“A substantial majority agreed that Muldoon’s decision was a disaster for the country, particularly as the compulsory scheme was replaced by National Superannuation which cost $8 billion a year and is funded from taxes.
The abolished scheme would have been worth an estimated $240 billion- plus in 2007 and would be worth around $255 billion today using the same conservative investment returns projections.”
Brian Gaynor arguing for a compulsory superannuation scheme in the Herald this morning. I can’t confirm his figures, so there’s every possibility he’s overstating things (he does, after all, work for an investment management company). I can not, however, disagree with his argument that it would be a good thing for the country.
Saving is just a blimming good idea. My Grandfather was able to enjoy a genuine stress free retirement because he saved all his life. I can’t read Niko Kloeten’s NBR article that Gaynor refers to because it’s behind the paywall, but I’m going to assume that he/she would consider saving a virtue. What’s really souring the soup is the idea of Government compulsion.
Having seen a compulsory scheme in action in Portugal, I was witness to its benefits, part of which were a whole sector of society taken care of in their old age. Meanwhile, we’re sweating about our growing older population and how we’re going to pay for our future elderly citizens.
The argument from the other side seems to be that the Government’s trying to take away our right to buy big screen TVs while we’re young. Of course putting away money for when you’re 65 is less appealing than blowing it on heroin and hookers right now. But the heroin and hookers are at the expense of a secure and comfortable future drinking GnTs and watching the Holocube.
And besides, why you can’t enjoy heroin and hookers when you’re 65?
