One notion to combat the surge in super was floated last week.
A study revealed - in slightly outraged tones - "tens of thousands of well-off pensioners claiming up to half a billion dollars in superannuation every year".
So, the answer's simple, eh?
Means-test the gold card brigade and cut their pension accordingly? The Government demurred on the idea, and rightly so.
Those who have worked hard and saved their little pot of gold, or are still maintaining some extra revenue stream, have earned the right to enjoy a few luxuries in later life and deserve every last cent of their superannuation. Why should they be penalised for being thrifty and industrious?
Strangely, it is across the Tasman that a more meritorious solution can be found.
In his recent Budget, Australian treasurer Joe Hockey announced a staggered rise in the pension age to 70. It's hardly a vote-winner but then they've had their election.
Phil Goff took Labour into the 2011 election with a policy of raising the retirement age to 67. It was a gutsy call though, of course, it did him no good at the polls.
Prime Minister John Key, who knows a bit about winning elections, isn't touching the benchmark of 65, but Labour will again have 67 as part of its manifesto and, interestingly, ACT is also calling for a rise in the pension age.
It makes sense for the nation's coffers and it should not impose too large a burden on the many people able to carry on working past the designated cut-off date - some of whom were recently featured in the Chronicle.
We are fitter, healthier and living longer - and we cannot afford to keep paying out the pension at 65. So let's raise the bar.
