May 10, 2026 • 41 mins
The age of retirement is back in the forefront of news this week after a report from the OECD recommended means testing the age of eligibility for NZ Super or risk an unsustainable rise in public debt.
The agency says New Zealand's ageing population will continue to become a prevalent issue as the government tries to pull the economy out of the red.
But some finance experts say we shouldn't be relying on the government to fund our retirements, and super should be treated as a bonus rather than a survivable income.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'd be road again.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Just keep wait to get on road again. Why f
I love is making music with my friends. I give
way to get on road again, on the road again,
going places that I've ever been, seeing things that I
(00:34):
mean never seeing again. I gave wait to get a
roll again.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
On road again.
Speaker 5 (00:44):
Very good afternoon, and welcome back or welcome into the
Weekend Collective. This is our final hour, which is Smart
Money on tim Beverage. You can and as you know,
we want your cause of participation. I've just got to
put a sort of touchy feely way of putting it in.
It's like we'd love you to join the conversation, which
sounds like I said, a very sort of I wouldn't
say it's a wake away, but it's a sort of
you know, yeah, we'd love you to join our conversation
(01:05):
at eight one hundred and eighty ten eighty. You can
text on nine two nine two. But as you know
the name of this station is News Talk z B,
so calls will take precedence. And for this hour, it's
welcome to Smart Money and look, the age of retirement
is back in the forefront of the news this week
after a report from the OECD. I sometimes think when
(01:28):
reports from the OECD, people go, oh, those meddlers telling
us we're going to have to retire later or whatever.
But anyway, they have recommended means testing, the age of
eligibility for certain n Z super or risk, and unsustainable
rise in public debt. I would say when they're talking
about means testing, they're basically saying something has to change,
(01:48):
whether it be the age of it or the means testing,
it's going to get less and less affordable. The agency
says New Zealand's aging population will continue to become a
prevalent issue as the government tries to pull the economy
out of the red. But some financings that we've spoken
to have said that we shouldn't be relying on the
government to fund our retirements, and SUPER should be treated
(02:10):
as a bonus rather than a survivable income. I sort
of see it that way. When I finally retire, oh
that's right, I get a little bit extra on top
of that. Anyway, how much will you be relying on
the government to fund your retirement? Will you be all
right with the age of eligibility going up? And don't
forget you know, the question around how much do you need?
(02:33):
It's sort of in recent times it's been the discussion around,
you know, you've got to have at least a million
bucks in the bank, and I reckon I could blow
that million really easy. Whether I have a million to
blow is going to be a separate question altogether, But anyway,
we want to know your thoughts on that one. Do
changes need to be made? What should those changes be?
(02:54):
Eight hundred and eighty ten eighty and text nine two
nine two and joining us. He's the author of I
Kemp forgetting how many books he's written, but he's written
a lot. He's written a lot of books on money.
And he is financial author Martin Hayes. And he's with
me now, Hawes Hayes. I renamed him Martin Hawes. Hello,
how are you? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (03:15):
He quite an introduction.
Speaker 5 (03:18):
Uh what what just the length of it or the
way I know my surname? Ah, Yes, yes, indeed, hey, No,
you're coming down the line to us from Chitcher, I think,
aren't you? Yeah? And I was going to say you've
got the you've got the fleece on today Normally you're
sitting there looking like every day's summer, but Martin Hawes
(03:38):
has got an extra layer or two on. Today's a
bit chili.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
Yeah, I've got an I've got an extra two layers
on actually, because I'm usually sitting here beside the beach
looking at people planting around on their bathing stuff. And
you wouldn't be out there today if you had any sense.
Speaker 5 (03:56):
No, no, indeed, m okay, the super age. It's a
contentious issue, yeah, but it does feel the momentum in
the conversation is sort of shifting that we're gonna have
to do it, aren't we Are you? Where are you
(04:16):
at with upping the super age? And I guess the
question is how soon?
Speaker 4 (04:21):
Yeah, Well, a lot of friends and colleagues who are
probably more skilled at this than I am. You know,
their actuaries and they are the supermanneration specialists and so forth,
and economists and such like, and some of them, a
lot of them actually say it's a lot more affordable
than we think. Somebody comes up with a projection and
(04:42):
could be the O E, C, D and A. But
like you're always a little bit skeptical of the OECD
who maybe just fly in for a couple of days
or something, have a few conversations and read somebody's press
column and fly back out again. And they're not necessarily
terribly well informed. They may have a New Zealand d sky.
(05:05):
I don't know how they were, but anyway, they come
and they look at this, they look at the projections
and they say, here's somebody, here's an economist saying that.
By let's say I'm making this up, but twenty forty,
because of all the retired people, we will be spending
nine percent equivalent of GEDDP on New Zealand super and
(05:28):
that is unaffordable. That will be squeezing other stuff out.
And you know, affordable affordabilities. It's a funny old term really,
because we could we can pay for things. For example,
I you know, I could buy a Lamborghini. I could
you know, I could sell the house and buy a
lamber or a new Lamborghini. It's affordable in one sense,
(05:50):
but it would to my I like to.
Speaker 5 (05:53):
Think that's a financial author you could just buy that Lamborghini. Anyway,
you're just being falsely modesty.
Speaker 4 (05:59):
Possibly I'll stick to the stick to the jeep at
the moment. But anyway, these people say, well, it's going
to be nine percent, ten percent or whatever it is
of GDP. But then GDP grows over the next ten
years a bit more than what was expected. And that's
what's happened in the past. We've had better GDP grows
(06:20):
largely because we've had emigration. We haven't had hugely better
GDP person grows, as my understanding, but the exercise of
the economy as a whole has has has grown, so
it probably is as long as we get economic growth,
it probably a bit more affordable than you'd think.
Speaker 5 (06:40):
That's an interesting question because I would have thought just
logically forgetting the actuaries for a moment, probably because it's
a hard way to say actuary, actuary. There we go,
because logically we are all living longer. I mean, we've
just seen the centennial of David Attenborough. Yes, and there
(07:02):
used to be a time I remember that there was
a time if somebody reached one hundred and it was
world news. It was literally world news. And now we're
seeing it commonplace because we are living longer, healthier lives.
Obviously not everyone is, so logically we're going to have
more people. But it was the I think there was
a news clip with the Nikola Willis talking about the
(07:24):
you know, back in the fifty years ago, there were
seven people working for every retired person. Currently there's four,
four or five, and now it's going to and soon
it's going to be two. Because logically that tells us
that there's a massive burden on the retirement payments. I mean,
I tend to just assume that that's that the OECDS
(07:47):
bang on.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yeah, But with increasing automation and increasing AI and those
kinds of things, the number number of employees or a
number of people working camp four quite quite happily, and
GDP stayed the same or even growing. One of the
things is how you frame this. Do you see ENZI
(08:09):
super as a benefit like an unemployed work seeker's benefit
or a sickness benefit or something like that, or do
you see it as an entitlement? And if you look
at the history of New Zealand Super, you'll see that
a lot of older people in particularly because they know
the history of what they were there, would see it
as an entitlement. And there you know, if you go
(08:32):
back to the late eighties and early nineties when they
introduced a means testing which was called Superannuation Surcharge, there
were just about old people at the barricades in the streets,
complaining so bitterly about this was a twenty five percent
additional impulse additional tax for it. I personally, I personally
(08:58):
would do just it probably is affordable so that we
can afford other things. You would probably rather the age, sorry,
raise the age rather than means test means test.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
And that's based on whether you see it as a
benefit or entitlement. I think the mistake, I mean, if
I was to push back against not you know not
you per se. But because we've done this a little
bit on talkback over the years, it's you know, never
never fails to excite people's passions. It's not like I mean,
key we savor is your entitlement because you're putting into
(09:34):
it when you pay tax. You are paying tax, I
mean into just that. You know, you don't have a
particular entitlement to anything the government spends money on. They'll
they'll choose where the money goes. It's not tax paying
through the course of your life. Is not a savings
scheme for retirement. So I tend to think that it
is more of a benefit theoretically, because you know, there's
(09:58):
no contract I'm paying ten percent of my tax is
going to go if ten percent of my tax went
to New Zealand Super. That was one of them, and
that was sort of explicitly legislated for then.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Fine people used to think it that and you know
my parents saying that I think was one and six
and the pound used to go to some figure out
what that is trying to.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Used.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
You know, it went off for social security. Now I
don't think it ever happened, but there was kind of
a social contract because Moldoen got rid of the Roger
Douglas a superannuation scheme which was all compulsorily paying into
this KEEPI Saver like fun our own and it was
our own own money. He brought in the NZ super
(10:46):
and it kind of was a social contract. I know,
you're legally trained, so you probably don't like contracts that
aren't put down on writing. But this is basically the
government of the day and and and people. I like.
I like the idea of raising the age better because
(11:07):
we've done it before. Yeah, did it back in the
early nineties, we actually know, but well we did it
because it was looking like it was going to be
taking up too much money, but like it was now
it was done over I think about I think it
was done a sort of half a percent for every
six months of about a sorry a year at least,
(11:31):
not not a percent a year every six months ago,
raised from sixty to sixty five. Barely a squeak would
be my memory of.
Speaker 5 (11:39):
That, because if I'm just accepted, well, yeah, of course
it's to you.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
I think the people around you know who were sixty
and retiring and they were far too young to be
well actually, and I think we're like that now. To
be honest, I.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
Think that's maybe. Actually I think you've touched on something
there that I think we are heading that way that
a younger generation are assuming that. In fact, I think
it's worth pointing out that the constituency of Winston Peters,
who you know, will argue because Grey Power don't want
to see any None of the people who are voting
on that. It's not going to be in their lifetime.
(12:15):
It's going to be something where decision has to be
made to up the age overcoming decades. And I was
chatting to someone who's an economist who knows a lot
more about these things than I do, who is pointing
out that it's really a discussion that young people should
be having because it's the qualicy that will affect them.
It's not going to affect you know, great power in
Saint Helier's or whoever, because it's not a change that's
(12:40):
going to be made today. It's going to be fifteen,
twenty thirty years. And if you are going to be
affected by it and you're seventy, then you're in the day.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
But Attenboro class, Yes, but we the one thing we
need with superannuation because you know, we've got to say
for very long periods of time and aim for the
time of day for very long periods of time. It
needs certainty and we've had a lot of certainty over
the last probably twenty years. Hasn't really been all that
much debate about it. Now this is fleared up again
(13:10):
and there'll be a huge political barney go on, I'm
quite sure over time, because of people at one end
of the political spectrum who would say, well, you know,
it should be the age, it should be means tested
and the age of eligibility should arise, and to the
other people who say, over my debt, over my dead body,
(13:30):
it does need to be set firmly in place. If
we age the Sorry, if we raised the age of entitlement,
we'd have to make sure that we picked up those
people who had perhaps spent a lifetime of manual work
or who for some reason couldn't work beyond sixty five
(13:54):
and so they couldn't work that extra couple of years.
If we pushed it out sixty seven.
Speaker 5 (13:59):
Well maybe you could have an allowance, but we could
do that. Yeah, if you are incapable of pursuing your
occupy because of infirmity beyond the age of sixty five,
then we'll cover you. But you know you and you.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
Have a doctor who signs that, and we do that
with acc and we do what sickness notes and so forth.
I'm not I wouldn't be too little about.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
Okay, hey, look we want your cause on this eight
hundred eighty ten eighty. And look there are a bunch
of you know, you can either take what the OECD
says at face value or you can question whether they're
right about that. But I think that maybe the question
is are we heading in the direction where we are,
where we are going to be more accepting of a
(14:40):
change in the an increase in the age or some
change to the entitlement for superannuation. We want your cause
on this on I eight hundred eighty ten eighty And
as I say, because if you are, you know, seventy
years old, now, I don't think this policy is actually
going to affect you. It might affect you if you're
PEPs fifty years old, who knows. And I look to
(15:01):
be honest, I'm not planning on retiring when I'm sixty
five because I'm not sure i'll have a million bucks
in the bank.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
And I'm you know, forty eight percent of people at
age sixty five to sixty nine are working. Yeah, it's
forty eight percent half of them there.
Speaker 5 (15:17):
Well, as I say, fifty is the new forty sixties,
the new fifty, and maybe that's where we go. So
the phone, the lines are open. We're going to get
into it after the break. We're with Martin Hawes. And
here's the other question. I would love it if whatever
change we make, it can't be national will do it
and labor don't want to do it. I think that
(15:39):
we've all got to get together on this and have
a consensus. I think it absolutely has to be something
where there's a bipartis an approach because politics will just
cheapen the whole argument into potshots and essentially dishonest argument.
To be honest, if you want to bring the politician
and party politics in, it's the last way to have
an honest conversation about these things, isn't it. But that's
(15:59):
me just having a crack at politicians. Naughty me. Not
the first time I've done it, given this job. We'll
be back in just a moment where with Martin Hawes.
It's twenty two past five. News Talk said B. News
Talk said B. Yes, we're talking about the retirement age,
superannuation entitlement. What needs to change when? And when do
you think we'll be ready to have an honest conversation
about it without party politics playing a part your reckons?
(16:21):
We're with Martin Hawes and Susan Hello.
Speaker 6 (16:25):
Oh well, Hi can hi? Martin?
Speaker 7 (16:27):
Hello San Hi?
Speaker 6 (16:29):
Good look. I agree one hundred percent with what you're
all saying. I'm in a position where I'm just about
eighteen months of retirement. I would be means tested under
the certain circumstances. Now, I understand that there are people
(16:51):
doing manual jobs, laborers and nets that would your bodies
would not cope until the sixty seven and I one
hundred percent support that. I'm all for increasing the age
to six seven. I'm at a stage where I'm quite
happy to work for the next five years because it's
(17:14):
a mental stage for me. You know, my gps that
are often seek to me, you know, just keep working.
It's good for your mental state. Well, it's not going
to be possible for everybody else.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
No, Actually, I do wonder how many people in the
trades work, you know, to sixty sixty five even I
wonder if you know, maybe I don't know. I don't
know how people who are doing the manual jobs, how
they adjust, or whether they delegate to young you know,
the tough jobs for the younger people, and they offer
their skill and advice. I don't know how it works.
Speaker 6 (17:49):
A lot of them will, A lot of them will
because their bodies can't physically cope with it anymore.
Speaker 5 (17:56):
Like sixty seven. It's funny we talked about this in
the penety yesterday and we had three ages. I went
sixty eight, brad Ols went sixty nine, I think just
for argument's sake, and Matilda Green went sixty seven. How
did you pick your number of sixty seven? Because it's
just sort of like a couple of years more and
just a.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
Couple of years. But I do know in Europe. In Europe,
I think Finland has increased it the seventy. A lot
of European countries have increased it up that high because
of this very reason.
Speaker 5 (18:28):
Well they're also blooming healthy over there too. I think they.
Speaker 8 (18:31):
Probably probably probably didn't.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
The Greeks during the GFC raise up from fifty four
to fifty six or something.
Speaker 5 (18:41):
Oh well, Greece doesn't exactly have the most sparkling financial
sort of record.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
Doesn't know it didn't then.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
So what do you think? I mean, what do you
what chance do you think we actually will revisit this
in the next you know, three to five years?
Speaker 6 (19:00):
No, we well three five years, probably fifty fifty. It's
been an ongoing to discussion for quite a few years now,
I feel, and I remember when it was raised from
sixty to sixty five understandably. So it's a case of
educating the young people that you've said, he knows to
(19:23):
how many years are here, they need to think about
their retirement. I'm also concerned about immigrants. There's quite a
few immigrants set they've got to stand down, period. I
think they've got to work here for about twenty years.
We're giving money to them. They haven't contributed as long
(19:43):
as some of us.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
Well, if we get our immigration settings right, Susan, hopefully
they'll have contributed because they've come in and been doctors
and nurses and jobs we really want.
Speaker 6 (19:53):
So you know, I think, yeah, true, true, But they
haven't contributed as long as some of us. And I
don't begrudge them that, but I do think, which you
know this. You know, some some people are coming on
a bit earlier, a bit later, I should say, and
(20:13):
they're getting the same benefits.
Speaker 5 (20:15):
Mind you, Susan, there are some New Zealanders that won't
contribute their whole lives and they'll still get super so
you know that's any comment there, Martin.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
Oh, there are unders and overs and the stuff. You
know that, Yes, there are some people who probably don't
contribute much through the whole whole lives, and but there
won't be a lot of them. You know, most of
us are sort of messing around and the and the
you know, I mean the the immigrants who maybe only
here for teen years or something and then start getting up.
(20:45):
I can't remember the age of how many years you
have to do with an immigrant. But you know these
are these are the sort of minor issues that they're
on the fringes, which could year they really well, this
is where.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
Politics plays a part though, because you know you'll get
Winston saying, oh, we got people you know what I mean,
playing the immigrant anti immigration card.
Speaker 4 (21:05):
But we really have to stand back and say, you know,
we've got the scheme coordins. It's super it is widely
by global exper praised by global experts right right around
the world. It's very cheap, it's very simple, it's very certain.
