Calls for superannuation age rise
Mon, 11 Jun 2012 6:01p.m.
By Political Editor Duncan Garner
They told him he had got it wrong over education - and he listened.
Now they are telling him again.
A 3 News poll shows two out of three voters want John Key to break a policy promise, and raise the age from which New Zealand superannuation payments can be claimed – from 65 to 66, or even 67.
The Prime Minister is refusing to have the debate - so the country is having it for him.
In a special 3 News Reid Research Poll of 1000 voters, 63% say yes push the age up to 66 or 67 from the year 2020 - or even earlier and just 37% say no don't do it.
But remember the Prime Minister has promised not to touch it.
“As I’ve said on numerous occasions I’d rather resign as Prime Minister,” John Key has said.
“I’m a man who keeps my word – I don’t change it lightly,” he says.
The cost of super is blowing out - it will cost $12 billion a year by 2016, the same as the entire education budget.
And the Retirement Commissioner is hoping the poll gives the Prime Minister a hurry-up.
“New Zealand is lagging behind on this one – people need time to make the adjustments we need this announced as soon as we can,” says Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan.
3 News also asked voters if Mr Key should abandon his promise not to change the rules:
And pressure is mounting in Parliament too - all Mr Key's coalition partners now want the issue looked at.
John Banks says increase the age and Peter Dunne and Tariana Turia want the age at when you get super to become more flexible, but still the Prime Minister says it is not worth his attention.
The poll also asked if Mr Key did signal change would that amount to a broken promise: a nudge over half said yes, and just under half said no.
And after the teacher debacle Mr Key is hardly in the mood to test voters again, even if the majority say he is ignoring the obvious - that 65 is no longer sustainable.
Post a Comment
Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide
(Won't be published)
12/06/2012 8:33:04 a.m.
My parents had 4 children in the 50s-60s. Those 4 children have had 3-4 children. Meaning we have replaced ourselves nearly twice over providing more taxpayers to cover our pensions. Aside from that women did not get full wages until the early-mid 70s when equal pay was introduced and many did not have full time work until their children were teenagers. No chance to save anything on the low income for any retirement fund. As many couples got older, one or the other will have left the family via separation or divorce and often the woman worked and paid for everything alone. Less chance to save again.
Yes we are living longer as we do not die right away from our diseases. That does not mean that those who are living longer with their bad hearing, sight, heart problems, parkinsons, altzheimers, arthritis etc. can work 9-5 if at all.
As for recent grand conclusions that children born today will live to 100 is rubbish given the current diet of old stored nutrient deficient chemical laden supermarket stale produce and disgusting water laden meat they consume and the nutrient deficient fat salt and sugar laden take-a ways in their diets they are not likely to reach 40 without having some costly disease.
Improve the health of the nation, create jobs and let the old have their peace after many years of hard work. No one should expect a hard toiling laborer to work beyond 60-65, it is cruel and it is elder abuse.
The Chinese shoes & other goods are falling to bits after a few weeks. Provide jobs and make things that last in NZ again. Stop making us pay for people who choose to have one or more children on a benefit. Benefit is not a lifestyle it is assistance only for a needy time. DPB was designed for people whose spouses left them with children to care for until they could get work. Lets return to that way.
Unemployed should be working in the community for the councils to the min wage value of their benefits. However many unemployed, it is a huge wasted labour force!
11/06/2012 11:52:40 p.m.
And why didnt National do anything about it in their term before labour Jim? Oh thats right... the had just done 11.5 Billion dollars in damage to the housing market by deregulating it.
They had just created a permanent underclass in NZ with their benefit cuts of the 90's.
Infact... inevitably... all National Party policies fail or cause damage in the long term.
Labour at least had the balls to campaign on the issue while Key hid behind Gray Powers Union skirts.
11/06/2012 10:44:13 p.m.
Jim Seaview wrote:
Quote: "And after the teacher debacle Mr Key is hardly in the mood to test voters again, even if the majority say he is ignoring the obvious - that 65 is no longer sustainable"The majority of a TV3 news poll of only 1000 voters is absolutely totally meaningless and about as empty as David Shearer jumping on the bandwagon now.Prior to the election Labour had it in their election manifest but why didnt they do anything while they were in Government for 9 years. WHY? John Key says he is not going to debate it as there are more pressing problems. Thats where it should stay!!
11/06/2012 10:09:41 p.m.
Why the present tax funded system is regarded by so many to be unsustainable beats me. What are the alternatives? A compulsory but fully privatised system? Either way it’s money you and I will be spending whether it happens to be before tax or after tax. So why change anything? Sustainability arguments are nothing but a red herring.
11/06/2012 9:57:03 p.m.
Have any of you considered one very salient and pertinent fact? - raising the retirement age will NOT save money - but it WILL force people to stay in the workforce longer (unless they are wealthy) and it WON'T provide more jobs for the young entering the workforce - or is PROFIT all anyone cares about these days (I wonder how many comments are from people at the bottom end of the food chain like me?)
11/06/2012 9:54:46 p.m.
Shame to see we've become a bunch of heartless misguided sheep.
11/06/2012 9:46:35 p.m.
John Key has effectively castrated himself on this issue... there will be no forgiveness if he moves on National Superannuation... he cant simply go I will resign if National Super changes... and then not resign.
Though it would be as good as his word on any other issue.
The issue however is something needs to change and we cant wait until he leaves office... something needs to happen now.
So write up that resignation letter of yours John and get the hell out... good riddance to bad rubbish.
11/06/2012 9:40:41 p.m.
i dont see how it is sustainable, but im 28, ask me when im 65... maybe ill ask for a sickness benefit instead lol. maybe ill go on the dole now and work when im 65
11/06/2012 8:29:37 p.m.
How can anyone have an opinion on what changes should be made if we don't know the outcome of those changes? moving from 65 to 67 for example, how much money does that save?
11/06/2012 7:59:25 p.m.
arthur flay wrote:
Don't wait until 2020.Start the paperwork now.Straight to 67 !!!!.
Three weeks ago, Winston Peters made a speech to Grey Power in Takapuna, entitle...
McDonald's workers striking will be a waste of time if a strike-breaking bill pa...
The NZTA is being accused of wasting taxpayer money, spending tens of thousands ...
Labour MPs are being called hypocrites for accepting Sky City's invitations to w...
Gerry Brownlee says the council is in a "very serious situation", but Mayor Bob ...
Copyright © 2013 MediaWorks TV. All Rights Reserved.