Days to the General Election: 20
See Party Policies here. Party Lists here.

Generational comparisons not helpful during superannuation debate, PM English says

Generational comparisons not helpful during superannuation debate, PM English says

Comparing circumstances faced by different generations is unhelpful during the current national superannuation debate, Prime Minister Bill English says.

Speaking to media Tuesday morning, English said younger generations who would face the higher super age of 67 should feel reassured that national super will be there for them.

“This is a generation who thought for quite some time there would be no superannuation. Acutually there will be, and it’ll look just like it does today,” he said.

Super would be accessible for about the same amount of time as people turning 65 today, due to longer life expectancies – roughly a quarter of their lifetime, he said.

What was needed was economic policies giving confidence to younger generations that their incomes will lift so they can deal with housing, family and student loan costs, English said. Government surpluses meant choices can be made about how to further support them, he added.

Regarding debate over the ‘Baby Boomer’ generation getting an easier ride than younger generations faced with student loan debt, a higher super age and high housing costs, English said: “I don’t think it’s a matter of getting it easy. I don’t think it’s actually that helpful to have the general comparisons because things change over time.”

“Back in the early 80s interest rates were 18%-20%. Today they’re four,” he said. “I’d much rather be in New Zealand’s economy today than how it was 20-30 years ago.”

Public support for the move

Meanwhile, English said National’s belief is that public opinion is “broadly supportive” of the move to raise the super age from 65 to 67 between 2037 and 2040. The issue was now not quite the political weapon other parties had hoped it would be, he claimed.

While National had not polled on the issue, its confidence on public support came from “just talking to people, road-testing the idea a bit,” he said. “In the end you’ve got to make a judgement on what people tell you.”

Critics needed to explain what they thought was wrong with the policy, English said. He said he believed their concerns had been addressed by the fact nothing would change for 20 years, and by the proposal to double the migrant residency test to 20 years.

“I think the public’s moved on a bit,” he said. “The public know this change was inevitable, this was the right time to take action on what was going to be inevitable, and New Zealand First and Labour are just out of step.”

Steps taken by former Prime Minister John Key promising the age would not be raised while he was in the role, were critical to restoring the electorate’s trust, English said.

“The opportunity we have now is building on the trust that John Key earned by putting his job on the line over the issue,” he said.

Some advice was received from Treasury on the changes, English said. However, the government “had a reasonably clear idea from early on about what we thought was the clear, simple approach that everyone could understand.”

Asked whether National considered an earlier age rise, English said it would be difficult to get public support for “something that looked too urgent.” An earlier move also was not required.

Not announcing changes would have created even more uncertainty, he claimed. “Because people know something should change. They’re just waiting to see who’s going to do it.”

English said he had “not particularly” taken a political risk with the announcement.

“We wouldn’t have made the decision if we thought it was a big risk. I just think a number of the political parties are out of step with where New Zealanders are,” he said.

“This is a country that’s been through a significant recession, the impact of the earthquakes. It’s built confidence in its ability to sell to world markets, it’s a growing economy. It’s not a brittle, backward looking electorate. But you have got a couple of brittle backward looking political parties.”

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

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.



If I had a dollar for every time a boomer trotted out .....

"Back in the early 80s interest rates were 18%-20%." ....

Whilst conveniently neglecting to mention wage inflation at the time was commensurate..


Not to mention the 15%+ interest rates that you earned on your savings whilst you saved for your deposit while house prices were increasing at a much lower rate.

Not to mention that 66% top tax rate that paid for "free" education

And overtime rates

Also don't mention that rental properties sold on 20%+ returns and that even homes in top suburbs would be a 10% return if rented...

So effectively you paid the same amount sort of interest as you do now (relative to rents) but the principal payments were less, as was the total indebtedness. I'd prefer the 80s any day.

and the total DTI was so much better, ratio of what, 3-4? I'd accept a 20% interest bill anyday when you could save a deposit within a couple of years, and pay it off well before 30 years.

A basic rule of thumb back then for a rental went a bit like this "if you are paying $100k for it you want to be receiving $200pw rent". Wasn't easy to achieve, but wasn't impossible either.

Hmmm I'd like to have had the jobs you speak of with commensurate pay increases because I didn't nor did a lot of my friends either! So your telling me within a year or so that you got those salary increases ,well I had to get two jobs to get through that period. To Chris-M nice for those that were in a position to have had money to invest to get the commensurate interest bearings returns.The rest of us were too busy trying to pay off loans with ridiculous interest rates!

And lets not forget the uncertainty of the times. No one was saying interest rates couldn't go higher. I was paying 24% interest only and could pay off principle on the anniversary of the loan once a year. I worked minimum 60 hrs a week.
I borrowed right on the interest peak, but for all I knew the rates could still go higher.


Absolute bullshit from the PM. He's spouting the same nonsense as Tony Alexander. Give me high interest rates with insane inflation to destroy my debts I'll gladly pay them. Low inflation favours lenders not borrowers.

He's also intentionally creating the divide so he should be apologising for opening a can of worms. Perhaps the BNZ CEO can apologise for Bill English?

I have said it before and i will say it again. Your just a WHINGER

I don't recall you saying that before. Perhaps if you have nothing to say and no content to add that perhaps you should think before you post.


I would be totally fine with the increase in super age if National wound down immigration, fixed the problems with housing, poverty, crime, domestic violence and made New Zealand a nicer place to live. But I think we all know whats going to happen - any saving from the change in super age will just be wasted on some ridiculous idea like the amount of money wasted on the flag debate.

Lets have the full info so we can have a fully informed debate

Bill English should announce to ALL NZ how many of the current 500,000 recipients of Super are migrants who arrived within the past 20 years, so we can have a fully informed debate - and how many of those are not citizens

It's only in a vacuum that it descends into an inter-generational spat


Be Aware : Bill English is try to divert the attention and debate from the core issue of housing, social welfare and immigration.

Transport blog has some good things to add regarding the interest rates in the 80's were higher business -

Bill said he wants to run a "data-driven government". Perhaps someone should help him out by sending him this blog. I wonder if it will lead him to finally admit there's a housing crisis.

Heh...nah, I jest. Of course he won't admit that.

Data is only as good as the manager who massages it.

Bill made this an inter-generational argument by delaying the introduction until the baby boomer cohort is well past retirement age. The age entitlement has to increase to 67 years sometime in the next decade and even then guaranteed superannuation payments are unaffordable. The NZ Super Fund is closed, and there is no spare cash in the Consolidated Fund.

You'd be an idiot if you didn't see this coming.

As a millennial I know not to expect a free education, affordable housing, and super at 65. It's may not be fair, but it's the world we live in today.

May as well vote for change and make the best of our current situations.

"As a millennial I know not to expect a free education, affordable housing, and super at 65. It's may not be fair, but it's the world we live in today."

Neither do I, but I find it odd that everything is stopped once the boomers have gone through.
e.g. free education, housing, super.

They are the biggest generational cohort the world has ever seen. Perhaps they should have cut it all off before they plundered the well dry.

Point though, is that the well is not dry. This is just another example of neoliberalism's TINA - utter ideological claptrap.

You honestly believe the well is not dry. How many billions in debt are we?

Well said Kate.BUT they do not want to see reality

It's not so odd when you look at the dependency ratio (Statistics NZ has this data). With fewer workers to support non-workers what would anyone expect to happen? We have to either import more workers, increase the fertility rate or increase taxes to maintain super in its current form. Yes, something could have been done ages ago - even the NZ Super Fund was too late to the party.

Noncents point is why are all these “necessary changes” occurring after the Boomers have had their full at the trough.

Being born in September 1972 I have felt the full brunt of the transition from the free loading boomer generation to the full paying Gen X. I had to pay for my tertiary education after fees were introduced in 1992 and I now find out that my super will be two years delayed (missing the cut off by 2 months being July 2037).

I agree that super is unaffordable but why delay the age increase for 20 years?... This is clearly another nod to the free loading boomers. I appreciate the politics behind it as it blunts Winston's call to arms for the grey brigade as they will be satiated by the time the increase occurs. However, that doesn't mean I cannot point out the greed and hypocrisy by those who favour the change in 20 years and who are not affected by it.


Yep, Bill, if you want to stop the intergenerational debate then you're going to need to stop stacking all rules in favour of your investor-voter boomer bloc, and throw the younguns a bone.

You cannot simply foist the pension burden on top of younguns as well as the housing burden, without doing something to address the housing crisis - starting with admitting its very existence - and not expect to be called out on your actions.

At the moment, Bill, you're all too clearly a government of the boomers, by the boomers, and for the boomers.

Young folks, vote National and #RentTillYouDie

Sharing the burden, and the benefits, more widely is not an unreasonable request. Loading down one group with all the burden because they don't have the numbers to fight back (yet) is unreasonable as hell.

WOW that was a mouth full. Careful you might choke yourself

The Super debate is entering the "post truth" phase, where emotions (not fair on Gen Y!) are taking over.

Where is the fact checking?
S. Equab has done some fact checking on the National policy and Super still looks unaffordable.

It's also not sufficient for opposition to claim "65 never later" without costing and modelling their options.

Labour: will resuming contributions to the NZ Super Fund be sufficient to cover Super costs long term? Model this please.
NZ First: growing the economy is fine but won't that increase Super payments too? Model this please.

Michael Reddell has an interesting take finding;

the case for changing the NZS eligibility age (and residence requirement) isn’t primarily one about future fiscal balances.

and more recently, here;

Effectively, the evidence suggests the question is not one of affordability (a fiscal question) but rather one of morality (what is the right thing to do for our elderly population).

Another case of we should be arguing our values - not the numbers. And to my mind, a moral argument ought to be put to the people of NZ via transparent discussion of options (including the costings/projections on those options), followed by a referendum on what NZ society thinks is the morally correct setting(s).

We do need to look after our elderly and we need to set aside enough money/financial instruments to allow for that. Unfortunately Bill English has, through his actions, made it clear that those morals only apply to those born before 1972. Rather amoral.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Anybody looking at comments like this would assume that the Government's proposal was to deny everybody under the age of 45 any future right to Government services, benefits or assistance..

Under the Government's proposal, people born after 1972:

- will still be entitled to NZS. Given increasing longevity and the way in which NZS levels are calculated, most of them are likely to collect more of it, over more years, than are many of today's pensioners.

- will still be entitled to additional assistance if they need it, both before and after they reach the age of NZS eligibility.

- will, in the case particularly of the younger ones, not have to pay as much tax to support their elders as they would have had to without this change.

Having to wait an extra two years, with twenty years' notice to adjust your financial planning and expectation - is that really so horrific?

By the time we get to 2037-2040 things will be very dire if we don't put aside enough to pay for retirees. Most of my age and younger expect the super system to melt down and fail prior to that. This is not about two extra years, it's about this unsustainable system completely failing.

You are in a dream world if you think super would be able to function as it does today and the retirement age will be 67. Financial planning for 45 and under needs to be based on the Government going bankrupt like Greece and retirees going through considerable hardship. This needs to change.

"Is two years so horrific?"

You tell me, if you are already getting Super or will beat the 1972 cut of date then you obviously aren't affected so it's easy to be glib.

Try this, if you are getting or entitled to get super at 65 will you take a voluntary 2 year holiday? That's your position after all, 2 years without super isn’t no big deal right?...

I have no intention of revealing personal details about myself, but I can assure you that if I were already receiving Super, then my expectation would be that I would receive it for fewer years than will somebody thirty years younger can expect to. Even with an eligibility age of 67, somebody who is now 45 will on average receive more Super, over a longer period, than was the expectation when the eligibility age was set at 65.

No, there is no equivalence between a 65 year old being deprived of two years' worth of NZS right now and a 45 year old being given twenty years notice to adjust to the same change.

I tend to agree with Bill English...
What is the point of generational comparisons..??

My Parents and Grand parents were the generations that lived thru the great depression and spilt blood in WWI and WWll, for the democratic freedoms of us all... They paid a heavy price ... they were also the Labour movement that gave us work conditions we take for granted...and they had to really fight and struggle for this. ( I read the story of a Welsh coalminer.... it was a tough life )
( yet they never played the "poor me" game)
( The war veterans did not far as I know,... did not believe they were "entitled" )

My generation has had it much easier.. (I'm 55)...
In 45 yrs when my kids retire the world will be a very different place.

Bill English and all other leaders have to survive in this political age of populism.... It seems to be political suicide to make the hard decisions...
People, largely, want Govts. to do more and more.... provide more and more..... and they want taxes to be less and less.

Commonsense says we should look out for the vulnerable.... AND... that tends to be the young children and the elderly.... ( surely that is a first principle ).

My own view is that we need intelligent debate and then a referendum on the big issuess like Pensions, healthcare , education, size of Govt.
That way it kinda becomes apolitical.
AND.... I do feel that the public might be capable of making informed referendum votes..???

I remember the rugby world cup in 2007... In the aftermath the rugby public gave their views on talk back radio.
A few mths later the rugby union paid alot of money to have a report written.
In my view, the rugby public had a far more intuitive and commonsense grasp on why we lost the world cup than the findings of the report.

i'm thinking the same applies to far bigger issues..??? ie.. the "public" , if interested , are not "stupid".


I don't think young Kiwis want the government to do more than it did for previous generations - government was much larger and more invasive in those days, and the tax rate that post-war folk paid to achieve the amount of welfare given was very high.

I think what they're asking is relatively simple: throw them a bone on housing, and don't stack the burden of both unaffordable housing and a lesser pension solely on their generations.

How? Start with some simple measures:

- reduce the role of foreign buyers in the NZ property market: limit to new builds, plus a 15-20% stamp duty
- get immigration under control: make "skilled" migrant really mean "skilled", reduce the race to the bottom of wages
- rebalance housing away from being the greatest investment vehicle into being about homes (e.g. remove tax advantages)

I.e. address some of the demand side forces that everyone except the government acknowledges are playing a massive role.

At the moment, everything is being made about investor-voters portfolios and protecting them, with no quarter given to the needs of young and upcoming generations of Kiwis. This is NOT how earlier NZ governments approached housing for previous generations. More info available here

I view affordable housing as a first principle....

It would be interesting to see how a referendum on your suggestions would go..??
I'm thinking the public would agree.
Throw in some of the ideas that Brendon, Dale Smith, Philbest...etc share on this site....and we would be on the path to housing being able to respond in an elastic way to , essentially, the demand from householders... at reasonable prices..etc

The only thing I might disagree with you on is about the so called tax advantages..???
If u are in the Gareth Morgan camp...then I disagree


Don't make this into inter-generational debate, says dude who just slandered young people as unemployed druggies with no evidence.

This super change is probably in the realms of fantasy, because who knows what circumstances will be like then. But if these slimebuckets are going to pander to a particular demographic at somebody else's expense, then there needs to be a re-balancing of policy so that the people affected by this policy, and who will be paying for the pre-1972 chaps and chapettes, are able to access affordable housing and build their own security and independence. Fair's fair. All this inter-generational apartheid that the current government is facilitating will lead to a hell of a backlash.

Yeah, that. He started it - and is clearly anti-youth. Probably thinks his kids and grandkids will be just fine based on the distributions forecast from his family trust.


Bill to Paula - "Told you this would take the focus off housing and immigration"

I wasn't aware debate was limited to the Prime Ministers convenience but we do appologise unreservedly.


I actually had reasonable hopes for Bill, unfortunately when he said "I've learn a lot from John Key" he certainly was not kidding. With stuff like the above he appeared to learn just about everything from him. Seriously disappointing.

If the boomers want to take the moral high ground - why don't they move the date of the super change to tomorrow?


Is anyone else enjoying this? Oh how quickly the tide turns. Even Hosking hates national now.


Somehow Key had a charisma that blinded everyone to his incompetence.

I could see that he was a recidivist liar (Pike River, ChCh EQ promises broken etc. etc.), but most others seemed to think he was a great man. To me he appeared sleazy and dishonest, untrustworthy and contemptible.

Only his charisma kept National afloat. The rest of the ship is sinking fast.

Not everyone, some of us were a bit more astute judges of human nature

He triggered my con-artist radar big-time.

I think Keys finest moment was when he said we should be like Ireland.

he is a great salesman, and like all great salesman could talk the hind leg off a donkey, never spoke anything of substance and could forget, change to a new version anything he had said a moment before to suit the now situation.
as a leader, a disaster had short turn vision and his only concern was himself and his popularity so unwilling to make hard decisions or fight for a long term plan or goal.
this headline made me laugh as that was what he was all along and it appears only a small part of the population could see it

And if you care to look, you can see, like father, like son.

Why not punish the same generation that had to pay for their education by making them work longer???

In fact late gen X, and gen Y are actually a smaller proportion of the population given that they are shadow of the children not born during WWII. The boomers get to suck up all the resources and leave nothing for those born in the mid 70s and 80s.

A government with no idea of priorities: given 25% of the population is (unbelievably) born overseas, decent migration policies could have avoided these issues.

Instead, thousands are let in, only to be a burden on the state, taking jobs and entitlements from NZers.

Deal with real problem, analyse the utter mess that migration has made in NZ and find some politicians that want to Make New Zealand Great Again!!

Throw out this liberal loonies who don't understand anything. Key was the great wrecker of NZ and unfortunately English has picked up his erroneous ideals.

Instead, thousands are let in, only to be a burden on the state, taking jobs and entitlements from NZers.

I appreciate your frustration Chris_J but the comment above is unwarranted.
Yes, migration levels are much too high but don't ever label migrants as being a burden on the state, nor for taking our jobs and entitlements from NZer's.

This rhetoric was widely used in underclass England - towards Poles, Czechs, Indians, Pakistanis to name but a few.

In reality the burden on our state is created by ourselves - we have a growing number of disenfranchised New Zealanders who no longer care to vote or change their habits towards work, raising children , education, health or simply being a good citizen.

We cannot ever blame migration; however, we could elect or pressure governments to curb migration so we avoid this kind of sentiment towards those that have decided (and been permitted) to live in this country.

In reality the burden on our state is created by ourselves

This seems like the flip side of blaming immigrants. Don't blame the immigrants blame the locals instead!
Not saying it is necessarily untrue just that it seems like a similar sentiment.

Yes, it is a generalised view point but I did not convey blame rather an observation. Being a school teacher allows me close ups of these realities on a daily basis.

The policies (or lack of) around housing to my mind will be the biggest travesty this wonderful country will have to live with as many more citizens become disenfranchised within our society.

In reality most people that live in NZ are a burden on the state. That is why we run deficits!!

It is a fact that many migrants will also be a burden on the state under current policies. If migrants were more selectively chosen, the burden would have been reduced and the migrants would be net contributors to society, but they are not now - while they are allowed to take minimum wage work - jobs NZers could have been trained for.

As migrants also get our entitlements, what I said are facts. Like it or not.

I don't wish to agitate - but could you please explain what you mean by entitlements? And the facts to support your opinion on the matter.

I am genuinely intrigued and wish to convey this to my wife and friends who recently immigrated here in the past 5 years.

I also think you will find 'permanent migrants' have a greater financial net impact than NZ born citizens.
Even though I'm not a huge Nigel Latta fan he did make a valid point here:

"Consider the amount of tax and GST that people pay, and then take off the cost of educating them and healthcare, what it means is that if you're born in NZ and you're raised here, you have a much lower net positive fiscal impact because you've got higher health and education costs. A young, fit, healthy, skilled migrant coming to the country hasn't been educated here, doesn't have childhood healthcare costs, so all they do is pay taxes.

And then you have about half of our immigrants have gone back and left the country again: so we've had 15 years of them paying taxes and helping to build our economy, and then they leave before they can really reap many of the rewards of paying those taxes. Some might see that as a win for us, but it is still a loss because we lose experienced, skilled people."

Anyway, just one mans opinion ay?!

I wonder if Bill English saw the news item regarding the increase in working families withdrawing their Kiwisaver to cover the cost of rising rents and unforeseen expenses.
I dread to think in 20 years what net wealth Kiwis will have to their name.

The retirement age will become irrelevant as folk will have to keep working just to make ends meet as they approach their senior years without an asset to fall back on.

Home Ownership Rate in New Zealand decreased to 64.80 percent in 2013 from 66.90 percent in 2006. Home Ownership Rate in New Zealand averaged 68.80 percent from 1991 until 2013, reaching an all time high of 73.80 percent in 1991 and a record low of 64.80 percent in 2013.

Those high interest rates in the 80's everyone keeps banging on about obviously did little to curb home ownership rates.

I don't particularly like Bill English; I don't think he is fit to lead the country. However, I am on board with his move to increase the superannuation age to 67. For the record I am a 25 year old New Zealander.
The Norwegians have already increased their pension age from 65 to 67, Aussies are doing it by 2023 and the Swedes by 2022. France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark etc. are all on-track for a retirement age increase. By 2030, most countries with universal retirement benefits will have their retirement age set at 67 or 68.

As a youngish NZ'er I'm also not against the idea of increasing the super age but he should do it this year and not wait until his voting block scrapes through. Everything this government does has a self serving element to it.

This is as many young do not vote as a result most politicians do not care.

Make it a point to vote and also encourage your friends to vote.

Perhaps if we allow 16-17 year olds to vote we could be in for an election surprise?! Although most would vote as their parents would..

A 16 year old do something their parents do - good one ;-)

In a world where the super wealthy continue to increase their wealth at an obscene rate, maybe we should be aiming our wrath at them instead of arguing amongst ourselves. I am sure that they are only to happy to cream more out of the economy while laughing at the "plebs" running around arguing and blaming each other.

Bill English does something and he still can't win with many.
It wouldn't matter what he said or did it would not satisfy you!
If he brought the new Super in in 5 years time there would be complaints.
Do,think that the immigrants are on the pigs back as far as Super requirements are and they shouldn't get it until they can prove that they have contributed substantially to our economy.
As for the housing situation, It is possible for most people to own if they have the right attitude.
My 2 oldest sons both under 25 have bought property from saving and one is looking to buy his second, although slightly harder with the new LVR requirements.
Why wouldn't you buy when it is cheaper than renting?????
With the increase in prices in Auckland it should be relatively easy for parents to be able to assist their children into their first home, shouldn't it?

This bloke does not have the same thought processes and nous , even , as John Key .................Key was way to clever to get bogged down with the flack that comes from such remarks

Bill English is right about the intergenerational debate being uphelpful. I would go further and say some of the personalised attacks on this site on 'boomers' in the two days are non acceptable stupid and creepy. Nasty stuff to avoid thinking.
I'm very happy though to see and think about the sort of comments also here about the structure of tax law, capital gains, ridiculous house price bubble, and effects of population growth. And the neglect of the national government in not addressing those.
Very happy to see that sort of debate, whether or not I see wisdom.

The thing is Bill English started the intergenerational debate and now he is saying that it's unhelpful. Logically Bill English = unhelpful. All attacks need to target National in relation to this.

I had one commenter criticise me for calling Bill English a scumbag, he is a scumbag. He's opened the can of worms potentially as a distraction. The problem is it's so transparent it's backfired on him. He's just added super to the list of problems the Government isn't addressing.

KH - You sound like you are happy to debate things which tinker around the edges... The boomers have lived through a resource use boom. The resources are now not there. This like it or not was historical chance. Wealth now is purely a matter of debt growth, nothing more. Someone has to carry this growth in debt burden.

Are you happy with ideas which would actually be required so that NZ/the world lived within its means ... such as

- axe all medical care for over (eg) 50's. Anyone 50 + has historically lived a very long life. To hang round longer uses up resources for those to come (ie resources which are one fossil fuels). Also not helping with population pressures...
- happy to reduce the debt burden on the young ... eg by reducing /axing pensions - which rely on the returns of their debt?
- happy to sell your excess housing stock back to young nzers at a wage related price so that they can live in their own home rather than be part of a boomers rental portfolio?
- prevent all further development & population gain ..which permanently reduces the quality of natural resources
- consume 10% of your current energy use
- axe the financial system & its requirement for growth in resource use?

