KiwiSaver enrolments pass 300,000

Written By: - Date published: 4:46 pm, December 10th, 2007 - 23 comments
Categories: labour - Tags:

I wonder if the Nats still want to bin it?

Remember it was only last May that John Key told Morning Report “Oh, no. No guarantees over KiwiSaver Mark II.”

Here’s the press release.

23 comments on “KiwiSaver enrolments pass 300,000 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Billy 1
    10 December 2007 at 4:55 pm

    Bribing us with out own money. Brilliant in its simplicity.

  2. the sprout 2
    10 December 2007 at 5:05 pm

    bets on next May that John Key will tell Morning Report “Oh, yes. Yes guarantees over KiwiSaver Mark II”?

  3. The Double Standard 3
    10 December 2007 at 5:10 pm

    Probably about the same as Cullen telling Morning Report “Oh no, my tax cuts won’t be inflationary”

  4. Gruela 4
    10 December 2007 at 5:16 pm

    Double

    So you think tax cuts are inflationary, then?

  5. The Double Standard 5
    10 December 2007 at 5:18 pm

    No, I’m sure that Cullen will claim that his cuts won’t be inflationary. Are you having trouble understanding what I write?

  6. the sprout 6
    10 December 2007 at 5:19 pm

    g, you’re so mean insisting on IP being consistent.
    in Nationland, tax cuts aren’t inflationary because they pay for all the services that aren’t cut but increase more slowly.

  7. Gruela 7
    10 December 2007 at 5:23 pm

    Double Scoop of Stupid

    It’s not really that funny to caricature Cullen as backtracking on tax cuts being inflationary when National are planning to offer even bigger cuts.

    We’ll all just wait patiently while you think about it, then get back to us.

  8. gobsmacked 8
    10 December 2007 at 5:26 pm

    Don Brash, 2005: “We will cancel Labour’s Kiwisaver programme”.

    Don Brash, 2007: sets up Kiwisaver fund and invites people to invest.

  9. Sam Dixon 9
    10 December 2007 at 5:28 pm

    Obviously tax cuts can be inflationary, that doesn’t mean all tax cuts are inflationary – its a matter of scale, who gets the largest cuts, and timing.

  10. Phil 10
    10 December 2007 at 5:38 pm

    Sometimes I’d like to get my dusty old Econ101 text book out from the shelf, and beat a few people senseless with it… it was a hard covered one too.

    A challenge to you Sprout; show me any evidence, from the last 20 years, where changes in taxes in a small open economies, be it up or down, has CONSISTENTLY resulted in changes to inflation rates that match the claims of Michael Cullen. I’m willing to bet that you cant find any, simply because there are so many other factors involved.

    Exchange Rates, Interest Rates, Productivity, World Commodity Market’s… these are the things that drive NZ Inflation, not Tax.

  11. Gruela 11
    10 December 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Phil

    It’s not that complicated. More money going round = inflationary pressure.

  12. Policy Parrot 12
    10 December 2007 at 5:55 pm

    “Bribing us with our own money. Brilliant in its simplicity.”

    This argument sounds familiar…

    “Whats yours is mine, and what is mine is mine”. Two peas in a pod, wouldn’t you agree?

    Hell no, the state better pay for me, but mygod if I ever have to contribute something back…

  13. Phil 13
    10 December 2007 at 6:17 pm

    No Gruela, you’re completely ignoring the supply side dynamic there.

    More money going round = more motivation to produce more ‘stuff’, so that you capture a share of that additional money.

    It starts getting very murky when you factor in all sorts of messy variables like reinvestment rates, the propensity to spend vs save, the responsiveness of price to changes in supply and demand, and capacity untilization.

  14. The Double Standard 14
    10 December 2007 at 6:35 pm

    More money going round = inflationary pressure

    Hey Gruela, you’re letting your latent communist tendencies show. You had better be careful there – not even many Party voters want full state control of all money.

  15. Gruela 15
    10 December 2007 at 6:45 pm

    Phil

    But when an economy is so close to full capacity, and so open, as is NZ’s, it’s hard to see how the supply side is going to soak up much of that money.

    Double

    Communist? That has to take the prize for non-sequitor of the day.

  16. Phil 16
    11 December 2007 at 9:21 am

    You’re dead right about “close to full capacity” – we have been for quite some time now, and it doesn’t look like changing any time soon. If the housing market falls over, then tax cuts MIGHT be just the antidote to rescue us from a consumer spending related recession.

    w.r.t. the openness of the economy, and our reasonably free ability to trade with other nations, that in effect “exports” inflation away from NZ.

  17. Robinsod 17
    11 December 2007 at 9:31 am

    I’m expecting increased spend on infrastructure once the US crunch starts to bite here.

  18. Kimble 18
    11 December 2007 at 12:48 pm

    Deleting all my comments now are we? Crushing dissent, huh?

    Wow, the two words I need to type are “Jewish” & “Excess”, ironic huh?

  19. slightlyrighty 19
    11 December 2007 at 1:00 pm

    Question.

    What percentage of this 300,000 enrolements are due to people starting a new position where enrolement is mandatory.

  20. Tane 20
    11 December 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Kimble, no one’s deleted your comment. Stop being paranoid. You’re probably entering the captcha incorrectly.

  21. Dean 21
    11 December 2007 at 4:18 pm

    Policy Parrot said:

    “”Whats yours is mine, and what is mine is mine”. Two peas in a pod, wouldn’t you agree?

    Hell no, the state better pay for me, but mygod if I ever have to contribute something back.”

    Are you even capable of mounting a credible argument?

  22. Kimble 22
    11 December 2007 at 4:30 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501206&objectid=10441313

    “Mr Key said it was “a little too early to tell” what National would do. He could give “no guarantees over KiwiSaver mark two”.

    But Mr Key said he did not believe the issue was a “hugely pressing” one for New Zealanders.”

    He said: “We’re not going to go into an election without complete and clear transparency of how we’ll have everything from Working For Families, KiwiSaver and tax but we’ll do that within plenty of time but we’ll do it on our timetable, not a timetable that suits Labour.”

    So what exactly is the problem with this? If this is all you have to indicate that National would scrap Kiwisaver, then you are drawing a very long bow.

    The numbers joining up are worthless as an indication of the likely success of Kiwisaver. With the incentives in place, joining Kiwisaver is a no brainer for anyone that can afford it.

    Besides, Kiwisaver is an opt-out scheme, people are enrolled automatically when they start a new job. Many of those 300,000 could simply be natural labour market churn. To get a true picture of its popularity you need stats on how many people are joining ‘out of cycle’.

    Not that is really matters, while Kiwisaver may be attractive to individuals, it doesnt mean it is the right scheme for the country.

  23. Phil 23
    13 December 2007 at 1:02 pm

    Slightly makes a good point about employment ‘churn’, but the other question, as yet unanswered, is; “How many of these enrolments are simply people switching from one workplace based retirement fund into another.

    I suspect a great many people are switching from, say, SSRSS to Kiwisaver – and as a result our net savings are growing no faster than before

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