Super age should go up

[yousnoozeyoulose]

It needs to happen sooner rather than later even if it's political suicide. Who's going to be the martyr?

[Wainuiguy]

No one needs to be the martyr- both major parties have one point said it needs to go up but have then baulked at it. They both need to acknowledge the reality and make it happen.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I think that nice shiny headed Mr L should do it. David S would be bound to support him.

Two birds, one stone...

[Magenta69]

I would be concerned for people with physically demanding jobs who are unable to work for longer.

[harm_less]

Some interesting background info on this thread's topic: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/202...t-explode/

[SueDonim]

I can't get past the paywall on the article.

It's probably reasonable to start moving the age of entitlement up, but it does need to be planned and done fairly. Today's 55-65 year olds have paid tax with the promise of receiving super at 65. So that needs to continue. A phased approach for younger people to be informed and plan for an older age of entitlement is fair, like the change from 60 to 65 in the 1990s. Many people continue working far past 65 so receive both salary and super and good on them if that's what is right for them. But not everyone can or wants to do that. Those who have worked hard all their lives and paid their taxes need some security when they start to struggle physically.

[Lilith7]

I would be concerned for people with physically demanding jobs who are unable to work for longer.

Exactly - I'm not sure that a set age is such a good idea, it might be better to have it somehow related to the type of work the person has mostly done - but that might not be easy.

Politicians will be leery of tampering with this one for a while though, at least until there isn't such a large part of the population of or close to, the age for superannuation because it would almost certainly cost them votes.
And so it should - bastards!

---

I think that nice shiny headed Mr L should do it. David S would be bound to support him.

Two birds, one stone...

I wish there was some means of encouraging them both to do so, but for some strange reason they don't seem at all keen...

[Oh_hunnihunni]

You know what? They shouldn't raise the qualifying age of Super. They should remove it entirely and replace it with a UBI, and qualified income boost benefits.

[harm_less]

I can't get past the paywall on the article.

Unless you've already accessed that media website beyond their free view threshold I'm unaware why you can't read the article. I'm certainly not paying for that access.

Shame. It's a good article though most of the demographic trends it refers to are common knowledge now.

[Magoo]

its got the same political voodoo cast on it as capital gains.
a path trodden with trepidation by any elected official.
its going to take a narcissist sociopath to get it done im afraid.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Or, courage.

The courage that supports and enables a leader to bring the entire caucus with them. The courage to risk the vultures descending with ill disguised glee and the strength to present a united front to such a politically inspired attack.

Kind of like the same courage it will take to let us survive climate change.

But it won't happen.

[Outsider]

There is a simple answer - and that's to have the Super means-tested from 65-70 and then make it universal from 70 years of age.
I don't go along with the argument that it's not fair on the 55-65 years olds. We have known for a long time that Super couldn't be paid out forever, that's why the government started Kiwisaver. And that age bracket, on the whole, are those that have set themselves up very nicely with housing.

[Lilith7]

You know what? They shouldn't raise the qualifying age of Super. They should remove it entirely and replace it with a UBI, and qualified income boost benefits.

Aaaand wait for it! Any minute some idiot will wave the 'commie' accusation yet again.

I think it may be an idea for which the time has come to, at the very least, take a much closer look at.

[Zurdo]

I would be concerned for people with physically demanding jobs who are unable to work for longer.

People with physically demanding jobs are usually in better shape than a desk jockey of the same age. I'm doing stupid shit for a 68 year old, and some people my age can't walk to the shops. But yeah, the hard slog all your life takes it's toll.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Or just life. I can't walk to the shops these days, but that's down to plain bad luck.

Life can be like that. Doesn't stop me though!

---

There is a simple answer - and that's to have the Super means-tested from 65-70 and then make it universal from 70 years of age.
I don't go along with the argument that it's not fair on the 55-65 years olds. We have known for a long time that Super couldn't be paid out fodrever, that's why the government started Kiwisaver. And that age bracket, on the whole, are those that have set themselves up very nicely with housing.

It should be means tested now. What we save would mean we could keep it at 65 for longer.

[jackford]

Well not happening over night
Labour won't raise the age of superannuation - Grant Robertson (msn.com)

[Lilith7]

They're all too scared of the backlash because there are so many over 65's now, but they will eventually raise it, I think.

[Olive]

It should be means tested now. What we save would mean we could keep it at 65 for longer.

I think the problem with means testing is that it is so administratively complex that the costs of putting it into practice outweigh the savings.   This was the main reason that estate duty and stamp duty were abandoned.  

Also, the many and varied ways that people can rearrange their finances to avoid taxation can just as easily be applied to lowering their declared income in order to qualify for superannuation.

[Magoo]

getting rid of means testing was a significant gain back in the day when they did it.
undoing it would be taking us back to those days, people worked hard to achieve its demise.
some of our brief histories' heavy hitters were involved
im not much of a research guy or id name some of them and put up a link.

[SueDonim]

Super should NOT be means tested. It has been paid for by the hard working tax-payers - the ones who would lose from means testing. If the future is a different structure for those who are young today, fine, but don't suggest to remove the rightful income from those who have paid for it over their lifetimes.

If you have spent your working life paying into Kiwisaver then when you qualify to withdraw it you're told "na, you've done too well in your life, you can't have it" how would you feel?