NZ Super changes

Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor.

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

If investing please consider our affiliate link for new accounts: Sharesies.

Forums › Finance and wealth management › NZ Super changes

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#319820 5-Jun-2025 18:43

There’s been a lot of chatter about means testing, raising the age of claim etc.

I was ruminating on it and one thing I’ve not seen suggested is to permit delayed receipt.

For example, each year which you decline to take it once you’re eligible, some sort of bonus occurs.

This could be an increase in what you get once you do claim or a percentage of what you would have received had you claimed it being paid into your Kiwisaver account.
EG each year you get, say, 25% of the total Super

that you were technically entitled to paid into your Kiwisaver. This reduces your cost to the taxpayer by 75% each year but provides the individual with a useful incentive.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

2641 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1137

#3380850 5-Jun-2025 19:25

not sure i see the point. if you take say 25% then why not take it all.

for those who don't need it, i would suggest donating it to your favorite charity.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#3380852 5-Jun-2025 19:30

They could probably means test it now and probably not get too much stick. As long as the earnings and assets are very high. There is no reason any government politician should be getting it on what they earn and assets they are likely to have.

tweake

2641 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1137

#3380854 5-Jun-2025 19:44

mattwnz:

They could probably means test it now and probably not get too much stick. As long as the earnings and assets are very high. There is no reason any government politician should be getting it on what they earn and assets they are likely to have.

but, depending on settings used, some people will complain because they are asset rich cash poor and to stingy to sell the assets.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#3380855 5-Jun-2025 19:47

But if they make the ssset level very high, such as 5 million per person it would affect very few. If a couple is living in a home with 10 million then they obvious don’t need it

tweake

2641 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1137

#3380857 5-Jun-2025 19:58

mattwnz:

But if they make the ssset level very high, such as 5 million per person it would affect very few. If a couple is living in a home with 10 million then they obvious don’t need it

exactly. to be able to save lots of money they need to deny lots of people, so they would have to set it closer to the middle.

one of the issues with increasing the age limit is many people with physically demanding jobs are worn out and would simply end up on a benefit instead of pension. add in ageism as well.

but i've already seen wealthy people pushing the idea to push people off benefits to save money so they can have their pension.

KiwiSurfer

1722 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 993

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3380858 5-Jun-2025 19:59

I 100% support means testing. Agree tho that to make it acceptable the threshold would need to be quite high -- and that both the income testing and asset testing would need to show high levels of income AND assets to avoid cases where people are asset poor/income rich or asset rich/income poor. Perhaps KiwiSaver assets/income could be excluded from this as to give people more reason to contribute to KiwiSaver.

I think the idea of choosing your super year is good as well. Some people have jobs where a early retirement is necessary while others are happy to work a bit longer. I wouldn't mind working to 70 if it meant I got a bit more after 70. The current every-one-gets-super-at-65 system I think is a relic from an era long gone.

Samsung

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

Handle9

11925 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9676

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3380870 5-Jun-2025 20:28

mattwnz:

But if they make the ssset level very high, such as 5 million per person it would affect very few. If a couple is living in a home with 10 million then they obvious don’t need it

If very few people are affected what's the point?

Handle9

11925 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9676

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3380871 5-Jun-2025 20:33

KiwiSurfer:

...both the income testing and asset testing would need to show high levels of income AND assets to avoid cases where people are asset poor/income rich or asset rich/income poor. Perhaps KiwiSaver assets/income could be excluded from this as to give people more reason to contribute to KiwiSaver.

What that would do would get people to push their money into non-income assets. Either you have a wealth based means test at a relatively moderate level, like Australia does, or you have no means test.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#3380872 5-Jun-2025 20:36

tweake:

one of the issues with increasing the age limit is many people with physically demanding jobs are worn out and would simply end up on a benefit instead of pension. add in ageism as well.

If you're too old , sick and worn out to work, there should be a benefit to help you out. If that benefit pays the same as national super, all well and good.

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

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#3380873 5-Jun-2025 20:36

Handle9:

mattwnz:

But if they make the ssset level very high, such as 5 million per person it would affect very few. If a couple is living in a home with 10 million then they obvious don’t need it

If very few people are affected what's the point?

It opens the door. Future governments may reduce the level. Inflation over time also will capture more and more people. But imo it is better to means test more on income than assets.

Handle9

11925 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9676

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3380875 5-Jun-2025 20:42

mattwnz: But imo it is better to means test more on income than assets.

Cue widespread financial products allowing retirees to bypass the means test.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Handle9

11925 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9676

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3380877 5-Jun-2025 20:44

mattwnz:

Handle9:

If very few people are affected what's the point?

It opens the door. Future governments may reduce the level. Inflation over time also will capture more and more people.

Then it's costly virtue signalling introducing a massive compliance overhead for no benefit. Either do something useful or don't.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3380878 5-Jun-2025 20:47

means testing eh,

howabout the people who have paid the most personal taxes gets more super

toejam316

1516 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 888

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3380883 5-Jun-2025 21:08

There's no good arguments against means testing, it's pure greed to not do it. It's just another thing the older generations are happy to make the younger generations problem.

Join Quic Broadband with my referral - no sign up fee and gives me account credit

Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#3380894 5-Jun-2025 21:26

toejam316:

There's no good arguments against means testing, it's pure greed to not do it. It's just another thing the older generations are happy to make the younger generations problem.

It hasn’t been helped by National stopping payments into the Cullen superfund in previous terms. I wonder how much lost opportunity money was lost from that. I understand the Cullen fund was supposed to help a lot with the high cost of super in the future.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5