|
Grey Power New Zealand General 50 Plus Policy
Mission Statement
To improve living standards, benefits and equal work opportunities, for those aged 50 to 65
Detailed 50+ Policy
Education
There are two main issues in regard to Education for the unemployed in this age group.
1. The costs and repayments of same.
2. The suitability, availability of suitable courses and tertiary education.
To move from a sickness or unemployment benefit and take up studies on a students benefit for many in the over 50 age group is not viable. (Student Loans for 'short courses' and 'Part time Courses are not available.)
The courses available through WINZ are quite unsuitable for those over 50. Courses should be set to enhance the already wealth of knowledge, expertise and wisdom that has been acquired with age and experience.
We require that an adequate program be developed; plus access to loans for 'part time' and short courses, enabling the continuing education of the older worker to allow that person to return to or enter the workforce.
Redundancy & unemployment
The New Zealand workforce has in fact lost its continuity with the removal of such a large number of experienced skilled and work wise older workers. The number of those in the 50 -65 age group in employment has seriously diminished. This takes away the memory, history and wisdom of experience from the working community. This expertise should not have been so lightly discarded and can only be to the detriment of society.
The employer suffers no penalty when making workers redundant , the responsibility is merely transferred to the State. Redundancies would probably occur less often if the employer had to carry the cost of the first twelve months of the dole payment.
The concept of the market driven economy has allowed workers of all skills and levels of education and attainment to be considered by the employer as a redundant economic unit impeding company profit and bottom line success. The result has been redundancy and a charge on the state to support these workers whilst the employer has not been in any way held responsible, yet it is the very actions of the employer that has caused the problem, many of which are social in nature and far reaching in effect.
The inadequacy of the current non-qualified partner regime
We believe that the income test that applies to a superannuitant with a non-qualified spouse is discriminatory as any income that the individual superannuitant has, does result in adjustment to the NQP rate.
This penalizes the superannuitant for having set aside funds to enhance his/her retirement as it is family income that is considered not the income of the NQP.
We do not accept that the simple solution of considering the couple in the same manner as for taxation as two entities rather than a family is unpalatable because the whole benefit system is based on this regime.
The Superannuitant should not be penalized just because the partner is less than 65 years old. If there is sufficient income so that it is not necessary to apply the NQP regime then the superannuitant would just receive half the married rate but there are, alas, few superannuitants that have sufficient other income other than NZS to be able to do this.
We require the NQP regime to be adjudicated on the same basis as is applied to the couple when they are assessed for income tax so that each person is treated as an individual and assessed as such and that the family income is not the determining factor otherwise saving for retirement is irrelevant.
Community Wage Abatement Regime
We are concerned for those people in this age group who being unemployed suffer the severe abatement regime for their benefits - These people are on a benefit, the Community Wage, because they cannot find a job.
They are not there by choice as mainly they have previously had well-paid employment and now find themselves, because of the current fetish with the young, unemployable. Their standard of living is severely eroded by the current regime, which abates the benefit substantially after $80 gross is earned.
This particularly affects health carers, the majority of which seem to come from beneficiaries. There surely is need for a study of the effect of this abatement regime on the ability and willingness to up-skill themselves so that they have accountable experience to return to the workforce. The limited opportunities to gain work experience with a restriction on earnings of only $80 per week in reality means that the regime is saying don't work any more than this amount unless you are willing to be financially penalized. which is not a spur to gain work experience but rather the opposite.
Widows and Sickness Beneficiaries
Once over the age of 50 the loss of a partner or the onset of an acute or chronic illness is more debilitating than when younger. There is not the same 'rebound' as when in ones youth or middle years.
Widows especially have a very hard time. Often left with a mortgage to pay even insurances for their retirement to carry on. The loss of a partner's income, even if on a NQS/P income is great. Often becoming only a small percentage if a wager earner dies, and at least half if on a benefit. At present widows do not receive the living alone allowance.
Sickness beneficiaries have great difficulty in meeting their medical bills and many do not attend or travel to their appointments. The amount given does not always cover the prescription medication, in fact often comes nowhere near payment
There are many who are now over 50 and approaching the age of 65 who have spent their savings and can only ponder as to how they are going to survive the rest of their years.
A Review is required on more fairness in allocating extra benefits such as living alone allowances, housing allowances and medical benefits. As those in the over 50 age group are, due to age discrimination and more acute long term forms of sickness, more subject to not entering or re-entering the workforce.
|
