Winston Peters - our 6 Weeks PM

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

Forums › Politics › Winston Peters - our 6 Weeks PM

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2044786 27-Jun-2018 14:18

Houses for $200,000? Five times the average wage income for a Year? Labour & probably National, would like this to happen but only if they could engineer it so they don't get blamed for collapsing the housing market! NZ is trapped in this inflated housing market & any political party that gets blamed for a collapse is history for 2 or 3 elections.

Mighty Ape

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).

elpenguino

2908 posts

Uber Geek

#2044795 27-Jun-2018 14:31

Yes and No.

If you release low cost assets into a market with high demand those assets simply inflate to the going rate as soon as they enter the hands of the first owner.

The limitation in this case is any insistence on freehold title. If you sell homes for 200k, they become worth 5-600k (or whatever) the next day.

NZ needs to think a little differently about this.

If the houses are sold via a social housing partner, future control can be retained. For example, person buys affordable house but never obtains freehold but rather a lifetime right to occupy.

Person lives in house, can sell house but only back to the housing provider. When person dies, house is sold back to provider and onto the next person needing housing.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2048331 3-Jul-2018 14:36

Winston Peters gets $31.82 taxpayer funded money to help with his "winter power bill". I agree when he says that the payment should be for everyone regardless of income, But Winston keeping it just shows what sort of person he is. Ethically, he should have given it away or not have accepted it. Just because you against means testing, it does not mean you should rort the system.

its all about Winston.......

I can't help but think what other decent MP's would have done in the same situation.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/105194803/winston-peters-keeping-winter-windfall

elpenguino

2908 posts

Uber Geek

#2048339 3-Jul-2018 14:44

I know.

I have colleagues on 6 figure salaries who happen to have turned 65 and sure enough, they all feel entitled enough to start banking the pension.

It really says something about the human mindset - very few can say no to extra resources , even when they don't need them.

We really need the government to step in and control this welfare for the wealthy.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2048346 3-Jul-2018 14:54

elpenguino:

I know.

I have colleagues on 6 figure salaries who happen to have turned 65 and sure enough, they all feel entitled enough to start banking the pension.

It really says something about the human mindset - very few can say no to extra resources , even when they don't need them.

We really need the government to step in and control this welfare for the wealthy.

Income testing National Superannuation would considerably push up the administration costs. It would certainly create employment.

Geektastic

17689 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2048362 3-Jul-2018 15:42

elpenguino:

Yes and No.

If you release low cost assets into a market with high demand those assets simply inflate to the going rate as soon as they enter the hands of the first owner.

The limitation in this case is any insistence on freehold title. If you sell homes for 200k, they become worth 5-600k (or whatever) the next day.

NZ needs to think a little differently about this.

If the houses are sold via a social housing partner, future control can be retained. For example, person buys affordable house but never obtains freehold but rather a lifetime right to occupy.

Person lives in house, can sell house but only back to the housing provider. When person dies, house is sold back to provider and onto the next person needing housing.

You won't get that one past the banks without some amendment.

They won't lend anyone a sous unless they can sell the asset to recover their loan in the event of default. The social housing partners would have to be legally liable to buy back the house at a sufficient price to cover any outstanding mortgage.

Geektastic

17689 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2048367 3-Jul-2018 15:46

MikeB4:

elpenguino:

I know.

I have colleagues on 6 figure salaries who happen to have turned 65 and sure enough, they all feel entitled enough to start banking the pension.

It really says something about the human mindset - very few can say no to extra resources , even when they don't need them.

We really need the government to step in and control this welfare for the wealthy.

Income testing National Superannuation would considerably push up the administration costs. It would certainly create employment.

Rather than means test it per se (which is a poison chalice for politicians) why not make it that you have to actually retire in order to get it - you must be doing less than, say, 15 hours full time work a week or something.

NZ is a bit different from Europe, where people tend to reach retirement age and actually retire, so pensions are their income. It is quite rare there to find people actually WANTING to work full time when they could be gallivanting around the world on cruises or whatever they plan to do.

elpenguino

2908 posts

Uber Geek

#2048375 3-Jul-2018 15:51

Geektastic:

elpenguino:

Yes and No.

If you release low cost assets into a market with high demand those assets simply inflate to the going rate as soon as they enter the hands of the first owner.

The limitation in this case is any insistence on freehold title. If you sell homes for 200k, they become worth 5-600k (or whatever) the next day.

NZ needs to think a little differently about this.

If the houses are sold via a social housing partner, future control can be retained. For example, person buys affordable house but never obtains freehold but rather a lifetime right to occupy.

Person lives in house, can sell house but only back to the housing provider. When person dies, house is sold back to provider and onto the next person needing housing.

You won't get that one past the banks without some amendment.

They won't lend anyone a sous unless they can sell the asset to recover their loan in the event of default. The social housing partners would have to be legally liable to buy back the house at a sufficient price to cover any outstanding mortgage.

Hmm, might be better to keep the banks' paws off it then and finance through the housing provider too.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2048381 3-Jul-2018 15:54

MikeB4:

elpenguino:

I know.

I have colleagues on 6 figure salaries who happen to have turned 65 and sure enough, they all feel entitled enough to start banking the pension.

It really says something about the human mindset - very few can say no to extra resources , even when they don't need them.

We really need the government to step in and control this welfare for the wealthy.

Income testing National Superannuation would considerably push up the administration costs. It would certainly create employment.

Does that necessarily need to be the case though?

If we hypothetically just scrapped Superannuation altogether and let the gap be filled by existing benefits where needed (such as the JobSeeker and Sickness benefits) ...then will we really expect to see a big uplift in administrative costs?

Genuine enquiry here, given your prior expertise... (and me never having no experience whatsoever)

I grasp the concept that managing entitlement involved more effort than administering a universal entitlement, but I wonder if the reduced number of recipients would offset that comparatively.

elpenguino

2908 posts

Uber Geek

#2048428 3-Jul-2018 16:40

NZ spent $11 billion on super in 2016. If the top 10% (for arguments' sake) were dropped off the system and we average out and assume all recipients receive the same amount , the saving is $1.1 billion.

I think you could do some admin for $1.1 billion.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/97281269/chart-how-much-nz-superannuation-costs-the-government

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2048439 3-Jul-2018 17:01

6FIEND:

MikeB4:

elpenguino:

I know.

I have colleagues on 6 figure salaries who happen to have turned 65 and sure enough, they all feel entitled enough to start banking the pension.

It really says something about the human mindset - very few can say no to extra resources , even when they don't need them.

We really need the government to step in and control this welfare for the wealthy.

Income testing National Superannuation would considerably push up the administration costs. It would certainly create employment.

Does that necessarily need to be the case though?

If we hypothetically just scrapped Superannuation altogether and let the gap be filled by existing benefits where needed (such as the JobSeeker and Sickness benefits) ...then will we really expect to see a big uplift in administrative costs?

Genuine enquiry here, given your prior expertise... (and me never having no experience whatsoever)

I grasp the concept that managing entitlement involved more effort than administering a universal entitlement, but I wonder if the reduced number of recipients would offset that comparatively.

It would be more complex than administering current income tested benefits. The process would involve assessing the impact of overseas Pension portions such a British Pensions, non taxable War and Service entitlements. The Overseas Pension impact would involve constant reassessment due to currency fluctuations even if a mid point conversion rate was used. When you see the number of staff currently required to manage the current income tested benefits then add in the current number of Superannuation recipients and the ever growing numbers of new recipients the admin costs not only for MSD but off shore agencies, banks, private pension fund managers etc etc would be staggering.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2048466 3-Jul-2018 17:32

If it was means tested then aside from the fact that some unknown and unknowable number of people will take whatever means possible to minimise apparent wealth, another unknown and unknowable number of people will be "disincetivised" to save for retirement (or will hide savings under a mattress etc) as they'll see that saving could lose them future super entitlement. So the theoretical fiscal gains would never be realised in full - and until it was tried, nobody knows what the cost saving could be.

Best to leave it alone methinks. It's only about 4% of GDP.

GV27

5422 posts

Uber Geek

#2048512 3-Jul-2018 19:22

Fred99:

If it was means tested then aside from the fact that some unknown and unknowable number of people will take whatever means possible to minimise apparent wealth, another unknown and unknowable number of people will be "disincetivised" to save for retirement (or will hide savings under a mattress etc) as they'll see that saving could lose them future super entitlement. So the theoretical fiscal gains would never be realised in full - and until it was tried, nobody knows what the cost saving could be.

Best to leave it alone methinks. It's only about 4% of GDP.

"It's only $11 billion dollars". Meanwhile, infrastructure, poverty, natural disasters, etc. You could almost wipe out all student loan debt in one go.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2048712 4-Jul-2018 08:35

elpenguino:

NZ spent $11 billion on super in 2016. If the top 10% (for arguments' sake) were dropped off the system and we average out and assume all recipients receive the same amount , the saving is $1.1 billion.

I think you could do some admin for $1.1 billion.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/97281269/chart-how-much-nz-superannuation-costs-the-government

I dont see this as an expenditure at all. Its taxpayers money being returned to hardworking taxpayers who have been paying tax their entire lives, and contributing to running the country. Its payback time.

MikeAqua

7611 posts

Uber Geek

#2048786 4-Jul-2018 10:19

Geektastic:

Rather than means test it per se (which is a poison chalice for politicians) why not make it that you have to actually retire in order to get it - you must be doing less than, say, 15 hours full time work a week or something.

Good idea but how do you account for people with 'passive' income streams.

My plan (universe laughs) is to have bunch of unencumbered assets producing income by the time I retire. I don't expect there to be any state pension for me but if there is I'll take it. Because I've paid what I think is way too much tax most of my life and any chance to get a cent back legally I'll take it.

Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7