That doesn't mean anything. But as a result of that odd stat, yet again off we went down a bit of a rabbit hole debating superannuation and its many and various outworkings.
1) We are not changing super.
Every time someone suggests it, the political unpalatability becomes fairly obvious, fairly fast. This new Government are your current example. Some would up the age but the ones who wouldn’t won the day, so we aren't.
2) The 50,000 earning the $100,000 is merely a reminder of how poor we are as a country.
50,000 is not a lot of people.
3) Superannuation is an entitlement. We decided that decades ago. Its trigger is age, not wealth. That would make it a benefit and it's not a benefit.
4) I'm so over that tired old line of "we deserve it because we paid our taxes".
The sad truth about being a poor country is that not many people get paid a lot of money, hence only 50,000 earn over $100,000 in old age.
Our tax system is horrifically skewed and the so-called wealthy, who aren't actually wealthy at all, pay a disproportionately high amount. There are many, many people who pay their taxes, but it doesn’t cover the amount of state support they actually use.
Where the hell do you think the money comes from to support the average job seeker recipient for 13 long years? It's the high-income earner.
So, if you're running that line, you could actually argue only high-income earners should get NZ Super because they actually did pay their taxes, and many other people as well.
5) We should welcome and admire those 50,000 on over $100,000 because although some of them will have got lucky, most will have actually worked hard and saved hard and set an example for their kids and hopefully the rest of us.
6) The world is a busy, troubled, complicated place right now.
Personally, I would like a trade surplus, a more broad-based economy, most kids in school, most kids in school actually getting skills for the future, less stress in the pacific from China, normal people running for the U.S presidency, something a bit longer term in the Middle East and fewer rats in supermarkets.
A superannuation debate is not really befitting the troubled times in which we exist.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
Every time someone suggests it, the political unpalatability becomes fairly obvious, fairly fast. This new Government are your current example. Some would up the age but the ones who wouldn’t won the day, so we aren't.
2) The 50,000 earning the $100,000 is merely a reminder of how poor we are as a country.
50,000 is not a lot of people.
3) Superannuation is an entitlement. We decided that decades ago. Its trigger is age, not wealth. That would make it a benefit and it's not a benefit.
4) I'm so over that tired old line of "we deserve it because we paid our taxes".
The sad truth about being a poor country is that not many people get paid a lot of money, hence only 50,000 earn over $100,000 in old age.
Our tax system is horrifically skewed and the so-called wealthy, who aren't actually wealthy at all, pay a disproportionately high amount. There are many, many people who pay their taxes, but it doesn’t cover the amount of state support they actually use.
Where the hell do you think the money comes from to support the average job seeker recipient for 13 long years? It's the high-income earner.
So, if you're running that line, you could actually argue only high-income earners should get NZ Super because they actually did pay their taxes, and many other people as well.
5) We should welcome and admire those 50,000 on over $100,000 because although some of them will have got lucky, most will have actually worked hard and saved hard and set an example for their kids and hopefully the rest of us.
6) The world is a busy, troubled, complicated place right now.
Personally, I would like a trade surplus, a more broad-based economy, most kids in school, most kids in school actually getting skills for the future, less stress in the pacific from China, normal people running for the U.S presidency, something a bit longer term in the Middle East and fewer rats in supermarkets.
A superannuation debate is not really befitting the troubled times in which we exist.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
In the 1930s my great grandmotherm\, a very ethical individual would not accept the pension when it was introduced because she said it was dishonest because she had never contributed to it.
My parents spent their retirement years contributing to society by working charitably. My mother taught thousands of children to read who had failed in the school system and my father did research for roading conferences on gravel roads which he had learned about in his early years as an engineer. Consequently I do not look very favourably on old folks who use their superannuation on self indulgent activities like many overseas trips.
Today's super annuitants had the best of NZ with respect to education and social stability and equality. I do think they should be challenged to continue contributing to society as many do in appreciation for what this country traditionally provided for them and also for personal moral worth.
I would guess a large chunk of those earning over 100K whilst receiving Super are still working. I was one because I worked past retirement age.
From my perspective I did the country a favour in that I continued to earn the country overseas revenue and paid taxes that were higher than the Super I received.
So, I think this is just another lefty beat-up on successful people.
Andrew - yep. Spot on. Successful people are regarded as failures in NZ and therefore need to be punished.
Leave Super alone.
I worked and paid for current Super ENTITLEMENT, and massive numbers of derelicts on the benefit. I refuse to be Boxer the horse and get nothing when it is my turn.
If you want to make cuts, take it from beneficiaries.
Post a Comment