Changes to the Superannuation age : thoughts?

Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification.

If investing please consider our affiliate link for new accounts: Sharesies.

Forums › Finance and wealth management › Changes to the Superannuation age : thoughts?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 11

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1732382 7-Mar-2017 11:32

The problem is on making it say 70 years is that a lot of the jobs those people are doing today will be gone in say 20 years time. What happens to those people if they are say 550 years old then?? Unlikely you'll get any for on unemployment benefit especially if you have a partner still working. Taking it to 67 is a good idea but make it 10 years time ..

PS . I'm 70 and still working 3 days a week..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Paul1977

5047 posts

Uber Geek

#1732384 7-Mar-2017 11:41

old3eyes:

The problem is on making it say 70 years is that a lot of the jobs those people are doing today will be gone in say 20 years time. What happens to those people if they are say 550 years old then?? Unlikely you'll get any for on unemployment benefit especially if you have a partner still working. Taking it to 67 is a good idea but make it 10 years time ..

PS . I'm 70 and still working 3 days a week..

Then they have had a very long working life and deserve to retire!

marej

186 posts

Master Geek

#1732408 7-Mar-2017 12:10

....but kids now are not going to out-live their folks........alzheimers is expected to rise....patients wait months for an outpatients appt ........surgical waiting lists are a problem........we all eat too much sugar and are getting fat and sick.......melanoma rates are the worst in NZ - apparently worse than Australia now......

but yes we are all living longer and are healthier so we can work a couple more years and even more as time goes on.

something is amiss.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1732413 7-Mar-2017 12:16

I think it fails to address the real problems and was solely a political move. They have stopped contributing to the super fund for the last 8 years and have always said the current age is affordable. Had they had continued making payments there would be w big nest egg to put towards it and requesting the age may have not been needed at all as that was the whole purpose of the nz super fund. In the 90s the age of super entitlement was 60. So it will have risen 7 years. Baby boomers will still get it earlier even though out of that bubble that is going to stretch the system. They are the ones that have benefited from free education, purchased housing cheap etc. It is going to create division between the generations, actually it is already, but maybe that is the intention.

The real problem on nz at the moment is house prices and immigration, which is one of many things driving up house prices

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1732414 7-Mar-2017 12:17

marej:
....but kids now are not going to out-live their folks........alzheimers is expected to rise....patients wait months for an outpatients appt ........surgical waiting lists are a problem........we all eat too much sugar and are getting fat and sick.......melanoma rates are the worst in NZ - apparently worse than Australia now......

but yes we are all living longer and are healthier so we can work a couple more years and even more as time goes on.

something is amiss.

Humans have a finite life and very few make it over 100 because genetically our bodies break down. So human life expectancy isn't really going up. The only thing that has changed is on average more people are living longer and with the baby boomers hitting retirement, that is creating a bubble of older people. But some people in their 60s are not capable of working both physically and mentally they may be past it. We do wear out. Also older people find it harder to get work which is doing to be a major issue in the future I think

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1732446 7-Mar-2017 12:46

Paul1977:

Lias:

Step in the right direction, but too little and too far away. I reckon maybe 6 months a year for the next 20 years would be a good start.

That would put the age up to 75, and you say that should just be a start?

Yes. The age of retirement should only be 5-10 years below the average life expectancy.

Paul1977:

Lias:

We've had a pension at age 65 since 1898 when the average male life expectancy was 55, now its 86 and climbing (that's for someone turning 65 today)

That's just plain untrue. The age of eligibility was 60 until 1992.

EDIT: Happy Birthday @Lias

You might want to check your facts there.

The first pension was introduced in 1898 as the "Old-age Pensions Act" , and the age was 65. It wasn't until the Social Security Act of 1938 that the age was lowered to 60.

Also it's not my birthday?

