Superannuation policy becomes political

Written By: mickysavage - Date published: 9:18 am, May 29th, 2023 - 68 comments
Categories: benefits, Carmel Sepuloni, Christopher Luxon, Economy, kiwisaver, labour, national, superannuation - Tags:

This week has been a week of major economic news.

It broke on Tuesday with the CTU announcing that there was a rather large hole in National’s tax cut calculations. Actually it was $1.5 billion which is not to be sneezed at.

From the CTU website:

The cost of the National Party’s promised changes to tax thresholds has blown out by $1.5 billion – to a total of $8.2 billion over four years, according to fresh analysis by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.

The CTU’s analysis incorporates new forecasts from Budget 2023 and has been independently verified by tax consultant Terry Baucher, director of Baucher Consulting.

“Voters deserve to know now how National intends to fund these even more expensive tax cuts, which favour those on higher incomes and landlords,” said CTU economist Craig Renney.

“National said its tax bracket adjustments would cost $1.66 billion annually when announced as policy in March 2022. This represents $6.64 billion over four years. The revised cost is now $8.2 billion – a $1.5 billion blowout.

“On top of this, National has also committed to another $890 million annually in tax breaks for landlords.”

National’s costing appears to be based on 2021 wage data. The new analysis, based on Treasury’s Budget 2023 wage growth data, conservatively calculates the cost of the bracket adjustments at $1.94b in 2024/25, rising to $2.14b in 2027/2028.

“The question is, how will this be funded? The scale of these tax cuts is around the same cost as cutting the entire annual Police budget. We’re not talking about spare change that can be made up by cutting a few consultants.

“National needs to show how it can fund these tax cuts and also meet rising cost pressures in health, education, climate change and superannuation – not to mention funding a cyclone recovery. Voters deserve to know how it’s all going to add up.

“ACT published its alternative budget last week. Labour in opposition published its election year alternative budget shortly after the Budget, and then updated that budget at the Pre-Election Fiscal and Economic Update. The scale of the changes being proposed here demands that National do the same.

“There is no need to wait until the Pre-Election Fiscal and Economic Update. National has all the data it needs now. They can do a line-by-line review of the Budget and tell voters what they would cut to fund their tax cuts,” said Craig Renney.

National replied by admitting that the figures were probably right. But they insisted that they will not be releasing their alternative budget until the PREFU is released just before the election.

The timing will be incredibly tight. I can understand their nervousness given the fiasco that was National’s last attempt at an alternative budget but the country deserves better. We ought to be told as soon as possible what they are going to cut to fund tax cuts for rich people and landlords.

Then over the weekend the attention moved to superannuation.

In her speech to the Labour Congress Carmel Sepuloni drew the line in the sand and said very clearly that Labour will not increase the age of retirement.

From her speech:

Delegates, National and Act are warming up once again to mess with people’s Super. They’ve got form in this area, and it never ends well.

They are working on policies that will see people so much worse off by the time they retire.

It includes raising the age of Super to 67 and stopping government contributions to Kiwisaver.

I’ll give you an example of what that will mean. We’ve done the maths.

And I urge Kiwis to also take a very careful look at what it’ll mean for them.

If you’re a 30-year-old earning an average fulltime wage, you would lose $521.43 a year because an ACT-National coalition would cut matching contributions to Kiwi Saver.

With interest, this would mean that that young person would have $46,000 less when they retire.

And they’re asking that person to retire two years’ later. Raising superannuation age to 67 means they’ll lose another $51,000.

If you’re a young person I have this to say to you – the Coalition of Cuts will take more than $98,000 off your retirement.

As pointed out by Claire Trevett National then fell for the trap, hook line and sinker. From the Herald:

As far as campaign policies go, Labour’s announcement it will keep the super age at 65 was the most underwhelming in some time – but it got them exactly what they wanted, and that is a war with National over super.

The main announcement from Carmel Sepuloni at the party’s Congress in Wellington was an announcement of things Labour won’t do rather than what it will.

None of them was surprising. The superannuation age would stay at 65, the Winter Energy Payment would stay, and …. wait for it …. government contributions to the NZ Super Fund would also stay.

The aim was not so much to show off Labour’s policies – but to advertise National’s and Act’s, both of whom want to lift the super age to 67 and have halted Super Fund contributions in the past.

It worked a treat. Within an hour, a thundering press release came from National’s Nicola Willis accusing Labour of “trying to score some cheap political points by hypocritical scaremongering.”

She then accused Labour of being fiscally irresponsible for holding it at 65 – which coincidentally is exactly what Labour says of National’s tax cuts.

It will be a bit of a test of just how politically toxic it still is to talk about raising the age of super. It used to be a death knell policy. It is never going to be one of the policies a party advertises on its billboards.

Is it hypocritical scaremongering? Well Labour did have a policy in 2014 of raising the age of retirement but reversed it and has had settled policy ever since. And here is the silly thing about National’s hypocrisy claim. In 2014 it said that it would not increase the retirement age but it has changed its mind. Hypocritical much?

Concern about NZ Super contributions is not far fetched. Last time National gutted the payments and the scheme at the very time that payments would have been most fruitful.

Concerns about Kiwisaver are not unwarranted scaremongering. And as I said previously National’s attacks are really rich. Ever since its creation National has sought to undermine Kiwisaver. Do you remember when:

National opposed the introduction of Kiwisaver and John Key famously called it a glorified Christmas Club. Maybe for merchant bankers but I can think of many first home buyers and retirees who have benefitted from it. And National opposed it all the way.
After it was elected National halved the state contributions to Kiwisaver accounts from $1,040 to $520 per year even though in 2008 they promised not to do this.
National also removed the $1,000 kickstart contribution and John Key said it would not make a blind bit of difference to the numbers joining.

National’s policy will not save the country any money, at least in the meantime. Its effects if it is enacted will not be felt until 2037. But it will allow National to cancel Cullen fund contributions which is I suspect the desired outcome, even though the Cullen fund has been described as a well-respected and well-performing sovereign wealth fund which has set a high standard in socially responsible investing.

And in terms of hypocrisy how about this?

When Labour proposed a modest increase in Kiwisaver fees to level the playing field for providers Christopher Luxon said this:

“We’re going to stop it. I actually think the team of five million people needs to stand up this week and actually say to the Government, ‘Enough, stop’ and actually get the Government to withdraw it,” Luxon said.

“This is such a bad idea – a retirement tax when we’re trying to encourage people into KiwiSaver, it makes no sense.”

This was a change that would increase the amount paid by an average Kiwisaver account holder by $80 per year from 2026. National’s policies have been estimate to cost the average taxpayer $100,000. Hypocritical much?

Superannuation is back in the political arena. I suspect that National’s policies will become a millstone for the party.

68 comments on “Superannuation policy becomes political ”

Comments are now closed

PsyclingLeft.Always 1

29 May 2023 at 9:51 am

Nact fact…they dont give a shit about anyone. (well apart from themselves )

I do have some links to show how this Nact Retirement stab was received….and the future impact on many.

https://thestandard.org.nz/carmel-sepuloni-bring-it-on/#comment-1951758

Nact…..would be the Coalition of Chaos….for Future NZ
Chris 2

29 May 2023 at 10:08 am

Someone should ask Luxon if he thinks Muldoon was correct to scrap Kirk's compulsory super scheme in 1975.
- tc 2.1
  
  29 May 2023 at 1:44 pm
  
  Didn't Lange and douglas build another that bolger /shipley dismantled ?…cant recall was overseas.
- Rae. 2.2
  
  29 May 2023 at 5:37 pm
  
  Reply to Chris, Luxon would not have a clue…
  
  Greece was bankrupted.
  
  Are the Greeks still in debt?
  
  In 2021, the national debt in Greece was around 401.71 billion U.S. dollars.
  …
  Greece: National debt from 2018 to 2028 (in billion U.S. dollars)
  
  …
Patricia Bremner 3

29 May 2023 at 10:17 am

This attack on Super by National follows the pattern of wooing current vote at the expense of future voters. It follows the strip and redistribute to the wealthy now, as tax cuts.

This is also their attitude to investment in future infrastructure and or welfare. Money aimed at the impoverished is funneled through the contracts and sieves to extract all real benefit before it trickles late to the "deserving poor"

They still are Calvinists at heart. You are literally. one of the "Chosen" or one of the "Damned" .(If you are already wealthy you will do better. If you are poor, it is your lot… just accept it.)

Labour and the Greens should list all the areas likely to be affected and question them in the House.( Not that Key was truthful last time. "We will not raise GST" then promptly did raise it.!!) All their current flip flops sound similar. Housing Accord anyone??
tsmithfield 4

29 May 2023 at 10:26 am

I don't get the commotion over National pledging to raise the super age to 67 by 2044. It is not like it is being promised to happen this year or anything.

Look at how much life expectancy and productivity has changed over the last 2-4 decades. People tend to be productive for much longer now. A two year age raise in the next 20 years or so is probably going to equate with the degree to which working lives have extended by that time.

And, by that time, the manual jobs that wear people's bodies out, will likely be done by robots. In fact, it is happening already.
- lprent 4.1
  
  29 May 2023 at 12:00 pm
  
  And, by that time, the manual jobs that wear people's bodies out, will likely be done by robots. In fact, it is happening already.
  
  You are missing the time lags. The inherent damage actually happens when you are younger. This become pretty obvious as you head towards your 60s. That is when all of those old injuries and work catch up with you.
  
  Say you have done a job with a lot of physical activity from age 18 to age 45 now. That is 27 years of wear.
  
  You have already done most of the damage and joint wear already. Having a mythic robot doing most of the wear through the next 20 years from 2023 to 2044 won't make that much difference in the wear that you have at age 65.
  
  Manual workers generally start dropping out of manual work for one reason or another well before age 60. Finding a 50yo brickie, tiler or plumber would be a miracle already that is about as rare as finding a 6yo employed as a active coder. They pretty much don't exist.
  
  So having a bricklaying machine from 5 years ago on youtube does absolutely nothing for a 65yo in 2044. 5 years later in NZ they don’t even exist. Hell I don’t expect that the technology will exist here in another 10 years.
  
  But ignoring that kind of fairy tale., our brickie will still have the same fucked up body and shorter expected lifespan. And they have still paid all of their taxes towards a superannuation.
  
  You argument about automation only makes sense if there was a widely used brick-laying machine in say 1995 – so our hypothetical brick layer hadn't been paying taxes for a superannuation on the expectation of worn out body at age 50.
  
  Essentially National and you are arguing that you should steal from people who would have less of a actuarial likelihood to ever receive a superannuation under the change because they don't want to contribute to the super fund for a demographic bulge. And do the same heartless thieving for tax cuts for a second time.
  - tsmithfield 4.1.1
    
    29 May 2023 at 12:15 pm
    
    This problem exists now, before 65. And, we manage that through the welfare system. It will be the same in twenty years, I expect. People who are unable to work will have to be cared for one way or another.
    
    Another point is that we have had a major increase in health and safety rules over the last twenty years. So, injuries that reduce work-life should be viewed as work hazards, and companies should have been finding ways to minimise these. So, hopefully, going forward, the problem will not be as bad as it has been.
    
    As the linked article in my post below shows, Labour were proposing to have transitioned to 67 by 2033 starting in 2020. So, if Labour had their way back then, we would be three years into the process by now.
    
    So, if you are critical of National’s proposal now, I imagine you would have absolutely been revulsed by Labour’s proposal back then?
    - lprent 4.1.1.1
      
      29 May 2023 at 12:33 pm
      
      So what you want is to subject the worn out elderly to 2 more years under the National's carefully built punitive and tortuous social welfare system before they can move to the much simpler and cost-effective superannuation system.
      
      You do realise that the costs of our superannuation system for people on sickness and disabled benefits has been designed by National to torture people. Are you a sadist by nature, or was it nurtured in you?
      
      If you think that I am exaggerating then I suggest that you go and volunteer as a advocate at WINZ some time and watch their staff closely. It really isn't a pretty sight of seeing the lengths that some will go to deny benefits that I pay for, and on the way through wasting a lot of taxes.
      
      National are really good at fucking simple systems up and making them conplex and expensive. Changing the age from 65-67 and pushing more people onto the punitive parts of the welfare system is exactly in line with their usual policies.
      - tsmithfield 4.1.1.1.1
        
        29 May 2023 at 1:10 pm
        
        Going back to our discussion following my earlier post, my company works in the field of automation. That is, automation powered by compressed air.
        
        Over that time, we have seen a lot of manual jobs converted to automation. For instance, when we started our company about 40 years ago now, it was common for people to be manually screwing on bottle tops.
        
        A lot of manual labour has been automated over that time, and it will continue. So, to your earlier point, there will be less bodies wearing out now, due to changes over time. And that will continue.
        
        We really don't know how much things will have changed over the next twenty years. But, they will have changed a lot, in many areas.
        
        I think, in the end, we need political consensus on superannuation, as this will be a political football going forward with the goal-posts constantly changing.
        
        lprent 4.1.1.1.1.1
        
        29 May 2023 at 2:04 pm
        
        Actually I tend to agree. But you have to factor in time scales and how long it takes for technology to penetrate to where it needs to be. Not to mention that just releases people off to do other things with their general purpose hardware.
        
