Labour hysteria over retirement age
Stuff reports:
Labour is promising, again, to keep the retirement age at 65. …
ACT also came out against Labour’s use of rough calculations to claim what Kiwis could lose under its opponent’s policies: Almost $100,000 in Government superannuation contributions by retirement, for a 30-year-old earning $78,527 a year, and accounting for compound interest.
You know Labour is desperate when they try stuff like this. They claim someone will be $80,000 worse off due to the retirement age increasing to 67, but the economic illilerates assume that money will come out of the ether. If the retirement age stays at 65 for ever, then every working person will have to pay higher taxes to fund it. Money doesn’t grow on trees.
Also if you want to play the scare game of whether someone will be better off in 35 years time, well consider income tax bracket indexation will see at least $2,000 less tax paid per year which with compound interest means you will be $180,000 worse off in 35 years.
NZ life expectancy has increased six years since 1992, when the age last lifted. It should in fact be linked to life expectancy automatically, with a means tested pension available from age 65 for those who have manual labour jobs.
Many developed countries have legislated to increase the age of eligibility over time, including:
- Australia 67
- Denmark 67
- Finland 68
- France 67
- Germany 67
- Greece 67
- Iceland 67
- Israel 67
- Italy 67
- Netherland 68
- Norway 67
- Sweden 67
- UK 68
- US 67
And Labour is scaremongering over a policy to increase the age to 67, from 2044!!