I would love to see a higher savings rate, but I fear that higher income will feed straight into higher spending, without other structural changes. Where is the evidence that higher incomes result in higher savings rates? On the face of it higher incomes seem to have the opposite effect – many of the highest income nations are the lowest savers.

I must also point out that even if Kiwis save heaps and make themselves wealthy in retirement, this does not relieve the Govt of its obligation to keep paying out super to everyone over 65 at 66% of the average wage. So the fiscal problem does not go away.

You should think outside of the square a little. Average wage does not reflect average income. Big problem with New Zealand is our lack of savings. Kiwisaver may correct some of this but it is not the total solution. With economic growth, people should be able to save more and have alternative income above wages earned. A better business environment may cater for more businesses and profit from small and medium enterprises. All this will grow our earnings and tax base outside of wages earned. While wages may need to rise, the rate will be less than for total income.

If the Fund had never been set up, NZ would be in a better position to fund future superannuation. That is a fact – not a projection.

Sorry, DPF, but I cannot agree with the second part of that statement.

You may be correct in that the return on the money put into the fund has been (to this specific date) less than the risk free rate of return from (for example) Treasury bonds. BUT, if the money had not been put into the fund what would have happened to it? The answer to THAT question is speculation, not fact. And my speculation is that Labour would have spent it.

Our level of economic growth is what will determine future affordability.

I find it hard to swallow this one too. The problem is that NZ Super is index-linked to average wages, so the cost of it rises along with growth.

9/10ths of national super will continue to be met- with or without these contributions- through taxpayers.
Kiwi-saver has been made more accessible by reducing the contributions to the 2% formula.
The architect of the Cullen Fund said it ought to be funded out of surpluses, not borrowing.
The Cullen Fund is underperforming- even during finanically benign conditions. Note that these funds weren’t conjured out of thin air. They were taken from households and businesses. So we have basically deprived households and businesses of savings and capital to generate wealth. It’s gone to a fund that is not meeting it’s targetted returns. You have to be pretty nuts to consider borrowing money to put more into this fund as a smart idea.

This is a far dumber way to provide for future retirement income than trying to lift growth and productivity in this economy. A small increase in the long run growth rate for the economy will cover the hypothesised 3% gap easily- and without the risk of dumping borrowed money into ailing equity markets.

No, that is completely untrue, if you can’t see why then that is because your a gormless knuckle dragging moron and there is no point even trying to explain to you why.

Time for a snarky letter to the Dom I think, along the lines:

A reply to Michael Cullen, as Bill English has merely implemented exactly the tactics with regard to contributions to the super fund that you set out when introducing the fund, that is contributions from surpluses, your suggestion is farcical. We should instead focus on the grossly incompetent stewardship you exhibited while Finance Minister for 9 years that has led to the forecast of a decade of deficits. You had 9 years of almost unprecedented good luck with benign overseas conditions, and you entirely stuffed it up by a shameless vote buying unsustainable expansion of government spending.

I suggest you should fade into a quiet but extremely well paid retirement, well paid mind you by the very taxpayers you screwed for years. If you poke your head out with such dishonest comments you will receive all the derision for your unpleasantly self serving and corrupt behaviour that you deserve.

Through all of the propaganda and lies to the contrary, this one measure shines through- there is no way the government can care for the aged because socialism has destroyed this country’s prosperity.