By Bernard Hickey
Labour has tweaked its policy of making KiwiSaver compulsory to make it more equal with employers and to allow those on very low incomes to be exempt from the scheme.
Labour estimated the changes would bring in around half a million more New Zealanders into the scheme and a 30 year on an average income of NZ$50,000 who was already in the scheme would be NZ$150,000 or 40% better off at retirement because of higher employer contributions and larger returns on investments.
Around 2 million New Zealanders currently have over NZ$21 billion in KiwiSaver, although over 250,000 are not actively contributing.
"Universal KiwiSaver is a no-brainer," Labour Leader David Cunliffe said.
"It will not only make the lives of all retired Kiwis better, it will increase our savings pool so our companies can access capital to grow their businesses. This means New Zealand will borrow less from offshore and keep our profits in Kiwi hands," he said.
Labour announced its KiwiSaver policy for Election 2014 in Parliament house, giving the following details:
1. All full time, casual and part-time employees would be automatically enrolled in the scheme from October 2015, apart from those who are exempt. The opt-out provision currently in place would be removed.
2. Exemptions will be made for those on very low incomes, the self-employed, beneficiaries and students. Those who can prove hardship can suspend their contributions. Labour said the low income threshold would be set after consultation with employers and unions, although Labour noted the Australian level was very low.
3. Combined contributions would increase from 6% currently to 9% by 2021, with the split being 4.5% from the employee and 4.5% from the employer. Labour's policy before the 2011 election was that employers would contribute 7% and employees 2%.
3. Existing KiwiSaver members would see their contributions and their employer's contributions rise at a rate of 0.25% per annum from October 2015 to 4.5% each by April 2021.
4. New members would see their contributions start at 1% in 2015 and then rise to 2% in April 2017, then 3% in April 2018, 4% in April 2019 and then 0.25% each in the following two years to a maximum of 4.5%. However, the employer contribution would start at 3% in 2015 and rise 0.25% per annum thereafter.
5. Labour stuck with is policy announced in April that it would use variable KiwiSaver employee contributions to help the Reserve Bank control inflation and interest rates, although it did not release any estimates of the scale of the trade-offs involved.
6. Labour would retain the current NZ$1,000 kick-start for new members and the Government member tax credits contribution of up to NZ$521 per year. However, new members would have their 'kick-start' spread over the first five years to spread the fiscal impact, which Labour estimated at NZ$141 million in the first year, while the longer term cost to the Government would be around NZ$50 million a year.
7. Labour would also keep the first home buyers KiwiSaver deposit subsidy of up to NZ$5,000 per person, but said it would look at increasing the assistance, "fiscal conditions permitting."
Here was Labour's 2011 KiwiSaver policy in Interest's policy summary.
93 Comments
It may or may not make the lives of retired Kiwis better, depending on whether they would otherwise have saved voluntarily. In any case it is not clear why it is Government's responmsibility to make the lives of retired Kiwis better. Kiwis already have the option to make their own lives in retirement better.
It may or may not increase the savings pool. Many people will not actually save more in total than they would have otherwise, they will simply divert savings from one form into another (in which case the Government contribution buys absolutely no public value). Wherever it is the case that this policy makes an individual save more for this retirement than he would have saved otherwise, that comes at a cost to his current consumption.
Who are these people who actually want the Government to force them to do something that there is nothing to stop them from doing already?
People who save more as a result of this policy will do so at the cost of their current consumption.
Who are you to say that that is a better use of their money?
Anyway, it's not necessarily "no change" for those who were saving extra anyway. They will have their choices and flexibility as to how best to manage their money reduced.
Gareth Morgan proved that it is a complete myth that New Zealanders " don't save enough " ...
... he's shown that for generations Kiwis have saved enough to top up their government pensions ...
But they've not saved in ways deemed " prudent " by the busy-body politicians , such as Mickey Cullen and David Cunliffe ... they've had a penchant for an extra property , a rental , or a bach somewhere ... and kept their costs low ...
... now they're coralled into the rapacious fee grabbing arms of the funds mis-management industry ... and large chunks of their saving heads off-shore ... creating jobs overseas , rather than staying and working at home ...
Bizarre ... all mind-freakingly bizarre !
Is it poetic justice that Commonwealth Bank's wealth mismanagement division faces a $200 million lawsuit against one of its subsidiaries, the inaptly named Financial Wisdom?
CBD notes Financial Wisdom has also recently lost one of its affiliated financial planners. The Brisbane-based firm, which happened to be called Ethical Financial Advice, left Financial Wisdom for a non-aligned licensee, Shartru Wealth.
According to an interview with Shartru's chief, Rob Coyte, its new recruit was attracted to the group's ''non-conflicted'' nature. He is not necessarily referring to the scandal-plagued record of CBA's wealth division. After all, 80 per cent of financial planners are affiliated with the wealth divisions of Australia's Big Four banks, which means they are required to spruik products owned by the bank they're aligned with.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/kim-dotcom-offers-some-largesse-20140616-3a8j3.html#ixzz34tIwx1A9 there goes the financial system.
Those darned Aussies always have to go one better than us , makes our $ 45 million funds mismanagement by ANZ ( NZ ) and ING ( NZ ) look like chump change ...
... unless you were one of the hapless investors convinced by the ANZ to invest in these dogs , and abandoned after they sank ...
Thank goodness for the actions of the Commerce Commission ...
dtcarter.....the effect is that people will not actually receive a pay increase as it will go into KS instead.
This dcreases their current spending power as they have to manage their daily budget on a lessor amount as inflation gobbles up some.
Having more savings is not a good thing if people cannot meet their immediate needs!
"Who are these people who actually want the Government to force them to do something that there is nothing to stop them from doing already?"
Some people do need compulsion to do the right thing.
But the main driver is the hidden agenda: Compulsory annuity coupled with means testing of NZ super.
In the age of entitlement you can't take back an entitlement. Even if there is no money for it.
You *can* impose hidden taxes and ignore the long term consequences.
The silly game continues until the economy slumps/stagnates and a new social contract is negotiated.
Some people do need compulsion to do the right thing - possibly. Assumes of course that the Government knows better than any given individual as to what "the right thing" is in that particular individual's particular circumstance, for which I don't see any evidence. But even if that were the case - does the later private benefit to these hypothetical congitively impaired individuals really justify the cost to everybody else?
I suspect you are right though about the hidden agenda. If means tested NZS is not part of Labour's plan, then they really haven't thought it through.
I dont agree on means testing very much, I think it would lose votes. What I do think and what really worries me is labour is looking for a means to fund its social program. So what I expect to see is kiwisaver accounts will be "encouraged" to invest in Labour's choices....
regards
Good Evening - It probably is but not for a long while. They need to force savings for all. Only then can those that have not because they are truely poor get better assistance - assuming they meet a criteria.
Otherwise any government is open to the claim they are helping those who spent their money on the here and now and just want a hand out.
True savers pay for them selves and others is not popular unless real need exists. This identifies it.
At the need of the day Super will not be 50% and will start later
Good Evening - It probably is but not for a long while. They need to force savings for all. Only then can those that have not because they are truely poor get better assistance - assuming they meet a criteria.
Otherwise any government is open to the claim they are helping those who spent their money on the here and now and just want a hand out.
True savers pay for them selves and others is not popular unless real need exists. This identifies it.
At the need of the day Super will not be 50% and will start later
Well the same comment can be used at my speculation against National "directing" kiwisaver.
I'd suggest there would be no direct action that costs votes, that is how tax increases (ie extra funding) have generally gone, so means testing wouldnt be probable IMHO. My biggest pointer is the lack of Pollies will to lose votes, hence funding via the back door.
Even if OAP is means tested is that such a bad thing?
regards
I think we're both asking the same question - what is the real reason why Labour want to introduce compulsory saving? You suspect it's so they can fund their pet projects without having actually to explicitly raise tax; I suspect it's so they can later reduce the public cost of NZ Super. Neither of us can really know whether we're right or not.
Does Labour actually have any other ideas on how to grow businesses in N.Z. other than by compulsorily taking money away from employees AND BUSINESSES and making it available for investment?
re. Point 2. If you fall into hardship and can then suspend your contributions, will your kiwisaver fund manager also then suspend their fees?
No you present a straw man argument x 2,
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
Yes Im saying you lack logic by taking an extreme position in trying to justify what you are claiming and you repeat it again in replying to me.
regards
Steven, you're not making any sense at all.
Hamish asked if a political party had any ideas on how to grow business. Which can be reasonably thought of as about making money.
I broadened his idea by suggesting that even once a political party becomes a government (meaning it gains the power to act on its ideas and policies) there is a valid historic proof available to assert the answer to his question is no. Even the most powerful forms of government who have almost no impediments or limits to that power have failed to do so.
This neither ignores what he said nor substitutes his ideas, so it has nothing to do with creating any straw man argument.
Neither did I create any straw man or logical argument against your statement that 'taking something to an extreme .. is a faillure of logic". I simply stated that either you don't seem to understand what logic is - or - if I read your comment in a different understanding, it was ridiculous.
Compulsory super has been going in Australia for for 21 years now
It was a good idea when it first started at 4% now 9%
Now they are discovering the downsides to it
(a) Total of all Superannuation Funds amounts to $1½ Trillion or $1,500 billion
(b) Nearly 50% of that is invested off-shore creating jobs offshore
(c) Contributions to Superannuation are Tax-Deductible
(d) The local taxpayers are funding off-shore job-creation
(e) The Fund Managers (the banks) are creaming $30 billion in fees annually
(f) Profits of the Big 4 Banks amount to $30 billion annually
(g) 2014 calculation finds the tax concessions exceeding the savings in welfare benefits
It isn't working as they thought it would
At some point a (socialist) govt will step in and limit tax-concessions only to funds that invest locally and create jobs locally
Pay attention people
"At some point a (socialist) govt will step in and limit tax-concessions only to funds that invest locally and create jobs locally"
Thus proving the case it isn't 'your' savings but rather a government regulated fund for the purposes of furthering government policy.
Hi,
Because there is no guarantee ANY political party will not raid the fund. It is one huge tempting target and would fund National's PPP program nicely.
Hence Im not going to differentiate between any of them.
PS didnt George Bush raid the social security fund or something?
regards
I always opt out every time i commence a new employment. I don't like the idea of not managing my own savings or the idea of not having available funds when I need them. That's basically the main reason not to opt in Kiwisaver although (IF THINGS GO AS EXPECTED) the returns are interesting (once you can enjoy the returns, of course..). But it's a matter of being free and AN ADULT to decide.
If the main reason to make this compulsory is to enforce savings at the expenses of reducing money in the pocket to spend now, I don't understand why any government thinks this is something they have to deal with on behalf of everybody.
Will these funds be guaranteed in case of default? Will they be invested only in the country and in REAL economy (not financial markets)? What if I want to put all the money I make with my work under my bed and leave it there because I rather see it shrink than collaborate with financial markets and especulation?
What are the advantages of this? A government should ensure that work keeps being a right and that there are enough jobs for anybody wanting to make a living. A government should not tell anybody where to spend the money. It should actually be the other way around, and we, citizens, should tell the government where to spend OUR money.
It's just nonsense.
So now we know wage earners will be required to put 4.5% into kiwisaver plus maybe as much again to obviate the need for RBNZ to raise interest rates by say 1% if the rough multiplier Joyce worked out on the back of his envelope is correct. That is 9% of gross income and for a wage earner on 40k is $70 per week.
That gives every party a stick to beat Labour with among the voters it depends on most. Even if many wont vote National it gives people a reason to vote Green or Mana in the hope they will get a left wing Government without parting with an extra $70 per week.
The people who will support this policy wont vote for them anyway.
Amazing how the flippant little comment from Joyce (he basically made it up) has now become fact amongst National supporters. Still no proof of calculation has come to show that 9% rubbish.
My view on kiwisaver is it is a good idea, but should not be taken as a stand alone policy. In terms of saving and helping control inflation, this idea should sit with many options the RBNZ could use depending on circumstances and not as either 1 or the other. Our current '1 big lever' system is failing and needs to be updated.
My understanding is Joyce was using some work done quite quickly by the Westpac economists on what sort of trade off there would need to be between increasing Kiwisaver contributions and increasing the OCR to achieve the same reduction in cash in the economy.
Labour are helpless when it comes to countering the figure Joyce put out there because they have not modeled it. May be they have in the meantime and are keeping their mouuths shut because the numbers are right.
Hard to counter a claim that has never had is calculations made public.
I am just amazed that no-one in the press has ever questioned this. "quite quickly' is not really any more than an estimate at best and certainly not a calculation method that stands to scrutiny, especially one so often repeated.
A bit like the 'far left' comment that is regularely quoted by media (Newstalk ZB in particular), when Labour and no further laft than National are right.
Let's review nations where there has been compulsory super for lomg periods of time.
