont need a handout from the government. The figure just dont work out even if you are only retired on a pension for 10 years at 15k a year you would have to have about 150k in kiwi-saver or have paid that in tax doesnt balance never will Most countries including Australia means-test and obviously if the retirement age is 70 you could apply at 65 to get a pension if you wish Governments are not bottomless pits of money they are just the holders of tax paid by the community which is not going to pay the pesion,dole sickness benefits, invalid benefits and build roads and so on without eventually having to say NO

12/06/2012 12:04:02 p.m.

Bruce wrote:

Key seems unable to make the BIG decisions that will benefit New Zealand. we need another election... Now!

12/06/2012 11:34:58 a.m.

Marty wrote:

Were do you draw the line and who says a manual worker bodies wear out. They may be a lot fitter and live a healthier longer life. Uncle laborer 89. Nana mowed lawns, went from a washing board to a wringer washing machine at 86 made own fruit, used a butter churn...out of her own house at 90 died 91. Her husband 58 very heavy long hard work. When your numbers your numbers up. I have a terminal disease and my wife earns too much, under the minimum average wage and because we are married I am entitled to zero from WINZ. (I have been there with all the required documentation and not even an accommodation supplement, 0). So you going to pay me super now too. And all the married sick/disabled entitled to nothing going to get super too. There was some putting the hand up from the Maori and pacific island community too. What are the statistics, average, median, how many are currently dying versus the average/median/population based/aged medical health statisticsprivate/public. Or is it the "we have the figures and statistics to support our case so naff off"

12/06/2012 10:31:20 a.m.

Gary wrote:

Maybe western democratic society is imploding in on itself as a result of the financial collaps driven by corporate greed. Or we may just be out growing the system. One thing is for sure this is going to force some kind of change. Too many old people are not good for any economy unless you grow, develop and balance the young people in to maintain equilibrium. The more skilled people leaving for Australia less apprentices no economic growth all adds to the problem exponetially. National are on a knife edge with their only mandate to cut costs and sell off land and assetts to keep the balance but once they have done this there is nothing left and then we are in deep crisis. So far I have not seen anything from them that gives me any confidence for NZ future, they just seem to be buying them selves more time in office with no thought for the people of NZ.

12/06/2012 10:03:15 a.m.

Alan wrote:

Retirement age and pension age are not the same thing - people should retire whenever they like, however, they should receive a pension based on their birth year and how many years they have contributed through taxation, not necessarily how much they have contributed. Those born in 1960 are likely to live far longer than those born in 1940 so their pension age could easily be shifted to 67 or even 70. Born in the 1970s myself, I do not consider 65 to be suitable pension age for myself and would happily wait till (and work till) 80 before receiving a pension, if I am lucky enough to live that long, which is a reasonable expectation.

12/06/2012 8:51:35 a.m.

Jen wrote:

What about the people who have been manual workers all their lives - builders, roofers, drainlayers etc. By the time they are 60 generally speaking their bodies are worn out. It is ok for people making these decisions who sit in centrally heated offices and push buttons or pens all day. Think of the manual worker!

12/06/2012 6:55:04 a.m.

Grant wrote:

Are people really living longer? Maybe the government should encourage smoking to reduce lifespans.
Or, get rid of year 9 and year 10 at school. Restrict tertiary courses, abolish tertiiary fees and debts to enable young adults to contribute to the economy.