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?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#208960 7-Mar-2017 09:21

No complaints from me.

I still think we need to offer more tax efficient private pension saving though.

At present the only option is housing so that is partially responsible for the issues in that market IMO.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 11

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1732265 7-Mar-2017 09:25

Should been happening much much faster. Labour are just opposing for the sake of it. Pretty sure Helen Clarke was talking about it when she was PM.

I don't know ANY retired 65 year olds.

Perhaps they should exempt trades people or something, people who have put significant stress on their bodies and aren't fit to continue beyond that point.

20 Years is a LONG lead up.

As someone affected, I'm 100% fine with it, but I really hope to not be needing the money to live off any way.

coffeebaron

6233 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1732284 7-Mar-2017 09:34

Plenty fit 70 years olds still working hard. I have no issue with raising the age. Good on them, and yes they could do it sooner.

Rural IT and Broadband support.

Broadband troubleshooting and master filter installs.
Starlink installer - one month free: https://www.starlink.com/?referral=RC-32845-88860-71
Wi-Fi and networking
Cel-Fi supply and installer - boost your mobile phone coverage legally

Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#1732286 7-Mar-2017 09:37

Long over-due.

It means I qualify for super 2 years later. But our planning assumes by the time we retire our entitlement will be nothing, because some sort of means testing will be inevitably be introduced.

Slowly accumulating a portfolio of cash producing investments that will return enough income to live comfortably without selling the capital. That way we can hopefully do the things we like as long as we are healthy enough to. Kiwisaver as back up. Still have quite a way to go ...

I am concerned for people with physically demanding jobs. It's a double whammy because many of them are on low incomes as well. Some provision for early access needs to be made for them based on a medical determination or similar.

Mike

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1732288 7-Mar-2017 09:40

There was a 95 Year old helping out at the X-Race we did with my son a couple of weekends ago. I was super impressed and made a point of letting him know.

He is still active 3 days a week.

Linux

11423 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1732293 7-Mar-2017 09:43

My Dad retired at 72 cause he was made redundant and took a fat payout

Linux

Flickky

303 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1732302 7-Mar-2017 09:44

I don't feel like we're addressing the financial implications of increasing the age 20 years from now as opposed to 10-15 years.

Between that and the fact that there are several elections between now and 2037 that could easily continue to move this change back, I don't have a lot of confidence in this. Great step but needs to be taken a bit further.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1732312 7-Mar-2017 09:51

I don't even understand how superannuation work - can someone explain to a 6 year old?

My understanding is everybody gets it at a certain age if they lived in NZ long enough, and it's not income tested.

If people have been getting it, I also want to get it when I'm 65!

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

gbwelly

1243 posts

Uber Geek

#1732316 7-Mar-2017 09:54

Should make it 70 with the option to draw down kiwisaver at 55.

(Family history would indicate my likelihood of getting a cent of either is low)

trig42

5810 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1732326 7-Mar-2017 10:22

I agree with the move, and think it should be sooner. Maybe move it to 66 in a few years (6 or 7) and 67 the same time after.

They should change the requirement for immigrants to collect it to 20 years residency ASAP (currently you can collect Super if you have lived in NZ for 10 years).

Labour opposing it now (when it was a policy of theirs for the last TWO elections) is typical Andrew Little mentality (Must oppose because I'm opposition hurrdurr). I'd be interested to know what Jacinda Ardern thinks of the policy - she's the next Labour Leader anyway (sooner rather than later for the Labour Party's sake hopefully).

It may cost National some votes, but may not too. I think most of the Nat voters are either above the age where they will be affected, or will not be relying on it themselves. Winston will make some capital from it, the Greens won't be aware what is going on, but will oppose it because (like Labour), that's all they know.

At the current 20 proposal (and it is only a policy, since it won't be enacted unless National gets back in this year, and even then it could disappear in coalition negotiations), i am not affected - I turn 65 in 2037. Happy for it to be brought in earlier though.

Geese

1028 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1732328 7-Mar-2017 10:25

I like the idea of getting lower pension at 60, or higher at 70, or current figure at 65.

Family history would state if I even live to 65, I'll either be battling serious cancer or in a rest home with dementia. I think I'd take the lower 60 pension so I can actually get some quality time in.

nzkiwiman

2585 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1732360 7-Mar-2017 10:48

As someone in my mid thirties, I figure that it will be raised by the time I get there (if I get there)

I am expecting somewhere around 70 ...

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1732370 7-Mar-2017 11:18

Step in the right direction, but too little and too far away. I reckon maybe 6 months a year for the next 20 years would be a good start.

We've had a pension at age 65 since 1898 when the average male life expectancy was 55, now its 86 and climbing (that's for someone turning 65 today)

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1732371 7-Mar-2017 11:18

I think its good to give a possibility of NZ affording it as the old to young ratio worsens. But, we should also want peoiple to retire and have that time rather than working on and on

So, as its 20 years out there needs to be schemes available to literally force people to save for their retirement. Those who plan are not affected, its the many others that dont plan or dont plan well that are affected, or circumstances made it tough to save. It needs to start at early school, to get the kids into a savings mindset, then much of this will work itself out

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1732372 7-Mar-2017 11:18

No complaints here.

Personally I'm planning for it to be 70 when I get there.

The politics of it just annoys me greatly though.

Rather than sitting down like adults and talking about this sensibly, the other political parties are all protesting just to sound different which is just _pathetic_.

(from pr point of view should have also announced that the pension age of MP's super is pushed back 2 years starting next year)

A.

Happy to be on the right side of cutoff for once and not be affected unlike the graduated driver licence and the student fees in 1990)

Paul1977

5043 posts

Uber Geek

#1732380 7-Mar-2017 11:31

Lias:

Step in the right direction, but too little and too far away. I reckon maybe 6 months a year for the next 20 years would be a good start.

That would put the age up to 75, and you say that should just be a start?

Lias:

We've had a pension at age 65 since 1898 when the average male life expectancy was 55, now its 86 and climbing (that's for someone turning 65 today)

That's just plain untrue. The age of eligibility was 60 until 1992.

It's inevitable that it has to go up, but it annoys me a little that most of the politicians coming up with the plans to increase it will not be affected themselves. And if any sort of referendum is held on this, people who won't be impacted shouldn't get a vote.

EDIT: Happy Birthday @Lias

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 11