More than 9000 people aged over 65 earn more than $200,000 a year, and another 33,000 earn between $100,000 and $200,000 – and the Retirement Commissioner says it’s fair to question whether they should be able to claim NZ Super as well.
They shouldn’t.
In principle all welfare should be means tested so that it goes towards those who need it. The exception is if the cost of means testing would be close to the savings from it.
Super costs around $28,000 a year per recipient. If you means tested it to only those earning under $100,000 you would save $1.17 billion a year. That is worth doing.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
In principle all welfare should be means tested so that it goes towards those who need it. The exception is if the cost of means testing would be close to the savings from it.
Super costs around $28,000 a year per recipient. If you means tested it to only those earning under $100,000 you would save $1.17 billion a year. That is worth doing.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
12 comments:
If one has contributed all one’s working life to pay tax and been promised a pension, then they should be eligible to receive it. I for one am more indignant about faux Māori breaking our country financially and racially, without appreciable benefit to the country.
Totally disagree. If you’ve worked hard, paid lots of tax to support the country throughout your working life; you deserve it. What this government needs to do is tackle this issue is follow Roger Douglas’ plan. But that won’t happen as it is politically too dangerous. So we are going to go broke. My prediction is in 20 years the majority of pensioners in this country will be in extreme poverty.
I would agree with you but only if all the excessive spending towards Maori projects gets totally curtailed as well. Oh, hmmm....if the government curbs unnecessary fringe benefits, defunds the MSM, gets the able -bodied working and cuts the number of parliamentary seats as well. In other words, if I can see they are listening to the people who voted for them I can support cost saving initiatives.
Janine - I feel exactly the same. Hitting on superannuitants is such a cop out. In a youth focussed world, where “boomers” are supposedly responsible for so many evils, seems like it’s becoming the politically palatable option. I’d also like to see the big maori corporations pay tax like the rest of us, instead of hiding behind their fake “charity” status. Similarly, there is huge reluctance to roll back the massive and expensive bloat in both the public service and local government that occurred under Jacinda. So much of our tax money is still being wasted and yet they want even more. I suspect it’s only a matter of time before a government changes the rules around superannuation and/or capital gains to extract more from those of us who have worked pretty damn hard, lived frugally, paid off mortgages, saved for a rainy day and who still reliably pay taxes - as did our parents before us.
You maybe confused David? It's an entittlement when you reach 65. It's not welfare or a benefit.
I am totally for incrementally lifting the start date till NZ reaches 67 years old . If the increase was from 2026 then each subsequent pension day ( 2 weekly) would be calculated until 2026 plus 52 fortnightly pension days was reached and would be a 67 year old .
Next year would start 2026 +1pension day and by a quarter of the year or the end of March 2026 would be 2026 +6 and people could easily calculate their former 65th birthday start date from 2026 and fortnightly increments. MSD would have it online and all other media from 2026. Simple and would assist NZ to balance the books .
Those earning >$200 k are paying twice the income tax that they're taking in super. Almost all of them would have been doing so for decades before they were entitled to it.
David, your figures are before tax, it seems. Your figures also show that for a couple both qualifying for super (presumably most people), the annual amount for each is $24,776, not $28,000 BEFORE TAX. Perhaps net super is not as much as you believe it to be ?
By raising both the age to 67 and giving the pension on a sliding downward scale above $100, 000. it would work. If a person over 67 is earning over $100,000 the full pension would not be essential. As other commentators have said, at the same time cut back on wasteful spending
I remember a post you made David on Kiwiblog a while ago, from Treasury showing that allowing for working for families 168,000 people earning $120K a year paid 90% of private tax.
The question you asked is "how much is enough?"
Forgive me if I seem a bit tart, but those people paid for their fair share and others. Why prejudice them because they got an education, started a business or got good at what they do ?
Is that the Kiwi way ?
By all means stop Kiwi Super in 40Yrs.
Allow a degration of benefits % wise over the 40Yrs.
those aged 60+ no change going down to 20yr olds with no Kiwi Super.
But please get off the high ground of penalising people for effort and work, that is not the Kiwi way. or at least it shouldn't be.
MikeNZ
I hope to be a millionaire AND still collect my super.
Because I will probably still need it just to survive as will many others.
A lot of older people are 'millionaires' on paper because the house they bought for 30 grand 50 years ago is now worth close to a million, but they have few liquid assets. They can sell the house but then have to pay for a new place to live the price of which has risen over the years just as much, so they're maybe a couple of hundred thou ahead but at around 4% for term deposits that translates into an income that won't sustain them. What matters in terms of self-generated income is how much capital you have got working for you. The ratio between that and how much you have locked away in bricks and mortar would have to come into consideration when means-testing for Super.
Post a Comment