Letters: No superannuation for over-65 workers

Prime Minister Bill English.

The first step in reducing the cost of superannuation is, of course, to restrict it to those who have retired at a certain age. Sixty-five years old will do fine for the moment, if no superannuation is paid to those who continue to receive wages, salary, commissions or self-employment income. One has to be unemployed to receive Jobseeker Support; it's a no-brainer that one should need to be retired to receive superannuation.

As well as producing a substantial cost saving, it would also encourage retirees to quit jobs that are needed by other family providers - win/win.

And if there comes a need to further reduce the cost of superannuation funded by dwindling taxpayers, it needs to be well understood that the few taxpayers is a result of the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too baby boomers who in my opinion failed to adequately reproduce. But there are many exceptions and, thus, it is grossly inequitable to impose an across-the-board restriction of entitlement. It would be very simple to dispense justice by applying a 70-year-old, for example, threshold for entitlement, and allowing a year's reduction for each taxpayer raised by an applicant.

That might have the added bonus of encouraging couples of child-bearing age to reproduce more adequately. If our reproduction rate doesn't improve, the problem is never going away.

LEO LEITCH
Benneydale

'Super ball'

Jim Adams (letters, March 9) rightfully exposes an inconvenient truth in that working people over 65 years old collect the super, whether they work or not, when those under 65 who work can not. Is this reasonable to taxpayers, particularly those expected to pick up the intergenerational super tax tab for the baby boomer cohort? I say not.

Political parties are once again picking up the election issue "super ball".

The incumbent Government is appeasing the baby boomer vote in the expectation that the boomers will vote for them, while non-boomer voters will not; a gamble that has paid off for the last three terms. It remains to be seen if younger voters will vote against this con policy.

I am non-partisan when it comes to political parties and consistently vote on their policies; I find that the Labour Party's Cullen fund should be reinstated by any incoming political party and reinstate full contributions, not offset these contributions with a tax reduction bribe; only in this way are we helping the younger generations to help them pay for our looming baby boomer super debt. Of course if the younger (non-baby boomers) generation does not vote accordingly they shall have to play "super ball" every three years.

JOSEPH GIELEN
Glenholme

Readers on the Rotorua Daily Post Facebook page shared their thoughts on a $3 million-plus upgrade of the council's information technology software.

- Why would they not use a local company instead of going to Australia, I will be interested to see what sort of back-up they get when something goes wrong with the time lag.
- More waste from our mayor.
- Typical council not even supporting local business and wasting our money.
- It's a great initiative. In two years time we'll be ready.
- Twenty-five councils use it so when new workers start they don't have to learn a new system. A lot of people move within councils. It also helps if people leave and there's no replacement recruited yet. The next person will know how that accounting programme works, not just accounting. It goes across the board to most council departments. It will save money!