sharetrader
Page 54 of 63 FirstFirst ... 444505152535455565758 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 625
  1. #531
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    If you want to reduce taxes on the wealthy, then presumably you must assess a tax based on wealth in the first place. Not all those on higher incomes are wealthy; not all those with wealth have high assessable incomes.
    Let me spell it out a little clearer - reduce taxes on those who opt out of the pension - simply make superannuation optional.
    That's a lot fairer for those who have made the effort to build their own super, either through hard working, smart working, investing or saving. Also not so ridiculously harsh on those with a terminal illness or planning an early exit.
    Last edited by fungus pudding; 08-01-2022 at 11:22 AM.

  2. #532
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Let me spell it out a little clearer - reduce taxes on those who opt out of the pension - simply make superannuation optional.
    That's a lot fairer for those who have made the effort to build their own super, either through hard working, smart working, investing or saving. Also not so ridiculously harsh on those with a terminal illness or planning an early exit.
    Not quite the same thing as reducing taxes on "the wealthy" because they don't need a state pension. I agree with a tax deduction but only for those who contribute to Kiwisaver. I also think Kiwisaver could be expanded to include a wider range of investment options, including some direct investments under the Kiwisaver scheme wrapper.

    However, Many of those who would "opt out" if given a choice, would be lower paid people who would need every dime just to be able to afford NZ's expensive accommodation and food during their working lives. So the issue would remain over providing a pension for those who did not or could not afford contributions to a contributory pension scheme, or did not or could not build up an asset base to provide for retirement.

    I agree the same retirement age for access to pensions does not fit individual circumstances.

  3. #533
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Let me spell it out a little clearer - reduce taxes on those who opt out of the pension - simply make superannuation optional.
    That's a lot fairer for those who have made the effort to build their own super, either through hard working, smart working, investing or saving. Also not so ridiculously harsh on those with a terminal illness or planning an early exit.
    That's not a complete fairness model. I'm partial to Canada's method of addressing pension and taxation. There is no issue opting out, as "everyone is entitled" + limitations. These limitation to pension access is called "clawbacks". When a person at retirement age has amassed enough wealth through their investment portfolio and has annual incomes that exceeds a certain threshold, then the pension payments erode away. There is no need to start cherry picking individuals who have chosen to opt out of any gov't pension (after all, in NZ it's entirely up to the person to apply for pension payments... no one is saying they MUST apply for it?). People are instinctively greedy regardless of their wealth.

    NZ is beyond leaps and bounds behind to Canada or the US in terms of tax fairness. For starters we have a housing problem that has been exacerbated by a lack of capital gains tax on house price gains. We have a leader that when taxing house gains was put on the agenda, she refused to implement it citing that "because most kiwis treat their homes as their retirement pension" (without mention of those owning numerous multiple homes). Those with the $ just keep piling it on by adding more houses to their real estate portfolio. No way Kiwi Saver can compete with that in any magnitude.

    NZ needs to flip things around. 2/3rds of N. American wealth is held in business and in the stock market. 2/3rds of NZ's wealth is held in real estate. This is a real big problem that leads future NZ to be less wealthier than our overseas counterpart. ie grandchildren want to buy a home at their adult age? They knock on the parents or grandparent's door until they sell their home. No real wealth is created. Just buying and selling in the same market.

  4. #534
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    It would be difficult to live off interest for a sustained period without several million dollars just rotting in the bank - which I doubt many have. Certainly the days of living off investments are not gone, and never will be.
    The question to ask yourself should be 'how much income do I need to live on?'
    Last year Trading Bank Fixed interest investments returned more - even after tax - than the average return from NZ shares. Although both returns were way behind inflation and way behind the stonking increase in residential housing investments.

    The question remains though which investment is more likely to keep its value going forward as we progress from government pumping in liquidity?

  5. #535
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    Interesting that the main solution to the affordability of national superannuation is denying it to the following generations rather than stopping payments to wealthy boomers who don't need it.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/127...ebt-oecd-warns

    Not really that interesting but the interesting bit is that this suggestion has been brought forward because of all the spending on covid.

    Lets be real covid doesn't really affect young people that badly so the response(which I agreed with at least initially, maybe not so much now) was to save old people and the sickly (a worthwhile endeavour in my view). Young people had to give up their freedom and their lives have been put on hold over the lockdowns but they don't complain or get angry, by and large they are less upset about it than some older people.

    RBNZ dropped interest rates and started large scale asset purchases boosting house prices nearly 30% in one year rather than see house prices drop by the predicted 10%, virtually guaranteeing a huge debt for any young person buying a house as well as making it unaffordable for most people who do not have parental support.

    Interesting that the next generation will also be the ones to pay for it all through income tax and being denied super at 65yrs while capital gains continue to avoid attracting any tax.

    When is there going to be a fair shake for the next generation? Rather than denying super to the well off and asking home owners to pay tax on their magnificent central bank engineered capital gains, the burden will fall on the next generations, to ensure boomers can have a very comfortable retirement. Something else that will be denied to the next generations (they will probably still be paying off their student and home loans at 67, unless the RBNZ successfully inflates them away).

    It used to be that the older generations tried to make the world a better place for the next generation not the other way round.
    Last edited by Aaron; 01-02-2022 at 08:09 AM.

  6. #536
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Interesting that the main solution to the affordability of national superannuation is denying it to the following generations rather than stopping payments to wealthy boomers who don't need it.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/127...ebt-oecd-warns

    Not really that interesting but the interesting bit is that this suggestion has been brought forward because of all the spending on covid.

    Lets be real covid doesn't really affect young people that badly so the response(which I agreed with at least initially, maybe not so much now) was to save old people and the sickly (a worthwhile endeavour in my view). Young people had to give up their freedom and their lives have been put on hold over the lockdowns but they don't complain or get angry, by and large they are less upset about it than some older people.

    RBNZ dropped interest rates and started large scale asset purchases boosting house prices nearly 30% in one year rather than see house prices drop by the predicted 10%, virtually guaranteeing a huge debt for any young person buying a house as well as making it unaffordable for most people who do not have parental support.

    Interesting that the next generation will also be the ones to pay for it all through income tax and being denied super at 65yrs while capital gains continue to avoid attracting any tax.

    When is there going to be a fair shake for the next generation? Rather than denying super to the well off and asking home owners to pay tax on their magnificent central bank engineered capital gains, the burden will fall on the next generations, to ensure boomers can have a very comfortable retirement. Something else that will be denied to the next generations (they will probably still be paying off their student and home loans at 67, unless the RBNZ successfully inflates them away).

    It used to be that the older generations tried to make the world a better place for the next generation not the other way round.
    NZ to a large extent is a geronto-plutocracy. Maybe it will stir younger people to vote in the same proportion as older people? However, As well as the absence of CGT there is also no capital transfer or inheritance tax, so In reality the children of wealthy parents - probably when they are approaching retirement age - stand to inherit family wealth which will cover their retirement needs. Any means testing for government super will more than likely hit the middle class the hardest.

    The minimum voting age in Scotland is 16. Time for a change here too?

  7. #537
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    NZ to a large extent is a geronto-plutocracy. Maybe it will stir younger people to vote in the same proportion as older people? However, As well as the absence of CGT there is also no capital transfer or inheritance tax, so In reality the children of wealthy parents - probably when they are approaching retirement age - stand to inherit family wealth which will cover their retirement needs. Any means testing for government super will more than likely hit the middle class the hardest.

    The minimum voting age in Scotland is 16. Time for a change here too?
    A bit like feudalism.

    16 year olds voting. Bugger that, personally I was hardly mature enough to vote at 20yrs (possibly still true). I imagine there are a few 16yr olds who would be better informed than me but all the ones that were like me at that age should not go near a voting booth. When they argued that they could vote at 18 but not drink, I was all for raising the voting age to 19 and dropping the drinking age one year.

  8. #538
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    A bit like feudalism.

    16 year olds voting. Bugger that, personally I was hardly mature enough to vote at 20yrs (possibly still true). I imagine there are a few 16yr olds who would be better informed than me but all the ones that were like me at that age should not go near a voting booth. When they argued that they could vote at 18 but not drink, I was all for raising the voting age to 19 and dropping the drinking age one year.
    And some 60 year olds are still too immature. You can join the army at 17 and be behind the wheel of a car at 15. Is dementia a barrier to voting?

  9. #539
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    NZ to a large extent is a geronto-plutocracy. Maybe it will stir younger people to vote in the same proportion as older people? However, As well as the absence of CGT there is also no capital transfer or inheritance tax, so In reality the children of wealthy parents - probably when they are approaching retirement age - stand to inherit family wealth which will cover their retirement needs. Any means testing for government super will more than likely hit the middle class the hardest.

    The minimum voting age in Scotland is 16. Time for a change here too?
    Yes. Raise it to 25.

  10. #540
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    3,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    And some 60 year olds are still too immature. You can join the army at 17 and be behind the wheel of a car at 15. Is dementia a barrier to voting?
    So being 60 indicates suffering from dementia does it?

    Having been involved with three family members with actual dementia i can tell you that they never voted once they were diagnosed.

    Personally I think 20 is a good age to vote.

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
  •