HOT TOPICS:  Top 10   |   Housing affordability  |  LVRs                                                       KEY RESOURCES:    Economic calendar   | Farms for sale

The comment stream

Recent comments

Reader poll

What is the single most important topic for you going into this year's election?

Choices
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Join the Interest community to be a registered commenter so you can:
- Edit your comments
- Avoid the CAPTCHA
- Vote on comments
Register Here

Already registered? log back in here ..

Forgotten your password? No problem! Click here

Have your say: Should New Zealand raise the retirement age to 67?

Posted in News

Raising New Zealand's retirement age from 65 to 67 could help save the country at least NZ$100 billion by 2061, according to investment services company and Kiwisaver provider Mercer, the NZHerald reported.

Lifting the eligibility age to 67 and removing disincentives to taking up annuity products such as Kiwisaver are two solutions that could potentially address the problem, it says.

In the report, Securing Retirement Incomes - Time to Act, Mercer recommended raising the age of eligibility as one option, with an alternative being linking the NZ Super age of entitlement to the life expectancy of the population. As life expectancy rises, so would the retirement age.

Lifting the age of retirement in New Zealand from 65 to 67 would save the government at least $100 billion by 2061, says Mercer.

However this debate is stalled as long as Prime Minister John Key sticks with his promise to quit Parliament if the retirement age did not remain at 65.

Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan said yesterday she was disappointed the government was not taking more action to address the looming retirement crisis, leaving private firms such as Mercer to do the work.

"The government needs to be doing the sums," she says. "They have come out and said we are going to be OK, but how do we know? The most important thing the government can do at the moment is get the figures out so we can start looking at possible scenarios."

My view

We simply cannot afford to keep the retirement age at 65 if we want to avoid a massive fiscal crunch and either higher taxes or a privatised health system from 2020 when the baby boomer bulge hits us. Other countries, including Australia, are raising it to 67. Others, including Denmark, are linking the retirement age to life expectancy changes.

I'm surprised John Key has painted himself into such a corner. He had better get the solvent out.

We simply have to have the debate and his promise acts as a wet blanket on the debate.

Your view?

We welcome your comments and insight in the comment space below.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current Comment policy is here.

I think this poll will

I think this poll will be overloaded with the younger gen who are using twitter, blogs etc . twisiting it towards "yes. i want to buy ipods etc"

Raise it to 70. Make

Raise it to 70. Make a stand against ageism in the workplace. Educate. Face the fiscal realities for society if retirement age sits at 65, and embrace the positives that working brings for people - social contact, sense of fulfilment - regardless of age.

I'm one of the younger

I'm one of the younger generation, and I certainly don't want to see the retirement age increasing! Having said that, I am working on the principle that I will need to pay for anything I want in retirement, because the probability of the economy being able to sustain me in 30 years of welfare-retirement is as good as zero.

Makes sense to me. I'm

Makes sense to me. I'm 47 and I expect that my retirement age will be about 70. As long as the transition is handled well it should work. Was there much of a problem when it went form 60 to 65?

As long as the adjustment

As long as the adjustment is phased in giving plenty of warning, then it has to be done. Mr Key can resign as promised and we can get on with life. He will be regretting the "Ready....Fire.....Aim....oooops" earlier outburst!!!

Heather Hapeta: It is their

Heather Hapeta: It is their money, the OAP's which are the BB's have spent it and some of the younger's future earnings by building up Govn debt. BBs also got a free tertiary education, which the younger now has to pay for. Then the health bill will be coming in for that BB generation so I dont see that those BBs well enough to work cant. I dont see why the younger generation now have to suffer to keep a bunch of aging spend thrifts who have spent the younger's future.

regards

Leanne Saunders: Its not compulsory(?)

Leanne Saunders: Its not compulsory(?) to retire at 65....I certainly hope Im well enough to work to 70 part time...I will have to I suspect....

The other issue with raising the retirement age is the health of the person, if they are not well enough to work past 65 and have little savings then they will be on the sickness benefit.....so the Govn will be paying anyhow.

regards

Steven, it's all part of

Steven, it's all part of the game. It may well be that your birth was a real money burner keeping the doc up late and the nurses running marathons and tying up half a maternity ward but it was all paid for by Baby Boomer gen! We just don't know what bills we have had paid by others in such systems nor do we know what is round the corner! I look forward to receiving your taxes very soon. Send you a card mate.

Yes. I expect my Gen

Yes. I expect my Gen X/Y will be working until 70+. If not, we owe you one ...

Tell you what Mr Key,

Tell you what Mr Key, here's an escape route, I'll let you use it.
You promised to resign if the retirement age went above 65, right? Well that means you don't have to resign until the day the age limit goes up see. So if you and English sort out a date say 2018 for the change, you can hang around until then, that is if we don't boot you out earlier.

I'd like to see Kiwisaver

I'd like to see Kiwisaver payouts based what the retirement age was when the money was invested. The money I'm putting in now should be accessible when I'm 65. If the retirement age changes to 67, then further Kiwisaver investments are accessible at 67 etc.

How about letting us choose

How about letting us choose our retirement age. Whatever age you're at when you apply to the Gumnut for a pension, that equals the percentage of the average wage that you'll receive. That'll incentivise the hale and hearty to work on until 70 yrs. plus. And if you get a sudden change of circumstances, you've got the security of knowing the pension is there, as you now need it. And if you're rich and civic minded, no need to ever apply for a pension you don't require.

And as for you, Bernard, you who didn't watch the weekend rugger match, 'cos the All Blacks usually lose to the Springboks. ( your comment to Marcus Lush ) That is only the 'Boks 10 'th win in 34 outings against the AB's since the inception of the Tri-Nations . Look at the charts ! ( or as I did , look at le Tour de France instead )

I don't see any way

I don't see any way around it - it will simply have to be raised. I personally know quite a few people aged 65+ that still work, some full time and some part time. I know some of the ones that work full time are receiving Govt Super as well. They see it as their right I guess, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that. It's hard to know how to feel about it unless you're in their shoes I guess. One in particular earns $200k+ a year, so I guess he's paying decent income tax at least! I can't speak for the current retirees, BBs etc as I'm not one of them, but as a Gen Xer I can honestly say that I don't expect there to be any Govt Super for me when I get to retirement, but I can say one thing - I'll be damned pissed off if there's Govt Super for those who never joined Kiwisaver, but not for those who did. But then again, I don't know why I'd be surprised as it's not too different to what we have now - savers being punished while spenders and those that took on too much debt get preferable treatment.

Roger I was meaning the

Roger

I was meaning the All Blacks usually lose to the Springboks in South Africa. I don't know the stats. Go for your life.

cheers
Bernard

I am not sure that

I am not sure that simply raising the retirement age will actually solve this problem, and will just put off the real debate that needs to had,

And that is a debate about universality,

When the media throw up Australia as a comparison, they neglect to also add that the number on the "age pension" is around 68% of the equivalent age cohort, while in NZ, NZ Super is claimed by around 93%.

The bigger horns to be grasped is means testing NZ Superannuation,

Now if you think politicians are scared of tinkering with the age of qualifying, watch them run screaming down the corridors naked to get away from this question.

Does anyone know the full

Does anyone know the full story on when immigrants are entitled to receive the pension? Must they have worked paying taxes for a set number of years or is it a free for all????

Wally - from WINZ website:

Wally - from WINZ website:

"¢have been resident and present in New Zealand for not less than 10 years since the age of 20. This must include 5 years or more since the age of 50.
and

"¢be a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident (that is, not be in New Zealand unlawfully or here on a temporary permit) and
"¢be ordinarily resident in New Zealand on the date of application

(nothing there about paying taxes per se....just residency)

Welly, you can forget seeing

Welly, you can forget seeing our dear leaders meddle with means testing any time soon, even though it would be fun to see them jiggling the fat on a naked romp through Parliament's corridors. The grey power vote is just too powerful and rightly so. You don't see 'means testing' applied for other benefits do you? So why should those who have saved and been prudent with their income throughout their lives, see some slob next door who drank and smoked and gambled away an income, receive a full pension while they get 'means tested'?

veedub, bit of a free

veedub, bit of a free handout then isn't it?

Wally, Yes you do see

Wally,

Yes you do see means testing applied to other benefits,
Ever heard of abatement rates for additional earnings?

I am talking more about income rather than asset testing, but the current benefit system is definitely means tested,

Why do we look after

Why do we look after our old and infirm? Can not think of many other animals that do? Contribute to society or step aside? If contributing to society means looking after grandkids while parents work [because they do not get working for families type supports] then so be it. If individual families decide that they want to look after their parents, then so be it, get them to move in.

Us humans are a funny old bunch how we look after the non-productive ;-)

@Veedub ...but don't forget the

@Veedub

...but don't forget the catch, that if you've contributed to an overseas pension, then you don't get the NZ one unless you give the overseas one to the NZ authorities. Which means I won't be getting a NZ pension at any age - unless the UK companies go bust and take the pensions I paid for with them...

Fair enough Welly. If it

Fair enough Welly. If it were to be income testing, I shall reduce my income by investing in rare coins and the capital gain solves the problem of being screwed by a system that would reward splurging and punnish saving.

Hi Gail, my line of

Hi Gail, my line of work is actually this very thing. You can actually transfer your UK pension to NZ as a tax free lump sum and still get NZ Govt Super, provided you meet the criteria I cut and pasted from the WINZ website (under current legislation). In doing that, you guarantee that you WILL get whatever you paid to the UK companies, and get it immediately as well. However, you can't get both full UK Govt Pension (NI contributions) and full NZ Govt Super (for those that didn't contract out or have an Occupational Pension Scheme).

No way! I'm old enough

No way! I'm old enough that they're inflation-linked defined benefit schemes - the lump sum I'd get is pretty paltry in comparison.

So thanks, but no thanks.

I support raising the age

I support raising the age to whatever as long as there is also tax reform.
Currently many take Super as payback from the goverment from taxes paid earlier.
That's why many do not save personally...and many cannot do so as the tax rate right now takes everything away. Perhaps this is another reason why our saving rate is so low??

Super entitlement age should be raised only if personal income tax is cut to compensate. That way nobody can blame anybody if they cannot finance their retirement.

As regards to immigrants, they need only stay for 10 years out of 15 and reach 65 and be entitled to super...no need to have "prepaid" their super through taxes. This is again one more reason why we will have a hugh shortfall later...there's no taxes collected from this group in advance/ insufficient amount collected through taxes to compensate for this group's entitlement later. This is an acturial question....the maths cannot be wrong.

@ Gail, I'm not saying

@ Gail, I'm not saying you should or shouldn't do it, that's your decision. I was just saying there is an alternative. I would guess though that you've not ever enquired as to what a transfer value would be - you'd be very pleasantly surprised. The likes of NHS, TPA etc offer very large amounts to transfer out (in excess of 5 x what you paid in, tax free). But everyone's different and has their own reasons for deciding to do whatever they want to do.

I don't think the solution

I don't think the solution is simply to "raise the age to 67", what needs to happen is there needs to be a policy/act (whatever the correct term is) in place that periodically adjusts the age based on a specified set of factors "“ forecasting based on 60+ years of data in not rocket science. The age should have already been raised to 66.

We run a risk that there will be much debate about raising the age to 67, it will be delayed / not passed etc. and by the time it has finally passed, we will find the age should be raised to 70...

You've got a good point

You've got a good point there Sam, that would possibly see any changes made in a more softly, gently and predictable manner which would make it so much easier for people to accept.

You have to think that if most of us have given this a bit of thought and willingly (or unwillingly) accept that the age of entitlement will be lifted to 70 or that there will be no Govt Super at all by the time Gen X/Y reaches retirement that the Govt should just get on with it and do what needs to be done. The longer they put it off the worse it'll be in the long run. I'm not saying I want these outcomes, but it seems inevitable that something will have to give.

in regards to Wally's comment

in regards to Wally's comment about no other benefit being means tested .
try being a student it's not only means tested but means tested off your parents until you are 25 .

so someone trying to make something of themselves must be means tested but , Johny unemployed gets a free run.

the problem with a benefit sociality like we are building you get people on the unemployment all their life and straight onto the pension.

it is true scary for the young person in this country look at the house prices . and factor in that you may have to cover your own retirement how could you clear the average house price so $340k on the average wage . by the time you hit 65 and have enough money to live on

What's that latin term for

What's that latin term for I got it wrong? Cheers Gen Y or X. I agree with you regards the unfair nature of having means testing. If it's good for one it's good for all.

You are totally right Bernard

You are totally right Bernard about the need for the retirement age to be raised. As a nurse in my 30s I have seen some amazing medical advances and the fact is that people are living longer. Having worked overseas in some private hospitals/practices there is even more great stuff to prolong life for those with money. Whilst the retirement age should no doubt be adjusted upwards to 70 year of age, the issue is that many of those over 45 years of age just want to get out of the grind of working and any more time is not good. They wield power by having a vote, and John Key & Phil Goff don't want to risk losing a significant portion of their voting base.

We need to get New Zealanders trained to be big savers and to provide for their own retirement, or you have to work. Otherwise our income taxes will get to Scandinavian (> 50%) levels to pay for retirement in the years ahead - or we will have to open the floodgates on wealthy and/or skilled immigrants (which is fine too).

Lets bite the bullet now and have the retirement age lifted to 70 by 2019.

Well, if this is about

Well, if this is about saving money, raise it to 80 or maybe 90. That way the government can get out of paying benefits to most everyone. Sarcasm intended.

This ongoing argument about raising the retirement age is ridiculous. What the argument should be about is how the government plans to create a system that will provide a livable income to those who have spent their lives working in this country. Paying out paltry sums at any age won't do anyone any good. And by the way Kiwisaver is not the answer.

Yes, it should be raised.

Yes, it should be raised.

I was suprised at how large a jump they made in Australia. From 60 to 67, but at least it is well forcasted as a future change. The fact that they haven't moved Super eligibility from 55 is probably whyn there was so little fuss.

Give some warning and then raise it to 66, then a few years later to 67, then a few years later to 68 - so that the current 55 to 65 year olds aren't hit with any suprises.

The fact you can currently earn full Govt Super while still working is a scandal, perhaps at least halve it so as not to discourage people to leave the workforce bang on 65?

Longer term I think Kiwisaver has to become compulsory, at the moment I am reluctant to invest much in there.

Any one else feel that

Any one else feel that the way our Gumnut treats us today is eerily similar to how the churches' supressed the masses in the middle ages. Then, they had full power over information ( few in the populance could read or write ). And between the churches and the aristocracy, wealth was locked up. And here we are in 2009 squabbling and quibbling over the few pennies an all powerful Gumnut may, if it feels so benevolent, cast down to us in our golden years. Where is the back-bone in the masses to say bollocks to this nonsense. Where is the spirit to cut loose and be free from this all consuming passion to "get my pension" ? ( being sober is a bugger, anyone got a bottle opener ? )

Perhaps they should present the

Perhaps they should present the latest studies that show people are living longer and health expenses are costing more. I would encourage people to work longer and get taxed less as a reward. They'll earn more crust and the government gets more tax. At least that increases productivity somewhat. There are plenty of people working over the age of 65. It might help our skills shortage as well.... at least for a little longer. John Key could still run it.

Yay the cycleway has started...Us

Yay the cycleway has started...Us babyboomers will love it..Because we are wealthy , fit , and wise we have our own Health Insurance ,wont need ACC and Laptops to keep in touch with our businesses fit in our backpacks nicely.......Way to go Johny.....

Has anyone out there got

Has anyone out there got young adults trying to find their way on to the first rung of the ladder? It's damn hard, even with lots of qualifications. Just a thought that stopping departure at the top ultimatley inhibits entry at the bottom, as the whole employment chain slows down. Three score years and ten is a good innings, and there has to be a bit of time to ease off at the end.

Too right Harriet. Best to

Too right Harriet. Best to pack it in when it becomes too much. Why work yourself to an early grave!

Point taken, Harriet. I wondered

Point taken, Harriet. I wondered about that when I posted. I know a lot of hard working and intelligent people that have found it hard onto the first rung, especially those who picked broad and diverse degrees like commerce and business. We don't look like other people (very well put Bill).. And then there's those who might be female.
Fortunately, in my area of work (health), there is often a shortage because we can go over the ditch for 30-50% more cash. There are even some oldies that are fearful they might have to retire and not be able to pass on their wealth of experience and highly specific skills to the next generation.
Your right, though. Allowing people off at the end a little longer may prevent the next generation from building it's blocks bigger to support the top end super.
Anyone got any more ideas, coz this problem isn't going away..

You're right, Bevan, we aren't

You're right, Bevan, we aren't all the same, and we all age at different rates, physically and financially. At 5 I had my tonsils out, and that was it till 40 - glandular fever from low resistance due to over work. Then it was the glasses; the fading hearing in one ear ( Mum: "Turn that down! You'll go deaf...); the hernia op. ( get a youngster to do the house renovations, you PI's !); the divorce - there went half of "enough" - for both of us ( and watch the young renovator)! etc etc.
So now at 56 I don't think there is a 'one size fits all'.
Ultimatley it will be, what it will be.

This has nothing to do

This has nothing to do with "saving the country at least NZ$100 billion by 2061"
It has everything to do with recognising an unsustainable financing model early enough and acting judiciously to avoid future fiscal and social disaster.
And I'd define a fiscal and social disaster as a combination of a draconian tax regime on a shrinking tax base and widespread poverty in a politically powerful (and growing) "senior" segment.
There are a limited number of variables that have the leverage to be effective:
Reduce pension levels
Increase taxes (to pay for the increased demand for pensions and health services)
Reduce the pension payout period (by raising the retirement age, if we rule out euthanasia as an option. Which some probably wouldn't...)
Reduce health service costs either by drastically increasing efficiencies (which is the ongoing responsibility of ANY government) or cutting service levels even further.

