Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, February 14th, 2026 - 14 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
How should New Zealand Aotearoa align itself in the big geo-political shakeup?
Should we should formally exit the Five-Eyes as I doubt any players are feeding critical intelligence into it, given the lack of trust all have in the USA.
is there a role for NZ in the ‘Global South’? Keen to read opinions.
I think we should follow Australia. Neither country is perfect but we are each other's closest allies and friends in the world.
Is there a shake-up. I have seen a few u-tube items indicating a shake-up led by Carney,but I thought they might be fake news.
When you want to know something it’s generally good to listen to someone who knows.
The Retirement Commissioner, Jane Wrightson, has written a highly informative piece in Newsroom.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/02/13/comparing-kiwisaver-and-aussie-super-is-the-6-trillion-dollar-question/
Comparisons with Australia aren’t just simplistic, they’re flawed and misleading.
Wrightson adds much-needed context and nuance into the debate that seems to be dominated by political rhetoric.
There are two comments that need highlighting too:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/02/13/comparing-kiwisaver-and-aussie-super-is-the-6-trillion-dollar-question/#comment-571853
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/02/13/comparing-kiwisaver-and-aussie-super-is-the-6-trillion-dollar-question/#comment-571891 [from Susan St John]
Yes, means testing (income testing) on pension eligible people on its own punishes those who both have to work past the eligible age and those whose lifetime work sometimes realises most benefit at the back end of their working life (creative people).
One solution is to incorporate asset growth and realisation into the means testing rather than rely on income alone. This is part of an important debate about what constitutes taxable income. Sounds complicated and easy to avoid by the unscrupulous.
A good point from the Susan St John comment:
That's saying because of the progressive tax system, higher earners contribute more to the pot than they receive universally, but I'd also argue they contribute less because of creative asset management in order to reduce tax exposure.
She goes on to explain further tweaks which would act as tax credits to those low income people working past the age.
But broadly, talk of raising the age this week, in some instances by up to 7 years to 72 (and even 9 years to 74 I heard the owner of Koura Wealth say on the radio yesterday), is the equivalent of stealing $160,000 to $210,000 of dollars from people at the end of their life who already don't have much.
Frankly, it is revolting and ghoulish talk.
The Aussie pension criteria are a complex nightmare, and does perpetuate inequalities. But they include more than income. Having been through the process of filling out the immense forms… it includes assessment of material and financial assets as well as income. Apparently they assess what a person's income would be if they cashed in their assets.
On this we agree. The Australian system is a complete disaster. The rate of abatement is so rapid that it would be totally impossible to get the same income as a full pension unless you had invested assets of at least a couple of million dollars more than the amount that sees you totally lose the state pension.
It leads to people, before they turn 67, taking a luxury overseas trip and moving into a larger house.
How long is the form these days. As afr as I remember I was forced, by the New Zealand Government, to apply for Australian Super and the form was 46 pages. At the end I was told by the OZ Government that I was way over the limit and to bugger off.
Back in 1983 Anne Hercus raised the issue that some of those over age 60 had yet to pay off mortgages – as an objection to work testing super payments.
Thus if there was means testing, it should exclude those working where they had no home ownership or had mortgages to pay off.
Labour went on to apply a surtax on income.
Oz has no estate tax, so they lump a means test (assets) into their aged payments system.
We should add an estate tax (and gift duty) to our existing system.
Back in the day Roger Douglas proposed a reduction in top rate of tax and an assets tax (instead of a CGT).
In the end we got neither, presumably Treasury told him our assets tax was in the estate tax.
National removed the estate tax in 1993 and gift duty in 2013.
Thank you but it’s all rather academic, isn’t it?
No. It is one of the reasons, I vote Green.
To retain the lower progressive tax introduced by Douglas, without an estate tax to gather in revenue (a generational CG from investment), is of a deliberation to enable those on those incomes (and thus their descendants) to become a class apart.
It is made worse by there being no CGT on property investment during their working life, so that it encourages investment for CG. That has negative outcomes for the economy and those working in it.
What Douglas did, has harmed the working class and worse undermined the viability of the sort of governance (as per provision of incomes and services) we once took for granted.
Okay, it’s not academic to you.
Chris Hipkins should read this devious nonsense from Tony Blair. It discusses renewables versus gas and nuclear and comes out in favour of renewables with Blair looking the self-interested greedy dinosaur he is.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/13/tony-blair-oil-lobbying-fossil-fuel-industry-renewables-energy-bills
A good thoughtful piece from The Conversation on what our likely future problems and needs will be and consideration about managing ourselves made on reality and not some Treasury or Randian economics.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/586701/four-lessons-nz-should-take-from-another-summer-of-weather-disasters