Take an axe to Kiwisaver and halve it. Cancel payments into the Cullen fund. Wait almost two years. Discover that New Zealanders’ don’t save. Set up a committee to find out why.
Loading ...Take an axe to Kiwisaver and halve it. Cancel payments into the Cullen fund. Wait almost two years. Discover that New Zealanders’ don’t save. Set up a committee to find out why.
Loading ...This entry was posted on Monday, August 30th, 2010 at 6:55 am and is filed under Uncategorized, economy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Comments function should be working now. Sorry, there was a problem with the coding on the headline. Forgive us MPs our technological trespasses (mistakes)
When you tax from all of us so that a few priviledged can get govt subsidies to contribute to their pensions (Kiwisaver). Most people struggle to cope living on their wage/welfare. Yet we get taxed and then watch as $1024 + fees is given away to those who can afford to contribute to KS. Nat idea of “Take an axe to Kiwisaver and halve it” at least this means that the rich do not profit as much from Labs tax give away. Until all are treated equal (Compulsory Kiwisaver for all) then the rhetoric that has been expressed of “for the many not the few” is a bit hallow. Give govt assistance to the rich as both Nat and Lab do !!
Even beneficaries pay tax, how many of them are fully experiencing the benefits of KW?, PAYE workers cannot even afford this luxury. If not compulsory then stop the on going govt(Read tax payer) funded subsidy.
I’ll spew if my Ma misses out on super because of this!
!
Thanks for the chuckle Herodotus
“Nat idea of “Take an axe to Kiwisaver and halve it” at least this means that the rich do not profit as much from Labs tax give away.”
Yea, equality between the very rich and the very poor, that was National’s motivation. Actually the “saving” they made here, and the 2.5% GST rise is to lower taxes for the top earners.
I know of several people who have joined Kiwisaver since the minimum was dropped. They could not really afford it but at only 2% it is at least a start and they will reap the benefit long term. I pointed out that only an idiot turns down free money even if it does come from the poor old taxpayer. Oh, that’s right, it is not free.
I do believe it was Michael Cullen who stated that contributions to the Super Fund should only come from surpluses. His handling of the economy means that it will be a long time before that happens again.
God knows what Spud is going on about re his Ma.
Can someone please remind whos idea kiwisaver was?
I think the sill idea was not making Kiwisaver compulsary when introduced, so fitting I chose the option “sillier than that”…
Herodotus, are you suggesting KS should be means tested?
Simon, means testing only adversley affects the middle sector who already get screwed by many other forms of govt assistance. There are measures for the wealthy to be advantaged and still qualify e.g. 50 rich listers not paying the top tax bracket. Those who have not managed their affairs and have to pay full respite care yet the wealthy get govt assistance as they have no assets in their own name but have control of the trusts assets and also be a beneficiary of the trust. There are some top notch lawyers out there for a fee.
If the govt of the day can give $1k for a start up then the $1024 p.a. + fee contribution, then why not make it universial and give everyone (NZ citizen residing in NZ and paying tax or on a benefit) the $1k start up and $500p.a. or what ever the amount is that offsets the annual cost i.e. is financially neutral just like the GST to 15% and the reduction of PAYE (if some are to be believed).
Only disadvantage is that more competing pension funds drives the price of good investments up and reduces the yield, or such a fund could contribute to NZ infrastructure/govt bonds or even buy out SCF at a reduced value below the B.V. or even invest in power generation of the likes.
What happened to my comment?
People I know didn’t want to contribute at 4% but were more happy with 2% so it is a good thing. Also we shouldn’t borrow to invest. That is just stupid.
As long as contributions to Kiwisaver are channelled through the Inland Revenue Dept it will remain a dog. Contributions should be direct to the Fund Manager and any tax savings collected through tax returns.
I wish I could alter the options – I really want to vote for “pure hypocrisy”!
pdm you are now in the realm of offensive. And you are warned. Clare
@Dave, did you watch Q + A on Sunday morning..? They had the CEO of the Superfund on, he’s very nearly changed my mind on the issue…
Who keeps sabotaging Hodgson’s posts?
12 isn’t working.
Insurance companies would just love to run our pension scheme/superannuation, strip enormous profit out of it and leave no guarantee it would be there when needed.
Govt is the only agency that has a mandate to run superannuation through taxes.
If politicians were not so driven by the finance sector with multinational fingers into every sector of NZ, then we could benefit from a strong Govt run scheme where our money was used to consolidate our infrastructure and services.
All the years of contribution by the baby boomers has been taken for short term budgeting and increase private sector growth and dividends taken off shore.
(1) I thought Bill and John wanted to close the gap with Australia. And in Australia the rate is 9%. Pay attention.
(2) You borrow to invest if you ROI is going to be higher than the cost of borrowing. That is just smart. Ah, I mean, smarter than Bill and John seem to be.
Yes that is the point the CEO of the Superfund made, no one can borrow as cheaply as the Government and he was absolutely certain the fund could get returns better than borrowing costs over the long term…
I’m still not sure how future oil prices and the depression they might trigger will affect the situation but it is worth considering…
Best I add my apologies for the gremlin. As to the comments about Kiwisaver, remember that a 2% option always existed; essentially National told employers that their contribution need be only 2% no matter their employee’s wish. Bill English always hated the scheme cos he thought it too generous; pre-election he had to hide that prejudice as thousands rushed to join.