LEFT vs RIGHT
This week we talk superannuation. Let us know who you think won at lettuce@nexusmag.co.nz
B
I
ack in the 1890’s New Zealand was considered one of the most progressive countries in the world, we had just been the first nation to give women the vote, we were one of the few countries to have an eight hour work day and we had a pension scheme to ensure that our elderly did not have to live off charity. Since then, the pension scheme has been expanded and contracted under various governments and recently we have found the scheme under attack again. The problem is the baby boomers, our parents, are on the verge of retiring, there are lots of them and they are expecting to be paid a pension once they turn 65. Some, including the Labour Party and Act, have been arguing that we can’t afford to pay them the pension, that people shouldn’t be able to get it until they are at least 67. Bringing people two years nearer to death will save the government some money but means that the elderly, particularly those who have spent their lives in hard labour will be less likely to have the good health to take advantage of their retirement. However I don’t think raising the age is necessary, at the moment Germany and other Northern European countries spend more per person on their pension schemes than we will at the worst point in our baby boomer ageing crisis. The Germans can spend so much on pensions simply because they choose to. They recognise that there is no free lunch and that if they want to stop working at some point and spend the rest of their lives doing whatever they want to do, then they will have to pay for it while they work. It is not a matter of capacity it is only a question of priorities, do we want to work until we are too old to do anything else, or do we want to take some out at the end of our lives to enjoy being alive? If we want the latter then we are going to have to pay for it. Raising the age to 67 just shows that we value the money in our pockets more than we value the elderly enjoying their lives. It isn’t a plan for a sustainable future, it isn’t a plan for an economic recovery. It isn’t going to make us much in the way of jobs or money and it will cost our environment dearly.
10
Opinion
am going to assume that given most of the readers of Nexus are at university, none of you are stupid. As such, I’m going to be fairly blunt here. The number of people on superannuation over the next decade is going to boom. And yet, that’s all good. The current superannuation scheme is sustainable. This is one of the few times you’ll see me thanking Labour for something, but we do have Labour to thank for our Superannuation scheme being sustainable. Why? Kiwisaver - that’s why. No longer do New Zealanders require the state to fund their entire life once they retire. People have been forced to save their money for when they need it most. It was an excellent forethought on the part of Helen Clark’s government. It pains me to say that, but it’s true. Raising the age of eligibility for superannuation is simply unfair. People have been contributing to society for years and have been expecting to be able to retire when they reach 65. Do we not owe that to them? To be honest, I’m surprised that the left is supporting raising the age of eligibility for superannuation. If we look at superannuation like a benefit, it’s hurting their best friends the beneficiaries. But hey, that’s what we’ve come to expect from the left - hypocrisy.