Singapore, Chile and Australia. It aoppears that the outcomes for the first two have been better than in Oz. My wife was living in Singapore whe L KY came to power and it is well to rememember just how poor they were at that time. It has worked for them but they have a lot of other crown interventions as well. FX rate managed to maintain exports - no OCR targetting.
Has it increased national savings which I understand is one desired outcome ?
Singapore yes - Chile yes - Oz I don't think so - still large C/A deficits.
Australians have simply borrowed against their super to invest in ever larger houses which they intend to pay off upon retirement with their super then front up at Centerlink for a means tested ( Excludes the primary residence ) pension.
I think that without a lot of other crown interventions - compulsory super savings schemes in isolation do not increase national savings so one has to question their value.
OK, I will try to explain this again.
There is no point having means testing without compulsory saving. Means testing on its own disincentivises working and saving - people will be more reluctant to save if they're just going to lose the benefit of it by having their NZS reduced - so the purpose of the means test will be defeated.
There is no public interest in requiring private saving for retirement if the Government is not then going to use the saving to offset NZS costs and so achieve a saving of public money. Look at the other commenters here -
- Kimy: "Because I do not want to have to pay for your retirement"
- Dobrydan: "My children won't be forced to pay out 40% of their income to pay for the retirees of the future"
- Waripori: "The reason for this must be to ... make it compulsory to purchase an annuity which will be off set against National Super"
- Magnum: "only then can those that have not [saved] because they are truly poor get better assistance"
But compulsory saving on its own does not achieve that. On its own, all compulsory saving means that I might have more money to add to my NZS when I reach 65 than I would have otherwise. I still get my NZS and other people have still got to pay for it just the same.
The only way in which making me save more means that other people pay less for my retirement is if the compulsory saving is combined with means testing, so that I don't get as much NZS.
You seem convinced that the public interest in requiring private saving for retirement is so that the Government can then raid the private savings to fund their pet projects. Certainly, any Government might well want to find extra money for that purpose. But there is absolutely no reason to think that it will be easier, or more likely, for them to find it by raiding people's private retirement savings than it is for them to find it in other ways.
Kimy - do you employ anyone? I'm thinking you don't..
Employers simply factor in KS costs and that is part of the employees total wage package. This is one of the reasons that employees wages have not increased........I think most wage/salary earners would be very disenchanted if they got a pay increase and the whole lot went to compulsory KS......You would be keeping people on State assistance programmes like WFF and other handouts.
Better to give them opportunities to get ahead under their own esteem rather than some enforced situation which ends up dampening the human spirit and people give up and thinking well the State caused this they can bloody well pay me some more along the way.
Also all the people who are working are paying taxes towards NZ superannuitants now...and will continue to do so.....what you are asking is that the young people pay for retirees and their own retirement if you abandon NZS......pretty unfair I think. Creates loads of generational animosity too........ I'm unsure of your exact reasons for advocating compulsory KS - but I think it goes beyond your contribution via the tax system for NZS.....would I be correct?
None of us like taxes.....Personally I would like the whole lot banished to the history books......but the fact is we are enforced to contribute.....I think it is better to focus on what is essential State spending and what is not......we are required to educate kids, look after elderly, health, police, courts, defence.....cut the rest of the wasteful spending and ensure our taxes aren't wasted or mis-spent elsewhere. That way people will be in a position to financially take care of their needs and not be so reliant on Nanny State.
This is where the libertarian dream falls down. You don't want anyone telling you what to do which is fair enough, you sound intelligent and will most likely make responsible decisions and end up with a sensible retirement nest egg. You however are not Joe average and definitely not Joe below average. Libertarians give way to much credit (both senses of the word) to the stupid in our society.
Despite some of the moronic dribble that gets sprayed on this site people here are at least thinking about the future or at least copy and pasting someone else’s thoughts on the future they agree with. The average and below average person has no clue. If they are not forced to save they simply don't. Economic theory can wank on about people making economically rational decisions but stupid people don't.
I have no problem letting the below average Joe live his life except where their poor choices lead them into poverty and from poverty crime is never far away. So while you don't want to be forced to save on principle you probably will anyway. The question becomes is it better to force the stupid to save for their own good. Or to let the intelligent have their principles at the cost of social cohesion due to inevitable poverty and income inequality?
You're running two different arguments here - it's for stupid people's own good, and it's for the good of everybody else because otherwise stupid people will be poor and commit crimes. Leaving aside who, if anybody, is qualified and entitled to assess whether other people's choices are "rational" or "stupid", neither of those cases really stands up.
The Government already has a very effective means in place to ensure that poor choices about saving early in life don't mean poverty in later life. That is NZS, thanks to which New Zealand already has one of the lowest rates of old-age poverty in the world. Where we do have a poverty problem is among younger people, particularly young families - ie, people at the age where this policy would propose to reduce their income further by forcing saving.
How therefore can we be sure that it really is "for their own good" to reduce an individual's income now - when perhaps they have young families to support, or a mortgage to manage, or a business to get off the ground - in order to increase their income later, when they will have NZS as well?
As for protecting the rest of us from the consequences of other people's poverty - Are people really more likely to commit crime as a result of constrained income when they are over 65, than they are as a result of constrained income when they are 30?
What I don't understand, is why Labour are wanting to heavily modify their own policy that they introduced. Labour brought in Kiwisaver on the basis that it wasn't compulsory, and this meant that people agreed to it, as they didn't have to join if they didn't want to. So was Labour intention for kiwisaver ro always eventually to become compulsory?
Also apparently self employed don’t have to join. However what if someone moves from a wage earner and wants to become self employed. Does this meant that they can cancel it, or do they go on a long contributions holiday?
I am neutral on this policy, but I do think that if it does become compulsory, then it maybe a matter of time before universal super is scrapped, or it becomes asset / income tested, which people don’t want. These appear to be little changes, which at the end of the day combined, result in major changes. I feel the same about their policy on CGT. Eventually I can see it applying to all houses, and the justification will be that Australia does it, and it simplifies it. I feel these policies are slippery slopes.
Of course it should be compulsory. For a start half of the deposits are from the employer. There seems to be a widespread misconception that the money in Kiwisaver is managed by the Government. This is not the case. The funds are invested in banks, insurance companies, gareth morgan etc. it makes good sense to spread your risk by investing locally and overseas.
I am also fully in favour of means testing but no one will go there. Why should someone in full employment get super as well when the younger generation have to take out student loans?And dont tell me you have paid taxes all your life so you are entitled. Your taxes are long gone.
over 65s in full time employment are having some nice overseas holidays on the taxpayer. Why no controversy here?
The reason for not means testing is nothing to do with "I've paid taxes all my life so I'm entitled". You are quite right that your entitlement to NZS is nothing whatsoever to do with how much taxes you've paid. The reason for not doing it is that it creates all the wrong incentives - don't work, don't save, you will be punished if you do - and is administratively complex and expensive to manage, requiring bureaucrats to nose into every aspect of individuals' finances to make sure they are not cheating to try to avoid the means testing.
Yes, it does mean that some money is being paid to people who don't need it, and they may be spending some of that in ways that don't benefit New Zealand. But that may be a price worth paying to avoid all the complications and downsides that would be involved in trying to avoid that.
I would sooner increase my contributions to 4.5% than pay more tax. Which will inevitably happen to pay for the retirement and health care of those approaching 65. At least in that case my children won't be forking out 40% plus of their income to pay for the retirees of the future.
The country simply cannot afford to ignore this issue any longer. Either raise the retirement age or increase government spending on paying for those folk who are nearing retirement.
But making people save for their retirement now will not in itself have any impact on the cost of NZS later - unless you also introduce means testing for pensions. Similarly it will not have any impact on the cost of healthcare for the elderly, unless you also make the elderly pay for their own healthcare out of their own savings.
If this is Labour's policy, let them say so.
There are two ways to structure the scheme.
The first is the way Cullen did it with no compulsion but plenty of incentives.This sits on top of National Super and any one not in it is a bit dopy if they can possibly squeeze out the 3% as with matching employer contributions, the kick start and the member tax credit there is a guaranteed return of well over 100% on your money. It has worked pretty well and in the main I imagine the only people not in Kiiwisaver will be those with some sort of philosophical objection or those who simply do not have the dosh. There are lots of those but at least with the current scheme they can use any cash they do have now to feed the kids and look forward to a pay rise when they are 65. Once a big chunk of the electorate has a substantial Kiwisaver balance it will be politically easier to wind back National Super.
The second approach is to make saving compulsory. The reason for this must be to allow a government to do away with the kick start and tax credit ( after all why provide incentives at tax payer expense to do something you have made compulsory? ) and to also make it compulsory to purchase an annuity which will be off set against any National Super . This approach also makes sense but it would be more of an ACT policy than a Labour one you would think.
