Kiwisaver changes

16 comments on “Kiwisaver changes ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gingercrush 1

   8 December 2008 at 10:15 pm

   Good move by National, the smart thing to do really since it was an aspect of the changes that were most suspect. I think the more soft National and centre-right voters will be quite relieved by this change as while they may have voted National and the centre-right, not everyone that voted them was happy with some of the changes National proposed for Kiwisaver.

   The tax cut argument which I continue to disagree about mostly concerns soft National and centre-right voters. Labour were never able to make the argument that National tax changes were damageable during the election. The thing is, with tough economic times they could potentially target those soft voters in an argument about tax cuts. It’ll be interesting if they can get that message out and how able they can spin things now they’re in opposition. It’ll also be a test to the new government if they can assure people that the tax cuts were a good idea.
2. Janet 2

   8 December 2008 at 11:01 pm

   Just watched parliament tv (chanel 94 on Sky). Behind the smug pin-striped Rodney in Winston’s former seat there was Roger Douglas. That was a very scary sight.They hold quite a bit of power in the new government.
3. Johnty Rhodes 3

   8 December 2008 at 11:30 pm

   Good politics by National, hands up, we fucked up a bit, now lets move on, it will be forgotten in a week or so, Xmas and all that. National have learnt well from LAB/NZF festering allegations and cover-ups re Owen Glenn. Just admit to a relatively minor cock-up & move on.

   Janet – a more scary scene would have been Sue Bradford behind Janette FS on the govt benches. The Green numpty economic policies would have been the death knell for NZ. After all Labour sent us into recession earlier than other countries and could not get a monopoly ACC to work properly. I loved Barnett tearing up SB on Close-Up re the NZ made campaign. Shows what lightweights Greens are when it comes to economic policy.
4. Graeme 4

   9 December 2008 at 8:10 am

   So, under Labour, someone on $13,000, putting in 8% of their income would be putting in $1040 pa. They would get a subsidy of $520 from the taxpayer.

   Under National it appears that that person would get a subsidy of $1040 from the taxpayer.

   🙂
5. vto 5

   9 December 2008 at 8:18 am

   I don’t believe it, a post giving credit to something the nats are doing. That has to be a first. Well done – cred rising.
6. Mr Magoo 6

   9 December 2008 at 9:06 am

   I would second this. Nice policy and a move in the right (pun intended) direction.

   Old Roggy Doggy must be stirring in his grave!

   Oh wait..he is not dead you say Janet??

   But seriously. Savings for those that cannot save themselves that well. Awesome.
7. vto 7

   9 December 2008 at 9:11 am

   Interesting tane that “tax cuts for the wealthy” are implied as bad bad bad. Tell me, is there ever an occassion when tax cuts for the wealthy are good? Or should there only ever be tax increases for the wealthy?
8. Graeme 8

   9 December 2008 at 9:24 am

   Old Roggy Doggy must be stirring in his grave!

   Why?

   He’s a very strong supporter of a compulsory superannuation savings scheme.

   Perhaps, ultimately, because he wants it to replace state super, but still, I imagine he’d have pushed for this hard (indeed, it may be a reason National changed its mind).
9. ianmac 9

   9 December 2008 at 10:49 am

   Remember in the 90’s Winston promoted  a compulsory Super scheme, had a referendum but was defeated. “People are perfectly able to save by themselves.”
10. Mr Magoo 10

    9 December 2008 at 11:51 am

    I imagine he’d have pushed for this hard
    I would like evidence of this. Giving free money to the least well off is not exactly compulsory super or in line with his general policy flavour. This is also a general savings fund which can be used to buy a house also.

    I was not aware of his policy on super, but then I keep hoping he will slip quietly into irrelevancy…
11. TimeWarp 11

    9 December 2008 at 11:55 am

    Not a good move by National GC, just a necessary one under the circumstances they created for themselves.

    Have a look at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10547096 for how this is further blowing government expenditure that Key said pre-election was too high at the same time as hecommitted further on it anyway.

    This is a result of the policy on the fly, capture the headlines with a one-liner approach that National followed all campaign. There will be many more examples over the next few months of other ill-though policies invoking the law of unintended consequences and cost overruns. The fibre plan will be one – in Aussie in a short space of time the government has already run over 100% on just the management expenditure and this is a plan National seems to have simply cloned without any deep consideration.

    Jonty you can try to forget it if you like but the $700m is very real money; compound that a few times with the other policy errors that will accrue and there is a significant amount of expenditure blowout having a real impact on the economy and your and my lives whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
12. Graeme 12

    9 December 2008 at 12:00 pm

    You want evidence of what my imagination dreams up?

    🙂
13. Mr Magoo 13

    9 December 2008 at 12:55 pm

    hah! 🙂

    On second thought…maybe not!
14. Phil 14

    9 December 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Remember in the 90’s Winston promoted a compulsory Super scheme, had a referendum but was defeated. “People are perfectly able to save by themselves.’

    Yeah, I have always had Winstons trouncing in the back of my mind when anyone brings up public support of Kiwisaver… I think the government contribution/bribe is a big factor in the differing support.

    I guess it’s a logic-step too far for people to realise that the ‘free’ contribution has to come from increased taxes, or less public services, somewhere else.
15. Jasper 15

    9 December 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Im confused…

    So National is keeping $1040 dollar for dollar on those contributing 2%

    So to me, someone on $26,000 will contribute 2% = $520

    National will contribue $520.

    So in effect, that person is no better off?

    Am I missing something?

    captcha: Missing Contract – well, you will be after 90 days.
16. death knell 16

    17 December 2008 at 8:40 am

    They are a quaint, 19th-century invention, originally designed to get someone from point A to point B. Today there are much faster, far less labor-intensive modes of transportation. And yet hopeful children still beg for them for Christmas,

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS