In this section
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 20791
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 295
- ››
The news stream
Latest news
Most commented
- BNZ cuts most fixed mortgage rates 48
- 90 seconds at 9 am 43
- Fonterra to tighten TAF rules 37
- Thursday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 32
- Govt eyes NZ$1.4b revenue grab 30
- English wants more house builds 30
- Fonterra cuts payout forecast 30
- Budget tax moves to target high income NZers 29
- Wednesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 24
- Amanda's Take Five for Wednesday 23
Most viewed
Opinion: Why NZ still has time to debate its pensions crisis before the debt wave overwhelms us
Prime Minister John Key has done his best to shut down any debate about reforming New Zealand's pension system.
This is a pity, but the good news is there is still time to solve our problems before public debt overwhelms us in a Greek-like wave.
Key's pledge to resign if the retirement age was ever raised from 65 or the New Zealand Superannuation income was cut from its current 66% of median incomes has blocked any discussion at a political level.
So it was great to see policymakers, rather than politicians, continue to debate the need for reform at a conference in Wellington on Retirement Income Policy and Generational Equity last week run by the Retirement Commission and Victoria University.
Senior Citizens Minister John Carter stuck closely to his script about how everything was just fine and we should just lie back and think of higher GDP growth to solve any problems there might be. He opened the conference with a Polyannish speech which even denied there was any issues with younger generations being forced to repay debts in future that were being incurred now by older generations.
Treasury, however, was not so sanguine. Deputy Chief Executive Gabs Makhlouf told the conference Treasury had redone its long term fiscal projections that worried so many when it was released in 2009.
Back then, in the midst of the Global Financial Crisis, Treasury forecast net public debt would rise from around 20% now to an unsustainably high 223% by 2050 unless New Zealand changed its policy settings on free public health and universal pensions. Treasury warned New Zealand faced sharply higher interest rates, higher taxes and slower growth unless it reformed its pensions and health system and/or reformed the economy.
The ageing population and an increase in the dependency ratio would stunt New Zealand's growth and the resulting budget deficits would quickly build up debt to the point wher our foreign creditors would turn off the taps But since last year, things have improved somewhat. The starting point for debt is not so high and the growth outlook is better. But Makhlouf said the outlook was still not sustainable. Fresh projections after the May Budget 2010's tax reforms show net debt would still accelerate to over 100% by 2050 and be rising.
This was a Greek-like situation, he reminded the conference. The ageing population and an increase in the dependency ratio would stunt New Zealand's growth and the resulting budget deficits would quickly build up debt to the point our foreign creditors would turn off the taps.
Treasury is, of course, right and this was acknowledged by most at the conference, although the best solutions and the extent of the problem remain topics for hot debate.
Options include a later age to start receiving NZ Superannuation, a lower pension payout, means testing or some sort of surcharge for high earning pensioners.
But the most attractive and effective options may be in other areas. An improved labour participation rate, which means older people working and earning for longer, could help soften the fiscal pain. Simply strengthening economic growth now is also crucial. Most are long term solutions for a long term problem.
We should all be debating them now.
Your view?
71 Comments
Hi Bernard I, like
Hi Bernard
I, like you, believe that at some stage NZ will have to raise the age at which people are entitled to a state pension. It should be debated now, even if the rise in age in still at some point in the future. Once people know it is going to happen, they will plan accordingly.
In 1990 when Jim Bolger became PM, he sounded a warning back then about starting to save for retirement. My wife and I took that on board and started private pension schemes Back then we were dinkys, now we have 3 children aged 15,13 and 10. We have both joined Kiwisaver and have a few stocks and shares.
We are making sacrifices now so that when we do retire we will not suddenly feel a lot worse off from a financial viewpoint.
What disturbs me is that there is talk of means testing and surcharges for high earning pensioners. In other words, my wife and I may be penalised because we made plans for our retirement and will end up subsiding those that did not. Does that seem right to you, because it certainly doesn't to me?
Charles
Charles, Good point. There
Charles,
Good point. There is a big moral hazard problem with universal pensions and means testing.
A later retirement age seems fairer, but also penalises those socio-economic groups who don't live as long (eg Maori and manual workers)
cheers
Bernard
Pay them at 60.In UK women
Pay them at 60.In UK women get it at sixty.The pension that is.
that would make me want to
that would make me want to find a Maori great-great-grandfather and elect to be tangata whenua
Funny you should say that. My
Funny you should say that. My brother has just had a baby with his wife who has a tiny bit of maori in her family, however she looks whiter than me. She benefited from all the maori scholoarships that were on offer to maori students at uni.
They have just had a baby, and they have given it a maori name, and the baby will also probably benefit from these types of benefits that are on offer.
That is working on 'averages'
That is working on 'averages' that maori don't live as long, however they can live as long, if not longer in the right conditions, than pakeha. However this is partly due to poorer eatting habits on average, a higher smoking percentage etc, as on average they tend to be lower socio-economic groups.
They could always have different retirement ages based on physical testing to see how worn out a person is, and whether or not they are able to work. This 'universal age' is perhaps the problem, as some people at 60 are unable to work while others could work till past 80.
Means testing is a bad idea, becuase it is the people who have done the right thing, and saved, who will be disadvantaged. THere is however little incentiative to save at present, you may as well spend and enjoy life, because at the end you go out with nothing, and the state will look after you.
CHARLES Totally agree with
CHARLES
Totally agree with your comments
People who have worked hard through life & savedcarefuly have usually made a fair bit of personal sacrafice to become financially comfortable AND paid a lot more tax than the average Joe
~ WHY should they now be expected to miss out on a pension
~ It's time the average Joe started taking responsability for his own future OTHERWISE the hardworkers in this country will either move country OR decide their is no benefit in working hard and join the rest of the lazy mob
"It's time the average Joe
"It's time the average Joe started taking responsability for his own future"
Good idea, but first perhaps you'd like to explain to me how someone on the median pay of $538/week pre tax can survive let alone save for their retirement. The "average Joe" is often doing some dirty/dangerous/demanding work for damn all money and dying young as well. The 50% of us earning less than the median pay are getting the raw deal during work and at retirement time.
It's time to get serious about the glaring inequality that's developing in this country, it's pretty obvious that this government are hell bent on driving wages and condition for the "average Joe" into the dirt. Immigration, unrestricted globalisation and anti-union policy are their tools.
Well that was a good rave
Well that was a good rave Kiwidave...there I was thinking inequalities came with life...but no sir they are caused by govt...
Thanks Wally, well yes
Thanks Wally, well yes Government clearly has a role re inequality, fairness really and, unless you are in favour of unrestricted immigration, repeal of minimum pay and child labour laws, you would support that role, in principle at least.
I stand by my assertion that the pension issue is really an income issue, or cannot be solved with half the people on what amounts to a subsistance level income.
Government give lip service to this issue only. The horticultural lobby have a continuous and successful bleat going to ensure third world workers are available to undercut their fellow Kiwis for example.
I really do resent the smug bastards insisting that the average Joe is some sort of lifelong bludger while ignoring the massive hidden transfers from the lower paid to the elite. I guess if you're pulling home a hundred K it's pretty easy to feel superior, special even but keep in mind that that income level would be pretty meaningless if the folk that deliver all your needs where on similar money. The reverse is also true, my daughter has to shell out a weeks pay for less than an hours dental work!
Perhaps "anonymouse" has the answer.
So we start with life which
So we start with life which throws up inequalities and expect govt to smooth them out...that's about the be all and end all of it...right Kiwidave?
Immigration!...here is the lead in a herald blah today " New Zealand is threatening to undershoot the number of migrants it needs to keep the economy healthy, say immigration consultants."....notice Dave that this blah comes from "consultants"...ex politicians many of them...I have a term for them and it cannot be posted here!!...you see immigration is the cash cow for many and has eff all to do with equality. I worked as a kid delivering papers to get some skills and earn some pocket money....you want to put an end to that right to work! As for minimum pay...it acts as a preventer of employment!.Sooo much red tape has been created that people say to themselves..."bugger this, I am not employing anyone"
You are right about the horticultural lobby rort...but it is only one of many. If you stop the rort, do you expect Kiwi unemployed to get off their arses to pick fruit and prune grapes etc....I don't. Forcing the unemployed to do that would be an infringement of their rights and they would demand compensation! and they would get it because that is how bloody sick the system is.
" massive hidden transfers from the lower paid to the elite"....correct....again our shit system working to support the shits in high office...the shiney bums in wgtn...the civil serpents sucking massive salaries and bonuses from the taxpayer....they are all shits.
So you are in favour of the
So you are in favour of the repeal of the current minimum pay and child labour laws.
Welcome to Wally's sweatshop nation, Wally and a bunch of third world immigrants. The rest of us have long since departed.
"do you expect Kiwi unemployed to get off their arses to pick fruit and prune grapes etc"
Yes, that is what happens in our area..
This is what I support
This is what I support Dave...go take a read: http://www.worldvision.org.nz/PDF/resources/Child_Labour.PDF
There is room for some work to be done. Some work is good. Got it?
We have some 75000 unemployed many of whom are 'career unemployed'( and countless on 'sickness benefits')....plenty there to supply the horticultural private business sector. Why is it impossible for WINZ to organise the movement of the workers to the work?
Thanks Wally, the World
Thanks Wally, the World vision report pretty much endorses our current laws. i.e. part time child labour is acceptable provided it doesn't interfere with the child’s all round development, education etc and carries a reasonable pay level. Nothing to disagree with there.
As regards horticultural workers, in our area we have a well organised private structure to supply the orchards with backpackers and third world (Vanuatu mostly) labour. This appears to be between the camp owners - providing transport - for a fee and the orchardists. The unemployed do compete successfully with this cosy relationship but the return is sometimes less than a benefit. They also face the prospect of travelling a long way to work and being stood down with no pay because of rain or something. They also face prejudice from some orchardists who assume they are all drug addicts, alcoholics and baby murderers. Despite all that they make a huge contribution to getting the crop in during the season. They are however unable to command a decent wage (or save for retirement) as they are heavily undercut by temporary immigrant labour.
I just don't think they are treated fairly. By our usual standards anyway
Hi Bernard, Means-testing
Hi Bernard,
Means-testing the age benefit appears a bit like a quick-fix - a golden bullet type of option, but how much would it truly save?
Are there any figures available to help understand if it is an option worth promoting?
Phil
How about a 'lifetime income'
How about a 'lifetime income' test instead of means testing - if you earned over a certain amount in total, then you should have been perfectly capable of saving for your own pension - if you spent it all instead, then tough luck.
Removes the 'moral hazard' consideration of means testing nicely. Only trouble is, to be really fair we'd have to include capital gains in the mix as well.
Thanks for the
Thanks for the article.
Decades of short term focused (ie their next term) politicians and anyone studying public econimics, especially pensions / supers etc knew that unfunded pension / super arrangements (current taxpayers covering retirees) would not work with the volume of baby boomers coming through.
Labour tried to implement a fully funded scheme which was got rid of by the then incoming National party. The current intergenerational extortion (in other countries with similar schemes) has been noted elsewhere as resembling a ponzi scheme.
Well, it's coming home to roost and the prior politicians are nowhere to be seen or acknowledging responsibility but society is left with the problem.
Do we need a better balance in the polticial system for medium and long term social objectives? or educate voters to vote or press for the right mix of policies (short / medium and long term)? Are politicians slaves to giving out lollies all the time?
Apologise for the rant. Attached below other jurisdications with similar problems:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/7897565/Pension-age-could-rise-to-68-sooner-than-planned.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/7896232/Pensions-how-to-defuse-the-nations-savings-time-bomb.html
Regards
Concerned expat Kiwi
Retaining the retirement age
Retaining the retirement age at 65 is a litmus test issue for me. I do not get to vote for anyone in The Treasury nor anyone in the Retirement Commission. But I sure do get to vote for the people wanting a job in Parliament. This is the issue that is far and away the most important issue in determining who I should vote for. Voting is probably the only way I can have an influence on the decision-makers.
How about we just tax the
How about we just tax the hell out of the productive hard workers who pay there way (private health care, schooling , caring for elderly etc etc) to the point they dont see any point in working hard
This will also eliminate the tall poppy syndrome ~as there wont be any
The entire monetary system
The entire monetary system is on the verge to collapsing. So, talking about pension is like talking about the weather-forecast for 2012.
It is now important that philosophers take over the world and get rid of the “Rotten Core of Capitalism” (politicians/ bankers etc.) as we know it and introduce a new world order, where ethic principles are dominant.
My god, who let all these
My god, who let all these mental patients out of their padded cells today!
You are probably right Anon,
You are probably right Anon, there is no evidence or signs of any of my statements – sorry I will conform from now on -
everything is fine and will just continue the way it is today, tomorrow and afterwards without changes.
Raising the entitlement age
Raising the entitlement age and/or trimming the payments would probably be the only changes any govt could make post 2011 that would not cost them an election. I notice that Treasury are all for a change...as long as it is not a reduction in the big fat bloated salaries they get...or their golden state pensions that are based on their fat pay.
Don't mock anyone requiring a
Don't mock anyone requiring a pension Wally, as you have already admitted you will need it to retire.
"Treasury warned New Zealand
"Treasury warned New Zealand faced sharply higher interest rates, higher taxes and slower growth unless it reformed its pensions and health system and/or reformed the economy."
The "and/or" bit is puzzling. Which is it to be? Either "and" is necessary, or "or" will be sufficient.
Whatever, just you stay away
Whatever, just you stay away from their fat pay and fatter state pension scheme.
Winston Peters proposed
Winston Peters proposed individual pension scheme where you saved upto 160K then no more contributions to get your state pension.
Seemed to be a very fair option
Treasury focuses too much
Treasury focuses too much focus on how the government's tax base is steadily dwindling rather than how the different sources of income can be increased and diversified. Returns from the Cullen Fund is a key in my opinion as it is the only long term source of alternative income currently in place. Regardless of how much (or the total lack of) money that the crown currently puts into it, I would like to see more risky investments in the hope of big returns.
At the end of the day, if we're to remain a welfare society and honour the pension promise then the government has to find ways of earning much more rather than spending less by the time 2050 rolls around
How about we just tax the
How about we just tax the hell out of the productive hard workers who pay there way (private health care, schooling , caring for elderly etc etc) to the point they dont see any point in working hard ""'''''''-quote
Now that comment is a bit naughty seeing that the seemingly expendable elderly produced and fought for what we have now.
As I'm close to the 60 years old that would have "entitled" me to a govt pension before the@#$%^s stole it from a generation for 5 years I would prostitute my vote for any party who promised they wouldn't change the current age. At the present I vote for Key (not national) on his vow. The day he is deposed (Idoubt he will change his promise) I vote for whoever else keeps the status quo.
Except they will all fall into line while they negotiate their new increased expenses and super.
I pay for private healthcare as I have for 30 years and have paid for private schooling plus my elderly mother..the day I become one of the "elderly" am I going to get dumped by your society?..........
I reckon the vultures are coming ...
I am not impressed by someone
I am not impressed by someone who decides their vote according to what is in it for them. Sadly I don't think you are alone. Everybody these days seems to vote like this.
Your comment here and Adrians above is the very reason National and Labour won't even discuss the issue for fear of losing your vote.
If you are willing to look towards the future we should be able to come up with solutions for the long term. The current policy settings are UNSUSTAINABLE long term.
No one is advocating moving the pension retirement age for people retiring soon so please start looking at this issue from NZ's point of view - not your own.
I see no problem with the retirement age being increased over a period of decades. For instance being moved to 67 in 2023 (eg Australia's change), 68 in 2033 etc. The point of this debate is to consider and decide on which course to take. I repeat the current policy settings are UNSUSTAINABLE long term.
At the very least we need to match the Australian change otherwise all the Kiwi's living in Australia will be able to claim NZ pensions over here when they reach 65. This is a no-brainer to me.
Four years ago Treasury put
Four years ago Treasury put up on their web site their long term fiscal model. It was a large excel spreadsheet that one could input an alternative value for one of the variables and see the effects on the crown balance sheet in 40 years. Such a model uses many, many assumptions including productivity, bond rates, unemployment rates etc.
Later that year they substituted it with a version two which took out some of the juicy bits (e.g. the excess DMO funds)
Last year Treasury released on their website an improved model with different 2009 assumptions. Widely different outcomes.
This week Treasury announced their debt track outcome that results from 2010 assumptions.
The lesson is that very small changes in assumptions produce very large changes in the outcomes.
My point is that assumptions in 2011 will be different from the 2010 assumptions fed in this week, and that is the reason I cannot accept your two assertions that the current policy settings are unsustainable long term.
Ten years ago it was inconceivable that Gross debt would get below 20 per cent of GDP. Remember the peak Gross Debt to GDP was 75% in 1987 and that is way less than 40 years ago. 23 years to be exact.
The assumptions will be different in 2011 and 2012 and 2013 etc and each time the debt track graph will differ from the one released this week.
Keep it at 65.
I agree forecasts can vary
I agree forecasts can vary widely but this is not a reason to put our heads in the sand.
It is common knowledge that NZ's population is getting older and the proportion of NZ's population that will be retired will sharply increase.
A key statistic is the number of working age people verses the number of retired.
This is from a stats NZ site.
http://stats.co.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/older_people/pop-ageing-in-nz.aspx
"By 2051, there will be over 1.14 million people aged 65 years and over in New Zealand. This represents an increase of 715,000 or 166 percent over the base (1996) population. They are expected to make up 25.5 percent (or 1 in every 4) of all New Zealanders (4.49 million). At present there are about half as many elderly New Zealanders as children. By 2051, there are projected to be at least 60 percent more elderly than children. Given the prospects of sub-replacement fertility, increasing life expectancy and the passage of baby boomers into retirement ages, it is projected that half of all New Zealanders will be older than 46 years by 2051, compared with the current median age of 34 years."
I repeat my assertion that the current policy settings are unsustainable long term ... ..
This statistic has been known
This statistic has been known about for decades. Equally there have repeatedly been solutions implemented to address the issue.
--The 1974 fully funded individual accounts solution.
--The 1980s solution of outlawing employers having a compulsory retirement age.
--The 1980s solution of abolition of tax deductions for super scheme contributions (implemented as part of a drive to cut government spending).
--The 1988 super-surcharge solution (on taxable income).
--The 1991 abatement of super solution.
--The 1992 increase the age of super solution from 60 to 65.
--The 1997 referendum on compulsory retirement scheme featuring individual accounts (voting was Yes 8%, No 92%).
--The partial prefunding of national super solution.
--The kiwisaver scheme mark 1 with employer subsidies.
--The kiwisaver scheme mark 2.
Scepticism is an understandable reaction to comments at 10:24pm immediately above "The point of this debate is to consider and decide on which course to take" and "If you are willing to look towards the future we should be able to come with solutions for the long term". My point is that solutions for the long term usually do not last for the long term.
[A dish of bacon and eggs is viewed differently by the pig compared to the chicken.]
Any long term solution will only last for the long term if it is acceptable to the voters affected by that solution. The 1991/92 solutions caused widespread anger and disillusionment among retired people and the soon to retire. The 1993 election was remarkable for the way in which retired people turned away from their traditional allegiances. Jim Anderton had a very left wing party that election which got about 17 or 18% from memory -how much influence would that give now under MMP.
One last point. Anyone with a Kiwisaver account is going to be affected. Their funds would be locked in for longer.
Keep it at 65
Lots not being addressed here
Lots not being addressed here yet.
First, the BB generation were simply conditioned, short term, to an unsustainable level consumption.
If that is quantified as 'wealth', then the discussion might as well stop here. Their rate of consumption just hit not just the lid, but the lid coming back down.
So you can eliminate the Treasury nonsense of 'growth'. All activity is underwritten by the physical resources (or we wouldn't need to be looking at Schedule 4, or aquaculture etc, to 'grow'.
If anyone here ain't read my comments re growth: It's expressed in terms of 'doubling time'. 3% doubles in 24 years, 10% in 7 years. Doubling on the back of physical resources goes like this..... dump a load of sand in your driveway. Remove one shovelful the first night. two the second, then 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128..... The last night, you go from half to finished. the one before, from 1/4 to 1/2. With only 3 nights left, you'd only removed 1/8 thus far.....
We're at peak oil, past peak fish, past peak water available, past peak pasture available (particularly concurrent with subdivision, forestry) so we've got one night left. This was the maximum effort, from here on in we head for scraping the dregs.
On that basis, increased pensions, indeed any pensions, are unlikely. So too is the 'work' we know. Oh there'll be work alright, but not as we know it. If we currently use energy as if we have a thousand slaves apiece, then it's increasing scarcity will mean we will work. A lot. But on a conventionally-reimbursed basis?
No, that time has gone. There has certainly been an intergenerational theft, but not quite the way Bernard suggests. The physical infrastructure they created with the physical wealth, will exist, albeit in varying stages and speeds of decay. The problem is that there will be not enough left to maintain the existing infrastructure (much of which - like motorways - will be irrelevant in any case) and, although the western world may be heading for population equilibrium, the planet in total is not.
I see pension (and any) debates mentioning 2050, as irrelevant. Current society simply can't last that long.
who cares about the
who cares about the pension crisis what about the
welfare crisis now . just easier to pick on the elderly
how many babies do the poor need
How many babies did today's
How many babies did today's elderly have when they were young?
Most of the younger generation stop at two nowadays, and many opt for only one child, whereas most from my generation and my parents' generation had many more than that.
@anonymous have a day off
@anonymous
have a day off
or maybe just borrow another
or maybe just borrow another 50 billion for entitlements l
State pensions and benefits
State pensions and benefits are screwing the country and the pension will screw it even more if it's not changed. Increase it by a year every three years for the next 15 years. I'd like to see less money going to benefits and spent on infrastructure that's needed. Freight on rail etc...
Pension funds should be
Pension funds should be investing in hydro dams, windfarms, irrigation schemes, forestry and other infrastructure that will be around in 30 to 50 years. Most of these things seem to be out of reach or already in foreign hands. The Cullen fund is a waste of time and should be sold, with the proceeds used to buy some of our forestry back. If the Govt is going to continue to borrow to fund consumption then the SOE's should be gifted to the Kiwi Saver funds (progressively if necessary), in proportion to their current size. That will provide an incentive for people to join them, and stop them from being sold when the "austerity" measures are introduced.
ah, the Cullen fund, all that
ah, the Cullen fund, all that money and no obvious means for our Captains of Industry to swindle it into their thieving palms...
"The Cullen fund is a waste
"The Cullen fund is a waste of time and should be sold, with the proceeds used to buy some of our forestry back."
Instead of using the Cullen Fund or anything else to buy "some of our forestry back", why don't we just grow some more forests? Or is that thinking too far ahead for this generation?
The Cullen Fund already has
The Cullen Fund already has over one billion dollars worth of Timber (7% of the fund). I would suggest it is over-exposed to Timber. Perhaps it should be trying to sell some forestry - not buy it!!!
many years ago when i was
many years ago when i was working for someone else i invested in a pension scheme.
The income wasn't taxed and was re invested. The premise was that you would pay tax at payout time either on the lump sum or the monthly payout.
Then the greedy bastards at wherever (or the economic purists ((hope they rot in hell)) decided that we should pay tax on the earnings now not later.
Guess what. Pension fund earnings went through the floor.
Then of course the new economic realities took hold and overseas companies took us over and said "oh look at all that money in the pension fund we could use some of that"
You get the picture. We weren't screwed because we did get some of it but we didn't have a job. And new people didn't get to join.
What i am getting at is that a lot of us "old bastards" did and still do make an effort to save money for the dreaded retirement (if we ever get there) but the system is stacked against us and some days you wonder why you bother.
We can sell our land, SOE and
We can sell our land, SOE and most infrastructure to pay for the pension and health care. But the next generation will be left with nothing.
Good investment inflatoin
Good investment inflatoin proof KIWI STAMPS on 1 october will be worth 20% more.
Bernard continually falls
Bernard continually falls foul of the fallacy of composition.
For starters, the NZ dollar does not work anything like the euro and NZ cannot encounter a greek style crisis.
We do not get our money from overseas lenders. There are no big piles of NZ dollars sitting anywhere waiting to be lent to NZers.
Offshore investors may choose to hold NZ debt, but they are price acceptors, not price setters. Debt to GDP may go to 300%, offshore investors may dump all their NZ debt and this would not raise interest rates even 1%. Instead the exchange rate bares the brunt.
Take a look at Japan, highest debt to GDP and the lowest interest rates.
Secondly, forcing a lower standard of living upon a group does not somehow make the task of taking care of the elderly any easier. Regardless of how it is accounted.
The working generation is the only generation that can take care of the retired generation. By definition. Having your grandfather not buy that 50" TV, doesn't make him any less or more likely to require hospital care.
Speaking of Japan, and
Speaking of Japan, and pensions
To address this looming issue we could take a leaf out of the Japanese book. Ma and Pa reach age 65 and retire. Ma and Pa sell old, valuable suburban house and move into newly built house,complete with connected but independnat granny flat, with their son, daughter in law, and 2 year old grandson. Ma and Pa can help out with childcare, then the youngsters can return the favour as Ma and Pa reach their 70s. The juniors benefit with a roof under their heads with Ma and PA's financial assistance. Mutual benefits all round.
Its called good old fashioned intergenerational living.
Now our daft planning laws that prevent a small attached granny flat need to be reformed.
What amazes me is that at
What amazes me is that at every turn doctors and politicians are encouraging people to live longer by doing things like increasing the cost of smokes.
It's probably great to live a long life if you have the financial means to support yourself, how-ever, for the majority dyeing younger would probably increase their perceived quality of life.
"I just want to get my kicks before the whole sh*thouse goes up in flames"
Jim Morrison
What amazes me is that at
What amazes me is that at every turn doctors and politicians are encouraging people to live longer by doing things like increasing the cost of smokes.
It's probably great to live a long life if you have the financial means to support yourself, how-ever, for the majority dyeing younger would probably increase their perceived quality of life.
Yeah. Cancer is a great way to go.
And how do you think you will
And how do you think you will go? I mean will God just tap you on the shoulder to call you.
Matt in Auk- similar in
Matt in Auk- similar in Singapore/Taiwan. The way many Kiwis treat there parents is a disgrace. I will happily make allowances for them in return for all the good things they given me.
he already has.When is the
he already has.When is the question?
if we could only step out of
if we could only step out of our ego-centric , "pick me" society and take a leaf out of all asian cultures the arguement over super.and the aged would never occur.
i agree with matt of auckland..but then..i usually do!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bus
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10661689
Our life expectancy is ever
Our life expectancy is ever increasing
http://www.stats.co.nz/browse_for_stats/population/deaths/history-of-nz-survival.aspx
Currently the total avearge life expectancy is a tad below 81, by the time I'm 65 I reckon life expectancy will be 91+ and that is only the average alot more people will live into there 100s. Fancy being paid from age 65 to say 95 to sit on my bum and look at the gold and copper prices ;)
So the young have to work to
So the young have to work to pay for the old. Big friggin deal. It might mean they have less real income and so splurge less on mcmansions and consumer products they do not need. They will have the security of knowing they too will receive a pension that is just enuff to keep life sustained and no bloody more, when they get to 65.
If the young stop fagging and boozing, they will have more disposable income...more savings....but that is too much to ask isn't it. Easier to steal from the elderly like that arsehole in Lower Hutt flogging crap vacuum cleaners to old folk.
Hey Wally I hear what you
Hey Wally
I hear what you are saying. I pay a shite load of tax!! I have no problems with the pension itself. All I'm saying is look at the stats we are living longer. Why not get people over the next 20-30 years to work 3-5 years longer in line with their longer life expectancy
I have said this before though...I am planning on not having a Govt pension when I'm 65 and being self sufficient. If there is a pension when im 65 I will be very surprised.
How is gold today?
Regards
Whats to debate? 1) Too many
Whats to debate?
1) Too many baby boomers....with overwelming political might (votes and time).
2) Peak oil is here which will cripple the World's economy, so no +ve growth...private pension funds will tank (see 1). Plus spending of 10%+ GDP to move to alternatives.
3) Too much $ and debt tied up in worthless (massively over-valued, see 2) property.
4) Spineless Pollies who know if they attempt anything will be voted out, but even worse they will pander to grey power to stay in power.
5) An ongoing depression that will last a decade....if not 2....possibly even 3.....decimating the Govn's income.
Anyone with brains can see we need to as a minimum up the retirement age to 67...or we leave crippling debt for our kids.
regards
"Spineless Pollies who know
"Spineless Pollies who know if they attempt anything will be voted out, but even worse they will pander to grey power to stay in power(sic)"......bang on steven. If the bums break the promise they go.
Whatever could be 'saved' is an unknown quantity and may well cost $2 to save $1.....and any savings would be wasted rapidly on the next politicial pork slicing rort.
"Health Minister Tony Ryall
"Health Minister Tony Ryall said he understood that district health boards provided home help for their populations on the basis of assessed need, not age".HERALD.
Ryall is a fool. district health boards assess the salary 'needs' for their 'managers' as priority....whatever is left over get's spread on the bread.
Ryall has managed to lose more votes for National in less than two years than Simon and Nicholas Ridiculous!
You can only fund a pension
You can only fund a pension scheme (or any state expenditure) through tax and savings from the productive/working sector. Too many people in NZ are not working and the focus in effort of this government seems to have gone off the state's role with respect to job creation. Remember the Jobs Summit? Hardly gets a mention these days - particularly given unemployment stats keep rising. I recall years ago when Jim Anderton was first appointed to the newly created Cabinet position of Minister of Economic Development - he stated his goal was a simple one: full employment. Seemed to me to be the one and only stat that matters in terms of measuring a government's performance.
Little sense in talking about raising the pension age if the over 50s, under 25s and the long-term unemployed find themselves simply unable to find employment. Until we have all those capable of being productive out there producing, we're really p!$$!ng into the wind, so to speak.
Prevention is better than cure.
Of course it's inevitable
Of course it's inevitable that the retirement age will be lifted to 67 - so why don't they just do it and be done with it? Of course as a mid-30s gen x-er its just another shafting, along with with being racked by high-interest student loan debt in the 1990s and then ponzi-style housing increases in the 2000s. Raising the pension in the 2010s will be strike 3.
Exactly, Harry - once the
Exactly, Harry - once the bulk of the voting block boomers are all past 67 you can be assured that the pension age will be lifted to 67.
Useful link here to David
Useful link here to David Choat's summary of the Pensions conference at Policy Progress.
http://www.policyprogress.org.nz/2010/07/new-zealands-super-future/
cheers
Bernard
Perhaps we should think of
Perhaps we should think of what may have been if poor Wallace Rowling had won the election. The superannuation scheme was up and going and it may have worked. But 'alas with hindsight' he got the boot. I voted against the guy believing the "cossacks" ads and the thoroughly enjoyable Muldoon Roadshow and eventually got back enough money to buy a new Murphy telly.
Hindsight is 20/20 and I think one of our greatest balls ups is the loss of a seperate stand alone taxpayer funded compulsory superannuation fund that was up and running in about 1974 (can't remember the exact date) for the sake of thousands of PYE TVs and Morris 1100s...or were the Datsuns here then?.
RIP Bill Rowling.
At around 15K per year for
At around 15K per year for pensioners is nothing compared with around 90K+ spend on looking after each prisoner. With prisoners fast becoming a rapidly growing occupation in NZ we should look at dramatic cut (80%) in prison expenditure such as outsourcing them to Third World countries. Nothing is more pathetic than paying taxes all your working life for 45 years and gets paid peanuts for 10-15 years in your frail years, while criminals beat you up and yet it takes 6 average tax payers to fund these criminal lifestyle in prisons. Time to outsource prisoners to Third world countries.
Wallace Rowling came up with
Wallace Rowling came up with a baby bonus, as I recall. A nice man but a twit.
Kate - therein lies the problem. The carpet has and is coming out from under the 'productive economy' permanently.
The Club of Rome (wrongly - I say ignorantly - maligned by many) ran a 'World Resources' scenario, and it looked like the general peak (oil, resources, food-per-head) was about 2010-12. To remove all doubt, they ran the same scenario with everything doubled. As if there were two planets available.
Way over the top, of course, way beyond any margin of optimism-derived error.
The peak merely moves out to 2030.
There isn't another planet, so sometime between now and then, your productive economy ceases to resemble anything you can imagine. 7-9 bilion people trying to survive day by day. Just-in-time food supplies in stress, then gone.
Within the next 20 years, probably 10.
We may well mature as a society, and figure a way to look after our elderly, or decide en masse about a euthenasia age, or......
But discussing pension ages as if BAU will survive until 2050, is a waste of (limited) time.
Probably a very silly idea,
Probably a very silly idea, but how about limiting the amount that the deceased can leave behind, and who they can leave to? Perhaps a "one house to each child' policy could be implemented, with the remainder going to the government, (or a maximum $ per child for those who chose to stay out of property). Obviously would need some strict controls to avoid the wealthy paying the accountants to find a loop hole.
Nice compilation of
Nice compilation of commentary here from David Choat at Policy Progress
http://www.policyprogress.org.nz/2010/07/weekend-reading-30-july-2010/
cheers
Bernard
Since there is no legal
Since there is no legal requirement to stop work at any age, let alone at 65, this means that a person can continue to work as long as they are able to do so. So why do we need a pension at all? A pension is not a reward for living to a cerain age. It is/was a means of providing an income to those forced out of workforce by either law or inability. Therefore, if a person is unable to work for reasons of health, disability or frailness, let them claim one of the other benefits set up for such purposes. No pension is actually needed. Basically we work until we die.