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1732478 7-Mar-2017 13:30

I don't have a problem with this provided the savings are diverted to spending and projects that benefit the next generation, instead of the usual baby boomer and grey power gravy trains like elective surgery where people living in their mortgage-free homes are able to claim ever more free health care in their old age whilst responsible young people are buying health insurance knowing full well that the current rate of health spending is simply unsustainable. It's time to require the estate of long term and sustained users of "free" health care to make a contribution when these people eventually pass to ensure some inter-generational equity.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1732482 7-Mar-2017 13:33

dejadeadnz: I don't have a problem with this provided the savings are diverted to spending and projects that benefit the next generation, instead of the usual baby boomer and grey power gravy trains like elective surgery where people living in their mortgage-free homes are able to claim ever more free health care in their old age whilst responsible young people are buying health insurance knowing full well that the current rate of health spending is simply unsustainable. It's time to require the estate of long term and sustained users of "free" health care to make a contribution when these people eventually pass to ensure some inter-generational equity.

Tried buying health insurance in your 60s?? You'll need to work two jobs to pay for it..

Regards,

Old3eyes

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1732517 7-Mar-2017 13:56

How about legislation to break family trusts if used to hide assets...

(my parents are doing this... They don't "own the house" but let's be honest it's still their house in all real aspects)

How about inheritance tax...... Oh no those poor farmers and those family trusts...

Let the flames begin

A.

shk292

2857 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1732524 7-Mar-2017 14:07

afe66: How about legislation to break family trusts if used to hide assets...

(my parents are doing this... They don't "own the house" but let's be honest it's still their house in all real aspects)

How about inheritance tax...... Oh no those poor farmers and those family trusts...

Let the flames begin

A.

Agreed. I once saw a definition of a trust as "a means to deprive someone of something to which they are entitled" - the someone being a partner, the IRD etc. They effectively enact different rules for inheritance, divorce, taxation etc depending on whether there is a trust or not. I can't see why we as a society need them

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1732534 7-Mar-2017 14:20

Let's be honest, either get rid of any asset stripping for rest home costs or stop the farce of hiding all the assets in "trusts".

My parents and all their baby boomer friends have done this but they all talk about "their houses, batches"

A.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1732539 7-Mar-2017 14:31

afe66: Let's be honest, either get rid of any asset stripping for rest home costs or stop the farce of hiding all the assets in "trusts".

My parents and all their baby boomer friends have done this but they all talk about "their houses, batches"

A.

What were interest rates like back in the baby boomer days? High teens for a house. And I imagine many younger non baby boomers will work hard to set themselves up as freehold home owners as well. Will that be baby boomer 2.0?

benokobi

927 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1732544 7-Mar-2017 14:41

Life expectancy increasing means this has been bound to happen for a while. Its common sense. The other partys are just against it to get some attention and pick up a few votes.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1732551 7-Mar-2017 14:56

tdgeek:
afe66: Let's be honest, either get rid of any asset stripping for rest home costs or stop the farce of hiding all the assets in "trusts".

My parents and all their baby boomer friends have done this but they all talk about "their houses, batches"

A.

What were interest rates like back in the baby boomer days? High teens for a house. And I imagine many younger non baby boomers will work hard to set themselves up as freehold home owners as well. Will that be baby boomer 2.0?

Interest rates being higher wasn't a bad thing, as it meant that houses were cheaper. Eg people couldn't afford to borrow as much due to the high rates. Houses today are still affordable, due to the low interest rates, but the amount to buy them is 8-10 times the household wage in many areas, which is madness. You also need to remember that many households only had a single wage earned back in the 70s. So in many ways the baby boomer generation had it easier.

Not sure what the current super amount is. But roughly if it is 18k a year, then that is potentially a loss of 36k, or 50k of earnings before tax, that people will have to earn extra to make up the loss under this move. Even though the tax we pay today is paying people's current super.

Paul1977

5047 posts

Uber Geek

#1732553 7-Mar-2017 15:01

Lias:

You might want to check your facts there.

The first pension was introduced in 1898 as the "Old-age Pensions Act" , and the age was 65. It wasn't until the Social Security Act of 1938 that the age was lowered to 60.

Also it's not my birthday?

Oh, I misread. I read the end of your sentence in your previous posts as "that's coming from someone who's turning 65 today".

Fair enough, I didn't fact-check enough. But your initial statement "We've had a pension at age 65 since 1898 when the average male life expectancy was 55" implies that the pension age hasn't changed in the last 119 years.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 11