It's I know, Jane writes in the previous Retirement Commission
(21:29):
accorded a toll a treasure and it is something we
should treasure and look after because it's a It really
is a nearly swore.
Speaker 5 (21:39):
An Australia, isn't it. Australia's age sixty seven is that.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Yeah, But Australians is means tested. I think away to
nothing pretty quickly.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
Sixty seven, so they're really tough on it.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
I think that's right, but somebody will.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
Will now I may not be that's right. We've got
a bunch of course to get too, so we'll continue.
By the way, I did a bit of researching. Apparently
Denmark has legislated increases that will push it to seventy
by twenty forty. But apparently according to the OECD there
they are. They reckon Denmark might hit seventy four by
twenty sixty. And I guess that's good news if you
(22:24):
live in Denmark, because they assume you're going to live
a blooming long time, and you probably will. We always
putting the scan and Avians for lifestyle and all sorts
of choices, aren't we.
Speaker 4 (22:33):
It really is to live To say a couple of
years really is just reflecting reality. People are tending to
work longer and longer for whatever reason, whether that's financial
or whether it's people like me who are carrying on
working at age seventy three and doing it because they
(22:54):
like it and it's engaging.
Speaker 5 (22:56):
You'll be the David Attenborough the finance world. I'm sure
Martin you know. And Mark has joins us for his
thirtieth Anniverse around new Stalk Anyway, Edward.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Hello, Well, hello guys, Hi Jim Martin. I've got a question.
I've got money in managed yep, fifty growth, forty five
percent income and the fund that in the last year
(23:30):
made thirteen point four percent, which is which is pretty
damn good.
Speaker 7 (23:35):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
My question is in that fund, the income portion of
it hasn't increased in value in the last two years,
and I want to increase the growth, am I wise?
Speaker 7 (23:53):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (23:53):
Okay, no specific financial advicero Edward, but.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
No, no, And I mean I don't know the name
of the fund, which is good because I certainly not
certainly not recommending the name of funk. Why are you
looking for growth? Are you effectively saving for the grandchildren?
Speaker 7 (24:09):
Well?
Speaker 2 (24:11):
Yes, and I'm thinking that the income income side hasn't
hasn't moved, And I know you don't give financial advice,
but really that it just just strikes me as trained
that it wouldn't move at all. Is the real reason
for that?
Speaker 4 (24:33):
Probably because a lot of the companies are particularly globally
that have done well in the last year or cour
three or even five are tech companies. They don't tend
to pay dividends, so there's no income from them, but
they have fabulous capital growth. So you've you've had an
extremely good return at thirteen point four percent, and a
(24:56):
big chunk of that will be shap price appreciation, I
would imagine. Okay, not dividend, not dividends increasing.
Speaker 5 (25:05):
I'd imagine, yeah, okay, hey, thanks to you call Edward.
Are we're going to move it on Cassick to the
to the retirement discussion? What have we got twenty five?
It's just gone twenty six minutes to sex Peter, Hello.
Speaker 8 (25:18):
Good morning, well evening, Lina. If you look at retirement
village costs and say people independent living that that could
cost them about thirty something thousand per year in the
pension before taxes twenty eight thousand dollars. And then if
people go to America for some of their time, they
(25:42):
are not going to qualify for a New Zealand pension
because American New Zealand don't have an arrangement like Australia
or the UK and New Zealand. So some people say
on the high tax rate, they might consider the pension
as a tax rebate that they might perhaps sort of
go to a tax free haven, to a less tax
(26:06):
rather than Stanley films. So what numbers of people do
you think could decide to leave the countries. I know
some people who remain here because of the tension. Otherwise
they wouldn't be here. Talking to higher income people think.
Speaker 4 (26:22):
Okay, yeah, yeah, probably higher income people. You know, there
are a lot of factors and deciding to leave the country.
I couldn't imagine I've decided to leave this country purely
for so I could get in the Super. Some countries
we have agreements with, as you say, like Netherlands we do,
(26:44):
a UK we do, I think, Australia we do. Where
you get the others others pension even when you're there
others other countries you have to come back every six months.
You can't be away for longer than six months and
still get in the Super. This is not a detail.
I'm not actually an expert on them. Graduation eligibility really.
Speaker 5 (27:07):
No, oh, no worries. Let's actually tell you what we're
going to take a moment. We'll come back with more
calls than just to take our eight hundred eighty ten eighty.
We're discussing the inevitability or otherwise of the pension of
the superannuation entitlement changing, whether it be by means testing
or age. Martin Hahwes is my guest. He's suggested if
there's going to be a change, it should be on
(27:28):
age rather than rather than means testing, because well most
people see it as ultimately an entitlement, regardless of you
know when you get it, that everyone should get it.
It would be contentious, wouldn't it. The old means testing,
I've got to say, because sometimes what some political parties
think is wealthy is another person's version of I'm just
(27:51):
getting by. So yeah, eight hundred eighty ten eighty taking
your calls in just a moment, It's twenty three minutes
to sex News Talks. Hea'd b yes, News Talk said,
be right, truckloads of calls and texts. So let's just
keep rolling, shall we.
Speaker 9 (28:03):
Yvonne, Hello, I would like to take issue with one
of the comments that your guest made. The text was changed.
I'm not arguing with the year, but it was when
I started working in nineteen sixty one, one and three
in the pound was for universal super and one and
(28:24):
three in the pound was for superannuation, and that was
and mister Muldoon he took away one and I'm never
sure whether it was the universal or the superannuation. But
also when I started working sixty one, I was encouraged
to take out life policies and I did. I had
four endowment policies, each of them for each of them
(28:46):
for ten grand, and they were a short term teen years,
fifteen years, twenty years. That's where I got the posit
from my house. But the government gave me a rebate
on my text because they considered my life saving policies
were a form of saving and they did away with that,
so I dropped them.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
Even I can remember getting claiming for I think it
was fourteen hundred dollars for life insurance policies and you
got that off your text.
Speaker 9 (29:18):
Yeah, and that was something worth. It gave you an
incentive to take out policies which took a load off
you didn't have as we do now health insurance policies
and blah blah blah. But what I object to is
I choose to work. I'm easy, and I choose to work,
and I hope to work for at least another two
or three years, as long as my duty manager's license
(29:40):
keeps me going. But a lot of people are sitting
at home getting benefits, and I'm subsidizing them because I
lose two hundred dollars a fortnight out of my superannuation
of secondary text. But I'm already text. But I was
already TechEd before I got my super so I'm actually
triple text and now works me and quite frankly, as
(30:02):
far as I'm concerned, put it up to seventy don't
a means test it because those rich people that are
perceived of not needing it, they have paid, They've done
their bit and are entitled to it. It's not a benefit,
it's an entitlement. And the other question is what happened
to the current fund. There was millions put away and
(30:24):
it was set aside not to be touched for anything
else but superannuation and should have seen it into the
loom dark future.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
It's still there. That's not terribly much money. And one
of the things that I think it's this latest coalition government,
maybe the national government before them, stopped contributing.
Speaker 5 (30:48):
That's what happened.
Speaker 9 (30:49):
Of course they were not supposed to touch that.
Speaker 5 (30:54):
No, they haven't touched it. They haven't touched it. They
just stopped contributing to it.
Speaker 9 (30:57):
Because if they hadn't, if they had kept on contributing,
then we would have that pull of money towards the checked.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
They would GFC. Yeah, I think they would say that
they had other things they needed to spend that money on. Yvonne,
But hey, when are you?
Speaker 6 (31:12):
So?
Speaker 5 (31:13):
When are you going to retire? You're going to keep
going till you know you're going to be David Attenborough.
Speaker 9 (31:18):
I will probably keep ongoing until I no longer pick
up six bottles of wine at once.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
Oh you're duty manager's license. Say you're in hospitality.
Speaker 9 (31:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (31:30):
I love it.
Speaker 9 (31:31):
Okay, and okay, I am not the fittest chick on
the block. I'm obviously not the youngest chick on the block.
But I can still chuck around the bear crates full
of bottles full of beer, and I can still manage
to pick up the boxes of twenty four.
Speaker 5 (31:45):
You sound magnificent, Yvonne. Yeah, yeah, Do you want to
give a shout out to where people can be can
receive your hospitality?
Speaker 9 (31:54):
The bottle o Split Past Square christ Church.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Good, okay, I.
Speaker 5 (31:59):
Think you know what. I think they're going to have
a few people calling just to meet you if they
haven't been to the bottle lines. Yeah, good on you.
Speaker 9 (32:05):
Well, that more than welcome. But we don't charge for brows,
but we do like to see you by.
Speaker 4 (32:13):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (32:15):
This is awesome. I mean, I hope I'm that feisty
and and energetic, you know, expressing what I want and
then working when I'm when I'm eighty.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
Yes, yes, it's it's it's wonderful. And I'm I'm sorry
if I got that wrong about the one and six
in the pound, but somebody told me that that when
that was taken off, most people believe that was still
there and was surprised to know that they they didn't
have it, So we may have just had it.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
That's what it's talking about. That's why it's talked aback,
so we get these extra bits of information.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Rico Hello, Hello, Hello, Tim Martin.
Speaker 7 (32:56):
How are you to know? Good?
Speaker 5 (32:57):
Thanks?
Speaker 7 (32:57):
Little bit chili, A little bit chili. Martin sister wasn't
caught common news. It wasn't much in the colors. And
it's actually worth ninety billion, forced forecasts to grow to
one hundred and fifty billion by two thousand and fifty.
They have no major draw downs and until twenty and fifty,
(33:18):
after all the baby boomers are dead.
Speaker 6 (33:21):
Ye.
Speaker 7 (33:21):
So, and that's a lot of money.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
It's a lot of money, but it's not much money
over in it super And I can't tell you exactly
what ends it.
Speaker 7 (33:30):
Jed super injured supers twenty four billion a year. They
do get gst off that.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
Yeah, so ninety ninety billion or one hundred and fifty
billion when you've got you know, when you're drawing twenty
four billion out a year is not too much. That's
only a few years.
Speaker 9 (33:48):
Clan.
Speaker 7 (33:49):
The clan funded eleven point eight billion last year, so
it does count. You can't anyway, That's that's for the bid.
Why don't we Why don't we have a scheme where
if you're sixty you can take Super at your normal rate,
but if you're seventy, if you delay it till seventy,
(34:11):
you can take Super at a higher rate.
Speaker 4 (34:14):
Yeah, that's what Peter had done well suggesting I quite
like that.
Speaker 5 (34:21):
Yeah, although if you took it at sixty five, youd
just not use it and pretend you're getting more each
year because you've saved five years of Super.
Speaker 7 (34:27):
Yeah, but you get it at quite a higher rate
at seventy.
Speaker 5 (34:31):
A lot of people, Oh so you incentivize holding off?
Speaker 4 (34:35):
Yeah, you say a lot. Yeah, actuarily you could. You
could figure that out, right. I think he had it
starting at age sixty, so you could retire at age
sixty but are on a very low rate. Now, the
problem is the course of people weren't able to hold
body and soul together on that very low rate. You know,
what do we do? We can't have people dying, and
(34:57):
what if we have it?
Speaker 7 (34:59):
What if you have it at a normal sixty five,
at the normal rate, because most people die between the
average between three. So if you have a normal rate
at sixty like you're getting now, but if you retire
at seventy, you get the corresponding not quite the corresponding
then decrease. So it's worth while to both parties.
Speaker 5 (35:20):
That's an interesting idea. Sounds too complicated for a bipartisan
sort of adjustment to the thing, but you're not the
first person to suggest that it ricoa. It's it's interesting,
isn't that? I mean, every idea is a good one,
isn't it? Or are they Sorr? Are you there Martin? Yes?
Oh there, we gotcha. Just so checked. Okay, let's take
(35:40):
another call.
Speaker 10 (35:41):
Ben, Hello, you get the guz you look on thirty six.
I'm not expecting to get super at retirement. It's just
I don't think it's going to be around. But now
I want to see the super goo means tested like Australia,
so twenty five percent of pensions in Australia don't don't
get paid the pension because they they're worth too much.
(36:02):
And then another twenty five percent, you receive fifty cents
in the dollar just because I've got too much money.
So you know that if we apply that to the
New Zealand one straight away, that brings our super bill
down by nine billion a year. So I reckon that's good.
But I want to see something done about Kiwi Saber
because in Australia you can withdraw your super fund out
(36:25):
at sixty, so that's like seven years before retirement age,
so then you can then invest that into property or
whatever so you can have a better retirement. That's what
I want to see. I want to see some better
stuff done with QUSB. You also don't pay tax or
GSD or on your earnings on qv saber, on your
(36:47):
investment earnings, so I don't I want to see that
removed for Keywy Saber as well, because yeah.
Speaker 5 (36:54):
If you get super when you retire, which I think
you will be, and I don't think it'll be gone,
there'll be a bonus for you then, won't it.
Speaker 10 (37:00):
I think it's going to be at least means tested,
and you know, given on five, I've have paid off
of property. I'm looking at buyinger Arbnb at the moment,
you know, just for some cash flow and stuff. So yeah,
I don't think I'm going to be entitled to it,
but I've got a good chunk of money and Kiwi Saber.
I just want to be able to invest my keuwisaver
(37:22):
and say what, I want to just make these funds.
Speaker 5 (37:25):
Ah and then yeah, you want to take it out
and use it?
Speaker 10 (37:29):
Yeah, no, no, no, I don't want to take it out.
I want to leave it in there, but I want
to I want to have more of.
Speaker 2 (37:34):
A variety of areas where it can be invested in
like they do in Australia. And I also want to
be able to withdraw that before I retire, say it's
sixty like you can in Australia, and then you can
get that money working for you long before you retire.
So I don't want to wait till I'm sixty five
to give my CU receiver. So I think there's a
(37:55):
lot of stuff we can do around kiwisaver to make
it a bit better.
Speaker 5 (37:58):
Fair enough, By the way, have you investigated some other
interesting funds for kee we Super because you know, that's
not just you know, the sort of standardizes. There's quite
a bit of there's quite a bit of choice out
there for how aggressive you can be.
Speaker 10 (38:10):
You thought, look, yeah, look, I think my fun made
nearly thirteen percent last year. So it's it's you know,
there's some there's some good money to be made. I
just would like I would just like a bit more
and I would like not to be text on our
on our investment earnings.
Speaker 5 (38:26):
Yeah, okay, cool, you'd like a bit more autonomy on that.
What do you reckon?
Speaker 4 (38:30):
Well, Ben, I really do hope that you're wrong about
end it tooperad and that you do get it, because
it is a wonderful scheme and I would hate to
see it. I'd had to see it's a scrap. The
problem with means testing, whether it's asset testing or whether
it's income testing, and you can you can means test
(38:51):
it either way or or even a combination of both.
The problem with that is you bring up all the
avoidance stuff. You know, Family Trust, so superannuation surcharge was
one of the reasons my Family Trust book sold one
hundred and thirty thousand copies. One of the big stories
in publishing not just at the time, but probably all
(39:13):
the time, so you can the whole avoidance industry goes
into it, and you know there are a family trust
set up, people road their savings somehow, or they don't
invest in that kind of stuff. That's what you're incentivizing
when you start for means tests.
Speaker 5 (39:32):
Yeah, oh got it. So they've got a truncoat of
text to get you. I might try and squeeze a
couple of texts before we wrap it up, but it's
already eight minutes to six News talks. They'd be back
in a moment News Talks, they'd be look, we're pretty
much wrapped up. Had a minute and a half to
go with Martin haw was just talking about their whole
retirement age thing. And actually I would say from the
texts that there has been a shift in expectation. I
(39:54):
think most people think it's something's going to change at
some stage, so that probably is even a shift in
the last year or two. But I did want to
just read this one text out and sort of respond
to it and Martin when it says when people retire
retire they free up a job for a younger person.
If people hold those jobs longer, what do you say
to all the unemployed youth who can't find work. I
(40:15):
just push back with no matter what age I get to,
if I want to work, I'm going to work, and
everyone should aspire to work. But the idea that once
you get to a certain age you should give you a
job up for someone else, that's a luxury, as mudy
Python would say, luxury Martin.
Speaker 4 (40:32):
It's the lump of labor fallacy. And the lump of
labor fallacy says that it is a fallacy that because
you get a job, you take that job from somebody else.
You getting the job increases you know, Let's say an
immigrant comes to New Zealand, they get a job. They
don't take the job from somebody else. Because they are working,
they are increasing the number of jobs around. Now that's
(40:54):
I mean, there will be little instances of somebody getting
a job and somebody else not getting a job. But
that's if you look over the total economy. It's not
just one lump of labor that we're all over.
Speaker 5 (41:06):
Good stuff, Martin. Martin Hawes, who will be one day
the David Edinburgh the finance world. I'm homing to talk
back as well. But anyway, we keep working and keep
keep engaged. Hey, thanks Martin for your time. Lovely to
see it and catch up. Okay, thank you, thanks my producer.
Tire Awards Sunday at six is next. Enjoy your evening.
Catch the same time next.
Speaker 1 (41:23):
Week for more from the Weekend Collective. Listen live to
News Talks It'd be weekends from three pm, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'd be road again.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Just keep wait to get on road again. Why f
I love is making music with my friends. I give
way to get on road again, on the road again,
going places that I've ever been, seeing things that I
(00:34):
mean never seeing again. I gave wait to get a
roll again.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
On road again.
Speaker 5 (00:44):
Very good afternoon, and welcome back or welcome into the
Weekend Collective. This is our final hour, which is Smart
Money on tim Beverage. You can and as you know,
we want your cause of participation. I've just got to
put a sort of touchy feely way of putting it in.
It's like we'd love you to join the conversation, which
sounds like I said, a very sort of I wouldn't
say it's a wake away, but it's a sort of
you know, yeah, we'd love you to join our conversation
(01:05):
at eight one hundred and eighty ten eighty. You can
text on nine two nine two. But as you know
the name of this station is News Talk z B,
so calls will take precedence. And for this hour, it's
welcome to Smart Money and look, the age of retirement
is back in the forefront of the news this week
after a report from the OECD. I sometimes think when
(01:28):
reports from the OECD, people go, oh, those meddlers telling
us we're going to have to retire later or whatever.
But anyway, they have recommended means testing, the age of
eligibility for certain n Z super or risk, and unsustainable
rise in public debt. I would say when they're talking
about means testing, they're basically saying something has to change,
(01:48):
whether it be the age of it or the means testing,
it's going to get less and less affordable. The agency
says New Zealand's aging population will continue to become a
prevalent issue as the government tries to pull the economy
out of the red. But some financings that we've spoken
to have said that we shouldn't be relying on the
government to fund our retirements, and SUPER should be treated
(02:10):
as a bonus rather than a survivable income. I sort
of see it that way. When I finally retire, oh
that's right, I get a little bit extra on top
of that. Anyway, how much will you be relying on
the government to fund your retirement? Will you be all
right with the age of eligibility going up? And don't
forget you know, the question around how much do you need?
(02:33):
It's sort of in recent times it's been the discussion around,
you know, you've got to have at least a million
bucks in the bank, and I reckon I could blow
that million really easy. Whether I have a million to
blow is going to be a separate question altogether, But anyway,
we want to know your thoughts on that one. Do
changes need to be made? What should those changes be?
(02:54):
Eight hundred and eighty ten eighty and text nine two
nine two and joining us. He's the author of I
Kemp forgetting how many books he's written, but he's written
a lot. He's written a lot of books on money.
And he is financial author Martin Hayes. And he's with
me now, Hawes Hayes. I renamed him Martin Hawes. Hello,
how are you? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (03:15):
He quite an introduction.
Speaker 5 (03:18):
Uh what what just the length of it or the
way I know my surname? Ah, Yes, yes, indeed, hey, No,
you're coming down the line to us from Chitcher, I think,
aren't you? Yeah? And I was going to say you've
got the you've got the fleece on today Normally you're
sitting there looking like every day's summer, but Martin Hawes
(03:38):
has got an extra layer or two on. Today's a
bit chili.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
Yeah, I've got an I've got an extra two layers
on actually, because I'm usually sitting here beside the beach
looking at people planting around on their bathing stuff. And
you wouldn't be out there today if you had any sense.
Speaker 5 (03:56):
No, no, indeed, m okay, the super age. It's a
contentious issue, yeah, but it does feel the momentum in
the conversation is sort of shifting that we're gonna have
to do it, aren't we Are you? Where are you
(04:16):
at with upping the super age? And I guess the
question is how soon?
Speaker 4 (04:21):
Yeah, Well, a lot of friends and colleagues who are
probably more skilled at this than I am. You know,
their actuaries and they are the supermanneration specialists and so forth,
and economists and such like, and some of them, a
lot of them actually say it's a lot more affordable
than we think. Somebody comes up with a projection and
(04:42):
could be the O E, C, D and A. But
like you're always a little bit skeptical of the OECD
who maybe just fly in for a couple of days
or something, have a few conversations and read somebody's press
column and fly back out again. And they're not necessarily
terribly well informed. They may have a New Zealand d sky.
(05:05):
I don't know how they were, but anyway, they come
and they look at this, they look at the projections
and they say, here's somebody, here's an economist saying that.
By let's say I'm making this up, but twenty forty,
because of all the retired people, we will be spending
nine percent equivalent of GEDDP on New Zealand super and
(05:28):
that is unaffordable. That will be squeezing other stuff out.
And you know, affordable affordabilities. It's a funny old term really,
because we could we can pay for things. For example,
I you know, I could buy a Lamborghini. I could
you know, I could sell the house and buy a
lamber or a new Lamborghini. It's affordable in one sense,
(05:50):
but it would to my I like to.
Speaker 5 (05:53):
Think that's a financial author you could just buy that Lamborghini. Anyway,
you're just being falsely modesty.
Speaker 4 (05:59):
Possibly I'll stick to the stick to the jeep at
the moment. But anyway, these people say, well, it's going
to be nine percent, ten percent or whatever it is
of GDP. But then GDP grows over the next ten
years a bit more than what was expected. And that's
what's happened in the past. We've had better GDP grows
(06:20):
largely because we've had emigration. We haven't had hugely better
GDP person grows, as my understanding, but the exercise of
the economy as a whole has has has grown, so
it probably is as long as we get economic growth,
it probably a bit more affordable than you'd think.
Speaker 5 (06:40):
That's an interesting question because I would have thought just
logically forgetting the actuaries for a moment, probably because it's
a hard way to say actuary, actuary. There we go,
because logically we are all living longer. I mean, we've
just seen the centennial of David Attenborough. Yes, and there
(07:02):
used to be a time I remember that there was
a time if somebody reached one hundred and it was
world news. It was literally world news. And now we're
seeing it commonplace because we are living longer, healthier lives.
Obviously not everyone is, so logically we're going to have
more people. But it was the I think there was
a news clip with the Nikola Willis talking about the
(07:24):
you know, back in the fifty years ago, there were
seven people working for every retired person. Currently there's four,
four or five, and now it's going to and soon
it's going to be two. Because logically that tells us
that there's a massive burden on the retirement payments. I mean,
I tend to just assume that that's that the OECDS
(07:47):
bang on.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yeah, But with increasing automation and increasing AI and those
kinds of things, the number number of employees or a
number of people working camp four quite quite happily, and
GDP stayed the same or even growing. One of the
things is how you frame this. Do you see ENZI
(08:09):
super as a benefit like an unemployed work seeker's benefit
or a sickness benefit or something like that, or do
you see it as an entitlement? And if you look
at the history of New Zealand Super, you'll see that
a lot of older people in particularly because they know
the history of what they were there, would see it
as an entitlement. And there you know, if you go
(08:32):
back to the late eighties and early nineties when they
introduced a means testing which was called Superannuation Surcharge, there
were just about old people at the barricades in the streets,
complaining so bitterly about this was a twenty five percent
additional impulse additional tax for it. I personally, I personally
(08:58):
would do just it probably is affordable so that we
can afford other things. You would probably rather the age, sorry,
raise the age rather than means test means test.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
And that's based on whether you see it as a
benefit or entitlement. I think the mistake, I mean, if
I was to push back against not you know not
you per se. But because we've done this a little
bit on talkback over the years, it's you know, never
never fails to excite people's passions. It's not like I mean,
key we savor is your entitlement because you're putting into
(09:34):
it when you pay tax. You are paying tax, I
mean into just that. You know, you don't have a
particular entitlement to anything the government spends money on. They'll
they'll choose where the money goes. It's not tax paying
through the course of your life. Is not a savings
scheme for retirement. So I tend to think that it
is more of a benefit theoretically, because you know, there's
(09:58):
no contract I'm paying ten percent of my tax is
going to go if ten percent of my tax went
to New Zealand Super. That was one of them, and
that was sort of explicitly legislated for then.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
Fine people used to think it that and you know
my parents saying that I think was one and six
and the pound used to go to some figure out
what that is trying to.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Used.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
You know, it went off for social security. Now I
don't think it ever happened, but there was kind of
a social contract because Moldoen got rid of the Roger
Douglas a superannuation scheme which was all compulsorily paying into
this KEEPI Saver like fun our own and it was
our own own money. He brought in the NZ super
(10:46):
and it kind of was a social contract. I know,
you're legally trained, so you probably don't like contracts that
aren't put down on writing. But this is basically the
government of the day and and and people. I like.
I like the idea of raising the age better because
(11:07):
we've done it before. Yeah, did it back in the
early nineties, we actually know, but well we did it
because it was looking like it was going to be
taking up too much money, but like it was now
it was done over I think about I think it
was done a sort of half a percent for every
six months of about a sorry a year at least,
(11:31):
not not a percent a year every six months ago,
raised from sixty to sixty five. Barely a squeak would
be my memory of.
Speaker 5 (11:39):
That, because if I'm just accepted, well, yeah, of course
it's to you.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
I think the people around you know who were sixty
and retiring and they were far too young to be
well actually, and I think we're like that now. To
be honest, I.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
Think that's maybe. Actually I think you've touched on something
there that I think we are heading that way that
a younger generation are assuming that. In fact, I think
it's worth pointing out that the constituency of Winston Peters,
who you know, will argue because Grey Power don't want
to see any None of the people who are voting
on that. It's not going to be in their lifetime.
(12:15):
It's going to be something where decision has to be
made to up the age overcoming decades. And I was
chatting to someone who's an economist who knows a lot
more about these things than I do, who is pointing
out that it's really a discussion that young people should
be having because it's the qualicy that will affect them.
It's not going to affect you know, great power in
Saint Helier's or whoever, because it's not a change that's
(12:40):
going to be made today. It's going to be fifteen,
twenty thirty years. And if you are going to be
affected by it and you're seventy, then you're in the day.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
But Attenboro class, Yes, but we the one thing we
need with superannuation because you know, we've got to say
for very long periods of time and aim for the
time of day for very long periods of time. It
needs certainty and we've had a lot of certainty over
the last probably twenty years. Hasn't really been all that
much debate about it. Now this is fleared up again
(13:10):
and there'll be a huge political barney go on, I'm
quite sure over time, because of people at one end
of the political spectrum who would say, well, you know,
it should be the age, it should be means tested
and the age of eligibility should arise, and to the
other people who say, over my debt, over my dead body,
(13:30):
it does need to be set firmly in place. If
we age the Sorry, if we raised the age of entitlement,
we'd have to make sure that we picked up those
people who had perhaps spent a lifetime of manual work
or who for some reason couldn't work beyond sixty five
(13:54):
and so they couldn't work that extra couple of years.
If we pushed it out sixty seven.
Speaker 5 (13:59):
Well maybe you could have an allowance, but we could
do that. Yeah, if you are incapable of pursuing your
occupy because of infirmity beyond the age of sixty five,
then we'll cover you. But you know you and you.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
Have a doctor who signs that, and we do that
with acc and we do what sickness notes and so forth.
I'm not I wouldn't be too little about.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
Okay, hey, look we want your cause on this eight
hundred eighty ten eighty. And look there are a bunch
of you know, you can either take what the OECD
says at face value or you can question whether they're
right about that. But I think that maybe the question
is are we heading in the direction where we are,
where we are going to be more accepting of a
(14:40):
change in the an increase in the age or some
change to the entitlement for superannuation. We want your cause
on this on I eight hundred eighty ten eighty And
as I say, because if you are, you know, seventy
years old, now, I don't think this policy is actually
going to affect you. It might affect you if you're
PEPs fifty years old, who knows. And I look to
(15:01):
be honest, I'm not planning on retiring when I'm sixty
five because I'm not sure i'll have a million bucks
in the bank.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
And I'm you know, forty eight percent of people at
age sixty five to sixty nine are working. Yeah, it's
forty eight percent half of them there.
Speaker 5 (15:17):
Well, as I say, fifty is the new forty sixties,
the new fifty, and maybe that's where we go. So
the phone, the lines are open. We're going to get
into it after the break. We're with Martin Hawes. And
here's the other question. I would love it if whatever
change we make, it can't be national will do it
and labor don't want to do it. I think that
(15:39):
we've all got to get together on this and have
a consensus. I think it absolutely has to be something
where there's a bipartis an approach because politics will just
cheapen the whole argument into potshots and essentially dishonest argument.
To be honest, if you want to bring the politician
and party politics in, it's the last way to have
an honest conversation about these things, isn't it. But that's
(15:59):
me just having a crack at politicians. Naughty me. Not
the first time I've done it, given this job. We'll
be back in just a moment where with Martin Hawes.
It's twenty two past five. News Talk said B. News
Talk said B. Yes, we're talking about the retirement age,
superannuation entitlement. What needs to change when? And when do
you think we'll be ready to have an honest conversation
about it without party politics playing a part your reckons?
(16:21):
We're with Martin Hawes and Susan Hello.
Speaker 6 (16:25):
Oh well, Hi can hi? Martin?
Speaker 7 (16:27):
Hello San Hi?
Speaker 6 (16:29):
Good look. I agree one hundred percent with what you're
all saying. I'm in a position where I'm just about
eighteen months of retirement. I would be means tested under
the certain circumstances. Now, I understand that there are people
(16:51):
doing manual jobs, laborers and nets that would your bodies
would not cope until the sixty seven and I one
hundred percent support that. I'm all for increasing the age
to six seven. I'm at a stage where I'm quite
happy to work for the next five years because it's
(17:14):
a mental stage for me. You know, my gps that
are often seek to me, you know, just keep working.
It's good for your mental state. Well, it's not going
to be possible for everybody else.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
No, Actually, I do wonder how many people in the
trades work, you know, to sixty sixty five even I
wonder if you know, maybe I don't know. I don't
know how people who are doing the manual jobs, how
they adjust, or whether they delegate to young you know,
the tough jobs for the younger people, and they offer
their skill and advice. I don't know how it works.
Speaker 6 (17:49):
A lot of them will, A lot of them will
because their bodies can't physically cope with it anymore.
Speaker 5 (17:56):
Like sixty seven. It's funny we talked about this in
the penety yesterday and we had three ages. I went
sixty eight, brad Ols went sixty nine, I think just
for argument's sake, and Matilda Green went sixty seven. How
did you pick your number of sixty seven? Because it's
just sort of like a couple of years more and
just a.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
Couple of years. But I do know in Europe. In Europe,
I think Finland has increased it the seventy. A lot
of European countries have increased it up that high because
of this very reason.
Speaker 5 (18:28):
Well they're also blooming healthy over there too. I think they.
Speaker 8 (18:31):
Probably probably probably didn't.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
The Greeks during the GFC raise up from fifty four
to fifty six or something.
Speaker 5 (18:41):
Oh well, Greece doesn't exactly have the most sparkling financial
sort of record.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
Doesn't know it didn't then.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
So what do you think? I mean, what do you
what chance do you think we actually will revisit this
in the next you know, three to five years?
Speaker 6 (19:00):
No, we well three five years, probably fifty fifty. It's
been an ongoing to discussion for quite a few years now,
I feel, and I remember when it was raised from
sixty to sixty five understandably. So it's a case of
educating the young people that you've said, he knows to
(19:23):
how many years are here, they need to think about
their retirement. I'm also concerned about immigrants. There's quite a
few immigrants set they've got to stand down, period. I
think they've got to work here for about twenty years.
We're giving money to them. They haven't contributed as long
(19:43):
as some of us.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
Well, if we get our immigration settings right, Susan, hopefully
they'll have contributed because they've come in and been doctors
and nurses and jobs we really want.
Speaker 6 (19:53):
So you know, I think, yeah, true, true, But they
haven't contributed as long as some of us. And I
don't begrudge them that, but I do think, which you
know this. You know, some some people are coming on
a bit earlier, a bit later, I should say, and
(20:13):
they're getting the same benefits.
Speaker 5 (20:15):
Mind you, Susan, there are some New Zealanders that won't
contribute their whole lives and they'll still get super so
you know that's any comment there, Martin.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
Oh, there are unders and overs and the stuff. You
know that, Yes, there are some people who probably don't
contribute much through the whole whole lives, and but there
won't be a lot of them. You know, most of
us are sort of messing around and the and the
you know, I mean the the immigrants who maybe only
here for teen years or something and then start getting up.
(20:45):
I can't remember the age of how many years you
have to do with an immigrant. But you know these
are these are the sort of minor issues that they're
on the fringes, which could year they really well, this
is where.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
Politics plays a part though, because you know you'll get
Winston saying, oh, we got people you know what I mean,
playing the immigrant anti immigration card.
Speaker 4 (21:05):
But we really have to stand back and say, you know,
we've got the scheme coordins. It's super it is widely
by global exper praised by global experts right right around
the world. It's very cheap, it's very simple, it's very certain.
It's I know, Jane writes in the previous Retirement Commission
(21:29):
accorded a toll a treasure and it is something we
should treasure and look after because it's a It really
is a nearly swore.
Speaker 5 (21:39):
An Australia, isn't it. Australia's age sixty seven is that.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Yeah, But Australians is means tested. I think away to
nothing pretty quickly.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
Sixty seven, so they're really tough on it.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
I think that's right, but somebody will.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
Will now I may not be that's right. We've got
a bunch of course to get too, so we'll continue.
By the way, I did a bit of researching. Apparently
Denmark has legislated increases that will push it to seventy
by twenty forty. But apparently according to the OECD there
they are. They reckon Denmark might hit seventy four by
twenty sixty. And I guess that's good news if you
(22:24):
live in Denmark, because they assume you're going to live
a blooming long time, and you probably will. We always
putting the scan and Avians for lifestyle and all sorts
of choices, aren't we.
Speaker 4 (22:33):
It really is to live To say a couple of
years really is just reflecting reality. People are tending to
work longer and longer for whatever reason, whether that's financial
or whether it's people like me who are carrying on
working at age seventy three and doing it because they
(22:54):
like it and it's engaging.
Speaker 5 (22:56):
You'll be the David Attenborough the finance world. I'm sure
Martin you know. And Mark has joins us for his
thirtieth Anniverse around new Stalk Anyway, Edward.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Hello, Well, hello guys, Hi Jim Martin. I've got a question.
I've got money in managed yep, fifty growth, forty five
percent income and the fund that in the last year
(23:30):
made thirteen point four percent, which is which is pretty
damn good.
Speaker 7 (23:35):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
My question is in that fund, the income portion of
it hasn't increased in value in the last two years,
and I want to increase the growth, am I wise?
Speaker 7 (23:53):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (23:53):
Okay, no specific financial advicero Edward, but.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
No, no, And I mean I don't know the name
of the fund, which is good because I certainly not
certainly not recommending the name of funk. Why are you
looking for growth? Are you effectively saving for the grandchildren?
Speaker 7 (24:09):
Well?
Speaker 2 (24:11):
Yes, and I'm thinking that the income income side hasn't
hasn't moved, And I know you don't give financial advice,
but really that it just just strikes me as trained
that it wouldn't move at all. Is the real reason
for that?
Speaker 4 (24:33):
Probably because a lot of the companies are particularly globally
that have done well in the last year or cour
three or even five are tech companies. They don't tend
to pay dividends, so there's no income from them, but
they have fabulous capital growth. So you've you've had an
extremely good return at thirteen point four percent, and a
(24:56):
big chunk of that will be shap price appreciation, I
would imagine. Okay, not dividend, not dividends increasing.
Speaker 5 (25:05):
I'd imagine, yeah, okay, hey, thanks to you call Edward.
Are we're going to move it on Cassick to the
to the retirement discussion? What have we got twenty five?
It's just gone twenty six minutes to sex Peter, Hello.
Speaker 8 (25:18):
Good morning, well evening, Lina. If you look at retirement
village costs and say people independent living that that could
cost them about thirty something thousand per year in the
pension before taxes twenty eight thousand dollars. And then if
people go to America for some of their time, they
(25:42):
are not going to qualify for a New Zealand pension
because American New Zealand don't have an arrangement like Australia
or the UK and New Zealand. So some people say
on the high tax rate, they might consider the pension
as a tax rebate that they might perhaps sort of
go to a tax free haven, to a less tax
(26:06):
rather than Stanley films. So what numbers of people do
you think could decide to leave the countries. I know
some people who remain here because of the tension. Otherwise
they wouldn't be here. Talking to higher income people think.
Speaker 4 (26:22):
Okay, yeah, yeah, probably higher income people. You know, there
are a lot of factors and deciding to leave the country.
I couldn't imagine I've decided to leave this country purely
for so I could get in the Super. Some countries
we have agreements with, as you say, like Netherlands we do,
(26:44):
a UK we do, I think, Australia we do. Where
you get the others others pension even when you're there
others other countries you have to come back every six months.
You can't be away for longer than six months and
still get in the Super. This is not a detail.
I'm not actually an expert on them. Graduation eligibility really.
Speaker 5 (27:07):
No, oh, no worries. Let's actually tell you what we're
going to take a moment. We'll come back with more
calls than just to take our eight hundred eighty ten eighty.
We're discussing the inevitability or otherwise of the pension of
the superannuation entitlement changing, whether it be by means testing
or age. Martin Hahwes is my guest. He's suggested if
there's going to be a change, it should be on
(27:28):
age rather than rather than means testing, because well most
people see it as ultimately an entitlement, regardless of you
know when you get it, that everyone should get it.
It would be contentious, wouldn't it. The old means testing,
I've got to say, because sometimes what some political parties
think is wealthy is another person's version of I'm just
(27:51):
getting by. So yeah, eight hundred eighty ten eighty taking
your calls in just a moment, It's twenty three minutes
to sex News Talks. Hea'd b yes, News Talk said,
be right, truckloads of calls and texts. So let's just
keep rolling, shall we.
Speaker 9 (28:03):
Yvonne, Hello, I would like to take issue with one
of the comments that your guest made. The text was changed.
I'm not arguing with the year, but it was when
I started working in nineteen sixty one, one and three
in the pound was for universal super and one and
(28:24):
three in the pound was for superannuation, and that was
and mister Muldoon he took away one and I'm never
sure whether it was the universal or the superannuation. But
also when I started working sixty one, I was encouraged
to take out life policies and I did. I had
four endowment policies, each of them for each of them
(28:46):
for ten grand, and they were a short term teen years,
fifteen years, twenty years. That's where I got the posit
from my house. But the government gave me a rebate
on my text because they considered my life saving policies
were a form of saving and they did away with that,
so I dropped them.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
Even I can remember getting claiming for I think it
was fourteen hundred dollars for life insurance policies and you
got that off your text.
Speaker 9 (29:18):
Yeah, and that was something worth. It gave you an
incentive to take out policies which took a load off
you didn't have as we do now health insurance policies
and blah blah blah. But what I object to is
I choose to work. I'm easy, and I choose to work,
and I hope to work for at least another two
or three years, as long as my duty manager's license
(29:40):
keeps me going. But a lot of people are sitting
at home getting benefits, and I'm subsidizing them because I
lose two hundred dollars a fortnight out of my superannuation
of secondary text. But I'm already text. But I was
already TechEd before I got my super so I'm actually
triple text and now works me and quite frankly, as
(30:02):
far as I'm concerned, put it up to seventy don't
a means test it because those rich people that are
perceived of not needing it, they have paid, They've done
their bit and are entitled to it. It's not a benefit,
it's an entitlement. And the other question is what happened
to the current fund. There was millions put away and
(30:24):
it was set aside not to be touched for anything
else but superannuation and should have seen it into the
loom dark future.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
It's still there. That's not terribly much money. And one
of the things that I think it's this latest coalition government,
maybe the national government before them, stopped contributing.
Speaker 5 (30:48):
That's what happened.
Speaker 9 (30:49):
Of course they were not supposed to touch that.
Speaker 5 (30:54):
No, they haven't touched it. They haven't touched it. They
just stopped contributing to it.
Speaker 9 (30:57):
Because if they hadn't, if they had kept on contributing,
then we would have that pull of money towards the checked.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
They would GFC. Yeah, I think they would say that
they had other things they needed to spend that money on. Yvonne,
But hey, when are you?
Speaker 6 (31:12):
So?
Speaker 5 (31:13):
When are you going to retire? You're going to keep
going till you know you're going to be David Attenborough.
Speaker 9 (31:18):
I will probably keep ongoing until I no longer pick
up six bottles of wine at once.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
Oh you're duty manager's license. Say you're in hospitality.
Speaker 9 (31:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (31:30):
I love it.
Speaker 9 (31:31):
Okay, and okay, I am not the fittest chick on
the block. I'm obviously not the youngest chick on the block.
But I can still chuck around the bear crates full
of bottles full of beer, and I can still manage
to pick up the boxes of twenty four.
Speaker 5 (31:45):
You sound magnificent, Yvonne. Yeah, yeah, Do you want to
give a shout out to where people can be can
receive your hospitality?
Speaker 9 (31:54):
The bottle o Split Past Square christ Church.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Good, okay, I.
Speaker 5 (31:59):
Think you know what. I think they're going to have
a few people calling just to meet you if they
haven't been to the bottle lines. Yeah, good on you.
Speaker 9 (32:05):
Well, that more than welcome. But we don't charge for brows,
but we do like to see you by.
Speaker 4 (32:13):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (32:15):
This is awesome. I mean, I hope I'm that feisty
and and energetic, you know, expressing what I want and
then working when I'm when I'm eighty.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
Yes, yes, it's it's it's wonderful. And I'm I'm sorry
if I got that wrong about the one and six
in the pound, but somebody told me that that when
that was taken off, most people believe that was still
there and was surprised to know that they they didn't
have it, So we may have just had it.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
That's what it's talking about. That's why it's talked aback,
so we get these extra bits of information.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Rico Hello, Hello, Hello, Tim Martin.
Speaker 7 (32:56):
How are you to know? Good?
Speaker 5 (32:57):
Thanks?
Speaker 7 (32:57):
Little bit chili, A little bit chili. Martin sister wasn't
caught common news. It wasn't much in the colors. And
it's actually worth ninety billion, forced forecasts to grow to
one hundred and fifty billion by two thousand and fifty.
They have no major draw downs and until twenty and fifty,
(33:18):
after all the baby boomers are dead.
Speaker 6 (33:21):
Ye.
Speaker 7 (33:21):
So, and that's a lot of money.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
It's a lot of money, but it's not much money
over in it super And I can't tell you exactly
what ends it.
Speaker 7 (33:30):
Jed super injured supers twenty four billion a year. They
do get gst off that.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
Yeah, so ninety ninety billion or one hundred and fifty
billion when you've got you know, when you're drawing twenty
four billion out a year is not too much. That's
only a few years.
Speaker 9 (33:48):
Clan.
Speaker 7 (33:49):
The clan funded eleven point eight billion last year, so
it does count. You can't anyway, That's that's for the bid.
Why don't we Why don't we have a scheme where
if you're sixty you can take Super at your normal rate,
but if you're seventy, if you delay it till seventy,
(34:11):
you can take Super at a higher rate.
Speaker 4 (34:14):
Yeah, that's what Peter had done well suggesting I quite
like that.
Speaker 5 (34:21):
Yeah, although if you took it at sixty five, youd
just not use it and pretend you're getting more each
year because you've saved five years of Super.
Speaker 7 (34:27):
Yeah, but you get it at quite a higher rate
at seventy.
Speaker 5 (34:31):
A lot of people, Oh so you incentivize holding off?
Speaker 4 (34:35):
Yeah, you say a lot. Yeah, actuarily you could. You
could figure that out, right. I think he had it
starting at age sixty, so you could retire at age
sixty but are on a very low rate. Now, the
problem is the course of people weren't able to hold
body and soul together on that very low rate. You know,
what do we do? We can't have people dying, and
(34:57):
what if we have it?
Speaker 7 (34:59):
What if you have it at a normal sixty five,
at the normal rate, because most people die between the
average between three. So if you have a normal rate
at sixty like you're getting now, but if you retire
at seventy, you get the corresponding not quite the corresponding
then decrease. So it's worth while to both parties.
Speaker 5 (35:20):
That's an interesting idea. Sounds too complicated for a bipartisan
sort of adjustment to the thing, but you're not the
first person to suggest that it ricoa. It's it's interesting,
isn't that? I mean, every idea is a good one,
isn't it? Or are they Sorr? Are you there Martin? Yes?
Oh there, we gotcha. Just so checked. Okay, let's take
(35:40):
another call.
Speaker 10 (35:41):
Ben, Hello, you get the guz you look on thirty six.
I'm not expecting to get super at retirement. It's just
I don't think it's going to be around. But now
I want to see the super goo means tested like Australia,
so twenty five percent of pensions in Australia don't don't
get paid the pension because they they're worth too much.
(36:02):
And then another twenty five percent, you receive fifty cents
in the dollar just because I've got too much money.
So you know that if we apply that to the
New Zealand one straight away, that brings our super bill
down by nine billion a year. So I reckon that's good.
But I want to see something done about Kiwi Saber
because in Australia you can withdraw your super fund out
(36:25):
at sixty, so that's like seven years before retirement age,
so then you can then invest that into property or
whatever so you can have a better retirement. That's what
I want to see. I want to see some better
stuff done with QUSB. You also don't pay tax or
GSD or on your earnings on qv saber, on your
(36:47):
investment earnings, so I don't I want to see that
removed for Keywy Saber as well, because yeah.
Speaker 5 (36:54):
If you get super when you retire, which I think
you will be, and I don't think it'll be gone,
there'll be a bonus for you then, won't it.
Speaker 10 (37:00):
I think it's going to be at least means tested,
and you know, given on five, I've have paid off
of property. I'm looking at buyinger Arbnb at the moment,
you know, just for some cash flow and stuff. So yeah,
I don't think I'm going to be entitled to it,
but I've got a good chunk of money and Kiwi Saber.
I just want to be able to invest my keuwisaver
(37:22):
and say what, I want to just make these funds.
Speaker 5 (37:25):
Ah and then yeah, you want to take it out
and use it?
Speaker 10 (37:29):
Yeah, no, no, no, I don't want to take it out.
I want to leave it in there, but I want
to I want to have more of.
Speaker 2 (37:34):
A variety of areas where it can be invested in
like they do in Australia. And I also want to
be able to withdraw that before I retire, say it's
sixty like you can in Australia, and then you can
get that money working for you long before you retire.
So I don't want to wait till I'm sixty five
to give my CU receiver. So I think there's a
(37:55):
lot of stuff we can do around kiwisaver to make
it a bit better.
Speaker 5 (37:58):
Fair enough, By the way, have you investigated some other
interesting funds for kee we Super because you know, that's
not just you know, the sort of standardizes. There's quite
a bit of there's quite a bit of choice out
there for how aggressive you can be.
Speaker 10 (38:10):
You thought, look, yeah, look, I think my fun made
nearly thirteen percent last year. So it's it's you know,
there's some there's some good money to be made. I
just would like I would just like a bit more
and I would like not to be text on our
on our investment earnings.
Speaker 5 (38:26):
Yeah, okay, cool, you'd like a bit more autonomy on that.
What do you reckon?
Speaker 4 (38:30):
Well, Ben, I really do hope that you're wrong about
end it tooperad and that you do get it, because
it is a wonderful scheme and I would hate to
see it. I'd had to see it's a scrap. The
problem with means testing, whether it's asset testing or whether
it's income testing, and you can you can means test
(38:51):
it either way or or even a combination of both.
The problem with that is you bring up all the
avoidance stuff. You know, Family Trust, so superannuation surcharge was
one of the reasons my Family Trust book sold one
hundred and thirty thousand copies. One of the big stories
in publishing not just at the time, but probably all
(39:13):
the time, so you can the whole avoidance industry goes
into it, and you know there are a family trust
set up, people road their savings somehow, or they don't
invest in that kind of stuff. That's what you're incentivizing
when you start for means tests.
Speaker 5 (39:32):
Yeah, oh got it. So they've got a truncoat of
text to get you. I might try and squeeze a
couple of texts before we wrap it up, but it's
already eight minutes to six News talks. They'd be back
in a moment News Talks, they'd be look, we're pretty
much wrapped up. Had a minute and a half to
go with Martin haw was just talking about their whole
retirement age thing. And actually I would say from the
texts that there has been a shift in expectation. I
(39:54):
think most people think it's something's going to change at
some stage, so that probably is even a shift in
the last year or two. But I did want to
just read this one text out and sort of respond
to it and Martin when it says when people retire
retire they free up a job for a younger person.
If people hold those jobs longer, what do you say
to all the unemployed youth who can't find work. I
(40:15):
just push back with no matter what age I get to,
if I want to work, I'm going to work, and
everyone should aspire to work. But the idea that once
you get to a certain age you should give you a
job up for someone else, that's a luxury, as mudy
Python would say, luxury Martin.
Speaker 4 (40:32):
It's the lump of labor fallacy. And the lump of
labor fallacy says that it is a fallacy that because
you get a job, you take that job from somebody else.
You getting the job increases you know, Let's say an
immigrant comes to New Zealand, they get a job. They
don't take the job from somebody else. Because they are working,
they are increasing the number of jobs around. Now that's
(40:54):
I mean, there will be little instances of somebody getting
a job and somebody else not getting a job. But
that's if you look over the total economy. It's not
just one lump of labor that we're all over.
Speaker 5 (41:06):
Good stuff, Martin. Martin Hawes, who will be one day
the David Edinburgh the finance world. I'm homing to talk
back as well. But anyway, we keep working and keep
keep engaged. Hey, thanks Martin for your time. Lovely to
see it and catch up. Okay, thank you, thanks my producer.
Tire Awards Sunday at six is next. Enjoy your evening.
Catch the same time next.
Speaker 1 (41:23):
Week for more from the Weekend Collective. Listen live to
News Talks It'd be weekends from three pm, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com