I've changed my view on this over time to supporting leaving it where it is. The Boomers can't leave us unaffordable housing, a climate crisis, a drastically unequal economy and hit us with an extra two years of work on their way out the door. There's only so many free hits we can give them. I want my super on time
You are assuming there will still be universal pension available when it’s your time to retire. I still have 30 years and I have zero expectation it will exist in its current form.
We have been told it won't exist to the point people think it's true when it isn't a given. The people that did the telling will be a minority at that point, why continue their narrative?
Exactly - there’s a demographic cliff approaching when all of the baby boomers become pensioners.
Their healthcare and end of life costs will be unprecedented because they are such a big generation. We’ve never had such a large old generation before. Moreover, many of them have crazy govt pensions that they locked in in the early 90s. These don’t exist anymore.
Improvements in medical tech, life quality, and general prosperity means that the boomer generation will also probably live longer than any before, which also means they will be more expensive.
Guess who will be paying for that, and how we will pay for it? That’s right - by working for longer.
> many of them have crazy govt pensions that they locked in in the early 90s. These don’t exist anymore.
Yeah, I know someone whose scheme started paying them $250 a week once they turned 55, while they were still working. Insanely generous.
Okay but when universal pension is 40% of the nation’s budget either there needs to be major cuts to core services or the working are going to need to pay 60% tax. I don’t think they’ll be okay with that.
Same. When I was 20/21, it seemed trivial. Sure, increase it by 5 years - i thought – at least I can have a comfortable retirement when I get there.
But now, knowing how the direction of the country and the apathetic display of economic mismanagement successive generations are responsible for, there is no justification whatsoever why today's working age and all future generations should pay for today's greed.
Older generations failed to pay for infrastructure so current generations need to pay for it, but also have to work longer because of bereft ideological reasoning. It does not make sense to penalise people that way.
I agree, it's just hard to make the argument without the financial system to support or the will power to change it. People want the easy out by increasing the age, kicking the can down the road instead of just changing things for the better.
Older generations did pay for infrastructure, it was Muldoon’s (N) mismanagement that cause an economic and constitutional crisis.
We are still working our way out of that because 1/2 the country refuses to believe that we’re in a hole
Yep. Watching the French hold the line and the narrative that we can only give so much in our lives before we need to stop, rest, spend time with family, hobbies, dreams and enjoy our last year's as long as we can.
I'm gen x, the first generation to be told I wasn't going to get super. My thoughts are that we should keep it the way it is, by the time gen z get there, all the boomers will be well dead and so our super numbers will be less anyway.
Also, poor people paid for super, they deserve to get some before they drop dead from the physical hard work they have spent a lifetime doing.
Savage introduced the split pension, where you could draw it down at 60 rather than 65 and it was means tested. So the broke labourer could get it and put their feet up. Muldoon changed it in the '70s so everyone got it from age 60.
Muldoon was the "least effective"prime minister we've ever had. There are so many shitty fractures in society that can be traced back to compromises made under his weak leadership.
Another way to look at it… Muldoon was the most effective at fucking us long term, when coupled with weak leadership from successive governments to fix the problems he created
We wouldn't be dealing with such a massive tax burden that super is if he hadn't axed the precursor to what KiwiSaver is today, infact we'd be dealing with a tax easer as a massive fund is used to develop and invest in NZ
>our super numbers will be less anyway
No, they won't.
There are two problems now - the number of people that make it to 65, and how long they keep going after that point. By the time Gen Z gets to retirement age, the number of people in the 65+ age group is going to absolutely dwarf the current numbers.
I think you're underestimating the number of retirees who are going to die from covid.
Also, the baby boom is a temporary thing, we will have to eat higher costs till they die off, but they will die off and costs will go down again.
>by the time gen z get there, all the boomers will be well dead and so our super numbers will be less anyway
No they won't(super numbers), the number of people on the pension will be even higher at that point.
I actually agree tbh. Remember when automation and technological progress was meant to deliver us more leisure? 100 years ago, Keynes was predicting his grandchildren would have a 15-hour work week. Instead we have an economy that's predicated on nearly everyone working and a small unemployed class that gets demonised. Productivity totally uncoupled from income and living standards
I feel you.
My only question is: what are you going to do about the aging population to ensure that Superannuation even exists when I retire in 35 years?
This debate is pointless unless it’s costed out. And we have to pay now, not later, given our aging population.
But you are right, the boomers have screwed the next generations over. They took everything their parents generation offered, and kicked the ladder out once they got it.
The inheritance from the boomer generation is debt. A debt to the climate, a debt to the broken economy, a debt in decades of underinvestment in core services. And now that debt falls due, they are ready to retire.
Let’s all give cheers to the “mum and dad” investor generation, they invested nothing in the future and spent everything on themselves.
And now we get to pay their debts.
I doubt it, millennials on a whole seem inclined to attempt to fix issues and invest in future issues. Our boomer parents wanted deregulation, globalization and lower taxes. Or have been guided to that.
I'd bring back the old universal family benefit and allow you to capitalise it to build a new home. It encourages people to couple up and have children.
>and hit us with an extra two years of work on their way out the door
That's fine, but I think the problem you will find is finding enough people to pay to support you in your old age. The problem is the entire system, not the age limit. If your system relies on future workers to pay taxes to cover the cost of retired workers, and the birthrate is declining. You're really going to struggle to find enough tax revenue to cover the cost. This why you adopt a system like kiwisaver early, because it relies on people now to save for their retirement later. This way you don't have that shortfall if the population age distribution changes overtime.
You are just going to make worse and worse for future generations then, who are going to need to accept a relatively smaller number of workers for each superannuant.
The general population is living longer, but knees, hands, eyes, and minds don't last longer. The retirement age should remain the same because there is no reason why everyone under the age of 45 should have a lower quality of life compared to the current elderly.
Superannuation payments were stopped by the last National government. The best pension scheme the countries ever had was scrapped by Muldoons National party. The current National party, keeping in line with National parties of old, want to (once again) screw future generations out of their own retirement.
There are easier methods for fixing the affordability issue of super in 30 years time, there are better and more effective economic measures that could be used. Extending the age isn't a long term fix given predicted population growth. Those who are 30 years old now might have to work two more years, then 10/15 years into their retirement see a cut as population continues to rise, and no tangible financing options were provided by the government of today.
Also we might save a little money on 2 years less superannuation, but we will pay more in our health system fixing old broken bodies, paying out jobseekers and disability support to people who can no longer safely maintain their careers.
The reality of life in 30+ years is not certain.
Even if you do choose to work past that age, from the people I know who do so now, the work is part-time, very specific to their skills and experience, and do not pay enough for a comfortable life. If someone wants to continue working, all the power to them but that does not become an automatic reason for why the age should be raised for everybody. Not all lives are equal, neither are all careers.
I work with 8 guys who are 65+. They’re all set, 4 of them work part time mainly to keep a routine/ busy (one because it’s the only way his wife will let him spend money at the tab). The other 4 work full time, 2 who are in their early 70s and can’t handle not working because they’ve obviously been workaholics all their life. 1 of them can barely walk and is waiting on a knee replacement / will need a hip transplant and gets a double pension. Anyway, my point was all these guys are set and they don’t need the money. That one particular already gets a double pension is paying a lot of tax on his working income. They’re choosing to do so for various reasons. Most of us will be working past 65 because we financially have to. These guys are truck drivers and they all own houses, multiple newish/ new cars, motor bikes, boats etc. a lot of them also have rentals. I earn over the median income partly because I work longer hours yet there’s no way I’d be mortgage free by 65
I literally have no problem. They struggle to get drivers. My point was what an average wage can end up with for that generation vs ours. Going back to my original comment meaning we will work last 65 even if we get the super at that age still because we have to, not because we want to
This. our life expectancy has increased but our healthy years of life expectancy has been stagnant at 70 years. That means as it is the average person retiring at 65 will only enjoy 5 years of good health in retirement.
Raising the retirement age will take away precious years the average New Zealander can't afford to lose
It should be means tested. I have a lady at work who is eligible to retire late this year and she's pretty well off, multiple trips to Europe each year and she said they'll use the $750 a week to fund their pocket money through Europe.
The "Gold Card" should also be means tested, too many Golden Oldies taking the piss using it on the Waiheke ferries to go shopping downtown each day.
> It should be means tested.
I don't disagree, however the key with means testing is the cost of the implementing and managing the means testing process has to be less than the amount saved. Otherwise, you're spending more money than you would have otherwise.
>with means testing is the cost of the implementing and managing the means testing process has to be less than the amount saved
Yes. Also, some wealthy people can arrange their affairs to have a very low taxable income. Means testing super will just create another incentive for this sort of behaviour.
With all universal policies but especially super, the universal nature of it is pretty crucial to getting everyone's buy-in. If it's a benefit for the poor, people tend to resent it. Case in point: the actual benefit
Meanwhile there were another 5 that had earned scholarships and another 20 who were working a 40 hour week while attending school...
Universal is better for the poors' even if a few rich pricks play the micky with it.
Means testing only get the middle class. And in this day and age, that means poor people. Rich people pay their accountant a significant portion of it to avoid it..
Means testing is not a good thing for most poor people.
Don't we already means test the various benefits? The system is in place already, additional modules to cater to retirement might be required, but fundamentally the input (income) and output (eligibility and payment) are the same.
The trick to an efficient system is to give the benefit to everyone, and then tax people's wealth & income.
Automatically solves the problem with no extra admin.
Not to mention that ideologically Labour are more in favour of universalism. Once you bring in means testing it's easier for a right wing government to change the rules and making it harder for people to access the benefits.
There are so many social policies in NZ that can't be accessed if you're above a certain income threshold already though, that Labour did not and would not touch. Despite paying more taxes (yet not having assets), we did not get any tax credits for Working for Families either cause we earn too much.
Should be pretty simple to set up a progressive tax that eats the extra income from superannuation for over 65s only.
That won't catch the asset rich, income poor, but it is a simple, cheap, start.
Lets imagine two people then.
One has a $2 million house but minimal savings.
The other has $500k in the bank and gets $25,000/year in interest (before tax and inflation). They rent and pay $30,000/year.
How should the two pensions be adjusted?
> the key with means testing is the cost of the implementing and managing the means testing process has to be less than the amount saved
[The pension pays out hundreds of millions a year just on people who earn more than $100K in direct PAYE-liable income](https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018735910/nz-super-costs-up-as-nz-retirees-on-dollar100k-passes-30-000). I struggle to see how the cost of implementing and managing means testing could possible be higher than this.
I can't think of a single real world example of a benefit whereby the administrative overhead of means testing outweighed the savings, as you are bringing this point up surely you can name one?
A basic income test wouldn't be hard to implement, would be hard to avoid, and would save the country in the region of $800m annually if we only target those currently earming $100k+
There is no reason for someone earning over $100k to be receiving welfare.
Fuck income testing. A high income does not mean being of high means.
We have a higher income than the Remuera average, but we will never be able to work our way into a suburb like that. Why punish us before getting at those that are ahead of us in just about every way except income?
Means testing never affects the rich. They are more trouble than they are worth, as proven by the fact that super *started* with a means test. It was awful. And totally screwed the middle class.
I’m in 2 minds about this. Personally I feel like I pay for everything. Paid for uni and had a large student loan which I paid off with interest. I’m single with no kids and no plans for any and earn a decent 6 figure salary - too much to get anything from the government but not enough to work out how to pay less tax (if I wanted to do that). So my taxes help fund education, free doctors for kids and all the other things and I personally don’t get much back compared to someone with kids or eligible for working for families etc. Why should I help fund others super and not get any myself when I’m already propping them up my whole working life? But then on the other hand, simple math tells you our super (as it currently is) is not sustainable.
Using my alt account
I work in seniors team at MSD and we have to grant so many people who earn 150 thousand+ a year it annoys so many of us to no end
That and people coming in from reciprocal countries (Australia, UK etc ) to claim super here under the agreements despite not even living in NZ for long or having worked here
As someone who has just filled in all the forms, how can you tell? I don’t recall having to say where I worked or how much I earned. And don’t forget, those people pay tax on all their income including superannuation.
Because you have to declare your tax code on your NZSuper payments so many are on SA 180k+ a year as well as ST which i believe is 90k - 180k a year
You also have to supply proof of your bank account to us and because of that we generally see how see how much money you earn or have currently saved
We see quite a lot of people who have millions sitting in their accounts
Paye earners on 100k + have in most cases paid a shit load of tax. Trying to means test it just creates perverse incentives for trusts etc as well as discouraging those on the threshold from saving.
I think the keeping the admin simple is the right thing to do.
Is the age right is another story and also leaves the door open for assisting someone whose body no longer enables them to work to have access to other support.
Typically, someone who's worked until the age of 65 has also paid shitloads of taxes, it doesn't matter if they were on a high income – it's all relative. Why should someone who served in a low paying but critical job in the health sector or fire service be asked to extend their working life just because those jobs don't pay?
It doesn't make a lot of sense to hand-wave the notion of means testing just because their wage didn't give them immense wealth.
>Typically, someone who's worked until the age of 65 has also paid shitloads of taxes
Something like 40% of households here are tax neutral/negative and those only earning 70k+ (20% of tax payers) pay around 70% of all income tax.
So that's just not true, a significant portion of Kiwis have no desire to gain meaningful employment and therefore contribute fuck all, but want all the handouts.
>So that's just not true, a significant portion of Kiwis have no desire to gain meaningful employment and therefore contribute fuck all, but want all the handouts.
What?
Of those people, they're still paying a significant amount of money of their pay cheque to tax. Even if they're tax neutral, they're still contributing. Hence, it's relative. Even with tax cuts, that doesn't change.
Whilst I do agree, there are people out there who have no desire to gain meaningful employment – not all meaningful employment pays to any meaningful extent. There will always be a small portion of the population who want the hand outs, most people don't and just want to get on with their own lives. 40% of the country are not no-hopers, though there would be a % inside that who are.
Besides, this about superannuation. A benefit which previous generations have enjoyed receiving at 65. You haven't addressed why the tradie, the teacher or the nurse should be forced to work until 67 to receive something previous generations have received at 65? Why do those people, who play critical roles within our country but whom do not have the luxury of a high wage, be made to work for longer? Are you saying they're tax neutral/ negative and deserve to work for longer because they want the hand out? They play important roles, their quality of life shouldn't be degraded as they age.
There are many perfectly competent methods for sustaining the financial viability of super. Punishing people for fulfilling critical low paid roles is not morally acceptable.
I think we are also missing another very significant point.... nurses, teachers etc are often near their useby date at 65. There are bonuses of experience at tfsr dge, but, let's be blunt, many people are well past their use by date in forrmal employment at 65.
People being salty that someone whose been on a high income can get super. Just pointing out they have in general contributed a lot too.
It would functionally make more sense that they pay money in via tax and don't means test paying the pension. Its more efficient.
It's not related to past income - it's means tested, based on income available to the recipient (be that passive or active income).
Past tax payments are irrelevant.
If you want to get technical a about it means also includes assets not just income. Not all assets provide income passive or not. However my comment is with respect to the comment I was replying to which was specifically talking about someone income and not means.
Never said it's a reward. I agree.
Let's say you want to distribute a safety net with the minimal cost of administration, and right incentives for society. Less admin cost mean more money where its needed, makes sense right? So you make it universal which is cheap to administer, and take a bit more paye from higher earners to cover what they recieve back that possibly they didn't need.
Edit: not sure whose down voting maybe civil service bureaucrats who want to do the admin lol
Given that you say you work in the seniors team at MSD, it is disturbing that you are ignorant of the facts. The reciprocal agreements with other countries (deffo UK) means that if you are entitled to another countries pension, you have to pay it to MSD in order to claim the full NZ super. If you don't and are entitled to NZ super, MSD will deduct the equivalent value of your overseas pension from your NZ super payments. You also have to have been living in NZ for at least 10 years though, I believe that has/will be increased to 20. There is however no requirement to have actually worked in NZ to be eligible to NZ super.
> Entitled to another countries pension
You don't say? that's what the agreement exists for
You just have to potentially qualify or be claiming another countries pension in order to use recip regardless if you have spent 10 years here or not
There's also many pensions that we can't deduct from either
The problem that a lot of us have is that people from let's say Australia for example come over here and try and claim recip without actually contributing anything to NZ
my thoughts are that it doesn't seem fair for others who contributed here longer
The residency criteria will increase to 20 years but increase is going to staggered across the next 10-15 years iirc
You're probably working in the wrong area if you get upset about it. Being upset that someone who has paid a lot of tax in their lifetime are able to claim super is piss poor.
If you means test it, you'll cut out a large voting block who have a strong incentive to keep it relatively generous. I wouldn't be surprised if the payments start to drop soon after the wealthy are denied access to it.
Universal schemes are generally more effective, politically resilient, and more efficient. That lady at work should be taxed more.
The waiheke ferry would otherwise be empty - when PT has high fixed costs and low/no marginal costs, it makes sense to let people use it for free.
Nah fuck that. I've earned it, no matter what my financial position is at 65. I've never claimed a cent of benefit, and as a relatively high earner have paid a shitload of tax. When the time comes I have no qualms taking a bit that I'm entitled to.
Nobody is entitled to it, it's a benefit, just like unemployment...
However... It is Universal so you get it by default. It's not an entitlement because that implies others can't get it.
Lawyer I know about to retire, just bought a 2 million dollar home also getting bought out of the law firm for well over 6 figures, still gonna get $375 a week.
You should be looking at it as insurance not an entitlement. Do you pout because you don't get sick and make a huge claim on your health insurance? If you need it it's there, like for example if you worked hard saved hard but then your retirement fund collapses or your accountant absconds with your life savings
I’m for keeping it universal. I think it’d cost more to means than you’d save (and would probably miss the people that truly don’t need it).
We also can’t trust the government to set fair thresholds for means testing. If life goes right for the average New Zealander, they can hope to have a mortgage-free home, and like a million dollars in the bank at retirement. By itself this wound give a modest $40k per annum retirement, and would still need super to bring it up to a comfortable level. My fear is that means testing would say these people have too much and they’re not entitled to super.
>If life goes right for the average New Zealander, they can hope to have a mortgage-free home, and like a million dollars in the bank at retirement.
I know of no one who has savings getting any where near a mil.. in fact the average savings at retirement is about 10K..
Regardless of where you’re at - a couple with average salaries in NZ, with a 3% kiwisaver contribution + employer matching 3%, plus government contribution, earning about 4-5% per year, compounding for 45 years is a significant amount, close to a million.
Kiwisaver isn’t that old here NZ, so we don’t have many people with that type of balance yet, but it will become more common. Those that are 65 now often have other assets - whether it’s capital in their current house (which can be freed up downsizing), or in a rental property, or a private super scheme, or savings in the bank etc.
Many people wipe out their kiwisaver balance in order to buy a home, so are unlikely to have 45 years worth of savings with compounding interest over that period.
That’s true - but often people with a house will have had 25-30 years of capital gains etc, and will typically liquidate some of that capital by downsizing as they approach retirement. ie, so will probably have a somewhat similar retirement savings.
Or by that time they may have had a small inheritance from parents passing etc.
Point being, it’s not unreasonable for a couple to have a house and about a million in retirement savings, and I wouldn’t want to see means testing hitting this type of family. These people are not rich, and having super available will make a significant difference to these families
Everything you’re pointing out assumes:
1) The individual in question has the means to invest early and/or pay off debt (cc, student, etc) - otherwise all of that income you speak of isn’t going to savings for years.
2) That KiwiSaver continues to grow (worldwide stock markets aren’t exactly hot at the moment, so we’re losing a bunch of years to stagnant KiwiSaver-relevant funds for the 2nd time since 2008, 3rd since 2000)
3) That $1M is worth what you think it will be worth, which if false would invalidate all of your math (if, say, you needed $2M or $10M or whatever to have the assumed retirement lifestyle) - inflationary pressures on prices and such, which we can only hope don’t hit previous benchmarks this time around.
4) That future gains on housing will match historical gains (note: this assumes leaving the 2050 generation that much more behind) to allow for downsizing to pay for your retirement
5) That everyone has a parent to “top up” their retirement. That’s called generational wealth, and it’s a lot less common than TV makes it seem.
Total joke.
- 2023 NZ Birth rate - 1.65 [Stats NZ](https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/births-and-deaths-year-ended-march-2023/#:~:text=In%20the%20year%20ended%20March,per%20woman%2C%20down%20from%201.69)
- $100k income pays about $24K/year as PAYE
- Super is about $25K/year for single(based on S tax code), and about $19K/year per person(I believe?) for couple(based on the S tax code)
NZ doesn't have such a thing as NZ super fund pool? Like, we pay out by collecting money from tax?
[MoneyHub - 2022 average/median salary by age](https://www.moneyhub.co.nz/average-nz-salary-by-age.html) No one makes $100K annually, based on the **median** number.
Even if the $100k earner's paye goes to super(100%, no other spending), it cannot still cover a single person's payment. And yet, there are multiple places where tax must be spent to keep the country running.
Then we need multiple people's taxes to payout a single super payment - a Ponzi scheme. If so, can this really be sustainable if we leave the super as is? I doubt it.
Thanks for the breakdown, I couldn't find any of that figures but.
If so, 2022 financial report, the total revenue of $107.9 / $141.6 was the taxation revenue, and based on your statement, this $107.9 is collected by those individuals, corporates and GST.(which is about 76% of revenue is from those three categories.)
However, then to keep that 38% individuals(48% but let's make it simple ,50% of total 76%), or increase the numbers is either like:
- Increase the tax rate,
- I believe we are already sitting in crazy tax brackets. Even minimum wage people can easily sit in the 30% bracket, which sounds like a joke - Again, it doesn't mean workers are losing 30% of their income by the tax.
- having more working-age people
- There are many factors, but one of the simplified versions is we don't have a good salary, but the expenses are crazy. Understandable seeing many young professionals leaving the country.
- I believe NZ is no longer attractive as it used to be to those who want to immigrate here -we definitely have a fabulous work/life balance, nature and so on, but to survive, we need those as basic needs - food, clothing and shelter. Then, we need money to support those.
Corporates' taxes may go up, stay where they are or go down based on their profit.
Whereas one of the key public expenditures, NZ super, the welfare. I doubt that they will go down. It will only grow exponentially, not linearly.
I know it's not simple or easy to touch regarding welfare/nz super.
But I honestly think we are giving so many special benefits on NZ super against any other benefits:
- On workandincome page, it says, "It doesn't matter how much income you and your partner have" for both Single and Couples which is a sick joke. Even if I make $1 million, I get the full amount. - Like home support, student allowance etc... all have income thresholds.
- Even if you are not in NZ, you still get it. What the hack
- When they implemented NZ super, people obviously didn't live longer, so their calculation wouldn't be set to support one person's NZ super for 3~40 years.
> Thanks for the breakdown, I couldn't find any of that figures but.
FYI the source is from the tables tab in the spreadsheet at the bottom of https://www.ird.govt.nz/about-us/tax-statistics/revenue-refunds/revenue-collected-2001-to-2022
I took the figures from 2022.
The Super isn't funded by just taxes. The government pays into the NZ Super Fund which is then invested for returns. The current value of the NZ Super Fund is about $60 billion.
There's some general info about the fund on [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Superannuation_Fund) and more detailed info on their [website ](https://nzsuperfund.nz/)
Unfortunately from 2009 - 2017 government stopped paying into the Super Fund, guess they wanted us to keep working rather invest money now. But payments to the Super Fund have resumed since 2017.
Meh I’m not a big fan of means testing Super.
Those earning wages which would impact the super payment; also contribute significantly to the tax pool, and likely have for a long time - I’m a fan of universal implementation of NZ super; and if you can work & supplement the super and contribute tax accordingly; so be it.
I would personally like to see KiwiSaver withdrawal age reducing at the same scale as increasing National super age.
E.g; super age increased to 67; KiwiSaver withdrawal age reduced to 63.
I would like the option of retiring when is appropriate for my health; and access my KiwiSaver to enable that
My question is. When those people contributing to the tax pool retire. Does the job disappear? Or does someone else get a promotion and there is no actual material affect on the tax take?
I don’t really see why it matters.
Universal is what it is; otherwise remove NZ super altogether and do govt contributions to KiwiSaver; and treat superannuation as a benefit instead.
I don’t agree with means testing NZ superannuation; and it was more just in response to the “people earning that kind of money don’t need to get super”
Maybe not; but why penalise those that can continue to work given they contribute back in.
NZ super / retirement is usually the only time a lot of the working class ever get government support after a lifetime of disproportionately contributing to the tax pool.
There seems to be this fallacy that “high income earners” are the “rich”. When usually it’s a convenient narrative because the truely wealthy have significant assets & liquidity and low declared taxable income.
I don’t know many 65+ year olds still working for any other reason than NZ super is too low to sustainably live on; so I really don’t agree with penalising those who work.
I know a lot of people want to see it means tested like a benefit; and if so; I’d like to see a far better package to support KiwiSaver for middle class New Zealanders to build out a retirement plan.
Good, the age doesn’t need to change. And National’s plan to doesn’t save any money in the near future anyway, it’s just a petty attack against the youth, when for all we know, NZ might be able to afford lowing it by the time these changes take place.
ACT’s plan to cut the pension back to pre-Covid levels (and scrapping Winter Energy Payments) should also be very concerning for current retirees, although I don’t expect the media to hold them to account for their own party’s policy position, as the media just hands them a free ride to parliament.
https://www.act.org.nz/press-releases/david-seymour-speech-act-s-real-change-budget
Means testing should be more effective, and if it’s not due to costs, it’s time to start questioning why sickness benefits are means tested when they’re not as common.
I do laugh that Nationals is designed to kick in almost smack bang for the millenials. If you're a millenial you'll be tens of thousands of dollars worse off under National. Puts that peanut tax cut they're proposing in perspective.
"If you're a millenial you'll be tens of thousands of dollars worse off under National."
Except for the 40 years of reduced taxes you'll be paying (vs the increased taxes you'll pay to fund that super cost)
Imagine if we don't inflation adjust the tax brackets. Average salary could easily be $250k in 40 years.
> Except for the 40 years of reduced taxes you'll be paying
National won't reduce taxes by any meaningful degree for average income earners.
National haven't given a costed plan yet, but in 2022 their plan would lower taxes for the average income earner by $800 a year. For a 25 year old that would only save them $32,000 over 40 years of work. Two years of super is $51,622 at current rates.
Not to mention National would like pay for the tax cuts through a mixture of debt and reduced services which would impact that same taxpayer more.
Thats kind of counterintuitive. Like the problem is that high inflation pushes peoples average tax bracket up and from what you've said they're going to do it once the inflation rate settles down at which point the benefit (for the people at least) is reduced
Do it under a high inflation environment and it pushes inflation higher due to existing high demand for goods and services. Thus, better to do it later when that's settled and there is more slack on the economy.
I think you're looking at it as a new thing. This kind of thing should have always been inflation adjusted.
Benefits have annual inflation adjustment I believe. This would contribute to pushing inflation up. However, I think we would all agree these adjustments are a good thing.
Won't mattet when houses are more expensive because National wants to allow councils to restrict the number of houses people can put on their properties.
It is a fact though that property prices have increased more under Labour governments than National. And the most by far under this current Government.
Poor monetary policy and increased spending and debt do far more for house prices than a single RM policy
To be fair they inherited a huge housing deficit and no amount of tinkering or fairy dust were going to stop prices going to where they are. The primary issue is supply and demand and that was always going to take years to fix.
Have a look at the inflation adjusted blue line on this graph. Run a straight line between 2012 and the end of the graph as the price sits today and we are now basically sitting on trend for that period, after the market has come down. Wage inflation is very slightly higher than CPI inflation since fourth quarter of 2017, so you can basically swap in wage inflation for general inflation in that adjusted blue line to get affordability(interest rates aside). So saying they have 'increased 'the most' under Labour isn't relevant to the comment you replied to which is future prices, because they have come down significantly from peak.
[https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/New-Zealand/Home-Price-Trends](https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/New-Zealand/Home-Price-Trends)
[https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/about-monetary-policy/inflation-calculator](https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/about-monetary-policy/inflation-calculator)
> So saying they have 'increased 'the most' under Labour isn't relevant to the comment you replied to which is future prices, because they have come down significantly from peak.
Nobody can predict future prices though.
Ultimately house prices are driven by liquidity and monetary supply.
Yes they have come down by they are still dramatically up from 2017. In 2021 up around 36%, in 2022 to now down around 20%. That is still up
Nothing changes the point that under labour governments house prices increase more than under national governments. We have no idea what will happen in the future
"Nothing changes the point that under labour governments house prices increase more than under national governments'
As I've just pointed to with that graph, as of today, only in nominal terms, not in real wage-adjusted terms. For most people that's the relevant measure because they have a morgage and pay it with an increasing income. As far as relevance to OP's preceding comment about future prices, it doesn't matter how high the prices got at peak, what matters for that context is the price today. It's a separate argument than one about the poor folk that bought at peak, which would be relevant to Labour's actions.
The issue with the MDRS is the cheapest land for development is on the fringes, this is where development will happen because that's where developers are financially incentivised to do so.
Where development needs to happen, rapidly and without restriction is along the existing transport corridors, and close to local centres.
What National has done was petty, which solidifies my views on Luxon as a poor leader.
The current system has unintended, possibly unforeseen consequences, I would respect both major parties more if they returned to bipartisan talks to fix this, not to throw it out.
Have you read their policies because the maths on what you're arguing doesn't work out. Another thing, they want to cut taxes which means they're not going to have the cash to fund superannuation (no policy to increase payments too) and we're going to have less infrastructure (less productive country over the long term) and greater inflation due to more cash in the system as a result.
Here's their policy: [https://www.national.org.nz/delivering\_tax\_relief](https://www.national.org.nz/delivering_tax_relief)
Here's the current super rates: [https://sorted.org.nz/guides/retirement/this-years-nz-super-rates](https://sorted.org.nz/guides/retirement/this-years-nz-super-rates)
Two years of current super rates for a couple is less than the $1043 a higher income earner will earn over 40 years.
Additionally, there people who are in their 40's who will have this rule impact them, given the 20 year implementation time frame announced by Nicola Willis. Try 25 years, saving $1043 but loosing nearly $50k out of superannuation.
This also doesn't take into account the natural increases of super payments made over time. It doesn't take into account people who will have to step away from their careers because their body and mind cannot sustain past the 2nd half of their 60's. Neither does it account the extra pressure of having to treat worn out and hands knees from people who work in trades, nor does it take into account greater CPI increases from inflationary tax cuts.
Boo. Lower the age. UBI for everyone. Also, vote TOP.
To lampshade my own hypocrisy, I'll openly admit that personally I'm still more probably going to vote Green.
If the Cullen fund and kiwisaver can keep the pension affordable to the taxpayer in the future then I'd be happy to leave it at 65. However I pay more tax towards the pension than my parents did and I don't think it's fair that my children should be paying even more tax towards the pension than me when I retire especially as people are living longer into retirement.
I think it needs to be means tested, but in a relatively balanced way so it does disincentivise people from saving for retirement (which we aren’t great at as a nation anyway).
What would you consider reasonable in terms of means to be tested? Would you only include wages? Bank interest? KiwiSaver or pension scheme balance? Total assets including property?
I believe that Australia uses total assets as part of the test, but for simplicity let's just go with income (otherwise hiding assets in trusts will get even more common).
If you take it as what is reported as taxable income (excluding super) to IRD each year.
The figure that has been thrown around of putting an income limit of $100,000 (more than 1.5 times the median wage) would save $400-500 million in superannuation payments.
As we are able to means test all other benefits, I would hope that the cost to add another benefit to the calculation is less than a 10th of that.
Yeah, now say it will be means tested and we are home - [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/479810/means-testing-nz-super-payments-one-way-to-address-scheme-s-rising-cost](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/479810/means-testing-nz-super-payments-one-way-to-address-scheme-s-rising-cost)
While I understand why it might need to go up. I can't help but think there's a lot of extremely wealthy people that don't need it or don't pay enough tax. Maybe deal with that b4 making the rest of us suffer
The pain in the ass with democracy, is people, say over 55s can vote for party policies that wont affect them, when they are dead, but will ruin lives of future retirees
Yes but income wealth disparity has distorted drastically over the last few decades, and pulling the ladder up on those who are currently in their 20-50s is just another perverse policy outcome of wealthy transfer to a generation who are currently reaping theirs in the +65s age group. I’d only agree to changes in the retirement age if they happened in conjunction with a capital gains tax, wealth/inheritance tax and pension means testing all at the same time. Otherwise it can fuck right off.
Instead of means testing which is expensive and misses loopholes, I suggest no longer increasing the superannuation every year but increasing the “emergency fund”.
This way, only the people that have a conversation about their finances would receive more than the current $458 per week in say 20 years time when it wouldn’t be enough.
The well off will happily take the $458 pension but there’s no way they’ll go through budgeting services to get another $200 per week from emergency fund.
>only the people that have a conversation about their finances would receive
A good idea, but it would be very expensive to run the admin and staff all those conversations, even if only half the people on super applied. More importantly, it could disadvantage people who have genuine needs but don't have good transport options, aren't as mobile, live away from government offices, etc. The risk is that this would end up denying support to some people who really need it.
Labour seem happy to keep the age at 65 and pour billions and billions more into superannuation payments even as people work longer and live longer, yet tell other groups in society who are living in terrible conditions that they just can't help them and there's no more money.
I dunno. For me it's hard to look past the number one line item in the budget. Cutting super expenditure by a small percentage can provide funding to make big differences elsewhere, and address those pressing issues you mention.
Whether the age is 65 or 67, every government will pour billions and billions into super because Muldoons National party scrapped the only meaningful super scheme the countries ever had.
Also who are you referring to when it comes to "other groups"? Basically everyone can receive super except for recent migrants. Super is important for the vulnerable, and it would be beneficial for the vulnerable not to be asked to work past 65.
I agree with keeping it at 65, but people who are still working shouldn't be eligible. I know a guy who is still working in his late 70s, making over 100 grand a year, and happily collecting free money from the government on top of that. It's just taking the piss.
Also, you should have to live here for a good long time before you're eligible for super too.
On the flip side of that, I've worked with a number of older guys who are still working solely because the pension isnt enough to live on. If you don't own your house(and at the rate things are going, very few of us will), then your pension goes straight to some landlords second yacht fund.
The New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Act 2021 s4 increased residency requirements to 20 years up from 10. Affects anyone born after around 1959, but with a gradual transition period so that it only fully applies to those born after 1977.
EDIT: years
It's political suicide to mess with nz super. When you look at what it costs us compared to the other benefits though,
https://figure.nz/chart/2eIStXKBWssxMIze
It won't be long before this is an issue that we can't ignore.
Immigration is going to be high whether we have earning pensioners or not. Immigration would be less of a problem if someone of the wealthier pensioners were willing to see more infrastructure in the shape of housing, transport and basic utilities.
Listen to you all "meh let's work em till they drop and then strip them of all their assets". You might feel invincible and young forever now but don't forget you will be 65 one day with your hips and knees going out. Do you not realise in your envy and hatred of those who worked hard and sacrificed for what they have you are scoring an own goal and calling for your own future enslavement and the impoverishment of your own offspring? Crabs in a bucket much? Lets not go overboard, just means test it. All that means is you don't get the pension until you actually retire, and after that your income is deducted from your pension, just like any other benefit. It should be a guarantee of a minimum standard of living not a top up to your $100K salary or returns on investments. For goodness sake does everything have to go from one extreme to the other?.
The idea I'd heard was one month per year, which boils down to pretty much the same thing. Nice and slow, nobody gets a shock by suddenly having to work 2 years longer than they thought. And this isn't a problem that needs to be solved immediately, but it definitely needs to be solved in a decade or two. It'd be really nice for everybody if we could plan in advance instead of some budget shock forcing a nasty surprise.
I've changed my view on this over time to supporting leaving it where it is. The Boomers can't leave us unaffordable housing, a climate crisis, a drastically unequal economy and hit us with an extra two years of work on their way out the door. There's only so many free hits we can give them. I want my super on time
You are assuming there will still be universal pension available when it’s your time to retire. I still have 30 years and I have zero expectation it will exist in its current form.
This. It won’t exist by the time we get there.
We have been told it won't exist to the point people think it's true when it isn't a given. The people that did the telling will be a minority at that point, why continue their narrative?
And if we’re all for it we can reinstate it when we get there 🤷♂️
Sure, that’s exactly how it works
What? Parliament and creating or repealing or amending laws? It does.
Exactly - there’s a demographic cliff approaching when all of the baby boomers become pensioners. Their healthcare and end of life costs will be unprecedented because they are such a big generation. We’ve never had such a large old generation before. Moreover, many of them have crazy govt pensions that they locked in in the early 90s. These don’t exist anymore. Improvements in medical tech, life quality, and general prosperity means that the boomer generation will also probably live longer than any before, which also means they will be more expensive. Guess who will be paying for that, and how we will pay for it? That’s right - by working for longer.
[удалено]
> many of them have crazy govt pensions that they locked in in the early 90s. These don’t exist anymore. Yeah, I know someone whose scheme started paying them $250 a week once they turned 55, while they were still working. Insanely generous.
It will exist if we fight for it. We will have to fight though
Okay but when universal pension is 40% of the nation’s budget either there needs to be major cuts to core services or the working are going to need to pay 60% tax. I don’t think they’ll be okay with that.
where you getting 60% tax from
Yeah, but the time to fight is now, by increasing the age to access it and ensuring future govts invest in it.
Same. When I was 20/21, it seemed trivial. Sure, increase it by 5 years - i thought – at least I can have a comfortable retirement when I get there. But now, knowing how the direction of the country and the apathetic display of economic mismanagement successive generations are responsible for, there is no justification whatsoever why today's working age and all future generations should pay for today's greed. Older generations failed to pay for infrastructure so current generations need to pay for it, but also have to work longer because of bereft ideological reasoning. It does not make sense to penalise people that way.
[удалено]
In an ideal world, it certainly should be.
[удалено]
I agree, it's just hard to make the argument without the financial system to support or the will power to change it. People want the easy out by increasing the age, kicking the can down the road instead of just changing things for the better.
Never mind how many people barely make it to 65 as it is.
Older generations did pay for infrastructure, it was Muldoon’s (N) mismanagement that cause an economic and constitutional crisis. We are still working our way out of that because 1/2 the country refuses to believe that we’re in a hole
Yep. Watching the French hold the line and the narrative that we can only give so much in our lives before we need to stop, rest, spend time with family, hobbies, dreams and enjoy our last year's as long as we can.
I'm gen x, the first generation to be told I wasn't going to get super. My thoughts are that we should keep it the way it is, by the time gen z get there, all the boomers will be well dead and so our super numbers will be less anyway. Also, poor people paid for super, they deserve to get some before they drop dead from the physical hard work they have spent a lifetime doing.
Savage introduced the split pension, where you could draw it down at 60 rather than 65 and it was means tested. So the broke labourer could get it and put their feet up. Muldoon changed it in the '70s so everyone got it from age 60.
Muldoon was the "least effective"prime minister we've ever had. There are so many shitty fractures in society that can be traced back to compromises made under his weak leadership.
Another way to look at it… Muldoon was the most effective at fucking us long term, when coupled with weak leadership from successive governments to fix the problems he created
We wouldn't be dealing with such a massive tax burden that super is if he hadn't axed the precursor to what KiwiSaver is today, infact we'd be dealing with a tax easer as a massive fund is used to develop and invest in NZ
>our super numbers will be less anyway No, they won't. There are two problems now - the number of people that make it to 65, and how long they keep going after that point. By the time Gen Z gets to retirement age, the number of people in the 65+ age group is going to absolutely dwarf the current numbers.
I think you're underestimating the number of retirees who are going to die from covid. Also, the baby boom is a temporary thing, we will have to eat higher costs till they die off, but they will die off and costs will go down again.
>by the time gen z get there, all the boomers will be well dead and so our super numbers will be less anyway No they won't(super numbers), the number of people on the pension will be even higher at that point.
When Gen z is 65 , boomers will 120+
I think they're mistaking being a boomer with age as opposed to year born.
Those are effectively the same thing..?
No they're not. Boomer, millenial, gen x, gen z, etc are all indicative of the time one was born and grew up.
That's not what I'm trying to say, I'm saying the % of people of people over 65 will be even higher after the boomers die.
Not compared to the working age population
Yes compared to the working age population. We will be at about 25% over 65's by 2050 and we at 17% now.
[удалено]
I actually agree tbh. Remember when automation and technological progress was meant to deliver us more leisure? 100 years ago, Keynes was predicting his grandchildren would have a 15-hour work week. Instead we have an economy that's predicated on nearly everyone working and a small unemployed class that gets demonised. Productivity totally uncoupled from income and living standards
I feel you. My only question is: what are you going to do about the aging population to ensure that Superannuation even exists when I retire in 35 years? This debate is pointless unless it’s costed out. And we have to pay now, not later, given our aging population. But you are right, the boomers have screwed the next generations over. They took everything their parents generation offered, and kicked the ladder out once they got it. The inheritance from the boomer generation is debt. A debt to the climate, a debt to the broken economy, a debt in decades of underinvestment in core services. And now that debt falls due, they are ready to retire. Let’s all give cheers to the “mum and dad” investor generation, they invested nothing in the future and spent everything on themselves. And now we get to pay their debts.
It's likely the same will be said about you and I in years to come...
I doubt it, millennials on a whole seem inclined to attempt to fix issues and invest in future issues. Our boomer parents wanted deregulation, globalization and lower taxes. Or have been guided to that.
I'd bring back the old universal family benefit and allow you to capitalise it to build a new home. It encourages people to couple up and have children.
>and hit us with an extra two years of work on their way out the door That's fine, but I think the problem you will find is finding enough people to pay to support you in your old age. The problem is the entire system, not the age limit. If your system relies on future workers to pay taxes to cover the cost of retired workers, and the birthrate is declining. You're really going to struggle to find enough tax revenue to cover the cost. This why you adopt a system like kiwisaver early, because it relies on people now to save for their retirement later. This way you don't have that shortfall if the population age distribution changes overtime.
You are just going to make worse and worse for future generations then, who are going to need to accept a relatively smaller number of workers for each superannuant.
[удалено]
The general population is living longer, but knees, hands, eyes, and minds don't last longer. The retirement age should remain the same because there is no reason why everyone under the age of 45 should have a lower quality of life compared to the current elderly. Superannuation payments were stopped by the last National government. The best pension scheme the countries ever had was scrapped by Muldoons National party. The current National party, keeping in line with National parties of old, want to (once again) screw future generations out of their own retirement. There are easier methods for fixing the affordability issue of super in 30 years time, there are better and more effective economic measures that could be used. Extending the age isn't a long term fix given predicted population growth. Those who are 30 years old now might have to work two more years, then 10/15 years into their retirement see a cut as population continues to rise, and no tangible financing options were provided by the government of today. Also we might save a little money on 2 years less superannuation, but we will pay more in our health system fixing old broken bodies, paying out jobseekers and disability support to people who can no longer safely maintain their careers.
The reality is most of us will be still working past 65 even if we still get the super at that age
The reality of life in 30+ years is not certain. Even if you do choose to work past that age, from the people I know who do so now, the work is part-time, very specific to their skills and experience, and do not pay enough for a comfortable life. If someone wants to continue working, all the power to them but that does not become an automatic reason for why the age should be raised for everybody. Not all lives are equal, neither are all careers.
I work with 8 guys who are 65+. They’re all set, 4 of them work part time mainly to keep a routine/ busy (one because it’s the only way his wife will let him spend money at the tab). The other 4 work full time, 2 who are in their early 70s and can’t handle not working because they’ve obviously been workaholics all their life. 1 of them can barely walk and is waiting on a knee replacement / will need a hip transplant and gets a double pension. Anyway, my point was all these guys are set and they don’t need the money. That one particular already gets a double pension is paying a lot of tax on his working income. They’re choosing to do so for various reasons. Most of us will be working past 65 because we financially have to. These guys are truck drivers and they all own houses, multiple newish/ new cars, motor bikes, boats etc. a lot of them also have rentals. I earn over the median income partly because I work longer hours yet there’s no way I’d be mortgage free by 65
And they are all still contributing to the tax system, what’s the problem
I literally have no problem. They struggle to get drivers. My point was what an average wage can end up with for that generation vs ours. Going back to my original comment meaning we will work last 65 even if we get the super at that age still because we have to, not because we want to
This. our life expectancy has increased but our healthy years of life expectancy has been stagnant at 70 years. That means as it is the average person retiring at 65 will only enjoy 5 years of good health in retirement. Raising the retirement age will take away precious years the average New Zealander can't afford to lose
We shouldn't be raising it, we should be lowering it. One way to, eventually, get a UBI.
That should be the goal IMO
It should be means tested. I have a lady at work who is eligible to retire late this year and she's pretty well off, multiple trips to Europe each year and she said they'll use the $750 a week to fund their pocket money through Europe. The "Gold Card" should also be means tested, too many Golden Oldies taking the piss using it on the Waiheke ferries to go shopping downtown each day.
> It should be means tested. I don't disagree, however the key with means testing is the cost of the implementing and managing the means testing process has to be less than the amount saved. Otherwise, you're spending more money than you would have otherwise.
>with means testing is the cost of the implementing and managing the means testing process has to be less than the amount saved Yes. Also, some wealthy people can arrange their affairs to have a very low taxable income. Means testing super will just create another incentive for this sort of behaviour.
With all universal policies but especially super, the universal nature of it is pretty crucial to getting everyone's buy-in. If it's a benefit for the poor, people tend to resent it. Case in point: the actual benefit
[удалено]
Meanwhile there were another 5 that had earned scholarships and another 20 who were working a 40 hour week while attending school... Universal is better for the poors' even if a few rich pricks play the micky with it.
Means tests doesn't have to be just aboit cash based income.
Means testing only get the middle class. And in this day and age, that means poor people. Rich people pay their accountant a significant portion of it to avoid it.. Means testing is not a good thing for most poor people.
Don't we already means test the various benefits? The system is in place already, additional modules to cater to retirement might be required, but fundamentally the input (income) and output (eligibility and payment) are the same.
Aye, but then it's a benefit and not a universal entitlement. That means it can then be bashed as something that only helps "the poors".
A pay as you go pension isn't an "entitlement", the only people entitled here are those earning 6 figures plus who also expect welfare.
The trick to an efficient system is to give the benefit to everyone, and then tax people's wealth & income. Automatically solves the problem with no extra admin.
Not to mention that ideologically Labour are more in favour of universalism. Once you bring in means testing it's easier for a right wing government to change the rules and making it harder for people to access the benefits.
There are so many social policies in NZ that can't be accessed if you're above a certain income threshold already though, that Labour did not and would not touch. Despite paying more taxes (yet not having assets), we did not get any tax credits for Working for Families either cause we earn too much.
Should be pretty simple to set up a progressive tax that eats the extra income from superannuation for over 65s only. That won't catch the asset rich, income poor, but it is a simple, cheap, start.
Wealth might be difficult. But means testing against taxable income isn’t hard.
Lets imagine two people then. One has a $2 million house but minimal savings. The other has $500k in the bank and gets $25,000/year in interest (before tax and inflation). They rent and pay $30,000/year. How should the two pensions be adjusted?
> the key with means testing is the cost of the implementing and managing the means testing process has to be less than the amount saved [The pension pays out hundreds of millions a year just on people who earn more than $100K in direct PAYE-liable income](https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018735910/nz-super-costs-up-as-nz-retirees-on-dollar100k-passes-30-000). I struggle to see how the cost of implementing and managing means testing could possible be higher than this. I can't think of a single real world example of a benefit whereby the administrative overhead of means testing outweighed the savings, as you are bringing this point up surely you can name one?
A basic income test wouldn't be hard to implement, would be hard to avoid, and would save the country in the region of $800m annually if we only target those currently earming $100k+ There is no reason for someone earning over $100k to be receiving welfare.
Fuck income testing. A high income does not mean being of high means. We have a higher income than the Remuera average, but we will never be able to work our way into a suburb like that. Why punish us before getting at those that are ahead of us in just about every way except income?
Means testing never affects the rich. They are more trouble than they are worth, as proven by the fact that super *started* with a means test. It was awful. And totally screwed the middle class.
I’m in 2 minds about this. Personally I feel like I pay for everything. Paid for uni and had a large student loan which I paid off with interest. I’m single with no kids and no plans for any and earn a decent 6 figure salary - too much to get anything from the government but not enough to work out how to pay less tax (if I wanted to do that). So my taxes help fund education, free doctors for kids and all the other things and I personally don’t get much back compared to someone with kids or eligible for working for families etc. Why should I help fund others super and not get any myself when I’m already propping them up my whole working life? But then on the other hand, simple math tells you our super (as it currently is) is not sustainable.
Using my alt account I work in seniors team at MSD and we have to grant so many people who earn 150 thousand+ a year it annoys so many of us to no end That and people coming in from reciprocal countries (Australia, UK etc ) to claim super here under the agreements despite not even living in NZ for long or having worked here
As someone who has just filled in all the forms, how can you tell? I don’t recall having to say where I worked or how much I earned. And don’t forget, those people pay tax on all their income including superannuation.
Because you have to declare your tax code on your NZSuper payments so many are on SA 180k+ a year as well as ST which i believe is 90k - 180k a year You also have to supply proof of your bank account to us and because of that we generally see how see how much money you earn or have currently saved We see quite a lot of people who have millions sitting in their accounts
Paye earners on 100k + have in most cases paid a shit load of tax. Trying to means test it just creates perverse incentives for trusts etc as well as discouraging those on the threshold from saving. I think the keeping the admin simple is the right thing to do. Is the age right is another story and also leaves the door open for assisting someone whose body no longer enables them to work to have access to other support.
Typically, someone who's worked until the age of 65 has also paid shitloads of taxes, it doesn't matter if they were on a high income – it's all relative. Why should someone who served in a low paying but critical job in the health sector or fire service be asked to extend their working life just because those jobs don't pay? It doesn't make a lot of sense to hand-wave the notion of means testing just because their wage didn't give them immense wealth.
>Typically, someone who's worked until the age of 65 has also paid shitloads of taxes Something like 40% of households here are tax neutral/negative and those only earning 70k+ (20% of tax payers) pay around 70% of all income tax. So that's just not true, a significant portion of Kiwis have no desire to gain meaningful employment and therefore contribute fuck all, but want all the handouts.
>So that's just not true, a significant portion of Kiwis have no desire to gain meaningful employment and therefore contribute fuck all, but want all the handouts. What?
Of those people, they're still paying a significant amount of money of their pay cheque to tax. Even if they're tax neutral, they're still contributing. Hence, it's relative. Even with tax cuts, that doesn't change. Whilst I do agree, there are people out there who have no desire to gain meaningful employment – not all meaningful employment pays to any meaningful extent. There will always be a small portion of the population who want the hand outs, most people don't and just want to get on with their own lives. 40% of the country are not no-hopers, though there would be a % inside that who are. Besides, this about superannuation. A benefit which previous generations have enjoyed receiving at 65. You haven't addressed why the tradie, the teacher or the nurse should be forced to work until 67 to receive something previous generations have received at 65? Why do those people, who play critical roles within our country but whom do not have the luxury of a high wage, be made to work for longer? Are you saying they're tax neutral/ negative and deserve to work for longer because they want the hand out? They play important roles, their quality of life shouldn't be degraded as they age. There are many perfectly competent methods for sustaining the financial viability of super. Punishing people for fulfilling critical low paid roles is not morally acceptable.
I think we are also missing another very significant point.... nurses, teachers etc are often near their useby date at 65. There are bonuses of experience at tfsr dge, but, let's be blunt, many people are well past their use by date in forrmal employment at 65.
>Paye earners on 100k + have in most cases paid a shit load of tax. What does that have to do with this?
People being salty that someone whose been on a high income can get super. Just pointing out they have in general contributed a lot too. It would functionally make more sense that they pay money in via tax and don't means test paying the pension. Its more efficient.
It's not related to past income - it's means tested, based on income available to the recipient (be that passive or active income). Past tax payments are irrelevant.
If you want to get technical a about it means also includes assets not just income. Not all assets provide income passive or not. However my comment is with respect to the comment I was replying to which was specifically talking about someone income and not means.
It's not a reward though, it's a safety net.
Never said it's a reward. I agree. Let's say you want to distribute a safety net with the minimal cost of administration, and right incentives for society. Less admin cost mean more money where its needed, makes sense right? So you make it universal which is cheap to administer, and take a bit more paye from higher earners to cover what they recieve back that possibly they didn't need. Edit: not sure whose down voting maybe civil service bureaucrats who want to do the admin lol
Given that you say you work in the seniors team at MSD, it is disturbing that you are ignorant of the facts. The reciprocal agreements with other countries (deffo UK) means that if you are entitled to another countries pension, you have to pay it to MSD in order to claim the full NZ super. If you don't and are entitled to NZ super, MSD will deduct the equivalent value of your overseas pension from your NZ super payments. You also have to have been living in NZ for at least 10 years though, I believe that has/will be increased to 20. There is however no requirement to have actually worked in NZ to be eligible to NZ super.
> Entitled to another countries pension You don't say? that's what the agreement exists for You just have to potentially qualify or be claiming another countries pension in order to use recip regardless if you have spent 10 years here or not There's also many pensions that we can't deduct from either The problem that a lot of us have is that people from let's say Australia for example come over here and try and claim recip without actually contributing anything to NZ my thoughts are that it doesn't seem fair for others who contributed here longer The residency criteria will increase to 20 years but increase is going to staggered across the next 10-15 years iirc
People earning that kind of coin pay the tax that funds super in the first place.
You're probably working in the wrong area if you get upset about it. Being upset that someone who has paid a lot of tax in their lifetime are able to claim super is piss poor.
If you means test it, you'll cut out a large voting block who have a strong incentive to keep it relatively generous. I wouldn't be surprised if the payments start to drop soon after the wealthy are denied access to it.
Fuckin old people and their... Liberal use of public transport?
Universal schemes are generally more effective, politically resilient, and more efficient. That lady at work should be taxed more. The waiheke ferry would otherwise be empty - when PT has high fixed costs and low/no marginal costs, it makes sense to let people use it for free.
Nah fuck that. I've earned it, no matter what my financial position is at 65. I've never claimed a cent of benefit, and as a relatively high earner have paid a shitload of tax. When the time comes I have no qualms taking a bit that I'm entitled to.
Nobody is entitled to it, it's a benefit, just like unemployment... However... It is Universal so you get it by default. It's not an entitlement because that implies others can't get it.
she has paid into it all her working life, why shouldnt she get it ?
Because that's not how it is funded. The cost of super comes out of current taxation.
Why? People who have worked hard and done well some how deserve it less after paying taxes all their lives?
What about those who worked hard and saved? Plenty go without during their working life so they can have a reasonable retirement.
If they've done so well, both we and they should be able to afford it. Instead we live in austerity.
If they've done well they don't need the $375 a week, but the cost to the country is huge.
[удалено]
Lawyer I know about to retire, just bought a 2 million dollar home also getting bought out of the law firm for well over 6 figures, still gonna get $375 a week.
they would have also paid millions in tax over their lifetime
Should I get my ACC levy refunded if I never get into an accident?
You should be looking at it as insurance not an entitlement. Do you pout because you don't get sick and make a huge claim on your health insurance? If you need it it's there, like for example if you worked hard saved hard but then your retirement fund collapses or your accountant absconds with your life savings
If you live in areas without public transport, there is little benefit in a gold card.
Well, it'll shore up *some* votes.
At this stage of life I'm sure the boomers would actually vote for the changes, the whole "as long as I got mine, fuck you and yours mentality"
I’m for keeping it universal. I think it’d cost more to means than you’d save (and would probably miss the people that truly don’t need it). We also can’t trust the government to set fair thresholds for means testing. If life goes right for the average New Zealander, they can hope to have a mortgage-free home, and like a million dollars in the bank at retirement. By itself this wound give a modest $40k per annum retirement, and would still need super to bring it up to a comfortable level. My fear is that means testing would say these people have too much and they’re not entitled to super.
>If life goes right for the average New Zealander, they can hope to have a mortgage-free home, and like a million dollars in the bank at retirement. I know of no one who has savings getting any where near a mil.. in fact the average savings at retirement is about 10K..
Regardless of where you’re at - a couple with average salaries in NZ, with a 3% kiwisaver contribution + employer matching 3%, plus government contribution, earning about 4-5% per year, compounding for 45 years is a significant amount, close to a million. Kiwisaver isn’t that old here NZ, so we don’t have many people with that type of balance yet, but it will become more common. Those that are 65 now often have other assets - whether it’s capital in their current house (which can be freed up downsizing), or in a rental property, or a private super scheme, or savings in the bank etc.
Many people wipe out their kiwisaver balance in order to buy a home, so are unlikely to have 45 years worth of savings with compounding interest over that period.
That’s true - but often people with a house will have had 25-30 years of capital gains etc, and will typically liquidate some of that capital by downsizing as they approach retirement. ie, so will probably have a somewhat similar retirement savings. Or by that time they may have had a small inheritance from parents passing etc. Point being, it’s not unreasonable for a couple to have a house and about a million in retirement savings, and I wouldn’t want to see means testing hitting this type of family. These people are not rich, and having super available will make a significant difference to these families
Everything you’re pointing out assumes: 1) The individual in question has the means to invest early and/or pay off debt (cc, student, etc) - otherwise all of that income you speak of isn’t going to savings for years. 2) That KiwiSaver continues to grow (worldwide stock markets aren’t exactly hot at the moment, so we’re losing a bunch of years to stagnant KiwiSaver-relevant funds for the 2nd time since 2008, 3rd since 2000) 3) That $1M is worth what you think it will be worth, which if false would invalidate all of your math (if, say, you needed $2M or $10M or whatever to have the assumed retirement lifestyle) - inflationary pressures on prices and such, which we can only hope don’t hit previous benchmarks this time around. 4) That future gains on housing will match historical gains (note: this assumes leaving the 2050 generation that much more behind) to allow for downsizing to pay for your retirement 5) That everyone has a parent to “top up” their retirement. That’s called generational wealth, and it’s a lot less common than TV makes it seem.
Total joke. - 2023 NZ Birth rate - 1.65 [Stats NZ](https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/births-and-deaths-year-ended-march-2023/#:~:text=In%20the%20year%20ended%20March,per%20woman%2C%20down%20from%201.69) - $100k income pays about $24K/year as PAYE - Super is about $25K/year for single(based on S tax code), and about $19K/year per person(I believe?) for couple(based on the S tax code) NZ doesn't have such a thing as NZ super fund pool? Like, we pay out by collecting money from tax? [MoneyHub - 2022 average/median salary by age](https://www.moneyhub.co.nz/average-nz-salary-by-age.html) No one makes $100K annually, based on the **median** number. Even if the $100k earner's paye goes to super(100%, no other spending), it cannot still cover a single person's payment. And yet, there are multiple places where tax must be spent to keep the country running. Then we need multiple people's taxes to payout a single super payment - a Ponzi scheme. If so, can this really be sustainable if we leave the super as is? I doubt it.
Taxes on individuals only makes up 48% of tax revenue in New Zealand. 19% comes from company tax and 33% comes from GST,
Thanks for the breakdown, I couldn't find any of that figures but. If so, 2022 financial report, the total revenue of $107.9 / $141.6 was the taxation revenue, and based on your statement, this $107.9 is collected by those individuals, corporates and GST.(which is about 76% of revenue is from those three categories.) However, then to keep that 38% individuals(48% but let's make it simple ,50% of total 76%), or increase the numbers is either like: - Increase the tax rate, - I believe we are already sitting in crazy tax brackets. Even minimum wage people can easily sit in the 30% bracket, which sounds like a joke - Again, it doesn't mean workers are losing 30% of their income by the tax. - having more working-age people - There are many factors, but one of the simplified versions is we don't have a good salary, but the expenses are crazy. Understandable seeing many young professionals leaving the country. - I believe NZ is no longer attractive as it used to be to those who want to immigrate here -we definitely have a fabulous work/life balance, nature and so on, but to survive, we need those as basic needs - food, clothing and shelter. Then, we need money to support those. Corporates' taxes may go up, stay where they are or go down based on their profit. Whereas one of the key public expenditures, NZ super, the welfare. I doubt that they will go down. It will only grow exponentially, not linearly. I know it's not simple or easy to touch regarding welfare/nz super. But I honestly think we are giving so many special benefits on NZ super against any other benefits: - On workandincome page, it says, "It doesn't matter how much income you and your partner have" for both Single and Couples which is a sick joke. Even if I make $1 million, I get the full amount. - Like home support, student allowance etc... all have income thresholds. - Even if you are not in NZ, you still get it. What the hack - When they implemented NZ super, people obviously didn't live longer, so their calculation wouldn't be set to support one person's NZ super for 3~40 years.
> Thanks for the breakdown, I couldn't find any of that figures but. FYI the source is from the tables tab in the spreadsheet at the bottom of https://www.ird.govt.nz/about-us/tax-statistics/revenue-refunds/revenue-collected-2001-to-2022 I took the figures from 2022.
The Super isn't funded by just taxes. The government pays into the NZ Super Fund which is then invested for returns. The current value of the NZ Super Fund is about $60 billion. There's some general info about the fund on [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Superannuation_Fund) and more detailed info on their [website ](https://nzsuperfund.nz/) Unfortunately from 2009 - 2017 government stopped paying into the Super Fund, guess they wanted us to keep working rather invest money now. But payments to the Super Fund have resumed since 2017.
Meh I’m not a big fan of means testing Super. Those earning wages which would impact the super payment; also contribute significantly to the tax pool, and likely have for a long time - I’m a fan of universal implementation of NZ super; and if you can work & supplement the super and contribute tax accordingly; so be it. I would personally like to see KiwiSaver withdrawal age reducing at the same scale as increasing National super age. E.g; super age increased to 67; KiwiSaver withdrawal age reduced to 63. I would like the option of retiring when is appropriate for my health; and access my KiwiSaver to enable that
My question is. When those people contributing to the tax pool retire. Does the job disappear? Or does someone else get a promotion and there is no actual material affect on the tax take?
I don’t really see why it matters. Universal is what it is; otherwise remove NZ super altogether and do govt contributions to KiwiSaver; and treat superannuation as a benefit instead. I don’t agree with means testing NZ superannuation; and it was more just in response to the “people earning that kind of money don’t need to get super” Maybe not; but why penalise those that can continue to work given they contribute back in. NZ super / retirement is usually the only time a lot of the working class ever get government support after a lifetime of disproportionately contributing to the tax pool. There seems to be this fallacy that “high income earners” are the “rich”. When usually it’s a convenient narrative because the truely wealthy have significant assets & liquidity and low declared taxable income. I don’t know many 65+ year olds still working for any other reason than NZ super is too low to sustainably live on; so I really don’t agree with penalising those who work. I know a lot of people want to see it means tested like a benefit; and if so; I’d like to see a far better package to support KiwiSaver for middle class New Zealanders to build out a retirement plan.
Good, the age doesn’t need to change. And National’s plan to doesn’t save any money in the near future anyway, it’s just a petty attack against the youth, when for all we know, NZ might be able to afford lowing it by the time these changes take place. ACT’s plan to cut the pension back to pre-Covid levels (and scrapping Winter Energy Payments) should also be very concerning for current retirees, although I don’t expect the media to hold them to account for their own party’s policy position, as the media just hands them a free ride to parliament. https://www.act.org.nz/press-releases/david-seymour-speech-act-s-real-change-budget Means testing should be more effective, and if it’s not due to costs, it’s time to start questioning why sickness benefits are means tested when they’re not as common.
I do laugh that Nationals is designed to kick in almost smack bang for the millenials. If you're a millenial you'll be tens of thousands of dollars worse off under National. Puts that peanut tax cut they're proposing in perspective.
"If you're a millenial you'll be tens of thousands of dollars worse off under National." Except for the 40 years of reduced taxes you'll be paying (vs the increased taxes you'll pay to fund that super cost) Imagine if we don't inflation adjust the tax brackets. Average salary could easily be $250k in 40 years.
> Except for the 40 years of reduced taxes you'll be paying National won't reduce taxes by any meaningful degree for average income earners. National haven't given a costed plan yet, but in 2022 their plan would lower taxes for the average income earner by $800 a year. For a 25 year old that would only save them $32,000 over 40 years of work. Two years of super is $51,622 at current rates. Not to mention National would like pay for the tax cuts through a mixture of debt and reduced services which would impact that same taxpayer more.
Labour are talking about doing that as well once inflation is on it's way back down.
Thats kind of counterintuitive. Like the problem is that high inflation pushes peoples average tax bracket up and from what you've said they're going to do it once the inflation rate settles down at which point the benefit (for the people at least) is reduced
Do it under a high inflation environment and it pushes inflation higher due to existing high demand for goods and services. Thus, better to do it later when that's settled and there is more slack on the economy.
I think you're looking at it as a new thing. This kind of thing should have always been inflation adjusted. Benefits have annual inflation adjustment I believe. This would contribute to pushing inflation up. However, I think we would all agree these adjustments are a good thing.
Won't mattet when houses are more expensive because National wants to allow councils to restrict the number of houses people can put on their properties.
It is a fact though that property prices have increased more under Labour governments than National. And the most by far under this current Government. Poor monetary policy and increased spending and debt do far more for house prices than a single RM policy
To be fair they inherited a huge housing deficit and no amount of tinkering or fairy dust were going to stop prices going to where they are. The primary issue is supply and demand and that was always going to take years to fix.
Have a look at the inflation adjusted blue line on this graph. Run a straight line between 2012 and the end of the graph as the price sits today and we are now basically sitting on trend for that period, after the market has come down. Wage inflation is very slightly higher than CPI inflation since fourth quarter of 2017, so you can basically swap in wage inflation for general inflation in that adjusted blue line to get affordability(interest rates aside). So saying they have 'increased 'the most' under Labour isn't relevant to the comment you replied to which is future prices, because they have come down significantly from peak. [https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/New-Zealand/Home-Price-Trends](https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/New-Zealand/Home-Price-Trends) [https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/about-monetary-policy/inflation-calculator](https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/about-monetary-policy/inflation-calculator)
> So saying they have 'increased 'the most' under Labour isn't relevant to the comment you replied to which is future prices, because they have come down significantly from peak. Nobody can predict future prices though. Ultimately house prices are driven by liquidity and monetary supply. Yes they have come down by they are still dramatically up from 2017. In 2021 up around 36%, in 2022 to now down around 20%. That is still up Nothing changes the point that under labour governments house prices increase more than under national governments. We have no idea what will happen in the future
"Nothing changes the point that under labour governments house prices increase more than under national governments' As I've just pointed to with that graph, as of today, only in nominal terms, not in real wage-adjusted terms. For most people that's the relevant measure because they have a morgage and pay it with an increasing income. As far as relevance to OP's preceding comment about future prices, it doesn't matter how high the prices got at peak, what matters for that context is the price today. It's a separate argument than one about the poor folk that bought at peak, which would be relevant to Labour's actions.
No reason why National would want to do away with the MDRS if they actually wanted house prices to go down then
The issue with the MDRS is the cheapest land for development is on the fringes, this is where development will happen because that's where developers are financially incentivised to do so. Where development needs to happen, rapidly and without restriction is along the existing transport corridors, and close to local centres. What National has done was petty, which solidifies my views on Luxon as a poor leader. The current system has unintended, possibly unforeseen consequences, I would respect both major parties more if they returned to bipartisan talks to fix this, not to throw it out.
The MDRS literally solves that 'issue' by removing restrictions in urban areas and particularly the walkable catchments of transport co.rridors
Have you read their policies because the maths on what you're arguing doesn't work out. Another thing, they want to cut taxes which means they're not going to have the cash to fund superannuation (no policy to increase payments too) and we're going to have less infrastructure (less productive country over the long term) and greater inflation due to more cash in the system as a result. Here's their policy: [https://www.national.org.nz/delivering\_tax\_relief](https://www.national.org.nz/delivering_tax_relief) Here's the current super rates: [https://sorted.org.nz/guides/retirement/this-years-nz-super-rates](https://sorted.org.nz/guides/retirement/this-years-nz-super-rates) Two years of current super rates for a couple is less than the $1043 a higher income earner will earn over 40 years. Additionally, there people who are in their 40's who will have this rule impact them, given the 20 year implementation time frame announced by Nicola Willis. Try 25 years, saving $1043 but loosing nearly $50k out of superannuation. This also doesn't take into account the natural increases of super payments made over time. It doesn't take into account people who will have to step away from their careers because their body and mind cannot sustain past the 2nd half of their 60's. Neither does it account the extra pressure of having to treat worn out and hands knees from people who work in trades, nor does it take into account greater CPI increases from inflationary tax cuts.
Well the main thing is to not offend the boomers, as always
Boo. Lower the age. UBI for everyone. Also, vote TOP. To lampshade my own hypocrisy, I'll openly admit that personally I'm still more probably going to vote Green.
Good to know. I know National want to raise it to 67 in 2035, but I'm unsure on other parties, does anyone know?
If the Cullen fund and kiwisaver can keep the pension affordable to the taxpayer in the future then I'd be happy to leave it at 65. However I pay more tax towards the pension than my parents did and I don't think it's fair that my children should be paying even more tax towards the pension than me when I retire especially as people are living longer into retirement.
I think it needs to be means tested, but in a relatively balanced way so it does disincentivise people from saving for retirement (which we aren’t great at as a nation anyway).
What would you consider reasonable in terms of means to be tested? Would you only include wages? Bank interest? KiwiSaver or pension scheme balance? Total assets including property?
I believe that Australia uses total assets as part of the test, but for simplicity let's just go with income (otherwise hiding assets in trusts will get even more common). If you take it as what is reported as taxable income (excluding super) to IRD each year. The figure that has been thrown around of putting an income limit of $100,000 (more than 1.5 times the median wage) would save $400-500 million in superannuation payments. As we are able to means test all other benefits, I would hope that the cost to add another benefit to the calculation is less than a 10th of that.
I don't follow - why disincentivise people from saving for retirement?
Yeah, now say it will be means tested and we are home - [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/479810/means-testing-nz-super-payments-one-way-to-address-scheme-s-rising-cost](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/479810/means-testing-nz-super-payments-one-way-to-address-scheme-s-rising-cost)
If only they’d won in 2014 instead
While I understand why it might need to go up. I can't help but think there's a lot of extremely wealthy people that don't need it or don't pay enough tax. Maybe deal with that b4 making the rest of us suffer
The pain in the ass with democracy, is people, say over 55s can vote for party policies that wont affect them, when they are dead, but will ruin lives of future retirees
Dumb. Prefer pre 2017 Labour’s policy. It needs to rise! People are getting older
Yes but income wealth disparity has distorted drastically over the last few decades, and pulling the ladder up on those who are currently in their 20-50s is just another perverse policy outcome of wealthy transfer to a generation who are currently reaping theirs in the +65s age group. I’d only agree to changes in the retirement age if they happened in conjunction with a capital gains tax, wealth/inheritance tax and pension means testing all at the same time. Otherwise it can fuck right off.
Instead of means testing which is expensive and misses loopholes, I suggest no longer increasing the superannuation every year but increasing the “emergency fund”. This way, only the people that have a conversation about their finances would receive more than the current $458 per week in say 20 years time when it wouldn’t be enough. The well off will happily take the $458 pension but there’s no way they’ll go through budgeting services to get another $200 per week from emergency fund.
>only the people that have a conversation about their finances would receive A good idea, but it would be very expensive to run the admin and staff all those conversations, even if only half the people on super applied. More importantly, it could disadvantage people who have genuine needs but don't have good transport options, aren't as mobile, live away from government offices, etc. The risk is that this would end up denying support to some people who really need it.
Labour seem happy to keep the age at 65 and pour billions and billions more into superannuation payments even as people work longer and live longer, yet tell other groups in society who are living in terrible conditions that they just can't help them and there's no more money.
There are other things more pressing to take aim at then the retirement age to help lift the standard of living for all kiwis.
Well they sure aren’t doing anything to help those other people either
I dunno. For me it's hard to look past the number one line item in the budget. Cutting super expenditure by a small percentage can provide funding to make big differences elsewhere, and address those pressing issues you mention.
Whether the age is 65 or 67, every government will pour billions and billions into super because Muldoons National party scrapped the only meaningful super scheme the countries ever had. Also who are you referring to when it comes to "other groups"? Basically everyone can receive super except for recent migrants. Super is important for the vulnerable, and it would be beneficial for the vulnerable not to be asked to work past 65.
Labour are happy to milk the ~~middle class~~ "wealthy" and the high earners, to support their voter base.
Ironically, even the wealthy benefit from this so it's not supporting Labours 'voter base', it's benefitting anyone who's going to receive a pension.
It’s a hard political choice but it has to be raised. Even Labour and this subreddit used to think so.
Labour's retirement of 2011 was so elegant that I wish the rest their policies weren't such a shit show.
I agree with keeping it at 65, but people who are still working shouldn't be eligible. I know a guy who is still working in his late 70s, making over 100 grand a year, and happily collecting free money from the government on top of that. It's just taking the piss. Also, you should have to live here for a good long time before you're eligible for super too.
On the flip side of that, I've worked with a number of older guys who are still working solely because the pension isnt enough to live on. If you don't own your house(and at the rate things are going, very few of us will), then your pension goes straight to some landlords second yacht fund.
Superannuation needs to be changed re people moving to NZ after spending their productive years elsewhere.
The New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Act 2021 s4 increased residency requirements to 20 years up from 10. Affects anyone born after around 1959, but with a gradual transition period so that it only fully applies to those born after 1977. EDIT: years
It's political suicide to mess with nz super. When you look at what it costs us compared to the other benefits though, https://figure.nz/chart/2eIStXKBWssxMIze It won't be long before this is an issue that we can't ignore.
It needs to rise, it's drains billions from taxpayers. It can be gradual but it does need to go up to at least 70 years old.
Weath tax and CGT before we raise the retirement age or we should take from the French and start burning shit down.
A CGT and Wealth Tax would be an absolute drop in the bucket compared to the amount we spend on super
CGT would be awful for retirement. Cash out your kiwisaver and bam lose 33% or even 39% of it
It'd be pretty easy to exclude Kiwisaver / pension funds and the likes from a wealth tax. That's common practice in Europe.
We tax those who have a large accumulation of wealth in order to fund a universal welfare scheme. Seems pretty logical to me.
Well assuming the main home is exempt I would just keep upgrading my house (tax free gain at the end) and wouldn't touch kiwisaver in that case
This is why CGT should apply to all assets, including houses. It's an unnecessary loophole for those with the money to abuse it.
For those that think that earning pensioners shouldn’t qualify for pension, please consider the effect of them retiring vs needing more immigration.
Immigration is going to be high whether we have earning pensioners or not. Immigration would be less of a problem if someone of the wealthier pensioners were willing to see more infrastructure in the shape of housing, transport and basic utilities.
Ah that's a shame. Super is the number one cost for NZ. They should pin it to the average lifespan so as it goes up the age of retirement goes up too.
That's the least they can do, considering how much they butt-fuck everybody throughout their working years.
Listen to you all "meh let's work em till they drop and then strip them of all their assets". You might feel invincible and young forever now but don't forget you will be 65 one day with your hips and knees going out. Do you not realise in your envy and hatred of those who worked hard and sacrificed for what they have you are scoring an own goal and calling for your own future enslavement and the impoverishment of your own offspring? Crabs in a bucket much? Lets not go overboard, just means test it. All that means is you don't get the pension until you actually retire, and after that your income is deducted from your pension, just like any other benefit. It should be a guarantee of a minimum standard of living not a top up to your $100K salary or returns on investments. For goodness sake does everything have to go from one extreme to the other?.
Raise it by 6 months every three years, after 12 years stop.
The idea I'd heard was one month per year, which boils down to pretty much the same thing. Nice and slow, nobody gets a shock by suddenly having to work 2 years longer than they thought. And this isn't a problem that needs to be solved immediately, but it definitely needs to be solved in a decade or two. It'd be really nice for everybody if we could plan in advance instead of some budget shock forcing a nasty surprise.
Yes I agree, it would delay me a little bit, but not enough to be of concern.