web analytics

National Wants to Increase Retirement Age to 67

Written By: - Date published: 11:10 am, June 28th, 2025 - 75 comments
Categories: benefits, Deep stuff, national, nicola willis, same old national, superannuation - Tags:

If Luxon and Willis go ahead with it as a policy platform for the 2026 election, and win, it will most likely be implemented.

The Retirement Commissioner prefers means testing to further increasing the age of NZSuper eligilibility. She knows it would be hard … but …..

But if you boil it down to a very simple thing – is it right that someone earning over $180,000 or $200,000 – I think $180,000 is probably about the mark because that’s when the tax rates go up – is it right that people out there earning over $180,000 can also acquire Super, it’s an extremely good question.”

Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub said means and income testing in Australia meant that only about 60 percent of the population would qualify for the pension. If that were true in New Zealand, it could save about $9b a year.

There are 74,850 people aged 30 to 64 earning more than $200,000.

The median income for people aged over 65 is $26,600.

912,000 people get NZSuper. It’s growing every year.

Currently, there are approximately 4.5 workers per retiree, but this is projected to decrease to about 2 workers per retiree within the next 20 years. More tax for welfare coming off fewer workers. In the 2020 tax year, 24 percent of individual tax income to the state was from the 3 percent of people earning more than $150,000.

The NZSuperFund is about $70 billion this year, which may take a bit of the heat off the government budgets from the 2030s. Thank you Dr Cullen and Helen Clark for your foresight.

But a whole bunch more New Zealanders will be entitled to NZSuper as the whole population ages.

Essentially, while the NZ Super Fund is designed to help manage the costs, the fundamental demographic shift towards an older population means that a larger proportion of New Zealanders will be relying on NZ Super in the coming decades, making it an increasingly important component of retirement income.

NZSuper, like any welfare entitlement these days, isn’t going to be enough to live off by itself. For one of my Aunties, now gone, she told us that Super was the most she’d ever earned a week in her life. For those who don’t have a freehold house upon retirement, it’s going to be a basic lifeline of existence even if they continue working into their early 70s. Most New Zealanders don’t get to $200,000 in Kiwisaver by the time they retire to give them an extra $20,000 a year to get by on. Some do.

The vast majority of New Zealanders work hard with long hours on low pay. We wear out mentally and physically. By and large the rich don’t. 

Can we keep NZSuper universal? Can we keep it for all? Can we keep it untested? And if we break this final pure piece of the welfare state like they have every other welfare entitlement, could we trust our politicians to stick to multi-generational arrangements that enable us to actually plan our lives to get to a specific life goal only to have it shifted again? 

75 comments on “National Wants to Increase Retirement Age to 67 ”

  1. bwaghorn 1
    28 June 2025 at 11:22 am

    Most New Zealanders don’t get to $200,000 in Kiwisaver by the time they retire to give them an extra $20,000 a year to get by on. Some do.

    They could if it was compulsory and very hard to get money out of,

    I can't imagine how good I'd be feeling if the national party in muldoons day had killed the scheme back then ,
    I’ve been working for nearly 40 years,

    I know it's mostly my fault I'm not wealthy but a good government has your back.

    Reply
    • Patricia Bremner 1.1
      28 June 2025 at 1:28 pm

      You are not to blame as…

      If wages are depressed by Government to assist Employers, workers have less to save.

      If Public service wages and salaries are depressed to lower the super liability, people have less salary.

      Aside from derisory 50C rises under Key, three times National have,

      put a 25% tax surcharge on superannuation and any extra earnings.

      raised the retirement age by 5 years very quickly.

      Now they want to raise it 2 more years, as Willis has bombed.

      This again disadvantages our Tangatawhenua and low and middle income people.

      Reply
      • bwaghorn 1.1.1
        28 June 2025 at 4:10 pm

        Na I am ,

        Drunk and smoked many $$$$$$ away

        Reply
        • Psycho Milt 1.1.1.1
          28 June 2025 at 5:33 pm

          And good so – life is to be enjoyed, not eked out in a miserly waiting for death!

          Reply
          • bwaghorn 1.1.1.1.1
            28 June 2025 at 9:47 pm

            Agree whole heartedly but there fun and then there's madness, my point is a government inforced safety net paid for buy ones own sweet is a win win , the immense sense of well being one would feel if they arrive at retirement with a decent pile despite that persons choices is worth it being made mandatory medicine.

            Reply
    • JC 1.2
      29 June 2025 at 8:34 pm

      If I go to our car park its full of cars you might think you are an exotic car show. These belong to tradies and opertors in debt. I finance them if they lose their jobs because they qualify for government support, if I do or my wife do I dont qualify.

      Now the only benefit get from the government is Super and you are suggesting that I lose that. People earn those low or high salaries at times due to the following

      Missed opportunities

      Utilised opportunities

      Poor decision making

      Not having exposure

      Etc

      Reply
  2. Bearded Git 2
    28 June 2025 at 11:45 am

    Agree should be means (income and asset) tested rather than raising the age limit to 67 because this adversely affects people who tend to have shorter lifespans because they do hard physical yakka, such as builders.

