Since i'm my findings point more towards US equities and their rates of return, I would be interested to see how various Kiwi Saver funds have performed since they started 10 years ago? Also, i'm very weary of published data from NZ sources and would only take what the Kiwi Saver funds published rate with a grain of salt. Use a MER ? figure? How is that audited?

I grew up in Canada and saw the whole mutual (managed) fund industry be turned upsidedown when RRSP (equivalent Kiwi Saver) was introduced. You had all sorts of funds claiming to have consistent returns 'claiming' they've beat the S&P500 index etc. but those were gross figures not counting the ACTUAL returns and initially, they would never ever disclose the fee structure of these managed funds. Eitherway, I would be interested to see what Kiwi Saver funds have done and if there was a way to measure it on a cumulative 10 years basis. Because we all know all those managers of these funds need to get paid in times when the markets goes negative.

The 3% figure is too small despite the employer matching it. When I was in Canada they went through all these contribution issues and the results was it's way too small to generate ANY sizeable retirement fund UNLESS you were a HIGH income earner (but the savings and retirement pushed by the gov't was aimed at those on the low income ; high income earners or the rich don't need to save). Also there was a general view that employers would only contribute the minimum despite the employee could contribute a lot more. The tax dept in Canada allows up to 18% of a person's annual income as contributions and any unused limits can be carried forward with no penalty, but even still ; these efforts to encourage those on the low income did nothing but benefit the rich high income earners and because of that, I don't see the Kiwi Saver scheme being any different.

But we can talk differences until the cows run to the moon. The single factor that hurts all of us (and more particularly towards those on low incomes) is called "Inflation" and often at times if you simply don't have the $ to save, you're best to spend it on needs, or put it towards paying the house off faster. When I think about all this, it's probably a crime to believe what the gov't has done. People that needs $ the most, should not be coerced into a savings plan like Kiwi Saver when the end result is not much more than what the gov't could of done with their national pension plan by directly investing it into say the S&P500. There's a lot of inefficiencies involved by getting the public to invest ; just look at all those financial advisors fattening their back pockets, all those 'actively managed' funds in Kiwi Saver Funds (this is standard practice worldwide). While at the same time, when the National Party was in power they reduced or stopped investments into the NZ Super / Pension plan.

Now the gov't wants to attack those property speculators and investors by imposing CGT. (Historically, Kiwis enjoyed retirement from their real estate investment portfolio).