Compulsory Savings
February 26th, 2007 at 11:53 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald endorses Winston Peters’ call for the Cullen fund and KiwiSaver to be turned into a fully fledged compulsory superannuation fund with individual accounts.
I opposed compulsory super in 1997, partly on the basis it was dictating the preferred form of savings. Often it was more logical for someone to pay off their mortgage before investing in a super fund. Likewise young farmers might be better placed to invest in their farm, than put money into bonds. Same for business owners.
But considering the Cullen Fund means taxpayers get massively overtaxed, so they don’t have the money to do these other things anyway, the proposal by Peters has more merit today than it did then.
Tags: Winston First
February 26th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I would trust this money grabing bastard with one cent extra then I have to give to him. Who in their right mind would trust this government to keep their theiving fucking fingers of our superannuation. I would suggest the temptation would just be to much for these arseholes, think of all the pledge cards that could be printed. I say NO.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Compulsary super is one of the things Australia has going for it. The overhang of the future aged almost doesn’t exist. They have also dealt with many of the issues we will face, and have a regulatory framework for most of the super funds we would need.
My suggestion is to just copy the entire Australian legislation – all the funds that are already approved in Aus can operate in NZ (so low startup cost, lots of consumer choice). It also avoids arguing about who does what, when and how. It isn’t perfect, but it already works.
Individual accounts are enormously better than the Cullen fund, and also create an ownership mentality in the population – we are all owners of the companies in NZ, plus all being foreign investors in other countries. Makes a difference to your outlook.
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Sadly, but I think for once I have to agree with Winston on this one. A lack of robust savings is hurting this country, and making us poorer by the day. We have to build up our internal savings, and as the Aussie example has shown, the seem to have a pretty good model for us to follow.
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 10:57 am
the Aussie scheme has just passed the one trillion dollar mark Not bad from a standing start in 1992.The result is that Auusie baby boomers are all going to have a confortable retirement without burdening their children or grandchildren with high taxes.
The contrast in NZ is that in 15years time we will see a battle between the babyboomers demanding super and medicare and political parties wanting get elected but having to impose high tax rates on workers. Coupled of course with not so small problem of a significant number of the male ethnic population being unskilled and on benefits along with the unmarried ethnic mothers on the DPB.
Now Which country will I spend my retirement years in.
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
PaulL’s idea is an excellent one. I’m impressed with the Australian system and feel no concerns about having my 9% (14% for some workers) contributed to it, regardless of who’s in power. It’s set up very robustly and well insulated from political interference, so if NZ were to simply photocopy the Aussie Act and change a few details it could do a lot worse.
Sad to say this is one of the areas where the Australians have us beat hands down, and is the single best policy Winston has ever had. And good on him for sticking to his principles on this one, too.
Vote:April 15th, 2007 at 1:40 am
sijxy hgptz knruj nzgkhvw pxoj isrn wybqph
Vote:April 15th, 2007 at 1:41 am
sijxy hgptz knruj nzgkhvw pxoj isrn wybqph
Vote:April 15th, 2007 at 1:42 am
sijxy hgptz knruj nzgkhvw pxoj isrn wybqph
Vote: