How much capital do I need to retire comfortably on ?

[Aaron]

Right out the door goes the incentive that is implicit in Kiwisaver.... et al.

If I understand what your saying correctly, making Kiwisaver compulsory would be an essential part of changing national super. At least then people are forced to make some sacrifice. Also with Kiwisaver the money is put aside for your retirement unlike Roger's spurious suggestion people have paid in all their lives. That unfortunately is not the case. People have been paying taxes all their lives, yes, unfortunately very little was put aside to pay national superannuation so you will be relying on future generations to pay it. You could suggest the older generation has already spent all the taxes they paid, on themselves and now require the next generation to fund their retirement.

[Aaron]

Hoping they still pay you one when you become entitled. You can just not apply for it though when you think you have enough savings when the time comes

Hoping I won't need it in retirement but I will never look a gift horse in the mouth.

If I have my figures correct and assume I am still married on the top tax rate then a $23,746.95 gift from the millennials and generation x would cover a pretty nice overseas trip or fund some fishing charters if its not enough for a boat with a fully stocked bar.

No one I have ever met will say no to that. I would suggest no one on this site would either.

[Aaron]

The consequences of stopping the universality of superannuation means it's best left alone.

The consequence of being voted out by selfish people means it is best left alone.

[fungus pudding]

The consequence of being voted out by selfish people means it is best left alone.

I was thinking more of the disincentive to saving, or the temptation to hide it under the mattress not to mention the very high costs of administering an indefinite number of different payments. All in all the universal system is cheaper than anything else; the only problem being it fires up the ever present green eyed monster, a native to NZ, who is annoyed with those whose sacrifices have left something as a nest egg.

[blackcap]

I was thinking more of the disincentive to saving, or the temptation to hide it under the mattress not to mention the very high costs of administering an indefinite number of different payments. All in all the universal system is cheaper than anything else; the only problem being it fires up the ever present green eyed monster, a native to NZ, who is annoyed with those whose sacrifices have left something as a nest egg.

That is what I was implying too. Well said FP. So many greedy people who belittle those that will save for a rainy day as being stingy but when it comes to the rain are moaning that its not fair and they should get more from the govt than those that have saved.

[iceman]

Hoping they still pay you one when you become entitled. You can just not apply for it though when you think you have enough savings when the time comes

Or if Aaron and his wife find they could do with a bit more, they just BS about their domestic situation on the appliation form. The Deputy PM could assist them in filling it in !

[fungus pudding]

Or if Aaron and his wife find they could do with a bit more, they just BS about their domestic situation on the appliation form. The Deputy PM could assist them in filling it in !

Careful. He'll sue you. Actually, he won't but he'll threaten to.

[artemis]

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.

[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.