Why not make retirement optional at 65? Those who choose to carry on working could benefit from reduced (preferably zero) tax rates - after all they have already done their dash and are benefitting the country by not drawing their super.

Like "boomer comment" the voluntary workers in the community are people who are actively involved once retired. Working in victim support work involves a commitment of 24/7 availability that working folk can not commit to. People choose to work for worthy groups in the community to make a difference that is not Government funded.

yer right,here we go again,the age should be lowered,the call always comes from the pricks who have never done a pysical days work in their lives,try working in the real world,12hr sifts 6days a week ect we all cannot be lucky enough to get to clean toilets,probably been given to a korean contracter anyway.Thanks to our great investment industry we are all dollars down the drain and the nightmare of working with the new generation,but the nats are just the crew to inposes it,remember the ninties

Out of mind. To me the retirement age should be lowered by two to three years instead, Mr. Key! :)

Even retirees are willing to work if you make it attractive enough. Indeed many people are still working or involved in voluntary works. Forcing will drive people mad.

So, here we go again. The baby boomers seem to be the suffering generation! They have helped fund the "early" retirement of their elders as well as the schooling, health care etc of their children only to have their own retirement snatched away from them on the basis that they "are well enough to work". There is a real inequity at work here. My parents were just as capable of working at 65 as myself but they got super at 60. Now we are being pushed into 67 and probably 70 too! Well I say stuff it. The baby boomers have a lot of votes or they would not be the boomers would they?

I am willing to keep on working as long as I have decent health and I will continue to pay tax on the same but why should I have to support my olds and my children from taxes throughout my income years only to be told that I do not deserve similar treatment as them? Have you seen the cost of the interest free student loans for so many young ones who have spent it, plus their casual earnings (mine included), on a cafe lifestyle that I never even dreamed of? (And even so, I have still supported my kids through tertiary education).

Yes, I am going to vote against any party that wants to make me the fall-guy for extravagance put in place to catch the votes of a younger generation when I have willing funded my parents retirement.

I think the Investment Savings and Insurance Association (ISI)are just waiting and hoping that I will die before I qualify for national super, just so they don't have to pay out any superannuation to me. Then the government will have all that super fund $ to use for any things else except pay out on super.

So there is once again the call to push out the date of retirement.

Maybe they should set it so if you don't expire soon after qualifying for super you have to pay it back. Thus you can never be more than six months or so in the black.

Isn't it time we dispensed with it altogether - after all there is plenty of time to slack off and retire after you’re in the grave. Once your beyond useful taxation age your then in the liability column of the state. Continued health care makes even lesser sense as it facilitates a longer drain on the super.

This way we can identify the aged for what they truly are, bludgers. Along with the unemployed, solo mums, acc bludgers (AKA Mountain bikers and rugby players), bankers, finance company CEOs and Directors, policy analysts, politicians (witness UK and NZ perks) and academics (get a real job and stop pontificating on the publics ticket).

Plus it would be a real boon for the hard done by insurance industry if they could just stretch out paying on policies till termination day plus one and help tremendously in maintaining salary and bonuses while trying to account for bad credit derivatives.

Not to mention help governments bury poor performance. Has anybody in government mentioned reducing contributions to parliamentary superannuation and pushing out payouts for that to 70 before drawing on? Or are parliamentarians special, like the perks the zealously keep to themselves. What was their employer (that’s you and me) contribution ratio again...can anyone recall.

Here’s an idea, we get what they do and vica versa. Me thinks they wouldn’t ‘float’ many ‘discussion papers’ along these lines if that were so.

Its ok for all those rich pricks to say raise it. Its ok for them, they all retire with a big fat company payout in their mid fifty's. The rest of us get left to slave away for the rest of our life.

Why is there this talk about increasing the age of eligibility when reintroducing the taxation surcharge has not been mooted?

John Key has been quoted that he considered suggesting an increase in the age of eligibility to obviate superannuation problems as being his most regretted political statement, but he is now testing the waters by way of these Right-wing stooges. He has said that he will resign as leader of the National Party if there is any change to superannuation rates or entitlement.

Altering the age of eligibility is definitely a change to entitlement, but changing the marginal rate of taxation on additional income is outside his undertaking.

Fred Hamer should not have received both his income (without a taxation surcharge) from working as well as full National Superannuation. There are people almost doubling their income overnight on their 65th birthday, while there is average 19.5% youth unemployment and up to 50% in some age-groups and areas.

There are jobs summit suggestions about encouraging early retirement at the same time as National Superannuation is totally unaligned.

Despite what Muldoon called it, National Superannuation is a welfare benefit. To say that there should be unconditional entitlement to receiving it is nonsensical. I have spoken to many retired, or near retired, persons and all see the receipt of National Superannuation without a surcharge on other income as an anomaly (perhaps the biggest anomaly) in New Zealand's social welfare system.

When Muldoon introduced National Superannuation for all, the top marginal rate of taxation was 66 per cent. In essence, this meant a significantly lower transfer payment to those receiving significant other income. Since then personal income taxation rates have been lowered (and a top rate of 30% is mooted) and GST has been imposed. Those continuing to work after reaching age 65 are receiving a much greater benefit than they would have when National Superannuation was first introduced.

My opinion is that a progressive surcharge should be applied. Investment income should be exempt so as not to discourage savings. An amount of supplementary business or employment income taking an individual's total income to the equivalent of an average wage should be tax exempt. Thereafter, a progressive marginal income tax rate should be applied, unless the individual opts out of receiving National Superannuation.

The "married rate" should go and National Superannuation should be paid only to individuals and the above regime be applied on an individual basis. The spouse of a Superannuitant who has not reached age 65 should be entitled to receive a single adult unemployment benefit without obligation to be work-tested.

There might be some loopholes (trusts, or something), but these would not be as anomalous in aggregate as the present system of receiving both National Superannuation and employment or business income free from taxation surcharge.

If this does not address forecast actuarial shortfalls in superannuation provisions, then a surcharge on some level of investment income should be the next option.

We could adopt the other retirement system Australia has had in place for about 10 years called "The self funded retiree" who DO NOT recieve the Aussie Pension which is means tested anyway. The Self Funded retiree in Australia recieves a "Tax Beak" on thier retirement income in lieu of reciving the costly taxpayer funded pension. No such luck in Nz as the Labour Government (courtesy of Michael Cullen) would be too miserly to allow such a system to prevail in NZ. Their attitude was "we will tax you till you drop"! We will never learn at all.This is an opportunity to provide a funding relief for the Nz Taxpayer but Labour could not bear the thought of missing out on some income tax in lieu of.