Tim Dillons interview highlights how even left wing journalists and commentators don’t consider themselves and their ilk to be on the left.
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
ANZ, ASB and Westpac have now dropped some of their fixed term mortgage rates to. Apparently, some of the banks are starting to feel the squeeze with new customers and existing customers pushing them for better rates.
With the OCR being dropped to 3.25% last week, ASB chief economist Nick Tuffley is expecting two more cuts to the OCR before the end of the year, which would take it to 2.75%.
With the OCR being dropped to 3.25% last week, ASB chief economist Nick Tuffley is expecting two more cuts to the OCR before the end of the year, which would take it to 2.75%.
I’ll watch it a bit later - however sounds somewhat similar to our Marxist buddy in this thread haha
Don’t think I’ve ever seen a government since mmp came to be where minor parties have held such power over the major partyIt will nothing if not entertaining. In someways, I'd love a coalition of Labour, Greens and the māori Party.... just so we could compare Blue Chris trying to deal with Seymour to Red Chris dealing with Packer and Waititi.
The only one that would have come close, IMO, was Jim Bolger trying to deal with NZF when MMP first came in. Not even Shane Jones caused as much trouble for Jacinda as Seymour is for Luxon.
Can recall Winston holding up the signs to media, he was in his element. Fascinating the amount of times since it’s also been the scenario. It was always the wide held view that Luxon, not being from the political world would struggle and I think he’s shown that to be true. He’s been walked over and his leadership largely non existent
More and more discussion over the payments for NZ Super recently. Which of these do you think should be done...
1. A response like Labour.... stick to the status quo.
2. A response like NZ First.... stick to the status quo in case it affects their core voters.
3. A response like National and ACT.... increase age of eligibility.
4. A response like the Greens.... introduce flexibility (without explaining what that actually means)
5. A response like the Māori Party.... decrease the age of eligibility by seven to ten years for Māori.
Should it be means tested? So, people with a net worth of over a certain amount, can't receive it or receive a smaller amount or stay "universal"?
Should compulsory donations be required for people with a net worth of over a certain amount?
Also, should NZ Super be changed so that someone can "opt out" of it if they feel they no longer require it?
Is it right that someone who may not need it and isn't recieving it think it's their place to tell others of a similar "net worth" that they shouldn't be recieving it?
Do you believe it should be "your right" to receive it because you've "paid tax all your life" or do you believe that it's the current and future tax payers who would be paying for you to receive it?
I suspect posters will go down the direction most closely aligned to their voting patterns/political views and/or their ages and/or their "net worth".
1. A response like Labour.... stick to the status quo.
2. A response like NZ First.... stick to the status quo in case it affects their core voters.
3. A response like National and ACT.... increase age of eligibility.
4. A response like the Greens.... introduce flexibility (without explaining what that actually means)
5. A response like the Māori Party.... decrease the age of eligibility by seven to ten years for Māori.
Should it be means tested? So, people with a net worth of over a certain amount, can't receive it or receive a smaller amount or stay "universal"?
Should compulsory donations be required for people with a net worth of over a certain amount?
Also, should NZ Super be changed so that someone can "opt out" of it if they feel they no longer require it?
Is it right that someone who may not need it and isn't recieving it think it's their place to tell others of a similar "net worth" that they shouldn't be recieving it?
Do you believe it should be "your right" to receive it because you've "paid tax all your life" or do you believe that it's the current and future tax payers who would be paying for you to receive it?
I suspect posters will go down the direction most closely aligned to their voting patterns/political views and/or their ages and/or their "net worth".
More to think about on NZ Super from the Herald's Liam Dann....
Q: Hi Liam, I was interested in the post-Budget chat about New Zealand Superannuation. A Herald commenter said they were embarrassed to be entitled to Super when they didn’t really need it, and that it was clearly (for the nation) unaffordable but off-limits politically.
Other commenters answered by saying either “don’t be embarrassed, you worked for it” (I’m paraphrasing), or “you don’t have to take the pension if you don’t need it”.
This hit home for me since it’s a bit of a bone of contention in our family. I’m a Gen X-er and my Baby Boomer parents both get the pension despite owning assets worth millions.
It’s not a case of the family home skyrocketing in value – they both own very large, very expensive properties (separately; they’re divorced), nice vehicles and live very comfortable lives.
I’m really happy they’re healthy and enjoying life, but I – and my siblings – think it’s a bit gross that they draw the pension when they very obviously don’t need it.
My Dad’s a bit embarrassed about it, but says he’s asset-rich but cash-poor. My Mum gets defensive and says she’s worked all her life and deserves it.
Both my parents are smart and socially aware, so I’m surprised by their stance. My question is: how many retirees actually choose not to take NZ Super? Is there a mechanism to opt out?
A: Fascinating question, thanks.
I was curious about the numbers too and asked at the Ministry of Social Development (which administers New Zealand’s pension scheme).
There is no specific mechanism to opt out. But the way the scheme works is that you have to sign up (or opt in) when you turn 65.
So, essentially, if you don’t need the money, you can just do nothing, and you won’t get it.
I’m also told you that when you do apply, the registration process does point you to various charities you can donate it to if you think you don’t need the money.
Sharemysuper.or.nz is one such charity organisation purpose-built for the task.
The Ministry of Social Development didn’t have any numbers to hand as to how many Kiwis over 65 haven’t signed up even though they are eligible.
So I’ve put in an Official Information Act request and hopefully someone in the system will dig that out (watch this space).
The bigger question is the one you implicitly raise with your parents: should people take the super payment if they don’t really need it?
Framed in even more basic terms: is the super payment a benefit or a right?
Everyone who is eligible does have the right to claim it.
But the money is also part of the consolidated pool of Government revenue. It isn’t held in a special fund, like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (the Crown investment fund with the annoyingly similar name).
That fund will be used eventually to help fund the cost of NZ Super as it balloons, based on the ageing population.
NZ Super is also very different to KiwiSaver, which is actually your money that you have worked for over the years.
Ultimately, the existence of the state pension (and how generous or universal it is) remains at the mercy of Parliament.
It is a benefit, but for many Kiwis, especially those of a certain generation, it feels like a right.
It has been promised to us by politicians over the years.
That’s one of the reasons even changing the age limit or means-testing it has been seen as a political no-go zone.
But that seems to be changing as the sheer weight of the cost to the economy becomes apparent.
According to Budget 2025 data, NZ Super costs $4352 per person per year, making it the third-largest area of government spending after welfare ($6181 per person) and health ($5804 per person).
From the Treasury’s long-term fiscal projections, spending on NZ Super is projected to grow from 4.3% of GDP in 2010 to 7.9% in 2060, an increase of 3.6 percentage points.
National under Sir Bill English first proposed lifting the age to 67 in the election campaign of 2017.
And National campaigned on a similar platform in 2023 with a commitment to keep the age at 65 until 2044, when it will be gradually lifted to 67. This change wouldn’t affect anyone born before 1979.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis has suggested National will campaign on a similar policy again in 2026.
In my view, it will inevitably have to rise.
I also understand why people are inclined to accept it as a right. It is free money, right?
It will eventually pass through the generations.
Perhaps those who want to enjoy the extra cash but feel some guilt could look to spend it with local businesses or support local artists.
www.nzherald.co.nz
Should rich people opt out of NZ Super?
Q: Hi Liam, I was interested in the post-Budget chat about New Zealand Superannuation. A Herald commenter said they were embarrassed to be entitled to Super when they didn’t really need it, and that it was clearly (for the nation) unaffordable but off-limits politically.Other commenters answered by saying either “don’t be embarrassed, you worked for it” (I’m paraphrasing), or “you don’t have to take the pension if you don’t need it”.
This hit home for me since it’s a bit of a bone of contention in our family. I’m a Gen X-er and my Baby Boomer parents both get the pension despite owning assets worth millions.
It’s not a case of the family home skyrocketing in value – they both own very large, very expensive properties (separately; they’re divorced), nice vehicles and live very comfortable lives.
I’m really happy they’re healthy and enjoying life, but I – and my siblings – think it’s a bit gross that they draw the pension when they very obviously don’t need it.
My Dad’s a bit embarrassed about it, but says he’s asset-rich but cash-poor. My Mum gets defensive and says she’s worked all her life and deserves it.
Both my parents are smart and socially aware, so I’m surprised by their stance. My question is: how many retirees actually choose not to take NZ Super? Is there a mechanism to opt out?
A: Fascinating question, thanks.
I was curious about the numbers too and asked at the Ministry of Social Development (which administers New Zealand’s pension scheme).
There is no specific mechanism to opt out. But the way the scheme works is that you have to sign up (or opt in) when you turn 65.
So, essentially, if you don’t need the money, you can just do nothing, and you won’t get it.
I’m also told you that when you do apply, the registration process does point you to various charities you can donate it to if you think you don’t need the money.
Sharemysuper.or.nz is one such charity organisation purpose-built for the task.
The Ministry of Social Development didn’t have any numbers to hand as to how many Kiwis over 65 haven’t signed up even though they are eligible.
So I’ve put in an Official Information Act request and hopefully someone in the system will dig that out (watch this space).
Benefit or Right?
The bigger question is the one you implicitly raise with your parents: should people take the super payment if they don’t really need it?
Framed in even more basic terms: is the super payment a benefit or a right?
Everyone who is eligible does have the right to claim it.
But the money is also part of the consolidated pool of Government revenue. It isn’t held in a special fund, like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (the Crown investment fund with the annoyingly similar name).
That fund will be used eventually to help fund the cost of NZ Super as it balloons, based on the ageing population.
NZ Super is also very different to KiwiSaver, which is actually your money that you have worked for over the years.
Ultimately, the existence of the state pension (and how generous or universal it is) remains at the mercy of Parliament.
It is a benefit, but for many Kiwis, especially those of a certain generation, it feels like a right.
It has been promised to us by politicians over the years.
That’s one of the reasons even changing the age limit or means-testing it has been seen as a political no-go zone.
But that seems to be changing as the sheer weight of the cost to the economy becomes apparent.
According to Budget 2025 data, NZ Super costs $4352 per person per year, making it the third-largest area of government spending after welfare ($6181 per person) and health ($5804 per person).
From the Treasury’s long-term fiscal projections, spending on NZ Super is projected to grow from 4.3% of GDP in 2010 to 7.9% in 2060, an increase of 3.6 percentage points.
National under Sir Bill English first proposed lifting the age to 67 in the election campaign of 2017.
And National campaigned on a similar platform in 2023 with a commitment to keep the age at 65 until 2044, when it will be gradually lifted to 67. This change wouldn’t affect anyone born before 1979.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis has suggested National will campaign on a similar policy again in 2026.
In my view, it will inevitably have to rise.
I also understand why people are inclined to accept it as a right. It is free money, right?
It will eventually pass through the generations.
Perhaps those who want to enjoy the extra cash but feel some guilt could look to spend it with local businesses or support local artists.
Inside Economics: Should you take NZ Super if you don't need it?
ANALYSIS: Framed in even more basic terms: is the pension a benefit or a right?
- Thread starter
- #17,049
1 and 2.
Superannuation is an entitlement as part of the social contract when you pay tax all your working life, that you will be supported when you retire.
If we start means testing, it will start high and end up very low.
Eg GST: 10% to 12 to 15%
Brightline: 2 years to 5 to 10
I think the comparison is you have to get down to $250k before the govt will pay for high needs rest home care. I would see $250k assets being the entitlement to super eventually if we bought in mean testing.
And then there’s lack of adjustment to inflation (eg tax brackets) until eventually there is no superannuation entitlement.
It has to be kept as is it raised as we live older but if we allow means testing, it’s the beginning of the end for everyone.
It’s only a matter of time before it changes and at some point potentially not be there at all. There will be a feeling of anger that a particular generation cops it while all previous have been supported and worst case scenarios is people handle it like the French who rioted perhaps a decade ago when proposed? It’s one of many changes needed though throughout the system, the compulsory pay rises for politicians must surely be leaving a bitter taste in mouths when performances aren’t exactly deserving and some real struggles with the economy for instance. I think super among everything that everyone throughout society is afforded is seen as an entitlement, whether having the wealth to need it or not. Our own pm used a clean car subsidy and learnt Te Reo on the taxpayer before scrapping them when he has the means to foot that bill himselfMore to think about on NZ Super from the Herald's Liam Dann....
Should rich people opt out of NZ Super?
Q: Hi Liam, I was interested in the post-Budget chat about New Zealand Superannuation. A Herald commenter said they were embarrassed to be entitled to Super when they didn’t really need it, and that it was clearly (for the nation) unaffordable but off-limits politically.
Other commenters answered by saying either “don’t be embarrassed, you worked for it” (I’m paraphrasing), or “you don’t have to take the pension if you don’t need it”.
This hit home for me since it’s a bit of a bone of contention in our family. I’m a Gen X-er and my Baby Boomer parents both get the pension despite owning assets worth millions.
It’s not a case of the family home skyrocketing in value – they both own very large, very expensive properties (separately; they’re divorced), nice vehicles and live very comfortable lives.
I’m really happy they’re healthy and enjoying life, but I – and my siblings – think it’s a bit gross that they draw the pension when they very obviously don’t need it.
My Dad’s a bit embarrassed about it, but says he’s asset-rich but cash-poor. My Mum gets defensive and says she’s worked all her life and deserves it.
Both my parents are smart and socially aware, so I’m surprised by their stance. My question is: how many retirees actually choose not to take NZ Super? Is there a mechanism to opt out?
A: Fascinating question, thanks.
I was curious about the numbers too and asked at the Ministry of Social Development (which administers New Zealand’s pension scheme).
There is no specific mechanism to opt out. But the way the scheme works is that you have to sign up (or opt in) when you turn 65.
So, essentially, if you don’t need the money, you can just do nothing, and you won’t get it.
I’m also told you that when you do apply, the registration process does point you to various charities you can donate it to if you think you don’t need the money.
Sharemysuper.or.nz is one such charity organisation purpose-built for the task.
The Ministry of Social Development didn’t have any numbers to hand as to how many Kiwis over 65 haven’t signed up even though they are eligible.
