Pages

Tuesday, September 3, 2024

Kerre Woodham: We have to get revenue from somewhere - raising the age of eligibility for Super is a good start


I wanted to start with something that always generates a lot of chat and that is the inevitability about raising the age of eligibility for superannuation and, to a lesser extent the introduction of a capital gains tax. National under Bill English came very, very close to getting the age lifted to 67.

It wouldn't have happened until 2040, but it would have happened. So John Key left and came Bill English and managed to get the age of eligibility for super lifted to 67 by 2040, not overnight - by 2040. However. As we know, along came the Labour NZ First Coalition government and they nixed that, and the age of eligibility remains at 65. Despite National and ACT pledging to lift the super age from 65 to 67 during the election campaign, along came NZ First again to form the coalition government and their stance is unequivocal.

The age of retirement will remain at 65 years, no ifs, no buts, no maybeys. You can retire at anytime you like, they mean, of course, the age at which you can get the Super. So as long as the coalition government has a New Zealand first component the age will remain at 65, where it has been since eligibility for super was raised progressively from 60 to 65 over a relatively short frame of time, 1992 to 2001. That's not a lot of time for people to adjust. At the moment, 70% of the OECD has a pension age of 65 or lower.

Countries are slowly increasing their pension age, but the majority are only moving the age up to 65 over the next four decades. New Zealand Super is critical to the majority of New Zealanders right now who don't have the benefit of a big KiwiSaver fund. If you've been working your whole life and you've been in KiwiSaver your whole life, your retirement will look a little bit different. But at the moment, a lot of New Zealanders have super and super only.

40% of people aged 65 and over have virtually no other income besides New Zealand Super, 20% have just a little bit more, so they are doing it tough. And the reason that the Super and capital gains tax is back in the news is because the outgoing Treasury head says changes are needed to fix the Crown's structural deficit.

We need to find new ways of generating revenue and cutting expenditure and that means a capital gains tax and a more efficient superannuation scheme. This is Dr Caralee McLiesh. She's leaving Treasury, and this is part of her exit interview. However, although it makes sense for the age to be raised, as we all live longer and we live more healthy lives, and as KiwiSaver funds become more of a buffer between poverty, at the moment if you're living just on your super, things are tough. If you have your Super and your KiwiSaver, life would look a little bit better. Former Reserve Bank economist Michael Reddell told Mike Hosking this morning he doubts that any government is bold enough to raise the retirement age and bring in a capital gains tax.

"Well, I mean, National has campaigned in the last two or three elections for very slowly raising the retirement age. NZ First is the block, they're in absolute no on this. Labour back in 2014 campaigned on it. I think almost everyone recognises, in policy circles, that it's good and sensible and necessary and overdue adjustment. What will enable someone finally to make the move, I'm not sure. Maybe it takes another crisis. Capital gains tax isone of those where there's sort of a lot more, you know, genuine difference of view as to whether it's fair and right and also whether it will raise much revenue. A lot of the capital gains in the last few years have been house price inflation, Chris Bishop tells us that his housing reforms are going to cut house prices so there might not be much revenue there."

Michael Reddell, former Reserve Bank economist, talking to Mike Hosking this morning. Of course, most policies that have been put forward looking at a capital gains tax would exempt the family home so house prices are neither here nor there, unless you have a portfolio of them. Labour, of course you'll remember, this is when we last had torrid discussions on a capital gains tax. They had the golden opportunity to introduce one when they were in power, but chose not to do so. There was a recommendation from the Tax Working Group set up by the Coalition Government to introduce a capital gains tax and Jacinda Ardern said no, as long as I'm leader, it's not going to happen. You won't see it while I am leader, it won't be introduced on my watch.

I believe in a capital gains tax, it's clear many New Zealanders do not. I am ruling out a capital gains tax under my leadership in the future. That's what Jacinda Ardern said at the time. Of course, NZ First had something to do with it but for years, Labour had campaigned on introducing a capital gains tax, for years and years, their own Tax Working Group said it was a good idea. And then they take ownership of ruling it out entirely, not just until we can get rid of Winston, but entirely. So under the leadership off goes Jacinda Ardern and in comes Chris Hipkins. So there were reformists within Labour who said right now's the time. We don't have to faff around with any other political parties. We don't have to make compromise or concession, now's the time to do it. No, said Chris Hipkins, we need to get elected. We need to get reelected because otherwise it's going to be stink in opposition. So he nixed it as well. It is hard to see when such an opportunity will come again in the near future. I agree. I think it would be very hard for a political party to introduce a capital gains tax now. But the upshot is New Zealand needs to spend less and make more money.

Just like our households - spend less, make more money if we want to fund the lifestyle we enjoy. And I just don't think enough people have grasped that yet, we still want all the bells and whistles, we want the cherry on top. We can barely afford the cake, far less the icing and the cherry on top. We have to make cuts somewhere. We have to get revenue from somewhere. Where is it going to be? Raising the age of eligibility for Super is probably a very, very good start. It's been talked about for years. It's been fiddled around with for years. Bill English came very close to getting it in but while NZ First has anything to do with anything, it will remain at 65. And we simply can't afford that, unless we raise taxes so that the people who are turning 65 in the next 10 years will effectively pay for that.

Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Instead of arguing about the retirement age we should look at having a variable retirement age like Germany. If you retire early you get less of a pension if you retire later you get more.
Why fix the age at 65?
People circumstances change considerably during their life.
I would also scrap the bonkers taxing of KiwiSaver contributions. This makes pension savings smaller in the long run, and that’s plain dumb.

Anonymous said...

Kerre, I'm unsure on the actual figures of what I'm about to say. Generally I agree with your overall idea: we all need to spend less and save more.

I would be against punishing someone who has worked hard all their lives, never been on a benefit,
saved for retirement only for the govt to have their hand in that person's back pocket taking more!

Here's an idea that barely gets a mention....let's target those bludgers who don't need a benefit and get them contributing, despite what the left tell us , ITS NOT THEIR RIGHT TO BE ON A BENEFIT, if it is, then it must be my right not to pay them!
This alone would find a good chunk of money and the country would be much more productive.

Anonymous said...

Our average life expectancy is now around 82, which means National Super has to be paid much longer than was ever intended by its creators. The age of eligibility needs to go up, but at the same time KiwiSaver has to be made compulsory for all employees, or at the very least the maturity age lifted from 65 to match. Preferably both. The medicine could be sweetened by income tax concessions on Kiwisaver Fund earnings, say by an extension of the PIE investment regime.

Anonymous said...

Instead of looking at ways of continually taking more out of the average citizens income, why not concentrate on the spending side of the equation. You want to fundamentally reduce the cost of super. However once Kiwisaver reaches full maturity, on present tax brackets, and providing there is no change to the GST rate, a majority of tax payers who have been in paid employment all their lives, will pay to the government almost 50% of their income. Where's the equity.
Ooh!! That's right you want to introduce capital gains. Should that happen, then the result will be a reduction, perhaps a savage reduction, in the performance of most Kiwisaver accounts.

Post a Comment

Thanks for engaging in the debate!

Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.