Both the Green and ACT parties have offered differing opinions on whether the age of eligibility for superannuation should be raised, following Labour’s first election policy - to keep it at 65.
On Saturday, the Government announced that should it be re-elected in October - the age will remain at 65, saying National and ACT’s plans to raise it are “out of touch”.
Joining Breakfast this morning, Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick and ACT leader David Seymour offered different takes and different solutions.
Seymour, whose party wants to see the superannuation age raised by two months each year, said the current universal policy is unsustainable and too expensive for the taxpayer.
“The age has to rise, and I know it’s not popular, and people say ‘don’t you dare’,” Seymour said.
“The maths doesn’t add up, we need to change, and it’s actually going to be easier than if we wait and wait and wait.”
He said that New Zealand was behind other countries when it came to retirement age - saying people are living and working longer, as well as having fewer children.
“The whole developed world recognises that people are living longer and longer, they’re healthier, people are working longer, and they’re having fewer children, so there are less taxpayers to pay the tax.”
Swarbrick pushed back on this, saying New Zealand’s current superannuation policy is beneficial to retirees.
“We have the lowest rates of elderly poverty in the world as a result of universal superannuation,” she said.
“If we have an issue with the cost of super, then we should be looking at our tax setting.”
The Auckland Central MP said some kind of wealth or capital gains tax would introduce enough money to keep superannuation at 65.
“We know that if you want to reduce the cost of bureaucratic and administrative services, the best way to do that is to universalise and make these systems better in the first place.”
She also said that people's individual circumstances would make it inequitable to move the age up. Wealth taxes are the way to address this, she says.
“We are an outlier internationally with regard to having a capital gains tax, an inheritance tax or any other form of taxation which also seeks to deal with some of those intergenerational inequities.”
Seymour said that a system that categorises based on circumstance wouldn’t make sense.
“Maybe there should be a lower retirement age for men. I mean, women live longer. People in the South Island actually live longer,” he said.
“What I’m telling you is each person has choices about how they live their life - you want to put people into categories, and I’m just trying to show you how absurd it is.”
SHARE ME