So I’ve put in an Official Information Act request and hopefully someone in the system will dig that out (watch this space).
Benefit or Right?
The bigger question is the one you implicitly raise with your parents: should people take the super payment if they don’t really need it?
Framed in even more basic terms: is the super payment a benefit or a right?
Everyone who is eligible does have the right to claim it.
But the money is also part of the consolidated pool of Government revenue. It isn’t held in a special fund, like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (the Crown investment fund with the annoyingly similar name).
That fund will be used eventually to help fund the cost of NZ Super as it balloons, based on the ageing population.
NZ Super is also very different to KiwiSaver, which is actually your money that you have worked for over the years.
Ultimately, the existence of the state pension (and how generous or universal it is) remains at the mercy of Parliament.
It is a benefit, but for many Kiwis, especially those of a certain generation, it feels like a right.
It has been promised to us by politicians over the years.
That’s one of the reasons even changing the age limit or means-testing it has been seen as a political no-go zone.
But that seems to be changing as the sheer weight of the cost to the economy becomes apparent.
According to Budget 2025 data, NZ Super costs $4352 per person per year, making it the third-largest area of government spending after welfare ($6181 per person) and health ($5804 per person).
From the Treasury’s long-term fiscal projections, spending on NZ Super is projected to grow from 4.3% of GDP in 2010 to 7.9% in 2060, an increase of 3.6 percentage points.
National under Sir Bill English first proposed lifting the age to 67 in the election campaign of 2017.
And National campaigned on a similar platform in 2023 with a commitment to keep the age at 65 until 2044, when it will be gradually lifted to 67. This change wouldn’t affect anyone born before 1979.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis has suggested National will campaign on a similar policy again in 2026.
In my view, it will inevitably have to rise.
I also understand why people are inclined to accept it as a right. It is free money, right?
It will eventually pass through the generations.
Perhaps those who want to enjoy the extra cash but feel some guilt could look to spend it with local businesses or support local artists.
Inside Economics: Should you take NZ Super if you don't need it?
ANALYSIS: Framed in even more basic terms: is the pension a benefit or a right?
In my view, this is a must. Denmark just went up to 70!
I'm not opposed
not really a donation if it is compulsory
My view is that it is "your right" as that's how it has been sold, for generations. Realistically, as we can see in Japan, it is paid for by the generation that is working
Other ideas:
1. Total compensation packages made illegal (i.e. employer contributions are always "on top")
2. To "opt out" you should have to really jump through a lot of hoops, so it isn't just a tick box option
3. Upon turning 18, Kiwisaver is compulsory, with the following:
- 4% contributions mandatory
- growth funds to be the default fund fype for anyone enrolling that is younger than 30
David Seymour threatens our democracy and our future.
newsroom.co.nz
www.scoop.co.nz
newsroom.co.nz
Parliament's law-making watchdog warns against Regulatory Standards Bill
Minister for Regulation David Seymour says he knows bureaucrats don’t like his bill, but that’s a good thing. Laura Walters reports.
newsroom.co.nz
On Why The Regulatory Standards Bill Should Be Dumped
If you blinked on a recent Friday afternoon, you might have missed the passing under urgency of the first reading of the Regulatory Standards Bill. The Bill purports to be a kind of legislative WOF test that all of us should welcome, right?
www.scoop.co.nz
How the Regulatory Standards Bill could leave taxpayers on the hook
Opinion from Otago University: The legal status of corporations in NZ raises the possibility Act's controversial bill could open the door for companies to sue over lost profits.
newsroom.co.nz
Last edited:
Take a look at the life expectancy figures https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/growth-in-life-expectancy-slows/
A retirement age of 70 is a life of slavery for a fair portion.
If I help someone across the road with their shopping many on here would be swift with their deafening cries of "RED!!! COMMIE!!!!! LIBTARD!!!!!"
What on earth does helping someone across the road have to do with an individuals political leaning??
Good to see you've retained your innocence. There are those in the cult of individuality who feel threatened by acts of social cohesion, community and selflessness and must obliterate them whenever they see them
To be fair, I'm not calling for an age of 70, which I agree would be too high.
Just demonstrating that other nations are facing the facts of longer life expectancy, and the cost of super.
Australia = 67
Sweden = 67
Netherlands = 67
Germany = 67
UK = will be 68
etc
As your figures show, the rate of growth has slowed. But it is still growing, just at a slower rate.
Fair call, as someone who will be eligible in less than a decade and suffered from the boomers rampaging their way through real estate, taking away the free tertiary education, and generally pulling the ladder up behind them raising the retirement age will be yet another filthy act committed on those coming after them.
I’m still not sure I follow why you think that has anything to do with political bias… well I understand what you were inferring however I don’t agree.
Interesting how any counterpoint to the predominantly right and far right narrative is considered Marxist though
