How much capital do I need to retire comfortably on ?

[Aaron]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...leged-few--act

Sounds like ACT has lost its way. This from the party of the privileged. I like the direction he is taking but don't believe that it is part of ACT's principle's.
They want less taxes and government interference. This would benefit the well-off including those who inherit their parents wealth. The privileged people he talks about in his article are his voter base so he had better shut up or risk ACT polling even worse next election unless of course they give up their principles and move to the centre. Labour/ACT coalition sounds good.
It is nice to think that at least one politician gives a s**t about the next generation.
Having just had ANZAC day commemorating the NZers who were prepared to sacrifice their lives for our country it is disappointing to think of all the current generation who are not even prepared to sacrifice their National Super and comfortable lifestyle. I am not suggesting let old people starve but if someone is well off and generating a good income (passive or active) then they don’t need welfare. Stop ripping off the young generation with the current, soon to be unaffordable super scheme.

[fungus pudding]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...leged-few--act

Sounds like ACT has lost its way. This from the party of the privileged. I like the direction he is taking but don't believe that it is part of ACT's principle's.
They want less taxes and government interference. This would benefit the well-off including those who inherit their parents wealth. The privileged people he talks about in his article are his voter base so he had better shut up or risk ACT polling even worse next election unless of course they give up their principles and move to the centre. Labour/ACT coalition sounds good.
It is nice to think that at least one politician gives a s**t about the next generation.
Having just had ANZAC day commemorating the NZers who were prepared to sacrifice their lives for our country it is disappointing to think of all the current generation who are not even prepared to sacrifice their National Super and comfortable lifestyle. I am not suggesting let old people starve but if someone is well off and generating a good income (passive or active) then they don’t need welfare. Stop ripping off the young generation with the current, soon to be unaffordable super scheme.

Superannuation has to be universal or it would be a disaster with little incentive to save - or under the mattress savings.

[Aaron]

Superannuation has to be universal or it would be a disaster with little incentive to save - or under the mattress savings.

What are you proposing FP keep paying it out until we run out of money? That might work for the older generation.

How about make Kiwisaver compulsory as an option. Pay it out as an annuity though, as after a new car, world trip and house renovation a lump sum could disappear pretty quick.

I know saving for retirement might bite me in the arse as I will always probably be on the cusp of getting assistance from the rest of the country (government) but not quite as I have saved.

It will upset me if someone who has been on the dole all their life then retires about as comfortably as me and has the same access to healthcare but I would still rather try and contribute to society instead of taking what I can get. Living on a welfare payment including NZ Super isn’t what most people aspire to.

There was a party at the last election who attempted to address this issue with some policy but it wasn't what the people wanted.

[BIRMANBOY]

If you stopped bleating on about "undeserved super", and wasting valuable work time on forums then you would probably find that its all a non-event. Sorry must run...off to spend my super payment on some wildly extravagant items like groceries. Ta ta and thanks for being such a good sport and contributing...like we have for the last 50 years or so.

What are you proposing FP keep paying it out until we run out of money? That might work for the older generation.

How about make Kiwisaver compulsory as an option. Pay it out as an annuity though, as after a new car, world trip and house renovation a lump sum could disappear pretty quick.

I know saving for retirement might bite me in the arse as I will always probably be on the cusp of getting assistance from the rest of the country (government) but not quite as I have saved.

It will upset me if someone who has been on the dole all their life then retires about as comfortably as me and has the same access to healthcare but I would still rather try and contribute to society instead of taking what I can get. Living on a welfare payment including NZ Super isn’t what most people aspire to.

There was a party at the last election who attempted to address this issue with some policy but it wasn't what the people wanted.

[Beagle]

N.Z Super isn't a welfare payment. Its a government superannuation payment, a repayment of the social contract entered into when national super was first envisaged. Many people have been paying tax for nearly 50 years before collecting super and it was always envisaged that a significant component of the massive tax they paid over so many decades would see them entitled to superannuation at I believe two thirds of the average wage in their retirement. We can debate whether there needs to be some tinkering around the edges, possible increase in the age of eligibility due to people living longer and possible national super surtax but I believe calling it a benefit is inappropriate and inaccurate. (Some people will see this as a mere discussion about semantics but please keep in mind our upmost respect for our elderly folks who may perhaps feel its something of a slight on their character to call them beneficiaries).

Anyway back to the subject at hand. I came to a decision yesterday. I'm not going to be aiming to drive an expensive European car in my retirement. When the current one eventually dies then so be it. This takes all the pressure off for me and sheets me back to the number I outlined in post #104. I'm sorted (with apologies to the www.sorted.co.nz website which in itself is a very good website to visit).

[Kees]

I get mine in a couple of month, a few years ago I was always saying they can stick it were the sun don't shine, but after reading the bleating that goes on from the younger generation i have changed my mind and will now be excepting it with open arm just to F#ck you's off.

[Aaron]

I get mine in a couple of month, a few years ago I was always saying they can stick it were the sun don't shine, but after reading the bleating that goes on from the younger generation i have changed my mind and will now be excepting it with open arm just to F#ck you's off.

Whatever Kees, justify it however you like. I know if there is a handout when I retire I will take it with both hands if it is on offer as well.

Roger I don't mean to upset people, I just wonder if national superannuation is affordable and should people who don't need any help get it.
Your argument is that you have paid taxes all your life so you should get some back. I gave a link to the government accounts to 30/06/2014 further back in this thread. The financial statements don’t show that much money was put aside to fund national super in fact our net worth is $80billion while annual national super costs are $10 billion. Not nearly enough has been put aside for national super and we currently run annual deficits. I think the Cullen fund is something like $14bill but not sure where it is shown in the accounts. I am sure most people on this website could breakdown the figures better than me.
I think people have got their heads in the sand and are hoping John Key will make it alright by not discussing the issue. Maybe I worry too much and need to wait and see if there really is an issue further down the track but it would be a shame to look back in twenty or thirty years from now and say “what a shame we didn’t think long term a bit sooner. What a shame these old people have to live on next to nothing but unfortunately we can’t afford it now”. John Key won’t need National Super so he doesn’t need to talk about it but there are a lot of NZers who do, now and in the future.
It is not an attack on old people more like ensuring we as a nation can help those who need it now and in the future.

[stoploss]

Whatever Kees, justify it however you like. I know if there is a handout when I retire I will take it with both hands if it is on offer as well.

Roger I don't mean to upset people, I just wonder if national superannuation is affordable and should people who don't need any help get it.
Your argument is that you have paid taxes all your life so you should get some back. I gave a link to the government accounts to 30/06/2014 further back in this thread. The financial statements don’t show that much money was put aside to fund national super in fact our net worth is $80billion while annual national super costs are $10 billion. Not nearly enough has been put aside for national super and we currently run annual deficits. I think the Cullen fund is something like $14bill but not sure where it is shown in the accounts. I am sure most people on this website could breakdown the figures better than me.
I think people have got their heads in the sand and are hoping John Key will make it alright by not discussing the issue. Maybe I worry too much and need to wait and see if there really is an issue further down the track but it would be a shame to look back in twenty or thirty years from now and say “what a shame we didn’t think long term a bit sooner. What a shame these old people have to live on next to nothing but unfortunately we can’t afford it now”. John Key won’t need National Super so he doesn’t need to talk about it but there are a lot of NZers who do, now and in the future.
It is not an attack on old people more like ensuring we as a nation can help those who need it now and in the future.

Hi Aaron ,
Think the Govt has put in around 13 Bio to the fund , but as you can see from this it is worth double that ........
https://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz
Undoubtably the age of super eligibility will rise as it has elsewhere. However John Key got sucked in during a live political debate with Helen Clark and made the promise that as long as he was PM that the age would not rise.
Obviously there is a bad legacy a la Muldoon and national super, so it is something that it looks very unlikely he will ever back down upon , even though official advice is it should rise . I could only see it happening if there was an agreement across all parties going into the next election .Even then I imagine it will be gradually introduced so say those above 40 now will not be affected.

[Beagle]

Whatever Kees, justify it however you like. I know if there is a handout when I retire I will take it with both hands if it is on offer as well.

Roger I don't mean to upset people, I just wonder if national superannuation is affordable and should people who don't need any help get it.
Your argument is that you have paid taxes all your life so you should get some back. I gave a link to the government accounts to 30/06/2014 further back in this thread. The financial statements don’t show that much money was put aside to fund national super in fact our net worth is $80billion while annual national super costs are $10 billion. Not nearly enough has been put aside for national super and we currently run annual deficits. I think the Cullen fund is something like $14bill but not sure where it is shown in the accounts. I am sure most people on this website could breakdown the figures better than me.
I think people have got their heads in the sand and are hoping John Key will make it alright by not discussing the issue. Maybe I worry too much and need to wait and see if there really is an issue further down the track but it would be a shame to look back in twenty or thirty years from now and say “what a shame we didn’t think long term a bit sooner. What a shame these old people have to live on next to nothing but unfortunately we can’t afford it now”. John Key won’t need National Super so he doesn’t need to talk about it but there are a lot of NZers who do, now and in the future.
It is not an attack on old people more like ensuring we as a nation can help those who need it now and in the future.

Fair enough Aaron.

Many of you won't recall or perhaps aren't even aware that at one stage we did indeed have a national superannuation surtax, (sorry I can't remember when it was instituted and then subsequently abolished), but ostensibly it operated in a similar manner to the Australian scheme whereby retiree's with personal income over a certain level had their superannuation reduced by a certain rate for every extra dollar they earned.

In Australia as I understand it, a retiree with $72,000 of personal income becomes ineligible for their super, (its abated before that personal income threshold). I understand they have tinkered with this in their latest $35b deficit budget yesterday and a tougher system has been implemented.

IIRC...we are going back over 20 years here... it became something of a political football and was it Labour that promised to abolish it ?, someone help me out here please.

As a nation I agree that we probably need to have another look at super's affordability. Should someone earning north of $100K and 65 years old still be eligible for super ?

Its such a can of worms. Wealthy people will simply move assets to family trusts if they haven't already and there's so many ways to skin a cat in terms of a family trust making non cash distributions to beneficiaries who are also trustee's so even if you go for full look-through provisions in family trusts in terms of revenue distributions there's nothing to stop trusts owning fancy houses and paying all the outgoings, also beach houses, luxury cars, boats e.t.c....Where do you draw the line...do we go so far as to have a fringe benefit system for family trusts for wealthy retiree's, surely that's a bridge too far, or maybe not ?

Also people are living longer with advances in healthcare so maybe raising the age of eligibility makes the simplest and most effective sense in terms of making the system affordable, I don't know but I reckon raising it to say 67 or 68 makes sense. Maybe even 70 ? I'll probably work till I'm 70 (at least part time), but I have a desk job, obviously its much tougher for someone like a builder or a panelbeater.

I think instituting Kiwisaver was a good thing the Govt did...maybe its inevitable its becomes compulsory at some stage ?

[Aaron]

Roger you don't work for stuff.co.nz do you they seem to be as hot on this issue of how much do you need. The latest which you may have already read.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...lion-by-age-65
Here is hoping we can generate better returns than what he is proposing in this article. Although based on history I would be glad of 5% as some years my investment return has been negative.