On the surface that seems a daft thing for a politician to say but perhaps it's not so silly.
The problem is not the age of entitlement. The problem is (a) the aggregate amount of the entitlement as years go by and (b) the availability or lack thereof of funds to support it.
If Adolf were PM here's what he'd flick into next year's ( pre-election by one) budget.
- Means test NZ Super, restricting payment to those individuals or couples having personal income less than say $30,000 with an abatement of payment starting at $20,000. Effective immediately.*
- Make Kiwisaver compulsory for those individuals or couples whose gross household income exceeds $100,000. Effective immediately.
- Make all Kiwisaver contributions tax deductible. Effective immediately. This to encourage low income people who are frugal and do not smoke, drink piss or take drugs to join Kiwisaver.
- Introduce a top income tax rate of 46.5c on all earnings over $180,000.
So you see folks, the idea is not to increase the age but to reduce the amount of entitlement. All those people forcibly contributing to Kiwisaver will remove themselves from the pool of NZ Super recipients.
Furthermore, I'm not sure how much faith I'd put in anyone's prediction about what super will be costing in twenty or thirty years' time. Hell, these are just more computer model predictions.
I reckon it will all turn out like global warming. People will look back and ask "What the hell was all the fuss about?"
* 'Effective immediately' means as soon as the boffins can administer the changes.