Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

1 | ... | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | ... | 264

12086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9914

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3491237 15-May-2026 14:47

sen8or:

I'm also not against means testing for super, I'd like the threshold to be fairly high, income over median household income, net assets over a few million (inflation adjusted periodically) and some exempt income e.g Kiwisaver exempt from being included in income/asset calculations. Whether or not the savings from not making some payments outweighs the cost of trying to make those savings, thats certainly a consideration too.

If you make the threshold for means testing as high as you are suggesting it renders it effectively pointless. The cost of administration becomes so high that it doesn’t save more than it costs.

At that point you have to raise the retirement age even higher.

sen8or

1948 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1450

#3491238 15-May-2026 14:47

Handle9:

GV27:

Means testing cannot simply mean anyone retiring with a freehold house then misses out on Super. Not after the super-human sized mortgages millennials are dealing with.

The Australian version is (broadly) based on assets outside the family home. If you have a million dollars of assets you don’t get super, go below that and you do.

I find that broadly reasonable.

Agreed, hence my two pronged - household income (excl Kiwisaver) measured against median household income (single / dual) and asset base, maybe not $ for $ but a % of could work. Odds are, if you have household income over the median income range (outside of kiwisaver / super payments), you are likely to have significant assets. If you don't have significant assets the chances of income level that high are somewhat reduced (not nil).

Even if you have a freehold house, when you factor in land rates ($100/wk +/-), house insurance, contents insurance, utilities, food, it can easily be $4-500 per week just for the basis, let alone that in the years you are retired, its likely you'll replace your car at least once, appliances possibly twice, likely to want to travel or do other activities etc etc etc

People who earn a reasonable income throughout their life don't get much (any) Govt assistance on a week to week basis, why does that change at 65?

wellygary

8933 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5476

#3491241 15-May-2026 14:55

Handle9:

GV27:

Means testing cannot simply mean anyone retiring with a freehold house then misses out on Super. Not after the super-human sized mortgages millennials are dealing with.

The Australian version is (broadly) based on assets outside the family home. If you have a million dollars of assets you don’t get super, go below that and you do.

I find that broadly reasonable.

But there is also an income test

if you work a few shifts s a week at bunnings then your pension gets docked, it can really penalise people who work beyond 67.... whereas here the universality defiantly helps keep older people in the labour market ...

MikeAqua

8205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3957

#3491244 15-May-2026 15:07

GV27:

MikeAqua:

I'd like to see Labour-National consensus on a few fundamentals - kiwisaver and superannuation, pharmac, health funding, employment law, education funding, infrastructure funding, electricity market reform and climate policy. These things are too important to be subject to changes with the government. Look at Polytechs for example. The pile of cash that was burned centralising and then decentralising them must be horrific.

100%. The social contract has to have certainty and it feels like we don't have much at all at the moment.

Kiwisaver, I think, needs a slide rule over it. It's not really fit for purpose in its current guise and the mucking around with the Kickstarter contribution is an example of something that generates a lot of attention, but isn't going to shift the dial in terms of making it a proper savings scheme. I see a lot of comments acting like there'd be no consequences in locking people's income away for 40 years+ so they don't retire in poverty, but scant consideration to the fact they're already in poverty now. Likewise, and it doesn't get much attention, the fees on Kiwisaver as a product are just way too high - high enough to make a material difference to your retirement if/when you actually get there.

Climate policy is a difficult one. I'm not sure anyone (Greens included) has been entirely honest about how viable something like tourism would be in the event the Climate Apocalypse actually works up a head of steam. Flying hours in a high-emitting jet to the bottom of the world is an extravagance now, I'm not sure we can justify making wholesale changes to our standards of living in the name of a climate emergency and then flying planeloads of people here.

KiwiSaver is great up to the level matched by an employer. Beyond that, its only real advantage is the discipline it forces, and the safe management required of providers. We do better out of other investment funds, and the money is accessible immediately if we need it for some sort of emergency.

Aviation is a small component of GHG emissions - about 2% IIRC. The emissions per trip or consignment (freight) are high, but in aggregate it isn't important. And we should see very short haul services electrified in the next few years. The magnitude of concerns about aviation are more driven by social stuff than science. We see this in the obsession with private jets. Emissions from private jets are a pimple on the left butt-cheek of total emissions. They aren't important to the physical systems. But people like to rage about them.

Mike

MikeAqua

8205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3957

#3491249 15-May-2026 15:17

sen8or:

I'm also not against means testing for super, I'd like the threshold to be fairly high, income over median household income, net assets over a few million (inflation adjusted periodically) and some exempt income e.g Kiwisaver exempt from being included in income/asset calculations. Whether or not the savings from not making some payments outweighs the cost of trying to make those savings, thats certainly a consideration too.

I'd favour some sort of means testing, but rather than just a threshold I'd like to see a sliding scale. Under x means you get full super. From x means super payments taper down until y means, above which you get nothing. This avoids a boundary effect where people just above the threshold having a tough life while people just below it are comfortable. It also means most people get something.

Personally, I'm assuming we'll get nothing. We've invested in a combination of property, horticulture and funds. I also dabble with a small amount of shares and mine bit coin (with limited success). The shares and bitcoin are for fun.

Mike

Handle9

12086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9914

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3491262 15-May-2026 15:44

wellygary:

Handle9:

The Australian version is (broadly) based on assets outside the family home. If you have a million dollars of assets you don’t get super, go below that and you do.

I find that broadly reasonable.

But there is also an income test

if you work a few shifts s a week at bunnings then your pension gets docked, it can really penalise people who work beyond 67.... whereas here the universality defiantly helps keep older people in the labour market ...

Which is also broadly reasonable. It comes back to what is the point of a government old age benefit paid for by general taxation?

To me the purpose is to ensure that old people don’t live in poverty and to supplement those who have modest savings. People like me shouldn’t get anything.

If I’m entitled to it I’ll take it but really there isn’t any justification for me to get a benefit paid by the government. I’ve been fortunate enough to save/invest enough to have a comfortable retirement.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

GV27

6017 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4251

#3491307 15-May-2026 20:59

sen8or:

Agreed, hence my two pronged - household income (excl Kiwisaver) measured against median household income (single / dual) and asset base, maybe not $ for $ but a % of could work. Odds are, if you have household income over the median income range (outside of kiwisaver / super payments), you are likely to have significant assets. If you don't have significant assets the chances of income level that high are somewhat reduced (not nil).

Even if you have a freehold house, when you factor in land rates ($100/wk +/-), house insurance, contents insurance, utilities, food, it can easily be $4-500 per week just for the basis, let alone that in the years you are retired, its likely you'll replace your car at least once, appliances possibly twice, likely to want to travel or do other activities etc etc etc

People who earn a reasonable income throughout their life don't get much (any) Govt assistance on a week to week basis, why does that change at 65?

That depends how much runway you have once you've paid down a mortgage, which is harder and harder even for dual income households given the huge amounts people are borrowing in the first place to even get a starter house. For many, being mortgage free by retirement is going to be a very close run thing; the opportunity for saving for retirement exclusively is going to be a pretty narrow window.

If the deal is "you earned enough to afford a house in the first place, qualified for no state assistance while working or raising a family and now you're expected to somehow self-fund your own retirement from local wages" then that becomes a very hard sell to a chunk of the population who are kicking in more than they take out, and those people are in fairly short supply in NZ.

These changes will need to be signposted decades, possibly half a century in advance. Structurally, no one who is leaving school for work or already working has a snowballs of closing the gap on self-funding if that's where the ladder gets pulled up to.

NPCtom

444 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 58

#3492097 17-May-2026 18:57

Apologies in-advance if this is not the correct thread to post this.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360980028/nz-first-make-kiwisaver-compulsory-buy-bnz-back-peters-takes-swipes-neo-liberal-twits

I think Winston has some very sensible policies, but then somehow manages to take a massive U-turn and goes on a tangent ranting other groups of people.

I like this improved KS scheme, but I remain disappointed on his stance on NZ Super.

Edit: added article link

gzt

19018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8110

Lifetime subscriber

#3492099 17-May-2026 19:32

I see Peters wants to merge BNZ with Kiwibank. In some limited circumstances that might be sensible. This part I don't understand:

"No government with New Zealand First will touch our seniors’ superannuation. There will no means testing, no eligibility age increase, no indexing."

No indexing, meaning super will never increase with inflation? No indexing because it will be fully funded by employer and employee? No indexing because some other party wants to index it down? No idea. I may need to visit the NZ First election policy to find out if it's even updated yet. National's wasn't when I looked last week..

gzt

19018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8110

Lifetime subscriber

#3492102 17-May-2026 19:36

Oh I see. Currently super is pegged to 66% of the net average wage.

NZ First will not change that:

https://www.nzfirst.nz/improving-the-lives-of-our-seniors

NPCtom

444 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 58

#3492104 17-May-2026 19:59

gzt: Oh I see. Currently super is pegged to 66% of the net average wage.

NZ First will not change that:

https://www.nzfirst.nz/improving-the-lives-of-our-seniors

I believe NZ Super is the only payment that is indexed to wages instead of CPI.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

9065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10071

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3493244 18-May-2026 10:14

This is a good idea, I think. But are they unaware that they are the government and can just do it right now, or are they waiting for people to forget about Tim Jago?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeAqua

8205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3957

#3493291 18-May-2026 11:54

For anyone who is interested in the whole LNG terminal topic, Jack Tame did interviewed of Dr David Haugh, who heads OECD's NZ desk. They discussed among other things the LNG terminal. The OECD's advice, as characterised by Haugh, is more nuanced than either media coverage or politicians' statements would suggest. He actually favoured that we use coal, because it is less volatile in price and because gas should be reserved for industries that can't currently use anything else.

Mike

gzt

19018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8110

Lifetime subscriber

#3493294 18-May-2026 11:57

SaltyNZ: This is a good idea, I think. But are they unaware that they are the government and can just do it right now, or are they waiting for people to forget about Tim Jago?

"Under National, judges will be prohibited from treating good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing for all sexual offending"

Jago was a president of the ACT Party not the National Party. Similar policy is already implemented in Australia. For that reason I'd be surprised if Labour was not already working on similar policy. It obviously was not a priority for National first term.

SaltyNZ

9065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10071

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3493390 18-May-2026 13:58

gzt:
SaltyNZ: This is a good idea, I think. But are they unaware that they are the government and can just do it right now, or are they waiting for people to forget about Tim Jago?

"Under National, judges will be prohibited from treating good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing for all sexual offending"

Jago was a president of the ACT Party not the National Party. Similar policy is already implemented in Australia. For that reason I'd be surprised if Labour was not already working on similar policy. It obviously was not a priority for National first term.

I know, but the point stands. They've got plenty of time for performative nonsense like the English language bill, so they should be able to fit this in, surely?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1 | ... | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | ... | 264