How much capital do I need to retire comfortably on ?

[fungus pudding]

"Welfare" covers a spectrum of government "assistance." I don't believe government super is concerned welfare these days. Our elderly people have contributed all their lives, by way of taxes. They have supported businesses with their spending. Many of them have contributed in non-financial ways such as doing voluntary work. I have no issue with them receiving government super. I also have no issue with those who have accumulated wealth, receiving super. What they choose to do with it is up to them.

Your comment however, is more related to other forms of welfare I suspect,

My comment, if you bother to read it properly, is directed at those who do not try. Not at those with genuine need. NZ once was a world leader in social welfare but it's stretched a little too far - leaving less for the genuine cases. There are and always will be those who need assistance, financial and social. But there are a number of beneficaries who game the system. I've met a few in my years on the planet. You probably have too, but may not have noticed them. 'There are none so blind as those who will not see.'
I agree that those I am referring to are in a minority. So what? They do exist. You certainly have read a hell of a lot into my simple phrase. 'A lot don't'. Particularly when you admit they exist in your 3rd last sentence. I don't know why you think 'society' judges beneficaries as unmotivated, lazy etc. I think 'a proportion of society' (whoever they are) judges SOME that way. But your wild generalisation is just a silly assumption. I'm sure if you surveyed 10,000 people you wouldn't claim that. Although pperhaps I'm overlooking your special gift of being a mind reader - or is that limited to only what I think?

[justakiwi]

Of course I have. But as I said, this group of people are a minority. So why constantly focus on them when discussing welfare?

You probably have too, but may not have noticed them. 'There are none so blind as those who will not see.'

[Aaron]

And a lot don't.

Hey FP I was thinking that your reply was pretty weak so wasn't going to comment, but as you immediately contradicted yourself and I quote "I agree that those I am referring to are in a minority." I just couldn't let it go.

So to recap. A lot don't? or is it A minority don't?

Either way I agree that the minority of genuine bludgers make me angry as well, but lets not tar everyone with the same brush as justakiwi has kindly pointed out.

Probably getting a bit off track.

[justakiwi]

Someone sure got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. Take a chill pill and go for a walk or something.

Although pperhaps I'm overlooking your special gift of being a mind reader - or is that limited to only what I think?

[SBQ]

I must be the only one here to believe that eligibility for gov't pensions should be asset tested. In my view these programs are there to serve those that truly need it - a safety net to those that had bad luck.

[justakiwi]

As I said, government super is generally not considered to be welfare by most Kiwis. It is a traditional, long standing payment to our elderly people. Something they have earned over many years of working and contributing to society. Whether you have $100 in the bank, or millions invested, I am ok with you receiving it. Those who don't financially need it, are in a position to use it to do good, if they choose to. I would hope that at least some in that category, choose to. If I were in that position that is what I would do.

Other benefits are there as a "safety net" but not super. It is a different kettle of fish.

I must be the only one here to believe that eligibility for gov't pensions should be asset tested. In my view these programs are there to serve those that truly need it - a safety net to those that had bad luck.

[Aaron]

Other benefits are there as a "safety net" but not super. It is a different kettle of fish.

What a load of cr*p. Its welfare pure and simple. Bludger mentality means people who don't need it consider it some sort of "right" even though it is being paid for out of current and future taxation.

What are you suggesting that we should pay tax so govt. can pay someone on $100,000 plus a year to upgrade the car or go on another overseas jaunt. Not all bludgers are poor.

[SBQ]

What a load of cr*p. Its welfare pure and simple. Bludger mentality means people who don't need it consider it some sort of "right" even though it is being paid for out of current and future taxation.

What are you suggesting that we should pay tax so govt. can pay someone on $100,000 plus a year to upgrade the car or go on another overseas jaunt. Not all bludgers are poor.

There's another aspect of this 'superannuation' benefit (pension, or what ever you call it). In an effort to maintain it, gov'ts around the world have increased the eligibility age which proves a significant savings for the pension fund. As human lives live longer this age limit is raised higher and higher. From age 60, 65, 67, to 70? But the other aspect I speak of is what % of people don't make it to retirement age? I'm certain Covid has killed a lot of those in this age group, yielding more savings for the pension fund.

[justakiwi]

You might want to consider the fact that there are probably at least a few people here, who fit your definition of "bludger" then. I'm not one of them so I'll leave them to respond to your accusatory comments.

What a load of cr*p. Its welfare pure and simple. Bludger mentality means people who don't need it consider it some sort of "right" even though it is being paid for out of current and future taxation.

What are you suggesting that we should pay tax so govt. can pay someone on $100,000 plus a year to upgrade the car or go on another overseas jaunt. Not all bludgers are poor.

[couta1]

As I said, government super is generally not considered to be welfare by most Kiwis. It is a traditional, long standing payment to our elderly people. Something they have earned over many years of working and contributing to society. Whether you have $100 in the bank, or millions invested, I am ok with you receiving it. Those who don't financially need it, are in a position to use it to do good, if they choose to. I would hope that at least some in that category, choose to. If I were in that position that is what I would do.

Other benefits are there as a "safety net" but not super. It is a different kettle of fish.

Agree wholeheartedly.