Bill English Blatantly acts dumb in interview

[Perry]

You would certainly buy a fight with knowledgeable National Superannuitants with that remark.

National Super is not a benefit, no matter how often people like to style it that way. It was a 'compact' between government and the elderly, for which they paid one and sixpence in the pound, out of their wages, during their working lives. (Akin to an insurance premium).

Almost in a similar manner to that of Muldoon's raid of the EQWDC reserves, the old "super fund" was integrated into the government's current account. That did not change the fact that National Superannuitants paid a specific amount for their super. Social welfare beneficiaries do not. Those payments come from general taxation.

There was never any chance that a 1 and 6 payment would fund a retirement the size of super. National super is just as much a benefit as the unemployment benefit. You can argue just as easily that tax paid prior to unemployment is a 'compact', after all, it comes from the tax you paid didn't it?

Super is just as much a welfare benefit as everything else.

I would not argue anything. I was reporting the facts of the matter, as relayed to me by someone who lived at the time. Even scant research indicates that story to be correct.

Universal superannuation (1940)
A new Social Security tax of 5 percent of earnings (one shilling in the pound) was introduced to cover the increased costs of pensions, other social security payments and health. In practice the tax was not enough, and much of the social security cost increases had to be funded from general revenues.

My late father said that it was increased: he recalls paying one and sixpence in the pound as a social security tax. That's not general taxation. I recall it was Seddon who was the Labour PM, at the time and (as my father reported) he made a promise that went something like: give us one and sixpence in the pound of your wages and we'll look after you in your old age.

[elguapo]

[QUOTE=Wayne;399736]
It has been said that the compulsory scheme would have been transformative to the NZ economy providing a lot of capital.
/QUOTE]

There was a referendum on a compulsory savings scheme, 92% voted against it.

[Nick G]

Because they thought they'd be young forever. Through my family I know lots of teachers who opted out of super years ago and are cursing their short-sightedness. My parents included.

[Wayne]

It has been said that the compulsory scheme would have been transformative to the NZ economy providing a lot of capital.

There was a referendum on a compulsory savings scheme, 92% voted against it.

Did they have referendums back then?
It was certainly the major election plank and, as per usual, people voted for more money in pocket now and bugger the future.
Bribes always work!

[Wayne]

My late father said that it was increased: he recalls paying one and sixpence in the pound as a social security tax. That's not general taxation. I recall it was Seddon who was the Labour PM, at the time and (as my father reported) he made a promise that went something like: give us one and sixpence in the pound of your wages and we'll look after you in your old age.

All this is true.
But people who retire from now on can't claim the same as the scheme had changed by the time they were working (roughly).

[elguapo]

Did they have referendums back then?
It was certainly the major election plank and, as per usual, people voted for more money in pocket now and bugger the future.
Bribes always work!

1997.......

[Wayne]

Labours 1st compulsory scheme was in 1974 - that was the one that was scrapped in 1975 by Muldoon.
It was very, very similar to Kiwisaver!
Have a read of this

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10465138

[Lovethiscountry]

So True Wayne,

Wouldn't it be amazing if we could get the most capable people in power - no matter their persuation?

[elguapo]

L
Have a read of this
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10465138

I have to say some of the claims in that article are risible nonsense. Once you ended up with a huge pile of cash sitting in a single place with the politicians in charge, its almost impossible they would not have subverted it for all kinds of risky 'grand ideas'. There are, after all, monorail salesmen all over the place.

[Wayne]

Once you ended up with a huge pile of cash sitting in a single place with the politicians in charge, its almost impossible they would not have subverted it for all kinds of risky 'grand ideas'. There are, after all, monorail salesmen all over the place.

Entirely possible and, unfortunately, probable.

So now we have the Cullen fund.
They buy some fast food shares and people say the Govt should stop them - fortunately there are fairly independant stewards of the fund who aren't to listen to the politicians.

[marknfs]

Means test the pension, use the money to fund capital for intensification.
Do some keystone intensification projects around public transport hubs using Public-Private-Partnership's to ensure a balance of efficiency and public good is achieved.
Push through Unitary Plan with responsible balance of intensification for other parts of the city.

[Wayne]

And raise the age of entitlement to 70!

[Lovethiscountry]

No. 80! And exclude property investors

[eri]

No. 80! And exclude property investors

if they had done well with property

wouldn't means-testing cover that?

or do you think anyone with more than 1 bit of property to their name

should be denied the pension they have paid for

simply for owning 2, even if they haven't done very well?

[Boom]

You would certainly buy a fight with knowledgeable National Superannuitants with that remark.

National Super is not a benefit, no matter how often people like to style it that way. It was a 'compact' between government and the elderly, for which they paid one and sixpence in the pound, out of their wages, during their working lives. (Akin to an insurance premium).

Almost in a similar manner to that of Muldoon's raid of the EQWDC reserves, the old "super fund" was integrated into the government's current account. That did not change the fact that National Superannuitants paid a specific amount for their super. Social welfare beneficiaries do not. Those payments come from general taxation.

You're making it sound like the Treaty of Waitangi. Governments sign contracts all the time... and then renege. Only the Treaty of Waitangi does not cost $12 billion per annum.

The origin of super comes from the days when life expectancy in NZ was 50 years old... and a minority of hard worked pioneers without family could no longer work were struggling for sustenance. How many are now struggling? It has served its purpose (bringing a small minority of elderly out of poverty).

The cold hard facts - the amount that has been paid is minimal to what is being received. Word it how you want, it is a "benefit" and is defined as such by work and income http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/eligibility/

For many it is more than a benefit as it is not means tested - it is a handout - that is money which is given that is not needed.

Its always a laugh when people bleat about lefties, borrowing, subsidies, social welfare then turn around and say we should keep borrowing billions for a universal non-means tested hand out.

Revolutionary idea put forward all the time from righties - don't rely on the government to support you when you are a grown adult unless you are sick and unwell.

(Don't worry though - no government will vote themselves out by getting rid of it)