According to the American economist and social philosopher, Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, “The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”
Recent experience in New Zealand can testify to the truth of that quote.
After six years in office inflicting their flawed ideology onto the country, Labour failed in virtually everything they touched.
As the new Coalition Government struggles to pick up the pieces, the two politicians largely responsible for the carnage – former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and former Deputy PM and Minister of Finance Grant Robertson – have moved into positions “where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”
Dame Jacinda Ardern is now leading a Field Fellowship to “rehumanise leadership” and “bring more hope and optimism into politics” at the Washington-based Center for American Progress Action Fund.
And Grant Robertson is now the Vice Chancellor of Otago University.
Both will no doubt be spreading their Marxist ideas onto those organisations, poisoning rational thought with the failed ideology of socialism.
As this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, former Judge and Law Lecturer Anthony Willy explains, under Labour, the foundational values which underpin our society were dangerously eroded:
“The ‘Enlightenment’ and ‘reason’ as exists in today’s world are increasingly assailed by the winds of dogma, ignorance and deliberate misinformation. This is an insidious phenomenon which has become widely evident around the Western world, and thanks to the concerted efforts of the previous Labour government lead by an avowed Marxist it is alive and well in New Zealand.
“At the heart of this assault on our way of life is the substitution of socialist values for the social norms which we have long taken for granted. The attack has been against every institution which comprises the pillars of our democratic freedoms. The desired outcome is to replace our free and open market-oriented society with increasing state control, and to eliminate any freedoms currently enjoyed which are incompatible with that end.
“These are the hallmarks of every communist and quasi communist government the world over but are rarely openly stated as government policy. They must be accomplished by subterfuge and policies of welfare for all, the accompanying need for ever more taxation, and erosion of the economy by printing more and more money which has less and less value. In the realm of ideas and objective truths it is necessary that these historic benefits be subverted by ‘beliefs’ which have no factual basis, but which will be found to be welcome by some isolated sections of the community.”
From the start of her regime, Jacinda Ardern imposed her destructive ideology onto New Zealand behind a mask of ‘kindness’ and ‘compassion’.
Nothing was sacred.
Her “Government knows best” approach crushed businesses – even industries – as the oil and gas sector can testify.
And her “bigger is better” ideology created chaos through botched centralisations, which inflicted Labour’s unmandated He Puapua agenda for tribal co-governance onto public institutions.
The restructure of health was undertaken in the middle of the Covid pandemic. Community-based District Health Boards were abolished without warning and merged into a vast Wellington bureaucracy, co-governed by tribal leaders. It took no time at all for an apartheid regime to emerge, as health care was prioritised on the basis of race instead of clinical need.
While the Maori Health Authority has now been scrapped by the Coalition, Labour’s upheaval seriously disrupted the health system, with an estimated 250,000 Kiwis now unable to find a GP, acute shortages of frontline staff, and ever-lengthening hospital waiting lists.
The Polytech centralisation fared no better as the country’s 16 polytechs and Institutes of Technology were merged into a tribally influenced behemoth, resulting in escalating deficits, increasing staff shortages and plummeting student enrolments.
Water services were to be the next target for centralisation with an audacious plan to combine ratepayer-owned infrastructure – confiscated from local councils – into mega authorities co-governed by tribal leaders. While more than $1 billion was spent on the disastrous Three Waters reform, it was stymied by the change in government, before more damage could be done.
This blind pursuit of ideology has had a devastating effect. Labour’s failed centralisations created bloated bureaucracies that not only ruined service provision, but pushing He Puapua goals across the State sector had a destabilising effect on everything, from the economy, to education, law and order, justice, infrastructure, even local government.
And while fixing the carnage Labour created is no easy matter, many of the serious problems that are now emerging are systemic – band aid solutions will help, but only comprehensive reform can save New Zealand from becoming yet another failing nation.
Underpinning many of those systemic problems is our changing demographic. Treasury outlined the pressure our aging population is putting on health services and superannuation in particular in their 2021 Long Term Fiscal Projections. They showed that unless significant changes are made to policy settings, the country will go bankrupt by 2060.
Essentially that means that unless real reform is underway by 2040, the country will enter a downward spiral from which recovery will be virtually impossible.
Retirees currently number around 800,000, but by 2060 they are expected to approach 2 million. At that time, the number of workers per pensioner, will fall from around four to one today, to just two to one.
While Treasury indicated suggested ‘solutions’ included raising the retirement age, increasing taxes, or reducing spending, the Inland Revenue Department plans to look into the problem themselves.
Under the Public Service Act 2020, every government department is required to produce a ‘long-term insights’ briefing every 3 years. These briefings are designed to ensure the Public Service is thinking about some of the more complex long-running policy problems facing the country. Their papers are prepared independently of Ministers and involve public consultation. Details of published briefings and current consultations can be found HERE.
