Most Kiwis opposed to raising pension age - study

File Image.

Universal access to the pension is still the most preferred option for many New Zealanders, with strong opposition to means-testing superannuation payments revealed in a new survey.

The University of Otago study - commissioned by Te Ara Ahunga Ora Retirement Commission - surveyed almost 1300 people, more than half of whom were strongly against raising the retirement age to 67, even if that meant they could pay less tax as a trade-off.

However, people are willing to pay more tax now in order to reduce the size of tax increases on future generations.

Lead author Dr Andrew Coleman says the research compared its findings to the same study conducted in 2014, when support for universal pensions, rather than a means-testing regime, was more pronounced than in the most recent survey.

"Nonetheless, it is still comfortably the most important policy to the largest number of people," he says.

The number of people who want the age of retirement eligibility kept at 65 years increased compared to 2014.

"Raising the age of eligibility to 67 was ranked by 61 percent of respondents as the worst policy (of the seven options), making it the option ranked worst by the largest number of people," says Dr Coleman.

The survey also revealed fewer people are feeling confident they will have a comfortable retirement, a difference of 15 per cent from 2014.

Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson says the findings supports keeping the retirement age at 65.

"Today, 40 per cent of people aged 65 and over have virtually no other income besides NZ Super and another 20 per cent only have that, and a little more," she says.

"To provide good retirement outcomes we need to maintain NZ Super at current settings and explore other mechanisms to support those where this is not enough on its own."

-RNZ.

3 comments

Mandatory Retirement

Posted on 12-04-2023 20:06 | By The Professor

One way NZ can cut the burden of super is to make retirement compulsory at 65 and prevent over 65s from working. Or, if over 65s continue to work, they should have dollar for dollar removed.....scrapping the partial reduction of super ($100 I believe). This is a policy which needs to be introduced for say school leavers in some future year so that everyone has the opportunity to plan.


Ensure viability!

Posted on 13-04-2023 08:20 | By waiknot

Nobody would want to sacrifice some current entitlements. However some adjustments to ensure continued viability could be necessary. This needs be removed from the political football with a bipartisan approach


The bottom line here is...

Posted on 13-04-2023 13:14 | By morepork

... what the country can afford. If we were a third world country, then it would be more of a struggle to take care of our old folk. If we pretend to be a first world country, then, even with an aging workforce, it should really be no problem. Our country generates wealth of around $250 billion per year; superannuation takes around $15 billion per year. Welfare payments are nearly $40 billion per year. So, it is like we have an "overhead" of $50 billion per year, which leaves the Government a mere $200 billion to waste and play with. We have 2 choices: 1. Increase our productivity. 2. Devalue our people and stop wasting money on them. (Think "under-developed third world where welfare is family responsibility - so big families..."). The best solution is a mix of both, but "people" are (should be?) a moral imperative.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.