Slim win for those against lifting the pension age

Respondents are divided almost evenly.

Respondents are divided almost evenly.

PEOPLE responding to this week’s Gisborne Herald web poll are divided on National Party proposals to make New Zealanders work longer and get the pension later.

Asked if they agreed that the retirement and pension age should be increased progressively from 65 to 67, 20 years from now, 48 percent of people said they disagreed, while 47 percent agreed.

Those opposed to the proposal were largely in agreement on their reasoning.

“When you work young, you need to stop at 65,” one person said.

Others also agreed that it would be difficult for many to work to a later age.

“It should be based on work history,” one said.

“Those who have done labour-intensive work should be allowed to retire earlier, as their body has been punished due to the work they have done.

“By age 65 they are unable to work in the way required or needed, whereas those who have less labour-intensive jobs are physically able to work a bit longer.”

Another person said life was “too short”.

“Jobs are hard enough to get at 65. It will be even worse at 67,” another person said.

One respondent said the proposal was a “stupid idea”, while another wanted the retirement age lowered.

“Retirement age should be coming down, allowing younger people the opportunity to get into senior positions, instead of waiting for old seniors who are just hanging in to either die or retire.”

One person disagreed because it would take too long.

“It should happen faster.”

Another agreed with the proposal but they also thought it should be done sooner.

“Say, starting 10 years from now, to still allow enough time for people to prepare.”

Starting earlier would make the “jumps” smaller, another said.

In general those in favour of the proposals said they were sensible.

One person said the idea was a “no-brainer”, while another respondent said the proposals were “just plain common sense”.

Another suggested that politicians opposed to the idea were not looking at the real picture.

“The political scene is the same old, same old. I worked until I was 68 and could have kept going but had an accident.”

Others also agreed with that point.

“Most people are quite capable of working to age 67 and more, and in fact want to,” one person said.

“Probably it should be phased in sooner.”

However, one person suggested that the whole idea was “all rather irrelevant”.

“In 20 years the world will be a very different place. Robots will rule the workforce and many of today’s workers will be paid a social wage to stay home and buy the products fabricated by machines.”

A total of 341 people responded to the poll, with 165 people against the proposal, 161 in agreement and 15 people undecided.

PEOPLE responding to this week’s Gisborne Herald web poll are divided on National Party proposals to make New Zealanders work longer and get the pension later.

Asked if they agreed that the retirement and pension age should be increased progressively from 65 to 67, 20 years from now, 48 percent of people said they disagreed, while 47 percent agreed.

Those opposed to the proposal were largely in agreement on their reasoning.

“When you work young, you need to stop at 65,” one person said.

Others also agreed that it would be difficult for many to work to a later age.

“It should be based on work history,” one said.

“Those who have done labour-intensive work should be allowed to retire earlier, as their body has been punished due to the work they have done.

“By age 65 they are unable to work in the way required or needed, whereas those who have less labour-intensive jobs are physically able to work a bit longer.”

Another person said life was “too short”.

“Jobs are hard enough to get at 65. It will be even worse at 67,” another person said.

One respondent said the proposal was a “stupid idea”, while another wanted the retirement age lowered.

“Retirement age should be coming down, allowing younger people the opportunity to get into senior positions, instead of waiting for old seniors who are just hanging in to either die or retire.”

One person disagreed because it would take too long.

“It should happen faster.”

Another agreed with the proposal but they also thought it should be done sooner.

“Say, starting 10 years from now, to still allow enough time for people to prepare.”

Starting earlier would make the “jumps” smaller, another said.

In general those in favour of the proposals said they were sensible.

One person said the idea was a “no-brainer”, while another respondent said the proposals were “just plain common sense”.

Another suggested that politicians opposed to the idea were not looking at the real picture.

“The political scene is the same old, same old. I worked until I was 68 and could have kept going but had an accident.”

Others also agreed with that point.

“Most people are quite capable of working to age 67 and more, and in fact want to,” one person said.

“Probably it should be phased in sooner.”

However, one person suggested that the whole idea was “all rather irrelevant”.

“In 20 years the world will be a very different place. Robots will rule the workforce and many of today’s workers will be paid a social wage to stay home and buy the products fabricated by machines.”

A total of 341 people responded to the poll, with 165 people against the proposal, 161 in agreement and 15 people undecided.

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

Poll

  • Voting please wait...
    Your vote has been cast. Reloading page...
    How do you rate National’s election-year Budget?