Like so many debates in this country, another one has restarted, this time around Superannuation. 

Some economists have taken to their calculators and looked at who earns what in retirement. 

9% of over 65s are earning more than $100k a year. 

3.6% are earning more than $150k a year. 

A smidge over 2% are earning more than $180k a year. 

Now that’s almost 15% earning at least a six-figure salary, which I was pleasantly surprised about given the general Super debate is predicated on the idea everyone in retirement can't make ends meet, are cold because they haven't got a heater, and generally aren't eating properly because lamb chops are beyond the budget. 

Anyway, upon crunching these numbers said economists asked: why don’t we means-test Super? 

They are of the camp Super is not affordable. 

That is still in some doubt, and while it is in some doubt, we haven't been able to get past the first hurdle and the first hurdle is: why don’t we raise the retirement age? 

Close followers of this increasingly laborious debate will have noted we can't even get any sort of agreement on age, so why you would raise a means test is beyond me. 

Age at least doesn’t change the fundamental underpinnings of Super i.e. it's an entitlement and age is the sole trigger. 

Means-testing puts it into a whole new category, and the category would be called a benefit. Age becomes secondary to your means. 

"Welcome to your golden years. Oh, you're rich? Well, nothing for you". 

But what about my contribution to the tax base and the state of the nation? "Oh yes, they were old rules that only counts if you're broke". 

If you ever opened that Pandora's box, you may as well do away with Super altogether. Because once you turn it into a benefit you may as well call it Jobseeker – you're simply 68-years-old and unemployed.  

When in the modern age, given the reason for upping the age of entitlement is partially based on the idea that people live and work longer, are you actually no longer working? 

If 65 is too young to retire, when is a good age? That's another debate that will go nowhere. 

There should be a new rule: don't start new debates until old ones are settled. 

And given we are still at 65-years-old after literally decades of going nowhere, then means-testing Super is wasting our time. 

Like so many debates in this country, another one has restarted, this time around Superannuation.&nbsp;
Some economists have taken to their calculators and looked at who earns what in retirement.&nbsp;
9% of over 65s are earning more than $100k a year.&nbsp;
3.6% are earning more than $150k a year.&nbsp;
A smidge over 2% are earning more than $180k a year.&nbsp;
Now that’s almost 15% earning at least a six-figure salary, which I was pleasantly surprised about given the general Super debate is predicated on the idea everyone in retirement can't make ends meet, are cold because they haven't got a heater, and generally aren't eating properly because lamb chops are beyond the budget.&nbsp;
Anyway, upon crunching these numbers said economists asked: why don’t we means-test Super?&nbsp;
They are of the camp Super is not affordable.&nbsp;
That is still in some doubt, and while it is in some doubt, we haven't been able to get past the first hurdle and the first hurdle is: why don’t we raise the retirement age?&nbsp;
Close followers of this increasingly laborious debate will have noted we can't even get any sort of agreement on age, so why you would raise a means test is beyond me.&nbsp;
Age at least doesn’t change the fundamental underpinnings of Super i.e. it's an entitlement and age is the sole trigger.&nbsp;
Means-testing puts it into a whole new category, and the category would be called a benefit. Age becomes secondary to your means.&nbsp;
"Welcome to your golden years. Oh, you're rich? Well, nothing for you".&nbsp;
But what about my contribution to the tax base and the state of the nation? "Oh yes, they were old rules that only counts if you're broke".&nbsp;
If you ever opened that Pandora's box, you may as well do away with Super altogether. Because once you turn it into a benefit you may as well call it Jobseeker – you're simply 68-years-old and unemployed. &nbsp;
When in the modern age, given the reason for upping the age of entitlement is partially based on the idea that people live and work longer, are you actually no longer working?&nbsp;
If 65 is too young to retire, when is a good age? That's another debate that will go nowhere.&nbsp;
There should be a new rule: don't start new debates until old ones are settled.&nbsp;
And given we are still at 65-years-old after literally decades of going nowhere, then means-testing Super is wasting our time.&nbsp;

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more.

The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show. Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda. The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more. The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion,...

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Mike's Minute: Why is the NZ Super debate back?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/a6d5d56d-248e-4ccf-8fe8-b48901801ee3/transcript