-
08-03-2018, 09:57 AM
#421
Originally Posted by Aaron
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.
-
08-03-2018, 10:00 AM
#422
Originally Posted by Aaron
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.
-
08-03-2018, 10:37 AM
#423
Member
Originally Posted by blackcap
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.
-
08-03-2018, 10:39 AM
#424
Member
[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
-
08-03-2018, 01:24 PM
#425
Originally Posted by Pipi
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.
-
08-03-2018, 02:43 PM
#426
Originally Posted by blackcap
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.
-
24-03-2018, 04:03 PM
#427
Member
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.
-
24-03-2018, 06:51 PM
#428
Member
Originally Posted by minimoke
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.
-
02-05-2018, 09:12 AM
#429
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.
-
02-05-2018, 09:28 AM
#430
Originally Posted by Aaron
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.
”When investors are euphoric, they are incapable of recognising euphoria itself “
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks