3204 of 62458 members online
Coffee Machines 720 GetFrank GymJunkie Menu Mania Snow Surf Varsity

Forgot Your Password? Create Account
[quote]
Labour announcing they'd raise it to 67 by 2033. (2 months increase per year)

Good. About time someone tackled this, since National likely never will. (Key going as far as to say he'd resign over it).

Too little, too late though? Our generation is still going to be fucked in the ass by ageing boomers.
[quote]
now for someone to find the jobs to keep those people working....

Not sure about a slight massaging of the retirement age is enough to address the future problems we face but at least some are thinking ahead

in short.... this should be phased in after I retire... and is... suckers
[quote]
Labour wont touch grumpy unions, National wont touch grumpy superannuates - its just part of staying in power for each.

Needs to be done though, as well as tackling benefits (of all sorts) and medical costs which keep rising.
[quote]
don't worry bob National shall bash the bludgers as part of their campaign, its about all they got

shame they will gut pharmac if they get their way
[quote]
needless to say the baby boomers sure have got a easy ride for their entire life and still they demand their and others children give them MORE

Labour's policy misses that group entirely... quite clever or morally bankrupt?
[quote]
I'm not really concerned with the dole or sickness benefit - the focus on them should be getting them back to work not making them miserable. Its more the people who earn enough money to live yet expect the state to pay for their kids to have ipods etc. ie top ups and the like. Now I have a kid I am entitled to all sorts of tax breaks and benefits - its incredible. We even get nice little brochures on what we can get and how we need to apply to get it.
[quote]
the working for families etc that we've implemented (labour) and tweeked (national) is basically a state subsidy to business - ie the state is subsidising wages so people can cope with the ever rising cost of living - focusing on the breeders

this is quite simply wrong
[quote]
The people I work with dont seem to spend it on normal living expenses. More like meeting their high expectations of entitlement.
[quote]
I know a few that would really struggle to cope without the help - refer to peoples earning capacity or more like meager pay packets so many enjoy

when national looked at trying to cut some of the higher earners out of WFF etc if memory serves it would have taken a lot of effort to save not that much (in the grand scheme)

I can only guess your workmates earn well so are possibly paying less tax than they once did (ie got a good tax break when the cuts came in, not a pathetic one like most) so are winning even more with WFF payments - the lucky few
[quote]
Totally agree with this, but still voting Greens Very Happy
[quote]
Funny how both policies outlined in this thread were election bribes (one from each side), perhaps we should ban new policies withn a year of elections.
[quote]
Um yeah, just stop parliament working for a year?

The normal approach is to get the bad shit out of the way first then hopefully people forget that when the good news comes in. It shouldn't be that way but voters get what they deserve.
[quote]
Absolutely necessary, and doesn't go far enough, as you guys have alluded to.

65 is such a fucking arbitrary number anyway - if those in power can actually address things like childhood obesity our rate of health and life expectancy will continue to increase, along with our population. The consequence of a broad, productive society is that those who are productive must do so for enough of a percentage of their lives so as not to be a burden later on.

2 years over 22 is fuck all too - last time it happened, the Nats raised it by 5 in 9 years right?

Confused

gc.
[quote]
What average life expectancy these days?
[quote]
Jono said:
What average life expectancy these days?


100 at the moment, 150 soon? :o

quote:
THE first drugs that can slow the ageing process are likely to become available within five to 10 years, raising the prospect of people eventually living to 150 or more, researchers say. Peter Smith, dean of medicine at the University of NSW, said a girl born today in Australia could reasonably expect to live to 100 already, due to advances in medicine, lifestyle and public health. In addition, new drugs to help the body repair itself were in the early stages of development, along with new stem cell therapies.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/drugs-may-let-us-live-to-150-20111016-1lrm5.html#ixzz1c2VhYtZv

[quote]
Based on the mortality experiences of New Zealanders in the period 2007–2009, life expectancy at birth was 78.4 years for males and 82.4 years for females

it differs for various ethnic groups - ie Maori and Polynesian expectancy is lower - which has raised some criticsims from some on the left that the Labour policy disadvantages those ethnic groups and also those in lower income brackets and certain types of employment - ie those that work with their bodies generally hit a point where their bodies not much good for working - unlike a office worker who can work much longer

blah blah blah

[quote]
bob daktari said:
life expectancy at birth was 78.4 years for males and 82.4 years for females

and life expectancy gets longer as you get older.

retirement age is not something that should be changed rapidly. its too difficult an adjustment to expect people to make - retirement plans coming to fruition now may have been set up decades ago.

I'm not saying it cant go higher than 67 either... maybe it should - but its only fair to give people long warnings and make gradual change.