How much capital do I need to retire comfortably on ?

[Aaron]

and selfish middle aged people.

I am not sure Roger is this agreement with something I have said.

If nothing else it has sparked up a debate that I think the country needs to have. It would seem that the younger generation have resigned themselves to the fact that they will have to be the ones to accept a less generous nz super. I don't think they appreciate that it is current tax dollars that is funding the scheme. Would they be so accepting if they realized their hard earned money was going to multi-millionaries on the current nz super scheme. There is no way anyone with any sense of fairness would be happy with this, yet it continues as there is no mention of means or asset testing.

[blackcap]

yet it continues as there is no mention of means or asset testing.

Why would this be fair? I think asset testing super is totally unjust. If you go down that track we might as well asset test the unemployment benefit and all other benefits as well. Asset testing super will only penalise those that have saved and invested whilst rewarding those that have spent and frittered away their money/assets on frivolity. How would you asset test anyway? House? Car? Stocks? Cash (easy to hide)

It will also lead to all sorts of minimisation schemes and will be inefficient. As there is no gift duty, those nearing 65 with a few assets could just pass them onto the kids early, or put in a trust. As for cash... well impossible to determine how much one holds...

[Aaron]

Why would this be fair? I think asset testing super is totally unjust. If you go down that track we might as well asset test the unemployment benefit and all other benefits as well. Asset testing super will only penalise those that have saved and invested whilst rewarding those that have spent and frittered away their money/assets on frivolity. How would you asset test anyway? House? Car? Stocks? Cash (easy to hide)

It will also lead to all sorts of minimisation schemes and will be inefficient. As there is no gift duty, those nearing 65 with a few assets could just pass them onto the kids early, or put in a trust. As for cash... well impossible to determine how much one holds...

Not entirely sure but I think the unemployment benefit is means and asset tested. I pretty sure you can't sign up for the dole with a million in the bank. I agree that those who save might be unfairly treated if those who have spent and enjoyed get a handout in retirement. That is why I agree with compulsory Kiwisaver as a policy. Sadly compulsion will be the only way to get a lot of people to save for retirement as they think there is a big pool of national savings which is funding nz super.

Hard to hide a house or business or shares. Yes some people like maybe yourself will try to get round the rules to get a handout and unnecessarily complicated rules will need to be implemented because of people who feel they should get taxpayer money.

As mentioned previously nz super was originally made compulsory as people were too proud to ask for a handout even if they needed it. Sadly attitudes have changed in the present day.

[blackcap]

Not entirely sure but I think the unemployment benefit is means and asset tested. I pretty sure you can't sign up for the dole with a million in the bank.

Unemployment benefit is not asset and means tested. You can sign up for the dole with a million in the bank. You just do not get the accommodation supplement.

[Aaron]

Unemployment benefit is not asset and means tested. You can sign up for the dole with a million in the bank. You just do not get the accommodation supplement.

Are you sure you are not telling "alternative facts". I suppose it would be possible to get a benefit will a million in the bank you would probably just have to tell your case officer some alternative facts to achieve it. If you are dishonest and lie anything is possible, you could become the president of the USA even.

[blackcap]

Are you sure you are not telling "alternative facts". I suppose it would be possible to get a benefit will a million in the bank you would probably just have to tell your case officer some alternative facts to achieve it. If you are dishonest and lie anything is possible, you could become the president of the USA even.

Unemployment benefit is not means tested. I know some on the dole that have million dollar plus houses and plenty of shares. Its the accommodation supplement you do not get if you have means. Ring WINZ if you do not believe me.

[Aaron]

Unemployment benefit is not means tested. I know some on the dole that have million dollar plus houses and plenty of shares. Its the accommodation supplement you do not get if you have means. Ring WINZ if you do not believe me.

I think it is you who should ring WINZ to dob in your friends as they sound like scummy bludgers.

[Bjauck]

I am not sure Roger is this agreement with something I have said.

If nothing else it has sparked up a debate that I think the country needs to have. It would seem that the younger generation have resigned themselves to the fact that they will have to be the ones to accept a less generous nz super. I don't think they appreciate that it is current tax dollars that is funding the scheme. Would they be so accepting if they realized their hard earned money was going to multi-millionaries on the current nz super scheme. There is no way anyone with any sense of fairness would be happy with this, yet it continues as there is no mention of means or asset testing.

How would they apply income and asset testing? The wealthy have often settled many of their assets in well-established family trusts, of which they remain discretionary beneficiaries. To be fair, you would need to include the assets in family trusts in any means test, otherwise the people affected most by means testing would not necessarily be the very wealthy but the more moderately wealthy without family trusts.

Likewise how would you differentiate between pensioners who have multi=million dollar homes but few financial assets versus a renter with a multi-million dollar portfolio of productive assets.

[Aaron]

How would they apply income and asset testing? The wealthy have often settled many of their assets in well-established family trusts, of which they remain discretionary beneficiaries. To be fair, you would need to include the assets in family trusts in any means test, otherwise the people affected most by means testing would not necessarily be the very wealthy but the more moderately wealthy without family trusts.

Likewise how would you differentiate between pensioners who have multi=million dollar homes but few financial assets versus a renter with a multi-million dollar portfolio of productive assets.

How about an equity tax like the one proposed by the TOP party. Sounds like a good idea.
While we are at it the "Aaron" party would propose doing away with the discretionery family trust as I can see no real benefit for the country by having this legal concept "trust" "I don't own the asset but I control it". What a load of legal bull****. Limited Liability Companies and Incorporated Societies can fill the function of the Trust. Matrimonial property agreements can also get round issues of outsiders marrying into the family. You could do away with a lot of unnecessary complication by doing away with Trusts in my opinion.