Changes to the Superannuation age : thoughts?

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 › Changes to the Superannuation age : thoughts?

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1759591 8-Apr-2017 21:00

TeaLeaf:

One thing I just dont get is, if we are moving the age from 65-67 in 20 years time, why not just phase it in now? Of course it would have negative voting impacts, but so would have John Key not creating a lending bubble on top of the US lending bubble during the GFC. At some point some politician in NZ has to be the one to take one for the team?

I think it is drawing a mighty long bow to blame John Key for creating a lending bubble. This is has been going on all round the world, principally as a consequence of central banks (the Fed, the BoE, the ECB, the BoJ and, to a lesser extent, the PBoC), forcing interest rates to near zero and flooding financial systems with liquidity. It's not clear to me why you think John Key did any of this, or indeed could have done anything to stop it even if he wanted to? Given what these central banks were doing the Reserve Bank pretty much had to drop rates here, or our currency would have gone through the roof. But the Reserve Bank made this decision independently, not John Key.

As I recall it, the rational for phasing it in was stated by the Govt to be not to change things abruptly for people just about to retire, and unable to change their circumstances to manage, and to give those who would be impacted enough warning so that they could alter their circumstances (savings etc) in response. While personally I think 20 years warning was way to long (I would have gone for 10 personally), the basic idea seems sensible.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1759595 8-Apr-2017 21:19

Also anyone who was planning on retire at 65 next year would have to find an extra 70k min to make up the loss of super over the next couple of years, if they continued to retire at 65. Ironically the change will hit those who essentially were the first to have to get student loans. So it is shifting a huge cost onto the younger generation. It was one of the dumbest moves to bring in student loans, as all it does is privatise the debt. But means everyone ends up paying more in fees every time you use professional services.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1759596 8-Apr-2017 21:21

TeaLeaf:
Digging it out of the closet :-)

I think most people now are of the realisation their generation will get screwed over so are saving for their retirements earlier, or at least a lot more people than of my parents generation it seems.

One thing I just dont get is, if we are moving the age from 65-67 in 20 years time, why not just phase it in now? Of course it would have negative voting impacts, but so would have John Key not creating a lending bubble on top of the US lending bubble during the GFC. At some point some politician in NZ has to be the one to take one for the team?

You mean generation rent, who can't afford to buy a million dollar shack? All they are doing is paying off someone else's mortgage, and building up their retirement nest egg, rather than their own. Nzers still continue to use their home as their main retirement savings.

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1760586 11-Apr-2017 09:26

mattwnz: Also anyone who was planning on retire at 65 next year would have to find an extra 70k min to make up the loss of super over the next couple of years,

Yeah and i got a $100k student loan that they didnt? Fairs fair. How is this my generations problem because they didnt plan ahead. No I see this as a political issue of one government passing the buck for when they are long and gone.

Im not hating on the previous Gen here, I want to make that quite clear. Im HATING on the political mistakes of their generation.

TeaLeaf

6325 posts

Uber Geek

#1760593 11-Apr-2017 09:34

JimmyH:

I think it is drawing a mighty long bow to blame John Key for creating a lending bubble.

Yeah but hes the easiest to blame ;-) haha.

Fair call, BUT, I do think we should have taken the brunt of the GFC, keeping us afloat is a bubble on a bubble now. My graphs show quite clearly how grossly over valued property per capita is in NZ. And I dont accept this housing shortage propaganda. Get rid of empty homes first before building new ones. Also cut the immigration down, its only there to pay for retirement pensions, if we run out of money then make the pensions income tested, give the money to those who have been ill all their life not those greedy lot with $3m in the bank thinking they need another $600 a week.

Does none of this strike accord with anyone in their 30-40s? or even younger.

Hopefully we have a mass world wide GFC2.0 and NZ has a GFC1.1 as we didnt have the first one really, and property drops 40-60%. Putting a steady line of 7-8% from 99 to now, which is a fair capital gain considering rent on top, 40% is about how over inflated we are.

Im tired of trying make our country more populated for the sake of giving some people money who dont need it while there are very ill people who cant claim a thing. Making the rich richer and the poor, well basically ....

Auck doesnt need more people/houses, the only reason is to fund pensions. So if we have to bite that bullet and get shafted again, at least push the immigration to elsewhere, dont make it optional. The same problem with London, where critical services like sewerage and garbage collectors are being priced out of living in Auck. You take home $700 a week with a family of 3 and have to pay $500 in rent (minimum). Reality check.

Is that really the NZ way? If so its a disgrace.

Next time Ill say what I really think ;-l haha.

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11