        I was running a plant back in 1983-1985 where we used pneumatics extensively on a production line. I spent quite a lot of time fixing it. It saved a lot of manual labour and gave better production quality when it was working well. We also had forklifts, good storage frameworks, and some excellent production line gear.
        
        It still didn't handle the humping of heavy boxes of product around getting it off the production line and on to and off pallets. Nor did it handle the opening of bagged raw material and humping into into mixing. That was done by the near universal easier to program general purpose labour, including me. To know how to improve any process, you really need to do it yourself.
        
        That was 40 years ago, when I was under the age of 25.
        
        in 1990 I decided I was wanting to build a career in programming (rather than continuing as a manager) because we needed to automate and teach with code.
        
        So for the last 33 years I have been writing code that deals with everything from server networks to processor boards that can be held in a hand. From systems running simple electronic actuators to system that bind via radio and cable tens of thousands of devices on thousands of bits of equipment into a single system. I program server boxes with massive numbers of cores, RAM and drives and I also program single or dual board systems with minimal processing grunt and storage to connect to larger systems.
        
        I haven't seen a pneumatic system for decades. But I'd bet that most of it is now controlled by processors, SOCs and SBCs and the muscle provided by gaseous or other compression systems. Much easier to deal with than trying to build a logic system with valves.
        
        Computer systems are ubiquitous. I'm sure that pneumatic automated systems are as well.
        
        But the number of roles that general purpose (people) self-programming system fulfil has been rising too. Consider a barista for instance. We have machines that do that task with flair for small situations. Yet we also have baristas who can operate in a parallel mode doing a complex and exacting physical task.
        
        I spent time watching one over the weekend, and decide that I couldn't figure out how to optimise that (my MBA major was in operations research). It was a profession that really didn't exist 40 years ago here.
        
        Yet there are probably a at least a few hundred doing it within 2 km of my location (corner of K Rd and Ponsonby Rd in Auckland).
        
        I also figured that the job itself was one that in a high volume area would cause some kind of body burnout within 20 years.
        
        Watched someone installing a new head unit into my car 2 weeks ago. I can't even conceive of being able to do do that with automation in a workshop with 30 different types of vehicles. The process was as much by intuition and body skill as anything else. The contortions to disconnect and reconnect that were a tapestry of motion. Also something that was strictly for the young. Needless to say it was nothing like the last car-radio I installed myself back in the mid-90s.
        
        I have issues these days doing my own computer maintenance because of various physical impairments, and I have been doing that since 1986. Around 2000, I used to routinely fix everyone computers for friends families.
        
        Basically automation doesn't make that much of a difference at a physical level for humans. As we automate machine level jobs, we invent new jobs for ourselves tat rely on local strength, dexterity, and ability to self-program.
        
        After looking at this for for nearly 5 decades, I have concluded that automation augments but doesn't replace the uses of human strength and agility. And that people will keep wearing out at differing rates.
        
        Talking of which my wrists are complaining about tapping at the keyboard. I'd better do some debugging / compiling and rest them for a while. I have had two rounds of OOS and taken time to repair them. Don't want to wear it out again.
        
        BTW: You can find viable brick-laying machines back in the 1920’s and 1930’s patents. For some reason that never seem to take off in the market place.
        
        😈
        
        tsmithfield …
        
        29 May 2023 at 2:30 pm
        
        There was a chart I saw the other day (can't find it now unfortunately) that rated careers in their vulnerability to being replaced by AI/Automation.
        
        Maintenance technicians were at the bottom of the list. As I suspect that even robots will require being maintained for the conceivable future. That is, until robots start maintaining robots.
        
        I think it is good to have discussions about superannuation and other aspects to do with our rapidly changing future outside the political lense. Because it is something that will increasingly affect all of us going forward.
        
        alwyn …
        
        29 May 2023 at 3:03 pm
        
        Here is one view on what jobs are most likely to go.
        
        This may cause some dissension in this conversation The most likely job to be replaced, at least in this article was
        
        "Jobs which rely on technology are at the biggest risk of being taken over by AI.
        
        According to Insider, coders, computer programmers and software engineers are set to be easily replaced by the advent of new technology such as ChatGP."
        
        https://www.9news.com.au/national/jobs-ai-will-replace-technology/dcaf8d90-14cb-426e-8605-712555ad4995#11
        
        tsmithfield …
        
        29 May 2023 at 4:11 pm
        
        I was talking to a guy who teaches mechanical engineering at polytech.
        
        He was saying he is encouraging students to use the likes of ChatGPT for assignments etc. He said that to do a good assignment using ChatGPT students still needed to have good knowledge of the subject matter, otherwise ChatGPT would just spit out a very generic answer, not specific to the application of interest.
        
        So, I think this sort of technology won't get rid of humans from the process. But it will just speed things up to the point where one person can do the work of five or whatever.
        
        And, so far as coding/writing programs go, it is probably just a further progression along the lines of WYSIWYG.
        
        So, in any of these applications, I imagine humans will just be thinking at a higher level and thus speeding up processes.
        
        Adrian …
        
        29 May 2023 at 5:23 pm
        
        I thought university was about teaching how to think, not to have shit in your head that you have no idea how it got there.
        
        lprent …
        
        29 May 2023 at 5:50 pm
        
        And, so far as coding/writing programs go, it is probably just a further progression along the lines of WYSIWYG.
        
        Being able to write a useful search query for alta-vista or google so you can find what you're after fast.
        
        Or cmake rather than make. Using devop pipelines. Having a profiler that works. Static analysis. Unit-tests for fast response regression tests.
        
        Tools. ChatGPT will do be the same. Sketch a skeleton code like RAD was meant to do.
        
        So, in any of these applications, I imagine humans will just be thinking at a higher level and thus speeding up processes.
        
        Mostly saying "that won't work, lets try this to to get a bit closer" and then filling in the last bits themselves.
        
        lprent …
        
        29 May 2023 at 5:44 pm
        
        According to Insider, coders, computer programmers and software engineers are set to be easily replaced by the advent of new technology such as ChatGP."
        
        Sure they will. This has actually happened in the industry at least 4 times in the last 30 years already while I have been working in it for pay. Most Cobol and VB programmers never retrained or were retained for instance. I can see that starting to happen with some of the stack programmers to getting over specialised to particular solutions. Same for the c# systems with those interesting repo issues.
        
        But you have to remember that is just the usual winnowing. We're having a dieback now with layoffs.
        
        Most coders tend to be people who live on stack overflow or inside RAD styles environments pumping out routine code for corporates. Average residence time as a coder is about 10-15 years before they obsolete themselves. They tend to become other things to support their mortgages in diebacks like this.
        
        So far that is all that I am seeing. But each time the innovation world in tech moved on, the toolchain got incorporated and we had a expended industry a few years later.
        
        Personally I learnt Pascal, Cobol, Fortran and C 43 years ago as a interest on a DEC 1170 – a mini-computer with a teeny fraction of the processing power of a modern smart watch. I dropped out of being a manger and started mainly building networked processes 30 years ago, mostly on the GUI side and almost entirely in windows.
        
        I didn't do it as a career. I did it because I just wasn't interested in a career and followed an interest. Mostly people who do this just keep working in the edge space places. Because they solve problems that aren't well known
        
        These days and after several complete shifts later, I mostly write servers-side subsystems on linux and endpoint SOC systems on linux. I'm sure that I have at least one more major shift before I stop working for pay.
        
        Writing code as a formula with lots of examples is easy for a machine or for a hack coder. You mostly have to search and read stack overflow. Machines are good at that and at doing generic testing. That is what coders use them for. grunt work. Well them and the hack coders.
        
        The problem is when you have a system with few examples to follow and most of them are wrong. yocto comes to mind….
        
        I don't get employed to code. I get employed to solve knotty problems.
        
        alwyn …
        
        29 May 2023 at 7:23 pm
        
        I spent quite some time in the 1980's working on banking systems using IMS Fastpath. That was a DBMS and TMS developed by IBM in the 1960's.
        
        It is still in use, particularly for very high volume banking applications. I find it truly amazing that something developed so long ago is still, apparently, the first choice for such processing.
        
        bwaghorn 4.1.1.1.1.2
        
        29 May 2023 at 4:53 pm
        
        Can you hurry and design something that can drench sheep and cattle, shift crop fences in the snow, dag sheep, shear sheep, .
        
        Ever tried building? The never stop.lifting and carrying,
    - bwaghorn 4.1.1.2
      
      29 May 2023 at 4:48 pm
      
      Hardly dignified that people who have toiled are going to have to go begging and scraping to the welfare don't you thin
  - PsyclingLeft.Always 4.1.2
    
    30 May 2023 at 8:25 am
    
    Say you have done a job with a lot of physical activity from age 18 to age 45 now. That is 27 years of wear.
    
    Well…I am a bit further on than that : ). And still doing some hard Landscape garden yakka. Even my part time Bicycle mechanic job (mostly self taught) has a quite physical component.
    
    I can relate to a lot you have said in this thread. (incl about the head unit fitting in your car ! )
    
    Those mean arse Nact shits would punish the young. To benefit the rich.
    
    Thanks for putting your considered thoughts on here…I rate them highly.
- Patricia Bremner 4.2
  
  29 May 2023 at 12:35 pm
  
  TS, the life expectancy for Maori and Pacifica is always lagging, and although it has improved by 3 years * that is like saying no 12 years of retirement for you.
  
  Equity demands remedies other than constantly shifting the goal posts.
  - tsmithfield 4.2.1
    
    29 May 2023 at 1:12 pm
    
    And, that is why political consensus is needed in this area.
    - Patricia Bremner 4.2.1.1
      
      29 May 2023 at 8:34 pm
      
      "Consensus" Which is what we had 'till this latest Election proposal.
- AB 4.3
  
  29 May 2023 at 2:11 pm
  
  the manual jobs that wear people's bodies out, will likely be done by robots…
  
  And of course the employers who own the robots will use this to gradually reduce the working week of manual workers – perhaps to more tasks requiring superior dexterity, judgment and experience, while naturally paying them the same wages. Oh what a nirvana of enlightened virtue it will be – free markets always reach a humane equilibrium of endless forward progress.
  
  Only a churlish socialist would be so negative as to think that those ex-manual workers might be left staring at nothing much except a blank wall, a sadistic welfare system and a niggardly pension now delayed till 67, but at least given with no questions asked.
- bwaghorn 4.4
  
  29 May 2023 at 4:42 pm
  
  I'm 51 , I started pushing milk trolleys at 13, I've been a manual labourer all these years, I don't suit sitting on my arse or workshopping, and am not keen on driving things for a living. So not complaining.
  
  I'll be buggered by 65.
  
  I like the idea that the pension can be taken any time between 60 and 70, with early takers getting less than those that keep plugging away till 70.
Hunter Thompson II 5

29 May 2023 at 11:29 am

It would be interesting to see what happened if NZ Super was made optional at 65 years of age, so if you carried on working you put off getting the government's largesse.

Some people might like to keep on with their jobs for a year or two; others would be well off already and wouldn't need the extra money.

A sort of voluntary means testing I suppose.
- RedLogix 5.1
  
  29 May 2023 at 2:14 pm
  
  Yes – in my comment below I've already pointed out this is effectively what I am already doing.
- lprent 5.2
  
  29 May 2023 at 3:01 pm
  
  Ummm. I think that you should educate yourself about super.
  
  It would be interesting to see what happened if NZ Super was made optional at 65 years of age, so if you carried on working you put off getting the government's largesse.
  
  It is already optional at 65. Quite a lot of eligible people don't take it up. I'm bouncing it around at present because I am eligible in about a year.
  
  Some people might like to keep on with their jobs for a year or two…
  
  I think that is something like 40% per people eligible. I certainly don't want to stop working. It is too much fun. I would like more options about when and how much I work.
  
  Since superannuation is taxed, you may get quite a lot of tax on it if you keep working.
  
  For me, it will be mostly in the SA (39%) tax code so super, at $879.58 per fortnight, will be taxed at 39% and I will receive $537.16 in the hand to pay GST on. That is about 14k in the hand per year and $8.9k tax.
  
  But at the same time I lose the 3% of income that my employer pays for kiwisaver, the $520 that the tax department contributes for kiwisaver annually. That is around 4k pa after tax.
  
  Becomes a question about how much hassle claiming it or not claiming it becomes.
  
  The kicker about deciding to claim it will probably come down to where do we plan to live longer term.
  
  There isn't enough room in our one-bedroom apartment for both of us here at the same time working on things. At present we work around that by hiring a extra workspace for $600 odd per month so that we don't have telephone conversations over each other while working at home. But I don't think that is sustainable long-term. Nor is the $5500 pa in annual combined body corporate, water, building insurance and rates.
  
  We will need a house for when I actually stop working. We may wind up with a mortgage again (if we don't leave Auckland). I need a actual enclosed home office (bedroom), garage (hardware workbench) and a yard.
  
  I also want a roof for solar / wind and to get off the grid. There really isn't any future in me paying electricity shareholder dividends as a surcharge if I have the space and capital to eliminate it. And outside of central Auckland, I'd want to have dependable power and starlink.
  
  Preferable doing house changing before I stop working. I may also stop the 10% of salary income I pay into kiwisaver and pass that to the bank shareholders instead. It gets to be a faster mortgage kill. But it is a hell of a price to stay in Auckland. I really don't want to sink my accumulated kiwisaver and savings into living in Auckland
  
  So I haven't decided if I will claim super or not until I stop formally working.
tsmithfield 6

29 May 2023 at 11:54 am

The other thing is that Labour has flip flopped over Superannuation.

Twelve years ago, the then Labour government was all for raising the age of Super to 67, and by much earlier than National is proposing. Chippy was part of that government, so I assume would have supported that proposed change.
- lprent 6.1
  
  29 May 2023 at 12:20 pm
  
  Lying by selection as usual. So where is the National equivalent for
  
  Employer contributions to KiwiSaver would also increase from by 0.5 per cent a year to three per cent in 2014 and seven per cent by 2022.
  
  The policies were needed to deal with the growing superannuation and health bills being racked up by New Zealand's ageing population, Mr Goff told Radio New Zealand this morning.
  
  National as far as I am aware are planning to increase the age of superannuation without doing anything to secure funding for superannuation or health care for aging demographics.
  
  According to what I have seen of the implications of their slogans (policies?), they are planning on dumping all contributions to the superannuation fund, and actively trying to stop increasing money into the public health care systems to deal with demographic changes. Presumably in the latter case to make private health care more profitable for lazy unproductive rentier shareholders.
  
  BTW:
  
  Chippy was part of that government, so I assume would have supported that proposed change.
  
  Dumb-arse lie. 12 years ago was 2011. Wasn't that the period of the John Key government? Weren't Labour in opposition? This is the kind of error that you routinely see in National’s rewrites of history. I guess that was where you got these words from?
  - tsmithfield 6.1.1
    
    29 May 2023 at 12:26 pm
    
    Dumb-arse lie.
    
    Silly mistake actually. I should have said "part of the Labour party".
    
    In the end, we are talking 20 years or so out. So, it really is all blue sky stuff at the moment, whoever proposes it. I am sure there will be a few changes in government over that time, and there would be nothing to stop a future Labour government from reversing that change.
    - lprent 6.1.1.1
      
      29 May 2023 at 12:40 pm
      
      I'd be more interested in it if there were any signs of National being aware of dealing with the demographic shifts in 20 years – like forward loading into the NZ Superannuation fund, or simplifying access to early superannuation for people on disabilities or unemployment in their late 50s or early 60s. But I don't see any of that.
      
      I just see a grasping pack of idiots wanting to fund tax-cuts and ignoring their existing responsibilities.
      
      What do you think that the rationale for National's policy is? Framed in terms of the benefit for people approaching the superannuation system that they have paid for since 1975 or 1995 when they started working.
      
      To me it looks like a policy framed to benefit people who started paying taxes after 2015.
      - tsmithfield 6.1.1.1.1
        
        29 May 2023 at 1:21 pm
        
        I'd be more interested in it if there were any signs of National being aware of dealing with the demographic shifts in 20 years
        
        The only way we can really deal with those issues is through cross-party consensus. Perhaps a working group that looks at all the issues and makes a best guess.
        
        But, things are changing so very rapidly in many areas. I don't know if you saw that TV1 News item on how AI has identified new anti-biotics to target super-bugs that are a major problem in hospitals. But there will be a lot more of these sort of discoveries. There will be a lot more advances in how people can stay healthy and productive for longer.
        
        The impact of AI and automation will be enormous going forward. So, likely, the retirement age will be the least of our worries, I suspect.
      - Rae O'Connor 6.1.1.1.2
        
        29 May 2023 at 4:37 pm
        
        Untruthfulness much T Smithfield?
        
        Thank you Iprent.
        
        As you said National and Act cannot be trusted ever for anything. They call the poor of Aotearoa Bottom Feeders. I don't trust them as far as they can be thrown. Every second sentence from NActs has a falsehood in it.
        
        Saw on RNZ last week that American Dr's lied to people about Covid, they tried for Herd Immunity. This Scientist said if America had followed what Aotearoa was doing re Covid, 800 Thousand Americans would be alive today. Thank goodness for NZ Labour Greens Coalition who kept us alive and looking ahead to mitigate Climate Change. Which I might add NActs don't believe is happening. Vote NZ Labour Greens Coalition. Thinking of young Voters here; Labour Greens Coalition..They did us proud in everything and everywhere for last 6 years. Only they care about Climate Change. Thank goodness for them. They listen and get the job done.
        
        weka 6.1.1.1.2.1
        
        29 May 2023 at 5:42 pm
        
        please don’t bold blocks of text. We reserve bolded type for moderation.
    - Patricia Bremner 6.1.1.2
      
      29 May 2023 at 8:45 pm
      
      Long term planning and saving and investing over 20 to 25 years used to be usual for the middle class. Large disruptive events , "87 crash, 2008 crash, Covid 2020 have caused losses for many, hence hedging in housing became popular. Then greed set in, and here we are trying to fix all those past errors, while planning for an ever more problematic CC future. Moving goal posts just makes it nigh impossible and people start thinking "why bother?", but perhaps that is the end game. A beaten down dispirited easily led population??? As has been indicated by others here, this 67 age flies in the face of the studies and proof.
Mac1 7

29 May 2023 at 12:18 pm

Interesting that National are continuing with their age raise for Super given this research finding.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/04/superannuation-new-research-reveals-more-support-for-hiking-taxes-and-keeping-age-at-65-than-raising-it-to-67.html

Following is my précis of the above article by Jamie Ensor published 12/4/23.

It says that New Zealanders remain opposed to raising the age of Superannuation to 67 or introducing means-testing, but are willing to pay more in tax now to reduce the burden on future generations, new research has found.
- Kiwis are opposed to means-testing Superannuation
- the universality of the scheme remains the most important aspect to Kiwis, though less important than in 2014.
- almost a quarter of participants saw the age of eligibility at 65 as the most important aspect of Superannuation, more than the fifth who did in 2014.
- raising the age of eligibility to 67 was ranked by 61 percent of the respondents as the worst of the seven options, making it the option ranked worst by the largest number of people, the report said. The unpopularity of this policy has increased compared to 2014.
- majority of people would still be willing to pay higher taxes now (an additional 2 percent for everyone) to reduce the need to raise taxes on future generations.
- there has been a "sizeable increase" in the number of participants much less confident they will have a comfortable retirement than in 2014.
- 40 percent of people aged 65 and over have virtually no other income besides NZ Super and another 20 percent only have that, and a little more.
Mike the Lefty 8

29 May 2023 at 12:26 pm

You know I actually wouldn't mind so much if the retirement age was increased incrementally to 67 if the saved money would go into infrastructure, but I'll be f..d if I will tolerate having my super delayed for another couple of years just so some rich prick earning a big salary can get a nice fat juicy tax cut now.

National might just have cost itself the election. If NZ First gets back into parliament (although I think its unlikely) National will have blown another potential coalition partner.

What with National supporting building more yuppie housing estates on prime agricultural land near cities and p…..ng off their farmer friends they seem to be a party looking for an excuse to lose an election that they should win in a canter.
- tc 8.1
  
  29 May 2023 at 1:47 pm
  
  'farmer friends' is the national party pre key it's all about serving the top end and international capital since then IMO.
- Mike the Lefty 8.2
  
  29 May 2023 at 4:38 pm
  
  Update on my last point.
  
  There is an ad circulating on Facebook for the Kamahi Fund which is all for turning rural land into urban land.
  
  The worst kind of urban sprawl which is taking prime agricultural land and turning into yuppie housing estates and the associated traffic problems.
  This kind of housing development is not about solving NZ’s housing problems, it is all about getaways for the rich pretending they live in “rural” areas.
  
  That is what we will get under National.
  
  National – the party that hates productive agricultural land being converted to forests. But they have no problem with such land being made into lifestyle blocks for rural townies with cushy corporate jobs and Ford Ranger utes.
  
  National there for farmers!!!!!!
  
  Yeah right!
Thebiggestfish 9

29 May 2023 at 12:38 pm

Superannuation is an area where both National and Labour have just been so poor on. Constant flip flopping. The current model is unsustainable with our aging population. Either the age needs to go up or we need to look at means testing. Unfortunately National and Labour MPs are just bickering children and will not take any action towards a solution until the last minute.
- lprent 9.1
  
  29 May 2023 at 1:02 pm
  
  The current model is unsustainable with our aging population. Either the age needs to go up or we need to look at means testing.
  
  Complete bullshit by someone who hasn't bothered to bestir their lazy arse to look at what actually has been happening.
  
  Somehow you managed to overlook the NZ Superannuation fund? (my italics)
  
  New Zealand currently provides universal superannuation for people over 65 years of age and the purpose of the Fund is to partially pre-fund the future cost of the New Zealand Superannuation pension, which is expected to increase as a result of New Zealand's ageing population.
  
  Which was a third alternative that was put into place in 2001 specifically to deal with that issue.
  
  It was to be funded by the NZ government prudently putting in funds to deal with an upcoming demographic issue expected to start hitting after 2035 until the 2060s. Most of the benefit was to be from profits from investments. The more money that the government put in earlier, the better the returns when required.
  
  So…
  
  The sovereign fund posted a record 25.8% return in the twelve months till 30 June 2013.[9] In the 2009 New Zealand budget the National Government suspended payments to the fund.[10] Contributions were proposed to resume in 2020/21 when the Government's net debt to GDP was forecast to fall below 20% again.[11] Instead, the new Labour-led government started payments into the superfund again in December 2017.[12] The New Zealand Government had contributed $21.8 b to the fund as at 31 March 2022.[13]
  
  National has never put in a cent, preferring instead to imprudently divert resources to funding unsustainable tax cuts and a speculative real-estate bubble.
  
  Labour has continued to prudently pre-fund the superannuation system into the future by taxes from the people who will receive its benefits..
  
  And that is before you look at kiwisaver as an alternate way of pre-loading superannuation recipient fiscal requirements.
- RedLogix 9.2
  
  29 May 2023 at 1:16 pm
  
  NZ is fortunate to have a demographic pyramid that is nowhere near as inverted as many other nations:
  
  https://www.populationpyramid.net/new-zealand/2023/
  
  Nonetheless ageing is no longer quite the same proposition as it was when the scheme was first set up to provide largely for the Silent Generation who came before us Boomers.
  
  What we are seeing is not only a gradual increase in life expectancy, but a dramatic shift in health expectancy. But in this there is a huge range of circumstances and outcomes. Some people – like my father's attorney was still holding chambers at the age of 96 and doing just fine. Others are nowhere near as fortunate.
  
  I would suggest lowering the age of Superannuation entitlement to say 60 – but means test it fairly generously so that those who are capable and desiring of continuing to work into their 70's and 80's are encouraged to do so, while those whose working life is curtailed by the physical demands of it, or loss of health, are able to access Super at an age when they might still have a dignified retirement.
  
  As it happens I have forgone NZ Super I am entitled to for some years now, because working in Australia remains a better bet for me – which is probably an explanation for my viewpoint on this.
  - tsmithfield 9.2.1
    
    29 May 2023 at 1:43 pm
    
    Hi Red,
    
    I agree with you on increasing health and life span going forward.
    
    But I also think that there will be profound changes to careers and job opportunities going forward.
    
    If we end up in a highly automated society that leads to mass redundancy, then there will be major issues around how taxes will be generated to fund the social aspects of our society. I think the creatives in Hollywood are very justified in being concerned about their careers from what I have seen.
    
    Of course, there is the counter argument that changes to the way we do things opens up new career opportunities as a result. So, that may be the case going forward as well. But the changes could be so profound and wide ranging, that it may not be the case anymore.
    
    I think that is the context that discussions around retirement age needs to be framed in.
    - lprent 9.2.1.1
      
      29 May 2023 at 5:08 pm
      
      If we end up in a highly automated society that leads to mass redundancy, then there will be major issues around how taxes will be generated to fund the social aspects of our society.
      
      This isn't a new worry. 1958, the year before I was born.
      
      https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/30/rick-wartzman-book-excerpt-automation-donald-trump-215207/
      
      The Nation termed it an “Automation Depression.” “We are stumbling blindly into the automation era with no concept or plan to reconcile the need of workers for income and the need of business for cost-cutting and worker-displacing innovations,” the magazine said in November 1958. “A part of the current unemployment … is due to the automation component of the capital-goods’ boom which preceded the recession. The boom gave work while it lasted, but the improved machinery requires fewer man-hours per unit of output.” This conundrum, moreover, would outlast present conditions and become even more apparent in an economy that was supposed to accommodate 1 million new job seekers every year. “The problem we shall have to face some time,” the Nation concluded, “is that the working force is expansive, while latter-day industrial technology is contractive of man-hours.”
      
      Even in the 1950s, angst about what automation would mean for employment was not new. Economists started to explore the issue in the early 1800s, during the Industrial Revolution. Most classical theorists of the time—including J. B. Say, David Ricardo and John Ramsey McCulloch—held that introducing new machines would, save perhaps for a brief period of adjustment, produce more jobs than they’d destroy. By the end of the century, concern had faded nearly altogether. “Because the general upward trends in investment, production, employment and living standards were supported by evidence that could not be denied,” the economic historian Gregory Woirol has written, “technological change ceased to be seen as a relevant problem.” But fears reappeared in the mid-to-late 1920s, as America experienced two mild recessions and newly published productivity data indicated that machines were perhaps eating more jobs than was first believed. “This country has upon its hands a problem of chronic unemployment, likely to grow worse rather than better,” the Journal of Commerce, a trade and shipping industry publication, opined in 1928. “Business prosperity, far from curing it, may tend to aggravate it by stimulating invention and encouraging all sorts of industrial rationalization schemes.”
      
      If you go back to the invention of the printing press you'll find worries about technological unemployment.
      
      Sure it happens, but is usually relatively short-lived and seldom structural over a decade. Usually the biggest issue has been in processes trying to alleviate technological unemployment – and that goes all the way back to Roman times.
      
      Wikipedia has a good historical over-view page including a extensive linkage on the topic.
      
      However I'd also point out that demographics are going to play a massive part
      
      NZ in particular now has some pretty consistent structural employment shortages. But it is the same throughout most developed populations and almost every part of the world outside of sub-Saharan Africa (which had a 4 decade HIV epidemic and low population growth).
      
      Can't see that data mining algorithms are going to change that. Take Hollywood or gaming.
      
      What we will get is the kind of tech expansions like the Doom/Quake algorithm for angle did to SGI (umm read it on quanta today can't find it now – this is about the algorithm with the code). It did a fast inverse square root at integer level and changed graphics processing.
      
      int i = *(int*)&x; // evil floating point bit level hack
      i = 0x5f3759df – (i >> 1); // what the fuck?
      x = *(float*)&i;
      x = x*(1.5f-(xhalf*x*x));
      
      It wasn't perfect, but it was close enough for gaming and video. All of a sudden you didn't have to work in super-expensive specialised SGI floating processors in system that cost 100+k USD, you could do it on a high end PC – like Next. So SGI lost a competitive advantage to a one-line of integer based code. THye tried to flip to server code and failed.
      
      Once this got used, it caused a re-evaluation of graphics algorithms and so we got the kinds of processing that is far enough to get close to real-time graphics.
      
      It also exploded into a whole new gaming and CGI industry that is way larger than the whole film and film distribution industry worldwide. It employs skills, but also includes some pretty unskilled
      - Nic the NZer 9.2.1.1.1
        
        29 May 2023 at 6:40 pm
        
        Your link and other sources only attribute that codes appearance to Quake 3. Doom 1&2 was a quasi 3d engine and I think only used sprite lighting for shadows anyway.
      - tsmithfield 9.2.1.1.2
        
        30 May 2023 at 7:26 am
        
        I don't disagree with you. You may well be right (and I hope you are), and I allowed for both possibilities in my post as well.
        
        But, things do seem a little different this time. Humans will still obviously be required in all jobs. But, if technology is speeding up the process so much, then there may be a lot less jobs in most areas.
        
        People will need to adapt and learn the new technology, or they will be unemployable in the future I think. That something that really concerns me about the high disengagement from education at the moment. We could be breeding a whole generation that is largely unemployable. The impact on society could be quite disturbing.
- SPC 9.3
  
  29 May 2023 at 7:53 pm
  
  Until 1975
  
  We had means tested pension age 60-65 and the same rate universal super over age 65
  
  1980's
  
  We briefly had a surtax in the 80's on those with other income receiving universal super from age 60. The alternative to this was payment of super to only those who had retired from work (thus investment income would not be surtaxed) but Hercus was not keen (being concerned about those working after age 60 because of an unpaid mortgage).
  
  1990's
  
  An increase from age 60 to 65 and those in their 60's unable to work received the (1991) slashed benefit level poverty.
  
  2002
  
  A NZ Super Fund – a 30 year effort to save money to provide some capability to assist meet the future cost of tax paid super after 2030
  
  2005
  
  Kiwi Saver – tax credits to encourage saving.
Mike the Lefty 10

29 May 2023 at 1:09 pm

The third Labour government's NZ Super scheme, if left alone, would have made superannuation largely self-funding by now but National, out of spite, abolished it in 1976 and replaced it with the unaffordable model that we have today.

Good going National!
joe90 11

29 May 2023 at 1:37 pm

Is it hypocritical scaremongering?

Yup.

Te Ara Ahunga Ora Policy Papers 01/2021New Zealand retirement income policies and how they compare within the OECD

[…]

Figure 2. Basic pensions as a percentage of gross average earnings by country.
Source: OECD Stat doi.org/10.1787/888934041250

https://assets.retirement.govt.nz/public/Uploads/Retirement-Income-Policy-Review/TAAO-RC-Policy-Paper-2021-02.pdf
- Phillip ure 11.1
  
  29 May 2023 at 6:11 pm
  
  That graphic should be put on an election poster by labour..
  
  Then they can just point at it if /when national kicks off with their bullshit..
Reality 12

29 May 2023 at 2:16 pm

National/Act keep talking about tax cuts. Has it been widely publicised what all wage and salary levels would actually get? Luxon would get $18,000 a year which sounds attractive but what does someone earning $40,000, $50,000, $70,000 get per year? Time we heard more detail so people really know how they would be affected.

And those tax cuts would soon be eaten up by paying for prescriptions and losing the winter energy payment.
- Patricia Bremner 12.1
  
  29 May 2023 at 5:46 pm
  
  "Tax cuts would soon be eaten up paying for prescriptions and losing the winter energy payment", (plus the Transport subsidies.) I agree Reality.
  
  Which would put our local chemists under pressure from CWH, plus open slather for energy providers, and Public Transport being pressured by private groups… "Oh Yeah!!)
Incognito 13

29 May 2023 at 6:17 pm

I’d think twice before I’d start messing with a dragon of this size: 3,274,808 members enrolled in KiwiSaver as of March 2023.

https://www.ird.govt.nz/about-us/tax-statistics/kiwisaver/joining/member-demographics
- dv 13.1
  
  29 May 2023 at 8:26 pm
  
  So the mthly pmt in are
  
  at
  
  10$. a mth. 32 mill or 380m year
  
  100$ mth. 320 m. 3800 mil a year
  - Incognito 13.1.1
    
    29 May 2023 at 9:14 pm
    
    It’s a bit more than that.
Thinker 14

29 May 2023 at 7:26 pm

(Please don't read my capitals as shouting, I'm highlighting the words…)

Let's turn things on their head. A message that says we are giving notice that we WILL raise the superannuation age to 67 in 2044 is also a message that we WON'T raise the age of superannuation before 2044.

Now, let's take 2044 – 65 = 1979, so anyone born before 1979 is unaffected.

So, anyone 44 or older who is worried about the superannuation age has nothing to fear under National. That could be the real message.

I downloaded the stats from 2020 election as a spreadsheet and about half of the voting population is over 44. (reference https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/historical-events/2020-general-election-and-referendums/voter-turnout-statistics-for-the-2020-general-election/)
- SPC 14.1
  
  29 May 2023 at 7:42 pm
  
  Any decision on raising the age above age 65 in the 2040's can be delayed till 2029-2032 term.
  
  Unknowns
  
  1migration levels 2023-2029 and trends
  
  2impact of long COVID on the life span of the aged
  
  3impact of long COVID and our diabetes problem on capacity of people to work till age 65 – we might need to consider super rate benefit payments to those unable to work age 60-65 etc
  
  4NZSuper Fund value (from c2030 it stops taking in contributions and generates revenues to support super payments).
Sanctuary 15

30 May 2023 at 8:36 am

I turned sixty earlier this year. I spent the first half of my working life working a hard physical job. The second half has been in sedentary, white collar stuff. I have worked all my life except for the university bit and about one year in total between jobs.

I am OK physically, but you know what? I am getting tired. The numbers don't come quite as quick as they once did. I've just about had enough of the daily work routine, the aches and pains of being older thrust aside to glue on the smile and screw up the motivation to put in a solid innings. Thursday is the new Friday and the weekend can't come quick enough.

We all talk about the physical component of retiring but we don't consider the mental landscape. Psychologically everyone at 65 is a 65 year old. Most people can see the first signs of Autumn and yet we make a fetish of the drudgery of work without considering the allure of life's well earned leisure while your health is still good.

Sure, there are plenty who don't feel that way, who love what they do and will work till they drop or who physically feel great at 74. But the great majority of New Zealanders are not in that boat. Why should we be expected to work until our health is broken and every last drop of economic value wrung from our weary bones? Life isn’t an audition and we only get one go at enjoying it. I’ll be buggered if I’ll let the likes of Seymour loot my wellbeing just so he can give his fat cat mates yet more bags of money.

PS I have a cold so I am feeling particularly gloomy today.
- Anne 15.1
  
  30 May 2023 at 10:30 am
  
  Your story is so common Sanctuary. I can relate to it.
  
  As a younger person I took on projects that included hard physical labour. I was often chastised by older, wiser people and warned that I would have problems later. I did not heed the warnings because, you know… I was invincible. By my mid-60s the rot in the form of arthritis to joints and back started to set in. I am now disabled to the point I can only walk with a crutch.
  
  This is a scenario of which the wealthy Nat voting members of the public have no comprehension. They have little experience of 'hard labour'. Help is just a phone call away costing a few coins (to them) and hey-presto its sorted. Add to that the fact the working poor – generally speaking most of us – do not vote for them so compassion and understanding is thin on the ground despite their frequent remonstrations "we are very important to them". Yeah right… but only when it suits them and around election time.
Descendant Of Smith 16

30 May 2023 at 9:48 am

You don't need to raise the age to adjust things and you can make tax cuts fairer.

Both these things can be accomplished by lowering the tax rates at the bottom and raising them at the top.

For super this means if you are able to work and are capable of doing so then you pay more tax the higher your working income is. This gets back some of the NZS cost. No need to set up fancy pantsy means testing.

I still think making PAYE and student loan deductions payable to IRD at each payday is also a good step to take which can save millions of dollars in unpaid stolen tax.

There has already been a proxy lifting of the age to a group of us with unwell partners who will now have to work longer until our partners qualify. One moderate income in a two income world is not easy any more.

And then you see stuff like this. Incomes most of us can only dream about.

"Canstar found Auckland households needed to earn $219,000 a year to be able to afford an average-priced house and keep up with repayments at current interest rates without going into mortgage stress."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/132173085/how-much-you-need-to-earn-to-avoid-mortgage-stress
- Ngungukai 16.1
  
  30 May 2023 at 9:58 am
  
  Tax needs to be looked at properly and fairly, the wealthy are getting the Tax Breaks and the poor are getting hammered.
  
  John Key and NACT's Tax Cuts hammered the poor with the GST increases negating any benefits to the poor.
- Ian Boag 16.2
  
  30 May 2023 at 12:43 pm
  
  No need to set up fancy pantsy means testing.
  
  What's fancy about income testing/abatement. Super of course is a benefit – the money for today's oldies comes from today's taxpayers. Noone has "paid into a pension fund" because there has never been one. IRD/MSD do it now (benefit abatements) for other benefits … the means are there now.
James Simpson 17

30 May 2023 at 12:21 pm

So for me I believe that I should not receive a pension until 67 at least, and for someone in my father’s position it should be no later than the age of 65. And our young should be able to get jobs.

Mickysavage
SPC 18

30 May 2023 at 2:31 pm

Of the economists, Olsen at least, is aware of the issue of poverty amongst manual workers unable to work after age 60 and some Maori/Pacifica who have health problems.

For mine the more pressing issues are poverty caused by unemployment after age 60 and a rising lack of home ownership when people retire.

So the first change I would make
1. super rate benefits for those unable to work after age 60 (and those under 65 with disability and those off work because of heart attacks and cancer treatments – not covered by ACC) and income related rent housing.
2. funded by means testing super age for those working age 65 to 70 (over 40%)
Those renting/without mortgage free home ownership (or limited savings) able to receive super while working.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/05/brad-olsen-says-new-zealand-should-consider-lifting-superannuation-age.html

https://retirement.govt.nz/policy-and-research/retirement-income-policy-review/2019-review-of-retirement-income-policies/work-and-the-workforce/
Ian Boag 19

30 May 2023 at 2:40 pm

the Cullen fund has been described as a well-respected and well-performing sovereign wealth fund which has set a high standard in socially responsible investing.

To me the term "sovereign wealth fund" applies to the likes of Norway where it is left-over money …. The Cullen Fund is pretty much all borrowed money though if that matters.
- SPC 19.1
  
  30 May 2023 at 2:56 pm
  
  The Cullen Fund is pretty much all borrowed money
  
  The inputs 2002-2008 were from surpluses.
  
  National refused to borrow to place any money in 2008-2017 (and they would tax cut any surplus)
  
  The failure to borrow 2008-2017 (when it was cheap) – given wealth funds grow a lot cost us well over $10B in lost wealth gain (above and beyond borrowing cost).
  
  The inputs from 2017-2023 – are variable, some from borrowing.