Our super Super
In my column at the Herald, I cover Labour’s Savings Policy. Some extracts:
New Zealand has the most generous public superannuation scheme in the world. …
So Labour have opened the doors for a national debate on both the age of eligibility and on means testing NZ Superannuation. They deserve praise for such a bold step. Our current scheme is too generous and unsustainable. …
Labour’s policy overall has a mixture of good and bad. I think it is an improvement over the status quo, and their willingness to advocate the age change gives them greater credibility. It’s a bold start to the campaign to tell New Zealanders that our taxpayer funded superannuation scheme is too generous. It almost reminds me of the Phil Goff of old, and yes that is a compliment.
I find it amusing that even when I praise Phil Goff, some nutters attack me for being too partisan.
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
October 28th, 2011 at 11:59 am
That’s possibly because even when you like the policies Phil Goff announces, you still attack him, whether for changing his mind or whatever. Much of what you wrote here yesterday wasn’t about how wonderful the policy was, but was about how Labour was campaigning to lower wages, or how Labour was going against things it previously said etc. The general idea is that had National or ACT announced identical policies, there would likely have been more of the praise and less of the snark: i.e. you might have mentioned once how National was being forced to go back on its policy in light of dire economic circumstances, but you wouldn’t have then spent multiple posts/tweets etc., pointing to further and further instances of National MPs saying contrary things in the past.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
If there is one issue I would change my political allegiance, it’s superannuation.
Labour is showing huge courage by kicking the Prime Minister’s elephant.
But then fuzzied the message with ‘transitional’ payments 65-67.
They have more to lose by playing dollar-each-way politics.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Graeme: I was referring to in my Herald column, where I was not really snarky about Goff at all.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
The most generous super scheme in the world? I doubt that very much and suspect you have just made that up. I understand the French system, for one, pays super at the rate of 80% of the last five years of the particular superannuitants average income. Now that is generous.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
“New Zealand has the most generous public superannuation scheme in the world.”
Yes, but which would you rather have, a higher percentage of the (low) NZ average wage, or a lower percentage of a much higher wage.
JC
October 28th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
It would be sustainable if we weren’t paying able bodied people to sit on their arses all day, alcoholics and junkies to sit on their arses all day, low life feral slags who’s only achievement is to produce numerous feral kids to their multiple feral sperm donors, full and final treaty settlements (Tui add), and the list goes on …
Feel free to add as you please.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
So Labour are going to give every New Zealander the same super scheme as the MP’s have ? Wow, that’s great – no more do as we say not as we do… well not for super anyway.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Muzza M
Stop being so rude about core Labour voters…. they can’t be tipped off the gravy train or they will stop voting for the red team.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Compliments should be made when deserved. Yep David. There is a quite reasonable non partisan viewpoint you express. Thank you. Good to see and hopefully others will appreciate the approach.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
I don’t think the middle of an election campaign is a good time to initiate a debate on one of the most important longterm issues we should be dealing with. Politics at it’s worst, where electoral ambitions override what should be developing cross party consensus.
I propose to initiate a proper debate on Super next year, inclusive of as much of the public as possible, using public meetings and the Internet. This could be driven from within parliament, or if they aren’t willing to do it then it could be driven from the wider political community.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
A hoot on Morning Report when Phil put on his special manly voice to say he had more balls than John Key. Just remind us – who was a top international manager of a multinational company and a highly successful money trader? And who spent his whole life at University or in Parliament, all on the public dollar?
When you have to say yours is bigger it usually isn’t, Phil. Especially when you have just bravely and boldly announced a policy to take effect in 22 years time!
After I, and all the other baby boomers, have enjoyed National Super for decades.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
burt – they will probably vote Mana this time
October 28th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Come on Pete, for a start it’s basically the beginning of the campaign, not half way through it. Secondly the debate is needed, and if John Key isn’t willing to have the debate then it’s others jobs to point that out to the electorate before the election. Completely agree it should be bipartisan, but this isn’t going to happen as long as JK keeps ruling raising the age out. If JK had come out and said yes, we’re willing to look at pushing the age out then it would have taken a lot of the puff out of Labour’s sails.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
I agree Key needs a Super shove, but it’s never going to get anywhere sensible amidst a campaign.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
I agree with Graeme, and I am not surprised some “nutters” criticise you. They possibly doubt your sincerity, given your almost constant criticism of Labour. I thought you might have commented on National’s failure to debate the issue with Goff last evening on national TV, a great opportunity for Key or English to explain why Goff has got it wrong. But they failed to turn up.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Sorry Labour, you can’t force the country to address the National Super problem because Pete George was planning on trying to get his blog hits up by doing more link and traffic whoring next year under the guise of a debate about National Super.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
In principle Goff is right but unelectable so can say whatever, but do I understand from the small print that Maori will have special rights to earlier pension dates ?
October 28th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Labour had an honesty attack (yeah right) and says super is unaffordable.
Why stop there,just about everything else is unaffordable and we are donkey deep in debt to keep it going. Dealing with that would show us you ‘ve got balls.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
somewhatthoughtful – do you think this is the best way to introduce such important changes?
Or is it just electioneering knowing Maori PArty and NZ First are very unlikely to back it. Even Greens are not behind it. I guess if you look at it as initiating a debate they can carry on with in their next opposition term then it might work out ok, but the way they have done this makes engaging with National on it even less likely than before.
BTW, what do you know about blogs? The whole aim of most of them is to interlink information and attract traffic.
October 28th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
You say “It reminds me of the Phil Goff of old”.
I had a senior moment when I read that and registered it as “It reminds me that Phil Goff is old”.
Then I realised that he is and can probably remember the Super schemes of old, like those of the 1950′s.
Didn’t New Zealand have a two tiered system them, just like the one he is proposing? As I remember my history there was a means tested scheme that came in at 60 and a universal scheme paying the same amount that started at 65 and was not means tested. Apart from the age cutoffs it seems that he is advocatiing a policy of back to the future.
Incidentally, and completely of topic, do you get paid, and does it cost the Labour party anything, if I click on their ads that pop up all the time on your blog? If the answer to either part is yes I shall happily click on every one I see. I don’t have to look at or listen to them.
October 28th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Ross As usual you wear your monocle but why should John Key pop up whenever Phil wants to debate him? Key probably knows the public generally turns off these terribly boring political debates.
We’ve all made up our minds, including you, and could vote now. Spare us the election campaign.
October 28th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
I oppose means testing. It’s a sneaky way to increase taxes on the wealthy–they pay in more and now they are supposed to get less out. Also it adds more bureaucracy.
October 28th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
@ tas there is no “paying in” for super – it’s a pay as you go system. If we means test super more people will save for their retirement and hopefully we can all pay less taxes. Any system which sees someone like me get a welfare “entitlement” just for reaching a certain age is fundamentally flawed.
October 28th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I would support employers contributing more for super. However this needs to be offset by means testing super payments and lower corporate taxes. This idea of having your cake and eating it to does not wash with me.
October 29th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Labour should be congratulated on having the courage to stake out a policy position that is more financially sustainable and which would safeguard the future of the national superannuation scheme. Its a shame the National Party appears to have boxed itself in on this major item of government spending. One chink in the Labour policy however is the suggestion of means testing the policy between 65 and 67 years of age. If everyone has contributed (and arguably high income earners have contributed substantially more tax) then the super scheme should be there for everyone when they get to whatever the qualifying age is going to be. The United Future policy is a more sophisticated solution because it provides the funding and the choice for individuals with incentives for citizens to be as self-sufficient as possible while providing a safety net for those who are not so fortunate. Let’s hope National reconsiders it approach. The main think kiwis objected to were sudden changes in policy with little or no notice. Whatever changes are made need to be phased in 10-20 years in future. The sooner we get started the less painful those changes will need to be.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:52 am
What happened to the idea of means testing national super (it should be called old age pension because that’s what it is)? Surely as a first step anyone with a government subsidised super scheme (MPs, judges, police, army, some other public servants) should not get the old age pension as well??
I would go further and make everyone apply for the old age pension and provide proof they are not in fulltime employment.
October 29th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
David – They attack you because they don’t want people to remember the Phil Goff of old. There are two reasons for this:
1) It reminds people that he is old in parliamentry terms.
2) It reminds people he once advocated policies quite different from the ones he advocates now.
Though I suspect you knew that already