    But the pension cut off income level for a couple needs to be way less than $180k. It should be more like $100k per annum for a couple. A couple can live on this amount without the need for a pension top up.

    The asset test for a couple should be around $500k excluding the family home-at this level you should get no pension, below this there should be a sliding scale.

    Reply
  3. Incognito 3
    28 June 2025 at 11:58 am

    There’s already a form of means-testing of NZ Super.

    If you’re able to get an overseas pension, your NZ Super or Veteran’s Pension will be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis. The amount you get in total will be the same as someone stayed in NZ for their whole working life.

    If the amount you receive from your overseas pension is more than your NZ Super entitlement, you’ll only receive your overseas pension.

    It will also affect your partner’s payments if they’re getting NZ Super or the Veteran’s Pension.

    https://www.govt.nz/browse/tax-benefits-and-finance/new-zealand-superannuation-and-the-veterans-pension/nz-superannuation-veterans-pension-and-overseas-pensions/

    So, not all income is equal.

    Reply
    • lprent 3.1
      30 June 2025 at 2:55 am

      There is a more obvious way that is used all of the time.

      Superannuation is taxed because it is income. The rate it is taxed at depends pretty much on what your total gross taxable income is for the year. ie across most forms of income like PAYE, interest, investments, rents, etc – basically everything except for property capital gains and selling second hand goods not as a business.

      You can set the rate that auperannuation gets taxed at. So last financial year I set my super tax code and rate as being M and at 17.5% because I was anticipating a low income year.

      I'd became redundant in the previous financial year, and was shifting to super + part time preferably remote work. So I set up as being self-employed and looked around mostly for remote or local contract work (and started claiming business expenses).

      Started a adequate remote contract late last year.

      For the year, I wound up paying about 10.5% income tax across a total gross ex-GST income (contract, super, interest, investments profit). That tax rate is what I call the small business tax rate because you can only do it effectively if you are self-employed and can claim a lot of portions of your usual expenses as business expenses.

      You can't claim health expenses or as it turns out spectacles, or un-work-branded clothing. But putting a better lock on my apartments door definitely qualifies, and means that I can afford to get a really good lock. As does the insurance for our home offices.

      It will be higher next year. I'm running out of hardware upgrades.

      Reply
  4. SPC 4
    28 June 2025 at 11:58 am

    For those who don’t have a freehold house upon retirement

    This refers to type of land ownership. It is either leasehold, or freehold.

    As for super and home ownership, or lack thereof of cost, other than insurance and rates .

    The low income earner rates rebate has been declining in real terms for years and insurance is going up much faster than inflation. As has been power.

    One of the reasons people need some KiwiSaver or other savings by the time they retire.

    Working people, lacking 100% equity in property ownership, also struggle with rent or mortgage if they are without savings.

    Reply
  5. SPC 5
    28 June 2025 at 12:22 pm

    We have a government that has to make a choice between increasing taxation or cutting support to people.

    Food in schools etc.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/565340/taxes-will-have-to-increase-to-cope-with-ageing-population-government-spending

    The UN has already noted our penchant for an unfair balance in our taxation regime.

    An over reliance on income tax and consumption tax.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/545721/united-nations-report-questions-fairness-of-gst

    For mine, as per Super.

    1.I would pay Super rate benefits from age 60 (those unemployed – work tested or unable to work). I would do this with any increase in age beyond 65 (whether age 67 or 70).

    That prevents (reduces hardship age 60-65 – that should have been done in the 1990's) hardship.

    2.AMeans Testing or BSurtax.

    A.Means Test, not paying it to those earning over $100,000 from work income and owning a property or assets equivalent to.

    BSurtax, applied at above the median income c$65,000 (work income only), but only where they own a property or assets equivalent to.

    Reply
  6. Muttonbird 6
    28 June 2025 at 12:31 pm

    A lot of people reaching 65 will be without any home ownership let alone mortgage-free home ownership. I they earn over $100K because they have gained experience, skills, and seniority in their role or field under this plan they will be penalised $20K/year.

    Super should be primarily asset tested instead. You can add then income testing at a higher rate.

    This is the problem relying too heavily on income based tax. I also notice those snivelling wretches at IRD are campaigning to lift GST.

    Reply
    • SPC 6.1
      28 June 2025 at 12:48 pm

      Yes.

      It should be a mix.

      A person should be able to get super (and without surtax) while working, if they do not yet own property/asset equivalent.*

      *a debate point with Hercus back in 1983 when the surtax regime was being developed. They rejected excluding working people from getting super because some in that category did not (yet) own property.

      If people do own property/asset equivalent – then some sort of work income test (whether exclusion, or surtax on their work income).

      They did surtax savings income (which was probably wrong and undermined support for the surtax).

      Reply
  7. Tony Parker 7
    28 June 2025 at 1:05 pm

    Here's Max Rashbrooke's take on it in today's Post

    https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-press/20250628/281840059656324

    Reply
    • SPC 7.1
      28 June 2025 at 1:28 pm

      I prefer a broad approach. It's not either or. But both.

      The case for either a CGT or wealth tax is sound. I prefer a more nuanced partial CGT and a wealth tax related to an estate tax liability.

      We do need to reduce Super cost and in a way that does not result in hardship.

      The money from any saving will all be going to the increased cost of publicly funded aged care (to those with limited assets) and rising health costs (with more aged people as per population).

      The limited size of the NZSF only takes some of the edge off the cost of Super payment itself (that is the consequence of the 9 unfunded years 2009-2017).

      The money from any CGT/wealth tax is needed for the wider health system (system-wide under-funding and little on dental) and also more income related housing (and more).

      I think we also need stamp duty at 5% on property over $2m and a 1% surcharge on the mortgages of landlords (exemption for new builds).

      (Also a higher rate progressive taxation on large corporations (banks) as the US did pre Trump – but not to raise money but to either to reduce tax on others, or to create a non commercial lending rate to business fund).

      Reply
    • Drowsy M. Kram 7.2
      28 June 2025 at 1:35 pm

      The basis for all this alarm? A projection that the cost [of super] will rise from 5% of national income in 2021 to – in 2060 – a startling … 5.9%.

      yes Rashbrooke's take (thanks for that) seems at odds with Watkins’ take – how odd.

      That superannuation is unsustainable seems undeniable. There have been repeated warnings that the Government’s finances are on a collision course with our ageing population and shrinking workforce.

      https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360730700/living-retirement-dream-how-much-longer [Tracy Watkins, 22 June 2025]

      Reply
    • Phillip ure 7.3
      28 June 2025 at 1:37 pm

      That is a clarifying.bullshit-bubble-bursting piece from mr rashbrooke..

      Reply
    • Ad 7.4
      28 June 2025 at 2:33 pm

      I dislike Max Rashbrooke's post intensely for political reasons: it pairs "solving" the cost of NZSuper with a Capital Gains Tax, which in political terms is like trying to solve dynamite by adding napalm.

      I have certainly been impressed that Labour hasn't risen to this bit of political bait over the last week.

      Reply
      • Incognito 7.4.1
        28 June 2025 at 3:34 pm

        It’s not bait for Labour, it’s staple food. Nothing radical, not even ‘radical tinkering’, will come from Labour. In this sense, Labour is only marginally more preferable compared to National.

        Some will argue that we just need better taxes. And yes, taxing the rich is essential. But tax reforms alone will not end class society. They may slow the bleeding, but they won’t heal the wound. We must go further.

        https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU2506/S00136/aotearoas-billionaire-class-thrives-as-everyone-else-struggles.htm

        The Overton window must be moved for real change to occur. The Atlas Network Magnum Opus (i.e., the Regulatory Standards Bill) is doing exactly that, even before it’s been passed in the House and become Act.

        What it does do, as Victoria University public law lecturer Dr Eddie Clark argued here last week, is shift the frame of political discourse.

        Some of the principles are libertarian, he says. “Leave these around in government for a while and they may become accepted principles within the public service which would then shift how legislation is drafted.”

        https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/06/26/david-seymours-toothless-tiger/

        The only party in Parliament that attempts to do something similar is the Green Party.

        Reply
        • Ad 7.4.1.1
          28 June 2025 at 3:39 pm

          The Greens are great at imagining how they can tax more. Sensible people just don't take the bait:

          "Chris Hipkins MP

          28 May ·

          First Christopher Luxon raids your KiwiSaver, now he’s coming after your NZ Super.

          To be really clear: Labour will keep the age of NZ Super at 65.

          If you’ve worked hard and paid taxes, you deserve dignity and security in retirement. Universal super is a lifeline that helps older NZers pay the bills and put food on the table.

          NZ Super is affordable if we make the right choices. National is choosing to give tax cuts to fossil fuel companies & tobacco companies, while regular NZers have to pick up the tab."

          Reply
          • Incognito 7.4.1.1.1
            28 June 2025 at 3:55 pm

            I think you took your usual shortcut again – I won’t say that you took the bait because that would mean I set you up deliberately, which I didn’t intend to do.

            My point is that the Greens at least attempt to put increased taxes in larger framework and a more wholesome narrative. In this sense they’re way ahead of Labour in influencing the debate, which attracts derision from the usual RW (-NJ) quarters but in my opinion, it’s heaps better than Hipkins and/or Labour not ‘taking the bait’ and doing SfA, politically speaking.

            Here’s an example, to illustrate my point, but I don’t want to divert from your Post.

            Analysis: Opponents of the Green Party have called its proposals Marxist nonsense for years. But though the party has spent those years developing a more detailed evidence base for its aspirations, critiques have not progressed.

            With the introduction of an alternative fiscal strategy, the Green Party is inviting a debate about the nature of some of the most fundamental assumptions in modern economics. Central to that debate is the question of acceptable levels of national debt, an evergreen point of contention between the party and its opponents.

            https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/06/17/green-partys-fiscal-strategy-is-radical-and-they-know-it/

            Reply
            • Ad 7.4.1.1.1.1
              28 June 2025 at 5:38 pm

              Raising everyone's taxes has nothing to do with NZSuperannuation affordability. Nor does Green fiscal strategy.

              Can we keep NZSuper universal? Can we keep it for all? Can we keep it untested?

              Actually yes we can.

              The stronger policy pressure IMHO should be to raise Kiwisaver per person and make it compulsory. To push New Zealanders to have greater retirement independence, and hence less reliance on the state.

              Greens could easily work with Labour on a requirement that all retirement villages are required to give retirees freehold title, and a maximum annual fee on the amount retirement village operators can claw back from the estate upon its sale ie align with Australia.

              Reply
          • Donna 7.4.1.1.2
            29 June 2025 at 10:53 am

            The only benefit of Labour keeping the age at 65 is that they have less money to throw away which they have done so well. This country needs to learn to live within its means and this needs to come from the top. Practice what you preach. Someone on $150k with millions in the bank does not need Super . Get real Labour .

            Reply
      • tc 7.4.2
        29 June 2025 at 10:55 am

        Yes good to see them leave the ‘spray and walk away’ alone as Luxon keeps the ‘we can’t afford’ BS going.

        National's chillier winter is kicking in to remind folks that tobacco, fossil fuels, landlords, trashed waterways/ferries etc are the priority.

        Reply
  8. sandra 8
    28 June 2025 at 2:05 pm

    I manage ok on super. But when I bought my home years ago I had to make a lot of sacrifices.

    perhaps this generation should be weighing it up.

    what is more important?the b O.E flash cars boats ect or a price of dirt

    Reply
    • PsyclingLeft.Always 8.1
      28 June 2025 at 2:32 pm

      How many years ago did you buy your home? Homes have gone up skywards in recent memory…

      And re your "the b O.E flash cars boats ect" is that some generation generalisation ?

      Reply
    • Kay 8.2
      28 June 2025 at 2:38 pm

      Well done for managing ok on Super. I'm assuming you have no rental or mortgage costs that eat into it. I'm sure you're aware that no amount of sacrificing can get most people into their own home anymore.

      Maybe people don't need flash cars and other luxury items, then again, it's not everyday folk making those sorts of purchases.

      But why shouldn't people- if they have the means and opportunity- not do an OE, or travel a bit? How about extending that to never going to a cafe, the movies, a concert etc, and putting those 'savings' into a retirement fund, because the Super system is broken?

      I interpret that as, we only live to work, and not to live. And there is absolutely no point in living if there is nothing to enjoy, so you can pay the rent once you're 65. Or maybe that is the way to cut down on future Super costs?

      Yes, the system is stuffed, and it has been for ages. But we're up against politicians who are too scared of upsetting their base, and an attitude- especially from old people- that "I've paid taxes all my life so I'm entitled to it back." Clearly not comprehending that they and their families took advantage of public hospitals, roads, education etc etc.

      Reply
    • Psycho Milt 8.3
      28 June 2025 at 9:12 pm

      When I bought my home years ago, it cost $175,000 and the median household income was $50,000. So, a house was significantly less than four times the median household income.

      Now, the median NZ house price is around $900,000 and the median household income $135,000. So a house now costs nearly 7 times the median household income. The issue is not that wage and salary earners suddenly decided they'd prefer to blow all their money on buying a boat.

      Reply
      • Phillip ure 8.3.1
        29 June 2025 at 2:26 pm

        Do you mean that even if the young stop that scandalous habit of avocado on toast..

        ..they still won't be able to afford a house..?

        ..(clutches pearls.!.)

        Reply
        • Psycho Milt 8.3.1.1
          29 June 2025 at 7:09 pm

          I hear the big issue is that they spend a lot of money on coffee, that probably accounts for it.

          Reply
      • KJT 8.3.2
        30 June 2025 at 6:03 am

        When we bought our first house, sure a house was 5 times average income.

        The period of the "unfortunate experiment" of Douglas followed by Willis' progenitor, Richardson!

        But interest rates over 20%, meant the proportion of the average wage required to service a mortgage was much higher. It was 2/3 of my wage, for a modest cross lease house, and I was on a relatively high wage for the time. One of the lucky ones who "had a trade".

        Median wages were actually decreasing, especially with the high inflation. And the proportion of those below the median income was increasing.

        Many of my contemporaries still don't own houses. The "restructuring" and unemployment at the time and the difficulty of savings for the required 30% deposits, as house prices were rising faster than they could save, if they hadn't been made redundant, followed by the impossibility of paying a mortgage, meant they have been behind the eight ball all their lives, through no fault of their own.

        So many of my cohort are reaching retirement around now, renting or still with a substantial mortgage.

        Reply
        • Psycho Milt 8.3.2.1
          30 June 2025 at 8:49 am

          True, when we bought our first house the interest rate on the mortgage was 19%. We didn't build a lot of equity in that place!

          Reply
  9. feijoa 9
    28 June 2025 at 3:15 pm

    I feel our approach to this whole demographic change is all wrong.

    Economists stuck in a growth mindset are all screaming about this. But surely, a decrease in population is good for the environment, good for jobs, good for consumption, etc. The elderly bulge will be temporary. Just print a bit of money to get through it. Use that Superfund. Think about elderly housing differently- not just the fricking awful rip off retirement villages.

    I firmly believe neoliberalism is to blame for people feeling disconnected, and pessimistic about the future and not wanting to have children.

    Watching Japan is interesting. They are still maintaining a pretty good quality of life.

    Reply
    • Ad 9.1
      28 June 2025 at 5:41 pm

      We're not Japan. They have massive per person average savings, and extraordinary social cohesion.

      They also have the industry and technology to roboticise elder healthcare in terms of lifting, mobility, bathing, and feeding.

      We won't in the foreseeable future ever have a society that can do any of that. We put more $$ into roboticising cowshed operations than we do eldercare.

      Reply
  10. Psycho Milt 10
    28 June 2025 at 5:43 pm

    I've never been able to understand how Muldoon got away with presenting Douglas' compulsory retirement savings scheme as "communism," while his own version in which the state provides for all was supposedly anticommunist.

    I guess everyone felt it was a plausible scheme back when there were 8 workers for every retiree, but you bet the wheels are going to come off when it gets down to 2 workers every retiree. Can't see school leavers who've joined the precariat on zero-hours jobs wanting to ensure that I can spend the day playing golf (disclaimer: I do not, nor can envisage, playing golf).

    It probably needs some actuary-based system that factors in life expectancy. In my job, there's no particular reason I might stop doing it at 65, and probably won't. For people like labourers or tradies who've copped injuries repeatedly over decades, working at 65 may be an impossible expectation.

    Reply
    • bwaghorn 10.1
      28 June 2025 at 9:52 pm

      It probably needs some actuary-based system that factors in life expectancy. In my job, there's no particular reason I might stop doing it at 65, and probably won't. For people like labourers or tradies who've copped injuries repeatedly over decades, working at 65 may be an impossible expectation.

      I believe Tpm years ago suggested having super available from 60 , but if one chose not to take it while they kept working the amount would be more when they chose to retire.

      (BTW golf been very good for my lower bake pain and mental health , even though it barstard of a game)

      Reply
      • Psycho Milt 10.1.1
        29 June 2025 at 7:19 pm

        I think it needs something to even things out, no matter what the suggestion is. We may sneer at insurance companies working out exactly what particular levels of risk exist and charging people accordingly for their insurance, but it's just a fact that "Our profit depends on this" is a huge incentive for them to do a good job of assessing risk. I dread to think what they'd charge me for life insurance (various health conditions) but I wouldn't dispute their risk calculations about my life expectancy. It might be a good idea to contract insurance companies to tell the govt for any particular individual "This mofo's current life expectancy is X years" and set their superannuation entitlement based on that. The wealthy would suddenly find themselves looking at some daunting retirement ages…

        Reply
  11. Gavin Fentich 11
    28 June 2025 at 6:26 pm

    Remember that Labour campaigned to increase the retirement age to 67 in 2011 under David Shearer.

    Reply
    • Incognito 11.1
      28 June 2025 at 7:01 pm

      That’s only half-correct. But do you have a point to make about the contents of the Post or anything else of significance to share with us that’s even a little bit relevant?

      Reply
    • SPC 11.2
      28 June 2025 at 7:44 pm

      Goff was leader in the 2011 campaign.

      Reply
  12. Bryan 12
    28 June 2025 at 7:32 pm

    Perhaps I could encourage some who live and think in the Stone Age to be aware of the world in 2025. The mantra of stinging those earning at that mystical figure of $100K is not cognisant of the facts – a 6th year full-time nurse today employed by Te Whatu Ora has a base salary of $106,739 – it does not make her rich and also it is important to bear in mind that a significant portion of the nursing workforce is employed part-time.

    Similarly top of the scale teachers for both PTCA and STCA will have a base salary of $103,086 likely enough to get by but not actually rich people..

    I remain your friend in Jesus – John 11:35

    Reply
    • SPC 12.1
      28 June 2025 at 7:46 pm

      It is plenty, if one has no rent or mortgage to pay, or children to provide for.

      This is why the health system is under-funded and its workers stressed out.

      Reply
    • Incognito 12.2
      28 June 2025 at 8:29 pm

      Wow, ‘mantra’, ‘mystical’, ‘rich’, those straw men are telling us that you live in the Straw Age.

      It’s old-fashioned to call people ‘rich’, the term now is ‘wealthy & sorted’.

      A single superannuant receives just over $32k pa in Super, which is 32% of someone who still earns $100k. That puts things into perspective for you, doesn’t it?

      I’m not here to make friends.

      Reply
      • Bryan 12.2.1
        29 June 2025 at 7:36 pm

        Plink.plonk, ….er, No straw here my friendless wonder. Wonderful how the finger pointing singles out $100K (back then but not now) as an excessive salary and a means testing application point.

        Reply
        • Incognito 12.2.1.1
          1 July 2025 at 12:26 pm

          Your reading comprehension is lower than of the average troll; I didn’t say I don’t have friends.

          Nobody here, AFAIK, has been “finger pointing singles out $100K […] as an excessive salary and a means testing application point”; it’s all in your head aka straw men.

          Moreover, nobody here, AFAIK, has said that $100k is ‘excessive salary’; you’re putting words in mouths of non-existing commenters aka straw men.

          Looks look like you’re a dimwit troll who’s aiming for moderation and although I’m not your friend I can help you with that.

          Reply
    • Psycho Milt 12.3
      28 June 2025 at 9:02 pm

      OK, so while we're all being aware of the world and everything, the median income of wage and salary earners in NZ in 2024 was $69,000. If you consider $103,086 "enough to get by," what does that say for the 50% of NZ's workforce who earn less than $69,000?

      Reply
    • Ad 12.4
      29 June 2025 at 1:25 pm

      Yeah fully support.

      This is what happens when you open up the toolbox in NZSuper and start dividing up the Deserving from the Undeserving: you can never ever put that tool back in the box, and every damn politician from here on in gets to set of new level of who is and isn't "deserving".

      That's the true joy of a universal and untested benefit after the actual age is reached: no damn politician gets to touch it, or touch you.

      Reply
  13. brudenot2 13
    29 June 2025 at 3:06 am

    So now it seems if you work hard if you are wise with your spare money if you have any and you end up a little bit better off than most it will be a penalty against you i’m from a workforce (flooring) that Predominately takes a toll on your body with a lot of my friends who are not of retirement age yet including myself, who have had various operations and ailments related to our occupation.

    The was always a government guarantee of a pension when you retired which has had the retirement age extended and looking likely to be extended again which some of my friends along with a lot of other trade related people possibly becoming full-time sickness, employees instead of retirees at the age becomes older, now we have a lot of career unemployed people who will be entitled to a pension some without ever having contributed taxes as a person in the workforce😳

    So the basic outcome is the more you contribute as a hard worker and a person who pays their taxes and predominantly higher taxes work and secure peace of mind the more likely you’ll be discriminated financially against (by the government) for doing exactly what the government/society have encouraged people to do😳

    Reply
    • Ad 13.1
      29 June 2025 at 12:44 pm

      Yes more than most you get to the heart of the basic social contract that generations of New Zealanders signed up with their government.

      Go for the government that will protect NZSuper away from pushing your retirement away until you're spent.

      Reply
  14. Bill 14
    29 June 2025 at 12:10 pm

    Hi , it's easy to up the retirement age when you don't have to do physical jobs , lots more people on acc as our body's age most jobs dont get easier.

    Wonder what retirement benefits the politicians get probably on top of the super no doubt, lead by example.

    I'm personally not wealthy and sorted , huge disconnect, people struggle out here , government takes jobs away then scream at beneficiaries to find work or sanction them personally disgusted with them.

    Reply
    • Kay 14.1
      29 June 2025 at 1:19 pm

      I can not get my head around why Winston Peters is allowed to claim Super.

      Reply
    • Ad 14.2
      29 June 2025 at 1:22 pm

      Excellent to see you comment here again Bill.

      There's a lot of voices like yours, many of whom like my extended family work like bastards to head towards that tiny distant vision resembling Eliza from that dreadful musical:

      "All I want is a room somewhere

      Far away from the cold night air

      With one enormous chair

      Ahh wouldn' it be luverly"

      We are on the whole extremely hard workers here who actually deserve a wee bit of a rest. I know that's what Seddon was on about when he first brought it in.

      Those soft-fingered fools like Shamubeel Eeaqub and Willis and Luxon are so pathetically out of touch with the actual hard force of life decade after decade that they deserve to all be swept away so that real people can restore actual true dignity to our older years.

      Reply
  15. Roelof 15
    29 June 2025 at 7:57 pm

    If you were to increase retirement age you would need to pay out the entitled benefit to those denied the opportunity of further participation.

    Reply
    • Susan 15.1
      29 June 2025 at 11:53 pm

      Where’s your evidence that rich people don’t work hard? It’s ridiculous to make such a statement. And who contributes most to the tax take? The rich. They would be paying more in tax than they take out in Superannuation by a long chalk. And they pay much more in tax when working than they ever get out of the government.

      Reply
      • lprent 15.1.1
        30 June 2025 at 2:11 am

        groan. Another idiot parrot who is too lazy to look up the IRD data themselves, and instead just blindly repeats what some other idiot or PS flack or Atlas drone has said.

        Where’s your evidence… And who contributes most to the tax take? The rich

        Promptly followed by providing absolutely not evidence or links to back that statement. Dumb-arse parrot. Anyone can make assertions. Let me try…

        In absolute numbers, GST and taxation on businesses. Personal income tax is subject to expenses and exceptions for capital gains that mean that it increasingly favours the affluent.

        A better question is who contributes the most income tax as a percentage of incomes? Which is what I suspect you were trying not tosay.

        That would be anyone who pays almost all of their taxation via PAYE, PIR, and GST and has no easy way of claiming expenses via business interests.

        It also winds up as where the total amount of income tax actually paid comes from, even after non-business tax rebates.

        Now unlike your stupid assertions, I could actually back up all of these with links. But I’m not going to. Lets leave this as an exercise for you to disprove it – with some evidence (links please).

        And they pay much more in tax when working than they ever get out of the government.

        I think that you misunderstand the whole concept of a progressive tax system and why it exists. We’ve tried the concept of having a aristocratic breeding system in the past and found that it just breeds in inherent stupidity and outright laziness in the descendent generations.

        So the tax system isn’t designed to provide more opportunities for brainless aristocratic children, which is what you sound like. It is designed to make sure that as many people as possible, without regard to their parents income, get an opportunity to participate in our economy and society to the limits of their capabilities.

        This benefits the country far more than the self-indulgent progeny of someone with brains and drives living off the proceeds of their parents or grandparents success.

        BTW: Don’t bother dropping multiple copies of comment. First time comments have to get through a moderator making sure that they aren’t a bot. With your parroting what you do not understand, I’m leaving you in probation. That means you have to get one comment past a moderator who is looking for machine-like entities like human trolls, dumb AIs or repeater bots.

        Reply
      • KJT 15.1.2
        30 June 2025 at 5:14 am

        From the IRD. Most of ALL tax, 60% is paid by those on median incomes and those a bit above median incomes. Real "hard working" and contributing Kiwis. In this band are medical staff, teachers, technicians, small business, trades people and the like.

        Even more significant, is those that have benefited the most from tax funding to our society pay half the tax rate of "ordinary Kiwi's.

        IRD report: Wealthy pay half tax rate of average Kiwis – NZ Herald

        Reply
  16. Tony C 16
    29 June 2025 at 10:11 pm

    It makes sense to increase the super age entitlement to 67. BUT gradually in small increments over a few years. If this not done, then potentially the risk of the system becoming non viable will become reality. An increasing benefiting group paid by a decreasing contributing group simply does not add up. People are working longer quite happily, as health benefits of almost eliminated smoking, better diet than our parents and generally sport and exercise widespread accrue. Alcohol consumption of both wine and beer continues to decline slowly worldwide and people are living a bit longer. Kiwisaver (thanks Michael Cullen) is helping people greatly and should be made compulsory like Australia and contributions from both employers and employees increased. We all need to be pragmatic about this and accept things can't continue as at present.

    Reply
    • KJT 16.1
      30 June 2025 at 4:51 am

      A prime example of the cognitive dissonance rampant in this discussion.

      Care for the elderly comes from the same resources, regardless of the source of the money. Kiwisaver, invested overseas, doesn't magically up the resources available in New Zealand in future. Just another profit making grab for the finance industry, that could disappear like smoke in the next recession. Very likely caused by the Trump, Willis and other delusional right wing Governments, that are multiplying like flies at present.

      Investment in the future of New Zealands children, does. Education, infrastructure, health, Grandparents babysitting, housing, all contribute.

      Less workers, as after the black death, mean individual workers are paid more, as a scarcer resource. So. The idea of a shrinking number struggling while supporting a greater number, is not the story.

      The idea that an increase in the cost of super by 1% is "not sustainable" is obvious bullshit. Just as the idea that, in our supposedly"greater prosperity", after decades of neo-Liberal economic management, we can no longer afford state spending on infrastructure, social wages, health, education, housing, elderly and young people. The Greens intend to invest in our future. I have no great faith in Labours commitment to increasing New Zealands capability.

      The Coalition of Cockups, is intent on dismantling and flogging off, in a fire sale to their mates, the remnants of New Zealand. We should in no way buy into it.

      Ever heard of concepts such as "the paradox of thrift", "the velocity of money", "rising productivity"?

      We should resist any attempts to chip away at social wages. Not for our sake. But to ensure it is still there for our grand children. New Zealanders should be rebelling on the streets, like the French, at the Coalition of cockups destruction of our "decent society". At those who think it is fine to grab more than their share, while leaving our people to rot.

      Social and investment spending by Government should be increasing, to Scandinavian levels. Paid for by those who have, so far, benefited the most from the tax funded public investment in our society, the wealthy!

      And please make unemployment benefit conditional only on unemployment. The "scaring" people get from being forced into dead end jobs by WINZ, lasts for their lifetime.

      Reply
  17. Artie 17
    30 June 2025 at 12:03 am

    Just putting it out there for any party to consider is to introduce GCT (Golf Course Tax), to help fund the social benefits. A Golf Course Tax to support social benefits is a bold fiscal policy idea aimed at reducing inequality by taxing underutilized or luxury land assets and redirecting the revenue to fund services that benefit broader society.

    [lprent: I’m assuming that you are a bot, having 12 copies of this comment in a couple of minutes is a dead giveaway. So you’re on probation until we can see how stupid the intelligence behind the comment is. But I’ll let this comment through for the amusement of other human commenters. ]

    Reply
  18. Gary 18
    30 June 2025 at 3:56 am

    First of all the pension for immigrants wanting to reside in NZ who have not paid tax here for at least 20 years should not receive NZ pension.

    Secondly, I'm over these religious groups paying zero tax and saying their money goes to charities all sitting nicely in there million dollar houses..

    I could go on but a few things need to be tidied up before the pension age goes up thank you.

    Reply
  19. Jonty 19
    30 June 2025 at 7:05 am

    I retired 8 years ago on my 65th birthday. I was done with working. I had about $120k invested, including KS. After some withdrawals and growth, I still have about $100k invested. No other income-earning assets. My total income is about $32k and I live in a rental in a provincial city. Initially, I did some minimal part time work for a few years. In this time, I have been overseas 3 times, enjoy going for lattes regularly, lunch/dinners occasionally, play bowls & socialise and generally live quite comfortably.

    It is time KS was compulsory for everyone, contribution rates raised to 5%, pension means-tested and phased out. This would mean KS, and any other investments would be more than adequate for retirement after 40 years working. A mortgage-free home would be a bonus. No need to raise retirement age.

    Reply
  20. Garth 20
    30 June 2025 at 9:15 am

    I voluntarily worked on until I was 68, no problem. For those in light to medium physical work they could raise the age to 68. However in physically very demanding jobs, the body could be too battered, so some sort of doctor’s certificate should allow retiring between 60 and 65 – they could appoint suitably responsible specialists for screening. We need to build rules which recognise the needs of real people.

    Reply
  21. Rene Taylor 21
    30 June 2025 at 5:32 pm

    We get taxed every step of the way for everything it's not right and now they want to raise the retirement day all I can say to that as a New Zealand that has due to retire Pass Off more abuse by the government for all the people that were abused and care have just got there retirement over the last 10 or so years and now the government wants to abuse us again it's terrible how New Zealand does have been treated by successive labour national governments that have just robbed the country people and it will keep going on as long as we let them

    Reply
  22. Kevin 22
    30 June 2025 at 6:15 pm

    Got to say that 10 to 15 Males out of 100 will die before the age of 60 so say roughly 20 out of 100 at 65. While the wives will probably be happy with a windfall this person who has generally worked on low income and hard-working jobs would like to retire at 65 so I can enjoy my over $200 000 Kiwi Saver, many thanks.

    Reply
  23. Deb 23
    30 June 2025 at 6:31 pm

    I agree with Garth above and Gary.

    Time those who don't work physically realise the toll it takes on one's body joints etc to do the hard physical work that keeps the county working ie Plumbers, builders rubbish collectors nurses carers people who put their bodies on the line to earn a living deserve to retire when there bodies are broken. Those that work in offices and don't do any manual work can wait till they are 70 . And also stop paying People who are still working the pension . It isn't designed to line there pockets it design to stop working . Stop paying hand outs to Mps..

    Reply
  24. thinker 24
    1 July 2025 at 7:14 am

    There will be a lot of CoC voters who object to this government raising the super age, and it is very much poll-driven.

    Here's an idea for policy:

    Currently, when the economy strengthens (of you can remember…), interest rates go up and you pay more of your income to the banks (unless you have investments, in which case you benefit).

    If we all got a mandatory kiwisaver account along with our ird number, and instead of raising interest rates, we raise the proportion of income that must go to our kiwisaver account, we could manage the economy and people would eventually be able to have a decent retirement.

    Reply
  25. Alan Weaver 25
    1 July 2025 at 7:45 am

    I have changed my mind recently on whether I would work until 70 and now will retire as soon as possible at 65, this decision is because of the government sending millions and millions of my hard earned tax dollars over to Ukraine when Saint John's have to fund raise for new stations, we have run down out of date fire appliances and a shortage of medical staff all needed to save life in New Zealand but there is never enough money in the budget

    This is not our war and ask any Ukrainan in Ukraine where New Zealand is and they never heard of us and Zelensky has luxury homes in Europe and it has already been proven that most money that goes to Ukraine ends up in deep pockets.

    So why keep working and paying TAX

    Reply
    • Incognito 25.1
      1 July 2025 at 10:29 am

      Diversion

      St John is a charity and charities fundraise.

      … millions and millions of my hard earned tax dollars …

      First, you don’t earn tax – are you a life member of the Onion? Second, you must be paid too much.

      Reply
  26. Andrew Riddell 26
    3 July 2025 at 5:01 pm

    It amazes me that none of the commentators on super are aware of the Susan St John proposal where super is from of income tax, but any extra income is subject to income tax which becomes more progressive the more extra income. The paper explaining it is at https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/PIE%20WP%20%202025%20NZS%20as%20basic%20income%205th%20March%20final%20.pdf

    Reply

Leave a Comment