I'm a student who works 12 hours per week (minimum wage), spends 30 hours per week at university (17 hours of class time with multiple 40 min breaks and study time) and recieves $200 in student allowance. The Govt will spend about $30k on my allowance over the course of my degree.

I'll graduate with about $40k in student loans. But I'll earn closer to $50k than my previous $32k. This means that the govt will take in an extra $4k per year in PAYE from me. I'll pay back that $30k in less than 8 years. For the remaining 40 years of my working life the Govt will have a larger tax intake than it otherwise would have.

Whilst I work my PAYE will contribute to NZ Super and will help pay the $400 per week recieved by retirees who don't need the money. Retirees who didn't have a student loan and voted for governments to cut income tax until free tertiary education became unaffordable. I'll enter a housing market which is about three times more expensive (compared to wages) than it was in 1980 and will likely experience inflation rates 7 times lower than in the 1980s meaning that the size of my future mortgage will not be erroded in real terms to the same extent as a home owner in the 80s. Low inflation also means there is less pressuer on incomes to grow in real terms.

Why is the government spending twice as much per week on someone who lived through better economic opportunities than I ever will? The allowance I recieve will be paid back by me, your superannuation will be paid by me.

I'm not saying that Superannuation should be removed, I'm saying that it can't go to everyone and no one should feel entitled to it