sharetrader
Page 42 of 63 FirstFirst ... 3238394041424344454652 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 625
  1. #411
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    My point was that disallowing super for 65+ if the person is working has been determined to cost more than it would save. Often hear it said that working people should not also get super. Means / asset testing is a whole other ball game, and an election loser right there.
    Anyone on a good income is likely to pay more in tax than they get back in superannuation but your not proposing that we lower the retirement age are you? How do you establish that people 65 and over on a good income deserve to get a hand-out from the NZ taxpayer as well as their wages, investment, rental income etc.

    No wait let me answer that "because they have been paying taxes all their lives"... whatever, we have been over this already.

  2. #412
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,894

    Default

    I have always thought Martin Hawes was a bit of a scrooge who doesnt see the full picture.
    For instance people age at different rates
    eg-genetics,smokers,maori and pacific Islanders.
    There is no absolute,fair system.
    We have to live with compromises.
    Raising the age or means testing is not going to save money or make the system fairer.

  3. #413
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    I have always thought Martin Hawes was a bit of a scrooge who doesnt see the full picture.
    For instance people age at different rates
    eg-genetics,smokers,maori and pacific Islanders.
    There is no absolute,fair system.
    We have to live with compromises.
    Raising the age or means testing is not going to save money or make the system fairer.
    Raising the age or means testing will definitely save money whether it is fairer seems to be a matter of opinion.

  4. #414
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Having Gareths retirement problems would be good.
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...superannuation

    Something is wrong and it needs changing.

  5. #415
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Having Gareths retirement problems would be good.
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...superannuation

    Something is wrong and it needs changing.
    What is wrong? Why is it wrong? He is giving the money away so that is a good thing isn't it? But he is entitled to it as far as I am concerned. Has paid tax all his life so now he gets the benefits of the super.

    But to be more equitable it is probably better that we move to a system where you save for your retirement (compulsory) and people use that when they retire. Sure some will have more in their retirement savings but that is the situation under the current system. Work longer and harder and have more. Be a beneficiary and have less. Ie make it that someone on a benefit for their entire life gets the approximate same as Super is now, that would make the system fair and equitable.

  6. #416
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Having Gareths retirement problems would be good.
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...superannuation

    Something is wrong and it needs changing.
    Morgan no doubt will be paying a heap of tax as well as receiving only 66% of the 20k he's on about. He will know as well as anybody that means testing is hugely expensive to implement, and has many undesirable consequences. Our superannuation is designed as a universal scheme and should be left that way.

  7. #417
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    What is wrong? Why is it wrong? He is giving the money away so that is a good thing isn't it? But he is entitled to it as far as I am concerned. Has paid tax all his life so now he gets the benefits of the super.
    I think Gareth Morgan described this as a Vaucous argument. He paid tax all his life it was used on cradle to grave welfare, free tertiary education, it went into inefficient govt owned organisations paying generous salaries, think big projects (which to be fair will benefit many generations). None of it was put aside to provide for superannuation (other than the Cullen Fund)

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap:706982
    But to be more equitable it is probably better that we move to a system where you save for your retirement (compulsory) and people use that when they retire. Sure some will have more in their retirement savings but that is the situation under the current system. Work longer and harder and have more. Be a beneficiary and have less. Ie make it that someone on a benefit for their entire life gets the approximate same as Super is now, that would make the system fair and equitable.
    Is this a concession that something may need to change, perhaps compulsory Kiwisaver along with income and asset testing for nz super???

  8. #418
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post

    Is this a concession that something may need to change, perhaps compulsory Kiwisaver along with income and asset testing for nz super???
    No I mean no NZ super at all. Just compulsory Kiwisaver. Super goes, the Kiwisaver is in its place.

  9. #419
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Morgan no doubt will be paying a heap of tax as well as receiving only 66% of the 20k he's on about.
    Am I to assume you are arguing that because Gareth makes heaps of money and pays lots of tax he becomes entitled to a handout???. If we used your argument consistently we could also say that poor NZers should get less as they paid less tax. I struggle to agree with this argument. I can only assume you pay lots of tax.

    He will know as well as anybody that means testing is hugely expensive to implement,
    Much like a capital gains tax anything you don't like appears to be hugely expensive, although you don't provide figures. I would note that building a house is hugely expensive but we don't stop building houses based on cost.

    and has many undesirable consequences.
    Such as???

    Our superannuation is designed as a universal scheme and should be left that way.
    It was designed as a universal scheme but human nature being what it is nothing was put aside to fund this. I haven't done the figures but many people smarter than me have suggested it will become unaffordable eventually. Why not plan for it now so that changes in the future don't have to be more radical. John Key said it is affordable and Jacinda said she likes the universality. Both came to power after these remarks. We can't blame short-sighted politicians years from now, we can only blame the voting/non-voting public.
    Hopefully my replies in red.

  10. #420
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    No I mean no NZ super at all. Just compulsory Kiwisaver. Super goes, the Kiwisaver is in its place.
    With a top up for those who don't have enough live from Kiwisaver? That sounds OK to me. Those who don't need it don't get it. I think we are almost coming to the same conclusion.
    Last edited by Aaron; 08-03-2018 at 08:47 AM.

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
  •