Enough for a nice surplus.
Printable View
Benefit fraud!!! What about all the National super-annuitants picking up a benefit even if they don't need it. One thing I can agree with Robert Jones on in his herald article today.
hey Aaron ...cool it
I be one of those in a year or two. I am due that payment because the govt has set aside one and frippence a week for me since I started working
Yes I am one of the selfish generation ....I have no qualms in taking what is rightfully mine ..... it is obviously up to your generation to work out how you are going to keep paying it to me for many years to come.
What is your definition of "Don't need it" exactly? Lets say that I had a good job, worked all my life, always rented, and saved about $400,000. However I always enjoyed myself, played golf, ate out, had a company car.
Now I am retired I have no income, just the money in the bank. And have to buy a decent car.
My expenses are still food, rent, insurance(going up), am I now supposed to use up the money I saved until there is nothing left. That will take say 8-10 years. And then what do I do? Why should I suddenly have to reduce my standard of living as soon as I retire?
I haven't read the Robt. Jones item, but there are 2 salient points to Mr. Jones. 1. he cost me money, while he went quietly selling his shares, while pushing them. 2. What would he know about trying to retire on $400,000, and still have the same standard of living, the fraudster?
He would know a lot about retiring on $400K pa. ... oh sorry you meant $400K in total - that is a different story:)
If the govt has set it aside then no worries but I think the Cullen fund is the only attempt to put some aside. As for being rightfully yours, I recall chanting that "free education was a right not a privilege" turns out it was a privilege after all.(You know which generation had that privilege).
How about means testing as a first step to keep up payments.
Apparently poor Robert Jones wasn't aware that he needed to tell the market he was selling his namesake company. whoops.
Come on Aaron, you didn't reply to my "why should I suddenly have to reduce my standard of living as soon as I retire"
And now you talk about means testing. What is your idea of a minimum asset balance before it reduces?
Come on, man, show us how you think it should work. Obviously you are not too close to 65 yet, or have a couple of million stashed away in Swiss banks.
No Aaron ...you don't get it at all
When I started working and paying taxes the government told me they were putting one and frippence (out of the taxes I paid) a week aside to pay me a pension .......and I believed them and they need to honour that promise
Yes I got a free education, paid a bit for having kids until they stopped that, and all that good stuff ......and was lucky to be the generation that started buying property at the beginning of the biggest property boom ever .....and all those good things
But I still expect the younger generation to give me pocket money and provide hospitals if I need it .....and you guys need to work out how to make that happen.
And I forgot about the free bus rides and ferry trips to waiheke ...... Well done winston
Nah, let's just can super and all pensions are a function of what you save/invest during your lifetime, with taxes adjusted (and backdated) accordingly. Unemployment benefit (or whatever it's called) can be along the same lines - if you don't contribute, you can't withdraw unless you are physically unable to work.
Nice result for me, but I would have to keep out of the cities for fear of tripping over all the hungry people.
Oops, apparently this is supposed to be the Meridian thread! Apologies from me to all those who want to discuss that topic; looks like you've been hi-jacked.
You onto it mate .... I hope you and your generation do a good job and see that me and stan get our pocket money
Shame that your generation were also the ones that bought my generations properties at the top of the property cycle ....and were encouraged to borrow almost the price of the property to do so
But don't forget how to work out to look after the old people .... the ones who made the world what it is for you ... a beautiful place
I don't think I said you had to reduce your standard of living when you retire. You might even look to reduce your standard of living before you retire so that you can save for retirement.
Means testing might take a bit more thought and intelligence than I am capable of but say the average income is $48,000 and nat super is $18,585. You could get your full entitlement but this would rebate by 39cents in every dollar over $48,000 that you earn. By the time you get to $96,000 you receive no handouts from the people of NZ. Assets might be harder I can imagine the newspaper front page as pensioners are forced to sell their Remuera house to fund their own retirement. Too hard for me to work out and no point spending too much time on it, boomers will never vote in a govt that would mention things like capital gains tax or asset testing. Just ask National what a National Superannuation surcharge does to the length of time you are in office. We would need to bring assets into it though no point letting asset rich cash poor people off the hook like we do now.
The highjack of the thread continues.....
May as well continue the hijack - I sense we're warming to the subject!
Yes, of course NZ Super should be means-tested, some sort of abatement system that takes account of varying levels of assets, I imagine. Oh, and the age of entitlement will have to be gradually increased to take account of increased life expectancy and national affordability.
But it's all too politically difficult - so I guess we'll muddle along until some economic disaster or other forces some action.
Disc: One of the recipients, paying considerably more in tax than receiving in super. Note: NZ Super is closer to $15,000pa than $18,585pa.