In their introductory paper, the IRD, which intends investigating the future shape of our tax system, notes that compared to other OECD countries New Zealand has a relatively stable tax system, with a broad-based low-rate approach:
“The level of tax revenue New Zealand raises, relative to the size of the economy, is close to the OECD average. New Zealand is unusual in the OECD in not having significant specific taxes on labour income, such as social security contributions or payroll taxes. Further, many OECD countries operate schedular taxation systems that tax capital income at lower rates than labour income. Consequently, most OECD countries have a higher tax burden on employee labour income than New Zealand. New Zealand raises more than the OECD average in general consumption taxes, relative to GDP, through the goods and services tax. New Zealand has a higher company tax rate than the OECD average, and high effective marginal tax rates on inbound investments compared to other OECD countries. New Zealand also raises more than the OECD average from recurrent property taxes – through local government rates.”
The IRD identifies some of the long-term trends that will have significant implications for the future of New Zealand’s tax system, including increased government expenditure on superannuation and the escalating cost of healthcare for New Zealand’s ageing population.
They explain their project will firstly focus on how the tax system should be designed in the face of long-term fiscal pressures, and secondly, they will investigate whether there are alternative approaches to better address the problems we face.
They explain that under current settings, the net cost of New Zealand Superannuation is expected to rise from 4.1 percent of GDP in 2020 to 6.3 percent of GDP by 2060. Health care costs, they say, will increase from 6.9 percent of GDP in 2020 to 10.6 percent in 2060. They point out that such a cost burden is unsustainable.
While the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, established in 2001 to pre-fund the rising cost of the baby boomer generation reaching retirement age, will start to be drawn down from 2035, it will not be enough.
The IRD notes that many OECD countries have taken decisions to gradually lift the age of retirement to deal with similar problems, but they also explain that another option is to consider shifting the existing policy balance between universal and contributory retirement support.
They explain that New Zealand is an outlier – the only OECD country to rely primarily on a publicly provided pension scheme for retirement income support.
They also point out that New Zealand and Ireland are the only two OECD countries that do not to have a mandatory personal retirement savings scheme in place.
And they also note that New Zealand’s tax treatment of voluntary personal retirement savings schemes is among the least generous in the OECD.
If the IRD is serious about investigating countries that are successfully dealing with the dual problem of funding the escalating costs of retirement income and healthcare for an aging population, they need to look beyond the OECD to Singapore.
Through their Central Provident Fund – which is now worth over $500 billion – Singapore provides amongst the world’s highest quality living standards for the elderly. Through a mandatory personal retirement savings scheme, funded by employees and employers, a generous pension annuity is paid on retirement as well universal health insurance cover is provided for life.
As an Opposition MP in 1972 Sir Roger Douglas drafted a private member’s bill to create a similar contributory scheme for New Zealand. This formed the basis of the New Zealand Superannuation Act, which was passed into law by Norman Kirk’s Labour Government in 1974. The scheme required employees to contribute 4 percent of their wages into their own super account, which was then matched by their employer.
Unfortunately, the scheme only lasted 11 months, before it was axed by the newly elected Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon on December 15, 1975.
Sam Stubbs, the chief executive of the KiwiSaver fund Simplicity, describes that decision as the worst ever made by a New Zealand politician: “Few economists would disagree that Robert Muldoon’s decision to cancel the fledgling New Zealand Superannuation Scheme on that day was probably the worst financial decision ever made. Why? Because had it continued, New Zealand would now be one of the richest countries in the world. We would have at least $500 billion saved in our own individual retirement accounts.”
These days, the former Finance Minister and ACT founder Sir Roger Douglas believes that instead of funding such a scheme from wages and employer contributions, a better system is for individuals to direct a portion of the tax they would normally pay to the Government into a personal retirement savings account, to take advantage of the compounding of interest and provide a universal health insurance cover and a generous annuity in retirement – along with a range of other services including income protection, education funding, and home ownership assistance.
Sir Roger’s calculations show that with such a personal super savings scheme, not only could an 18-year-old retire at age 65 with $3 million dollars in their account, but New Zealand’s tax rates could be reduced to 12.5 percent – amongst the lowest in the world.
The reality is that the way we fund public services in the future needs to change if this country is to maintain high living standards and avoid bankruptcy.
What Sir Roger shows – his paper can be seen HERE – is that with innovative thinking New Zealand’s future funding crisis can be averted in a way that not only enables people to have more control over their lives but will lead to a far more prosperous and successful society.
Will the IRD consider investigating such an option for New Zealand?
If you have suggestions for the IRD, they are accepting public submissions until 4 October – the details can be found HERE.
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Is it time a mandatory personal retirement savings scheme was introduced in New Zealand?
*Poll comments are posted below.
*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.
THIS WEEK’S POLL COMMENTS
| A shame it wasn’t carried forward. | Doris |
| In a democracy, these seats cannot exist. | Sam |
| It’s O.K for Roger Douglas, to comment on his high and mighty, ‘take from the Public tax fund,’ I remember his Governments, financial slashes, they practically decimated our economy at the time, and hurt, the best people, but his govt, didn’t give a toss!! Still trying to recover!! | David |
| With an ageing population it’s very important that New Zealanders started saving for their retirement so they will be able to afford to live | Chris |
| Has been for a long time | David |
| We already have one – Kiwi Saver!! It needs to be made mandatory with harder rules to withdraw from. Remember how it was first introduced in the 1970s; then rescinded by a National Government? | Peter K |
| Indeed, a splendid idea, but with caveats. There would still need to be a universal safety net (especially for those on minimum wages or otherwise handicapped or unemployed), and the government of the day would have to keep its hands off and not use the fund as a handy reserve, | Gavin |
| Yes and they should be removed | Sreve |
| Y not | T |
| We don’t need any STATE ENFORCED MANDATES, of any kind. Maybe the PUBLIC should get together, and force PUBLIC MANDATES, on greedy politicians , like our current P.M, that get perk discounts on his rent, etc, rules for thee, but not for ME! | David |
| Via salary sacrifice – contributions to be from gross income and not subject to tax until withdrawn. | AJ |
| I started putting money away for retirement the second year after I started work but it is critical you are not able to access it. | John |
| Absolutely | Ihaia |
| “Yes with a caveat”. The fund must be kept beyond the reach of governments. | Trevor |
| I agree but with reservations. We saw what happened when we allowed Jacinda Ardern to mandate regarding Covid which nearly brought to NZ to it’s knees. (Done on purpose I believe to coincide with the dreadful agendas of the WEF) Therefore beware of any such Governmental impositions. | Alan |
| ASAP | Rhys |
| What a good idea. A final accrued amount of $3m. sounds a bit too good to be true though (I haven’t done the calclulations). | Sheila |
| But with provision for the money we earn while working overseas that is in compulsory retirement schemes is paid to us. My husband’s retirement scheme money that he contributed to all the years he worked overseas was taken by the nz government and he was paid at the nz rates. | Paloma |
| Everyone should contribute to their own health and super requirements. Singapore has a good policy for this sector. | Peter |
| Historically welfare ‘states’ never last…… | Jillian |
| It’s never too late | John |
| I think there should be a yes/no and other (or a maybe) for this question. I’m in favour of some sort of a combined deal with government and employers incentive inputs along side an individual’s input. Is this something like the Singaporean method and or what we now have anyway? Really disappointed with Muldoon’s canceling of big Norm’s countrywide savings scheme specifically for the funding of future superannuation. A little man’s inebriated mind set. Oh what could have been? I have been around long enough to realise that we New Zealanders are not as competent as we think we are. We are way behind in just about everything that others seem to achieve better. Well above what we do. We are now so useless at so many things that we used to be good at. Are we as a nation becoming lazy and soft as per the pareto principle? Or is it the grand New Zealand Woke principle the real cause? Not enough quality fresh cream at the top? | Garry. |
| Let’s have another chance at this and sensibly leave it alone. We all need to pull together and prepare for retirement. | Doris |
| Long over due | Chris |
| yes, starting with compulsory home ownership. Interest on first home mortgage should be tax deductable. like Duh! | Bruce |
| While Winston Peters is in power, no changes will be made to Superannuation. Perhaps Sir Rog. needs to have a conversation with him. | Monica |
| KiwiSaver can readily be adapted to this end. The starting point is compulsory membership. | Colin |
| Looks like NZ has no other choice, unless we win lotto from heaven. | Sven |
| Urgent changes needed! | Karenza |
| From information provided here it is imperative to have this. | Beverley |
| It would constitute a increase in tax take | Greg |
| Sir Roger’s scheme has great merit, and seems on par with Singapore.. Change has to happen and fast. if NZ is to avoid bankruptcy. | Peter |
| As long as the retirement fund is well and truly written into law that no other political party can change the scheme if they get into power like Muldoon did. | Wyne |
| As long as we don’t get another Muldoon half wit that ruined our future with a drunken decision | Doug |
| NO NO NO…! GOVT. RORTS HAVE TO END…. NOW!! KIWIS ARE NOW BEING ROBBED BLIND…! EVERY-DAY!!! WAKE UP! IT’S YOUR MONEY THEY WANT!!! | David |
| that what taxes are for. what happens to KiwiSaver when cdbc comes into effect? your comment: As the new Coalition Government struggles to pick up the pieces…… I don’t see them picking up any pieces. its all smoke in mirrors. labour and national are different cheeks on the same arse. | tania |
| NO..NO..NO ! we don’t need any more MANDATED GOVT. HAIRBRAINED SCHEMES… So as to rob us of our savings, that we are entitled to… We have paid our TAXES! Why are they allowed to operate this RORT? | David |
| Great in theory and a country like Singapore who kick the opposition out after the election.? Politicians’ can’t resist the temptation to `use it’. Check out the US fund balance. | Peter |
| Yes, it works in Canada. compulsory, completely self funded (employer/employee contributions, everyone pays the same amount over working life, with those on higher incomes ending their contributions sooner) More importantly your pension is in your name and can only be paid to you directly, the reciptant. The Canadian Govt. does not contribute any tax payer funds to the pool, cannot take it off you or alter payments in any way. Control of the fund is contracted out to a suitable qualified board who reports two or more times a year to the Govt. to ensure adequate funds/investments are sustained into the future. It’s a no brainier, just do it but make sure the fund belongs to the owner and cannot be interfered with by the Govt. In addition, personal saving accounts registered with the bank as retirement are tax reimbursed each tax year provided it remains in the said account. Reimbursed tax can be added to the account for compounding interest under a variety of risk or just as term deposits. Simple. people are in control and the desire to invest in real estate for retirement capitol is weakened. | Sam |
| I arrived home from the UK in 1988, started work with a good company that had a retirement scheme, I joined as soon as I could, Best thing I ever did. | Lionel |
| A mandatory retirement scheme would require a hoard of bureaucrats to run it. It is Impossible for a wage earner to save the money anyway so it will not work. Keep things simple and straight forward to save admin costs.. The current pension system is the best one. However the eligible age should be raised to 70. | John |
| Yes | Steve |
| No question about it, do it. | Colin |
| Yes but only if future governments are absolutely barred from tapping into it by some sort of entrenchment legislation. | Richard |
| yes but with the greedy politicians that all party’s have they will steal all the funds just like they did before so if they do charge the bastards with theft and send them to jail with hard labour and make sure they lose all their tax free perks and never to set foot in parliament even as a visitor let alone as a poly as they will try to get on the gravy train again after they get out of jail. | Richard |
| Problem is of course a fifth of the population would not be able to afford it. | Robert |
| this would one of the most sensible things going. Much to piggy`s dismay | bob |
| Definitely way past time this was done. | Heather |
| long overdue | Phil |
| Such an opportunity lost per R Muldoon all those years ago. Still time for rescue such a good idea and will be painless for the long term I hope Australia can look at this. | Karen |
| Yes it is time. Only fools and communists think you should get state funded pensions. There are far too many communists in NZ or should that be indoctrinated non critical thinkers. Society as we know it needs a radical upgrade! | Alan |
| No more FASCIST MANDATES… whatever the kind !! Don’t encourage them, to try and steal OUR PENSIONS…. THEY OWE US, bigtime !!! Remember LIEBOUR?? | David |
| Sir Rodgers sounds good. Payment from income tax and not the employee or employer. Volentary contributions should also be allowed. Or we just copy Singpores model. | Allan |
| Absolutely | William |
| We need a personal retirement savings scheme like Singapore that government can’t get their hands on. Kiwi Saver is owned by Blackrock. | Jane |
| Much better idea is to help technology work for the whole community. | Wendy |
| I was under the impression our taxes paid for our pension? I was also under the impression Kiwisaver was there for that very reason. If previous NZ governments hadn’t plundered the pension scheme way back when, we would be rolling in it now. I watched a vid made by some Oz financial commentators which stated even if the interest rate was only 1% there’s be enough to cover pensions for everyone for ever. | larry |
| If NZ does it the way Australia does it will be beneficial to all. | Jacqueline |
| Will protect people better for theirfuture | Ian |
| I am lucky enough not to need it but my Children Grandchildren and Great Grandchildren will | Laurel |
| s long as beneficiaries do the same ie their benefit is considered income. Note that Australian employers have to put 9% (possibly higher now) in to an employees fund | Bruce |
| Yes it is but shouldn’t be if our citizens were represented by a small efficient low cost ( low tax) govt and understood by the necessity of individual responsibility that they needed to save and prepare for their retirement costs. | Stephen |
| Start it now. I was working when Muldoon cut the mandatory savings scheme and being young I only failed to see the logic of that and never thought of a private scheme, subsequent governments all stated that they funded SA out of the consolidated funds. Luckily my wife and I build a moderate nestegg which has been taxed again and again, about 3 times, when we earned the dollar, when we invested that dollar and when we retired. Labour basically wanted to take as much away as possible. It’s abysmal how our statesmen and politician behaved in the 45 years we have been working. Foreigners did get a full sa after 2 snd now 5 years being in the country without contribution. Low or no quality leadership. When Sir Roger introduced GST he want that to replace PAYE but Longie kept harvesting. So many examples come to mind. | Leonard |
| Yes, it’s better late than never. | Valerie |
| It was when it was proposed previously. But, the government still needs to pay out the govt pension. | andrew |
| Cant take back time but we can address the future in a positive way. | Joe |
| It’s now or never | ROB |
| It worked in Britain and it could work here It means an end to the free ride that many immigrants are riding | Arthur |
| Without a suspicion | Ian |
| Excellent article THANK Q Muriel We are all slaves to this system. Who live a quality of life anymore. It has become the norm to struggle for survival. I say stop empowering this system. We are getting sicker and weaker in this enslaved system. We the people need to stand in our power, allow the old ways to fall apart and be no more, like a forest on fire turning everything to ash, then a year later, new life emerges. With IRD handing over my data to corrupt foreign corporations, they are not getting another cent from me until they have come clean. Are you a sheep or a lion/ness? Out with the old On with the new It is we the people who hold the power. What are you doing about this Slavery? | Sky |
| Sir Roger Douglas is correct to take much of the responsibility from Employers. The reason is the private sector has been decimated by socialism from Labour Party politics and it may be elected again to continue the path to self destruction.. A better approach is a change in the way employees work and companies work by removing division and replacing it with association with the overall thrust of the business. Thus gratuiy schemes are the way forward. | Frederick |
| When I was 1st employed in 1966 at the age of 16 I had to join the banks superannuation scheme. No ifs no buts, it was compulsory. Today my wife and I enjoy a comfortable retirement. Muldoon was wrong in cancelling Labours super scheme | Jim |
| Makes each person responsible for their own retirement | Jan |
| And it would have to include everyone, meaning all of those people on any form of benefit. | david |
| the biggest problem with mandertory is you can never trust governments, part of the paye tax is for retirement , we have Kiwi Saver which works well, it may be time to remove the opt-out option unless some other form of saving can be proved | Nigel |
| Absolutely ! | Craig |
| We should learn from Muldoon and others’ mistakes. | Hugh |
| Absolutely not. People are more than capable of saving for their own retirement. Every example from overseas has proved time and again that the moment it’s made compulsory and regulated by a government, it becomes fundamentally simply another tax. You are never going to see your eventual retirement savings if you are entering the workforce now, and something like kiwisaver is made mandatory. At best, you would have access to a small amount from said fund every week – ie. the money would not longer be yours. | Pavel |
| I have always been a huge supporter of mandatory retirement savings. When I first started working in 1963 I could not wait to join my employers superannuation scheme. During my final decade of working before retiring I also increased my own contributions and upon retirement had over $3 million in the scheme which has enabled me to have a mortgage free home and holiday unit, an overseas holidays and been able to assist my children in purchasing their homes. I recognise that mine was a privileged generation as our children and grandchildren have a far greater challenge in purchasing their homes etc. | Keith |
| This is another example of National getting it wrong in the first place then successive National governments not admitting to it and then not rectifying it. Successive cowardice! | Rex |
| The Lange Douglass government of the 1980’s destoyed an excellent voluntary sup0er plan by stating it was a perk of the wealthy, and so they introduced a 62% perk tax. This killed the voluntary super plan. I shudder to think what mad scheme Roger Douglass might invent. The SUper schem of Cullen is equally hopeless. It is great for the Government because it taxes at every transaction. What ever is left is gobbled up by the greedy fund managers. Its really quite simple isnt it. Government should permit employers and emploiees to contribute 15% of their income tax free to a registered fund manager. It should be compulsory to belong to a scheme and the money should be taken transacted by IRD and directed to the fund manager. | tony |
| Every one in NZ should be saving money. | William |
| In fact it is now 50 years past the time! | Colin |
| Yes definitely – it would be hard to live off the current pension alone. | Kim |
| It’s compulsory savings. Also painless. Hugely beneficial coming at the right time so one can enjoy retirement. | Dianne |
| this keeps individual responsibilty for retirement where it belongs and provides a massive resource for diverse investment in BIZNZ and elsewhere. And a tax rate of 12.5% would attract many with expertise we need and cannot supply into the workforce at present. | Stan |
| I expect I will be swimming against the tide of opinion among readers of this newsletter here, but I say NO. I am from the US originally, and — counter what Roger Douglas suggests — the US Social Security system does NOT work well. It is deeply in debt, a debt that is ever increasing. In an effort to lessen this debt, the retirement age has been raised without any public input. The Social Security Administration is a bloated and costly bureaucracy. The idea that a user-contribution scheme as here suggested could also fund health insurance is unrealistic. There are also difficult questions that will arise if such a scheme is implemented. To name just one: What is to be done about people who have not worked? I set aside those who refuse to work for no good reason. But what about the infirm? women who stayed home to raise their children? the mentally incompetent? To present the suggested system as something NZ could readily and easily implement is inaccurate. Yes, some changes may well need to be made our superannuation scheme, but this route is the wrong one! | Marla |
| Yes as too many have no retirement savinga at all. It must be set up so that it remains for ertinity. Im retired and Ive lost 2 pensions over the years as goverments have changed or stoped them in total $45000.00 lost gone….. | Carl |
| YES, the country cannot get carrying the load for people that don’t save for their retirement.The money will run out one day. | COLIN |
| And it needs to be a percentage of income, even those on benefits should be paying their way, not freeloading. | Ken |
| Needs to start asap | Richard |
| There is a need to do something as the future looks a little bleak for our families and grandchildren. Muldoon should have left Superannuation alone | lawrie |
| Hell yes, I have never understood why such schemes were not compulsory. | Fraser |
| This is the answer to our uncertain economic future | Shaun |
| Absolutely & Muldoon should never have scrapped. | Derek |
| No free rides | Doug |
| Yes, if it includes tax relief for contributions. | Mark |
| One had been put in place years ago, the Muldoon govt. of the time abolished it. New Zealand is paying for it now | Trevor |
| I selected No because anything that is made mandatory by a government troubles me. I do however believe that something needs to be done in the area ov retirement savings. | Murray |
| now | Wiremu |
| Great idea and incentive to work for ones future! | Bev |
| Way beyond time. | Pete |
| Goodness yes. I chose to do it while working and contributing a proportion of my wages so that I could have superannuation when I retired. Have never regretted that decision but do resent that I have to pay a high rate of tax on it. Very hard to live on just the universal super. | Lee |
| I have an aversion to MANDATORY anything but in this case, I may be persuaded. I have investigated moving to Australia to be closer to the kids but their income and capital restrictions on the pension are proving burdensome. It may mean staying in NZ where the only real restriction is more tax to pay. Muldoon was a socialist of the first order and in his opinion knew best for everybody. I am just glad that I had a hand in his defeat by voting for Bob Jones. | Cookie |
| Always believed thats what KiwiSaver is supposed to be doing? | Maureen |
| A small amount taken out of your wages & put into a secure retirement fund will not be missed & most people will agree. | Roydon |
| Long overdue | Liz |
| About time | Carl |
| ASP | LEO |
| Long overdue! | Gillian |
| ASAP | Keith |
| Absolutely. | Simon |
| If Muldoon hadnt scraped the Super Scheme in 1975 I would be a very well of OAP instead of a reasonably well of OAP | Grant |
| Because we are all involved in new Zealands future. | John |
| Too many people already struggle to cope with the ever rising daily costs of staying alive and just getting by on insufficient wage packages . Our government particularly wastes far too much money on trivia as it forces the population to exist on peanuts. | fred |
| Compound interest is amazing. | David |
| should have enough gumption to save for your own retirement. It will just become another huge pawn for future – perish the thought – labour nitwits to manipulate. Nappy goverment!! | Donc |
| Only if the present retirement scheme is to be phased out and taxes cut in sympathy | tony |
| Yes, Muldoon has much to answer for. | Errol |
| BUT how would this work? It’s been tried before then ‘they’ took all that saved money! And now so many New Zealanders can’t count, can’t manage money, are ‘loaded’ with so much confusing messages disrupting families and individual thinking on integrating and trusting authorities who would like to control ‘retirement’ funds. Who could trust devious and deceptive so called elected or appointed leaders with private agendas? | Stuart |
| Let’s catch up with other Countries. With the older Population gowing faster and the younger Population geating less why should we over burden the younger Taxpayers !! | Geoff |
| Sadly New Zealand in shock after the 6 years of the socialist government to repair this mess it’s going to take more than 3yrs of common sense right wing politicians to amend this mess. I’m living in Hope ! | Michael Andrew |
| It should be considered seriously – and the sooner the better. Time lost is money lost, not just for the populace, but for the whole country. Will any government be brave and innovative enough to act on such a proposal? | Laurence |
| we cant keep going with the existing system. | peter |
| Becoming essential! | Hugh |
| yes, it should have never been abounded in the first place, just look at Aus for an example. | Tony |
| Should have been implemented years ago. | Greg |
| way past time | robin |
| Mandatory rules should not be enforced by any ‘STATE’. Retirement should always come from TAXES, that people that have worked, contribute to TAXES. Superanuation, is a RIGHT, and it should be kept that way, it’s the GOVTS, job to see that productivity is maintained. The amount of TAX PAID is variable !! | David |
| Be prepared and makes sense cant continue supporting theose wasteful freeloaders. Help yourself. | mike |
| Yes. Germany had that system for a long time and it used to work fine as long as people di contribute accordingly. | Michael |
| Long overdue!! Probably the most terrible political decision made by Muldoon. I lived for 25 years in Canada which was the template for our own pension program. Today the mandatory Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is worth hundreds of $billions, probably trillions!! | Tony |
| but how are the permanent non-workers going to contribute? | mark |
| I AGREE just been to Singapore & talked to several elderly & discussed their tax super & its ideal for NZ to follow it. | Cindy |
| More than time to revisit 1974 and rectify Muldoon’s misjudgement! | Giles |
| Cancelling the original scheme was an act of stupidity | Gareth |
| We need to supercharge Kiwisaver to the same level as Australia. | gavin |
| Savings should benefit the saver and not provide funds for misdirected government spending | Bryan |
| Evolving demographics demand it – the alternative is potentially impoverishing. | John |
| Yes, its time we learned to look after ourselves!! | Murray |
| Personal responsibility is fundamental to our freedom from state dependency | david |
| I’m not usually a supporter of Governments forcing mandatory solutions on people but I do think NZ now needs a compulsory personal superannuation framework, mainly because financial literacy in NZ is generally abysmal. | Gary |
| Most definitely. We should be following the example set by Singapore on a number of things. | Grahame |
| As a retiree I think it is.. | Denis |
| Modelled on Sir Roger Douglas’s scheme | Grant |
| My wife and I did this in the past at some sacrifice but it is the best thing we ever did | George6 |
| Thanks to Muldoon we are where we are now. | Ian |
| Sorry – but speaking from experience, NZers do NOT get paid enough to have any more money taken (forcibly) from their wages. It’s hard enough to make ends meet as it is. | Christine |
| I belive so, Kiwi Saver is pretty good provided you put in about 10% of your earnings and DON”T touch it. | DICK |
| The only way to ensure retirement security. | Ray |
| I didn’t have enough financial knowledge while working. | Deb |
| Yes, without a shadow of doubt. Super coupled with not owning a house leaves a pensioner in very poor circumstances. So, a mandatory personal retirement savings scheme is needed to be able to live well as a pensioner. | Jim |
| Should never have been axed by Muldoon. Terrible decision. | Jenny |
| We lived in Australia for many years and are self funding our own retirement through their compulsory Super scheme. | Janette |
| Yes, as long as all personal incomes are subject to the compulsory retirement fund, which would include all beneficiaries. Exempt should be personal savings accounts which already are taxed with RWT and should not be considered as income for the mandatory superannuation funds. | Koreen |
| Better late than never | Murray |
| National it’s way past the time to fix the Muldoon stuff up that is going to bankrupt the country. | Noel |
| The problem is the large number of people on the dole – what about their ‘retirement’ – more govt handouts? | Ann |
| No – people should be responsible for their own decisions, not have them imposed by anyone else. | Roger |
| without doubt, I am a former serviceman and paid into my super fund from day one. it is essential | neville |
| I only had 5 years of Kiwi Saver when I retired. Now 7 years later I am struggling to survive on the basic pension. I think compulsory is the key. | Marie |
| Super, as I understand it, was a ‘top-up’ for retirement. Nowadays it seems to be regarded as a living wage in retirement. | sandra |
| Waaaay overdue. Look at the success of Australian super schemes. | Geoffrey |
| How do you force those who will not work into funding their OWN retirement scheme, and can those who fund themselves be certain that their savings are not going to be creamed off by Govt to pay for the lazy in NZ ? | Greg |
| Yes – providing that effective safeguards can be put in place to prevent future Governments and politicians from getting their grubby paws on it, in the same way as what happened in the 1970’s with the Muldoon government. | Scott. |
| This has been done in the past and is the only solution for retirement /pensions. | Russ |
| Kiwi saver was the plan, yet foolishly, they made it optional! Had it continued as mandatory it would have gone a long way to solve the issues we now face. | Steve |
| Yes and no for a mandatory scheme. So what is kiwi saver all about then. Was that not the idea behind it? The GSF, was/is a contributory scheme which works. But it has been scrapped to new members I believe. We are at the mercy of the globalist puppet.masters right now, and until they are “cancelled” we will be stuck in a cycle of increasing restitution until we are all broke. | Neil |
| Here we go again…”back to past to survive the future..” | Chris |
| An OPTIONAL savings scheme maybe …. | Bryan |
| As an anarchist and not a statist, it’s a no from me. | neil |
| Also, increase productivity by fixing the systemic attitude that ‘it does not matter as the Govt will pay’ And Govt interferring with family created problems by throwing money around. | Raymond |
| Whilst we have made a small savings account it is obvious others don’t | Peter |
| The concept of personal responsibility should be encouraged at all levels of society. The fact that is runs counter to left wing thinking should not put us off. | Peter |
| obvious worked in australia. | graeme |
| super is not enough in spite of increases annually | Bryan |
| Yes, however the devil would be in the details of where the funds are deposited, and what they are deposited into. | Peter |
| People need to take responsibility for their own retirement, and not be forced to participate in a mandatory scheme. | Rod |
| Long overdue. To prosper, NZ has to move forward as one people. Equal rights for everyone regardless of race, colour or creed. | Mel |
| Squirrels prepare for winter. The younger generation need to be taught budgeting and the value of saving. Communist socialism doesn’t work. It’s a religion when people lose their religion and moral compass. | Eileen |
| We have to take responsibility for retirement | Gavin |
| not unless the tax & waste of the moneys thereof is reduced. there might be spare money to save for retirement. | Chris |
| I have voted yes and the logical solution would be to make KiwiSaver compulsory with the default options Balanced Funds. At the same time age for National Super should be progressively increased to 70 by 2040. – starting from 1 April 2025. | pdm |
| Imagine what the Cullen fund would have been, 45 years ago I took out a private penison and within a couple of years the govt took away tax breaks and then as a apprentice it was no longer worthwhile,so tho it sounds good future govts will bugger it for their own ends, here’s a thought BALANCE THE BUDGET | wayne |
| We don’t give pensioners enough as it is. Why should they pay more for thier retirement after paying tax for 50 odd years. | Anthony |
| More government interference | Greg |
| I have felt this was needed for a very long time. I compare my brother’s super from compulsory savings in Australia and he is so much better off than I am in NZ | Elizabeth |
| If previous Govts had left the pension funds alone they would have been a self-generating fund, Govts have to keep their sticky fingers off ,and stop giving all to maori | Colin |
| It works well in many other countries | Gerry |
| If Muldoon had not interfered we would have had a totally different outcome today for our retirement. | Brian |
| It’s long overdue, with political parties too shy to tackle the question. | Malcolm |
| But I don’t see how it can be implemented | Terry |
| We already have Kiwisaver. | Janet |
| Yes – but any changes have also to be directly connected to a plan around all other benefits. The problem is not an isolated issue and has to be attacked at the front end – the dole. NZs poorly performing Social Welfare System is at the root of it all. | Andrew |
| It’s well passed time we nead a system similar to Singapore and should have had at least 40years agoe | Peter |
| Yes as people are useless savers. They are spenders and want someone else to pay. | Evans |
| The existing system “which is like an ostrich burying its head in the sand”, is not sustainable. WE MUST HAVE THE COURAGE TO MAKE MEANINGFUL AND REQUIRED CHANGES COMPULSORY | Mike |
| Absolutely! It should have been done years ago. You only have to look at how Australia’s system works and how rich their pension fund has become. | Lauree |
| I lived in Singapore. It works!! | Rosa |
| It should never have been stopped. And it might encourage more New Zealanders to be employed. | Joan |
| Muldoon has a lot to answer for. | Murray |
| Will be interesting in the case of the large number of people who do not work on purpose, relying on the benefits supplied by others. | Ross |
| TFSA and RRSA have become necessary as they have done in Canada | Norman |
| Way past time, even for a voluntary scheme. | Vic |
| Muldoon should have been strung up for his decision to stop that superannuation scheme. | Grant |
| Continuing this division will only destroy NZ. I would love to see Maori say Thank you for what they have gained and learned etc as a direct result of colonialism. Maori were living in huts… | Mark M |
| Should have been in years ago. Personal savings for retirement should be compulsory | Rob |
| Beyond urgent. And do not forget the related social issue of record departures due to cultural/racial discord. | mary |
| Robert Muldoon should never have cancelled Labour’s super fund. Yes, better late than never. | David |
| The scheme Sir Roger Douglas has outlined – using taxes to pay for the retirement fund, a universal health insurance, loss of income insurance, kids’ education, and a first home, all while earning compounding interest and taking the pressure off the government – is brilliant! But will any political party pick it up as a priority? Here’s hoping! | Murray |
| Something needs to be done. Let’s hope the IRD has the nous to look into this properly and make some sensible suggestions. | Pauline |
| Winston Peters used to be in favour of personalised retirement savings schemes – he should pick this idea up as a New Zealand First policy. Or ACT – they used to promote Sir Roger’s big idea. | Hugh |
| Yes – we have to do something, otherwise the country is sleepwalking to bankruptcy with the age of retirement being raised and the funding for pensions and healthcare being cut. Not a pretty outlook! | Brian |