How much capital do I need to retire comfortably on ?

[Aaron]

Increasing numbers of 65+ carry on working, often for many years, especially in their own businesses. Sometimes hear that called double dipping and pension should not be paid to those still working. Mary Holm did a column couple of years back in consultation with IRD, which concluded that the tax paid well exceeded any savings.

Of course people who advocate workers should not 'double dip' don't seem to realise that working in an office or in a trade is not the only source of income.

Martin Hawes may not agree.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opi...cant-afford-it

Although I believe he is arguing for raising the retirement age rather than means or asset testing.

[artemis]

Martin Hawes may not agree.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opi...cant-afford-it

Although I believe he is arguing for raising the retirement age rather than means or asset testing.

My point was that disallowing super for 65+ if the person is working has been determined to cost more than it would save. Often hear it said that working people should not also get super. Means / asset testing is a whole other ball game, and an election loser right there.

[Aaron]

My point was that disallowing super for 65+ if the person is working has been determined to cost more than it would save. Often hear it said that working people should not also get super. Means / asset testing is a whole other ball game, and an election loser right there.

Anyone on a good income is likely to pay more in tax than they get back in superannuation but your not proposing that we lower the retirement age are you? How do you establish that people 65 and over on a good income deserve to get a hand-out from the NZ taxpayer as well as their wages, investment, rental income etc.

No wait let me answer that "because they have been paying taxes all their lives"... whatever, we have been over this already.

[fish]

I have always thought Martin Hawes was a bit of a scrooge who doesnt see the full picture.
For instance people age at different rates
eg-genetics,smokers,maori and pacific Islanders.
There is no absolute,fair system.
We have to live with compromises.
Raising the age or means testing is not going to save money or make the system fairer.

[Aaron]

I have always thought Martin Hawes was a bit of a scrooge who doesnt see the full picture.
For instance people age at different rates
eg-genetics,smokers,maori and pacific Islanders.
There is no absolute,fair system.
We have to live with compromises.
Raising the age or means testing is not going to save money or make the system fairer.

Raising the age or means testing will definitely save money whether it is fairer seems to be a matter of opinion.

[Aaron]

Having Gareths retirement problems would be good.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...superannuation

Something is wrong and it needs changing.

[blackcap]

Having Gareths retirement problems would be good.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...superannuation

Something is wrong and it needs changing.

What is wrong? Why is it wrong? He is giving the money away so that is a good thing isn't it? But he is entitled to it as far as I am concerned. Has paid tax all his life so now he gets the benefits of the super.

But to be more equitable it is probably better that we move to a system where you save for your retirement (compulsory) and people use that when they retire. Sure some will have more in their retirement savings but that is the situation under the current system. Work longer and harder and have more. Be a beneficiary and have less. Ie make it that someone on a benefit for their entire life gets the approximate same as Super is now, that would make the system fair and equitable.

[Aaron]

What is wrong? Why is it wrong? He is giving the money away so that is a good thing isn't it? But he is entitled to it as far as I am concerned. Has paid tax all his life so now he gets the benefits of the super.

I think Gareth Morgan described this as a Vaucous argument. He paid tax all his life it was used on cradle to grave welfare, free tertiary education, it went into inefficient govt owned organisations paying generous salaries, think big projects (which to be fair will benefit many generations). None of it was put aside to provide for superannuation (other than the Cullen Fund)

But to be more equitable it is probably better that we move to a system where you save for your retirement (compulsory) and people use that when they retire. Sure some will have more in their retirement savings but that is the situation under the current system. Work longer and harder and have more. Be a beneficiary and have less. Ie make it that someone on a benefit for their entire life gets the approximate same as Super is now, that would make the system fair and equitable.

Is this a concession that something may need to change, perhaps compulsory Kiwisaver along with income and asset testing for nz super???

[blackcap]

Is this a concession that something may need to change, perhaps compulsory Kiwisaver along with income and asset testing for nz super???

No I mean no NZ super at all. Just compulsory Kiwisaver. Super goes, the Kiwisaver is in its place.

[Pipi]

[QUOTE=Aaron;707049]I think Gareth Morgan described this as a Vaucous argument. He paid tax all his life it was used on cradle to grave welfare, free tertiary education, it went into inefficient govt owned organisations paying generous salaries, think big projects (which to be fair will benefit many generations). None of it was put aside to provide for superannuation (other than the Cullen Fund)


Don't forget to mention the millions and millions that have gone to Waitangi Treaty claims