A question from Q+A viewer Jonathan has prompted this post, because he raises such a crucial question.
He emailed the programme while David Parker and Steven Joyce were debating the retirement age and compulsory superannuation to say we were looking at the wrong issue.
Can some one please tell me why we are worrying about retirement money and were it will come from, when the main problem is at the other end of the scale, which is unemployment, and the amount of money we are spending there. [That money] could go in to retirement, but is sucked up by the unemployed who contribute nothing to the country!
It's a point I've heard made a few times (with or without his dubious generalisation about "the unemployed") and is a crucial question - or it would be if Jonathan's premise was right. But it's not.
The simple reason superannuation is such a big talking point now - and why Labour's new policy is so significant - is that the super bill is one of the country's biggest.
It's the elephant in any room that has something to do with government spending.
Bigger than the dole.
Even bigger than the DPB. Because there are so many retired folk - many more than there are unemployed or sick.
Here are the numbers. This year's Budget had a total social welfare spend of a little over $23 billion. So how does it break down?
Sickness benefit: 782.38 (3.40%)
Unemployment benefit & emergency benefit: 1,028.95
(4.40%)
Accommodation assistance: 1,264.23 (5.50%)
Invalid's benefit: 1,346.84 (5.80%)
Student loans: 1,589.68 (6.90%)
Domestic purposes benefit: 1,894.64 (8.20%)
New Zealand superannuation: 9,575.37 (41.30%)
As you can see, superannuation is over 40 percent of the bill. Nothing else hits double figures. And as a share of GDP, the cost of Super is forecast to double in the next 40 years.
The true significance of Labour's announcement this week is that the politically unspeakable has been said out loud.
No-one wanted to touch the superannuation debate exactly because it involved so many people - so many people who vote.
Now that a major party has committed to raising the retirement age, it seems inevitable the policy will happen.
To paraphrase Humphrey Bogart - maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some day and for the rest of your lives. A gazelle has split from the pack; the spell has been broken.
And the significance of that is that such a large chunk of government spending is now on the table - for better or worse, richer or poorer.
Yes, there is a risk that if we're willing to have the super debate, everything from its universality to its percentages are up for grabs.
If it's changed once, future governments could change it more - cut it, slice it, shrink it.
But the plus side is that we can now talk about how we save, as a country, for our retirement.
And that's essential, because contrary to what Jonathan thinks, it really is one of the biggest issues in town.
To read more Tim Watkin opinion click here .
What do you think? Have your say on the messageboard below.
Tim Watkin is a producer for Q+A - Sundays on TV ONE from 9am
Add a Comment:
Post new commentbuggeryou said on 2011-11-07 @ 16:02 NZDT: Report abusive post
so you think it,s OK to open the door to chinese workers in christchurch then...(as reported in our paper today) when so many of our people(kiwi,s), are looking for jobs and not getting them.....
Billy J said on 2011-11-04 @ 11:10 NZDT: Report abusive post
The real reason for our hardship and this governments deficit of $18 billion is the fact that Nationals Tax Cuts created an annual deficit of $16 billion and that Nationals increase of GST to 15% Combined with its Low Wages policy resulted in a 7.7increase in the cost of living and a reduced capacity to save or to spend. This in turn has undermined the viability of New Zealand Busunesses and resulted in 7% unemployment, a 0.1% growth in GDP and an Overseas Debt of $253..9billion .
skc said on 2011-10-31 @ 09:42 NZDT: Report abusive post
Unemployed numbers and an ageing population are both political footballs at election time, but why not address the "real elephant in the room" - an underperforming economy. Which Party has a definitive strategy beyond the next 3 year term ?