Too radical? Back to business as usual ... full steam ahead with growth, financial & ecological collapse.

You remind me of the one about bacon and eggs. The chicken is involved but the pig is committed.
You suggest "axe all medical care for over 50s." Aah No. Clearly stupid but you can commit to it if you choose.
Further, it's a great example of setting citizen against citizen -- which Bill English warned about.
My own view -seeing you asked - often expressed here on, is we need a stable population target. My desired number is 2 million but I would settle for 5 million.

KH - Setting citizen against citizen ...
What you clearly dont get is that there actually isn't enough to go around ... resources are actually limited. If not, why are resource bases collapsing? Wealth is a claim on available resources, and the boomers have it sewn up... the point I was making is that the entitlement is now culturally ingrained ... shown by your reaction to proposing no health care over a certain age.
The scarcity is is not what politicians tell us and its not what boomers appear to get, having living through an abundance.
And its not about NZ population - its about world population ... this is where we trade our resources.

"some of the personalised attacks on this site on 'boomers' in the two days are non acceptable stupid and creepy"

What you're seeing is unfiltered public sentiment. National are shamelessly advocating policies which exacerbate the already massive inter-generational inequality. Check out all the ted talks on inequality and unfairness.
Check out this hilarious unfairness experiment. There's a serious side of course.

When national gets rid of the housing minister. Refuses to acknowledge foreign buyers. Adjusts super completely in favour of boomers, the list goes on and on…. They’re feeding boomers the grapes and giving everyone else cucumber. Of course people are very angry.

Attack the government all you like Fat Pat - you are welcome - but you missed that the actual point was the attacks were on the persons - boomer - old people.
But if you want to continue be consistent and what about infants and children. Economically draining little brats who dont work and pay no tax. Poor gen whatsit have to pay for the food of these leaches. How about we make them pay a tax on their mothers milk.
(Caution to the overly serious. The above was humour - even sarcasm.)

'I can't believe the cotton pickers don't want to be cotton pickers....' says the NZ boomer in reference to GenXY.

'Quickly - fetch my whip'.

Take Ian Harrison's simplified model of the New Zealand economy

The distinctive feature of the New Zealand economy is that land is an important input into the productive process. This is obvious with the agricultural,fishing and forestry sectors but it also applies to international tourism. In a simple model of the New Zealand economy where the supply of land is fixed, and New Zealand’s isolation means it is not a ‘natural’ location for the production of a broad range of internationally traded goods and services, then an increase in the labour supply through large scale immigration will reduce the
marginal product of labour. As a result:

Real wages will fall

Owners of land will benefit

There will be an outflow of ‘native’ labour in search of higher wages in Australia

The economy will be bigger, but average incomes will fall

Resources will flow into low value service production.
Given Bill English is firm on not reducing immigration, that means a lot of low paid people doing crap jobs and paying high prices for rents and real estate who will wish like hell they could retire.
I blame the millenials at The Transport Blog, Shamubeel Equab, Professor Paul Spoonley, Nigel Latta etc and

Remove high house prices from our present situation and how does it look?
I've followed this debate and what i see is interested parties pushing their barrows. One thing that isn't factored is wage levels. These are assumed to be high when each angle is addressed: you can't compare Houston with Auckland as Houston has oil feild services, Nasa etc.

Every election is bitter but wow that escalated quickly.... The quality of debate has fallen on this site

Super is affordable let tax the multinationals

Something is amiss.

In 2013, TSY projected that super costs in 2060 would be 6.6% of GDP;'s-real-costs-%C2%AD-looking-to-2060.pdf

In 2016, TSY projected that super costs in 2060 would be 7.9% of GDP;

What changed with the forecasts I wonder? One would not expect to see such a wide variance inside three years when projecting out to 2060.

Days to the General Election: 20
See Party Policies here. Party Lists here.