Perhaps medical science has put the super in superannuitants, but what are we complaining about? A healthy 65-plus person is being far less of a burden on the cash pool than the middle-aged obese diabetic or smoker.
And this idea of "means testing" the 65-plus crowd - where would you start? Do you start exploring the trusts, the accumulated assets built up over a lifetime? If a 65-plus person has two properties, should that penalise them?
Basically, Labour seem to be saying: if you do everything right, and you don't make a tit of your life, like a lot of idiots do, we'll be looking at your good fortune created by your good works and wisdom, and see if that can be cut back.
In the meantime, we throw millions of dollars at those who seemingly waste the air they breathe, in the name of welfare, bad health choices and crime.
I don't think it is a bad idea to consider raising the retirement age to 67, if it really is the case that our "elders", who are not remotely elderly, are powering along in their careers. Frankly, too much money is given out to those who don't use it properly. Why not have responsible people with two incomes, spending wisely, and keeping our economy circulating?
Andrew Bonallack is editor of the Wairarapa Times Age.