We got an e-mail from Dunedin blogger and 2011 United Future candidate Pete George yesterday. It's been sent to a number of bloggers; here 'tis:
Lets combine the blogger voice and push harder for a Super debate:
Campaign for a decent debate on the future of Super in New Zealand.Bloggers represent many opinions, ideas, ideals and approaches, and have interblog rivalries and arguments. But how we deal with Super is super important, so we are prepared to put aside those differences and join in asking for a Super debate.
And if politicians don't stand up and deliver the debate then blogger power will drive it. Once the framework for a debate is in place we can promote our varied solutions - these could range from doing nothing different to doing away with Super.
First step - we need to agree that a debate is needed.
If you post on your own blog in support of the BADASS campaign let me know, or just let me know you support it, I'll collate and list all on a post that's ready to go.
Superannuation is the biggest, baddest and smelliest elephant in the room at the moment. We all know that the cost of superannuation is going to skyrocket in the years ahead, as baby-boomers such as ourselves retire, and as we live longer because of the advances in health and lifestyle.
We agree with Pete George; there needs to be a wide-ranging debate, right across the political spectrum, and a bipartisan approach needs to be taken. For that reason, we are more than happy to offer our support to his BADASS campaign.
There's no doubt that the blogosphere is becoming increasingly influential. Just this week we've seen that; an issue that we raised on Tuesday afternoon finally making it into the mainstream media on Friday. Many media figures follow blogs and bloggers via social media, and we get occaisonal requests from journalists to comment on an issue.
So there are plenty of good reasons why the blogosphere can lead debate on the issue of superannuation, rather than be followers. After all, just about all of us are going to be affected in some way; either by receiving it, or by paying for it.
We'll disclose a conflict of interest here; poor relationship choices in the past have left us exposed, when a retirement plan became matrimonial property and was divvied out by an actuary. Although we now have a Kiwisaver plan, it's sobering that we are within single-figure years of being eligible for National Superannuation. Whilst we'd love to be in a position to retire at age 65, the chances are that being in business on our own account, we won't.
We applaud Pete George for taking the initiative on this. We hope that other bloggers, especially those with a wider readership than he or us will also take up the challenge so that we can discuss this in a mature fashion, and perhaps even reach a consensus that our political leaders can't or won't.
12 comments:
Thanks, use the combined power of blogs. If any other bloggers want to join in please let me know.
http://yournz.org/2012/06/01/badass/
Thought: Is the reason why politicians don't seem to engage on this topic is that their super is already sorted from having been in the House?
Increasingly I find it a rarity that people have not started to put at least a little money aside for retirement, or made another form of provision for it.
NZ offers many opportunities to accommodate investments for retirement, property acquisition, forestry (fantastic at present!) annuities etc..
Cadwallader
Words I never in a million years thought I'd write:
I agree with Pete George!
Now, having swallowed that dead rat, I'd like to know more about his plan. If we bloggers are to lead the discussion, how does that happen? It seems to me none of the parties currently disgracing and bringing our Oarliament into disrepute is serious about tackling this, the biggest time-bomb on the horizon! The most sensible is ACT, and they're only talking about kicking the can down the road by raising the age of entitlement. All other parties' policies not only do not address the problem, but make it substantially larger! Surely we can be a little more creative than just trying to buy the Grey vote (no offense intended, Inv)?
Oops ... Oarliament = Parliament
*blush*
Oh and Inv, can you do something about the gibberish thrown up by your verification panel? It's causing havoc its my iPad's auto-correct!
None taken Gannt; the spaces between my grey hairs take up more area than the grey hairs themselves!
Much has been made of Key's promise not to raise the age of entitlement. Given that he made that pledge prior to becoming PM, the GFC and the Christchurch earthquakes, I would not hoild him to his promise to resign as an MP.
Personally, I favour a rise in the age to 67, and would like to see an accord between all parties in the current Parliament along those lines. That way, superannuation ceases to become a political stick; rather we all get offered a clear direction of where the country is going to go with superannuation, without there being a u-turn after an election.
Am I being simplistic?
Not simplistic, but I don't see that as solving the problem. The problem with superannuation (the name is a lie - its an ahold Aged Pension) being a political football is that there -*is* national superannuation. We need to take a leaf out of the lies, propaganda and myths promulgated by the apartheid party here. There needs to be a "whanau-centred" approach to retirement. The ultimate goal must be that there is no compulsion. Most people work for around 50 years, give or take. That's plenty of time for them to take steps themselves to prepare for their retirement. Giving a guaranteed, non-means tested pension is Pavlovian; it disincentivises people from making their own arrangements. I accept there will be those for whom events in their life will make retirement savings difficult. My own Father was desperately unwell for much of his adult life. But that should be where the familial responsibility kicks in. And of course, such a change would have to be implemented over a long time period.
I'd be more than happy to expand on these views at the appropriate time and place.
"Much has been made of Key's promise not to raise the age of entitlement. Given that he made that pledge prior to becoming PM, the GFC and the Christchurch earthquakes, I would not hoild him to his promise to resign as an MP."
Of course you wouldn't, Keeping.
You'd forgive your Master everything.
Without question.
Oh, sod off Robert. We're trying to have a sensible debate here, without petty politicking.
Well KS at least your master is a human being rather than a sub-Antarctic compost heap!
Cadwallader
'Sensible debate and 'John Key's position on superannuation' shouldn't be together in the same sentence. Key's silly line in the sand has done significant damaged our economy already and shouldn't be tolerated any longer. Apologising for, and forgiving him for stalling the country's progress is unforgivable.
"We hope that other bloggers, especially those with a wider readership than he or us will also take up the challenge so that we can discuss this in a mature fashion, and perhaps even reach a consensus that our political leaders can't or won't."
That does sound sensible. Grassroots having a mature discussion, reaching a consensus where our leaders have it wrong. This would work in the case of asset sales! Let's have a referendum!
Oh goodie. Guyton's arrived. There goes any chance of the grown-ups having a discussion in a mature fashion.
Post a Comment