Yes arandar - you leave the impression as if you are a little confused.

What have all your questions to do with concern over means testing NZ Super - unless they are meant to draw attention to supporting means testing, so that there is more money available for better paid aged care workers?

And yes, there are many ways to raise our savings rates, but we have to sort them out and find the most effectiv one by discussion and comparison.

Universally collected KiwiSavings (KSs) through the taxation system without taxpayer subsidies would be more effective and fair than our currently borrowed money subsidised KSs, but individually administered small KS accounts would cost more to run than what they can earn.

By comparison, even the smallest NZSF account would be profitable to all the parties concerned from day 1, because of their bulk investment with the NZSF, with equal rates of earnings for all.

Because of that, the NZSF can also afford to invest substantially at lower interest rates in NZ, with taxpayers benefitting through lower loan repayment costs.

And before you can substantially raise the wage rates of the increasing nunmbers of no wealth producing service workers, you must know this: NO PROFITABLE PRODUCTIVITY - NO WEALTH TO EMPLOY SERVICES!

I don't think I'm particularly confused, Jens. The thread is about Means Testing Superannuants. Your previous last para/question is about how else universal pensions could be afforded as well as funding decent wages and conditions for workers in aged care except by doing what you are so keen on; a compulsory, individual, government/taxpayer funded savings scheme.
I put up some suggestions in response. Not saying they're better but that there are alternatives.
Certainly I don't think that a universal pension should be funded by keeping low the wages and salaries of the very people who support the frail elderly at home and in care.

Actually, Jens, your final comment regarding the "increasing numbers of no wealth producing service workers' is of concern to me.
Are you suggesting that aged care workers are undeserving of a decent wage and work conditions simply because they do not produce a widget for sale?
IMO, they are doing a huge and measureably valuable job if you think keeping elderly people safe and as well as possible is desirable. The alternative, elderly people getting sicker, having more accidents, dying prematurely or taking up extremely expensive hospital beds, is far less cost effective.
Money saved in prevention can be better spent elsewhere in the economy.

The NZSF belongs to the Kiwis who have joined it. Is that correct. If a contributor pays in until retirement and transfers their savings to their own account, does that money then become their Superannuation if they are means tested ?

Hi Joybel, no I don't think it's the same thing at all.
The NZSF was set up by the government in order to pre-fund National Superannuation in the future as it becomes less affordable.
The government prioritised a couple of Billion from the tax take to kick start the fund. It was intended that monies would be further contributed every year after that so when the Baby Boomers hit 65 and the bulge started to blow out, taxpayers of that time would not have to cover the full cost.

The following I copied from the website nzsuperfund.co.nz

Commenced investing September 2003 with $2.4bn cash
Total assets (at 31 August 2011):$17.4bn
Rate of return since inception of 6.57% p.a. against risk free rate of 5.53% p.a.
New Zealand investments (at 30 June 2011): $4.0bn (c24% of Fund)

So i'm guessing, in answer to your question, Joybel, that no, it isn't 'our' money, it won't be paid out to each of us as we retire to be banked in our own accounts, it won't be taxed either but will be used to prop up the cost of tomorrow's retirees.

Sadly, the current government decided to stop making payments to the fund. As a result, there has been a loss of income and a loss of investment and the costs to tomorrow's taxpayers have increased.

arandar, you described the NZSF correctly as it is at present.

But since all taxpayers have contributed to it, its amendment by allocating it to personal accounts would make it more intimate for all of us, with one benefit of better visible fairness being, that higher income earners are seen to be making a bigger contribution to our national welfare by financing more of their own NZ Super - while having it invested in the common pool - the NZSF - which does not deliver them the extra profits they might earn by not having it in the NZSF.
And do you really not understand, that a systemaically growing NZSF, especially when invested at home as at present at a time of excessive deficits and unemployment - IS THE VERY BASIC NEED THAT HAS TO BE MET BEFORE WE CAN AFFORD BETTER PAY FOR NEEDED AND WANTED CARING SERVICES!
If we pay them that much more now, that we have to borrow more for that purpose, don't you, and every responsible person (except communists, who want nothing more than the collapse of liberal private enterprise capitalism) - see, that this will lead to the situation in Greece (or our own "Ruthanomics" of reduced everything?

Isn't it self-evident - if you have no wealth, you cannot employ anyone?
So - how do you create wealth?

I must be thinking of Kiwi saver where the employer adds a share.

Yes, you might be, Joybel.

KiwiSaver is an Opt Out scheme, where the employee pays 2 or more % and the Employer pays 2% into the savers' individual accounts. Unemployed and children can also have KiwiSaver accnts if they choose though of course there's no employer contribution.

Jens, if you have no wealth, you can't afford to employ anyone, so you maybe shouldn't be in business? If you're a business you grow wealth by producing a good or a service people are willing to buy at a price people are willing to pay or you have to persuade investors to give you money at a cost to help you grow.


NZSF was set up for a particular purpose. I guess if you and others like you who think it is not sufficient, or properly purposed can persuade enough people to agree with you, things will change.

I think I've made it clear I don't agree with changing NZSF and that I think if people want individual superannuation savings they should take responsibility and arrange their finances to enable it.

For me, I'll stick with the old adage - from each according to ability, to each according to need - I'll do my bit to support those that need my help and do what I can while I can to support myself.

As far as I can see, I'm the only person on this thread to actually engage with you on the subject recently and I've pretty much done my dash now.

arandar - it is not only business people who require services (and be abused for making profits out of workers while ignoring, that unprofitable work and investment leads to more primitive hand-to-mouth poverty) and you seem to belong to those who just do not understand that we do not survive by love alone, and that survival depends on PROFITS over consumption.
If our needs exceed our abilities (or willingness) to supply goods AND SERVICES to cover those needs, retrogression towards widening poverty is inevitable, regardless of human rights or politcal power.

As long as these realities are not understood and faced realistically, I feel it my duty to carry on pestering everyone at least until someone can show it to be wrong - like say, a "flat earth" perception - or is prepared to push at least for a public debate on it, to clarify the truth on that (obligatory savings) issue.

Or - to put it less dramaticvally - you are happy with the NZSuper entitlement age being advanced to 67, which after all is what Dr. Brash (or National) believe will have to be done in due course anyhow, as endorsed by the Retirement Commissioner.

O.K. arander - notice is taken of your noble in intention but hard to put into fair action belief - "from each asccording to ability, to each according to need" which - by not rewarding effort above a certain level of standardized need, will become just as unpopular and totalitarian in regulations as in all the marxist regimes having tryied to implement it, and have changed or are going to change from it eventually - so far.

Esteemed grownups, if (in our younger days) we all work honest 40 hour weeks, and it emerges we cannot fulfil all our wants and needs (which might include some very expensively increasing medical treatments available), then how should we proceed according to arandar's ideal?

( The most qualified to answer that would be arandar, if he still believes in what he said.)