Jump to content


Photo

Superannuation


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#1 Priscilla II

Priscilla II

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 505 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 04:08 PM

Should it be means tested.

I agree.

https://www.stuff.co...-superannuation


  • 0

#2 Fish

Fish

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,408 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 04:13 PM

When 'everyone' (generally the right side of the political spectrum) sight the massive cost of NZ's welfare system, the tend to think of dole bludgers and DPB mothers with 17 children from 19 different fathers.

 

What those good upstanding members of our community (the right side of the political spectrum ones) don't often realise, is that Superannuation is included in the cost of our welfare system.

I don't recall the percentage split, but a massive cost of our welfare system is paying super. 

 

The main stream parties (National and Labour) wont even consider debating our super system. But you do have to ask the question, do people like Gareth Morgan need to be paid super?


  • 0

#3 Sabre

Sabre

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 878 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 04:52 PM

I think it should be and I believe it is inevitable.
  • 0

#4 Priscilla II

Priscilla II

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 505 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 04:58 PM

Got a billionaire client up on the drive.

Lit up like a 10,000 watt light bulb the day he got his Gold card and Super.

Never taken public transport in his life and the whole whanau flies separately so the family bloodline won't be wiped out in a single air accident event.

Bit like the Queen.

Moans like a stuck pig about his $35,000 a year rates.


  • 0

#5 chariot

chariot

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 05:12 PM

But who would set the threshold. The problem is if you means test and the threshold is only a few hundred grand in the bank, how does that encourage anyone to provide for their own retirement. 


  • 1

#6 Clipper

Clipper

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,612 posts
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 07 March 2018 - 05:39 PM

I dont think it should be means tested.

 

But I do think the age should be near 80, not 65.

 

The people that have wealth will have paid one metric f*ckton of tax over the decades, so why shouldn't they get their bit when they get old?


  • 1

#7 Priscilla II

Priscilla II

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 505 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 05:41 PM

It’s a matter of fairness,if you don’t need it it give it to someone that does.
  • 1

#8 muzled

muzled

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 354 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 05:45 PM

I dont think it should be means tested.

 

But I do think the age should be near 80, not 65.

 

The people that have wealth will have paid one metric f*ckton of tax over the decades, so why shouldn't they get their bit when they get old?

 

Isn't the argument against that is that people end up working longer and that doesn't free up jobs for younger people though?

 (not disagreeing with you at all btw)


  • 0

#9 Black Panther

Black Panther

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 4,730 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 05:53 PM

Can't see a lot of concrete workers being happy about pushing wheelbarrows uphill at 79.
  • 0
“If we don’t change our direction, we will end up where we are headed.”

 


#10 muzled

muzled

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 354 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 05:55 PM

Can't see a lot of concrete workers being happy about pushing wheelbarrows uphill at 79.

 

Can't see them being that much happier about it at 29 either though...


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users