KiwiBank boss wants leadership from National party

Written By: - Date published: 7:34 pm, July 2nd, 2010 - 6 comments
Categories: Economy, kiwisaver - Tags: ,

According to the NZ Herald:

The boss of state-owned Kiwibank wants people to be compelled to join KiwiSaver, with individual contributions rising gradually over the next decade or two to reach 10 per cent of income.

Kiwibank chief executive Sam Knowles: “There’s still some argument about it, but it is certainly our belief, and I think most commentators’ belief, that New Zealand has a savings problem. Being indebted to the world is not a smart place to be long term, particularly when you have a financial crisis.”

He is calling is for the Government to step up saying that he did not think the level of leadership was coming from the Government on how to reach a 20 per cent savings rate.

“I think the Government needs to step up and present that vision, and then work out what’s a sensible way of stepping towards that vision”.

Considering how Mr Key spoke against KiwiSaver when it was first introduced in 2006 that is scarcely surprising. But let’s hope this helps put retirement savings clearly on the agenda for election policy ahead of next year.

6 comments on “KiwiBank boss wants leadership from National party”

  1. 1

    I do think retirement savings will absolutely be on the agenda for the 2011 election. At least, as long as some of David Cunliffes recent comments are reflected in Labour Party policy. I have faith that they will be and welcome the discussion.

  2. ianmac 2

    Funny if there is a reasonable dialog, and guess what Winston Peters will say!

  3. Nick C 3

    Really? The CEO of a bank calling for compulsory savings? Who would have thought??

    Tomorrow we might see the head of a Union calling for compulsory union membership…

    • kaplan 3.1

      Yeah then police calling for people to stop committing crime…
      Oh hang on. No matter how much sarcasm I use that still sounds like a good idea.

      Maybe the CEO of a bank actually knows a bit about saving…

      • Rob A 3.1.1

        Maybe so, but taking 10% of peoples income off them and locking it away?

        I agree with what he’s trying to say but I feel the first priority should be trying to get many peoples incomes to a point that they can afford to save rather than wasting all thier money on silly things like food and electricity.

        Sam Knowles may be a fine bank CEO but sounds here like another rich idiot without a clue how the plebs live.
        And I’m sure we’ve all heard the saying about politics being the art of the possible

  4. Since for a period before I was made redundant I was contributing 8% to my retirement fund I can assure Rob A it is not taking the money off them but providing money for future need. If done properly it is a painless way to achieve the end. Just as when PAYE made is so easy for the average person to pay their contribution to society. Perhaps most of you don’t remember when that happened but I do.
    Done properly by increasing the deductions at the rate of 1% each year it is hardly noticed by the wage and salary earner …. though I can appreciate the likely howls of outrage from the self employed who do not have the luxury or convienience of PAYE. Employers too being required to be unpaid money collectors.
    One would also hope that instead of just going into the consolidated fund payments were tied to the payer so that in the event of early death they can be assigned to the estate to help look after the remaining dependants deprived of their income earner.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts