It doesn't thrill me, it is weak but it is the best he can do without getting voted out by selfish old people.
Printable View
Actually thinking about it National did bring in the "National Super Surcharge" years ago, so that people who didn't need nz super didn't get it. They promptly lost the next election, probably largely because of this.
If nz super does become a big problem for the country in future years everyone will blame the "stupid politicians" when in fact it will be the fault of the average voter. Our own fault.
I am not sure Roger is this agreement with something I have said.
If nothing else it has sparked up a debate that I think the country needs to have. It would seem that the younger generation have resigned themselves to the fact that they will have to be the ones to accept a less generous nz super. I don't think they appreciate that it is current tax dollars that is funding the scheme. Would they be so accepting if they realized their hard earned money was going to multi-millionaries on the current nz super scheme. There is no way anyone with any sense of fairness would be happy with this, yet it continues as there is no mention of means or asset testing.
Why would this be fair? I think asset testing super is totally unjust. If you go down that track we might as well asset test the unemployment benefit and all other benefits as well. Asset testing super will only penalise those that have saved and invested whilst rewarding those that have spent and frittered away their money/assets on frivolity. How would you asset test anyway? House? Car? Stocks? Cash (easy to hide)
It will also lead to all sorts of minimisation schemes and will be inefficient. As there is no gift duty, those nearing 65 with a few assets could just pass them onto the kids early, or put in a trust. As for cash... well impossible to determine how much one holds...
Not entirely sure but I think the unemployment benefit is means and asset tested. I pretty sure you can't sign up for the dole with a million in the bank. I agree that those who save might be unfairly treated if those who have spent and enjoyed get a handout in retirement. That is why I agree with compulsory Kiwisaver as a policy. Sadly compulsion will be the only way to get a lot of people to save for retirement as they think there is a big pool of national savings which is funding nz super.
Hard to hide a house or business or shares. Yes some people like maybe yourself will try to get round the rules to get a handout and unnecessarily complicated rules will need to be implemented because of people who feel they should get taxpayer money.
As mentioned previously nz super was originally made compulsory as people were too proud to ask for a handout even if they needed it. Sadly attitudes have changed in the present day.
Means testing includes income and assets. It's a minefield as they are so intertwined. Not hard to increase one and reduce the other, especially as there would be various exemptions such as family home, gifting, personal belongings and personal spending.
There is a system already in place for subsidised residential care. This could in theory be extended to all superannuitants. In practice its complex, expensive and an election loser.
Mr Little went on the record in 2015 saying that Labour would look at means testing superannuation, but quickly backtracked. Saying instead that Labour would look at whether over 65s should be allowed to work and get superannuation as well. That seems to have died a death, but might pop up as Labour election policy I suppose. Unforeseen consequences anyone?
For example, would it apply to those with income other than from going to the office every day? Say income from dividends, bank interest, rents .... Suddenly we are back into means testing!
Plus there's the cost/ benefit - administration, loss of experience v tax paid by those working.
Are you sure you are not telling "alternative facts". I suppose it would be possible to get a benefit will a million in the bank you would probably just have to tell your case officer some alternative facts to achieve it. If you are dishonest and lie anything is possible, you could become the president of the USA even.
Means tested in Aussie, about $72,000 personal from memory when its cuts out. Sorry I an not an authority on their tax system so don't know how rigorously they police income splitting, alienation of assets into other entities e.t.c. This personal income means test seems about right but to the best of my knowledge there's nothing you can do about people organizing their affairs in a tax efficient way so that their income is channeled into a family trust.
With ongoing advances in medicine and health care it is perfectly o0bvious to me that in the future people on average, will live longer. I am surprised the other political parties don't want tot accept this indisputable fact.
I get it that manual labor in your sixties is tough, perhaps people have to simply take care of their health better...I really don't know what the answer is but as Aaron pointed out at least as a country we're having a debate about it now which has to be a good thing.