Written By:
- Date published:
9:36 am, May 2nd, 2026 - 83 comments
Categories: benefits, Economy, labour, superannuation -
Tags:
Superannuation is the ultimate Don’t Go There of New Zealand politics. But unless this benefit becomes means tested rather than subsidises rich asset-hoarding old people, it is going to sink every other part of the government.
There were around 500,000 recipients of this welfare payment in 2009, it’s gone up to nearly a million now, and it will get to about 1.8 million in 2065. Part of being a successful developed country is that people live longer so that’s a good thing.
Since it was introduced in 1977 it’s got more and more important as we have otherwise become a vastly unequal society; at a bedrock level untested NZSuper has kept us safe as we got older.
We can still do it, but to do it there are three choices in front of us.
The government could shift the indexing – the gradual yearly payment increases – to track with inflation rather than to wage growth. You’d still be able to buy the same amount of stuff but compared to working people you would on average get poorer.
The government could increase the age of eligibility up, from 65 to say 70. That’s been done in the 1990s. Even raising the age to 68 would only slow the growth of the liability upon taxpayers. But it would help.
Or you could stop people with assets getting NZSuper; a “means test” in which those who own a certain level of assets and income no longer qualify. Treasury analysis suggests that means testing would need to kick in at a relatively low income level to generate meaningful savings to the state.
Labour has done more than any other party to ensure NZSuper is sustainable. It started the NZSuperFund that could be gradually drawn down by the state to help with payments. This fund now manages about $83 billion.
Labour also introduced KiwiSaver; individualised savings funds that are contributed to by employer and employee and ideally ready for cushioning your fall from waged or salaried life at 65. If you’ve been able to be constant, over decades you will be in a good place.
Those were big and long lasting policy shifts that were in part responding to the 1997 referendum that comprehensively defeated a proposal to have a retirement scheme like Australia. So we’ve got what we’ve got.
The core finding of the Treasury Long Term Fiscal Statement from last year is that due to NZSuper and health costs from older people, government debt will rise from about 43% today to 200% of GDP by 2065. The question is not whether our politicians have to reform NZSuper, but when and how.
For most of my mum and dad’s generation, NZSuper is a finish line that they ground themselves towards after a very hard working life. For a couple of my aunties, they said it was the most they’d ever earned and certainly the most constant. There’s little doubt NZSuper has been good for our social equity; one of the last and greatest remaining landmarks of the egalitarianism we used to believe in and have.
A serious means test would probably decrease its power to slow our rapidly declining social equity.
Our retirement commissioner Jan Wrightson comments that “Australia’s greater reliance on private savings perpetuates inequalities from working years. The universal coverage of NZ Super enables New Zealand’s system to deliver more equitable outcomes. What we can see by comparing the Australian system is that higher contributions to KiwiSaver could be achieved through an incremental approach: increasing contributions is something I’ve been advocating for.”
But the Australian Super is not going to sink the state, whereas ours is well on track to do so.
Perhaps the 2026 Parliamentary consensus is to do nothing forever. In which case we need to prepare ourselves and our families with ever-harder savings rather than wait for official changes.
That political default response would do over the long term what a means test regime would do anyway: those with solid assets, income and savings would do just fine and also be state subsidised. Those without would bump along the bottom and stay there. But the rest of the public sector would decline as a higher and higher % of our entire tax base and economy goes to feeding that one untested entitlement.
36% of New Zealanders have savings of less than $500.
65% of New Zealanders save almost nothing at all.
40% of New Zealanders over 65 rely entirely on NZ Super for any income at all.
This tells me that means testing to get NZSuper would not touch the great majority of those who receive it now or in the conceivable future.
NZSuperFund’s formation didn’t require cross-parliamentary support, and nor did Kiwisaver. I’m not convinced means testing NZSuper would either, so long as it’s in a party manifesto. But it would be better to have Labour-National support, in order to assure future generations of stability.
The time for this kind of policy is not 6 months from an election. But being old should no longer be a permanent protection against being rich when it’s at the expense of the viability of NZSuper.
This ignores the simplest and traditional method of 'means testing'; progressive taxation.
Why should we abandon the power of fiscal policy, why acquiesce to the 'cost /affordability' framing?
Universal entitlements are easily afforded and wealth is redistributed with appropriate, progressive taxes.
Any public Good that can be 'means-tested' is destined for dismantlement; people understand the essential fairness of universal programs. We must continue to argue for them as people on the left.
please fix your email address on next comment.
Oz has age 67 and means testing and more progressive taxation than us, partly because they have no estate taxation (2/3rd of OECD nations do this).
Estate taxation is the priority – so many boomers to pay super too, so many boomers to estate tax is balance.
Principles.
The same universal payment (top ups such as AS and access to income related rent social housing).
If the age is increased, those not working get paid a benefit at the same amount.
Means testing superannuation is not a structurally difficult problem to fix. It could easily be achieved by:
At the worst, we should consider a rise in the age to 66 as acceptable as a compromise as well, just to keep the pension system viable and take some pressure off the entire budget.
2/3rd of OECD nations have an estate tax, a wealth tax is uncommon.
One option is to make wealth tax payments credited to future estate tax liability (others would also be liable for the estate tax liable but not pay any wealth tax in advance).
When we increased the age to 65 from 60 we had a transition payment for those aged between age 60 to 65. We should require such a payment for those unable to work or without work over age 65.
An increase in age is most difficult for those still paying rent, they can use work age 65-70 while getting super to build up some savings.
This is why it would be preferable to distinguish between claimants to super than increase the age (thought that diminishes universality).
Calling one path universal super by age (above 65) and same rate pension by test of need (age 65) is a work around.
Absolutely – many of the people working beyond 65 are not doing so by choice, so it is important to set any threshold high above that which would be considered either supplementary work or low-wage full time.
Chris Hipkins had a good point when he mentioned how it was ludicrous that those receiving six-figure salaries should still get an entire pension. I have heard of some recipients in this class referring to it as their "play money". So just to resolve this issue we shouldn't removing access for those who really need it.
And there it is. I have linked Susan st James…(you might well have read?)
and where I am..(I would add physical Workers)
I live on a corner, by the beach, bought when it was unfashionable and cheap. So I have 4 immediate neighbours. All in their 70s and 80s. Between the 4 they would have a combined worth of close to 30 to 40 million$. They all get full super AND winter energy top up… mental.
Definitely agree with 1 : progressive tax and 2 : wealth tax. Not on increase in age. Personally I ,(and many of my peers) have worked in body destroying jobs, where at 60 you're pretty much done. Still, we have to struggle on to 65. Its a hard road….but yea progressive/wealth tax . Give us a chance at something to look forward too…..
I can see administratively why 1 is useful, to achieve means testing of NZSuper.
Not sure why 2 is necessary to achieve that.
2 – is only necessary from a fairness perspective. It doesn't have to be structured as such, the wealth tax is only a potential example, but it doesn't seem fair to me to go further after income when a lot of the problem is assets – and also that if this policy was introduced, that could be compounded.
I'd be happy to see another approach to taxing assets, even if it was only some assets, I've advocated previously my prior preference of a residential land tax (based on property valuations) that specifically excluded rural farmland and Maori land.
2/3rd of OECD nations have an estate tax, they will receive revenue from all those baby boomer estates.
Labour is proposing the most modest CGT in the western world (near all have a comprehensive one)
We had an estate tax till 1993. We removed the stamp duty in 1999. A gift duty till 2013.
The UK and Ireland have all + a CGT.
If the estate tax was not the easiest tax to get the pre neo-liberal era society to accept we would not have had it (we used it to capture CG at the end of life while without any CGT).
It is still the way to tax CG made before Labour's tax and all the future CG made outside of residential property investment.
The rest of the world does this – via CGT (near all) and estate tax (2/3rd). It is not reinventing the wheel.
A land tax catches home owners (adds cost to home ownership)
More progressive income tax for those receiving superannuation is income testing not means testing.
I reckon that it is more efficient for everyone over 65 to be eligible for superannuation and that income testing is applied via a more progressive income tax.
Means testing at the time of application for superannuation is (a) requires a large bureaucracy and (b) intrusive and (c) administratively expensive. It is not a progressive approach.
In any case relying on the Treasury projections is not a sound approach as it used gross not net costs and Treasury ideologically denies the fact that the government is a sovereign currency issuer.
Heard of public response to the surtax.
I think your first suggestion has merit. Super is often seen, by wealthy people, regardless of whether they’re still working or not, as an entitlement (think: Luxon claiming his entitlements) or as “their share”. More generally, people tend to see it as a state ‘charity’, welfare benefit or hand-out (with associated stigma), or income-replacement (when they actually stop working altogether) or income-supplement (when they reduce their working hours upon reaching 65). I’d reframe state super as a universal civic minimal base income to live dignified in late(r) life.
My suggestion is to transform NZ Super into an age-based tax-free threshold. Retirees who receive state super would be subject to distinct tax schedule on additional work-related income (PAYE) with progressively rising marginal tax rates. Once the cumulative tax on income equals state super and effectively recovers all or most of it, any further income is taxed at the same tax rates as for non-retirees. I’d give people the option of deferral with later top-ups.
Effective marginal tax rates and income bands could be tweaked to maintain sufficient work incentives for retirees in relation to social need and acceptance of having/claiming both simultaneously. It would avoid all the complexities of annual means-testing and deals with this in the tax space only rather than reducing a universal state super. I think such tweaks may be essential and necessary with rapidly changing demographics (aging and immigration) and labour requirements (climate change, changes in geo-politics, and AI).
Some posters in this thread are complaining that a limited means testing implies the death of universality. Far from it.
All it means it that those who receive super and have ample sufficient resources and/or to self-support should not receive an additional payment, which many others require to be at more than subsistence level and struggle to wait to even meet the current super age.
It is important from a left-perspective that:
I largely agree.
The issue for many, conceptually, is that means-testing determines eligibility up-front, as is the case with most if not all social welfare. Some well-off folks might feel it as a personal ‘loss’ and therefore unfair – FOMO can be very strong for some. This, in turn, might create even more resistance to progressive proposals from the Left. Therefore, I think it’s better to frame it as ‘earn more, pay more tax’ than as ‘earn more and lose your super’.
On the other side, many people struggle with the idea that their taxes pay for a social subsidy for high-income earners, especially, who want to fully retain their high earnings as well. This is separate from the government budget meeting this because that’s a matter of prioritising (aka politics), both for the Left and Right. The state’s first duty is for all citizens living a dignified life throughout their whole lifetime and for that the first requirement is to have their basic needs met. This is, or shouldn’t be, a Left vs Right issue, because it is about fundamental humanity and human rights.
The original argument for universality for superannuation was that all had paid taxes throughout their lives at the rate for their income, and then all would have the right to receive it. Those with other income must put in a tax return – that's right isn't it and then pay tax on their total income?
Looking at choice of death option. This could reduce 10% say of elderly health costs and for the very old or chronically ill proportion, I'm guessing medical costs would come down by a half. What people can't bring themselves to face is death and yet if those who indicated a wish for such and went through the process which would not be onerous, they could be happier after making the choice, and then could put it off in three month periods if their health or conditions improved. It would require thought and some legal work to ensure that their wishes and wills were carried out, the costs to be borne themselves but with a possible contribution by the state.
Another thing is that there is no reason that the elderly should not assist with some time each week with their skills to assist younger people in some way. We are considering the community assisting its elderly. As part of the community interaction the elderly should be assisting our young people. And there could be a type of NZ-only currency for trading only in this country for useful goods or services which would be recognition for the community help being extended.
Good idea, and it's happening, although on what scale I'm not sure. I know of a retired engineer, and several retired teachers in their 70s and 80s (and one in their 90s) who volunteer to tutor reading and maths – keeps you engaged.
https://volunteeringauckland.org.nz/
Another example, the local branch of the House of Science relies on retirees who provide their time free of charge – they don’t do it for the recognition.
I'm sure there will be many other examples both within and outside educational settings – Mum used to volunteer at the local Community Law office. It's quite heartening.
Exactly right. And what should be happening.
People are actually right to regard super as an entitlement.
"We paid taxes for decades" with the understanding that we get super on retirement, adequate Healthcare, assistance if disabled, income if we are sick, schooling for our children, police if we are threatened with crime, functional services and infrastructure…..
A social contract.
The "left" should leave it to the right wing to break social contracts willy nilly, just so the wealthy can extract even more money from our communities. Not be part of it.
The problem is we have nominally left wing parties in Government that instead of saying "taxes are your contribution to be able to become wealthy in a functioning country, give into the right wing framing of "taxes are a cost". The self serving myth that Government spending is just a cost on the economy, has been exploded comprehensively in NZ since 1984. But we still have politicians, ostensibly to the left of NZ politics, who buy into it.
Or. We could dump the whole complicated social welfare system and go to minimum tax free incomes, UBI, as we all discussed some time ago. Which even the right wing will push for, when they have made all their consumers jobless!
We should be extending Universal rights to an income, not reducing it.
Absolutely agree :
I would also note that, as you term, some posters, seem to be in denial of the actuality of this, continuing to frame it as some part of the general Rights of Super.
I could be forgiven (or mistaken) in thinking that some posters are indeed quite comfortably
numbcushioned to the optics/effects here….And maybe (just maybe) the majority on here are already in the Super recipient bracket. With possibly a whiff of I'm alright jack…..
I wonder if on a different forum (possibly with the young village workers voices) If they might well have a quite different view of their charitable largesse donors..
And re your other points, yes Dental et al (I am fully supportive of Dental for All NZ)
Anyway thanks for your alternatives contribution here.
Or. You have NFI where we are coming from, because you are so stuck in the paradigm, "that the (Boomer) elderly are stealing from the young", that you are not bothering to read and think about what we are writing. I bet you didn't bother to read my links.
Ok, must have stung you. Next time youre out village visiting..see if any of those young people will open up to you. My guess is..not.
Yeah. The lack of thought annoys me.
And the young people in "the village" will be pretty pissed if the retirees, that pay for their services, have their pensions cut,
No one is advocating for a cut in the super rate.
?????
Nah. If you want fairness, which is what the post implies, just implement a reasonably punitive wealth tax, then we can leave the superannuation scheme alone.
And if the Taxpayers' 'Union' is opposed to a wealth tax, then say no more.
https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/donations-exceeding-20000
It really is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Also, stop dreaming about massive tax reform. Under no combination of parties is it going to happen in 2026 or 2029.
Labour's policy would apply a flat 28% tax on gains from the sale of commercial and residential property (excluding the family home) after 1 July 2027, with revenue earmarked for three free doctor’s visits per year, for every New Zealander. It has no application to an other area of public expenditure.
And worse, if Labour doesn't win this time, that policy will be first on the bonfire. If people aren't going to vote for a CGT in its most targeted, cleanest, and ringfenced form, they sure aren't going to vote for a stronger one in which its revenue is just chucked into the Budget pool.
Free doctor visits for all? They should not be allowed to those who can afford the cost, so Labour is too generous there. Classic pre-election promise.
Anyway, where do they find the GPs? We are running out of them.
As for super, could some sort of "work for super" scheme be started? There must be lots of retired, but active and able, tradies and professionals out there who could contribute some sort of community work and effectively earn all or part of their payments. Or is that unrealistic?
Agreed. 3 x 'free' doctors visits dumbest thing since 100,000 Kiwibuild homes. Cost is not an issue for me… my doc is $15!!! … cost isn't a problem.. supply is, I literally cannot get an appointment..
I don't see a Wealth Tax as a pipe dream. It is a blindingly obvious solution to the existing obscene wealth inequality.
Without a Wealth Tax, wealth inequality will continue to increase. Means testing super (and Hipkins' CGT) will do almost nothing to change this.
I've had it with incrementalism.
Yes.
1984 to 1996 was many turns of the wheel to the right.
Since then Labour and partners have wheeled it back a couple of half turns under Clark and Adern.
While this Coalition of Cockups is madly spinning rightwards, and Labour is just proposing to wind it back some notches.
Sick of only having a "less worse" option.
A couple of things.. I've seen the graphs of the party donations by large individual donations. (Interestingly the $40k to Maori Party is from one person..JT). I'd be more interested in total donations to parties incl all the anonymous $19,999 amounts. Is the really a significant number of asset hoarding (loaded word) old people? I read recently of older people selling down from big cities to tiny Hawkes Bay towns as they struggle to pay rates and insurance .. I know I'm talking about the lucky ones who own homes.. but if you're heading toward $15k a year in rates and insurance and you're relying on Super only you are screwed. I personally favour a CGT (without the dumb 3 x free doc visit sweetner) and some movement of pensions (slow age increase, or more employer $$ into kiwisaver, or reduction if you're still working).
If you go back down the money trail, I suspect you will find that the 40K given by JT came entirely from the NZ taxpayer.
Means testing benefits before a serious tax-based approach to unequal wealth distribution is not a wise approach. It might become irrelevant if such an approach were to be adopted.
It is a silly policy trap to say you have to stop reform in one massive area of welfare, because you should do something else in another entirely unconnected policy area.
You also have a surprisingly short memory on tax reform. Labour and Ardern went into the 2017 election promising big tax reform, then workshopped it to death with Dr Cullen and a solid group, with the tax working group and the public expecting a CGT.
And then Ardern folded like origami. Tax reform was never heard from again for the two terms. Surely you remember her "Captain's call"?
Labour in 2026 is even clearer about what its tax policy is. It's a limited CGT.
But regrettably both Ardern and now Hipkins have a strong record of chucking any policy at all that voters might dislike.
Whereas NZSuper is different. It's a massive entitlement. Which is already too expensive.
There you go. And I thought state pensions were a way to temper, belatedly, exploitation in work, wealth differentials and unequal opportunity. In fact, I now see that they are overblown entitlements. What were we thinking when we supported their introduction? And "entitlement" isn't buying into the language of those who, at heart, despise such "hand outs"? Perish the thought. Even more, I see that there can be no political economy of wealth distribution, taxation and "entitlements". It's so hard to shake off George Shackle's first year lectures, all those years ago. I do try.
Repeating the treasury alarmism about super costs. The same treasury that has been captured by Milton Freidman, Hayek and Rand, since the 80's. Which is manifestly wrong. Try the net cost!
Super gets fed back into the economy and returns in productivity and in tax.
Adopting the right wing framing, that anything that benefits ordinary people is only, a cost.
We will destroy our cohesive equitable society because Labour, and their apologists, refuse to abandon the Neo-Liberal "homo economicis" paradigm. Because they are too gutless to have true wealth taxes.
Saying super “gets fed back into the economy” is true,but that doesn’t make it more affordable.
All government spending recirculates. That’s not what determines cost. What matters is the net fiscal cost after that recirculation, and that’s exactly what Treasury is measuring.
Super still has a cost because the money has to come from somewhere. Taxes, borrowing, or reduced spending elsewhere. Even after retirees pay some tax and spend their income, it doesn’t come back to the government in full.
So the issue isn’t whether the money moves through the economy as it always does. The issue is the gap between what goes out and what comes back, and how that gap is funded, especially as the population ages.
Thanks for the economics lesson. Which I have qualifications in BTW.
However treasury has shown since the 80's that they have absolutely no concept of net costs or benefits.
Only costs.
The Neo-liberal mindset is incapable of allowing for the total, net overall cost/benefit ratios.
The government spends money into existence. It is a currency issuer, not a household currency user. There is no 'how that gap is funded' issue. There are issues about having real resources though.
Fact Check
Labour's wealth tax work was done by Robertson and Parker while she was PM
The Captains call was made by Hipkins in 2023.
You may be forgetting that better off people already pay a significantly higher rate of tax on their super because it is additional to their other earnings. This means that they pay tax on it at the highest rate, unlike poorer people who often have no other income.
Hence the need for both higher marginal income tax rates as well as actual wealth taxes, Capital gains, inheritances and taxes on other unearned income.
Does anyone think those who drive the meme, "we cannot afford super" won't go after other welfare redistribution, Once we give an inch on super?
Whole towns depend on super in NZ. Whangamata is a good case in point. Almost all the younger people in that town, and so many others in New Zealand, have jobs that depend on pensioner spending on services.
Super, is not, "a cost" to them. It is their income.
Not, charity, but money circulating in the community.
Or. Would you all rather it went to tax rebates for house scalpers?
Too many, including many nominally on the left, have internalised the meme, endlessly repeated by right wing think tanks, until even those who should know better, repeat it, that redistribution for community welfare such as super is “unaffordable”. Like too many of those memes, they only count costs, not the other side of the ledger.
“Parties of business” appear to have no concept that public accounts have credits as well as debits.
(1) Means-testing super is downright idiotic in an election year. Do Not Feed The Winston.
(2) Thou shalt not mess with the sanctity of the Welfare State if thou claimest to be the Labour Party and not a revival of 1980s neoliberalism. There is a thing called progressive taxation.
(3) Who the hell is this designed to attract votes from? ACT-leaning accountants?
My comments have not been made lightly.
I honestly believe that we are going into a future where if we do not take action to make the pension more sustainable, then our opponents will do – implementing their solution, which could even lead to its abolishment.
Limited means-testing for the wealthy is the least bad option, far preferable to age-rises or shrinking payments.
Not to mention that,
Doing the possible, not implementing the dream.
Taxing all the wealthy is the answer.
And not just for pensions. But for our society in general.
Allowing the wealthy to constantly detach money from our communities, without return, will destroy NZ as we know it. Already happening.
Means testing elderly with moderate means or savings, is not the answer.
Neither is forcing people whose jobs are destroying their bodies, to work even longer.
Neither is forcing 80 year Olds to take the low paid jobs available to them, like the USA.
The effective retirement age for most is already more than 65, simply because they need to save enough to survive on the super. Taking the super off those people who are still working, simply makes their retirement age much later.
Government funding is inadequate, because Governments since 1984, have not only deprived themselves of tax revenue, but they have also shifted taxation from wealth to workers. Workers perception they are overtaxed is correct.
The only reason we still have super.
Is that the wealthy like that "pocket money"!
Otherwise it would have been "gone by lunchtime" in the 80's.
100%
Means testing is a bad idea, the thine end of the wedge. Tax the rich and corporations
The funding of NZ Superannuation was identified, and the then Labour Government took action by establishing what came to be known as the "Cullen Fund" to spread out the costs, and provide a fund for when the peak cost of baby-boomers become eligible for NZ Superannuation – and also the lift in healthcare costs expected at that time. Sadly only Labour governments put any money in, so we are running short of what is needed . . .
Let's be careful coming down on beneficiaries any further than already. Progressive taxation is good, also Financial Transaction Tax (tiny), and regarding more than three houses -interests or owning as business, should balance the budget better, Then even up the taxation for everybody by reducing GST back to 10% with 1 % going back to the area from which it arises for citizens needs, not tourism.
Once you start messing with taxation on the basis of ideology or fairness the cracks will let other factors undermine any good that might have arisen. These people at the top have traded in their humanity and fairness for a comfy chair but will leave increasing numbers of us with the inquisitionary discomforts.
Adjustments to taxation based on fairness, and justice are worth considering, imho.
My comment on fairness etc should have been in quotes as I was thinking that this is the slogan for changes so often but is often more sound than action. Please make tax more fair and to match people's income and wealth! That's what I say but those dealing out tax may not bother with the effort.
GST is an example of easy money for govt but hard for the people, adding to costs on anything and government gets in the way with hand out at every move. I thought that was one of the no-nos under which those supporting neoliberalism marched. What liars they are. The income tax can go down on their nice salaries and profits and the grunts (us) carry the actual costs of the country and what is to be expected from a modern civilised society.
The things I suggested go straight to the nub of what would be good for the populace and help circulation of money through the economy, and hopefully jobs. Do any but a minority wonder how we are going to run our country and provide working lives for the young when expensive and demanding tech things are edging in and shouldering over. Do we just sit and stare at it and our de-vices like the mythical rabbits on the motorway?
The death of universalism – creating a two tier system, so that working people can take it like a speculum.
#Darkwoke
NZ Super should be defended as a floor to ensure our elderly can live with dignity, not as an untouchable entitlement for every asset-rich retiree. Universality can protect solidarity, but it can also conceal inequality. And, over time, corrode the very bargain it claims to preserve, especially when equal payments mask profoundly unequal circumstances.
It is less fair when it requires younger and poorer workers to subsidise millionaires, while health, education, housing, and disability services are squeezed.
If we are serious about preserving Super, we need boundaries around who receives it. Those boundaries must account for wealth, not just taxable income if they are to be meaningful.
And that means, quite simply, some form of means testing.
Because Super does not exist in isolation. There are millions of New Zealanders who are not retirees, many of whom work, pay taxes, and are struggling with the cost of living. A fair system has to balance dignity in retirement with fairness across generations, and ensure public investment is shared, not concentrated where it is least needed.
Suggesting people on six figures in 21st century New Zealand are rich beggars belief. That's teachers and nurses — hardly rolling in it. The threshold better be pretty darn high!
That’s the thing, though: it depends what you’re comparing it to.
Compared to the median wage, which is just under $70k, a six-figure income is significantly higher. That doesn’t necessarily make someone “rich” in a day-to-day sense, especially with housing and cost of living.
But it does put them well above average.
Case in point, as an IT professional I earn well over twice the median on a single income. That doesn’t make me feel wealthy all the time, but it does highlight how wide the gap actually is.
On one income, I’m earning more than many households with two incomes combined. That’s the dynamic.
Yes, make the threshold high and make sure the public know exactly who will be affected and what it will mean in practice so that people aren't scared off like they are whenever anything like this is suggested, like for example when a wealth tax is mentioned people jump up and down but if the messaging was clear they'd see it affects only a relatively small number of people but with significant benefit.
That’s a bunch of straw men.
Nobody said that people earning a six-figure income are ‘rich’.
Not many nurses and teachers earn six-figure salaries.
Not many nurses and teachers earning six-figure salaries stay at those earning levels upon 65 and claim super.
Question for you: should people earning a six-figure income at 65 be eligible to claim full state super?
FYI Both the average Teacher and average Nurse earn six figure salaries. Links below.
But I would agree that no on earning a six-figure income at 65 should need to be eligible to claim full state super. Personally I think it should start to amortise for every dollar earned after 100k.
https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/assets/For-health-professionals/Employment-relations/Nursing-and-Midwifery/NZNO-Nursing-Workforce-Factsheet-August-Final.pdf
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/570415/how-much-do-new-zealand-s-teachers-actually-earn-anyway
Thank you for correcting me.
Averages hide the real number on each pay bracket.
At the last school I was teaching in, most Teachers were between the starting step and the 11 year one. Which now would be about 62 to 90k.
Senior roles would likely put the average close to 100k, but only a few senior Teachers, with administrative roles, on top of Teaching were on that step.
Same as NZ wages, sound better than they are if you use the average, because of million dollar salaries at the top pushing averages up. The number of people on the median is a better indication.
I am not so sure
Given the starting salary is actually just over $60,000 I would go back to the source with a please explain.
The 100,000 figure is for a teacher after 10 years. I would ask what the median length of service for a teacher was. Then what the median pay was and then the average based on salary and then the average for the total package based on allowance for extra duties taken on.
Step 1 for a qualified secondary Teacher. $62 862.
Step 8 is just into 6 figures from January this year. $100 368.
Part 4: Remuneration | PPTA
All but three of the teachers at my grandkids primary school, for just one example, are under 35.
Primary and secondary teachers supposedly have pay parity.
Our agreements – NZEI Te Riu Roa
You can start on a higher step with extra qualifications. But that can only bring it up to $72 584.
Is it the amount people earn, or that they are getting taxpayer support while working FT and do not have dependents to provide for, rent or mortgage to pay?
I should add as per teachers and nurses, the government and unions should have an agreement whereby there is no tertiary debt payment liable while working here in their trained for jobs in this country.
Which is a good idea if there was jobs when they graduate.
Seems unfair on those who have to go overseas to get a job.
Most get jobs.
The others pay nothing till employed and those working here in other areas have no interest on their debt
We get a return on their subsidised study cost, only if they work here – and more so if it is in their area of study.
my view is incrementally move eligibility age to 67, if that means I have to wait some more months for superann so be it. 35 odd years since age of eligibility was reviewed and kiwis have lived longer since then
It is the National Party plan to do so, but it would remain at age 65 until 2044.
So it would not impact Generation X.
When we did that 60 to 65 increase we had a transitional benefit for those not working between age 60 and 65.
Just in time to fuck over our children.
I note it is those who have jobs sitting behind a desk, who are so enthusiastic about increasing the retirement age.
Really?
They get super while working now and you are the one who wants that to continue.
I would first restore the estate tax to manage the structural debt issue of the total cost of super.
Then consider reducing cost to fund aged care and income related rent housing for those without property ownership.
That is either by limiting super to those working to paying rent or mortgage or to increase their savings to a higher level.
Or the National Party way with a transitional benefit
(Oz has age 67).
Just a question for you?
Should the wealthy get state funded access, to the State Healthcare system, on the same basis as the poor?
After all, they can afford to pay for their own care.
“We could save billions” if they did.
"I note it is those who have jobs sitting behind a desk, who are so enthusiastic about increasing the retirement age."
Highly unlikely to have a Maori or PI surname either.
I would be happy with it starting earlier than 2044. there will need to be transitional arrangements yes. if I am still healthy and employable at 65 I see no reason I cannot wait some months more for super. those who are unable will need transitional assistance
But it is not just about you georgecom. You are just one example of the people reaching older age, some finding life hard in this unprincipled country run by callous moneyed materialists. Do you realise how our country is, actually? A lot of the people I know never stop to think and assess its disgraceful ways.
9000 earn over $200,000
33,000 earn over $100,000
The median wage is around $70,000.
Tax scales
17.5% up to $53,500
30% up to $78,100
33% up to $180,000
For most of the workers working FT after age 65 the progressive tax rate on their extra income would be at 30% or 33%. And no different or little different than the rate they paid on their income before getting super.
(c$25,000 super)
39% over $180,000
This explains the idea of Jane Wrightson that we target those getting work income while getting super (it being easier to process than investment income etc). And leave the rate and age alone. She might note the historic opposition to a surtax on savings income.
Susan St John wants super as an income tax free grant and a higher rate of tax on other income for those over age 65.
Shamubeel Eaqub noted only 60% of Australians qualified for the pension.
Options a different rate of tax on the working income of those on Super – normal tax rate + a progressive surtax.
Exclusion of super payment to those working at above median wage income, with no rent or mortgages to pay, no dependents to support and have *savings level.
We would have a reduced super payout of up to c $2.5Bpa, if not paying super to up to 10% of those receiving it (24% work after age 65).
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/565049/thousands-of-over-65s-earn-more-than-200-000-should-they-get-nz-super