A combination of those factors, John, and there's your To-Do list for the next couple of years.
But promise me one thing:
Explain it well, show it to be necessary and equitable and give everyone a road map.

$100 billion over fifty odd

$100 billion over fifty odd years, big whoop! $39 billion poored out of this nation as rent/debt servicing on our borrowed money supply in one year end DEC 2008:
http://www.johnpemberton.co.nz/html/interest_on_debt.html

This is going to increase exponentially when the National Party Executive carry out their future plans, plans being overseen by bankers for primary bond dealers:

"The New Zealand Debt Management Office will sell up to NZ$8.5 billion of bonds this financial year, up from NZ$5.5 billion the previous year, with a further NZ$11.5 billion forecast next year, and $15 billion in each of the following two years. The DMO's weekly sales will rise to between NZ$150 million and NZ$200 million per week, up from a NZ$75 million average in previous years."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0905/S00784.htm

"The Government says it is considering creating a local body "bond bank" which would help finance up to $30 billion in planned infrastructure costs over the next decade.

Finance Minister Bill English said today the idea of the bond bank came from February's Jobs Summit and was also recommended by the Financial markets Development Task Force."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/banking-finance/2575325/Govt-...

What do you know, who as been appointed chair of the Financial markets Development Task Force, Rob Cameron, who has not long just become an affiliate of one of the financial world most infamous primary bond dealers:
"New Zealand's Cameron Partners and Rothschild Australia - the Australian arm of the global Rothschild empire - have formed an alliance to extend their global reaches."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1052...

"Today, their historical ingenuity and financial acumen is undoubtedly at work building new wealth regardless of a bear or bull stock, bond, or gold market. They undoubtedly revolve in circles that include the LBMA, and possibly every important central bank board of directors, including the IMF. While even by conservative accounting, they are undoubtedly the wealthiest family in the world, though you will never see them listed in Fortune magazine..............
More than any other family, the Rothschilds have built and maintained an empire unparalleled by any monarchy in history. Their acumen as money changers and financier to the leaders of Europe over the past 200 years is unparalleled. No single corporation or business entity has survived with so much accumulated wealth intact."
http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest/markus112297.html

Why be distracted by the chicken feed and ignore the real deal?

Ian Parker, Completely agree re

Ian Parker,

Completely agree re overseas debt being the number one issue and the rest being chicken feed. A FHB household in Akld now prob needs another 250-400 grand on a mortgage than would otherwise be the case without the bubble. This means, ONE household will be pissing away about 20-40 grand more in interest payments overseas because of the bubble (assuming long term rates of 8%). Its a lot easier to fix a leak than go out and earn extra cash to feed the leaking petrol tank. The FHB household now needs to earn an additional 40-60 grand per year pre tax to make up for the money leaving the country. CRAZY!!!

Good budgeting involves looking at incomings AND outgoings. Any good budget adviser will tell you the easist place to start is outgoings. Our govt has forgotten this. Bollard seems to be aware of this ... but then he encourages borrowing via low rates. The fix is easy, its sitting in front of us.

Iain - (Hi) "More than

Iain - (Hi) "More than any other family, they (??) have built and maintained an empire unparalleled by any monarchy in history. Their acumen as money changers and financier to the leaders of Europe over the past 200 years is unparalleled. No single corporation or business entity (??) has survived with so much accumulated wealth intact."

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/07/26/opinion-the-us-...

Read on down.

"We do, we do....."

As if to prove my

As if to prove my point as to previous post on Bonds and primary bond dealers:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/07/27/have-your-say-s...

This comes out today, this will be why the recession/depression is not over and why you will have to work unto you die. To many investment vehicles created out of freshair then loaned down the food chain, nothing but histories greatest PONZI scheme:
"Investores in NZDX-listed bonds issued by a subsidiary of Fidelity Life Assurance will have to wait until at least January before getting another interest payment.

Fidelity Guaranteed Capital Bonds Ltd has struggled to pay its investors their interest since the bonds were launched in April 2007, just before the global financial crisis hit.

The bonds pay interest of 9.25 per cent a year and mature on July 15, 2013.

The January 2008 interest payment was suspended to preserve capital after the fallout from the collapse of the United States subprime market, which caused unprecedented volatility in the international government bonds market."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/2679254/Bond-investors-face-delay-in-int...

This explains what CDOs and CMOs are:
http://www.secondmarket.com/market-detail/collateralized-debt-obligation...

Iain : if we have

Iain : if we have a monster break out in inflation, worldwide, as trillions of newly printed greenbacks slosh around ; won't bondholders get wiped out ? And is that not part of the plan, the lazy man's guide to fixing the system, inflate it ! ( alternate opinion is that we face de-flation a'la Japan........bondholders will be breaking out the Dom Perignon )

I can't help thinking, Roger,

I can't help thinking, Roger, that this time inflating our way out of it will create massive unrest. I will be unhappy enough to see my life's savings diminished. How will those countries feel that get their last 30 years worth of emerging market savings wiped out? Not happy, would be the best reaction I could hope for. And re Japan? I'm sure if they could have reflated, they would have.

George : Japan fell into

George : Japan fell into the same trap that the US is in now. The central bank biffed money into all the wrong places, and pretty much wasted the country's savings. The fact that the banking system has massive systemic faults, went right over their heads. Either they don't see it, or they just don't have the guts to face up to what needs to be done. Japan is still moribound. And in the USA , AIG and Citi are still cot cases. And Gold-Sacks are cleaning up nicely thanks, at the tax-payers' expense, and about to resume the mega-million bonus pay-outs to key staff.

Extend retirement to 70 years

Extend retirement to 70 years over a 10-15 year period - we cannot afford any other option. We will have to work to show the younger generation what to do anyway. We will have run out of water for our golf courses and global warming will have melted all the snow, so skiing will be out of the question. The cemetaries are filling up so we will have no where to go once we are dead - keep working, be positive and enjoy yourselves. It would be good to stay alert too, we always need more lerts!

How about a "working life

How about a "working life span?". My mother started work at 13; I at 17 and my children are in their 20's and still at 'school'. Make it, say, a flat 50 years from an individuals tax start date and we end up with Mum 63 ( died 68), me 67 and the children at 70+ as medical advances keep them alive and productive longer. The sooner you start work, the sooner you finish !

The first chart shows average

The first chart shows average life expectancy of males and females. Direct from these statistics perhaps it would be fairest to only raise the female retirement age to 67!

After all with so many people relying on NZ Super; having based their life on a go to school, go to work, then die plan. It is not the retirement age that matters, but those few years of 'freedom' from the clutches of society after you retire and before you die that are so important!

Actually agree with George above, this technique of having a fixed working time frame would sort out those students who study arts for 10 years. Just adding more papers and continuously living off government debt. All their doing is delaying working. However a fixed period of working won't solve the issue that the NZ Super cannot afford to keep all these people alive.

We have to raise the

We have to raise the eligibility date for Super. I think that this government has a wonderful political opportunity - esp while the Opposition seems to be in such disarray - to announce a change to eligibilty age of 70. As an implementation mechanism, raise the eligibility date by 3 months every year: by 2029, it's all in place, and today we can feel good about our far-sightedness and sacrifice, although, in reality, the "sacrifice" has been minimal.

Incidentally, I'm 62 and want to keep working anyway.

The graphs are clear: men

The graphs are clear: men can retire at 65 but women at 70!

I'm very pleased to announce

I'm very pleased to announce that Peter Cresswell and George Reisman have found all the answers to this dilemma, and they probably won't even charge our government for the advice:

http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/07/superannuation.html

I think George's program for getting us out of the superannuation trap, from about the middle of this piece, is a realistic one, and fair.

NO>NO>Bloody No to raising the

NO>NO>Bloody No to raising the age of retirement
In fact it should be reduced back down to 60 years of age

It is a pension not a benefit
Cut some other part of the budget, Studentloans, working for families etc

Kiwi Saver is a step in the right direction

frank : doesn't "pension" stir

frank : doesn't "pension" stir up negative connotations in your mind ? "Cos it sure assaults my sense of the dignity of the human condition, and of aging. Mark's link puts the issue where it should be. And it's not just a bun fight of who gets how much and when. Look squarely at the premise of assuming that at a certain age you become less of a citizen, dimniished in stature by a state decree. Shuffled off the stage of life, to subsist on some crumbs that the lords of Wellington deem to cast down to you. Man, it has always galled me, this appalling " life-style " that we have allowed the politicians to foist upon us. ( I'll deal with the pathetic idiocy that is Kiwi-Saver, at another time )