Post
NZ has a simple choice about the kind of social safety net we want to have. Either;
* we means-test superannuation so it doesn't bankrupt the government
OR
* we provide a Guaranteed Minimum Income for *everyone*, and lift taxes on excessive incomes and hoarded wealth, so those who don't need a living subsidy pay it back in tax
Universal social subsidies for the old, and austerity for everyone else, is neither sustainable nor fair.
If NZ isn't going to move to a Guaranteed Minimum Income for everyone (which I think we'd be wise to), then at the absolute minimum, superannuation entitled ought to be modified by whether the retiree has to pay rent (to someone outside their close family/ family trust).
Those who own a freehold home when they retire can live comfortably (if not luxuriously) on super. Those who pay market rents, or live in a motorhome or caravan, face much higher costs and more stressful retirements.
Just in case it needs to be spelled out, further lifting the age of entitlement for NZ superannuation is *not* a fair solution.
The system already works against lower income people in that we are less likely to reach 65, and likely to receive fewer years of super before we die. Even more so for low income Māori. A number of my friends and whānau died without a single day of super.
If we're not moving to GMI for all, the age for receiving super ought to be dropped back to 60, not raised.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
