Damian Grant takes cheap shots on the overr-65s:
https://tinyurl.com/25abtrty
The debate over NZ super is far more complex than this brief diatribe >describes.
He ignores the reality that many of this cohort are not wealthy and
have carefully planed their retirement income to include more than the >pittance that is NZ Super. He ignores the reality that many of us
invested in our primary residence with the result that we were still
in nett debt well into our 50s so had very little net-worth capacity
to seriously invest in retirement. Kiwisaver was a johny-come-lately >addition to our options. All of our planning revolved around NZ Super
as a basic income.
Any change to NZ Super needs a 50-year signal of future intent to
ensure that those entering today's workforce have the certainty that
their retirement will need to be entirely self-funded.
The implication that asset-rich but cash-poor have options is biased.
Reverse mortgages have a compounding interest rate of 10% or so per
annum - well above all mortgage rates - so when those assets are sold
the cash derived from said mortgages is charged at 10% per year, not
10% of the total. Consider a reverse mortgage taken out in 2023 of
$100k secured over a property valued at $1 million, sold in 2033 (and >assuming the 10% remains constant). In 2033 there will be $100k in
interest due (10 years at 10k per year) meaning that 200k will be
repayable. Yes the owners got $100k, but their beneficiaries are
deprived of $200k. What was the value of the 100K over 10 years? What
if the amount drawn over the 10 years was double or triple that.
Cash-rich retirees are only a boon to those that will inherit OR those
that lend reverse mortgages.
No mention of any of this my Damian Grant, but this is unsurprising
given an obvious ideology.
Damian Grant takes cheap shots on the overr-65s:
https://tinyurl.com/25abtrty
The debate over NZ super is far more complex than this brief diatribe describes.
He ignores the reality that many of this cohort are not wealthy and
have carefully planed their retirement income to include more than the pittance that is NZ Super.
invested in our primary residence with the result that we were still
in nett debt well into our 50s so had very little net-worth capacity
to seriously invest in retirement. Kiwisaver was a johny-come-lately addition to our options. All of our planning revolved around NZ Super
as a basic income.
Any change to NZ Super needs a 50-year signal of future intent to
ensure that those entering today's workforce have the certainty that
their retirement will need to be entirely self-funded.
The implication that asset-rich but cash-poor have options is biased.
Reverse mortgages have a compounding interest rate of 10% or so per
annum - well above all mortgage rates - so when those assets are sold
the cash derived from said mortgages is charged at 10% per year, not
10% of the total. Consider a reverse mortgage taken out in 2023 of
$100k secured over a property valued at $1 million, sold in 2033 (and assuming the 10% remains constant). In 2033 there will be $100k in
interest due (10 years at 10k per year) meaning that 200k will be
repayable. Yes the owners got $100k, but their beneficiaries are
deprived of $200k. What was the value of the 100K over 10 years? What
if the amount drawn over the 10 years was double or triple that.
Cash-rich retirees are only a boon to those that will inherit OR those
that lend reverse mortgages.
No mention of any of this my Damian Grant, but this is unsurprising
given an obvious ideology.
On 2024-02-25, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Damian Grant takes cheap shots on the overr-65s:
https://tinyurl.com/25abtrty
The debate over NZ super is far more complex than this brief diatribe
describes.
He ignores the reality that many of this cohort are not wealthy and
have carefully planed their retirement income to include more than the
pittance that is NZ Super.
Remember back to 1974 when the Labour Government introduced the universial >super/retierment scheme, which got scrapped, and may years later became the >Kiwi Saver.
The baby boomers parents are the issue. All this great increase in the birth >rates which turn into the more people being over 65. Does the Cullen fund >still exist? Which was supposed to flatten the curve.
Since 1974, at least, super annuation has been a poltical football.
The other issue is one of the fairness of the tax rates. If the tax scale
was adjusted then the rich would pay their fair share and the the concept >that the super annuation could be as it is to-day.
If part of one tax is for ones super then that is fair to give one and all >the same amount for super. Means testing the super payments is frought with >problems.
He ignores the reality that many of us
invested in our primary residence with the result that we were still
in nett debt well into our 50s so had very little net-worth capacity
to seriously invest in retirement. Kiwisaver was a johny-come-lately
addition to our options. All of our planning revolved around NZ Super
as a basic income.
Any change to NZ Super needs a 50-year signal of future intent to
ensure that those entering today's workforce have the certainty that
their retirement will need to be entirely self-funded.
The implication that asset-rich but cash-poor have options is biased.
Reverse mortgages have a compounding interest rate of 10% or so per
annum - well above all mortgage rates - so when those assets are sold
the cash derived from said mortgages is charged at 10% per year, not
10% of the total. Consider a reverse mortgage taken out in 2023 of
$100k secured over a property valued at $1 million, sold in 2033 (and
assuming the 10% remains constant). In 2033 there will be $100k in
interest due (10 years at 10k per year) meaning that 200k will be
repayable. Yes the owners got $100k, but their beneficiaries are
deprived of $200k. What was the value of the 100K over 10 years? What
if the amount drawn over the 10 years was double or triple that.
Cash-rich retirees are only a boon to those that will inherit OR those
that lend reverse mortgages.
No mention of any of this my Damian Grant, but this is unsurprising
given an obvious ideology.
On 25 Feb 2024 22:12:36 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-02-25, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:There is in fact no connection between the two schemes. When Labour >introduced compulsory Super in 1974 there was no savings element and
Damian Grant takes cheap shots on the overr-65s:
https://tinyurl.com/25abtrty
The debate over NZ super is far more complex than this brief diatribe
describes.
He ignores the reality that many of this cohort are not wealthy and
have carefully planed their retirement income to include more than the
pittance that is NZ Super.
Remember back to 1974 when the Labour Government introduced the universial >>super/retierment scheme, which got scrapped, and may years later became the >>Kiwi Saver.
no provision for voluntary contributions. It was administered entirely
by a Government department. In contrast Kiwisaver is a voluntary
savings scheme although the ability to withdraw before retirement age
is very limited.
The subsequent National government with Muldoon as POM abolished
Labour's NZ Super scheme because it was thought that the scheme would
become so wealthy over 30 years or so that it would own everything in
NZ. It is worth remembering that back in those days foreign
investment by NZ residents was prohibited (but limited foreign
investment in NZ was allowed).
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 22:12:36 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-02-25, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:There is in fact no connection between the two schemes. When Labour >>introduced compulsory Super in 1974 there was no savings element and
Damian Grant takes cheap shots on the overr-65s:
https://tinyurl.com/25abtrty
The debate over NZ super is far more complex than this brief diatribe
describes.
He ignores the reality that many of this cohort are not wealthy and
have carefully planed their retirement income to include more than the >>>> pittance that is NZ Super.
Remember back to 1974 when the Labour Government introduced the universial >>>super/retierment scheme, which got scrapped, and may years later became the >>>Kiwi Saver.
no provision for voluntary contributions. It was administered entirely
by a Government department. In contrast Kiwisaver is a voluntary
savings scheme although the ability to withdraw before retirement age
is very limited.
The subsequent National government with Muldoon as POM abolished
Labour's NZ Super scheme because it was thought that the scheme would >>become so wealthy over 30 years or so that it would own everything in
NZ. It is worth remembering that back in those days foreign
investment by NZ residents was prohibited (but limited foreign
investment in NZ was allowed).
Yes it's a pity that Muldoon canceled the Kirk scheme as it would
have been self funding years ago and there would be no need to talk
about raising the superannuation age.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 125:50:37 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,951 |