Cunliffe should come right out and say that the second approach is the one they are going to take. sometimes when you do the right thing and are honest about it the electoral consequences are not as bad as feared.
I did see a quote from a European politician whose name I forget who said " we all know what needs to be done, we just dont know how to get re elected afterwards".
Interesting fight over Singapore's compulsory super scheme where the Prime Minister is suing a blogger for defamation:
"Currently the investment funds are earning 6.5 to 16 per cent. But for Singaporeans with retirement funds, we are only earning 2.5 to 4 per cent," he told PM's Peter Lloyd.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-17/singapore-blogger-defamation/5530898
Huge over-reaction by Singapores PM I would have thought. Singapore Constitution does allow freedom of speech....however there are some restrictions "designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constitution_of_Singapore
It doesnt
Just another spray at the boomers
In 5 years I have never once seen an acknowledgement or a thank-you that its the fault of the boomers that more cows are being milked, Fonterra is going gang-busters, milk-powder export prices are at record highs, everything is fine-and-dandy in the land of milk-and-honey
How was my comment a 'spray' at the boomers?
.
You'll note that I do not begrudge anybody any retirement entitlements, I'm merely pointing out that until the goverenment can start drawing on the NZsuperfund, the NZsuper payments it makes are funded by the yearly tax revenue.
NZ super payments are currently not funded by the NZ Super fund, but by general revenue. The more people save now, the more those revenues increase. Tax on interest earned is quite high in NZ.
Depending on youir income, or the type of investment vehicle you choose, it could be 17.5, 28 or 33 percent.
I am not so sure on that in terms of revenue, the more classic outlook would be the more ppl spend and the less thay save increases Govn revenue. So there would be churn, ie taxing the same money as it passes through multiple PAYE payers and then those ppl paying GST. Savings would be taxed but the interest remains in the account, assuming its compounding.
regards
Hence I wonder and I am concerned on why a Govn wants a compulsory schame....as teh saying goes give with one hand take with the other.
There are 2 obvious reasons,
a) means testing, not likely IMHO as that is a vote loser
b) Abusing the funds by directing them into pet projects thus avoiding tax incraeses which is a vote loser.
I think b) is on the cards myself.
regards
I think the reason why governments wants people to start saving for their own retirement is because they realise that
A) it is hard to survive, or will be hard to survive, if one has to rely on the NZsuper payments, only
B) If NZsuper paymens will not be keeping pace with inflation and will therefore reduce in real term
C) NZ'ers are living above their means and government needs to borrow to keep the country running. Increase in savings would mean government can borrow within local MMK at cheaper cost....
Once again. It is no easier, and no more likely, that Governments will abuse the funds in people's individual KiwiSaver accounts by directing them into pet projects than it is that they will abuse the funds in people's other savings accounts, or in the NZ Super Fund, or that they will redirect the money from other areas of Government spending.
It would be a pity if people were depriving themselves of the benefits of KiwiSaver because they think their money will be safer from the depradations of a greedy Government if they save it in other forms. It will not.
I agree, there seems to be a conspiracy theory floating about that the government will somehow abuse or absorb people's kiwisaver funds.
Not sure how that started or where that originated from.
I'm all for people saving more for their retirment, and kiwisaver, apart from the fees, is a good scheme
If you look abroad you see that a lot of pension funds, especially public employee funds are over-weighted in Govn and local govn and city bonds, these it seems now face default.
I also recall past NZ pollie mutterings that the % of investment in NZ was too low compared to overseas.
On top of that pension funds assume BAU, growth and a "comfortable" level of inflation all these are history, hence pension funds are strting to look like a bottomless pit of losses.
regards
Well for me I'm not too keen on kiwi saver being compulsory for me at the moment. So I will not be voting for labour because of this and that also means that I haven't even looked at their policy's
Why I can't afford kiwi saver. I am currently paying child support which takes 18% of my take home pay. Mortgage which I am paying a little extra while the interest rates are low and to reduce my total time. Saving to start a family. General savings for household items like renovations etc .
So once I then pay for food electricity internet etc I leave myself with 50 dollars for myself to enjoy each week maybe have a beer go to the movies or something. So 3 % or more to then put into kiwi saver at the moment for me is not feasible.
However once I finish paying child support in 5 years time I do plan on joining
Maybe Mr cunliffe can bring in changes to child support that were supposed to start this year with looking at what both parents earn instead of just the one without the child.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.