Chris Luxon has said twice today that he wants the pension age to go up to 67.
He said it once on Kerre’s show this morning, and then at a post-Budget lunch speaking to business leaders, he repeated it and he told them that this is basically going to be election policy for National next year.
Now, regardless of how you may feel about this, I mean, you'd have to be coming around to the realisation, wouldn't you, that we are inching closer and closer to this thing actually happening.
Especially after the changes that the Government made to our KiwiSaver retirement funds yesterday.
It's not long now.
I think that the Government will have completely wound down its government support of KiwiSaver, and then it's gonna come after the pension next, isn't it?
This is where I think it gets tricky, because this is not just about money for people.
This is emotional.
Let me lay out the emotional argument for you as it plays out in my head, okay?
It goes like this: don't touch my pension. You can touch anything else. Do not touch my pension.
I don't care if they take away every other piece of welfare that is available to me and other people.
In fact, I would actually welcome it, because I think there is way too much welfare in this country for the middle class who don't actually need it.
You get a best start payment for having a newborn. You're having a baby. They give you money.
You get the winter energy payment. You get Working for Families, which I think is a crime.
You get the subsidised childcare for sending your kid to kindy. You get free tertiary education for the 3rd year, God only knows why.
Free government money for your KiwiSaver.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, there's way too much of that stuff going on. They can take all of that away. If they don't want to take it away, they can means test it so that actually the most, and only the most needy in this country get it.
But I will do everything I can to stop them touching my pension. Because I have earned that money.
This is not a question about whether I need that money, it is that I have earned that money.
I, like you, have contributed huge amounts of tax to this country, and actually I have not claimed very much back for myself.
It's certainly not anywhere near how much I have put in.
The only thing that stops me from being very sour about how much money they take out of my pay packet every year and the wasting of that money and the bludging by some on that money is the knowledge that when I hit 65 and want to retire, I will get a little bit back.
Call it a goodwill gesture from the government, if you like, a government who I have helped prop up just like you have for donkeys' years, by the time that money comes into my bank account.
So, good luck to Chris Luxon getting this one across the line.
I think it's going to be one of the hardest fights to win because of the emotional argument that I have just laid out for you. I think they might find it easier to take away a lot of other welfare first.
And unless they take away a lot of other welfare first, I am not budging on the pension.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show. This article was sourced from Newstalk ZB.
8 comments:
My exact thinking Heather, which is no different to how my parents thought and how we still feel. There are definitely way too many handouts, Treaty Settlement rorts and waste of Government spending that should be dealt to first.
Heather I'm right with you on this one. I'm now in my late 50's. I have NEVER received a handout or dole payment in my life. I have worked , contributed and paid tax all my life.
I'm still a net tax payer, ie pay a hell of a lot more and I don't receive 1 cent in return.
I pay 6 figures in tax now days.... I'm making sensible decisions and am planning for my retirement.
It started with jacinda wanting to get her grubby hands on the retirement funds to prop up her failing welfare state. Here's an idea, you want money, take it from the budgets who are currently getting my money to do nothing all day.
Leave my hard earned money alone.
Bold statement from an immigrant.
>"I think there is way too much welfare in this country for the middle class who don't actually need it."
Examples given are payments to people who have just produced a baby, and subsidised child care. But no mention is made of whether National Super recipients actually need the pension.
In many instances, they don't. We are talking my generation and older, and most were able to buy property in their younger years - something that has become a luxury for many of our children's generation. A baby may spell financial ruin for a couple if it affects the essential second income.
If we are to shift the conversation to who needs financial support from the State, we need to means-test all payments including Super. It is ridiculous that a couple with millions in property assets (yesterday's middle class) receive almost 40 grand a year from the govt simply for being past age 65, especially in light of the claim that a couple struggling with a mortgage and a new baby "don't need it".
Better still, have a compulsory retirement savings scheme that everyone has to pay into, like the European countries.
Super is paid forward. I paid for my parents pension - my kids will pay for mine. If not, put a stop date on all super for 30 years time to allow people to be prepared and invest more in private super fund if wanted. I did not have a large private super scheme as i knew I had the super coming. By all means change, but give enough lead time for savings to accure. The other point I add is that taking money out of kiwisaver, for whatevr reason, should be stopped...
du Plessis-Allen perpetuates that hoary old mistruth that by paying her taxes now she has earned the right to a pension later. She calls it emotional. I call it simple ignorance. National Superannuaton is not welfare. It is an annual entitlement and, until the Cullen Fund kicks in in the 2030s it is totally funded out of current year Government revenue. Paying your taxes every year is the price you pay for the privilege of living in New Zealand for that year, including the right to National Superannuation for that year. It's not a way of booking a future pension because future years' payments are at the discretion of future years' Parliaments. And it doesn't matter how emotional you get about a non-existent future entitlement, it will be the politics of the future that will determine how future pensions are paid. Not the amount of tax you pay today.
There is no shortage of clueless boomers with opinions like this, the only new thing is Gen X is starting in on the clueless opinions now too. Welcome to the party, Heather!
As is always the case, a number of changes need to take place together to help solve this issue. If past Govt's had paid more money into the Cullen fund instead of paying out fraudulent "Treaty " compensations, or helping John Tamahere accrue his millions, NZ would not be in such dire circumstances financially.Super age needs raising and a realistic means test put on it. Interesting to note that when the age went from 60 to 65 gradually, it was accepted. That was about thirty years ago as I recall, so why all the fuss now?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.