sharetrader
Page 29 of 30 FirstFirst ... 19252627282930 LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 438
  1. #421
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    No I mean no NZ super at all. Just compulsory Kiwisaver. Super goes, the Kiwisaver is in its place.
    With a top up for those who don't have enough live from Kiwisaver? That sounds OK to me. Those who don't need it don't get it. I think we are almost coming to the same conclusion.
    Last edited by Aaron; 08-03-2018 at 09:47 AM.

  2. #422
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    With a top up for those who don't have enough live from Kiwisaver? That sounds OK to me. Those who don't need it don't get it. I think we are almost coming to the same conclusion.
    No no top up from Kiwisaver. Kiwisaver is compulsory from 18 (or whenever) and the minimum contributions should be enough to give people enough to what NZ super is about now. Those that contribute more will have more for their retirement.
    Those on benefits automatically get minimum contributions from the state to ensure that their Kiwisaver is up to scratch.

  3. #423
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Hopefully my replies in red.
    Point 1. No I'm arguing that he is entitles to super ann because it is a universal scheme.

    Point 2. That's a silly comment. For a start I hasve never said a CGT is hugely expensive, and I'm not against a CGT. I am against a poorly designed CGT because of unintendeed consequences.

    Point 3 . The undesirable consequences are - a disincentive to saving, and a proliferation of savings 'under the mattress'.

    Point 4. It was originally designed to be funded from tax; not from any other fund. Factors such as longer life spans mean some back up scheme may prove necessary, but the simple thing is to move the entitlement age to 65.5. in the next 5 years.

  4. #424
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    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.
    I'm with you Blackcap, what you have suggested is a more fair system. I would be all for that.

  5. #425
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    49

    Default

    [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

  6. #426
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pipi View Post
    I'm with you Blackcap, what you have suggested is a more fair system. I would be all for that.
    It's completely unfair. I have provided reasonably well for my retirement, but have never saved for it. If I had been forced to save I would not be as well set up as I am.

  7. #427
    Guru minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    No I mean no NZ super at all. Just compulsory Kiwisaver. Super goes, the Kiwisaver is in its place.
    Ordinarily I prefer to keep government mitts off my money. But with Kiwsaver I have an exception. The biggest problem with Kiwsaver is that it has no government guarantee. So your money is at much risk as putting it into a safe as houses insurance company. If we remember back to when accident insurance went totally to the private sector MMH (or was it MMR or MMI - cant recall but something like that) went bust.

    For retitment I think we need a more secure model as the aged don't have time to try and recover lost loot.

  8. #428
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    45

    Default

    For those advocating the KiwiSaver path only, you mention contributing to it. What do we do if one does not have an ability to for whatever reason, or in the case of minimoke where people make bad investment decisions. Don't we still need to support these people I'm not a fan of throwing more out onto the street? Maybe this advocate a govt supported retirement as part of a welfare structure system - aka those that can pay should.

    I'm not sure if we should be looking at this in silo the general savings rate is horrible so even if a few 'rich people' get it does this create us a big enough savings anyway? Or given that 90% of us will need coverage because of inability to save, increase in education costs + large housing/income for current homebuying age is going to only stem this into more of a problem or more people relying on this need of income or get it through some other welfare.

  9. #429
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    Ordinarily I prefer to keep government mitts off my money. But with Kiwsaver I have an exception. The biggest problem with Kiwsaver is that it has no government guarantee. So your money is at much risk as putting it into a safe as houses insurance company. If we remember back to when accident insurance went totally to the private sector MMH (or was it MMR or MMI - cant recall but something like that) went bust.

    For retitment I think we need a more secure model as the aged don't have time to try and recover lost loot.
    Make kiwisaver compulsory, and have the the percentage of the contributors investment that is in invested in low risk investment classes (cash, govt bonds etc) scale with age. so at 20 you can put all your investment into risky high growth asset classes, but by the time you hit 60 well over half of your kiwisaver is in a portfolio of stable but low return govt bonds and similar. Otherwise you end up with people like my brother who will not save for their retirement.. I think his kiwsaver plan is the Lotto Powerball plan.

  10. #430
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    750

    Default

    I think this is the boomer bashing thread.

    Anyway not to bash boomers just thought you might be interested in this article. The housing market is the result of the financialisation of the economy. Or has been suggested a Ponzi scheme of artificially inflated prices that will unwind if we ever get deflation. You can bang on about the housing market all you like but until the amount of debt available and the suppression of interest rates changes we are unlikely to see any change in the status quo. In my view

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103...to-millennials

    Lets not forget we have largely had world peace and extended our life expectancies etc etc. there is a lot of good in the world just a shame it doesn't sell newspapers or attract eyeballs.
    Last edited by Aaron; 02-05-2018 at 09:18 AM.

  11. #431
    An Awesome Cool Cat winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    21,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    I think this is the boomer bashing thread.

    Anyway not to bash boomers just thought you might be interested in this article. The housing market is the result of the financialisation of the economy. Or has been suggested a Ponzi scheme of artificially inflated prices that will unwind if we ever get deflation. You can bang on about the housing market all you like but until the amount of debt available and the suppression of interest rates changes we are unlikely to see any change in the status quo. In my view

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/103...to-millennials

    Lets not forget we have largely had world peace and extended our life expectancies etc etc. there is a lot of good in the world just a shame it doesn't sell newspapers or attract eyeballs.
    Aaron ....bit restrained for you. Well done

    Proud to be a ‘boomer’ and what my generation have achieved ...but as always we could have done better.

    Think some of the people quoted are spoilt brats anyway .....as one of the comments said boomers shouldn’t have had children ...but then we need somebody to keep the world going.
    “I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothng “ — Socrates

  12. #432
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Thanks Beagle for raising this topic as I've found very good information specially the link KW posted.

    Something that got me thinking is not about how worry of what to achieve is more a feeling of frustration of how steep is the climb if you have to rely in your salary plus investments. I'm an IT specialist and sometimes I think of those who work on more physical demanding jobs that pay close to the minimum and the only thing could make a difference is the mindset. So I take the challenge anyway.

    My country of origin had between 2010 and 2016 around 40% of inflation per year, last two years is around 20% but seems staying there. Usually the only asset there to beat inflation are shares but I believe is just 3% of the population who invest in the stockmarket.

    So I said the mindset because if we don't keep it open to learn I think makes hard to achieve the goals. Again thanks to everyone as after reading the whole post I've learnt a bit.

  13. #433
    Gnawing on Bones Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    10,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    I agree and see that as a minimum target BUT here's another perspective from some retiree's I know well.

    Mary has retired and lost her second husband to cancer many years ago. She lives in Turangi and is actively involved in the community and has very little in the way of retirement savings BUT she makes jams and pickles and knits colourful baby booties with pictures of cute farm animals on top which she sells at the fortnightly markets down there, often to tourists passing through. She makes about $300-400 per fortnight and she lives reasonably comfortably on that and her national super in her unencumbered home there which is basic and not worth much more than $100K but she seems happy enough.

    Sylvia lost her husband a few years ago and lives on the National super plus a modest super policy her husband took out many years ago which pays for the monthly management fees, (about $550 a month) in the village she enjoys with a supportive and caring community. Her son manages a very small portfolio which pays her another $60 a week and she seems happy and well able to meet all her bills and travels down to see her extended family in Southland quite often.

    Neil and Chris didn't have any money when they retired, in fact due to non existent retirement planning, excessive spending and some unfortunate events they still had a $200K mortgage on their modest Auckland family home. They love animals, (former manager of Animal welfare centre in Auckland), and didn't have enough room for their many different animal's and strays they took in at their home. They traded down to an nice unencumbered 8 acre property in Te Kuiti which cost around $250K from memory and run a full suite of chooks, pigs, sheep, goats e.t.c. as well as domestic animals they love including cats and dogs and seem very content. The bonus is they're close enough to Auckland and have room for their kids to come visit on the weekends and the kids seem to like having a break from Auckland.

    Proof that you don't need an absolute fortune to retire on ?

    Others I know have converted part of their house into a separate flat and rented it out and seem to be doing fine on one lot of rent plus the Supernanuation.

    I wouldn't advocate aiming too low but I think we can all agree that human beings provided they're adaptable are capable of more than one way of skinning this retirement cat.

    There's also the point that there's absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that you'll make it to say the age of 70 and even if you do its odds on favourite that you'll enjoy spending that XYZ amount of discretionary spend a lot more in your thirties, forties or fifties than you will in your nineties. Food for thought ? I think a balanced approach is best.

    I've probably erred on the side of enjoying it as you go a little too much but you've got to call this thing as you see it.
    You're welcome and don't forget this post I made in 2015. More than one way to skin a cat.
    No butts, hold no mutts, (unless they're the furry variety).

  14. #434
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    750

    Default

    I think the last sentence is probably the best one in the article. Maybe if the future is explained better then people might consider change.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/103...ularly-popular

    Sad to see Labour trading votes for good policy at the last election. I guess we have a populist PM in Jacinda. To be fair John Key was a populist he got in because people liked him. He screwed them over raising GST and flattening a progressive income tax but he did it with a happy smile. I guess in a democracy our leaders will always be restricted by what the general public perceives as being OK.

  15. #435
    Dilettante
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    I think the last sentence is probably the best one in the article. Maybe if the future is explained better then people might consider change.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/103...ularly-popular

    Sad to see Labour trading votes for good policy at the last election. I guess we have a populist PM in Jacinda. To be fair John Key was a populist he got in because people liked him. He screwed them over raising GST and flattening a progressive income tax but he did it with a happy smile. I guess in a democracy our leaders will always be restricted by what the general public perceives as being OK.
    I think you're stretching the truth a bit Aaron by saying they flattened the progressive tax system when all tax brackets were reduced, fairly evenly http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/publica...sonal-tax-cuts
    We still have a very progressive income tax, unfortunately !

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •