NBR ONLINE POLL: Massive support for pension age change
NBR Business Pulse Results
NBR ONLINE subscribers are joining the clamour for change in the retirement age debate.
The latest NBR ONLINE Business Pulse Poll reveals overwhelming support for raising the age of entitlement for state-funded superannuation: 81% of subscribers agree the age should be raised from 65 to 70, gradually, from 2020 onwards. Only 19% disagree.
National says it won’t budge on its 2008 and 2011 election promises not to change the pension age.
Labour wants to raise the superannuation eligibility age to 67 and pressure is building on National to comply, with change being presented as necessary to remedy "intergenerational unfairness".
Prime Minister John Key’s 2008 promise was remarkable for its extremity: “National will retain all the superannuation entitlements and eligibility rules that our senior citizens currently enjoy.
"We will keep this pledge and I will resign as prime minister, and as a member of our parliament, rather than break it.
“What’s more,” Mr Key said, “as we cut taxes and grow average after-tax wages, we will progressively increase the amount of super paid to senior citizens.”
NBR political commentator Mathew Hooton says National strategists argue such an unequivocal promise was essential to winning in 2008 and for the hair’s-breadth re-election of 2011 – but it was, and is, economic lunacy.
The week-long NBR ONLINE Business Pulse poll closed this morning.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions28
Join the campaign to push for discussion and change on Super.
http://yournz.org/2012/06/03/adass/
Great - let's push for change including John Key's resignation.
It doesn't matter if John Key resigned we are still stuffed, look at the rest of parliament..not much to choose from is there
Whats the point? Its almost impossible to get a job over 50, many major companies use software for screening which includes a compulsory age question.
I don't agree with increasing ages for the super. i rather have people paying their students allowances if they want to use their tax paid education overseas. we can't leave the country if we haven't [paid a parking fine, so why can we do it when we owe thousands of tax pyer dollars to govenment
Yes - and if the government had the guts to do it - they would withhold passports from students who are behind in SL repayments - but don't hold your breath
About time the Government listened to the people that vote them in.
Hold a referendum and be done with it. Superannuation is such an important issue that it warrants a referendum and immediate action.
Or John Key could just eat humble pie like we all do from time to time and say " he got it wrong " but for the sake of NZ Inc is prepared to put it right - that would gain him immense respect..
Past time for John Key to get his head out of the sand!
WG
At the same time lets bring in a LAW to make it compulsory to employ only old people over younger ones, and have a ministry for old people with funding for old people retraining.
Advance the retirement age by 2 months a year starting now.
Retirement age would then be, 66 by 2018 and 67 by 2024 and 68 by 2030
Perhaps because its an NBR poll National will simply roll over and change its policy on this matter?
Ok, so we raise the retirement age to 67. That just means more baby boomers in the work force, demanding top salaries and not really producing anything. That impacts directly on young people (with fresh ideas, relevant skills, energy, etc) being able to enter the work force... and contribute to NZ productively.
OR we don't raise the age and have more Boomers drawing on the old age pension (sorry, not old age - surely the Boomers are 'middle-aged') which means additional pressure on NZ Super funds (which young people are paying for with their increased take home salaries according to John Key).
Damned if we do, damned if don't by the looks of things.
I don't want to wait till 70 to retire, stuff that, I have paid my taxes. Who is voting on this...a whole lot of people it won’t affect no doubt. I am not going to still be able to climb on to roof tops and fix things at that age, what a stupid idea. There are guys at my work who aren't even close to 65 who can't hack the pace, they will never make it to 70 in the work place .What allot of nonsense. Cut the money from some where else that does not contribute, like state housing.
Thank you for paying your taxes. It adds no weight to your argument but surely shows you contribute to NZ as you are legally required to.
I would argue the very people voting on NBR's survey will be the ones who benefit from additional years in the work-force earning their potential maximum.
It certainly won't be 21 year old polytech / university graduates trying to find work.
John Morrison's idea is the most sensible that I have heard during the Super debate; and I tend to agree.
Waiting until 2020 allows a Labour/Green combination to campaign on lowering the age again, despite what they preach now. These two groups are desperate to gain the Treasury benches.
They still believe in the myth of the 'fat rich cats'.
John Morrison's idea simply benefits him and his boomer peers and then they will 'pull the ladder up' after them. It also only delays the 'elephant in the room' of means testing for NZ Super. It's this ongoing delay around this conversation that has put us in this position in the first place.
Nah, you got that all wrong mate. yes I'm past 65, but my super just turns around and heads straight back to the IRD. You reckon I'm a cost on NZ? Go figure
Would that because you are also receiving a WCC salary? Hmmm.... do you need a salary AND NZ Super. Or do you automatically 'deserve it' because you've 'paid your taxes' and have been promised it by previous governments. I was promised free education. Didn't get it though...
Hmmm, $100k WCC salary and NZ Super. You are a real kiwi hero mate. Perhaps receiving a pension and a salary is a boomer status symbol but my generation sees it for what it is. Boomer rip off.
NAH mate, self employed and still working!
Only signed up for super 'cause I thought it would do best if it circulated locally before it went back to IRD.
By the way, what is "$100k WCC salary"? 'scuse my ignorance please.
You don't need to be an actuary to observe that people are living longer (ie to older ages) - even a politician could work that out !!
Forget about raising the age - just means test the sucker.
I fully expect it to be means tested by the time I get to 65 so the soon the better as far as my taxes are concerned.
I have always thought this a simple problem. Lets take a date 01/01/2013.
If as of that date you are 55 + no problems the superannuation starts at 65. If you are 40 to 55 as of 01/01/2013 you will get 2/3rds of the current super, adjusted for inflation. 25 to 40 you get 50% of current superannuation adjusted for inflation and all below 25 you get a maximum of 10%. At the same date 01/01/2013 superannuation becomes compulsory for all at a minimum of 8% for employees and 4% for employers. P.S. at the same time, 01/01/2013 cut all working for families benefits, except those in dire need. Golly not only will we be in surplus in 2014 but by 2020 we will be able afford and put programs in place that employ people
Seems fair, but will you lower the tax rate on those that pay for their own super as well as someone else’s?
You all have it wrong, reduce the retiment age by 5 years, so the younger bludgging lot can, and have to work, by the mere incentive of removing the doll,
You guys are forgetting two things;
i) Super is taxed so that anyone receiving it is taxed at their top marginal rate. Therefore most are only getting around two thirds ot the payment anyway.
ii) Most people getting super have paid their taxes and contributed to government funding for the last fifty years so a little payback now is not unreasonable. Furthermore a lot of people over sixty would have paid tax at the top marginal rate of over 60 cents in the dollar on a fairly low threshold. If you want to reduce entitlement at least allow these people to receive the pension at age sixty five before starting to raise the bar.
The wealthies people make large sums from capital gains, etc so has no tax on it so I don't buy the argument that the rich should get National Super!
Actually, the United Future of policy of letting people choose their own retirement age between 60 and 70 seems a good one. I would combine this though with allowing it only for people not in full time employment or already entitled to government super.
C'mon John, get your head out of the sand and listen to the people who elected you.
Start increasing the entitlement age;we can't afford to do nothing.
WG