Happy Kiwisaver Cuts Day

Written By: - Date published: 1:16 pm, July 1st, 2011 - 26 comments
Categories: kiwisaver - Tags:

From today, the government’s contribution to your Kiwisaver has been cut in half. ‘What?’, you say, ‘Didn’t they say that would only come in if they got re-elected?’ Yeah, nah. They were lying to you. From today on, the government contribution is a maximum of $10 a week. Remember, this was the central plank of National’s savings budget.

26 comments on “Happy Kiwisaver Cuts Day ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. queenstfarmer 1
    1 July 2011 at 1:35 pm

    No, it’s only an accounting policy change. If the Govt doesn’t get its mandate at the next election, the policy will (presumably) be reversed with no effect.

    • mickysavage 1.1
      1 July 2011 at 2:04 pm

      No, it’s only an accounting policy change”

      Um, it was a law change pushed through Parliament. To change it back Parliament will have to enact another law change. If it does not then employers and employees have had a tax hike.

      Strangest use of the word “no” for a while.

      • queenstfarmer 1.1.1
        1 July 2011 at 2:24 pm

        Implicit in your answer you agree with me (“if it does not then employers and employees have had a tax hike”). Ergo, if it does, then they haven’t.

        “To change it back Parliament will have to enact another law change”
        Right, and this won’t be a problem, I presume, if the current Govt gets the boot.

        • mickysavage 1.1.1.1
          1 July 2011 at 2:36 pm

          qsf
           
          Sorry my brain must be switched off but I do not understand.
           
          You call it an “accounting policy change”, I call it a “broken promise” and a “change in law enacted by Parliament”.
           
          You will no doubt argue that the Government is going to the election to seek retrospective validation of the policy change but I would still call it a  “broken promise” and a “change in law enacted by Parliament”.
           
          The law has been changed.  From today.  Key said he would not do that.
           
          Are you saying that if Labour win but do not have the numbers to change the legislation then it will be their fault?
           
           
           
           
           
           

          • queenstfarmer 1.1.1.1.1
            1 July 2011 at 5:29 pm

            “You will no doubt argue that the Government is going to the election to seek retrospective validation of the policy change”

            No, I would say it is seeking prospective validation of the policy change, as there is no effect until after the election.

            “Are you saying that if Labour win but do not have the numbers to change the legislation then it will be their fault?”

            If Labour doesn’t have the numbers to change this legislation – which is a budget issue – then it won’t have won the election.

            • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.1.1
              1 July 2011 at 7:09 pm

              “If Labour doesn’t have the numbers to change this legislation – which is a budget issue – then it won’t have won the election.”

              Hint, in MMP, your coalition partners don’t have to vote for every piece of legislation you put up.

              See also: National, who was not a coalition member, having to vote for S59 anti-smacking legislation because UF & Winston wouldn’t.

            • mickysavage 1.1.1.1.1.2
              1 July 2011 at 8:54 pm

              /bash head against table repeatedly/

              QSF

              The changes have been made.

              I am an employer and put all of my staff on the maximum amount of KS contribution.  Part of this was funded by contribution, the rest by tax rebate.  From today that rebate is not available to me.

              Is this “prospective” from after the election or “retrospective” from today.

              Has the English language changed?

      • Herodotus 1.1.2
        1 July 2011 at 2:27 pm

        Pity the many that subsidised this receive NO benefit. Thank you Lab for looking after the few at the cost to many. Should have been compo or no govt subsidy. But then that is govt look after the vested few !!!
        Pity those that espouse policies for the many not th few, like Phil do not seen the inequity of policies that they have enacted.

      • Herodotus 1.1.3
        2 July 2011 at 11:58 am

        Lan – a wage earner is able to claim the max of $1024 govt subsidy must contribute the same (1:1), any amount over this value is not matched by the govt. If someone contributes say $500 then they also receive a govt subsidy of $500. there is also the fees that the govt contributes and the employers subsidy (that the govt previously did also fund)
        http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0705/WOMay24.pdf
        Nice to see examples of so many financially illerate peoplehttp://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/reviews-consultation/savingsworkinggroup/pdfs/swg-b-m-mris-24dec10.pdf
        and from the link above from treasury
        “In Section XXX it is estimated that KiwiSaver has
        raised household saving by 0.8 percent of GDP, but that the fiscal cost is 0.7 percent
        of GDP, so that national saving has only increased by 0.1 percent of GDP”
        Now how about a counter argurement instread of attacking the messenger

  2. davidr 2
    1 July 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Herodotus, wtf are you talking about?

    Labour’s not the government you know.

    • Craig Glen Eden 2.1
      1 July 2011 at 4:19 pm

      Stop taking the drugs Herodotus.

      • Herodotus 2.1.1
        1 July 2011 at 5:07 pm

        Who then designed the inadequate system?
        And why are we lamenting some changes here, when we are continously bring told by goff re looking after the many and not the few, yet labs policies they implemented looked after the same few. Just pointing this out for those who buy into political hallow spin

  3. kriswgtn 3
    1 July 2011 at 5:21 pm

    No youre tying to deflect Herodotus and doing so badddddddddddd

    They (Keystone and his cops) lied yet again
    No amount of trying to blame Labour blah blah blah will change this fact

    • Herodotus 3.1
      1 July 2011 at 5:48 pm

      No deflection – just attempting to show that an poorly designed, inadequate and unfair system does not warrent the effort for those supporting Lab to justify how it was. A crap system will always be crap, pity many here do not see it, and obviously I am failing in my efforts to allow the blind to see 😉
      For me the best thing would be to scap or bury KS and design a real scheme, say one that mirrows the Ausie system.
      Never have I defended Key on his use of truth (same with GST- But I do support the rebalancing from a heavily loaded tax system that feeds of PAYE as its source), (Unlike many here who defended Clark and co on their use of truth/spin or lack of)

      • Deadly_NZ 3.1.1
        1 July 2011 at 7:01 pm

        What the Fark are you blathering on about??? no matter which way I read it, it still makes No sense.

        • Herodotus 3.1.1.1
          1 July 2011 at 7:45 pm

          Try another way- how is a system that has 1.6m registered- an unknown number of these 1.6m actively contributing being gifted $1.6b p.a. (More than SCF) be fair? Especially as more are providing the source of funds than are receiving them. What beneficaries and low wage (even higher erners) are able to take advantage of govts subsidy. Now if ALL kiwis were on the receiving of the $1.6b I have no issue.
          I have yet to see any real analysis supporting KS in its current state. Even people like Mary Holm justify the benefits of KS based by the govt subsidies, otherwise ther is little to extoll its virtues. I await anyone here to extoll the benfits that are inxs of the costs to the govt and country

          • bbfloyd 3.1.1.1.1
            1 July 2011 at 9:19 pm

            How many of you are in there herdotus? I lost count at six.

          • Lanthanide 3.1.1.1.2
            1 July 2011 at 11:40 pm

            1. People under the age of 18 are not eligible for the government tax credits.
            2. People have to contribute at least $1042/year to be eligible for the credits; it appears that many people signed up for the $1,000 kickstart, contributed for the required minimum 12 months and then went on a permanent holiday, and so are not getting the annual tax credits.

            So saying $1.6b because there are 1.6m members is completely incorrect.

          • Hanswurst 3.1.1.1.3
            2 July 2011 at 1:19 am

            I’m completely lost. Herodotus, it seems almost as though you write a bunch of sentences, cut each one in three, and join them back together randomly.

      • kriswgtn 3.1.2
        2 July 2011 at 7:06 am

        hahah see what you wrote- you cant even write a few sentences without resorting to Clark and Labour

        Go get yourself some help :p

        Key IS a Liar and everyday the public of NZ is waking up to this fact

  4. Bob 4
    1 July 2011 at 9:40 pm

    Hero remember the DONT DRINK AND FRY adverts on the TV ? awww maybe you dont

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.