tehori

A mate of mine is really steaming over what an immigrant from the UK said.
Now this bloke from the UK has reached Super age but got in to NZ at the late age of 52.
Of course the government is grabbing part of his overseas Super and this immigrant believes that is totally wrong.
So are we too generous in giving full state super after ten years, or do some immigrants believe that they have earned a full super in that time ?
Should we move to a so much a year, thirty five years in NZ being needed for a full super and then
pro-rata ?
Or copy the UK state scheme with stamps etc ?
I am surprised that a immigrant would complain about it, it does smack of wanting to be rewarded for years not spent in NZ.

southerner

Depends on whether you view British state pensions as equivalent to super, or as many people think, as savings that are personally contributed to.

Its a grey area - I personally thought of NI deductions as a tax, whereas many of those attacking the NZ Govt's position seem to have thought of them as contributions towards their personal pension.

Given that both UK state pensions and NZ super are now effectively at minimum cost of living levels (effectively a safety net) there is some merit in the argument that there should not be double dipping, even though the 2 schemes are funded in different ways.

There are some old threads on here about this whole area.

bjddavies

I thought to get NZ super you needed 10 years residence in Godzone, at least 5 years before 50 and 5 years after 50 years old. So how did he get it from arriving at 52?

Of course I could be wrong but that is what I am banking on!

The NZ govt is right to grab his UK state pension and then pay him what he is legally entitled to in NZ. Whether it is right or not I can't say.

I worked in pensions in the UK and the UK state pensions system was routinely robbed by the government of the day to pay for day to day things like health care and schools.

In my opinion the NZ govt should keep to prudent govt finances (i.e. budget surplus) and invest the superpayments in capital markets worldwide rather than running some kind of unsustanable pay-as-you-go scheme. In the past they have usually provided more than cash but the ride can be bumpy year to year.

I like KiwiSaver and the way the world is going every man and his dog will end up in 2050 with some kind of self-funded private scheme combined with a government pittance to make people feel a bit better.

tehori

My only problem with Kiwisaver is that not enough
percentage of an income goes into it.
If there is one thing the next government needs to do is drag the average starter home price down to
three times the average income, or around $150,000.

lapsed kiwi

Yes, because all those current home-owners with negative equity hung around their necks are really going to stabilise the economy and have a secure future, aren't they? /sarcasm

TeamEmbo

How bout increasing the wages

NakiMan

"I thought to get NZ super you needed 10 years residence in Godzone, at least 5 years before 50 and 5 years after 50 years old. So how did he get it from arriving at 52?"

Actually, I belive the rules says you have to have "lived in New Zealand for a total of 10 years since you turned 20 (and five of those years must be since you turned 50)"

There doesnt appear to be a requirement to have lived here before the age of 50. So you can arrive at up to age 55 and still get full super.

Personally, I think thats pretty generous.

Personally, I didnt arrive till age 58, so I'm never going to qualify for NZ super. However I will get a full uk state pension, which I can exchange for NZ Super when the time comes. Its a choice I'll have to make at the time.

bjddavies

Yes I agree with what you say. More like 10% of the persons salary for KiwiSaver would be about right.

Getting house prices down is politically very dangerous but makes great economic sense. Less money going to overseas lenders and more discretionary personal spending or saving. I can't see any government doing it though.

I stand corrected on this.