On 12/14/2016 8:01 AM, JohnO wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 December 2016 21:27:41 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:04:41 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
2014:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/252537/labour-pushing-later-retirement-age
2016:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/87501554/labour-leader-andrew-little-says-superannuation-fund-needs-boost-but-leave-retirement-age-alone
To be fair, things do change and the 2014 stance was under previous
Labour leadership. In some ways Little is demonstrating he is not
hidebound by history.
However in saying that, Little makes no mention of the 2014 policy the
2016 article and therefore gave no explanation on the change of
policy. If you are going to change your policy then credibility
demands change be acknowledged and explained.
--
Crash McBash
Yes, things do change. The population is aging for a start. It is less
affordable now to have 65 than it was then, yet now Labour plump for 65. So the
only answer is they are desperate to grub some votes off Winston and this is their bribe.
The trouble with a retirement age beyond 65 is that many manual workers
are pretty stuffed by 60 and have to look forward to 5 or more years on
the unemployment benefit...
It should be a graduated scale
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)