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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#3381300 6-Jun-2025 15:27

Except there is the Cullen super fund which tax was paid into which I understand was supposed to cover a lot of the cost of NZ super

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#3381301 6-Jun-2025 15:30

johno1234:

They could means test it but people plan long term for what they know about so any change to bring in means testing would have to be well out into the future - decades away.

IMO this only applies if it is only going to negatively affect people that will be in hardship if they made changes. But if someone is earning 150k plus a year and also getting supper they are unlikely in hardship unless they still have a lot of debt. But that could be taken into consideration

Handle9

11926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9679

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3381306 6-Jun-2025 15:47

mattwnz:

Except there is the Cullen super fund which tax was paid into which I understand was supposed to cover a lot of the cost of NZ super

That was paid for by general taxation. It transfers from and to the general account. There are no personal pension accounts in the superannuation fund and no obligation to pay individuals a specific benefit.

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#3381317 6-Jun-2025 16:05

Handle9:

Dingbatt:

So having worked for nearly 50 years, never shirking my tax obligations and doing without to save for retirement, people now think I should not be entitled to my ~~pension~~ super because of my prudence? You can take a running jump.

New Zealand superannuation is not a pension. A pension is a fund into which you make regular contributions to pay out in your retirement. You have an individual account and defined benefits in proportion to your contributions..……………

You did not pay into a pension fund.

Potato, potato.

Nomenclature may have been inaccurate, but not the sentiment behind it. Unlike some others with non-resident tax status, I have contributed to NZ inc all my working life. My only hope is that when the inevitable socialist grab happens, it will be phased in over time to allow people to prepare. And that I will be worm food by then……

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Handle9

11926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9679

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3381320 6-Jun-2025 16:13

Socialist grab? What’s more socialist than universal superannuation?

cddt

1970 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1905

#3381323 6-Jun-2025 16:20

mattwnz:

Except there is the Cullen super fund which tax was paid into which I understand was supposed to cover a lot of the cost of NZ super

"Supposed to"... it was started decades too late, and National stopped contributions between 2009 and 2017. Which coincidentally was a massive bull market...

My referral links: BigPipe | Mercury

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

cddt

1970 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1905

#3381325 6-Jun-2025 16:27

Dingbatt:

Nomenclature may have been inaccurate, but not the sentiment behind it. Unlike some others with non-resident tax status, I have contributed to NZ inc all my working life. My only hope is that when the inevitable socialist grab happens, it will be phased in over time to allow people to prepare. And that I will be worm food by then……

"Socialist grab"? That might be an appropriate phrase if they were talking about taking over administration of your Kiwisaver accounts. But if we're talking about cutting a benefit, which is what superannuation is, that's more the purview of the other side of the parliament.

My referral links: BigPipe | Mercury

tweake

2647 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1138

#3381390 6-Jun-2025 17:38

elpenguino:

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.

sorry, the point i was making is that changing the retirement age is to save money. but if many people are going to be on a benefit (eg due to health) instead of retirement it really doesn't save as much money. what makes it worse is people and the system treat Beneficiaries badly. going from a benefit to retirement you get the complete and total opposite treatment.

tweake

2647 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1138

#3381392 6-Jun-2025 17:47

the simple common misunderstanding is super is not a pension. its not something thats ever been paid into. its cost directly comes out of those paying tax. the issue of course is the population is getting older increasing the cost, while also reducing the amount of tax payers.

so you either have to increase the tax take a lot or reduce the cost of the super. which means either drop the amount paid or reduce the amount of people its paid to. not paying to a handful of wealthy people is nice but its not enough people. they would have to lower the threshold quite a bit.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#3381403 6-Jun-2025 19:01

Which is what the Cullen fund was supposed to address. No one has really bagged National for stopping paying into it when they were previously in. There was a bull market where it would now be worth a lot more than it is currently. Also remember Key saying that NZ could afford to continue having the super entitlement age set to 65 and didn’t need it increasing. Then as soon as he resigns National increased it to 67 for most under 50, but it got reversed back to 65 when Labour got back in. But NZers see it as an entitlement, not a benefit. Overseas countries do look at NZ super with envy and it is simple. Nationals changes to KiwiSaver over the years has also cost NZers a lot in lost retirement savings.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#3381406 6-Jun-2025 19:05

cddt:

mattwnz:

Except there is the Cullen super fund which tax was paid into which I understand was supposed to cover a lot of the cost of NZ super

"Supposed to"... it was started decades too late, and National stopped contributions between 2009 and 2017. Which coincidentally was a massive bull market...

I wonder if anyone has actually worked out how much Nationals decision to cut payments actually costs taxpayers. Overseas countries pensions are invested in NZ so it makes sense got NZ too be doing the same overseas

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Handle9

11926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9679

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3381407 6-Jun-2025 19:08

Benefits and entitlements are the same thing. There is no difference.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#3381408 6-Jun-2025 19:10

Handle9:

Socialist grab? What’s more socialist than universal superannuation?

Is there anything wrong with universal super except for the cost and people who don’t need it getting it? The big benefit is that it is simple and is looked at very favourably overseas. It means that people are looked after in retirement when peoples health starts going downhill. NZers also see it as an entitlement and not a benefit (bludging off the tax payer), and being looked after in retirement after a lifetime of paying tax.

tweake

2647 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1138

#3381417 6-Jun-2025 19:15

mattwnz:

Which is what the Cullen fund was supposed to address. No one has really bagged National for stopping paying into it when they were previously in. There was a bull market where it would now be worth a lot more than it is currently. Also remember Key saying that NZ could afford to continue having the super entitlement age set to 65 and didn’t need it increasing. Then as soon as he resigns National increased it to 67 for most under 50, but it got reversed back to 65 when Labour got back in. But NZers see it as an entitlement, not a benefit. Overseas countries do look at NZ super with envy and it is simple. Nationals changes to KiwiSaver over the years has also cost NZers a lot in lost retirement savings.

people think its an entitlement because they mistakenly thing they have always being paying into it.

nz super is nice and simple, its just a terrible way to fund it. one day kiwisaver will be around long enough and compulsory, then super will be done away with.

tweake

2647 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1138

#3381419 6-Jun-2025 19:17

mattwnz:

Is there anything wrong with universal super

on that note, make it universal income and then you don't need super.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5