Comments on: Latest stats prove Bill English wrong

By: Spud

Spud — Wed, 26 May 2010 02:45:16 +0000

Agreed Chris
And super is important, we can’t have the elderly working til the day they die. Why their deaths could create corpse messes in the workplace!

By: Chris Hipkins

Chris Hipkins — Wed, 26 May 2010 02:23:00 +0000

Alwyn – I concede that my wording wasn’t clear. I’ve made a minor typographical correction to make it clear that the increase in the % of the workforce over 65 and the number eligible for NZ Super are separate, although linked issues.

The fact that an increasing number over 65 will still be in the workforce doesn’t change the fact that they will still get NZ Super. Those over 65 still in work are also more likely to be part-time, therefore contributing less to the tax base than younger full-time workers. So the issues are clearly linked and related to the affordability of both NZ Super and other entitlements our senior citizens currently have.

I think it’s really important that we show respect to our older citizens. But if we’re going to preserve the existing entitlements, we need to be planning for that now. Cutting taxes and increasing debt, whilst also cutting social services, does the opposite.

By: Alwyn

Alwyn — Wed, 26 May 2010 01:58:22 +0000

Did you bother to read the release before putting out this blog contribution?
The 12% and the 21% are NOT the percentage of the population in the over 65 bracket.
They are the percentage of the over 65 population who will still be working.
The claims you make may have some truth in them. They have however nothing whatso-ever to do with the numbers you quote.

By: Spud

Spud — Wed, 26 May 2010 00:23:51 +0000

With a crystal ball

By: ghostwhowalksnz

ghostwhowalksnz — Wed, 26 May 2010 00:21:41 +0000

Good point Loota , Fred Smith must work in Bill Englishs office doing his financial predictions

By: Spud

Spud — Tue, 25 May 2010 23:46:24 +0000

By: Loota

Loota — Tue, 25 May 2010 23:19:40 +0000

Fred Smith said:

“the share of workers aged 65 and over is projected to grow from 12 percent in 2006 to 21 percent in 2061. That’s more than double the number of people claiming NZ Super..”

No, it is not. Close, but your basic maths fails you.

12 x 2= 24. 21 is less than 24, therefore, it isn’t a doubling, and isn’t even close to “more than” a doubling.

Time to dial down the rhetoric, me thinks…..

Fred, Chris talked about a more than doubling of the number of people claiming Super. Assuming that NZ has 6 million population by then, 21% of 6 million people is definitely going to be way more than twice 12% of 4 million. Not quite triple in fact.

Check it with a calculator.

Perhaps it is your basic math which has failed you?

:rolleyes:

By: Decanker

Decanker — Tue, 25 May 2010 22:16:58 +0000

At its simplest, if governments refuse to acknowledge the impact of retiring babyboomers, my generation will by settling outside New Zealand.

I never considered spending the rest of my life outside NZ until late 2008, when it was decided that my future and the future environmental and social health of my country was to be ignored.

By: peter G

peter G — Tue, 25 May 2010 22:07:28 +0000

The Cullen Fund is something they, the NACTS obviously despise… Shortsighted gits like The Double Dipper really make me angry.

I would not like to be retired in 30 to 40 years time and not have my own “plan B” beacuse these swine will condemn anyone who doesn’t to misery in their retired years !!

By: jennifer

jennifer — Tue, 25 May 2010 21:56:28 +0000

@ ghost, well spotted. Both the Muldoon government and this current bunch of Tories ran the country from poll to poll and headline to headline. Muldoon’s low point was a rugby tour to firm up the vote in marginal seats. Muldoon eventually ran out of stunts, as will this lot. Power for power’s sake is the underlying philosophy of the Tory.