Michael Littlewood from the Retirement Policy and Research Centre has a commentary on redesigning NZ Superannuation. He says (and I agree) that we should not just look at one issue in isolation or just the cost.
He highlights eight key design features that should be agreed on. They are:
- Universal or means-tested (I favour means-tested if the administrative costs of doing so are not prohibitive)
- Age of entitlement (I favour increasing it and tying it to life expectancy)
- Residency test – how long should someone live here to quality. The current threshold is ten years and I think it should be higher. It used to be 25 years.
- The level. Currently is 43% of the net average wage for a single person. Set at 66% of the after-tax national average wage for a couple.
- How to revalue? Is indexed to both CPI and the average wage.
- How to pay for it? Pay as you go and partially pre-funded. Should it be both? What should the mix be?
- Payments to single people? Why does a married couple get less than two singles living together?
- Overseas pensions? The rules for deducting overseas pensions are inconsistent
via Redesigning NZ Super | Kiwiblog.
I was walking back to the office with a mate who I will call the ecological socialist after a meeting with the government department responsible for income support to old age people in New Zealand.
We were both shaky our heads in utter disbelief. We couldn’t understand their idea of defending an old age pension that is free of any means test been paid to millionaires on the grounds of egalitarianism.
By coincidence, we are both Australians where the old age pension is means tested. We couldn’t understand in any way, shape or form the notion of paying old age pensions to rich people when that money could be used to increase the old age pension for those who we lived in ordinary circumstances all their lives and couldn’t save for their retirement.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments