National Party re-states its policy on the age of eligibility for NZ Super, only ACT agrees among other parties

As someone that is fairly old, the Boomer generation really pisses me off. What a sweet run they have had and now with a few years of good term deposit rates to see them out.

Edit: From comments, sorry, Gen X too. I just don’t understand how we think we are going to motivate and keep younger generations in NZ when we keep loading them with private and public debt. Super needs to go.

I think I would be more worried as a younger person as life expectancy over the next 20 years begins to drop. It will never go from 65 to 67, its more likely to go from 65 back to 60.

this proposal protects Gen X  not the boomers

The boomer generation is 1945-1959 - all at retirement age except for those born in 1959 who will reach 65 next year.

Gen X is 1960 - 1979 and those born in 1979 (last year) will be 65 in 2044.

The Millenials 1980 - 1996  will be the first generation to have to wait until 67 to get their Super.

Meanwhile in Aussie - everybody retiring as of this year (2023)  needs to wait until they are 67 - so we will be 20 years behind Aussie on this change

Boomers made this Country

Raising by one month per year, as you are proposing, would seem quite fair to me, and it would allow enough time for people to adjust their financial planning. While National's proposal is too timid, ACT's proposal of raising by two months per year is too aggressive and it seems quite unfair to me. 

In any case, this should be equally applicable to everybody, regardless of sex, race etc. - we should, once and for all, say a clear NO to any kind of racist BS that would privilege some groups at the expense of the rest of the community for the sake of some woke ideology pushed by a small minority. 

The whole idea of differentiating by average life expectation is pretty dumb and unrealistic anyway; it would really open a world of complexity and a veritable can of worms: how about people with some physical conditions or disability that might impact life expectations, how about males versus females, etc. etc. 

But peoples Kiwisaver is also locked into that age. So even if they wanted to retire at 65 and cover their own costs, they possibly can't if they can't access Kiwisaver. IMO they really need to decouple the Kiwisaver eligibility age, to stop governments changing Kiwisaver, as this is essentially a Kiwisaver eligibility age change.. But it is something that few  seems to have picked up.  Having to work 2 extra years, when you may not live an extra 2 more years, means 2 less years in retirement, and 2 less years being able to spend your Kiwisaver savings.  

I agree, sort of, just raise it by a year or 2 now, and be done with it maybe anyone who is retired remains so. It will be short and sharp, but people will get over it, better than stretching the complaining out over the next 24 years

2044 is utter nonsense no government can guarantee anything past 3 years let alone 21 years, its a do nothing policy.

Do it, or don't! Don't waste 20 more years having bureaucrats debate the issue.

All parties are too busy handing out bribes and failing to address any real issues.

doesn't fit the idealogical narrative

Stratify the Asian category and it will look different for the various groups.

Deprived ares have the lowest expectancy.

Expectancy gain is slowing.

So many issues.

That is an average figure, not what each individual will actually live for. Many will live just as long if not longer. Race based eligibility for a universal superannuation  policy is not good. I am not aware of any private superannuation schemes that would do that. Yes males also. Live a shorter life on average but can also live just as long. Making these sorts of exemptions is similar to the gst exemptions.  We need to keep it simple. Remember that National said for years under Key that Super age of 65 was completely sustainable. Then they changed their minds which indicates that the situation got worse when  National were in power. That is one reason they got voted out last time as Labour reversed the policy. People quickly forget. 

Females have won the right to be as dumb as males , so it should equalise over time. 

Day of the Pillow, the sooner we have total boomer death the better.

How would you ever get your satisfaction then without seeing them suffer the policy changes that would effect them? As much as there are and have been policies voted for by, and that conveniently favoured that generation, i’m going to have to call it and say thats a tad too far. 

They only need to have policies for the next 3-4 years to get themselves voted in. They are again using migration for a migration led recovery but we don't even know what NZs population growth should be and what infrastructure long term is planned to keep up with the population growth 

Better check your maths there cheetah 

That makes no sense, if you turned 65 on  2 Jan 25, you would not be eligible until you where 68, just put it up by X years in one go. If you are already on super you stay on super, finding a job 65 if you are retired might prove hard.

There's a very good Infometrics article from 2014 called Aging NZ (from memory) which exactly shows the impact of demographics on house prices and savings rates - worth a read, there's a lot to take from this article. It talks about how older people staying in the workforce cancels out some of the costs because workforce participation changes, but also that they are more expensive to the healthcare system in general.  

What about the fact they have paid tax (maybe) their entire lives?  Surely that must be worth something!

Remember that super is taxed, so you'd only have to save ~43k to compensate for that lost 50k, but your main point still stands

Isn't the best fix a UBI? $300 a week for everyone and don't come crying to nanny for any more. 

If they hadn't sold off big %'s of the electricity companies, we would also have far more money for health services.

I am not sure Kiwisaver and contributions should be compulsory, because many people may end up with far more retirement savings by doing own investing and avoiding the big fees that mabt Kiwisaver providers charge in NZ. It is basically a passive income for them with many Kiwisavers, especially  if they are in cash fund or  investing in bands or passive ETFs and index funds.

I am envious, I’m envious of a generation that gets to vote itself tax cuts and a cushy retirement and then votes to yank those benefits for everyone who follows.

Thanks for speaking up. The comments, a stream of bitterness and sweeping generalisation, scare me, I'm 64, had a horrible upbringing where I was told I was useless, given no life skills. Recently through counselling I learnt I have dyscalculia (explains the hopelessness with maths)and complex ptsd. No wonder I struggled with employment, fitting in, understanding how things worked; dealing with moving countries, finding niche work, losing a house in an earthquake, a child to depression.

I did manage to get things together and have assets as I enter old age. And yet, as I learn new ways of coping, I am told by younger generations that I am lucky, greedy, privileged; and that I am worthless to them.

OK, I am just collateral; loosen up voluntary euthanasia laws, then; help me at least have a quick, painless death. Given my clumsiness and inability to follow directions, I'd need professional help, and can pay for this. There'll still be enough left for the assets to go to young people, don't worry.

Of course you are right that individuals have different experiences. But when people make claims about different generations or groups, they aren't making claims about every single member of that group. It can still be true that men die earlier than women, even if you can find me an example of an individual woman who died at an earlier age than an individual man. And it can still be true that a series of political decisions have been made that have largely benefitted one generational cohort at the expense of another, even if there are individual boomers who have not done well and individual millennials that have. And pointing out that these political decisions almost always seem to favour one cohort rather than another isn't 'envy'. Dismissing it as just 'envy' is really just a cheap way to shut down important discussions about policies, which should also be concerned with fairness - and we can't have informed discussions about fairness unless we are able to have discussions about who benefits and who doesn't without such concerns being dismissed as mere envy.