November 30, 2025 • 8 mins
The Deputy Prime Minister and Act Party leader talks about using KiwiSaver to buy a farm. Plus, he enters the age-old debate on the age of eligibility for the National Super. And - is Chris Hipkins’s capital gains tax politically palatable or a poisoned chalice?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
David Seymour is the Deputy Prime Minister. When he's not
doing that, he's the act party leader. I read a
story in the Herald this morning David about the government's
Key we Save a Farm withdrawal plan. Raises sphares over
scheme credibility. Of course the government wants to lift key
We Saver contributions. What's wrong with taking some of that
(00:21):
out to buy a farm.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Well, I don't see any problem with it at all.
I've always made the point that compulsory key we Save
a compulsory super compulsory whatever, you have to have an
answer for where does that money come from? And it
comes from other savings and investment opportunities. If you force
(00:43):
people to put money into key we Saver, or of
course that takes away money that you could have been
using to pay debts on a farm, or that you
could have been using to invest in buying a second farm.
If you're going really well, it means that people will
jump up and down and say, oh, look, there's all
this money in this fund because we forced everyone to
put their money into it. But when people do that,
(01:05):
they often forget all of the other opportunities that people
gave up and this comes back to the old lesson
by Henry Hazlet in nineteen forty five. The good economist
looks at all the impacts on everyone in the long term.
The bad economist looks only at the short term impacts
on some.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
I take it that acts totally in support of raising
key we saver contributions from employers and employees.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
We're in favor of what the government's done, which is
to reduce the amount of taxpayer money that is going
into the key we saver because basically, the government's been
borrowing money on the international debt markets, giving it to
people five hundred bucks a year, so you can put
it back into the international debt markets and your kei
we saver, which has been a crazy thing to do
(01:53):
because as a retiree you just live in a country
that has more government debt. You know what I would.
But what we did as a compromise there is say, well,
because people will be worried about this reduction, we've increase
the amount of contributions required by employers and employees. So
in so far as it's a trade off that saves
(02:14):
the taxpayer and ultimately saves the next generation from more
government debt. Yeh, we support that, but generally speaking, forcing
people to do more compulsory saving has been shown around
the world not to increase savings rates because it reduces
savings elsewhere, because the money has to come from somewhere.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
When will a government, either yours or the next lot
be brave enough to take a stand on the age
of eligibility for national super It would seem to me,
on the face of it, to be the quickest fix
for some of our financial woes and this problem. You
move the age of our eligibility to sixty seven over
a period of time and save billions.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Well, I say this every election, and I get the
Jesus kicked out out of me because people get angry
and say, you know, how dare you say that? So
in terms of bravery, as my grandfather used to say,
you're either brave or stupid. But I've definitely done one
of them every election on this issue, because I think
honesty is an important value, and the honest truth is
(03:17):
that if this change is not made, then it's going
to be forced upon us. And the way that will
happen is there'll be an earthquake or a pandemic, or
a big flood or perhaps Heaven forbid on this show
a biosecurity issue, and the government of the day will
find itself in big trouble. It will go to the
(03:39):
international debt markets and must say, yeah, we're not sure
about you. Guys are going to put up your interest
rate because you're borrowed enough. And then with higher interest
rates it'll be even harder to balance the books. And
guess what they'll do. They'll say, oh, we think we've
got to put up your interest rates again. That's the
spiral that South American countries have a habit of getting into.
And there's no law that says it can't happen there now.
(04:00):
If and when that happens, one of the first things
they'll do is say, right, we're putting up the age
of super not you know, at two months a year
over the next twelve years. So it's manageable and people
can plan for it. We're doing it tomorrow. That is
what will happen. A similar thing happened when we went
from sixty to sixty five in the early nineties. In
a way, so I've always been honest say, guys, you know,
(04:21):
we have fewer children, that means less tax payers. We
live longer. That means more super innuitance. That mathematical reality
is being confronted by countries all over the world that
are raising their ages. New Zealand cannot keep its head
in the sand. And I know there'll be people listening
saying we're not voting for that guy. But you know,
I'm not going to run for office on a falsehood,
(04:42):
which too many have for too long.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
This is a die in the ditch thing for winstance.
He would walk across the aisle and go into government
with labor ahead of raising the age of eligibility for
national super So until such time as he no longer
isn't a position of power, we are stuck.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Well, that may be true so far as it goes,
but here's a bigger reality. The numbers need to add
up financially. You're talking about the political numbers. I'm worried
about the financial numbers for the long term good of
our country and that's what I'd urged the voters, who
are the truly powerful actors and an election to consider.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Have you been surprised at how well Chippy's capital gains
tax proposal has been received?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
No, because I wasn't aware it had been well received,
and most people recognize that this country only succeeds because
we build it. And when a political party comes out
and says, hey, there's a shortcut. We'll just take money
off a builder and you don't have to do anything,
you just get it for free, there will always be
a constituency for that. That's how you know the Greens
(05:51):
in tier party Mari and Labor and Bear. I say
it sometimes New Zealand first get into pour. However, you know,
we actually want to see society that is successful, and
in order to do that, we need to keep the
values of building and making, not taking and destroying.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Monde I'm playing devil's advocate here, but most countries around
the world do have a capital gains tax, a broader
tax bace than we have.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Well, at one point most countries had slavery, but that
wasn't a good idea, so we stopped. Just because a
lot of people do something doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Is chip be going to get much money out of
us capital gains tax? As capital gains a thing of
the past, is it something that the boomers have enjoyed
and the following generations aren't going to enjoy as much.
And if he can get his capital gains tax past
the post, gee, he's already allocated a hell of a
lot of spending to the proceeds.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Well, it'll be one of those dollars that get spent many,
many times in the campaign. It's a solution to everything.
I mean, it doesn't generate as much money as people think,
and that's why it'll expand because they have infinite needs
and they will need to extend it to more people.
That's before you consider they'll be in a coalition with
the Greens and two Party Mari almost certainly part of
(07:11):
their mix, so that's going to put more pressure to
expand it. And I just say to people, if you
vote for a capital gains tax because you think it's
a tax that will go on other people, then shame
on you because you know sooner or later other people
becomes you and you wonder why you didn't speak up
when you had the chance.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
David Seymour, Deputy Prime Minister, Act Party Leader, thanks for
your time. We'll catch up once more before Christmas in
our final week of broadcast, and I'm just giving you
some advance warning here. You need to think of your
ag person of the year.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Okay, yeah, can it be? It can't be a mart Cameron.
Is that worth the rule?
Speaker 1 (07:48):
No, it can be whoever you want. It could be Marked,
It could be Mark Patterson, although you're more likely to
vote for Mark Cameron, I'm sure. But anyhow you think
on your ag. Person of the Air will chat again
in a couple of weeks. Thanks for your time.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Thanks Joming
David Seymour is the Deputy Prime Minister. When he's not
doing that, he's the act party leader. I read a
story in the Herald this morning David about the government's
Key we Save a Farm withdrawal plan. Raises sphares over
scheme credibility. Of course the government wants to lift key
We Saver contributions. What's wrong with taking some of that
(00:21):
out to buy a farm.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Well, I don't see any problem with it at all.
I've always made the point that compulsory key we Save
a compulsory super compulsory whatever, you have to have an
answer for where does that money come from? And it
comes from other savings and investment opportunities. If you force
(00:43):
people to put money into key we Saver, or of
course that takes away money that you could have been
using to pay debts on a farm, or that you
could have been using to invest in buying a second farm.
If you're going really well, it means that people will
jump up and down and say, oh, look, there's all
this money in this fund because we forced everyone to
put their money into it. But when people do that,
(01:05):
they often forget all of the other opportunities that people
gave up and this comes back to the old lesson
by Henry Hazlet in nineteen forty five. The good economist
looks at all the impacts on everyone in the long term.
The bad economist looks only at the short term impacts
on some.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
I take it that acts totally in support of raising
key we saver contributions from employers and employees.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
We're in favor of what the government's done, which is
to reduce the amount of taxpayer money that is going
into the key we saver because basically, the government's been
borrowing money on the international debt markets, giving it to
people five hundred bucks a year, so you can put
it back into the international debt markets and your kei
we saver, which has been a crazy thing to do
(01:53):
because as a retiree you just live in a country
that has more government debt. You know what I would.
But what we did as a compromise there is say, well,
because people will be worried about this reduction, we've increase
the amount of contributions required by employers and employees. So
in so far as it's a trade off that saves
(02:14):
the taxpayer and ultimately saves the next generation from more
government debt. Yeh, we support that, but generally speaking, forcing
people to do more compulsory saving has been shown around
the world not to increase savings rates because it reduces
savings elsewhere, because the money has to come from somewhere.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
When will a government, either yours or the next lot
be brave enough to take a stand on the age
of eligibility for national super It would seem to me,
on the face of it, to be the quickest fix
for some of our financial woes and this problem. You
move the age of our eligibility to sixty seven over
a period of time and save billions.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Well, I say this every election, and I get the
Jesus kicked out out of me because people get angry
and say, you know, how dare you say that? So
in terms of bravery, as my grandfather used to say,
you're either brave or stupid. But I've definitely done one
of them every election on this issue, because I think
honesty is an important value, and the honest truth is
(03:17):
that if this change is not made, then it's going
to be forced upon us. And the way that will
happen is there'll be an earthquake or a pandemic, or
a big flood or perhaps Heaven forbid on this show
a biosecurity issue, and the government of the day will
find itself in big trouble. It will go to the
(03:39):
international debt markets and must say, yeah, we're not sure
about you. Guys are going to put up your interest
rate because you're borrowed enough. And then with higher interest
rates it'll be even harder to balance the books. And
guess what they'll do. They'll say, oh, we think we've
got to put up your interest rates again. That's the
spiral that South American countries have a habit of getting into.
And there's no law that says it can't happen there now.
(04:00):
If and when that happens, one of the first things
they'll do is say, right, we're putting up the age
of super not you know, at two months a year
over the next twelve years. So it's manageable and people
can plan for it. We're doing it tomorrow. That is
what will happen. A similar thing happened when we went
from sixty to sixty five in the early nineties. In
a way, so I've always been honest say, guys, you know,
(04:21):
we have fewer children, that means less tax payers. We
live longer. That means more super innuitance. That mathematical reality
is being confronted by countries all over the world that
are raising their ages. New Zealand cannot keep its head
in the sand. And I know there'll be people listening
saying we're not voting for that guy. But you know,
I'm not going to run for office on a falsehood,
(04:42):
which too many have for too long.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
This is a die in the ditch thing for winstance.
He would walk across the aisle and go into government
with labor ahead of raising the age of eligibility for
national super So until such time as he no longer
isn't a position of power, we are stuck.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Well, that may be true so far as it goes,
but here's a bigger reality. The numbers need to add
up financially. You're talking about the political numbers. I'm worried
about the financial numbers for the long term good of
our country and that's what I'd urged the voters, who
are the truly powerful actors and an election to consider.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Have you been surprised at how well Chippy's capital gains
tax proposal has been received?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
No, because I wasn't aware it had been well received,
and most people recognize that this country only succeeds because
we build it. And when a political party comes out
and says, hey, there's a shortcut. We'll just take money
off a builder and you don't have to do anything,
you just get it for free, there will always be
a constituency for that. That's how you know the Greens
(05:51):
in tier party Mari and Labor and Bear. I say
it sometimes New Zealand first get into pour. However, you know,
we actually want to see society that is successful, and
in order to do that, we need to keep the
values of building and making, not taking and destroying.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Monde I'm playing devil's advocate here, but most countries around
the world do have a capital gains tax, a broader
tax bace than we have.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Well, at one point most countries had slavery, but that
wasn't a good idea, so we stopped. Just because a
lot of people do something doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Is chip be going to get much money out of
us capital gains tax? As capital gains a thing of
the past, is it something that the boomers have enjoyed
and the following generations aren't going to enjoy as much.
And if he can get his capital gains tax past
the post, gee, he's already allocated a hell of a
lot of spending to the proceeds.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Well, it'll be one of those dollars that get spent many,
many times in the campaign. It's a solution to everything.
I mean, it doesn't generate as much money as people think,
and that's why it'll expand because they have infinite needs
and they will need to extend it to more people.
That's before you consider they'll be in a coalition with
the Greens and two Party Mari almost certainly part of
(07:11):
their mix, so that's going to put more pressure to
expand it. And I just say to people, if you
vote for a capital gains tax because you think it's
a tax that will go on other people, then shame
on you because you know sooner or later other people
becomes you and you wonder why you didn't speak up
when you had the chance.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
David Seymour, Deputy Prime Minister, Act Party Leader, thanks for
your time. We'll catch up once more before Christmas in
our final week of broadcast, and I'm just giving you
some advance warning here. You need to think of your
ag person of the year.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Okay, yeah, can it be? It can't be a mart Cameron.
Is that worth the rule?
Speaker 1 (07:48):
No, it can be whoever you want. It could be Marked,
It could be Mark Patterson, although you're more likely to
vote for Mark Cameron, I'm sure. But anyhow you think
on your ag. Person of the Air will chat again
in a couple of weeks. Thanks for your time.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Thanks Joming
Popular Podcasts
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.