Kiwisaver....free money anyone??

[Krustytheclown]

So Kullens new scheme sounds like a great lolly jar for lots of people.....a ploy to generate a good catchment of votes.

It looks good and will be used to its uttmost by many.

Tax cuts are certainly the most efficient way to let people save more/or invest/or spend on what you like -it YOURS after all!!!

The new Kullen giveaway......its VERY inefficient....
The Govt takes $10.00 bucks in tax .....chews/wastes/administrates/burns $4.00......and gives you back $6.00 and tells you how lucky and happy you should be!!!......

That socialist makes me puke with this talk down -"we know best for you" attitude!

G.

[shasta]

Or even worse, the payroll tax Cullen is now hinting at!

In the same breathe as possible company tax cuts?

...take with one hand & give back with the other!

Same old tricks trying to buy votes when we know the govt is just making it harder for businesses who employ staff.

Tax cuts help everyone & would stop Cullen looking for ways to fill the gap from the carbon tax.

What next, road tolls on all main streets?

1 in 4 to take up the scheme, not likely!

[CJ]

Has anyone noticed that the earliest drawdown to buy a new house is after three years which I work out to be about 1 year after the next election. therefore:

Vote labour and you get this great bonus, or
Vote national and those nasty people will cancel the scheme and you wont get anything and you money you have saved will be locked about until you retire.

[minimoke]

This places me in another dilemma. Since I am a tax payer do I take advantage of the potential benefits of the KiwiSaver scheme? While philosophically I am opposed to it (since I would sooner invest in my own future, my way) I am a bit stuck. It’s a bit like the dilemma I have with Kiwibank. Do I stay with my current bank or do I go with Kiwibank who can offer a “cheaper” deal. Do I keep to my free market principles or do I look at my investor principles and seek a better return on my tax paid dollars?

[belgarion]

quote:Originally posted by gregoroius

Tax cuts are certainly the most efficient way to let people save more/or invest/or spend on what you like -it YOURS after all!!!


No caveats! No reference to current economic cycle! Nada. (And logically all that this poster said was ... "tax cuts give people more cash" ... Duh!

Preaching to all and sundry such dogma as if it were fact just makes the poster in question look like ... A pub economist! :D

greg, do you have any financial background at all? Taxes aren't mine or yours ... they're actually ours. As you are so fond of democracies and support them one hundred percent - You'll just have to get used to that the fact that the majority will choose to spend our money how we see fit ... ;)

[belgarion]

quote:Originally posted by barnsley bill

we get what we deserve, when the school teachers won last year i did as promised on the election threads and cashed up everything. sold the big house and my business and shifted. haven't made it to queensland yet, only got as far as kerikeri.
i believe things are going to be good for exporters over the next few years so that is the game for me. in the mean time I intend to take advantage of every nanny state handout going. Don't pay tax (other than the consumption taxes we cant avoid) anymore. Andam enjoying life a lot more now that scum cullen and the childless gargoyle have stopped picking my pocket.


So Barnsley bill ... :(

Your true colours ring out ... A chip-on-your shoulder, "the world owes me a living", bludger!

You hypocritcial, honourless scumbag! :(

It makes me sick to know my tax dollars are supporting scum like you. :(

[minimoke]

quote:Originally posted by belgarion


It makes me sick to know my tax dollars are supporting scum like you. :(


Umm - shouldn't this be "our" tax dollars supporting BB? So in a democracy we should be happy to support BB?

[belgarion]

minimoke,

I resent my tax dollars supporting scum like BB who think milking he system is what the system is there for.

If the majority of NZ'er think supporting BB's milking is okay then I have to go along with it. It will not stop me resenting it. Further, as this is a democracy, it will not stop me seeking a 'clean up' of systems so that scum like BB have to do what most taxpayers do. Work! And work both smart and hard.

So taxpayers ... Two questions:

1. Do you want your tax dollars to go to people who intend to "take advantage of every nanny state handout going"

2. Do you think that the system is there to:
___ a) help the truely needy
___ b) or is it there to support lazy scum like BB?

[minimoke]

quote:Originally posted by belgarion

minimoke,

I resent my tax dollars supporting scum like BB who think milking he system is what the system is there for.


......


Sorry - still confused. So its OK for Gregoriuos' Tax to be "our" tax but your tax is still yours?

As to your survey - it seems incumbent on every investor to maximise their opportunities and to legally reduce their tax exposure. If you run out of options before the tax is taken by the Govt shouldn’t you try to recover it afterwards by whatever legal means available? One means being accepting the largesse of a government when they are handing back the loot.

Lets face it, so much of the loot handed out by the govt is not to the truly needy. For example is every government worker “truly needy”; are “hip hop” tours for the truly needy. Is superannuation paid to “retired” folks who have an income (Johnathan Hunt being but one example) an example of our taxes going to the truly needy. I don’t think so.

[Krustytheclown]

We could all think of the stupid Govt kiwisaver scheme as our own tax repayment/repatriation policy.....untill a real Govt gets power that winds this idea down (repays) in favour of Tax cuts.

I would prefer a tax reduction for everyone.....and not pay the millions that will be required to hire hundreds of overly large/inefficient/librarian type women to administer a this inefficient Kullen "toilet pondering idea".

It is incumbent of all sensible people to take up all Govt initiatives that return taxpayers cash to those who pay it in the first place.....this idea is not at all ideal.....but its a crude start.



G.

[Sideshow Bob]

quote: Originally posted by Barnsley Bill:

I am none of these things, i retired on 15th december following the successfull sale of my business that employed in excess of 40 kiwis, I also sold a house in auck for a tidy profit as well as cashing out of most of my nzx holdings and have now moved to the sunny bay of islands where i will no longer contribute any of my money to the state (other than consumption taxes)........

oh and I did it before my 40th birthday

Good on ya BB! :D

[minimoke]

quote:Originally posted by barnsley bill

try
www.workingforfamilies.co.nz

I am going to get 293 bucks PER WEEK from april 1st.


BB. Your next challenge will be to figure out how to become a student for an interest free loan. Te Waanaga o Taamaki Makaurau probably has an excellent business course which won't require attendance and you may learn how these guys also manage to get the most from NZ tax payers.

[minimoke]

quote:Originally posted by barnsley bill


One request for belge, you need to up your output buddy, because it is highly likely we will have another little barnsley bill this year and the gargoyles paid parental leave is sure gonna come in handy and your low wages derived income is not really producing enough tax money for me.

Enjoy those hours fishing while getting the added extra child care subsidy!

[lakedaemonian]

To say I'm disgusted with the current state of affairs with our government in terms of taxation would be a gross understatement.

If my companies weren't going to be the victims of elected thieves I'd find it quite funny.

As the economy settles, profits drop, and we begin to hear about lower corporate taxes in exchange for a new payroll tax scheme.

So rather than happily paying the socialists a third of my profits, I will soon be required to pay around a fifth of my profits, but also a percentage of a 7 figure employee wage bill.

Nice recurring revenue stream and perfect timing...it reminds me of the smokers exiled outdoors in the spring.....it doesn't get uncomfortable for them until winter.

When profits start drying up for many companies as we heads towards the bottom of the current economic cycle it will be interesting to see if they are actually saving on taxes, or potentially paying more if they are in labour intensive industries.

The "Working For Families" scheme makes me want to vomit.

Why no automatic crediting for those eligible in PAYE systems?

Why the need to spend MILLIONS on TV commercials.......that should be spent helping needy recipients?

Just another wasteful exercise to promote current government.

It has nothing to do with helping families, and everything to do with the continued survival of the Labour party......disgusting.

[lakedaemonian]

quote:Originally posted by barnsley bill

try
www.workingforfamilies.co.nz

I am going to get 293 bucks PER WEEK from april 1st.
this is incredible, we will not be means tested in any way. it only works on our income. Wifey and I have structured our money to receive gross 20 k each per year. With 4 kids to support we get 293 per week.
One of our companies will set our income and provide the fatties at winz pay slips

it does not take into account the freehold million dollar bay of islands property, the two 100k new cars we bought ourselves for xmas or the 40 foot launch parked at doves bay, not to mention the frequent trips to oz to visit our money.

Belgarion, I thank you from the heart of my bottom and all the other schmucks who voted the school teachers in and continue to work on wages to provide me with this long overdue tax refund.

Tomorrows episode will cover my free healthcare , student loan allowances, free money and the subsidised child care so we can go fishing.


I wish I could type a Dr Evil laugh


If you have contributed as many jobs and tax dollars as you claim, I for one, do NOT begrudge your choices as long as they are legal.

I am increasingly tempted to seriously consider offers to sell up and completely retire.

If Cullen plans to lower corporate taxes and add a payroll tax, I'm wondering if an investment company with a payroll of just my wife and I would be advantageous to current schemes.

[minimoke]

quote:Originally posted by barnsley bill

found another one, we also qualify for 41 bucks a week accomodation supplement. Thanks belgie

While your're at it, there is bound to be some healthcare subsidies around for you and the wee tykes.

[Placebo]

quote:I wish I could type a Dr Evil laugh

:D:D

I am loving this! Go for it BB. As LD says if you have in fact been the `self-made' man you say then it is hard to begrudge you what the current situation is. All these schemes have been put in place, why not take advantage of them?

My only grizzle is that I am not in the same position as you!

I was going to chip in about getting interest-free student loan, but you have that one covered. How about making an application to a soft govt dept like Jim Anderton's economic ministry for a soft start-up grant (seed funding) for a new business venture.

It'd be interesting to know how many govt depts are giving away money and in what ways.

While you are doing that, spare me a thought.

I don't qualify for `working for families' because I either A: earn too much or B: don't have enough children
Wife is a stay-home mum so doesn't qualify for parental leave
I work for a living, so pay income tax AND GST
I earn too much for an accommodation supplement
Don't study, so no interest-free loan
Am not an ethnic minority, so therefore no preferential grants etc
In short, I am the classic white middle-class caught-in-the-mortgage trap working parent

I'm not complaining; these are all my choices. But it's interesting to compare the situations.

[belgarion]

quote:Originally posted by barnsley bill
Placebo, enterprise northland are proving quite helpfull on the free access to belgarions money front.
Your situation is not uncommon, i found myself in a similar set of circumstances for much of my early working life in NZ. You are being over taxed so labour can bribe enough beneath you to vote fo more eat the rich policies. While my direction with this thread is purely to point out the idiocy of our social policy by identifying the mack truck sized loop holes, I have found an outlet for my favourite past time on this site... namely baiting belgarion.
In conclusion, if you have made poor lifestyle choices, lack the wit or wherewithall to improve your own circumstances then labour will pay you. Clearly you are caught in the middle which is where most of the tax is coming from
Tax cuts would be fairer for all creating incentive for effort and greatly reduce costs by removing all the vanilla jobsworths from benefit departments.
As for my self made status i guess i could be making it up but ask yourself why bother? All these free govt money outlets are available to all.
My intention with cashing out of the rat race was to take a year out, I now find myself working on a number of projects in kerkeri that will no doubt see me dragged back into some sort of business. Having a few months off has really helped me take a step back and look at what is really going on in NZ.
Placebo, i urge you to seek self employment in one form or another. The paye life just makes you a big duck target for elmer fudd cullen and his taxation blunderbuss, i much prefer being bugs bunny


Keep posting BB - you expose yourself as an arch b.s. artist on every post
Just a quick question BB, Do you fail so abismally with your b.s. in real life or do you save it especially for S.T. so you can amuse us all ???

[Krustytheclown]

Does'nt Bellgroan always make such reaaaaaly usefull posts!

Cullen and Clark have now proven beyond a shadow of any Socialists wildests wet dreams that they will DO ANY deal with any Devil (75% of Labours lying/decietfull/criminally negligent MPs) To hold their Commie Jackboots on the few productive NZers throats - that are still able to splutter taxes into their pockets.

MPs of the left have absolutely no credibility (scandal and proven lying almost every day by instalment!!!!) and are see-through for their false and fraudulent idealogies.......kiwisaver is to become a new layer of welfare to the masses...Vomit.....but hey why not partake.......I have been overly partaken of since I left School!

We need to see some Labour turkeys rolled for a proven Crime......Q is Benson or The Taito?
Then election.......then lower taxes for the poor.....and some pride for the poor!

G....just a working proll.

[belgarion]

G, you are moron.

Has it not occurred to you that a kiwi dollar saved is not a kiwi dollar spent on imported goods?

[Krustytheclown]

quote:Originally posted by belgarion

G, you are moron.

Has it not occurred to you that a kiwi dollar saved is not a kiwi dollar spent on imported goods?


Moron....big and considered word for Belg'.....shows his level in fitting context.
Playing the man and not the ball is really his game.

You should engage a bit more in the topics......and not aim either at the Authors or the Inspiartional, multi-elected leaders of the free world:D!.


G.

[lakedaemonian]

quote:Originally posted by barnsley bill

yup, cheap doctors and subsidised meds.

Of course on our combined 40k of declared income we are simply getting back the tax we have to pay on the 40k. I am amazed at the labour govts largesse. And the added bonus for them in giving all this money back is they have to create a huge layer of civil servants to dish it out. So they get all the recipients voting for them and the blobbies working to hand it out..



That's what drives me insane......

I thoroughly enjoyed conversations with those stumping for Labour in the last elections.

Not a one could effectively argue the benefits of social programs where the government takes your cash, just to give it back(less of it back that is, factoring in associated overheads).

Several tried to argue that people are too stupid to be trusted with their OWN money.......that's when it became no longer funny.

My wife and I live a low overhead lifestyle and continually reinvest company earnings rather than taking taxed to death distributions. Plus we're popping out little mini-me capitalists like rabbits. Maybe our accountant can suggest how we can restructure things to become eligible for getting some of my tax dollars back.

[Cooper]

quote:Originally posted by lakedaemonian
I thoroughly enjoyed conversations with those stumping for Labour in the last elections.

Not a one could effectively argue the benefits of social programs where the government takes your cash, just to give it back(less of it back that is, factoring in associated overheads).

Several tried to argue that people are too stupid to be trusted with their OWN money.......that's when it became no longer funny.

My wife and I live a low overhead lifestyle and continually reinvest company earnings rather than taking taxed to death distributions. Plus we're popping out little mini-me capitalists like rabbits. Maybe our accountant can suggest how we can restructure things to become eligible for getting some of my tax dollars back.




I sympathise and agree with the principles of your arguments, BB and LD. If we're going to have a welfare state, it makes no sense to disincentivise those who could work from doing so.

It appears there is a fundamental misunderstanding in some people's idea of what a welfare state should be... and this is arguably the case with the effects (if not the intent) of Labour's unique approach to welfarism. People sometimes act as if welfare is a fundamental right, which it clearly isn't. A welfare system is a luxury which can be afforded only if the production of a society is able to support it. Providing disincentives to work and non-productive taxation which supports a self-fulfilling idea of welfarism is quite plainly stupid, and the end result of this is that, taken to the nth degree, noone works for the money which is needed to pay for the welfare (which is exactly the point BB was making).

So even if we accpet that there is a desire or need for welfare, there are clearly limits before the provision of welfare becomes counter-productive.

What, then, should welfare exist for? At the moment it appears to be a money grab, with specific areas of society appearing to believe that transfer payments are a given, and it's simply a matter of doing what you can to get what you can. In my opinion a welfare system should have two effects. One is social... even opponents of welfare, I assume, would not welcome a society where there is no "floor"... where there is no attempt to keep all members of that society above a certain level of living. The second effect is economic, and this can be broken down into two categories... the first is simple capitalism; we don't want elements of society which are not being properly utilised (as mechanical as it sounds), and the attempt to increase the productivity of individuals by targetting transfer payments can be argued as being a simple matter of expecting returns greater than the sum invested in terms of welfare paid.

There's also the theory that if all members of a society are productive, happy and relatively wealthy, then this has spillover effects which lead to exponential growth. Greater average productivity (and therefore earnings) create a higher level of living for all in society, which in turn creates the opportunities for better investment, better education, more productivity, larger markets for those goods produced etc etc. The proof of this can be provided in an example... if I was to travel to Zimbabwe with a sackfull of i-pods to sell, how well would I do?

I wouldn't make a cent, because Zimbabweans are too busy trying to eke out a living to afford such luxuries, and because they don't have and can't afford the supporting products for the use of an i-pod. Yet i-pods are a huge seller for Apple in developed markets. The same example could be used for other non-staple items. There needs to be a certain level of productivity for opportunities to produce to exist, and if we accept that most production is for a domestic market first and export second, or that domestic production for export relies

[belgarion]

Had a good look at some of the less obvious things in the KiwiSaver scheme ...

I particularly liked the 'low fees' tenet. Basically this is a shot accross the bows of the existing super and pensions industry that slurp from the trough with near impunity. I'd guess that the Kiwisaver estimated return will be about a percent higher than existing super and pension funds on this basis.

I wonder who'll get to operate the funds? [}:)]

[lakedaemonian]

quote:Originally posted by belgarion

G, you are moron.

Has it not occurred to you that a kiwi dollar saved is not a kiwi dollar spent on imported goods?


Typical Labour pseudo-intellectual.

"We know best for you."

If individuals lack the long-term vision to save, that's their bed to sleep in. Determining one's own financial destiny, to me, is a right at birth which governments steal from us.

If people CHOOSE to buy cheap Chinese rubber dog poop instead of investing in a business, shares, property, etc. that's their choice to make, not "government knows best."

Government minions spending "other people's money" is the epitomy of wasteful inefficiency.

Using the "stick" instead of the "carrot" is a sure sign of ineffectiveness and poor leadership.

[Krustytheclown]

I've been looking for decent carrots for the last few weeks in the Labour party's garden......the old dear that weeds the plot said we in the labour party ripped those out years ago!!!......in just encourages those filthy capitalists!....

I walked away dispondant......with a working for families and kiwisaver rickety crutch...they were giving out to everyone.

G.

[CJ]

quote:Originally posted by belgarion

Had a good look at some of the less obvious things in the KiwiSaver scheme ...

I particularly liked the 'low fees' tenet. Basically this is a shot accross the bows of the existing super and pensions industry that slurp from the trough with near impunity. I'd guess that the Kiwisaver estimated return will be about a percent higher than existing super and pension funds on this basis.

I wonder who'll get to operate the funds? [}:)]
Is it low fee or is the government subsidising. Either way I agree it is good for an extra percentage return per year (som maybe you will get 5% rather than just 4%!!)

I assume all the usual suspects will lauch their own qualifying fund or else they will miss out on business (ie tower, asb, ING etc).

[belgarion]

CJ, Thanks for contributing. (Many posts on this thread add nothing.)

My interest in evaluating the operation of the scheme is a business angle. I work for a large IT company in NZ and figure if we could get a proposal out there quickly for an 'SOA architected package solution' then development costs could be spread amoung many players. Thus the overall costs to each player could be reduced and the cost barriers for entry reduced ... [}:)]

Thus more competition from smaller more agile players. From my own expirience with large insurers, left to their own devices they'll waste millions getting the 'systems', both operational and IT, together and then they'll complain that the schemes are too expensive and they'll find all sorts of reasons to increase fees.

In the Europe we frequently put systems in for exactly these types of schemes and start-ups with simple product offerings inside 6 months and sometimes as low as 3 months. Thats from an empty office building to a fully operational call centre based business. It can be done.

I started on a proposal yesterday morning. At present Im trying to get what is a 25 page fully-costed, fixed-price proposal down to 1 page for my directors (I hate this part). ;) As they say though; nothing ventured; nothing gained. :)

Cheers,
Belgarion.

[minimoke]

quote:Originally posted by CJ

Is it low fee or is the government subsidising.
[/quote]

The "tax payer" will be contributing to the fund managers by way of subsidising their fees. The government will be using their superior negotiating skills, to keep these fees "sharp".

Additionally the tax payer will be contributing $1,000 to every person who signs up to the scheme. And after a qualifying period the tax payer will also be paying out up to $5,000 for a deposit for the Kiwisavers dream home.

[belgarion]

Mini ...

two questions ...

1) Isn't the $1000 only 'paper' money until the person retires? I.e. what's $1000 going to worth in n years? Will the person also get 6% return on the 1000 from day one?

2) What is the qualifying period for the the housing loan? What is the payout ratio?

Methinks I see a plethera of un-declared interests in many posts. How many of the posters are brokers, financial advisers, etc. [}:)]

[minimoke]

quote:Originally posted by belgarion

Mini ...

two questions ...

1) Isn't the $1000 only 'paper' money until the person retires? I.e. what's $1000 going to worth in n years? Will the person also get 6% return on the 1000 from day one?

2) What is the qualifying period for the the housing loan? What is the payout ratio?

Methinks I see a plethera of un-declared interests in many posts. How many of the posters are brokers, financial advisers, etc. [}:)]

I'm perhaps not the right person to ask as I have no interest in this scheme except so far as it can benefit me and mine. But here's my understanding.

1) The $1,000 is real tax payer money and will get paid into the saver’s investment product on enrolment. So from that point on it will be subject to the whims of the investment product. Presuming the saver’s chosen product grows it stays locked in until retirement - and I guess benefits from any compound growth.

2) After three years saving the saver can get $3,000 cash (I don't think it’s a loan) from the tax payer for the purposes of a home loan deposit. Another $1,000 a year is available for each extra year of saving until the maximum handout of $5,000

[belgarion]

Minimoke,

With all due respect ... Would it be fair to say that your understanding of this scheme is quite limited as far as the overall consequences to the burden placed upon NZ Govt is concerned?

No disrespect intended MM ... Just that I find others posters comments to be quite ill informed. (No real suprise as I am guilty of it myself from time to time.)

The reason why I ask is that other countries have instituted such schemes and they have been successful at keeping the corporate/private pension providers honest.

[minimoke]

B
I am not sure what consequences you are alluding to.

Is it the aging population; peoples apparent inability to save for their own future; the lack of disposable income by somewhere like 80% of the workforce to invest in their retirement savings; is it our inability to bring new migrants into the country and our inability to keep people here to fund our retirement in the future; is it the government’s cynical use of tax paid dollars to the benefit of the wider NZ society such as interest free student loans, “working for Families” or indeed “kiwiSaver”. All of which will have downstream “consequences”.

I would have to admit my understanding of the KiwiSaver scheme is somewhat lacking. Not surprising really since the Government is making it up as it goes along. After all the Bill was only introduced to parliament last week, it has to go through Select Committee stages, public consultation (rather than the behind closed door manoeuvrings of the past few months) and is subject to parliamentary vote. It is sometimes very hard to gain a detailed understanding of something that is as fluid as government policy. But at least it appears that you have a greater understanding to make a call on my level of understanding.

Perhaps you could also share with us the dishonest pension providers in New Zealand so that we can steer clear of these rogues when we look to securing our $1,000 hand outs. I’d have to say from my personal experience I haven’t found any dishonesty – the fact that they lost me money is more a reflection of my delay in understanding that if I am to loose money I may as well loose it myself rather than pay some one for the privilege.

[belgarion]

quote:Originally posted by minimoke

B

... the fact that they lost me money is more a reflection of my delay in understanding that if I am to loose money I may as well loose it myself rather than pay some one for the privilege.


LOL. Huge numbers know how you feel.

(btw keeping people honest isn't the same as calling people dishonest ... or is it?)

[bongo66]

Communism doesnt work.

[minimoke]

Not to many changes but the outlook for this scheme now looks like the tax payer will certainly be giving KiwiSavers up to $5,000 to buy their first home. This should be no surprise since the Govt is happy for the tax payer to carry the risk of people defaulting on their “Welcome Home Loan” scheme.

To kick start the scheme the tax payer is providing a $1000 contribution and paying some scheme fees in order to improve the returns for savers.

And who says Labour doesn’t give tax breaks – well they do. The employer can pay the employee contribution and it will be free from tax. So its not OK for Cullen to look at across the board corporate and individual tax cuts but it is OK if the Tax Payer subsides Kiwsavers to help ensure this scheme is seen as a success.

And the Government is continuing to work hard at keeping the unemployment rate down and securing its success at the next election. Loads of new value adding Government jobs coming up administering the KiwiSaver scheme. This is a great Labour strategy as anyone who can’t get a job in the real world will be so grateful to a benevolent Labour government they will be sure to vote for them in the next election.