Super age change may be inevitable

Email
Print

Super age change may be inevitable

3News NZ

John Key appears isolated and he's certainly in no mood to discuss the issue

John Key appears isolated and he's certainly in no mood to discuss the issue

By Political Editor Duncan Garner

Prime Minister John Key has given his strongest hint yet that the age of eligibility for national superannuation will rise after the year 2020.

But he's sticking to the line that he won't be the one who puts it up.

His comments come after a special 3 News poll showed the majority of Kiwis now support the age increasing, including, we can reveal tonight, John Key's own supporters.

All the experts agree the age of eligibility for national superannuation has to rise from the year 2020.

Until now John Key hasn't accepted that – saying he would rather resign. Today he started to shift his position.

“It may do [change by 2020],” says Mr Key.

Most political parties want change, and so do the experts and Treasury.

Today the OECD said the retirement age must increase from 65 to 67.

Twenty-eight of 34 countries have already increased or plan to increase the retirement age, and it says bold action is required.

So we asked Mr Key who is on his side. We got a grumpy response.

“I'm not going through that,” says Mr Key.

We asked again who supports his position. He named his party.

“My caucus.”

Labour Party leader David Shearer says the Prime Minster “has boxed himself into a corner and he has closed off options”.

Mr Key argues the ballooning cost of super is sustainable.

The Retirement Commissioner says yes, it is, but only if harsh measures are taken.

“They could close roads, schools prisons or hospitals or the economy could boom,” says Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan.

Last night's 3 News poll showed 63 percent of people accept the age must go up.

But if you look at just Mr Key's own National Party supporters, it's even higher – 66.5 percent support a change, and just 33.5 percent say no.

If he did change it, just 36 percent say it would break his promise, and 64 percent say it wouldn't.

So Mr Key appears isolated and he's certainly in no mood to discuss the issue.

But it now appears he, perhaps begrudgingly, accepts a change to the age is inevitable. But he won't lead us there.

3 News

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

15/06/2012 7:29:17 p.m.

cyril wrote:

@Kevin What I reckon is that I have paid my taxes for the last 40 odd years in good faith that the goverment will give me a pension at 65 like all baby boomers and I dont see why that should chamge because successive goverments have squandered my money. It is only in the last few years that they have started saying its not our problem. As far as Im concerned I have an unwritten contract with the goverment that if I work hard pay my taxes and be a good citizen they will supply me with a pension when I am old, worn out and unable to work any more. I have never been on a benifit of any kind, recieved compensation from ACC or any of that so as far as Im concerned its my right.

15/06/2012 10:41:51 a.m.

Kevin wrote:

So Cyril you would prefer that the poorly paid people got less pay due to paying a 1/3 more PAYE and the food power etc will be more because of the 1/3rd more GST as these are the increase required to keep super at 65

13/06/2012 7:55:49 p.m.

cyril wrote:

@Kevin You may not have noticed but generally the people in this country who work the puysically hardest and are most in need of early retirement are amonst the poorest paid so are least likely able to save the required extra amount, and before you get all patrinising and say get an easyer job remember someone has got to do it.

13/06/2012 2:40:08 p.m.

allan wrote:

Why doesnt govt pay super only to those people who are properly retired from full time employment. Surely that will save money and maybee create job vacancies as well,

13/06/2012 9:31:39 a.m.

Kevin wrote:

Problem is people like Cyril who complain about increasing the age when it doesn't even effect them. Any increase in age should be announced well in advance to give people enough time to save if they want to retire earlier. For those who say they can't afford to save any money for this well how will you afford the higher tax to pay to continue the super at 65.

13/06/2012 6:33:47 a.m.

Brent wrote:

So Labour and the Greens can campaign on this along with the CGT, Will you ask David Shearer and Russel Norman if this is the case Please Duncan.

13/06/2012 12:55:38 a.m.

cyril wrote:

@ alison You may be happy to do an extra 2 years and if you want to go for your life but I have worked physically hard all my life, my health is failing and I will be lucky to be physically able to work to 65 let alone 67 or older. Anyone who is capable and wants to work past 65 good on them they can but I have paid my taxes all my working life and have never recieved anything from the welfare system so I feel I deserve my super. It isnt my fault if the goverment has misused and wasted the tax money I have paid over the last 48 years and I dont see why I should be penalised for there mismanagment.

12/06/2012 9:58:31 p.m.

alison wrote:

The reality is it is not affordable and I dont mind waiting another 2 years but it should be means tested. And get rid of the tax cuts to the wealthy that are costing us daily. What an idiot Key. Your lack of financial matters is astounding.

12/06/2012 9:46:44 p.m.

cyril wrote:

Campbal held a txt poll two night and over 70% didnt want the retirement age raised so someones got it wrong.

12/06/2012 9:33:05 p.m.

abo wrote:

The poll obviously surveyed only the securely wealthy - because other much more representative polls strongly voted AGAINST raising the retirement age for very OBVIOUS reasons - it is not just about money - it is also about stalling the job market!!!!