What happens if Nats gut Kiwisaver?

23 comments on “What happens if Nats gut Kiwisaver? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Simple (formery RC) 1

   10 October 2008 at 1:29 pm

   This is similarly xenophobic to the ‘yellow peril’ ads of over 100 years ago. the more things…the more they stay the same. shame on you clinton
2. higherstandard 2

   10 October 2008 at 1:35 pm

   RC

   Can you change your moniker I’m the last person that most would accuse of being “PC” but it’s

   1. Offensive.
   2. Makes any comment you make unlikely to be taken with any seriousness.

   3. Yes I am a fuddy duddy old twat

   captcha (rob annoying)

   [lprent: I tend to agree – performing a mandatory change]
3. Steve Pierson 3

   10 October 2008 at 1:36 pm

   it’s not xenophobic to say borrowing on dodgy international markets and increasing your dependency on imports is bad.
4. Impaired Young Person 4

   10 October 2008 at 1:44 pm

   It is xenophobic to scarmonger on the prospect of money going to evil ‘foreign businesses’, but hey it works just ask your buddy winston
5. TomS 5

   10 October 2008 at 2:03 pm

   What happens when you try and gut Kiwisaver? Your soft support collapses, that is what happens.

   http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4327/

   I think Bill English’s palpable dislike of Kiwisaver has led the Nat’s into making the mistake that will cost them the election.
6. Greg 6

   10 October 2008 at 2:05 pm

   You only tell one side of the story. What about the decreased job opportunities resulting from higher overhead costs because of kiwisaver in its current situation. What about how excess government spending fuels inflation? What about the people who cannot afford 4% for kiwisaver but can afford 2%? What about how those overseas manufacturers invest in New Zealand to stimulate growth etc etc. You seem to be from the very old school of economic theory that exports are good but imports are bad.
7. randal 7

   10 October 2008 at 2:12 pm

   there are enough jobs in new Zealand now. If Natoinal were to do as they say they are and be the party of business then we would see promises of higher paying jobs. Not chiselling on the government accounts to put money into their buddies pockets.
8. polaris 8

   10 October 2008 at 2:21 pm

   Of course when New Zealanders spend money they go direct to source to buy their products from overseas; they never go down to their local shop to buy a product sourced from overseas which the local shopowner takes a margin on. Never. Ever.

   Pretty offensive.
9. Vanilla Eis 9

   10 October 2008 at 2:28 pm

   Greg: “excess government spending fuels inflation?” – except that KiwiSaver payments are withdrawls from the financial system. The money isn’t spent, it’s saved. The National plan to remove the incentive for savings and instead give the money as cash to spend is far more inflationary.
10. Madeleine 10

    10 October 2008 at 3:20 pm

    Wouldn’t it be simpler to just pass a law dictating how kiwi’s should spend the meagre part of their paychecks they are permitted to keep? You know, come up with a list of approved products all kiwi-made and organic.

    Go and take economics 101.
11. Madeleine 11

    10 October 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Wouldn’t it be simpler to just pass a law dictating how kiwi’s should spend the meagre part of their paychecks they are permitted to keep?

    You know, come up with a list of approved products all kiwi-made and organic.

    You could set up government departments where you have to take your week’s receipts to prove you didn’t buy anything evil from overseas.

    Go and take economics 101.
12. Steve Pierson 12

    10 October 2008 at 3:36 pm

    Madeleine, wouldn’t be it simpler to abolish all laws and government, we could decide who has what through knife fights.

    OK. So stupid extreme arguments are stupid and irrelevant. We’re discussing whether it would be good to get rid of Kiwisaver or not.
13. randal 13

    10 October 2008 at 3:56 pm

    madelaine what a stupid argument. you have contributed nothing. all you have done is make a stink and walk away. whaddarya…a tory stooge?
14. lprent 14

    10 October 2008 at 5:56 pm

    Excellent video. They really only missed out on the effects of the R&D tax credit being removed. I’m unsure which is worse, not saving or not making it easier to maintain hi-tech export businesses here.
15. Draco T Bastard 15

    10 October 2008 at 5:57 pm

    Simple (formery RC)
    October 10, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    This is similarly xenophobic to the ‘yellow peril’ ads of over 100 years ago.

    How can it be xenophobic when all it’s doing is showing what happens to the economy WRT different policies?
16. Draco T Bastard 16

    10 October 2008 at 6:05 pm

    I’m unsure which is worse, not saving or not making it easier to maintain hi-tech esport businesses here.

    Not saving is. You need savings to invest. Without the savings you can’t invest even if there is a R&D tax credit.
17. theodoresteel 17

    10 October 2008 at 6:25 pm

    I’m going to save my extra tax cuts. I might even invest them in New Zealand business. I dont really have as much of an option to choose where my kiwisavings are invested…

    This argument just treats the majority of NZers as if they are functionally retarded and incapable of making good decisin on their own… actually isn’t that what the left is mostly about?
18. RedLogix 18

    10 October 2008 at 7:22 pm

    theodoresteel,

    Good on you for being able to and confident enough to make your own investment decisions.

    But reality is that for decades New Zealand has had an abysmal savings and investment record.

    Those of us inclined to invest have been repeatedly burnt by NZ equities going bust, and a generation of booms and busts in the unregulated casino of global markets. (Which is why so many of us turned to property, which may or may not prove a whole lot better than equities, but at least the direct property investor has a greater sense personal control over the risk.)

    The rest of us just spent and spent and spent, racking up billions in personal debt in all forms.

    And I draw your attention to the compulsory 9% Australian scheme, which recently was worth almost $1.8 trillion dollars. In the current meltdown that will have gone off the boil somewhat, but is still way better than the nett $180 billion odd of debt that New Zealand is in.

    This argument just treats the majority of NZers as if they are functionally retarded and incapable of making good decisin on their own

    Yet when for the first time in their adult lives, they were presented with Kiwisaver and an economically rational incentive to actually save…. they did so in overwhelming numbers.
19. Alexandra 19

    10 October 2008 at 8:37 pm

    theodore…
    you say that you dont have a choice about where your kiwisavings go. Are you really a kiwisaver or are you just pretending?
20. theodoresteel 20

    10 October 2008 at 9:27 pm

    I am a kiwisaver, I’d be functionally retarded not to be – as i can afford the 4% out of my income.

    Does your provider give you total control over every investment? Becuase the ones I looked at didn’t so please do tell me… if that’s the point you are trying to make.

    There is always an economically rational incentive to save… Kiwisaver just presented people with the allure of “free money” (which can already be made by saving) from the government. We would be better to educate people as to the free money they can make from interest (even off low return bank accounts – pretty stable in NZ) and then spend the extra money elsewhere… health, benefits, government surplus or give it back to the people to save whatever your ideological twist

    [there are 36 Kiwisaver scheme providers, each offering several different schemes. You can chose to put your savings into a combination of schemes. There are schemes tailored for different risk profiles, different types of investments, ethical investment schemes, union schemes, nz-focused schemes. You have literally thousands of permatations to choose from. SP]
21. RedLogix 21

    10 October 2008 at 10:18 pm

    Theodore,

    Yes a well informed and confident person might well feel inclined to have complete control over where they invest their monies. But for the majority of people (and I guess we just cannot all be as clever as you) there is an advantage in pooling their savings into a scheme whose professional managers mitigate the risk by diversifying their portfolio in a way that few individuals would be likely to manage. It’s sort of similar to how insurance works; by pooling the risk an event that would wipe out an individual, is easily covered by the collective.

    In the meantime, could please drop the ‘functionally retarded’ bit? It’s not smart, and you never know the personal circumstances of the people participating in a thread. Thanking you in advance.
22. theodoresteel 22

    11 October 2008 at 9:00 am

    Sorry, was just carrying it on as something of a thread between the two posts. Was probably over the top though.

    My provider and the ones I looked at didn’t seem to offer anything NZ-focused which was what I was suggesting I could do with my money.

    But if there are NZ schemes I stand corrected.

    Still, the spread of kiwisaver investment is probably similar to where people would spend their own money in the form of tax cuts.

    Plus the whole personal choice thing attracts me, those with less ability or confidence could choose to put it into a professionally managed scheme.

Links to post

1. The Standard 2.01: From the jaws of victory: posted on 11 October 2008 at 12:17 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS