Winston says no deal on Super

NZ Herald

Winston Peters has scuppered Labour’s big play on super annuation by putting the raising of the age of eligibility of superannuation:

Maintaining the age of eligibility for superannuation at 65 would be a bottom line for New Zealand First in any coalition negotiations after the 2014 election, says leader Winston Peters.

His stance could be an obstacle to coalition talks with Labour if NZ First is the kingmaker after 2014 – Labour has made raising the pension age to 67 a centrepiece of its policies and has sought to embarrass Prime Minister John Key on the issue.

Mr Key has been under pressure for refusing to contemplate raising the age of eligibility for super from 65 to 67.

NZ First meets for its annual conference in Palmerston North this weekend – its first since the resurgent party made it back into Parliament last year with eight MPs. It is looking for more next election and could be a strong contender for coalition talks in 2014.

Asked whether NZ First’s position that the super age should remain at 65 was likely to be an issue in such talks, Mr Peters said: “Of course it’s a bottom line.”

Unfortunately though something is going to have give. No longer can political parties pretend that universal entitlement to superannuation is able to continue. When I was talking with Larry Williams and Sean Plunket on the issue this week Sean Plunket thought that if the age of eligibility remained then access to the Gold Card was means tested or removed entirely until an upper limit.

I believe that universality is the issue not the age…it is patently ridiculous to pay super to everyone regardless of means. We don’t do that anywhere else int eh welfare system so why in old age? Anyone who supports universality is likely to be self motivated.



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Cadwallader

    If super is to be means tested then why can’t an individual tax-payer opt out and not contribute? If one is able to provide for oneself in old age then why should he/she pay for others who won’t be means tested?

  • Redbaiter

    Say a foreign company has $100 million to invest in NZ.

    Do you (readers) realise that at least half of that (probably more)
    is siphoned off in to unproductive areas of the economy with the
    (failing) objective of keeping socialism afloat? Of keeping non workable
    crippling socialist economic policies in place?

    Do you understand what a crippling burden this is to people who actually want to produce?

    And the worst thing is, that $50 million that is so corruptly taken,
    is used to cripple the very same company who provided it, because it it
    used to fund scores of government departments and their acolytes in the
    private sector who actually make their living from hampering

    So the company is left with $50 million from its original $100
    million, so as well as being short of cash, it is also hobbled and
    stymied in every way possible from doing what it wants to do with the
    money that remains.

    Its never going to work, and voters need to wake up and stop voting
    for the politicians who have brought this state of affairs upon us. They
    won’t though, not until we’re all fucked financially, and even then
    they’ll probably blame everyone but themselves.

    I would say that for every productive person in NZ trying to do
    something, there are at least five non-productive people trying to
    hamper him.

    And these are the same five fuckwits who demand social services and superannuation.

    Coming from what??

    They’re too fucking ill educated to even do the simple maths.

  • Apolonia

    Because entitlement is universal people are encouraged to save for their retirement.
    If it was discriminatory people would squander their wealth because nanny will provide or “hide” their wealth so they do qualify.
    As life expectancy increases so should the age of eligibility.

    • dutyfree

      that is the most backward logic I have ever heard. this would hold only and only if the amount paid was relatively high. On the basis of this logic we should all get unemployment benefit, WFF, invalids or whatever it is called these days, on the basis that getting them will keep us employed, stop us from having families we cant afford or injuring ourselves.

      • Mr_Blobby

        Well 50% of the population does and 50% doesn’t. Take your choice, but the trend is for people to opt out. At some stage a tipping point will occur where it is simply unaffordable. Backward logic or not that is the reality and the 50% on the take vote.

  • Guest

    How has Winston scuttled Labours plans? Who is to say he will even be there after 2014? If the polls carry on it as is it will be a Labour/Greens Govt, perhaps with Dunne (known swinger that he is, depending on who has the numbers to form a Govt).

  • Joel

    I disagree that superannuation is the only part of the welfare state that isn’t universal. They don’t ask you if you’re rich enough to afford private health services if you go to a public hospital. They don’t ask you if you’re rich enough to send your child to a private school when you take them to a state one.

    I can support means-testing if, and only if, it is accompanied by a (meaningful) reduction in the tax burden on the wealthy. Otherwise it’s patently unfair.

  • pukakidon

    I take a different track on Super. Pricks that beat up on the elderly are cowards and need a good thrashing. Keep Super at 65 and no super if you are working, this might alllow others to get work. Stop socially engineering the population, let people get fat, smoke and drink, it stops them living too long and becoming a vegetable in a resthome at over $1000.00 a week subsidised by the goverment for 20 years, that is the real problem. Super is only $18000 per year, compare that to the money squandered on the DPB per individual. If you are young enough to have a baby you are young enough to get a job like everyone else.

    We should look after our elderly and instead kick the arse of those lazy shyte bludgers who wont work. DBP max five years and only once, first time you the fool second time me the fool, we are idiots to put up with this stupidity . These lazy women and some men need a good sorting out, not the old people. I agree with Peters on this one.

    • Cadwallader

      Don’t be so patronising. Many of the so-called elderly are more than capable of looking after themselves! I do not want a fucking pension of any description when I get to 65 (about 6 years hence) so why should I pay punitive taxes to give to some other prick who has fucked up his/her life?

      • Pukakidon

        Because your a selfish wanker. You don’t need to take it. You only care about number one, so be it, I hope you are happy being a miserable twat. I have also enough for my retirement and do not even think there will be a pension when I retire, but I am quite happy that the masses of taxes I have paid and the fact that I have had children who I have paid for their tertiary education and will go on to support others less fortunate will do the right thing by the elderly.

        Go back to your selfish little world, your the most important person in your mind you shit stain.

  • Pete George

    It seems ridiculous of Peters to be stating bottom lines for election 2014 this far out.

    And it’s a shame that he doesn’t join with the growing demands for a wideranging discussion on super, that includes affordability, age of eligibility, flexible age and means testing.Everything should be considered and then a long term plan worked out by all parties together.

    • pukakidon

      Labour is in the shit then, only partner is the Watermelons good luck with that. Hahahahahahahahah

      • Guest

        Actually Labour are still fine. It is National who will be in the shit.

  • baw

    It is very simple and easy to raise the age and it is very easy for people to understand.

    But if you bring back means testing then you will have to take ages to explain it and detail how it will work. Then you will have a fight on your hands with all the rich folk. (i.e. he is threatening my Kiwisaver etc.).

    Other countries payout on years of work, if you have not worked then you are means tested.

    Obviously Winston is pandering to the voters. The reality is either he raises taxes (and we all know how much people love taxes), or we cut benefits.

    Anyway a Labour govt (at least they are wanting to cut the cost of something) could always ask National nicely to support a bill raising the age – Once Key is out of the way this should be possible.

    Key was very bad by making a decision not to raise super age, he should have remembered what happened to Jim Boldger and his asset testing promise.

  • motorizer

    employment tax should be lowered as you get older, from say 60+. there fore you can afford to save more before the big day and once you actually reach retirement then you should be totally tax free. at least that way you are paying your own way.

    john howard introduced something like this in aussie and it has been quite successful.

  • Pete George

    Not only has Peters kicked cross-party super discussions in the guts with this premature bottom line, John Key added to the precariousness of his Super position (painted in a corner) “challenging” Peters in a political game that many are fed up with.

    • pukakidon

      What cross party talks. National won the election by saying they would not touch the Super age. This is another Labour and Greens political game.

      If National change policy then lets go to another election, otherwise wait until next election. You Labour arses always lie or bribe at election time and then do a 180 degree turnaround. However there is no need for National to lower their stance.

      Looks like Labour winning the next election might be off the cards.

      • Guest

        Are you suggesting that national have never bribed people with say, tax cuts?

        • logical

          Thats not a bribe. It is allowing people to retain more of their own hard earned money. Then they can decide how they spend it and when they do it will create economic benefit for someone else and so on.
          Money stolen under the guise of tax ,other than for essential services creates nothing in that transaction!

  • Mr_Blobby

    How many of you suckers have signed up to kiwi saver and are expecting a universal pension.
    National super is a giant Ponzie scheme that requires a constant stream of new contributors to pay for it like all good Ponzie schemes’ it will collapse under its own weight. Because it has never been prefunded.
    Likewise version 2, would have to be the Kiwi Saver scam. Lock you in until retirement age regardless of the state of the markets, because of the cyclical nature of markets, some people will be retiring just as there portfolios have dived, when they could have perhaps foreseen the crash and withdrawn early. If we were going to become a financial Greek tragedy I for one would like to have the option to opt out early at my own discretion. Not be locked into the Financial markets ponzie scheme, and be fleeced by the to big to fail Banksters. Ask anybody who lost out in the Finance company shambles.
    Not to mention all the underhand dealings that will go on with false reporting etc and the constant meddling of every Government. A fund that big would be a tempting target for a bankrupt Government trying to stay afloat.

  • logical

    The so called experts who are bleating to raise the age of eligibility of National Super or make other changes changes to it are just parroting each other with little thought being given to the issues.
    This it not welfare.It is the means of providing for retirement that NZ adopted many years ago.If had not been in place most would have made other plans of their own to provide for themselves to retire at a reasonable age.
    It is totally unreasonable to take away their rights now that it is too late for them to make alternative plans.In any case they have paid their taxes towards it on the understanding that they will receive it!
    Those who were working prior to the late 1980s have already had the age raised by 5 years anyhow.
    If there are to be changes at some time in the distant future they should take the form of personalised accounts that will lead to retirement payments that take into account the time working and amount contributed with an allowance for time off for each child for women.
    Personalised accounts would also stop meddling by politicians who want to hijack the funds like Labour wants to, for use in other bribes.

    • pukakidon

      Agree, We are a society that should look after the elderly, it is what defines us as who we are as morally good. There seems to be too many selfish wankers around now days who are always quick to cowardly kick the elderly.

      I have no qualms about reducing some of the other benefits paid to the bludger starting with the sickness benefit (to those not in need), WFF and DPB that is being ripped off daily, this are where we should be concentrating, not on attacking the elderly.

      • Gazzaw

        Don, it’s the current thing for the socialists to give the elderly a god kicking because it suits there current political dogma. I find it somewhat ironic that the right is all for maintaining the status quo and the left (champions of the underdog & the working man) want to make them work longer. No one has given me an answer on how a manual worker is going to cope on the job at 67. Neither has anyone given me an answer on how ‘ageism’ is going to be eliminated from the HR industry.

  • faavae

    is this a play by Winnie to woo over Key and co for a partnership in the next election?