Some economists have taken to their calculators and looked at who earns what in retirement.
9% of over 65s are earning more than $100k a year.
3.6% are earning more than $150k a year.
A smidge over 2% are earning more than $180k a year.
Now that’s almost 15% earning at least a six-figure salary, which I was pleasantly surprised about given the general Super debate is predicated on the idea everyone in retirement can't make ends meet, are cold because they haven't got a heater, and generally aren't eating properly because lamb chops are beyond the budget.
Anyway, upon crunching these numbers said economists asked: why don’t we means-test Super?
They are of the camp Super is not affordable.
That is still in some doubt, and while it is in some doubt, we haven't been able to get past the first hurdle and the first hurdle is: why don’t we raise the retirement age?
Close followers of this increasingly laborious debate will have noted we can't even get any sort of agreement on age, so why you would raise a means test is beyond me.
Age at least doesn’t change the fundamental underpinnings of Super i.e. it's an entitlement and age is the sole trigger.
Means-testing puts it into a whole new category, and the category would be called a benefit. Age becomes secondary to your means.
"Welcome to your golden years. Oh, you're rich? Well, nothing for you".
But what about my contribution to the tax base and the state of the nation? "Oh yes, they were old rules that only counts if you're broke".
If you ever opened that Pandora's box, you may as well do away with Super altogether. Because once you turn it into a benefit you may as well call it Jobseeker – you're simply 68-years-old and unemployed.
When in the modern age, given the reason for upping the age of entitlement is partially based on the idea that people live and work longer, are you actually no longer working?
If 65 is too young to retire, when is a good age? That's another debate that will go nowhere.
There should be a new rule: don't start new debates until old ones are settled.
And given we are still at 65-years-old after literally decades of going nowhere, then means-testing Super is wasting our time.
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.
3.6% are earning more than $150k a year.
A smidge over 2% are earning more than $180k a year.
Now that’s almost 15% earning at least a six-figure salary, which I was pleasantly surprised about given the general Super debate is predicated on the idea everyone in retirement can't make ends meet, are cold because they haven't got a heater, and generally aren't eating properly because lamb chops are beyond the budget.
Anyway, upon crunching these numbers said economists asked: why don’t we means-test Super?
They are of the camp Super is not affordable.
That is still in some doubt, and while it is in some doubt, we haven't been able to get past the first hurdle and the first hurdle is: why don’t we raise the retirement age?
Close followers of this increasingly laborious debate will have noted we can't even get any sort of agreement on age, so why you would raise a means test is beyond me.
Age at least doesn’t change the fundamental underpinnings of Super i.e. it's an entitlement and age is the sole trigger.
Means-testing puts it into a whole new category, and the category would be called a benefit. Age becomes secondary to your means.
"Welcome to your golden years. Oh, you're rich? Well, nothing for you".
But what about my contribution to the tax base and the state of the nation? "Oh yes, they were old rules that only counts if you're broke".
If you ever opened that Pandora's box, you may as well do away with Super altogether. Because once you turn it into a benefit you may as well call it Jobseeker – you're simply 68-years-old and unemployed.
When in the modern age, given the reason for upping the age of entitlement is partially based on the idea that people live and work longer, are you actually no longer working?
If 65 is too young to retire, when is a good age? That's another debate that will go nowhere.
There should be a new rule: don't start new debates until old ones are settled.
And given we are still at 65-years-old after literally decades of going nowhere, then means-testing Super is wasting our time.
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.
5 comments:
“They are of the camp Super is not affordable.”
Camp? Hilarious and depressing that Mike doesn’t know how much the welfare spend is on Super and what that is going to do to the country in 30 years. Maybe because he’s old, he doesn’t care, cos he won’t be around after that.
You’d think that as a millionaire, funded by a foreign billionaire, he would have some idea of how money works. But this is just how it goes in opinion-piece fantasy land I suppose.
We just know, the potential hefty administration costs would far out weigh any return of non payment of the superannuation, to those deemed as unworthy rich pricks.
The over 65s who earn 100k are most likely people still working and not rich pricks. Older engineers, doctors, professionals and craftsmen for which we don’t have good replacement options.
To 12:53pm: But there’s another list full of university administrators and public servants for whom we have an abundance of good replacements.
Why is Grenon pushing this angle? He isn’t even eligible for NZ Super in the first place.
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.