sharetrader
Page 50 of 63 FirstFirst ... 4046474849505152535460 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 625
  1. #491
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Wasn't there a superannuation tax surcharge some decades ago, that had the effect of taking away superannuation from those with high incomes? A disincentive for some to put their skills to use by remaining gainfully employed and presumably an incentive to amass assets with untaxed capital gain potential.

    What assets would be included? For fairness the owner-occupied main home should be, otherwise the mansion effect would be be further encouraged.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 21-02-2020 at 08:50 AM.

  2. #492
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    Wasn't there a superannuation tax surcharge some decades ago, that had the effect of taking away superannuation from those with high incomes? A disincentive for some to put their skills to use by remaining gainfully employed and presumably an incentive to amass assets with untaxed capital gain potential.

    What assets would be included? For fairness the owner-occupied main home should be, otherwise the mansion effect would be be further encouraged.
    The national super surcharge rebated your entitlement to national super as your income increased much like working for families currently. Unfortunately the National party was ahead of its time cutting welfare to those not in need and were promptly removed from govt at the next elections.
    Last edited by Aaron; 21-02-2020 at 10:56 AM. Reason: soften the language so as to not enrage FP

  3. #493
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    It's nowhere near that simple. People who don't need it (?) don't get much because Mr. Govt takes a third. My Govt. super is a small fraction of the amount I pay in tax, so I view it as a small rebate which I damn well deserve, having scrimped, saved, taken risks and applied myself to building a nest egg over fifty years, in a way very few would be prepared to do. To deprive me of that would be robbery and a massive disincentive to investing and/or saving. No - I don't need it, but I'd rather give it away (or bequeath it) myself! The govt. doesn't need to help. Leave it universal with marginal tax applied as it is! Amen.
    That is still 67cents of every dollar of national super you keep. How do you know how badly it will affect you if no discussion as to levels of income for rebating national super have been discussed?

    I can understand your upset if you have made sacrifices and took risks but they must have paid off and you would not have done this in isolation separate from the rest of society. I share your concerns as I scrimp and save, my concern is I will accumulate just enough wealth not to get a handout while someone who has enjoyed life to the fullest will also enjoy a similar retirement to me at the taxpayers expense. National superannuation is welfare pure and simple. Those that don't need it shouldn't get it in my view, much like all the other welfare, unemployment, sickness benefit etc etc.
    If money for national superannuation had been set aside to fund people in retirement rather than the pay as you go model introduced by Muldoon it would be more like theft. National Super will be funded by current and future taxpayers.

  4. #494
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    The national super surcharge rebated your entitlement to national super as your income increased much like working for families currently. Unfortunately the National party was ahead of its time cutting welfare to those not in need and were promptly removed from govt at the next elections.
    It left out capital gains and total assets so it was Deficient from the beginning. My guess is that as the government tried to search for extra revenue, as this was an income-based surcharge, National were more concerned with protecting its traditional voter base of farmers with sizeable asset and land holdings but expense-reduced income.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 21-02-2020 at 11:07 AM.

  5. #495
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    It left out capital gains and total assets so it was Deficient from the beginning. My guess is that as the government tried to search for extra revenue, as this was an income-based surcharge, National were more concerned with protecting its traditional voter base of farmers with sizeable asset and land holdings but expense-reduced income.
    National at that time had the balls to address an important issue but paid the price at the polling booth as self-interest and an entitlement mentality around national superannuation is strong, even though very little has been put aside to fund it.
    Labour's best attempt to address the issue was the Cullen fund and Kiwisaver (getting current generations to save for retirement as previous generations prefer welfare for all)
    Last edited by Aaron; 21-02-2020 at 11:34 AM.

  6. #496
    Guru justakiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    2,569

    Default

    The answer pretty much depends on one’s individual, personal situation. Some will have high/extravagant expectations of their retirement “lifestyle” while others will be perfectly content to live a comfortable every day Kiwi life with maybe a holiday in Fiji or Aussie once a year. Some of us, no doubt the minority, will be just be happy to have a place to call “home”, enough money to pay our bills and meet our basic needs, and will consider a NZ Holiday a bonus. Everyone’s idea of a “good life” is different. We all have different world views, different financial situations and different ideas of what makes us happy and content. So personally, I don’t find projected figures like this useful. They can put added pressure on people, create worry (for those who know they will never reach that figure) and set unrealistic expectations.

    If I hadn’t already worked all this out in my head (for myself and my future situation) it would be enough to stress me out to the point of just throwing in the towel

  7. #497
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    National at that time had the balls to address an important issue but paid the price at the polling booth as self-interest and an entitlement mentality around national superannuation is strong, even though very little has been put aside to fund it.
    Labour's best attempt to address the issue was the Cullen fund and Kiwisaver (getting current generations to save for retirement as previous generations prefer welfare for all)
    Both main parties know there is an important issue, however I think self-interest and entitlement got in the way at addressing it comprehensively. Consequently half-pie amendments ended up creating more problems than they solved.

    Kiwisaver too was a half-hearted attempt at a pension scheme. The returns are fully taxed and it can readily be dipped into. Perhaps better than nothing although the tax-preferred pension scheme remains residential real estate investment, for those that can afford it.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 21-02-2020 at 12:46 PM.

  8. #498
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wrong Side of the Tracks
    Posts
    1,587

    Default

    So we have one gaggle of economists telling us that what the world needs for economic growth and stability is "helicopter money", and another gaggle of the little b*ggers telling us that the world can't afford "helicopter money".

    A good example of why economics is not a science, and why economists should be kept well clear of the levers of power.

  9. #499
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Imagine how much would be buried in the garden and stored under mattresses if the only way to get Nat. Super was to show you needed it.

  10. #500
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    Both main parties know there is an important issue, however I think self-interest and entitlement got in the way at addressing it comprehensively. Consequently half-pie amendments ended up creating more problems than they solved.

    Kiwisaver too was a half-hearted attempt at a pension scheme. The returns are fully taxed and it can readily be dipped into. Perhaps better than nothing although the tax-preferred pension scheme remains residential real estate investment, for those that can afford it.
    Neither parties have the balls to agree by placing a CGT on resident real estate investments. It's plain and simple but when it comes to investing into anything else.. yep tax the crap out of it. In my view, that's why I think Kiwi Saver is only 1/2 heart attempt of an additional pension scheme.

    The idea of the national superannuation pension is it should be enough to pay for one's living cost on reasonable means. The house should be mortgage free, perhaps live down to a smaller size unit, which keeps costs lower. It should also be income tested so if the pensioner has a 6 figure income, well they don't need it. In Canada where I grew up, there's basically 3 pensions. For most annuitants, they collect both CPP and OAS. The latter being everyone gets it after age 65 and is funded and operated like NZ's superannuation. The former being you pay into it BUT is clawed back if your income at pension age is too high. Then there's the 3rd pension which resembles NZ's KS called RRSP. It's not uncommon for people to collect 4 pensions such as teachers. Yep - 4th pension being the privately operated 'teachers pension' which we've seen come to NZ buying up various assets. Why the so many pensions? It would resemble like Australia's tax system where the incentive is to lower the taxable income via tax credits / deductions etc.

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
  •